THE CULTIVATOR 
123 
condition of the soil, owing to the rains, of the latest 
sowings, but more we think is owing to the lateness of 
the season when the seed was put in. We are sorry to 
say that so far as our observation has extended, the pre¬ 
sent prospect of the wheat crop is any thing but flatter¬ 
ing; and it is now too late for any material improvement 
to take place. In othe.r parts of the country, however, 
appearances are more favorable, and such is the extent 
of our territory, and the variety of our soils and climates, 
that we have little reason to apprehend any great annual 
variation in the actual quantity of wheat produced within 
our limits. 
SORREL—OXALIC ACID—LIME AN ANTIDOTE. 
As our answer to an Inquirer, in a late number of the 
Cultivator, recommending the use of lime as a remedy 
for sorrel, wliich we attributed to a sour soil, has elicited 
some discussion in the agricultural journals, some wri¬ 
ters appearing to dissent from our position, we are happy 
to give place to the following paper from a source enti¬ 
tled to the highest consideration in every thing relating 
to Agricultural Chemistry. The paper was called out 
by an appeal to Dr. Dana, through the columns of the 
N. E. Farmer, in which journal of June 14, it is to be 
found. The agricultural public are certainly much in¬ 
debted to Dr. Dana for the readiness, as well as the skill, 
with which he enters upon all such subjects; thus ap¬ 
plying to objects of the greatest practical utility, the vast 
resources supplied by his chemical knowledge. It is 
unnecessary to say that he fully sustains the position ta¬ 
ken by us, of the value of lime as a neutralizer of acids 
in the soil, a position controverted by some, and doubted 
by others. We may add here, as some doubts have been 
expressed on the subject, and Dr. D. does not advert to 
the matter, that the acid of sorrel, both wood sorrel and 
common sorrel, of beech and hemlock leaves, of bistort, 
rhubarb or pie plant, and several other plants and lich¬ 
ens, is oxalic; and as it has been stated by some writers, 
that “ no acid exists in vegetables except in a state of 
combination with some alkali,” reference ma}'’ be made 
to the chick pea of Egypt and the south of France, (Ci- 
cer arietinurn,) in which crystals of uncombined oxalic 
acid are formed by evaporation. 
[From the New England Farmer.] 
Mr. Darling has stated in his extract from Dr. Kane, 
and in his own remarks, (see N. E. Farm. May 17,) the 
well known, long received, and established chemistry 
of the organic acids of plants, and their transformations. 
To recall this to mind, I would state the main facts, as 
chemists understand them, relating to oxalic acid: 
1st. Plants form oxalic acid. Almost every, per¬ 
haps all, plants contain this acid. The soil seldom con¬ 
tains traces of oxalic acid. Whenever it is there found, 
it has proceeded from organic decomposition ; decaying 
plants. That plants form this acid, is evident from the 
fact that some lichens grown on naked granitic rocks, 
contain from 20 to 66 per cent of oxalate of lime. 
2d. Oxalic acid does not exist in plants free. It is 
always combined with a base—generally with lime or 
potash, in sorrel, (including in this both wood and com¬ 
mon sheep’s sorrel— oxalis and rumex,) the oxalic acid 
exists as super oxalate of potash. Each portion of pot¬ 
ash is combined with four portions of acid. The salt of 
sorrel is the salt of lemons of the shops. 
3d. These bases, lime and potash, are essential to 
the formation of oxalic acid by plants. The plants ne¬ 
ver form bases. They are derived from the soil or air. 
Hence, before the oxalate-forming plant, sorrel,cwo grow, 
the bases to saturate its acid as it is formed, must freely 
exist in soil. 
4th. Oxalic acid is composed of—carbon, two parts; 
oxygen, three parts. We cannot, plants probably do not. 
form oxalic acid by the direct union of its elements! 
We can, and do, for the arts, transform starch and sugar, 
by the aid of aquafortis, into oxalic acid. So plants, 
wonderfully more exquisite in their elaboratory,transform 
sugar, starch and gum into oxalic acid. If we, in our 
imitation of nature, require the strongest acid, her deli¬ 
cate hand may effect a similar transformation by the aid 
of such weak acids as vinegar, and the organic acids 
found in muck and soil. There is some reason for this 
belief, when we call to mind the fact, that without any 
fermentation, sugar is easily transformed by weak vine¬ 
gar into vinegar. This is a well known process. I go 
farther: plants transform these Weak acids into oxalic 
acid. This is the great source of that acid. We have 
only to deprive, as does the plant, vinegar of its hydro¬ 
gen, and double its oxygen, to convert it into oxalic 
acid. This is done by the oxalate-forming plant simply 
by the aid of oxygen only, as we in our process of art, 
change alcohol to vinegar by a current of air and the aid 
of a ferment. Life is this ferment in the plant. Oxygen 
in either case effects all the other change. 
To apply these principles to the remarks of ‘‘ D.” it 
has been show'n that lime and potash are essential to the 
existence of oxalate-forming plants, as sorrel; that weak 
organic acids are easily transformed into oxalic acid. 
When, therefore, such acids dissolve, and supply easily 
the lime and potash to the plant, the acids being in ex¬ 
cess, (for we have seen that the salt of sorrel is a super 
salt,) these oxalates will be formed. In other words, 
sorrel grows best where free acids and small portions 
of alkali exist. By applying sour muck, filled with 
weak organic acids and their bases to soil,, we supply it 
with the food of sorrel. Lime, or potash only, is not 
this food. Dissolve these bases by weak organic acids, 
form super salts of them, and you may expect to find, 
yea, you do find, oxalates produced, sorrel growing. 
But it is said that the common chemical doctrine of 
the agricultural press is wrong. What is that doetrine? 
Neutralize the free acids—take the sour out of the soil, and 
sorrel grows not. The doctrine is neutralize. All hangs 
on that word. If you only partially neutralize, you sup¬ 
ply the sorrel with its natural food—an acid salt. You 
feed it both with its acid in excess, to be converted into 
oxygen, and the base with which that acid is to com¬ 
bine. You give the sorrel in the same spoon, both its 
solid and liquid food: these acid salts are the hasty pud¬ 
ding of plants. 
But is it possible that ‘'a coat of lime two inches 
thick,” does not neutralize the acids? Yea. Your coat 
of lime is here on the surface. It has been slacked there. 
During that process, if by air only, it has become an in¬ 
soluble carbonate: it has not entered the soil. If slacked 
by Water, then a small portion has entered the soil as 
lime water. This portion has not neutralized the small 
portion of organic acid in that soil. I go farther: its 
excess has caused the inert vegetable matter to become 
acid to a greater degree than the lime can saturate. It 
has formed with it an acid salt. In this salt sorrel finds 
its food. It pushes up through your two inches of coat¬ 
ing. That insoluble carbonate does not effect its growth 
any more than sand. The small portion of lime added 
to, not upon, the soil, having furnished the food for which 
the sorrel had famished, that now springs up, rejoicing 
that the lime has caused the indifferent vegetable matter 
to become acid, and to act upon the potash of the soil. 
Perhaps in these cases, lime is substituted for potash,— 
an isomorphous substitution. 
Lay down your spent ashes, Mr. Editor, in a heap. 
You know its alkaline power is developed slowly by the 
action of air upon its silicate of potash. Cart it off now, 
to top dress your reclaimed meadow. You have left, 
where yrur pile was, the very material to partly satu¬ 
rate the organic acids of the soil—perhaps even increas¬ 
ed them. You have formed acid salts, by whose absorp¬ 
tion oxalate-forming plants, sorrel, will be produced. 
That this effect may follow an under dose of alkalies, 
may be understood from what has been advanced. If all 
the acid is fully neutralized, then the transformation of 
the neutral salt is probably not effected—sorrel grows 
not. If on the other hand, you supply the weak organic 
acids freely, as by sour muck, these, finding in all soils 
a small portion of lime and potash, the super salts are 
formed, and sorrel grows. It will grow till the acids 
are exhausted. 
I consider, then, Mr. Editor, that the common opin¬ 
ion is well founded. I have great reverence for com¬ 
mon opinion on such subjects. It is generally based on 
observation. In this ease, it is supported by chemical 
philosophy. The doctrine of the agricultural press, ap¬ 
pears, in the present state of our knowledge, to be the 
true one. Neutralize the free acids —but do thisby soZwWe 
alkalies in the soil, not on it. 
To the last inquiry of “D.” I reply, there is no bet¬ 
ter test of the presence of acid in the soil, than the growth 
of sorrel or oxalate-forming plants. It is often a better 
test than the chemist can apply. Unfortunately it is an 
analyst always ready for the task. Like his brother ana¬ 
lysts, he points out the existence of evil, but leaves to 
others the task of remedy, which the study of his habits 
teaches. ■ Sam’l L. Dana. 
WHITE DAISY OR OX EYE. 
This weed is a pest to the farmer, and as we see it is 
rapidly spreading in all parts of the state, where it has 
obtained a foothold, we publish for the benefit of those 
on whose farms it is found, the following extract from 
an Essay, which obtained the premium offered by the Pic- 
toH, N. S., Ag. Soc., for the best means of destroying this 
weed. We canno^mit to urge upon farmers the neces¬ 
sity of paying attention to the first appearance of weeds 
on their farms, and of eradicating them effectually in the 
outset. The annual loss to the country from weeds in 
crops, is immense. We know of many farms where the 
prevalence of the thistle, steinkrout, johnswort, daisy, 
&e. &c., is so great as to preclude the hope of a good 
crop. Any weed is easily overcome on its first appear¬ 
ance; but when it gets firmly rooted and widely spread, 
as it soon will, if unmolested, it is eradieated with dif¬ 
ficulty. We h.ave never been troubled with the daisy, 
but the system here recommended for their destruction, 
appears reasonable and worthy of trial. 
The writer of the Essay says—“ I have had a good 
deal of experience with the Daisy, (white or ox eye,) 
and would respectfully offer the following as the most 
effectual means of eradicating them when they have once 
got possession. Take a field that is as full of them as it 
can be; between the fifth and fifteenth of July, take the 
hay off, and plow it about four or five inches deep with 
a flat furrow. Let the field lie 12 or 14 days; then cross 
plow it with a furrow one or two inches deeper, well 
set on edge. After it has lain four or five days, put on 
harrows with long sharp teeth, so that they may go down 
as deep as it has plowed. Let the harrowing be done in 
angling directions through the field. Then with a hand 
rake, rake up the roots into small heaps and burn them. 
After a few da}'s plow it into ridges for sowing. Be¬ 
tween the 20th and 30th days of August, sow from three 
pecks to a bushel of clean timothy seed to the acre; har¬ 
row it with a light harrow, and water furrow it. If the 
land is wet, i-oll it with alight roller, and if dry, with a 
heavy one. By these operations, I am satisfied that this 
and every other weed, as well as the eggs of insects, 
grasshoppers, &c. are completely destroyed.” 
INDIAN CORN. 
The great crop of the United States, whether we look 
at quantity or value, is unquestionably our corn crop. 
Four hundred and fifty millions of bushels in 1840, and 
probably 500 millions in 1842, show the importance of 
this grain to us. And yet the quantity now grown is no¬ 
thing, a mere drop in the bucket, compared with what 
we might do, should circumstances render it advisable 
to increase the production to an extent that might easily 
be reached on the present cultivated lands of the Union. 
In order to show at a glance what might be done, we 
have taken the pains to collect a few instances of good 
crops that have been grown among us, and would re¬ 
mark that on a very large portion of our soils, in favora¬ 
ble seasons, and with the cultivation corn should receive, 
crops like the ones named may as well be grown as in¬ 
ferior ones. It is true, we now and then meet with a 
farmer or writer who asserts that no man ever saw 75 
bushels of corn grown on an acre, and that the farmer 
should be contented with 26; but the only emotions ex. 
cited by such, are contempt for the ignorant confidence- 
shown, and pity that in this country men should be found 
so far behind the times. 
No. of 
1 Acres. 
Product 
pr acre! 
Whole 1 
Product 
1 
136 
136 
1 
118 
118 
1 
1725 
172: 
4 
170 
680 
1 
132 
132 
8 
112 
896 
5 
129 
645 
5 
136 
680 
1 
174 
174 
1 
116 
116 
1 
115 
115 
1 
142 
142 
5 
108 
640 
1 
140 
140 
1-136 
.... 
202 
1 
103 
103 
40 
140 
5, UOU 
1-12 
100 
130 
22 
2,216 
1 
108 
108 
1 
no 
no 
40 
3, 800 
1 
150 
150 
1 
131 
131 
1 
116 
116 
1 
130 
1.30 
1 
144 
144 
1 
121 
121 
1 
112 
112 
1 
120 
I'.O 
1 
158 
168 
1 
120 
120 
7 
1,362 
1 
154 
154 
2 
116 
232 
1 
122 
122 
1 
113 
113 
1 
132 
132 
Name and jjlace of cultivator. 
R. H. Rose, Silver Lake, Pa.--- 
John Stevens, Hoboken, N. J. • 
J. & M. Pratt, Madison, N. Y.- 
Samuel Chidsey, Cayuga, N. Y.. 
Earl Stimson, Saratoga, N. Y,. 
Wrn. M’CUire, Allegany CO. Pa. . 
Joseph Evans, Washington co. Pa. --- 
B. Bartlett, Eaton, Madison co. N. Y. 
T. & H. Little, Newhuryport, Mass. - • 
I ( O .'1 w .. 
Mr. Wilmarth, Taunton, Mass.. 
CharlesBugbee, Palmer, Mass...- 
Eenj. Butler, Chenango, N. Y. . 
Henry Sprague, Worcester, Mass.---- 
“ OldF-armer,” Rhode Island.. 
Asahel Reniclc, Pickaway co. Ohio. • • 
S. Lathrop, W. Sprlnglield, Mass.. 
P. Reybold, Newcastle, Delaware.- 
R. H. Sheldon, Cayuga co. N. Y.. 
E. Humphreys, Caledonia, N. Y.. 
- Clark co. Ky.. 
- Montreal, Canada.-•■ 
R. Lamprey, Moultonborough, N. H. • 
Mr. Brown, Strafford, N. H.- 
P. P. Filsbnry, Tuftonborongh, N. H. 
J. F. Osborn, Cayuga co. N. Y.. 
J. Sherman, “ “ . 
Mr. Ellsworth, Conn. 
G. W. vvillian s. Bourbon co. Ky. 
W. Ingalls, Oswego co. N. Y.. 
J. Myers, Canton, Ohio.. 
W. Ingalls, Oswego co. N. Y. ■ --- 
B. Bradley, Bloomfield, N. Y.-- -- 
Samuel Phelps, Cayuga, N. Y. ••• 
Wrn. Ingell, Oswego, N. Y.. 
W. Wilcox, Saratoga, N. Y.. 
1820 
1620 
1822 
1824 
1819 
1823 
1823 
1823 
1823 
1822 
1823 
1825 
1831 
1831 
1831 
1833 
18.35 
1835 
1635 
1838 
1837 
18.37 
1838 
1839 
1839 
1839 
1841 
1841 
1841 
1340 
1840 
1839 
1840 
1840 
1841 
1842 
1842 
1842 
The numher of such crops, where the jn-oduct exceed¬ 
ed 100 bushels per acre, might be extended to a great 
length from the list in our possession, but the above is 
sufficient. Still we imagine some farmers will say, 
(some have said so,) that the man who puts manure and 
labor enough on an acre to get 100 bushels of corn, is a 
loser. We would ask how? A man may cultivate an 
acre of corn and get 30 bushels an acre, and he will be 
a loser; but it is scarcely possible when the product is 
100. In such a case, all over 50 bushels may be consi¬ 
dered profit. In addition to this, his acre of land is 
placed in a condition to produce more good crops, and 
the additional amount of these is to be added to the list 
of profits. The man who has brought 30 acres of land 
to such a state that it will produce 100 bushels of corn 
per acre, is far better off than the one whohas 100 acres, 
yielding only 25 bushels per acre; and of this fact we 
are happy to find many of our farmers are beginning to 
be well convinced. It is unnecessary to say the remarks 
we have made respecting corn, are equall}^ applicable to 
any other grain or grass, and that the grand secret of 
success is to cultiv'ate no more land than you can make 
rich. 
WHEAT WORM AGAIN. 
Last year, we heard little complaint of the wheat 
worm in this vicinity, and were induced to hope that its 
ravages for the present, at least, were stayed. Acting 
under the influence of a similar opinion, our farmers, 
who for some four or five j'ears have giv-en little atten¬ 
tion to the culture of winter wheat, last year increased 
their seeding with wheat to a considerable extent; and 
though the plants suffered much from the severe winter, 
the appearance of the wheat fields at the 1st of Jnly 
could not be considered very unfavorable. On the 8th, 
however, a. friepd called at our office, and left with us 
two speeipjens of growing wheat, taken from different 
fields near each other, and some five miles from tbe 
city, on the 'Boston railroad. In one specimen, the 
wornt was found in abundance, sufficient to wholly de¬ 
stroy the.grain, while the other was perfectly exempt; 
and, according to our informant, the field presented the 
prospect of a bountiful crop. The cause of this differ¬ 
ence is worthy of inquiry, and we hope our intelligent 
agriculturists will enter anew upon the investigation. 
The kind of wheat exempt resembles much what is 
called the Canadian Flint; the injured, the common 
White Flint. It was too early, however, to pronounce 
with certainty on the varieties. The worm in this 
