xt7ftt4fpc86 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7ftt4fpc86/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1896 journals kaes_bulletins_063 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.63. text Bulletin n.63. 1896 2014 true xt7ftt4fpc86 section xt7ftt4fpc86   _ KENTUCKY        
  AGHIEULTUHAL EXPEHIIVIENT STATIUN   —  
  STATE comma 0m fore, on the plots receiving the nitrate of potash, 82
‘_ pounds of potash were applied, and 23 pounds of nitro-
i i T gen as nitrate.
Q _, p o The double superphosphate contained 40 per cent of
>   p ~ available phosphoric acid, so that plot No. 1 received 56
“ l lbs. of phosphoric acid. The sulphate of potash contained
l about 50 per cent of potash, therefore, plot No. 2 received
S0 pounds of potash. The carbonate of potash and
r. Y inagncsia contained 20 per cent. potash, or plot 4 received
. . 96 pounds potash.
i 2, As plot 5 received the same amount of nitrate of pot-
g,_   ash as plot 1, it received the same amount of potash and
‘   · nitrogen as plot 1.
t The latter part of the season was unfavorable to the
experiments, for the continued dry weather undoubtedly
is caused the plants to prematurely ripen. Our field notes
gy show that on August 15, all plots with the exception of
j   No. 3, that which had received no fertilizer, were growing
Q if well, and that the plants in plots 1 and 5 were especially ‘
fine. On September 1st, the field notes give the condition ‘ p
"as only fair" on all the plots save No. 3, which is given
  as "poor."
" ‘ The following table shows the kind and amount of
  fertilizer used and the yield of tobacco calculated iper `
acre for each plot:

 I z
· Tobacco. 63
Table l.—Tobacco-Test of Fertilizers. · I
I I Yield of I
  Tobacco in ' I
Fertilizers Used. I `5 Ipounds per acre I
rf?-¤I‘*’*'·*·* ;•’ * I I
I I O · ·= I I
*‘° ·c:I rc: I I
gI————;——Ié   I I I
—= Poundsi ¤=° I QI 4 · I
nu ij; em L »—I 1
.I Name. per I . ¤I Q ‘f’I ;; I
0 I I 0 I Q . I-· E I 0 I
ZI I{1C1‘e.IZI,gI£f|HIg, I
1Il)ouble Superphosphute. 140 I   I    
INit1·e1te of Potaish ....... I 200 ISI€`I635I32III·!4I.I 1395
I I. I
I I I _ I I I
2Sulpha1te of Potush ..... 100 Isziholszo 390I1190 I
I I I I `
I g I ___
3INo Fertilizer. ......... I IT92I I ;555I ooo
I I I I .
4?(l`m·l>onate of Potnsh and I   I I   I
· -w u ·- I. I , I . ,
I Mzignesm . ......... I 180 Ib6(»I.>20I380I~1.20I1320 II
I I I , I .
. . . I I I --I-_ -I I I ,..- I
5IN1traite oi Potash .....,. I 200 I8¢mIo.3I>j4l0I—I30Ilm0 I
I I I I I I I I I
I   ·
r In none of the plots was the stand perfect. Eight , I
; I liunclred zind eighty plants were set out in each plot. I
1 . There is no question hut that some correction should be ~
1 * made for missing hills in marking conipurisons ats to the
yield of the vztrious plots, hut it is dilolieult to determine I
I, the true correction. In correcting to :1 perfect stand more
F or lessof itn error creeps in, in the {uct thut wherever '
there is zi missing hill the plants innmcdizxtely :ul_Ineent ‘I
have more space in which to grow, und in conscIIuence
are rzinker thnn they otherwise would have heen. With
this error in view the corrected yields nre pe1·IIziIpsl>ctter
. for coinpeirison. The yield of the plots corrected to ZL
perfect stund is here given.

   1__ T . 64 Bulletin. N0. G-?.
  · I Table 2-Effect of Fertilizers on Tobacco.
    ,-74 Yield of _
  Tobacco in
t Fertilizers Used. \ pounds per acre 1
1 T 4; Ei    
E · ,2 ”'”`"""_"”'”-"TQEKCQ ei ¢¤ 1 . _
·. Q ee *`° 1 ·: *"‘
  . Name. per ¤ 5 Q Q EE
,   . 1 Q1 1 acre. \ 51 é    E,
1 —-1--#-———-———·-·—j·-·-—·-——— ——- ---1-- —···‘
up 1 1 Double Superhosphate . . . 140 \  
Z1 , Nitrate of Potash .... . . . 200 `682 3441473 1499
. 1 1 1
1.   21Sulphate of Potash ...... 160 150213521417 1271
i X, 31No 1¤cl·a11m· ..,.........   1 \ yew cr:
lh   4 Carbonate of llotash and 1 1 1 1
i X Z Magnesia ......... 1 4$0 y528 13813 \1 341
1 1
5\Nitrate of Potash ........ \ 200 y5511422,442 1415
°’» 1 1 1 1
  The results indicate that a satisfactory yield can be pro- .
if __·"• duced on our worn soils by applying potash fertilizers, i
14 and especially potash with nitrogen. The quality of
tobacco raised, however, was only fair, not up to stand- It
ard. The leaves were too short, deficient in "body,”
  and color only fair. The dry weather, causing the
  ` plants to dry up rather than ripeinprobably had more
5 to do with the interior quality than the soil. l·`urLher 1
experiments may enable us to determine this.
1 Chemical analyses were made of the tobacco from each
i plot and also oi` the stalks, for the purpose of determining
the amount of nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash rc-
Y moved from the soil in each case by the crop. The re-
, _ sults are given in thc following tables.
They show that the tobacco raised on the experimental

 V Tobacco. 65 A A N
plots was much poorer in these constituents, especially in p l
potash, than is usually the case. The general run of 1
tobacco contains at least three or four times as much . i
potash as was found in that raised on plot No. 4. A ‘ y
reason for this has already been suggested in the fact , ‘
that the plants seem to have dried up before they were A
fully developed. At any rate, the results, while inter- i I
esting, appear to be exceptional and should not be used ` _
in estimating the effect which an average crop would ;
have upon the soil.
TABLE 3.—Pounds of Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash
Contained in noo lbs. of Tobacco, *·ln Case" as Taken From
the Barn, Grown on the Experimental Plots. "
#Numbier 0Ei$E£l 1T= 2 TT i;4 1 5
Moisture ....... 26.5 26.1 26.6   27.4i 27.1 .l
Nitrogen ........ 2.63 2.25 3.08 i 2.25 V 2.24 . A ·
Phosphoric Acid,. .69 .75 .55 i .65 { .62 ` ‘
Potash .... . ...... .80 .79 .45   1.08   .71 ‘
Fertilizgll used |§1li;iiliiil1li`e Potusii.   No   _l’otusl1. l Nitrogen, l
COI1tZ`t11'1€(1' Acid, `FCI`ElllZC·1` Potiish. `
iwrasii. Q l 1 i
i TABLE 4.—Pounds of Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash
Contained ln noo lbs. of Stalks of the Tobacco '
Grown on the_Experimental Plots. ’
'Y;iii1téi§r‘ii§§  .
————--Q -t---4-—- ...Yi—-— .-..-. »}
i Nitrogen ........ 2.44 l 2.49 2.62 l 1.86 2.32
C Phosphoric Acid. . .57 .58 .52 .60 .58
_ Potash .......... 1.45 1.35 .63 l 1.50 1.62
` 1 F""”m”€}` used `£Xi`f¥§3i¥‘.-\ i».»r..Si..1 N" li»...r..i..\N“ ‘"‘‘ “"“‘
C()]][;3,1]]gd_ Acid, Fortilixerl Potash.
l Potash.  

   i d 66 Bulletin N0. 63.
    ‘ Table 5-Nitro gen, Phosphoric Acid, and Potash Removed in _
  ~ the Crop, Expressed in Pounds Per Acre.
. Number of Plot. 1 2 3 » 4 5
p Nitrogen in the __ `
; ‘ tobacco .....   39.4 28.6 19.0 30.2 31.7
  V Nitrogen in the
  p stalks ........... 11.7 9.2 4.6 8.2 11,9
Z M l l ‘ Total in the crop
as harvested ..... 51.1 37.8 23.6 38.4 43.6
3 1
p Amount applied in
·. the fertilizer . . . 23. .0 0. 0. 23.
  A Phosphoric acid in ; ‘
    the tobacco ...... 10.3 9.5 3.4 8.7 8.8
   
1 Phosphoric acid in
‘ the stalks ....... 2.7 2.2 0.9 2.6 3.0
Total in the crop
Y as harvested. .... 13.0 11.7 4.3 11.3 11.8
· i
  Amount applied   i
li  in the fertilizer...` 64. 0. O. 0. O.
A Potash in the   A
tobacco ........ i 12.0 10.0 2.8 14.5 10.0
IQ . Potash in the stalks  6.6 5.0 1.1 6.7 8.3
  Total in the crop   .
k as harvested .... p 18.6 ` 15.0 3.9 21.2 18.3
' Amount applied in i
the fertilizer .... l S2. 80. 0. 96. 82.
. Total 1Veight of To-1 ’ jd'-
— l l>¤¤<¤<> ¤;¤91=Qla;¥§§Lj&?- 79;i-1E8.¤;}930-

 .] 1`~
1.
Tobacco. 67 0
· For the sake of comparison we introduce here the I Q
analyses of a few other samples of \Vhite Burley tobacco i
as follows : . 7
P No. 2117, sent by Maj. Phil Bird, Shelbyville, in Feb- ;
ruary, 1893. A very {ine specimen of tobacco; crop y ‘
. of 1892. 1
No. 2798, grown at the Station farm in 1891, on plot 1  
4 of the experiments with fertilizers This plot received i
as fertilizer the double carbonate of potash and magnesia ,
and nitrate of soda at the rate of 300 lbs. and 160 lbs. T
pe1· acre, respectively, corresponding to 60 lbs. potash and
26 lbs. nitrogen per acre. The total yield of tobacco was
at the rate of 1650 lbs per acre and rather poor in qual·
ity. (See Bulletin 55, page 53.) ·
No. 2799, grown by Benj. D. Peter, Fayette county , on
good land, without the use of fertilizers. The tobacco _
was of fair quality. Crop of 1894.
No. 2879, from   P. P. Johnston, Fayette county; a . f
very fine specimen of tobacco. Crop of 1891. i = 1
TABLE 6.—Pounds Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Con= »
tained In noo lbs. of Tobacco *•ln Case." V 1
_ M7sea1O1fi1$1%e1·. 7   2117 1 its 727119 1 asm i .
l l\loisture ................ 1 25. 1 25. 25. 1 25.
Nitrogen   ........... 2.43   3.21 3.3213.18 ;
l’hosphoric .\cid.. ........ .75 l 65 .39 .91
P@2}sh.g;Y.V ;g.g. ..... . .... i 5.91 < 3.08 3.91 5.02 _
1 \
As these samples were nearly dry when received at the 1
laboratory, the results of the analyses have been calcu— T
lated to 25 per cent. of moisture, which is about enough
to bring the tobacco into "case."
_ From these results it will be seen at once that the
_ amount of nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash in to-
“ bacco is very variable. We are unable at present to ac·

 Q  A  
  . i 68 Bulletin N0. 63.
  l_ ' count certainly for this variation, but a possible explana-
  : tion is that the crops were gathered at different stages
V ? of maturity, owing to differences of season. `
I The following analysis of tobacco stalks may be of in-` y
_ terest here, as showing that good stalks are quite valua-
; ` ble as a fertilizer on account of the nitrogen and potash
; ~ they contain. A comparison of the two analyses also
  _ shows that the greater part of these constituents is easily
_ A'.}, i washed out by exposure to rains. ·
I   A A V No. 3323-Tobacco stalks, crop of 1895, from a pile in
the barn at the Dr. Peter farm, Fayette county.
¥ No. 332-i--Tobacco stalks from the same crop, picked
. up from the ground outside the barn where they had
f` il been exposed to the weather for a month or two.
[   Table 7-Pounds of Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash
_   Contained in noo Pounds of Tobacco Stalks.
F} .. * .‘ ,.,..—__j__14-·,_&.-#_#...j;.4r H- 7 AAI.?
’ =. ’   seize  
· Nitrogen ..,..........................,. \ 3.06\ 1.67
Phosphoric Acid. ........................ .92 .69
~_   ...... . ............ g ........   3.65 .63
Q` The stalks are not as rich as "stems," but are certainly
    worth using as fertilizers. ~
t

 I
i. it
1 I
. i»
l {
'1`l1e Use of Arsenites on Tobacco. A
BY V  
H. GARMAN, EN*roxroLoGis1* AND BoT.xN1s·r. I , ·
A tenth acre was set aside in the spring of' 1895 for an  
experiment having for its object to determine when   l
tobacco should be sprayed and the number of times` ap- 2
plioations should be made during the season. The plot i
was planted in eight rows. Row 1 was sprayed once; row
2, twice, and so on, the last row receiving eight applica-
tions at as many different dates. Hence it was possible
at the end of the season to see the effect of sprayings
made early in summer side by side with the result of "
spraying to mid-summer, and of spraying at regular
intervals close up to cutting time. The following are the .
dates of spraying for the eight rows :
llow 1.--.] uly 3. , i ;°
llow 2.--July 3, 11. ‘ ’
llow 3.——.luly 3, 11, 18.  
· llow 4.———July 3, 1], 18, 25. 5
~ Row 5.——.luly 3, 11, 18, 25; August 2. 1
_ Row G.——July 3, 1l, 18, 25; August 2, 8. . ,
llow 7.——July 3, 11, 18, 25; August 2, 8, 15. '
Row 8.——.]uly 8, 11, 18, 25; August 2, 8, 15, 22.
The proportion of Paris green and water used was one- l
fourth pound to forty gallons. The quantity of the mix- T I
ture used varied with the size of the plants, from one to· ‘
two gallons per row. .5
While at first it required but eight gallons for the
tenth acre, we were obliged when the plants were grown
to use the mixture at the rate of sixteen gallons for the
tenth, in order to wet the plants thoroughly. lixeepting
ten plants at the end ol` each row the tobacco was cut
September 4.
- '

   g
  Z { 70 Bulletin N0. 63. A
    · Up to the middle of August the appearance of this to-
ii T bacco was very good, better, perhaps, owing to the supe-
  1 rior richness of its soil, than any other plot on the Ex-
‘ periment Farm. But previous to this time some injury
from worms had been noted in rows 1 to 3, and after the
i , - A middle of August rows 1 to 6 were more or less injured.
V, _ It was evident that early spraying without later applica-
Q tions to back it up, could not be depended on to stop the
V-, A T injuries of the worms. The reason- for this is probably
° if ` A V because the Paris green is removed in course of time by
J rain and wind, and is partly due to the fact that early
X spraying reaches only the early formed leaves, those de-
, veloping subsequently being completely at the mercy of
`— ` the worms. _
, · It might be supposed that because the plants sprayed
“ T; only at the beginning of the season suffered greatly later
tn   from the worms, that early applications were useless, and
i it P only late ones could be trusted to prevent injury. l
i think this is not a fair inference. \Vhen our first appli-
j cation was made, July 3, a brood of worms was making
_` _ its appearance on the plants, the dead worms subse-
  quently observed being about one—half inch long. There , ‘
7_,·"° can be little question, I think, but that these worms
i would have done a good deal of mischief before going into A
the ground, and that the later brood would have been much
more abundant and destructive as a result of their having
Li -been permitted to mature, so that even though the
_ i ,leaves upon which these worms would have fed largely
i were those next the ground, and consequently of little
_ value, it would have been unwise to permit the worms to
L complete their development.
At the same time it is evident from our experiment
that the late brood is the most destructive one, and that
, spraying that does not take it into account will completely
l . fail of its object. Very early spraying is useless against

 l
` -
 4
l
Tobacco. 71 ’
this brood. An examination of the plants with reference  
to injury on August 31, after theleast application had T
been made gave the following result: _ V
Row 1.-43 plants injured. i .
Row 2.-50 plants injured. I j »
Row 3.-56 plants injured. T
Row 4.-37 plants injured. i I
Row 5.-31 plants injured. ' l
Row 6.-11 plants injured. 1
» Row 7.-- 3 plants injured. `
» Row 8.-None injured by worms.
. Plants injured to any extent, however slight, were in-
T eluded in making this count, and consequently it may be
by itself somewhat misleading. The injury did not .
l diminish gradua‘lly in severity from row 1 to 3, but the
· plants of the last were as badly gn awed as any on the first
[ row. On rows 4 and 5 the plants were not so extensively l
{ injured, although it was evident that if saving them from 2
- injury was the purpose of our work they should have ` Z `,
g been sprayed subsequent to August 2. Row G showed i
- the injury much reduced as compared with 1'0W 5, a proof I
; V - that the mixture applied on August 8 was an effective A l
; spraying for the injuries of the late brood, though it did l
, ‘ not entirely prevent injury. T.
i The quantity of fluid used and the amount of Paris
gg green which was applied to the plants are of interest in v
Q connection with Dr. A. M. Peter’s report on the analyses
y of the tobacco taken from the rows. The following is an ‘
B estimate of the quantities they received. The spraying *
O was done just as it would be in the tobacco field and some l
allowance is to be made for the fluid that did not strike
jp the plants, that dripped from the leaves, or was dissipated
5 in the air.
y Row ]..——Received 1 gallon containing 0.1 ounce of
gt Paris green.

 * * » . . i
  ¤ i
  r { 72 Bulletin N0. 63.
  M 1 y _ Row 2.——Received 1.7142 gallons containing 0.1714
  ‘ ounce of Paris green.
Pl? l Row 3.—Received 2.4642 gallons containing 0.2404
  l ounce of Paris green.
E Row 4.——Received 3.23642 gallons containing 0.3304
_ ¤ ounce of Paris green. 2
l Row 5.—l‘{eceived 4.4892 gallons containing 0.4489
  ` ' ounce of Paris green.
l A Row 6.——l{eceived 3.4892 gallons containing 0.5489
i Zi; y l ounce of Paris green.
· V Row 7.——lleceived 6.73392 gallons containing 0.6739
. ounce of Paris green.
T Row 8.4—l{eceived 8.7:392 gallons containing 0.87:39
.` ? ounce of Paris green.
V Reference to Dr. .\. ll. .l’eter’s table .in his statement
Q it following this paragraph shows that on rows 1 and 2 only
QM   rr trace of arsenic remained at cutting time, and since he
· X - finds a small trace in tobacco that has not been sprayed
· at all it may be assumed that practically all of that ap-
plied to these plants was gone when they were cut on
7 September 4. His laboratory number, 3198, is applied
gt to plants of row 1, which were left standing when the .
  H. rest of the row was cut, and on September 5 were
[ l sprayed and then cut as soon as dry. Since only a trace -
ofarsenic was obtained from the other plants of the same
row (sprayed only on July 3) it is evident that the large
  percentage (.0139) of arsenic obtained came mainly —
" ‘ from the last spraying. 'l`he result illustrates the ex-
  tent to which arsenic is removed from plants when time
elapses between spraying and cutting, and shows the i1n-
l portance of avoiding applications of Paris green near the
l time of harvesting the crop. Even tobacco from row S
(sprayed eight times) yielded less arsenic than these
late sprayed plants of row 1. The only plants that did
E   yield more of the poison were such as received two late

 \
ii ..
Tobacco. 73 i A
> sprayings, once on September 5 and again September i
19, and were cut immediately after the last spraying. 0 i
f They are numbered 3206 in Dr. Peter’s table. \Vith the
exception of numbers 3198 and 3206, all the tobacco an- 1  
= alyzed by Dr. Peter was cut September 4. ' ,
> May 1.6, 1696. Y
Prof. II. Garma.21, z l
y DEAR Sin :——The following is a statement of the ' T
amount of arsenic found by analysis in the samples of g
) tobacco from the several sprayed rows in your experi- i
ment. The figures given are the averages of two separate
)p determinations and show the amount of "white arsenic"
or arsenious oxide found in each sample, calculated both
b as per cent. of the dry tobacco and as grains in one pound .
of the same.
I Arsenious Oxide in the Dry Tobacco. _
{  1si7§F §é26?i5;2Z»iisizdziiiz  l
- E:YmB§${EE§i;Tili T `7i—3_E`_};`Tl"§i{Oéi · _  
1 Times Sprayed ....   1 *2 2 3} 4 5\ 6 Ti   i ,
ii Per Cent. Arse-1 l   i i `   I 1 _  
# - nious Oxide ..... trace 0139ltrace,00O2`O0l0l003-l\O04l\00
0 Ifiit is desired to ascertain thc corresponding amounts . ,
1· of Paris green, it is only necessary to double these {ig- fl
G _ ures, because this material contains about half its weight
S of arsenious oxide.
i€ I Paris green also contains copper, and small amounts
fl of that metal were found in all the samples, but its
10 quantity was not satisfactorily determined.
`

 2  _ i,
AQ A i 74 Bullctrin N0. 63.
  s , While the question whether or not there is any danger
ill;   to the consumer from the practice of spraying with
  I arsenites,is still open to discussion, it would seem hardly
g probable that such small quantities oi arsenic as were
found in the tobacco from rows 5 and 6, only two or three
, A * tenths of a grain in a pound, would have any perceptible
‘, ~ effect. Indeed it may be confidently asserted that the
i _ amount of arsenic contained in the small fraction of a
  _ pound which a man would consume in a day, even if
=   · _ taken at one dose instead of being distributed through-
’ out the twelve hours, would produce no harmful effect.
1 On the other hand, in view of the serious results to health
which have been traced to the use of arsenical wall
·_ I papers, it may be questioned whether these small quan-
. tities of arsenic may not do harm when constantly
  ‘, applied to the surfaces of the mouth and lungs. So far
gh   no instance of poisoning from the use of sprayed tobacco
` '\ i has come under the writer’s observation, although it is
‘ known that a number of men who practice spraying with
Paris green are also in the habit of smoking and chewing
lp their own tobacco. Very respectfully,
Qt ALFRED M. PETER.
  JM The Proportion of Paris Green to be Used.
A There is a disposition everywhere in spraying plants
of all sorts to use more poison than is needed. If one- I
quarter pound of Paris green in 40 gallons is enough, -
33 — why use more? It is sometimes claimed that these .
¢ dilute mixtures are not as effective as stronger ones.
3 They may not kill as quickly, but they are less costly, Y
= and are not hurtful to the plants, besides being less like- .
' ly to affect the quality of the tobacco. As illustrating `
this point some tests which I made last fall at the Sta-
tion with mixtures of different strengths are pre-
` sented bclow.

 _ l·
o Tobacco. 75
ger
ith No. 1. f
dly September 16, 1895, two worms in breeding cage . .
GPG were given tomato leaf dipped in Paris green mixture Q
ree (one-quarter pound to 40 gallons) at 6 p. in. ; 3 p. in., Sep- ~
ble tember 17, both dead. 1
tl1€ . s  
f aa NO. 2. 1
n if September 17, brushed piece of tobacco leaf with , 1
gh- Paris green mixture (1 pound to 160 gallons) and put 1
ect. in jar with worm at 2 :30 p. ni. ; 8 :30 a. m., September 18,
tlth worm alive, has eaten but little ; 3 :80 p. in., September
yall 18, apparently sick ; 7 :50 a. m., September 19, dead ; has
um- eaten perhaps one square inch. _
my NO. 3.
far ,. . . .
LCC0 1.1118 is a duplicate of No. 2. 8 :30 a. ni., September V
at is 18, worm alive; has eaten perhaps a half square inch _'
with of leaf`; 11 :05 a. m., September 18, dead; about one p . ( .
. square inch of"leaf eaten. 1 °
ring · ,
No. 4. Q
P" This is another duplicate of No 2. 8 a. m., Sep- ( i
tember 18, worm alive ; has eaten about one-halfsquare _
guts inch of leaf; 7 :50 a. m., September 19, sick; 9 a. m., ‘
Ong- September 20, alive yet; put in tomato leaf with Paris
ugh, green of same strength as used in No. 2; 8 :10 a. 1n., '
hast, September 21, dead; has not eaten any of tomato leaf. p
HCS. NO_ 5_ ` `
Stlyr . A
Hk€_ At 2:45 pl. m., September 17, gave worm tobacco 1
Und leaf brushed with Paris green and water (1 pound to
Sb; 120 gallons); 9 a. ni., September 18, worm ahve; 1 :50
_ a. m., September 19, alive; 8 :10 a. m., September 21.
P18- alive; 10 a. m., September 22, alive; has not eaten
lately; 10 :30 a. m., September 23, nearly dead; 8 a.
m., September 24, dead.

 QZ ? §'
  é
  i` . _ 76 Bulletin Nof 63.
Z; - NO. 0.
T i This duplicates No. 5. 9 a. m., September 18, worm
sick; has eaten about two square inches of leaf; 7 :50 a.
, · m., September 19, very sick; 9 a. m., September 20,
‘_ dead.
( · _ .
; No 7 .
; $1, I Another duplicate of No.   9 a. 111., September 18,
, ` · worm alive and active; can 11ot see tl1at it 11as eaten
anything; 7 :50 a. m., September 19, alive; 9 a. m.,
¤ September 20, dead. Possibly this worm starved rather
_ » than eat the poisoned leaf. At any rate I could see no
` trace of gnawing on leaf. _
2 ;; No. S.
in ·§i At 2 :50 1. m., Se vtember 17, brushed leaf with Paris
_ 1 l l
X A green mixture (1. pound to 100 gallons); 9 a. m., Sep-
4 tember 18, worm dead; has eaten about one square inch
x of leaf. .
  No. 9.
g `-,__ Tl1is is a duplicate of No. 8. 9 :10 a. m., September
Q   18, worm very sick ; has eaten about one square inch;
i 11 :10 a. m., September 18, dead.
No. 10.
[_ _ Hhis duplicates No. 8. 9 :10 a. m., September 18,
; alive; has eaten about one square inch ofleaf; 7 :50 a.
* 1n., September 19, alive; 9 a. m., September 20, alive;
; replaced tobacco leaf witl1 tomato leaf, brushed with
, same mixture; 8 :10 a. 111., September 21, alive; 10 a.
m., S€pb€1`l1l)€1‘ 22, dead; has not eaten last food.
No. 11.
;   _ At 2 :50 p. 111. September 17, gave worm tobacco leaf _
brushed with Paris green mixture (1 pou11d to (S0 gal-
lons) ; 9 :20 a. m., September 18, worm very sick; has

 l  
Tobacco. 77
eaten about one square inch; 7 :55 a. m., September 19, l 2
` sick ; 9 a. in., September 20, alive ; replaced tobacco
leaf with tomato leaf brushed with same mixture ; 8 :10 “ T
' a. m., September 21, dead; has not eaten last food. l A
No. 12. l
This is a duplicate of No. 11. T 9 :10 a. m., September   I
, 18, worm very sick; has eaten about one and one-half T _
I square inches of leaf; 7 :55 a. m., September 19, ,
5 sick; 9 a. m., September 20, dead.
r NO. ie.
j This is also a duplicate of No. 11. 9 :20 a. m., Sep-
tember 18, worm sick ; has eaten about one square inch; _
7 :55, September 19, dead.
S No. 14. - .
)·* __,'_, _
h At 2 :55 p. m., September 17, a worm was given to- _'
bacco leaf brushed with Paris green mixture (1 pound · T _ —
to 40 gallons); 9 :25 a. in., September 18, alive; 7:55 a. Q
A 1n.,September 19, dead; about three-quarters of asquare .
er inch of leaf eaten. · 3
This duplicates No. 14.9 :25 a. m., September 18, ‘_
alive; has eaten little or nothing; 7 :55 a. m.,September
Q, 19, dead; very little eaten. ,
an NO.   V
6*} This is a second duplicate of No. 1-1-. 9 :30 a. m., Sep- _
ih tember 18, worm appears sick; has eaten little or noth- 1
3·· lug; 11 :15 a. m., Sept. 18, dead; very little eaten, per-
haps a square inch.
Other worms kept in jars and cages and fed on un-
eaf treated leaves during this time, completed their growth
ga]. and changed in most cases, when not parasitized, to
haS puPfE·

  {   _a 4·_~"r—i   I I
.}<' —
  ·- 78 Bulletin N0. 63.
 "   The Life History of the Tobacco Worm.
  3 A knowledge of the life-history of this insect, and par-
:. ticularly of the numberof broods of worms which ap-
pear each season, is of a good deal of importance in
, _ » " spraying. After gathering up all of my notes from 1889
T, _ s to 1895, inclusive, I find that there is some evidence of
; I three annual broods, instead of two, as has been thought
` 9. . to be the number through the South.
’   Y ` _ On June 8, 1895, adult moths were captured by me at
' y Lexington. These probably represented the adults from
; worms which went into the ground and changed to pupaw
_ in the fall of 1891. On .July 23 a nearly grown worm was
2 taken from a tomato plant in my garden and on July 9
1 ~ it had changed to a pupa in the ground.
I Q; Young worms recently hatched have been observed on
éjr,   - tobacco July 23, 1891, July 9, 1891, July 11, 1889 , August
` Q ‘ 9, 1891, and September 9, 1895.
‘ Those observed during the first half of July probably
_ represent a second brood, the first one developing in
f,‘_ tomato or some other plant. The third brood would,
  - therefore, be the one which appears during early August
  and does most of the injury to tobacco. The young
? worms, which were noted by me last fall on the refuse —
tobacco left after cutting, are probably f`rom occasional
adults of the third brood which during long mild autumns
—. come out in fall instead of spring. (I took, September
  ` 18, 1899, a moth  ust from the ground, and with the wings
Z not yet expanded.) Such young are liable at any time to
_ be destroyed by frost, and I think ordinarily do not be-
, come adult,still, it is not altogether improbable that dur- V
ing some of the exceptionally mild fall and winter
weather experienced here, some go into the ground to
_ pass the winter. , ,
» . To the grower the important facts in the lite history of

 Tobacco. 79
the insect are the appearance of a brood in early July y
· and of another in early August. y
' Conclusion With Reference to Tobacco Worm injury; » k
; 1. it is not necessary to spray tobacco more than y ~
{ three times, provided the times of making the applications r
are well chosen. * j
D 2. Judging by our experience, the proper time to ap- A _
tr ply Paris green is early in July and again in early August, Q
but extended experience will probably show the broods to
1 vary somewhat in times of appearance, with the season.
U The thing to do, conse