Local A(jricuUural Societies, 
273 
C. Exjjeriment on Barhij (anmamired) after Mangolds 
(manured). 
Mr. Taylor's Farm (Whitlingham). 
This experiment was to test the value, for a barley crop, of 
the residue from the manures applied for the mangolds of the 
year previous. The following table gives the results : — 
Produce per acre 
Plot 
Manures per acre applied for mangolds in 1886 
Head-corn 
straw per acre 
bushels 
cwt. qrs. lbs 
1 
4300 
26 2 4 
2 
41-25 
27 3 8 
25 0 24 
6 
^1 
38-50 
7 
•) 
23-00 
17 3 12 
13 
.) 
43-87 
26 2 12 
As to the difference between plots 6 and 7, it is stated in 
the report to the Norfolk Chamber that plot 7 was almost cer 
tainly inferior land, having produced 2 tons per acre less roota 
than the unmanured plots, and over 13 tons less than plot 6. 
Mr. Cooke discusses the interesting question whether irregularity 
of soil alone accounts for the high result on plot 6, or whether 
there is a residue from the nitrate of soda applied the year 
before and still available for the succeeding barley crop. He 
inclines to the belief that the latter may have been the cause, 
after such an exceptionally dry season, and estimates that about 
4 bushels of the increase was due to it. I am afraid I can hardly 
follow Mr. Cooke in this. I would direct attention to a similar 
case occurring in the Essex experiments on oats after mangolds 
recorded in an earlier part of the present paper, where Mr. Dyer 
makes what I think to be a very pertinent remark — viz., that 
the increased corn crop after a heavier mangold crop is due in 
all probability rather to the large accumulation of plant food in 
the rootlets of the heavier mangold crop than to any residue 
from nitrate of soda. At all events from plots so varying it 
would be unwise to draw a definite conclusion. Fish guano in 
the second year appears to have told well. 
VOL, XXIV. — S. S, 
T 
