WERE IT not so aggravating it would be amusing to hear some of our experiment station directors and professors and editors and "institute workers" talk about the necessity of "soil tests." Those of us who have waited patiently and labored earnestly for the establishment of experiment stations, now that we have at length got what we wanted, are looking to have some of the doubtful points cleared up by actual experiments. Instead of that, some of the directors coolly tell us to make the experiments ourselves, and that if we need any directions for carrying them out they will cheerfully furnish them. How kind !

These "soil tests" that we hear so much about are merely an excuse for neglecting to make the desired experiments at the stations. The idea seems to be that soils differ so much that it is necessary to make experiments or tests on every farm or in every field or garden. This is essentially a misconception. At any rate, it is no excuse for neglecting to make experiments on different crops with different fertilizers on the different experiment stations.

If a gardener has some good, carefully saved and well-rotted stable manure, he does not need to make "soil tests" to find out whether his land needs it. What he wants to know is what crop will be most benefited by it and bring in the most profit from its use. Furthermore, he would like to know if some particular crop does not need a more liberal supply of this or that ingredient of manure than other crops. If, for instance, soluble phosphoric acid is not specially favorable for the growth of turnips, lettuce, radishes, etc., or if nitrogen, as shown by the experiments of Professors Voorhees and Bailey, is not highly favorable for the growth of tomatoes. We did not know this fact a year ago. And it cannot be doubted that well planned and carefully conducted experiments will furnish much needed information in regard to the wants of many horticultural plants.

At the present time, we do not even know whether carbonaceous matter is, or is not, necessary for success in gardening.

So far as wheat and barley are concerned, the experiments of Lawes and Gilbert demonstrate that carbonaceous matter is not needed. In other words, if we take say 30 tons of stable manure and set fire to it, and were able to retain the nitrogen, the nitrogen and the ashes would produce just as good crops as the 30 tons of manure. This is a rather loose statement, and may be open to criticism, but it is essentially true; we have not time now to allude to the needed qualifications. The general fact that carbonaceous matter is not needed for wheat and barley (and probably for other plants also) is absolutely proved.

Mr. J. M. Smith, of Green Bay, Wis., a pre-eminently successful gardener and fruit-grower, kindly answers some questions in regard to four acres of potatoes he grew last year. "My compost heaps," he writes, "are composed of stable, barnyard and pig-pen manures, with all the refuse of the 40 acres of garden, such as potato tops, pea and bean vines, weeds and, in short, everything that we think will add to their value as fertilizers. The compost heaps are wet down occasionally when they are getting too dry. But we never intend to wet them sufficiently to drain them in the least. They are worked over once or twice during the winter, and in the spring are in the best of order for making a very quick and rapid growth of crops. These compost heaps are my main dependence for large crops and they rarely fail to produce the desired result. The land on which my potatoes were grown had for a number of years been manured each year with about 30 loads of manure per acre, and in addition, about 75 bushels of unleached wood ashes".

No wonder Mr. Smith raises large crops !

The 30 tons of this manure would contain not less than 300 lbs of nitrogen, 300 lbs. of potash and 180 lbs. of phosphoric acid. We are probably safe in saying that the crops grown do not remove half the plant food furnished in the manure, and consequently the soil must be getting richer every year.

But what do we mean by "richer" ? We think it would be difficult to persuade Mr. Smith to stop using, even for a single season, what he justly calls his "main dependence" when he wishes to raise a large early crop of choice vegetables.

Last year he competed for the prize offered by the American Agriculturist for the largest crop of potatoes grown on one acre of land, but like the sensible and experienced man that he is, he did not confine himself to one acre. He knows that the season has much to do with the yield. A quantity of manure that would give a great crop in a dry, bright, sunny season might cause the potatoes to run too much to vines in a damp, cloudy season.

The manures used on each acre, together with their approximate composition and the yield per acre, are given below :

As there was no unmanured land, we cannot be sure that any of the manures used did any good.

Knowing the condition of the land, we cannot think the carbonaceous matter of the barn-yard manure was of any benefit to the crop. The other three fertilizers used contained no carbonaceous matter, and all of them produced a somewhat larger crop than the manure. The potash, very probably did no good. This is indicated by the fact that none of the fertilizers contained as much potash as the manure. •Neither was it the phosphoric acid; because the ashes not only contained a much smaller quantity, but it is not as soluble as that in the fertilizers.

At first sight one would be apt to say it could not possibly be the nitrogen that increased the crop, because the ashes, which produced 50 bushels more per acre than ten cords of manure, contained no nitrogen. But this does not follow. We all know that lime has been used as a fertilizer for hundreds if not thousands of years, and it is now generally admitted that its chief effect is due to its action in favoring the formation of nitrates from the stores of nitrogenous organic matter in the soil. The 80 bushels of ashes used would furnish 40 bushels of carbonate of lime. And on such land as Mr. Smith's, that has been manured every year with 30 tons of manure per acre, there must be a large accumulation of nitrogenous organic matter that can only furnish food for plants after it is decomposed and the nitrogen converted into nitrates. The lime of the ashes, as well as the potash, would favor nitrification. In other words, they would furnish nitrates.

We will not suggest to Mr. Smith that he should test this question by trying lime. Practical farmers and market gardeners are too busy to make accurate experiments. We want the experiment stations to do the work for us. And for some years to come, at least, we do not want to be asked to make "soil tests.'* There is plenty of work to be done at the stations. We do not want more stations, but more carefully planned and accurately conducted experiments at those already established.

Alluding to the admirable experiments of Professor Voorhees on tomatoes, we remarked, in The American Garden for March, page 171 :

"It may surprise many gardeners that 20 tons of fine barnyard manure did not produce as large a crop of tomatoes as 160 lbs. of nitrate of soda." And it may surprise some of our readers that 80 bushels of unleached wood-ashes should produce a larger crop of potatoes than 30 tons of well rotted manure on Mr. Smith's highly manured land. We have intimated above that the ashes probably increased the formation of nitrates from the accumulated store of nitrogenous organic matter in the soil, and if this is the true explanation, a simple experiment with nitrate of soda would give us light on the subject.

We have a firm conviction that market gardeners are spending a great deal of money for manure to produce results that could be obtained at greatly less cost by the judicious use of chemical fertilizers. But from the nature of the case we cannot ascertain the facts by the use of ordinary commercial fertilizers, for the simple reason that they supply, as a rule, nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash, and we cannot tell whether it is the nitrogen that is wanted, or whether it is the phosphoric acid that is the chief thing that we need or whether it is the potash, or whether we need all three of these ingredients of plant-food. We have been writing and talking about this very point for forty years.

We have been waiting for the experiment stations.

The government has appropriated the money. The stations are established. Now let us have the experiments.

It may be said that the stations are making experiments with the different ingredients of plant-food. Some are, but others tell us to test our own soils, and Dr. Sturtevant, after having charge of the New York Experiment Station, at Geneva, asserted that "plat experiments were useless." If so, it was because his plots were too small, or the land needed draining, or was not properly worked. We are paying about $30,000,000 a year for nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash in commercial fertilizers. Cannot experiments be made to show what effects are produced by the use of these different ingredients separately and combined in different proportions, and on different crops ? We want crop tests rather than "soil tests." Moreton Farm, Joseph Harris.