The herald., 1895-07-11

Australian Navels Grown Without Fertilizer
! consider myself infallible. Those who.
instead. are willing to spend their money
indiscriminately on complete fertilizers,
are certainly welcome to do SO, if they
find it profitable; but certainly the cor
rect principle is to make use OF all the
n, cans in our possession to solve these
complex questions. and they cannot be
determined by fertilizer tests on virgin
ground like that Of the experimental cul-
ture stations. fully supplied with plant
food. l therefore persist in the hope and
recommendation that experiments be
made in the relatively old orange groves
OF Riverside, not pr0miscuously and un.
system atically and in haste to jump at
conclusions. but with due regard to what
experience has shown to be the only CO.
gent mode Of procedure, in agricultural
experimentation"
As the article above referred to by Prof.
Hilgard appeared simultaneously in The
Herald with the Cultlvatoi, we undertake
to answer Prof. Hilgard in these COL
urnns.
1t is a pity that the director of our
agricultural station, instead of using ar
guments. should resort to pettifogging,
ana merely 'abuse the attorney on the
other side;' but that has always been
the way when there vas no defense.
When the professor says that he gives
the results of his analysis for comparison
with mine, and holds them up as COM
parable, he is mistaken, as reference to
the table will show.
In the test plat referred to there was
number of Australian navels an entirely
different orange from the Washington
parison or conclusion drawn between the
results reached with each variety. Each
tub must stand on its own bottom.
The only conclusion that can be made
frsm the above table is that the analysis
shows the utter uselessness of soil anal
must be applied to particular crops.
My analysis shows that with the Wash
ington navel a complete fertilizer pro-
duced the best results. and that potash
and phosphoric acid produced the second
best results; whereas. Prof; Hilgard's
analysis with the Australian navels
showed that all manures were. positively
damage. Now if Prof Hilgard had been
advising the use of any fertilizer based
upon a soil analysis. # Is plain to SEQ
that he would have missed the mark once
out of two shots on the different crops
the Australian and Washington navel.
good guessing for scientific man.
We produce below q cut of some Aus
tralian navels that have never been fertil-
lied, and judging from analogy OF work
done with this fruit in the matter Of
feeding it we shall produce good trees,
merchantable fruit on the very trees
that this year produced perfectly worth
less fruit.
In paragraph three Prot. Hilgard tries
to throw doubt on my analysis by show
ing that had "from one to over two per
cent more sugar alone than of total SOL
ids" This is the only argument IN the
whole of Prof. Hilgard's long effusion,
and would be fatal to all my work. were
it true as the doctor intends it but the
solid contents of juice by spiracle was
given in terms OF the Beamire scale,
whereas the sugar was given in terms of
percentages in the Juice. In order to fully
show the consistency Of Prof. Hilgard's
argument. we place a portion of what he
says In paragraph five In the deadly par
allel column with what he says IN par
agraph eight.
s. "I consider hsI 8. ''I therefore per-
(Dr. Woodbridges) Sc sist in the hope aud
ries, as well as that Recommendation that
made at this station, as experiments be made
OF very little definitelin the relatively old
value in showing the orchards Of Riverside"
best kind of fertilizers
to be applied even in
grove"
f. If the professor considers the tests
made OF very little definite value. why
does he persist in the hope and recon-
mendation that similar experiments be
made at Riverside?