HERALD BULLETIN No. 1. CRITICISMS ON THE ’ Agricultural College oS 7a BER KEEN. BY, Ss. M. WOODBRIDGE, PH. D., Los Angeles, Cal. PREFACE, o C ‘\ The agricultural editor of The Herald, in the discharge of duty, afiter consult- ing with competent and judicious ad- visers, felt called upon to complain of the methods of the Agricultural college and its director. We presented the case fair- ly and the advocates of the college had the full benefits’ of our columns. Several considerations now lead us through this Bulletin to ask for a further and larger hearing of what has been said —substantially on both sides of the ques- tion: First—No notice was taken at the col- lege of our strictures, although a letter was sent to the president of the univer- sity calling his attention to'them. This Bulletin will, we trust, enable the pub- lic to decide whether our charges were too trifling to merit notice or were too well grounded to be rebutted. Second—We gave Prof. A. J. Cook of Claremont, who volunteered as cham: pion of the college and its director, an opportunity to answer our averments, or on his honor to pass on their truth or falsity. His virtual retirement from the case leads us to appeal to the public to decide whether the college is doing the work for which it was created and is sustained at an annual cost of $40,000. Prof. Cook had it in his power to stop all criticism by simply showing the falsitv of our averments. Indeed, it was Prof. Cook who first told the writer of the absurd statement con- cerning the woolly aphis contained in Prof. Hilgard’s last report. Third—The character of the defiense of the college appearing in the Berkeleyan and elsewhere has made it our duty to present in this form what we have writ- ten, that it may be decided: whether per- sonal considlerations or great interests, vital to the tillers of the state, are at issue. Almost any one of the indictments contained in the following pages should be enough to retire Prof. Hilgard. His mission, since his advent in the state about twenty years ago, has been a con- spicuous failure. He has had charge of the agricultural college for more than twenty years, and during that time he has not graduated one and one-half stu- dents perannum. Indeed, Prof. Hilgard said before the farmers’ institute, held in August and September last, “There is very little use for agricultural experts in this country, as the soil is fresh and requires but little art in cul- tivation,’ so narrow is his view of the situation. We have looked in vain for graduaies of Prof. Hilgard in our wineries, in our sugar factories, in our great meat pack- ing houses, in cur canneries and fruit- preserving establishments, in our fertil- izer manufactories, and among our hor- ticuitural commissioners. If one or two, by chance, may appear in some of these concerns, their records have been so in- conspicuous that they are like the needle hn the haystack—hard to find. We have looked in vain for a single crop that Prof. Hilgard has shown the ranchers how to improve, either in quantity or quality, although we have found many who have asked his advice, some of whom say that they have re- ceived no benefit from following it, and others that they were positively dam- aged by following it. Prof. Hilgard has done positively noth- ing of any benefit in showing the rancn- ers how the waste products of the ranch could be utilized and turned into by- products. Prof. Hilgard’s entomological depart- ment is a disgrace alike to himself, the university and the state. His last report states that there is no male to the black seale, for instance. When it comes to making a simple statement of facts, Prof. Hilgard seems to be incapable of so doing, which is the first requisite of aman making any claims to be scientific. For example, in the July (1895) number of the Califor- nia Cultivator, he said: “All my recom- mendations so made (meaning on soil analysis) have been followed by culture tests, but usually on a larger scale than Dr. Woodbridge’s, but the results have net been paraded in the papers.’ In August, 1895, the writer called on the professor to state whereabouts these tests had been made, but the professor failed to answer. We know that he had not carried on any such tests on the Chapman ranch, on the Crank ranch, on the Brigdon ranch and on many other ranches where he had given advice. There are many other like cases with- in the following pages, which show Prof Hilgard to be utterly devoid of the first requisite of a man of science. He shouid be retired in the interests of the ranch- ers, the students and the honor of the state. ’ acgennee iwvw wr he EF REPORT OF AGRICULTURAL EX- PERIMENT STATIONS. We are in receipt of the Report of Work of the Agricultural Experiment Stations of the University of California for the years 1894-95. The report claims to embrace the work of the station laboratory only up to July, 1895, and the culture reports of the several sub-sta- tions up to the close of the season of 95; whatever that may mean. The report is very voluminous, containing nearly 500 pages. And while there are some pages of value in it there are many max- ters in it that are treated in the most superficial and unscientific manner, and altogether unworthy to emanate _from so high a source as the University of California. To illustrate, the report says: “The confusion of nomenclature which we found existing at Santa Monica, when the station was transferred to us, is be- ing gradually rectified, especially as re- gards the eucalyptus, by comparison with standard collections, but takes time and the service of experts. In this and all other work the limited financial re- sources interpose serious’ obstacles, which have sometimes been taken ad- vantage of for unjust criticism.” Ex- cuses, with some people are like motions to adjourn—always in order. The For- estry Station at Santa Monica has been under the charge of the director more than twenty-four months. How many months does he want and how much money does he require to correctly spell the names on the signs and to rightly place them on proper eucalyptus trees at the Santa Monica station? OUR AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE. If there ever was any doubt about the inability and incompetency of Prof. E. W. Hilgard to occupy the high position of director of our agricultural experi- ment station and chief officer of our agricultural college, the professor him- self has furnished the proof, in the pro- duction of his voluminous report just published, entitled, ‘“Report of the Work of the Agricultural Experiment Station for 1894-95.’’ In the first place, there is little or nothing new in the work; scarcely any- thing that is not more than one year old, and that has not been published previ- ously. He says in his introduction or letter of transmittal, that the college has been attended by the usual number of stu- dents, but he fails to state that the usual number graduated annually is less than one and one-half students, and that he has been in charge of the college some twenty years and that he has made his course of instruction so unpopular and so uninstructive that our youth, in this greatest of all agricultural states, are not attracted to him, his methods cf thoughts or his college There is the usual complaint about lack of funds, but little is said about the $40,000 per annum that it costs to graduate less than one and one-half students. Here is a list of the professors, in- ctructors and officers that it takes to graduate them, together with their sal- aries: Prot, Ghileardicesocstdiak see ee $ 4,000 Associate Prof. Wickson .............. 2,400 Associate Prof. Loughridge ........,. 2,000 Associate Prof. Woodworth .......... 1,800 INStrUCtoOn Jiaila ccs) voccent, Cee ee 1,750 Dustriuctor. Colby. ccs cn oe a ods nooo 1,500 Assistants Flay nie’ oi ieecuce wh oct hoe htc 1,500 Inspector of Stations Shinn .......... 1,80) Garderner Kellner 3..sscues ance ote aen 900 MOReEMan TYSON; sc. Mea ss a v saree ast caeable 900 HMoremam: ELANSEN vescse.tclnccnonetocoss 900 MOreman HOLT? cu. cerca. cutdestane 900 Foreman MaIS® Ao acch eck cnaeck hae 900 MOreman istVaChan - cost to both the manufacturer and the consumer, it is evidantly the only rea- sonable way in “hich. this valuable by- product can be made fully available for agricultural use.” Could idiotic asinity go further? After asserting that phosphodic acid. was the first thing needful, to say that a grower cannot afford ‘to pay for the phosphates in bone—the very substanee he does need, but that he can afford to pay for the nitrogen, an element which he does not need at first. In regard to the form of phosphoric acid, the learned professor is as far off as he was when he said that beets could not be raised on alkali lands at Chino. We would respectfully refer him to the latest Massachusetts bulletin oa the value of phosphates in bonemeal, or if he will come down to Southern Cali- fornia we will show him where phos- phates from bonemeal and superphos- phates have been used side by side and see if he can tell which is which. The fact is, that phosphates for quick growing crops, that is, crops that ma- ture in from three to six months, should be fed on superphosphates or bone made insist that the fertilizer into floats, at a cost of from eight to eight and a half cents per pound for phosphoric acid; whereas crops that are growing every day in the year, like cit- rus fruits, do exactly as well on a medi- um bonemeal at a cost of five to five and one-half cents per pound for the phos- phorie acid. These are facts that Prof. Hilgard should have discovered for the people, instead of having the peopie teach him. Is Prof. Hilgard paid for learning or teaching? The report goes on to say: “In conclusion, I cannot but reiterate my recommendation to farmers to adapt their mode and methods of fertilization to the special requirements of their crops and lands by the use of the sepa- rate ingredients of commercial fertiliz- ers, rather than by the purchase cf ready-made mixtures indiscriminately recommended by manufacturers. To do so will involve the use of brain work in the study of the principles of fertiliza- tion, but is certain to result in a material saving of outlay for the purchase of un- necessary ingredients; even more than Europe or in the east, where the lands have been subjected to all-around de- pletion by centuries of culture. In our fresh, or relatively fresh, landsa surplus of one or more ingredients over those ex - isting in the smallest amount, may al- most always be expected; and to in- crease the surplus by further addition of the same ingredients is sheer waste. Sound economy requires that only what is needful should be used; but those in doubt, and having a surplus of this world’s good, and an indisposition to use their brains, may, of course, continue in the beaten track.’’ Here is a= gratuitous insinuation against both the manufacturers of fert:l- izers and the successful ranchers; that the manufacturer is trying to sell the rancher something that he does not need, and that the rancher is a fool with his money soon parted. If Prof. Hilgard had one particle of common sense, he would Know that the interests of the manufacturer of fertilizer and the rancher cannot be segregated, but are identical, and that upon the success of the rancher depends the success of the fertilizer manufacturer. If Prof. Hilgard would pay some little attention to what is going on at home, manufactur- ers or dealers deliver the quality of goods that they pretend to deliver, or, in other words, come down to a practical basis, have a law passed regulating the manufacture and sale of fertilizers, show people how they can grow better crops, how to keep down scale and other nests, stop sending around a press fixer to bolster up his tottering and worth. less record, instead of wasting his time over the soils of Montana, Washington, the east. Germany and the Hawaiian islands, ete.. we might get some results that might help the struggling ranchers of our state. THE STATUS OF SOIL ANALYSIS By M. L. Wade, B. E. Having taken a great interest in what has been written in The Herald on the subject of agriculture, and especially soil analysis, I willingly comply with The Herald’s request to write an arti- cle on the above-mentioned subject. It is not my intention to contend that an application of nitrogen will make the skin of an orange or lemon puffy, or that phosphoric acid will give out under the continuous exhaustion st any one crop before nitrogen; neither do I contend that irrigation waters will or will not, when laden with solubte potash, furnish all of that ingredient necessary for a growing crop. While all of this discussion has been going on as to whether a soil analysis will furnish all necessary data to guide the agriculturist in the proper applica- tion of fertilizers to the soil, the idea was suggested that it would be well to investigate the present status of soil analysis, and to see even if we were. with the correct results before us, en- abled thereby to give a correct diagno- sis of the condition of the soil and io make a proper application of the reme- dy decided necessary; whether the ac- curacy in the analytical operations in the laboratory were developed _ suffi- ciently to guarantee reasonably reliable results and in the space of time that would make it worth while to put the soil to that sort of a test. While I have for a number of years made a study of this special subject, as far as pertains to the laboratory work, in the analysis of soils, and after a thor- ough investigation of all important au- thorities on the subject, Iam compelled to say that there is really no standard method of analysis that will meet the requirements of accuracy, dispatch and economy. In this brief article it would be impos- sible to.cite all of the authorities, so T will bring forward the leading ones of this country, whose statements will not be doubted by any one. T refer to the works of the Association of Official Azg- ricultural Chemists and to the latest work of Prof. H. W. Wiley of the agri- eultural department at Washington, D. Cc The first investigation of the associa- tion were commenced within the past very few years. This association began by first investigating all the different methods of soil analysis. with a view of selecting the most reliable, in order to earry on a scientific investigation and at the same time improve the methods of vrocedure. The revort of the association in Bul- letin 31 of the United States department of agriculture. 1891. shows that its tim= was consumed in fixing the size of the hole in the sieve to be used in soil annl- ysis. This was the beginning of th» IS practical investigations. This report is about as important as the size of the hole in the sieve recommended, which is the one-sixth hundredth and twenty- fifth part of a square inch. In the report for 1892, Bulletin 35, the reporter says in regard to the method adopted by the association, since so few of the members had reported on the samples sent out the previous year, that he “felt, therefore, some hesitancy in recommending changes on adopted methods, even when the necessity cf such changes was convincing to his own mind.” Here are a few of the results of the most important determinations, page 95: rj || aa ee S imal = awl = oe ay me +} OQ S fa) : Ot pegs ere Glas | | = 24 eh foe ee | | i mites Peter (Kentucky)...| 1.10 | .14 | .057 .23 De Roode (W. Va)..| 1.10 | .-- | .056 23 ilson, ~ (Texas) ccc | .81 389} staae 22 Adrinan (Texas..... | .88 34. | saa [lesb (AT... 1.19 | 21 | ae | =.85 colmekved: A study of this table shows that the different chemists varied in their analy - sis of potash 47 per cent, in phosphoric acid 392 per cent, and in soda there isa difference of 515 per cent. Only two determinations of nitrogen were made, and the results were very close. On the same page, in another set of analyses by the same chemists, there is a difference of over 100 per cent in ni- trogen, soda and sulphuric acid. In bulletin No. 38, Jnited States de- partment of agriculture, Prof. Hilgard says: “In taking soil specimens for ex- amination, the following directions should be carefully observed, always bearing in mind that the analysis of a soil is a long and tedious operation whicn cannot be indefinitely repeated.” In bulletin No. 43, United States de- partment of agriculture, pages to 41, there are numerous tables show- ing comparative results of analyses of the same sample of soils by different methods. The difference in per cent of average from the highest or lowest in one of the tables, and it is only a sam- ple of them all, is as follows: Insoluble matter, 3.1 per cent; potash, 98 per cent; phosphoric acid, 59 per cent; nitrogen, 10 per cent. I might continue all night giving such discrepancies, but deem it advisable to leave it to the reader to pursue the in- vestigation for himself, so will conclude by quoting the comments of the official reporter and other members of the asso- ciation on the methods used. In speak- ing of the methods for determining mois - ra) ow eS ture, page 42, the report says: “The Hilgard method of drying in a tube at 200 degrees C. was the worst of all. The method for carbon and silica was not found satisfactory. Dr. de Roode does not like the Goss method for phosphori:> acid in soils, and thinks small quantities of phosphoric acid are not completely precipitated.” * * * “In the Hilgard method for phosphoric acid it was im- possible to dissolve the ignited soil by two days’ digestion in nitric acid. * * %& ‘This accounts for the low resulis reported.” ; On page 45 the report says: “The re- sults of the soil analyses show wide and discouraging differences between the findings of different chemists. The only determinations in which a fair agreement has been obtained are those of the total insoluble matter, the am- monia precipitate and the _ nitrogen. * * * These discrepancies occur even in those determinations in which a gooa concordance was naturally to be ex- pected. “An inspection of the table of averages will show that the range of variation, while much too great in both methods, is distinctly greater in the Hilgard than in the provisional method, notwith- standing the fact that we are considering more reports by the latter method than by the former. Lack of familiarity with the Hilgard method can hardly be the cause of this, as some of the largest va- riations are found in the reports of those who should be most familiar with the method.”’ On page 50 the report says: ‘‘The very startling variations and _ the amounts of phosphoric acid reported by different chemists are in the nature of a surprise. It is hardly to be supposed that they are due to differences in the digestion, as it is to be supposed that the soil solutions obtained by different observers were fairly uniform in their content of phosphoric acid; the discren- ancies must be due to defects in the method of determination. * * * t- tention is here called to the urgent need of working out methods for determining the availability of plant food in the soil. “The methods for what may be called the total resources of a soil need per- fecting, but we need, also, methods by which results corresponding to the known results of field experiments may be ob- tained. * * * ‘It is very evident to all who have done work in soil analysis that our pres- ent methods, and especially the older ‘ones, consume entirely too much time for practical purposes, and unless they can be very materially shortened, soil analysis must remain of minor import- ance.” It was my intention to quote many other such statements from the agri- cultural reports, but the limited time and space at my disposal hurry me on to Prof. Wiley’s comments on the same 19 subject. He says, on page 65 of his, Principles and Practice of Agricultural Analysis: “The physical and chemical analyses of soils are long and tedious processes, and are entirely too costly to be applied to samples which repre- sent nothing but themselves.”’ Here is evidence sufficient to con- vinee any candid mind that soil analy- sis is still in the first stages of develop- ment, and lacks all the qualifications necessary to make it a reliable criterion in determining the proper treatment to get the best results from any crop. The pioneers in this work are yet groping in the dark, and I have not been informed from the report of the association for 1895 that the dawn is approaching. SOME MISTAKES OF PROF. HIL- GARD. At the Riverside Farmers’ institute Prof. Hilgard made a grave mistake for a scientific man, when he represented from the analysis of the oranges there displayed that No. 1 was grown upon land with no fertilizer, and No. 2 grown with potash, when, in fact, No. 1 sample was grown with nitrates and phosphates and No. 2 sample was grown with ni- trates, phosphates and potash. He also made a mistake when he wrote his letter of April 25, 1895, to Mr. Palmer, in which he said: “Three days ago there was delivered at my house, with the inscription ‘House’ on the outside, a box of oranges,” ete. These oranges were not shipped from Pomona until the af- ternoon of the 22d, consequently could not have left Los Angeles until the 8 p. m. train, and could not have arrived at Berkeley until the 24th. When Prof. Hilgard undertook to criticise the analy- sis cf a similar box of oranges by say- ing that the total sugars more than equaled the total solids in the juice, he made a great mistake, forming an opin- ion before ‘he had all his facts. By a parity of reasoning, it is only reasonable to suppose that he got the second lot of oranges mixed, as he shows that wherever fertilizers were applied positive damage was done to the fruit by such application. If his house servant had gotten ‘the first samples ‘‘in- explicably mixed up,’ might not he, un- der the showing by his analysis, his office clerk or laboratory cat have gotten the second lot mixed? Certainly, no one who has given the matter of feeding crops any attention would believe for one moment that com- plete fertilizers, in reasonable quanti- ties, could possibly damage the orange. When Prof. Hilgard thinks he is entitled to an opinion independently of all other agricultural chemists in the world in regard to the matter of finding out the needs of a crop, and when his opinions are not backed up by field experiments or any other scientific tests, or, if they are, he neglects or refuses to print nis results and give them to the public, is dat it not reasonable to think that he is mis- taken in this? Bulletin No. 36 of the Oregon station, published April, 1895, has this to say: “‘In the first place, let it be remembered that the value of a mere chemical analysis of a soilis at most doubtful. An analysis of a soil reveals what and how much of a given ingredient is present in the sou, but it does not show how much of tha plant food is available. There is, how- ever, more or less value attached to so- called virgin soils, and an accumulated number of analyses of this class of soils gives very valuable data upon which to base a judgment of probable success or failure.”’ “Tn all cases chemical analysis shou'd be followed by careful field tests, and jn this way any one may become familiar with the individual needs of his soil.” The professor always puts a great deal of stress upon the fact that he is the only and original investigator of virgin and arid soils, with thirty-five years’ ex- perience. The explanation of this soli- trary and unique posiltion of our direct- or is that he is probably the only man who would desire to waste the public funds and his own time in such almost worthless pursuit. PROF. HILGARD AS DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE. Prof, Hilgard has told the people of California again and again that ie could advise them as to the needs of their crops in the matter of fertilization from an analysis of their soils. A special sponsor of Prof. Hilgard from Berkeley, Mr. Victor H. Henderson, in a letter to the Times of last Sunday, has, in praising up the college of agri- culture and defending Prof. Hilgard, this to say: “Any farmer who finds that his crops will not grow well and wants to know what the soils needs _ to make it fertile, can send samples of it to the University of California, agricul- tural department. It will be analyzed, and he will be told just what to do to correct the deficiencies in its chemical composition.” We find an advertisement in one of our country exchanges of alate stu- dent of Prof. Hilgard, recently from Berkeley, which reads: “If you are In doubt as to what kind of fertilizers to use, or how much to apply, it will pay you to have your soil analyzed.” Prof. Hilgard said before the last farmers’ institute: ‘‘We cannot carry on culture experimentation at the sta- tions on virgin soils.’”’ These stations are. however, several years old. Thus doth Prof. Hilgard preach and teach at home before audiences not posted on these matters and upon whom he wishes to make the impression that he is the great, “first and only investi- gator of virgin and arid soils.” But how he changes his character when he goes abroad and talks to an au- 20 dience capable of weighing what he says. At the meeting of the American Asso- ciation of Agricultural Colleges anu Experiment Stations, held at Denver. August, 1895, in summing up his paper on Late Progress in Soil Examination, he said: “T think, therefore, that I am justified in indulging the hope that we are on the trail of a method for the definite as- certainment of the condition of a soil as to available (non-nitric) nitrogen, which, with the method of Dyer for the corresponding determinations with re- spect to potash and phosphoric acid, when all are perfected, would effectu- ally sclve the problem of the manure requirements of cultivated soils that has so long resisted the efforts of chem. ists. * * * In all cases the pot or field test will have the last word.’’ These expression are hidden away amid 500 pages of his last voluminous verbiage pile. Could a man wade deeper in the field of doubt? ‘“T think, therefore, I am jus- tified in indulginig in the hope that we are on the trail * * * of a method whieh when all are perfected,” ete. Why, a man could not get to heaven by the broad gate of the Salvation army who had not more ‘faith’? than Prof. Hilgard ex- pressed when he produced the above par- agraph. By the way, what is Prof. Hilgard’s definition of a virgin soil? Generally virginity is supposed to have ceased before the subject becomes pro- lific, but Prof. E. W. Hilgard seems to consider a soil ‘‘virgin’”? until such time as it has ceased to be prolific. A MALICIOUS ATTACK. The State Agricultural Department ts Scored. The people who see and appreciate the work of the University of California ag- gricultural department is doing were sur- prised and disgusted by a half-column editorial which appeared last Sunday in The los Angeles Herald. The article in question accused the staff of the ag- egricultural department of being inefii- cient and petty politicians, and charac- terized the agricultural college as 2 waste of the hard earned-money of the taxpayers of California. _ An explanation of the attack is: sim- ple. A Los Angeles man named Wood- bridge, the inventor of a fertilizer, asked Prof. Hilgard for a recommendation of his invention. Prof. Hilgard examined the fertilizer and refused to recommend it. Ever since Mr. Woodbridge has lost no opportunity to injure the agricultural department. One Abbot Kinney, anoth- er Los Angeles man, was formerly a state forestry commisisoner. When the com- misison was abolished, because of its inefficiency and corruptness, its duties were given to thé University of Califor- nia agricultural department. ‘rhis arousea Mr. Kinney’s wratn. He 15 part owner of The Herald, and he and Woodbridge have inspired this policy of attacking the U. C. agricultural de- partment on every possible opportun- ity. Such attacks merely disgust those people who really know something about the institution, but it is calculat- ed to harm the university’s interests by leading people who have not come in contact with its work to form false ini- pressions. It is unfortunate that per- sonal spite should go to such extremes. —Berkeleyan. The answers of the people who are trying to discredit the charges of in- competency against Prof. Hilgard and the inefficiency of his agricultural col- lege are of two kinds. First, laudation of the professor and the college, and, sec- ond, abuse of those who are engaged in showing up the comparative worthless- ness of the pruressor and his college. Prof. Hilgard has many times tried to make it a personal fight, but the editor cf The Herald does not intend to be caugnt in any such battle, however much Hil- gard may desire it. Our criticisms have been entirely upon the incompetency of the director of our agricultural col- . lege and some members of his staff. The above article is published for the purpose of showing the second kind of “defense” Prof. Hilgard is setting up, either directly or indirectly. The “explanation” is pure fabrication, and the writer of this article is ‘‘the man named Woodbridge,” and he mak#s this statement because the above fab- rication must have come either directly from the editor of the Berkeleyan ur Prof. Hilgard, for who could know that Woodbridge had ever asked Prof. Hii- gard for a recommendation for a fer- tilizer but Prof. Hilgard himself? This “man Woodbridge” denies that he ever invented a fertilizer or that he ever asked Prof. Hilgard to recommend his (Woodbridge’s) alleged invention or any other fertilizer of which he is the manufacturer, and calls upon the editor of the Berkeleyan to retract’ the charge or produce the proof of his as- sertion. Indeed, there was no reason why tke “man Woodbridge” should have asked Prof. Hilgard to recommend his brani of fertilizer, for the professor had been doing it unsolicited, as the following lei- ter will show. The letter has been in our possession since the time Messrs. Col- lins Bros. received it: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURh, BERKELEY, Jan. 8, 1895.—Messrs. Col- lins Bros., San Dimas, Cal.—Dear Sirs: The samples of soil accompanying yours of December 27th have been received and examined, so far as can be done at short notice; a full examination would take more time than you would wish to wait. The examination reveals no prominent deficiency in your No. 1, of which No, 2 is evidently only a modification. Yet there seems to be a deficiency in vege- ° table mold, notwithstanding the color of the soil is rather dark. It isa pity that stable or sheep corral manure is not available to you, as I think that would be the best thing for so sandy a soil. It may be that a more complete exam- ination of the soil, which we will make hereafter, will give a more decided in- dication; for the present, I think you had best use a “complete” fertilizer, like ‘“‘Woodbridge’s No. 2” orange fer- tilizer, together with some gypsum, which will help the land every way. Plowing in a green crop, say of crimson or burr clover, would be the next best thing, but should have been started be- fore this time in your climate. Better look out for that another year. The samples sent are not large enough for a full examination; a quart is as lit- tle as we ought to have. Your No. 1 only will need to be examined; take that to the depth of twelve inches, and te! me about the depth of the soil and sub- soil to gravel or hardpan, or whatever lies underneath. Yours very truly, E. W. HILGARD. Many, no doubt, who read this letter and have followed out our criticisms will think that “the man W oodbridge”’ is a fool to criticise Prof. Hilgard when he was recommending his (Wood- bridge’s) fertilizer; but between the making the little money that we might have made by keeping in with Prof. Hilgard on one side, and exposing the utter incompetency of the management of our agricultural college, there js but one path to follow, and that is the ae duty—to fight the wrong as we see it. HOW WORK GOES AT “COW COLLEGE” A Stimulus Toward Good Sense in Agri- culture—How People Ask Questions. Wine-making—Olive Culture. BERKELEY, Oct. 15.—(Special corre- spondence of the Times.)—To understand the work that is going on here, one has to remember that the University of Cali- fornia is a real university; that is, a number of individual colleges, all in- timately bound together and under the same general direction, but each with its own faculty and its own particular aims. One of the very oldest of all the de- partments is the college of agriculture, and its work, quietly and unostenta- tiously accomplished, is scarcely appre- Sa so little is it known by most peo- ple. “Cow college,” as the students irreyv- erently call it, has for the center of its activities a wooden building near the southern edge of the university’ grounds, on the banks of Strawberry creek. Here are the offices of the director and the various professors, the reading room, the class rooms, etc. But this wooden building is only a part of the equipment of the agricultur- al department. Its work is carried con from one end of the state to the other by means of ‘the experiment stations, outposts, where investigations are Cav- ried on as to problems of soil, fertiliz- ers, plant life, olive culture, forestry, wine-making, etc. People often think of the agricultural department as being an outgrowth ot the other side of the university—the cul- ture colleges. But it is just the other way around. The first state institution was a college of agriculture and me- chanics, and the other departments budded out from that. This Califor- nia agricultural college was the first one in ‘the United States, and it stands today at the head of all others in Amer- ica. Now, I want to tell you something about Prof. E. W. Hilgard, the man who has made the agricultural department, and is its life and soul. He is smail, slight and wiry. His hair is gray, anl his keen eyes look at one ‘through spec- tacles. He is a German by birth, ana though most of his life has been passed in America, he still talks with a German accent. In his own line, agricultural chemistry, he has no superior. Once every ten years a gold medal, commem- orative of Liebig, the great German chemist, is awarded to 'the man held to be the greatest chemist living, the man who is doing the most valuable scientific work in that line. Prof. Hilgard is the possessor of one of these medals. Some of his most famous work has been in the line of soil analysis, the study of the reclamation of alkali lands in especial. Not long ago amancameall the way from Hamburg, Germany, to study the question of alkali lands under Prof. Hilgard’s direction. Any farmer who finds that his crops will not grow well and wants to know what the soil needs to make it fertile, can send sam- ples of it to the University of California agricultural department. It will be an- alyzed and he will be told just what to Jo to correct deficiencies in its chemical composition. One fruit raiser, whose ranch is in Cen- tral California, wrote to Prof. Hilgard that his trees all seemed to be stunted and wretched. Prof. Hilgard happened to know that section of the country thor- oughly. He wrote back to dig down six feet and see what he could find. The farmer dug down two feet and struck rock. The man from whom he had bought ‘the place had blasted’ out holes in which to plant his trees. That was a case where advice as to fertilizers couldn’t save the trees. Some farmers are absurdedly unreasonable. They will 22 write for information as to what kind of fertilizer to use, sending no samples of soil and no description ‘thereof, and then grow angry and call the agricul- tural scientists ninnies because they can’t tell offhand, like a medium. The number of regularly enrolled students in ‘Cow college” is not large. But there are a great many people tak- ing particular lines of work ‘there, men who enroll in the colleges of chemistry, or of natural sciences, but spend most of their time in agricultural studies. There are courses in agricultural chem- stry, in sugar beets and sugar manu- facture, in viticulture, in wine-making, in economic entomology and other allied topics, and anybody who wants some special line of work will be gladly ad- vised and helped. But. after all, the sole object is not .o instruct students. Perhaps the most important phase of the work is the orig- inal investigation that goes on. In all the other departments of the university the professors have summer vacations. In the agricultural college they never have more than two weeks, and this year they have had no vacation whatever, but worked right straignt along all summer. Their object is to furnish information on every topic any farmer wants to ba adivised about. If the subject is obscure and ‘the questions have never been solved, they go ahead and’ work them out. Bulletins are printed from time to time on the work accomplished, and these are sent to whoever wishes them. During the last year Prof. Hilgard has answered some 1200 letters of in- quiry. These letters were not answered by printed matter, but by individual, specially written replies. The agricul- tural department, as a whole, wrote be- tween 5000 and 6000 of these letters of information. The farmers send for all sorts of in- formation. They ask how to pickle olives, how to destroy army worms, how io dry figs, how to reclaim, alkali lands, how to grow oranges on cactus plants, and a thousand different things. Every question is answered as fully and as promptly as possible. Besides these letters, a great deal of prinited matter is bein'g constantly sent out. Berkeley is the only place in the United States where there are facilities for studying wine-making scientifically. When the old viticultural commission was abolished, the valuable library and apparatus it had accumulated were turned over to the University of Cali- fornia, and its duties added to the work already carried on by the department. A great deal of very valuable work has been done since. Mr. Hayne of the de- partment has recently devised a wine- cooling apparatus for use during fer- mentation, which, it is believed, will save tens of thousands of dollars to the farmers of California every year by lessening the chances of wine spoiling in the making. At present the viticultural staff is experimenting on the use of yeasts in wine-making, another thing which promises to be of great importance to wine-makers. Down in the western part of the uni- versity grounds is an interesting insti- tution, the first experiment station founded in the United States. When Prof. Hilgard came to California twenty years ago, he induced the regents of the university to start an experiment station on the German plan. It was a valuable idea, and Senator Hatch was so im- pressed with the practical results that he introduced the bill which provided for the establishment of jstations in other parts of the country, the weil- known Hatch act. Since then other sta- tions have been founded elsewhere in California, at Paso Robles, at Tulare, near Chino, ete., all directed by Prof. Hilgard, and all used as places for car- rying on the work of the department. Here new varieties of fruits, vegetables and economic plants are domesticated, experiments in pruning, fertilizing, ir- rigation, ete., carried on, determinations made of the kinds of crops suited for particular soils, ete. The aim is not to raise anything in quantity, but merely enough for experimental purposes. Tie results of these investigations form part of the agricultural bulletins. There are also two forestry stations, one at Chino and one at Santa Monica. They are the only ones in the United States. An interesting part of the work of the college of agriculture is the farmers’ institute movement. The farmers of a section of country meet together and listen to addresses on agricultural topics by professors sent from Berkeley, andi then discuss their own experiences and observations. A great deal of useful knowledge is thus disseminated. The farmers’ institutes have sometimes re- sulted in theformation of permanent farmers’ clubs. It seems to me this is a good oppov- tunity to correct a widespread misappre- hension. Some of those people who are opposed to the University of California agricultural department, from various motives, generally of personal enmity, talk about the impropriety and folly of the taxpayers of California supporting the expensive and useless agricultura: college. The truth is that only about one-tenth of the revenues of the agri- cultural department comes from tne state treasury. All the rest of the ex- penses are borne by the national gov- ernment. Such an institution is neces- sarily costly, but from the knowledge it spreads, from the stimulus it is to in- telligence in farming, its value is in- caiculable.—Victor H. Henderson in the Times. a 0 REPLY. We wish to give the advocates of the agricultural college the full benefit of all they can allege in its behalf, ana therefore we print in full the letter of Mr. Henderson. The cause of dissatis- faction with the work of the college as they have been presented in The Herald are not even touched upon by Prof. Hi!- gard, and in his attempted vindication before the farmers’ institutes or in the rehash of the same served up in the above letter. The practical question 1s what has the college done with its large resources to help the agricultural in- terests of Southern California? We have given replies from numerous ranchmen and we prove superfluously that no help has been given and none can be given to our crops along the lines followed at the college. The claim of Mr. Henderson that because nine-tenths of the money spent at the college comes from the United States, and therefore ought not to be taken in account in esti- mating the benefit which the state re- ceives, is too absurd to need answer. Indeed, this whole epistle, viewed as 1 answer to our strictures, only reminds us of the old saying, as we try to review its statements of the case, that it is very hard to kick at nothing. Will Mr. Henderson point out wherein the college has accomplished anything to rid our orchards of our infernal insect pests? Will he point out a single crop which Prof. Hilgard can show that h2 has improved in quality or quantity. were and how and to what extent this has been accomplished? If Mr. Henderson would, instead of taking his inspiration from the men at Berkeley, get out among the ranchers and make some inquiries, he might learn the true state of affairs. If he had been present on Wednesday at a controversy held with Mr. E. <. Bichowsky of San Gabriel, Mr. Hender- son would have learned something. Question: What good has the agricul- tural college been to you as a wine maker? Answer: If you will ask me what damage it has done I can readily answer you. Question: What damage has it done” Answer: Prof. Hilgard was the di- rect cause of the spread ,of phylloxera by planting, for experimental purposes, infected vines. Mr. Bichowsky is the manager of the great winery and property known as “Sunny Slope.’’ He was, also, president of the viticultural commission. Mr. Winston of San Gabriel was seen and interviewed. Question: How long have you been in the orange business? Answer: Twenty-seven years. Question: Has the agricultural col- lege ever been of any benefit in showing you how ‘to grow oranges or improving the quality or quantity of them? Answer: No, sir. But why pursue the matter further? It is very evident that Mr. Henderson is not a rancher and entirely misunder- stands the exceptions that are taken to the management and methods of the agricultural college. THE BERKELEHYAN’S ATTACK. Such untruthful, cowardly statements as appear in the clipping from the Berke- leyan, published below, in answer toa the charges of incompetency that have appeared in The Herald against Prof. Hilgard and some members of his st:tf are characteristic of the man, but wholly unworthy to emanate from a university that should be a teacher of morals as well as of science, but the agricultural department seems to be woefully de- ficient in both: “An explanation of the attack is sim- ple. A Los Angeles man named Wooi- bridge, the inventor of a fertilizer, asked Prof. Hilgard for a recommenda- ‘tion of his invention. Prof. Hilgard ex- amined the fertilizer and refused to ree- ommend it. Ever since Mr. Woodbridge has lost no opportunity to injure the agricultural department. One Abbot Kinney, another Los Angeles man, was formerly a state forestry commissioner. When the commisison was abolished because of its inefficiency and corrupt- ness, its duties were given to the Uni- versity of California agricultural depart- ment. This aroused Mr. Kinney’s wrath. He is part owner of The Herald, and he and Woodbridge have inspired this pol- icy of attacking the University of Caii- fornia agricultural department on every possible occasion.’’—Berkeleyan. It will be observed that “Prof. Hilgard examined the fertilizer and refused to recommend it.’’ Having prevoiusly de- nied in toto ‘“‘the explanation,’’ we call at- tention to the cowardly way in which the matter is put. The writer of the ar- ticle did not dare to say that the fertil- izer was “found wanting,’’ and that therefore Hilgard refused to recom- mend it, but leaves the reader ‘“‘to infer” that such was the case. Likewise in regard to the statement as to forestry, the article leads people ‘‘to infer’ that Mr. Kinney was a member of the forestry commisison when it was abolished. 'The facts in the case are as follows: Mr. Kinney was a member of the for- estry commission until 1888, when his term expired. During his three years’ connéction with the commission he estab- lished five stations and two others prom- ised, among them the Santa Monica station, on which he planted the inter- esting trees that are now sought to he studied there. When Mr. Kinney re- tired from the commission he turned over to his successors over $100,000 worth of property. The commission then went into the hands of politicians and little was done in the interest of forestry. This political commission was not abol- ished until 1893, when its property, in- cluding the five forestry stations, was turned over to Hilgard as head of the agricultural department. There seem to be only two stations left. What has Hilgard done with the other three sta- tions? If these facts were not known to tha editors of the Berkeleyan, they certain- ly were to Prof. Hilgard or his press fixer, who furnished the statements to the editors of the Berkeleyan. We understand -that the Berekeleyan is published and edited by the students cf the University of California. If sucn is the case ,the regents ought to take this matter up and investigate it, and discharge from their employment the person or persons who have been giv- ing these young editors their first lesson (we hope itis the first) in misrepresenta- tion. PROF. HILGARD BEHIND THE AGE Some time ago we gave an account of the experiment station at Southern Pines, North Carolina, which is proba- bly one of the largest experimental sta- tions, if not the largest station, in the the United States. The grounds of this station cover some thousands of acres, and are under the management of the state board of horticulture, the state agricultural experiment station and the German kali works. In a little work published by the lat- ter concern called Principles of Profita- ble Farming, some account of the sta- tion is given, a part of which we repro- duce and place in the deadly parallel column with what Prof. E. W. Hilgard said before the last farmers’ institutes held in Southern California. “The soil when the! ‘‘We cannot carry experimental farmlon fertilizer experi- was established was!mentation at the sta- in a virgin condition.|tions on virgin soils.’’ This was one great|—EK. W. Hilgard’s lec- advantage, for the!ture before Farmers’ effect of fertilizers to] Institutes, Septem- be used in the experi-|ber, 1896. ments will not be in-! fluenced by the] growth of previous erops or by elements! of plant food suppli-! ed by previous ma-l nuring.”’ | If Prof. Hilgard had been doing the kind of experimental work that is being done at other agricultural experiment stations, instead of fooling away his own time and wasting the public funds in worthless soil analyses, no two of which agree, he might have shown the people of the state how to grow crops of larger quantities and better quality. And when he was asked how to grow sweeter oranges with thinner skins, he could have given some definite information in- stead of saying, ‘Don’t ask conun- drums.” Prof. Hilgard has lost his op- portunity and he should be retired. THE HERALD AND THE AGRICUL- TURAL COLLEGE The strictures which The Herald has felt called upon to make upon the meth- ods and plans of the college are spe- cific and radical. At the risk of “‘iter- ation,’’ which Shakespeare qualifies so violently, we wish to present once more our contention in the simplest form. Such a statement will, we think, make clear that the issue is in no sense per- sonal, but has to do with the vast inter- ests of Southern California as a fruit and grain growing region. If the fail- ure of the college to aid our ranchmen calls for a change in the administration of the college, The Herald is respon- sible only for its premises and not for the conclusion which those premises demand. Gold medals from beyond the sea may adorn the wise men at Berkeley, but our farmers need practical help in their crops and in the war they have to wage with the enemies that infest their fields and orchards, and such needed help has not come from director or as- sistants. Thousands upon thousands of dollars have been annually given to the college without any practical ben- efit. The Ontario Observer has hit the nail squarely on the head when it says: “The Herald’s criticisms have been entirely upon the incompetency of the 25 director of the agricultural college and some members of his staff. A perusal of the evidence collected by The Herald regarding the small benefit derived by the farmers of the state from the theo- retical researches of the college staff leads one to suppose that a much better use might be made of the funds appro- priated for agricultural college work if The Herald’s suggestion of the estab- lishment of numerous inexpensive ex- periment stations could be carried out. As already suggested in the Observer, plots of ground in the vicinity of such schools as' Chaffey might be worked under the direction of teachers compe- tent to investigate under the direction of a practical state superintendent ques- tions vital to the interests of the farm- ers and fruit growers of the vicinity of each experimental plot.’’ We are receiving like testimony from various quarters, and we deem it a duty we owe the public to call upon those who control the appointment of the officials of the college to put practical men on duty. An agricultural college is a sham unless it sends forth irrigating streams of useful knowledge to enrich the state through its mani- fold harvests. The Herald proposes to continue to advocate practice vs. theory. The question hinges just at this point. PAGE At Malicious VACtHek. ¢ic.\h ve sats oc diss. deauasbopeestnticvias Sunwise omy Sear hs a eiesgee 20 A Specimen in Entomology ............0:hsiee ss ee Ot Bee 4 AGAW Onderiul Discovery 4 stasis «scien + eects ae arpavic ss ocean ee 5 (GOEMBWOLI ss trees Sacco seers are cles eeeeneieross tetertieei etree sire ter 4 Hanmerss (nStitubesc, sx-..s2 ccve le ciecemeln cue eM He ce) ore ecedaieis siee pete sys tetas 11 How. Work Goes at.**Cow College”... Sagarces.<.4.00.0seeer es ss eeeee 21 MND CON VIC WS ise c/s oie che o's b eperaialeuer cnt, esis sucht. eet Me eke Sie) «eh c.o8) oye snensteee nc) ate clecenees 15 Miz mil avne: sl competences... st ieiec = crercneibethetons vietedeiereccs ervsereereie = ersnkels 9 Our Professional Entymologist and Wasps ........ ere roe piers ore 10 Our ACriciiiirals@ONGOG («2:0 . stan ait crises aaatienin en te alemcnin evens al eee 3 iPreposterous) Protentions., xposed|, ..- sameseemne tes ce ete tes oe ae cee 6 Prote snilgard: as Dr dekyll and. Mr Hyder. yo.cs.- cee ese soe anes aoe oe 20 Protahilgard behind the Ave. 2. a. 2.2... eo nee ase eeeee age sans aces 24 Report of Agricultural Experiment Stations... ..........0..00c0++sseseee 3 Some Mistakes of Prof. Hilgard...... Ie aie oe ier Le ep aR ee 19 Somenocientitic Harmines) of (Prof, Euloagrdiay-cm.. se eee eres rere 14 Thesberkiovans Attack (4). 2..0c .taarnone tiem essai: sen ieme omen 24 Tie Herald and the Agricultural College >. - 302225226. 0. ons se eos ams cee 25 nie Status of Soil Analysis. 2... -s.ccie oersteta tates oi-c soe ees 6 eye ees) 18 Mor JIXCuse Testo UACCUSET 22.0.4. see cas on 1 eenew serie ws onlin ue © poe 6 8 Bee 12 Too Much Learning: has made him Mad. ..22w iss. . one ne ajo sos see 16 ERRATA. This Bulletin was printed in the absence of the editor and the reader is requested to correct any typographical errors. Entymologist should read entomologist, Page 17, last line of first column, should read ‘‘as’’ instead of ‘‘on.’’ Page 23, 2nd column, 4th paragraph, for ‘‘controversy’’ read ‘‘conver- sation.’’