172 



viiH^s was Ikmc cousidciMblc, Imt wjis il siiniciciil to 

 make lliis iiictlKxl of disjiosiii^- of tlic \iners more j>n>fit- 

 ahlc than h» use them (ov liav? 



()!' the sf'Ncial tadcus on wliicli (lie answer depends, 

 A\(' will jirsl considej- ilie \alne jx'!' acre (d' llic inci'casc 

 in the fiisl (•r(>]> iinniediahdy siiccecdinu llie N^iinnic, 

 nsinii the values for a unit nf* (»acli vr(}\) lien^tcd'ore as- 

 sumed (sec ])....) and omittinn ic^ults with small 

 ^Taiiis, for reasons iii\-en in the footnote. 



.Irr/v/y/c sii juri())'il fi of riiKs (n< r .shihh/r of /cf/innrs (is 



ti/i')irii ill fiisf crop. 



The averaiie, increase of |5.1j8 in the value of an acre 

 of th(^ fiist crop in favoi* of plowini>' in the vines as 

 compared w ith utilizing only the stuhlde for fertilizer 

 is evidently so low as to he much less than the value of 

 the 4,080 jjounds of legume hay ])er acre obtained, from 

 the stuhhle plots, which should be priced at not le«s than 

 flO per ton. As a partial offset we must bear in mind 

 that in i'nuv of the experiments in ])lowin^ under cow- 

 pea vines the jic-is wcm-c first pickc^d, the avera<»e yi(dd 

 in these tests beinn 11.1 bushids per acre. There is no 

 such corresponding; ott'set with velvet beans, for the seed 

 usually do n(]t mature in the latitude of Auburn. 



If we vjilr.e cow])eas at 50 cents per bushel, plus the 

 cost of hand-ijickin.ii, we have a second credit for the 

 vines, the sum being .$5.55. Adding this to $5.98, the 



