xt7c862b9r1x https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7c862b9r1x/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1898 journals kaes_bulletins_072 English Lexington, Ky. : The Station, 1885- Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin n.72. text Bulletin n.72. 1898 2014 true xt7c862b9r1x section xt7c862b9r1x l? E
‘ . ¤
KENTUCKY L
  ”
or THE :
  `
STATE COLLEGE OE KENTUGKY.
V ‘BULLE'l`lN N0. 72. TE
T *4
. * `q
r _ :
' ` · p0TAToEs. ’
I. Experiments with Fertilizers. Z
2. Corrosive Sublimate and Sulphur for
Potato Scab in I896.   l
3. Corrosive Sublimate for Potato Scab ,
in I897. T _
C T
LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY.
l·`EBRl7AR\’, Tssls.
1

  , j . ,:5 .
    F ' ?
    xEN1·UcKY I
I Agricultural Experiment Station,
i · V
. BOARD OF CONTROL.
.   A. P. GOODING, Chairman, Maysliclc, Ky.
._ h i J. B. KENNEDY, Paris, Ky. ,
HART BOSWELL, Lexington, Ky.
]. K. PATTERSON, President of the College. i
4 V M. A. SCOVELL, Director, Secretary.
i 4 STATION OFFICERS.
V 'g ` M. A. SCOVELL, Director.
i·,    A. M. PETER, l
. .` Chemists.
{ » H. li. CUR'1`IS._l
H. GARMAN, Entoniologist and Botanist. _
_ C. \V. l\’I;\TI·IE\VS, Horticulturist.
]. N. HARPER, Dairynian.
\
  V. E. MUNCY, \Veather Observer.
* *·· MISS ALICE M. SHELBY, Stenographer. ‘
Address of tl1e St;1tion»LICXINGTON, KY.
NOTICE.
.   · The Bulletins of the Station will be mailed free to any citizen of
Kentucky who sends his nanie and address to the Station for that
{ purpose.
r Correspondents will please notify the Director of changes in their
post—oflice address, or of any failure to receive tl1e Bulletins.
i A ;\I)I)I{I£SSZ
_ I(»·;N*i‘t*c11a1<1mi·:i~¤T S'1`;\'l`ION,
· lncxiwrzron, Kr.
\ \
` Ll

 Il A
;  
BULLETIN No. 72 l .
i»oTATor;s. _ 4 l
1. Q/ks/s zu!/h ]Q’l'IlI·/Zi€("7'.\`.   j
2. CUl’}'05lv'Z'c’ Lgllb/lil/l¢I[¢’ and S 214/zhzzr for Pafa/0 Saab iu 1896. 4 V
3. C0rr0sz`·z*c .S`zz&/17120/tj/221* /’0fa!0 Smb fu 1897. l
4 1.—TESTS WITH FERTILIZERS.
ny sr. lx. sco\*m1.L. .  
The Season. it
The season was unfavorable to the potato crop on account l 1
of the weather. The following table gives a suinniary of the 4 `Q
rainfall, the mean temperature and the average per cent. of `
sunshine during the time speeilied : L ·
  V I
’ llaiufall. ‘ ll§;u|:··<·s l‘i·rc<·uL i
  IIONTIL Iuchvs. 'l‘<·1ii]¤eii;il¤1i‘¤·. Nunsliiyiv, _·
I h
April ........., , ...._. 5.So 53.2 _;7 A ‘
. _ l _ l
May ........ . ........ 4.4o yo.4 4 47 2
V ]une...   ...._.._.. 4.77 7;.1   41 »
I t l
july .................. 4 4.34 75.7 l 40
August . . A. . ........... ; 3.21 4 75.H   54
l .
Septeniher . .........   No { 72.4 [ N2
1
October ..,.......,. . , .V .38   634; { 76
__._.,_____e,_.4.4 .... -...4...l.. .... H. 4 o   ..--.4i‘.?4_,.
I

 =Z * i rz .:.. i V
  “ f 4 Bu//Flin Ab. 72.
  V ' THE So1L.—The soil is derived from the Lower Silurian
    - limestone, and is rich in phosphoric acid. Tl1e land is worn,
  _` having been in cultivation many years. The subsoil is a
V i light-colored clay, so retentive as to make the soil deficient in
A natural drainage.
~ /ity?/a1z¢1fz`02z.¢.—Yhr /mn'z`22_g· v/wzzwz/s Q/` ji/azz! jiyvd are
V 211'/1‘qg·m, /}h0.\7jhO}'l·t` add am! [20/mh. Plants feed on other
° ` 1 T soil—elements besides these, and they are just as essential
7 , to plant life as these three, but generally speaking all but
, ‘. ; . these ingredients are furnished to plants in abundance, and
therefore in studying what to put on our soils to 1nake them A
more productive, we need concern ourselves with Ollly these
_ three. Commercial fertilizers are manufactured and sold for I
the purpose of supplying nitrogen, phosphoric acid and
i ' potash, and the market prices depend upon these ingredients.
,   _ Some fertilizers contain one of these ingredients, some two,
  _ and some all. Generally speaking, a commercial fertilizer is
B ._   a mixture containing two of these ingredients, and sometimes
i   all, the proportions varying greatly in the various brands and
often in the same brand. It is at once seen to be a very
. difficult, if not an impossible task, to test all the various
i brands sold on a given soil in order to find out those that pro—
  duce the best effect. It is an easy matter, however, to find
Q ~, out whether a given soil needs potash, phosphoric acid or
nitrogen or any combination of these elements for a given
crop. Having found out this by experiment, we have only to
_ look to the analyses of the various fertilizers to tell which
brands, if any, could be used to advantage on the soil and
· _ ` crop tested. If the experiment proved that potash was all
, tl1at was needed on a given soil for the corn crop, all those
‘ _ fertilizers whose analyses show little or no potash would not
produce favorable results, under whatever name sold.
' The Experiments. ‘ ‘
5 The potatoes used for seed were Empire State. They
· were immersed for}/Q hour in a solution of mercuric chloride be-
, — fore being planted. This solution C()1ll2`ll1lC(i.},,i’é ounces of COI`-
* rosive sublimate (mercuric chloride, or bichloride of mercury)

 l i
l?
n
z
· i
i  
Pafaiacs. 5 I 1 i
to go gallons of water. After drying, the potatoes were cut A   A
and planted. (As the above solution is poisonous, the work  
of treating the potatoes with the solution should never be r ·
done where stock might get to the solution or the treated V  
potatoes.) . , ,
The size of the experimental plots was 1-1o acre each. »  
After the ground was well prepared with plow and { b
harrow, the rows were marked out with a small plow. The E Y
fertilizers used were scattered in the row by hand and after- i —
wards slightly mixed with the soil by a brush being dragged l
along in the row.
‘ The fertilizers were applied and the potatoes planted
' April 24th.
The following table shows the kind of fertilizers applied
to the various plots, their amount calculated per acre, the  
-number of pounds of leading elements of plant food applied
per acre, and the per cent. of these elements in the various
fertilizers; ``ip
i i II
· 1
\
1
1
i
N
l
(

   *· I Eli   »
  : I 1
7.% I Y: I ‘
  in 6 B21//cfm [V0. 72.  
  ' I TABLE l——Showingferti|izers applied and per cent. of ingredients. ·
i.' il  
' I 7 I I Numlyer of pounds Per cent of the lead- ‘
’ of the leading ele- ingelernentsofplann —
· ` ments of plant 1`oodin fenwilizers
I inurl. used.
- I ,3 1~`ERT1L1z1+:Rs USED. I E fi E
1:1 I E   e `; 5
;   I : ii i @3 ii i  
‘ l I ~ I §E   5 @5 5 ¤ °
; E   a ` t:   a" z 2
. 1 NoFertilizer ........   ....   ....   ....  
2 Nitrate of Soda ...... 160 0 0 25.6 0 0 5.5
_ I 5 Acid Phosphate ...... 140I 57 0 0 I 12.4 0 0 4
. I I
I 4 Muriate of Potash .... I 160 0 80 0 0 I 17. 0
;._   5 No Fertilizer ‘... . .... I .... I .... . . . . .... . . . .I .... . . . .
_ t 6 Acid Phosphate ....., 140I A
Nitrate of Soda. ..... 160 57 0 25.6 12.4 0 5.5
’· _ Muriate of Potash . . . 160I ‘
Q4 ~ ’ Nitrate of Soda ...... I6O 0 S0 25.6 0 17. 5.5
‘ ’~ 5 ACl(iY1)llOS1)l18t€ ...... I 140
` Muriate of Potasli .... . 160¢ 57 S0 0 12.4l 17. 0
Acidildiospliate ......   140I l
9 Muriate of Potash ,... I 160I 57 80 I25.6 12.4 17. 5.5
Nitrate of Soda ...... I 160 `
, IO I No Fertilizer ........ I .... I .... . . .   .... . . . . .... I ....
r I  
The following table gives the name and amount of ferti-
‘ lizer used and the yield of potatoes, calculated to the acre, for
each plot : A
  \

 in   V gz;   n dg
? . 1 . ,¢¢“ vfei  ;*·     iq E “
  . —~ [ :     2 _;   :1 5  
" · a     »       ¥*¤ F 2
  ~ g 4;: ®·i :=>s;·~;4,» —¢_ ·`¤ ._ ; ·: .
2 , . ;   A    »§%·.;¤>.g*2·.» >i ac ‘1’¢G3¤’? ai z
1 ` Fi'?   "W g   F" »;·   ’>   M? ~ L  
_   ~ i     `_·_   ,"   :;~g_
  · 4 E       ;;I$’»`§*’;°§§${?€£ : -}}·~{?§·¢% T E » QE
_i g, an   . ,  $4 L >i       tr »·»,_   A : 7 2;;
    1 T? ·1i  M  . -     A. ;    M ;*¤~··’$::?   = ;
4 — ¤»&:*~,#        4 ‘  V? i T 5
4 i x; X tai`;] M   ·`\           I " A
.     as  ’  a
I 7 {2 `P`   .
  `¤·.»» 4 1 ghihiiééa   `>     fi
Q . M if`? >, if      .:
_ _ ‘ Vzyt   {JQ 'jg 2 EE
_ V ` _ ill;.} .,);]*}),15 E5
, 2 *1 ?Z’· ~, , ·` » $71 V: —-·
*   QQ F   *"YC\J  YY1? S?
»                  
    * ]:;§> 5 _ J? J 4, ’ 1.2*1*. E 5 2,
,"x‘:§'> = ?V?%$` } ·>'»‘   *1**: *9%% ? 2L 5
‘ »-`if ` WM ·? NT! ’? ?+<,¢*;”>i*‘." ’¤ ·: EE
      `        
;_ __ ‘* ' j ·€ ig? » B,
\ :' *.~, JJ _
· * 4 Q "5
{ J }·‘ ·>* .
  *€ =Z
  `\‘·‘A;.M`  
._ ,_4 . N V » _ A 7 .1 ,; 4
· »¤ #’ sf     * E {Hifi _
» ,       ,>;1’}$-Ti   ·%   i
gv »» V 9%* jzggii  »   ‘7· $2?¥>+`¤ 2 a E ; ?
‘ »—·‘~iM} ,; .i »’4£4   5 >*      " -. Y M Aw =° -
: _= .!>4¤ ia 4. +»~ j ·* 3 ih} )   Q ‘
9;/ A ,,3;, y?§\—· P2 J g . if ·g.
j_;¤__4z( .· ;, A"; Y}? v_ _ ·_;.7*$ '
  A   _ ,;&;»:».E       \..yV;’Y.*
g"‘?,%;% A £     *5*4 is
»  i;¤@*rg        *%;
Q Ex t , _ _ » 1
.. \*{%<§~ }   ·      
  ;

 .§Y i
[Q l
1.
l.
· 1
V l
E  
Poiaiocs. 7 · l
TABLE 2—Showing Results of Fertilizers on Potatoes.  
i 1.: g EA i
2 °`° ,5 g U1:
¤< E *6 gg E . a i
—·5 FERTILIZER Usmn. mg ,;,5] Comparative Scale. . 1
J: O '-l 5 .
.15 g e E5 1 1
A 4 _ 4 9 1
<¤ .
__ .._;...; .T .....  ..  
1 4 No Fertilizer ...... . .... 3I.O -1-
2 i Nitrate of Soda. . . I6O 39.0 -—•¤¤
5   Acid Phosphate. .. 140 27.2 -— A
i .
4   Muriate of Potash. 160 77.8 4- —-¤-·
* . . I -
5 No Fertilizer. ..... . .1.. 35.8   14
6 Nitrate of Soda .... 160 6 6  ,.._,,,, I i it
Acid Phos hate . . 4 11 0 5 ' = 1
I P 4
__ Nitrate of Soda .... I 160 8_ 6 .  
/ Muriate of Potash. .4 160 r"' 4
` A .l
Q Acid Phosphate. .   140 IO i
` Muriate of Potash. 4 160 9'4 ~.·· *
Nitrate of Soda. . . 160
9 Acid Phosphate . . . 12].0 109.6 I-ii-¤¤1¤_
Muriate of Potash. 160 - { {
` i
IO No Fertilizer ...... . .... I 35.3 ? ;
. l
The £lCCOll11)illlylllg plate is :111 exact reproduction of a 1
photograph taken of the potatoes grown 011 each plot. liach
pile was exactly the same distance from the camera when
photographed, aud therefore the difference i11 size of each pile
is owing to the diiiereuce i11 yield.

 · ,__ #· 7 7  
=i_ `* gpg? .
  11. gf { .
1, Q i ‘
  . li 1 8 BZ!//é’llZ.7l [V0. 72.
  _ ‘ Financial Resuhs.
  “ . ' The iinancial results obtained by the use of the ferti-
, lizers in various combinations 1nay be seen in the follow-
‘ ` ing table. The acid phosphate costs at the rate of $3. 30 per
acre, the niuriate of potash $3.60, and nitrate of soda $3.60.
. In these estimates the potatoes are rated at 50 cents per V
bushel, including the small potatoes : ·
1 · · TABLE 3—Showing Financial Results.
A <.·r»s1_..1 IV¤l¤¤§ vt] _
· Fnxrmzms USED.- 1j,·;·;y;(;g2‘ l.§;;.‘;;;;.. Q‘§§Y3*§E "‘°"‘°"
AUNL lmy Al-yu Potatoes Loss.
I por A cre.
' »
il   1 No Fertilizer. ...... 1 ........ $15.50 1 ........ 1 ......
._ _tl
Y  -1 l 2 Nitrate of Soda ..... 1 $3 3.60 19.50 1 $ 2.48  [.12*
3 Acid Phosphate ..... 3.30 13.60 ....... 3.30*
i 4 Muriate of Potash. .. 3.60 1 38.90 21.83 18.28
W
5*% 5 1 No Fertilizer ....... . . . . . . 17.90 ...... . ...... A '
Nitrate of Soda ..... , , 1
6 Acid Phosphate ..... 690 2560 U'2b 1 4`OS
l
l __ Muriate of Potashn 1 OO I .,0 O N, 1I 8
_ _ ’ Nitrate of Soda ..... 1 7" J' " 1 “‘l"` 1 7`5
= , Muriate of Potash   _ _ , 1
¤ _ b Acid Phosphate ..... 690 1 5+/O 1 3/'Gb 13078
Nitrate of Soda ..... I 1
' 9 Acid Phosphate ..... 10.50 54.80 1 37.78 |27.28
Muriate of Potash .
· IO No Fertilizer ........ 1 ....... 17.65 1 ........ . .....
l `  .é... .-_..t ..— j- - .
*Loss.

 - i l .
l .
 {
. 1
l i
i l
Pcfalavs. 9 · ~
From results obtained it would appear that both potash   N
and nitrogen are needed on our soil, for potatoes ; that potash   `
alone greatly increases the yield ; that nitrogen does to some 1 . ,
extent, but that the best results are obtained by a combination ‘ 1
of the two. Trials for eight years have shown that potash l g I
greatly increases the yield of potatoes, when applied to our _  
SOll. , j
; l
2.——CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE AND FLOUR OF SUL- . i `
PHUR FOR POTATO SCAB. EXPERI-
MENTS MADE IN 1896.
nv H. GARM.-\N, ISNTOJIOLOGIST AND BOTANIS'1`.
To what extent the scabbing of potatoes is the work of a  
fungus introduced into soil with seed potatoes and what pro-
portion is the work of organisms which live, for a longer or ..
shorter time, in soil where no potatoes are grown, are questions A
of much importance to the grower of this crop. The first i N 2*
question is now pretty dehnitely answered, but the question = Q
how long the scab fungus, or fungi, persist in soil is yet to be 1
settled. The experiments immediately following were made ‘ ‘
in the Vivariuin of my Division with a view to getting light , f
' on the first question—Is the scab really transferred to soil on l
seed potatoes ? ·_
May 13, 1896, a scabbed potato was pla11ted in each of
six 1o-inch flower pots, the soil in all having been previously {
baked for several hours over a fire, They were subsequently   ‘
kept on a slate—topped table. There was very little difference ,
in the growth of plants in different pots. »
I No. 1. The potato to be planted was first rolled thor-  
oughly in flour of sulphur. The tubers were taken up and N
examined August 21. ln this pot they were twelve in num-
ber. Nine were more or less scabbed, three of ‘[l1€lll badly so,
the rest not enough to injure them. \Veight of scabbed
potatoes 8% ounces; weight of not scabbed potatoes 13{
ounces.
I

 @ · ’ :5 .` i
  ¤ 1*  
  i . ’i ’ IO [gl!]/(`fliil Ab. 72.
  I 1 · N0. 2 (check 011 N0. 11). Tl1e tuber planted 111 1ZlliS1)Olj
  __ was 110t treated. August 21 6ft€€11 p0tat0es were taken {TORI
  . 1 the s01l; twelve 01 them weigl1111g 8 OllllC€S were scabbed,
1 . seven badly s0. Tl1e three p0tat0es 110t scabbed weighed 2;/if
1 · 0unce.
N0. 3. Tl1e p0tat0 used 10r tl1is was first s0aked O1l€ l10l1I'
5 i 111 c0rr0sive subliniate s0l11t1011 (4)/é '0unces 111 30 gall0ns 01
4 _ 4 water). Eight p0tat0es devel0ped, six 01 \\'l`1lCl1 weighing 6
_ 01111ces were 1101 scabbed, while tw0 weighing 3}  0unces were
i ~ scabbed. .
’   N0. 4(Cl1€Cl{ 011 N0. 3). P0tat0 1l()t treated. ()11 ,Xll—
' gust 2I five tubers were taken 1r0111 1116 pot every 011e lll()l`€ 0r
less scabbed. \Veight 5}j Oll11C€S.
4 N0. 5. P0tat0 s0al;ed Oll(€ 1l()lll' 111 c0rr0s1ve subliinate
_ s0l11t1011 (4% 0unces 111 30 gall011s). Eight p0tat0es, weigh-
_ 111g 6,% 0nnces, devel0ped, 11011e 01 tl1€lll scabbed.
1 4 · N0. 6 (check 011 N0. 5). P0tat0 1101 treated. Twelve
V Q p0tat0es were 0bta111ed 11*0111 this, six 01 tl1e111, weighing 4.%
 " _   OUIICES, scabbed, while tl1e reiiiaining six, weighing 3 0unces,
1 were 1101. ‘
A single test 01 the fi011r 01 sulphur tl`@tlI[lllCill is perhaps
, 1101 sufihcient as a basis 10r judginent ()ll the e11ectiveness 01
X this substance 111 checking the gr0wtl1 01 the scab 1Tlll1g`llS, bllii
@21 as far as 011e test Ctlll decide the inatter, this test indicates _
1 "‘ that sulphur d0es 1101 check the scab very decidedly ; 10r lll€
percentage 01 scabbedp0tat0est0110t scabbed is b11t slightly
less 111 the treated 11u111ber (75 per cent. ) tllflll 111 its untreated
check (S0 per cent.,) However, there was a s111aller percent-
_ age 01 édf/J/l' scabbed p0tat0es 111 the treated 1lllllll)Cl”, these
` ·· ` constituting 25 per cent. 01 the wh0le as against 47 per ce11t.
5 111 the untreated 11u111ber. 1
The c0rr0s1ve subliniate 011 tl1e e0ntrary pr0ved very
decidedly e11ect1ve l1ll)Otl1 01 tl1e tests. Includiiig tl1e p0ta-
· t0es 01 b0tl1 treated llllIlll)Cl'S (3 f`tl1(l 5) Ollly 12.5 per cent.
was scabbed, while tl1e tw0 checks (4a11d6) averaged 64.7
1 per ce11t. scabbed. Tl1e absence 01 scab 011 the treated
V ]ll1ll1l)Cl'S is s0 marked, that, taken lll COllllCCtiOll with tl1e 1act
‘ ` that 111 every 011e 01 tl1e three checks 1r0n1 50 per ce11t. t0 100

 1 · .
I · `.
,1 1
 ’
1 1
g 1
U ‘
/’0/zz lays. 1 1 Q  
per cent. was scabbed, we C21ll1lOt consider it tl1e result of   1
accident. That a11y scab at all occurred 011 the treated i
numbers was probably due to the fact that some portions of , _
tl1e fungus on tl1e original potatoes was so deeply imbedded ;
i11 the tissue that tl1e corrosive sublimate did not reach it. A `
stronger solution (say 5 OllllC€S to go gallons of water), or a _   I
more prolonged soaking, might be expected to exterminate ,  
the fungus 111ore completely. But the 2l(lO]_)tlO1l of either of 1 i
these alternatives increases the danger of injuring the seed. , i g
1 I believe, however, from observation on the effects of tl1e ·  
solution used i11 these tests (4% ounces i11 go gallons) tl1at
potatoes Célll be safely soaked i11 it longer than they were i111—
mersed by 1116, say for 2111 hour {ll1(l a half, or possibly two
hours.
Field Experiments With Corrosive Sublimate and  
Flour of Sulphur.
Tl1e sa111e acre of ground used for potato scab experi- · j-
ments i11 1895 was used i11 [$96. It was planted i11 IO plots
of about 1-1o acre each, eight rows, pla11ted i11 the usual way, i  
i11 each tenth. The eastern half of each plot was planted l i
with treated seed, tl1e western half being with untreated seed 1
constituting a cl1eck. Early Rose potatoes were used, tl1e  
— seed being obtained i11 the local market. It was 1lOl first- 1 i
class, the tnbers feeling SOlllC\\`ll£ll soft i11 the hand, tllOllgll ‘
otherwise of good appearance. Since the object of the ’*
experiments was to learn tl1e effect of tl1e fungicides,
V the quality of the seed was not regarded as a matter of {
P1'llll€ importance. The potatoes were Ollly moderately  
scabby, 1lOt so much so as was desired. They were planted Q
April 1 1. _
The hrst four rows of Plots 1 to 5. inclusive, were A
planted with seed that had been innnersed for one hour i11 a ‘i
` S0lution made by dissolving gt/IQ ounces of corrosive sublimate
i11 two quarts of boiling water, tl1e11 adding this to thirty
gallons of water i11 a barrel. These plots are therefore dupli-
cates as far as treatment goes.
The Hrst four rows of Plots 6 to S, inclusive. were treated
I

 *? *1 1 .1: =f U T 7
  T if  
i  2   I -
  1 I ` i I2 BI!]/€[Z·7l [V0. 72.
  _. - n with 7% pounds of flour of sulphur t0 each plot, the sulphur
  i· _ being dusted in the furrows before the seed was dropped.
    The first four rows of Plots 9 a11d IO were also treated
2 ` with sulphur, but each plot received 9 pounds.
PLOTS 1 to 5.
i Since these plots received the same treatment they may
l ‘ · be conveniently considered together. On May 22, the plants I 
; were noted as having come up only fairly well, but in every
_ ·, i plot the four treated rows were best in appearance a11d in reg-
U, I i n ularity of stand. I tested on this point 1nen on the farm who
did not know the plan of the experiment and this was the in-
variable verdict. The corrosive sublimate nmst therefore
V have had a preservative effect on the seed, perhaps checking
‘. incipient rot, or destroying such insects as may have been dis-
~ posed to injure the pieces in the soil. This seems the more
i Tg ` likely because the weather for a time after planting was un-
._ _   " favorable to a prompt growth of the seed potatoes.
"   The same difference was observable throughout the
season. The potatoes were dug September 19. In every case
the treated half of a plot yielded more potatoes, by weight,
E than the untreated half, the five treated halves having the
  advantage by 401 pounds over the five untreated halves.
X`} ., This is a result which was not anticipated, since it was hardly
to be expected that such a substance as corrosive sublimate
would do more than check the scab. I am disposed to at-
. tribute it to the preservative effect of the poison on the
seed after the latter was planted. More than once while ex-
` __ · amining the potatoes during the season I was struck with the
_ soundness of such cut pieces as were unearthed, and it seems
I- p likely from the better stand obtained from treated seed that
the seed of these rows was preserved from rotting, as has al- _
ready been suggested.
i In getting the percentage of scab, 1oo potatoes were ex-
  amined from each row, making for the five plots 4ooo in all,
, 2ooo treated and 2000 not. In every plot the treated half showed
· , the lowest per cent. of- scab, there beingfrom 2 to 2% times
; more in the untreated than in the treated plots. The differ-

 i   i
ai i  
ju
. 1
} i
{ 1
g `
Paialocs. 1 3 E y
ence is more marked still when the badly scabbed potatoes are   l
considered alone, the untreated rows of one of the plots i
having more than 2O times as much scab as the treated . .
rows of the same plot. The differences are so constant and ° 2
decided that there can be but one conclusion with reference to , I
the treatment with corrosive sublimate, namely that it had a .  
decided benencial effect in checking the development of scab i t
upon the potatoes. The effectiveness of the treatment might Q  
possibly be increased by allowing the seed potatoes to remain R
for a longer time in the solution, or else by increasing the 4  
strength of the solution. Our experiments prove that 4%
ounces of corrosive sublimate in go gallons of water has not
the slightest injurious effect upon the seed potatoes, in fact,
it appears that it has a beneficial effect by preserving the seed
from rotting in the ground.  
PLOTS 6 TO 8.
The arrangement of rows treated with sulphur was the j-
same as in the case of those treated with corrosive sublimate. V »·
In these plots 7 % pounds of sulphur were used on four rows _l
of each plot, the other four rows being left without treat111ent, ° •
and serving as a check upon the former. The potatoes did `*
not come up as well as in the case of those treated with cor-  
rosive sublimate. The stand in the rows not treated was not   l
as good as in the treated rows, a fact which lllfly be attributed
to a preservative action of the sulphur, similar to that exerted ‘_
by the corrosive sublimate. In every case the weight of po-
tatoes taken from the treated rows was greater than in the un- X
treated rows, but when we come to consider the scab, we get  
the surprising result that the untreated potatoes were less j
affected on the average than the treated, the treated rows of _'
the three plots, having 54.42 per cent. marred by the fungus,  
while the untreated rows of these plots averaged only 43.42 `
per cent. injured. \Vhen we consider the badly scabbed po-
tatoes alone of the three plots, the result is to some extent re—
versed, the treated rows having a per cent. of 10.83 injury.
While the untreated rows have ri_y5 per cent. a trifle more.
It is just possible that in the examination of the potatoes from
V
X .

 ii ` . rt ,· T i
  . * Y; .
    T I4 BI!/]€llZ·7I A/V0. 72.
  ” treated seed, we mistook in some cases corrosive effects of the
    - sulphur upon the skins of the potatoes for the scab, but we
Y _` had this in mind at the time of examination, and I believe the
  i results indicate that the sulphur was not effective in checking
the scab.
· PLOTS 9 TO 1o.
; . , _ The treatment of these plots was the SElll1€ as that given
_ · the three preceding, excepting that four rows of each received
I ‘ i nine pounds of sulphur instead of 7 jé . The plants of treated
‘ ‘ V · and untreated halves of plots showed no special difference
that could be attributed to treatment. In plot io, especially,
they were quite uniform throughout the plot with the excep-
- tio11 of the outside row which was not treated. This latter
. appeared to be injuriously affected by its position next a road-
, way. The yield of potatoes was greater from the two treated
l j, — halves than from the two untreated, but the result as to scab-
,i - bing agrees very closely with that obtained from plots 6 to S.
  i .   The per cent. for the treated halves of the two plots is +8.28.
i Of the potatoes from the two untreated halves, only 37 per
cent. was scabbed. Of the badly scabbed potatoes of these
. two plots the per cent. was a trifle higher for the untreated
\ halves than for the treated, but the difference is so slight as
Qi not to indicate any advantage for treatment.
svnnrxiav or 1<1·:sti1/1`s.
The conclusion to be drawn from these experiments with
. reference to corrosive sublimate is that it is a very useful
agent for checking scabbing of potatoes. The results agree
` -— ` with those obtained by others, a11d we have confidence in C()lll·
» mending the use of this substance to those who may be
i » troubled with this disease of potatoes. Our practice was to
dissolve the corrosive sublimate first in a small quantity of hot
, water, then transfer this to the larger quantity in a kerosene,
_ or alcohol barrel. The seed potatoes in bags were inunersed
? in the barrel, a bag at a time, afterwards were taken out, the
‘ potatoes spread upon the ground until dry, and then cut into
i ‘ pieces according to the usual practice. \\'ith reference to the
I sulphur treatment it must be said that our results do not indi-

 1
· 1 .
1 ii
i F
1 ?
_ /’01‘a/acs. 1 5 V p
cate any especial advantage from treatment with this sub-  
stance. The results were a surprise to us, because others who
have experimented with it have commended it very highly,   `
claiming that it is even superior to corrosive sublimate as a l
check upon scab. Possibly further experiments will reverse 1 ”
our present opinion as to its usefulness. ` I ‘
The light total yield obtained from the whole acre was, I   Q
believe, the result of the use of wilted seed. The soil was in i
excellent condition at the time of planting and, thanks to the _ .   `
eiiicient oversight of Dr. Spurr, the plants had throughout the
summer the best of care bestowed upon them. The season,
too, was a good one in the main and some exceptionally line
crops of potatoes were raised in the neighborhood. The in-
variably better stand, and greater Hnal yield, of treated plants
as compared with those not treated is conclusive proof that A
neither of the fungieides used is chargeable with the light
total weight of potatoes harvested. _,
The fungus causing the scab is the one observed in other '_
parts of the country and described some years ago by Dr. R. ‘ '1
Thaxter as Ot>.1y5t>nz .vm!>z}·.v. 1A specimen from a home-grown 1 `,
potato was submitted to Dr. Thaxter last summer and was ,
pronounced by him to be his species. ·
ri l
E X
1
`1
I
. h

   I
.  t I}  
  ¥ ` 16 BZ!//L’[l.7I rV0. 72. `
  II . - Showin Results of Treatin Seed Potatoes With Corrosive Sublimate
_ S S
  ‘- and Sulphur,
5 .— ¤».. w 'U 'U .
I. . >. —•-· · · mrc:. ,Z~-— ,2*...
I — » |~—.a. .. E iééieéér EB   ‘
» U O m¢-ng °°'·¤O·····¤Q.,"‘0 14.50   I I
{ 7;.; nm, I I  
’ _ 7 Sulphur,. 155 % 60.50 I 13.75 I I I
I None ...... 145 ~l7 25 13.   I  
, 4._., .7 -—1—r4+—~;—  #—?""
7}§ lbs.   I
I Q Sulphur . 111,*;, 45.25 7.75   ·
* None ...... 88 38 01 8.09   I
· ` 71; nit. I   _ __
U_8 Sulphur,. ...... .I ......... I ......... -151 ........ ¤>~1.-12 ........ 10.bZ)
I None .... . ........ I ......... I .........I......... Irssoxg ........ 42%.42 ......... I 11.76
I . .

 l  
ll
l n
? l .
Paiaiacs. 17 E .
Showing Results of Treating Seed Potatoes With Corrosive Sublimate   Z
7 and Sulphur.-—(Continued.) ; ~
I _   lb "5§m"6a¤slE,C Eg 3*;.3:ys ‘i
*: g_§ J. E.:<3”E·:’5'E1E3 E; E°‘§§=¤g ‘r
J 2 —~a at si E”;gE”·;`8l§$¤i§Em”Cq59'°q°5.°Z *
.*2 5 fz vg *:9; svg¤·s»¤».¤~..;:3.‘5;·g-¤.¤g»e;·, .4,
¢~ $,*5 .¤·~l;,;¤ 5% ’=¤,=‘*¤€:|“E;E‘E¤9a2g52i; T
is wg Q3, U3, 7.E’;,;¤;·";¤»¤¤ 3: lvzavig · ·
¤-< UO lj »6··e·5;·$}j·.. he gegguga I.
‘ B" ¤-< s·`6$“e~E9g_° g“5 r'f=¤‘“£*E Q 
  _' ~T_;~_’T_ —__~;__ g .
9 Sulphur. 108)/{ 58.59 15.88 I ‘  
_ ` —; -3--- -——. ...r.T_ ..-4 j_l._a. ;_
None .....   63% 42.87 11.04 I
l 9 ibs. l l _—l__ __ F- P- nw
I0 Sulphur. 2-17% 38.25 A 5. I
None ..... 171 30. 8. `
9 lbs. -7 —_# ;___ ___ -7* YM  
9_m Sulphur. ......... l ......... .. ...... l 382%y ......... 48.21 ........ 9.%
  .........   .........   234}/{ ......... l 37. ......... l 9.32 —.
_ 3.-THE USE OF CORROSIVE SUBLIMATE FOR _ ~
‘ e
POTATO SCAB IN 1897. `
. .; l
BY 1-1. G.u<>1AN, FZNTOMOLOGIST AND 1aoT.»\N1s’r. ' '
· To learn what strength of corrosive sublimate solutions _ 4.
may safely be used on seed potatoes and what length of time
potatoes will bear immersion in such solutions the following X
tests were made in ISQ'] on an acre of land that had for sev- l
e eral years been planted in corn and hemp. \Yhether or not it ·.
had ever been in potatoes before 1 am unable to say. All the ~
seed was planted April 24. The plants came up well and  
7 evenly on both treated and untreated rows, there being no
perceptib1e;difference in growth. They continued good for
some time, but died prematurely either from the effects of
drought or as;the result of an application of a prepared fung-
· icide and insecticide combination known as Laurel green, it
was impossible to say which. The early decline of the plants
I
i T . . i

   1 I` 18 Bu!/eiz`n N0. 72.
  A . 1 V shortened the crop very much, but the results as far as check-
  ? _ ing scab were concerned were striking, so much so that one
  T could while walking over the field when the potatoes were be-
  ` ing harvested tell at a glance the heaps gathered from treated
i rows, by their freedom from seab.
_ P/01* J. One half (4 rows) of this plot was planted with
» seed potatoes that were soaked 1 hour in corrosive sublimate
i ‘ · solution, consisting of 4% ounces of the sublimate dissolved
g T in 30 gallons of water. The potatoes were afterward dried
_ .4 j and cut in the usual manner before planting.
V T The remaining half (4 rows) of the plot was planted
with untreated seed to serve as a check on the four treated
rows.
` , The potatoes from the treated rows were examined Sep—
‘ tember 21. The total weight was 138 pounds. SI per cent.
- was very slightly scabbed, no11e badly. Considering the sea-
i ?g ` son it was a very fair lot of potatoes.
;_ _   ` The potatoes from the four check rows of this plot
· ‘; ` weighed 126% pounds, and Q3 per cent. was scabbed, many
` potatoes being badly injured and the whole lot was of l11f€l`lOlA
quality.
` Pla! 2. This is a duplicate of Plot 1 and the results are
sg; not very different. From the treated rows I4.03ftv pounds of
f·’ ___ potatoes were obtained, of which 35 per cent. was scabbed,
i none badly, and the lot averaging of good quality.
The four untreated rows of Plot 2 yielded 1 I3 pounds of
potatoes, 95 per cent. of which was scabbed, most of them
_ being very badly injured by the disease.
t _, - P/aix 1 mm? 2. Since these two plots are alike in the lllélle
: ter of treatment an average of the results will give a fairer V
·· _ idea of the benefit resulting from treatment than will the plots
when considered separately. The eight treated rows yielded
278§i pounds of potatoes, with 43 per cent. scabbed. The
l eight untreated rows yielded 239};; pounds of which 94 per
  cent was scabbed. The difference in weight is in favor of the
. treated potatoes and amounts to 38% pounds. Scab was re-
' . duced 51 per cent. But this last statement does not convey a
~ fair idea of the result, for every scabbed potato, however

 li _.
ii <  
ll V
n.
. l
K Y
    T
Pafalves. ro E y
slightly affected with the disease, was counted. The scab on   l
the treated lot was often scarcely perceptible and was never l i
very bad, so that the market value of the potatoes was not [ .
affected by it. The potatoes of the untreated lot were on the ’ ;
contrary badly scabbed a11d if offered for sale side by side with /
the others would not have sold as readily, or for as good a . ‘  
price. , ;
/’/az‘_;. The arrangement of this plot and of those follow- i  
ing was the same as in Nos. i and 2, but the treated rows in i
this case were planted with seed that had been soaked one I l
hour in a solution consisting of 5 ounces of corrosive subli-
mate in go gallons of water.
The weight of the potatoes from the four tr