15 



Adams, makes the following expressive remarks : &quot; I hardly know 

 what answer to make to your enquiry about the terms for analyz 

 ing one hundred specimens of soils, &c. Our customary charge in 

 analysis has been five dollars for every determination. This makes 

 a round bill, but not more than a fair quid pro quo for the labor and 

 skill required. It is the rate affixed by the joint agreement of 

 several chemists. However we always make an abatement from 

 it in case of many analyses of the same sort. No doubt, a sort of 

 analysis of a soil may be made for five dollars, all told, but what 

 sort I will not say. In my opinion the present state of science 

 demands that an analysis of a soil, to be of any use whatever, must 

 be minute, and ought to comprise at least ten separate determin 

 ations, besides the ultimate analysis ol the whole mass, by alka 

 line fusion, which is useful as showing the extreme resource of the 

 soil. We now think that we must have First, an analysis of the 

 matter soluble from the soil by water alone ; Second, the amount 

 of the matters soluble in dilute hydrochloric acid; Third, the ul 

 timate analysis by fusion, as just suggested; Ldstlij, we ought to 

 know the mechanical condition of the soil, technically called its 

 mechanical analysis, which requires a series of sittings, washings 

 and weighings, distinct from all the preceding. Going through all 

 these numerous but essential steps on sixteen soils for * * * * -\ye 

 made him a bill of five hundred dollars. The difference between 

 fertility and barrenness is comprised within such narrow limits 

 that only a minute analysis of the sort I have sketched, can be of 

 much use. Agriculture gains nothing from any further multipli 

 cation of such analyses as the bulk of those which in past years 

 have filled Geological and Agricultural Reports. We have enough 

 such already. Unless an analysis of a soil can do something more 

 than people have hitherto been content with, the result will soon 

 be that agriculturists will, with reason, question the utility of 

 chemical analyses as of any practical benefit.&quot; 



If therefore, the foregoing quotations from the pens of the most 

 accomplished geologists in the Union are to be treated as author 

 itative in the premises, any attempt to analyze the almost infinite 

 variety of soils in Vermont with a view to subserve the agricultu 

 ral interests of the State would involve an expenditure which by 

 reason of any accruing benefit could not perhaps well be justified. 

 Thus the agricultural chemistry of the state is properly and chiefly 



