266 
THE CULTIVATOR. 
Sept. 
ever future skill may develop, it would be folly to re¬ 
commend such analysis as an infallible guide at the 
present day. 
And yet we are told in a late number of an Ameri¬ 
can periodical, of high pretensions to scientific infalli¬ 
bility, (the “Working .Farmer”) in some two columns 
of argument or assertion, that the analysis of soils is a 
reliable guide, “within the reach of every intelligent 
farmer,” and that in no instance can be found the fail¬ 
ure of “well ascertained chemical knowledge,” in this 
particular. 
Independently of the extreme difficulty of procuring 
minute and reliable analyses for ordinary farming, and 
throwing out of the question that the greatest chemists 
are now disputing about the utility and action of some 
of the ingredients of the soil, rendering it certainly 
very difficult for common farmers to decide when doctors 
disagree,—independently of all these difficulties, there 
are many other controlling causes which may operate, 
requiring a great deal of caution at least, in reccom- 
mending these things for general adoption. We have 
been assured, for instance, by a thorough scientific and 
practical farmer, that he has found by thoroughly 
grinding his stable manure to powder , when applied 
to his clay soil, and then thoroughly grinding it into 
the soil, he gets about five times as much benefit from 
it, as by its ordinary application. So, likewise, it has 
been found that some of the most fertile western soils 
in the United States, were composed essentially, so far 
as analysis could discover, of the same ingredients and 
in the same proportion, as some quite sterile soils 
in Massachusetts—the only difference being in the ex¬ 
treme fineness of pulverization possessed by the parti¬ 
cles of the former. Again, the degree of moisture has 
a most important influence in addition to all the pre¬ 
ceding causes, as is shown by the fact that some soils 
which for a time have produced almost nothing valua¬ 
ble, when thoroughly underdrained, have become emi¬ 
nently productive. These, and other similar reasons, 
are sufficient to suggest an explanation of the fact re¬ 
cently stated in this paper by John Johnston, a very 
intelligent and skillful farmer, that a wheat soil on his 
farm, of extraordinary fertility, was pronounced sterile 
by a distinguished chemist who analysed it. 
Now, no one will infer that we oppose the applica¬ 
tion of chemistry to farming in any particular, even in 
the analysis of soils ; but that we urge its application 
in the only way in which it promises substantial bene¬ 
fit, and more especialty in such a way as to prevent the 
failure, disappointment, and disgust, which must inevi¬ 
tably result from the false and superficial teachings we 
have just pointed out. The detection of counterfeit 
notes can be no injury to the genuine bank ; the true 
interests of science are advanced by stripping delusive 
pretensions of their counterfeit colors. 
The hasty and superficial way in which opinions are 
adopted, by first seeing a little, and then presuming a 
great deal, and finally jumping to the conclusion, has 
long been detrimental to the progress of agriculture. 
J. J. Mapes says, in his Working Farmer, in speaking 
of the benefit of the analysis of soils, “ we assert without 
the fear of honest refutation, that after an experiment 
of some years, and a practice on many himderd farms, 
we know of no exception,” &e.—yet he nowhere gives 
us the results of those analyses "in connection with the 
kind and quantity of the fertilizers, and the amount of 
crops before and after the treatment. Such reports 
would be of some real value—they would furnish the 
details of practice in connection with the suggestions 
of science. We have had too much of indefinite as¬ 
sertion—and merely saying that certain processes have 
proved beneficial, without showing the amount, or with¬ 
out informing the public at all whether the whole sup¬ 
posed increase was not entirely from guess work, furnish¬ 
ing nothing satisfactory to those accustomed to form 
opinions from the demonstration of facts. 
There are, however, many ways in which scientific 
knowledge may be applied with considerable certainty 
in agriculture. Among these we may name the appli¬ 
cation of mechanical principles in the construction of 
farm implements and machines; of hydraulics, in irri¬ 
gation, draining, &c.; besides the numberless cases which 
are constantly occurring in daily practice, where most 
valuable assistance may be rendered. Great benefit 
has already been received from the analysis of manures, 
where fertilizing constituents are in a concentrated form, 
and useful suggestions are obtained from the analysis 
of plants. Science has rendered a most important ser¬ 
vice, by explaining and enforcing the reason of some of 
the best modem practices, previously established by ex¬ 
perience. Rotation, subsoiling, underdr-aining, and most 
of the operations of modern improved agriculture, are 
indebted for their existence to the teachings of experi¬ 
ence ; but science has since thrown its light upon them, 
and shown the reason of their value. And as a sug- 
gester and guiding light , it will be looked to in all 
coming time as a valuable auxiliary; but the chemist 
who shall undertake to sit in his laboratory, and with¬ 
out practice to direct the labors of the field, is like the 
man who would attempt to run a locomotive on a sin¬ 
gle rail—he only shows that "he has not yet crossed the 
threshold to true agricultural science. 
Starving in the Midst of Plenty. 
The man who should starve himself with a thou 
sand bushels of wheat in his granary, or with a hun¬ 
dred barrels of potatoes in his cellar, because he knew 
not how to cook or convert them to food, would not com¬ 
mit a greater act of folly than some of our land-owners, 
who possess vast means of fertilizing their fields, which 
they never apply. We have been struck with the pointed 
remark ofL. Clift, in his address before the Windham 
County Ag. Soc, that “ most men own a second farm , 
beneath their present surface , which has never been 
disturbed by the plow” We once knew a wealthy 
man, who had a fine farm in one of the best counties 
of Western New-York, and which he had cultivated on 
a bad system for many years, until some of the finest 
fields were reputed to be nearly worn out, and yielded 
poor or at best very uncertain crops. His land had 
usually been plowed about four inches deep, but occa- 
