48 



THE GENESEE FARMER. 



HrMPHEET, this soil contains no lime ; but it is too 

 kte to lime it. What shall I do?" He repeated 

 the t«st, but obt.iined the some result. He had 

 gi-eat confidence in Sir Humphrey, but did not 

 know what to do. He at length concluded to risk 

 the seed, and if the wheat did not grow, to sow 

 the field to turnips the next spring. The three 

 fields were sown. The wheat came up weU on all 

 three, grew, and continued to grow, lime or no 

 ]ime. To the surprise of Mr. H., and in spite of 

 Sir HuMPiLREY, the field which would not eflfer- 

 vesce produced the lest cro'p of wTieat of the three, 

 averaging upwards of fifty lushels per acre ! 



(c) The analyses proved that aU fertile soils con- 

 tain lime ; and the fact that any plant will grow on 

 these soUs, proves the same thing : so that, in this 

 particular, the analyses were unnecessary. Have 

 they proved how much lime a soU should contain 

 to enable it to produce maximum crops? We 

 assert, without fear of contradiction, that they have 

 not. The fertile soil in Sweden analyzed by Berg- 

 MANN, as quoted above, contained 30 per cent, of 

 lune. The soil of some of the best farms in the 

 Genesee VaUey does not contain two per cent, of 

 hme. The soil in the Ree-Ree Bottom in the Scioto 

 Valley, Ohio, and which is so astonishingly fertile 

 that it has yielded annually great crops of corn for 

 fifty-one years, contains, according to Prof. Wells, 

 less than half of one per cent. (0.4) of lime. Now, 

 here are three soils all remarkable for their fcrtUity; 

 and yet the Swedish soil contains over fifteen times 

 as much lime as that of the Genesee, and more than 

 seventy times as much as that of the Scioto Valley. 

 We think these analyses "demonstrate this pregnant 

 fact," that ordinary soil-analyses can not enable us 

 to decide whether or not a soil requires liming to 

 prodtice maximum crops. The analyses of several 

 soils in Massachusetts, in no way remarkable for 

 their fertility, show that these soils contain five 

 times as much lime as the rich soil in the Ree-Ree 

 Bottom. If "the illustrious fathers of Analytical 

 ■Chemistry" could tell farmers which soils required 

 lime and whic% did not, they could do what can 

 not bC' done at pi;esent. 



(d) We do not so understand the duties of an 

 agricultural jovivnalist His readers expect "from 

 him reliable informatioa on all matters of public 

 interest to the farming community. He ha.s no 

 right to "ofliciously interfere" with private busi- 

 ness arrangements, but he has a right to express 

 his opinion on all pullic reeommendations. If the 

 ^jublisher of an agricultural paper endeavors to get 

 hold. of 'the fanners' hard-earned dollars by urging 

 tSaem 'to purchase "improved" and "nitrogenous" 

 superphosphate of lime, "Chilian guano," and other 



comparatively wortMess fertilizers, all agricultural 

 journalists have an undoubted right to guard their 

 readers against the imposition. So, too, if a chemist 

 publicly oflrers to analyze the fanner's soil for from 

 $5 to $50, and promises for $25 to fui-nish hira 

 with "a letter of advice" which will enable him to 

 produce great crops at a small outlay — and if the 

 public journalist has good reasons to 'kno^l} that it 

 is utterly impossible, from the nature of the case, 

 for the chemist to furnish such information — he Las 

 a right to inform his readers of the fact. If the 

 chemist asks for the reasons on which the public 

 journalist bases his opinions, and these reasons are 

 freely stated, the chemist, when he finds himself 

 unable to set aside the facts, or to show any inaccu- 

 racy in the logic, can not with a good grace turn 

 round and say, " Well, it is none of your business." 

 The advocates of soil-analyses have had the free 

 use of the agricultural press in urging their claims 

 upon public attention ; they have not been slow to 

 avail themselves of the opportunity ; and they have 

 been secolided by nearly all agricultural lectui-ers 

 and writers during the last twenty -five years. — 

 Fanners have been urged over and over again tcf 

 have their soU analyzed. Tlie advocates of soil- 

 analyses, in most cases, evidently do not under- 

 stand the question; and it is high time they should 

 cease their recommendations, or give some good 

 reasons for their advice. Tliey have mmiy able 

 writers among them, and tlie agricultural press is 

 at their service. They have therefore no cause to 

 complain when their claims are candidly and cour- 

 teously criticised. 



(e) The fact that Dr. Lee thought one pound of 

 soU enough for an analysis in 1846; and afterwards, 

 in 1847, thought from "one to two hundred pounds" 

 desirable; and now, in 1857, recommends from 800 

 to 1800 pounds; indicates that he has little faith in 

 ordinary soil-analyses, where only a few oimces of 

 soil at most are used. We believe, furthermore, 

 that all who have had much experience in analyz- 

 ing soils, will agree with us that it .is better to 

 operate on a small quantity of soil than on a larger 

 quantity. Half an ounce will afford more accurate., 

 results than half a pound. With the fine balances 

 to which Dr. IxEE refers, it is impossible to operate 

 on large quantities. We shall be convinced of the; 

 advantages of analyzing hah" a ton of soil when 

 the thing has been done, and afforded satisfactory 

 results. This, however, is not the question we are 

 discussing. It is not whether, at some future 

 period, chemists will be able to analyze soils with, 

 sufficient accuracy for practical purposes; but' 

 whether they have hitlierto been able to do so^, 

 or whether they are now aile. When any chemist, 



