Page images
PDF
EPUB

TABLE XVII-FRACTIONAL APPLICATION SERIES OF 1923.

531

84

13 57 11

1
2
3

4
Total
%

14 84 10

123

10
133
25.04

20-25-10 5- 6- 9- 7 3- 4- 5- 4 4- 5-10- 7

81 15.26

125

125 23.54

108 20.34

84 15.82

Av. 8 secs.

Plot
No.

Treatment of Plot

Av. lbs. per acre

Total No.

leaves
sorted

No. of
priming

Number of leaves

Lt. Wr.

Fire-holding

capacity
(seconds)

Med. Wr. Dark Wr,

Secs.

Fil. and Br.

H, H* 3,000 lbs. fractional.

1,866

I, I* 2,000 lbs. fractional.

1,827

588

21 90 38

60 51

78

1
2
3

4
Total
%

30-25-26-35 10-16- 6- 5 4-13- 5- 6 5- 7- 6-10

107

18
125
21.26

149 25.34

125

125 21.26

111 18.88

78 13.26

Av. 13 secs.

[blocks in formation]

TABLE XVIII. SORTING RESULTS FOR 1924 CROP. FRACTIONAL APPLICATION PLOTS.

WEIGHT OF THE GRADES.

[blocks in formation]

H H

32 30

84 98

29 36

25 23

66 69

53 65

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Plot
No.

Fillers

Oz.

Brokes

Oz.

Tops
Oz.

Oz. of Darks

18'

20'

22'

39 48

122 56

83 49

40 31

60 34

19 6

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The samples selected during sorting were judged by Mr. Walter Edwards and on the basis of his pooling and prices for 1923 the following schedule of prices per pound for the different grades was fixed.

TABLE XIX. SCHEDULE OF PRICES PER POUND. FRACTIONAL APPLICA

TION PLOTS.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

The average price per pound for each plot based on the above and the net return per acre are given in Table XX.

TABLE XX. SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR 1924 ON FRACTIONAL

APPLICATION Plots.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

* Based on sorting percentages, grading by Mr. Walter Edwards, and pool prices for 1923 after deducting 11 cents per pound for sorting, packing, storage, etc.

SUMMARY OF FRACTIONAL APPLICATION SERIES.

The results of two years' tests show that when 3,000 lbs. of fertilizer are applied to the acre, there is no advantage either in quality or yield of the tobacco when the total amount is divided

between a number of applications. When the quantity of fertilizer applied was reduced, there was a reduction in yield and quality which more than counter-balanced the saving in the cost of fertilizer.

In order to see whether there was any profit in reducing the acre application from 4,000 to 3,000 lbs. per acre, we may compare Plot J with plots N1, P1 and K1 all of which received the same mixture as J but 1,000 more pounds of it. After deducting the cost of fertilizer we find that plot J netted a return of $161.91 to the grower in 1924, while plots N1 netted $174.17, plots P1, $161.21 and Plots K2, $245.67. From these figures it is apparent then that there was no gain from cutting down the fertilizer ration, but a strong probability of a loss. In this connection however, it should be kept in mind that the season of 1924 was very dry. A season characterized by more rainfall might show benefit from fractional application.

MANURE SERIES. Concerning the value of stable manure for tobacco there is a wide difference of opinion among growers and dealers. Many would not use it even if it cost nothing. Probably the majority of farmers believe in using it, however, and would use more if it could be obtained. The ever increasing price of good manure makes it rather essential that we should find out experimentally just what its value is.

In the Massachusetts experiments previously mentioned, Goessman included plots in which manure at the rate of 10 tons per acre was the only fertilizer applied during two years. In his summary he concluded that the results were "encouraging but not sufficient in number to advise detailed discussion". In the Poquonock experiments, Jenkins treated one plot with 10-12 cords of manure per acre for four years and during two of the years added 500 lbs. of Swift-Sure Superphosphate. Although the yield was much below the average he attributed it to lack of a quickly available source of nitrogen and states that “the use of stable manure as an amendment as well as a fertilizer is necessary to get the best results".

An experiment was begun at the Windsor station in 1923 to test the value of manure as a supplement to commercial fertilizers and to compare cow manure with horse manure. Duplicate plots of one fourth of an acre were treated as follows:

M1—Two tons per acre of the basal ration.
M2—Ten tons of horse manure (New York) in addition to two

tons of commercial. M3—Ten tons of cow manure in addition to two tons of com

mercial.

The tobacco was stalk cut and one row of each plot weighed and sorted to get the data recorded in Table XXI.

[blocks in formation]

These experiments are on too small a scale and preliminary in nature to warrant any conclusions as to the value of the different treatments.

« PreviousContinue »