Prof. Norton on the Analysis of the Oat. 325 
The three samples of oats to which the grain belonged were 
obtained through the kindness of my friend Mr. Simpson of 'Tea- 
wig, Beauly, Inverness. In accordance with my request, he se- 
lected specimens from the same neighborhood, grown on very 
unlike soils. 'They were of crop 1844. 
“No. 1. Sandy Oats.—Grown on a stiff clay soil, which was 
much baked by the early summer’s drought. ‘They were after 
grass sown with wheat laid down after a crop of turnips, manured 
with farm-yard dung and a small quantity of bones. Crop, four 
quarters per acre.” 
“No, 2. Hopeton Oats.—Grown on a poor sandy soil, which 
also suffered much from the drought. The oats were after two 
years’ grass, pastured, the grass sown down with barley, after a 
turnip crop (raised with bones), which was all eaten off on the 
ground by sheep. Produce, three quarters per acre.” 
“No. 3. Hopeton OQats—Grown on a deep rich vegetable 
mould, one of the best soils in that part of the country. Man- 
aged in the same manner as No. 1. Produce, eight quarters per 
re ’ 
I will first give the per-centage of ash obtained from the grain 
of these oats, and then its composition. 
Per-centage of Ash in Grain, from Mr. Simpson. 
Taste XXXII. 
| | Nol. | No 2 | No 3. | 
Ash calculated dry, . - - - | 280 | 148 | 248.1 
The differences in this table are certainly very striking ; after 
the above account of the soils,:and amount of the crops, they 
scarcely need any explanation. The poorest crop has least ash. 
This isa very decisive proof of the absolute necessity of this small 
portion of inorganic matter to the grain. The scanty supply 
yielded by the soil of No. 2 seems to have made a difference of 
five quarters per acre in the crop. ; 
_ We will now consider the composition of these ashes, as given 
in the following table. 
Taste XXXIII. 
Phosphates of | 
Lime and magnesia 
Siliea, =. 
No 
Salts soluble in water, chiefly sulphates and chlorides, | x8 
: Me ee 
The chief differences in these ashes are in the lime and magne- 
sia, and in the phosphates. It seems strange that the latter should 
be least in the ash of No. 3. This would perhaps be explained 
by some local cireumstances, with which I am not acquainted. 
