76 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. VII, No. a 
In regard to the humid soils, the situation is by no means as satisfac¬ 
tory. As already indicated, the soil samples from the other States were 
sent by Experiment Station officers and may therefore, in many instances 
at least, have been chosen from exceptionally well-managed fields. On 
the other hand, it would not be fair so assume that the land of every 
State Experiment Station is the best to be had in the State. It is 
unlikely that the samples here studied would represent anything more 
than average conditions of the Eastern States. It must be added, of 
course, that when the soils of individual States of the humid group are 
considered, most of them may be found either very deficient or very excel¬ 
lent in respect to nitrifying power. Such of the Eastern States, however, 
as contain soils throughout of a low nitrifying power are decidedly in the 
minority. It is therefore gratifying to be able to point to the relatively 
low nitrifying power of the Sassafras loam from New Jersey, as given in 
Table I, and to show in Table XI the nitrifying powers, similarly deter¬ 
mined, of a number of other New Jersey soil types for comparison. 
It was fortunate that these samples of soil were made available from 
an exhibit sent to the Panama Pacific Exposition by the New Jersey 
Experiment Station. 
Table XI .—Comparative nitrifying power of soil types from New Jersey 
Name of type. 
Nitrate pro¬ 
duced. ‘ 
Total soil ni¬ 
trogen present. 
Soil nitrogen 
nitrified. 
Mgm. 
Mgm. 
Per cent . 
Hoosic gravelly loam. 
4. 30 
149. 80 
2 + 
Norfolk sand. 
. IO 
11?. 40 
Colbington sandy loam. 
3 - 75 
103. 6O 
3 + 
Dover loam.... 
5 - 30 
121. 80 
4 + 
Dutchess loam... 
• 30 
8l. 20 
Sassafras loam. 
O v ' 
2. 40 
131. 60 
1+ 
Penn loam. 
4. IO 
99 . 40 
4 + 
Light sandy loam. 
2. 50 
96. 60 
2 + 
Do.. 
3 - 40 
74.20 
4 + 
Since the samples described in Table XI were kept in a dry condition 
in sacks for considerably over a year, it is possible that the soils may 
have lost to a relatively slight degree their powers to nitrify their own 
supply of nitrogen, and the figures obtained might be regarded as a little 
low on that account. This effect on the New Jersey soils of drying 
could not have been very great, as the evidence of the other soils would 
show. It is therefore seen that of nine types of New Jersey soils studied, 
not one has the power to change much more than 4 per cent of the total 
nitrogen present into nitrate, and the samples described in Table I 
transformed only a little more than 6 per cent of the soil nitrogen into 
nitrates. It is interesting to note that the last-named sample, while 
classified as a Sassafras loam, is very different in total nitrogen content 
