CONSERVATISM IN SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURE. 41 



teach these theories as theories are taught in engineering courses 

 we must give instruction not merely in " elementary chemistry " 

 but in advanced chemistry, — the chemistry of the plant and ani- 

 mal, than which none is more profound; and what is true of 

 chemistry is true of other sciences in their relation to the agri- 

 cultural course. iS"o student can be made properly to understand 

 the facts of horticulture, of plant feeding, or of animal nutrition, 

 until he is thoroughly grounded in the botanical, chemical, and 

 physiological facts and principles underlying these subjects, and 

 so, instead of teaching one science, we must teach several. 



I do not see how it will ever be possible so to coordinate into a 

 single science, for teaching purposes even, the mutual relations 

 of physics, chemistry, biology, and physiology to the art of Agri- 

 culture, so that it will not be necessary to teach the individual 

 sciences, unless the course in agriculture is made post-graduate. 

 What then does the four years' course in agriculture become ? 

 Simply the teaching of a collection of sciences, along those lines 

 which lead up to, and involve, a discussion of their application 

 to the art of agriculture. When, therefore, chemistry, physics, 

 botany, and physiology are taught in this relation, they do not lose 

 their identity, but retain the same logical order which they have 

 when taught as pure sciences, and they lend to the course in agri- 

 culture the teaching form which is considered so desirable. 



As a matter of fact, four years' courses of agriculture, as now 

 offered by some colleges, at least, are really specialized courses 

 in the sciences, differing from the ordinary scientific course by 

 pointing out the applications of the sciences to an art. Are such 

 courses a mistake ? Are they framed in accordance with false 

 views ? I believe not, and this is the reason for my Ijelief : The 

 real and important need of which the farmer is conscious, is for 

 a knowledge of conditions, and not for methods or for skill in 

 manipulation. When he clearly understands the reasons for that 

 which goes on about him, the right method will appear. The 

 difficulties lie with explanations, not with mechanical processes. 

 And, besides, agriculture is not a business involving such delicate 

 and intricate mechanical operations that attendance upon a college 

 would be justified in order to learn them, although thfi modern 

 dairy, the forcing house, and the fruit garden do require skill. 

 But I venture to assert that no machines or practical methods 

 have yet become available to the agriculturist, whose use the 



