62 



Table III. — Influence of Fertilization on Yield. 



(Brown Orchard.) 

 (Yields in pounds per plot, 1908-1912.) 



Benefit An. Gain 

 over over av. 



Plot Treatment 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 Totals Normal Check* 



per ct. bu. per a. 



1 Check, 2,402 25 4,052 1,588 453 8,520 



2 Nitr. & Phos., 4,153 588 5,920 2.219 7,28120,161 204.8 376.5 



3 Nitr. & Potash 3,079 78 3,838 1,567 5,40213,964 196.6 259.2 



4 Check 754 9 470 1,260 309 2,802 



5 Phos. & Mur., 1.014 252 2,381 1,643 616 5,906 79.9 75.2 



6 Phos. & Sulf., 292 266 1,368 1,299 356 3,581 4.8 10. 1 



7 Check, 254 192 1,115 1.568 1,117 4,246 



8 N. Ph. & Pota 1,219 454 2,436 3,241 4,931 12,281 208.7 253.7 



9 Nitrogen, . 863 1,575 120 3,082 1,614 7,254 96. ii3- 



10 Check, 458 515 787 1,448 222 3,430 



11 Acid Phos., 104 892 787 794 64 2,641 25.9 16.2 



12 Raw Phos., 100 124 581 703 123 1,631 55.9 35.5 



13 Check 266 257 2,096 498 727 3.844 



14 Manure, 621 1.947 778 7.334 1,11711.797 273.9 240.2 



15 Lime, 152 160 1,029 I-060 288 2,689 9.0 14.8 



16 Check 246 36 943 387 166 1,778 



*The annual gains over their "normal production" are indicated in plots 

 2 and 3. Their annual yields were 564.5 and 391 bushels per acre respectively. 

 The average check, omitting No. i, was 3,220 lb. per plot, or 90.16 bu. per 

 acre annually. 



In general we have the same types of results here as in the 

 preceding experiment, — large gains from nitrogen, phosphates and 

 manure with relatively small effects from potash, and again no ad- 

 vantage at all from line. There are greater irregularities in this ex- 

 periment, owing somewhat to its greater size, but chiefly due to 

 the presence of a woods on the mountain side above the first check 

 plot, from which the latter is separated by a single row of trees. 

 The leachings from the floor of that woods have acted much like a 

 nitrogenous fertilizer, and as a result the trees nearest the woods, 

 although of the same age as those farther down, are considerably 

 larger, thus accounting for the greater yields of the first 2 or 3 plots. 

 This influence practically disappears, however, before the fourth 

 plot is reached, as shown by its low yields, — those of a typical check. 



The differences observed in the last two columns are due partly 

 to these irregularities, partly to a certain amount of leaching and 

 cross-feeding on the part of some of the checks in spite of separation 

 rows below each treated plot, and partly to a different method of 

 calculation. In one column the benefit is figured on the basis of the 

 normal production of the immediate plot concerned, which method is 

 supposed to eliminate soil irregularities to the greatest possible ex- 

 tent. When the adjacent checks are being benefited by leachings or 

 cross-feeding, however, this method fails to show the full benefit 

 due to the treatment. This failure is especially evident in plot 6, 



