12 DR. WM. SAUXDERS. 



Q. You are going to continue that? 



A. Yes, we want to see how long the results of the ten years manuring will 

 influence subsequent crops, aud we hope to continue these experiments until we gain 

 some satisfactory information on this point. 



As the result of this test for the whole period of twelve years in all, we have 

 had an average crop from the wheat where rotted manure has been used of 21 

 bushels 10 pounds per acre, while with the fresh manure the yield has been 21 

 bushels 26 pounds. With barley, covering a period of eleven years, the plot treated 

 with rotted manure has given 34 bushels 35 pounds per acre, while fresh manure 

 has given 35 bushels 14 pounds. 



With oats covering a period of eleven years with rotted manure, the average 

 has been 49 bushels 3 pounds; with fresh manure, 54 bushels and 18 pounds. 



In the case of the wheat in the twelve years' test, the difference has been 16 

 pounds per acre in favour of the fresh manure, 27 pounds in the case of the barley 

 in the eleven years' test, and 5 bushels 15 pounds per acre in the oats in the test for 

 eleven years. 



The oat is a strong-rooted plant and penetrates deeper in the soil than the 

 barley, and this, perhaps, is the reason for the difference in these two sorts of grain. 



By Mr. Sproule : 



Q. Do you think that experiment in manuring is one that could generally be 

 followed by farmers? They generally manure their fields only ouce every five 

 years. 



A. Oh, no ; we do not expect that farmers could follow us in that line, but in 

 order to get information we have to make such experiments very complete, and it 

 was thought that, by making an application of manure each year for a number of 

 years, we should get very conclusive results. 



By Mr. Erb ; 



Q. But it seems to me the experiments conducted in that line are not as con- 

 vincing to 'the general public as if they were conducted along the lines of putting 

 so much fresh manure and the equivalent of rotted manure and comparing the 

 results. A farmer may have a hundred or two hundred tons of fresh manure. He 

 either applies it fresh or rotted. If he allows it to rot, he cannot be expected to 

 apply the same number of tons as when fresh. Consequently, he will have to 

 manure less heavily to cover the same amount of ground. 



A. There might be some advantage in that plan, but it seems to me quite clear 

 if we apply twelve tons of the rotted manure to one field and twelve tons of fresh 

 manure to another, and get equal or better results from the fresh material than we 

 do from the rotted (and publish from time to time the loss of manure that takes 

 place in the rotting process), that it is not difficult to understand. 



By Mr. Featherston: 



Q. Experiments have proven that the man who allows his manure to rot loses a 

 great deal by doing so ? 

 A. Yes. 



By Mr. Gould : 



Q. How in the case of manure that you could not put on the land without 

 rotting on account of seeds ? I know that I could not put on any manure from my 

 farm, for I bought a very weedy farm. 



A. Would you not apply your manure to a hoed crop ? 



Q. Even with a hoed crop, I would not put it on. 



A. Wilh ordinary weed seeds in the manure, if you apply it for a hoed crop, a 

 few weeds more or less does not matter, as the same hoeing kills them all. 



