substances to the roots seems to me unlikely, although the roots 

 -search for food and grow towards it. Most farmers find it, however, 

 necessary to force crops by drilling them with manure, causing for 

 the time too luxurious consumption of plant-food against later 

 needs, and why ? They say the weeds have in that case no chance ! 

 But surely the seeds of weeds should be made to grow before, and 

 the seed-bed fairly free from these robbers. 



The question how much of the different manures should be used 

 per acre is a matter that can only be answered subsequently under 

 the headings of the different cultivated plants. It depends also on the 

 soil and whether in good heart or not. In default of an analysis, 

 which may still be misleading as regards the at once soluble con- 

 stituents, a knowledge of the general physical qualities of soils is 

 useful. A limy soil is generally rich in phosphoric acid and poor 

 in potash ; with clay it is probably the reverse. Sandy soils re- 

 quire nearly always all three pliant foods in a larger or lesser degree. 

 Where the soil contains much potash it is desirable to use gypsum 

 to make it fit for absorption by the plants. But 

 I may say here that much as regards phosphatic 

 manures, which are undoubtedly needed in large quan- 

 tities, that the preference generally given to superphosphates 

 over other phosphatic manures is more the natural consequence of 

 being best and longer known. Others, if applied at the proper 

 time and to certain soils, have proved to be as good, cheaper, and 

 more lasting. Dr. Bernard Dyer, F.C.S.. F.L.S., in his 160th thou- 

 sand of "Some Points in Artificial Manuring," says: "Is it better 

 to use raw or undissolved phosnhatic manures, such as bones, phos- 

 phatic Peruvian guano, and Thomas phosphate? Or is it better 

 to use acid manures, like dissolved bones and superphosphate? This 

 is a question which for some years has occupied a great deal of atten- 

 tion, and has been the subject of a great mlany experiments. At one 

 time it was generally supposed both by farmers and agricultural 

 chemists that dissolved manures, like superphosphates, were invari- 

 ably to be preferred. Of late years, however, both here and 

 abroad especially abroad it has been recognised that on some soils 

 and for some purposes raw or undissolved phosphatic manure* 

 answer quite as well. Indeed, careful comparative experiments, of 

 which I have myself conducted some, have shown that sometimes 

 undissolved, or non-acid, manures give better results. How, then, 

 are we to decide in any given case ? Speaking broadly, and with 

 some reservations, I would lay down the rule that for all crops, 

 when the soil possesses *v fairly abundant quantity of lime, superphos- 

 phate, or some similar dissolved manure, is probably the most econo- 

 mical and efficacious, while on soils decidedly deficient in lime I 

 would recommend bonemeal, raw phosph'atic guano, or Thomas phos- 

 phate. This last fertiliser is not a new nostrum of which you need 

 be suspicious. In 1894 already 59,500 tons were used in England 

 and Scotland, against 4,500 tons in 1887. On light Norfolk soils 

 potash has shown to produce marvellous results on root crops, grain 

 -crops, and clovers. On much of the Lincolnshire heath land it acts 



