940 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XXX, No. 10 
manure and sulphur; manure, sulphur, 
and lime, all produced decreases in 
root development greater than three 
times the probable error of the differ¬ 
ence. A careful examination of the 
roots was made for nodules but no 
differences in the size or number 
corresponding to differences in treat¬ 
ment were observed. 
Plates 1 and 2 portray the differences 
in top growth for the first and second 
cuttings. For the first cutting there 
was a noticeably better growth of 
alfalfa in the limed and sulphur-with- 
lime treatments. This difference was 
not borne out in the second cutting, 
all treatments producing approximately 
the same growth response. 
Table I .—Minimum and maximum daily temperature 
Week ending— 
Sunday 
Monday 
Tuesday 
Wednesday 
Thursday 
Friday 
Saturday 
Min. 
Max. 
Min. 
Max. 
Min. 
Max. 
Min. 
Max. 
Min. 
Max. 
Min. 
Max. 
Min. 
Max, 
°F. 
°F. 
°F. 
O F 
OjP 
°F. 
°F. 
°F. 
°F. 
O 
°F. 
°F. 
°F. 
°F. 
Nov. 25_ 
59 
77 
64 
73 
63 
80 
58 
85 
58 
80 
51 
77 
52 
91 
Dec. 2. 
53 
83 
56 
83 
60 
78 
62 
87 
52 
82 
57 
90 
55 
80 
Dec. 9_ 
50 
73 
58 
81 
49 
85 
60 
76 
57 
73 
57 
77 
53 
76 
Dec. 16. 
57 
72 
59 
72 
56 
88 
50 
77 
58 
78 
58 
81 
61 
78 
Dec. 23_ 
57 
81 
61 
90 
61 
82 
65 
87 
60 
82 
63 
81 
63 
85 
Jan. 6. 
60 
93 
58 
78 
50 
81 
60 
85 
74 
83 
60 
83 
63 
84 
Jan. 13... 
65 
94 
67 
78 
65 
81 
68 
86 
65 
83 
67 
86 
60 
83 
Jan. 20__ 
64 
80 
54 
86 
66 
87 
69 
82 
60 
76 
66 
82 
62 
88 
Jan. 26_ 
56 
80 
62 
85 
62 
78 
63 
85 
67 
81 
61 
82 
69 
86 
Feb. 2.. 
71 
87 
68 
88 
68 
76 
63 
73 
64 
91 
66 
88 
61 
88 
Feb. 10_ 
70 
95 
66 
86 
65 
87 
65 
86 
69 
88 
58 
85 
58 
80 
Feb. 17. 
70 
93 
69 
90 
57 
86 
64 
80 
64 
88 
63 
86 
60 
83 
Feb. 24.. 
74 
87 
68 
81 
65 
85 
69 
90 
55 
88 
67 
90 
71 
88 
Mar. 3_ 
70 
92 
64 
87 
63 
95 
59 
84 
70 
95 
70 
92 
57 
85 
Mar. 10. 
65 
86 
65 
81 
60 
95 
65 
88 
63 
90 
62 
92 
70 
92 
Mar. 17. 
67 
76 
65 
82 
61 
95 
61 
77 
68 
80 
63 
92 
65 
92 
Mar. 24... 
52 
88 
66 
85 
71 
88 
62 
95 
62 
80 
63 
88 
65 
97 
Mar. 31. 
61 
88 
60 
95 
61 
92 
65 
90 
61 
95 
60 
75 
66 
95 
Apr. 7. 
57 
90 
67 
78 
63 
80 
67 
72 
68 
80 
70 
81 
61 
81 
Apr. 14. 
72 
85 
66 
4 4 
65 
80 
67 
81 
68 
78 
68 
85 
63 
76 
Apr. 21. 
65 
81 
63 
82 
70 
86 
68 
85 
75 
83 
68 
77 
65 
79 
Apr. 28.. 
65 
75 
67 
86 
62 
85 
67 
75 
64 
78 
65 
75 
65 
82 
May 5. 
63 
88 
65 
85 
70 
80 
65 
88 
65 
87 
65 
83 
60 
90 
May 12. 
60 
91 
67 
84 
57 
83 
57 
83 
63 
94 
70 
87 
60 
89 
Table II .—Yields of different treatments for first and second cuttings 
! 
Dry weight 
Difference 
in yield 
compared 
with 
control 
Ratio 
D 
Ed 
Treatment 
First Second 
cutting cutting 
Total 
' 
Gm. ! Gm. 
Gm. 
Gm. 
i 
Acid phosphate_ 
40.0 47. 5 
87.5 
2 
42. 5 44. 5 
87.0 
3 
42. 5 43.0 
85.5 
1 
4 
_do___ 
36.5 42.0 
78.5 
5 
! _do_; 
47. 5 37. 0 
84.5 
Average _ _ _ 
84. 6 ±1.085 
-0. 4±3. 32 
0.1 
6 
Acid phosphate and sulphur_ 
43.0 45. 0 
88.0 
7 
_do_____ 
34. 5 42.0 
76.5 
8 
_do___ 
31.0 39. 5 
70.5 
9 
j 29.0 40.5 
69.5 
10 
1_do_ 
36. 5 40. 5 
77.0 
1 
Average_ _ ___ 
76. 3 ±2. 273 
-8. 7±3. 87 
2.2 
11 
Lime_ .. . ____ 
1 39.5 44.5 
84.0 
12 
_do..___ 
44. 5 47. 0 
91.5 
13 
_do__ 
! 46.5 46.0 
92.5 
14 
i_do_ 
34. 3 42. 5 
77.0 
15 
: 47.5 42.5 
90.0 
Average.... 
87.0 ±1.956 
— 2. 0±3. 70 
0.5 
