6o 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. IX, No. % 
Data on the first 5 feet of soil from the same two fields are available 
(Table XXIV). These are from samplings on June 19 and August 29, 
both sets of samples being composites from three borings. If we omit 
the first foot, the ratios for the different levels below the bare subsoil 
vary from 2.2 to 2.6, while with the fallow field they lie between 1.2 
and 1.9. The lower ratios in the latter are clearly to be attributed, 
not to a lesser ability to retain moisture against seepage, but to the pre¬ 
cipitation's not having been sufficient to raise the moisture content of the 
subsoil of the fallow to its upper limit after its having been reduced to a 
very low point by the crop on the field in 1911. 
Table XXIV .—Ratio of water content to hygroscopic coefficient at lower levels in the 
two fields mentioned in Table XXIII 
BARE SUBSOIL 
First 
foot. 
Second 
foot. 
Third 
foot. 
Fourth 
foot. 
Fifth 
foot. 
Hygroscopic coefficient. 
12. 2 
26. 9 
24. 8 
2. 2 
2. 0 
12. 2 
28. 9 
26. 8 
2.4 
2. 2 
12. 2 
29. 6 
27.4 
2.4 
2. 2 
II. 8 
29. I 
28. 7 
25 
2.4 
12. O 
31. 2 
29. 2 
2.6 
2.4 
Total water, June 19.per cent.. 
Total water, August 29 .do. 
Ratio, June 19.... 
Ratio, August 29. 
FALLOW 
Hygroscopic coefficient. 
10. 6 
14.7 
13 -S 
13-0 
13.0 
Total water, June 19.per cent.. 
28.1 
17.8 
21. 7 
24. 2 
24- 5 
Total water, August 29.do. 
23 -9 
27. 2 
23.8 
22. 1 
2 3 - 5 
Ratio, June 19. 
2. 6 
1. 2 
1. 6 
1.9 
1.9 
Ratio, August 29. 
2*3 
1.8 
1.8 
i -7 
1.8 
In the case of the two fields just mentioned conditions were not such 
as to induce the maximum downward movement of the water con¬ 
tained in the surface foot, the underlying layers having a moisture 
content far above the hygroscopic coefficient. However, the data we 
obtained near McCook, Nebr., during the same summer, that of 1912, 
are strictly comparable with those obtained in the 2-foot cylinders, the 
moisture content of the underlying subsoil approximating the hygro¬ 
scopic coefficient. 
McCook, which is in the semiarid portion of Nebraska, had expe¬ 
rienced a series of remarkably dry years. Between the middle of 
August, 1910, and the first of the following August there were only 
6.36 inches of precipitation. During August there fell 4.34 inches, but 
this was followed by dry weather, so that by the advent of frost the 
moisture of the soil and subsoil had been reduced to approximately the 
hygroscopic coefficient. Two rains in the following March and two in 
