1

National

Cooperative

Soil

Survey Newsletter

Issue 19

May 2002

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—

stan.anderson@nssc.nrcs.usda.gov.

Soil Classification: Past

and Present

By Robert J. Ahrens, USDA, NRCS; Thomas

J. Rice, Jr., Calif. Poly. State Univ., SLO; and

Hari Eswaran, USDA, NRCS.

Background and History

Although not recognized as a

discipline until the nineteenth century,

pedology and soil science in general

have their rudimentary beginnings in

attempts to group or classify soils on

the basis of productivity. Early agrarian

civilizations must have had some way

to communicate differences and

similarities among soils. The earliest

documented attempt at a formal

classification of soils seems to have

occurred in China about 40 centuries

ago (Lee, 1921). The Chinese system

included nine classes based on

productivity. Yellow, soft soils (soils

derived from loess) were considered the

best, followed by rich, red soils.

Evidence suggests that the Chinese soil

classification system was used to levy

taxes on the basis of soil productivity

(Simonson, 1962).

Cato (234-149 B.C.), a Roman

scientist, contrived a soil classification

system based on farming utility. His

system employed nine classes and

twenty-one subclasses and guided

decisions about use and care of the land

for production of food and fiber

(Stremski, 1975). The decline of the

Roman Empire coincided with a

general stagnation in the field of soil

science, as indicated by the low number

of major contributions in the discipline

until the nineteenth century.

The nineteenth century saw renewed

interest in studying soil characteristics

in order to relate tax assessment to soil

productivity. In Russia this effort

helped to establish the discipline of

pedology. In 1882, the Russian

Government hired V.V. Dokuchaiev to

guide a program to map and classify

soils as a basis for tax assessment

(Simonson, 1962).

Dokuchaiev and his students

launched a new era in pedology that

promoted the description and

characterization of soils as natural

bodies with a degree of natural

organization rather than as simply

mantles of weathered rock. This

important notion fostered the concept

of the pedon from which data could be

collected and compared. Even after the

concept of the pedon took hold among

pedologists, soil science still lacked

standards for classifying soils and

describing the morphology and

properties of soil profiles. This lack of

standards hampered pedology and

resulted in classification schemes

shrouded with cloudy concepts that had

no operational definitions.

As an example, the U.S. 1938

classification system (USDA, 1938)

followed the concepts of zonal and

azonal soils, lacked operational

definitions, and consequently failed to

meet all the needs of the soil science

community. In the 1938 system, one of

the zonal soils, Reddish Prairie Soils, is

described as dark-brown or reddishbrown soil grading through reddishbrown heavier subsoil, medium acid.

This description is very vague. Without

the knowledge that these soils occur in

the southern Great Plains of the U.S.,

the soil scientist might find these soils

in several parts of the world. Aside

Soil Classification: Past and

Present............................................ 1

Soil Taxonomy International

Committees .................................... 5

Personnel Changes .............................. 5

Risks Associated With PermafrostAffected Soils................................. 6

Notes on C.E. Kellogg by a Junior

Staff Member ................................. 7

A Well, a Book, and a Prairie Dog

Town ............................................ 10
2

NCSS Newsletter

from the indistinct categories within the

1938 scheme, the system did not offer a

means to differentiate soils both among

taxa and within the same taxa. For

example, table 1 illustrates the families

from a card dated November 26, 1951,

used presumably by correlators and

field soil scientists to differentiate

among the Reddish Prairie Soils.

Obvious deficiencies include no

definitions for column headings, such

as “Stage,” and no operational

definitions to differentiate any of the

classes within the columns. This means

that the differentiae, such as the degree

of weathering, are based on judgment

and experience. The terms may have

valid meaning to the local soil

scientists. However, soil scientists from

different parts of the world converging

on the southern Great Plains could

engage in interesting discussions but

would not likely reach agreement on

whether a given soil exhibits medium or

strong weathering. Furthermore, the

differentiae are not defined in the Soil

Survey Manual (Soil Survey Staff,

1951) or anywhere else. The

information in table 1 is useful only to

those who are already familiar with

these soils. The differentiae are of little

value in distinguishing the soils even

for the most experienced soil scientist.

Table 2 is a card dated November

25, 1951, that attempts to provide facts

about Craig soils. Again, the

information is scant and is of little

value to a soil scientist unfamiliar with

these soils or the area in general.

Modern Soil Classification

After World War II agriculture felt

the effects of economic reconstruction

and the expansion of global markets,

and there was a renewed interest in soil

conservation and alternative land uses,

which helped to invigorate soil survey

activities. Soil scientists began

identifying many new soils, and

classification systems needed to track

all the newly recognized soils. The U.S.

Soil Conservation Service (now the

Natural Resources Conservation

Service), under the leadership of Guy

Smith, accepted the challenge and made

giant strides in improving soil

classification. Work to develop a new

U.S. soil classification system

commenced in 1951.

During the same period intensive

activities developed national systems in

Europe. A notable contribution was that

of the French pedologists, who had

commenced developing their system in

the early fifties and published it in 1967

(CPCS, 1967). The U.S. system saw its

debut in 1960 as the 7th

Approximation, which was the first

operational version of soil taxonomy.

Other groups developed concepts and

terminology for specific uses. An

outstanding contribution was the Soil

Map of the World Project, for which a

legend was developed by the Food and

Agricultural Organization of the United

Nations (FAO, 1971-1981). Another

group published the Soil Map of Africa

(D’Hoore, 1964). Later, the first effort

towards a Soil Map of Europe was

initiated (Dudal et al., 1970). Although

legends were developed for these smallscale maps, the process also helped to

develop units at the higher levels of

classification. The maps then became a

technique to validate the higher levels.

FAO organized several working

meetings to develop the legend for the

world map. Field trips during such

meetings were critical in testing

concepts and developing criteria.

Conferences and symposia of

Commission V of the International

Society of Soil Science (ISSS) played

an important role in this process. Each

national, regional, and international

group reported on its progress and

obtained critical evaluation of its

efforts. The universities and research

Table 1.—Families of Reddish Prairie Soils in the Southern Great Plains Correlation Area

Family Stage Texture Class Drainage Degree of Size of Solum

Weathering

Craig Maximal Medium Good Strong Medium

Dennis Medial Medium to moderately fine Good to moderately good Strong Medium

Hockley Maximal Moderately coarse Good to moderately good Strong Medium

Kirkland Medial Moderately fine Good to moderately good Medium Medium

La Bette Medial Loamy Good Medium Medium

Pratt Minimal Coarse Good Weak Medium

Teller Minimal Loamy Good Weak Medium

Tishomingo Medial Moderately coarse Good Strong Thin

Wilson Maximal Loamy Moderately good Strong Medium
3

communities developed methods of soil

characterization and methods of testing

the theoretical concepts. Thus, the

sixties and seventies were a period of

intensive activity in the development of

soil classification systems; the activities

were spurred by national needs and by

gentle competition.

Perhaps the greatest modern

breakthrough in soil classification is the

recognition that the soil-forming

processes frequently leave markers in

the form of diagnostic horizons and

features. The diagnostic horizons and

features can be defined in terms of

observable and measurable properties.

One of the most difficult considerations

in establishing concise definitions is the

fact that soils are not discontinuous

natural units. Gradual transitions of soil

properties and soil bodies occur on any

landscape. The choice of differentiating

criteria is of paramount importance in

applying the definitions of diagnostic

horizons or features in the field.

When definitions based on well

defined differentiating criteria are

applied consistently, soil scientists with

different backgrounds and experiences

should arrive at the same conclusions,

regardless of any contrary views on the

genetic aspects of the soil. Soil genesis

is important to classification because it

permits us to place similar soils in the

same or similar taxa. Also, it plays a

major role in soil mapping because it

helps us to develop our predictive

model of soil-landscape segments that

can be delineated on usable soil maps

with viable interpretations. In summary,

the diagnostic horizons represent the

genetic aspects of soils, but genesis

does not appear in the definitions. Well

defined diagnostic horizons and

features allow soil scientists with

different views and experiences to

describe the same horizons and

features, even though all the genetic

processes that produced the horizons

and features are not fully understood.

The diagnostic horizons and features

form the building blocks of the various

taxa of a soil classification system and

provide a powerful tool for

communicating information about soils

and differentiating among soils. The

Craig series listed in table 1 is in the

family of clayey-skeletal, mixed, active,

thermic Mollic Paleudalfs. For those

who are familiar with Soil Taxonomy

(Soil Survey Staff, 1999), this family

name indicates that the soil has a thick

argillic horizon with at least 35 clay and

35 percent rock fragments and adequate

bases; that it occurs on stable

landscapes in a warm, humid or

semihumid climate; and that its surface

layer is dark, most likely because of the

accumulation of organic matter. Thus,

the classification of the soil provides

significant information about the

properties of the soil.

The classification also provides a

way to compare the soils quantitatively.

The Dennis series listed in table 1 is a

fine, mixed, active, thermic Aquic

Argiudoll (Soil Survey Staff, 1999).

The Dennis series has more bases and

less rock fragments than the Craig

series. The Craig series is better drained

than the Dennis series. The differences

between the two series can be

quantified. The Dennis series has a

mollic epipedon 25 cm or more thick

and has less than 35 percent rock

fragments. The Craig series has an

umbric epipedon and has more than 35

percent rock fragments in the upper 50

cm of the argillic horizon.

Soil classification systems have

come a long way from their humble

beginnings as a means of levying taxes

based on production and have

progressed through various stages,

including a descriptive stage illustrated

above, to a rather sophisticated

quantitative stage. Most modern soil

classification systems are developed to

complement and support soil survey

activities. They provide pedologists a

means of communicating their findings

about important soil properties and of

differentiating among soils in a

consistent manner.

Cline (1949) indicated that

classifications are not truths that are

discovered but are contrivances made

by humans to suit their purposes. Many

countries have developed sophisticated

soil classification systems that meet

their needs. Although Soil Taxonomy

and the World Resource Base each have

been adopted by several nations, one of

the lingering criticisms is that there is

no universal soil taxonomic system, as

there is for plants and animals. The

Australian (Isbell, 1996), New Zealand

(Hewitt, 1998), and Canadian

(Agriculture Canada Expert Committee

on Soil Survey, 1987) soil classification

systems, to name a few, are directed

towards national efforts. Many

countries that have developed national

classification systems share common

features. Most national systems have

NCSS Newsletter

Table 2.—Description of Craig Soil

Great Soil Reddish Prairie

Group (maximal)

Family Craig

Series included Craig

Drainage Class Good

Texture Class Loamy (medium)

Horizons Degree of Devel.

A1 Strong

A3 & B1 Medium

B2 Strong

C

Degree of

weathering Strong (moderately

strong)

Size of profile Medium

Kind of phases Depth, slope, erosion

Parent material Residuum from

interbedded cherty

limestone and shale

Climate Moderately humid,

temperate
4

shifted toward the more quantitative

definitions and criteria for diagnostic

horizons and features that permit the

formation of mutually exclusive taxa.

Concepts and models of soil genesis

have guided the selection of diagnostic

horizons and features, and it is no

surprise that many national soil

classification systems share common or

roughly equivalent diagnostic horizons

and features that provide a means of

communication among soil scientists

from various countries.

Improvements Needed

The diagnostic horizons and features

represent a major innovation in soil

classification that has been embraced

by most pedologists, but there remain

issues that have not been resolved to

everyone’s satisfaction. Unlike discrete

plants or animals, soils form a

continuum over the earth’s surface. Soil

delineations are represented by one or

more soils as a map unit, but in reality

the map units contain many soils, not

just the few designated in the map unit

name. The confusion lies in classifying

the pedon and then using the

classification to represent the map unit.

The concept of the pedon has been

scrutinized (Holmgren, 1988), but not

resolved. The map unit and pedon at

first seem simple and straightforward,

but they are sources of confusion or

discomfort for many pedologists.

Anthropogenic soils pose another

challenge. Humans have influenced and

drastically changed the soil for

centuries. At what point does the human

influence change the classification of a

soil? In areas that have been altered by

plowing and additions of fertilizer,

when is the soil sufficiently changed to

warrant different taxa? Are there

markers in the soil that capture the

impact of humans on the soil resource?

Or must we rely on outside sources,

such as history of the area?

The World Resource Base (WRB,

1998) and other classification systems

have made bold attempts to capture the

human influences. The Anthrosol order

in WRB groups all the agricultural soils

that are significantly impacted by

humans. This order is required to have

diagnostic horizons that are influenced

by human activities. For example, the

terric horizon is one of the diagnostic

horizons used to key to the Anthrosol

order. According to WRB (1998), “The

terric horizon develops through

additions of earthy manure, compost or

mud over a long period of time. It has a

non-uniform textural differentiation

with depth. Its color is related to the

source material or the underlying

substrate. Base saturation is more than

50 percent.” The requirement of base

saturation is quantitative. The criterion

of non-uniform textures requires some

judgment on the part of the pedologist

and may not be applied uniformly by

all. “Additions of earthy manure,

compost, or mud” refers to the mode of

deposition and may be difficult to

differentiate from non-human eolian

and alluvial deposition. Does the mode

of deposition affect use or management

of the soil? Should soils like this have

separate taxa because of the

anthropogenic influences? These

questions will be debated and depend

largely on the purposes of the

classification system. The soil science

community is discussing these issues,

but it will not likely reach agreement.

Summary

Soil classification systems have

evolved into sophisticated

communication tools. The diagnostic

horizons and features and their

associated quantitative definitions are

probably the greatest contributions in

the last 50 years. They allow

pedologists with different experiences

to classify soils in a consistent manner.

Many countries have developed their

own classification systems, depending

on the needs and soils of the country.

Although there is no one soil

classification system that is used by all

countries, most pedologists are familiar

with diagnostic horizons and features

and have used them as an international

means of communication.

Even with all the advances in soil

classification, there are still difficulties

between the soils that we classify and

the soils that we map. Soils influenced

and forever modified by humans

present one of the greatest classification

challenges. Although some

classification systems have developed

taxa for these soils, there are still

questions about their utility.

References

Agriculture Canada Expert Committee

on Soil Survey. 1987. The Canadian

system of soil classification. 2nd

edition. Agric. Can. Pub. 1646.

Cline, M.G. 1949. Basic principles of

soil classification. Soil Sci. 67, p. 81.

CPCS. 1967. Commission de Pédologie

et de cartographie des sols.

Classification des sols. Lab. Geol.

Pedol., Ecole Nat. Supr. Agron.

(Grignon, France).

D’Hoore, J.L. 1964. Soil map of Africa,

scale 1:5,000,000. Joint Project No.

11. Commission for Technical

Cooperation in Africa Publ.

Ceuterick, Louvain, Belgium.

Dudal, R., R. Tavernier, and D.

Osmond. 1970. Soil map of Europe,

1:2,500,000; explanatory text. FAO,

Rome, Italy.

FAO. 1971-1981. FAO/UNESCO Soil

map of the world, 1:5 million. Vols.

1-10. FAO/UNESCO, Rome, Italy.

Hewitt, A.E. 1998. New Zealand soil

classification. Manaaki Whenua Press.

Holmgren, G.G.S. 1988. The point

representation of soil. Soil Sci. Soc.

Am. J. 52: 712-716.

NCSS Newsletter
5

Isbell, R.F. 1996. The Australian soil

classification. CSIRO Publishing.

Lee, M. Ping-Hua. 1921. Columbia

University studies in history,

economics, and public law, 99.

Simonson, R.W. 1962. Soil

classification in the United States.

Sci. 137: 1027-1034.

Soil Survey Staff. 1951. Soil survey

manual. U.S. Dep. Agric. Hanb. 18.

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy:

A basic system of soil classification

for making and interpreting soil

surveys. 2nd edition. U.S. Dep.

Agric. Hanb. 436.

Stremski, M. 1975. Ideas underlying

soil systematics. Polish Edition.

TT73-54013, Foreign Scientific

Publ. Dep. National Center for

Scientific, Technical and Economic

Information, Warsaw.

USDA. 1938. Soils and men. Yearbook

of Agriculture.

World Reference Base for Soil

Resources. 1998. FAO. Rome. 

NCSS Newsletter

Personnel Changes

The following people were selected as State Soil Scientists/

MO Leaders: Charles Love in Auburn,

AL; Cleveland Watts in Salina, KS; and

Dave Smith in Davis, CA.

Neil Peterson was selected as the

State Soil Scientist in Spokane, WA.

Linda Bouc selected as the

Administrative Assistant to the Director

of the NSSC.

Steve Peaslee selected as the GIS

Specialist at the NSSC. 

Soil Taxonomy

International Committees

By Craig Ditzler, National Leader for Soil

Classification and Standards, National Soil

Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Some of the most significant improvements in Soil

Taxonomy have been due to the work

of international committees organized

around a specific topic. For example,

ICOMAQ (International Committee on

Aquic Moisture Regimes) introduced

aquic conditions and redoximorphic

features (among other things), and

ICOMAND and ICOMPAS

(International Committees on Andisols

and Permafrost-Affected Soils,

respectively) introduced Andisols and

Gelisols as the 11th and 12th soil orders.

Recently, two committees have been

reactivated under new leadership. Dr.

Wayne Hudnall, Louisiana State

University, has assumed the chair of

ICOMMOTR (International Committee

on Moisture and Temperature

Regimes), and Dr. John Galbraith,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute, has

assumed the chair of ICOMANTH

(International Committee on

Anthropogenic Soils).

Charges for ICOMMOTR:

1. Develop a statement describing

why soil climate is an appropriate

soil property to be included in Soil

Taxonomy. This conceptual

statement will serve as the guide to

evaluate ICOMMOTR proposals

for Soil Taxonomy.

2. Define standard procedures for

measuring soil moisture and

temperature. In addition to sensors,

depths, etc., site conditions are

important. Consider defining a

standard condition and provide

guidance on correlation of other

conditions to the standard. Also,

consider methods for measuring

moisture in Vertisols.

3. Use existing data to test the use of

measurements at fixed points at

standard depths to replace the

concept of the moisture control

section.

4. Define moisture and temperature

regimes separately from one

another, including seasonal

concepts (moist/dry and warm/cool

seasons). Utilize combinations of

the regimes to define appropriate

taxa. Explore the use of nearsurface measures of moisture and

temperature for further defining

some taxa, such as very cold soils

and very dry soils.

5. Plan a correlation tour, to be

conducted in 3 to 5 years, that will

address the most pressing

problems.

Charges for ICOMANTH:

1. Develop a collection of soil

descriptions representing an array

of anthropogenic processes and

resulting soil profiles. These can

be used to propose new horizon

nomenclature, terms for describing

anthropogenic properties, and

landscape features for these soils.

2. Based on existing soil

descriptions, propose new

diagnostic horizons and features

and revisions to the current

anthropogenic diagnostic horizons

and features. Follow-up on

suggestions from previous circular

letters to revise the definition of

buried soils and to propose new

particle-size substitute classes to

handle such materials as coal-ash

and iron ore slag.

3. Propose new taxa for Soil

Taxonomy.

4. Plan a correlation tour in

conjunction with the 2006

International Union of Soil

Scientists meetings.

To be successful, the committee

Chairs need your input in the form of

ideas, sharing of data, and review of

proposals. To be included in their

mailings, send a message with your

contact information to either Dr. Wayne

Hudnall, Chair of ICOMMOTR

(whudnall@agctr.lsu.edu), or Dr. John

Galbraith, Chair of ICOMANTH

(ttcf@vt.edu). 
6

NCSS Newsletter

Risks Associated With

Permafrost-Affected Soils1

By Joe Moore, State Soil Scientist/MLRA

Office Leader, NRCS, Palmer, Alaska.

Permafrost takes many different forms in soils. Thin ice lenses

are disseminated throughout some soils.

Other soils, especially old soils that

have fine grained textures and are on

high terraces and footslopes, have large

blocks and wedges, or massive ice (fig.

1). The permafrost in many areas of

Alaska is relatively warm, just below

32 degrees F. These soils are insulated

by the surface cover of vegetation. If

the vegetative cover is disturbed by

wildfire or cultural practices, the

insulation is lost and the permafrost will

begin to melt. If a soil contains large

amounts of sand and gravel, there will

be no change in the strength or stability

of the soil as the permafrost thaws. The

stability of the soil is nearly the same,

whether the soil is frozen or thawed. A

soil that has finer textures (silt and clay)

and disseminated ice can become

supersaturated and liquefy as the

permafrost thaws. Such a soil will lose

all strength and stability unless the

meltwater eventually drains off. If the

soil contains large blocks and wedges

of ice, large voids and pits will appear

in the soil as the blocks of ice melt. The

resulting pitted landscape is known as

thermokarst (fig. 2) and is very

disruptive to almost all land uses.

Permafrost-affected soils can be

managed for many uses. It is critical,

however, to understand the properties

of each soil type (fig. 3). In some cases,

1 In 2003, the Soil Survey Division will focus

its marketing campaign on using soil surveys to

identify areas with risks and hazards for

particular soils or land uses. The campaign will

heighten the public’s awareness of these risks

and hazards. Presentations, displays, and

brochures will help to send the message

“Consider the soil first.”

Figure 1.—Massive ice in the form of a wedge buried in a permafrost-affected soil. This wedgeshaped feature is relatively pure ice. The surface is dirty because of the fine materials

melting out of the overlying soil. (Photo by Joe Moore, USDA, NRCS.)

Figure 2.—A large pit called “thermokarst” in an agricultural field. The thermokarst results

from the melting of massive ice several feet below the soil surface. After the soil surface is

disturbed, it may take many years for the buried blocks of ice to melt.

it is desirable to design management

practices that will maintain insulation of

the soil and will allow it to remain

frozen and stable. Other soils, however,

can be successfully thawed and allowed

to naturally drain, resulting in land

suitable for agriculture. It is critical that

those soils containing massive ice be
7

NCSS Newsletter

Figure 4.—Collapse of a section of the Alaska Highway in 1982 resulting from melting of

massive ice under the roadbed. (Photo by Joe Moore, USDA, NRCS.)

identified before any land use decision

is made. Conventional development on

such soils is likely to end in failure as

the ice blocks eventually melt (figs. 4

and 5). Well designed engineering

Figure 3.—Permafrost-affected soils with loamy textures become saturated and unstable if

allowed to thaw. In areas that include these soils, the trans-Alaska oil pipeline is elevated

above the ground.

practices which keep the soils insulated

will allow for successful development.

Onsite drilling is often necessary to

identify the location of individual ice

blocks. 

Figure 5.—The result of building a

conventional foundation on permafrostaffected soils containing massive ice.

Heat transfer from the house resulted in

melting of the ice and displacement of

the foundation.

Notes on C.E. Kellogg by

a Junior Staff Member

By R.B. Grossman, Research Soil Scientist,

NRCS, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln,

Nebraska. Prepared for presentation at an

upcoming meeting of the Soil Science Society of

America.

I

t is fitting that we have this

 commemoration in the Soil

Science Society because the political

support of Agricultural Experiment

Stations was vital in the early 1950s to

establishment of the current soil survey

program.

I joined the Federal soil survey in

1958 directly from graduate school. I

was one of several new Ph.D.’s hired in

the investigations group in the late

1950s and early 1960s. The intent was

to provide people for future leadership

positions. One of those hired was Klaus

Flach, who did rise to a major

management position. The objective of

hiring through the investigations group

was to increase Kellogg’s control of the

people from whom leadership would be

drawn in the future. The hiring

practices somewhat short-circuited the

personnel program in the Soil

Conservation Service.
8

NCSS Newsletter

The period from the 1950s to the

early 1960s was an active period. It

included the following activities:

• 1951—publication of the Soil Survey

Manual

• 1960—publication of the Soil Survey

of Louden County, Virginia (Porter and

others, 1960), which includes

nonagricultural interpretations

• 1956—400 surveys in progress using

standards of the Bureau of Soils

(Gardner, 1957)

• late 1950s—initiation of soilgeomorphology studies and an increase

in the number of soil survey

laboratories from one to three

• 1960—publication of the 7th

Approximation, Soil Taxonomy

These activities must be viewed

against the short time since the

conclusion of WWII in 1945. The

senior staff of the soil survey program

prior to WWII served in various

capacities during the war. Most were in

the military, but some conducted

trafficability studies as civilians. Most

returned to the soil survey program

after the war.

The soil survey program was fueled

by the money that became available

through the 1952 reorganization of the

USDA by Secretary of Agriculture

Brannan.1

 Brannan transferred all

personnel and funds of the Bureau of

Soil Survey (the organization headed by

Kellogg) to the Soil Conservation

Service (which had a competing soil

survey program) and made Kellogg

responsible for all soil survey activities

(Gardner, 1957). As a result, Kellogg

had more money and personnel than

when he was head of the Bureau of

Soils. The Soil Conservation Service of

the late 1950s was only 20 to 25 years

from its inception in the 1930s as a

well-funded agency (for the time) with

the mission of combating the

Depression. The funding in the early

1950s was enough to mount a much

larger effort in soil survey than would

have been possible by the Bureau of

Soils. Soil Conservation Service

surveys were called utilitarian as they

used interpretive property sets to

separate soils, whereas the criteria for

soil separation of the Bureau of Soils

were naturalistic with the taxonomic

principles having originated in Europe,

particularly Russia. Through Kellogg’s

leadership, this naturalistic approach

was installed throughout soil survey and

the prior utilitarian systematics were

replaced.

In the early to mid 1950s, Kellogg

established the organizational and

senior staff structure that remained in

place for much of the time until his

retirement. R.W. Hockensmith, who had

been in charge of the SCS utilitarian

soil survey, was Kellogg’s chief of staff.

People said that Hockensmith was the

representative of the SCS survey

program in Kellogg’s organization and

was not sympathetic to the technical

directions of the soil survey program. In

my contacts with him during meetings,

Hockensmith seemed to be moderating,

consensual, and gentle. R.W. Simonson

was in charge of correlation or perhaps

more accurately national systematics.

Simonson was a student of Kellogg in

North Dakota. He is a brilliant man

with strong verbal and writing skills.

A.A. Klingebiel managed the

interpretations effort. He came from the

prior Soil Conservation Service soil

survey, in which he had been a state soil

scientist and worked on documentation

of physical soil properties. Klingebiel

was extremely hard working. For a

number of years he spearheaded the

effort on nonagricultural interpretations.

G.D. Smith was in charge of

investigations. He hired R.V. Ruhe,

established a soil-geomorphology

program, and led the taxonomy effort.

L.T. Alexander ran the laboratories

under G.D. Smith.

The country was divided into five

regions, each of which had a Principal

Correlator. Kellogg’s control of the

senior technical program staff,

including the Principal Correlators and

the Washington staff, was exerted

through biannual meetings. The reports

of these meetings show the progression

of issues in the national soil survey

program. Kellogg chaired these

meetings, and Hockensmith acted as the

facilitator. At the end of this paper, I

have included a portion of one of

Kellogg’s statements concluding a

technical meeting. It shows the quality

of his writing.

Dr. Kellogg had a strong work ethic.

I think he drove his senior staff by

example. The meetings we attended

lasted for a full week and commonly

included evening sessions. There were

none of the sexist and racial jokes then

current in the Soil Conservation

Service. We gave formal reports, and he

personally provided criticism. These

reports had strong technical substance.

During several meetings, I presented

many ideas for changes in the 1951 Soil

Survey Manual which were

incorporated in the 1993 manual. Dr.

Kellogg was fair. Once, a Principal

Correlator gave a report showing

incomplete command of the material.

Dr. Kellogg publicly criticized the

person. Later, Kellogg apologized

before the meeting.

The whole senior staff had great

respect for science which I think came

from Kellogg’s influence. We young

Ph.D.’s were treated with warmth, and

our ideas were received at least

1 Secretary Brannan was the author of the

Brannan Plan of the Truman Administration, by

which farmers would produce to the maximum

and sell cheaply. People would have cheap food,

and the Government would make up the

difference by paying the farmers. The plan was

extremely controversial and was not adopted. It

is interesting to speculate on what the health of

our Nation might have been if the plan had been

adopted.
9

NCSS Newsletter

tactfully and often accepted. Senior

staff differed intellectually, but they all

respected scholarship. They wanted to

advance the technical program of soil

survey. Responsibility was given with

little attention to age or experience.

Here there was a similarity to the

German General Staff of WWII, in

which lower ranked officers with

special expertise were given major

responsibility. Some of the senior field

staff could be rather authoritarian with

field people, but they were not with the

young Ph.D.’s.

The most important example of

acceptance of innovation was the rapid

adoption by the senior field staff of the

new soil taxonomy developed largely

by G.D. Smith. The senior staff was

open to having the young Ph.D.’s

involved. An example is the basis for

recognition of clay skins, a feature of a

key diagnostic subsoil horizon in the

new taxonomy. Examination of thin

sections became the accepted basis for

clay skin recognition. As a result, the

new Ph.D.’s brought into the

laboratories became the arbiters of a

key property. An alternative would have

been to make recognition of clay skins

a field determination. The decision was

to make clay skins a laboratory

measurement and hence reduce the

authority of the field staff and enhance

that of the new Ph.D.’s, who could

make the thin section examination.

I have certain reservations about Dr.

Kellogg’s technical emphasis. These

reservations do not, however, pertain to

the core of soil survey activities—soil

mapping. One question is the lack of

agronomic concerns in interpretations.

Kellogg told us that he did not want to

be in competition with the Extension

Service. He had the interpretations

program emphasize engineering and the

related nonagricultural questions, which

kept us at a distance from the

agronomic programs of the Extension

Service. It was a time of rapid

suburbanization, and there was a strong

need for nonagricultural interpretations.

I think, however, that soil survey lost a

lot by not having a stronger agronomic

program. Another matter is the distance

between the skimpy information on soil

water in the 1951 Soil Survey Manual

and the SCS soil water program. At the

time of the reorganization, SCS was the

world leader in hydrology. The Curve

Number method (Haan et al., 1994) for

runoff estimation was developed by

SCS hydrologists. In 1952, as part of

the reorganization by Secretary

Brannan, the SCS hydrology program

was transferred to what is now ARS. In

the late 1940s and early 1950s, SCS ran

thousands of permeability

measurements and developed a system

of prediction based on soil morphology

(O’Neal, 1952). The sophistication of

permeability estimates then current in

SCS is absent from the 1951 manual.

The matter is larger. Measurement

generally was of much less importance

to the people central to the soil survey

than it was to the people involved in

taxonomy and other aspects of

systematics. Major parts of the soil

description protocols were simplistic as

pertains not only to water, as mentioned

earlier, but also to other properties.

Suppose 50 years ago we had initiated

penetration resistance measurements

and water state classes. Today, we

would have a large database for

quantification of consistence.

On the other hand, Kellogg was very

supportive of our work on linear

extensibility (LE), which is the change

of moist to dry fabric length divided by

the dry length. LE is ascertained by a

simple calculation from our natural clod

bulk density method. In 1959, Lindo

Bartelli told Kellogg of our early

fumbling attempts. Within a very few

months, the criterion was throughout

the soil survey. In passing, linear

extensibility measurements are the basis

for the Vertic taxa of soil taxonomy and

a number of interpretations. Perhaps the

method appealed so much to Kellogg

because of its inherent engineering

nature.

Sometime in the 1960s, Dr. Kellogg

asked us for suggested changes in the

1951 Soil Survey Manual. I was quite

full of myself and wrote a page or so,

single space. I got back a one-line

memo from Dr. Kellogg saying that

they did not plan to make major

revisions. In the 1970s and 1980s, I

spent much time on major revisions of

the 1951 manual in the areas of

consistence and water, areas that I had

written Dr. Kellogg about a decade or

so earlier.

I will conclude with a couple of

rather subjective comments and a

personal story.

Dr. Kellogg was supportive of the

New Deal. I think that this support went

deeper than his success in a

bureaucracy that had been created as

part of the New Deal. I think that he

intellectually supported the Left in the

U.S. Some of the senior field staff were

conservative, and there were comments

that Dr. Kellogg was of the Left. I

suspect that Dr. Kellogg knew he was

thought to be of the Left and modified

his statements accordingly. I thought

that Dr. Kellogg’s rolling speech had

some similarities to FDR, and I

remember once musing during a talk he

gave that he seemed to have modeled

himself to an extent on FDR.

Ed H. Templin was a senior

correlator. We both lived in Lincoln. Ed

kept pigeons, and I would occasionally

visit his home in the evening and watch

the pigeons. While so engaged, he once

told me that he aspired in the 1930s for

Dr. Kellogg’s job as Chief of the

Bureau of Soils. (He called Dr. Kellogg

“Charlie.”) Despite the competition, Ed

never had a negative personal word to

say about Dr. Kellogg. He, of course,

had disagreements on technical issues. I

think here is a window into the respect
10

NCSS Newsletter

that people had for Dr. Kellogg. A man

with desires in the past for Dr.

Kellogg’s job said nothing negative

about him.

Management in the early 1960s

wanted me to become head of the Soil

Survey Laboratory in Lincoln,

Nebraska. I declined. I was brought to

Washington to talk to Dr. Kellogg. We

had tea (he made it personally) and

spent several hours talking mostly

about literature, in particular the novels

of C.P. Snow, which I had recently been

reading. We did not really talk about

the position until the end of the

meeting, about the time I left. He asked

me if I was willing to be acting head for

a time. I said “Yes” and was the head of

the laboratory for the next 13 years. I

think that Dr. Kellogg decided to get

me to agree by indirection. I was

staying in Washington with L.T.

Alexander, the Chief of our three

laboratories. The next day at breakfast,

Dr. Alexander told me that Dr. Kellogg

had called in the evening. I had made a

very positive impression, and he was

particularly complimentary of my

language skills—a bit of a poet he said.

Such skills as I may have had

subsequently never mattered in my

dealings with senior administrators.

Following is an excerpt from the

summary of the 1963 soil survey

conference (Kellogg, 1963). The ideas

are, of course, excellent and more

intellectual than those of the next 40

years of my experience in the Federal

soil survey. There is also the sentence

pacing—a mixture of short and long

sentences. The short sentences act as a

kind of beat and spacing between the

denser, longer sentences:

We have had a good

conference here. These

conferences always lift my

morale. Some of us were

talking about the reasons this

morning. We hear a lot

nowadays of the importance of

inter-disciplinary conferences,

with economists and natural

scientists together, and groups

of natural scientists from

different disciplines. Yet we

must never fail to appreciate

that every scientist also needs

close communication with his

peers. Unhappily, I once had

to get quite well acquainted

with the Mayo Clinic. The

leaders explained that they

never set up a new department

of medicine or new

specialization unless they had

the finances to hire at least two

top people in that field. They

never had just one alone. Their

experience had shown that the

lone expert begins to become

overconfident or to lose

confidence if he has no one to

talk to at his level of

competence. I realize that

many of our soil scientists do

have rather lonesome

positions. It is important that

all of us have opportunities to

talk with our peers—with

people of nearly equal

competence and equal

responsibility.

Literature Cited

Gardner, D.R. 1957. The National

Cooperative Soil Survey of the

United States. Ph.D. Thesis.

Harvard University, Cambridge,

MA.

Haan, C.T., B.J. Barfield, and J.C.

Hayes. 1994. Design Hydrology

and Sedimentology for Small

Catchments. Academic Press, San

Diego, CA.

Kellogg, C.E. 1963. National Technical

Work Planning Conference of the

Cooperative Soil Survey. Summary

of the Conference.

O’Neal, A.M. 1952. The Key for

Evaluating Soil Permeability by

Means of Certain Field Clues. Soil

Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 16: 312-315.

Porter, H.C., and others. 1960. Soil

Survey Louden County, Virginia.

USDA, Soil Conservation Service,

Washington, D.C. 

A Well, a Book, and a

Prairie Dog Town

By Stanley P. Anderson, Editor, NRCS,

National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

I

n an article in Nebraska History

 entitled “Catherton Post Office”

(winter issue of 1973, pages 625-632),

Charles Wesley Cowley notes that the

home of Isaac Cowley (his father)

served as a post office from 1876 to

1887. The post office was located in

Batin Township (SW1/4 sec. 6, T. 3 N.,

R. 11 W.) rather than in Harmony

Township, which was renamed

Catherton Township (T. 3 N., R. 12

W.). After submitting new names and

having them rejected by Washington a

number of times, George P. Cather,

Willa Cather’s uncle, decided to name

the township after himself. George

Cather homesteaded a couple of miles

to the west (sec. 2, T. 3 N., R. 12 W.),

and Willa spent some of her childhood

years on her grandparents’ farm (NE1/4

sec. 22, T. 3 N., R. 12 W.) before her

parents moved to Red Cloud, about 9

miles south and 5 miles east of the

grandparents’ farm and 2 miles north of

the Republican River. The homestead

locations specified in this paragraph are

shown in figure 1.

Well

In his reminiscence, Charles Wesley

Cowley, noting the scarcity of water in

the area, describes (on page 627) how

his father hired a man to dig a well on a

hilltop on their farm, which was on the
11

NCSS Newsletter

Figure 2.—Diagram of association 1 (the Hastings-Hord-Holdrege association) in the Soil Survey

of Webster County, Nebraska.

R. 12 W. R. 11 W.

T. 4 N.

T. 3 N.

divide between the Little Blue and

Republican Rivers:

. . . there was a lot of fellas

wandering around looking for

jobs, so it was easy to hire

help. But they was out there

like babes in the woods.

Nobody had any idea how far

it was to water up there on the

top of the hill, so father made

this kind of a bargain with the

guy: He was to pay him 20

cents a foot for each foot that

he dug, but if he tried to quit

before he got water, he wasn’t

to have anything; if father

stopped him, father was to pay

for all the man had dug. The

man that was digging, he got

down about thirty-forty feet.

He begin to want to squeal out.

I guess father reminded him of

their bargain; anyway he kept

on. He got down eighty feet

before they struck sand. Of

course they had a couple of

men to work on it because they

had to curb the well the rest of

the way down. . . . Finally,

when they had about eighty

feet of curbing in, they struck

water—160 feet to water from

the top.

Figure 2 indicates that the Hastings

soils in association 1 are underlain by

Pleistocene sand and gravel. The site

for the well is probably in an area of

Hastings silt loam, 0 to 1 percent

slopes, map symbol Hs (fig. 3).

According to the Soil Survey of Webster

County, Nebraska (1974), a significant

acreage of this soil is irrigated by water

drawn from deep wells (page 17). Also,

the supply of water for pump irrigation

in the region north of the Republican

River is “uncertain” (page 68), some

areas having “no water-saturated sands

and gravel” and other areas having sand

and gravel at a depth of 50 feet or

Figure 1.—The northwest corner of the general soil map in the Soil Survey of Webster County,

Nebraska (1974).
12

NCSS Newsletter

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex,

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or 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, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW,

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

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

more. Depth to “the static water level”

is as much as 200 feet.

According to the official series

description, the Hastings series consists

of very deep, well drained soils that

formed in silty loess on uplands.

Typically, the surface layer is slightly

hard, friable silt loam 6 inches thick.

The next 8 inches is slightly hard,

friable silty clay loam. The upper part

of the subsoil is hard, firm silty clay

loam 23 inches thick, and the lower part

is slightly hard, friable silty clay loam

11 inches thick. Below this to a depth

of 80 inches is soft, friable silt loam.

Book and Prairie Dog Town

The book is Willa Cather’s My

Antonia (1918), and the prairie dog

town is described in the novel (book 1,

chapters 4 and 7). In chapter 4, Jim

Burden describes trips in which he (a

boy about 10 years old) and Antonia (3

or 4 years older than Jim) ride his horse

Dude north of his grandparents’ farm to

a prairie dog town, where they observe

not only the prairie dogs but also earthowls, which nest underground with the

prairie dogs, and where Jim and

Antonia have to watch out for

rattlesnakes. The prairie dog town is

upslope from a draw, in an area far

away from any creek or pond. It is

about 10 acres in size.

 Otto Fuchs, who works as a hired

hand for Jim’s grandfather, says that he

has seen well-populated prairie dog

towns in desert areas 50 miles from any

surface water and claims that some of

the holes in the towns “hereabouts”

extend almost 200 feet to water.

Antonia says that she does not believe

him.

In chapter 7, Jim and Antonia decide

to dig into one of the holes in the town.

Jim notes that there are “little patches

of sand and gravel” that the prairie dogs

“scratched up, we supposed, from a

long way below the surface.” In places

there are “larger gravel patches, several

yards away from any hole.” Jim has to

use his spade to kill a rattlesnake

(called “the biggest snake I had ever

seen” and “a circus monstrosity”)

lurking on “one of those dry gravel

beds.” Antonia is impressed with Jim’s

courage on this occasion.

 If, as is likely, the prairie dog town

is based on a real town from Cather’s

own childhood, it would have to be

located in an area where the deposit of

loess is much thinner than the loess in

which the Hastings soils formed and the

sand and gravel are much closer to the

surface. According to Grzimek’s

Encyclopedia of Mammals (1990),

prairie dogs dig to a maximum depth of

about 16 feet (vol. 3, page 54).

Coda

Grzimek’s Encyclopedia of

Mammals indicates that the purely

vegetarian diet of prairie dogs is

dominated by grasses (vol. 3, page 56).

Their food provides the water that they

need. Meriwether Lewis was among the

first to observe that prairie dogs can

survive without water. In The Journals

of the Lewis and Clark Expedition,

volume 4 of the Moulton edition (pages

183-184), Lewis describes “a large

assemblage” of prairie dogs that he

observed on May 23, 1805, in northcentral Montana, noting that, in this and

other areas along the Missouri, they:

. . . never visit the brooks or

river for water; I am

astonished how this anamal

exists as it dose without water,

particularly in a country like

this where there is scarcely

any rain during 3

/4 of the year

and more rarely any due

[dew]; yet we have sometimes

found their villages at the

distance of five or six miles

from any water, and they are

never found out of the limits of

the ground which their

burrows occupy.

Lewis could have provided Antonia

a basis for disbelieving Otto’s claim

that prairie dogs dig as much as 200

feet for water. 

Figure 3.—Part of map sheet 13 in the survey

of Webster County. The Catherton post

office was in the SW1/4 of section 6 in

Batin Township. The map symbol Hs is

for Hastings silt loam, 0 to 1 percent

slopes.