24 
Colorado Experiment Station 
by exaggerating the particular quality affected by it, and, as we 
planted both hard and soft wheat, we had two ways to observe 
these effects, namely, by the hardening of the soft wheat and 
the softening of the hard wheat. The results were all that we 
could have expected and as we repeated each experiment nine 
times that year, we might have taken the results as conclusive, 
but we did not. We have repeated them now for five years with 
the same results each year. In the bad years these effects were 
less satisfactory because so many things had a part in fixing the 
duality of the wheat. So we shall say nothing about any other 
than the 1913 crop. While I shall give the general composition 
of the three varieties, I shall not discuss them separately. 
PRODUCED HARD AND SOFT WHEAT UNDER SAME 
SOIL AND MOISTURE CONDITIONS 
In order to save labor and avoid confusion, I shall speak of 
“nitrogen,” “phosphorus,” and “potash” wheats to show which 
plant food was applied, and “check” wheat to show that nothing" 
was added. When we threshed these different parcels, we could 
easily see that there were very great differences in the color of 
the wheats, also in the size of the grains, but we obtained no 
differences in the vields which were worth mentioning. I think 
that any farmer will agree with me that almost any two acres in 
a 20-acre field of whe^t mav differ in vield bv 3 or 4 bushels, and 
unless the elds on 1/10-acre plots showed more of a difference 
than this, they would not be sure th^t it the fertilizer applied 
that made the difference, unless this difference y^as made in the 
yield of eyery plot to which the fertilizer or plant food was applied. 
Th is was not true in our case, and even if the favorable differences 
found had been produced by the fertilizer, it cost so much to 
produce it that a man would be much better off without it. As 
I have said, the color of the wheat from the different plots varied 
just as the grains in some lots of wheat vary, some were darker, 
more glassy and harder than others. Here was the very thing 
that we were looking for; here was hard Avheat and soft wheat 
grown during the same season on the same piece of land, which 
we had divided into 1/10 acre plots, and to which we had applied 
the same amounts of irrigating water. Our nitrate wheats were 
all harder, and potash wheats were all softer than the check wheats, 
while the phosphorus wheats were just like the check wheats. 
There were no regular differences in the yields in favor of 
one or the other of the fertilizers and the yield from the check 
plots often had the advantage. All of our results showed in the 
quality of the wheat. The nitrogen had hardened the wheat; the 
