Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-rvbq7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T00:26:54.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The non-persistence of bacterio-toxins in the soil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Henry Brougham Hutchinson  and
Aage Christian Thaysen
Henry Brougham Hutchinson
Affiliation:
(Rothamsted Experimental Station.)
Aage Christian Thaysen
Affiliation:
(Rothamsted Experimental Station.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The experimental results submitted in the preceding pages may be summarised as follows:

Seven English soils have been examined in order to ascertain the validity of Greig Smith’s claim that partial sterilisation effects may be due to the destruction of bacterio-toxins in the soil. The results obtained with six of these soils show that:

1. The untreated extracts of these soils varied largely in their suitability for the growth of the test organism (B. prodigiosus). In some instances vigorous growth occurred; in others the numbers of introduced organisms fell to a minimum.

2. Treatment of the extracts by heat (which was supposed to result in the destruction of “toxins”) invariably led to still further bacterial decreases.

3. Extracts of soils treated with antiseptics (which are not supposed to destroy “toxins”) were on the whole more favourable for growth than those of untreated soils. Such extracts were found to have appreciably more organic nitrogen compounds than extracts of untreated soils.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , August 1918 , pp. 43 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1918

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Russell, E. J. and Hutchinson, H. B. This Journal, 1909, 3, 111–144; 1913, 5, 152–221.Google Scholar
2Greig Smith, R.Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 1910, 25, 808–822; 1911, 26, 679–699.Google Scholar
Greig Smith, R.Cent. Bakt. Par. ii, 1911, 30, 154–156.Google Scholar
3Bottomley, W. B.Rep. Brit. Ad. Sci. 1911, 608.Google Scholar
4Hutchinson, C. M.Mem. Ind. Dep. Agr. 1912, 1, pt. 1 (Bact. Ser.).Google Scholar
5Daikuhara, Bul. Jap. Int. Cent. Agric. Exp. Stat. 1914, 2, 1–40.Google Scholar
6Rahn, O.Cent. Bald. Par. ii, 1906, 16, 417.Google Scholar