CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WORK WAS DONE. 



The Station put up the iertilizers except for; plots 8, 6, and 

 12, the farmer was to furnish use of land, was to lay out the 

 plots, and plant according to directions, record certain observed 

 facts on blanks furnished and to harvest and report weights. 

 For this, no compensation, other than the fertilizer was given. 



RESULTS OBTAINED. 



While the results cannot be regarded as perfect, in fact fall 

 far short of that, nevertheless it is believed that they are valua- 

 ble. Seven of the ten farmers worked on corn which was husk- 

 ed, (one of these by reason of sickness did not report on 

 weight of fodder) one planted corn for ensilage, one sweet 

 corn for a canning lactory, and one experimented on potatoes. 



Table 2 gives the yield per acre of husked corn, 40 lbs. per 

 bushel as husked, and ot iodder, for each plot on each of the 

 seven sets; plots 17, 18, 19 and 20, on Mr. Baker's acre, were 

 destroyed by crows ; the last two columns in the table give 

 the average yield of corn and iodder from each plot, for the 

 seven tests. In this table the three best yields are printed 

 IN black-faced type, the next three best in italics. 



Taking this table as it stands and the best yield of corn is 

 seen to be from manure, followed by plots 9 and 13, while the 

 largest amount of fodder is found on plot 13, followed by 9 and 



5- 



If we select and average the three best plots, not including 

 the one with manure, in each set, we can then compare the re- 

 sults from chemicals with those from manure, prepared fertil- 

 izer, and ashes, and by averaging the four plots with no fertili- 

 zer we have the data for determining the relative efficiency of 

 each method of supplying plant fooo. This method ot condens- 

 ing results has been applied to table 2 and as a result we get 

 table 3, the upper half being lor huskea corn the lower for fodder. 



Table 3 shows us that the average yield ot husked corn 

 from manure was 89.69 bushels, from the best three combina- 

 tions of chemicals 90.62 bushels, from prepared fertilizer 63.58 

 bushels, frcm ashes 65.40 bushels, and from plots not fertilized 

 41.00 bushels. 



To the farmer these figures mean a great deal, provided 

 that they are representative results ; now as the cost ot chemi- 



7 



