The gazette-times. [volume] (Heppner, Or.) 1912-1925, 1914-10-08

variable conditions, and those condi-
tions are often Of character 30 i'm
portant as to require radical changes
in any set Of rules or methods of prac-
ticef 1t has, therefore, become rule
among those students Of "Scientific
Agriculture" who are striving to har-
monize science and practice, to reject
as really scientific, any conclusions
based on single experiment, or any
summary Of conclusions that does not
harmonize with conditions that are nor
NAL to the average farm Of the dis
trict. When this point Of view is main
tanned, it is far less difficult to har-
monize the science with practice
Science Dependable Today.
Recognized agricultural science Is to-
day q radically different proposition
from the so-called agricultural science
of Is years ago. What was then
termed agricultural science was made
up largely Of single demonstrable facts,
while today agricultural science is
collection Of demonstrated facts con-
sidered In their relationship to each
other and also to such variable influ-
ences as temperature, rainfall, wind and
sunshine.
can best illustrate this by my own
experience as an institute lecturer. At
that time had no knowledge Of, and
very crude ideas concerning SCIENCE"
but I did have large measurue Of
practical experience, and some pretty
strong opinions based on observation.
My talks consisted almost entirely Of
stories Of what Jones' Smith or Brown
had done with certain things under
certain conditions No one at that
time realized that such q collection Of
facts was the best kind of agricultural
science, or the very essence Of the
science Of agriculture, already harmon
lied with practice
DogmatiMn.
One evening when the subject Of fer
tilizers was being discussed, some one
in the audience asked the speaker:
"What is the value Of ton Of stable
manurei" The professor was recog-
nized authority, man Of national
reputation, a leader in the new move
ment for scientific agriculture, and he
answered promptly: "The only ele-
ments lacking in your soil, or that you
will ever find lacking, are nitrogen,
potash and PHOSPHORUS. Therefore
your stable manure is worth just as
much as it would cost you to purchase
that amount Of nitrogen, potash and
phosphorous that ton Of stable
manure contains. Approximately $1.5o
worth Of nitrogen, potash and phos-
phorous, and this practically measures
the value Of your stable manure"
I did not at that time know any
thing about nitrogen, potash and phos-
phorous; but 1 did know lot about
stable manure and it's action when
combined with the soil, and the effect
that it had on plant growth. had
observed numerous experiments made
by farmers Of my acquaintance with
so called commercial fertilizers, and
without thinking where I was going
to land, I promptly told the profess
sor that he was mistaken. That ton
of stable manure was worth more than
| twice as much as chemical analysis
indicated Whether because OF some
other valuable elements than those
found by the chemist, did not know;
but l did know that it would produce
much more marked results in plant
growth and show its effect on the soil
for a much longer period than would
sack full of commercial fertilizer
containing as much nitrogen, potash
and Phosphorus as the chemist said
would be found in ton Of manure.
Then he asked me why, and I had
to confess that ! didn't know; but
still insisted that it would do it. Then
he came back with the question:
"Would it improve your soil to add
to it any element of which it already
had a sufficient quantityf" l had to
admit that I didn't think it would.
"But," said he, eff the soil is lack
ing in any particular element like
| ..l.nnou ,,a4oah op1 vhncphoroug then