1853. 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



125 



For the New England Farmer. 

 TO INVENTORS. 



Mr. Editor : — A machine is ivanted by many 

 farmers, by means of which, horse power may be 

 applied to loading manure, muck, &c.,/ro??i heaps 

 into carts. 



It should be simple, light, cheap, strong, and 

 capable of loading a cart in from one to three min- 

 utes. Any person who can invent such a machine 

 will be amply repaid in money, and in the gratifi- 

 cation of being able to facilitate this laborious op- 

 eration. 



A shovel, moved by steam power, loads with 

 gravel a car at a time. Cannot this machinery 

 be so modified as to be used for the above-men- 

 tioned purpose, substituting grappling tines for the 

 shovel ? One "reaper" collects, and deposits the 

 grain in heaps ready for binding. Cannot this ma- 

 chinery receive the requisite modification ? 



Jan. 18, 1853. L. r. 



Rem.\rks. — AVell, we don't know. If on very 

 large farms the manure all fell into one enormous 

 heap of some thousands of loads, such an imple- 

 ment might be found useful. However, your in- 

 quiries can do no harm, and we cheerfully give 

 them currencv. 



For the New England Farmer. 



ANALYSES OP SOILS. 



Gentlemen: — From no branch of scientific agri 

 culture, perhaps, is more expected than from that 

 which teaches the analysis of soils. If the farmer 

 by subjecting a few handfuls of earth from his va 

 rious fields, could ascertain exactly what was ne- 

 cessary to promote its fertility, he might proceed 

 intelligibly — would know exactly what to do. He 

 might then laugh at the plodding experience of 

 his fathers, and, following the sure teaching of 

 positive knowledge, be certain of the most happy 

 results. But is it safe to encourage such expecta- 

 tions ? Do men who are learned va these matters 

 profess to be able by an analysis of the soil, to an 

 swer the questions w^hich an intelligent farm-hand 

 might propose ? 



For one, Mr. Editor, I have little confidence in 

 the analyses of soils in the present stale of the sci 

 ence. My skepticism on this point I ascribe to my 

 agricultural reading, and to the cautions and con 

 fessions of chemists themselves ; as v.-ell as to the 

 - unsettled and contradictory theories which have 

 been based upon the results of attempts to analyz 

 soils. The lamented Prof. Norton, in one of his 

 letters to the Albany Cultivator, makes the follow 

 ing acknowledgment: "TAe laboratory alone is 

 pretty sure to go lorong ichen it attempts to prescribe 

 rules for practice.'" Speaking of the change of 

 Prof. Liebig, from the ammonia to the mineral 

 theory, Mr. Norton uses the following language 



"The principal supporter, and indeed the origi- 

 nator of this theory, (the mineral manure theory,) 

 is Prof. Liebig. This distinguished chemist, dis- 

 tinguished no less by his clear lucid style, than by 

 his high scientific reputation, was for a time devo- 

 ted to "the ammonia theory," excluding those 

 mineral manures to which he now attaches so 

 much importance. A few years since, however, 

 he saw cause to change his ground, and has since 

 held, that if we furnish mineral manures in abun 



dance, plants will, without doubt, always obtain 

 their ammonia, or ratlier their nitrogen, from the 

 atmosphere or the soil. In pursuance of this idea, 

 he went so far as to compound, after careful study 

 of ash analysesj specific mineral manures for wheat, 

 rye, oats, turnips, &c., which were to take effect 

 upon all soils in a proper physical condition. The 

 failure of these specific manures, which were pa- 

 tented in England, was, as many of your readers 

 doubtless are aware, very decisive." 



The chemist to the Ohio Board of Agriculture, 

 Mr. David A. Wells, devoted the summer of 1851 

 to "examining, analyzing and reporting upon the 

 nature and composition of the soils of that State." 

 He gives the following as the result of his analysis 

 of some of the richest soil of the celebrated Scioto 

 valley — soil that has been cultivated fifty years, 

 and now, says he, "with the most ordinary cul- 

 ture, yields on an average, one year with another, 

 eighty bushels of corn to the acre." 



ANALYSIS OF SCIOTO YALLEV SOIL. 



Whoie amount of insoluble matter, silicious sand 



and clay 83.00 per can t. 



Lime 0.40 



Phosphoric acid 0.04 " 



Allialies 0. IG " 



Organic matter 6.00 " 



He compares this, with analyses of Jlassachu- 

 setts soils, as given in the Geological Report of the 

 State, by President Hitchcock. The following is 

 the result of the analysis of soil from Palmer, 

 Hampden County, Mass. 



Insoiubie siiicates 88.00 



Phosphates • 0-60 



Lime 2.00 



Organic matter 8.00 



On this comparison of analyses, Mr. Wells re- 

 marks : "We find but little difference in the 

 amount and value of the mineral constituents of 

 the Ohio and Hampden county soils ; if any thing, 

 the advantage is on the side of Massachusetts 

 soils." 



Having witnessed the growth of corn in both 

 States, I must here confess my surprise at these 

 results ; and will acknowledge they have done 

 much to shake my fliith in the value of all chemi- 

 cal analyses of soils. Is it possible, that by care- 

 ful analyses of soils from sterile Massachusetts, 

 and of those from the Scioto valley, famous for its 

 wonderful fertility, no clue to the vast difference 

 between the two can be detected ! 



The editor of the Ohio Cultivator, after admit- 

 ting that, in common Avith other agricultural wri- 

 ters, he has urged the importance of analyses of 

 soils, for some ten j-ears past, now says : 



"We confess, however, that we are disappoint- 

 ed in regard to the practical advantages that have 

 resulted thus f\ir from the analyses of soils in Ohio 

 and elsewhere ; and we do not at present see what 

 benefit is likely to be soon realized from such 

 analyses." 



President Hitchcock, in a letter to a friend and 

 pupil, who had been appointed State geologist, by 

 the Executive of Vermont, v.rites as follows : 



"I should not tliink it strange if some should be 

 disappointed, as they have been in otiier States, 

 by anticipating too much from the mere analyses 

 of soils. The impression is very strong, flhrough 

 the community, that the chemist, by such an 

 analysis, can determine what is wanting to ren- 

 der a soil fertile, or what renders it barren. Now- 

 even admitting that he could do this, an analysis 



