G 13 Cornell Unlversrty Library S 598.G19 5 doctrine of soil KnSlillHI Vithumus 3 1924 000 298 657 VITHUMUS DOCTRINE OF SOIL TREATMENT, SOIL UP-BUILDING. THE PROPER AGRICULTURAL RELATIONS OF VITHUMUS AND FERTILIZERS. VITHUJMUS TRADEMARK (Vita— Life Humus— Soil) THE SCIENTIFIC MIXTURE FOR RESTORING AND BDILDING UP SOILS VITHUMUS INVIGORATES AND ENRICHES SOILS NATURALLY POOR. RUN DOWN SOILS IT RESTORES TO FERTILITY. VITHUMUS, FERTILIZERS AND TILLAGE PRODUCE CROPS OF MAXIMUM QUANTITY AND QUALITY. R. W. GAMBLE, NORFOLK, VA. Copyright 1915 by R. W, Gamble Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924000298657 BY VITHUMUS IS MEANT A BALANCED BLEND OF THE MINERALS CONTAINED IN FERTILE SOILS; BY FERTILIZER IS MEANT THE USUAL COMMERCIAL SALTS OF NITROGEN. PHOS- PHORUS AND POTASSIUM: VITHUMUS ACTS, SPE- CIFICALLY, UPON THE SOIL; FERTILIZERS ACT, SPECIFICALLY UPON THE PLANT. Agriculture, in its completeness, entails the raising of crops and cattle : but, as stock raising, rests upon forage or other crops. Agriculture, essentially, is narrowed to the consideration of soils and crops: tillage implies the proper handling of both, and most agricultural controversies revolve around some aspect of tillage. As an art, Agriculture is older than history: as a science it is the youngest : and, as in young sciences, ill balanced conclu- sions are at first put out and rabidly held to. Agriculture proves no exception : as a science develops, sounder views obtain, and the first narrow limitations are swept aside to be supplanted by truer and broader horizons. Introducers of forward steps in any new science, have always been bitterly opposed by those who constituted themselves its bigoted custodians; there is no need to cite instances in point, as they are familiar to every one. Applying the moral to Agri- culture, we find the majority of those connected with its scientific phase, laying down the platform that nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash fertilizers, are the beginning and the ending of the needs of soils and crops: there is a growing minority which takes the ground that these. — good as they are, — are but a segment of the circle of Agricultural completeness ; but for such minority, the dogmatic majority has neither toleration nor patience. It remains then for the unprejudiced to overlook the agricultural field, and see what reasonable grounds exist for contesting the all embracing claims made for nitrogen, phosphorus and potas- sium compounds : also to review the evidence which relegates them to a partial importance, instead of the claimed complete one. In the rapid sketch of the art and science of Agriculture which follows, facts determined by Experiment Stations and pro- fessors of agronomics, will not be considered of any more weight than facts determined by farmers: facts everywhere are sound coins and independent of their circulators. In its most ancient state, agriculture was practiced on the extensive plan: that is, a plot of ground was taken, cultivated till no longer productive, and then abandoned for a new plot. Naturally, under such primitive methods, there came a time when all the tillable land was exhausted, and the population either starved, or migrated: thus many of the early warlike eruptions of peoples and tribes had their origin in a quest for new lands. This early ruinous agricultural practice, was first amended by the introduction of the bare fallow and manures: later, the Summer or green fallow was adopted and, in consequence of these improvements, the exhaustion of the soil was indefinitely postponed or a minimum of crop kept up. In ancient times, agriculture did not stray beyond the range of experience, and the art did not go beyond the operation of ploughing, manuring, planting, weeding and harvesting. As for any real knowledge of soils and crops, (as understood today), there was none: and, had any one hinted there was an agricultural science, he would have met with cold encouragement. The first instances of intensive farming, were along the val- leys of the Nile, the Tigris and Euphrates rivers; either upon lands exposed to periodic overflow, or upon those to which the river water was brought by irrigation: the fertility of such inundated or irrigated soils was phenomenal, but the reasons therefor were not fully understood. The beginnings of scientific agriculture do not date much further back than 1840; but yet, long before this, there were sorne slight indications of advance, beyond the crude practices which distinguished the ancient methods : the Romans had found that one crop continuously planted, quickly exhausted the soil, and they practiced rotations; they also paid attention to seed selection, and mixed wood ashes with their manures. In Eng- land, in the 13th century, manures were composted with equal parts of fine earth: then came lime, marl, gypsum and other applications; but the rationale of them was not comprehended beyond the fact that they were beneficial. Three hundred years ago, the action of clover to restore a soil exhausted by cereal crops, was known in Europe; but the why of it rem'ained a mystery till Hellriegel and Wilfarth, in 1886, furnished the ex- planation. The history of Agriculture, down to the year 1701 can be covered by saying, it was practiced according to the facts of ex- perience : but the drawback of mere experience is, that others must learn it in the same costly school : this phase came out very markedly during the Dark Ages in Europe, for, during that period, six bushels of wheat to the acre was considered a large crop. So, in a general sense, farming as an art, was much more advanced before the Christian era, than for seventeen hundred years after it. In the year 1701, Jethro Tull in England, commenced the first really definite investigation of soils and crops : he pursued common sense methods, and studied plants growing under usual field conditions : from his crop and soil experiments, he saw that plants fed upon the soil minerals; and he concluded these min- erals must be kept in a finely pulverized condition, if one wished to raise full harvests : so he planted with wide intervals between his rows, in order to horse cultivate them constantly; while he hoed the nearer earth about his crops, equally as systematically. He did each of these things with the end in view of further pul- verizing the soil minerals. Tull raised the biggest and best crops in the country; but his greatest feat, was the harvesting of thir- teen consecutive wheat crops, unmanured, and with only cultiva- tion and hoeing between the rows. Tull very naturally thought he had discovered the last word in agriculture; so, with him, manures were considered of little or no importance. He had really found out something of great value, but it was far from being the all of agriculture. In 1775 we meet up with manures of oil cakes and bones, — and these may be classed as the fore-runners of modern fertil- izers : from that time down to the advent of Justus von Liebig into scientific agriculture in 1840, there is nothing especially worthy of chronicle. Up to Liebig's time the below represented the known agricultural facts: After a certain amount of cultivation soils became exhausted. Manures, fallowing, and crop rotations would retard but not prevent soils from becoming ex- hausted. Lands subject to the deposition of river sediments were exempt from this trouble. Also, that farming experience gained in one place could not unqualifiedly be relied on elsewhere. Von Liebig, who was both a great chemist and the possessor of much common sense, gathered up all the loose threads of agri- cultural experiences and drew the conclusion, that, if continually cropping land finally exhausted it, then plants must remove something from the soil. So he proceeded to pick to pieces or analyze both soils and plants to find out what this something was. The result of his experiments was to prove that the things removed were the soil minerals; in consequence, he declared that if the removed minerals were returned to the soil, there would be no crop shortages or exhausted land. It is significant, that Liebig's scientific work, almost paralleled that of Jethro Tull, in pitching upon the soil minerals, as the prime necessities of suc- cessful agriculture: the difference was that Tull asserted con- tinually pulverizing the contained soil minerals was the proper method, whereas Liebig said they must actually be put back. Both were partly right and partly wrong. But, as is too often the case with the purely technical inves- tigator, Von Liebig claimed too much for his minerals, as they are not the only things a plant takes up: there is nitrogen and there is carbon. Lawes and Gilbert, on their famous experi- mental Rothamsted farm, set out to show that however valuable the soil minerals might be in their proper agricultural place, they did not furnish the plant with nitrogen: Von Liebig warmly challenged their findings; but the facts established by them showed, that soil minerals are not the direct agencies enabling plants to secure nitrogen. In France another great and painstaking investigator, Boussignault, demonstrated plants got their carbon from the air and not from soil minerals. But though Von Liebig was proven in error on two counts, his general conclusions as to the func- tions of soil minerals remained unquestioned. Von Liebig's re- searches cleared up the mystery of the admitted efficiency of river silts, and the demonstrated worth, (under certain condi- tions), of applications of lime, marl, clay, gypsum, wood ashes etc. These four initial and great scientific agricultural investiga- tors, were the inspiration of a subsequent large corp of soil and crop scientists; and, within twenty years from the first broad generalizations, the following details had been pretty well worked out and set on strong foundations: That soluble nitrogen compounds were beneficial to plants if applied when the plant needed foliage. That soluble phosphates materially helped root development. That soluble potash compounds aided stems stalks etc., 1. e. gave body. ' ' Hastily considered, these would seem to be about all there is to vegetation; and the commercial fertilizer concerns which manufactured such soluble compounds, were loud in declaring that they were all, while anything else was absur^, unscientific and even fraudulent. In view of the broadness of true agricul- tural science, such sweeping claims for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, are distinctly at variance with the facts and the find- ings of the greatest soil and crop investigators. Foliage, roots and body are nothing more to a plant than head, limbs and body to an animal: very important these are in their place, and in relation to other organs and functions : very helpless, when not so placed. or related. But, since the idea is current that compounds of these three elements (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium), are all soils and plants need, (to remain forever inexhaustible), we shall cite, out of much, but one piece of evidence in refutation and that shall be official. For nearly forty years these three fertilizers, under the im- petus of real merit, over-rated merit, the endorsement of tech- nical teachers of agriculture and the extravagant claims of their manufacturers, were widely and lavishly used: but there was an erraticness in their action which all the noisy claims of their sup- porters could not explain or justify. In an attempt to harmonize these discordancies, and give farmers some sure points of knowledge about nitrate, phosphate and potash fertilizers, the United States Department of Agricul- ture authorized an extensive series of field experiments. George B. Loring was the Commissioner, and Prof. W. O. Atwater was the Department's executive in charge of the work. The experi- ments were scientifically conducted, extended over six years and the fertilizers, singly and in conjunction, were used on all kinds of crops, all kinds of soils, and under all varieties of climate. Hundreds of trained agriculturists were associated with these experiments, and each forwarded the Department of Agriculture the fullest details of their experience. To enumerate these in detail would be tedious; but such men as Prof. W. C. Stubbs of the Alabama Agricultural College, Prof. W. H. Jordan of the Pennsylvania, J. W. Sanborn of the New Hampshire, Prof. J. E. McBryde of the University of Tennessee, Prof. Edward B. Voor- hees of the New Jersey Experiment Station and many others, equally qualified by training and experience, were among those interested. In the publication of the Department of Agriculture, cover- ing these six years of officially and practically testing out these three intemperately praised fertilizers, this is the conclusion sub- scribed to by the Commissioner: "I think the more carefully the tabular statements of the results are studied the more correct will this statement appear: without more and definite data than these or any other field experiments I have ever known of, I see no prospect of getting any reliable generaliza- tion as to the kind of soils on which such fertilizers are or are not beneficial." This instance of the utter failure of the socalled "three part" fertilizers, to stand up to the unwarranted claims made for them, if. not submitted to in anywise detract from their important agri- cultural functions when properly used: but it is submitted to demonstrate, that extravagance of statement 'cannot alter the facts that nitrates, phosphates and potash salts are a part only, and not the whole of scientific agriculture. Other baseless claims made for these fertilizers are, that their use renders all other soil minerals plant available, and abso- lutely does away with the necessity of applying the others : as- suming the soil is not lacking in any necessary mineral, these assertions do not hold water: assuming the soil does lack some needed mineral, the assertions fall by simple absurdity: the soil absence of iron, magnesia, silica, chlorine, etc., (all necessary), cannot be made up by the addition of nitrates, phosphates and potash salts. That the application of nitrate of soda makes some soil potash available, can be shown: but this is a small aspect only, of the soil minerals considered in their totality, over which the three-part fertilizers exercise no control. The table set for plants, must bear mineral foods compounded of iron, hydrogen, oxygen, potassium, calcium, carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, mag- nesium, sulphur, chlorine, fluorine, sodium, manganese, lithium, iodine: and there must also be water, climate and good farming: these are not three things but many and any one of them is as vital as another. Every agricultural fact demands, that soils and crops, should be considered from the view point of a complete balance between all the things which enter into the question: hence, a limiting of soil treatment and plant feeding to any three particular things, is narrow science and the opposite of common sense. In the end, such a limitation, from inevitable ill conse- quences, must, as to erroneousness, be forced into the under- standings of those who now mistakenly accept it. The time is imminent when nitrates, phosphates and potash will be used for what they are worth and no more. 8 1 he farmers of today are beginning to weigh up statements according to the facts, and not according to the statements : for ■ nearly fifty years it has been asserted, agricultural science could stretch no further than nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium: in good faith -laws have been drafted, interpreted and enforced on this platform; and progressiveness obstructed; in consequence, State supervision of agricultural matters, has mostly degenerated into forcing everything to fit the bed of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium: but farmers are commencing to realize that they, under the laws, are not the real beneficiaries as originally in- tended, therefore these restrictions cannot much longer obtain. The brilliant initial results oftentimes following the use of three-part fertilizers, have long operated to obscure sound judg- ment as to the exact bounds of their functions: on the other hand, the unobstrusive work of others, such as iron, for instance, (without which no green plant can grow), is either overlooked or taken for granted. However, real agricultural knowledge is spreading, and it is being sensed that foliage, roots and stalks mean nothing, unless they also mean crop quantity and crop quality. But one more misconception or misrepresentation about these fertilizers, needs notice here : it is often declared that phos- phorus, potassium and nitrogen compounds are exhausted from the soils, whereas other ingredients, like the widow's cruse, are perennially in abundance: the facts sa}- differently: there is not a fertile soil anywhere,' but what analysis will reveal tons upon tons of potash, phosphates and combined nitrogen: the same analysis also shows tons upon tons of other soil minerals. By analysis only, it seems nonsensical to add an ounce of anything to soils. Yet these soils which show such encouraging analyses, will not raise satisfactory crops, except fertilizers, manures and tillage are expended upon them: because this great tonnage of everything is not in plant available form. One field may analyze five hundred tons per acre of potash and be infertile: another only five tons and productive: these quantity differences mean nothing, so far as crops are concerned: but they make plausible arguments to muddle and mislead those, who do not stop to think a fire brick also analyzes high in plant food, but is hardly a success as a soil maker. Soils, to be available to crops, must have their minerals in a certain state of mechanical fineness, and their nitrogen in a certain state of chemical availability: when any soil substance does not exist in its properly available state, then it should be availably supplied: this rule not onlv includes nitrogen phosphate and potash, but every soil ingredient: this rule likewise means, that five or five thousand tons of unavail- able anything, is of no consideration from a crop point of view. Ignoring the strictly scientific aspect of agriculture, the art of it alone clearly demonstrates these things: That there are different sorts of crops and soils : that what may be good practice with one soil or crop will often fail if ap- plied indiscriminately. Consequently, any one, be he scientist or farmer, who lays down inflexible soil and crop rules is both narrow and mistaken. When it is asserted the three-part fertilizer doctrine compre- hends all crops,— all soils,— and that they act as an agricultural panacea, bigoted and erroneous statements are being made, no matter whence they spring. The brief, (as to time), science of agriculture has not, nor can it ever, establish what is contrary to facts; but the science does, and will, keep shedding light on the proper understanding of these facts; but it cannot change one of them. That Hellriegel and Wilfarth, in 1886, showed why and how clover added nitrogen to soils, was no new clover fact, but the explanation of a fact; the action of clover had been ap- preciated and taken advantage of, two thousand years before they were born : however, their discovery made the fact under- standable to the whole agricultural world, and substituted exact knowledge for vague. We, therefore know how, when and where to use clover and legumes ; whereas the ancients used them as often wrong as right. Taking either tillage, manures, fertilizers, or soil minerals, they function no dififerently today than they did before the flood: today, however, it is more clearly known how to best utilize their functions : and, to the extent one can understand the bear- ing and interpretation of soil and crop facts, to that extent is he scientific : for science is nothing but the systematic understand- ing of facts. To know that lime is beneficial for sour soils is not science : the skin clad barbarians of Europe knew that before Caesar: but to know why, constitutes those agricultural differ- ences, which enable the scientific farmer to intensively raise four full crops, where the barbarian could barely get one. The modern agriculturist should know, not bald facts only, but their meanings as well. To take an instance in point: there is no more indisputable fact than that the average staple crop, per acre, takes up (carbon and water excluded), 17% silica: this is a fact which cannot be climbed over, under or around. Your average routine professor of agronomics says, this silica is use- less in soil and plant: if it be suggested, silica has something to 10 do with soil processes and plant growth, he will emphatically declare such ideas moonshine: if it further be suggested, the soil content of sihcates can become exhausted and should be re- plenished, he will, (if he does not die outright from shock), de- clare you are stark crazy, because your soil contains at least a thousand tons of it to the acre. Incidentally, the same average acre, (to one foot depth), also contains fifteen tons of potash, five of soda, one hundred of lime, thirty of magnesia, five of phosphoric acid, three of sulphate, more than one hundred of combined nitrogen, etc. The potash, nitrogen and phosphoric acid content in your acre, this professor will emphatically pro- nounce, unavailable; and he will insist you must immediately apply fertilizers containing them: the rest of your soil ingre- dients, he asserts as either useless or ideally perfect. We submit that every fact in the art of agriculture, flatly contradicts this professor; and that nowhere in the whole science of it, can one thing be brought forward to substantiate him. If he produces his water culture experiments to justify his say-so on silica, this is on a par with producing an incubator to elim- inate the hen : if he shows you a bumper crop where only nitro- gen, phosphoric acid, and potash have been supplied, you can match his exhibit with abandoned farms or invalid crops, also resulting from their use. It all comes back then, to an under- standing of the facts, which understanding harmonizes and clears up these glaring contradictions. Let us consider siHca : if upon the same basis of comparison (which gave a 17% silica crop content'per acre), the other plant ingredients be measured, there is found 20% nitrogen; 8% phos- phoric acid; 22% potash; 4^% magnesia; 13^% lime; 3.8% soda; 4.7% sulphur; 3.2% chlorine, etc.: there is nothing here to show potash is more important to plants than chlorine: nor that nitrogen ranks above soda: it is true there is much more potash and nitrogen than chlorine and soda; but, to go upon such grounds for a judgment of their relative importance is as absurd as to deem a man's eye of less importance than his foot: common sense draws the conclusion that all of the foregoing plant ingredients must be of importance; otherwise, they would not be found either in soils or plants, ^nd, if it be said some of them are more important than the othef s, a true answer can only be given by exactly determining what function each substance performs'. If silica has neither office nor function, the following questions need a satisfactory answer: Why does silica constitute the bulk of soils? Why do plants universally take it up? 11 If the routine agricultural authority says, soils contain silica because it is the most plentiful thing in the earth's crust, and must therefore be the most plentiful thing in soils, the reply is foolish: for, by the same reasoning, there should be 22% alumina to every 78% silica in soils, whereas, such is not the fact. If the same authority alleges, plants take up silica because they can't avoid doing so, (seeing that it is actually almost forced on them because of its abundance), then he should throw enlightenment on the plant's ability to side track alumina, which is likewise pestiferous. Now, in his more reasonable intervals, this same professor will intelligently and interestingly demonstrate, how the cells of plants have the power to reject anything useless or not needed ; he will clearly prove how, of two plants alongside, one needing but 2% chlorine will shut ofif taking it, when the limit is reached; and how the other, wanting 4%, will indus- trially keep on till its needs are satisfied. What goes wrong with this selective cell power when silica comes along? It follows, that any assertions invalidating the soil and plant necessity of silica, do not rest upon any sounder foundations than prejudice, ignorance, or an inability to correlate facts. That silica is always found in plants, either in low percent- ages or high ones, clearly estabhshes its necessity as a constituent of them; though it sheds no light upon its functions, or its rela- tive importance to other plant and soil substances. And, since there is found, (always and invariably), a certain definite num- ber of minerals in plants, the mere fact of their presence also demonstrates their necessity. It is the failing of a new science to be dogmatic, and jettison anything it can't understand: so a juvenile agricultural science assuming all wisdom, has . thrown overboard much precious cargo: there are many indications now, that this attitude of cock-sureness is abating, for silica and a few other things, are being given a less violent throw-out than form- erly. It is not the intention here, to cover the functions of soil substances in detail: the subject is a wide one nor is this its place. But it shall be briefly told for silica : of the elements car- bon, nitrogen, silicon and phosphorus each, in its soil relations is equally important: one absent, there results abnormal condi- tions, none the less grave because some are obscure. Carbon as a soil and plant ingredient is so patent, that it is universally ad- mitted a necessity: the same can be said for phosphorus and nitrogen: silica, though admitted a constituent is not under- stood, and therefore is excluded through ignorance; which is not a good authority for anything. 12 Any one familiar with rocks and minerals, knows silicates constitute the largest part of them : the carbonates, nitrates, sul- phates, phosphates and the halides are but few in comparison: and, generally, not one of the last mentioned mineral compounds but started out as a silicate : that is, if we find a phosphate min- eral, the phosphoric acid secured it in some roundabout way from an original silicate: so also for the rest. The silicates then, are a sort of universal servant to the other soil acids: and, it would appear, that, to cripple such service, would also cripple the functioning powers of the usually admitted plant necessities. The brash agronomical professor, whose business it is to completely understand these things, says "No" : and contentedly agitates anhydrous silica, (quartz), in a flask of chemically pure water, to show it is non-soluble, and sustain his negative. In vulgar language, this is "lumpy chemistry, lumpy agronomics and lumpy professoring." In contrast to this brand of science, it is a relief to turn to the work done by the Tennessee and Colorado Experiment Station investigators, who have brought some real science to bear on the silicate question. It may be accepted, without demur, that if your land lacks silicates it is as good farm- ing to apply them, as to supply sulphate of potash or nitrate of soda. Remember, silica is simply mentioned as an illustration. Leaving aside all controversy, argument and science, let us marshal just the unimpeachable facts the art of agriculture, more than five thousand years old, has accumulated, and see what they teach. They are these : (a) The better the tillage, the better the crop: — tillage opens up and pulverizes the soil: it also opens up the soil to the circulation of air, water and the sun's heat. (b) Manures improve the crop: — manures help warm the soil, aid in keeping it open and free : by their decomposition, they assist in further breaking down the soil minerals: they return, in part, what has been removed from the soil : they finally pass into humus which the old agriculturists knew as a valuable thing, though they could not tf 11 you why. (c) Limestone, slaked lime, the hydrate :— chalk, marls were found beneficial: so was gypsum, seaweeds, kelp: wood ashes; mucks; woolen rags; bones; oilcake; lava muds and ashes; manures composted with fine earth; nver or any fresh water sediments gave wonderful crops. Many of these were used with precision though without the knowledge of why they were beneficial. 13 (d) The value of clovers, legumes, of good seed and crop rotations was also known but not understood. (e) And, finally: that, without tillage, the soil deteriorated despite the other factors. Rightly interpreted, the whole of scientific agriculture can be extracted from these facts. As previously told, Jethro Tull, finding the rootlets of plants closely interlaced and wrapped about small fragments of the soil minerals, concluded the all of farm- ing consisted in keeping the soil minerals finely broken up; as he saw plants actually fed upon these minute rock fragments. So he practically applied his theory and achieved striking results. One hundred and fifty years later, Baron Von Liebig scientifically and chemically showed plants did feed on these rock fragments and he, too, sweepingly declared, plants could and did exhaust the soil's supply of suitable (i. e. available) minerals: when they were so exhausted, he further declared they should be supplied. Correlating all the facts, the conclusion is inevitable, that, though the soil minerals may not be the whole of agriculture, they are an absolutely necessary part of it. Plants do feed on them, and where they cannot so feed, there are no plants. Down to this point, we have not sought or needed the aid of scientific agriculture ro tell us this : it is a plain fact backed up by other plain facts. Coming into scientific agriculture, we find the soluble chem- ical salts of potash, superphosphates and nitrates have proved marvelously beneficial to plants under certain conditions : but, when we closely analyze what they are and how they act, we find they are nothing more or less than a part of the regular soil minerals, changed into a more quickly soluble form than the same minerals in the soil. But nothing follows from such a change, as to warrant the absurd claim they thus become the full complement of the soil minerals ; for they have not : nor that being more soluble, they make all other soil minerals equally as available as themselves; for they do not. They are no more and no less than they were to start with: i. e. they remain a part only, and have not been juggled into the whole. Since these chemical salts a're so easily soluble, it would apparently seem a great jump ahead, if the remaining soil min- erals could be made equally so: but, it is because of this easy solubility that chemical fertilizers are possessed of many harm- ful qualities. Plants have two peculiarities : they take up their food, (car- bon excepted), in the form of very dilute solutions; (about 500 14 parts water to one part food) ; up to a certain point plants can control their food supply through the power of their cells to shut out unneeded material: but, if the soil solutions are too strong, they overcome the cell's resistance and force their way into the plant. The normal way is for the soil minerals to slowly go into solution; or, at any rate, not fast enough to become concentrate and thus break down the plant's power to control the situation. Taking top dressings of nitrate of soda as an example : they can be too strong: m such event, the plant is forced to take in too much and runs to tops: or they may be applied dilute enough not to break down the plant's control; then, by their very solu- bility, (and the fact that the plant will admit so much and no more), there follows a loss of the nitrates in the drainage, while they upset the soil balance, by expending a part of their chemical energies on the soil. It is well known the continual use of nitrate of soda, will finally make a clay loam practically impossible to cultivate; without stopping for the technical explanation, the rough and ready reason is, that the soil's balance has been de- stroyed. Superphosphates also have similar objectionable features, while the potash salts (muriates excepted), possess them in a less degree : it is for these reasons that those who relv wholly on chemical salts, find a time comes when their soils refuse to fur- ther react to them. Thus, each of them when misunderstanding- ly used, breaks down the plant's cell balance ; and either tops, roots or stems .ire stimulated beyond normal needs, to the detri- ment of crop quantity or crop quality. These things are facts. The merits of these easily soluble salts rest upon the follow- ing grounds : Tillage, minerals, manures, water, and sunlight are of no power unless, with them, the plant has warmth and there is soil bacterial action : through warmth all soil and plant processes are co-ordinated, and bacterial activities brought into operation. There are many kinds of soil bacteria, and their office is to act as a sort of "cook" to properly prepare the soil substances, so the plant can "eat" them. As an illustration :— Nitrogen to be "eaten" by plants must be in the form of a nitrate: the usual form of soil nitrogen is either as ammonia or it is locked up with carbon in the humus. The bacteria take the unavailable nitrogen compounds and work them over into nitrates. To do these things for nitrogen, (as well as similar work for other soil substances), bacteria need a certain temperature, while above or below it bac- teria work feeblv or not at all. Under such conditions the plant gets but partial nourishment or none at all. A cold Spring or a sudden cold snap will cause bacterial activities to cease, and thus 15 restrict or stop plant growth. At such times soluble fertilizer applications bridge the plant over the famine period, because they furnish the plant food when its natural sources are closed. Looked at another way, soluble fertilizers are relief "soup kitchens," which prevent the crop from starving or going hungry. There is another meritorious side to soluble fertilizers: — All soil and plant processes, being mutually co-related, form a chain in which no link can be picked out and magnified above the others. Bacteria are the preparers or "cooks" of the plant's food; but the plant itself must do its own eating: i. e. it must take up the soil solutions presented to its roots, and this taking up requires the expenditure of a certain amount of vital energy. Let blights, disease or other untoward conditions prevail, and the vigor of the plant is enfeebled so it has not the strength, to properly absorb or assimilate its natural food, .^t such periods applications of soluble fertilizers, brinj;' plant food wliich can l)c absorbed with the minimum expenditure of vital energy. As the enfeebled plant takes up these solubles its foliage, roots and stalks are stimualted, and further inroads of the disease or blight often- times checked, and its full functions restored. Correctly judged, this is "hospital" or "medicinal" treatment which, valuable though it may be, should not be continued beyond the time of its necessity: to do so will deteriorate the plant, in the same sense as keeping a person once sick but now cured, on soft diets of limited nourishment. Such other merits as soluble fertilizers have, are more than offset by their pernicious eiifects, which throw both plants and soils out of balance. But, taken for what they are, and so used, they are strictly plant foods whose office it is to help vegetation over bad spots : to otherwise represent them or to otherwise use. is neither wise teaching nor wise agriculture. Too much soluble fertilizers is responsible for a host of agri- cultural evils. They are one link in the agricultural chain and no more ; that crops are raised by them, signifies no more than that a man can be kept up on tonics, medicnies, and broths: if he be normal such a practice will weaken him. And, in like manner, the same thing is true for plants. Those who have unprejudicially read so far, should now have a fairly clear vjew of agriculture, in its symetry, and also a pretty distinct comprehension of its main details. And any science, no matter what may be its technicalities, can only be built upon a foundation made up of facts and common sense. The most abstruse formulae and the most pretentious terminoiogy are pure follies, only if they be twisted to establish such things as,— that -16 the whole IS less than its parts or that action and reaction are unequal. In recent agriculture there has been much technically taught and technically practiced which cannot be made to square with common sense or facts. And, in no one thing has there been more_ pseudo-science displayed, than in the attempted exclu- sion of soil-treatment from its proper place in agriculture: on the other hand, an equally large amount of pseudo-science has been brought forward to gain soil treatment an improper place. This brings us direct to soil minerals and to Vithumus. SOIL TREATMENT — VITHUMUS That soil minerals supply plants with an important part of their nutriment is undeniable : the balance of the plant's normal food comes from humus and from the carbon of the air. In no sense can any of these natural food substances be classified as fertilizers: taken together they constitute and always have con- stituted the normal environment of vegetation; taken separate- ly, any one is still a part of that natural environment. Air, soils, humus, cannot be classed as fertihzers because they are not : the word "Fertilizer" has come to have a distinctive meaning and it is properly, legally and popularly restricted to chemically soluble compounds of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. To call ground limestone, or ground apatite a fertilizer betokens an in- ability to hold terms to their meaning and confusion of mind as to fundamental distinctions. Hornblends, micas, feldspars, talcs, calcites, dolomites, diorites, basalts, shales, sandstones, etc., etc., enter into the composition of soils: each of these is made up of natural soil minerals whether considered as in the ground or placed in a bag out of it. A farmer who adds ground diorite to his land is not apply- ing a fertilizer but soil minerals which are normally incorporated into his soil as an integral part of it: by no stretch is this the case with quickly soluble fertilizers. They may, and often do, become a part of the soil, but it is an adventitious part and not a natural one. Fertilizers proper, are direct feeders of plants, their utility being practically lost unless plants almost immedi- ately take them up. Nor do they, (in any true sense), contribute to normal soil structure, but to the contrary. Raw ground min- erals do not feed the plant except through the intervention of bacteria, action of the plant's digestive juices, (enzymes), and the operation of all natural agencies which obtain in soils: there is therefore no parallel between them and fertilizers except the far fetched one of feeding: but fertilizer artificially feed the plant whereas the plant does its own foraging among and on soil min- 17 erals. If one cannot see and admit these vital differences there is either some mental deficiency or some reason which won't bear analysis. Though soils can be subdivided into many varieties they, as to soil mineral availability fall into two classes, — the fine and the coarse. The coarser the soil the more quickly will available min- eral content become exhausted under cropping: the finer, the longer will it stand up under cultivation. But, as every practical farmer knows, the best soils are those in which the fine and coarse soil particles are commingled in such a way that it handles easily, does not cake up, is not too open nor too close : ease of root pene- tration, tillage, and all other requisites is then assured: hence the proper mechanical texture of a soil has much to do with suc- cessful farming. Experiment has shown that the available part of the soil minerals range, in size, from one fiftieth to one fifteen- hundredth of an inch. Larger or smaller grains have more to do with soil texture than soil availability. Compacted and fine clays are not good soils nor are coarse gravels. Taking a good sandy clay loam and sorting out its particles they will grade about as follows : 2.35% will be about 1/8 of an inch in size: 13.9% around 1/2S inch; 22.45% around 1/125 inch; 34.10% around 1/SOD inch; 11.45% around 1/2500 inch; 15.75% around 1/5000 inch. Obviously, there are "between sizes" while in the clay, there will be particles finer even than 1/5000 inch. However, the fore- going grading is practically fair unless one chooses to split hairs. Theoretically, good as this soil may appear, we know, from ex- perience, that it needs manures and tillage, etc., to stand up to its work. The great one function of tillage, is to open up and pulverize the soil. Jethro Tull, long ago, specifically showed us this and every one who has held the plow, guided the harrovv. cultivator, or roller also knows soil pulverization is the principal thing they all do. Admitting no soil minerals were lacking and that the sole need was to keep them sufficiently pulverized it is evident con- stant tillage would go far towards obtaining the end in view. Tull did it but spent all of his time, from seed time to harvest doing it. It is therefore an expensive way of accomplishing the matter and machinery can do it better, faster and cheaper. When Von Liebig declared the same doctrine of soil mineral restoration, but on broader scientific lines than Tull, he realized the practical difficulties surrounding the mineral pulverization in the field; as well as the absurdity of applying any one rock,— 18 whether mechanically crushed or chemically made soluble. He therefore covered the subject broadly, so as to enlighten the agriculturist upon the merits and demerits of any aids which could be invoked to secure soil balance and insure all around good farming. Taking the letter of Von Liebig's teachings but not their spirit, there sprung up those who declared a single rock could be found which, when pulverized and soil applied, would repeat the successes of TuU and conform to Liebig's soil doctrine. It would be tedious to give the history of these attempts but plutonic, volcanic, metamorphic, sedimentary, solutionary and organic rocks were tried. Animal limestones and peats have been used and the "green sands" of New Jersey also thrust forward as the solution of soil troubles. The foredoomed failures of these at- tempts have no bearing on the agricultural principle involved of conserving the mineral content of soils by applying available minerals when soils are-deficient. It must not be inferred there were not may striking successes resulting from the use of some of these rocks, and the word "failure" is used to mean that we cannot take ground minerals to the exclusion of othei- things and have a success. And, in the same way, soluble fertihzers are not a success. Briefly, there is no one rock containing the soil minerals in thooe proportions suitable for a general soil up-builder : any one mineral is also valuable only in part. For instance: apatite is mainly valuable for its lime phosphate ; in a less degree for calcic chloride and fluoride; and, in a yet less degree, for its mmute amounts of other minerals. This paragraph stands notwithstand- ing there are soils derived from granites, syenites, slates, etc. Rock weathered into soil has undergone many changes which sharply differentiate it from the original state. The making of a blended compound of the standard soil minerals, suitable for average soils, is no simple matter. It entails the assembling of special minerals gathered over a wide range and an expensive manufacturing process to make them o"l available By "soil available" is meant that proper degree S Leness and b Janced blending which brings al the ingredients within the region of soil and plant availability also. This product is Vithumus. As to the special ingredients entering into Vithumus, their .-!>?,= .nHnarticular adaptations, these are distinctive and proportions and P^l''^^ .^^ „f distinctive methods and dis- Ltt?::rrl. Atg'fhisTlines and on everything specially per- 19 taining to it, Vithumus is proprietary and protected to the limit of the laws governing distinctive things. As to the pnnaples involved they belong to agricultural art and agricultural science: but in Vithumus, and the Vithumus Doctrine of Soil Treatment Soil Up-Building, etc., these principles are developed and app led distinctively. There is, therefore, only one Vithumus product. Nor is Vithumus the result of mere fact collating and com- pounded on purely theoretical deductions based on these facts. It has been realized, from the first, that any mineral mixture, could only be positively submitted until it has been rigorously tried out in the fields. Not on one soil only but on many: not on one crop only but on many. In consequence, the assertions made relative to the soil and crop efifects of Vithumus are grounded on facts. In the event of question all statements made can be substantiated by facts. The claims made for Vithumus are not extravagant but they are agriculturally important ; and concern every one who desires to raise crops of quantity and quality at the minimum of mis- takes and expense. We say "mistakes" because a knowledge of Vithumus principles and Vithumus product means the best in the art and science of agriculture. Shortly put, good farming, good soils, good crops rest upon these things: Proper humus soil content; proper minerals, proper tillage, proper use of fertilizers; proper crops and prop>er climate. Of these six things, the farmer can control all except climate. Humus comes from stable, green or other organic manures. The proper minerals can be obtained economically from Vithumus — its price being about half that of "high grade" fertilizers. The proper use of fertilizers depends on knowing exactly what they do and why. The proper crops are arrived at either by a thor- ough understanding derived from your own experience or an ac- quaintance with the experience of others. As a rule, open text- ured crops are for open textured soils and vice versa. In the foregoing summary the proper minerals are as neces- sary as any other item: they are the raw materials on which your humus, tillage, crops and climate must work. It is of prime necessity you have these raw materials in soil-available form; you get them so in Vithumus. If, from any point of view, your present or past farm results are not what they should be you can figure Vithumus is probably the one thing lacking. 20 Used according to directions, Vithiimus will do this for your soil and crops: — It will supply your soil with any lacking min- eral, and if any or all are not available, it will supply those which are. And, furthermore, it will very materially increase the nat- ural availability of your soil. On the average, every crop, (tops, roots and fruit included), will take three hundred pounds of minerals per acre from your soil. No matter how good your soil, a relatively small propor- tion of it is crop available so this three hundred pounds is a part of the cream of your land. The rains and drainage waters will rob your land yearly of much of its available part. Nat- ural weathering processes and usual tillage cannot replace the available part of your soil as fast as crops and rains deplete it. Modern farming does not admit of copying the method of Jethro Tull and spending all the time in cultivating and hoeing soils. Vithumus gives better results. It is cheaper too, in labor and in money. In ordering Vithumus it is well to state the general character of your soil and crops. We may be able to give some special directions and helpful hints. But it makes no difference what your crop, be it hay, grain, truck, fruit, nuts, tobacco, cotton, peanuts or trees, Vithumus, used according to general directions only, will enable you to get every possible pound of "steam" out of your soil. But the more specific information sent us the more may we assist you to turn farming corners. Vithumus is put up in 200 lb. bags and is sold by the bag. ton and carload lots. For the first application of it we strongly advise one ton per acre. Subsequent applications are much less, for Vithumus gives up its minerals only as needed. It is odorless, clean to handle, does not cake up and contains nothing injurious to cattle. It can be top dressed over the most delicate plants without "burning" or injuring. In general, Vithumus is broadcasted and harrowed in before seeding or applied as a top dressing on a wet or damp day after- crops are in. It can also be apphed by the fertilizer spreading machines. We do not recommend drilling it in. If for no other reason than to obtain quality you should use Vithumus. Premium prices are paid for Vithumus raised crops. And you get crop quantity along with the quality. Cotton raised on Vithumus treated Soil won the prize at the last North Carolina State Fair. 21 Vithumus is not to be confounded with any hitherto put out material; and the name Vithumus distinguishes it from any other product. As noted, it is proprietary, and protected. In ordering, you can depend upon it doing all claimed for it. You can also be sure that you are getting that which rounds out the circle of profitable and scientific agriculture, viz: sod treatment and a soil-upbuilder. And with a good soil, your manures, fertilizers, cultivation, labor and climate will return you the utmost of their efificiency. When it is remembered an acre of soil one foot deep, weighs about 4,000,000 lbs. (2000 tons), systematic applications of Vith- umus at the rate of one ton per acre for annual crops, and one- half ton per acre for each crop thereafter whether the next year's or intensive, does not seem very much vnth which to restore, build up or maintain soil equilibrium. Soil equilibrium means fertile soils; maximum yields of superior products, superior food values, color, flavor, healthfulness, "keeping" or "carrying" qual- ities; as well as the cure or prevention of many soil and plant ailments: also superior cotton and fibre products; better nour- ished, consequently, superior cattle. And, not the least of all — better nourished, more healthy men, women and children. These all stand for increased profits to the producer. While for several years, we have been developing those things represented by Vithumus and Vithumus Doctrine (each advance being the result of practical experience, and the gradual development of more comprehensive knowledge of the general subject) ; and while we have from time to time published and copyrighted many ideas, results of experimentation, demonstra- tions, relating to soil treatment, soil restoration, soil building-up, soil food, Vithumus and what constitutes Vithumus Doctrine of soil treatment, in which distinctive features have been developed and presented on lines not heretofore employed or understood: we are just now beginning to put Vithumus on the market broadly. Our present physical facilities, therefore, admit of only a comparatively moderate supply of Vithiunus. The equipment and organization necessary for an increased supply, will be promptly provided to meet demands. At present all shipments are made from Norfolk. As Vithumus is introduced into new sections, ample facilities for supplying those sections will be provided. 22 -a -li-^ tWs "Vithumus Doctrine of Soil Treatment, Soil Up- Building, favorably impresses you; and you wish to give it a good fair trial, and know more about it. Write now. SOME INTIMATE PHASES. Vithumus — Vithumus Doctrine: — Think of it. Study it. Digest it. Isn't it the greatest development in agricidture within the last "three score years and ten?" Practice it. and more than double or treble your profit per acre; as well as accomplish and maintain, A Well Balanced Soil — Soil Equilibrium. "S'ou have already been told what that stands for. Vithumus and Vithumus Doctrine are based on the facts of experience ; and stand as presented. Almost every practical farmer, fruit grower, nurseryman and dairyman while reading this booklet, will immediately grasp that fact, as he applies what he reads to his personal experiences and observations. Hence, any would-be critics, advancing argument- ative theories, who have not thoroughly and conscientiously used Vithumus, as per our printed directions forwarded with each ship- ment, are not worth listening to. But, if any one entertains a good-faith opinion, opposed to any scientific features herein indicated, and will send us his prop- osition technically stated, and technically proven, from his point of view, such letters will receive our earnest and appreciative attention. 23 In contemplating the business features of this Vithumus enterprise, one -is naturally impressed with the idea of the im- mensity to which it will quickly develop, in each one's particular section; as soon as Vithumus Doctrine is fully tried out there, and the permanency of its value realized. The appreciation of that factor, together with an equal ap- preciation of the general and vital need for Vithumus mixtures, in practically every agricultural district, has occasioned much serious thought. In this ultra-commercial age and ultra-commercial country, where undue greed for gain, has seemingly become a factor in our social economy; the statement of the fact, that the basic thought, in the consideration given to this subject has been, — how to do the greatest good to the greatest number and as quickly as practicable, — will of course meet with scepticism and even cynicism. However, our "object is this : — to put into operation a plan by which the farmers and growers may be conveniently supplied with Vithumus mixtures, without its cost including manufac- urers profits or several other material items of cost, which of necessity inhere to usual commercial enterprises ; so soon as the several sections take hold of Vithumus and try it out, to the ex- tent of developing a real demand for it. This plan is feasible, when the extent of the demand for Vithumus demonstrates its fully appreciated need. The "all" of life, as viewed by some, is not measured entirely by the magni- tude of one"s bank account, nor undue greed to increase it beyond what is sufficient. The comforting knowledge that one has been enabled to in- troduce to humanity, an easy method by which the average yield per acre is multiplied, and such increase of great health giving and health restoring products maintained; is more to be valued than superfluous wealth. Remember, however, that Vithumus is proprietary, and legally protected in every sense. R. W. GAMBLE, NORFOLK, VA. December 30th, 1914. 24