TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

BULLETIN NO. 190 JUNE, 1916

DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY

The Effect 0f Additions 0n the Availabil-
ity of Soil Potash, and the Prepa-
ration of Sugar H amus

 

POSTOFFICE ; M
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS.

~%-
AUSTIN, TEXAS:
VON BOECKMANN-JONES 00., PRINTERS,
1916.

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

A250—716—1 5M

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

r BULLETIN NO. 190 JUNE, 19l6

DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY

The Effect 0f Additions on the Availabil-
ity 0f Soil Potash, and the Prepa-
ration of Sugar Humus

BY

G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D.,
Chemist in Charge; State Chemist

 

POSTOFFICE;
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS.

AUSTIN, TEXAS:
VON BOECKMANN-JONES CO., PRINTERS,
4191s.

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS

W. B. BI7zELL, A. M. D. C. L., President

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS

L:

. J. HART, Vice-President, San Antonio ......... ..
. H- ASTIN, Bryan. ............................................ ..
. S. WILLIAMS, Paris ...... ..
. . BATTLE, Marlin ...................... ..

lTll"

p-lH

€“‘€

_ A. MILLER, JR., Amarillo ............. ..
B

I>

OHN I. GUION, President, Ballinger ..................... ..

 
  

E
. C. BREIHAM, Bartlett ............................  ......... ..
F. KUBENA, Fayetteville ..................................... ..

DAVIDSON, Cuero ........................................... ..

..................................................... ..Term expires 1919

......... ..Term expires 1919
......... ..Term expires 1919
............ ..Term expires 1917
............ ..Term expires 1917

   
 

..................................................... ..Term expires 1917
..................................................... ..Term expires 1921

........................................ ..Term expires 1921

..................................................... ..Term expires 1921

MAIN STATION COMMITTEE

L. J. HART, Chairman

J. S. WILLIAMS

W. A. MILLER, JR.

GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATIONS

_ L_ D , P. ident, Temple ......... .._. ............... ..
EI-IARLESWBISGANfsVice-Preside it, Austin ............ ..
W. P. HOBBY. Beaumont ...................................... ..
J. E. Booo-Scurr, Coleman ................................... ..

 

..................................................... ..Term expires 1919

......... ..Term expires 1917
Term expires 1917

..................................................... ..Term expires 1921

STATION STAFF*

ADMINISTRATION _
B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Director
A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Vice Director
CHAS. A. FELKER, Chiej Clerk
A. S. WARE, Secretary
DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE _
M. FRANciS, D. V. S., Veterinarian in
IICSZQJIIIDT, D. v. M.. Veterinarian
ISION OF CHEMISTRY _ _
DIV G. S. FRAPS,_Ph. D., Chemist in Charge;
R_sll—Il.teR(ijil)lglElilf, B. S., Assistant Chemist_
W_ T_ P_ spno-rr, B. S., Assistant Chemist
H. LEBESoN, M. S., Assistant Chemist
SION OF HORTICULTURE _
DIVIH. NESS, hi. S., Horticulturist in Charge
W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist
* NIMAL HUSBANDRY
DIvl_]§Ig_IqB?1I1:.NAs, B. S., Animal Husbandman,
. t. t.
J. IN/EIIdJEIwEISCIUA)‘. lK/(Iifiiilh imal Husbandman,
Breeding Investigations
DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY _’ _
F. B. PADDOCK, . S. E., Entomologist in
Charge; State Entomologist _
O. K. CouRTNEY, B. S., Assistant Ento-
mologist
C t Apia y Inspectors
R. C. Abefililgtliy, Laldonia; William Atch-
ley, Mathis; J. W. E. Basham, Barstow;
Victor Boeer, Jourdanton; T._ W. Burle-
son, Waxahachie; W. C. Collier, Gpliad;
E. W. Cothran, Roxton; G. F. Dagridson,
; J h Donegan, eguin;
glgdtsgflglgm, helaillin; A. R. Graham, Mi-
lano; H. Grossenbacher, San Antonio; J.
B. King, Batesville; N. G LeGear,
Waco; R. A. Little, Pearsall; H. L. Mo-
field, Hondo; M. C. Stearns, Brady; _S.
H. Stephens, Uvalde; M- B- Tally, V10-

‘ ; J .. W. T lor, Enloe; R. E.
WlialtflsomaI-Ieidenheriiliiler; W. H. White,
Greenville. /

DIVISION OF AGRONOMY _ _
A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Agronomist in Charge
A. H. LEIDIGI-I, B. S., Agronomist _
Louis WERMELSKIRCHEN, B. S., Agronomist
DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND
PHYSIOLOGY
J. J. TAURENIIAUS, _Ph._ D. Plant Patholo-
gist and Physiologist in Clharge
**DIVISION OF FARM MANAGEMENT
IIEx E. WILLARD, M. S., Farm Manage-
ment Expert in Charge

DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDARY
R. N. HARvEY, B. S., Poultryman in Charge
DIVISION OF FORESTRY
J. H FOSTER, M. F., Forester in Charge;
State Forester
DIVISION OF PLANT BREEDING
E HIIMBERT, Ph. D., Plant Breeder in
Charge
DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE
JAMES SULLIVAN, EICCUIIDC Secretary '
J. H. RoGERs, Inspector
. H. \Voou, Inspector
. H. WoLTERs, Inspector
. D. PEARcE, Inspector
. M. WICKES, Inspector
T. B. REESE, Inspector
SUBSTATION NO. 1: Beeville, Bee County
E. E. BINFORD, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 2: Ti-oup, Smith County
W. S. HoTcIIRISs, Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 3: Angleton,
Coun
N. E. WINTERS, B. S., Superintendent
SUBSTATION NO. 4:
County
H. H. LAupE, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell County
D.d'e1‘  KiLLoucn, B. S., Acting Superinten-
I1

SUBSTATION NO. 6, Denton, Denton County
V. L. CORY, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 7: Spur, Dickens County
R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 8: Lubbock, Lubbock

ounty
R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. 9, Pecos, Reeves County
J. W. JAcKSoN, B. S., Superintendent

SUBSTATION NO. l0: (Feeding and Breeding
Substation), College Station, Brazos
County

T. M. REDDELL, Superintendent
G. F. JORDAN, B. S., Scientific Assistant

SUBSTATION NO. II: Nacogdoches, Nacog-
doches County
G. T. McNESs, Superintendent

**SUBSTATION NO. 12: Chillicothe, Harde-
man Coun
R. W. EDWARDS, B. S., Svperintendent

ewes

Brazoria

Beaumont, Jefierson

CLERICAL ASSISTANTS

J. M. SCHAEDEL, Stenographer
DAISY LEE, Registration Clerk

W. F. CHRISTIAN, Stenographer
ELIZABETH WALKER, Stenographer
J. L. COTTINGI-IAM, Stenographer

*AS of June 1, 1916.

E. E. KILEoRN, Stenographer

M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Stenographer
C. L. DURST, Mailing Clerk
WILLIE JoIINsoN, Tao Clerk

**In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Introduction . . .A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .". . . . . . 5

Method of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . .. 5

Description and Composition of Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

Effect of the Additions on the Potash Taken Up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Percentage of ‘Potash in the Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Effect of Cropping on the Active Potash of the Soil . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23

Preparation of Sugar Humus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28

Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29

l Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29

[Blank Page in Original Bulletin]

 

EFFECTS OF ADDITIONS ON THE AVAILABILITY OF
SOIL POTASH AND THE PREPARATION OF
SUGAR HUMUS.

 

BY G. S. FRAPS, PH. D., CHEMrsT IN CHARGE; STATE CHEMIST.

It has for a long time been claimed that lime, carbonate of lime,
gypsum, salt, organic matter, and the gypsum carried by acid phos-
phate, render soil potash much more available to plants. This is largely
based upon the fact that sulphate of lime and other neutral salts re-
place the potash absorbed by soils and cause more of it to go into solu-
tion. Although this fact is well established, the conclusion does not
necessarily follow that plants take up more potash under such condi-
tions. On the other hand, it is quite possible that absorbed potash
may be equally as available to plants, as that driven out of the oom-
pounds by neutral salts. It is of course likewise possible that various
salts or substances may assist in the Weathering of diffiicultly soluble
silicates, and thereby assist potash in becoming available.

In considering this matter, we must make a distinction between the
active potash of the soil, which is taken up by plants easily, and the
insoluble potash, which is not easily taken up by plants. The avail-
ability of the active potash may be little affected, when the insoluble
potash may be affected. to some extent.

As an example of the claims made, Huston (International Congress
of Applied Chemistry, 1912, 15, 139) claims that nitrate of soda and
the gypsum in acid phosphate may release enough potash to supply the
needs of the crop. The soda in 100 pounds nitrate of soda, he says,
is capable of releasing 55 pounds of potash from zeolites, and the
gypsum in 100 pounds of ordinary. acid phosphate is capable of releas-
ing 18 pounds of potash. ‘If an application of 600 pounds of nitrate
of soda and 300 pounds of acid phosphate per acre is made, “Expressed
in terms of sulphate of potash, this is equivalent to the application of
768 pounds sulphate per acre 5 while the assumed crop only requires
120 pounds. It is not surprising that where these materials are used
in experimenting there should be very frequent instances where the plot
with nitrogen and phosphoric acid should give quite as good yields as
thosereceiving all three elements, for the plot without potash has re-
.ceived material capable of releasing more than six times as much potash
as the assumed crop requires.”

This quotation is made for the purpose of showing the great claims
made for the action of additions to the soil on the availability of its
potash.

METHOD OF WORK.

The experiments here described were undertaken for the purpose of
studying the effect of carbonate of lime, vegetable matter, and other
substances upon the quantity of potash taken up by plants in pot ex-
periments. The experiments were conducted in several series.

6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

First Series.

Only one soil, N0. 1290, was used in this series. The following _

additions were made to 5 kilogram pots: Sawdust (Saw), 25 grams;
sugar humus (H), N0. 1355, 20 grams. Precipitated chalk, calcium
carbonate (VCa), 25 grams; corn cobs (Cobs), 25 grams. These addi-
tions, except thehumus, were made at the rate of 5000 parts per mil-
lion, or five tons to the acre, on a basis of two million pounds.

First Crop, C0tt0n.——One gram ammonium nitrate and 2.5 grams
acid phosphate were added and 5 cotton seed, WeighingOfi-OJ?’ grams,
planted June 2, 1908, harvested September 1.

Second Crop, C0rn.—-One gram ammonium nitrate and 2.5 grams
acid phosphate were added and 5 grains corn weighing 1.8-1.9 grams,
planted March 10, 1909, harvested June 9, 1909.

For results of this series, see Table 1. The results will be discussed ,

in connection with the other series.

Second Series.

This series was begun in 1909 on two soils, and eight crops were
grown in three years. Five thousand grams of soil were used. At the
beginning of the experiment, besides the phosphoric acid and nitrogen
mentioned below, the following additions were made: carbonate of lime
(Ca) (precipitated chalk), 5.0 grams=0.1% of the soil or 1000 parts
per million; carbonate of lime _(XCa), 50 gramsi1% of the soil, or
10,000 parts per million; sulphate of lime (S), 5 grams; sulphate of
lime (XS), 25 grams; sulphate of soda (Na), 5 grams; sulphate of
soda (2Na), 10 grams; sugar humus (H), 5 grams; and sugar humus
(VH), 25 grams.

First Crop, O0rn.—One gram ammonium nitrate and 2.5 grams acid
phosphate were added to all pots, and 5 grains corn weighing 2.0-2.1
grams were planted in each pot March 30. Crops were harvested June
18, dried, weighed as usual, and analyzed.

Second Crop, S0rghum.-—One gram sorghum seed, planted June 21,
harvested September 13; no additions made. "

Third Crop, O0rn.—One gram ammonium nitrate and 2.5 grams acid
phosphate were added, and 5 grains corn weighing 1.3-1.4 grams were
planted April 5; one gram ammonium nitrate added May 11; harvested
June 17, 1910.

Fourth Crop, S0rghum.—One gram ammonium nitrate and 2.5 grams
acid phosphate were added, and 1 gram sorghum planted June 21, 1910.
Harvested August 22, 1910. ‘

Fifth Crop, Oaits.—One gram ammonium nitrate and 2 grams acid
phosphate added and 1 gram oats planted October 13. Plants were
killed by frost before any decided growth was made, and were harvested
January 5, 1911.

Sixth Crop, Cornr-One gram ammonium nitrate and 2 grams acid
phosphate were added and 5 grains corn weighing 2.0-2.1 grams were
planted March 22, 1911. Harvested June 19.

Seventh Crop, S0rghum.—One gram ammonium nitrate added, and

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 7

1 gram sorghum planted June 26, 1911. The plants did very poorly
on soil 1956. Harvested September 15, 1911.

Ifighih Crop, Corn.—One gram ammonium nitrate and 2 grams acid
phosphate added, and 5 grains corn weighing 1.7-1.8 grams planted
April 3. Harvested June 20, 1912. The experiment was then dis-
continued, and all the soils prepared for analysis.

The results are presented in Tables 7 and 8, and summarized in
Table 3. The results will be discussed in connection with the other
series.

‘Third Series.

In this and subsequent series, dicalcium phosphate containing about
36 per cent. citrate-soluble phosphoric acid was used “as a source of
phosphoric acid instead of acid phosphate, "on account of the objection,
due to the gypsum carried in the latter, raised by Huston. The quan-
tities of soil in the pots varied from 5900 to 8000 grams and are given
below:

4579——7200 grams.
4583—7400 grams.
4597—7600 grams.
4642—5900 grams,
4649—8000 grams.

The pots were filled to the same depth. The difference in the weight
is due to the difference in the density of the soils. Additions were
made as follows: Carbonate of lime as precipitated chalk (Ca) 8
grams, or a little over 1000 parts per million; carbonate of lime (2Ca),
16 grams; sulphate of lime (CaS) 4 grains, or ‘a little over 500 parts
per million; manure, sheep excrement 4263 (M), 8 grams. This
manure contained 3.97 per cent. lime, 1.36 per cent. magnesia, 1.07
per cent. phosphoric acid and 0.22 per cent. potash, and was derived
from peanut hay. ‘

First Crop, C0rn.-—Additions, 1 gram N (ammonium nitrate), 1 gram
D (dicalcium phosphate). Planted corn, 5 grains, 1.6-1.7 grams, May
5, harvested July 7 to 14, 1911.

Second Crop, i80rghum.—Additions, 1 gram N. Planted 1 gram
sorghum July 25, harvested September 23 to October 7, 1911.

Third Crop, Oorn.—Additions, 1 gram N, 1 gram D. Planted 5
grains corn, weighing 1.7-1.8 grams, April 3, harvested June 25 to
July 10, 1912. Soil 2353" discontinued.

Fourth Crop. S0rghum.—Added 1 gram N. Planted 1 gram sorghum
July 2, 1914, harvested August 20, 1914.

Fifth Crop, C0rn.——Added 1 gram N, 1 gram D. Planted 5 grains
Corn, Weighing 2.0-2.1 gram April 10, harvested June 24, 1914. Dis-
continued.

Fourth Series.

Two soils (2349 and 4601) were used in this series. The additions
to pot xveighing 7700 grams Were: manure 4559 (M) 10 grams, or
1300 parts per million; precipitated carbonate of lime (Ca) 3.0 grams,
or 400 parts per million; 2Ca 6.0 grams; sulphate of lime (CaS)
3.0 grams; 2CaS 6.0 grams; carbonate of magnesia (Mg) 3.0 grams;

8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

2Mg, 6.0 grams; D, 1 gram dicalcium phosphate; N, 1 gram am-

monium nitrate.

Manure 4559 contained 0.63 per cent. lime, 0.26 per cent. magnesia,
0.42 per cent. phosphoric acid and 0.50 per cent. potash, and was de-
rived from corn shucks.

One gram each ammonium nitrate and dicalcium phosphate were
added to the first crop, sorghum; the third crop, corn, and the fifth
crop, corn. To the other crops, 1 gram ammonium nitrate alone Was
added.

DESCRIPTION AND COMPOSITION OF SOILS.

12-90. Norfolk Sand. Palestine, Texas, farm of Latimer and Ezell,
Anderson County.

1809.—Soil from A. and M. College farm, Brazos County, depth not
given; bottom land.

1956.—Sand from E. J. Kyle’s farm between College Station and
Bryan, Brazos County. -

2353.—Norfolk Fine Sand Subsoil, depth 7-22 inches, 1% miles south
of Mt. Pleasant, Titus County, % mile southwest of Bed Springs, farm
of Mary Mays; good soil, rolling; light brown subsoil, goo-d drainage.

4579.—Brown Mesquite Soil, depth 0-8 inches, 1% miles south of
Thornton; farm of Jno. B. Griifin, Limestone County, produces 25
bushels corn, % bale of cotton. A

4583.—White Sand; depth 0-.13, 1 mile northeast of Detroit, Red
River County, farm of C. C. Williams; good drainage, upland; pro-
duces 20 bushels corn, % bale of cotton. .

45_99.—~Very poor upland, depth 0.8 inches, 1 mile north of Willis,
Montgomery County, farm of John Duke; produces 15 bushels corn or
3‘; bale cotton; does not pack or dry i.nto clods, does not crack on dry-
ing, washes a little; no drainage except natural slope of the land; cul-
tivated 18 years, represents 20 acres on farm, manure used, no in-
crease noticed, very few full crops grown.

4-642.—-l\Ioderatc upland, depth 0-5 inches, 1% miles south of depot,
TFronp,” Smith County, farm of J. M. Slagle; gray sandy land, level,
good results o-n corn and cotton; native vegetation; drains well in wet
seasons and stands drought very well; does not pack/much or wash;
cultivated 20 years; represents 100 acres on farm; no green crops; 4
loads of manure used with good results.

4649.——Subsoil to very poor upland (4648), depth 6-16 inches; 1-

mile west of Woodville, farm of Frank Barber, Tyler County; xvhite-

sandy soil. A

4601.—Poor upland, depth 0-8 inches, % mile southeast of Jackson-
ville, Cherokee County; farm of Henry Pearce; red clay soil; corn,
cotton, and tomatoes grown; fertilizer increased cotton yield from
% to  bale cotton per acre (i. e.,  bale increase), packs; dries
into clods; cracks and washes a little; cultivated 25 years; represents
50 acres of farm; no green crops turned under; 1 load manure per
acre gave good increase. /

2349.——Norfolk White Sandy Loam subsoil, depth 11-21 inches, 5
miles southeast of Mt. Pleasant, Titus County; farm of S. Dangerfield;
light brown loam.

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

wmwm 5.5 nvNN No.3. oN.nN $.33 31mm mom NmoN Q45   . . . . . . . . . . ......b.nao8.ao~>>

£5 m.» o; o.N mo; o; m o SA wwé ofi new m.  . . . . . . IooEowowU E3»

o       o . . . . . . . . o o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . ~ . . . . o 

. m: w: E 2: Q52 mo. m2 o2 m2 15w oo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.58m v3.34

a. w m... 2 wan Ho... 2 i: m. E ma... o.nn NAN . . . . . . . . . . . . Z1304 ucooowoom .26....
w; - 1.252 so Sam
o~.~ Nod. N7 Nfl. mv. wmm. . . . . . . .. oN. . . . .   wwo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....o.=5wmo2

¢w.N  “o.    . . . . Nw. .....¢ ~. ... .?w. . . . . . . . . . . ..~ . . . . . . . .   

mNnw mo? ownm . . . . . . . . 3.8 wNho omow nwoo no.wo M95 2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 505w @228 E5 0230.5

won 2.2 I; 3N mo. $5 Es wwA Ho. ~ £6 z: . . . . . . . . . . . 1:9; “o oHxO 2a anion?‘

@.%. £0. Ahdo. $0. £o. xo. fim. x0» $0. xx. £0. . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

NT ofi. oo. mo. fiN. no. mN. NT mm. om. mo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....oE§

NN. mN. mmo. no. mno. mno. oN. I. no. mfi. mo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  53m

omo. NNwo. Nmfio. oNmo. onwo. ofimo. vvno. flNo. mmo. wow. No. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  do oofiZ

ofio. 1o.     . . . . . . ~    §o. . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  
Ioooooom
35 83 $3 NE? ammo. 5Q m2... mmmN .32 mo”: 8Q
zownom oomfiom mownsm oomfom oofioow 335m ooflflow momoom oomfiom oomfom oomfiom
.55“; Aims
3.52 <5? flow ooww dew 335m 6.5m .55.“ .55.“ 6.5m
wow woo wvov 355m >55 355w 35 o vow m EEK omozoU v23
5S noon o h. 52w 353D “Si? $32 v22 Eoé Eob LoZ
LoZ “E533 353D H2533 oz/oom ioz womm mow

.m.:Ow HO ZOELQOkEOQ

J HAQ<H2

10 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

‘EFFECTS OF THE ADDITIONS ON THE POTASH TAKEN UP.

The general results of the experiment may be seen by referring to
Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The potash is expressed in the terms of bushels
corn per acre, assuming that one bushel corn requires for stalk, leaves,
and grain, one pound of potash, and a soil depth equal to two million
pounds. Thus one part per million of potash is equal to two bushels
corn, and .0025 grams from a pot of 5000 grams is equal to one bushel
corn.

With the soil No. 1290, Table 2, the organic matter and the carbo-
nate of lime are shown to cause an increase in the crop, and in the
quantity of the potash taken up, the increased quantity of potash be-
ing 20 per cent. with theicobs, and 10 per cent. with the carbonate of
lime. There is an increase in the crop with the sawdust, but no cor-
responding increase in the potash taken up.

With_Soil No. 1809 (Table 3), none of the additions have any cer-
tain eifect upon the increase. With Soil No. 1956, there is a small
increase, due to the carbonate of lime, both in the quantity of potash
(4 to 1.0 per cent.) and in the size of the crop. Sulphate of soda and
the sulphate of lime in several cases caused a decrease in the size of
the crop. ~

11

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

 ' . - - 1 ~ - - ~ ~ ¢ - . . - - o p u ~ . - n - - a - - ¢ - - n - - ¢ v - n . - . - - . | - - - - » ¢ ¢ . . . u - -    
. . . . . . . . . .   ........@@N. N2. 8H.  ..:....:m.NH. mNN QoN 
NN.-. Sc. 8N mom. mmH. m2. we #3 Q3. mQN 0.: . . . . .  ........J.NUE|HH
. . . .  H8. 2H.  QNH >2 
c H. wHN. 8N. SH. 26. H. Hahn NNN HZ: 5M2 .   .. w;
. . . . . . . .   ........@...N. 8H. 5H.  ........@.@H. HEN N5   .  . afimlw
 ...@....H...Nr...wmmn WMHH.“ “w” HMM.....H.HHH.HH.A...MHMM  WM“ ....Fww.w... . . . . . ........>Mwm%
HE . . . . . . ..N...Hm. .29  w»? “mm” NHNZNHNHAEMHWM fim  xxxmmunnuuuununuuhuHumwwnw
EH . 3a.”... 5N. HQ». 2H. SN. NB N? 9:. wHm oaN mfiuuuwbF...£u-m
.......... .. .... ........£N. 2H. E.   43m HEN .2: .  ..........Q4.
. . NmN. EN. 2a. wHH. ......:H..Nm 9:. HZN 9.2 01H
doHo o . o
Hvfl GMOO m0 h0>O dwm$>< JNQOP JCOU 50300 hQ>O dmflhw>< AQQOH. fiO@.n wax:
  flwflw Gwflg GhOU EOwwOU
m0 ENG dmwwoh wO. msflhmv AwOuU MO Hawmwa

A mmivmflwlaww flow SOME 5D ZHMFH flmfinom QZ< MONO k0 BIwHmEIN HHN<H

 

12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.
TABLE 3. AVERAGE GAINS DUE TO ADDITION.
Dry matter Potash in Potash in bu.
of crops. grams. Corn per crop.
Addition
8 crops 6 crops 8 crops 6 crops
1809 1956 1956 1809 1956
Carbonate of Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 16.4 0 .0637 O 4

XCarbonate of Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 18. 7 0 .1493 O 10

Sulphate of Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 .0436 O 2 0

XSulphate of Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 .0011 0 0.05 0’

Sulphate of Soda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0

XSulphate of Soda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0

Humus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.1 0 .1115 .0272 6 2

VHumus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 0 0 0 ‘ 0 0
Carbonate of Lime and Humus. . . .. 0 8.5 .0184 .0641\ 1 4
Carbonate of Lime and VHumus. . . 0 8.2 0 .0532 0 3.5
Total weight with no addition . . . . . . 184.2 92.2 1 .5984 0. 6341 80 42
TABLE 4. GAINS DUE TO ADDITION——THIRD SERIES.
_ _ Gain in potash. bu. corn per acre.
Total gam 1n dry matter—gms. per crop.
Addition _

2353 4579 4583 4599 4642 4649 2353 4579 4583 4599 4642 4649
Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.4 0 5.1 0 11.5 0 4.6 0 1.6 .08 2.7 0.5

2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 5.3 0 0 0  0 0 0 2.8 0

CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0.8 0

M . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.9 0 13.9 0 19.6 33.9 4.6 .2 .8 0 5.6 7.5

MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 8.5 0 15.5 . . . . . . . . .. 0 2.4 0.8 2.4 3.0
Original weight.... 73.7 169.3 78.'0107.2115.1 39.6 43 49 24.8 26.8 61.2 14.8
Number of crops. . 3 5 5 5 5 4
TABLE 5. GAIN DUE TO ADDITION—FOURTH SERIES.
Total gain in Dry Gain in Potash in bu.
Matter. ms. corn per acre per crop.
Laboratory Number. _

4601 I 2349 4601 ; 2349
Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.8 , 0 6.4 0

2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 - 7.2 0

CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 O

2CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0

M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 0 1 .2 4

Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 12.3 3.2 0

2Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 0 3.6 0

Mg-Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  0.2 

Original . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.8 114.1 52- 28

No. crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5
TABLE 6. PERCENTAGE GAINS OF POTASH DUE T0 CARBONATE OF LIME OR
ORGANIC MATTER.

Carbonate Organic

Laboratory Number. of Lime. Matter.
1290 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2O 40

1809 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 7

1956 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5

2353 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11

4579 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 2

4583 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3

4599 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

4642 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9

4649 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50

4601 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2

2349 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 14

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 143

Average (11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 13

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL ‘EXPERIMENT STATION. 13

With soils 4579 and 4599, given in Table 4, there is no increase in
any of the crops with any of the additions. In the other soils, there
are small increases due both to the carbonate of lime and to the manure.
The sulphate of lime caused no increase in any case. With reference
to the manure, it must be remembered that it carries some plant food
with it, including a small amount of potash.

In Table 5, it is seeen that the sulphate of lime has no effect, and
the carbonate of lime afiects one soil but not the other.

Table 6 is the summary table and shows the percentage gains of ~

potash, either with carbonate of lime or with manure in per cent. of
the potash removed in allthe soils tested. With carbonate of lime,
there was no gain with four soils, gains of less than 6 per cent. with
three soils, and gains of more than 10 per cent. with four soils. The
gains of 6 per cent. or less are left out of consideration, as they are
too small to be of significance. Thus there is a gain in the amount of
potash taken up by the crops in four of the eleven soils, or about 33
per cent. of the number of soil. The average gain with all the soils
due to carbonate of lime is 6 per cent.

In the case of manure, cobs, or humus, there is no gain with one-
soil and gains of less than 7 per cent. with five soils. There are gains
of 9 per cent. or over with five- soils, or about 45 per cent. of the soils
used. The average gain of ‘potash is 13 per cent. There are greater
gains with the manure than with the carbonate of lime.

TABLE 7. WEIGHT OF CROPS IN GRAMS, SOIL 1809.

_ _ Corn Sor- Corn Sor- Oats Corn Sor- Corn Aver- Gain
Add1t1on. 1909 ghum 1910 ghum 1910 1911 ghum 1912 Total. age. over O.
1909 1910 1911
1-0... 41.0 14.0 32.5 38.7 1.7 21.7 11.6 10.7 171.9 . . . . . . . . . . ..

2—O... 43.5 14.3 37.0 43.2 1.9 23.1 16.4 17.1 196.5 184.2 . . . . ..

3—Ca . . . . .. 34.9 13.9 36.1 38.0 1.7 13.2 19.3 4.4 161.5 . . . . . . . . . . ..

4-—Ca . . . . .. 42.0 14.6 37.5 42.4 2.1 26.6 23.5 7.1 195.3 17.87 0

5—XCa 37.0 12.3 41.0 44.2 1.7 23.9 22.8 13.7 196.6 . . . . . . . . . . ..
6—XCa 37.1 11.4 38.5 36.9 2.2 24.5 17.2 12.2 180.0 188.3 4 1
7—S . . . . . .. 37.1 10.2 39.0 42.0 1.5 25.5 12.6 5.9 173.8 . . . . . . . . . . ..
8—S . . . . . .. 38.8 11.5 37.7 44.2 2.3 25.2 19.7 10.5 189.9 181.9 0
9-XS..... 36.5 9.6 34.0 40.4 2.0 21.2 11.3 11.3 156.1 . . . . . . . . . . ..
10—XS..... 42.7 9.7 34.4 39.2 2.0 11.6 17.0 12.2 168.8 162.5 0
11—Na..... 36.4 12.9 38.2 38.7 1.7 11.0 15.2 11.7 165.8 . . . . . . . . . . ..
12-Na..... 30.1 11.7 40.7 25.9 1.9 12.4 18.1 7.1 147.9 156 9 0
13—2Na 39.4 11.3 23.0 35.7 1.5 4.0 1.5 8.2 124.6 . . . . . . . . . . ..
14-—2Na. 38.6 11.9 8.0 17.2 1.0 3.6 0.5 1.2 82.0 103.3 0
15—H . . . . .. 37.2 12.4 43.0 43.2 0.7 9.0 19.0 13.2 177.7 . . . . . . . . . . ..
16—H . . . . .. 43.7 13.8 42.4 412 1.5 23.5 20.1 6.7 192.9 185.3 1 1
17-VH..... 36.5 10.3 44. 39 2 1.6 22.0 14.5 9.9 158.0 . . . . . . . . . . ..
18—VH..... 34.7 12.2 35.5 39.9 1.7 14.2 21.3 9.1 168.6 163.3 0
19—CaH. 38.3 13.9 39.0 37.5 1.2 23.1 19.0 11.0 183.0 . . . . . . . . . . ..
20—CaH.. 36.7 13.9 40.0 38.9 . . . . .. 22.4 21.2 8.8 181.9 182.5
21-CaVH .. 37.4 10.5 36.1 33.7 1 0 22.4 19.3 4.3 164.7 . . . . . . . . . . ..
22—CaVH.. 34.6 11.3 41.5 37 4 . . . . .. 27.2 11.5 10.8 174.3 169.5 0

14 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.
TABLE 8. WEIGHT OF CROPS IN GRAMS, SOIL 1956.
I
Corn lSor hum Corn Sorghum Oats Corn Gain
1909 1 09 1910 1 10 1910 1911 Total Average over O
1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.3 4.5 26.3 20.4 0.9 20.0 102.4 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

2-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.9 5.9 23.7 19.7 0.8 4.9 81.9 92.2 . . . . ..

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.7 .6.5 28.0 27.2 0.8 18.7 112.9 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

4-Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.7 6.1 22.2 29.4 1.0 15.8 104.2 108..6 16.4

5—XCa . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.0 6.8 25.1 30.0 0.6 20.6 112.1 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

6-XCa . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.1 8.1 24.5 30.5 0.7 16.7 109.6 110.9 18.7

7—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.0 4.7 2.7 2.9 0.6 1.2 38.1 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.5 5.6 29.0 22.5 1.0 19.2 104.8 71.5 0

9—XS . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.2 4.7 7.0 1.2 1.0 1.8 46.9 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

10-XS . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.9 4.1 26.8 19.9 0.5 17.4 87.6 67.3 0

11—Na . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.1 6.4 22.9 10.7 0.8 0.2 72.1 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

12—Na . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.3 .8 7.0 22.2 0.8 2.4 54.5 63.3 0

13-2 Na . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.1 5.6 9.1 30.9 0.8 16.8 85.3 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

14-2 Na . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.2 5.5 20.2 15.7 0.8 0.2 57.6 71.5 0

15-H . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.3 4.7 29.5 20.9 0.5 19.2 97.1 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

16-H . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.3 4.4 22.5 13.5 . . . . .. 2.2 69.9 83.5 0

17-VH . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.7 4.0 23.5 16.7 . . . . .. 20.7 89.6 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

18-VH . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.8 4.3 10.0 11.2 0.8 2.3 48.4 69.0 0

19—CaH . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.1 5.3 26.6 24.7 1.0 18.3 103.0 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

20-CaI-I . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.6 5.5 24.7 28.4 1.9 11.3 98.4 100.7 8.5

21-XCaVH. . . . . . . . .. 29.6 4.1 25.5 29.7 0.7 11.9 101.5 . . . . . . . . . . . ..

22—XCaVH . . . . . . . . .. 23.8 4.2 28.1 26.4 1.0 15.7 99.2 100.4 8.2
TABLE 9. WEIGHT OF CROPS IN GRAMS, SOIL 2353.
Corn Sorghum Corn Gain
1911 1 11 1912 over 0.
1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.5 16.4 8.8 . . . . . . . . ..
2-Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 45.3 26.0 7.8 5.4
3-CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.1 12.4 4.9 0
4—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.2 24.5 5.9 4.9
TABLE 10. WEIGHT OF CROPS PER POT, SOIL 4579.

Corn Sorghum Corn Sorghum Corn Gain

1911 1 11 1912 1912 1913 Total Average. over0
1—O . . . . . . . . . . .. 54.1 36.3 36.2 8.3 31.2 166.1 169.3 . . . . . . ..
2-O.. 50.8 36.9 37.2 10.7 37.7 173.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
3—Ca. 40.9 34.0 36.0 13.6 38.3 162.8 156.9 O
4-Ca . . . . . . . . . .. 43.4 38.2 19.8 7.7 41.2 150.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

5—2Ca . . . . . . .. 46.3 34.1 21.4 5.4 33.2 140.4 140.4 0

6—CaS . . . . . . . . . i9?) 1 28.6 29.0 12.0 29.8 154.5 154.5 0

7-M . . . . . . . . . .. 51.7 34.9 31.4 12.1 36.2 166.3 166.7 O

8—M . . . . . . . . . .. 51.1 42.6 26.9 10.7 36.2 167.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
9—MCa 51.1 34.6 28.8 10.7 34.9 160.1 160.1 0
TABLE 11. WEIGHT OF CROPS, SOIL 4583.

Corn - Sorghum Corn Sorghum Corn Gain
v 1911 1 11 1912 1 12 1913 Total. Average. over0
1—O . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.4 8.4 10.6 1.4 11.5 76.3 78.0 . . . . . . ..

2-0 . . . . . . . . . . .. 43.2 6.8 13.5 1.9 14.3 79.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . .. 32.1 17.6 14.2 9.6 17.2 87.7 83.1 5.1

4-Ca . . . . . . . . . .. 31.5 15.7 10.8 5.3 15.3 78.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

5—2Ca . . . . . . . .. 38.9 12.4 10.7 3.6 17.7 83.3 83.3 5.3

6-CaS . . . . . . . .. 43.3 4.4 7.7 0.8 5.0 61.2 61. 0

7-M . . . . . . . . . .. 41.7 10.0 12.4 2.2 26.5 92.8 91.9 13.9

8—M . . . . . . . . . .. 45.9 9.9 11.2 1.3 22.7 91.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
9—MCa 36.5 15.2 10.3 6.3 18.2 86.5 86.5 8.5

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

15

TABLE 12. WEIGHT OF CROPS, SOIL 4599.

Corn Sor hum Corn Sorghum Corn Gain

1911 1911 1912 1 12 1913 Total. Average. over0
1-0 . . . . . . . . . .. 41.9 20.2 17.0 6.9 17.4 103.4 107.2 . . . . . . ..
2-—O.. 44.0 21.7 19.0 11.0 15.4 111.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
3-Ca. 27.3 18.5 6.3 10.5 15.9 78.5 83.7 0
4—Ca 27.8 18.5 7.0 12.5 23.0 88.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

5—2Ca . . . . . .. 32.9 22.8 11.2 7.8 17.9 92.6 89.8 0

6-2Ca . . . . . . .. 22.9 20.6 12.6 11.9 19.0 87.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

7—CaS . . . . . . .. 33.8 7.9 12.0 10.4 14.3 78.4 81.7 0

8—CaS . . . . . . .. 40.1 11.0 12.8 5.0 16.0 84.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

9—M . . . . . . . . .. 36.9 20.3 10.3 7.7 16.5 91.7 95.1 0

10—M . . . . . . . . .. 39.1 17.6 12.3 11.3 22.1 102.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
11—MCa 39.5 17.0 14.1 10.3 24.3 105.2 101.1 0
l2—MCa. 37.0 16.8 12.8 11.2 19.2 97.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Period of
growth . . . .  May 5 July 25 April 3 July 2 April 10
_ _ —July 9 —Sept. 23 —June 13 —Aug. 20 —June 24
Addition . . . . . .. RD N DN N MDN
TABLE 13. WEIGHT OF CROPS, SOIL 4642.
Corn Sorghum Corn Sorghum Corn Gain
1911 1 11 1912 ' 1912 1913 Total. Average. over0
1-O . . . . . . . . .. 41.3 29.4 15.5 12.4 13.2 111.8 115.1 . . . . . . ..

2-0 . . . . . . . . . .. 38,0 30.8 22.8 12.3 14.5 118.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

3-Ca . . . . . . . .. 30.0 33.3 22.3 13.3 28.4 127.3 126.6 11.5

4—Ca . . . . . . . . .. 33.8 26.0 28.2 18.5 19.5 125.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

5—2Ca . . . . . .. 20.3 28.6 28.1 12.3 26.0 115.3 112.4 0

6—2Ca . . . . . . .. 26.4 26.1 22.0 13.2 21.8 109.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

7-CaS . . . . . . .. 39.2 34.5 14.7 4.7 19.4 112.5 115.3 0

—CaS . . . . . . .. 41.6 36.1 18.5 3.0 18.9 118.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

9—M . . . . . . . . .. 34.1 33.9 32.7 11.0 23.6 135.3 134.7 19.6

IO-M . . . . . . . . .. 35.9 43.3 21.0 11.5 22.4 134.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
ll-—CaM 28.7 32.5 23.7 11.1 31.9 127.9 130.6 15.5
12-CaM 36.9 25.0 30.0 18.5 22.8 133.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
TABLE 14. WEIGHT OF CROPS, SOIL 4649.
Corn Sorghum Corn Corn Gain
1911 1 11 1912 1913 Total over 0
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.5 5.9 2.7 6.5 39.6 . . . . . . ..

2—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.2 8.8 5.3 7.7 27.0 0

3-2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.2 ' 5.0 5.0 7.6 28.8 0

CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.1 0.1 0.1 2.7 25.0 0

5—2CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.2 0.3 0.6 0.2 18.3 0

M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.5 13.8 4.5 25.7 73.5 33.9

7‘—M2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 4.8| 10.4 18.7 42.9 3.3
TABLE 15. WEIGHT OF CROP, SOIL 4601.
_ _ Corn Sorghum Corn Sorghum Corn Gain
Additions 1911 1 11 1912 1 12 1913 Total. Average. over0
1—-O . . . . - . . . . .. 30.5 29.5 7.6 2.7 17.4 87.7 85.8 . . . . . . ..

2—Ca . . . . . . . . .. 23.3 25.2 5.1 19.8 33.2 106.6 106.6 10.8

3—2Ca . . . . . .. 23.6 23.6 5.2 8.8 18.4 79.6 79.6 0

4-M . . . . . . . .. 18.7 28.2 8.1 11.1 22.5 88.6 94.6 8.6

5-2 g . . . . . .. 18.4 27.6 8.3 9.1 13.0 76.4 76.4 0

6—M . . . . . . . . .. 26.2 27.0 9.3 1.0 22.7 86.2 91.8 6.0

7-M . . . . . . . . .. 24.2 30.1 10.2 10.2 22.7 97.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

8-0 . . . . . . . . . .. 30.7 15.2 8.7 12.7 16.6 83.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

9—M . . . . . . . .. 19.9 30.3 9.5 11.6 29.0 100.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
10—MgCa 13.5 22.3 6.4 12.7 16.5 71.4 71.4 0
11-CaS . . . . . . .. 27.6 19.4 6.6 0.1 11.7 65.4 65.4 0
12-2CaS . . . . . .. 22.5 27.8 6.4 0.1 8.7 65.5 65.5 0

16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

~ TABLE 16. WEIGHT OF CROPS IN GRAMS, SOIL 2349.

_ _ Sorghum Sorghum Corn Sorghum Corn Gain
Additions 1911 1911 1912 1 12 1913 Total. over 0.
1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.8 5.6 31.5 4.7 41.5 114.1 . . . . . . ..

2—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.3 2.0 36.5 15.9 41.9 109.6 0

3-2 Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.1 1.3 31.8 14.3 42.0 96.5 0

4—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.6 1.0 15.8 0.1 17.4 57.0 0

5-2 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.6 1.0 12.3 3.4 21.2 54.5 0

6—Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.1 9.0 49.5 7.8 44.0 126.4 12.3

7-2 Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ~ 10.5 2.4 45 1 14.0 21.8 93.8 0

8—Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.6 1.8 26 6 7.5 35.0 105.5 0

TABLE 17. PERCENTAGE OF POTASH IN CROPS GROWN ON SOIL 1809.

_ l Corn Sorghum Corn Sorghum Corn Sorghum Corn
Additions 1909 1909 1910 1910 1911 1911 1912
1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 .85 1.06 0.84 .50 .34 55 48

2-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.85 .98 0.66 48 .33 55 41

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 56 1 .07 0. 66 40 .32 57 38

4-Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.56 .69 0.68 46 .34 53 44

5—XCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 75 1 .05 0.80 48 .29 54 39

6-XCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.00 .80 0.92 50 .33 53 36

7—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.17 1.09 0.73 52 .50 49 44

8-S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.09 1 .05 0.80 42 .35 47 46

9—XS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2. 10 1.13 0.90 52 .34 46 37

10—XS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.93 .95 1.02 46 .44 56 38

11—Na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29 .97 0.64 62 .48 52 43

12—Na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.53 1.01 0.60 60 .34 59 39

13-2 Na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.24 1.04 0.80 47 .36 60 51

14-2 Na . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.20 1.05 1.82 74 .64 48 78

15—H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.13 1.06 0.60 62 .46 52 45

6-H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.07 .97 0.66 54 .41 54 34

17—VH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.22 1.02 0.58 45 .35 53 40

18—VH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.32 .97 0 .88 46 .40 48 45

19—CaH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.04 .93 0.71 51 .44 50 39

20—CaH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 18 .96 0.68 54 .33 46 40

21—CaVH . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.14 .86 0.73 48 .34 51 35

22—CaVH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.01‘ .92 0.58 50 .44 60 36
J

Our conclusion from this experiment is, that while carbonate of
lime or manure may aid in rendering a portion of the insoluble potash
of the soil available to plants, they have little or no effect upon the
active potash by driving it out of solution or causing it to go into the
plants more easily, as has hitherto~ been assumed. If the potash were
driven out, we should expect the sulphate of lime to be as equally
effective as the carbonate of lime, or more so. As a matter of ‘fact,
the sulphate of lime increased the quantity; of potash taken up by the
plants in only a very few cases.. The effect of the carbonate of lime
and also of the organic matter is, therefore, probably to render the soil
conditions more favorable to the growth of plants, there-by increasing
the general growth and the quantity of potash naturally taken up,
though it may also affect the quantity taken from the silicates. This

is quite different from the generally assumed action of driving fixed"

potash from solution and causing it to be more readily taken up. With
all, except soils 1290, 1809, and 1956, dicalcium phosphate was used as
a source of phosphoric acid to avoid the introduction of sulphate of
lime with the acid phosphate. It has been claimed by Huston that
this would affect the results, but these experiments do not justify such
claims.

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 1'2

PERCENTAGE OF POTASHIIN TH1)GROPS

Tables 17-26 show the percentages of potash in the various crops“
harvested. The effect of the additions is sometimes to increase the
percentages of potash and sometimes to decrease the percentages. An
increase in the percentage of potash is very often accompanied by a
decrease in the size of the crop. For example, crops grown on Soil
No. 1956, Pots 13-14, contain higher percentages of potash than the
crops to which no additions were made, laut the» size of the crop is
smaller where the percentage of potash is larger. The same relations
can be shown in other soils. For example, with Soil No. 4583, the
application of carbonate of lime decreased the size of the crop from-
about 44 to about 32 grams, but it increased the potash from about .70
to about .92 per cent. Thus the decrease in the size of the crop is
accompanied by an increase in the percentage of potash in the» plant-
Soil No. 4599 shows this in a very decisive way with the application
of carbonate of lime, the yield of crop being about 2'7 grams with car--
bonate of lime and 43 grams without it, and the percentages of potash-
being about 2.30 with carbonate of lime and 1.41 without it. The
quantity of potash taken up is slightly larger where the carbonate off
lime was added than without it, although the size of the crop is re--
duced more. At the end of the series, however, there is practically no»
difference in the amount of potash taken up by the crops without car-
bonate of lime and that taken up by the crops with carbonate of lime,
on this particular soil. i

TABLE 18. PER CENT POTASH IN CROPS GROWN ON SOIL 1956.

 

_ Corn Sorghuni Corn Sorghuni Corn
Addifions 1909 1 09 1910 1 10 1911

.97 1 22 .60 .54 40

.94 1 11 .50 .50 79

.88 96 .50 .54 31

1.14 1 12 .41 .55 32

1.24 88 .54 .51 39

1.12 82 .58 .60 30

1.24 .87 .60 1.20 1 84

1.24 .72 .65 .74 27

1.10 1.03 1.17 .42 1 58

1.24 1.62 .92 .57 35

1.14 1.06 1.00 .46 . . . . . . . . ..

.94 1.28 1.30 .42 68

1.40 .83 .96 .47 35

1.20 . 93 .70 .31 . . . . . . . . ..

1.76 1.13 .50 .50 36

1.06 1.16 .60 .44 94

1.12 1.41 .59 .31 34

.85 1.15 1.04 .27 . . . . . . . . ..

1.00 1.26 .62 .67 .39

1.00 1.24 .61 .42 .45
1.01 .99 .59 .57 .50‘

22—)(CaVT1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.11 1.16 .56 .441 .45

 

18 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.
TABLE 19. PER CENT POTASH IN CROPS ON SOIL 2353.
Corn Sorghum Corn
Additions 1911 1 11 1912
1-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 .48 .29
2—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 .40 .29
3-CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 .47 .30
—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 .42 .27
TABLE 20. PER CENT POTASH IN CROPS ON SOIL 4579
Corn Sorghum Corn Sor hum Corn
Additions 1911 1911 1912 1912 1913
1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .86 .46 .43 .49 .31

2-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .78 .48 .34 .41 .30

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.15 .46 .29 .50 .29

4—Ca . . . . .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.04 .48 .29 .46 .28

5-2 Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.07 .48 .32 .68 .37

6—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 .54 .36 .44 *.30

—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.02 .51 .31 .41 *.3O

8—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 .49 .26 .42 *.3O

9—MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94 .46 .32 .41 .30
*Assumed. _
TABLE 21. PER CENT POTASH IN CROPS ON SOIL 4583.
Corn Sor hum Corn ' Sorghum
Additions 1911 1911 1912 I 1 12
i
1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 .46 .41 74

2-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 .47 .34 69

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93 .38 .35 - 60

4—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91 .24 .38 5O

5-2 Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 .39 .38 76

6-CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 .54 .34 . . . . . . . . . .

7—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 .36 .41 .35

8—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 .39 .39 .57

9—MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83 .37 .37 .55
TABLE 22. PER CENT POTASH IN CROPS ON SOIL 4599.
C0141 Sor hum Corn Sor hum Corn
Additions 1911 1911 1912 1912 1913
1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 .41 .49 .35 .62 .27

2—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.41 .59 .45 .47 .43

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.29 .55 .41 .43 .46

4—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.36 .50 .52 .39 .39

5-2 Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.88 .52 .42 .47 .30

~6-2 Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.64 .62 .36 .46 .35

7—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.95 .97 .45 .44 .38

8—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .65 .68 .42 .58 .40

9-M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.66 .53 .42 .54 .31

.310—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.57 .51 .42 .42 .29

lll-MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.52 .75 .43 .42 .34

.12-MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.62 . 76 .47 .46 .35

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

19

TABLE 23. PER _CENT POTASH IN CROPS IN SOIL 4642.
Corn Sorghum Corn Sorghum Corn
Additions 1911 1 11 1912 1 12 1913
1-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.31 .66 .35 .54 .39

2-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.43 .56 .31 .58 .25

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.53 .70 .36 .56 .29

4—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.50 .76 .30 .56 .31

5—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.34 .75 .38 .62 .28

6-2 Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.89 .81 .50 .52 .25

7-CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.47 .55 .47 .71 .19

8-CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.39 .57 .45 .52 .25

9-M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.46 -. 59 .47 .66 .25

10-M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.45 .56 .38 .71 .26

11—CaM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.82 .54 .38 .43 .25

12-CaM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.39 - .71 .37 .46 .29
TABLE 24. PER CENT POTASH IN CROPS ON SOIL 4649.
Corn Sor hum Corn Corn
Additions 1911 1 11 1912 1913
1-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 .63 .36 .52

2-Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.92 .55 .39 .67

3-2 Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.52 .64 .20 .37

4—CaS . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .03

5-2 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73 .50 .25 .37

7-M2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .84 1.29 .22 .33
TABLE 25. PER CENT POTASH IN CROPS ON SOIL 4601.
Corn Sorghum Corn Sorghum Corn
Additions 1911 1 11 1912 1 12 1913
1-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 .39 .54 .38 . 12

2-Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.15 .54 .68 .50 .31

3-2 Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.25 .61 .50 .37 .27

Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.69 .50 .59 .32 .21

5-2 Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.48 .59 .52 .62 .38

M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.16 .39 .46 .65 .34

7-M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.40 .40 .56 .52 .31

8-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.07 .56 .55 .40 .34

9-Mg . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.25 .45 .56 .39 .31

10—MgCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.63 .68 .57 .60 .26

11—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 . 18 .48 .53 . . . . . . . . . .. .41

12-2 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.41 .41 .59 . . . . . . . . .. .46
TABLE 26. COMPOSITION. PER CENT POTASH SOIL 2349.
_ Sorghum Sorghum Corn Sor hum Corn
Addit1ons 1 11 1 11 1912 1 12 1913 Total
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.74 1.18 .57 .54 ‘ .30 4.33

2-Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.07 1.44 .90 .66 .39 5.46

3-2 Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.00 1.44 1.49 .73 .46 6.12

4—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.88 1.25 1.21 . . . . . . . . .. .76 5.10

5-2 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.06 1.20 1.79 .93 .68 6.66

6-Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.38 1.28 .51 .39 .33 4.89

7-2 Mg . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.02 1.40 .94 .63 .49 5.48

8—Manure . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 71 1.43 .68 .83 .42 5 .07

The percentages of potash in the crops are also found to decrease
Thus, in Soil No. 4599, the per-

with each successive CI'Op grown.

centage of potash with the first crop, no addition, is 1.41, and with the

20 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

last crop, both of thembeing corn, is 0.35. The same general tend-
ency is manifest in all the crops, there being a high percentage in the
first crop and a low percentage in the last. The first crops evidently
took up an excess of potash, when the amount of active potash in the
soil Was larger. As the quantity of active potash decreased, the per-
centage of potash taken up by the plant also decreased. We have
pointed out this‘ fact in other publications. The percentage of potash
in the crops can in fact be taken to represent very roughly the defi-
ciency of the soil in potash, provided the crop is a normal crop and
is grown under normal conditions. The relation between the active
potash of the soil and the potash content of the crop is brought out in
Table 3'7. The relation holds only in a general Way, since with the

_ same quantity of active potash in the soil any influence which reduces

the size of the crop may increase the percentage of potash in it.

TABLE 27. GRAMS POTASH TAKEN UP BY CROPS, "SOIL 1809.

Corn Sor- Corn Sor- Corn Sor- Corn Aver- Gain
1909 ghum 1910 ghum 1911 ghum 1912 Total. age. over 0.
1909 1910 1911
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759 1489 2730 .1935 0738 0638 0514 1 .5634 . . . . . . . . . . . .

2-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 1406 2442 .2074 0762 0902 0701 1 .6333 1.5984 . . . . . .

3-Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545 1487 2383 .1520 0422 1100 0167 1.2529 . . . . . . . . . . . .

4—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . 656 1011 2550 .1950 0904 1245 0312 1.4532 1.3531 0

5—XCa . . . . . . . . . . . 648 1297 3280 .2122 0693 1231 0534 1 .5637 . . . . . . . . . . . .

6-XCa . . . . . . . . . . . 742 0912 3542 . 1845 0809 0912 0439 1.5879 1.5758 0

7-S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806 1117 2847 .2184 1275 0617 0260 1.6360 . . . . . . . . . . . .

8—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811 1207 3016 .1856 0882 0926 0483 1 .6480 1.6420 0436

9—XS . . . . . . . . . . . . 767 1090 3060 .2101 0721 0520 0418 1.5580 . . . . . . . . . . . .

10—XS . . . . . . . . . . . . 825 0921 3509 .1803 0510 0952 0464 1.6409 1.5995 0011

11—N a . . . . . . . . . . . . 834 1256 2465 .2399 0528 0790 0503 1 .6281 . . . . . . . . . . . .

12-Na . . . . . . . . . . . . 765 1182 2442 .1554 0422 1068 0277 1.4592 1.5437 0

13-—2Na . . . . . . . . . . 883 1180 2040 .1678 0144 0090 0418 1.43 . . . . . . . . . . . .

14~2Na . . . . . . . . . . . 849 1249 1456 .1273 0230 0024 0093 1.2815 1.3598 0

15—-H . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793 1314 2580 .2678 0414 0988 0594 1.6498 . . . . . . . . . . . .

16—H . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906 1339 2798 .2225 0964 1085 0228 1 7699 1.7099 1115

17—VH . . . . . . . . . . . . 804 1061 2552 .1764 0770 0769 0396 1 5352 . . . . . . . . . . . .

18-VH . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 1183 3124 1835 0568 1022 0410 1 6192 1.5772 0

19-CaH . . . . . . . . . . . 781 1297 2769 1912 1016 0950 0429 1 6175 . . . . . . . . . . . .

20—CaH . . . . . . . . . . . 794 1334 2720 2101 0739 0975 0352 1 .6161 1.6168 0184

21—CaVH . . . . . . . . . .801 .0907 .2635 .1618 .0762 .0984 .0151 1.5067 . . . . . . . . . . . .
22—CaVH. . . .. . . . .. .693 .1039 .2407 .1870 .1197 .0690 .0389 1.45221.4795 0

TABLE 28. GRAMS POTASH TAKEN FROM SOIL 1956.

Corn Sorghum Corn Sorghum Corn Gain

1909 1909 1910 1910 1911 Total. Average. over 0.
1-O 291 0549 . 1578 . 1102 0800 693 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2-0. . . 253 0655 . 1185 .0985 0387 5742 6341 . . . . . . . .
3—Ca. . . 279 0624 . 1400 . 1469 0580 683 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4—Ca , 340 0689 .0910 . 1617 0506 7122 6778 0637
5—XCa . . . . . . . . 360 0603 .1355 .1530 0803 7891 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6~XCa . . . . . . . . 336 0664 .1421 .1830 0501 7776 7834 1493

7-S . . . . . . . . . . . 326 0409 .0162 .0348 0221 4400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8—S . . . . . . . . . . . 341 0407 .1885 .1665 0518 7855 6128 0

9—XS . . . . . . . . . 344 0489 .0891 .0050 0284 5082 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10—XS . . . . . . . . . 235 0672 .2466 .1134 0609 7231 6157 0

l1—Na . . . . . . . . . 355 0684 .2290 .0492 . . . . . . . . 7016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12—Na . . . . . . . . . 200 0010 .0910 .0932 0163 4015 5516 0

13—2Na . . . . . . . 310 0469 .0874 .1452 0588 6483 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14-2Na 183 0511 1414 0487 . . . . . . . . 4242 5363 0

15—-H . . . . . . . . . . 392 0537 1475 1045 0691 7668 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16—H . . . . . . . . . . 289 0516 .1350 0594 0207 5557 6613 0272

17—VH . . . . . . . . . 277 0571 .1387 0518 0704 5950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18—VH . . . . . . . . . 175 0494 .1040 0302 . . . . . . . . 3558 4754 0

19—CaH . . . . . . . . 272 0674 .1649 1655 0714 7412 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0- . . . . . . . . 266 0682 1507 1193 0509 6551 6982 0641

21—XCaVH. . . . . .299 .0406 . 1505 . 1693 .0595 .7189 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22—XCaVH. . . . . . 262 .0493 . 1574 .1162 .0707 .6556 . 6873 .0532

 

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 21
TABLE 29. GRAMS POTASH FROM SOIL 2353.
C S h C G ' P 'll'_
orn org um orn am er m1 10n
1911 1911 1912 Total. over 0 from soil
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3831 .0787 .0255 .4873 . . . . . . . . . . 65
2—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4168 . 1040 .0226 . 5434 .0561 72
3—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3944 .0583 0147 .4674 0 62
4—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4193 .1029 0159 .5381 .0508 72
TABLE 30. GRAMS POTASH FROM SOIL 4579.
Sor- Sor- Per

Corn ghum Corn ghum Corn Total. Aver- Gain million

1911 1911 1912 1912 1913 age. over 0. of soil.

1--O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4653 . 1670 1557 .0407 .0967 .9254 8900 . . . . . . 128

2-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3939 .1771 1265 .0439 .1131 .8545 . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4704 1564 1044 .0680 .1111 9103 8766 0 126

4—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4514 1834 0574 .0354 . 1154 .8430 . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

5—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4954 1637 0685 .0367 .1228 .8871 8871 0 122

6—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4684 1544 .1044 .0528 *.0894 .8694 8694 0 121

7—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5273 .1780 .0973 .0496 *. 1086 9608 9110 .0210 133

8—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4292 .2087 0699 .0449 *.1086 .8613 . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

9—MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4803 1592 0922 .0439 * . 1047 8803 8803 0 124
*Assumed.
TABLE 31. GRAMS OF POTASH FROM SOIL 4583.

Sor- Sor- Gain Parts

Corn ghum Corn ghum Corn Total. Aver- Gain over per
1911 1911 1912 1912 1913 age. M million
of so' .
.3286 .0386 .0435 0104 .0564 .4775 .4554 . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

.2894 .0320 .0459 0131 .0529 .4333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

.2985 .0669 .0497 .0576 0550 .5277 .4835 .0281 . . . . . . 71

.2866 .0377 .0410 .0265 .0474 .4392 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2139 .0484 .0406 0274 .0903 .4206 .4206 0 . . . . . . 57

.3334 .0238 .0262 . . . . . .0380 .4214 .421 0 . . . . . . 57

.2877 .0360 .0508 .0077 .0875 .4697 .4698 0134 . . . . . . 63

.3029 .0386 .0437 0074 .0772 .4698 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
.3029 .0562 .0381 0346 0637 .4955 .4955 .0401 . 0267 67
TABLE 32. GRAMS OF POTASH FROM SOIL 4599.
Sor- Sor- Per

Corn ghum Corn ghum Corn Total. Aver- Gain million

1911 1911 1912 1912 1913 age. over 0. of soil
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5908 0990 .0595 .0428 .0470 .8391 .8955 . . . . . . 110

2-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6204 1280‘ .0855 .0517 .0662 .9518 . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6252 .1017 .0258 .0452 .0731 .8710 .8972 .0016 115

4—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6561 .0925 .0364 .0487 0897 9234 . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

5—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6185 1186 .0470 .0367 0537 .8745 8862 0 115

6—2Ca. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6046 1277 .0454 .0547 .0665 .8989 . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

7—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4446 0766 0540 .0458 0543 . 6753 7793 0 90

8—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6617 0748 .0538 .0290 0640 .8833 . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6125 1076 .0433 .0416 .0512 .8562 .8616 0 112

10-M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6139 .0898 .0517 .0475 .0641 .8670 . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

11—MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6004 1275 0606 .0433 .0826 .9144 9104 0149 120

12-MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5994 1277 0602 .0515 0672 .9060 . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.
TABLE 33. GRAMS OF POTASH FROM SOIL 4642.
Sor- Sor- Per -
Corn ghum Corn ghum Corn Total. Aver- Gain million
1911 1911 1912 1912 1913 age. over 0. of soil.
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5410 1940 0542 .0669 .0515 9076 9009 . . . . . . 153

2-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5434 .1725 .0707 .0713 .0363 .8942 . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

3—Ca. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4590 .2331 0803 .0745 .0824 .9293 .9413 .0404 156

4—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5070 1976 0846 .1036 0605 9533 . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

5-2_Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4750 2145 1068 .0763 .0728 .9454 9444 .0435 160

6—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4990 2114 1100 .0686 .0545 .9435 . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

7—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5762 .1898 .0691 *.0334 .0369 9054 9128 .0119 153

8—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5782 .2058 0833 . 0156 .0473 9302 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 57

—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4979 .2000 1537 .0726 .0590 .9832 9830 .0821 166

M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5206 .2425 .0798 .0816 .0582 . 9827 . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

11—CaM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5223 1755 .0901 .0477 .0798 9154 9340 .0331 155

12-CaM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5129 1775 1110 .0851 .0661 9526 . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
*CaO also
TABLE 34. GRAMS OF POTASH FROM SOIL 4649.
Corn Sor hum Corn Corn Gain Pqr
1911 1 11 1912 1913 Total. over 0. million
of soil.
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1813 .0372 .0097 .0338 .2620 . . . . . . . . 33

2—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1518 .0484 .0206 .0516 .2724 0104 34

3-2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1702 .0320 0100 .0281 .2385 0 30

4—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2033 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0278 .2311 0 29

5-2CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1978 0 25

—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2154 . 0690 . 0112 . 0951 3907 . 1287 49

7—M2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1656 .0619 .0229 .0617 3121 .0501 39

TABLE 35. GRAMS OF POTASH FROM SOIL 4601,
Sor- Sor- Per

Corn ghum Corn ghum Corn Total. Aver- Gain million

1911 1911 1912 1912 1913 age. over 0. of soil

1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2928 .1151 .0410 0103 .0209 .4801 .5245 . . . . . . 66

2—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2679 . 1361 . 0347 .0990 . 1029 . 6406 . 6406 1161 88

3-2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2950 1440 .0260 .0326 .0497 .5473 .5473 .0128 73

4—Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3160 1410 .0478 .0355 .0472 .5875 .5805 .0555 80

5—2Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2723 1628 0432 .0564 .0494 .5841 .5841 .0596 80

6—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3039 1053 0428 .0065 .0772 .5357 5868 0223 73

7—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3388 .1204 .0571 0531 0704 6398 . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

8-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3285 .0854 .0478 .0508 0564 5689 . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

9-M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2487 1364 .0532 .0452 .0899 5734 . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

10-MgCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2201 .1516 .0365 0774 .0429 .5285 .5285 .0040 72

11—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3257 .0931 .0350 . . . . . . .0480 .5018 .5018 0,- 69

12-2CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3173 1140 .0378 . . . . .. .0412 5103 5103 0 70
TABLE 36. GRAMS POTASH FROM SOIL 2349.
- Per
Sorghum Sorghum Corn Sorghum Corn Gain million
1 11 911 1912 912 1913 Total over 0 of soil.
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5359 0660 . 1795 .0254 1245 . 9313 . . . . . . . . 121

2—Ca . . . . . . . . . . 2753 0288 .3285 1049 1634 .9009 . . . . . . . . 116

3-2Ca . . . . . . . . 1420 0187 .4738 1044 1932 .9321 0 121

4—CaS . . . . . . . . . .4437 0125 . 1912 . . . . . . . . 1322 7796 0 101

5-2CaS . . . . . . . .3419 0120 .2202 .0316 1442 .7499 0 96

6—Mg . . . . . . . . . . . 3832 . 1152 . 2525 .0304 . 1452 . 9265 0 120

7-2M . . . . . . . . .2121 .0336 .4239 .0882 . 1068 .8646 0 112

8—Manure . . . . . . .5917 .0257 1809 .0623 1470 1 .0076 .0763 131

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 23"-

TABLE 37. RELATION OF PERCENTAOGFE SOOFHPOTASH IN CROP TO ACTIVE POTASH

Per cent Active Potash
Laboratory Number. Potash in of soils per
crop. 1111111011.
First Crops.
4649 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 74

4583 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 83

1956 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96 105

2353 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 106

2349 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 74 113

4601 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 118

4599 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.41 136

4579 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 159

4642 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.47 169

1809 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.85 220
Per cent Residual
Laboratory Number. Potash 1n Active Potash
crop. per million.
Last Crops.
4649 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 36

4579 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 43

4583 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 48

4601 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 49

2349 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 49

4642 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 58

4599 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 60

1956 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59. 78

1809 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 91

TABLE 38. ACTIVE POTASH IN SOIL AT END OF EXPERIMENT, AND REMOVED
BY CROPS—PARTS PER MILLION OF SOIL.

No Addition Carbonate of Lime
Laboratory Number. _ Removed _ Removed
- In so1l. by crops. In so1l. by crops.
1290 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 54 54 62

1809 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 320 77 220

1956 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 122 74 139

4579 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 118 41 118

4583 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 62 ' 41 65

4599 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 123 67 121

4642 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 152 61 159

4649 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 33 34 34

4601 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 ~ 66 49 88

2349 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 121 50 116

THE EFFECT OF CROPPING ON THE ACTIVE POTASH IN THE SOIL.

After the experiments were completed, the soils were brought to the-
laboratory for analysis. The results of some of the analyses are given-
in Tables 39-47.

The eifect of the additions did not increase the active potash of the-
soil, remaining after the crops were gathered. In the case of car-
bonate of lime, this is summarized in Table 38. In every case, the
quantity of active potash remaining at the end of the experiment was
practically the same with or without carbonate of lime, excepting in-
Soil No. 1809, in which there appears to have been a greate-r loss of

24 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

potash than the analysis would show. According to these results, the
addition of carbonate of lime did not have any effect upon the quan-
tity of active potash in the soil remaining at the end of the experi-
ment. This is in confirmation of what has previously been said;
namely, that the addition of carbonate of lime had little efieot upon

the potash of the soil.

TABLE 39. LOSSES OF ACTIVE POTASH, PER MILLION OF SOIL 1290.

Per cen_t lost
_ _ _ _ _ Removed by soil 1n per
Additions to Original. In soil Loss by soil. by crops. cent of that
removed.
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.9 49 67

2-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.6 58 5O

3—Cobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.4 70 37

4—Cobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.2 71 34

.5—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 .4 64 78

'6—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.4 58 36

‘7—Saw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.9 48 72

’8—Saw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66,2 52 46

9-H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.5 41 29

H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78.6 46 26

ll-HCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.6 52 75

~12—HCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.0 54 64

Average. . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.5 55 48

Original soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0

"IABLE 40. LOSSES OF ACTIVE POTASH PER MILLION OF SOILS 1908 AND 1956.

1809 1956

‘ Lost by Lost by
Additions to Loss by Removed soil in % Removed Loss by soil in %

original. In soil. soil. of that ' . by crops. soil. of that
removed removed
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . 98. 1 122 39 .4 138 31 22

2-0 . . . . . . . . . . . 83.8 136 42 .9 115 23 20

3—Ca . . . . . . . . .. 81.9 138 55 .7 136 31 23

4—Ca . . . . . . . . .. 72.5 147 51 .6 142 26 18

B-XCa . . . . . . . . 95.0 125 40 .1 158 37 23

6—XCa . . . . . . . . 75.0 145 46 .0 155 38 25

7-—S . . . . . . . . . . . 83.7 136 42 .9 88 33 38

8—S . . . . . . . . . . . 107.5 112 34 .2 157 34 22

9-XS . . . . . . . .. 110.0 110 25 .3 102 0

10—XS . . . . . . . .. 6.6 133 41 .8 144 1 1

l1—Na . . . . . . . .. 103.8 116 36 .5 140 12 9

12—Na . . . . . . . . . 95.6 124 42 .0 80 5 6

13-2 Na . . . . . . .. 106.9 113 39 .0 129 15 12

14-2 Na . . . . . . .. 106.3 114 46 .3 84 9 11

l —H . . . . . . . . .. 119.4 101 31 .2 153 32 21

16-H . . . . . . . . .. 102.5 117 33 .8 112 11 98

17—VH . . . . . . . . . 85.6 134 44 .5 120 27 22

18-VH . . . . . . . . . 93. 1 127 39 .4 71 6 8

19—CaH . . . . . . .. 103.8 116 36 .9 148 28 19

20-—CaH . . . . . . .. 108.1 112 35 .9 131 28 21

21—CaVH . . . . . . 106.3 114 38 .5 143 22 15

'22—CaVH . . . . . . 101.2 119 41 .7 131 26 20

Average . . . . . . . . 92. . 123 40 . .5 126 22 21

~Original soil . . . . 220 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . y. 5

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 25
TABLE 41. LOSSES OF ACTIVE POTASH PER MILLION OF SOIL 4599.
Parts per million. Lost by
_ _ _ _ ' soil in %
Additions to or1g1nal. _ Removed. Loss by of that
In so1l. by crops. soil. removed.
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.4 110 87 79

2—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.6 125 99 79

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.5 115 91 79

4—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.7 121 97 79

5—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.2 115 100 87

6—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.9 118 99 84

7—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0 90 101 112

8—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.5 117 98 84

M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 .2 112 95 85

M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 .2 115 105 91

11-MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 120 103 86

12—MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.0 119 96 81

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.3 115 98 86

Original‘ soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
TABLE 42. LOSSES OF ACTIVE POTASH PER MILLION OF SOIL 4583.
Parts per million. L_0s_t by
_ _ so11 1n %
Additions to original. _ Removed. Loss_ by of that
In so1l. by crops. so1l. removed.
1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 .4 64 34 53

2-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 .9 59 36 61

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.0 71 41 58

4—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.0 60 43 72

5—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.6 57 46 81

6—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.2 57 21 37

—-M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.4 63 39 62

8—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 .3 63 42 67

9—MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 67 52 78

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.7 62 39 63

Original soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.0
TABLE 43. LOSSES OF ACTIVE POTASH PER MILLION OF SOIL 2349.
Parts per million. L_0s_t by
_ _ so1l1n %
Additions to orlginal. _ Removed. Loss_ by of that
In so1l. by crops. so1l. removed.
1-O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.1 121 64 53

2—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.0 116 63 54

3—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.9 121 5O 41

4—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.3 101 57 56

5-2CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.4 96 69 72

6—Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.2 120 62 52

7—2Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.3 112 57 51

8—Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . 51 .3 131 62 47

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.7 115 61 53

Original soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

26

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

TABLE 44. LOSSES OF ACTIVE POTASH PER MILLION OF SOIL 4642.

Parts per million. Lost by
_ _ _ soil in %
Additlong to orlginal. Removed. Loss by of thati
In soil. by ‘crops. soil. removed.
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.6 153 108 71

2-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.9 151 112 74

3-Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.2 156 105 67

4—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58. 1 162 111 69

5—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.6 160 108 68

6—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.9 160 102 64

7—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.5 153 121 79

8-CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.0 157 101 64

9-M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.6 166 109 66

10—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.2 166 108 65

11-MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61.2 155 108 70

12-MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.8 162 108 67

Average . . _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.6 158 108 69

Original SO11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
TABLE 45. LOSSES OF ACTIVE POTASH PER MILLION OF SOIL 4579.
Parts per million. L_<>s_t b
soil 1n o
Additions to original. Removed. Losq by of that
In soil. by crops. soil. removed.
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.0 128 99 77

O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.6 119 98 82

3—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.6 126 81 64

4—Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.7 117 95 82

5—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.7 122 100 82

6—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.1 121 106 88

7—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.0 133 84 63

8—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.6 121 92 76

9—MCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.6 124 83 67

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64.9 123 93 76

Ongmal soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159.0

TABLE 46. LOSSES OF AOTIVE POTASH PER MILLION OF SOIL 4601.

Parts per million. Lps_t by
so1l 1n %
Additions to original. Removed. Loss_ by 0f that
In soil. by crops. SO11. removed.
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 .2 66 66 100

2-Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.5 88 7O 30

3—2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.4 73 69 95

4—Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.6 so 67 84

5-2Mg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.4 80 69 86

6—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.8 73 54 74

7—M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.5 88 45 51

8-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.9 78 71 91

9—Mg. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.0 78 68 37

10—MgCa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.5 72 65 90

ll-CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.5 69 40 58

12—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.5 7O 55 79

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 76 62 81

Original soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 2”.’

TABLE 47. LOSSES OF ACTIVE POTASH PER MILLION OF SOIL 4649.

Parts per million. Lpst by
_ _ _ , s01l 1n%
Additions to original. _ Removed. Loss by of that
In s01l. ‘by crops. soil. Removed.
1-0 . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.2 33 38 115

C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 . 7 34 4O 1 18

3-2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.7 30 40 133

C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.0 29 34 117

5-2CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 .2 25 43 1 2

M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.5 49 41

7—M2Ca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.6 39 44 113

Average. u. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . 34.0 34 , 40 122

Original s01l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

In the experiments on Soils Nos. 1290, 1909, and 1956, the addi-
tions of sugar humus have apparently increased the active potash of
the soil. This occurs with two of the three experiments. In the case
of manure, however, in a subsequent experiment, there is no relation to
be traced between the addition of manure and the amount of active
potash. That is to say, the active potash apparently was not affected
by the addition of manure.

Study of the tables brings out clearly the fact that carbonate of
lime, sulphate of lime, and similar additions, have no such effect ‘upon
the quantity of potash removed by crops, as has been claimed by Hus-
ton, for example.

In Tables 39-47, inclusive, we have included the quantity of active‘.

potash in the soil at the end of the experiment, the quantity lost by
the soil during the experiment, and the quantity removed by the crop.
All this is stated in parts per million of the soil.

The quantities removed by the crops are, with only one or two ex-
ceptions, larger than those lost by the soil. We have expressed this
relation in per cent. of the quantity taken up by the crop. Thus, with
no addition, Soil No. 1290 contained 57 parts per million at the end
of the experiment, and as the original content was 90, the quanti.ty
lost by the soil was 33. The crop, however, took up 49 parts per mil-
lion, so that the potash lost by the soil is 6'7 per cent. of that taken
up by the crop.

The quantity of active potash lost by the soil is less than the quan-
tity taken up by the crop for two reasons. '

In the first place, the active potash does not represent all the easily
soluble potash, since subsequent extractions will remove additional
quantities. Further, some of the active potash represents difficultly in-
soluble potash compounds. (See Bulletin 145 of this Station.)

In the second place, a portion of the potash taken up by plants
comes from the insoluble potash. (Bulletin 145.)

Thus with a large amount of active potash in the soil, a great p-ro-
portion of the potash taken up by the plant comes from it. Also the

" crop contains more potash, and the active potash rapidly decreases.

The potash lost from the soil is thus a high percentage of that re-
moved by the crop. This may be seen, for example, with Soil No. 4599,
Table 41.

28 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

With a small amount of active potash in the soil, a larger propor-
tion of the potash removed from the crop comes from the insoluble
potash. The soil after continued cropping may lose practically all its
active potash, and the potash taken up by the crops then comes from
the insoluble potash compounds. This condition has probably been
reached by most of the soils used in this experiment, and the quantity
of active potash at the end of the experiment proabably represents, in
most cases, the potash dissolved by the acid solvent from the insoluble
potash.

PREPARATION OF SUGAR HUMUS.

As a quantity of sugar humus was needed in the Work just described,
and the literature available gave no description of the method to be
used, we made some study of the method. -

To ascertain the conditions which give the best yield of humus from
sugar, the following experiments were undertaken. Varying conditions
Were studied as described below.

Three grams of commercial granulated sugar were used in every in-
stance. The sugar with the desired amount of acid of the required
strength was introduced into a 200 c.c. Erlenmeyer flask fitted with a
reflux condenser and digested in a. boiling water bath for the desired
time.

Hydrochloric and sulphuric acids were used, as it is not desired to
risk contamination of the humus by nitric acid. The different con-

-centrations were made bydilution of a 10 per cent. solution prepared

by titration.
After digestion, the humus was filtered on a weighed gooch, washed
four times with water, and dried in a water oven to constant Weight.

241A TABLE 48. EFFECT OF TIME.

Time of Strength of Acid. Per Cent
Sugar Used. Digestion. Volume of Acid. (Per Cent.) of Humus.

3 grams 1 hour 5O c.c. HCl 10 3.55

3 grams 2 hours 5O c.c. HCl 1O 5.49

3 grams 5 hours 5O c.c. HCl 10 6.12

3 grams 10 hours 5O c.c. HCl 10 r 7.18

3 grams 2O hours 50 c.c. HCl 1O 8.40

241B TABLE 49. STRENGTH OF ACID.

Time of Strength ofAcid Per Cent
Sugar Used. Digestion. Volume of Acid. (Per Cent) of_Humus.

3 grams 5 hours 5O c.c. HCl 1 0.37

3 grams 5 hours 50 c.c. HCl 5 3.86

3 grams 5 hours 50 c.c. H2SO4 5 1.52

3 grams 5 hours 50 c.c. HCl 10 6.30

3 grams 5 hours 50 c.c. HCl Concentrated 30.40

TEXAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. '29

241C TABLE 50. RATIO OF ACID TO SUGAR.
Time of l Strength of Acid. Per Cent
Sugar Used. Digestion. Volume of Acid. (Per Cent.) of Humus.
3 grams 5 hours 3O c.c. HCl 10 8.83
3 grams 5 hours 5O c.c. HCl 1O 6.48
3 grams 5 hours 100 c.c. HCl 10 4.88
3 grams 5 hours 200 c.c. HCl 1O 3.29

A supplementary experiment was made vvith concentrated hydro-
chloric acid in the same manner as 241A to test the effect of time of
digestion for the formation of humus.

241A TABLE 51. EFFECT OF TIME.
Time of Strength of Acid. t Per Cent
' Sugar Used. Digestion. Volume of Acid. (Per Cent.) y of Humus.
3 grams 1 hour 5O c.c. HCl Concentrated 28.70
3 grams 2 hours‘ 5O c.c. HCl Concentrated 28.05
3 grams ' 5 hours 5O c.c. HCl Concentrated 28.88
3 grams 1O hours 50 c.c. HCl Concentrated 30.07
3 grams 20 hours 5O c.c. HCl Concentrated 39.74

The following method of preparation was adopted: Weigh 400
grams of sugar in a flask, add 2000 c.c. concentrated hydrochloric acid,
and heat two hours in a boiling Water bath. Then dilute with cold
Water, filter off, Wash thoroughly, and dry.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

Analytical and other Work in connection With this bulletin has‘ been
done bv Messrs. S. E. Asbury, J. B. Kelly, J. B. Rather, J. T. Auten,
N. C. Hamner, T. L. Ogier, and perhaps other members of the staff.

SUMMARY AND CON OLUSIONS.

1. These experiments Were designed to ascertain the effect of car-
bonate of lime and other additions upon the potash removed by crops
upon eleven soils (luring several years.

2. Gains of potash due to the addition of carbonate of lime or or-
ganic matter are comparatively small and probably come from the in-
soluble potash of the soil.

3. The active potash of the soil needs no addition of carbonate of
lime, as it is already highly available.

4. Sulphate of soda and gypsum are often injurious.

5. Plants take up an excess of potash. Thepercentage of potash

‘in the plants decreases as the amount of active potash in the soil de-

creases.
6. Additions of carbonate of lime did not increasethe quantity of
active potash remaining in the soil at the end of the experiments.

30 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION.

7. The quantity of active potash lost is 60 to 90 per cent. of that
taken up by the crop, until the active potash is reduced so that the
potash removed actually comes from insoluble potash compounds and
not from the active potash. .

8. Active potash may be readily and rapidly removed by crops down
to the quantity‘ representing the potash from highly insoluble com-
pounds.

9. Additions of sulphate of lime, nitrate of soda, or other salts
have no such effect upon rendering potash available to plants as has
been claimed. a They would have only a slight effect.

10. Conditions affecting the yield of sugar humus are studied, and
a. method for preparing it is described.