266 



THE GEI^ESEE FARMER, 



tain them only through their roots, from the soil. If 

 a soil is destitute of even one of these erght sub- 

 stances, no agricultural plant will grow on it. Ml 

 cultivated soils, therefore, contain every one of these 

 inorganic substances. If they did not, no plant 

 would grow upon them. All naturally fertile soils 

 contain a full supply of these substances in an avail- 

 able condition, or in such a state that they are ren- 

 dered available by the ordinary processes of tillage. 

 Poor soils may be unproductive, and even incapable 

 ©f profitable cultivation, from a deficiency of tome 

 one or more of these substances — but they are not 

 entirely destitute of any one of them, if capable of 

 producing a blade of grass or a Canada thistle. 



It is unnecessary, therefore, to resort to chemical 

 analysis to ascertain the presence or absence of any 

 of the inorganic element of plants. Messrs. Bram- 

 Ba.E, Thistle & Co. assure us that they are all present 

 in the soil, and their authority on this point cannot 

 he questioned. 



If an analysis of a soil, therefore, is of any practi- 

 cal value, it must be in determining not the presence 

 or absence of this or that particular substance, but 

 whether it exists in sufficient quantity for the growth 

 ©f maximum crops. JVe think that the most thor- 

 ough chemical analysis cannot determine this point. 

 For instance, we have seen, growing side by side, two 

 crops of turnips. One crop yielded less than seven 

 ]mndred pounds of hxxlhs per acre, while the other 

 yielded over ten tons of bulbs per acre. One soil 

 was evidently too poor to grow turnips, while the 

 other gave a fair crop. Now, what was the differ- 

 ence between these two soils ? Simply this: the one 

 had been manured with superphosphate of lime and 

 Uie other had not. In all other respects these soils 

 were alike. One acre contained ffty pounds more 

 sf phosphoric acid than the other. Could any chem- 

 Mt in the world have determined by the most rigid 

 analysis which soil contained the extra fifty pounds 

 ©f phosphoric acid ? Let us see. An acre of soil 

 seven inches deep, weighs at least two million pounds. 

 Fifty pounds of phosphoric acid mixed with it would 

 be one part in forty thousand. Such a minute quan- 

 tity is far beyond the rang^e of quantitative analysis. 

 The determination of phosphoric acid in a soil is so 

 difficult that a chemist congratulates himself when 

 duplicate analyses of the same soil agree^within one 

 part in a thousand. If our friend J)v. Lee should 

 make two analyses of the same soil, and one analysis 

 gave the percentage of phosphoric acid as 0.1 and 

 the other as 0.2, he would consider the ^alysis a 

 good one, and, taking the mean—say the soil contain- 

 ed 0.15 per cent, of phosphoric acid. This, at least, 

 is the usual way. Now, according to one of these 

 analyses, an acre of the soil, seven inches deep, con- , 

 tains 2^000 pounds of phosphoric acid, and according, 

 to the other 4,000 pounds. The actual quantity 

 present in the soil probably lies between these figures, 

 but the exact amount it is impossible to tell, and 

 tijere is no certainty whether it is nearest to two 

 iheztsond or four thousarji pounds per acre. How 

 utterly impossible is it, therefore, to determine the 

 dffierence between two soils, one of which contains 

 fifty pounds more phosphoric acid tlian the otLer, 

 aiid yet one ir poor and tke otlier productive. Ad- 

 mifLlng that it is sometimes }iOjsible to get duplicate 

 ^jijjiv.ses to agree wiihin one teii- thousand th, the 

 chemist would be still utterly incapable of telling the 

 (Jilftreuce between these two soila. 



These same remarks will apply to ammonia. We 

 have seen, growing side by side, two crops of wheat,, 

 one yielding thirty -five bushels per acre and the other 

 fifteen bushels. The only difference between the two 

 soils being that one contained one hundred pounds- 

 of ammonia per a^^re more than the other, v,'hich had 

 been applied in the f&rm of sulphate and muriate of 

 ammonia. This one hundred pounds of ammonia 

 mixed with an acre of soil seven inches deep, 7;ould 

 be one part in twenty thousand. We hazaid noth- 

 ing in saying that no chemist could determine so mi- 

 nute a quantity. It is far less difficult to determine 

 the amount of ammonia in a soil than phosphoric- 

 acid, bnt if duplicate analyses agree within one-tenth of 

 one per cent, (O'.I) it is considered good v/ork.*' la 

 other word.5, if one analysis showed a soil, when cal- 

 culated to tht acre, to contain 2^,000 pounds of am- 

 monia, and the other 4,000 pounds, the chemist would 

 think this a very accurate analysis, and, taking the 

 mean, put it dowa at 3,000 pounds. It is evident, 

 therefore, that the one hundred pounds of ammonia, 

 which changed the comparatively poor soil into an 

 unusually fertile one, could not be detected by the 

 analyst. 



Chemists who undertake to prescribe for a sick 

 soil, frequently say: " Your soil, according to analy- 

 sis, is deficient in potash and soda, and phosphates- 

 and ammonia; you should, therefore, apply twenty 

 bushels of unleached wood ashes, a bushel of salt, 

 four hundred pounds of the improved superphosphate 

 of lime, and two hundred pounds of the best Peru- 

 vian guano. These will furnish what your soil lacks, 

 &c." Now, no honest chemist will claim that her 

 could tell, by analysis, v/hich part of the field had 

 been so treated and which had not. The facts whick 

 we have mentioned above show that it is utterly im- 

 possible for the most rigid analysis to determine the 

 least difference. 



These considerations lead us to the conclusion not 

 only that five dollar soil, analyses are a great humbug, 

 but that the best soil analyses that can be made are, 

 in the language of I}oussingaui,t," more curious than 

 useful." 



Dr. Lee thinks it strange that we should admit 

 that a chemist can give us reliable and useful infor- 

 mation in regard to the composition and value of ma- 

 nures, and deny his ability to "give useful informa- 

 tion in reference to the presence or absence, scarcity 

 or abundance," of the same ingredients " in cultivated 

 laud." The cases are very different. The quantity 

 of ammonia, phosphates, potash, &c., in a manure, can 

 be determined with sufficient accuracy for practical pur- 

 poses, but such is not the case in regard to the soil. 

 For instance; here are two samples of guano. Their 

 value is in proportion to the amount of ammonia and 



« So^Eie years ago, an English gentleman employed a London 

 cheiD;L3.t to determine tbe nitrogen (ammonia) in a number of 

 samples oi" turnip.s grown upder different manurial conditions. }Ie 

 agreed to pay ten dollars a piece for them, provided duplicate an- 

 alyses of the sjune turnip agreed within one tenth of one per cent. 

 Duplicate samples of the turnips were furnished, marked Nos. 1, 

 2, 3, 4, &c., the .chemist not knowing which were the duplicate 

 sapiples. Id due ;ti;»e the analyses wejo completed, and tho rP- 

 KultK furnished: hnton rnmy-nrMig the .an;il_ysM,-i of Ncis. 1 .-n.d 3. 

 "•liirli v.'Oi-i- ••;:);4,pits .ot' Ihe ,-;imo lundp, it whs foun-t tr at U 

 uilierrd •jonsideiiiblv ino;;e than ouf-tt'nUi of one per cent, .and 

 otheis ditTeied as muc^l as 0.2 and 0..3 per cent. Such .inalypes 

 were of no value to the fentleman, and he refused to pay for 

 them. The matter was TbdnTed by the consent of both narties, 

 to I'rofe.s.sor Grau.im, and he decided that the .analyses were .-is n«- 

 curute ua they'cottld he made-; t;iat the variation was within the 

 usu.ll rang" ; and that the money ought to bo paid. Tho money 

 »as paid, ^500,) but the analyse.s wore never used. 



