12
HOME AND FARM MAGAZINE SECTION
Science and Practice of Agriculture
9
ir$ The following is the first of $
s series of articles on "The $
Science and Practice of Agri-
& culture, and How to Harmon-
$ ize Them," by a L. Smith, $
$ agriculturist of the O.-W. B.
$ & N., one of the best known
& farming authorities in the $
Northwest '
!S 3
THE SCIENCE of agriculture is only
organized common sense. The prac
tice of agriculture is a jumble of
methods based upon tradition, super
stition, more or less absurd theories
and varying degrees of business sense
combined with a limited measure of ex
act knowledge. To harmonize these
(contradictory and often apparently an-;
tpgonistic factors, is a rather difficult
task, requiring time, tact, patience and
accurate knowledge. By accurate
knowledge I do not mean just what can
be learned from books, lectures, labora
tory practice or even field studies. I
have known men full to running over
with all these and yet nnable to har
monize any of them with actual farm
practice.
One reason why the task of harmon
izing the science and practice of agri
culture is so difficult is found in the
average conception of the term
"science." I can remember when the
term was to my mind always associ
ated with unpronouncable Latin words,
bad smelling drugs and sulphur fumes.
But when I found so good a story
teller as Charles Dickens claimed that
to sow the same seed, in the same soil,
under the same conditions will surely
yield the same fruit according to its
kind, I began to realize that science
was only the knowledge that certain
causes would produce certain results.
The possession of this knowledge would
enable me to combine causes or factors
and surround them with conditions that
would produce a desired rosult. When
I had learned this much about
"science" the term lost its terror and
became only a name for a group of
every-day things.
Like Produces Like.
From this point of view it was com
paratively easy to harmonize the prac
tice of agriculture with the science of
agriculture. To illustrate, it is recog
nized as a scientific fact that under
normal conditions "like produces like."
It is also a fact that perfect plant
growth can be secured only when there
are present in the soil a great variety
of inorganic elements such as potash,
phosphorous, nitrogen, calcium, silica,
iron, sulphur, magnesia, etc. That the
different plants use different propor
tions of these elements, potatoes, lor
instance, require a larger proportion of
potash than corn or wheat, but less of
phosphorous and other elements.
What Science Says.
Clover roots and leaves make ideal
homes for minute soil bacteria that
help to dissolve and make available the
various elements used by the plants.
Furthermore the scientist will Bay that
where the soil is too compact, heavy or
cold, the plowing under of a crop like
clover will loosen and warm it. There
fore tell the scientist that you have a
heavy clay loam Boil and wish to grow
on it a prize crop of potatoes, and from
his organized facts he will say: "Grow
a crop of red clover, plow under the
second crop, leave the ground rough
over winter, work fine in the spring
and plant as soon as danger of frost
is past, planting smooth, sound, even
sized tubers, for 'like produces like.' "
Now let us see how we can harmon
ize this with practice: Jim Kelly of
Marysburg had won the prize of a
riding cultivator for the beat bushel of
potatoes exhibited at the County Fair.
I wanted to know how lie did it, and.
drove 12 miles out to his farm, which
was in a hardwood district where the
soil was a rather heavy clay loam.
What Practice Says.
After complimenting Jim on the
prize, I asked him to tell me how he
did it.
"Oh," said he, "that's easy; just
plant them in the old of tho moon
in May."
"But how did you prepare the
land; what did you grow on it the
year before; when did you plow it;
how doept"
"Sure, the only way to grow good
potatoes on this kind of land is clover
sod plowed in the fall and plowed as
deep as the team can pull the plow."
"Do anything to it in the spring!"
"Harrow it three or four times to
fine it, firm it, warm it up and kill
the weeds. Keep at it until the moon
is right."
"What kind of seed do yon plant f"
"Ah now, dont yon know, any man
that's got sense, will plant the kind
ho wants to raise t"
Here you see the practical man and
the scientist have both reached the
same Conclusions, although they started
in different directions. They saw
things from a different point of view.
To harmonize the science and practice
of agriculture it is necessary to get
Jim Kelly and the Scientist ont on
Kelly's field in the old of the moon
in May.
Scientist on Milk.
The scientist after collecting facts
regarding the "Building Up of a
Dairy Herd," says: "Milk giving is
a feminine function. Large milk pro
duction is due to the abnormal de
velopment of the maternal instinct
Petting, liberal feeding, frequent han
dling, kind treatment, all aid in the
development of the milk producing
characteristics.
Then along comes the practical man
with tho assurance that the best cow
they ever had on the farm was
"Bessie," a pet calf that mother and
the girls raised.
Continuing the same topic, the scien
tist says "The profitable dairy cow
is , an artificial animal built by a
combination of factors, all tending to
tho extra development of the milk
producing organs and characteristics.
The order runs something like this:
First Selection. -
Second Care, which includes shelter,
feed, water and method of treatment
Third Testing, sorting and weeding
out
Fourth Breeding.
Fifth Feeding, handling and de
velopment of heifer calves.
Carelessness, negligence or ignorance
on the part of the dairyman in regard
to any of these factors will eliminate
or seriously impair the results.
As any capacity above the normal
is artificially built up, by the above
factors, it follows logically that neg
lect of any of the above will tend
toward deterioration or return to the
natural condition.
Ignorance Means Loss.
When a practical man boys one of
the highly developed, large producing,
artificial cows, nd, ignoring the
"science" of dairying, turns her out
in the woods pasture to find her own
feed, and is surprised that each year
she gives less milk. Her heifer calves
are not as good as the mother, and
by the third generation they are
comparatively worthless for dairy pur
poses, and the owner declares that "All
this talk about pure-bred stock is non
sense." He has tried it and "there
is nothing to it" Yet bis experience
has further demonstrated that the
scientist was right His conclusions
were based on a collection of facts,
which is the real "Science of Agricul
ture." Again the scientist says: "A liberal
supply of humus in the soil, deep till
age and cultivation will conserve mois
ture, regulate temperature, stimulate
plant growth, increase the available
plant food and check against bad
weather, drouth or hot winds.
Fanner Shiftless.
Farmer Shiftless ignores the science.
The weather conditions are all favor
able and he secures a normal crop. Ho
boasts of his "practical experience"
and continues his unsciontific practices
until an unfavorable season. Then the
scientist has a full crop and Shiftless
blames his "luck."
The weakness of much of the so
called "Agricultural Science" is due to
the fact that an experiment has been
tried for the purpose of demonstrat
ing some theory, and a summary of
conclusions compiled, based on the
single experiment, The practice of
agriculture has always to do with
variable conditions, and those condi
tions are often of a character so im
portant as to require radical changes
in any set of rules or methods of prac
tice! It has, therefore, become a rule
among those students of "Scientific
Agriculture" who are striving to har
monize science and practice, to reject
as really scientific, any conclusions
based on a single experiment, or any
summary of conclusions that does not
harmonize with conditions that are nor
mal to the average farm of the dis
trict. When this point of view is main
tained, it is far less difficult 'to har
monize the science with practice.
Science Dependable Today.
Recognized agricultural science is to
day a radically different proposition
from the so-called agricultural science
of 25 years ago. What was then
termed agricultural science was made
up largely of single demonstrable facts,
while today agricultural science Is a
collection of demonstrated facts con
sidered in their relationship to each
other and also to such variable influ
ences as temperature, rainfall, wind and
sunshine.
I can best illustrate this by my own
experience as an institute lecturer. At
that time I had no knowledge of, and
vory crude ideas concerning "scionee,"
but I did have a large measurue of
practical experience, and some pretty
strong opinions based on observation.
My talks consisted almost entirely of
stories of what Jones, Smith or Brown
had done with certain things under
certain conditions. No one at that
time realized that such a collection of
facts was the best kind of agricultural
science, or the very essence of the
scionee of agriculture, already harmon
ized with practice.
Dogmatism.
One evening when the subject of fer
tilizers was being discussed, some one
in the audience asked the speaker:
"What is the value of a ton of stable
manure!" The professor was a recog
nized authority, a man of national
reputation, a leader in the new move
ment for scientific agriculture, and he
answered promptly: "The only ele
ments lacking in your soil, or that you
will ever find laeking, are nitrogen,
potash and phosphorous. Therefore
your stable manure is worth just as
much as it would cost yon to purchase
that amount of nitrogen, potash and
phosphorous that a ton of stable
manure contains. Approximately $1.50
worth of nitrogon, potash and phos
phorous, and this practically measures
the value of your stable manure."
I did not at' that time know any
thing about nitrogen, potash and phos
phorous; but I did know a lot about
stable manure and its action when
combined with the soil, and the effect
that it had on plant growth. I had
observed numerous experiments made
by farmers of my acquaintance with
so-called commercial fertilizers, and
without thinking wheTe I was going
to land, I promptly told the profes
sor that he was mistaken. That a ton
of stable manure was worth more than
twice as much as a chemical analysis
indicated. Whether because of some
other valuable elements than those
found by tho chemist, I did not know;
but I did know that it would produce
mueh more marked results in plant
growth and show its effect on the soil
for a much longer period than would
a sack full of commercial fertilizer
containing as much nitrogen, potash
and Phosphorous as the chemist said
would be found in a ton of manure.
Then he asked me why, and I had
to confess that I didn't know; but
still insisted that it would do it Then
he came back with the question:
"Would it improve your soil to add
to it any element of which it already
had a sufficient quantity!" I had to
admit that I didn't think it would.
"But," said he, "if the soil is lack
ing in any particular element like
nitrogen, potash and phosphorous, then
when you add either manure or any
other compound, it is worth to your
land just the market value of those
elements which it contains and no
more."
Science Based on Facts.
Thirty years ago that was agri
cultural science, and that was the
dogmatic way of teaching it The
practical men couldn't give any rev
sons that would logically contradict the
scientific conclusions, so he rejected
the science, clinging to his tradition,
and continued to practice certain
methods without being able to explain
why. It took ten years for the scien
tist to reach the conclusion based on
experiment, observation and collected
facts, that physical condition was quite
as important a factor as chemical
composition.
Then came the bacteriologist who dis
covered that live soil was productive
and dead soil non-productive, regard
less of the composition. That live soil
contained innumerable quantities of
microscopic organisms that through
their life and death made available for
the use of the plants the various ele
ments which the plants used. Still fur
ther investigation demonstrated the
fact that a proper proportion of air,
water, heat and light were just as
necessary for perfect plant growth as
any other element
Bacteria In Soil.
Next, the scientist explained a fact
long well known, but apparently lost
sight of, that bacteria were found only
in organic matter. They vindicated by
their collection of facts the theory of
the fact that nothing could live but
something else must die. So after 20
years I could answer the Professor and
toll him that the value of stable
manure was in its physical effect upon
the soil composition rather than its
chemical compounds. That it furnished
a home for those minute bacteria that
made available those inorganic ele
ments; that it regulated to a marked
degree the soil temperature, increased
its capacity to absorb and hold mois
ture and could therefore carry a mueh
larger amount of oxygen without which
the little bacteria would have to quit
business.
And then I remembered what 40
years ago a practical German garden
err, when showing me a row of rata
bagas, said. At one end they would
average aboat ten pounds apiece and
at the opposite end of the row about
two ounces apiece. I asked him whj
and he said: "Oh, this ground up her
where the big ones are is alive. That
over there where the little ones are is
dead." I asked him what would pot
new life into the soil and he an
swered: "Plenty of stable malure."
Impractical Science.
Down in Georgia, one of the old
school scientists applied ten donas'
worth per acre of nitrogen, potash and
phosphorous and doubled his yield of
cotton on piece of worn-out land;
but the next year it took twelve dol
lars' worth to accomplish the same re
sults. He kept increasing the doses
of medicine until the medicine cost
as much as the market value of the
crop.
The old darky who drove the mules
to cultivate the cotton had seven acres
of the same kind of land, but no
money to buy medicine, so he just
grew weeds until they were . a foot
high, and then plowed them under.
Thon he sowed some oats, cut off the
heads and plowed under the straw.
Then he sowed some eowpeas and har
vested for hay, sold the bay to the
boss for (IS per ton to feed the mule
used to cultivate the cotton that was
taking medicine.
For convenience the mule was
stabled on his seven acres, and he
kept the manure.
Harmonizing.
The fourth year his three acres of
upland cotton that hadn't had any
medicine, produced more than any three
acres of the scientist's that had had
forty-five doUars' worth of medicine.
While his other four acres produced
oats, corn, sweet potatoes and pea hay
equal in value to any four acres of the
doctored cotton. Then Sam, the prac
tical, and Professor Jones, the scientist,
got together in the cotton field, sub
mitted their facts and formulated a
new agricultural science that was in
perfect harmony with practice.
In conclusion, the true science of
agriculture is easily harmonized when
the scientist and practical man got to
gether in the field, lay aside the tradi
tions of the college and the farm and
from their collected fncts, formulate a
method that is in entire harmony with
scientific methods and intelligent practice.