474 



NEW ENGLAND FARMER. 



Oct. 



press in this connection is the necessity of caution 

 m coming to such a decision. There is truth in 

 science, 5ut it is not every one wlio can draw it 

 out ; and the proper course in cases of an unsatis- 

 factory nature is to distrust the man and not the 

 general principles." In a late No. of The Work- 

 ing Fanner, in an article on " Chemistry as ap- 

 plied to Agriculture," Prof. Mapes says : " With- 

 in the last few months a new set of objectors to 

 Chemistry, as applied to Agriculture, seem to 

 have arisen. The style of their objections is truly 

 original ; for they first admit that chemistry may 

 be useful to agriculture when better understood, 

 but that analysis cannot be depended upon as a 

 guide for the amendment of soil ; that farmers had 

 better trust to experience than to science, &c. 

 * * * * * 



We know hundreds of instances where farmers 

 have applied in proper quantities and at less ex- 

 pense than the usual style of application, the mis- 

 sing ingredients to their soil ascertained by anal- 

 ysis, and in every case with increased profit in 

 results. We also assert that a fair knowledge of 

 Chemistry and Natural Philosophy, such as may 

 be obtained by means entirely practicable and 

 within the reach of every intelligent farmer, will 

 enable him, with an analysis of his soil before him, 

 to know not only what it requires to render it fer- 

 tile, but also the means by which these require- 

 ments may be most economically furnished to the 

 soil. It is too late in the day for an argument to 

 be maintained that facts are to be arrived at by 

 guessing more readily than by scientific research. 

 Let those who would war with us on this subject, 

 bring forward their facts instead of their satire, 

 and we are ready to meet them. "In the Cul- 

 tivator, (x\lbany) April, 1850, p. 232, is a little 

 extract from Prof. Liebig's Familiar letters onChem- 

 istry, which reads as follows : " If a farmer, with- 

 out the guidance of just scientific principles, is 

 trying experimients to render a field fertile for a 

 plant which it will not otherwise bear, his pros- 

 pect of success is very small. Thousands of farm- 

 ers try such experiments in various directions, 

 the result of which is a mass of practical experi- 

 ence, forming a method of cultivation which ac- 

 complishes the desired end, for certain places ; 

 but the same method frequently does not suc- 

 ceed — it indeed ceases to be applicable to a second 

 or third place in the immediate neighborhood. 

 How large a capital, and how much power, are 

 wasted in these experiments ! Very difFdrent, and 

 far more secure, is the path indicated by science ; 

 it exposes us to no danger of failing, but on the 

 contrary, it furnishes us with every guaranty of 

 success." 



In the Cultivator for Aug. 1850, p. 260, is a "Let- 

 ter from Prof. Norton, No. 8," a part of which reads 

 thus : — "I am convinced that practical men will 

 remain in the dark on many of the most important 

 points of agriculture, so long as they despise the 

 aid of chemistry, and persist in solving inquiries 

 connected with agriculture, by blind experiraenti 

 zing; by experiments I mean made without plan, 

 or anything clearly defined or distinctly understood 

 If those engaged in such random trials would bear 

 in mind that nature does not give a precise answer 

 to an indistinct question ; and if they would be 

 candid enough to believe, in all cases in which an 

 experiment has failed to answer their expectations, 

 that the experiment itself, or the anticipated re 



suit, must be false in principle, and that conse- 

 quently the fault is their own, aud not on the part 

 of nature — a great deal of good would be effected. 

 Unfortunately, however, most men are as quick in 

 condemning the value of materials used in a bung- 

 ling experiment, as they are eager to praise and 

 enthusiastic in reccommending every result when 

 the experiment proves favorable to their views ; 

 and when such an experimenter has some kind of 

 theoretical notion in his head with which the ex- 

 periment can be made to tally, the case is still 

 worse. In this way a great deal of harm has been 

 done, and the progress of scientific agriculture re- 

 tarded instead of advanced, {Dr. Voelcker.) There 

 is much of sound practical sense in the alDOve re- 

 marks, and every person who has studied over the 

 numerous unprofitable and wearisome discussions, 

 which fill up many of our agricultural papers, will 

 fully appreciate it. ' ' 



PRACTICAL DEMONSTRATIONS. 



But why does Mr. B. hope that J. will engage in 

 the practical analysis of his soil, (fee? In my criti- 

 cism of his experimental farming, I gave a speci- 

 men of the numerous practical demonstrations al- 

 ready made, accompanied by the name of a chem- 

 ist whose writings and sayings are copied into 

 almost every agricultural journal that has lately 

 come in my way , but he coolly suggests that the 

 successful result is probably attributable to other 

 cause than that indicated, and acknowledges "lit- 

 tle faith in reports of that kind where no responsi- 

 ble names are given." Of what use then can it be 

 for J. of Bridgewater, away up among the Green 

 Mountains, to attempt to make practical demon- 

 strations thereby to enlighten those who though 



"Convinced against tlieir will, 

 Are of ilie same opinion siill." 



CONCLUSION. 



If your correspondent will now bring forward his 

 figures and responsible names, illustrating the re 

 suits of our best practical chemists, they shall b 

 duly considered; and I will endeavor to hold myse 

 in readiness to satisfy him, that there 'are a fe *J 

 pages more of the writings of Prof. Norton, an*^ 

 others, which are not copied into this lenghtened 

 communication. 



THE REVIEW. 



One word more. Your reviewer in noticing my 

 criticism says : "in relation to the writer's idea of 

 the soil, I will remark that in digging my barn- 

 cellar we came upon a stratum of gravel about two 

 inches thick, and nearly two feet below the sur- 

 face. Now, this same strata, or layer, crops out 

 and becomes soil, — all there is of soil, — [!] some 

 six or eight rods from the barn." It may be pos- 

 sible that the quick-sand and clay gravel encoun- 

 tered in digging his friend B."s wells crops out 

 somewhere and becomes soil but that either should 

 be called soil, or any other earthy matter at a 

 depth of two feet, as at any depth below where 

 the "soil at the surface" had lately been removed, 

 should be called soil, was unknown to me till with- 

 in the present year. In Prof. Johnson's Lee. XI, 

 1^4, he tells us: "In a mass of loose matter of 

 considerable depth, spread over an extent of coun- 

 try, it is easy to understand how, even though 

 originally alike through its whole ma^s, a few inch- 

 es at the surfiice should gradually acquire different 

 physical and chemical characters from the rest, 

 and how there should gradually be established im- 



