no 



THE SOUTHERN PLANTER 



gave an extra bushel of wheat. But this extra 

 increase only contains nitrogen equal to one 

 pound of ammonia, and it is supposed that the 

 regaining live pounds are evaporated through 

 the plan t, and thai this loss of ammonia is ne- 

 cessary to the growth of the plant, or, at all! 

 events, there are at present no other known I 

 ine&ns of enabling the farmer to increase his) 

 wheat crop over 17 bushels per acre. 



Liebig denies that any loss of ammonia takes 

 place ; but he has no evidence, aside from Mr 

 Lawes' experiments, on winch he bases his de- 

 nial. His argument is this : — If the plot with- 

 out 'manure produces 17 bushels of wheat pei 



acre, and 



one with 

 bushels, and if the inc 



02 lbs of ammonia 34 

 ue to ammonia, 

 the 



required and 



it follow?? that the 17 bushels grown on 

 nnm&msred aore must also mav 

 removed from the soil S 02 lbs of ammonia 

 This we must fully admit. But Liebig says : 

 2,i iSuch a conclusion it is impossible krsupport 

 by any tact." This is his wlipj? argument. It 

 is "impossible" that the soil should contain, 

 or that the rain and air should supply, such a 

 quantity of ammonia A strange argument 

 this, to be made by the verj man who taught 

 that if plants were supplied with a sufficient 

 quantity of mineral elements in an availab e 

 condition, they would obtain all the ammonia 

 the}? required from the atmosphere ; and that, 

 in the language of Prof Hdrsfbrd, "the am- 

 monia spread on fields in the ordinary distri- 

 bution of barn-yard products, is of no moment. 

 The quantity with usual falls of rain great/?/ 

 exceeds, in the course of a season, any con- 

 ceivable supply by human instrumentality"'' 

 Now that it suits Liebig's purpose, we are told 

 that it is impossible that the soil, the atmos- 

 phere, and the rain combined, could supply 

 102 lbs- of ammonia — an amount contained 

 in 600 lbs. of Peruvian guano, or in 5 tons of 

 good, or 10 tons of poor, barn-yard manure! 

 furthermore, Liebig, in his Chemistry in its 

 Application to Agriculture and Physiology, 

 ■when speaking of the quantity of ammonia 

 "brought to the soil in rain water, says : "If a 

 pound of rain-water contains only one quarter 

 of a grain of ammonia, then a field of 26.910 

 square feet must receive annually upwards of 

 88 lbs., of ammonia." An English acre con- 

 tains 43,560 square feet; and according to this 

 estimate, which we are given to understand is a 

 low one, 142 lbs. of ammonia are brought to 

 an English acre of soil by the rain which falls 

 in twelve months. This estimate was made to 

 show that farmers need not be at any pains to 

 provide ammonia for their crops, as the atmos- 

 phere would supply a rich abundance — and,| 

 indeed, 142 lbs. of ammonia would provide; 



more nitrogen than the grain and straw of the 

 heaviest wheat crop contains ! Now, when Mr. 

 Lawes contends that the atmosphere and rain- 

 water cannot supply the wheat plant with suf- 

 ficient ammonia for a large crop, because it de- 

 stroys ammonia during its growth, Liebig 

 turns round and oracularly declares this de- 

 struction "impossible," because "the soil" [of 

 the nu manured wheat plot] "must have con- 

 tained or received from the air or rain, in seven 

 years, GlSf lbs. of pure ammonia." In ether 

 words, it is impossible this destruction should 

 take place, because the soil, the air, and the 

 rain combined, cannot furnish in a year 88 £ 

 lbs of ammonia per acre, while, according to 

 Licbig's own estimate, the rain-water alone 

 furnishes 142 lbs. of ammonia. It is difficult 

 to argue with a writer who resorts to such piti- 

 able subterfuges. 



We have brought forward what we deem 

 conclusive evidence, that there is a great loss 

 of ammonia in the growth of wheat. Liebig; 

 endeavors to set it aside by saying that the 

 ammonia in Mr Lawes 1 experiments acted bene- 

 ficially because it rendered the phosphates of 

 the soil soluble. We conceive that we have 

 fully answered this objection. Assuming that 

 the action of ammonia is in rendering the phos- 

 phates soluble, Liebig says : 



"If it had accidentally occurred to Mr. Lawes to 

 manure hfe field with four, live, or six cwt, of am- 

 monia salts, instead of Z\ cwt., and if in those 

 cases the yield was not increased (as we may 'with 

 certainty assume would happen,) then he might 

 with the same justice assert that the loss of am- 

 monia is 0, 8, or 10 lbs. for every bushel of increas- 

 ed yield. * * * It seems never to have occur- 

 red to Mr. Lawes to determine the minimum of 

 ammonia which was effective upon his field in pro- 

 ducing maximum crops." 



We trust Liebig had not Mr. Lawes' papers-: 

 before him when he penned these sentences, 

 otherwise he is inexcusable. Ammonia has been 

 applied in these experiments in hundreds of wir 

 stances, and in various proportions ; and in all 

 cases it has produced, where unaffected by mod- 

 ifying causes, an increase, within certain limits, 

 in proportion to the quantity of ammonia ; and 

 in no single instance has an increase of wheat 

 been obtained except by a great destruction of 

 ammonia. Quantities of ammonia, varying- 

 from 14 lbs. up to 180 lbs. per acre, have- 

 been applied ; and even in these extreme cases,, 

 the increase of wheat is in proportion to the 

 ammonia supplied in manure : the former pro 

 duced 21;} bushels, the latter 50 bushels of 

 dressed wheat, or 55 bushels (of 60 lbs. per 

 bushel) of total grain, per acre. The amount 

 of ammonia applied to this latter plot would 

 be contained in about 815 lbs of commercial 



