THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



517 



I)Ose we should add to it twenty-five pounds of 

 ground felspar, containing seventeen per cent, of 

 iiotash, and then send it to a chemist for analysis, 

 his report would set forth a large amount of super- 

 phosphate of lime and of potash, and of course 

 would take no cognizance of the condition of this 

 6uper-])hosphate of lime or its immediate origin, 

 and it would be pronounced manure of high value, 

 certainly at a higher value per ton than any Peru- 

 vian guano or bone phosphate in the market. But 

 what would be its real value for use as a fertilizer ? 

 We claim that phosphate so made would not be 

 worth half-a-crown per ton, while that properly 

 made from the bones of animals, containing the 

 same amount of phosphate, whh potash added 

 taken from organic sources, would be worth £10 

 per ton. This is one instance which fully answers 

 the general call for analysis as applied to fertilizing 

 materials. 



We are not ready to say that chemistry cannot 

 be applied to the analysis of mrypures, but we 

 simply say that thus far it has not been so applied. 

 Maryland, for instance, has appointed chemists to 

 examine the phosphates imported into the Baltimore 

 market, and the analyses made by these chemists 

 always set forth the amount of phosphate of lime, 

 but of course can take no cognizance of the source 

 from whence this phosphate is obtained. Thou- 

 sands of tons of phosphate of lime, made in whole 

 or in part from phosjAatic rocks or from volcanic 

 guanos, have been placed in that market, and sold 

 in preference to bone phosphate, under analysis, 

 and proved to be far its inferior. 



As to soil analysis, we believe that if the chemist 

 would boil the soil in dilute acetic acid for twenty 

 minutes, and then make an analysis of the portions 

 in solution, such analysis might be useful to the 

 farmer, as it would inform him what amount of 

 pabulum the soil contained, which could be ap- 

 propriated by crops v/ithin the current one or five 

 years. But of what use can an analysis of the 

 whole soil be to the farmer ? It simply represents 

 the entire constituents, whatever may be their con- 

 dition, and thus inventories what would be de- 

 veloped by nature's laws from the soil during all 

 time, from the present to the day of judgment. 

 But, as the farmer does not expect to remain active 

 in his profession for all that time, the analysis is 

 useless to him. He wants to know what there is 

 in the soil which by proper manipulation will be 

 transformed into plants, during a practical length 

 of time ; instead of which, the chemist informs him 

 of all his soil contains, as if his whole farm, to the 

 depth of a foot, could be changed into crops during 

 an ordinary foui'-course shift. This is indeed 

 science run mad, and still this is the style of 

 analysis which every importer of guano or other 

 fertilizing material demands of the chemist, and it 

 is precisely what he gets. 



Can any one believe that the soil, in the vicinities 

 where felspar rock prevails, may not be short of 

 potash ? Still upon microscopic investigation the 

 soils will be found to be made up, in part, of parti- 

 cles of felspar, the debris of the rock. Can any 

 progressed plant feed upon the potash contained in 

 these particles ? And notwithstanding that all the 

 potash now on the globe had its origin in the 



felspar and other potash-producing roc)<6, still the 

 addition of wood ashes to these soils invariably 

 produces an increased crop. Is it not true of the 

 limestone soils of Westchester, that, without the 

 addition of lime, they can scarcely be made fertile I 



We are inclined to think that the chemist should 

 never give his analysis of a manure as a guide to 

 the farmer, without stating it somewhat in this 

 way : — " Amount of superphosphate, of organic 

 origin ; amount of potash, from wood or other 

 vegetable ash, etc.," instead of roundly asserting 

 a certain quantity of phosphate of lime, or a cer- 

 tain quantity of jjotash, without the slightest re- 

 ference to the source whence they were obtained. 



We have before us an analysis of manure com- 

 posed in part of dried bullocks' blood, and that 

 portion is simply noted as "organic matter dissi- 

 jiatcd at a low heat," leaving it to be inferred that 

 it has no value ; and then, noting a certain amount 

 of chloride of sodium belonging to this blood, and 

 in parenthesis the words " common salt," as if 

 chloride of sodium as it exists in blood had no 

 greater value than common salt : sulphate of lime 

 consequent upon the decomposition of bone, and 

 worth to the farmer twopence jier pound, as com- 

 pared with ordinary sulphate of lime, in the native 

 state as " Plaster of Paris." Now, from such an 

 analysis, how is any farmer to judge of the true 

 value of this manure, and how is any chemist to 

 j)resent any other kind of analysis, except the 

 specimen submitted be fortified by the affidavit of 

 parties showing the sources from whence the con- 

 stituents aiise? If the chemist stated the portion 

 dissipated at low heat to be the dried blood of an 

 animal, and fairly set forth its value as a fertilizer, 

 and that the sulphate of lime is that consequent 

 upon the decomposition of the bones of an animal 

 by sulphuric acid, and that the chloride of sodium, 

 instead of being the equivalent of common salt, 

 has many times its value as a manure, then the 

 farmer might be guided by such analysis to the ex- 

 tent that he understood the value of such con- 

 stituents from such sources. It at least will leave 

 the question where it belongs, for experiment to 

 decide the difference between phosphate from the 

 rock and phosphate from the bone ; between 

 potash as found in felspar, and potash as found in 

 organic life; between chloride of sodium as existing 

 in the blood of an animal, and that existing in rock 

 salt as imported from Turk's Island. 



Every agriculturist, who is also a practical che- 

 mist, is well aware that, until within a few years, 

 chemists have failed in rendering themselves useful 

 to the agriculturist, and even at this time but few 

 have experimented in the field sufficiently to know 

 the extent of thie errors perpetrated in the laboratory, 

 in the analysis of manures, soils, etc. 



Such of our readers as are not sufficiently 

 intimate with this subject to understand our pre- 

 cise position, may ask us if we have not made soil 

 analysis, and founded our advice upon such 

 analysis, which included the entire composition of 

 the soil ? We answer yes, and always to the pro- 

 fit of the inquirer ; the reason, however, was that 

 we always recommended the use of such con- 

 stituents as were absent, or nearly so, from the 

 soil, and therefore it was benefited. But we now 



