102 MASSACHUSETTS AGRICULTURE. 



for premiums on produce ; and, while intent on raising a good 

 crop, we think he did not fully realize that his success in this 

 instance depended very largely on the minimum amount of 

 labor with which he could produce that crop. Between Mr.. 

 Thompson and Mr. Littlefield the case is very different. 



While the land of Mr. Thompson is very light, and has 

 lain nearly idle for several years, that of Mr. Littlefield, 

 though j)reviously in a wild, unproductive state, has for the 

 last two years been planted to corn, with nearly the same 

 treatment that it has received this year. Instead of guano 

 ploughed under, Mr. Littlefield has used stable-manure ap- 

 plied in the hill. One of the most difficult questions to 

 decide has been, what is the relative proportion of the fertil- 

 izer and manure now remaining in the soil unused by the 

 crop of this year. Another of nearly equal importance, in 

 connection Avith Mr. Littlefield's, is, how much, if any, of the 

 dressing of the last two years, should be charged to the crop 

 of the present year. If the dressing of this year was not all 

 exhausted by the crop of this year, of course that of previous 

 years was not by the crops of those years, and therefore the 

 present crop has been benefited by those portions remaining. 



With regard to the fertilizer applied by Mr. Thompson, it 

 is usually safe to consider such as exhausted the first year, 

 or, if some of its virtues still remain unused, that the crop 

 has taken enough of the elements previously existing in the 

 soil to balance those of the fertilizer remaining. The ex- 

 treme drought, however, would seem to make this year an 

 exception to that rule, as it is generally acknowledged that 

 commercial fertilizers do better in wet than in dry seasons ; the 

 reason being, that the moisture of the wet season dissolves 

 the fertilizer, so that its nutritious elements can be readily 

 absorbed and appropriated by the growing crop; while, if 

 it is not so dissolved, a portion at least of its virtues would 

 remain in the soil for the benefit of future crops ; which we 

 believe to be the fact the present year. We do not doubt 

 that there is more of the manure applied to Mr. Littlefield's 

 crop remaining in the soil than of the guano applied by Mr. 

 Thompson ; but we believe that that excess is fully balanced 

 by the benefit derived by the crop of Mr. Littlefield from 

 the remains of former dressings. We have therefore decided 

 to reckon in both cases one-third of the dressing applied the 



