1859. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



339 



loss by deterioration of his soil, nor care for its 

 effects, so long as he reaps a bountiful harvest 

 and present profit, but let him not "lay the pleas- 

 ing unction to his soul," that it is an honest op- 

 eration, for he must surely feel some twinge of 

 conscience to leave to his progeny an exhausted 

 and barren soil (as an inheritance,) made so by 

 the avarice of their progenitor. 



Therefore, I submit, that the evils of turnip 

 culture (in a moral or pecuniary point of view,) 

 are far greater than the equestrian performances 

 of the ladies at our agricultural fairs. c. 



North Pembroke, Mass., May 30, 1859. 



For the New England Farmer. 

 SCIENCE FOB FARMEH.S. 



Mr. Editor : — We poor ignorant clodhoppers, 

 who, away out in the country, plod over our 

 farms, have little time to study the profoundly 

 Tfise sayings of those who write big books and 

 agricultural articles in the newspapers. We are 

 in the habit of believing everything we find in 

 these big books, when we have time to read 

 them. But we are sometimes a little puzzled, 

 when these wise writers disagree, to know which 

 to believe. We desire, in all humility, to believe 

 both sides, but cannot always reconcile the state- 

 ments made so as to make that possible. What 

 shall we do in such cases ? Must we be at the 

 trouble of using a little common sense — if we 

 happen to have it ? I suppose you will say, 

 "Use your common sense," But have we no 

 right to demand that those who pretentiously 

 made statements with scientific gravity, should 

 be careful to declare only that which they know ? 



The getter-up of the agricultural department 

 of Harper's Weekly for May 14th, has given his 

 readers what he calls an analysis of the grain, 

 leaves and cob of the "white flint corn." He 

 says : 



"An analysis of the grain of white flint corn 

 will give, of 



Phosphates about 35 per cent. 



Potash " 25 " 



"The leaves will give, of 



Silex about 53 per c«Bt. 



Phosphates " 19 " 



Lime " 6 " 



Potash " 12 " 



Soda " g << 



Chlorine " 10 " 



"The cob will give, of 



Silex about 3 3 per cent. 



Pho.^phatea " 23 " 



Potash " 35 " 



Soda " 5 '« 



"We give the above figures of some the most 

 important elements for those who are curious in 

 relation to the composition of the Indian corn 

 plant." 



Now, this looks a little, a very little, like a 

 statement made by a person who, ignorant of the 

 subject on which he writes, undertakes to prepare 

 himself by "reading up" for the occasion, but 

 does not do it carefully. There must be some 

 mistake about it, or else some of us put a good 

 deal oi potash into our stomachs in the course of 

 a year. I believe I average not far from a pound 

 of Indian meal a day, taken in some form as 

 food. Do I then eat/bwr ounces of potash each 



day — or over ninety-one pounds in a year ? that 

 would be enough to made four barrels of good 

 strong soft soap. I humbly trust I am not so 

 full of lie as this would make me. 



Then again, to think that the leaves of the corn 

 plant contain 53 per cent, of silex ; one might 

 well imagine that our cows' teeth v/ouid soon 

 wear out, if called upon to grind much of it. As 

 to the cobs, too — 35 per cent, of potash in them ! 

 Why have not soap-makers used them instead of 

 ashes? More than one-third potash ! llow rap- 

 idly, too, the potash would be taken from the 

 soil at this rate. A crop of 50 bushels to tho 

 acre, reckoning the potash at this rate in the 

 grain, leaves and cob, would use up not far from 

 1400 pounds. The agencies that decompose and 

 dissolve the rocks would have to be pretty busy 

 in order to keep up a supply, at this rate of con- 

 sumption, 



I have no reliable analysis of the grain or 

 leaves of Indian corn now, by me ; but on refer- 

 ence to Dr. Jackson's analysis of the cobs of sev- 

 eral different varieties of corn, it appears that in 

 his specimens the percentage of potash varied 

 from 2581-10000 to 6430-10000 of one per cent. 

 The analysis given by the writer in Harper's 

 Weekly was no doubt that of the ashes of the 

 different parts of the plant, instead of the whole 

 substance of those parts. My attention was 

 drawn to this statement more particularly from 

 having recently seen, in Liebig's Agricultural 

 Chemistry, Indian corn classed with plants that 

 "contain either no potash, or mere traces of it." 

 This appears to be, at best, a careless statement ; 

 for, if Dr. Jackson's analysis is to be relied upon, 

 (and I have never heard his accuracy called in 

 question,) the cob analyzed by him averaged 

 nearly a half of one per cent. ; while dry, hard 

 wood, according to an authority quoted by Dr. 

 Dana, in his Muck Manual, contains but a utile 

 more than a fourth of one per cent, of potash 

 and soda united. 



This is a matter of much importance to us far- 

 mers, as a knowledge of the constituent elements 

 of plants may guide to an economical use of fer- 

 tilizers ; and as few have either the ability or the 

 means to make chemical analyses ourselves, we 

 must depend on those who have, or ought to 

 have, both ; and we have a right to demand that 

 what is told us shall be reliable — have we not ? 



Slackville, May 25, 1859. J. Doolittle. 



Remarks. — Good, Mr. Doolittle. You live 

 anywhere but in "Slackville." Some of the "big 

 papers" of our land are recently attempting to 

 enlighten their "rustic" readers in scientific mat- 

 ters relating to agriculture. We often notice in 

 them the most inconsistent statements, as well 

 as the most extravagant nonsense. Such "loose 

 expectorations" are better suited to the gather- 

 ings of ceVtain zealots, who love their country 

 terribly just before an election! "Shoe-maker, 

 stick to thy last," is an old adage, and is a good 

 one. Some of our cotemporaries would do well 

 to treasure up its sentiment. 



Draining. — Some people think that it is all 

 a matter of useless expense to drain land. But 



