PRINCIPLES OF MANURING

MANURES

AND THE

PRINCIPLES OF MANURING

BY

C. M. AIKMAN, M.A., D.Sc., F.R.S.E., F.I.C.

FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY, GLASGOW VETERINARY COLLEGE, AND EXAMINER IN CHEMISTRY, GLASGOW UNIVERSITY; AUTHOR OF 'FARMYARD MANURE,' ETC.

THIRD IMPRESSION

WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS
EDINBURGH AND LONDON
MCMX

D. VAN NOSTRAND COMPANY
NEW YORK

All Rights reserved

TO

SIR JOHN BENNET LAWES, Bart., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S.,

OF ROTHAMSTED,

AND

SIR J. HENRY GILBERT, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.,

FORMERLY SIBTHORPIAN PROFESSOR OF RURAL ECONOMY,
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD,
WHOSE FAMOUS INVESTIGATIONS DURING THE LAST FIFTY YEARS
HAVE SO LARGELY CONTRIBUTED TO BUILD UP
THE SCIENCE OF MANURING,

THIS WORK,

EMBODYING MANY OF THE ROTHAMSTED RESULTS,
IS DEDICATED.

PREFACE.

When the present work was first undertaken there were but few works in English dealing with its subject-matter, and hardly any which dealt with the question of Manuring at any length. During the last few years, however, owing to the greatly increased interest taken in agricultural education, the demand for agricultural scientific literature has called into existence quite a number of new works. Despite this fact, the author ventures to believe that the gap which the present treatise was originally designed to fill is still unfilled.

Of the importance of the subject all interested in agriculture are well aware. It is no exaggeration to say that the introduction of the practice of artificial manuring has revolutionised modern husbandry. Indeed, without the aid of artificial manures, arable farming, as at present carried out, would be impossible. Fifty years ago the practice may be said to have been unknown; yet so widespread has it now become, that at the present time the capital invested in the manure trade in this country alone amounts to millions sterling. It need scarcely be pointed out, therefore, that a practice in which such vast monetary interests are involved is worthy of the most careful consideration by all students of agricultural science, as well as, it may be added, by political economists.

The aim of the present work is to supply in a concise and popular form the chief results of recent agricultural research on the question of soil fertility, and the nature and action of various manures. It makes no pretence to be an exhaustive treatise on the subject, and only contains those facts which seem to the author to have an important bearing on agricultural practice. In the treatment of its subject it may be said to stand midway between Professor Storer's recently published elaborate and excellent treatise on 'Agriculture in some of its Relations to Chemistry'—a work which is to be warmly recommended to all students of agricultural science, and to which the author would take this opportunity of acknowledging his indebtedness—and Dr J. M. H. Munro's admirable little work on 'Soils and Manures.'

In order to render the work as intelligible to the ordinary agricultural reader as possible, all tabular matter and matter of a more or less technical nature have been relegated to the Appendices attached to each chapter.

The author's somewhat wide experience as a University Extension Lecturer, and as a Lecturer in connection with County Council schemes of agricultural education, during the last few years, induces him to believe that the work may be of especial value to those engaged in teaching agricultural science.

He has to express the deep obligation he is under, in common with all writers on Agricultural Chemistry, to the classic researches of Sir John Bennet Lawes, Bart., and Sir J. Henry Gilbert, now in progress for more than fifty years at Sir John Lawes' Experiment Station at Rothamsted. His debt of gratitude to these distinguished investigators has been still further increased by their kindness in permitting him to dedicate the work to them, and for having been good enough to read portions of the work in proof. In addition to the free use which has been made throughout the book of the results of these experiments, the last chapter contains, in a tabular form, a short epitome of some of the more important Rothamsted researches on the action of different manures.

To the numerous German and French works on the subject, more especially to Professor Heiden's encyclopædic 'Lehrbuch der Düngerlehre' and the various writings of Dr Emil von Wolff, the author is further much indebted.

Among English works he would especially mention the assistance he has derived from the writings of Mr R. Warington, F.R.S., Professor S. W. Johnson, Professor Armsby, the late Dr Augustus Voelcker, and others. He would also tender his acknowledgments to the new edition of Stephens' 'Book of the Farm,' and he has to thank its editor, his friend Mr James Macdonald, Secretary to the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, for having read parts of his proof-sheets.

It is also his pleasing duty to thank his friends Dr Bernard Dyer, Hon Secretary of the Society of Public Analysts, Dr A. P. Aitken, Chemist to the Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland; Professor Douglas Gilchrist of Bangor; Mr F. J. Cooke, late of Flitcham; Mr Hermann Voss of London; and Professor Wright of Glasgow, for having assisted him in the revision of proof-sheets.

Analytical Laboratory,
128 Wellington Street, Glasgow,
January 1894.

CONTENTS.

PART I.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION

MANURES AND THE PRINCIPLES OF MANURING.

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION.

Agricultural Chemistry, like most branches of natural science, may be said to be entirely of modern growth. While it is true we have many old speculations on the subject, they can scarcely be said to possess much scientific value. The great questions which had first to be solved by the agricultural chemist were,—What is the food of plants? and,—What is the source of that food? The second of these two questions more easily admitted of answer than the first. The source of plant-food could only be the atmosphere or the soil. As the composition of the atmosphere, however, was not discovered till the close of last century, and the chemistry of the soil is a question which is still requiring much work ere we shall be in possession of anything like a full knowledge of it, it will be at once obvious that the very fundamental conditions for a solution of the question were awanting. The beginning, then, of a true scientific agricultural chemistry may be said to date from the brilliant discoveries associated with the names of Priestley, Scheele, Lavoisier, Cavendish, and Black—that is, towards the close of last century.

Early Theories on Source of Plant-food.

While this is so, and while we must regard the early attempts made towards solving this question as being, for the most part, of little scientific value, it is not without interest, from the historical point of view, to glance briefly at some of these old interesting speculations.

The Aristotelian doctrine, regarding the possibility of dividing matter into the so-called four primary elements, fire, air, earth, and water, which obtained in one form or another till the birth of modern chemistry, had naturally an important influence on these early theories.

Van Helmont's Theory.

Among the earliest and most important attempts made to solve the problem of plant-growth was that by Jean Baptiste Van Helmont, one of the best known of the alchemists, who flourished about the beginning of the seventeenth century. Van Helmont believed that he had proved by a conclusive experiment that all the products of vegetables were capable of being generated from water. The details of this classical experiment were as follows:—

"He took a given weight of dry soil—200 lb.—and into this soil he planted a willow-tree that weighed 5 lb., and he watered this carefully from time to time with pure rain-water, taking care to prevent any dust or dirt falling on to the earth in which the plant grew. He allowed this to go on growing for five years, and at the end of that period, thinking his experiment had been conducted sufficiently long, he pulled up his tree by the roots, shook all the earth off, dried the earth again, weighed the earth and weighed the plant. He found that the plant now weighed 169 lb. 3 ounces, whereas the weight of the soil remained very nearly what it was—about 200 lb. It had only lost 2 ounces in weight."[1]

The conclusion, therefore, come to by Van Helmont was that the source of plant-food was water.[2]

Digby's Theory.

Some fifty years later an extremely interesting book was published bearing the following title: 'A Discourse concerning the Vegetation of Plants, spoken by Sir Kenelm Digby, at Gresham College, on the 23d of January 1660. (At a meeting of the Society for promoting Philosophical Knowledge by Experiments. London: Printed for John Williams, in Little Britain, over against St Botolph's Church, 1669.)' The author attributes plant-growth to the influence of a balsam which the air contains. This book is especially interesting as containing the earliest recognition of the value of saltpetre as a manure. The following is an extract from this interesting old work:—

"The sickness, and at last the death of a plant, in its natural course, proceeds from the want of that balsamick saline juice; which, I have said, makes it swell, germinate, and augment itself. This want may proceed either from a destitution of it in the place where the plant grows, as when it is in a barren soil or bad air, or from a defect in the plant itself, that hath not vigour sufficient to attract it, though it be within the sphere of it; as when the root has become so hard, obstructed and cold, as that it hath lost its vegetable functions. Now, both these may be remedy'd, in a great measure, by one and the same physick.... The watering of soils with cold hungray springs doth little good; whereas muddy saline waters brought to overflow a piece of ground enrich it much. But above all, well-digested dew makes all plants luxuriate and prosper most. Now what may it be that endues these liquors with such prolifick virtue? The meer water which is common to them all, cannot be it; there must be something else enclosed within it, to which the water serves but for a vehicle. Examine it by spagyric art, and you will find that it is nothing else than a nitrous salt, which is dilated in the water. It is this salt which gives fœcundity to all things: and from this salt (rightly understood) not only all vegetables, but also all minerals draw their origine. By the help of plain salt-peter, dilated in water and mingled with some other fit earthy substance, that may familiarize it a little with the corn into which I endeavoured to introduce it, I have made the barrenest ground far out-go the richest, in giving a prodigiously plentiful harvest. I have seen hemp-seed soaked in this liquor, that hath in due time made such plants arise, as, for the tallness and hardness of them, seemed rather to be coppice-wood of fourteen years' growth at least, than plain hemp. The fathers of the Christian doctrine at Paris still keep by them for a monument (and indeed it is an admirable one) a plant of barley consisting of 249 stalks, springing from one root or grain of barley; in which they counted above 18,000 grains or seeds of barley. But do you think that it is barely the salt-peter, imbibed into the seed or root, which causeth this fertility? no: that would be soon exhausted and could not furnish matter to so vast a progeny. The salt-peter there is like a magnet, which attracts a like salt which fœcundates the air, and gave cause to the Cosmopolite to say there is in the air a hidden food of life."[3]

Duhamel and Hales.

The names of the French writer, Duhamel, and of the English, Stephen Hales, may be mentioned in passing as authors of works bearing on the question of vegetable physiology. Both of these writers flourished about the middle of the eighteenth century. The writings of the former contained much valuable information on the effects of grafting, motion of sap, and influence of light on vegetable growth, and also the results of experiments which the author had carried out on the influence of treating plants with certain substances. 'Statical Essays, containing Vegetable Staticks; or an Account of some Statical Experiments on the Sap of Vegetables, by Stephen Hales, D.D.' (2 vols.), was published in London in 1738; and contained, as will be seen from its title, records of experiments of very much the same nature as those of Duhamel.

Jethro Tull's Theory.

Some reference may be made to a theory which created a considerable amount of interest when it was first published—viz., that of Jethro Tull. The chief value of Tull's contribution to the subject of agricultural science was, that he emphasised the importance of tillage operations by putting forward a theory to account for the fact, universally recognised, that the more thoroughly a soil was tilled, the more luxuriant the crops would be. As Tull's theory had a very considerable influence in stirring up interest in many of the most important problems in agricultural chemistry, and as it contained in itself much, the value of which we have only of late years come to understand, a brief statement of this theory may not be without interest.

According to Tull the food of plants consists of the particles of the soil. These particles, however, must be rendered very minute before they become available for the plant, which absorbs them by means of its rootlets. This pulverisation of the soil goes on in nature independently of the farmer, but only very slowly, and the farmer has therefore to hasten it on by means of tillage operations. The more efficiently these operations are carried on, the more abundant will the supply of plant-food be rendered in the soil. He consequently introduced and advocated the system of horse-hoe husbandry. This theory, he informs us, was suggested to him by the custom, which he had noticed on the Continent, of growing vines in rows, and hoeing the intervals between these rows from time to time. The excellent results which followed this mode of cultivation induced him to adopt it in England for his farm crops. He accordingly sowed his crops in rows or ridges, wide enough apart to admit of thorough tillage of the intervals by ploughing as well as by hand-hoeing. This he continued until the plant had reached maturity. As to the exact width of the interval most suitable, he made a large number of experiments. At first, in the cultivation of wheat, he made this interval six feet wide; but latterly he adopted an interval of lesser width, that finally arrived at being between four and five feet. He likewise experimented on each separate ridge as to which was the best number of rows of wheat to be sown, latterly adopting, as most convenient, two rows at ten inches apart. The great success which he met with in this system of cultivation induced him to publish the results of his experiments in his famous work, 'Horse-Hoeing Husbandry.'

While Tull's theory was based on principles at heart thoroughly sound, he was carried away by his personal success into drawing unwarrantable deductions. Thus he came to the conclusion that rotation of crops was unnecessary, provided that a thorough system of tillage was carried out. Manures also, according to him, might be entirely dispensed with under his system of cultivation, for the true function of all manures is to aid in the pulverisation of the soil by fermentation.

The first really valuable scientific facts contributed to the science were made by Priestley, Bonnet, Ingenhousz, and Sénébier.

Discovery of the Source of Plants' Carbon.

To Charles Bonnet (1720-1793), a Swiss naturalist, is due the credit of having made the first contribution to a discovery of very great importance—viz., the true source of the carbon, which we now know forms so large a portion of the plant-substance. Bonnet, who had devoted himself to the question of the function of leaves, noticed that when these were immersed in water bubbles were seen, after a time, to collect on their surface. De la Hire, it ought to be pointed out, had noticed this same fact about sixty years earlier. It was left to Priestley, however, to identify these bubbles with the gas he had a short time previously discovered—viz., oxygen. Priestley had observed, about this time, the interesting fact that plants possessed the power of purifying air vitiated by the presence of animal life.[4] The next step in this highly interesting and important discovery was taken by John Ingenhousz (1730-1799), an eminent physician and natural philosopher. In 1779, Ingenhousz published a work in London entitled 'Experiments on Vegetables.' In it he gives the results of some important experiments he had made on the question already investigated by Bonnet and Priestley. These experiments proved that plant-leaves only gave up their oxygen in the presence of sunlight. In 1782 he published another work on 'The Influence of the Vegetable Kingdom on the Animal Creation.'[5]

The source of the gas, which Bonnet had first noticed to be given off from plant-leaves, Priestley had identified as oxygen, and Ingenhousz had proved to be only given off under the influence of the sun's rays, was finally shown by a Swiss naturalist, Jean Sénébier[6] (1742-1809), to be the carbonic acid gas in the air, which the plant absorbed and decomposed, giving out the oxygen and assimilating the carbon.

Publication of First English Treatise on Agricultural Chemistry.

In 1795, a book dealing with the relations between chemistry and agriculture was published. This work was written by a Scottish nobleman, the Earl of Dundonald, and possesses especial interest from the fact that it is the first book in the English language on agricultural chemistry. The full title is as follows: 'A Treatise showing the Intimate Connection that subsists between Agriculture and Chemistry.'

In his introduction the author says: "The slow progress which agriculture has hitherto made as a science is to be ascribed to a want of education on the part of the cultivators of the soil, and to a want of knowledge, in such authors as have written on agriculture, of the intimate connection that subsists between the science and that of chemistry. Indeed, there is no operation or process not merely mechanical that does not depend on chemistry, which is defined to be a knowledge of the properties of bodies, and of the effects resulting from their different combinations."

In quoting this passage Professor S. W. Johnson remarks:[7] "Earl Dundonald could not fail to see that chemistry was ere long to open a splendid future for the ancient art that had always been and always will be the prime supporter of the nations. But when he wrote, how feeble was the light that chemistry could throw upon the fundamental questions of agricultural science! The chemical nature of the atmosphere was then a discovery of barely twenty years' standing. The composition of water had been known but twelve years. The only account of the composition of plants that Earl Dundonald could give was the following: 'Vegetables consist of mucilaginous matter, resinous matter, matter analogous to that of animals, and some proportion of oil.... Besides these, vegetables contain earthy matters, formerly held in solution in the newly-taken-in juices of the growing vegetables.' To be sure, he explains by mentioning in subsequent pages that starch belongs to the mucilaginous matter, and that on analysis by fire vegetables yield soluble alkaline salts and insoluble phosphate of lime. But these salts, he held, were formed in the process of burning, their lime excepted; and the fact of their being taken from the soil and constituting the indispensable food of plants, his lordship was unacquainted with. The gist of agricultural chemistry with him was, that plants 'are composed of gases with a small proportion of calcareous matter; for although this discovery may appear to be of small moment to the practical farmer, yet it is well deserving of his attention and notice.'"

De Saussure.

The year 1804 witnessed the publication of by far the most important contribution made to the science up till this time. This was 'Recherches Chimique sur la Végétation,' by Theodore de Saussure, one of the most illustrious agricultural chemists of the century. De Saussure was the first to draw attention to the mineral or ash constituents of the plant; and thus anticipate, to a certain extent, the subsequent famous "mineral" theory of the great Liebig. The French chemist maintained that these ash ingredients were essential; and that without them plant-life was impossible. He also adduced fresh experiments of his own in support of the theory, based on the experiments of Bonnet, Priestley, Ingenhousz, and Sénébier, that plants obtain their carbon from the carbonic acid gas in the air, under the influence of the sunlight. He was of opinion that the hydrogen and oxygen of the plant were, probably, chiefly derived from water. He showed that by far the largest portion of the plant's substance was derived from the air and from water, and that the ash portion was alone derived from the soil. To Saussure we owe the first definite statement on the different sources of the plant's food. It may be said that the lapse of nearly a century has shown his views to be, in the main, correct.

Source of Plant-nitrogen.

There was one question, which, even at that remote period in the history of the subject, engaged the attention of agricultural chemists—viz., the question of the source of the plant's nitrogen—a question which may be fitly described at the present hour as still the burning question of agricultural chemistry.[8]

As soon as it was discovered that nitrogen was a constituent of the plant's substance; speculations as to its source were indulged in. The fact that the air furnished an unlimited storehouse of this valuable element, and the analogy of the absorption of carbon (from the same source by plant-leaves), naturally suggested to the minds of early inquirers that the free nitrogen of the air was the source of the plant's nitrogen. As, however, no direct experiments could be adduced to prove this theory, and as, moreover, nitrogen was found in the soil, and seemed to be a necessary ingredient of all fertile soils, the opinion that the soil was the only source gradually supplanted the older theory. Little value, however, must be attached to these early theories, as they can scarcely be said to have been based on experiments of serious value. Indeed it may be safely affirmed, in the light of subsequent experiments, that it was impossible for this question to be decided at this early period, from the fact that analytical apparatus, of a sufficiently delicate nature, was then wholly unknown. Indeed it is only within the last few years that it has been possible to carry out experiments which may be regarded as at all crucial. A short sketch of the development of our knowledge of the relation of nitrogen to the plant will be given further on.

Sir Humphry Davy's Lectures.

A series of lectures on agricultural chemistry, delivered by Sir Humphry Davy during the years 1802-1812, for the Board of Agriculture, and subsequently published in book form in the year 1813,[9] affords us an opportunity of gauging, pretty accurately, the state of knowledge on the subject at the time.

Position of Agricultural Chemistry at beginning of Century.

In his opening lecture Davy says: "Agricultural chemistry has not yet received a regular and systematic form. It has been pursued by competent experimenters for a short time only. The doctrines have not as yet been collected into any elementary treatise, ... and," he adds, "I am sure you will receive with indulgence the first attempt made in this country to illustrate it by a series of experimental demonstrations."

He further on remarks: "It is evident that the study of agricultural chemistry ought to be commenced by some general inquiries into the composition and nature of material bodies, and the law of their changes. The surface of the earth, the atmosphere, and the water deposited from it, must either together, or separately, afford all the principles concerned in vegetation, and it is only by examining the chemical nature of these principles that we are capable of discovering what is the food of plants, and the manner in which this food is supplied and prepared for their nourishment."

Davy goes on further to say: "No general principles can be laid down respecting the comparative merits of the different systems of cultivation and the various systems of crops adopted in different districts, unless the chemical nature of the soil, and the physical circumstances to which it is exposed, are fully known."

He recognises the enormous importance of experiments. "Nothing is more wanting in agriculture than experiments, in which all the circumstances are minutely and scientifically detailed."

In dealing with the composition of plants he says: "It is evident that the most essential vegetable substances consist of hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, in different proportions, generally alone; but in some few cases combined as carbon and nitrogen. The acids, alkalies, earths, metallic oxides, and saline compounds, though necessary in the vegetable economy, must be considered as of less importance, particularly in their relation to agriculture, than the other principles."

Further on: "It will be asked, Are the pure earths in the soil merely active as mechanical or indirect chemical agents, or do they actually afford food to the plant?"

This question he answers by saying that "water, and the decomposing animal and vegetable matter existing in the soil, constitute the true nourishment of plants; and as the earthy parts of the soil are useful in retaining water, so as to supply it in the proper proportion to the roots of the vegetables, so they are likewise efficacious in producing the proper distribution of the animal or vegetable matter. When equally mixed with it, they prevent it from decomposing too rapidly; and by their means the soluble parts are supplied in proper proportions."

Value of Davy's Lectures.

The chief value of these lectures is due to the fact that they form the first attempt to connect in a systematic manner the various scattered facts, up to that time ascertained, and to interpret their bearing on agricultural practice. We have in them, it is true, a strange mixture of facts belonging rather to botany and physiology than to agricultural chemistry; still they undoubtedly furnished a great impetus to inquiry, and at the same time they did much to popularise the science.

But not merely did Davy summarise and systematise the various results arrived at by others, he also made many valuable contributions to the science himself. The conclusions he drew from the results he obtained were, no doubt, in many cases false, and in other cases exaggerated; still the results possess a permanent interest. He may be said to have worked out many of the most important physical or mechanical properties of a soil, although exaggerating the importance of the influence of these properties on the question of fertility.[10]

These experiments had to do with the heat- and water-absorbing powers of a soil. He experimented on a brown fertile soil, and a cold barren clay, and found at what rate they lost heat. "Nothing," he says, "can be more evident than that the genial heat of the soil, particularly in spring, must be of the highest importance to the rising plant; ... so that the temperature of the surface, when bare and exposed to the rays of the sun, affords at least one indication of the degree of the fertility."

Again he says: "The power of soils to absorb water from air is much connected with fertility.... I have compared the absorbent powers of many soils, with respect to atmospheric moisture, and I have always found it greatest in the most fertile soils; so that it affords one method of judging of the productiveness of land."

Where he erred was in overestimating the functions of the mechanical properties of a soil, and in considering fertility to be due to them alone.

During the next thirty years or so, little progress seems to have been made in the way of fresh experimentation.

Boussingault.

In 1834, Boussingault,[11] the most distinguished French agricultural chemist of the century, began that series of brilliant chemico-agricultural experiments on his estate at Bechelbronn, in Alsace, the results of which have added so much to agricultural science. It was the first instance of the combination of "science with practice," of the institution of a laboratory on a farm; a combination peculiarly fitted to promote the interests of agricultural science, and an example which has been since followed with such magnificent results in the case of Sir John Lawes's famous Rothamsted Experiment Station, and other less known research stations.

Boussingault's first paper appeared in 1836, and was entitled, "The amount of nitrogen in different kinds of foods, and on the equal value of foods founded on these data."

In the year following other papers were published on such subjects as the amount of gluten in different kinds of wheat; on the meteorological considerations of how far various agricultural operations—such as extensive clearings of wood, the draining of large swamps, &c.—influence of climate on a country; and on experiments on the culture of the vine.

Boussingault was the first observer to study the scientific principles underlying the system of rotation of crops. In 1838 he published the results of some very elaborate experiments he had carried out on this subject. He also was the first chemist to carry out elaborate experiments with a view to deciding the question of the assimilation by plants of free atmospheric nitrogen. His first contribution to the subject was published in 1838, but can scarcely be regarded as possessing much scientific value, except in so far as it stimulated further research. Some thirteen years later he returned to this question; and during the years 1851-1855 carried out most elaborate experiments, the results of which, until quite recently, were generally regarded as having, along with the experiments of Messrs Lawes, Gilbert, and Pugh, definitely settled the question.[12]

In 1839 Boussingault was elected a member of the French Institute, an honour paid to him in recognition of his great services to agricultural chemistry.[13]

The foregoing is a brief epitome of the history of the development of agricultural chemistry up to the year 1840, the year which witnessed the publication of one of the most memorable works on the subject, which has appeared during the present century—Liebig's first report to the British Association, a work which may be described as constituting an epoch in the history of the science. Liebig's position as an agricultural chemist was so prominent, and his influence as a teacher so potent, that a few biographical facts may not be out of place before entering upon an estimate of his work.

Liebig.

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.

Liebig says: "Carbonic acid, water, and ammonia are necessary for the existence of plants, because they contain the elements from which their organs are formed; but other substances are likewise necessary for the formation of certain organs destined for special functions, peculiar to each family of plants. Plants obtain these substances from inorganic nature."

While insisting on the importance of the mineral constituents, he did so in a more or less general way not sufficiently distinguishing one mineral constituent from another.

As all plants contained certain organic acids, and as these organic acids were nearly always found in a neutral state—i.e., in combination with bases, such as potash, soda, lime, and magnesia—the plant must be in a position to take up sufficient of these alkaline bases to neutralise these acids. Hence the necessity of these mineral constituents in the soil. According to him, however, the exact nature of the bases was a point of not so much importance. He assumed, in short, as has been pointed out by Sir J. H. Gilbert, a greater amount of mutual replaceability amongst the bases than can be now admitted.

Passing on to a consideration of the difference of the mineral composition of different soils, he attributes this to the difference in the rocks forming the soils. "Weathering" is the great agent at work in rendering available the otherwise locked-up stores of fertility. He attributes the benefits of fallow exclusively to the increased supply of these incombustible compounds which were thus rendered available to the plant. Treating of this subject, he says: "From the preceding part of this chapter" (in which he has been explaining weathering) "it will be seen that fallow is that period of culture when the land is exposed to progressive disintegration by the action of the weather, for the purpose of liberating a certain quantity of alkalies and silica, to be absorbed by future plants."

His Theory of Manures.

Treating of manures, he showed how the most important constituents of manures were potash and phosphates. In the first edition of his work he also insisted on the value of nitrogen in manures, condemning the want of precautions, in the treatment of animal manures, against loss of nitrogen.

In the later editions of his work he seems to have receded from that opinion, and considered that there was no necessity for supplying nitrogen in manures, since the ammonia washed down in rain was a sufficient source of all the nitrogen the plant required. It was here that Liebig went astray, first in denying the importance of supplying nitrogen as a manure; and secondly, in overestimating the amount of ammonia washed down in rain, which has subsequently been shown to be entirely inadequate to supply plants with the whole of their nitrogen.[15]

His Theory of Rotation of Crops.

In explaining the benefits of the rotation of crops, Liebig propounded a very ingenious theory, but one which was largely of a speculative nature, and which has since been shown to be unfounded on any scientific basis. It was to the effect that one kind of crop excreted matters which were especially favourable to another kind of crop. He did not say whether he considered such excretion positively injurious to the crop which excreted them; but he inferred that what was excreted by the crop was what was not required, and what could, therefore, be of little benefit to a crop of the same nature following it.

The second portion of Liebig's report dealt with the processes of fermentation, decay, and putrefaction.

Publication of Liebig's Second Report to British Association.

In 1842 Liebig contributed his second famous report to the British Association, subsequently published under the title of 'Animal Chemistry; or, Organic Chemistry in its Applications to Physiology and Pathology.' The publication of this report created even greater interest than the publication of his first work. In it he may be said to have contributed as much to animal physiology, as, in his first, he did to agricultural chemistry. His subsequent principal works on agricultural chemistry were—'Principles of Agricultural Chemistry,' published in 1855, and 'On Theory and Practice in Agriculture,' 1856.

Liebig's services to Agricultural Chemistry.

An attempt has been made to sketch in the very briefest manner some of the main points in Liebig's teaching, as contained in his famous report to the British Association in 1840. Agricultural chemistry up till that year can scarcely be described as having a distinct existence as a branch of chemistry. Much valuable work, it is true, had already been done, especially by his two great predecessors, de Saussure and Boussingault; but it was, down to the year 1840, a science made up of isolated facts. Liebig's genius formed it into an important branch of chemistry, supplied the necessary connection between the facts, and by a series of brilliant generalisations formed the principles upon which all subsequent advance has been built.

As has already been indicated, Liebig's chief claim to rank as the greatest agricultural chemist of the century does not rest upon the number or value of his actual researches, but on the formative power he exercised in the evolution of the science. His master-mind surveyed the whole field of agricultural chemistry, and saw laws and principles where others saw simply a confusion of isolated, and, in many cases, seemingly contradictory facts.

But great as the direct value of Liebig's work was, it may be questioned whether its indirect value was not even greater. The publication of his famous work had the effect of giving a general interest to questions which up till then had possessed a special interest, and that for comparatively few. Both on the Continent and in England a very large amount of discussion took place regarding his various theories.

Development of Agricultural Research in Germany.

It was especially in Germany, however, that Liebig's work bore its greatest and most immediate fruit. Thanks to the great chemist, the German Government recognised the importance of forwarding scientific research by State aid. Agricultural Departments were added to some of the universities, largely at State expense, while agricultural research stations were, one after another, instituted in different parts of the country.

The first of the agricultural research stations to be founded was the now famous one of Möckern, near Leipzig. It was instituted in the year 1851. Others followed, until at the present day there are some seventy to eighty of these Versuchs-Stationen scattered throughout Germany, all well equipped and doing excellent work. Some idea of the activity of the German stations may be inferred when it is stated that up to the year 1877 the total number of papers embodying the results of their experiments published by them amount to over 2000.[16]

To trace the development of agricultural chemistry, subsequent to Liebig's time, in the way it has been done prior to the year 1840, is no longer possible. This is due to the enormous increase in the number of workers in the field, as also to the overlapping nature of their work, which renders a strict chronological record wellnigh an impossibility. It will be better, therefore, to attempt to give a brief statement of our present knowledge on the subject, naming the chief workers in the various departments of the subject.

The Rothamsted Experiments.

Before doing so, it is fitting that reference should be made to the work and experiments of two living English chemists, who have done much to contribute to our knowledge in every branch of the science—viz., Sir John Lawes, Bart., and Sir J. H. Gilbert, F.R.S.

The fame of the Rothamsted experiments is now world-wide; and no single experiment station has ever produced such an amount of important work as the magnificently equipped research station at Rothamsted. The Rothamsted station may be said to date from 1843, although Sir John Lawes was engaged in carrying out field experiments for ten years previous to that date.[17] In 1843 Sir John Lawes associated with himself the distinguished chemist Sir J. H. Gilbert, and the numerous papers since published have almost invariably borne the two names. The expense of working the station has been borne entirely by Sir John Lawes himself; who has further set aside a sum of £100,000, the Laboratory, and certain areas of land, for the continuance of the investigations after his death. The fields under experimentation amount to about fifty acres. By a Trust-deed, which was signed on February 14, 1889, Sir John Lawes has made over the Rothamsted Experimental Station to the English nation, to be managed by trustees.

It is impossible to enter, in any detail, into the nature and scope of the Rothamsted experiments.[18] It may be stated that, since the year 1847, some eighty papers have been published on field experiments, and experiments on vegetation; while thirty papers have been published recording experiments on the feeding of animals.[19]

What has all along characterised these valuable experiments has been their practical nature. While their aim has been entirely scientific, the scale of the experiments and the conditions under which they have been carried out, have been such as to render them essentially technical experiments. For this reason their results possess, and will always possess, a peculiar interest for every practical farmer.

The greatest services the Rothamsted experiments have rendered agricultural chemistry have been the valuable contributions they have made to our knowledge of the function of nitrogen in agriculture; its relation in its different chemical forms to plant-life; and the sources of the nitrogen found in plants. Researches of a most elaborate nature have been carried out on what is still one of the most keenly debated questions of the present hour—viz., the relation of the "free" nitrogen in the atmosphere to the plant. Of the very highest value also have been the elaborate researches of Mr R. Warington, F.R.S., on the important question of Nitrification, which have been in course in the Rothamsted Laboratory for the last fifteen years, and to which full reference will be made in the chapter on Nitrification.

To the Rothamsted experiments also we owe the refutation of Liebig's mineral theory. In fact it may safely be said that no experimenters in the field of agricultural chemistry have made more numerous or valuable contributions to the science than these illustrious investigators.

Review of our present Knowledge of Agricultural Chemistry.

Some attempt may now be made to indicate briefly our present knowledge of the more important facts regarding plant physiology, agronomy, and manuring.

Proximate Composition of the Plant.

The great advance made in the direction of the improvement of the accuracy of old analytical processes and the discovery of numerous new ones have furnished us with elaborate analyses of the composition of plants. We now know that the plant-substance is made up of a large number of complex organic substances, formed out of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen,[20] and that these substances form, on an average, about 95 per cent of the dry vegetable matter; the other 5 per cent being made up of mineral substances. As to the source of these different substances, our knowledge is, on the whole, pretty complete. With regard to the carbon of green-leaved plants, which amounts to from 40 to 50 per cent, subsequent research has confirmed Sénébier and de Saussure's conclusions, that its source is the carbonic acid gas of the air. The decomposition of the carbonic acid gas is effected by the leaves under the influence of sunlight. That a certain quantity of carbon may be obtained from the carbonic acid absorbed by plant-roots, is indeed probable. Especially during the early stages of plant-growth this source of carbon may be of considerable importance. Generally speaking, however, it may be said of all green-leaved plants, that the chief source of their carbon is the carbonic acid gas in the atmosphere.

Carbon Fixation by Plants.

The exact way in which this decomposition of carbonic acid gas is effected by the leaves is not yet clear. It seems to be directly dependent, in some way or other, on the chlorophyll, or green colouring matter. This decomposition of carbonic acid, and the fixation of the carbon by the plant with the formation of starch, takes place only under the influence of sunlight. During the night a reflex action takes place, which is commonly known as respiration, and which is exactly analogous to animal respiration.[21] The rate at which the fixation of carbon takes place depends on the strength of the sun's rays. It seems to take place very rapidly under a strong tropical sun.[22] The action of sunlight on the absorption of carbon has been studied by a number of observers, among others by Sachs, Draper, Cloez, Gratiolet, Caillet, Prillieux, Lommel, &c.

Action of Light on Plant-growth.

Experiments made by several observers, more especially Pfeffer, have shown that the yellow rays of the solar spectrum are the most potent in inducing this decomposition.

Some interesting experiments have been carried out by different observers on the possibility of growing plants under the influence of artificial light. While it would seem that the light from oil-lamps or gaslight is unable to promote growth, except in very exceptional cases, the electric light, or other strong artificial light, seems to be capable of taking the place of sunlight. Heinrich was the first to show that sunlight could be replaced by the magnesium light.

Experiments with the electric light have been carried out by Hervé-Mangon in France and Dr Siemens in England. The plants grown under the influence of the electric light were observed to be of a lighter green colour than those grown under normal conditions, thus indicating a feebler growth; in fact, Siemens was of the opinion that the electric light was about half as effective as daylight.[23]

These experiments are interesting from an industrial point of view; for it is conceivable that at some distant time electricity might be called to the aid of the agriculturist.

Source of Plants' Oxygen.

With regard to the source of the oxygen, which, next to carbon, is the element most largely present in the plant's substance—amounting to, roughly speaking, about 40 per cent—all evidence seems to indicate that it is chiefly derived from water, which is also the source of the plant's hydrogen. In addition to water, carbonic acid and nitric acid may also furnish small quantities. It has been pretty conclusively proved that the atmospheric oxygen, while necessary to plant-growth, and promoting the various chemical vital processes, is not a direct source of the plant's oxygen. The important function played by atmospheric oxygen in certain stages of the plant's growth has been long recognised. Malpighi, nearly two hundred years ago, observed that for the process of germination atmospheric air was necessary; and shortly after the discovery of the composition of the air was made, oxygen was identified as the important gas in promoting this process. Oxygen is also especially necessary during the period of ripening.

Source of Plants' Hydrogen.

Hydrogen, which amounts to about 6 per cent, is, as has already been pointed out, chiefly derived from water. It is possible that ammonia also may form a source.

Source of Plants' Nitrogen.

When we come to treat of the source of the nitrogen, which is found in the plant's substance to an extent varying from a fraction of a per cent to about 4 per cent, we enter on a much more debated question.

What is the source, or, what are the sources, of plant-nitrogen? is a question to the solution of which more time and more research have been devoted than to the solution of any other question connected with agricultural chemistry.

The most obvious source is the free nitrogen, which forms four-fifths of the atmospheric air. Reference has already been made to this question.[24] Priestley was the first of the long list of experimenters on this interesting question.

As far back as 1771 he affirmed that certain plants had the power of absorbing free nitrogen; and this opinion he supported by the results of certain experiments he had made on the subject. Eight years later,—viz., in 1779—Ingenhousz further supported this conclusion, and stated that all plants could absorb, within the space of a few hours, noticeable quantities of nitrogen gas. The first to oppose this theory was de Saussure, who, in 1804, carried out experiments which showed that plants were unable to utilise free nitrogen.

Subsequent experiments, carried out by Woodhouse and Sénébier, supported de Saussure's conclusions. Mention has already been made of Boussingault's elaborate researches on the subject.[25] His first experiments were carried out in 1838. He concluded that plants did not absorb free nitrogen. Georges Ville was the first to reassert the older theory, put forward by Priestley and Ingenhousz. His opinion was founded on experiments he had carried out during the years 1849-52. The subject created so much interest at the time, that a committee of the French Academy—consisting of Dumas, Regnault, Péligot, Chevreul, and Decaisne—were appointed to investigate Ville's experiments. The result of the investigation of the Commission was to confirm Ville's experiments. It is a significant fact, however, that the plant experimented with by the Commission was cress—a non-leguminous plant. It has been commonly assumed that the results of recent experiments have confirmed Ville's experiments. It is only proper to point out that this is not a necessary inference. The assimilation of free nitrogen by the leguminosæ, so far as modern research has revealed, only takes place under the influence of micro-organic life. Ville's experiments, however, were supposed to be conducted under sterilised conditions.

In the meantime the results of Boussingault's second series of experiments, carried out between the years 1851 and 1855, were published, and confirmed his earlier experiments.

The results of a large number of experiments subsequently carried out were in support of Boussingault's conclusions. Among them may be mentioned Mène, Harting, Gunning, Lawes, Gilbert and Pugh, Roy, Petzholdt, and Bretschneider.

Such an amount of overwhelming evidence might naturally have been regarded as conclusively proving that the free nitrogen of the air is not an available source of nitrogen to the plant. The question, however, was not decided. In 1876 Berthelot reopened it. From experiments he had carried out, he concluded that free nitrogen was fixed by various organic compounds, under the influence of silent electric discharges. In 1885 he carried out further experiments, from which he concluded that argillaceous soils had the power of fixing the free nitrogen of the atmosphere. This they effected, he was of opinion, through the agency of micro-organisms. Schloesing has recently shown that this fixation of free nitrogen by soils is extremely doubtful.[26] The gain of nitrogen observed under such conditions can be explained by the absorption by the soil of combined nitrogen—viz., ammonia—from the air.

Berthelot's early experiments in 1876 had the effect of stimulating a number of other experiments, with the result that we now possess the solution of this long-debated and most important problem.

The names of the better known investigators on this subject, in addition to Berthelot's, are those of Hellriegel, Wilfarth, Dehérain, Joulie, Dietzell, Frank, Emil von Wolff, Atwater, Woods, Nobbe, Ward, Breal, Boussingault, Wagner, Schultz-Lupitz, Fleischer, Pagnoul, Schloesing, Laurent, Petermann, Pradmowsky, Beyrenick, Lawes, and Gilbert.

It is impossible to enter into the details of these most important experiments. An attempt may be made, instead, briefly to epitomise them.

Recent Experiments on Nitrogen question.

In the first place, it may be asked, How is it possible that the previous elaborate experiments, published prior to 1876, should now prove unreliable? A satisfactory explanation may be found in the fact, as Lawes and Gilbert have recently pointed out, that the fixation of the free nitrogen by the plant, or within the soil, takes place, if at all, through the agency of electricity or of micro-organisms, or of both. The earlier experiments, however, were so arranged as to exclude the influence of either of those agencies.

The question has further been limited in its scope. It is now supposed that only plants of the leguminous order have the power of drawing upon the free atmospheric nitrogen. Of the experiments above referred to, those of Hellriegel and Wilfarth are the most striking and important. They found in their experiments, that while the legumes have the power of obtaining their nitrogen from the air, cereals have not. Similar experiments by Atwater in America, and others, support this conclusion.

Their conclusions may be briefly epitomised as follows:—

(a) That the leguminous plants—such as peas, &c.—have the power of drawing their nitrogen supplies from the free nitrogen of the air in a way not possessed by other plants; and that they thus possess two sources of nitrogen—the soil and the air.

(b) That this absorption of free nitrogen is not effected directly by the plant, but is the result, so to speak, of the joint action of certain micro-organisms present in certain soils and in the plant itself, (symbiosis).

(c) That this fixation is connected with the formation of minute tubercles on the roots of the plants of the leguminous class; and that these tubercles may be the home of the fixing organism.

(d) That these fixing micro-organisms are not present in all soils.[27]

While the relation of free nitrogen to the plant has long been, and still is, a very obscure problem, it was early recognised that the combined nitrogen present in soils and manures was an important source of plant-food. Reference has already been made to the early theory of Sir Kenelm Digby regarding the value of nitrates.[28] De Saussure, as we have also already seen, was fully impressed with the importance of applying nitrogen to the soil as a manure. Liebig's early attitude on this question was to the effect, that to apply nitrogen in manures was quite unnecessary, as the plant had a sufficient source in the ammonia present in the air, which he erroneously supposed was sufficient in quantity to supply all the needs of the crops. Despite this early recognition of the value of combined nitrogen to the plant, it is only of recent years that we have obtained any definite knowledge as to the respective value of its different compounds as manures, or as to the form in which it is assimilated by the plant. It exists in three forms—(1) as organic nitrogen; (2) as ammonia salts; (3) as nitrates and nitrites. Much experimental work has during late years been devoted to studying the comparative action and merits of these three forms.

Relation of Organic Nitrogen to the Plant.

First, as to the relation of organic nitrogen to the plant. There is a large number of different organic compounds which contain nitrogen. That the plant is able to assimilate certain of these organic compounds, seems, from several experiments, to be extremely probable. From certain researches, carried out as far back as the year 1857, Sir Charles Cameron concluded that the plant could assimilate one of them—viz., urea. From what, however, we have subsequently learned regarding the process of "nitrification," it is quite probable that the nitrogen in these experiments was first converted into nitrates before being assimilated. At any rate, as the plants were not tested for urea, the experiments must be regarded as leaving the problem unsolved.

Other experiments were carried out of a similar nature by Professor S. W. Johnson, the different kinds of nitrogen experimented with being uric acid, hippuric acid, and guanine. But here, again, no definite conclusion can be drawn, as no analyses were made of the plants. More recently, however, Dr Hampe has carried out experiments with urea, uric acid, hippuric acid, and glycocoll. These experiments may be held as demonstrating the fact that at least one organic compound of nitrogen is capable of being assimilated, as urea was actually identified as being present in the plants experimented with. From further experiments, carried out by Dr Paul Wagner and Wolff, glycin, tyrosin, and kreatin are able to be assimilated by the plant.

Plants able to absorb certain Forms of Organic Nitrogen.

We may conclude, then, from these interesting experiments, that plants are able to absorb certain organic forms of nitrogen. That they do so in nature to any extent is extremely improbable, such organic forms of nitrogen being rarely present in the soil, or if present, being converted into ammonia or nitrate salts before assimilation.

Nature of Humus in the Soil.

While on the subject of organic nitrogen, reference may be briefly made to that substance known as humus,—the name applied to the organic portion of soils,—a substance which figures so largely in early theories of plant-nutrition. The most elaborate investigation of the composition of humus has been carried out by Mulder. According to Mulder, it is composed of a number of organic bodies, and he has identified the following substances—ulmin, humin, ulmic, humic, geic acids, &c. These bodies are composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, which are invariably associated with nitrogen. Detmer and Simon have further investigated the subject. The true function of humus, it would seem, in addition to its numerous mechanical properties, is to furnish, by its decomposition, carbonic acid and nitrogen—in the form of ammonia and nitric acid—to the soil; the former acting as a solvent of the mineral food, the latter as the source of the plant's nitrogen. The old theory, therefore, that the presence of humus in a soil is a condition of fertility, is not so far removed from the truth. Where there is an abundance of humus in the soil there is likely also to be an abundance of nitrogen.

Relation of Ammonia to the Plant.

It seems to be beyond doubt that nitrogen is directly absorbed by plants in the form of ammonia. Liebig, as we have seen, concluded that this was the great source of nitrogen for the plant, and that the ammonia compounds present in the air were an all-sufficient supply. Subsequent research, while confirming his belief so far as regards the capability of plants to assimilate nitrogen in the form of ammonia, has proved that the amount of ammonia present in the air is very minute, and utterly inadequate to supply the plant with the whole of its nitrogen. Investigations have been made on this subject by Graeger, Fresenius, Pierre, Bineau, and Ville. According to Ville's researches, which are among the most recent, the amount does not exceed 30 parts per thousand million parts of air.[29] Some conception of the value of this source of nitrogen may be gained by estimating the quantity falling, dissolved in rain, on an acre of soil throughout the year. Various estimations of the total amount of combined nitrogen, which is in this way brought to the soil, have been made. A certain amount of discrepancy, it is true, is to be found in these various estimations, no doubt largely due to the difference in the circumstances under which the investigations were carried out. Mr Warington has made several investigations at Rothamsted, and, according to his most recently published figures, the total quantity only amounts to 3.37 lb. per acre per annum—of which only 2.53 lb. is as ammonia itself.[30]

As already mentioned, there can be little doubt that plants can absorb nitrogen in the form of ammonia. The question of how far plant-leaves are able to absorb ammonia is a much debated one. It is probable that if they can do so, it is only to a very small extent.[31] The question as to whether the plant's roots can absorb ammonia or not, is also a very keenly debated one. The point is a very difficult one to decide, and is much complicated by the consideration that ammonia, when applied to the the soil, is so speedily converted into nitric acid. Despite, however, these difficulties, and the vast amount of controversy on the point, the experiments of Ville, Hosäus and Lehmann, seem to indicate beyond doubt that ammonia is a direct source of nitrogen. Lehmann's experiments would seem, further, to indicate that there are certain periods of a plant's growth when its preference for ammonia salts seems to be greater than at other times. The point, however, it must be confessed, is still an obscure one. The great difficulty in deciding it, as has just been said, lies in the fact that ammonia salts, when applied to a soil, are, by the process of nitrification, converted into nitrates. In experimenting, therefore, with ammonia, and noting the results, it is wellnigh impossible to say, except by subsequent analyses, whether the nitrogen in the ammonia salts has not been converted into nitrates before assimilation.

Relation of Nitric Acid to the Plant.

Thirdly, as to nitrogen in the form of nitrates. While it is true that plants can absorb nitrogen in certain organic forms and as ammonia salts, it is now a well-known fact that the chief, and by far the most important, source of nitrogen is nitric acid. Probably more than 90 per cent of the nitrogen absorbed by green-leaved plants from the soil is absorbed as nitrates. The tendency of all nitrogen compounds in the soil is towards conversion into nitric acid. It is the final form of nitrogen in the soil. The precise method in which this conversion takes place is a discovery of only a few years' standing. The great economic importance of this discovery, made by the French chemists Schloesing and Müntz, and associated in this country with the names of Warington, Munro, and P. F. Frankland, is only gradually being appreciated. It is without doubt one of the most interesting made in the domain of agricultural chemistry of late years.

Nitrification.

It was in the year 1877 that the two French chemists above referred to published the results of some experiments they had carried out, which proved that nitrification—the name given to the process by which ammonia or other nitrogen salts are converted in the soil into nitric acid—was due to the action of micro-organic life.

The basis of the theory rests upon the fact that dilute solutions of ammonia salts or urine, containing all the necessary constituents of plant-food, if previously sterilised, may be kept for an indefinitely long period of time, provided the air supplied be filtered through cotton wool,—so as to prevent the entrance of micro-organisms—without any formation of nitrates. Introduce, however, into such a solution a little fresh soil, and nitrification will soon follow.

The conditions under which the nitrification ferment acts, as well as the nature of the ferment, or rather ferments, have subsequently been carefully studied by Schloesing and Müntz, Winogradsy, Dehérain, Kellner, and other Continental observers, and especially by Warington, Munro, and P. F. Frankland in this country. These conditions cannot be gone into here. They will be fully discussed in the chapter on Nitrification. Briefly stated, they are a certain range of temperature (between slightly above freezing-point and 50° C., the maximum activity taking place, according to Schloesing and Müntz, at about 30° C.); a plentiful supply of atmosphere oxygen (hence the fact observed by Warington, that nitrification is chiefly limited to the surface-soil); a certain amount of moisture; and the presence of certain of the necessary mineral plant constituents, and the presence of carbonate of lime.

The light which these discoveries throw upon the extremely complicated question of the fertility of the soil is considerable, as it follows that no soil can be regarded as really a fertile one in which the process of nitrification does not freely take place. They furthermore explain many facts, hitherto observed but not well understood, with regard to the action of different nitrogenous manures.

Ash Constituents of the Plant.

We now come to consider the present state of our knowledge on the essentialness of the ash or mineral portion of the plant. While a portion of the plant's substance which, up to Liebig's time, had obtained little notice, it has, since the publication of his famous "mineral" theory, obtained an ever-increasing amount of investigation.

Up till 1800 practically nothing was known of the function of the ash constituents. In 1802 de Saussure wrote that it was unknown whether the constituents of many plants were due to the soils on which they grew, or whether they were the products of vegetable growth. Some two years later, however, he was enabled to carry out a number of experiments which really placed the subject on a firm scientific basis. The essentialness of the ash constituents was only, however, placed beyond all doubt by Wiegmann and Polstorff's researches, carried out in 1840.

Reference has already been made to the great stimulus given to research by the promulgation of Liebig's mineral theory.

Methods of Research.

In epitomising the vast amount of work carried on since 1840, with the view of ascertaining the essentialness of the various substances found in the ash of plants, two methods of experimentation have been followed.

Artificial Soils.

The first of these two methods was that adopted in the famous experiments, carried out by Prince Salm-Horstmar, which have done so much to further our knowledge on this question. It consisted in growing plants on an artificial soil—formed out of sugar-charcoal, pulverised quartz or purified sand—to which were added the different food constituents.

Water-culture.

While the results obtained by Prince Salm-Horstmar by this method were of a most valuable nature, subsequent experimenters have abandoned his method for the other method—viz., "water-culture." The medium used in this process is pure water; and it is from experiments carried out in water-culture that much of our present knowledge, in regard to the relation of the ash constituents to the plant, is due.

The names of those who have worked in this department are very numerous. Among them may be mentioned Knop, Sachs, Stohmann, Nobbe, Rautenberg, Kühn, Lucanus, W. Wolff, Hampe, Beyer, E. Wolff, P. Wagner, Bretschneider and Lehmann. The results obtained by these and other experimenters have demonstrated the following facts.

The substances which have been found in the ash of plants are: potash, soda, lime, magnesia, oxide of iron, oxide of manganese, phosphoric acid, sulphuric acid, silica, carbonic acid, chlorine, lithia, rubidia, alumina, oxide of copper, bromine, iodine, and occasionally even other substances. Of these, however, only six are probably absolutely necessary for plant-growth—viz., potash, lime, magnesia, oxide of iron, phosphoric acid, and sulphuric acid. Three other substances seem also to be almost invariably present, and may possibly be essential—in very minute quantities at any rate—viz., chlorine, soda, and silica. With regard to alumina and oxide of copper, these constituents must be regarded as accidental; while iodine and bromine only occur in the ash of marine plants.

Method of Absorption of Plant-food.

A department of vegetable physiology which has had much work devoted to it is the method in which plant-roots absorb their food. The plant's nourishment is absorbed in solution by means of the roots. Its absorption takes place, according to Fischer and Dutrochet, who have investigated the subject at great length, by the process known as endosmosis. It has also been established by numerous experiments, that different plants require different constituents in different proportions.

Water as a Carrier of Plant-food.

The function performed by water, as the carrier of plant-food, and the motion of the sap of the plant, are questions which have also received much attention. The motion of the plant's sap seems to have attracted a great deal of attention at a very early stage of the study of plant physiology. As far back as 1679, Marriotte studied it. Among other old experimenters were Hales, Guettard, Sénébier, Saint-Martin, de Candolle, and Miguel. In more recent times, it has been investigated by Schübler, Lawes and Gilbert, Knop, Sachs, Unger, and Hosäus. Some idea of the enormous amount of water transpired by plant-leaves may be gained by the statement that from 233 lb. to 912 lb. of water are transpired for every pound of plant-tissue formed.[32]

Agronomy.

When we come to deal with questions relating to the chemistry of the soil, we find that so much investigation has been devoted to this one branch of agricultural chemistry as to constitute it a special branch by itself—known in France under the name of agronomie—and being taught in the large agricultural colleges by special professors of the subject. The value of studying the properties of soils was recognised at an early period. This study was for long largely confined to their physical, or, what are popularly known as their mechanical properties. Thus Sir Humphry Davy ascertained many important facts with regard to the heat and water absorbing and retaining properties of soils.

Retention by Soil of Plant-food.

It was not till a later period that the power soils possess of fixing from their watery solutions various plant-foods, both organic and inorganic, was discovered. The earliest recognition of this most important property of soils was made by Gazzeri, who, in 1819, called attention to the fact that the dark fluid portion of farmyard manure was purified on passing through clay. He concluded that soils, more especially clayey soils, possessed the property of being able to fix from their watery solutions the necessary plant-food constituents, and fix them beyond risk of loss, only affording a gradual supply to the plant as required.

The first experiments carried out on this subject were those by Huxtable and Thompson in 1850. The liquid portion of farmyard manure was filtered through soil and subsequently examined, when it was found to have not only lost its colour, but also to have lost its smell. Ammonia and ammonia salts were also experimented with, and it was found that soils possessed the power of fixing ammonia.

To Thomas Way, however, we are indebted for the most valuable contribution on this important subject made by any one single investigator. His experiments were not merely carried out with regard to ammonia, but also with regard to other bases—such as potash, lime, magnesia, soda, &c. Since Way's experiments much work has been done by Liebig, Stohmann, Henneberg, and Heiden, as also by Voelcker, Eichhorn, Knop, Rautenberg, Pochwissnew, Warington, Beyer, Bretschneider, Sestini, Laskowsky, Strehl, Pillnitz, Peters, W. Wolff, Lehmann, and Biedermann.

Bases and Acids fixed by Soil.

From these experiments it may be taken as proved beyond doubt that soils have the power of fixing, to a greater or less extent, the following bases: ammonia, potash, lime, magnesia and soda; as well as the two acids, phosphoric and silicic. The order in which the different bases are fixed is an important point. It would seem that the soil has a greater affinity for the more valuable manurial substances, such as ammonia, potash, and lime, and that these substances are first fixed. That in fixing any one of the above-mentioned bases from its solution, it can only do so at the expense of another base. Thus, in fixing potash, either lime, magnesia, or soda must be given up. Further, when a base in solution, as sulphate or chloride, is absorbed by a soil, the base is alone fixed, while the sulphuric acid or chlorine is left in solution. Lastly, the amount of base absorbed by a soil depends on the concentration of its solution, on the nature of its combination, and the temperature. Way found in his experiments that a clay soil has more power than a peaty soil, and that a peaty soil has more power than a sandy soil.

Causes of this Fixation.

So much for the fact of soil absorption; as to the cause or causes of this absorption, a great number of theories have been put forward. Those may be divided into two classes—those accounting for it as due to physical properties of the soil; and those, on the other hand, explaining it as due to chemical action.

To the latter class Way's belonged. He explained it as due to the formation in the soil of hydrated double silicates, consisting of a silicate of alumina, along with a silicate of the base fixed. Brüstlein and Peters, on the other hand, were of the opinion that it was purely physical in its nature. A theory has been advanced that it is due to the formation of insoluble ulmates and humates, formed by the union of ulmic and humic acids, along with the bases fixed. Among others who devoted investigation to this interesting question, may be mentioned Rautenberg and Heiden.

On reviewing the evidence, it seems to be pretty well established that it really is mainly a chemical act, due chiefly to the formation of double silicates, and doubtless to a certain extent to the formation of insoluble humates and ulmates. Heiden's experiments would seem to indicate, however, that it is also partly of a physical nature.

With regard to the absorption of phosphoric acid, this has been shown to be a chemical act, and depends on the formation of insoluble phosphates of calcium, iron, aluminium, and magnesium, the percentage of iron especially determining this.

Much analytical work has been accomplished of late years with a view of ascertaining the amount of ash in different kinds of plants, and in the different parts of the plant.

Action of Manures.

The department of agricultural chemistry which has been most largely developed of late years is that connected with the problems of manuring. It is, from a practical point of view, of most value. It is some considerable time since we have recognised that the only three ingredients it is, as a rule, expedient to apply as artificial manures, are nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. The nature, mode of action of the different compounds, and properties of these three substances, and their comparative influence in fostering plant-growth, together with the economic question of which form is, under various circumstances, the most economical for the farmer to use, have together given rise to a large number of "field" and "pot" experiments. As the principles underlying this practice form the subject of the following treatise, any further discussion of the question must be left to the following chapters.

Note.—The reader interested in the historical development of agricultural chemistry is referred to Sir J. H. Gilbert's Presidential Address to the Chemical Section of the British Association, 1880.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The History of the Chemical Elements. By Sir Henry E. Roscoe, F.R.S. (Wm. Collins, Sons, & Co.)

[2] Van Helmont's science was, however, of an extremely rudimentary nature, as may be evidenced by the belief he entertained that the smells which arise from the bottom of morasses produce frogs, slugs, leeches, and other things; as well as by the following recipe which he gave for the production of a pot of mice: "Press a dirty shirt into the orifice of a vessel containing a little corn, after about twenty-one days the ferment proceeding from the dirty shirt, modified by the odour of the corn, effects a transmutation of the wheat into mice." The crowning point in this recipe, however, lay in the fact that he asserted that he had himself witnessed the fact, and, as an interesting and corroborative detail, he added that the mice were born full-grown. See 'Louis Pasteur: His Life and Labours.' By his Son-in-law. Translated by Lady Claud Hamilton. (Longmans, Green, & Co.) P. 89.

[3] He then goes on to relate a number of experiments by Cornelius Drebel and Albertus Magnus, showing the refreshing power of this balsam, and then those of Quercitan with roses and other flowers, and his own with nettles.

[4] Priestley, however, did not realise that carbonic acid gas was a necessary plant-food; on the contrary, he considered it to have a deleterious action on plant-growth. Percival was really the first to point out that carbonic acid gas was a plant-food.

[5] It is recorded as an instance of the scientific enthusiasm of the man, that he was wont to carry about with him bottles containing oxygen, which he had obtained from cabbage-leaves, as also coils of iron wire, with which he could illustrate the brilliant combustion which ensued on burning the latter in oxygen gas.

[6] For a full account of Sénébier's researches, see 'Physiologie végétale, contenant une description des organes des plantes, et une exposition des phénomenes produits par leur organisation, par Jean Sénébier.' (5 tomes. Genève, 1800.)

[7] How Crops Grow. By Professor S. W. Johnson. Macmillan & Co. (Introduction, p. 4.)

[8] See p. 40 to 45.

[9] Elements of Agricultural Chemistry, in a course of Lectures for the Board of Agriculture. By Sir Humphry Davy. (London, 1831.)

[10] This department of agricultural research was subsequently carried on by Sprengel, Schübler, and others.

[11] Born in Paris, 1802; died 11th May 1887.

[12] See p. 40.

[13] While much of Boussingault's work was carried out previous to the year 1840, he continued to enrich agricultural chemistry with numerous valuable contributions up till the time of his death. It may be well here to mention the names of his most important contributions to agricultural science, made subsequent to 1840.

In 1843 he published, in a work entitled 'Economie Rurale,' the results of his numerous experiments and researches. This work is well known to English agriculturists from an English translation which appeared in 1845 (Boussingault's 'Rural Economy,' translated by G. Law. H. Ballière, London).

In 1860 appeared the first volume of his last great work, 'Agronomie Chimie Agricole et Physiologie' This work, which consisted of seven volumes, was not finished till 1884. He died on the 11th of May 1887. It may be added that the Royal Society of London awarded him the Copley medal in 1887.

[14] See British Association Proceedings, 1880, p. 511.

[15] It may be pointed out that, while the amount of ammonia washed down by the rain is small, Schloesing has found in some recent experiments that a damp soil may absorb from the air in the course of a year 38 lb. of combined nitrogen, chiefly ammonia, per acre. See p. 132.

[16] The example, set by Germany, has been followed by other countries in which well-equipped research stations now exist. Perhaps the most striking example of the rapid development of the means of agricultural research is furnished by the United States of America. At present over fifty agricultural experiment stations, more or less well equipped, exist at present in that country, all liberally supplied by State aid. The earliest to be founded, it may be added, was that at Middletown, Connecticut, the date of its institution being 1875.

[17] It may thus claim to be the second oldest experimental station, that instituted by Boussingault at Bechelbronn in Alsace being the oldest.

[18] For an account of the Rothamsted experiments, and a short biography of Sir John Lawes, the reader is referred to a pamphlet by the present writer, entitled 'Sir J. B. Lawes, Bart., LL.D., F.R.S., and the Rothamsted Experiments' ('Scottish Farmer' Office, 93 Hope Street, Glasgow).

[19] Of these numerous elaborate experiments, perhaps those which have attracted the most widespread interest amongst agriculturists have been those carried out on the growth of wheat on the same land year after year for a period of nearly fifty years. The important light which this series of experiments has thrown upon the theory of the rotation of crops, and the subject of the manuring of cereals, is very great.

[20] Associated in some cases with phosphorus and sulphur.

[21] It must be pointed out that plant-respiration does not take place only during the night-time. It probably goes on at all times, but it is only during the night-time that its action is apparent, as the reverse process of carbon assimilation, which goes on at an incomparably greater rate, masks its action during the daytime.

[22] The length of the day has an important influence on plant-growth, as is evidenced by the rapid growth of vegetation in Norway and Sweden. In these countries there is a late spring, and a short and by no means hot summer, but a very long period of daylight.

[23] A point of great interest which these experiments elucidated is that nocturnal repose is not absolutely necessary for the growth and development of all plants.

[24] See pp. 15 and 22.

[25] See p. 22.

[26] See Chapter III., pp. 120 and 131.

[27] Further reference is made to this subject in Chapter III., p. 136.

[28] See p. 6.

[29] See Phil. Trans., Part II., 1861, pp. 444-446. Lawes & Gilbert. Schloesing has found in the air in the neighbourhood of Paris 1 lb. of ammonia in 26,000,000 cubic yards; while Müntz found only about half that amount in a similar quantity of air on the top of the Pic du Midi.

[30] See Chapter III., pp. 119, 120; Appendix, p. 155.

[31] Some recent experiments by Dyer and Smetham would seem to show that comparatively small quantities of ammonia in the air prove actually hurtful to plant-life. Thus they found that one volume of ammonia in 1000 volumes of air was fatal to hardy plants; while one volume in 3000 volumes killed tender ones.

[32] According to the experiments of Hellriegel and Wollny. The quantity, it may be added, varies with the leaf-surface and the length of the period of growth of the plant. It is greatest with clovers and grasses, and least in the potatoes and roots.

PART II.

PRINCIPLES OF MANURING

CHAPTER I.

FERTILITY OF THE SOIL.

It is necessary to clearly understand to what the fertility of a soil is due ere we can hope to master the theory of manuring.

What constitutes Fertility in a Soil.

The question, What constitutes fertility in a soil? is by no means an easy one to answer. If we say, The presence of a plentiful supply of the constituents which form the plant's food, our answer will be incomplete. Similarly, if we reply, A certain physical condition of the soil—here, again, it will be found equally unsatisfactory; for fertility of a soil depends both on its physical condition and on its chemical composition, and indeed even on other circumstances. It may be well, then, before proceeding to treat of the nature and action of the different manures, to offer a brief statement of the conditions of fertility so far, at any rate, as we at present know them. For it may be well to warn the reader that, despite the great amount of work carried out on this subject by experimenters, we still have much to learn before we shall be in a position fully and clearly to understand the subject of soil-fertility in all its bearings.

Apart altogether from the influence exerted by climate, latitude, altitude, and exposure, the fertility of a soil may be said to depend on the following properties. These we may divide into three groups or classes:—

1. Physical or mechanical.
2. Chemical.
3. Biological.

I. Physical Properties of a Soil.—The physical properties of a soil are generally admitted to have a very important bearing on its fertility. This has been long practically recognised, and perhaps has in the past been unduly exalted in importance, at the expense of the no less important functions of the chemical.[33] The reason of this is doubtless to be ascribed to the fact that it is much easier to study the physical properties of a soil than it is to study the chemical; and that, while we are in possession of a very large amount of useful information with regard to the former, we are at present only on the threshold of our knowledge of the latter.

Variety of Soils.

It is a matter of common observation that soils differ widely in their mechanical nature. The early recognition of this fact is evidenced by the large number of technical terms which have been long in vogue among farmers descriptive of these differences. Thus soils are in the habit of being described as "heavy," "light," "stiff," "strong," "warm," "cold," "wet," "damp," "peaty," "clayey," "sandy," "loamy," &c., &c.

Absorptive Power for Water.

One of the most important of the physical properties of a soil is its power to absorb water.

Water to the plant economy is just as important and necessary as it is to the animal economy. Consequently it is of primary importance to examine into the conditions which regulate the absorption of this important plant-food by the soil.

By the absorptive power of a soil is meant its capacity for drinking in any water with which its particles may come in contact. This power depends, first, on the predominance of its proximate constituents—viz., sand, clay, carbonate of lime, and humus; and secondly on the fineness of the soil-particles.

Absorptive Power of Sand, Clay, Humus.

First, then, with regard to the absorptive power of sand, clay, and humus. Of these, sand possesses this power to the least extent, clay to a greater extent, while humus possesses it most of all.[34]

The extent, therefore, of the absorptive power of a soil depends very much on the proportions in which it possesses these three ingredients. The more sandy a soil is, the less will its power be of absorbing water; and this, there is little doubt, is one of the reasons why a sandy soil is, as a rule, an unfertile soil. Of course there are other and even more important reasons; but that this absorptive power has an important bearing on the question is conclusively proved by the fact that sandy soils are more fertile in a climate where rain is frequent than in one where much dry weather prevails. The incapacity of a sandy soil to absorb a large quantity of moisture is not fraught with such evil effects to the crops in the former case, because it is counteracted by the climatic conditions, which obviate the necessity, in a soil, of possessing great absorptive powers.

The converse, of course, we may mention in passing, holds good of clayey soils.

Fineness of Soil-particles.

The second quality in a soil on which its absorptive power depends is the fineness of its particles. The great benefit which a soil derives from a good tilth, in this respect, was one of the reasons why Tull's system of horse-hoeing husbandry was so successful in its results.[35] The finer the soil-particles, it may be said generally, the greater is the absorptive power of the soil.

Limit to Fineness.

There is, however, a limit to the fineness to which the particles of a soil ought to be reduced; for it has been found by experiment that when a certain degree of fineness is reached, the absorptive power decreases with any further pulverisation. A German experimenter found, for example, that a garden loam, capable of absorbing 114 per cent of water in its natural state, when pulverised very fine was able to absorb only 62 per cent of water. Here, clearly, the limit to which it is advisable to pulverise a soil had been exceeded.

Reason of the above.

It is not difficult to see why this should be so. The amount of water that a soil can soak up is due to the number of pores, or air-spaces, it contains of a certain size. If these pores are large and few in number, the amount of water absorbed will be naturally less than when they are numerous and smaller in size. Up to a certain extent, the more a soil is broken the greater will be the number of pores created, of a size to permit the water to soak in. Beyond that point the pores become too minute, and the soil becomes too compact, each particle clinging together too closely.

Retentive Power of Soils for Water.

Now closely connected with this absorptive power of soils, which we have just been considering, is the power soils possess of holding or retaining the water they absorb. This power, it will be seen at a glance, must have an important bearing on the fertility of a soil.

Importance of Retentive Power.

As a considerable interval often elapses between the periods of rainfall, soils, if they are to support vegetable growth, must be able to store up their water-supply against periods of drought. This is all the more necessary when we remember that, in the case of heavy crops, the rainfall would often be inadequate to supply the water necessary for their growth. In fact, it has been estimated that the average evaporation from soils bare of any cultivation is equal to the rainfall. That the evaporation from soils covered with vegetation is very much greater, has been strikingly shown by a calculation made by the late eminent American botanist, Professor Asa Gray, who calculated that a certain elm-tree offered a leaf-surface, from which active transpiration constantly went on, of some five acres in extent; while it has further been calculated that a certain oak-tree, within a period of six months, transpired during the daytime eight and a half times more water than fell as rain on an area equal in circumference to the tree-top.[36] Just as the state of the fineness of the soil-particles has an important influence on the absorptive power of soils, so, too, it is found, it has an important bearing on the rate at which evaporation takes place. Evaporation goes on to the greatest extent in soils whose particles are compacted together, capillary action in this case taking place more freely, and effecting evaporation from a greater depth of soil. The stirring of the surface portion of the soil, as for example by hoeing or harrowing, has for this reason an important influence in lessening the amount of evaporation, and minimising the risks of drought, by breaking the capillary attraction. The amount of evaporation which takes place from a soil covered with a crop, depends largely on the nature of the crop; a deep-rooted crop, since it draws its moisture from a wider area of soil, being more effective in drying a soil than a shallow-rooted crop. The difference in the amounts evaporated from a cropped and a bare fallow soil has been shown at Rothamsted to equal a rainfall of nine inches, the crop being barley. The increase, of course, is due to the water which the crop transpires.[37]

It may be generally said that the greater the absorptive power of a soil, the greater is its retentive power; for soils that most largely absorb water are the most reluctant to part with it.

While these properties are undoubtedly necessary for fertile soils, it is needless to add that they may be possessed by a soil to too great an extent. The soil that is unable to throw off any excess of water becomes cold and damp, and does not admit of proper tillage. Its pores become entirely choked up, and the circulation of air, which, as we shall see, is of so much importance, is rendered impossible. Plants in such a soil are apt to sicken and die, the water becomes stagnant, and certain chemical actions are caused which give rise to poisonous gases, such as sulphuretted hydrogen, &c. A stiff clayey soil offers a good example of the disadvantage of over-retentiveness. Owing to the difficulty such soils experience in throwing off their excessive water, they are extremely difficult to till; and sowing operations are on that account apt to be delayed.

Power Plants have of absorbing Water from a Soil.

It is a strange fact, and one worth noticing in this connection, that the power plant-roots have of drawing their moisture from a soil, seems to depend on the retentive power of the soil. By this is meant that plants have not the means of exhausting the water in a retentive soil to such an extent as in a non-retentive soil.

In some extremely interesting experiments, carried out by the well-known German botanist Sachs, it was found that plants wilted in a loamy soil, whose water-holding capacity was 52 per cent, when its moisture reached 8 per cent; while in a sandy soil—water-holding capacity 21 per cent—the same species of plant did not wilt until its moisture reached 1-1/2 per cent. Here, then, we see that on one kind of soil the plant was able to live, and obtain sufficient water for its needs, while it died of thirst in another soil, although that soil contained quite as much moisture.

Speaking generally, we may say that Hellriegel's experiments have shown that any soil can supply plants with all the water they need so long as its moisture is not reduced below one-third of the whole amount it can hold.[38]

How to increase Absorptive Power of Soils.

The absence or presence, in excess, of the above properties, suggests a word or two on how these natural defects may, to a certain extent, be remedied artificially. It stands to reason, that if organic matter in a soil renders its absorptive power greater, a simple method of improving a soil defective in this property is by the addition of organic matter. One of the benefits of ploughing-in green crops on sandy soils is undoubtedly due to this fact; the addition of farmyard manure having also a similar effect. The absence of a sufficient amount of retentiveness, such as is found in sandy soils, in the same way suggests, as a remedy, the addition of clay; and, vice versâ, where the soil is too clayey, the natural method of improvement will be the addition of sand.[39]

Shrinkage of Soils.

In drying, soils shrink. Those which shrink least are sandy and chalky soils. Humus soils, on the other hand, shrink most.

Most favourable Amount of Water in a Soil.

The amount of water in a soil most favourable for plant-growth is a question of considerable difficulty. Too great an amount of moisture renders the land cold; air cannot obtain access to the soil-particles, and the plants sicken and die. Hellriegel has found that as much as 80 per cent of what the soil can hold is hurtful to plants, and that from 50 to 60 per cent is the best amount.[40]

Hygroscopic Power.

A property possessed by soils in relation to water, which is quite distinct from absorptive power, is their hygroscopic power. By this is meant their power of absorbing water from the air where it is present in the gaseous form. This property is identical with the property which will be adverted to immediately—viz., capacity for absorbing gases. The extent to which soils possess this hygroscopic property seems to be regulated very much by the same conditions as regulate their ordinary absorptive power.[41] This property is considered to be of great importance in the case of soils in hot climates, where their agricultural value may be said to depend to a large extent upon it. The amount of water, however, absorbed in this way is, comparatively speaking, insignificant. Lastly, it may be observed that there are certain methods of drying soils afflicted with too much moisture. These consist in making open ditches, and thus relieving them of their superabundance of water, or in planting certain kinds of trees, such as willows and poplars. The amount of green surface presented by the large number of leaves of trees, from which the constant evaporation of water goes on, is very great. The consequence is that trees may be regarded as pumping-engines. It is from this cause that foresters have noticed that clay lands are apt to become wetter after the trees growing upon them have been cut down.[42]

Capacity for Heat in Soils.

A property which depends largely on those we have just been considering is the capacity soils possess of absorbing and retaining heat.[43] The temperature of a soil, of course, largely depends on the temperature of the air; but this, we must not forget, depends also on the soil itself. The heat given forth by the sun's rays strikes the soil, with the result that, while so much of its heat is absorbed, a certain portion—and this will vary according to the nature of the soil—of its heat is radiated into the air.

The changes in the temperature of the soil naturally take place more slowly than the changes in the temperature of the air; the depth of soil thus affected by those changes varies also in different climes. It has been calculated that in temperate climes the changes of temperature occurring from day to night are not felt much below three feet down.

The Explanation of Dew.

We have, it may be stated, generally two processes going on. During the day the soil is engaged in absorbing its heat from the sun's rays; when night comes, and the sun goes below the horizon, the air is chilled below the temperature of the soil, which radiates out its stored-up heat into the air. The result is that the temperature of the soil is soon reduced below the temperature of the air, and the moisture, present in the air in the form of vapour, coming in contact with the cold surface of the earth, is condensed into dew, which is deposited, and is seen best early in the morning before the sun has had time to evaporate it again. Dew is most abundant in summer-time, for the reason that the difference in temperature of the day and night is then greatest. In winter-time it is seen as hoar-frost.

Heat of Soils.

The temperature of a soil, however, is due to other sources than the sun's rays. Whenever vegetable matter decays, there is always a certain amount of heat generated. Soils, therefore, in which there is a large amount of decaying vegetable matter, are certain to receive more heat from this source than soils of more purely mineral nature.

Heat in Farmyard Manure.

A good example of the amount of heat that accompanies fermentation, or decay of vegetable matter, is seen in the case of rotting farmyard manure. The danger of loss of the volatile ammonia from this cause is often great, and care must be taken to prevent fermentation going on too quickly, and the temperature from becoming too high.[44] The actual increase in the temperature of a soil effected by the addition of certain bulky organic manures, such as farmyard manure, may thus be considerable. In some experiments carried out at Tokio, Japan, it was found that the application of 20 tons of farmyard manure per acre increased the temperature of the soil to a depth of five inches, for a period of nearly a month, on an average, one and a half degrees Fahrenheit. The amount of water present in a soil, it may be noticed in passing, will have a considerable effect in regulating its temperature, a damp soil being, as a rule, a cold soil.

The Cause of the Heat of Fermentation.

It may be asked, How is the decay, or fermentation, of vegetable matter, such as farmyard manure, caused? or rather, To what is it due? Decay of any substance is just its slow combustion or burning. When a substance unites with the active chemical element in air—the oxygen gas—it is said to be oxidised. Now, this union of a substance with oxygen is the explanation of burning, and the phenomena of burning and decay are explained by the same chemical operation. When bodies decay, or when they burn, they unite with oxygen: when this union of a body and oxygen takes place very quickly, and the result is a flame and very great heat, then we call it burning; when, however, it takes place slowly, it is not called burning, but simply oxidation or decay. The ultimate products are the same, however, whether the body burns or decays; and the process of decay is always accompanied by heat, as well as the process of burning.[45] It is not, of course, only the vegetable or organic matter in a soil that decays, but also the mineral matter. The oxidation, however, of the mineral matter in the soil takes place so slowly, and the amount of heat generated by this oxidation is so slight, that the temperature of the soil can scarcely be said to be much affected by it.

Influence of Colour of a Soil.

There is still another quality of a soil on which its temperature depends, and that is its colour. This may seem at first sight to be scarcely worth taking into account, and yet it has been shown to have a very striking influence on the temperature of a soil. This naturally is best seen in climates where there is a good deal of sun. Dark-coloured soils have a greater heat-absorbing capacity than light-coloured soils; and experiments carried out for the purpose of determining the extent of this influence have shown that under certain conditions the difference between a soil covered with a black substance, and one covered with a white substance, amounted to from 13° to 14° Fahr. Other things being equal, a crop on a dark-coloured soil will be sooner ripened than one on a light-coloured soil. A soil covered by a crop is cooler than one without any crop.

The Power Soils have for absorbing Gases.

We have just seen that one cause of the heat of soils is the oxidation which is constantly going on in all soils, but more rapidly in soils containing a large quantity of vegetable matter. This suggests a word or two on the power soils have of absorbing gases.

The chief gases in the atmosphere are oxygen and nitrogen. Both these gases are absorbed by soils, although not in similar proportions.[46] With regard to the former, it is well known that a plentiful supply of oxygen in the pores of the soil is a necessary condition of fertility. This was long ago experimentally proved by de Saussure, who showed that plants absorbed oxygen through their roots. At certain periods of their growth this demand for oxygen on the part of the plant is greater than at other times. For example, seeds in the process of germination require to have free access to a plentiful supply of oxygen. This fact emphasises the enormous importance of providing a good seed-bed, and of seeing that the seed is not buried too deeply.

Carbonic Acid and Ammonia.

In addition to oxygen and nitrogen, the air contains other gases which are absorbed by the soil. Of these, carbonic acid is the most abundant. By far the largest portion of the carbonic acid which the soil obtains from the air, is washed down in solution in the rain.[47] Of the other constituents of the atmosphere, the combined forms of nitrogen—viz., ammonia, nitric, and nitrous acids—are the most important. These are all absorbed by the soil, but, like carbonic acid, they are chiefly washed down by the rain. The amount of ammonia which may be absorbed by a soil from the air, is very much greater than was formerly supposed. Some recent experiments by Schloesing, referred to in a following chapter,[48] show this. A damp soil may in the course of a year absorb far more ammonia than that washed down in rain.

Gas-absorbing Power of Soils varies.

The power of different soils to absorb these gases varies. This variation depends not only on their physical properties, but also on their chemical as well. Soils containing much organic matter have a greater capacity for absorbing gases than the more purely mineral ones.

Absorption of Nitrogen.

The absorption of nitrogen by the soil is a question of considerable importance. It will be referred to later on under the heading of the biological properties of soils, as it is fixed by the agency of micro-organisms.[49]

To recapitulate, the chief physical or mechanical properties of a soil are its absorptive and retentive powers for water; its capacity for heat; and its power of absorbing gases. It will be easily seen how tillage operations are calculated to influence these physical properties of a soil. Thus, in the case of a stiff soil, tillage increases its power for absorbing the atmospheric gases, chiefly oxygen, which are so necessary for rendering its fertilising matters available. On the other hand, in a light and too open soil it may exert quite a contrary effect.

It may be also well to refer here to the important influence these physical properties exercise on the growth of the plant.

Plant-roots require a certain Openness in the Soil.

One of the functions of the soil is to support the plant in an upright position, and this is a function which requires in the soil a certain amount of compactness or firmness. On the other hand, however, a soil must not possess too great compactness, otherwise the plant-roots will experience a difficulty in pushing their way downwards. This is especially the case during the earlier periods of growth, when the plant-roots are as yet extremely tender, and experience great difficulty in overcoming much resistance. The importance of preparing a mellow seed-bed will be thus at once seen to be based on sound scientific principles; and this for a double reason. Not only does the young plant require every facility for developing its roots, but also, as has just been pointed out, an abundant supply of oxygen is of paramount importance during the process of germination.

Soil and Plant-roots.

The whole question of the influence of the mechanical condition of the soil on the development of plant-roots is one of the highest importance and interest, and is not so generally recognised as it ought to be.

Natural tendency of Plant-roots to grow downwards.

It may be taken as certain that the tangled condition of plant-roots is due to the resistance offered by the soil-particles, and that the natural tendency of the plant-root is to grow downwards. The roots, in short, would probably grow in as symmetrical a form as do the stalks or branches, were it not that they are hindered from so doing by the soil-particles. Where, then, the soil is such as to offer much hindrance, the growth of the plant cannot but be retarded. Some extremely interesting experiments have been performed by the eminent German chemist Hellriegel on the influence which the closeness of the soil-particles has on root-development. In these experiments peas and beans were grown in moistened sawdust, more or less compactly compressed. It was found that when the sawdust Was compressed to any extent, plant-growth took place very slowly, or entirely ceased.

The importance of having plant-roots as widely developed in the soil as possible, will be at once seen when we reflect that this means that the area of soil from which the plant derives its soil-food is thereby greatly increased. Another important consideration is, that the deeper plant-roots can penetrate in a soil, the more able—other conditions being equal—is the plant to withstand the action of drought, as it can draw water for its needs from the deeper layers of the soil, long after a plant, whose roots do not penetrate so deeply, has wilted.

Plants require Room.

Another important bearing tillage has on plant-growth may here be discussed. A problem of considerable difficulty is presented in the question, How many individual plants will a certain piece of soil support in a healthy way? For as plants require room, it is imperative that they be not too closely crowded together.

The question resolves itself pretty much into one of quality against quantity.

Experiments on this subject have shown that a certain area of soil is only able to support the healthy growth of a certain number of plants. If the limit be exceeded, the result is imperfect development.

Number of Plants on certain Area increased by Tillage.

It is obvious, however, that the more thoroughly tilled a soil is, the greater will be the number of plants it will be possible to grow on it. The roots, instead of being forced to spread themselves along the surface-soil, and thus take up a large amount of room, will find no difficulty in striking downwards. Two or three plants may thus be enabled to grow in a thoroughly tilled soil in the same space as only one could before tillage.

American and English Farming.

The above considerations throw considerable light on what seems to many farmers a strange anomaly—viz., the fact that the return of farm produce per acre on American farms is, as a rule, very much less than that from our own impoverished soils in this country. To many, at first sight, this seems to be in direct contradiction to our common belief, and to point to the conclusion that the virgin soils of America are, after all, actually inferior in fertility to the soils of Britain.

It is not, however, necessary to draw this conclusion, as the facts of the case admit of another explanation. The inferior returns obtained from American farms are due, not to the fact that the American soil is less fertile than the British—for this is not true—but to the fact that it is less intensively cultivated.

In America land is cheap and labour is dear; it is consequently found to be more economical to cultivate a large tract of land less thoroughly than a small area more thoroughly. In Britain the reverse is the case, labour being cheap and land being dear. It is thus necessary to make the land go as far as possible, and produce as heavy a crop as it is possible to produce. There can be little doubt, that were American farming to be carried on as intensively as is British farming, the present yield would be at least probably doubled.

We have now to consider the second class of properties which influence the fertility of a soil. These are chemical.

II. Chemical Composition of a Soil.—Chemically considered, the soil is a body of great complexity. It is made up of a great variety of substances. The relations existing between these substances and the plant are not all of equal importance; some—and these form by far the largest proportion of the soil-substance—are concerned in acting simply as a mechanical support for the plant, and in helping to maintain those physical properties in the soil which, as we have just seen, exercise such important functions in the plant's development.

Fertilising Ingredients.

A small portion of the soil-substance, however, takes a very much more active part in promoting plant-growth, by acting as direct food of the plant. As we have already seen in the Introductory Chapter,[50] the substances which have been found in the ash of plants are the following: potash, lime, magnesia, oxide of iron, phosphoric acid, sulphuric acid, soda, silica, chlorine, oxide of manganese, lithia, rubidia, alumina, oxide of copper, bromine, and iodine. The general presence of some of these substances is doubtful; the presence of others, again, probably purely accidental; while some are only found in plants of a special nature, as, for instance, iodine and bromine, which are only found in the ash of marine plants.

Of these ash constituents, only the first six substances—those marked in italics—are absolutely necessary to plant-growth. In addition to these six ash constituents, the plant also derives its nitrogen, which is a necessary plant-food, chiefly from the soil.[51]

Importance of Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid, and Potash.

But of these seven constituents of the soil which are necessary to plant-growth, some have come to be regarded by the agriculturist with very much greater interest than others. This is due to the fact that they are normally present in the soil in very much smaller quantities than is the case with the other equally necessary food ingredients; that, in short, they are nearly invariably present in the soil, in a readily available form, in lesser quantities than the plant is able to avail itself of, and often, as in impoverished or barren soils, in quantities too small for even normal growth. These ingredients are nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash.[52]

The importance of seeing that all the necessary plant ingredients are present in a soil in proper quantities will be at once properly estimated when it is stated that the absence or insufficiency in amount of one single ingredient is capable of preventing the growth of the plant, although the other necessary ingredients may be even abundantly present.

With lime, magnesia, iron, and sulphuric acid, most soils are abundantly supplied. The substances with which the farmer has to concern himself, then, are nitrogen, phosphates, and potash. It is these substances therefore, that, as a rule, are alone added as manures.

Chemical Condition of Fertilising Ingredients in Soil.

But in considering the chemical properties of a soil, a simple consideration of the quantity of the different ingredients present is not enough. A very important consideration is their chemical condition. Ere any plant-food can be assimilated by the plant's roots, it must first be rendered soluble. The quantity of soluble, or, as it is known, available, plant-food in a soil is very small. It is, of course, being steadily added to each day by the process of disintegration constantly going on in soils.

Amount of Soluble Fertilising Ingredients.

The exact nature and dissolving capacity of the soil-water, charged as it is, to a greater or less extent, with different acids and salts, as well as the dissolving power of the sap of the rootlets of the plant itself, render the exact estimation of the available fertilising constituents wellnigh impossible. An approximate estimate, however, may be obtained by treating the soil with pure water and dilute acid solutions. The treatment of the soil with dilute acid solutions is for the purpose of simulating, as nearly as may be done, the conditions it is submitted to in the soil. By treating a soil with water, we obtain a certain amount of plant-food dissolved in the water. This can only be regarded as indicating approximately the amount available at that moment to the plant. But every day, thanks to the numberless complicated reactions going on in the soil, this soluble plant-food is constantly being added to. Considerations such as the above, together with our ignorance as to the exact combinations in which the necessary minerals enter the plant, will serve to indicate the great difficulty of this part of the subject.[53]

Value of Chemical Analysis of Soils.

It is largely for these reasons that a chemical analysis of a soil is from one point of view of little value in giving evidence of its actual fertility. What it demonstrates more satisfactorily is its potential fertility. It is useful in revealing what there is present in it, not necessarily, however, in an available condition. Under certain circumstances it may be made of great value, as, for example, when we are anxious to know what will be the result of certain kinds of treatment, such as the application of lime, &c.

It is hardly advisable, therefore, to place before the reader a number of soil analyses. That he may obtain an approximate idea of the composition of a soil, one or two representative analyses will be found in the Appendix,[54] along with a short account of the chief minerals out of which soils are formed.

A point of considerable interest is the quantity per acre different soils contain of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. Although the amount of these ingredients when stated in percentage seems very trifling, yet when calculated in lb. per acre, it is seen to be in large excess of the amount removed by the different crops. This question will be dealt with in succeeding chapters.

A point of further interest is the chemical form in which the necessary plant constituents are present in the soil. For information on this point the reader is referred to the Appendix.[55]

The third class of properties which affect the fertility of a soil are those which have been termed the biological.

III. Biological Properties of a Soil.—The important functions which modern discoveries have shown to be discharged by minute organic life in the terrestrial economy are nowhere more strikingly exemplified than in the important rôle they perform in the soil.

Bacteria of the Soil.

The soil of every cultivated field is teeming with bacteria whose function is to aid in supplying plants with their necessary food. The nature of, and the functions performed by, these organisms differ very widely. Regarding many of them we know very little; every day, however, our knowledge is being extended by the laborious researches of investigators in all parts of the world, and it is to be anticipated that ere long we shall be in possession of many facts regarding the nature and the method of the development of these most interesting agents in terrestrial economy. That they are present, however, in enormous numbers in all soils we have every reason to believe, one class of organism connected with the oxidation of carbonic acid gas being estimated to be present to the extent of over half a million in one gramme of soil[56] (Wollny and Adametz). One class—and their importance is very great in agriculture—prepare the food of plants by decomposing the organic matter in the soil into such simple substances as are easily assimilated by the plant. The so-called "ripening" of various organic fertilisers is effected, we now know, entirely through the agency of bacteria of this class. Plant-life is unable to live upon the complex nitrogenous compounds of the organic matter of the soil, and were it not for bacteria these substances would remain unavailable. Attention will be drawn in the Chapter on Farmyard Manure to this question more in detail. Of these bacteria, among the most important are those which are the active agents in the process known as "nitrification"—i.e., the process whereby organic nitrogen and ammonia salts are converted into nitrites and nitrates. The presence of these organisms, it would appear, is indispensable to the fertility of any soil. There are organisms, on the other hand, which have the power of reversing the work of the nitrification bacteria by converting nitrates into other forms of nitrogen. The reduction of nitrates in the soil is often the source of much loss of valuable nitrogen, which escapes in the free state, so that the action of bacteria is not altogether of a beneficial nature.

Three Classes of Organisms in the Soil.

So far as the subject has been at present studied, the micro-organisms in the soil may be divided into three classes.[57]

First Class of Organisms.

We have, first of all, those whose function it is to oxidise the soil ingredients. Organisms of this class may act in different ways. They may assimilate the organic matter of the soil and convert it into carbonic acid gas and water; or, on the other hand, they may oxidise it by giving off oxygen. Some of these organisms, whose action is of the first kind, choose most remarkable materials for assimilation. One has been found to require ferrous carbonate for its development, which it oxidises into the oxide (Winogradsky); while another,[58] the so-called sulphur organism, converts sulphur into sulphuretted hydrogen according to some, and according to others into sulphates. To this class of organism the nitrifying organisms belong. As will be seen more fully in a subsequent chapter, two distinct organisms connected with this process have already been isolated and studied—one of these effecting the formation of nitrites from organic nitrogen or ammonia salts, and the other the conversion of nitrites into nitrates. The second method in which these oxidising organisms act is by giving off oxygen. There is much interest attaching to this fact, as it was supposed till quite recently that all evolution of oxygen in vegetable physiology was dependent on the presence of light, and also intimately connected with chlorophyll, or the green colouring matter of plants. It would seem, however, that among the soil organisms these conditions are not necessary, and the evolution of oxygen may be carried on in the case of colourless organisms as well as in the case of light. With organisms of this kind every soil is probably teeming. A typical example is the organism which is the active agent in the oxidation of carbonic acid gas, and which has already been referred to as existing in the soil in such numbers.[59]

The Second Class of Organisms in the Soil.

The second class of organisms are those which reduce or destroy the soil constituents. The most important of these, from the agricultural point of view, are those which effect the liberation of nitrogen from its compounds. In the putrefaction of organic matter the organisms chiefly act, it is probable, in the entire absence of atmospheric oxygen; but it would seem, however, that they may also act in the presence of oxygen. It is through their agency that the soil may lose some of its nitrogen in the "free" form. To this class belong the denitrifying organisms already referred to which reduce the nitrates and nitrites in the soil.[60]

Third Class of Organisms.

The third class of organisms are those by whose agency the soil is enriched. Of this class those fixing the free nitrogen from the air are the most important. The nature of these organisms is still somewhat obscure, but that leguminous plants have the power of drawing upon this source of nitrogen is now a firmly established fact. Further reference to these interesting organisms may be delayed to another chapter.

The important point to be emphasised is, that for the healthy development of these organisms, which are so necessary in every fertile soil, certain conditions must exist. These necessary conditions will be treated more in detail later on. It is sufficient to notice that they have to do with the physical properties as well as the chemical composition of the soil. This furnishes a further reason for the necessity of having the mechanical condition of a soil satisfactory.

Recapitulation.

From what we have said, it will be seen that the question of soil-fertility is a very complicated one, and depends on numerous and varied conditions; that the properties which constitute fertility, while seemingly very widely different in their nature, in reality influence one another to a very great extent; that not merely is the presence in a soil of the necessary plant constituents necessary to fertility, but that the possession by the soil of certain physical or mechanical properties is equally necessary; while, lastly, we have seen that the presence of certain micro-organic life is bound up with the problem of fertility in a very direct and practical manner.

The importance of the conditions, other than those of a purely chemical nature, have been thus far somewhat prominently emphasised, for the reason that in what follows attention will be almost exclusively devoted to the purely chemical conditions of fertility. It is well, then, to realise that, while the latter conditions are by far the most important, so far as the farmer is practically concerned, inasmuch as they are most under his control, they are not the only conditions, and are not by themselves able to control fertility.

FOOTNOTES:

[33] This statement perhaps needs qualification. While the important rôle played by the physical qualities of the soil were in the early years of the science recognised, of more recent years the chemical composition of the soil has been engaging almost exclusive investigation. Physical properties of the soil have recently acquired a further importance in the eyes of the agricultural chemist, from the important influence they exert on what we have here called the biological properties of a soil—viz., the development of those fermentative processes whereby plant-food is prepared to a large extent.

[34] A good example of the absorptive capacity of a soil containing a large quantity of vegetable matter is furnished by peat-bogs, which, sponge-like, can absorb enormous quantities of water. (See Appendix, Note I., p. 98.)

[35] Jethro Tull, an early well-known agricultural writer, who lived about the middle of last century, propounded the theory, that as the food of plants consisted of the minute earthy particles of the soil, all that was required by the skilful farmer was to see that his soil was properly tilled. He accordingly published a work entitled 'Horse-hoeing Husbandry,' in which he advocated a system of thorough tillage. (See Historical Introduction, p. 10.)

[36] See Introduction, p. 55.

[37] See Introductory Chapter, p. 55.

[38] It is not exactly known why excess of water should prevent normal growth in the plant. Probably it is on account of the fact that free access of oxygen is hindered in such a case. The roots are thus not freely enough exposed to this necessary gas, and fermentative processes of the nature of nitrification are not promoted. It may be also due to the fact that the solution of plant-food is too dilute when such excess of water prevails.

[39] See Appendix, Note II., p. 98.

[40] Some experiments by E. Wollny show this. He found, when experimenting with summer rape, that the best results were obtained when the soil contained only 40 per cent of its total water-holding power; when the amount was either lessened or increased the results obtained fell off. The effect of either too little or too much water is seen in the development of the different organs of the plant as well as on its period of growth, much water seeming to retard the growth. The quality of the plant seems also to be influenced by this condition. Experiments on cereal grains by Wollny show that not merely is the texture of the grain influenced, but that much moisture lessens the percentage of nitrogen. Wollny is of the opinion that for crops generally, the best amount is from 40 to 75 per cent of the total water-holding capacity of the soil.

[41] See Appendix, Note III., p. 99.

[42] See p. 55.

[43] The effect of the temperature of the soil on the development of the plant is most important. This is especially marked at the period of germination, but is felt at subsequent periods of growth. Up to a certain temperature the warmer the soil the more rapid the plant's development. In this country the temperature most favourable to growth is rarely exceeded, or indeed reached.

[44] See Chapter on Farmyard Manure.

[45] As will be seen further on, the fermentation of organic substances is caused by the action of micro-organic life.

[46] See Appendix, Note IV., p. 100.

[47] Of course it must be remembered that a large amount of carbonic acid in soils comes from the decay of vegetable matter. Soils are twenty to one hundred times richer in carbonic acid than the air.

[48] See Chapter III., p. 119.

[49] See Introduction, p. 40.

[50] See Introductory Chapter, p. 54.

[51] See pp. 44 and 135.

[52] Occasionally also lime.

[53] See Appendix, Notes V. and VI., pp. 100, 101.

[54] Note VI., p. 101.

[55] Note VII., p. 107.

[56] Even larger estimates of the number of germs in a gramme of soil have been made—from three-quarters to one million (Koch, Fülles, and others).

[57] These organisms consist of molds, yeast, and bacteria, the last-named being most abundant. In the surface-soil, among the bacteria, bacilli are most abundant. Micrococei are not abundant.

[58] Investigated by Winogradsky, Olivier, De Rey Pailhade, and others.

[59] Organisms of this kind have been investigated among others by Heraüs, Hueppe, and E. Wollny. According to the two first-mentioned investigators, certain colourless bacteria effect the formation in the absence of light from humus and carbonates a body resembling in its nature cellulose.

[60] Investigated by Springer, Gayon and Dupetit, Dehérain, and Marguenne.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER I.

NOTE I. (p. 68).

The following determinations by Schübler show the absorptive power of different kinds of soil-substances. These were obtained by soaking weighed quantities of the soil in water, and allowing the excess of liquid to drain away, and weighing the wet earth.

It has been calculated that the absorptive power of a mixture of different substances is not simply equal to the sum of their separate ingredients.

NOTE II. (p. 74).

Evaporation.

The retentive property of a soil for water tends to retard evaporation. The following table by Schübler shows the rate at which evaporation proceeds in different soils. The experiment was conducted in the following way. The soil experimented upon was saturated with water and spread over a disc, and allowed to evaporate for four hours, when it was weighed. The amount of time required for the evaporation of 90 per cent of the water was also estimated. Of 100 parts of water in the wet soil there evaporated, at 60° Fahr.—

NOTE III. (p. 76).

Hygroscopic Power of Soils.

Davy found the hygroscopic power of soils to be as follows. He found that 100 parts by weight of three samples of different sands absorbed 3, 8, and 11 parts of water, respectively, in one hour; while three loams absorbed similarly 1.3, 1.6, and 1.8 parts.

The following samples of soil were dried at 212° Fahr., and exposed to an atmosphere saturated with water and a temperature of 62° Fahr., when it was found they absorbed the following amounts in twelve hours' time:—

NOTE IV. (p. 81).

Gases present in Soils.

The air which we find enclosed in the pores of the soil is distinctly poorer in oxygen than ordinary air. Boussingault found the percentage of oxygen in a sandy soil, freshly manured and wet with rain, to be as low as 10.35 per cent; while the air in forest-soil contained 19.5 per cent of oxygen, and .93 per cent of carbonic acid. The percentage of oxygen in soils depends on the rate of decay of the organic portions. The depth of the soil-layer also determines the quantity. This is owing to the fact that diffusion takes place more slowly deep down than near the surface.

NOTE V. (p. 90).

Amount of Soluble Plant-food in the Soil.

Two of the most reliable methods of ascertaining an approximation of the quantity of soluble soil constituents are (1) by treating the soil with distilled water, and (2) by analysing the drainage-water. With regard to the former of these two methods, it has been found that even the amount of fertilising matter dissolved out by pure distilled water varies. This variation depends on the amount of distilled water used, as well as the length of time the soil is left in contact with the solvent. By washing the soil with different quantities of water, different amounts of soluble soil ingredients will be found to have been washed out; for although the first washings contain by far the greater portion of the soluble matter, each subsequent washing will be found to contain further quantities.

A number of experiments have shown that 1000 parts of distilled water dissolved out from different soils from one half to one and a half parts of soluble constituents; or from .05 to .15 per cent. Of this soluble matter from 30 to 67 per cent is mineral in its nature, and from 33 to 70 per cent organic. Poor sandy soils yield the minimum quantity, while peaty soils yield the maximum. The quantity of soluble matter in a regular peaty soil may vary from .4 to 1.4 per cent; this consists chiefly, however, of organic matter. (See Johnson's 'How Crops Feed,' p. 312.)

Perhaps a more satisfactory method is by analysing the drainage-water of a soil. This has been found to vary very considerably in composition. The average of a large number of analyses are .04 to .05 per cent of dissolved matter. Of this dissolved matter the largest proportion is made up of organic matter, nitric acid, lime, and soda salts. It must be borne in mind, however, that even the drainage-water does not furnish an exact indication of the amount of dissolved matter in a soil. Much, perhaps the largest proportion of dissolved matter, never finds its way into the drainage-water. That contained by the drainage-water really represents the surplus quantity of dissolved matter which the soil is unable to retain, and which is thus washed by the rain into the drains. The composition of drainage-water is interesting, as it shows that, practically speaking, all the necessary plant ingredients are in a state of solution in the soil.

NOTE VI. (p. 90).

Chemical Composition of the Soil.

The most important substances present in soils are as follows: silica, alumina, lime, magnesia, potash, soda, ferric oxide, manganese oxide, sulphuric acid, phosphoric acid, and chlorine. Of these substances the presence of alumina, silica, lime, and, in certain cases, magnesia, along with the organic portion of the soil—the humus—has the chief influence in determining the nature and the physical properties of a soil.

In order to clearly understand to what it is soils owe the nature of their chemical composition, it is necessary to consider the composition of some of the chief minerals out of the disintegration of which soils are formed.

While we know of some seventy elements present in the earth's crust, it is practically made up of only some sixteen. These sixteen are—oxygen, silicon, carbon, sulphur, hydrogen, chlorine, phosphorus, iron, aluminium, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium, fluorine, manganese, and barium.[61] Of these, oxygen is by far the largest constituent, forming, roughly speaking, about 50 per cent.

The main mass of the rocks consists of silica, and this is generally combined with alumina, as in clay, forming aluminium silicate, and with the commoner alkalies and alkaline earths. Another extremely abundant compound is carbonate of lime, which, as limestone, chalk, and marl, forms one-sixth of the earth's total rocks.

The word "mineral" means a definite chemical compound of natural occurrence. The number of minerals is very great, and it is impossible to go into the subject here. Reference can only be made to a few of the more prominent ones, which are chiefly concerned in the formation of soils.

Those formed out of silicates are, from the agricultural point of view, the most important, as they form a very large group; and it is by their disintegration that soils are chiefly formed. They consist of silica and alumina, along with various other substances, chiefly alkalies and alkaline earths. It is important to note one peculiarity about the solubility of silicates. We have two classes of silicates: the one, which is called "acid," and contains an excess of silica; the other, "basic," and which contains an excess of base. Now, while the former of these is more or less insoluble, the second is soluble. This fact has an important signification in the process of the disintegration of the silicate minerals we are about to consider.

The first and most important class are the Felspars. Felspar is not really a definite mineral, with a definite chemical composition, but rather the name of a class of minerals of which there are several different kinds. The felspars are composed of silica and alumina, along with potash, soda, and lime, with traces of iron and magnesia. Their principal constituents, however, are silica and alumina, along with either potash, soda, or lime. According as the base potash, soda, or lime predominates, the felspar is known as Orthoclase, Albite, and Oligoclase, respectively.

The following are the analyses of the three minerals (by the late Dr Anderson):—

According as these various felspars are present in a soil, so will the quality of the soil be. It stands to reason that as the presence of potash in a soil is one of the distinguishing features of its fertility, much will depend on the extent to which the orthoclase felspar is present; and also, not only on the extent, but on the state and degree of its disintegration. It is important to note the method of this disintegration. It is effected by the absorption of water. This water is not merely absorbed mechanically, but actually enters into the composition of the mineral. It is not present as moisture merely, capable of being expelled at ordinary boiling temperature, but it forms what is known as water of composition. In this process of hydration, the mineral loses its lustre and crystalline appearance, crumbles away into a more or less—according to its state of disintegration—powdery mass. A very great change is also effected in its chemical composition; it loses nearly all its base. This is effected in the following way. As water enters into the mineral's composition, it sets free a certain portion of the base; there is thus formed a basic silicate, which, being soluble in water, is washed away in solution. This change may be illustrated by quoting the analysis of a kaolin clay formed by the disintegration of orthoclase felspar.

The chief difference here is the almost total loss of potash and a portion of the silica, and the gain of water. The other constituents practically remain insoluble.

Another important mineral is Mica. Its composition is not unlike felspar. It contains silica, alumina, and iron, in considerable quantities, also magnesia and potash. There are two kinds of mica—that containing potash, and that containing magnesia, in excess. The analyses of these two kinds are as follows (by the late Dr Anderson):—

The decomposition of mica is very slow, however, as it is a peculiarly hard mineral.

Other important minerals are Hornblende and Augite. These are composed of silica, alumina, iron oxide, manganese oxide, lime and magnesia. These are the chief minerals out of which soils are formed. It is scarcely necessary to say that few soils are made up out of any of these three minerals alone. Nearly all rocks are formed out of a mixture of these minerals. Where, however, any one mineral predominates over the rest, the nature of the soil will be thereby affected. In order to illustrate this, it may be well to mention the composition of one or two of the commoner rocks.

1. Granite, which is so abundant in certain parts of the north of Scotland, and which gives rise to the soils in the neighbourhood of Aberdeen, is made up of a mixture of quartz, felspar, and mica. It depends on the felspar present—i.e., whether it is orthoclase, oligoclase, or albite—whether the soil will be rich in potash or not. Granite containing orthoclase felspar produces a fairly fertile soil. An important consideration, which is apt to complicate this question, is the situation of such soils. They are generally so high above sea-level, that their fertility is seriously impaired on these grounds.

2. Gneiss, another common rock, is similar in composition, only that it contains very little felspar, and a correspondingly greater amount of mica.

3. Syenite contains quartz, felspar, and hornblende.

The rocks of which greenstone and trap are types, are found very largely scattered over the country. They are of two kinds, diorite and dolorite.

4. Limestone is of two great classes. We have (1) Common, (2) Magnesian. The following are the analyses of these two classes by Dr Anderson:—

Clays are formed by the disintegration of any of the crystalline rocks; the purest clays being formed from felspar. A pure clay consists simply of silica and alumina, all the other constituents having been washed out. Disintegration, however, seldom reaches such an extent; otherwise clay soils would be completely barren, which they are notably not. The impurities present in clay, which consist of alkalies, especially potash and other mineral ingredients of the plant, are what confer on clay soils their fertility. Clays differ, however, very considerably in their composition. The following is an analysis of a clay soil by Dr Anderson:—

NOTE VII. (p. 91).

Forms in which Plant-foods are present in Soil.

The forms in which the bases necessary for plant-food are present in the soil, are chiefly as hydrated silicates, and in combination with organic acids, forming humates, &c., as well as in the form of sulphates and chlorides.

Phosphoric acid is present in combination with iron, alumina, or lime, or possibly also as magnesium-ammonium-phosphate. Sulphuric acid is generally present in a more or less insoluble condition, in combination with iron and lime; whereas chlorine is combined with the alkali bases in an easily soluble form. An important point is as to the form in which the plant absorbs these food constituents. In this connection reference may be made to a theory put forward by a very distinguished French agricultural chemist, Professor Grandeau. His theory is that the necessary ingredients of plant-food are absorbed into the plant as humates, or, at any rate, that the medium of this transference is humic acid, and organic acids of a similar nature. This theory, however, while ingenious, has not yet been supported by sufficient evidence to make its acceptance advisable. It is probable that it is only in the form of soluble salts that the plant can absorb its food. It is quite probable, however, at the same time, that the exact form in which the different food substances enter the plant may be largely determined by circumstances. According to Nobbe, chloride of potassium is the most suitable form of potassium salts, although the plant may absorb its potassium as sulphate, phosphate, or even silicate.

FOOTNOTES:

[61] Composition of the earth's solid crust in 100 parts by weight:—

(Roscoe's 'Lessons in Elementary Chemistry,' p. 8.)

CHAPTER II.

FUNCTIONS PERFORMED BY MANURES.

Having now considered the general conditions on which fertility of soil depends, we are in a position to deal with the nature and function of manures.

Manures may be classified in several different ways, and a considerable amount of confusion is sometimes caused by the variety of classification adopted by different writers on this subject.

Etymological meaning of the word Manure.

Let us, in the first place, clearly understand what we mean by a manure. The word manure comes from the French word manœuvrer, which simply means "to work with the hand," hence "to till," and this etymological meaning of the word illustrates the old belief in the function of manures. We have already seen in the historical introduction that, according to Tull, the true and only function of manures was to aid in the pulverisation of the soil by fermentation. In advancing his system of thorough tillage, he claimed that since tillage effected the pulverisation of the soil, where it was practised, manures could be dispensed with.

Definition of Manures.

We no longer, of course, attach this old meaning to the word. The word manure is now applied to any substance which by its application contributes to the fertility of a soil. As has been shown in the previous chapter, the substances necessary for plant-growth which are apt to be lacking in a soil, are only generally three in number—viz., nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. A manure, therefore, is understood to be any substance containing these ingredients, either singly or together, and its commercial value is determined by the amount it contains of these substances. But while this is so, it must not be forgotten that if we define a manure to be a substance which contributes in any way to the fertility of the soil, substances other than these above mentioned may be fairly regarded as manures. The fertility of a soil, we have seen, depends not merely on the presence of certain constituents, but also on their chemical condition—i.e., whether they are easily soluble or not. It further depends, as we have also seen, on the possession by the soil of certain mechanical and biological properties. Thus there are substances which act upon the soil's inert fertilising matter, and by their action convert it into a more speedily available form. There are other substances which by their application exert a considerable effect on the texture of the soil, and thereby influence its physical and biological properties. All such substances, according to the above definition of a manure, must be included under the term. It will thus be seen that since fertility in a soil can be promoted in a variety of ways, and the functions performed by manures are of different kinds, we can divide them into different classes, according to their respective action.

Different Classes of Manures.

In the first place, we can divide manures into two great classes,—(1) those supplying to the soil necessary plant-food constituents, and thus contributing directly to fertility; and (2) those influencing soil-fertility in an indirect manner. The first class we may call direct manures, and the second indirect. Those two classes admit further of being subdivided into other smaller classes. Among the direct manures we have a number of subdivisions in use. They may be divided into general manures and special manures, according as they contain all the elements necessary for plant-growth, or only some of them; or they may be divided according to their source into natural and artificial, mineral and vegetable. Similarly we have a number of subdivisions among the second class, depending on the special nature of the action they exert. Some manures act in both capacities—both directly and indirectly—and in order that their value be fully appreciated must be studied under both heads. The most striking example of such a manure is farmyard manure. There are other manures which may in certain circumstances act in two different ways. Such a substance is lime. There are soils which are actually lacking in a sufficiency of lime for the needs of crops. On such soils an application of lime would act both as a direct and also as an indirect manure. There may also be cases of an exceptional nature, in which magnesia salts or even iron salts may act as direct manures. Many manures commonly regarded as purely direct manures would exert an indirect influence were the quantities in which they were applied sufficiently large. This is the case, indeed, with many artificial manures, such as guano, bones, nitrate of soda, and basic slag. It has been claimed for nitrate of soda that it not merely promotes fertility by supplying nitrogen in its most available form to the soil, but that the soda it contains exerts a valuable indirect influence in consolidating the soil and increasing its absorptive powers. When we reflect, however, on the small quantity of this manure which is applied per acre, its mechanical influence must be insignificant. The same applies to basic slag, which contains a considerable quantity of free lime in its composition. As this manure, however, is sometimes applied in considerable quantities, it is reasonable to suppose that its indirect value may not be altogether insignificant. Indeed we have proof of this in the fact that its most favourable action has been found to be on soils rich in organic matter.[62] The action of bones and guano, and indeed of all other manures containing a large percentage of decomposable organic matter, is likewise of a double nature, inasmuch as their decomposition or putrefaction in the soil gives rise to the formation of carbonic and organic acids, which are capable of exerting a chemical action on the soil ingredients. There is one point in connection with the action of these manures which is worthy of notice, and it is that, however slight their indirect value may be, their action as a direct manure is very much accelerated by the way in which their organic matter putrefies. In short, they may be described as providing, to a certain extent, the solvents which render them available for the requirements of the plant. It may be here convenient to classify the manures which we intend subsequently to deal with.

I. Manures, action of which is both direct and indirect—e.g., green manures, farmyard manure, composts, and sewage.

II. Manures which may be regarded as having only a direct action—e.g., guano of all kinds, bones in all forms, nitrate of soda, sulphate of ammonia, dried blood, superphosphates, mineral phosphates of all kinds, horns and hoofs, shoddy, wool-waste, fish-guano, muriate of potash, sulphate of potash, and kainit.

III. Manures which may be regarded as having only an indirect value—e.g., lime, mild and caustic, marl, gypsum, salt, &c.

We shall now proceed to discuss the nature and action of these different manures, starting with those exercising both a direct and indirect influence. Before doing so it may be well to consider the occurrence and natural sources of the three important soil constituents, nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, with a view of seeing to what extent these are being removed from our soils by the various natural processes constantly going on, as well as by the crops, and how far their natural sources are capable of making good this loss—in short, to clearly understand the economic reasons for the application of artificial manures.

FOOTNOTES:

[62] See Chapter on Basic Slag.

CHAPTER III.

THE POSITION OF NITROGEN IN AGRICULTURE.

Of manurial ingredients, nitrogen is by far the most important, and on the presence and character of the nitrogen it contains, the fertility of a soil may be said to be most largely dependent. Most soils, as a rule, are better supplied with available ash ingredients than with available nitrogen compounds. The expensive nature of most artificial nitrogenous manures also gives to nitrogen the first position from an economic point of view. A thorough study, therefore, of the different forms in which it exists in nature, of the numerous and complicated changes it undergoes in the soil, by which it is prepared for the plant's needs, of the relation of its different forms to plant-life, and of the natural sources of its loss and gain, is of the highest importance if we are to hope to understand the difficult question of soil-fertility.

The Rothamsted Experiments and the Nitrogen question.

The position of nitrogen in agriculture is a question of great difficulty and complexity. It has engaged much attention, and has had devoted to its elucidation much elaborate and painstaking research. To the Rothamsted experiments we owe most of the information we possess on the subject, and the facts contained in this chapter are almost entirely derived from the results of these famous experiments, as embodied in the memoirs and writings of Messrs Lawes, Gilbert, and Warington.

Different forms in which Nitrogen exists in Nature.

We have already referred to the nitrogen question in the historical introduction. In order, however, to have a comprehensive view of the subject, it may be well to recapitulate some of the facts there mentioned.

Nitrogen, as we have already seen, exists in the "free" or elementary condition, as nitrates and nitrites, as ammonia, and in a large number of different organic forms.

Nitrogen in the Air.

It occurs in greatest abundance (amounting to about 80 per cent) in the first of these forms in the air. That this free nitrogen, which is practically unlimited in quantity,[63] has originally been the source of all its other forms, is of course obvious. But this conversion of free nitrogen into the various compound forms in which it occurs throughout the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms, has been a process effected by a variety of indirect methods, and only at the expense of a vast amount of time. For practical purposes, the free nitrogen of the air may be regarded chiefly as a non-available source for most bodies containing it. It may be described as of all forms of nitrogen the least active, as far as plant-life is concerned.

Relation of "free" Nitrogen to the Plant.

The relation of the "free" nitrogen to the plant has formed the subject of much research, more especially during the last few years, and a brief epitome of the main results arrived at has already been given in the Introductory Chapter.[64]

That this source of nitrogen is not so inaccessible to the plant as was formerly believed, has now been abundantly proved. As the considerations which have led to this conclusion, and have suggested the very recent elaborate experiments on the fixation of free nitrogen by the plant—the results of which bid fair, it would seem, to largely revolutionise our agricultural practice—have been due to the study of the relation of the soil-nitrogen to the plant, it will be best to defer further discussion of this question till we have dealt with the other sources of nitrogen.

Combined Nitrogen in the Air.

In addition to nitrogen in the free state, air contains very small quantities of this element in combined forms. We have it in minute traces as nitrates and nitrites, as ammonia,[65] and also in still smaller traces as organic nitrogen in the minute dust-particles which modern researches have revealed as being present in such enormous numbers in our atmosphere. What the sources of these nitrates and nitrites (which exist in quantities so minute that accurate determination of their amount is rendered extremely difficult) are is a disputed point. That nitrogen and oxygen unite together to form nitric and nitrous oxides under the influence of intense heat, such as the electric spark, has been proved beyond doubt. One source, therefore, is probably the electrical discharges which are taking place more or less frequently on different parts of the earth's surface. Nitrates may also be formed in the combustion of nitrogenous bodies.[66] In the burning of coal-gas, for example, it is probable that small quantities of nitrates may be produced. Similarly the slow combustion or decay of nitrogenous organic matter, which constantly takes place all over the earth's surface, may be regarded as another source of this form of combined nitrogen. Ammonia may be similarly formed by the combustion, either quick or slow, of nitrogenous organic matter. It exists in the air as nitrate or nitrite of ammonia, and also as carbonate of ammonia.[67]

Amount of combined Nitrogen falling in the Rain.

The importance of the combined nitrogen in the air as a source of soil-nitrogen is best gauged by the amount falling annually on the soil dissolved in rain. This has been found to vary considerably. In the rain falling in the vicinity of large towns the amount is greater than in rain falling in the country. Thus at Rothamsted, in England, the average amount for several years was only 3.37 lb. nitrogen per annum per acre, of which 2.53 lb. were as ammonia,.84 being as nitric acid. At Lincoln, in New Zealand, 1.74 lb. fell annually per acre—as ammonia,.74, as nitric acid, 1.00; while at Barbadoes the amount was 3.77 lb., of which .93 was as ammonia, and 2.84 as nitric acid.[68] That the combined nitrogen derived from the air by the soil may be considerably in excess of this is highly probable. Soils, especially when damp, may absorb much larger quantities from the air of the combined nitrogen it contains. We must remember that the air in contact with the soil-surface is constantly being changed, and that there is thus a constant renewal of the air passed over the ground. The result is that the amount of air from which combined nitrogen may be removed is very great.[69]

Nitrogen in the Soil.

It has been remarked as a fact worthy of notice that nitrogen is essentially a superficial element. By this is meant that it is only found, as a rule, on the earth's immediate surface. This statement can only be admitted to be true within certain limits. The chief source of nitrogen, in addition to the atmosphere, is, of course, vegetable and animal tissue.[70] As vegetable and animal tissue are only found to any extent on the earth's surface, nitrogen is therefore chiefly found there. The natural deposits of nitrogen salts, such as the nitrate-fields of Chili and the saltpetre soils of India, &c., also only occur superficially. Notwithstanding these facts, however, the amount of nitrogen which exists at probably considerable depths from the surface must be very great. There are few sedimentary rocks which do not contain it. At Rothamsted a sample of calcareous clay, taken from a depth of 500 feet, contained .04 per cent—that is, as much as is found, on an average, in the Rothamsted clay subsoils.

Nitrogen in the Subsoil.

On the whole, however, as we have said, nitrogen is chiefly found in the surface-soil. The amount found in the subsoil at Rothamsted seems to vary very slightly at different depths, the percentage amounting to from .06 to .03.[71] Unlike the nitrogen of the surface-soil, that in the subsoil seems to be of very ancient origin, being probably derived from the remains of animal and vegetable life in the mud deposited at the bottom of the ocean. It is more abundant in the case of a clay subsoil than in a sandy subsoil.

Nitrogen of Surface-Soil.

Nitrogen has a tendency to collect on the top layers of the surface-soil, the first 9 inches or foot containing by far the largest proportion of it. In the table given in the Appendix,[72] the rate at which it decreases in amount the further down we go is clearly shown. Determinations of the respective amounts of nitrogen in every 3 inches of the soil, taken to a depth of one foot of the experimental wheat-field at Rothamsted, showed that the percentage between the first 3 inches and the second 3 inches varied very slightly. A more marked difference, however, was shown to exist between the nitrogen in the second and third 3 inches; while the fourth 3 inches were distinctly poorer—differing very little in their percentage of nitrogen from the subsoil. This was the case in unmanured soil. In the case of heavily manured soil, the increase in the soil's percentage, due to manure, was shown to be felt to the depth of a foot, but not much below it.[73]

A careful perusal of the tables in the Appendix will show that the quantity of nitrogen in the case of both arable and pasture soils steadily decreases for the first 3 feet, but that below this depth little decrease is seen, the percentage evidently becoming fairly constant.

The amount of Nitrogen in the Soil.

Very considerable difference exists in the amount of nitrogen present in different soils. The majority of analyses refer only to the amount found in the surface-soil—generally in the first 9 or 12 inches. As the soil, further, is not a body exactly homogeneous in its character, very considerable difficulty exists in obtaining reliable results. A great deal depends, therefore, on the method of sampling and the basis of calculation adopted; and it may be that this may occasionally explain, to some extent at least, the great discrepancies in the estimation of the quantities of nitrogen present in different soils as found by different investigators.

Peat-soils richest in Nitrogen.

Of all soils, peat-soils are richest in nitrogen. Professor S. W. Johnson found the nitrogen in fifty separate samples of peat to range from .4 per cent to 2.9 per cent, the average being 1.5 per cent. On the other hand, marls and sandy soils are poorest, the analyses of a number of these soils showing only from .004 to .083 per cent for the former, and .025 to .074 for the latter. As a general rule most arable soils contain over one-tenth per cent of nitrogen, or, say, over 3500 lb. per acre. A good pasture-soil, taken to a depth of 9 inches at Rothamsted, was found to contain about a quarter per cent. In ten samples of soil, taken to a depth of 9 inches, from different parts of Great Britain and Ireland, Munro found from .128 to .695 per cent of nitrogen, the average being .3278 per cent. The Rothamsted soils, it may be pointed out, are probably poor in nitrogen compared with most soils. A. Müller's investigations showed that in some of the soils he has analysed, the nitrogen amounted to little short of one per cent, while for the others the average was over half a per cent; even the poorer soils he examined contained about one quarter per cent on an average. Anderson's analyses of Scottish wheat-soils showed a variation of from .074 to .22 in the surface-soil, while he found in their subsoil from .15 to .92 per cent. Boussingault's results are also very much higher. The amount of nitrogen in a number of loams coming from widely different localities he examined contained from 6000 to 30,000 lb. per acre—the soil taken to a depth of 17 inches.[74]

Nature of the Nitrogen in the Soil.

When we compare the amount of nitrogen removed by different crops (which, even in the case of those most exhaustive of nitrogen, does not often amount to more than 150 lb. per acre), with the amount contained in the soil, the former amount seems very insignificant when compared to the latter. Such being the case, it would seem at first sight that the addition of nitrogen in the form of manures is quite superfluous. We must remember, however, that while the total amount of nitrogen is relatively large when compared to that removed by crops, only a very small proportion is in a condition available to the plant. This leads us to consider the different forms in which nitrogen is present in the soil, and their respective quantities.

Organic Nitrogen in the Soil.

Nitrogen occurs in the soil as organic nitrogen, nitric acid, nitrous acid, and ammonia. By far the largest proportion is present in the first of these forms. This is a wise provision, for otherwise the soil would be apt to become very speedily impoverished in nitrogen; for that present as nitrates it has scarcely any power to retain, while that present as ammonia is soon converted into nitrates by the process of nitrification.

The organic nitrogen of the soil, although we are apt to think of it as such, is by no means of a homogeneous character, or of equal value as a source of plant-food. Some of it, it would seem from recent investigations, is in a condition more susceptible of being converted into an available form than the rest. Thus in the process of nitrification, a process which we shall consider at length immediately, there seems to be generally a certain small proportion more ready to undergo this change than the rest; so that when this small amount is used up nitrification proceeds more slowly. In short, although we as yet know very little of the nature of the organic nitrogen of soils, we cannot doubt but that there is a constant series of changes in its composition taking place, resulting in the gradual elaboration of more available forms, until ultimately these are converted into ammonia and nitrates.

The great bulk of the organic nitrogen, however, in the soil must be regarded as in an inert condition, and by no means available for the crop. What the exact chemical form of this nitrogen is it is extremely difficult to say. Mulder was of the opinion that a considerable proportion was in the form of humate of ammonia. This opinion, as we shall have occasion to see immediately, was based on false grounds. It is highly probable that it may be in some form approximating to amide nitrogen. Its inert character is against the belief that it long remains as albuminoid nitrogen.

Different Character of Surface and Subsoil Nitrogen.

A point of very considerable importance to notice is, that the nitrogenous organic matter of the surface-soil is very different from that found in the subsoil. This difference is shown by the variation in the ratio of nitrogen to carbon, which points to the fact that, just as we should naturally suppose, the origin of the latter is very much more ancient than the origin of the former. Thus in the first 9 inches of old pasture-soil at Rothamsted, the ratio was 1:13; while in the subsoil, 3 feet from the surface, it was only 1:6. In the surface-soil it thus approaches more nearly in composition ordinary vegetable matter.

Nitrogen as Ammonia in Soils.

The second form in which nitrogen is present in soil is as ammonia. A very considerable misapprehension has existed in the past as to the amount of nitrogen in this form in soils. This mistake was due to the method adopted in estimating it, which consisted in treating the soil with boiling caustic alkalies and counting as ammonia what was given off as such. It is now known that certain forms of organic nitrogen—as, for example, amides—if treated in this way are slowly converted into ammonia. Statements, therefore, which are found in the older text-books, representing the amount of ammonia in soils as at over a tenth per cent, must be regarded as utterly unreliable. Indeed it is highly probable that ammonia only occurs in most soils in very minute traces. From what we know of the process of nitrification, we see how it is wellnigh impossible that ammonia should exist to any extent in the soil except under very exceptional circumstances.

Amount of Ammonia present in the Soil.

In ordinary soils it probably does not amount to more than from .0002 per cent to .0008 per cent, or an average of .0006 per cent.[75] In rich soils, or in garden-soils, the amount may be considerably more. Thus Boussingault found in a garden-soil .002 per cent. In peat and in peat-mould even a higher percentage has been found—viz.,.018 for the former and .05 for the latter.

Nitrogen present as Nitrates in the Soil.

The third form of nitrogen in the soil is nitric acid. It is more abundant in this form than as ammonia; but still, compared with the organic nitrogen, its amount is trifling. Probably not more than 5 per cent of the total nitrogen of a soil is ever present as nitrates. The reason of this is twofold. First, as we have already remarked, the soil has very little power to retain nitrogen in this form; and secondly, where the soil is covered with growing vegetation the nitrates are quickly assimilated by the plant as they are formed. It is for this reason that we find the quantity of nitrogen as nitrates very much greater in fallow soils than in those covered with a crop.

Position of Nitric Nitrogen in Soil.

As we shall have occasion to see more fully in the following chapter on Nitrification, the formation of nitrates is chiefly limited to the surface-soil, the largest proportion being formed within the first 9 or 12 inches. For this reason we find the largest quantity of nitrates in the surface-soil. But inasmuch as they are easily washed into the lower layers of the soil after formation, we often find a considerable proportion beyond the first 9 inches. The position of nitrates in the soil thus depends very considerably on the season of the year and the weather. In dry weather, where the evaporation of the soil-water takes place at a considerable rate, the tendency will be to concentrate the nitrates in the superficial portion of the soil. In wet weather, on the other hand, the tendency will be to wash the nitrates into the lower layers.

Amount of Nitrates in the Soil.

The determination of the amount of nitrates in a soil is not of very great economic importance; as this varies so much, and depends on such a number of different conditions, such as the season, the condition of the land, and prevailing weather. A point of very much greater economic importance is the total amount formed in the year, and the rate at which nitrification takes place. These questions will be discussed elsewhere, and therefore need not here be referred to. Some interesting analyses made at Rothamsted, however, of the amount of nitrates in soils at different depths, merit careful consideration.

Nitrates in Fallow Soils.

In the Appendix to the chapter on Nitrification,[76] will be found a table containing the amounts of nitrates found in the first 27 inches of fallow soils. The amounts vary from 33.7 lb. to 59.9 lb. per acre. The analyses were made in September or October. In four out of the six analyses, it will be found that by far the largest proportion is found in the first 9 inches. In these cases the preceding summer had been dry, and thus the nitrates had not been washed down to any depth. In the other two cases the largest amount is found in the second 9 inches of soil, and a considerable amount is also found in the third 9 inches.

Nitrates in Cropped Soils.

In the case of cropped soils we find the amount of nitrates very much less. A table containing an elaborate series of determinations of nitrates in cropped soils, receiving, however, no manure, and taken to a depth of 9 feet, will be found in the Appendix.[77] The first 27 inches only contain some 5 to 14 lb. per acre, and the most of that is found in the first 9 inches. This shows how speedily nitrates are assimilated by the growing crop. An interesting point shown by these analyses is that nitrates almost entirely cease in cropped soils a certain depth down, but that at a still lower depth they again occur in small quantities.

Nitrates in manured Wheat-soils.

Lastly, we give in the Appendix[78] the amount of nitrates found in wheat and barley soils, differently manured, at Rothamsted. From a perusal of these tables, it will be seen that the amount (under various conditions of manuring) of nitrates in the first 27 inches varies from 21.2 lb. per acre to 52.2 lb. for the wheat-soils, and 20.1 to 44.1 lb. per acre for the barley-soils.

The Sources of Soil-nitrogen.

We shall now consider the sources of soil-nitrogen, the conditions which determine its increase, and the amount of that increase, as well as the sources of loss, and the conditions which determine this loss.

That dissolved in Rain.

The natural sources of the soil-nitrogen are several. We have first of all the atmospheric nitrogen. Of this let us first consider that present as combined nitrogen. This, as we have already seen, consists chiefly of nitrates, nitrites, and ammonia, and reaches the soil dissolved in rain or in other meteoric forms of water, such as snow, hail, fog, hoar-frost, &c.

That absorbed by the Soil from the Air.

It is also absorbed by the soil from the air, especially when the soil is in a damp condition, as has been proved by Schloesing's experiments, already referred to. The total amount which falls dissolved in the rain, per acre per annum, varies very considerably in different parts of the world, but in any case only amounts yearly to a few pounds per acre.[79] That absorbed by the soil from the air may be probably very much more considerable. Schloesing in his experiments found that this latter might amount to 38 lb. per acre per annum. These results, however, were obtained under circumstances most favourable for absorption—viz., with a damp soil and in the vicinity of Paris, where the air is presumably richer in combined nitrogen than it is in the country. The nitrogen absorbed, it may be mentioned, was almost entirely in the form of ammonia. It is to be noted that the nitrogen the soil obtains in this way from the combined nitrogen of the air is not all pure gain. With regard to the nitrates and nitrites, no doubt most of these are formed by electrical discharge, although a small portion of them may be formed by the oxidation of ammonia by means of ozone and peroxide of hydrogen. With regard to the ammonia and the combined nitrogen present in the organic particles in the air, a not inconsiderable proportion is probably derived from the soil. Schloesing considers the chief source of the ammonia present in the air to be the tropical ocean; but we must remember that the source of much of the nitrogen in the tropical ocean is, after all, the soil.

Leaving aside for a moment the question of the availability of the free nitrogen of the air, let us consider the other sources of soil-nitrogen.

Accumulation of Soil-nitrogen under Natural Conditions.

The chief source is of course the remains of vegetable and animal tissue.[80] Plants are the great conservers of soil-nitrogen. By assimilating such available forms of it as nitrates, and converting them into organic nitrogen, they prevent the loss of this most valuable of all soil constituents that would otherwise take place.

They also serve to collect the nitrogen from the lower soil-layers and concentrate it in the surface portion. In a state of nature, where the soil is constantly covered with vegetation, the process going on, therefore, will be one of steady accumulation of nitrogen in the surface-soil. To what extent this accumulation goes on, and how far it is limited by the conditions of loss, will be considered immediately. That it may go on to a very great extent is amply proved by the existence of the so-called virgin soils of countries like America and Australia. There are cases, also, where the accumulation of nitrogen is practically unlimited, although the result in such cases is not necessarily a fertile soil. Such cases are peat-bogs. But let us pass on to the accumulation of soil-nitrogen under the ordinary conditions of husbandry.

Accumulation of Nitrogen in Pastures.

The case which, under the conditions of ordinary farming, most resembles a state of nature, is that of permanent pasture. It will be best, therefore, to study first the conditions under which gain of nitrogen takes place in this case.

Increase of Nitrogen in the soil of Pasture-land.

That there is a steady increase of nitrogen in the soil of land under pasture is a fact of universal experience. The older a pasture is the richer is its soil in nitrogen. The comparison of the analyses of the soil of arable land with the soil of pastures of different ages shows this in a striking way.[81] Thus at Rothamsted it was found that while the amount of nitrogen in an ordinary arable soil was .140 per cent, that in pastures eight, eighteen, twenty-one, and thirty years old was respectively .151, .174, .204, and .241 per cent. In the last two analyses we have a record of the actual gain in nitrogen made by the same pasture, this being .04 per cent in nine years' time. From these statistics it may be inferred that the surface-soil of a pasture may increase at the rate of 50 lb. per acre per annum. A point of great interest in connection with this subject is the fact that there seems to be a limit to the accumulation of nitrogen in pastures; for it would seem that pastures centuries old are not any richer in nitrogen than those thirty to forty years old.

Gain of Nitrogen with Leguminous Crops.

Another case where the gain of nitrogen to the surface-soil is very striking is in that of leguminous crops, such as clover, beans, peas, &c. This fact has been long recognised—especially with regard to clover—by farmers, and has been largely instrumental in leading to the investigation of the "free" nitrogen question. That a soil bearing a leguminous crop increases in nitrogen at a very striking rate is a problem that requires to be solved. A partial explanation of the phenomenon is found in the extraordinary capacity such a crop as clover has, by means of its multitudinous and ramifying roots, for collecting nitrogen from the subsoil. This, however, would only account for the increase in nitrogen to a certain extent. There must be some other source, and the only other source is the air. That the free nitrogen of the air is, after all, available for the plant's needs, is a supposition which has long seemed extremely probable, and which, within the last few years, has been proved beyond doubt to be a fact in the case of leguminous plants.

The Fixation of "Free" Nitrogen.

The method in which these plants are able to make use of the free nitrogen is still a point requiring much research. So far as the question is at present investigated, it would seem that the fixation is effected by means of micro-organisms present in tubercles or root excrescences found on the roots of leguminous plants.[82] Not merely has this been placed beyond doubt, but attempts have been made to isolate and study the bacteria effecting this fixation. From Nobbe's exceedingly interesting experiments, recently carried out, it would seem that the different kinds of leguminous plants have different bacteria. Thus the bacteria in the tubercle on the pea seems to be of a different order from the bacteria in the tubercles of the lupin, and so on. This discovery is of great importance, it need scarcely be pointed out, as it throws much light on the principles of the rotation of crops.

Influence of Manures in increasing Soil-nitrogen.

It may be doubted, however, if under any other conditions there is a positive gain of soil-nitrogen. In other cases the amount in the soil is only maintained under liberal manuring. In connection with this point a very striking fact has been observed with regard to the effect of continuous large applications of farmyard manure. It has been found at Rothamsted that in such a case, after a while, the manure does not seem to increase the soil-nitrogen, although where the nitrogen goes to remains a mystery. In the case of the application of artificial manures, there does not seem to be almost any appreciable gain to the soil-nitrogen. The soil-nitrogen is only increased by means of the residue of crops. In this way, of course, by increasing the amount of this crop-residue, artificial manures may be said indirectly to increase the soil-nitrogen.[83]

Sources of Loss of Nitrogen.

We now come to consider the sources of loss. The chief source, of course, is that by drainage. Land under cultivation will suffer very much more from this source of loss than in a state of nature. Our modern system of husbandry, involving as it does thorough drainage, can scarcely fail to very considerably increase this source of loss.

Loss of Nitrates by Drainage.

The form in which nitrogen is lost in this way is as nitrates. It is a somewhat striking fact, and one worthy of note, that of the three important manurial ingredients—nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, the first of these, in its final and most valuable form, is alone incapable of being fixed by the soil, and thus retained from loss by drainage.

As nitrates are constantly being formed in the soil, the loss to its total nitrogen must be considerable. It is due to the fact of the great solubility of nitrates, as well as to the fact, as already mentioned, of the incapacity of the soil-particles to fix them. To this one exception must be made. According to Knop, small quantities of nitric acid are held in the insoluble condition in soils in the form of highly basic nitrates of iron and alumina. The quantity, however, of these insoluble compounds probably amounts to a very minute trace indeed.

Permanent Pasture and "Catch-cropping" prevents Loss.

The amount of loss varies, and will depend on a number of different circumstances—thus the nature of the soil, climate, and season of the year will all influence its quantity. The way in which the soil is cultivated is also another important factor. Where it is constantly covered with vegetation, as in the case of permanent pasture, the loss will be at a minimum. Under such conditions, plant-roots are always there ready to fix, in the insoluble organic form, the soluble nitrates as they are formed. A consideration of this fact forms one of the strongest arguments in favour of the practice of what is known as "catch-cropping." The practice consists in sowing some quickly-growing green crop—e.g., mustard, vetches, &c.—so as to occupy the soil immediately after harvest, and subsequently to plough it in. The nitrates, which it is known are most abundantly formed towards the end of summer,[84] and which are allowed to accumulate in the soil from the period at which the active growth of, and consequently assimilation of nitrates by, the cereal crop have ceased, are thus fixed in the organic matter of the plant, and removed from danger of loss by drainage incidental to autumn rains.

Other Conditions diminishing Loss of Nitrates.

The nature of the soil is another important condition regulating this loss. Some soils are very much opener and more porous than others; in such soils, of course, the loss by drainage will be greatest. We are apt at first sight, however, knowing the great solubility of nitrates, to overrate this source of loss. We have to remember that while nitrates are constantly being washed down to the lower layers of the soil, there is likewise an upward compensating movement of the soil-water constantly taking place. This is due to the evaporation of water from the surface of the soil, which induces an upward capillary movement of water from its lower to its higher layers.[85] This upward movement of water is very much increased, in the case of soil covered with vegetation, by the transpiration of the plants. The climate and the season of the year will affect the extent of this upward movement. Where there is a heavy rainfall it will be very much less than in dry climates. After a long period of drought the nitrates will be found to be concentrated in the top few inches of the soil; and in hot climates this sometimes takes place to such an extent that the surface of the soil has been actually covered with a saline crust, caused by the rapid evaporation of soil-water under the influence of a burning tropical sun. From this point of view it will be seen how very much less powerful a single shower of rain is—even although at the time it is heavy—in causing loss of nitrates by drainage, than a continuance of wet weather. In the former case, where the showers are separated by an interval of dry weather, the nitrates washed down into the lower layers of the soil are slowly brought up again by the capillary action caused by evaporation.

Amount of Loss by Drainage.

What the actual amount of loss is which takes place in this way it is wellnigh impossible to say. What it amounts to under certain definite circumstances has been discovered by actual experiment at Rothamsted. Taking the circumstances most favourable to extreme loss—viz., unmanured fallow land—the highest amount registered at Rothamsted for a year is 54.2 lb. per acre from soil 20 inches deep, while the smallest amount is 20.9 lb. In the former case, the drainage-water was equivalent to 21.66 inches, while in the latter, to 8.96 inches. The average for thirteen years on unmanured fallow soil has been 37.3 lb. (for 20 inches), 32.6 lb. (for 40 inches), 35.6 lb. (for 60 inches). The point of especial interest in this connection is that an annual loss of nitrogen, equal to over 2 cwt. of nitrate of soda, may take place from a comparatively poor arable soil lying fallow.

The loss on cropped soils is of course very much less—in short, should amount to very little—especially in permanent pasture, where it is reduced to a minimum. Taking an average, Mr Warington is of opinion that the loss in England may be put at 8 lb. per annum per acre.[86]

Loss in Form of Free Nitrogen.

The other chief natural source of loss of nitrogen is due to its escape from the soil in its "free" state. This source of loss is very much less important than that by drainage, and probably amounts to very little. That, however, it takes place is beyond a doubt; and that it may—as we shall see by-and-by—under certain circumstances amount to something very considerable is also proved. Where large quantities of nitrogenous organic matter decay, and where, consequently, the supply of atmospheric oxygen is insufficient to effect complete oxidation, "free" nitrogen may be evolved in considerable quantities. Similarly, it may be evolved in the case of vegetable matter decaying under water. In soils rich in organic matter the reduction of even nitrates may take place, accompanied with the evolution of free nitrogen, which is thus lost.

Total Amount of Loss of Nitrogen.

What the rate of total loss of nitrogen is from these different sources does not admit of easy calculation. Sir John Lawes, in dealing with the question of soil-fertility, estimated some years ago, by comparing the soil of old pasture at Rothamsted with that which had been under arable culture for 250 years, that during that period some 3000 lb. of nitrogen per acre had disappeared from the arable land. Examples of decrease of nitrogen in Rothamsted soils, under various conditions of culture, will be found in the Appendix.[87]

Loss of Nitrogen by Retrogression.

A source of loss of nitrogen may be here mentioned which has to do with diminution of amount of available nitrogen, rather than absolute loss of nitrogen to the soil, and which we may term loss by retrogression. Nitrogen in an available form, such as nitrates, has been found to be converted into a less available form. This retrogression may be effected, as in the case of nitrates, by reduction—i.e., by removal of the oxygen in combination with the nitrogen, which in many cases may be set free, and thus partially although not necessarily entirely lost. Such reduction is due to the action of bacteria of the denitrifying order.[88] Or, on the other hand, nitrogen may be converted into some kind of insoluble form which seems to resist decomposition and lies in an inert condition in the soil utterly unavailable for the plants' needs. A striking example of this retrogression of nitrogen seems to be afforded in the case of farmyard manure. It has been found in the Rothamsted experiments, as has been pointed out in the preceding pages, that when farmyard manure is applied, year after year, to the same land in large quantities, a very considerable percentage of its nitrogen does not (i.e., within a reasonable number of years) become available for the crop's uses. What, indeed, becomes of the nitrogen is a mystery; but it is highly probable that some such kind of retrogression as that above referred to, whereby the nitrogen is converted into some inert organic form, takes place.

Artificial Sources of Loss of Nitrogen.

So far, the sources of loss of nitrogen considered have been what we may term natural sources. By this is meant that the loss of nitrogen from the above sources takes place in a state of nature, and not merely under conditions of cultivation. No doubt the loss due to drainage is very much greater under arable farming than would be the case where artificial drainage does not obtain; still, under any conditions, this loss must be reckoned with. On the other hand, by artificial sources of loss are meant those entirely dependent on our modern system of agriculture and our modern system of sewage disposal, whereby the nitrogen contained in that portion of the produce of the farm which goes to supply our food is not returned to the soil, but is totally lost.

Amount of Nitrogen removed in Crops.

The modern tendency towards centralisation in large towns has rendered this loss—despite all that has been said to the contrary—a necessity. It is extremely difficult, however, to form any estimate of its amount. We know, of course, the amount of nitrogen removed from the soil by different crops. We cannot, however, estimate how much of this may find its way back again to the soil. The amount of nitrogen contained in the different crops will be fully dealt with in the chapter on the manuring of different crops. It may be, however, not without interest to give here some approximate indication of the amount of this loss, in order to render the view of the subject as comprehensive as possible.

Recent agricultural returns for Great Britain give the total produce of wheat at over 76 million bushels, that of barley at over 69 million, and that of oats at over 150 million. Calculating the amount of nitrogen, these quantities of wheat, barley, and oats respectively and collectively contain, and calculating also how much sulphate of ammonia and nitrate of soda these amounts of nitrogen represent, the following are the results:—

Of course these figures, so far as the amounts of nitrogen are concerned, can only be regarded as approximate, as it is only possible in such calculations to obtain approximate results. Accepting these calculations as merely approximate, they are, nevertheless, of the highest interest and importance. It is of great importance to understand that in the annual produce of our three common cereal crops—supposing them to be all consumed off the farm—there is removed from the soil a quantity of nitrogen equal to that contained in over half a million tons of sulphate of ammonia, and three quarters of a million tons of nitrate of soda.

As has already been remarked, it is impossible to estimate exactly what proportion of this total nitrogen finds its way back to the soil. In the case of wheat, it may be pointed out that the portion which is used as a feeding-stuff—viz., bran—is very much richer in nitrogen than the flour. While, then, we are unable to estimate with any exactitude this source of loss of nitrogen, it cannot for a moment be doubted that it is enormous, from what has been already stated. We must remember that the portion of the crop richest in nitrogen is that which is generally removed—the straw which is grown in producing a bushel of wheat, barley, or oats, containing less than half the amount of nitrogen contained by a bushel of the grain itself.

Losses of Nitrogen incurred on the Farm.

In addition to the loss due to removal of crops from the farm, there are one or two other sources of loss which it may be well to briefly refer to.

Loss in Treatment of Farmyard Manure.

There can be little doubt that in the past a very considerable source of loss was the improper treatment of farmyard manure. The way in which this loss may take place will be fully considered in the chapter on farmyard manure. Suffice it to say here, that this may take place by volatilisation of the nitrogen as carbonate of ammonia, caused by carelessness in allowing the temperature of the manure-heap to rise too high; or by drainage of the soluble nitrogen compounds, caused by allowing the rich black liquor of the manure-heap to be washed away, and not properly conserved.

Nitrogen removed in Milk.

Another source of loss which is apt to be overlooked is the amount of nitrogen removed in milk. Professor Storer has calculated that in the case of a cow giving 2000 quarts, or 4300 lb., of milk in a year, and the milk being all sold as such, there would be carried away from the farm 22 lb. of nitrogen.[89]

Economics of the Nitrogen question.

And here, before concluding our survey of the different sources of loss of nitrogen, it may be well to regard for a moment the subject from a somewhat wider standpoint than that from which we have been considering it. The total supply of nitrogen in a combined form is limited. As we have pointed out, it may be regarded as the element on which, more than any other, life, animal as well as vegetable, depends. To animal life it is alone available in combined form; to vegetable life it is chiefly also only available in combined form. In the air we have an unlimited quantity of nitrogen, but it is almost entirely in an uncombined form, and therefore largely unavailable. The conversion of nitrogen from the free state to a combined form is a process which takes place only very slowly. Any source which diminishes the sum-total of our already all too limited supply of combined nitrogen must be regarded as worthy of most serious consideration. The question, therefore, of the artificial waste of nitrogen daily taking place around us, is one which ought to possess for economists a very great interest indeed. This waste has, of late years, enormously increased, and would seem to threaten us at no very distant date with a nitrogen famine. It is incidental to the use of certain nitrogenous substances in the manufacture of various articles, and to our present system of sewage disposal.

Loss of Nitrogen-compounds in the Arts.

The articles referred to are such as explosives, starch, textile substances, malt liquors, &c. The question is strikingly dealt with in an able paper on "The Economy of Nitrogen" in the 'Quarterly Journal of Science.'[90]

Loss due to Use of Gunpowder.

The explosives—more particularly gunpowder—are the most important of these articles. Gunpowder contains 75 per cent of saltpetre, which in its turn contains about 10 per cent of nitrogen. When gunpowder explodes, practically the whole of this nitrogen is converted into "free" nitrogen. The loss is thus in a sense irreparable. In the paper above, referred to, our total annual exports of this substance are estimated at 19,000,000 lb.; while the total annual production of the world is estimated at not less than 100,000,000 lb. The annual loss of nitrogen due to this source alone would amount to about 10,000,000 lb.[91] Similarly, loss of nitrogen, although to a less extent, is caused by the use of other explosives, as well as in the manufacture of the other articles above mentioned.

Loss due to Sewage Disposal.

The loss due to our present system of sewage disposal has been already taken into account in dealing with the loss due to removal of crops. It may be well, however, to treat it from the sewage aspect. Taking the amount of nitrogen in the excreta of every individual as, on an average, half an ounce, the annual amount voided in the excreta of the total population of the British Isles would amount to 365,000,000 lb.[92]—of this, the amount in the London sewage alone being 91,000,000 lb.[93] By the water system, which is almost universally adopted in this country, the above quantity of nitrogen is entirely lost to the soil. A small portion of it, it may be argued, is eventually recovered in sea weed and fish, which may be used for manure. This, however, is to argue too much sub specie æternitatis. Not all the nitrogen originally present in the excreta finds its way into the sea; for it is highly probable that a considerable quantity escapes in the process of the decomposition of the sewage as "free" nitrogen.

From the above statement of the sources of loss and gain of nitrogen taking place in the soil, it may be pretty safe to conclude that while in a state of nature the gain balances the loss, if indeed it does not do more, under conditions of arable farming such is very far from being the case; and that if fertility of the land is to be maintained, recourse to nitrogenous manures must be had,—in short, that the application of artificial nitrogenous manures is a necessary condition of modern husbandry.

Our Artificial Nitrogen Supply.

Before concluding this chapter, it may be interesting to enumerate very briefly the chief sources of our artificial nitrogen supply.

Nitrate of Soda and Sulphate of Ammonia.

The most important artificial nitrogenous manures in use at present are nitrate of soda and sulphate of ammonia. Of the former, the annual exportation from Chili is close on one million tons, of which quantity about 120,000 tons is imported into the United Kingdom. Of sulphate of ammonia, on the other hand, the total production in this country is about 130,000 tons per annum,[94] the greater proportion of which is exported, leaving only from 30,000 to 40,000 tons for consumption. Nitrate of soda, it must be remembered, is not entirely used for manurial purposes, a small proportion of the above imports being used for chemical manufacturing purposes.

Peruvian Guano.

Peruvian guano is another important nitrogenous manure very much less abundant now than formerly, as the different guano-beds have become nearly exhausted. While the imports of this important manure into the United Kingdom amounted in 1870 to nearly 250,000 tons, at present not more than 11,000 tons are being imported.

Bones.

A further source of nitrogen is bones, which, of course, are chiefly valuable as a phosphatic manure, but which contain also some 3 to 4 per cent of nitrogen. Of this valuable manure we import at present about 30,000 tons, while about 60,000 tons are collected in this country, bringing up our total consumption to 100,000 tons.

Other Nitrogenous Manures.

The above mentioned are the most important of nitrogenous manures; there are, however, a number of other nitrogenous manures used in this country in very much smaller quantities. As most of these substances are made in this country, it is very difficult to estimate the amount of their annual production with exactness. These substances are as follows: fish-guano, meat-meal guano, dried blood, shoddy, scutch, horns and hoofs, hair, bristles, feathers, leather-scrap, &c. Of fish-guano, the total consumption per annum may be put down at about 8000 tons, of which a fourth is imported into this country, the remaining 6000 tons being manufactured at home. Of meat-meal guano, dried blood, hoof-guano, &c., about 2500 tons are annually imported, the home production bringing up the total amount to some 10,000 tons. Of shoddy, some 12,000 tons are manufactured in this country; while scutch—the name given to a manure manufactured from the waste products incidental to the manufacture of glue and the dressing of skins—is produced only to the extent of a few thousand tons annually.

It is a fact worthy of notice, that while the use of phosphatic manures has increased very considerably of late years, the same cannot be said of nitrogen. According to Mr Hermann Voss, some 34,000[95] tons of nitrogen were used in the form of artificial manures in 1873, while now only about 28,000 tons are used—i.e., some 6000 tons less.

Oil-seeds and Oilcakes.

There still remains a very important source of nitrogen which has not yet been mentioned, in the shape of oil-seeds and oilcakes, used for feeding purposes. Oilcakes are both manufactured in this country and imported in large quantities. Recent Agricultural Returns show the total imports of oilcakes at 256,296 tons; that of linseed at 370,000 tons; that of rape-seed at 80,000 tons; and that of cotton-seed at 289,413 tons.

Other imported Sources of Nitrogen.

We have further, in considering this question, to take into account the large amount of maize, peas, beans, wheat, and oats which are imported into this country, a certain quantity of which is used as cattle-food, and will therefore go to enrich their manure. Also the imported straw used for purposes of litter must not be forgotten. In 1887 this amounted to 52,393 tons.

Conclusion.

In conclusion, it may be asked how far are the artificial sources of nitrogen able to make good the loss? In the opinion of such a reliable authority as Sir John Lawes, they do not. There are some soils which depend almost entirely upon imported fertility, and could not be cultivated without it. Upon some of them it is possible that the imports of nitrogen are in excess of the exports. Taking the agricultural acreage as a whole, however, he is of opinion that there is a decided loss of nitrogen, which he estimates at from 15 lb. to 20 lb. per acre per annum.[96]

FOOTNOTES:

[63] The total amount of nitrogen in the air has been estimated approximately at four million billion tons.

[64] See Introductory Chapter, pp. 40 to 45.

[65] Although ammonia is more abundant than nitrates and nitrites, it only amounts to a few parts per million of air. According to Müntz, the air at great heights contains more ammonia than in its lower strata. The opposite, however, is the case with regard to nitrates, which are only found in air near the surface of the earth. See p. 49.

[66] Nitric acid may also be formed by the oxidation of ammonia by ozone, or peroxide of hydrogen.

[67] According to Schloesing, the chief source of the ammonia present in the air is the tropical ocean, which yields gradually to the atmosphere, under the action of the powerful evaporation constantly going on, a large amount of nitrogen in this form. The sources of the nitrogen of the ocean are the nitrates which it receives from the drainage of land, animal and vegetable matter, sewage, &c.

[68] See Appendix, Note I., p. 155.

[69] To illustrate this point, it may be mentioned that on the least windy of days, when the wind is only moving at the rate of two miles an hour—and this, it may he added, is so slow as to be scarcely noticeable—the air in a space of 20 feet is changed over five hundred times in an hour. The combined nitrogen thus absorbed is probably entirely in the form of ammonia. It would seem so at any rate, from some experiments by Schloesing. See p. 132.

[70] No vegetable or animal cell exists which does not contain nitrogen.

[71] This is less on the whole than what has been found in subsoils by Continental investigators. Thus, for example, A. Müller found the average of a number of analyses of subsoils to be .15 per cent., and the late Dr Anderson found the nitrogen in the subsoil of different Scottish wheat-soils to run from .15 per cent to .97 per cent.

[72] See Appendix, Note II., p. 156.

[73] "Under prolonged kitchen-garden culture the subsoil becomes enriched with nitrogenous matter to a far more considerable depth; this has been shown by the analyses of the soil of the old kitchen-garden at Rothamsted. This is doubtless due to the practice of deep trenching employed by gardeners."—R. Warington, 'Lectures on Rothamsted Experiments.' U.S.A. Bulletin, p. 24.

[74] The comparatively insignificant effect the addition of various nitrogenous manures have in increasing the total soil-nitrogen is strikingly illustrated in the tables given in the Appendix, Note IV., p. 157.

[75] See Storer's Agric. Chem., vol. i. p. 357.

[76] See Chapter IV., Appendix, Note VII., p. 198.

[77] See Appendix, Note III., p. 157.

[78] See Appendix, Note IV., p. 157.

[79] See Appendix, Note I., p. 155.

[80] The original source of the nitrogen in the soil must have been the nitrogen in the air. When plants first begin to grow on a purely mineral soil, they must obtain nitrogen from some source. The small traces washed down in the rain will supply sufficient nitrogen to enable a scanty growth of the lower forms of vegetable life; whereas these by their decay furnish their successors with a more abundant source, which rapidly increases, until we have a fair percentage of humus accumulated.

[81] See Appendix, Note V., p. 158.

[82] See Historical Introduction, pp. 40-45.

[83] The evidence demonstrating this is to be found in the fact that the amount of carbon found in different soils rises or falls in proportion to the nitrogen. See p. 126.

[84] See Chapter IV. on Nitrification.

[85] Diffusion as well as capillary attraction is a means of bringing nitrates again to the surface-soil after rain.

[86] See Appendix, Note VI., p. 158, and Note VIII., p. 160; also p. 154.

[87] See Appendix, Note VII., p. 159.

[88] See following Chapter on Nitrification, p. 178.

[89] According to the Agricultural Returns for 1888, the number of cows in milk in Great Britain amounted to 2,450,444. If we multiply this number by 22 the result is 54,000,000 lb., or in tons 24,107. This quantity represents 154,067 tons of ordinary commercial nitrate of soda.

[90] For 1878 (p. 146 et seq.) The reader interested in the subject is referred to the paper itself.

[91] In tons 4464, and represents 28,530 tons of nitrate of soda.

[92] This in tons 162,946, which represents 1,041,384 tons of nitrate of soda.

[93] This in tons 40,625, which represents 259,633 tons of nitrate of soda. See paper in 'Journal of Science' already referred to.

[94] Europe's total production may be stated at 200,000 tons.

[95] 10,500 tons of which were as guano.

[96] Mr Warington estimates this at about 8 lb. See p. 141.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III.

NOTE I. (p. 119).

Determinations of the Quantity of Nitrogen supplied by Rain, as Ammonia and Nitric Acid, to an Acre of Land, during One Year.

(From Dr Fream's 'Soils and their Properties,' p. 62.)

NOTE II. (p. 122).

Nitrogen in Soils at Various Depths.

(1) Rothamsted Soils.

(2) Manitoba Soils.

NOTE III. (p. 130).

Nitrogen as Nitrates in Cropped Soils receiving no Nitrogenous Manure, in Lb. per Acre (Rothamsted Soils).

NOTE IV. (p. 124 and p. 131).

Nitrogen as Nitrates in Wheat-soils variously manured, October 1881, in Lb. per Acre (Rothamsted Soils).

Nitrogen as Nitrates in Barley-soils variously manured, March 1892, in Lb. per Acre (Rothamsted Soils).

NOTE V. (p. 134).

Examples of Increase of Nitrogen in Rothamsted Soils laid down in Pasture.

NOTE VI. (p. 141).

In connection with the loss by drainage of nitrogen in the form of nitrates, it may be mentioned that the water of many of the famous rivers contains large quantities of nitrates. Thus the water of the Seine has been found to contain fifteen parts of nitrates per million of water, and the Rhine eight parts per million. Some idea of what this amounts to per annum may be obtained by the statement that "the Rhine discharges daily 220 tons of saltpetre into the ocean, the river Seine 270, and the Nile 1100 tons."—(Storer's Agric. Chem., vol. i. p. 318.)

NOTE VII. (p. 142).

Examples of Decrease of Nitrogen in Rothamsted Soils.

Manuring, Produce of Wheat, and Alteration in the Composition of the Soil in Broadbalk Field, Rothamsted, from 1865 to 1881.

NOTE VIII. (p. 141).

Amount of Drainage and Nitrogen as Nitrates in Drainage-water from unmanured Bare Soil, 20 and 60 inches deep—average of Thirteen Years.

CHAPTER IV.

NITRIFICATION.

The most important compound of nitrogen for the plant is nitric acid. It is as nitrates that most plants absorb the nitrogen they require to build up their tissue. In nature the nitrogen, present in the soil as ammonia and different organic forms, is constantly being converted into nitric acid. This conversion of nitrogen into nitrates, known as nitrification, is a process of very great importance, and, as has been already pointed out in the Introductory Chapter, is effected through the agency of micro-organisms (ferments).[97] The process of nitrification, as well as the nature of the other changes taking place in the soil between the various compounds of nitrogen, are as yet but most imperfectly understood, but much light has been thrown on this most interesting department of agricultural research during the last few years; and it cannot be doubted that the increased attention which it is receiving from different investigators, both on the Continent and in this country, will be fraught with most important results for practical agriculture.

Occurrence of Nitrates in the Soil.

The occurrence of nitre,[98] or potassium nitrate, in soils has been long known, although it is only within the last few years that we have obtained any precise knowledge with regard to the mode of its production. While its amount in most soils, especially in this country,[99] is very minute, there are certain parts of the world where nitrates are found in large quantities. The nitrate fields of Chili and Peru are the chief natural sources of nitrates, and they are referred to in the chapter on Nitrate of Soda. We have other parts of the world, however (in China and India), where soils rich in nitre occur, and which in the past have formed a source of the commercial article.[100]

Nitre Soils of India.

The most important of these nitre soils are those found in the North-west of India, in the province of Bengal. In these districts the soil is of a light porous texture, rich in lime, and situated at a considerable height above water-level. They are the sites of old villages, and the nitre is found in the form of an efflorescence on the surface of different parts of the soil. The occurrence of nitre under such conditions is due, partly to the natural richness of the soil in nitrogen, and partly to its artificial enrichment through receiving the nitrogenous excrements of the inhabitants of the villages and their cattle. The constant process of evaporation going on in such a warm climate has the effect of inducing an upward tendency of the soil-water, the result being a concentration of all the nitre the soil contains in its surface layer. This goes on until a regular incrustation is formed, and the soil is covered by a white deposit of nitre. Whenever this becomes apparent, the surface portion of the soil is scraped off by the sorawallah, or native manufacturer, and collected and treated for the purpose of recovering, in a pure state, the saltpetre.

Saltpetre Plantations.

The large demand for saltpetre, larger than could be supplied by these nitre soils, soon gave rise to the semi-artificial method of production, formerly so largely practised in Switzerland, France, Germany, Sweden, and in many other parts of the Continent, by means of the so-called "nitre beds," "nitraries," or "saltpetre plantations." Previous to the introduction of this method of manufacture, the demand for saltpetre for gunpowder had become so great, that every source of nitre was eagerly sought for. Thus, when it was discovered that the earth from the floors of byres, stables, and farmyards were particularly rich in nitre, and when mixed with wood-ashes formed an important source of it, the right to remove these in France was vested in the Government under the Saltpetre Laws, which obtained till the French Revolution. This great scarcity soon led, however, to a careful investigation being made into the conditions under which potassium nitrate was formed in nitre soils.[101] These conditions, which included the presence of rich nitrogenous matter, warmth, free aeration of the soil, and a certain proportion of moisture, became, in the course of years, more and more thoroughly understood, and the result was the institution of numerous "saltpetre plantations." These generally consisted of heaps of mould, rich in nitrogen, mixed with decomposing animal matter, rubbish of various kinds, manurial substances, ashes, road-scrapings, and lime salts.[102] The heap was interlaid with brushwood, and was watered from time to time with liquid manure from stables, consisting chiefly of dilute urine. In forming the heap care was taken to keep the mass porous, so as to admit of the free access of air. The heap was further protected from the rain by covering it with a roof. In course of time considerable quantities of nitrates were developed, and the nitre was occasionally collected by scraping it from the surface, where it became concentrated just as in the nitre soils. In all cases, however, the heaps, when considered rich enough in nitre, were treated from time to time with water which, by subsequent evaporation, yielded the nitre in a more or less pure condition.[103]

This mode of obtaining nitre is no longer practised to any extent, since it is now more conveniently obtained from the treatment of nitrate of soda with potassium chloride.

Cause of Nitrification.

We have adverted to these nitre plantations as showing how the conditions most favourable for the development of nitrification were recognised long before anything was known as to the true nature of the process. It was only in 1877 that the formation of nitrates in the soil was proved to be due to the action of micro-organic life,[104] by the two French chemists, Schloesing and Müntz, who discovered the fact when carrying out experiments to see if the presence of humic matter was essential to the purification of sewage by soil. In these experiments sewage was made to filter slowly through a certain depth of soil (the time occupied in this filtration being eight days). It was found that nitrification of the sewage took place. By treating the soil with chloroform[105] it was found that it no longer possessed the power of inducing the nitrification of the sewage. When, however, a small portion of a nitrifying soil was added, the power was regained. From this it was naturally inferred that nitrification was effected by some kind of ferment. This conclusion was soon confirmed by subsequent experiments by Warington at Rothamsted, who showed that the power of nitrification could be communicated to media, which did not nitrify, by simply seeding them with a nitrifying substance, and that light was unfavourable to the process. Since then the question has formed the subject of a number of researches by Mr Warington at Rothamsted, as well as by Schloesing and Müntz, Munro, Dehérain, P. F. Frankland, Winogradsky, Gayon and Dupetit, Kellner, Plath, Pichard, Landolt, Leone, and others. From these researches we have obtained the following information with regard to the nature of the organisms concerned in this process, and the conditions most favourable for their development.

Ferments effecting Nitrification.

The importance of isolating and studying them microscopically was recognised at an early period in these researches. Messrs Schloesing and Müntz were the first to attempt this. They reported that they had successfully accomplished this, and described the organism as consisting of very small, round, or slightly elongated corpuscles, occurring either singly or two together. According, however, to the most recent researches of Warington, Winogradsky, and P. F. Frankland, nitrification is not effected by a single micro-organism, but by two, both of which have been successfully isolated and studied.[106] The first of these to be discovered and isolated was the nitrous organism, which effects the conversion of ammonia into nitrous acid; the second, which has only been lately isolated by Warington and Winogradsky, effects the conversion of nitrous acid into nitric acid. Each of these ferments thus has its distinctive function to perform in this most important process, the nitric ferment being unable to act on ammonia, as the nitrous ferment is unable to convert nitrites into nitrates. Both ferments occur in enormous quantities in the soil, and seem to be influenced, so far as is at present known, by the same conditions. Their action will thus proceed together. Nearly all we know as yet on the subject of their nature is with regard to the nitrous ferment.

Appearance of Nitrous Organism.

Mr Warington[107] thus describes the appearance of the nitrous organism: "As found in suspension in a freshly nitrified solution, it consists largely of nearly spherical corpuscles, varying extremely in size. The largest of these corpuscles barely reaches a diameter of 1/1000th of a millimeter; and some are so minute as to be hardly discernible in photographs, although shown there with a surface one million times greater than their own. The larger ones are frequently not strictly circular. These forms are universally present in nitrifying cultures. The larger organisms are sometimes seen in the act of dividing."

Nitric Organism.

So far as at present known, the nitric organism is very similar in appearance to the nitrous organism, so much so that it is difficult to distinguish the one from the other. As the same conditions influence their development, the process may be regarded as a whole.

Difficulty in isolating them.

A great difficulty has been experienced in the attempt to isolate these micro-organisms for the purpose of studying their nature. This arises from the fact that they refuse to grow on the ordinary solid cultivating media used by bacteriologists. Winogradsky, however, has recently succeeded in cultivating them in a purely mineral medium—viz., silica-jelly.[108]

Nitrifying Organisms do not require Organic Matter.

The fact that they can develop in media destitute of organic matter, is one of very great interest and importance to Vegetable Physiology. It implies that they can derive their carbon from carbonic acid—a power which it was believed was possessed by green plants alone among living structures. For organisms destitute of chlorophyll, the source of their protoplasmic carbon, it has been hitherto commonly believed, must be organic matter of some sort. While it would appear that the nitrifying organisms can, when opportunity affords, feed upon organic matter, yet it has been proved beyond doubt that they can also freely develop in media entirely devoid of it, and are capable, under such circumstances, of deriving their carbon from a purely mineral source.[109] This fact, which is subversive of what was believed to be a fundamental law of Vegetable Physiology, is one of the most important of the many important and interesting facts which these nitrification researches have elicited.[110]

Conditions favourable for Nitrification.

We may now proceed to discuss the conditions favourable for nitrification.

Presence of Food-constituents.

Among these conditions the first is the presence of certain food-constituents. To both animal and vegetable life alike a certain amount of mineral food is absolutely necessary. Among these phosphoric acid is one of the most important, and in the experiments on nitrification it has been found that the nitrifying organisms will not develop in any medium destitute of it. That other mineral food-constituents are necessary is highly probable, although the influence of their absence on the development of the process has not been similarly studied. Probably potash, magnesia, and lime salts are necessary. In the cultivating solutions used in the experiments on the subject, the mineral food-constituents added consisted of lime, magnesia, and potash salts and phosphoric acid.[111]

As we have seen above, the presence of organic matter is not necessary for the process. In this respect these organisms are differentiated from all other ferments hitherto discovered.

Presence of a Salifiable Base.

The presence of a sufficient quantity of a base in the soil with which the nitric acid may combine, when it is formed, is another necessary condition.[112] The process only goes on in a slightly alkaline solution. The substance which acts as this salifiable base is lime. The presence of a sufficient quantity of carbonate of lime in the soil will thus be seen to be of first-rate importance. This furnishes an explanation of one of the many benefits conferred by lime on soils. The activity of nitrification in many soils may be hindered by the absence of a sufficiency of lime salts, and in such cases most striking results may follow the application of moderate dressings of chalk. The absence of the nitrifying organisms in certain soils, such as peaty and forest soils, may be thus accounted for. In such soils humic acids are present and the requisite alkalinity is thus awanting.

Only takes place in slightly Alkaline Solutions.

But while a certain slight amount of alkalinity is necessary, this must not exceed a certain strength, otherwise the process is retarded. This is the reason why strong urine solutions do not nitrify. The amount of carbonate of ammonia generated in them by putrefaction renders the development of nitrification impossible by rendering the alkalinity of the solution too great.[113] The practical importance of this fact is considerable, as it shows the importance of diluting urine very considerably before applying it as a manure. Similarly, when large quantities of lime, especially burnt lime, are applied to soils, the result will be to arrest the action of nitrification for the time. The presence of alkaline carbonates in the soil, unless in minute quantities, is apt, therefore, to seriously interfere with the process.[114]

Action of Gypsum on Nitrification.

It has been found by Pichard that the action of certain mineral sulphates is extremely favourable to the process, and among these gypsum. Warington has carried out some experiments on the action of gypsum in promoting nitrification. The reason of its favourable action is probably because it neutralises the alkalinity of nitrifying solutions. It thus permits the process to go on in unfavourable conditions. Where, therefore, too great alkalinity exists for the maximum development of nitrification, the best specific will be found to be gypsum.[115] The practical value of gypsum as an adjunct to certain manurial substances, where nitrification is desired to be promoted as rapidly as possible, such as sewage and farmyard manure, will thus at once become apparent. So far as there is a proper degree of alkalinity maintained, the presence of large quantities of saline matter does not seem to interfere with the process.

Presence of Oxygen.

The nitrification bacteria belong, it would seem, to the aerobic[116] class of ferment—i.e., they cannot develop without a free supply of oxygen. Exclusion of the air is sufficient to kill them, and in those portions of the soil where access of air is not freely permitted, nitrification will be found to be correspondingly feeble. Thus it has been found in experiments with different portions of soils, that but little signs of nitrification occur in the lower soil layers. According to experiments by Schloesing on a moist soil, in atmospheres respectively containing no oxygen and varying quantities of it, the action of oxygen in promoting nitrification was strikingly demonstrated. In an atmosphere of pure nitrogen, entirely devoid of oxygen, the process no longer took place, but the nitrates already present in the soil were reduced and free nitrogen was evolved. In an atmosphere, on the other hand, containing 1.5 per cent of oxygen, a considerable amount of nitrification took place; while in the presence of 6 per cent, nitrification took place to double the extent. An addition of 10 to 15 per cent again doubled the quantity. When the amount of moisture added was increased, the effect of larger percentages of oxygen was found to be less marked. The reason of this is that the oxygen probably acts as dissolved oxygen; the addition of water meaning at the same time an addition of available oxygen. This condition exemplifies the value of tillage operations. The more thoroughly a soil is tilled the more thoroughly will the aeration of its particles take place, and consequently the more favourable will this necessary condition of nitrification be rendered. The benefits conferred on clayey soils by tillage will in this respect be especially great.

Temperature.

Another of the conditions determining the rate at which nitrification takes place, and one which is most important, is Temperature. According to Schloesing and Müntz the temperature at which maximum development takes place is 37° C.[117] (99° F.), at which temperature it is ten times as active as at 14° C. (57° F.) Below 5° C. (40° F.) the action is extremely feeble. It is clearly appreciable at 12° C. (54° F.), and from there up to 37° C. (99° F.) it rapidly increases. From 37° C. (99° F.) to 55° C. (131° F.), at which temperature no nitrification takes place, its activity decreases; at 45° C. (113° F.) it is less active than at 15° C. (59° F.), and at 50° C. (122° F.) it is very slight. These results by Schloesing and Müntz have not been exactly confirmed by Warington. He has found that a considerable amount of nitrification goes on at a temperature between 3° and 4° C. (37° and 39° F.), while the highest temperature at which he has found it to take place is considerably lower than 55° C. (131° F.) Thus he was unable to start nitrification in a solution maintained at 40° C. (104° F.) It would thus seem that the nitrifying ferments are able to develop at lower temperatures than most organisms; and although nitrification entirely ceases during frost, yet in a climate such as our own there must be a considerable proportion of the winter during which nitrification is moderately active.

Presence of a sufficient quantity of Moisture.

The presence of moisture in a soil is another of the necessary conditions of nitrification. It has been shown that it is at once arrested, and indeed destroyed, by desiccation. Other conditions being equal, and up to a certain extent, the more moisture a soil contains the more rapid is the process. Too much water, however, is unfavourable, as it is apt to exclude the free access of air, which, as we have just shown, is so necessary, as well as to lower the temperature. During a period of drought the rate at which nitrification takes place will, therefore, be apt to be seriously diminished.

Absence of strong Sunlight.

It has been found that the process goes on much more actively in darkness; indeed Warington has found in his experiments that nitrification could be arrested by simply exposing the vessel in which it was going on to the action of sunshine.

Nitrifying Organisms destroyed by Poisons.

It has already been pointed out that nitrification is arrested by the action of antiseptics, such as chloroform, bisulphide of carbon, and carbolic acid. Another substance which has been found to have an injurious action is ferrous sulphate or "copperas," a substance which is apt to be present in badly drained soils, or soils in which there is much actively putrefying organic matter. Maercker has found that in moor soils containing ferrous sulphate, no nitrates, or mere traces of nitrates, could be found. A substance such as gas-lime, unless submitted to the action of the atmosphere for some time, would also have a bad effect in checking nitrification, owing to the poisonous sulphur compounds it contains. Common salt, it would seem, also arrests the process; and this antiseptic property which salt exercises on nitrification throws a certain amount of light on the nature of its action when applied, as it is often done, along with artificial nitrogenous manures.

Denitrification.

In connection with the process of nitrification, it is of interest to notice that a process of an opposite nature may also take place in soils—viz., denitrification—a process which consists in reducing the nitrates to nitrites, nitrous oxide, or free nitrogen. That a reduction of nitrates takes place in the decomposition of sewage with the evolution of free nitrogen, was a fact first observed by the late Dr Angus Smith in 1867; and the reduction of nitrates to nitrites, and nitric and nitrous oxides in putrefactive changes has been subsequently noticed by different experimenters, who have further observed that such reduction takes place in the case of putrefaction going on in the presence of large quantities of water or where there is much organic matter.

Denitrification also effected by Bacteria.

This change was supposed to be of a purely chemical nature, and it has only been recently discovered that it is effected, like nitrification, by means of bacteria. It has been surmised by some that the action of denitrification may be effected by the same organisms that effect nitrification, and that it depends on merely external conditions which process goes on. There is no reason, however, to suppose that this is so, and several of the denitrifying organisms have been identified.

Conditions favourable for Denitrification.

That it is a process that goes on to any extent in properly cultivated soils is not to be supposed. The conditions which favour denitrification are exactly the opposite of those which favour nitrification. It is only when oxygen is excluded, or, which practically means the same thing, when large quantities of organic matter are in active putrefaction, and the supply of oxygen is therefore deficient, that denitrification takes place. Schloesing, as we have already seen, found that in the case of a moist soil, kept in an atmosphere devoid of oxygen, a reduction of its nitrates to free nitrogen took place.

Takes place in water-logged Soils.

The exclusion of oxygen from a soil may be effected by saturating the soil with water; and Warington has found in experiments carried out in an arable soil, by no means rich in organic matter, that complete reduction of nitrates may be effected in this way. It would thus seem that the process of denitrification will take place in water-logged soils, or in the putrefaction of sewage matter in the presence of large quantities of water. Whether this reduction will result in the production of nitrites, nitrous oxide, or free nitrogen, depends on different conditions. This process is one of great importance from an economic point of view, as it reveals to us a source of loss which may take place in the fermentation of manures. In the rotting of our farmyard manure it is possible that the denitrifying organisms may be more active than we have hitherto suspected, and that a considerable loss of nitrogen may in this way be effected.

Distribution of the Nitrifying Organisms in the Soil.

The nitrifying organisms are probably chiefly confined to the soil, and do not usually occur in rain or in the atmosphere. That, however, they are found in spots which we might be inclined to think extremely unlikely, is shown by some recent interesting researches carried out by Müntz, who discovered that the bare surfaces of felspathic, calcareous, schistose, and other rocks at the summit of mountains in the Pyrenees, Alps, and Vosges, yielded large numbers of them, and that they occurred to a considerable depth in the cracks and fissures of the rocks. The nitrifying organisms are also found in river-water, in sewage, and well-waters.

Depth down at which they occur.

In Warington's earlier experiments, the conclusion he arrived at was that the occurrence of the nitrifying organisms was almost entirely limited to the superficial layers of the soil, and that they were seldom to be met with much below a depth of 18 inches. His subsequent experiments, however, considerably modified this conclusion, and showed that nitrification may take place to a depth of at least 6 feet.[118] But although it may take place at this depth, it probably, as a general rule, is limited to the surface-soil, as it is only there the conditions for obtaining circulation of air are sufficiently favourable. A great deal, of course, will depend on the nature of the soil—i.e., as to its texture. In a clayey subsoil the principal hindrance to nitrification will be the difficulty of obtaining sufficient aeration. In clay soils it is probable, therefore, that nearly all the nitrification goes on in the surface layer; in sandy soils it may take place to a greater depth.[119]

Action of Plant-roots in promoting Nitrification.

In this connection the action of plant-roots in permitting a more abundant access of air to the lower layers of the soil, and thus promoting nitrification, is worth noticing. This has been observed in the case of different crops. Thus the action of nitrification has been found to be more marked in the lower layers of a soil on which a leguminous crop was growing than on that on which a gramineous. "The conditions which would favour nitrification in the subsoil are such as would enable air to penetrate it, as artificial drainage, a dry season, the growth of a luxuriant crop causing much evaporation of the water in the soil. Such conditions, by removing the water that fills the pores of the subsoil, will cause the air to penetrate more or less deeply and render nitrification possible. Subsoil nitrification will thus be most active in the drier periods of the year" (Warington).

Nature of Substances capable of Nitrification.

What kinds of nitrogenous substances are capable of undergoing this process of nitrification are not yet well known. The question is, of course, one of great importance, as the rapidity with which a nitrogenous body nitrifies will be an important factor in determining its value as a manure. Unfortunately, on this subject we know, as yet, very little. We are well aware that the nitrogen present in the humic matter of the soil is readily nitrifiable. In the experiments on nitrification the nitrogenous bodies used have been chiefly ammonia salts, so that it is difficult to say whether, in the case of other nitrogenous substances, micro-organic life of a different sort has not also been active and has converted the nitrogen into ammonia, and thereby prepared the way for the process of nitrification.

That various manures, such as bones, horn, wool, and rape-cake are readily nitrifiable, has been shown by experiment. Laboratory experiments have also been carried out on such different nitrogenous substances as ethylamine, thiocyanates, gelatin, urea, asparagin, and albuminoids of milk. But in all these experiments, how far these bodies have been directly acted upon by the nitrifying organisms, or how far they have first undergone a preparatory change in which their nitrogen has been first converted into ammonia, is impossible to say. It is at least quite probable that all the organic forms of nitrogen have first to be converted into ammonia ere they are nitrified.

Rate at which Nitrification takes place.

A question which is practically of no little importance is the rate at which nitrification takes place. From what has been already said as to the nature of the conditions favourable for the process, it will be at once seen that this will depend on how far these conditions are present in the soil. In point of fact the rate at which nitrification takes place will vary very much in different soils. A greater difference, however, in the rate at which it takes place, will be found even in the same soils at different periods of the year. In this country, where the most favourable temperature for its development is seldom reached, it never goes on at the same rate as in tropical climates. One of the causes of the greater fertility of tropical soils is due, doubtless, to the very much longer duration of the period of nitrification, as well as to its greater intensity. As, however, temperature is not the only condition, and the presence of moisture is quite as necessary, it may be that its development is seriously retarded in many tropical climates by the extreme dryness of the soil during long periods.

Takes place chiefly during the Summer Months.

Although in this climate, as has already been pointed out, nitrification probably goes on during most of the winter months, owing to the fact that the temperature of our soils is only occasionally below the minimum temperature at which the process takes place, yet there can be little doubt that the great bulk of the soil-nitrates are produced during a few months in summer. A fair conception of this amount is afforded by the interesting experiments on the composition of drainage-waters made at Rothamsted, which we shall have occasion to refer to immediately. It may be pointed out, however, that it is not always safe to take the amount of nitrates found in drainage-waters as an infallible indication of this rate, for this amount will depend to a certain extent on the amount of rainfall, and would be misleading in the case of a long period of drought. On the whole, however, it furnishes us with extremely useful data for the elucidation of this important problem.

Process goes on most quickly in Fallow Fields.

It has been shown in the Rothamsted experiments that the process goes on best in fields lying in bare fallow; and in this fact lies the explanation of one of the many reasons why the practice of leaving fields in bare fallow, so common in past times, and still practised in the case of clay soils in some parts of the country, was so beneficial to the land thus treated. But despite this fact, the practice of leaving soils in bare fallow can scarcely be justified from this point of view, as the loss of nitrates through the action of rain is very great in our moist climate.

Laboratory Experiments on Rate of Nitrification.

Several interesting experiments have been carried out with the object of affording data for estimating the rate at which the process may go on in our soils under certain conditions. An old experiment, carried out by Boussingault, illustrates, in a general way, how rapid the process is under favourable circumstances. A small portion of rich soil was placed on a slab protected by a glass roof, and was moistened from time to time with water. The amount of nitrate of potash formed under these circumstances was estimated from time to time during a period of two months. During the first month (August) the percentage was increased from .01 to .18 (equal to about 5 cwt. of nitrate of potash per acre). The increase during the second month (September) was very much less,—indeed only about a seventh of the amount.[120] The soil experimented with was an extremely rich garden soil, and all the conditions for nitrification were most favourable.

Of recent experiments on the rate of nitrification, the most striking, perhaps, are those by Schloesing. He mixed sulphate of ammonia with a quantity of soil fairly rich in organic matter, and containing 19 per cent of water. During the twelve days of active nitrification no less than 56 parts of nitrogen per million of soil were nitrified per day. Taking the soil to a depth of 9 inches, this would be equal to more than 1 cwt. per acre—an amount of nitrogen equal to that contained in 6 cwt. of commercial nitrate of soda. These experiments are interesting as showing what is probably the maximum rate of nitrification under the most favourable circumstances, and where there is an abundant supply of easily nitrifiable nitrogen. That nitrification ever takes place in our soils to this extent is not to be for a moment supposed.

Warington, in his Rothamsted experiments, has found that the greatest rate, working with ordinary arable soil (first 9 inches) from the Rothamsted farm, was .588 parts per million of air-dried soil per day—i.e., 1.3 lb. per acre (equal to about 8 lb. of nitrate of soda). Similar soil, when supplied with ammonia salts, showed nearly double this quantity. Higher results were obtained by Lawes and Gilbert with rich Manitoba soils, the average rate being .7 parts per million per day.

The last of these interesting laboratory experiments on the rate of nitrification we shall refer to, are those by Dehérain. He experimented with soils containing different amounts of nitrogen and moisture. With a soil containing .16 per cent of nitrogen he obtained, during a period of 90 days, rates of nitrification varying from .71 to 1.09 per million parts of soil. The maximum quantity was formed when the soil contained 25 per cent of moisture. On a soil considerably richer—viz.,.261 per cent of nitrogen—a higher rate of nitrification took place—1.48 parts per million. The highest rate obtained in these experiments showed, when calculated to pounds per acre, about 5-1/2, taking the soil to a depth of 9 inches. When the soil was alternately dried and moistened the process was most rapid.

Portion of Soil-nitrogen more easily Nitrifiable than the rest.

Lastly, it may be noticed that in the above-cited experiments, and others of a similar kind, the process goes on most rapidly at first, and steadily diminishes thereafter. This is due to the fact, that there is generally a certain quantity of nitrogen in most soils in a more easily nitrifiable condition than the rest, so that when this becomes oxidised nitrification proceeds more slowly. It would further seem that the nitrogen of the subsoil is less easily nitrified than that of the surface-soil.

Rate of Nitrification deduced from Field Experiments.

While the above experiments throw much light on the question of the rate at which nitrification may go on under different circumstances, the results furnished by actual analyses of soils and their drainage-waters are of still more practical value; and the Rothamsted experiments fortunately furnish us with a number of these valuable results.

Quantity of Nitrates formed in the soils of Fallow Fields.

These researches had to be carried out on soil taken from fields lying in bare fallow; for no true estimate of the amount of nitrates formed could have been obtained from cropped fields. In the first 27 inches of soil of six separate fields, nitrate-nitrogen was found to vary from 36.3 lb. to 59.9 lb. per acre. In four of these fields the largest proportion was found in the first 9 inches of soil; in the remaining two, in the second 9 inches; while the third 9 inches in two fields showed almost as large a proportion as the first 9 inches.[121]

Position of Nitrates depends on Season.

The position of nitrates in the soil depends largely on the season; for, as has been already pointed out, their production is almost entirely limited to the surface-soil, and it is only by being washed down in rain that they find their way to the lower layers. A wet season, therefore, has the effect of increasing their percentage in the lower soil-layers.

Nitrates in Drainage-waters.

As there is a certain proportion of nitrates that finds its way even below the first 27 inches of soil, the above results do not show their total production. To accurately estimate this amount we must ascertain the quantity escaping in drainage-water. Here, again, the Rothamsted experiments furnish us with valuable data. The amount found in drainage-waters of course naturally varies very much, and depends largely on the rainfall; but taking an average of twelve years, this has been found to amount to between 30 and 40 lb. per acre—an amount not so very far short of that found in the first 27 inches of the soil itself. This was from comparatively poor soil, it must be remembered, and a much larger quantity would undoubtedly be produced in the case of richer soils. Adding then the results together, we find that in soils like those at Rothamsted, when in bare fallow, between 80 and 90 lb. of nitrogen are converted into nitrates in some fourteen months' time—an amount equal to about 5 cwt. of nitrate of soda. It is a fact of no little practical significance that nearly one-half of this large quantity is found in the drainage-water.

Amount produced at Different Times of the Year.

Some indication of the rate at which nitrification takes place during the different months of the year is obtained from a study of the results of the analyses of drainage-waters which we have just referred to. This, however, it must be remembered, only furnishes us with a very approximate indication. The month showing the greatest amount of nitrates in the drainage-water must not necessarily be regarded as that during which nitrification has been most active, for the amount chiefly depends on the rainfall. In illustration of this it will be found that the drainage-water during the autumn and early winter months contains most nitrates, not because nitrification is most active then, but because the rainfall is greatest, and a large proportion of the nitrates formed during the drier summer months is being only then washed from the soil. The amount of nitrates in drainage-waters steadily diminishes from autumn through the winter months, and is least in spring. The total amount of nitrates found in the drainage-water is, therefore, not a safe guide. What, however, does furnish us with a more reliable indication is the percentage of nitrates in the drainage-water. Regarding the results of the analyses of drainage-water (see Appendix) from this point of view, it will be seen that this is greatest during the month of September, and least during April.[122]

Nitrification of Manures.

A subject which has not yet been specially referred to, but which is of great practical importance, is the nitrification of manurial substances. It is unfortunate that the amount of research hitherto devoted to this important question has been slight, and that the knowledge we possess is therefore very limited.

Ammonia Salts most easily Nitrifiable.

One fact, however, about which there can be little doubt, is that nitrogen in the form of ammonia salts is, of all compounds of nitrogen, the most easily nitrifiable. Indeed, as we have already indicated, it is highly probable that the conversion of the different forms of organic nitrogen into ammonia is an intermediate stage in the nitrification of these bodies. At any rate it seems to be invariably the case that when a mixture of nitrogen compounds, including ammonia salts, are allowed to nitrify, the nitrogen in the form of ammonia is the first to become nitrified.

Sulphate of Ammonia most easily Nitrifiable Manure.

It follows from this that sulphate of ammonia, the most common of ammoniacal manures, is one of the most speedily nitrified when applied to the soil. The rate at which the nitrification of this manure takes place naturally varies according to the quantity applied, and other circumstances, such as the nature of the soil and the weather, &c. That, under favourable circumstances, the conversion of ammonia into nitrates is very rapid, has been shown by a number of experiments. Dehérain has found that when sulphate of ammonia was mixed with soil at the rate of 2 cwt. per acre, nitrification took place at the rate of 1/100th of its nitrogen per day.

Rate of Nitrification of other Manures.

Of other nitrogenous manures, guano, it would seem, comes next to sulphate of ammonia in the rate at which it becomes nitrified in the soil; while next to guano stand green manures, dried blood, meat-meal, &c. As we should expect, such a manure as shoddy is very slowly nitrified. The rate at which the nitrogen compounds in farmyard manure become nitrified, when incorporated with the soil, vary very much according to circumstances. It goes on probably at a greater rate than the ordinary nitrification of soil-nitrogen. It is a somewhat striking fact that the effect of adding nitrate of soda to the soil may be at first to check nitrification. That the addition of common salt, even in small quantities, has this result, is at any rate certain. The presence of salt to the extent of one-thousandth of the weight of the soil, has a prejudicial effect.

Soils best suited for Nitrification.

To recapitulate, then, nitrification is effected through the agency of micro-organisms, which are present to a greater or less extent in all soils. It requires for its favourable development air, warmth, moisture, absence of strong light, presence of a salifiable base—viz., carbonate of lime—the presence of certain mineral food-constituents, such as phosphates, and a certain amount of alkalinity. It consequently takes place to the least extent in barren sandy soils. Soils rich, light, well ventilated, uniformly moist, warm, and chalky, are best suited for its development. Other things being equal, it develops better in a fine-grained soil than in a coarse-grained soil, because, in the case of the former, aeration and uniform moistening of the soil are best secured.

Absence of Nitrification in Forest-soils.

A point of considerable interest is the practical absence of the process in forest-soils. The absence, or occurrence in the most minute traces, of nitrates in forest-soils has been accounted for by the lowness of the normal temperature of such soils and their extreme dryness. This latter condition is accounted for by the enormous transpiration of water which takes place through the trees, especially in summer-time, which is such as to render the soil almost air-dry. Lastly, it may be accounted for by the want of mineral food ingredients.

Important Bearing of Nitrification on Agricultural Practice.

Before concluding this chapter, it may be well to draw attention to the important bearing which nitrification has on agricultural practice. The light which our present knowledge—imperfect as it is—of this most interesting process throws on the theory of the rotation of crops is very striking, for it shows how the adoption of a skilful rotation may be made to prevent the loss of enormous quantities of the most valuable of all our soil-constituents,—the one on the presence of which fertility may be said most to depend—viz., nitrogen.

Desirable to have Soil covered with Vegetation.

The constant production of nitrates going on in the soil, the inability of the soil to retain them, and the consequent risk of their being removed in drainage, furnish a strong argument in favour of keeping our soils as constantly covered with vegetation as possible.

Permanent Pasture most Economical Condition of Soil.

From the point of view of conservation of soil-nitrates, permanent pasture may be said to be the most economical condition for the soil to be in. In such a case the nitrates are assimilated as they are formed, and, by being converted in the plant into organic nitrogen, they are at once removed from all risk of loss. A consideration, therefore, of the process of nitrification furnishes many arguments in favour of laying down land in permanent pasture—a practice which of late years has been increasingly followed in many parts of the country. As, however, it is not possible or desirable to carry out this practice beyond certain limits, the rotation which most nearly conforms to the condition of keeping the soil covered with vegetation, and most approximates in this respect to permanent pasture, is most to be recommended.

Nitrification and Rotation of Crops.

The chief risk of loss of nitrates is in connection with a cereal crop such as wheat. Where turnips follow wheat, there is a period during which the soil is left uncovered, and during which most serious loss of nitrates is apt to ensue. The risk of loss is enhanced by the fact that the assimilation of nitrates by cereals ceases before the season of their maximum production in the soil. The soil is then left bare of vegetation during the autumn, which is the most critical period of all, and the result must be serious loss. In order to minimise this loss, the practice of growing catch-crops has been had recourse to. As, however, this practice will be dealt with elsewhere, nothing further need here be said.

FOOTNOTES:

[97] As the formation of nitrites is a stage in the process, the term nitrification includes the formation of nitrites as well as nitrates.

[98] Nitre seems to have been known as early as the thirteenth century.

[99] Lawes and Gilbert, for example, have shown that in the Rothamsted soils it only amounts to a few parts per million of soil.

[100] See Appendix, Note I., p. 196.

[101] The artificial production of nitre seems to have been first effected by Glauber in the seventeenth century.

[102] The lime-rubbish from old buildings, especially those parts which have come in contact with the earth, or plastering from the walls of damp cellars, barns, stables, &c., have been found to be rich in nitrate of lime, and, as has been long well known, constitute by themselves a valuable manure. The formation of the nitrate of lime can be accounted for by the contact of the lime with nitrogenous matter of different kinds.

[103] As much of the nitric acid in this solution was present as nitrate of lime, it was usually treated with a solution of potassium carbonate, the result being the precipitation of the lime as carbonate, pure saltpetre being left in solution, according to the following equation—

K₂CO₃ + Ca(NO₃)₂ = 2 KNO₃ + CaCO₃.

Under the French mode of manufacture, the process was considered to have developed satisfactorily when 1000 lb. of earth, at the expiration of two years, yielded 5 lb. of nitre.

[104] Pasteur had already in 1862 expressed the opinion that nitrification might probably be in some way connected with ferments. A. Müller (see 'Journal of Chemical Society,' 1879, p. 249) was the first to advance the opinion that nitrification was due to the action of a ferment. This conclusion he was led to by the observation that while the ammonia in sewage was converted into nitric acid, no change took place in solutions of ammonia or urine prepared in the laboratory.

[105] Bisulphide of carbon and phenol (carbolic acid) have also been experimented with in connection with their antiseptic action on nitrification. In these experiments the former had a similar effect to chloroform; the phenol, however, while hindering it did not entirely suspend it, due probably to the difficulty of bringing the phenol vapour into thorough contact with the soil-particles.

[106] Winogradsky has named the nitrous organism nitrosomonas, and the nitric organism nitrobaeter.

[107] From a series of Lectures delivered by him in connection with Lawes Agricultural Trust, in the United States.

[108] This silica-jelly consists of dialysed silicic acid, ammonium sulphate, potassium phosphate, magnesium sulphate, calcium chloride, and magnesium carbonate.

[109] This fact is all the more striking when we remember that this decomposition of carbonic acid is best effected in the dark, since light is prejudicial to nitrification.

[110] See Appendix, Note II., p. 196, and Note III., p. 197.

[111] See Appendix, Note V., p. 198.

[112] This is shown by the fact that nitrification will only continue in a solution of carbonate of ammonia till one-half the ammonia is nitrified. It then stops. The base, with which the nitrous acid combines as it is formed, being at that stage entirely used up, nitrification is no longer possible. With regard to urine solutions the same is the case. Nitrification thus will only take place where there is a sufficiency of base.

[113] See Appendix, Note IV., p. 197.

[114] It would seem that an alkalinity much exceeding four parts of nitrogen per million is prejudicial to the process.

[115] According to Warington, solutions containing 50 per cent of urine become nitrifiable when sufficient gypsum is added. The gypsum neutralises the alkalinity of nitrifying solutions by converting the alkaline ammonium carbonate into neutral ammonium sulphate, the calcium carbonate being precipitated.

[116] See Chapter on Farmyard Manure.

[117] As practically illustrating this fact, a solution kept at 10° C. required ten days, while a solution kept at 30° C. required only eight days for nitrification.

[118] In sixty-nine trials no failure to produce nitrification by seeding with soil from a depth, of 2 feet was experienced. Similarly in eleven trials only one failure took place with soil from a depth of 3 feet. With clay soil from a depth of 6 feet success took place to the extent of 50 per cent. No nitrification was obtained with clay from a depth of 8 feet. Entire failure was experienced with chalk subsoil. The process thus diminishes in activity the lower down we go.

[119] Koch has found that in soils he has examined few organisms were found at a depth below 3 feet.

[120] See Appendix, Note VI., p. 198.

[121] For full analytical results see Appendix, Note VII., p. 198.

[122] We find the least amount in the month of April. In the water, from a 20-and 60-inch gauge respectively, the amounts were 1.35 lb. and 1.61 lb. per acre (rainfall 2.25 inches). From then on to November the amount steadily increases. In the latter month it reaches its maximum—viz., 6.50 lb. (20-inch gauge) and 5.98 lb. (60-inch gauge) per acre (rainfall 2.30 inches). See Appendix to Chapter III., Note VIII, p. 160.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER IV.

NOTE I. (p. 162).

Old Theories of Nitrification.

According to the old theories, nitrification was regarded as a simple case of the oxidation of nitrogen by the oxygen of the air, or by ozone. The union of nitrogen and oxygen, however, probably takes place only at very high temperatures, such as are formed during electric discharges. It is needless to point out that the union of nitrogen and oxygen in this way is not likely to occur in soils. According to other theories, nitrification was effected by means of the oxidation of ammonia. Ammonia, however, can only be oxidised to nitric acid by means of certain powerful oxidising agents, such as ozone or hydrogen peroxide. As, however, these substances are not found in the soil, it is much to be doubted whether nitric acid is ever formed in the soil in this way. It is possible, however, as held by some, that ferric oxide is capable of inducing this conversion. On the whole, however, most evidence points to the conclusion that all nitric acid produced in the soil is formed through the agency of micro-organic life.

NOTE II. (p. 170).

The important fact that nitrification can take place in solutions practically devoid of organic matter, was first shown by Dr J. H. M. Munro ('Chemical Society Journal,' August 1886, p. 561). It was further corroborated by Warington and P. F. Frankland. Winogradsky, however, has carried out the most conclusive experiments on the subject. "He prepared vessels and solutions, carefully purified from organic matter, and these solutions he sowed with the nitrifying organism. Finding that under these conditions the nitrifying organism increased enormously and displayed its full vigour, he proceeded further to determine the amount of carbonaceous organic matter formed in solutions after the introduction of the organism. By making the nitrification intensive, he was able to obtain considerable quantities of carbon from the nitrified solutions by the process of wet combustion. In his third memoir he publishes figures which apparently show a close relation between the amount of nitrogen oxidised, and the amount of carbon assimilated; the ratio is about 35:1."—See Bulletin of U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 8, containing Lectures on Rothamsted Experiments by R. Warington, F.R.S., p. 50.

NOTE III. (p. 170).

The oxidising power of the micro-organisms of soil is not confined to the oxidation of ammonia or of organic matter. Müntz has shown that soil is capable of oxidising iodides to hypo-iodides and iodates, and bromides to hypo-bromides and bromates. This is a very important result, and seems to indicate that nitrification is part of a general oxidising action, and that we must not assume that nitrites or nitrates are produced because they are in themselves of advantage to the organism.

NOTE IV. (p. 172).

"When urine in different degrees of dilution was treated with soil, 1 gram of soil being added to 100 c.c. of diluted urine, nitrification commenced in the 1-per-cent solution in 11 days, in the 5-per-cent solution in 20 days, in the 10-per-cent solution in 62 days, in the 12-per-cent solution in 90 days. The alkalinity of the last-named solution when nitrification commenced was equal to 447 mgs. of ammonia per litre. A solution with an alkalinity of 500 mgs. of ammonia per litre is apparently unnitrifiable."—American Department of Agriculture Bulletin, Warington's Lectures on Rothamsted Experiments, p. 51.

NOTE V. (p. 171).

Professor P. F. Frankland in his experiments used the following solutions:—

NOTE VI. (p. 185).

Experiment by Boussingault on Rate of Nitrification.

NOTE VII. (p. 188).

Nitrogen as Nitrates in Rothamsted Soils after bare fallow in Lb. per Acre.

CHAPTER V.

THE POSITION OF PHOSPHORIC ACID.

We now come to consider the position of phosphoric acid in agriculture. The question is, however, very much simpler in its nature than that of nitrogen, and may be consequently discussed in a much shorter space.

Most soils, as we have already had occasion to point out, are better supplied with available ash-plant ingredients than available nitrogen compounds. The quantity of phosphoric acid absorbed by the plant is also less than that of nitrogen; and lastly, the different chemical compounds of phosphoric acid occurring in the soil are not nearly so numerous as those of nitrogen. Phosphoric acid, however, must be regarded as ranking next to nitrogen in its importance as a soil-constituent.

Occurrence of Phosphoric Acid in Nature.

That phosphoric acid is of universal occurrence may be assumed from the fact of the almost universal occurrence of vegetable life on the earth's surface; for plants are unable to grow without it. While thus of practically universal occurrence, its amount in most soils is very trifling. As the only source of it in the soil is from the disintegration of the different rocks, a short description of its occurrence in the mineral kingdom may first be given.

Mineral Sources of Phosphoric Acid.

It was first discovered in the mineral kingdom towards the close of last century; but we have only of late years ascertained any exact knowledge of its percentage in the different rocks out of which soils are formed. This has been shown in many cases to be very trifling. It most abundantly occurs as apatite, a mineral consisting of calcium phosphate, with small quantities of calcium fluoride or calcium chloride. This apatite, or phosphorite, is found in certain parts of the world in large masses; but as a rule, it only occurs in small quantities in most rocks. It may be stated that the older rocks are, as a general rule, richer in it than those of more recent formation; and Daubeny has drawn attention to this fact as furnishing a useful guide in estimating the probable richness of a soil in phosphoric acid. The older, therefore, a rock is, the richer it is likely to be in phosphoric acid.

Apatite and Phosphorite.

Of apatite there are a variety of kinds, which differ in their appearance as well as in their composition. It occurs chiefly in a crystalline form, and is found sometimes in regular crystals, but it also occurs in the amorphous form. In colour it may be white, yellow, brown, red, green, grey, or blue. Two classes of apatite are found. The first consists of calcium phosphate along with calcium fluoride; and in other kinds of apatite the calcium fluoride is replaced by calcium chloride. Phosphorite is another name for apatite, but is chiefly applied to impure amorphous apatite. The percentage of phosphate of lime in different kinds of apatite may be stated at from 70 to 90 per cent. It occurs in very large quantities in Canada, the Canadian apatite being very rich in phosphate of lime—80 to 90 per cent. In many parts of the world it forms portions of mountain-masses, and is quarried, crushed, and used for artificial manurial purposes. Further details of its occurrence and chemical composition will be found in the Appendix.[123]

Coprolites.

In many parts of the world round nodules, largely consisting of phosphate of lime, have been found, to which the name "coprolites" has been given, on the assumption that they consisted of fossilised animal excrements. These coprolites, or osteolites as they have also been called, vary in the percentage of phosphate of lime they contain. Sometimes this amounts to 80 per cent, but as a rule it is very much less. They also in the past have formed an important source of manure, and will be referred to subsequently.

Guano.

We have, lastly, phosphoric acid occurring in large quantities in guano-deposits, chiefly found on the west coast of South America. These deposits, which have been of enormous importance as a source of artificial manure, are of animal origin, and will be discussed at considerable length in a chapter specially devoted to the subject; so that we need do no more than mention them here.

Phosphoric acid is also found in the form of phosphate of lime in certain rocks as "layers" and "pockets."

Universal Occurrence in Common Rocks.

But while it is thus found in considerable quantities in various parts of the world, and while no anxiety need thus be felt as to its abundance for artificial manurial purposes, its occurrence in the common rocks, which, as we have already pointed out, is practically universal, is in many cases very minute.

Fownes first identified it in the felspathic rocks in 1844; and since then its percentage in granite, lava, trachyte, basalt, porphyry, dolomite, gneiss, syenite, dolerite, diorite, and a number of other rocks, has been determined by numerous investigators. For analyses of these rocks the reader is referred to the Appendix.[124]

Occurrence in the Soil.

That no soil is actually without phosphoric acid is highly probable, but in many soils it is present in the merest traces, and even in fertile soils it is rarely present in quantities over two-tenths of a per cent; while half that amount may be taken as an average for most fairly fertile soils. This would be about 3500 lb. per acre, calculating the soil to a depth of 9 inches. In exceptional cases it has been found to the extent of .3 per cent; and in the famous Russian black earth it has been found to amount to .6 per cent.[125] Like nitrogen, it is found in greatest amount in the surface portion of the soil, but its amount at different depths does not vary to the same extent as we have found to be the case with nitrogen.

Condition in which Phosphoric Acid is present in the Soil.

Unlike nitrogen, phosphoric acid occurs in the soil almost entirely in an insoluble form; and when applied to the soil in a soluble form, is speedily converted into an insoluble condition. Its most commonly occurring forms are as phosphates of lime, iron, and alumina. These facts are of importance to remember, as they explain why phosphoric acid is not found in drainage-water in any quantity. It also shows how little the risk of loss from drainage is in the application of artificial phosphatic manure to the soil.

Occurrence in Plants.

The percentage of phosphoric acid in plants, like other ash-constituents, is subject to considerable variation, and depends on a variety of conditions, such as the state of the plant's development, nature of soil, climate, season, treatment with manures, &c. All these conditions have a certain influence. The different parts of the plant have been found to contain it in different quantities. The tendency of phosphoric acid is to travel up to the higher portions of the plant with the progress of growth, and to finally accumulate in the seed. As illustrating this, it may be mentioned that the inner portion of the stalk of a ripe oat-plant has been found to contain only a seventeenth of the amount of phosphoric acid found in the same portion of the stalk of a young oat-plant. Similarly it may be mentioned that, while the ash of the grain of rye and wheat contains nearly half their weight of phosphoric acid, the percentage present in the ash of other parts of the plant amounts only to from 5 to 16 per cent. The percentage of phosphorus is greater in young plants than in mature plants; it is greater also in quickly developed plants than in slowly developed plants.

In the plant, phosphorus is present chiefly in the albuminoids; and its absorption from the soil takes place in greatest quantity during the period of maximum growth. In beans and peas an oil containing phosphorus has been found.

Occurrence in Animals.

That phosphorus in different forms exists in animal tissue is well known. It is found both in the brain and in the nerves, as well as in nearly all the fluids of the animal body. It is, however, in the bones that it is most abundant, the mineral portion of which is almost entirely made of phosphate of lime,—a fact which renders bones such a valuable artificial manure. Altogether, phosphoric acid occurs in the animal body to the extent of 2.3 per cent. There is a point which we shall have occasion to draw the student's attention to further on in discussing the nature of farmyard manure—and that is, that the urine of the common farm animals is practically devoid of phosphoric acid.

Sources of Loss of Phosphoric Acid in Agriculture.

As we have already done in the case of nitrogen, we may now attempt to form some conception of the sources of loss and gain of phosphoric acid in the soil. The sources of loss may be divided into natural and artificial. Of natural sources of loss we have only one, and that is loss by drainage.

Loss of Phosphoric Acid by Drainage.

We have already seen that the condition in which phosphoric acid is present in the soil is as insoluble phosphate. In drainage-water it occurs in mere traces. Minute though the amount seems when stated as percentage, and small as it appears beside the loss (from the same source) of nitrogen, it is yet, if considered for large areas, sufficiently striking. Thus it has been estimated that in the river Elbe there is carried off by drainage from the fields of Bohemia 2-3/4 million pounds (1200 tons) of phosphoric acid annually. This, it is true, is a very trifling amount compared with the annual loss of nitrogen from an equal area; but then it must be remembered, on the other hand, the sources of gain to the soil of this ingredient are not so numerous as are those of nitrogen, the only sources of phosphoric acid being in the manure applied to the soil, and that coming from the gradual disintegration of phosphatic minerals.

Artificial Sources of Loss.

The other sources of loss may be classed under the term artificial, and are connected with agricultural practice. Just as we have seen that in the case of nitrogen enormous quantities of that substance are constantly being removed from the soil in those crops which are consumed off the farm, so, too, enormous quantities of phosphoric acid are being removed in the same way. As illustrating this fact, it may be mentioned that Professor Grandeau has recently estimated that in the entire crops grown in France in one year there are about 298,200 tons of phosphoric acid; while the amount returned in the dung of farm animals is only 157,200, or only about one-half of what is removed in the crops, leaving a deficit of 147,000 tons to be made good by the addition of artificial phosphatic manures, if the fertility of the soil is to be maintained. The same authority has calculated that in the bones of the entire farm animals in France there is no less a quantity than 76,820 tons of phosphoric acid.

As an example of how, in many cases, the amount of phosphoric acid removed from the farm is very often much greater than that restored, a case quoted by Crusius may be cited. This was a farm of 670 acres (Saxon) which had received only farmyard manure, and from which, during sixteen years, 985.67 cwt. of phosphoric acid had been sold off in the crops; while only 408.33 cwt. had been restored in the manure, leaving a loss of 577.34 cwt.

Phosphoric Acid removed in Milk.

A further source of loss is the phosphoric acid removed in milk. In the total annual yield of milk from one cow there may be from 11 to 12 lb. of phosphoric acid.

Loss in Treatment of Farmyard Manure.

The risks of loss of phosphoric acid in the treatment of farmyard manure are not so great as in the case of nitrogen. There is, however, a considerable risk, through want of proper precautions, of the soluble phosphates being washed away by rain.

Loss in Sewage.

The loss of phosphoric acid incurred by the present method of sewage disposal is not so large as the loss of nitrogen, inasmuch as the quantity of phosphoric acid contained in human excreta is very much less. Roughly speaking, it may be said to amount to a little less than one-third of the nitrogen lost in this way.

Sources of Artificial Gain of Phosphoric Acid.

To balance these losses, we have a practically unlimited supply of mineral phosphates for application as artificial manure, as well as large quantities of other manures, many of them already mentioned in connection with nitrogen, such as bones and guanos of all kinds. Quite recently, also, a large source of phosphoric acid has been opened up in the basic slag, a rich phosphatic bye-product obtained in considerable quantity in steel-works from the basic process of steel manufacture. We have also large quantities of phosphoric acid in the imported feeding-stuffs, for statistics regarding which we would refer our readers to a previous chapter. The question of the actual amount contained in these sources is not of the same interest as in the case of nitrogen, and need not therefore detain us. We have sufficiently indicated the importance of phosphoric acid in agriculture by the statements above given. All further consideration of phosphoric acid must therefore be deferred to future chapters.

FOOTNOTES:

[123] See Appendix, Note I., p. 210.

[124] See Appendix, Note II., p. 211.

[125] These results, as indeed all soil percentages, are calculated on the soil in a dry condition.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER V.

NOTE I. (p. 201).

Composition of Apatite (Voelcker).

(Krageröe, Norway.)

Apatite is found in considerable quantities in America, Germany, France, Spain, Hungary, Norway, and Great Britain. According to Rose, apatite is made up of three molecules of tribasic calcium phosphate (Ca(PO₄)₂), combined with one molecule of calcium fluoride (Ca F₂) or one molecule of calcium chloride (CaCl₂) respectively.

The composition of the pure mineral should be—

NOTE II. (p. 203).

The following is a list of the commoner rocks in which the percentage of phosphoric acid has been determined. The results are taken from analyses by Nesbit, Schramm, Bergemann, Rose, Dehérain, Handtke, Petersen, Nessler, Muth, Fleischmann, Storer, and others:—

CHAPTER VI.

THE POSITION OF POTASH IN AGRICULTURE.

We may, lastly, consider the position of potash in agriculture, the only ash ingredient of the plant, in addition to phosphoric acid, which it is as a rule necessary to add as a manure.

Potash of less Importance than Phosphoric Acid.

It is of far less importance than phosphoric acid, from the fact of its much more abundant occurrence in the soil, as well as from the fact that under the ordinary conditions of agriculture, although removed from the soil in considerable quantities by crops, it finds its way back again in the farmyard manure; for it has not the same tendency to accumulate in large quantities in the grain or seed as we have seen to be the case with phosphoric acid. On this account straw contains a much greater proportion of potash than phosphoric acid, and hence farmyard manure may be regarded as fairly rich in potash.

Occurrence of Potash.

Of all sources of potash the ocean must be regarded as the chief. Millions and millions of tons are present in a state of solution in the salt water of the ocean.[126] Like phosphoric acid, its occurrence in the rocks forming the earth's crust may be said to be practically universal. Many of the commonly occurring rocks and minerals are extremely rich in it, and by their disintegration furnish large quantities to the soil. Some of these rocks contain it in such abundance that they have been tried as potash manures; and were other more valuable sources less available than they actually are, such a practice might well be recommended. A volcanic rock known as palagonite, and that most commonly occurring of all potash minerals—viz., felspar—have both been experimented with in this way with considerable success.

Felspar and other Potash Minerals.

That felspar should prove, when finally ground, a valuable source of potash, is not to be wondered at when we remember that some varieties of it contain over 16 per cent. It has been calculated that a single cubic foot of this mineral is sufficient to supply an oak-wood, covering a surface of 26,910 square feet, with potash for a period of no less than five years.[127] Some idea of the enormous potential fertility of a soil containing felspar, so far as potash is concerned, may be obtained from this statement. It must be remembered, however, that it is only the orthoclase or potash felspars which contain large quantities of potash—other felspathic rocks, such as oligoclase and labradorite, being comparatively poor in it. Another commonly occurring mineral which is rich in potash is mica, which has been found to contain from 5 to 13 per cent. From this it follows that rocks which have large amounts of these minerals in their composition—such as granite, for example, which often contains 5 or 6 per cent of potash—form by their disintegration soils rich in this ingredient.

Stassfurt Salts.

But in addition to the sources of potash already mentioned, it exists in other forms in the earth's surface. Till within recent years it was obtained for commercial purposes from the ashes of plants, which, as we shall immediately see, are extremely rich in this ingredient; from salt water—this source giving rise to the so-called "salt gardens" on the coast of France; and from nitre soils in different parts of India, referred to already at considerable length. Large mineral deposits, however, have been recently discovered in the neighbourhood of Stassfurt in Germany, and have since their discovery supplied all the potash required for manurial and other purposes. In these deposits (similar ones have also been found at Kalusz in the Carpathian Mountains) there are no less than five different minerals which contain potash. The form in which it is present is as sulphate or chloride, so that it is readily available for plants, and is of altogether very much greater value than the form in which it occurs in the minerals already mentioned—viz., as an insoluble silicate. Of the Stassfurt potash salts, the best known as a manure is kainit, which contains about 32 per cent of sulphate of potash. A list of the other potash minerals, with the particulars of their composition and the percentage of potash they contain, will be found in the Appendix.[128]

Occurrence of Saltpetre.

We have already had occasion, in Chapter IV., when discussing the question of nitrification, to refer to the occurrence of nitrate of potash in certain soils in India, which have formed a large source of saltpetre used in commerce in the past.

Occurrence of Potash in the Soil.

From what has been said regarding the richness in potash of certain commonly occurring minerals, such as felspar, it is only natural to infer that most soils must contain large quantities of this substance; and this is so. The wonder is that potash, when applied as an artificial manure, should have such a marked effect in increasing the fertility of the soil, as is often the case. We must remember, however, that although a soil may contain large quantities of potash, there may be a very small percentage of the whole in an available form for the plant's needs.

Potash chiefly in insoluble Condition in Soils.

Potash occurs almost entirely in soils in a very insoluble form—viz., combined with silica as a silicate of potash. It is only by the slow disintegration of potash rocks that the potash they contain is set free for plant uses. When it is applied as an artificial manure, on the other hand, it is in a soluble form. In most soils the amount soluble in water probably lies between .001 and .009 per cent; that soluble in dilute acid solutions from .1 to .5 per cent; and that insoluble from .2 to 3.5 per cent of the soil. It is highly probable that a certain quantity of potash in the soil may exist in combination with humic and ulmic acids, forming insoluble potassium humates and ulmates.

Potash in Plants.

Of all the ash ingredients of plants, potash is the most abundant, as it forms on an average about 50 per cent of the total ash of plants—about 90 per cent of the alkalies. The ash of plants, indeed, was for long the chief source of potash. Certain plants remove very large quantities from the soil. Of these roots, potatoes, the vine, the tobacco-plant, and hops may be mentioned as examples. It is present in large quantities in the grain of cereals, although, as we have already pointed out, not to the same proportional extent as phosphoric acid. It is found in the plant's extremities, such as twigs and new leaves, in greatest abundance.[129]

Potash in the Animal Tissue.

It is also found in all parts of the animal body. Especially rich in potash salts are the blood corpuscles, which contain about ten times the amount contained in the serum. It is found in especial abundance in the fleece of sheep, which may contain more potash than that in the whole body of the sheep. Animal urine also contains potash in considerable quantities.

Sources of Loss of Potash.

The capacity of the soil to retain soluble potash compounds, while not equal to its capacity for retaining phosphoric acid, is yet very much in excess of its capacity for retaining nitrates. The result is, that potash is only found in comparatively minute traces in drainage water.[130] Taking the same example as we already cited in illustration of the loss of phosphoric acid, we find that the amount carried away in the course of a year in the waters of the Elbe from Bohemia is 97,000,000 lb. (43,300 tons).

Potash removed in Crops.

The amount of potash removed by the different crops from the soil will be considered in a subsequent chapter. We need only say here that the class of crops which remove the largest quantity are the root crops, especially mangels. The loss is least in the case of the cereals. The amount of potash contained in the straw of cereals is about three times the amount of that removed in the grain.

Potash removed in Milk.

Lastly, we may refer to the potash removed in milk, which, on an average, may be taken at 10 lb. per annum for each cow.

Potash Manures.

Of potash manures the chief are the sulphate and the chloride, or, as it is commercially known, the "muriate." The chief source of potash manures are the Stassfurt deposits already referred to. Wood-ashes have also been used in large quantities in the past (chiefly as a potash manure), and in some parts of the world are still used. A considerable source of artificial potassic manures is the refuse manufacture of sugar-beet, such a large industry in Germany. Potash occurs as a constituent of certain other manures, more valuable for nitrogen and phosphoric acid, such as guano and dried blood.

FOOTNOTES:

[126] According to Boguslawski and Dittmar, the total amount of potash calculated as sulphate of potash in salt water equals 1141 × 10¹² tons.

[127] See Storer's 'Agricultural Chemistry,' vol. ii. p. 291.

[128] See Appendix, Note I., p. 220.

[129] See Appendix, Note II., p. 220.

[130] According to Way, different samples of drainage waters were found only to contain from .00003 to .00031 per cent.

APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VI.

NOTE I. (p. 215).

Amount of Potash in Different Minerals.

NOTE II. (p. 217).

The quantity of potash obtainable from various plants in the manufacture of potashes on a large scale is illustrated by the following statements. 1000 lb. of the following vegetative products yield the following quantities of potashes:—

PART III.

MANURES

CHAPTER VII.

FARMYARD MANURE

Farmyard manure is the oldest, and is still undoubtedly the most popular, of all manures. It has stood the test of long experience, and has proved its position as one of the most important of all our fertilisers. It is highly desirable, therefore, to make a somewhat detailed examination of its composition, and to see on what the variation in this depends; and, finally, to examine into the mode of its action as a manure.

That it should prove a valuable manure is scarcely to be wondered at, as it is originally formed from vegetable substance, and as it therefore contains all the elements present in the plant itself.

Its composition is very variable, and probably no two samples would yield exactly similar analyses. In this fact lies one of the chief difficulties of the treatment of the subject, and all statements made in the following pages as to its chemical composition must be taken as only approximate.

We may divide its constituents into three classes.

1. That portion due to solid excreta.

2. The liquid portion, largely made up of dilute urine.

3. The straw, or other material, which is used as litter.

The composition of the manure will vary according to the proportion in which these three substances are present, as well as according to the composition of the substances themselves. It will consequently tend to a clearer apprehension of the subject if we first examine briefly the chemical composition of the solid excreta and urine of the farm animals.

1. Solid Excreta.

The manurial value of the solid excreta of animals—i.e., the proportion they contain of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash—depends on a variety of conditions.

The solid excreta of horses, sheep, cows, and pigs, are well known to possess different properties, as well as to vary in their composition.

What, however, has a still greater influence is the nature of the food. This is owing to the fact that the solid excreta are made up of undigested food. We can scarcely expect the same quality of solid excreta from an animal fed on poor diet as from an animal fed on very much richer diet. Again, the percentage of the food voided in the solid excreta varies in the case of different animals.[131]

Another consideration which enters into the question is the age, as well as the treatment, of the animal. A young animal, during the period of its growth, absorbs from its food into its system a larger quantity of the three fertilising substances, nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, than is the case with an adult animal whose weight is neither increasing nor diminishing. A working horse, similarly, will return more of the nitrogen, phosphates, and potash in its dung than one not at work and which is permitted to gain in weight. The nature of the composition of the solid excreta, therefore, will depend on the nature of the food, age, breed, condition, and treatment of the animal.

Let us now investigate shortly the influence of the above considerations. The solid excrements of the common farm animals are generally distinguished from one another according to the rate at which they decompose or ferment on keeping. Thus horse-dung is generally known as a "hot" dung; while cow-dung, on the other hand, is known as "cool." Why this should be so is not absolutely clear. Probably it is owing to the fact that the former contains less water, as well as to the fact (and this probably has more to do with it) that it contains a larger percentage of fertilising matter, especially nitrogen, thus affording conditions more favourable for rapid fermentation than in the case of the more moist and less rich cow-dung.

The composition of the solid excreta of various animals, as we have just said, varies with the nature of their food; so that it is impossible to take any analyses as absolutely representing its composition. It may be interesting, however, to compare the analyses of samples of horse-dung with those of some other of the commoner farm animals, with a view to obtaining an approximate idea of this difference.

Stoeckhardt has found that in 1000 lb. of the fresh solid excreta of the animals below mentioned, there were the following amounts of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and alkalies:—

From the above table it will be seen that the sheep's dung contains the least percentage of water, and is richer in nitrogen and phosphoric acid than any of the other three. The percentage of alkalies, of which the most important is potash, is, however, not so large. This may be accounted for by the interesting and well-known fact that a large percentage of potash is to be found in the wool of sheep.[132]

The solid excrement of the sheep is, therefore, weight for weight, the most valuable as a manure, as it contains more nitrogen and phosphates than the others, and at the same time is much drier.

If, however, we compare the composition of the solid excreta in a dry state, we shall find that the following are the results (basing our calculation on Stoeckhardt's analyses):—

It will be seen from the above that the dry substance of the solid excreta of the pig is richest in fertilising substances. Too much stress, however, as has already been pointed out, must not be put on any single analysis, as so much depends on various conditions, especially the food.[133] The most reliable method of studying this question, therefore, is to study it in its relation to the food consumed. Wolff has calculated from numerous investigations that, with regard to the amount of solid excreta produced by the food, the following percentage of organic matter, nitrogen, and mineral substances, originally present in the dry matter of the food, is voided in the dung:—

There is one fact to be borne in mind in estimating the manurial value of the dung of different animals—viz., that the quantity of dung voided by one animal is much greater than that voided by another. Thus the amount voided by the cow, for example, is much greater than that voided by the horse; so that, in this way, the inferior quality of the former is, to some extent, compensated for by its greater quantity.

2. Urine.

The solid excreta possess, however, very much less manurial value than the urine. The former, as already stated, are undigested food-substances: any fertilising matters which they contain are such as have failed to be digested or absorbed into the animal system. The urine, on the other hand, contains those fertilising substances which have been digested.

The amount of nitrogen and mineral matter, however, in the urine, does not represent necessarily the total amount of these substances. Thus, in the case of a growing or fattening animal, there is always a certain amount of these substances being absorbed to build up the animal tissue and put on flesh.

In this respect it will be seen that the composition of urine will vary in the same way as that of the dung. In the case of the urine, however, there is a compensating influence to be taken into account. Urine is a waste product, and there is more waste in a young than in an adult animal.

Another very important condition which determines the composition of urine is the nature of the food, especially the quantity of water drunk. This, of course, is obvious: the more water drunk, the poorer must the composition of the urine be. But here again, as in the case of the dung, this is largely compensated for by the total quantity voided—the more dilute the urine, the larger will its quantity be; so that the inferior quality is in this way made up for by its increased quantity.

Keeping in mind, then, the fact we have just stated—viz., that the composition of urine will vary according to different conditions—we may obtain an approximate idea of what its composition is from the following results of analyses by Stoeckhardt. In 1000 parts the following quantities of water, nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and alkalies were found to be present.

From the following table it will be seen that the urine of swine (containing 97 per cent of water) is much poorer in nitrogen and alkalies than is the case with the urine of the sheep, horse, or cow.[134] While this is the case, the amount of phosphoric acid it contains is greater than that contained in the sheep's urine.

Phosphoric acid is present in the urine of the farm animals in the most minute traces: practically, it may be considered to be wanting in the urine of the horse and the cow, and is present only in small quantities in sheep's urine. The pig's urine, indeed, contains it in larger quantities; but the percentage is still so small as to justify the statement that the urine of the common farm animals is not a complete manure, and must be supplemented by phosphates, if it is to be used alone. The incomplete nature of urine as a manure constitutes a strong argument in favour of its being applied along with the solid excreta, which contain, as we have seen, considerable quantities of phosphoric acid. It is on this account that the drainings of rotten manure-heaps are more valuable, from a manurial point of view, than urine itself, since these contain the soluble portion of the phosphates in the solid excreta.[135] The urine of all animals, however, is not equally poor in phosphates. In the case of flesh-eating animals, such as the dog, the urine is found to contain them in considerable quantities.

The above tables show that the most valuable urine, weight for weight, is that of the sheep, as it contains the largest amount of alkalies (including potash) and nitrogen; that the urine of the horse comes next; then that of the cow; while, as has already been pointed out, that of the pig is the poorest.

In order to make our survey of the composition of urine uniform with that of the dung, let us see how the urine of the common farm animals compares in the matter of the composition of its dry substance. The following results (basing our calculations on Stoeckhardt's figures, previously given) show this:—

From these figures we see that the dry substance of the urine of the pig is richest in nitrogen and phosphoric acid, but poorest in alkalies, of the four common farm animals; that of the horse comes next in the amount of nitrogen it contains, but that, on the whole, there is very little difference between the horse, cow, and sheep in this respect.[136]

As in the case of the dung, this subject is best studied in relation to the food consumed. We are again indebted to Wolff's investigations for valuable information on this point. He has found that the following percentages of organic matter, nitrogen, and mineral substances, originally present in the dry matter of the food, are voided in the urine:—