Manures and the principles of manuring

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.

FOOTNOTES: