90 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
LIME AS A DESTROYER OF SORREL. 
Messrs. Gaylord & Tucker —In the 9th volume of 
the Cultivator, page 123, you published an extract of a 
letter from G. Billings, Esq. of Carlisle, Mass., in which 
he inquires, “ Why is it that land produces sorrel, the 
poor as well as the rich? and what is the best method to 
rid the soil of it.” To these inquiries you answered, 
‘‘The acid of sorrel is the oxalic, and sorrel will onty 
grow in soils where this acid is in abundance. To de¬ 
stroy sorrel it is only necessary to neutralize the acid that 
produces it, and this may be done by any alkali, but the 
most common and cheapest is lime.” 
Seeing the same doctrine concerning sorrel and oxalic 
acid in the agricultural paper published in this city (New- 
Haven) I ventured to call in question its correctness. My 
article was republished mother periodicals, and was made 
the occasion of an appeal to the distinguished Chemist of 
Lowel (Dr. Dana) for his opinion upon the subject. This 
called forth Dr. Dana's letter, republished by you in the 
August number of the Cultivator, 1843. The positions 
which I endeavored to maintain were, 1. The organic 
acids found in plants (the oxalic being one) are formed 
within the plants themselves, and are not extracted from 
the soil. 2. The oxalic acid does not exist in the soil. 
3. The application of lime to the soil, with a view to 
neutralize the oxalic acid, is therefore misapplied, and of 
no use for that purpose. 4. The application of lime to 
the soil does not prevent the growth of sorrel. 
Dr. Dana, upon the appeal made to him, say^s, “Plants 
form oxalic acid. The soil seldom contains traces of ox¬ 
alic acid.” In another place he terms sorrel “ the oxolte- 
forming plant.” The word “traces,” used by the 
chemists, denotes a quantity so small as hardly to be dis¬ 
coverable—so small as not to be weighed in the analysis. 
Hence, according to Dr. Dana’s statement, the oxalic acid 
can seldom be found in the soil, even in the least dis¬ 
coverable quantity. It is formed in the plants where we 
find it. In this, I believe, he agrees with all other 
chemists. He thus confirms substantially the positions 
which I maintained, that the oxalic acid is formed In the 
plant itself, and is not found in or extracted from the soil; 
and justifies my inference that “ the application of lime 
to the soil, with a view to neutralize the oxalic acid, is 
misapplied, and of no use for that purpose.” Dr. Dana, 
then, has decided in my favor one point which has been 
in dispute. I am contented to abide this decision. There¬ 
fore, if you please, Messrs. Editors, we will say no 
snore about the use of lime in neutralizing the oxalic acid 
found in sorrel. 
Dr. Dana, nevertheless, insists upon the value of lime 
as a destroyer of sorrel or a preventive of its growth; and 
explains its operation in this way. The soil contains, he 
says, weak organic acids. Plants transform these weak 
organic acids into oxalic acid. By applying sour muck, 
filled with weak organic acids and their basis, to soil, we 
supply it with the food of sorrel. If the acid is fully 
neutralized, sorrel grows not. If you supply the weak 
organic acids freely, sorrel grows. “ The doctrine is, 
neutralize the free acids —take the sour out of the soil, 
and sorrel grows not.” These acids may be neutralized 
by lime. Hence by the application of lime in suffi¬ 
cient quantity the growth of sorrel may be prevented— 
the plant may be starved. Dr. Dana supposes the oxalic 
acid to be formed in the plant, not by direct combination 
of its elements (oxygen, carbon and hydrogen,) but by 
extracting from the soil some other organic acid con¬ 
taining the same elements in other proportions, and by 
the vital power of the plant adding to or abstracting from 
this organic acid a proportion of one or more of these 
elements. He further supposes that these organic acids 
are taken up by sorrel only when the acid is combined 
with an alkali in such proportion as to form an acid salt; 
and therefore, if these acid salts in the soil are converted 
into neutral salts, by the addition of alkalis to the soil, 
then the sorrel will no longer find its proper food, and 
must perish. These, if I understand Dr. Dana correctly, 
are his doctrines on this subject. They are highly im¬ 
portant and deserve much consideration. The state or 
■condition in which the food of plants is taken up by them 
from the soil, has not been very satisfactorily shown by 
chemists and physiologists. The elements of that food 
are easily demonstrated; but the proportions in which 
they are combined, at the moment when they enter the 
roots of plants and before the vegetable vital power has 
begun its operation upon them, is not so easily demon¬ 
strated. The process of growth and nutrition is carried 
on out of our sight. There is an agent at work (life) in 
that process, controlling every thing, directing every 
thing, whicli the chemist cannot see where it is, nor car¬ 
ry into his laboratory for examination. He cannot col¬ 
lect it or confine it. He cannot exhibit it to any of our 
senses, either in form or operation; and all his reason¬ 
ings founded upon experiments and analyses in his labora¬ 
tory, proceed upon the supposition that no such agent ex¬ 
ists. In this uncertainty as to the conclusions which 
chemists are to make from their researches, it is not at 
all surprising if they are found to differ from each other 
—if Liebig for instance, should maintain that plants take 
up the nourishment which they derive from the soil, in 
the form of carbonic acid; and if Dr. Dana should main¬ 
tain that they take it up in the form of geine variously 
combined, without being converted into carbonic acid. 
Which of these eminent chemists is right, it would be 
presumptuous in me to undertake to pronounce. It is 
not perhaps very important, in the present inquiry, which 
is right. For the present purpose it will be taken for 
granted that Dr. Dana is right and Liebig wrong; and 
that plants are nourished by taking up from the soil or¬ 
ganic substances, in various states of combination with 
each other and with inorganic bases; and that this is a 
general law of vegetable physiology. The question 
then arises, whether the growth of sorrel is governed by 
the same law and carried on by the same process as the 
growth of other plants; or whether nature, as Dr. Dana 
supposes, has so constituted that plant that it can grow only 
when its food is presented to it in a peculiar form, such as is 
not required by other plants—that is to say, whether sor¬ 
rel can be nourished only by organic acid salts, while 
other plants may be nourished by organic neutral salts, 
and various other combinations of the elements of their 
food. If Dr. Dana expects us to yield assent to his pe¬ 
culiar (perhaps I should add novel) doctrine on this 
subject, it would seem reasonable that he should give us 
the facts on which his theory is founded. It would have 
been gratifying if Dr. Dana had stated what are the weak 
organic acids of which he speaks—what are the acid salts , 
of which he speaks; and if he had described some ex¬ 
periment which he has made, or some fact that he has 
observed, which prove an organic acid salt indispensable 
to the growth of sorrel. In such cases it is pleasant for 
us to pass our own judgments, weak or imperfect as they 
may be, upon the theories which chemists lay before us. 
We must, I am aware, take many things upon trust— 
upon authority, and Dr. Dana is good authority for the 
chemistry of agriculture. But still fact is better than 
authority. Are there any facts which go to throw light 
upon this subject? It is believed that there are; and it 
does appear to me that a fact stated by me in the article 
published in the New-Haven periodical, and upon which 
Dr. Dana in his letter made some comments, furnishes 
good reason to doubt whether his theory is well found¬ 
ed. That the application of the fact may be fully un¬ 
derstood, Dr. Dana's theory should be again stated. It 
is, that sorrel will not grow without the presence in the 
soil of organic acid salts—will not grow if the acid in 
those salts is neutralized. The fact alluded to is as fol¬ 
lows: “In the neighborhood of New-Haven is a kiln 
for burning oyster shells, set into the side of a knoll, 
composed of coarse sand and pebbles [cobble stones] 
which have been water-worn, and washed clean of all 
fine matter. Nothing can be more barren than this sand. 
It has been drawn out of the hill and levelled oil around 
the mouth of the kiln. Here the burnt shells have been 
spread, slaked, and have remained till carted away for 
manure. There has been left on the surface of the sand 
a coat of lime of considerable thickness, which has lain 
there for a few months past undisturbed, the burning of 
shells having been suspended. A few weeks ago [that 
is just before the time of writing the former article] I 
went to the kiln, and found sorrel growing, with great 
luxuriance, through the coat of lime—which in one 
