102 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XI, No. 4 
sulphate, while part of the excess in the soybeans is in a form other than 
sulphate. 
As sulphur is combined with the protein of plants, it was thought 
that in the soybeans protein determinations might show that where 
an increased sulphur content is shown, owing to the sulphur applied, 
a correspondingly larger protein content might be found; but such is 
not always the case, as will be seen in Table V. For these determina¬ 
tions the same materials used for the sulphur work in Table III were 
employed. 
Table: V .—Protein in air-dry soybeans , tops and seed 
County. 
Prol 
Controls. 
Lein. 
Sulphur. 100 pounds 
per acre. 
Per cent. 
Weight 
(in grams). 
Per cent. 
Weight 
(in grams). 
Lawrence. 
24-3 
4 - 7 
2 4 * 5 
5 -° 
Warren. 
2 5 * 5 
6.8 
24.9 
5-6 
Mason. 
23.6 
9-3 
21. 0 
8.5 
Muhlenburg.. 
23.2 
13. 1 
21. 5 
10. 6 
Barren. 
26. 5 
6. 9 
26. 9 
7 - 1 
McCracken... 
25.1 
9.0 
26. 5 
9.4 
Madison. 
29. 8 
8. 2 
28. 5 
9-3 
Jefferson. 
2 5 - 7 
9-5 
23.6 
10, 2 
The results in Table IV are interesting in showing that some seeds 
contain no sulphate soluble in water; others contain small amounts; 
while some are fairly well supplied. Furthermore, these results show 
that in most cases more or less sulphate is formed from the reserve sul¬ 
phur compounds in the seed on germinating, but there are exceptions— 
namely, com and clover—and the latter is of particular interest, since it 
possessed the highest sulphate content and seemed to show a slight loss 
on germination. 
SUMMARY 
(1) Soybeans, clover, oats, alfalfa, and wheat were grown in the green¬ 
house on eight soils, each taken from a different county and representing 
a distinct type in Kentucky. They were more or less impoverished by 
cultivation. To these soils applications of flowers of sulphur at the rate 
of ioo and 200 pounds per acre, together with the calcium carbonate and 
other fertilizing ingredients, were added. 
(2) The results show that the sulphur increased the production of 
some crops, had no effect on others, and on some was injurious, depend¬ 
ing on the crop and the soil on which it was grown. There was a pre¬ 
ponderance of gains, however, from the sulphur application, but these 
were generally small. 
