258 



THE AGRICULTURAL NEWS. 



AuousT 17, 1912. 



to say the proportions which the different kinds of 

 plants bear to one another in the various areas. These 

 were remarkable in showing that the floral type in rich 

 and poor fields was very similar, some of the plants 

 agreeing in their proportions, on the fatting and 

 non-fatting fields, within the limits of experimental 

 error. There were no differences that wonld explain 

 the superiority of the herbage from the fitiing ticlii: 

 'It is clear then that the value of the pasture is not 

 determined by the floral type of the herbage.' When, 

 however, the plants on the two kinds of land were 

 considered, it was found that they made better cover 

 in the good fields and that the turf was more 'springy'; 

 but the most notable difference was the leafiness and 

 breadth of the leaves in the former case, with the much 

 smaller tendency to form flowering heads. This was in 

 contradistinction to the 'stemmy' nature of the herbage 

 in the poorer fields, together with its fewer leaves and 

 its earlier and abundant flowering. These matters 

 constitute the chief difference in the herbage in the 

 two kinds of fields, which as may have been concluded, 

 is independent of the floral type. Two other differences 

 were also observed: the fatting field contained more 

 clover — a leguminous plant— than the non-fatting 

 field, while in the latter the herbage tended to become 

 more quickly dried up in summer. 



Soil analysis showed no significant differences 

 between the two kinds, though it is noted that, as the 

 analyses were made upon samples representing the 

 average of layers a foot thick, the presence of a thin 

 parting of pure clay, which might seriously interfere 

 with the movement of water in the soil, would be 

 overlooked. Determination of the water-content of 

 the soils gave no marked difference, though it seemed 

 that the soil of the fatting field was rather moister 

 than that in the other, while it dried up more 

 quickly, possibly because of the greater transpi- 

 ration of the better plants upon it. The question 

 of temperature is not of importance in this consid- 

 eration of the work; it is of interest however that 

 the soil of the fatting field was slightly warmer than 

 that of the non- fatting field, while the daily range of 

 temperature was smaller in the former case. The 

 similarity of results in the various cases just mentioned 

 is repeated in the chemical analysis, which gave vir- 

 tually identical figures in the two instances; there was 

 however a little more nitrogen, and especially a little 

 more phosphoric acid, in the soil of the good field, 

 though that of the poor field contained quantities that 

 would ordinarily be regarded as large. 'Thus as 

 regards the mechanical and chemical composition, tem- 

 perature and moisture determinations, little can be 



found to discriminate between the two soils, and though 

 some of the factors of production are slightly better in 

 the good soil the differences seem too small to be signi- 

 ficant.' 



The results obtained in this way suggested that 

 the soils should be subjected to more detailed methods 

 of observation, and the consequence was that the diff- 

 erences obtained were more pronounced. Analysis of 

 the soils from time to time during the season showed 

 that in the early part of it there were larger amounts 

 of nitrate and ammonia in the soil of the fatting field, 

 though this difference disappeared with the advance 

 in the season. Further, direct experiment indicated that 

 nitrates were produced more quickly in this field than 

 in the non-fatting field. Though the determinations 

 were only very approximate, they were conclusive in 

 showing that the greater production of grass in the 

 better field was a consequence of the increased food- 

 supply, although there was no effect in the direction of 

 altering the floral type. A last circumstance that 

 bears relation to the matter consisted in the fiict that 

 the organic matter in the foil was found to decompose 

 more quickly in the better areas. 



Observations of the water-level in the borings and 

 ditches showed that, while the fatting field was slightly 

 higher than the non-fatting field, as the season advan- 

 ced the water-level fell, the fall being most rapid in 

 the fatting field, the ultimate consequence being that 

 the soil in this field tended always to be a little drier 

 than that in the other, for there was always a greater 

 distance between the surface and standing water. It 

 was observed further that rain-water sinking into the 

 soil of the fatting field ran away more quickly and 

 thoroughly than was the case in the poorer soil. 



Similar results to all those that have been men- 

 tioned above were obtained in other cases, though in 

 one instance the water-level in the poorer field was 

 actually lower than in that where the soil was better. 

 Reference to all the experiments results in showing 

 that, in a broad manner, the differences found may 

 be of considerable significance, but cannot be expressed 

 in any general way; that indications existed that 

 the citric acid method for measuring available phos- 

 phoric acid is not applicable to pasture soils; and 

 lastly that the greater content of nitrates and ammonia 

 in the early part of the year in the better soils probably 

 accounts for their production of the superior herbage, 

 the causative difference being possibly the nature of 

 the organic matter in the soil. 



