7i6 Journal of Agriculture. [lo Nov., ipio^ 



the same dressing as No. 2 with 2 cwt. of superphosphate added, and give.5 

 a yield of 10 cwt. per acre more than that section. This would indicate- 

 the necessity of combining phosphoric acid with the ammonia salt, so that 

 the growth of the tubers may proceed concurrently with the improved 

 growth of the plant. It is a well known fact among potato-growers that 

 liberal dressings of nitrogenous manure often produce a heavy crop of 

 tops with a light yield of tubers — this is evidently what happened on 

 .section No. 2. 



The results obtained on section 6 show the advantage of combining 

 phosphoric acid with potash. In this instance, it resulted in an increase 

 of over IT cwt. of tuliers per acre. Section 7, which received a dressing 

 of the complete manure — phosphoric acid, potash, and sulphate of 

 ammonia — gave a lower yield than .sections t. 3, 5, and 6. This section 

 was remarkable during the early growing period for the rich growth of 

 the plants and gave promi.se of a heavy yield. This was not realized. 

 The section was on a slight depression which ran across the field and the 

 crop was cut by frost in the middle of tubering which accounts for the 

 light yield. 



The results from plots 2 and 3 are in .some respects similar, as sec- 

 tions B and E show an increase and C a decrease. The outstanding 

 difference is the hea\ier yield on all sections in plot 2, showing the 

 benefit of pasture in the rotation. It will be noted that section B, dres.sed 

 with sulphate of ammonia in these two plots, gave 5 cwt. in plot No. 2 

 and nearly 4 cwt. in plot No. 3. Section E, with the addition of 2 cwt. 

 of super])hosphate, shows a very slight increase, plot No. 2, 2 cwt. 3 qrs. ;. 

 and plot No. 3, 8 cwt. With reference to the potash dressing on section C, 

 both plots show a decrease. In the ca.se of plot No. 2 it amounts to- 

 3 cwt. 3 (|rs., and plot No. 3. 5 cwt. 1 (|r.. thus showing that these plots 

 are in accord in sections B, C, and 1>. The most striking difference in 

 the two fields occurs in section A. Plot No. 2 shows an increase of nearly 

 half-a-ton to the acre, and plot 3 a decrease of nearly 3 ' cwt. This" 

 difference is, no doubt, due to some fa\ourable condition of the soil not 

 present in the other sections, and might have been produced \\\ the presence 

 of organic matter, the result of refuse left after threshing. Mr. Bousted 

 states that such was not the ca.se. 



At the commencement it was pointed out that the rotation on two of 

 these plots was similar, inasmuch as they had both lieen under pasture 

 for varying periods ; the other. No. 3, was given for a period of 50^ 

 years. The operations on this plot may be described as a continuous 

 drain on the .soil's fertility, everything out and nothing back. The only 

 period when renovation of the soil was attempted was that devoted tO' 

 peas. Complaints are sometimes heard from growers that yields of pota- 

 toes are not greatly benefited by pasture. They forget that continuous 

 cultivation has depleted the land of its store of organic matter, making 

 il physically unfit to produce a satisfactory crop. " One swallow does not 

 make a summer." One term under pasture is only the first step in the 

 direction of improvement, and cannot be expected to restore the soil to 

 anything approaching its virgin condition. If much benefit is to be 

 obtained from pasture in the rotation, it must be followed systematically. 



The following conclusions may be drawn from the foregoing: — 



I. That a proper system of rotation must embrace pasture, resulting 

 in more stock on the land and the consumption of more of the 

 produce on the farm. 



