S6 CORK 



appear to do much good, and, in some cases, the result of their use 

 was an apparent decrease in the crop . . 



"Potash, on the other hand, appears to have been always and 

 everywhere greatly beneficial. When used alone or in combination, 

 it invariably caused a large increase in the crop, and its use was 

 always exceedingly profitable. 



"The lesson of this experiment' is plain. For our soil potash 

 should, for the .present, be the most prominent ingredient of every 

 fertilizer used. 



"General Summary — Results of the use of potash: This ingre- 

 dient has produced an increase of crop varying from 1.9 bushels of 

 hard corn per acre to 22.8 bushels; and also from 150 lbs. of stover per 

 acre to 1420 lbs. It has proved more useful* in its average effect upon 

 the production of hard corn than either nitrogen or phosphoric acid, 

 in four out of eight experiments, and in another it stands on an 

 equality with nitrogen in this respect." 



1890. 

 By W. S. Phillips, Marblehead. Bulletin No. 14, May, 1891. 

 Soil — Fine gravelly loam. 



"The results of the use of nitrogen and potash are quite similar in 

 kind, though potash causes the larger and, the most profitable increase. 



"For this soil I should advise a fertilizer rich in potash, contain- 

 ing minerals to furnish about: Potash 80 lbs.; nitrogen, 25 lbs., and 

 phosphoric acid, 25 lbs. 



By Frank Wheeler, Concord. Bulletin No. 14, May, 1891. 

 Soil — Good sandy loam. 



''Notwithstanding the high condition of the soil, the potash 

 wherever used produced a very perceptible improvement from the first 



"These combinations make it evident that on this soil potash was 

 the ingredient most needed, but it produces its most marked increase 

 when used with nitrogen and phosphoric acid and more when used 

 with either of these than when used alone.'' 



By a. D. Copeland, Bridgewater. Bulletin No. 14, May, 1891 

 Soil — Very poor gravelly loam. 



"The soil needed nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash; but the lat- 

 ter to a far greater degree than either of the others. They, if potash 

 also was present, produced a considerable increase; but if it was 

 absent, only a very small one. The two together are almost powerless 

 to increase the crop. Potash, on the other hand, even alone caused 



