CONCLUSION 



IT is remarkable that two such widely 

 divergent explanations of the fundamentals of 

 soil fertility as the Liebig theory and the more 

 recent hypothesis of the American scientists 

 should have any common meeting ground. 



Yet the two systems advocate identical 

 methods, and, with the exception of that 

 phase of the subject dealing with soil toxins, 

 they are founded on the same historical data. 

 It is not how our Jeremiahs shall farm that 

 is in dispute. So far as the farmer in the 

 field is concerned, he may go on following 

 accepted traditions in agriculture and the 

 chances are that he will never come violently 

 in contact with either theory, either as cause 

 or effect. 



Agriculture as a science is of recent origin; 

 whereas agriculture as an art dates back to 

 the beginning of history and has accumulated 

 a mass of tradition founded on experience, 

 which science seeks to explain and extend. As 



300 



