EXnCKIMKN'TS ON WHEAT. 193 



soda, ami ma^ncsiii, tlie year hcforc, while the otlicr liad siipir- 

 phosphate alone." It turntil out, as you see from tlic t;il)le. Unit 

 the potash, etc., only iruve half a hu.-hel more wheat per acre the 

 year it was used, anil this y»ar, with 2,OllO lbs. of rape-rake on eaeh 

 plot, there is ouly a bushel per acre in favor of the potash, soda, 

 antl nwiixnesia. 



The nc.\t plot, 9/*, was al.so unmanured and was passed by my 

 father witliout eomment. " Ah," said he, on cominji to the two 

 iie.xt plots, 10 i and lOA, "this is bitter, what have you here ?" — 

 *' yet fling b'lt atiimdiiia,^' siid I, "and I wish you would tell me 

 which is the bi-st of the two? Last year 10'!' had a heavy dressing 

 of minerals and superphosphate with ammonia, and 10 « the same 

 quantity of ammonia alone, witliout superphosphate or other 

 mineral manures. And tiiis year both phjt.s have had a dressin;^ of 

 400 lbs. each of ammonia-salts. Now, which is the best — the j)lot 

 that had superphosphate and min rals last year, or the one with- 

 out?" — " Well," said he, " 1 can't sec any diU'erence. Both arc 

 good crops." 



You will see from the tabic, that the jjot which had the super- 

 phosphate, pota-sh, etc., the year before, gives a peck Ush wheat this 

 year than t!ie other plot which had none. Practically, the yield is 

 the .same. There is an increase of i:5 bushels of wheat per acre — 

 and this increase /."* ckiirly due U> the ammonid-iuUs alone. 



The next plot was also a splendid crop. 



" What have you here ? " 



"Superphosphate and ammonia." 



This plot (llrf), turned out 35 bushels per acre. The next plot, 

 with phosphates and ammonia, was nearly as good. The next plot, 

 with p<>ta.sh. phosphates, and ammonia, e(|ually g' od, but no better 

 than ll'i. There was little or no benefit from the potash, except 

 a little more strint. The next plot was good and I did not wait ff>r 

 the question, but simply said, " ammonia," end the next " ammo- 

 nia," and the next "ammonia." — Standing still and looking at tlie 

 wheat, my father asked, "Joe, where can I get this ammonia?" 

 He had previou?ly been a little skeptical as to the value of chem- 

 istry, and had not a high opinion of " book farmers," but that 

 wheat-crop compelled him to admit " that perhaps, after all, there 

 might be some good in it." At any rate, he wanted to know where 

 he could get ammonia. And, now, as then, every good farmer a.sks 

 the same question: " vVhere can I get ammonia?" Before we 

 attempt to answer the question, let us look at the next year's ex- 

 periments. — The following is the results of the experiments the 

 aeventh year, 1849-50. 

 9 



