New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1859-10-31
NEW PUBLICA21O-VS.
- ~, uonrRN AGRICULTURE.

.S.nt,d 10 The American Farmers f'nc Pr |''
John Wiley.
m cultivation Of the soil, though, Of course,
A.. oldest of all arts has in its general practice
hem less Influenced by the teachings OF SCIENCE
nan any other art of general Importance. From
Cain TO Jethro Tul, no farmer seems to have
luown Of any fundamental principle on which 10
Ease an improved system Of culture Ancient
,;tsrs have recorded maxims and recipes of prac-
tee which are Of value only az anTqunrlan curos-
lies Tull, reasoning from false principles, be-
Eexed that the only desirable end in agriculture
.os the reduction of the soil 10 that state OF ne
.hanical pulyerzation which would admit of IFS
entrance into the feeding mouths Of the roots OF
ul,nts. The processes recommended by him greatly
increased the immediate productive power OF the
anil. but his theory goes for naugbt although
thorough manipulation of the soil is still one OF the
chief processes of improved agriculture. 1t is
hardly longer ago than the commencement OF TINS
century, that any note taken Of those chemica
changes and combinations which constitute the
vrovth of plants and Agricultural Chemistry as
mmed form only under the hand Of Sir Humphrey
Davy, who in 1902 commenced course OF lectures
on the subject under the auspices Of the Board Of
Agriculture Of Great Britain. The ball once set in
motion, it was tossed about, among the chemists
and Psychologists OF Europe, until it accumulated
80 many false theories, and inculcated 30 mary
false teachings, that book farming acquired bad
reputation. which has beentransutted almost with
out modification 10 the traditionary farmers Of our
swn time.
No real progress Of practical value was made un
n IL. Sol k,,r,.
Chemistry in which he calculated many points
which had previously been developed in doubt;
demonstrated the fasity Of some of the theories OF
his predecessors, and established others on which
modern agricultural science is based. This work
was great success. Not only did it set forth
uapy of the true chemical relations between soil,
air, and plant, and thus pave the way for further
discovery; but it aroused such spirit of opposi-
ton and gave such an impetus to Investigations
and discussions, as have added much to the expert
mental knowledge of agriculture, and raised IT from
the position of rude art TO that of a cOmprehen-
Iye science The leading features of the work
were the following:
First: A refutaton of the old "humus theory"
and the assertion that plants do not obtain carbon
directly from the vegetable matter (humus) in the
soil but only from carbonc acid received through
their leaves or roots and decomposed in the plant.
Second: That ammonia exists in the atmosphere,
ard is not an essential element of manure-It being
supplied by the water of rains, which absorbs 1t
from the atmosphere and carries it to the so-and
that if all of the minerals which the plant requires
for its growth are available to its roots, it will
grow without the addition of ammonia in the form
of manure; while on the other hand no matter
how much ammonia is applied as manure, if the
soil lack anyone of the mineral substances which
the plant requires for its growth Gas potash or
hme), it cannot grow at all; for the soil is the only
natural source of these minerals, aud the missing
ingredient must be artifcally supplied before the
soil uir produce pients
Third: That every vegetable yields, an incinera
ton, greater or less quantity of ASH that this ash
is Of different composition in different plants tina
II is all derived from the soil, and that the Who'll
amount removed by the plant (or the equivalent o
that amount must be- returned TO the soil before it,
total amount of paut-food can be- rs large it was
before the plant Was grown.
These main principles yielded numerous progeny,
in the form of deductions theories aud suggestions.
\ Some of these were clearly and some obscurey
stated. While the whole civilized world was profit
ing by the valuable suggestions, critical exper-
imenters busy with every real or apparent
fault of Liebigs work, exaggerating his statements,
and classifying his positions. For fifteen years he
made no reply, and Nouchsafed no explanation.
While many of the European and American jour
mails were heapipg rdicue ON I" thu Mineral Theory
"Of Liebig,' he was quietly pursuing his nvestiga-
tons in animal chemistry, paying little or no aten-
ton to the discussion.
Finally, Mr.. Lawes of England Published the re-
suts of long series of experiments which had been
conducted by him with great regard TO details, aud
which seemed to him to disproye the celebrated
"mneral theory" Liebig deemed this fitting
opportunity for general settlement of the question,
and be wrote a very capital little work, entitled
"The Principles of Agricultural Chemistry" prov
Ing tina, he never held the reputod Mineral
Theory" that Lawess experiments exactly prove
the theory of mineral fertilization which he had
advanced; and that they entirely oppose the theory
which Mr. Lawes based upon them.
1t is in this work that Lcbig sets forth his cce-
brated Fifty Propositions" which embody n
statement of the present condition Of Agricultural
Chemistry These propositions lie sums up in the
following words: " The nutrition, the growth, and
the development of plant depend on the assimls-
ton of certain bodies. which act by virtue of their
mass or substance. This action is within certain
limits, directly proportional TO the mass OF quantity
OF these substances, and inyerSey proportional to