1

National

Cooperative

Soil

Survey Newsletter

Issue 7

May 1999

In This Issue—

Editor’s Note

Issues of this newsletter are

available on the World Wide Web

(www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/soildiv).

Click on NCSS and then on the desired

issue number of the NCSS Newsletter.

You are invited to submit stories for

future issues of this newsletter to

Stanley Anderson, National Soil

Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Phone—402-437-5357; FAX—402-

437-5336; email—

sanderson@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov. Earth Day, May 5, 1999

By Jim Ware, Soil Scientist, United States

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.

By all accounts—after the dusthas settled—Earth Day 1999

and the Soil Survey Centennial displays

on the Washington Mall were a rousing

success!

Earth Day exhibits were coordinated

by the Ag-Earth Partnership, a coalition

of more than 50 government and

private organizations. NRCS’s

contribution to Earth Day focused on

the 100 years of Soil Survey in the U.S.

NRCS Highlights included 14

exhibits, displays, and demos inside a

60' x 60' tent, of which the centerpiece

was a Soil Monolith from each State

and from Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin

Islands, and Guam.

Chief Pearlie Reed was one of the

Keynote Speakers. His remarks focused

entirely on the Soil Survey. Chief Reed

paid special tribute to the 100 years of

Tents for Earth Day exhibits near the Washington Monument, which is under repair.

Earth Day, May 5, 1999 ..................... 1

A Short History of Soil

Interpretations ................................ 3

The Pith Helmet .................................. 5

A Lament for B ................................... 6

Language Matters ............................... 8
2

NCSS Newsletter

Soil Survey in the United States, and

led a round of applause for all of the

men and women involved in the soil

survey program over the years.

The Soil Exhibits were a

tremendous hit with Secretary of

Agriculture Glickman and Deputy

Secretary Rominger, who spent 30 to

40 minutes in the Soils Tent with their

entourage of press and photographers.

Thanks to all of those who did such

an excellent job of preparing and

shipping the monoliths, which made an

impressive display—all 53 lined up in a

semicircle. They attracted visitors like a

magnet.

Also, a very special thank-you to

those who assisted with the Soil Survey

Centennial venue. We could not have

pulled this off without their help.

The Earth Day Volunteers helped

with the displays and exhibits for the

Soils Tent and were available to greet

the public and answer questions.

Several people were responsible for

specific displays, exhibits, or demos.

The Volunteers were mostly field

soil scientists from 24 states. They are

involved with Project Soil Surveys or

Technical Soil Services. Many were

actively involved in collecting their

State Monoliths. The Earth Day

Volunteers also included three Earth

Team Members, a Soil Conservationist,

and a Geographer, as well as Soil

Scientists from NHQ and the National

Soil Survey Center.

In addition to the displays and

activities in the Soils Tent, there were

two activities outside the tent. Ed

Workman and Dwayne Williams from

Illinois featured their soil probe truck,

and Jim Doolittle demonstrated his

ground penetrating radar unit.

Again, thanks to everyone who

had a hand in making the 1999 Earth

Day and Soil Survey Centennial

event happen. We can all take great

pride in our National Soil Survey

Program. Two of the soil monoliths exhibited on Earth Day.
3

NCSS Newsletter

A Short History of Soil

Interpretations

By Joe D. Nichols, Soil Scientist (retired),

United States Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Early Soil Interpretations

Soil interpretations have been an

important part of soil surveys in the

United States since the beginning of the

soil survey program. The early soil

surveys were designed for agricultural

use and prediction. Several of the first

soil surveys, including the first soil

survey in Texas, were made, we

understand, because of the desire to

grow tobacco or improve tobacco

production.

For the first 5 years, each soil survey

stood alone with no correlation of the

soils across survey area lines. When

soil correlation or inspection

procedures were established by 1906,

not much was said about correlation of

interpretations.

The early soil surveys included

varying amounts of interpretations but

generally at a minimum indicated the

kinds of crops grown, the amount of

soil in cultivation, relative yields, and

perhaps something about fertilizers and

organic matter. The need for drainage

was sometimes mentioned. Erosion by

wind and water was mentioned, but the

degree was not mapped, nor was

information on erosion-control

measures offered. Some increase in

the amount of interpretations occurred

when Agricultural Experiment

Stations began to cooperate in the soil

survey program. Dr. Charles E.

Kellogg mentioned in his 1961

pamphlet “Soil Interpretation in the

Soil Survey” that “Less thought and

attention were given to soil survey

interpretation during the first 30 years

of the work.”

Expansion of Soil

Interpretations

By 1931, Dr. H.J. Harper of the

Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment

Station was writing a section in soil

survey manuscripts on soil

management. Assistance in other states

was common. Some soils laboratory

data was being included in the

documents. In the middle 1930’s, the

Soil Erosion Service, later called the

Soil Conservation Service (SCS),

began experiments on soil erosion and

some Agricultural Experiment Stations

did similar work. Information on crop

rotations and erosion-control methods

was included in many manuscripts. The

development of the Land Capability

Class system by the Soil Conservation

Service included assistance on

alternative conservation treatments. By

the late 1930’s, pictures of soils and

their management and generalized soil

maps were being used. By 1935, the

survey of Clay County, North Carolina,

had three eroded phases, although

many counties had no eroded phases

until the 1940’s. The first complex map

unit I know about was in Nebraska in

1934. Complex units were described in

the 1937 “Soil Survey Manual,” USDA

Miscellaneous Publication No. 274.

Complexes did not catch on fast; some

surveys were without them well into

the 1940’s. The 1938 USDA

“Yearbook of Agriculture, Soils,” was

a widely used source of information on

soil interpretation.

Soil Interpretations in the

1950’s

A period of rapid increase in the

amounts of soil interpretation began

about 1952, when the Bureau of

Chemistry and Soils and the Soil

Survey of the Soil Conservation

Service were combined. Also, at about

this time, there was a change to the

large format soil survey publication

with larger scale soil maps. The 1951

“Soil Survey Manual” was a good tool

for making and interpreting soil

surveys. In 1953, Dr. Kellogg created

the job of Soil Correlator for

Interpretation in each Principal

Correlators Office.

Soon after, a position to assist

with soil survey reports and a course

to teach this subject were added. The

number of soil scientists increased

greatly with what was known as the

Standard Soil Survey. I began work

in Harper County, Oklahoma, early

in 1956. We were mostly reworking

a good-quality old survey to modern

standards. We had eroded phases,

and we had complexes. The soil

survey for that county, Series 1956,

issued in 1960, was on the large

format, 9 by 11 inches. There was

some interpretative soils information

in the description of the map units and

more in the soil grouping by Soil

Capability Units. Range site

interpretations were given by range

site groupings. We sampled 10 soils

for the National Bureau of Public

Roads project. There was a section

in the report, with tables, on

engineering properties of soils,

written by an Oklahoma State

Highway Department research

engineer. A Soils in Conservation

Engineering section was written by

an SCS engineer.

What Were We Interpreting?

The early soil surveys were

interpreted by map units. The 1937

“Soil Survey Manual” stated that not

all classification units were map units

and went on to explain complexes

and miscellaneous land types. The

Interpretation continued on page 4
4

NCSS Newsletter

1951 “Soil Survey Manual,” page

365, states that the agricultural

capabilities of each map unit need to

be predicted. It was obvious that

range sites were by map units and not

by soil series phases. The Land

Capability Classes were by map units,

as were the main guides for

conservation planning.

Advances in Interpreting Soils

Data for each survey area was

supposedly gathered for that survey.

Data from nearby surveys was used

when possible. The Land Capability

Units were coordinated by Major Land

Resource Areas (MLRA’s). Land

resource areas continued to be

important for other USDA agencies as

well as for SCS. In 1963, SCS

Washington Advisory 223 (as I

remember) ordered that SCS personnel

coordinate soil interpretations by Major

Land Resource Areas. We met several

times with soil scientists, plant

scientists, conservationists, and

engineers from adjoining states. We

produced a set of tables for known map

units by MLRA’s. These were used for

planning and soil manuscripts for

several years. I was party leader in

Osage County, Oklahoma, in about

1962, when Arnold Heerwagen, Great

Plains Range Conservationist, visited

the county with a number of soil

scientists and range conservationists

from the State Office. He brought a

new concept. There would be

complexes of range sites to match the

soil complexes. In the past an average

condition had been used when more

than one soil was in a map unit. We

were one step closer to interpreting the

taxonomic unit instead of the map

unit.

Changes Resulting From Using

Soil Taxonomy

We began serious use of Soil

Taxonomy after receiving the June

1964 supplement to the 7th

Approximation. We learned that we

were classifying a concept. We were

mapping a landscape and using a

classification category, such as a series,

in naming the map unit. The map unit

was a real piece of landscape with

inclusions of other soils. During this

time we also had a number of statistical

studies to determine map unit

composition.

Rapid Changes in Soil

Interpretations

In 1967, the green book “Guide for

Interpreting Engineering Uses of Soils”

was issued and used as a source of

interim instructions until the “brown

book,” or the official version, was

issued in 1972. Tables were

increasingly used. Interpretations for

engineering uses, such as building site

development and sanitary facilities,

were included, and slight, moderate,

and severe limitations became part of

our vocabulary. Soils were rated as

good, fair, or poor sources of

construction material. In 1967, Dr.

Lindo J. Bartelli talked the State Soil

Scientists and State Soil Survey

Leaders in the South National

Technical Center Area into

coordinating soil interpretations by the

name of soil series on a form. This

method had been used successfully in a

number of states. The guides for this

form were developed mostly at the

Southern Regional Work Planning

Conference. The form to be filled out

in pencil and coordinated among states

was dated December 1968. The West

NTC States also began working on a

set of guides. This information

worked well for a few years until

Keith Young and others turned the

regional efforts into a national

computerized form known as the Soil

Interpretation Record but more

commonly called the Soils 5 Form.

This resource allowed us to have a

coordinated data base of known soils

for rapid use.

There were of course other advances

in woodland, nonagricultural

interpretations, and, very important for

conservation, the Universal Soil Loss

Equation (USLE). The plant scientists

also were making rapid strides in

interpretations and had developed

groupings, such as range sites,

woodland sites, and wildlife sites.

Some of them wanted the

interpretations of their field by

groupings in the soil surveys. Dr. Don

McCormack and others held that we

were making a soil survey and that the

interpretations should be listed

alphabetically by soil series name,

except in complexes, where the second

unit in the complex was listed under

the first unit. This concept became

policy, but the listing by groupings idea

kept recurring. The USLE had been put

together by the Agriculture Research

Service from the many years of plot

data from experiment stations. There

were six factors that could be solved to

predict erosion or isolated to show a

farmer the effect of each factor. J.

Vernon Martin, then State

Conservationist in Missouri, got this

concept into the National Geographic

Magazine. The Soil Handbook was

under development and would allow us

a guide we could all access. Having

this material in a printed guide did not

solve all of the coordination problems.

What a guideline was and how

carefully it should be followed became

issues. Dr. Bartelli said once that some

Interpretation continued from page 3
5

NCSS Newsletter

of the fellows were following that

guide like they did their Bible. The

meaning of this was humorous but not

entirely clear as Bart was from

Michigan and most of these fellows

were Southern Baptists.

Major Test for Interpretations

We received a wake-up call when

the 1985 Farm Bill began to be

enacted. Highly erodible land, a new

interpretation, was an either-or

interpretation—no ifs , ands, or maybe.

A farmer could lose financial benefits

as a result of this “go or no-go” system.

We soon realized that the hydric soil

concept from the Swampbuster part of

the 1985 Farm Bill was also a “go or

no-go” decision. At the interagency

training for users of the new Federal

Manual, I realized that the biologists

had leeway with a plant index of 2.5 to

3.5. The engineers had some leeway

with the concept of a normal year. The

hydric soil decision, though, was a “yes

or no” and usually the controlling

factor. I questioned the developers as to

how they got by with that concept. The

manual also made reference to a

biologist and a competent soil scientist.

The leaders laughed as though I was

joking when I questioned their ideas.

The next shock came when the

Government Accounting Office

checked compliance with the 1985

Farm Bill and assigned responsibility

for technical errors to the National

Technical Center Directors instead of

the State Conservationists. The Chief

had written a letter, I understood,

telling the State Conservationists that

they were in charge, but the official

documents still said that the NTC

Directors were responsible for

technical accuracy. I think this issue

caused a lot of problems in the next

few years.

Not everything worked according to

plans. The next step in interpretations

was to be Soil Potentials, in which we

weighted the factors affecting the

problem. This system was not accepted

as well as we had hoped. We were

quite good at interpreting by phases of

soil series for detailed soil maps. We

were not so good at interpreting the

higher categories of classification or

the higher Orders of soil survey. I

proposed putting Order Three

interpretations in separate tables from

Order Two interpretations but was

voted down on that proposal. I should

be up to a point where many current

soil scientists have seen the

developments in interpretations. There

is a great opportunity for improvement.

Good luck. 

The Pith Helmet

By Rodney Harner, Soil Scientist (retired),

United States Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resources Conservation Service.

One hot, windy summer day, Iwas riding in the back of a

government sedan with Ed Templin as

we conducted a soil survey progress

review. “We” included Art Nelson,

State Soil Scientist of Kansas; Henry

Otsuki, Soil Survey Supervisor for

southwest Kansas; and several others

following along in a second car. At

the time Ed was Soil Correlator for

Oklahoma and Kansas. He could

be exasperating at times, but his

vast knowledge of soils was never

doubted.

This was before the days of airconditioning in government cars, so

naturally we had all the car windows

rolled down in order to survive the

heat. Ed was wearing a pith helmet,

the kind that explorers are usually

pictured in. Can you imagine anything

more impractical in southwest

Kansas? Every gust of wind that came

through the car windows sent that hat

sailing to the car floor or seat or even

into the lap of the driver, much to his

surprise.

As we were driving along between

two wheat stubble fields, that hat blew

off for the umpteenth time. Ed reached

down, grabbed the pith helmet, and

sailed it out the open car window and

across the stubble with the

exclamation, “That’s the last time that

d hat blows off.” That hat made a

perfect Frisbee and sailed out across

that field in a beautiful spiral. I have

often wondered what the farmer

thought when he came across that pith

helmet lying there in his wheat

stubble, thousands of miles from

where one was expected. Were the

bones of a lost explorer nearby? Did

some little green men from outer space

land here and wonder what kind of a

place this was, with nothing but wheat

stubble as far as the eye could see and

the horizon barely visible through the

shimmering heat waves and whirling

dust devils? 
6

NCSS Newsletter

A Lament for B

Now it seems to me

That busy as a B

Finds its manifestation

In the Fifth Approximation.

Is it B or not to be

Betwixt the A and C?

Or has it lost its old position

For new-found erudition?

Once I knew one B,

As simple as could be;

She wooed me with her true location,

Not clay-skin deep solicitation.

A big and strong old B

A B two B could be.

When flashy charms defied notation

I glorified the soil description.

Was she a Mother B,

Full of many a little B?

For with today’s atomic fission

The fate of B is long division.

A dozen B’s for B

Won’t stay in A to C.

With a B for each attraction

They’ll compete for habitation.

Without old Mother B

Who’ll say what is a B?

Who’ll see they have protection

From geological distraction?

The death of Mother B

Marks the end of royalty.

How can we maintain distinction

Midst so much discrimination?

B’s loss of royalty

Means not democracy

For plain men will give distinction

To the obvious field condition.

Thus how give nobility

And keep reality

With all the B’s in true relation

And not one lost from indecision?

Can we take the lab to see

All soil morphology?

Or do we add to field condition

Genetic truth from revelation?

Let’s call the roll to see

What subtle galaxy

B’s new algebra of relation

Displays in Fifth Approximation:

(’Twill be easier for me

To list the kinds of B

Without continual alteration

In the metric composition.)

The old podzolic texture B

Has clay-skins now to make it be,

And if there are no skins to see

It still may be a clayey B;

Or better still, try hard to see.

We now abhor transitional B:

Can it be that it is no B?

I’ll leave it in my list to see

If structural B and color B

And latosolic B will be

Enough to keep horizon C

Down where I think it ought to be.

Next we come to a flirty B

With a red-brown dress that I can see.

But is it humus that I see?

Or is it iron and is it free?

Or alumina, or all three?

And not mixed with a clayey B?

Well fares the solonetzic B

If caps are clear for all to see;

But not so clear the gleyic B,

And still less so the limy B

Unless it’s well above the C.

Now what will become of old B three?

An evil rumor came to me

That it could even cease to be,

Portioned out to a new C-B

And to an elevated C

That’s being pushed up by a D

The Manual says should never be.

This evil thing to poor B three

Emerges from geology.

Weathering now belongs to C,

Soil formation to A and B;

But if we fail to keep them free

Only regolith will still be

And that can hardly have a B.

If strong men scorn such heresy

We’ll always have an A, B, C.

We all have seen a buried B;

That is not rock, because it’s B,

Even though we call it C

To soil above that has a B.

Anthropic A can be Ap,

But so may too anthropic B.

On B two m none yet agree

Since fragipan has gotten free.

Then too we had a u on B

To show an unconformity;

But now the purists say to me:

“You mean, discontinuity.”

Out list has outgrown brevity

So I’ll but mention fractured B,

Broken by the Manual D

Or cut in two or even three

By tongues of A two shaped like V.

Of course, we have eroded B

And “topsoil” made of it and C.
7

NCSS Newsletter

But let us keep old subsoil free

And add more lines for each new B.

(See page one hundred eighty-three

On how to subdivide a B.)

I failed to list I see

The most important B,

Because the Manual has notation

Where we lack an explanation.

It provides for one, two, three;

So now we need another B.

We’ll need a B for hesitation—

A B horizon of frustration.

One sigh for Mother B

And in her name a plea:

Don’t lose her major connotation

By unneeded mutilation.

Charles E. Kellogg

Analysis and Explanation

By Stanley Anderson, Editor, United States

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, National Soil Survey

Center.

The poem “A Lament for B” was

privately printed in the year 1968, or

MCMLXVIII (as the title page reads),

by William M. Johnson at his Twelve

Oaks Press. An “Editor’s Preface,”

written by William Johnson, reads as

follows:

Since modern soil science

arose about 1870 it has been

in a nearly constant state of

vigorous flux. One

particularly active area has

been, and is, that of soil

classification. In 1951 the

American Soil Survey started

to construct a new soil

taxonomic system. The papers

engendered by this effort now

fill many file drawers. A lot,

some would say the majority,

of these papers make dry

reading. The sparks of a few,

though, shed extra light on the

problems with which soil

scientists struggled during

these sixteen years. One such

document is “A Lament for

B.” It is being published now

to assure it a lasting place in

the record of the Soil

Classification Exercise, 1951-

1967.

Portland, Oregon,

October, 1967

An “Author’s Preface,” presumably

addressed to Guy Smith, reads as

follows:

Dear Guy:

On the train from

Monticello, I reflected on

more talk about horizon

nomenclature. It will definitely

NOT be helpful.

CEK

January 22, 1957

The meaning of the poem centers on

what Dr. Kellogg calls the “death of

Mother B.” Apparently, the concept of

the B horizon changed from one of

position in the profile (lines 5-7) to one

of “new-found erudition” (line 8). This

erudition involves the various

morphological processes that result in

the formation of subsurface horizons,

such as those described in the 1975

edition of Soil Taxonomy. In a note to

me, Bob Grossman indicates that the

major conflict in the poem involves an

irony: “The main point is the tension

between Kellogg, the traditionalist and

broad brusher, and his creation through

Smith of a quantitative approach which

he must have known was an assault on

authority—now everyone was equal.”

The rhymes in “A Lament for B”

involve only the “long e” sound (as in

the word “me”) and the sound signified

by the ending “-tion” or “-sion.” The

“long e” sound is always a stressed

syllable, and the sound signified by the

ending “-tion” or “-sion” is always an

unstressed syllable. In the first 13

stanzas, the rhyme scheme is aabb. In

stanza 13 Kellogg indicates that he is

going to change this pattern. All of the

lines in stanzas 14 (39 lines long) and

15 (23 lines long) end with the “long e”

sound. In stanzas 16-18, Dr. Kellogg

returns to the aabb rhyme scheme.

The metrical pattern throughout the

poem is iambic. (An iamb is a metrical

foot consisting of one unstressed

syllable followed by one stressed

syllable, as in the word “without,” in

which “with” is unstressed and “out” is

stressed.) In stanzas 1-13 and 16-18,

each of the first two lines consists of

three feet, as in stanza 7, line 2

(“Who’ll say what is a B?”), which has

three stressed syllables (“say,” “is,” and

“B”) and three unstressed syllables

(“Who’ll,” “what,” and “a”). In places,

the initial unstressed syllable has been

dropped and the line begins with a

stressed syllable. Examples are line 1

(“Now it seems to me”) and line 9

(“Once I knew one B”).

Each of the last two lines in stanzas

1-13 and 16-18 and all of the lines in

stanzas 14 and 15 consist of four feet.

In places, the iambic pattern breaks

down and the meter is momentarily

irregular. An example is line 12. 
8

NCSS Newsletter

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual

orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all

programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for

communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Language Matters

By Stanley Anderson, Editor, United States

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources

Conservation Service, National Soil Survey

Center.

Relative Clauses Introduced

by “That” or “Which”

Relative clauses modify specific

nouns. They are like adjectives. Writers

and editors are required to know the

difference between restrictive and

nonrestrictive relative clauses. A

nonrestrictive relative clause is

introduced by the word “which” and is

preceded by a comma. A restrictive

relative clause is introduced by the

word “which” or “that” and is not

preceded by a comma. Thus, the

comma is important because it

indicates a difference in meaning.

A nonrestrictive relative clause

applies to all of the nouns that it

modifies. Examples are:

The cats, which are in the

kitchen, have not been fed.

The Alpha soils, which are

poorly drained, are on

bottom land.

In the first example, all of the cats in

question are in the kitchen. In the

second example, all of the Alpha soils

are poorly drained. Deleting the

relative clauses would not alter the

meaning of the main clause.

A restrictive relative clause does not

apply to all of the nouns that it

modifies. Examples are:

The cats that are in the

kitchen have not been fed.

The Alpha soils that are

poorly drained are on

bottom land.

Also included are

moderately well drained

soils that have a fragipan.

The first example implies that there

are cats that are not in the kitchen. The

second example implies that there are

Alpha soils that are not poorly drained.

In the third example, the clause must be

restrictive because making it

nonrestrictive (“moderately well

drained soils, which have a fragipan”)

would imply that all moderately well

drained soils have a fragipan. The

meaning of the main clause in each of

the three sentences would be altered by

deletion of the restrictive relative

clauses, which identify which cats,

which Alpha soils, and which

moderately well drained soils.

The following example is from the

range in characteristics in a series

description in which the

typical pedon does not have a Bw

horizon:

Some pedons have a Bw

horizon that has hue of

10YR, value of 4 or 5, and

chroma of 3.

The restrictive clause is not

appropriate in this sentence, assuming

that the sentence describes the color of

the Bw horizon in the soil series as it

occurs throughout the survey area. The

sentence should read, “Some pedons

have a Bw horizon, which has hue of

10YR, value of 4 or 5, and chroma of

3.”

Note that Buchanan soils are

Fragiudults. According to the series

description, they have a Bx horizon

and are moderately well drained.

Which of the following statements is

correct?

1a. Also included are the

moderately well drained

Buchanan soils, which have

a fragipan.

1b. Also included are the

moderately well drained

Buchanan soils that have a

fragipan.

Answer: 1a, because all of the

Buchanan soils have a fragipan. Item

1b is technically inaccurate because it

implies that some Buchanan soils have

no fragipan.

Many writers use the relative

pronoun “which” only when the

relative clause is nonrestrictive, always

using the pronoun “that” when the

clause is restrictive. That is, they say

“moderately well drained soils that

have a fragipan” rather than

“moderately well drained soils which

have a fragipan.”