Auff. 3, 1908. ] Agricultural Gazette of N.S.W. 657 



Science in yVgriculture. 



R. HELMS 



Soil Bacteria. 



A GREAT deal has been written about soil bacteria during the last twenty 

 years, when first they excited attention in the scientific world. Especially 

 those contained in the swelhngs found on the roots of leguminous plants 

 have come in for comment. Newspapers, copying one another and enlarging 

 frequently on their own accounts, have excited attention to this subject every- 

 where. Unfortunately, however, through the exaggerations and false deduc^ 

 tions promulgated by non-scientific writers, the farmers were led to expect . 

 too much, and the promised benefit these micro-organisms were to bring the-, 

 agriculturists have not been realised in the greater number of instances. 

 The scientists who have investigated the important part bacteria play in 

 connection with the fertihty of the soil, one and all acknowledge that the 

 subject is not yet completely understood. At the same time the functions of 

 soil bacteria have been jevealed to a certain extent, and also their importance 

 demonstrated. What so far has been definitely estabhshed by scientific 

 research and is known of this important problem I intend to repeat in the: 

 plainest language possible. 



It is always extremely difficult to popularise a scientific subject, or rather 

 to treat scientific matter entirely in popular language. In order to be quite 

 lucid to the non-scientific reader, technical terms have to be avoided, and this 

 cannot always be done, as they have been specially coined to express definite 

 meanings, and, therefore, require to be translated, wliich frequently obscures 

 their meaning. The disregard of scientific work in the past has been largely 

 due, no doubt, to the fact that scientific research tended to discredit the. 

 preconceived notions that had been inherited for generations. Scientists, 

 were regarded as abnormal creatures, or mere speculative dreamers dabbling 

 in untenable theories. A number of practical men holding such views are 

 still to be found. Perhaps there is an excuse for it, considering the inherited 

 system of rule of thumb by which their forebears did very well. It is true -. 

 the work of the pioneer requires no scientific knowledge; the expert axeman, 

 and the man who can handle a team of bullocks or horses well, possesses, 

 an advantage over the less experienced, and herein the practical mostly 

 consists. There is nothing to prevent a scientist being a good worker with 

 his hands, but the man who can only use his hands is not likely to make 

 a scientist very readily. This, moreover, is not necessary ; a division of 

 labour has its advantages. It is a jjleasant sign of advancement in general 

 knowledge that the modern farmer is becoming keen on utilising the achieve- 

 ments of science. The idea of considering a scientist an impractical theorist 



D 



