116 
Some Field Experiments on the 
differences noted between the various manured plots were but 
slight. The " nothing " plots, on the undunged acre, were, 
however, each noted as starting weaklv, and remaining poor 
and weak to the last : while the plots receiving dung only- 
appeared distinctly poorer than the other plots on the same 
acre : although they ultimately weighed very well. 
S. 
No. 1. 
No, 2. 
No. 3. 
No. 7. 
No. 8. 
No. 9. 
o 
& ■ 
35 
ae ® O 
LI si 
E li H 
■ i^ 
;2 1-2 
o S 
(MOO 
X 
[3 
*o 
a 
c 
55 
II o 
. B< 
%^ 
c 
C . 
3 oo 
OQ 
55 S ^ 
; -♦n . 
HO? 
5 II i 
HE'S T 
-3 *- a: 
5 o 
No manure what- 
ever. 
No. 4. 
No. 5. 
No. 6. 
1 
No. 10. 
No. 11. 
No. 12. 
■yr o 
S 2 
X 
1 
>^ * 
o C 
Coprolitos (same 
us No. 2). 
No manure wliat- 
over (sumo as 
No. 0). 
X 
o 
a 
^— 
N 
1 
a 
N-/ . 
^ — \ 
aOO 
6 
o." 
DuKGED Acre. E. Uxduxged Acee. 
The roots were pulled in the third week of October, being 
carefullv topped and tailed in the field. The tops were weighed 
on the spot with the aid of a spring-balance, the roots being 
carted off and weighed in the barn. 
The following figures show the weight of cleaned roots and 
leaves from each plot of one-eighth of an acre : — 
Plots. 
Roots per Plot 
Leaves. 
First Acre— 10 toxs Dcsg. 
tons. cnts. qrs. lbs. 
cwts. qrs. lbs. 
I 
Snperphospbate 
1 17 2 0 
10 1 22 
2 
Ground Coprolitei 
2 4 0 14 
13 2 21 
8 
1 IS 0 14 
10 3 5.i 
4 
No Artificials 
1 13 3 0 
S 2 8J 
5 
Superphosphate 
1 16 1 0 
10 1 13 
C 
Ground Coprolites 
1 19 0 0 
11 2 5 
