10 



greater growth than the original untreated sample gave for its first crop, 

 thus showing that the conditions for the second crop were equally as 

 favorable as for the first. The time of growth was identical. 



The most striking feature about this test is the marked reduction in 

 the growth of the second crop, which is frequently less than half what 

 it was in the first instance. The relative growth as effected by the 

 treatments is essentially the same in both crops, but there has been a 

 marked reduction regardless of the treatment. In only two out of eight 

 instances has the residual effect been sufficient to exceed or equal the 

 original growth on the untreated soil. 



It is a well-known fact in agriculture that continuous cropping with 

 the same crop tends to diminish the yields, and it would seem most I 

 probable in case of the above experiment that the first crop left something 

 in the soil that was harmful to the following one. The conditions in this 

 regard were probably intensified from the rapid growth and heavy draft 

 made on the soil in so short a time, and furthermore, the soil was | 

 replanted before time enough had elapsed for the oxidation or disap- 

 pearance of the noxious substances, a change which probably occurs to 

 greater or less extent in field practice, owing to the time which occurs 1 

 between crops. 



The results herein given by the wire-basket method seem to be ? 

 thoroughly in accord with the observations that have been made in the 

 field and with the experience of the planters in Darlington County. 

 Arrangements have already been made for conducting field experiments j 

 on the plantation above referred to. for the purpose of determining if 

 certain of the most beneficial treatments will prove equally as effective 

 when tried under field conditions. The results are such as to justify 

 the suggestion that farmers, particularly those who have this type of 

 soil, should try in an experimental way the more promising applications 

 herein reported. 



F. D. GARDNER, 

 In Charge of Soil Management. 



F. E. BONSTEEL, 



Approved: Assistant. 



JAMES WILSON, 



Secretary of Agriculture. 



AUGUST 1, 1905. 



O 



