168 STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY 



most fertile lauds in our couutiy. That is by clieuiieal analysis. The 

 point in which our soils lose in fertility, as we crop them year after 

 year, is in the available material. We may have all these materials, pot- 

 ash, etc. (I will take that alone, I will not go through with the others), 

 but if it is not available in such form that the plant can use it, why, 

 it is of little help to a crop you may wish to take off from the land. The 

 actual soil content of potash is not the question, but. how much of that 

 potash is available and may be brought into the economy of the plant? 

 Xow, in this respect, it seems to me we need but very little examination 

 to show this. When this soil, this material, is available, it is soluble; it 

 has to be made soluble, and it is only b}' means of water that it is brought 

 into the circulation of the jilant, and each year it is but a very small in'o- 

 portion of the potash of the soil. I am conliuing myself to one element 

 now. Suppose that witli ordinary conditions we develop about so much 

 potash each year, and it comes into that available condition through 

 various processes, and we take that out every year. Are we not practi- 

 cally shutting ourselves off from our supply? 



I pass acre after acre where all sorts of crops have been grown, or go 

 into many of our orchards and find since August, or since cultivation has 

 stopped, that the ground has been exposed — a perfectly bare piece of 

 ground, exposed to the beating rains that have occurred, exposed to all 

 the frosts which are occurring now and will occur until next spring, and 

 to all the melting snows. Is it possible that any soluble material in that 

 soil will not be largeh' out before vegetation starts next spring? Is it 

 not as plain as can be that if we have a bare piece of ground which has 

 received all the fall and winter rains, all the disintegration of winter 

 frosts, that a large portion of the available material is washed out? It 

 seems to me that this is very true; and taking that thought it looks as 

 though the reason why our forests grow richer and our orchards grow 

 poorer, why our prairies grow richer while our cultivated fields grow 

 poorer, lies simply in the exposure of these lands to the drenching fall 

 and winter rains and spring rains before vegetation can make use of it. 

 How does nature provide for this? You can not go into a forest any- 

 where in this state but jou find an undergrowth (in nearly every forest), 

 which is as thick as any ordinary farm crop. It covers the ground, shades 

 it; and furthermore, if not that, it has a covering of leaves which answers 

 the same purpose. Go out on the prairies and you find the land is cov- 

 ered, in its natural condition, with grasses or weeds, whatever it may 

 happen to be, with vegetation which holds the rain. It not only holds 

 the rain, but it has put, during the fall and winter, a great share of that 

 which might otherwise have washed away, into its roots and in the 

 vegetable matter which is stored away there. It holds the water me- 

 chanically, preventing its washing away. In this case I have mentioned, 

 of the corner in the barnyard, the richness of the soil resulted simply 

 because the ground was always covered. It is clear to me that it is the 

 keeping of that covered, and preventing the rains from beating down 

 and washing away the elements of fertility that makes the increased 

 richness. 



A most remarkable instance of this condition was shown me wh(Hi I 

 was in Mississi])pi. They have what they call "old fields'' there, and in 

 many cases such fields are smooth and perfectly barren. The water 

 washes from the hills and slight elevations down into the valleys, and 



