1878.] 
AMERICAN AGRICULTURIST. 
171 
Experiments with Potatoes, Beans, and Kntabagas, on Farm of Maine State College, at Orono, by Mr. G. W. Lufkin. 
Soil: Sandy loam, quite stony, well drained. Previous Treatment: In pasture previous to 1875, then summer-tilled; in 1876, had stable-manure, four cords per acre ; crop, 
mixture of wheat, oats, and barley ; yield, 20 bushels per acre. Size of Plots : The whole experimental area was 22 Vi rods long, and a little under 4 rods wide. This was divided 
lengthwise into strips 3 feet wide, each of which served for one row of plants. Alternate strips were manured, and served for the experiments, the intervening ones being left 
unmanured. The area was cross-divided into 3 equal divisions, each ly rods long. Division I. had Potatoes, II. Beans, and III. Rutabagas. Each experimental plot was there¬ 
fore Ty rds.x3 ft., one one-hundred-and-tvventieth of an acre. Amounts of Fertilizers: 800 lbs. per acre. Application of Fertilizers : A single shallow drill was made lengthwise 
through each strip, the fertilizers strewn therein and mixed with the soil. Seed put in: June 9. Potatoes, cut with two eyes on a piece and dropped one in a place at intervals 
of a foot; Beans, the “ Yellow-eyed,” 4 in a hill, hills 1 foot apart; Turnips sown with hand seed-drill. Weather : June and July dry, August wet, Hai'vested : Potatoes, Sept. 
8; Beans, Sept, 14, poor crop ; Rutabagas, Oct. 5, very good crop. Costs and Valuations : The cost of fertilizers includes price in New York or Boston, plus $5.00 per ton for 
freight and $2.00 per ton for applying. The potatoes are estimated at 75 cts. per bushel of 60 lbs.; beans at $2.75 per bushel of 67 lbs.; rutabagas at 25cts. per [measured] bushel. 
No. op Plot. 
1 
2 
1 3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
FERTILIZERS FROM EXPERIMENT STATION. 
COMMERCIAL 
FERTILIZERS. 
No 
Manure. 
Kind op Fertilizer. 
Dried Blood 
I. 
Superphos¬ 
phate 11. 
Potash Salt 
III. 
Mixture 
If II 
Mixture 
If Ilf III. 
Plaster 1 
Kainit J 
Superphosphates, “ Amuoniated.” 3 
Bradley's. 
Cumberland. 
R. & IF. 4 
Pi 0, 
fN. 
Important Ingredients.* 
Nitrogen 
N. 
Fhos. Acid 
Pi o s 
Potash 
K., 0 
Pi o \ 
+A 
Pi O b f 
NfK, 0. 
Potash, 
etc. 
Pi o b 
fN. 
Pi o„ 
fN. 
I.—POTATOES. 
Yield, 
61 lbs. 8 oz. 
86 lbs; 
52 lbs. 
79 lbs. 12 oz. 
77 lbs. 
56 lbs. 2 oz. 
36 lbs. 12 oz. 
82 lbs. 8 oz. 
79 lbs. 
63 lbs. 
28 lbs. 8 oz. 
Increase,! f * pl ' 
33 lbs. 
57 lbs. 8 oz. 
23 lbs. 8 oz. 
51 lbs. 4 oz. 
48 lbs. 8 oz. 
27 lbs. 10 oz. 
8 ibs. 4 oz. 
54 lbs. 
50 lbs. 8 oz. 
34 lbs. 8 oz. 
Value of Increase, ) 
$49.59. 
$86 40. 
$35.10. 
$76.80. 
$72.80. 
$40.78. 
$12.80. 
$81.00. 
$75.90. 
$51.90. 
Cost of Fertilizer, vPer acre. 
20.90. 
21.00. 
26.00. 
21.50. 
22.33. 
6.00. 
18.00. 
22.00. 
22.00. 
22.00. 
Gain (or Loss), ) 
$29.50. 
$65.40. 
$9.10. 
$55.30. 
$50.47. 
$34.78. 
$5.00. 
$59.00. 
$53.90. 
$29.90. 
II— BEANS. 
Yield, 1 p,„. 
1 lb. 10 oz. 
9 lbs. 10 oz. 
2 lbs. 2 oz. 
8 lbs. 2 oz. 
6 lbs. 8 oz. 
6 lbs. 2 oz. 
4 lbs. 10 oz. 
8 lbs. 6 oz. 
8 lbs. 6 oz. 
8 lbs. 12 oz. 
4 lbs. 10 oz. 
Increase,! f pIt ‘ 
3 lbs 
5 lbs. 
2 lbs. 8 oz. 
1 lb. 8 oz. 
Value of Increase, ) 
$25.87. 
Loss. 
$18.11. 
$9.70. 
$7.76. 
$19.40. 
$19.40. 
$21.34. 
Cost of Fertilizer, J-Per acre. 
$20.00. 
'21.00. 
$26.00. 
21.50. 
22.33. 
'6.76. 
$18.00. 
'22.00. 
'22.00. 
22 00. 
Gain (or Loss), ) 
Loss. 
$4.S7. 
Loss. 
$3.39. 
$12.63. 
$1.00. 
Loss. 
$2.60. 
$2.60. 
$0.66. 
IH.—RUTABAGAS. 
Yield, Ip , t 
(5) 
3 bu. y pk. 
(5) 
4 bu. 1 pk. 
4 bu. 1 pk. 
2 bu. y pk. 
2 bu. 3 pk. 
3 bn. 3 pk. 
3 bn. 2 pk. 
2 bu. 2 pk. 
3 pk. 
Increase,! f m plot - 
2 bu. 1 yk pk. 
3 bu. 2 pk. 
3 bu. 2 pk. 
1 bu 1 1 pk. 
2 bu. 
3 bu. 
2 bu. 3 pk. 
1 bu. 3 pk. 
$71.25. 
$105.00. 
$105.00. 
$60.00. 
$90.00. 
$82.50. 
$52.50. 
"21.00. 
21.50. 
22.33. 
6.00. 
18.00. 
'22.00. 
’22.00. 
22.00. 
Gain (or Loss), j 
$30.25. 
$83.50. 
$S2.67. 
$42.75. 
$42 00. 
$68.00. 
$60.50. 
$30.50. 
* That is the most valuable fertilizing ingredients, t Increase (or loss) as compared with unmanured plots. 1. Plaster consists mainly of sulphuric acid and lime. 2. Kainit 
contains about l%y per cent “'actual potash;” the bulk is made up of common salt and magnesium compounds. 3. These contained probably 9 to 12 per cent of available 
phosphoric acid and 2 to 3 per cent of nitrogen. 4. Rafferty and Williams’. 5. Plants grew well until the middle of July, when they died. 
Science Applied to Farming.—XLI. 
More about Farm Experiments with 
Fertilizers. 
How the “Maine State College of Agriculture and 
Mechanic Arts,” is teaching its students in agricul¬ 
ture in the field as well as the class-room, and help¬ 
ing them to teach it to the farmers of their State al¬ 
so, is shown by a series of experiments, made last 
season by a student, Mr, Lufkin, under the direc¬ 
tion of Prof. J. R. Farrington, of whose good do¬ 
ings I have had occasion to speak before. 
The report fairly bristles with points of practical 
importance. Let me ask the reader to study the 
descriptions and figures carefully, referring to the 
article in the April American Agriculturist , for ex¬ 
planations about fertilizers and technical terms, 
and to note : (1), In these experiments, potash 
salts, alone, did little apparent good, and fell far 
short of paying their cost. Among the crops most 
apt to be helped by potash, are grass, potatoes, 
roots, and the leguminous crops, which include 
beans. None of these got any considerable good 
from the potash here. Mr. Farrington has had 
similar experience with kainit, before, and found 
leached ashes as good as unleached. (2), Phos¬ 
phoric acid helped the crops in every case. The best 
yield of each crop, potatoes, turnips, and beans, 
was with phosphoric acid, alone or with nitrogen. 
(3), The only case where dried blood alone seemed 
of any use, was with potatoes ; but with super¬ 
phosphates it evidently increased the crop iu sev¬ 
eral cases. (4), Taking all in all, as tested by the 
crops and fertilizers named, the chief need of this 
6oil seems to be phosphoric acid, and next nitrogen. 
In its present condition it does not call for potash. 
Artificial Fertilizers bring Profit on some 
Soils and Croj»s, but Loss on others. 
(5), As indicated by the experiments, this is one of 
the soils on which artificial fertilizers of the right 
kinds, and with the right crops, can be used with 
great profit. It is what the Germans term a 
“thankful” soil. Weak of itself, with a very lit¬ 
tle help it brings good crops. On the supposition 
that the single plots without manure were fair sam¬ 
ples of the whole, according to Mr. Lufkin’s fig¬ 
ures, the nitrogenous superphosphates gave, with 
potatoes and turnips, a gain of from $50 to $80 per 
acre. With beans, on the contrary, there was al¬ 
most uniformly a loss, Mr, Lawes, of England, 
says, as the result of 30 years’ experimenting aud 
practice with fertilizers, “ it is not advisable to sow 
artificial manure with beans, peas, tares, or other 
leguminous plants. Corn, [i. e., grain and root 
crops,] will take all the artificial manure which the 
farmer can afford to pay for.” (6), The indirect 
action of the fertilizers evidently counts for a good 
deal here. The yield 6eemed to be increased by 
almost anything, and in a way that can hardly be 
accounted for by the direct supply of plant-food. 
This is certainly a very creditable experiment. 
Still it has some defects. These, however, I do not 
regret. As a wise old Roman writer on agriculture, 
Columella, says, “ There is no occupation in which 
we cannot learn from our errors.” (7), One defect 
is the lack of unmanured plots for comparison. If 
there had been three, one in the middle and one on 
each side, as recommended, we could have told 
much better whether the soil was uniform, and 
what it could do of itself. Still the inferences 
above, seem to me, on the whole, warranted. (8), 
In such experiments, generally, the gain or loss on 
a single plot is not an accurate measure of what it 
would be on a large scale. 
(9), The plots were very 6mall, four square rods, 
instead of ten, as suggested, but had the advantage 
of being long and narrow. At the same time 60 many 
concurrent results do show, I think, that, in its 
present condition, this soil needs phosphates more 
than anything else to enable it to bring good crops. 
(10), If Mr. Lufkin had not taken much pains to 
mix the fertilizers thoroughly with the soil, the 
heavy dressings on such small plots, 800 lbs. to the 
acre, would have been apt to injure the crops badly. 
As it is, 1 suspect that the trouble with the ruta 
bagas on plots 1 and 3, was that the dried blood 
and the potash salts were too strong for the plants. 
Practical Applications—What Fertilizers 
to TJse. 
In Mr. Birdsey’s experiment described in the Feb¬ 
ruary article, potash salts brought the best re¬ 
sults. His general experience tells him that guano, 
phosphates, and bone, which furnish nitrogen and 
phosphoric acid, do not pay. 1 think he is clearly 
justified in putting potash on that soil, and will be, 
so long as it brings him good crops. Mr. Barthol- 
emew, on the other hand, found phosphoric acid 
uniformly beneficial, and got very little benefit from 
anything else. He ought to confine himself more 
Closely to phosphates, Mr, Farrington bad the 
best results with phosphoric acid aided by some 
nitrogen. So long as his field is in its present con¬ 
dition, I think he need not apply potash. His soil 
may be like that of Mr. Lawes’ farm in England, 
which has proved capable of keeping up a full sup¬ 
ply of potash through more than thirty years’ crop¬ 
ping, and has, duriug that time, given as good crops 
with nitrogen and phosphoric acid, in chemical fer¬ 
tilizers, as with annual and heavy dressings of stable- 
manure. Meanwhile I think both Mr. Farrington and 
Mr. Bartholemew ought to make comparative trials 
—with superphosphates, bone, fish, and guano of 
» various grades—in order to learn which will be the 
most economical sources of the needed ingredients, 
and how profitable each will be. In cases like Mr. 
Sage’s, where the complete fertilizer, only, was suc¬ 
cessful, if the results are confirmed by future ex¬ 
perience, the complete fertilizer will be in place. 
All ought, however, to make the most of what their 
farms produce, and piece out with whatever else 
they find to be the best and cheapest. 
WUat may happen in tlie Future, and 
with other crops. 
If Mr. Farrington keeps on applying phosphoric 
acid with a little nitrogen, or Mr. Bartholemew 
phosphoric acid, or Mr. Birdsey potash alone, while 
the crops are taking these away, and other ingredi¬ 
ents with them, the time will be pretty sure to come 
when these will be accumulated in excess, and the 
others.relatively deficient in the soil. Nor would it 
be wise for Mr. Birdsey to depend on potash salts, 
or Mr. Bartholemew on phosphates alone, for all 
kinds of crops. If either one is to grow wheat next 
season, some nitrogenous manure, say nitrate of so¬ 
da for Mr. Birdsey, or Peruvian guano for Mr. Far¬ 
rington, would very likely be profitable. If Mr. 
Bartholemew or Mr. Farrington were going to seed 
down to grass, I should advise bone, which, with a 
good deal of phosphoric acid, would supply also a 
little nitrogen, rather than a “plain superphos¬ 
phate” without nitrogen. And if they want to put 
in clover and keep it in, a dressing of ashes with 
the bone would help it a good deal, and for that 
matter would improve the grass also. So Mr. Bird¬ 
sey would be apt to find that a little superphos¬ 
phate would improve a turnip crop even where his 
corn had seemed to ignore it. And in either ease 
phosphates, Peruvian guano, dry ground fish, and 
the like, might be very useful to force early vege¬ 
table® lor the market. 
W. O. Atwater, 
Wesleyan University, Mtil4tegum., Conn, 
