76 



THE SOUTHERN PLANTER. 



For the Southern Planter. 

 DR. BALDWIN'S SHADE THEORY. 



in the Southern Planter for the 9th month 

 (September) last is an essay by R. T. Bald- 

 win, of Winchester, headed "Eleven Chemical 

 Changes." This essay is intended to advocate 

 the Doctor's theory of shade, as the best means 

 of improving land, and most worthy of the at- 

 tention of "practical farmers." While giving 

 full credit to his practice as a farmer and one 

 that has done much in improving his land, we 

 may be permitted to call in question the sound- 

 ness of his theory. Some may say, no matter 

 what his theory is if his practice is good, but 

 he gives us his theory instead of his practice; 

 and as the one without the other may mislead 

 others, the design of this essay is to induce him 

 to give his practice. 



The substance of his theory as contained in 

 his last paragraph: "That the surface of the 

 earth itself when closely covered with any sub- 

 etance whatever, will readily undergo a chemi- 

 cal change is plainly manifest, for it is changed 

 in color, consistency and fertility," &c. That 

 the vegetable or organic matter in a soil will 

 undergo "a chemical change,*' is doubtless true, 

 but that the inorganic materials in such soil will 

 do so is by no means certain. For a soii desti- 

 tute of vegetable matter will not undergo any 

 "chemical change," however well it may be 

 shaded. Why is not the soil just below the 

 depth of the plough not made rich? It is "in 

 a close, cool, damp and dark location." It may 

 be replied that it has not a proper contact with 

 air, but organic matters placed in such a situa- 

 tion will undergo "a chemical change," though 

 not perhaps as rapidly as if placed nearer the 

 surface. 



This essay of the Doctor's is too theoretical; 

 too much in technical language; too much a3 if 

 he wanted to show his learning. To be readily 

 understood by the generality of "practical far- 

 mers," we want something that we can easily 

 comprehend. He "begs leave totpresenl his 

 individual opinions without reference to those 

 entertained by scientific writers." This is well 

 enough. A man should examine for himself 

 and entertain his opinions, and should be allowed 

 full liberty to express them; but when he gives 

 them to the public, and they conflict with the 

 opinions of others, he may very properly be 

 called upon for evidence in their support "Of 

 eleven chemical changes enumerated by che- 

 mists to which vegetable and animal substances 

 are subject during their decompositions," he enu- 

 merates, as "most important," fermentation, ere- 

 macausis, combustion and putrefaction, as four 

 distinct and peculiar "chemical processes, be- 

 cause they require different circumstances to 

 produce them, and leave products entirely dissi- 

 milar." He describes "decay, decomposition, 

 eremacansis," as "that chemical change which 

 all animal and vegetable matter undergo when 

 exposed upon the surface of the earth to the vi- 

 cissitudes of the weather," and says "that the 

 ricks of hay and straw which the farmers, in 



their barn-yards convert annually into many 

 loads of valuable manure, if subjected to this 

 process, form a trifling residue, destitute of fer- 

 tilizing properties." Now, if he had said that 

 if ricks of hay and straw were left untouched 

 until they were entirely rotten down, they would 

 make but little manure, while, if placed in barn- 

 yards where stock frequented, and their manure 

 and urine were incorporated with it, they would 

 make a far greater portion of valuable manure, 

 every one would have understood him. "It is 

 a well ascertained fact," he asserts "that the 

 body of a horse or cow, located properly for pu- 

 trefaction, yields manure enough to produce 

 thirty bushels of wheat," and that wood, "when 

 properly putrificd, makes good manure." The 

 assertion of these facts, if true, are of no impor- 

 tance to the "practical farmer," unless he is 

 made acquainted with the process by which the 

 result can be realized, and it is to be hoped that 

 we shall be informed on this point. 



The Doctor considers "the residue" resulting 

 from the "putrefactive process" as alone capa- 

 ble of feeding "all plants in all soils in every 

 variety of climate," and asserts, "It is itself in- 

 capable of experiencing any other chemical 

 change, and is consequently indestructible."— 

 Are these assumptions true? Does the living 

 plant in assimilating the various substances ne- 

 cessary in perfecting its organism, perform no 

 chemical change? Are all these taken up and 

 deposited precisely as they existed in the earth 

 within reach of the plant, or is not the growth 

 of the living organism the result of chemical 

 changes. What is meant by its being "inde- 

 structible" is difficult to conjecture. Philosophers 

 tell us that in the dissolution of matter nothing" 

 is lost; that the decomposition of substances 

 form new compounds; and that the destruction 

 of one generation furnishes material for the 

 growth of the next. He considers that "the 

 fertilizing properties" of the "residue of putre- 

 faction" "does not depend upon the ammonia 

 which it contains," and instances the "poudrette 

 prepared by the French chemists," from which 

 he says, "every particle of ammonia is expelled 

 by quick lime." Does this manure contain no 

 ammonia? and would not the materials of which 

 it is composed, be far better fertilizers, if they 

 could be used without being thus manufactured? 

 Chemists tell us that nightsoil, from which pou- 

 drette is mainly prepared, contains carbonate, 

 sulphate and chlorate of ammonia. The addi- 

 tion of quicklime might decompose the carbo- 

 nate, appropriate the carbonic acid to itself and 

 liberate the ammonia, but in decomposing the 

 sulphate, sulphate of lime would be formed, and 

 that substance, we are told, will retain the am- 

 monia, and form a compound not volatile. What 

 would be the value of guano as a fertilizer if it 

 was deprived of its ammonia? Will Dr. Bald- 

 win inform us? All practical chemists exclaim 

 against mixing lime with it. 



Another view that appears objectionable is, 

 that a substance that under one form of appli- 

 cation is injurious to vegetation is not a manure, 

 though under other forms it may be a good fer- 

 tilizer. "Ashes, when recently made, prove in- 



