Manures and the principles of manuring

by Charles Morton Aikman

Liebig was born at Darmstadt in the year 1803. He was the son of a drysalter, and early devoted himself to the study of chemistry in the only way at first at his disposal—viz., in an apothecary's shop. Soon finding, however, his opportunities of study limited, he left the apothecary's shop for the University of Bonn. He did not remain long at Bonn, but in a short time left that university for Erlangen, where he studied for some years, taking his Ph.D. degree in 1822. His subsequent studies were carried on at Paris under Gay-Lussac, Thénard, Dulong, and other distinguished chemists. Through the influence of A. Humboldt, who was at that time in Paris, and whose acquaintance he was fortunate enough to make, he was received into Gay-Lussac's private laboratory. In 1824—that is, when he was only twenty-one years of age—he was appointed Professor Extraordinarius of Chemistry at the University of Giessen. Two years later he was appointed to the post of Professor Ordinarius—an appointment which he held for twenty-five years. In 1845 he was created Baron, and in 1852 appointed Professor at Munich. He died in 1873.

His First Report to British Association.

The report above referred to was made by Liebig at the request of the Chemical Section of the British Association. It was read to a meeting of the Association held in Glasgow in 1840, and was subsequently published in book form, under the title of 'Chemistry in its Application to Agriculture and Physiology,' Liebig's position, past training and experience were such as to peculiarly fit him for the part of pioneer in the new science. As Sir J. H. Gilbert has remarked,[14] "In the treatment of his subject he not only called to his aid the previously existing knowledge directly bearing upon his subject, but he also turned to good account the more recent triumphs of organic chemistry, many of which had been won in his own laboratory."

In his dedication to the British Association at the beginning of the book, Liebig says: "Perfect agriculture is the true foundation of all trade and industry—it is the foundation of the riches of States. But a rational system of agriculture cannot be formed without the application of scientific principles; for such a system must be based on an exact acquaintance with the means of nutrition of vegetables, and with the influence of soils and actions of manure upon them. This knowledge we must seek from chemistry, which teaches the mode of investigating the composition and of studying the characters of the different substances from which plants derive their nourishment."

His criticism of the "Humus" Theory.

The first subject which Liebig discusses is the scientific basis of the so-called "humus" theory. The humus theory seems to have been first promulgated by Einhof and Thaer towards the close of last century. Thaer held that humus was the source of plant-food. He stated in his published writings that the fertility of a soil depended really upon its humus; for this substance, with the exception of water, is the only source of plant-food. De Saussure, however, by his experiments—the results of which he had published in 1804—had shown the fallacy of this humus theory; and his statements had been further developed and substantiated by the investigations of the French chemist Braconnot and the German chemist Sprengel. Despite, however, the experiments of Saussure, Braconnot, and Sprengel, the belief that plants derived the carbonaceous portion of their substance from humus still seemed to be commonly held in 1840.

While Liebig, therefore, can scarcely be said to have been the first to controvert the humus theory, he certainly dealt it its death-blow. He reasserted de Saussure's conclusions, and by some simple calculations showed very clearly that it was wholly untenable. One of the most striking of the arguments he brought forward was the fact that the humus of the soil itself consisted of the decayed vegetable matter of preceding plants. This being so, how, he asked, could it be the original source of the carbon of plants? To reason thus was simply to reason in a circle. He pointed out, further, that the comparative insolubility of humus in water, or even in alkaline solutions, told against its acceptance as correct.

His Mineral Theory.

Having thus controverted the humus theory, he then goes on to deal with the question of the source of the various plant constituents. In treating of the relation of the soil to the plant, he puts forward his "mineral" theory. It cannot be doubted that, while the advance of science since Liebig's time has induced us to considerably modify his mineral theory, it contained the statement of one of the most important facts in the chemistry of plant physiology. He was the first to fully estimate the enormous importance of the mineral portion of the plant's food, and point the way to one of the chief sources of a soil's fertility. Up to this period the ash constituents had been generally considered to be of minor importance. By emphasising the contrary opinion, and insisting upon their essentialness to plant-life, he gave to agricultural research a fresh impetus upon the right lines. His statement of his mineral theory was in the main true, but was not the whole truth.

De Saussure, as has already been pointed out, to a certain extent, anticipated Liebig's mineral theory. He was of the opinion that whatever might be the case with some of the mineral constituents of plants, others were necessary, inasmuch as they were always found in the ash. Of these he instanced the alkaline phosphates. "Their small quantity does not indicate their inutility," he sagaciously remarks. Sir Humphry Davy, as has already been pointed out, missed recognising the true importance of the ash constituents. It was left to Liebig, then, to restate the important doctrine of the essentialness of the mineral matter, already implied to some extent by de Saussure.