26 



color and growth is apparently undecided, as 3 per cent, variations 

 from the normal are readily attributable to limitations in our 

 methods of determining values. Potash, in combination, has shown 

 fairly good effects on 3'ield and growth in the first experiments, but 

 has apparently proved rather distinctty harmful in the second three ; 

 and considering the results in all six experiments its value in im- 

 proving color is ver}- questionable. 



Lime in the first three experiments shows a distinct deficit in 

 yield, and no advantage in color, but apparenth* a fair increase in 

 growth. In the other experiments an apparent benefit in yield is 

 shown. This, however, is due to an unusual increase on the lime 

 plot of experim_ent 339, an increase which was due probably more 

 to a favorable moisture situation this 3-ear than to any efi'ect of the 

 lime. It is sureh' a significant fact that in five out of six places thus 

 far, lime shows either no ett"ect or a distinct deficit in yield. 



It will be noted that practically none of the treatments have 

 materiall}' improved color while a number of them have distincth^ 

 decreased it. This reduction in color is undoubtedly associated with 

 delayed inafurity and a diininished light supply to the fruit, the lat- 

 ter being due to an increase in the density of foliage following the 

 application of the fertilizers. The value of sunlight in developing 

 redness in apples is scarcely appreciated. In a test conducted dur- 

 ing the fall on York Imperial apples it Avas found that exposure to 

 sunlight after picking increased redness by over 35 per cent, while 

 apples confined in the dark,, or exposed to electric light and under 

 identical conditions otherwise, showed practicalh^ no increase in 

 redness. Maturity in sunlight on the trees is undoubtedly the great 

 influence affecting redness in fruit, and when soil ingredients ap- 

 parently afi'ect it, their efi'ect is produced indirectly, through a modi- 

 fication in the main influence. 



In table A", we have the financial value of fertilization as shown 

 in some of our most striking results of this year. 



TABLE V. 



Financial Value of Fertilization, 



Expt. 221, 1909 (3rd Yr.) 



Yield 

 Lb. 



f 



Bushels ' Value 

 per A. at 50c. 



Net Gain 

 per Acre. 



izer 





19448 

 47028 

 48550 



194-5 

 470.0 



485-5 



$ 97-25 

 235. oo| 



242.75 



S 'S 



13.00. 124.75 

 I5.00I 130.50 



1 



Expt. 220, 1909, ('3rd 3-ear). 



]Manure, plot 14, 



291 

 1947 



27.9 

 373.8 



$ 13-95 

 186.90 



$ .... 



15.00 



$ 



157-95 



Expt. 338, 1909, (2nd 3-ear). 



Unfertilized, plots i and ± 



Com. Fertilizer, plots 2 and 3, 



2607 

 12026 



156.4 

 721.5 



$ 78.20 

 360.75 



15-00 



v; 



267.55 



