BULLETIN OF THE BUSSEY INSTITUTION. » 185 
crops a year for their use. Werner,* in remarking upon the fact 
that the grass succeeds best in meadows that are occasionally 
overflowed by good nourishing water, calls attention to the circum- 
stance that the grass really takes very little from the soil under 
these conditions, since it is supported for the most part, if not entirely, 
by matters taken from the water. According to him the grass can 
bear shade, and may be grown with advantage not only beside run- 
ning water, but in mere bogs or swampy places, but not upon peat. 
The amount of hay yielded by the grass is very great; and it is not 
infrequently mown three times per year, since it vegetates very early. 
The younger the leaves and shoots, so much the more readily is the 
grass eaten by neat-cattle and horses; the older grass should only be 
fed out after having been chopped fine. 
It is to be remarked that Arendt and Knop f have determined the 
amounts of nitrogen and ashes, and have partially analyzed the ashes 
of a sample of reed canary-grass some 6} feet high collected in a 
wood near Leipzig, after the time of flowering. ‘They examined the 
stalks and leaves separately, and found, in the leaves dried at 100°, 
2.64% of nitrogen (equal to 16.50% of albuminoids) and 11.35% of 
ash. In the stalks dried at 100°, they found 0.67% of nitrogen (equal 
to 4.19% of albuminoids) and 4.89% of ash. In the ash of the 
leaves, they found, among other things, about 56% of silica, 53% of 
phosphoric acid, 123% of lime, and 43% of magnesia. In the ash of 
the stems, they found nearly 33% of silica, 75% of phosphoric acid, 
7% of lime, and 10% of magnesia. These amounts of silica corre- 
spond to 63% of that substance in the leaves dried at 100°, and 14% 
in the stalks. 
I have purposely thrown out of consideration an old analysis of 
reed canary-grass, which has often been cited in this country, that 
was made by Ritthausen and Scheven.{ I deem this analysis untrust- 
worthy, not only because it is altogether inconsistent with my own re- 
sults, and with those of Gasparin and of Arendt and Knop, but because 
the remark of Ritthausen and Scheven to the effect that “several of 
their grasses were collected before flowering (apparently some time 
before), and kept in water until the blossoms appeared,” casts suspicion 
* Tn his “‘ Handbuch des Futterbaues,” Berlin, 1875, p. 575. 
t “Die landwirthschaftlichen Versuchs-stationen,” 1860, 2. 50. 
t Hoffmann’s “ Jahresbericht der Agrikultur-Chemie,” 1859-60, 2. 77. 
