6 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
lion of several staple crops, as ascertained 
by different analysists, that we were first 
led to question the then current theory. 
Again, the imperfections, the uncertainty 
of the results arrived at in chemical analyses, 
while they may be construed to account for 
the diversity in the results, are also against 
strong reliance being placed upon them. 
Much stress has been laid upon the large 
amount of phosphates in the cereals or 
grains. But until the very recent discovery 
of “ the molybdate of ammonia process ” of 
determining phosphoricacid ,and even since, 
we ask, what good chemist was ever entirely 
satisfied that he had determined accurately 
the amount of phosphoric acid either in a 
soil or in the ashes of a plant 1 We have con¬ 
versed with many good chemists in refer¬ 
ence to phosphoric acid determinations, and 
they have ever expressed a distrust of the ac¬ 
curacy of their results. We incline to the 
opinion that improved methods of analysis 
will show that the actual amount of phos¬ 
phoric acid in the ashes of grains has uni¬ 
formly been stated much too high. But, al¬ 
lowing even that it has been given too low, 
the question may still be asked,is a greater or 
less amount, or any amount at all of phos¬ 
phoric acid really necessary to the constitu¬ 
tion of the cereal plants ? 
That phosphoric acid is usually found in 
considerable quantities in the ashes of grains, 
is not absolute proof of its necessity there, 
any more than is the fact that salt is found 
in the ashes of sailors’ garments a proof that 
salt is an essential constituent of such gar¬ 
ments. All growing plants require a large 
amount of sap. This sap is taken in from 
the soil through the roots, and ascends into 
the pores or vessels. Much of it goes off 
into the air by evaporation from the leaves. 
This sap, as it is taken from the soil, holds 
dissolved in it various mineral substances, 
such as potash, phosphoric acid, and what¬ 
ever else is •oluble. Well-water is a fair 
representative of the sap of plants, as it is 
drawn in at the roots, and almost all well- 
water contains the same mineral substan¬ 
ces as are found in the ashes of plants. 
Some assert that the plant is endowed with 
the power of selecting from the soil such 
elements as it constitutionally requires ; but 
this is unsubstantiated assertion. Madder 
and other coloring matters, common salt, the 
poisonous minerals, such as arsenic, &c., 
when placed around the roots are absorbed 
with the sap. No inherent power of selec¬ 
tion enables the plant to keep them excluded. 
When the sap ascends, carrying these miner¬ 
al elements along with it, and is evaporated 
from the leaves, the mineral elements, pot¬ 
ash, soda, &c., are left behind, and are there 
found by the chemist, not necessarily as 
essential constituents, but as bodies acci¬ 
dentally present. 
One end of a towel dipping into a basin of 
salt water will absorb, or suck up, a large 
amount of salt. Let the towel dry, burn 
it, and much salt will be found in the ashes. 
But no one would say that the salt is an 
essential constituent of the towel. The 
plant, whether green or dry when cut down 
lor analysis, will contain a portion of sap, 
and this sap will invariably contain more or 
less mineral matter, all of which will be 
found in the ashes on analysis. What chem¬ 
ist is prepared to say that so much is essen¬ 
tial to the existence of the plant, and so 
much is accidentally there, or that the whole 
is not accidentally present? We do not say 
that silica, and some other minerals may 
not be useful or necessary, but we do say 
that any system of manuring founded upon 
any definite knowledge on these points is 
still greatly defective, if not useless. 
It is urged that the same plant growing in 
soils of different composition will contain 
greater portions of particular elements. This 
is granted, but is easily accounted for on the 
supposition that the sap is changed in the 
plant, and has less capacity to carry particu¬ 
lar elements back to the earth again. Thus, 
for example, a plant growing in a soil con¬ 
taining lime and soda would take up both in 
solution, but the quantity of sap is reduced 
in the plant, and it consequently will carry 
back to the earth a less proportion of the 
difficultly soluble lime, than of the easily 
soluble soda. In this case there would be 
found a preponderance of lime over soda if 
the ashes were analysed. 
In the same manner we may explain why 
some plants growing in salt-water actually 
retain within them more potash than soda. 
Perhaps the relative size or weight of the 
atoms may have something to do with it. 
The weight of an atom or equivalent of 
potash is to that of an atom of soda as 47 
to 31. Perhaps on account of their smaller 
atomic size the soda atoms are carried out 
at the roots more readily, and hence the 
chemist will find more potash than soda in 
the ashes, though a thousand times more so¬ 
da than potash may have circulated through 
the pores. We suspect this cause, and others 
connected with the particular organization 
or structure of various plants, may have 
much to do with the comparative amounts of 
the mineral elements found in their ashes by 
analyses. 
We do not lay these statements down as 
ascertained facts, but as plausible theories 
to account for phenomena, to be set against 
those received for a long time as orthodox. 
To our mind there is comparatively little 
yet settled as to what are essential mineral 
elements in plants. 
It will readily be seen, then, that with the 
above view of the subject, we place little re¬ 
liance upon the theory of special fertilizers 
for particular crops, so far as yet understood 
by the most skillful chemists. 
So, also, the analysis of soils, with refer¬ 
ence to ascertaining what particular missing 
elements can be added to meet the wants of 
particular crops, can be of no utility—to say 
nothing of the imperfect knowledge of 
chemistry yet prevailing. We may remark, 
while on these topics, that the strongest ad¬ 
vocates of the utility of soil analyses are 
those who have had least to do practically 
with such investigations.— Ed. 
(To be Continued.) 
If you wish to preserve fine teeth, always 
clean them thoroughly after you have eaten 
your last meal at night. 
BEE HIVES- 
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF A CHEAP, BUT EXCEL¬ 
LENT HIVE. 
Whatever may be said of the advantages 
or disadvantages of this or that one of the 
hundred patent hives, more or less, it is 
quite certain that many of the most suc¬ 
cessful honey growers succeeded with but 
very simple hives. We have heretofore al¬ 
luded to Mr. Quinby’s success, and stated 
that he used only the simplest cheapest 
hives. At our request, he has furnished the 
following very plain description of the hives 
used by him. They are cheap, and easily 
constructed by any one, and no “ patent” 
will be infringed by any one who chooses to 
follow the plan given below. We are glad 
Mr. Quinby has detailed so minutely every 
part of the construction, even at the risk of 
being thought tedious or prolix. We desire 
just such chapters of particulars on a thou 
sand topics. Let every one describing an 
implement or process keep in view every 
possible question that would be asked by a 
novice who should attempt to follow his di¬ 
rections, and try to meet all such questions, 
and even then, in nine cases out of ten, he 
will make himself none too plain.— [Ed. 
To the Editor of the American Agriculturist : 
Since you gave publicity to the circumstance 
of my having sold over twenty thousand pounds 
of honey the past season, I have been beset with 
letters inquiring into my system ot management, 
and more particularly as to “ what kind of hive 1 
use," this being considered by most people an all- 
important talisman of success. Perhaps, in ac¬ 
cordance with your suggestion, a description ol 
my hives would interest the readers of the Agri¬ 
culturist as much as anything I could say with 
reference to bees at this season. 
First then, it may be understood that my large 
supply of honey was obtained by a very simple 
process, as far as the hive is concerned. But the 
results were not reached by merely putting bees 
into simple hives, any more than a good crop of 
corn is realized by simply planting the seed with¬ 
out further attention. Yet several considerations 
do make the kind of hive important. We wish to 
bring about certain results ; what the means are, 
I propose to say, appealing to the results before 
mentioned for authority to say it. 
Wien the profit of bee culture is the only ob¬ 
ject, of course the cheapest route to reach that 
point will be adopted. If with a hive costing 
twenty-five cents, we secure the same results as 
with one costing five dollars, we save just the 
difference. It any one desires ornamental hives 
to correspond with his establishment in other re¬ 
spects, that is another, and there can be no ob¬ 
jection, of course, but the extra expense should 
not be charged to the bees as a necessary out¬ 
lay. With these preliminary remarks, I will pro¬ 
ceed to describe a hive in its simplest form, but 
one which will give every facility for obtaining 
the purest honey to be had, in any style. 
First. The general form of the hive is a wooden 
box, the internal size being say twelve inches 
square and fourteen inches high, made of sound 
boards an inch in thickness, and unplaned either 
within or on the outside, except at the edges, to 
make close joints. To construct it, cut boards 
fourteen inches long, two of them twelve inches 
wide, and two fourteen inches wide. These 
nailed together at the edges, the wider ones being 
put over the edges of the other two, will make 
the inside size as above, viz.. twelve inches 
