Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-02-11

10000
What other conclusion, 1 ask, can be arrived at
than that he took one hundred grains for Analysis?
1t is true he does not say whether the whole estimate
is to be understood as meaning one hundred grains
hundred per cents, but the inference is think
very clear that he intended the amount for Analysis
to be understood one hundred grains. And would
ask if some definite quantity is not used in the An
alysis, how is the farmer to know whether the fig
intended to represent certain number Of
grains certain per cent? With regard to the
three onehundredths of grain per cent of phos-
phoric acid say again it cannot be obtained in the
way which Prof II. indicates. There are, know,
balances in existence which are said to weigh the
small fractional parts mentioned by the Professor,
but have never the process performed, and
have visited too complete Analy tica Laborato
ries than the hear is to be established at
ourUnversty. The loss made by ProfH. is, he says,
in way remarkable By reference to Analyses
made by different Chemists the loss will sometimes
be found more and sometimes less. OF this part of
his reply propose to speak again before bring
this article to Close and wish your readers to bear
it in mind
"But have not classified the SOIL and therefore
DR.. Tompkns argues that the Analysis is incorrect.
Now he must know that the classification of a soil
belongs to its examination, and not to its analysis.
There is no need of any farmer calling in Chemist
to classify soil; many do it very readily from sim
pie inspection"
If understand Prof Hedrick, it must belong to
the farmer to examine his soil after the Analysis is
furnished him. and this is the only way in which
account for his leaving Mr.. Siler to examine his
soil after he made the Analysis for him. But admit
ting that such the fact, how ask could Mr. ST.
Ter say to what class his soil belonged when the very
means for obtaining information was refused when
the silica and alumna, (he sand and clay) because
insoluble, not separated? If it is not import
ant that the Analytical Chemist should know how to
classify soils, why is it the that Prof Johnston
lays down in his lectures upon Agricultural Chems-
try certain rules by which the student is to be gov
erned in classifying soils, and at the time shows
what quantity of the different earths are required in
soil to place it in each of these classes? But when
Prof II. fails to separate the different salts of lime
and potash in his Analysis, can it be wondered at
that he has the nsouble sand and clay?
That part of the reply which 1 regard as the most
vulnerable is this: DR. Tompkns contends that no
farmer in the State with few exceptions would know
what required to renovate Mr.. Silers soil after
looking at the Analysis. All have to say in reply
is, that Mr. Siler wanted the Analysis and made it
for him." repeat what said in my first letter,
that but few farmers in North Carolina could from
examination of the Analysis of Mr. Siler's soil, tell
what it needed for its renovation and do not make
this statement without many instances in view to
warrant the declaration. 1 fully agree with c. P,
who published these two Analyses made by Prof H.,
that Analyses of soils matters of public interest
to us, North Carolinians, and this, if other,
would be a very strong reason why these Analyses
should be made and published in such manner that
our farmers could their practical operation upon
the farming interest of the State This has not been
done in the of the two Analyses referred to- and
hence it is that farmers making such frequent
enquiries about them. If Prof II. did not make any
urIuer e8panaton OF TINS Analysis to Mr.. Ser than
has been done in its publication will venture to say
that he is not much wiser if any, than he was before
it was furnished; and if an explanation was made
to him, Mr. Ser, why should it not have been given
to the public when the Analysis was publshedP
will give an Analysis of soil made by Sir Hum
phrey Davy, who may be said to be the pattern of
Agricultural Chemistry, with the remarks in relation
to its condition.
Specimen taken from hop garden in Kent, Eng
land; quantity operated upon 400 grains:
Grains
l: Water of absorption 10
q Loose stones and gravel, principally sill
q cious, SO
8. Vegetable fibre, (undecomposed,) IA
4. Fine sicious sand 212
5. Minutely divided matter, 81
& Gr's
6. Containing carbonate of lime, 10
z. Carbonate of magnesia, s
g. Matter destructble by heat,
principally vegetable, 10
9. Silica, 81
10. Alumina, 10
H. Oxide of iron,
H. Soluble matter, principally