S 543.M4B°8™" """""'""-"""' 
 ^'''lIHlSiii™!™ " ^•='="''a=yA correspond 
 
 3 1924 000 909 444 
 
EXPERIMEr^' STATION 
 ACCuiACY. 
 
 A CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 ^3. t 
 
 WILLIAM I BROOKS, 
 
 Professor of Agriculture in tKS Hatch Ekperiment Station, 
 Amherst,lMass. 
 
 AND 1 ' 
 
 MR. ANDREW H. WARD, IZ 
 
 Agricultural Chemist, '■^' '* 
 
 75 State St., Boston, Mass. .nW- 
 
 I ex- 
 
 ''ndi- 
 
 oosi- 
 TOUCHING THE RELATIVE MERITS ., 
 
 ' has 
 
 Of what 
 
 rmer 
 ^rned 
 
 SODA AND POTASH. tS; 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis bool< is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924000909444 
 
Experiment Station Accuracy. 
 
 A Correspondence between William P. Brooks, Professor 
 
 OF Agriculture in the Hatch Experiment Station, 
 
 Amherst, Mass., and Mr. Andrew H. Ward, 
 
 Touching the Respective Merits of 
 
 SODA and potash. 
 
 FORE-WORD. 
 
 Nothing could well be more important to the agricultural com- 
 munity than a correct appreciation of the relation of soda^ to 
 plant food. 
 
 If it can be substituted for the expensive potash salts, it 
 would be of immense advantage to the farmer. 
 
 One hardly expects that the Syndicate of the German Kali- 
 Potash Salts would agree to this. It is perhaps too much to ex- 
 pect that the portion of the agricultural press to whom the Syndi- 
 cate advertising is important, will concede the fact. But the posi- 
 tion of many of the state experiment stations in asserting that 
 Soda cannot replace potash without even experimenting, has 
 seenied remarkable. 
 
 It cannot fail to be interesting to the farmer, to see with what 
 candor, accuracy, and skill these professed friends of the farmer 
 are studying this great question. The well-known and well-earned 
 reputation of Professor Brooks, makes the test applied in the fol- 
 lowing correspondence, a perfectly fair one ; for, whatever they 
 know, he certainly knows. 
 
4 EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 
 
 A Preliminary Word of Explanation. 
 
 On Nov. I, 1898, I had the honor of reading a paper before 
 the Florists' and Gardeners' Club of Boston, entitled " The use of 
 Commercial Fertilizers," which is reproduced in an appendix at 
 page 20. 
 
 Apparently, something in this address was not entirely satis- 
 factory to Professor Brooks, for a few days later I received the 
 following note : 
 
 "Dear Mr. Ward: — 
 
 The Secretary of the Boston Gardeners' and Florists' Club, 
 has received a letter from Mr. William P. Brooks, Professor of 
 Agriculture, Massachusetts Agricultural College, and Mr. Brooks 
 states that your lecture before the Club, on Nov. i , was misleading 
 in some of its statements, and he says that he is willing to come 
 and discuss the subject before the Club, and is entirely willing that 
 you should be present. 
 
 We are going to invite him to come and give us a lecture, and 
 we shall be very pleased for you to come to the meeting. 
 
 I shall notify you when he is to deliver his lecture. 
 I am yours respectfully, 
 Robert Cameron, 
 
 Chairman Essay Committee. 
 Harvard Botanic Garden, Cambridge, Mass." 
 
 Upon my expressing the utmost willingness to debate the ques- 
 tion with Professor Brooks, I received the following notice : 
 
 "Boston Gardeners' and Florists' Club. 
 Meeting at Horticultural Hall, Tuesday Evening, Feb. 7. 
 Professor William P. Brooks of the Massachusetts Agricultu- 
 ral College will deliver an address on ' ' What Plants Feed Upon, 
 and How to Feed Them." 
 
 Mr. William Nicholson, President of the American Carnation 
 Society, will talk on the coming convention of that Society. 
 
 William K. Wood, Secretary." 
 
 Professor Brooks spoke at the meeting, in his highly enter- 
 taining way, until about ten o'clock in the evening. 
 
 This naturally prevented anything in the nature of a debate 
 between us. But, when he had finished, I asked him if they used 
 potash" salts at Amherst and he said "yes." I then asked if they 
 used potash in the forms of muriate, sulphate, carbonate, and ni- 
 trate, to which he replied "yes, and silicate too." 
 
 I then asked if he had used the soda salts in comparison, to 
 which he replied "no". 
 
 I then said that it would appear that he had no practical knowl- 
 edge in regard to them ; that it was all theory with him, whereas I 
 had used these soda-salts for twenty-five years, (hundreds of tons, 
 
EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 5 
 
 and sold thousands of tons and over 200,000 small packages for 
 house plants), and my knowledge was practical and not based on 
 theory. 
 
 The professor afterwards stated, in reference to the use of the 
 nitrate ot soda, on some plot experiments, represented on charts, 
 that 100 pounds of nitrate of soda contained 46 pounds of soda. 
 
 This statement I corrected, saying there was only 36 pounds. 
 
 The professor persisted in sajing there was 46 pounds. I 
 asked him for his authority. He answered that Dr. Goessmann 
 told him so at an entertainment a few evenings previous, when 
 they talked the subject over. 
 
 Time did not suffice for more, but in those few minutes I had 
 shown at least two examples of experiment station accuracy. 
 (i) The eminent lecturer had denounced my paper as "mislead- 
 ing " and asked permission to answer it, without taking the pains 
 to note the cheap and easy test of actual experiment with the soda 
 salt. (2) A statement that 100 pounds of nitrate of soda con- 
 tained 46 pounds of soda, with Professor Goessmann, the chemist 
 of the college, as authority. 
 
 Evidently the only test which could be followed up was the 
 second, and I accordingly wrote Professor Brooks, and the follow- 
 ing correspondence ensued. 
 
 Correspondence. 
 
 Boston, Feb. 17, 1899. 
 Professor William P. Brooks. 
 
 Dear Sir: — As you referred, the other evening, to Mr. 
 Whitney the chief of the Division of Soils, I enclose copy of a 
 letter to me, from Charles W. Dabney, Jr., former assistant Secre- 
 tary of Agriculture, in which he refers to soda. In the " Agri- 
 culture of Massachusetts for 1895," page 164, the analysis of ni- 
 trate of soda is given "Maximum 16.22%; Minimum 14.289?!; 
 Average 15.02%." Is the analysis correct .? If so, was not your 
 statement that there was 46 pounds of soda in 100 pounds of ni- 
 trate of soda an error 'i You will also notice, on the same page 
 the analysis of sulphate of soda, that it contains no soda. On 
 page 165, analysis of wood ashes, there is no soda mentioned ; is 
 it possible that they contain no soda? If they do, why is it not 
 given ? 
 
 If, as you stated, Dr. Goessmann told you, there was 46 
 pounds of soda in 100 pounds of nitrate of soda, he may be able 
 to give you the information on these points, if you need any. 
 
 If there is only 36% of soda in nitrate of soda, will not 
 your charts need to be revised before you again make use of them .^ 
 
 Andrew H. Wakd. 
 (Letter enclosed.) 
 
o experiment station accuracy. 
 
 Department of Agriculture, 
 Office of the Secretary. 
 
 Washington, D. C, Oct. 26, 1894. 
 
 Mr. Andrew H. Ward, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Sir: — Your letter of Oct. 3 has been referred to the Chief of 
 the Division of Agricultural Soils, who writes as follows in regard 
 to the subject of your letter, and the two articles which you enclose. 
 
 ' ' The subject of the value of soda in its different forms of 
 combination for agricultural purposes, has long been recognized b) 
 practical farmers, and by agricultural writers, but it has been so 
 opposed to the results of the German investigations in their sand 
 and water culture experiments on the mineral elements required by 
 plants as food, that the matter has not been thoroughly investigated 
 as should have been done. Mr. Ward is right in saying that it has 
 been overlooked by our experiment stations, and that it deserves 
 further investigation. 
 
 ' ' Even if soda is not needed as an actual food for plants or as 
 a substitute for potash, still the soda compounds have a very impor- 
 tant effect upon the physical structure of the soil, and influence the 
 growth and development of plants. 
 
 " Periodically, the subject of the effect of salt as a fertilizer is 
 agitated by our farmers, and by the agricultural press, and this is 
 continued for a while, and then the matter is lost sight of. 
 
 " In those periodic times considerable data has been given on 
 the effect of salt as a fertilizer. Storfer likewise calls the attention 
 to the fact that before the war a mixture of salt and lime was 
 applied with great effect on the cotton soils of the south, and so 
 great was the interest and so confirmed the opinion that it would 
 be of lasting benefit to the south agriculturally, that the fact was 
 instrumental in having the duty removed from salt so that it could 
 be imported free and used as a fertilizer. This was before the 
 discovery of the extensive deposits of salt in this country. Storer 
 pointfj out that a mechanical reaction probably takes place between 
 the lime and salt, forming a carbonate of soda, and that it was 
 probably due to the action of the carbonate of soda on the soil that 
 the beneficial result was obtained. For some unexplained reason 
 this practice has entirely died out. 
 
 "It has long been believed by agricultural chemists that the 
 agricultural value of wood ashes is far greater than can be explained 
 from the amount of plant food they contain, and it has generally 
 been conceded that this was due to the effect of the ashes upon the 
 "^ysical structure of the soil. 
 
 " This is usually attributed to the physical effect of the intro- 
 duction of the solid particles in loosening up the soil, but, from the 
 fact that coal ashes have not the same effect, it may be seen that 
 there is some other effect, probably due to the carbonates which are 
 present in the wood ashes. 
 
EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. *] 
 
 ' ' I myself believe that there are many soils in the south which 
 would be benefited by the direct use of carbonate of soda, or even 
 of caustic soda, if this could be applied judiciously and economi- 
 cally to the soil as a fertilizer. I do not think, however, that this 
 matter could be settled by the ordinary plot experiments, unless it 
 were based upon a thorough knowledge of the conditions of the soil 
 selected, for the chances would be that some, and perhaps a major- 
 ity, of the soils would not be benefited by this treatment. I think 
 our investigations here will show just which soils are likely to be 
 benefited by the application of these subotances and I shall be very 
 glad to institute or encourage experiments on such soils as our 
 investigations show would be likely to be benefited by the 
 applications. 
 
 "We have lately made an examination of a cotton soil in 
 South Carolina that I feel sure would respond readily to a manur- 
 ing of carbonate of soda, and for some time I have been impressed 
 with the fact that on certain soils we have to handle, this substance 
 would have a beneficial effect." 
 
 From this you will see that we have the matter under consider- 
 ation and are working towards it in a slow but sure w^ay, by seeing 
 just the conditions prevailing in's*the different soils of the country, 
 and independently the effects of fertilizers and chemicals on the 
 physical structure of soils. It hardly seems time yet to apply this 
 matter in field experiments until we have accumulated more data 
 than we have at present. 
 
 Respectfully, 
 
 (Signed) Charles W. Dabney, Jr. 
 
 Acting' Secretary. 
 
 Massachusetts Agricultural College, 
 Hatch Experiment Station. 
 
 Amherst, Mass., Feb. 24, 1899. 
 Mr. Andrew H. Ward, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Dear Sir: — I beg to acknowledge the reception of your 
 favor of the i8th inst enclosing a copy of the letter from Mr. 
 Dabney. Professor Dabney says nothing in his letter to which I 
 cannot subscribe. He nowhere implies that he believes that soda 
 can replace potash in the plant, and so I do not need further to 
 discuss his letter. 
 
 You ask whether the analysis of nitrate of soda given in our 
 report for 1895 is correct. Yes, it undoubtedly is correct, but the 
 figures refer, as you know, to the percentage of nitrogen. My 
 statement that 100 pounds of nitrate of soda contained 46 pounds 
 of soda was based upon chemically pure sodium nitrate. The 
 formula for this is NaN03. The combining weight of Na, 23 ; 
 of N, 14; of O, 16. 
 
 Soda is sodium oxide, formula for which is NaO. If you 
 make the necessary calculation you will find that 100 pounds of 
 
8 EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 
 
 NaN03 will contain about 46 pounds of NaO. The commercial 
 nitrate of soda is about 98% pure, and on this basis 100 pounds 
 o£ it would contain 44.85 pounds of NaO ; so you will see there 
 was no essential inaccuracy in the statement which I made. 
 
 You refer to an analysis of sulphate of soda, and say that no 
 soda is reported, also that no soda is reported in wood ashes. Of 
 course both of these substances contain soda. The analyses pub- 
 lished do not purport to be complete. They include only the deter- 
 mination of the more important constituents and for that reason 
 soda is omitted, as it is not considered to be important. 
 
 Trusting that I have covered the points raised by your letter 
 with sufficient fullness, I remain, 
 
 Truly yours, 
 (Dictated.) William P. Brooks. 
 
 Boston, March 28, 1899. 
 Professor William P. Brooks-, 
 
 Massachusetts Agricultural College, 
 
 Hatch Experiment Station, Amherst, Mass. 
 
 Dear Sir: — Yours of the 24th ult. came duly to hand and 
 contents noted. Sickness and a press of ■ business have prevented 
 an earlier reply. 
 
 You say " the analysis of the nitrate of soda printed in the 
 Agricultural report, 15.02% nitrogen, 35.5% soda, is undoubtedly 
 correct. The figures, as you know, refer to the percentage of 
 nitrogen." I know, as you well know, that they refer to soda 
 as well as to nitrogen ; they cannot be separated. 
 
 If the analysis is correct, as you say it undoubtedly is, why do 
 you persist in saying there is 46 % of soda' in nitrate of soda? It 
 puts me in mind of a witness in a horse case who, in describing his 
 color, height, etc., said the horse was 15 feet high. Being checked, 
 and asked by the judge if he had not made a mistake, if he did not 
 mean 15 hands high, asked the judge what he had said, and on be- 
 ing told that he had said 15 feet high, then replied he would stick 
 to it. 
 
 The formula for nitrate of soda is NaN03, as you have it. 
 Soda is sodium oxide, the formula for which is NazO, not as you 
 state it NaO. 
 
 If you will make the proper corrections, and the necessary cal- 
 culations, you will find pure nitrate of soda to contain, in 100 
 pounds, (63.53 nitric acid, or 16.47 pounds of nitrogen) 36.47 
 pounds of soda. 
 
 Professor Storer, in his book "Agriculture in some of its rela- 
 tions with Chemistry," Vol. i, page 296, says, "Pure nitrate of 
 Soda contains about 63% of nitric acid and 37% of soda." Do 
 you still continue to believe that nitrate of soda contains 46% of 
 soda? 
 
 Your statement that Dr. Goessmann told you that nitrate of 
 soda contained 46 % of soda, reminds me of the man who asked 
 
. EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY, 9 
 
 his son how many legs a cow would have, calling the tail a leg. 
 The boy said five, to which the father replied, only four, — calling 
 the tail a leg did not make it one. You say in regard to the analysis 
 of sulphate of soda and wood ashes, in which there is no mention 
 made of soda, " Of course both substances contain soda. The 
 analyses published do not purport to be complete. They include 
 only the determination of the more important constituents, and for 
 that reason soda is omitted, as it is not considered to be important." 
 
 Then why not so state it, that people may not be deceived ? 
 
 It has been generally supposed, without good reason, that the 
 analyses rendered by the Hatch Experiment Station were correct 
 and true. 
 
 I would not have publicly questioned their accuracy but for 
 your own admission. I can point out other inaccuracies, and would 
 advise a revision and correction of the numerous errors in the list. 
 
 For the public good of the great agricultural community, and 
 the reputation of the Hatch Experiment Station, to which the state, 
 and the United States, have paid so much to aid and advance the 
 cause of agriculture, I propose to publish our correspondence, 
 (unless you make objection) that the truth shall be made known, 
 and errors cease to be tolerated, which are injuring our agricultural 
 interests, instead of promoting them. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Andrew H. Ward. 
 
 Massachusetts Agricultural College, 
 Hatch Experiment Station. 
 
 Amherst, Mass., March 31, 1899. 
 Mr. Andrew H. Ward, 75 State Street, Boston. 
 
 Dear Sir : — I have to acknowledge the reception of your 
 letter of March 28, and in reply to your statement that you propose 
 to publish our correspondence, (unless I make objection), I have 
 to say, that, while I cannot see that such publication will serve any 
 useful purpose, since the letters do not touch the point at issue be- 
 tween us, viz. : as to whether plants can take soda in place of 
 potash, I shall make no objection, provided that you will include 
 this letter, to which you are, of course,' at liberty to make reply if 
 you see fit. 
 
 In your earlier letter, to which mine of the 24th ult was a re- 
 ply, you ask the question, "In the Agriculture of Massachusetts, 
 for 1895, page 164, the analysis of nitrate of soda is given, Maxi- 
 mum, 16.22; Minimum, 14.28; Average, 15.02%. Is this analysis 
 correct.?" The sentence that you now quote from my reply to the 
 question in the opening paragraph of your letter of the 28th inst. 
 was written without reference to the report named, as I was well 
 aware that the percentage of nitrogen in commercial nitrate of 
 soda might vary, within the limit specified. 
 
 I hope you will be willing to admit that I knew that the article 
 
lO EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 
 
 contained soda, and, further, that you will see that my reply was 
 complete and candid, to the question quoted above. 
 
 In my reply to your second question in your letter of Feb. i8, 
 I relied upon the result of my own calculation, the method used in 
 which I gave in connection with the answer. The fact that I ex- 
 plained how I obtained the 46 pounds is conclusive evidence of my 
 sincerity. 
 
 I see at once, since you call my attention to the fact, which 
 had been known to me, of course, before, that I based my calcula- 
 tion upon the wrong formula, for soda is Na20, and not NaO, as 
 I calculated it. 
 
 Your statement that 100 pounds of nitrate of soda contains 36 
 pounds of soda, is substantially correct. 
 
 Your assertion that I stated that Dr. Goessmann had told me 
 that it contained 46 pounds, is not correct ; though I must confess 
 that what I did say admits of the construction you placed upon it. 
 
 You asked me my authority for stating that 100 pounds of ni- 
 trate contained 46 pounds of soda, and I told you I had calculated 
 it from the formula taken from a standard chemistry, and that Dr. 
 Goessmann supported my statement. He supported it only in this 
 way. I mentioned while talking with him, at an evening enter- 
 tainment, that you figured nitrogen to cost very little by allowing 
 the soda to be worth as much as potash, reckoning 100 pounds of 
 nitrate to contain 36 pounds of soda and that you might have 
 shown that the nitrogen cost less than nothing as, according to my 
 calculation, the nitrate contained 46, and not 36 pounds of soda. 
 The Doctor remarked, in effect at least, and without special thought 
 or calculation, " Ah ! he evidently took rather too little." 
 
 Having complete confidence in the accuracy of my calculation, 
 I somewhat thoughtlessly, took his remark as an endorsement of 
 tny correctness. If there has been a fault here it is entirely mine, 
 as I have no doubt you will agree ; for we both know, as does the 
 world, that the Doctor is a good chemist, and, with thought, would 
 never have endorsed my error, and very likely did not consider that 
 he had endorsed it 
 
 So much in explanation and admission is due to you as well 
 as to myself. The fact that I made an error in calculation, and 
 feeling sure of my accuracy stuck to it somewhat obstinately, does 
 not, however, affect the point at issue. 
 
 Can plants use soda exclusively, instead of potash, and is it 
 safe for farmers to cease using the latter as a fertilizer ? ; — is the 
 question. You answer this letter in the affirmative, and I in the 
 negative. 
 
 You quote Storer to show the composition of nitrate of soda. 
 Why not quote further in this paragraph ? Storer says, ' ' Pure 
 nitrate of soda contains about 63% of nitric acid and 37% of soda. 
 Theoretically this comparatively large proportion of soda would 
 seem to be an objection to the use of these salts, for plants have 
 little or no need of sodium." Here Storer clearly states his view 
 
EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. II 
 
 on the point at issue, and a somewhat exhaustive study of the whole 
 matter has revealed the fact that most authorities are in substantial 
 agreement with this view. It is true that some investigators report 
 that certain plants make some use of soda. No good authority, 
 however, so far as I am aware, claims, as you do, that it can entirely 
 replace potash. 
 
 Your complaint that the Experiment Station reports do not 
 publish the fact that certain substances, which you mention, contain 
 soda, needs no further comment. The data considered important 
 are included in the reports. Nowhere is the claim made that the 
 analyses given in the tables are complete. When it appears that 
 soda is agriculturally important, it will be included ; but until that 
 is shown, it is best omitted from the tables. 
 
 Sincerely yours, 
 
 William P. Brooks. 
 
 Boston, Mass., April 17, 1899. 
 Professor William P. Brooks, Amherst, Mass. 
 
 Dear Sir: — Your esteemed favor of the 31st inst. is received 
 and contents noted. You say, ' ' The point at issue between us, 
 viz. : as to whether plants can take soda in place of potash," this 
 is correct. Upon this point, from my practical experience of 30 
 jears, (in which time I have myself used hundreds of tons, and sold 
 thousands of tons' to others, besides over 200,000 small packages 
 which have been used on house plants) I can confidently say that 
 "plants CAN take soda in place of potash," with advantage and 
 economy. My experience and knowledge on this point have not, 
 therefore, been confined to pots, small plots, and uncertain seasons, 
 but have been continuous, varied and wide-spread. 
 
 This may not satisfy you, but the testimony of Liebeg, Wag- 
 ner, Maercker, Atteburg, Hellreigel and Wilfurth in Germany, and 
 Lawes and Gilbert's experiments in England on wheat and barley 
 for 40 years, besides the testimony in this country of Dr. Samuel 
 L. Dana, Professor John P. Norton and Colonel George E. Waring, 
 Jr., would, it seems to me, lead you to be careful in your state- 
 ments, particularly as you said you had never tried soda and potash 
 in comparison. Why not try them and satisfy yourself .? Surely 
 the importance of the question demands it. As nitrogen would 
 cost very little by allowing soda to be worth as much as potash, 
 reckoning 100 pounds of nitrate to contain 36 pounds of soda, and 
 that if it contained 46 pounds of soda, (as you stated), nitrogen 
 would cost less than nothing. As it is stated that nitrogen is the 
 most expensive ingredient of fertilizers, what a boon this would be 
 to farmers and humanity. As you admit your error in claiming 46 
 pounds of soda in 100 pounds of nitrate of soda, nothing more 
 need be said about that. 
 
 " An honest confession is good for the soul." 
 
 If not convinced in trying, you will at least have obtained some 
 practical knowledge, and not have to rely upon 'exploded theories 
 
12 EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 
 
 to base your arguments upon. The eminent authorities I have 
 previously quoted are not to be lightly brushed away. 
 
 In the experiments on tobacco,.conducted for three years by the 
 Hatch Experiment Station, the ashes of tobacco at Hatfield, in 
 1895, contained 28.1 per cent as much soda as potash ; at Agawam, 
 the proportion was 53.8 percent as much soda as potash; at West- 
 field, 1896, 51.4 per cent as much soda as potash. At Agawam, 
 on plot No. 5 the ashes contained 3.70 per cent of soda and but 2 
 per cent of potash. 
 
 The conclusions drawn from the third year of observation, (in 
 part) "Nitrate of soda as part of the nitrogen supply of the fer- 
 tilizer [25 %] when used in presence of acid-phosphate, or dis- 
 . solved bone-black, etc., has been accompanied with better results 
 regarding quality of crop, than nitrate of potash under otherwise 
 similar conditions." How do you account for it.'' For some rea- 
 sons, not quite satisfactory to themselves, the scientists of the world 
 came to the conclusion that sodium had no useful place as a plant 
 food. It was declared that its presence was not only unnecessary, 
 but that it was not found at all in many plants. Yet, with the dis- 
 covery of a process whereby one-millionth part of soda can be de- 
 tected, it was found in every plant analysed. 
 
 Dr. Goessmann seve/al years since stated in the New Eng- 
 land Farmer "The substitution of potash by soda without seri- 
 ously affecting the composition of the plant, is only in exceptional 
 cases conceded. My general personal experience confirms me in 
 that opinion. There are at present, in Germany, experiments 
 carried on in that direction, results not known." Since then Atte- 
 burg, Wagner, Maercker, Hellreigel and Wilfurth have spoken ; 
 what does he think now ? 
 
 The United States Record of Experiment Stations says "the 
 results, the author believes, clearly show that sodium may fill a very 
 important function in case of a deficiency of potassium, and that it 
 is therefore not to be regarded as an altogether useless plant con- 
 stituent. These experiments, he states, show that the practice of 
 applying salt to the soil is a rational one from a scientific stand- 
 point, and that the large amount of sodium salt contained in many 
 of the Stassfurt salts is not to be regarded as useless ballast, but as 
 possessing certain values for the nutrition of plants." 
 
 You now ask " Can plants use soda exclusively instead of 
 potash, and is it safe for farmers to cease using the latter as a fer- 
 tilizer? ; — is the question. You answer this question in the affirma- 
 tive, and I in the negative." Why do you change the point at issue 
 between us, which is, as to whether plants can take soda in place 
 of potash.? Why do you interpolate the word "exclusively"? 
 Do you find your position untenable and desire to shift to a new 
 issue? This new question admits of a division. If plants can 
 grow with potash exclusively, without soda, then plants can grow 
 with soda exclusively, without potash. In 1840, Liebeg, in his 
 "Chemistry applied to Agriculture " page 37 says " that any one of 
 
EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 1$ 
 
 the alkaline bases may be substituted for another, the action of all 
 being the same." It would be impossible to raise crops agricul- 
 turally, that did not contain both potash and soda, neither are ex- 
 cluded, but both are taken up by the plant ; if potash is lacking, 
 soda will replace it. As soda is very much less in price than 
 potash, and as two pounds of it are equal to three pounds of potash, 
 and as the price is not controlled by any syndicate, it is not only 
 safe, but more profitable for the farmer to use soda, instead of 
 potash as a fertilizer. If an alkali is wanted for manuring, in the 
 form of a carbonate or nitrate, soda should be used ; not in the 
 form of a muriate, as the chlorine would act the same as the chlo- 
 rine in the muriate of potash, viz. : check the formation of sugar 
 and starch in the crop, and all crops contain one or both of these 
 ingredients ; and the more they contain, the more valuable the crop. 
 
 As our granite soils contain so much potash, (a common gran- 
 ite rock, 2-5 quartz, 2-5 feldspar and 1-5 mica, containing in 100 
 pounds ji pounds of potash, or in an acre, taking the soil only 6 
 inches deep, there would be 36 tons of potash) it would appear 
 that to add soda would be better than potash, to the generality of 
 our soils, to produce the best results on our crops. 
 
 In quoting Storer in regard to the composition of nitrate of 
 soda I did not quote him further as it had no bearing on that issue, 
 and all I wanted then was to convince you that you were in error, 
 which you have admitted. I will now quote more from him. 
 " Theoretically, this comparatively large proportion of soda would 
 seem to be an objection to the use of the salt, for plants have little 
 or no use for sodium." Observe, this is stated "theoretically," for 
 he says on page 169, Vol. 2. "It is to be noted, however, that 
 this power of salt and lime, to react upon one another, in presence 
 of porous bodies, with formation of an easily soluble alkali, such as 
 soda or carbonate of soda, may explain a certain class of cases in 
 which salt has proved effective as a manure. In this way, when 
 salt is applied to a limestone soil, there may really be given to the 
 land a dressing of carbonate of soda and of the efficacy of this sub- 
 stance to promote the decay of humus, and the disintegration, as 
 well as binding of the soil, there can be no question." 
 
 " One merit of the soda carbonate is, that it can dissolve, to 
 an appreciable extent, phosphate of iron, such as is found in the 
 soil." This is a very important agricultural fact. 
 
 Also see page 110, Vol. 2. "Barilla from strand plants." 
 " This old practice is not a little interesting, in that it goes to show 
 that farmers in saline districts formerly possessed one means of 
 improving their land, and hindering the ill effects of over-irrigation, 
 which has ceased to be useful, since soda ash is made more cheaply 
 from common salt than it can be possibly got from plants. 
 
 " Goebel found in ashes obtained by burning Saltwort plants 
 from the vicinity of the Caspian Sea, 5 % of potash that was soluble 
 in water, and 30% of soda." 
 
14 EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 
 
 Storer does not appear to have a bad opinion of soda as a fer- 
 tilizer, after all. He says, however, on page 124, Vol. 2, that 
 " Stassfurt salts seldom repay their cost." "It is a curious fact, 
 brought out by European experience, that while phosphatic and 
 nitrogeneous fertilizers often repay their cost at once, and some- 
 times in a very striking way, dressings of plain Stassfurt salts have, 
 as a general rule, given little or no money profit in fertile regions, 
 excepting in the case of tobacco, and sometimes in the case of 
 potatoes, grown for table use. When applied to clover, to beets, 
 and even to grainj the potash salts improved the appearance of the 
 crops, and increased the burden of them, but in very many instances 
 not to a profitable degree. 
 
 Sulphate of potash has perhaps, on the whole, done rather 
 better than the chloride ; but with the exception of tobacco, and 
 perhaps potatoes, and sometimes on beet farms and moorlands, it 
 has failed to yield the hoped-for returns." 
 
 If you are not already convinced that soda is " specially im- 
 portant " it seems to me that enough has been brought forward to 
 show to you that it is equally, if not more important than other in- 
 gredients that the analyses of are printed in the report. But, be 
 that as it may, if your reports are not correct and true, people will 
 have no confidence in them, and the reputation of the college suffers. 
 
 Bulletin 28, July, 1894, Rhode Island Ex. Station, page 33, 
 says "Some reports which have come to us of inability to grow 
 successfully, ruta-bagas, onions, and more especially beets, spinach, 
 lettuce, etc., even when amply fertilized may find their explanation 
 along the line of too great soil acidity. 
 
 ." In the use of the muriate, and sulphate of potash, kainit, 
 and sulphate of ammonia, the crops remove chiefly the bases, 
 leaving the greater portion of the acids behind, and their continued 
 use, without resort to occasional liming, except in case of lime- 
 stone soils, must tend to increase acidity, while nitrate of soda, 
 which furnishes its nitric acid to the plant, would doubtless tend to 
 produce the opposite result, owing to the fact that the plants do 
 not remove all of the soda, in consequence of which the residue 
 would perform the functions of a base by combining with the 
 natural acids of the soil. 
 
 "This action, together with the direct availability of its nitro- 
 gen, and the fact that the soda not only liberates potash but may 
 also be of some direct fertilizing value to certain plants, serves to 
 explain the beneficial action of nitrate of soda as compared with 
 otiier forms of nitrogen, when used for several consecutive seasons 
 on our acid soils." 
 
 It seems from this Bulletin that the soda in nitrate of soda 
 performs several offices : it neutralizes the acidity of the soil, by 
 combining with the natural acids of the soil ; it liberates potash ; 
 and is of some direct fertilizing value to certain plants, which are 
 not mentioned by name. 
 
EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. I5 
 
 As our correspondence already transcends the space that would 
 naturally be allowed in the press, I make this proposition : to have 
 printed in pamphlet form, my address before the Boston Gardeners' 
 and Florists' Club ; /our address before the same club ; and our 
 correspondence. 
 
 This will bring out the merits of both soda and potash and 
 their best forms and uses in agriculture. The value and use of 
 soda is the most important question to-day, in agriculture, and the 
 time has gone by when it can be smothered, as too many are taking 
 a deep interest in the subject, and clamoring for \h& facts, 
 
 I have noticed in the different agricultural reports, various ex- 
 periments with fertilizers on different crops, for the comparison of 
 nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash ; frequently nitrate of soda 
 has been used as a source of nitrogen, but as it contained 36% of 
 the alkali soda also, which with the mass of testimony I have in- 
 troduced shows that soda will replace potash in plants, and can be 
 substituted for it, and as the alkali soda has not been considered, 
 the stated results of the comparison on the various crops, have 
 been erroneous and misleading. Take, for example, Massachusetts 
 Report, 1897, page 23, "Series of experiments for garden crops, 
 for the comparison of sulphate of ammonia, nitrate of soda, and 
 dried blood as sources of nitrogen. 
 
 Sulphate and muriate of potash were employed to furnish 
 potash on different plots ; dissolved bone-black was employed to 
 furnish phosphoric acid ; there were 6 plots in all, about \ of an 
 acre each ; each plot was supposed to contain the same amount of 
 nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash ; the fertilizers used supply 
 at the rates per acre, phosphoric acid 50.4 lbs. ; Nitrogen, 60 lbs. ; 
 potash, 1 20 lbs. 
 
 On the plots were used 38 lbs. sulph. amm. ; 30 lbs. mur. 
 potash ; 40 lbs. dissolved bone-black ; 47 lbs. nitrate of soda ; 
 75 lbs. of dried blood ; 30 lbs. sulph. potash. On two of the 
 plots, (Nos. 2 & 5), nitrate of soda was used, which contained 18 
 pounds of soda, (equal to 27 pounds of potash), or nearly double 
 the equivalent of potash applied to these plots than in the quantity 
 of muriate and sulphate applied. On an acre it would be 144 
 lbs. of soda alkali, (equivalent to 216 lbs. of potash), whereas the 
 estimate of the potash alkali was 120 lbs. per acre. These tests 
 were made on green peas, beets, squashes and celery, and a com- 
 parison of the results shows a marked difference in favor of the plots 
 where nitrate of soda was used, which was attributed to the form 
 of the nitrogen applied, but I claim it was the effects of the soda 
 in the nitrate of soda, and that is the only practical conclusion that 
 can be drawn from the experiment. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 Andrew H. Ward. 
 
l6 experiment station accuracy. 
 
 Massachusetts Agricultural College, 
 Hatch Experiment Station. 
 
 Amherst, Mass., April 24. 
 Mr. Andrew H. Ward, Boston, Mass. 
 
 Dear Sir: — Your letter of the 17th inst. has been received 
 and attentively read. Concerning the alleged interpolation of the 
 word "exclusively" I must say, that as I understand what you 
 write, and as I believe you said, in reply to a question asked you in 
 Boston, you do claim that soda can entirely replace potash in agri- 
 culture. Indeed, in the very letter at hand occurs this sentence, 
 "As Soda is very much less in price than Potash, and as two 
 pounds of it equal three pounds of Potash, and as the price is not 
 controlled by any syndicate, it is not only safe, but profitable for 
 farmers to use soda instead of potash as a fertilizer." If this does 
 not mean that you advise using soda exclusively in place of potash, 
 may I ask what it does mean .? 
 
 You seem to proceed upon the supposition that the mention of 
 the names of Liebeg, Wagner, Maercker, Atteburg, Hellreigel, 
 Wilfurth, Lawes and Gilbert, Dana, etc., establishes your point. 
 In the writings of all these men I find no possible ground for be- 
 lieving that any of them advise the use of soda in place of potash. 
 On the contrary all advise and practice extensive use of potash. 
 The most that any of them claim is that in case of some plants 
 soda can help satisfy the general demand of the plant for mineral 
 substances. They all hold that it cannot serve the specific function 
 of potash. 
 
 As to the publication of my lecture, and yours, together with 
 our correspondence in pamphlet form, I must decline. My lecture 
 was not written out, but was extemporaneous and, so far as I know, 
 there exists no complete report of it. Such publication could serve 
 no useful purpose, so far as I can see. 
 
 Very truly yours, 
 
 William P. Brooks. 
 
 Boston, May 8, 1899. 
 Professor William P. Brooks, Amherst, Mass. 
 
 Dear Sir : — Yours of the 24th ult. received. I sincerely hope 
 that you will reconsider your declining to furnish your paper on 
 "What Plants Feed Upon, and How to Feed Them." I may per- 
 haps be pardoned if I believe this question is important to our farmers. 
 To substitute soda for potash would be an immense saving to all 
 but the Kali Syndicate. I really indulge the thought that the agri- 
 cultural community would like to hear the argument for the exclu- 
 sive availability of potash, put with your skill and learning, in spite 
 of the fact that no one at Amherst seems even to have tried the 
 exDeriment. 
 
 You remember that you informed the Florists' and Gardeners' 
 Club that my remarks were " misleading," and intended to answer 
 them. As the poison is going out, don't you feel it would be fair 
 
EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. I^ 
 
 to let your antidote, your correction of my " misleading" remarks 
 go along with them? Of course I do not wish to limit you to 
 your memory of what you said ; put in all you think of now, all you 
 would have said if you had happened to think of it. I do not 
 think my position is capable of being misunderstood. Soda has 
 two distinct and important uses in the soil. It substitutes potash, 
 and it liberates potash. 
 
 It is idle to say that my position is limited to either use of 
 soda. It includes both.. Soda is both a plant food in itself, and it 
 also provides other plant food. Its cheap ability to do both these 
 things, constitutes its value to the farmer, and he is finding it out 
 if his purchases are any criterion. 
 
 He may even resent, one of these days, that his Experiment 
 Station has so long refused to even examine that which, if true, was 
 so clearly in his interest. I am very sorry for you, if you cannot 
 see how the eminent chemists on whom I rely, maintain my posi- 
 tion. I presume that as you were at the Florists' Club' to reply to 
 my paper of Nov. i, 1898, that you did me the honor to have read 
 it. If so, the paper shows clearly how unanimous are these men 
 in my support. 
 
 If you don't see it, I can only feel as the deacon did when he 
 sold a horse to be "without fault " and it turned out to be stone- 
 blind. 
 
 The deacon, being approached on his warranty, merely said, 
 " blindness is not a fault, it is only a very serious misfortune." 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Andrew H. Ward. 
 
 Boston, June 23, 1899. 
 Professor William P. Brooks, 
 
 Hatch Experiment Station, Amherst, Mass. 
 Dear Sir: — Having received no reply to my letter of the 
 8th ult. , I assume that you propose to let our correspondence rest 
 where it now stands. 
 
 Still, my hope is so earnest that you, and your associates, may 
 be brought to view this matter in the interest of the farmer, that I 
 am induced to call to your attention, in further proof of my posi- 
 tion, the returns of Agricultural Potash salts imported into the 
 United States in 1898. They are as follows, in tons of 2,000 lbs. 
 each. 
 
 Muriate of Potash . . . 57-969 tons 
 Double Manure Salts . . 9-523 " 
 
 Sylvinit ..... 'h'^•7P^ " 
 Sulphate of Potash . . . 10.007 " 
 
 Kainit 161.286 " 
 
 These various potash salts contain the following ingredients : 
 Potash . . . 62.995 *^o"^ 
 
 Soda .... 42.054 " 
 Chlorine . . . 99-575 " 
 
l8 EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 
 
 The amount of chlorine in these salts, it may be incidentally 
 remarked, is worthy of notice, viz : 99.575 tons of chlorine, as 
 against 105.049 tons of potash and soda combined. The analyses 
 of muriate of potash, sulphate of potash, and kainit, are reck- 
 oned from the analysis of these salts reported in "the report of 
 the Hatch Experiment Station for 1896." But it is especially im- 
 portant to notice the large amount of soda contained in these 
 (so-called) potash salts, viz : 42.054 tons of soda, to 62.995 '^o"^ 
 of potash, to which can be added the soda in nitrate of soda, 
 used for agricultural purposes ; not to mention the muriate of soda, 
 (common salt), and carbonate of soda, used for this purpose. 
 Potash seems largely in the minority, if these are reckoned in. 
 From this it would appear that soda is, " agriculturally impor- 
 tant." 
 
 How does this agree with your statements of April 17, in 
 which you say : " Your complaint that the Experiment Station re- 
 ports do not publish the fact that certain substances, which you 
 mention, contain soda, needs no further comment. The data con- 
 sidered important are included in the reports. Nowhere is the 
 claim made that the analyses given in the tables are complete. 
 When it appears that Soda is agriculturally important, it will be 
 included ; but until that is shown, it is best omitted from the 
 tables." 
 
 From this statement the only inference to be drawn is, that 
 soda is agriculturally important when combined with muriate 
 and sulphate of potash and kainit, but not when it exists in sul- 
 phate of soda, and wood ashes. These are very fine distinctions, 
 and beyond the intelligence of ordinary men. But the agricultu- 
 ral importance of soda not only appears from its extensive use in 
 the "potash salts," but from its large appearance in the analysis of 
 the ash of plants. The composition of ash in alkali, left by some 
 cultivated plants, is seen by the following table. It will be noticed 
 that they all contain more soda than potash ; some of them 
 largely so. 
 
 
 Potash. 
 
 Soda. 
 
 Strawberry, . 
 
 •7 
 
 •9 
 
 Spinach, 
 
 2.9 
 
 5-7 
 
 Celery, 
 
 7.2 
 
 28.8 
 
 Tomato, 
 
 20.8 
 
 25.6 
 
 Egg Plant, . 
 
 20.5 
 
 31-9 
 
 Oyster Plant, 
 
 5.8 
 
 39-2 
 
 Cucumber, . 
 
 23.2 
 
 33-7 
 
 Musk Melon, 
 
 • 8.3 
 
 34-2 
 
 Rhubarb Stalks, 
 
 5-3 
 
 33-3 
 
 Cabbage, 
 
 • 11-7 
 
 20.4 
 
 Corn, . 
 
 • 23-9 
 
 22.5 
 
 The analyses of the strawberry and spinach are by Dr. Wolff ; 
 the others by Dr. Salisbury. The composition of the ash in alkalies 
 
EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 1 9 
 
 in the entire apple-tree as made at the Ontario Agricultural Col- 
 lege is potash, 4. 84 ; soda, 4.02. From this, it would now seem 
 to be much better to use carbonate of soda than muriate of potash, 
 in certain cases as the application of potash in a muriate checks the 
 formation of sugar. The use of chlorides of potassium is, in some 
 cases, decidedly injurious to plants, poisoning or killing them, the 
 symptoms being such as directly point to the action of free chlorine. 
 The leaves are markedly blanched throughout, in an early stage of 
 growth, and ultimately the plant dies. The cause, as you are prob- 
 ably aware, is the decomposition of the chloride within the plant, 
 the plant seizing the alkali which is essential to it and liberating 
 chlorine, which then exerts its bleaching and poisonous influence. 
 Experience and experiment both seem to indicate that organic mat- 
 ter in the soil is able in some degree, to controvert the injurious 
 action of the chlorides in potash, and the same thing is true of 
 muriate of soda. This is explained by the hydrogen of the organic 
 matter uniting with the chloride, the hydrochloric acid thus formed 
 neutralizing itself by lime, or other base at hand. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Andrew H. Ward. 
 
20 EXPEKIMENT STATION ACCURACY, 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 THE USE OF CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS. 
 
 SODA, THE Key to the Cost of Fertilizers, makes a 
 Revolution in their Manufacture and Use. 
 
 Delivered before The Florists' and Gardeners' Club, Boston, 
 November 1, 1898, 
 
 BY 
 
 ANDREW H. WARD. 
 
 It has been stated for so long a time, and so persistently, that 
 the only constituents that were needed to be applied to the soil to 
 produce remunerative crops were potash, phosphoric acid, and 
 nitrogen ; that the soil contained enough of the other constituents, 
 and that no addition of them to the soil was needed ; also that ni- 
 trogen was the most expensive ingredient in fertilizers, that it has 
 come without thought to be generally believed. 
 
 Now, for those financially interested in potash salts, and those 
 fertilizer manufacturers who use them, to admit that soda can re- 
 place potash as a plant food would be suicidal in a business point 
 of view, as it would make a revolution in the manufacture of fer- 
 tilizers, as no farmer would use potash salts at a very much higher 
 price than that at which he could get soda salts, the price not being 
 controlled by any syndicate. 
 
 Again, if it were admitted that soda is as good as potash for 
 a plant food, then the soda in nitrate of soda would have a value. 
 Reckon the soda in nitrate of soda at 5 cents a pound and its value 
 is 7^ cents a pound as compared with the potash in sulphate of 
 potash at 5 cents a pound, which is the value put upon it by many 
 of the Experiment Stations. It stands thus : 
 
 100 pounds of nitrate of soda at a^ cents lb. is $2.12 
 It contains : 
 
 16 pounds of nitrate at 2 cents lb. is 0.32 
 
 36 " Soda at 5 cents lb. $1.80 
 
 $3.12 
 
 which shows that nitrogen in this form and valuation, instead of 
 being the highest cost ingredient in fertilizers, is the lowest. 
 
EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 21 
 
 It has been suggested by some that the cheapest way for the 
 farmer to obtain nitrogen was to steal it from the atmosphere by 
 raising clover or other leguminous crops ; but it is evident to the 
 practical farmer that, counting the cost of seeds, ploughing and 
 other labor, it is cheaper and better to obtain it by the use of ni- 
 trate of soda, without stealing. He not only gets the nitrogen, 
 but soda in its best form, which replaces potash in plants. 
 
 Soda, in the form of a carbonate can be purchased in loo lb. 
 lots in the open market at less than 2 cents a pound, and is equiva- 
 lent in alkaline action to 150 lbs of muriate or sulphate of potash, 
 at 4^ and 5 cents a pound respectively, or 6f and 7^ cents, in com- 
 parison with carbonate of soda which costs for actual soda 2 cents 
 a pound, and in the form of a muriate f cent a pound. It is now 
 claimed that for many crops a fertilizer should contain 10 per cent 
 of potash, or 200 pounds in a ton of fertilizer. Usually a muriate 
 is used, at 4^ cents a pound, which is $9.00 ; muriate of Soda, 
 which is just as good, at ■§■ cent a pound is but $1.25, a difference 
 of $7-75 •'i '^ost per ton when soda instead of potash is used. 
 
 This is no small item in the cost of one ingredient in a ton of 
 fertilizer, for which the farmer pays so much, and gets so little 
 for it. 
 
 With the reduction in the cost of nitrogen, the use of soda in 
 the place of potash will reduce the cost of fertilizers one-half, and 
 enable the farmer to make a larger use of them by the reduced cost 
 and thus produce abundant and more remunerative crops, rendering 
 his land more speedily productive, or improving quickly the condi- 
 tion of land already very much exhausted. 
 
 Nitrogen at two cents a pound will remove the day of pressure 
 of population upon food supply, and make the cost of food for 
 plants so low that the advantage of virgin soils would be of com- 
 paratively small importance, and the ability of distant and new 
 lands to take the market away from old soils, so far as fertility is 
 concerned, an)rthing but a menace. The advantage in competition, 
 instead of being sharply theirs, would be sharply against them. 
 
 Professor Johnson of the Connecticut Experiment Station 
 quotes Dr. Maercker of the Halle Experiment Station, Germany, 
 on the use of muriate and sulphate of potash by themselves, as 
 corroborating the results of his own experiments. "The conclu- 
 sions established are that sulphate of potash is far preferable to any 
 form containing chlorine, for potatoes, sugar beets, tobacco, fruits, 
 or any crop where the formation of starch is especially important, 
 and the results sometimes obtained from the use of any potash salts, 
 when used alone, are often due to their indirect action in dissolving 
 the plant food ingredient already in the soil, and not from their own 
 resources; and that common salt (chloride of sodium), or plaster 
 would frequently do just as well." 
 
 While Dr. Maercker says, " There is no reason to believe that 
 the Potash salts containing chlorine are injurious to vegetation, yet 
 potatoes and sugar beets form an exception, since the starch or 
 
22 EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 
 
 sugar production is decreased by muriates, and tobacco is also 
 injured by them in regard to its burning quality," he further 
 states that the muriate decreased the starch yield more than the 
 sulphate, especially when applied late. In short, says Dr. Maercker, 
 " The good effect produced by potash salts, muriate, sulphate, and 
 kainit, cannot be attributed to any potash supplied by them, for the 
 simple reason that the common salt (that contains no potash, but 
 simply chlorine and soda), produces results just as good." Why 
 then not use common salt instead of muriate of potash? It is just 
 as good, and much lower in cost. 
 
 Professor M. Maercker, Ph. D., director of the Experiment 
 Station at Halle, Germany, says, "Furthermore, according to re- 
 cent investigations by Hellreigel and Wilfurth, we must assume 
 that a certain replacement of potash by soda may take place in 
 plants. This may be of extensive practical interest, since the crude 
 Stassfurt potash salts containing soda would be more economical 
 to use than the pure potash salts." 
 
 Professor Norton, in his ' ' Elements on Scientific Agriculture " 
 page 17, in reference to potash and soda says : "In fact, the two 
 are very much alike in many of their properties, and also in the 
 purposes w^hich they seem to serve in plants." 
 
 Professor Wagner says, in regard to the effect of soda : 
 " There is a direct eEect of it, and this direct effect of soda, that is 
 to say, of soda entered iiito the plant has proved, during my inves- 
 tigations, of such importance that further researches in that direction 
 are of very great moment." In his opinion, "the decided prefer- 
 ence expressed by Schultz-Lupitz for kainit, as a potash (kali) 
 salt, is like the better yield produced by the use of nitrate of soda, 
 as against sulphate of ammonia, attributable to the effect of the 
 soda, which kainit, as well as nitrate of soda contains, and which 
 heretofore has not been properly valued." 
 
 The tenth volume of the Experiment Station Record, No. i, 
 page 34, refers to experiments on the assimilation of nitric acid as 
 well as the action of different nitrates, by W. Schneidewind. It 
 says " The relative proportions of soda and potash vary to a con- 
 siderable extent with the relative amounts applied to the soil. Thus, 
 in the experiment with sodium nitrate the crop took up 4.32 grains 
 of potash and 9.17 grains of sodium. In the experiment with 
 potassium nitrate, the crop contained 9.08 grains of potash, and 
 5.39 grains of soda." This demonstrates that the fixed alkalies, 
 soda and potash replace each other in plants. 
 
 Bulletin No. 22, United States Department of Agriculture, 
 reports agricultural investigations at Rothamsted, England, during 
 a period of fifty years, in six lectures delivered under the provisions 
 of the Lawes Agricultural Trust, by Sir John Henry Gilbert, 
 M. A. H. D. E. R. S. etc., under the auspices of the Association 
 of American Agricultural Colleges and Experimental Stations in 
 November, 1893. 
 
 On page 159 is given the result of wheat on plots 12 and 13 
 
EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 
 
 23 
 
 as follows: — "On plot 12, in addition to the ammonium salts 
 and superphosphates, sulphate of soda was applied, but the plot 
 had received potash previous to 1852. The first twenty years after 
 1852 produced an average yield of 33^ bushels per acre, the second 
 twenty of 27^ bushels, and the whole forty years of 3o|- bushels. 
 To plot 13, besides ammonium salts (and superphosphates, sul- 
 phate of potash was applied each year of the forty, and it had 
 also received potash previously. The average annual produce was 
 over the first twenty of the forty jyears 33!- bushels, over the second 
 twenty 29! bushels and over the forty years 31! bushels." 
 
 On page 163 is stated : " Referring to the columns relating to 
 
 soda, it is seen that considerably smaller amounts were found in 
 
 the produce of wheat, than of barley, but as in the case of the 
 
 barley, the quantities- of soda per acre in the total crop were greater 
 
 where there was a marked deficiency of potash, than where soda 
 
 was actually supplied, while the smallest amounts were where the 
 
 Jupply of potash was the greatest. Probably the greater amount 
 
 Bf soda taken up by the barley than by the wheat is connected with 
 
 Bhe less root range, and much shorter period of collection in the 
 
 , case of the spring sown crop. In both crops by far the greater 
 
 proportion of soda is found in the straw ; but there is more in the 
 
 grain of the barley than in that of wheat, due doubtless to the 
 
 palese or chaff being adherent and included with the grain in the 
 
 case of the barley, but not in that of the wheat." 
 
 It will be noted that the average yield of wheat for forty years 
 i was one bushel per acre more where the sulphate of potash, than 
 where the sulphate of soda was used. If this falling off in the 
 yield which occurred in the last twenty years, was for the lack of 
 alkali, it is easily accounted for, as but 100 pounds of sulphate of 
 poda was used annually on plot 12, while on plot 13, 200 pounds 
 *, of sulphate of potash T^as used annually. 
 
 • The different forms of fertilizers supplying nitrogen have a 
 
 relative crop producing capacity, as follows : nitrate soda 100 ; 
 
 nitrate potash 100 ; sulphate ammonium 90 ; castor pomace 74 ; 
 
 ,j^tton seed meal 72 ; dried blood 68 ; dried fish 66 ; tankage 59 ; 
 
 ' staTO^manure 45 ; ground leather 23. 
 
 7f he Connecticut Station report for 1 895 , says : ' ' The average 
 cost osf nitrogeneous superphosphate in Connecticut in 1894 was 
 $32^96^ average valuation $23.30, per cent difference 41.3; in 
 1895 "^JF^ $32.32, average valuation $23.37, percent difference 38.2. 
 Tjnese valuations, it must be remembered, are based on the 
 aRr<.ifaiption that the nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash in each 
 ■fertilizer are readily available to farm crops. Chemical examina- 
 tions can show pretty conclusively whether this is true in regard to 
 potash. There is less certainty regarding phosphoric acid, while 
 chemical examinations, as they are usually made, give little or no 
 clue as to the availability of the organic nitrogen in mixed goods." 
 Sir John B. Lawes says : " Although potash, phosphoric acid 
 and nitrogen are the chief manure ingredients in barnyard dung, the 
 
34 EXPERIMENT STATION ACCURACY. 
 
 manure ingredients in artificial foods, and in artificial manures, 
 still, the difference in form in which these substances are met with 
 greatly affects their value. The present methods of analyzing 
 manures do not properly recognize these distinctions, 'and the 
 valuations ;founded upon these analyses are altogether false and 
 erroneous." /' 
 
 With the admission of the unreliability of the analysis, together \ 
 with the " assumed valuation " of fertilizers on which farmers are 
 expected to pin their faith, and pay their money, it is pertintot to 
 inquire how long this state of affairs will continue to exist,! arid « 
 when something reliable will be obtained. \. j 
 
 How long will it be before the Experiment Stations wilff of 
 themselves reform, and give _/ac^5 instead of assumptions? What 
 measures should be taken to expedite it ? i 
 
 Since manures are the nourishing material of plants, and (othir 
 things being equal) the highest profits of the fields depend onlyl 
 and alone on the greater easily extracted quantity of the same found 
 in the soil, therefore, the more accurate knowledge of this substance, i 
 the preparation, proportional use, and how it may be procured in 
 sufficient quantity, and with the least cost, is of the greatestWmpor- 
 tance to the farmer. j 
 
 The power of fertility which exists in the silicates of the soil is | 
 unlimited. An improved agriculture must depend upon the skill "! 
 with which this power is brought into action. \ I 
 
 This can only be done by the conjunction of salts, or^nijc 
 matter and plants. No manure, no salt, no combination of silts, 
 gives full vigor to vegetation, while nitrogen is absent. ' . 
 
 Nitrogen not only measures^ but gives the value to manuiMS. I 
 Without controversy the saving, preparing and appRcation %f I 
 manures, is one of the most impoftant subjects that the farmer caul 
 consider. ) ', 
 
 His success, commercially, depends in a large measure upon 
 his practice or method of feeding his crops, as regards the quantity, 
 quality and manner of applying his manures. The profits of his 
 farming operations often turn on this one question:. Wheithei^li^ 
 has accumulated all the manure possible, preserved all the elemZhtk 
 
 LLao a>o^uiiiuiaL(^ia a.xx lii^ iiiaiiui^ pwooik/it^, Lricocivc:u all Llic c:iCH..Jll.g ^ 
 
 of fertility, and applied it when and where it would do the/ most j 
 good. 
 
 le/mo 
 
Photomount 
 
 Pamphlet 
 
 Binder 
 
 Gaylord Bros., toe. 
 
 Makers 
 ' Syracuse, N. Y. 
 
 I PAl.JAH 21,1908 
 
i.i'i 
 
 I'll!! 
 
 '.i 
 
 I. 
 
 m 
 
 M 
 
 ■ ■un