The patron of husbandry. (Columbus, Miss.) 1875-1883, 1880-06-19
Mr. mcAfae,s system .


Mr.. McAfee, published some weeks
ago, having attracted good deal OF
I hoped that some one
well qualified to handle the subject
would reply to them, but as no one
else seems disposed to tackle him l
desire to point out some of his theo-
retical errors.
His practice is substantially that
of the best corn growers l ever
knew and do not propose to assail
that; but his theories and conclu-
sions are in many points at variance
with modern Agricultural science.
Jethro Tull, who invented horse
cultivation one hundred and eighty
years ago, taught that the perpetual
fertility of the soil was secured by
frequent and thorough blowing. 1t
is now a moral certainty that Iull
was wrong, but it is not equally
certain that McAfee is right when
he asserts, as the first principle of
agriculture, that blowing deterio-
rates the soil. Mr.. M. tries to prove
the assertion by two other, viz: that
the fertilizing properties of land are
gases, and that the direct action of
the sun extracts these gases. He
adduces no proof of these assertions
except the fact that the land
changes color after blowing, and
begs the question by assuming that
it is self evident that change of
color is loss of fertility. He says
there are three agents equally de-
structive to the fertility of the soil,
viz: fire, the tramping of cattle, and
blowing.
| presume these items will be a
sufficient text to base my first arti-
Gle upon. ''Plowing deteriorates
the soil" If this is true, Mr.. M. is en-
titled to the credit of the discovery.
No citation of authorities is admis-
sable in this case, as he denies
them all, and stakes his opinion
against the theory and practice of
four thousand years, therefore for
the present, we will pass over this
point.
''The fertilizing properties of the
land are gases" and "the direct
action of the sun extracts these
gases" AS Mr.. M is treating of
agriculture as science, he should
refrain from making such a loose
statement as to what constitutes fer
tility. 1t is as indefinite as the old
alchemist's catalogue of the ele-
ments-air, earth, fire and water.
While this gentleman is on the
stand, perhaps he will prove more
than Mr.. M. wants him to. 4 am
glad Mr. M called him in, for he
will hardly deny what his own wit
ness says. The chemist tells us that
fertility in soil, instead of consist
ing of gases, as Mr.. M. asserts, is
dependent on the existence in the
soil of ten distinct elements, six of
which are solids. These ten ele-
ments must not only exist in the
fertile soil, but they must exist in
forms which are soluble or available
to the plant, and the absence or in
solubility of any one of these ele-
ments constitutes barrenness. And
these elements, with the exception
of three, are almost universally sup
piled by all soils. Nitrogen, phos-
phorus and potassium are all fire.
quently lacking, and all direct fer
tilizers owe their potency to their
containing one or more of these
elements. The only element of
which the soil can be deprived to
its injury by sunshine and air, is
nitrogen, in the gaseous forms of
ammonia and nitric acid. 1t is
fully established that ammonia does
escape, but the amount is very
trifling. The analysis of soil, which
Mr.. M. calls for, has been made
great many times and proves any
thing but what he wants to prove.
DIR. Johnson, to whom the agri-
cultural world owes a debt of graft
tude, in "How Crops Feed" sums
up the results of series of expert
ments and analyses thus:
'The operations of tillage which
promote the access of air to the
deeper portions of earth, must also
favor the formation of nitrates.''
Again he says, atmospheric air
and the perosity of soil which in.
sure its contact with the particles of
the latter, are indispensable to nitri-
fcation"
Further comment on Mr.. Ms
first, second, and third assertions is
Now, for the next assertion, that
when the damper soil below is
turned up to the surface by the
plow, and on drying changes color,
it is self-evident that it has lost fer
tility. | can hardly think of any
damp porous substance that does
not change color by drying, but it
does not follow that its properties
materially change from the loss of
water. Now, work the rule the
other way. Take handful of cot
ton seed meal and throw it on the
damp earth. Directly the color of
the meal changes from light yellow
to deep orange. Does it there
fore follow that the meal has ac-
CURED greater fertilizing power
because it has absorbed a little
moisture?
Mr.. M. also asserts that fire and
the tIamping of cattle are destruct-
i've to the fertility of the soil.
| would be glad if all my neigh
bors would haul their trash on to