August 22, 1913] 



SCIENCE 



255 



the dirt or soil, has found it rather easy to 

 retain the farmers' viewpoint. In my ef- 

 forts to solve farm problems through the 

 application of botanical principles, I have 

 invariably commenced at the farm end of 

 the problem, and with an understanding 

 of the farmers' explanation of the trouble. 

 This, perhaps, in part explains why I have 

 never been able to join the ranks of those 

 who scold the American farmer for sup- 

 posed things left undone. Personally, I 

 have learned that when I have known a 

 principle of plant production and have 

 myself been able to put it into action, I 

 have never had any trouble to get the 

 average farmer to understand that prin- 

 ciple and put it into practise. Thus if I 

 were to turn scold, my arraignment would 

 not be against the farmer, but rather 

 against those who have been and are now 

 too cocksure of their scientific principles 

 as worked out in the laboratory, nor should 

 I feel justified in very strongly scolding 

 so-called extension workers. They are 

 much like newspaper writers. They must 

 interest their hearers. They must have 

 something to talk about and can not talk 

 more definitely than the investigators ad- 

 vise. I hope I may not be too pointed in 

 this matter, for these advisers are legion. 

 We have each been guilty of essentially 

 the same fault, namely, the repetition of 

 supposed best principles, perhaps, often 

 urging them more strongly than our per- 

 sonal convictions would actually justify. 

 Half truths are not apt to gain a consistent 

 following among any class of American 

 workers. The simple assertion that crop 

 rotation improves the crop because it saves 

 fertility could not of necessity appeal to 

 the American farmer when he knows well 

 that the next crop which follows may take 

 out even more of the same elements of 

 fertility than the one which has been fail- 

 ing. It is apparent to him that there must 



in some manner be a fallacy in the argu- 

 ment. Thus it is that the writer explains 

 the fact that there is not at present any 

 consistent following of any definite system 

 of crop rotation on the part of our farmers. 



Rather than join the ranks of the scold, 

 I prefer to assert that wheat-growing is a 

 complex problem of life, and that the 

 farmer has never been shown very defi- 

 nitely how to grow wheat. He has never 

 been shown how, with any degree of cer- 

 tainty, to make the crop an annual pay ele- 

 ment upon his farm. He has, to be sure, 

 been told to "select good seed," to "prac- 

 tise proper tillage," "apply fertilizers," 

 and crop rotation, etc., but oh! the con- 

 fusion of all, and the uncertainty of results. 



Who is there here who has the temerity to 

 announce that he could follow the advice 

 and win in cash returns with any annual 

 regularity? (I am not here referring to 

 the irregularity of present marketing con- 

 ditions, but to crop returns, based on sup- 

 posed fair markets.) What is the system 

 of seed selection? What is the system of 

 soil fertilizing? What is the system of 

 crop rotation? and what is the why of 

 each, or at least one why of each? Do we 

 know the whys of wheat culture as for 

 apple culture? or as for the growing of 

 potatoes, or for the raising of the dairy 

 cow? No, rather are we all confused, ad- 

 visers and advised, much as we were with 

 regard to potato culture twenty-five years 

 ago. 



Too many advisers are yet talking of 

 what they see in the test tube and report- 

 ing to the farmer what they have read in 

 books, assuming that they can thus accu- 

 rately advise without studying the wheat 

 plant in the field. 



With any crop, the farmer must be given 

 something definite to do that may give the 

 expected results, at least somewhat more 

 often than not. This information he does 



