Vol. IT. 
ALBANY, AUGUST, 1854. 
No. VIII. 
On the Practical Value of the Analyses of Soils. 
BY S. W. JOHNSON. 
The continued recommendation of soil-analyses, as 
a guide to the farmer, makes it proper to discuss at 
length their practical value. As a means of developing 
the natural la’ys of growth and cultivation, chemical 
analysis must continue to be, as it has been, of the very 
highest importance. A few years ago, in the infancy of 
agricultural science, it was found in many cases, that 
analysis indicated correctly what improvements were 
needed by soils; and the adoption of the general principle 
—that 'plants require for their rapid development , 
that the composition of their ash should be refected 
in the soil; i. e., that those inorganic ingredients 
■which are found in a plant in large proportion must 
be present in the soluble part oj the soil in large pro¬ 
portion, in order to produce that plant —led neces¬ 
sarily to the idea, that, by comparing ash and soil 
analyses, an easy adjustment of the soil to the wants 
of the plant might be made. 
The accumulation of knowledge on these topics has, 
however, clearly shown, that although it is often true 
that the analysis of a soil economically indicates the 
amendments that are needful to make it productive, it 
is frequently the case, that an analysis fails altogether 
to furnish useful indications; and if its results are 
valuable, it is often the case that they cost more than 
they are worth, or at least, knowledge equally good, 
perhaps better, might have been far more cheaply and 
certainly obtained. 
The opinions of learned men on the value of soil- 
analyses for practical purposes , are very various 
Boussjngault long ago declared them “ more curious 
than useful.” Stockhardt, in his 2d series of Chem¬ 
ical Field Lectures, Leipzig, 1853, has written as fol¬ 
lows : “ To estimate the productive quality of a soil 
by chemical analysis is at this time impossible, and 
will indeed remain impossible.” Prof. Wolff, of Ho- 
henheim, Wurtemburg, in his recent classical treatise 
on scientific agriculture, writes of the scientific impor¬ 
tance of making a certain class of soil-investigations— 
which have not yet been undertaken ; but of the prac¬ 
tical use of analysing this or that soil in particular, to 
assist in improving it, he say3 not a word that I have 
been able to find, in the whole work of 1200 pages- 
He is, however, of the opinion that, “ in general, Prac¬ 
tice has gone ahead of Science, in its ability to judge 
of the fertility of a soil;” and he therefore wisely re¬ 
commends that “ science connect her labors with the 
experience of the farm, endeavor to solve the problem 
that practice furnishes, and thus do the agriculturist 
direct service, in explaining the phenomena with which 
he is already acquainted.” Prof. J. F. W. Johnston, 
in the older editions of his lectures on Ag. Chemistry, 
attached a medium value to soil-analyses. The confi¬ 
dence of Prof. Norton in their use was quite firm in 
the early part of his career, but in his later public ad¬ 
dresses, and more decidedly in private conversation, he 
expressed his faith in qualified terms. Prof Nash of 
Amherst, has advanced the opinion, that were analyses 
of soils made at state cost, they .would be very useful; 
but otherwise considers them too., expensive for com¬ 
mon use. Mr. Mapes of the Working Farmer, has 
industriously advocated soli analyses, as a practical 
guide to the farmer, and has published many in his 
paper. 
In this disagreement of the doctors, let facts de¬ 
cide. 
It would be proper to remark here somewhat on the 
methods in which analyses are carried out, for in scarce 
any matter is humbug more rife than in this, but the 
matter will be but briefly noticed for the present. 
When speaking of analyses in the course of'this paper, 
only such are meant, as are carried out conscientiously, 
skilfully, and with a full knowledge of the subject ; 
which are, in fact, just all they pretend to be; and 
which, further, define precisely, what they pretend to 
be. No account is taken of $5 analyses. A reliable 
analysis cannot by any means be made for so little mo¬ 
ney, and support the analyst. The two great societies 
of Great Britain, indeed, make analyses for their mem¬ 
bers at 1 guinea, if I remember right; but distinctly 
state that this is a nominal price, scarcely more than 
paying for the substances used, without reckoning the 
operator’s time. It is possible that certain analysts 
may have discovered improved processes, by which 
their labor and expense is abridged; but such process¬ 
es have not been submitted to the judgment of the sci¬ 
entific world, and cannot pass current there. 
Admitting that a good analysis can be procured, 
