all trade and industry—it is the foundation of the riches of States. But a rational system of agriculture cannot be formed without the application of scientific principles; for such a system must be based on an exact acquaintance with the means of nutrition of vegetables, and with the influence of soils and actions of manure upon them. This knowledge we must seek from chemistry, which teaches the mode of investigating the composition and of studying the characters of the different substances from which plants derive their nourishment."
His criticism of the "Humus" Theory.
The first subject which Liebig discusses is the scientific basis of the so-called "humus" theory. The humus theory seems to have been first promulgated by Einhof and Thaer towards the close of last century. Thaer held that humus was the source of plant-food. He stated in his published writings that the fertility of a soil depended really upon its humus; for this substance, with the exception of water, is the only source of plant-food. De Saussure, however, by his experiments—the results of which he had published in 1804—had shown the fallacy of this humus theory; and his statements had been further developed and substantiated by the investigations of the French chemist Braconnot and the German chemist Sprengel. Despite, however, the experiments of Saussure, Braconnot, and Sprengel, the belief that plants derived the carbonaceous portion of their substance from humus still seemed to be commonly held in 1840.
While Liebig, therefore, can scarcely be said to have been the first to controvert the humus theory, he certainly dealt it its death-blow. He reasserted de Saussure's conclusions, and by some simple calculations showed very clearly that it was wholly untenable. One of the most striking of the arguments he brought forward was the fact that the humus of the soil itself consisted of the decayed vegetable matter of preceding plants. This being so, how, he asked, could it be the original source of the carbon of plants? To reason thus was simply to reason in a circle. He pointed out, further, that the comparative insolubility of humus in water, or even in alkaline solutions, told against its acceptance as correct.
His Mineral Theory.
Having thus controverted the humus theory, he then goes on to deal with the question of the source of the various plant constituents. In treating of the relation of the soil to the plant, he puts forward his "mineral" theory. It cannot be doubted that, while the advance of science since Liebig's time has induced us to considerably modify his mineral theory, it contained the statement of one of the most important facts in the chemistry of plant physiology. He was the first to fully estimate the enormous importance of the mineral portion of the plant's food, and point the way to one of the chief sources of a soil's fertility. Up to this period the ash constituents had been generally considered to be of minor importance. By emphasising the contrary opinion, and insisting upon their essentialness to plant-life, he gave to agricultural research a fresh impetus upon the right lines. His statement of his mineral theory was in the main true, but was not the whole truth.
De Saussure, as has already been pointed out, to a certain extent, anticipated Liebig's mineral theory. He was of the opinion that whatever might be the case with some of the mineral constituents of plants, others were necessary, inasmuch as they were always found in the ash. Of these he instanced the alkaline phosphates. "Their small quantity does not indicate their inutility," he sagaciously remarks. Sir Humphry Davy, as has already been pointed out, missed recognising the true importance of the ash constituents. It was left to Liebig, then, to restate the important doctrine of the essentialness of the mineral matter, already implied to some extent by de Saussure.
Liebig says: "Carbonic acid, water, and ammonia are necessary for the existence of plants, because they contain the elements from which their organs are formed; but other substances are likewise necessary for the formation of certain organs destined for special functions, peculiar to each family of plants. Plants obtain these substances from inorganic nature."
While insisting on the importance of the mineral constituents, he did so in a more or less general way not sufficiently distinguishing one mineral constituent from another.
As all plants contained certain organic acids, and as these organic acids were nearly always found in a neutral state—i.e., in combination with bases, such as potash, soda, lime, and magnesia—the plant must be in a position to take up sufficient of these alkaline bases to neutralise these acids. Hence the necessity of these mineral constituents in the soil. According to him, however, the exact nature of the bases was a point of not so much importance. He assumed, in short, as has been pointed out by Sir J. H. Gilbert, a greater amount of mutual replaceability amongst the bases than can be now admitted.
Passing on to a consideration of the difference of the mineral composition of different soils, he attributes this to the difference in the rocks forming the soils. "Weathering" is the great agent at work in rendering available the otherwise locked-up stores of fertility. He attributes the benefits of fallow exclusively to the increased supply of these incombustible compounds which were thus rendered available to the plant. Treating of this subject, he says: "From the preceding part of this chapter" (in which he has been explaining weathering) "it will be seen that fallow is that period of culture when the land is exposed to progressive disintegration by the action of the weather, for the purpose of liberating a certain quantity of alkalies and silica, to be absorbed by future plants."
His Theory of Manures.
Treating of manures, he showed how the most important constituents of manures were potash and phosphates. In the first edition of his work he also insisted on the value of nitrogen in manures, condemning the want of precautions, in the treatment of animal manures, against loss of nitrogen.
In the later editions of his work he seems to have receded from that opinion, and considered that there was no necessity for supplying nitrogen in manures, since the ammonia washed down in rain was a sufficient source of all the nitrogen the plant required. It was here that Liebig went astray, first in denying the importance of supplying nitrogen as a manure; and secondly, in overestimating the amount of ammonia washed down in rain, which has subsequently been shown to be entirely inadequate to supply plants with the whole of their nitrogen.[15]
His Theory of Rotation of Crops.
In explaining the benefits of the rotation of crops, Liebig propounded a very ingenious theory, but one which was largely of a speculative nature, and which has since been shown to be unfounded on any scientific basis. It was to the effect that one kind of crop excreted matters which were especially favourable to another kind of crop. He did not say whether he considered such excretion positively injurious to the crop which excreted them; but he inferred that what was excreted by the crop was what was not required, and what could, therefore, be of little benefit to a crop of the same nature following it.
The second portion of Liebig's report dealt with the processes of fermentation, decay, and putrefaction.
Publication of Liebig's Second Report to British Association.
In 1842 Liebig contributed his second famous report to the British Association, subsequently published under the title of 'Animal Chemistry; or, Organic Chemistry in its Applications to Physiology and Pathology.' The publication of this report created even greater interest than the publication of his first work. In it he may be said to have contributed as much to animal physiology, as, in his first, he did to agricultural chemistry. His subsequent principal works on agricultural chemistry were—'Principles of Agricultural Chemistry,' published in 1855, and 'On Theory and Practice in Agriculture,' 1856.
Liebig's services to Agricultural Chemistry.
An attempt has been made to sketch in the very briefest manner some of the main points in Liebig's teaching, as contained in his famous report to the British Association in 1840. Agricultural chemistry up till
