The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1915-05-20
YIELDS
ATTAINED
| ROTATION
Lar;ll.ge and Crop Rotation
! Able Writer in Coun-
try Gentleman.
INV ]. L. Ashlock)

fBy ]. L. Ashlock)
.srt TO which crop yields may
rn 800. 80 by different methods of til.
any, nroblem upon which light i:
rscent studies conducted by
- Agricultural College Of Wash
= The highest acreage return In
Ia n two years-whfch, on the
80 would be equivalent to the
go acreage profits-was secured
~ wheat and corn in rotation,
I'm IN blowing after the removal OF
won Almost as good results were
INA Nv rotating peas with wheat.
sSaItion to the rotative plots. nine
were used to try out different
[,hcss 81 soil tdllage in single-crop
=, nroduction-that is. the widely
.s,snt plan that Includes the grow
~ crop of wheat one year and
nlttiug the soil to lie fallow the
wing year. wide differences in
~ Yields, soil fertility and the com
itIon Of the ripened wheat were
|sryed: which differences, In the
4 had been brought about by varia-
d IN soil manipulation.
taw Of the experimental fields pro-
"A fifty bushels to the acre. In
[hbly these were the ones that
been either fall plowed or early
Inc blowing. No ether method of
Isss used equaled the production of
IL ulowings, and between fall plow-
and early spring blowing there was
ctIcally no difference. Late spring
wing however, gave an inferior pro-
ttlOn.
Moisture Not Responsible.
kther noteworthy points came to light,
\ Of which had to do with packing
soil Immediately after blowing. Two
t-and- summer-fallow plots were
<wed early in the spring. One was
unpacked Contrary to expectations
unpacked field yielded more wheat
D. did the packed field.
contrast two fields were plowed
In the spring; one was packed and
other was left unpacked. In this
e the packed field produced yield
n clearly was superior to that of
unpacked. late spring blowing. The
Its. taken together, indicate very
hB that packing after the plow in
spring is unnecessary. but that
pay be beneficial If blowing for any
Nn Is deferred till late in the
<ng.
other phase Of the study COM
iscn was made between fall-plowed
lall-disked ground. The fall plow-
4 Yielded fifty bushels of wheat to
acre, against only thirty -four from
B fall disking.
eeking reasons for the variations
wheat yield, c. c. Thorn. originator
The studies. suspected that there
81 be sufficient variation of soil
sture available for the plants during
growing season to cause the differ
@ But this was not the case. 1t
found that the Command wheat
the peas and wheat, the early
late spring plowed, the packed and
packed and undisked, fall plowed or
Ae ploWed, even the volunteer wheat
und that had made the poorest
Ssing q any, contained through
4 May and June of the growing
aon practically the same percentages
moisture. 1t was entirely clear that
sou moisture at hand during the
'ng season was not responsible
NE difference in yields of wheat.
Is erroneous to think that mois-
can literally be crowded into the
W image, says MIR. Thorn. "The
mere made apparent is that any
soll In a good state of filth has
opacity TO hold water, and no meth
SOL tillage can force 1t to hold
IN regions Of extreme drought
y y an important mee,as Of getting
'u'e INTO the soil and holding It
Out when the soil has stored
'ure up to the limit of its capacity.
surplus drains off, and we cannot
" any method of soil manipu-
s''l Nitnases, the Variable.
!, moisture theory having been dis
y an examination was made to
ne y the different methods of
h, a,puation We're influencing the
49,, y plant food available during
ns"ng season. 1t was ascertain
:. me plot OF volunteer wheat
M ~"ssI IN soil nitrates available |
lDss saowtn Of plants. 1t was dis
II, ,.ur'nefmore. that the early
:, nOwlngs and fall plowings ran |
nm - sQil nitrates; and these were
n ms mat approached the fifty |
4 ~ k IN word, 1t was shown |
IA r,..s l'apie In the soil that pro-
N w. ponding variation In wheat I
h as tne nitrates; that the yaria-
Esshmsaa, nl'rates available for plant
ssa NJ, was governed in a very
co,o,a oy soil manipulation.
b wa s development OF the above
n ~ sa worked out by George A.
s thar ~ ny chemical anal /
kntesr ny wheat taken from the
d nan nelu' the one of lowest
<Ocsr 'Omest Of all In percentage
app,,~ me fan and spring plow-
siying J. highest in soil nitrates
i whes. .ne highest yields Of wheat,
wbs,aa the highest nitrogen con-
bon "a. efer there was a dipirpt,o,
dhinuf,as.s there was a correspond
EAs rs S.'On IN wheat production and
Pea Whss. OF nitrogen In the
simple NJ proving again that in
lies tbe voesses OF soil manipuia-
contse, way to wheat Of high nit
! recent econ, and food values.
prodsna OF tillage Of soil and
follows with acreage in bushels
70 and -.