Fascism / MASS MURDER / The Great Famine / The Great Reset

RAISING BUMPER CROPS WITH POISON GAS – SATURDAY EVENING POST, October 1, 1921

Banner from top of front page of the Oct. 1, 1921 Saturday Evening Post

21
THE SATURDAY EVENING POST
October 1, 1921

RAISING BUMPER CROPS WITH
POISON GAS — By Robert Crozier Long

ALMOST with the intens­ity of their former war interest Ger­man men of sci­ence are pur­su­ing a new pois­on-gas cam­paign, which is to achieve what the chlor­ine and mus­tard-gas argu­ment lam­ent­ably failed in, and put the repub­lic at last and really über Alles in der Welt. Even case-hardened German­o­phobes watch this cam­paign with sym­pathy. Its pur­pose is to raise the badly sunken crops to a level high­er than that of pros­per­ous pre­war times; to double or even treble the food pro­duc­tion; to make an at present ill-nour­ished people inde­pend­ent of for­eign flour; and thereby to restore the trade bal­ance and res­cue a battered Reichs­mark exchange from ever-in­creas­ing inan­i­tion. The secret of this, in Prus­si­an pro­fess­or­i­al lan­guage, is car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion of crops; in ordin­ary lan­guage it is the diver­sion into and dis­tri­bu­tion among grow­ing plants of car­bon­ic-acid gas, the CO2 of school books, a gas fatal to human beings and anim­als in very mod­er­ate quant­it­ies, but bene­fi­cial and indis­pens­able to plant life. Through the applic­a­tion of adequate doses of this pois­on gas wheat ears are doubled in weight and size; rye, which in the Ger­man’s daily bread plays a great­er role than wheat, is equally increased; and on impov­er­ished soil rise pota­toes, cab­bages, peas, toma­toes and fruits sur­pass­ing the prize pro­duc­tions of mod­el farms. From red cur­rants to pump­kins no fruit has been dis­covered that can­not be pois­on-gassed into extra size and nutri­tious­ness. And all this magic, which will revo­lu­tion­ize agri­cul­ture and ulti­mately the trade of the world, will be achieved at a very mod­er­ate cap­it­al expendit­ure, and at prac­tic­ally no oper­at­ing cost at all.

Car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion is in its infancy, and being an infant its bril­liancy may be exag­ger­ated. There are vis­ion­ar­ies who already talk of onions as big as pump­kins and of pump­kins as big as bal­loons. They see in dreams the ima­gin­ary mon­strous veget­ables raised with H. G. Wells’ Food of the Gods. This is an absurdity. But Friedrich Riedel, of Essen, the man who has done most to solve the prob­lem prac­tic­ally, proved by con­vin­cing fig­ures that any coun­try’s food crops may be doubled with CO2. Nat­ur­ally not at once. “Bad things,” said Samuel John­son, “wax more rap­idly than good”; and if Prus­sia’s ablest war chem­ists needed only three weeks to find means for pois­on-gass­ing enemies into etern­ity the bene­fi­cial pois­on-gass­ing of plants will need years or dec­ades of labor before the world’s food con­di­tion can be mater­i­ally improved. Yet this move­ment is no longer merely exper­i­mental. For more than three years car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion has been suc­cess­fully car­ried on on a great scale; and the tri­umphs achieved—veri­fied by minute records and con­firmed by con­ver­sion of author­it­at­ive doubters—give fair col­or to Riedel’s pre­dic­tion that with­in vis­ible time a gas equip­ment will be as obvi­ous a part of an effi­cient farm as it already unluck­ily is of an effi­cient mil­it­ary force.

Nature No Longer Trus­ted

THE dom­in­ant per­son­al­it­ies in the new pois­on-gas devel­op­ment are three. First in time is Dr. Hugo Fisc­her, of Essen; first in the the­ory of the sys­tem is Dr. F. Borne­mann, now of Heidel­berg, formerly pro­fess­or of farm­ing at Ber­lin Agri­cul­tur­al High School; and first as prac­ti­tion­er is Riedel. As prac­ti­tion­er Riedel leads not only because he has gassed veget­ables, fruits and grain crops on much the largest scale, but because he first made the pro­cess easy and cheap by draw­ing his car­bon­ic-acid gas from the blast fur­naces of great smelt­ing works.

With all three exper­i­menters the under­ly­ing prin­ciple is the same. This prin­ciple is that car­bon is the most import­ant con­stitu­ent of all veget­able mat­ter; and that though the defi­ciency of oth­er vital crop con­stitu­ents is made good as a mat­ter of course by farm­ers when they apply fer­til­izers, the dom­in­ant ques­tion of a suf­fi­cient car­bon sup­ply is left to take care of itself. For car­bon the farm­er puts his trust in nature. That he does so is a para­dox. For nature, as he learns in his first les­sons on farm­ing, can­not always be trus­ted to sup­ply nitro­gen, potassi­um and phos­phor­us in suf­fi­cient quant­it­ies; why then should nature be relied on to sup­ply the pre­cise, minutely rationed quant­ity of car­bon, neither more nor less, which best fosters a lux­uri­ant and healthy growth? In the light of pure sci­ence the para­dox is increased. In the remote Car­bon­ifer­ous peri­od plant life, as coal meas­ures prove, was immeas­ur­ably rich­er than to-day—the biggest mod­ern fern is a pygmy beside the Paleo­zo­ic fern—and in this Car­bon­ifer­ous period, phys­i­cists agree, the atmo­sphere was charged much more heav­ily than to-day with car­bon­ic acid gas. Abstract sci­ence has long known these facts; applied agri­cul­tur­al sci­ence has ignored them. It is not long since Ger­many’s lead­ing agri­cul­tur­al chem­ist, the late Prof. Edward Heiden, pro­claimed in a prac­tic­al hand­book that the suf­fi­cient sup­ply­ing of car­bon to crops and fruits was a mat­ter with which no farm­er needed to trouble his head.

The chem­ic­al the­ory behind the entirely con­trary prac­tice of Fisc­her, Borne­mann and Riedel is simple. Car­bon provides the bricks and mor­tar of every plant, of its root, stalk, leaf, ear, fruit and seed. The water con­tents, which in some plant parts out­weigh everything else, are here ignored. Water con­sti­tutes as much as 75 per cent of the potato, against 24 per cent nutrit­ive organ­ic mat­ter, and it con­sti­tutes 13 per cent of the rye grain against 85 per cent. If both water and min­er­als—between 1 and 2 per­cent—are left out of account, 49 per cent of the aver­age plant con­sists of car­bon, against 43.5 per cent oxy­gen, 6.3 per cent hydro­gen and 1.2 per cent nitro­gen. Of car­bon, that means, is used forty times as much as of nitro­gen, for which in the form of nitrates every farm­er provides as a mat­ter of course. Of cel­lu­lose 44.4 per cent is car­bon; of lignin, the wood mat­ter, 55 per cent; of sug­ar 40 per cent; of straw 45 to 50 per cent; of albu­men 50 to 4 per cent; and of oils and fat actu­ally 76 per cent. Car­bon sup­plies from nearly one half to two-thirds of the sub­stance of every plant mater­i­al which has value as food or in indus­tri­al use.

For growth, in addi­tion to the four chief ele­ments men­tioned, every plant requires nine oth­er ele­ments. It requires sul­phur, sili­cium, chlorium, sodium, mag­nesium, iron, cal­cium, potassi­um and phos­phorus. Of these, with the excep­tion of cal­cium, potassi­um and phos­phorus, all soils con­tain enough. The prac­tic­al farm­er recog­nizes this when he applies lime, potash salts and phos­phates; and hav­ing applied also nitrates he has done, he holds, his duty to the full. The duty of sup­ply­ing car­bon is per­formed, he is con­vinced, by the atmo­sphere. The quant­ity of car­bon­ic acid in the atmo­sphere, it is true, is small. Meas­ured by volume it is .03 per cent, or three parts in 10,000, against 78.04 per cent of nitro­gen, 20.99 per cent of oxy­gen, .94 per cent of argon, and traces of four oth­er gases.

That is aver­age coun­try air; tests taken out­side Munich forty years ago showed only .02 per cent of CO2, or two-thirds of nor­mal; and a Lon­don Decem­ber day once revealed 14.1 er cent, or nearly five hun­dred times the nor­mal. At most, the quant­ity is small. But the quant­ity of 30: actu­ally avail­able for plant growth is great­er than the aver­age pro­por­tion in the air. The gas is brought down to the soil dis­solved in rain, and evap­or­a­tion re­leases it. The quant­ity released var­ies accord­ing to the height of the cloud and the slow­ness and fine­ness of the rain. The organ­ic mat­ter in a hum­ous soil is con­tinu­ally decom­posed by bac­teria, worms and minute anim­als, and the car­bon­ic-acid gas is set free. Organic, in par­tic­u­lar animal, fer­til­izers are decom­posed by the same means with the same res­ult. Like all liv­ing cells, plant roots breathe and release CO2. These four addi­tion­al sup­plies of the gas play a great role in crop growth. The tests of Pro­fess­or Borne­mann show that between one-sixth and one-sev­enth of the car­bon con­tained in a nor­mal crop is derived from gas exhaled from the soil.

Plant Diges­tion

Plants, as every farm­er knows, assim­il­ate the atmo­spher­ic and the exhaled car­bon­ic-acid gas, and apply the car­bon therein for pro­duc­tion of their organ­ic sub­stance. By the leaves the gas is decom­posed into its two con­stitu­ents, car­bon and oxy­gen, and the oxy­gen is exhaled. The path to acquire­ment of this ele­ment­ary know­ledge was long. A Swiss, Charles Bon­net, first dis­covered that leaves give off a gas; Priestley, an Eng­lish­man, iden­ti­fied this gas as oxy­gen; a Swiss, Sene­bier, dis­covered that the oxy­gen is the rejec­ted ele­ment of inhaled car­bon­ic-acid gas; and Sene­bi­er’s fam­ous pupil, Theodore Saus­sure, mem­ber of a fam­ily which pro­duced three first-rank sci­ent­ists, developed the doc­trine, and proved it by feed­ing plants with car­bon­ic-acid gas. The gas enters the slit-shaped leaf pores—of which a single cab­bage leaf con­tains 11,000,000; it is dis­solved in a liquid which sat­ur­ates the del­ic­ate walls of the green or chloro­phyll cells; it passes, so dis­solved, into the interi­ors of the cells; and it is here decom­posed into the retained use­ful car­bon and the super­flu­ous rejec­ted oxy­gen. That is assim­il­a­tion. For assim­il­a­tion three things are neces­sary: A liv­ing green plant sub­stance, air con­tain­ing car­bon­ic-acid gas, and power. The power is light. Bey­ond that very little is known about a plant’s meth­ods of self-con­struc­tion. The com­plic­ated pro­cesses by which car­bon, with oth­er mater­i­als, is worked up into cel­lu­lose, lignin, albu­men, starch, sug­ar and fats, are not known at all. There are prob­able the­or­ies and plaus­ible assump­tions, but noth­ing more.

Without suf­fi­cient light no plant will assim­il­ate car­bon. Yet the first dis­cov­ery that plant growth can be increased by an extra sup­ply of CO2 was made, a hun­dred years back, in the dim and smoky Eng­lish city of Manchester. That plants do not grow well in indus­tri­al cit­ies is not due to the excess of gas, but to bad light­ing, and to sul­phur­ic acid, smoke, dust and oth­er impur­it­ies in the air. Saus­sure proved this by com­par­at­ive exper­i­ments with plants in ordin­ary air, in air enriched with vary­ing extra doses of car­bon­ic-acid gas, and in pure car­bon­ic-acid gas. Giv­en very good light­ing, he showed, plants grow best in an atmo­sphere con­tain­ing 8 per cent of CO2, or 260 times the nor­mal; no light, however strong, he proved fur­ther, increases assim­il­a­tion if the sup­ply of CO2 is insuf­fi­cient; and finally, even with the strongest light­ing, more than 8 per cent of the gas is injur­i­ous. A later exper­i­ment showed that the yel­low light rays best foster assim­il­a­tion; orange and red are less effect­ive; and blue and viol­et rays pro­duce prac­tic­ally no assim­il­a­tion at all.

Strik­ing Res­ults

On the eve of the exper­i­ments of Fisc­her, Borne­mann and Riedel no ser­i­ous doubt exis­ted that car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion was a the­or­et­ic­ally prac­tic­able and use­ful help in agri­cul­ture. But the prac­tic­al res­ults were nil. Reas­ons for this were, first, the sup­posed tech­nic­al dif­fi­culties and, second, the incur­able obstin­acy of even sci­entif­ic farm­ers. The tech­nic­al dif­fi­culty is, however, merely a com­mer­cial one, a ques­tion of oper­at­ing costs versus extra crop profits. The cost of pro­du­cing and dis­trib­ut­ing car­bon­ic-acid gas on the large scale needed even for a veget­able garden would be far greater, it was believed, than the increased value of the yield; and the cost of pois­on-gass­ing whole fields of wheat, corn and oats would be mon­strously out of pro­por­tion to the addi­tion­al value of the crop.

Even at first sight this opin­ion looks like a pre­ju­dice. The same farm­ers who held it found it prac­tic­al to pay for car­riage of potash from Europe to the cent­ral plains of the United States, for car­riage of phos­phates for equally great dis­tances, and for car­riage of Chile niter from a remote corner of South Amer­ica to a noble’s estate on the slopes of the Urals. The argu­ment that these fer­til­izers are abund­ant and need only trans­port­a­tion no longer applies. For sev­en years past the only nitrates used by Ger­man farm­ers have been syn­thet­ic­ally pre­pared out of the atmo­sphere by the costly and com­plic­ated Haber Bosch and cal­ci­um pro­cesses. There is noth­ing more far-fetched in adding car­bon diox­ide to the air than in extract­ing nitro­gen out of it; and fifty years ago prob­ably every farm­er would have pro­claimed the second plan to be the more far-fetched and vis­ion­ary of the two.

The only real unsolved prob­lem, that means, was the prob­lem of com­mer­cial prac­tic­ab­il­ity, the ques­tion of sup­ply­ing car­bon­ic-acid gas at a reas­on­ably low cost. Fisc­her, the first of the recent Ger­man invest­ig­at­ors, found the prob­lem insol­uble. He there­fore ignored it, and exper­i­mented only with the expens­ive cyl­in­der CO2 of com­merce. He began by treat­ing plants with air enriched to .09 per cent of gas, or three times the nor­mal, and he ended with .66 per cent, or twenty-two times the nor­mal. His res­ults, always meas­ured by com­par­is­ons with non­gassed plants grown under sim­il­ar con­di­tions, were:

Great­er size and weights of the plants as a whole;

Con­sid­er­ably earli­er blos­som­ing and ripen­ing of fruits;

Very much big­ger and rich­er fruits.

His last exper­i­ments, made togeth­er with Pro­fess­or Borne­mann, were with the ordin­ary Ger­man winter wheat and winter rye, which sup­ply the greatest part of Ger­many’s bread­stuffs. These were planted both under glass and in the open. The res­ults of gass­ing were in all cases good. The gassed wheat and rye pro­duced more and stronger shoots than the ungassed, they ripened weeks sooner, and they car­ried big­ger ears. Seeds which, ungassed, yiel­ded ten ear-bear­ing straws, yiel­ded when gassed is many as thirty-two. The best res­ults were obtained under glass, and the res­ults with rye were bet­ter than with wheat.

Borne­mann fol­lowed with inde­pend­ent open-air exper­i­ments, last­ing 130 days, on winter wheat, oats, bar­ley, beans and mus­tard. Gas was dis­trib­uted from ordin­ary small light­ing-gas pipes, which the later large-scale exper­i­ments of Riedel show to be unsuit­able; and the oth­er con­di­tions, owing to poverty of resources, were unfa­vor­able. The superi­or­ity of the gassed crops was less than Riedel attained, but it was emphatic. Gass­ing increased the yield of wheat 25 per cent, of oats 41 per cent, of bar­ley 24 per cent, and of beans 63 per cent. Borne­mann drew the con­clu­sion that car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion is an indis­pens­able part of really sci­entif­ic farm­ing. For com­mer­cial farm­ing it was, under present con­di­tions for pro­du­cing and dis­trib­ut­ing gas, imprac­tic­able. The use of cyl­in­der gas was out of the ques­tion. It was reserved for a young West­phali­an engin­eer, Friedrich Riedel, to solve the prob­lem com­mer­cially. Solu­tion, he reasoned, lay in the util­iz­a­tion of the already exist­ing unlim­ited sup­ply of waste indus­tri­al gases. Con­fid­ent of suc­cess, ignor­ing the gibes of cer­tain pro­fess­ors of agri­cul­ture who told him that though he was a first-rate engin­eer he had yet a great deal to learn about farm­ing, he set to work.

Hugo Stinnes—Prus­sia’s Mor­gan, as some call him, a mer­chant of Mülheim, as he mod­estly calls him­self in a Reich­stag mem­ber’s list—next comes on the scene. With 170 Stinnes indus­tri­al under­tak­ings, cap­it­al­ized at 5,500,000,000 marks, few Ger­man scenes can be ima­gined on which Stinnes does not appear. Riedel’s exper­i­ments in car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion were made in con­nec­tion with the Deutsch Lux­em­burg smelt­ing works at Horst on the Ruhr, the first of the 170 cor­por­a­tions to be con­trolled by Stinnes and the nuc­le­us of the vast elec­tro-min­ing trust which to-day embraces most of the rest. Stinnes and his chief dir­ect­or Voe­g­ler gran­ted to Riedel the use of the whole resources of the Deutsch- Lux­em­burg, its land, its machines, its work­men and its labor. Out of that rose the first great car­bon farm in the world. The sow­ings and plant­ings were made on a gran­di­ose scale; there were no eco­nom­ic­al obstacles of the kind that had hampered the first two invest­ig­at­ors; and the res­ult was a suc­cess which soon put an end to doubt in the most skep­tic­al pro­fess­or­i­al brain.

Riedel’s first work was to con­struct two big glass houses as near as pos­sible to Stinnes’ blast fur­naces, and to pre­pare two fields for open-air exper­i­ments a little farther off. One glass house and one field were for ordin­ary cul­tiv­a­tion; the oth­ers for cul­tiv­a­tion in air arti­fi­cially fer­til­ized with CO2. Minute care was taken to insure that the soil, light­ing and mois­ture should be identic­al for gassed and ungassed plants. The gas was dis­trib­uted from per­for­ated tubes ten cen­ti­meters in dia­met­er with ori­fices of about two cen­ti­meters in dia­meter, placed at reg­u­lar inter­vals; and pres­sure in the tubes was main­tained by elec­tric fans. In the glass house for gass­ing were laid two tubes, one low down, bent into twelve-meter squares, the oth­er higher, in shape of a main tube with radi­at­ing smal­ler tubes. In his fields Riedel laid per­for­ated con­crete pipes, arranged in quad­ri­lat­er­als, so that equable dis­tri­bu­tion was insured in any wind.

Flue Gases Used

The gas used came dir­ectly from the blast fur­naces, and con­tained 5 per cent of C02, which is less than the 8 per cent found most effect­ive by Saus­sure, but is 160 times stronger in car­bon­ic than in ordin­ary air. The only treat­ment under­gone by the gas between expul­sion from the blast fur­naces and dis­tri­bu­tion to the plants was puri­fic­a­tion from smoke and dust. Puri­fic­a­tion from sul­phur­ic acid was not neces­sary, as the iron ore is smelted with coke; and puri­fic­a­tion from car­bon monox­ide—CO—was need­less, because this gas is harm­less to plants. But as car­bon monox­ide is highly pois­on­ous to human beings and anim­als Riedel later removed it by pre­lim­in­ary com­bus­tion. He remarks that as a rule this is unne­ces­sary, as most indus­tri­al works in their own interests allow no car­bon monox­ide to escape.

Riedel’s exper­i­ence is that 5 per cent of car­bon­ic-acid gas is the most effect­ive on the aver­age. But how much of this mix­ture is really avail­able for the plants is not exactly known. In the open air, part of the CO2 is speedily blown away by wind; and if there is no wind it is thinned by dif­fu­sion. In glass houses the con­tinu­ous for­cing in of a 5 per cent mix­ture under pres­sure keeps the whole air of the house at that strength. By that is explained the fact that in Fisc­her’s exper­i­ments the greatest addi­tion­al crop yield obtained from plants grown under glass.

After the first year of suc­cess Riedel increased the dimen­sions of his exper­i­ments. He built three more glass houses and added 40,000 square yards to the area of his fields. In the new fields he laid his per­for­ated cement tubes under­ground. His aim was to sup­ply the extra dose of gas from the low­est pos­sible level, so that it would reach the leaf pores exactly as does gas set free from the soil. This dimin­ishes the quant­ity of gas dif­fused upwards or blown away before it is caught in the pores; and the effi­ciency of the fer­til­iz­a­tion is very largely increased.

Riedel’s exper­i­ments embraced nearly all of the more import­ant cul­tiv­ated food plants, and also some flowers. Flower tests proved use­ful for study of the effects of gass­ing upon blos­soms, and one of the first tri­umphs was a more than four-and-a-half-fold increase in the blooms of the helio­trope plant. In fields or in glass houses were planted—some­times in both, and always on a suf­fi­ciently large scale to pro­duce reli­able aver­ages—bar­ley, pota­toes, turnips, sug­ar beet, rape, toma­toes, gher­kins, lupines, soy­beans, spin­ach, fen­nel and the castor-oil plant.

Import­ant Res­ults

The first plant­ings, which covered only six of the plants men­tioned, took place in 1917 in the middle of May. Four weeks later, when the first green shoots were show­ing above the soil, car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion began, and with it began the mak­ing of hourly and daily obser­va­tions and the keep­ing of minute records. With­in two or three days the dif­fer­ence between sizes and con­di­tions of gassed and ungassed plants was seen. The dif­fer­ence invari­ably favored the gassed plants. It was at first con­fined to stalks and leaves; later, when blos­soms and fruits appeared, the dif­fer­ence was equally marked; and finally the har­vest­ing of the root and tuber crops proved that the advant­age from gass­ing was gained by every part of the plant.

First and most import­ant of res­ults of gass­ing is the greatly increased leaf growth. The leaves of Riedel’s gassed plants were lar­ger and their stalks thick­er and firmer. The leaves of man­gel-wurzels gassed in the open air aver­aged in area 70 per cent more than the leaves of ungassed plants. Ungassed castor-oil plants had leaves 58 cen­ti­meters long; gassed plants had leaves 100 cen­ti­meters long. The gassed castor-oil leaves bore a whit­ish bloom sim­il­ar to the bloom on grapes. Leaves of gassed plants were unusu­ally firm and fleck­less, and they were colored a deep­er green, prov­ing bet­ter assim­il­a­tion and a rich­er pro­duc­tion of the pre­cious chloro­phyll, the green col­or­ing mat­ter upon which the health of all plants, para­sit­ic fungi excep­ted, depends.

This bet­ter leaf pro­duc­tion in the early growth stage is espe­cially import­ant, be cause the leaf’s abil­ity to absorb car­bon­ic-acid gas depends upon its size. There­from fol­lows the fact—proved when Riedel inter­rup­ted the gas sup­ply—that the young gassed plant with its abnor­mally big leaves extracts an extra dole of car­bon also out of the ordin­ary air, so that car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion, even if car­ried on for only a few days in the early growth period, largely increases the ulti­mate size and weight of the crop.

Riedel found not a single excep­tion to the rule that car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion mater­i­ally increases the weight and size of fruits and roots. The smal­lest advant­age of any gassed fruit or root crop over an ungassed crop was 15 per cent. In all oth­er cases the advant­age was at least 36 per cent; often the advant­age was more than 100 per cent, and some­times it was more than 200 per cent. These fig­ures were for the whole crops of beds or patches of a defined size.

Riedel declares that car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion without oth­er fer­til­izers pro­motes plant growth more effect­ively than all the ordin­ary fer­til­izers when these are used without arti­fi­cially sup­plied car­bon. Ordin­ary fer­til­izers, he says, used in ordin­ary air increase an aver­age crop by half a kilo­gram per square meter, which is 18 per cent of the crop, where­as car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion applied without the ordin­ary fer­til­izers brings an aver­age increase of 40 per cent. This is the exper­i­ence in fields, where res­ults are less favor­able than under cover. If a field gets both car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion and ordin­ary fer­til­iz­a­tion the aver­age increase of crop is 82 per cent.

Riedel, Borne­mann and Fisc­her draw from this the con­clu­sion, valu­able for all farm­ers, that fer­til­iz­a­tion with nitrates is usu­ally over­done, and that part of the heavy cost is need­lessly incurred. The full quant­ity of nitrates usu­ally used could be taken advant­age of by crops; but in prac­tice it is not taken advant­age of, because the sup­ply of car­bon is rel­at­ively too small. The dis­sat­is­fied farmer, however, often adds more nitrates at a time when he should be resort­ing to car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion, and so help­ing his crops to the more act­ive assim­il­a­tion which would enable them to use an abund­ant nitrates sup­ply.

At first sight this the­ory is of no interest to the ordin­ary farmer, who is not yet in a pos­i­tion to sup­ply extra car­bon by arti­fi­cial means. But the three pion­eers of the the­ory declare that it has a prac­tic­al imme­di­ate mean­ing, because car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion to a lim­ited extent is with­in the reach of every farm­er in pos­ses­sion of a har­row or a spade. This lim­ited car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion is achieved simply by insur­ing that the soil is well sup­plied with organ­ic mat­ter, and by keep­ing the sur­face looser than is at present the rule.

The secret of nat­ur­al car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion is merely the keep­ing of a con­tinu­ally loose sur­face and the pre­ven­tion of incrust­a­tion. Back­ward farm­ers believe vaguely that by this means they air the land, and less back­ward farm­ers ima­gine that they let oxy­gen in. The real profit from a loose and por­ous sur­face soil is that it lets the under-sur­face car­bon­ic-acid gas rise freely towards the leaves. Borne­mann proves from exper­i­ments last­ing sev­enty-eight hours that the CO2 emit­ted by a con­tinu­ally broken sur­face is three times as great as from an incrus­ted sur­face. The increase of crops by pois­on gas, it fol­lows, is no vis­ion of remote sci­entif­ic magic; it is an aim attain­able by every prac­tic­al farm­er at very little cost.

Car­bon fer­til­iz­a­tion by arti­fi­cial means on a great scale is anoth­er mat­ter. All the three exper­i­menters are optim­istic; but they take dif­fer­ent views as to times and prac­tic­ab­il­it­ies. For the present only small oper­a­tions are com­mer­cially prac­tic­able, says Borne­mann. Berry fruits, vines and veget­ables can already be car­bon fer­til­ized with fin­an­cial suc­cess. Fisc­her goes fur­ther. The waste gases of industry, he pre­dicts, will soon be set stream­ing through young forest plant­a­tions. Riedel has no doubt that even under present con­di­tions grain crops can be car­bon­ized with profit. For that, he admits, the car­bon­ic-acid gas of com­merce is too dear. Of the future he says: “Just as cer­tain as we have to—day spe­cial plants for pro­du­cing elec­tric power, so we shall some day have CO2 works erec­ted for the fer­til­iz­a­tion of our fields.” Costly and com­plic­ated these works will be; but they will be less costly and com­plic­ated than the equip­ment at present needed for pro­duc­tion of syn­thet­ic air niter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s