New York AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 23¢ 
In 1897 the authors gave a summary” of the general results 
of four years’ experiments. “It may be stated at this time 
that, with each succeeding year, soda when used without potash, 
has steadily deteriorated in its action when compared with the 
results from plats manured with potash, but without soda. 
“ Where the soda has been added in increasing quantities to a 
full potash ration, little or no benefit from its use has been 
apparent. On the other hand, the addition of increasing 
quantities of potash to a full soda ration has, especially in the 
last two years, been attended with most marked gains.” 
The results’ for the year 1898 are stated to “ show the marked 
inferiority of soda when used without potash as compared with 
potash when used without soda. * * * When the potash sup- 
_ ply was reduced to a quarter ration the soda proved quite effec- 
tive. When the potash supply was equivalent to half and three- 
quarters rations, the soda seemed to be far less effective than in 
TRO Re? . | 
Dr. M. Stah]-Schroeder“ in 1898 gives the outcome of his experi- 
ments and reviews the work of others: 
Hellriegel showed that the sugar content of the beet is Cade 
related to the potash content of the fertilizer. 
Mathieu de Dombasle claimed, in 1839, that salt had no fertil- 
izing value. Birner and Lucanus,” in 1866, on the other hand, 
found a slight beneficial action. Wolff,!° 1868, came to the same 
conclusion, yet states that it might have been possible for the 
soda used to contain traces of potash. 
Deherain ” stated that soda cannot take the place of potash, 
but simply has an indirect action by helping to make some of 
the unavailable potash in the’soil available for plant growth. 
Jamieson’ also found that soda cannot replace potash, 

*R. I. Agri. Expt. Sta. Rept. 1897, pp. 226-240. 
*R. I. Agrl. Expt. Sta. Rept. 1898, p. 187. 
“Jour. Landw., 47:49; abstracted in Erp. Sta. Rec., 11:35. 
*Landw. Vers. Sta., 7 and 8. 
*Land. Vers. Sta., 10. ; . 
7 Biedermann’s Centralblatt, 1884, p. 424. 
*% Biedermann’s Centralblatt, 1886, p. 249. 
