CHEMISTRY AND CROPS. 



By Arthur Stead, B.Sc, F.C.S 



It may be thought, atid perhaps said, with much truth, that 

 the subject of this paper has been discussed until everyone is 

 heartily sick of it. It is therefore with no little hesitation that I 

 now seek to raise a further discussion on it. 



Were I not convinced that the more this subject is brought 

 to the public notice the easier will be made the advance of this 

 branch of agricultural science, I should not have ventured to sub- 

 mit this paper for consideration and, I hope, discussion. 



The first article of our association states that one of its ob- 

 jects shall be to remove disadvantages of a public kind ihat may 

 impede the progress of science. I think no one will disagree 

 with me when I say that there exists at the present time a very 

 serious and obstinate impediment of a public nature hindering in 

 no little degree the advancement of the chemical investigations of 

 the soils of this country. I speak of the unwillingness of our 

 people, through their governments, to spend adequate sums of 

 money for the prosecution of such studies. It is indeed strange 

 that sufficient funds are not forthcoming wherewith to study that 

 on which our very existence depends, viz., the soil. What has 

 already been done? In the Cape, Juritz, after twenty years work, 

 has not been able to survey more than one-tenth of the soils of 

 that Province. In the Transvaal, Natal and the Free State, prac- 

 tically nothing of a systematic character has been accomplished. 

 No doubt much of the public apathy is due to the fact that there 

 still lingers a good deal of prejudice among agricultural scientists 

 regarding the utility of chem.istry as a means of measuring soil 

 fertility. This prejudice is largely founded on ignorance, and is 

 accentuated by confusion. It is high time that the last cobwebs 

 of doubt and mistrust were dispelled. As an endeavour to that 

 end, I beg to place before you the salient points of this important 

 subject with the hope of gaining your active sympathy. I do not 

 ask nor expect that there will be unanimous agreement with 

 respect to the views which I shall put forward ; but I do trust 

 that a full discussion of this vital matter will be raised, and that 

 in the end this Association will be able to lend its persuasive sup- 

 port to those who are striving for the thorough investigation of 

 our soils. 



Agriculturists owe Liebig a great debt of gratitude for hav- 

 ing put before his contemporaries in a most forcible and authorita- 

 tive manner the conclusions to be drawn from the work of Schub- 

 ler, Boussingault, Priestly, Saussure and others. It Is no exaggera- 

 tion to say that Liebig's report to the British Association in 1840 

 and his subsequent chemical letters on the same subject created 

 a profound impression in the minds of the agricultural chemists 

 of that day, for, no doubt, they thought they had verv reasonable 

 prospects of being able to determine the measure of soil fertility 

 in their laboratories ; but, alas ! it was not to be. The problem 



