As it was desired to send out samples containing considerable carbonate, and such were not at hand they were prepared as follows: The sample bottle was weighed and into this was weighed 2 grams dry sodium carbonate C. P. then, as rapidly as possible, 18 grams of commercial sodium hydrate. The bottles were then stoppered and sealed. The analyst was directed to dissolve the entire content of the bottle in carbon dioxid-free water, make up to 2,000 cc and use 50 cc portions for the titrations (0.5 gram sample). The results submitted have been multiplied by two and reported in per cent in the following table: Analyst. R. J. Davidson, Blacksburg, Va.. C. C. McDonnell, Bureau of Chemistry.. Average. Soda lye. The results on sodium hydroxid are very good. As expected, Method II gives slightly higher results for hydroxid and lower on carbonate than Method I. The difference, however, is small. The referee determined carbon dioxid in a portion of the sample gravimetrically and found 11.62 per cent and 11.71 per cent calculated as sodium carbonate. Using these two indicators in the same determination, as is done in this method, the tendency would always be to high results on sodium carbonate. Phenolphthalein, being more sensitive to acids, becomes colorless immediately when the solution is neutral, while with methyl-orange the acid must be in slight excess to develop the pink color, the excess required depending on the amount of indicator used and the depth of color titrated to. A blank should be made, using the same amount of water and indicator, and deducted in each case when methyl-orange is used. For the determinations in the second report in the table the analyst used normal acid. This may account for the results in sodium carbonate being high, as 0.1 cc normal acid is equivalent to over 1 per cent sodium carbonate, when operating on 0.5 gram of substance. FORMALDEHYDE. Two samples were sent out for analysis, No. 1, a strong solution to be worked by the modified hydrogen peroxid method, and No. 2, a dilute solution to be worked by the cyanid method, both found in Bulletin 107, revised, page 33. Sample No. 2. Method II. Per cent. Per cent. 3.92 36.81 3.98 36.71 3.92 36.64 3.83 36.46 3.70 3.98 37.00 3.84 36.93 36.76 3.90 COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION. R. J. Davidson says: "I believe it would be well to state the amount of dilution necessary in Method II and not say, as the method does, ‘a weighed quantity of the dilute formaldehyde solution.' The directions should be more specific." The results on formaldehyde are very good. Method I is an excellent method for strong solutions, and Method II for dilute solutions, containing preferably not over 5 per cent. Even solutions of the latter strength must be diluted before making the determinations. The referee is in favor of the recommendation made last year and referred to again in Mr. Davidson's report, that more specific directions should be given this method. If, instead of the words "a weighed quantity of the dilute formaldehyde solution," line 8, the following were inserted, "a weighed quantity of the formaldehyde solution containing not over 2 cc of a 1 per cent solution or the equivalent," it would make the method clearer and sufficiently explicit. SULPHUR DIPS. The method is that of Avery and is given in Circular 10, revised, also Bulletin 107, revised, page 34 The sample submitted for analysis was prepared in the laboratory by boiling together lime and sulphur according to the regular formula for the limesulphur spray mixture. The results are all very close, the greatest difference being only 0.25 per cent. This method has also given satisfactory results in past years. In view of the fact that this report was not presented at the meeting of the association, no recommendations will be made at this time. PRESIDENT SNYDER'S ADDRESS: THE TRAINING OF THE AGRICULTURAL CHEMIST. I have selected as the subject of the president's address for this, the twenty-fifth annual convention of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, "The Training of the Agricultural Chemist." Any society or organization in order to be effectual and progressive must look well to its membership. Our society has been most fortunate in this respect, and it is to be hoped its ranks will continue to be filled with the same class of earnest, energetic workers as are here to-day. During the past quarter of a century this organization has accomplished most excellent results. I believe, however, that it has only entered upon its career of usefulness. Much credit is due to the founders for the high ideals of the association and for the cultivation of the true scientific spirit. Many of them received their training in the great European laboratories, where they were students of Liebig, Fresenius, Voit, Hoffman, and Pasteur, and they have planted in this country the seed of true agricultural research. Most of the older members have relinquished their labors, and the work of the society may now be said to be in the hands of the second generation, who, it is hoped, will meet with as much success and foster the same spirit and ideals. Originally agricultural chemists were in a way self-educated. They secured what knowledge they could of general and analytical chemistry and then applied it to the solution of agricultural problems. Naturally the work was largely analytical. "What does this substance contain?" was and is to-day the quest of the chemist. During the past few years, however, the domains of agricultural chemistry have been greatly enlarged and there is probably now no other branch of chemistry that calls for so wide a training. Organic, inorganic, industrial, physical, physiological, and sanitary chemists have definite channels within which their activities are confined, while the agricultural chemist must necessarily include in his domain a large portion of all of these. In dealing with the soil an extended knowledge of both inorganic and organic chemistry as well as of physical chemistry is requisite. Our knowledge of soils is necessarily much restricted because the chemistry of the silicates is so imperfectly understood, and so in the analysis of plant and animal substances and the interpretation of the results our knowledge is likewise very limited. While the data gained from the analysis of foodstuffs is exceedingly valuable, I do not believe that it is as much so as it is destined to be, and while chemistry is one of the most useful of the sciences in the study of agricultural problems, it is capable of being made still more valuable and useful. One of the chief functions of the agricultural chemist is to correctly analyze agricultural products. In order to do this methods of analysis based upon rational principles must be devised, and this is one of the principal features of the work of this association. It is scarcely necessary for me to dwell upon its importance. Correct methods of analysis are essential, as without these chemistry would be entitled to no higher rank than alchemy. I do not believe that the importance of the development of correct methods for the analysis of agricultural products is as fully appreciated by experiment station workers as it should be. A large amount of the work that has been done is destined to be discredited and discarded because of errors in methods employed. Some of our experiment stations have been too impatient to secure immediate results and have not paid sufficient attention to methods of investigation. The study of the methods for analysis of foods and agricultural products can well be continued as the most prominent feature of this organization. With the advance that is being made in general science and the greater recognition given agriculture, more extended provision should be made for the education and training of the prospective agricultural chemist. There are many institutions that offer excellent four-year courses in chemical engineering and other branches of chemistry leading to degrees. I know of no American institution where such a course is given in agricultural chemistry. Has not the time arrived for the establishment, in some of our institutions of courses of study having for their object the training of agricultural chemists? Certainly the importance and magnitude of the field would suggest the need of such courses. I shall not discuss the subjects that could most consistently form a part of the curriculum, but there should be a correlation of the different sciences blended with general and technical chemistry. As matters now stand, it is generally necessary for an experiment station to secure as assistants young chemists who have had but little training in analytical chemistry and give them special training in agricultural analysis. The experiment stations have to train their own assistants and by the time they have become reasonably proficient another institution or some industry offers a higher salary and then new assistants must be initiated, the process in some cases being repeated several times a year. Our research work suffers because of this condition. Experiments are undertaken with one corps of assistants, a part of the work is done by another, and if the investigation is completed at all it is after many changes have been made. If some of our larger institutions would furnish more extended training in agricultural chemistry and better remuneration were given assistants so as to retain their services, conditions would be greatly improved. I do not consider that this lack of training of assistants is necessarily the fault of agricultural colleges, as their courses of study have been formulated with other objects in view than the training of scientists for research work. There are many interesting problems in agricultural chemistry which await investigation, and their correct solution would be of great benefit to mankind. The field of research is so large that this association can consistently encourage a larger number of workers. In addition to the special technical training the agricultural chemist needs broad equipment in other lines so that he may be able to inaugurate useful lines of research and properly interpret his results. There are many chemists who are capable of making accurate and rapid analyses and prosecuting routine work, but are unable to outline an investigation, plan intricate details, carry the work to a satisfactory conclusion, and correctly interpret the results. There need be no fear of overcrowding in the realm of agricultural chemistry or necessity for forming a trade union to regulate the number practicing the profession. In this connection it is pleasing to note the greater recognition that is being given the agricultural chemist. About a decade ago the number of positions in this line were limited and the compensation exceedingly small. While neither the number of positions nor the compensation is now particularly large there has certainly been a material increase in both. For example, in the Department of Agriculture in 1897 the maximum salary paid was $2,500 per year and the average to 12 chemists was $1,541, while in 1907 the maximum salary was considerably greater and 47 chemists received an average of nearly $2,000. On the whole, however, these salaries are smaller than are paid in many of the large educational institutions, although the rate of increase during the past ten years has been greater than in educational institutions, and if this continues the agricultural chemist bids fair in the near future to receive as large a compensation as workers in other lines of science. Much credit is due to our present Secretary of Agriculture for recognizing the importance of agricultural research and having the courage to advocate and recommend to Congress suitable compensation for agricultural scientists. The position of the agricultural chemist in both the educational and business world is undergoing transition. He is being regarded as a greater factor in human and industrial progress than heretofore and I believe that with each decade he may reasonably expect greater opportunity to do good work, coupled with better compensation. Agricultural chemists have as a rule been underpaid; neither have they been given sufficient funds with which to prosecute their labors. In many laboratories bookshelves are not filled as they should be and makeshift apparatus is employed where better results could be secured if the chemist had at his command the literature covering the work of others upon the subject which he is investigating, and suitable apparatus and means for his work. There has been many a scientific surrender because of lack of funds for effectually carrying on the work. As a nation we have taken great pride in the progress made by our industries, an advance more rapid than that of any other country. This in a large measure has been due to the work of the American chemist. There is scarcely an important industry but employs a well-trained chemist and has a suitably equipped testing laboratory. The steel, sugar, cement, and other great industries are practically applied chemistry. It has been said that the American chemist has contributed less than his quota to the advancement of science; he has, however, contributed his full share to the advancement of our industries. Instead of being a devotee of pure science he has advanced the domains of applied science. The agricultural chemist should concern himself not only with the economic production of foodstuffs but should extend his work along the lines of their preparation and utilization. The production of food, while a very large and important subject, has associated with it its proper manufacture and utilization. The agricultural chemist should take a broader view than that of mere critic of the industries; and there is some danger when working along special food lines of his becoming too narrow in his consideration of the questions that present themselves. While adulteration and sophistication in any form should not be tolerated by the chemist, he should first make sure that it is adulteration, and in this connection there are destined to arise questions upon which scientific men materially and honestly differ. I should not care to see all scientists agree on all questions, as this would be detrimental to progress. There must be some attrition, and when differences arise they should be met in the true scientific spirit, each one being sure that the data and facts which he presents are absolutely correct in every detail. I believe the province of the chemist is first doing accurate analytical work. The stand which has been taken by this association is a most excellent one: That the meetings shall be open for discussion, that we invite thorough discussion of all subjects relating to the analysis of our agricultural products and the interpretation of their results, but that the views expressed by any one individual are not necessarily the official views of the association. In controversial questions it is well for the society to be conservative. We all recall the attempt of the French Academy of Science to settle the much-vexed question of atmospheric nitrogen as a source of plant food, and how, after examining the conflicting reports of Ville and Boussingault, the learned committee of the society reported that M. Ville's conclusions and results were consistent with his experiments. We well know how the conflicting work of these two investigators was later harmonized, and while the society attempted to decide the question the real question was not settled until years later. The best service this society can render the cause of agriculture is to continue along the lines followed by the founders, to improve the methods of analysis so that the work done by the official methods of the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists will command respect wherever quoted. The food chemist should make a more careful and extended study of processes employed in the manufacture of foods. A purely theoretical knowledge of manufacturing processes may lead to erroneous conclusions. Some manufacturers of foods are doing more in the way of scientific investigation than are many of our universities and experiment stations. The encouragement given by the industries for the investigation of scientific subjects has been productive of fruitful results. Pasteur's classical work on fermentation was made possible by his connection with the industries. The agricultural chemist needs the help and assistance of the technical chemist. One of our great needs is more funds with which to prosecute scientific inquiry. Men of science have the zeal and ability, but often fail for lack of funds to procure and construct scientific apparatus. And too often men in our universities who are specially adapted by nature for the prosecution of scientific investigations are overburdened with elementary instruction that could be more efficiently done by others. Many scientists attempt to do too much, and the result is a dissipation of energy. Scientific work often suffers, too, because of the natural modesty of scientists, and sometimes those who accomplish the least but make the most noise, secure the lion's share of the funds for carrying on work. Some pseudo-scientists resort to cheap advertising that can not be too severely condemned. The best advertising a scientist can do is the publication of high-grade scientific work. It is a slow but a sure way of building up a permanent reputation. A scientist who maintains a press agency is not destined to make a premanent record. Often science languishes because those immediately in authority are not sufficiently educated or naturally liberal enough to appreciate her claims or able to give wise and 73673-Bull. 122-09-8 |