284 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



However, tlie results \v;nr;iiit the repetition of the experiment, at least. The early 

 plowinfr jiroecss on plot 2. followed by the roll(>r and repeated harrowing', approaehes 

 nearly as one ean, the eonditions of a summer fallow with an oat stubble. Althou<^h 

 the yield is a few pounds less per acre than on the gang plowed strip this method 

 is I lie one upon wliieh we can depend with a great degree of certainty. Late plowing 

 on ])lot ;} was done on September l(i, the ground having dried and l)aked and become 

 lumpy, almost refusing to admit the ])low. It was impossible to prepare this ground 

 and that of jjlot 5 to a condition anywhere near as fine and .satisfactory as upon the 

 other three i)lots. However, the condition was not unlike that observed on many 

 farms where the rush of other work delays the ])lowing until the last minute before 

 time to seed to wheat. It is true that a little less work was expended on tiiis i)lot than 

 on plots 1, 2 and 4, but the loss of over four bushels to the acre does not warrant 

 this economy of labor. The method of preparing plot 4, though not an entirely new 

 one, is seldom practiced in ordinary farming. The idea of harrowing the ground as 

 soon as the oat crop was removed was to pre])are at the surface of the ground the 

 dust UMilcli to ])revent the furtlier escape of moisture until the time of i)lowing. Plots 

 4 and 5 were comprised in a "land," and received exactly the same treatment with 

 the exception of the harrowing, the dead furrow of the land being the dividing line 

 between the two plots. The man who did the jilowing remarked at the time, that the 

 ground on the harrowed half of tlie land was more moist. i)lowed easier, and was much 

 less lumpy. In the preparation which followed the plowing it could be ])lainly seen 

 that the harrowed half of this land was much more mellow and presented a more 

 desirable appearance as a seed bed. It was further observed that on plots 1, 2 and 

 4, where the ground had been either plowed or harrowed early, there were no oats 

 growing after the wheat was sown. The early cultivation of the ground having covered 

 the oats, they grew, and later cultivation destroyed them, while on plots .3 and_ 5 

 the oats appeared in great quantities, seeming to crowd the wheat and check its 

 growth. The only difference between plots .3 and 5 is the fact that 3 was plowed in 

 the fall for oats, and 5 was plowed in the spring. 



As a resnlt of this ex])eriment we may conclude tliat whatever operation may be 

 performed to conserve the moisture immediately after removing an oat croj) will 

 result in an increased yield of the succeeding wheat crop. While allowing the ground 

 to dry and bake, and become hard and difficult to prepare, is not only a waste of time 

 and labor, but injurious to the wheat crop. If the results obtained in plots 1 and 4 

 can be taken as conclusive, the treatment of these plots suggests a more rapid and 

 cheaper method of preparing the oat stubble for wheat, at the same time conserving 

 the moisture which is too liable to waste at this dry period of the year. 



TOP DRESSING VS. PLOWING UNDEK MANURE. 



Two areas of ground, which previously had received similar care and treatment, 

 were selected for this trial. A land four rods wide and i)4 rods long was divided 

 in the middle. On the one-half was spread a liberal dressing of well rotted barnyard 

 manure, which had lain in the compost heap during the summer. The ground was then 

 plowed and on the other half a similar application of manure from the same heap 

 was made as a top dressing. From the plot on which the manure was plowed 

 under we harvested .30. .32 bushels of wheat per acre, while from the top dressed plot the 

 yield was 20.62 bushels, being but 42 pounds less per acre, an amount within the 

 probable limits of error. The difference in the yield from these two practices is not 

 enough to warrant the drawing of any definite conclusions. 



