FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246  
247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   >>   >|  
this year in the same way. The only difference being that one had superphosphate and potash, soda, and magnesia, the year before, while the other had superphosphate alone." It turned out, as you see from the table, that the potash, etc., only gave half a bushel more wheat per acre the year it was used, and this year, with 2,000 lbs. of rape-cake on each plot, there is only a bushel per acre in favor of the potash, soda, and magnesia. The next plot, 9_b_, was also unmanured and was passed by my father without comment. "Ah," said he, on coming to the two next plots, 10_a_ and 10_b_, "this is better, what have you here?" --"_Nothing but ammonia_," said I, "and I wish you would tell me which is the best of the two? Last year 10_b_ had a heavy dressing of minerals and superphosphate with ammonia, and 10_a_ the same quantity of ammonia alone, without superphosphate or other mineral manures. And this year both plots have had a dressing of 400 lbs. each of ammonia-salts. Now, which is the best--the plot that had superphosphate and minerals last year, or the one without?" --"Well," said he, "I can't see any difference. Both are good crops." You will see from the table, that the plot which had the superphosphate, potash, etc., the year before, gives a peck _less_ wheat this year than the other plot which had none. Practically, the yield is the same. There is an increase of 13 bushels of wheat per acre--and this increase _is clearly due to the ammonia-salts alone_. The next plot was also a splendid crop. "What have you here?" "Superphosphate and ammonia." This plot (11_a_), turned out 35 bushels per acre. The next plot, with phosphates and ammonia, was nearly as good. The next plot, with potash, phosphates, and ammonia, equally good, but no better than 11_a_. There was little or no benefit from the potash, except a little more _straw_. The next plot was good and I did not wait for the question, but simply said, "ammonia," and the next "ammonia," and the next "ammonia."-- Standing still and looking at the wheat, my father asked, "Joe, where can I get this ammonia?" He had previously been a little skeptical as to the value of chemistry, and had not a high opinion of "book farmers," but that wheat-crop compelled him to admit "that perhaps, after all, there might be some good in it." At any rate, he wanted to know where he could get ammonia. And, now, as then, every good farmer asks the same question: "Where can I get a
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246  
247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
ammonia
 

potash

 

superphosphate

 

phosphates

 

question

 

bushels

 

dressing


increase

 

minerals

 
difference
 

turned

 

father

 

bushel

 

magnesia


Standing

 

benefit

 

equally

 
simply
 
wanted
 
farmer
 

opinion


chemistry

 

skeptical

 

farmers

 

compelled

 

previously

 

mineral

 

manures


quantity
 

coming

 
passed
 
comment
 

unmanured

 
Nothing
 
Practically

Superphosphate
 

splendid