EDITORIAL. 707 



ments were useful, however, as a matter of instruction to the experi- 

 menters in the methods of such work and in arousinjr wider interest 

 in individual experimentation. Tliey also furnished some lessons in 

 regard to the best plan for the conduct of such competitive trials. 

 The r(\sidts of the first year are held to be entirely satisfactory in 

 demonstrating the pi-acticalnlity and usefulness of Di'. Pfeiffer's plan. 

 Although he has since severed his connection with the Jena institution 

 and gone to Breslau. it was planned to continue the experiments under 

 the supervision of the agronomist. Professor Edlcr. 



It may be questioned whether the premium feature of this plan is 

 essential to the success of cooperative experiments under American 

 conditions. The value of systematic and carefully supervised experi- 

 ments by farmers, coojie rating with some central agency, is quite widely 

 appreciated in this country, both in their benefit to practical agricul- 

 ture and from the pecuniary and educational standpoints. The results 

 obtained by the Ontario Agricultural and Experimental Union, the 

 New York Cornell Station, and in several other organized attempts at 

 cooperative experimenting, have demonstrated their utility. Such 

 experiments are looked upon mainly as an educational agency — an 

 effective means of inculcating sound principles, teaching correct meth- 

 ods, and encouraging and directing that spirit of inquiry and experi- 

 ment which is essential to the modern farmer's success. They can be 

 made effective, however, only by close and competent supervision. 



A recent contri])ution to the subject of fertilizer experiments, which 

 is interesting more as an example of reversion to generall}' discarded 

 notions than as promising any material aid in the solution of the sci- 

 entific and practical problems involved, is the so-called science of 

 "euphorimetry," as expounded in La Nature by L. Cornet, a French 

 writer. He defines the term as the art of measuring the fertility of 

 the soil, and states its object to l)e to place agriculture in the list of 

 exact sciences, to reduce its data to a scientific system, and to fix defi- 

 nite and positive rules for its practice. SuflEicient data are thought to 

 be at hand to make at li^ast a beginning in the direction of laying down 

 a mathematical basis for determining the relation between soil fertility 

 and crop production. The first and principal difficulty is the choice of 

 a type of conqmrison or scale of measui-ement. To meet this the 

 author suggests cxperin)ents with difi'erent fertilizing materials and 

 crops, similar to those made by Varembey with manures about 1843. 

 In these experiments a field is divided into 4 equal parts. One part 

 receives no fertilization, the other parts 10, 20, and 30 loads of 

 manure, respectively. From the product of wheat, oats, rye, barley, 

 etc., on the different plats so treated, the productive capacity of a given 

 amount of manure for each crop is said to be readil}-^ calculated. 

 Calling the effect produced by 1,000 kilograms of manure per hectare 



