c Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations Builetinlo. 84 HORTICULTURAL SECTION JANUARY 1906 Tomato Fertilizers at Troupe By W. S HOTCHKISS and EDWARD C. GREEN Postoffice: College Station, Brazos County, Texas. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS. OFFICERS. GOVERNING BOARD. (BOARD OF DIRECTORS A. AND M. COLLEGE.) M. SANsOM, President . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A1varado F. A. REICHARDT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Houston K. K. LEGGETT . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Abi1ene GEO. T. JESTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Corsicana W. J. CLAY. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Austin A. HAIDUSEK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _LaGrange L. D. AMSLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hernpstead A. J. BROWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Da11as STATION OFFICERS. H. H. HARRINGTON, M. S., President of the College. JOHN A. CRAIG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Dean and Director M. FRANCIS, D. V. M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Veterinari.1n F. S. JoHNsToN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Agricti1tt1rist E. J. KYLE, M S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Horticulturist F. R. MARSHALL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ani1na1 Husbandry s EDWARD C. GREEN, B. S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assistant Horticulturist G. S. FRAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._....Acting Chemist R. L. BENNETT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . ..Cotton Specialist O. BALL. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Botanist B. C. PITTUCK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Feed Inspector C. O. MOSER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Deputy Feed Inspector ‘M. S. CHURCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . .Deputy Feed Inspector JOHN C. BURNs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Deputy Feed Inspector J. G. HARRISON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..B3okkeeper C. W. CRIsLER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C1erk Feed Control MIss M. H. WATKINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Stenographer STATE SUB-STATIONS. J. K. ROBERTSON, Superintendent . . . . . . . . . . . . .Beevil1e, Bee Countv W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent. . . . . . . . .Troupe, Smith County NOTE.--The main station is looated on the grounds of the A grieult- ural and Mechanical College in Brazos County. The Postofiioe address is College Station, Texas. Reports and Bulletins are sent free upon applica- tion to the Director. Table oi‘ Contents EXPERIMENTS IN 1904 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Preparation of Soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . .. 4 Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t 4 Applying the Fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Staking, Tying and Pruning . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 EXPERIMENTS IN 1905 Preparation of Soil . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IO Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1o Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1o Cultivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1o Staking, Tying and Pruning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 CONCLUSIONS RELATIVE TO FERTILIZERS . . . . . . . . . . ..14 THE VARIETY TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..14 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..t . . . . . . . . . 15 Tomato Fertilizers at Troupe BY W. S. HOTCHKISS AND EDWARD C. GREEN. From the time of the establishment of the Troupe Experiment Station four years ago, especial attention has been given to the subject of tomato fertilizers. This is due to the commercial importance of the crop in Est Texas, and from the fact that inquiries came in constantly which could not be answered at first hand without an investigation of the special needs of the soil in regard to this particular crop. The fertilizer experiments on tomatoes, conducted by Dr. E. P. Stiles in I902 and by Edward C. Green in I903, were not sufficiently conclu- sive, owing to dissimilar soil conditions, making plat comparisons unreli- able; but in both years the results indicated that phosphoric acid was the plant food most needed in the soil. In I903 and I904 nitrate of soda was used, as advised for early tomatoes by Prof. Edward B. Voorhees in his book on “Fertilizers;” and as this form of nitrogen gave no bet- ter results than cottonseed meal, it was subsequently dropped. In continuing the work in I905, a fertilizer similar in its amounts of plant food to that recommended by Prof. Hugh N. Starns in “Cyclopedia of American Horticulture” was used as a basis for one set of plats. Another set containing plats corresponding to those of the first was treated with the same fertilizer or mixtures, but only one-half the amounts were applied. The soil upon which the experiments were conducted is a very fine gray sand, varying from eight to eighteen inches in depth, and underlaid with a red clay sub-soil. EXPERIMENTS IN I904. The land used in I904 was comparatively new, having been cleared and cropped to cotton in I900, planted to sorghum in I901, and “laid out” during I902 and I903. Preparation 0f S0il.——In December, I903, the land was flat broken with a turning plow to a depth of six inches, and left to xveather until about the middle of February, when it was thoroughly pulverized with a disc harrow. During the next few weeks heavy rains occurred which packed the ground, making it necessary again to disc the land. This was done about the middle of March, after which it was leveled by run- ning a section harrow both ways over the field. Va1ieti6s.——The Acme and Earliana were the varieties used in the ex- periments, and the former being the one most commonly grown for mar- ket was used as a standard with which to compare the Earliana. This variety, on account if its earliness, has been attracting considerable atten- tion among truck growers. P1anting.—Seeds were received January 16th, from the Texas Seed 8c 6 TOMATO FERTILIZERS AT TROUPE Floral Company, of Dallas, and immediately planted in a hot bed pre- pared for them during the latter part of December. On February 25th the plants were removed t0 the cold frame, and set in checked rows five inches each way. They made a strong and uniform growth, and were carefully transplanted to the field on March 28th and 29th, being set in mellow soil three feet apart in the row, and four feet between rows. The Earliana plants were somexvhat smaller than the Acme, but were decidedly earlier, all of them having fruit buds, and a large number being in blossom when taken to the field. the FertiZi?er.-~§)n lylarch 26th the plats were lad off in rows xvith a middle burster, “the fertilizer carefully weighed, distributed by hand in the furrows, and thoroughly incorporated. with the soil by means of a “bull tongue.” Cultivati0n.—@nce a week, from the time of tran-éplanting until the fruit reached market maturity, the ground ‘was well stirred with a five- tooth cultivator, but after ‘the first picking the fourteen-tooth harrow was the only implement used, and then men ly to preserve the moist- ure by maintaining a dust mulch. Once only was it necessary to use hand hoes to remove weeds and grass. Staking, Tying and Pruning.——Bew'een April 15th and 20th all plats were staked, tied and pruned, and subsequent tyings and prunings were made as necessity required. In every instance four clusters were left to each plant. ' Notes on Growth, May 31st, 1904. Plat I. lVIade good growth; leaves dark and healthy. Plat 2. Small growth, plants weak, foliage light colored. Plat 3. Good growth, but not as strong as Plat I. Plat 4. Strong growth, about same as 1. Plat 5. Moderate growth, color of foliage quite light. Plat 6. About same as 5. Plat 7. Good growth, not as vigorous as I and 4. Plat 8. Good growth, about same as 1. Plat 9. Good growth, about same as 8. Plat 10. D/Ioderate growth, foliage inclined to be light colored. Plat 11. Strong growth, foliage dark and healthy. Plat 1 '. Poor growth, plants weak, foliage of poor color. Plat 15. Moderate growt", foliage of good color. Plat I4. Very strong, rank growth, foliage dark and healthy, many green tomatoes. Plat 15. About same as 14. The following page has been prepared to present in tabular form the results obtained from the use of different fertilizers when alone or in combinations. The first column shows the number of the plat; the sec- ond column, the kind of fertilizer used and the rate per acre; the double columns give the number of pounds of marketable and unmarketable toma- toes picked from each plat through two picking periods, and the last col- umns exhibit the total number of pounds picked per plat: 8 TOMATO FERTILIZERS AT TROUPE TOMATO FERTILIZER TEST 1904, TROUPE. Each Plat Contains 1-40 Acre. l Yield May 27 to Yield June 15 to ‘ Total Yield per June 14 in Pounds June 30 in Pounds, Plat in Pounds Plat FERTILIZER PER ACRE , v , _ No, l Mark- l Unmark- Mark- iLnmark- Mark- ‘Lnmark- l etable etable i etable ‘ etable etable i etable 1 Cottonseed Meal, 500 pounds.. 72.90 28.57 136.57 43 .25 209.27 72.82 2 Muriate of Potash, 300 pounds. 42.25 8.00 107.24 . 26.25 149.49 34.25 3 Acid Phosphate. 300 pounds... 110.62 21.00 187.62 50.00 298.24 71.00 4 Cottonseed Meal 500 pounds,‘ Acid Phosphate 300 pounds,3 Muriate of Potash 300 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.89 28.75 161.49 52.61 241.38 81.36 5 Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66.49 9.25 107.25 15.25 173.74 24.50 6 Wood Ashes, 2,000 pounds... . 63.79 12.50 ~ 110.37 12.75 174.16 25.25 7 Muriate of Potash, 300 pounds, , Acid Phosphate, 300 1 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104.36 15.75 192.37 31.23 296 .73 46.981 8 Cottonseed Meal, 500 poundsn Wood Ashes, 2,000 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68 .37 14.50 149.00 30.25 217.36 44.75 9 Cowpen Manure, 20,000 pounds 82.75 25.00 181.87 37.00 264.62 61.25 10 Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.73 10.00 116.37 33.75 177.10 43.75 11 Nitrate of Soda, 275 pounds“: 47.25 12.50 114.12 23.00 151.37 35.50 12 Lime, 2,000 pounds . . . . . . . . .. 37.87 11.00 129.87 18 .50 167.74 29.50 13 Houston Tankage, 500 pounds 62.75 16.50 167.00 39.50 229.75 56.00 14 Nitrate of Soda, 200 pounds,‘ Acid Phosphate, 610 poundsfl Muriate 0f Potash, 140,3 ’ pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 65 .63 27.75 183.00 57.25 248 .62 85.00 15 Nitrate of Soda, 300 pounds“ Acid Phosphate, 357 poundsfl l Muriate of Potash, 200 r pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87.62 30.25 l 179.25 42.25 266.87 72.50 The most interesting feature brought out by this table is the constant beneficial results obtained from the use of acid phosphate, either alone or in combination. Plat 3, it will be observed, not only yielded more market- able tomatoes earlier than any other plat, but gave the largest yield at the end of the picking season. This plat received an application of acid phosphate only. Potash, when used in combination with acid phosphate, seemed to have but little effect one Way or the other (see Plat 7); and when used alone, injured the plants and lessened the yield (see Plat 2 , as compared with Plats 5 and 10.) Tre table would indicate that cotton- seed meal, when used alone or in combination, tended to increase the yield; but retarded the ripening (see Plats I and 4). Nitrate of soda, when used alone was unsatisfactory (see Plat 11). lt should be noted here that the heavily fertilized plats, 14 and 15, each had an abundance of green fruit June 30th, at the close of the picking season, which was fixed by the termination of the profitable market period. Cow pen manure gave fairly good results, as shown in Plat 9. Wood ashes were unsatisfactory, either alone or in combination. Lime was evidently injurious, as shown in Plat I2. EXPERIMENTS IN 1905. The land employed in the fertilizer experiments in 1905 differed from that used in I904, in that it was in an old field that had been cropped to cotton several years in succession. There is no record of fertilizer ever having been used. IO TOMATO FERTIllIZERS AT TROUPE _ Preparation of -S0i1.—The land was flat broken with a turning plow to a depth of six inches early in November, 1904, but owing t0 con- tinued heavy rains during the winter further working was not attempted until late in March, at which time it was thoroughly pulverized and leveled with a disc and spike-tooth harrow, respectively. Varieties.-—Besides the Ac-me and Earliana used in the experiments of I904, the Beauty was included in the tests, as this variety had be- come a favorite in many localities. Planting.—The Earliana seeds were received from the Texas Seed & Floral Company, and the Beauty and Acme were obtained from the Liv- ingston Seed Company of Columbus, Ohio. All were sown January 23rd and 24th, and by the first of February were up to a good stand. On account of the cold and cloudy weather, lasting from February Ist to the 15th, considerable difficulty was experienced in carrying the plants through, and despite the best of care only 3000 were saved from a lot of 10,000. Because of the severe loss a second sowing was made February 16th. The plants from the first lot were taken to the cold frame on March 7th, and the second lot followed ten days later. The young plants were small, but strong and thrifty. On April 4th and 5th all plants were transferred to the field and set in the same manner as in the preceding year; namely, four feet between rows and three feet in the rout". Early and late plants were distributed in equal ratio to each plat. Cultivati0n.—_()n account of the continued rains throughout the early part of the season, cultivation was extremely difficult, and many times it was necessary to follow with the fourteen-tooth barrow immediately after the five-tooth in order to prevent the ground “baking.” Commencing on April 5th, the plats were cultivated as follows: April 5th. Cultivated with five-tooth cultivator. April 8th. Cultivated with diverse cultivator. April 18th. Cultivated with diverse cultivator. April 27th. Cultivated xvith five-tooth cultivator. lWay 6th. Cultivated with five-tooth cultivator. May I7th. Cultivated with diverse cultivator. May 27th. Cultivated with five-tooth cultivator. June 3rd. Cultivated with five-tooth cultivator. Staking, Tying and Pruning.—All plats were staked, tied and pruned April 26th and 27th, and three subsequent prunings were made at inter- vals of about a week, the single stem system being used as in the previous year. . The following table shows the plan of the experiment; the kind and amount of fertilizers used per acre; the number of pounds of tomatoes gathered from each plat during two picking periods, and the total amount from each plat: 12 TOMATO FERTILTZERS AT TROUPE TOMATO FERTILIZER TEST 1905, TROUPE. Each Plat Contains 3-80 Acre. Yield June 2 to l Yield June 14 to Total Yield per ljune 13 1n Pounds June 29 1n Pounds Plat in Pounds Unrnark- Mark- Unmark- etable etable etable Plat FERTILIZER PER ACRE i NO_ Mark- Unmark-j Mark- etable l etable i etable Muriate of Potash, 140 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.00 27.00 9 Cottonseed Meal, 250 pounds. 63.75 10.25 ' 10 Acid Phosphate, 300 pounds... 51.75 13.50 11 Muriate of Potash, 7O pounds.. 40.25 4.00 12 Cottonseed Meal, 250 pounds, Acid Phosphate, 300 pounds 126.50 24.25 13 Acid Phosphate, 300 pounds, Muriate of Potash, 7O pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.75 10.50 14 Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 13 .25 1.00 15 Cottonseed Meal, 250 pounds, Muriat e of Potash, 70 , pounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 79.00 14.50 .‘ 16 Cottonseed Meal, 250 pounds; l Muriate of Potash 70 pounds.‘ Acid Phosphate, 300 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f 17 Cottonseed Meal, 500 pounds,‘ Acid Phosphate 600 poundsg Muriate of Potash, 140' pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l sogg 21 .50“ 97.50 48.25 18 Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..§ 9. 3.00 ? . . . . . . .. 69.25 58.00 123.25 85.00 54.25 32.25 118.00 42.50 71.50 29.00 123.25 42.50 46.75 13.75 87.00 17.75 236.50 97.50 1 Cottonseed Meal, 500 pounds...| 88.75 30.75 103.25 57.50 192.00 88.25 2 Acid Phosphate, 600 pounds.. .i 85.00 13.25 \ 115.00 54.75 200.00 68.00 3 Muriate of Potash, 140 poundm 45.00 2.75 , 41.50 27.25 86.50 30.00 4 Check. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.25 3.75 I 44.75 21.00 94.00 24.75 5 Cottonseed Meal, 500 pounds, Acid Phosphate, 600 pounds, 128.00 26 .50 l 141 .75 82.25 269 .75 108 .75 6 Acid Phosphate, 600 pounds, l Muriate of Potash. 140 ‘ pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.75 16.25 l 62.50 27.00 118.25 43.25 7 Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.75 4.25 35.75 6.50 73.50 10.75 8 Cottonseed Meal, 500 pounds! l )—' r-i O Q Q \1 0O N) O1 82.50 32.00 160.25 42.50 14.00 9.00 27.25 10.00 33.50 11.75 112.50 26.25 l 82.00 22.75] 80.25 41.75 162.25 54.50 187.50 69.75 9.50 NQTE__The apprQXirnate cost of fertilizers f. o. b. Troupe in the Spring of 1905 was as fol- lows: Acid Phosphate, $19.00 per ton; Cottonseed Meal, $25.00 per i011; Muriate 0f POtaSh. $55.00 per ton. Qne conspicuous feature brought out in the table is the constant in- crease in yield on plats where acid phosphate was used. It is a fact, how- ever, that under the conditions prevailing this season, more tomatoes were picked during the first period from the plats on which cottonseed meal was used alone than from those on which acid phosphate was used alone (see Plats I, 2, 9 and 1o). It will be noticed that Plat 5 produced the greatest yield, not only at the end of the season, but also during the first period. This plat was fertilized at the rate of 50o pounds of cotton- seed meal and 60o pounds of acid phosphate per acre. The plat giving the next earliest and largest yield was No. 12, which received the same mixture of fertilizer as Plat 5, but only one-half the quantity per acre; that is, 250 pounds of cottonseed meal and 300 pounds of acid phos- phate. Muriate of potash, when used alone or in combination, has but little, if any, value on soil similar to that on which the experiments were conducted. Plats 16 and l7 were considerably later than the other plats, and at least one—fourth of the crop was left on the vines at the end of the marketing season. Plats 14 and 18 were badly damaged by soil washing, due to heavy rains, and they should not be considered in comparison with other plats. UTPA, Mu. DQZZuEWHm MmDAJENmD. Ionian» <50 fiwoififiwna _m-.nw.~a\\,nw0u I4 TOMATJ FERTILIZERS AT TROUPE CONCLUSIONS RELATIVE TO FERTILIZERS The results obtained from the tests in I904. indicate very strongly that an application of acid phosphate is all that is necessary on new land comparatively rich in humus, and the results in I905 show that on old land, deficient in humus and fertility, the addition of cottonseed meal to the acid phosphate is essential to the production of the earliest and largest yield (see plats 5 and I2). In comparing the two best plats (Nos. 5 and I2) in the I905 table, it xvill be seen that the heavier application of fertilizer does not produce a proportionate, nor a profitable increase in yield as a consequence. Both years’ tests indicate that potash, when used alone or in combination, is unsatisfactory, at least; and in most cases it appears to cause direct injury. Judging from the results of two years, the following formula is sug- gested for soils similar to that of the Troupe Experiment Station: Acid phosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1,200 pounds. Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 pounds. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 pounds. From four to six hundred pounds per acre of the above formula should be used. The above conclusions, in regard to acid phosphate, are still further strengthened by statements made by former superintendent, Ur. E. P. Stiles, who conducted tomato fertilizer experiments at the stazion 1n I902. The following is taken from his notes: “The most conspicuous fact brought out, bcth on the ground and in Table I, is, that the superior plats are those which received acid phosphate. There is no exception. Those oontaining acid phosphate are superior; those containing none are 1n erior. THE VARIETY TEST. In connection with the fertilizer experiments, a comparative test of the earliness of Acme and Earliana was conducted in 1904, and in 1905 the test was repeated with the addition of the Beauty. The following table shows the average number of pounds gathered at each picking during three periods, six pickings being included in a period: 1904. THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF POUNDS GATHERED AT EACH PICKING FROM June 7 to June 18 June 19 to June 3O l VARIETY ‘ Mark< Unmarkq Mark- Unmark- Mark- Unmark- | . etable etable ~ etable etable ‘ etable etable Earliana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.71 1 13.64 61.76 13.02 2 77.89‘ 11.65 cme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.12 l 4.87 60.35 21.01 | 102.46 20.07 l-ll Each variety covered 3-16 acre. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS I5 1905. THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF POUNDS GATHERED AT EACH PICKING FROM ljune 2 to June 1O lJune 11 to June IQlIune 2O to June 29 VARIETY Mark- lUnmark-i Mark- Unmark-l Mark- Unmark- 5 etable etable ‘1 etable etable l etable etable _€__-___>~~»» <~_§—-»~»—— l~»-~—{~~— ~~ —}<—— ——-———<— -————i- Beauty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i 25.71 l 5.89 , 47.98 16.12 l 70.76 23.77 Acme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..‘. 39.67 l, 4.10 ‘ 44.74 21.58 69.30 26.61 Earliana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 64 .69 7.46 l 43 . 64 32 .26 36 .00 26 .77 1 l l ________€__i_i___{__ Each variety covered approximately 1-4 acre. The above tables show clearly that the Earliana produces more early tomatoes than either Acme or Beauty. This fact, however, should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the Earliana, on account of its earliness, is the most profitable on the whole. lt merely suggests that for very early express shipments, this variety probably would be ‘more profitable than either of the others. No doubt some difficulty would be experienced in selling it in mixed cars with Acmes and Beauties, as it differs in ap- pearance from them, and is but little known to most buyers. As it grows here, it is large and attractive. SUMMARY. I. Acid phosphate produced more constant beneficial results than any other single fertilizer. 2. (Tn new land an application of 30o pounds of acid phosphate per acre gave best results. 3. Qn old land, which had never been fertilized, an application of 300 pounds of acid phosphate and 250 pounds of cottonseed meal per acre gave the most satisfactory returns. 4. Potash, either alone or in combination, was at least unsatisfactory. 5. Lime was injurious. 6. Wood ashes were valueless. 7. The Earliana was earlier than Acme or Beauty, and co-mmends itself as a profitable variety for early express shipments. It is not recom- mended for the general crop.