Iowa capitol reporter. [volume] (Iowa City, Iowa) 1841-1855, 1853-12-07
From the Wisconsin and Iowa Farmer.
Soils.

1t is stated in one of our eychan-
ges, that Mr.. Dana, of Lowell, Mass.
in the course Of some years chemi-
cal experience, collected the results
OF more than four hundred ANALYSES
Of soil from the northern part of the
country. BY these analyses it ap-
pears that the rich soils of the Scioto
Valley, Ohio, which gave without the
least difficulty, from seventy to eigh-
ty bushels Of corn per acre, do not
differ materially in their inorganic or
mineral constituents, from those
which in Massachusetts, are distin
gnished for their sterility. saa
1t would seem then, that if there
was no difference in their inorganic
composition, that the organic parts
might easily enough be furnished
from the barn yard; yet, twenty barn
yards might De emptied on one field,
and the Massachusetts lands could
not be made to yield the OHIO quota
of corn; or, in other words, soils of the
same composition precisely, so far as
analysis can decide, will not produce
the like crops. The chemist must be
sent for!
We find the above article in the
PRAIRIE FARMER for August, and as
we think it has a tendency, whether
deslgnedly Or not, to give a preiudi-
cial view of the value ofchemical re.
search in its bearings upon Agricul-
ture, we wish to say a few words in
regard to the matter, and, as we hope
put it in the righ light.
The history Of the case is Just this:
In 1851, Mr.. David A. Wells, ofCam-
bridge, Mass. competent chemist
and analyzer, was employed by the
Board OF Agriculture of OHIO, to ex-
anime and report ON the nature and
composition of the soils ofthat State. !
In the July No, 1852 Of Silliman's
Journal OF Science and arts, will be
found paper by Mr.. Wells, respec-
ting the soils ofthe Sciota Valley, in
which he uses nearly the Ian guage
OF the first paragraph above, with an
important addition, viz: ain what
then, is there a reason for their diff.
ference in value to be found2r and
replies" It cannot be in the attri-
hutcs in.Shich they agree, which are
their mineral consti.uents-buti in the
attributes in which they differ; and
these are the amount and the ,ondi-
ton OF the organic matter contained
IN the soils, and the Jacness of Ne;,.
elementary particles. The first. and
perhaps most interesting fact noticed
in the examination of these soils. was
the remarkable degree Of faeness of
their constituent particles." "This re
markable combination of the parti-
cles of these soils gives us at once a
clue to the secret of their great fertil-
ity. With this fneness an increased
power is given to soil for the alb
sorption, retention and condensation
OF moisture, car bonic acid and am
monia, an opportunity for the free
formation OF atmospheric air, facil
ity to the roots of plants for extern
sion, and a consequently increased
facility for receiving and appropria-
ting nourishInent." From the above
extracts from Mr.. Wells paper it is
easy to see why twenty barn yards
might be emptied on one field" and
yet mot be made to yield the Ohio
quota of corn The simple fact that
food for the plant is present in the
soil, is not sufficient to secure the
growth of the crop. 1t must be in a
condition to be reached and to be ia ,
ken up by the plant. Cattle aaay
grow poor Oh shiei: oats, but will GER
'alnly thrive on oat meal. :
1t has long been a well-known fact :
that two soils which contain exactly $
Lhe same constituents, ~, and uaN !