142 



The Philippine Journal of Science 



Table VI. — Relation between yield of each plot in tons of ;ane and yield 

 calculated as 96° sugar per hectare. 



Plot. 



96° sugar 



from 100 



tons 



cane. 



Plot yield. 



Hectare yield. 



Gain or 

 loss of 

 sugar over 

 average 

 control. 



Net price 

 of sugar 



gained or 

 lost per 

 hectare. 



Cost of 

 fertil- 

 izing per 

 hectare. 



Gain or 

 loss, due 

 toapplica- 

 tion of 

 fertil- 

 izers. 



Cane. 



Sugar. 



Cane. 



Sugar. 





Tons. 



Kilos. 



Kilos. 



Tons. 



Tons. 



Tons. 



Pesos. 



Pesos. 



Pesos. 



1 



9.82 



3,233 



317. 48 



71.84 



7.05 



0.0 



0.0 



0.0 



0.0 



2 



10.27 



3,535 



363. 04 



78.55 



8.06 



0.22 



33.44 



20.28 



13.16 



3 



11.25 



3,035 



341. 50 



67.44 



7.59 



—0.25 



—38. 00 



34. 10 



—72. 10 



4 



9.60 



3,889 



373.34 



86.42 



8.29 



0.45 



68.40 



64.44 



1.99 



5 



11.72 



3,156 



370.00 



70.13 



8.22 



0.38 



59.76 



75.96 



—16. 20 



6 



9.81 



4,043 



397.00 



89.84 



8.20 



0.36 



55.00 



75.96 



—20. 96 



7 



12.50 



4.128 



516.00 



91.73 



11.48 



3.64 



550.00 



75.96 



474. 04 



8 



10.70 



4,310 



461. 17 



95.77 



10.24 



2.40 



364. 80 



144.58 



140. 40 



9 



10.30 



3,769 



388. 10 



83.75 



8.63 



0.0 



0.0 



0.0 



0.0 



10 



9.00 



3,813 



344.17 



84.42 



7.62 



—0.22 



—33.44 



134. 80 



—168.24 



11 



7.24 



4,288 



313.00 



95.29 



6.90 



-0.94 



-143.00 



144. 36 



-287.36 



12 



12.15 



3,710 



450. 10 



82.44 



10.02 



2.18 



332. 00 



149. 14 



182. 86 



13 



14.21 



4,142 



588. 00 



92.04 



13.08 



5.24 



795. 00 



280.41 



514. 59 



14 



14.43 



3,981 



575. 80 



88.46 



12.79 



4.95 



753. 00 



219. 78 



533.22 



15 



12.25 



3,861 



486. 67 



85.80 



10.81 



2.97 



451.44 



216. 78 



234. 66 



Table VI also shows which of the plots would produce the 

 greatest returns. It is evident, judging from the results of these 

 experiments, that the application of lime (plot 2), of a com- 

 bination of sulphate of potash and double superphosphate (plot 

 7), of sulphate of ammonia and sulphate of potash (plot 8), of 

 nitrate of soda and sulphate of ammonia (plot 12), of sulphate 

 of ammonia, sulphate of potash, and double superphosphate with 

 a subsequent application of nitrate of soda (plot 13) , of sulphate 

 of potash, nitrate of soda, and double superphosphate (plot 14), 

 or of sulphate of ammonia, sulphate of potash, and double super- 

 phosphate (plot 15) will all more than pay for the cost of fer- 

 tilizers and of their application. Plot 14 would give the highest 

 return, although it is below plot 13 in the amount of 96"' sugar 

 that it would be possible to produce per hectare. This fact 

 shows that it is better to use nitrate of soda at the very start 

 than to use two forms of nitrogen in the combination. The 

 superiority of nitrate of soda to sulphate of ammonia as a source 

 of nitrogen for cane is indicated by a comparison of plots 13, 

 14, and 15. 



CONCLUSIONS 



1. Sulphate of potash alone and a complete fertilizer with 

 nitrogen in the form of nitrate of soda gave the highest purity 

 in the juice. Double superphosphate in combination with either 



