:1 high average alkaloid co11te11t. Those from the 1955 Tiblé 2-- Tliff ¤\{)id Eznifiigcrgit 1*;:33;
crop had a lTlllCh lower alkaloid content than those    Tcrglggug tjlgfe gfsélgsidrlm W ·  
from the 1954 and 1957 crops bllt a higher average   .
alkaloid content than did the 1956 samples. Eip;,,,2tfd yield Y C Grade B R T (V`,  A
Table 1.- The average total alkaloid (nicotine) content of   hh V —
*···**¢r ···b=·¢¤~ %¤¤·1>*·=; Obeined from me me as =· whsle   than 1500 ....,..... 1.04   5.16 .;.0; 2.70 ..1-
“"d. lm"' ‘"°a‘ "‘ ‘h" "a“’ f‘” ‘h"’ *95457 “°l’S· a°“’“1‘“g 1500-2000 .................. 2.0:; 3.14 :;.66 :;.76 :;.10 ‘
“’ av': g"‘d"S‘ Above 2000 ................ 2.00 :;.22 4.00   :;.04 ·-i.
Xgrlmd Area   tipsgpnlesz Flyings and trash—X; lngs—C; bright 1eaf—B; red leaf—H; 5 & _
1954   bacco which went to “the pool” from this area i11 1955, i·€~
1955 ........................ 2.25 6.4:; :;.00 3.86 :;.25 and agam iu 1956 when this was Om of dw 1°W€St ah .4 — T
Area 1 ................ 2.68 4.20 4.74 4.6:3 4.05 kaloid areas in the state. The data (Table 3) indicate
 0%             that the·quantity of tpbacco which went to “the poolh $5 
1056 ........................ 2.01 3.07   :;.60 :;.25 from thla me Ia 1905 was a1>1>r<;>¤¤¤a*€1y two flaw? eq-
Area 2 ................ 1.98 :3.47 4.58 4.61 4.22 the amount which could be expected on the basis of
mst Of Sm" ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 202 3114 :160 **61 :114 the quantity of tobacco produced in this area or 011 *"v»
-.   .+22 170 432 3'87 the basis of the total state production which went to Q_
ii,,Shrlii°l°h hly1"“s ""ll ""“1"x‘ 1"“S“C’ 1"1“h° l""f”B‘ “"1 1""f`R‘ “the pool.” This would indicate that the companies (
The results obtained can be roughly correlated with (hd hht hhy SO aaavay hl hhs. ahhh hhdfhht the high- 7
tl1e rainfall patterns i11 the four years. The 1954 and hhhlmd Chhthht hwy have hhhcthd thhhl hh}/mg Phh- 1 4
1957 crops were largely “dry weather" crops, while the uhh _
railtfall tlistrilmtioii lll 1955 and 1956 Was lllllCll 11101*9 Table 3.-A comparison ol` tobacco production and pool VT
i(](.a]_ take from high-al-kaloid area 1 (Table 1) witl1 that of the c
ln 1955, 1956, and 1957, area patterns (high- €lll(l inc as u whole lh 1955 and l956` ifi A
low-alkaloid areas) were obvious in the state. Thus T i955 LQEG- W .
lll 1955, tll€‘I`€* WAS ll hlgl`1-all1l<11U0¤$ (Such as 111056 l)i`€V€*i1iUg in 1956) me Ye- M
the high alkaloid level. q11ired for the p1'O(lUCtl()ll of a crop witl1 a11 alkaloid 6 ~ 1
C()l'lt&‘llt equal to the traditional range of 3.00-3.25 per- L °
Yield-Nicotine Relationship Cent aa
The llllllI(‘llC(‘ on nicotine content of increasing Although weather conditions have a marked effect 47
yields is shown by data obtained in 1956 (Table 2)_ o11 alkaloid content, tl1e increased emphasis on yields ht
l"iU`llll‘l`$ Slllllllltllllg samples were asked to estimate through tl1e use of large quantities of nitrogen ferti- ‘ `
their yields. and then the average alkaloid content of lizer is believed to be the chief reason for the tendency in
Sulllplvs froni farms witl1 yields of less than 1,5()()_ for a higher average alkaloid COllt€llt of burley crops. ` _,
1.590-2.000. Lllltl above 2,001 pounds per iicre was The trend toward higher yields results i11 a marked T
t‘alt·11latcd. The data indicate zi marked increase in improvement in the physical characteristics of the ¢*· (
atllsaloid content with increasing yield_ especially in tobacco witl1 ll decrease in the q11a11tity of `inon- H 1
saunplcs froni the top of the plant (the leaf and tip smoker" grades. Tl1e increased yields and improve-
grades). ment in physical qualities have undoubtedly increased " s
lligh—allid content and the tlecreuse in usefuliiess (
attcinpt was made to determine the quantity of to- (@0,,;;,,ugd 0,,, page 15) ’ `
HAM
lil K1·:N*1·11c1<1‘ lT.~\li\l .4Nn lloxtn SCIENCE—SPRINC 1958
`O•~
  l