Vol. XVIII, Secoxd Sekies. 



ROCHESTER, N. Y., SEPTEMBER, 1857. 



No. 9. 



THE FKACTICAL XJULITY OF SOIL ANALYSES. 



Friknd Harris: — I have just read your leading 

 editorial in the July number of the Farmer on "Ag- 

 ricultural Quackery;" and while agreeing with you 

 in feeling and sentiment on the principal points dis- 

 cussed, it strikes me that you have been less guarded 

 in your remarks in reference to the value of soil an- 

 alyses than the importance of the subject demanded. 

 Still taking an interest in the reputation of the Gen- 

 esee Farmer for the extent and accuracy of its in- 

 formation, as well in the science as in the practice of 

 agriculture, I shall regret to see it undervalue anal- 

 ytical chemistry as applied either to the investigation 

 of manures, or the composition of vegetable and ani- 

 mal products, or of the soils from which these products 

 are necessarily derived. You justly commend the anal- 

 ysis of Gould's Muriate of Lime made by Prof. Johx- 

 sox, and confidently appeal to forty-two analyses of 

 barley and wheat by " reliable chemists," to show that 

 the former takes more of phosphates than the latter 

 from the soil; and at the same time you tell your 

 readers, in positive terms, that "no chemist in the 

 world, by the most rigid analysis of the soil, can de- 

 termine the point whether water ascending into a soil 

 in dry weather, by capillary attraction, brings with it 

 salts of soda, potash, lime and magnesia, &c., or not," 

 as stated by Mr. Pell. 



In many cases, the difference in the amount of so- 

 luble salts in the earth, at and near its surface, in dry 

 and wet weather, may be inappreciable; but that 

 such is always the case, there is no good reason for 

 saying or believing. On the contrary, the subject 

 deserves a more thorough' investigation than it has 

 yet received in any country. If true, the fact would 

 be extraordinary, that a chemist of the experience 

 and attainments of Prof. Johnson should be able to 

 determine the value, as plant-food, of an earthly "stuff 

 inferior to leached ashes," consisting, like soils, of 

 six or seven per cent of " organic matter," of "sand, 

 eoluble silica, alumina, iron, lime, potash, soda, mag- 

 BBsia, chlorine, sulphuric and carbonic acids, and 

 water," and not be able to give any useful infonua- 

 tton in reference to the presence or absence, scarcity 

 w- abundance, of any of these constituents of crops 

 in cultivated land. Destroy the value of chemistry 

 in its application to the organic and inorganic food of 

 ^ricultural plants in the soil, and you virtually dam- 

 age it to an equal extent in its application to these 

 substances when organized in the bodies of all living 

 beings, although life may be extinct Certainly, you 

 did Qot contemplate aoy such injury to agricultural 



chemistry, but only wished to shield it from the abuse 

 of quacks and quackery, and protect unscientific 

 readers from imposition. All upright men will ap- 

 preciate and applaud this purpose; and at the same 

 time, they would wish you not to intimate that all 

 knowledge derived from the analyses of soils is a 

 humbug, unless you have good proof that such is the 

 fact Even in that case, the proof should follow 

 closely the mere assertion of what chemistry can or 

 cannot do in all questions of doubt and controversy. 

 Athens, Ga. D. Lee. 



Remarks. — We thank Pro£ Lee for his friendly 

 criticism. His views on this important subject are 

 worthy of respectful consideration, and we cheerfully 

 accord his letter a prominent place in our columns. 

 We do not " undervalue analytical chemistry as ap- 

 plied either to the investigation of manures or the 

 composition of vegetable and animal product*."' We 

 believe that correct chemical analyses afford a true 

 criterion of the value of manures, and furnish im- 

 portant and satisfactory information in regard to the 

 amount of plant-food which the various crops remove 

 from the soil. On these points Dr. Lee and ourselves 

 are perfectly agreed. It is only in regard to the 

 practical utility of soil analyses that we diflffer. 



Here is a soil too poor for profitable cultivation. 

 Ten acres of it do not produce grass enough to keep 

 a cow, and the last time it was sown to wheat, it 

 jielded only four bushels per acre. "Now, Mr. 

 Chemist, I want you to analyze this soil, and tell me 

 what it lacks to make it produce good crops. Can 

 you afford me the desired information ?" Saeh in- 

 quiries are frequently addressed to us. We always 

 reply: " We can make an analysis of your soil, but, 

 to be candid, we think it will be of no use to you. It 

 will not shoic you what your soil needs to make it 

 ■productive. The analysis may afford some interest 

 ing information — it may point out the presence of 

 some deleterious substance — but it wiU not furnish 

 you the information you desire." Oar reasons fox 

 this advice we will briefly state. 



In addition to the four organic elements, oxygen, 

 hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon— and of which tiie at- 

 mosphere is the original source — all our commonly 

 cultivated plants contain potash, soda, lime, magne- 

 sia, phosphoric and sulphuric acids, silica, and chlorine. 

 When a plant is burned in the open air, the foor 

 former are dissipated in the form of oarbonie acid, 

 ammonia and water; the eight latter substances are 

 found in the ashes. They are usually termed " inor- 

 ganje «lem^t&," or eoil eonstituents. Plants csui ob- 



