Table 1 is so arranged that the number of the plot is shown across the top, the kind of fertilizer used is shown in the left hand column; the number of pounds of any given substance used on a given plot will be found by looking opposite that substance, in the column marked at the top with the number of the plot, for example, if it is desired to know what the fertilizer on plot 13 was, we look in the column headed 13, following down this we come to 16 pounds and looking at the left of this we see that this was dissolved bone-black; 5 pounds of muriate of potash and 3 pounds of sulphate of ammonia, make up the total application on that plot. The lower three lines of figures in the table show the chemical composition of the material used on the various plots, thus No. 13 had a mixture which by analysis showed 10.5 per cent of phosphoric acid, 10 per cent of potash, and 2.8 per cent of nitrogen. CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WORK WAS DONE. The station put up the fertilizers except for plots 6, 8, and 12, the farmer was to furnish the use of land, was to lay out the plots, and plant according to directions, record certain observed facts on blanks furnished and to harvest and report weights. For this, no compensation other than the fertilizer was given. RESULTS OBTAINED. While the results cannot be regarded as perfect, in fact fall far short of that, nevertheless it is believed that they are valuable. Seven of the ten farmers worked on corn which was husked (one of these by reason of sickness did not report on weight of fodder), one planted corn for ensilage, one sweet corn for a canning factory, and one experimented on potatoes. 1 Table 2 gives the yield per acre of husked corn, 40 pounds per bushel as husked, and of fodder, for each plot on each of the seven sets; plots 17, 18, 19, and 20, on Mr. Baker's acre, were destroyed by crows; the last two columns in the table give the average yield of corn and fodder from each plot, for the seven tests. In this table the best three yields are printed in black-faced type, the next best three in italics. Taking this table as it stands and the best yield of corn is seen to be from manure, followed by plots 9 and 13, while the largest amount of fodder is found on plot 13, followed by 9 and 5. If we select and average the best three plots, not including the one with manure, in each set, we can then compare the results from chemicals with those from manure, prepared fertilizer, and ashes, and by averaging the four plots with no fertilizer we have the data for determining the relative` efficiency of each method of supplying plant food. This method of condensing results has been applied to table 2 and as a result we get table 3, the upper half being for husked corn and the lower for fodder. Table 3 shows us that the average yield of husked corn from manure was 89.69 bushels, from the best three combinations of chemicals 90.62 bushels, from prepared fertilizer 63.58 bushels, from ashes 65.40 bushels, and from plots not fertilized 41.00 bushels. To the farmer these figures mean a great deal, provided that they are representative results; now as the cost of chemicals, ashes, and prepared fertilizer are the same, any gain in product of one over the other represents profit, and we may well ask the question, Why do chemicals average a better yield than the prepared fertilizer? The first step in answering this is to determine just what kind of plant food has been supplied in each case, and the proportion of the several kinds. If we take the fertilizers used on those plots which gave the three highest yields in each set, and average the per cent of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, we get the results given in table 4. |