Soda did not pay as well as Nitrate of Soda used alone. p?^ ts for 



The experiments during the last season were planned to 



test the availability of the phosphate after the first I2 3 

 season. It was thought that there was a possibility that 

 the insoluble slag phosphate would become more avail- 

 able the second season after applying it. The plots first 

 used in the experiments were subdivided and given 

 different applications of Nitrate of Soda, used alone and 

 in combination with sulphate of potash at the rate of 

 300 pounds per acre. 



The yield of hay was lower on both fertilized and 

 unfertilized plots during the second season than it was in 

 the first. This difference is undoubtedly due to an un- 

 favorable season. The late spring rainfall failed almost 

 entirely, and to this, no doubt, must be attributed 

 the decreased yield. 



An inspection of the summary of results shows that 

 the heaviest yields of hay on both red and granite soils 

 and the largest money returns per acre were obtained 

 from the plots which were fertilized with phosphate 

 during 1901-2. On red soil with oats-hay the gain from 

 the use of Nitrate of Soda on the plot which had phos- 

 phate the year previous was $11.70 per acre, as against 

 only $3.72 per acre where the Nitrate was used on land 

 having no previous fertilization. 



On granite soil with oats-hay there was no gain 

 from the phosphate. The use of Nitrate of Soda alone 

 without previous fertilization yielded $9.44 per acre 

 profit, while on the plots having phosphate applied the 

 previous year, the gain was only $5.74 per acre. 



In 1903 the heaviest yield of hay was obtained from 

 oats, and the largest profit per acre from wheat on 

 granite soil which had an application of Thomas slag, 

 sulphate of potash, and lime, in 1902. Nitrate of Soda 

 was used at the rate of 320 pounds per acre in 1903. The 

 yield of hay was 5,772 pounds per acre, and the resulting 

 profit $12.89 per acre. It should be remarked here, 

 however, that this plot was fertilized at a loss of $21.50 

 per acre in 1902; and as the application of Nitrate was 

 larger than was used on any other plot, the increased 

 returns were at least partly due to the increased supply 

 of the Nitrate. 



