100 CHEMICAL MANURES. 



I ought to stop here, and leave these figures, without comment, to 

 the reflection of practical men ; but since it may be said that these 

 results are not superior to the ordinary culture, I remind you that 

 these fields were surrounded by wheat produced by the old method. 

 You have seen them, you have examined them at leisure, you have 

 been able to compare the surprising differences manifest between 

 them. The wheat from the chemical fertilizer carried tall stalks, 

 their heads long and well filled. They were so robust one would in- 

 voluntarily have taken them for small trees, while those at their side, 

 from manure, doubled over, presenting only stunted spikes. In 

 threshing, this difference was not the less striking, for the latter, from 

 manure, only gave 32 bushels the acre. 



I confess the year was extremely unfavorable to the formation of 

 grain. The plants grew too fast; their fall'was general, thus destroy- 

 ing the hopes of a harvest which promised better. In a more normal 

 condition perhaps the difference between the two harvests had been 

 less. But it is nevertheless certain the chemical fertilizer is in all 

 circumstances superior. Now, this is what I wished to prove, and 

 what doubles the value of the experiment for me ; for is it not evi- 

 dent that .such a combination of fertilizing matter is the most pre- 

 cious of all, since we can, by regulating the use of it, increase or 

 diminish the dose according to the exigencies of the season and the 

 appearance of the plant an impossible thing with manure, and 

 almost impracticable with all other less soluble fertilizers ? 



But this is not the question. I plead a cause gained, since it is 

 clear to all the world that the chemical fertilizers have an immediate 

 action and an energy greatly superior to all others. 



The question for our cultivators is more serious : it is to discover 

 if these exuberant growths are the expression of a real agricultural 

 progress, or whether they arc but a kind of ephemeral accident, of 

 which the soil pays the cost and to which the cultivator will be the 

 first victim. You know what I would say : I wish to speak of the 

 impoverishment of the soil. It is pretended that these large returns 

 are due to the dissolvent reaction of the chemical fertilizers upon the 

 fertilizing wealth accumulated in the bed of the soil. 



It is said we but half cultivate, and like bad and imprudent workers 

 we burden the future for present profit ; we inconsiderately work the 

 earth which has been confided to us, and of which, after all, we are 

 but the tenants, since in reality she belongs as much to future genera- 

 tions as to us ; we squander the forces put in* reserve by our prede- 

 cessors, and we have not the right to profit at others' expense. 



This is the accusation. We must confess it is very grave, and, I 

 acknowledge, would condemn without hope any system it explained. 

 But I repeat, Has this accusation a foundation ? Are not the con- 

 tradictors of M. George Ville blinded to their interests by a prejudice 

 against everything new that does not emanate from the beliefs of ^ the 

 old school ? I am, it is true, somewhat a stranger to the questions 

 of agricultural chemistry not so much so, perhaps, as would be sup- 

 posed j besides, this is less a question of science than of arithmetic, 

 and without pretending to the Academy, I pretend to know when I 



