DRY FARMING CONGRESS. 



99 



PROF. CHILCOTT: I think I have served my time on the rostrum. 

 (Laughter.) The rotation best adapted to the maintenance of fertility in 

 one locality may not be the one best adapted to another localit}' where 

 the conditions are equal. I do not believe that any rotation will ever be 

 devised that will fit all conditions. But I do think that any rotation that 

 will maintain the fertility of the land must have certain features. One 

 of these important features is, it must in some way restore to the land 

 a least a portion of the plant food that is taken from the land by such 

 crops as wheat and other small grains. There are many wa.ys of doing 

 this, adapted to many different conditions. I believe that the proper rota- 

 tion for maintaining the fertility of the soil involves the maintenance 

 of the humus in the soil — the organic matter in the soil, and I believe 

 wdierever it is possible that some kind of a hay crop should enter into 

 the rotation. If this hay crop can be a legume, like alfalfa or clover, it 

 is better, because we all know^ that the plowing under of a legume, or even 

 the growing of a legume on the land adds certain elements of fertility to 

 the land in a greater quantity than will an}^ non-leguminous product. 

 How well alfalfa will fit into a rotation scheme we do not yet know. It 

 will probably fit better in some localities than others. But I believe the 

 time will come when it will be used extensively in rotation in certain places. 

 It seems, of course, almost like a waste of time and energy now to plow 

 under a good alfalfa field when it is at its height of production, and if 

 there was only one object in view, that is, of getting all you can out of 

 the land, it would be better to keep that land in alfalfa just as long as it 

 would produce alfalfa. But I believe that the time will come wdien the 

 production of a crop of alfalfa will be a secondary consideration, and 

 the benefit to the land from growing alfalfa will be the prime one. How 

 long it will be best to keep this land in alfalfa before it is broken up, 

 what crop will be best adapted to follow the alfalfa, how long it should 

 be cropped before it is again seeded down are questions that have not 

 yet been solved for any locality,' so far as I know, and when it is solved 

 for one locality it may not fit other localities. Now where alfalfa cannot 

 be successfully grown, or perhaps even where it can, there are other 

 grasses — Bromus Inermis, particularly — or I should not say other grasses — 

 alfalfa is not, of course, a grass — but there are other hay crops. Bromus 

 Inermis will grow in a very thrifty condition. It reaches its maximum 

 production about the third year, and I think that is one of its strong 

 points, because then the farmer will be almost forced to plow it under, 

 and that will be a good thing; it will bring about a rotation of crops 

 rather than continuous cropping of one part of his farm to grasses and 

 of another portion of his farm to grain. I believe that the growing of 

 corn or some other cultivated crop should enter into every rotation scheme, 

 where the growing of that crop is possible or profitable. And I would go 

 further than that, I think. I think it would be of advantage to grow 

 corn simply for the sake of having it in the rotation, even though the 

 yield of corn itself would not be sufficient to make it a profitable crop. 

 In South Dakota, we have carried out experiments for a number of years, 



