Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1911-03-10
THE TRUTH ABOUT HUMus.
An Expert AsricuIturist Makes Himself
Clear.


Clear.
Because OF misleading articles
which have recently appeared in a
number of agricultural journals. in
dicating that the teachings OF the
University Of Illinois concerning the
subject of humus and plant food Is
being misunderstood and misstated, 1t
seems only just to us and to all inter-
ested in the subject that definite
statement be made regarding the mat
| ter
! Thus, an article entitled "Humus
and Hopkins" by H. F.. Patterson. of
the Montana Agricultural college, In
the Dakota Farmer Of January 10,
1911, contains alleged quotations said
to have been taken from a lecture
which I am reported to have given
at Bloomington. Illinois, including the
following:
What Is Of very much more value
than humus is decaying organic mat
ter. 1t Is the action you get in the
process Of making humus that Is most
valuable. 1t is decaying organic mat
ter that Is valuable. The humus it
self Is very inactive. Humus has been
I'm the soil for hundreds Of thousands
of years. and will remain there yet
In another part of the country
Professor w. F.. Massey writes as fol-
| Of
uary. 1911:
Professor Hopkins, Of Illinois, Is
nothing If not peculiar. He now tells
the farmers Cd that humus Is not i'm
portant, (2) that humus has no plant
food, but CD that what we need is
plant food"
| shall not discuss the point Of Pc
culiarity except to say that these are
peculiar criticisms considering that l
never gave any such lecture at Bloom
ington, and never made several Of the
statements credited to me by Patter-
son and Massey. Certainly l nave
never said that humus Is not import
ant" and I have never said that "hu-
mus has been in the soil for hundreds
of thousands Of years." I may have
said that some of the humus still con-
tained in our worn soil has been there
for hundreds of thousands of years;
that the plant food which 1t contains
Is not readily available, and that hu-
mus Is not the all-important thing in
soil fertility; but even when l have
made such statements as these I have
always in the same connection pointed
put the trua value of hllmuS.
The following exact quotations
might very properly be cited II 1t Is
desired to state the true position of
our teaching regarding plant food, de-
caying organic matter, and humus:
Value Of Farm Manure.
1T is one thing to say that farm
manure has a value, but quite another
thing to say what that value is or to
what 1t Is due.
THE positive or intrinsic value of
farm manure lies in the amount or
valuable plant food which 1t contains.
1t also possesses an important, tndi-
rect value as a soil stimulant, due to
it's power as it ferments and decays,
in contact with the soil, to liberate
from the soil plant food that would
not otherwise become available so
quickly. There is still another distinct
that It makes the soil more porous
and spongy and thus increases the
power Of the soil to absorb and retain
moisture and to resist surface wash
ing. In other words, this third value
OF farm manure Is due to improve
ment in physical condition.
The value of farm manure for It's
physical Improvement Of the soil, is
commonly fully appreciated, and
frequently overestimated by popular
agricultural writer's, while it's value
for the plant food which 1t supplies
and for that which it liberates from
the soil Is sometimes almost ignored.
There is no good excuse for erron-
eous teaching regarding these differ
ent values because there exists vast
amount of positive information. both
from practical experience and from
exact scientific Investigations.
Thus, organic matter from peat
beds hauled out and spread on the
lands and incorporated with the soil,
produces no such effects on crop
yields as are produced by good farm
manure Why? Because the peat
does not decay readily so as to fur
nish plant food either by its own de-
composition or by liberating 1t from
the soil; and yet the peat has as great
power as farm manure for physical
improvement Of the soil.
Manure made from clover hay and
heavy grain rations has much greater
value than manure made from wheat
straw. Why? Because they affect
the physical conditions of the soil IN
different ways? No. The great diff
ference in value Is due to the differ
ence lin plant food and in rapidity of
decay.
AT the famous agricultural expert
ment station at Rothamsted, Eng
land on a field to which no manure
and no plant food have been applied,
the average yield Of wheat has been
14l bushels per acre for more than
hall century. Land treated with a
heavy annual application Of farm ma
nure has produced 35.7 bushels of
wheat per acre as an average of 81
years Another field treated with
commercial plant food without or
ganic matter has produced 81 BUSH
els of wheat per acre as an average
during the same time. The latter field
received a little less plant food than
was furnished in the manure. thus
furnishing ample proof of the value OF
plant food supplied in manure and
showing that the physical effect of
all-important.
Nevertheless the physical effect
should not be overlooked. Under GER
tain seasonal conditions this physical
value may be very important. Thus
in tho very dry season OF 1898 at
ROthamsted the land fertiiZed with
commercial plant food produced only
|21.7 bushels Of wheat per acre, while
the farm manure plot produced 34.2
bushels the same year"
(The above quotations are taken
from pages and 10 Of Illinois Ex-
pertinent Station Circular No. 10S.
and the following statements are
from pages 1914 and 1875 of my text
book on Soil Fertility and Perma-
nent Agriculture"
Organic Matter.
Tho organic matter Of the soil may
bu considered in two classes, active
and inactive, although no very sharp
lines can be drawn between them.
THE most active organic matter
consists of such substances as decay
ing plant roots and crop residues.
green manure and animal manures,
Incorporated with the soil. These
products decay rapidly in the soil and
i'm the process of decomposition liber-
ate not only plant food which they