PERMANENT ORGANIZATION. The Committee on Permanent Organization presented the following list of officers: President-Hon. J. M. Gregory, LL. D., President Illinois Industrial University. Vice-Presidents-Dr. Manly Miles, Professor of Agriculture in the Michigan Agricultural College; Rev. Joseph Denison, D. D., President Kansas Agricultural College, and Professor D. C. Gilman, of the Sheffield Scientific School. Secretaries-Professor A. N. Prentiss, Cornell University, and Professor John Hamilton, of the Agricultural College of Pennsylvania. The officers were elected, after which the meeting adjourned until 2 o'clock. AFTERNOON SESSION. The Chairman-We were in the midst of reports. It is for the Convention to say whether they shall be continued. Mr. Flagg Mr. President our members are not all in yet, I believe, and I would like to bring up a little matter while they are gathering, if in order the question of arranging for continuing this organization in future years. Some of us had a plan under consideration of forming a permanent organization, to meet from year to year, or oftener, for the purpose of continuing consultation, experimentation, and comparison of experimentation, and the continuous laying out of experiments to be performed in common-doing that much at least. Perhaps the organization ought to go further. Perhaps it ought to be an organization of the Agricultural Colleges and the Technological Schools. I want what would be best, and would like to bring before the meeting the question of continuing the organization in the future, and get an opinion upon it. The Chairman-Will the Convention take any action on the matter of future permanent organization? Mr. Hilgard-I would move it be referred to a committee. The motion was carried. The Chairman-I will appoint Prof. Hilgard, of Miss., Hon. Mr. Flagg, of Ill., and President Folwell, of Minn. The report of the Committee on Business will be in order if they are ready to report. The Committee on Business submitted a report, naming the following for discussion this afternoon: "What experiments should the Agricultural Colleges try in common, and what should be the method of conducting them?"-Dr. Miles, of Michigan Agricultural College, to open the discussion. For this evening: "The relations of schools of applied science to one another and to other institutions."-Prof. Gilman, of the Sheffield Scientific School, to open the discussion. On motion of Mr. Hilgard, the report was adopted. The Chairman-According to the programme, the discussion of the experiments which may be made in common by the several institutions, will be opened by Dr. Miles. WHAT EXPERIMENTS SHOULD THE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES MAKE IN COMMON, AND WHAT SHOULD BE THE METHOD OF CONDUCTING THEM? Mr. President, and Gentlemen of the Convention: The subject is a difficult one to present. The number of experiments that might be tried by the agricultural colleges, and those interested in agricultural improvement, is almost without end. The programme provides for the discussion of the experiments that it would be desirable to conduct in common by the different institutions, and also the method of conducting them. In presenting this subject, I shall reverse the order and speak for awhile in regard to the method of conducting experiments, and the difficulties in the way of their prosecution. Very often we speak of experiments for the promotion of agriculture in a very loose and indefinite manner. It seems to me desirable, on the start, to draw a line of distinction between those experiments which tend to improve the science of agriculture, and those which have for their object the improving of the art. Art is one thing, and science is another. Art has to do with practice; it has to do with the ways and means of accomplishing objects. Science has to do with the exlanations of those processes which are made use of in the art. We may have a rule of practice in the art, derived from observation and experience. Science may step in and explain that rule. The rule, as such, has been developed experimentally; it has been developed empirically—that is, by a series of trials. The explanation of this rule constitutes the science. Science has nothing to do with the practical application, in its strict signification. Science has to do with causes. and effects. It matters not to the scientific man what the pecuniary results are; but he is concerned simply in the changes taking place in the matter which he is investigating. Now, if we attempt to combine, or rather if we confuse these two terms in our experiments, we shall not meet with the success that we ought to expect from a systematic effort at improvement. Field experiments-experiments in the cultivation of different crops, the application of manures, analysis of soils, feeding of animals-all have to do with the art. We are simply making methodical hints for the sake of getting at rules to guide us practically. The scientific man may step in and make his investigation for the sole purpose of explaining these principles, or rules, which guide us in practice. Now, I apprehend at the present time no one can claim that we have any rules of practice that are derived from the teaching of science. I know of none in the art of agriculture. The rules of practice have been derived from experience and observation. The world of science has stepped in and explained these rules. The rule is of no more force in practice than it was before. It simply serves to suggest new lines of inquiry for future experiments. On the start it seems to me important that we make this clear distinction in regard to the experiments we would make. In the next place I will speak briefly of some of the difficulties—I alluded briefly to that this forenoon-in the way of successful experimentation, and in this discussion I wish to be understood as limiting my remarks entirely to those experiments which we inaugurate for the purpose of improving our practice-experiments for the improvement of the art. In the first place, we have a great variation of soils. Unfortunately they are variations we are not able to detect except by experimental trials-soils apparently similar, so far as their compositions are concerned, and so far as their physical characters are concerned, give very different results. In the experiments at the Michigan Agricultural College this was one of the most striking points brought out by our first experiment. Ordinarily field experiments have been conducted by taking a single manured plat, and then comparing with it different plats to which had been applied different varieties of manure. The experiment was supposed to be complete. The comparison of the unmanured plat with the manured plat would apparently give an indication of the result. But such experiments misled us. We found on quite a number of unmanured plats, on soils precisely alike, so far as we could judge of their character and composition, a very great difference in yield. Peculiarities of climate and seasons will have much to do with varying the experiment, and this seems to be one reason why it would be desirable to try experiments at quite a number of different points, having all the conditions precisely alike, so far as we can, making the conditions that vary simply those of climate, soil, etc. There is another difficulty in the way of conducting field experiments, which is exceedingly difficult to obviate, that is, the difference arising from variations in the cultivation. The time of the cultivation of each plat should be the same. Not only the same amount of labor should be expended on each plat, but that labor should be performed at the same time. From this you will see the difficulty of experiments on very large plats. If your plats are very extensive, and you have a large number of them, you cannot harvest them all at the same time. You cannot put in all the seed at the same time. Some two years ago at the Agricultural College we sowed a field of turnips. One-half of the field was sowed on the third of July, and the balance on the fourth, the seed being all from the same package, the same drill being used, and the same person running the drill. There was no difference in condition, so far as we could observe, except a slight shower in the intervening night, which would apparently give the advantage to the latest sowing. The result was that the turnips sowed the first day produced a very large crop; those sowed the second day were hardly worth harvesting. There were four or five times as many turnips from the field sowed the first day as those from that sowed the second day. This shows that we should exercise great caution in regard to cultivation; that it should be uniform, not only as to amount, but as to the particular time of performing the labor. It is important that field crops subjected to experiment should be weighed at the same time. If you have a large number of plats, that are to be compared, and these plats are quite large, it must occupy considerable time. If so, there will be a difference in the amount of moisture, and this will vary the result. I had a striking illustration of it the present year, in the continuation of some experiments we started several years ago. A field had been planted with corn for several years in succession, the plats all being treated alike. We found a great variation in the yield. Corn was put on the next year, and there was a great difference in the yield, but the plats that gave the largest yield the first year, did not give the largest yield the second year. After this part of the plats were manured, and we followed on through a rotation of crops until we came to the clover crop, which was harvested this year. As soon as the crop was cut, we endeavored to put on sufficient force to do it in a short time. The clover was weighed green. It was then stirred up and exposed to the action of the wind and sun, and put up in cocks. The next day it was spread out again, and when it was supposed this crop was in a fine condition for going into the barn, the plats were weighed; but it was thought there might be some variation from this cause, and they were allowed to remain and afterwards weighed again. This second weighing it was thought to be dry enough to go into the barn, and not excessively dry afterwards. I give the results of the second and third weighing of the same plat: SECOND WEIGHING-Pounds.-261, 84, 100, 41, 251, 119, 211, 101, 165, 981. It showed the manner in which we may be deceived by relying on our senses entirely. You will readily perceive if we had a large number of plats, and they were of considerable size, you would get more difference in results if it was carried on in rotation, commencing on one side, and passing to the other side of the field. Guard against a difference in the results, arising from a difference in the amount of moisture in root crops as well as others. It has been shown by some experiments made, that where turnips, for instance, have been manured, there was a great increase in the yield, but when the amount of water in the turnips was taken into account, it was found the amount of dry substance was precisely the same. The great increase arising from the manure, was simply water-nothing more—and here is something that should be looked at. In feeding of animals, there are a great many difficulties in the way of satisfactory experiment. One of the first I will mention is that which may be termed individual peculiarities of animals. You may take animals of the same age, and the same size, or as we have fed, pigs of the same litter, and we find one pig will give a much larger return for feed than another. It is something we cannot get at, cannot measure, cannot detect, except by the experimental test of feeding. Again, we find, as I mentioned this forenoon, when animals are first put up, they consume more feed in proportion to their weight than towards the close. We find they give a greater return for the feed consumed during the earlier stages of the feeding than afterwards. What is the cause of the variation? I apprehend there are three causes, and two of them I have no doubt about The third, I am inclined to think, has an influence, yet it is an exceedingly difficult matter to determine. These peculiarities, or differences, are the age, the size and the ripeness. From the experiments we have already |