Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1878-01-23
Ave Experiments In Farming,
A BRrBF COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS.
BY CONRAD WILSON.
EXPERIMENT No. /.


manner Of conducting it, and the re
suit usually corresponds to the care
and skill shown in managing the deN
tails. Yet it often happens, even to
the most intelligent farmers, and in
spite Of their vigilant efforts, that a
single oversight, or commission, in 2
series OF trials, defeats the expected
result. A striking illustration of this
appears in the experiments made by
DR.. Alsop, last season, 10 Connectl-
cut.
This series of trials was carefully
and deliberately arranged on SOUND
principles, and ought 10 have given
very clear and instructive results
Had it been successful. it would have
doubtless thrown much light Oh the
Stockbridge Theory, and on the gen
eral subject OF maturing. But, from
some cause or other, it is found i'm
possible, on examining the report, to
reconcile the several products with
each other, or with the fertilizers used.
Even Prof. Atwater, who is certainly
competent judge, admits that the
several products are conflicting, and
that he ''cannot explain the results
obtained with nitrogen, phosphOrlc
acid aud potash lie Seems inclined
to attribute the variations TO unev-
enness in the composition of the sol"
Yet he nnds, from the nearness OF
the different plants to each other, that
this theory is impossible. On the
whole, then, this well cuntrived series
of trials proves to be failure, and
this is the more TO be regretted. be-
cause the method was admirably
adapted by Prot. Atwater to the end
III view, and the entire plan was
clearly an emanaIlon from the best
intelligence OF the day.
When an experiment, so skilliully
devised, terminates in obscure aDG
di.curdant results at the very point
where We were justified in expecting a
food of light, we can hardly afford to
dismiss it without some further IN
sight into the cause OF the defeat, II
such trials as these brings us no III
structiou, and 81, ar up no doubtful
questions, We are left to infer thai
Gatgral laws are no longer stable o.
uniform, aud the bravest farmers may
well get dlshearlened But is thele
not, in the present. case, some possible
solution Of the mystery 1t seems TO
me there is. To my own mind ii Is
clear tina, single fact explains the
whole difficulty. Tie cha harrow IL
the cause Of all the mischief. 1t Is net
. ct implement for dIfiusing fertilizers
through the soil, simply because lis
effects is not accurate and Uniform. -
Every practical tarnerkDOws that III
an experiment OF this kind, unless the
various plant clements are diHus' d
through the soil in manner perfectly
even, and everywhere alike, there can
be no uniformity or certainty in The
results. Hence, whatever prevents
this even distribution defeats the
experiment in all its parts, aud III a !
its products. To assume that each in
dvidual plant must necessarily get It's
equal and proper share of each tertl~
lizer, according to the intent OF the
experiment. without some better mode
OF distribution than a chain harrow,
is to take for granted as TACT, that
which is not only unlikely, but which
has all the chances UNNECESSARILY
against it.
Now if DR.. AlsOp will repeat his
experiment the coming year, as Prot
Atwster wisely suggests, and as be
probably intends to do, the result will
certainly be very different, and all the
more successful by reason OF The ex
perience already gained. In the re-
port of The trial, as given by Prot
| Atwater, 10 the American Agricul
turist, the table shows forty separate
results, though all more or less OBJ
scure and doubtful But When these
results reappear In the next trial, they
will be entirely changed. Each will
have definite meaning, and posi-
tive value, and all will be luminous
with instruction. But If the expert
ment, instead of being merely re
peated by one man, should be also
multiplied, by the co operation Of
othe farmers, so as TO give general
average Of results, 1t is easy TO see that
such an average would make it still
more instructive and valuable, by the
light it would shed on the general
subject Of plant nutrition.
In this connection there is one i'm
portaut point to which the attention Of
DR.. AIsop may properly be invited.
We hope he will not forget. in thu
next trial, TO add another plot OF land
(No. I'D 10 be left without manure.
No test Of fertilizers can be consider, 4
thorough or complete, unless it ln'
Guides plot to inuicate the natural
capacity Of the soil.
EXPERIMENT 40. 2.
In a series Of trials, made by j. l
Carter, at the West Grove ExperImen-
tai Farm, in PcnnsJ lvaula, various
fertilizers we're tested in comparison
with each other, and also with aD un
MANFRED plot. These trials extended
through three years, and iD-
cluded three different crops, viz,
wheat the first year, hay the secOud,
and corn the third The fertilizer,
ssre applied to tue wheat crop at the
rate Of $40 per acre, and the result,
as reported, shows the effect of each
fertilizer, not OILY on the wheat to
which it was applied, out also on the
hay crop Of the following year, aud on
the corn Of the year after. The table
given In the report presents twenty
four interesting results, which, though
they differ widely from each other,
or nowhere discordant or obscure, but
easy to understand and full OF instruc