The herald., 1897-01-09

the article which called forth my COM
ments. l therefore mail to you here.
with two printed documents which Will
explain the situation to you. should
such explanation be required in addi-
ton to the fact that / have for thirty
years past been known as the special
advocate of direct soil examination, and
during seventeen years work in this
state made it the basis of the whole
If with a knowledge of these facts,
you desire to join issue with me in the
public press. be il so; I shall regret 1t
only because of the setback such a
disagreement between doctors may
give to the cause of progressive agri-
culture and to the soil survey of the
state. which is largely conducted on the
basis of private samplng for eXamina-
tions to be made here. Whether such
a discussion and its results will be to
your personal advantage you alone can
decide; but | hope in any case it will
be conducted with as few personalities
as possible. Respectfully yours.
"E. W. HILGARD"
To this letter the following reply was
sent:
Los ANGELES. Cal, Jan. 23. 1892.
/ Prof. f. w. Hilgard. Berkeley, Cal:
/ Dear Sir: 1t is with pleasure that ac-
knowledge the receipt of two printed
documents" so kindly sent by you. l
shall always be happy to receive any
thing published from the university.
If you have any specific results a a
sequence from your forecasts of soil an
alysis be good enough to send them to
me.
| cannot but see that the proprietors
Of the Cultivator have used you with
courtesy having published your criticism
verbatim.
So far as personalities are concerned
hope they will be entirely eliminated in
any further discussion.
| 1t is difficult for me to see how any
| setback" can be given to progressive
agriculture and the truth by a full dis
cussion of the points involved in the con-
troversy. The people who read such
matter can only be enlightened by read
ing.
1t might be proper to reiterate to you
that | have not Joined issue with you
upon or said one word against the soil
survey of the state. / believe heartily
in such a survey: but I do not see how
it can possibly help practical farmer
already established. My training and
experience tell me that the rational
method to determine what ingredients
of plant food a soil fails to furnish in
abundance. and how these unfurnished
materials can be most economically sup
piled is to put the question to the soil,
w IN tIt lei tlllZlHE Ild
and get the reply in the crops produced
Yours respectfully,
s. NJ WOODBRIDGE.
To this letter no reply was ever re-
ceived. We submit that this neglect on
the part of Prof. Hilgard to furnish us
with the desired information was most
unscientitic. and showed one of two
things; first, that he had no results to
show. or. second. that his theories would
not bear investigation.
More than five years have passed since
Prof. Hilgard identified himself and his
reputation as the head of the agricul-
tural interests of the state. with the re-
suits of soil analysis as the Eureka of
California But if we look for the prac-
tical benefits accruing to our ranchmen
from these analyses we look in vain. We
have called on the Prof. and the farmers
or orchardists on every side to specify
when or where soil analysis has been
help in improving the quantity or quail
ity of any crop. But we have had not
a solitary response that has met the
case. Indeed in the tenacity with which.
in the face of facts and figures, the pro-
fessor still clines TO his theory we be-
lieve he is periling, even If not wreck
ing the scientific reputat tion which has
been so generally accorded to him. His
hobby is dead and cannot be galvanized
back TO life. Better is living dog, says
the wise man. than a dead lion.
The columns of The Herald and the
Bulletin issued to give its articles gen.
eral circulation have illustrated the
facts and arguments on both sides of
this controversy.
PROF. HILGARD TRAINING YOUNG
MEN TO BE HUMBUGS.
young man, who has recently taken
a graduate course under Prof Hilgard
at the agricultural college at Berkeley,
has advertised in the Riverside Press
as follows
IF you are in doubt as to what kind
of fertilizers to use and how much to ap-
ply, it will pay you TO have your soil
analyZed. F.. A. IUMBRC."
Mr.. j. J. Groom of Ontario wrote to
Prof Zumbro in August last, inQur-
ing about the cost of analysis. etc. Zum-
bro responded, giving instructions for
taking samples and undertaking to ad-
wise what and how much fertilizer
should be applied when the analyses
should be completed.
One and one-half cubic feet Of soil was
taken and from this sample two smaller
samples were taken, One sample Mr.
Groom sent directly to Prof. Zumbro,
and the other Mr. Groom took to Mr.. B.
Ford of Ontario, who sent it by express
to Prof. Zumbro. Mr. Ford received
the following reply from Zumbro
Your soil contains .O47 per cent of
availa bic phosphoric acid, | should not
think a phosphate fertilizer would help
your orchard"
Mr.. Groom received a very long,
rambling letter from professor, in
which he advised the use of phosphate
fertilizer but he forgot to state how
much phosphoric acid was needed. So
Mr.. Groom wrote the following letter:
ONTARIO, Cal, Nov. 9. 1896.
Prof f. A Zumbro Riverside:
Dear Sir-Your letter of October 3oth
is before me. You say that l do not re-
quire nitrogen or potash, but that
dressing of super phosphate might have
the desired effect; but you did not tell
me how much to apply. Please inform
me It your earliest convenience.
Yours truly, j. j. GROOM.
The following reply was received:
"Riverside Calf. Nov. 13 90.
Mr. j. j. Groom. Ontario Calf.
Dear Sir! In reply to your inquiry
how much fertilizer To- apply would add
This to what [ said in my letter of oct
80
In the last report of the Experiment
station Of Calf. Prof, fiileard says
page 2S) such figures a. and in the
third decimal place mean d deficiency
Of available phGsrhoric acid tpage 30
Any soil containing hunus with much
less than - per cent of nitrogen was to
be suspected of nitrogen hungriress'.
Those figures mean all unproductive soil
and there can be no doubt that soil bet