THE GENESEE FARMER. 



203 



TOots of barley grown ou liis experimental plots (iZ). 

 The readers of the Farmer for the last twenty years 

 will bear witness, that I have often caHed public 

 attention to the fact that tlie soluble food of plants, 

 iike the salts above named, beieg dissolved in the 

 poll, will go, to a large extent, into ditches, creeks, 

 ponds, rivers and lakes, and also deep into the 

 earth, with the water that forms springs. Two of 

 the most 'important organic acids, both of which 

 oontain nitrogen, (crenic and appocrenic.) take their 

 names from a Greek vrord that signities ""a spring," 

 from the circumstance that Berselius first found 

 them ia spring water. If rain water could not re- 

 move fertilizers from clay, sand, loam, and vegeta- 

 ble mold, they T»"0uld be no better food for grain 

 •crops than the most sterile flhit, whose insolubility 

 is generally known. The fact must be proved, (not 

 inferred,) that the eoil loses, by washing and leach- 

 ing, none of the luanure (nitrogen) said to be " de- 

 stroyed" by cereals. 



I have always contended that tillage alone con- 

 ■sumes and dissipates the elements of crops in arated 

 fields. The first breaking up of a prairie frequently 

 renders a neiglihorhood unhealthy, as I have wit- 

 nessed in southern Illinois. What causes this in- 

 crease of ague and fevers, where large areas of ricli 

 land are first plowed? Visit the rice plantations 

 ,in South Carolina and Georgia, and see wL-xt the 

 -Stirring of the grouud has to do in the way of aug- 

 menting swamp miasma — increasing the decay of 

 vegetable matter. If tillage decomposed nothing, 

 rendered nothing soluble, it would do next to noth- 

 ing to increase tlie food of jjlants. 



If manure is destroyed in a cultivated field, man, 

 not nature, does the injury. Her laws husband — 

 not destroy nor waste — the elements which con- 

 stitute our daily bread. The materials which suf- 

 fice to make one bushel of wheat, or one loaf of 

 bread, are adequate to form another of the same 

 weight. One may feed hogs so much corn, and so 

 badly, that half of it is wasted ; and it is easy to 

 feed growing grain in a similar manner. The sci- 

 ence of feeding agricultural plants is in its infancy, 

 and Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert are great public 

 benefactors for their distinguished labors to eluci- 

 date the subject. d. lee. 



Remarks. — It w^^s with extreme regret that we 

 were compelled, a few months ago, to differ with 

 our respected friend Dr. Lee, in regard to the 

 " practical utility of soil-analyses.'" AVe had hoped 

 that on other points pertaining to the progi'ess of 

 a^n-icultural improvements, our views would be 

 :i;ore in accordance with those of our puissant and 

 ■lopular predecessor. If true, the destruction of 

 nitrogen (ammonia and nitrie acid) during the 

 avowth of wheat, barley, Indian corn, a'ld other 

 Cereals, is one of the most important facts which 

 the investigations of modern agricultural science 

 iiave developed. It affords a satisfactory explana- 

 tion of the advantages of such systems of rotation 

 as practical experience has induced observing farm- 

 ers in all ages and all countries to adopt, — and we 

 liave no other explanation tliat does not run coun- 

 ter to some well established fact bearing on the 

 I point. The retention of nitrogen by such plants as 



clover, peas, beans, turnips, lupins, etc., and its 

 dissipation by such plants as wheat, bai-ley, oats, 

 Indian corn, etc., is of itself sufficient to account 

 for the fact that the cultivation of the former 

 plants improves a farm, while the continued, culti- 

 vation of the latter rapidly impoverishes it. Let 

 us, however, examine the objections of Dr. Le-e to 

 this doctrine of the destruction of ammonia by the 

 cereals. 



(a) In chemistry, to destroy is to resolve a body 

 into its parts or elements. In this sense, it is im- 

 possible to destroy nitrogen, which is itself an ele- 

 ment. But when speaking of manures, the term 

 nitrogen, for obvious reasons, is often used instead 

 of anunonia, or nitric acid. Dr. Lee himself often 

 uses it in this sense. In the article w^hich Dr. 

 Lee essays to criticisQ, w^e say " it is quite evident 

 that the principal substance required for the growth 

 of a large crop ef barley, as of wheat, is nitrogen 

 (ammonia)." Again: " An application of nitrogen 

 (ammonia) always gave an increiised yield of 

 wheat."" It is plain, from the,se extracts, that when 

 we spoke of the destruction of nitrogen^ we referred 

 to ammonia or to nitric acid; and this Dr. Lee 

 knew quite well. To speak of the destruction of 

 ammonia or nitric acid, is not a "new use of lan- 

 guage." Webstee, as well "in England" as in 

 "this country," is acknowledged to be good author- 

 ity, and he defines destroy — "In chemistry^ to re- 

 solve a body into its paits or elements." Now, if 

 plants resolve ammonia into its elements, hydrogen 

 and nitrogen, they may be said to '■'■destroy'''' am- 

 morda. 



We believe cereal plants dissipate ammonia ; but 

 wliether they first decompose it, or not, we have 

 at present no satisfactory evidence. It is probable 

 that such is the case. Under such circumstances, 

 is it a new use of language to say that jslants de- 

 stroy ammonia? Dr. Lee himself, in an article in 

 the Patent Office Eeport for 1852-3, asks: 



" In what way can the natural resources of the 

 soil be best preserved from injury and saved from 

 destruction ? " 



Now, the "natural resources" referred to, are 

 the elements of plants in the soil, including nitro- 

 gen. On another page of the same artick, the 

 Professor again says : 



" It is right and proper for each generation to 

 use all the natural resources of the eartli ; but for 

 any one generation to destroy or seriously injure 

 them, is a wrong of the gravest character, and of 

 inestimable magnitude." 



And yet again, in the same article : 



" This statesmanship which ignores the very ex- 

 istence of agricultural science, and repudiates all its 

 teachings, costs the counti-y three hundred million 

 dollars a year by the needless destruction of its ag^ 

 ricultural resources." 



