Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1906-08-02

Toxic Material That May Injure or
Even Destroy Crops.


Even Destroy Crops.
The results OF recent investigation
BIZ the national department of agrlcul-
ture and some of the beliefs to which
they lead Chief Milton Whitney OF the
bureau of soils are placed in reach OF
farmers through a recent bulletin on
"Soil Fertility" The ideas exploited
/ appear to be radical departure from
old theories. At least they represent
! the expression In modern terms Of lat
| est conclusions from facts both new
] and old as they exist today In the
minds of a number of able investi-
| gators. Among other things. Chief
| Whitney says:
Plants must have a healthful home
to live IN. Plants. like animals, throw
of excreta, which must be disposed of.
We know that when nitrifying fields
we need lime to take care OF the nitric
acid that Is formed by the nitrifying
bacteria, because Ii the nitric acid,
which is the product Of the bacteria,
accumulates they will surely them
selves be destroyed. We must put
something on the soil to destroy or
change their affiuvia, so that the bac-
terra themselves can go on working.
We must clean out the soil as we do
the stalls In our stables. If we do not
the substances given of by the plants
or the substances that are formed from
those substances by the action of bac-
terra will produce acid substances
will produce what we call toxic or
poisonous matter-that will seriously
affect, If not KILL the crop.
some Evidence.
The chemical idea of the exhaustion
of soil is not logical in the light of
the experience which all of us have
seen that where fertilizers are applied
the soils are not always made immedi-
| ately productive. You can go into
many of the regions of the wornout
soils of our eastern states and reclaim
these soils or make them productive,
but not with any amount of fertilizers
you can apply. You can give them all
the phosphate, all the potash. all the
nitrate. you desire, but 1t requires more
than that to revive the agriculture on
some of these soils. That there are
toxic. substances n the soil think you
will grant me from your experience In
turning up subsoils There Is no doubt
at all that In certain sections of the
country certain subsoils are poisonous
when Incorporated In q soil and that,
while deep blowing Is very desirable,
1t is unsafe after shallow blowing has
been carried on for years to run your
piew down and turn up a great mass
Of, subsoil and incorporate 1t In the
soil. In a great many cases 1t will
take several years to get the fertility
Of the soil back to where 1t was before
this procedure. Not only is the sub
soil known to be poisonous In many
cases unless 1t Is allowed to lie In
small quantities exposed to the air, but
muck Is often poisonous to the soil
unless 1t is permitted to weather be-
fore 1t is applied.
Experience of Gilbert and Laves.
One of the most interesting instances
going to show that toxic substances
are formed and that what Is poisonous
to one crop is not necessarily poisonous
or Injurious to another Is a series of
experiments Of Lawes and Gilbert,
which probably some Of you have seen
or heard Of, the growing OF potatoes for
about fifteen years on the SINE field.
AT the end of this period tney got the
soil into condition In which 1t would
not grow potatoes at all. The soil was
exhausted. and under the older ideas
1t was necessarily deficient In some
plant food. 1t seems strange that, I'M
der our old ideas of soil fertility. IL the
soil became exhausted for potatoes 1t
should grow any other crop, because
the usual analysis shows the same con-
sutuents present In all Of our plants,
not In the same proportion, but all are
present and all necessary, so far as we
know. This field was planted In bar
ley, and on this experimental plot that
mad ceased to grow potatoes they got
seventy-fve bushels Of barley.