You will see that the produce on the unmanured plot was less than 6 bushels per acre. With barn-yard manure, 19 bushels, and with a heavy dressing of ammonia-salts and minerals, not quite 26 bushels per acre. With a heavy dressing of superphosphate, not quite 9-1/4 bushels per acre, and with a full dressing of mixed mineral manures and superphosphate, 10 bushels per acre.

The weight per bushel on the unmanured plot was 45 lbs.; with mixed mineral manures, 48-1/2 lbs.; with ammonia-salts alone, 48-1/2 lbs.; with barn-yard manure, 51 lbs.; and with ammonia-salts and mixed mineral manures, 52-1/4 lbs.

Farmers are greatly dependent on the season, but the good farmer, who keeps up the fertility of his land stands a better chance of making money (or of losing less), than the farmer who depends on the unaided products of the soil. The one gets 6 bushels per acre, and 1,413 lbs. of straw of very inferior quality; the other gets 20 to 26 bushels per acre, and 5,000 lbs. of straw. And you must recollect that in an unfavorable season we are pretty certain to get high prices.

The eleventh season (1853-4,) gives us much more attractive-looking figures! We have over 21 bushels per acre on the plot which has grown eleven crops of wheat in eleven years without any manure.

With barn-yard manure, over 41 bushels per acre. With ammonia-salts alone (17a), 45-3/4 bushels. With ammonia-salts and mixed minerals, (16b), over 50 bushels per acre, and 6,635 lbs. of straw. A total produce of nearly 5-1/2 tons per acre.

The twelfth season (1854-5), gives us 17 bushels of wheat per acre on the continuously unmanured plot. Over 34-1/2 bushels on the plot manured with barn-yard manure. And I think, for the first time since the commencement of the experiments, this plot produces the largest yield of any plot in the field. And well it may, for it has now had, in twelve years, 168 tons of barn-yard manure per acre!

Several of the plots with ammonia-salts and mixed minerals, are nearly up to it in grain, and ahead of it in straw.

The thirteenth season (1855-6), gives 14-1/2 bushels on the unmanured plot; over 36-1/4 bushels on the plot manured with barn-yard manure; and over 40 bushels on 8a, dressed with 600 lbs. ammonia-salts and mixed mineral manures. It will be noticed that 800 lbs. ammonia-salts does not give quite as large a yield this year as 600 lbs. I suppose 40 bushels per acre was all that the season was capable of producing, and an extra quantity of ammonia did no good. 400 lbs. of ammonia-salts, on 7a, produced 37-1/4 bushels per acre, and 800 lbs. on 16b, only 37-3/4 bushels. That extra half bushel of wheat was produced at considerable cost.

The fourteenth season (1856-7), gives 20 bushels per acre on the unmanured plot, and 41 bushels on the plot with barn-yard manure. Mixed mineral manures alone on 5a gives nearly 23 bushels per acre. Mixed mineral manures and 200 lbs. ammonia-salts, on 6a, give 35-1/4 bushels. In other words the ammonia gives us over 12 extra bushels of wheat, and 1,140 lbs. of straw. Mineral manures and 400 lbs. ammonia-salts, on 7b, give 46-1/4 bushels per acre. Mineral manures and 600 lbs. ammonia-salts, on 8b, give nearly 49 bushels per acre. Mineral manures and 800 lbs. of ammonia-salts, on 16b, give 50 bushels per acre, and 4,703 lbs. of straw.

"This exceedingly heavy manuring," said the Deacon, "does not pay. For instance,

"200 lbs. ammonia-salts give an increase of 12-1/4 bushels per acre. 400 " " " " 23-1/4 " " 600 " " " " 26 " " 800 " " " " 27 " "

The Deacon is right, and Mr. Lawes and Dr. Gilbert call especial attention to this point. The 200 lbs. of ammonia-salts contain about 50 lbs. of ammonia, and the 400 lbs., 100 lbs. of ammonia. And as I have said, 100 lbs. of ammonia per acre is an unusually heavy dressing. It is as much ammonia as is contained in 1,000 lbs. of average Peruvian guano. We will recur to this subject.

The fifteenth season (1857-8,) gives a yield of 18 bushels of wheat per acre on the continuously unmanured plot, and nearly 39 bushels on the plot continuously manured with 14 tons of barnyard manure. Mixed mineral manures on 5a and 5b, give a mean yield of less than 19 bushels per acre.

Mixed mineral manures and 100 lbs. ammonia-salts, on plots 21 and 22, give 23-1/4 bushels per acre. In other words:

25 lbs. ammonia, gives an increase of 4-1/4 bush. (100 lbs. ammonia-salts) 50 " " , " " " " 10 " (200 " " " ) 100 " " , " " " " 20 " (400 " " " ) 150 " " , " " " " 23 " (600 " " " ) 200 " " , " " " " 23 " (800 " " " )

"It takes," said the Deacon, "about 5 lbs. of ammonia to produce a bushel of wheat. And according to this, 500 lbs. of Peruvian guano, guaranteed to contain 10 per cent of ammonia, would give an increase of 10 bushels of wheat."

"This is a very interesting matter," said I, "but we will not discuss it at present. Let us continue the examination of the subject. I do not propose to make many remarks on the tables. You must study them for yourself. I have spent hours and days and weeks making and pondering over these tables. The more you study them the more interesting and instructive they become."

The sixteenth season (1858-9), gives us a little over 18-1/4 bushels on the unmanured plot. On the plot manured with 14 tons farmyard manure, 36-1/4 bushels; and this is the highest yield this season in the wheat-field. Mixed mineral manures alone, (mean of plot 5a and 5b), give 20-1/2 bushels.

25 lbs. ammonia (100 lbs. ammonia-salts), and mixed minerals, give 25-1/4 bushels, or an increase over minerals alone of 4-3/4 bushels.

50 lbs. ammonia, an increase of 9-1/4 bushels. 100 " " " " " 14 " 150 " " " " " 14 " 200 " " " " " 14-1/4 "

The season was an unfavorable one for excessive manuring. It was too wet and the crops of wheat when highly manured were much laid. The quality of the grain was inferior, as will be seen from the light weight per bushel.

The seventeenth season (1859-60,) gives less than 13 bushels per acre on the unmanured plot; and 32-1/4 bushels on the plot manured with 14 tons farm-yard manure. This season (1860), was a miserable year for wheat in England. It was both cold and wet. Mixed mineral manures, on plots 5a and 5b, gave nearly 16 bushels per acre. 25 lbs. ammonia, in addition to the above, gave less than 15 bushels. In other words it gave no increase at all.

50 lbs. ammonia, gave an increase of 6 bushels. 100 " " " " " " 11-3/4 " 150 " " " " " " 15-1/4 " 200 " " " " " " 16-3/4 "

It was a poor year for the wheat-grower, and that, whether he manured excessively, liberally, moderately, or not at all.

"I do not quite see that," said the Deacon, "the farm-yard manure gave an increase of nearly 20 bushels per acre. And the quality of the grain must have been much better, as it weighed 3-1/2 lbs. per bushel more than the plot unmanured. If the wheat doubled in price, as it ought to do in such a poor year, I do not see but that the good farmer who had in previous years made his land rich, would come out ahead."

"Good for the Deacon," said I. "'Is Saul also among the prophets?'" If the Deacon continues to study these experiments much longer, we shall have him advocating chemical manures and high farming!

The eighteenth season (1860-1,) gave less than 11-1/2 bushels per acre on the unmanured plot; and nearly 35 bushels on the manured plot.

The mixed mineral manures, gave nearly 15-1/2 bushels. " " " and 25 lbs. ammonia 18-1/4 " " " " " 50 " " 27-3/4 " " " " " 100 " " 35 " " " " " 150 " " 35 " " " " " 200 " " 37 "

The nineteenth season (1861-2,) gave 16 bushels per acre on the unmanured plot, and over 38-1/4 bushels on the plot manured with farm-yard manure.

Mixed mineral manures, gave nearly 18 bushels per acre. " " " and 25 lbs. ammonia 20-1/4 " " " " " " 50 " " 28-1/4 " " " " " " 100 " " 36 " " " " " " 150 " " 39-1/2 " " " " " " 200 " " 36-1/4 " "

The twentieth season (1862-3), gave 17-1/4 bushels on the unmanured plot, and 44 bushels per acre on the manured plot.

Mixed mineral manures alone gave 19-3/4 bushels per acre. " " " and 25 lbs. ammonia 28-3/4 " " " " " " 50 " " 39-3/4 " " " " " " 100 " " 53-3/4 " " " " " " 150 " " 55-3/4 " " " " " " 200 " " 56 " "

When we consider that this is the twentieth wheat-crop in succession on the same land, these figures are certainly remarkable.

"They are so," said the Deacon, "and what to me is the most surprising thing about the whole matter is, that the plot which has had no manure of any kind for 25 years, and has grown 20 wheat-crops in 20 successive years, should still produce a crop of wheat of 17-1/4 bushels per acre. Many of our farmers do not average 10 bushels per acre. Mr. Lawes must either have very good land, or else the climate of England is better adapted for wheat-growing than Western New York."

"I do not think," said I, "that Mr. Lawes' land is any better than yours or mine; and I do not think the climate of England is any more favorable for growing wheat without manure than our climate. If there is any difference it is in our favor."

"Why, then," asked the Doctor, "do we not grow as much wheat per acre as Mr. Lawes gets from his continuously unmanured plot?"

This is a question not difficult to answer.

1st. We grow too many weeds. Mr. Lawes plowed the land twice every year; and the crop was hoed once or twice in the spring to kill the weeds.

2d. We do not half work our heavy land. We do not plow it enough—do not cultivate, harrow, and roll enough. I have put wheat in on my own farm, and have seen others do the same thing, when the drill on the clay-spots could not deposit the seed an inch deep. There is "plant-food" enough in these "clay-spots" to give 17 bushels of wheat per acre—or perhaps 40 bushels—but we shall not get ten bushels. The wheat will not come up until late in the autumn—the plants will be weak and thin on the ground; and if they escape the winter they will not get a fair hold of the ground until April or May. You know the result. The straw is full of sap, and is almost sure to rust; the grain shrinks up, and we harvest the crop, not because it is worth the labor, but because we cannot cut the wheat with a machine on the better parts of the field without cutting these poor spots also. An acre or two of poor spots pull down the average yield of the field below the average of Mr. Lawes' well-worked but unmanured land.

3d. Much of our wheat is seriously injured by stagnant water in the soil, and standing water on the surface. I think we may safely say that one-third the wheat-crop of this county (Monroe Co., N.Y.), is lost for want of better tillage and better draining—and yet we think we have as good wheat-land and are as good farmers as can be found in this country or any other!

Unless we drain land, where drainage is needed, and unless we work land thoroughly that needs working, and unless we kill the weeds or check their excessive growth, it is poor economy to sow expensive manures on our wheat-crops.

But I do not think there is much danger of our falling into this error. The farmers who try artificial manures are the men who usually take the greatest pains to make the best and most manure from the animals kept on the farm. They know what manures cost and what they are worth. As a rule, too, such men are good farmers, and endeavor to work their land thoroughly and keep it clean. When this is the case, there can be little doubt that we can often use artificial manures to great advantage.

"You say," said the Deacon, who had been looking over the tables while I was talking, "that mixed mineral manures and 50 lbs. of ammonia give 39-3/4 bushels per acre. Now these mixed mineral manures contain potash, soda, magnesia, and superphosphate. And I see where superphosphate was used without any potash, soda, and magnesia, but with the same amount of ammonia, the yield is nearly 46 bushels per acre. This does not say much in favor of potash, soda, and magnesia, as manures, for wheat. Again, I see, on plot 10b, 50 lbs. of ammonia, alone, gives over 43-1/2 bushels per acre. On plot 11b, 50 lbs. ammonia and superphosphate, give 46-1/2 bushels. Like your father, I am inclined to ask, 'Where can I get this ammonia?'"



CHAPTER XXVIII.

LIME AS A MANURE.

These careful, systematic, and long-continued experiments of Lawes and Gilbert seem to prove that if you have a piece of land well prepared for wheat, which will produce, without manure, say 15 bushels per acre, there is no way of making that land produce 30 bushels of wheat per acre, without directly or indirectly furnishing the soil with a liberal supply of available nitrogen or ammonia.

"What do you mean by directly or indirectly?" asked the Deacon.

"What I had in my mind," said I, "was the fact that I have seen a good dressing of lime double the yield of wheat. In such a case I suppose the lime decomposes the organic matter in the soil, or in some other way sets free the nitrogen or ammonia already in the soil; or the lime forms compounds in the soil which attract ammonia from the atmosphere. Be this as it may, the facts brought out by Mr. Lawes' experiments warrant us in concluding that the increased growth of wheat was connected in some way with an increased supply of available nitrogen or ammonia."

My father used great quantities of lime as manure. He drew it a distance of 13 miles, and usually applied it on land intended for wheat, spreading it broad-cast, after the land had received its last plowing, and harrowing it in, a few days or weeks before sowing the wheat. He rarely applied less than 100 bushels of stone-lime to the acre—generally 150 bushels. He used to say that a small dose of lime did little or no good. He wanted to use enough to change the general character of the land—to make the light land firmer and the heavy land lighter.

While I was with Mr. Lawes and Dr. Gilbert at Rothamsted, I went home on a visit. My father had a four-horse team drawing lime every day, and putting it in large heaps in the field to slake, before spreading it on the land for wheat.

"I do not believe it pays you to draw so much lime," said I, with the confidence which a young man who has learned a little of agricultural chemistry, is apt to feel in his newly acquired knowledge.

"Perhaps not," said my father, "but we have got to do something for the land, or the crops will be poor, and poor crops do not pay these times. What would you use instead of lime?" —"Lime is not a manure, strictly speaking," said I; "a bushel to the acre would furnish all the lime the crops require, even if there was not an abundant supply already in the soil. If you mix lime with guano, it sets free the ammonia; and when you mix lime with the soil it probably decomposes some compounds containing ammonia or the elements of ammonia, and thus furnishes a supply of ammonia for the plants. I think it would be cheaper to buy ammonia in the shape of Peruvian guano."

After dinner, my father asked me to take a walk over the farm. We came to a field of barley. Standing at one end of the field, about the middle, he asked me if I could see any difference in the crop. "Oh, yes," I replied, "the barley on the right-hand is far better than on the left hand. The straw is stiffer and brighter, and the heads larger and heavier. I should think the right half of the field will be ten bushels per acre better than the other."

"So I think," he said, "and now can you tell me why?" —"Probably you manured one half the field for turnips, and not the other half." —"No." —"You may have drawn off the turnips from half the field, and fed them off by sheep on the other half." —"No, both sides were treated precisely alike." —I gave it up —"Well," said he, "this half the field on the right-hand was limed, thirty years ago, and that is the only reason I know for the difference. And now you need not tell me that lime does not pay."

I can well understand how this might happen. The system of rotation adopted was, 1st clover, 2d wheat, 3d turnips, 4th barley, seeded with clover.

Now, you put on, say 150 bushels of lime for wheat. After the wheat the land is manured and sown with turnips. The turnips are eaten off on the land by sheep; and it is reasonable to suppose that on the half of the field dressed with lime there would be a much heavier crop of turnips. These turnips being eaten off by the sheep would furnish more manure for this half than the other half. Then again, when the land was in grass or clover, the limed half would afford more and sweeter grass and clover than the other half, and the sheep would remain on it longer. They would eat it close into the ground, going only on to the other half when they could not get enough to eat on the limed half. More of their droppings would be left on the limed half of the field. The lime, too, would continue to act for several years; but even after all direct benefit from the lime had ceased, it is easy to understand why the crops might be better for a long period of time.

"Do you think lime would do any good," asked the Deacon, "on our limestone land?"—I certainly do. So far as I have seen, it does just as much good here in Western New York, as it did on my father's farm. I should use it very freely if we could get it cheap enough—but we are charged from 25 to 30 cts. a bushel for it, and I do not think at these rates it will pay to use it. Even gold may be bought too dear.

"You should burn your own lime," said the Deacon, "you have plenty of limestone on the farm, and could use up your down wood."—I believe it would pay me to do so, but one man cannot do everything. I think if farmers would use more lime for manure we should get it cheaper. The demand would increase with competition, and we should soon get it at its real value. At 10 to 15 cents a bushel, I feel sure that we could use lime as a manure with very great benefit.

"I was much interested some years ago," said the Doctor, "in the results of Prof. Way's investigations in regard to the absorptive powers of soils."

His experiments, since repeated and confirmed by other chemists, formed a new epoch in agricultural chemistry. They afforded some new suggestions in regard to how lime may benefit land.

Prof. Way found that ordinary soils possessed the power of separating, from solution in water, the different earthy and alkaline substances presented to them in manure; thus, when solutions of salts of ammonia, of potash, magnesia, etc., were made to filter slowly through a bed of dry soil, five or six inches deep, arranged in a flower-pot, or other suitable vessel, it was observed that the liquid which ran through, no longer contained any of the ammonia or other salt employed. The soil had, in some form or other, retained the alkaline substance, while the water in which it was previously dissolved passed through.

Further, this power of the soil was found not to extend to the whole salt of ammonia or potash, but only to the alkali itself. If, for instance, sulphate of ammonia were the compound used in the experiments, the ammonia would be removed from solution, but the filtered liquid would contain sulphuric acid in abundance—not in the free or uncombined form, but united to lime; instead of sulphate of ammonia we should find sulphate of lime in the solution; and this result was obtained, whatever the acid of the salt experimented upon might be.

It was found, moreover, that the process of filtration was by no means necessary; by the mere mixing of an alkaline solution with a proper quantity of soil, as by shaking them together in a bottle, and allowing the soil to subside, the same result was obtained. The action, therefore, was in no way referable to any physical law brought into operation by the process of filtration.

It was also found that the combination between the soil and the alkaline substance was rapid, if not instantaneous, partaking of the nature of the ordinary union between an acid and an alkali.

In the course of these experiments, several different soils were operated upon, and it was found that all soils capable of profitable cultivation possessed this property in a greater or less degree.

Pure sand, it was found, did not possess this property. The organic matter of the soil, it was proved, had nothing to do with it. The addition of carbonate of lime to a soil did not increase its absorptive power, and indeed it was found that a soil in which carbonate of lime did not exist, possessed in a high degree the power of removing ammonia or potash from solution.

To what, then, is the power of soils to arrest ammonia, potash, magnesia, phosphoric acid, etc., owing? The above experiments lead to the conclusion that it is due to the clay which they contain. In the language of Prof. Way, however,

"It still remained to be considered, whether the whole clay took any active part in these changes, or whether there existed in clay some chemical compound in small quantity to which the action was due. This question was to be decided by the extent to which clay was able to unite with ammonia, or other alkaline bases; and it soon became evident that the idea of the clay as a whole, being the cause of the absorptive property, was inconsistent with all the ascertained laws of chemical combination."

After a series of experiments, Prof. Way came to the conclusion that there is in clays a peculiar class of double silicates to which the absorptive properties of soil are due. He found that the double silicate of alumina and lime, or soda, whether found naturally in soils or produced artificially, would be decomposed when a salt of ammonia, or potash, etc., was mixed with it, the ammonia, or potash, taking the place of the lime or soda.

Prof. Way's discovery, then, is not that soils have "absorptive properties"—that has been long known—but that they absorb ammonia, potash, phosphoric acid, etc., by virtue of the double silicate of alumina and soda, or lime, etc., which they contain.

Soils are also found to have the power of absorbing ammonia, or rather carbonate of ammonia, from the air.

"It has long been known," says Prof. Way, "that soils acquire fertility by exposure to the influence of the atmosphere—hence one of the uses of fallows. * * I find that clay is so greedy of ammonia, that if air, charged with carbonate of ammonia, so as to be highly pungent, is passed through a tube filled with small fragments of dry clay, every particle of the gas is arrested."

This power of the soil to absorb ammonia, is also due to the double silicates. But there is this remarkable difference, that while either the lime, soda, or potash silicate is capable of removing the ammonia from solution, the lime silicate alone has the power of absorbing it from the air.

This is an important fact. Lime may act beneficially on many or most soils by converting the soda silicate into a lime silicate, or, in other words, converting a salt that will not absorb carbonate of ammonia from the air, into a salt that has this important property.

There is no manure that has been so extensively used, and with such general success as lime, and yet, "who among us," remarks Prof. Way, "can say that he perfectly understands the mode in which lime acts?" We are told that lime sweetens the soil, by neutralizing any acid character that it may possess; that it assists the decomposition of inert organic matters, and therefore increases the supply of vegetable food to plants: that it decomposes the remains of ancient rocks containing potash, soda, magnesia, etc., occurring in most soils, and that at the same time it liberates silica from these rocks; and lastly, that lime is one of the substances found uniformly and in considerable quantity in the ashes of plants, that therefore its application may be beneficial simply as furnishing a material indispensable to the substance of a plant.

These explanations are no doubt good as far as they go, but experience furnishes many facts which cannot be explained by any one, or all, of these suppositions. Lime, we all know, does much good on soils abounding in organic matter, and so it frequently does on soils almost destitute of it. It may liberate potash, soda, silica, etc., from clay soils, but the application of potash, soda, and silica has little beneficial effect on the soil, and therefore we cannot account for the action of lime on the supposition that it renders the potash, soda, etc., of the soil available to plants. Furthermore, lime effects great good on soils abounding in salts of lime, and therefore it cannot be that it operates as a source of lime for the structure of the plant.

None of the existing theories, therefore, satisfactorily account for the action of lime. Prof. Way's views are most consistent with the facts of practical experience; but they are confessedly hypothetical; and his more recent investigations do not confirm the idea that lime acts beneficially by converting the soda silicate into the lime silicate.

Thus, six soils were treated with lime water until they had absorbed from one and a half to two per cent of their weight of lime. This, supposing the soil to be six inches deep, would be at the rate of about 300 bushels of lime per acre. The amount of ammonia in the soil was determined before liming, after liming, and then after being exposed to the fumes of carbonate ammonia until it had absorbed as much as it would. The following table exhibits the results:

No. 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6. Ammonia in 1,000 grains of natural soil 0.293 0.181 0.085 0.109 0.127 0.083 Ammonia in 1,000 grains of soil after liming 0.169 0.102 0.040 0.050 ... 0.051 Ammonia in 1,000 grains of soil after liming and exposure to the vapor of ammonia 2.226 2.066 3.297 1.076 3.265 1.827 Ammonia in 1,000 grains of soil after exposure to ammonia without liming. 1.906 2.557 3.286 1.097 2.615 2.028

No. 1. Surface soil of London clay. No. 2. Same soil from 1-1/2 to 2 feet below the surface. No. 3. Same soil 3-1/2 feet below the surface. No. 4. Loam of tertiary drift 4 feet below the surface. No. 5. Gault clay—surface soil. No. 6. Gault clay 4 feet below the surface.

It is evident that lime neither assisted nor interfered with the absorption of ammonia, and hence the beneficial effect of liming on such soils must be accounted for on some other supposition. This negative result, however, does not disprove the truth of Prof. Way's hypothesis, for it may be that the silicate salt in the natural soils was that of lime and not that of soda. Indeed, the extent to which the natural soils absorbed ammonia—equal, in No. 3, to about 7,000 lbs. of ammonia per acre, equivalent to the quantity contained in 700 tons of barn-yard manure—shows this to have been the case.

The lime liberated one-half the ammonia contained in the soil.

"This result," says Prof. Way, "is so nearly the same in all cases, that we are justified in believing it to be due to some special cause, and probably it arises from the existence of some compound silicates containing ammonia, of which lime under the circumstances can replace one-half—forming, for instance, a double silicate of alumina, with half lime and half ammonia—such compounds are not unusual or new to the chemist."

This loss of ammonia from a heavy dressing of lime is very great. A soil five inches deep, weighs, in round numbers, 500 tons, or 1,000,000 lbs. The soil, No. 1, contained .0293 per cent of ammonia, or in an acre, five inches deep, 293 lbs. After liming, it contained .0169 per cent, or in an acre, five inches deep, 169 lbs. The loss by liming is 124 lbs. of ammonia per acre. This is equal to the quantity contained in 1200 lbs. of good Peruvian guano, or 12-1/2 tons of barn-yard manure.

In commenting on this great loss of ammonia from liming, Prof. Way observes:

"Is it not possible, that for the profitable agricultural use, the ammonia of the soil is too tightly locked up in it? Can we suppose that the very powers of the soil to unite with and preserve the elements of manure are, however excellent a provision of nature, yet in some degree opposed to the growth of the abnormal crops which it is the business of the farmer to cultivate? There is no absolute reason why such should not be the case. A provision of nature must relate to natural circumstances; for instance, compounds of ammonia may be found in the soil, capable of giving out to the agencies of water and air quite enough of ammonia for the growth of ordinary plants and the preservation of their species; but this supply may be totally inadequate to the necessities of man. * * * Now it is not impossible that the laws which preserve the supply of vegetable nutrition in the soil, are too stringent for the requirements of an unusual and excessive vegetation, such as the cultivator must promote.

"In the case of ammonia locked up in the soil, lime may be the remedy at the command of the farmer—his means of rendering immediately available stores of wealth, which can otherwise only slowly be brought into use.

"In this view, lime would well deserve the somewhat vague name that has been given it, namely, that of a 'stimulant'; for its application would be in some sort an application of ammonia, while its excessive application, by driving off ammonia, would lead to all the disastrous effects which are so justly attributed to it.

"I do not wish to push this assumption too far," says Prof. Way, in conclusion, "but if there be any truth in it, it points out the importance of employing lime in small quantities at short intervals, rather than in large doses once in many years."

"The Squire, last year," said the Deacon, "drew several hundred bushels of refuse lime from the kiln, and mixed it with his manure. It made a powerful smell, and not an agreeable one, to the passers by. He put the mixture on a twenty-acre field of wheat, and he said he was going to beat you."

"Yes," said I, "so I understood—but he did not do it. If he had applied the lime and the manure separately, he would have stood a better chance; still, there are two sides to the question. I should not think of mixing lime with good, rich farm-yard manure; but with long, coarse, strawy manure, there would be less injury, and possibly some advantage."

"The Squire," said the Deacon, "got one advantage. He had not much trouble in drawing the manure about the land. There was not much of it left."

Lime does not always decompose organic matter. In certain conditions, it will preserve vegetable substances. We do not want to mix lime with manure in order to preserve it; and if our object is to increase fermentation, we must be careful to mix sufficient soil with the manure to keep it moist enough to retain the liberated ammonia.

Many farmers who use lime for the first time on wheat, are apt to feel a little discouraged in the spring. I have frequently seen limed wheat in the spring look worse than where no lime was used. But wait a little, and you will see a change for the better, and at harvest, the lime will generally give a good account of itself.

There is one thing about lime which, if generally true, is an important matter to our wheat-growers. Lime is believed to hasten the maturity of the crop. "It is true of nearly all our cultivated crops," says the late Professor Johnston, "but especially of those of wheat, that their full growth is attained more speedily when the land is limed, and that they are ready for the harvest from ten to fourteen days earlier. This is the case even with buckwheat, which becomes sooner ripe, though it yields no larger a return when lime is applied to the land on which it is grown."

In districts where the midge affects the wheat, it is exceedingly important to get a variety of wheat that ripens early; and if lime will favor early maturity, without checking the growth, it will be of great value.

A correspondent in Delaware writes: "I have used lime as a manure in various ways. For low land, the best way is, to sow it broadcast while the vegetation is in a green state, at the rate of 40 or 50 bushels to the acre; but if I can not use it before the frost kills the vegetation, I wait until the land is plowed in the spring, when I spread it on the plowed ground in about the same quantity as before. Last year, I tried it both ways, and the result was, my crop was increased at least fourfold in each instance, but that used on the vegetation was best. The soil is a low, black sand."

A farmer writes from New Jersey, that he has used over 6,000 bushels of lime on his farm, and also considerable guano and phosphates, but considers that the lime has paid the best. His farm has more than doubled in real value, and he attributes this principally to the use of lime.

"We lime," he says, "whenever it is convenient, but prefer to put it on at least one year before plowing the land. We spread from 25 to 40 bushels of lime on the sod in the fall; plant with corn the following summer; next spring, sow with oats and clover; and the next summer, plow under the clover, and sow with wheat and timothy. We have a variety of soils, from a sandy loam to a stiff clay, and are certain that lime will pay on all or any of them. Some of the best farmers in our County commenced liming when the lime cost 25 cts. a bushel, and their farms are ahead yet, more in value, I judge, than the lime cost. The man who first commences using lime, will get so far ahead, while his neighbors are looking on, that they will never catch up."

Another correspondent in Hunterdon Co., N.J., writes: "Experience has taught me that the best and most profitable mode of applying lime is on grass land. If the grass seed is sown in the fall with the wheat or rye, which is the common practice with us in New Jersey, as soon as the harvest comes off the next year, we apply the lime with the least delay, and while fresh slacked and in a dry and mealy state. It can be spread more evenly on the ground, and is in a state to be more readily taken up by the fine roots of the plants, than if allowed to get wet and clammy. It is found most beneficial to keep it as near the surface of the ground as practicable, as the specific gravity or weight of this mineral manure is so great, that we soon find it too deep in the ground for the fibrous roots of plants to derive the greatest possible benefit from its use. With this method of application are connected several advantages. The lime can be hauled in the fall, after the busy season is over, and when spread on the sod in this way, comes in more immediate contact with the grass and grass-roots than when the land is first plowed. In fields that have been limed in part in this manner, and then plowed, and lime applied to the remainder at the time of planting with corn, I always observe a great difference in the corn-crop; and in plowing up the stubble the next season, the part limed on the sod is much mellower than that limed after the sod was broken, presenting a rich vegetable mould not observed in the other part of the field."

A farmer in Chester Co., Pa., also prefers to apply lime to newly-seeded grass or clover. He puts on 100 bushels of slaked lime per acre, either in the fall or in the spring, as most convenient. He limes one field every year, and as the farm is laid off into eleven fields, all the land receives a dressing of lime once in eleven years.

In some sections of the country, where lime has been used for many years, it is possible that part of the money might better be used in the purchase of guano, phosphates, fish-manure, etc.; while in this section, where we seldom use lime, we might find it greatly to our interest to give our land an occasional dressing of lime.

The value of quick-lime as a manure is not merely in supplying an actual constituent of the plant. If it was, a few pounds per acre would be sufficient. Its value consists in changing the chemical and physical character of the soil—in developing the latent mineral plant-food, and in decomposing and rendering available organic matter, and in forming compounds which attract ammonia from the atmosphere. It may be that we can purchase this ammonia and other plant-food cheaper than we can get it by using lime. It depends a good deal on the nature and composition of the soil. At present, this question can not be definitely settled, except by actual trial on the farm. In England, where lime was formerly used in large quantities, the tendency for some time has been towards a more liberal and direct use of ammonia and phosphates in manures, rather than to develop them out of the soil by the use of lime. A judicious combination of the two systems will probably be found the most profitable.

Making composts with old sods, lime, and barn-yard manure, is a time-honored practice in Europe. I have seen excellent results from the application of such a compost on meadow-land. The usual plan is, to select an old hedge-row or headland, which has lain waste for many years. Plow it up, and cart the soil, sods, etc., into a long, narrow heap. Mix lime with it, and let it lie six months or a year. Then turn it, and as soon as it is fine and mellow, draw it on to the land. I have assisted at making many a heap of this kind, but do not recollect the proportion of lime used; in fact, I question if we had any definite rule. If we wanted to use lime on the land, we put more in the heap; if not, less. The manure was usually put in when the heap was turned.

Dr. Voelcker analyzed the dry earth used in the closets at the prison in Wakefield, England. He found that: Phosphoric Nitrogen. Acid. 10 tons of dry earth before using contained 63 lbs. 36 lbs. 10 tons of dry earth after being used once contained 74 " 50 " 10 tons of dry earth after being used twice contained 84 " 88 " 10 tons of dry earth after being used thrice contained 102 " 102 "

After looking at the above figures, the Deacon remarked: "You say 10 tons of dry earth before being used in the closet contained 62 lbs. of nitrogen. How much nitrogen does 10 tons of barn-yard manure contain?"

"That depends a good deal on what food the animals eat. Ten tons of average fresh manure would contain about 80 lbs. of nitrogen."

"Great are the mysteries of chemistry!" exclaimed the Deacon. "Ten tons of dry earth contain almost as much nitrogen as 10 tons of barn-yard manure, and yet you think that nitrogen is the most valuable thing in manure. What shall we be told next?"

"You will be told, Deacon, that the nitrogen in the soil is in such a form that the plants can take up only a small portion of it. But if you will plow such land in the fall, and expose it to the disintegrating effects of the frost, and plow it again in the spring, and let the sun and air act upon it, more or less of the organic matter in the soil will be decomposed, and the nitrogen rendered soluble. And then if you sow this land to wheat after a good summer-fallow, you will stand a chance of having a great crop."

This dry earth which Dr. Voelcker analyzed appeared, he says, "to be ordinary garden soil, containing a considerable portion of clay." After it had been passed once through the closet, one ton of it was spread on an acre of grass-land, which produced 2 tons 8 cwt. of hay. In a second experiment, one ton, once passed through the closet, produced 2 tons 7 cwt. of hay per acre. We are not told how much hay the land produced without any dressing at all. Still we may infer that this top-dressing did considerable good. Of one thing, however, there can be no doubt. This one ton of earth manure contained only 1-1/4 lb. more nitrogen and 1-1/2 lb. more phosphoric acid than a ton of the dry earth itself. Why then did it prove so valuable as a top-dressing for grass? I will not say that it was due solely to the decomposition of the nitrogenous matter and other plant-food in the earth, caused by the working over and sifting and exposure to the air, and to the action of the night-soil. Still it would seem that, so far as the beneficial effect was due to the supply of plant-food, we must attribute it to the earth itself rather than to the small amount of night-soil which it contained.

It is a very common thing in England, as I have said before, for farmers to make a compost of the sods and earth from an old hedge-row, ditch, or fence, and mix with it some lime or barn-yard manure. Then, after turning it once or twice, and allowing it to remain in the heap for a few months, to spread it on meadow-land. I have seen great benefit apparently derived from such a top-dressing. The young grass in the spring assumed a rich, dark green color. I have observed the same effect where coal-ashes were spread on grass-land; and I have thought that the apparent benefit was due largely to the material acting as a kind of mulch, rather than to its supplying plant-food to the grass.

I doubt very much whether we can afford to make such a compost of earth with lime, ashes, or manure in this country. But I feel sure that those of us having rich clay land containing, in an inert form, as much nitrogen and phosphoric acid as Dr. Voelcker found in the soil to be used in the earth-closet at Wakefield, can well afford to stir it freely, and expose it to the disintegrating and decomposing action of the atmosphere.

An acre of dry soil six inches deep weighs about 1,000 tons; and consequently an acre of such soil as we are talking about would contain 6,200 lbs. of nitrogen, and 3,600 lbs. of phosphoric acid. In other words, it contains to the depth of only six inches as much nitrogen as would be furnished by 775 tons of common barn-yard manure, and as much phosphoric acid as 900 tons of manure. With such facts as these before us, am I to blame for urging farmers to cultivate their land more thoroughly? I do not know that my land or the Deacon's is as rich as this English soil; but, at any rate, I see no reason why such should not be the case.



CHAPTER XXIX.

MANURES FOR BARLEY.

Messrs. Lawes and Gilbert have published the results of experiments with different manures on barley grown annually on the same land for twenty years in succession. The experiments commenced in 1852.

The soil is of the same general character as that in the field on the same farm where wheat was grown annually for so many years, and of which we have given such a full account. It is what we should call a calcareous clay loam. On my farm, we have what the men used to call "clay spots." These spots vary in size from two acres down to the tenth of an acre. They rarely produced even a fair crop of corn or potatoes, and the barley was seldom worth harvesting. Since I have drained the land and taken special pains to bestow extra care in plowing and working these hard and intractable portions of the fields, the "clay spots" have disappeared, and are now nothing more than good, rather stiff, clay loam, admirably adapted for wheat, barley, and oats, and capable of producing good crops of corn, potatoes, and mangel-wurzels.

The land on which Mr. Lawes' wheat and barley experiments were made is not dissimilar in general character from these "clay spots." If the land was only half-worked, we should call it clay; but being thoroughly cultivated, it is a good clay loam. Mr. Lawes describes it as "a somewhat heavy loam, with a subsoil of raw, yellowish red clay, but resting in its turn upon chalk, which provides good natural drainage."

The part of the field devoted to the experiments was divided into 24 plots, about the fifth of an acre each.

Two plots were left without manure of any kind.

One plot was manured every year with 14 tons per acre of farm-yard manure, and the other plots "with manures," to quote Dr. Gilbert "which respectively supplied certain constituents of farm-yard manure, separately or in combination."

In England, the best barley soils are usually lighter than the best wheat soils. This is probably due to the fact that barley usually follows a crop of turnips—more or less of which are eaten off on the land by sheep. The trampling of the sheep compresses the soil, and makes even a light, sandy one firmer in texture.

In this country, our best wheat land is also our best barley land, provided it is in good heart, and is very thoroughly worked. It is no use sowing barley on heavy land half worked. It will do better on light soils; but if the clayey soils are made fine and mellow, they produce with us the best barley.

In chemical composition, barley is quite similar to wheat. Mr. Lawes and Dr. Gilbert give the composition of a wheat-crop of 30 bushels per acre, 1,800 lbs. of grain, and 3,000 lbs. of straw; and of a crop of barley, 40 bushels per acre, 2,080 lbs. grain, and 2,500 lbs. of straw, as follows:

+ + + In Grain. In Straw. In Total Produce. + -+ + -+ + + - Wheat Barley Wheat Barley Wheat Barley lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. Nitrogen 32. 33. 13. 12. 45. 45. Phosphoric acid 16. 17. 7. 5. 23. 22. Potash 9.5 11.5 20.5 18.5 30. 30. Lime 1. 1.5 9. 10.5 10. 12. Magnesia 3.5 4. 3. 2.5 6.5 6.5 Silica 0.5 12. 99.5 63. 100. 75. + -+ + -+ + + -

A few years ago, when the midge destroyed our wheat, many farmers in Western New York raised "winter barley," instead of "winter wheat," and I have seen remarkably heavy crops of this winter barley. It is not now grown with us. The maltsters would not pay as much for it as for spring barley, and as the midge troubles us less, our farmers are raising winter wheat again.

Where, as with us, we raise winter wheat and spring barley, the difference between the two crops, taking the above estimate of yield and proportion of grain to straw, would be:

1st. Almost identical composition in regard to nitrogen, phosphoric acid, potash, lime, and magnesia; but as it has more straw, the wheat-crop removes a larger amount of silica than barley.

2d. The greatest difference is in the length of time the two crops are in the ground. We sow our winter wheat the last of August, or the first and second week in September. Before winter sets in, the wheat-plant often throws out a bunch of roots a foot in length. During the winter, though the thermometer goes down frequently to zero, and sometimes 10deg. to 15deg. below zero, yet if the land is well covered with snow, it is not improbable that the roots continue to absorb more or less food from the ground, and store it up for future use. In the spring, the wheat commences to grow before we can get the barley into the ground, though not to any considerable extent. I have several times sown barley as soon as the surface-soil was thawed out five or six inches deep, but with a bed of solid frozen earth beneath.

3d. Two-rowed barley does not ripen as early as winter wheat, but our ordinary six-rowed barley is ready to harvest the same time as our winter wheat.

4th. We sow our barley usually in May, and harvest it in July. The barley, therefore, has to take up its food rapidly. If we expect a good growth, we must provide a good supply of food, and have it in the proper condition for the roots to reach it and absorb it; in other words, the land must be not only rich, but it must be so well worked that the roots can spread out easily and rapidly in search of food and water. In this country, you will find ten good wheat-growers to one good barley grower.

"That is so," said the Deacon; "but tell us about Mr. Lawes' experiments. I have more confidence in them than in your speculations. And first of all what kind of land was the barley grown on?"

"It is," said I, "rather heavy land—as heavy as what the men call 'clay-spots,' on my farm."

"And on those clay-spots," said the Deacon, "you either get very good barley, or a crop not worth harvesting."

"You have hit it exactly, Deacon," said I. "The best barley I have this year (1878) is on these clay-spots. And the reason is, that we gave them an extra plowing last fall with a three-horse plow. That extra plowing has probably given me an extra 30 bushels of barley per acre. The barley on some of the lighter portions of the field will not yield over 25 bushels per acre. On the clay-spots, it looks now (June 13) as though there would be over 50 bushels per acre. It is all headed out handsomely on the clay-spots, and has a strong, dark, luxuriant appearance, while on the sand, the crop is later and has a yellow, sickly look."

"You ought," said the Doctor, "to have top-dressed these poor, sandy parts of the field with a little superphosphate and nitrate of soda."

"It would have paid wonderfully well," said I, "or, perhaps, more correctly speaking, the loss would have been considerably less. We have recently been advised by a distinguished writer, to apply manure to our best land, and let the poor land take care of itself. But where the poor land is in the same field with the good, we are obliged to plow, harrow, cultivate, sow, and harvest the poor spots, and the question is, whether we shall make them capable of producing a good crop by the application of manure, or be at all the labor and expense of putting in and harvesting a crop of chicken-feed and weeds. Artificial manures give us a grand chance to make our crops more uniform."

"You are certainly right there," said the Doctor, "but let us examine the Rothamsted experiments on barley."

You will find the results in the following tables. The manures used, are in many respects the same as were adopted in the wheat experiments already given. The mineral or ash constituents were supplied as follows:

Potash—as sulphate of potash. Soda—as sulphate of soda. Magnesia—as sulphate of magnesia. Lime—as sulphate, phosphate, and superphosphate. Phosphoric acid—as bone-ash, mixed with sufficient sulphuric acid to convert most of the insoluble earthy phosphate of lime into sulphate and soluble superphosphate of lime. Sulphuric acid—in the phosphatic mixture just mentioned; in sulphates of potash, soda, and magnesia; in sulphate of ammonia, etc. Chlorine—in muriate of ammonia. Silica—as artificial silicate of soda.

Other constituents were supplied as under:

Nitrogen—as sulphate and muriate of ammonia; as nitrate of soda; in farm-yard manure; in rape-cake. Non-nitrogenous organic matter, yielding by decomposition, carbonic acid, and other products—in yard manure, in rape-cake.

The artificial manure or mixture for each plot was ground up, or otherwise mixed, with a sufficient quantity of soil and turf-ashes to make it up to a convenient measure for equal distribution over the land. The mixtures so prepared were, with proper precautions, sown broadcast by hand; as it has been found that the application of an exact amount of manure, to a limited area of land, can be best accomplished in that way.

The same manures were used on the same plot each year. Any exceptions to this rule are mentioned in foot-notes.

Experiments on the Growth of Barley, Year After Year, on the Same Land, Without Manure, and With Different Descriptions of Manure, Hoos Field, Rothamsted, England.

Table I.—Showing, taken together with the foot-notes, the description and quantities of the manures applied per acre on each plot, in each year of the twenty, 1852-1871 inclusive.

[N.B. This table has reference to all the succeeding Tables].

-+ Manures per Acre, per Annum (unless otherwise Plots stated in the foot-notes). -+ 1 O. Unmanured continuously 2 O. 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate of Lime[A] 3 O. 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate of Potass, 100 lbs. [C]Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia 4 O. 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate Potass. 100 lbs. [C]Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate 1 A. 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts[D] 2 A. 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts, 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate 3 A. 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts, 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. [C]Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia 4 A. 200 lbs. Ammonia salts 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. [C]Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate {1 AA. 275 lbs. Nitrate Soda {2 AA. 275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate [E]{3 AA. 275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate Potass, { 100 lbs. [C]Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia {4 AA. 275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. [C]Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate {1 AAS. 275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 400 lbs. [F]Silicate Soda {2 AAS. 275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 400 lbs. [F]Silicate Soda, { 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate {3 AAS. 275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 400 lbs. [F]Silicate Soda, { 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. [C]Sulphate Soda, { 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia {4 AAS. 275 lbs. Nitrate Soda, 400 lbs. [F]Silicate Soda, 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. [C]Sulphate Soda 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate {1 C. 1000 lbs. Rape-cake {2 C. 1000 lbs. Rape-cake, 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate [G]{3 C. 1000 lbs. Rape-cake, 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate Potass, { 100 lbs. [C]Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, {4 C. 1000 lbs. Rape-cake, 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate Potass, 100 lbs. [C]Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate {1 N. 275 lbs. Nitrate Soda [H]{2 N. 275 lbs. Nitrate Soda (550 lbs. Nitrate for 5 years, 1853, 4, 5, 6, and 7) M. 100 lbs. [I]Sulphate Soda, 100 lbs. Sulphate Magnesia, 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate (commencing 1855; 1852, 3, and 4, unmanured 5 O. 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate Potass, 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate (200 lbs. Ammonia-salts also, for the first year, 1852, only) 5 A. 200 lbs. [B]Sulphate Potass, 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate, 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts 6 {1 Unmanured continuously {2 Ashes (burnt-soil and turf) 7 14 Tons Farmyard-Manure -+

[A] "3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate of Lime"—in all cases, made from 200 lbs. Bone ash, 150 lbs. Sulphuric acid sp. gr. 1.7 (and water).

[B] Sulphate Potass—300 lbs. per annum for the first 6 years, 1852-7.]

[C] Sulphate Soda—200 lbs. per annum for the first 6 years, 1852-7.

[D] The "Ammonia-salts"—in all cases equal parts of Sulphate and Muriate of Ammonia of Commerce.

[E] Plots "AA" and "AAS"—first 6 years, 1852-7, instead of Nitrate of Soda, 400 lbs. Ammonia-salts per annum; next 10 years, 1858-67, 200 lbs. Ammonia-salts per annum; 1868, and since, 275 lbs. Nitrate of Soda per annum. 275 lbs. Nitrate of Soda is reckoned to contain the same amount of Nitrogen as 200 lbs. "Ammonia-salts."

[F] Plots "AAS"—the application of Silicates did not commence until 1864; in '64-5-6, and 7, 200 lbs. Silicate of Soda and 200 lbs. Silicate of Lime were applied per acre, but in 1868, and since, 400 lbs. Silicate of Soda, and no Silicate of Lime. These plots comprise, respectively, one half of the original "AA" plots, and, excepting the addition of the Silicates, have been, and are, in other respects, manured in the same way as the "AA" plots.

[G] 2000 lbs. Rape-cake per annum for the first 6 years, and 1000 lbs. only, each year since.

[H] 300 lbs. Sulphate Potass, and 3-1/2 cwts. Superphosphate of Lime, without Nitrate of Soda, the first year (1852); Nitrate alone each year since.

[I] Sulphate Soda—200 lbs. per annum 1855, 6, and 7.

[Transcriber's Note: The following is an alternative version of the same table, giving the information in the form used in all earlier tables.]

FM Farm-yard Manure. ABT Ashes (burnt-soil and turf). SiS Silicate of Soda. SPh Superphosphate. SMg Sulphate of Magnesia. SP Sulphate of Potass. SS Sulphate of Soda. NS Nitrate of Soda. RC Rape-Cake. A-S Ammonia-salts.

- - - - Plots FM ABT SiS SPh SMg SP SS NS RC A-S - - - - Tons. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. 1 O. .. .. unmanured continuously .. 2 O. .. .. .. 350 .. .. .. .. .. .. 3 O. .. .. .. .. 100 200 100 .. .. .. 4 O. .. .. .. 350 100 200 100 .. .. .. 1 A. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 200 2 A. .. .. .. 350 .. .. .. .. .. 200 3 A. .. .. .. .. 100 200 100 .. .. 200 4 A. .. .. .. 350 100 200 100 .. .. 200 {1 AA. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 275 .. .. {2 AA. .. .. .. 350 .. .. .. 275 .. .. {3 AA. .. .. .. .. 100 200 100 275 .. .. {4 AA. .. .. .. 350 100 200 100 275 .. .. {1 AAS. .. .. 400 .. .. .. .. 275 .. .. {2 AAS. .. .. 400 350 .. .. .. 275 .. .. {3 AAS. .. .. 400 .. 100 200 100 275 .. .. {4 AAS. .. .. 400 350 100 200 100 275 .. .. 1 C. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1000 .. 2 C. .. .. .. 350 .. .. .. .. 1000 .. 3 C. .. .. .. .. 100 200 100 .. 1000 .. 4 C. .. .. .. 350 100 200 100 .. 1000 .. 1 N. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 275 .. .. 2 N. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 275 .. .. M. .. .. .. 350 100 .. 100 .. .. .. 5 O. .. .. .. 350 .. 200 .. .. .. .. 5 A. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6{1 .. .. unmanured continuously .. {2[A] .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 7 14 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. - - - -

[A] 6.2: No amount given for ashes

[Transcriber's Note: The following group of tables, II-V, express fractions using the shorthand described at the beginning of the text.]

Experiments on the Growth of Barley, Year After Year, on the Same Land, Without Manure, and With Different Descriptions of Manure, Hoos Field, Rothamsted, England.

Table II.—Dressed Corn Per Acre—bushels.

[N.B. The double vertical lines show that there was a change in the description, or quantity, of Manure, at the period indicated, for particulars of which see Table I., and foot-notes thereto, p. 231.]

- Harvests + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ -+ -+ + + + + Plots 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ -+ -+ + + + + bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. 1 O. 272 256 35 31 137 261 211 134 132 162 164 227 2 O. 285 334 405 362 176 332 286 195 156 25 217 323 3 O. 261 275 364 346 165 32 242 157 152 187 196 275 4 O. 326 355 42 371 196 396 307 196 182 293 251 33 + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ -+ -+ + + + + Means 286 305 384 346 17 326 262 172 155 223 206 287 + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ -+ -+ + + + + 1 A. 367 385 476 444 25 387 314 153 265 304 313 425 2 A. 385 401 604 476 291 564 513 344 433 55 485 615 3 A. 36 364 50 444 283 423 342 167 28 326 352 485 4 A. 406 382 605 483 316 573 514 345 434 545 475 553 + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ + -+ + + + + Means 381 383 546 462 284 486 421 253 353 432 406 521 + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ + -+ + + + + 1 AA. 444 406 565 48 362 496 393 214 253 35 314 49 2 AA. 436 422 632 503 314 664 562 357 432 556 51 604 3 AA. 416 412 514 476 253 497 405 203 306 367 362 54 4 AA. 451 444 626 495 375 647 562 356 462 557 486 594 + -+ -+ + -+ + + + -+ + + + + Means 436 421 584 487 325 576 481 283 363 457 417 556 + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ -+ -+ + + + + 1 AAS. 2 AAS. 3 AAS. 4 AAS. + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ -+ -+ + + + + Means + -+ -+ + -+ + + -+ -+ + + + + 1 C. 391 397 606 484 366 641 536 386 316 564 41 517 2 C. 364 361 605 532 371 622 573 41 366 567 45 55 3 C. 334 352 564 487 325 602 52 341 352 511 36 531 4 C. 38 401 602 516 353 622 571 35 406 535 454 544 + -+ -+ + -+ + + + -+ + + + + Means 366 377 594 505 354 622 55 372 361 544 417 535 + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ -+ -+ + + + + 1 N. }(257){ 343 493 50 284 477 376 247 273 382 354 514 2 N. } { 371 532 493 42 58 437 264 296 415 383 537 M. 321 186 244 257 194 105 275 233 281 5 O. (364) 274 306 323 191 311 253 164 101 285 173 294 5 A. 364 401 517 477 331 547 481 331 39 493 465 514 6{1 29 262 351 372 151 347 264 171 122 165 184 272 {2 251 273 332 362 157 311 252 146 121 177 19 285 7 33 361 563 501 321 512 55 40 415 543 496 594 + -+ -+ + -+ + -+ -+ -+ + + + +

1st ten: First ten Years, 1852-'61. 2nd ten: Second ten Years, 1862-'71. Total Period: Total Period 20 Years, 1852-'71.

+ + Harvests Average Annual. -+ + + + -+ -+ + + + + + 1st 2nd Total 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 ten ten Period Plots -+ + + + -+ -+ + + + + + bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. bu. bush. bu. bushels 24 18 157 171 155 151 134 166 223 174 20 1 O. 302 224 223 245 184 182 18 231 277 232 254 2 O. 261 22 191 17 142 186 166 193 246 201 223 3 O. 332 243 24 207 175 222 184 25 304 243 274 4 O. -+ + + + -+ -+ + + + + + 283 216 203 197 164 185 166 211 263 212 237 Means -+ + + + -+ -+ + + + + + 387 297 271 305 203 277 276 363 335 312 324 1 A. 584 483 504 44 375 48 414 451 455 483 47 2 A. 437 332 274 33 25 346 307 381 35 35 35 3 A. 553 464 47 437 345 492 38 464 461 463 462 4 A. -+ + + + -+ -+ + + + + + 491 394 381 377 293 397 344 414 401 402 402 Means -+ + + + -+ -+ + + + + + 416 336 291 296 27 321 292 391 396 342 37 1 AA. 567 474 507 442 44 482 462 464 487 495 492 2 AA. 445 341 296 327 274 337 323 361 385 361 373 3 AA. 563 487 507 45 453 497 444 46 497 494 496 4 AA. -+ + + + -+ -+ + + + + + 497 411 401 38 36 41 381 42 442 423 433 Means + + + + + + -+ + + + + + 441 347 377 322 293 346 35 481 {372 367 37 } 1 AAS. 547 472 511 44 447 497 446 494 [1]{492 472 482}[1] 2 AAS. 50 41 417 394 363 404 426 483 {431 42 425} 3 AAS. 591 504 506 452 465 516 472 487 {513 485 50 } 4 AAS. + + + + + + -+ + + + + + 52 433 453 402 393 442 424 486 452 436 444 Means -+ + + + -+ -+ + + + + + 481 45 457 385 37 424 416 44 47 435 452 1 C. 516 461 474 454 352 482 416 416 476 456 466 2 C. 491 486 437 387 351 435 384 453 44 432 435 3 C. 53 481 485 425 362 521 436 474 473 472 473 4 C. -+ + + + -+ -+ + + + + + 504 47 464 413 357 465 414 445 464 45 456 Means -+ + + + -+ -+ + + + + + 406 37 343 33 254 352 346 431 [2]{375 371 373}[2] 1 N. 462 397 41 363 253 383 402 453 {423 404 413} 2 N. 257 196 19 204 146 165 161 221 [3](225 205 214)[3] M. 264 23 224 194 15 233 144 20 [4](245 211 226)[4] 5 O. 506 482 437 347 361 497 416 442 433 446 441 5 A. 251 21 161 163 152 147 152 186 25 187 22 [1]}6 251 192 172 196 157 153 151 242 237 20 217 [2]} 62 526 531 455 435 467 474 542 45 514 482 7 -+ + + + -+ -+ + + + + +

[Note 1: Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years.]

[Note 2: Averages of 9 years, (1853-'61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.]

[Note 3: Averages of 7 years (1855-'61), last 10 years, and total 17 years.]

[Note 4: Averages of 9 years (1853-'61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.]

Experiments on the Growth of Barley, Year After Year, on the Same Land, Without Manure, and With Different Descriptions of Manure, Hoos Field, Rothamsted, England.

Table III.—Weight per Bushel of Dressed Corn—lbs.

[N.B. The double vertical lines show that there was a change in the description, or quantity, of Manure, at the period indicated, for particulars of which see Table I., and foot-notes thereto, p. 231.]

Harvests - - - - Plots 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 - - - - lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. 1 O. 52.1 51.4 53.6 52.4 49.1 52.0 53.0 49.0 50.8 52.3 50.3 53.6 2 O. 52.6 52.6 54.0 52.5 46.5 52.8 54.0 52.0 50.5 53.8 52.0 54.2 3 O. 52.5 51.9 53.6 52.9 48.5 52.5 53.5 49.5 50.3 52.8 51.8 54.5 4 O. 51.5 52.1 54.0 53.1 47.0 53.7 54.0 52.5 51.3 54.0 52.0 54.8 - - - Means 52.2 52.0 53.8 52.7 47.8 52.8 53.6 50.8 50.7 53.1 51.5 54.3 - - - - 1 A. 50.7 52.4 53.6 51.8 48.5 51.9 53.0 47.5 50.8 51.5 49.4 53.6 2 A. 50.5 52.5 54.3 51.3 46.3 54.3 53.8 51.0 51.0 53.5 53.5 55.3 3 A. 50.9 52.6 54.0 52.2 49.1 52.1 54.0 47.5 50.8 51.5 50.5 54.3 4 A. 51.4 53.1 54.3 52.0 46.4 54.8 54.0 51.0 51.1 54.0 54.0 56.5 - - - Means 50.9 52.7 54.1 51.8 47.6 53.3 53.7 49.3 50.9 52.6 51.9 54.9 - - - 1 AA. 49.1 51.3 52.8 50.6 48.3 52.0 53.5 47.5 50.7 51.8 50.0 53.9 2 AA. 49.5 51.7 52.4 50.1 46.1 53.5 53.3 50.7 51.3 53.5 54.4 55.7 3 AA. 50.6 51.3 53.1 50.2 47.3 52.1 53.9 47.5 50.4 51.5 51.5 54.5 4 AA. 50.6 51.4 52.1 48.9 45.4 53.9 53.5 50.5 51.0 53.5 54.0 56.4 - - Means 50.0 51.4 52.6 50.0 46.8 52.9 53.6 49.1 50.9 52.6 52.5 55.1 - - - - 1 AAS. 2 AAS. 3 AAS. 4 AAS. - - - - Means - - - 1 C. 51.7 51.3 52.9 50.5 46.1 53.2 53.5 52.0 52.0 54.0 54.5 56.3 2 C. 51.8 51.6 52.8 50.0 47.3 53.8 52.8 51.5 51.5 54.1 55.3 56.4 3 C. 51.3 51.5 52.6 50.6 46.6 54.1 53.5 51.7 51.8 53.5 53.5 56.8 4 C. 51.4 50.4 52.8 49.5 46.3 54.1 53.1 51.0 51.1 54.3 54.0 56.7 - - Means 51.6 51.2 52.8 50.2 46.6 53.8 53.2 51.6 51.6 54.0 54.3 56.6 - - - 1 N. }{51.7}{ 51.3 53.3 52.0 50.0 52.9 53.5 48.0 51.0 52.0 51.5 53.4 2 N. } { 49.7 53.1 50.1 48.4 53.0 54.0 48.5 51.1 51.8 51.3 53.9 M. 52.6 49.3 52.6 53.6 49.5 51.0 53.8 52.8 53.8 5 O. (51.0) 51.8 53.1 52.6 47.5 53.4 54.0 51.0 51.0 53.3 51.5 54.1 5 A. 51.0 52.3 53.8 51.5 46.6 54.5 54.0 51.0 51.2 53.0 52.0 55.6 6{1 52.0 50.3 52.8 52.5 50.0 52.3 53.1 48.5 51.3 52.0 51.8 54.0 {2 53.0 50.9 53.6 52.6 50.0 52.3 53.1 47.5 51.0 52.0 52.0 54.1 7 52.8 51.6 53.9 52.9 47.1 54.2 54.5 52.5 52.1 54.8 54.8 57.2 - - - -

1st ten: First ten Years, 1852-'61. 2nd ten: Second ten Years, 1862-'71. Total Period: Total Period 20 Years, 1852-'71.

+ -+ -+ - Harvests Average Annual. + -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 1st 2nd Total 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 ten ten Period Plots + -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + - lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. 55.7 53.9 51.1 51.8 54.3 52.4 52.9 55.0 51.6 53.1 52.3 1 O. 56.8 53.8 53.2 53.9 55.8 54.3 53.6 56.0 52.0 54.4 53.2 2 O. 56.9 54.5 52.3 52.9 55.7 54.7 54.3 55.4 51.8 54.3 53.0 3 O. 57.3 54.0 52.7 53.6 55.3 54.6 55.6 55.6 52.3 54.6 53.4 4 O. + -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 56.7 54.1 52.3 53.1 55.3 54.0 54.1 55.5 52.0 54.1 53.0 Means + -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 55.4 53.8 50.9 51.3 53.3 52.4 54.6 55.6 51.2 53.0 52.1 1 A. 57.0 52.7 54.4 54.1 54.6 57.0 57.2 55.0 51.8 55.1 53.5 2 A. 56.4 54.7 52.1 51.9 54.8 54.6 55.4 56.1 51.5 54.1 52.8 3 A. 57.6 53.5 54.7 54.3 55.6 57.4 57.1 56.5 52.2 55.7 54.0 4 A. + -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 56.6 53.7 53.0 52.9 54.6 55.4 56.1 55.8 51.6 54.5 53.1 Means + -+ + + + + + + + + -+ + 55.5 53.5 50.9 52.4 53.7 53.1 54.5 54.1 50.8 53.2 52.0 1 AA. 57.2 52.3 55.0 54.1 55.6 57.2 56.9 55.9 51.2 55.4 53.3 2 AA. 56.5 54.8 51.4 51.9 55.1 53.7 54.6 54.3 50.8 53.8 52.3 3 AA. 57.6 53.3 55.4 54.6 56.0 57.1 57.1 56.3 51.1 55.8 53.4 4 AA. + -+ + + + + + + + + -+ + 56.7 53.5 53.2 53.3 55.1 55.3 55.8 55.2 51.0 54.6 52.8 Means + + + + + + + + + + -+ + 56.1 54.2 51.8 53.5 54.2 54.8 55.0 54.6 {53.9 54.6 54.3} 1 AAS. 57.2 52.4 55.6 55.1 56.2 57.4 57.4 55.6 [1]{55.1 56.7 55.9} 2 AAS. 57.2 54.8 52.5 53.0 55.5 56.6 55.9 53.8 {54.4 55.5 55.0} 3 AAS. 57.0 53.1 55.3 54.1 56.2 57.8 57.8 55.4 {54.9 56.8 55.8} 4 AAS. + + + + + + + + + + -+ + 56.9 53.6 53.8 53.9 55.5 56.7 56.5 54.9 54.6 55.9 55.2 Means + -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 57.1 53.8 55.1 54.4 56.2 56.7 57.5 56.3 51.7 55.8 53.8 1 C. 57.0 53.3 55.7 55.0 56.1 57.1 57.8 56.4 51.7 56.0 53.9 2 C. 57.3 53.3 55.3 54.7 55.8 57.1 57.6 56.3 51.7 55.8 53.7 3 C. 57.2 53.5 55.6 54.8 55.4 57.4 58.0 56.4 51.4 55.9 53.6 4 C. + -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 57.1 53.5 55.4 54.7 55.9 57.1 57.7 56.4 51.6 55.9 53.8 Means + -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 56.0 54.1 52.0 52.9 52.8 54.3 55.6 54.6 [2]{51.6 53.7 52.7} 1 N. 56.5 53.8 52.8 52.7 55.5 54.8 55.8 54.6 {51.1 54.2 52.7} 2 N. 56.3 54.4 52.9 53.9 54.0 54.0 55.3 55.0 [3](51.8 54.2 53.2) M. 57.6 54.5 53.4 54.0 56.4 55.6 55.9 55.1 [4](52.0 54.8 53.4) 5 O. 57.5 54.1 54.8 55.2 57.5 57.5 57.3 55.5 51.9 55.7 53.8 5 A. 56.0 53.9 51.3 52.0 53.5 52.8 54.0 55.4 51.5 53.5 52.5 1}6 55.8 53.9 51.8 52.5 53.8 52.9 54.6 54.9 51.6 53.6 52.6 2} 57.4 54.4 54.9 54.8 57.1 56.4 57.1 56.6 52.6 56.0 54.3 7 + -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ +

[Note 1: Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years.]

[Note 2: Averages of 9 years, (1853-'61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.]

[Note 3: Averages of 7 years (1855-'61), last 10 years, and total 17 years.]

[Note 4: Averages of 9 years (1853-'61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.]

Experiments on the Growth of Barley, Year After Year, on the Same Land, Without Manure, and With Different Descriptions of Manure, Hoos Field, Rothamsted, England.

Table IV.—Offal Corn per Acre—lbs.

[N.B. The double vertical lines show that there was a change in the description, or quantity, of Manure, at the period indicated, for particulars of which see Table I., and foot-notes thereto, p. 231.]

-+ Harvests + - Plots 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 - + lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. 1 O. 164 225 84 144 131 93 86 110 78 88 64 49 2 O. 100 101 101 69 58 106 103 159 84 78 114 58 3 O. 183 151 64 76 129 61 96 83 78 88 73 54 4 O. 136 160 105 94 88 53 108 160 74 58 117 57 + Means 146 159 89 96 102 78 98 129 78 78 92 55 - + 1 A. 218 253 201 138 219 113 98 184 150 170 269 116 2 A. 260 214 150 184 121 88 114 274 159 130 191 99 3 A. 252 336 197 177 180 91 96 175 115 109 269 108 4 A. 273 274 138 142 125 70 117 253 150 110 150 81 + Means 251 277 172 160 161 91 106 222 143 130 220 101 + 1 AA. 299 303 326 204 310 135 88 215 109 173 296 110 2 AA. 315 251 329 181 233 133 134 320 118 190 133 143 3 AA. 318 236 334 212 290 108 118 265 122 138 364 95 4 AA. 246 301 273 150 176 183 143 285 141 179 191 66 + - Means 294 273 316 187 252 140 121 271 123 170 246 103 - + 1 AAS. 2 AAS. 3 AAS. 4 AAS. + - Means + 1 C. 170 268 178 219 173 135 103 225 120 154 154 85 2 C. 164 316 238 195 161 169 148 171 156 150 128 109 3 C. 190 296 248 183 189 156 105 236 115 204 190 71 4 C. 144 277 227 222 205 168 125 350 153 204 174 66 + - Means 167 304 223 205 182 157 120 246 136 178 161 83 - - + 1 N. }(94){ 283 109 128 245 99 119 205 146 225 245 120 2 N. } { 228 286 224 193 151 110 235 179 190 216 114 M. 36 94 90 84 85 75 78 198 46 5 O. (173) 68 113 50 96 101 71 110 73 73 193 41 5 A. 173 210 170 126 151 68 154 168 193 188 210 81 6 {1 120 200 144 116 152 72 84 121 88 73 75 51 {2 118 161 119 73 125 105 81 127 95 67 194 65 7 101 269 86 109 141 134 121 260 147 190 208 66 + -

1st ten: First ten Years, 1852-'61. 2nd ten: Second ten Years, 1862-'71. Total Period: Total Period 20 Years, 1852-'71.

+ -+ Harvests Average Annual. -+ + + + + + + + -+ + + 1st 2nd Total 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 ten ten Period Plots -+ + + + + + + + -+ + + lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs lbs. 42 47 41 90 21 44 31 48 120 48 84 1 O. 69 38 21 53 29 89 18 33 96 52 74 2 O. 43 38 38 64 27 70 18 35 101 46 74 3 O. 41 28 55 60 25 69 26 48 104 53 78 4 O. -+ + + + + + + + -+ + + 49 38 39 67 25 68 23 41 105 50 78 Means -+ + + + + + + + -+ + + 99 58 94 115 49 139 23 105 174 107 141 1 A. 63 84 64 76 38 113 26 189 174 107 141 2 A. 83 51 106 94 34 95 24 89 173 95 134 3 A. 110 60 63 71 50 21 27 146 165 78 122 4 A. -+ + + + + + + + -+ + + 89 63 82 89 43 92 25 132 171 94 133 Means -+ + + + -+ + + + -+ + + 110 64 148 110 46 64 33 133 216 111 164 1 AA. 50 113 111 69 46 89 24 168 220 95 158 2 AA. 76 48 103 106 59 111 36 133 214 113 164 3 AA. 46 76 133 119 43 78 30 90 208 87 148 4 AA. -+ + + + -+ + + + -+ + + 71 75 124 101 48 86 31 131 215 102 159 Means + + + + + -+ + + + -+ + + 94 55 88 85 49 121 33 94 {81 74 77} 1 AAS. 53 86 96 66 64 60 23 153 [1]{75 75 75}[1] 2 AAS. 70 50 141 79 39 136 29 130 {85 84 85} 3 AAS. 93 70 80 93 46 125 26 175 {84 93 89} 4 AAS. + + + + + -+ + + + -+ + + 77 65 101 81 50 111 28 138 81 82 82 Means -+ + + + + + + + -+ + + 78 83 104 109 43 69 25 78 175 83 129 1 C. 92 44 89 89 64 111 24 88 193 84 138 2 C. 90 66 94 91 39 91 37 141 192 91 142 3 C. 123 69 128 72 42 67 28 124 208 89 149 4 C. -+ + + + + + + + -+ + + 96 66 104 90 47 85 28 108 192 87 139 Means -+ + + + + + + + -+ + + 74 98 124 119 61 150 33 99 {173 112 141} 1 N. 95 84 104 88 35 98 33 171 [2]{199 104 149}[2] 2 N. 58 69 44 56 26 61 25 58 [3](77 64 69)[3] M. 78 35 48 56 20 75 23 41 [4](84 61 72)[4] 5 O. 91 94 53 74 33 63 30 144 160 87 124 5 A. 51 45 72 103 27 71 26 50 117 57 87 1} 54 47 51 83 21 57 23 41 107 64 85 2}6 117 56 148 111 48 100 26 171 156 105 130 7 -+ + + + + + + + -+ + +

[Note 1: Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years.]

[Note 2: Averages of 9 years, (1853-'61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.]

[Note 3: Averages of 7 years (1855-'61), last 10 years, and total 17 years.]

[Note 4: Averages of 9 years (1853-'61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.]

Experiments on the Growth of Barley, Year After Year, on the Same Land, Without Manure, and With Different Descriptions of Manure, Hoos Field, Rothamsted, England.

Table V.—Straw (and chaff) per Acre—cwts.

[N.B. The double vertical lines show that there was a change in the description, or quantity, of Manure, at the period indicated, for particulars of which see Table I., and foot-notes thereto, p. 231.]

- Harvests + + -+ + -+ + -+ -+ + + + + + Plots 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 + + -+ + -+ + -+ -+ + + + + + Cwts. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. 1 O. 165 18 216 175 86 126 107 91 74 11 96 113 2 O. 164 171 232 176 86 155 147 122 87 132 127 155 3 O. 164 172 207 174 91 15 12 96 84 114 107 133 4 O. 194 204 231 18 93 171 16 122 91 153 134 153 + + -+ + -+ + -+ + + + + + + Means 172 182 222 175 9 151 134 105 85 126 114 137 + + -+ + -+ + -+ -+ + + + + + 1 A. 227 236 302 241 171 176 154 114 147 195 203 213 2 A. 26 254 407 293 214 266 286 247 252 296 323 34 3 A. 235 251 336 274 177 213 17 134 162 214 232 262 4 A. 277 265 404 31 212 277 29 272 265 304 315 32 + + -+ + -+ + -+ + + + + + + Means 251 252 363 28 194 234 221 192 206 253 266 283 + + -+ + -+ + -+ + + + + + + 1 AA. 267 261 377 321 244 234 191 144 134 22 212 251 2 AA. 283 283 443 385 315 327 325 264 242 315 314 324 3 AA. 263 272 377 34 261 26 221 161 181 241 246 277 4 AA. 283 315 49 397 33 362 352 305 29 335 331 346 + + -+ + -+ + + + + + + + + Means 274 283 422 361 286 295 274 217 212 277 275 30 + + -+ + -+ + -+ -+ + + + + + 1 AAS. 2 AAS. 3 AAS. 4 AAS. + + -+ + -+ + -+ -+ + + + + + Means + + -+ + -+ + -+ + + + + + + 1 C. 245 267 432 361 26 331 306 267 177 277 26 285 2 C. 236 255 441 361 314 331 337 286 205 303 272 301 3 C. 217 252 412 357 264 307 306 255 201 306 237 297 4 C. 241 274 421 375 304 331 35 294 226 31 287 306 + + -+ + -+ + -+ + + + + + + Means 234 262 426 364 285 325 325 276 203 30 264 297 + + -+ + -+ + -+ -+ + + + + + 1 N. }(152){ 231 333 27 195 245 201 186 166 272 242 302 2 N. } { 253 382 332 286 32 235 212 185 295 246 297 M. 152 105 103 123 107 72 151 144 194 5 O. (251) 156 202 145 103 132 124 104 67 174 104 152 5 A. 251 24 356 31 226 275 285 261 254 317 315 34 6{1 171 164 224 184 92 161 12 112 74 97 103 134 {2 141 157 206 166 94 145 113 10 76 10 115 143 7 184 226 372 274 196 235 313 284 253 315 342 331 + + -+ + -+ + -+ -+ + + + + +

1st ten: First ten Years, 1852-'61. 2nd ten: Second ten Years, 1862-'71. Total Period: Total Period 20 Years, 1852-'71.

-+ -+ Harvests Average Annual. -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 1st 2nd Total 1864 1865 1866 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 ten ten Period Plots -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwt. cwts. cwts. cwts. 126 81 94 102 115 11 65 11 133 102 116 1 O. 155 91 125 122 93 103 8 122 147 117 133 2 O. 135 96 102 101 85 11 84 112 137 106 122 3 O. 166 10 127 12 101 127 93 14 161 125 143 4 O. -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 145 92 112 111 97 112 81 121 144 113 127 Means -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 203 13 153 172 122 182 124 231 196 173 184 1 A. 324 215 281 285 193 32 177 281 277 274 275 2 A. 192 16 166 193 147 206 15 253 217 196 206 3 A. 347 224 273 254 207 343 185 324 287 28 284 4 A. -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 266 182 216 225 166 263 16 272 244 231 236 Means -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 232 16 176 171 144 214 177 266 24 201 221 1 AA. 331 23 281 307 217 347 236 321 317 291 304 2 AA. 267 17 181 206 162 226 207 253 256 222 24 3 AA. 372 247 282 283 255 381 182 325 346 301 323 4 AA. -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 301 202 231 242 195 292 202 292 29 253 272 Means + + + + + + + + + + -+ + 261 223 205 184 167 236 17 296 {217 217 217} 1 AAS. 334 232 302 294 252 371 201 361 [1]{291 295 293}[1] 2 AAS. 302 203 25 233 22 305 204 311 {246 261 253} 3 AAS. 406 254 294 282 265 424 206 38 {31 32 314} 4 AAS. + + + + + + + + + + -+ + 325 227 263 247 225 334 195 336 265 273 27 Means -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 261 214 241 254 191 27 172 274 293 242 267 1 C. 317 217 244 255 195 331 177 277 307 26 283 2 C. 31 22 243 222 106 304 183 307 287 252 271 3 C. 347 22 275 242 211 351 203 32 312 276 294 4 C. -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 31 217 251 243 197 313 184 295 301 256 28 Means -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ + 241 184 211 211 187 24 132 292 [2]{233 224 227}[2] 1 N. 276 214 237 216 171 275 191 314 {277 244 261} 2 N. 137 93 123 12 101 115 87 146 [3](116 126 123)[3] M. 147 106 105 103 84 154 43 131 [4](135 113 123)[4] 5 O. 337 247 28 223 205 361 213 295 277 282 28 5 A. 135 86 104 93 104 97 76 13 14 106 123 1}6 137 87 94 107 107 103 77 135 13 112 121 2} 373 253 314 271 244 286 196 371 265 297 282 7 -+ + + + -+ + + + + -+ +

[Note 1: Averages of 4 years, 4 years, and 8 years.]

[Note 2: Averages of 9 years, (1853-'61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.]

[Note 3: Averages of 7 years (1855-'61), last 10 years, and total 17 years.]

[Note 4: Averages of 9 years (1853-'61), last 10 years, and total 19 years.]

The produce of barley the first season (1852), was, per acre:

On the unmanured plot 27-1/4 bushels With superphosphate of lime 28-5/8 " " potash, soda, and magnesia 26-1/4 " " " " " and superphosphate 32-3/4 " " 14 tons barn-yard manure 33 " " 200 lbs. ammonia-salts alone 36-7/8 " " " " and superphosphate 38-5/8 " " " " and potash, soda, and magnesia 36 " " " " and superphosphate, potash, soda, and magnesia 40-3/4 " " 400 lbs. ammonia-salts alone 44-1/2 "

The 200 lbs. of ammonia-salts contain 50 lbs. of ammonia = 41 lbs. nitrogen.

It will be seen that this 50 lbs. of ammonia alone, on plot 1a, gives an increase of nearly 10 bushels per acre, or to be more accurate, it gives an increase over the unmanured plot of 503 lbs. of grain, and 329 lbs. of straw, while double the quantity of ammonia on plot 1a.a., gives an increase of 17-1/4 bushels per acre—or an increase of 901 lbs. of grain, and 1,144 lbs. of straw.

"Put that fact in separate lines, side by side," said the Deacon, "so that we can see it." Total Grain Straw Produce. 50 lbs. of ammonia gives an increase of 503 lbs. 704 lbs. 1207 lbs. 100 " " " " " " " 901 " 1144 " 2045 " The first 50 lbs. of ammonia gives an increase of 503 " 704 " 1207 " The second 50 lbs. of ammonia gives an increase of 398 " 540 " 738 "

"That shows," said the Deacon, "that a dressing of 50 lbs. per acre pays better than a dressing of 100 lbs. per acre. I wish Mr. Lawes had sown 75 lbs. on one plot."

I wish so, too, but it is quite probable that in our climate, 50 lbs. of available ammonia per acre is all that it will usually be profitable to apply per acre to the barley crop. It is equal to a dressing of 500 lbs. guaranteed Peruvian guano, or 275 lbs. nitrate of soda. —"Or to how much manure?" asked the Deacon.

To about 5 tons of average stable-manure, or say three tons of good, well-rotted manure from grain-fed animals.

"And yet," said the Deacon, "Mr. Lawes put on 14 tons of yard manure per acre, and the yield of barley was not as much as from the 50 lbs. of ammonia alone. How do you account for that?"

Simply because the ammonia in the manure is not ammonia. It is what the chemists used to call "potential ammonia." A good deal of it is in the form of undigested straw and hay. The nitrogenous matter of the food which has been digested by the animal and thrown off in the liquid excrements, is in such a form that it will readily ferment and produce ammonia, while the nitrogenous matter in the undigested food and in the straw used for bedding, decomposes slowly even under the most favorable conditions; and if buried while fresh in a clay soil, it probably would not all decompose in many years. But we will not discuss this at present.