236 S. W. Johnson on the Soil-analyses of the 
in the regions examined and reported on has been very greatly 
enhanced.” 
In the Agricultural Geology of Kentucky, Report 2d, p. 9, 
Dr. Owen says: “Placing implicit reliance on the capabilities of 
chemical science to indicate by the analyses of soils, the ingre- 
dients removed by the cultivation and harvesting of successive 
crops, it was hoped that by collecting samples of the virgin soil, 
med of the same soil “from an adjacent old field, that not only 
the different substances assimilated out of the soil could be as- 
certained, but also the exact proportion of these so that the far- 
mer might know precisely what must be restored to the land to 
bring back its original fertility.” op 
These quotations sufficiently show what were the opinions 
which led our author to devote such an amount of labor to the 
analysis of soils, and indicate in general, what results were eX- 
pected. 
In the 2d Arkansas Report, p. 49 et seq., Dr. Owen “ proceeds 
to explain in what way soil-analysis becomes of value to the 
farmer.” e desires “to call particular attention to this subject, 
_ because the opinion has been expressed even in this year (1860), 
and by those having a high standing in the scientific world, that 
chemistry is incapable of conveying any useful information to 
the farmer by analyzing his soil.” | 
On the six following pages of the 2d Ark. Rep., and on page 
80 of the 4th Ky. Rep., Dr. Owen gives the most complete résumé 
of the teachings of soil-analysis which we are able to find in 
- the five volumes before us, and as these are his latest writings 
on the subject, and as he then had the data of 389 analyses, V!2. 
of 187 Arkansas soils and 202 in the three volumes of the Ken- 
tucky Report,—these being refrered to on the pages we are quoting 
* from,—we are warranted in considering what he has here pre- 
sented, as embodying the strong points in favor of soil-analysis. 
We will notice them separately as gathered from both Reports. 
1st. “ Any one who will take the trouble to inspect the analy- 
ses of the 187 Arkansas soils will see that the relative propor 
tions of the eleven mineral constituents of these soils 18 Very 
accurately given.” —2d Ark. Rep., p. 49. +h 
If we admit fully that Dr. Peter’s analyses represent wit 
fair accuracy the composition of the two grammes of soil he eX 
rimented with in each instance, we do not therefore allow 
that the composition of “ these soils” considered as representing 
geological formations, or large agricultural districts, or eve? 
single fields, is “very accurately given.” 
ere at the outset the distinguished gentlemen who have ie 
ducted the ‘geologico-’ and ‘chemico-agricultural’ part of tak 
Kentucky and Arkansas surveys have taken for granted, Mees 
being an error, overturns their whole reasoning, and rendem 
their soil-analyses comparatively worthless. a 
