¤*             ’’/` 'V “‘ ’ . % _ Q ·   _;.__   " V _·   `V V _ . il
  if      We   ,_»,» ..».-- ~   » -» ·» .   .».... ... .  ,-.--»   »·»~=·-···V—   ·=»’   ‘‘ ‘’‘‘'  - 1 " :»—    l  ··  — 1 ‘
l ` A if      M?  l' iv}    [   E , \——~»` S)  ll 1   5 ` §
· » A .    " ‘   » `'=`'V       M.¢~     ` l  *     1 5 
  ';‘‘’‘‘‘‘‘’ E   ‘‘* . -   ·V·V · .·:·E »`=. V—  V,;,_V:.   V;j,,..,,,,,,, M  — . .. l A K  V ’ _  fg
`·~ ‘   . » ;_ _ . 2 :2 · _.;»- V . l? . ’ Yrs
l     _ _ { V`? 1 ``’`'‘'   ‘ ·! ‘·      l  Q. Y`?   _ Q
  V ``‘‘      ._,,   ‘ . .    ._  if fj.;  ~V=        ,
kt`}   E, xv; I ·· i   .7   _' ui:   ·  - :;ns_.».»-·‘ _ _ ._; 1., `ut       ut" ? A
_ I.   i V, i p _'   2 V     A_  ,- 5,3.   i st t ~ L.
-     .·   ·—·’-‘.--v   ·‘i‘: . w     ‘‘·-   =*‘ ;          ~· V    
_)».{   _V_.   __.;; ,._   QZ .»‘   ’ i ·      l _ _ _    ’  .     S, _,._ l K   ____ __ _   ‘
- V           V in   M     ll 1   ._    igarii Q  Z &· _tl;_`i_    Ll.:  
» · —     _   l     ‘   V     -·$·—»··» V ~ ·—;¤l>      IV T 
.,;.N if ’   _ 1 4   __   ’‘.‘_    _, Z c ‘ ··-`· ll       :, -·   V
 iff ;  *1*   ..·» E   -...$   ¢..      .   I   ll E sl   `· · ' V     =
· l · A     “’--v EL3 ’l`’“‘    ·.·vi ;··i=-5 ‘· . K ..       1 ¢A...... f ° ° ‘·  ’ °‘-» .
~ 3,  _.__   ···-·='       l ·   if   _ `   ·     .. ·* 5  
“   ~ A   _   _ ........_._.,A, f _'_-, T ‘...°. . .....     — v»-AA - ....._.,   _ _     _  
V       f ..;...t»·¢ ·(»-‘-»-   ' »'»’ K lvnn V   `   K   ~    
3 !· - M ‘ .,  .. ...·. ·¥ .»=     ` R- '  A “~» r`~  ~
    .  ·z  .i·=      g   * ,  ·#‘`    ’ ‘ Je
.   · l 1 ` ‘.’- V »¥¢P¥ .··· ]   ·     ‘
rl   VVV -   1 .   -’-= ·· Y     ’.`'     ls   .  
  ...».=.      if ··*- - ‘‘‘‘;.‘   1 2 * »
-._ .   ·‘ - ;=i.·¢>¤ .·‘'··   ‘Av.;._ iz .-__   ;v·»·     z Et
These lahoratorl technicians are makin nicotine analyses 1955 and 1956 cro xs. The results of this study indicate that
l . g » l . . . · .
` · on tobacco samples representative of Kentuckyls burlev the most optimum growing condition, such as in 1956, are
rowin r areas. In eneral, the sam ales from the 1954 and re uired for thc iroduction of a cron with a nicotinic con-
_ ._ g B   _ _ l (1 _ l _ _ l _
"'*l 1957 cro ms had a ln her nicotine content than those from tent e uivalent to the traditional ran e ol 3 1025.25 nercent.
l S (1 S l
l " ' . . . . .
Ill studymg factors responsible for the higher 1110011116
»e
co11te11t of Kentucky burley tobacco, researchers report
-*4.
a c N" ' y
V *5 10011116 ()I1t€l]t 0 3St l1I‘ 6 TOPS
. 9**
A _&=l By R. 15. GRIFFITH represented the grades as stripped by an individual
s , ~ . .A. · A ‘ A . · . · . ._ farmer. Data were obtained from the farmers on *r0w—
In 195S and 1904 1€]_)1(.S€1lt£llZlV(.S of trc l11».l.]O1 cigai _
cttc ccninunlcs lnltcnnctl tlic Kcntuclty Agtlcultutnl ing conditions prevailing for the individual crops and
·· Experiment Station that the average nicotine content the Clllllllfll Plllcllces llS€d·
an c Of bin-icy tObuccO hud rcnchcd nn untlcsitnbly high c 111 the 1£11)O1‘Ltt01‘y at CGIl'tG1' Cl`()SS-S€Ctl()ll Wzls taken l
~ ' lcvcl AS u tcsult tlic tlcsnublllty ct ntctluclng nnltlcl. from each hand as submitted and total 2111(il.1()1(1 deter-
‘ ‘ ” 3 >
Z, ` lowci nlcctlnc butlcy tcbuccc Vvns cniplinslzcd in thc ll1lll2l.tlOllS were made. SlIlCC f11€ total z11l Ci·OpSiiOW· being Pi-Otliicctl This i·cPOi·t Ptcscntsn gcn_ SOING were 1)11(1l)’ mixed. btlme L‘l‘0l)s tlltl not llztve
Cinl Siiiiiiiitny Of thc results Obtninctt Stlmples fOI' all grztdes. No ztttt*ml)f was lnattle to assign
'V specific government grades to the samples.
lu Scope of Study
Samples from the 1954 crop were obtained from the Alk°l°'d Cl`l°l'°°l°l'l$llC$ °f llle Crllps
*·"- Burley Tobacco Crower’s Cooperative Association and Tll" ll“`l`llg°` lllkllllllfl C(lllll`lll lll lll“ Sllllllllfls ‘lll‘
X It Wcic i·tAPi·cSciiltiti\,c Of tlic tobncco which Wcnt unclci. tained lll the four years 1904-51 tllltl ’(1lC tl.V(‘l`ll§(‘ alka-
S ltitiii iii   Tli()SC Obttiiiicid iii     and   1()l(1 C()l|tCllt of t11()S(* ()1)l2l1ll(‘(1 ll`()lll Sl)(’(.`1fl(` ill'(’tlS lll
’. . . V   ··. cm-.  .·
ME were sent in by the county extension agents and repre- lllf Sldlfi lll 1905 ·lll‘l ll‘l5(l ·ll‘ fillfll lll lllllll l· lll
Scntctl tcliuccn ui-Own in incst ct tlic tcl)uccn_ni.c,luc_ general, the samples from the 1954 and 1951 crops had
ing counties of Kentucky. Each group of samples ((3,,,,,;,,,,,.,] ,,,, pug,. my
kA.
Kmxreckr F`.~s.r