Food foe Plants. 



101 



showing a gain in yield of 162 per cent., while on the low- 

 land the gain was but 24.7 per cent. ; the soil itself being 

 able in the latter case to supply a larger proportion of 

 the Nitrogen required to produce a crop as large as the 

 climatic and seasonal conditions would permit. The fol- 

 lowing table shows the financial results of the two experi- 

 ments from two standpoints: (1) Whether it is profit- 

 able to grow hay under the conditions, as outlined here ; 

 and (2) whether the use of Nitrate Avill pay. 



1905. Cost of Cropf. 



The first point of importance shown by this detailed 

 statement is that notwithstanding the expense involved, 

 there is a profit in hay growing ; that it pays to expend 

 money for the good preparation of soil, for good seed and 

 for fertilizers — in fact, if the entire cost had been 

 charged to the first crop, there would have been a profit 

 of $5.23 per acre where Nitrate was used on the upland. 

 Second, that it pays to use Nitrate; and third, that the 

 kind of soil to which Nitrate is applied measures in a 

 marked degree the profit to be derived from its applica- 

 tion. On the upland, the crop without Nitrate was worth 

 but $19.08 per acre, while the application of 200 pounds 

 of Nitrate caused the value to increase to $50.24 — a gain 

 of $31.16 per acre. Deducting the cost of the nitrate and 

 extra cost of harvesting, we have a net increase in value 

 of $20.50 per acre, or for each dollar invested a net 

 return of nearly $4. 



