38 



Such a case as I have indicated is by no means an isolated 

 one such could be found in almost every district of the province. It 

 would seem, at first sight, to indicate that analysis is of no value here, 

 and that the poorer soils chemically are the better ones actually 

 and agriculturally. But if these analyses be considered in another 

 way the apparent contradiction disappears. There is in every soil 

 a very large amount of sand which acts as a support to the plant, 

 but in every other respect merely as a diluent of the valuable soil 

 constituents. It would, therefore, seem that in order to ascertain the 

 real actual richness of the soil for plant production, one's figures 

 should be calculated not on the soil as a whole, but on that part 

 which is not sand. And if one does this for the soils above given, 

 we have for the valuable constituents of the soil the following 

 figures : 



A great change has therefore appeared. What previously seemed 

 to be the worst soil by far, now proves richer in every important 

 ingredient (save the Potash). This is so universal in Assam 

 soils, that one may lay down as a general rule that the power 

 of land to produce luxuriant tea must in the future be determined 

 not by the percentage of valuable matter in the soil as a whole, 

 but rather in the soil less the sand, which latter acts in large measure 

 as a diluent of the other materials. 



But in this argument we have lost sight of one important 

 matter. While the amount expressed in percentages of the soil 

 as a whole may not represent the power of giving luxuriance to 

 the plants, it undoubtedly shows the extent of the soil resources, 

 i. e. t the ultimate amount of plant food contained in the soil, and 

 (recurring to our example) this is much greater in No. 2 than in 

 No. f , and hence, one would fancy that No. i would be exhausted 

 much sooner than No, 2, Such a conclusion would be justified if 



