Chapter II.. Soil Management or Control.

SOIL MANAGEMENT OR CONTROL.

Aside from such devices as greenhouses, wind-breaks, etc., which have a local application only, there are three general methods of soil control: tillage methods, such as plowing and harrowing; rotation of crops; and the use of soil amendments or “fertilizers.”

The existing knowledge regarding tillage methods is generally considered to be fairly satisfactory. The purposes are well understood, namely, to break up and “fine” the soil, to keep down weeds, and by forming mulches to decrease the loss of water by evaporation. Not much increase is being made in our theoretical knowledge of this subject, although mechanical improvements in the implements of tillage are being and will undoubtedly continue to be made.

Actually, to granulate the soil. “Fine” would seem to be a misnomer, but its agricultural significance is well understood, and it has the sanction of long usage in the literature.

The existing knowledge concerning crop rotations is fairly extensive, but it is almost entirely empirical. Some at least of the purposes served by a rotation of crops are fairly well known, such as the elimination of weeds or lower types of parasitic growth associated with particular crops; the introduction of humus by a grass crop or a green manure crop, especially by the Leguminosae with their symbiotic Azobacteria; the improvement in the structure or arrangement of the soil particles by alternating deep-rooted and shallow-rooted crops; the avoidance of continually growing a crop in the presence of its own excreta, products of decay, etc.; and lastly, economic and market considerations.

The existing knowledge of fertilizers, in spite of a vast amount of work and an enormous literature, is still very meagre and it also is almost entirely empirical; and this because studies on the subject have been dominated for three-quarters of a century by one theory almost to the exclusion of any other. The exponents of this theory have generally assumed that the action of fertilizers is on the plant rather than on the soil, and is independent of other factors. That is, while it is admitted that other factors influence plant growth, it has been held that the effect of the fertilizer is not to modify the influence of the other factors but to directly influence the plant by increasing its food supply. As a consequence, it has also been generally assumed that the influence of fertilizers is additive, that is, the increase in yield of crop is proportional to the increase in fertilizer added, and the increase in yield produced by adding two fertilizers is the sum of the increases which would have been produced by each alone. In this form the theory is essentially a quantitative one, and fertilizer practice should be easily susceptible of control by chemical analyses. But the large mass of data obtained from plot experiments shows that fertilizer effects are not additive. Indeed, the addition of some one or more fertilizer constituent is sometimes followed by a decreased yield. For example, about 20 per cent. of the trials of fertilizers on soils growing corn and reported by the American State Experiment Stations show a decreased yield. And furthermore, in spite of the quantitative character of the theory, and the numerous analyses of soils and of plants which have been made, there is yet lacking any authoritative method for determining in quantitative terms the fertilizer needs of a soil. That analytical methods have a very restricted value in indicating even qualitatively the fertilizer needs of the soil is evidenced by the fact that within the past few years a number of the State Experiment Stations have publicly announced their unwillingness to undertake them.

In this connection see: The texture of the soil, by L. H. Bailey, Cornell University Agr. Expt. Sta., Bull. No. =119= (1896); Suggestions regarding the examination of lands, by E. W. Hilgard, University of California, College of Agriculture, Circ. No. =25=, (1906); Chemical analysis of soils, by William P. Brooks, Massachusetts Agr. Expt. Sta. Circ. No. =11=, (1907); Testing soils for fertilizer needs, by F. W. Taylor, New Hampshire Agr. Expt. Sta., Circ. No. =2=, (1908); The uses and limitations of soil analysis, by J. T. Willard, The Industrialist. Kansas State Agricultural College, =34=, 291, (1908); Soil analysis, by Wm. Frear, Pennsylvania Agr. Expt. Sta., Chem. Circ. No. =1=; How to determine the fertilizer requirements of Ohio soils, by Chas. E. Thorne, Ohio Agr. Expt. Sta., Circ. No. =79=, (1908); Concerning work which the station can and cannot undertake for residents of the state, by Joseph L. Hills, Vermont Agr. Expt. Sta., Circ. No. =3=, (1909).

The common procedure has been to define some arbitrary percentage limit in the soil, below which the soil is supposed to require fertilizers. But the amount of fertilizer to be applied is suggested on the indefinite basis of “experience.” Thus, Hilgard, in an interesting discussion of this subject, quotes Dyer as showing that “on Rothamsted soils of known productiveness or manurial condition, it appears that when the citric acid extraction yields as much as 0.005 per cent. of potash and 0.010 per cent. of phosphoric acid, the supply is adequate for normal crop production, so that the use of the above substances as fertilizers would be, if not ineffective, at least not a profitable investment.” Hilgard himself sets limits as determined by strong hydrochloric acid digestion; thus a soil containing upwards of 0.45 per cent. (K₂O) does not need this substance as a fertilizer, while one containing below 0.25 per cent. does need it at once, and intermediate percentages indicate that potash fertilizers would probably be profitable; the corresponding upper and lower limits for phosphoric acid are set at 0.10 per cent. and 0.05 per cent. But Hilgard points out that various things, such as the content of lime, or the texture of the soil, may materially alter these limits. In a very interesting set of experiments in which white mustard was grown in various soils, and these same soils diluted with various amounts of dune sand which had previously been extracted with strong hydrochloric acid, he found that the plants did best when the soils had been diluted with four times their weight of the extracted sand. This was the case even with a pulverulent sandy loam; and with a black adobe, the best results were obtained when the diluted soil contained but 0.15 per cent. potash (K₂O) and 0.04 per cent. phosphoric acid (P₂O₅). It also appears that Hilgard regards soil analyses of value only in the case of virgin soils or soils which have been out of cultivation, and in common with other authorities, he fails to point out how to determine the amount of fertilizer needed by lands.

Soils by E. W. Hilgard, 1906, p. 339, et seq.

It is clear, therefore, that the principles underlying the practice or art of soil management and crop rotation are in a state of development far from satisfactory, and scientific methods of soil control yet wanting. Recent activities in soil investigations, however, justify the hope that much improvement is to be anticipated, and the application of the modern methods of physical, chemical, and biological research to the soil problem promises a sure and probably rapid advance in this branch of applied science.

It should, of course, be borne in mind that soil factors are not the only ones in crop production. Control by seed selection, breeding of standard types of plants, etc., may be, and probably is, more highly developed than control by soil factors. The same might possibly be claimed for moisture supply in irrigated areas; but on the other hand, such factors as the bacterial and lower life processes in the soil are generally under little or no control, and as a rule the amount and distribution of sunlight under none at all. A notable effort has been made in the last case with shade-grown tobacco (see Bulletins Nos. 20 and 39, Bureau of Soils, U. S. Dept. Agriculture) and a few cases are known where shade-crops are employed, but not in general agriculture.