New York Agricultural Experiment Station. 595 



There appears from a consideration of the four-year average 

 a slight gain from the use of stable manure but this is not great 

 enough to pay for the manure applied. Plats 12 and 13 have always 

 been inferior rows according to information furnished by the owner. 

 Our subsequent observations and these data seem to confirm it. 



BARNES VINEYARD. 



The Barnes vineyard at Prospect Station is another upland vine- 

 yard situated on Dunkirk shale loam. It differs from the Lee 

 vineyard in that it lies very level below a high ridge from which 

 much seepage water gains access to it. It would be benefited by 

 underdrainage. The rows extend in a general east and west direction 

 and consist of 31 vines each. The plats comprise from four to 

 six rows. Infestations of the grape root-worm shortly before the 

 beginning of this experiment, coupled with the wetness of the soil, 

 have tended to keep this vineyard at low production. Table XIV 

 gives the yields in tons per acre for each plat for the four years 

 and the average. The order in which the plats are placed is different 

 from that in the foregoing vineyards for the reason that the experi- 

 ment was planned originally for a renovation experiment by the 

 use of fertilizers and spraying. This accounts for the checks being 

 located in pairs. 



Analyses of the returns indicate that previous to 1912 none of the 

 treatments returned sufficiently increased yields over the checks 

 to make the application profitable. The stable manure Plats 

 1, 2, 13 and 14 returned a profit over the checks in 1912 and 

 1913, while the stable manure Plats 7 and 8 did not. In 1912 the 

 complete fertilizer applications in no instance returned a profit, 

 nor did the phosphorus-potassium-lime-cover-crop plats. The 

 complete fertilizer Plats 3 and 16 yielded enough above the checks 

 in 1913 to pay small returns while Plat 9 failed to do so. Phos- 

 phorus-potassium-cover-crop and lime Plat 4 gave net gains over 

 check. Plat 5 and Plat 10 likewise gave small returns over Plat 11 

 but did not over Plat 12, both checks. Plat 17 returned a net gain 

 over one check plat, 15, but failed to give a sufficient increase to return 

 a profit over the other check plat, 18. These variations can only 

 be accounted for on the ground of non-uniform fertilization in 

 previous years coupled with soil differences which have not become 

 apparent. 



