\(.i;i< i LTURAL EXPERLMENT STATION. 25 



While it may not be desirable to draw definite conclusions from 

 so small an amount of data as is furnished by the above described 

 experiments, there are some points which under the conditions of 

 these experiments the results appear to bring out sharply. 



1st. Different crops showed a decided difference in their powers 

 of obtaining phosphoric acid from crude, finely ground South Caro- 

 lina rock. Wheat, barley, corn, peas and turnips apparently 

 appropriated the insoluble phosphoric acid from this source with 

 greater or less ease, while beans and potatoes derived no benefit 

 from it. 



2d. The greatest practical advantage derived from the use of 

 fine-ground South Carolina rock was with the turnips. With this 

 crop a larger weight of dry matter and also a larger weight of fresh 

 roots was obtained with insoluble phosphoric acid from the finely 

 ground South Carolina rock than with an equal amount of soluble 

 phosphoric acid from acidulated South Carolina rock. 



3d. The indications point to a profitable use of finely ground 

 South Carolina rock as a manure for barley and peas as well as 

 turnips. 



4th. The acidulated South Carolina rock in these experiments 

 apparently depressed the yield of grain with barley while largely 

 increasing the amount of straw. With wheat both grain and straw 

 were largely increased and in about the same proportion. 



ANALYSES OF CATTLE FOODS. 

 W. II. Jordan, J. M. Bartlett, L. IT. Merrill. 



Note — The experiments in connection with which those analyses were made 

 were planned largely by the Station Director. The analyses were entirely exe- 

 cuted by the .Station chemists. The Director is responsible for this discussion of 



the results. 



It seems proper, because of certain views now held by agricultural 

 chemists, that the following statement of the analyses of various 

 cattle foods should be accompanied by explanations. 



The opinion is now frequently expressed that to continue the 

 analysis of our common cattle foods after the existing usual 

 methods, simply for the sake of analysis, is largely a waste of time. 

 This opinion is undoubtedly correct, and for the following reasons : 

 1st. Enough analyses have been made to establish the average 

 composition of our common feeding stuffs as closely as is practica- 

 ble or useful. Additional analyses will change the general averages 

 verj* little. 



2nd. Existing methods of food analysis are furnishing no new 

 information about food compounds and are entirely inadequate to 



