1900.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 33. 19 



The Results and Conclusions based (hereon in 1898. 

 In 1898 also the crop upon this field was onions, and it is 

 desirable to present the leading statements and conclusions 

 published that year for the purpose of comparison. The 

 manuring was the same as this year, save that no lime was 

 used. I quote from my last annual report : — 



The results show that this [phosphoric acid, — dissolved bone- 

 black] more than either the nitrogen or the potash supply controlled 

 the product. The crop was very light, however, even upon the 

 best plot, which was at the rate of 116.9 bushels per acre, upon 

 the plot receiving nitrate of soda and dissolved bone-black. Upon 

 the plots receiving these two fertilizers and muriate of potash the 

 crop amounted to only 16.3 bushels per acre. Here is strong 

 evidence that the muriate of potash has produced in the soil of 

 this field conditions absolutely prejudicial to the growth of the 

 onion. 



Last 3-ear this field was in potatoes under the same sj'steni of 

 manuring, but with half the quantities employed this year. The 

 crop of potatoes on the nitrate and bone-black was much heavier 

 than on these two and potash, and in commenting upon this fact 

 in my annual report I wrote : "The apparent superiority of the 

 phosphoric acid and nitrogen is chiefly due to the fact that the plot 

 to which these two elements alone were applied was for some reason 

 (not believed to be the effect of the fertilizer alone) nearly twice 

 as great as that upon any other plot. Had the crop where the 

 potash was added to the nitrogen and phosphoric acid been better 

 or even as good as that where the phosphoric acid and nitrogen 

 alone were used, we should be justified in the conclusion that nitro- 

 gen and phosphoric acid are the elements chiefly required. The 

 crop where all three elements were combined was, however, much 

 inferior to that where the nitrogen and phosphoric acid were used 

 without potash. "We must, therefore, conclude that some disturb- 

 ing factor, at present unknown, influenced the results." 



In view of the similar relative results upon the two plots under 

 discussion this year, I am now forced to conclude that I was mis- 

 taken last year in supposing that the superiority of the plot receiv- 

 ing nitrogen and phosphoric acid only was not " the effect of the 

 fertilizer alone." 



I now believe that tlie muriate of potash has i)roved actuallv in- 

 jurious to the last two crops, and that the explanation (tlio loss of 

 lime which it causes) already suggested accounts for this effect. 



