Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3741855?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Agricultural History Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Agricultural History
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
RIC H A R D P. A U LIE
369
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
370 AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
Early in the century, the British chemist Sir Humphry Davy (1778-
1829) and the French physiologist Nicholas Theodore de Saussure (1767-
1845) both maintained that mineral nutrients came from the soil. But
influential chemists for a number of years either discounted the im-
portance of these nutrients or advanced the alchemical idea that livirlg
plant tissue could actually transmute them as needed out of organlc
materials or water.2 Although Boussingault never took a stand agairlst
transmutation, his organic analyses of crop rotations from 1834 to 1841,
in which he compared the constituents of fertilizers with those of crops,
substantially weakened this idea of transmutation, even while he em-
phasized nitrogen. He was aware that, along with carbon, hydrogen,
oxygen, and particularly nitrogen, the minerals of plants are important
in nutrition and may be accounted for by analyzing the crops and fer-
tilizers. He therefore amplified Davy's and Saussure's earlier views.
13oussingault agreed that both fertilizers and plants contain minerals,
though in small quantities, but he maintained that nutritional value
is proportional to their nitrogen content.3
Farmers since at least Roman times had known that legumes in crop
rotations would maintain the yield of a succeeding crop, but the reason
was by no means clear. The first to delineate the organic chemistry of
soil depletion and renewal, Boussingault showed by 1841 that this bene-
ficial action of legumes was due to their ability to restore nitrogen to
the soil, beyond that supplied by known sources. This demonstration
was undoubtedly one of his most outstanding accomplishments. Present
in the least concentration, nitrogen is dissipated the most readily in
organic decay; Boussingault therefore regarded nitrogen as the com-
ponent whose concentration it was especially important to ascertain.
Its proportion, relative to the minerals, established the comparative
value of different fertilizers.4
Boussingault's interpretation differed from what Liebig promulgated.
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE MINERAL THEORY 371
The relative importance of nitrogen and minerals becal:ne the issue be-
tween the two chemists, and very shortly between Liebig and the Roth-
amsted workers. Liebig had acquired a prestigious outlet for his views
through arl invitation from the British Association for the Advance-
ment of Science to prepare a report on advances in organic chemistry;
he wrote instead Chemistry in its X pplications to Agriculture and Physi-
ology. In the first two editions (1840, 1842), while advancing his in-
genious view that plants obtain their nitrogen from ammonia in the
rain, he argued that "cultivated plants receive the same quantity of
nitrogen from the atmosphere as trees, shrubs, and other wild plants;
hut this is not sufficient for the purposes of agriculture." 5 This sentence
would seem to indicate that he recognized the rleed for nitrogenous
fertilizerss as did Boussingault.
But the Agricultural Chemistry clearly emphasized the inorganic
constituents of plants, soil, and fertilizers, even though Liebig was
aware of Boussirlgault's work, particularly that of 1838, which, he ad-
mitted, "merits the greatest confidence."6 The characteristic action of
fertilizers was not the nitrogen, Liebig insisted, bllt rather their inor-
ganic constituents the most beneficial of which were "phosphates of
lime and magnesia, carbonate of lime and silicate of potash," and also
common salt (sodium chloride). These minerals could be added to the
soil in artificial form.7
According to Liebig, the nitrogen in fertilizers has the subsidiary
role of assisting in the ;fixation of carbon from the atmosphere. Further-
more, if the nitrogen removed from the soil by crops were replaced
artificially by fertilizers, it would only accumulate needlessly in the soil,
because a portion is added continually from the atmosphere as ammonia.
While doubting that nitrates act through their nitrogen, he called for
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
372 AGRIGULTURAL HISTORY
8 Liebig, 1st (1840), 189, 200; 2d (1842), 189-98. Liebig in 1842 thought that alkalis
act within plants to neutralize acids. This question in the 1840s and 1850s also in-
volved (a) the hypothesis that roots excrete toxins, (b) the "vital action" of root cells,
and (c) developing ideas on selective permeability of cell membranes. See Sir E. John
Russell, A History of Agriculture in Great Britain, 1620-1954 (London: George Allen
and Unwin, 1966), 99, 138-40. See, also, Charles Daubeny, "On the variation in the
relative proportion of Potash and Soda present in certain samples of Barley grown ln
plots of ground artificially impregnated with one or other of these Alkalies," Quar-
terly Journal of the Chemical Society 5 (1956): 9-16; also Liebig, 2d (1842), 189-91.
9 Liebig, 3d (1843), 54; 4th (1847), 54. Criticism of Boussingault in Liebig, 4th
(1847), 199-209; 3d (1843), 200-210.
10 Liebig, 3d (1843), 202, 204; 4th (1847), 201, 203.
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE MINERAL THEORY
373
conceivable that the ammonia given in the first year being a body of great
volatility and very apt to evaporate along with water, could be present in
greater quantity in the soil during the fourth year than it was in the first and
second years; or that it could yield to the oats of the fifi year the necessary
quantity of nitrogen for their growth?l2
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
374
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE MINERAL THEORY
375
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
376 AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
salts that supposedly resembled wheat ash.22 This preliminary work did
not have the precision and extent of their field tests of Liebig's theory
from 1850 to 1860 that were continued until about 1900. But the aver-
age production of wheat per acre quickly showed that the mineral
manures would not work.
Because wheat contained 'spotash, magnesia, soda, and silicaS' in
addition to "phosphoric acid and lime," then, according to the theory,
merely the addition of these constituents should restore the fertility of
the soil. The deficiency of a wheat crop must therefore be due either
to the absence of these mineral constituents, or to the absence of nitro-
gen. But the addition of such minerals produced no significant increase
in the wheat, called by Lawes "nitrogen-consuming plants." Nitrogen
was therefore the critical factor in soil depletion, he concluded, and its
presence rapidly augmeIlted the effect of minerals in plant growth.
These early results were "so decisive' that Lawes thought it 'shardly
possible to have two opinions on the subject."23
But public opinion remained divided on the relative merits o£ min-
erals and nitrogerl. Liebig continued to exhort British farmers; he
announced that even the poorest sandy soils contained fully four thou-
sand pounds of residual ammonia further proof that "ammonia added
with the manure may be useful, but it certaInly is not necessary."24
Charles Giles Bridle Daubeny (1795-1867), Lawes's former teacher at
Oxford and Liebig's stalwart supporter in Great Britaind declared that
Liebig's view of the action of gypsum in the soil was correct and
Boussingault's 4'most destitute of probability.ss25 But a German critic
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE MINERAL THEORY 377
warned the British that Liebig "has not raised one grain of wheat."26
Lawes's first published results quickly substantiated the earlier con-
clusions of Boussingault, who remained aloof in the literature from
the long and colorful controversy. Moreover, Lawes and Gilbert found
the same startling and puzzling evidence, Srst obtained by Boussingault
irl the late 1830s, that legumes when grown alone, and also cereals when
grown with them in rotation, accumulate far more nitrogen than could
reasonably be attributed to the fertilizers or to residual sources in the
soil.27
did not think much of this idea, although Liebig was theoretically correct. See
Boussingault, Economie Rurale 2: 40 46, 96, 97. Boussingault thought that gypsum
(pldtre) might act by supplying sulfur to plants, and also by improving soils deficient
in calcium carbonate.
26 W. Weissenborn, "Observations on Liebig's Patent Manure: with a comparative
view of the Theories of Thaer and Liebig," Farmer's Magazine 15 (January-June
1847): 367-73.
27 Lawes, "On Agricultural Chemistry" (1847). Boussingault specifically referred to
nitrogen accumulation beyond that contained in the fertilizers in "Recherches
chimiques sur la vegetation. Troisieme Memoire," 1151, 1152; and "Recherches
chimiques sur la vegetation, en treprises dans le bu t d 'examiner si les Plan tes prennent
de l'azote a l'atmosphere," Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 2d ser. 67 (1838): 5-24
(particularly 12-14, 52, 54); "Recherches chimiques . . . Deuxieme Memoire," Annales
de Chimie et de Physique, 2d ser. 69 (1838): 353-67; and "La valeur relative des
assolements."
28 Philip Pusey, "On the Progress of Agricultural Knowledge during the last Eight
Years," Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 11 (1850): 381438
(quote, 385). See Paolo E. Coletta, "Philip Pusey, English Country Squire," Agricul-
tural History 18 (April 1944): 83-91; and J. A. Scott Watson, The History of the Royal
Agricultural Society, 1839-1939 (London: 1939), 160 62.
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
378 AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
were not the commercial success in-England for which he had hoped,
and so his ire was understandable. His defense may have been justified
when he implied, though lamely, that his fertilizers failed loecause they
were not prepared properly, and that this led to inadequate solubility.
In order to control solubility and subsequent loss in soil runoff, he
prescribed that the minerals should be fused with phosphates and lime.
Rainfall would then release the minerals gradually over several sea-
sons.29 But he was quite correct in insisting that the "food of plants,"
according to his list, must include potash, soda, iron, magnesia, phos-
phoric acid, sulfuric acid, and alkaline silicates, and that the major
objective in agricultural chemistry was tc) Snd the right proportions
of each.
The prompt reply from Lawes and Gilbert the same year showed the
increasing clarity .and confidence with which since 1847 they viewed
the role of minerals and nitrogen. With a detailed analysis of the twenty
wheat plots first planted in 1843, they insisted that merely analyzing
the ash of a crop is no reliable gulde either to determining its nutritional
requirements or to learning what minerals should be restored to a de-
pleted soil. Minerals found collectively irl ash do not determine fertility,
nor can their addition alone restore a soil, but rather it is also the
nitrogen whose presence is an index of fertility.
Finding evidence that legumes probably could obtain "their nitro-
gen from the atmosphere rather than from the soil," Lawes and Gilbert
freely acknowledged agreement with Boussingault, whose experiments,
they urged, "have not received the attention which they merit from the
agriculturists of this country."30 They emphasized the impossibility
of reconciling their observations with a theory that explains the rise
and fall of wheat with the quantity of minerals in the soil. A more
reasonable explanation would be that wheat cannot take up minerals
when there is a deficiency of nitrogen, and that clover, not being so
dependent cxn artiScial sources, could so absorb minerals from the soil
and nitrogen from the air that, when left in the soil, the clover could
import a new vigor to the succeeding crop. At the end of the paper,
Pusey added a note of commendation that, while it was welcome to
Lawes and Gilbert, could only mean further distress for Liebig:
29 Liebig, Familiar Letters on Chemistry, 3d ed. (London: Taylor, Walton & Maber-
ly, 1851), 480. This passage was the basis of the reply by Lawes and Gilbert, "On
Agricultural Chemistry" (1851), in which there are many quotations from Liebig.
Actually, Liebig's procedure rendered the minerals so insoluble they were unavail-
able to plants.
30 Lawes and Dr. Joseph Henry Gilbert, "On Agricultural Chemistry-especially
in relation to the Mineral Theory of Baron Liebig," Journal of the Royal Agricul-
tural Society of England 12 (1851): 140; reprinted in Rothamsted Memoirs (1847) 1:
article 5 (quote, 30).
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE MINERAL THEORY 379
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
380 AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE MINERAL THEORY 381
crops in the sequence. But this had not happened. The clover had (a)
removed more phosphates, potash, magnesia, and particularly lime,
than the other crops, even in the absence of ammoniacal salts, which
were to assist, when present, their absorption; (b) acquired a much
larger concentration of nitrogen; and had also (c) allowed the subse-
quent wheat crop to absorb quite as much potash as had been absorbed
the first year by the turnips, a "potash plant." Therefore, the beneficial
effect of clover can have had nothing to do with conserving minerals,
because it extracted large amounts of those minerals required by the
wheat. Yet the succeeding wheat crop found in the soil as many minerals
as had the previous crops, even in the rotations lacking ammoniacal
salts that otherwise were supposed to assist that extraction.36 In thus
meeting the objections of Liebig's theory of rotation, they verified Bous-
singault's discovery of the greater capacity of legumes than of cereals
to accumulate nitrogen, though they did so by a different experimental
route.
In 1856 the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society finally pub-
lished one of Liebig's replies. In his final defense of his mineral theory,
also mentioning Gilbert, Liebig complained that his Rothamsted critics
had willfully misunderstood him, but admitted that legumes could
flourish without additional nitrogen whereas grains frequently did not.
An adequate supply of minerals, however, would rectify this difference.
Enormous residual soil nitrogen, confirmed by his many ash analyses
in 1846, had fortified his reliance on rlatural soil sources that were con-
stantly replenished by atmospheric ammonia. Although guano and
ammoniacal salts would temporarily increase soil fertility, he went on,
only minerals could render a permanent renewal. Indeed, undue appli-
cation of nitrogen-rich fertilizers by the tenant farmer only "prepares
for the proprietor the ruin of his land."37 Such treatment leads inevit-
ably to further extraction of beneficial minerals from the soil. In any
case, Liebig admonished, Lawes and Gilbert in their field tests of his
theory simply had not used enough of llis mineral manures to make
them work.
It had become plain, from the researches of Boussingault, from those
of Lawes and Gilbert, alld from the prolific writings of Liebig, that
plants manufactured their own food from identifiable chemicals re-
moved from the air and the soil, rather than receiving it ready-made
36 Lawes and Gilbert, "On some Points Connected with Agricultural Chemistry,"
49F98. Boussingault made similar observations in his Rural Economy, 1st ed. (New
York: Appleton, 1850), 369.
37 Liebig, "On some points in Agricultural Chemistry," Journal of the Royal
Agricultural Society of England 17 (1856): 28v326 (quote, 311).
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
382 AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
The experiments of Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert are very far, indeed, from prov-
ing the conclusions which they wish to draw; they establish rather the fact that
these gentlemen have not the slightest notion of what is meant by argument or
proof.40
This content downloaded from 128.248.156.45 on Mon, 10 Dec 2018 17:00:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms