15G 



UiHlouhtcilly tliis is au cxtremr, and not an average^ 

 case. If cotton seed meal, or other nitrogenous fer- 

 tilizer, had heen used on all the plots of oats, the ])laut8 

 on plots 2 and 5 would have nuule better growth, and 

 the difference in favor of the leguuiinous plants would 

 have been reduced. 



A gain of five to fifteen ])ushels of oats per acre as 

 a result of i)lowing under cowpea stubble or vines would 

 make the growing of cowpeas for fertilizer a profitable 

 operation, and it is far safer to count on such an in- 

 crease as that obtained in our first experiment (10.4 

 bushels), rather than to expect such an exceptional in- 

 crease as that obtained in this last experiment. 



An unexpected result of this experiment is the larger 

 crop on the plots where only the stubble was left than 

 on those where the vines of cowpeas and velvet beans 

 were plowed under. The plots were of nearly uniform 

 fertility, as judged by the location and by the uniform 

 growth of cotton on all plots in 1896. While admitting 

 the possibility that the two west plots (plots 3 and 6) 

 were slightly richer than the two on the east (plots 

 1 and 4), the writer thinks that the difference in yield 

 was almost wholly due (1) to the fact that the vines 

 (especially those of the velvet beans) were not prop- 

 erly buried by the small plow employed, and (2) that 

 the seed bed for oats was more compact where only 

 stubble was plowed under, a point of advantage, doubt- 

 less, in such a dry winter as that of 1897-98. It does 

 not follow that the land will be permanently ben- 

 efitted by cowpea stubble to a greater extent than 

 by cowi)ea vines. The reverse is probably true." ( From 

 Bulletin No. 95, Alabama Experiment Station.) 



f 



