THE MAGNESEUM STATUS OF MKHIGAN SOILS AND THE EFFECT OF SEVERAL MAGNESIUM SOURCES ON THE YIELD AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITEON OF CROPS Thesis {or Hm Degree of DH. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Leslie W. Tobin 1960 WUlNHlII“IUHII'HIIIWIIWIHQH\lWlllHlHfl 3 1293 103949 This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Magnesium Status of Michigan Soils and the Effect of Several Magnesium Sources on the Yield and Chemical Composition of Crops presented by Leslie W. Tobin has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph D degree in SQil Science ’*-9~__ «f/(LKXJ J ‘1: '."'“"\, Major professor Date MEL—LL 0-169 J LIBRAR;1 Michigan State I.) Universityj —— — «*I—u— MSU LIBRARIES 4‘— RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wil] be charged if book is returned after the date stamped beIow. 194-57 THE MAGNESIUM STATUS OF MICHIGAN SOILS AND THE EFFECT OF SEVERAL MAGNESIUM SOURCES ON THE YIELD AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CROPS BY \ v x ,(‘ Leslie w:“Tobin A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Soil Science 1960 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to Dr. R. L. Cook, Dr. Kirk Lawton, and Dr. J. F. Davis for their encouragement, guidance, and support during the time this work was conducted. Acknowledgment is given to J. Porter, P. J. Rood, E. D. Longnecker, S. M. King, G. Wright, and C. Carter for their assistance with the field work. The writer is grateful to K. N. Satyapal and K. Kinra for their valuable assistance with the laboratory work. ' Sincere appreciation is expressed to J. Schickluna under whose supervision the soil tests were conducted. Acknowledgment is also given to various County Extension Agents, graduate students, and other members of the Soil Science Department who may have been of assistance at one time or another during the course of this study. To my wife, I express my gratitude for her encouragement and financial assistance. ' The financial support given this project by the International Minerals and Chemical Company was greatly appreciated. *>l<*>’.<****** ii THE MAGNESIUM STATUS OF MICHIGAN SOILS AND THE EFFECT OF SEVERAL MAGNESIUM SOURCES ON THE YIELD AND CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CROPS q‘\ BY (0 Leslie W.°(Tobin AN AB ST RAC T Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Soil Science 1960 Approved /\,.JL. 4... Lug/Cch/k ABSTRACT A field study was conducted over a three year period with various crops to evaluate the effect of magnesium fertilization on crop yield and mineral composition. Fourteen different crops were grown on 37 different soil types in 41 counties of Michigan. Treatments consisted, for the most part, of two soluble magnesium carriers applied broadcast at the rate of 100 pounds elemental magnesium per ac re. Soil samples collected previously to fertilization were analyzed for exchangeable bases, and fresh plant samples, collected during the growing season and dried plant tissue collected at harvest, were analyzed for magnesium, potassium, and calcium. In general, yields of most crops at the 125 locations were un— affected by soil treatments of magnesium from either magnesium source. In a few cases, yields were increased 10 percent or more by one of the magnesium sources, but rarely did this occur with both magnesium carriers for the same trial. Depressions in yield occurred in about as many instances as yield increases. Soil test results showed that over one-half of the coarse textured soils sampled contained less than five percent magnesium on the exchange complex in the surface layer. In contrast, the exchange complex of about three-fourths of the fine textured soils had a magnesium saturation of 10 to 20 percent. - About 15 percent of the coarse textured Ii soils and five percent of the fine textured soils showed calciurn- magnesium ratios exceeding 20:1. In spite of the fact that many of the soils were relatively low in native magnesium and contained wide calciurn-magnesiurn ratios, crop yields were not affected. iv Chemical analyses of the fresh and dry plant tissue revealed that the magnesium content of most of the crops was appreciably in- creased at many of the locations by applications of one or both magnes- ium carriers. Significant increases in magnesium composition occurred in fresh potato tissue in 1957 with magnesium sulfate applications and in dry potato tissue with both magnesium sulfate and Sul-Po-Mag in this same year. In addition, a significant increase in the uptake of magnesium was observed in dry cucumber plants by applications of both magnesium carriers in 1957. The application of 400 pounds of magnesium per acre as magnesium sulfate in 1958 to field corn and sweet corn showed a significant increase of magnesium content in both the fresh and dry tissue tests. These changes in magnesium composition failed to affect the yield. Results show that the magnesium composition of the plant was affected, to some degree, by the amount of exchangeable magnesium in the soil. _ A significant correlation between soil and plant magnesium occurred in the case of dry field bean and potato plants. No definite relationship between magnesium and potassium in the dry plant tissue was observed with the exception of potatoes. Here, a significant negative correlation of these two elements was obtained with the magnesium sulfate treatment. The potassium-magnesium ratios in the dried plant material varied from 3:1 to 11:1 for different crops. The results of this investigation would indicate that the application of soluble magnesium on most agronomic crops grown on the fine tex- tured soils in Michigan is not necessary at this time. Tests do show that many coarse textured soils of the state are relatively low in exchangeable magnesium, and applications of either dolomitic limestone where lime is needed, or use of fertilizer which contains magnesium could insure against possible magnesium deficiencies occurring in the future . II. III . IV. VI. VII . VIII . IX. 9 X1. TABLE OF CONTENTS . INTRODUCTION ...................... REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................ METHODS AND MATERIALS ............... CROP YIELD RESULTS . . . ............... . RAPID SOIL TESTS OF EXPERIMENTAL SOILS. ,° . . . CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY AND EXCHANGEABLE BASES ......................... RELATION OF PERCENT MAGNESIUMSATURATION AND CALCIUM-MAGNESIUM RATIOS WITH CROP YIELD RESPONSE TO MAGNESIUM FERTILI- ZATION .......... _. .......... . > ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF FRESH TISSUE TESTS . DISCUSSION OF DRY TISSUE ANALYSES ......... . TOTAL REMOVAL OF NUTRIENTS FROM THE SOIL . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............. PLATES . . . ....................... LITERATURE CITED ................... APPENDIX ......................... vi Page 13 23 35 38 46 49 65 85 86 91 92 97 TABLE 10. LIST OF TABLES Page . Number of locations by cr0ps for magnesium experi- ments for each of the years indicated. . ........ . Treatments and application rates for magnesium field trials by years. . ................ . . Average crop yields of magnesium field trials by treatment for all years ................ . Locations at which crop yields were affected by various magne sium treatments ............ . The positive or negative re8ponse in crop yield from fertilizer or magnesium treatments ......... . Percent of crop locations showing positive yield response to magnesium treatments ........... . The pH and the ranges and ave rages for available phos- phorus and potassium extracted from experimental soils for two broad soil textural groups at two sampling depths ........ ' O O O ......... O O O O O O . Ranges and averages of exchange capacity of experi- mental soils for two broad soil textural groups at two sampling depths . . . . . . . ......... . . . . . .~ Ranges and averages of the content of exchangeable magnesium and degree of magnesium saturation in experimental soils for two broad soil textural groups at two sampling depths .......... . . . . . . . . Distribution of experimental soils according to per- cent magnesium saturation within two broad soil tex- tural groups and at two] sampling depths . . . . . . . vii 21 22 31 32 33 34 37 41 42 43 LIST OF TABLES -' Continued TABLE Page 11. Distribution of experimental soils according to calciurn-magnesium ratios within two broad soil textural groups and at two sampling depths . . . . . . 44 12. The degree of saturation of potassium and magnes- ium of the exchange complex and potassium-magnes- ium ratios in experimental soils within two broad soil textural groups and at two sampling depths. . . . 45 13. Relative r63ponse of various cr0ps to two magnesium carriers as related to degree of magnesium satura- tion of the soil ................ . . . . . 48 14. The magnesium content of fresh tissue of various field crops for all years for specific fertilizer treatments ............... . . . . . . . . 56 15. The percent increase in magnesium in fresh tissue of several crops as affected by magnesium appli- cations ...... . ........... . ..... . 57 16. The magnesium centent of fresh leaf tissue of various crops for individual magnesium treatments grown on specified soils, 1958 ........... . 58 . I 17. The magnesium content of normal and abnormal appearing corn and sweet corn plants in fresh and dried plant tissue, 1958 ................ 59 18. Crop locations where'magnesium applications in- creased magnesium composition of fresh tissue and crop yield ............ . ........ . . 60 19. The distribution of the potassiuxn-magnesium ratios of fresh plant tissue for specified crops. ..... . 61 20. The potassium content of fresh tissue of various field crops for all years for specific fertilizer treatrnents..... .......... 62 LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. The calcium content of fresh tissue of various field crops for all years for specific fertilizer treatments . The magnesium, potassium, and calcium contents of fresh field corn and sweet corn tissue for specific magnesium treatments, 1958 . . . . . ......... The-magnesium content of dry tissue of various field crops for all years for Specific fertilizer treatments . The percent increase of magnesium in dry tissue of several crops as affected by magnesium applications . The number and percent of croplocations showing. , increased magnesium content of dry plant tissue from 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Specific magnesium treatments for all years ...... Percent of cr0p locations showing increased magnes- ium uptake in dry tissue .......... . . . . . . . The magnesium, potassium, and calcium contents of dry corn and sweet corn plants for specific magnes- ium treatments, 1958. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... Crop locations where magnesium applications in- creased magnesium composition of dry tissue and crop yield ........... . . . .......... The relation of exchangeable magnesium in soil to the magnesium content of crops ......... . The potassium content of dry tissue of various field crops for all years and for specific fertilizer treat- ments. 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 Distribution of the potassium-magne sium ratios of dry plant tissue for Specific crops .......... The calcium content of dry tissue of various field crops for all years for specific fertilizer treatments. ix Page 63 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 LIST OF TABLES -' Continued TABLE 33. 34. Page The percent phosphorus in dry plant tissue of various crops as affected by magnesium fertilizer treatments in 1957-1958. . . . . ..... . ............ 82 The amount of magnesium, calcium, and potassium removed in legume—grass hay from various magnes- ium treatments ..... . . . . . ........ . . . 85 FIGURES AND PLATES FIGURE Page 1-3. Location of crops involved in the magnesium experi- ments; 1956, 1957, and 1958 ........ p ...... 18-20 4. . Correlation of exchangeable soil magnesium and magnesium content of dry tissue of beans and potatoes-- N-P-K treatment .................... 83 5. Correlation of magnesium and potassium in dry tissue » of potato plants grown on all soils--magnesium sulfate treatment, 1957. ................ 84 PLATE 1. Abnormal corn plants in Mecosta county, 1958. . . . 91 TABLES la-3a 4a-14a 15a-20a 21a-27a 28a-44a. 45a-64a 65a APPENDIX TABLE S Page . Locations of experimental soils, 1956 to 1958. . . . . 98-103 The yield response of specific crops _to N-P-K and magnesium fertilizers at various locations in Michi- gan, 1956 to 1958. . . . ‘. .............. 104-118 The pH, available phosphorus, and potassium con— tents of experimental soils, 1956 to 1958 ...... 119-129 The pH, cation exchange capacity, cation satur- ation, and calciuIn-magnesium ratio of experi- mental soils, 1956 to 1958. ........... . . 130-146 The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh tissue of specific crops grown on soils of various textures, 1956 to 1958 ................ . . . . . ..... 147-166 The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of dry tissue of specific crops grown on soils of various textures, 1956 to 1958 . . 167-196 Instrumental conditions of the Beckrnan Spectro- photometer for the determination of potassium, calcium, and sodium .......... ‘ . '. . . . . . . . 197 xii I. INTRODUCTION Magnesium, a divalent cation, is an essential element in the growth of plants. In acid soils of the humid region in the United States, magnesium ranks third in order of adsorbed cations, being exceeded only by hydrogenand calcium ions. It is found in varying pr0portions as the carbonate in dolomite and in primary silicate soil minerals as biotite, hornblende, augite, and olivine. Magnesium is a crystal constituent of secondary silicates including talc, serpentine, chlorite, vermiculite,” illite, and montmorillonite. In addition to the above mineral sources, plants obtain their magnesium from that in exchange- able form adsorbed on the surface of clay particles and organic matter. ‘ AlthOugh the magnesium ion usually exceeds potassium on the exchange complex of most soils in the humid region, it usually follows calcium and potassium in percent composition of the plant ash. Magnesium is relatively more abundant in the leaves, young growing tips, and seeds than in the stems or roots. As a constituent of chlor0phyll, magnesium enters into the composition of green plant tissue, and thus, differs from most other cations required for plant growth. - Although the chlorophyll molecule contains 2. 7 percent magnesium, this is only a small part of the total magnesium content of leaves. In addition, magnesium is found in protoplasm and in soluble fonn in cell sap. It has been suggested that magnesium ions may be used over and over in growth so that the total supply needed by a plant is not great. If the theory of cation constancy holds in plant composition, it would be expected that certain relationships would occur between magnesium, calcium, potassium, and sodium. Also, the accumulation of magnesium and phosphorus in the seed and other storage organs of the plant indicates there is a relationship between magnesium and phosphorus in reproduction and growth. These ideas will be developed further in the next phase of this paper. . Most mineral soils contain a sufficient supply of available magnesium for most of the crops commonly grown. If a soil is lacking in magnesium, certain physiological disorders in plants appear which differ between various crop species. Generally, these symptoms are characterized by an interveinal chlorosis first occurring on the older leaves. Since the early 20's when "sand drown" of tobacco was diagnosed by McMurtney (28) as a deficiency of magnesium, magnesium starvation symptoms on other crops have shown up primarily in the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal states. It is probable that these disorders occurred here first due to the lack of magnesium bearing soil minerals in the sandy textured parent materials, the mild climate and abundant rainfall resulting in considerable leaching of the element, the use of more highly refined fertilizers, and the duration and intensity of crop pro- duction. - No definite magnesium deficiencies had been reported under field conditions on mineral soils in Michigan at the time this investi- gation was initiated. In fact, greenhouse studies by Satyapal (35) on the surface soil of 13 representative soil types of Michigan indicated there was little possibility of magnesium deficiency occurring in crops of soybeans, millet, and wheat. However, very little information on field response of crops to supplemental magnesium had been reported. It was also known that some soils appeared to be low in exchangeable magnesium. Over a period of time, considerable interest was exhibited by representatives of the fertilizer industry, the C00perative Extension Service, and the Agricultural Experiment Station as to whether some crops might respond to magnesium fertilization, especially those grown on the coarse textured soils. This study initiated in 1956 and carried out over a three year period, was an attempt to determine the magnesium status of mineral soils of Michigan. A further purpose was to evaluate any yield response to various magnesium carriers, and to determine the chemical compo- sition of the plants which might reflect both native and applied magnesium in the soil. II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE A. Characteristics of Magnesium Deficiency Magnesium deficiency symptoms have been reported on most field and vegetable crops, on some fruit trees, and occasionally on floral plants. Generally, the older leaves become chlorotic and growth is reduced. Symptoms of magnesium deficiency on some of the common crops are as follows (2): on corn, the lower leaves become chlorotic at margins and between the veins producing a streaked effect, followed by a necrosis of the chlorotic areas; the older leaves on oats turn greenish yellow and the stems weaken with a tendency to fall over; older wheat leaves show a yellow green mottling; leaves of potatoes show central interveinal chlorosis followed by necrosis and the leaves turn brittle in the final stages; bean leaves exhibit an interveinal chlorosis; leaves of soybeans are covered with small brown spots appearing mostly on the older leaves; the older sugar beet leaves become chlorotic between the veins and droop downward; red clover presents an interveinal chlorosis and a reddish brown, marginal band on the outer edges of the leaves. B .- Areas of‘Magnesiurn. Deficiency Carolus (8) of the Virginia Truck Experiment Station was among the first in the United States to recognize and investigate the correction of magnesium deficiencies on several crops. He observed that certain truck crops such as cucumbers, tomatoes, cabbage, sweet corn, and spinach, and other crops such as potatoes and field corn were the first to show magnesium deficiency. Fertilizers containing one to two percent MgO per ton for truck crops and potatoes and a lesser amount ”(about 10 pounds MgO) for sweet corn and field corn were used to correct the condition. He recommended, at that time, the building up of a reserve of 500 to 750 pounds of MgO per acre with the use of dolomite, and then maintaining it by use of fertilizers containing MgO. Field evidence indicated that magnesium influenced earlier maturity, size of root and fruit, and the general quality of themarketable crop. Deficiency symptoms have either been observed or yield responses to magnesium applications have been reported in the various states on the following crops: 1. Peach trees in North Carolina (27). 2. Most vegetable crops and on alfalfa in New Jersey (3). 3. Potatoes in Maine (9), Rhode Island (25), New York (39), and Alabama (23). 4. Potato, tobacco, and apple trees in Canada (24). 5. Blueberries in New Jersey (30) and Massachusetts (1). 6. Apple trees in New Jersey (46) and New York (6). 7. Certain varieties of celery on organic soils of Michigan (22). 8. Corn in Indiana (15). . Symptoms of magnesium deficiency in crops have also been diagnosed in Germany, Holland, Belgium, and New South Wales (44). C. Yield and Plant Composition ‘For the most part, where magnesium deficiency symptoms have appeared on crops, the application of moderate amounts of soluble magnesium or dolomitic limestone has improved appearance and yield (8, 9, 15, 17,23, 39). - Studies by Bear e_t El. (2) have shown that yield responses may occur when the magnesium saturation of the exchange complex falls below 10 percent. Graham and Powell (17) have reported similar results. A value of 10 to 15 percent has been rather widely accepted as satisfactory for normal growth of many crops. Not all crOps grown on soils apparently deficient in magnesium have re3ponded to magnesium applications (15 and 22). Usually, however, the magnesium content of the plant has been found to increase as a result of magnesium fertilization. Tucker and Smith (43) observed no increased yield of red clover with a moderate application of mag- nesium, but the application increased the magnesium composition when no potassium was used. Investigations by Seatz, Gilmore, and Sterges (38) showed no yield response of snap beans to various applications of potassium and magnesium. However, the magnesium content of bean plants did in- crease as the rate of magnesium fertilization increased, and the magnesium content was higher at the low rate of applied potassium. Windham (48) observed no increased yield of several vegetable crops, except beets, from magnesium applications made to a sandy loam soil. In this study, 50 pounds of magnesium significantly increased the magnesium content of the vines of cucurbits, tomatoes, and potatoes and the entire plants of beet, spinach, lima beans, and snap beans. Corn showing magnesium deficiency in northern Indiana did not reapond to applications of 70 pounds of magnesium per acre as long as potassium levels were moderately high according to Foy and Barber (15). The magnesium applications did reduce the symptoms and sig- nificantly increased the magnesium content in the corn leaves. Other workers have either corrected magnesium deficiency symptoms or have increased magnesium contents of crops by appli- cations of 15 pounds or more of elemental magnesium per acre (1, 4, 30, 37, and 41). In some cases, crop yields were also improved (4). D . Pota s siurnumagne sium Relationships Most recent investigations indicate that magnesium deficiency in plants develops not only at low levels of exchangeable magnesium in the soil, but also, it may be induced by a high potassium level in the soil resulting from fertilization. This relationship was observed in 1939 by Southwick (40) in an apple orchard at the Experiment Station farms at Amherst, Massachusetts. Magnesium deficiency symptoms were noted in the fall on the foliage of heavily mulched apple trees or trees which had been moderately fertilized with potassium. He concluded that 0. 25 percent magnesium in leaves was the critical level for apple trees: A Data from Boynton and Burrell (6) show that magnesium deficiency was induced in McIntosh apple trees on acid soils low in exchangeable bases as a result of three or more years of moderate potassium fertili- zation (two to five pounds KZO per tree). A survey of soil and leaf samples in apple orchards in New Jersey by Wehunt and Purvis (46) showed evidence that leaf magnesium was not significantly related to soil magnesium. They also obtained a corre- lation coefficient of -0. 69 between leaf magnesium and available potassium in the soil, indicating that potassium in the soil has a greater effect on leaf magnesium than does soil magnesium. Working with potatoes both in the greenhouse and field, Walsh and O'Donahoe (45) observed that the application of 500 pounds of potassium sulfate per acre resulted in magnesium deficiency. Tucker and Smith (43) when growing red clover under greenhouse conditions, obtained a correlation of -0. 68 between magnesium and potassium in plant tissue. Furthermore, their data indicated that potassium exerted control over magnesium rather than magnesium over potassium . The magnesium content of blueberry leaves was increased by application of 60 to 150 pounds of magnesium per acre as magnesium sulfate according to Bailey and Drake (1). This amout, how ever, had no effect on the potassium content of the leaves. Nutrient solution studies with tomatoes by Bear, Prince, Toth, and Purvis (3) showed that a potassiuIn-magnesiurn ratio of 1:1 produced the best growth up to transplanting. From transplanting to preblossom, a 20:1 ratio was most desirable, and a 5:1 ratio was best up to and during fruiting. However, all three ratios gave good growth. As the ratio of potassium to magnesium increased in the solution, the potassium content increased and Ira gnesiurn decreased in the plant tissue. Windham (48) noted that high rates of potash fertilizer (220 pounds potassium per acre) significantly decreased magnesium concentration in muskrnelons, cucumbers, tomatoes, snap beans, and cauliflower. Field experiments conducted by Foy and Barber (15) revealed that 100 and 500 pounds of potassium per acre induced magnesium deficiency symptoms on com. This condition was confirmed by low magnesium and high potassium contents of leaves. E. Calcium-magnesium Ratios in the Soil and Plant In a study of the effect of cropping on the calcium and magnesium content of soils, Moserfi (32), by analyzing the soil before and after cropping, observed that cr0pping reduced the quantity of exchangeable calcium and magnesium, but did not always result in a lower calciurn- magnesium ratio. - Apparently magnesium is held more tightly, and as a result, the calcium was absorbed much more rapidly than the -magnesium. ~Hence, the calcium-magnesiurn ratio tends to approach unity. Moser's work showed no significant correlation between the calcium-magnesium ratio and crop yields, but rather the significant factor in determining yields in this investigation was the amount of the active calcium in the soil. Tucker (42) has reported that varying the calciumumagnesiurn ratio in the soil from 50:1 to 1:5 had no influence on the yield of soy— beans grown on soils with high exchange capacity, but did influence yields on soils with low exchange capacity. This probably indicates that the ratio of calcium to magnesium is not important as long as there are sufficient amounts of calcium and magnesium in the soil. Using a soil low in magnesium, - Sanik, Perkins, and Schrenk (34) were unable to detect any single or narrow range of calciuIn-magnesium ratio in the soil as best for the uptake of all plant nutrients studied (boron, copper, manganese, and zinc), or one that would necessarily be most desirable for optimum growth of wheat and sorghum. They concluded for the particular soil that the best calciurn-magnesiurn ratio for the uptake of boron was 4:1, for copper and manganese, 2. 6:1, and for zinc, 2:1. 3 Studies by Camp (7) on citrus trees in- Florida indicated that a calcium—magnesium ratio in the soil of between 5:1 and 8:1 would be most ideal. Hunter, Toth, and Bear (21) have noted that the calciurn- magnesium. ratios in alfalfa plants were roughly proportional to the calcium-magnesium ratios in the soil. An investigation by Longstaff (26) using soybeans showed that the calcium content in bean plants increased proportionally to the uptake of magnesium. ' In some early work concerning ,the availability of phosphatic fertilizers, Gray (18) observed that magnesium sulfate increased the amount of phosphorus absorbed by sudan grass especially when calcium phosphate fertilizers of low availability or solubility were used. Hence, he postulated that the ratio of available calcium to magnesium might have something to do with phosphorus absorption. 10 F. Magnesium-pho spho rus Relationships The exact relationship, if there is any, between magnesium and phosphorus is either not known or if known, appears to be contra- dictory. ' It is known that seeds are relatively highlin magnesium and phosphorus, but there is lack of agreement as to whether there is joint assimilation of these two elements. Cooper, Paden, and Garman (11) suggested the possibility that plants may have developed some mechanism for excluding excessive quantities of calcium from seeds and other organs of reproduction. They further stated that it is probable that magnesium phosphate may be the mo st stable phosphate compound that can be utilized by the energy available to most seedling plants. In a general discussion of the effect of magnesium on plant nutrition,- Zimmerman (51) has related that magnesium may be a carrier of phosphate, and is thus believed to be closely related to phospho—lipid formation and to the synthesis of nucleoproteins in plant cells. Truog, Goates, and Gerloff (41) obtained a direct correlation of phosphorus and magnesium content in peas as a result of various mag- nesium and phosphorus treatments. Nutrient solution studies showed that both the phOsphorus and magnesium content of peas rose appreciably and consistently with increasing concentration of magnesium and that increasing the ”supply of magnesium increased the phosphorus content more than did increasingthe source of phosphorus. , From a survey of soil and leaf samples from~ apple orchards, Wehunt and Purvis (46) concluded that available soil magnesium had no effect on the phosphorus content of leaves, but that phosphorus uptake ' appeared to be governed by a potassium and magnesium balance. Likewise, Longstaff (26) after growing soybeans in sand cultures with varying amounts of magnesium bearing minerals found that available magnesium from mineral sources had no appreciable effect on the phosphorus and potassium contents of the plants. 11 Work by Hunter (20) on alfalfa revealed no close correlation between the uptake of magnesium and phosphorus. - Although the per- cent phosphorus in this legume increased significantly as the calcium- magnesiurn ratio in the soil decreased from 4:1 to 1:4, the rate of increase was much less than that for the percent magnesium. Willis, Piland, and Gay (47) obtained no significant differences between calcium and magnesium as regards their influence on the absorption of phosPhate in soybeans. With an abundance of calcium a deficiency of magnesium did not limit the absorption of phOSphorus. ~ According to studies of Tucker (42) with various exchangeable calcimn-magnesium ratios in soils, when calcitun exceeded magnesium, increasing the magnesium had little effect upon the concentration of phosphorus in soybean plants. G. Hereditary Factors Affecting Magnesium Uptake It is well accepted by most investigators that plants differ in the absorption of various nutrients. These differences in absorption are known to occur between species as well as between varieties, and between inbred lines of such crops as corn. For example, Foy and Barber (16) worked with Ohio 40-B, an inbred line of corn, which often showed magnesium deficiency symptoms. They found that this line was not limited by its root absorbing ability since the total cation exchange capacity of its roots was similar to other lines. They believe, however, that this line is limited in its ability to move the magnesium to the leaf. This indicates that inbred lines may carry genetic factors which control the utilization of magnesium. Some lines will grow over a wide range of magnesium concentration while others apparently need a high concentration. . Foy and Barber sug- gest that plant breeders may have to consider this idea in future work. 12 Observations and tests by Johnson, Davis, and Benne (22) at the Michigan Muck Experimental Farm revealed that Utah lO-B variety of celery'suffered a disorder characteristic of magnesium deficiency. In spite of the fact that sufficient exchangeable magnesium appeared to be present in the soil, heavy soil applications of two to four tons of magnesium sulfate per acre or numerous Spray applications were re- quired to control the disorder. None of the magnesium applications increased yields but improved quality of the crop was noted. It is apparent then that some magnesium disorders may be attributed to a genetic factor as well as to unbalanced soil conditions. b. \b III. METHODS AND MATERIALS A. Scope of Experiment This study was carried out over a three year period from 1956 to 1959 using 14 different crops on 37 different soil types in 41 counties of Michigan. ~An attempt was made to select sites where the common agronomic and some horticultural crops could be grown over a wide range of soils and climatic conditions. Figures 1, 2, and 3 at the end of this section indicate the crops grown and counties where the experiments were located. In Table l, the number of locations for each crop by years are shown. - In addition to the 18 corn experiments harvested in 1956, three additional fields were sampled for chemical analysis. B.. Fertilizer Treatments and ApplicationRates Treatments and application rates of fertilizer and magnesium materials are reported in Table 2. Treatments for 1957 were identical to 1956 except that the foliar Spray treatment was deleted . and the number of replications was increased from two to four. 'A basic ferti- lizer treatment of 1, 000 pounds of 5-20-20 was applied broadcast by hand before plowing on all plots except the check. In some cases the check treatment received no fertilizer of any kind, while the remainder of the trials received the usual amount applied by the cooperator at planting time. - Soil applications of magnesium sulfate and Sula-Po-Mag were also made before plowing on annual spring planted crops. - Hay and winter grain fields were topdressed with the basic fertilizer and magnesium treatments at the same time. 13 14 C.- Experimental Design and Plot Sizes A pre-randomized block with two replications was used in 1956 I and with five-replications in 1958. Because there was an equal number of treatments and replications in 1957, a Latin‘Square design was utilized. All plot sizes were 20 x 20 feet for hay and small grains and 20 x 30 feet for row cr0ps. D .- Soil Sampling Composite soil samples were taken from each replication at the 0 to 6 inch and 12 to 18 inch depths prior to application of fertilizer. The soil samples were air dried, screened, and. stored for chemical analysis. E. Plant Samples Fresh plant tissue samples were collected from each- location when the crops were two-thirds to three-fourths mature. Samples from two replications were usually combined except in 1956 when the two replicates were kept separate. These samples consisting of leaves and petioles were quick frozen for chemical analysis at a later date. - Each trial was closely examined for the presence of magnesium deficiency symptoms at the time of tissue sampling. Other plant samples were also taken 'just- prior to or at harvest- time. These samples were composed of leaves and petioles from cucumbers, melons, and cauliflower; stems and/leaves from~ sugar beets and-potatoes; leaves from corn and the entire above ground portion of the plant from small grains, hay, and beans. The samples were dried, ground, and wet ashed for chemical analysis. 15 F. Harvest Elach crop was harvested at the appropriate time with harvest areas.varlying from about 2Q to 50 percent of the total plot. , In addition to yield data, test weights for small grains were conducted, specific gravity was determined on potato tubers, and percent sugar and percent purity were determined on sugar beets. Neither the-mature seed, fruit, root, or tuber were analyzed as it was felt that the entire vegetative portion of the cr0p would give a better pictureof total magnesium absorption and the nutrient status of the crop than individual storage organs, seeds, or fruits. G. Laboratory Procedures 1. Soils All of the surface and subsoil samples from each- location were analyzed for pH, available phosphorus, and potassium using the Spurway - Reserve test (0. 135 N HCl, soil-acid dilution 1:4). The data for individual samples are given in Tables 15a to 20a of the Appendix. The exchangeable cations were determined by extraction with neutral ammonium acetate according to the method of Schollenberger and Simon (36); the exchangeable hydrogen was estimated using para- nitrophenol buffer solution as described by Woodruff (49); the total N exchange capacity was derived by summation of the exchangeable hydrogen and bases. An analysis of exchangeable potassium, calcium, and sodium. was carried out on the leachates from the ammonium acetate extractions of the soils using the Beckrnan-DU flame photometer. The conditions of operation of this instrument for each of the three elements is given in Table 653. of the Appendix. 16 The determination of magnesium was made colorimetrically from the same extracts by the method of Drossdoff and Nearpass (13). The results of these analyses may be seen in Tables 21a to 27a of the Appendix. - In 1956, the surface soil samples were composited for the analysis of exchangeable cations. However, in order to check agreement between the samples composited, the cations present in individual surface soil samples were determined for ten locations. These results appear in Table 23a of the Appendix. For the years of 1957 and 1958, two out of four surface soil samples were composited for the exchangeable cation determinations giving two composite samples for each location. . Four subsoil (12 to 18 inchlevel) samples were composited for these same tests. 2. Fresh‘ Plant Tissue The frozen samples were finely cut and 10 grams of the tissue was placed in a Waring Blendor with 200 ml of Morgan's extracting solution (acidified sodium‘ acetate). One-half of a teaspoon of Darco carbon was added and the samples macerated for a period of two to five minutes depending upon the toughness of the individual crop. In» 1956 calcium and potassium were determined colormetrically on the extracts according to a modified procedure of Wolf and Ichisaka (50). Analysis for calcium and potassium in 1957 and 1958 was accomp- lished by use of the Beckrnan'DU flame photometer}, - Although the high concentration of sodium in the Morgan's solution gave some inter- ference with potassium, the values were relative and the procedure was justified in order to Speed up the determinations. . Analysis for-magnesiurn in the tissue extracts was carried out from the thiozole yellow procedure of Mikkelsenand Toth (29). The results of these analyses are found in Tables 28a to 44a of the Appendix. 17 3. Dry Plant Tissue The dry plant tissue was wet ashed by a modified perchloric acid method of Piper (33). Calcium, potassium, and sodium were determined on the extracts using the Beckman DU flame photometer. - Instrumental conditions used were similar to those for soil analyses which are listed in Table 65a of the Appendix. Analysis for magnesium was completed using thiazole yellow method of Drossdoff and Nearpass (13). The samples were analyzed for phosphorus using the Molybdenum Blue colormetric method employing ammonium molybdate and the Fisk-Subbarrow reducing agent (14). -- A Coleman colorimeter equipped with a 650 mu filter was used to dete rmine phospho rus conc entration . RAND MSNALLY LOOSE LEAF OUTLINE MAP 18 MICHIGAN 1-11.1'1K I J 60 WISCONSIN "MINE": m ‘0 on” “satin 39“. A-lhy Doc”. coon- D-M loluloy rem col-pr Halo-u 1.9m It? I ' : to so so so so counts LL; ”I I“ ~l. . . TEL};— ' "‘u Hm ' I—l-i I ' . I WISCONSIN *4]. ILUCE ' ,/ immt__l_--.1 !CHIPP£WA ‘ C A N A D A I iscuoomlwr liTIEKTi'AE-J-l ..... _' \‘ ~ 1 ~ ,..I s - .. 859% I /' \ I. '5 ‘ i . “v ‘ ‘\ \ '0" cIInOIIaA| {75“ “I i “arson: |mAsuvo—le'— TM '11,}; ’ 00m , 1:! "was; inoaficvi l mu —|3n m '7“ K.A-“.%CKW;0filifi—Nfl—l iii-2%— ' M1: i I i lob - :1th ware—so Ml sEATIIt— 53;”: [mid—(fog- — I l I . MEN. i—LTKII_ viii—A" [Enijéfiifii'r ' m i i i I 5'1 “I‘M—i." - — molus'co—su TI-sAoTuA-iiIouuh‘: Eli. o a a "—- I i I ! __ ,wr Iii; II' I Trim-17f: .15“ B ‘13.; ' uusxiil'fi'fi-IL‘W ' 0' ”it. run—.P—J—11 .3 i _. outset 'Ww‘ I_.-_._. ofiAWA : :IouIA —E—§ou Jig—‘lgssTr— L (W . l_-__l_- ATséAI Talent Wig; r|_l-'Vmiisrot1omu {’5'4 l _u__-. VAII sum —" TIE. ’ Fiji jWh-EinviAvue (f, b i ILL}: 'i Dihficl i CANADA 0 .—-_-?a’*1_-—H° III—JOEL: ‘—"'g— 1— J7; unsttu . :§ !H: d F1?! '1‘..." O "1— 7" { t—uoIIIjMWI‘IW"T“ ‘o This Map Is also mitotic lll size 17122 ' use on on RAND WNALLY 19 MICHIGAN LOOSE LEAF OUTLINE MAP ? {Imus .I-I.I-.u 1441.11111' 1., I . I": I L, ,m s I' . .-J I I Imoomg Q ILUCE I I-ImiJ—‘HCT-I Incas I--—-| Icmrnm ‘ C A N A D A I iOch'Iu—u'l 'TL}. IEHOOLCM iIfic'xI—IIAE '—l"l _____ _' \‘ s an o I I ' I“ 4 ~ w rmine: r- —-L:-" I f.‘ O " &Q ' I I ./' \ uzluomuczi I 'g ‘ I H“? Wisco‘Ns'N 0": ° ‘\ ‘.c 2.. z.riPflEWU£ mm QI V ’ __I “‘7 LC 0 IonxF' Alam- "A—um - 0 ”ITEM orsmo Im'm‘c' I mm } j.’ I “TI i -_- WwaFfiIfiu’“I'AToEA-' l!co.7MmI i I }.c I a “ “Li-imouom I—IéAFI'I—HIW Ta'é's'o '— “Io'EE'AAw—I {0'53" '— ‘W. o ' 0.0 cm. i I max? ”roam ..ATo'I unis—IoEéBITIc'JIIi‘Iau-p‘vaui '45.?» w. . 0 I 3.6." _I_ I I I {:7 a moon C- U | OCEANAI MAvooIIizcosul I—SAITLLA'FIIDLAIIO I loudly | Li'i I -...- wscoCAjEA'fiifc- lop“... - —I flogglé— IoIIAror Is “0|qu l—I' 1.6 I F”, . unsung?! Km I3-’ I I l- ! J-"L'I .6.“ I °_"'qu I_—---—- ’um I g -i' “! ITOMA _|'cu:1£n _IsuIAwAss£'foum I ‘1», IWMB I that co ’ L k; i Il-C. i I Edulfi'TIcTu‘q ALluéAu TIMI" Turou 'I'I'IIOTILAA— FIVIuasrovI I .K . ' I ' I -_1':3 _I. I I I I _-_I_. VAII sum M01“ 'cATIIBW '"ITAcII—sou fi'fisfit‘fiinwmn ./ I .__I I |.c I I I CANADA IcAss T's—1503?»? F333,; ”FIILLTOLEI 1m“; IMO'IROE stun—Iqu L _i ' I I|.' O ronnIs—I. .Joscfm ‘thth LAGIANOI nuou}..—I_— uuou um I INDENA "M r “T " 0 H49!” :9 so oo s9 oosIILts .AII. PM 3. Mind : Mm: “or: flu “We: M" BAND M9NALLY LOOSE my cum": MAP 20 MICHIGAN {fillmlfll’l .LI.I'.\I I‘L‘LIII: ' ' 0 omomIaou L GOOEBIC L.i I IIION -"_l I . L.-.-i IVILA$\-. I Iwc‘ I W Wisconsm\"~lru I I Icmvmu ‘ CANADA scIIoo cam \‘ "I. L IWIEKTIi-AE—"I _____ i‘ I ' £3 I I ./,/§‘ \ Q . usuomuzzi . I '6 "m WISCONSIN g \ Icmov I A. \ ' 'PRE I ‘. ‘ sou: mama-n g3 I V I I5 ”IL! “‘I— 1— -— - mom IRWIN“ 00mm AmI—m -To-Irmo IggfltTvz-cv I I. - I30. mm. gun-K. IcFA—wFfiIos-fiil- I'A'LFIIIIA— I I I I I I I ! I m 3. . _ . u 0‘ cm. AumuI wwoso I—IsuuxzeIm nos- “Iocmm IIosco I MM in tho .. pom _ I I I I _I T ”fl...“ ' . um 'I'fix'z— Iona? Icmg-Imfir’. m n-Cm I I I I :_._ "W m. - - __ _ I_ _____ __, BAY 0 3:” co - ”wri— "°° °I "Pf-Irma“. IM'DWD I I1.c I I I—‘- tuscou IsAIIIuIc - - —I EM“. 'IoIm'IOI _'I;;d-Imw- L‘I I " I I rm ' "“3““?! Km ___J -..I I I_ I _I._.—.ITI-zuuu 'umza 1 -_._- 0111‘th I_IouIX _I'cu[roi I‘“"‘“”‘f I Istcum —I— i I I I miw—Iiim —" ‘TmW'Tezfi'Tm'*-pwuau—o.1 . I . I ' I , __I. -_I__,_I_ I I __._., V“ "’3‘" “MAI—'01 cALIIomI Incxsou thanmwTwmI: /_ I I , I I |__.__I____.I___._r I I -I_"_ CANADA Icm I""°“'"IIWH Im- —AEEI‘1mw 3';- Fauna: IERBIEN'I ' i .l O 'ORIE mt?" um: um , __ I 7" mlIS‘DIfm-LIW—M" 15°" 7 0 LE!" L” a. so «Imus - uni-Ii 4 d- no: m u.s,.. This Map Is aha mum. In sin Inzz ' um ’03 021 21 Table 1. Number of locations by crops of magnesium experiments for each of the years indicated. Number of crop locations by years 1956 1 957 1958 Hay 15 Corn 18 5 2 Oats 1 1 1 1 1 Barley 4 1 Wheat 13 Potatoe s 4 15 Field beans 6 Soybeans 2 Sugar beets 5 4 Cucumbers 2 Cantaloupe 1 2 Cauliflower 1 ~ Sweet corn 1 1 Tomatoe s 1 Total 80 42 4 r 22 Table 2. Treatments and application rates for magne sium field trials by years. Treatment T reatment de signation 1956 - Z replications A Check - no fertilizer or farmer applications B NuP-K plus 100 lbs. Mg as MgSO41 (1030 lbs. per acre) C N-P-K plus equivalent of 1 lb. Mg504 per acre per day as spray D N-P-K only E N-P plus 100 lbs. Mg as SulaPo—Magz (915 1bs.per acre) 1957 - 4 replications - same as 1956 except C treatment deleted 1958 - 5 replications A Check - NeP-K only B N-P-K plus 100 lbs. Mg as MgSO4 (1030 lbs. MgSO4 per acre) , C N-P-K plus 200 lbs. Mg as MgSO4 (2060 lbs. MgSO4 per acre) D N-P-K plus 400 lbs. Mg as MgSO4 (4120 lbs. MgSO4 per acre — split application, one-half before plowing and one-half as side-dress) E N-P plus 100 lbs. Mg as Sul-Po-Mag (915 lbs. per acre) F N-P-K plus equivalent of 1 lb. MgSO4 per acre per day as Spray G N-P-K plus 200 lbs. Mg as hydrated dolomite (1000 lbs. of hydrated dolomitic limestone per acre)3 ngSOy 7 H20 contains approximately 10% Mg (Epsom salts). .zSula-Po—Mag contains 22% K20 and 18. 5% MgO or 11% Mg. 3'I-Iydrated dolomitic limestone contains 20. 5% Mg. IV. CROP YIELD RESULTS Because of the differences between the treatments from year to year, it wasnecessary to report the yields of the various crops separately for each year as indicated in Tables 4a to 14a of the Appendix. However, the individual yield data for four treatments were combined by crop for two soil textural classes for all years in Table 3. A grouping of the soils of all locations into coarse and fine textured representatives can be seen in Tables 15a to 27a of the Appendix. The number of locations for each crOp which showed a yield response to at least one of the magnesium carriers applied to the soil is presented in Table 4, and in addition, cases where a depression in yield was found are also included. The data presented in Table 5 indicate the approximate percentage of the experiments which showed yield response to N-P-K fertilizer and those which resulted in increases or decreases in yield of 10 percent or more as a result of soil applications of either magnesium sulfate or Sul-QPo—Mag. A summary of some of the data given in Table 4 is presented in Table 6. Inasmuch as the foliar application gave such poor results in 1956, it was deleted in 1957 and is not considered in the discussion except where mentioned. Where a crop was grown for more than a year, the discussion involves the data from all experiments combined for the years the crop was grown. A. Hay In about one-third of the hay experiments, a positive yield response of at least 10 percent was found for applied fertilizer in either the first or second cutting. Similar increases in production due to fertilizer were obtained at two of the 15 fields for both cuttings (locations 28 and 47). 23 24 With added magnesium, there was a 10 percent or higher yield increase in either the first or second cutting at five locations. It may be noted that at locations 16 and 44 some yield response to magnesium sulfate resulted for both cuttings. However, only location 44 showed an increase in yield of hay from both magnesium sulfate and Sul-Po-Mag applications in the first cutting and at location 16 in the second cutting. Four of the five fields showing yield responses to magnesium contained coarse textured soils. These gains were offset by as many or even more fields where decreases in yields of 10 percent or more resulted from the two magnesium treatments. The fact that such yield depressions rarely occurred in both cuttings would indicate that probably other factors may have caused the decreased growth. B. Corn A 10 percent or higher yield increase from fertilizer alone was obtained at about one—third of the corn locations. Only one location (number 23) showed a significant yield response at the five percent level due to magnesium (Sul-Po-Mag treatment). About one-third of the experiments showed a 10 percent or greater re3ponse to one or both magnesium treatments. Only four of the nine corn locations where yield increases were noted gave a response to both magnesium treatments (locations 51, 57, 88, and 90). On the other hand, there were two or three farms at which magnesium fertilization appeared to affect the corn yields adversely. This is difficult to explain as the percent magnesium saturation and calcium-magne sium ratio of the exchange complex of these soils were not out of line. It may be noted that the average yields varied only two to four bushels per acre between any of the treatments receiving fertilizer or magnesium plus fertilizer. 25 C. Oats and Barley At one—half of the 28 locations of oats and barley, a 10 percent or greater yield response to N—P-K was found. Most of these experi- ments were located on sandy loam soils. At one location (68-C-26), the yield response was statistically significant. Grain yields at 10 of the trials were higher by 10 percent from either one or both magnesium applications than where no magnesium was applied.) At two 10cations, the increases were significant; one being the spray treatment on oats at location 1 while the other involved the Sul-Po-Mag treatment on barley at location 91. In only four of the 10 fields showing some response did increased yields occur from both magnesium treatments (locations 71, 80, 13~C—7, and 59-C—22). In contrast, there was a decline in yield of 10 percent at six locations as a result of magnesium fertilization. The average oat and barley yields for all fields were increased to some extent by fertilizer alone, especially on the coarse textured soils. The average oat yield in 1956 was increased by slightly less than 10 percent with magnesium sulfate plus N-P-K compared with fertilizer alone. Barley yields were increased on the average slightly more than 10 percent in the same year with Sul-Po-Mag. Smaller effects were obtained from fertilizer and soluble magnesium in'1957. Considering all three years, the average yield was only slightly‘changed by the application of magnesium to either the coarse or fine textured soils. No significant differences in test weights of grain were noted as a result of fertilizer or magnesium treatments. D. Wheat At only one experiment was a yield response to fertilizer recorded. A yield increase of grain of 10 percent was obtained with 26 magnesium sulfate at two of the 13 locations but none were statistically significant (locations 2 and 20). Considering all s‘oils, it may be noted that the average yield for wheat at all locations was rather similar for the various treatments. It may be seen from Table 3 that wheat grown on the fine textured soils reSponded the most to fertilizer although most of this increase. occurred on only two fields. Differences in test weights of grain due to fertilizer or soluble magnesium additions were insig- nificant . E. Potatoes Apparently most of the potato fields were well supplied with avail- able nitrogen, phOSphorus, and potassium as only about one-fourth of them showed improved yields from the 1,000 pounds of 5-20-20 ferti- lizer applied. At only one location (number 98) was there an approximate 10 percent increase in yield of potatoes from both magnesium treatments. Even less significance may be attached to this one case, since the check plots produced the highest yield of any of the treatments. Yields at about one-half of the experiments were depressed due to a combination of fertilizer plus magnesium applications. It is prob- able that a toxicity of soluble salts resulted as several growers applied over 1, 000 pounds of fertilizer in addition to the basic amount applied in the experiment along with the magnesium treatments. The average yields for the two year period indicate that generally, fertilizer improved yields, but there was a tendency for both magnesium sources to depress yields, though probably not significantly so. The greatest response to fertilizer was found in experiments conducted on fine textured soils, but also on this group of soils, the largest depression in yield from magnesium treatments -.was recorded. 27 F. Field Beans There is little indication that fertilizer or either magnesium carrier affected bean yields in 1956. There was some apparent response at one location from both magnesium treatments at location 38. However, more important is the fact that there was a depression of yields of 10 percent at one-half of the locations from the application of either magnesium material. It is interesting to note that at locations 39 and 93, the percent magnesium saturation of the exchange complex was relatively high (12. 8 and 24. 2 respectively). The average yields for all locations did not vary appreciably for the various treat- ments. G. Soybeans The fact that one soybean field showed some response to mag- nesium sulfate and the other location resulted in a yield depression makes the interpretation of the results difficult. Possibly, other , factors were responsible for these differences. Application of Sul-Po-Mag had little effect on soybean yield. H. Sugar Beets Sugar beet yields were increased by fertilizer at all but two locations. At one trial (76-6-35) in 1957, the yield increase was significant at the five percent level. Only one field (location 40) produced a yield increase of 10 percent or higher with Sul-Po-Mag and slightly less than this with Epsom salts. At the same time, there was a sizable decline in yield of beets where either magnesium treatment was applied at location 83. The average beet yields from all locations indicated little benefit from magnesium applications. 28 I. Cucumber Fertilizer generally resulted in a yield increase at the two cucumber locations. As for magnesium sulfate, it was of little benefit, but Sul-Po-Mag showed up well at location 3-J-2. J . Cantaloupe Inasmuch as there was almost a complete crop failure at location 70-1-30, the yield data from this trial is probably not reliable. Response to fertilizer occurred at two locations and it is likely that magnesium sulfate may have improved the yield in one field, though not significantly. A depression in yield appeared to have occurred at the other two I locations. Sul-Po-Mag had little or no effect on yield of fruit at two of the three experimental locations. K. Cauliflower Both magnesium carriers resulted in a depressed yield of cauli- flower. In fact, both magnesium treated and fertilized plots gave lower yields than the check. L. Sweet Corn Inasmuch as there appeared to be a considerable response with sweet corn to both magnesium carriers applied to soil in 1957, the experiment was continued on the same farm close to this same area in 19518. In the latter year, soil treatments of up to 400 pounds of elemental magnesium did not appear to affect yield. However, the foliar spray improved the yield over 20 percent but this increase was not significant where three replications were harvested. 29 M. Tomatoes A 60 percent yield increase of number one and two tomatoes was noted from the use of magnesium sulfate. In contrast, Sul-Po-Mag had no effect on crOp yield in the one tomato experiment conducted. N. Summary In general, there was a small to moderate response to NPK fertilizer in most crops at most locations especially on the coarse textured soils. Only in isolated cases did significant responses occur from either fertilizer or magnesium. The majority of apparent responses were not of a statistically significant nature. This is sub- stantiated by the fact that only in few instances did an analysis indicate significance and also, by the fact that rarely did the apparent response occur with both magnesium carriers. Furthermore, it is difficult to understand why there should be so many cases where the magnesium treated plots actually resulted in lower yields than the fertilized plots. Generally, on an average basis, the increased yield for any one crop at any one location was offset by a depression somewhere else. In 1957, an interveinal chlorosis of the younger and medium aged leaves of corn was noted at locations l9-B-l3 and 54-B-l9 in Clinton and Mecosta counties reSpectively. Inasmuch as this condition resembled magnesium deficiency symptoms, its progress was noted throughout the season. The effect was noticeable over the entire fields and even on the plot areas regardless of treatment. The condition persisted until harvest time. Because of this condition, experiments were conducted again at both locations in 1958. Corn was repeated on the same field in Clinton county, but the corn field in Mecosta county was planted to oats in 1958 on which an experiment was laid out. Corn was planted across the 30 road on this same farm in Mecosta county in 1958 on a similar soil type. The same chlorotic conditions appeared at both of the corn fields in 1958 and also at the sweet corn location in Ottawa county. Instead of these symptoms occurring on the older leaves as is typical in magnesium deficiency, the chlorosis was first apparent on the younger leaves as they emerged from the boot, especially notice- able when the corn was about waist high. Typical symptoms may be noted in Plate 1. As the season progressed, the symptoms persisted mostly on the medium aged and younger leaves. Again, this condition occurred over the entire field and on the plot areas and did not seem to be corrected by soil applications of magnesium of up to 400 pounds of magnesimn per acre or by foliar sprays. Inasmuch as these magnesium treatments did not correct these conditions, the writer laid out an experiment along side of the magnesium plots in Mecosta county using manganese, zinc, and magnesium alone and in combination as a foliar spray. Two foliar applications were made but a drought occurring shortly after spraying resulted in an almost complete drying up of the leaves so that an interpretation of the results was difficult. The cooperator finally found it necessary to take the corn off for ensilage. The crop yields of field corn in Clinton county and of sweet corn in Ottawa county appeared to be unaffected by these chlorotic conditions. The oat field in Mecosta county gave no evidence of magnesium deficiency symptoms. 31 .moofimcsou 03» was 25 Hon—Ed: £5.35 mama!” .mmcfludo 025 33505 >226: mgoCrN .mooumgop pad .395 Haws"... :33 MOM whom mom mac» Gm mpfiofiw .uoBoGwflDmo cam .omdofimucmo .muongodo .mooumuom ROM whom. mom $.30 E mp3“? .mdmonknom cam .2230. .3885 .Nnoanmfi was memo .Guoo .HoH whom. .89 30:35 cw 2:03.. 2 .2 N .2 s .2 o .2 2 $38 «$828.2. m NE a .mo 22. «.3 N 338 58 team 1:: TONN 0 2m 2. .smm 2 $38 $30233 s 4.2 a .22 o 40.2 v.2: m 8.280 oasossssso N. .3 m .3 s .3 N .S. N 3.88 $38830 a .2 N .2 N .2 o .2 a 25 33s 2&5 a .sN s .NN N .NN o .NN N 338 asssnsom s .mN s .wN m .2 m .aN s 25 $83 30E «AVON s .NON s .NNN a. .2: m 3a w .2.N w .wsN m .SN a .wsN E 3.88 8888 - 5:. 0.2. o.:. a saw .. o .8 s .Nm N .3 a $38 $2; 5N... 0.2. 23. Nam 2 3m o .2. a .Nm 2.8 N .2. 2 $38 .623 was saso 9N0 23 N.Ns mam 2 as: s .8 N .8 as N .3 : 3.38 58 SN mN m.N N.N s can m.m N.m vim H .m a omhmoo N>mm onIOnHwHSw mfiMm EOmQH ciao Momao mnofimoofi mud—fins» QOHU ,+ n72 + Mia M-m-z so 3:552 now — .mhdo.» :d HON uGQEudQHu >3 madmhu flavmw Edwmmcmme .«O mfifiofin QOHU mmmyvN/Aw .m mman 32 .wmoH CH “confides HHOm 0”. Ho: «do. «Season» >92? 0“ uncommoMn .qufizdo 03H modeoGHN .meHnonHlHdm dem nH..7H n ”m ”3.33m gHmonmE dem ananz n m EOmHumnHEoo wit HOW vHooaHo mm HooHoHoncoo SHCO vHunHIZ n D “monogamouHH u .. u .. H H moonEoH .. u H H nH N auoo Hook/m .. H .. .. u H noBOGHHUMO H N n u H m 0922.3ch I u u H u N muongodu H H .. H H o momma, Hmwfim .. H .. .. H N masonxwom N m H H H o mason. 3lo N m H H H «H moon—30m .. H .. - N 2 “was? m m H. o w mm >358. cam mumO H m H. . o N. HNN CHOU @ o N N NH. mH 2mm mucogmonu cHHon. M V M Q.V m 1 50¢ uncommom Q A M Q A m mnoHHmooH Ho nHOHU SOH A mo mHoHoT» pomdonomp can: A mo mpHoch commonoaH Hoflgn H.309. mare/05s. mcoHfimooH Ho nobgz magosm mcoHHooH Ho Hongz Illr‘ H .mucogudmhu gHmvflmwg mfioHfidS >3 Homeomwwm mums? mHqufin mono no??? ad @2036004 .v OHQMH. I h.\.. irl~v- 33 .momgcoouom oumafinonmmm mud mded>N .ouofi Ho “Gounom oH Ho HoHoT» CH omdonomp no ommoquHH o 2: o ”3onth cm om 2: shoe Hook/m o o o aoBoHHHHSdU no mm so mmdonquU 0 cm ooH muongodo NH NH om muoofi ummsm o om om asssnaom o0 cH o mason. UHlo om. m .0 mm moonHonH o mH mH 32;? 2 2 om $23 was sumo NH 5N om CHOU 2 2 2 ram dofimoHHnHmm 2.2330:QO HHOm HHOm AMEN—Ho Hi3 uofifio A.33, m2 NM..le m2 502 GonmounHoHo Eouw omcommos m5." 3 oncommou mGH mono msHBOHm mcoHumooH Ho “amok onH [Boflm mGoHHmooH .Ho 28 on mnH (>2on mGoHumooH mo “GoononH H . monogudonu EdemqmmE so nmNHHHnumH 80pm HoHoHs. mono cH omcommou m>fimmoc no o>HuHmonH SHE .m 3an Table 6. Crop locations showing positive yield response from magnesium treatments. 1 Percent of locations showing Total nmber Increase in Increase in Crop of locations either treatment both treatments Hay 15 15 0. 7 Corn 24 27 16 Cats and barley 28 25 14 Wheat 13 15 0 Potatoes l9 0. 5 0. 5 Field beans 6 16 16 Soybeans 2 50 0 Sugar beets 9 12 0 Cucumbers 2 0 0 Cantaloupe 3 50 0 Cauliflower 1 O 0 Sweet corn 2 100 A 50 Tomatoes 1 100 0 1Increase of 10 percent or more in yield. '1‘ V. RAPID SOIL TESTS OF EXPERIMENTAL SOILS Rapid soil tests were made on all the soil samples using the Spurway Reserve test (0.135 N HCl, soil-water ratio 1:4 extractant). These data appear in tables 15a-20a of the Appendix. A summary of these results are contained in Table 7 which indicates the ranges of pH and the ranges and averages of phOSphorus and potassium soil tests of samples collected from the experimental fields before the various plots were fertilized. " A wide range of phosphorus and potassium levels occurred at both soil depths in the soils studied.’ Generally the content of available phosphorus and potassium was slightly lower in the 12 to 18 inch depth than in the surface layer. The average quantity of phOSphorus extracted from the fine textured soils varied from 40 percent greater in the plow layer to 80 percent greater at the lower depth than in the coarse tex— tured soils. According to the procedure used, the average potassium content of both soil groups at the two depths was not appreciably different. The data in the Appendix also reveal that about 41 percent of the 65 soil samples of coarse texture contained 50 pounds or more of phosphorus per acre in the surface layer. About 50 percent of the fine textured soils sampled at this same depth contained amounts of avail- able phOSphorus in this same range. Likewise, about 36 percent of coarse textured soils gave tests of 150 pounds or more of available potassium per acre in the surface area, whereas only about 16 percent of the fine textured soils contained this amount of potassium per acre in the plow layer. Although a few of the soils were extremely low in either phosphorus or potassium, the basic application of 86 pounds of phosphorus and 35 36 166 pounds of potassium contained in the l, 000 pounds per acre of 5-20-20 should have been sufficient to insure proper amounts of plant food for all the crops. Hence, none of the major nutrient elements should have been limiting. 11.1.“. gnu (. r). 37 Table 7. The pH and the ranges and averages for available phosphorus and potassium extracted from experimental soils for two broad soil textural groups at two sampling depths. Range 51:22: pH Pgunds per ac}:e 65 coarse textured soils low 0 - 6 5. 2 11 36 low 12 - 18 5. 2 6 9 high 0 - 6 7.6 156 240 high 12 - 18 7.8 123 144 average 0 - 6 - 47 111 average 12 - 18 - 31 64 55 fine textured soils low 0 - 6 5.5 10 48 low 12 - 18 5.6 3 16 high 0 - 6 7.6 249 332 high 12 - 18 7.2 162 192 average 0 - 6 - 65 108 average 12 - 18 - 55 61 1 T16 I I .\J VI. CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY AND EXCHANGEABLE BASES A. Cation Exchange Capacity The ranges and averages of exchange capacity for the respective soil textural groups at two soil depths were computed and appear in Table 8. Data pertaining to exchange capacity, cation saturation, and calcium-magnesium ratios of individual soils are given in Tables 21a to 27a of the Appendix. Some of the coarse textured soils were four to five times higher and some of the fine textured soils were three to four times higher in, exchange capacity at both soil depths than others of approximate similar texture. The fact that the average exchange capacity was almost identical for both depths in both textural groups indicates that organic matter may have been the most important factor contributing to the exchange capacity in the surface layer. However, the clay in the B horizon was probably more reSponsible for the exchange capacity at the lower depth. B. Magnesium Saturation Many investigators have considered the degree of saturation of the soil exchange complex as a better criterion of the magnesium needs of soils than the actual content of exchangeable magnesium. Data of magnesium saturation for the range of soils studied as well as associated information from which these values were calculated are given in Table 9. It may be observed that magnesium saturation varied from about 0. 50 percent for a few soils to over 30 percent for others. The average 38 .,- :th O -- .flie .m» ,‘G i‘r «1;, Soi; 16):: 39 percent magnesium content was-about 60 percent greater in the sur— face layers of the fine textured soils than in the coarse textured soils. This difference doubled at the 12 to 18 inch depth. Information presented in Table 10 concerning the percent mag- nesium saturation of the experimental soils reveals that of 64 coarse textured soils, about 61 percent at the 0 to 6 inch depth and about 51 percent at the lower depth had magnesium saturation values of five percent or less. In fact, over 80 percent of all the coarse textured soils sampled at both depths had magnesium saturation of less than 10 percent. - A much higher proportion of fine textured soils fell into the 10 to 20 percent magnesium saturation class than did the coarse textured soils. If one considers five to six percent magnesium saturation in , the soil as being a minimum value for normal growth as suggested by some workers, then it might be expected that about two-thirds of the coarse textured soils and about one-fifth of the fine textured soils would respond to added magnesium. As will be discussed in a later section, this was not the case. In terms of pounds of magnesium, the variation ranged from 16 pounds in a coarse textured soil to 1100 pounds in the plow layer of a fine textured soil. The average magnesium content of fine textured soils varied from two to two and one-half times greater than in'coarse textured soils for both soil depths. C. Calciurn-magne sium Ratios A frequency distribution of the ratios of exchangeable calcium to magnesium of the soils studied is shown in Table 11. Over one-half of the coarse textured soils and about three-fourths of the fine textured soils had calcium-magnesium ratios of 10:1 or less in the surface layers. This would indicate that although the magnesium saturation 0‘ 01 LL :1. 40 was low in many soils, the balance between the two elements was not undesirable. Although many agronomists believe that a calcium- magnesium ratio varying from 5:1 to 10:1 to be most ideal, much experimental work indicates that as long as the exchange capacity is reasonably high and sufficient amounts of calcium and magnesium are present in the soil, the ratio between the two elements is not of real importance. Up to 15 percent of the coarse textured soils, but only five percent of the fine textured soils contained calcium-magnesium ratios exceeding 20:1. D. Potas sium-magne sium Ratios It has been reported frequently that the relationship between exchangeable potassium and magnesium in soils and plants may be more important than calcium-magnesium ratios. An analysis of soils from these trials as reported in Table 12 disclosed that the potassium- magnesium ratios varied from 1:5 to 1:6. 3 in coarse textured soils to 1: 7.5 to 1:16 in fine textured soils in the plow layers and 12 to 18 inch depths respectively. To the author's knowledge, no ideal potassium-magnesium ratios have been established for soils. Bear, Prince, Toth, and Purvis (3) have reported good growth of tomatoes in nutrient solutions with potassium-magnesium ratios varying from 1:1 to 20: 1. A number of instances have been reported of magnesium deficiency induced in plants as a result of high potassium levels in the soil. Just what ratio of potassium to magnesium is best for most crop plants is not really known. It has been assumed that an ideal soil would contain about two to four percent exchangeable potassium. This would be com- parable to potassium-magnesium ratios of about 1:2. 5 to 1:5. In the experimental soils saturation of the exchange complex with potassium was in the range of one percent. It should be remembered, however, that the samples were taken before any potash was applied. 10‘3" 41 Table 8. Ranges and averages of exchange capacity of experimental soils for two broad soil textural groups at two sampling depths. Location Depth Cation exchange Range number Soil type Inches capacity M. e. / 100 gms. soil Coarse textured soils low 69 Wauseon sandy loam 0-6 4. 28 low — 67 Wauseon sandy loam 12- 18 3. 86 high 9-F-4 Brevort loamy sand 0-6 15. 62 high 10 Brevort loamy sand 12- 18 18. 32 average of 64 surface soils 0—6 9.8 average of 57 subsoils 12-18 9.8 Fine textured soils low 38 Sims clay loam 0-6 6. 11 low 73 Nester loam 12—18 4.91 high 34 Conover loam 0-6 19. 54 high 34 Conover loam 12- 18 20. 14 average of 53 surface soils 0-6 12.1 average of 41 subsoils 12-18 11. 9 42 .cHHNHoHo numb Hm mnofl-mooH Ho soared-Dc 0>Hu00mmou 93 new moHnHEmm ndono mofimomfioo 0.2m momma mwmum>m Eamon G0>Hm 2H» um GoHu-mooH Hows .NOH moHNHEmm HHOm n58 mo mofimomgoo 0.2m mambo HAN-461,32:— N .2 omN 2.2 2: 2-2 2832.. 2. No 22?... a .a NeN 2 .2 2.2 b-o 28.... 32.26 NN No «.223... N .2 . 2N NN .N a .2. 2-2 8.2 223232 N :22 TNN N22 2- .2. «.2 2o EsB 25:8 2. :22 e .H NN 2 .o 2a 2.2 882. 22m N 304 s .o 2 so .0 2: b-o 882 :6 25on ab 33 mHHow Hum-H.328 warm N.N 2.2 2 .0 2s 2-2 26.-.26 am 00 e223...- N .b a2 26 2a b-o 28s 8225 .3 Ho 28?... 22 22. . 2: 22 2-2 5.2 reuse 2.82:2 NN :22 22 EN 2 .2 2b e-o 582 seems commas? .S :22 2o N No... 2.. 2-2 ease sogez QN-H-S. Boa b .o 2 85 2: b-o 8.2 sense. 28222 2. 304 mHHOm How-2523 own-moO whom pom HHOméEm HHOm .mam “amoeba messes .o2\.e.2 o2\.e.2 noisy-30m . HHOm GH >uHommm0 mmnHocH 09$ HHow songs omcdm 5:32»de gHmoummg oHnmomstHome owndnoxm gamma GoHumnooA H .maHunHQHv mGHHQd—umm 03» ad mmfloum Haudfinou HHOm HUNG-No. 03» HOW mHHom HMHGMEHHMXHKO CH SCUM-adage gHmvcde mo ovuwvv Hucm gmmmcmmg anmmwG-mNHUXm mo uGQuCOU mg no mummh0>d Hucm woman-mm .0 anHmh. Table 10. Distribution of experimental soils according to percent magnesium saturation within two broad soil textural groups and at two sampling depths. Percent Mg 0 - 6 inch depth 12 - 18 inch depth saturation Number of Percent Number of Percent soils of total soils of total Coarse textured soils 0- 5 39 61 29 51 5.1 - 10 13 20 19 33 10.1 — 20 12 19 9 16 20.1 - 30 0 0 o 0 30.1 - 40 0 0 0 0 Total 64 100 57 ‘ 100 Fine textured soils 0 - 5 10 19 7 17 5.1- 10 16 30 6 15 10.1- 20 21 4O 22 54 20.1 - 30 5 9 6 14 30.1 - 40 1 2 O O Total 53 100 41 100 v I I" 0* H (‘3 ‘1! ,_4 n f.) x.) ’1 cv .9 ... Table 11. 1 Distribution of experimental soils according to calciurn- magnesium ratios within two broad soil textural groups and at two sampling depths. Calcium ‘ 0 - 6 inch depth 12 ,- 18 inch depth magnesium Number of Percent Number of Percent ratio soils of total soil 8 of total Coarse textured soils -5 20 31.2 29 51.0 0.0 5.1 - 10 16 25.0 13 23.0 10.1 -20 17 27.0 7 12.0 20.1.30 3 4.6 2 ' 3.5 30.1 - 40 3 4.6 2 3.5 40.1 - 50 2 .0 1 1.7 50.1 - 120 3 4.6 3 5.3 Total 64 ‘ ' 100.0 57 100.0 Fine textured soils 0.0 - 5__ 23 43.0 24 58.0 5.1 - 10 18 34.0 9 22.0 10.1 - 20 9 17.0 6 15.0 20.1 - 30 1 2.0 2 5.0 30.1- 40 0 0.0 0 0.0 40.1 - 50 0 .0 0 0.0 50.1 - 120 2 4.0 0 0.0 Total 53 100. 0 41 100‘. 0 sn- 1 1‘ S | 45 Table 12. The degree of saturation of potassium and magnesium of the exchange complex and potassiuIn-magnesiutn ratios in experimental soils within two broad soil textural groups and at two sampling depths. Total Potassium Magnesium K-Mg number Depth saturation saturation saturation of soils ‘Inches - Percent - Percent ratio Coarse textured soils 3 64 0 — 6 1. 3‘ 6. 3 1 : 57 12 - 18 0. 9 5.4 l . 3 Fine textured soils 53 Og-6 1.3 9.9 1:7.5 51 12— 18 0.8 12.3 l:16.0 glAverage potassium and magnesium saturation and potassium- magnesium ratios of four composite samples for the number of soils designated. VII.~ RELATION OF PERCENT MAGNESIUM SATURATION AND CALCIUM-MAGNESIUM RATIOS WITH CROP YIELD RESPONSE TO MAGNESIUM FERTILIZATION The exchangeable magnesium and exchangeable calcium- magnesium ratios in the plow layer of the experimental soils were compared for crop locations showing a positive yield response to magnesium treatment and those experiments giving no reaponse. A summary of this analysis is given in Table 13. It may be seen that the ave rage percent magnesium saturation was actually greater at most of the locations where some increased yield to magnesium was observed. Only in three wheat experiments, one field bean, and one soybean trial was the magnesium saturation lower where a response occurred. Generally a large percentage of the soils from locations where a positive yield response to magnesium was observed contained less than six percent of the exchange complex saturated with magnesium for the crops of corn, wheat, and beans. In contrast, a large per- centage of trials, where no magnesium response was noted, included soils with magnesium saturation values of less than six percent for the crops of oats, barley, hay, potatoes, and cantaloupe. For the other crops the magnesium saturation varied from a low of 2. 5 per- cent for the soil on which sweet corn was grown to over 16 percent for the soils with soybean trials. This variation had no apparent effect on crop yield response to magnesium fertilization. Neither the calcium-magnesium ratio or soil texture seemed to be important factors as to whether a soil did or did not respond to magnesium treatment. Generally, yields were normal even for the few soils having less than one percent magnesium on the exchange 46 47 complex. Where yields were found to be low, this situation could usually be attributed to some other soil or climatic factor. Even for the 10 locations where the soil magnesium saturation amounted to less than one percent in either the subsoil or surface layer, less than one-half of the crops reSponded appreciably to magnesium fertilization. _ From the data collected from this project, no logical explanation for the behavior of many of the crops to magnesium treatment was apparent. ~ Even where extremely low quantities of supposedly avail- able magnesium occurred in the soil, crop yields were neither depressed nor increased by added magnesium. Thus, it may be assumed from these tests that under Michigan conditions, most crops are tolerant of quite low magnesium levels and wide calcium- magnesium ratios in the soil. Ill . I chm-vfl—cinu-Z Fin- 1- .. . - uhvfikA w-w3°F~nfl q~P~qJ.fiH.¢-.vfia~ Pnnnumlflu muvau Minn-4).).u-nn-u sir-9.1.4 virulukdd «*AJLHIV N.N- .-~ WV III! \lllnlllnlgll. [III [PI-H 1 82.70-27.00; h: .11. iii-1 ‘Iill! 111' Ill 1‘ .1 «UnfinhfivfiN-uurvufi 1.4 II. E I.|-.III INHIIHIII-I l. '- o... n I. in I II ‘-I !-i I 9.0 a RA. Fin,- sl’l‘l‘lll‘ll..llkflil|\llvlll|l|lllll I .l|.| .no-- 1' I. 48 . .oanddgd no: 603523 San oaomn. .9205 no 2200qu ea «0 0260.203 30:: 82 2 c .N 2 82 2 m .N 2 58 262.6 - - 2c 2 - - - 22 26362222300 82 m m .m m - - - o 22252850 8 - o c .2 Nm - o N .22 2 3022 322m - o 22 2 - o N .2 2 653229.22 . om . 2 212.2 m 82 .2 a .2. 2 33.2 2022.2 2. 22 2m 22 - - - N2 66836“ 2 N 2.22. a 82 ‘. M 2m N 26623. $ 2. 2 .m 2 cm N 22 .m 2 .2223 2:8 380 .2. . c 2 .22 2 3 c 222 a gco om ,m w 22; 222 2. N 2.4. m .2022. .Gomuongmm Gofiumududw ammo-220nm“. . sowed-23mm Gofldygmm . awn-009W.” . . , m2 ficov 5?? m2 $0 V 5?? 2203.922 2203233 m2 *3 v 5?? m2 Roe v. 222:3 2283.922 3203.003 32.03.83 mo maomudoofi nude mg mo enema-mood mo 283.802 nude m2, mo . m uaoou one ma “6382.22 omduo>< . song—A unvoumnm, .«o hunch—Z omdum>< Hon-8.52 ouU :53 mamas .3 Samoa-Mung .02. . . 2 02209292 30?» on M22302? 6:03.203 mono uncommon BOT» wagons unofldoodmouu _ - 230m 0...? HO GofiudhdaMm _ 5.2mmvcmdcfi Ho ovhwvfi 0a Humid-40H mm muowhhdu $2602»me 03”. Du macho mSOmHm> HO uncommon 04:96?!“ .mé wand-H 1’ 1,1 - N ‘58 (r: 2 :J VIII. ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF FRESH TISSUE TESTS A. Magnesium Content in Plant Tissue .Samples were taken of the fresh tissue from most of the crops and analyzed for magnesium, potassium, and calcium in the cell sap. It was assumed that if the applied magnesium was being absorbed by the plant, it could be detected chemically in the conducting tissue. Information on mineral composition for specific crop locations is contained in Tables 28a *0 44a. of the Appendix. As is shown in Table 14, a higher magnesium content in the fresh tissue of hay, corn, oats, and field beans was found in plants from the check treatment than in plants receiving fertilizer or fertilizer and magnesium. This was probably due to a dilution factor since increased vegetative growth was often noted as a result of fertilization. Compari- sons were thus made between the plots receiving N—P-K only and those which received N-P-K plus Epsom salts or Sul-Po-Mag. The magnesium composition of many crops was increased appreciably at several locations by one of the magnesium treatments. For example, in about one-third of the hay and one-half of the corn and potato trials a substantial increase in the magnesium content of the fresh tissue was noted for one or both of the magnesium treatments. A similar increase in composition of fresh tissue for all the soybean. and cucumber crops and in plants at over one-half of the field bean experiments was found where either magnesium sulfate or Sul-Po-Mag was applied. The magnesium content in sweet corn in 1957 was more than doubled by the use of either magnesium source when compared with sweet corn from plots receiving only fertilizer. 49 50 A statistical analysis of the magnesium composition of the fresh tissue from the various treatments showed that the magnesium content of the crop was significantly increased at a few of the locations. The magnesium content of potatoes was significantly increased by Epsom salts at the five percent level at location l6-F- 10 and at the one percent level at location l6-F-ll in 1957. An increased magnesium content of potatoes at location 16-F-ll in 1957 and of corn at location 18 in 1956 by Sul-Po-Mag applications was highly significant. The combining of crop locations for purposes of statistical analysis showed that the magnesium composition was increased signifi- cantly at the five percent level at four of the eight corn trials in 1956 by applications of Epsom salts (locations 18, 30, 69, and 75). Furthermore, the addition of Epsom salts on potatoes in 1957 increased the magnesium content an amount that was significant at the one percent level (see Table 35a of the Appendix). An analysis further showed that Sul-Po-Mag significantly increased the magnesium content of second cutting alfalfa grown on coarse textured soils in 1956. From Table 15, it may be seen that applications of magnesium sulfate increased the magnesium contents on the average more than 20 percent in tissue of field corn, field beans, soybeans, cucumbers, cantaloupe, and sweet corn. Field beans, cucumbers, and sweet corn ' were the only crops in which the fresh tissue composition was affected by both magnesium carriers. It is of interest to note that soybean, sugar beet, and cauliflower tissue contained the largest concentration of magnesium. B. Composition of Fresh Tissue as Affected by Various Rates of Magnesium Application Because the treatments differed in 1958 from the two previous years and various rates of magnesium sulfate were applied, these data will be discussed separately. 51 Definite increases in magnesium content were noted in all crops at the higher application rates of magnesium sulfate as may be seen in Table 16. » A statistical analysis showed that the 200 and 400 pound rate of Epsom salts applied to corn and sweet corn significantly in- creased the magnesium composition at the five percent and one percent levels respectively (see Table 22). The average magnesium content of field corn from the two trials was closely related to the rate of magnesium applied as it increased from 100 to 400 pounds of magnesium per acre as the sulfate. The results of tests of the chemical composition of the oats and sweet corn were more erratic, but the heavy application of magnesium sulfate was definitely reflected in the magnesium content of the plant tissue. Generally, the Sul—Po-Mag, hydrated dolomite, and foliar applications were about equivalent to 100 and 200 pounds of magnesium per acre as the sulfate in respect to the composition of the fresh plant tissue. - Crop yields were not influenced by the variation in magnesium content. . All three of the sandy soils had magnesium saturation values of six percent or less. As was pointed out in the discussion of “the yield data, an abnormal condition of the corn leaves was noted at all the corn trials in 1958. ' A yellow striping of the leaves characteristic of magnesium deficiency was'apparent except that this condition occurred on the younger as well as the older leaves. Although the symptoms became less severe as the growing season progressed, some yellowing was observed right up to harvest time on some plants. Fresh leaf tissue samples from plants showing these symptoms were'analyzed and compared with the average magnesium content of normal leaves taken from all the treatments. Likewise, dry plant samples of the entire corn plant showing the symptoms were analyzed 566F- 52 and compared in a like manner. The results of these tests may be seen in Table 17. - Although only one-half to two-thirds as much magnesium was found in the fresh tissue of the abnormal plant as in the normal appear- ing plants, this difference was not apparent when the dry tissue of the whole plant was analyzed. To the author's knowledge, no critical value for corn has been established and hence it is difficult to determine if the plants were bordering on a condition of magnesium deficiency. The data for the surface soils in Appendix Tables 26a and 27a reveal that the degree of saturation of exchangeable magnesium varied between two and three percent in the corn field in Mecosta county and in the sweet corn field in Ottawa county. In contrast, about 12 percent of the exchange complex of the soil from the corn field in Clinton county was taken up with exchangeable magnesium. In Spite of the fact that the level of soil magnesium was low at two of the three locations, sufficient magnesium should have been present in the treatments to correct this condition. On the other hand, studies by Johnson e_t a_l. (22) have shown that 500 pounds of magnesium applied on Utah lO—B celery was insufficient to prevent magnesium deficiency symptoms. C.- Relation of Exchangeable Magnesium and Magnesium 'Applications with Chemical-Composition and'Crop'Yield 1956 and 1957 In about one-fourth of the trials where the magnesium content was appreciably increased by one of the soil applications of that nutrient, there were also reaponses in yields. However, both magnesium treat- ments were not equally effective in changing the mineral composition or the yield. 1 For the magnesium sulfate treatment, the percentage increase in magnesium content varied from 20 to 146 percent. These changes in composition were accompanied by a range of 13 to 28 percent increase 53 in yield. With the Sul-Po-Mag treatment, a 40 to 153 percent change in composition was accompanied by a range of 10 to 31 percent increase in yield. It may be observed from Table 18 that all of the soils from locations where responses to magnesium occurred in both compo- sition and yield, less than six percent of the exchange complex of these soils contained magnesium. From this information it is conceivable that these soils could be on the verge of magnesium deficiency for the growth of most crops, and applications of magnesium in some form might be beneficial . D. Interrelationships of Magnesium, Potassium, and Calcium Chemical analyses of the fresh tissue showed little or no relation- ship generally between the content of magnesium and potassium in the crops grown the first two years. Graphs of percent magnesium plotted against percent potassium content in the tissue revealed that only in sugar beets was there a fair negative correlation between the two ele— ments. A comparison of Tables 14 and 20 indicates that the average magnesium and potassium contents of hay, corn, oats and barley, potatoes, and field beans varied concurrently. On the other hand, the composition of these two elements varied inversely for cucumber and sweet corn. Results of analyses from crops grown in 1958 where magnesium sulfate was applied at various rates disclosed no definite relationship between potassium and magnesium in any of the three crops raised. Although the higher rates of application of Epsom salts increased the magnesium composition, the potassium content was not affected as may be seen in Table 22. As it is thought that soil potassium exerts a greater influence on magnesium than does magnesium on potassium, 54 one might not expect to find a definite correlation in the above situation. A frequency distribution of the potassium-magnesiurn ratios for the crops grown on the N-sP-K plots is shown in Table 19. For the crops of hay, corn, and sugar beets, the potassiuIn-magnesium ratios of the fresh tissue were about equally divided between 0 to 10 and 10 to 20 ranges. Potatoes, field beans, and the horticultural crops tended to have wider potassium-magnesium ratios. The potassium-magnesium ratios of the fresh plant tissue varied from a narrow range of 5. 2:1 in sugar beets to over 20:1 in sweet corn. The fact that the sample from a particular part of the plant was used for determination of all three elements, variations in moisture content of tissue at the time of sampling, and analytical errors in determining the individual elements may have been responsible for some of the inconsistencies of these results. The potassium content of the respective crops varied greatly between locations and between treatments. The data presented in Table 20 show that the potassium content of corn and potatoes was generally higher when the crops were groWn on coarse textured rather than on fine textured soils. The potassium content of the various crops appeared to have been little affected by either magnesium carrier except sweet corn and cucumber. With these two cr0ps, the magnesium composition was definitely increased by magnesium applications while the potassium percentage was depressed. It is possible then that the magnesium applications did have an adverse effect upon the potassium uptake in these two crops. For the remainder of the crops, the potassium content of the crops generally was unchanged or increased by the application of either magnesium carrier. The calcium content of the fresh tissue for the various crOps is shown in Table 21. The calcium-magnesium ratios in the fresh tissue 55 varied from about 1:1 in sugar beet to over 9:1 for cucumber from plants grown on the fertilized plots. For cantaloupe and cauliflower plants, this ratio was generally wider than for the field crops which varied from 2:1 to 4:1. - Sugar beet petioles were relatively lower in calcium than the conducting tissue of other crops. On the other hand, cucumber, cantaloupe, and cauliflower were relatively high in calcium as compared with the field crops. There appeared to be little change in calcium content of the tissue as a result of the magnesium appli- cations . 56 .wm-omoa MOM 330 Mum-7: 202% Q gnome-amen wmou no“ 220225.663. <~ . 6220-38002 mo “mags @033on may no“ “segue-2» Mom 639.com 03» mo own-2645 “Commune.“ 8.0.3.2, Unwwos? >o. odmmfl Amoum mo 3.22m 2203222 Hon gwmoammg mo arm-maxH mvm woo m2V om: N omndoo 23mg? mood :Hou amok/m awn .2 on 2 a omoa we: .2 emhmoo moaoflem .3305380 oom wow emu of. N emudoo mofioflom 09523ch omw wwm omc omc N omudoo mofiofiom Henge-DD dong voma comm no: .2. 65m meHoBonm momma Hmmdm Mmoa momfi wow mw-S N own-moo modoflenm mamencnom 3;. Nmo omm van. m 05m moaoflmnm mason. germ mom owe oms 2.2- $8.234 3.0 own: woo mum M 65m men mmw For 12. 02 emu-moo mofioflem 663.30% mNN. «amp Nms. mwo 0mmho>< mmo ”mo memo mmw m cam 322 2.22 2022 2: m 6288 68202.6. 8263 20:8 380 page map mmm mom own-29,8. mmo :w bee com N2 efiw 2380220. memo moo wmm X3 3 emu-moo moo-H 22.200 ~22 . 2.6 22. 222 63.8.9. 2.... 82. 22222. 23 2 6:22 3262262 228 20:3 .282 2.22 2022 2.20 2.82 m 66.38 66262262 228 2:23 .282 2.22 mmm $8 222 m 6:22 66262262 228 222 .2822 None 22$ 2% 2L m 8.88 6622262 :3 222 in 1W8: 326m Iona-3m 5022mm + «>30 260220 983663 mac-Hm 22.2mm QOHO + nHuZ MnAmINZ Mum-:2- mo 2.6.2523“ “norm ngwmocmmz .SQnH Hongz Sow .mfiBFBdo-S nesflmuuem vacuum MOM and?» :4... H0w macho mica 6503.9, mo 0560-3 awe-um mo «2.202200 gmmocwmg 0&8 .vH van-m8 57 Table 15. The percent increase in magnesium in fresh tissue of several crOps as affected by magnesium applications. Plant part Percent increase“ of Mg in Crop tested tissue from treatments1 Epsom salts Sul-Po-Mag Hay Petioles -3. 0 +20. 4 Corn Leaf sheath +22. 0 +10. 8 Cats and barley Stems -2. 4 -3. 7 Potatoes Petioles ' +18 . 6 +7. 1 Field beans Petioles +24. 0 +36. 3 Soybeans Petioles +31 . 0 +6. 6 Sugar beets Petioles 0 0 Cucumbers Petioles +50. 0 +36. 6 Cantaloupe Petioles +20. 1 +5. 8 Cauliflower Petioles +7 . 5 +18 . 2 Sweet corn Leaf sheath +107. 5 +117.7 lTreatment comparison is NPK + Mg - NPK. u1r~\.- \I\N,,Ifiil -.v1h~ ulvfihc nun. nhxll.3~-§1 PMs-.-Ilh01-Ibe no a .. Ian-duo.onaul¢a..noo Ir. . I I .- -.la..-n‘ :IQI- n.-d.| v 'I-lnc<.-da\.l \ua .b-~n.-1~ to..c§ ni|\:n ‘. o....u-n..: a.lIu~I\.v.¢.¢‘-:ru‘ -\ i. 58 .unmmoB >3 0233 Ema flmoum mo momma GOSZE pom 8539“de mo mononmu 0583052 ufldhoaoo mfidm 59.2mm mm <\m2 on: cow. mam Munmei Q e823: 3 4&2 mnz com + MATZ - o 31$ 803m 3 $32 2: com + v79: .. 0 58m 3:8 3.. 4E: 2: on + Mia - m 3:8 E83. 3 «RE 2: 2: + xii .. m 32-8.15 as $32 2: 2: + m2 - m .QSQONéTm 2: ooo .: Eco $6-2 - 5 8o Sm gm 3: SE «3w mm; A308 83 $825. of. 2:. m3 82 3% v3 3... 95$ Bomfiaa masom CHOU HGQBW sow X: 25 $2 on; NS 02. 88:38 818282 Emévm mumO :3 or: £3 $2 $2 32 So $23.6. $2 1:: $2 22 3.3 $2 $2 Enos mascmmogo STSm 2m 8». E $2 «cm was 9:. 58:38 E3382 glam umwmm. gmmonwde .8"an O .m H . . Q .. U , m 4 ~93 Hmom gonads L: ~ucocbdou9 GoBmUoA .wmmH £20m @033on no Esoum Bacchus: gwmocmog adapt/6c“ no“ mmouo mdofiud> mo mdmmfl mom; zmouw mo acoucoo Swoocwda 9:. .3 63m? H1 nus 59 Table 17. The magnesium content of normal and abnormal appearing corn and sweet corn plants in fresh and dried plant tissue, 1958. m Appearance 6 Magnesium C rop and location of plant cOntentl Fresh leaf tis sue Field corn - Clinton county _ normal 1278 abnormal 6722 Field corn - Mecosta county normal 848 abnormal 4642 Sweet corn - Ottawa county normal 681 . abnormal A 4802 Average normal 935 abnormal 538 Total dried plant Field corn - Clinton county normal . 22 abnormal -- 'Field corn - Mecosta county normal 0. l3 abnormal 0. 133 Sweet corn - Ottawa county normal 0. 22 ' abnormal 0. 293 Average normal 0. l9 abnormal 0. 21 1Parts of magnesium per million parts of fresh tissue by weight; percent magnesium in dried plant. zAvera e of two sam 1 s (f‘ la t a 1 ) g pe 1vep nspersmpe. 3One sample (five plants). I. 7.0 .n‘ 60 . mdfludo uma >13 0023025..» . mmaflufio 03”. 00o§HoGH~ 0.03.300 mg 0:”. mo 0:0 5:3 «:0?» GM 0000uonw 0uoE no 300.09 0H >o. p0€0m80000 30300 mg GM 00.00MB: 0HoE no uc0ou0m was??? cm .N am mm mma ova wmumus. 00u000 Guoo u003m om .N ha n ow. u Nuhum 00.3000 mu0n§od0 :0 .v 0H mm _ wm mo mm 0am mdd0m cm .6 .. 2 .. ow we 0cm GuoU. m” .N ma om oc om Am 00.1000 ”:00 S .o - ...S - so as 238 3m Mm .m N: .. 0v .. A: 00.3.60 >03 x0anwgoo 300 [M02 0:00 m0: 03.00 mo “83.25000 nomugm 500mm .anHugm 500mm u0£§d 9.5mm mono m2 300.3% 20% am ”50300 W2 cw nofldood Hauvfing 0000.22: 0:0ou0nm. 0000.22: on0ou0nm Sow 2 .30?» no.8 6:0 0.9003 303 £00: mo comawmomaoo §Mm0cm0g ©0000H0Gm maoflduflmmd §w00cmma 0H0£3 mcoaudUOH ROAD .mH 02—09. Oil II‘N! n-vl III-IIIL .tucUI‘I-III IIQIUC“ ‘\ uanQ 61 .mcoflmoofi mo umnadd vvflduvmm 93 .HOm admgmmnu Mnmrz new mandm 03» mo mmdum>m acmmmumvu mufidm>~ . 3on Mumuz Scum 35mm» 3de HohH HHN .ON o o om H 3. H o o N E8 326 H H HH .2 o o o 0 2: H o o H 533333 H HN .NH o o o o 2: N o o N K8350 H312 o c o 0 2:. N o o N mumnfisuao HHN .m o o o o 2. N S H» 5 38p 2&6 H a .e c e o o o o 2: N N ammonia H8 .3 o o 0N H 8 N 8 H m 38a 3on H "N .3 o o NH N E 5 NH N H H 388va 19m or - o o o o o 2: HH HH >225 ES 33 H2: N.N m m H em m NM N NN .980 HHHH o o N H ‘3 o 3 0 NH 3m Nofldu .. unov. - ado 0 «H8 0 “no u muznvm .. numnH .oZ unmnm .oZ numnm .oZ numnm .oZ mmfieé. 31H .om on; .ON oN..H .2 2-0 Saga mono mow—mu gammcmmfiugmmmgom H308 H .mmouu vmflwuomm new 353“ ”Edam £mmum mo mofidu gwmonmdaugwmmmuom m5 m0 Gowudnwuumwv 23.. .mL 0368 RI 3 uyvu‘ v m "U 'i‘ I d~‘t Nun .uII ‘\ 62 .msowumUoH mo Hwngc vmflwummm 9.3 new unmgdmnu umm monEMm 03» mo mwMHmN/d unmmvumou mmdfimsr 23mg? >3 mummfl Ammum munmm H8238 Hmm gammduom mo gumm— omNN. 83. 88 2:2 N 3.38 £88 83 58 $25 88H 28: 82H 80: H 3.88 mmHoHHom $332180 38 NNNN NHNo 88 N 3:8 333$ 3:on33 8N8 8N0 NNNoH NNHVoH N 8.88 mmHoHHmnH 38526 NHS HNNN 8N8 HNE N can 3333 38a 5&8 SN» 88. 88 85 N 8.88 moHoHHonH 3888 oHNN NNNN 0H? 88 m 25 a 338m 283 33h 8NHH-‘ 38H NEHH n88H mafia: mmNo 28 88 onN N man as: . NNNHH. 93: SN: 2 3.3.8 moHoHHonH $8.88 83 £3. 88 88 82»; oNNN 83 NNNN SS N 25 8qu :5. $8 83 N 8.88 mEBm Eco 88 NNR. N.NNo $8 083;. 8N p 88 H HN F «New N H 8m 58% 88 N8: NE: SN: HH $.88 H84 980 88 N8» 88 2.8 822% o8NH 8N2 oNS oNNN H can muHoHHmm :8 H83 NoNNH :8 $2: 88 m 8.88 mmHoHHonH :8 HENV 3m 8: 8H: 88 oNNH‘ N 3a «338m :8 as 83 AwNH: NN8 88 N $38 $333 :8 a: 3m MHZ 33m nomngm . Semanm >30 mHHoUmUoH 95pm + n72 + Md .2 MATH/H 828 No :33me t8 8.5 Hgmmmmuonm .Emnd umngz flow 3.2m “lull-T E .macogdmuu nouflfiuvm oflfioomm new and?» Sm new mmouu 33m 9903.? Ho mummfl Ame: mo 33:00 8933309 23. .om 3nt 63 .mcoflmuoH mo hung: Uoflmuomm on» new unogummuu pom mmEEdm 03“. mo mwdum>m unomoumou mmdfim> “Ems? >9, odmmfl Amman mo munmmdoflfia Hum Swofimu moan—nan: 8mm 8mm 8% 83. N 338 H32? H84 58 $25 88 8mm 88 88 H 8.88 mmHoHHom 833230 8mm 28 8mm 33 N 8.38 833$ 3:on38 2mm 83 83 83 N $38 $333 Snags 83 NNE ‘83 82 H. 2E 3:53 38a 5&8 oHVHN N8H § 83 oNNN N 838 moHoHHenH mammn>om mm: 8.: HNHH 82 m on: mmHoHHom 28: 3lo omNN SoN . moHN mmHN @833. oNNN :NN 88 BAN N mam HVNNN NEN $2 NmNN H: 838 mmHosonH mosflom SNN omwN GEN 88 owns: 83 SNN _ 88 SoN N 25 8NN womN NomN 8mN N $38 258 33 NSN 8HN vaN vNHN 8223 omNN NHHN omHN :HN NH 25 :3on SN moHN meN N8N HH $38 H84 880 $8 2.8 $NN $3 $203. 8: 83 83 ovNN H 2E moHoHHom :3 HEN. NSN mNmN .vaN 38 m 3.38 833mm :3 HENH in SAN $8 SNN :8 N 25 8333 :8 BHH NNNH 3: H.NwH EHVN m 2:88 mmHoHHom :8 HmHv 3m mmz muadm . uOnHqum. Sommm >30 mnoflduofi muouw + m2 + VH-nH-z . M-nH-z H026 Ho H235”. tam 8.5 5.3030 .Emnm nongz 30m «53% a g [“1 .muGoGH—Mvuu nmufiflumm 0330mm new and?» 3m. new macho 303 993.2; no 352» smonw mo ”Emu—coo 85318 03H. .HN 3an 64 40>“: owm um unduflfinwflww .HESH §H Hm ESHHENEE. .3303 >0, mamas ammuw 3.1mm H3335 mom 8.33.8 wad .gwmmmuom .gmmocmmg mo muHMnHN mcoummafi own—“830v 8383 mm <\m2 3H 8N + MATH/H - o HANNA? .NHNSOH mm <\w2 an: em + Mrnmuz u h I. m 33m 508mm mm <\m2 8: 00¢ + Mumuz .. Q 31% Eommm 3 «\msH 2: 8N + xii - 0 9:8m 58am 3 $34 3H 8H + MATH/H - m 82-3.st 3 $32 2H. 8H + 9.2 H<\oN-ON-m 2: o8 .HH 38 xii - < ”35632? NSN NNmN NNNN NNNN 8NN NNNN 8NN $234 8.: 8: 8H: 03H 82 83 83H 83 HUHmHHaHNHm NHN-8N 58 $36 8HN ommN omNN omwN omNN omNN 8HN 88H 83320 FNNLEN 980 8mm 8mm 88 omNN 8H.N 83 0on 88H 858 8:88on HwN-NNN 880 9:53ng .Hbmnm $8 83 83 83 83 8mm 83 ”833‘ 88 83 8.2. 85. 8qu 8% 83 H58 HUHomfimE NHN-8N 58 $25 88 83 8mm 8:“ 28¢ 83 8mm 883E835 N.NNHHN 500 83 83 8mm 83 88 8mm 83 88H 858 83382 HH‘NéNN Eco . gwmmduom Juana . . N8 SN 28 3.8: L8 :8 m2. 8234 8.2. 8v NS 82 8.» «No 38 HEN» 33.235 NHN-8N ES 386 82 HoNH maNH £2 83 82 «EH 883 $8328 H‘NNJHN 980 2}. 8» E 1%: New 1N8 N2. 88:88 83382 H888 980 . . Ngwmwnwdz Adda. o L . m m be r Low. ,z m. H . K we: HHom. Saga no.5 , x 1 anaufimnfi £036qu 1% .me .musvcfidmuu gwmocm‘ma omnommm new mummfl Guoo “003m 95 Chou 33m Ammum mo mucvucoo 55330 wad gmmmduom .gfimocmme .23. .NN 2an IX. DISCUSSION OF DRY TISSUE ANALYSES A. Magnesium Content of Crops Total magnesium, calcium, potassium, and phosphorus were determined in the dried plant tissue from the several crops raised over the three year period. These data are presented in Tables 45a to 64a of the appendix. In general, the magnesium content of the dry tissue was increased in plants receiving magnesium treatments at substantially more loCations than was found for the fresh tissue. However, the magnesium compo- » sition of both the fresh and dry tissue of the various crops was-not always increased by the same treatments or in the same proportion. The average magnesium content of each of the crops in all experi- ments is presented in Table 23. Generally, the magnesium content was lower in plants which received fertilizer only (treatment D for 1956 and 1957) for all crops except the small grains and field beans. Again, it is believed this occurred because of a dilution factor resulting from increased growth where'N-P-K fertilizer was applied. However, comparisons made between this fertilizer treatment and those treat- ments where fertilizer plus magnesium were applied showed that the magnesium content of most of the crops was affected by use of supple- mental magnesiutn. Magnesium- sulfate applied to the soil appreciably increased the magnesium composition of all crops except corn, oats, wheat, and sugar beets, while Sul-Po-Mag caused a notable increase in all crops except oats, field beans, and sugar beets. The data further show that theaverage magnesium content of the dry tissue for most crops was usually higher when these crops were 65 66 grown on fine textured soils compared with those on coarse textured soils. - Furthermore, the magnesium content of the small grains was usually only about one-third to one-half as high as other crops. - Sugar beet and cucumber tissue contained the highest amount of magnesium compared with other crops, with sugar beet foliage containing up to 10 times more magnesium than the small grains. The percent increase of magnesium in the dry tissue of the various crops for all years and all soil types is shown in Table 24. About two-athirds of the crops showed an appreciable increase in magnesium uptake by applications of both magnesium carriers. In Table 25 the number and percentage of experiments are given where either magnesium sulfate or Sul-Po-Mag increased the magnesium content of the Specific crop more than 20 percent. The percent of locations giving an increased magnesium composition as a result of both magnesium carriers is shown in Table 26. These. values are essentially a summary of the information contained in Table 25. At about one-half of the hay, one-third of the corn, oats and barley, two-thirds of the potato , and one-half of the truck crop locations, the magnesium content of the crops was increased by one of the two soluble magnesium sources. From Table 26 it may be seen that one-half of the soybean, cucumber, and cantaloupe trials showed a 20 percent or more increase in magnesium uptake by the plants from applications of both magnesium carriers. Likewise, increases in magnesium uptake varying from 20 to 38 percent occurred in the remainder of the crops, except sugar beets and sweet corn, by applications of both magnesium treatments. The magnesium composition was significantly increased at several individual crop locations by application of one or both of the magnesium carriers. The Epsom salt treatment significantly increased the 67 magnesium composition of potato plants at two locations in 1957 “(locations 9-F-5 and 59-F-23) and of cucumber vines at location 54-3—19. The Sul-Po-Mag treatment also increased the‘magnesium content of the crop plants significantly at one potato location in 1957 (location 69-F-27) and at one hay trial in 1956 (location 17). The increased uptake of magnesium by cucumber vines at location 54-J-19 in 1957 was highly significant (see Tables 45a, 56a, and 58a of Appendix). A statistical analysis of combined crop locations showed that the magnesium content was increased significantly at four of the 11 oat and barley locations in 1957 (locations 7, 9, 12, and 32) by applications of Epsom salts. < An increased magnesium composition of potato and cucumber vines at all locations in 1957 by applications of both magnesium carriers was highly significant (see Tables 56a and 58a of Appendix). From the above discussion it may be concluded that, in many cases, the applied magnesium was absorbed by the plant which was reflected in the chemical composition of the plant part tested. B. Composition of Dry Tissue as Affected by Various Rates of Magnesium Application The results of the chemical determination of both the fresh and dry tissue with respect to the effect of various rates of nagnesium sulfate applications were quite similar in 1958. Over a 20 percent increase in magnesium in the dry tissue was noted for all crops from plots where 400 pounds of elemental magnesium was applied as‘mag- nesium sulfate. The application of half as much magnesium increased this content in only one-half of the crops. Thermagne sium composition of crops from~ plots receiving» Sul-Po-Mag, foliar spray, and dolomitic hydrated limestone treatments in 1958 was, in almost every case, lower than with any of the-magnesium sulfate treatrnents(see Table 27). 68 A statistical evaluation of each of the field corn and sweet corn trials in 1958afor differences in magnesium composition showed no significant changes due to applications of either'magnesium carrier. However, when the locations were combined, an analysis revealed that a significant increase at the five percent level of magnesium content occurred when the 400 pound rates of magnesium sulfate were made. » However, these differences in composition did not affect crop yield (see Table 14a of the Appendix). C. Correlation Between Magnesium Content of Crop Plant and Crop Yield Generally, there was little relation between the'uptake of mag- nesium- and crop yield response to additions of this nutrient. Only in nine trials did applied magnesium in either carrier influence both the content of magnesium and crops yields (see Table 28). ~ In addition, three experiments showed a response in yield and magnesium composition from applications of both magnesium carriers. Usually the yield in- creases were less than the changes in composition on a percentage basis. , For example, the percent increase in magnesium of the crop comparing the magnesium sulfate treatment withfertilizer alone ranged from 20 to 95 percent, while increases in yield amounted to 22 and 19 percent respectively for the same comparison. The changes occurring when Sul-Po-Mag was used were of lower-magnitude. D. Correlation of Dichangeable‘magnes'ium in? Soil and the Magnesium- Content of the Plant The magnesium content of the various crops grown with fertilizer alone at the various locations were plotted against the quantity of exchangeable magnesium in the soil. 69 No direct correlation between soil and plant magnesium was found with any of the crops excepttbeans and potatoes. A correlation coefficient of 0. 932 was obtained with the field beans at five locations and an r value of 0. 667 was obtained with 12 potato trials in 1957. Both of these values were significant at the five percent level (see Figure 4). With the remaining cr0ps no significant correlations were obtained; however, in some cases there appeared to be some relation- ship between soil and plant composition for certain crops. , In‘many instances the points representing correlation for individual locations were too scattered to give a close relationship. There were not a sufficient number of experiments with vegetable cr0ps to make it possible to draw any conclusions. The average magnesium content of each crop was gene rally related to the content of exchangeable magnesium in the soil but the relationship was rather imperfect as may be seen in Table 29. , E. Interrelationships of Magnesium, Potassium, ~ Calcium, and PhosPhorus As has already been stated earlier, a negative correlation is thought to occur between potassium and magnesium in the soil and plant. - Although this experiment was not designed to show these relationships, there were a few cases where sucha correlation existed. For example, asmay be seen in- Figure 5, there was a highly significant negative correlation between magnesium and potassium in the plant tissue of potatoes for the treatment involving magnesium sulfate at 13 locations (r of -0. 78). There was also some degree of negative correlation between the two elements in potato vines from plots treated with N-P-K and'N-P plus Sul-Po-Mag, but it was not significant (r of -0. 35 and -0. 25 respectively). It may be recalled 70 from the earlier discussion that the magnesium content of potato plants was significantly increased by both magnesium treatments. Hence, it appears that for this one crop, magnesium may have influenced the uptake of potassium. Plotting of the percent magnesium versus percent potassium for each croprevealed, in most instances, either no relationship or a slightly positive, though non- significant, correlation. Generally, the points were too widely scattered to give a reliable correlation coefficient. As might be expected, when either the percent magnesium or potassium increased in plant tissue, the calcium content declined somewhat. - Even though relatively heavy rates of magnesium were applied as magnesium sulfate for the field corn and sweet corn in 1958, it appears that supplemental magnesium had little influence on the uptake of potassium, although the magnesium content of the corn was increased. An analysis indicates that the average magnesium content for the corn at the three locations was increased over 30 percent by the 400 pound application of magnesium in respect'to that of the N-P-K treatment; but the potassium content was practically unchanged in these two treat- ments. This finding is inagreement with other workers who have reported that potassium exerts a. greater influence on the magnesium content of the plant than does magnesium on the potassium content of the plant. If varying rates of potash had been applied along with the magnesium, the results might have been different. Theaverage potassium composition of the various crops may be seen in Table 30. In general, there was little difference between the potassium content of the crops grown on the two broad textural groups of soils except for-legume-grass hay and potatoes. In these two cases, the potassium content of the crops was highest when grown on the 0?. Cl' 0; 1'8 1'5 #7 ‘ 71 coarse textured soils. Sugar beets contained the greatest amount of potassium followed by potatoes. The small grains and particularly wheat contained the least amount of potassium. In comparison with sugar beet tissue, the percent of potassium in small grains was only one-fifth to one-sixth of the former. The distribution of the potassium-magnesium ratios for specific crops is shown in Table 31. It may be seen that a high percentage of the corn, small grain, bean, and potatoctissue‘had relatively narrow ratios (0 to 10) whereas about one-half of the hay trials showed a wider range of potassium-magnesium ratios (10. l to 20). The data in Table 32 show the average calcium composition of specific crops grown on soils of various texture. Generally, the calcium- magnesium ratio varied from 2:1 for the crops of corn, sweet corn, , field beans, soybeans, cucumbers, and cauliflower to about 3:1 for hay, potatoes, and cantaloupe. On the other hand, theplant tissue of small grains and sugar beets contained one to two times more magnesium than calcium. The calcium content of the dry tissue did not vary appreciably among the various treatments or between the crops grown on soils of different texture. The small grains contained relatively small amounts of calcium while the calcium composition of cantaloupe was relatively high being two to four times greater than the magnesium content. The phosphorus composition of the various crops is shown in Table 33. In the particular cases of cucumber and sweet corn where magne siurn- applications definitely increased the magnesium content, the phosphorus composition was unaffected. In general, the small grains contained about 20 to 25 percent more phosphorus than most of the other crops. Thus, no consistent relationship of total phosphorus and total magnesium in the dry plant tissue was noted as some workers have reported. I 72 .mcoflmooH mo Hangs pomwwoomm m5» no“ unogdonu Mom moamgom 03» mo ommuocrd odomonmou modded/2 PM .0 «am .0 HM .0 mm .0 N OdeOU mvzdum mound m0>d®1H «HHOU “063% mm .0 Haw .0 0m .0 mm .0 a OdeOU OHOMHOQ Ufid m0>d01m vaoamgdu 2:. .o ow .c 00 .9 we .0 N omudoo . 23> 0923.3ch 2 .2 22M .2 mm .o mo .22 N 338 os2> 22222830 E .2 no .2 on .2 2.22.2 N one o2o2ooa one 2812 Soon nsmsm and 2m .22 mm .o 2.2. .o N 838 m.292? odsooaom om .22 2o .22 mm .o 2.2. .o m 2222 e292? meson 2.22.22 on .o 3 .22 m2; o2. .o omens; 2.2. .o S .o as .o E. .o m 2222 mm .22 on .o 81o 2. .o S 8.38 nos2> nooosoom .. S .o 2N .o 2 .o omoso>< -- 2.2 .o 2 .o 222 .o o 2222 2923 odds? -- om .0 mm .o 2.2 .o m $38 2923 2822? 222 .o 2 .o 222 .o 222 .o omens: MN .o 2.2 .o S .o 2.~ .o n 2222 o22:22 32.2.3 2.2 .o .22 .o 2 .o o2 .o 2 8.38 2923 eds $220 .22. .o 2.22 .22 N2. .22 2.2. .o omsnois. 222. .o m2. .2. 2.2122 mm .o 2.2 2222 328.2 980. 2. .o 2122 mm .o S .o 02 season 3:812 22.80 mm .22 mm .o S .o 2... .o owns: 222. .22 mm .2. mm .o 2.2. .o 2. 2222 e292% and 2m .2. 2m .22 a... .o 2% .o o 8.88 2923 22.22.... sam Mm .o 3 .22 mm .22 on .o 2. 2222 2923 32.2 mm .o and S .0 mm .o a 338 222.3 to: .322 W32 mfidm nommgm gownflm . >30 oaofioooa macaw + .292 + Mhmi M.-n2-z sooso 2o 283.82 2.22222 .2920 Smoocmoz 222200qu nongz flow . «22de — .mudogdouu Houflflhow 0230on MOM who?» 3m. new mmono p203 odowhd> mo odomfi than mo advpfioo £33022de ova. .MN smash. 73 Table 24. The percent increase of magnesium in dry tissue of several crops as affected by magnesium applications. Number of Percent increase. of Mgin- plantsz Crop locations Epsom salts Sul-Po-Mag Hay 13 22. 2 18. 5 Corn 27 4. 7 9. 5 Oats and barley 24 -5. 9 0. 0 Wheat 12 - 10. 5 - Potatoes 13 15.6 15.6 Field beans 5 17. 3 -4. 0 Soybeans 2 24. 0 136. 0 Sugar beets 2 8. 3 -4. 6 Cucumbers 2 45. 5 51.1 Cantaloupe 2 50. 0 26. 6 Cauliflower 1 36. 7 l6. 7 Sweet corn 2 14. 3 28. 6 ‘Compared with plots receiving N-P-K only. zValues represent average of two samples per treatment for the specified number of locations. " 1" .l...'.l II‘I.I\JI.I‘ 1|. I..l“.“l.. rl“ I I‘ll! I -‘-.- 17be dun. .nflvh IVs-hpinnnnaw-‘vviu nun-cit.uonu{uwu.- .v~\:-.i..ouW”L...-.~»o cvn|oluv I..t.a.n XII-1 Io. u..ulnon..~ III-Ia'kutuni‘lu-Il .nti.wl.pln new. "I‘d-Ifsnsuqnt nun-n.1I-.n.-§ ..q.n . nu. --.. nu s.‘ II... n \ 74 .3on >120 MunmIZ 2.323 pondeoo 0.20222 no 2280qu on mo aoflmmomfioo gfimonmda pomdouoqf o 0 cm oo 2 o N Gnoo “modem om 2 cm 2: H N N omndOo «62:23.3qu cm H om 03 H N N omndOo noflcfldodU o o o om o 2 N 2222 Soon .8de cm H 002 cm N H N omnsoo masoncwow cm 2 ON ow. H N m onfl mason. 33h mm 2 mm mm H H m 02. 2. om on» m o 2 omnmoo woofifiom mm m 0N mm m o S owuooo anodudn was mudO pm 2... mm mm c 2w 5 sea on N cm 02. N v 02 omhdou 22.200 om N om om N N v 22G 8ch ~52 mm 2 3 on 2 N 2. 2222 so: sam o o S o H o o omnmoo €223 >2; mm. v. ma. be A. o o omhdou Cod Knox mm: madam mmz mfidm mudogmonu mudogwouu loam-Hum Sommm IOnHuHsm EOQOH Aug—pom. w: Soon. new 32 new m2 .HOH WE mo smoouonm m2: m0 omdououm m2: m0 mmdouog m2: m0 omdouonm we: mcofldoofi mdoum [302.3 233.83 -3023 mnoflmoofi .3023 9203.802 .302? mcoflsoofi «0 209.5222 2.92.933» mono mo unoonofl mo HoAgz H.809 Sow o 2228an oaoo~ EA .2222 .8 2228228 gmnoemmfi Ease: s 222222 a .mhfivk :. Cw “ngommm 2 Samoa“ 8: 28.3283 .2225:me oflmoomm 22.203 QOHU MO “COOMOQ Ufim hQQEn—C vamp... .mN 0.1;“? Tab] Haj. C0: 0a* PO' Table 26. Percent of crop locations showing increased magnesium uptake in dry tissue. ‘ __‘_ "1 _— - Number of Epsom Both Crop locations salts Sul—Po-Mag treatments I-Iay 232 43 35 3o Corn 27 37 . 30 24 Cats and barley 17 35 29 ‘ Z9 Potatoes 13 54 46 38 Field beans 5 4O 20 20 Soybeans 2 50 100 ~ 50 Sugar beets 2 50 0 0 Cucumbers 2 100 50 50 Cantaloupe 2 100 I 50 50 Sweet corn 2 0 50 0 m llncrease of 20 percent or more. 2Includes two cuttings. 76 32s.. Eonam on $22,222 82 + v2-2-2 - a 32s.. 882222 no «\22 32 82 + 22.. .242 o 32...... 88.222 on $22 32 .82 +22- .2 -z- 22 222.32 o2- m 32 one 2.2 2.2.8 Md 2 <2 .oudo umooxo 222de Mo 22022qu o>2umuomo> 0.222220 ooHu22Ho22H2 .Ho>oH $2.2 023 as 2222022222m2mn. 022032223 032222032. 2.382.222 on «\22 32 82 + v7.2.2. 0 >922? 2220892 <\w2 on: on + vHu.2muZ u rm. 2325.225 no 2122 32 2: +2.22. 2.2 ms. . o 22 .o 22 .o 2.2 .o 22 .o. 22 .o 22 .o omdsofiw o2 . o 22 .o, 22 .o 222 .o 2.2 .o 2.2 .o 222 .o odes 2.232522 222182. :28 283m 2222 on .o 22 .o .22 .o 2.2 .22 22 .o 22 .o ssmo2 22.22.8220 . 2222.22. 22.30 2.2.22 2.... .o as. .o 22 .o .22 .o .22 .o 22 .22 e282 .2253 E28252 . 22.21222. 22.80 22252on0 «2225qu 22.2 22.2 S .2 E .2 .3. .2 22.2 2.2 .2 «2233... 2a .2 2o .2 mo .2 2.2. .2 so .2 2.2 .2 22 .2 case 222.222.2222 222182. 22.28 283m 32 22.2 mm .2 2.2 2.2.2 ‘ 2222 2.2 2 682 2222228220. 2.221222. Eco. 2m .2 mm .2 2m .2 mm .2 32 22.2 2.2. .2 582 22.5.... 8282282 22.21222. 2.80 SHomSOnH 22200qu 22 .o 22 .o 22 .o .22 .o o2 .o 22 .o 22 .o omens: 22222 .22 .o 22 .o, . .22 .o 22 .o 2.2 .o 22 .22 case 222.222.222.22 222182. 58 23322 22222 222 .o 22 ..o, .22 .o 22 ...o 2.2 .o 22 .22 22282 2:22.830 2.221.222. 22.80., 22 .o S .o 22 .o . 22 .o 22 .o 2.2 .22 mod 22.82.22.223 82822822 22.21.2222. 580. 22.2222no22wdSH 2.220920“ 0 .2 m . o . -, m - t m r a. 22.: 228 3.2.2322. dooo, . 22220222232 H 1 22023004 - , 2. wmaH .32025202» 2222222. 022de o . . $20on 20.2 muflde 22.200 200.522 H2222 22.200 by 226222200 20.30 dad .gmwmduofi gwmvdwde 02.5.. . PM QHANH H2 «0 ma 22222. d‘lovllllIfiisv ...' file‘s-z MVQHNI‘GIIH UU'VIfi I‘V'L Hts-n. ‘.~lr-§C-.I.I an inlhlniu -,IIQ.1.Ir\m--ol.1 I”... .5.\..ll I‘lhflv-‘Ce. C‘I‘ 5“! INhl vt‘o\0. 77 .mHoHHHoo gHmonmoE 2H» Ho 2220 2.323 HuHoH.» 22 0222292022 @2022 .20 2coo2om oH >3 poadmfiooom 22232200 gmmonmmg 222 092920222 v.20222 .20 unoonom 23220382 we .22 N.N u m» HmuHuE. omhooo 25223.3an on .3 n mH .. mo we omusoo casewom cw...H.N a «.H u mm mm 022$ 2200 em .6 a 2 .. mm 2.22 22$ 22.200 o0 .vH .. MN .. om Ho 022$ 22.200 ow .ON 2 u H22. .. m 923 2200 «EH mH Hm mm Hm rm 92.22200 22.200 222. .22 - 22 - 2.2 2.2. 2222 22.2222 sam S. .o - 2.2 >2. mm 222. 22.2.28 22.022 .2222 HHOm mow/H muHom mom/H m2H22m 2.0.3.225 Ho nomquw GHOmnHM uOnHqum EOmnHH 2032222222 adouw 22022222252222 HuHoT» 222 222m2220o m2 22 2202222004 12.225223 @020 . m2 acoonom ommoquH uncononm 222222926222 «GoouonH HHom 2 .HvHoT» @020 Had a 0 02292222. %2@ .«o Gofiummomaoo gmmoGMNE U 2P» mGOaHmUHHAWQd GHH/Mmofiwd 0.22:? mGOHuudUOH 2H0.20 mm 03.69 vmdouo . . 78 $2.220 Munmuz M222>2moou 30222 2220.22 2520222200 wm2n2222mm .202 MM 022.92. 222 220>2m mm 3.2mm 222M222 252.2225 20 22232200 22252m022mm222 02222 unmmmummu maids: mm .o om .N wm .o vm2moo N 22200 202.26 cm .o 225.0 no.0 0m2mou 2 222302222250 me .o No.2V pm .0 vmhdoo N 02222023230 wwd mm.~ 2m .0 uwumou N 922222225220 mm .o cm 62 mo . 2 mmumou N madmn>om mm .o co .2: 22m .2 02222 m 9.2de 2202.2 wed 02262 N02 9222 m owio C. .m @226 mmnmoo o2 mucumuom omd bed mod 02222 o mm .0 mm .m pm .0 mmudoo m 2.823 mmd 2.2.5 206 02222 m «2 .o 2.2 .2» no .o wandou c2 232.23 can 930 2222.22 mc.m2 022.2 02222 >2 mm .o mm .222 mm .0 0922.200 02 22200 22 .o 25 .29 S .o 2222 2. 228 35.. S .o mm .2. 3.6 8.88 o 2228 22. .232 unmouonm .. 22200232 .m222m 002\ .0 .22 maxim 0262222 220m 20 220m 222 M22 26.23282 munmguvmxv 220.20 22202.22 2220.20 222 m2 220229232222... M22 m2ndmmam220xm 220m 20 2022222572 f 6220.20 20 222022200 222.92"... 022de 20m 22.» gamodwde vafidowddfiuxv 20 220223292 022.2. .oN 0126B 0222 0.2 2. . . t,-IQVII161WL!L H n nu-Inv - nICII. ‘ullt .‘an i . ‘~‘\Q tn‘ t.\ DI. 79 .m220220002 20 202222222 2002220022m 0222. .202 2220222222022 .2022 m02a22222m 02,25 20 0mm2m>m 22225022202 220222222: 23222226 2.2 .N 2.N .N m2 .N om .N N 2522200 2022.0 002222012 22.200 200226 £22020 o2 .2 22. .2 22 .2 cm .2 2 $.38 2.25 3228.2 203322250 2.2 .2 2.2 .2 22. .2 22 .2 2 $228 35> . 22252850 22 .2 .22 .2 cm .2 .22. .2 2 3.38 82222, 2222228220 : 002022022 N.N .2. 25 . 2. O2. . 2. 3. .2» N 02222 202200025012. 30022 Admfim mo .2 m2. .2 c2. .2 .22 .2 2 8.38 2.2923 2.8.2228 mm .2 2m .2 oo .2 m2 .2 m 2222 Q2922s 22322 2.22.2.2 2m .2. m2 .2. m2 .2. 22. .2. 2.22.832 22. .2 22 .2 2 .2 .2 2,2 .2 2 2222 222222 $3822 2:. .2. 2.2 .2. 2.2..2. 2.2 .2. 2 8.88 322222 $8322 - .22. .o 2.2 .o 2.2 .o 2.22.83... - 22. .o 2.2 .2. cm .20 2. 2222 m.2923 28222.2 - 22. .o 2. .o .22. .o 2 2.228 02223 222225 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 222.83.. 22 .2 22 .2 2.2 .2 2.2 .2 2. 2222 2.2923 2.2 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2.2 8.58 3923 .2323 2.28 32.0 2.2 .2 22. .2 2.2 .2 22. .2 . 022.83. 2.2 .2 2.2. .2 mm .2 22. .2 2.2 2222. 32:20.2 22.80 .. 2.2. .2 22.2 22 .2 22.2 2: 8228 35.3 22.80 22 .2 .22. .2 2b .2 22. .2 $2295.. o2 .2 22. .2 22 .2 22 .2 2. 2222 m.2223 .2222 22 .2 .22 .2 22 .2. 22 .2 22 3.58 «2923 22.222. .2222 2.2 .2 2o .2 222 .2 22. .2 2. w 2222 2.292? .2222 2.2.. .2 22 .2 m2 .2 S .2 o 8228 «2223 22222 .2222 “M2. 32.3 n0n2u2dm. gonna _ 222220 . + n2uZ + Mummz M12242 ,2 200220 22023002 0.225.282 2.2.022 220.20 2222222000232 222002252 . 20 200.222.2272 220m 22202222 ”fin <1 .1 { ILFl 1W|11+Nllllu|lnfluuv . 322022222202» 2032222 02 , . m 0 0222822.. .82 2.9. 28.2 222 82 .220 32 352227 20 02522.2 2,22. 20 252.28 252330 22.2. 02 0222.2. . 20 c2 . . 0 - qs.~a..:h.¥ .12-arvfiv..flvi -h-JH aunt-.Iud du-dJ-Kfi \01- ch use I10: .9va anhndqzc-hn‘nQ-n-lnhbnudtlfinvuflJA‘ IB-Qfi .NA. -.-.‘u-A~‘-usz.1\h .N. 23.-s 025‘. 80 0220220002 20 20222222222 2202220022» 22222 .202 222022226022 202220222022 2222.22 .202 3222222200 0225 20 omd20>d 22200022202 «02220.2( .2322 2.2.2.2 .8922 22322 252222 .2922 4! 2 H2 .2: o a o o o... 2 cm 2 2 22.28 233m. 2 22. .222 o o- o o 82 2 o o 2 833222280 2 “2. .2. o o o o cm 2 cm 2 2 222523230 . 2 "2 .2 o o o o o o 82 2 2 922222830 2 U2 .2. o o o 0 cm 2 cm 2 2 3822 .825. 2 :2 .2. o o o o 2.2 2 cm 2 2 2822.28 2 "2.2. o o c o o o 82 2 m . 2822 22202.22 _ 2 H2. .2. o o 2 2 22 2 S 2 22 33232 222.2. a o o o o a 82 2: 222 2322222 2 H2 .2. o o. 2 2 m2 .2 S .22 2.2 .3223 2.5... 32.0 2 a .22 o c 2. 2 2 2 2 mm 22 2.2 2200 222.22. 2. 2 o 0 cm 22 22. 2. 22 22222 022.92. . 22200 22200 22200 222200 M2221V2 uuonw .072. . :20n2 .072 320222 .072 1.2.02.2 .02 3202222002 numm2o> mUOuduOnH .. 2o .o S .22 2o .o 22222.5. - 2o .22 2.22 .22 me .o 2. 2.2222 m.292222 2222222 - 2: .o 2.2 .o 222 .o 2 $.38 m22.22222 22.223 . 22.22 22.22 22.22 2.22 2.22.83. 26 22.2. 22.2. mod 2. 2222 22 .o 22 .o 22 .c 22 .o 22 8.38 m22.22222 2202.23 2.2:. 320 22 .o 22 .o 22 .o .22 .o M..2...:.>2.. 22. .o 2.2. ,.o 2.2....22. 22 .o 22 2222 2......qu 22.80 22. .o 22 .o .22. .o 2.2. .o S 3.88 33.3 22.80 22 .2 co .2 22 .2 22 .2 ”22.22.32 22 .2 2o .2 2... .2 2.2. .2 2. 2.22 “.2922,» 2mm 22 .2 222 .2. 22 .2 2.2 .2 o 3228 m.292222 22.222. .2222 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 2.2 .2 2. 2222 m22.22222 .2222 2.2. .0 2.2.22 22. .o 2.2 .2 2. 3.88 2.2022222 22222 .2222 W022 32220 u0n2n222m . 2220.m@m2 . 222220 + 22172 + Mnnme. Mumuz 200220 02202222002 0.232202 2.222@ @020 22222202220 22200.20n2, 20 200.222.2272 220m 222.02n2. r. . |||||\\\\Il1 - 6222022220022 20N2222202 02220092 .202 0.2.002» 2222 .202 2022 0.90.3.0? 20 0.92.5.3 7220 32.0.20 22 . . 20 22232200 522202.20 022.2. .mm 02222.2. 82 022030002 m0 20222222222 0033090 02.3 20m 22202220003 .20m 0029.22.00 03» m0 0m020>0 222200022202 00.302: MN . 0 mm . 0 2M .0 ON . o N 00.22200 3230 @220 002200..“ 22.200 «003% mm . 0 N22 .o on .0 mm . o 2 00.2000 002030m 0220 0022.00..— u030¢3§00 22 .o 22 .o 22 .o 22 .o 2 22.228 22222,. 22262350 mm . 0 gm . o mm .0 mm . o .2. 00.2000 m05> 20222250220 22 .o 22 . o 22 .o 22 .o 22 222.832 omé 2nd mmd ~m.o M 022% ow . 9 mm . o ¢N .o hm . o 02 00.2000 00222> wooumuonm 22 . o 3. .o. 22 .o 2.2 .o 22 22222. 222. . o 22. . o 3. .o 22 . o 2. 322 22 .o 3.2 22 .2 22 .o 2 22.88 2292.3 .3223 2:8 320 22 .2 22 .o 2.2 .o 22 .o 2 222.832 om.o mad wmd mm.o 22 022$ 2.2. .9 mm . o VN .o «N . o m 00.2000 0025204 22.200 11922 mmfimm nomufldm 800mm . 23220 + anz + Mumuz Munmuz 0200220 022030002 0.2252202 22.2022 @020 2051.2022Wmo22nm 2.220020% m0 2022222222 mom 022.02%. 1 H 1.4.11. . - {IE E L: lull .wmwa 60.0 rmoa 25. 322052.203 200223.23 52222022me 23 00200220 20 2220.20 m0 250.5 2220.3 7.2.6 222. 0250232023 222200.202" 023.. .mm 0308 02202.20? 0 . 1 Il.‘ t nun u:.-..<-.-.-. v1. ‘14 .unuhi'.0§. 03". u-Iu..‘ 83 .300 222 220302.300 22.230022m092 22200.20nm 2.22 2.22, 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.22 2.2 2.2. 2.2 2.2 2.2 G .02. Q vON. Hm 1 low. a m .22.. m p. 8 .22. w. m. 100. m . m. |OF d 2.... W .45. 9. tom. too; .200. n .2 000002022 X humod + pm .9 n 2% 0002020nH w *2..." .2 . .. - 3.82 2.2.22 0002.302H .. - 6 022.000. 020$ Ill .. III. d N wNo.O + MN .0 n W 0G00m .. 022: «0 2203025222 0220223003 Mnmuz .. 000202.022 202222 022.000. 020$ no 05003 .30 m0 222025.200 §m00nm0§2 022.0 2.223002%.08 2200 0300920220220 mo 003.020.2200 .2. 0222m2h o vK.MuA,\J~ n.-Lmv-h»-.m.vu~i ....4....~ 2.. III¢.-GCIOI nun-1:!Iulo-I-tllc ‘. II-lquz 1.14.5 It‘d I-2”..-voI 'u.-I-a-I§ ,u...... «. .... .. .. v I.. .~.. 84- 2220222 2.22 2222220000022 02200.20n2 0.22. o.m 0.22 04m o.N 0.2 b b — b n .1. .02. an. 622. 22. 22.2. 52.. d2. 22. 25.2 $22.22. N .2 Q , .22 .2 2x 22 2-21.2.2 u 22. 22.2 02222 20 22020022252 . Tom .2 2 .hmo2 22.220.223.002» . 02.022220 2222220022m0222 I 02200 220 220 22250.2m 0222,0222 02.02022 20 0.9002» >222 222 2222220000022 20220 2222220022m0222 «o 220280202200 .m 0.25m2rm m'etd u; umgs 91132111 1119 919d X. TOTAL REMOVAL OF NUTRIENTS FROM THE SOIL The only crop for which it was possible to calculate total removal of magnesium was the legume-grass hay. The average quantity of magnesium, potassium, and calcium removed from the soil for the designated treatments for 13 locations was calculated and is shown in Table 34. Table 34. The amount of magnesium, calcium, and potassium removed in legume-grass hay from various magnesium treatments. Pounds of each element removed per acre1 Element CheCk I:nll: K Ilillpfsaorlf'i"p gull-figm- salts Mag Magnesium 18.6 17.3 21.0 ' 20.4 Calcium 73.8 75.5 67.8 71.0 Potassium 150.0 196.0 190.0 198.0 1Amount removed in two cuttings. 85 XL SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Over a three year period, 125 field trials were conducted with different crops over the state of Michigan to evaluate the effect of magnesium fertilization on crop yield and mineral composition. Crops studied included legume hay, corn, oats, barley, wheat, field beans, soybeans, potatoes, sugar beets, cucumbers, cantaloupe, cauliflower, tomatoes, and sweet corn. Treatments consisted of two soluble magnesium carriers applied at rates varying from 100 to 400 pounds elemental magnesium per acre. Soil samples collected previous to fertilization of the experimental locations, fresh tissue plant samples taken during the growing season, and plant samples at harvest time were analyzed for magnesium as well as calcium and potassium. The results of this project disclosed that the addition of fertilizer alone usually increased crop yields. In general, yields of most cr0ps were little affected by magnesium treatments. Only two of approximately ,125 trials gave a significant response to a soil treatment of magnesium. ’Although up to one-fourth of the corn, oats, and barley experiments resulted in a 10 percent or more yield increase with one or the other magnesium soil treatments, in only about one-half of these cases did the reSponse occur from both magnesium carriers. Likewise, up to 50 percent of the soybeans and cantaloupe trials and both sweet corn experiments gave appreciable increases in yield with one of the mag- nesium carriers. There were, however, only a few trials involved with these latter crops. . Depressions in yield were noted from magnesium applications at over one-half of the potato and field bean locations. Considering all crops, there were about as many trials where yield depressions occurred as where yield increases were observed. 86 87 The exchange capacity varied widely among soil types, but the average exchange capacity of all soils varied little between the 0 to 6 inch and 12 to 18 inch depth. Over one-half of both surface and sub- soils of coarse texture contained less than five percent magnesium on the exchange complex. The fine textured soils generally had a higher magnesium saturation, most of them lying within the range of 10 to 20 percent saturation. About 15 percent of the coarse textured soils and five percent of the fine textured soils contained calcium-magnesium ratios exceeding .20: 1. In spite of the fact that many of the soils were relatively low in exchangeable magnesium and a few had wide calcium-magnesium ratios, cr0p yields did not seem to be affected. Chemical analyses of the fresh tissue and of the total dried plant did not always present the same absorption pattern insofar as magnesium composition was concerned. The magnesium content of the total dry plant was generally increased at more of the trials than the fresh tissue tests indicated. This fact can be related in part to the different time of sampling of these plant materials. . A comparison between the twoplant tissue tests revealed that, in general, the magnesium content of most of the crops was appreciably increased at many of the locations by applications of one or both of the magnesium carriers. This increase was significant for the 1957 potato trials for both fresh and dry tissue. Furthermore, the 1958 experi- ments with corn and sweet corn showed that as the rate of magnesium fertilization increased to 400 pounds of magnesium per acre as magnesium sulfate, a significant increase in magnesium uptake occurred in both the fresh and total dried plant. There was generally little relation between magnesium uptake and crop yield. 88 A low negative correlation between potassium and magnesium as measured in fresh and dry plant tissue was noted except in the case of a few crops. - As might be expected, there was a greater variation in the potassium-magnesium and calcium-magnesium ratios in the fresh tissue than in the dry tissue. Considering all trials, the magnesium composition of the fresh tissue in about two-thirds of the crops was increased, on the average, up to 20 percent or more by either one or the other magnesium carrier, and up to this same amount by both magnesium sources in the case of field beans, cucumbers, and sweet corn. , A significant increase of magnesium content occurred at one-half of the corn trials in 1956 by applications of Epsom salts when these locations were combined for analysis. Likewise, considering all the potato locations in 1957, there was a highly significant increase of magnesium uptake by the plants when treated with Epsom salts. The study further revealed that as the rate of magnesium application was increased from 100 to 400 pounds as magnesium sulfate on the crops grown in 1958, the average magnesium composition increased almost proportionally. There appeared to be little relation between the magnesium con- tent of fresh tissue and cr0p yield. In the few cases where both yield and magnesium composition was increased appreciably by applications of either carrier, the magnesium saturation of the soil complex was generally low (below six percent saturation). . No consistent relationship of magnesium and potassium was noted in the fresh tissue of most crops. Wide potassium-magnesium ratios occurred among the crops varying from about 5:1 for sugar beets to 20:1 for sweet corn. Calcium-magnesium ratios in the tissue varied from 1:1 for sugar beets to 9:1 for cucumbers. 89 The total magnesium composition of the dry tissue was increased in a large percentage of the crops at many. of the locations by one or the other of the magnesium soil treatments. A significant increase in uptake of magnesium occurred at four of the 11 oat locations in 1957 by addition of magnesium sulfate when locations were combined for analysis. Likewise, a highly significant increase of magnesium uptake occurred with potato and cucumber plants with both- Epsom salt and -Su1_-5Po-Mag treatments in 1957. The 400 pound rate of magnesium applied as magnesium sulfate significantly increased the magnesium composition of the corn and sweet corn crops grown in 1958 when all locations were considered. An increase of the magnesium composition of the crOp by magnesium applications did not influence the yield appreciably in any of the trials. In general, there was some relationship between exchangeable magnesium in the soil and magnesium composition of the plant. 7 A sig- nificant correlation between soil and plant magnesium occurred in the case of field beans and with potatoes in 1957. There appeared to be no definite relationship between magnesium and potassium in the dried plant. The only exception to this was in the case of potatoes where a significant negative correlation of these two elements occurred with the magnesium sulfate treatment. This was the only crop where there was an indication that magnesium might have influenced the uptake Of potassium. The potassium-magnesium ratios varied from 3:1 in cucumbers to 11:1 for hay. The calcium- magnesium ratios of the crop plants varied only slightly, most of them lying in the range of 2:1 to 3:1. These studies showed no consistent relationship of total phosphorus and total magnesium in the dry plant tissue as some workers have reported. 90 The results of these investigations were, to some degree, similar to findings reported at this same station recently by Satyapal (35) who found no definite correlation between dry matter production of cr0ps and exchangeable magnesium content of the soil. Increased magnesium uptake by the plants was not accompanied by an increase in yield in all cases, and no cation constancy relationships occurred in the crops grown. However, only one of the 13 soils studied contained less than 10 percent exchangeable magnesium. In summary, it appears that the application of magnesium contain- ing fertilizers is not necessary on most soils of Michigan at this time. Although it is possible to increase the magnesium content of many crops by applications of substantial amounts of several magnesium carriers, this does not appear to affect crop yields. Yields of crops were not adversely affected by low exchangeable magnesium in the soil or by relatively wide calcium-magnesium ratios in the soil. Although little'or no yield response from magnesium applications occurred in these experiments, there is a possibility thatmagnesiurn deficiencies may occur in the future as cropping progresses, larger yields of crops are removed, and more highly refined fertilizers are employed. The application of dolomitic lime stone on the coarser textured soils where lime is needed or use of fertilizer containing .magnesium could be insurance against possible magnesium. shortages occurring in the future. Plate 1 . Abnormal corn plants in Mecosta county, 1958. 10. 11 LITERATURE CITED . Bailey, J. S. and Drake, M. Correcting magnesium deficiency in cultivated blueberries and its effect in leaf potassium, calcium, and nitrogen. Proc. Arner.-Soc. Hort.~ Sci. 63:95-100. 1954. . Bear, F. E. et a1. Diagnostic techniques for soils and crops. The‘American—Pb-tash Institute. Washington, D. . C. 1948. . Bear, F.-E., Prince, A. L., Toth, S. J., and Purvis,- E.-R. - Magnesium in plants and soils. New Jersey Agri. Exp.~ Sta. Bul. 760. Rutgers Univ. 1951. . Blair, A. W., Prince, A. L., and Ensminger, L.-E. Effect of applications of magnesium on crop yields and on the percentages of calcium and magnesium oxides in the plant material. - Soil Sci. 48:59-76. 1939. . Boynton, D. Magnesium nutrition of apple trees. Soil Sci. 63:53-58. 1947. . Boynton, D. and Burrell, A. B. .Potassium-induced magnesium deficiency in McIntosh apple tree. Soil Sci. 58:441-454. 1944. . Camp, A. - F. Magnesium in citrus fertilization in Florida. Soil Sci. 63:43-52. 1947. . Carolus, R. Truck crop investigations--magnesium deficiency. Virginia Truck Exp. Sta. Bul. 89. 1935. . Chucka, J.-A. and Lovejoy, D. B. -Potato fertilizer experiments. Maine Sta. Bul. 369:529-531. 1933. Cooper, H. . P. -Ash constituents of pasture grasses, their standard electrode potentials and ecological significance. Jour. Plant Physiology 5:193-214. 1930. .. Cooper, H. P. ,» Paden, W. - R. , and Garman W. H. Some factors influencing the availability in soil and the magnesium content of certain crops. 'Soil Sci. 63:27-41. 1947. 92 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.: 22. 23., 93 Drake, M. and Scarseth, G. - D. Relative abilities of different plants to absorb potassium and the effects of different levels of potassium on the absorption of calcium and magnesium. - Soil Sci. Soc.~ Amer. Proc. 4:201-204. 1939. Drosdoff, M. and Nearpass D. . C. Quantitative microdetermination of magnesium in plant tissue and soil extracts. Analytical Chem. 20:673-674. 1948. Fiske, C. H. and Subbarrow, V. W. The colormetric determination of phosphorus. Jour. Biol. Chem. 66:325. 1925. Foy, C. D. and Barber, S. A. Magnesium deficiency and corn yield on two acid Indiana soils. Jour. paper 1145 Purdue Univ. Agr.-Exp. ~Sta. Lafayette, Ind. 1956. Foy,‘ C. D. and Barber, ~ S.- A. Magnesium absorption and utilization by two inbred lines of corn. Soil Sci- Soc. Amer. Proc. 22:57-62. . 1958. Graham, - E. - R. , Powell, S. , and Carter, M. . Soil magnesium and the growth and chemical composition of plants. Mop Agri. Exp. Sta. Research Bul. 607. 1956. Gray, D. T. rAvailability of phosphatic fertilizers. Univ. of Ark. Agri. Exp.‘ Sta. Bul.. 289:1-18. 1933. Hayes, H. K. and Immer, F. R. Methods of plant breeding. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. New York. 1942. ~ Hunter,- A. . S. Yield and composition of alfalfa as affected by variations in the calcium-magnesium ratio in the soil. - Soil Sci. 67:53-62. 1949. Hunter, A.-S. , Toth,. S. J., and Bear, F.- E. .Calcium-potassium ratios for alfalfa. ~ Soil Sci. 55:61-72. 1943. Johnson, K.~E.- E. ,- Davis, J. F. , and Benne, E. J. Control of magnesium deficiency in Utah 10B celery grown on organic soil. Soil Sci.-Soc. Amer. Proc. 21:528-532. 1957. Johnson, W.-A. , Wear, J. I., and Garrett,- F. Effects of fertilizer and use of magnesium and minor elements on yields and storage quality of potatoes in Baldwin County, Alabama. Amer. Pot. J our. 33:103-112. - 1956. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35 94 Johnston,- F. B. Magnesium in Canadian crop production. - Can. Chem. Process Inds. 33:823-824. 1949. Abstract in Magnesium for Plant Nutrition. International Minerals 81 Chemical Corp. -Skokie,- Ill. 1958. Knoblauch, H. C. and Odland, T. E. The response of potatoes to magnesium under various soil conditions. .AIner. Pot. Jour. 11:35-40. 1934. Longstaff, W. H. and Graham, E. R. - Release of mineral magnesium and its effect on growth and composition of soybeans. - Soil Sci. 71:167-174. 1951. McClung, A. C. Magnesium deficiency in North Carolina peach orchards. ‘Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 62:123-130. 1953. McMurtney, J. E. Effect of magnesium on growth and composition of tobacco. - Soil Sci. 63:59-67. 1947. Mikkelsen, D. S. and Toth, S. J. Tissue testing kit for field determination of the magnesium status of plants. Agron. Jour. 41:379-382. 1949. Mikkelsen, D.-S. and Doehlert, C. A. Magnesium deficiency in blueberries. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 55:289-292. 1950. Millar, C. E. Soil fertility. John Wiley 81 Sons, Inc. New York. 1955. Moser, F. The calcium-magnesium ratio in soils and the relation to crop growth. Jour.-Arner. Soc. Agron. 25:365-377. 1933. Piper, C.- S. . Soil and plant analysis. Interscience Publishers, Inc. New York. 1935. .Sanik, J. Jr., Perkins, A. T., and Schrenk, W. G. The effect of the calcium-magnesium ratio on the solubility and the availability of plant nutrients. Soil Sci.- Soc.Amer. Proc. 16:263-267. 1952. .- Satyapal, K. N. ~Effect of magnesium applications on the yield and chemical composition of soybeans, millet, and wheat grown on thirteen Michigan soils in the greenhouse. M. Sc. thesis. Michigan State University, 1956. 36. 37. 38 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 95 Schollenberger, C. J. and Simon, R. H. ~Determination of exchange capacity and exchangeable bases in soil-ammoniurn acetate method. Soil Sci. 59:13-24. 1945. Scott, L. E. and Scott, D. H. Further observations on the response of grape vines to soil and spray applications of magnesium sulfate. Proc. ArneruSoc. Hort. Sci. 57:53—58. 1951. .- Seatz, L. F., Gilmore, T.«R., and Sterges, A. J. —Effects of potassium, magnesium and micronutrient fertilization on snap bean yields and plant composition. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 22:137-140. 1958. Smith, 0. and Kelley, W. C. -Fertilizer studies with potatoes. Amer. Pot. Jour. 23:107-135. 1946. Southwick, L. Magnesium deficiency in Massachusetts apple orchards. Proc.~Amer.~Soc. Hort.~ Sci. 42:85-94. 1943. Truog,rE., Goates, R. J., Gerloff, G. C. and Berger, K. C. Magne sium-phosphorus relationships in plant nutrition. — Soil Sci. 63:19-25. 1947. Tucker, B. B. Measurement of forms of soil magnesium and the soil magnesium requirement. Diss. Abstr. Vol. 16:205. 1956. Univ. of 111. PhD. thesis. Tucker, T. C. and Smith, F. W. The influence of boron, magnesium, and potassium on the growth and chemical composition of red clover grown under greenhouse conditions. - Soil Sci. Amer. Proc. 16:252-255. 1952. Wallace, T. Magnesium deficiency of fruit trees. Long Ashton ‘Research Station, Univ. of Bristol. Jour. of Pomology and Hort. Sci. 17: 150-166. 1939. Walsh, T. and O'Donohoe, T. Magnesium deficiency in some cr0p plants in relation to the level of potassium nutrition. Jour. Agri. Sci. 35:254-263. 1945. Wehunt, R. L. and Purvis, E. R. Mineral composition of apple leaves in relation to available nutrient content of the soil. Soil Sci. 77:215-218. 1954. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 96 Willis, L. G., Piland, J.- R., and Gay, R. L. The influence of magnesium deficiency on phosphate absorption by soybeans. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 26:419-422. 1934. -Windham,~ S, L. The influence of various levels of calcium, potassium, and magnesium in the soil on the absorption and yield response to potassium and magnesium by seventeen vegetable crops. PhD thesis. Michigan State University. 1953. Woodruff, C. M. Testing soils for lime requirement by means of a buffered solution and the glass electrode. Soil Sci. 66:53-63. 1948. Wolf, B. and Ichisaka, V. Rapid chemical plant tests. Soil Sci. 64:227—244. 1947. ‘ Zimmerman, M. Magnesium in plants. Soil Sci. 63:1-12. 1947. APPENDIX 98 posaflcoo 6:83... 862 8.650 5 3mm 2: 686m N... 360 863 .6566 .80. mm BE 22. 83:0 3 980 8.62 .655. 68m mm 32m 23. 5220 8 838:4 882 3668... 68.2 mm SE 22. c850 mm 836:... 862 3.6650 mm 32 2:. 33:0 S. 560 862 56662 w 23 2:2. 2.20 3 666i» 882 3.6886 286:5 cm 332 m3 59:3 mm 360 8.62 .656... 268:5 mm 3am m2. 59:8 “E 580 883 >668... 386:5 mm 3.32 m2. 59:8 mm .328 685.3 862 368.66 286:5 cm 332 m3. 565.60 mm 6:32 8.62 >98... 2862:: 3 332 m3 59:8 S 686:5 882 $663260 2 .352 m5. €565 om 662m :83 862 .6686 386:5 3 3? m2. £82m 2 560 863 36am... £66625 3 3E m2. €6.65 2 uo>oHo ocfipmim Emoa Meade/U30 m 3pm mph. aocmum NA 838:... 862 >663 £66625 mm BE m2. €6.95 3 0993.3ch pawn twang dEoHoO mm 351m wash. :ofiuuom «l 6:822 688 >862 686360 3 32m m3. cmutmm 2 mooumuonm Emofi :EBmMBMM NH Hmm Zm A .H >mm H H mooumuom boom >583 uuo>oum .2 mmm 73TH. >mm 0H 980 882 5333.32 m 53m 23 e 58m m 36.5 .383 882 6689:. 2 mmm 73:. 56m a 3666 2&8 882 12339332 a use zip Sm 6 863 33m 863 68am 3 Mam 78:. sam m CHOU Emofi yoummz o Mmm ZONE 080.3% w 360 658 >662 623M 2 .332 783 SEE... m 39;? Emofi kwpcmm $88M ma Mom ZoNB .9802 N 360 682 63662 2 Mom 733. 88$. 2 mono 09$ flow doflomm owqmm magnate/0H. 39900 GoEmUoA .omm; £30m Hmucoefiuomxo mo mcoflmdonH :2 032mb 99 00003000 003.30% 8.00M >030GO u .. n 0305Uu02 ow dmadmadu ENOH >03MGO I I .. muumfivhdz mo 500 8.62 Him 8.05on m: - 22. 06802 00 00055 803 28032 mm and 008 0030004 3 0.200 8.03 fifimfiz om Mmm woe 003.0004 Ho “82:5 863 .8566 x60 0 .280 0:. 666686282 mm 00.00 5.03 >950 snow 0 30m map. ooumfifimamvm mm 0000 8.03 30000 Nob 0 30m wTH. oonmamfimm hm .mfimmdou E03 3500 Xoh w 30% mHH 00008203 om 00000509. 5.03 30:00 snow 2 31m mNH H20003.2. mm 360 E63 3:86 6362:: 3. 3mm 0:. .8338. «m 0000 5.03 35.00 050300 mum 3mm MPH :00M00h mm 560 863 >608... 283:0 X 3.8.0 03. 28333 E GuoO Edoa 35.00 089300 m; MSW mHH G00x00h om 6:803. 882 3:8... 68.0 m mg 02. 8332. 3 0303.4 803 300.00 0H000H3m «m 3mm mash 00003.3. me 6:630 863 3:8... 688an 2 0:0 03. .8832. S 560 8.63 28832 mm .32 22.2. 8305 3 6:603. 862 $5280 .2.. 3.20 2.8.2. 8205 we “66:? 882 .33 6.80 2 Mom 73:. 063$ 2. 0.0055 5.03 000035 0M Him 238 00.2.03 N0 363 .8050 863 065:» am 030 73:. 063m 3 00000. udmsm 500a >03 082m a Mom 228 coufim 00 00.000. 30TH 5.03 000035 «um HEM ZoTH Goudm mm 65.60 2620. 8.63 .036 6820 a 280 20:. 09:5 mm 0000 E03 082m m 23% 239 003.000 5m 6:80 $030 660 862 6800 om .32 7:3. 8020 3 0.002;? 803 u0>0000 : 3mm 20H. 0000M 0m QOHU, 09$ Sow G0300m 093% @308508 030500 :030004 pmdcflcou .. 0H manmh. \..-iv-1 n-hu‘WV . N ...i~<\ 100 00000000 00000H 30000 M000000E 1 .. .00.: mm 0000 00000 0000:0m Hm Mod 258 0000H 00 00003 00000 0000003.. 00. me 23H. 000000H mm. 00000 300.00 00000 000.M 0 Hum 228 000000H $0 00000 307m 00000 0000003. 3 00¢ 23H. 0000009 no 000060 E03 0800 .i 000 230. .2830. No >0H00m 00000 00>o000 N.N me 20TH. 0000008 :0 0000 0000 >803 00000000 m 32m WPH. 00000h dm om 0000004 0000 >803 000000.000 m 32% mph. 00003. .um mm 0000 00000 030 0003mm 2 HEM ZwH. 00000 .0m mm 0000.3 0000.0 0.00on mm 0mm 20H. 000003000 00 0000 00000 ”.00on mm mmm 20H. 000003000 cm 0000 0.0000 0.00on «NM 0mm 72L. 000003000 mm 0000 00000 000002 mm 00m 72.9 0000030000 0m 00000 00m0m 00000 2000000nm mm mm 1m ZNTH 00:00m mm 0600.3 0360 0606 8.800 mm 0.8.0 780. 300000 mm 8:60 8660 026 0800 mm 000 780. 320060 00 >0H00m 000000 >000 00.0w mm mmm 73H. 3000m0m cm 0000? 00000 30000 00004 00am m0 3mm ZomH OW0000 on 360 0:80 000$ 3009080 2 330 7:00. 60030 00 0000 0000 300000 00000002 0N 0mm ZFNB 000000 >0 550 8.80 08062 om 6 0.8.0 2000. 3.68000 2. 0000 @000 >803 000000002 9 33m ZNTH 0om0x002 mu 560 8.80 08062 m 330 200. 06080002 i 00000 8060 0832 m 3.30 780. 0808032 2. 00003. 00000 0000024 N. mom mmH 000002 E. 0000 00000 3000 0.0.0000 1: 0mm mop... 000002 .2. 0000 00000 000032 0 Had mmh 000002 on 0000 000000 0.0000 0000003 om 001m moH 000002 on 00000.0»ow 000000 30000 0000000 2 Mwm mbfi 000002 mo 0000n>0m 00000 30000 0000003 mm Mum mPH. 000002 no . @000 093 Sow 00300m 0000M 00000309 030000 00000004 0020080 - 2 0300. 101 mum SCHEQOU 0000 00000 30000 000000002 N 0mm ZNNH 000000 02.0.00 0000000n0 00000 3000 000000002 mm 30% 7: 0 .H 000000002 mmuhumm 0000000nH 00000 03000 000095002 0N 30M 7: 0 H. 000000002 vmuhumm 0.000000% 00000 30000 00000002 mm 30% 7: 7H. 000000002 mmuhuam 0000 00000 0:0000H om 3mm ZS .H 000000002 N~n0umm 0000000nm 00000 03000 0000002 0 00M me 000002 HNuhuwm 0000 0003 30000 030003 0: 35w 732R. 0000002 o~u0u¢m 000000000 00000 30000 0000002 0 30m 228 0000002 00 uhuwm 0000 00000 30000 00000002 0 30M 22H. 0000002 00 nmuwm 0000000nm 0000 00000000200 u .. .. 000004 2 nhuvv 0000 00000 30000 0000000 m 23% vaB 0000000 5 u0uwm $8800 053 >803 $880 on 300 230 $880 3 0-00 $8080 802 008$ $880 on 330 2000. $880 00 0-00. 000000 0000;? 00000 000002 2 3mm ZmH 000030 3 ANAL 0000 00000 000002 2 3mm ZmH 0000000 2 umuml 0000 00000 m00000 000 om 30m ZmB 000030 2 :04; 0000 00000 m00000 000 om 30m 758 000030 2 umuz 300 802 3:80 $880 00 >30 20; 5008200 NH -01: 0000000m U000 >003 000000 04 on and meH 00m>o0000 Suki: 0000000000 00000 30000 >0300O «.N 3mm me8 00w>00000 00 nhun: 0000 00000 03000 0055M 0 30m ZNMH 0305000000 0-0-2 0000000nm 00000 003000 N 35w meH. 0392000000 @072 0000 00000 30000 00000203 mm 30% mmH. 0000000 0-0:: 0000 00000 30000 00000203 om 33m mmB 0000000 wumuma $8300 880 .8505 E 030 220. 000 m 0 0 0000000nm 00000 >00000 000>00m 00 0mm 22H. >0m 0 an o 0000000m 00000 30000 00000002 MN 3mm ZomB 0000004 Muhum 00 00000 Samafimw 00 002 $2me MN 320 z: 03% 3. M 53 023 552 2 EE 2: 00:0 SE @000 09% If It: Gomuoom 0900M mfifimgofi >00000 0030004 I}; ll“ .hmon .0300 00000080000500 .00 000000004 .NN 0100,00 102 mvouduom mumO goon, umwdm 3me uwmdm mumon ummdm mummn ummdm mumO memo wmsoamuc‘mo mmsofimuamu auoU dyoo ummBm moougom 0H0 Z! 932 328mm mnfimwaduz G33 90.3% no: 863 mEfim 8mg mfifim 88H 56:43 953 23¢? .mnm Edofi >m3m¢0 93m EH32 £3302 Edofi 322mm 083ng 93m H8362 Samoa aim mocdmmz was Ewmfimfi 23 $32 828%: Ila/I/l 09$ 20m acugmsom GOHH .200 msH 200 35. omdcmm 033mm mama .mdwm mum .956qu «.335 «57¢qu «BSHO 9‘6qu ego ovnhuam omuUuom wanuoN. wmuOump omnOuoN. mmuOnob «9.01:. mmuUnom. HmuHuoN. oméuow oNumuA: wmumuom Ei mm mam 239 2 mam 23H. m; Mmfim ZNTH vm HEM ZNHH MN m? 732. vm 32m 73H. 2 32m 23. 3 32m 25 mm 32m 23 2 32m 2,; m Em 25 85% mung @2233 I; 3560 Ill-f £9.3qu I: @GSGMHGOU I MN minimum. .E!?,~ .I......E ..a........:...§...lil s3 I...‘..,_....,u....i~ .7? .,.~$~..~. 103 $533 is mmvéwv :33 3533533 mmméwm Eco :58 83882 o 32 229 3882 .233 :Néuom 3533 EB 3?va Eng 38.0.3523 “3.35 500 €53 83882 e BE 229 .3882 3:2: woméom 33$;qu >34; Amsmmfl Gmmnwv 52”..va F80 88H mficmmogo on 22m 23 83:0 3:8 OMB mo~-mom 333 i3 2??? Ava—m3» :moumv MHMIOOm 58 69% 2:8 33?me 2 33m 789 $630 7263 moméom ‘Ill'l‘l 252% 35% omnmm “583$ 3589 5533 / 3.5 ll! III‘I/ )I .wmm; 630m adunoafihmmuno mo mcowumood. 3mm mannmh. ofi~1mxxv~ .,-.-.nuw.-~.dwh\< n~i~ .fl.fi~«4.-d.yvfia~ . ‘ unul‘r-Elo-Id.¢I-I .v-buq ltl;-‘fl ‘7H it: Run-u v\uL1.-..r\ .v-.~.“.\‘- fix ..|..-..«\I\.-,I \.\xu..f Mv-§,~ .uw‘ ,i‘\\,i.‘. 104 $.94 23 440 mmmuvmop .m mm. vvfimmm 3440444303 4mm mmdm .N 3th 444 443m: 0.4m mucmcbmawHHm‘ .mcofldofimon N mo ommuv><4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 44 4.~ 44. o.~ 4.~ o.~ $2034 w.o w.o w.o o4 w.o c4 m.~ N4 N4 >4 @Gmm >453 083430 flammoh. .um om 4.N ozm >4 w4 @4 m4 >4 04 >4 04 44804 .43va Gomoxmdz m> u n .. . n n o . w . > . w . > . 444.84 433.940 mfimsvnmg mo - - - - - - m .m N .m 4 .m m .N «.m 884%:8. 48.4 8345484 om 0.0 cd mic mic m.o N.N 4.~ w4 w4 4.~ 44304 >453 No.44. 4403403. ow o4 >4 >4 >4 >4 m .N ¢.~ o.N m.m >.N 444434 ~3de 2343443 cemxumh wv >.o >.o 44.4. To m6 o4 44.4 m4 m4 m4 884 >463 2443an 483402. >44 9o m .o 44.0 4.4 >.o N .N o .N 4 .N N .N >4 884 .426qu E42434 4% o .o w .o > .o > .o o .o u n u u u 444604 .496qu non—MM mm >4 >4 m4 >4 44.4 o .N m .N m .m >.~ m .m 8804 >458 48:4 44844440 mm 4.4 N .4 N .4 o .4 N .4 o.~ m .N TN m.~ 4 .m 8804 .426qu 44844440 >N >4 m4 04 c4 w4 min ~.m o.m o.m m.m 5.84 34444.3 3.334437 444404430 4N n4 44 m4 44 ‘ 9.0 m4 o.N w4 o.N o.N $804 43.946400 aocdum >4 m4 04 m4 m4 m4 «.4 m4 >4 m4 9.0 444.84 35.3 04.33443 4424de 4: m.o m.o v.0. v.0 .ch m4 4.N o.~ 4.N o.~ @443" >933 0444344440 484.4an N4 m :m4l. r0 m 4 H Ml w m 4 9443440 vacuum 9434440 umkfih 338324. 4454544.: 55 j 4% 44 4 . XIX/{y u 4: 30; N. h 3:00 .304 1” Hill!” 35 4.442, S P43444443 48.4qume 45m v4-n4-74 8 534 mmdum .omm4 EmmEflE :4 2844804 IwEDMMVH HO MmGOnHmQH VH0?» m4? Imfi 0436p”. 5 .11. A!dr «‘1‘ nu~.<.-.\..,ununlfin.-u ~b-n... Iv. :.1 7]- Au. -~Aav \l- ..~,..‘.~!.v-VIL..V:~ ~v~.v-\A .\-\‘N. .a‘nk .b-~u3.~. 105 404.44 D we @404.» 4.4.2.4» umfimoum >4444mo¢444w4m .mmmim 403 2.3 405.0 mad. wcflagm Hm 40443.43 mo 483.8434: 4244?; 3: 3544.4 40444324000 9%. .mommo “moan 44H * 440.40 mo 9.444443% U48 mag/044m 0.4030. 453456. @403 muamEudmuu 44.444324me may 633m mmfifiumfluo mmmEDa .maoflmoflmmn N we mwd4m><4 COSNUO m4. C F 4. O.E.m> um mthw UHM. gfimvflmmg U444“. lenmaz _ 4 O» m .S m .3 m .8 9t. > .3 $803.. 0 .o> o 40 m .00 m .>o a .o> wamm >§04 08434.30. flammoh. 4m om «.3 m .40 4.. .3 o .$ m .3 CE84 444m 3465 .4420 4m mm o .~> o .4> o .43 o .S 4 .4> 884 44:54m 834.33% mm o .44. 4. .444 o .444 > .>> 44 .2: 4884 5.40 25m 3mfimmm 444 m 4:. > 4.4. N 4.4. e .3 4. .mm 4:48 2:84 8484834 53432 m> N .S 4..~> o .414 N .3 > .44.. 884 48374. 483432 4.> 4. :2. N .44. w .3. 4 .2. o .3. 884 484.442 8.8034 o> m 4m 4. .mm m .>4. N .3 N .444. 884 .4433 448385 8.44842 4.0 m .4> m .3 413 A44> m :3 8804 444... 456444 A44483.34 4... .4 .4m 4. .3. o .3 m .44. o .>m 884 445.42 ganged 4.4 m .4m 4. 4.4. m .3. 4... .mm 0 .4m 884 .658 .84 084.8234 >m 4. .4; N .>> M .4> m .No 4 .3 8.84 3:8 034544444 448.408. 4m m. .3 o 44> 4 do N .444 N .o> 8.84 .4453 088443 488403.. om o .3 >44.U > .4... o .3 4. .3 884 4:842 4544?: 4.4. > .3 44 .mm a .444. m .4.m m .>4. 884 23w 843.40 >m $4.2 m .34 m .84 m .42 ~19: 8804 .4423... 33544444. 564448 mm m .43 o .>> M .o> 0 .>> 4 .om c884 35$ 3324444 44048.34 444 > .43 o .3 o .3 44.3, N .3 884 EEQBQM >3 .4 m o o m a. mmmeEmm “Gmgummhrfi 0&3 fiom 43444400 $0.8 "HI 1”}! 4.98m .43 24535 44.4 22» .845 #5 444 m. . £2 £44542 QHOU HO mmfiommmh U40?» m4? Imm mafidH. 106 .403 Q mo 4.49.44» 4464i Hmudmnw hHqugwwdwmm.» 64403.83ng N mo mwmnmzcfl m .44. 415. A4.4.4 4. .444 44.4.4 $8.}. 2 074.44.4224 wfiflmm N .4.N N .44. N .444 4..4.4 o .3 884 m84m «483.4. N4. 74 074-3448 macaw 4.4. .mm 4..~4. 44 4.4 4 .04. 4 .S 884 8.6480 «483.4. 44. $4.54 maimm o .8 4 .44. A4.44. N .4.4. N .44 884 54. 3.4m Bmc4mmm om .44 .o .m 440 Umflmmd Z 54.34 484.4444 - 4. .44. 4 .44. 4. .444 4. .44. 884 44.48... 4.4.4.4....44444 E4544443 N.N >m~udm 4.64. m.:. 44.04. mém 5.0m 4.9940444 Amok H .3440 444 4.4:. 0 30404 4 4.4 - 4. .44. 4.4.4. A4.4.4. 884 45644.4 mmmmgmfim .444 44.4.4 o .3 44.4.4 A4.444. 4.444 884 44.54. 344.8234 0330 4: 44 .84 4. .454 m .84 4. .84 w .444 4.5.... .4884 6484:0444 4.4.8.0 4L 4. .3 o .4.m N 4.4. 4. .4.4. n.144. 884 .4453 .5520 8.282 44 4 .4.4 m .44 44 .44 o .44 44 .2 884 .4428... .844 8364.484 mm .4 .5 m .3 4 .mm 4.44.. m 4.4 4.584 44.5.... «444.....44444 .8933. 4.4.. 4 4.4. 44 .44 4. .44 N .4.4 m .44 884 44.484. .84 4.8.43.4. mm m .4.4 4.44 4. .44 44 .4.4 .4 .4.4 884 3.48... xom 4844.440 44 4. .4.m 0.4m 44.3 44.3 m .41.. 884 44.5... «43.444444 432443 4.4. 44 .44 4. .44 44 .mm o .44 N .4.4 4.484. .4884 4.44484 84.35. m m .444. 4. .mm .14 .44. 4 .mm 44 .44. 884 $4374 884... 4 mumo M Q o m 4.. mxumamm pamfiummnm. 449$ Sow 5.44.4400 4403 . whom pom 24.4435. 444 304.». .4304 m50~8d> um muwNflflhow gflmwcwmg 43.44... Valnmlz Op 4?:th U446 mudo HO mmGOnHmoh «yam?» OSHH. .omoH .me3032 4.44 mnoflmooa .3 “.4nt M 107 .mmvnw may mm 4.844? 440 vofimmd mucogdmnfin .mnofidoflmmu N no ammum>30 mgm 445444me mm .4 .444 m 4.4 m 4.4 o .3 884 .44....8 843 3.44.4 0330 4.4 30444 n4 02 4.0444344 Gomonfin oZ .. o .om 4. .2 o .m E4404 04.3.4842 00.444034 N4. 303 Q OZ , uvmflmmm cmmouum: OZ u 0 .mo w .00 o .04. 444.4404 444.832 095.284 me o .3. m .2. 4 :3. c .om 544.04 3.5% web 005483.34 mm 41$ 4 .444. m .8 m .3 884 .34“. 4.84m 48.344 44. m .mo ode mdo o.wm 44304 4048445 440.4443 N4. 0 .2. 4. .NV 0 .04. o .2. 44304 40454400 4404.34 vm m .mm m Km, m .om w .44. 4.444404 3.53 3.2.2443 4444043440 mm a .om m .mm m .3. M .0m 444.84 40455300 Aocmum om GBOU 43on Q 44 .m4 9:: N .wH 4 .m4 444mg 3.44.8 umgfl 94002 M Q U m < mmxumgmm . 44444943048 .4493 .30m 3444400 44044 40.40m yum 33435 444 33% {mood 434.4 .nmmEflE CH mGOfiHNUOH mSOfide/ um MHUNMHM&H®H gammcmmg “a“ VHIHHIZ 0U udmfimg HO @rflflnommmh UHUHRA QHHrH. .AWN. @HQNrH. I... uh .- '1 «AVN \\w I 1.. I I.- 5 ~ V.‘ 108 a r15 I“... .mefldoSmou N mo deuQfiw— {~42 o.o~ o.2 28 22 $334 10 my.» H.m H.m $6 _ EmoH SEMHQQ 0.23.8 mm m SN 0 .oN w . an v .om m .mm Edofi momma? Goudm 3. m .2.... m .3 p .2 m .3 H .3 882 .320 .25” 8:5 3. 22 H .2 0.: 22 , v.2 n82 382:. 53 N. m .2 p .S m .2 «.2 o .2 :32 53932 3m 0 250m ammum uouum “mg 25» a“ Emu. m. .3 m .2.. 22 A. .mm o .2 mflmumiw o 6N 0 .mm «v .hm o .wm o .mm Edofi .3de ommmdmo woucoz we N .mm H .mm m .DH m . N H H IS :33 325m commfimg @9252 he madmn, om J: . o.w~ m6~ @.wN NHwN m.oN mmmuo>4 >262 3m m .S m .3 «.3 m .2 o .3 :3: mafia 8380 3 o.~m N.mm A3mm 0.9m 0.9m 8mg mEMm .300de *0 m .qu N. .mm m. .om m .mm m .mN £53 22:93. .300de no w. .om m .om N .5 o .om m .vm Smog mounts Goudm on H .3. ”.2 2.3. m .3. m .2 882 >20 25m 8.33 2 N.mm . m.mm v.2.” n3mm wém Smog madam >mm m mammm m Q U m < mxumgmm . “wwfimummnh. mnbfi mom 5550. £03 whom “on 3232.. am 33% [mood — .omoH .cmmEowE 5 283.83 353.2, Hm mumwflflhom gfimonwme wad Mwnmnz on maven. pmmfla wad mmouu Gama, Hmho>om mo mmcommou cam?» mgH. raw mgmrfi 109 ‘ . - _ , . . _ 6.0030330.“ 0.50 no 0mdu0><~ ll 2o 2v 2... 2c .02. 20. 2o 2m 22. 2022.22 22022222 88:28 08m 5302 mm 0000-0809 2. 1 @{2 2* 2* .2., if; 2.. 2.. 1* 2.. i 1* m 0 . 0 m 4 Who-m umm mag Ga 0222 2mm 2.22 22. 25% 23202 2m22mom 2m:- og-om can... . >803 22300 ”BC-20m «2 090020250 22 22: 22 22m 0.2 222 22 222 22 2:2 awake/4 2a 222. 22 2o: 2*. 22m 22 222. 22 222 £8103... wad-.202 9.33032 2. - 2mm -. 2202. J., 206.2 - o.m2 - 23 8832380 303032 2 22 23m 22. 22m 22. 222 0.2 205 22. o.8.~ 88223232 >3 2 22 2:; 22 202 0.2 o.-~ 22 22.2; 22 ogom 05mm .. >503 uno>0nm 2mm 2 moon—macaw .- 002 . 00v“,- , . . «my. . 002 . 002 230 :82 230 :82 230 382 220 :82 230 -82 m 0 -. 0V . .m 4.. 25:90 >280 so: pzogumanfi . 2 H -0004 2.0.200. Mom- 530 GM 0H0“? .ommH .cmwgfig .22 mac-.3002 050722» 0.0 muonflfihom 02:302me 020 Mina-.2 00 meadoadunmo 02m. 0000-06200 6000.0qu mo omcommmu bHofn 02H- ..mm mania”. .......... Fall, I - Ali-Il- .. 110 00.923280 0200303150 m mo 0m0u0>0 0301» "mm“ 220% 000.33 :00 @0303 Go @3230 .000“ mg $30300, Egcom “0.25208 3% \ .0- 2 3:000 8020080 23 2.3 23 N .3. 803 .830 ~82, so: 3-0-2 (30:00, >000 “00000 003 Go umuflflug 0: 003%; nou0u0m000 w .10 w .va b .3 w .va 803 30:00 0055M 0088mm NH nU-vm .BOH >u0> 02333 0000 330.2508 :009 U0um0>u0£ 000a $30 -29 083084. .oN-om-m 038 02:20 883080 m .8 - .o~ m .2 N .2 8.82 0553220 8220 2-0-2 .3022, 0.200 G0> M083 mafingm 00 .4\QHI©HI¢ moom 023%.. 338080 N .3 0 .$ 0 .3 2S. 803 :53. $880 gm.8220 2-0-2 .EwEB >3 0&3. 300 000203. «E0 REM 000200, 00002 0030-3 “083 95:20 00 112-24. 30m 022% 0808080 o .o> 0 .05 o .05 2S 802 35.8 3850 009.6230 20-2 $007200, 0G0M0.<\omuomum $58. 023%.. 8330000 m .2 2 .«N N .S. 0 .Z 802 .653. 208:5 56200 70.2 m 0 m < - nmxH0G-H0m $208000? 09$ 30m 035000 H0825: .0000 H09 m~0£mam . dog-0004 .32 000322 a: mGOSMUOH mSOTHd.) 0.0 mumugwuhvw EdavaM-QE U90. Vulnmlz 00 000.0 HO ®mCOQmQH HUNG?» 03H. .MOH mind-H. bu hiavi-n!‘ h..- .00000 003 000 00>0 000000 90000003 00 000300000 00 0000000250 003w00 000 000000 0000009000. @000 00 90000003 @000 wag/00¢ 000000' 003050 00>» 00000000000 32 030 0000000 000300000 0001030 1 1 1 000 00000 000000 00H .0260 000 00 000020000 .00 .NN 0w0m .N 0300 000 @0003 000 00000000000090 000000000300 0.900 00 0m000>0 000 030;.— 0 .3 m .3 2 .mm 0 .2. 000.83.» 0000000000 M00000? 03000 000 0000250 00 “ESQ -00 02 ”$8.30 33 000.250 0000020000 "2000005. 08030 $2000 08003 0 .3. 0 .00. 0.00 0 .2 0:02 08002 0820 2.0.2 5000000, 0000.93 u.<\omnomam 080 0000000 080.8080 m .mm 0.3 N .00 o .E 803 003000 2.00 0008.00 020-: .m00m000000 005m. 0000 000 000150 .0000 mg $000000, :000H ”<\NH INA um . 0m: 02:20 08000080 23 m .2. 0.3. 0 .2. 0000. 0802 08302 030:0 020-2. $0000.00, £00000m 000000 001m 00 .0000 000 002050 0000000300 . m .90. *0 .00... w .00 m .mN 000000 300000 50000002 000000 on-U-wo $0000.00, 0082000 0.28-3-0. 080 002000 08000080 0 .3. o .3. m .00 0 .00 602 0:00.02. 8003002 «0-0-om $000005 0wcom “00000 03% 00 .0000 000 003030 0000020000 0. .0m . 0 .m0 N .3. m .mm 000000 32000 030903 0000002 om-U-vm . m- 0 m 0 - t -L -, _ . - . 0000000000, 0000000000.. 0&0 mom 30.900 0030020 0000 00m 000£msm 000000004 ||l I 003350 - 03 0200. y~n‘\.v~ ..-.:J-. . . ... q n v. v . . . Frill- . .3. 0 FEW, Z 1 0050030000 0000000050 >00 ”00000000” 0000 33000000 H00dm 003-3 ”0000 003 . :0 .0000 000 002050 0000000300 0. .200 N .HmH o :3; v .NNH 000000 000000 @0000:de 00003003 00-h-Hm .00m000000 0£w500Q “300000. 0.03000 m.<\omuomum . . 0000 00300008000080 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0.000 0000 00003 0000000 00000000 00-0-00 3.3000000 000050000 7400\00-0000 . . 0000 002000 08000080 0.000. 0 .000 0.000 0.000 0002 00000 0000000 0000000 00-0-00 000000 00030 .0 u.000-00.0 0000 000000 08000080 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0.000 0000 00003 00000004 000000000 2-0-00 .000 00000000 ”00000000 000.9% .m T<\omuomum . . 00000 002000 03000080 0 .000 0 .000 0.000 0 .000 0003 00000 003000 000000000 00-0-00 “0000000000000 3100-00-00, , . . . 0000 003000 08000080 0 .000 0 .000 0 .000 0.000 0003 003000 0000000000 0-0-00 000000003050 m 0m000>0nm0000> £50000.» >030GO m.<\m~ INH-m 00000 008.0 0000000 08000080 0.000 0 .000 0.000. 0.000 0003 000003 0000 0-0-0 00000? 000000000 0030-00-0 ‘ 0000 4002000 08000080 0 .000 0.000 0.000 0.20 0000 0803 009,000 0000 0-0-0 ($000000 0000000MM.<\0: _ , 1:10 *omv 002050 0000000300 «udwfl 0.0%: o .00: m .NQH 000000 000000 0000000002 000000004000 mum-m m 0 m . 0 00000000000 0000000008 095 mom 50.900 003000.20 _ .<\030 00 000; 00000004 0000 00000002 unnnz 00 0000000Q .00 0000000000 000?» 00TH. vi .004 H 000an m 0 0 lawiwuw. 3 000030030000 050w mo 0m000><~ 0.4mm. ~.mm~ 0.3% mévm 0w000>¢ £300.09, emanmm u.<\omuomum 060m 003050 0000000300 N .omm 0 them m .mom m .:.N 00.00 28.000 003000.32 owwmuO nmuhumo 008000 000000000 m13000000 . . 0002 003000 080000000 0.000 0 .000 0.000 0 .000 0002 00000 0008002 0008002 00-0-00 . .xm 000.030.: $500.09» 000800 0.300-000. 00002 00000 000000 080000000 0.000 0 .000 0.000 0 .000 00000 00000 0000002 0008002 00-0-00 00030020000 m 00 0m000>0 0.00 0300? 0. .owm m dun $00k N .0mm 8.03 0000000 80.000002 830302 mmflmuom figmmwuuw 00032500000.» Hmudm 000.05% 0.300-070 0000 0000 0000000 -0000 u0000000 00 5007070 00000 0000000 080000000 0.000 0 .000 0.02 0.000 0003 00000 0000002 000002 00-0-00 4300.00.00 mmxoumso u.<\o~nomam . 00000 0.00000 080000000 0.02 0.000 0.02 0.000 00000 000000000000 . 000004 00-0-00 M Q m 4, . 0070080000 0000500008 093 20m 030.900 000,505 0 .0330 00 0080 0000004 000000000 - 0: 03.0.0 114 ofim mdo mdo mimm mmwfioafi .mcflcma “vim “ma. 30m mo mo“ :0 Umflmmd unmcbmmuu mg M $33.19» M? 328$ “.<\§-NT§ $2 33%? H022380 o .3 «.om o .3 a .3. :83 :6 moammmz «385 $4.72. .mmmum “can so cam 30¢ mo muumm a: unmummmm maoumgm knoamfloflmv m2 5-0 33.”? 35h 74373;. 33 @333 noufimmooo o .3 o .3 N .w« m .3 8mg 3:3 .Emficoz 3832 2.93 a? 3. ¢ $343 $1318; 33 33%: “882300 1: m .3 5% o .3 88H 8832 86:0 34.73 .3on Ed Go cum 3me cw uamummmm mag imam knocmmuflmv m2 333.19,. < .w.3-o.mm ring g 6.24.2 Haws... 05 22:3: -.<\:..:-m woov Umfimmm neumummoou .N $793 32an § 6 .3 -92 Swan 05 t<\o~-o~-m *oom vvflmmm “cumummoou . _.m..aw..m.®> 332m a» SUMHJ .mH admin mm «magma mnemmn mag/0a umumm @33an .uumm m2 .<\N~u¢~uo. gem mumflmmm noudummoou K .qum .Hw 33am mm. uwsznwdfi ummnm mm. ”couon omumlvmmcmmcdg gm mfifificoo .<\o~-o~-m imoom vmfimmw Houmuomooo Ll, mxumgvm mimH 04L NHON H.mH m4: m.o~ “$4: Q H4; m4: ©6H m m.- mg: mg: acmgmmuh. u .<\Eoe E 3m; 30mm ummdw :83 mcfim Eoumzh mm LUAK :33 99M .mHoumSB nmAuuoN. 8mg 23%.“ mm omdcmm cm :0 u o N. 863 iguana 033mm mm LU 1: 09$ 30w .3550 Hangs aoflmuoq 35::qu - .34 033. .mGOSMuSmmH ¢ mo mmdum>¢~ wmscflaou .mmsmfig mg. 53580 a w $.82 Show .<\o~-o~-m $53 ‘ $8 :38 33on SSSmoou 98m 0.2m Tomm VS... 88:38 acuaoz 8&3? TEA umBOGSfimU .mmcgowm NH mo 13.0.“ 5th :95050 Umwmumcs HON .85 ~30» mumnadbdo mafiaxuflm cum um done 95:55 ammuw mfiofumum 0“ >30 .23 vofimmm Houmnmmoou 0 .Q: o .moH o .oo N .mn 883 >953 mvamgz «$00va «3 uhnvm .mwafixoa N Scum Saw “Sow mo no“ so vmflmmm .uuvm w: Cmfigodu wcfiuflm ammuoxumz .XN woummwu: mqoflmwfiuuw umufl a: vwflmmm 36.33 gwaoegm *ow wad mudwadm choggm .33 Au?» @mmwmfiumgm m.4\\om..om..m woom wad mefl Knmumm ofifiaofiow 32 82%? “88380 m .3 w .3. 0 .mm N .3 wad... >883 mxcam 9&2? «-7». mnongdosu m - a , m .1 .4. mxumfimm Emcfiwmgm. u .<\ #30 E.“ malady 2;.» flow >ESOU Hwngd coflmood .32 .qmefiE 5 $8383 @3039? um mumufiflumw Edwmmcmma «Em. Munmuz 0“ mmonu v3.9.5 HmHm>mm mo omcommmu v3?» 9.2.. .mmH 3an 117 .waflcdfim 0u0m0n 0H5 .mcfisofim u0um0 003%; 3080003 mg 2303.9, 530 “$me mJiomémé woom 3:30 08.2380 0» .34“. mgmm m .25 p 6mm n83 35$ 088an «385 2-73 .000 £04503 >uvnn0uddmw mono 0003500 >300300um 33039, 59800;? «0 003nm ”wave/0.3 00:0 00:30 3080003 02 m .m m .o o g. N. .v 053 nous/oz 03030 BYTE 00993.3qu . 98300290» N KSGOTHO m0m0u0>0 0nd 030“? 600092.: “wag/3m u0umm @039: 320m .mE ”(30> mmouounoz ”0.9.033 5.9308618 *oom 0.93 Na uNHuo «cow. «.33, 0000030030 “083 mcflamfim um. 00.50 “.on so .0000 on 023% H0:25.080 o .oo .0 .2‘ m .00 0 .mm 058 300505 «385 3-0-2 GHOU «003m m. a m < mvima0m 304500098 093 20m 034.300 H0£§a 31.36 fi .033» 8:83 00.33300 .. .mmH 030R. 118 .mm mmwm .N 393 am vmum: mam mucmgwmuu mmcoflmgamn @923 m0 mmmum>m .Ghou ummBm MOM whom Mom 530 5.“ and mam; ”maoflmoflmou m>fl mo ammumim .950 93 £900 90m whom mom 293.90, GM and 3:3?" wé: «v.3; .7on win: @.moH m .2: H4»: 98m vfimflflwmdm $5.35 Chou “mourn E63 N. .nm Hém w .om M .5m N .3. m .mm o .om 328m Eamon—G02 dpmoumz 8&0 N. °om w. .@m m. .mm m .wm m .hm N .mm N. 6* amoH mcfic‘mmmfiu GOHQSU CHOU o .m m n , 4‘ o m 4 .3095dmu93 3J3? 09$ flow >quOU mouU _ .wmmL 6035 253.9» um SimmCmmE wflflcfimucou muoflflflnww USN Mnnmuz ow mmonu mdofinm.» mo mmaonmmoa 6H0?» 03H. :2; MHQMH I.... r. . u. ,‘E I!" .‘4 .1: ..._~. .H .l :4. 2.1.; ‘35:. . ~ ~ ....;.: can... .r ‘ .\-\ ,v.\.. —.~ .1~. .f) . 119 353800 .v; 533% Bomfiom .233qu 6m 2m? ._ $1 02 w 2 H .0 ¢ .o 88H 3&3 033:5 50:30 2 g o: S 3 o .m H .0 8mg :58 Bmwflzm 5038 mm 9: _‘ m3 3 ow N .o w .0 ans 35$. 038:5 . 59:3 Z 3 «‘2 p 2 m .e N .o 89: 35$ £335 #235 2 mm «o 3 E w .o N .o 883 3:8...“ @3325 555 2 $ 5 om mm m .o m .o 68H €53 033:5 55.5 3 my on: on 13 m .o o .5 3mm “named «E300 523m 3 S N: 2 3 m .o o .0 93m 252 95230 533m NH 3 «m m2 V 3: _.~ .5 o .5 3mm >Em2 “3».on 3m S E; 3 p .m 3?. >832 £23“ SE34 m mod MN m .m 863 35am ”Beam .2502 N :2: 42m fifi _ . fifit. nofi 55 2-3 o-o 2-2 . , cs . 2:3 95 m m mm 0%: now 3580 H383 "whom you mwadonm Godunood .92: .3863 35mm «Em .mUHO AmmO mm 0 . Q a a a 3335 m .2; mm: 3an £0de >EwOH 69:di mZOm Hmucogfiuoaxo Ho mucmuflou gfimmwhom vcw i‘ .1“ 120 .2 q 1. . .pillthI-qa I5..WH. UmSGfiGoU 3 NH. 3 2. o .3 p .o 882 35m xoh 855me Hum 3m NmH NH 2 m .e N .o 863 35m xom 8553mm mm 3 2. H.H 3 H. .m h .o 88H 35$ xoh 8553M S mm 0: AN Nc N .m m .o 88H 35$ xoh 85635 em 3 m2 MN 3 H .h H .5 88H 35$ 233:3 5933. «m 3. mNH NH HVN H. .m m .3 58H 35m mHmHVmHHHm 5833.. Hm NN moH AWH 3N H .H. w .o 58H 35$ 083an 532$ om 0V #0 O ANH mu . 0 my .0 ENOH kwmufldm NOW GOmMUd—u 0* 3 SH 2 wN H .o o 4. 582 35m onHumHHHHH 5338. NH. m 3. HH 3 N .H. N .H. 88H 35m 083an 5938. S. Nm mm «H S. N .o o .o 58H 35$ xom 55:0 Hm 3. cm 2 HN m .3 o .p 88H 35$ now 555 ON 2 cm NN mH o .m o .o 88H 35$ xom 55:0 3. 3H SN 2 HN H. .m H .3 58H 35$ 58:5 59:3 mN om. R. w N.N N .m N. .m 58H 35$ mHmHaHHHm 59:3 HN HHSH HHS: 55 HHS: HHS: HHS: l NHNH 3-0 wHuNH es . NHNH 3-0 whom umm mvcsom . nH mm 09$ Sow 3:500 cu mags 03.804 55:50 .. mmH 2an 121 om om mica Rwanda H.308 3 m: cm «w -- -- 8333‘ 3A own MNH on: N.N m.> w on o 2 N4“. Tm 33$ 3 N: S 3 m .o v.0 28m 382 oEmEmo Eamon 5m co 3 m2 om S m .o u .o 98m “:53 oEoEmo €32. gm 3 m3 mm a .m :53 ~6de oxmd 93m ommmuO on em mm o .o 8mg 35am dxmmvfimfi ommmuO mu 9.: mm m .m cqmm >ENOH 530302 duoomO S. wo wo hm ow H . h o . N. 93m EH33 513302 Gowoxmfiz m“. me me o . o :33 35mm ‘hnnmuu $0.252 H h Nw 2. Hm mm o .m w . m 863 >6de demand? $0.282 00 oo om mg mm o . N. o . c :33 35mm mmmmeU @9282 we ww. we NM .No my .0 N . N. EdOH>flde Goomdmg @0532 we £05 Sufi £2: - £83.! #03 no”: 2...: one mHuNH coo wHINH 9.9 M } .- m mm 25 wow 3860 Saga myodémnw mvcflom sapwood UdeUGOO I .mmH 9“an i... P I u~\- - a.» an. \ ~.n..... my § N ufl..a. ..‘-¢....~ .I-nh..-..II‘ \A «4 ~ .V Q‘- § U fivns cm. ..~. § 122 32350 .w; 8336 38.41; 40$ 52. -ucsumbxmw $ $ 3 3 o .p o 4. 88H $3qu noumm mm 3 3 w 2 N .h o .p 883 $580 c8220 S. -- EH .. Mm -- N .o 282 H332 330 cm 3 p: m E a .o m .o 852 $33200 3255 cm i: 2: m 2 m .o o .o n83 $33300 3285 S S on: 2; EN N. .p o .5 8%: anamxamx >3 2 mp 3 mi 2 m .5 N .p Ema czamxsmm 5m m 3 mo w . E: m .5 o 4. 882 385:9 3m p cm «3 S o2 v .5 m .p 88H , enigma 3m o S 3. N2 mm m .p m .p 8%: 23m 3mm m II On. II ON II N .0 ENOH Hvumvz Udflflhéfi w -- wmm -- «A .3 o .m :82 H832 4.28? H SUCM QUGM Joni." £06: SOC“ 30“.: 3-2 0-0 2-2 0-0 2-2 @5 M nm mm 093 30m 5550 Hmngn Aminim hum mvadonm cowudood .ommH Amadoa 530 find wdfidOH Him .mEmoHv mZOm Haucveflhmmxv mo mwcmufioo Edfimmmuom Una .mdhOfimmoam man‘mimxfim .mm mQH. :9: 0338 123 6023300 om E 3 H; N .o H .o 88H 3320 3.2532 mo 2. 3 NH MN m .o H. .o 88H :3 .5on 8:082 E -- o2 -- 3. 3. m .m 88H 8822 83.83 3 -- H3 -- Ha -- m .o 8.2: H822 8383 Ho mm 5 5H wm m. .o m .5 833 H632 62?: 3 mm 5o 2: 3, H. .5 H .5 88H “26.80 62qu H.H. 0H. 0H. «m N5 0 .5 m .5 :83 SH“. 25m .8..ng 2. 3 S cm 3 A. .5 5 .5 58H 35:» seam NH. HH. o5 omH EA 5 .5 N .5 68H .85.; 5.25 HH. 5o 2. 2. mNH H. .5 m .5 88H 52. 25m :93: 3 mm SH SH 52 5 .5 e .5 88H 3:33 8.3.x mm 3. S 3... 5... H. .5 H. .o SSH 5&0 mEHm seam mm 2. SH N.N «m o .5 H .5 88H mEHm 8320 5m 2. 02 H.H moH o .5 H. .o 88H 3% 3380 em .52 82 H... om H .5 H. 6 68H 82.80 Exam X :2: :22. :2: fix: .HucH HHS: 2-2 06 2...: 9.0 2-2 9.0 . M L , nu mm map How 3550 53,525 whom Hum mvcsom. coflmoog UQSHHSGOU n «H: «:an \ia'i-uu.‘ sch-1WV .<.\N II‘\\!J,~, vudGEGOU o: N» 3H «2 o 4. H g. < 8838:” £035 Xv -- mp -- N: -- .o .N. Eng 3839 £839 . . 3 -- m: -- 2v -- “V d 88H 8:3 282i. .8 -- mo ..- om -- N. .@ n82 :3 3:on :20 .um mm mm 3; S 2 w .o p .o :83 3:on 033336 mm mu «2 mum S m .p o .N. 8mg “ESE mommgmflm. $ S 8 «m E. o 6 w .o n33 3% 25m smfimmm S cm “v2 3 3 H .5 o .o SSH 5? «.83 BSEmm S 2: 9: NS «3 N .p «6 833 >20 88.6 333m ‘ om 2” N» S S o .o a .o 8%: .8362 53x32 3 on E. . o S o .h m .5 88H 8302 nomoxmfiz 2. 5. :2 -- 3 -- m .o Ems 3353?. 82.82 N» mm ca 3 3 o 6 m .o :33 “SEE 8.802 E a: ‘ wv mm 0H m .0 m .o 883 >95ch mfimfiwumg co QUGM Sofia SUGM £063” QUEM SUGM 2-2 96 2:2 $6 2-3 o5 M nu ma $93 Sow 3:500 “09,83: mu 0.9me .mvndonm £33004 @mscfisoU .. an: 3an It... .IN:\ V 125 mm mw mZOm Hmngn HSOH cc o: me :n nu nu mummuo>< Nona Nmm NA: gym 0 .N. e .N. f 3 m S o .o m .m 392% nu ow nu omfl nu o .h Emofi xufivzmm oomoH om uu ow uu me uu 0 .Nn EmoH mmgoflB maoumdrfi mm £2: gun“ “~on . u. :3: £05 £23 mHuNH one wHuNH one wHuNfi ouo mm mm 093 Sow gnu—G500 umfigc whom mom mvcsom dogwood UmSGCGOU u an: “.1an u» Nuns 12.6 00523200 A0N2 22 pN op p .m 2 .o 8:8 >:82 8:28:82 0320 pN 67$ mm .8 2 Np. N .o o .p :82 >888 68882 2680 3-0-3 3 o: Np 3 c .o o .m :82 >888 E8282 E8852 3 87$ 3 3 3 mp m .m N .m :82 >888 m22832 88382 3N -h-mm pm 22 pp Hp o .m p .m :82 >888 88382 88882 mN-m-om N2 2: 2m :82 >988 8:882 8:82 HN-m-Nm 3o 32 2 on o .p N .p :82 >228 8:282 88082 8.0.3 3 pm 5 Nm p .m 2.0 :82 >088 22.502 88082 2.72.. 3m 3w 3 3 o .m m .m :82 >288 8.8852 88882 S-m-wm oN om. 2 NM 2p 8 .p :82 >288 888:0 8880 2-0-3N 3m :2 2 3 o .o 2.8 288 >882 8880 8880 2-m-3N 3 m: 2N pp m .o N .m :82 >858 8880 SEEM 2-m-3N 3 2: 3 N3 0 .o 2 .o :82 >888 8880 838—30 N2-0-2 3 S 2 S w .m o .m E88 >:82 8:283 83330 2 -m-2 om 2p NN . S N .8 N .o :82 >888 >838:0 H832820 2 6.72 om No 2 ON 2p N .p :82 >888 8880 29,288 0-0-2 pm 3 N2 2 3 .m N .o :82 >988 280225 56:80 p-0-2 No 2. 3N NN m .m 2 .o :82 328..w 232:2 I 26:80 p-m-2 cm 32 mm NN 3 .p N..p 98-. >:82 0.8582 >80 3-8.20 2m 3 8 N2 p .m p .m :82 >088 8:28:82 838: mum-m om op .. 3N oN p .m N .m 8:8 >:82 822mm 58224 N-TN 3m 3: . NN 3. o .o N .o :82 >888 8:82 8N2? 2-2-N £023 £023 £02: £02: £33 £02: . 2-2 3o 2.2 30 2-2 30 M . m m: . _ 0.8-m pom mUCdOnH 09$ Sow 83550 COS-000.4 “Kmoa swan-mod Nata-mm 0am. £0de 2.500H .mUQmmv 0300 20220530920 mo 3:02:00 demmdgg wad .mdhOAmmoam 03-3330 .mm 039 .0: 0389 127 mm cm mfiOm Hun-£22222 2308 8.88 2 .82 3.3N 8.3 -- -.. 888.83. 8N2 332 38 82 mp 8.p 3N 88 8 N2 3.8 N8 8882822 3N 2.8 32 MN... 8 .8 p .8 2:88 >:82 :otpmz 838880 NN-0-op 3p 88 MN 3p 8 .8 o .8 :82 >288 0:88:80 838880 28-2-op 3 N2 2 23 o .8 8.8 2:88 2883872 83830 832-2: 88 88 NN N8 3 .8 8 .8 2:88 228882. 838.280 3.33 82 28:2 228:2 282- 2282 228:2 2.2 8-8 2.2 8-8 2.2 8.8 02 n2 32: 0.2 028 Hum mdeOnH , . 09$ Zom 832300 220328qu '. 28:28:00 - 8p2 28.2. 128 HH HH meOm Hvfigd ~80? 3 .p3 N .8p 3 .88 2 .88 - - 388.83.. p8 882 N82 882 N .p 8 .p pN N8 8 22 8.8 8.8 888822 , pN 88 83 22 8 .8 8 .8 :82 .8352 :82. :82 880-88 83 N8 38 88 N .p 8 .p :82 838:0 22. 8:88.82 38-0-2p p8 822 82 p2 8.8 p .8 :82 2228 88822872 838220 8N-82-op 88 38 83 ON N .p N .8 :82 822282 2:282:22 NN-0-88 23 2p 8N 88 8 .8 8 .8 :82 8282:2225 828-2 82-8-33 88 88 2 82 p .8 8 .8 :82 2:822 :2220 32 82-82 88. 8p 8 p2 8 .8 8 .8 :82 2:82: :8220 32-82-82 88 88 8N pN o .p p .8 :82 82288220 282220 8 2 -0-82 8N op p2 p8 8 .8 p .8 :82 82288220 282220 82 -82-82 3N 88 82 NN o .8 N .8 :82 >28:0 U2328.220 832-82 88 882 N82 882 N .p 8 .8 :82 8:2? >882 8-8-8 220:2 228:2 220:2 228:2 ‘ 228:2. 228:2 2.2 8.8 8 2.2 8-8 2.2 8-8 m 3222 0.2028 pom awn-Dom. 09$ Sow 5222200 220328004 . .p882 .2.-2:82 222.c- Uad 88.8022 mZOm 2822208820980 mo 832208.200 Edfimmduom @8228 .mfipofimmofia ofiflmfimgd .mm MAB .mmH 0388 129 N8 p.22, 1 88. 88 8 .8. 8 .8 :82 82288220 82220 822-882 228:2 228:2 228:2 22882 220:2 220:2 2.2 8-8 81-2 8.8 82-N2 8-8 M . n2 32: 0.2028 2.0.82 mun-pom. 0&3 20m 32222200 22325004 Lr-IWUIWL ft {4le .wmm; 48222-2805 82208 2.822202228208238 mo 8222022200 222388223022 02228 62220222228023 032822.958 .3282 023. .mom 3nt 88 382 p8 8N2 - - 888.853- .m: .0: .862 mm: m6 wé 38 282 N8 28 8.8 N .8 38:82 88 N2: . om . 2m 2 .8 28.28 22.22802 82.022288 22222802202 8280002 22:32 38 o: No. no.2. m .8 w .8 222.802 3022.88 22222802202 2380002 Mai: 2 822 282 N82 882 o .8 N .8 8:88 2222:8282 838220 22,882 22022-2. 20822 2.205 220222 220822 220222 m2-N2 w-o 282-m2 8:0 312 one M nm 39 0.2028 .2082. $022250”. 0982 20m 882222200 2203-8qu .8882 28:82 . 888822.888 208228 82022283 82208 2822822222898 .20 8282022200 222388-3082 0228 652083802282 883282228828 .30” 083. .2802 03.8.2. 8022283280 828 80.8 88.8 88.0 8.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 88:88 22.2.83 0.88 082 88.0 882 828 8.88 88.0H 8.8 8:0 882288 3.888238 52082.80 88 m 8.2 8N .2 88.8 88.82 8.82 8.88 88.82 8.8 2.2 682 N.8 28.2 28.2 88.8 8 .88 8.88 82 .8 8 .8 8-8 8888... 82888225 568280 8N 8.8 88.8 88.0 88.8 8.8a 8.08 80.8 8.8 8H:8H 9283 0.8 82.82 88.8 08.88 8.88 8.88 8 .m 8.8 8:0 8828.88 3888283 5202.280 88 8.8 88.8 88.0 08.: 0.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 2:88 5.83 0 .88 88 .8 0H .8 88 .8 8 .88 8 .88 88 .8 8 .8 8:0 8828de 3.88823.“ 52022.80 H8 :: 884 88.8 :: 0.88 8.08 88.8 8.8 88:8H 8283 8.82 88.2 2N.2 88 .N 8.88 8.88 82.8 8.8 8.8 .2258 828822282 ”282282 82 8.: 88.8 804 08.“ 8.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 88:8H 8.83 8.8N 8.8 .2 22 .2 88.8 8.8N 8.2. 2.8.8 8.8 8-8 .2888... m8282882238 A22:28 82 8.88 .888 88.0 88.8 8.8: 8.88 88.8 8.8 88:88 82.53 8 .8 08 .H 08 .H 88 .8 0 .88 8 .88 88 .8 8 .8 8:0 8828.88 3.888228 gocmum 8H 8.88 88.0 804 :28 848 8.88 88.8 8.8 88:88 8.2. 88.2 28.8 82 .N 8N8 8 .88 82 .8 8.2. 8-8 8888 8882 880200 8888.882 82 8.88 88.8 88.8 88.8 8.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 88:8H Ude 8.8 H84 882 08.08 8.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 8:0 88.83 0&3ng 283.2888 8H 8.8 88.0 88.0 08..8H 8.88 0.00 88.88 8.8 2:88 0.8 88.0 88.0 08.8H 8.88 0.00 88.88 0.8 8:0 8288 85.8.3 uno>mum 88m 0H 8.88 88.0 88.8 88.0 8.08 8.88 88.8 0.8 8:0 82.2288 88.283 283.882 88.3284 8 8.82 28.8 88.2 88.8. .2 .N8 8.82. 88 .8 8.8 8-8 882 82:88 8882828. 88828. N 8288 0328.2 82 Va. 884 280 m .858 00” mm moaoca 09$ fiom 8222300 .02 82:80 253.28.23.88 8250qu \ .o .84 23ng £03 .UMU £8qu .882 A8582 8828882 88228 .8823...“ 8883 £858.88 8308 132885me88 80 038.2 Edmmmcmmg:§wofimo 8:8 60328825288 £03280 33802888280 88882888380 283.80 .mm 023. .238 83.8.8 888.222.888.250 8.8 28.8 88.8 88.8 N.88 8.88 N8.82 8.8 82..N2 1 8.8N 88.8 88 .2 88 .2 8 .88 N .88 88 .8 N .8 8:8 8802 828888 88,8 888882888 88 3 1 N.8 8N.8 88.8 8N.8 N.88 N.88 28.82 8.8 82..N2 8 .8 88 .8 8N .2 88 .8 8 .88 N .88 82 .82 8 .8 8-8 882 82:88 88.8 88888288 88 8.88 88.8 88.2 28.2 8.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 82..N2 6802 2.N22 N8.2 88.2 88.8 N.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 8-8 88:8 82828822882 2882088. 88 8.8 88.8 88.8 82.8 8.N8 N.N8 8N.22 8.8 82..N2 .882 8 .8N 88 .8 28 .2 82 .N 8 .N8 N .88 88 .8 N .8 8:8 88588 82828228212 2882888. 28 2.82 82 .8 N8.8 88.N N.88 8.88 28.8 8.8 82-N2 8802 8 .82 8N .8 88 .8 88 .N 2 .88 8 .88 88 .8 8 .8 8-8 82:88 0682280 28828.88 88 8 .8 88.8 88.8 88.N2 8.88 8.8N 88.82 N .8 82-N2 _ 8 .NN 88 .2 88 .8 88 .N 8 .88 N .88 88 .8 8 .8 8-8 . 8882 88888 83:8 2882882. 88 8.8 82.2 82.2 88.8 2.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 82..N2 8.82 N .88 88.8 88.2 88 .8 8.88 8.88 88.22 8.8 8.8 82:88 82828822882 332888. 88 N .2N 88.2 88.2 88.2 2.2N 8.88 N8.8 2.8 82:N2 8882 N .8 88 .N 8N .2 88 .82 N .28 8 .88 88 .8 2 .8 8-8 88:88 8:88.280 2882888. 88 8.N 88.8 88.8 88.8 8.8N 8.88 88.22 2.8 82..N2 8 .88 88 .2 N8 .8 88 .8 8.88 8 .N8 88.8 8 .8 8:8 82.82 82:88 xom 888820 28 8 .8 88.8 28.8 N8.8 8.28 8.88 88.82 8.8 82:N2 8 .88 NN .2 88 .2 88 .2 2.88 N .88 88 .8 8 .8 8:8 82:82 82:88 88:8 HHSE20 88 8.N 88.8 88.8 88.82 8.8N N.88 88.N2 8 .8 82-82 8.8 82 .2 88 .2 88.82 8.8 8.88 2N .8 8 .8 8:8 8.82 826.88 88.8 888820 8N 8.8 88.2 82 .2 88.8 8.8N 2.88 88.N2 2 .8 82-N2 Cg82 8.N 88.2 88.2 N8.8 2.8N 8.28 No.82 8.8 8.8 82588 82828822882 592280 8N 03.8.8 82 M 884 .80 3 308558 mm 8888.882” 889$ 30m 8382.900 .02 884.380 280.888.82.588 8.2.2880qu oofi\.m.84 flamwfl G03 .000 :8004 88:8:qu .. .82N. 8288.2. 8885:3280 Z 3 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8.N8 8.88 2N.8 8.8 2.2 2:88 2 .8 28 .8 28 .2 88.82 8 .88 8 .82 88 .8 8 .8 8-8 8882 8.82280 £888.08. .88 88 583 8.8 N8.8 8N.2 88.82 8.88 N.88 88.22 8.8 8-8 82:88 82812 2228 08830 88 £33 2 .82 88 .2 88.8 88.8 N.88 8 .N8 N2 .8 8.8 8-8 82:88 928922.38 088880 88 @de 8.82 N8.8 88.2 88.8 8.N8 8.28 88.22 8.8 8-8 88828283522 88880 88 N.8 88.2 88.8 88.8 8.88 8.88 28.8 8.8 82..N2 882 2.82 22 .2 N2 .2 88.8 N.88 8.88 NN.8 8.8 8-8 822:88 8:28.852. 65832.322 88 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.82 N .28 8.8N 88.N2 8.8 8-8 8802 82:88 8822880 828282 28 8 .8 88.8 88.8 88.8 N .8 8.88 88.8 8.8 82..N2 8 .N -- 88.2 88 .8 8 .82 2 .88 8N .8 8 .8 8-8 E802 88888 8883.822 8.2832 88 8.8 N8.8 88.8 88.22 N.88 8.28 88.82 8.8 82-N2 8 .8 N8.8 88 .8 8N .82 8.88 8 .NN 2N .82 8 .8 8-8 8:82 88:88 8882880 8.22822 88 8.8 N2 .8 82 .8 N8.2 N.88 8.88 88.8 2 .8 82-N2 8.82 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.82 8.28 8.88 88.8 2.8 8.8 88888 5882283 89:82 88 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8.88 8.88 88.82 8.8 82..N2 8 .82 8N .8 88 .8 88 .8 8.88 2 .28 88 .8 8 .8 8:8 882 82:88 u8:.2 888828232 88 8.8 22 .8 N8.8 N8.8 8.88 8.88 N8.8 8.8 82:N2 N .8 28.8 88.N N2 .8 2.88 8.N8 28.8 8.8 8-8 8.82 82:88 u8:..2 88.888232 88 038.8 .82 M. 82 80 m 3.0» -me mm 8028023 mg» Sow 382.900 .02 82:80 28032883288 822800qu .808\ .0 .2 83me G03 .000 :8.qu 6052832800 ... 6H8 GHQMH. 133 88 82..N2 82208 882282: 2880.2. 88 8:0 8308 amend: H.308 8.8 8N.2 88. 82.8 8.88 8.28 8N.8 .. 82-N2 2 .8 N8 .2 N8 .2 82 .8 8 .88 8.28 88.8 .. 8-8 8888338 8.88 88.8 8N .8 88.82 8.88 8.88 N8.82 N-8 8.2 N8.8 82 .8 88.8 N.8 8.88 88.8 8.8 82-N2 2.N22 28.8 28.8 88.82 N .88 8.88 88.82 2 .8 8.8 88.8 88.8 88 .8 8.8 8 .88 8N .8 8 .8 8-8 $838 8.8 88.8 88.2 N8.8 8.88 8.88 N8.8 N .8 82-N2 2:88 8.82 88.8 88.2 88.8 8.88 8.88 88.82 2.8 8-8 88:882 083880 888802. .88 88 0328.8 82 M 884 .80 m :08 .888 mm 89.80am. 09$ dom 83288200 .02 82:80 8203.98.52.88 unmohmnm 00H\ .084 aumom G03 .UMU 1800.4 _ 2.263880 - 82N 8288.2. 4. 8858288900 3 8 .8 88 .8 88.8 88.82 8.N8 8.88 88 .82 8.8 82-N2 8.8 28.8 N8.8 88.82 8.88 8.N8 88.82 8.8 8-8 882888800 8388 N8 8.8 88.2 88.2 88.82 2.88 N.88 88.8 8.8 82-N2 8 .8 88 .2 8N .2 88.N2 8.88 8 .88 88.82 8.8 8-8 882 88:00 83520 8N 8.8 82.2 88.2 88.22 N.88 N.88 82.82 8.8 8-8 5802 $8372 3820 8N N.8 88.8 28.8 82 .82 8.88 N.88 88.8 8.8 2.2 8.N N8 .8 28.2 88.8 8.88 8.8N 88.N2 8.8 8-8 882 88838200 H2858.282 8N 8.N 88.2 88.8 88.82 8.88 8.88 88.82 8.8 82..N2 8.8 82 .N 28.8 N8.8 8.28 8.88 88.82 N .8 8-8 882 838328200 228882 82 .. 88.2 88.2 .. 8.88 8.88 8N.22 2.8 82-N2 8 .8 82 .2 88.2 88.82 8.88 8.88 88.82 N .8 8-8 882 882853288882 8882 22 8 .N 8N.N 28.2 88.8N N.88 8.88 88.8 8 .8 82-N2 8 .8 88.2 88.8 88.8N 8 .88 8.88 88.8 8.8 8-8 882 8823823882 .288 8 8.8 88.2 88.8 88.22 N.88 8.88 88.82 8.8 2.2 8 .8 88.2 N8.2 88.22 8.88 8.88 28.82 8.8 8-8 882 88:88.2. .288 8 8.N 88.8 88.2 82 .8N 8.88 8.88 88.8 N .8 82..N2 8.8 88.N 88.2 88.82 8.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 8-8 882 882392332 8.882 8 N .8 88 .2 8N .N 88.8N 8.N8 8.88 28.82 8.8 82-N2 8.8 88.2 28.2 88.8N 8.88 8.88 88.8 2 .8 8-8 $802 8888 8882 8 8.8 88.N 28.8 82 .8 8.88 8.88 88.8 N .8 8-8 8.82 888872 88:88.8 8 8.8 88.N 88.N 88 .8 8.28 8.88 88.82 2.8 8-8 8.82 838872 88824 2 038.8 82 M 82 80 m 208 .8928 83 8828082” 893 208 8328.900 .02 82:80 280388.388 828880me 002\ .8 .2 23me 8203 .000 :8004 . 888.2 £89283 8820 8:8 882802 2238 888028 82808 288889288898 80 038.8 §8888c885:§80280 8288 503.88.98.88 802.2880 .>.82._u8m8o 882282.238 280380 .83 883. .888 82828.8 135 @052232200 8 .8 N8.8 88.8 88.82 8.88 8.N8 NN.8.2 N .8 82-N2 8 .N 88.8 88.2 88.2N 8.2 8.82 28.N2 8.8 8-8 8882 28822 8822882 88 8.8 8N.8 N8.8 88.N2 2.88 8.28 88.82 8.8 82..N2 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.22 2 .88 8.88 88.82 8.8 8-8 882 $5280 8822882 88 2 .82 N2 .2 88.8 88.8 8.88 8.88 28.82 8.8 82-N2 8.8 88.N 88.2 88.82 8.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 8-8 28882 8828 8828 28.882 88 8.8 88.8 88.2 88.82 8.88 8.88 82 .8 8.8 82-N2 8.82 N8.N 88.8 88.8. 2 .88 8.88 82 .8 N .8 8-8‘ 882 $8823 28382 N8 N.82 N8.8 88.8 28.8 8.88 8.88 88.22 2.8 82-N2 8 .82 88.8 88.8 88 .8 N .88 8 .88 88 .82 8 .8 8-8 2582 $8823 28.382 28 8.8 88.2 88.8 88.82 8.28 8.88 NN.N2 2 .8 82-N2 8 .8 N8.8 88.8 8N .82 N88 8288 88.N2 8.8 8-8 8882 .2828 88:28. 89328 88 8.82 88.2 88.8 88.8 2.N8 8.88 88.N2 2 .8 82-N2 8 .8 88 .8 88 .8 88 .N2 8.88 8 .88 88 .82 2 .8 8-8 5882 $8823 28.382 88 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.82 8.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 82-N2 8.82 88.8 88.2 28.8 8.88 8.88 22 .8 8.8 8-8 6.82 8828 882m. 28382 88 N.8N N2 .2 88.8 88.2 8.88 8.N8 88.8 8.8 82-N2 8.8 88.8 88.2 28.8 8.88 8.2N 82 .8 8.8 8-8 882 8828 88288.5 88 8.8 88.2 88.2 88.82 2.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 82-N2 ‘ 8.N2 88.8 88.N 8N.8 8.88 8.8N N822 8.8 8-8 882 8888 89.38.20 88 8.8 88.8 N8.2 88.22 8.88 8.82 82 .8N 8.8 82..N2 8.82 88.8 88.2 28.8 8.88 8.88 88.82 8.8 8-8 8288282680 288882 88 03.8.2 .mZ M m2 .80 m 308 .85m in mofloaa 2883.8. 20m 322.2200 .02 32:80 8203.98.38.88 88200an oo2\.m .2 2.2.8me 2803 .UMU _ ...mood 888828280 .. 8NN 8288.8 136 6052832800 8.N 88.2 88.8 88.8N 8.88 N.8N 28.N2 8.8 8-8 8882 8228 8288282 82820 .88 88 8.N 88.8 N8.2 88.82 8.88 8.88 28.22 8.8 82..N2 8 .8 88.8 88.2 8N .82 8.88 8.88 88.82 8 .8 8-8 8882 8225288 88888388228 88 8.2 88.8 88.8 82 .8N 8.88 2 .8N 28.82 8.8 2.2 8 .N 88.8 88 .2 88 .8N 8 .N8 8 .82 88 .82 8 .8 8-8 882 28822 88888388228 88 8.82 88-8 N8.8 88.8 8.88 8.8N 88.N2 8.8 82..N2 8.8 82 .8 88.8 88.8 8.88 8.88 88.82 N .8 8-8 8882 8828 8828 382888 N8 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.82 8.88 8.8N 88.82 8.8 82..N2 N .8 88.8 28.2 88.N2 8.28 N.88 88.82 8.8 8-8 8882 8828 8.828 3882888 28 8.8 N2 .8 88. 88.22 8.88 8.2N 28.82 8.8 82..N2 8 .8 88 .8 88.2 88.82 8.88 8.28 88.N2 8.8 8-8 882 8828 8828 3882888 88 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.N2 8.88 8.88 88.82 N.8 82-N2 2 .82 8N.2 88.8 88.8 8.88 8.8N 8N.22 8 .8 8-8 8882 $8872 8882832 88 8.NN 8N.8 88.2 88.8 8.28 8.88 28.8 8.8 2.2 8 8.222 88.2 28.2 88.8 8.88 8.88 N8.22 N .8 8-8 882 .8832 888328222 88 8.8N 88.8 82.2 N8.2 8.88 8.88 28.82 8.8 8-8 682828828228. 8.2822 N8 8.N 88.8 88.8 88.8N 8.88 8.2N N8.82 8.8 82..N2 8-.8 82 .2 88.8 88.22 8.88 8.8N 88.82 8.8 8-8 8832 288222 8.2822 88 8 .82 88.8 88.8 82 .8 8.88 8.88 88.82 8.8 2.2 8 .88 88 .2 88.8 88.8 8.88 8.N8 88.22 8.8 8-8 8882 8228 858228 888822 88 8 .8 8N.2 28.2 88.8 2 .88 2.N8 88.8 8.8 8-8 6.82 28.822 83.952 88 8 .8 88.2 88.N 88.82 2 .88 N .8N 88.22 8.8 8-8 8882 288222 838512 28 03.92 .82 M mg .80 m 30.0. .mccm Mm 802.32; 2893 Sow 5222200 .02 mEumU 283.2538 ~250th oo~\.m.§ 2.28.me 2803 .UHU unuod 882228280 - mNN 8288.8 37 om wMuNM mZOm Hengc 8809. iv one 8308 Hmngc H8808 m.m 8N4 wwd mméM mdb $18; 28.: wHuNH N.8 88.2 88.2 28.82 2.88 8.82 88.N2 8-8 8888832. N.mm ow.m 8N.N om.©m 8.00 «N.Nm wiom 0.8. 8.2 8N.8 N8.8 88.2 2.88 8.88 28.8 N .8 2.2 88:32 04: mud M048 0H .mm wdo 06m ¢m5M 88.N. N .2 82 .8 N8.8 88.8 8.82 8.88 22 .8 8.8 8-8 88822822 N. .M 8w .H 80 .N CH .mm 860 o .oo o¢.m~ 2.8 @IO 583 878?:me 0083.. ca 2.8.8 @md ow; 318M Néh 0.00 wo.o 818. 0.0 880M 8892083. 82008228 ma m .88 ow.o wm.o 0285M o.ow o.oo .20.“; 82> wHINM 28.0 N.N..o 8.0.0 N.N.o 0.8% o.oo 888.8H N.N. ouo F283 858m 830858 «No o.m MN; ow; QNJNN 8.N8 0.00 28.88.88 0.8 one E83 88802:. 88088de. mm ~72 mud. hm.m 08.8; 28.8.2 aflwm mwfiw 8.0 one 583 888m 830de mm 0.38u 82 M mg 80 kr m Sam 8.288% Ea 88.3.8282” 89$ Sow 8382500 .02 32:80 2803888588.. 8.228928% oo~\ .8 .2 28.38802 2203 ..UMD :8004 JI‘I' 1.... . uflnil . :L‘fllm‘, a Ih4.l|lli1fiv».- ‘u.|rhl. 1.." 2..qu ‘1 ..gll.’ II 1 III. In. 2; ' .1...“ 2882828280 .. 8N8 8.38.2. 138 68222832800 8.88 8.82 8.8N 8 .88 8.82 8.88 8.82 8.2 882228282885 858.882 8.88 22 .2 88.8 88.2 8.28 8.88 88.82 8.8 8-8 8.88 88.2 88.2 88.8 8.88 8.NN 88.8 8.8 8-8 88288888 8882 888228 88 8.N2 8.88 N.28 2.82 8.N 8.88 8.N8 8.2 882222288888. 85928.8 8.882 88.2 88.8 N8.8 8.88 8.88 88.82 N.8 8-8 N .2N2 N8 .2 88.2 88.8 8.88 8.88 88 .8 8.8 8-8 2882 83882 288828222 88 2 .8 2 .82 N .28 8 .8 8 .2 8 .88 8.82 8 .8 882233.35 888.802 8.8 8N.2 88.2 82.82 2.88 8.88 88.82 N.8 8-8 8.8 88.2 8N.N 88.82 8.88 8.88 88.82 N.8 8-8 HEW8282282328232 8882 22 8 .28 8 .8 8.8 8.88 8.8 8.8 8 .8 2 .8 8822382888. 88.88 8.88 88.2 8N.2 88.8 8.88 2.88 88.8 8.8 8-8 8.8 N8.2 88.2 88.8 8.88 8.N8 88.8 8.8 8-8 2582882288 82238822228. 8228.282 82 8.N8 8.N 8.2N 8.88 8.2 8.8 8.N2 N.8 882222288888, 8598.82 2.28 88.8 82 .2 N8.8 8.88 8.88 88.82 2.8 8-8 8 .82 88.8 88.2 88 .8 8 .28 8 .88 88 .8 8 .8 8-8 8882 82388 88.82 888582882 88 8.88 8.882 8.2 8.88 8.8 8.2 8 .2 8.2 882228282885 8888888 8.22 88.8 88.8 28.8 8.28 8.88 88.8 8.8 8-8 8.88 88.8 88.8 88.2 8.88 2.88 88.8 8.8 8-8 38828888...8 8832280 2832888 88 8.82 8.8 8.8N 8.88 8.8N 8.N8 8.88 8.2 882388.29 88888 8.8 88.8 82 .N 88.8N 2.88 8.88 28.8 8.8 8-8 8.8 N8.8 N8.2 8.2 2.88 8 .28 82 .8 8 .8 8-8 2:88 8882 863880 22828888 .88 88 038.8 82 M mg 80 M $08 .me Mm 882M822H 89$ Mom 322.2200 .02 w2u80 803882588 2.288888% ooH\ .8 .2 £38m G03 .0828 -822 .023 .8308 M88828EE8988 ....8N 82828.2. 2888 Ho 038.2 §888Cw8fi21§838o c288 820388.388 280388 3888888888 8mc8£ox8 280388 .mm 82:. ~¥n...§-n,h.- hfl.hfl.\h \ .1~f\ .hk 139 m Jam 8.88 8 .88 8 .88 8 .8 8.88 8 .82 8 .8 88238288.; 85888 8.8 88.8 8.8.8 88.82. 8 .28 8.88 88.82 8 .8 8-8 8.8 82 .2 88.8 82 .22 8.88 8.88 88.22 N.8 8-8 888828820 8828 28.232 88 8.88 8.8 N .88 8.88 8 .82 8 .88 2 .N 8.2 88223828888 888.88 8.8 28.8 82 .2 88.82 8.88 8.88 88.82 N .8 8-8 8 .82 88 .8 88.8 88 .8 8.N8 8 .88 82 .82 2 .8 8-8 8.82 $288.23 28.382 88 8.88 N.82 8.82 8.88 8.88 8.28 N.8N 8.2 88222828288.» 8288.882 8.8N 88 .8 88.N 88.8 N .N8 8 .82 88.8 8 .8 8-8 8 .8 88.8 88.N N8.8 8.88 2 .88 88.82 8.8 8-8 8882 8888 8828.20 88 0288.8 82 M. ME 80 E H808 .maw mg 88382: 88;» Mom 832300 .02 822-88 882\ .8 .32 888882 2828 .UMU :8804 283628880 .. 88N 82888. I “mm. H «A T... «Bud... AU~ >~VF8 ......J. ~,\—h 8.... Ink-r. ..rfln \ipAOu-!u - -.-—Tuflu In-..\ It iduv-qflv4ub. ..unmfki .84 rd8-u45 25.8.88....v-nurcluuflhlnaun.a81138-1 .v-i-n .FNAU<-n-h \u‘d....~ n...v.-.~d,.. u ..xAsm. dinghdufv L.Vu1.‘.~d...rt.:.-thv ufififim.»i..d \~.N.A..~. ..bnfi.‘. niyiuuW uv~A~i,m.'N. 140 68822232800 8.8 8N.8 88.8 28.8 N.8N 8.88 88.8 2.8 82-N2 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8.88 2.88 88.22 8.8 8-8 8.882828888888882 888288 82-8-8N 8.2 88.8 88.2 88.22 8.82 8.88 88.8 8.8 82-N2 . 8.N 88.8 N8.2 8N.8 2.82 N.88 88.8 8.8 8-8 8882882588688 8888928228 N2-o..82 8.8 88.8 N8.8 88.N. N.82 8.28 88.8 8.8 82-N2 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.N 8.82 8.N8 N8.22 8.8 8-8 8888 888258882812 888882228 22-8-82 N.N 8N.8 28.8 88.82 8.28 8.88 82.22 2.8 82-N2 8.8 8N.8 88.8 88.N 8.8N 8.N8 8.2.82 8.8 8-8 88288888 888,880 8888828228 82-8-82 2.88 88.2 88.8 88.2 8.88 8.8 88.82 8.8. 82-N2 N.N 88.8 88.8 28.8 8.N8 8.22 88.N2 8.8 8-8 88828888888888 82382882208882 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8.8N 8.88 88.82 N.8 82-N2 8.8 N2.8 88.8 N8.8 8.88 8.88 88.22 8.8 8-8 88288888 82888222: CB922888.882 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8.2N 8.88 82.82 8.8 82-N2 8.8 88.8 82.2 88.N2 8.88 8.88 88.22 8.8 8-8 88828888... 8288822228 289228888282 8.8 N8.8 88.8 88.N2 8.88 8.8 8.3 8.8 2.2 2.8 NN.8 88.2 88.N2 8.88 8.NN N8.82 8.8 8-8 8:88 888288988882 8882 8-82-8 8.28 88.8 88.8 88.8 8.28 8.88 88.82 8.8 82-N2 8.82 82.8 88.2 88.2 2.82 8.88 82.N2 8.8 8-8 88828888888668 82.388. 8-82-8 8.8N 88.8 88.8 88.8 N.8N 8.88 28.82 2.8 82-N2 8.88 88.8, 88.2 88.N 8.8 2.88 8N.N2 2.8 8-8 2:8... 8888288282828 5888224 N8-8 8.8 88.2 88.8 82.22 8.88 8.88 88.8 2.8 82-N2 N.8 88.8 88.N 88.8 8.88 8.28 88.8 2.8 8-8 88828858 228.8572 2888224 2.82.8. 038.8 82 M m2 80 m :08 89% Ma 882828285 893 30m 832500 .02 32.80 820388388 2.288888% 00M\ .8 .2 2M88M8Q 2803 .UHU -8804 .th £8883 382888 @828 888288 >583 882883 8308 M88288EC8Q888 mo 038.8 83889888153388 8288 508888.388 280.388 63888988 8928:8888 280388 .3m 82;. .8wm 8388 Inn-w ~8-0d «88222232200 ...... 8.N 88.8 88.8 82.N 2.8 8.N8 88.82 8.8 82..N2 1 8.8 88.8 88.2 88.N 8.22 8.88 88.8 8.8 8-8 8:8... 8282882828 838880 8N-82-88 N.8 88.8 88.N N8.N 2.22 8.88 88.82 2.8 2.2 2:288 88:82 8.88 88.8 88.2 8N.2 8.88 8.88 88.8 8 .8 8-8 828282822 888880 8N-..2..88 8.8 88.8 88.8 8N.8 8.N8 8.88 N8.8 8.8 82-N2 882 2.8 88.8 88.8 8N.8 N.N8 8.88 8N.8 8.8 8-8 82:88 8288282 88880 8N-o-88 8.N2 88.8 88.8 88.2 8.N2 8.88 88.8 8.8 82-N2 E882 8.8 88.8 88.2 82 .8 8.82 8.88 8N.22 8.8 8-8 8888.... 82882822 828282 8N-:.2-88 8.N 88.8 88.8 88.N 8.8 8.88 8N.22 N.8 82-N2 6882 8.N 88.8 28.2 88.8 8.8 8.88 88.22 N.8 8-8. 8888.... 882882822 82882822 8N-..2-88 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.N N.8 8.88 N2 .22 8.8 2.2 8882 8.8 8N.8 88.2 8N.8 8.N2 8.N8 2.2 8.8 8-8 88888 E28882 8288282 8N-.2-88 8.8 22 .2 N2..N 88.8 8.88 8.88 28.8 8.8 2.2 E882 8.8 88 .8 88.8 N2 .8 8.88 8.8N 8N.8 8.8 8-8 88888 82222882 888882 8N-8-88 8.2 88 .8 N8.8 88.8 8.82 8.28 88.8 8.8 82..N2 8882 8.8 22 .8 88.8 88.8 8.8N 8 .88 28.8 8.8 8-8 888.88 882882882 8888822 82-8-88 8.N 88.8 88.8 28.8 8.8 8.88 88.8 8.8 82-N2 8882 8.8 88.8 88.2 82.N 2.82 8.88 N8.8 N.8 8-8 88888 828282 888822 82-82-88 8.88 88.2 88.8 88.N 8.88 8.8 N8.82 8.8 82-N2 28:82 8.82 88.2 88.2 N8.8 8.88 8.8 28.82 8.8 8-8 88888 288882 82888.2 82-8-8N 2.8 82 .8 888 88.8 8.88 8.88 22 .8 8.8 82..N2 88.88 8.22 82 .8 88.2 88.N 8.N8 8.88 88.22 8.8 8-8 8882 888882 888882 82-82-8N 038.2 82 M M2 80 M $08 .mam Em 8822882” 893 30m 23822200 .02. w2n80 220385.588 388.28% ooM\.8 .2 2.3228Q G03 .UHD .8804 282528qu - 88N 8288.8 142 8N 82..N2 82288 88228:: 298.2. mm 8.6 8.208 H8985: H8808 8.N2 88 .8 88.8 82 .8 8.8N N.88 88.82 82-N2 8.8 8N.8 2N .2 88 .8 8.88 8.88 88.82 8-8 $88.83. 2.88 88.2 88.N 88 .82 8.88 8.N8 88 .82 8.8 8.2 88.8 28.8 88.8 8.8 8.8 88.8 2.8 82..N2 8.88 88.2 88.8 88.N2 8.88 8.88 N8.82 8.8 N.N 88.8 88.8 8N .2 8.8 8.8 N8.8 2.8 8-8 888832 8.8 88.8 88.8 28.2 8.82 8.88 28 .82 8.8 82..N2 85...... 8 .N2 88 .8 88 .8 N8 .2 2 .8N 8.88 82 .N2 8 .8 8-8 85882 2888672 838:0 N8-0-88 8.8 88.8 88.8 82.8 8.8 8.88 88.82 8.8 82..N2 8882 8.8 88 .8 88.8 88.8 8 .82 8.88 88.82 8 .8 8-8 82:88 8832280 838:0 28-2-88 8.N8 88.8 82.2 88.8 8.2N 8.88 88.8 N.8 82..N2 8.82 88.8 88.N 88 .8 8.88 8.88 88.8 8.8 8-8 28:88 2233872 838280 88-2-88 038.2 82 M w2 80 m 2808 .85m Mm 882.202: 893 30w 3222200 .02. m2u8U 2803888588 2.228088% ooH\ .8 .2 £HQ8Q 2208..— .UMU :8004 282628280 .. 88N 82228.2. 2888222202200 3 4 8.8 00.0 08.0 00.8 0.00 0.08 22 .22 0.m 02:02 222802 0 .8 00 .0 00 .0 m0 .0 0 .88 0 .08 00 .0 0 .0 0:0 8228 882282282 83830 00:m2:08 0.0 28.0 28.0 00.82 0.00 0.02 20.02 0.0 02:02 0.0 00.0 08.0 00.02 0.08 0.28 00.02 0.0 0:0. 22802 822882882 222280222202 00:0:0m 8.0 00.0 20.0 00.2 8.22 8.00 00.02 0.0 02:02 228802 8 .8 88 .8 88.8 88.N 8.8N 8.88 8N .82 N .8 88 222388822882 $822812 82-8-88 8.8 82.8 8N.8 88.8 8.82 8.88 88.22 8.8 82..N2 2 .8 cm .0 00 .0 m0 .0 8 .80 8 .00 00 .02 0 .0 0:0 222802 88.8/32220.22 220.22 00:0:00 0.8 00.0 00.0 02.0 8.00 0.08 02.82 0.0 02:02 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.8 0.00 0.80 80:02 8.0 0:0 822802 25822 220822220 82:02:02 0.0 00.0 0m.0 08.02 0.00 8.08 80.02 0.0 02:02 0 .m 02 .0 mm .2. 8m .0 0 .08 0 .28 02 .02 0 .0 0:0 828802 2882822 280822220 82 :m2:02 0.0 00.0 08.0 02.00 0.08 0.00 00.0 2.8 02:02 8 .8 82 .o 88 .o 88 .02 o .88 2 .02 80 .8 8 .8 8:8 6802 8822888220 28822220 82 -082 0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.80 0.00 00.8 0.0 02:02 0 .8 82 .0 80 .0 88 .0 8 .88 0 .08 00 .0 0 .0 0:0 8802 02222288820 00222220 m2:m:02 8.02 80.0 00.0 20.2 0.00 0.m8 02.02 0.0 02:02 0.0 00.0 08.0 00.0 0.00 0.00 08.02 0.0 0:0 2822802 8838820 08208828820 0:82:02 8.0 80.0 20.0 08.82 0.80 0.02 80.02 8.0 02:02 0.8 88.0 00.2 00.02 0.28 8.02 00.02 0.0 0:0 222802 8822823 88m 0:870 0288.2 82 M. 0F- 80 2.2 2208 .88220 2.282 88220222 89$ 2200 0822.900 .02 02:80 22020888588 «080.28% 002\.8 .2 228228Q 82020 .000 :8004 .8002 285802 8228 28228 858020 82208 2.8828828228882888 0 0288.2 502880085:E2220280 2808 50.38.2388 2202880 3282088280 80228220888 002880 .8222 822.2. .800 82828.2. 144 22 02:02 82208 888228382 2880.2. 22 0:0 82208 88828222282 2880.2. 8.0 00.0 00.0 80.0 0.08 0.08 20.02 02:02 8.8 8N.8 28.8 88.8 8.88 N.28 28.N2 8-8 888833. 8.02 28.0 08.0 02 .00 0.08 8.00 80.02 0.0 8.0 00.0 00.0 00.2 8.22 0.00 00.8 0.0 02:02 8.0 08.0 00.2 00.02 8.08 0.08 00.02 0.0 8.8 88.8 8N.8 88.N 8.8N 8.82 N8.8 N.8 8-8 888832 0.0 08.0 08.0 00.02 0.80. 0.00 08.82 0.0 02:02 8 .0 08.0 80. .0 08.0 8.08 m .82 08 .02 0 .0 0:0 2822802 8838.820 8282 80088.2n2 80:0:28 0288.2 82 M 02 x 80 2.2 2208 .850 2282 882.2022 882.3 2200 8322.900 .02 02:80 2202288388 82280.28n2 002\.8.2 2.2282802 22022 .0020 :80012 2882222282200 : 800 82828.2. 145 0 02:02 82208 88822282222 2880.2. 0 0:0 82208 88822222222 2820.2. 0.0 00.0 00.0 80.2 0.8 0.00 02:02 N.82 88.8 88.2 88.8 N .88 2.88 8-8 $88.33. 0.02 00.0 00.0 08.2 0.22 0.20 0.0 0.0 00.0 88.0 08.0 8.0 2.80 0.0 02:02 8.0 00.0 00 .2 02 .0 0.00 8.08 8.0 8.8 88.8 88.8 82 .N 8.82 8.N8 8.8 8-8 888832 0.0 00.0 00.0 08.2 8.0 0.20 08.0 0.0 02:02, 222802 8 .0 00 .0 00 .2 02 .0 0 .00 0 .00 20 .02 8 .0 0:0 8282288 828028202 8880082 20000 0.02 00.0 00.0 08.0 0.22 2 .80 00.0 0.0 02:02 222802 0 .02 00 .0 00 .2 82 .0 0 .80 0 .00 00 .02 m .0 0:0 8282288 22228082202 8280082 000:000 0.8 00.0 88.0 00.2 8.0 8.20 00.02 0.0 02:02 . 0.0 00 .0 08.0 00.0 0.82 8.08 00.0 0.0 0:0 282288 2828222228282 838230 . 000:000 0288.2 82 M. 02 80 2.2 2208 .850 2.282 88220222 8823 2200 88222200 ..02. 02:80 82022882588 8.228088% 002\ .8 .2 , 22082882 2202» .0020 :80012 .0002 288802 8282288 28228 82822880 82208 28222882888288 00 0228.2 8222228822088:§20280 20228 5028822588 2202280 632082280 8022822088 22022280 .2222 82.2.2. .800 82828.2. 146 8.8 N8.8 88.8 8.82 , 8.88 8.88 8N.82 8.8 82..N2 8.8 88.8 88.8 8;..22 8.88 8.N8 88.22 8.8 8.8 222882 82222288220 28222220 88N..88N .872 v2 . 882WMMM80- _ . 22 2288 .288 2222 882.2882 2282.8 2288 828.80 .oz 220222882588 022808882 0.02\ .8 .2 22282802 22028.. - . . .000 . :80012 .0002 289280.: 82208 28208828882888 00 0228.2 .80288.220.82u2ag2820280 28228 ...8022888888 280.880 3.882082280 8008220888 2202880 .2222 822.2. .880 8208.28 Table 283.. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh alfalfa leaf petioles from plants grown on soils of various textures, 1956. Locau tion Treat~ Parts per million?” No. County Soil txpe ment1 K Ca Mg Loamy sands and sandy loams Fir-st cutting 12 Berrien Oshtemo A 8040 1720 384 loamy sand B 7740 1440 384 ‘ ' c '9240 1280 336- D 10320 1520 288 E 7080 1690 4.72 '48 Jackson Hillsdale A 9720 4120 1024 sandy loam B 8640 2500 t 57 - C 11280 3900 423 D 7200 3300 4C0 E 7500 1300 672 49 Jackson Fox sandy loam* A 19920 3400 1392 B 9840 2480 448 C 5760 2060 6'3’2 D 11640 2580 1056 E 8540 3000 648 56 Kalamazoo Fox sandy loam A 4800 1640 672' B 7200 1400 672 C 6960 920 800 D 5340 320 688 E 6360 240 640 89 St. Joseph Oshtemo A 6360 1440 416 loamy sand B 5760 760 544 ‘ C 5520 2080 576 D 5640 1400 560 E 7560 680 576 Average of first cutting A 9768 2464 778 B 7836 1716 541 C 7752 2048 561 - D 8028 1824 598 ' E 7408 1382 602. llTreatments are given in Table 2, page 22. 2Values represent average of two samples per treatment. 148 Table 28a -' Continued A. m 'Loca- tion Treat- Parts per million 'No. County Soil type ment K g WC; Mg Loamy sands and sandy loams - ‘ Second cutting' 16 "Branch "Hillsdale A 13080 3400 1360 sandy loam B ‘18000 4400 960 C 11040 3500 784 D 16800 3700 896 E 17760 3200 1312 21 Calhoun Hillsdale A 3180 1760 686 sandy loam B 7200 1165 496 C 8640 920 584 D 12360 1320 752 E 8460 1220 768 28 Clinton Fox sandy loam A 3300 2160 672 B 10680 1040 510 C 4560 1040 416 D 4260 1720 640 E 6240 1920 832 47 Jackson Oshtemo sandy A 3600 2720 1312 loam B 4450 2360 1088 C 3150 1780 1044 D 3900 3120 1216 E 4300 3080 1312 89 St. Joseph Oshtemo A 5040 5247 992 loamy sand B 6240 3675 1424 C 15240 3550 1.248 D 14400 4344 1168 E 25200 3845 1728 Average of second cutting A 5640 3057 1004 B 9314 2528 896 C 8526 2158 815 D 10344 2841 934 E 12392 2653 1190* :9: Significant at the 5% level with respect to D treatment. 149 Table 28a - Continued fi_ m n Locaé tion Treat- Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K T iCag 7 Mg Loams First cutting 17 Branch -Coldwater A 8760 2400 1184 loam B 9240 1480 624 C 3720 1760 5‘76 ' D 4380 1720 656 E 6660 2040 528 27 Clinton Conover loam ' A 6240 1410 608 B 6600 2440 624 C 7920 2040 528 D 6960 1640 848 E 6840 1440 800 73 Muskegon Nester loam A 6960 2240 850 B 7680 2286 416 C .. .. ...... D 6120 3680 384 E 9720 3560 1264 Average of first cutting A 7320 2017 881 B 7840 2069 555 C 5820 1900 552 D 5820 2347 629 E 7740 2347 864 Second cutting 27 Clinton Conover loam A 3720 2240 688 B 10200 1600 400 C 5760 2240 336 D 6720 1400 480 E 12000 1190 496 Table 29a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh corn leaf tissue from plants grown on soils of various textures, 1956. 150 Locau- tion Treat- Parts per million No. . County Soil type ment K Ca Mg Loamy sands and sandy loams 18 Branch Hillsdale A 13440 1480 552 sandy loam B 24000 1760 464 C 15360 1680 368 D 13920 1440 368 E 21360 2280 872* 23 Calhoun Hillsdale A 18720 1 120 720 sandy loam B 17040 1040 480 C 16080 840 480 D 17760 1200 432 E 9600 480 384 30 Clinton -Fox sandy loam A 7400 1480 880 B 6240 1440 880 C 7440 1340 824 D 8520 1800 824 E 8880 1480 960 50 Jackson Oshtemo A 18720 1120 720 sandy loam B 17040 1040 480 C 16080 840 480 D 17760 1200 432 E 9600 480 384 51 Jackson Hillsdale A 14280 ‘1150 560 sandy loam B 8160 1040 384 C 8400 940 352 D 13200 960 320 E 11520 2080 512 69 Monroe Wauseon A 8760 900 560 sandy loam B i8520 1000 544 C 9840 1000 504 D 9240 940 448 E 8400 820 768 "Significant at 5% level with respect to D treatInent. Table 29a - Continued Loca- tion Treat- Parts per million No. County Soil type ment O AK m Ca Mg 75 Muskegon Montcalm A 4320 1760 556 loamy sand B 12960 820 548 C 9000 1140 568 D 10800 980 448 E 7680 880 416 90 St. Joseph Oshtemo A 8880 880 4400 loamy sand B 10008 598 32.0 C .. .. ...... D 13440 676 37 E 12240 775 43. Average A 11815 1236 618 B 13005 1092 51’ - C 11743 1111 51' i D 13080 1150 4’56 E 11160 1159 5‘91 Loam, silt loam, and clay loam 45 Ingham Miami loam A 15840 , 1760 136 B 15360 1400 8116- C 21360 1340 .128 D 12120 1760 688 E 12000 1360 592 61 Lenawee Miami loam A 9840 1060 704 B 6360 800 688 C 6600 995 688 D 6600 960 496 E 9360 1000 320 64 Macomb Blount silt A 6840 660 736 loam B 7200 240 704 C 5400 520 589 D 6480 650 392 E 5520 600 552 a}: 7 Significant at 5% level with respect to D treatment. 152 Table 29a - Continued m m Loca-u tion Treat- Parts per Amillion No. County Soil type ment ‘ K wCa Mg 70 Monroe Miami loam 4A 11400 1120 496 'B 11040 1260 600 C 8400 o 920 480 D 8760 920 624 E 6120 940 864 81 Saginaw Sims clay loam A 8040 860 416 B 7080 760 384 C 7080 _ 900 464 D 6380 700 480 E 6480 800 576 84 Shiawassee Miami loam A 6480 640 541 B 8280 285 488 , C 7400 440 448 D 6600 515 472 E 7320 560 404 85 Shiawassee Blount loam A 5520 900 660 B 7680 720 672 C 7680 940 556 D 7680 1020 592 E 7680 720 760 88 St. Clair Blount silt A 4920 400 352 loam B 4920 580 400 C 6360 500 264 D 3840 600 512 E 3960 ’ 1295 344 Averages A 8610 925 630 B 8490 756 594 C 8785 819 577 - D 7305 891 532 E 7305 909 552 153 Table 30a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh potato leaf petioles from plants grown on a loamy sand and a loam soil, 1956. Loca~ tion ' Treat- Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K . Ca 5'? Mg 10 Bay Brevort loamy -A 4440 1200 800 sand B 4000 1000 720 C 4410 585 696 D 4660 850 784 E 5640 820 704 1 1 Bay Kawkawlin A 4420 8 2 0 7 20 loam B 5030 995 944 C 4250 1012 816 D 5640 1020 912 E 6360 940 768 'Average A 4430 1010 760 B 4515 998 832 C 4330 798 756 D 5150 935 848 'E 6000 880 736 154 Table 31a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh field bean leaf petioles from plants grown on loam soils, 1956. Loca» tion Treat- Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K Ca ‘ Mg 5 Bay - Sims loam A 7920 1760 ' 800 B 6580 1582 992 C 9600 1560 576 D 5520 1305 800 E 5640 1740 912 36 Gratiot - Sims 1oaml A 3400 800 448 B 3050 440 432 C 4810 560 400 D 4550 240 432 E 4050 600 464 38 Huron Sims clay loam A 9840 2472 1120 B 16800 1780' 864 C 6720 2032 928 D 9960 842 448 E 13920 1060 688 39 Huron Wisner loam A 7800 2329 592 B 7680 2889 576 C 9720 2258 672 D 8400 1608 528 E 7740 2000 496 93 Tuscola Thomas loam A 16320 2412 960 B 7800 1407 544 C 6360 1456 464 D 9120 1608 544 » E 10080 .1876 1184 Average A 9056 1955 784 B 8382 1620 682 C 7442 1573 608 D 7510 1121 550 E 8210 1455 749 1Red kidney beans. 155 Table 32a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh soybean leaf petioles from plants'grown on sandy‘loam soils, 1956. . IL a; «fir Loca- tion Treat- Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K 5 Ca Mg 67 Monroe Wauseon sandy A 8160 2280 1280 loam B 7800 1925 1016 C 8160 1965 880 D 6600 1800 768 E 9240 1880 944 68 Monroe Genesee sandy A 9240 2360 1296 loam B 5640 1680 1520 C 5760 2420 1312 D 6240 2010 1168 E 5280 2400 1120 Average A 8700 2320 1288 B 6720 1802 1268 C 6960 2192 1096 D 6420 1905 968 ' E 7260 2140 1032 156 Table 333.. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh sugar beet leaf petioles from plants grown on loam soils, 1956. Loca- tion Treat- Partsgper million No. County Soil type ment K f._:Ca Mg 6 Bay Kawkawlin ~ A 9120 "160 "' 704 loam B 8400' ' 160 784 C 6650 140 976 D 1080 140 776 E 9000 120 800 7 Bay Thomas loam A 10080 220 512 B 11160 100 5 12 C ‘ 7080 180 472 D 7370 140 624 E as .... ..- 40 Huron Sims clay loam A 9120 211 672 B 5640 90 720 C 7800 194 552 D 10440 144 856 E 5760 191 664 'Average A 9440 197 629 B 8440 117 672 - C 7177 171 667 . D 6297 141 752 E 7380 156 732 157 The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh oat plant tissue from plants grown on soils of different textures,~ 1957. Table 34a. Loca-- ‘ tion Treat- Parts per million-’- No. County Soil type mentI K Ca Mg Loamy sands and sandy loams 13-C-7 Calhoun 'Hillsdale A 5250 2520 816 sandy loam B 5550 3320 816 D 5000 2320 880 E 5200 2460 640 15-C-9 Charlevoix. ~~Emmet sandy A 6150 2180 960 loam ' B 5900 2300 720 D 6250 2240 880 E 6050 1820 656 l6-C-12 Cheboygan 'Emmet sandy -A 5000 2300 720 loam B 4950 1660 672 D 4400 1720 720 E 4900; 1660 672 24-C-17 Emmet Emmet sandy A 3800 2800 752 loam B 3650 2800 640 D 3550 3080 624 E 4400 2220 816 54-C-20' Mecosta Isabella A 4650 2300 1024 sandy loam B 5200 2440 976 D 4450 2380 1104 E 4500 2780 1088 68-C-26 Oscoda Montcalm ‘A," 3850 2800 592 ' sandy loam B 3550 2460 800 D 4650 2800 864 ' E 4200 2460 816 70-C-32 Ottawa Newton loamy A 3500 3060 640 sand B 4050 3000 768 D 3800 3080 572 E 3700 2320 656 Average A 4600 2566 786 B 4693 2569 770 D 4586 2517 806 E 4707 2246 763 lTreatments are given in Table 2, page 22. 2Values represent average of two samples per treatment. 158 Table 34a - Continued Loca- tion Treat- Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K Ca Mg Loams l9-C-13 Clinton Chesaning A 4450 2260 624 loam B 4750 1940 528 D 4650 2460 672 E 4450 2360 656 59-v-C-22 Montcalm Isabella loam A 4100 2500 1136 B 4750 2460 1024 D 4650 4220 752 E 4650 2060 864 71-C-34 Presque Onaway loam A 5750 3960 416 Isle B 3400 2520 400 D 3400 2600 464 E 3650 2800 384 Average A 4767 2907 725 B 4300 2307 651 D 4233 3093 629 E 4250 2407 635 159 Table 35a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh potato plant tissue from plants grown on loamy sands, sandy 1oams, and loam soils, 1957. L0ca- tion Treat- Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K 7 Ca Mg 5-F-3 ‘Antrim Mancelona A 12300 3420 768 ' sandy loam B 12750 2860 768 ’ D 13200 3000 720 E 7 12400 2940 800 15-F—8 Charlevoix Onaway loam A 12600 4060 1024 B 13000 3640 1216 D 12550 4660 1024 E 12150 4520 1184 16--F-10 Cheboygan -Onaway sandy A 12900 3000 816 loam B 12550 2160 1424* D 12600 2720 1040 E 12900 3000 1232 16-F-11 Cheboygan Leelanau A 12100 3140 592 loamy sand B 7 11000 2660 912** D 12850 2640 608 E 12000 3560 736** 24-F-15 Emmet Emmet sandy A 12900 7 1940 784 ' loam B 13000 2220 912 D 13450 1900 704 E 12300 1980 864 24-F-16 Emmet 'Emmet loamy A 12300 1920 608 sand B 13200 1280 768 V D __ __ __ E 13200 1920 512 59-F-23 Montcalm ’Montcalm A 12450 2380 752 sandy loam B 11850 2320 768 D 11850 2240 880 ~ E 12300 2260 720 =’.< >'.< Significant at 5% level with respect to D treatment. >1: 7 Significant at 1% level with resPect to D treatment. Table 35a -' Continued 160 Loca» tion Treat- Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K Ca V Mg 59-F-24 .Montcalm ~McBride A ‘ 11000 1820' 816 sandy loam B 11150 1780 880 D 11550 1960 608 "E 11600 1860 720 7 59-F-25 Montcalm Montcalm A 10300 2300 864 sandy loam B 10700 2320 768 D 11150 2520 608 E 11250 2180 848 69uF—27 Otsego 'Mancelona A 12900 1860 416 loamy sand B’ 12150 1820 608 D 12700 1760 416 E 12600 2220 544 Average A 12175 2584 p 744 B 12135 2306 902** D 12433 2600 , 734 E 12270 2644 816 4* 7 Significant at 1% level with respect to D treatment. 161 Table 36a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh corn ,leaf tissue from plants grown on soils of different textures, 1957. Loca- tion Treat- Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K Ca Mg Sandy loams 13-B-7 Calhoun Hillsdale A 7300 5080 1472 sandy loam B 7800 5560 896 D 7500 5680 1120 E 8250 5760 1120 54-B-19 Mecosta Montcalm A 7450 5960 528 sandy loam B 7300 5760 653 D 10300 5760 -- E 7800 5620 653 Average A 7375 5520 1000 B 7550 5660 774 D 8900 5720 865 E 8025 5690 886 Loams l9-Bul3 Clinton ‘Chesaning loam A 7600 5420 1408 B 9050 5420 1264 D 7750 5880 1136 E 8400 5560 1312 19-B-14 Clinton ‘M'iami loam A 6550 5360 1408 B 7550 5480' 1328 D 6950 5420 1344 E 7500 5700 1392 70-B-29 Ottawa Napanee silt A 12000 5740 2112 loam B 12000 6600 1376 D 11300 5280 1952 E 10850 5880 2144 Average A 8717 5506 1643 B 9533 5683 1323 D 8667 5527 1477 E 8917 5713 1616 162 Table 37a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh sugar beet leaf petioles from plants grown on loams and clay loam soils, 1957. , m Loca- tion Treat— Parts per million No. County 7 Soil type ment K 'fCa" Mg 76-G-35 Sanilac Parkhill A 4750 1960' 1424 clay loam B 6050 2720 1440 D 5100 1860 1504 E 5900 2520 1456 76-G--36 Sanilac Parkhill A 4700 2300 1488 clay loam B 4550 2110 1766 D 5100 3480 1248 E 4100 2180 1520 79wG-37 Tuscola Sims loam A 6050 2060 1360 B 6100 2260 1536 D 5800 2640 1360 E 5900 2360 1504 79-G-38 Tuscola Sims loam A 10300 2380 1568 B 10700 2560 1666 D 9550 2580 2080 E 9050 2720 1792 Average A 6450 2175 1460 B 6850 2412 1604 D 6388 2640 1548 E 6238 2445 1568 163 Table 38a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh cucumber vine tissue from plants grown on a loamy sand and sandy loam soil, 1957. Locau tion Treatu Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K 7 Ca Mg 3-Je-2 Allegan Spinks loamy A 10550 5820 896 sand B 9400 5940 1264 D 10450 5640 800 E 8800 5620 1120 54~~le9 Mecosta McBride sandy A 10300 5760 416 loam B 9300 5600 704 D 10300 5760 512 E 9700 6000 672 Average A 10425 5790 656 B 9350 5770 984 D 10375 5700 656 E 9250 5810 896 Table 39a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh cauliflower leaf petioles from plants grown on a sandy loam soil, 1957. Loca- tion Treat~ Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K 1 Ca Mg 3-K-1 Allegan ~ Newton sandy A 1 1000 5820 1168 loam B 11400 5880 1136 D 11700 5940 1056 E 5820 1248 10450 164 Table 40a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh cantaloupe vine tissue from plants grown on a sand and sandy'loam soil, 1957. Loca» tion Treat- Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K Ca Mg 70~IW30 Ottawa Newton sand A 10400 5940 832 B 10300 6000 1088 D 9500 5580 752 E 7800 5900 896 70~l~31 Ottawa Oshtemo sandy A 8775 5550 688 loam B 8475 5620 728 D 8925 5100 760 E 8550 5270 704 Average A 9588 5745 760 B 9388 5810 908 D 9212 5340 756 E 8175 5585 800 Table 413.. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh sweet corn leaf tissue from plants grown on a sandy soil, 1957. ‘ Loca— tion - Treat-— Parts per million No. County . Soil type ment K Ca Mg 70-B-28 Ottawa APlainfield sand A 12150 5560 1120 B 11150 5680 1184 D 13200 5760 480 E 11400 5880 1216 165 Table 42a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh corn leaf tissue from plants grown on sandy loam and loam soils, 1958. Loca- tion Treat- Parts per million2 No. County Soil type mentl K Ca Mg Sandy loam 328-341 Mecosta Montcalm A 4600 3100 768 sandy loam B 3800 3100 992** C 3600 2700 864 D 4100 2750 1184** E 3800 3000 754 F 4400 3300 800 G 4600 3500 576 Loam 314-327 Clinton Chesaning loam A 3300 2100 1144 B 4100 2250 1088 C 4400 2350 1440 D 3700 2450 1315 E 3500 2350 1298 F 4000 2550 1261 G 3600 3100 1398 1Treatments are given in table 2, page 22. 2Values represent average of two samples per treatment. 4* Significant at 1% level with reSpect to A treatment. 166 Table 43a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh oat plant tissue from plants grown on a sandy loam soil, 1958. Loca-a tion Treat-e Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K Ca Mg 342~354 Mecosta Montcalm sandy A 3600 2400 736 loam B 3800 2050 672 C 3500 2050 960 D 3700 2300 1088 E 3800 1950 800 F 3400 ” 2700 704 G 3600 2500 896 Table 44a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of fresh sweet corn leaf tissue from plants grown on‘a sandy soil, 1958. ============== m Loca- tion Treat- Parts per million No. County Soil type ment K Ca Mg 300-313 Ottawa -Plainfield sand A 4600 1650 384 B 3700 1400 624 C 4300 1900 640 D 4700 1650 1008 E 4300 1800 678 F 4100 1750 480 G 3900 1600 736 Table 45a. The effect offiertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of dry alfalfa plants grown on soils of various textures, 1956. Loca- tion Treatu Percentz No. County Soil type mentI K , Ca. .' -Mg ‘Na Loamy sands and sandy loams First cuttiiig 12 Berrien Oshtemo loamy A 2. 25 0. 68 0.11 sand B 2.74 0.58 0. 15 C 2.66 0.67 0. 11 D 2.47 0.64 0.07 0.02 E 2.40 0. 56 0. 09 16 Branch ‘Hillsdale A 1.68 1.01 0.16 sandy loam B 2.16 0. 59 0. 18 C 2.10 0. 84 0. 10 D 2.46 0.69 0.19 0.02 - E 2. 78 0. 72 0.18 21 Calhoun Hillsdale A 2. 56 0. 66 0. 1 l sandy loam B 2.51 0.80 0.32 C 2.79 0.82 0.13 D 2.51 0.66 0.16 0.02 E 2. 25 0. 70 0. 20 28 Clinton -- Fox sandy loam A 1. 94 0. 72 0. 26 B 2. 80 0. 62 0. 32 C 2. 90 0. 50 0. 26 D 3.36 0.54 0.22 0.05 E 3. 1 1 0. 94 0. 29 47 Jackson Oshtemo sandy A 1. 65 l. 33 0. 32 loam B 3.52 0.94 _ 0.47 C 2. 96 0. 80 - 0. 36 D 2.62 1.04 0.25 0.05 E .. -- .. 1Treatments are given in table 2, page 22. Continued 2‘Values represent average of two samples per treatment. Table 45a - Continued. 168 3?“ a v“. Loca- V tion Treat- Percentz No. County Soil type ment1 K Ca Mg 1Na 48 Jackson ~Hillsda1e A 2.86 1. 90 o. 30 sandy1oam ~ B 2.88 1. 32 o. 50 c 3. 98 1.46 o. 33 D 4.82 1.72 0.36 0.02 E 4.78 1.43 0. 53 49 Jackson -Fox sandy A 3.68 1.12 0. 39 1oam B 2.53 0.96 0.38 C 2.58 0.88 0. 25 D 3.14 0.84 0.39 0.04 E 2.92 1.00 0.30 56 Kalamazoo Fox sandy loam A 3. 60 1. 26 0. 20 B 3. 56 0.62 0. 16 C 4. 00 0.75 0. 20 ;D 3.69 0.62 0.24 0.04 E 4.44 0.75 0. 26 89 St. Joseph 'Oshtemo loamy A 3. 80 1.62 0. 37 , sand B 5.34 1.54 0.56 C 5.06 1.15 0.37 D 5. 12 1.42 0.36 0.02 E 5.64 1.38 0. 50 Average of first cutting A 2. 67 1. l4 0. 25 B 3. 12 0. 89 '0. 34 C 3. 22 0.87 0. 23 D 3.35 0.91 0.25 0.03 E 3.54 0.94 0.29 Second cutgng 12 Berrien ~Oshtemo-loamy .A -- 0.86 0.20 sand B -- 0.90 0. 18 C , -- 0.98 0. 28 ‘D -- 0.98 0.16 0.03 E -- 0.97 0. 18 C ontinued Table 45a -' Continued Locaw tion Treat- Percent No. County Soil type men-t" K Ca 19 Mg Na 16 Branch Hillsdale sandy A 1.76 1.30 ‘ ’ 0.32 ' loam B 2.32 1.61 0.22 C 2.08 0. 96 0.07 D 2.23 1. 24 0.22 0.02 E 2.40 1.12 0. 26 21 Calhoun Hillsdale sandy A 2. 51 0. 76 0. 16 loam B 2.94 0.74 0. 29 C 2.86 0.74 0.04 D 3.90 0.78 0. 24 0.03 E 4.22 0.80 0. 28 48 Jackson Hillsdale sandy A 3. 50 1. 73 0.44 loam B 3.72 1.66 0.41 C 4.35 -- 0. 37 D 4.24 1.75 0.37 0.05 E 3.43 1. 51 0.36 49 Jackson ‘ Fox sandy loam A 3. 97 1. 12 0. 49 B 2.36 1.18 0.38 C 3.00 1.06 0.32 D 2.81 1.28 0.41 0.04 E 3.00 1.15 0.36 89 St. Joseph Oshtemo loamy A 2.14 1. 95 0.41 sand B 2.98 1.71 0.40 C 2.24 1.87 0.50 D 2.46 1.95 0.34 0.02 E 2.84 1. 97 0.41 Average of second cutting A 2. 78 1. 29 0. 34 B 2.86 1.30 0. 31 C 2.91 1. 12 0. 26 D 3.13 1.33 0.29 0.03 E 3.18 1.25 0.31 Continued 170 Table 45a - Continued Loca-u tion Treat~ Percent No. County 'Soil type ment K Ca Mg Na Loams First cutting 17 Branch ‘ Coldwater loam A 1. 84 1. 28 0. 10 (Ladino clover) B 2. 68 » 1. 30 0. 22 C 2.28 1. 10 0.06 D 2.54 1.64 0.16 0.205 E 2.40 1.44 0. 27* 27 Clinton Conover loam ' A 1. 80 1. 57 0. 27 B .41 1. 30 0.40 C 3.56 . 31 0. 38 D 2.90 .46 0.32 0.07 E 2.81 1.07 0.34 44 Ingham Conover loam A 2. 19 1. 28 0. 57 B 3. 20 1. 32 0.57 C 3.03 1.11 0.54 D 3.16 1.28 0.41 0.06 E 2.70 1. 20 0.48 73 Muskegon Nester loam A 1.84 0.43 0. 24 B 2.83 0.56 0.15 C 3.02 0.60 0.18 D 2.86 0.88 0.22 0.02 E 3.64 0.74 0.22 Average of first cutting A 1. 92 1.14 0. 30 B 3.03 1. 12 0.33 C 2. 97 1. 03 0.29 D 2.86 1.32 0.28 0.05 E 2.89 1.11 0.32 3‘5 Significant at 5% level with respect to D treatment. Table 45a - Continued 171 Locam tion Treat- Percent No. County Soil type ment I K Ca Mg ‘ Na Second cutting 8 . ‘ 1T Branch ‘Coldwater loam A l. 34 0. 87 0.. 11 (Ladino clover B 2. 06 0. 75 0. 12 C 1.94 0.87 0.07 D 2.54 0.88 0.07 0. 07 E 1.87 0.75 0. 29 27 Clinton Conover loam A 3.41 1. 56 0.44 B 2.96 0.84 0. 24 C 3.24 1.04 0.39 D 3.12 1.06 0.34 0.07 E 2.58 1.06 0.38 32 Eaton Conover'loam A 2. 16 1.42 0. 54 B 2.74 1. 12 0. 38 C 2.88 1.62 0. 29 D 2.83 1.70 0.27 0.04 E 3. 10 1.70 0.40 44 Ingham Conover loam A 1.80 2. 04 0. 65 B 3.08 1.54 0.53 C 1. 96 1. 58 0.49 D 1.84 2.10 0.45 0.09 E 1.67 1.62 0.53 Average of second cutting -A 2. 18 1.47 0.44 B 2.71 ' 1. 06 0. 32 C 2.50 1. 28 0. 31 D 2.58 1.44 0.28 0.07 E 2. 30 1.28 0.40 172 Table 46a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of dry corn leaves from plants grown on soils of different textures, 1956. Loca- tion Treat-g Percent No. County Soil type ment K Ca Mg Na Sandy loams and loamy sands 18 Branch Hillsdale A 1. 88 0. 78 0 09 sandy loam B 1.98 0.73 0.09 C 1.68 0.75 0.09 D 2.10 0.84 0.07 0.04 E 2.40 0. 70 0. 11 30 Clinton ' Fox sandy loam A 1. 90 0. 99 0. 56 B 2.73 O. 96 0.63 C 2.14 0. 90 0. 58 D 2.30 1.05 0.70 0.04 E 2.19 1. 06 0. 66 50 Jackson Oshtemo sandy A 2. 81 1 . 01 0. 41 loam B 2.40 1. 00 0.62 C 3.28 0.88 0.72 D 4.33 0.94 0.64 0.06 E 3.40 1. 03 0 51 51 Jackson Hillsdale sandy A 2.66 0. 74 0.41 loam B 2.87 0.71 O 48 C 2.85 0.70 0 38 D 2.48 0.68 0 54 0.17 E 2. 92 9. 76 0.48 57 Kalamazoo Fox sandy loam A 3. 54 2. 26 0. 38 B 3.07 2. 21 0.67 C 3. 32 2. 24 0.44 D 3.32 2.50 0.35 0.26 E 3.11 2. 36 0. 64 Continued Table 46a - Continued 173 Loca- tion Treate- Percent No. County Soil type ment K Ca . 7- Mg Na 69 Monroe Wauseon sandy A 3.62 0.65 0.17 loam B 3.68 0.40 0.40 C 2.53 0.60 0. 28 ‘D 2.34 0.62 C. 14 0.09 E 3.72 0.58 0.58 75 Muskegon 'Montcalm loamy A 1. 53 1. 15 0. 61 sand B 2.08 1.14 0.56 C 2.14 1. 15 0.46 D 2.38 1.08 0.60 0.05 E 1.42 1. 02 0.48 Average A 2.56 1. 08 0. 38 B 2.69 1.02 0.49 C 2.56 1.03 0.42 D 2.75 1.10 0.43 0.10 E 2.74 1.07 0.49 Loams, silt loams and clay loams 8 Bay Kawkawlin loam A 1. 91 -- 0. 20 B 1.35 -— 0.15 C 1.54 ..- 0. 16 D 1.33 -- 0.09 0.04 E 1.68 -- 0. 16 26 Clare Nester loam A 2.60 0.73 0.41 B 2.00 0.71 0.34 C 2. 14 0.73 0.38 D 3. 11 0.64 0.47 ~- E 2.02 0.69 0.40 37 Gratiot Sims loam A 5.32 1.00 0.72 B 3.69 0.92 0.62 C 3.67 0.94 0.60 D 5.08 0.96 0.74 0.06 E 3.76 0.91 0.54 Continued Table 46a - Continued Loca-a tion Treat- Percent No. County ‘ Soil type ment K Ca Mg Na 45 Ingham Miami loam A 1.97 1. 13 1. 02 B 1.80 1.14 0.64 C 1.61 1. 12 0.74 D 2.24 1. 11 0.86 0.06 E 1.89 1.11 0.74 61 Lenawee Miami loam A 3.47 0.98 0 56 B 4.16 0.98 0 72 C 3.26 1.00 0.67 D 3.45 0.98 0.60 0.05 E 3.07 0.95 0.51 64 Macomb Blount silt loam A 1. 98 0.44 0 48 B 2.62 0.72 0.41 C 2.59 0.70 0 37 D 3.45 0.73 0 32 0.08 E 3.82 0.71 0 46 70 Monroe Miami loam A 2. 38 O. 93 0.54 B 2.42 0.92 0.47 C 2.06 0.90 0.48 D 3.00 0.95 0.49 0.04 E 2.46 0.96 0.56 74 Muskegon Nester loam A 1. 36 0. 72 0. 42 B 1.80 0.70 0. 28 C 1.58 0.72 0. 34 D 1.93 0.79 0.41 0,04 E 1.72 0.70 0.48 81 Saginaw Sims clay loam 1A 2.44 0. 96 0.42 B 4.57 0.98 0.55 C 3.07 0.94 0.62 D 2.66 1.02 0.40 0.04 E 3.62 0.95 0.68 Continued Table 463. u Continued 175 Loca-s tion Treat— Percent No7. County Soil type ment K Ca ' Mg Na __ 84 Shiawassee Miami loam A 2. 28 0.49 0. 52‘ B 2.5 0.48 0.58 C 2.59 0.54 0.61 D 2.86 0.48 0.36 0.05 E 2. 32 0.46 0.66 85 Shiawassee Blount loam - A 2. 74 0. 85 0. 52 B 3.06 0.86 0. 32 C .. .. ...... D 2.64 0.84 0.36 0.04 E 2.64 0.90 0.45 88 St. Clair Blount silt loam A 2. 23 0. 78 0.77 B 2.35 0.82 0.76 C 2.75 0.79 0.84 D 2.32 0.83 0.61 070.5 E 1.84 0.79 0.69 96 iosco Selkirk loam A 2.42 0.87 0.44 B 2.54 0.78 0.47 C 2.25 0.88 0.40 D 2.23 0.86 0.44 07.05 E 2.64 0.94 0.51 Average A 2.55 0.82 0.54 B 2.69 0.83 0.49 C 2.43 0.84 0.52 D 2.79 0.85 0.47 0.05 E 2.58 0.84 0.53 Table 473.. composition of dry oat plants grown on soils of different textures, 1956 . The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical Loca~ tion Treat— Percent No. County Soil type ment K Ca ’ (7 Mg Na Sandy 108.1113 and loamy sand 3 Antrim Karlin loamy sand A 0. 86 0. 12 0. 18 B 0.88 0.13 0. 10 C 0.92 0.10 0.18 D 0.97 0.13 0.26 0.02 E 1.03 0. 14 0. 22 31 Clinton Fox sandy loam 'A 1. 68 0. 16 0. 25 B 1.50 0.14 0. 20 C 1.98 0.22 0. 31 D 1.40 0.16 0.30 012 E 1.38 0.12 0. 25 53 Jackson Oshtemo sandy A 1. 39 0. 18 0. 26 loam B 1.40 0. 19 0.19 C 1.59 0.18 0.10 D 1.54 0.21 0.26 07.06 E 1.80 0.18 0.15 54 Jackson Hillsdale sandy A 1.46 0. 13 0. 18 loam B 1.63 0. 13 0. 22 -C 1.65 0.13 0. 20 D 1.42 0.12 0 26 0.04 E 1.86 0.10 0. 22 58 Kalamazoo Fox sandy loam A 1. 03 0. 10 0. 18 B l. 36 0.12 0.17 C 1. 12 0.13 0. 26 D 0.92 0.12 0.16 0.04 E 1.14 0.11 0. 25 71 Monroe Granby sandy A 1. 84 0. 13 0. 33 loam B 1.60 0. 13 0.18 C 1.50 0. 10 0. 20 D 1.96 0.14 0.30 0.02 E 1.42 0.10 0.16 1 Continued Table 4‘7a - Continued Locas- tion Treat- Percent No. County Soil type ment K fiiCa Mg Na 77 Oscoda Montcalm 1oamy A 1.02 0.15 0. 21 sand ' B 1.65 0.14 0.13 C 1.93 0.18 0.09 D 1.72 0.18 0.25 0.02 ~E .1.30 0.17 0.18 78 Otsego Kawkawlin sandy A 0.98 0.14 0.08 loam B 1.42 0.12 0.19 C 1.42 0.18 0.20 D 1.18 0. 17 0.06 0.03 E 1.12 0.12 0.11 Average A 1.28 0.14 0.2 B 1.43 0.14 0.17 C 1.51 0.15 0.19 D 1.39 0.15 0.23 0.04 E 1.38 0.13 0.19 Loams 1 Alcona Nester loam A 0.41 0.04 0.41 B 0.44 0.13 0.37 C 0.39 0.08 0.28 D 0.37 0.14 0.38 0.02 E 0.37 0. 10 0.42 86 Shiawassee Blount loam A 1. 90 0.12 0. 28 B 1.86 0. 14 0. 18 C 1.82 0.12 0.20 D 1.72 0.09 0.28 0.04 E 1.90 0.12 0.22 Average A 1.16 0.08 0.34 B 1.15 0.14 0.28 'C 1.10 0.10 0.24 D 1.04 0.12 0.33 0.03 E 1.14 0.11 0.32 Table 48a. 178 The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of dry barley plants grown on soils of different textures, 1956. Local- _ ' i 8‘ tio-_ Treat:- Percent No County Soil type ment K . Caf ‘Mg 7 7 Na Sandy loam 221 Calhoun Hillsdale sandy ' A 0. 98 0. 07 -- loam B 0.78 0.08 0.04 C 0. 92 0. 08 0. 06 D 0.80 0.07 0.07 0.05 E _- .. .. ' Clay loam 80 Saginaw Sims clay loam ' A 1. 22 0. 14 0. 23 B 1. 44 0. 12 0. 27 C .. -- .. D 1.18 0.15 0.34 0.04 E 1. 46 0. 14 0. 36 Table 498.. 179 The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of dry wheat plants grown on soils of different textures, 1956. Loca- tion Treat- Percent No. County Soil type ment K Ca Mg Na Sandy loams 2 Alcona Emmet sandy A 0. 98 -- -- loam B 1.66 0. 08 0.18 C 1.54 0.06 0.20 D 1.36 «0.06 0.18 0.02 E .. .. .. 3‘3 Kalamazoo Fox sandy loam A 0. 80 0. 12 0. 14 B 0.62 0.12 0.14 C 0.79 0. 10 0.12 D 0.82 0.12 0.17 0.05 7?} Otsego Blue Lake sandy A 0. 50 0. 09 0. 24 loam B 0.50 0.10 0. 29 C 0.56 0.21 0.28 D 0.52 0.14 0.34 0.04 Average A 0.76 0. 10 0.19 B 0.93 0.10 0.20 C 0.96 0.12 0.20 D 0.90 0.11 0.23 0.04 . E __ __ __ Loams and clay loams 20 Branch Coldwater loam A 0. 46 0. 07 0. 06 B 0.60 0. 04 0. 09 C 0.56 0.07 0.07 D 0.56 0.07 0.06 0.09 34 Eaton Conover loam A 0.60 0. 04 0. 21 B 0.69 0.06 0.19 C 0.72 0.06 0. 20 D 0.73 0.04 0. 20 0.05 Continued Table 49:3. -— Continued 180 Loca— tion Treat- Percent No. County Soil type ment K Ca Mg Na 42 Huron Wisner loam A 1. 31 | 0.10 0. “I 5 B 1.57 0.21 0.30 C -- 0. 16 0. 34 D 1.12 0.10 0. 30 ~- 43 Huron Sims clay loam A 0. 71 0. 07 0. 17 B 1.24 0.07 0.28 C 1.20 0.07 0.28 D 0.98 0.08 0.24 0.06 63 Lenawee Miami loam A 0.62 0.06 0.09 B 0.58 0.06 0.1 C 0.73 0.06 0 22 D .... ..- .. .. 72 Monroe Allendale loam A 0.82 0.07 0.09 B 0.75 0.04 0.09 C 0.92 0.06 0.20 D -- .. -.. _ 82 Saginaw Sims clay loam A 0. 56 0.10 0. 23 B 0.64 0. 10 0.18 C 0.72 0.10 0.20 D 0.64 0.09 0.20 0.09 87 Shiawassee Blount loam A 1. 22 0. 09 0. 27 B 1.80 0.10 0.20 C 1.76 0. 10 0. 16 D 1.14 0.11 0.26 0.08 95 Tuscola Thomas loam A 0. 90 0.11 0.18 B 0.95 0.07 0.22 C 0.74 0.10 0.07 D 1.03 0.11 0.20 Average A 0.80 0.08 0.18 B 0.98 0.08 0. 19 C 0.92 0.09 0.19 D 0.89 0.09 0.21 0.07 181 Table 50a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of dry field bean plants grown on loams and clay loam soils. 1956. Loca- tion Treat— Percent No. County Soil type ment K Ca Mg Na 5 Bay Sims loam A 1.72 1.62 0.67 B 2.76 1.62 1.12 C 2.34 1.90 0.90 D 3.02 1.88 0.86 0.02 E 2.17 1.62 0.78 38 Huron Sims clay loam A 1.57 0.68 0.67 B 2.2 0.71 0. 56 C 2.81 0.66 0.18 D 2.87 0.71 0.35 0.01 E 2. 32 0.95 0.45 39 Huron Wisner loam A 3.06 0.72 0. 58- B 2.66 0.50 0.48 C 3.67 0.94 0.45 D 3.24 0.73 0.48 0.01 E 2.94 0.89 0.48 94 Tuscola Sims loam A 1.82 0.82 0. 34 B 1.38 0.53 0.41 C 2.46 1.09 0.54 D 2.42 0.88 0.50 0.01 E 2.14 0.79 0.46 36 Gratiot Sims 1oaml A 3.06 1.42 0.17 B 3.47 1.12 0.50 C 3.10 1.62 0.28 D 3.47 1.70 0.42 0.03 E 3.20 1.70 0. 32 Average A 2. 25 1.05 0.49 B 2.51 0.90 0.61 C 2.88 1.24 0.47 D 3.00 1.18 0.52 0.02 E 2.55 1.19 0.50 lRed kidney beans . 182 Table 51a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of dry soybean plants grown on sandy loam soils, 1956. Loca- tion Treat- Percent No. County , Soil type ment K _ Ca Mg Na 67 Monroe Wauseon sandy A 1.61 1. 08 0. 34 loam B 2.08 1.05 0. 24 C 1.70 1.02 0. 24 D 1.76 1.05 0. 30 0.01 E 2.14 1.07 0.60 68 Monroe Genesee sandy A 2.10 1.72 0.64 loam B 2.82 1.95 0. 39 C 1.93 1. 32 0.43 D 2.04 1.09 0. 20 0.01 E 2.02 1.61 0. 58 Average A 1.86 1.40 0.49 B 2.45 1.50 0. 31 C 1.82 1.17 0. 34 D 1.90 1.07 0.25 0.01 E 2.08 l. 34 0. 59 183 Table 52a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of dry sugar beet leaves and leaf petioles grown onzloam and clay loam. soils, 1956. Loca- tion Treat- Percent No. County Soil type ment K CaW Mg 40 Huron ‘Sims clay loam A 6. 06 2. 16 2.32 ' B 6. 20 2. 09 2. 78 c .. .. _- D 7.12 2.02 3.00 .16 E 6. 56 2. 20 2. 85 83 Sanilac Parkhill loam A 7. 50 0. 82 1. 35 B3 7.87 0.66 1.12 . C 7. 50 0. 78 1. 05 D 7.68 0.60 0.60 .19 E 7.87 0.72 0. 60 Average A 6. 78 1.49 1. 84 B 7. 04 1. 38 1. 95 C 7. 50 0. 78 1. 05 D 7.40 1.31 1.80 .18 ' E 7. 22 1. 46 1 . 72 184 Table 53a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of dry potato plants grown on a loam soil, 1956. Loca- tion Treat- Percent No. County . Soil type ment A H K - Ca Mg Na 11 Bay Kawkawlin loam A 3. 32 2. 26 0. 7’1 ' ‘ B ’ 2. 88 2. 32 0. 90 c 3.73 2.38 1. 27 D 3.20 2.36 0.90 0.28 “E 7 3.66 2.49 0.75 Table 54a. The effect of fertilizers containing magnesium on the chemical composition of dry sudan grass plants grown on a sandy loam soil, 1956. Loca— tion Treat- Percent No. County Soil type ment K Ca Mg Na 19 Branch 'Hillsdale sandy A 2. 55 0. 27 0. 15 loam B 2.21 0.24 0.07 C 3. 11 0. 30 0. 11 D 3.07 0.31 0.07 0.05 E 2. 59 0. 31 0. 26 185 #2865808. Mom moamgm 03» mo ommuoefim unomoumos m05fim>~ 63:03:00 .NN swam .N 03.3 Gmdo>wm and 680880an . 2.8 286 2.6 S .o 0.4 m. S .o mmoo S .a S .o mm .2 Q 38 .18... 2.9 8.6 3.2 m. 8.63 2. .o as .o -2 .o S .o 3.: .4 Boson ozone: 0882 2.0.2.. 3.8 Red .3 .8. $6 3.; H mm .o 688.. S .o 2 .o. 3.4 m. use «no .6. 2 .o .3 .o- $4 m . .53. a... .o 0.86 S .o 2 .o as; ... scene 8880. season. 7 2-0.3 35 one .o 2 .o, as 6 an .2 _ m 3.8 25.6 2 .o. as .6 me; a 7 38 68.67 3 .s S .6 8.2 m, Eooa. ._ . on .o 88.8 $8 8.6 mm A < .398 8580 somaonoso _ 2-0:: . 3.6 68.6 .25 8.6 as; . m 3.6 286.. 2 .s 3.6. an .2 o, 3.6 NS .o and 3 .9 ms; m. 082. S .o one .o. 3 .o as .o as .2 .4 assoc sofifim 39,3420 8-0-2 3.5 88.6. .3 .s 85 .34 m. 3.8 2.8.6 8 .e 2.8 mm; a $6 «8 .o 2 .6 so .6 34 m. Enos 0:8 . S .6 Sea. 3 .e. _ mod on; 3.. 3823.2 52:8 . 6-0.2 mpsdm >883 was 6883 hpamm 7 mm. 82 m2 1 .mO 7 M .805 09$ 30% unudsou .oZ $000.4an 1 tuMoHH 2838004. 111511 1P £197: Jonathon 68:03.30 mo miOm no napoum madam “703.3 Noam ado map “.40 coflfimomgoo 1036090 07.63 Go an.m.7.n...o;m.ma€.. msmcwsafloo macsflfhom wo «0077.30 2:. ..mmm 03.89 MUM-92232200 .186 3.22 Sea .2 .o 8.22 mm .2 222 mm .22 m8 .2. .22 .o 222 .22 mm .2 22 on .0 2.3.22 222 .o 222 .o 22.-:2 m ~22 ~85 2.22 23.22 3.2 .4. 882222332 828282 Nm-o-om $.22 28.22 2.2.22 23.22 3.2 m 3 .22 m8 .9 m2 .2. S .e‘ 3.2 22 22.6 2.8 .2. m2 .2. S .22 mm .2 m 3.22 2.8.2. 3.22 3.22 3.2 4. 22802 $253220 28222220 2.22-0-2.2 mgod mm .o 2.8 .o 2.2 .o . 23 .o 3. .2 m 3.5 mmeé N2. .22 3.22. 3.2 n2_ 22. .22 m2 .0 2: .c S .22 cm .2 2.2 3525.83 3.0 £22.22 222 .o. . 3.22 22212 4 -. .20 $834 8.2. mmcd 3.22 8.0 3.2 m 8.22 ~85 , 8.22 3.22 3.2 22, mm .22 NS .22 m2 .22 222 .o 3.2 m 2:23 mm .o 2225 3.22 _ 2: .o 3.2 < .3502 83oz «3320 Nm-u-S- $.22 N8.22 .36 8.0 3.2 H mm .o 2.8 .22 2M .22 8 .o 2 .2 A2 22.5 28.22 222.22 28.22 2.2 m 2882 3.0 N8.22 _ No.22 3.22 mm .2 < 38% 82822822 2.2.83 .2N-0-25 m mZ MFA-Mp- ;wO M 22.-med m9: flow 3222200 .02 2650me flaw-HR. Got-mood UmfiCCCOU .- wmm 9.3-“? 187 $2qu 2322232.. 2.2.5 228 .o .22 .0 mo .0 222.2 m 3.6 m8 .0 m2 .0 28.22 em .2 a thd vmod ma .0 mad ow; m masoEuMm-fl 3 .o $22.22 om .0 23.22 mm .2 4 2o $222.4. 3.0 £3.22 22 .o 3.22 3.2 m 22.6 28.22 23.0 8.0 mm .2 22 2.2. .o mmo ..o 2222 .o 222 .o 222. .2 m 2.2.. .o 2.8 .o oo .o S .0 mo .2 .4. 8:82 282.22 222822220 22 -m-S 2.2.6 N8.22 2~.o 23.2. 32 m $.22 2.8.22 31o 3.22 3.2 a 3.0 m8 .o 222 .0 mo .22 3.2 m S .22 MS .22 mm .o oo .22 mm .2 < 682 $380 m.2m2 222595 3-0-: nm NZ m2 7 .mU M 22205 m9: mom NSC-DOD .oZ ”Emu-Hum spa-5.229 22032804 Mum-92232200 n amm mENH 188 .uGoGBMouu Q o» pummmou 23“? 295.2 §m u-m pG-moflfldmwm * 3.5 2.8.2. 3122 2.2 2.2. m S .o 228... $2.22 3.2 3.2. 22 . mm .22 2.8.22 mm .o 3.2 2. .2. m 882 3.. .o mmoé 3 .o 3.2 2. .2. 4 .2258 .3380 3382220 2-22-o2 Sic Sod 3.2. 3.2 3.2. m $.22 Sod $.22 $2 35 Q 3.22 2.8.22 36 3.2 86 , m 3.22 2.8.2. mm .o 222 mm .2. 4 8802 .3320 222052220 2292-222 222 .o mmo .o 2. .o 212 .2 Sim 222 mm .o 228.2. 3.22 2.2 m2 .2. a 2.2 .22 2.3.22 *2 .2 .32 m: m2 2 .o 28 .o 8 .2 3 .2 mm .m 4 882 32523 5m mum-o 2 .22 228.22 222.22 8.2 2.2. m 2.2.22 .285 3.2. $2 3.2. Q 222 .22 MS .22 22.5 3 .2 3.2. m 2:23 2 .22. m8 .2. 22:2 3.2 3.2. < .2882 2.226.222 in 21.272. mm .22 2.8.22 3 .o 2.2 36 m 5.0 ~85 mm .22 3.2 222 .m n2 2N .22 2.8.22 mm .22 em .2 3.2. m 882 mm .o .2226 2.22 .o 3.2 S .m 4 222.2%...“ 8028532 82.55.. mum-m n2 2“2 m2 . «0 V2 2288 on? :8 .5580 .02 acouuonw nude-2H. Gog-mood .N-mmH .mem 5mg cam duh-mod .3de .90de 232502 .mUG-mm 220 CBC-Hm mac-2m 390m >32 mo 22033092200 2.8250220 02: 220 gammcmma mfifimwcou 92me23.23 mo «ammo och- .QO @2222. 189 22222222222200 22 .0 2222.22 22.22 222.2 22.2. 22 22.0 022.22 22.22 2.2.2 20.2. 22 22 .2 2222.22 22.22 22.2 22.2 22 882 22 .22 2.2225 22.0 222.2 22 .2. 22 22.5% 8282282 82282822 22--2-2.2 22.22 2222.22 22.22 22.2 22.2 2.2 22.22 2222.22 22.22 22.2 8.2. 22 22.o 2222.22 222.22 2.2.2 22.2. 22 882 2.2 .22 2222.22 22.22 2.2.2 22.2 22 22:28 03.22202 82822822 22232-22 22.22 2222.22 2.2.22 22.2 8.2 22 $.22 222.22 22.5 22.2 22.2 22 22.22 2222.22 2.22.22 2.2.2 22.2. 22 682 22 .o 2.225 22.5 22.2 22.2 < 22:82 5282282 82822822 22--2-2.2 222.22 2222.22 22 .o 22.2 22.2 22 22.22 2.8.22 222.22 22.2 22.2 22 22 .o 2222 .o 22 .o 22 .2 22 .2 22 2:82 22 .22 2222.22 22 .o 22.2 22.2 4 28.82 22.8822 22.5622 22--2-2.2 22.22 2222.22 22.22 22.2 222.2 m 22.22 222.22 22.2 2.2.2 222.2. 22 2.2 .o 2222 .22 2.2.2. 2.2.2 222 .2 22 682 22 .22 222.2 22.2 22.2 20.2 4 .2252 $882.2 $582.2 22-2-2.2 $.22 222.22 22.2.. 22.2 222.2 22 _ 22.22 2.22.22 22.22 . 2.2.2 2: .2. 22 22. .o 2222 .o 22 .22. S .2 222 .2. 22 2:82 V 22 .o 2.22.2.2 22122 , 22.2 2212. 4 28.22 22.22232 252222222220. 22-2-22 2m. 22 war-LE ..wU. M 222082. 02mm» 220m MEG-2200 . .oZ uauonwnm. nude-2H. 233.2qu. 220-2222222200 u .mom 3an 190 SILMIDL- .unmgdmuu Q 02 2009292 222 20>»; 2*; 023 2d unduflwnmfiw 22222225222222 Q o» Humane-2 222 2253 2&m 023 Hm ucdowwwnmwm 2:2. .2. 4 22 .2 2.22.2 3.22.2 22.2 22.2. 22 22.2 2.22.2 22.2 22.2 2.2.2. 22 222 .o 222 .o 3.22 .e 22 .2 22. .2. 22 225258.22 22 .2 2.22 .2 22 .22 22.2 22.2. ... 20 222.832 22 .2 2.22.2 2.22.6 . 2.2.2 8.2 22 22 .2 222.2 22.2 22.2 22 .2. 22 22 .2 2.222 .2 2.2 .2 22 .2 2o .2 22 2.5.2 22 .22 2222.2... ..22 .2.. . 22 .2 22 .2 a. .2822 80285.2 ommflo 22-2-2.2 n2. 22 22 -. -...- .20 V2 . 2.38 0.25 22.02 2222.250 .02. 22200.2 van .2302 .H. 2203-200..— I ‘- I1.r . «20222232200 .- .mom 3an 191 22222222222200 22 .2 222 .2 22 .2 22.2 22 .2 22 , 22 .2 222.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22 22 .2 222.2 22 .2 22.2 22 .2 22 22.2 222 .2 2.2 .2 22,2 22 .2 < 8222 28222 232220 22-22-22 22 .2 222.2 22 .2 22.2 22.2 2.2 22.2 222.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22 22.2 222.2 22 .2 22.2 22.2 22 . 22 .2 222.2 22 .2 22.2 22.2 . .2. 682 222222220 2822220 22-22-22 ENOH ”3mm USN mgoq 22 .2 222.2 22 .2 22.2 22.2 22 2.2 .2 222.2 22 .2 22.2 22 .2 22. 22 .2 .222 .2 22 .2 22 .2 .22 .2 22 32288.3 22 .2 222.2 22.2 22.2 22 .2 22 22 222.832. 22 .2 222.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 2.2 22 .2 222 .2 22 .2 22.2 22 .2 22 22 .2 222.2 22 .2 22.2 22 .2 22 . 22 .2 222.2 22 .2 22.2 22 .2 22 252.2 288200 222822 22-22-22 22 .2 222.2 2.2.2 2.2.2 22.2 22 22 .2 222.2 22.2 22.2 22 .2 22 22 .2 222.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 22 882 22 .2 222 .2 22V .2 22 .2 22 .2 < 22:22 22222222222 2892220 2.2.2.22 . . , 22222025222222.6222 22222.8 nm .22. @224. - Fr .20 v2 2223222 22.25 220m 23222200 . .oZ. 22Goommw 1 1 . $222.29 2202220012 .>mm2 20.2.3223 22222222222222 mo 22202 2.20 gouw 2222.23 22202.22 2.02/2202. 22200 22.222 20 22032202222200 22222222222220 2222.2 220 22222222222w2222 madagaou 2222222222223 mo 200.220 2:. .22m 222an 192 It 2“; mm.0 0.2.0.0 0m.0 02.0 222.2 M 3.0 2m0.0 0m.0 220.0 20.2 G mm.0 0N0.0 0m.0 220.0 m0; m 2228222222222 22 .2 222.2 22.2 22.2 2.2.2 .2 2o 222.83.. 2&0 30.0 22.2.0 2.32.0 mm.2 M s 02.0 mN0.0 mm.0 N20 00.2 Q . 0m .0 0N0.0 310 00.0 00.2 m 222.202 . 22 .2 222.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 .2 2222 22222272 23230 22-22-22 02 .22 mil 220 v2 222222222 @222»..— 22om 23222200 .072 22250.24om 22222.28 2202222qu 22222222222200 u 22.22.. 0322.2. 193 22.2 22.2 22.2 . 2.2.2 22.2 m 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 _ 22.2 22 2.2.0 2.N-0 22.0 mm.0 22.2 m . 222.202 22.2. : 2.2..2 22.2 .22. .2 _ . 22 .2 .2 2222222 233272 222222.... 2-22-2 2H. 2.272. W202 .29. Ml 22202.22 02:2 220w 322-2200 .072,- . 22200.qu , $220.28 . 22022-20012. 2mm: .2202 2222202 .3522 .m 2.20 gonw 2222-2222 2220.2“ 20203022 222222 29523 umBOGfiddu 22.222 mo 22032202222200 222022220220 02222 220 Edwmocwda 322222-3230 2.2022223an mo 202.236 2223. .20m @3229 22.0 2.2.0.0 3.2.2.2 22.2 22.2 m . 22.2 2.2.2.2 . 22.2 22.2 . 22.2 .22 22 .2 2.2.2 .2 3.22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 22 2228252222 22 .2 22.2 .2 22 .2 . 22 .2 22.2 .2 2o 222.83.. 22 .2 22.2 .2 3.22 .2 . 2.2 .2 .. 22.2 22 0.2.0 22.0.0 N00 . 2.0.2 2.22.2. G 22.2 22.2.2 3.22.2 2.2.2 22.2 22 8202 22 .2 22.2 .2 22 .2 2.2 .2 22 .2 a. 22.222 22222222 2.22822 22 -2.-2.2 22 .2 22.2 .2 22 .2 22.2. 22 .2 m 22.2 22.2.2 2.2.2 . 22-2 22.2 22 NN.0 $220.0 mo; 02 ..N mm.N m 2222222 22 .2 22.2..2 . ,. 2.2.2 22.2 22.2 2. .2682 92222.22 2222222.. 2-2.-2 2H dz 3% T .- 1220 , v2 222.0222 0222.22 220m 222222200 .02. 222220qu numouH , 2202222004 .hmm; .2202 222.202 222222-22. @2222 «222-mm >822: 22 220 222/Cum mun-mam 802w 202222,- .22222222-2202222 2:323 22032202222200 2.220.222.5220 022-2 220 2222....22022mm22-2 wcficfifidoo mhmuflfiumm 20 20035 0228 .mwm 0222.228 194 MN.O Nmo.o mm.c emoo o¢.N m MN .0 mmo.o HN.O mm.o ON.N Q FM .0 HM0.0 #N .O 00.0 mm.N m 0N .0 omo..o . mm ..o @m .0 CM .N 462 H2de UHmedwdHnH $3.930 mNImIOF nH NZ, mg 220 M 2220222 mm?— fiom . 23222200 . .oZ - nude-HR. COS-mood wmd I'll“ Ir- . 1'. .bmma .3022 3222.26 22 no agouw mun-2222.80.22 2.0.2.23 22.200 $0322 >222 mo 2203302222200 120222222220 22222 2.20 gwmmnwdg defi-mucou mnmuflflhom mo 203mm 0&9 :20 223.28 22.2.2 22.2 22..2 22 .2 m. 22 .2 222.2 22.2 22 .2 22 .2 22 22 .2 22.2.2 22.2 22..2 2.2.2 22 22 .2 22.2.2! 22.2 22..2 22 .2 .2.. 20 22233. 22 .2 222.2 22.2 22..2 22 .2 m 22.2 222.2 22.2 22..2 22.2 22 22 .2 2.22.2 22 .2 22 .2 22 .2 m 8.82 22..2 222.2 22 .2 22..2 22 .2 .2.. 22522. 0882220 232:0 22-2-22 22 .2 22.2.2 22.2 22 .2 22.2 m 22 .2 222.2 22.2 22 .2 22.2 22 22 .2 222.2 22 .2 22..2 22..2 22 2.2.2 . 22.2.2 22 .2 22. .2 22 .2 <- 38 282322 232220 22-2-22 2H .22 MEL . RU M 2282-22 093 flow 23222200 .02 . ufloomwm. $222.29. 2202222004 .22-um; .mSOm 8202 322-2222 2222-2 32an no 222/cum 8.2222222 2220-Hm 22222222, 22222202222ch 22.-.222 20 2202222022800 12022-220220 mat do gwmvcmma 922222222200 922.221.22.23 .20 2022322 222:. .2200 3an 195 ¢N.0 m~0.0 0N ..0 Nm.0 00.0 D 0N.0 «$0.0 0N..0 0m.0 H04 rm ¢N.0 N~0.0 aN.0 mm .0 mm!" m 0N.0 VH0.0 AwN.0 0N.0 05.2” G 0N.0 0N0 .0 MN .0 «.N .0 H02... 0 mN.0 VH0.0 ¢N.0 mN.0 Mm.“ m . 2.N .0 VHO .0 MN .0 mm .0 wm ...H 4 EMOH decdmoflo GOuGEMU N.Naulvav 5220A 0N.0 NH0.0 NH.0 ¢¢.0 mm; 0 0N.0 MH0.0 0H.0 0m.0 mm; .m NN.0 NH0.0 HH.0 0m.0 Hm.H m 0N.0 NH0.0 mm.0 Hm.0 mm...” Q NN.0 m~0.0 mH.0 ©M.O 004 U 2.2.2 2.22.2 2.2 .2 22 .2 22.2 22 8.222 fiN .0 NHO .0. 00 .0 mm .0 «2.2.. ..H 462. >Udmm Eamon—GOSH .NN—@0022: vauwmfi [ 222-mod 3228 nm .22 m2 .220 . M 2.285 2293 flow 2522.900 .02 Emu-Hana #22928 22032004 .mmmL 6.302.. 8.202 2222.2 8.2202 hvcmm 2.20 222/Cum 322-322 22.200 >2U 20 2203302222200 1202222230 02.3 220 2222232222de “2.222222222200 222233.23 mo 202.322 022.2. .222 2222.2 1% mm.0 220.0 0N6 0nd 20.2 0 2.2-:0 0N0.0 02.0 0N0 00.2 .m mm.0 0.2.0.0 N~.0 u2.N.0 00.2 m 0N.0 020.0 0N.0 0m.0 2.0.2 Q NN.0 0H0.0 NN.0 u2.N.0 00.2 D 0m.0 0N0.0 2.N.0 2.220 vim m 0m .0 020 .0 MN .0 0m .0 S .N .22.. 022-222 03¢53n~ 23.2220 Maw-.002. 2H .22 mg. .20 M 2222.282 093 Mom 2322.900 .02 Emu-202m 1220-2.0 2203.2qu .0002 .2022 3222-3 .2 co 2230.2m magma 22.200 2.0026 >20 00 2202222209280 2202220220 @222. 220 EBmmGMdE mcficgucou mum-233.2220 mo woomwm 222:. .2220 223-28 mm.0 N200 0M0 02.0 v2.0 0 2m.0 220.0 0M0 N20 02.0 h 3.0 N200 02.0 0H0 22.0 M 0m.0 N200 h3.0 02.0 N00 Q wmd 2.20.0 2.2.0 N10 No.0 0 mm.0 N200 NM.0 22.0 20.0 m mm.0 mH0.0 00.0 2.2 .0 00.0 24. 32:22.. 82.232202 2222-00222 000.232 nm .22 m2 220 M 222228 229$ 300 3222200 .02 222220qu $.22qu 2203-2qu .002; .Mflom 222-20.2 32de .m 220 222/ohm ...-22222222 2220 >20 00 22022802222200 222222220220 022.2 220 8.223022me mafia-222200 .0.-202223.200 00 2022322 2223. ..mm0 gamu- 197' Table 65a. -Instrumental conditions of the Beckman Spectrophotometer ‘ for the determination ‘of potassium, calcium, and sodium. 1 Na Ca K ' Wave length 422.7 766.5 ‘ 589. 3 Photo tube resistor No. 2 No. 1 No. 2 Photo tube filter blue red blue Selector 0.1 0. 1 0.1 Photo-multiplier sensitivity 4 off 2 Zero suppression 1. 0 off 1. 0 Oxygen pressure (a) tank , 40 40 40 (b) instrument panel 11 12 11 Hydrogen pressure (a) tank 10 10 10 (b) instrument panel 5. 75 5. 75 5. 75 Slit width .01 .01-.02 .01 to“! it, u. 2* '-‘~ - * ~f'