An examination which I made of two samples of soil from the Clifton-on-Bowmont farm -- the one being from old hillside Cheviot turf, which has been unploughed from time immemorial, and the other from a spot only a few yards off the other, but on which Mr. Elliot has adopted his new system -- yields results which may have some interest.

The new pasture was five-year-old.

The old hillside turf showed on the surface some coarse, mostly dead, tufty grass, which could in great part be pulled up easily with the hand. Then came a top layer of black peaty matter extending four to five inches deep, and in this was a mass of roots crowded together, but not passing down freely and regularly into the subsoil. On testing the peaty portion with litmus paper, it was found to be extremely acid. It also hold a considerable quantity of moisture. The soil below this retained to some extent the acid character, and then a more stony subsoil was reached.

The five-year-old pasture, on the other hand, had on the surface a very fair covering of good grasses, cocksfoot being prominent. The roots from these grasses and other plants did not collect together in a matted form, as was the case with the old Cheviot turf; but they went down into the subsoil strongly and regularly. There was no accumulation of humus matter in excess, true soil being formed almost to the very top. The reaction of the topsoil to litmus paper was only slightly acid, and this disappeared entirely in the subsoil. The soil was not nearly so spongy and moisture -- holding as was the Cheviot turf, but seemed in a good physical condition throughout.

Portions of the different layers, and average samples of the whole, were taken in the case of both soils, and the vegetable matter, moisture, and nitrogen determined. The principal results were:

xx	Cheviot Turf per cent	Five-year-old Pasture per cent
Vegetable (organic) matter in average of soil to nine inches depth	10.05*	9.54*
in first inch	38.10	12.87
in second inch	15.04	9.70
in next five inches	9.65	8.71
*containing nitrogen	0.336	0.298
Moisture:
-- in topsoil	64.76	41.82
-- in subsoil	37.46	25.94

From these results it appears that though the old Cheviot turf has been down so long, and has had such a time for the storing up of vegetable matter, yet, on taking the soil to the depth of nine inches, there is not a half per cent less vegetable matter in the ploughed-up and cultivated land than in the old turf. This, and the very different appearances presented by the soils, led me to examine, further, and see in which part, or layer, of the soil the excess vegetable matter was. The figures show that this was by far the most prominent in the first inch -- i.e. where the matted roots were, and with consequent absence of real soil formation.

Still more pertinent is the difference shown by the two samples in respect of the moisture they held, the Cheviot turf being spongy and moist throughout the whole topsoil, while the five-year-old pasture was uniform soil throughout, and seemed well drained, and not in stagnant condition like the other. This, of course, carries with it most important consequences as regards the health of stock grazed upon the respective pastures. Though the figures do not show that there is actually more, or even as much, vegetable matter in the five-year-old pasture as in the old Cheviot turf, the form in which it exists, and the general condition of the soil induced by its presence, are vastly superior in the case of the newer pasture. I should describe the old Cheviot soil as one which was sour through accumulation of vegetable matter and retention of moisture, producing an acid and unhealthy condition of the soil, preventing its proper aeration and drainage, or the healthy penetration of the roots into the subsoil. On such accumulation of acid matter alone coarse and inferior grasses would grow, thrive for a time, and then die down, in part or whole, adding further to the matting of dead or dying roots. On the five year-old pasture, on the contrary, there is not this stagnation: the vegetable matter is, by aeration, influence of drainage, cultivation, etc., brought into assimilable, instead of unhealthy, condition, and soil formation, instead of humus accumulation, is the result.

These points, to my mind, bear strong evidence to the superiority of the newer pasture, and to the efficacy of the system which Mr. Elliot pursues.

-- J. A. Voelcker
November 1900

Second Note by Dr. Voelcker

In November 1900 I appended to Mr. Elliot's new edition of his book, The Agricultural Changes required by these Times, a note on the examination of some soils from the Clifton-on-Bowmont farm. In these I made a comparison between an old hillside Cheviot turf and an adjoining one laid down five years previously with Mr. Elliot's mixtures. The general bearing of the observations and analyses was to show that, though the old turf had accumulated rather more vegetable matter and nitrogen, yet this was confined practically to the very top portion, which consisted of a matting of roots and rootlets, and which held moisture to a considerable extent, but did not allow of its percolation to the lower layers, or the ready penetration of the roots of the grasses into the subsoil.

Since that time I have had under observation other fields at Clifton-on-Bowmont laid down by Mr. Elliot, and these I have visited regularly, watching their progress as compared with that of the old turf. The question arose in this connection whether, as the pasture goes on from year to year, and as it improves (as is quite clear to. anyone having it, as I did, under regular observation) the soil itself becomes deprived of, or else is enriched in, organic matter and nitrogen. For the purpose of ascertaining this, if possible, I have had samples taken each year of the turf and soil from a particular spot, and I have examined and compared the several blocks thus successively removed. The field in question was Bank field, laid down in 1900, and samples have been taken in 1901, 1902, 1903, and 1904. The sample taken in the first year (1901) showed the same characteristics as compared with the old Cheviot turf as were instanced in my note in November 1900. There was no matting of roots at the surface with accumulation of organic matter there, but the roots showed themselves penetrating regularly downwards.

In the second year (1902) there was not noticeable any great change; but, still, there was some increase both of root growth and of the extent to which the vegetable matter penetrated down into the soil.

In the third year (1903), however, there was decidedly more root growth, and on this occasion a second sample -- of the second depth of nine inches of soil -- was taken and analysed, this showing that organic matter, together with a considerable amount of nitrogen, existed in these lower layers.

In 1904 (fourth year) a further sample was taken, and this very clearly showed a great increase in the amount of root growth, and the penetration of the humus to a greater depth. Moreover, the character of the soil itself had considerably altered, it being, as compared with the samples of the earlier years, much more friable and in generally nicer condition. The analyses of the various samples are appended, each being taken on the first six inches of soil from the surface, except the second sample of 1903, which was of the six inches taken immediately after the removal of the first layer of nine inches. The figures are:

xx	1902 percent	1903		1904 percent
		1st depth percent	2nd depth percent
Organic Matter	8.98	8.96	6.03	9.61
Nitrogen	0.263	0.300	0.210	0.285
Equal to Ammonia	0.319	0.364	0.255	0.346

Third Note by Dr. Voelcker

The inquiry has gone on, a fresh sample of the soil being taken each year until 1907, the spot chosen being in each case close to where the previous year's sample was obtained. The soil, after reaching my laboratory, was carefully compared with the samples of the earlier years, and the general appearance, nature of surface growth, colour, depth of rooting, and state of moisture observed. Smaller samples of the first six inches from the surface were then taken, dried, and prepared for analysis. The following table gives the analytical results for each year:

(Soil dried at 212 deg F.)	1902 per cent	1903 per cent	1904 per cent	1905 per cent	1906 per cent	1907 per cent
Organic Matter	8.98	8.96	9.61	8.62	8.50	9.54
Nitrogen	0.263	0.300	0.285	0.236	0.281	0.288
Equal to Ammonia	0.319	0.364	0.346	0.286	0.341	0.350

It cannot be maintained that more than general conclusions can be drawn from the above figures, for there are, necessarily, features which prevent the soil taken one year from a certain spot being strictly comparable with that taken from an adjoining spot in a different year. But a general review of the figures makes it abundantly apparent that the soil is not undergoing deterioration in respect of organic matter or nitrogen; but that in 1907 it was even richer than it was in the earlier years. Further, the analysis of the second depth of six inches of soil, taken in 1903, shows. that in the lower layers there were good supplies both of organic matter and of nitrogen.

The main point to be remembered, however, is that the vegetable matter, instead of being, as shown in the case of the old Cheviot turf (see note of November 1900), stored up in the top surface and remaining there more or less in an inactive and useless state, is, under the system pursued by Mr. Elliot, becoming distributed more regularly throughout the soil, and is at the same time being rendered active and available. The same holds good, as a consequence, with respect to the nitrogen, this being largely derived from the organic matter.

The mere richness of a particular layer in organic matter and in nitrogen -- as shown by the figures of an analysis -- is not enough to indicate whether this be beneficial or not, for, as pointed out in the case of the old Cheviot turf, these constituents may be present in the form of a spongy infertile mass of roots accumulated at the surface. The real test is whether the total amount of, organic matter and nitrogen in the whole mass of soil constituting the growing area is increased, and whether this is of such nature as to be available for use by growing plants. Hence, while the analyses as given above show that the soil, as a whole, is by no means deteriorating, but rather the reverse, even more abundant testimony is borne to this fact by the observations which I have made from year to year of the samples of soil submitted to me. This comparison has been a most instructive one, and, going as I have done through the whole series from 1902 to 1907, I cannot fail to be greatly struck with the marked improvement which has gone on from year to year in the character of the soil. The gradual penetration of the humus to the lower layers has been very apparent, and with this has come about the deeper penetration and more free growth of the rootlets of the plants. When I see what the soil originally was and what it is now, I can only describe the change by saying that 'soil has been formed'. I cannot say, of course, that the stones have disappeared? But they have at least become less obtrusive, and more surrounded with good soil, and the whole has a more healthy appearance and is more what soil should be. This change I cannot but attribute in chief measure to the system which has been pursued by Mr. Elliot.

-- J.A. Voelcker
January 1908

---

Next: Appendix 5

Back to Contents

Back to Small Farms Library index

---

Community development | Rural development
City farms | Organic gardening | Composting | Small farms | Biofuel | Solar box cookers
Trees, soil and water | Seeds of the world | Appropriate technology | Project vehicles

Home | What people are saying about us | About Handmade Projects 
Projects | Internet | Schools projects | Sitemap | Site Search | Donations | Contact us