1900.] 



PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 33. 



27 



1. Product. — The details coacerning product are shown 

 in the table : — 



Siveet Corn. 



In the judgment of the men handling the crop, the plants 

 stood slightly thicker on plot 12 than on ph)t 11, and it is 

 likely that this accounts in large measure, if not entirely, for 

 the greater number of ears on plot 12, It will ])e noticed 

 that the total product was the same on the two plots. 



2. Quality for Table Use. — Chemical examination of 

 kernels of corn from the two plots showed no difference 

 which can be regarded as significant ; in fact, the differences 

 are probably within the limits of error. It therefore appears 

 that the chlorine of muriate did not exert the depressing 

 effect on sugar formation that is often noticed with other 

 crops. 



3. The Food Value of the Entire Plant. — Analyses of 

 the product of the two plots revealed no differences in com- 

 position which would materially affect the feeding value. 



Field Corn {Eureka for the Silo) {Sulfate v. Muriate of 



Potash). 



This crop occupied plots 19 and 20, and on both made a 

 fine growth, averaging 15 feet in height. The ears were 

 small and in the milk when the crop was ensiled, September 

 28. The yields (<)l)tained by weighing after partial wilting) 

 were : — 



Muriate plot, 6,14o pounds, nt rate of 23 tons per acre. 

 Sulfate plot, 5,675 pounds, at rate of 21.2 tons per acre. 



Feeding Value. — The crop from l)()th plots was sampled 

 for analysis. The results showed no important differences 

 in the feeding value of the product on the two salts. 



