656 SCIENCE PROGRESS 



can be doubled by the use of bacterised peat ! We may be 

 pardoned for expressing our doubts whether such statements 

 are justified, especially in view of the fact that in trials carried 

 out near Cambridge with mangolds, wheat, and barley, bac- 

 terised peat has failed to produce any increase whatever in the 

 yield. 



Further, it must be pointed out that the farmer farms for 

 profit, and that increased yields may be purchased at a cost 

 which may be altogether prohibitive. The price of bacterised 

 peat appears to be about £10 per ton. It has given its best 

 results in pots when mixed with the soil at the rate of 10 per cent . 

 An acre of soil 9 inches deep weighs over 1,000 tons. To 

 reproduce on the farm the conditions which have proved success- 

 ful in pots would therefore cost about £1,000 per acre. To add 

 even so small a proportion as 1 per cent, to the soil would cost 

 £100 per acre. The value of a good crop of wheat is about £10 

 per acre in normal times, at present it is seldom more than £15. 



But the farmer is advised to use only 5 to 10 cwt. per acre, 

 i.e. 0-025 to 0*05 per cent, of the weight of his top soil, at the 

 cost of £2 105. to £$ per acre, without a shred of evidence to 

 show that such proportions may be expected to produce in his 

 fields results comparable with those obtained by the use of 

 10 per cent, in a flower-pot. 



In view of these considerations we submit that the strictures 

 on the Board of Agriculture indulged in by the writer of " Notes " 

 are quite uncalled for, especially as the Board has " availed 

 itself of the well-timed boon " to the extent of arranging for a 

 complete official examination of bacterised peat and its effects 

 on farm crops at the Rothamsted Experimental Station. 



Finally there is another side to the question to which we 

 cannot refrain from referring. The popular press continually 

 reminds us that the farmer is the least progressive of mortals 

 and the last to avail himself of the results of modern research . 

 This imputation is infinitely less true than most people realise. 

 In many cases the farmer's caution — for it does not amount to 

 more than that— is justified by his experience. He has in the 

 past been all too willing to accept statements made in a form 

 which appeals to him as " scientific," and his faith has too 

 often been badly abused. Many farmers of our acquaintance, 

 for example, expended considerable sums on nitrobacterine, a 

 former much-advertised " discovery " made by Prof. Bottomley. 



