Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Opening History: Gaining Perspectives

Written By

Jozef Visser

Submitted: 31 March 2019 Reviewed: 03 April 2019 Published: 30 July 2019

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.86185

From the Edited Volume

Organic Fertilizers - History, Production and Applications

Edited by Marcelo Larramendy and Sonia Soloneski

Chapter metrics overview

1,077 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


After Second World War, historical agricultural systems that gave pivotal roles to organics were effectively locked away, with a warning on the door ‘Liebig disproved it all!’. The recent digitalisation of a vast amount of historical literature gave us the key to unlock the door. It opens not to a dusty archive but to a land with great treasures. Entering it we regain a perspective on the pivotal roles of organics in agriculture but not without effort. We lost contact with the soil when after Second World War, we denied farmers’ practices and focussed at fertiliser industry instead. Proud of our construct, ‘modern agriculture’, we nevertheless positioned the statue of Liebig the frightening warrior in front. It is not easy to get rid of a mix of pride and fear. Still, historical evaluation helps us to uncover what was hidden and equips us to rediscover the roles of ever-local organics as administered by local farmers.


  • Liebig
  • peer review
  • soil quality
  • mixotrophy
  • mineral solubilisation
  • De Saussure
  • post-war policy
  • legumes
  • Olsen P test
  • extended N- and P-cycles
  • modelling

1. Introduction1

The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were very rich in agricultural literature, and very much of it is relevant as to the subject of the present volume. Yet, nearly all of this literature has been consistently neglected after Second World War. No doubt the reader knows the one-liner ‘Liebig disproved Thaer’s humus theory of plant nutrition and proved mineral nutrition instead, then with the introduction of industrial fertilisers crop yields could grow steeply’. Now although one-liners cannot make up for history, they still can induce the neglect of historical sources, and exactly that happened when the Liebig one-liner was used to sideline the roles of organics in agriculture and plant nutrition. Historian Frank Uekötter (now in Birmingham) took a close look at the period between the World Wars and after Second World War and showed that as to agriculture and soil, an all-out ‘knowledge erosion’ occurred (See his 500+ pp. 2010/2012 The truth is in the field—in German). When we go further back in history, it becomes clear that Liebig himself was at the roots of this ‘knowledge erosion’.


2. Reconsidering the Liebig thesis

We know from his correspondence with the leading chemist Berzelius that Liebig started his first experiments in crops growing only in 1841, a year after he published his Chemistry in its application to agriculture and physiology. Berzelius asked him the details of the experiments but never received them [1]. Yet, in the 1850s Liebig prescribed the setup of experiments and their analysis in the Bavarian agricultural experiment station. At the core of it was, first, his equation of ‘elements’ and ‘nutrients’ and, second, his denial of mineral-organic interactions. The first was a misnomer also in 1840 but was backed up by the ‘element juggling’ that was at the core of Liebig’s plant physiology and physiology at large (remember he denied enzymatic catalysis and catalysis at large). The second was at variance with a very long time of agricultural experience. Yet, in combination they suggested that something completely transparent—the nutrient element construct—now could guide agriculture in its dealings with soils and crops, and it was this that was difficult to resist in these high days of rationalism (on this see [2]).

Note also that the search for a ‘fertilising principle’ had a long history already. With saltpetre known for centuries, its quick action in plant growth stimulation was discovered early and brought some authors to its identification with the ‘fertilising principle’. Early in the nineteenth century, there had been some regional efforts in France as well as in England to use it in agriculture, but these had soon been abandoned because of lodging and plant disease problems. Most farmers were at pains to build soil quality (see later), aware that there were no ‘fertilising principles’ offering a short cut. Once soil quality was achieved, some kind of ‘fermentation’ was thought to have a role in mobilising plant nutrients.

But then in the middle decades of the nineteenth century, interregional and international transport grew strongly, and especially with guano supply, the old dream of fertilising principles seemed to materialise. It was in these decades that the ‘clearness’ of the Liebig concepts and methods stood out against the high complexity of soil and soil organics. The picture was seductively clear: analyse your soil for abundant and scarce ‘nutrient elements’, analyse your crops for those elements removed, resupply them in your mineral fertiliser, and the problem of ‘soil exhaustion’ is no more. The only role of organics was that of suppliers of mineral nutrients and carbon dioxide on decomposition.

Still, common experience first of all in vegetable gardens had established the value of soil organics and of the extract of garden soil to crop growth. And so the Société centrale d’agriculture de Rouen at the end of the 1840s came with a price contest about the subject. Soubeiran won the contest with his essay ‘Chemical analysis of humus and role of manure in plant nutrition’ [3, 4]. In accordance with De Saussure 1841, he proved that dilute ammonia dissolved an important part of the soil organics and stressed that ammonium carbonate deriving from disintegrating manures had the same effect. This solubilised part of ‘humus’ then entered the plant. The fact that the plant derives most of its carbon from the atmosphere was not to deny the importance of humus uptake, ‘for if the absorbed humus gives effectively a nutrition that increases the plant’s vitality, and that causes the number and volume of absorbing organs to increase, the plant will derive much more from the atmosphere. The humus, without having provided all of the carbon, will nevertheless be the effective cause of the abundant production of wood and other parts of the plant’.

This plant growth promotion aspect of humic extracts from fertile soil was accepted also by researchers who doubted true assimilation of humics. Soubeiran made careful experiments, emphasised the many valuable functions of humus, and gave close consideration of manures and their interaction with humus [5]. Malaguti, the leading French chemist known also for his work on agricultural chemistry, followed on the Soubeiran experiment and used the balance to prove the humus uptake [6]. Then in 1862 Corenwinder [7] showed carbon dioxide uptake by roots to be unimportant (as a rule), thus disproving Liebig’s explanation for plant growth stimulation by humics. So research into the connections between crop growth and soil organics continued, with Eugene Risler from Switzerland soon followed by Pierre-Paul Dehérain in France and Ewald Wollny in Germany.

Yet, for some time the Liebig approach stayed dominant for it had been ‘institutionalised’ in most of the agricultural experiment stations, with their directors often from the Liebig school and quite uncritical to the Liebig doctrines. E. Wolff’s The natural law foundations of agriculture [8] offers us an example. Jacob Johnson, a leading agronomist from (then) Russia, compared it with historical and experimental reality and found it wanting on both points [9]. When Wolff from the possibility to grow certain plants in mineral nutrient solution ‘proved’ the non-uptake of humics, Johnson remarked: ‘So because we do not provide them with humics, therefore they cannot take it up and assimilate it! No doubt that is right; a man also cannot eat bread and digest it when he has none!’.

Leading scientists like Johnson [9, 10] and Risler [11, 12] reminded Liebig and his followers of historical agronomy. Although they published in leading journals, they had little response. Liebig’s followers made their own accounts, e.g. [13]. That author is very selective in his sources, gives citations that are one-sided (e.g. about Thaer), and misses out on most of the leading agronomic publications from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In fact, such an account is worse than no account. But organic practices were still part and parcel of agriculture and also in agricultural experiment stations and soon field experiments brought renewed attention to the importance of organics (e.g. Dehérain’s and Wollny’s research). Toward the end of the century, we see the Liebig doctrines losing their grip on the minds, not unlike what happened with his concepts and methods in physiology. Still, if we look at the 1840s, Liebig’s influence could have been of much shorter duration.

The agronomist of great standing Schmalz [14] in 1841 published his ‘To Julius: An open letter to Justus von Liebig’ that makes clear how complex the discipline is on which Liebig wanted to impose his ‘science’ [15]. This followed on Liebig’s 1841 [16] cross ‘rebuttal’ of Carl Sprengel’s review [17] of Liebig's 1840 book [18] that, in conformance with his earlier work on humics [19], started with emphasising the roles of humics in plant growth and nutrition. Note that Sprengel’s authority as editor of the (Prussian) General Agricultural Monthly derived from his thorough acquaintance with both agriculture and soil chemistry, so people now asked ‘Sprengel or Liebig?’. To bring the discussion at the required level, Schmalz wrote Aphorisms from plant nutrition learning [20] in which he focussed, also from own experiments with nettle, more specifically on crop nutrition. But Liebig did not respond.

In those same years, Liebig’s denial [21] of the roles of organics in plant nutrition, as against Théodore De Saussure's proofs [22, 23], was questioned by leading biologists of the age (von Mohl, Fürnrohr, Schlechtendal). When Trinchinetti’s [24] as well as Jacob Johnson’s [25] experiments corroborated those of De Saussure, the matter was settled, and Schlechtendal wrote: ‘So it seems that Sprengel's teaching ….is right, yet unfounded Liebig's thesis that humus provides the plants only carbonic acid’ [26, 27]. Note that Liebig in the 5th edition of his book mended many of the botanical and other faults that Hugo von Mohl had listed in his 1843 Dr Justus Liebig's relation to plant physiology [28]. He even removed the account of forester Hartig’s experiments—all experiments he had (De Saussure had indicated Hartig had injured the roots of his plants). But von Mohl’s [28] primary objection that he did not use the means available to him as a chemist to study the subject experimentally did not move him to an experimental approach. von Mohl predicted [29] that also the 5th edition would lead many astray because ‘it lacks any and all historical account’. Liebig kept silent about it all including the peer review conclusion (see also [30]), but note that Hugo von Mohl [31] maintained the final verdict in his famous Principles of the anatomy and physiology of the vegetable cell.

Still, we see Liebig later in the 1840s hesitating (in a letter to Wöhler, see [32]) about further involvement with agriculture. Leading authors like Petit-Lafitte [3334], Schubert [35], and Fresenius [36] still emphasised organic uptake by plants (note Remigius Fresenius was the leading authority in analytical chemistry). Note also that Liebig’s best student Adolf Strecker in 1848 acquired the Venia legendi with his researches about the chemical constitution of oxen bile [37], with one of the theses accompanying the account [38] ‘Organic substances are nutrients for plants’. By then Liebig’s patented mineral fertiliser had proved to be a failure [39], factually disproving his ‘minerals-only’ doctrine. Moreover in 1847 the Prussian Agricultural Council initiated an interlaboratory round for the determination of mineral nutrients in soils in connection with plant uptake and found it outside the possibilities of chemistry [40]. First, the changes in question, as calculated from the total mineral contents of the crop plants covering the field divided by the field’s arable soil volume, were within measurement error (they would say so). Second, the differences in determinations (of in-soil quantities) between laboratories were excessive, a problem that would haunt such determinations for the rest of the century (and later). The Liebig model of crop nutrition, though ‘claire et distincte’, proved chemically unworkable when confronted with real soils.

But the 1840s were a decade of famine and revolution, not a decade in which careful study and evaluation decided about the events. Moreover many scientists of the old guard died in those years—Berzelius, Schwerz, de Saussure, Schwann, and quite some others—and the transfer of their roles in ‘peer review’ to younger scientists proved complicated enough. Liebig managed to draw that role to himself in connection with laboratory chemistry and then used this authority to once more give his judgements about bordering disciplines. In due time his opinion of catalysis, fermentation, and many medical subjects proved mistaken, and by the end of the century, his contributions to these fields were mostly passed over quietly. But in such disciplines, his opinions were discussed besides those of others; they did not shape the field, and so in due time, Liebig’s errors could show up (cp. Pasteur’s experiment disproving Liebig’s abiotic theory of fermentation).

As it was, after the lingering indicated, we see from 1850 on Liebig renewing his efforts to impose his ‘science’ on agriculture. His public fame depended on it, including his fame with the king of Bavaria who called him to Munich. Leading agronomists compared statements and generalisations of Liebig and his followers with real-life and historical agriculture, e.g. [9, 10, 11, 12, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46]. It was to no avail because Liebig did not respond but constructed his division of ‘agronomy before 1840 vs agronomy after it’ instead (it found its way into the Liebig one-liner). And he reverted to his former cross approach, with ‘fire and the sword’ [47], replacing scientific discussions. When Mulder in 1865 published this three-volume overview of agriculture and agricultural chemistry [48]—the best of those decades according to van Bemmelen 1901 [49]—Liebig did not enter into discussion at all but instead wrote with biting sarcasm about Mulder. The way in which he in those same years managed to silence the very learned Fraas was still more infame. Fraas’ Book of Nature for Farmers [50] for a broad public as well as his The root life of crop plants and the increase of yields’ [51] had no equals in those years ([51] is still very profitable to read).

There is, in short, ample reason not to take Liebig as our guide. But high-level researchers in those years who were well-versed in both the agriculture of their age and in supporting disciplines we can take as our guide in restoring the history of agronomy in the second half of the nineteenth century including the subject of soils, organics, and crop nutrition. Now with the Liebig’s stop sign removed, we of course start wondering about the wider history too. We will see that the farmers’ knowledge of their soils can be our guide.


3. Soil quality as baseline

Estienne et al. [52] in the paragraph About ground and soil of an estate give a short list of characteristics of a fertile soil (S. 33): (1) A strong rain does not lead to mud; the ground drinks in the water and keeps it for a long time. (2) On a fertile soil, we meet a strong and dense vegetation (in the wild). (3) Its soil solution has a sweetish taste [see under]. (4) When we dig a hole, put the earth aside for 2 or 3 days, and then fill it again; a good soil will leave a small hill, a medium soil will just fill the hole, and a bad soil will leave a hollow. (5) With a good soil, the first rain after some drought in spring will give a pleasant odour. We find a similar list in [53, 54, 55]. Evidently also three or four centuries ago, farmers realised that—in our words—infiltration capacity and soil structure were characteristics of a good soil. The ‘hole filling test’ is part of the ‘spade test’ and fits in with other visual tests of our day [56, 57, 58, 59, 60]. The early authors took also good note of biological criteria, plant growth first of all. The ‘sweetish taste’ of the soil solution from fertile soils they considered connected with soil quality and plant nutrition—and indeed soil carbohydrates are central to both micro-aggregate formation and mineral solubilisation.

The same or a strongly similar list appears in other early books on agriculture or horticulture. Heresbach/Googe [61] adds still another biological indicator: birds following the ploughman to feed upon worms, etc. We find closely similar lists in [62, 63, 64], the most extensive being [65]. As to the era before the printing press, Verena Winiwarter has given us some admirable overviews [66, 67], from which we learn that such a soil quality approach was known already in antiquity and Middle Ages. A core element of sustainable agriculture [68] it is its guide also when seeking to upgrade soils. Farmers in the past evidently had a notion of ‘good soil’ (and how to build it)—or they would not have survived [2]. These practical standards of experienced farmers and gardeners as to good soil are a backbone of agronomy throughout history.

In the eighteenth century, ‘earths mixing’ became a chief means to upgrade soils, with farm manure being the ‘soul’ of the mixture ([69], p. 118). Marling and chalking became widely known but were two examples of this general practice of ‘mineral fertilisation’. The aim of it all was soil quality ([70], p. 15), but of course the diverse ‘earths’ brought also their own minerals with them. Pastor/agronomist Mayer tells us this ‘earth mixing’ originated with Swiss farmers at the beginning of the eighteenth century, farmers who had to be very careful with their soils [69]. Lüders [71] is all about research, evaluation, and use of the ‘kinds of earths’; it is also the chief subject of [72] on general agronomy, and [73] gave an account of nearly 300 soil probes from all over the kingdom of Hannover (research committed by the government).

Mineral and organic components belonged together in this approach, something that was strengthened still by the general concept of nutritious matter for plants: it consists, next to water, in fine earthen particles, fatty components, and salts [74]. Most other authors used ‘oils’ for ‘fatty components’ but the meaning of it is clear: the concept of plant nutrition of these eighteenth-century authors fits closely to our concept of mixotrophy. There were of course differences between the chemistry, etc. of those authors and ours, but when we read Home’s [75] chemical analysis of different soils with the means then available we see that we should not exaggerate these differences. What we as people from the twenty-first century need on background information, we can learn from [76].

But then from the latter decades of the eighteenth to the first decades of the nineteenth century, chemistry saw fast developments, best known from the name of Lavoisier, and agricultural chemistry partook of this ‘turbulence’. But note it was not a backwater: Hermbstädt who translated all of Lavoisier’s works in German was also the editor of the Archive of Agricultural Chemistry (in German), the first journal of its kind. From about 1820 on a less turbulent period set in, mixotrophy became quite broadly accepted again, now in terms of the new chemistry and in combination with photosynthesis. Two examples will do.

The leading agronomist Zierl (1797–1844) from Bayern in his 1830 Plant Production textbook [77] emphasised—critically following Carl Sprengel—the roles of humics in solubilising mineral soil constituents for plant uptake. This followed upon his acknowledgement of photosynthesis and the extensive treatment of mineral and organic plant nutrients. Zierl considered plants to have important roles in soil nutrient cycling, legumes in rotations with their long roots bringing nutrients in reach again of other crops. In conformance with earlier agronomy, Zierl maintained a soil quality approach.

That is true also of Johann Nepomuk Schwerz (1759–1845) who acquired his encyclopaedic knowledge of the art of agriculture especially on his many journeys on foot through regions of Belgium and Germany. He was conversant also with the life and practices of the small farmer (Thaer decidedly not). In his 1823 Manual of Practical Agriculture [78], he gave a summary of the crop nutrition knowledge of those years: ‘So when indeed the plants derive their chief nutrition from the atmosphere and besides also from the residues of vegetable and animal bodies: it is not to deny that also mineral bodies, under which we count first of all the chalk, contribute to the growth of vegetables, and not just in stimulating, solubilising, manure-mediating roles, but also as true nutrients’. This mixotrophic approach was essentially maintained in the 2nd edition of Schwerz’ manual that was published in 1837 and no doubt was available to Liebig.

At mid-nineteenth century, the soil quality approach was upheld as we see from a wide range of textbooks (including [79]). Next there is ongoing development especially in the Progress in Soil Physics series (1872 f.) that was edited by Ewald Wollny who also included reviews of soil biology in the serial. Wollny further developed the concept of Bodengare, ‘active soil’ (e.g. [80]) from a soil science point of view. Others then continued, with Johannes Görbing the best known author [81] (see also [82, 86]) and scientists like Sekera further developing theory and practice after Second World War [83, 84].

Soil quality as the leading concept was upheld also when the great agronomist and plant breeder Fruwirth in the 1921 edition of his textbook [85] specified ‘main fertilisers’ as those that were building the soil biologically, physically, and chemically, with farm manures and green manures the standard and others and especially mineral fertilisers as ‘additional’ only. When cheap nitrogen fertiliser in Germany after First World War was pushed by the industry-government complex to remedy the large drop in yields that was a consequence of the war, it did more harm than good [86]. Again classical agronomy with its soil quality approach came to the rescue and showed the way to restore the soils and so the yields. Likewise it was the work of the Soil Conservation Service in the USA along the lines of classical agronomy and soil science that brought soil deterioration to a halt. For the past few decades, similar ‘organic’ approaches proved necessary to restore structurally deteriorated soils in Germany and to revive desertifying regions in Mediterranean countries.


4. Loss of history and quality

A core element of this soil quality approach was and is the use of legumes in agriculture. Research in legume use between the World Wars was greatly advanced by Fred and co-workers in the USA, by Thornton and Nicol in the UK, and especially by Virtanen in Finland (references in [87, 88]). Legumes were quite central to agriculture in parts of Finland and the Baltic countries, with coculture of peas and oats being a prominent part [89, 90]. Johnson [89] already concluded that the oats thriving in the coculture received nutrition from pea root exudates. In big parts of Latin America, farmers used the milpa system of coculture for ages already [91, 92]. In the USA the common farmer used legume rotations without N-fertilisers; industrial N-fertilisers were used by big landowners in the US South.

From the point of view of soil quality-based agriculture (and therefore of sustainable food provision), fertiliser-only agriculture was the wrong choice, so when Virtanen saw the latter policy coming, he wrote some reviews (in 1953) emphasising the advantages of legume use. Importantly it costs the common farmer only her labour and no money, and there were many poor farmers in Finland before and after Second World War, as there are now the world over. But with the takeover of the USDA by the Republicans at the 1942 elections, agricultural policy got redirected from its focus at the common farmer under the New Deal to its focus at large-scale agriculture as practised by the big landowners of the US South. After the war industrial N-fertiliser was offered at low prices—process facilities had been financed by the government in connection with explosive production for war—and was put at centre place in the new policies. With classical agronomy very critical of such a change, the ‘Liebig doctrines’ were advanced in its defence, so we turn once more to their historical origins.

De Saussure in 1841 lectured at the 9th Scientific Congress of France—that chose him as its president—about the question: ‘The ternary and quaternary organic matters can they – or not – be assimilated by the plants, after being absorbed by their roots?’. He used the results of his own recent experiments to give an answer to this question. His slightly edited lecture he published already before the end of the year in the scientific monthly of his home town Geneva: ‘What role is there for ternary and quaternary compounds in plant nutrition, not just the few binary ones mentioned by Liebig, considering that soil organics as a complex mixture of compounds could contribute to plant nutrition?. So De Saussure stated the problem at chemical compound level, departing from the conflation of ‘element’ and ‘nutrient’ that had been quite common up till then. His conclusions were as follows: (1) fertile terrains contain a mixture of soluble and (mostly) insoluble organic substances, and uptake of the first by plant roots forms a powerful addition to the nutrients it receives from air and water [CO2, H2O], (2) a slow fermentation of the insoluble organic substances renews soluble organics, and (3) most plants do not assimilate gaseous nitrogen and receive only little ammonia from the air, so nearly all the N they contain is from absorption of soluble organic substances.

This could have been the start of the development of a true soil-plant N-cycle because it used (a) a chemically meaningful concept of ‘nutrient’ (b) linked to the soil by the use of the dynamic concept of ‘humus’ that had been around a long time already (and that included dynamic interactions with minerals in soils). But then Liebig forced a rupture by (a) reverting to the element-as-nutrient parlance and so disabling chemical research (b1) denying the need for organic fertilisers: well-growing plants would of themselves leave ample organics in the soil (later dubbed ‘self-fertilising plants’) (b2) denying also the diverse direct roles of soil organics in crop growth, so legitimating plant nutrition studies disconnected from the soil and using a minerals-only approach (as in the work of Knop, Sachs, and later Hoagland).

As indicated, after Second World War, the new agricultural policy was presented in terms of these ‘Liebig doctrines’. Melsted, for example [93], wrote Since 1950 the corn belt farmer has been able to choose whether to grow or buy his nitrogen. But legumes were recommended as green manures for several reasons: first as soil builders and strongly so after the Dust Bowl of the 1930s and next as natural resource ‘slow release fertilisers’. American farmers practised rotations with legumes instead—with the exception of the big landowners of the American South who from 1942 on were redirecting agricultural policies (Jamie Whitten). Before that date mixed farming was strongly encouraged (USDA Yearbook of Agriculture 1940). Melsted offered the farmer nothing with which to make a choice but locked him in the ‘P,K,N cage’.

Now humus management was upheld by the Soil Conservation Service under Hugh Bennett. But when Bennett retired in 1951, a ‘straw man’ was appointed in his place, and attention was diverted away from humus management, etc. A ‘flight forward’ was chosen to defend the change: the fertiliser-fed crops would surely leave enough organic matter in the soil! Classical teaching on humus management got dubbed ‘lamentations’ by Joffe [94], and he wrote that it came from ‘agronomists who then dominated the field of soil fertility. ... A perusal of the writings of these specialists.... reveals the development of a soil organic matter mentality complex’. In other words, Joffe and others who like him sounded the new agricultural policies simply denied the research of leading scientists in the field. When policy makers next lifted the unqualified adherence to the ‘Liebig doctrines’ to the status of ‘civil obedience’ (for advisors and researchers), the system got out of control for its lack of correction from the real world ‘out there’ that of ever-local farmers, plants, soils, and ecology. Post-war agronomy in countries like the USA, the UK, and the Netherlands was government-directed not just as to specific regulations but as to the very concepts and methods allowed (so lacking ‘substantial rationalitysensu Karl Mannheim). Mixed farming, the use of local resources, and a focus at a circular economy had been a characteristic of farming for centuries. They now were discarded, not because they had been disproved but because they stood in the way of the projected industrial fertiliser-only agriculture and its scale enlargement. Problems like soil deterioration and eutrophication of surface waters soon started to grow, but with historical agronomy discarded, there was little left to solve them. So it stands to reason that we open up history and look where we can find help. We return again to the mid-nineteenth century.


5. Focus at nutrient solubilisation

As indicated Liebig’s influence was not absolute at mid-nineteenth century, not the least because researchers especially in France knew about the quality of De Saussure’s experiments and explanations (Petit-Lafitte and de Gasparin were among them). And it was again the common experience with fertile soil from vegetable gardens that induced de Gasparin in 1852 to ask Verdeil and Risler a close investigation of water extracts from a number of such soils, after Liebig had stated that such soil extracts contained hardly any organics at all. Verdeil and Risler [95, 96] refuted that opinion. They showed that the extracts were indeed a source of N-compounds and demonstrated also that these extracts had very considerable mineral solubilising power. Their report was received favourably by the (French) Academy of Sciences [97]. And so the concept of soluble soil organics as central also to mineral nutrient mobilisation for plant uptake—expressed by earlier researchers—was fully corroborated. Risler continued with the research and published his results in the April 1858 issue of the Archives des sciences de la Bibliothèque universelle (Genève). He summarised [98] in 1872: (1)this humus not only favours the solubilisation of certain mineral substances that are really needed for plants, (2)but it also furnishes plants part of their constituent carbon and facilitates the absorption of carbon from the atmosphere.

The function of humus as a solubiliser and carrier of minerals—phosphate and potassium minerals among them—was implicit in the preparation of bone meal as phosphate fertiliser [99, 100]. Studied early in the century by Lampadius [101, 102, 103, 104, 105] and Sprengel, it was further developed by Grandeau (‘matière noire’) and others. Next in the mid-twentieth century, especially Chaminade [106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112] studied many aspects. Independently it was studied by Åslander, a Swedish researcher who focussed at phosphate fertilisation of the acid peat lands common at Northern latitudes [113, 114, 115, 116]. Composted fertiliser with rather small amounts of phosphate sufficed, and no chalk was needed. And it was not fixed by the soil as ‘super phosphate’ was.

We saw already that the sweetish taste of the soil extract [52, 95, 96, 97] was connected with its mineral solubilising power: the solubilisation action of sugar-like compounds was investigated rather early [117]. The second half of the nineteenth century saw steady progress in the characterisation of carbohydrates, etc., but little of it was used by agricultural researchers. If we now jump to the post-Second World War decades, we find growing research in soil carbohydrates and related subjects as well as the changes in soil carbohydrates wrought by straw application but little attention to the interactions with minerals. But in the medical field, biotic (de)mineralisation came in focus early. A distinguished researcher was Carl Neuberg, a prominent biochemist who only recently received the attention he deserved [118]. Early in the twentieth century, he did research on glucuronic acids and related compounds as well as on mineral metabolism, and this starting position brought him ultimately to solubilisation and (de)mineralisation research. Neuberg was a refugee for the Nazi regime who only in 1941, at the age of 61, after great detours managed to reach the USA [119]. He then published a work on mineral solubilisation/(de)mineralisation, with Remarkable properties of nucleic acids and nucleotides [120] showing the solubilisation properties of these compounds. [121, 122] focussed at solubilisation and the Ca- and P-cycles in nature but were not noticed by agricultural research. [123, 124]’s work about Solubilisation of insoluble matter in nature gave rich (and startling) information but was again not noticed by agricultural research. [125] is a highly useful (last) review, [126] a moving series of lecture demonstrations; all was eminently useful for agricultural research and instruction, but none of it was noticed. Agricultural research had become isolated. It is only now catching up: as the reader will know recently humics as carrier of P-compounds became once more the subject of research.


6. Focus on mixotrophy and modelling

De Saussure [22] was well aware of the fact that humus was much too complex to allow component analysis. In 1917 Bottomley [127], by applying the same bicarbonate extractant that De Saussure had used but now without heating, got an extract in which he could show the presence of nucleic acid derivatives (see also [128]). In those decades the group of Schreiner at the USDA Bureau of Soils studied the role in soil-and-plant uptake of organic P-compounds [129, 130]. Schulow [131] and Weissflog and Mengdehl [132] managed to perform such uptake studies under strictly sterile circumstances and found that organic P uptake with maize compared well with uptake of inorganic P. Early on [77] there were already observations of phosphate dissolving power of plant roots; next also phosphate solubilisation by microorganisms was discovered, as was mycorrhizal P-compound uptake (easily disturbed by industrial fertiliser [133, 134]). Altogether we see a P-cycle with biota and organic interactions central and a broad scale of organic P-compounds contributing to plant nutrition. There are a great number of ‘actors’ here that in a way are known to the local plant—primarily through its exudation and uptake of organic compounds. But the ‘soil P tests’ developed in the line of Liebig’s ‘elements as nutrients’ approach offer us no entrance. To understand that, we take a look at the Olsen available P test.

Olsen [135] has only a few references and misses out even on the most relevant American publications, not only on [136] but also on [137, 138] (refer to [132]). All were clearly expounding plant uptake and assimilation of organic phosphorus compounds. Olsen in fact disqualified his own test, for chemical researchers in the first post-war decades were obliged to consult the German and French literature. Yet, the test has been cited an unbelievable number of times and so helped to shape a virtual world of phosphate fertilisation that ultimately landed us in the extensive eutrophication that we now see everywhere. That Olsen’s test is not about real soils is evident from [139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144]. But note that early on such tests had been found invalid already at the highest soil scientific level [145, 146, 147, 148, 149]. The post-war building was/is without foundations.

As to research on mixotrophy with N-compounds, the first specific investigations were with compounds known also from guano extracts. Wicke and his students perfected methods to study plant uptake of such compounds [150, 151, 152, 153]. Uptake and assimilation of several compounds was proved, but with Wicke’s successor focussing at animal nutrition, the organic uptake research was not continued. Yet we find uptake studies of organic compounds elsewhere; several reviews were published in the decades around 1900, and up till 1913 a number of PhD theses on the subject were published in Paris (some references in [87]). And at the end of the nineteenth century, the parlance equating ‘elements’ and ‘nutrients’ was found inadequate also by researchers who started their career under Liebig’s influence. Leading plant physiologist Wilhelm Pfeffer in 1895 reintroduced the chemical concept in his The election of organic nutrients [by plants] and stressed that as a rule the plant will take up organic compounds/complexes of elements. Pfeffer focussed at lower plants, but his best student Czapek next took a close look at higher plants too. Research intensified, with much work done especially at the USDA Bureau of Soil by Oswald Schreiner’s research group (see also [154]). Czapek was by then the leading authority in the field and gave in 1920 two extensive overviews ([155, 156] fully acknowledging the work at the Bureau of Soils). When Pfeffer died Czapek was appointed in his chair (Leipzig), but Czapek himself died already in 1921, and in a bankrupt Germany there was little prospect for institutional continuity.

The war brought a rupture also in the work at the Bureau of Soils. Lathrop gave an extensive review of research with organic nitrogen compounds in soils and in plant nutrition [157], yet, in 1919, the same journal published Creighton’s ‘How the nitrogen problem has been solved’ [158] that gave extensive accounts of nitrogen fixation industries without a word on soil-and-plant research. Moreover the nitrogen fixation unit that did research in nitrogen fixation for explosives production was positioned in the Bureau of Soils and dwarfed Schreiner’s group (that now was obliged to focus far more on industrial fertilisers). Yet, Schreiner already in 1912 introduced an extended N-cycle [159, 160] pointing to thermodynamic a.o. advantages for the plant if it absorbs organic N breakdown products of soil organics before their ‘mineralisation’ (see also [161]). In the present this is a lively research subject, after researchers found organic N to contribute greatly to plant nutrition in boreal and arctic regions. In the soil there is a dazzling number of ‘actors’—think also of biological nitrogen fixation—and of organic compounds that contribute to the soil-and-plant N-cycle. Again it is the local plant that ‘knows’ about it all—and future models will have to start from that fact. But neither the government nor the industry is at home in this soil world, and their orders—and fertiliser-centred models—are without power there.


7. Summary and outlook

There are many more important subjects waiting for exposition, from the high-level field experiments of Dehérain with their renewed attention to soils and organics and to the important and diverse roles of biochars in ‘traditional’ European agricultures. But the subjects touched upon will suffice to show that our post-war ‘modern agriculture’ was not for real. Its agronomy denied mixotrophy, organic solubilisation, and other organic-mineral interactions that, yet, had their roots in soil, farmer practices, and peer-reviewed science. Realising that much we are free again to effect a change to an agronomy for sustainable agricultures that starts from respecting both the soil and the work of those who interact with it daily. The suggestion that orders from the industry and government can make crops grow was at the centre of post-war policies. Its agronomy was ready-made for the purpose—think of its soil nutrient tests—but plants, earthworms, and microorganisms did not listen, and we ended up with global eutrophication and soil deterioration. Redevelopment is urgent and possible—not easy—and we are fortunate that there is a treasure of historical knowledge and experience that can assist us.


  1. 1. Carrière J. Ihre Briefe von 1831-1845 mit erläuternden Einschaltungen aus. In: Briefe von Liebig und Wöhler. München/Leipzig: Berzelius und Liebig; 1893
  2. 2. Krzymowski R. Philosophie der Landwirtschaftslehre. Stuttgart; 1919
  3. 3. Soubeiran E. Analyse chimique de l’humus et rôle des engrais dans l’alimentation des plantes. Journal de Pharmacie et de Chimie,Série 3 Tome. 1850;17:321-334
  4. 4. Soubeiran E. Über den Humus und die Wirkungen des Düngers bei der Ernährung der Pflanzen. Journal für praktische Chemie. 1850;50:291-305
  5. 5. Soubeiran E. Analyse chimique de l’humus et rôle des engrais dans l’alimentation des plantes II Analyse de quelques engrais. Journal de Pharmacie et de Chimie, Série 3 Tome. 1850;18:5-20
  6. 6. Malaguti MJ. Note sur l’absorption des ulmates solubles par les plantes. Annales de Physique et de Chimie. 1852;3(34):140-143; also in Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences de Paris T.34, 112-114
  7. 7. Corenwinder M. Études sur les fonctions des racines des végétaux. Annales de sciences naturelles, Série 5 T. 1868;9:63-69
  8. 8. Wolff E. Die naturgesetzliche Grundlagen des Ackerbaues. Zweite Auflage, Leipzig; 1854
  9. 9. Johnson J. Besprechung von E. Wolff’s ‘Die Naturgesetzlichen Grundlagen des Ackerbaues’. In: Mittheilungen der K. 2te Auflage ed. Vol. Band 1 and 2, 1854. St. Petersburg: Freien Ökonomischen Gesellschaft; 1855. pp. 234-251
  10. 10. Johnson J. Über die Werthbestimmung des Stalldüngers. In: Mittheilungen der K. St. Petersburg: Freien Ökonomische Gesellschaft; 1857. pp. 329-339
  11. 11. Risler E. Sur l’enseignement agricole en Allemagne. Journal D’agriculture Pratique Année 26. 1862;1:365-369
  12. 12. Risler E. Histoire des théories agronomiques. Journal D’agriculture Pratique Année 26. 1862;2:348-351
  13. 13. Stohmann. Liebig’s Beziehungen zur Landwirthschaft. Journal für praktische Chemie. 1873-1874:458-476
  14. 14. Schmalz F. Erfahrungen im Gebiete der Landwirthschaft. Bd. 1-6 ed. Leipzig; 1814-1824
  15. 15. Schmalz F. Offenes Sendschreiben: An den Herrn Professor und Ritter Dr. Julius Liebig. Allgemeine Landwirtschaftliche Monatsschrift. 1841;4:44-60
  16. 16. Liebig J. Abfertigung des Herren Dr. Gruber in Wien und Dr. Sprengel, in Beziehung auf ihre Kritiken meines Werkes: “die organische Chemie”. Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie. 1841;38:216-256
  17. 17. Sprengel C. Auszüge aus Prof. Liebigs “organische Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Agricultur und Physiologie”, nebst Bemerkungen vom Redacteur. Allgemeine Landwirthschaftliche Monatsschrift. 1840;2:171-194
  18. 18. Liebig J. Die organische Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Agricultur und Physiologie. Braunschweig; 1840
  19. 19. Sprengel C. Über Pflanzenhumus, Humussäure und humussauren Salze. Archiv für die gesammte Naturlehre. 1826;8:145-220
  20. 20. Schmalz F. Aphorismen aus der Pflanzenernährungskunde. Allgemeine landwirtschaftliche Monatsschrift. 1842;7:60-84
  21. 21. Liebig J. Bemerkungen zur vorstehende Versuchen de Saussure’s. Annalen der Chemie und Pharmazie. 1842;42:291-298
  22. 22. De Saussure T. Sur la nutrition des végétaux. Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève, Nouvelle Série. 1841;36:340-355
  23. 23. De Saussure T. Über die Ernährung der Pflanzen. Annalen der Chemie und Pharmazie. 1842;42:275-291
  24. 24. Trinchinetti A. Sulla facolta assorbente delle radici de’vegetabili. Milano; 1843. pp. 81
  25. 25. Johnson J. Von der Nahrung der Culturpflanzen, Mittheilungen der K. St. Peterburg: Freien Ökonomischen Gesellschaft; 1844. pp. 185-210
  26. 26. Schlechtendal. Von der Nahrung der Culturpflanzen. In: Inaugural-Dissertation von Jacob Johnson, St. Petersburg, 1844, 8 & 56 S Botanische Zeitung 3. 1845. pp. 632-634
  27. 27. Heuchert B, Braun U, Tkach N, Marx D, Röser M. Biography of D.F.L. von Schlechtendal and type material of his new taxa preserved in the herbarium of Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg (HAL) and other botanical collections. In: Schlechtendalia. Vol. 31. 2017. p. 143
  28. 28. von Mohl H. Dr. Justus Liebig’s Verhältnis zur Pflanzenphysiologie. Tübingen; 1843
  29. 29. von Mohl H. Die Chemie in ihrer Anwendung auf Agricultur und Physiologie. Von Julius Liebig. 5te umgearb. u. sehr vermehrte Aufl. 1843. Botanische Zeitung. 1844;3:358-361
  30. 30. Fürnrohr AE. Dr. Justus Liebig’s Verhältnisse zur Pflanzenphysiologie. In: von Mohl H, editor. Flora. Jahrgang 26 Bd ed. Vol. 1. 1843. pp. 67-68
  31. 31. von Mohl H. Grundzüge der Anatomie und Physiologie der vegetabilischen Zelle. Braunschweig; 1851
  32. 32. Volhard J. Justus von Liebig. Band 1 & 2 ed. Leipzig; 1909
  33. 33. Le Petit-Lafitte A. De la connaissance des terres cultivées. Bordeaux; 1845
  34. 34. Le Petit-Lafitte A. Étude des terres arables. Paris; 1862
  35. 35. Schubert F. Handbuch der Forstchemie. Leipzig; 1848
  36. 36. Fresenius R. Lehrbuch der Chemie für Landwirthe. Braunschweig: Forstmänner und Cameralisten; 1847
  37. 37. Strecker A. Untersuchungen über die chemische Constitution der Hauptbestandtheile der Ochsengalle. Der philosophische Fakultät der Ludwigsuniversität Giessen; 1848. Vorgelegt zur Erlangung der venia legendi
  38. 38. Strecker A. Thesen Behufs der Erlangung der venia legendi. Ludwigsuniversität Giessen. öffentlich [zu] vertheidigen; 1848
  39. 39. Landes-Oeconomie-Collegium. Bericht über die auf Veranlassung des Königlichen Landes-Oeconomie-Collegium ausgeführten Versuche mit Liebig’s künstlichem Dünger. Annalen der Landwirthschaft in den Königlichen Preußischen Staaten. 1847;10:371-392
  40. 40. Magnus E. Versuche, betreffend die Erschöpfung des Bodens, welche das Königliche Landes-Oeconomie-Collegium veranlasst hat. Annalen der Landwirthschaft in den Königlich Preußischen Staaten. 1849;14:179-216
  41. 41. Henrici FG. Bemerkungen über die neuen die Landwirthschaft betreffenden chemischen Briefe des Herrn von Liebig. Göttingen; 1858
  42. 42. Jacobi V. Freiherr von Liebig als unberechtigt zu entscheidendem Urteil über Praxis und Unterrichtswesen in der Landwirthschaft. Land- und forstwirthschaftlich, didaktisch, nationalökonomisch und historisch nachgewiesen. Leipzig; 1862
  43. 43. Koppe JG. Mittheilungen über die Geschichte des Ackerbaues in Nord-Deutschland, besonders in Preußen, im achtzehnten und neunzehnten Jahrhundert, zur Prüfung der Frage: ob Gründe vorliegen, der neueren Landwirthschaft Schuld zu geben, daß sie ein Raub-System befolge? Berlin; 1860
  44. 44. Arnd K. Justus Liebig’s Agrikulturchemie und sein Gespenst der Bodenerschöpfung. Ein Beitrag zur Prüfung seiner Verurtheiliung der heutigen europäischen Landwirthschaft. Frankfurt a. Main; 1864
  45. 45. Fraas G. Bavaria rediviva! Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom Völkeruntergang durch Bodenerschöpfung. München; 1865
  46. 46. Au J. J.v.Liebig’s Lehre von der Bodenerschöpfung und die nationalökonomischen Bevölkerungstheorien dargelegt und kritisch untersucht. In: Heidelberg. 1869
  47. 47. Waltz G. Mitteilungen aus Hohenheim. 1865;6
  48. 48. Mulder GJ. Die Chemie der Ackerkrume 1861-1863;1-3. Übersetzung und Erläuterungen Johannes Müller, E. Gross, Berlin
  49. 49. van Bemmelen JM. Bijdrage tot de wetenschappelijke biographie van G.J. Mulder. Historisch-kritische beschouwing van zijn werk: De Scheikunde der bouwbare Aarde, Verhandelingen Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam (Eerste Sectie). 1901;VII(7)
  50. 50. Fraas G. Buch der Natur für Landwirthe oder landwirthschaftliche Naturkunde. München; 1860
  51. 51. Fraas G. Das Wurzelleben der Kulturpflanzen und die Ertragssteigerung. Nebst einer Tabelle der Bewurzelungssysteme der Kulturpflanzen. Leipzig; 1870
  52. 52. Estienne C, Liebault J, Sebisch M. Fünftzehn Bücher vom Feldbaw. Straßburg; 1592
  53. 53. Gallo A. Le vinti giornate dell’agricoltura. Venetia; 1628
  54. 54. Coler J. Oeconomia ruralis et domestica I, II. Maynz; 1645
  55. 55. Anonymous. Der Sorgfältige Haushalter. Osnabrück; 1674
  56. 56. Beste A. Qualitative Bodenbeurteilung zur Erhaltung der Bodenfunktionen für Produktion, Gewässerschutz und Hochwasservermeidung. Buro für Bodenschutz und ökologische Agrarkultur; 2005
  57. 57. Beste A. Landwirtschaftlicher Bodenschutz in der Praxis. Grundlagen, Analyse, Management. Berlin; 2005
  58. 58. McGarry D. Methodology of a Visual Soil–Field Assessment Tool. FAO; 2005
  59. 59. Emmett-Booth JP, Forristal PD, Fenton O, Ball BC, Holden NM. A review of visual soil evaluation techniques for soil structure. Soil Use and Management. 2016;32:623-634
  60. 60. Leopizzi S, Gondret K, Boivin P. Spatial variability and sampling requirements of the visual evaluation of soil structure in cropped fields. Geoderma. 2018;314:58-62
  61. 61. Heresbach/Googe. The Whole Art and Trade of Husbandry. London; 1614
  62. 62. Rhagor D. Pflanz-Garten. Bern; 1650
  63. 63. Von Roll T. Neues Blumen-Büchlein. Constanz; 1669
  64. 64. Stromer von Reichenbach WA. Die edle Garten-Wissenschaft. Nürnberg; 1671
  65. 65. Böckler GA. Nützliche Hauß- und Feld-Schule. Nürnberg; 1678
  66. 66. Winiwarter V. Soils and Societies: Perspectives from Environmental History. Isle of Harris: White Horse Press; 2010
  67. 67. Winiwarter V. Environmental history of soils. In: Agnoletti et al., editors. World Environmental History. 2011
  68. 68. Lal R. Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability. 2015;7:5875-5895
  69. 69. Mayer JF. Abhandlung über die Aufgabe einer faßlichen Bescheibung der verschiedenen Erdarten etc und einer Anzeige wie selbige durch ihre Vermischung fruchtbar zu machen? In: Abhandlungen und Beobachtungen durch die Ökonomische Gesellschaft zu Bern gesammelt, Abhandlung IV. Vol. 9(1). 1768
  70. 70. von Hartmann L. Abhandlung von der Erkenntniß und Verbesserung der Erde. Burghausen; 1772
  71. 71. Lüders PE. Drey Bedenken über die Erforschung, die Beurtheilung, und den Gebrauch der Erd-Arten. Flensburg; 1764
  72. 72. Sprenger B. Kurzer doch gründlicher Begriff des gesamten Feldbaues. Stuttgart; 1764
  73. 73. Andreae. Abhandlung über ein beträchtlicher Anzahl Erdarten und von derselben Gebrauch für den Landwirth. Hannover; 1769
  74. 74. Petersen. Kurzgefaste Abhandlungen über verschiedene den Ackerbau betreffende Gegenstände. Flensburg; 1769
  75. 75. Home F. Von den Grunsätzen des Feldbaues und des Wachsthumes der Pflanzen. Edinburgh; English original
  76. 76. Marci A. Mémoire sur l’utilité des engrais artificiels. Mémoires de l’Aacadémie Impériale et Royale des Sciences de Bruxelles T. 1777;3:47-74
  77. 77. Ziel L. Die landwirtschaftliche vegetabilische Produktionslehre nach den Grundsätze der Naturwissenschaft und Erfahrung. München; 1830
  78. 78. Schwerz JN. Anleitung zum praktischen Ackerbau. Vol. 1. Stuttgart & Tübingen; 1823
  79. 79. Sprengel C. Die Bodenkunde oder die Lehre vom Boden. Leipzig; 1837
  80. 80. Kneuttinger. Die Gahre oder Gährung des Ackers. Zeitschrift des landwirtschaftlichen Vereins in Bayern. 1863-1865;53:534-544. 54, 347-352; 55, 99-117
  81. 81. Görbing J. Die Grundlagen der Gare im praktischen Ackerbau. Vol. 1 & 2. Hannover: Landbuch-Verlag; 1947
  82. 82. Dittrich H. Untersuchungen über die Bodengare. Bodenkunde und Pflanzenernährung. 1940;16:16-50
  83. 83. Sekera F. Der allgemeine Bauplan der Bodenstruktur und die Dynamik der Bodengare. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung, Düngung, Bodenkunde. 1951;52:57-60
  84. 84. Sekera F. Gesunder und kranker Boden. Ein praktischer Wegweiser zur Gesundhaltung des Ackers (Kap. 1 Bodengare), Dritte, völlig neubearb. Berlin: Auflage; 1951
  85. 85. Fruwirth C. Die Ackerbaulehre. Berlin: Paul Parey; 1921
  86. 86. Sauerlandt W. Grundlagen der Bodenfruchtbarkeit. In: Humusdüngung und Bodengare. Lüneburg: Metta Kinau Verlag Nachf.; 1948
  87. 87. Paungfoo-Lonhienne C, Visser J, Lonhienne TGA, Schmidt S. Marschner review: Past, present and future of organic nutrients. Plant Soil. 2012;359:1-18
  88. 88. Visser J. Down to Earth [PhD thesis]. University Wageningen; 2010
  89. 89. Johnson J. Über Gemengsaaten von Erbsen und Hafer, Mittheilungen der K. Freien Ökonomische Gesellschaft; 1853. pp. 50-51
  90. 90. Stoddard FL, Hovinn S, Kontturi M, Lindtstrom K, Nikånen A. Legumes in Finnish agriculture: History, present status and future prospects. Agricultural and Food Science. 2009;18:191-2005
  91. 91. Sohn López-Forment IM. Ecological and socio-cultural dynamics of traditional and legume-based Milpa agriculture in S.E. Mexico [PhD]. Ohio State University; 2000
  92. 92. Benítez M, Fornoni J, García-Barrios L, López R. Dynamical networks in agroecology: The milpa as a model system. In: Benítez et al., editors. Frontiers in Ecology, Evolution, and Complexity. 2014
  93. 93. Melsted SW. New concepts of management for corn belt soils. Advances in Agronomy. 1954;6:121-143
  94. 94. Joffe JS. Green manuring viewed by a pedologist. Advances in Agronomy. 1955;7:142-188
  95. 95. Verdeil F, Risler E. Recherches sur la composition des matières solubles extraites, par l’eau, des terres fertiles. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Sciences. 1852;35:95-99
  96. 96. Verdeil F, Risler E. Matières solubles des terres fertiles. Journal D’agriculture Pratique. 1852;3(5):340-342
  97. 97. Boussingault P, Gasparin D. Rapport sur un Mémoire de MM. Verdeil et Rissler, intitulé: Recherches sur la composition des matières solubles eaxtraites par l’eau des terres fertiles. Comptes rendus de l’Académie des sciences. 1853;36:765-768
  98. 98. Risler E. Quotes in: A. de Céris, Chronique agricole. Journal D’agriculture Pratique. 1872;36(1):378-379
  99. 99. Cohn W. Über das Knochenmehl und seine Anwendung als Düngemittel in chemischer und landwirtschaftlicher Beziehung; 1858
  100. 100. Cohn W. Über die Zubereitung des Knochenmehl zur Düngung, Mittheilungen der K. St. Petersburg: Freien Ökonomische Gesellschaft; 1862. pp. 218-222
  101. 101. Lampadius WA. Über das Knochenmehl, als Düngungsmittel für Gärten und Aecker. Journal für Technische und Ökonomische Chemie. 1828;1:23-28
  102. 102. Lampadius WA. Über die Wirkung durchglüheter erdiger Massen als Beförderungsmittel der Vegetation, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der hieher gehörigen Erfahrungen des Ritter von Schindler. Journal für Technische und Ökonomische Chemie. 1833;18:322-331
  103. 103. Lampadius WA. Agronomische Versuchen mit künstlichen Düngemittel angestellt im Jahre 1835. I. Fortgesetzte Versuche und Erfahrungen über die Wirkung humussauerer Basen als Düngungsmittel. Journal für Praktische Chemie. 1835;5:433-450
  104. 104. Lampadius WA. Agronomisch-chemische Versuche und Erfahrungen. Journal für praktische Chemie. 1838;15:338-349
  105. 105. Lampadius WA. Fortsetzung der Mittheilung bestätigender Erfahrungen über die Wirkung humussauren Basen, vorzüglich der aus Torf bereitete, als Düngmittel. Journal für praktische Chemie. 1840;20:267-271
  106. 106. Chaminade R. Sur l’existence dans les sols de complexes phospho-humiques. Comptes Rendus Académie des Sciences (Paris). 1943:235-237
  107. 107. Chaminade R. Sur les propriétés des complexes phospho-humiques des sols. Comptes Rendus Académie des Sciences (Paris). 1943:275-278
  108. 108. Chaminade R. Les formes du phosphore dans le sol. Nature et rôle des complexes phospho-humiques. Paris: Dunod; 1944
  109. 109. Chaminade R. Sur l’existence et les conditions de formation des composés d’adsorption phospho-humiques. Comptes Rendus Académie des Sciences (Paris). 1946:168-170
  110. 110. Chaminade R, Blanchet R. Action stimulante de l’humus sur le développement et la nutrition minérale des végétaux dans le sol. Comptes Rendus Académie des Sciences (Paris). 1953:119-121
  111. 111. Chaminade R. Influence de la matiere organique humifiée sur l’efficacité de l’azote. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung, Düngung, Bodenkunde. 1959;84:22-25
  112. 112. Chaminade R. Rôle specifique de la matière organique sur la nutrition et le rendement des végétaux. In: Pontificia Academia Scientiarum. Vol. 1968. 1968. pp. 777-800
  113. 113. Åslander A. The availability of phosphates after standard fertilization. In: Transactions of the 4th International Congress of Soil Science (Amsterdam), Volume II. 1950. pp. 158-163
  114. 114. Åslander A. Standard fertilization and liming as factors in maintaining soil productivity. Soil Science. 1952;74:181-195
  115. 115. Åslander A. Standard fertilization and the quality of crops. Soil Science. 1952;74:431-442
  116. 116. Åslander A, Armolik N. The influence of organic materials on the potassium fixation in the soil. Transactions of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. 1964;236
  117. 117. Peligot E. Recherches sur la nature et les propriétés chimiques des sucres. Annales de Chimie et de Physique. 1838;67:113-177
  118. 118. Conrads H, Lohff B. Carl Neuberg, Biochemie, Politik und Geschichte. Lebenswege und Werk eines fast verdrängten Forschers. Ferdinand Steiner Verlag; 2006
  119. 119. Nordwig A. Carl Neuberg: Fate of a Jewish biochemist in the Third Reich. TIBS. 1984:498-499
  120. 120. Neuberg C, Roberts IS. Remarkable properties of nucleic acids and nucleotides. Archives of Biochemistry. 1949;20:185-210
  121. 121. Neuberg C, Grauer A. The problem of the solubilization and precipitation and the calcium and phosphorus cycles in cavern formation. Experientia. 1957;10:391-393
  122. 122. Neuberg C, Grauer A, Kreidl M, Lowy H. The role of the carbamate reaction in the calcium and phosphorus cycles in nature. Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics. 1957;70:70-79
  123. 123. Mandl I, Grauer A, Neuberg C. Solubilization of insoluble matter in nature. I. The part played by salts of adenosinetriphosphate. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 1952;8:654-663
  124. 124. Mandl I, Grauer A, Neuberg C. Solubilization of insoluble matter in nature. II. Part played by salts of organic and inorganic acids occurring in nature. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. 1953;10:540-569
  125. 125. Mandl I, Neuberg C. Solubilization, migration, and utilization of insoluble matter. In: Nord FF, editor. Advances in Enzymology and Related Areas of Molecular Biology. Vol. 17. 1956. pp. 135-159
  126. 126. Pro memoria Carl Neuberg, Lecture-Demonstration by Carl Neuberg. Experientia. 1957;13:451-453
  127. 127. Bottomley WH. The isolation from peat of certain nucleic acid derivatives. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 1917;90:39-44
  128. 128. MacLean AA. Extraction of organic phosphorus from soils with bicarbonate. Canadian Journal of Soil Science. 1965;45:165-170
  129. 129. Auten JT. Organic phosphorus of soils. Soil Science. 1923;16:281-294
  130. 130. Schreiner O. Organic phosphorus in soils. Agronomy Journal. 1923;15:117-124
  131. 131. Schulow IW. Versuche mit sterilen Kulturen höherer Pflanzen. Berichte der deutschen botanischen Gesellschaft. 1913;31:97-121
  132. 132. Weissflog J, Mengdehl H. Studien zum Phosphorstoffwechsel in der höhern Pflanze. III. Aufnahme und Verwertbarkeit organischer Phosphorsäureverbindungen durch die Pflanze. Planta: Archiv für wissenschaftliche Botanik. 1933;19:182-241
  133. 133. Breuillin F, Schramm J, Hajirezaei M, Ahkami A, Favre P, Druege U, et al. Phosphate systemically inhibits development of arbuscular mycorrhiza in Petunia hybrida and represses genes involved in mycorrhizal functioning. The Plant Journal. 2010;64:1002-1017
  134. 134. Aguacil M d M, Lozano Z, Campoy MG, Roldán A. Phosphorus fertilisation management modifies the biodiversity of AM fungi in a tropical savanna forage system. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2010;42:1114-1122
  135. 135. Sterling HO, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. In: United States Department of Agriculture Circular No. 939. 1954
  136. 136. Heck AF. Studies on the assimilation of organic phosphorus by plants [thesis]. University of Illinois; 1916
  137. 137. Rodney Bertramson B. Organic forms of phosphorus in the phosphorus nutrition of plants [thesis]. Oregon State College; 1941
  138. 138. Bower CA. Studies on the forms and availability of soil organic phosphorus [dissertation]. Iowa State University; 1949
  139. 139. Steffens D, Leppin T, Luschin-Ebengreuth N, Yang ZM, Schubert S. Organic phosphorus considerably contributes to plant nutrition but is neglected by routine soil-testing methods. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2010;173:765-771
  140. 140. Wening A. Pflanzenverfügbares organisch gebundenes Phosphat in Abhängigkeit von Pflanzenart und Bodeneigenschaften [dissertation Gießen]; 2016
  141. 141. Trapp S, Eggen T. Simulation of the plant uptake of organophosphates and other emerging pollutants for greenhouse experiments and field conditions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2012;20:4018-4029
  142. 142. Paraskova JV. Organic phosphorus speciation in environmental samples. Method development and applications [dissertation]. Uppsala University; 2014
  143. 143. Rubæk GH. Validity and analytical robustness of the Olsen soil P test and other agronomic soil P tests used in Northern Europe. In: Report Nr. 071. DCA Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture, Aarhus University; 2015
  144. 144. Rubaek GH, Kristensen K. Protocol for bicarbonate extraction of inorganic phosphate from agricultural soils. In: Report nr. 102. DCA Danish Centre for Food and Agriculture, Aarhus University; 2017
  145. 145. Internationale Gesellschaft für Bodenkunde. Erster Bericht über die Arbeiten und über die Tagung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft zur Prüfung der Laboratoriumsmethoden für die Bestimmung des Kali-und des Phosphorsäurebedürfnisses der Böden. In: Mistcherlich VEA, editor. Königsberg (Pr.) 12. bis 19. Juli 1936, Herausgegeben; Königsberg (Pr.). 1937
  146. 146. Internationale Gesellschaft für Bodenkunde. Zweiter Bericht. Verhandelt in Stockholm am 5. Juli 1939, Herausgegeben von Eilhard Alfred Mistcherlich, Königsberg (Pr.); 1939
  147. 147. Eilh. Afred Mitscherlich. Physiologische Bodenkunde; 1948
  148. 148. Mitscherlich EA. Die “Chemische Bodenanalyse”. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung, Düngung, Bodenkunde. 1948;87:97-103
  149. 149. Mitscherlich EA. Eine Ergänzung zum zweiten Bericht der Arbeits-gemeinschaft zur Prüfung der Laboratoriumsmethoden für die Bestimmung des Kali- und Phosphorsäurebedürfnisses der Böden. Bulletin of the International Society of Soil Science. 1954;5(1954):10-19
  150. 150. Hampe W. Über die Ammoniaksalze, Harnsäure, Hippursäure und Glycin als stickstoffhaltige Nahrungsmittel der Pflanzen, Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen. 1868;3:94-105
  151. 151. Wicke W. Der Harnstoff als stickstoffhaltiges Pflanzen-Nahrungsmittel. Nachrichten Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der Georg-Augusts-Universität Göttingen. 1865:352-356
  152. 152. Wicke W. (mit Wagner, Mölln) Vegetations-Versuche mit phosphorsaurem Ammon, Hippursäure, Glycin und Kreatin, Nachrichten von der Königl. Vol. 4. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften und der G.A. Universität zu Göttingen; 1869. pp. 43-57
  153. 153. Wagner P. Vegetations-Versuche über die Stickstoff-Ernährung der Pflanzen [Inaugural-Dissertation]. Universität Göttingen; 1869
  154. 154. Brigham RO. Assimilation of Organic Nitrogen by Zea mays and the influence of Bacillus subtilus on such assimilation [thesis]. University of Michigan; 1917
  155. 155. Czapek F. Die organische Ernährung bei höheren grünen Pflanzen. Die Naturwissenschaften. 1920;12:226-232
  156. 156. Czapek F. Resorption organischer Stickstoffverbindungen durch Phanerogamenwurzeln. In: Friedrich Czapek 1920 Biochemie der Pflanzen. 2e Auflage ed. Vol. 2. 1920. pp. 318-321
  157. 157. Lathrop C. The organic nitrogen compounds of soils and fertilizers. Journal of the Franklin Institute. 1917;183:169-206; 303-321; 465-498
  158. 158. Jermain H, Creighton M. How the nitrogen problem has been solved. Journal of the Franklin Institute. 1919;187:377-408; 599-610; 705-735
  159. 159. Schreiner O, Skinner JJ. Nitrogenous soil constituents and their bearing on soil fertility. USDA Bureau of Soil Bulletin. 1912;87
  160. 160. Schreiner O. Organic soil constituents in their relation to soil fertility. In: Eighth International Congress of Applied Chemistry, Section VII: Agricultural Chemistry. 1912. pp. 231-245
  161. 161. Schreiner O, Skinner JJ. Experimental study of the effect of some nitrogenous soil constituents on growth. Nucleic acid and its decomposition products. The Plant World. 1913;16:45-60
  162. 162. Karstens B. Pluralism within parameters: Towards a mature evaluative historiography of science [PhD thesis]. Leiden University; 2015
  163. 163. Bouterse J. Nature and history: Towards a hermeneutic philosophy of science [PhD thesis]. Leiden University; 2016
  164. 164. Uekötter F. Did they know what they were doing? GHI Bulletin Supplement. 2006;2006:145-166
  165. 165. Uekötter F. Perspektiven einer Weltgeschichte des landwirtschaftlich genutzten Bodens. In: Herrmann B, editor. Beiträge zum Göttinger Umwelthist, Kolloquium 2004-2006. 2007. pp. 29-40
  166. 166. Uekötter F. Virtuelle Böden. Über Konstruktion und Destruktion des landwirtschaftlichen Bodens in den Agrarwissenschaften. Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie. 2007;55:23-42
  167. 167. Uekötter F. Im Schatten von Liebig. Das Wissen um den Boden, eine Verlustgeschichte. In: Der kritische Agrarbericht. 2010. pp. 261-265
  168. 168. Uekötter F. The magic of one. Reflections on the pathologies of monoculture. RCC Perspectives. 2011, 2011;2:20
  169. 169. Uekötter F. Europäische Geschichte Online (ERO). Boden; 2012


  • The present contribution embodies original historical research so there are no reviews yet, and we have to list the original sources. The historiographic approach used here has its roots in the work of the prominent science historian Reyer Hooykaas († 1993), while the recent Leiden PhD theses of Karstens [162] and Bouterse [163] give expositions of its ‘evaluative historiography’. See for Uekötter’s free-access publications on the loss of history in agronomics [164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169].

Written By

Jozef Visser

Submitted: 31 March 2019 Reviewed: 03 April 2019 Published: 30 July 2019