80 



THE SOUTHERN PLANTER. 



phosphoric acid, and we always think that 

 when duplicate analyses of the same soil 

 agree within one ten thousandth, the analy- 

 ses have been properly made. Certainly 

 no one who has ever made a phosphoiic 

 acid analysis will pretend for a moment 

 that he can determine one part in over 

 half a million. No chemit, therefore, 

 can tell whether a soil contains phosphoric 

 acid for one hundred bushels of wheat, 

 or only for fifty. And we hazard nothing 

 in saying that he cannot tell whether it 

 contains enough for 1(100 bushels or 2000 

 bushels. 



We do not, therefore, " need the analy- 

 sis of the crop to teach us its ingredients," 

 nor ' ! that of the soil to ascertain whether 

 it contains those ingredients;" for the in- 

 gredients of all crops are the same, and 

 all soils that produce any plant at all con 

 tain all these ingredients, and analysis will 

 not tell us whether they exist in sufficient 

 quantity or not. 



There is another view of the doc- 

 trine of " special manures," which must 

 not be overlooked. It is now gene- 

 rally admitted that all our cultivated 

 plants contain the same ingredients, and 

 that therefore, there is no " special " ele- 

 ment required for one plant, that is not 

 needful for the growth of another. But 

 there are some plants which contain much 

 more of some particular element, than 

 other plants. For instance, according to 

 the analyses of Richardson, (See Annu- 

 al Report of the Progress of Chemistry, 

 Part 5, London edition, page 318,) the 

 ash of the cherry contains 1.12 per cent, 

 of soda, that of the pear 8.52, and that of 

 the apple 26.09. The advocates of spe- 

 cial manures would from this recommend 

 a soil or manure for apples which contains 

 a large quantity of soda, while for cher- 

 ries — the ash of which contains little 

 soda but abounds in potash (51-85 per 

 cent.) — they would recommend a soil or 

 manure which contains little or no soda 

 and much potash. This is in fact the 

 theory of " special manures," as under- 

 stood by all intelligent writers on the 

 science of manure. 



Baron Liebig, though not the originator, 

 is the popular promulgator of this doc- 

 trine. Its plausibility, and its learned ad- 

 vocate's reputation, gave it immense popu- 

 larity when first announced, and we can- 

 not be surprised, however much we may 



regret, that it forms the woof or warp of 

 nearly all our agricultural and horticultu- 

 ral literature of the past fifteen years. 

 Indeed, so true is this, that Mr. Wilder 

 may well exclaim: "Explode this doc- 

 trine, and do you not destroy the principle 

 of manuring?" Nevertheless we cannot 

 close our eyes to the fact that however 

 plausible it may be, this doctrine is simply 

 a deduction. There is no experimental 

 proof of its truth, while there are many 

 isolated facts which show that it is not 

 true in all cases. 



So far as fruit trees are concerned, we 

 are without experimental evidence either 

 to sustain or refute this doctrine. We 

 are, therefore, left to analogy. The expe- 

 riments made during the last thirteen 

 years at Rothamsted have, among other 

 things, thrown much light on the chemical 

 requirements of wheat and turnips. The 

 ash of wheat contains 50 per cent, of 

 phosphoric acid, that of turnips 10 per 

 cent. Liebig has said, and the doctrine 

 of " special manures " would lead us to ex- 

 pect, that wheat requires a soil or manure 

 much richer in available phosphoric acid 

 than that required for turnip's. But what 

 is the fact? It has been proved that for 

 the growth of turnips, a soil requires a 

 much greater quantity of available phos- 

 phoric acid, than to produce wheat ! This 

 fact canno' be doubted ; the experiments 

 that have been made at Rothamsted and 

 in hundreds of other places, and the gene- 

 ral experience of British farmers, place it 

 beyond all cavil. We could mention other 

 facts that militate against the doctrine of 

 special manures, but it is unnecessary ; 

 for as there is not a single well established 

 fact that sustains the doctrine, and as it 

 has been proved erroneous in the only 

 case in which it has been fairly tried, we 

 have no certainty that it may not be 

 equally untrue in all other cases. 



While, as we have said, there are no 

 carefully conducted experiments, that de- 

 monstrate the truth or fallacy of this doc- 

 trine, as applied to horticultural plants, 

 there are many observed facts that would 

 of themselves throw doubt on its correct- 

 ness. Thus the vine contains a large pro- 

 portion of potash, (according to Crasso, 

 the wood contains 44.15 per cent, and 

 that of the juice of ripe grapes 71.85 per 

 cent.) and we should expect that the 

 manures best suited for grape vines would 



