A228--327-12M-L180 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, " gcfljoa _- commas]: STATION, BRAZOS TYQjExAs J’)\_ “'13: . BULLETIN N0. 3'57 ‘A’ ,1, " MAY, 192'?’ ~<"";W -_ W1}, DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE “\__h.d,:»._ , t 1 . E "Q3;- “is, ‘A ~ EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON THE CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. 0. WALTON, President STATION STAFF? ADMINISTRATION : *B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CoNNER, M. S., Acting Director R. E. KARPER, B. S., Acting Vice-Director J. M. SCHAEDEL, Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk J. K. FRANCKLOW, Assistant Chief Clerk CHESTER Hicos, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLEITE, Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE: "M. FRANcis, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian J. D. JONEs, D. V. M., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY: G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. AsBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist WALno H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist ADAH E. STURGIS, B. S.. Assistant Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Chemist R. O. BRooRE, M. S., Assistant Chemist T. L OGIER, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. G. EVANS. Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: W. B. LANHAM, M. A., Chief H. NEss, M. S., Berry Breeder RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JQNEs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations J. L. Lvsn, Ph. D , Animal Husbandman; Breeding Investigations W. H. DAMERON, B. S., Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist W. L OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomolo is! S. E. McGREGoR, JR., Acting Chie Foulbrood Inspector OTro MAcKENsEN, Foulbrood Inspector GiLLis GRAHAM, Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYNoLns, M. S., Chief A. B. CoNNER, M. S., Agronomist; Grain Sorghum Research R. E. KARPER, B. S., Agronomist; Small Grain Research _ P. C. IVIANGELSDORF, Sc. D., Agroncmist; Corn and Small Grains D. T. KiLLoucR, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton Breeding E. C. Cusnmc, B. S.. Assistant in Crops P. R. JonNsoN, Assistant in Soils PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D . Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chie ‘B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., P . D., Farm and Ranch Economist G. L. CRAWFORD, M, S., Marketing Research Specialist V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist "**T. L. GASTON, JR., B. S., Assisiannlfarm Records and Accounts ***J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant, Ranch Records and Accounts RURAL HOME RESEARCH: JEssIE ‘NHITACRE, Ph. D., Chief SOIL SURVEY: '**W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief H. W. HAwKER, Soil Surveyor E. H. TEMPLIN. B. S.. Soil Surveyor T. C. REITcH, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY: H. NEss, M. S., Chief PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JACKSON, Chief SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: -—-—————. Chief POULTRY HUSBANDRY: B. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief "***AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: MAIN STATION FARM: G. T McNEss. Superintendent APICULTURAL RESEARCH LABORATORY: (San Antonio) H. B. PARKS. B. S., Apiculturist in Charge A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: F. D FULLER, M. S., Chief S. D. PEARcE, Secretary J. H. RocERs, Feed Inspector W. H. W001), Feed Inspector K. L. KIRKLAND. B. S., Feed Inspector W. D. NORTHCUTI‘, JR., B. S., Feed Inspector SUBSTATIONS No. l, Beevllle, Bee County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County: R H. STANSEL, M. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jeflerson County: R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: H. E. REA, B. S., Superintendent Ne. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent ‘W0. 7, Spur, Dickens County: R. E. DICKSON, B. S.,'Superintendent I Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent FRANK GAmEs, lrrigaaionist and Forest Nurserymari No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent No. l0, Feeding and Breeding Station, near College Station, Brazos County: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Animal Husband- man in Charge of Farm L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H F. MoRRis, M. S., Superintendent ***No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. B. Qumnv. B. S , Superintendent ***J. C. STEPHENS, M. A., Junior Agronomist No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: E. W. THOMAS, B. S., Superintendent W. L. BLAcK, D V. M., Veterinarian V. L. CORY, M. S.. Grazing Research Botaniut "*0. G. BABCOCK, B. S., Collaborating Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. l5, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. FmENn, B. S., Superintendent M. McPiiAiL. B. S., Entomologist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. WiLsQN, B. S., Superintendent Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperativ ‘ Projects on the Station: G. W. ADRlANcE, M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture S. W. BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology G. P. GROUT, M. S., Professor of Dairy Husbandry V. P. LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Marketing and Einance D. SGOATES, A. E., Professor of Agricultural Engineering _ _ H. P. SMITH, B. S., Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering TAs of May 1, 1927. *On leave. "Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. ***In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. ****In cooperation with the School of Agriculture. SYNOPSIS Tomatoes are one of the major commercial vegetable crops of Texas, and‘ are yearly increasing in importance. The larger part of Texas tomatoes are picked green and each fruit is wrapped in paper and shipped in four-basket packages. These are termed “green wrap” tomatoes. It is the opinion of many people that potash fertilizer improves the carrying qualities of tomatoes. In the spring of 1926 a series of experiments was started with five varieties at four different Substations to find out the effect of potash on the yield and the carrying quality of tomatoes. The only variable in the fertilizer was potash. Four formulas were used. The fertilizer used in the check plats contained eight per cent phosphoric acid, four per cent nitro- gen, and no potash. The other plats received the same amounts of phosphoric acid and nitrogen, and in addition, four, six, and eight per cent potash, respectively. The tomatoes were subjected to various tests to study their resistance to rough handling. Some green tomatoes were shaken until they broke, some were dropped from a given height until they cracked, others were crushed until they broke, and still others were kept in storage until they ripened. Some of the ripe tomatoes were shaken until they broke and the rest were kept in storage until they decayed. Potash in the fertilizer increased the yield, but had no con- sistent effect on the carrying quality, as measured by the above tests. The time of harvest and the differences between varie- ties,were much greater than the difference between tomatoes grown on plats containing various amounts of potash. CONTENTS ' PAGE Object of Experiment . . . , . . . . . . . . . f . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .. 5 Method of Procedure, . ._ . . i . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Soil 0n \Vhich Tomatoes Were Grown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Fertilizers Used i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S Place and Time of Conducting Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Tests Given . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Shaking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Dropping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Time t0 Ripen in Storage. .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Time to Decay in Storage . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Amount of Potash in Fruit and Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . .. 9 Results Obtained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l0 Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 College Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . . . . .. 10 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 YVeslaco . . . . . . . i . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Iowa Park . . . . . . . i . . . . i . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Relation of Shaking Green Fruit to the Fertilizer Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 College Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Wleslaco . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Iowa Park , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Relation of. Shaking Ripe Fruit to the Fertilizer Applied . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 19 College Station i . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 YVeslaQo . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Iowa Park . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Relation of Breaking by Pressure to tl1e Fertilizer Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 College Station . i . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . i . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . , . .. . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Weslaco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 Relation of Breaking by Dropping to the Fertilizer Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 College Station i . . . . . . _ . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 Weslaco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Relation of Time to Ripen in Storage to the Fertilizer Applied . . . . . . . . . . 28 College Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . 28 Relation of Time to Decay in Storage to the Fertilizer Applied . . . . . . . . . . 29 Uninjured Fruit . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 Sound vs. Cracked Fruit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Potash in Fruit and Plant . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Average Results of Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . l . . . . . . .. 32 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 BULLETIN No. 35'?’ MAY, 192'?’ EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES* (A PRELIMINARY REPORT) ~ W. B. LANHAM Tomatoes have, for several years, been one of the major vegetable crops in Texas, and are yearly increasing in importance. This is shown by Table No. 1, which gives the number of carloads of tomatoes shipped from the State for the past ten years. These figures were furnished by J. Austin Hunter, Market News Specialist for the State Department of Agriculture. It has been’ found that tomatoes picked just as they are losing their greenish tinge and are beginning to take on a whitish color can be shipped without refrigeration and will usually be ripe upon arriving at market. - According to the State Department of Agriculture, 75 to 85 per cent of the tomatoes shipped from Texas at the present time are picked at this “green wrap” stage. There is a general impression among growers and dealers in this State that potash materially improves the carrying quality of tomatoes. This belief is so general that many buyers are insisting that the grower use a fertilizer containing potash. Some buyers will not contract to buy tomatoes unless this is done. A series of experiments was started by the Texas Experiment Station for the purpose of determining what effect, if any, potash fertilizers have on the carrying qualities of tomatoes. The test is to continue over a period of years, but certain results of the first year are herewith pre- sented. The experiment this year dealt with 3560 individual fruits. The principal work was done at College Station with two varieties and at the Troup Station, in the heart of the tomato district of East Texas, with two other varieties. A small amount of Work was done with still another variety at the Weslaco Station in the lower Rio Grande Valley, and also at the Iowa Park Station in Northwest Texas. Contrary to expectations arising from the popular beliefs of growers and buyers, the tests for the single year in which they have run show that potash materially increased the yield, but did not show any con- sistent tendency to improve the carrying quality of the fruit. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Many persons have studied on the effect of fertilizers on the yield of tomatoes, and the results have been very conflicting. Boyle (3) reached the conclusion that potash increases the yield of *Manuscript submitted for publication January 27, 1927. 6 BULLETIN NO. 857, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION tomatoes in Indiana and recommended as the most profitable fertilizer, 10-2-6. Brown (4) in a later work recommends as a most profitable fertilizer for tomatoes in Indiana, 12-2-6. He also reached the conclusion that phosphoric acid and potash increased the earliness of ripening. Lloyd and Brooks, in Illinois (7), “indicate that commercial fer- tilizers would not materially influence the size and grade of tomatoes, but that the yield and earliness were influenced to some extent.” They say that the results of one year, 1912, show “that potash has a more decided influence upon the size of fruit than has phosphoric, acid, while it is probable that nitrogen exerts a greater influence than either potash or phosphoric acid.” Vorhees, in New Jersey, (14) reached the conclusion that “nitrogen was probably the most important fertilizer ingredient for tomatoes, but- the financial profits from the use of nitrate of soda are also governed by the method of application and by the presence or absence, in the soil, of sufficient quantities of mineral fertilizers.” Bailey, in New York, (2) says that our test “uniformly gives largest yields on heavy fertilized land—much may depend upon soil and still more upon the character of the fertilizer used.” He also says that muriate of potash gives better results than either nitrogen or phosphoric acid. Dacy, in West Virginia, (5) recommends, as the best fertilizer for tomatoes, four hundred pounds of 8-3-10. Work, in New York, (18) reports “a marked cut in yield when potash was reduced or omitted in spite of the fact that determinations have shown a high potash content in the glacier lake-shore soils of the region.” (Chautauqua) Hepler and Krayill, in New Hampshire, (6) with reference to tomato fertilizers, say: “The application of potash in addition to manure neither hastens the maturity nor increases the total yield. “Muriate of potash, at the rate of one thousand pounds per acre after the first year, inhibited the effect of acid phosphate in increasing the yield and hastening the maturity of the crop.” Work, i-n New York, (17 ) concluded that neither potash nor phosphate was the limiting factor in tomato production. Robinson, in Maryland, (11) did not get an appreciable increase over the test plats from applications of potash. Robinson, (10) in a later report on the fertilizer tests with tomatoes, says that the smallest rate of increase was from an application of muriate of potash and nitrate of soda. Rosa, in Missouri, (12) says that “sulphate of potash alone causes a slight increase in yield on the average of the ten tests and with these experiments a mixed fertilizer containing no potash produced practically as good yield as the complete fertilizer.” There is not much literature on the effect of potash on the quality of tomatoes. EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 7 Tracy (13) states that “phosphoric acid tends to produce soft fruit with less distinct acid flavor while potash tends to smaller growth of vine but firm and more acid fruit.” N o data, however, are presented to support this assertion. McCue and Pelton, in Delaware, (8) “found that potash does not lessen the liability of tomatoes to disease, but on the other hand, seems to render the plant more susceptible to certain leaf diseases. Potash used by itself has been an aid in hastening maturity.” Bailey, in New York, (1) in speaking of the keeping quality of tomatoes, reached the conclusion that the length of time to which a fruit will keep “was largely accidental to the fruit in the best variety; that is, that the keeping quality is comparatively undeveloped as a varietal characteristic in the tomato.” In discussing “Do Fertilizers Modify Quality,” he reached the con- clusion that the general differences in the fruits from the experiments at that time was not sufliciently marked and consistent to warrant any definite conclusion, although he was led to feel that there is little varia- tion in flavor due to fertilizer. Patterson, _in Maryland, (9) says that “potash has a tendency to produce a fruit with slightly less sugar and more acid.” In discussing the amount of potash in the fruit of tomato, he says that “the per cent of potash increases With increased application of potash.” He reached the conclusion that a complete fertilizer was necessary for the best results with tomatoes in_Maryland. He further says that “a crop of ten tons of fruit removed from the soil 31.9 pounds of nitrogen, 9.2 pounds of phosphoric acid, and 53.8 pounds of potash. “An ordinary crop of tomatoes will leave on the ground to be turned under, the following in roots and stubble: 8999 pounds containing 27.3 pounds of nitrogen, 4.1 pounds phosphoric acid, and 33.9 pounds of potash.” White (16), in discussing growing tomato plants under greenhouse conditions in Maryland, states that those from the “dissolved phosphate rock and sulphate of potash were of a very much lighter green.” METHOD OF PROCEDURE Soil The soil at College Station is Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam underlaid with a clay subsoil at from twelve to eighteen inches. The land had been in cultivation four years. A crop of grain sorghum was grown in 1925, cotton in 1924, corn in 1923, and grain sorghum in 1922. No commercial fertilizer had been applied to any of these crops. Only one series of New Stone tomatoes was used. Two plats were at one end and the other two plats at the opposite end of the experi- mental tracts. The three series of plats planted to “Gulf State Market” were arranged so that the plat receiving no potash in each case fell 8 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION between the plats receiving the most and the least amount of potash, respectively. Fertilizer was applied at the rate of six hundred pounds per acre. The arrangement of plats is shown in Table No. 2. The soil at Troup on which the tomato fertilizer experiment was con- ducted was Susquehanna Fine Sandy Loam, varying from six to twelve inches in depth and was underlaid by plastic red clay subsoil. There is a narrow strip of Ruston Fine Sandy Loam running diagonally across the block. A peach orchard had been on this land since 1913 and no fertilizer had been used during that time. The land at Weslaco is naturally very fertile. It was cleared of mesquite bushes January, 1924, and that year was planted first to cotton and later to beets. In 1925 a crop of corn was grown on it. Table No. 1.—Carload Shipments of Texas Tomatoes. From 1917-1926. Year Cars 1917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1278 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123 1919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1205 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1395 1921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2025 1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1893 1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084 1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1694 1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2398 1926 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2779 Data furnished by the Texas State Department of Agriculture. Fertilizers Used The check plats were supplied with the same amount of nitrogen and phosphoric acid as the test plats were. Potash was the only variable. Fertilizer at the rate of 600 pounds per acre was applied, using the following formulas: 8-4-0 to the checks, 8-4-4, 8-4-6, 8-4-8 to the test plats. Place and Time of Conducting Tests Tomatoes grown at College Station were treated the same day they were harvested. - The tomatoes grown at the outlying Stations were harvested at the “green wrap” stage, packed in four-basket carriers in the usual com- mercial manner and shipped to College Station over distances of 100, 300, and 500 miles, respectively, and were in transit or storage two to four days. Tests Given The tomatoes could not be shipped under exactly the same conditions as they would if handled commercially, and experiments were accord- i.ngly made to test the comparative resistance to rough treatment which the fruits from the several plants would stand. EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 9’ Fig. 1.——Machine for Shaking Tomatoes. Shakillgi Fruit in transit is subject to almost constant shaking. It Was decided that if fruit from all four fertilized series could be shaken». under similar conditions until broken this method would serve as one measure of the fruit’s carrying qualities. A machine Was therefore devised (Fig. 1) driven by an electric motor and provided with sufficient compartments to accommodate fruit from all four plats at the same time. These compartments Were arranged so as to allow the fruits to move- about freely and bump against each other and against the sides of the compartment. The compartments were all the same size, and the bottoms» were covered with soft paper so that the fruit would not be injured by scratching on the bottom. Fruits were selected so far as practical of the same size and shape. They were examined at the end of each half‘ hour of shaking and all those that showed broken skin were removed. This was continued until all fruits were broken. This test was given- to both green and ripe fruit. Pressure! Pressure is exerted periodically, if not constantly, on fruit in storage and in transit. It was therefore deemed advisable to ascertain the amount of pressure fruit from each plat would stand before cracking. A pair of scales (Fig. 4) was placed so that fruit could be crushed bye means of a lever and records were kept of the amount of pressure neces- 10 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION sary to crush the fruit. Soft paper was placed 0n the scale platform and between the fruit and the lever. Green fruits from each plat were subjected t0 this test. Each individual fruit was placed 0n its side, and beginning at fifteen pounds, pressure Was recorded every five pounds until the fruit cracked. Prepping! Crates of fruit in transit are frequently dropped. It Was decided that the number of times it would take a fruit dropped from a given height to crack would be another measure of the fruit’s carrying quality. Individual green fruits were dropped from a height of four feet into a galvanized iron pan placed on a concrete floor, and the nulli- ber of times that the fruit was dropped before breaking was recorded. Time t0 Ripell iii Sterage! Tomatoes picked at the green wrap stage are expected to ripen in transit, or very shortly after arrival at desti11a- tion. In order to study the effect, if any, of potash on the time of ripening, fruits were placed in a refrigerator without ice and allowed to ripen. Temperature readings were made each day, and the number of fruits ripe was recorded. Time t0 Deeay in Sterflge! In order to study the effect, if any, of potash on the keeping quality of fruit, a portion of the ripe fruit was allowed to remain in storage until it decayed. In order to maintain as uniform a temperature as possible without artificial refrigeration, the fruits were kept in a refrigerator without ice. The fruits. were placed unwrapped on the Wire shelves of the refrigerator and any decayed fruit was removed at two- to four-day intervals. In order to study the effect of injured compared with the uninjured fruit in storage, tomatoes that had been cracked by dropping were put into a refrigerator with uninjured tomatoes, and a record was made each day of the number of decayed fruit. Amount of Potash in Fruit and Plant: v the potash content of both fruit and plant from each of the fertilized series were made by the Division of Chemistry. RESULTS OBTAINED Yield College Stetienr A study of Table No. 2 shows that, with one excep- tion, the plats receiving potash out-yielded the nearest check plat. An average of the three “Gulf State Market” series shows that the plats Chemical analyses to determine I receiving siX per cent potash materially out-yielded any of the others, l and the average of all the plats receiving potash out-yielded the averages of the check plats. The “New Stone” series gave similar results except that the plat receiving eight per cent potash yielded the heaviest. The Weather was unseasonably dry during most of the growing periodqi The fruit was small and the total yield, rather than the yield of market- able fruit, is given. Troup: A fertilizer schedule had been prepared to test the effect of EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 11 Table No. 2.—-Yield of Tomatoes at College Station. Plat 1.55 acre. Plat No. Fertilizer Variety Total Yield Per.Plat, Bushels 2 8—4—4 New StoneJ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 .6 3 8—4———6 New Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 .0 4 8—4—8 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 132.0 5 8—4——0 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106.5 6 8—4——4 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 .5 7 8—4—6 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 202.4 8 8—4—8 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 197.1 9 8—4-—0 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 149.6 10 8—4——4 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 175.6 11 8—4——6 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 184.8 12 8—4—8 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 169.4 13 8—4-—0 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 184.8 14 8—4——4 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 184.8 15 8—4——6 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 245.5 16 8—4—8 New Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308.9 17 8—4——0 New Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158.3 Average Yield. Fertilizer Variety Yield, Variety Yield, Bushels Bushels 8—4—-0 New Stone . . . . . . . . .. 158.3 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . .. 146.9 8—4—-4 New Stone . . . . . . . . .. 193.5 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . .. 167.6 8~—4—6 New Stone . . . . . . . . .. 220.0 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . .. 210.9 8—4—8 New Stone . . . . . . . . . . 308.9 Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . .. 169.2 different fertilizers on yield. Table No. 3 gives the entire schedule. Only plats 5, '7, 10, and 12 Were utilized in the study of the effect of potash on the carrying quality of tomatoes. When the plants Were about tWo-thirds grown a very severe hail storm practically ruined them and they had to be cut back to the ground. The data are presented for What they may be Worth. If only plats 5, 7’, 10, and 12 are considered, the results Will be very similar to those secured at College Station; that is, all of the plats to Which potash Was applied as a fertilizer out-yrielded the check plats of 8-4-0, and that one receiving six per cent potash produced the highest yield. Weslacoi A decision to study the effect of potash on the carrying quality of tomatoes Was not made until the fertilizer had been applied at Weslaco. The treatments are, therefore, not exactly comparable With those at the other Station, but merely illustrate the effect of no potash, of potash alone, and of potash in combination With nitrogen and phosphoric acid. The results given in Table No. 4 indicate that the plat receiving no fertilizer yielded the largest amount of marketable tomatoes, and that the plat receiving potash alone yielded the largest total amount. There is so little difference in the yields, however, that differences are not significant. _ ‘ IOWH Park! The yield records at Iowa Park are not usable owing to late planting. 12 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table No. 3.—_Yield of Tomatoes at Troup. (Injured by hail.) Size of Plats: 1/30 acre. ' _ _ _ Pounds Marketable Plat N0. - Kind and Amount of Fertilizer to the Acre Fruit to the Plat 1 Check (unfertilized) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 .98 2 200 pounds sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 .43 3 300 pounds acid phosphate (16 per cent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 .43 4 150 pounds nitrate of soda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 .50 300 pounds acid phosphate 5 150 pounds nitrate of soda 186 .75 (Equivalent to 600 pounds 8—4—0) ' 6 Check (unfertilized) . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 .68 300 pounds acid phosphate 7 150 pounds nitrate of soda 203 .18 45 pounds muriate of potash (Equivalent » to 600 pounds 8—4—-4) 300 pounds acid phosphate 8 ' 300 pounds cotton seed meal 157 .31 45 pounds muriate of potash (Equivalent to 600 pounds 8——4——4) 300 pounds acid Phosphate _ _ _ *9 150 pounds nitrate of soda (in two applications) 128 .25 45 pounds muriate of potash (Equivalent to 600 pounds 8—4-—4) 300 pounds acid phosphate l0 150 pounds nitrate of soda 243 .04 7O pounds muriate of potash (Equivalent to 600 pounds 8—~4—6) 11 Check (unfertilized) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.00 300 pounds acid phosphate l2 150 pounds nitrate of soda 209 .37 90 pounds muriate of potash (Equivalent to 600 pounds 8——4——8) 300 pounds acid phosphate l3 80 pounds nitrate of soda 159.50 (Equivalent to 400 pounds 12-—4——0) 300 pounds acid phosphate 14 80 pounds nitrate of soda 144.12 25 pounds muriate of potash (Equivalent to 400 pounds l2—3—3) 600 pounds acid phosphate 15 300 pounds nitrate of soda 173-75 90 pounds muriate of potash (Equivalent to 1200 pounds 8—4-—4) 300 pounds acid phosphate 16 300 pounds nitrate of soda 155 -9 90 pounds muriate of potash (Equivalent to 7 .6——5.6—5) 17 Check (unfertilized) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 .68 EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 13 Table N0. 4.—Yield of Tomatoes at Weslaco. Plat 1/55 acres. _ _ No. 1, Culls, Total, Plat Fertilizer Pounds Pounds Pounds 7 Check-no fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 .75 56 .25 116 .00 9 250 pounds kaimt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.25 75 .75 119 .00 12 300 pounds acid phosphate, _ 85 pounds sulphate of ammonia, 52 pounds murlate of potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 .25 71 .75 110 .00: College Station: Relation of Shaking Green Fruit to the Fertilizer Applied Table No. 5 shows the number of fruits broken at the end of each half hour for both varieties, New Stone and Gulf State Market, and for each plat. Pcrcc/r/ayc f/oar: Fig. 2.—Green Tomatoes from College Station Broken by Shaking. Total Percentage Broken at End of Each Half Hour. 14 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table No. 6 shows a summary of all of the fruits broken of both varieties and for each fertilizer. The amount of fruit broken each period is expressed in percentage rather than in numbers. The graph in Fig. 2 shows the total number of fruits broken at the end of each half-hour period. This graph will allow a comparison, not only between the different fertilizers, but also between the two varieties. The time taken to break the Gulf State Market varied from one-half hour to two a11d one-half hours. The New Stone required one hour to three and one-half hours. No fruits from the Gulf State Market check plat were broken the first half hour, but forty-two per cent of them were broken at the end of one hour. Twenty-eight per cent of the fruit from the plat receiving eight per cent potash was broken in the same length of time. The plat receiving four per cent potash had forty-seven per cent of the fruit broken at the end of an hour. All of the fruits from the plats receiving Table N0. 5.—Number 0f Green Tomatoes Broken by Shaking at End of Each Half-hour. (College Station.) Number Breaking _ Plat Total Variety Fert. N0. No. M; 1 1 M2 2 2% 3 3% Hour Hour Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours b New Stone. . . . ... 8-4-4 2 30 . . . . .. 2 13 11 3 1 . . . . .. New Stone . . . . . . . 8-4-6 3 28 . . . . . . 1 1O 8 8 1 . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-8 4 40 1 7 19 12 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-0 5 40 . . . . . . 22 12 4 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-4 6 4O . . . . . . 18 17 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-6 7 4O 1 21 13 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-8 8 30 . . . . . . 13 16 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-O 9 31 . . . . . . 16 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-4 1O 27 . . . . . . 16 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-6 11 40 . . . . . . 27 11 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-8 12 40 . . . . . . 1O 23 4 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-0 13 39 . . . . . . 8 28 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-4 14 4O 1 15 22 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-6 15 39 . . . . . . 26 9 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Stone . . . . . . . 8-4-8 16 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11 3 1 1 New Stone . . . . . . . 8-4-O 17 30 . . . . . . 2 14 6 6 2 . . . . . . four and six per cent potash were broken at the end of the two hours, and less than five per cent of the 8-4-0 and 8-4-8 required another half hour to break. ' None of the New Stone variety broke under an hour’s shaking and it required three and one-half hours to break all of the tomatoes from the plat receiving eight per cent potash. With both varieties there is a difference in resistance between the plats receiving potash and those receiving no potash, but apparently there is no uniformity in this difference. Fig. No. 3 shows the average time required to break each variety and for each of the fertilizers. With the Gulf State Market, the’ plat receiv- ing eight per cent potash produced.the most resistant fruit. It required, on the average, an hour and twenty-two minutes to break this fruit. For the same variety, the least resistant fruit was from the plat that received EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 15 siX per cent potash. It required only ninety-eight hundredths of an hour on the average to break them. The most resistant Gulf State Market fruits were from the plat re- ceiving eight per cent potash. The fruit from the plat receiving no potash was less resistant by thirteen hundredths of an hour, which is about eight minutes. //»> r/Fs- o '+ _ ' ‘ (E Q‘ iéfl%%fé%7///% O 4095/01)"; Ill -4,._9 *1 i, 7/// / //////v////////////// ‘fl i/z/fiff/v/zwyfi/‘zza/fi l ‘F 40IA/oun 6.6M! g. "t x zzifkfi/z/i/7/iyffi/i .98 Hoe/r: QJI M ii ZZ§ZIéZ m 4Z2 Hour: 6. i M. 9—#-9 Fig. 3.—Gulf State Market and_ New Stone Tomatoes from College Station. Average Time to Break by Shaking. 16 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION With the New Stone variety, the plat receiving six per cent potash produced the most resistant tomatoes, whereas it grew the tenderest Gulf State Market. Fruit from check plats required an average of one and sixty-two hundredths hours to break against one and seventy-one ‘hundredths hours for the most resistant potash plat, or a difference of znine hundredths of an hour, which is less than six minutes. The average difference in resistance to shaking among fruits of the same variety from plats receiving different fertilizers Was no greater ‘than the difference between the two varieties that received the same fertilizer. This is clearly illustrated by referring to both Figs. 2 and 3. Table No. 6 shows the fruit harvested from plats 11, 12, 13, and 14 ion July 15, and from the same plats on August 19, a little over a month intervening. There, again, is no uniformity in results, although the early-harvested fruit appears on the whole to be more resistant to shaking than that harvested later. Table No. 6.——Summary of Green Tomatoes Broken by Shaking. Expressed in percentage. Percent Broken Variety Fert. Average % 1 1 % 2 2 % 3 3 1/2 Time. Hour Hour Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Gulf State Market. . . . . 8-4-0 . . . . . . 42 5O 6 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.09 Gulf State Market. . . . . 8-4-4 1 46 47 ' 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .04 Gulf State Market. . . . . 8-4-6 ~1 62 28 9 . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .98 Gulf State Market. . . . . 8-4-8 1 27 53 15 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .22 New Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4-0 . . . . . . 7 46 20 20 7 . . . . . . 1 .62 New Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4-4 . . . . . . 7 43 37 10 3 . . . . . . 1.55 New Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4-6 . . . . . . 4 34 29 29 4 . . . . . . 1.71 New Stone . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 36 1O 4 4 1 .65 Table N0. 6-A.—Relati0n of Green Tomatoes injured by Shaking to Time of Harvesting. _ Harvested Harvested Variety Fertilizer July 15, 1926, Aug. 19, 1926 Average Time Average Time 'Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4-4) 1 .44 ' 1 .30 aGlllf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8—4—4 1 .25 1.05 =Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8—-4-6 1 .45 1 .10 \Gulf State Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4-8 1 .35 1.45 STYOIIPI Two varieties, the Detroit and the Beauty, were grown at Troup. The fruit was packed in four-basket crates and expressed to College Station for testing. The results in the number of fruits broken 1313 the end of each one-half hour of shaking are shown in Table N o. 7, and the same results expressed in percentages are found in Table No. 8. Fig. 4 shows the total per cent of fruits broken at the end of each ‘half-hour for both varieties. The Beauty appeared to break much more uniformly and to be much less resistant to shaking than the Detroit. EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON OARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 17 With each variety the first tomatoes Were broken at the end of one hour. The most fruit broken at that time, forty-six per cent, was of the Beauty variety from the plat receiving eight per cent potash. Ninety-two per cent of these were broken at the end of two hours. In fact, over ninety per cent of all the Beauty tomatoes Were broken at the end of two hours While less than sixty per cent of any of the Detroits were broken within the same length of time. Table No. 7.—-—Number of Green Tomatoes Broken by Shaking at End of Each Half-hour (Troup) Number Breaking _ Plat Total , Varlety Fert. N0. No. 1 1% 2 2% 3 3% 4 4% 5% 6% 7 7% 8 Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. l Hrs. Hrs Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Detroit. . . 8-4-0 5 31 1 5 2 4 1 1 1 4 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detroit... 8-4-4 7 31 2 1O 5 5 2 1 1 3 1 1 Detroit. .. 8-4-6 10 31 1 3 8 4 4 4 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . .. 1 Detroit... 8-4-8 12 31 3 8 5 5 1 1 4 2 1 1 Beauty . . . 8-4-0 5 24 4 15 5 i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beauty. . . 8-4-4 7 24 8 9 6 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beauty. . . 8~4—6 10 23 5 8 8 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beauty. . . 8-4-8 12 24 11 9 2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The most resistant fruit on the average for both varieties was secured from the plat receiving six per cent potash. This averaged for the Beauty thirteen hundredths of an hour, and for the Detroit thirty-seven hun- dredths of an hour more than the plats having no potash. As in the case of the tomatoes from College Station, there is again much more difference between the varieties than bet-ween the same variety receiving different fertilizers; also there seems to be no uniformity in these results. On the average the Beauty plat fertilized with eight per cent potash produced the tenderest tomatoes, and the Detroit plat receiving four per cent potash the tenderest. At College Station, the most resistant Gulf State Market was from the plats fertilized with eight per cent Table No. 8.—Summary of Green Tomatoes Broken by Shaking. Expressed in Percentage. Per Cent Broken , Variety Fert. Total _ Ayerage No. 1 1% 2 2% 3 ‘ 3% 4 4% 5% 6% 7 7% 8 Tlme 1n Hr. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hrs. Hours Detroit 8-4-0 31 3 16 39 13 3 3 3 13 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .40 Detroit 8—4-4 31 7 32 16 16 7 3 3 10 3 3 2.35 Detroit 8—4—6 31 3 1O 26 13 13 13 6 10 . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . 3 2.78 Detroit 8-4-8 31 10 26 16 16 .. . .. 3 3 13 ..... 7 ..... 3 3 2.70 Beauty 8—4—O 24 17 62 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.27 Beauty 8-4-4 24 33 38 25 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .25 Beauty 8-4-6 23 21 35 35 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.40 Beauty 8-4-8 24 46 38 8 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .15 potash and the most resistant New Stone from the siX per cent potash plats. The check plats were neither the most resistant nor the tenderest. 18 BULLETIN ‘NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Furthermore, the fruit from Troup was considerably more resistant on the average than that raised at College Station. Perrc/r/dya fyaur: Fig. 4.—Green Tomatoes'from Troup Broken by Shaking. Total Percentage Broken at Each Half-hour Period. This difference may have a number of contributing causes. First, ‘it may be a varietal characteristic. Second, the time of year in which the fruit is harvested may make a difference. The earliest fruit har- vested at College Station Was more resistant to shaking than the same variety from the same plats harvested later in the season. Third, the fruit at College Station was shaken the same day it was harvested, While that from Troup was in transit or in storage from one to four days. Possibly the fruit which was shaken immediately after being harvested, had no time to wilt, and Was more turgid than the fruit from Troup, and broke easier. Weslafl)! The check plat received no fertilizer. One test plat re- ceived potash only, and the others received a complete fertilizer, 8-4-4. The results as given in Table No. 9 indicate that there was a slight Table No. 9.——Number of Green Tomatoes Broken by Shaking at End of Each One-half Hour. (Weslaco) Number Breaking _ _ _ Plat Total Average Variety Fert1l1zer* No. No. 1 1 2 3% 4 6 Time in Hour Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours L. Globe . . . . . . .. None . . . . . .. 7 34 7 7 6 2 7 2 2 1 2.00 L. Globe . . . . . . .. Potash . . . . .. 9 39 3 9 6 5 8 6 2 . . . . .. 2.51 L. Globe . . . . . . .. 8-4-4 . . . . . .. 12 39 3 11 6 1 5. 6 . . . . .. 2.48 *For complete fertilizer schedule of tomatoes from Weslaco, see Table No. 4, “Yield of Tomatoes at Weslaco.” EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 19 difference due to the use of potash, as fruit from both plats receiving potash took almost one-half hour longer to break than fruit from the check plat. The range of time, however, Within plats Was from one to four hours,iand in the case of the plat receiving no potash, the last fruit was broken at the end of six hours’ shaking. IOWa Parkr Due to an unfavorable season, tomatoes did not set fruit at Iowa Park until very late. Only one shipment, on the 6th of Novem- ber, was received from this place. This Was a four-basket crate, one basket from each of the four fertilized plats, and Was made up of a number of different varieties. Table No. 10.—Number of Green Tomatoes Broken by Shaking at End of Each One-half Hour. (Iowa Park) Number Cracked by Shaking Fertilizer Total Average No. % 1 1 % 2 2 % 3 Time, Hours 8-—4—-0 . . . . . . . 3 1 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .06 8——4—4 . . . . . . . . 1O 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 8——4—4 . . . . . . . . 10 4 3 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .80 8—4—8 . . . . . . . . 1O 4 2 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 The results of shaking the green tomatoes are shown in Table No. 10. This indicates that fruit from the plat containing no potash was con- siderably more resistant than from any of the plats containing potash. Relation of Shaking Ripe Fruit to the Fertilizer Applied A portion of the fruit from each variety and from each plat shipped from Substation No. 2 at Troup was placed in storage and observations made daily until the fruit ripened. A refrigerator Without ice was used, in order to secure as uniform a temperature as practical. The temperature ranged from seventy-nine to eighty-six degrees F. during the time the fruit was in storage. Twenty tomatoes from each plat at College Station were put in the same storage and similar observations made. A portion of the fruit from both Troup and College Station was shaken as soon as all fruit had ripened. Cflllege StHtiORI Observations were made every one-quarter of an hour until all the fruit broke. The results are given in Table No. 11, and a summary of the results expressed in percentages is given in Table N o. l2. With the Gulf State Market, the most resistant fruit on the average was from the plats containing eight per cent potash. This agrees With the results obtained by shaking green fruit. The most resistant ripe New Stone tomatoes, on the average, Were from the plat receiving four per cent potash, Whereas the most resistant green fruit Was from the plat 20 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION receiving six per cent potash. The ripe Gulf State Market tomatoes that broke the quickest were from plats containing no potash, Whereas the tenderest green Gulf State Market Were from plats containing six per cent potash. The tenderest ripe New Stone were from the plat receiving eight per cent potash and the tenderest green New Stone were from the plat having four per cent potash. Table No. 11.—Number of Ripe Tomatoes Broken by Shaking atIEnd of Each_One-fourth Hour. (College Station) Number Broken _ Plat Total Variety Fert. No. No. M % 1 1 M Hour fbHour Hour Hour Hours New Stone........ 8-4-4 2 20 4 8 5 . 3 . . _ . . . .. New Stone . . . . . . . . 8-4-6 3 20 2 11 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-8 4 2O 7 12 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-0 5 2O 9 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-4 6 20 10 7 2 1 . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-6 7 20 3 11 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-8 8 20 7 8 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-0 9 20 13 5 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-4 10 20 9 10 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-6 11 2O 9 8 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 874-8 12 18 7 7 2 2 . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-0 13 2O 14 4 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-4 14 2O 7 12 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market 8-4-6 15 2O 15 3 2 1 . . . . . . . . New Stone . . . . . . . . 8-4-8 16 2O 8 8 3 1 . . . . . . . . New Stone . . . . . . . . 8-4-0 17 2O 8 9 1 1 1 Table No. l2.-—Summary of Ripe Tomatoes Broken by Shaking. Expressed in Percentage. Amount Broken Variety Fert. Total No. Average M V,» M 1 1 M T1me,. Hour Hour Hour Hour Hours Hours Gulf State Market. . 8-4-0 6O 6O 33 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .41 Gulf State Market. . 8-4-4 60 43 48 7 2 . . . . . . . . 2 .91 Gulf State Market. . 8-4-6 6O 44 36 18 2 . . . . . . . . 3 .25 Gulf State Market. . 8-4-8 58 36 47 14 3 . . . . . . . . 3 .36 New Stone . . . . . . . . 8-4-0 2O 4O 45 5 5 5 3 .35 New Stone. . . . . . . . . 8-4-4 2O 45 35 2O ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.64 New Stone... . . . . . . 8-4-6 2O 1O 55 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.38 New Stone. . . . . . . .. 8-4-8 2O 4O 4O 15 5 . . . . . . .. 3.11 For the first half hour the ripe New Stone were slightly more re- sistant to shaking than the Gulf State Market. After that there was little difierence. TIOIIDI The most resistant ripe tomatoes of the Detroit variety, on the average, were from the check plat (Table No. 14). The most re- sistant green ones were from the plat having siX per cent potash. The tenderest ripe Detroits, on the average, were from the plat containing eight per cent potash. Also more of these were broken at the end of EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 21 Table No. 13.—Number of Ripe Tomatoz; Broken by Shaking at End of Each One-fourth Hour. (T our») r ‘ i_ ~ Number Broken I . t 51y Fertilizerl Pit .- -- . r I i wo 1 1m g a 1A, y; 1 1% 1% 1% 2 2% ' I Hour Hour ' Hour Hour Hours Hours Hours Hours Hours - r —----—~r—" " ‘— l! _.roit . , , . .. 8-1-0 i, ' , 20 3 2 ; | s-M4 | v , 22 2 .... .. 8- ‘ ' 1O 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . M». l 1; ~ 1 1‘ ‘ 19 s 1 Beam" 8-4 -(l 5i g 3 8-4-4 . . . . .. Beauty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84-6 10 22 1 . . . . . . Deautymu... 8-4-8 12 23 3 . . . . .. the first one-fourth hour than from any other plat (Table No. 1'4“). The tenderest green ones were from the plat receiving four per cent/“Lrotash. The ripe and green Beauty tomatoes most resistant to shakrngjryvere from the plat containing six per cent potash. Also the tenderesfigfi s, both green and ripe, were from the plat containing four per cent ‘p0 The check plat produced neither the tenderest nor the most resista t tomatoes, on the average, but the largest number broken at the end of the first one-fourth hour were from this plat. The ripe Detroit tomatoes, like the green Detroit, appear to be slightly more resistant to shaking than the Beauty. v Table N0. 14.-Sumrnary of Ripe Tomatoes Broken by Shaking. Expressed in Percentage. Per Cent Broken Variety Fert. Plat Total Average N0 No. M % % 1 1% 1% 1% 2 2% Tine in Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hour Hours Hours Hours Detroit . . . . . . . 8-4-0 5 20 15 55 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . 5 1O 0.66 Detroit . . . . , . . 8-4-4 7 22 9 55 18 . . . . . . 8 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0157 Detroit . . . . . . . 8-4-6 1O 17 . . . . 76 6 6 6 . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.54 Detroit . . . . . . . 8-4-8 12 19 16 53 11 . . . . . . 5 5 5 . . . . . . 5 0.53 Beauty . . . . . . . 8-4-0 5 I 22 41 41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 0.43 Beauty . . . . . . . 8-4-4 7 21 33 38 19 . . . . . . 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.42 Beauty . . . . . . . 8-4-6 10 22 5 36 36 9 . . . . . . 9 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.69 Beauty . . . . . . . 8-4-8 12 23 13 56 18 4 . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.49 Weslaco and Iowa Park: No ripe tomatoes were available from either Weslaco or Iowa Park. Relation of Breaking by Pressure to Fertilizer Applied College Stfltiollr Table No. 15 shows the pressure necessary to break the tomatoes from each plat, and Table No. 16 shows a summary eX- pressed in percentages and also shows the average pressure required to break the tomatoes from each series and each variety. 22 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Fig. 5.—Scales Arranged to Determine Pressure Required to Crack Tomatoes. With the Gulf State Market, fruit from the plats receiving eight per cent potash required, on the average, the most pressure, and from the check plats the least pressure. Table N0. 15.—Number of Green Tomatoes Cracked at End of Each Five Pounds Pressure (College Station) Amount Broken Variety Fert. Plat Total No. No. 15 Lbs. 20 Lbs. 25 Lbs. 30 Lbs. 35 Lbs. 40 Lbs 45 Lbs. New Stone . . . . . . . . . 8-4-4 2 31 5 11 8 5 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Stone . . . . . . . . . . 8-4-6 3 4O 9 2O 9 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market. .. 8-4-8 4 21 4 6 8 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market. . . 8-4—O 5 2O 5 7 2 3 1 1 1 Gulf State Market. . . 8-4-4 6 19 6 4 4 3 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market. . . 8-4-6 7 21 4 8 2 5 1 1 . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market. . . 8-4-8 8 4O 9 18 9 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market. . . 8-4-0 9 30 6 16 6 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market. . . 8-4-4 1O 3O 9 8 9 2 1 1 . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market. . . 8-4-6 11 19 5 10 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . . . . . . Gulf State Market. . . 8-4-8 12 3O 1O 12 5 1 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market. . . 8-4-O 13 3O 6 14f 7 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market. . . 8-4-4 14 30 11 13 5 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gulf State Market. . . 8-4-6 15 30 11 9 6 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . New Stone... . . . . . .. 8-4-8 16 3O 6 12 8 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. New Stone... . . . . . . . 8-4-0 17 30 9 14 4 2 . . . . . . .. 1 . . . . . . .. N eW Stone tomatoes from the plat receiving four per cent potash re- quired considerably more pressure, on the average, to break than did the fruit from any of the other plats. six per cent and no potash, on the average, required the least pressure. Tomatoes from the series receiving EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 23> Table No. 16 shows the uniformity of performance of fruit from each plat. Particularly is this true with the Gulf State Market. The New Stone, for the first twenty-five pounds, appears t0 be more resistant to pressure than the Gulf State Market. After that, there was practically no varietal difierence. Table N0. 16.———Summary of Green Tomatoes Cracked by Pressure. Expressed in Percentage. ' Per Cent Broken Average Variety Fert. Total Pressure, N0. 15 Lbs. ‘ 20 Lbs. ‘ 25 Lbs. ‘ 3O Lbs. ‘ 35 Lbs. ‘ 4O Lbs. ‘ 45 Lbs. Pounds Gulf State Market. .. 8-4-0 80 21 46 19 8 2 2 2 17.91 Gulf State Market... 8-4-4 79 33 31 23 6 5 2 . . . . . . . . 18.64 Gulf State Market. .. 8-4-6 70 28 39 16 14 1 2 . . . . . . . . 18.79 Gulf State Market. . . 8-4-8 91 25 40 24 6 3 2 - . . . . . . . . 18.82 New St0ne....... 8-4-0 3O 30 _ 46 13 7 . . . . . . .. 4 . . . . . . .. 18.00 New Stone . . . . . . . . . . 8-4-4 ' 31 16 35 26 16 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.56 New Stone . . . . . . . . . . 8-4-6 40 22 5O 23 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.00 New Stone . . . . . . . . . 8-4-8 30 20 40 27 , 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.16 TYOHDI The most resistant fruit to pressure, of the Detroit variety, on the average, was from the plat receiving eight per cent potash (Table No. 18), and the least resistant, on the average, from the check plat. On the other hand, no fruit from the check plat was broken by fifteen pounds pressure against, from three to ten per cent, from the test plats (Table No. 18). Table No. 17.—Number of Green Tomatoes Cracked at End of Each Five Pounds Pressure. (Troup) Number Broken Variety Fert. Plat Total _ No. No. 45 Lbs.‘ 20 Lbs.‘ 25 Lbs.‘ 30 Lbs.‘ 35 Lbs.‘ 40 Lbs.‘ 45 Lbs.‘ 50 Lbs.‘ 55 Lbs. Detroit . . . . . . . . 8-4-0 5 32 . . . . . . . 10 6 4 6 2 1 2 1 Detroit . . . . . . . . 8-4-4 7 31 1 6 12 3 5 3 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detroit . . . . . . . . 8-4-6 1O 32 3 6 9 6 5 1 1 1 1 Detroit . . . . . . . . 8-4-8 12 3O 1 11 4 9 3 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beauty . . . . . . . . 8-4-O 5 31 2 10 8 4 4 1 . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . Beauty . . . . . . . . 8-4-4 7 3O 10 7 5 5 2 . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beauty . . . . . . . . 8-4-6 10 29 4 12 4 8 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Beauty . . . . . . . . 8-4-8 12 29 5 12 7 3 1 . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table No. 18.-—Summary of Green Tomatoes Cracked by Pressure. Expressed in Percentage. Per Cent Broken Average Variety Fert. Plat Total Pressure, No No. 15 25 3O 35 4O 45 5O 55 Pounds Lbs. Lbs I Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. I Lbs. Lbs. _ Lbs. Lbs. Detroit . . . . . . . . 8-4-0 5 32 . . . . . . 31 19 12 18 6 4 6 4 23.11 Detroit . . . . . . . . 8-4-4 7 31 3 19 39 9 16 1O 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.60 Detroit . . . . . . . . 8-4-6 1O 32 9 19 28 18 15 4 4 . . . . . . 3 24.94 Detroit . . . . . . . . 8-4-8 12 3O 3 36 13 24 1O 1O . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . 26.83 Beauty . . . . . . . . 8-4-0 5 31 6 32 26 13 13 4 . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . 24.30 Beauty . . . . . . . . 8-4-4 7 30 33 23 17 17 7 . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.18 Beauty . . . . . . . . 8-4-6 1O 29 14 41 28 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.79 Beauty . . . . . . . . 8-4-8 12 29 17 41 24 1O 4 . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.24 24 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION With the Beauty variety, the most resistant fruit was from the plat receiving no potash and the least resistant from thefplat receiving four per cent potash. On the average, the Detroit variety was more resistant t0 pressure than the Beauty. This was true both with averages and for the amount broken by fifteen pounds pressure. Less than seven per cent of the Beauty from the check plat was broken by fifteen pounds pressure while one-third of the fruit from the one receiving four per cent potash broke under the same pressure. Weslacfl! The plat receiving potash alone produced the most re- sistant tomatoes (Table No. 19). There Was very little difference be- tween tomatoes from the plats that received no potash and from the one that had a complete fertilizer. ' Table N0. 19.—Number of Green Tomatoes Cracked at End of Each Five Pounds Pressure (Weslaco) Number Broken Plat Total Average Variety Fert. No. No. 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Pressure, Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Pounds L. Globe None. . 7 30 8 4 4 1 . . . . . . 6 5 1 1 . . . . . . 27.5 L. Globe Kainit 9 33 2 5 7 3 3 6 4 1 1 1 30.31 L. Globe 8-4-4. . 12 29 5 6 4 3 . . . . . . 4 3 2 1 1 28.02 Relation 0f Breaking by Dropping t0 the Fertilizer Applied College StatiOHI On the average, the most resistant Gulf State Market was from the plat receiving eight per cent potash. On the other hand, the largest number uninjured after dropping once, was from the plat receiving six per cent potash. The most resistant New Stone, on the average (Table No. 21), was from the plat receiving four per cent potash, but the largest number uninjured after dropping one time‘ was from the plat receiving eight per cent potash. This lack of uniformity appears all the way through as will be seen by a study of Tables Nos. 20 and 21 ; the varietal difference continuing to be much greater than the difference between a given variety of fruit from plats receiving different applications of potash. Trvllpi The Detroit tomatoes from the plat receiving four per cent potash were, on the average, the most resistant to dropping and those l [from the plat receiving six per cent potash, on the average, the least resistant (Table No. 23). Fruit from the plat receiving no potash was, on the average, neither the most nor the least resistant. The most fruit that was broken after being dropped only once was from the plat containing eight per cent potash. The fewest were from the check plat (Table No. 23). . The most resistant Beauty tomatoes, on the average, were from the plat receiving eight per cent potash. The least resistant, on the average, EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 25 ww. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w w5 5.5 ow ow ow wlwlw . . . . . . . . . . . . Z3505w B375 whN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w w 55 m5 ww wN w|w|w . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3:o5w 3075 ww. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . w w w . . . . . . w w5 w5 ow ow w|w1w . . . . . . . . . . . . I0E05w >375 “w. N w N w . . . . . . . . . . .. w N . . . . .. N N w w5 w5 w,w ww oaw|w . . . . . . . . . ... . 3E05w >375 w5.w w . . . . . . 5 N . . . . . . 5 w w 5 w w a m5 ww ww w|w|w . . . . . . .3v5335 353w 55:0 50.5. w . . . . . . 5 N N N w . . . . . . w w w5 w wN wN ww w|w|w . . . . . . .3v5335 88w 55:0 ww. w w 5 . . . . . . N N N w w a N w w 55 aw ww w|w|w . . . . . . .5335335 353w 55:0 0a. w w 5 . . . . . . N N N w. N w w m N5 m5 5w ww w|w|w . . . . . . .535335 353w 55:0 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. w5 w5 w5 . 55 o5 m w 5 w . w w w N 5 .075 53.5 35053.5 .3>< 5050.5. 505353.50 530 35 . 33.055.30.535 :5 53w3§5xm5 wEQQEQ >55 5335030 305525505. 55330 50 >5wEE:w1|.5N .075 35553.5. 5 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N 5 . . . . . . 5 5 w w w w5 ww 5.5 o|w|w . . . . . . 3E05w >375 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I N 5. 5. N5 N5 ow w5 w|w|w .......0:05w >375 . . . . . . . . . . i 5 5 N w w o5 w QN w5 w|w|w 533535>5o505w5E0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 ... . . . N 5 w .. . . . . w w w 55 mN w5 w|w|w 5335335 335w 55:0 N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N N . . . . . . w w w wN w5 wlwrw 55355035 353w 55:0 5 . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 5 . . . . . . N N . . . . . . 5 5 5 N w w 55 . ow N5 w|w|w 5355335 305w 55:0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 w 5 w w w w w wN 55 w|w|w 50x33535m5w55:0 N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N 5 N N w N . . . . . . w w o5 wN o5 w|w|w 535335 353w 55:0 N 5 . . . . . , . . . . . . 5 5 . . . . . . N . . . . . . N 5 w w w w wN m o|wxw 5353.35 353w 55:0 w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 . . . . . . 5 N w w N5 wN w w|w|w 5335335 305w 55:0 w . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 N . . . . . . w 55 ow 5. w|w1w 55355035 335w 55:0 5 5 . . . . . . 5 5 . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . N 5 . . . . . . w . w w5 ow w w|w|w 5035335 353w 55:0 5 . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 N 5 5 w w w N5 ow w olwsw 5355035 82w 55:0 w . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . 5 w 5 . . . . . . N w N w 5.... ow w w|w|w 5035.335 23w 55:0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I N N w w w5 wN w wlwlw ..... . 3E05w >375 . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .. 5 N 5 5 5 w w w5 ow N w|w|w .......3:05wB375 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. w5 w5 w5 N5 55 o5 5.. w 5. w w w w N 5 .075 .075 .535 >5053> 5350.5. 5355 5535050 3.5E:75 5.:055m5w 3355005 3E5. 5.50055 555555555055 >55 5035030 m305mEo5. 5330 50 3.5E:75l.oN .075 35.555. 26 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m. N. . . . . . . . . . . . . Wlfllw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qflwiflvmw w . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § . . . . . . . . . . - - € . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M ww M . . . . . . aw-lfi|w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~flH5.~fiQm w m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m . . . . . . m W m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~%#H-.N®m wmmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w w w . . . . . . w o5 w5 aw 5w wlwlw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.535 55mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w 55 ww 5% ww w|5Tw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10505305 mm. w J11 w . . . . .. w w w w . . . . .. o5 w m5 5w Nw 5T5Tw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230335 ww m . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . w 5» w w w w Nw ww hw olwlw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510535 3E5. .50 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 3E5. 0E5. 355E075 m5 5 5 o5 a w 5. w w w. w N 5 .075 Hvimtvm z5oim> 33.535 530,5. 503050.30 E30 0on5 3530:3035 E 5.0330055 $5950.55 .555 5305030 300mE05. E030 .50 iwEEswllwm .075 03.5. . - ¢ . . . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . » - - . .. N N .-......-.. a m ..................v..%..wwwmmwm w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . N . . . - . . . . . . . . f i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w w w . . . . . . ¢ m. m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qmwfiflvmw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w w w w fi fi . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .. 5 m 5 m w w w5 5w m5 wnwlw ..........t.........0.50Ewon5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 5 N v m5 w5 ww o5 w|5Tw .....I..............:0bon5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N 5 m 5 w w w w5 mw N. 5T5Tw .....................550bo~5 . . . . . . . . . . .. N 5 5 5 m m w N5 w5 ww w Q|5Tw .....................:0b0m5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ N5 5 5 o5 m w N. w w 0. w m 5 .075 .075 .5315 522.9 5.8.0.5. E75 3E5. .5000 305055 SQEEZ 5.00050 3E5. 550mm M59585 .3 50ov50mi0 wooEEoP E0950 .50 .50£55555z1|.NN .0 Z 3555.05. EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 27 . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N .. N w N N oN NN olwlw .................ocoNm>>v7N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N N w m oN wN wlwlw .................v:oNm3@7N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N w N oN mN wlwlw ........INovNNmw/NuNmNmNNNNU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N w N m .. 0N wN wlwlw ..........N3NNwN>NoNmNm.NN:U . . . . .. w w oN mN o|w|w .......INQvNNQNZBwNwNNNNU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w N w N . oN NN wlwlw ..........N3NNwN>NvNwNmNN:U . . . . .. N m N N m. w N N N oN NN wlwlw .......lNovNNmw/NfimNmNNsO . . . . I w w N w w oN oN wlwlw ..........N$N.NwN>N@NwNmNN:U . . . . .. N N m. N w w N N oN m o|w|w .........NuvNNww/NuNmNmwNNNU . 4 . . .. N N N N m. w N w oN w w|w|w ..........N$NNmN>N3mNm.NN:U . . . . .. oN .. oN N w|w|w .......INQvNNmNZQNwNmNNNNU . . . . .. N w w N w N N N 0N w wlwlw ..........N3N.NwN>N3mNmNN:U . . . . .. m. N w N . w N N N wN m o|w4w ..........NuvN.NwN>NoNmNmNN:U N m. . . . . . . N . . . . . . w N N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N oN w wiwlw . . . . . . . . . NvvNNmw/N oNmNm NNEU _ . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N N w N N oN w wlwlw I...............w=oNm3v7N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w. m N N oN N w|w|w .................vcoNm>>oZ. $25 PNQQ PQQ 53G wNmQ w>mnN mwmfi wzmQ ENQQ ENQQ whmfiN EQQ wN wN mN NN N N oN a w N. w m m .o7N .o7N NQNNNSEm >No€w> NSPN. SEN QQNMN NQQNNNNNZ NcoNNmNm wmoNNoUv 43G NNuwmN wENNQEI mvoNmfioH No NENENNZILmN .o7N vNnflN. 5m N N w . . . . . . . . . . .. N N N N m w w oN mm NN Iiwlwlw _ IIENoNO wN wNw . . . . .. I}. . . . . .. N . . . . . . . . . . .. w m N m N w mN wN a LINER! .. @220 N mow . . . . ..-N . . . . . . . . . . .. N . . . . . .. N . . . . .. N N w w oN N. .....ucoZ....o»NoNU.wN $85k wuENP mwENP 3:2? wwENP woEwN. wQENP wQENH moENP mQEwN. wQEWN. 35C. i oEwN. mwEWN. NN mN NN N N oN w N. w m w w N N .o7N dZ NQNNNNNNPN 525$, o? NwNPN. SE n6>< NNvMONm NQNENNZ NdowNmwk/v wENNNNoNnN 5N QENF NNommN UQMQWNU mwoNaNfloH 53.0 No NQNENNZIIwN .o7N oNNNflN. 28 BULLETIN 'NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION were from the plat receiving no potash, but the most to break after one dropping were from the plat having six per cent potash. Both of these tables indicate that the Detroit is more resistant t0 dropping than the Beauty, and that there is as much varietal difference as there is between the same fruits grown on different fertilized plats. Weslafiili Table No. 24 gives the results of dropping tomatoes grown at Weslaco. This indicates that the most resistant fruit, on the average, was obtained from the plat receiving a complete fertilizer and the least resistant from the check plat. Relation 0f Time to Ripen in Storage to the Fertilizer Applied College Stativlli The length of time fruit in storage required to ripen is given in Table No. 25, and a summary of the results expressed in percentages given in Table No. 26, and expressed graphically in Fig. 6. The New Stone, on the average, ripened two to five days earlier than the Gulf State Market. The first ripe fruit of both varieties was ob- served the third day of storage, but the time required for the last of them to ripen was sixteen days in the case of the Gulf State Market, and only eleven days ‘in the case of the New Stone. The Gulf State Market that ripened the earliest, on the average, was from the plat receiving eight per cent potash and the fruit taking the longest average time was from the check plat. However, the fruit from the plats receiving six per cent potash ripened on the average only eighteen-hundredths of a day sooner than the fruit from the check plats. On the average, the earliest New Stone to ripen was from the plat i receiving six per cent potash and the latest from the plat receiving four per cent potash. Only a fraction of a day, however, was noted in any of the different averages. A study of Fig. 6 shows that eighty per cent of the New Stone toma- toes from the check plat were ripe by the sixth day while only eight per cent of Gulf State Market from the check plat were ripe on the same day, and by the twelfth only sixty-six per cent were ripe. This graph also indicates that for most of the time in storage, the tomatoes from the plat receiving no potash were the quickest to ripen in the case of the New Stone, and the slowest to ripen in the case of the Gulf State Market. The plats receiving potash vary all the way between these two extremes but with no uniformity. TIOIIDI On the average, the earliest fruit to ripen of the Detroit variety, was from the check plat and the latest was from the one having six per cent potash (Tables Nos. 2'7 and 28). The earliest Beauty to ripen, on the average, was from the four per cent potash plat. With this variety, there was less than one day’s differ- ence between the average time of ripening of fruit from the check plat and that from the plat receiving six per cent potash. EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 29 fizz-can faye 9 /i 16 Dd]; Fig. 6.——Tomatoes from College Station—Time to Ripen—Total Amount Ripe at End 0f Each Day. , . Relation of Time toDecay in Storage to the Fertilizer Applied Uninillred Frllitr Tomatoes from each of the sixteen plats at College Station Were placed in storage August 8, 1926. In order to maintain as uniform a temperature as possible without artificial refrigeration, the fruit was kept in a refrigerator without ice. The fruits were placed unwrapped on the wire shelves of the refrigerator. Temperature records were taken and any decayed fruit was removed at two- to four-day intervals. The results are given in Table No. 29. In only three instances did any fruit decay Within two weeks. One New Stone from the plat re- - ceiving six per cent potash and one Gulf State Market from the plat re- ceiving four per cent potash and one from the check plat decayed within two weeks. Of the New Stone, the check plat produced tomatoes that took the longest average time to ripen. On the other hand, all fruit decayed in the shortest time from this plat. With this same variety, the greatest number of fruits, forty per cent, that decayed by the third week came from the plat receiving eight per cent potash. The smallest amount of the Gulf State Market decayed within the same length of time was from the similarly fertilized series. For the first few weeks, there was no uniform difference in varieties. By the tenth Week practically all of the New Stone were decayed whi1e' 3O BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION - . . . u. x Aha % § N ..-.. N é i f N € . . . . . . . . . . | . V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . V . . . . . . . . .. m. @ fi .§ fi 5 Q w . § E fi m . . . . . . Ah.- . . . . . . . . . . . . E . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~WP5NQm N w N H w w . . . . . . NN NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . éHobonH H w H H w w . . . . . . wN oH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fiobofl m w N H w w N wN H. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AHQSQQ . . . . . . . . . . .. H m H w H mH m EQQ PFC 38G EQQ wmwmH NH w w w w dZ 67H §o€m> I 13oF Q5 QEMH QQQEHHZ anofiC <95 comm wEHSQHMH omwhowm E woofiwEoP we .:XHE:Z|..\1N dZ Bash. H.w . . . . . . . . . . . . oH wN ow ow . . . . . . oH wlwlw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dcoww BwZ m. w . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . oH oN ow 0N . . . . . . oH w|w|w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 655w >32 N.w . . . . . . . . . . . . ow . . . . . . on oH . . . . . . oH wlwlw . . . . . . . . . E . . . 655m 3oz ow . . . . . . E . . . . . . . . . . . oH ow oH . . . . . . oH olwlw . . . . 4 ‘ . . . . . . . Zocowm >52 ww.w w Nw a m . . . . . . . . . . . ow w|w|w . . . . . . . @3222 “v3.51 :20 wo. 2 w wN mH m m w ow wlwlw . . . . . . . €¥a2 3.3m 25D h‘ w oH wN wH oH . . . . . . . . . . . ow wIwIw . . . . . .3452 83w 2:0 wN. oH w wH wH w . . . . . . . . . . . ow olwlw . . . . . . . fiuzmi 33m bsU EQQ $25 wwnmQ PQD EQC i whmfl wwmfi wwwfl m w H. w w w .02 $553k >$Cm> 65E. 130E. vmm$>< waasfim EQU 5m QMQQHHQOHQAM E wvwwuhnxm .25 swam wifivfim moowmEoH we “on-fizz we ~mumEEHHw|AvN dZ 2am? EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 31 . . . . . . m.“ @ . . . . . . W Aw w . . . . . . @|w~||@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~%H5flQm 8. w m mm w w mm m w m Z . . . . . . mm wlwlw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4353i mw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >fiUNQm W . . . . . . w» W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qflfiifinvm Mm. N. m w wfi w~ a m w wH mm . . . . . . mm wlwlw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333G whk. w ow ZZJ m: w w w 5 .2 . . . . .. mm wlwlw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IfioboQ owB . 3 . . . . . . . .. w mfi wm w mm wlwlw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ifiobvfi @m.. @ Am. fi @- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QZQHQQQ QQQ maxi PQQ QQQ EQWQ PQQ mamfl QQO QQO EQQ .2 2 2 @ w N. w m w m d2 §=sbm >323’ . 3o . ommktiw 02m .260 .55 ~ h. dmficwuhvh E wwmmokmxw Smfi seam wficufifl vwmgofiw E mvoQmEoP Ho %.~wEE5W|.wN dZ mznmk 32 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION around half of the Gulf State Market Were still sound. At the end of the seventeenth Week, the last fruit from the New Stone had decayed While at the end of‘ the twenty-second Week, when the experiment closed, from seven to sixteen per cent of the Gulf State Market was still sound. The largest amount still undecayed Was from the check series, the next from the 8-4-8 series, and only from the 8-4-6 series Were all the fruits decayed. The storage temperature ranged from 65 to 88 degrees F. $011116 VS- Cracked F rllitr Tomatoes that had been dropped were put in storage With uninjured tomatoes of the same variety. On the second day, ten per cent of the broken fruit (Table No. 30) from the check plat and from the one having four per cent potash fertilizer had decayed. Thirty-five per cent of the broken fruit from the plat having six per cent potash and twenty per cent from the plat having eight per cent potash fertilizer had decayed. None of the uninjured fruit showed any signs of decay. ' By the sixth day of storage, forty per cent of the injured fruit from the check plat had decayed. Seventy per cent from the plat containing six per cent potash, and sixty per cent from the four per cent potash plat, and fifty per cent from the eight per cent potash plat had decayed.‘ All of the uninjured fruit Was still sound. Apparently potash in the fertilizer has had no consistent effect on time of decay in storage. i Relation 0f Potash in Fruit and Plant Both fruit and plant, from the check plats had less potash than did the fruit or plants grown on plats which had potash in the fertilizer. The amounts of potash in the fruits from test plats were variable (Table No. 31). The fruit highest in potash in both cases tested was from the plats containing eight per cent potash. The plants averaging the high- est in potash Were from the plats that had been fertilized With six per cent potash. . There seems to be no consistent relation between the amount of potash in the plant or fruit and the resistance of the fruit to either shaking, pressure, dropping, or time required for fruit in storage to ripen. Average Results of Tests Table No. 32 shows a grouping of the several averages obtained in the shaking, pressure, and dropping tests. No distinct correlation is appar- ent in the comparative resistance of those shaken and those to which pressure Was applied, and those Which were dropped. Neither is there any noticeable correlation between the varieties which received the same fertilizer and the same test. Fruits from the check plats appear to be more resistant to shaking than those from the plat receiving four per cent potash in the fertilizer. The fruit most resistant to shaking came from the plat receiving six per cent potash; yet this same lot of fruit was the least resistant in the EFFECT OF. POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 33 dmwweww E 25 mien ewewoww mnwwwwwewwe he weevwowwe coon wzfiw wwwww§a> wwm mweewwwm zwuwww? we wiww wa weowwwwnw wwnfisZ dweeiumw 52w cow/em we wimw wm weohmoofiw omuweww E moowwioh. we hOQwMwwwz||.@N 67w ownmh. 34 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION pressure and dropping tests. This fruit seemed to resist either pressure or dropping no better than fruit from the plat receiving eight per cent potash. It will be seen that whatever differences may be apparent in any of the lots of fruits under study as regards resistance t0 either shaking, pressure, or dropping, are entirely too small t0 be considered significant and might easily be due to experimental error. Table No. 31.——Potash in Fruit and Plant. _ Gulf State Market Detroit Fertilizer y Fruit l Plants Fruit _ 8—4-—0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .40 per cent 0.82 per cent 3 .26 per cent 8—4—4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .60. per cent 1 .07 per cent 4 .28 per cent 8—4—6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.15 per cent 1 .21 per cent 4 .32 per cent 8—4———8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .41 per cent 1 .11 per cent 4 .69 per cent SUMMARY Tomatoes are one of the major commercial vegetable crops of Texas, and the larger part of the crop is sold in distant markets. Seventy- five to eighty-five per cent of Texas tomatoes are picked green, each fruit Wrapped in paper, and shipped in four-basket carriers under What is known as “green wrap.” It is the opinion of many buyers that potash fertilizer improves the carrying qualities of the fruit. In the spring of 1926, a series of experiments was started with five varieties a11d at four different substations, for the purpose of studying the effect of potash fertilizer on yield and carrying quality. The only variable in the fertilizer was potash. Four formulas were used. The check plat contained eight per cent phosphoric acid, four per cent nitrogen, and no potash. The test plats had the same amount of phosphoric acid and nitrogen applied and in addition, four, six, and eight per cent potash, respectively. ~ _ Some tomatoes were shaken until they broke, some were dropped from a given height until they cracked, others crushed until they broke, and still others kept in storage until they ripened and then decayed. On the sandy loam soils at College Station and Troup, potash i11 the fertilizer increased the yield of tomatoes. There was no appreciable increase in yield from the addition of potash at Weslaco in the lower Rio Grande Valley. Potash had no consistent effect on the time it took to break by shak- ing either green or ripe tomatoes. Potash did not uniformly change the resistance of tomatoes to pressure. Potash did not appear to have any effect on the number of times it took fruit to crack by dropping. ' Potash had no uniform effect on the length of time it took tomatoes in storage to ripen or decay. EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 35 23 E5 duo c538 E 132a mEon @532?! #05 of .33 n23 3 uocmgwfivk E23 .3 SE0 E EEEQQ Aducmufiwop E23 3 mEHEooom Eva? E womcwiw =39? Em 8mw$>>o~ I . E m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.10m . . . . . . . . . . . . T . . . .. Fin wlwlw . . . . . . . ....ono_U .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 102N603 .. . . . . . . .. 3h . . . . . . . . . . .. Nqwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwvfi . . . . .. IEEQ! . . . . . . . . Iunoflv J . . . . . . . . . . . . Zouwivk/ m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. omBm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I252 . . . . . . . . . .3310 .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . Zoom-mo?» . . . . . . . . . .. 3N . . . . .. 3.3 . . . . . . . . . . .. m4; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wLTm . . . . . . . . . . Qflswwm . . . . . . . . . Imsofi. @m.w % . . . . . . . . . U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fi . . . . . . . . . . . .~%H.:flmvm 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .QQ.O»~P E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w . . . . . . . . . . . . fi|ww|w . . . . . . . . . . . .%QH~NUM@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q:Q.~P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . ~flw5fl0m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q§Q.~r,—\ ewm x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QMOMHUQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .QSORF ... E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . Iw~QhHQD . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . .Q:QH.|._.\ . . . . . . . ......@@.aw§ ............@%..TN~ ............w@oh#QD...............Q:Ohv%\ Tiiowfi . . . . lnafllmfl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iovfi . . . . . . . . . . .. olwlw ...........Eob@O . . . . . . . . . . . . . IQEEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iowafi wIwIw ........@=o~wBvZ........coSm~wowo:oU . Ifonfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. owafi . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. EA wlwlw . . . . . . Iocofiw 302 ........=oSw~m uwozoU . . . . . . . 13in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ow wm mmA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wlwlw ....., . dcofiw >52 . . . . . . Zcofifim wmwzoU om N . . . . . . . . . . .. 0a.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mo; . . . . . . . . . . .. olwlw . . . . . . IIQioam >52 ........:oSw~m wmozoU . . . . . . . . . .. on? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. owwH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mm; wlwlw IUEQE 33m 2:0 .....I.:o$m~w owwzoU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..HUZMNE Uflfifiw . . . . . . . QwQZQU om. m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ow.w_ . . . . . . . . . . . we; . . . . . . . . . . . . wiTw IUEEE 33w 2:0 . . . . . . Icoifim vmw=oU ca. m. . . . . . . . . . . .. om. E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mo; . . . . . . olTw 13x32 33w E10 . . . . . . Icoifim 33:00 Em “EN Qmfi iv Em Ea H3 5w Em Em Q3 Efizivh EEEC/ 35cm wEEQQQEQ Esmwobw wExmaw 35F of ow uucmamiwfl we uQUuQ E wvmcmi%.~NEEQWII.NM. .oZ Bank. 36 BULLETIN NO. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Tomatoes, both fruit and plants, from the check plats (showed by chemical analysis) contained less potash than from plats fertilized with potash. Tomatoes containing tne highest amount of potash were not always harvested from the plat having the heaviest application of potash fertilizer. Care in handling appears to be the most important consideration in determining the carrying quality of tomatoes. Outside of care in handling, the carrying quality appears to be mainly varietal, but is influenced to some extent by time of harvesting. The differences in results from the tests were small and might easily‘ be due to experimental error. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge especially the assistance rendered by the following: A W. S. Hotchkiss, Superintendent of the Experiment Station at Troup, first suggested the problem, and gave especial attention to growing tomatoes and to compiling data on tomatoes grown and shipped from Substation No. 2. Dr. G. S. Fraps, Chief, Division of Chemistry, made chemical analyses, and gave much helpful assistance in planning and conducting the experiment. Dr. J. J. Taubenhaus, Chief, Division of Plant Pathology and Physiology, kindly allowed the use of laboratory and equipment, and furnished much helpful advice. . W. H. Friend, Superintendent at Weslaco, and E. J. Wilson, Super- intendent at Iowa Park, grew tomatoes for this experiment. Dr. J. L. Lush, Animal Husbandman, L. P. Gabbard, Chief, Division of Farm and Ranch Economics, and V. P. Lee, Professor of Marketing and Finances, ofiered helpful suggestions on presenting data. REFERENCES (1) Bailey, L. H., “Do Fertilizers Affect the Quality of Tomatoes?” Station Bulletin No. 49, Dec. 1892. Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station. (2) —————— and Lodeman, 1891 Notes on Tomatoes. Bulletin No. 33, Oct. 1891. New York, Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station. (3) Boyle, J. G. and Abbot, J. B., “Experiments with Tomatoes.” Bulletin No. 165, April, 1913. Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station. (4) Brown, H. D., . “Canning Factory Tomatoes.” Station Bulletin No. 259. Purdue University Agricultural Experiment Station. EFFECT OF POTASH FERTILIZER ON CARRYING QUALITY OF TOMATOES 37 (5) Dacy, A. L., “Fertilizer Experiments with Tomatoes.” Bulletin No. 142, November, 1913. West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station. (6) Hepler, J. R. and Krayhill, H. B., “Effect of Phosphorus Upon the Yield and Time of Maturity of the Tomato.” Technical Bulletin No. 28, June, 1925. New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station. (7) Lloyd, J. W. and Brooks, I. S., “Growing Tomatoes for the Early Market.” Bulletin No. 144, February, 1910. Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station. (8) McCue, C. A. and Pelton, W. G., “Tomatoes for the Canning Factory.” Bulletin No. 101, May, 1913. Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station. (9) Patterson, H. J., _ “Tomatoes.” ‘ Bulletin No. 11, December, 1890. Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station. (10) Robinson, J. S., “Tomatoes.” Bulletin No. 25, March, 1894. Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station. (11) e “Experiments with Tomatoes.” Bulletin No. 19, December, 1892. Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station. (12) Rosa, J. T., “Profitable Tomato Fertilizers.” Bulletin No. 169, March, 1920. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station. (1.3) Tracy, W. T., “Tomato Culture.” Orange Judd Company, New York, 1913. (14) Vorhees, E. B., “Potash as a Fertilizer.” Bulletin No. 54, March, 1889. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station.‘ “Experiments On Tomatoes.” Bulletin No. 63, December, 1889. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. (16) White, H. T., “Tomato Variations Indured by Culture.” Station Bulletin No. 173, January, 1913. Maryland Experiment Station. 38 BULLETIN NU. 357, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION (17) Work, Paul, “Nitrate 0f Soda in the Nutrient of the Tomato.” Memoir N0. 75, June, 1924. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station. (18) _—- . “Tomato Production.” Orange Judd Publishing Company, 1926.