November 4, 1904.] 



SCIENCE. 



607 



King also details the experiments made 

 with small (four-pound) samples of soils mixed 

 with much larger amounts of the same manure, 

 the leachings of which after 65 days, gave, 

 in general, results corresponding to those ob- 

 tained from the field tests ; and he discusses in 

 detail the apparent effects upon the solubilities 

 of the several ingredients of plant food, and 

 the influence upon the formation and reduction 

 of nitrates; showing that there is no direct 

 ratio between the amount of manure added 

 and the nitrates found in the different soils. 

 He determines and discusses, likewise, the re- 

 lation of the salts added to the soils in the 

 manure to those recovered by leaching, all 

 vouched for by full analytical data. 



Finally, King shows the effects upon the 

 plants of different doses of manure, with re- 

 spect to the water-soluble salts recoverable 

 from the plants themselves. In both eases 

 the influence of manuring is mainly seen to 

 be a direct one, as has, in fact, already been 

 shown by Godlewski. " It is thus shown that 

 the crops on the manured ground have recov- 

 ered 29 per cent, more potash from the four 

 stronger soils, and 40 per cent, more from the 

 poorer soils, where the fifteen tons of manure 

 had been applied." Lime and magnesia, on the 

 contrary, were diminished where the potash 

 was increased. 



What may be considered the final sum- 

 ming-up of this bulletin is given by King in 

 the following paragraph on page 60, the last 

 but one: 



The observations here presented, both upon the 

 soils and upon the plants which had grown upon 

 them make it clear that when farmyard manure 

 is applied to fields it has the eflfect not only of 

 increasing the yields, but at the same time of 

 increasing the amounts of water-soluble salts 

 which can be recovered from the soils themselves 

 and from the plants which have grown upon them. 



I have thought it necessary to present to 

 the readers of Science somewhat in detail the 

 contents of this bulletin E, in order to show 

 what kind of work it is to which the bureau of 

 soils refuses its imprimatur. To the unofficial 

 mind — the teschrdnJcte Unterthanenverstand 

 — it appears as an admirable piece of work, in 

 a line but little touched by agricultural inves- 



tigators thus far, and manifestly likely to lead 

 to important new lights, as well as to definite 

 quantitative corroboration of old ones. As to 

 bulletins D and F, respectively, on ' The Ab- 

 sorption of Water-soluble Salts by Different 

 Soil Types ' and on ' The Movement of Water- 

 soluble Salts in Soils,' they are in a measure 

 complementary to bulletin E, affording most 

 interesting side-lights upon the general subject 

 of the latter; they are altogether of similar 

 high scientific grade. They also figure among 

 the ' rejected papers.' 



The clew to that rejection evidently lies in 

 ' the published views of the Bureau of Soils,' 

 which King for the time being does not de- 

 sire to antagonize by discussion, as stated in 

 the preface. What those views are is not 

 specified; but it is easy to see that the results 

 of King's work are wholly incompatible with 

 the remarkable utterances of ' Bulletin 22,' 

 now well known to all interested in agricul- 

 tural science. Essentially, that bulletin pro- 

 mulgates the doctrine that while fertilizers ' do 

 sometimes, and even frequently,' seem to in- 

 crease production, yet since, according to data 

 given therein, the aqueous soil solution is 

 always of the same composition in all soils, 

 it follows that all soils contain sufficient avail- 

 able plant food to maintain productiveness 

 indefinitely; and that the moisture supply is 

 the one controlling condition, climate per- 

 mitting. 



Such being the oflicial, orthodox doctrine, it 

 becomes clear why especially bulletin * E,' 

 showing pointedly the very reverse of the 

 official doctrine to be true, could not receive 

 the official approval and imprimatur. And 

 that a man of King's standing and reputation 

 could not, under such circumstances, do other- 

 wise than tender his resignation, to take effect 

 after his report had been completed and sub- 

 mitted, is obvious. This having been done, the 

 Bureau of Soils is now rid of a contumacious, 

 insubordinate person, who refuses to subscribe 

 to his chief's scientific dicta as set forth in 

 Bulletin 22; which, it is well known, has not 

 received the assent of a single scientist of 

 weight, and has been controverted and repu- 

 diated both in America and Europe by all who 

 have taken any notice of it. 



