16 University of Xkw llAMi-sirikK | Sta. Bull. 324 



Yields of hay on these same treatments are given in Table X\'. 



TABLE XV. Yields of hay for various fertilizer treatments 

 on Jackson farm, 1929-33. 



Here again residual fertilizer eflfects had little influence on hay yields, 

 the largest difiference being a gain of v341 pounds in the 4-8-10 series. None 

 of the differences for fertilizer variations are significant. 



Lime gave significant gains wherever it was applied, even on the 

 series in which potash was omitted. This was to be expected in view of 

 the strong average acidity (pH 4.8). It is interesting to note that al- 

 though the soil is responsive to lime, and that very little clover appeared 

 on plots which did not receive lime, the increase from two to four tuns 

 gave little additional hay, actually only ^72 pounds per acre as an annual 

 average. 



During the second period on the Jackson farm, lime and residual fer- 

 tilizers exhibited more effect on oat yields than during the early years of 

 the test. This fact is brought out b\- the two tables. .W'l ruid XVH. which 

 are listed. 



TABLE XVL Effect of residual fertilizer on oat yields at Jackson farm — 

 four-year average of pounds cured oat hay per acre. 



'Neutralized with nluminum sttlphnte and sul|iluii . 



The differences in Table XVI are all posilivi-, which certainly indi- 

 cates an effective residual effect. This appears to confirm the results ob- 

 tained during the first period. Table X\^I contains for the most part 

 treatments carried through into the second period of the test, while in 

 Table X\TI cmt yields arc given for treatments initiatcl at the beginning 

 of the second six-year period on the Jackson farm. 



