46 STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE. 



and many a field, that had survived all the other disasters and gave 

 promise of a fair crop, succumbed to the ravages of this unconquerable 

 pest. It is not strange, in the light of all this, that the wheat crop 

 of '99 in Michigan was very largely a failure. The wonder, perhaps, is 

 that we had any wheat at all, yet there were a good many fields 

 of quite good wheat. It is from these that we must seek to learn our 

 lesson. In so far as these endured and survived the unfavorable con- 

 ditions to which I have alluded, was it due to the variety of wheat, 

 to the time of sowing, the depth of plowing, the degree of cultivation, 

 the amount of humus in the soil, its fertility or its mechanical condi- 

 tion, or to all of them combined? To my mind the favorable results 

 were verv^ largely due to three of these causes, viz., mechanical con- 

 dition, humus and fertility, and I will say a few words about each. 

 I have long thought that a wrong impression has prevailed in regard 

 to the preparation of the ground for a wheat crop, especially in heavy 

 soil. Farmers have been advised over and over again, and the agri- 

 cultural papers have reiterated the advice, that the seed bed for wheat 

 fjihould be made very fine and the soil beneath very firm. There should 

 be much cultivation with fine-toothed tools, much rolling and planking. 

 In fact, the surface should be in condition for planting onions, and 

 the lower soil rendered nearly as firm as before it was plowed. Now 

 let us look at this from a common sense standpoint. The conditions 

 above described are quite ideal for the growth of wheat in the fall, 

 but we forget that these plants must live through the winter, and we 

 must have regard for those conditions that will mitigate somewhat the 

 severe trials that may come to them during this season. 



When we have this smooth, fine condition of the soil, and especially 

 where it is deficient in humus, and has the under stratum well packed, 

 we may expect deep freezing and later on root heaving, with its fatal 

 results to the plant. The freezing is facilitated by the greater ten- 

 dency for the snow to be blown from this smooth surface. 



My experience has taught me that a different course of preparation 

 is much safer upon heavy soils. I prefer to leave the soil much looser, 

 with the surface more uneven. If there are lumps I would not crush 

 them entirely. They are a protection which you can't afford to lose. 

 As the cold weather comes on, this more open, porous condition of the 

 soil will resist freezing, and during the early spring months, when there 

 is much freezing and thawing, the lumps will gradually slake and carry 

 soil over any roots that chance to be exposed, thus minimizing the 

 damage done by the winter. I have seen fields lying side by side, quite 

 uniform in other respects, but having been prepared according to the 

 two differing methods suggested above, show most wonderful differ- 

 ences in the crop, solely, as I believe, because the mechanical condition 

 in the one case prevented winter killing. 



I think the experience of the past year will add still stronger proof 

 to the correctness of this theorv, if, indeed, it may be called a theory 

 at all. 



We suffer much loss to the wheat, as well as many other crops, from 

 a lack of sufficient humus in the soil. This is a disadvantage in two 

 respects. First, the soil that is barren of humus freezes much deeper, 

 and, second, such soil gives off its moisture much more rapidly in 

 dry weather. You are all aware of the resistance to freezing offered 

 by a mucky soil, in whose composition is contained a large amount of 



