Apr. 9,1917 
Water-Retaining Capacity of Soil 
63 
possessing enough coherence to be removed from the boring by an 
ordinary soil auger, while the lower was the portion that was too dry 
and powdery to adhere to the ordinary auger and which had to be 
removed by a special auger carrying a sleeve. The data are reported in 
Table XXVII. 
Table XXVI .—Ratio of moisture content to hygroscopic coefficient in a clean cornfield 
near McCook , Nebron June 26 and 27, IQI2 
HYGROSCOPIC COEFFICIENT 
2. 6 
2. 6 
2.9 
2. 7 
2.4 
2. 6 
2. 2 
2.1 
2. 0 
2. 1 
1.8 
2. 0 
• i *3 
1. 1 
1. 0 
1. 0 
1. 6 
1. 2 
1. 1 
1. 2 
1. 0 
1. 0 
1. 1 
1.1 
1. 1 
1. 1 
1. 0 
1. 1 
1. 1 
1.1 
1. 2 
1. 2 
1.4 
1. 1 
1. 2 
1. 2 
Table XXVII .—Comparison of the moisture conditions in the upper and lower part of 
the foot section that formed the transition from moist to very dry soil 
Boring No. 
Depth. 
Field notes. 
Moisture. 
Hygroscopic 
coefficient. 
Ratio. 
Inches . 
Per cent . 
1:. 
/ 25-28 
Hoist. 
17. O 
IO. O 
l 29-36 
Dry. 
II. 2 
IO. O 
I. I 
7 . 
J 13-14 
Moist.’. 
20. 5 
II. 4 
1.8 
l 15-24 
Dry. 
* 15*1 
10. 0 
i -5 
8 ... . 
/ 13-21 
Moist. 
20.3 
ii- 5 
1.8 
\ 22-24 
Dry. 
12.4 
10.4 
1.2 
12 . 
/ 13-22 
Moist . 
21. 2 
11. 2 
1.9 
l 23-24 
Dry . 
J 4 * 7 
a 11. 2 
1.3 
18. .. . 
r 13-21 
Moist . 
18.7 
10. 7 
x -7 
\ 22-24 
Dry . 
12. 8 
° 10. 7 
1.2 
27 . 
r 13-22 
Moist . 
19. 7 
10.9 
1.8 
1 23-24 
Dry . 
12.8 
0 10.0 
1.2 
2 < . 
/ 13-18 
Moist . 
* 5*9 
8.9 
1.8 
l 19-24 
Dry _. 
13*5 
<•8.9 
i- 5 
«The two portions of the foot section had been combined before the hygroscopic coefficient was determined. 
The ratio in the moist upper portion of the foot section was 1.7, 1.8, 
or 1.9, while that in the dry “powdery” portion was distinctly lower— 
