Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-08-20

either Of which cases the anss is useless because II
tells an xntruh and forms an unsOund rather wholly
unreliable basis for calculation. Let examine more
narrowly how far what may be called tOeraby correct
analysis may be relied
Akal lime, phosphoric sulphurc, and muriate acids
ammonia and organic matter are generally regarded a.
the fertzng constituents or these uphuric acid and
lime Including magnesia may be determined WITH sum
Gent accuracy especially lime, which 10 often present 70
the Of several per cent The exact
Of chlorine FOR muriac acd) Is often mpeded from the
accompanying organic matter and the volatility Of chic
-ides during evaporation. would regard differences
IRA n the data both OF suphuric and muriatc acids
s ,sasa - md farming practice. The precise amount
80 nai = asce, aimed with difficulty, and the ans unit
qyen in analyses must b. looked upon with some dtrus
unless the quantity is unusua large suicent 70 over
balance the Of saaiysls We can ascertain with
considerable nicely the am0It OF organic matter but
Of what avail is that knowledge! are the remaining
halfdecomposed ro6tets and organized poI."ns tuose
which give fertility 10 soil, or is that very unkIow
humus body, soluble in alka aud reprecpitable by
acid? This last idea being yet mere conjecture
may summarly dismiss the determination Of organic mat
ter OF immediate practical utility to the farmer.
OF Ill the minute constituents in SOIL alka potash
and phosphorus acid generally regarded the great
Of fertility and yet these two precisely the
obstinate impediments to the accurate analysis Of
soils Their precise estimation is attended with difficulty
under nearly all circumstances and peculiarly where
their total amount falls below per cent as in soils
1t may be fairly questioned whether the small fraction of
per cent OF phosphorc acid which usually returned
in soil analyses may often be due to of analysis
or be far above below the amount viii assert
that accurate and candid chemist declare with
confidence and truth that he has ever deterined in
soil the exact amount of this pest Of - .. -
ina, aoi. wnen IN cohJunctoh win alum
-. IS most likely to be to become in the analysis
of Soils still avowedy imperfect in the hands Of the
best analytical chemists There is not much conf
dence put in the precise estimation Of potassa in
very minute quantity.
1t would appear then that Of all the ferzng ingre
dients Of soil lime can be estimated accurately, but
that the precise amounts Of the others cannot be given
with confidence, while the determination Of the most inn
portant the least reliable of ALL 1t is therefore
strong conclusion to say that the present practical value
of the analysis of soils consists in ascertaning how much
lime they contain. Since inferior analyses have been
left out of altogether and only what may be termed
good analyses held under consideration their useessness
rather derment to the farmer cannot be too strongly
depicted
s. There is confrmatory argument against the prac-
teal value Of soil analysis which has been clearly
forth by Major j. F. Lee of Washington that take the
liberty Of quoting his letter to the subject We
know that all poor land proper texture, the appli
cation CT 200 lbs of guano to the will produce fair
crops Of grain and And this is the difference be-
tween barren and toleraby fertile SOIL Now this guano
applies only lbs potash q lbs phosphoric acid and
81 lbs. ammonia. But the contains 800 600 lbs.
of soil, Ito the depth of foot Can analysis now, viii
it in any progress may reasonably expect to make,
ascertain part Of potash in 100000 parts of foreign
matter, part Of phosphorc acid in 10000 parts of
foreign matter, or part of ammonia in 100000" 1t
may answered without the slightest fear of conrado
ton that such determinations greatly be3Pnd the
continue So will presently inquire, but the argument is
strong against the present value Of analysis applied to
soils.
g. Another and fear greater objection to the imme-
date value of soil analyses is the difficulty Of ascertain
ing how much what part of soil should be analysed
Sells consist Of mineral and organic matter in
less commnuted state. Suppose that ultimate auay-
sis madc upon fair average Of SOIL ground to the
finest powder: would il express the fertile value of the
soil during the time look for remunerave crops? If
besides finely commnuted matter it contained gravel or
| eos III usfop
Sc. how long time will be required for the dsregration
Of the coherng mineral masses far to allow plants
to extract the aka &c which they ask for? Even if
we make previous mechanical separation of the very
fine from the matter and subject only the former
analysis who would be presumpuous as to predict
hax much this ne matter would disnterra+e and Weld
s rich stores to the hEsbandman in the course of one or
r1ore years, Of century? The farmer would
doubtless prefer knowing how much benefit he is to reap
IN his lifetime than to leave IL to posterity in f
n. iture of uncertain length.
Guided by these considerations in the analysis of soils
employed water slightly acdusted with acid, extract
;. the ferzng ingredients suPposing that my analy
would thereby express the potential qualities Of III
e soil. / now, however thoroughly conyincet
that in present ignorance Of the of decomposi
ton OF mineral aggregates from atmospheric influence
and from culture such assumptions and of course the
deduced differences, merely coniectEral The farme
has enough TO centend with in varying seasons the de
c. predaons of insects, &c. without bssng his r-actc
X upon conjecture.
e Z Assuming that we co1ld obtain fair average Of
soil from field, that could Gnayrc it with accuracy
mineral aggregates would yield up their Of
, ty, would such knowledge assist in determining how
much OF the several active ingredients wanting
der that soil fertile? Can any presume assert in
# the present state Of our knowledge how much each kind
Of plant demands to insure it's luxarance or productive
ness From the observed effects Of guano bones ashes
l. lime, and green sand, well from the analyses
It ashes Of plants il is fair infer that ammonia phospho
rc acid potassa and lime possess fertizng qualities bu
the numerical measure Of their value is hypothetical
n not conectura Much OF what we term our knowledge
on this subject is idea floating in the region Of bypo
thesis; and until II aghts upon the ground and can b
Of handled with some degree Of certainty by weight ant
measure, the practical farmer would do well to keep
his werodden paths OF practice and rather be content
with the accumuang experience Of practical trials
TO depend upon the results OF analysis
at When lime is applied land why is it that one kind Il
found to produce much than anotherg II Is GER
tanly merely because magnesia is present in larger
proportion in than in another BY far the greater
portion Of the lime applied 10 the soil in the United States
contains notable quantities of magnesia Il il because
Vi the land has already been saturated with lime This
c has not yet been proved by facts May il not be t
a one kind Of limestone contains aika or pospor,
acid than another although in exceedingly minute
titles? Their presence in metoncs has been only re
Gently demonstrated and the question cannot therefore
e be answered positively These questions are oiferec
II merely to show that lime from observation of III
value and not from absolute knowledge Of the cause
e its ferizng effects.
In wood-ash is it aka phospboric sulphuric acid
e lime that constitutes its active principle? Ii
guano does ammonia phosphorc acid give its chief fer
r izng character? Does phosphoric acid act withou
reference to the base with which IL Is united whether 20
tassa lime maguesia ammonia Does sulphuric aciC
act with greater poence in combination with alkali OF
4 with lime? In general, Is it Of inferior moment in what
t. combination fartiiiziD0 hodv