The Emporia news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1859-1881, 1861-10-19
wHEAT-cnowrNG.
A SLIGHT REVIEW OF "CoUNTRYMAN'S
REPLY
WArER1oo. Oct. bal, 1851.

- OL1O M hEN4G " OE WIN n 4 HAN =
WATERLOO, Oct. II, 1861.
EDITOR News: In the first place, Bro.
Baker, you complain of the paragraph that
Wheat growing cannot be properly dis
cussed without considering to some extent
the laws by which plants germinate," de-;
and then rudely hint at the want of edifying
matter contained in my article-leaving you
sin Theathenish Darkness" las before. }
You again fling the gauntlet. by saying /:
Had he told us something about the prop
critics of these elements. and their relation to
vegetable lie; the source of these elements
of plants; the form in which these elements
Mark. .'these clements Would not a
few pronOuns make your article a little
more readable?] enter into the circulation of
plants; absorption of ammonia b. plants;
structure and functions of the several parts
of plants, functions of the roots; the course
of the sap, ETC., instead of grand flourish
of technical terms, I could have read his
article with great deal of profit and pleas
ure, aud saved myself the trouble of pen
ming this reply" Now, the reason why /
did not enter into the discussion of the
properties of the four elements of which
wheat is composed, is, that partial synop-
sis even, of either, would have occupied an
entire page of THE News; and besides, it
seemed to be irrelevant.
Again: ''Strip his article of the II. 2's.
&C., and what have we left? A batch of
sophistry from beginning to end" Now,
Bro. Baker, permit me TO say that such
gross expressions usually proceed from men
who go to bed with dirty feet; but as |
know you TO be man Of clearly habits, it
is hardly fair to infer that you belong to
that barbarous class of the uncircumcised.
The II. 2's and o. 3's of which you com
plain, are the alphabet of chemical science.
Aud while knew that the masses of farm
ers, for which the al ticle was written, had
not made agricultural chemistry matter
of special investigation, yet few would be
interested in probing the subject in the light
of exact science. These chemical symbols
H. O. for water H. standing for hydro
gen, and o. for oxygen), Fe.', o., for iron
rust, &C., are to chemistry what the al
phabet is to the word, the sentence, the
discourse.
1t is quite easy to indulge in ridicule
where writer has no other capital, save
perhaps few fossilzed tables which the
statute of limitations has barred. 1t is
equally easy to so misconstrue my article
as to make me assume knowledge superior
to various standard authors. The reader,
however, will see at glance that it con
tanned no euoh assumption.
And now, Bro. Baker, alias County
man," to your tables, which you say are
from man by the name of Sprengle. You
lift your hands in utter amazement at my
simple statement that wheat, in round
numbers, contains 8 per cent. of ashes. l
repeat the assertion, Notwithstanding your
Sprengle table. But perhaps you might be
edited by little authority besides my own.
The eminent German chemist. Stockhardt,
whose text books are in every college in
America, and whose fame is world wide, is
at this time in the prime of life. and as an
authority has never been questioned. He
publishes this statement: "In 100 lbs. Of
grains of wheat, there are from to 3 lbs.
of ash. [See Chemical Field Lectures,
page 81. In wheat straw, from A to 5
lbs" Now, if understand the meaning
of per cent, it is three pounds in the huo-
drcd. So much for tables.
Again, see the same work, page IA: Ii
/ 900 lbs. of wheat straw, there are 81 lbs.
OF silica or sand.
You assert that, according to ''Sprengle,"
l 900 lbs. wheat straw contains about 80 lbs.
Now, suppose your author is right, and mine
wrong-iG does not affect the N ain point
discussed, viz, whether the soil of South
ern Kansas lacks potash and sand. And
here, Bro. Baker, you and are left without
the authority of books. Have You, in this
absence of authority, any facts to back up
your assertion that this soil does not lack
these two ingredients? Have you the
chemicals, apparatus, and chemical knowl
edge, TO make the analysis? If SO, pray go
to work and give the farmers of Breckin
ridge the results of your labors. On the
contrary, if you should prove to be now
ice in ehemistry-destitute of apparatus
and chemical tests, would most respect
fully suggest that you become a little more
sparing Of your fat contradictions, until
some of the above conditions are answered.
The reader will remember that there is no
way of aseertaining what soil may con-
tain. without chemical analysis; and if
there had been any reliable authority upon
this subject. the writer would gladly have
avoided the use of his own name in this