Page images
PDF
EPUB

The committee also recommends that in case of the adoption of the foregoing there be required to be printed on the bag or on the tag to be attached to the bag or to accompany fertilizers sold in bulk an explanatory statement naming the materials in which the plant food is carried.

This report, with the conditions stated as presented by the committee, was adopted by the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations at the Baton Rouge meeting.

You will all agree that it is desirable, where possible and practicable, to report in analytical statements constituents which are actually present in the material analyzed and which are of direct interest to the party for whom the analysis is made.

In fertilizers, such as dried blood, sodium nitrate, ammonium sulphate, or calcium cyanamid, the only constituent which is actually present in each material and which interests the users of fertilizers is the element nitrogen, and in terms of nitrogen a comparison can be made of these materials which would not be easily possible if the analytical statements showed nitrogen (N) in dried blood, ammonia (NH3) or ammonium (NH) in ammonium sulphate, nitrogen pentoxid (N2O5) or the acid radicle (NO3) in sodium nitrate, and possibly some other radicle or compound for calcium cyanamid (CaCN). There exists at present confusion in the matter of reporting nitrogen, although the tendency is clearly toward the use of the element system in this case. Under the fertilizer laws of several States nitrogen from any source must be reported in terms of ammonia (NH3), and this is the most common method of statement in the wholesale markets involving organic nitrogen, but to report ammonia in sodium nitrate, or nitrogen pentoxid in ammonium sulphate, would be extremely confusing to say the least. The only rational and scientific basis providing uniformity is to report nitrogen in all of these materials in terms of the element.

In the case of potassium the same argument holds with equal force. Potassium is already being reported in terms of the element to a considerable extent, and the practice is increasing and probably will increase as rapidly as was the case in changing from ammonia to the element nitrogen. (See, for example, Bulletin No. 22 and others, of the Bureau of Soils; Bulletin No. 60 of the New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station; Bulletins 182, 183, and others, of the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, and the experiment station bulletins and State fertilizer laws of Kansas and Illinois.)

The element phosphorus is most commonly reported in terms of the pentoxid (P2O5), which with chemical inaccuracy is termed "phosphoric acid." In most of the publications from the Bureau of Soils, and in the publication referred to from the New Mexico experiment station, phosphorus is reported in terms of the acid radicle (PO4), while in the experiment station bulletins of Ohio, Kansas, and Illinois, it is reported as the element (P), and this is already

The following note by the chief of the Bureau of Soils is submitted in this connection to make clear the position of that Bureau in regard to the use of the element system:

* There seems to be a serious misapprehension on the part of several members of the association as to the position of the Bureau of Soils regarding the statement of analytical results. The Bureau of Soils follows the recognized practice of the U. S. Geological Survey and the foremost laboratories of this country and abroad. In stating the analytical results of analyses of water solutions the "ion" system, or the system founded on the hypothesis of electrolytic dissociation in aqueous solution, is employed. In other statements of mineral analyses the conventional "oxid form is employed. In some few cases the "ion" system appears to conform to the proposed “element" system, but the conformity is by no means real. The 'element" system has never been employed by the Bureau of Soils, nor has it ever seemed necessary or desirable to express an official opinion concerning it.

*

required by the fertilizer laws of two States. Phosphorus in fertilizers is also very commonly reported in terms of tricalcium phosphate, ordinarily known as "bone phosphate" or "lime phosphate" or "bone phosphate of lime." In many cases this is objectionable because the compound does not exist in the fertilizer, as in acid phosphate, dissolved bone, or basic slag.

In the matter of soil analysis almost insurmountable difficulties are met with in attempting to report the elements present in terms of compounds on a uniform comparable basis.

Berthelot and Andréa report having found sulphur in the soil in the form of mineral sulphates, ethereal sulphates, metallic sulphids, and in organic nitrogea compounds of sulphur. They also report that more than one-half of the total sulphur of the soil is sometimes lost in ash determinations, and yet in most published reports of soil analysis sulphur is reported in the form of SO whether contained in the soil in the form of sulphids or organic sulphur or as mineral sulphates.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In a recently issued text-book on soils, in four consecutive statements of soil analyses iron is reported as "ferric oxid," as iron sesquioxid," as iron protoxid," as "peroxid of iron," and as "oxid of iron." In volume 1 of the Cyclopedia of American Agriculture, published in 1907, manganese is reported as manganese oxid (MnO)," as manganese (MnO4)," as manganese oxid (Mn2O)," and as manganic oxid (MnO)." In the same publication are soil analyses in which the sulphur is reported as "sulphuric acid," as "sulphuric anhydrid," as sulphurous acid," and as "sulphuric trioxid."

66

66

[ocr errors]

66

66

There is but one simple basis for reporting an ordinary soil analysis and that is the basis of the chemical elements present. If necessary, we can report ferrous iron and ferric iron, which will give strictly comparable data, whereas the equivalent weights of ferrous oxid and ferric oxid are not directly comparable. Likewise we can report organic phosphorus and mineral phosphorus; sulphur in sulphids, in sulphates, and organic sulphur; also organic nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, and nitrate nitrogen, and in all cases comparisons are direct and plain. To report the equivalent weights of NH. and NO3 in ammonia salts and nitrate salts, because those radicals happen to be cations or anions, renders direct comparison impossible and serves no purpose of value to agriculture.

Think of reporting to the farmer that his soil is acid and in need of limeperhaps 5 tons to the acre-and at the same time sending him an analysis showing that his soil contains 1 per cent of calcium oxid from which he finds by easy computation that his soil already contains 18 tons of lime per acre-foot. Then explain to him that the analytical statement is not correct, that his soil contains no calcium oxid, but that it contains sufficient calcium to make 1 per cent of calcium oxid if it were to be converted into calcium oxid, but into which it will not be converted, and that consequently his soil remains acid and does need lime.

Think of reporting an analysis of potassium chlorid as 63 per cent of potassium oxid and 48 per cent of chlorin (less oxygen misplaced, 11 per cent), and yet we have been doing just such unnecessary and unreasonable things in agricultural chemistry; meanwhile the farmers and farmers' institutes and the agricultural press continue to call upon science for the plainest, simplest statement of facts with the least possible use of unnecessary technical terms or expressions.

a Ann. chim. phys., 1888, 15 [6]: 119.

In the chemistry of iron and steel when we deal with phosphorus we say phosphorus and we mean phosphorus, and in pharmacy and medicine when we say phosphoric acid we mean phosphoric acid, but in agricultural chemistry when we deal with phosphorus, organic or inorganic, we say and write phosphoric acid and we mean usually phosphorus pentoxid or sometimes the radicle of phosphoric acid (PO4), but never true phosphoric acid unless we speak as the farmer's druggist, physician, or veterinarian, and then it should be understood that we mean phosphoric acid.

If we desire to report the oxygen in a soil, we can report the total amount by computation and by difference just as accurately as we do under the old system. As a matter of fact, few of the elements in soil analysis are weighed as oxids, most of them being determined either by volumetric processes or by the gravimetric determination of some salt, as, for example, barium sulphate, potassium platinic chlorid, magnesium pyrophosphate, etc.

If the interest in any constituent concerns the compound present, then, in addition to the statement of elements, there should be given the percentage or amount of such compound. Thus the calcium carbonate present in the soil may be reported as such, not because of any element of plant food which it contains, but because of its value as limestone. Indeed, this is already being done in cases where the importance of calcium carbonate, as such, is recognized."

The only valid objection to the adoption of the element system for reporting analyses of soils and fertilizers is that most analyses have been previously reported on the basis of oxids, and consequently there would be some additional burdens, temporarily, in making comparisons with earlier work until the more important existing data shall have been compiled and recalculated to the element basis. This objection, which will apply to a few people for a few years, is extremely slight compared with the advantages of the simpler system to all people for all time; and it is worth while to call to mind in this connection that our forefathers discarded "pounds, shillings, and pence" for the decimal system, with its dollars and cents, at a time when the change concerned not a small proportion but practically the entire population of the country; also, that nearly all other countries, except Great Britain, have subsequently adopted a decimal money system; and, not only that, but they have also adopted decimal systems of weights and measures, a change involving temporary inconvenience and expense for almost every business in the country.

International agreement in the adoption of the element system for soils and fertilizers is desirable; but, even though the element system should never be adopted in European countries, it is nevertheless highly desirable that it should be adopted in this new agricultural country and that American agriculture should have the benefit of using the simplest basis in the application of science to this fundamental industry, upon whose ultimate success practically all other great industries depend.

The advantages of the simple element system for soils, fertilizers, and plantfood elements in farm produce are so great that no State having once adopted the element nitrogen in place of ammonia has ever returned to the ammonia basis, and for the benefit of her own agriculture any single State can adopt with advantage and profit the more complete element system, even though other adjoining States may retain some other system.

The association adjourned until 2 o'clock.

J. Agri. Sci., December, 1907, 2: 306.

FRIDAY-AFTERNOON SESSION.

The discussion of the adoption of a dual system of nomenclature looking to the adoption of the element system for reporting analyses of fertilizers, soils, etc., was resumed, and Mr. Hopkins offered the following motion:

That the suggestion of the committee looking toward the ultimate adoption of the element system be approved, but that no State should discontinue the use of the terms now in use until such discontinuation is also approved by this association and that meanwhile the subject should be brought before the International Congress of Applied Chemistry in an effort to secure international agreement;

That this association appoint a committee to bring the matter of reporting results according to the element system before the next International Congress of Applied Chemistry with power to add to their numbers at their discretion. A lengthy discussion followed the seconding of this motion, during which the following opinions were expressed:

H. W. WILEY. I favor referring the matter to the International Congress of Applied Chemistry. It must be remembered that the elements are not present as such in the fertilizers, and the labels should show the definite composition of the package. Ethically this is always the requirement for a true label, but a statement might be made that the materials present equal so much phosphorus or nitrogen.

EDWARD GUDEMAN. It seems to me that a distinction should be made between the reporting of fertilizers and soils. Commercial conditions and common practice should be considered, and I can not see that the farmer will be benefited or obtain any more information from the element system than from the present one. The Council of the American Chemical Society is to consider this question at the December meeting and I shall oppose the adoption of the element nomenclature.

B. W. KILGORE. It seems to me that before going to the International Congress we should decide whether or not as an association we indorse the element system, and the motion as submitted does not seem to simplify the matter sufficiently. I can not see that the association comes any nearer a solution of the problem by sending such a report to the International Congress.

B. L. HARTWELL. Would it not be well to adopt the element system provisionally upon its adoption abroad and to send a committee to represent the association, approving such action if it can be made international?

H. J. WHEELER. I am in favor of the association calling the matter up and of the adopting of the element system if it can be made uniform usage under the State fertilizer law and by international agreement. In other words, I am opposed to the adoption of the element system under present conditions, but would approve it if universally adopted.

C. G. HOPKINS. It is not expected that any State would discontinue the use of its present system until further action is taken.

G. S. FRAPS. I am not willing to make this conditional indorsement of the element system. I believe that the association should decide this matter for itself and not pass it on to some other body for decision. The States accustomed to the old system will not be willing to begin their educational work over again in order to introduce a system which, to say the least, does not offer any advantage over that in use. We have uniformity practically all over the world in this

matter of expressing analyses of soils and fertilizers, with the exception of the States of Illinois, Ohio, and Kansas. It would be easier for these few States to abandon their new methods than for the remainder of the world to change methods of nomenclature which have been in use ever since the analysis of soils and fertilizers was begun. I endeavor to stand on the side of progress, and have honestly tried to see in what the merit of the elementary system of nomenclature consists, but it appears to me that its simplicity is a matter of words rather than facts, and that the old system is entirely preferable.

J. T. WILLARD. Kansas has adopted the element system without waiting for further action by the association. It makes no difference to the chemist or to the fertilizer manufacturer in respect to calculations how the results are stated. The farmers will require instruction in any case and can learn one system as well as another. Those who have learned the old system would be inconvenienced temporarily in learning the new. In the States where fertilizers have just come into use it would appear to be simpler to use the same terms in instructing the farmers, through bulletins and at institutes, as are used in instructing their children who study chemistry in our high schools and colleges. My plea is for the use of the right name on the label even at some temporary inconvenience, and not to saddle future generations with the present antiquated system. Had our forefathers been willing to endure a little difficulty in the introduction of the metric system we and our children would not be burdened with our complex and confusing tables of weights and measures.

B. W. KILGORE. The students in our agricultural colleges must understand the terms as at present used, and if they are to make any use of the literature on the subject they must deal in these terms.

B. B. Ross. In response to a circular letter with reference to this subject which was sent out several years ago I expressed an opinion favorable to the use of the element system in reporting the results of analysis of soils and ash, but so far as its employment in reporting fertilizer analyses is concerned, I think it would be very unwise to take such a step for some time to come, and I do not think we should go on record as an association in favor of abandoning the present method of reporting fertilizer results.

Alabama was the first State to adopt the use of the term "nitrogen" instead of "ammonia" (NH3), and we still find it necessary to explain the relation between the two. The authorities in our State connected with the fertilizer control have had great difficulty in securing the enactment of fertilizer legislation which is practically uniform with that of four or five adjacent States, and hence they are opposed to any change in the present system of reporting fertilizer analyses. For these reasons I must vote in opposition to the adoption of the element system for reporting results of fertilizer analyses.

J. G. LIPMAN. Many laws become obsolete when they lose the moral support of the people for whom they are framed. In this, as in other matters, the line of least resistance is always followed. Rules laid down for the guidance of men of science may become obsolete for the same reason. Now, there is evidently a strong sentiment in favor of the element system among some of the members of the association, and pronounced opposition to it among others. In adopting a dual system we give the element system a provisional approval. It can be discontinued when found inexpedient.

Only those chemists engaged in official fertilizer control work having a right to vote according to article 2 of the constitution, a rising vote was taken and the motion carried by a vote of 23 to 14.

The committee on the President's address, 1906, offered its report, which was accepted by the association.

« PreviousContinue »