teprinted from SCIENCE, N. &, Vol. XX., No. 614, P"(je* 605-GOS, November 4, Wto 



SOIL MANAGEMENT.* 



?he three papers here printed have been 

 ed departmental publication by the Chief 

 e Bureau of Soils." 



glancing at this note on the title page 

 lis pamphlet of 168 pages, the reader is 

 rally struck with the query, why the U. 

 Department of Agriculture should decline 

 .iblish the results of the work of such a 



as King, working under its auspices. 



the salt indeed lost its savor? Both 

 rican and European scientists have been 

 stomed for many years to regard with 

 dence and respect the work and publica- 

 i of the man upon whom, by common con- 



the mantle of Wollny has fallen since the 

 tature death of the soil physicist of Ger- 

 v. It is certainly worth the while of 

 j worker in agricultural science to see and 

 e for himself whether a star has been 

 sed or blotted out from the scientific 

 iment, and if so, from what cause, 

 e are, at the outset, somewhat reassured 

 D the totality of the conjectured eclipse, 

 nding that the three rejected bulletins are 

 a portion of a series of six forming the 

 rt of King, as head of the Division of 

 Management, for the years 1902 and 1903. 

 ie three out of the six have been accepted 

 he department for publication, it is evi- 

 L that King's right hand has not wholly lost 

 sunning during these two years. What, 

 , is the matter with Bulletins D, E and F, 



presented to us by the author at his per- 

 il expense and risk, and as he expressly 

 33, in their original form ? 

 : Investigations in Soil Management,' being 

 e of six papers on the influence of soil man- 

 aent upon the water-soluble salts in soils, 



the yield crops, by F. H. King, Madison, 

 conain. Published by the author, with per- 

 lion of the Secretary of Agriculture. 



As it happens, the rest of the series, 

 letins B, C and G, have not yet reached ] 

 cation by the bureau of soils. We must, 1 

 fore, rely upon the intrinsic evidence 

 tained in the three now before us, to sett 

 reason for their rejection. 



In his preface the author reticently 

 that the ( adequate discussion was wit 

 in order to avoid, as far as possible, anta* 

 ing the published views of the Bureau 

 Soils) ; and hence the three papers are 

 lished without general comments. It 

 the conclusions deducible from the facts ( 

 then, that we must look for the substarj 

 these papers, and for the possible can 

 their falling under condemnation. 



Bulletin E, the first in the pamphle 

 the most important of the three, treats < 

 results obtained in the fertilization with 

 manure, in different multiple proportioi 

 eight different types of soils. The e 

 ments were conducted on eight two-acre 

 located respectively near Goldsboro, I 

 Upper Marlboro, Md., Lancaster, Pa., 

 Janesville, Wis., and representing two g 

 of four each, ' strongly contrasted in 

 native productive capacities, in order 

 strongly marked differences might be 

 with.' The dressings of barnyard m 

 used were at the rate of five, ten and i 

 tons per acre. The crops grown 

 potatoes and corn, with a series of unma 

 check-plots between, in each case. 



The crops from each series of plots 

 weighed, mostly both in the green and i 

 dry condition ; and concurrently, the kin< 

 amounts of soluble salts extractable by 

 from the soils of each of the plots befoi 

 at different intervals after the applicati 

 the manure, were determined according 



