£axm Cconomij. 
LAWES & GILBERT’S EXPERIMENTS. 
NO. III. 
SUGAR BEETS. 
JOSEPH HARRIS. 
The experiments on sugar beets are, in tact, 
a continuation of the experiments on turnips. 
They were made on the same land, on the 
same plots and with little difference in the 
manures. The experiments were continued 
for five years—1 H7t-7f>. The accompanying ta¬ 
ble gives the results of the experiments the first 
three years. The beets were sown in rows 22 
inches apart, and thinned out to 11 inches 
apart in the rows: 
of nitrate of soda, alone, produce an in¬ 
crease of 5(50 bushels of beets per acre, or over 
one bush el of roots for each pound of nitrate 
of soda. 
This fact explains why superphosphate in 
the above table seems to do more harm than 
good. We cannot, suppose for a moment that 
it is iu any way injurious to the plauts. All 
the facts of which we have any knowledge 
clearly point the other way. The reason 
why, on Plot 3 without manure, we get a 
larger crop than on Plot 5 with superphos¬ 
phate, is probably this: the two plots had 
grown 28 crops of turnips, one (Plot 3), with¬ 
out manure, and the other (Plot 5) with super¬ 
phosphate, and the latter plot had produced a 
far larger growth of turnips, which bad re¬ 
moved far more nitrogen from the soil. And 
thus, when these plots were sown to beets, the 
plants found more available nitrogen in Plot 
acid phosphate may destroy oi sterilize the 
germs that produce these plants, or check 
their growth. 
Whatever is the explanation, the fact re¬ 
mains Hint we get a much larger gro wth of 
beets without manure tlmu we did of turnips 
ou the same land. Phosphate did not increase 
the growth, but apparently retarded it. Nit¬ 
rates, whether applied directly or iu the form 
of ammonia-salts (which are readily converted 
into nitrates), had a great effect on the beets, 
but, not on the turnips. 
We deem it accessary to give the results of 
the next two sea.sous.lH74 and 1K75, for two rea¬ 
sons, first., there was no cross dressing of 
nitrate of soda or salts of ammonia used these 
years, nor auy farm-yard manure or rape 
cake; and, second, owing to a deficiency of 
rain for some time after sowiug a large por¬ 
tion of the plots failed iu 1874. 
discriminate praise, merely confused us. Lots 
of trees and shrubs were bought and planted 
that were killed by the first wiuter. Large 
trees were planted where small ones ought to 
have been. Some of the best places were 
given to the poorest shrubs or trees. Groups 
were crowded. Thorn are some things which 
books or papers cannot teach. Study and 
practice must go together. We aim in the 
following list, merely to mention those trees 
and shrubs which we should now choose were 
we again to plant the grounds of a new homo 
in a soil and situation similar to that of this 
place, were we confined to a limited number. 
The botanical ns well as the common names 
are given, so that references to nurserymen's 
catalogues or books may be facilitated. 
EVERGREENS. 
Abies Alcocquiana (Alcock’s Spruce). If 
TABLE 5. SUGAR BEETS, AFTER 15 YEARS WITH SWEDE TURNIPS. 
Series 1. 
01 
Series 2. 
Each plot as Scries 1, 
Series s. 
Each plot as Series 1, 
Series 4. 
Each plot as Series 1, 
aim cross-dressed 
Series 5. 
Eaeh plot as Series 1. 
O 
and cross-dressed 
and cross dressed 
with '2.000lli. rape cake 
and cross dressed 
£ 
with 550 II). nitrate 
with 100 lb. “amino- 
ami loo Hi. “ammonia 
with 2,000 lb. rape-cake. 
Soda. 
nlu salts.'’ 
sal's." 
First Season—1871. 
1. —Farm-yard manure, 14 tons, .»• • 
2. —Farm-yard manure. 14 tons, and 3>£ cwt. superphosphate., . 
8,—Without munure—18-lfi, and since, . .... • ••• • ••• 
4. —31^ cwt. superphosphate, 800 lb. sulphate potass, 200 lb. sulphate soda, loo lb. sul¬ 
phate magnesia. .. .. . 
5. —cwt superphosphate,. . 
(>.—30? ewt. superphosphate, 800 lb. sulphate potass, - .... 
7. —80? cwt. superphosphate, 800 lb, sulphate potass. 3(50? lb. ammonia salts, - 
8. —Umnauured, 1853, and since: previously part uumanured, part superphosphate, 
Second Season—1872. 
1 —Farm-yard manure, 14 tons, - ... . • • • • 
2.—Farm-yard manure. 14 tons, and 30? cwt. superphosphate, . 
8.—Without manure—1840, and since, •-. . . 
4—31? cwt. superphosphate, 500 lb. sulphate potass, 200 lb. chloride sodium (common 
salt), 200 In. sulphate magnesia, . — 
5. —8K cwt, superphosphate, .... . 
6. -3 y, cwt. superphosphate, 500 lb. sulphate potass, .. . 
7. —3>? cwt. superphosphate, 500 lb. sulphate potass, 38U' lb. ammonia salts. 
8. —Umnauured, 1853, and since; previously part unmanured, part superphosphate, 
TniRD Season—1873. 
1. —Farm-yard manure, 14 tons, . ■••• 
2. —Farm-yard manure, 14 tons, and 30, cwt. superphosphate, - 
3. —Without manure, 1840, and siuee, .. . 
4. —31? cw t superphosphate, 500 lb. sulphate potass, 200 lb. chloride sodium (common 
salt), 200 Id. sulphate magnesia, . 
5. -30? cwt. superphosphate, . . — 
6. —30? cwt, superphosphate, 500 lb. sulphate potass, .. . 
7. —301 cwt. superphosphate, 500 lb. sulphate potass, 3(5,0? lb. ammonia >alts, - 
8. —Uumanured, 1853, and since; previously part, unmanured, part superphosphate, 
Produce per Acre (Roots trimmed as for feeding, not as for Sugar-making.) 
Roots. 
Leaves. 
Roots. 
Leaves. 
Roots. 
Leaves. 
Riots. 
Leaves. 
Roots. 
Leaves. 
Tons. 
Cwt. 
Tous. Cwt. 
i 
Tons. Cwt. 
T< ns. 
Cwt. 
Tons. 
Cwt. 
Tons. Cwt. 
1 
Tous. Cwt. 
Tons. Cwt. 
Tons. Cwt. 
Tons. Cwt, 
18 
3 
3 5 
27 
1 
13 
6 
19 
22 
1 
5 
6 
26 4 
(5 14 
28 
18 
5 14 
14 
13 
2 14 
25 
16 
5 
15 
21 
15 
4 
6 
25 2 
6 7 
25 
4 
5 5 
7 
11 
2 0 
22 
3 
5 
12 
15 
6 
4 
16 
19 18 
7 0 
20 
16 
4 12 
7 
11 
1 5 
22 
15 
4 
8 
17 
10 
3 
5 
22 15 
6 3 
21 
7 
3 19 
5 
12 
1 8 
20 
19 
3 
14 
15 
4 
3 
19 
19 18 
7 12 
18 
19 
4 5 
5 
1 
1 4 
21 
5 
3 
13 
17 
4 
3 
4 
23 11 
6 11 
21 
0 
3 11 
5 
18 
1 5 
20 
19 
3 
18 
18 
8 
4 
3 
21 0 
5 0 
21 
7 
3 17 
7 
10 
1 14 
21 
13 
3 
16 
16 
2 
4 
1 
15 
17 19 
7 11 
20 
7 
4 9 
15 
13 
4 2 
23 
9 
7 
19 
22 
14 
9 
0 
26 8 
9 11 
22 
5 
0 1 
16 
0 
3 18 
24 
6 
8 
16 
23 
0 
7 
16 
25 9 
9 14 
20 
15 
5 11 
7 
17 
1 13 
21 
r- 
i 
(5 
6 
15 
3 
4 
13 
20 8 
10 1 
16 
3 
8 11 
6 
14 
1 10 
20 
2 
5 
19 
15 
10 
3 
7 
23 8 
7 13 
17 
18 
3 16 
(5 
17 
1 8 
19 
6 
6 
4 
14 
5 
4 
13 
18 11 
10 4 
15 
18 
3 16 
6 
6 
1 5 
16 
16 
5 
14 
14 
7 
3 
19 
22 16 
9 9 
15 
17 
3 14 
6 
15 
1 8 
17 
0 
6 
1 
15 
9 
3 
19 
23 9 
9 10 
15 
10 
3 15 
5 
4 
1 5 
15 
0 
5 
19 
13 
10 
4 
1 
19 12 
9 17 
15 
0 
4 6 
15 
2 
5 12 
20 
5 
10 
9 
22 
2 
9 
18 
22 15 • 
12 10 
23 
10 
7 8 
14 
6 
5 2 
21 
10 
11 
0 
19 
4 
8 
9 
23 7 
13 6 
21 
18 
6 18 
5 
1 
-4 11 
14 
5 
6 
11 
9 
3 
3 
16 
15 12 
9 11 
14 
13 
4 1 
5 
0 
1 13 
16 
9 
6 
11 
12 
10 
3 
10 
20 3 
8 0 
16 
1 
3 8 
5 
5 
1 11 
18 
8 
5 
13 
10 
19 
5 
0 
14 15 
9 8 
13 
19 
4 9 
4 
12 
1 5 
16 
17 
4 
4 
12 
IS 
3 
12 
20 2 
9 5 
14 
14 
3 11 
5 
19 
1 12 
16 
14 
5 
3 
13 
0 
4 
15 
19 16 
9 0 
15 
17 
4 4 
4 
11 
1 7 
12 
9 
5 
18 
8 
8 
O 
19 
15 2 
9 8 
12 
2 
3 16 
On Plot 8, without manure since 1846, it 
will be remembered the average yield of 
Swede turnips for the last 15 years was only 
11 cwts. per acre, while on this same plot, 
still without manure, the yield of beets is 
seven tons 11 cwts. per acre Of roots and two 
tons of leaves! And the next year, still with¬ 
out manure except that the leaves were 
spread ou the land and plowed under, the 
yield was seven tons 17 cwts. of roots per 
acre. 
What is the meaning of this remarkable re¬ 
sult? Clearly we are not yet at the bottom of 
agricultural chemistry! We have many 
other things to learn besides the action of ni¬ 
trogen, phosphoric aeiil and potash. 
Superphosphate, which is so beneficial on 
turnips, seems to be not needed on the beets. 
There is comparatively little difference in the 
composition of beets and turnips. The tur¬ 
nips could not find enough phosphoric acid in 
the soil for even the feeblest, growth, while the 
beets on the same soil got all they wanted for . 
a large crop. Witness Plot 3, cross-dressed 
with nitrate of soda, where we have 22 tons 
three cwts. of roots and five tons 12 cwts. of 
leaves per acre, and this without the addition 
of a particle of phosphoric acid to a soil that, 
for want of phosphoric acid, produced on this 
same plot less than one ton of turnips per 
acre. 
The same plot, also without any phosphoric 
acid, the next year produced 21 tons seveu 
cwts. of roots and six tons six cwts. of leaves 
per acre. 
It would seem that beets are capable of 
growing on a soil too poor for Swede turnips. 
Furthermore, when furnished with abundance 
of food, they are capable of producing a far 
greater crop per acre. 
The one ingredient of plant food in which 
this soil was most deficient was for turnips, 
phosphoric acid; for beets, nitrogen. Nitrate 
of soda alone, without either phosphoric acid or 
potash, or any other ingredient of plant-food, 
produced an increase (Plot 3) of 14 tons three 
cwts. of roots and three tons 18 cwts. of 
leaves per acre. Iu other words, calling 56 
pounds of trimmed roots a bushel, 550 pounds 
3 than in Plot 5 and produced a larger crop. 
The superphosphate did neither good nor 
harm. The increased crop of beets was due 
to the accumulation of available nitrogen in 
the no-manure plot. 
The objection to this view is that available 
nitrogen is not supposed to accumulate iu a 
soil lying fallow. The accepted view is that, 
there would bo as much nitrogen annually 
converted into nitric acid on Plot 8 as on 
Plots. The turnip plants on Plot 5, having 
abundance of available phosphoric acid, take 
up the nitric acid, while on Plot 3 the nitric 
acid is leached out of the soil. In this view of 
the ease there ought to be no more nitric acid 
iu the soil on Plot S than on Plot 5. 
Potash and phosphoric acid will not wash 
out of the soil. The supply of these impor¬ 
tant ingredients of plant-food annually liber¬ 
ated from the soil, if not absorbed by the 
growing plants, is retained by the soil, l’hos- 
phate of lime is insoluble in water. When 
converted into superphosphate it is soluble; 
but when this superphosphate is applied to 
the soil it reverts back to the insoluble phos¬ 
phate of lime. When in solution it was dis¬ 
tributed more or less through tho soil and 
when reverted or precipitated, the particles 
are almost infinitely minute, and while still 
insoluble iu pure water, they are soluble in 
water containing certain soil-salts or acids. 
This is so well understood that chemists in 
estimating the value of manures make a de¬ 
cided difference in the value placed on insolu¬ 
ble phosphate and “reverted'’ phosphate—or 
phosphate soluble in water containing citrate 
of ammonia. 
Muy we not justly conclude that the min¬ 
eral plant-food which is dissolved iu the soil 
but not taken up by the crop, “reverts,” and 
that it is much more available and valuable 
than in its previous condition? 
Another point to be considered is, whether 
the acid phosphate which has been used for so 
many years on Riot 5 may not have retarded 
nitrification? We now know that, tho conver¬ 
sion of nitrogenous organic matter into nitric 
acid is the work of a minute live plant, and 
it may well be that an excessive application of 
We have given in the table all the results 
obtained during the first three years. We 
make few comments, preferring to let the in¬ 
telligent readers of the Rural New-Yorker 
study tho figures for themselves. The advo¬ 
cates of what are called “complete manures” 
may fiud in these experiments results favora¬ 
ble to their views. They may point to the 
fact that in 1873 ultrate/>l“ soda produced only 
an increase of 3(58 bushels of lieets per acre, 
and conclude that the soil is rapidly losing 
phosphoric acid and potash, and that if one 
wants to grow a big crop of bouts it is better 
to pile on all the manure that the plauts may 
need. But this is not good economy. The ob¬ 
ject of these experiments is not to tell us how 
to grow big crops regardless of cost, but to 
give us definite and reliable information as to 
the agricultural requirements of the plants. We 
have been looking too much to the difference 
in soils and not enough to tho difference iu 
plants. Bearing this in mind, we commend 
these remarkable and accurate and long-con¬ 
tinued experiments to the careful examina¬ 
tion of our readers. 
experiment Okoumls of the Yanal 
A list of trees , shrubs and vines which the 
Rural would select after 14 years’ exper¬ 
ience; the Umbrella Pine; Grape Notes; 
Stone's Blackberry; report of new potatoes 
tided last year concluded. 
It is now exactly the*season of the year 
when those who care for hardy, ornamental 
plants are making up their minds what kinds 
to select; and the importance of u good selec¬ 
tion is just as great as iu the cose of fruit 
trees. Whenjplanting the Rural Grounds, 14 
years ago, the experience since gained would 
then have been of almost inestimable value. 
We were without experience. Catalogues 
with their interminable lists of plants and in- 
we could bnve but one conifer, we should 
select this. Abies Canadensis ithe Common 
Hemlock Spruce), Abies macrophylla (dwarf, 
large-leaved, Hemlock Spruce) and Abies 
mierophylla (dwarf, small-laaved, Hemlock 
Spruce); Abies Morinda (Himalayan Spruce); 
Abies orientalls (Eastern Spruce;) Abiespolita 
(Tiger-tailed Spruce); Abies pungens (Blue 
Spruce); Abies alba (White Spruce): Abies 
Grogoryaua (very dwarf); Picea (Abies ac¬ 
cording to the new nomenclature) Nordman- 
uinna (NordinuutTs Fir); Pieea PIchta; Pinus 
Strobus (White Pine to be cutback from year 
to year after the seventh year); Retinispora 
obtusa pcndula (Weeping Japan Cypress); R. 
plumose uurea (Golden-plume Japan Cypress); 
Sciadopitys verticil lata (Umbrella Pine); 
Thuja occidentftlts aurea (Peabody’s Goldeu 
Arbor-vita*). 
deciduous trees. 
Acer platnnoides (Norway Maple): A. p. 
dissectuui(Dissccted-leuf Norway Maple) Acer 
Scliwerdleril (Sehwer.ller's Purple-leaf); 
Fagus sylvatica purpurea (Purple-leaved 
Beech); Larix Europiea (European Larch); 
Acer saceharimim (Sugar Maple); Acer 
pseudo-platanua tricolor (Throe-colored Syca¬ 
more Maple); .Eseulus Iiippocnstauum rubi- 
cuuda (Red-flowering Horseehestnut; AS. H. 
alba florepleno l Double White-11 owered Horse- 
chestnut); Salishuria adinntifolin (Maiden¬ 
hair Salisburia or Ginkgo Tree); Fugus sylva¬ 
tica pendula (Weeping Beech); Cladrastis 
tinctoria or Virgilia lutea (Yellow-wood); 
Fugus sylvatica heterophylla (Various-leaved 
Beech); Liquldambarstyraeiflua (Sweet Gum); 
Aluus glutinosa laciniata imperial is (Imperial 
Cut-leaved Abler); Magnolia acuminata, M. 
macrophylla, M. Tunnel, M. Soulnugenua; 
Tilia Americana (American Linden). 
deciduous shrubs. 
Chionanthus Virginica (White Fringe); 
Spim*a prumfolia (Double-flowering Plum- 
leaved Spmeai; Rhus eotinus (Smoke-Tree); 
Syriuga Penrica (Persian Lilac—to which 
might well be added the varieties Rothoina- 
geusis, the Large-flowered White, ccerulea 
superba—Weigelas iu variety. Japan Quinces 
