76 



THE feENESEE FARIkfER. 



"We have tlionglit that all the cereal crops— such 

 as wlieat, barley, oats, rye and Indian corn, as well 

 as Timothy, red-top and other grasses, take up from 

 the soil more ammonia than is found in the cro}>6 

 when grown, and that coiiHequently tliey rob the 

 farm of this sul)8tance. Ou the other hand, we 

 have tliought that turnips, clover, peas and beans, 

 do not take from th« soil more ammonia than they 

 contain when grown. 



The atmosphere, rain and dews furnish a certain 

 quantity of ammonia each year to the soil. Stir- 

 ring the soil and exposing it, to the atmo'^phere also 

 develop:5 ammonia from the organic matter in the 

 soil. Now if all tiie plants that are grown on the 

 farm were plowed under, it follows that those 

 fields where wlieat, barley, oats, rye, Indian corn, 

 Timolhy and red-top were grown, would not contain 

 as mucii ammonia as those on wliich clover, peas 

 and beans were grown. Now what is true of 

 plants when plowed under, is equally true when 

 the same plants are eaten by stock, and all the 

 manure returned to the soil. If we grew a crop 

 of barley, oats, Indian corn and Timothy grass, and 

 led the whole ci'op on the farm, we should not 

 have as much ammonia as if we had grown crops 

 of turnips, beans, peas and clover, and fed them 

 out on the farm. 



If this theory is correct, therefore, it is far better 

 80 far a« enriching the soil is concerned, to grow 

 clover instead of Timothy, peas instead of barley, 

 and beans and turnips insteid of Incian corn and oats. 



Mr. Russell, aa we understand him, denies the 

 truth of this theory. He contends that there is no 

 Buch difference between the two classes of plants aa 

 we have alluded to. That there is a difference, 

 however, between plants in regard to the quantity 

 of ammonia they require, he admits. In fact, he 

 lays down a new law on the subject, which be de- 

 fines as follows: 



" When the physiological, characters of plants are 

 somewhat similar, the amount of ammonia re(]uired 

 in manures is in the adverse ratio to the amount 

 of heat and moLsture in the atmosphere during the 

 time the primary organs of plants are developed."* 



In other words, spring wheat, for instance, re- 

 quires less ammonia than winter wheat, and late 

 sown spring crops than early sown, and turnips 

 and buckwheat less than either. 



Now this law, as laid down by Mr. Russell, 

 fTWjf be trne. The only objection we have ever 

 made to it is that it is not based on any clearly 

 esta-blished fact. ' • 



•■Toumal o( the Uigtinnd pad AyiQulturaJ Socletr of Sootland, 

 July, KM. ^ r •- . -v / 



Mr. Russell thinks that the results of onrex]+er 

 iments on Indian corn and on sorghum support hi 

 theory. Some of the results in the sorghunl 

 experiments may, or may not favor his hypothesi?* 

 but those on Indian corn are very far from doinn 

 so. Mr. RrssELf/s law requires that Indian con i 

 should be "largely benefitted by phosphates," ami 

 little by ammonia; and he states that such, from hi i 

 own observation while traveling in America, it| 

 the case. 



Now our experiments on Indian corn show th 

 very reterse. 200 lbs. of superphosphate of lim«i^ 

 as Mr. R says, gave an increase of ten bushels o i 

 eary of corn per acre over the unmanured plot ; bti I 

 so also did 100 lbs. of plaster, so that the solubl i 

 l)hosphate of lime in the superphosphate did n ( 

 good. On the other hand, the greatest yield o \ 

 any of the plots was where there was most ammonici^ 



We conclude, therefore, that although corn is | 

 late planted crop, it delights in ammonia, while i | 

 is not, as Mr. R. said, "largely benefitted b ' 

 phosphates." 



So far as our corn experiments are concernec i 

 therefore, they are not favorable to Mr. Russell' ' 

 theory. The ex|)eriments on sorghum we admi i 

 are a "puzzle." They do not support our ow i 

 tlieory — that all the cereals pre-eminently requlM 

 ammonia. Neither, on the other hand, do the \ 

 prove the truth of Mr. Russell's theory; othei 

 wise the sorghum would have been "largel, 

 benefited by phosphates," which was so far tror i 

 being the case that phosphates did no good what. I 

 ever— that is to say, plaster did as much good a* 

 superphosphate, which contains both plaster anM 

 phosphates. 



There are several other points in Mr. Russell'" 

 remarks that merit attention, but our space »>* 

 present forbids. If Messers. Lawes and Gilber- 

 have "given in their adherence" to Mr. Russell V 

 theory, we are still ignorant of the fact. It is tru< 

 their experiments show that a late sown crop ol 

 harley will not bear as heavy a dressing of ainmonin 

 as an earlier sown crop. But this does not prov«' 

 that less ammonia is required to produce a bnshe 

 of barley when the crop is sown late than wheri 

 sown early. It only shows that a late sown cro[ 

 will not produce as much per acre, or stand ai^ 

 high manuring as one that has a longer season to^ 

 grow in, 



A PAIK of bullocks were recently sent to Phjla- 

 delpiiia from Fayette county, Ohio, that were esti- 

 mated to weigh seven thousand pounds. It was 

 thought they -would bring not leas than $1000. 



