16 



was 39 J bushels ; in the second five years, 29 J bushels ; 

 in the third five years, 30f bushels; in the fourth five 

 years 22 J bushels; in the fifth five years, 24 bushels. It 

 is quite clear that during the last ten years the land has been 

 yielding less than it did before any farmyard manure had been 

 applied, and that there was then no residue of manure re- 

 maining on which compensation could fairly be claimed. On 

 looking into the details of the third five years, we see that the 

 produce in the last two years of the period was below 28J 

 bushels. We have therefore thirteen years as the period 

 during which the second tenant derived a substantial benefit 

 from the previous applications of farmyard manure. During 

 these thirteen years, 1872-84, the land (plot? 1 ) has produced 

 441| bushels of barley, and 237 cwts. of straw. At its 

 original rate of produce, before any farmyard manure was 

 applied, it should have yielded 370J bushels, and 217| cwts. 

 of straw. The advantage to the second tenant of the manure 

 applied by his predecessor is thus represented by 71 J bushels of 

 barley, and 19f cwts. of barley straw. If we reckon the 

 barley as worth 3s. a bushel, we have 10. 13s. as the gross 

 return per acre received by the second tenant in consequence 

 of the previous application of 14 tons of dung every year for 

 twenty years. From this gross return we have to deduct the 

 expenses of harvesting and marketing 71 bushels; we have 

 also to bear in mind that the return in crop is spread over 

 thirteen years, and that the compensation to be paid to the 

 first tenant really therefore represents a capital sum spent in 

 the purchase of an annuity. These circumstances alone con- 

 siderably reduce the sum to be paid by the second tenant on 

 entering the farm, without taking into account any margin to 

 cover risk, or any profit on the transaction which he may 

 fairly expect to make. 



The experiment we have quoted only allows us to value 

 the unexhausted residue of the dung in terms of the barley 

 it was capable of producing ; had the second tenant grown 

 other crops, as mangel and clover, the money value of the 

 residue would have appeared much more considerable. 



Our next illustration is from the permanent grass ex- 

 periments at Eothamsted. In Eothamsted Park, plot 2 



