46 
Colorado ExpkrIxMEnt Station 
samples is concerned, no differences are to be noted. Fortunately for 
our present purposes they are badly affected by yellow-berry and, ap¬ 
parently, equally so. It is scarcely possible that i foot of water ap¬ 
plied in three applications distributed over 102 days was materially 
more than a necessary quantity, andi yet the mealy berries are just as 
abundant in this wheat as in that that received 3 feet of water. 
It may be well for me to state that in my own experiments I could 
not see that the second irrigation, applied on 12 July about 30 days 
before harvest, did either good or harm; it appeared to be entirely in¬ 
different so far as my crop was concerned, and was worse than use¬ 
less, because, I thereby exposed my crop to unnecessary risks of dam¬ 
age by wind. The growth of the plants was already luxuriant, and had 
only a slight shower, accompanied by wind, occured while the ground 
was as soft as a foot of water could make it, all manner of evils would 
have followed. 
There is another very important feature connected with the sam¬ 
ples Mr. Bark furnished me, i.e., three of the plots had received a heavy 
dressing of farmyard manure, sixteen loads to the acre, but I could not 
see that this had changed the character of the wheat. It increased both 
the amount of straw and grain, but had very little or no effect upon 
the character of the grain. 
Irrigating Water and Rainfall May Have Entirely Different Effects 
So far as mealiness and flintiness of.the berries are concerned, the 
amount of water applied, up to 3 feet in 102 days, is without effect. I 
will digress to anticipate the discussion of our 1915 results to the extent 
of stating that zuater applied to the ground in irrigation and neater ap¬ 
plied to the plant in the form of frequent light rains produce altogether 
different results. Our crops in 1913 and 1915 are very different 
though they were growti with the same fertilization and the same 
amount of water, 19 inches in each case- In the former year we applied 
12 inches of water and had 7 inches of rainfall, in the latter year, we 
applied 6 inches) of water and had 13 inches of rainfall. The results 
are interesting, as we shall see when we come to discuss them, but so 
far as the question at present under consideration is concerned, they 
were practically without effect, which sustains my contention that 
these characteristics of the wheat kernel are dependent neither upon 
the weather nor the water applied, but upon the soil. 
We have now, in addition to the facts adduced in Bulletin 205, the 
facts that berries grown on the same ground, under the same condi¬ 
tions of weather, differ in physical and chemical properties- Neither 
the weather nor water supply can be appealed to to account for this dif¬ 
ference; wheat grown as dry-land wheat may be as badly affected by 
