Crop report for the month of May, 1892 [May 10, 1892]

ft400

.C I

~ 'tf CIR CU LAR :\o. 1.

)

rw, 1

Fot'RTH SERrE:;.).

CROP REPORT

FOR THE ~IO~TH OF MAY , 1X92 .

RETrRXED TO THE DEPARTJ\IEXT OF A.GRI ' LTU RE, MAY 1. I 92.

t T .\T E OF GEO IW IA , DEPAUT)!E:\T OF A G I{I C L'I' UR~~.

r -

ATLA:o/TA , GA . , MAY 10, JHnz.

GENERAL RE~1ARKS.

Since i- ning the October crop repo rt, whi ch clo ed th e work of

that branch of the Departm ent for last seaso n , th e number of cor-

re. }:>O ndents ha been very hugely increased. Thi was don e that

th e labor of th o e wh o were then sen ing the Depa rtm ent might be

li ghtened by permitting them to confin e their ob e rvations to their

t I
I
1:

own immediate neighborhood, and that full er and more accurate in-

formation might be obtained from each ection of every county.

...

The re ult ha been gratifying, and not only has the ordinary

matter for the crop report been give n, but also valuable .data haf"

bee n furnished co ,eri ng th e individual enterprise of Georgia farmers

and th e industrial and agricultural de velopment of our State.

~In c h of th e material furni sh ed would have been publi:hed in

thi s report but for th e fa ct that th e space was required for the work

of the Experim ent Station. In future reports, and for reference, we

will be able to utilize, we tru t with benefit, th e co mmuni cations,

and hope th at sub equ ent reports will be made with as mu ch pains-

taking care as ha characterized the work of a ll th e correspond ent!"

for thi s report.

Th e abnormal condition pre e nted of our staple crop bringing in

the market less than th e cost of its production demanded a change

i n our llil eth ods, and the compreh ensive vi ew of the acreage devoted

f33

DEPARTNIE "1' OF AGR[ ULTURE-GEORGLA.
to the m rious crop exhibited by th e tab ulated statement, shows that the farm ers have done all in their power, under p resent condition , to m eet the ex igencies of the case.
The large area planted in cereals is a cause for cong ratulation. The further fact, not apparent from the tables, that , wh ere facili ties for , upplying the N' orthern market " ith vegetable are afforded and large cities offer a hom e market, an impetus has bee n gi,en to tru ck farm ing and gardening, i also a so urce of sati fa ction.

WEA'l'HER.

\\' bile the beginning of the season h as not been uch in ome _ec-

tions of the State a "-oulcl promise a hardy .tand, especially of

cotton , yet we trust that the recent ra in s the results from which

we ha\e recei r ed no official report, will develop a more fa,orab le

pro-pect.

Th e tate has been alm ost un'i n'! r~ all: free from

la4 frosts. and but li ttle damage has bee n don e t.o fruit or wg-

etation .

CO R N .

In this crop the largest in crea e in acreage is hO\\'lt amo unting in Middle Georgia to o\er 17 per ce nt. and O\'e r t he .'tate to or er 14 per ce nt. Th e general tendency for se \ eral year ' ha bee n in th e direc tion of planting a large a rea in this g reat fo od crop but at no tim e ince reco rds of this character h a\ e bve n kept by the Departm ent bas so g teat an increase been made. As to general co nditi on com par d with the repo rts of p revious y ar: the crop i.- good. Th e plant is generally in a fai r co ndition as to cultimti0'11.

\\'H EAT.

This crop , which has been regarded a more and more un certa in

each year, show s for th e first time in se \'e ral years an in creased

acreage. A red val of intere tin the crop may lead to ascertaining

th e cause of the 1oor s ucce with which it cultiYation has been

recently attended. Should this be accompli shed, a great benefit

will be derived by North Georgia, where at one tiu1e it was culti-

vated to a large exte nt.

The cond itiou and prospect, com -

pa.red with an average, is good, being 1 per ce nt. aho,-c an a,erage.

34

MAY CROP REPORT-1 !.l:?.

3

OATS .

Th e acreage planted in thi: crop is g reater in every part of th e

,' tate xcept ' uthea -t Georgia, where there is a decrease of ~ per

ce n t .

Th e co ndition and prospect is good in ~orth and

East Ge01v ia and poor in ,'outhwe, t and Southeast Georgia. Th e

proportion of the crop so wn in th e fall and spring i, about the sam e,

particular localitiee so win rr n early the entire crop in the fall , while

oth er lo alities, geog rar hically . imilarly ituated, so w in the sprin g.

CO T T O .
In thiE. l) Ul" g reat m on y crop , we find the . greatest reduction in acreage ever reported. This res ult is due, to a large extent, to th e lo w price the crop brought last season. Another cau se which has led to t.h tlec rea:e is th e effort on the part of many farm ers to raise their suppli : at hom e. Thi tendency i illu trated by a com pari on of the tables published by the Department for several years.
In ma ny . ections of the tate the crop is reported at from ten to fi fteen days late. The co ndition and prospect is very poor, a nd we a n on ly hope that more propitious season s will develop a hardier and more ,igorous plant and bring out a better stand.

PR UIT.
On the prospc t of a fruit crop it is gratifying to report that a larger yield i promiEed than for any year since 1889. While injuries by frost have bee n reported, the damage done is not so g reat b ut that ther will be a bounteous yield. In tho e ections of the .:tate wh en: th e orchard i: a so urce of profit no material damag reported and a flatteri nrr yi eld is prom is d .

G RAS CU L'rURE .
The culti ,ation of the grasse and forage plants is attracti ng more attenti on ju ~Iiddle and North Georgia. Thi s is e videnced b.' the i ncreased a rea that ha been planted. So long a the stock in our large eities are f d from tae fields of T en nessee and other State too much cann ot be .aiel in favor of Georgia 1 asiumge and in behalf of the cult.i vation of Geo rgia hay.
3.)

4

DEPART.~lE!\T OF AGRIC(jLTURE-GEORl~IA.

STO C K.
Th e co ndition of stock tl roughout th e . 'tate is generally good . In so me localitie chole ra is repo rted au ong th e hogs. A que. t ion of Yery eriou: moment to e\ ery stoc k own er in th e State i that of gla nd er amo n O' our horses a nd mules. \_ num be r of case have bee n reported to th e Departm ent, ,,hi ch, upon in Yesti O'ation of competent veterina rian: , h ave bee n p ronounced glancler' .
E,ery mean at the co mmand of the Departm ent will always be directed to ~ uppressing thi . lonth so me an 1 fatal disea e. but with nod fin ed powers to act it is difficult to accomp lish mu ch.

l 'PP UE:;.
Th e suppl y of c:o rn a nd forage on baud thi,; sea on ic,; m uch g reater than that of Ia t year, som e co un t ie in Xorth Geo rg ia reporting a full u pp ly, 1\'ith co rn to ell. The cas h pri ce for co rn
ranges from :-o to 70 cent. per bushel, with th e credit from 60 cents
to 1.00, dependin g on th e see t.ion of t he tate.

FERT ILIZER:'.

Th e co n ump tio n of fertili ze rs, a shown by the reco ru of th e

Departm ent, i 30 pe r cent. l es~ t han that of last season. As an

e \idence of th e care taken by co rrespo ndents, it might bP ~ai d that

there is no materi al diffe rence betw ee11 t he re ord and t he report

made by them .

In th e amo unt of ferti li ze rs manipulated

at home t here i an in crea--e in pe r e nt. oYer that of Ja-t yea r, also

in th e amount of stab! manure u . eel . Th ese arc encouragi ng re-

sult , a nd sho w th at \\' e are \\' Orking i n c,ery direction to render

ourseh'e elf-sm:taini ng and to become ~ell rf: , n ot p urcha. ers.

TOBA ' CO .
A O'reat deal of in tere-t h as bee n manifested in the cultiva tion of this plant throughout the tate. In nea rl y c,ery part of the State experim nt are bei ng made with a number of different varieties. After t he crop ha been gathered th adaptability of our oil to this plant will be thoroughly te ted. Whil e ad \' ising experimental planting, we h a ve always uggestecl t hat only a, mall a,creage be tried until it h as b ee n ufli ciently demo n trated t hat tobacco can be .m ade a m oney crop in Geo rg ia, and 1\'hi.le the acreage this year is much la rge r than heretofore, we do not belie ve any los \vill re. ult, and we t m t the experim ents will prove successful.
36

I .~,. o Vlt~ =j.o :Z: '--"-~

~ ~ ~ ~~~

J~ ~ 0:::: ~

~ ~2 ~ ~~ 1 2
:

oJ;~;; Co"'"~mjo:;

if;
I ,.

c o . ('C : CD J~Q~, - I

FI,o~.>~. r l=I ~

~:::::;::::

I .~;.-. -~.e;.n:;..:'."..:.":::~_~,,""

At.: reage, co uo pared witl-1-,- -

l ast. ~ear . .

~~

I:p <:::> =.-- c::: <=> I Co n<htwn , ~:.om pared

. ;::

91 c =o oo I 1 ~ ~ f- ;r~! - C.I"''J:-.:.-~~~

w1'tl1 an a \e r~g_e_. 1_._

A(reage, eompared wiLl!

1~; .L- 6~ :.~ -= ~

hu=:t vear.

o o I ~;c~ 1 ~-~cr~.:::.: ' '" "'-

Condit ion, rom pared with an aye ra ge.

o ~

I I I.e>.;,. .,. ~ - 1'e rt"t' ntage or the nupl .

o =o : : : ,'i .;.. ~ :;:.,~ ~o wn )}1st fall.

I :

S I Ac reage, compared 11itlt

oc 8 i : ;~. I~

:
1 :

.:. ~~.;:
= 0
:: '"" ' '" ~

'""-c,""o_laJ_lLs..l,t.'i"'i'\"=i'"e_oa_ur_,.-<.-0-m-.-p-a-re-d~-~

1

witIt an average.

:-

I I rn ;:.> ~ r;;-;.-:;_! Acreage," com pared with'---

~
~
~

I I ~ ~~~.~ ..... ~ last Year.
<r: e>c-::;-c~ Condition , eompart'd

t..

( ~~ :'t.~.t. ~ . ~~

with an average.

51 I t.;-

~

g:
--

::>

:

t;;:e:.r:-

P ercentage of cro p up.

-a cr.:- Cfj 1 :

Cfj Cfj ~ -stand , co mpared- w ith

g 2

.g
.,_
~-

.. : ~ic~ .:,; .c.~ ''good stand .. ,

I ~=1::.~;;;~:

~;
c.:

;
:

I Ae reage,com parC. l h1st year.

witlt

~~-

c;;;..
~

o I : ==o I J: : o
.J-

o: 00
: c; .?'~:

Arreage, compan;d with iSor-

last year.

ghwn . :

~
~

':? : = I ;

I A<: reage, coiilpare<l with: o.:.ovt last yf'ar
~ ;- ~ ~ 1 Con.d itiot.1, .c:ompated

:-":lco:::- ;
~~ 1

I
b:
<::::

~ 0 . c:::_.: _ c.._ o,.,

_ _W_"!t_t:1 an ayer~ge. "?'' <~-:> .

f(.>
~

I I f .~. 8_Sg~ - Peathes.
I ,.~_ I .~ g.::::O!~~~ Apples.
I ~ I~ g: ~ g:::! !Pears.

I1 -

.

I I

~

~
gE.

1~

~ ~

.

2 ~
::;

~

~~ ~ ~c--o-l=:c~.c~oiGtapes.

~~ :.

-;;I-:=. c :=. := c ,- Co ndftton-of Slteep, co~ -

1 ,~ - g:.,'{!_,'f.;;:!. pared with last year.

g g o 1 5 := c; !Conditioi10f W ork Stock , I;;;:. <-.;;:.j:.? .._ compar'd with lm,tyear

I 11\o. ~:c ~o;.c:;ot-o=,~ccc

of H oa~. all ages, eon1pal''d witl1 lust year

~ c
<;:: -

I.?.!6i.!;,?2l ca~h price of C:orn , May .l

I- - - 'itf%;!1. 1CreditpriceofCorn ,May.l fq
th I _-;;;<r:-;_ _-;-1P ereen 1age of a full sn p-j 1~:
_-;-1-oo--'" 1 a .~ c ,_;;~,7;;..?~,~ ply of Corn on hand. :X Percenta)!e of full sup- '
.2 -t.~.;:!~f,i p l.v of Hay on hand. '

6

DEPART~1EXT OF AGRICULTURE-GEORGIA.

TO THE FARMERS OF GJ1,0RGJA.
It is with great pleasure that I is u e m.y first report of the present crop season, containing as it does, the gratifyin g in telligence of a
REDU CTION OF THE COTTO:\ ACREAGE
and a diminution of the indi scriminate u e of com mer ia.l fertili z rs. Having made last eason pe rh ap 1,000,000 1a leE of cotto n, at a hea ,.y loss to the majority of producer._ the present year found u s facing conditions appalling in thei r si<rnificance and importance . "ith our taple crop a drug in the market" of th e world , with debt and an improYish ed soil lt>ft to rem ind u" of th e n eces ity of a change in our agricultural methods and th e management of our farm s, we began the year of 1 92! \\'c were urround ed by cond ition s, which cau ~ ed th stou te~ t h eart to q uail and produced general almost uniY ersn,l. murmuring and di ."co ntent. How to OJ rate our farm s with empty pockets and a , hort proYi ion supply, was a question of nch magnitud e that many of us hrank .from even attempting its solution. But th ese diffi ulti es anJ others p erhaps as graYe dailv developin g, forced u to tak e c uncel t ogether, and there. ult of ou r deli! eration is een in th e 1 ducecl consumption of fertilizer. , and the reduction of rtt least 20 per ce nt. in the cotto n acr age. \\"e ha,e lJeen pending , bout
SE YE:\ ) l fLLIO:\ DOLLAHS l'ER ASSt:~l
f r fcrtili7.er, usi ng it often in a care less mann er, unmin lful of it adat),tability to the so il or the crop it wa intend ed to hent>fit, and most of this l::tr"e amount has bee n appli ed t o totton . Th e pre"ent eason witn es es
A HED 'CTIO!\ 01<' ONE HUNl>REIJ 'l'l-I Ol-,.;A NIJ TO:\
in th e u e of comme rcin,l fertilizers, repre cnting a sa,-in. to the farmers of abo ut t wo and a half million dollar . \.n other 5ignificant fact i that much of \\"h at has been purchased been u under corn and , mall grain .
THE: J\IAHK ED IN CREASE I:\ THE :;~ IAI.L GHAll'i CROP ~
i..: alo acau e for co ngratulati on. \Vc ha,e promi.:e, by fai thful cultiYation and the bl es~ in g of the f."arl y and th e later m ine. of an
3R

:'IIAY CROP REPORT- I !):?.

7

abundant food crop for man and bea t. To mak e a suran ce doubly sure, how eYer, l would adv ise that full crops of

. ) IILLE' .-\~D , OROH ~I
be planted. A few acres well prepared and manmed with a p h osphate will give an abundance of most nutritious food for cattle, hogs and mules, and will save many ears of more expensiv co rn.

FO R THE NEXT FE \\" MONTHS
the very best generalship is req uired in handlin g the crops. Rap id and thorough, but shallow cultivation should be the cry from one end of the State to the oth er. ever let a cru st remain lon ~er than you can get to it to break it. Xothing pays so well as repeate l shallow stirring of the s urface soil. I have repeatedly urged th e grave necessity of redu cin g the acreage a nd

REDUCIN G THE COST OF CO'ITON,
our tap le crop, by in crea ing th e yi eld per acre. H ere we h ave th e solution of a p roblem which fo r twenty year we have vainly endeavored to roaster. Durin g that period we have steadily increased th ac rea.g , and only by the use of tremend ous amo unt of commercial fe rtilizers have we been able to k eep th e average yield up to abo ut one third of a bale to th e acre. Th e im n1cnse increase in the crop ha n ot come from any improvement in the land, but iiimi ly from th e fact that, as a rule farmer::; ha\7e been straining e very n erve impa irin g th eir credit and impo,e riahin g th em elve. and fam ilies by add ing acre after ac re to th e already too large cotton area. Too large, because in many cases it bas been pla nt d at t he expense of oth er even more i mpo rta nt provi:ion crops. 1 ha ,e neYer ceaseJ to urae the ab olute necessity of
BU ILDI:'\ G l P OUR LAND
by renovating crops and by bette r methods of p reparation anJ culture. To make ourf'clves an i ndepend ent a nd prosr erous peopl , \\e must change our system of fa rmin g. Th e day ha pas:::rd wh en large h olding., ex cept in rare case , are made }.HOfitable. T h e ~ mall land owner will be the man to redee m t hi land of ours from th e blight of mortgages, and a tenan t system which dra ws e \erything po~sible from th e soil and r eturn s nothing for th e bounty.
~!)

DEPAR'l'i\'IEKT OF AGRIG LTURE-GEORGIA.
Th e farmer can produce but a mall crop of cotton at ~ cost of less than se ven cents a pound. But would it not be better
to produce that small crop a nd realize e,en a . mall amo unt on it
than to make a large one at a cost of from se,en to t en cents, and lose from one to four cents on each pound? Ind eed our commone nse would tea h u s that we hould plant no crop unle~. we an realize on it more than it cost u s to make it. And yet th e South has in th e seaso n ju t pa .eel
I~ OI:l 'l' NEARLY 0.:-IE J-ll'NDREU )'l:LLION DOJ.LAN:; ,
t.his amount repre e nting t he differ nee betwee n th e cost of making our crop of nin e million bales and the price we han received for it. Every practical farm er in the entire cotton l.Jelt realize. that we cannot. ontinue this losing game, and has been eagerlv and a nxiou ly ca: tin g about for orne plan of relief.
That the ad vice so often gi ,~n has been largely acted upon i illu tratetl by a comparison of the acreage devoted to cotton and the acreage le votctl to gra in and provision crops. Th e les on so severely ta ught by th e low pri ce obtained for th e cotton crop for the last :eason i ~ one whi ch I beli eve we will not soo n forge t an d having declare:l ourselves in r'.wor of th e self- ustainin g fa rm , we have don e much toward. laying th e foundati on of our future agricultural ind ept nd encc.
Our taple crops having been pitched and planted while paying t ri ct attenti on to th eir proper cultivation let us not neglect th e
which ;ldcl . o much to the comfort of th e hou sehold a nd ;w e many a dim a nd dollar th at would oth erwi . e ha,e to go to pur ha. e n e<:es ary proYi ion s.
Th e garden and p oultry yard aftorcl spl endid so urces of a wh oleorne food supply and in many in tanc whP-re market facilitie::; a r e a1ford ed <:an become the mmns of purchasing article whi<:h would oth erwi se have to he bought on a credit at a higlwr price, a nd paid for out of our money crop in th e fall. It is f'se nti al to the ucce ful management of our fa rm that attenti on be pa id to th e demands of the markets of our neighboring town or city, where facilitie. for properly placing the results of our labo r are to be found. By ca 'ting about in this direction we will often fi nd ourseh e able to upply for cash or goods fa rm prod net
-10

l\fA Y CROP REPORT- I 92.

~)

t hat can be made with little labo r, and which in th e end will greatly reduce t.he amo unt which we are compell ed to pay out of th e pro<'eeds of our staple crop .
Having made a . tart in the right direction, let us not turn back, allured b_v a specul ati ve hope of a very large increa e in prices. But let u. u. c our energies so that we may hast nth day wh en instead of th e K entu cky mule feel on Tenn sse hay and wcstem grain we will have the Georgia mule feel on Georgia grain and forage, and our large cities and town supplied wi th pro ,i ions th e produ ct::' of the Geo rgia farm.
R . T. ~ ERBfTT. Comm issioner.

10

DEPART:.\JE~T OF AGRICULTURE- GEORGIA.

EXTRAC T . FR.O:\I BULLET INS OF THE GhOR GL\. EXPE!lIMENT T ATIOX.
or These e x,tracts.a rc from Bulletins 1:5, l Ga nd 17. Copic.; thel'c,
as well a all future bulletins, will be se nt any Georo-ia farm er wh o reque. ts it. Address Director R . .J. Redding, Experim ent. rt f~ .

r , ( FHO)f BU LI .f:TIX SO.

DECE)I IJEH, 18!J J. )

: i ENERAL FERTILI7JER EX.PERL\rE~T OX COR:\ .

E:Iperirnent No . 2.
The obj ect of th is :q crim nt was to determin e t ho ctti::ct f ap plyin g ,a ryin g quantiti e. of each of th e three elem ent..:- nitrogcn, pho. ph oric acid a nd pota.sh . Th e section .:ele ted com ] ri. ed on acre of \'e ry poor g ray o-ravell_v so il , und erlaid by a y llow pebbly clay, in linin g to pipe clay. Th e origin al growth was ~ rrubby J'O:<t oak , red a nd yell ow oa k, a nd th e soil is probably th 1 oore ton the farm. It was in orn in 1 90, fertili zed at th e rate per acre of lfiU pou ncl:; of n pe rphospate, 170 pon nds of cot ton .:eed meal anrl , '() pou nels of muriate ot potash . Th o _v ielcl wa 1< lm hoi:-: of corn.
Th land wa: well broken April , th, with <tone hor e turn-plow, and harrow ed ~ mooth. April 14th it was laid ofl' into ti fty-t 11o row", running cast a nd west, and four feet wid e, u:o:ing a lono.:coo per, foll owed by a ho,el. Th e section 11as then divi rled in the midd le, aCJosf: th o row, , aml grouped into p lot::; of t hr c row Pa h, extending ha lf n.nos. t he ac re f rom the we t to tJ, e middl t> lin e ancl fron1 the 'in1dcllc lin e to the east side. Th e plots \\' e re n u m be reel from 1 to lT, eommc n <; in g on the north sid e of the wc,:t half <111 1 r xtencling to th e sou th Ride: then from 1 ' to ~-i, I'On tinuino- from th e south ><ide of the ea t half to t h e north side, as rcp r .->Pntetl in Tabl e :\ o. lil-a, wh e re colum n 1 a.ncl co ntain th e nu mher oft l1 e eyera.l plots and th ' ir arrangement. Th<' norm al or E<ta ndard formula wa._: 1:-6 pound s u pcrpho~phate , HJA pounds of muriatr of pota._h , and :~2...1 pound. of nitrate of soda . Thi s formnl a wa applied to plot 1, lO 1 and :2/. On th next fmcceeding plr.t 2, 11. 19 and 2, , t he pota h was donbl ' d , the other in gred ients remaining t h e same. In the next se ri e , p iotR 3, ] :2, 20 a nd 2~1, the nit rogen \\' as d ubl ed the others rcmaiH in g n rm :ll. In the fourth serie" p lot 4, 1:', 21 an l :)0, both th <:' potar:h and the nitrogen \\'Ore doubled phosphor ic a id rema ining n orma l. In the fifth seri es the phosph oric ac id and potash \\'ere <l uuhle l nitr ge n remaining n ormal ; a nd :o on th rough to the eio-hth erie:::. T able ~ o. UI-b sho\\s a. mnmmy of the . ch eme in 1\'hich t he e,-
42

~UY CROP REPORT- 1802.

11

eral seri es are grouped togeth er, and th e a ,era()' of t he r0wltin .~
yields of th e se veral plot of each seri e: are give n. PloL Han l :lo,
abuttin g each other, conta in ed four row each , an d were n ot fertilized.
By thi s arrangement of th e pl ots in etualiti es in t he ch:ua ter a nd :productiveness of th e differen t porti ons of t he al' re w eT approxim ately adjusted or correc ted.
To illustrate: Th e ~,e ra ge yield of th e unfertilized pl ot:;. \la nd 26, was 10.00 bushels 1er ttcre, Let us ta ke t hi s as n. bas is f co mparison . Th en by applyin g th e norm a l ratio n , as on ~cries 1, the yield is 15.24-a gain of ::>.24 se ri es :l , potash doubl ed , t he vield i, 1::5.88--a gain of 5.8R: seri es :i, ni t roge n dou bled, 1G. n, -a ()'a in of 6.68 ; series 5, ph oE>ph ori c a id doubled , l G.U-a ga in of o.24: series 4, both pota. hand nitrogen do ubl ed . 1/.f-i -a gain of 7.6. ; . eries 6, potash and p hospb ori t acid do u ble d . 1?.8G-a gain uf .- . 0 ~
serie 7, pho phori c ac id a nd ni t roge n do ubled , 1/ .~lO-aga i n ,,f 7.HU.
Comparin g oth er res ul t with th e yi eld of t he norn1 al ration , eri e 1, it will be <:e n th at dou hlin o th e pota>'h in er asecl t he- yie ld 0.64 ; dou blin g th e p hosph ori acid inerpa,:ed th e .'iel i h.\' 1.()() ~ doubling th e ni t roge n by 1.~ ; a nd dou blin g th e ph osphori c acid and p otash in cJ' ' a.:ed th e y ield by O.H2 ; 1l ou blin g th e po ta:-h and nitroge n , 2.+! ; and dou blin g t he ph o ph ori e acid a nd ni t rog!'n. ~ (-i(i.
Condu,.":lm8.- lt i quite e viclen t1. That the soil waR n ''e r.v poor ..oil for ro m. :2. Th at th e soil wa de fi cien t in ail three of th e elenJcnt ,. . pho:-;ph oric a id, potash a nd nitroge n. 3. Th at it wm; particul ar! .) defi ci!' nt in nitrogen, hecause nitrog 1 in variabl y produ ced th e most ma rk ed i ncrease in th e y ield. 4 Th a t ph o, p hori c acid was ne xt in order of d fic i ncy. ;::i n ee its e:ffecti v nes, in in creasin g t lw yielcl waR nex t a fter t hat of ninogen. 5. Th at potash was lea t r ffe t ir wn _ lea:t n e l cl . The res ults co ntirm t he co nclu ion (3) reac hed in rega rd to the preceding E xperim en t-Ko . 1 pecia l Xi t rogen E x pe riment n Co m-that nitroge n i: t he mo t efl'ccti ,e elenJC nt ot' a f rti li mr fo r corn on t hi s oil. B) "':ay of cau t ion it may be rem a rk ed that it "as no pnr of th e purpose of t hi e xperi ment to prod uce a {a,-gr !fit-ld of' rn,11. hut imply a nd solely to <LSce rtain th e rela.ti,c effect of the diffc ren el men t in varyi nO' combi nations. Th e res ults of both ex peri me nts . hut especia lly f t he Ia>it. st r"ngl,,ugge. t t he in exped iency of relyi n()' olely on concent r:1tPtl fer tilizers for co rn. [t may be ad ded t ha t while ni trocren <Ll'lJe:u tohe t h most impo rtan t, because t he n1o:t cffetti,e element. i doe: not follow thata f1.1rm er sh oul cl per<:ist in buyio y ni trugc n- th mo"t costly of th e t hree clements. I t is the on elem(; nt that may he c:l pt urecl from the atmosphere as \r ell as un loc ked from th e subsoil. by a judicious system of rotation. in d ndi ng clove r. p a and ot h r legumin ou_ crop , in co mbin ation wi t h stock feed in g an l th
43

]2

DEPARTME~T OF AGRI J.TURE - GEOR GU ..

u e of <lnimal ma nurt?s. nde r su ch a system, afte r g ttin cr~fully under way th e pmchase of nitrogen :<hould be limited to ..:pe ial occaRion not oth crwi e foreseen and provided_. for.

J~T I:RCULTL' RA.L FERTIL LZIX li-COBN' .

E.pr,,i lll ell l X o. 3.

T his was a repetiti on of a ..imil a r experiment co nducted in 1 91 , b ut on :1 differe nt r ti on of Janel , th e obj ect. bein g to test th e relat ive effe t of ncce ,: i,c a.pplicati on of fertilizers durin g the period of growth of th e 'l'OJ>. Th e schcm r : cmbracecl three !;eri c: of fi,e pl ot eac h, eac h! lot co nta inin g three row , four fee t wid e and one acre Jo n;!. In th e first se ri es, in clu d ing plots 1 ~ ' 3, -+ and ;) and the third e ric:, inr lu ding p lotc 13, 14, l;j , lli a nclll , th e fe rtilizer,.: were compouncl cd and li st ri butecl as p lain ly indi cated in Taul e IV .

TABLE 1\".

RXPERI.IIEN1' :).-Jntercultnml F crtilizi a g on Col'l<.

( E H rt lf :' c t. t , Di,. B., 'l b'!! I. J

] '"I~~I~ d

I

I ~
.::>

;~;;

,~:~r..

'!

,....,

..= ::> 0 -L.

H o w an d wlt e n F ertilize rs 11e re Applied .

I=~~ ~c: = t;,;- :;.:..:.
Qeu) o~:c c: ~,_ =
~.;!.; - ~

: - _________---;__________ 4[~i:t ~: u:

:Fq-H11~""

1 .

c:
0

~::;:;;

--:="(/
--

It ;=

------.---.- - - ----------- :;---- ---:~l ~~~ ( t .,L .,.)

-:
(i.)

.. . .

AlllJe tot e

plaJltmg ....... ..

.. .. ... ............ .. .. .. .

.. ....

_o

.o

~ L1 . K

, I __: '
"' j

2 ,::1:!1:lHiti5 ... . 1l nlf lJe lo re planting ; half firtpl o witw .. .... . ... H . 7:!:! .o 3:Ji:! :l\J ti.) .... On e t bird ench , b fo re planting and 1s t and:!d

.~

I

pl owing .. ...... . ............... .. ..... .. .... ..... . .. ... . 1-l . 'i :!H .S

I ;-
I :.L

4

::1:!

:)!)

li;)1I....

O ne-third eaeh , befo re
. pl OI\' in)!.... ... ..... ..

plantin g and ~d an 1l =>1 .. .. .... . ...... .. .......... ... ...

i(i

.6

:2:!

.

0

l a !3J:! j:l\l ui .. . . All o f :- up. P. and l\lur. J'. and on e-third ~it.

be fo re plautiD;!; o ne- third o f );it . '. n.t :!d

.j I1

I anl::dpl o wing .. .... ... ...... . ... .... ......... ' lO . :!:.!G. 7

o ,.... i... ,... .. .. ' I ufe rtili 7.ed .... .. ...... ... .. . .. ........... .... . .. .. ........ .. :!~. :; 2 1.0

, i:!I-!IJ,:li' !.. . 14::1.\ ll l.le lo re planti ng .. .... .. .... ..... ......... ... .. .... .. .. lzL S :! 4

,_ l I' c;-.
. :"<::

!I! D

:--!~S<~~i

)i<1 ol)i-/'

.

...
.. .

l -l: :
. . .j .l

.

~am ~~ -.tm

e
e

ns
a~

lP~ lloott

:! ..o")

.... ... ..... ...

.. ..

... . ..

.. ..

... ...

.

.

.. .. . .. .. . ....

. .

. .

. .

.. ..

.. ..

.. ..

. .

. .

. .

. .

.. ..

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

:1!) .8 o_) .oJ,. I

:10 . 5 '>'.] . .I.

.:,... J ..... '_'",,I ' ..,)-' ' I ,....,.. ,;C:: -aJtt e a~ 0 - . PI ot -rI- .. ..... ........ ... . ..... .... ....... .... .. .. .. . ._,.-) . 0 '_),".., . -r'-

')1 ,:..ti.:tl:. . .

I I ':.! 'li :;; ::.. ... . .. .

... ...

14 ~
... .

l'am e a s Plot 5 (C. S. :'II. in ~ t. o t X it. l:l .) .. .. .... ... 'l ' nt.e r t .t,.tzetl .. .. .. .. .... .. ..... .. . .... .. . ..... .. .. .... ..

:!6. }'

,:.;, .

:~1.0,

.

1 -1

,.: ( 1:1 ::J:! :l!) (ii) .... ,::5a me as Pl o t 1.. ... .. ... ..... .. .... ........ . .. .. ...... .... .... ZO. O!'l:.! . :.!

- l "' - "'" ""!"" ')o - .t. j I .t.. .j":! tI~> ::q;, 6f'''! .. .. ,.".a me ,,ts Il'~llott .;?.. ...... .. .. .. ... ..... .. .... .. .. . ... .... ...... .. :J;<l, "!-~. ':~'4.,. -I

:- 1
_OJ

a me as ~ I '' > >) ... . .

0

'I J' t ,.- -.:. . P I t ... ,. - > I) .. . ' i'JH!llt' <IS . 0

o) .. . .. . . . ...... .. .. ... ........ .. .... ..

~ - .I

IR ) '1' .. ..... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ' - I ..)

il. I 7 .::J :.! J:J!'! G.) .. . . ~a m e ail Pl ot.) ........ .. .... .. .... ........ .. .. ..... ......... 10 . H:!H. H

:\fAY CROP REFORT- 1 92.

13

In s ri es 2, cotton seetl meal was sub t itn ted for nitrate of oda and th amounts of uperph ospbatc and muriate of potash 'rere reduced by a mu ch as the phosphoric acid and potash contained in the cotton eed .meal, in ord er to preserv e tho same actual tlmount of the three fertilizin g element in er ery plot of th fertilized ;;eri . . Plot: 6 and12 ,,ere not ferti lized.
Cow/u.,io/18.-From th e co 01m cnt on the sim ilar experim ent mad e in 1890 the follo"ing is repeated:
" Whil e not decisi1e, th e results indicate that onl:l undivided application, at or before th e time of planting, will gir e as la rge a final yield as wlwn di,id ecl into t wo or more portions. Whil e thi 111ay be finally shown to be t ru e, as a rul e wh en th total amo un t f ferti lizers applied is moderate, say le than 500 pounds per acre, it may tWl be true wh en th e amount is greate r, and e peci.dly wh ere a large quantity is a pplied per acre. Th e har:Lcter of the seasons would also prore a material factor in influ e ncing th e re.: ult. T he same experim ent was tried on otton wi t h :omewbat diffe rent reults, whi ch will ap ] ear in th e n xt bu lletin. This ex periment will be repeated n xt eason. '
Th e resu lts of th is experim ent the paf't year seems t.o contirm th above statemen t. ~ o very n1 a rk ed or regula.r difference occu r in the yields of the plots ;; ucces. i vely ferti lized, om pared with those on which the 11hole amount wa applied ple,iou.: to plan t ing. T h e ;;oil graduall y increas din unai ded produ tiveu es from plot 1 to plot 17, as indicated by the incr a eel yield of unfertiliz d plot 1:2 , compared with unfertilized p lot 6. Th ere i. some indication , from the yield of plots and 14, that better res ults follow wh en the fert ilizer is divided into two portions, one-ha lf apph ed befor plantin g a nd the other half at fi r;;t plowing. But thi:; indi cation is not u tained by the result of plot :2.
On the whole, t he results do not show any dec ided advantage in intercu ltu ral fertilizing.
Th e theory i. a p la n ibl e one, a nd, as before remark ed, way be susta in ed in practice wh ere a very h eavy application of fertilizers i made.

EFFE 'T OF "P LLING l<ODDDER. "
E.1pet'iment No . 4.
Two experim ents were conducted on the we t half of a two-acre ection , each experim ent cove rin g exactly the same ground. Th e land was well ploughed and h arrow ed , laid off four feet each way a nd planted in ch ecks, covering with a band hoe, April ::>, all th e plots hav ing been uniformly fertilized before planting.
Th e rows, as they ran east and we t, were diYided into four plot of thirteen rows each . On the first and third plots the blades were stripped from the stalks. Th e fodd er was" p ulled" at the usual time
~5

14

tJEPART)lE~T OF AGRICULTURE- GEORGI.-\. .



of performi ng: t hat operation, and the fodder from each plot carefull .v

cured a nd we1glt cd. On th e seco nd and fourth plots the fodder was
not 'pulled . ' Table Xo. 5 hows the arrangement of the plots, the percen ta.cre of 'mi ssing hi ll. ,' and th e ~ie l d .of, belled corn 1e r

.acre of !:'aeh '"b plot. R~.,u{/.<.-Th e plot: from which the b lade. wer stripped yield ed
:23.n b u~h Is of she lled co m per acre. Those from which the blade

were not taken ga,- a _, ield of 27.3 b ushels l er acre, a loss of 3.4 bush f' ls per a re as th e res ult of pullin cr the fodder . But the yield o f fodu t:: r \\'US :t/0 pound: per a re, at a co t for pulling and curing
of , l ce nt... [n other words. th ere was a loss of 3.4 bushels, equal to HI J.4 pounds of com , and a gain of :270 po und s of fodder. It .a tua.lly ost , 1 ce nt, to pull and hou se t he fodder, and probably 10 ce nt.: to ,-,ib the ::.-1 bu. hel. of om.
Let the re ult be stated a o~ a ledger :

Focluer not pulled , _,ield of corn, 27.3 bushels ,-, 60e......... ...........

w :;

F odder pulled, yield of corn, 23.!) bu hels ,, 6Uc ....:.... ... ..... .........$14 :;4

Fo lder pu lled, yield of fodd er, :no lbs. ( !fi LO<J. .... .... ...... ....... .. 2 70

1I 0-t
LeRs l'Ostof pulling fotld r. ..... .... .. ... ...... ... .... .. ......... .... ........ 1

Hi :?3

L . "cost of cr ibbing :l.-! bus. co rn ..... .. ..... ..... ..... ...... .........

10

To l)SS by pn ll in~ fodder ..... ......... .. .. .. .... ....... .

1(\ 28 05

LaHt y :1 1 the : am xpe rim c n~ re.m lted in a gain by pulling th e fu(ld er ;)f 8 L o2.
Couclu-"i'nL-Th e re:,; ult doc' not justif.v any modification of the <.:mclu r; iun drawn last year, ll'hi ch i. a~ follo\Y. :
The :::tron ge:<t argum ent against th e practice is the meager re::-ult!' in fodd er co mpared with t h e amount of labor inv olved. Th e ;-;anw h1hnr t' ll iployed in mowing gmss, or an y good forage crops,
,-en without th e use of impro,ed han- esting machine ry, would yi eld va;-;t]_,. greate r results.
" oth ing can be urged again t the merits of corn blade fodd er ;1:;: a feeding !Stuff when well handled. Th ere are few fodders su 1erior t it. '
To which Ilia\ lJ added that the eco nomic results will \'arv ac-eordinc: to the r~l atiYe demand for, and th e corresponding price. of corn and fodder. And th e furth er con ideration that where a farmer r lie:; on ~;t ripping th e blades of corn for his supply of hay, or long forage, h e rarely sec ures en ough eve n under th e most favor.abl e ro nclitions, ll'hil e often he falls very far short of' ple nt y."

MAY CROP REPORT-1 U:!.

] .'i

D EI.; P AXD HALLOW CUL'l' UHE OF COR!'\.
E:rpel'iment No . 5.
As b fo re ta ted , t hi s experiment was proj ected on th e :o::1 me "ection OCl' U]>i ed by th e preceding experim ent, No. 4, to whi ch includi ng Ta ble \ , th e rea der is referred for fuller deta ils.
May 1. all th e plot were plowed deep and close with squarepo in t co t.e rs "out and out.'
)1ay Hi. th e odd numbered pl ots were culti1ated with two fmTQIVS wi th Planet .Jr. cultiv ator, very shallow ; a nd th e even nu m hered plots were p lowed with scooters, close a nd deep - four forrow s.
.Jun e 2. th e odd num bered plot, were again cultiYated with cult i1ator, shallo11, tw o furrows to t he row ; while th e e1en numbered p lot reee iY ed four fuJTOI\. t o t he ro1r with a ten-in ch shovel.
.June 1';'. th e sa111 e was repea ted, usin g also a . cmpe attached u nder t h shovel.
.Jun e 19. t he odd plot rece iY ed one furrow to th e row with culti ,awr, with tluet:< weeps, YeJ'.'' . h allow ; and th e eyen plots rece1Yed t1r o furrows t o th e rOll' with a shovel a nd 16 inch scrape.
In all, th e sballo1r cultnre or odd numbered plots receiY ed six (() ) fu rrows less t ha n t he total tunows given to the deep culture plots. Kow for th e
Results.- Co mpare th e yi elds as set forth in column 11 and 12, a n l it will be see n t hat in e1ery insta nce, excepting in plot: 3, 5 a nfl 11 the yi eld of t he shallow culture plot ex ceeded th at. of th e f !lo wing: deep culture pl ot. Th e a verage yield of the shallow cult nre pl otF wa;; :2 ti.1 bushel of eorn per acre, while th at of th e deep c ulture p lot was :25. 1 bu hels, a difference in fa vor of th e shallow r u lture of one bush el per acre.
nmclu..,i<,ns.-Th e differen ce in yi eld in fa vor of . hallow culture i;: n ot grea t. only on e bushel, or 4 per ce nt., but it is decided. But th e ad van tage of th e sh allow culture becomes still more manifest " hen the <:ost of the e xtra labor involved in d eep culture i , con!:"icl ered. Six furrows to each of th e fiftv-two row s on one acre 'lo uld al!10Un t to 12..-l mil es of travel, Or more than two-thirds of a day's labor of ma n and hor. e, or not less than one dollar. H en ce, th e conCl usion i;;. that after th oroughly plowing th e land before planting land pos;-;ibly on e deep cultivation at first plowing-alth ough t hi:; is not m anifest), furth er deep cultivation is n ot only not ad vi;;a hl c or profitable, but invohes an aiMolute loss.

CRU,' H ED COTTO~ 'EED vs. COTTON l:lEED )[EAL AND HULL!.
E.rp eriment No. 8. Th e btl ief p n:1ails, to so me extent, am ong farm ers that the oil of co tton seed co ntains Yaluable fertilizin g properties ; and, th ere-
H

16

DEPART:.\IEKT OF AGHICULT RE-GEORGIA.

fore, the farm ers eannot afford to exchang their cotton ~eed for

cotton seed m ea l. Th e idea eem to be based on the fact t hat th e

oily nature of the k ernels of cotton seed is a prominent and com-

monly ob er ved characteristic, and thns, by a ,ociati on of ideas, tht

fertilizin g ,alue of cotton seed h as been thought to depen d on th

oil co ntain ed in them

.

It is manifestly th e duty of Experimental <::tation worke rs to

disabuse the minds of farm ers of er,o,-, as wall as to dit>cove r n e w

truth.~-to disp1"0ve a. well as to prove. In the effort to correct error

it may ometim es result in convincing the experim enter that tber

is more or less of truth in the supposed error.

The experim ent was undertaken with the sole purpo e to fin l

the truth. A piece of second years n e w ground wa elected. in c

p lots, of three rows each , four feet " id e and 209 feet long, were fer-

tilized and planted as indi cated in Table VII. Plot: 0 and 9 w re

u nfertilizcd. Plots 1, 3 5 and 7 were fertilizPd at the rate, pe1

acre, of-

.'uperph osp bate ....... .. .... .... ........ .......... ..... .... ... ... .. .... .. ::!86 pounds. :\'[uriate of potas h. .... ... .. ................... ... .... . ....... .. ... .... .. 37 pound . ' ru. hed cotton seed .......... . ................. ... .... ..... .. ... ..... 381 pounds.
70-l pounds.

Pl ots 2, 4, 6 a nd 8 \Yere fertilized at the rate, per acre of-
=-'uperph osphate .... ... ... ..... ............. .. ....... ..................... 28() pounds. :\luriate of pota h.. .. ....... ............. ...... .. ... ... ..... ......... .. 37 pounds.
'ottou seed men! ......... ...... ........... ..................... ....... .... 1-!3 pounds. Cotton seed hull .. ..... ................. .. .......... .. .................. 180 pounds.
G-!4 pouude.
Th e amount of the differ nt ing redient applied in th e tw o seri e:-:. of plots were substantially the same, except that the 60 pounds of oil that are found in 3 1 pounds of crush ed seed are left out in tlw econd seri es, u ing the correl::!ponding amounts of meal and bulls. in tead. The experim ent then amounts practically to a direct t e t of the value of cotton oil as a fertilizer. If the oil bas any fertilizing value, the Jirst serie of plots hould show a larger yield of corn than th e econd :eri e. .

4

1\IAY CROP REPORT- 1 92

ll

TABLE ~o. VII.

EXPERIMENT 8- CI"ushed Cotton Seed ts. Cotton Seed Meal cmcl H ttlls.
[Ee c. D, Dh'. B, 1891. ]

FORl\IU LA S.

a5

...,
0
Q

1.

!J

- - - - -,- - - - - - -

6
---

7
----

- -8 -

0

11. 5

17 .9

I

286

37

:~81

7.0

2!). 0

;?, 6

37

1 0

6 ..l

2 .1

.:..l.

:? 6 2 (i

37

:~81

:37

H3

180

3.

28. 0

5. 7

29.1

;;

:!8(i

:'1 7

38 1

5. 1

29.6

\

:! ti

:~ 7

1 0

fi, l

29 .4

:!86

::17

;~ I

7. 6

..

2 6

~l i'

143

180

10 .2

0 !...... ........ ......... ... _.._.._.._..___:_._.._.._.._.._.._..__:_._.._.._.._.._.._.._.! 19.2

::!0 .1 2\1 .1 13.8

AYerage of p lots 1, 3, 5, 7.... .... . ......... ........ ... .. .... ... ..

5.9

A H' rage of plot 2, .J., 6 and i ... ..... ......... . .... . .. . .. .. .. .. .

6.

Awral!e of unfer t ilized plots 0 a nrl ~).. .... ....... .. .. ... .. .... 15 .3

~).2
28.9 15 .8

Xow exam ine th e table, plot by I lot, a nd th en compa re th e a Yerage y i ld pe r acre of the plots on which the crushed seed were u eel, with th e average yield of th ose on which th e m eal a nd hull -the oi l left out- were u sed. It will be seen th at the plots m anured with ern . hed seed yielded a n av ra~e of 29.2 bu hels of corn pe r a re-a di1ference in fa yor of th e crusl1ed eed (conta ining all t he oil) of three-tenth. of a bush el. Of co urse this differen ce i.
insig nitic.'l.nt-no more t han mi ght have been reasonably expected h ad th e plots bee n m a nured ex actly alike. Even if admitted that th e in crea.-e of three-tenth s of a bush el of corn , = 20 cent in
Ya lu e, is to be cred ited t o t he m a nurial effect of th e oil, th e gain of 20 ents worth of corn is m ade at the cost of 60 po unds of oil ,
\\' Orth 1.75.

A T ALK FOR F ARMERS.
ThP Use of Fertiliza .

On t h e subj ect of fertiliz!:lrs it may be remarked tha t the profitable use of fertilizers depends largely on the cha racter and condit io n of th e soil. On a naturally thin soil, or on one that h as beea

2

~9

DEP1\ RTMENT OF AGRICl;LTl:RE- GEORGIA .

exhausted by a lon g co urse of cropping with out orre!<pun cling fe rt ili zing, a 8ntrtll application of a material containing o nl~ nne of th e three valuable elem ents (nitrogen , pho. ph ori c acid and potash )
will often yield a co nsiderabl e p ercentage of in crea e co mpared with th e yiel d of th e unaid ed soil. This i - alm ost inmri aulv th e case wh en oit,ogen a lon e is pre en t in th e fertilizer ; rJelle,.ally th e res ult wh en 1Jlw.~plwrir acirl alone i pr sen t b u mu ch lcs. often wh en potah alone is. uppli ed. Thi s is eq ui,alf' nt to sayin g t hat our worn soil , a well as tho e that a re naturalJ,. thin and unproductive, a re most defi cient in Hilmge'll, nex t in pl1 osph oric ac id and lastly , in potash . (Th e tatement is gcneml and wi th out referen e to particul ar crop which would furni sh ex ceptions to its appli ca-
tion.) lt follow s, logically, that if a farm er propo, e to mak e a light
<tpplication of so m e simple ingredient h e should ch oo~e so m ethin~ containin g aitmgen. F or thi . purpose n othin g is mor uitable anct gen erally co menient th a n rotton i!eed meal, especiall y for a winter g rowing crop, or for one that i, to occupy th e ground for :Heral
month s, a cotto n or corn . For qui ck groll'in g crop . uch as ver.' a rly vegetabl s, m elon s, etc., nitrate of , oda sh ould form a part of t he appli cation , because it is perfectly soluble a nd imm edi ately available.
But if a more libera l application i to be mad e th e fe rtilizer houlcl co ntaiu a fa ir proportion of t h e n ex t m ost important el ment-plwsphorit acicl. On so m e soil s, a nd parti cul a rly for so me crops-for instan ce, Irish or \r eet potato s, oats, barley, m elon:::. gmpe vines a n 1 fruit. trees-potash will be requir d , e \e n when
only light manurin!! is intended . But wb n a furth er advance i:s made, when it i intend ed to fertilize liberally it becom s illJportant to ,'Ccure th e be,t re ult.. that th e fert ilizer hall be wh at i.. call ed a' ' compl te ' one, i. e., that 1:1 sholl rootain aU th 'w' of the H l{w tble elrment.~. Th e reason for this i.. ob Yi OU" on a littl e reflection.
T o illustrate : Th e ch emi cal com1 osition of any given crop produ ct is ulJ ta n -
t ia lly the same nuder all ordinary co ndit.ion . A bu b el of co rn or wh eat or oat., or 100 pounds of seed cotton or a ton of hay (of a ny parti cula r grass) , always contain s practi cn.ll_,. th e sam e am ounts of nitrogen , pho..phoric acid a nd potash besid es se ,eral oth er in -
gredi ent . For exa mple, ta ke corn :

1 0

~~~abn~~ hc~1n~afi ~1~~.1.1.~~1.. ~.~

r~:.~~~1~. .d. '~.~~ .t.L..~.

~.~.0..~.1.~

{

PN~ohittoraopg11he

n ori
.

. c a


. cid
.

1.'' po , 0.!i2 1..

und ::

s

~ ow , su1 pose an acre of :my given soil con tain: in available form:

Enough nitrogen to produce .... .. ...... .............20 bu shel;;: of corn , or 26 po umls Enough phosphoric acid to prod uce ............ 30 bushels of corn , or 18.6 pounds, Enough potash to prod uce ...... ...... ...... ......... 50 bushels of ~.:orn , or 77 pounds,
50

:\IAY CROP REPORT- 1 !)2,

l::l

under the most favorabl e circumstances, without the addition of any fertilizer. Such a soil would produce just 20 bu h els of corn because it contain only enough nitrogen to compo e 20 bushels. It would be a wa te to apply-merely as plant food-any phosphoric acid or pota h to. uch a soil unlc~ nitrogen be al o added. ow
suppose we add enough nitrogen to bring the yield up to 30 bushels. It i manifest that thi will beth limit of the in crease that rna) be secured by adding nitrogen alone, becau e th e soil co~ tain s only enough pho phoric arid to compo, e the stalk s and g rain fora yield of
30 bushels. We will now add enough nitrogen to increa e the yield 30 bushel , and enough 1 hosphori r acid to increase the yield 20
bushels. Th e result will be a yield of 50 bushel . Beyond thi . ''"e c::tnnot increase th e y ield by adding still more nitrogen and phosphoric acid, becau e th -=;oil co ntain s only enough potash to compose th e talks and grain involved in a yield uf 50 bushel: . lf we push the yield -=;till furth er there mu t be still more nitrogen and
phosphoric acid and an addition of pota h. A already intimakd , these are only ge neral propositions, hut
the) sen e to illustrate a principle. It i not po. ibl e to find out accurately th e amount of nitrogen or phosphoric acid or potash po1rer to produce corn that may be lying hidd en in a. oil. It may
be approximately a certain ed by careful a nl repen.ted experim ents, which any intelligent farm er m~y perform for him elf and on his
own soil, just a. i being done at all the Experiment Stations in the ou ntry. It wa. the pecial object of Experiment 1 a nd :2, reported in this bulletin .

LIGHT :\IA DRING vs. HEA\ Y :'IIANt;RIN G.
A ~ mall amo unt of suitable fertilizer ap plied to a soil will yield a larger percentage of profit on the co.t than a larger ap1li ation. This is a matter of com mon experience without inquiry a. t o the r ason, whi ch i. to be found in the fact, (1) that a small dose i ~ less apt to be badly balanced , i. e., le s likely to co ntain a wasteful ext;e of either one of the valuable element ; and (2) because a larger proportion of the plant food contained in the small er do~e will be appropriated by the crop than of a larger dose.
A farm er may po1' ibly secure an increased yield of a given crop. amounting in value to twice the cost of the small amount of fertil, izer applied-a profit on the investment of 100 per ce nt. If h e double the amount 0f fertilizer applied, the profit may not be more than 75 per cent. on th e cot; if he quadruples the amou nt th e profit may not be more than 50 per cent. ; and lastly, if he u ses ten tintes as much per acre, the profit may fall to 20 per cent. Now which is the best investment? Suppose he plants 100 acr s on whi h be applies two dollars' worth of fertilizer per acre, and gets an increased yield of four dollars per acre. Thi would amount to
51

:20

DEPARTJ\1E "T OF AGRICULTl:RE-GEORGIA.

100 per cent. profit on an im:eslment of $200. But e ven ai this rate h e may lo a lnsing lnt.~inesil, because the S200 mav not be enouah to overco"me th e loss on the imestment in land , tool taxes labor and
oth r expenses, whi ch re.mn.in s practically th e arue as if h e had used no fertilizer. But suppose h e quadruples the inve tment in fertili zer , by a pplying eight dollar.' worth per acre, or$ 00 in all.
uppose h e harvest an increased crop of Sl,200, accord ing to the liberal descending rule as umecl abo\e. This would he a profit of $400 or 50 per cent . on an investm ent of 00, a gain of $200 compared with the results of the first sch eme. I s it not clear that th e largest investment, with a small per ce nt. profit, is the wi sest ?
Th e :am e prin ciple holds good wh ether com m ercial fertilizers, or
stab le manures, or pea vines be employ ed as the fertilizing element -for each of these i in th e nature of an inlle.'ltment, each co ting mon y or its f'qgira{f',lt in labo1. The prin ciple is founded on th e fact, that a naturally f edi{e .~oil i the best 1 aying element in a farm er' whole imestm ent ; and the n ext best is the fertilizers th at a re added to a soil to make it rich er and more productive, and thi s for t h impl e rea:o n that th e fertilizers, wh en paid for ( if bought) . Qr made at home and applied to the oi l, becomes at once a part of the soil a.nd entails no furth er expense ex cepting the labor of harvesting and marketing th e in creased crop. Th e yield i in creaf'ed b y increasing alone th e in vestm ent that is mol't profitable. The
u ual pl:\n reso rted to for th e purpose of i norea ing a crop yield is to enlarge th e area, whieh increMes the ime tment in land , and involYe an increase in the number of work a nimal s and laborers, which mu t be hou eel, clot.hed and fed , an increase in th e number
of t ool whi ch wear out, etc. There is another way in which the farm er may change the relation
between his paying inv estm ents and hi s cxpensiYe investm ents, without involving a n increased outlay of fertilizers viz. by reduc-
ing the area in cultivation and concentrating th e fertilizer on th e smaller area. H e then can redu ce the number of his mules, laborers. toolr ;~.nd everything else, whose numb r or quantity bears a con-stant proportion to area culiivated.
Th ese principles form the basis of high fcrnniog or l:llten8ive fa nniHg, so much talked a.nd written about. They are simple-alm o. t selfevident-and of univ ersal application. In their general adoption we must. depend for uccess in farming. In their appli cation to all
departments o! agriculture we may hope for diversified and <Yen .e ra! prosperity.

52

l\IA \" CHOP HEPOHT- 1 H:?.
[FRO)! llt;LI. ET!~ l\0. ] Q, l'EBRU .IHY , 1892.)
GE~ERAL FERTILIZER EXPERIMENT OK OOTTOX.
Experi'llwnt 14.
[The co nclu ions only are here giv en. See Bulletin 1-i.J
Conclusio ,i.~.
(1) That phospho'lic wid i th e most effecti ,.e in increasin g the yield of cotton on th is soil.
(2 That pota.sh was not required except wh en liberal amount!:' of phospbori.cacid and nitrogen " ere used, wlwn one close of pota h was moderately effectiv e. The behavior of potash muriate) is un certain and even Cl'J"atic, as shown by th e a.l;>scnce of uniform results wh ere thi element '' as used in increasin g quanti ti e~ . It is not certain that on th e whole potash in creased th e yield of cotton .
(3) l\il1ogen is very effective wh en in m edium quantities, two doses, in combination with three dose. of I hosph ori c acid. A larger proportion of nitroo-en appear to be injurious.
(4) Cottonseed meal a a source of nitrogen is equally cff'c<:tiYe 1Yith nitrat e of soda in th e sam e combination s a;; plant food for cotton.
(5) the most effective combinati on of th e three elements as a fertilizer for cotton on the soil co,ered by this experim ent i :
( do es of superpho phate, 46- pounds co ntaini no- 66 1 ou nd 1 pho-phoric acid. i 2 do. es muriate of potash , 7 pound. co ntainin g 39 pounds of a "l potash,
I 2 dose nitrate of soda, 65 pounds, containing 1'20 pouncl;; of ni-
l troo-en .
PHA TICAL APPLTCATIOX.
This and other experim ents reported in thi bulletin sec Experim ent 22) prove that otton may be profitably produ ced , e ven at the
present low prices (ot cent. per pound), by the judi ciom: and liberal
u e of fertilizers on land that i: in proper condition. In thi c: experiment the cost of the in creased yield of cotton clue to th e money
paid for the fertili zers varied from -! mill.~ to 10 4-10 mills per
pound of. eed cotton, or from 2-! to 3~ cent per pound of lint. Ko aocount was taken of the small labor of hauling- and di stributin g the fertilizers nor of the expen e of harve. tino- the increased :vield. Th ese may be ea -ily estimated , or they m<ty be eli Tegarcled entirely on the afe a sumpti on that the unu eel residuum of fertilizers on the oil (ayailable for a ucceedin g crop) would more than compensate th e outlay for labor.
In a practical way the entire cost of the cro1 , including interest on land, taxes labor picking and g innin g must be charge l against
53

:?:J

DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC 'LTURE-G-EORGIA.

t he value of the 1,300 pounds of eed cotton per acre, which would h ave bee n th e produ ct if no fe rtili;~,er had bee n used.
But this feature will be eli cussed in the "pmcti cal applicatie!> n" a t the clo e of Experim ent 22, whi ch was on a n adjoining ection ofland under id entical co nditi ons as to :;oil.

EXPERHH;N'l' .'\0. 1 e -A.-IXTEH CU L'fURAL APPLICATION OF Nl'l'R O( EX .
Thi expe rim ent i on the general lin e as th e precedin g t" No.1 6), but th intercultural a pplication were limited to nitrogen, only, in th e form s of cotto11 ~;eed meal w ul nitrate of 'Oda.
Th e land co,ered by this experim ent i the west half of the sam e se ti on, of which th e east half wa occupi ed by Experim ent 16 immediately preceding, a nd of th e same uen eral quality.
Th e land was laid off into 49 rows, four feet wid e, and each ro\r () f evPry se ven su cce. i, row was differently fertilized. Rows 1,
, 15 2:2, 29, 136 and 43 wer> fertili;~,e d with th e normal ration of the three elem ents, usin g cotton eed meal as th e source of nitroge n a nd all appli ed before planting. Th e e con"'titute plot 1 in th e tabl e.
The succe si ,. adj ace nt rows :2, 9 1o, et c., were fertilized in the
sa me way, using nitmle of" .,ode~ as th e source of nitrogen. Th e third series, rows 3, 10, 17, :2-!, etc., received th e nitroge n in the form of cotton .,eed meal in tw o application s-before planting and .June 1st. Th e fourth ..eric,;, grouped to~c th e r as plot 4, rece iY ed th e nitroge n in th e form of Hitm te of .,odn m two appli cation -before planting and .June 1. t . In th e ti fth . eries th e colton 8eed meal wa di vid ecl in to three appli cation s, and in th e sixth series th nit,ate l)f oclct wa. divided into three appli cati ons-before planting, Jun e 1 t and .July l.t.

)[ AY CROP RE PORT-I. !l:?.

~:;

TABLE Xo. V.

E.\PEEl.llB.YT X o. 16- A. I ntercultur-al .Appl'i ations oj ~u,ogen.

[ W. Ha lf, Sec. 5, Div. B , lr!ti.J

~

I Fertilizer".

H eld pet Acl"e Pound~ oj Seed

<ll

Cotton .

I ,-c- ~

r-

c;;
? c~.. o:

3
,-.

0 8 8 r ;;=-

H ow th e Fertilizers ....: =
were Applied. .fr:
:nc

...; ~= ...; .!> .. o

-~ ~
~::3

~ i
_

9-' . -<:-3:

, -~,...~.;
oc-

I - I ~
= "'

ti.
.5:!::

iO.i

e :..!'a:- .-s:~ ~- '

..8 8. ;; ~ ~ ~

=;. " :: \.,_ 0 p .'0-' :_'~ .~:..:.;...E.

. ::;_,
._. Q) ~
3 0 :J.
3~ - ~ -"~t ~--. ~-_~

' ~'":>
I
l 0o Cl5
~.-..-.~."., ~.

Total Cost of F er

tilizers per A.cre

'

$:1 .50 .


I

~ u

- l)
-';3V.

~ .

:: ~-<

~
;w~

--~-1._c~~..

~~-"e

~0 wQ.) ~

"0 00~

c ?o j

oo-

~ ~

~ 9 ..!.( a_a:J::<5 .S! .n p~...,::?
~... o~~ ~o

.2 --:: ,I-,..._.. =~-
~ C
o t:::

:a;.;.

~
:::-
00

:~~:::: ..5~.'

c;:: '"""';

55~ ~0~

$ -~ ~ C)

2: .;:; c- :...- ~..... 1

:J~2 :~:J 0~ ~~ =--~----=1 ~ - ~ . ~~ ~. :

..

w

/

J. l~ ~ :;{ 14:1 1 :~ All before plant~ng 2~~ ~-4 ~~~ II-!~ 36 ~-~~

2 loti o.) . .. . .. Uo.A ll befo repla ntm g 11>1 o-+6 .{/,) llL 3::196 . 8

,1. 3

S (

J.l:3
......

:{7 ......

~~ ..... Beiore p lanting ..... .:. .... .. Jun e 1 t ... ... .... \

171

5 19

:]WIil006 :.>:~3 LUG

<~ {

1."1\
""i 4:3

:3179 .......~..7.

1
...

:)~Befo
~: ~ B~~

re
~~ee

}p;ll~at~n.ttiin~g~...:.:.:.l

l
)}

:?4.i

599

3-!3 ll u -Ju,s. :_;z
I

} G

{

l

.... .. , ... .. .
"l,~fi ...i9

-+8
. .. ~.~

... ...
~i

.Jun e 1st ... .. ... .. ..
!B~~~-~ ~~~~~ti~g.::::

:201 49-! :}:3-! 1029 - vU ) . . ~ "'"'' ' \" 1')

6 7

{

, .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. 2:?' Jun e 1st.. .. . ... ..

.
..

..
..

....1....

..
..

... .....
. .1. . ...

:2:2
.....

.Tu~ y l:~
Not terhlrzerl .. ... ....

183 530 3611 0/-+ :)01 1!).02
I J
!Jli -!1 8 :259 7/:1 ........... .

Note.<0 11 H.tperinlenl 16-A..-(1) Co mpare th e y ield of plot 1 m whi ch ,-ollol seed 111eal supplie. th e nitrogen, \\ith that of plot 2, wher tilmle of .-;adrt i ub. tituted-all havi ng bee n appli ed before planting. Th e rotton seed meal produ ces 29 pound. more co tton pe r acre.
(2) Co m par pl t 3, o1to,1 seed nual in t wo do es, wi th plot 1, and al o 1\"ith plot 2, in whi h lilmle of -~ocla i. employed in two doses. wi th NJ/lon 'I'Nl mml in two doses th e yield i 133 pound::; les than wh en all wa: apr lied at one tim e. On t he ontra ry, nilmte of sodtl in t wo a1 p li e<tt ions giYes yi ld s of 77 pound m ore than 11hcn ap pli d at one tim e, and 1 3 p ound m ore than IY h re r-ol/on "'ted mertl wa . applied in t wo do. e .
(3) Collon -' Peel mrrtl in three ar plicatio ns gi 1cs a n in crcas of 28 pou nd ~ o1e r th e ield in t wo a1 plication s ; but thi s may be a ttrib uted to so me acc idental and undi CO I'ered cau c.
(4) .1". \ itra te of "'oda in three application:, one a late as July 1st, giYe l lb pound les than in two appli cat ion.:, and45 pounds m ore than ,otto'' 8eed owtl in thr 'e applications.
'unuarvv .-1. u ccssive or intercultura l application . of 11it.-ortf' ll in
.j;j

::?4

D~PAR'l'M.ENT OF AGRiGCLTURE - GEORGIA.

th e form of cotton seed ntenl are not profitable. It is more eftectiY when all is applied at or bc1ore planting than wh en applied in two dose , and less effective in three than in tw o.
2. itrogen in the form of nitmte of .soda m ay be p rofitabl_,. d ivided into not more than ttvo application th e second not to be later probably, .than Jun e 1st. It does not appear wh at would ha \ > beeH
th e re ult if one-half th e nitrate h ad been a1 plied Jul y 1 t in;;tead of
Jun e 1st. The average increased yield of all th e fertiliz er plot. \ra 319
pounds the fertilizers cost $3.50 ; cot of th e in creased yi eld, 1.1 cents per pound . Th e be t plot, X o. 4, ga,-e a n in c rea~e of 41 6 po und~ , at a cost of $3.50, or mill. a nd 4 tenth per pound of seed cotton. Th e poorest plot, No. 3, gav e an in -rease of233 po und at th e sam e co t, 83.50, or on e and a half cents per pound f ~eed co t t o n .

TOPP!~ G OF CO'JYION.
E.cp aimenl iYo. 17.
One acre of ':e o nd year" fresh land was ,elected and divided into 52 rows, all fertilized , planted and cultivated identically. Every fifth row , comm encing with the first and ending with th e fi ftyfirst (addin g the odd 52cl row), was left " untopped. ' On Ju ly bt, July ~5th and August 15th , each , ten rows \rere '' topp d "" ?i! indi cated m Table VI. , each row topped at any one of the elates being ser,arated five 1'otc.s from th e neare trow topped at th e am e cbte.

5H

:\IAY CROP REPORT- 1892.
TABLE Ko. VI. EXPERIME iVT N'o. 17. Topping Cotton.
s, [ ~>ect. Di\. B, 1an .J

FERTILIZERS APPLIED PER Yield p er Acre in Pounds of Sred Cotton.

ACRE.

. nperpbosphate ........15tl pounds. 1. 1 unate potastl.. . ...... .39 poum1s. Xi trate of soda ... -.:_!5 pounds.

I g :~~n._..0o.,

l0"~0tt;_:~.9;J

,cit.i.''.:-gQ.,'

o-.;r.Fl-6-~o ~. z>_'-_i",-.' ci

~ ~ a:_!_

..ct.i;

I=; -~r~ . ~ 'g . -~ ~ . ~ ~ t -~\fj

9(jQ
-

1:: ~ ~ ;:.) J! ~ ~ .~ ~ .~ < ~ .. ; ::..
-~ -. ~ ~ ;. 0 <J-. 3 c... 5!i ~ ,..== ~ 3 -~ :::

-1_- Cost ....... .. ............ $ "o .- 0

= _,_ -= ~...,~=~r,_-::~< =~<,_ ..,..,.==_c~. -_= :::t. ~-=

sc - - - - -- -- - - - - ~:r.-5. ~~~ g_. ~ ~--~ ~~'i.8 2 ~~.2

==- :o{pp:~ :~1 \ ~~ "~ ~~ i~, "\\"hen

6,

4

G 6

Kottopped-12rows 21, ~~. :~1, :!1;, lOti
~.~.~.~-

Topped Jly.1-

l0 "

{

-? :;?,,

'> -

7- ,
f,

1
V-~

2,
-) ,

1.J, 7-I,,

}

-!

4:.. , 47.

:;:11 3D I
""-!".-.' ! :)!)!)

:301 , 1 , H-):1
i
I
:z o 1 :?0 Ut-+

{ :-:, 8, 1:3, 18,} ToppedJly.l5-10 " 2:-~, 2 , 3:.J ::J ,
-!3, 4 . .

86 .fOG 4(j/

I -)-)0J 1:3o ]:312

ToppedAug.l-

10"

{

2--1!,,

!J. 2H,

:HH,

:l;!!ll,,}

-!-+,-!fl .

> I

')"')

'" I 296 HI>

Top1c1 Au0,'..lo- -

. 10 ,,

{

?- 5D- ,,

,1_~0,o,,

1..>.,5-'.l,,

20,} 40 ,

71

45, .jO.

~ 1 6 1 '!. I 152
I

Note on E.1perirneot 17.-The row topped Ju]_,. 1-3th m:tde th e smallest yield. Those topped .) uly 1 t come next in order. Tho,;e topped July 1st mad e 2 pou;~cl more.. Tho e t opped Au gu t 15th give still more. Th e untopped con 1e next. And last!_,. , th ro w topped August 1-5th gave largest yield , and th e only ~ e ri es of topped rows whose yield exceeded the untopped . Toppin g July ht. Ju]_,. 15th and August 1st proY c1 hurtful.
Concltt.<ion-'<.
(1) It i again pr~, c d (aP. last year) that ''topping' ' cottor pro duces a material effect on the yield . Both la. t year a nd thi topping from July 1st to .July 1-5th injured the yi eld most. Last year th e rows tWt topped gave the large t yield; this year those topped August 15th gaYe the largest.
57

26

DEPART:'IU:XT OF AGRICULTURE - GEORGIA.

(2) T or pin g cotton is a hazardou s experim ent- yery uncertain. The probahle effect can not be foreseen with suffici nt certainty. It
i. probable that ma nr fa rm er. have topped th eir cotton and beli e ved the effect was b nefi cial "ben in fact careful competitive ex-
perim ent would ha Ye proven th e contrary. It is sugg sted t hat th e conditions und er whi ch topping would b
mo t lik e l~ to pro, e be nefi c ial are w ben the co ton plants will prol abl.' b large-fo ur or fhe feet hi cr h- and have goocl eli-sta nce. If {;rowded in the r ow, topping tends to cro wd th e foliage till more
b_v causincr th e branehc. to grow longer.

DE.EP rs. SHALLOW CULT RE OF COTTOX.
Experiment ~Yo . 1 .
La::;t .'ear thi : e xperim ent res ulted ,ery fav orably to the shallow cultu r th eory. This year, less so, and yet de isiv ly, con idering t he e.dm rns( nf dPep rtdtwe. In oth er words, ~o fa r a thi s experim en~ ::;, it pl'O\e that deep t ultur is n ot lJene fi cial.
'L\.BLE X o \Tf.
E X P ERIJIE .YT .Yo. l , . Deep rs. Slw llow ullU?e of Cotton. Ll

Y ielcl P er Acre i n Ponnd~ of , ed Cotto'!.

~ . F ERTILIZER PER ACRE .

~ ~ __
;z:- ~
~-;:::: -,.~..-
..::.

f::u perph os pba te. l5(ipo uuds.

~I u
,_,-1. t

r.
ra

of t

oP1o~t.ao.c1ba ....

:l.)i<H-J

ppoouunndd

. s.

:!60

:iL:gg

~i :gg

~ g
_Z':::

O~ :~f z>:::>g

= 1 = . -_ .: ] . _o
::D_

~

a) .o

~ .

eiP ~:::"~" .:::: w

~ .

w, -;.00 :::."'"~0 ~ w

~

.. - 5
.~:t!:J.aoi .."~.,.

ev.oo

,.,:::: ;! P. ~ rJ.l

~

-~ l~_)

co...t .. .......

.... ...c,.;.:._,

-o
.1

2....; <: ..::: <: . ~- -
~ _

0 :...

;l.;
-co:

~u5-<0:...

:~..:.-::c:ti
~

0
;...;

- . - ,...
~ 2ce ~

~- ~
..c;:::::

c:;
:...

=- - :C ~ -
"~ -

-

- - - -- - - - - - - - ~ --~

I-Io w u Itn atecl .

::::.,

wi9 "-''"" ~-

.E..:-::1: :"o""' '-~

::;~;C...o F.o-. .....

...::a ... ~ R:::,. -

-- - - - -- - --- - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - -

1

2

:c

.;l



6

7 1 1!1

=-. - -;:;- 26 ~ ~hallo\1 -.-.===-.-:~
112 2 Dee p ....... .. ................ . ............. .. 1 :!2

:!~:1
11:1

42!1 ~~0

:lRI :~n-l

1

::lOl

1369 0

:c ~ball o 11'....... .. .. .. .. .............. .. ... . li'

16ii .J::, : 7:: : ~06 12~1!)

.J Deep .. ........... ..... ..... .. ......... .. .. ... , 11 ;; .'hall o w .... .: .. ........................... , 17

I I H7 ~1 6 .JO/ :~iil 1 13:)
l:tl -!20 ::\09 420 137/

6 Deep...... ........ ................... .. .. ... . J:i

!IL ::l:!J .JU 5:!0 Hl:-1

.\~l:~~~,;~~- c~it~;.~P'i~t.~.-....:::::: 1 :21 Dee p ult.u re Pl ots.. ... ........ . 11

I
16/ ~:2\) 1
1;:7 il (i

:-1:17 134
::m 1::H

:JIAY CROP REPORT-1 92.

'27

EFFECT OF D1FFERENT DrSTANCES-COTTOX.
E.,pe,-iment ro. 22.
One ac re of lancl w ~L::; elected , adjoin ing th e two acres on whi h Ex:p riment Ko. 1-l: wa project d (whi ch Eee) . The land was in oats, well fertilizl'd in 1 ' 9- 90, follow rl by speckled peas so wn 1 road a t and fertiliz l with 200 pounds superph osphate p er acre, th e vin es nutde into hlL)' (one to one and a ha lf ton per acre), a nd th p a. t ubble a nd ,-olunteer oat turn ed und er J a nuary 5, \\ith tw o-hor. e turnplow runnin o- about 4~ deep. It was immediat<Jl_,. harrowed with cutaway harro\\. Apri l1 0 and lllaid off into 5:2 row ', - feet "id e, u, in <r a -scooter plow, and th o following fert ili zers w re di tributed in t ho furrow . :
PER A CHE.
upeq , hosphate ... .. .. .............. ...... ................... ....... .... ...... ......... 312 l' o uud~. :Jiuriate ot pota. l.J ........... .. .... .... ....... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ..... . ............. 78 pounds. Xitrate of soda .... .. ........................... .. ....... .. ...... .. .... ....... .........130 pounds.
'l'ota l. ..... .... ..... ....... ........... ......... .. ....... .................... -'20 pounds. Cost ........... ....... .. ....... ........... ............ ..................... ......... .. .... ... ...,6.99.
T.l: f >rtilizer wore mixed with th e soil by running a square point coote r in th e open fuuow one t im e. A flat bed was made o , r th e fertilizer furrow throwino- t\\o futTO\r S with a scooter and fini ' hing wi t h a tUL~n p lo w.
Th o bed.: were harrowed off April 15 with smoothing harrow a nd
then a. board ; April :2:2 p la nted with seed of Truitt s improved cot-
ton , usin g a. Do\\ Law Planter. Th e weath er was dry and oth er" is unf:no rble for crettin o- a good stand promptly. May 21 harrow d th paces bet wee n th e rows, o-o in g on o to th e ro\v .
.June 1 ultiYa tecl with Planet Jr., cultiva tor, two furrow . . June 4 cb pped ou t with hand hoes, a follow. :
Fir t four row ... ..... ........ ...... ... .......... ....... .............. . ......... .... .. ...... 1 foot. ._eco nd four ro11: .. .... .... .. .. . .. ... ..... .... ...... ......... ................. ..... .. ........ 2 fe et. Third fou r ro11s.. .... ..... ............................. ...... ............. .. ....... .......... .::. feet. Fourth iou r ro w...... .. .... ......... ... ................ ..... .... .. .... ........ .. ...... .... .. 4 feet.
and .~o on, repeating tho e ries three time , making 4 rows, a nd chopping the remaining -! rows to -xl.
.T une 15 harrowed on tim e to each row. June 1 , culti,at cl with Pla net, .Jr., twi ce to ac h row. Jun e 15, put to fin a l ~tand of one "tn lk in a p lace a:- chopped. .July 1. gave two furrow with Plan t . .Jr.. my shallou, u ing mall wee ps. July 13, once to th e row with \ sha ped harrow. Augu st -!, once to each row with Pla net, .Jr. , culti Yato r.
A <rood -tancl was not sec ured until n ca r the la t of 1\Iay, on account of dry weath er from plantino- tim e until :\'lay 21.
Tabl IX. gi,-e - th e re ult . ol nmn :2 gi ,e::: t he di stance bet wee n the plants that was in-
t end cl, a nd imm ediately beneath th e number of stalk required for a p rfectstand at the di stan ce gi yen. 'olumn 3 giyes the num-
50

09

.
,.....-_

..
~

~
,.--"-..

I IXo. of Feries, Each E::eries Co ntaining F our P lots of
,._,____ I I "" I ""' I Four Rows .Each, -! feet wide.

I I

l,:...l...
..__1x
r,;:. .J,...
--

-~ t.
o~~

_:.n ....... ...A...-.:,,...::.
'"'

Distan ce Between Plants and

o.._l I 'C:,:,:;. x_

~~

I 0

Number of Plants R equired for P erfect Stand pe r Ar re.

'---o.o-'

r ,;.

_.::.,.

E

.._-..:..~

0:, 1

~
~

lv ~

~umuer 1.\(tual

of Plants

l\Jaintained per Acre .

IFirst P icldng, i:;eplem-

r:..:,.,

'"'r.;.

c.:..J

~

b r 8, 1bs. Seecl Cotto n per Ac re.

1

.r.,_;.
~)

~
'+"-'

..t... 0

ISecon<l Picking, ~ep- ~ ~

0>

~

tember :?:!, lbs. Seed ~

I Cotton p11r Acre.

R.

---------------1 ~

..t...
'f.
:..

:.. %-:..

'?? :::_j

g
::::

I ~

Th1i,rd1uPsi.ckSeine~i

Octobe r Cotton

per .Acre. 1

~
s ~
"<.
Go

I Fou rth Pickin g, Oeto-1 ~

......!__...

::!:::

t.....

....:_.:. ~
L,;.

be1 lli, lbs. ~eed Cot ' \{'

ton per :\ ere.

~

1

' I Pickin~ '"' 1 6

.....
:..

7S

F ifth

N o Ye m

oo ber +, I bs. ~eed Cot

I "" '"' ~ixth j

.:..



-------

~-----------~--1~

ton p er r\ cre.

Picking, Decem-

i
;:;
~
~ ~

~

co

.._

_, ~ ber :!, lbs. 1:ieed Cot- ~

0

0

::::

ton per Acre.

"'

1 1

-'
0s0:

.00'."_'.

r.;.
.01..,;,.

.- I 0 J

Total Yield , lbs.

I : I ~

l:;eecl Cotton ]Jer Acre.

.._

~
";; ~
~

~

~

-- ~
:~

....,

t;:j

;:~:;;

rt=::

~r !7,

~
1:!.

~
......

b ~

s._

s2 :
!}.
,.,
;:;

<"';.
"(3-'
?"

~ ~ Ij,.. I ! ------------------

g?

? ~

o 2;

!.::'

00

Average Yield per Stalk in

1 lbs. Seed Cotton .

!2

-.1

en

.:.H

c

~

1

>

1 (7:.

:;:.

c
l~

I." II ~ I
g;

I P ercentage oi a " Perfect"

Stand Maintained.

~

'S9.\l9S U19l('l up~ [dXa .; U LU\1[0) 1J U~ll!'IH1I<l.T 9 l(J, pmqs 'l09J.!a d , 1:: JO a1JU'lll<>:>.Tad ;l l('l SA\ Ol(S (';1 UlU l1[00 pau ;tqu;m:a a.Ia.\1 'l'lll{'l S'lUU[d JO ('l Ul10:> l 'll ll'l;)U) .ra q

vmum[>--.:ran.r:L1.::mmv .w J,Nmu.uvdaa

86

l\1A Y CROP REPORT-1 89~.

Nous 0 1l E.rperimeat 22. (1) Th e 4x 1 p lots gi Ye greatly the largest

,ield :tt the first pickin g,, 'epte mber , , a nd co nsiderably the large>' t

at the second p icb ng, Sep te m h er 2:2. At the third pickin g, Octo-

1 er l. th -!x:2 p lots y ield th e greate t amo unt, follow ed in order by

-!x1, 4x:) :tnd -!x4 plot~ . At th e fourt h picking , October 16, th e 4x 3

plotf' are in the lead . followed in order by 4x2 a nd4x4 ( tied) :tnd

-l::d. At th e fifth pickin g, November 4 th e ord er of second pi kin g

is e x :~ctly re n~ r eel the -!x-! plots leadi ng in yie ld, followed by th e

oth er plot in th e order of decreasing di..:tances. At the ixth p ick-

in" th -!x3 plot. a re in t h e lead followed b~' 4x-!, 4x2 a nd 4xl.

( l ) In the Iota{ yielrl the -!x:2 !.Jlot tand high est, followed closel_,.

by tb -!x3 a nd -!xl. Th contest was close and intere11ting from

l)eginning to end.

( 3 ) The y ield w a large con id cring t he small amount of fertili-

zer.' and t h rather unfa vorable co nditio m for the be t results. If

th e cotton had been planted earlier , or had the weath er been more

fa ,n rahl c to cc uring a n earli e r tand, the r sult mi gh t have bee n

<tnit differe nt. Seri s 1 (4x1 ) a nd se ries 2 (4x2) would not prob-

ably hn, ,e yielded much , if a n y more, but series 3 (4x3) and e ri e.

.J- (-1-x-l) would co rt::tinl.' h ::we give n much greater results.

C'rm.du.siO ,I-".- (1) Th at on la nd capab le of makin g between one

<tn d one and a ha lf ba le~ of cott on per acre th e plants sh ould not be

t lO:-\ ' r than .tx2 feet, nor wid er p robably t h a n 4x3 feet.

(:2 ) Th at th e greater the di stan ce giv en, th e mortl importa nt it

is t n SC'cnre an mdy 8/a ,ul, t hin out earl y a nd giv e rapid culti,a-

ti on.



(:)) 'lose phmting giY es a large r y ield in the ea rly fall or at

the fi r:'t an l . eco ncl pi ckin gs. (Th e -!x1 eries in thi experim e nt

\ra:o l o1 po und ahead of the 4x2 erie at the close of the fourth

pi king. Octobe r 10.) This is because each p lant, when p lanted

ln~e. will n1:1ke n a rly if not q uite as many blooms i n the fir:t

fe,, w ek..: of, bloon1 in o- as each p la nt in widely planted row . Be-

tw oc n t he dat > of th e first and eco nd picking~, a period of tw eh e

cby ~ on pound o f cotton was y ield ed by every 15 p lants of the

<:lxl ;;erie:;; \\hile in the .J-x2 se ri es 12 pl a nt were req uired to y ield

one pou nd. \\'h e n it i.. considered that th ere were only .5 005

pbn ts to t h e acre in t h e 4x2 . e ri e against 9,250 plant in th e 4xl

!:'erie~, the xplan ation of the greater yield of th e 4x l !:ie ries at the

.seco nd picking i plain. At th e fifth picking, Xovembe r 4, 43

plants i n the -lx1 eri es yie lded one p ound , while in th e -!x2 !:iCries

1 :~ plant:; only yielded on e po un d.

Practical Appl'ircaion.
lt ha.- been n oted in experim en t 14 (o n adj oining land of simiJar quality and co ndition) that th e largest y ield resulted from the u se of 4ClH pound s of sup el'pho.plzate, 78 pounds of ?1H~1iate. of' pota.sh 'l.nd 130 pound of nitmle of soda, costin g $8 . 2~, the yield reaching 2,261 po und of seed cotton . In the same experim ent, where 312 po un d of superphosphate were u sed (th e other ingred ients re-

Gl

30

DEPARTME:'\' OF AGRIC L'l'l:RE-GEORGIA .

maining the ~a m e), the yield was 1,790 pounds or le s b.' -l71
pounds. I it not fair t o conclud e that if in experim ent :2:2 t he phnts
h ad been spaced 3x:2 and ."upaphosplwte in creased to 46 pound
instead of 3 12 pounds, the yield would h aYe ri sen to 2.027 plvs 471 pounds eq ual to 2,498 pounds? It would see m a rea onable dcduction. If so, then it follow s that th ere was a los of -!71 pounds of cotton , worth say 59.42, as a result of a failure ' to :pace the plant correctly and properly balanrc the ingredient of the fertili ,
z r, which would have co. t onl y 1.22 more. In oth er words th ere has been ~1.22 8avecl in th fertilizer and 9.-!2 {o.<t i n th , value of the cotton ! As it was the in creased yield of otton, a,:-
suming that if unfertilized th e la nd would h a ,e yielded 1,'!00
pounds (or 100 pounds more than the adjoining unfertilized plot,of Experiment 14) was 552 pounds, at a co t for fertili;r,ers of S6.H9
or $1.26 per hundred poundr:; of seed cotton , or about 3!(; ce nt. per pound of lint. Had it been differently fertiliz cl and . pa ced , a,: just suggested , the i ncrea.ce might reasonab l~ ha ,.e been 1,0\JX pounds at a co t of SR 2:l, or 70 ce nts per hundred po unds f seed co tton ~ or about 2t cents per pound of lint.
It should be said by way of caution that the results obtained a nd the much higher rG. ults suggested sh ould not lead farm er to adopt the practi ce of indiscriminate high 11wnwing ou soil - that h ave been exhau sted or greatly run down by long continu ed cropp in g in cotton and co rn with out t he interventi on of a rPstonO[f rop or th e liberal u. e of ..tabl e manure. It is l1 Uitc certain t hat the y ields reported in the res ult of experim ent. 14 an d 22 were on ly made possibl e by th e previou growth of oat a nd fi eld pea . In
1 9 the land was capable of producing not exceeding 1 bu bel. of corn , "ith a libera l application of fertilizers. In 1889 and1 !=JO a crop of oats and peas wa made, the oats h an ested, th e pea ,.i ne: co nverted into h ay, th e aggregate Yalu e of which was g reatly in ex cec;s of th e value of labor and fertilizers in,. st d to 1 rod uce
th e e two crops. Th e resultin g benefit to th e land is sh o\\n hy the y i ld of th e unfertilized plot in 1891, th e year und er diRcusion, showing that without furth er aid it had been brought ur to a capacity to produce 1,300 pounds. It ba been hown that if the cotton in these three a~res had been fertilized with the proper formula, at a cost of $8.22 per acre, th e yield would ha,e risen to 2,300 or 2,400 pounds, an increase of n early if not quite 1,000 pound: of seed cotton , which would therefore haYe cost le than 2~ cent per pound of lint.
It would n ot be a difficult matter to count in all the expen es of making th e crop on th e la nd covered by Experiment No . 22. Th item have all been given in the account of the preparation a nd
culture, and every fa rm er can fix the cost of each item according to hi own judgm ent and experi ence. Mr. Kimbrough, the agricultur-
ist, estimates th e aggregate cost of plowing, harrowing, hoeing,

62

MAY ROP REPOHT-lc!l2.

:n

pi cking a nd fertilizers-nothing bei ng allowed for inter st on the
land or superintendence-at an amount which "ould make th
cost of the cotton 3-t cents per pound of lint! Th e most importa nt and practical mo,-al that may b drawn
from the two experiment. ( 1-J- and 22) is that pea riot. furni sh the most reliable an l bj far the cb ea1c t mean of re. torinJ our worn oil. and of advancing th em to a mu ch hi"'hcr prod uctin.n e, s than
they po essed wh n in th e virgin cond iti on. But pea vin e. will not grow luxuriantly on a poor,. unfertilized oil. Th erefore. tlw true policy of our Southern farme rs ~hould be to vlant pea: and other leg uminou: rop , uch a: lo,er, ]'Cai:uts burr cloY r.
,etches, etc., fertilizing " ith pho:phates and pota sh; 01wert th e produ ct of these into pork , be f, butter and milk mutton; return the manure to the land. Then plant in co tion or co rn or sma ll
"' rai n , u sin g the table manur ol tained as abo ,e, snp'Pie?nPulecl ty
a judicious application of comme rcial fertilizers. Th e highest condition into which a oil may be brought b: ren-
ovating crops stable manure, the more ce rtainly and protitabl,r will it re pond to large dose, of fertilizer, .

EFFECT O.F DIFFERENT Ai\IOUNT O.F FERTILIZER. ' APPLIED TO COTl'ON.
E...pP.rim ent ~Yo . ~'1.
This experiment was performed on one acre of land of Yery uneven a nd Yarying qu ality. H ence it was thought be t. to con titute every r ow into a plot, and th ereby repeat the eries a. often a: po. sible. Th e acre co ntain ed 52 four feet rows. Th e 1st,, th , 15th. :!:2d, 29th , 36th, 42d, 49th row were unfertilized. Th e 2d, 9th, 16th. 23d, 30th, 37th and 44th-100 pounds. Th e 3d l Oth, 17th, 2-1th 31st. 3 th and 45th-200 pound ; and so on, in creasing the amount by 100 pounds, until 600 pound per acre were applied in the s venth , eries.
Tabl e Ko. IX. sets forth the re ults in great detail.

63

t9

I II ~09 ~ :: ~ _. ~ " I ""

Seri es of Rows, Each long.

feet

~

~ -1i I -1

FORl\1ULA.

~if g.' Sup~rphosphate lb~. 69 ,oc_;_oc.,~, 9..o..c'. .;-19..:>'0o=~: I to
I ?-1 I -- ~

... '"d ){urJate Potash ... liJ lbs. ~ Nitra te of Soda ... ~51bs.

~~ 1

Total.. ... .... .. 100

~
~
~ :::;,
.."-.....-".......',..
<
"'-3
.....
?'

I ~" II ;: I ,...

:

?" C> ?q... :- :
c"'".".":'n-1 oJc- .0-O-:I::CJjl:.

Cost of Fert!lizer per Acre. I

'f"-'
._
~
.~...

~.:> ~- I .. !I ~8,1 c ::::l 1-:> '"' 1-.:>
..t..., e::.<n> 'I--.":>' ?"i5Cc..;--0+- ' J "'"

First P icking, s--eptember lbs. Seed ottou per Acre.

~
c:::
~ .....,.

"

I I II I
""-"-'~~~~'"'.,~ j ;. :;::: ~ oo 8 ~ c;; ::;

------- - --
Second Picking, Octol.Jcr 1.3, lbs. Seed C()tton per .Acre.

I 1.' ~ I ==>

~~ !x :C:;;:::

~~ ~

~1-:.

I..:> :-: ~::::;

I
,

_
-

Third ~irk ing, Ko1ember :?, lbs. Seed Cotton per .Acre.

~ ~ -~I II December+,~- :5 "'
':::!

~1"~'

~' " '

~

~

1..,

~":

"

F onrth Pick in!!, lhs. Seed Cotton per Acre.

o 0o>:::-~:;-

-";:, R.

!'? z

,~-.:,

~~

:-.-..:. ..

~ ~- 2:
"' "'~~ ~
<> ;::: ~
~

~

..:;.:.,,

II ~~::=:;]:?::q:;c~c-;~-g+-II 00

Total Yi eld lbs. Seed Cotton I per Acre.

..,.
':!'...
~

~-

I I oo-.Jc.>e><:~=
=I ~ ::1 ~ ~ o~:

lucre~-se--o-,-.e-,-. -u---nfe_r_l-il-iz-.e-fl
Series, lbs. per Acre.

~ ,; ~-
,.("

I ' a'.".'5~~:~~.g....;.....~.. ~. =:: I, .:: Percentage of Incrf'ase.
oo 00+-.-...lC':"Q:
1

II
"~'

,- 1 ~ .......... -- ..... "h :

I -.J vL--=> I..:> o-~

Value of th e Increase at 2 -

I s c o e.b>.+L-.:.>0''").' .o&o- o~a: 1 . , cent s per lb . eed ottou . :v;;;

~
':c:--.
"'-'
0 0
~
~

-- ... ""'"' ._ : I.1 Percenta~e ~ 7--7---- ------- 1 .?-

~ ~tg;:;J~ ~ j ~ I

of Pro!it in Cost of Fertilizer.

00'
"'

'Yl ~)t!.O:I-D-::f'lL'lJ:I fiOIH DV iiO ~N:UURVJ:ifO

<IS

MAY CROP REPOR'r-1892.

33

Notes on Experiment 24.- (1) Columns 8 and 9 exhibit the m ore

or less regular scale of in creased yield corresponding, wit h a. lesser

ratio, to the increasing amounts of the fertilizers. The sa me featme

is illustrated in column 10, in percentages, and again in column

11, in th e form of vnlues of the increase. The num bers in columns

9, 10 and 11 increase in the same ratio, but the ratio i not as great

as the ratio of increase in th e fertilizers applied. _

(2) Column 12 shows the percentage of profit, a constantly de-

creasing serie . Column 13 presents a corresponding increasing se-

ries, showing how th e co!:t of th e increased yi elds 7'i8e.s \Yith th e

increase.

.

(3) It would be unwise t o conclude that it i not judiciou to

increase the amount Gf fertilizers, because such increase results in a

constantly decreasing percentage of profit, or inversely, in a coA-

stantly increasin g cost of the cott on. If th e increa~e in th e

amounts of fertilizers should be continued indefinitely, it

would certainly reach a point at which it would

not be profitable. In th e second series the profit on th e cost of

fertilizers is 463 per cent in the se venth series it has fallen

to 115. Suppose the seri es continued t o series 12, with 1,100

pounds per acre. It is probable that th e percentage of profit \\ould

have descend ed t o a corresponding figure- 463 : 115 :: 115: 29

(nearly), and the cost of th e cotton per pound, cal culated in like

mann er, would possibly haY e ach-anced to 6 cents per pound of

lint. Even at thi s rate th e 1esidaum of fertilizers in the soil would

make a large rrop of sm all grain without additional iertilizer--.

But it would be well to stop short of such an am oun t unl ess the

soil be first gotten into a correspondingly high er condition by pre-

vious treatm ent.

(4) The m ost practical Yiew of it L thi. : The greater t he

amount of fertilizer applied th e ~reater the inre.tmenl upon which

the percentage of profit is to be calculated. F or instance in

series 2 the profit in the investment is 463 per cent. ; but th e in-

vestm ent is only $1.35; while in se ries 7 the percentage of p rofit

on the investment de cen ls t o 115 per cent. ; but the inve -tment

has in creased to $8.10. Now 463 per cent. of $1.35 is $6.25; while

115 per cent. of $ .10 is S9 31, a gain of $3.06, besides lea ving th e

land in much better conditi on for th e succeeding crop .

Conclusions.-(l ) Succe. siY ely in crE>asing amounts of fertilizer

do not result in th e :Same ;atio of in creasing yields of cotton. I t

follow s that the larger th e amount of fertilizer the greater will

be the resulting cost of th e in ,ea e per pound ; while at th e sam e

time there will be felt in the soil a correspondin gly larger amount

of fertilizer for th e use of the succeeding crop .

(2) The liberal use of judiciou ly compounded fertilizers affords

a larger investment, upon which th e percentage of profit is to be

based, and is therefore advisable.

. . .~

DEPART.i\lE~T OF AGRICUL'f RE-GEORGIA.

[ FH O ~'l B LLE'l'JX :-10 . 17.] SWEET POTATO CULTURE.

PJ,A X'fl:-J G AT DI F FEREK'l' DIST AX ' E:S.
Th e land on which this experim ent a all th e other , with the ex ce ption .of th e fertilizer test was conducted , was th e sam e as last year ; a chocolate clay loam , with clay subsoil and of great uniformity ; all th e experim ents were repeated on th e sam e plots, the cultivation and th e fertillzer being the sam e as last season. The rows were all 1; acre long 31- feet apart, the di stance of plants 2 feet. 'Three a lternate rows wer planted at every differe nt di tan ce, and t he average re. ult given in Tabl e No. 6.

TABLE Ko. VI. Di~trmce o( Planting.
I ===========~=:l=ou=th=e=m==Q=u=~e=n=. ===--_- -~=G=e=o=g=ia=_!=_a=~m=_. = _=_ ==_ =

c n r '!' A )I C E.

Yield of Half Acre

Yield of Half Ac re

\TC~t1~fY1aite~dd

Yi eld of Half Acre

Yield of Half Acre

'l'~1t~l Y1 it1dd

~w---~~ perAcre. ~~~~ perA cre.

Large. Small .

L a rge .

mall.

- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -1-

lbs.

lbs.

bus.

lb .

lbs.

l ~x3~ feet ... 100.25

20.75

26.J.

10!-l

9 .75

2 x 3~ feet... 128.7

~0.5

3H.6 10 .25

11

2 ~ x3~ feet... 11 l .

21 . 1

2fl0

107

16. 25

3 x3~ feet . 1 94 . 75

18.25

2~6.5

80. 2

(2 plants in

16.4

1 bill ).

- -bus. 25H zn. 1 ZG, .9
210

Th e result confirm s th e conclusions of last year a sta ted in Bulletin Ko. 11, th a t by giving proper di stance to the pl ants, increasing thereby th e mea ns of perfect developm ent, not only larger yields can be obtained , but also the co t of cultiva tion reduced .
Th e di t a n ce of 2x3t feet indicated the large t yield, clo,ely followed by 2-Q-x3! feet, whil e at l t feet di tan ce in th e row the pl a nts are t oo close, and at 3 feat even with two plants in th e hill too far apart.

IIIJ.J., 'l'S. f'L A'f Cli i.T UUE.

Our yra ctice of cultiYatin g our potato fi eld almost level ha often been cri ticized , th e common practi ce being hill cultme. To verify our p o ition th e experim ent as t xpl ained in Table Jo. 7 "a ~ und ertaken ; 3 different vari eties were selected , thu . repeatin g th e test three tim e. Each plot con. ieted of three rows, each half acre long, the obserYations bein g m ade on the middle row.
Th e res ult co nfirm s our position in all th e plots but on e ; the
66

l\I AY CROP REPORT-1 ...9:..

35

yi lcl clearly indi cates th e adva ntage of flat culture, while in the

oth er ca e th P. in crease gained hy hill culture is very small ; th e re~ ult mi ght have bee n changed under different meteorological con-

clition. ; in a very wet season hilli.ng up .might. be preferab! e, but
''"e a re seldom ble ed with suffi cient ram, wh1le drought 1s of a

mo re freq uent occurrence.



TiBLE No. YII.

Hill vs. Flat Cultwe

Flat Culture.

Hill ult11re.

- -- - - - -- -=-;,_.,..--

"0 :...

~ .-\:'IrE OF y ARIETY. Yi 'ld pr. ~ Acre Ro w~ ~ <li Y i' ld pr. ~ Acre Row~~ ai

I~n
j

I I

~
~

1 ~:5

]-.~~
25:;.:;

~ ;

I

~
~

\ S~

]=. ~~
6~

Jbs. ;o:r, nthern Queen .... ...... 10-1 1l6b.s6. l1lb2s0..6I bus26:~ . llb95s.. 5l Il.Jb. s.3. l 1l0b9s..8, 2b30~.5

I Geo rgia Yam........ ....... !H .3 15 . 110.1 240 85 16 .6 10L .6 203 .5
l'nmpk in Yam .... .:_....... 131 I :!0 15L 3:l9 .4 134 .3, 18. 7 152 333 ..

~MA LL ts. LARG"B; SEED POTATOE .
The obj e t of th e experiment is to inquire into th e valu e of e l ct ing la rge tuber in -tead of sm all one. for eed. Large tubers of :3 diff' rent va rieties were p laced in the seed bed at th e a me tim e a t he be i with sm all tuber was prepared. Th e p lants were set.,out in the fi eld , the ame clay and under th e same conditions in rega rd to fertilizers and cultivation.
T abl e No. 8 explains th e result ; th e variations i n y ield ofth e different plots are so mall that no prefere nce is indicated in regard to large or small t ubers for seed.
Th e economic relation to this question is worthy of consid eration. Th e sam e quantity of la rge tubers produ ce far les plants t h a n mall ones. It would require a mu ch larger quantity of edibl e t ubers to obtain a sufficient number of plants for a given area, th e. Yalue of the large tubers bein g at the sam e tim e greater, and th e cost of production therefor increased by the use of la rge tubers fo r seed.
TABLE No. VIIL
Small ts. LargP- Seed Potatoes.

Lar"'e Seed Potatoes.

Small Seed Potatoes.

: \ . \.;\IE

OF

YARIETY.

Yield

pr.

~

A c r e Row

"0
.21

8. _

.

I
Yi

e

ld

p

r.

~

AcreRow -.B

. ~

.

;-1 I I c~3
lbs. lbs. l lbs.l bus. lbs.l lbs. l lbs. bus. Soutb~rn Queen........... 107.15
G eorgia Yam.... ... .... .... 84 .8
l Pumpkin Yam.... .. ..... .. 122

~ ~i ~ ~ ~-----~~~ ~

Oi I
w1:: Ho u :><

~"' I woa;

~ 5-

~~:~~
:...>r

1
15.9 123 :!68 A , l0-J..3 16 .5 120. 8 263.5 16. 5 101 .3 221 00 14.75 104 75 228.5
19 .2 11.2. 308 120. 5 18 .25,13S.73 302.

67

:;1j

DEPAR'l':\lENT OF AGRICULT RE-GEORGIA .

I'O'I' A>S il EXl'ERDIE~T. 0 ~ ' WEE'l' I' O TATOE ~.

Th e re ult of this experim ent coincides with that of Ja~t vear.

The yie ld wa not as la rge as th e previous sea on on account of th e

se vere drought in . eptember and October, but the general results

are f1imilar ; we .are not nea rer to the solution of the question in

which form . hould th e potas h be applied to s weet potatoes.

In norm al ration s th e greatest yield was obtain ed by the u se of

muriate of potash , but in all cases the difference wa so small that

we might as. ume that eith er form wa. equally effectiv e. In rega rd

to as

the amount of pota"'h the indication points last season, that norm al rations as in plots

in the 2 and

osa.ma ree

direction the most

effectiv e, and that doubl e ration s are less produ ctiv e tban either of

th e others.

PERT!LlZER TEST 0~ SWEET POTATOES.
By comparing th e different unfertilized plotR we find that the unaid ed capacity of th e land wa pretty uniform of the . ing le fertilizing in gredients kainit gave th e largest increase in one variety nitrate of soda in th e other. Both ,a ri eties being planted sid e by side, it would seem to warrant th e conclusion that one vari ety would req uire diffe rent pl ant food th a n th e oth er. If we look at th e re ult of the combination of the two in plot 17 we find a n in-
rease of 44 bus hels in one case over the use of kainit alone, whil e in th e other we noti ce a decrease over th e nitrate of soda ]lot, but an in crease of 13 bushels of the k a init plot.
Again , if we substitute superph osp hate in place of kainit, as in plot 12, we decreaRe th e yi eld in one case, whil e in th e oth e r we find an in crease of 1 ' bush els. On e would indi ca.te th at one vari ety required more ni t roge n while th e ot her needed more pota b. Th e be"'t effect was sec ured by th e appli cation of th e three combined , which wa till in creased b.Y. th e use of double ration of nitrogen in combination with th e oth er elements, but decreased by the appli cation of doubl e ration of superpho phate. If we co mpare plot S a nd 21, in which different amo unt of fertilizers a re appli ed, we find a onsiderabl in crease caused by the increased amo unt of fert i l i z e r.
Th e effect of th e different fo rm s of nitroge n, as nitrate of sodn. and cotton seed meal, is very marked in fa vor of nitrate of soda. In this form th e nitrogen is imm ediately a ,ailable. a nd a es pecially in sweet potatoes th e more rapid the plants develop in stren gth and vigor, t'h e greater th e prospect of favorabl e returns, th e use f nitrogen in th e form of nitrate of soda cee ms to be preferable.
The effect of the different fertilizer on the two var ietie of potatoes is very marked. :More so if we compare th e respectiv e yield s with th 0 e in Experiment No.9. In this case the soil being of a different nature and in a hi ghe r state of fertility , t he y ield of the
tiS

l\IAY CROP REPORT -1592.

37

two varieties was about the same, which would lead us to th e conclusion that the pumpkin yam potato req uires better land or higher fertilization or perhaps different com bination to be eq ually as p roducti,e as th e Southern Queen Yariet_,..
'.!.'ABLE Ko. XL
T'a riety Test of Sweet Potat(Jes.

!Yield per Row Half Acre Long. Caltulated

NAi\IE OF YAR!ETY.

Yield per

- - - --

- -- - - -

- - - - - - - - - Large.

'mall.

Total.

Ac re .

- - -

lbs.

I l bs .

lbs.

bus.

Hunt'. Re l....... .. .. ....... . ....... ... ..

73.6

18

Hl.6

Ul9.

Boone's White............... .. ..... ... .. 66.5

9.6

76.1

16fi

Boone's Red......... ....... ......... .... . 60.2

12. 8

13

160

Bermuda Sweet..... .. . ...... ......... ... 118

1 1.3

129.3

:?8 ~

R ed .Jersey. ... .... ... .. .. ....... .. . ...... 70 .,

20

90.8

lfJ8

~ nrnp~in Yam... ... ... .... .. ..... .. ... l-!3.5

18 ,

16!. 3

354

(jooql:Hl Yam........ .. .. ... .... ... .. . ....

6.9

20.-l

107.3

2:'.-1.1

Early Jersey.. ... ............. ......... ...

78. '

2-1 .3

103 . 1

:!2.'1

. out hernQu ee n ...... ..........-.. .....-. -i -1-2(i .L

17.7

H 3.

:>,J:-:.7

FERTILIZER TE.'T 0~ TQ:\fA'l'OE. .

'umma.ry.-1. The application of nitrogen or potash alone d id not
in crease th e yi eld on poor land . 2. Th e effect of nitrogen depend upon th prc:ence of the min~
eral elements, pho phoric acid a nd potash. H. The increa e in yield is greater the lan~e r th e a mount of
ferti lizer used . -!. That only a co mplete fertilizer ga,e profitab le return s. 5. It i preferable to use nitrate of soda in two appli cation s,
while all th e cotton Reed meal should be applied to the land at the t ime of distributincr the other fertilizing materials.
6. F ertilizers containing nitrogen in~ different forms crave more .profitable returns.
7. Pho phoric acid, double rations, not only decidedly increas-ed the yield, but also earlin ess.
. Larger ration. of nitrogen especiall. in the form of cotton
seed meal, prolon ged th e tim e of bearing.

FORAGE PLANT.'.
The experiments with forage plants, on account of their farreaching importance in eco nomic and successful agriculture, ha,e been GOntinued and con ~ ide rably enlarged.
The experiments with:so rghum have been repeated and new varieties added.
89

3

DEPARTi.\iEKT OF AGRIC LTURE- ;EOHGfA.

F ertilizer ex perim ent:; with co w peas ba,e been repeated in re-

gard to yield of peas, a also in rega rd to th e yield of vin e~, wit h

th e object in Yi ew of ob ta inin rr the best and cheape::t fertilizer fo t

CO \r pea a th e m ea n ~:< of in1prodng ourworn-outand impoYeri shed

soil s.

Th e question how to restore s u h 1r om -out land to it original

phy ical co ndition; how to accumulate and maintain a tore of

anti lable plant food at the lowe..t po!:'sible outlay; has bee n llppcr-

most in th e exertion of e1e rY cultiYator of th e soil.

If we would analyze such Eoil s we 1rould find that to a d ep th of

6 to 1:2 in ches very littl e fer tilizing material can be cli ..CO Y red .

neither minerals nor humu ot nitrogenou matter, whil e in th e un-

derlying t ra ta , th e sub"oil , we find a Rtore to ot ore or les: extent uf'

potaFh and pho~pbori c acid. but out of reach of many ot ourculti-

ntted plant . uch "Oils are therefor pmti cally cl ficient of all the

elem ents of plant food.

From xperiencc \\' ha,e lcamed that on p or :oi ls bea1.v appli-

cation s of co mm ercial fertiliz er do not pay, t.hat poor, wom-ou t ::-oi1.:

cannot be enriched by th eir liberal use, neither can th ey be mu ch

b nefited by abandoning th em to a easo n of rest and th e tende t

CtLre of grass and weed as practic d to a g reat extent. Th e benefit of

, uch practi ce i. meager, whil e preferable to clean culture.

In improl'ing the , oil our aim mu st be to utilize th e store of'

];>lant food contained in th e subsoil to in cr asc th e store of plant food partly by comm ercial fertili;r.ers partly b_,. n atural agencic>:,

t

and to mstore th e land to its original phy ical co ndition by the ad -

dition of humu ~-tbat, i~ , to fe d th e land ; to g row with the addi-

tion of heap comm ercial fertilizers s uch crops as will pennan e ntl .\

add to th e store of plant food in th e soil. and ll'hi ch will enabl e tb

to ustain and feed more stock, and as a natural co n eq uence. in-

crease th e upply of hom e-made manure.

Th e valu e of leguminou I lant. for this purpose i: fully e!:'ta l-

li heel.

Th eir capacity for assimilating and gatherin O' nitrogen by atm o.-<-

pheri c agencie , th eir d eply penetrating rootr;;, drawing part of th e ir

food .'UJ ply from th e ubsoil , out of reach of th e roots of mosi of o ur

cu lti,ated plants, making them th e most valuabl.e adjunct in d o-

mestic econom v.

Amongst tho_e 1lants th e co w pea i the nt ost valuable in our

onthern . tate>:. It exten si , e, cleev penrt rating root. ystem. in-

crea_ing it po wer of foraging in regions clo~ed to plant of shallOIY

g rowing root!:', m a kos th em adapted to our hot and dr ' clim ate and

our poor, exh au. ted oil, wh ere, un aided by fertilizers, no crop can

economically be produced.

Ji mak e a rapid growth , and a food for. tock it i highly val 11<1-

bl e on account of th e large amo unt of 1 rotei n , which erves to form

th e fl es h and blood and muscle. It p eculi~tr power of gathering atmo phe ric nitrogen make!:' it so

70

MAY CROP REPORT-1892.

39

much more valuabl e, a nitrogen i the mo t expensive element m commercial fertilizer .
Those special capacities of the cow pea indi cate it a th e fundament from which to begin the restoration to fertility of our impoverished soil by eith er grow in g them for th e purpose of grP.en manuring or for the purpo e of making food for our farm animals.
To increase th e gro wth of peas on poor land , and th ereby more rapidly reclaim it, the aid of fertilizers is n ecessary. To !'tudy th e effect of th e cliff" rent fertilize rs bas been th e obj ect of th e experiment.
FERTILIZER EXPERDIE:-iT \\Tl'H CO W PEA.
Th e fi eld elected for this experim ent appear d to be f very unifor m cb:uacter of red clay and clay ubsoil. The !and wa well prepared by plowing and harrowing and di\7ided into 20 plot. each 10~ feet wide by 104-,! feet (t acre) long, co ntainin g 1-40of an acre; each plot contained 3 row., 3~ feet apart, of which the middl e row was u sed for ob. ervation. At the tim e oi cutting th e vine the plot were equal ly divided in len o-th , one-half for the purpose of weio-hin g the 'ine , the other half for th e purpose of a certaining the yield of pea .
The vine were cut Augu t 25th at th e usual stage for forage. Th e fertiliz er, as per Table No. 13, was applied in th e furrow . an d thoroughly mixed with the so il with a Plan et, Jr. , cultivato r.
Six peas, th e speckled variety, 'n:re planted in the fu n ow one foot apart and cove red lightly with the cultivator. After the plants were well established th ey we re counted in every midd le row of the plot and reduced to a uniform stand in every plot. Th ey were hoed once a nd p lowed three tim s with cultivator. Ob er vation were-fr q nently mad e a nd the indi cation fully ubstanti a ted by there ult.

71

DEPARTME T OF AGRICULTURE-GEORGIA.

TABLE No. XIII.

Fe1tilizer Test in Cow P eas. Yield of Forage (Green).

.~~-~-

-p".;i

a~:a.:>"ai' l p~ ..,0-

FER'l'ILIZER.

~$-ten
~"':1

~ ~~ 2! 0

~~~

r
0
"._'8p.f;-

>~,..~... .ftJ
oa5] (1) N ,_.

0

g g ::: Q

b~ <~

g ~ s:l

g~ ~0

~=~ f~

z I c

<EP..

~ o.. 0

J. -:upe.rphosphate........ .. .... ..... .. ... l l 60$ 1 25

.~P.. ;>-<
38.75

2 'uperphosphate. ... .. .... ....... .. .. ... 80 62.5 36

~ ~

g~

UP. H

9,3001 3,340 8,640 l! 680

I 3 :Muriate of Potash..... ..... .. ... ...... 0 1 7'2
<I Muriate of Potash.. .... ..... ......... 40 86

27 .25 31

o,540 '580 7,440 1,480

5 Kainit ........ .... ... ... ...... ..... ... .. . 160 1 24 6 Kainit.......... ..... . .. .. .. ... ... ... ..... 0 64

32.25 37

7,740 1,780 8,8801 2,920

7 Nitrate of Soda .. .. ..................... 80 1 74 31

S . Kitrate of Soda........ .............. .. . 40

'i 1 30.75

7,440 1,480 7,3~0 1,420

I D Unfertilized... .......... ...... ...... .. . . . . ..... .. ..... 29
J.O { up~rphospbate. ...... .. ...... ..... 160 2 97 44

5,960 .. ........ . 10,560 4,600

~lunate of Potash .. .. ... .. .... .. .. ... 0 ...... .. .. . ........... .......... .. ............

I ... .. ... IJ. { ~J~~~~~~~P~~~sh :::::: .:::: :::: ::::: l ~g

~ ~.~

~.~ ~.~.~~~ ~:~~ ... .... .... ...

.... .

1.2. ~(i~I.~~~.~:.~~~~.::....:::..::::::::::: }~8....~..:.~...1...:.~ .... .. .~~..~~~ ... .5:~~.~

1. 3

"uperphosphate ..... ... ........... ... Kainit .......... ...... ........ . .... ......

0 1 25 35.75 8,580 2,620 0 ........... ........... ....... ................

. .. { s_~perphos~hate .... ............ ....... . 160 2 99 -t6

11,040 5,080

N1trate of Soda.. ...... .......... ....... 80 ... ................... ........ .......... ........

J.ii {ST~perphos~hate... ......... .......... .. , 80 1 50 -l~.ll5 10,140 4,180

N1trate of ::ioda... ..... .............. .. . 40 ...... .. .... ... ... .. ... ...................... ..

1.6 {Wi~::~~eoff.'~~!~.~~.:::...::::: .:...::: ~g ...~..~~ ..~........ .....~:~~.~ ...... ~~

17

{Muriate of Pota h........ .. ...... ... .. Nitrate of , oda. .. .... . ... ...... ..... .. .

40 1 73 33.25 7,9~0 2,020 -W .. .... ...... ...... ..... ..... ....... ... .... .. ..

Superphosphate.... .... ..... ........ ... WO ..... ...... .. . ............ .......... . .... ..... .

J. S

{

Muriate of Potash......... ........... Nitrate of Soda... ... . .... ... ...... ...

80 4 71 -16.25 11 ,100 5,140
80 ....... ....T1 . .. ...... :... ............

I{Sup~rpbo phat.e. ...... .. .... ........ ... 80 ............ ,..... ...; ...... ............ .. ......
19 Munate of Pota h ...... ... .... .. .... . 40 2 36 40. n0 9,720 3,760 Kitrate of Soda.. ... .. ........ ......... 40 ...... .... . ............ ................ ... ... ..

20 Unfertil ized. ........... ........... .. ... . .. ...... ... .. . 23

5,520 ..... .......

72

"l'IAY CROP REPORT-1892.

41

TABLE No. H Yield of Ptas.

~
-.a0:;
0 1st Picking.
z 0

Yield per Plot. 2d -Picking. 3d Picking.

Total.

Cal culated Yield per
Acre, Bushels.

I

3 .80

0.68

0.28

4.i 6

H.2

-~
-.a..

I ::: . iO
1. g::;

0.40 0.30

2 .05

0.30

.... .. {).06 0 .06

4.10 2.29 2.41

t:l.3
8.8 i.

.5

1. 32

0.52

0.06

1.90

5.7

8

1.40

0.5i

0.01

1.98

5.9

!

1. 92

l.OO

0.03

2. 95

8.8

8

1.\15

o9

1.2 1 -t . 3t)

I 0.6
O.Ti 0.37

0 . 10
.... .. ......

2.73
1.9 4.n

5.9 14.2

ti

3 .48

0.61

1(). 03

4.18

12.5

....I2
-1.3

:3. 11 2.91 2.i0

1.30 1.47
1.61

0.06 0 .02 0 .05

4.47 4. 40 4. 36

13.-! 13.2 13

'I.G

2 .00

2.02

0.13

4.21

12.6

'1.8

'1.43 I

1.62

0.0

3.1 3

9.-!

1.7

1 .ao

1. 82

0 .09

3.21

9.6

-1.8

3 .22 2.6i

:f.IO

0 .92

1.47
1.69 1.03

0 .09

4.78

I 0.15
0 .24

4.51 2.19

H.3 13.5 6.5

The result of t his experi ment a re highly interesting. Th ey -seem to co nfirm the statement that the co w peas, like other legu'minous pla nts, h ave the power to gather a nd assimilate nitrogen -from other ou rces th a n the fertilizer applied , as in dicat ed by the comparison of in crease in y ield by th e aid of mixed mineral s a nd .a complete fertilizer.
Phosphori c acid in all ca es increased t h e yie ld in proportion to 'the amount applied, while potash alone was more efficient in .-smaller ratio ns. In regard to th e different potash salts, kainit gave 'better res nlt. than m uriate of pota h, either alone or in co m bina1tion with uperp hosph ate.
The eco nomic results are expre::sed in the table in giving th e cost -of increase o\er th e unfertilized plot. Plot 1, 160 pounds superphospate, at a cost of $1.25, gave an in crease of 3,340 pounds, while superph osp hate a nd k ainit, p lot 12, at a cost of $2.49, itv~ rease d the _yield 5,080 p() unds Plot 1 9~ at a cost. $4.71 , .5,140 pounds.
While plot 1 gave th e la rgest increase for the money expe nded in fertilizer t here can be n o question in regard to the more ad'Tantageous res ult of plot 12.
The la1:o-er t he _yield of vines we remove from our soil t.he larger
73

42

DEPARTi\IEKT OF AGRI LTURE-GEORGfA.

th e amount of rpots and tu bble left th erein , or the larger th e crop

we turn under th e n earer we co me to return our land to a condi-

tion of great r fertility.

The yield of peas corre ponds ge nerally with th e above experi-

ments- the larger th e yi ld of vin es th e larger th e yield of peas.

Th e effect of phosphori aci(l is e vid en ced in e very plot where

sup rphosphate alone or with other fertilizing material hns been

applied-th e large t p er cent. of pea bein g obtain ed at th e first

I icking wh erever superph o. ph ates form ed th e ba i. of th e fertiliz

ing ingredi ent , whil e nitrate of soda retard th e ripenin g.

Conch~s ion. .-1. It is manife t from th o result of th e ex.l eriment

that cow pea readily resr oncl to th e apr li cation of uperphosphate,

eith er alone or in combination, a aLo th e larger th e amount of

, uperpho phate applied th e greater th yield in vin es, as in p eas.

2. That larger ration of potash alone proved l e~s valuable than

small er on es.

3. The practical bearin g of th e di\i ion of 1 lants into nitrogen

gath erer and nitroge n co nsum er:;, of o mu ch importance to the

ultiva tor, find s a practi cal illu t rati on in thi experim ent. It

illu tlate that cow pea. gath er tlH~ i r nitroge n from other ..;ources

than the fertilizer applied.

4. Tha t mixed mineraL ( uperpho ..ph a tes and potash) gay e the

most economi c re ults. .

5. That kai nit as a .;o nrce of pota h produ ced better effect than muriate of pota h.

f

SORGH U:\1 .
Th e O'eneral character of th e exp erim e nt was th e , am o as theeprevious year, with the addition of a fe w new varieti es.
Th e soil wa: a reel cia.\ loa m with clay ub oil , pl a nted in weet . pota toes th e year pre \ious. a nd of pretty uniform fertility.
Th e la nd was well prepared and laid off in rows four fee t apart, in which ih e fertilizer, co n i. ting at th e ra te p l' acre of320I ounds uperpho pha te, 160 I oun<.ls of muriate of l)Otash and 360 pounds cotton ~eecl m eal, was a ppli ed a nd thorou ghly mix d with th e soil. After bein o- bedd ed with . hu\ el pl nw anclleYell d with a boa rd , the seed of the di fferent Yari cti es wore planted on e foo t apart April lOth.
After th e plants \\ere well establi:h ecl th ey \rer redu ced to a uniform ta nd of threP plants to a hill.
The distan ce of teo.. inte 1ra,; four fee t in th o drill , whil p earl. mille t seecl wa. chilled in a small fulTO \\. anJ li o-htly co\ered.
Th e row were on e-half a re long, each divid ed into fou r plot s of' eq ual size, th e fir:;t plot to 1llu trate the yi eld of th e lifferent cutting., the seco nd to a certain th e yi eld if cut wh en in bloom. and th e yield of a second cutting, th e third th e amount of forage\\hen cut wh en the seed is in dou gh, and th e fourth plot to obtain. th e amount of eed produced.
The la t plot proved unsu ces ful as dro \e of English sparrows d es troyed th e seed as soo n as it passed the dou ghy state.
74

MAY CROP REPOHT-1892.

43

The re ult confirm the g rea t va lu e of thi s cla:;s of fom.;c plants

th eir great yield th eir adaptability to om hot and dry climate

th eir highly nourishing properti e:; th e preference of all our fa1m

stock either in th e green or dry state suggest it a th fu t nr ta.ple

food for farm an im als.

In the dairy ope ration s, for oil in g, in th e r1bsc nce of ~ nitable

pastures, whi ch is often th e case in our 'outhern 'tates during th e

hot, d ry. umm er , there is no gree n forage which can eq ual or sur-

pass its valu e in the production of mille Tab le :Xo. F gi\es th e

yieli:l of each cuttin g as al o th e total yield of thr e uttin gs per

acre, in th e gree n . tate and dry.

Th e first and seco nd cutting. were made befor the no\\er stat k

appeared. At th la:t cutting th e p l ant~; were som ewh at furth er

advanced.

.

Tabl e Xo. 16 indicates th e yi eld of two cuttin g..;, th e first. one

m ade at th e fl owering state a.t the econd cuttin g the plant were

more or less ad \anced ; also th e y ie ld if cut in dough ; a second

on e wa ob1ained after th e harv est, but for reasons th e weighin g

was omitted.

To compare the yield of sorghum with that of co m fora~c t wo

I

vari etie. of corn \r ere planted in adjoin in g plot , th e yiclrl of whi ch

i illu trated in tab! Xo. 17.

r

'fABLE Ko. XY.

f'arieties of '"'orgltttm , Etc.- Yielcl]Jel' Acre of D({J'erenl Cull ill!!'

- - - = - = == Total ol
1st Cuttin!!. , 2d utting. l- - -u--t;-ti_n_g . :1 Cuttings.

breeul Dry. !Ureen l Dry. G reen IDry. Gree n ! Dry .

Link's Hy brid ...~ 22,J. 6412,.'\79 1J:{, /28 1,9!1() ,320

~ . i>f:? l ti,2fu

Coleman Can e.... .. .. .... 16,53(; 1,913 9,256 1,5 '0 11 ?~J Folger's Early. .. ... . 19,760 2,392 10,504 1,788 7:o72

::;~11

,1124; ,:;:;r> l

i) HO 5, 46!}

Early Orange..... ... ..... 1 ,720 2,0 0 14,3:2 2,0:3 ::S,fl+! White ilfillo ~Iai z .. .. .. 1 ,92. Sj 2,:WJ 16,640 2,7liJ 1G,224

~2,Q,I o ; ~,7 ' ~
o l.' ';l~l ~.4 . ',

Y ellow Millo l\'faize . .. . J 7 277 2,0, 0 12,688 1 9% 16,li40

4~ ,<>0~ ! u, ?~ :>

l\iaru. -orghum ......... 119,552 2,1 63 ll , oli 1,!l96 15 704 Kaffir Corn ... ...... .. .... l1 ,6J 11,66J 9,!l '4 1,5(i0 l O,JOO

4, , 11:. 1 6..J. (} :)2,o:;z. J,H2H

I Jer.ttsal cm C~ rn . ..... ... , 1~,~105 J , 72 , ,73(; 1 ,()~~ 7 4 1,331 21,22~1 4. (iT
Early Ambet. ............ l o,:30 11,99() l ll ,J40 J , , _ 12,5 -i 1,7S :m,:122 5,(i5t>

Teosinte... ..... .. .... ...... 24,336 3,1 2 J-1,560 2,080

....... : ;R,~!JG -i,2f>Z

Pearl Millet .. .......... ... 1 12,0u4 2,160

2 ,880. 3,910 17,472 2,9% --'--'-----'----'-

.'>2, JII ;

H,Oo.'

75

-44

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULT RE-GEORGIA.

TABLE No. XYI. Varieties af Sorghum, Cut in Bloom and in Dough - YiPlcl per Acre.

In Bloom.

YARIETY.

First Cutting Sec~nd Tot~! 2 In Dough. Cuttwg. Cutt t'gs
- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - --

,Green! Dry. Green. Green. GreenJ Dry.

8,1121 'L...-:--ni...,.li':s'---7H'y'b-r..,..id.,..._-..-..-.-..--.-..-..-..-..-..-.-..-..-2=-4.,..,7 96::-o:~-=-8,320. 11 648 1 36 ti08

Coleman Cane .......... ......... .. .... 23,29ti

s:420 3/716

-~olyer's Early .. ...... .. ................. 25,168 9,235 \:J,256 34;.!24

Ear y Orange........................... 28,0 0 10,81ti 12,480 40,-60

Whi te Millo Maize.. .. ................. 27,040 9,568 14,872 41,9 12

Yellow )Lillo Maize .................. 17,680 6,240 11,024 28,704

'Mammoth f--orghum ... ................ 2 ,168 9,815 1 ~,728 41 96

Kaffir Corn ................. , .......... .. 17,88~ G,240J 9,9 4 27: 72

J_erusalem Corn ...... ............ ... .... 13,416 4,-76 7,696 21,11:.!

Early Amber............................ 24,960 9,001 . 13,524 38,484

25,000 9,152 25,296 B,930 24,544 10,400 29, 120 12,480 28,120 10,816 18,720 7,488 2!1,040 12,608 18,432 7,3i2 12,480 4,9\)2 25,812 10, 192

TABLE XVIII.
) 'ie/d of Forage and Seed of Cow Peas, 'oja B eans, l'a1ieties of Corn and. Peanut rines.

Forage per Plot. Forage per Acre .

l-5eed per Seed per

I

Plot. Acre.

Green . \ Dry. Green.J Dry.

:-;oja Bean ....... ...........
::ipeckled Cow Pea .........
"'ayman Corn............... Blu nt's Prolific Corn ...... , Brazilian Flotll' Corn ... . Pop Com ...................... , Peanuts ........ . .. .... ....

lbs. 34.75 46 .50 83.00 75 .00 72.50 69.50 2(-).(-) o

lbs. 10.50 9.35 25.40 24.00 21 . 75 21.50 8.25

lbs. 9,730
1~,020
23,240 21,000
20,~00
19,460 7' 140

lbs. 2,940 2,618 7,11 2 6,720
6,090 6,020 2,330 .

lbs.
4.,..6o7o
19.05 16.10
18.87 ... ....
.......

TABLE No. XIX.

Composition of Cow P eas, Soja Bean.~ and Corn.

lbs .
1,~07
840 2,667 2,254 2,361
.......

/co w Peas. SojaBeansl

'Moisture............................... .....................
Crude Fat.. .. .... ...... .... .. ............ .... .. .. . ......... Crude Protein..................... . ......... ..... ......
Crude Fibre... .. ............... .............. .. ......... ~itrogen-freeextract . ..... ...... ..... ..... ...... ... A h .. ~....... ...... .... ....... ....... .... ................

1
12.84 1.76
21.94 5.16 55.37 2.93

8.32 20.48 35.24 -l.84 25.86 5.26

Xutriti,e ratio ........ ........ .......................... .. 1.21

1. 21

76

oro.
10.15 4.93 9. 6 2.11
71.33 1.62
l. 5

MAY CROP REPORT- 1 9~.

TABLE Xo. XX . Composition of Cow Pea l'ines, Sojct Bean Vines , Corn F'o1age and Peanut T"ines.
( Cured).

ICo~~ Pen 'Soi:_t. Beanl Corn "\ mes. "\ mes. Forage.

Peanut Yineo .

Moisture. ... .. ...... ....................... .1 Crude Fat. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. . Crude P:otein........ ... .... ..... ...... ... Crude Fibre............................... ~ itrogen-free extract.................
Ash...... .. .... ... .. .. ...... ..... ....... ......

.90 3.!H 16.09 23.14 -!1.76
6.41

12

52.GO

3.00

1-!.90

-J..l3

l_ 24.84
38.89 _6.3-!__

lt.45 28 .90
2.55

Dry matter 6.30 12.69 4.75 -!6. :39 9.!lli

Nutritive Rati o .... ... .. .... ..... ... ... ... 1.32

1.?1

_ _ _ 1.7 ..:... 1.48

T.ABLE ro. X...'\.I. l'ield of Crucle .i\"utrients of One Acre of

Cow Pea I'< ja Bean Com
Vines Yines Forage
I Cmed. Cured. Cured.
Crude Fat.........- ....-....-....-.. .-..-..--..-..-..' 95.29 1 - ~8 . 20 ..... . .........

Peanut Vines Cured.
Hn

Crude Protein....... ... ........ .... .. .. .. 421. 23 438.06 280.22 HJ9.61

Crude Fibre ...... , .. .. .. .. .... .. .... .. .. .. 605.80 - 730.29

36.6-! 389.:-l l

Nitrogen-free extract................. 1,093.50 1,14H.36 1,9?.0.36 7~6.2H Ash...... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .... .. ... .. . 16!1.3_8...:1':...__m_ 6_.3_9...::..._1_7_3_.o_o___,__ii_6_.<_;;-

T.-\.BLJ;; ~'-'- xxn.
Yield of (}rude iYHtrients of One Acre of

Coru.

Crude Fat......... .... ...... .. ...... ......... ... ..... ....

131.41'

Crude Protein............................ ..... ............

~ti:!.!)(i

Crude li'ibre ..... ..... ...... .. ....... .... ..... .. .. .. .. ....

(j3.25

56.27

Nitroo-en-free extract... ...... .... .. ........ ...........

337.99 1,901.27

Ash................. .... .............. .. .-....-... -... .-. ..-. ..-. -- - - -- -6-8.-7--! '---4-3.-:!0--

Th e rer;:ults ev id ence the exceptionally high mlue of th e . oja
bean a a feedin g stuff, far greater than that of corn or co w 1 ea:-;. the ~ uperiority of th e vin es for forage, which in composition are equal to th e cow peas and greatly surpass the corn forage.

The following experiments ha,e been omitted, being more or less out of season at this date:
Bur.LETIN 15.-Experiment No . 1--Special Nitrogen Experiment on Com/ No. 7- Vanety Test of Com;. ro. 9-ComJJO ling in the Henp vs.
77

~6

DEP.-U<T.\rE~T F .\ G IU C L'f RE - &EORGIA.

Com]''''liorl i,tfltr Fnn-rno; Article II-Small Fntit. by G.. peth, Hort iculturi"t (illustrated) .
Bu!.LETII> 16.-Expe rim ent No. 15- pecialllit1ogeo Expe1iment on Co/1,,11_.. :;\ o. 16- latm:ullural Fertilizing Cotton, o. 19-- Variety Tests of" Cotton.
Bui.r.Enx 1/.-I J"i" h Potato E.:perinwnts, Potash Expe1iments on Sweet Potntoe-" : I'a d efy Te.,t of Tomotoe.s. etc.

r

Geo. W . Hani. on, ' ~ Printer.