STATE POMOLOGICAL SOCIETY. 63 



again no advantage at all from lime. Incidentally there are 

 greater irregularities in this experiment, owing somewhat to its 

 greater size, but chiefly due to the presence of a woods on the 

 mountain side above the first check plat, from which the latter 

 is separated by a single row of trees. The leachings from the 

 floor of the woods have acted much like a nitrogen fertilizer, 

 and as a result the trees nearest the woods, although of the 

 same age as those farther down, are considerably larger, thus 

 accounting for the greater yields of the first 2 or 3 plats. This 

 influence practically disappears, however, before the fourth plat 

 is reached, as shown by its low yields which are those of a 

 typical check. 



The differences observed in the last two columns are due 

 partly to these irregularities, partly to a certain amount of 

 leaching and cross-feeding on the part of some of the checks 

 in spite of separation rows below each treated plat, and partly 

 to a different method of calculation. In one column, the bene- 

 fit is figured on the basis of the normal production of the im- 

 mediate plat concerned, which method is supposed to eliminate 

 soil irregularities to the greatest extent. When the adjaceni 

 checks are being benefited by leachings or cross-feeding, how- 

 ever, this method fails to show the full benefit due to the 

 treatment. The average check itself is not entirely free from 

 the cross-feeding influences, since it only distributes their extra 

 yields, and hence it is probable that some of the benefits indi- 

 cated in the last column are still lower than they should be. 



Returning now to the results themselves, and especially to 

 those treatments not included in the preceding experiment, we 

 may note first that the muriate of potash in plat 5 has given 

 much better gains than the sulphate in the adjacent plat. This 

 is contrary to the results of the Massachusetts experiment, but 

 similar results are now being shown in all our experiments 

 wherever this comparison occurs. Hence the difference in the 

 Massachusetts experiment would seem to be due to something 

 other than the difference in potash carrier. At present, there- 

 fore, we believe that the muriate is at least as efficient as the 

 sulphate, and in view of the facts that it is cheaper, more soluble, 

 and much less subject to "caking" in the mixtures, we are now 

 using and recommending it for apples. 



