The herald., 1896-08-22
Preposterous Pretcnsions Exposed

The worthlesness of Prof. T.. w. Hill
CARDS pretensions, that he could tell
what plant foods were necessary from
an analysis of the soil are shown up very
clearly as the light of history Is cast
upon his record.
In January, 1892, the professor. in an
swering an article that had appeared in
the public press on Soil Analysis Not
An Indicator of the Plant Food Re-
Quired, in which article the writer had
set forth that the only way to ascertain
the required plant foods was by actual
field tests, propounded these questions
when soil analysis has determined
that potash exists abundantly and even
In the soluble form~ not only in the irri-
cation waters but also in the soils of
the valley of South California, will Dr.
Woodbridge still think it necessary to
try potash fertilizer there? When the
same process shows the extreme scarcity
of humus in these same Cnesa) Soils
being mere fraction of what is always
found in productive soils elsewhere, will
he doubt that the supply of nitrogen
will be the first thing needful when
crops fall short? If so, let him inquire
among those to whom l have recon-
mended Chile saltpeter on the ground
of this analytical indication, and ask
what has been the result in the thrift
of their citrus trees. When analysis
shows the same soil to coStain an abund-
ance of lime would DR.. Woodbridge still
put his client to the trouble and expense
of trying the lining process?"
Again, in a lecture, published as bull
letn No. 61 by the state board of horti-
culture, 1892, page IL, Prof Higard said:
II have already told you that by far
the majority of California soils is rich
in lime, so as to render lining, so much
practiced in the east, an Improbable
operation here. That knowledge was
obtained by analyizlng the soils of the
state. Well the same series of analyses
has shown that what is true of lime is
nearly as true of potash-not quite so
much, for while in the case of lime the
proportion between eastern and Cali
fornia is one to over ten, in the case of
potash it is about as one to four in favor
of our soils. You see that to invest heav
lily in potash fertilizers, as you are fire.
quently advised to do, is likely to be in
very many cases a useless expendi-
ture."
But these same orange soils of ours
are not very rich in phosphoric acid and
nitrogen; therefore | would advise
growers to spend their valuable cash
for these only and not for complete
fertilizers"
With more than four and one-half
years experience since the professor at
tempted to squelch our efforts TO get at
the actual needs of the crops by putting
the question to the soil and getting the
answer in the crop through test plots, We
have had these same soils to deal with
that Professor Hilgard was referring to,
and have found that where potash was
so abundant that the soil contained
over one per cent, or about 100, 600 pounds
nf
depth, an amount that would last the
average orange crop 1000 years, that
the application of $50 pounds of potash
salts per acre per annum Is indispen-
sable.
The professor himself in his latest re-
port gives an account of samples that
were grown by ID. l.. Wilbur of the
West Riverside Land company, River
side county, and are fair averages of
the fruit from many five-year-old trees.
and We're not fancy selections; the aim
being to have them of the same size, and
grown under similar conditions. The soil
is a fair average of that within the Gage
canal lands, which, according to analy-
sis, contain .S7 per cent of potash and L,
of phoSphoric acid. To test the effect OF
potash fertilizers, samples We're taken
from trees that had had no application of
the potash, and, on the other hand, from
trees that year previous had been fer
tilted with one pound of muriate of
plication of nitrateS and phospha tes.
The trees of both lots are in good color
and rank in growth, and no difference
Is notable between those fertilized and
those non-fertiliZed. The oranges of the
unfertilized trees were more elongated
in shape than the others; the latter be-
ing, on the whole, well rounded, or more
perfect in shape, and rather deeper in
color tint. The skin and rag" were
about the same for both lots, and rather
thick and heavy, but easily separated
from the flesh The flesh was tender and
juicy. The navel portion of many of the
oranges of the unfertlized trees extends |
and spreads into the flesh, while that of
the fertilized is confined to the end of the |
fruit.
"A glance at the results of analysis
SHOWS that, while the oranges of the two !
lots were practically the same in weight. |
tnose not treated with potash have a |
tnicker rind and a larger average of |
juice, and those treated with potash
nave larger amount of pulp.
Ihe ash of the oranges was nearly tha |
same IN Doth lots, but in that of the pot |
ash lot the percentage of potash is lit |
tie hlgher than in the other. OF phos |
phor1c acid there is per cent more in
the no-potash lot. '-
In the juice the potash seems to have |
nad slight effect in increasing the |
sweetness, as there is l. g per cent moro IN |
total sugar than in the other. The cena |
sugar was increased but .56 per cent.
Had sulphate of potash been used in
stead OF the muriate, the effect mieh+ |
have been greater. The citric acid Was
not influenced ""'
On page 176 a table is published which
Is made the basis of the above comment
wherein two test plots are referred to
No. 1 was fertilized with nitrogen and
phosphoric acid, and No. 2 was fertiJ-
lied with nitrogen, phosphoric acid and
potash.
Extract from table-No. 1, fertilized
with nitrogen and phosphoric acid-Solid
contents by SPINDLE 1910 per cent; total
sugars. 11.56 per cent. No. 2, fertilized
with nitrogen, phosphoric acid and pot
ash-Solid contents by spindles, 1S 20 per
cent; total sugars 1851 per cent. Differ
ence In solid contents by spindles, 1.3O
per cent; in total sugars .95 per cent.
So slipshod and careless is Prof. Hill
gard that he has confounded the solid
contents of Juice with the total sugar
contents of it, and has referred three
eimes In the short paragraph to plot No.