lAQN CIRCULATING CHECK FOR UNBOUND CIRCULATING COPY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/pruningexperimen3263blak ‘ f J / ( I ' '' imi JH-ESTY jiaBICULTUIUi.L FXP^EI« imm STJiTIONS BULLETINS 326-335 1917-19 NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY 327 Comiriercial feeding stuffs and registrations for 1918 by C. S. Cathcart 328 Some important orchard plant lice by T. J. Headlee 329 Profits and factors influencing profits on 150 poultry farms in Now Jersey by F. i^.pp and others ^,0 Report of the director for 1916 *by J, G, Lipman 331 Analyses of commercial fertilizers, fertilizer supplies and home mixtures by C. S, Cathcart 332 Some studies on the eggs of important apple plant lice by A. Pe^terson 333 Analyses of materials sold as insecticides and fungicides during 1918 by C. S, Cathcart and R. L. Willis 334 Analyses of commercial fertilizers and ground bon«; analyses of agricultural lime by C, S. Cathcart 335 Fertilizer registrations for 1919 by C. S. Cathcart ' ' I ' -A ,iK '.si^- . . ''i. . ■•■'•■.*-tv“-*--A.-,. '^ ySE- ' ■:] *" A' '■'.- i ■ , . ■ ;■ ■ ■ -r .-- '• ' ■=- f' ■»' m ict'C: :>’■ ^rsfiiv ;., i.tn -lo ;/ ‘r f.;. ‘ a: i-'h ' i ,, .'il.?'.?/;,; S*;ir: IflS ■■ ?■ '%•.:; 5-.. u V> '■■ '•■,■' ,' • ' .''• -V-: -r i: ... ^ • c, V PRUNING EXPERIMENTS WITH PEACHES: OF FIRST TWO SEASONS RESULTS JUN 2 ^ 1919 NEW JERSEY mRimmmi SSSPSHIMEHT StJLTIOITS Bulletin 326 (No. 1 of Pruning Series) New Brunswick, N. J. JlFJn KUCILTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS* NEW BRUNSWICK. N. J. STATE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1880. BOARD OF MANAGERS. His ExC£I.UIMCy WALTER E. EDGE, LL.D Trenton, Governor of the State of New Jersey. W. H. S. DEMAREST, D.D New Brunswick, President of the State Agricultural College. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D Professor of Agriculture of the State Agricultural College. County Atlantic Bergen Burlington Camden Cape May Cumberland Essex Gloucester Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Name William A. Blair Arthur Lozier R. R. Lippincott Ephraim T. Gill Charles Vanaman Charles F. Seabrook Zenos G. Crane Wilbur Beckett Diedrich Bahrenburg Egbert T. Bush Josiah T. Allinson Address Elwood Ridgewood Vincentown Haddonfield Dias Creek Bridgeton Caldwell Swedesboro Union Hill Stockton Yardville County Middlesex Monmouth Morns Ocean Passaic Salem Somerset Sussex Union Warren Name James Neilson William H. Reid John C. Welsh James E. Otis Isaac A, Serven Charles R. Hires Joseph Larocque Robert V. Armstrong John Z. Hatfield James I. Cooke Address New Bruns’k Tennent Ger’n Valley Tuckerton Clifton Salem Bemardsville Augusta Scotch Plains Delaware STAFF. Jacob G. Lipman. Ph.D Director. Frank G. Helvar, B.Sc Associate in Station Administration. Irving E. Quackenboss Chief Clerk, Secretary and Treasurer. Harriet E. GowEn Chief Stenographer and Clerk. Frank App, B.Sc j Agronomist. Irving L- Owen, B.Sc. . .Associate Agronomist. J. Marshall Hunter, B.ScL Animal Husbandman. Charles S. Cathcart, M.Sc Chemist. Ralph L. Willis, B.Sc Assistant Chemist. Archie C. Wark Laboratory Assistant. W. Andrew Cray Sampler and Assistant. William M. Regan, A. M. .Dairy Husbandman. Forrest Button, B.Sc., Assistant Dairy Husbandman. John Hill, B.Sc., Assistant Dairy Husbandman. Thomas J. HeadleE, Ph.D Entomologist. Chas. S. Beckwith, B.Sc., Asst. Entomologist. Mitchell Carroll, B.Sc., Asst. Entomologist. Arthur J. Farley, B.Sc., Acting Horticulturist. Vincent J. Breazeale, Foreman, Vegetable Growing. Charles H. Connors, B.Sc., Assistant in Experimental Horticulture. William Schieferstein, ..Orchard Foreman. Lyman G. Schermerhorn, B.Sc., Specialist in Vegetable Studies. H. M. Biekart Florist. Harry R. Lewis, M.Agr., Poultry Husbandman. Willard C. Thompson, B.Sc., Assistant Poultry Husbandman. Ralston R. Hannas, B.Sc., Assistant in Poultry Research. George H. Pound, B.Sc., ..Poultry Assistant. Morris Siegel Poultry Foreman. EemEr H. WenE Poultry Foreman. John P. Helyap, M.Sc Seed Analyst. Jessie G. Fiske, Ph.B Asst. Seed Analyst. Carl R. Woodward, B.Sc., Editor. Ingrid C. Nelson, A.B., ....Assistant Editor. Hazel H. Moran Assistant Librarian. Leslie E. Hazen, M.E., In charge of Rural Engineering. AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1888. BOARD OF CONTROL. The Board of Trustees of Rutgers College in New Jersey. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD. W. H. S. DEMAREST, D.D., President of Rutgers College, Chairman New Brunswick. WILLIAM H. LEUPP New Brunswick. JAMES NEILSON New Brunswick. WILLIAM S. MYERS New York City. JOSEPH S. FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan. STAFF. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D Director. HENRY P. SCHNEEWEISS, A.B Chief Clerk. John W. Shive, Ph.D Plant Physiologist. Earle J. Owen, M.Sc. .. .Assistant in Botany. Frederick W. Roberts, A.M., Assistant in Plant Breeding. Mathilde Groth Laboratory Aid. Thomas J. Headlee, Ph.D Entomologist. Alvah Peterson, Ph.D Asst. Entomologist. Augusta E- Meske. ... Stenographer and Clerk. * Staff list revised to February i, 1919. Melville T. Cook, Ph.D. .. .Plant Pathologist. William H. Martin, Ph.D., Associate Plant Pathologist. Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D., Soil Chemist and Bacteriologist. Augustine W. Blair, A.M., Associate Soil Chemist. Selman a. Waksman, Ph.D., Microbiologist, Soil Research. Cyrus WiTmER, Field and Laboratory Assistant. (2) NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ORGANIZED 1912 AND NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE DIVISION OF EXTENSION IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS ORGANIZED 1914 Louis A. Clinton, M.Sc., Director. Mrs. Fr.'iNK App, Acting State Home Demon- stration Leader. Victor G. Aubry, B.Sc., Specialist, Poultry Husbandry. John W. Bartlett, B.Sc., Specialist, Dairy Husbandry. M. A. Blake, B.Sc., Acting State Superintend- ent and State Leader of Farm Demonstra- tion. Roscoe W. DeBaun, B.Sc., Specialist, Market Gardening. J. B. R. Dickey, B.Sc., Specialist, Soil Fertility and Agronomy. Marjory Eells, D.S., Home Demonstration ! Agent. i Edna Gulick, Home Demonstration Agent. Howard F. Hulver, B.Sc., Assistant State Leader of Farm Demonstration. Arthur M. Hulbert, State Leader of Boys’ , and Girls’ Club Work. I Ethel Jones, M.A., Asst. State Club Leader, William F. Knowles, A.B., Assistant State Club Leader. William M. McIntyre, Assistant Specialist, Fruit Growing. Charles H. Nissley, B.Sc., Specialist, Fruit and Vegetable Growing. Carl R. Woodward, B.Sc., Editor. Ingrid C. Nelson, A.B., Assistant Editor. H. E. BaldingEr, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Sussex County. William P. BrodiE, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent, Salem County. Frank A. Carroll, Demonstrator for Mercer . County. Elwood L. Chase, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Gloucester County. ! Laura V. Clark, A.B., Home Demonstration [ Agent for Newark. Louis A. Cooley, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Ocean County. Herbert R. Cox, M.S.A., Demonstration Agent for Camden County, Josephine C. Cramer, Home Demonstration Agent for Middlesex County. L«E W. Crittenden, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Middlesex County. Ellwood Douglass, Demonstrator for Mon- mouth County. Arden M. Ellis, Assistant Demonstration Agent, Monmouth County. Irvin T. Francis, A.B., Demonstration Agent for Essex County. Harry C. Haines, Demonstration Agent for Somerset County. Margaret H. Hartnett, Home Demonstration Agent for Paterson. Cora A. Hofeman, B.Sc., Home Demonstra- tion Agent, Morris County. Harry B. Holcombe, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Burlin^on County. William A. Houston, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Sussex County. Elva Hughes, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Burlington County. Lauretta P. James, B.Sc., Home Demonstra- tion Agent for Mercer County. May D. Kemp, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for the Oranges. Harvey S. Lippincott, B.Agr., Demonstrator for Morris County. Zelma Monroe, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Trenton. Adelia F. Noble, Home Demonstration Agent for Princeton. Warren W. Oley, B.Sc., Demonstrator foi Cumberland County. James A. Stackhouse, B.Sc., Demonstratoi for Cape May County. I W. Raymond Stone, Demonstrator for Bergen ! County. Eunice Straw, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Monmouth County. Norine Webster, Home Demonstration Agent for Bayonne. Harold E. WettyEn, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Passaic County. I Carolyn F. Wetzel, Home Demonstration I Agent for Bergen County, j Albert E- Wilkinson, M.Agr., Demonstration I Agent for Atlantic County. ( 3 ) CONTENTS T , . Introduction, 5 Types of Pruning Studied, 6 Varieties Chosen for the Experiment, 7 Location and Establishment of Experiment Orchards 7 Vineland Experiments, 7 New Brunswick Experiments, 8 Twig Growth Made by the Trees at Vineland During 1912, 8 Growth by Plots Arranged According to Future Treatments, 10 Measurement of Circumference at Vineland, 12 Measurement of Circumference Arranged According to Future Treatments, 14 Effect of Dynamiting the Soil Previous to the Planting of the Trees, .... 15 Measurement of Twig Growth at New Brunswick, 1912, 16 Growth by Plots Arranged According to Future Treatments, 17 Measurement of Circumference at New Brunswick, 1912, 19 Pruning of the Trees Following the First Season’s Growth, 21 Summer Pruning at Vineland During 1913, '. . 23 Summer Pruning at New Brunswick During 1913, 25 Illustrations of Pruning in Summer, 26 Twig Growth Made During 1913, at Vineland, 26 Growth by Plots Arranged According to Future Treatments, 28 Comparisons on Basis of Per Cent Gain in Twig Growth Over that of 1912, 29 Gain in Twig Growth by Treatments at Vineland, 31 Twig Growth Made During 1913, at New Brunswick, 31 Comparison of Total Growth on the Basis of Treatment, 33 Comparison^' on Basis of Per Cent Gain in Twig Growth Over that of 1912, 34 Gain in Twig Growth According to Treatments, 36 A Comparison of the Growth Made by Trees of Varying Vigor, 36 Individual Differences, 42 Measurement of Circumference of Trunks of Trees at Vineland, 1913,.. 42 Average of Circumference Arranged According to Future Treat- ments, 44 Per Cent Increase in Trunk Circumference During 1913, 45 Actual and P Not pruned. Winter-pruned, not cut back. Summer-pruned only. Winter- and summer-pruned. Winter-pruned and cut back. Tabi,E 2 Growth oe Peots According to Future Treatments V iNEEAND, 1912 1 1 Treat- ment Not Pruned Winter Not Cut Back Summer Winter and Summer ! Winter Cut 1 Back All Variety Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree Plot Number Trees Tree Average Per Number Trees Average Per Tree Inches Inches Inches 1 Inches Inches Inches All 1 10 698 2 12 681 3 11 780 4 10 792 5 11 597 7 11 696 6 11 689 10 12 765 8 12 788 9 12 955 Totals, 21 697 23 686 23 772 22 790 23 784 112 746 Stump, . . 1 4 611 2 4 718 3 3 794 1 4 4 919 5 4 686 1 7 4 689 6 4 861 -10 4 932 * 4 771 9 4 1042 1 Totals, 1 1 8 650 8 790 7 1 873 1 8 1 845 1 1 1 1 8 864 39 800 1 Carman, | 1 4 767 2 4 797 3 4 879 4 4 1 731 1 1 5 3 575 1 7 4 776 6 4 584 10 4 715 1 1 8 4 714 1 9 4 924 1 Totals, 1 1 8 771 8 690 8 1 796 8 722 7 774 1 39 1 750 1 Elberta, | 1 2 736 2 4 534 3 4 671 4 2 659 5 4 525 1 1 7 3 598 6 3 600 1 10 4 650 1 1 8 4 880 9 4 899 1 Totals, I 5 653 7 562 1 1 8 660 1 1 6 806 •8 712 34 677 Table 2 shows the comparative vigor of the trees at the close of the season of 1912, as assigned to the various treatments. The treatments rank in the following order, all three varieties being considered : Av. growth per tree (in.) 1. Winter and summer, 790 2. Winter cut back, 784 3. Summer only, 772 4. Not pruned, 697 5. Winter not cut back, 686 12 Pruning Experiments With Peaches The treatments take somewhat different rank where each variety is considered separately. The “not primed” treatment ranks third in the case of Carman, and fourth and fifth in the case of Elberta and Stump, respectively. The “winter and not cut back” treatment ranks last in the case of Carman and Elberta. These variations according to variety will receive atten- tion as the experiment proceeds. MEASUREMENT OF CIRCUMFERENCE AT VINELAND It was thought that the measurement of the total linear twig growth of each tree in the experiments would become too great a task after a time, and that it would be well to study the relation between the rate of increase in the girth of the trunk and the amount of twig growth. The trees when received from the nursery varied considerably as to caliper, and differences were still apparent at the end of the first season’s growth, as is shown in table 3. This table gives the circumference, in inches, of each tree, taken about six inches from the ground. It will be noted that the following trees had trunks that branched at or below that point: Row r, Trees i and 3; Row 3, Trees i, 2 and 3: Row 8, Tree 4 ; Row 16, Tree 2; Row 18, Tree 2; Row 19, Tree 2; Row 20, Trees 2 and 3 ; Row 21, Trees 2 and 5; Row 24, Tree 3 ; Row 27, Tree i ; Row 30, Trees 2 and 3. In computing the averages. Tree i in each row is not con- sidered, following the same plan as in tabulating the amount of twig growth. Row 8, Tree 5 (Carman), had the largest girth for all varieties at the end of 1912, measuring 5.25 inches. The smallest girth measured was that of Row 8, Tree 2 (Carman), 2.12 inches. The average for all the trees of all varieties was 3.95 inches. 48 being above the average and 50 below. Stump had the greatest average girth of the three varieties compared, with an average measurement of 4.17 inches. Eigh- teen were above average and 18 below. Row 10, Tree 4 had the largest girth of any Stump, with a measurement of 5.12 inches, while Row 28, Tree 2 had the smallest, 3.12 inches. BUI.I.ETIN 3^6 13 Carman had the largest tree as to trunk circumference and also the smallest tree, noted above. The average girth for the variety was 3.92 inches, 19 being above the average and 17 below. Tabi^e 3 Measurement oe Circumeerences V iNEEAND, 1912 PRUNING TREATMENT Row Variety ♦Tree 1 Tree 2 Tree 3 Tree 4 Tree 5 Average Not pruned 1 Stump Inches Br. Inches 3.37 Inches Br. Inches 5.00 Inches 4.25 Inches 4.21 2 Carman, .... 4.25 4.12 3.50 4.75 4.16 3 Elberta, Br. 1 Br. Br. 1 Winter 4 Stump, .... 3.50 4.00 4.75 4.37 4.16 not cut 5 1 Carman | 3.25 3.36 3.25 3.37 4.37 3.59 back a 1 Elberta, | 1 1 3.62 3.66 3.75 4.00 3.76 Summer 1 1 Stump 1 1 .... 4.25 3.88 4.88 4.34 only s 1 Carman | 2.12 4.25 Br. 5.25 3.87 9 1 Elberta 1 2.50 3.75 3.25 4.25 3.75 3.75 Winter 10 1 Stump, 3.50 3.75 4.00 5.12 4.50 4.34 and 11 Carman 3.25 3.75 3.88 3.75 4.62 4.00 summer 12 Elberta, 2.50 3.12 3.62 3.37 Winter 13 1 Stump 1 j 3.00 3.62 4.00 3.75 4.62 4.00 '* cut 14 Carman, | 3.88 3.12 3.62 3.54 back 15 Elberta | 1 2.50 3.88 1 3.37 1 3.50 3.31 Winter IG Stump, I 2.75 Br. 3.75 4.75 4.75 4.42 not cut 17 Carman, | 4.12 3.. 36 4.00 3.37 3.95 back 18 Elberta, | 1 2.12 Br. 2.88 5.12 4.00 Not pruned 19 1 1 Stump, 1 2.88 Br. 3.88 4.00 4.50 4.13 20 1 Carman 2.00 Br. Br. 4.37 5.00 4.69 21 Elberta, 3.00 Br. 3.00 Br. 3.00 Winter 22 Stump, 2.62 4.88 3.88 1 1 4.25 4.25 4.32 and 23 Carman 4.00 3.50 3.62 4.00 3.78 summer 24 Elberta, 3.12 3.75 Br. 3.50 4.37 3.87 Winter 25 Stump, 1 1 3.00 4.25 1 1 1 3.88 4.37 4.37 4.22 cut back 26 Carman, 1 3.12 4.88 1 3.50 4.75 4.12 4.31 27 Elberta, | 1 Br. 1 3.75 1 3.25 1 1 4.12 5.00 4.03 Summer 28 1 Stump 1 1 2.75 3.12 1 3.75 1 1 3.88 4.12 3.72 only 29 Carman 1 2.62 4.12 2.75 4.25 4.37 3.87 30 1 Elberta I i 1 2.12 Br. Br. 3.36 3.75 3.56 * Tree 1 of each row is not included in average. Elberta had the smallest average circumference, the average being 3.69 inches. Thirteen trees were above average and 13 below. Row 18, Tree 5 had the largest girth for the variety, measuring 5.12 inches. Row 15, Tree 2 was the smallest with a circumference of 2.50 inches. It will be noted that in the case of Elberta in the ‘‘not pruned” treatment there is only one tree that can be considered in the averages as tO' circumference. 14 Pruning Experiments With Peaches Measurement of Circumference Arranged According to Future Treatments lable 4 shows the average circumferences as they would affect the future pruning treatment of the different plots. The rank of the various treatments, all varieties being considered, is as follows : Average circumference Inches 1. Not pruned, 4.15 2. Winter- and summer-pruned, 4.01 3. Winter cut back, 3.92 4. Winter not cut back, 3.91 5. Summer, 3.85 Table 4 Measurement of Circumferences in Plots According to Future Treatments Vineland, 1912 Treat- ment Unpruned Winter Not Cut Back Summer 1 Winter and 1 Summer 1 Winter Cut Back All j Variety Plot Number Trees Average Per Ti-ee Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree m Ol *-< H OJ s cu 9 bA cd 1 ^ 0 33 1 All 1 1 Inches 1 I 7 4.18 1 7 6 4.1.3 1 Inches 2 12 3.83 6 9 4.01 Inches 3 10 3.96 10 10 3.75 1 Inches 4 10 4.01 8 11 4.00 1 Inches 5 11 3.62 9 12 4.19 1 1 1 Inches Totals, Stump, . . 1 13 4.15 1 1 3 4.21 7 3 4.13 21 3.91 2 4 4.16 1 G 3 4.42 1 20 3.85 3 3 4. .34 10 4 3.72 1 1 21 4.01 4 4 4. .34 8 4 4.32 23 3.92 5 4 4.00 9 4 4.22 98 1 3.95 Totals. G 4.17 1 1 7 4.27 1 7 3.98 1 8 4.33 8 4.11 36 4.17 Carman. 1 4 4.1G 1 2 4 3.59 1 1 3 3 3.87 4 4 4.00 5 3 3.. 54 7 2 4.G9 G 4 3.95 1 1 10 4 3.87 8 4 3.78 9 4 4.31 1 1 Totals, G 4.33 1 1 1 8 3.G5 V .X8T j ' 8 3.89 1 7 3.98 36 1 3.92 1 Elherta, 1 1 1 2 4 3.7G 1 3 4 3.75 1 1 4 2 .3.37 5 4 3.31 1 1 7 1 3.00 6 2 4.00 1 1 10 2 3.56 1 1 i 8 3 3.87 1 9 4 4.03 Totals.] ' 1 3.00 1 1 ' 1 1 6 3.84 1 6 3.69 j ' 5 3.67 8 3.67 26 3.69 BuI^IvETIN 326 5 The difference between the highest and the lowest is only 0.30 inch, which means a difference of less than ^ inch in the diameter. It will be noted that the trees of the “not primed” treatment show the largest average circumference, yet these trees rank fourth in average twig growth. The fact that only 13 trees of this treatment are averaged as to circumference of trunks, and also that they branch close to the ground, probably accounts for the result. The rank of treatments by varieties is as follows : Average circumference Stump — Inches 1. Winter and summer, 4.33 2. Winter not cut back, 4.27 3. Not pruned, 4.17 4. Winter cut back, 4.1 1 5. vSummer, 3.98 Carman — 1. Not pruned, 4.33 2. Winter cut back, 3.98 3. Winter and summer, 3.89 4. Summer, 3.87 5. Winter not cut back, 3.65 Elberta — 1. Winter not cut back, 3.84 2. Summer, 3.69 .3. Winter cut back, 3.67 4. Winter and summer, 3.67 5. Not pruned, 3.00 ~ The averages for the various treatments are fairly uniform. The maximum difference in average circumference between the different pruning treatments of the variety Stump is 0.28 inch, or a little less than ^ inch in diameter. Bor Carman this difference is 0.68 inch, or inch difference in diameter; and for Elberta, 0.84 inch, or inch in diameter. EFFECT OF DYNAMITING THE SOIL PREVIOUS TO THE PUANTING OF THE trees The dynamiting experiment was a special study planned and conducted by Mr. Arthur J. Earley, and reports upon the results i6 Pruning Experiments With Peaches of this test have been made by him from time to timed The results will be considered in this discussion only in so far as they may relate to the pruning work. This refers to the experi- ments at both Vineland and New Brunswick. MEASUREMENT OE TWIG GROWTH AT NEW BRUNSWICK, I912 Measurements were made of the twig growth of the trees at the College Farm at the close of the first growing season, and the results are given in table 5. The amount of growth made Table 5 Measurements oe Twig Growth New Brunswick, 1912 VARIETY II 1 1 1 1 |Ro’« i| Row 2|Row SjRow 4 Row 5] II 1 1 1 1 Row 6 1 Row 7| Row 8 Row 9 All Rows Tree i NP 1 1 1 WNCBI 1 1 1 W& Sj ' ^ 1 1 WCB 1 1 |W& S 1 S jWNCB WCB 1 1 Inchesl Inches 1 Inches 1 j Inchesl Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Elberta 1 341 1 246 433 206 162 1 108 3.30 338 261 2 750 400 250 333 627 1 633 267 493 528 3 620 132 186 119 262 1 444 338 797 156 4 427 Average, 1 570 1 301 1 290 219 350 395 312 543 315 364 Stump 4 1 625 1 757 1 418 1 747 924 649 653 1239 5 490 1 486 I 314 353 1 1 1 606 1 1 812 463 484 324 Average, 1 558 1 486 1 536 1 386 1 677 868 556 569 782 609 Carman 6 1 1 108 427 1 1 438 519 318 998 484 295 1 T 170 190 160 1 532 214 324 508 624 306 8 474 1 314 1 334 1 528 1 334 270 310 540 680 Average 322 1 1 204 307 1 499 356 304 605 550 427 400 All I Average 1 •• 1 1 496 1 j 288 3.58 366 1 4.34 1 479 1 483 552 474 436 Note. — In this and succeeding tables NP represents “Not Pruned”; WNCB, “Winter Not Cut Back”; W & S “Winter and Summer”; S, “Summer Only”; WCB, “Winter Cut Back.” by the trees may be said to be fair to good for the locality, the average for all varieties being 436 inches. The growth at New Brunswick, however, is considerably below that made at Vine- land, the average difference being 311 inches. This would be^ equivalent to 31 branches 10 inches long or about 26 branches ^ Some results of dynamiting for tree planting. In N. J, Agr. Exp. Sta. 34th Ann. Kept., 1913, p. 120-129. Planting trees with dynamite. In Proc. N. J .State Hort. Soc., 1913. BuIvIvETIN 326 17 12 inches long. All of the trees lived, and although the amount of linear twig growth in a few cases was small, all were allowed to remain and none were replanted at the close of the first season. The growth considered by rows was fairly uniform, except in Rows 2, 3 and 4. There was some variation in growth according to variety. Stump made the largest average growth, with 609 inches. Car- man was second with an average of 400 inches, and Elberta third with an average of 364 inches. This is the same relative behavior of the varieties as occurred at Vineland. A consideration of the individual trees of the three varieties shows the following result. The largest Stump tree was Row 9, Tree 4, with a total linear twig growth of 1239 inches; and the smallest. Tree 5 in Row 3, with a total growth of 314 inches. Eight trees were above and 9 below the average of 609 inches. The largest Carman tree was Row 7, Tree 6. This tree made a total twig growth of 998 inches. The smallest Carman tree was Row 2, Tree 6, with a total twig growth of 108 inches. Twelve Carman trees were above and 14 below the average of 400 inches. The largest Elberta tree was Row 8, Tree 3, with a total linear twig growth of 797 inches; the smallest was Row 6, Tree i, with a total of 108 inches. Eleven Elberta trees were above the average twig growth of 364 inches, and 17 were below. Growth by Plots Arranged According to Future Treatments Following the plan adopted at Vineland, after the measure- ments of twig growth were computed for the first season, the rows for the different treatments were selected. This was done in such a way as to have the average for the various treatments as uniform as possible. The rows assigned to the various treat- ments were as follows ; Row I, Rows 2 and 8, Rows 3 and 6, Rows 4 and 7, Rows 5 and 9, Not pruned. Winter not cut back. Winter and summer. Summer only. Winter cut back. i8 Pruning Experiments With Peaches It was not possible to have more than one row for the “not pruned” treatment, and the selection of an outside row is a little unfortunate, since there is a considerable cultivated area beyond it. These conditions should favor this row, since there is no chance of its being restricted in growth by lack of moisture or light as a result of the near presence of another row of trees. In Row 2 (see table 5) it will be noted that Tree 4 proved to be an Elberta and not a Stump. Table 6 shows the average total linear twig growth of the various rows as selected for the treatments. Tabce 6 Growth by Pbots According to Future Treatments New Brunswick, 1912 VARIETY TREATMENT Not Pruned Winter Not Cut Back Winter Cut Back Winter and Summer Summer < Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Elberta 570 472 333 342 266 364 Stump 558 541 729 74)2 471 609 Carman, 322 452 391 30G 552 400 1 1 496 1 480 1 454 418 424 436 When all varieties are considered the ranking upon this basis is as follows : Inches 1. Not pruned, 496 2. Winter not cut back, 480 3. Winter cut back, ^ 454 4. Summer only, 424 5. Winter and summer, 418 Separate rankings according to varieties vary fromi the rank- ing for all varieties. The “not pruned” treatment is first with Elberta, but third and fifth with Stump and Carman, respectively. The “winter not cut back” treatment is second in the case of Elberta and Carman, but fourth with Stump. “Winter cut back” is the first in rank with Stump, but third with Carman and fourth with Elberta. The “winter and summer” treatment is Bulletin 326 19 second, third and fourth with Stump, Elberta and Carman, respectively. The “summer only” treatment ranks first with Carman, but fifth with both Elberta and Stump. This varietal difference may need to be considered in the future performances of the trees. It should be noted that this is the rank of the treatments just previous to the beginning of the actual pruning work. MEASUREMENT OF CIRCUMFERENCE AT NEW BRUNSWICK, I912 The girth of the trees in the experiments at the College Farm also were taken, and the results appear in table 7. The follow- ing trees were branched at the ground and were not considered in the averages : Row I, Trees i, 3, 5; Row 2, Tree 5; Row 3, Tree 4; Row 6, Tree 4; Row 8, Tree 8. Tabi.e 7 Measurements oe Circumferences New Brunswick, 1912 VARIETY Row 1 ■f 1 Row 2 1 Row 3 1 I Row 4 1 Row 5|Row 6 1 Row 7 Row 8 Row 9 All Rows 0 0 H NP 1 IWNCB 1 1 W& S 1 1 1 WCB 1 1 ||W& S 1 S WNCB WCB '^Air Treat- ments 1 1 ! Inches! Inches Inches 1 ' ! Inches|Inches| Inches 1 Inches 1 Inches Inches Inches Elberta 1 ... 1 3.31 3.37 3.50 1 3.75 1 3.81 3.75 4.31 3.87 1 2 3.12 2.93 2.81 2.81 1 2.43 1 3.75 2.00 2.00 2.18 1 3 1 2.18 3.00 3.12 1 3.06 1 2.81 2.93 3.37 3.18 1 4 I 3.12 1 Average | 1 ” 3.12 I 1 1 2.89 1 3.06 I 3.14 1 3.08 i 3.46 2.89 3.23 3.08 3.10 Stump, 1 1 4 1 3.93 1 1 1 2.93 1 3.81 3.50 3.37 3.37 1 1 ^ 3’. 25 3.81 4.00 2.93 3.18 4.00 4.00 Average | 1 ! ' 3.93 3.25 3.37 3.91 2.93 3.34 3.69 3.69 3.54 Carman 1 1 6 4.00 1 1 1 2.50 2.68 2.56 3.68 1 3.37 3.12 4.31 2.56 4.68 3.18 2.00 3.12 3.93 3.00 3.00 3.18 3.62 1 ® 3.75 ( 3.00 1 3.00 2.93 2.87 1 2.62 3.50 2.75 Average, ! •• 1 4.14 ! 1 2.89 1 2.56 1 1 2.87 1 1 1 3.49 1 3.00 1 3.21 3.75 • 2.98 3.19 All 1 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 1 Average, 1- 3.90 1 2.89 1 1 2.87 1 1 3.10 1 I 3.44 1 I 3.18 1 3.12 3.51 3.19 3.22 The average circumference of all the trees was 3.22 inches, which is 0.73 inches below the average of the Vineland trees. 20 Pruning Experiments With Peaches The largest tree was Row i, Tree 7 (Carman), with a girth of 4.68 inches. Three are tied in rank as to smallest circumference, Row 3, Tree 7 (Carman) ; Row 7, Tree 2 (Elberta), and Row 8, Tree 2 (Elberta), with a circumference of 2 inches. The Carman variety had the poorest tree at both Vineland and New Bruns- wick. This was undoubtedly due to the poor quality of the trees when purchased, since Carman is in general a more vigorous grower than Elberta. TABrE 8 Average Circumeerences According to Future Treatments New Brunswick, 1912 variety TREATMENT Not Pruned Winter Not Cut Back Winter Cut Back Winter and Summer Summer < Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Elberta, 3.12 3.54 3.08 3.26 3.02 3.10 Stump 3.93 3.69 3.80 3.09 3.36 3.54 Carman, 4.14 3.29 3.24 2.78 3.04 3.19 All 3.90 3.44 3.32 3.03 3.11 3.22 The average girth of the Stump trees was 3.54 inches, the highest for the three varieties. The largest Stump trees are Trees 5 in Rows 5, 8 and 9, with girths of 4.00 inches, and the smallest circumference occurred with Row 4, Tree 4, and Row 6, Tree 5, which made circumferences of 2.93 inches. The average girth of the Carman trees was 3.19 inches, which is the poorest average for the three varieties. The largest Carman was Row i. Tree 7, with a girth of 4.68 inches, and this is the largest tree of all the varieties. Row 3, Tree 7 measured 2.00 inches in circumference. The average girth of the Elberta trees was 3.10 inches. The largest was Row 8, Tree i, with a girth of 4.31 inches; Row 7, Tree 2, and Row 8, Tree 2, were smallest with a circumference of 2 inches. It is of interest to note that the trees which were the largest and the smallest in circumference were not identical with the trees making the largest and the smallest amounts of twig growth, respectively. After the future pruning treatments had been Bulletin 326 21 assigned, it was found that the rank according to average circum- ference considering all varieties was as follows : Average circumference Inches 1. Not primed, 3.90 2. Winter not cut back, 3.44 3. Winter cut back, 3.32 4. Summer only, 3.1 1 5. Winter and summer, 3.03 This is the same ranking as in the case of average linear twig growth (page 18). The ranking of the different varieties, how- ever, varies from the general average, as may be noted in table 8. PRUNING OE THE TREES EOLLOWING THE EIRST SEASON's GROWTH The real work of pruning did not begin until the dormant season following the first summer’s growth. A discussion of pruning from the standpoint of the mechanical strength of various branch formations, the actual form of the tree and the varying of a treatment to meet the requirements of individual trees and special conditions may appropriately be deferred until a later period in the progress of the experiments. A mere out- line of the system of pruning in the various treatments is given at this time. Attention should be called to the fact that since dormant season pruning may be done in December of one year or carried on into January, February or March of the next year, the statement that such a tree was pruned in 1913, for example, might lead to confusion as to whether it was really pruned in January, 1913, or December, 1913, which would mean a difference of a season in the age of the trees. To avoid any possibility of a doubt, the two years covering a dormant season will be noted. For ex- ample, the first summer’s growth closed in September, 1912, the first dormant pruning will be noted as that of 19 12-19 13 and the second dormant pruning will appear as that of 1913-1914. Photographs have been taken of a considerable number of trees since the beginning of the experiments to show the appear- ance of the trees before and after pruning each season. Only a few trees are selected for illustration at this time, and the photo- graphs recording the growth of two seasons of each individual 22 Pruning Experiments With Peaches tree are shown on the same page for a better comparison. A photograph does not portray accurately the form and spread of the branches of a tree, since it tends to give the effect that all branches are in the same plane; and a top may appear rather congested in growth when in fact it is well spread. The ‘Tot pruned” trees were not cut or treated in any way except for the removal of a few suckers which developed below the bud. Figure i illustrates Stump, Row lo. Tree 2, at Vineland at the close of the first season’s growth, and figure 3 illustrates Carman, Row 20, Tree 4. Upon all the other plots an attempt was made to have several forms of trees represented. Where a tree naturally formed a head 6 inches from the ground it was allowed to do so, and trees which naturally formed heads at 12, 18 or 24 inches were not greatly modified. Since individual records are kept in these experiments, such a practice offers more opportunities for the study of pruning than would he the case if an attempt was made to develop the heads at a uniform height. In a general way the trees in the “winter pruned and not cut back” treatment were pruned as follows : Three or four well placed branches were selected, whenever possible, to form the main or scaffold framxCwork of each tree. All small side branches lower than 18 inches from the ground were pruned off. Where the side branches were too numerous through the top of the tree they were thinned out. An attempt was made to have this prun- ing quite similar to that generally followed in some parts of central and northern New Jersey and elsewhere. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate Carman, Row 17, Tree 2, at Vine- land before and after pruning in 1912-1913. Figures 9 and 10 illustrate Elberta, Row 18, Tree 5, before and after pruning in 1912-1913. This is an example of a compact, well spread tree which requires but little corrective pruning. Figures 13 and 14 illustrate Stump, Row 16, Tree 3, from which a considerable amount of twig growth was removed from the lower part of the trunk. The “winter cut liack” treatment follows the preceding plan ' so far as the selection of the scaffold branches and the removal of small side branches below 18 inches from the ground is con- cerned. In addition, however, all side and main branches were Bulletin 326 23 cut back slightly, preferably just above an outside branch. The object is to make the tree spread to keep the top relatively low, and to keep the center of the tree open. Cutting back the branches tends also to stiffen the framework of the tree. Figures 17 and 18 show Stump, Row 25, Tree 3, before and after pruning. Two or three relatively large side branches were removed because they were below 18 inches from the ground. A Carman tree. Row 14, Tree 5, is illustrated before and after pruning in 1912-1913, in figures 21 and 22. The tree was thin- ned by removing a number of twigs and the remainder were cut back. The “winter and summer” and the “summer only” treatments were pruned in the same fashion as the “winter cut back” at this stage. They later received pruning during the growing season. Stump, Row lO; Tree 4 (fig. 25 and 26), is selected as one illus- tration of the pruning of a tree in this treatment. Two Elberta trees also are selected to illustrate the pruning in this treatment, since one. Row 12, Tree 4 (fig. 31 and 32) was pruned so as to form a single short trunk, while Row 24, Tree 3 (fig. 37 and 38) was pruned so as to allow three scaffold branches to form a few inches from the ground. Quite similar individuals occur in the other treatments, so that observations are being made with both types of trees, as previously noted. To illustrate the pruning in the “summer only” treatment. Carman, Row 8, Tree 4, at Vineland was selected (fig. 43 and 44), and also Elberta, Row 4, Tree 3 (fig. 50 and 51), at New Brunswick. The latter tree had started growth slightly before all the measurements and photographs could be secured. SUMMER PRUNING AT VINELAND DURING I913 The summer pruning in 1913 consisted of the removal of all suckers or shoots below 18 inches on the trunk, and any that tended to make the center of the tree too dense. This pruning was done about the middle of June and the leading branches were also “tipped” at this time to encourage the development of* side branches. The trees in the plots to receive summer pruning only were pruned a second time in September when growth had about 24 Pruning Experiments With Peaches ceased. This pruning consisted of a thinning out and a cutting back similar to the “winter pruned and cut back” treatment ex- cept that it was done in the fall. Measurements were made in linear inches of twig growth removed at each summer pruning, and the results appear in table 9. Tabi^e 9. Growth Removed in Summer Pruning ViNEEAND, 1913 i SUMMER Plot 3 WINTER AND SUMMER Plot 4 WINTER AND SUMMER Plot 8 SUMMER Plot 10 Stump Carman Elberta Stump Carman Elberta Stump Carman Elberta Stump 1 Carman Elberta Row 7 8 9 10 11 12 22 23 24 28 29 30 Tree Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches 1 1144 1055 1127 1042 902 524 1458 1553 1396 896 2 1101 2680 1276 984 1341 1464 1823 2636 3469 3132 3 1324 1197 1243 733 488 855 1056 936 2590 1878 1247 4 1105 2314 1333 1347 689 ’860 1524 933 1069 2935 1880 1528 5 1817 2888 1186 1060 835 1182 1338 1555 1079 2194 1810 1575 Average, 1432 1875 1611 1104 749 1021 1265 1502 1227 2589 2249 1871 1 1 1658 945 1331 2238 Tn the “summer pruned only” treatment an average of 2093 inches was removed from the Stump trees, 2067 inches from the Carman and 1741 from the Elberta. In the “summer and winter” treatment only, the June summer pruning was practiced and an average of 1184 inches was removed from each Stump tree, 1126 inches from Carman and 1158 inches from Elberta. The average amount of growth removed per tree per plot in the “summer only” treatment was 1658 inches on Plot 3 and 2238 inches on Plot 10, or a general average of 1961 inches. The average amount of growth removed per tree per plot in the summer pruning of the “winter and summer” treatment was 945 inches on Plot 4 and 1331 inches on Plot 8, or a general average of 1156 inches. BuIvIvETIN 326 25 SUMMER PRUNING AT NEW BRUNSWICK DURING I913 The summer pruning at New Brunswick was similar to the work at Vineland, and a tabulation of the linear inches of twig growth removed is shown in table 10. Table 10 Growth Removed in Summer Pruning New Brunswick, 1913 treatment VARIETY Tree Row 3 Row 4 Row 6 Row 7 1 Winter and Summer Summer Winter and Summer Summer Inches Inches Inches Inches Elberta 1 670 1046 430 907 2 357 1235 654 1426 3 136 1639 450 365 A vprngp 488 1307 511 899 Stump 4 705 1236 1101 779 5 594 1559 406 681 Avprngp 650 1398 502 730 Carman 6 600 615 878 690 7 339 1067 622 487 8 .346 1053 248 776 Average, 428 912 583 651 All Average, 506 1181 599 764 In the ‘‘summer only” treatment, an average of 1103 inches of growth was removed from the Elberta trees, 1064 from the Stump trees and 781 from the Carman trees. In the “summer and winter” treatments, the amounts of twig growth removed in June averaged 50O' inches for Elberta, 702 inches for Stump and 506 inches for Carman. The treatment average per tree for all varieties was 973 inches in the case of the “summer only” treatment and 5.52 inches in the case of the “summer and winter” treatment. The first average is 988 inches below the corresponding average for the Vineland trees and the second is 604 inches below. 26 Pruning Expe:rime:nts With Peaches ILLUSTRATIONS OF PRUNING IN SUMMER Photographs were taken to show the character of the pruning in the summer of 1913. The pruning of the “winter and summer” treatment, which was performed in June, 1913, is illustrated first by Stump, Row 10, Tree 4, at Vineland, shown in figures 27 and 28. In the case of this tree, the shoots were removed from the trunk and scaffold branches to a height of about 24 inches above the ground, and a considerable amount of thinning was done, the amount pruned off being 1347 inches. Elberta, Row 12, Tree 4, at Vineland, also is shown in figures 33 and 34. In this case also, the shoots were removed from the trunk to a height of about 24 inches, but the amount of thinning required was less, 860 inches being removed. The pruning of Elberta, Row 24, Tree 3, at Vineland, is illus- trated in figures 39 and 40. Here 936 inches of twig growth were removed, the effect upon the top being quite perceptible. Trees receiving the “summer only” treatment were pruned twice during the growing season. Figures 45 and 46 illustrate the appearance of a Carman tree. Row 8, Tree 4, at Vineland, before and after pruning in June, 1913. The same tree before and after pruning, in October, 1913, is shown in figures 47 and 48. The tree was about to lose its leaves at the time the latter pruning was performed. An Elberta tree. Row 4, Tree 3, at New Bruns- wick, before and after pruning in June, 1913, is shown in figures 52 and 53. The same tree before and after pruning in October, 1913, is shown in figures 54 and 55. On this tree also, the leaves were about to fall at the time of pruning. TWIG GROWTH MADE DURING I913 AT VINELAND At the close of the season’s growth in 1913, measurements were again made of the total linear twig growth. These results are given in table ii. The growth removed by summer pruning is, of course, included in the averages of total growth. The average growth of each tree, regardless of variety and treatment, was 3981 inches. There were 55 individual trees above this average and 55 below it. BuIvIvETIN 326 27 The Stump made the greatest average growth of the three varieties under comparison with an average of 4258 inches. Carman was second with an average of 4026 inches, and Elberta was third with 3608 inches. There were 19 Stump trees above the average for the variety and 19 below; 19 Carman trees above the average for the variety and 20 below; and 14 Elberta trees above the average for the variety and 19 below. Tabi^e II Measurement oe Twig Growth V iNEEAND, 1913 PRUNING TREATMENT Row Variety *Tree 1 Tree 2 Tree 3 Tree 4 Tree 5 Average Not 1 Stump Inches 5172 Inches 3175 1 1 Inches 2302 Inches 5014 Inches 2827 Inches 3330 pruned ' 2 Carman, 5728 1 2569 2627 1571 3124 3 Elberta 1808 4141 1 3002 3572 Winter 4 1 Stump, 4739 2110 3780 3543 not cut i 5 Carman, .3510 4721 2781 3775 3637 3729 back 6 Elberta 3076 1466 4208 2746 2874 Summer 7 Stump 2731 3623 3793 3382 only 8 Caiman, 2113 3547 2715 5543 5578 4346 9 Elberta 2295 4844 2233 3324 2396 3199 Winter 10 Stump 3912 4240- 2832 6288 4026 4347 and 11 Carman 3862 4213 2653 4144 3825 3709 summer 12 Elberta 1926 3481 3027 3254 Winter 13 Stump, 2621 4925 3431 4586 4559 4375 cut 14 Carman 3825 5137 2676 3879 back 15 Elberta, 3343 2665 3956 2558 3131 Winter 16 Stump 2947 4707 4960 5578 3737 4796 not cut 17 Carman, 5060 2603 2499 1045 2802 back 18 Elberta, ieii 4931 2315 2498 3248 Not 19 Stump, 1 2489 1 5507 4267 5061 3682 4629 pruned 20 Carman, 1652 5331 2929 5088 4515 4466 21 Elberta 5258 3249 4254 Winter 22 Stump, 2808 5530 3428 4010 4177 4286 and 23 Carman, Elberta 5410 3182 3539 3714 3961 summer 24 3410 4514 4235 4402 4166 4329 Winter- 25 Stump, 3825 4511 2964 7108 3618 4550 cut 26 Carman, 3307 6088 4189 5657 4592 5132 back 27 Elberta 3833 4819 1885 3350 5311 3841 Summer 28 Stump 3171 5046 4899 5233 4603 4945 only 29 Carman 3506 6883 3922 5480 4010 5074 30 ! Elberta 1 1 2409 1 1 6746 1 2810 3530 4570 4414 * Tree 1 In each row is not included in the averages for the rows. The largest Stump tree in 1913 was Row 25, Tree 4, with a total of 7108 inches. This is also the largest tree of any variety. The poorest Stump tree was Row 4, Tree 3, with a total of 2110 inches. 28 Pruning Experiments With Peaches The largest Carman tree was Row 29, Tree 2, with a total of 6883 inches, and the poorest Carman tree was Row 17, Tree 5, with a total of 1045 ii^ches. This was also the smallest tree of the lot. The largest Elberta was Row 30, Tree 2, with a total of 6746 inches, and the poorest. Row 6, Tree 3, with a total of 1466 inches. It is of interest to note that only one tree of those mentioned as making either the greatest or the poorest growth for the variety in 1913 appeared in a similar list for 1912. The tree is Tree 4, Row 25, and is a Stump. All the trees in the experi- ment made an average gain over that of 1912 of 3243 inches, or 433 per cent. The Stump trees made an average gain in growth during 1913 of 3458 inches, the Carman trees 3277 inches, and the Elberta trees 2925 inches. Growth hy Plots Arranged According to future Treatments In table 12 is shown the average twig growth made by the trees according to future treatment. Table 12 Growth oe Plots According to Future Treatments Vineland, 1913 Not I’nined Winter Not Cut Back Summer | 1 VARIETY Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree Plot j Number Trees ! Average Per i Tree ’ Inches Inches Inches All 1 1 10 3296 2 11 .3367 3 11 3666 7 10 4489 0 11 3649 10 12 4811 20 3892 22 3522 2.3 4263 Stump, . . 1 4 3330 2 .3 .354.3 3 .3 3382 7 4 4630 6 4 4796 10 4 4945 8 3980 7 4259 7 4285 Carman, 1 1 4 3124 2 4 3429 .3 4 4346 7 4 4466 0 4 2802 10 4 5074 8 3795 8 .3265 8 4710 Elberta, 1 2 3.572 2 4 2874 .3 4 .3199 7 2 42.54 0 3 3248 10 4 4414 1 4 .3913 1 7 3034 1 8 .3807 1 1 Winter and Summer Winter Cut Back All Treatments Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree Plot Number Trees Average Per Tree Number Trees Average Per Tree Inches 1 1 Inches Inches 4 10 3873 1 5 11 3787 8 12 4192 9 12 4508 22 4047 23 4168 no 3981 4 4 4.347 0 4 4 .3 ( .5 1 1 8 4 4286 9 4 4550 8 4316 8 446.3 38 4258 4 4 3709 5 3 .3876 1 8 4 3961 9 4 51.32 8 3835 7 4595 39 4026 4 2 3254 5 4 3131 1 8 4 4.329 9 4 3841 6 3971 8 3486 3.3 3608 I’ULLETIN 326 29 The rank of the various treatments in 1912 and 1913 is com- pared in table 13. Tabce 13 Growth of the Various Treatments for 1912 and 1913 Compared According to Rank 1 VAKIETY 1 1 1 All 1 Stump 1 1 1 Carman Elberta TREATMENT 1912 1913 1 1912 1913 1 1912 1913 1912 1913 Not priinod 1 4 4 1 5 5 1 5 5 1 4 4 12 2 12 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 i 3 4 5 5 2 2 4 3 1 1 1 ‘ 4 2 5 5 2 4 1 1 3 3 Wintoi' not ent back, Winter cut back Winter and puinnier, 1 Summer, I 1 It will be noted that where all varieties are considered the ranking is the same for both years, except that the placing of “winter and summer” and “summer” is reversed. The placing of the “winter not cut back” and the “not pruned” treatments of the variety Stump ; of the “summer,” “winter cut back,” and “winter not cut back” treatments of the variety Carman; and of the “winter and summer,” “summer” and “winter not cut back” treatments of the variety Elberta, is consistent. Comparisons on Basis of Per Cent Gain in Tzvig Grozjeth Over that of Ip 1 2 A comparison between trees or treatments upon the basis of total growth indicates the relative size of the trees, yet it may not correctly indicate the rate of growth made by these trees. A comparison upon the basis of per cent gain in growth during 1913 over that made in 1912 does this, however. While the varieties ranked : i — Stump, 2 — Carman and 3 — Elberta, ac- cording to average total twig growth, the rank according to per cent gain in growth was: i — Carman (437 per cent), 2 — Stump (432 per cent), and 3 — Elberta (428 per cent). The per cent gain in growth for each tree is given in table 14. 01 0\ Oi w > o rO On > < (/i W W < D Q Oh ' mccan ' -t< O GO , -fi 10 GO 2 O -1 -t GO GO CD m no X 04 CO no in CO 04 X CO -fi 04 04 CO CO O X I- t- CD t- CO 04 ~r CO 04 no C o o: -7 1 844 1 4258 1 404 All 62 1 1 5i)l 1 1 3563 1 503 1 1 48 1 1 1 949 1 1 4516 1 376 1 It is certain, however, that environmental factors tend to^ cause marked differences in growth, especially the first season after the trees have been transplanted. Since these differences occur gen- erally, it is of interest to determine, as far as possible, the degree and relative importance of these differences in the development of the orchard. A somewhat general comparison may be made between trees above and below the general average of the entire orchard. Table 20 shows the average growth in 1912 and in 1913, and the per cent gain in twig growth for trees that were above and below the average amount of twig growth at Vineland in 1912. It will be noted that although the trees above the aver- age in 1912 made the larger amount of twig growdh in 1913 by an average or nearly 1000 inches, the per cent gain in twig growth was more than 100 per cent in favor of those below the average. 38 Pruning Experiments With Peaches The results at New Brunswick are even more striking, as shown in talkie 21. The trees that were l3elow the average in 1912 made almost as much average growth in 1913 as the trees that were above the average, the difference being only about 100 inches. The average per cent gain in twig growth of the trees below the average was more than 200 per cent greater than that of the trees al)ove the average. Table 21 Per Cent Gain in Growth Made by Trees Above and Below the Average Growth in 1912 — New Brunswick, 1913 1 1 BELOW AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE N(j. of 1 Growth 1 1 Growth 1 1 'S 6 Growth Growth 1 variety Trees | 1 1912 1 1 1913 Gain 1 1 Trees | 1912 1913 1 Gain 1 1 1 Indies 1 1 Inches [ 1 Per cent Inches Inches 1 Per cent Elherta, 17 1 2:17 1 297."; 1 1154 1 1 553 2965 433 Stnnip, 0 ( 4;IS 1 3196 1 63D 1 8 1 SOI 3108 288 C'ai'iiian 14 2(51 1 2869 j 1(109 1 12 1 563 3008 435 i .IS 1 1 27:3 1 1 2931 ! 1052 1 1 32 1 1 1 583 3028 1 42) In order to study the matter in further detail and to determine, if possible, what amount of difference in twig growth is an eco- nomic factor, the trees are grouped in table 22 according to differences of 100 inches in linear twig growth in 1912. In this table the following trees are omitted because they are obviously abnormal as to growth : in the Vineland orchard. Row 17, Tree 5, which had a growth in 1912 and 1913 of 306 inches and 1045 inches, res])ectively ; Row 6, Tree 3, 431 inches and 1466 inches, resi;ectively : and Row 2, Tree 5, 734 inches and 1571 inches, resjiectively. 'fwo trees in the New Brunswick orchard also have lieen omitted from the calculations; Row 5, Tree 4, with a growth of 747 inches in 1912 and 16(84 inches in 1913, and Row 5, d'ree 2, with a growth of 627 and 1470 inches in 1912 and 1913, res])ectively. In an examination of the Vineland results it may be noted that the jier cent gain in growth during the second season was jiractically in inverse pro])ortion to the amount of growth made in 1912. In otlier words, the trees that made the smallest growth during the first season made the greatest jier cent increase in twig growth (hiring the second season. In actual total of growth, Buli^Etin 326 39 however, the larger the trees in 1912 the greater was the growth in 1913. For example, trees averaging 553 inches of growth in 1912 made an average growth of 3299 inches, or a gain of 496 per cent. On the other hand, trees that averaged 947 inches in 1912 made an average growth of 4199 inches in 1913, which is a gain of only 343 per cent. Table 22 Comparison of Gain in Linear Twig Growth Between Trees of Varying Vigor (Trees Grouped on Basis of ioo Inches Difference in Total Twig Growth in 1912). SIZE OF TREES 1912 Vineland New Brunswick Nninber Trees 1 Average Growth 1 1 Gain Number Trees Average Growth j 1 1 Gain 1 1 1 1912 1 1913 1 1912 1 1913 Inches Inches Inches 1 1 Per Cent Inches Inches 1 Per Cent 100-200 10 1 149 2646 1673 201-300, 2 272 3112 1046 9 1 252 2978 1079 301-400 3 ! 339 2869 746 16 1 332 3228 872 401-500 r, 446 2845 538 13 1 459 2998 654 501-600 15 553 3299 496 6 526 2871 446 601-700, 21 651 3758 477 7 639 3273 413 701-800, 22 745 4237 1 469 3 768 3265 325 801-900 14 844 4221 400 1 812 2710 233 901-1000 11 947 4199 343 2 961 3919 308 1001-1100 7 1064 5516 418 1 1101-1200, 1176 5373 357 Over 1200 5 1 1 1312 1 1 5691 334 The same general facts are noted in the results at New Bruns- wick. The per cent gain in 1913 is in inverse ratio to the amount of growth in 1912. There are some exceptions to the general rule demonstrated at Vineland, that the total growth in 1913 was in proportion to the total growTh in 1912, but the general tendency was in that direction. The fact that the number of trees at New Brunswick was rather limited may account for the somewhat variable results. It is now of interest to compare in more detail the behavior of different groups of trees arranged on a basis of 100 inches differ- ence in total twig growth in 1912. The greatest number of trees at V^ineland in any group was 22, and occurred in those ranging from a total of 701 to 800 inches, while the group of trees 100 inches smaller in size was represented by 21 trees. There was not a single individual at Vineland with less than 200 inches of twig growth, and there were five trees exceeding 120O' inches. 40 Pruning Experiments With Pp:aches Although the trees planted at New Brunswick were from the same source, and were planted on a fertile red shale soil, they did not make nearly as free a growth as those at Vineland. The greatest number of trees at New Brunswick in any one group was i6, in those ranging from a total of 301 to 400 inches, and there were 10 trees within the group 101-200 inches. There was not a single tree exceeding a total of 1000 inches of growth. In the Vineland experiment 100 inches difference in twig growth in trees ranging from an average of 745 to 947 inches did not make itself evident during 1913, as may be noted by an examination of table 22. Each additional 100 inches of growth on trees ranging from 446 inches to those averaging 745 inches did apparently have an influence upon the growth of 1913. In these three groups a difference of about 100 inches in 1912 in- creased to 454, 459 and 479, respectively, in 1913. A very marked gain is shown by the group averaging 1064 inches in 1912 over that averaging 947 inches, a difference of 117 inches of twig growth in 1912 increasing to 1317 inches in 1913. At New Brunswick there is very little difference between the various groups of trees ranging from 332 to an average of 768 inches. A difference of 200 inches in twig growth the first season may not, therefore, indicate any marked difference the second season. One would expect that 100 inches difference in growth would be a more pronounced factor with trees of certain sizes than with others. In general, one might lie led to infer that such a differ- ence would continue to be more apparent between small trees tlian it would lietween medium to large trees. But such is not the case in these exiieriments. Not only have the very small trees made a very remarkable gain in growth, Imt the trees having tlie smallest average in 1912 are lietter than the group which averaged 100 inches larger in lioth orchards in 1912. Certain groujis of trees of a medium to large size are appar- ently not very sensitive to a difference of 100 inches in growth the first season. Just why there are marked differences of in- crease in twig growth between some groipis and not between others the writers are unable to say. In order to make still further comparisons, the trees were arranged in groups on the basis of a difference of 50 inches of BUI.I.ETIN 326 4T total twig growth and the results appear in table 23. As in the previous table a few obviously abnormal trees were omitted from the calculations. The number of trees in several of the groups is too limited to make the results dependable, yet certain points niiiy be gathered. Tabce 23 Comparison or Gains in Linear Twig Growth Between Trees oe Varying Vigor (Trees Grouped on Basis oe 50 Inches Dieference in Totar Twig Growth in 1912). Vineland New Brunswick SIZE OF TREES 1912 Averaa'e Growth 1 Gain 1 Number Trees 1 Average Growth Gain Number Trees 1912 1 1 1913 1 1912 1913 Inches Inches Inches 1 1 Per Cent Inches Inches Per Cent 100-150, 4 1 117 2388 1941 151-200 6 171 2817 1547 201 2.50, 4 229 2764 1107 251-300 '2 272 3112 1046 5 271 .3150 1062 301-350 2 324 3002 827 14 325 3235 895 351-100, 1 369 2603 606 2 377 3182 <■±4 401-450, 3 422 2668 532 6 431 2640 512 451-500, 2 482 3111 546 , 7 482 3291 583 501-550, 7 528 3285 522 1 6 .526 2871 446 551-600, 8 575 3312 476 601-650, 12 634 3577 465 5 627 3586 '472 651-700 9 674 3999 493 2 667 2491 273 701-750, 14 727 4587 531 1 750 1 2337 212 751-800 8 • 776 3625 367 i 2 777 3729 380 801-850, 8 824 4072 394 1 812 2710 233 851-900 6 871 4419 408 901-950 5 923 4597 398 1 924 4120 346 951-1000 6 969 3868 299 1 998 3717 272 1001-1050 1 1010 5778 472 1051-1100, 6 1074 5472 410 1101-1150, 1151-1200 ’2 1176 5373 357 1201-1250, 2 1202 1 4874 306 1 1239 1 2709 1 iis The trees falling into the first or lowest groups in terms of total twig growth in 1912 made such gains as to be larger than the trees in what was the third group in size in 1912. This holds true for both orchards. Beginning with the group of trees averaging 575 inches of twig growth at Vineland in 1912, the 50-inch groups, up to and including the group 701-750 inches, showed in the total for 1913 gains of 265 inches, 422 inches and 588 inches, respectively. Beyond this point there is a decrease for 3 groups. In the New Brunswick experiments a difference of 50 inches in twig growth between the first two groups of trees in 1912 F^runing Experiments With Peaches 42 had increased to an average difference of 429 inches in 1913. Other marked differences may l^e noted l)et\veen certain groups, but there is no regular ascending scale of increase exhibited by the groups of trees. The numbers of trees are limited in these studies and some irregularity of results is to be expected. How- ever, there is some factor which brings about a considerable gain in twig growth during the second season in trees that average 50 inches larger in total twig growth than the next lower group, while between other groups a difference of 50 inches in average total twig growth during the first season is apparently a negli- gilde factor in the results of the second season. INDIVIDUAL differences The wide difference between the individuals within a group is of interest at this point. The 551-600 group at Vineland in 1912 showed a range in total growth of 2499 to 4739 inches in 1913 ; the 601-650 group in 1912 showed individual differences m development ranging from 2110 to 5258 inches in 1913. At Xew Brunswick the 15 1-200 group in 1912 had individuals ranging from 1734 to 4670 inches in 1913. The variation in the amount and per cent gain in twig growth between individual ])each trees during the second season is very great. It is too early in the progress of the exjieriments, however, to determine the significance of these differences in terms of the economic welfare of the orchard. :measurement of circumference of trunks of trees at VINELAND, 1913 d'he circumference of the trunks 6 inches aliove the surface of the soil was taken at the close of the season of 1913, and the results are given in table 24. 'Idle average circumference of all the trees in the experiments at the close of 1913 was 8.04 inches. The largest tree was Row 26, Tree 3 (Carman), with a circumference of 10.25 inches. The smallest tree was Row 2, Tree 3 (Carman), with a circumference of 5.50 inches. There were 42 trees above and 55 below the average on the basis of all trees regardless of variety. Bulletin 326 43 The average circumference of the Stump trees was 8.14 inches, of wliich 15 were above and 20 below this average { ta1)le 25). Two trees, Row i, Tree 4, and Row 10, Tree 4, made the greatest total growth in circumference, 9.75 inches. The tree having the smallest circumference was Row 22, Tree 3, with a total of 7.00 inches. Tabi^e 24 Measurement of Circumferences ViNEEAND, 1913 PRUNING KEATMENT Row Variety 1 ♦Tree 1 Tree 2 1 1 Tree 3 1 1 Tree 4 1 Tree 5 1 Average 1 1 Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Not 1 Stump, .... 7.75 9.75 7.25 8.25 pruned 2 Carman .... 8.75 5.50 7.75 7.50 7.38 3 Elherta 1 .... .... Winter 4 1 1 Stump 1 1 .... 8.25 8.00 8.25 8.17 not cut 5 1 Carman 1 8.60 8.25 9.00 1 8.75 8.25 8.56 back G 1 Elherta, 1 1 ■■■• 6.50 7.00 1 8.00 1 1 8.25 7.44 Summer 7 1 1 Stump 1 1 .... 7.25 1 7.75 8.00 1 1 7.67 only 8 1 Carman ! .... 7.50 7.5o 1 .... 9.25 1 8.08 9 1 Elherta, 1 1 5.7.7 7.75 7.00 1 7. .50 7.75 1 7.50 Winter 10 1 1 Stump 1 1 7.00 7.25 7.50 1 ! 9.75 1 O.W 8.38 and 1 11 1 Carman 1 7.75 7.75 7.25 I 8.0O 1 8.50 7.87. summer ! 12 1 Elherta, 1 5.25 1 7.00 1 8.00 7.50 Winter 13 1 1 Stump 1 1 6.50 7.50 7.50 1 1 7., 50 1 1 8.75 1 7.81 cut 1 11 ! Carman, 8.25 9.50 1 7.50 1 8.41 ha ck lo 1 Elherta, 1 1 6.75 8.75 1 8.25 1 7.00 1 7.6.8 Winter 1 16 1 I' Stump 1 6.50 8.50 1 1 9.25 1 1 7.50 1 8.41 not cut 1 11 1 Carman, .... 9.00 7.09 ! 7.75 5.75 7.37 hack 18 Elherta 1 1 6.00 7. .50 1 1 8.75 8.12 Not 19 1 1 Stump, 1 1 6.75 7.5o 1 1 8.00 1 1 9., 50 8.33 pruned 1 Carman 1 6.25 1 9.50 1 9.75 9.62 21 1 Elherta, | 1 8.00 1 7^75 1 .... 1 7.75 Winter 22 1 1 Stump, 1 7.25 8.50 7.00 7.75 7.50 7.68 and 23 1 Carman, 8.25 7.25 1 7.50 1 7.75 7.68 summer 24 1 Elherta, 1 1 6.25 7.75 .... 1 7.(X) 1 6.75 7.16 Winter 25 1 1 Stump 1 7.25 8.50 8.25 1 9.50 9.00 8.81 cut 26 Carman | 6.75 9.50 10.25 1 9.50 1 8.50 9.43 liack 1 Elherta I 1 1 7.75 8.01) 1 1 8.50 1 9.25 8.37 Rummer 28 1 1 1 Stump 1 6.25 8.0<1 1 7., 50 1 8.25 ] 8.00 7.93 only 29 Carman, I 6.25 8.25 7.50 1 8.50 1 9.00 8.31 3t> 1 1 Elherta | 1 6.00 .... 1 1 7.00 1 1 8.50 7.75 * Tree 1 in each row is not included in the averages for the rows. Carman showed the greatest average growth in circumference with a total of 8.20 inches, of which variety 20 trees were above and 16 below the average. It was also represented by the largest and the smallest trees in circumference in the experiments as pre- viously noted. 44 Pruning Experiments With Peaches The Elberta trees made an average circumference of 7.69 inches, of which 15 trees were above and ii below the average. Row 27, Tree 5, was the largest of these with a circumference of 9.25 inches, and Row 6, Tree 2, was the smallest, with a circum- ference of 6.50 inches. Average of Circumference Arranged According to Future l^reat- ments The measurement of the circumferences at Vineland at the close of the season of 1913, averaged by future treatments, is shown in table 25. Table 25 Average oe Circumeerences According to Treatments Vineland, 1913 Not Primed Winter Not Cut Back Summer I Winter and Summer Winter Cut Back I All Treat- 1 ments VARIETY tsj a- Mi O bxj cc O'
  • CO eo M t- 00 t- 00 i- i’ I- 06 t- 00 I- 00 00 OS t- -r LO CO a; CO cs CO t-- co os 06 i- CO i- CO 00 ^ coco w S CO Tl? Tji CO T)1 CO CO •>!*< CO CO os o r-J CD © ■< 1 ! Tji CO CO CO ’ 8 X X CO X © t- © X X X I- t- I- LO so © © t, I- CD © X © 888 06 05 00 S^8 GO c^^ I- LO CO 8 lO 0 ci : -r LO ©© © X I- I- © X © I' 81 :^ : 8 0 • iO Q O 000 to O O ^10 • tOiOlO (Ntoo GC O • t- I- ci O 06 06 00 to OA l>- iH tt CO CO SET 855 i- 1- i- t’ I LO a I- I- xj X CD J- 'JJ £ CO' X CO CO 88 :8 CO CO ci 00 LO CO CO X o ^ >co wo GO 10 04 I- t- CO CO CO CO < I Jiul.LETlN 326 47 2S Per Cent Increase in Circumeerence According to Treatments V iNEEAND, 1913 Over 1912 TREATMENT 1912 All 1913 Gain 1912 Stump 1913 Gain Carman 1912 1913 Gain 1912 Elbert 1913 Gain Inches Inches Per Cent Inches Inches Per Cent Inches Inches Per Cent Inches Inches Per Cent All 3.94 8.01 104 4.16 8.14 96 3.92 8.20 109 3.69 7.69 lOS Not pruned, • • 4.15 8.17 97 4.17 8.29 99 4.. 33 8.13 88 3.0O 7.75 158 Winter not cut back 3.87 7.98 lOG 4.19 S.29 97 3.65 7.97 119 3.84 7.67 100 Summer 3.85 7.89 105 3.98 7.82 97 3.87 8.21 112 3.69 7.58 105 Summer and winter, 4.01 7.76 93 4.33 8.03 86 3.89 7.78 100 3.67 7.. 30 99 M inter cut back, 3.93 8.42 114 4.11 8.31 102 3.98 9.00 126 3.67 8.03 119 Tabee 29 Reeative Rank of Treatments, 1912 and 1913 , and Per Cent Gain Accord- ing TO Circumference of Trunks All Stump Carman Elberta Per 1912 1913 Ceut Gain Per 1912 191.3 Cent Gain Per 1912 1913 Cent Gain Per 1912 1913 Cent Gain Not pruned, . . 4 4 97 3 2 99 1 3 88 5 2 158* Winter not cut back, 5 5 106 2 3 97 5 4 119 4 3 100 Summer only, , Winter and 3 1 105 5 4 97 '4 2 112 1 4 105 summer 1 3 93 1 5 86 3 5 100 3 5 99 Winter cut back, 2 2 114 4 1 102 2 1 126 2 1 119 * 1 tree only. Tabee 30 Reeative Rank of Treatments, 1912 and 1913 , and Per Cent Gain Accord- ing to Twig Growth All Stump Carman Elberta Per Per Per Per 1912 1913 Cent Gain 1912 1913 Cent Gain 1912 1913 Cent Gain 1912 1913 Cent Gain Not pruned, . . Winter not cut 4 4 449 5 .5 512 0 4 392 3 2 457 back, 5 419 4 4 450 5 5 373 5 5 440 Summer only, . Winter and ! 1 4.52 1 3 389 1 1 491 4 3 477 summer, .... Winter cut 1 3 412 3 2 411 4 3 431 1 1 393 back, 2 2 431 1 416 2 2 494 1 0 ~ 4 390 Pruning; Experiments With Peaches Measurement of Cireumfereuce of Trunks of Trees at Nezv Brunszoick, /pij At the close of the season, the circumference of the trunks of the trees was measured at a height of six inches above the gTouncl, and these measurements are shown in table 31. The average circumference of all the trees, regardless of variety, was 7.24 inches, and there were 30 trees above the average. Row 8, Tree 2, an Elberta, was high tree for the variety and for all varieties, with a circumference of 9.25 inches. The low tree of this variety was Row i, Tree 8, with a circumference of 6.00 inches. The average for the variety was. 7.31 inches, 9 trees being above and 16 below the average. Tabce 31 Measurement of Circumferences New Brunswick, 1913 VARIETY i L i 1 1 |Row 1 Row 2 1 i 1 |Row 3|Row 4 1 1 1 1 Row 5 1 Row 6 1 1 Row 7 1 1 Row 8 1 Row 9 All Rows Tree No. NI* WNCB 1 1 ^ ' In. WCB W&S X/l K O WCB All Treatments 1 Inches 1 Inches 1 1 Inches 1 - 1 Inches! Inches Inches 1 1 Inches|Inehes Inches Inches Elhorta, 1 1 7.50 1 7.25 1 7.25 1 7.50 7 2.*) ’ 1 7.50 1 8.25 8.50 2 1 6.00 1 7.00 7.00 1 7.00 1 6.50 7.50 1 1 9.25 7.O0 •■5 1 1 0.75 1 6.75 1 7.00 1 6.50 6.75 I 7.25 1 8.50 1 7.00 4 |.. ..| 8.00 1 . . . 1 1 1 1 AvGrage | .. ..1 6.00 1 7.31 1 7.00 1 7.08 1 6.83 7.17 1 7.38 1 f 8.67 7.50 7.31 j 1 1 1 . 8 00 1 1 7.00 1 6.25 1 7.25 1 7.00 1 7.00 8.50 1 7.50 7.50 1 7.00 1 7.75 6.75 6.75 1 7.25 8.. 50 AvoragG 8.50 1 7.50 7.75 I 7.00 7.00 6.75 7.00 7.13 7.75 7.33 . I'a riiiaii 1 1 f; 1 1 7.O0 7.00 1 6.00 1 8.50 7.25 1 7. .50 1 8.25 1 7.00 ’ 1 8.50 1 5.75 5.75 1 6.25 7.75 6. .50 7.00 1 8.75 8.00 1 7.00 1 7.00 7.00 1 6.75 1 7.00 6.25 7.25 1 7.00 ■VvfMuiirp 1 1 7.75 1 6.58 6.58 1 7.75 6.67 7 25 1 ' 8.50 7.. 33 7.12 .\.ll AvGi’agG, ..| 1 ^ 1 1 1 7.50 1 7.06 ( 7.03 1 6.33 j 6.78 1 1 7.22 6.89 1 7.21 1 1 8.18 7.. 50 7.24 Of the variety Stum]), Row i. Tree 5, and Row 9, Tree 5, each had a circumference of 8.50 inches, the largest for the variety. The tree having the smallest circumference was Row 5, Tree 4, with a circumference of 6.25 inches. Six trees were above and 0 trees below the average for the variety, 7.33 inches. Buij.ktin 326 49 Carman had two trees which measured 5.75 inches; Row 2, Tree 7, and Row 3, Tree 7. This is the smallest circumference for the variety and for all three varieties. The largest Carman, Row 8, Tree 7, had a circumference of 8.75 inches. The average for this variety was 7.12, 9 trees being above and 16 below the average. Table 32 Average oe Circumeerences by Treatments New Brunswick, 1913 variety 1 1 Not 1 Pruned 1 I Winter 1 Not Cut 1 Back 1 Winter | Cnt i Back 1 1 Winter and Hummer l_ Summer All Inches | Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Elberta, 6.00 1 7.89 1 7.17 7.08 7.20 7.31 Stump, 1 s..j0 1 1 7.2.J 1 7.38 7.42 7.00 1 7.33 Carman, 7.7o 1 7.35 I 7.54 6.63 6.79 7.12 All T.50 , 7. 38 1 1 7.36 1 6.96 1 6.98 1 7.24 \Mien the average circumferences are classified according to treatment (table 32), the rank of the treatments, regardless of variety, is as follows : Inches 1. Not primed, 7.50 2. Winter not cut back, 7.38 3. Winter cut back, 7.36 4. Slimmer only, 6.98 5. Winter and summer, 6.96 This ranking agrees with the ranking as to circumference at the close of the first season. The rank by variety, however, is changed. In case of each of the three varieties the treatment which had first rank in 1912 retained its rank in 1913, viz., Elberta, ‘'winter not cut back” ; Stump, “not pruned” ; Carman, “not pruned.” Per Cent Increase in Circumference During 19 ig The per cent increase in circumference for each tree, row, and variety, is shown in table 33. Pruning Experiments With Pj:aches Table 33. ^’er Cent Increase in j ROW 1 ROW 2 ! ROW 3 ROW 4 1 1 1 NR WNCB W&S S VARIETY 1 1012 1013 Gain 1012 1013 Gain 1012 1013 Gain 1012 1 1913 Gain 1 1 — 1 Tree I*er Per Per Per No. i Inches Inches Cent Inches Inches Cent Inches Inches Cent Inches Inches Cent Elberta 1 :*,.?,1 7.50 127 3.37 7.25 115 3.. 50 7.25 107 2 3.12 6.00 87 2.03 7.00 130 2.81 7.00 140 2.81 7.00 149 ;j 2 . 1 s 6.75 210 3.00 6.75 125 3.12 7.00 124 4 3.12 8.00 156 6.00 87 2.80 7.31 153 3.06 7.00 129 : 3.14 7.08 125 Slunip 1 ! 2.03 7.00 139 0 i .3.'i5 7.. 50 131 : 3.81 7.00 84 Average, 3.25 7.. 50 131 3.37 7.00 108 Carman, B 2.. 10 7.00 180 2.68 7.00 161 2.. 56 6.00 134 7 4.’r,s 8 ..o 0 82 3.18 5.75 81 2.00 5.75 188 3.12 6.25 100 8 3.75 7.00 S7 .3.00 7. 13.3 3.00 7.00 loo 2.03 6.75 130 Average 4.22 7 75 84 2.80 6.. 58 128 2.56 6.. 58 157 2.87 6.33 121 All Average 7.17 86 2.80 7.60 140 2.87 6.80 140 3.10 6.78 119 Buij.ktin 326 51 Circumference, New Brunswick, 1913 ROW 5 ROW 6 ROW 7 ROW 8 ROW 9 ALL ROWS WCB W&S S WNCB WCB ALL TREATMENTS 1912 1913 Gain 1912 1913 Gain 1912 1913 Gain 1912 191.3 Gain 1912 1913 Gain 1912 1913 Gain I’er Per Per Per Per Per Inches Inches Cent Inches Inches Cent Inches Inches Cent Indies Inches Cent Indies Indies Cent Inches Inches Cent 3.75 7.50 100 3.81 7.25 90 3.75 7.. 50 100 4.31 8.25 91 3.87 8. .50 120 2.43 6.. 50 167 3.75 7.. 50 100 2 . no 9.25 36.3 2.18 7.00 221 3.06 6.50 112 2.81 6.75 140 1 i93 7.’i5 147 3. .37 8.50 152 3.18 7.00 120 3.08 6.83 122 3.40 7.17 107 i'.34 7. .38 121 .i' 2.3 8.67 169 i’os 7.. 50 144 .3.14 7.31 133 3.81 6.25 64 3.50 7.25 107 .3.. 37 7.00 108 3.. 37 7.00 108 4.00 7.75 94 2.9.3 6. ’ 7.5 130 3.18 6.75 112 4.00 7.25 81 4.00 8.50 11.3 3.91 7.00 79 2.93 0.75 130 3.. 34 7.00 110 3.69 7.13 9.3 3.69 7.75 110 3.51 7.17 104 3.68 8.. 50 131 3. .37 7.25 115 3.12 7.50 140 4.31 8.25 91 2.. 56 7.00 17.3 3.93 7.75 97 .3.00 6.. 50 117 3.00 7.00 133 3.18 8.75 175 3.62 8.00 121 2.87 7.00 144 2.62 0.25 139 3.. 50 7.25 107 2.75 7.00 155 3.49 7.75 122 3.00 6.67 122 3.21 7.25 126 .^7.5 8. .50 128 2.98 7.. 33 146 3.16 7.12 126 3.44 7.22 110 3.18 0.89 116 3.28 7.21 120 3.51 8.18 1.33 3.19 7. .50 1.35 .3.22 7.21 124 pRUNiNCx Experiments Witpi Peaches Table 34 shows the average per cent increase in circumference according- to treatments. Tabi^e 34 Average Per Cent Increase in Circumeerence According to Treatments New Brunswick, 1913 variety Not Dnined Winter | Not Cut Back 1 Winter Cut Back Winter and Summer Summer All Per Cent 1 Per Cent 1 Per Cent i Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Elberta, 87 1 IGO 1 133 117 123 133 Stump 93 94 130 109 104 Carman, 84 127 1 133 138 124 126 All, SG 1 1 1 137 1 1 122 128 1 1 119 1 124 It will be noted that the rank of the varieties in this table is : (i) Elberta; (2) Carman; (3) Stump. The rank as to total circumference was : (i) Stump; (2) Elberta; (3) Carman. Actual and Per Cent Increase in Circumference and Gain in Twig Grozath Compared on the Basis of Treatments The rank of the various treatments for 1912 and 1913, as to actual measurement of circumference, compared with the per cent increase in circumference, is shown in table 35. TabeE 35 Reeative Rank oe Treatments, 1912 and 1913, and Per Cent Increase in Circumeerence oe Trunks, New Brunswick All Ell)erta 1 Stump Carman 1912 Per Cent Increase OX c: 1913 Per Cent Increase 1912 1913 Per Cent Increase 1 1912 1913 Per Cent j Increase I 1 Not pruned, . . 1 1 80 3 5 87 *1 *1 * 1 1 84 Winter not cut back, 2 2 137 1 1 160 3 4 93 2 3 127 Winter cut back, 3 3 122 4 2 1.33 2 3 94 3 2 133 Winter and summer, .... ;■) •0 128 2 3 117 2 130 .0 .5 138 Summer only, . . 4 4 119 4 123 4 .3 109 4 4 124 * Tlie measurement for Stump “not pruned” was made on a different tree each year. BuIvIvETIN 326 53 Table 36 shows the rank of the various treatments for 1912 and 1913, as to actual measurement of twig growth, compared with the per cent gain in linear twig growth. it will be noted that here, as at Vineland, the treatments rank the same when the actual measurements of twig growth and cir- cumference are compared, varieties being disregarded. The varieties, however, show differences in rank as to treatments when compared on this basis. TABrE 36 REiyATivE Rank or Treatments, 1912 and 1913, and Per Cent Gain in Twig Growth, New Brunswick VARIETY All Elberta Stump Carman Per Per Per Per treatment 1 1912 1913 Cent 1912 1913 Cent 1912 1913 Cent 1912 1913 Cent 1 Gain Gain Gain Gain Not pruned, . . T“r 1 661 1 3 415 3 1 644 4 1 1107 Winter not cut back 2 3 622 2 1 732 4 5 874 2 4 662 Winter cut back 3 4 544 4 4 702 1 4 324 • 3 2 681 Winter and summer, . . . 5 5 591 3 5 653 2 2* 350 5 5 732 Summer only, . . 4 2 634 5 2 692 5 2^ 572 1 3 434 * Of equal rank in 1913. INCREASE IN CIRCUMFERENCE OE TREES OE VARYING VIGOR AT VINEUAND At the end of the first season, it was found that 55 trees were below and 42 trees were above the average in circumference. At the close of the second season, these same trees were averaged in these two groups. The computation showed that, while the trees that were in the ‘‘above” class at the end of 1912 still had the larger averages, the trees in the “below” class in 1912 made the greater per cent increase in trunk circumference, averaging 32 per cent more increase. This is regardless of variety. Table 37 gives these data for all three varieties combined and for each variety. This adds more evidence to that previously given, to the effect that trees that make a relatively small growth one year may make a relatively large growth the next year, other things being equal. 54 Pruning Experiments With Peaches Tabpe 37 Per Cent Increase in Circumference, in 1913, of Trees Above and Beeow THE Average in 1912, Vineeand, 1913 variety BEEOW AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE No. Average Circum- ference 1912 Average Circum- ference 1913 Gain No. Average Circum- ference 1912 Average Circum- ference 1913 Gain Inches Inches Per cent Inches Inches Per cent All . • • 55 3.49 7.73 121 42 4.43 8.38 89 Stump 18 3.78 7.78 106 17 4.55 8.53 88 Carman, 17 3.39 7.86 132 19 4.40 8.46 92 Elberta 13 3.26 7.28 123 13 4.10 8.10 98 Tabee 38 Comparison of Gains in Circumference Between Groups of Trees of Varying Vigor, Vineeand, 1913 SIZE OF TREE 1 ! No. Average Circumference 1912 Average Circumference 1913 Actual Gain Per Cent Gain Inches Inches Inches 1 Inches 2.12-3.00 5 2.65 7.40 1 4.75 179 3.12 3 3.12 ! 8.17 i 5.05 ! 102 3.25 3 3.25 , 8.00 4.75 146 3.37 7 3.37 7.53 4.10 1 124 3.50 G 3.. 50 7.92 4.42 : 126 3.62 & 3.66 6 3.63 7.33 3.77 106 3.75 12 3.75 7.83 4.08 109 3.88 8 3 . .88 7.88 4.00 ' 103 4.00 8 4.00 7.88 j 3.88 97 4.12 6 4.12 < 7.96 ! 3.84 93 4.25 9 4.25 8.81 4.56 107 4.37 7 4.37 8.61 4.24 97 4.50-4.62 4 4.56 8.81 4.25 93 4.75-4.88 7 4.81 8 .. 54 3,73 78 5.00-5.25 6 5.08 9.42 1 4.34 i 85 Tabee 39 Comparison of Trees Above and Beeow tfie Average in Circumference in 1912, New Brunswick, 1913 BEEOW AVERAGE ABOVE AVERAGE Average Average Average Average VARIETY Circtim- Circum- Circum- Circum- f('renco ference ference ference ' No. 1912 1913 Gain No. 1912 1913 Gain Trees Trees Inches Inches Per cent Inches Inches Per cent Elberta, 1 1 2.75 7.12 159 11 3.63 7.64 111 Stump 7 3.24 7.04 121 5 3.92 7.35 87 Carman, 15 2.78 6.73 142 10 3.72 7.70 107 All 35 2.83 6.59 145 27 3.61 7.59 114 Bulletin 326 55 Still further substantiating evidence is shown in table 38. The grouped trees of the same circumference are arranged in groups og about Ts inch difference, from 2.12 inches to 5.25 inches. The per cent gain was greatest with the smallest trees. As the trees increased in circumference, there was a general dcrease in the percentage of increase. INCREASE IN circumference OF TREES OF VARYING VIGOR AT NEW BRUNSWICK Table 39 shows the average circumference for 1912 and 1913, and the per cent increase in circumference, for the trees at New Brunswick that were below the average and those that were above the average circumference in 1912. In every case, the trees that were below the average have made the greatest per cent increase in circumference ; this in spite of the fact that the average girth in both years is below the average. Certain of the individual trees in the “below” group have made a growth that would place them above the average in 1913, but the majority remain below. Table 40 Comparison oe Trees oe Varying Vigor on the Basis oe Increase in Cir- CUMEERENCE, New Brunswick Circumference No. Trees | Average Circumference 1012 Average Circumference 1013 Actual Gain Per Cent Gain Inches Inches Inches Inches 2.00-2.50 7 2.26 6.S9 4.63 206 2.51-2.75 4 2.6S 6.81 4.1:' 1 55 2.76-3.00 13 2 02 6.90 3. OS 136 3.01-3.25 11 3.1.5 7.00 .3.85 122 3.26-3.50 0 3.41 7.36 3.05 116 3.51-3.75 6 3.72 7.58 3.86 104 3.76-4.00 S i 3.00 7.53 3.63 93 4.01-5.00 4.43 S..33 3.90 88 This fact is brought out more clearly again in table 40, in which is shown a tabulation on the basis of the circumference in 1912, in groups of one-half or one-fourth inch variations. The smallest trees showed the greatest per cent increase in circum- ference. xA.s the trees increase in size, the per cent increase in circumference diminishes. Pruning Experiments With Peaches 56 RELATION OE INCREASE IN TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE TO INCREASE IN TWIG GROWTH AT VINELAND Since both twig growth and circumference are being deter- mined in these experiments, it is of interest to note any relation that may apparently exist between the two. Table 41 shows the number of inches of twig growth made during 1913 per i inch gain in circumference of the trunk, for each individual tree. Tabce 41 Ratio or One Inch Increase in Circumeerence to Increase in Twig Growth, Vineeand, 1913 Pruning Treatment Uou 1 Variety 1 Tree 2 1 Tree 3 Tree 4 Tree 5 Row Average 1 Plot Average Not 1 Stump 925 1055 942 909 pruned 2 Carman, 127,3 1861 618 572 970 3 Elberta 940 Winter not 4 Stump, 998 528 974 842 cut back 5 Carman 906 484 702 938 749 0 1 Elberta, 1 1068 439 990 646 781 784 Summer ; 7 1 1 Stump, 911 937 1 1215 1016 8 1 Carman 659 836 1 1394 938 9 1 Elberta 1 1211 596 1022 1 599 1 853 924 Winter and 10 Stump 1211 810 1358 895 1078 summer 11 Carman, 1053 788 975 1 986 956 12 1 Elberta, 714 691 788 971 Winter cut 1.3 Stump, 1269 981 1223 1104 1147 back 14 Carman, 876 805 j 1 690 795 15 1 Elberta, 1 786 547 811 1 731 715 879 Winter not 10 I 1 Stump 1044 1283 1359 1206 cut back 17 1 Carman 1036 710 600 439 706 18 1 1 1 Elberta, 501 688 583 874 Not pruned 1 10 1 Slump, 1179 1265 737 1030 20 i Carman, 992 951 972 i iil 1 I Elberta, 1005 Winter and | 1 22 Stump 1527 1098 1146 1285 1270 summer 2.3 1 Carman, 1273 849 912 990 1 1013 24 ! I Elberta 1128 1257 1750 1 1325 lisi Winter cut 1 Stump 1061 678 1.385 782 992 1)ack 20 Carman, 1318 621 1191 1048 1001 1 27 1 1 Elberta, 1205 397 765 1249 885 960 Summer j 1 28 1 Stump, 10.34 1,306 1107 1180 1172 20 1 Carman 1666 826 1289 1 866 1 1142 1 2.0 1 1 Elberta, 970 j 962 1 906 1 1 1119 It may be noted that the average growth per i inch gain in circumference for all the trees was 960 inches. The range, how- ever, was from 397 an 1861 inches. The average Stump was 1069 inches, for Carman 931 inches and for Elberta 853 inches. Some variation lietween varieties is to be expected, of course. There is great variation, however, between different individuals of the same variety. The range in Stump was from 528 (Row 4, BuIvIvKTIN 326 57 Tree 2) to 1527 inches (Row 22, Tree 2). The range in Carman was from 484 (Row 5, Tree 3) to 1861 inches (Row 2, Tree 3). The range in Elberta was from 397 (Row 27, Tree 3) to 1750 inches (Row 24, Tree 5). In general, the widest ratio occurred with trees which made a very large growth. For example, Row 26, Tree 2, with a total growth of 6088 inches, has a ratio of twig growth to circum- ference of 1318 inches. Row 29, Tree 2, with a total twig growth of 6883 inches, has a ratio of 1666 inches. In contrast to this, Row 6, Tree 3, with a twig growth of 1466 inches, has a ratio of 509 inches, and Row 17, Tree 5, with a total growth of 1045 inches, has a ratio of 349 inches. It should be noted, however, that some trees which made a large growth have a relatively low ratio. Row 14, Tree 4, made a growth of 5137 inches and has a ratio of 805 inches. Row 20, Tree 5, made a growth of 4515 inches and has a ratio of 951 inches. Some trees which madq a relatively small growth also have a relatively wide ratio. For example, Kovj 2, Tree 3, made a total gro\vth of only 2569 inches and yet had a ratio of 1861 inches. Row 7, Tree 5, made a growth of 3793 inches and has a ratio of 1215 inches. There might be several factors which would result in a differ- ent ratio between trees making about the same amount of twig growth, especially in a pruning experiment. It is a well known fact that, if one desires to develop a strong, vigorous trunk on a young shade tree, the side branches, especially those low on the trunk, should be allowed to develop for a time. Or, in other words, the development of branches on the trunk tends to make it larger in circumference than if they are kept pruned off. A peach tree which develops one or two large branches low down on the trunk might make a relatively large gain in circum- ference in comparison with a tree having a longer trunk and whose twig growth is made in an upward direction. It might be expected also that the removal of suckers and shoots from the trunk of a tree in summer pruning would tend to make a wide ratio in comparison with any treatment which allowed such growths to continue during the season. Some indication of this occurs in the results for 1913, since the summer-pruned treatments generally show a wide ratio. These trees also made a relatively large average twig growth, so that this interpretation is not clearly demonstrated. PruninCx Experiments With Peaches Relation of One Inch Increase in Circumference to Increase in Tzvig Grozvth by Treatments Where all varieties are averaged the ‘'summer and winter” treatment shows the largest ratio, 1088. The “summer only” treatment is second with a ratio of 1016. The smallest ratio is shown bv the “winter not cut back” treatment, being 822. The “winter cut back” is the next larger with a ratio of 971. Table 42. Ratio of One Inch Increase in Circumference to NOT PRUNED WINTER NOT CUT BACK SUMMER VARIETY ' Plot No. Trees Average Growth Average Increase Circninference Ratio 0 No. Trees Average Growth Average Increase Circninference Ratio Plot No. Trees Average Growth Average Increase Circumference Ratio 1 1 Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches All 1 7 3359 3.. 57 940 2 11 3367 1 3.66 784 3 10 3478 3.77 924 7 5 4523 4.50 1005 0 9 3388 1 3.88 874 10 10 4818 4.30 1119 Total 12 3844 4.06 971 20 3377 1 4.11 822 20 4148 4.04 1016 Stump, ... 1 3 3672 4.04 907 2 3 3543 1 4.21 842 3 .3 3382 3.33 1016 7 I 3 1 43.37 4.21 1030 6 3 4825 1 4.00 1206 10 4 4945 4.22 1172 Tolal 1 1 G 1 4004 4.12 970 6 4184 1 4.12 1 1020 1 7 4285 3.94 1 1114 Carman, . 1 1 4 3124 3.22 970 2 4 3429 1 4.98 748 3 3 .3947 1 1 4.21 938 7 1 2 1 4802 4.92 972 6 4 2802 1 3.06 766 10 4 5074 4.44 1142 Total 1 « 1 3683 3.80 971 8 .3265 1 4.32 1 756 1 7 4591 4.34 1058 Elberta, 1 1 1 2 4 2874 1 3.68 I 1 781 3 4 .3199 3.75 853 1 . . . i 0 2 2407 1 4.13 1 583 10 40.50 4.20 964 Total 1 i 1 1 6 2718 1 3.83 1 1 1 710 6 3483 3.89 852 If we make comparisons between treatments on the basis of variety, we note that the widest ratio and the second widest occur in the “winter and summer” and the “summer only” treat- ments in the case of Stum]) and Elberta. With the variety of Carman, the “summer” treatment ranks first, with “winter and summer” a close second. The lowest ratio occurs in the “winter not cut back” treatment in the case of Carman and Elberta, and in the “not pruned” treatment with Stump. Since all growing Bulletin 326 59 shoots and suckers were removed from the trunks in the summer- pruned treatment, we might expect them to show the widest ratio. The average gain in inches of twig growth per inch in circum- ference for all varieties was 960. The average for Stump was 1069, the average for Carman, 931, and the average for Elberta, 853. This indicates a considerable difference between the vari- eties Stump and Elberta. Increase in Twig Growth According to Treatments, Vineland SUMMER AND WINTER WINTER CUT BACK ALL 1 Plot No. Trees Average Growth ! Average | Increase : Circnniference Ratio 1 Plot 1 1 No. Trees Average Growth Average Increase Circumference Ratio No. Trees Average Growth Average Increase Circumference Ratio 1 1 1 Inches Inches 1 1 1 1 Inches 1 1 Inches 1 Inches Inches 4 1 10 3873 3.99 971 .5 i 1 n 1 .3787 4.31 879 8 1 1 ' 11 3188 3.55 1 I 1181 9 12 1 1 4508 4.69 966 ...1 1 21 4038 1 3.75 1 1088 1 23 1 1 4168 4.50 1 924 96 3929 4.09 960 4 1 4 4.347 1 1 4.03 1078 5 i 4 ! 4375 1 1 3.82 1 1145 8 1 4 4286 1 1 ! 3.37 1260 9 1 4 1 1 4550 1 4.59 1 1 1 992 8 1 4316 1 I 1 3.70 1200 1 8 1 1 4463 1 4.20 1 1 I 1061 I 35 1 4265 1 3.99 1069 4 4 3709 1 3.88 956 5 1 3 1 3876 1 4.88 I 1 795 1 1 8 I 4 3961 1 3.91 1 1013 9 4 1 1 51.32 5.13 1 1001 1 1 8 3835 1 1 3.89 1 1 986 1 7 1 1 4595 5.02 916 36 .3978 4.28 931 4 1 2 3254 1 1 4.13 788 .5 4 ,' 31.31 4.38 715 8 1 3 4361 1 3.29 1 1325 9 1 4 1 1 1 3841 4.35 864 1 5 3918 1 1 3.63 1079 1 1 1 8 1 3486 4.36 1 799 25 .3.387 1 I 3.98 853 The averages of the various varieties, however, do not show the range of variation in the ratio of twig growth to circum- ference. If we examine the results on the basis of each individual tree we will note that the range in twig growth per inch of cir- cunTference varies from 369 to 1230 inches with Stump, from 304 to 1411 inches with Carman, "and from 266 to 1485 inches with Elberta, which is also the extreme for all varieties. 6o Pruning Experiments With Peaches It is of interest to note the relation between a large amount of twig growth and the size of the ratio. In general, a large amount of twig growth per tree also indicates a wide ratio of growth per I inch increase in trunk circumference. For example, Row 2, Tree 2, with a total growth of 5728 inches, had a ratio of 1130. Row 16, Tree 4, with a growth of 5778 inches, had a ratio of 1059. In contrast to these Row 2, Tree 4, with a total growth of 2627 inches, had a ratio of 385, and Row 10, Tree 3, with a growth of 2832 inches, had a ratio of 644. Yet, when we note the behavior of many individual trees it is evident that some trees that made a very large total twig growth had a relatively low ratio. For example. Row 26, Tree 3, made a growth of 4189 inches, but had a ratio of 846. In other words, two trees might show an inch gain in circumference and yet vary greatly in the total amount of twig growth made. This suggests that the character and location of the new twig growth is a factor in the relation of twig growth to gain in circumference of the trunk. The ratio between the number of inches of twig growdh and the weight of the twigs for any given variety is probably fairly constant where a large amount is measured and w^eighed. No weights were taken of wood growth pruned off during the first few years of the experiment, but this factor is to be checked in later years. It is quite probable, too, that if the branches that are low down on the trunk of the tree make a considerable growth, the ratio of increase in trunk circumference to increase in twig growth will be narrower than if most of the growth is made by branches a considerable distance from the ground. A study of the differ- ent ])runing treatments furnishes some evidence on this point. d'a1)le 42 gives the ratios lietween twig growth and i inch gain in circumference of trunks for the various pruning treatments. RE-EATION OE INCREASE IN TRUNK CIRCUMEERENCE TO INCREASE IN TWIG GROWTH, AT NEW BRUNSWICK 'file ratio of the gain in inches of twig growth to each inch increase in circumference is shown in table 43. The average ratio for all varieties was 738, as compared with 960 at Vineland, d'be ratio for Stum]) was 822 at New Brunswick and 1069 at BuIvLETIN 326 61 Vineland. Carman gave a ratio of 744 at New Brunswick and 931 at Vineland, and Elberta 699 and 853, respectively. These ratios are interesting. It was noted previously that the average amount of twig growth made by the trees at New Brunswick was considerably less than that made at Vineland. Nevertheless, the ratios apparently indicate a definite relation between the amount of twig growth and the increase in trunk circumference. Tabi^e 43 Ratio oe One Inch Increase in Circumeerence to Increase in Twig Growth, New Brunswick 1 1 |Row 1 1 Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 Row 61 Row 7 Row 8 Row 9 All Rows variety All Tree Treat- No. NP WNCB W&S 1 S WCB W&S S WNCB WCB 1 ments Elberta 1 656 785 810 704 730 792 10.30 922 2 828 752 526 770 362 838 600 527 3 4.30 622 844 718 596 668 863 687 4 720 Average, . . . 828 606 632 810 584 719 726 786 711 699 Stump 4 735 690 866 726 746 5 65.3 1035 785 710 868 900 1116 Average, . . . 653 867 748 710 867 809 950 822 Carman 6 398 578 589 746 900 849 978 638 7 1223 1 1172 463 960 784 688 704 695 959 8 9.54 1 514 753 838 544 569 9.35 55.3 Average, . . . 1099 620 603 736 692 723 828 812 726 744 All Average, . . . 1016 612 622 798 662 720 807 1 799 1 774 1 7.38 The evidence at New Brunswick also points to the fact that in general the trees which made the largest twig growth also gave the largest ratio to increase in circumference. Row i. Tree 7, made a growth of 4670 inches, a ratio of 1223 ; Row 8, Tree i, made a growth of 4060^ inches, a ratio of 1030. In contrast to these, Row 8, Tree 2, made a growth of 4347 inches, a ratio of 600. When these ratios are compared on a basis of treatment (table 44) it is found that the “not pruned” treatment has the widest average ratio, while at Vineland that of the “not pruned” was one of the lowest. It was suggested at the beginning that the location of this plot at the College Earm might have some influ- ence on the growth. 62 Pruning Expe:riments With Pkache^s Excluding this treatment, the “summer only” treatment has the widest ratio for all, regardless of variety and for each variety. At Vineland, the “summer only” treatment ranked second for all, variety disregarded and for Elberta alone, and first in the case of Carman. On the other hand, the “summer and winter” treatment at Vineland ranked first for all, disre- garding varieties, as well as for Stump and Elberta, and second for Carman. At New Brunswick this treatment is fifth when the varieties are considered together, and also in the case of Carman,, and fourth in the case of Elberta and Stump. Tabi,e 44 Ratio or One Inch Increase in Circumeerence to Increase in Twig Growth by Treatments, New Brunswick variety NP WNCB WCB 1 W&S 1 S ALL Elberta, 828 693 653 674 776 699 Stump 809 854 680 867 822 Carman 1099 709 710 660 786 744 All 1 1016 1 1 712 1 1 722 1 1 1 669 1 804 1 1 1 738 I 1 DORMANT SEASON PRUNING AT VINEUAND, MARCH, I914 Trees receiving the “winter and not cut back,” the “winter cut back” and the “winter and summer” treatments were pruned during March, 1914. The pruning treatments were carried out as planned and outlined on page 6. Table 45 shows the amount of total growth made by each tree, the amount pruned off, and the percentage of total growth pruned off. The summer prunings are included in the totals of amount of growth pruned off in the case of Plots 3, 4, 8 and 10. Table 46 shows the average amount of growth made by each plot and treatment, and the amount and percentage of twig growth pruned off. The average amount of growth pruned off from each tree, regardless of variety and treatment, was 2243 inches or 56 per cent. This varies somewhat with varieties as well as with treatments as follows: Sturnp' 2576 inches, or 59 per cent; Carman 2146 inches, or 53 per cent; and Elberta 2009 inches, or 56 per cent. It may be noted that the amount of pruning was in proportion to the amount of twig growth. Some variation is also due to the habit of growth of the variety. Stump Tabi,e 45 Tabulation of Pruning, Including Summer Pruning, Vineland, 1913 Bulletin 326 63 s 0 < pannaj :jaao aoj ID Tjt »D 00 CD § t- a > < paanaj Inches 1432 s iH 2135 1 2559 1892 1 1 1 2715 ' 08T8 1 1 2240 1 Eh 0 (U q:^.VLOJO 1 Inches 3367 CD CO CD CO 1 3873 1 CD 05 CD CO 3648 1 a 00 g iH 00 & pannjd ;aao aaj CD 00 l« TiH >-l © © ID TjH »D © 00 t- t- kD s »o P3 paunja 1 Inches 1571 1526 963 2098 1 1545 1 1598 1 2903 909 1676 1 2041 1 719 I 1 1047 2530 1898 1914 1 2729 3631 1 3051 2194 1810 1 1575 6061 i qjAiOJO Inches 3780 3637 2746 3793 5578 2396 4026 3825 3027 4559 2676 2558 3737 1045 2498 4177 3714 I 4166 3618 4592 1 5311 1 4603 1 4010 1 4570 1 E CD CO paunja ;uao jaa • W(S5 • Til tH iH MO « Tjf ^ M CD CO t- 10 CO SS : 0>(M CD b- t- CD i- © 00 l- ID 56 1 34 1 43 1 iH H 1^ P3 gH paunja 1 Inches i 1601 1 2084 1105 2314 1333 4527 ' 2315 1 2314 1 1 3495 3583 1 3382 \ 3710 i 1 1626 1 I ■■■■, 3153 i 2555 1 2909 1 5954 1 4376 1 1960 ' 1 1 2935 1 1 1880 1 1 1528 1 I 1 2756 1 1 1 q^MOJO 1 Inches 3775 4208 3623 5543 3324 6288 4144 3481 4586 5137 3956 5778 2499 1 1 4010 3539 1 4402 7108 5657 3350 5233 1 5480 3530 1 s paunja ;uao jaa S S w OOTt( CD TH Tf CO • ,H © © © © »o 05 © Tj( M TJ 1 ID M CO 0: CD 10 ID © t- © ©©© © 00 tW ID TJH 4 ID M H paunja t Inches 1162 563 733 1324 1 1197 1 1243 1 1250 1 923 i .... 1 2089 2504 1566 1 1441 1 1194 1 1247 2116 1782 2492 1952 2796 1293 2590 1 1878 1 1247 1 1 1591 j qjMOJO 1 Inches 2110 1 2781 1466 2731 2715 2233 2832 2653 3431 [ 3825 2665 ’ 1 IIS 3428 ' 3182 ' 4235 2964 4189 I 1885 4899 3922 1 2810 1 3080 1 ' 1 paunja :juao jaa 45 42 45 -.53 iS 8£§ : - CO t- • t- Tl< t- © »D Tj( »0 ri t- M t- © 00 CD ID t- CD t- MO© ID »D TjH 00 ID DREE 2 paunja Inches 2149 2003 1396 .... 1 1101 1 2680 2542 ! 2240 3507 2530 1 1 2522 2365 1 2902 I 3930 1 3630 1 3676 1 3306 1 3696 1 3615 2636 ' 3469 1 3132 1 1 1 2811 1 1 q^MOJO 1 Inches 4739 4721 3076 . CO Tti 4240 4213 ^ • CO M • Tt< a • CO • CO 4707 1 5060 1 1 5530 5410 4514 4511 6088 4819 5046 6883 6746 4852 Row »OCD t-000 O1HM 1-1 rH CO ^ ID © 00 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 , PLOT (N CO* lO CO 00“ Ci c Average, . , Tabi,e 46 Tabulation oe Pruning, Including Summer Pruning, According to Treatments, Vineland, 1913 Pruning Experiments With Peaches O'? p 'p a; ^ 9 I OS CP 1 CD ,-1 iH CO 00 cs o 10 ^00 oboOoo COGOt- OS t- (N T+l CO tHiNOI iNOKN 10 IN CO Tti 00 N fO OS T-l 00 Tti CO CO CO CO CO CD CD iH N I-: t-lOCD -^CDr-l COO-jl'~ QONO CO-dO iHiNN t-HNN NctCO O^OSN 10 COrtIO OSrHg D3 N O CD t)h b- r-l O CD CO lyt-oo (N coot- t-osoo fl CO N CO TiH T-l Total Inches Tt< © ID »0 iH CO rt< Tt< © Clipped Inches 174 65 120 1 Thinned Inches 1280 351 816 1 § H U rt lO CO N --I O < * y N T}I CD I- O 1 H S © Tjl CO CD CO 05 •g Jh In N N S a S CD t- Q 00 © CD T-H « CO © W ri N >0 »-l © lO P d r-l CO tH r-( H O' s © 'lt< © S © I- N •§(N rH © t- © ira CO N CC © CO © CO t-H I 4 4 O lO -tJOi Elberta Row 27 Total Inches 3615 1293 1960 3051 2480 Clipped Inches 274 153 182 306 229 1 Thinned Inches 3341 1140 1778 2745 2251 Carman Row 26 Total Inches 3696 2796 4376 3631 3625 3196 Clipped Inches 426 170 231 386 303 262 Thinned Inches 3270 2626 4145 3245 3322 1 2935 1 1 Stump Row 25 Total Inches 1 3306 1 1952 5954 1 2729 3485 Clipped Inches 203 230 1 341 242 254 Thinned Inches 3103 1722 5613 2487 3231 s I O W 5 I 02 tf Total Inches 2530 1566 3382 1 1676 2289 Clipped Inches 184 83 119 288 169 Thinned Inches 2346 1483 3263 1388 2120 Total Inches 2504 3583 909 1 2332 2559 1 1 ‘ Clipped Inches 204 187 170 187 I 191 Thinned Inches 2300 3396 1 ! 739 1 2145 2368 1 Total ; 1 Inches 3507 2089 3495 2903 2999 Clipped Inches 339 147 155 224 216 . . 1 Thinned Inches 3168 1942 3340 2679 2782 1 N M ID BuIvIvETIN 326 67 of clippings made from any Carman tree in the same treatment was 293 inches and the smallest no, and the largest total amount from an Elberta was 298 and the smallest 65 inches. The largest total amount of clippings made from any Stump tree in the “winter cut back” treatment was 341 inches and the smallest 147 inches. The largest total amount of clippings made from any Carman tree in the same treatment was 426 inches and the smallest 170 inches. The largest total amount of clippings made from any Elberta tree in this treatment was 306 inches and the smallest 83 inches. Tabi.e 48 Summary or Pruning: Amounts Thinned and Amounts Cut Back According to Treatments Vineeand, 1913 WINTER and summer* WINTER CUT BACK 1 VARIETY j Total Thinned Clipped 1 Total] Thinned 1 Checked 1 Inches 1 Inches Per cent Inches 1 |per cent 1 Inches] Inches |Per cent Inches Per cent 1 Stump, 1 1584 1 1322 83 1 262 1 17 3^2 1 3007 93 235 7 1 Carman | 1111 1 931 84 179 16 3091 i 2817 92 1 253 8 1 Elberta j 1326 1155 87 171 13 2384 2186 1 92 199 8 1 All, 1 1341 ’ I 1 1 1134 1 85 1 1 207 1 1 15 2891 2663 92 1 228 8 * This refers only to the pruning which was done in the winter. The average amount of growth thinned out and “cut back” by treatment in the winter pruning is given in table 48. The per- centage of the twig growth which was removed in the “cutting back” process in the “winter and summer” treatments, regardless of variety, was 15 per cent, while in the “winter cut back” treat- ments it was 8 per cent. The greater percentage of clipping in the former treatment is probably due to the increased number of shoots developed as a result of the summer pinching. The “winter cut back” treatment generally requires rather severe thin- ning previous to clipping and this further reduces the number of shoots to be so treated. It may be noted that the actual amount of twig growth removed in the “cutting back” process in these experiments has not been very great thus far. 68 Pruning Experiments With Peaches EEEECT OE SUMMER PRUNING DURING I913 UPON TOTAE GROWTH AT VINEEAND There are no indications that the summer pruning as practiced in these experiments in 1913 checked growth or decreased vigor since the ‘‘summer only” treatment made the best average total TABrE' 49. Record oe Per Cent of Growth Pruned off Row 2 Row 3 Row 4 Row 5 1 Tree i VARIETY 1 No. WNCB W & S S WCB Growth Pruned Growth Pruned Growth Pruned Growth Pruned Per Per Per Per Inches ; Inches Cent Inches Inches Cent Inches Inches Cent Inches Inches Cent Elberta, 1 2774 1468 53 3042 2659 87 3077 1046 34 2639 1903 72 2 3062 1770 58 2205 1816 82 3224 1235 38 1470 1272 87 3 2222 1240 56 3276 1639 50 2472 1639 56 4 ^39 1665 57 Average, 2925 1634 56 2490 1905 77 3192 1307 41 2194 1605 73 Stump, 4 3034 2228 73 2991 1236 41 1684 1118 60 5 21.30 1227 53 2774 1962 71 3302 1559 47 2944 2057 70 Average 2130 1227 53 2904 2095 72 3147 1398 44 2314 1588 69 Carman, . . . 6 1796 857 48 2495 1500 60 2027 615 30 3594 3001 84 7 3013 1170 39 1734 1109 64 3005 1067 36 3000 1859 62 8 2052 1486 72 3051 1884 62 2620 1053 40 2248 1564 70 Average, 2287 1171 51 2427 1498 62 2551 912 36 2947 2141 73 All Average, 2538 1378 54 2570 1800 70 29:40 1181 40 2506 1802 72 twig growth of all the treatments and also the greatest average gain in trunk circumference. As to percentage gain in twig growth it also ranked first in 1913, and was third in per cent gain in trunk circumference. These results are presented as a preliminary report. No definite conclusions are drawn at this point as to the general effects of the summer pruning of peaches. TIME REQUIRED EOR PRUNING AT VINEEAND In an economic consideration of pruning, the time element is an important factor. In order to arrive at the economic value BuLIvETIN 326 69 of the various systems of pruning practiced in this experiment, the actual time required to prune the trees was recorded. The system that required the greatest time for pruning was the “summer and winter” treatment. Trees receiving this treatment were given one pruning in June and another during the dormant season. The average time in minutes and seconds required to prune each tree was as follows : During the: Season of 1913-14, New Brunswick Row 6 Row 7 ] Row 8 Row 9 All Rows w & S S WNCB WCB All Treatments Gn wth Pruned Growth Pruned | 1 Growth Pruned Grow th Pruned Growth Pruned Per Per ! Per Per Per Inches Inches Cent Inches Inches Cent Inches Inches Cent Inches Inches Cent inches Inches Cent 2513 1070 43 2971 907 31 4060 2278 56 4274 3564 83 3141 2254 72 4107 1426 35 4347 2153 50 2539 2207 87 2347 1427 61 2886 365 13 4425 2831 64 2624 2016 77 2667 1584 59 3321 '899 27 4277 242i 57 3149 2596 83 3027 1744 58 4120 2804 68 3248 779 24 2632 1143 43 2709 1518 56 2710 1598 59 3097 681 22 2931 2107 72 5020 3637 72 3415 2201 64 3173 730 23 2782 1625 58 3865 2578 67 3022 1710 57 3488 2201 63 3717 690 18 3854 2468 64 2831 1937 68 2407 1445 60 2818 487 17 3869 2074 54 4312 3485 81 2064 1078 52 3506 776 22 2648 1703 64 2350 1648 70 2653 1575 59 3347 651 19 3457 2082 60 3164 2357 74 2854 1548 64 2849 1735 61 3294 764 23 3596 2095 58 3332 2502 75 2960 1661 66 Summer Winter Total Stump, 2.45* 2.45 5.30 Carman, 2.00 2.35 4.35 Elberta, 2.10 3.15 5.25 The “summer only” treatment required the next greatest amount of time, as follows. Stump, 5.30 Carman, 6.06 Elberta, 3.30 * The decimal point marks the division between minutes and seconds. 70 Pruning Experiments With Peaches The “winter cut back” treatment was third in time consumed, the averages being : Stump, 4.49 Carman, 4.30 Elberta, 3.15 The “winter not cut back” treatment required the least amount of time, averaging per tree as follows : Stump 3.23 Carman, 2.15 Elberta, 2.34 The greatest amount of growth was removed from the “winter cut back” treatment, with “winter and summer” second, “summer only” fourth. Thinning in summer requires more time, because of the interference of the foliage. DORMANT SEASON PRUNING AT NEW BRUNSWICK, EEBRUARY AND MARCH, 1914 Trees receiving the “winter and not cut back,” the “winter cut back,” and the “winter and summer” treatments were pruned during Fel)ruary and A'larch, 1914, as outlined on page 6. The pruning record for each tree is shown in table 49. Here is given the total twig growth for 1913, as well as the amount of growth pruned off (including the summer pruning in the case of plots 3, 4, 6 and 7), and the per cent of total growth removed. The average amount pruned from all trees, regardless of variety and treatment, is 56 per cent. The average total growth removed from the Elberta trees was 58 per cent; from Stump trees 57 per cent and from the Carman trees 54 per cent. Table 50 shows the per cent of total growth removed by treat- ments. The largest average proportion removed, regardless of variety, was 74 per cent in the case of the “winter cut back” treatment. This treatment shows the greatest per cent removed in the case of Elberta and Carman, with 79 and 74 per cent, respectively. Stump had 67 per cent removed, which is slightly less than the per cent removed in the “summer and winter” treatment for this variety. The “summer and winter” treatment was second in Bulletin 326 71 percentage removed, an average of 65 per cent having been pruned off all varieties. This treatment is first in the case of Stump with 68 per cent pruned off, but it is second with both Elberta (68 per cent pruned off) and Carman (60 per cent pruned off*). The ‘‘winter not cut back” treatment was third in percentage removed and this percentage is very close to the general average for each and all varieties. The “summer- pruned” treatment was lowest in total amount removed and in percentage removed. Elberta was highest for the treatment with 34 per cent pruned off; Stump second, with 33 per cent, and Carman lowest with 27 per cent pruned off. Tabi^e 50 Record oe Per Cent of Growth Removed by Treatment 1913 1 VARIETY 1 1 WNCB WCB s&w 1 s 1 i ALL 1 1 1 Per cent 1 1 Per cent Per cent 1 Per cent Per cent 1 Elberta, 1 56 1 1 1 79 68 34 58 1 stump, 1 58 1 1 *67 68 33 57 Carman 57 1 74 60 27 54 All, 57 1 - 65 31 1 56 By referring to table 10 it will be seen that the summer prun- ing on Plots 3 and 6, receiving the “summer and winter” treat- ment, removed between one-third and one-half the total amount pruned. This is not as great a reduction in winter pruning as was found at Vineland. EFFECT OF SUMMER PRUNING DURING I913 ON TOTAL GROWTH AT NEW BRUNSWICK The “summer only” treatment does not show indications of being checked by the practice of summer pruning. This treat- ment was second in total average of twig growth and in average per cent gain in twig growth. It was fourth in per cent increase in circumference. 72 Pruning Experiments With Peaches ,a QC O rH O r-l OS O CO lO O CO OOIINQIQ lOCOCO OSTfcOCO OCOiM(N(N iHCOIM rlCOrHOJ “rjonicoc iH iH »H CO iH 05 , -gl-n'tOS COLOt --fOCI Oj 01 CO CO >H ^ O CO CO tH O ^ CZ' 05 CO C CO rH iH © (N CO I 10 O iH 1 If 00 •'f CO 00 CO (N © Tf >0 CO Tf 8 0 00 © t- © © © t- KO O 00 CO t- © © N ( 00 If 1-1 © © CO < rf N N N 1-1 N ( OI IM CO iH ( 03 © CO CO 1 CJ I- N CO C ) N © ) N N © 5 CO © If © t- if © © N 00 All Average 1079 215 1294 896 251 1147 1654 182 1787 2275 188 2463 BuL^IvETIN 326 73 AMOUNT OF TWIG GROWTH REMOVED IN CUTTING BACK AND THINNING AT NEW BRUNSWICK Table 51 shows the amount of twig growth removed from each tree in the “winter and summer” and “winter cut back” treat- ments, separated into thinnings and clippings. Table 52 summarizes these measurements. It will be noted that the difference in the amount of clipping for these two treat- ments is considerable, while with the “winter and summer” treat- ment an average of 19 per cent of the amount pruned in winter is clippings while the “winter cut back” treatment gives about 7 per cent. Table 52 Summary oe Prunings : Per Cent Thinned and Cut Back New Brunswick VARIETY Winter and Summer Winter Cut Back Total Thinned | ! Clipped 1 Total Thinned Clipped Elberta Stump, Carman, All Inches * 1242 1447 1047 1220 1 Per Inches cent 1026 83 1209 84 802 76 987 81 1 _ Per Inches cent 216 17 238 16 236 24 233 19 Inches | 2053 2080 2228 2125 Per Inches cent 1905 93 1919 92 2055 92 1965 93 Per Inches cent 148 7 161 8 173 8 160 7 In explanation of this, attention must be called to the fact that clipping in summer tends to increase the number of shoots, which would necessitate a greater amount of clipping at the dormant pruning, since an effort is made to cut back every prominent shoot. Where no thinning is done in summer, e. g., in the “winter cut back” treatment, a considerable amount of thinning is necessary in the winter pruning, which reduces the number of twigs to be cut back. SUMMARY OE THE EFFECTS OF SUMMER PRUNING DURING I913 UPON TOTAL GROWTH AT NEW BRUNSWICK The evidence at New Brunswick supports that gained at Vine- land to the effect that summer pruning in 1913 did not check the growth of the trees. The “summer only” treatment ranked second in average twig growth and second in per cent increase in twig growth. Its ranking as to average circumference is the 74 Pruning Experiments With Peaches same as in 1912 (fourth); but the treatment ranks ’second in per cent increase in circumference. This statement is prelimi- nary. TIME REQUIRED EOR PRUNING AT NEW BRUNSWICK The time of pruning was kept at New Brunswick as well as at Vineland. The system that required the greatest length of time was the “summer and winter’' treatment. Trees receiving this treatment were given one pruning in June and the dormant season pruning in the late winter. The average time required to prune each tree was as follows : Summer Winter Total Elberta, i.i5* 440 5.10 Stump, 1.53 3.57 5.50 Carman, i.o8 3.56 5.04 On the average, more wood was pruned in the “winter cut back” treatment, but the time required was somewhat less, as follows : Elberta, Stump, Carman, 4-39 5.08 3-30 The “summer only” treatment required the following as the average pruning time per tree, where two prunings were made: Elberta, 2.45 Stump, 4.00 Carman, ' 2.25 Where only the June pruning was performed, the average time was as follows : Elberta, 1.20 vStump, 1.30 Carman, 1.05 The “winter not cut back” treatment required the shortest time to prune, with the following averages : Elberta, 2.45 Stump, 2.46 Carman, 2.24 * The decimal point marks the division between minutes and seconds. BullKTin 326 75 THE APPEARANCE OE THE TREES AT THE CLOSE OP THE SEASON OF I913-I4 Photographs were made at the close of the season of 1913- 14 of the same trees that were discussed in the results of the season of 1912-13 (page 21). Not Pruned The “not pruned” trees (Stump, Row 19, Tree 2, and Carman, Row 20, Tree 4, at Vineland) are shown in figures 2 and 4, respec- tively. The Stump tree (fig. 2) has spread out considerably at the base and there is a noticeable thickening of the top, caused by the development of a large number of small twigs. The Car- man tree (fig. 4) has also spread well at the base, and the top is more open. These two trees have reached about the same height, but the spread of the Carman is greater. Winter Not Cut Back A Carman tree. Row 17, Tree 2, at Vineland, is shown before pruning in figure 7 and after pruning in figure 8. This tree was pruned rather heavily at the end of the first season, a number of comparatively large branches being removed from the lower part of the trunk. This resulted in the formation of a number of suckers low on the trunk. These were pruned off and the other twigs and branches thinned out so that the tree appears to be more open. The appearance of Elberta, Row 18, Tree 5, at Vineland, before and after pruning, is shown in figures ii and 12. This tree was not very heavily pruned at the close of the first season, being compact and of good form. The character of the pruning at the close of the second season was merely to thin the twigs in the center. This tree has a more dwarfed, compact habit than any other so far shown, as it is apparently a foot lower than the others. Stump, Row 16, Tree 3, at Vineland, received a heavy pruning at the close of the first season, so that before it was pruned in 1 91 3-1 4 (fig. 15), a number of suckers had formed low on the trunk and on the scaffold branches. When these were removed 76 Pruning Experiments With Peaches and the top thinned out, the tree appeared as illustrated in figure i6. Winter Cut Back Although Stump, Row 25, Tree 3, at Vineland, had a number of large twigs removed from the trunk, it did not, as might be expected, produce many suckers low upon the trunk, as shown in figure 19. Figure 20 is taken from a somewhat different posi- tion, but it shows the manner in which the tree was thinned out and cut back. Some of the prominent twigs simply had the tips removed, but the leaders were cut back to a side twig. Carman, Row 14, Tree 5, at Vineland, produced a number of suckers on the scaffold branches during the second summer, as illustrated in figure 23. This tree was somewhat more dwarf than either the Stump or the Elberta in the same treatment, and after the thinning was done, the tips of the twigs were cut back very slightly, as illustrated in figure 24. Winter and Summer Stump, Row 10, Tree 4, at Vineland, was pruned once during the summer. Between the time of this pruning and the cessation of growth, the top was made very dense by a number of fine twigs, as shown in figure 29. These were thinned out consider- ably and the leading twigs cut back, when the tree had the ap- pearance as shown in figure 30. This tree is a fair example of a tree pruned to the vase form. Elberta, Row 12, Tiee 4, at Vineland, illustrates again the rather compact and restricted growth of this variety in compari- son with Carman and Stump. In height this tree is about two feet less than Stump and Carman trees in the same treatment. It did not make so many twigs in the top as the preceding tree, as shown in figure 35. After the tree had been thinned, only a few of the leading branches were cut back to a side twig, most of the others being merely clipped, as shown in figure 36. Another Elberta tree of this treatment (Row 24, Tree 3, at Vineland) is shown before and after the winter pruning in fig- ures 41 and 42. This is a tree that was allowed to fonu its head about 6 inches from the ground. It grew a little more vigorously BuIvLETin 326 77 than the other Elberta tree in this treatment, but like that tree had comparatively little wood removed in pruning. Sumnicr Only The winter aspect of the trees in the “summer only” treatment is shown in figure 49 for Carman, Row 8, Tree 4, at Vineland, and in figure 56, for Elberta, Row 4, Tree 3, at New Brunswick. Figure 49 shows a tree that branches close to the ground. The top seems to be a little dense, and it undoubtedly has a few more twigs than would have been allowed to remain had the tree been pruned after the leaves had fallen. The Elberta tree illustrated in figure 56 is rather more dwarf than any hitherto shown, but it is growing under different soil and climatic conditions. The top is apparently rather thick, due partly to the fact that all branches and twigs seem to be in the same plane, a fault not easily overcome in photographs. SUMMARY 1 — There is a great lack of accurate, scientific data on the pruning of the peach. 2 — The objects of these experiments are to compare the effect of pruning (i) of different types upon the amount, form, and character of wood growth; (2) during the growing season in comparison with pruning done during the dormant season; (3) upon the strength, hardiness and length of life of the tree; (4) upon the position, quantity, size, color, quality, and time of maturity of the fruit; (5) upon the cost of spraying, thinning, and packing of fruit, removal of borers, and other details of orchard management. 3 — Types of pruning studied are as follows : Not pruned. Winter-pruned, but not cut back, Winter-pruned and cut back, Winter- and summer-pruned. Summer-pruned only. The following varieties are used in the experiments : Stump, Carman, Elberta. 78 Pruning Experiments With Peaches 4 — The location of the experiments and the number of plots and trees are as follows : Vineland : 2 plots to each treatment, 10 in all; 15 trees to each plot, 5 of each of the 3 varieties. New Brunswick: 7 plots, i not pruned and 2 of each of the other treatments; 8 trees to each plot, 3 each of Elberta and Carman and 2 of Stump. 5 — The soils are as follows : At Vineland — sandy loam. At New Brunswick — gravelly Penn (red shale) loam. 6 — The period studied in this bulletin covers the first two seasons after the planting. 7 — Measurements of Total Linear Twig Growth During the First Season. The general averages of the total linear twig growth during the first season follow : Vineland New Brunswick Inches Inches All varieties, 746 436 Stump, 800 609 Carman, 750 400 Elberta, 677 436 During the first season, the trees at Vineland averaged from about 200 to 350 inches more growth according to the variety than at New Brunswick. Stump made the best average total growth at both places. There was not much difference between Carman and Elberta. It is only fair to state that the Carman trees were somewhat the poorest at the time of planting. After the growth measurements were computed at the close of the first season’s growth, the various pruning treatments were assigned to certain plots. Table 53 shows the average size of the trees in these plots ’at the actual beginning of the pruning studies. The following growth was made by the largest and the smallest trees : f S tump N f C arman \ f Elberta > Largest Smallest Largest Smallest Largest Smallest Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Vineland, ■ • 1392 273 1177 270 1509 321 New Brunswick, , • • 1239 314 998 108 797 108 Table 53- Average Growth oe Trees Grouped According to Future Treatments, 1912 Bulletin 326 79 2^ B P rH IN 3^ CCIO 0 3 CO ' rH IC «T Es CA Pi £ § B 3 3 M tf) Pi a 0 in Js 2 & 2J 0 > B 31 kO CO IH N S 3 Pi LO r^ CO CO D1 .M < B V 3 3 N CO lO tH ■w CEh 0 3 rH IN CO kfO Tfl & Pi w B 3 P w p M OJ rl bcS Xfl B D M a g in & 0) 2 ^ 4, 0 ^0 Inche 322 452 391 306 552 H D ;2; •< ;2; 3 3 W 4) Inche 4.14 3.29 3.24 2.78 3.04 < s 0 H Pi Si5 m 0 as in 0 2 ^ 2i ^ c ^ CO 0 3 3 0 p 4^ CO kc 00 a B CO CD 05 l» CO 3 CO t- l> t- Q .3 £ a CO CO CO CO M tS U < p > B 3 P CO kO N 31 iH 3 rH kC IN CO Tjl Pi Q B W ,±4 .M Pl< B 0 3 CO rH (N lO p 0 3 p p 1-1 CO iN no B Ci3 p 0 3 p 3 ^ ja Mt: CO w m a g in 0 ;z; 2 ^ £ 0 > rh 2 00 »-f Oi »-l fikOTt^ciot- g IP kP t- w B a> ;2: p p O) ;p a* nche 3.93 3.691 3.80 3.09 3.36 2 0^ W 3 p > B § .5 ’;> P 3 kP C<| CO r-l D P CO (0^ tH k/n Pi 0 B M iA 0 B 0 3 3 r3 N CO kO 31 U P P N CO klO Tji xn Pi W m Pi 3 0 3 3 < 3 (S m B W M a g m pj 2 fe S CD 0 31 GO 31 < p p Tji (N CO r-l 0) *-1 £ 0; p •P, Oi 00 LO --1 (N Jli 3^ ^ -HJH 4; :z; 0 0; J-* Jp 'I' ■So? 3 CO 3 ; CO © T-; CO CO CO CO ^0 •— » 0 1— I i B -1 S)S 93 1 ^ 1 H iA > 5 1 31 k-O N t3 CO 1 3< CO iN kO HH 1 i H H Z B B s g H i <3 << B •P5 .02 ] B « .m ■ Pi H ' 2 ; 0 ^ H d ^ B .0 ; is M 1 5 ? pi pi tS M 8o Pruning Experiments With Peaches 8 — Measurement of Circumference, First Season. The cir- cumferences of the trunks of the trees about six inches above the ground also were determined at the close of the first season, and the general averages follow : Vineland New Brunswick Inches Inches All varieties, 3-95 3.22 Stump, 4-17 3.54 Carman, 3-92 3-19 Elberta, 369 310 Only the Stump trees at Vineland averaged in excess of 4 inches in circumferences at the close of 1912. The average circumferences of the trees as selected for the pruning treatments are given in table 54. The range in circumference is given below : ! Stump ^ ( Carman s ^ Elberta- Largest Smallest Largest Smallest Largest Smallest Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Vineland, .. 5-12 3.12 5-25 2.12 5-12 2.50 New Brunswick, 4.00 2.93 4.68 2.00 4-31 2.00 9 — Summer Pruning, ip/j. The summer-pruning treatments began during 1913 and the average amount of growth pruned off is recorded. In general about twice as much twig growth was removed at Vineland as at New Brunswick. r Summer n ^ Winter and Summer > Vineland New Brunswick Vineland New Brunswick Inches Stump, 2092 Carman, 2067 Elberta, i 74 i All varieties, 1961 Inches Inches Inches 1064 1184 702 781 1126 506 1103 1158 500 973 1156 552 Trees receiving the ‘‘summer only” treatment were pruned about the middle of June and in the early part of October. Those receiving the “winter and summer” treatment were pruned only once during the summer, about the middle of June. Table 55- Average Growth According to Treatments, 1913 81 Bulletin 326 .ill Pd rH IP PP t- O CO IP c b- t- 00 cd c3 0; a C > .M c c IP Tt< ,-1 oa CO cd « (M CO r-i IP -H .M pa pa rH CO -HI IP oa .rt a tH JOIN IP « & pq s CO s p P M pa 0\ M a s CO & 0) 1 OJTjlrHOaOl- pa CO CO r-l O iH t/T OJ p a O 0) a IP IfO Tfi CO C5 ’gt-C0IP«Ob- iz; O p CO CO ca M CO :zi iz; Iz; o <2 a t-: tq CO CO ALL p: cd IP oa CO th CO Tjl rH IP N o pa 0 pa pa CO i=l a eS CO th Tt< IP ca u u < CJ & CO a a a pq i-H CO N IP p w 2 M & Oi 12: Growth Inches 2811 3510 2670 2578 3257 u w pa w PL< pq & O pa fl a u a 05 05 t-H CO IN pp oj ^ CO o 00 -o a 2 O o 05 C CO O 05 00 CO CO cc CO 6 'O a Eh •5<2 c o6 00 00 00 (> w a pa w > pa a 3 ca IP th CO > < a pq IN (M tH ai IP pa 1 .'H C a th TfH ca IP CO vd Cd rH (N CO IP T)1 & m & s w a p S-i n 2872 3056 2540 2949 p1 PQ < a M a s a ;z; 0) & o p O Inche 4375 J & a iz; D fl c.) a» Eh U Joqococooo ig IP CO CO 05 05 a iq CO CD P pa Xfl <1 H o a O lO LO LO O D ci 0- t- 00 N CO 05 ^ 05 CD 05 CO tH •y 0^ P3 rH 05 rf t- GO -a a 2 o CJb-(MliOGOt- C CO CO Tji CO -a 1 Eh Eh .pH O o 'W c 00 t-P 00 bP o a c a > 1 > C a 1 ' EO OJ CO tH cd IN CO tH IP Tfl H iz; S'; H ' • • • pq S * « • • § Eh H H M .m • c Cl3 • pq' .m • Cd H a O p3 ^ . pq H • 1 ;? ts ^ 02 S qp ^ ^ 02 7.89 6.98 4 I 5 7.82 7.00 5 i 2 8.21 6.79 4 1 4 7.58 7.20 82 Pruning Experiments With Peaches 10 — Measurement of Twig Growth of Second Season, The amount of twig growth made during the second season also was recorded and the general averages follow : Vineland New Brunswick Inches Inches All varieties, 3981 3035 Stump, 4258 3155 Carman, 4026 3023 Elberta, 3608 2971 Stump again made the largest average total growth of the three varieties under test. The trees at Vineland also made an average of from 637 to 1103 inches more growth according to variety than those at New Brunswick. The average growth and rank by treatments follows in table 55. The range in circumference at end of second season is shown below. ( Stump \ ^ Carman \ r Elherta ^ Largest Smallest Largest Smallest Largest Smallest Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Vineland, • • 9-75 7.00 10.25 5-50 9-25 6.50 New Brunswick, , . . 8.50 6.25 8.75 5-75 9-25 6.00 II — Per cent Gain in Tzvig Grozvth in 1913 Over Thai Made in 1912. The per cent gain in twig growth in 1913 over that made in 1912 is given below : Vineland New Brunswick All varieties, 433 594 Stump, 432 417 Carman, 437 634 Elberta 428 739 12 — A Comparison of Twig Growth Made by Trees of Vary- ing Vigor. The trees at Vineland made a larger average total growth, while those at New Brunswick made a higher average per cent gain over the growth made in 1912. At Vineland, the trees that were below the average in 1912 made a greater per cent increase in 1913, but the actual average increase does not approach that made by the trees that were about the. average in 1912. At New Brunswick, a greater per cent increase in growth was recorded in favor of the trees that were below the average in 1912. Bulletin 326 83 A comparison between trees on a basis of total growth indi- cates the size of the tree, but may not correctly indicate the rate of growth made by these trees in proportion to their vigor at the beginning. Small trees at the end of the first season may not make as great a total twig growth as trees that were large, but, other things being equal, the per cent increase in growth will be greater for the small trees than for the large tree. 13 — Groups of Trees of Varying Vigor at End of First Season. Considerable variation in total twig growth was found to occur between individual trees at the close of the first season. An at- tempt was made to determine how great a difference in linear twig growth had an influence upon the growth of the trees in the second season. Between some groups an average difference of 50 inches the first season was appreciable in the second season, while between others an average difference of 100 inches ap- parently had little or no influence. The per cent gain in twig growth in 1913 is in inverse ratio to the amount of growth made in 1912. 14 — Measurement of Circumference at End of Second Season. The general averages of the circumferences at the end of the second season follow: Vineland New Brunswick Inches Inches All varieties, 8.04 7.24 Stump, 7-33 Carman, 8.20 7.12 Elberta, 7.69 7-31 At the close of the second season none of the varieties at New Brunswick had attained an average trunk circumference of 7.50 inches, while at Vineland both Carman and Stump exceeded an average of 8 inches. The averages according to treatments are given in table 56. 15 — Per Cent Increase in Circumference Over IQ12. The general averages of the per cent increase in circumference over 1912 are given in the following : 84 Pruning Experiments With Peaches Vineland New Brunswick Per Cent Per Cent All varieties, 124 Stump, 96 104 Carman, 109 126 Elberta, 133 With one exception, all varieties made more than loo per cent increase in trunk circumference in 1913 in comparison with that made in 1912. The range in growth made by individual trees follows : ( Stump N r Carman r Elberta ^ Greatest Least Greatest Least Greatest Least Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Inches Vineland, . . 7108 2110 6883 1045 6746 1466 New Brunswick, . . 5020 1684 5355 1734 4425 1470 16 — Increase in Circumference of Trees of Varying Vigor. In both the Vineland and the New Brunswick experiments, all the trees that were below the average in 1912 made a greater per cent increase in circumference than those that were above the average. The smaller the circumference in 1912 the greater was the per cent increase in circumference in 1913. 17 — Total Inches of Twig Growth for Each One Inch Increase in Trunk Circumference. It was also' of interest to know the number of inches of twig growth made for each inch increase in trunk circumference in 1913. The average was 960 inches at Vineland and 738 inches at New Brunswick. The amount varied with the variety, as shown below : Vineland New Brunswick Inches Inches All varieties, 960 738 Stump, 1069 822 Carman, 931 744 Elberta, 853 699 The ratios upon the basis of the various pruning treatments is given in table 57. Table 57- Growth Ratios According to Treatments BuLIvETIN 326 85 1 CO 10 IN 00 CO CO Tt< CO N 0 > no t- t- 00 CO CD CD t- ■ 0 ^ 05 N • rH 05 t- no • t- t- O 00 2 ooqooQco CO CO CD 00 > no rH 00 no I 05 05 O ^ 8 ! 05 0 < no CO iN CO < ^ oJ CD CD ' ly jh-.-lCD I 0 >-1 o ( CO IN N 5 - q Tt< CD no ^ (U 1 3.89 Riegelsville .... 1 9.88 1 |15.63 13.69 3.89 1 3.59 7.35 6.10 Flemington .... 1 |12.01 1 18.88 i 10.00 5.56 4.00 3.48 5.00 Newark 1 |10.14| |16.03 14.00 4.24 3.00 5.63 10.00 Newark 9.94 17.19 15.00 5.89 4.00 7.60 9.00 Somerville 10.30 15.44 16.20 4.63 4.60 4.92 5.00 Newark 10.00 16.13 15.00 5.35 5.00 9.77 9.50 Lambertville . . . 8.99 17.50 15.00 5.51 4.50 6.73 7.00 Camden 10.28 16.81 14.00 4.97 3.00 5.22 8.00 Stockon 10.97 17.25 13.00 5.32 4.00 2.62 7.00 Millville 10.70 18.00 15.00 4.43 4.00 4.55 9.00 Paterson 9.20 16.25 16.00 5.30 4.50 4.13 6.00 Hampton 11.42 17.75 14.00 4.76 4.00 3.18 8.00 Milford 10.90 14.50 12.10 3.55 3.00 2.56 2.00 Trenton 11.77 16.01 14.50 4.10 3.75 4.68 5.00 Hamburg 9.59 16.25 15.00 4.98 4.00 7.12| 8.50 Neshanic 11.78 16.00 14.00 4.69 4.00 5.0o[ 8.00 Netcong 8.96 16.19 16.00 3.97 1 4.00 4.68| 5.50 Andover 10.44 18.13 17.00 5.56 7.00 1 4.01| 5.00 Spotswood .... 10.23 17.50 16.00 5.84 4.50 1 5.63| 7.00 10.69 16.35 4.77 1 C 1 r .. J* 1 0 26 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station WHEAT FEEDING FLOUR Station Number Manufacturer or Jobber AND Dealer 1 Place of Sampling Moisture Protein Fat Fiber Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed 1 Found Guaranteed Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co., ! j 1 Minneapolis, Minn. 18369 XXX Comet Far Hills 8.68 17.81 16.50 6.27 4.00 2.27 3.00 Pillsbury Flour Mills Co., Minneapolis, Minn. i 18142 Pillsbury XX Daisy Passaic 8.68 18.00 16.00 4.90 4.00 3.34j 4.00 Star & Crescent Milling Co., Chicago, 111. 1 18135 Star Red Dog Paterson 9.80 15.50 [16.50 4.40 4.00 4.09 1 3.00 C. W. Wagar & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. i 18849 Red Dng’ Flour Red Rank 11.45 17.00 16.75 4.17 4.25 2.30 1 3.00 1 J. D. Walls Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 18071 Atlas Red Dog 1 Hackensasck .. . 9.51 18.75 12.00 5.59 4.00 4.46 1 5.00 Washburn-Crosby Co., Minneapolis, Minn. 1 1 18121 Adrian Red Dog Flour j Paterson 10.02 16.75 16.00 1 4.55 4.00 3.09 4.00 1 1 Average 1 9.69 17.30 1 4.98 3.26 ALFALFA MEAL Denver Alfalfa Milling & Products Co., Hartman, Col. 18482 Alfalfa Meal Lambertville . . . 8.02 13.44 12.00| 1 1.67 1.50 34.01 35.00 Albert Dickinson Co,, Chicago, 111. 18746 Alfalfa Meal Plainfield 8.07 15.63 12.00| 1 1.66 1.00 1 27.26 35.00 Ezl. Dunwoody Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 180029 Pure Alfalfa Meal Millville 7.98 14.31 14.00 : 1.64 2.00 27.18 30.00 Hales & Edwards Co., Chicago, 111. 180009 Red Comb Alfalfa Meal Vineland 9.70 12.25 13.50 1.23 1.00 33.41 35.00 Meader-Atlas Co., New York City. 18204 Piirestork Alfalfa Meal Oradell 8.31 14.88 12.00 1:78 1.00 29.45 33.00 Neustadt & Co., New York City. 18690 Red Star Brand California Alfalfa Meal Caldwell 7.66 18.19 15.00 1.56 1.40 23.66 29.50 Nowak Milling Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y. 18272 Domino Alfalfa Meal Rockaway 7.49 16.81 10.00 1.62 1.00 26.61 35.00 Omaha Alfalfa Milling Co., Omaha, Neb. 18068 Alfalfa Meal Hackensack .... 9.45 14.63 12.00 1.57 1.00 25.25 30.00 Park & Pollard Co., Boston, Mass. 18285 Alfalfa Meal Dover 7.89 20.19 12.00 1.88 1.50 23.43 30.00 J. C. Smith & Wallace Co., Newark, N. J. 18662 Alfalfa Meal Newark 7.64 11.94 15.31 1.42 1.98 30.60 25.33 Somers & Co., San Francisco, Cal. 18042 Red Star Brand Alfalfa Meal Camden 7.41 17.25 15.00 1.67 1.40 30.28 1 29.50 Otto Weiss Milling Co., Wichita, Kan. 18150 Alfalfa Meal Paterson 7.00 14.06 14.00 1.47 1.50 27.30 35.00 i 1 Average 8.05 15.30 1.60 28.20 1 Bulletin 327 DRIED BEET PULiP 27 Station Number Manufacturer or Jobber AND Dealer Place of Sampling IMoisture Protein Fat Fiber Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed |Hottelet Co., Milwaukee, Wis. 18998 Dried Beet Pulp npmrlpn 5.88 1 0 ”^1 Q on A /CC 50052 Dried Beet Pulp • Perth Amboy .. 9.53 1 U* 0 1 8.81 o.UU 8.00 U.OO 0.84 0.50 0.50 19.90 20.27 20.00 20.00 Larrowe Milling Co., Detroit, Mich. 1 20.00 '8574 Dried Beet Pulp Princeton Jet. . 9.72 9.31 8.00 0.57 0.50 1 19.79 18789 Dried Beet Pulp Townley 8.16 8.31 8.00 0.64 0.50 18.78 20.00 Maritime Trading Corporation, N. Y. City. 50016 Bull Brand Dried Beet Pulp Mullica Hill ... 8.27 8.81 8.00 0.60 0.50 18.95 20.00 Average 8.31 9.11 0.66 19.54 COCOANUT MEAL 18867 American Milling Co., Peoria, 111. Pure 0. P. Cocoanut Meal Bordentown . . . 5.89 22.44 20.00 7.03 6.00 1 j 10.27 11.00 18828 Neustadt & Co., New York City. Cocoanut Oil Meal Long Branch .. 16.32 18.81 20.00 4.94 3.00 9.45 15.00 18346 Oil Seeds Co., Bayonne, N. J. Coco Brand Cocoanut Meal Bernardsville .. 9.56 18.75 20.00 12.44 7.00 9.01 10.00 i Average 10.59 20.00 8.14 9.58 COPRA CAKE MEAL 18453 American Milling Co., Peoria, 111. Copra Meal Frenchtown . . . 6.31 20.56 20.00 9.20 1 1 6.00 1 i 9.56|11.00 1 9.74|10.00 18930 M. F. Baringer, Philadelphia, Pa. Copra Cake Meal Moorestown . . . 8.49 20.44 21.00 8.02 6.00 — Average 7.40 [20.50 8.61 1 9.65| PEANUT OIL MEAL Oil Seeds Co., Bayonne, N. J. 18494j Peanut Oil Meal — Beta Brand Three Bridges . 7.40 29.81 30.00 12.12 7.00 9.11 8.00 28 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station puno.. p33;UBJEUQ puno^j p33;UBJEn0 puuoj aaiHsiojY fa o o iz M 13 U (L, r < ^ C/) » [,1 O “ u 2 gp s s jaquin^ uoi;bj^ rt cj ’O M £ rO o U rt o ^ 'O CJ eg 'c 3 rt 0 - (L) 5 lu 4 J P o § < fa ^ p o fa ™ 1 ) 4 J i! fa C 73 ■>e c P 3 O u W (l> . S be o WHEAT FEED Bulletin 327 29 12 ; H W Chas. A. Krause M’Tg Co., Milwaukee, Wis. I 1 18296 Badger Fancy Middlings Branchville ...| 7.30 13.50 12. 0'Oj 7.72 4.50 3.63| 7.00Maizo red dog flour and wheat middlings with I ground screenings not exceeding mill run. 30 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station c O -M ^ 2 -g o S "2 6 C t, lU 2 S Tl o o ^ rt Ci (L) « a « 3 .S«.E ’3) ^ bo -o in bO O .C ^ 'S .5 2 2 . E o cfl “ vii c c E « S g C/) H •3 2 § rt bo c c oj O 'in U 8 c . rt in 2 .2 bo '3 'O c •u 2 o o y :=: ^ t 3 o j 3 O rt 'O rt -O o bo “ •t 3 rt ° 23 c V B O i S « « ° c rt ^ frt 55 rt 8 J « S o +5 in' ’c3 rt “ O -tS „ C C o ^ 3 o ^ <« ° T3 c bo o _r ^ S S C rt S rt ° O O '3 o o c j ”8 - m2; rt ; (U HH << < < .y *: . c/2 ^ .2 :S U a; ^ C ; ^ 1 a 0 1 ^ '11 3 3 3 0 g c/3 < C/3 c/3 Ph H < : < i H rt ^ jaquin^^ uoiiB^g Bulletin 327 31 O -.o d S3 o ^ "S” 'S V <4-1 >1 C (/“ o o £ s i bo O - O t 3 s • 2 3 ^ a rt nS U O II ._•' .«■' s ^ 6 u S cd c ° 3 c 3 6 cT T3 ^ „ ■S S I > O '« O 44 o, ca ” TJ . (« ii c ca u o w o tj .a « ca S 8 ^ « S a -a rr^ « CO >> S ^ S ^ TJ 'a § o la ‘L> — 43 ^ ? C O >< CO ^ ^ "ca r-H O >44 S O — , I® TS 44 'i .§ .a rt >< bO 43 _C c ,/■ S 'S 'O m 00 D 43 a tn O (U O U (fl ca C ^ '-' 01 2 2 -a- a ^ 3 a ni . -t- ro o -r X 'X o\ »— ' VC Gv T VC -t 'C VC VO VO o VO VC VO ^ o O o O o o o o o ._ O o o o O o VO o o o o O O VO o o I< X o O X VO v6 v6 'N T-H T-H t-H 1-H T-H oi O] r-^ o *+ ON 03 -t* GN O VO r-H fo 1— 1 VO vO VC o^ GN lO VO ro ro ^ X VC 00 o o 1-2 o 1-2 (^i O ol o\ q 6 03 t-H ^3 r-H 1-H »— ' t-H 1-H 03 03 T-H rs4 -f VO 'Tf ro •o X oi o O} O X G\ oq O ON G\ o O ro ON fO hH Gs oc 00 00 ol 0\ G^ 00 VO 1-2 > .£ >> 2 43 i 3 o Q O U ca - P o G u cS £ G o o 0 . P ra ’O Tt- o 40 to 00 00 FEED MIXTURES— (Continued) New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Fiber paa^uBJEng punaj paa;uEJBn0 puno^ Protein paa;uBJEn0 punoj aanjsiojv PS < M a « P jaquin^ uoi^Bjg X ^ ‘s S b«.S C 03 V, ‘■S bo J O 5 -u •’S C § S S ::^ b/) X (y I g S' o X fi I-, c3 g XI CC s S S b073 •-G feil . S I:.! £ S S«s X « c ^ oq (N ON ON CM e 3 G 03 O o3 - O 1 -. bo o 73 ^ : 2 B S S 03 o3 oi 1- C/i CT! U G O ^ ^ O (fi ^ ^ ■s c i2 i2 ' XJ O rt 03 O O 73 ii 2 - ^ « 2 o £ £ os X o b *3 O o >< r 3 r 1 ; flj- 73 *: y > o ^ • g CO 2 73 a in ^ 5 % 0° -CO 5 X 73 P 73 rt oj 3 I S ” ^ «4H 0) cd (D V g £ a: ro 00 Tf \0 oa CO » o .G U 03 00 (?N 00 CM 00 00 X CO O X (On 7- CM CO 00 00 00 00 Bulletin 327 33 ^ SI - c S3 § 2 ^ x; rt — (U ^ c ^ nj CJ - I T. S3 rt ^ 1/3 1« rt ti ‘‘J ^ >' s -o S' 12 ^ (U "" *0 § c °° Ij X ~ ^ c ^ X « i3 c X a ' "3 !^ . „ C/) 1 3 ^ bo E X " c bo g X S'" X g cn S § 1 " ^ ^ 6 a O in X X S2 c ? 03 - a 11 a c S - C13 _ C (U « £ a X ^ rt ‘o „ o "S) _c X 13 X c 'g _43 ’> in s X c 13 03 X a j c 43 X g 03 ■g 43 ' X 1 O £ X g 03 '> X 43 c 03 li3 u CQ p: u oS V Q-g g^ c u u K : G (u 1 -d a : a 43 , , 10 Q X .a js 4/ a "o ^ r^ O X g X ° S 43 O u w uw t/> K 3^ ^ ’S ■i ^ X 43 13 t X o G ffi o < G . be >^ .a rt .. c« o o; «— V5 75 ^ JS 3 o m - W ^ 43 < X O O rr> O O 00 O 00 FEED MIXTURES— (Continued) 34 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station paajuBJBnQ S s I bo ^ ;s 's I -S-S n nj ^ “ C rt « 2 y ^ c P •ii o a G 2 G bfi •£ "o S)'« . S S 3 ^ P ii T3 § - . O “ b,-5 bO ^ ^ "o "5 •tJ <” i ^ 73 .a " 6 tn bc ^ .S s § P P ‘"'Hi' ^ H "p .& - 1-5 ”0 "rt vO O ^ > 4-1 Tl O . ’O 2 p <« S cs i> (U qj c 3 ^ x> 00 73 uj O a o u ^ 'O ^ a oj 5 f:j ^ < 3 ^ s s i ^JZ p - H « S I CO e " 05 rt t; p P p 05 — cci O in < in punoj p 93 }ueaEn 0 puuo^i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q 0 Ov' o\ cvj ”1" cS 06 06 00 fNl VO VO ^ inH t-H ’-H r-~t »— « CM CM 0 r-^ a\ ON 0 On VO 00 00 00 CM 00 CM 0 0 m CNj VO 0 VO ro 1“ VO 00 0 CO OC 0 06 ON 0 to ON t>I to to to rf 00 On ’-* t-H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to to 0 0 0 to -r oj ro 7 -H r-. CO c 4 cnJ 0 cS 00 00 ro r. "p c« qj JsJ 0 ■qj ^ W ^ p is 4 ) G, rt Lee 'o 13 dj p 0 cn 13 -0 rt NJ '0 0 ^ C o bo T3 04 & g g rt rt (fi cn tn w) 3 C cs rt c/) cn 00 10 10 10 o o o o VO VO T3 M 4) 3 a -3 ua bo bo « 3 § 2 P to 3 S oa O’ 3^ g T3 3 . 3 rt c nj bO M 3 rt 'S| 4) S O W nJ ^ o be sa 3 g 3 4) > Hi g ^ 2 “ ja ba 3 g Ta g 3 g f 41 rt bo 4) 3 ■> 3 Ph o ^ bo O •Ti 'O M-4 o ^ l-s, 3 g o o g g ■n -p •u j_. ^ g 3 ^ o o a ^ C (O U O ov vd ro (N CM ON 10 O 0000 O O O VO CM cd Tf O 4) 3 u H O 3 O . bo 3-r .& c O > .i; s: ^ ^ ^ r: -5 m LO vr> puno^,] p331UBJEn0 o o o o o o o o o punoj lO on 03 03 O 3jn;siioj\i o G oQ G c 2 2 get: o (U rt O I-. C, m e- 6/2 2 c & oj o •1 s -o t3 hJ H O ^ o ffi H H Q < i u, < o z < c§ tn ' .G y G rt 2 u • Q ^ V .2 (U o G = « rt 33 (U C lu 2 ^ (U i" w o 2 X y. y. 2 2* t* 2, 5 0 W o oa W u u u 2 c en O 03 CJ in {n O O W ffi C G O oJ U t-1 jaquia^ uouBig o o o o o G Tj- \0 T-H 03 bo ? C W W ^ ^ r Bulletin 327 37 V O (U c •3 ^ ^ c Q. 2 lU UJ "'S ^ s ' -O 2 V •« ^ Si s ’C ^ ^ ^ t;! - C 55 ^ £ -s W) o ^ C r- ” s S O O >> G2 TO •- 3 P ^ G 6 '^1- TO w- p .G P3 T3 p a ^ S >1 'c ' 'g TO S u rC G ^ 2 M TO 2-^ > § > 2 bo ^ .2 W 05 ^ § bo S 3 S a ^ %.B o 6 to ^ o o bo ns ^ -2 S S >. ’O 4 -. P ? "O TO ” .5 "P (u a.9 o, I 6 s| f « a TO c S TO K tr> bo ^ 2 £ o TO o 1 ) to" G ! 1-H »— 1 1— • 03 03 03 1-H 1-H 1-H 1-H 1-H 1-H o o o O O O o o o o o o o o o o o o O o o o o o o CZ> ro CO 03 03 03 03 oi oq oj 03 03 03 00 OO o\ 00 m 00 o Ov i-< in •x 03 in in 00 o cn m VO VO ON rx VO 03 cn oi ro 03 03 o o o O o o o o b o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o d> o 1-H 00 00 00 00 CO o 00 b 03 03 1-H T-H fO to to o rro VO o o 03 VO 03 00 o \o in ON oq 00 00 o o yJi t< o 00 as 00 ui o\ 00 1-^ rk 03 03 03 1-H 1-H VO VO 00 -t 00 03 Tj* 03 PO Ov o Ov 00 00 m 1-H oc 00 00 03 xf in PO r-H 03 VO VO PO t-H 1—* 1-H 1 o T3 >> c 05 (/) a O o 05 in O u c c V T3 G rt o u V 1? TO & W C « O 2 >. > u I- o C TJ ID ^ > c S c :3 be 2 o C o t- O in o.B° -o 2 ^ > c - ^ oi S ^ :; ^ S .-g ^ o rt o r4 cs 44? bo 2 -O v ITS is u -■3 h2 3 K pq C Q o "s P P os 'd 33 c 1) 3 (u 2 O P - (U HJ cl k " U o o 03 <4 <4 ^ iJ t S ^ o C o pc i (U V E & 3 .S il s •« .'H «r «a ^ 2 ^p 33 rt 3 O •P T) 4J P rt rt O T3 13 > -3 .S 2 ^ a 9 <-i (U S cn g P bO ” .S S £ 1 ^.15 E K. o bo •»■> ^ 3 ° 3 "§ 42 ‘g bo's +J ’p ^ O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o in LO vd »o o m rn csi o o o o o o o o o o o o o3 oa ^ ^ 00 rn o 00 rg ^ o 00 m Tt rd 00 ON ooooooooo o eg KOh h 4; */ t/i w v 2 v 2 " c^ 2 2 rt ct 5 5: S: COO c/3 *::: qj - NH ® 'iJ ^3 ? P ^ ^ ^ > « efl ca 2 C O ^ in rt fU 2 45 ^ J?; - P ^ in g .“J O 6 U 6 U -2 ?3 ”0 13 -53 4) 45 45 45 an 45 45 m in C C 43 U cT 'p O 4) XJ CJ _45 O O O o K K U -2 4 : o £ be 3 C '.o: 45 45 Ph o u in be 3 45 c 3 cS 3 COO^C < < ;2 M W W f 2 a; S 'in ^ oa S P-lrvP^P-lPHPHP-lP-(PHPlP-( a»>^ 33 cn in in 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 4 J 4 ' 4;454545454545 i di ^ X Ps 2 2 4 ) 2 .■3 c/3 ^ > 45 6 ^ -c w « Q £ 2 c/3 ™ rt 45 45 O iP W 2* c/3 vO 00 ^ > ^ c S s >. -^3 .S O p +.< O JH c >> 4h c G B £ .S S s' B O "73 o Mh a ■« o ^ -a 6 ctf g ■£ rt J2 Ih c 1 1 = O tfl ^B — <^1 j_, S § bo ' U) *3 t5 ° V c O ^ TO •" 0^ .-H O .G .'p ^ 3 B ^ - C OJ ^ so c ° c o a! u OJ bo p rt -OX o w S c .2 OJ -4-* "3 & a ■sl-= K5 B S B rt 'O t/T G c > a 03 03 JO > rt <13 Jb GO 'G .Q O ^ M bo B o o ON c3 m o S « < U (d <« c 3 H Q £ o a G — > -G rt 43 Q Gh £ 0/) rt o p >. O jaquin.N^ uoi;b}S 03 <33 03 03 2 U .2 o s ^ >. Ih 03 ‘G rt ^ ^ C! r< ~ bo s fO ^ Bulletin 327 41 U-) CM 00 'O 1-H T-t sd ro liO 1-H r-H VO 00 On 00 On 00 00 VO NO O CM ^ O 00 00 O l-H On CO o be bo n c ^ pi 1x1 o a " (fi C/) QJ ."2 1 ’ ^ CA c 0 ' u b'S (L> "C dJ 4J 1 ^ > u C 0 P d ^ ^ & u >. u I *c3 : o 53 cd r£ P . u. > a; C -S dJ . > dJ i 2 N ^ C3 5 d^ rt 0 .s ^ ^ rt Ph .S 0 u rt C Q a c V § C 3 3 0 u Oi a pq pq S flH a ;x, O C rt - pj o -a ^ -G ^ g §^:g G O "y -.n 3 -S e g g >, G bO G5 -3 •» CO n3 ^ 0) ?3 — - 8 O -G »4H C «CJ c v ii O. «J G .S*.£ ’3) ’« £ a ^ ^ P to o o ^2 *Ji 'S ^ 2 g;^ B o *co CO *H ^ r:2 *c3 to Vo » *=" O c/2 O 'G w -G o TJ 42 G G C O cu TS ra tt u pa pOOJUBJBlIQ 15.00 15.00 13.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 20.00 1 15.00 1 |l5.00 1 |14.00 14.00 1 12.00 14.00 puno.j 1 13.30 15.53 7.49 14.29 10.25 21.17 20.211 14.69 16.22 8.421 13.08] 12.401 14.95 Fat j poajuEJEnf) 1.50 1.50 3.50 ; 3.50 1.70 1.00 l.OOl 1.50 2.00 2.00 ^ 2.50 1 2.50! 1 3.50| 1 punoj 1 1 1 1 2.82' 1 2.851 1 2.07' 1 ’ 1 j 3.65 2.85] 1.17 0.85 2.53 1 1.82 1 1 5.04 1 i 3.43 4.75 5.60 Protein p33;uEj:cn9 9.00 9.00 13.50 |13.50 9.30 8.00 8.00 1 8.00 I I 8.00 1 8.00 12.00 10.00 16.501 punoj 10.63 11.81 12.50' 12.31 8.931 ! i |11.94i 10.66] 1 |11.19 1 9.83] I |11.13 1 1 14.25] 11.56] 16.44 9jn;sioj/\[ 0(X)t^ 00 — hOOi/^OSt-(C7sO som m-|-cvi tv..-HOsOOOO.-HO\ sooo -tooo ooiocsj^ossgcios c5o6 Place of Sampling Jersey City .... Jersey City .... Columbus Alloway Cranbury Quinton Camden Alloway Ridgewood .... Woodstown .... Trenton Villa Park Salem ] « Q G ^ Q V S o • V 4i rt a c T rt C -1 cn • 1/1 ^ frt <-• O £ 3* Gh = Bulletin 327 43 TJ rt O •2 <" ^ S o ^ 5 I « c 6 5 2 -i - i 1 ^ a o 2 'cn " T3 ^ « s I s g ” I o i ^ rt ^ S 1 > 2 s O « S g "S .S S « P 2 '+-! >4-1 C O in C c 2 : O t3 tJ T 3 8 s o S c “ iJ 3 ^ 2 bo a ^ s 0 ) £ •S| a) ^ & ’ 5 ' _. ^ s t) c c 3 >> „ G tn s I ^ cfl -O 'O CO CO f 3 ^ ^ •3 CO ^ d X ^•' « rt 3 g h V U •S ^ >*4 ? « o (U , . S « S w P. i; T 3 T 3 rt C C g 2 fS o U. U) bo 'U _•> ^ tn ^ s e C a S a 2 g o c j-* Oj H rt CO OD CO QJ S ^ J 3 V o c m 11 up O to u .S ™ p o P (U p flH > . - "i t+4 ~ C M < § 8 . ^ ^ P O Ct 3 S: o 2 d H is < CO o 1 I G ^ E c/T ffi 2 rt a .« o a H ^ a CO o 44 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station 1 Fiber | p93}UHJBn0 punoj i Fat paa^ueaenQ punoj; Protein p33;UBJBn0 puno^ 3anisioj\[ 1 Place of Sampling ^ (/3 ^ si rt tT £ S s T3 c/T " . (U bo -o (U C (U u) (u lit Oi i 3 8 2’^ y T3 S S • S ^ ^ . 5^ 6 >> U) c bo •«■ -o G ^ C c :3 ^ g “j p 2 . S 42 ^ -PI !lj 2 C O ^ Cfl U ^ 'O P jn 2 “ ® = = S rt p y V-t S o ^ 8^0^ <4H C u C O P c/3 ^ rv ^ g« g go §■ S jjSo^o o QJ X3 ^ T3 O ^ ^ X K 00 00 00 00 r-H 1-H On ^ (U « tl ^ Q ^ a 3 S u o -a "TS (u r o X O S >. u D •« T3 C I < >u ^ fa > «2 U Jr; « 1) a; ^ vH (u ■S . ^ fa bo X •S§ c O . .. -rt o o bo ^ ■B'Z ^ ^ S 2 fa h 2 t C .i K ..J j 5 rt O c^ ^ K -n o Hot; . -C fa H ffi bO V hr-l . CL) "3 “J o g - fa fa c y o bo ^ c/} 3 K o ^ g TOtjo-^ S 'O !ti 3 3 p 33 o "3 gK fa o u iri :3 . ffi J?0 h S fa S fa o - aj W o E fa ON 46 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station cn 3 '2 o c C8 3 Cl a o c in Ui C be cn • S C 03 V W) 3 •c ^ -3 o U) TD G O . *0 5 ro C a "S a> -■-> (/} c ^ £ ^ o C! C S O o £ — U O . 3 £ Sa « ^“'2 «r . ^ U O 03 ca fa ffi Q •73 . cfl ifi V ^ (/} ffi V fa d ca Q (Ji (Ji OJ ^ >> m 'o 'o "ca > P s 2 B p y 2l o « s 2 S M P 'p ^ P
  • m as k6 1-^ rn Os O O uo rH ro O O O O O O O uo ^ VO lO 1 >. P«: -x •„ c3 03 ly^ V P V S o s >. CP U Oh v: u y x) y ^ -d D -5 y P -O lO aj o X Ph ^ ® 2 ? c »o' 2 i- >- O o HI H-l ^ I ^ ^ c 1 ) -Si S 13 « P }-. W .2 -S :2 "S ^ > .2 > .>< ^ cn n3 V ^ ^ V t; 2 ^ « S .2; ^ CO W oj d (j |<1 Cfl (/3 Q > li9. > o dj U-> 1 — I VO VO CO 00 m % W d . ^ § ^ d <« 03 ^ ^ ^ ^ 03 ^ d c 3 ^ T 3 ^ P: 2 ■“ !£ Jj (U .r ^ C3 ^ a; o 2 ^ Is ^ O w ^ ^ si I 1) V) M C X} SCO) °-:5 e C 73 « cS cS cS O ^ 2 "O ifi w t'J . w fcS c W o V o a be o ‘-' 0 'O Is ^ C 0 ) t:) 4 .: §1 el o & s ^ ’S) £ C “ 8 § « O ^ C o U U (£ 8 (S «> W u V £ t . °1 1h T3 tn ^ g £ u O OJ IT) LO o5 p 99 JUBJBn 0 punoj p^ajuBJRny punoj o o cvj XO O rvj ro O Cvj ro y-i y—i ^ 00 ON 00 ^ og ro 9 jn;sioj^\[ c c c ^ ^ o o O t/) ^ (U , 3 H Pq Ph o o rt Ph U "3 ^ J 3 u be- U c/) V> {/) 'o ‘o 3 3 O' O' _ o o p « ^ ^ tt 3 CQ w o (/) c +r 3 ' —I CM 00 00 Bulletin 327 51 W ’V "Td o o _c M b£ o c C T 1.^ V T3 -? C f rt o h ^ « S o - i/> Td be nj 4) . X3 ’Td S ^ o Td 'X! (U C x< P O (« « -g rt i: oT ^ .^i OJ o £ . ° ^ S s£ 4) •s ? -£ 'c G 4J 5 'o ^ 3 bo 4) ° £ § I 8 £ bo I? — Td p P 4j d: C Si -P cfl 2 Td I W TO c ^ p £ R 41 > P ^ 03 Td ^ £ £ qH &. 4» tn ■ 6 ^ p x: 2 « -p ^ . p « P ^ 8 B .r 6 p: S pL, h *5 ” O Td “d 43 w •“ '4' O LLi . 2 u H ° 2 'rt P u o'-g^ R 5 ^ p Cm -2 O CA) 03 ■p 3 8 OJ tp 'O >. § o „ jf .2 P CJ 3 41 ^ m tn ^ >. p 41 Ll) d-’ o J2 II u 4) bo Ph c “ rt P hJ P O 03 hC ° = ! 2 -P P 43 I’OULTRV FOODS — ( Continued) 52 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station paaiuBJEtiQ punoj[ U5 ^ 3-S ^ c -o , CJ w ^ =" !- rt « OJ > XI o S: £ qs i"? bo 3 o X! O C X U rt ^ 'd X3 a 3 3 3 O O 8| d X . 3 (n X d b> a c e s' d "d ‘5 i) c S c -* o 3^ 4-> • 'n o c X o 'll d ! d 1 to 1 d ^ d i S C/2 n3 j uoj;h4S rl C\J O VO VO CO Bulletin 327 r>.') yr. •— ^ - i! .£ O . 6 .£ ^3 - O 03 (U 03 ^ u (U (U be QJ g sll s ° i) -o J3 D II :3 -- be ^ C be a; o ^ a. a 2 03 03 O C W (/) o3 ^ "Ta 'L) •£ “ £ ^ c - 8 n o 'C 03 03 03 C -3 03 >03-0 " c - ^ ^ « » ’O !/3 •— ^ ■£ rt ff ” s I Slll * ^ c ^1 8-^ e 03 F 03 y E o S ^ U U O O u C !« n to O C be ^ „ "3 "rt '£ 03 - 03 C 03 OS e ^ -M ^ ^ = o ^ ' £ £• O 3 C. 03 OS 03 ' cu 03 S » 03 C C S £ "F 03 is 6 r" 'S ^ — ^ 03 tf ^3 V ^ 6 ^ u ^ u ^ o p ^ ^ o w C 03 o 03 03 03 U 03 OC u O ^ ^ O :3V T . 1) 03 -u S t 11 3 ^ W cS •t; I *1 03 “ 03 03 C .2 ^ j3 rt 03 O "8 ?: 03 be .£ u c 6 u io G 03 K H c/2 CJ -5 ^1 o £ S .£ n <; E 03 E 1- _v O U « Q ‘sS 13 u ° . S ^ ^ M 9 • - o ^ ^ CT3 ;3 pH o rt Ph , J U-) GO POULTRY FOODS — (Continued) 54 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station OS u p33;UBJBn£) n fa punoj; H poa^uBJBn^ 1 fa pUUOj[ Z p33;UBJBnr) | o fa 1 puuoj 1^0 o ^-T 03 ^ ^ ^ T 3 u C 2 G *:• g 03 £ o o - ^ ^ S G o ^ si 'P* 03 GJ C ^ P 5 X! S p P- rt ^- ^ G ,3 tn rt 03 03 ^ o ^ o n — o .« S o c 3 o 'o G "G a . o ,5 ”« +r g 03 » G cn 03 f 111 > 6 'rt -O ? B — o 'a .3 O a a 3Jn;sioj\; u H-: to c. < •: Jdqum\^ uojjB}^ « 3= r ^ c3 ^ o 03 ^ 1-. oS 03 >H 03 i- (U 3 J X |(3§ '6 r° O CJ K V, W) i! 5?S c« 3 i ^ •'2 > o 03 43 O •n « .-I t» Bulletin 327 56 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station o P oj -C w O " hi 2 -o ^ bC c c rt rr? ^ c C ^ o O - g o C . O rt -TI! — t/3 S ° T 3 ^ C O C o ^ , u (j O rt ^ -H g ^ ” 03 C -C 73 O MS E S ^ 2 ^ ^ i; p c« 3 . j; ii o bo £ & i=« s o - ^ C « C (Li "O 'C OS — 'bo S U Fiber I p 331 UEJBn£) 12.63 5.00 7.00 1 5.00 [ 10.00 1 6.00 1 2.25 1 8.00 4.00 10.00 4.00 1 5.65 1 1 8.25 1 ' puno.j 7.13 1.99 8.16 2 . 34 ' 1 4 . 37 ' 1 1 6 . 55 ' 1 1.81 3.29 2.19 7.83 1 2.49 1 6.28 1 7.46 1 iVJ : pooiuBJEnQ 1 5.06 1 3.00 1 3.00 1 3.00 3.00 3.50 3.50 5.00 3.00 5.00 2.50 5.70 4.04 1 punoj 5.42 1 2.82 4 . 00 ' 3.86 4.39 4 . 09 ^ 2.54 5.01 1 3.76 5 . 46 | 2.79 5.52 4.35 1 19.38 12.00 9.00 7.00 10.00 12.00 9.94 16.00 9.00 14.00 9.00 23.00 13.38 1 Protein | poaiuEJBnQ 23.88 10.31 11.94 10.75 12.75 14.69 9.94 17.88 10.44 ^ 16.75 10.81 21.56 11 . 94 | punoj vobOtoONLO'-'OsO r-it^vo a b| JU Q u & J= 'P < X p ,C O 'P i: (u rt <'> . ^ hJ >> c 2 £ m <4 S C 1» 03 .'2 £ >. 'S > pH 03 . .-1 'p _ s' ’”' T! 2 °P^ ^ 5 .p O tn ’P P (u pq a; ^ 2 2 5 J c)} S -o « « 2 o a jaquiriNj uoijEis o o & in bo P P 3 TJ ”0 2 u ^ 'S > ^ c" >» o i: c/} Q Bulletin 327 57 -■ -a bfl T3 h 4) •r ^ ^ C V-» ^ (/i tf) s' tT s“ '2 t-i qj r c O (U o ^ Yx xj i-i u u ^ u £ I be -4 a I « C S c/) ;c ^ bo :§ o ;£ 2 a ^ 43 £ M o 'Ll 2 43 g-^. 8 ?:! 13 43 •“ 2 ^ e S 8 c 43 S J- ^ U o\ O > ^3 in ^ C 13 § § "I ^ " V ^ ^ I S 1 ? e 0 ^ 1 s-| u •S bO G - U ^ CO w o N3 bo C u •So p — o t3 C 'P S3 ^ O t T3 O O ic ^ T3 <1 O ^ O 3 .£ u 33 O o JS ^ u -P A O u . 33 C. < P, >'P) C 3 o •B 5 ^ O S Tl Al - bO "P J3 "P ‘C w . c/2 CA o o — O O CO 00 00 '-' Bulletin 327 59 ■s s U5 73 bD C C 3 3 : O M u cC -3-g OJ C « = o B a S c ^ t/T |i - £ I 8 fl 'O a; C O. c rt rt Ui u *-• o ■“ 55 'j si rt a -w T3 ‘ 5 rt 4> -^,0 4) g 43 to (U ■v g" ^ 4) Vh O 41 O 33 02 4) C S " ” ? 3^ -G O u G G3 g rt CJ IT) S)i£ G ^ •s M c ^ (3 ?*» Td G ^ i- ^ o G 33 o § 60 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station TJ -Td S C o ^ 2 S S ^ c c 03 ^ U , g *=« -d S ^ B - ^ S c 3 o W G ^ S g « j_. o ^ •S c •- ° S 51 ^ nd a G 1-^ S 1 3 2 rt ':3 bC 3 ^ ^ t 3 S i2 c ^ S w _3 ^ , t/T (U bB ■3 "T G • Si G 35 rQ Td Id __ Td T3 13 S c G S +J ' = G bb C -G 2 => o 33 +j OJ G ^ g ^ O ? '2 G C (U ^ B 8 G c' S G G U. G ^ O s rt £ G B O G ^ O ^ S » :2 B £ -•".'GO ° 'Td G 42 i< Td B 6 bo (A o ^ § G . G S'^.'S G G B G2 'Td o G God 4-. i 54 G « G5 -g D G G s SM g 'G £ tf '3 “ s| g - a ^ G G "J .. o gJ <« o ^ O U G nd a BCG S B 0 2 « S w O „ bo 3 S - 42 G ^ - MH rt £ G O O . 0^3 ^ Zx o ^ 2 sN >, 51 _C ^ m 05 £ ? s g i « S bo o o "Td s s si £ 4-> _ O O G O GO. G ^ bo _ "g S 'o td U ^ w "Td bo 05 G G 'P P. G t B o tJ G-i£ G 33 D -G paaiuBJBiiQ punoj; paa^uB-iBUQ puno j; p33;UBJBn0 puno_^ 3Jn?s;oj\r ^ £ f- ./ o ai “ ° s « < u u « Q 3 ^ h Q .ioqiun\[ uoijBJS bo r bo cn LJ .-H O » G ;$ O 2 ; G 73 "G rB t? L/ w bo bo tJ bo G 4-. o cn 2 "o O «5 "tt, G bO S.| £* G £ > 3 fS *£ ' O G .22 ►A o'" D 2 r j Od ^ D . 0 g: 'd 1 P3 fr V ' ) \ T CO <-• _3 £i 0 ; ^ 1 0 i U ^ G ^ ^ £1 . I2J tn g" y G O c ^ ^ B ° £ o o O 55 o ^ ^ B Q B 0*^0 hH ^ b/) c o .S ^ C^ ^ V ^ ^ g ^ 3 'S Q rd Bulletin 327 61 i/i (Tj C W “13 ? bp (U •3.2 e c 3 C c d .c d O. U3 y 5| I rt 'O °.ii a S 13 jj' w Q t 3 C .r) U V O V O . o 0. .-'d J •“ 9 !>e rt t 3 a C3, a i- a ^ eg £ - -3 2 S o e o o ad d a „ - '3 13 C c 'u 8 a ij d a .3 o d r \ kc r ^ ;3 -V d S ^ a fl rd ^ o ° (/) O p, >> ’:;i n •. cv rrH rt H « .S " d d i2 rt S sa v- oj O a! ,y< y 03 d ^'' rt ^ o . 53 d ^ rt O •d >> -53 ^ al ^ T3 u “J \B y> M 8 -w o rt cs I § I" a c o t 3 C oj rt w a -H ' a ^ ^ y u a o d' ^ y -O 3^ d .3 « O o ^ ^ 'g ^ a! •!- ^ a ^ a d ^ ^ u ^ CL . . ii s 13 !3 S o ^ d 8 2 J2 ^ c a o ~ U d y "" i£ ^ M ■I § S 'rt c3 o d ^ u > y 'O (U dC o o o o o i-H VO o in o CO o o o 0 0 o lO o o ON o Ox m ON o o o 0 0 o6 (N CO lO oj ro vd CO VO On fO XTi eva VO o 00 Ov on ON 00 00 o in (M »— ' O t>» 00 CO ON CO Ox ON on on o on on c4 evi o3 ’-^ in oj r-j on on ON on 'B~' lO oT' VO on ""o”“ in o”‘ tl~* o "o o 0”' o~ m CSJ VO to to ON on o on o Ox r-H o o 0 m c4 fO CO oj CO CO oj CO cd cd cd' r- f~ m lO * o Ov on m r-l VO 00 00 CvJ C^ Cv ON m VO Tt- o ■0- ro CO CO oj in CO co CO ro on cd cd O o CO O o 00 in O m o Tf m m o 0 0” u^ o CO o vn 00 o 03 in Tt- on CO o 0 0 00 o o o 00 d> ON ON o o o cd in 0 ,-H »— ' ’— ' T-H »— ' ’-H 00 CN ' o Tf ON o”' o CO VO 00 CO CO ON CO 00 o VO o o VO m CO ,-H VO VO 00 o lO o 00 o o\ O ON r-H on 00 0 ,-H 1—i t-H r-H ,-H r-H VO o CO -1- VO in 00 ,-H rf in CO CO to t 3“ 00 03 CVl ON CO ,-H o on • m VO in ON ,-H r-I CO ON yj( o ,-H o oj oj oj 06 0 ,-H tH r-H Tl! o V > o •y ud d 0 "d -d 13 u:: c S rt c5 u U E o o 5 S C Q X "o td U ^ -d « y u. y, af -S •y W 1^ , ^ 'd y D-i ‘■^ d I .<3” ^■5.« S d •8 S 13 O J CJ eg — . N T ^ I § -n . W E;5 11 ^ iH Pd j- >. 3 a o - o tL, ^ y d ^ -d U ^ w ^ 'd V y li ^ fr-! w -o -O •— , <1; h pa in „ ^ V) ^ C C 'T (U 111 6“ r ^ rt pg ^ d: ^ 1^ e— > 73 . 43 >7 41 Z >1 Jd ^ d "c d ^ y O c/2 •d H _ y "d y > u !t. d rt O T3 Jd e/^ d y 03 Id ^ 62 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station c c n! « ° E ^ feo £ ^ 8 ^ +j cn > ni -w ? a ^ > o x. d; >. d, cr. CTj tf) _ 03 -S O - c o >. m ^ C o C 8 1 •3 3 o yi: 3 3 B 3 r3 T3 'B ^ 3 a O 3 J-i be -3 3 ; I? -•'5-3 l-t 0 3 >> 3 3 1 : 3 tf 8 a & E § . '• *3 2 B 3 “ £ i lilsj ..3 - .. a a 3 3 E 3 a ^ E o §*1 ex ^ ^ rH g o u — be c t 5 . ii - 03 ^ 2* o a q S '3 3 ^ c3 g 3. '£ "q ^ a ^ s T3 -W (U 3 5 2 Of ai £ cu « 3 •- F £ to 3 3^ -3 3 c< 00 punoj^ paajuBJBUQ punoj; paaiuEjenQ to . s ^ p o3 < c/3 CC w b N ^ ^ o » -S o S g-^ P "2 2 -3 "" 'S « I ^ A > pH Bulletin 327 65 ^ "o O 2 4J -X) C 5 bo ii .S nj ^ S' 3 & S a V o C. S'S ~ CS c o nj O 0) I- "S o U s£ i S C ci cj o 2 M G o -G ~ ^ oS (U JH OS ~ «j J3 a S ^ 3 a "S S T-H O l< -d oa • o -d 33 •d U-t o o >. rt o o u-t 03 fo c ^ bo § rt « .a •S 03 *>. 01 33 O) » , 2 33 tS G pq m oa pq S '=1 33 2; O P M P ca ea H Eh r-7 ^ a" >. H . H H — o o o 00 CO 00 66 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station "O 4; S ^ 6 .be bo rt 5 •1 S H «= L 'o ^•5 W -d — _3 ^ bo - n - G O r/) C h <-) 3 W bo C _'• 6 « C "rt O S) ^ c n: — O "Gl . ■d o) rt 'G ^ :> (T. ^ 3 ? O CJ „ o v z r U 5 -d c “ c u rt ro a ° - C 2 rT "G (11 '1 ^ c a. [/5 Fiber | paojuBaBUQ 10.00 1 1 10.00 ' 1 4.00 ' 1 9.17 ' 1 4.00 5.50 1 3.00 ' u.oo ' 1 9.00 < 1 5.00 1 1 8.00 ’ 5.00 < puuoj c^r^ cs ^ooo-i-T-ra a -1-0 ruju-) aD-t-r^in)<- 0 O 00 c: oiA cMbd .GojaiAvoclA cij H < p 33 }UB.IBn[) 1 1 [ 2.50 5.00^ 3.00 5.14 2.56 4.00 1 j 3 . 50 ! i 1 3.50 1 1 4.50 i 2.50 4.50 3.00 1 puno,] 1 1 1 4.22 1 4.00 3 . 65 ' 5.26 2.98 3.56 3.35 4.10 4.88 1 2.81 4 . 48 ' 2.90 Protein I paajuBJBriQ 1 [ 10.00 14 . 00 ^ 1 8.00 i [ 17.25 10.50 10.00 1 10 . 00 | 20 . 00 ; 17.00 1 [ 10.00 1 [ 17.25 1 [ 10.00 punoj[ -ro i-hO o^volo,-loco VO -l-vo OOO r-ir/^t^oovooo mj <■6 A csO olood-ooLoo a 3 jn}sio]Y aio VO CM voooiM^t>.rot^ X xvo Oil-; xcMvoovot^co a txol aoo -itM-ciocio^O Place of Sampling 1 1 Englewood .... 1 Somerville Somerville Passaic Newark Newark Newark . .N. . . . Newark ....... * Great Meadows. Trenton Montclair Montclair 1 jaqiun]^ uoijBJS CTj o . P-H -d ^ t) ,2 o X c 3 C -S ° t-i in ^ O CT; > ii >. t/5 ‘y *-« V G .2 a 'S 73 O a C ^ O cU 1/5 (U C 73 a "S 3 s .2 i>i c 3 i ^ o 0 hA IZ . 1 ^ 73 . 3 ^ Z ^ SJ 'C Bulletin 327 67 68 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station I Fiber | p33;UEJBn0 punoj; j Fat paOJUBJEllQ puaoj; 1 Protein p33;uEaBn0 punoj; 3an;siop\]; jaquxn^sj uoijejs £ S) (U o3 > d h-^ >: o Pa. § uT 73 S Philadelphia, Pa. S529 Berg’s 3 Medal Poultry Meat Pennington . . . 5.93 40.19 40.00 14.96[ 11.00 12.34 Henry Clausen, Teaneck, N. J. 1 S209 6.54 47.19 45.00 19.37] 1 15.00 7.00 Consolidated Dressed Beef Co., Phila., Pa. S047 Consolidated Beef and Bone Scrap. . . . llamden 6.05| 39.94 45.00 15.17] 12.00 12.95 Enterprise Tallow & Grease Co., Phila., Pa. 1 D015 Beef Scrap Mullica Hill . . 9.04 47.81 45.00 12.58] 1 12.00 8.60 The Flavell Co., Asbury Park, N. J. ! 8837 Vim Beef Cracklings Manasquan . . . 7.75 50.00 50.00 13.08115.00 9.98 The Fritz Co., Philadelphia, Pa. ] j 3434 Quaker City Special Brand Meat and 1 1 Bone Scrap . . . . ; Washington . .. 6.07 36.94 40.00 13.80] 10.00 14.13 International Glue Co., Boston, Mass. 1 ] 1 0011 *Red Star Brand Fish Scrap Hammonton . .. 6.66 41.63 45.00 3.06] ' 2.00 17.90 Maurer Mfg. Co., Inc., Elizabeth, N. J. S164 Kwality Meat Scrap Paterson . . 971 lUQ ^8 50.00 16.57 10.00 Q 1 "I Noll and Fisher, Newark, N. J. ' y. 1 »5 8376 Noll and Fisher Meat Scrap German Valley. 8.54 |45.69 48.00 12.44 12.00 11.07 1 Russia Cement Co., Gloucester, Mass. 1 8812 *Chic Chuk .freehold 5.48149.19 50.00 1.19 2.00 17.12 Sharpless & Bro., Camden, N. J. 8030 Royal Poultry Meat and Bone Scrap.. Camden 6.74 [50.19 50.00 14.62 10.00 9.27 M. L. Shoemaker & Co., Ltd., Phila., Pa. 8922 Ground Beef Scrap VToorestown . . . 8.98 [56.25' 55.00 14.39 10.00 5.60 |Sitley & Son, Inc., Camden, N. J. ] 8008 Peerless Prepared Poultry Meat . . . Pamden 5.55 [41.63] |50.00 14.58 14.00 12.65 1 Spratt’s Patent, Ltd., Newark, N. J. 8622 Spratt’s Ground Meat Scrap Vewark 7.27 [48.O6 43.00 11.77 10.00 Q “J 7 John T. Stanley Co., Inc., New York City. 0.0/ 8108 Stanley’s High Protein Meat Scrap.... Fort Lee 9.02 [42.00 45.00 9.68 10.00 9.75 Swift & Co., Harriston Sta., Newark, N. J. 8078 Laymore Meat Scrap Hackensack . . . 6.83 [48.31 45.00 13.00 8.00 11.36 8559 Eureka Meat Scrap Princeton Jet. . 5.57 144.06 55.00 16.13 8.00 11.77 8267 *Digester Tankage or' C.0 CC 7C nrv Q 00 8153 *Poultry Bone Paterson a 44i?i 88 OU.Uu 25.00 o.yz 4.99 6.00 5.00 7.57 Taylor Bros, Camden, N. J. 'T't ^ 1.00 23.62 8053 Special Prepared Poultry Meat ... . Camden 5.71 I4O.44 50.00 16.00 1 14.00 1 '2 AO The Van Iderstine Co., Long Island City, io.uy N. Y. 1 8046 Darling’s High Protein Meat Scrap... Camden 10.12 54.19 55.00 10.97 5.00 7.51 8852 Darling’s Pure Ground Meat Scrap.... Allentown 5.97 147.13 45.00 12.64 5.00 8.12 Average 6.99 [46.58 14.31 9.92 Not included in the average. 70 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station REGISTRATIONS FOR YEAR 1918 The following list gives the names and addresses of the manufac- turers who have registered one or more brands of feeding stuffs that will be offered for sale during the year 1918. The detailed in- formation regarding these brands is not given, but information will be furnished upon request concerning any particular brand that has been registered. A Acme-Evans Co Indianapolis, Ind. Alabama Black Belt Co Montgomery, Ala. Henry Allen Eatontown, N. J. American Agricultural Chemical Co New York City. American Hominy Co Indianapolis, Ind. American Linseed Co New York City. American Maize-Products Co New York City. American Milling Co. . . Peoria, 111. Anderson Grain Co., Inc Buffalo, N. Y. Samuel Anderson Hammonton, N. J. Animal Products Co Philadelphia, Pa. D. C. Apgar Ralston, N. J. J. VV. Apgar Glen Gardner, N. J. Henry R. Applegate Hightstown, N. I. A ready Farms Milling Co Chicago, 111. Archer-Daniels Linseed Co Buffalo, N. Y. Arkadelphia Milling Co Arkadelphia, Ark. Armour Grain Co Chicago, 111. Armstrong N Demarest Lafayette, N. J. Ashcraft-Wilkinson Co Atlanta, Ga. Frank Atherton Grain Co Paterson, N. J. .Atlantic Export Co New York City. .Atlas Feed & Milling Co Peoria, 111. C. C. Avis Woodstown, N. J. B j. J. Badenoch Co Chicago, 111. Franklin Baker Co Brooklyn, N. Y. Dwight M. Baldwin, Jr Minneapolis, Minn. Baldwin, Prince & Co Norfolk, Va. P. Ballantine & Sons Newark, N. J. Baltimore Pearl Hominy Co Baltimore, Aid. Barber Alilling Co Alinneapolis, Alinn. M. F. Baringer Philadelphia, Pa. Barker & Higgins Bernardsville, N. J. W. P. Battle & Co Memphis, Tenn. Baugh & Sons Co Philadelphia, Pa. Bay State Alilling Co Winona, Alinn. H. U. Bean & Co Philadelphia, Pa. Warren Beaty Hackettstown, N. J. Bulletin 327 7 B. M. Beideman Meixhantville, N. T. H. Beidler & Co Philadelphia, Pa. Samuel Bell & Sons Philadelphia, Pa. Belvidere Flouring Mill Co Belvidere, N. J. George B. Benedict Elizabeth, N. J. The Berg Company Philadelphia, Pa. Bernet, Craft & Kauffman Milling Co St. Louis, Mo. Big Diamond Mills Co Minneapolis, Minn. Frank Bird Flemington, N. J. Fred R. Blarney Bloomfield, N. J. Blank & Gottshall Sunbury, Pa. Blatchford’s Calf Meal Factory Waukegan, 111. H. H. Blauvelt Ridgewood, N. J. George Boggs &: Son West Collingswood, N. J J. Bolgiano & Son Baltimore, Md. Boston Molasses Feed Co Boston, Mass. F. R. Boyd Medford, N. J. George E. Brisbin & Co Clyde, N. Y. ' F. W. Erode & Co Memphis, Tenn. Buckeye Cereal Co Massillon, O. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co Cincinnati, O. Buffalo Cereal Co .' Buffalo, N. Y. Burtis, Conine & Son Allentown, N.. J. Bushkill Milling Co Easton, Pa. C L. G. Campbell Milling Co Northfield, Minn. Campbell, Morrell & Co Passaic, N. J. Carpenter & Knight, Inc Morristown, X. J. Carscallen & Cassidy jersey City, N. J. Chapin & Company Chicago, 111. Henry Clausen Teaneck, N. J. Clover Leaf Milling Co Buffalo, N. Y. C. S. Coleman & Co Philadelphia, Pa. Charles Collet Jersey City, N. J. J. S. Collins & Son, Inc Moorestown, N. J. Commander Mill Co Minneapolis, Minn. Commercial Mills & Elevator Plainfield, N. J. The G. E. Conkey Co Cleveland, O. E. W. Conklin & Son, Inc Binghamton, N. Y. J. M. Conor er & Son Bartley, N. J. Consolidated Dressed Beef Co Philadelphia, Pa. Consumers Coal Co Plainfield, N. J. Corn Products Refining Co New York City. Corno Mills Co St. Louis, Mo. George Cox & Sons West Hoboken, N. J. Thomas Craig Buttzville, N. J. Aaron D. Crane Elizabeth, N. J. 72 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station W. A. Crowell & Son Metuchen, N. J, Curtis & Laire Pittstown, N. J. A. C3^phers Compan}^ Newark, N. J. D Darling & Company Chicago, 111. J. G. Davis Company Rochester, N. Y. T. Sanford Davis Greenwich, N. J. S. P. Davis Little Rock, Ark. E. H. Deats Pittstown, N. J. Decker & Simmons i Sussex, N. J. C. C. Dempsey & Co Gloucester City, N. J, Denver Alfalfa Milling & Products Co * Hartman, Colo. Deposit Milling Co Deposit, N. Y. Deutsch & Sickert Co Milwaukee, Wis. Albert Dickinson Co Chicago, 111. Dixie Mills Co East St. Louis, 111. Jacob Dold Packing Co Buffalo, N. Y. The Douglas Company Cedar Rapids, Iowa. N. Drake Newark, N. J. Duluth-Superior Milling Co Duluth, Minn. Ezl. Dunwoody Co Philadelphia, Pa. E Eagle Roller Mill Co New Ulm, Minn. R. D. Eaton Grain & Feed Co Norwich, N. Y. Jonas F. Eby & Son Lancaster, Pa. B. A. Eckhart Milling Co Chicago, 111. Economic Feed Co Peekskill, N. Y. Eldredge & Phillips, Inc Cape May City, N. J. Empire Cotton Oil Co Atlanta, Ga. Empire Grain & Elevator Co Binghamton, N. Y. Enterprise Tallow & Grease Co Philadelphia, Pa. John W. Eshelman Lancaster, Pa. Evans Milling Co Indianapolis, Ind. Everett, Aughenbaugh & Co Waseca, Minn. Ewen Milling Co Alloway, N. J. Excello Feed Milling Co St. Joseph, Mo. F Fairfield Dairy Supply Co Little Falls, N. J. Farmers Feed Co New York City. Felt Bros. & Gage Co Olean, N. Y. Ferger Grain Co Cincinnati, O. 'J'he Flavell Co Asbury Park, N. J. The Fleischmann Co Peekskill, N. Y. Flemington Jet. Cereal & Flour Mills Flemington Jet., N. J. Flemington Milling Co Flemington, N. J. Flory Milling Co Bangor, Pa. Alexander Forbes & Co., Inc Newark, N. J. Bulletin 327 73 George T. Freeman T. D. Fritch & Sons The Fritz Company C. A, Gambrill Manufacturing Co. G James Gardner George F. Geisinger Harry G. Gere Co., Inc Globe Elevator Co. Buffalo, N. Y. Golden Grain Milling Co J. P. Golden & Son Yardville, N. J. Grain Belt Mills Co Grain Products Sales Co D. H. Grandin Milling Co Gross Bros Walter H. Grove J. H. Grover & Son H Hackensack Grain & Hay Co B. T. Haggertv Hales & Edwards Co Dwight E. Hamlin Pittsburgh, Pa. A. L. Hance A. Hanniball, Inc : The Harrison Co Caldwell, N. J. Harrison Milling Co F. D. Hartzel’s Sons Hasselhuhn-Williams Co Haywood Alfalfa Warehouse Co. Hecker-Jones-Jewell Milling Co. . . Buffalo, N. Y. Hecker-Jones-Jewell Milling Co. .. G. C. Higgins & Son Alvin Hill & Son G. F. Hill & Co The H. 0. Company Buffalo, N. Y. I. A. Hoffman & Son Holley & Smith E. Hollingshead Hopkins & Merrell Co Hottelet Company J. A. Howell Howell Sons J. C. Hubinger Bros. Co W. F. Hummer Milford, N. J. Humphreys-Godwin Co J. R. Hunt Hutchinson Bros E. C. Hutchinson Milling Co 74 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station I Ideal Rendering Co North Wales, Pa. Indiana Milling Co Terre Haute, Ind. H. B. Ingersoll Hamburg, N. J. International Glue Co Boston, Mass. International Sugar Feed Co Minneapolis, Minn. J Jamestown Electric Mills W. J. Jennison Co Johnson Bros R. S. Johnson Martin B. Jones & Co Jamestown, N. Y. Minneapolis, Minn. Bridgeton, N. J. Bridgeton, N. J. New York City. K Kasco Mills Edward G. Kaufer Keever Starch Co Spencer Kellogg & Sons, Inc Kelloggs & Miller Kemper Mill & Elevator Co Kirby Bros George FI. Kirby & Son J. C. Klauder Estate John P, Klug Kornfalfa Feed Milling Co Charles A. Krause Milling Co G. Krueger Brewing Co Knestner Bros .Waverley, N. Y. .Fort Lee, N. J. ; Columbus, O. .Buffalo, N. Y. .Amsterdam, N. Y. .Kansas City, Mo. .Medford, N. J. .Allentown, N. J. .Philadelphia, Pa. .New Milford, N. J. .Kansas City, Mo. .Milwaukee, Wis. .Newark, N. J. .Trenton, N. J. L Charles L. Lade Morristown, N. J. Lambert & Kerr Lambertville, N. J. Lancaster Mill & Elevator Co Lancaster, Pa. Lanier Bros Nashville, Tenn. J. P. Larison Washington, N. J. Larrowe Milling Co Detroit, Mich. Lea Milling Co Wilmington, Del. Frank LeBar Stroudsburg, Pa. E. K. Lemont & Son Philadelphia, Pa. C. H. Leonard Co Boonton, N. J. John C. Liken & Co Sebewaing, Mich. Listman Mill Co LaCrosse, Wis. Little & Wilson Pittstown, N. J. Long Dock Mills Jersey City, N. J. Lunger Grain & Elevator Co Netcong, N. J. Lyle & Lyle Huntsville, Ala. Bulletin 327 75 M G. G. MacPherson Lebanon, N. J. Mann & Allshouse Easton, Pa. Mann Bros Co Buffalo, N. Y. The Manning Co Sussex, N. J. Maritime Trading Corporation New York City. Martenis Bros New York City. D. B. Martin Co Philadelphia, Pa. Maurer Manufacturing Co., Inc Newark, N. J. Mauser & Cressm'an Catasauqua, Pa. Mauser Mill Co Treichlers, Pa. McMurtrie Milling Co Belvidere, N. J. Meader-Atlas Co New York City. Clifford Mehrhof, Inc Ridgefield, N. J. Memphis Cotton Hull & Fiber Co., Ltd Memphis, Tenn. Mercer Milling Co Wilburtha, N. J. Merchants Wholesale Grocery Co Philadelphia, Pa. Meridian Grain & Elevator Co Meridian, Miss. Messier & Shannon Blairstown, N. J. Metropolitan Mills New York City. Metzger Seed & Oil Co Toledo, O. Meyer & DeVogel ; Paterson, N. J. Midland Linseed Products Co Minneapolis, Minn. Midland Milling Co Kansas City, Mo. Millbourne Mills : Philadelphia, Pa. H. N. Miller Peapack, N. J. V. T. Miller Manasquan, N. J. Millville Flour & Grain Co Millville, N. J. Miner-Hillard Milling Co Wilkesbarre, Pa. C. P. Mohrfeld Collingswood, N. J. C. L. Montgomery & Co Memphis, Tenn. George Q. Moon & Co Binghamton, N. Y. Alystic Milling & Feed Co Rochester, N. Y. N National Feed Co St. Louis, Mo. National Oats Co St. Louis, Mo. Neighbor & Son Calif on, N. J. K. & E. Neumond St. Louis, Mo. Neustadt & Co New York City. Nischwitz & Son Plainfield, N. J. Noblesville Milling Co Noblesville, Ind. Noll & Fischer Newark, N. J. Northwestern Consolidated Milling Co Minneaipolis, Minn. Northwestern Elevator & Mill Co Toledo, O. W. C. Nothern Little Rock, Ark. Nowak Milling Corporation Buffalo, N. Y. Nucoa Butter Co Bayonne, N. J. Jesse H. Nunn Bartley, N. J. 76 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station O Peter O’Blenis Paterson, N. J. R. J. O’Brien & Bros Co Passaic, N. J. Oil Seeds Co Bayonne, N. J. O. K. Company New York City. Omaha Alfalfa Milling Co Omaha, Neb. Oradell Flour, Feed & Grain Co Oradell, N. J. Charles C. Ort Hackettstown, N. J. P Park & Pollard Co Boston, Mass. Patent Cereals Co .Geneva, N. Y. Penn Grains & Feed Co Philadelphia, Pa. Penwell Mills, Inc Port Murray, N. J. M. C. Peters Mill Co Omaha, Neb. Phelps & Sibley Co Cuba, N. Y. Philadelphia Seed Co., Inc Philadelphia, Pa. Piel Bros. Starch Co Indianapolis, Ind. H. L. Pierson Estate Maplewood, N. J. Pillsbury Flour Mills Co Minneapolis, Minn. Poe Cottonseed Products Co Memphis, Tenn. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co St. Louis, Mo. Prairie State Milling Co Chicago, 111. Pratt Food Co Philadelphia, Pa. Proctor & Gamble Distributing Co Cincinnati, O. William V. Pulis Campgaw, N. J. Purity Oats Co Davenport, Iowa. Q * Quaker City Flour Mills Co Philadelphia, Pa. Quaker Oats Co Chicago, 111. R Ralston-Purina Co St. Louis, Mo. M. G. Rankin & Co Milwaukee, Wis. Red Wing Milling Co Red Wing, Minn. Reece & Greenly Millville, Pa. C. A. & T. P. Reed Pennington, N. J. F. I. Reger Somerville, N. J. William D. Reger White House, N. J. Robert A. Reichard Allentown, Pa. John M. Reuter & Co Elizabeth, N. J. George Richards Co Dover, N. J. John L. Riegel & Son Riegelsville, N. J. Riverside Milling & Coal Co Riverside, N. J. George B. Robinson, Jr New York City. A. S. Rockafellow Flemington, N. J. Rockhill & Fowler Haddonfield, N. T. Rosekrans-Snyder Co Philadelphia, Pa. Bulletin 327 Russell-Miller Milling Co Russia Cement Co Ryde & Company Minneapolis, Minn. Gloucester, Mass. Chicago, 111. S Saeger Milling Co St. Mary’s Mill Co Wm. G Scarlett & Co S. F. Scattergood & Co Chas. Schaefer & Son W. Schlesinger Nicholas Scholl B. F. Schwartz & Co., Inc S. Alfred Seely Co Shane Bros. & Wilson Co Sharpless & Bro Sheffield-King Milling Co Sherwin-Williams Co S. A. Shillinger The Shoemaker Co M. L. Shoemaker & Co., Inc M. W. Simonson Co Simpson, Hendee & Co S. Sindle & Son Sitley & Son, Inc S. Smedley & Son J. C. Smith & Wallace Co J. W. Smith & Sons Newell N. Smith Smith, Parry & Co C. H. Bnyder & Son Somers & Co J. E. Soper Co T. C. Souder & Son South Branch Mill South Jersey Farmers Exchange .... Southwestern Milling Co Sparks Milling Co Spratt’s Patent (Am.) Ltd A. E. Staley Mfg. Co Stamets & Pursel : Stanard-Tilton Milling Co John T. Stanley Co., Inc Star & Crescent Milling Co J. & A. Steinberg Co Bernhard Stern & Sons, Inc S. A. Stewart Zebulon V. Stillwell .Allentown, Pa. . St. Mary, Mo. .Baltimore, Md. .Philadelphia, Pa. .Brooklyn, N. Y. • New Brunswick, N. J • Newark, N. J. .New York City. . Spencer, N. Y. .Minneapolis, Minn. .Camden, N. J. Minneapolis, Minn. .Cleveland, O. . Stewartsville, N. J. .Oakwood, N. Y. . Philadelphia, Pa. .Newark, N. J. .New York City. .Little Falls, N. J. • Camden, N. J. .Glassboro, N. J. .Newark, N. J. .Stockton, N. J. • West Orange, N. J. .Milwaukee, Wis. .Freehold, N. J. . San Francisco, Calif. .Boston, Mass. .Millville, N, J. .South Branch, N. J. .Woodstown, N. J. .Kansas City, Mo. .Alton, 111. .Newark, N. J. .Decatur, 111. .Phillipsburg, N. J. .St. Louis, Mo. .New York City. .Chicago, 111. .Passaic, N. J. .Alilwaukee, Wis. .Woodbury, N. J. .Villa Park, N. J. 77 78 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Wilbert Stires Bridgeville, N. J. Stonaker & Casey Jamesburg, N. J. I. S. Stover Philadelphia, Pa. Suffern-Hunt Mills Decatur, 111. The Sugarine Co Peoria, 111. W. W. Supplee Hampton, N. J. Swift & Co Chicago, 111. Syracuse Rendering Co Syracuse, N. Y. T Taylor Bros Camden, N. J. Terhune’s Poultry Supply & Feed Co. . . .' Hackensack, N. J. Thatcher & Barnum Hoboken, N. J. W. & W. E. Thomas Milford, N. J. A. Thompson & Co. Trenton, N. J. Nelson Thompson & Co Kingston, N. J. Thompson & Mould Goshen, N. Y. J. A. Tiger Calif on, N. J. William N. Tilton Leonia, N. J. Tioga Mill & Elevator Co Waverly, N. Y. Toledo Elevator Indianapolis, Ind. Turnerville Roller Mills Sewell, N. J. Joseph F. Tuttle Rockaway, N. J. U Ubiko Milling Co Cincinnati, O. Union Grain Co Plainfield, N. J. Union Seed & Fertilizer Co New York City. George Urban Milling Co Buffalo, N. Y. V A. J. Van Den Berg North Paterson, N. J. The Van Iderstine Co Long Island City, N. Y Frank M. Van Ness Towaco, N. J. Virginia Feed & Milling Corporation Alexandria, Va. William S. Vroom Somerville, N. J. E. J. Vusler Hope, N. J. W C. W. Wagar & Co Philadelphia, Pa. L. R. Wallace Middletown, N. Y. Walters Milling Co Philadelphia, Pa. Walton Bros Philadelphia, Pa. Wannemacher & Weis Co Passaic, N. J. Washburn-Crosby Co Minneapolis, Minn. Wash-Co Alfalfa Milling Co Fort Calhoun, Neb. J. F. Weinmann Milling Co Little Rock, Ark. Otto Weiss Milling Co Wichita, Kan. Henry G. Werner Deans, N. J. Bulletin 327 79 Western Grain Products Co Hammond, Ind. Western Grains & Feed Co Chicago, III. Westwood Feed Co Westwood, N. J. Fred D. Wikoff Co Red Bank, N. J. Wilkinson, Gaddis & Co Newark, N. J. Frank C. Williams Easton, Pa. G. Z. Williams Great Meadows, N. J. Burt H. Winchester, Inc Newark, N. J. Jacob S. Wiseburn & Son Stephensburg, N. J. Wolff Bros Paterson, N. J. George A. Woodward Cookstown, N. J. S. C. Woolman & Co Philadelphia, Pa. D. R. Worman Frenchtown, N. J. Vernon Wortman Pottersville, N. J. J. M. Wyckoff East Stroudsburg, Pa. Jacob R. Wyckoff Princeton Jet., N. J. M. G. & A. P. Wyckoff Co Manasquan, N. J. Wm. H. H. Wyckoff Co Somerville, N. J. Y Yerxa, Andrews & Thurston, Inc Minneapolis, Minn. George O. Young Andover, N. J. V, - -''"Vy, ’'/■’'ll .5 Qlj New Jersey mau f i I , Agricultural Experiment Stations BULLETIN 328 Sprayed Unsprayed Effect of proper spraying SOME IMPORTANT ORCHARD PLANT LICE New Brunswick, N. J. NEW JERSEY AQRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS* NEW BRUNSWICK. N. J. STATE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1880. BOARD OF MANAGERS. His Excellency WALTER E. EDGE, LL.D Trenton, Governor of the State of New Jersey. W. H. S. DEMAREST, D.D New Brunswick, President of the State Agricultural College. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D Professor of Agriculture of the State Agricultural College. County Name Atlantic William A. Blair Bergen Arthur Lozier Burlington R. R. Lippincott Camden Ephraim T. Gill Cape May Charles Vanaman Cumberland Charles F. Seabrook Essex Zenos G. Crane Gloucester AA'ilbur Beckett Hudson Diedrich Bahrenburg Hunterdon Egbert T. Bush Mercer Josiah T. Allinson Address Elwood Ridgewood Vincentown Haddonfield Dias Creek Bridgeton Caldwell Swedesboro Union Hill Stockton Yardville County Middlesex Monmouth Morris Ocean Passaic Salem Somerset Sussex Union Warren Name James Neilson William H. Reid John C. Welsh Joseph Sapp Isaac A. Serven Charles R. Hires Joseph Larocque Robert V. Armstrong John Z. Hatfield James 1. Cooke Address New Bruns’k Tennent Ger’n \ alley Tuckerton Clifton Salem Bernardsville Augusta Scotch Plains Delaware STAFF. Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D... Frank G. Helyar, B.Sc. . Irving E. Quackenboss. . Carl R. Woodward, B.Sc Hazel H. Moran Frank App, B.Sc Agronomist. I Irving L. Owen, B.Sc. . .Associate Agronomist. J. Marshall LIunter, B.Sc., Animal Husbandman. Charles S. Cathcart, M.Sc Chemist. Ralph L. Willis, B.Sc Assistant Chemist. Archie C. Wark Laboratory Assistant. W. Andrew Cray Sampler and Assistant. Harry C. McLean, Ph.D .. C hemist Soil Res’h. William M. Regan, A.M .. Dairy Husbandman. WiLLES B. Combs, A.M., Assistant Dairy Husbandman Thomas J. FIEadlee, Ph.D Entomologist. Chas. S. Beckwith, B.Sc., Asst. Entomologist. Mitchell Carroll, B.Sc., Asst. Entomologist. Maurice A. Blake, B.Sc Horticulturist. Director. Associate in Station Administration. Chief Clerk, Secretary and Treasurer. Editor. Assistant Librarian. Vincent J. BreazEale, Foreman, Vegetable Growing. Charles H. Connors, B.Sc., Assistant in Experimental Horticulture. Arthur J. Farley, B.Sc., Sipecialist in Fruit Studies. William SchieferstiHn, ..Orchard Foreman. Lyman G. Schermihihorn, B.Sc., Specialist in Vegetable Studies. IT. M. Biekart Florist. Harry R. Lewis, M.AGr., Poultry Husbandman. Ralston R. Hanna-', B.Sc., Assistant in Poultry Research. Morris Siegel Poultry Foreman. El.mEr H. WEnE Poultry Foreman. John P. Helyap, M.Sc Seed Analyst. Jessie G. Fiske, Ph.B . . . . Asst. Seed Analyst. AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1888. BOARD OF CONTROL. The Board of Trustees of Rutgers College in New Jersey. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD. W. H. S. DEMAREST, D.D., President of Rutgers College, Chairman New' Brunswick. WILLIAM I-I. LEUPP New Brunswick. JAMES NEILSON New Brunswick. WILLIAM S. MYERS New York City. JOSEPH S. FRELINGHUYSEN, Raritan. J. AMORY HASKELL, Red Bank. STAFF. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D HENRY P. SCHNEEWEISS, A.B. Byron D. Halsted, Sc.D Botanist. John W. Shive, Ph.D .... Plant Physiologist. Earle j. Owen, M.Sc. .. .Assistant in Botany. Frederick W. Roberts, A.M., Assistant in Plant Breeding. Mathilde Groth Laboratory Aid. Thomas J. Headlee, Ph.D Entomologist. Alvah Peterson, Ph.D Asst. Entomologist. Director. Chief Clerk. Augusta E. Meske. ... Stenographer and Clerk. Melville T. Cook, Ph.D .... Plant Pathologist. Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D., Soil Chemist and Bacteriologist. Augustine W. Blair, A.M., .Associate Soil Chemist. Cyrus WitmEr. Field and Laboratory Assistant. Staff list reviseil to June 30, 1918. NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ORGANIZED 1912 AND NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE DIVISION OF EXTENSION IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS ORGANIZED 1914 Alva Agee, M.Sc., Director and State Superin- tendent of County Demonstration. Frank App, E.Sc., Acting State Leader of Farm Demonstration.. VActor G. Aubry, B.Sc., Specialist, Poultry Husbandry. John \V. Bartlett, B.Sc., Specialist, Dairy Husbandry. RoscoE W. DeBaun, B.Sc., Specialist, Market Gardening. J. B. R. Dickey, B.Sc., Specialist, Soil Fertility and Agronomy. William B. Duryee, B.Sc., Specialist, Farm Management. Marjory Eells, D.S., Home Demonstration Agent. Edna Gulick, Home Demonstration Agent. William FI. FIamilton, B.Sc., Assistant State Leader of County Demonstration. M. Anna Hauser, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Leader. Arthur M. Hulbert, State Leader of Boys’ and Girls’ Club Work. Sara T. Jackson, B.S., Assistant State Club Leader. Nelle Johnson, M.A., Assistant Home Dem- onstration Leader. Ethel Jones, M.A., Asst. State Club Leader. William F. Knowles, A.B., Assistant State Club Leader. William M. McIntyre, Assistant Specialist, Fruit Growing. Helen E. Minch, Specialist, Home Economics. Charles H. Nissley, B.Sc., Specialist, Fruit and Vegetable Growing. Carl R. Woodward, B.Sc., Editor. Paul B. Bennetch, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Sussex County. Frank A. Carroll, Demonstrator for Mercer County. Elwood L. Chase, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Gloucester County. Bertha Cold, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Jersey City. Louis A. Cooley, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Ocean County. Herbert R. Cox, M.S.A., Demonstration Ageni for Camden County. Josephine C. Cramer, Home Demonstration Agent for Middlesex County. Lee W. Crittenden, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Middlesex County. Ellwood Douglass, Demonstrator for Mon- mouth County. Irvin T. Francis, A.B., Demonstration Agent for Essex County. Harry C. Haines, Demonstration Agent foi Somerset County. Margaret H. Hartnett, Home Demonstration Agent for Paterson. William A. Houston, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Sussex County. Lauretta P. James, B.Sc., Home Demonstra- tion Agent for Mercer County. Philip F. Keil, Demonstration Agent for Bur- lington County. Harvey S. Lippincott, B.Agr., Demonstrator for Morris County. L- F. Merrill, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Ber- gen County. .Vdelia F. Noble, Flome Demonstration Agent for Princeton. Warren W. Oley, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Cumberland County. Ethel Osmond, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent. I.ENA R. Pierce, B.Sc., Home Demonstration *\.gent for Trenton. Regine Porges, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Passaic. Caroline R. Simons, Home Demonstration Agent for Camden. James A. Stackhouse, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Cape May County. Eunice Straw, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Monmouth County. Walter C. Vail, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Salem County. Louisa VanuxEm, Home Demonstration Agent for Newark. NorinE Webster, Home Demonstration Agent for Bayonne. Harold E. WettyEn, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Passaic County. Carolyn F. Wetzel, Home Demonstration Agent for Bergen County. Albert E. Wilkinson, M.Agr., Demonstration Agent for Atlantic County. CONTENTS page Introduction 5 Recognition Marks 6 Nature and Extent of Injury 8 Life History and Habits 10 Control 13 Determining Whether Control Measures are Necessary 13 The Problem 13 Destroying the Aphis in the Fall 14 Destroying the Aphis in the Egg Stage 14 Destroying the Aphis in the Spring and Summer 15 Conclusions 26 ILLUSTRATIONS Effect of proper spraying Cover Fig. I. First stage of the green, the rosy and the oat aphis 6 Fig. 2. Injury to foliage 8 Fig. 3. Injury to fruit 9 Fig. 4. Trees not properly sprayed for aphis 22 Fig. 5. Trees properly sprayed for aphis 23 Fig. 6. Stages in bud development 25 (4) r New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Stations BULLETIN 328 FEBRUARY 15, 1918 Some Important Orchard Plant Lice BY Thomas J. Headbee, Ph.D. In ivintcr, small (1/30 of an inch long) sJiining-hlack oval eggs on the roughened places or close to the buds of the small tender twigs of the apple tree; in spring and early summer, small variously colored lice congregated on the undersides of the leaves causing them to curl up, die, and fall off, dzoarfng the fruit and sometimes ruining the crop. Introduction Four species of plant lice are usually listed as commonly attacking the foliage and to some extent the fruit of the apple tree. All winter in the egg stage on the smaller branches and twigs of the trees. All hatch from the eggs and develop one or more generations on the tree. All except one — the green apple aphis — migrate from the apple to other plants. All return to the apple either the first or second fall following and lay the over-wintering eggs. The species concerned are the green apple aphis (Aphis pomi DeG. ), the rosy apple aphis (Aphis sorbi Kalt. ), the oat aphis (Siphocoryne avence Fab.) and the clover aphis (Aphis bakcri Cowsen). In New Jersey the clover aphis has not l)een recorded. Until two years ago the green apple aphis was the only species re- garded as a pest. In the season of IQ15 the rosy apple aphis appeared in large numliers in almost all parts of the state and ( 5 ) 6 BuixKTin 328 did much damage. The failure of the usual methods of aphis control when this species appeared necessitated a study of the problem! , and in the follovx ing account it is attempted to set forth the most important of the results obtained. Recognition Marks The stage in which the aphis is found throughout the winter and early spring is a small shining-black egg fastened to the hark of the twigs and smaller branches. They are likely to be laid on the tender ends of water sprouts, in the depressions about bud and pruning scars, or partly or completely inserted between die buds and the stem. The eggs of green apple aphis have in our experience been more commonly found on the water sprouts than those of either of the other species. Fig. I. First stage of the green, the rosy and the oat aphis (After Parrott, Hodgkiss and Lathrop) The newly-hatched lice of the green, the rosy, and the oat a])his are very small, dark-green in color and look much alike. Ikirroit, Hodgekiss, and Lathrop^ have discovered differences by which one species may lie told from another, and Dr. Alvah Peterson has found that the characters cited by them hold for New Jersey conditions. 'Phe length of the antemux, or feelers, and the size and shape of the cornicles, or honey tubes, are the points that we have found most useful in distinguishing the different species. As these young develop into wingless stem-mothers, their characteristic differences become so distinct that recognition of Nk'in-olt, P. 1 ., Hodgekiss, H. E., and T.athrop, F. H., 1917. Plant lice injurious to api)lc orchards. IT. vSlndics on control of newly-hatchcd aphides. X. Y. (Oeneva) Agr. Exp. Sta. Rnl. 431. Table of Distinguishing Characters 7 SoMK Important Orchard Plant Lick T3 (U & be - X! x: 3 CO > P P 0 / "O C/) c 03 C/3 C- x: 3 "5 >< ^ c/3 ^ ~ >> OJ ’S 5 c S o CJ u 0 ^ C3 u O S O o s 1 m 1 h4 >. ^ be 1 Cf) O C -TU O o c. M i- ^ povv rs ^ 2 c 1 1 1 ^ I p .L V c/3 bJ) ^ X5 hr-'-' tX Cjb p E o OM-I u .3 ^ h/l "*“* Antenna reachinj only le pair than t shorter second ; at tip -caching sase of '3'C (n 'O o ^'S gs^g go| o xn h4 I P o V- bj (l> •3 •£ ^c« TU a cc: 03 . 0 o o X 8 Bulletin 328 the species l)ecomes eas}^ The adult stem-mother of the oat aphis is pale yellowish green, with a darker streak along the mid- dle line of the back, while that of the green apple aphis is bright green, and that of the rosy aphis has a slaty cast and is covered with powder. Nature and Extent oe Injury As soon as each species hatches from the egg it attacks such of the young unfolding foliage as may be out. It works its mouth parts through the rind of the plant and sucks out the sap. As the flower buds are exposed by the development of the tree, they in turn are attacked. Fig. 2. Injury to foliage d'he wounding of the tissue and the withdrawal of sap upsets the rate of growth of the part attacked in such a fashion as to cause curling of foliage and distortion of the fruit. The activity of the oat a])his causes little curling of the foliage, and as the second brood develops wings and leaves the tree by the time the fruit has well set, the trouble is soon past. To what extent the feeding on the buds and llower clusters may so weaken them as to prevent .setting, we do not know, but it is possible that such an injury takes place. SomK Important Orchard Plant Lick 9 The green apple aphis, like the preceding species, causes little curling of the foliage at the beginning of the season. Later its activity results in the most pronounced curling. The rosy apple aphis, on the other hand, produces much curl- ing of the foliage, probably because it devotes its attention more exclusively to the leaves. Both the green apple aphis and the rosy, especially the latter, have done very serious injury to fruit, causing it to be knotted and gnarled and never to reach a salable size. Recently it has been shown that plant lice can and do spread hre blight.- It is thought that such of them as hatch from eggs which were laid in blight cankers may carry the blight germ to other parts of the tree. Fig. 3. Injury to fruit The extent of the injury depends upon the abundance of the lice. When very plentiful the tree may be almost defoliated and the crop utterly ruined. In 1915 the injury was general throughout the state and orchards everywhere showed the work of plant lice. The season of 1916 showed a smaller amount of * Merrill, J. H., 1917. Further data on the relation of aphides and fire blight (Bacillius ainylororus) . In Jour. Econ. Ent., v. 10, p. 45-47. lO Bulletin 328 injury, and there was an epidemic of fire l)light. As seen by the writer, there is no necessary connection between the epidemic and the aphis, because the aphis was worse in 1915 and 1917 than in 1916, while the fire blight was limited in these two years. In 1915 Mr. John Barclay, of Cranbury, estimated the damage done his orchard by apple aphis at $40 an acre. This occurred in spite of the practice of what was then thought to be careful spraying for the insects. Life History and Habits All species pass the winter in the egg stage attached to the bark of the twigs and smaller branches of the trees. The green apple aphis appears to be partial to water sprouts, while the eggs of the other species are likely to be found in depressions about pruning, bud and fruit scars, or thrust almost or quite out of sight between the bud and stem. The oat aphis was the first species to hatch at New Brunswick and vicinity in the spring of 1917. They were discovered on the buds on March 31. Then (about April 12 to 14) came the rosy aphis and green apple aphis almost coincidently. The dif- ference in the time of hatching of the first two species was suf- ficiently great for the oat aphis to have hatched and reached the buds, and to have been destroyed by insecticides, while the rosy, at that time in the egg stage, hatched later and seriously dam- aged the foliage. The oat aphis reached the buds as they were swelling and before any leaves were yet projecting, while the rosy came on only after the tiny leaves were projecting from forward buds like squirrel ears. The rosy aphis hatched at the same stage of bud development as in 1916. Inasmuch as the experience rela- tive to time when the rosy aphis hatches differs in different parts of the country, the writer will quote from his notes in 1916: “Early in the forenoon Mr. Barclay called me over the telephone and told me that the aphis began emerging in his orchard in enormous numbers on the preceding afternoon (April 15, 1916). The day was clear and warm and the personal examination, which I made later in the morning, showed aphis present every- where in large numbers. Nearly every flower bud on unsprayed trees showed at least one-half dozen specimens, while the buds on trees treated with ‘Scalecide’ or with winter-strength lime-sulfur in dormancy rarely exhibited more than one specimen to the bud. * * At this time the most advanced cluster buds showed the first green leaves separating from the cluster, and the young leaves projecting from the opening buds like squirrel ears were SoAiK Important Orchard Plant Lick ii very common everywhere throughout the orchard.’’ It is thus seen that for two years in the Barclay orchard, the rosy aphis hatched after the leaves began to emerge from the buds and at a time when shelter from spraying materials could be had. The second generation of the oat aphis developes wings and migrates from the apple to various grasses (species of Poo). Here they breed throughout the summer. It is thought that they pass the winter on grains and grasses and do not return to the apple until the second fall. At any rate, in the fall (late September or early October) winged forms of this species begin to appear on the apple, males and females are produced, and fertilized eggs are laid on the tree. Egg-laying may continue until December. The species may be found laying eggs on pear, quince, haw- thorne, and plum trees. The third generation of the rosy aphis is winged and migrates from the trees al 30 ut the middle of June to plantains, where it remains throughout the summer, returning to the apple in late October and early November. Males and females are produced by the returned migrants and fertilized eggs are laid to pass the winter. The green apple aphis lives on the apple, pear, quince, and hawthorne, especially the first, throughout the summer. The winged forms seem merely to spread the species to other parts of the tree or to other trees. In the fall (October) males and females are produced and fertilized eggs are laid for winter. \Vhen the eggs are first laid they are yellowish in color and gradually become darker until they assume the normal shining black appearance. It thus appears that the apple suffers from the oat and the rosy aphis during the early stages of fruit production only ; the former leaving when the apples are just well set and the other in June. The green aphis, on the other hand, is on the trees continuously throughout the season. ‘ Perhaps the most puzzling phase of the aphis problem is the fact that the plant lice are bad one year and hardly noticeable the next. The explanation for this puzzle appears to lie in the effect of the weather upon the aphids and their natural enemies. The natural enemies of apple plant lice may be placed in two general groups — the parasitic enemies, which usually lay their eggs inside the body of the aphid, from which comes a grub that eventually destroyes the aphid, and the predaceous enemies, that attack, kill and consume the lice. The principal members of the first group belong to the Hynicnoptcra, or the group of bees, ants and wasps. These parasitic forms are usually very small and very greatly influenced by weather conditions; 12 Bulletin 328 The elements of climate which, because of their large varia- tions, influence insect life to a great extent, are temperature and moisture, especially the former. It is therefore, to be expected that if weather has anything to do with the matter, temperature and moisture must be playing a large part. Perhaps the influence of these factors upon the relation existing between the plant lice and their natural enemies has been best illustrated by a study of Lysiphelbus tritici, a small hymenopterous (the order which in- cludes the bees, ants and wasps) parasite of Toxoptera grami- num, one of the most injurioiis of the plant lice attacking wheat and’ oats. Under a constant temperature of 50° F. and an atmospheric moisture ranging from 75 to 100 per cent, 43 days were required for the parasite to develop from egg to adult. Furthermore, at this temperature, the number of healthy young produced is gieatly reduced, in fact the insect hardly reproduces itself. On the other hand, under a temperature of 50° F. and the same atmospheric moisture the louse requires 24 days from birth to maturity and reproduces, once that stage has been reached, nearly one young a day for 27 days. At a temperature of 70° F. the parasite can complete its life cycle in 10 days, and the average number of young ones from a single pair of parents amounts to 56. This means that in one month the offspring of a single pair would be more than 46,000. On the other hand, at a temperature of 70° F. the louse reaches maturity in 9 days and produces in the 1 1 days following about 29 young. At this rate in one month a single louse would pro- duce less than 14,000 young. It is thus seen that while with a low temperature the lice can carry on their activities practically unhindered by the parasite, the advent of high temperature is likely to be followed by their destruction bv reason of the greater reproductive power of the parasite. The studies of the effect of moisture are extremely limited, but such evidence as has been collected indicates that so long as the atmosphere is not too dry to prevent the vigor of the food plant and not wet enough to encourage the attack of parasitic fungi, variations in atmospheric moisture have little effect upon either the louse or its parasite. No studies have been made to show the effect of climate upon the predaceous enemies, fl'he lady-])ird beetles and their larvie are the only inqiortant forms that attack the lice under low temperatures and they are only rarely sufficiently abundant to ])revent an outl)reak. SoiMK Important Orchard Plant Lick 13 In summing up the meager knowledge at hand relative to the effect of climatic conditions on the abundance of plant lice, we may say that a late cool spring is likely to show a serious attack of these insects, while an early warm one is likely to show few of them. On the other hand, it is quite possible that a late cool spring might not be accompanied by a plant louse outbreak be- cause of the destructive effect of a late low temperature, or the activity of lady-bird beetles, or still other agencies less well understood. It is also ciuite possible that an early warm spring might be accompanied by a plant louse pest by reason of an earlier reduc- tion of the parasite. Control Determining Whether Control Measures Are Necessary In view of the facts just presented showing the uncertainties of aphis outbreak, the first problem of the grower is to determine whether the conditions in his orchard render control measures necessary. If, as spring approaches, the water sprouts, twigs and smaller branches bear no aphis eggs, treatment for lice is un- necessary, for there will not be sufficient migration from ad- jacent orchards to create an infestation in the first half of the season. If, on the other hand, as spring approaches, aphis eggs are present on the water sprouts, twigs and smaller branches, treatments should be made as a matter of insurance against damage. The small black eggs are rather inconspicuous and sharp eyes are required to find the first ones. After the grower has become familiar with their appearance he can pick them out without difficulty. The Problem When the eggs are present the problem of controlling the various species of apple aphis appears to involve the destruction of the specimens on the trees l^efore they have a chance to do the damage to fruit and foliage. The aphis appears on the trees in the fall (October and November), and eggs laid by them carry over the winter until l)ud-opening time. The aphis must be attacked just before or during egg-laying in the fall, or while still in the form of the egg resting on the bark of the tree, or in the spring as a nymph that has just hatched. 14 Bulletin 328 Destroying the Aphis in the Fall In the fall the return of the aphis usually covers a considerable period. In the late fall shining black eggs, immature yellowish eggs and adult aphids are found on the same twig. Anything short of several sprayings would seem to be doomed to failure as a method of control. Destroying the Aphis in the Egg S^tage Throughout the winter and early spring the eggs remain on the tree, open to attack, and this .would seem to be the logical time to compass their destruction. Many efforts have been made to find a substance which would destroy the aphis egg, not harm the tree, and sell for a price that would not prohibit its use. It can truthfully be said that up to the present time no such sub- stance has been given to the public. During the winter and spring of 1917, Dr. Peterson made a preliminary study of the egg and of the effects of certain chemicals upon it. He found that the egg envelope exhibits at least two layers — an outer semi-transparent brittle envelope ( glu- tinous when the egg is first deposited ) and an inner pigmented elastic membrane. A third layer may be seen as the nymph hatches, but this is probably the first-cast skin of the nymph. The outer layer appears to exercise a protective function, resisting strains and stresses and retarding evaporation of the l)ody fiuids. The fact that this transparent layer encloses the pigmented layer leads one to suspect that, like the jelly on a frog’s egg, it may keep the egg warm by transmitting the sun’s rays and retaining the heat into which they are transformed by the pigment. Sometime before hatching, the period ranging from two to thirty days, the outer layer splits along the median line, exposing the ])igmented layer, and the egg is thereafter very sensitive to weather ( dry air particularly ) and insecticides. Tn the course of his experiments. Dr. Peterson found that the eggs were strongly affected by carbolic acid and by winter- strength lime-sulfur. He found that the carbolic acid appeared to soften the outer brittle layer in such a fashion that the egg soon shriveled, while the lime-sulfur appeared to harden it and to i)revent hatching. Table I, taken from Dr. lAterson’s work, will serve to show the effect of our common sprays upon the eggs and to indicate some substances worthy of further trial. The table is the sum- mary of a large series of exi)eriments. The ipercentage killed is Some Important Orchard Peant Lick 15 determined on the assumption that only that percentage of the total number would hatch which did hatch in the lots laid aside as checks and not treated with any substance in any way. Table I effect of sprays on aphis eggs Proportion Killed Materials U sed cent Lime-sulfur, 1-8 or 1-9 85-100 Lime-sulfur, 1-8 plus “Black Leaf 40,’’ 1-500 97 “Black Leaf 40,” 1-500 plus laundry soap, 2 lb. to 50 gal. . . 45 Laundry Soap, “Pels Naptha,” 2 lb. to 50 gal 5-33 “Scalecide,” 1-15 25-65 “Mechling’s Scale Oil,” 1-19 79-90 Sodium Sulfocarbonate, 1-19 85 Sodium Chloride, i gm.* to 5 cc.** water 26-35 Sodium Hydroxide, 2 pt. to 98 cc. water 85-95 Crude Carbolic Acid (100%), 2 cc. to 98 cc. of solution, plus soap, 2 lb. to 50 gal. water 93-ioo * gm. — gram. ** cc. — cubic centimeters. Several important facts stand out in this table. The deadly quality of lime-sulfur is increased by the addition of 40 per cent nicotine. “Scalecide” is much less effective than lime-sulfur alone. “Scalecide,” in which we are assured there is no car- bolic acid, is much less effective than “Mechling’s Scale Oil,” in which, according to the makers, is found a percentage of carbolic acid. The great efficiency of a 2 per cent crude car- bolic acid solution to which- soap has been added is shown. In the present stage of knowledge none of the substances can be recommended for the destruction of the eggs during dor- mancy, but the prospects for the development of such a spray seem encouraging. It can be said, however, that the study points to the idea that an application of the lime-sulfur and tobacco mixture at the green bud stage, even if not all of the eggs have hatched, is likely to give control by reason of the destruction of the unhatched eggs as well as the newly-hatched nymphs. Destroying the Aphis in the Spring and Sununer In the spring, when first hatched, the young nymphs are very delicate, and, consequently, very susceptible to the effect of spraying mixtures. This led investigators to place reliance on spring and summer spraying as a means of controlling the Bulletin 328 16 species. Unfortunately, several years of experience have demon- strated for the rosy louse, at least, that an attempt to control it after the foliage has been curled is sure to fail, and that an attempt to control it after the buds have really opened is almost certain to fail. The period in the spring when all three species can be brought under control has been thought to be very short, and was thought to extend from the hatching of the egg to the opening of the buds. The problem was further complicated by the fact that the eggs of the rosy aphis hatched, in some cases, coincidently with the opening of the early buds. Table 2 EFFECT OF nicotine SPRAYS ON ROSY APHIS Number of leaves Treatment Percentage living at end of experiment 2 Water only 100 2 “Black Leaf 40" (i part) + water (900 parts) 60 2 “Black Leaf 40” (i part) + water (900 I arts) 10 + soap (2 lbs. to 50 gal.) 2 i“Black Leaf 40” (i part) + water (700 parts) . 4- soap (2 lbs. to 50 gal.) i 2 ‘Black Leaf 40” (i part) + water (500 parts) 10 2 1 ‘Black Leaf 40” (i part) -f water (500 parts) 0 j + soap (2 11 )S. to 50 gal.) In 1915 Parrott and Hodgkiss^ recommended the delay of the usual winter-strength lime-sulfur, to which 40 per cent nicotine has been added at the rate of of a pint to 100 gallons, or about I part of nicotine to 1,000 parts of the spraying mixture, and the application of the mixture at the green bud stage. In 1915 one of our liest apple growers almost completely failed to obtain control of aphis by adding nicotine to his pink-bud or cluster-cup s])ray at the rate of i to 800, while another claimed perfect control by adding the 40 per cent nicotine to the same spray at the rate of i to 500. To discover the strength of nico- tine necessary for a complete kill of all ages of the rosy aphis, which has seemed more resistant to spraying solutions than either of the others, the experiment recorded in table 2 was made. M^arrott, P. J., and llodgkiss, H. E.. IQLS- Controlling plant lice in apple orchards. N. (Geneva) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bid. 402. SoMK Important Orchard Pdant Lice 17 Thus it appears that even when used with soap, which seems to give to it the maximum killing strength for aphis, i part of the nicotine to 500 parts of water was required to give a com- plete kill. This suggested a number of points that needed clearing up, such as : 1. To what extent in comparison with other treatments does winter-strength lime-sulfur effect a control when applied during dormancy and before the eggs have hatched ? 2. To what extent will winter-strength lime-sulfur ap- plied at the green bud stage just after the lice hatch effect a control ? 3. To what extent is the combination of winter-strength lime-sulfur and 40 per cent nicotine at the rate of 500 to I superior to a combination at the rate of 1,000 to i ? 4. To what extent would a winter-strength lime-sulfur treatment before the lice hatch, followed by an extra treatment of nicotine and soap just after the lice hatch, prove effective? This point was considered because of the fact that in 1915 the hatching of the rosy aphis was thought to have occurred after the buds opened. 5. To what extent would Scaiecide (for which claims have been made) serve as a control? In 1916 experiments were planned to answer these questions. They were located on the farm of Mr. John Barclav, of Cran- bury. Mr. Barclay made all the applications according to schedule, and the quality of the spray coatings given by him could not be bettered. The trees were seven years old and very thrifty. The plan of the experiments follows: Pi. AN I'OR Aphis Experiment in the Apple Orchard oe Mr. John Barclay, Near Cranbury, New Jersey i8 Bulletin 328 Pi g S oj x; tfi t« PQ fno s -n o Q O § ^ c G 03 £ c >. u ■*-' to B tv X X X X X X X X X X X X No. 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X VO X X X X X X X X X X X X No. X X X X X X X X X X X X North X X X X X X X X X X X X South 10 X X X X X X X X X X X X No. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X No. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X . X X X X X X X X X X 6 .X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1 X No. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ! X X X X X X X X X X X X w i X X X X X X X X X X X X 6 A X X X X X X X X X X X X ! I X X X X X X X X X X X Is^lg 03 X 3^3 tin w > X cn b£ Ol -r c c o '3J CJ rf^ O 2 m-( ^ tuO rt 3pq2 t« - C/) S+C^ 2r (n 0\'3 3 O ^ S 3-3 ^ (U > tn Oj o E 'J z ^ y V ■5 tn .3 6 - -^ "- E 3 E , 3-0 3: +'■ ® 5 •*" E . . E 3- ■3 2 o . tC^ ^ ^ 2.5 « £ g ^ 3m o " _E3: 2'-' ^ M 12 Table 3 Effect of Different Treatments in Aphis Controe Experiment Some Important Orchard Plant Lice 19 Table 4 Eeeect ol Different Treatments in Aphis Control Experiment when the buds showed green Some Important Orchard Prant Lick 21 For the purpose of makino- a comparison of the results given in the preceding tables easy, table 5 is submitted. Table 5 Summary of Results in Aphis Control Experiment Plot Numbers 1 TREATMENT I ! Total number of buds examined Total number of aphis found Number of aphis per 100 buds I & I Lime-sulfur (i to 9) during dor- mancy; “Black Leaf 40” (i to 1,000) -|- soap (2 lbs. to 50 gal.) when buds showed green 281 .S 1-7 Lime-sulfur (i to 9) during dor- 1 mancy; lime-sulfur (i to 9) + “Black Leaf 40” (i to 1,000) when buds showed green 282 18 6.3 3 3 Lime-sulfur (i to 9) when the buds showed green 320 304 j 95 . ‘ 4 & 4 Lime-sulfur (i to 9) + “Black Leaf 40” (i to 500) when buds showed green 339 1 1 3-2 5 & 5 Lime-sulfur (i to 9) + “Black Leaf 40“ (i to 1,000) when buds showed green 331 156 47.1 6 & 6 Scalecide (i to 15) while buds were dormant 306 1 37 ' 12. 7 Scalecide (i to 15) when the buds showed green 303 9 1 j 2.9 1 1 — Unsprayed trees showed average of 600 aphis per 100 huds. . ti block of trees of the same age and variety in the same orchard were sprayed with lirne-sulfur (i to 9) during dormancy. These trees showed an average of 6 aphis to 100 buds. Lime-sulfur when applied during dormancy seems greatly to reduce the aphis, causing the number to fall from about 600 aphis per 100 buds to 6 aphis to 100 buds. Lime-sulfur when applied in the green-bud stage, after the hatching of the lice, made a much smaller reduction, causing the number to fall from 600 per 100 buds to about 95 per 100 buds. The combination of winter-strength lime-sulfur and “Black Leaf 40 ’ at the rate of 500 tO' i is more effective than the com- bination at the rate of i,ooO’ tO' i, as shown by the fact that the former reduces the aphis to 3 individuals to each loC' buds while the latter left 47 lice to each 100 buds. BUI^I.KTIN 328 I'ig. 4. 'Prccs nf)t proiierly sprayed for ajihis : note small apples and (lro])ped apples SoMK Important Orchard 1’dant Lick Trees properly sprayed for aphis: note fine foliage, large fruit, and absence of dropped apples *24 Bui.r^ETiN 328 The application of winter-strength lime-sulfur during dor- mancy followed by “Black Leaf 40” and soap at the green-bud stage just after the lice had hatched seemed very effective, leav- ing only 2 lice to each 100 buds. Scalecide when used during dormancy scorched the buds, and when used during the green-bud stage, after the lice hatched, killed 50 per cent of the buds. In both cases it reduced the number of lice. Thus it appears that until methods of destroying the egg dur- ing donuaney are better developed, the best aphis treatment from the standpoint of labor, safety and eiheiency is an application of zuinter-strength lime-sulfur, to zvhich 40 per cent nicotine has been added at the rate of i to 500 at the green-bud stage. Under this system no winter-strength lime-sulfur or soluble- oil treatment is ordinarily required, and the normal labor of orchard procedure increased only slightly. The one question remaining in the writer’s mind after the experiment of 1916 was whether, if the advancement of the trees should compel treatment before hatching, the eggs would not later hatch a damaging brood of lice. The laboratory work of Dr. Peterson in 1917, already mentioned, indicated that the unhatched eggs would be destroyed. Fortunately, there was opportunity to try this out on a field scale. When the oat aphis appeared on the buds Mr. Barclay sprayed a block of trees with winter-strength lime-sulfur to which “Black Leaf 40” had been added at the rate of i to 500. At the same time an adjacent block was sprayed with Scalecide (i to 15). On the first block practically no aphis appeared thereafter, and trees were almost entirely free from aphis work. On the sec- ond block, although only a few living aphis could be found on the afternoon of the day when the spray was applied, colonies of the rosy louse appeared later, curled the foliage and did much damage to the fruit. No one knows how many aphis per lOO' buds may be kft un- hurt and the crop escape injury. As a matter of fact, the num- 1)er which may safely be left this year might next year be suffi- cient to i^roduce large damage, so much depends upon the weather and the natural enemies of the lice. The only safe plan to follow is to kill as many of the lice as possible. This means the application of the recommended treatment zvith the utmost thoroughness, for neither lice nor eggs zvill be destroyed unless they arc zvcll covered. Assuming that the best practicable treatment for aphis, with our present knowledge, is the a]>plication of lime-sulfur and Some Important Orchard Plant Lice Fig. 6. Stages in bud development. The best time to spray for aphis is the period from' / to //; III illustrates later development 20 IjULI^KTIN 328 nicotine in such a fashion that all the lice and lice eggs are coated, the cjiiestion of the time of application becomes exceed- ingly important. It seems clear from the laboratory and field studies that the green-bud stage is the best, because at that time the maximum number of lice will have hatched and are without shelter, and the unhatched eggs are most susceptible. The term “green-bud stage” is rather elastic and somewhat difficult to define. When the bud scales first separate at the tip the parts exposed are silvery and only slightly green. The sil- very look is due to the presence of a heavy pubescence on the structures exposed. In the course of a very few days this silvery look gives way to a decided green as the edges of the leaves be- gin to project. Treatment should be completed by the time the latter stage has been reached, for the next stage, which may fol- low within a single warm day and night, and shows the young leaves projecting from the buds like squirrel ears, is not only liable to be injured by the treatment, but offers shelter to the lice. Conclusions 1. Three species of plant lice — green apple aphis, the rosy apple aphis and the oat aphis, especially the first two — attack the foliage and fruit of apple in New Jersey and are capable under favorable conditions of destroying a large percentage of the crop. 2. All species winter over on the water sprouts, twigs, and smaller branches of the apple trees as small shining black oval eggs just large enough to be seen with the naked eye. 3. While it is not possible to forecast an outbreak with cer- tainty, even when the eggs are on the trees, because of the effect of weather and natural enemies, preparations should be made for treatment as a matter of insurance if the eggs are present. 4. Control by destruction of returning migrants and egg- laying individuals in the fall is probably impracticable, l>ecause of the numl)er of si)rayings that would be necessary. 5. 'fhe i>robability of developing a method of control by destroying the eggs during dormancy seems strong, but in the present state of knowledge it should not be depended on. 6. Control by destroying the aphis after the leaves are pretty well unfolded is likely to prove impracticable because of the shelter which the leaves afford the lice. 7. The most practicable treatment for aphis control is the api)licaticn of winter-strength lime-sulfur to which 40 per cent Some Important Orchard Plant Lici-: 27 nicotine has been added at the rate of 1 to 500, during the green-bud stage, because the inaximuin nuinl)er of lice will be hatched at that time ( and will be killed by the nicotine) and the unhatched eggs will be in their most sensitive state (and will be destroyed by the mixture). 8. The gTeen-bud stage is that stage of development which just precedes the escape of the new leaves from the dower buds in such a fashion as to resemble squirrel ears. New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Stations BULLETIN 329 ("Farm Management Bulletin 4J On a Commercial Poultry Plant in New Jersey PROFITS AND FACTORS INFLUENCING PROFITS ON 150 POULTRY FARMS IN NEW JERSEY New Brunswick, N. J. NEW JERSEY AfiRICULTlRAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS* NEW BRUNSWICK. N. J. STATE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1880. BOARD OF MANAGERS. His Excellency WALTER E. EDGE, LL.D Trenton, Governor of the State of New Jersey. W. H. S. DEMAREST, D.D New Brunswick, President of the State Agricultural College. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D Professor of Agriculture of the State Agricultural College. County Name Atlantic William A. Blair Bergen Arthur Lozier Burlington R. R. Lippincott Camden Ephraim T. Gill Cape May Charles Vanaman Cumberland Charles F. Seabrook Essex Zenos G. Crane Gloucester Wilbur Beckett Hudson Diedrich Bahrenburg Hunterdon Egbert T. Bush Mercer Josiah T. Allinson Address Elwood Ridgewood Vincentown Haddonfield Dias Creek Bridgeton Caldwell Swedesboro Union Hill Stockton Yardville County Middlesex Monmouth Morns Ocean Passaic Salem Somerset Sussex Union Warren Name James Neilson William H. Reid John C. Welsh Joseph Sapp Isaac A. Serven Charles R. Hires Joseph Larocque Robert V. Armstrong John Z. Hatfield James I. Cooke Address New Bruns’k Tennent Ger’n Valley Tuckerton Clifton Salem Bernardsville Augusta Scotch Plains Delaware STAFF. Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D Frank G. Helyar, B.Sc Irving E. Quackenboss Carl R. Woodward, B.Sc Hazel H. Moran Frank App, B.Sc Agronomist. Irving L. Owen, B.Sc. . .Associate Agronomist. J. Marshall Hunter, B.Sc., Animal Husbandman. Charles S. Cathcart, M.Sc Chemist. Ralph L. Willis, B.Sc Assistant Chemist. Archie C. Wark Laboratory Assistant. W. Andrew Cray Sampler and Assistant. Harry C. McLean, Ph.D. .Chemist Soil Res’h. William M. Regan. A. M. .Dairy Husbandman. Forest Button, B.Sc., Assistant Dairy Husbandman. John Hill, B.Sc., Assistant Dairy Husbandman, Thomas J. HeadleE, Ph.D Entomologist. Chas. S. Beckwith, B.Sc., Asst. Entomologist. Mitchell Carroll, B.Sc., Asst. Entomologist. Arthur J. Farley, B.Sc., Acting Horticulturist. Director. Associate in Station Administration. Chief Clerk, Secretary and Treasurer. Editor. Assistant Librarian. Vincent J. BreazEale, Foreman, Vegetable Growing. Charles H. Connors, B.Sc., Assistant in Experimental Horticulture. William Schieeerstein, ..Orchard Foreman. Lyman G. SchermErhorn, B.Sc., Specialist in Vegetable Studies. H. M. Biekart Florist. Harry R. Lewis, M.AGr., Poultry Husbandman, t Willard C. Thompson, B.Sc., Assistant Poultry Husbandman. Ralston R. Hannas, B.Sc., Assistant in Poultry Research. George H. Pound, B.Sc., ..Poultry Assistant. Morris Siegel Poultry Foreman. Elmer H. WEnE Poultry Foreman. John P. Helyar, M.Sc Seed Analyst. Jessie G. Fiske, Ph.B. . . . Asst. Seed Analyst, t On leave of absence for military service. AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1888. BOARD OF CONTROL. The Board of Trustees of Rutgers College in New Jersey. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD. W. H. S. DEM.\REST, D.D., President of Rutgers College, Chairman New Brunswick. WILLIAM H. LEUPP New Brunswick. JAMES NEILSON New Brunswick. WILLIAM S. MYERS ^’ew York City. JOSEPH S. FRELINGHUYSEN, , Raritan. J. AMORY IIASKEIJv, Red Bank. STAFF. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D HENRY P. SCHNEEWEISS, A.B. John W. Shive, Ph.D Plant Physiologist. Earle J. Owen, M.Sc Assistant in Botany. Frederick W. Roberts, A.M., Assistant in Plant Breeding. Mathilde Groth Laboratory Aid. Thomas J. Headlee, Ph.D Entomologist. Alvah Peterson, Ph.D Asst. Entomologist. Director. Chief Clerk. Augusta E'. Meske. ... Stenographer and Clerk. Melville T. Cook, Ph.D .... Plant Pathologist. Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D., Soil Chemist and Bacteriologist. .^uGusTINE W. Blair, A.M., Associate Soil Chemist. vSelman A. Waksman, Ph.D., Microbiologist, Soil Research. Cyrus WitmEr. Field and Laboratory Assistant. Staff list revised to October lo, 1918. NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIOr^ DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ORGANIZED 1912 AND NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE DIVISION OF EXTENSION IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS ORGANIZED 1914 Alva Agee, M.Sc., Director. Mrs. Frank App, Assistant Home Demonstra- tion Deader. Victor G. Aubry, B.Sc., Specialist, Poultry Husbandry. M. A. Blake, B.Sc., Acting State Superintend- ent and State Leader of Farm Demonstra- tion. John W. Bartlett, B.Sc., Specialist, Dairy Husbandry. Roscoe W. DeBaun, B.Sc., Specialist, Market Gardening. J. B. R. Dickey, B.Sc., Specialist, Soil Fertility and Agronomy. Marjory Eells, D.S., Home Demonstration Agent. Edna Gulick, Home Demonstration Agent. William H. Hamilton, B.Sc., Assistant State Leader of County Demonstration. Arthur M. Hulbert, State Leader of Boys’ and Girls’ Club Work. Ethel Jones, M.A., Asst. State Club Leader. William F. Knowles, A.B., Assistant State Club Leader. Van E. Leavitt, Specialist, Fruit Growing. William M. McIntyre, Assistant Specialist, Fruit Growing. Charles H. Nissley, B.Sc., Specialist, Fruil and Vegetable Growing. Carl R. Woodward, B.Sc., Editor. H. E. Baldinger, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Sussex County. William P. Brodie^ B.Sc., Demonstration Agent, Salem County. Frank A. Carroll, Demonstrator for Mercer County. Elwood L. Chase, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Gloucester County. Laura V. Clark, A.B., Home Demonstration Agent for Newark. Louis A. Cooley, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Ocean County. Herbert R. Cox, M.S.A., Demonstration Agent for Camden County. Josephine C. Cramer, Home Demonstration Agent for Middlesex County. Lee W. Crittenden, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Middlesex County. Ellwood Douglass, Demonstrator for Mon- mouth County. Arden M. Ellis, Assistant Demonstration Agent, Monmouth County. Irvin T. Francis, A.B., Demonstration Agent for Essex County. Harry C. Haines, Demonstration Agent foi Somerset County. Margaret H. Hartnett, Home Demonstration Agent for Paterson. Cora A. Hofeman, B.Sc., Home Demonstra- tion Agent, Morris County. William A. Houston, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Sussex County. Lauretta P. James, B.Sc., Home Demonstra^ tion Agent for Mercer County. Philip F. Keil, Demonstration Agent for Bur- lington County. May D. Kemp, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for the Oranges. Harvey S. Lippincott, B.Agr., Demonstrator for Morris County. L. F. Merrill, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Ber- gen County. Adelia F. Noble, Home Demonstration Agent for Princeton. Warren W. Oley, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Cumberland County. Lena R. Pierce, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Trenton. James A. Stackhouse, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Cape May County. Eunice Straw, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Monmouth County. Norine Webster, Home Demonstration Agent for Bayonne. Harold E. WettyEn, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Passaic County. Carolyn F. Wetzel, Home Demonstration Agent for Bergen County. Albert E. Wilkinson, M.Agr., Demonstration Agent for Atlantic County. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction, 7 The Poultry Industry, 8 Advantages of New Jersey as a Poultry State, 10 Markets, 10 Climate, 12 Soils, 12 Established Business, 12 Description of Poultry Areas in New Jersey, 13 Vineland, 13 Lakewood, 15 Sussex, 15 Poultry Associations, 16 Vineland, 16 Hammonton, 17 Lakewood, 18 Tri-State, 18 Flock Practice, 18 Breeders, 18 Hatching Eggs, 19 Incubation, 19 Brooding, 20 Colony Houses, 21 Pullets, 21 Yearlings, 21 Cockerels, 22 The Laying Flock, 23 Size of Flock, 23 Housing, 23 Trap-nesting 24 Feeding, 24 Ranges, 25 Succulent Crops, 26 Methods of Study, 26 Breeds of Poultry, 27 Poultry Farms included in the Survey, 28 Farm Tenure, 28 Capital, ^9 Amount of Capital and Distribution, 30 Amount of Capital and Labor Income, 31 Return on Capital Invested 32 Size, 33 Relation of Size of Flock to Labor Income, 33 Relation of Size of Flock to Farm Organization, 35 Relation of Size of Flock to Receipts and Expenses, 39 Relation of Size of Flock to Investment, 43 Relation of Size of Flock to the Number of Years the Operator has been in the Poultry Business, 44 Production, 45 Relation of Production to Profits, 45 Relation of Production to Expenses and Receipts, 48 (4) CONTENTS Production — Continued. page Relation o£ Production to Investment, 55 Relation of Production to the Experience of the Operator, 56 Experience, 57 Former Occupations of Poultrymen, 58 Relation of Experience to Profits 58 Relation of Experience to Farm Organization, 60 Relation of Experience to Receipts and Expenses, 61 Fifty Years a Poultryman 63 Pullets vs. Yearlings, 63 Relation of Proportion of Pullets per Flock to Profits, 63 Relation of Proportion of Pullets per Flock to Receipts and Ex- penses, 64 Relation of Proportion of Pullets per Flock to Capital Invested and Experience, 66 Area of Poultry Farms, 67 Relation of Area to Profits and Capital, 68 Relation of Area to Production, Receipts and Expenses, 69 Monthly Egg Production and Per Cent of Total Receipts per Month, ... 71 Cost of Egg Production, 73 Depreciation of Hens, 74 Itemized Costs and Receipts, 75 Comparative Efficiency of Animals and Poultry, 78 Major Factors Essential for Success in Poultry Raising, 80 Two Essentials for Success in Commercial Poultry Raising, 80 Poultry Raising Compared with Other Types of Farming and their Possibilities, 81 Summary, 82 Acknowledgment, 84 ILLUSTRATIONS , PE ATE S PAGE Peate I 85 Fig. I. Modern poultry plant in the Vineland area, showing buildings. Fig. 2. Modern colony houses with the ranges in the Vineland area. Peate 2 86 Fig. I. Typical brooding scene in Vineland area, showing coal stove brooders which are used almost universally. Fig. 2. Laying houses of one of the pioneer poultrymen in the Vine- land area. Peate 3 87 Fig. I. Common arrangement of a long laying house located in the center of a peach orchard. Fig. 2. Laying houses in the Vineland area, showing the range. Peate 4 38 Fig. I.- Range houses in the Vineland area. Fig. 2. A method commonly used in marketing in the Vineland area. The eggs are taken to the trolley express in wheelbarrows. 6 CONTiiNTS TEXT FIGURES PAGE Fig. I. Map of New Jersey showing Areas in which the Survey was made, Fig. 2. Relation of Capital to Eabor Income on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 32 Fig. 3. Relation of Number of Fowls per Flock to Labor Income on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 35 Fig. 4. Relation of Size of Flock to Labor Expense on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 37 Fig. 5. Relation of Size of Flock to Equipment Investment on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 39 Fig. 6. Relation of Size of Flock to Building Investment on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 40 Fig. 7. Relation of Size of Flock to Expenses on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 43 Fig. 8. Relation of Egg Production per Hen to Labor Income on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 47 Fig. 9. Relation of Production per Hen to Expense per Bird on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 50 Fig. 10. Relation of Production per Hen to Months’ Labor on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 51 Fig. II. Relation of Production per Hen to Feed Cost per Bird on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 52 Fig. 12. Relation of Production per Hen to Feed Cost on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 53 Fig. 13. Relation of Production per Hen to Receipts on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jerse}', 54 Fig. 14. Relation of Production per Hen to Poultry Equipment on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 56 Fig. 15. Relation of Years’ Experience to Labor Income on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 60 Fig. 16. Relation of Proportion of Pullets per Flock to Labor Income on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey, 65 Fig. 17. Monthly Egg Production and Gross Receipts per Farm, 72 Fig. 18. Per cent of Total Yearly Egg Production and Total Yearly Egg Receipts by Months per Farm, 73 NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS BULLETIN 329 March 15, 1918 Profits and Factors Influencing Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey Frank App Appen G. Wappkr Harry R. Lewis Introduction In recent years there has been a stimulation of interest in the business side of farming. Farm management departments have been making farm surveys, but most of these were made from dairy and general farms. Farm types, as such, have not been the subject of much investigation. This is the fourth publication of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station on farm types. New Jersey has very diverse interests and the types of farming in most cases are clearly defined. This affords an excellent opportunity to study different phases of agriculture and their requirements for success. This is a study of 150 poultry farms whose receipts and ex- penses were almost exclusively from and for poultry, for the year November i, 1915, to November i, 1916. Of this number 1 16 records were obtained from the Vineland area in Cumber- land County, 22 from the vicinity of Lakewood and 12 from the northwestern part of Sussex County, along the Delaware River. Though these farms were not all located in one continuous area, the methods, buildings, breed of chickens and the rations used on the farms in the different areas, were about the same. This allows the combining of farms not in one continuous 8 bulletin 329 locality without giving results that are misleading or not repre- sentative of the business. The Poultry Industry Poultry will become more prominent in our agriculture and on the individual farm as our population increases. The total num- ber of fowls in the United States reported by the thirteenth census (1910) was 295,880,190, an increase of 17 per cent above the number reported for the twelfth census (1900). This is an average of about 3 fowls per man, woman and child. The pro- duction of eggs by these fowls was reported as 1,293,662,000 dozen, an increase of 23 per cent over that of the twelfth census. The population for this period increased but 21 per cent. Thus our hens appear to be laying more eggs and probably are receiv- ing more care. This would be a production of about 5.3 dozen per fowl, or about 14 dozen per individual. However, all of these eggs are not consumed; some are needed for hatching, and 5,207,151 dozen of these were exported. During this period 238,650 dozen were imported. In 1915, the United States ex- ported 20,784,424 dozen eggs, while the imports for the same year were 3,046,631 dozen. Thus we are increasing our exports over imports annually. It was estimated^ that in 1914 the total value of eggs produced in the United States was $350,000,000. Add to this the value of fowls raised and the sum would be about $570,000,000. This exceeded the value of our oats crop, and nearly ecpialed the value of the wheat crop for 1914. In 1909 and 1910 New Jersey sold poultry products valued at $4,666,000, or 8 per cent of the value of all agricultural products. The United States sold $256,042,000, or 3 per cent of the total value of agricultural products. Thus New Jersey has a rela- tively more important poultry industry than most of the other states. Of this amount 54 per cent was received from eggs and 46 per cent from fowls. From this it is evident that the poultry industry tends to develop around large centers of population. This is due to the better facilities for selling eggs and poultry. Climate may have some effect upon the industry, but probably not so much as good markets for chickens and eggs. The southern states show a * U. S. Dept. Agr. Yearbook 1912. p. 19. 9 Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey relatively less important poultry industry. Two factors affect the poultry industry in the South : first, large markets are not at hand and second, the climate is too warm for poultry. New Jersey, with a population of about 3,000,000 people, pro- duced only 13,630,302 dozen eggs in 1909-10, or less than 5 dozen per individual. The state sold but 2,130,591 fowls or less than one per individual. This does not account for the poultry raised in the villages and suburban communities, the latter of which have many small poultry flocks within city limits. Prof. H. R. Lewis made a thorough survey of the poultry in- dustry in New Brunswick, and found 14,000 birds kept in city back yards. The population at that time was 27,000 inhabitants. Prof. Lewis estimates the number of fowls in the state to be as follows : Adult fowls on farms, 1914, 1,900,000 Adult fowls in cities and suburban communities, 1914, 1,000,000 Total for New Jersey, 1914, 2,900,000 There were about 50 chickens per farm on the farms where chickens were kept in 1910. Thus the average farm flock is small. These birds will hunt a large part of their own living by foraging for bugs, lost grain and like products. But little labor is given such a flock and this is frequently done by the farmer’s wife and children. Consequently, the major portion of the poultry industry is sustained by cheap feed and labor. Looking at the industry from this viewpoint, it docs not appear attractive as a specialized type of farming. But let us consider the results obtained from the common method of raising and caring for poultry on the average farm, and the results obtained when the proper care and attention are given to it. The average pro- duction of eggs per fowl for the United States was 5.3 dozen in 1910. The average production for these 150 poultry farms was 109, or 70 per cent greater. With eggs selling at 34 cents per dozen (the average for 1916) the increase per bird on these farms would be $1.29. This should pay for the increase in labor and feed, and still leave a margin in favor of proper care for the poultry. Where market facilities are not so good and poultry products low in value, then specialization might not be profitable; there are certain conditions necessary for specializa- tion in order to make it successful. lO Bulletin 329 Advantages oe New Jersey as a Poultry State M arkefs The value of poultry in New Jersey is high in proportion to its other agricultural products. While in 1910 New Jersey had 8 per cent of its agricultural wealth in poultry, the United States had but 3 per cent. This may indicate that the state has certain advantages not enjoyed by all localities. The first great advantage in New Jersey is its markets, which are unequalled by most states, and unexcelled by any other. The production in the state is not sufficient to supply its own people, while the great markets of New York and Philadelphia are directly at its doors. This is quite an advantage, for poultry products, in order to command top prices, must be produced close to the consumer. It is true that eggs and poultry meat are shipped long distances, but they are not fresh when they reach their destination, and consequently must be sold at a lower price. The reader can verify these facts by examining table i, which shows that the prices of poultry products are highest around the centers of population. In only three states east of the Mississippi River — Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut — was the price of eggs in 1910 higher than in New Jersey. Of the western states, Nevada, Washington and Montana reported higher prices than New Jersey. That farmers in these states, so far from centers of population, should receive more is largely due to the fact that they do not recognize the value of poultry, and conse- quently the industry is still in an undeveloped state, leaving a scarcity of eggs. Unlike hogs, which follow the states which produce the most corn, chickens follow more closely the centers of population. Pork can be more easily shipped than eggs. Farmers in corn states, located far from the markets, often find it chea]ier to shi]) their corn to market in the form of pork to save freight. Before the raising of any product can be made a successful enterprise, it is necessary to have good markets. New Jersey has this essential well developed. Table i Relative Importance of the Poultry Industry in Various States GEOGRAPHIC SECTION STATE 1 t Eggs t Chickens 1 3o a Number Produced Value Number Produced Value Per Cent of To Agricultural Pi ductst Price Per Doze Eggs§ 1 51,487,518 $14,167,103 10,143,637 $6,712,323 Maine 14,0.52,820 3,568,100 2,348,403 1,313,160 6 $0.27 New Hampshire, . . 6,936,520 1,889,9,541 1 1,245,634 785,091 6 .29 Vermont, 6,580,466 1,603,925 i 1,154,879 683,785 3 .27 Massachusetts, 13,305,540 4,026..346j 2,974,619 2,232,653 7 .34 Rhode Island, .... 2,728,891 800,0941 1 556,598 445,414 12 .34 Connecticut, 7,883,281 2,278,6841 1 1,863,504 1,252,220 6 .33 152,222,031 35,242,048 33,689,001 19,941.206 New York, 67,688,879 16,000,173 12,701,540 7,634,267 4 .27 New Jersey, 13,6.30,302 3.584,157 4,453,8.30 3,533,844! i 8 .29 Pennsylvania, 70,902,850 1 15,657,718 16,533,631 8,773,095 6 .25 370,965,8051 1 71,147,639 96,463,041 45,152,966 Ohio, 96,259.005 18,842,241' 22,112,259 10,377,777 5 .22 76,7.34,210 14,525,977 21,895,510 10,181,036 4 .20 Illinois, 93,5.54,983 17,698,60.3 1 30,630,613 14,584,010 3 .20 Michigan, 56,176,525 11,002,435 1 11,864,965 5,704,602 4 .21 W’ is con sin 48,241,082 9,078,383 1 9,959,694 4,305,541 3 .21 41.3,838,848 1 71,861,845 1 114,871,313 48,609,932 50,413, .375 9,151,211 10,933,411 4,345,534 3 .20 103,27.3,505 18,098,7.52 28,388,446 13,171,819 3 .19 Missouri, 104,185,119 18,025,250 29,880,192 13,644,244 4 .18 North Dakota, . . . 15,194,736 2,675,9.31 3,365,998 1,273,984 * .21 South Dakota, . . . 22,396,021 3,791,973 5,462,171 2,079,797 2 ' .19 Nebraska, 42, 769,. 550 7,282,024 14,073,412 5,405,328 2 .18 Kansas, 75,606,542 12,836,704 22,767,683 8,689,226 3 .18 1 . . .... 125,634,1541 i 24,508,880 64,779,063 22,427,518 1 Delaware, 4,224,300 920,139 1,476,469 792,429 8 .24 Maryland 14,464,013 3,012,931 5,568,745 2,818,680 6 .22 Dis. of Columbia, . 50,689 14,908 14,834 8,647 1 Virginia, 33,544,512 6,577,152 1 15,518,010 5,853,828 5 .21 1 West Virginia, .. 18,074,410 3,464,309 1 5,115,305 2,065,924 5 .21 North Carolina, . . 21,838,671 3,946,412 1 14,048,470 4,148,542 2 .19 1 South Carolina, .. 9,722,160 1,902,903 7,865,401 2,274,618 * .21 1 Georgia, 18,162,972 3,469,.327 13,076,103 3,608,122 * .21 Florida, 5,552,427 1,200,709 2,095,726 1 856,728 1 2 .24 117,141,106 20,210,445 55,402,822 17,366,246 l!idot OUUlU VcUtrilX) • • Kentucky, 40,463.0301 6,944,3151 17,578,788 6,335,656 3 .18 Tennessee, 39,352.433 6,793,640 16,282,596 5,398,647 3 .18 Alabama. 19,626,126 3,. 321, 033 11,089,870 2,818,365 1 .18 Mississippi, 17,699,517 3,151,457 10,451,568 2,813,578 1 .19 \\P OCf" 1 1.36,787,145 21,829,363 1 50,796,202 15,187,413 TV cst lO\/UtIl * • ! Arkansas, 23.608,739 3,891,298 1 9,420,184 2,500,045 2 .18 Louisiana, 12,176,725 2,034,088 I 5,255,223 1 1,611,739 1 .19 Oklahoma, .38,521,787 6,317,863 1 13,680,484 1 4,532,234 2 .18 Texas 62,479,894 9,586,114 I 22,440,311 6,543,395 1 .17 Afnnnf Clin i 28,518,888 6,875,523 1 1 6,912,613 3,436,498 Montana, 4,706,178 1,262,572 1 1,116,690 621,539 1 .33 Idaho. 5,088,908 1,21.3,724 1 1,298,067 628,670 1 .29 Wyoming, 1.. 587, 43.3 380,509 1 .389,962 195,697 1 * .29 Colorado, 8,579,74.3 1,968,472 1 2,149,556 1,106,197 1 2 .26 New Mexico, .... 2, 27.3,. 320 522,029 1 675,022 266,452 1 1 .27 .\rizona, 1,311,134 .398,995 1 288,771 166,099 1 3 .34 Utah 4,240,007' 907,3.30 1 829,505 3,51,9.37 1 2 .24 Nevada, 732,165 1 221,892 1 165,040 1 99,907 1 1 1 .38 Pacifip , 60,790,277 1 1 15,315,134 1 12,.592,432 6,556,7.54 1 Washington, 14. .326,464 1 3,749,599 1 3,186,743 1,604,056! 1 3 .31 Oregon, 10, .5,55, 840 1 2„582,3.31 1 2,309,3.50 1,231,954 1 3 .29 California, .35,907,973 1 8,983,204 1 1 7,096,339 1 3,720,744 1 4 1 .29 * Less than 1 per cent. t Rpt. 13th U. S. Census. 1910, Vol. 5, p. 512-515. t Field Agents’ Handbook of Agricultural Statistics. U. S. Dept. Agri. Bur. Crop Statistics U914). t Warren, G. F., 1917, Farm Management, p. 576-577. (II) 12 BuLIvETIN 329 Climate Poultry does best in a temperate climate, though it is raised under a wide range of climatic conditions. Extreme tempera- tures should be avoided. A dry atmosphere is preferable to humid conditions, since great humidity is apt to cause sickness and disease among the birds. These qualifications are found in New Jersey, although portions along the coast subject to heavy and frequent fogs are not so well adapted. Soils The southern half of New Jersey lies in the Coastal Plain soil province. Since all of the soils in this region were laid down under water, much of it is sandy or gravelly. This provides a dry well drained soil, that warms up quickly and allows filth to leach away readily, qualities which are very desirable for poultry production. The northern half of the state is rolling, and largely covered with glacial soils. This topography allows good soil drainage with sufficient elevation to prevent high humidity and fogs. Thus the whole state has soil conditions favorable for poultry raising. The Vineland and Lakewood areas are located on sandy soils of level topography, while the Sussex area is located on glaciated soils of a rolling to hilly topography. Bstablished Business Certain portions of New Jersey have a well established poultry farm business. For example, the Vineland section consists of one continuous poultry section, where one poultry farm is ad- jacent to others of the same type. Outside of Fetaluna, Cali- fornia, no other area is reported in the United States where poultry farming has been developed to so high a degree. For the beginner who^ wishes tO' learn the poultry business, this is a marked advantage. Observation from the adjacent farms and communication with the neighbors are of great assistance in learning the business. Besides, in a successful business already established, accurate information concerning the advantages of a locality is available. Description of the P’ouetry Areas in New Jersey Vineland The Vineland poultry area covers a rectangular tract in Cum- berland County about five miles wide and seven miles long^ (13) 14 BUI.I.ETIN 329 including the borough of Vineland which is about one mile square. With North Vineland as its northern boundary, the tract extends seven miles south almost to where Lincoln Avenue joins the Main Road. The western boundary can be taken as Mill Road and the eastern as a very short distance east of Brewster Road. It is located 35 miles south from Philadelphia and 125 miles from New York City. Transportation facilities are excellent, no poultry farm being over 2 miles from the shipping point. The Central Railroad of New Jersey (Bridgeton Branch) crosses the area from east tO' west, while the Cape May division of the Pennsylvania Railroad passes through the district from north to south, both railroads having stations at Vineland. In addition to the two railroads, there is a trolley line from Vineland to Millville, which runs an express car twice a day. With these facilities many of the poultrymen are farming with no horses. They take the eggs to the trolley express, which carries them to Vineland for five cents a case, where the express companies receive them and ship* to their destination. From the map (fig. i) it is readily seen that the larger and more extensive quarter of the poultry area has settled along the trolley or within easy reach of it. The roads in this area are largely gravel, and are very good. The topography is level with but few slight depressions where poultry is noticeably absent. The soil in this area is one of its best features, considered from the standpoint of poultry raising, being light, very sandy in some portions, with considerable gravel in most places. It is well drained, making it possible to keep poultry on the same ground year after year without much danger from disease, as there might he on heavier, clayey soils. The soil is probably the largest single factor that allows success- ful intensive poultry farming here. As the soil is light and sandy, it also warms up early in the season and allows a long range period for the birds. Tins is a decided advantage, as it lessens the feed cost considerably. The climate of Vineland is another feature in favor of the ]:)Oultry business. It has moderate winters with slight snow- falls which usually last only a fe'^- days at a time. Both winters Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 15 and summers are moderate, being' neither excessively cold nor excessively warm, a condition especially desirable for poultry business. Although the area is not high above sea-level, and is not far distant from the ocean and bay, fogs are not troublesome. Excellent shipping facilities, nearness to Philadelphia and New York markets, g'ood roads, light well drained soils, and mild climate make the Vineland area especially adapted to poultry raising. Lakewood The Lakewood area, with Lakewood as its center, is located in Ocean County, 63; miles from New York City, and about 13 miles from the shore resorts. For shipping facilities it has the Central Railroad of New Jersey running directly to New York. The area is traversed by good gravel roads. The poultry industry of this area is not quite so intensive as in the Vineland area, the farms being larger and more scattered. The topography of Lakewood is fairly level and the soils are light, similar to those of Vineland, except that they are some- what more sandy. The area is in the celebrated pine belt of New Jersey and is marked by the characteristic growth of pines, which help protect and moderate the naturally mild winters. The climate is quite similar to that of Vineland. Altogether, the Lakewood area has practically the same good features for the poultry business as Vineland, i. e., light soils, nearness to market, good roads and a mild climate. S ussex The Sussex poultry area differs considerably from the Vine- land and Lakewood areas. It is located in the northwestern part of Sussex County in the hills and valley along the Delaware River. Transportation facilities are poor, the country roads being very rough, and shipping points — Port Jervis and Branch- ville — from three to seven miles away. Branchville is 70 miles from New York City on the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad, while Port Jervis is 80 miles from New York City on the Erie Railroad. 3 * i6 BulIvETin 329 The topography is exceedingly rough for New Jersey farm land, and the soil is mainly silt loam or stony loam. The section has mild summers, but severe winters. Thus the Sussex poultry area has the disadvantage from the standpoint of raising poultry, of severe winters, poor transporta- tion and heavier loam soils. Drainage is provided by the natural slope of the land. The poultry farming in this area is not quite so intensive as either at Lakewood or at Vineland, and some crops are raised along with the poultry. Pouetry Associations In each area surveyed poultry associations are active in pro- moting the interests of the industry, and they gave- valuable aid in securing the data through the hearty co-operation of their members. The New Jersey State Poultry Association now has a paid-in membership of between 1,000 and 1,100. The four poultry associations in the sections surveyed furnish 277, or over one-fourth of the total state membership. Each local associa- tion has a complete constitution and set of by-laws. The objects of all are the same, but the various associations vary consider- ably in the degree of activity which they maintain. Vineland The Vineland Poultry Association is an organization started eight years ago with three objects in view. I. Educational. In addition to a business meeting once a month, the associa- tion arranges a series of educational lectures and demonstrations. This is in the hands of a special educational committee. At these meetings members of the poultry department staff of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station and other well known poultry authorities are secured to discuss the problems and possibilities of the poultry business. The meetings are generally held through the winter when the poultrymen have more leisure. During the past winter, 1916—1917, the associa- tion held six of these educational meetings with an average attendance of about two hundred. Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 17 2. Commercial. Acting as an approved member of the New Jersey State Poul- try Association, the Vineland Poultry Association can buy feed and supplies co-operatively through the State Poultry Associa- tion directly from wholesale grain houses in the West. The Vineland Association has only recently begun to purchase feed in this way, but it has possibilities of being an economical method of purchasing for the members, as well as a means of securing grains of the best quality. The question of marketing poultry products, especially eggs, co-operatively, is being agitated at the present time by members of the association and it will no doubt be taken up by the organi- zation shortly. Certainly with the proper organization, special recognition could be obtained from the large egg markets, of the uniform, high-quality white-shelled eggs produced in the Vine- land district. This would mean additional profits to the mem- bers, as well as advertisement for the area. 3. Legislation. Any legislative measure that can be of value to promote or protect poultr)^ interests is forwarded by the state as well as local poultry associations. This applies to local and state-wide laws. In addition to these three distinctly business objects, the asso- ciation aims to perform a social function to add interest both inside and outside its ranks. Twice a year it holds a “poultry- man’s frolic” which is attended by five to six hundred people and gives a general good time to all present. The Vineland Poultry Association started out with 40 mem- bers and has now developed to 160 paid-in members to the state association. Its annual dues are $i.oO', including 75 cents for its own running expenses and 25 cents for the dues which the state association requires of all members. Thus the Vineland Poultry Association is growing and becom- ing a factor in the community life of the area. As it develops it is becoming of greater value to its members as an educational, commercial, legislative and social factor. Hammonton The Hammonton Poultry Association is one of the oldest poultry organizations in New Jersey, and was especially large i8 Bulletin 329 when the broiler industry of South Jersey was at its height. At present it has 25 paid-in members to the State Poultry Associa- tion. One of its chief activities includes the management of a supply store where its members purchase all their feed. Lakezvood The Lakewood Poultry Association has been organized four years and has made rapid growth, having 64 paid-in members. It is very active especially with regard to the co-operative pur- chasing of feed and supplies. A separate warehouse has been secured and the project seems to be progressing satisfactorily. Tri-St ate The Tri-State Poultry Association includes the poultrymen in the northwestern part (Montague Township) of Sussex County. It also has a few members from New York State and Pennsylvania. Organized two years ago, it now has a paid-in membership of 28. Flock Practice The general methods of flock practice on these commercial plants can be described as fairly uniform. Although there are variations according to the individual poultry man’s ideas, these variations are usually on the minor details of flock management. The general practices of the Vineland area are given in the following paragraphs. Breeders A certain number of the best yearlings are kept over every winter as breeders to furnish hatching eggs. These birds are selected according to their laying ability, and general vigor or vitality, as well as type. During the last two years, the practice has grown of hatching in February, and using pullets from the F'el)ruary hatching as breeders the following winter. This method is being practiced by a greater number of poultrymen each year and seems to work out very satisfactorily, as the Feb- ruary birds are more easily raised, and the cockerels from this early hatch can be sold when broiler size at a profitable price. The birds to be used as breeders are mated up usually from the Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 19 first of January to the fifteenth, which allows the saving of hatching eggs the last of January. The production from these breeders will vary from 30 to 70 per cent by April first. This production may be reasonably expected, although it may fall below or possibly may rise above the averages given, according to the individual poultryman’s good fortune in careful selection of birds and general skill in handling them, which includes the prevention of disease. Hatching Bggs After the hatching eggs are produced, they are sorted over carefully, and the odd-shaped, extra large and tinted eggs taken out, thus leaving medium-sized, uniform-shaped eggs to be used for hatching. In this selection or culling out, as many as 20 to 25 per cent of the total number may be removed. Incubatioji The majority of the poultrymen maintain just enough of incu- bator capacity to do their own hatching. Of the 1 50 farms in this survey, there were 9 that did custom hatching, and 35 that were selling day-old chicks, while 13 were buying day-old chicks. The most common type of incubator was one with a capacity of from 360 to 400 eggs, this size representing 41.7 per cent of the total incubator capacity on the 150 farms, while 53.7 per cent of the total capacity was included in incubators holding less than 500 eggs. There were 28 incubators having a capacity of 1,000 eggs or over, the smallest holding 60 eggs and the largest 13,600 eggs. Both oil and gas are used as fuel for the small-sized incuba- tors, gas being the more expensive but usually giving less trouble in regulating and watching. Coal is used with all the larger- sized incubators. Some of the larger poultry plants have separate cellars for incubation, usually with a feed room built over them. But on the larger number the hatching is done in the cellar of the dwelling house. 20 Bui^lktin 329 Brooding After the chicks are hatched they are left in the incubator one or two days and then placed in brooders. Right at this point begins what might be termed the first culling, as the weak and deformed chicks are not transferred from incubator to brooder. This is a critical period in the raising od the chicks. The small chicks are fed four times a day for the first week, three times a day the next two weeks, and after that twice a day. Milk mash is quite commonly used to start them on, and a scratch feed of home mixture or commercial manufacture is kept in hoppers before them at all times, as well as charcoal, oyster shells and grit. There are various types of brooders in use. The most common type on the older poultry plants is the long brooder house, 14 to 20 feet in width and the length determined by the number of chicks to^ be brooded. The chick boxes are usually about 3 feet square with a 2-foot hover, and have a capacity of about 85 chicks. Heat is usually furnished by hot water pipes in this particular type of brooder. Colony brooder houses are being used largely on the newer poultry plants and are giving satisfactory results. The colony house itself is usually 6 by 8, 6 by 10 or 8 by 10 feet in size. By installing a coal stove brooder and hover in these houses, from 3001 to 500 chicks are cared for. The February and early March chicks are brooded for eight to ten weeks, while the chicks hatched later are brooded for six to eight weeks. Then the chicks are placed in colony houses and put on range where they have free range on green forage such as young rye or wheat, alfalfa or rape. During the entire brooding period the more progressive poultrymen continue a rigid culling out of the chicks that lack vigor or are undesirable in any way. When about four weeks old, or as soon as they can be distinguished, the young cockerels are separated from the rest of the flock. The birds hatched in February or March are often raised to broiler size to i pound), but those hatched in April and May are sold at about five weeks of age. Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 21 When the long brooder houses are used, the poultryinen transfer the chickens to separate colony houses that usually carry about 65 pullets. This system entails considerable invest- ment in a permanent building that is in use only a short time each year. But where the colony house brooders are used, the same houses are often converted into colony houses by removing the coal stove and hover. After the brooding stage, the young pullets, which are then from 6 to 8 weeks of age, are placed on free range. Colony Houses The colony houses on the range ordinarily have a capacity of 50 to 100 pullets, the most common sizes being 6 by 8, 7 by 8, or 8 by 10 feet, usually of the shed roof type. Here in addition to the green forage growing on the range, such as rape, wheat, rye, clover or alfalfa, the pullets have mash and grain before them in the houses at all times, usually placed in separate boxes or hoppers sufficient to last about a week. Pullets The pullets are left on the ranges in the colony houses until ready to lay, which is not later than October first, with the excep- tion of some of the May-hatched birds, which may be brought in before laying, to avoid being exposed to the cold fall rains. When brought in from the ranges, the pullets are placed in separate pens in the laying houses, usually anywhere from 50 to 200 in a pen. At this time, there is another culling out and the cull pullets are sold off for meat. This habit of culling is being more and more rigidly practiced now that the price of all feeds is so high, as it is essential tO' keep only the best stock over winter. From now on the pullets are treated as the laying hens, or yearlings. Y ear lings In the survey, all hens kept after the pullet year are classed as yearlings. The number of hens kept longer than the second laying year was very few, not exceeding 3 per cent of the total. Thus the yearlings consist practically of those pullets which have 22 Bulletin 329 shown the best records during their first laying year. That is, the pullets are carefully culled out before being carried over another winter as yearlings, and those selected are used largely as breeders for hatching eggs. This culling starts about the middle of June and continues to fall. The great bulk of cull birds are sold off during August and September, probably 75 per cent of the total. These selected yearlings with the new pullets constitute the laying flock carried over winter. Cockerels The young cockerels are separated as soon as distinguishable. Those from the early February and March hatches are raised to broiler size and sold. The cockerels from later hatches of April and May are sold off at the age of four to five weeks, when they bring from 7 to 15 cents apiece. This of course, is a losing price, but it is done for two reasons : First, the intensive system of poultry keeping allows no room for the raising of many chicks to broiler size, and as the succeeding hatches come off, all the available room is used for raising young pullets, thus maintaining the largest laying flock possible. Second, the broiler prices be- come very low by the time of the last hatches and do not allow much of a margin for profit. The young cockerels sold in this way are used chiefly for two purposes : first, they are purchased by suburbanites in small numbers, who are able to raise them to meat size on table scraps and waste food, thus producing a good wholesome cheap meat for themselves; and second, they are purchased in considerable quantities by large asparagus growers in South Jersey to use in the asparagus fields as insect destroyers. A few cockerels have to be kept over for breeding purposes and the right selection of these is one of the most important l)oints in a successful poultry business. Much of the laying power of a hen is transmitted through the male bird, therefore special care is being taken to secure these breeding cockerels by the successful poultryman. Special cockerel matings are made; that is, one or two extra good cockerels are mated with a few of the strongest laying hens, as indicated by trap-nesting records or Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 23, otherwise, and the best cockerels from the eggs thus secured are saved for the next matings. The practice has been to keep these breeding cockerels one year and then sell them off. With the increase of February hatching, the best cock birds are kept over a second year to be mated with February pullets. Except when producing hatching eggs, covering a period of approximately to 6 months, the cockerels are kept by themselves in a cock- erel house. The proportion of cockerels to hens in the breeding pens varies from i cockerel to 15 hens up to as high as 25, with 18 or 20 commonly considered the best. The Laying Flock of Flock The total number of pullets and old hens a poultryman has on November first is generally considered to be the size of the laying flock for the year, as the poultryman’s business year is usually taken from November first to November first of the fol- lowing year. By that time the young pullets are brought in off the range, and culled thoroughly, and all the old hens have been sold off except those saved as breeders. Housing The prevailing type of house in the Vineland area, as well as the other areas discussed in this bulletin, is the long shed-roof house. Next in popularity is the half monitor style, but most of the newer houses and those in course of construction are of the shed roof type, which is the more economical. These houses are usually 14 to 16 feet wide, and the length is governed by number of birds kept. The longer laying houses are divided into sections accommodating 50 to 200 birds in a pen. In some instances, instead of having a single laying house divided into pens, the flocks are kept in entirely separate houses. This means greater building cost per bird housed, and more labor in caring for them. The capacity of the laying houses is figured on the basis of three to four square feet per bird of the White Leghorn type, the average on the 150 farms being 3.9 square feet per mature bird. 24 Bulletin 329 The flooring in the laying houses consists of dirt, wood, or concrete. Litter is always kept on the floors, so that the hens have to scratch and exercise in getting their grain, and for this purpose wheat straw is preferred, but when not obtainable oat or rye straw is used. T rap-nesting Keeping actual records of egg production per individual hen by trap-nesting banded or numbered birds was not the common practice, but there were 9 of the 150 poultrymen on this survey, who were regularly trap-nesting. Feeding There are two general methods of feeding in practice. In one method, the mash is placed in large self-feeding hoppers holding flve hundred to one thousand pounds of feed and these need to be refilled once a week or whenever empty. Then the grain ration is fed twice a day, morning and afternoon. In the other method, fresh mash is put out every morning and grain is fed once a day in the afternoon. By feeding in this way the poultryman can keep track of the mash eaten each day and vary his feeding to meet the birds’ requirements more closely than when large hoppers are used. However, the large hoppers are a labor-saving device and hence desirable from this stand- point. The feeding of the birds requires the close attention of the poultryman, as it is varied considerably according to the egg production and weather conditions. The majority of the poultrymen are buying their grains sepa- rately and mixing the feed themselves. While this method in- volves extra labor, the poultryman is more certain of having just the mixture desired. Feed mixtures and rations were based almost entirely on the recommendations of the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. There were a number of variations to meet individual preference or special conditions, but the New Jersey ration was the most common. The New Jersey ration used in the Vineland Egg Laying Con- test was made up as follows : Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in Nfw Jersey 25 New Jersey Contest Mash Wheat bran, loo lbs. Wheat middlings, white or flour, loo lbs. Ground oats, standard or better, loo lbs. Corn meal, pure, loo lbs. Meat scrap, 50 per cent protein, 100 lbs. While the ration varies with the weather, relative prices of grain, and the like influences, this probably represents closely what was ordinarily used by these poultrymen. The above dry mash was generally supplemented by a scratch ration composed of cracked corn, wheat and oats. These grains were usually mixed in equal parts, except during the winter months, when it was a common practice to double the amount of cracked corn. Successful feeding involved the maintaining of the proper relation between the amount of mash and grain consumed. It was the general practice to feed slightly greater amounts of grain than of mash, except during the spring or season of heavy pro- duction, when the mash consumed usually equaled or exceeded the amount of grain fed. Ranges Ranges occupy, on the average, 3.2 acres per farm, or over 27 per cent of the total farm area. The ranges are divided into almost equal separate parts for the laying flock and for the young or growing stock. Such crops as rye, wheat or clover, or occa- sionally alfalfa, are sown in late summer or early fall and pro- duce a good growth ready for the use of the birds as early in the spring as the weather is fit for them to be outside. Rape is used very commonly and is sown in the spring, more especially on the young-stock ranges. When space permits, the poultrymen have alternate ranges, so that while the birds are using one sec- tion, the other section is plowed up and a new crop sown. Where this is practiced the ranges furnish all the green material re- quired for a period of approximately seven months — April to October. In a few instances, corn was planted on the ranges and allowed to become a foot high before turning chickens into it. 26 BuLIvETIN 329 This furnished shade as well as some green material. As a rule, the poultrymen had fruit trees to furnish shade in the poultry yard, the peach being most frequently used. SuccuEENT Crops Green material or succulent feed of some sort is essential in the poultry business. The poultrymen are making it a practice to grow enough for their own needs; there were but two poultry- men in this survey who were buying green feed, such as mangel wurzels. For winter green or succulent food the poultrymen aim to raise such crops as mangel beets or cabbage, which can be stored for the winter. Mangel beets occupied a total of 25 acres, cabbage 1 1.4 acres and kale 1.5 acres on these 150 farms. In addition to these main crops, occasionally lettuce is used. In one case, sprouted oats were used ; but they are an expensive source of green material, and involve considerable labor. In feeding the beets, they are either cut up fine, or merely sus- pended on a string from the house roof for the chickens to peck at. Methods of Study Information was gathered for this study by visiting each farm in person and getting the poultryman’s farm organization re- ceipts, expenses and inventory of the entire business. The egg and chicken receipts, and expenses for feed were on 98 farms obtained direct from the poultryman’s chicken account. Where no accounts were kept the amounts were carefully given from the farmer’s memory, assisted by partial records and checked by Mr. Waller. Such a study has vast possibilities for obtaining information about a subject. This is primarily a study of the business of poultry farming. So far as the authors are aware no like publication has been presented upon poultry farming as a business. The probable reason for this is that so few states have a poul- try industry that affords such excellent opportunities for study. Most poultry is a side issue on the farm, and of comparatively small importance. These farms studied in this survey derive Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in Nkw Jersey 27 98 per cent of their entire receipts from poultry. Such a condi- tion simplifies the study of the industry. Besides, these poultry- men buy practically all their feed except greens, such as cabbage, pasture and roots. Their energies are given almost exclusively to care of poultry. Breeds of Poultry The average farm flock is composed of mongrels or mixed breeds. They are bred with little or no attention to breeding high-class birds. On these farms we find an entirely different status. Most of the birds are from one breed and practically all are pure-bred. Table 2 Breeds of Chickens Found on 150 Poultry Farms in Nezu Jersey BREED Number of Laying Birds Number of Farms Nov. 1, 1915 ' 1 Nov. 1, 1916 Nov. 1, 1915 Nov. 1, 1916 White Leghorns 105,568 118,364 149 149 Rhode Island Reds 716 1,520 9 15 Aiiconas, 700 700 2 2 White Wyandottes 356 679 5 8 Barred Rocks 111 328 3 4 Columbian Wyandottes 250 238 1 2 Buflf Rocks 92 137 2 2 Black Minorcas, 15 80 1 1 Mongrels 38 38 1 1 White Plymonth Rocks 22 25 1 1 Black Sumatras, 20 20 1 1 Black Leghorns, 20 20 1 1 Campines, 20 20 1 1 Buff Leghorns, 15 18 1 1 Brahmas, 20 12 1 1 Other Breeds 8 8 1 1 Total Laying Birds, . . Cockerels Grand Total 107,971 2,546 122,207 3,252 150 150 110,517 125,459 1 150 150 The number of farms having breeds other than White Leghorns was 31 on November i, 1915, and 42 on November i, 1916. White Leghorns constituted 97.8 per cent on November i, 1915, and 94.3 per cent of the total on November i, 1916. The meat breeds are kept for the poultryman’s own table use as a source of meat supply. The White Leghorn is not a good meat fowl, but is primarily an egg producer. This breed is to the egg in- dustry what the Holstein cow is to the market milk industry. 28 BuIvLETIN 329 and these poultry farms are run primarily for egg production. The fact that the White Leghorns predominate almost exclusively, would indicate that these poultrymen fully recognize the superi- ority of this breed. The breed is hardy, full of vitality and comparatively easy to raise. The pullets mature early. White Leghorns are economical egg producers, and are a desirable breed for egg production. Pouetry Farms Inceuded in the Survey On 100 of these 150 poultry farms, the operators sold nothing but poultry products, while on the other 50 some truck and fruit were sold, but in no case over 40 per cent. The average amount of the sales for products other than poultry products on these 50 farms was $188 per farm. This is not a large amount and would not influence the results materially. Thus these farms are run primarily or exclusively for poultry products, of which eggs are the most important. A study of such farms provides definite information on the profits to be expected from poultry when they are not produced on cheap feed and labor. It shows conclusively whether poultry can suc- cessfully compete with other types of farming. It is seldom that we find such a highly specialized type of farming so well defined. Specialization is frequently decried as unprofitable. But the proper kind of specialization can be made profitable. This does not apply to the exceptional man only, but in this case includes an entire class. Farm Tenure These 150 farms were occupied entirely by owners. In this respect they differ radically from most other types of farming. The chief reason for this is the comparatively small amount of capital necessary for poultry farming. In addition to this, the l)usiness on these farms is usually but a one-man business. A one-man business usually will not produce sufficient profits for a landlord and tenant to share. Sometimes a large proportion of owners indicates small profits. However, in this case it simply indicates a small business. Thus the form of tenure is not a true criterion of the profits derived from farming in all cases. For 29 Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in N?:w Jersey potato, general, and dairy farming in New Jersey, it did serve as a guide. However, poultry farms can be established on a small amount of capital, and therefore land tenure is not a criterion of prosperity on these poultry farms. While poultry is the second most profitable type of farming here presented, there were no tenant farms. Thus the prosperity as measured by labor income is not an absolute guide for the con- dition of tenantry. For the amount of capital invested, poultry farming is the most profitable type. Here is a type of farming which will allow the man with limited capital to make a com- fortable living. For the city-bred man, it probably is the type in which he can best succeed. It is highly specialized and does not require so much knowledge of soils, fertilizers, crops, and farm practice as most other types of farming. While successful poul- Table 3 Profits Derived from Different Farm Types in New Jersey and Its Relation ^ to Farm Tenure FARM TYPES Owner Farms Tenant Farms Number Labor Income Capital Invested Per Farm 1 Farm Income 1 Number Labor Income Potato 194 $917 $17,673 $1,801 149 $753 General 192 491 13,602 1,071 68 653 Truck,* 300 412 11,494 987 Dairy, 300 457 11,259 1,020 160 557 Poultry, 150 • 730 7,243 1,092 1 * Owner and Tenant Farms. try farming requires skill on the part of the operator, the re- quirements are not so broad as for many other types of farming, making the business more easy to acquire. Capital It is sometimes stated that the same amount of capital is re- quired for success in any type of farming. However, for poultry farming, the amount necessary for success is less than for the other types found in this state. This is a decided advantage. For a young man to start out and earn sufficient capital to buy and equip the average farm to-day, is a difficult task. For the 30 Bulletin 329 man from the city, who has but $5,ooO' to $10,000 saved from his earnings, capital is usually his limiting factor for success. So far as the results of the survey of all the farm types that have been studied in this department show, poultry raising is the most successful operation for farmers having small capital. Amount of Capital and Distribution The average capital per farm was $7,243, a very moderate sum when compared with that of other farm types in New Jersey.- Of this amount, 76.9 per cent is in real estate and 15.8 per cent in stock, 4.3 per cent in machinery, 1.5 per cent in sup- Table 4 Amount and Distribution of Capital on ijo Poultry Farms in New Jersey CAPITAL PER FARM Number of Farms Real Estate! Stock Machinery Feed and Supplies Cash Total Capital Value Per Cent of Total Value Per Cent of Total Value Per Cent of Total Value Per Cent of Total Value Per Cent of Total $3,000 or less, . . . 1 .31 1 $1,9(>0| 70.9 1 i 1 .$43l( 17.4 1 1 $60.70 2.7 $33.30 1 1.5 $33.30 1.5 $2,470 $3,001 to $5,000, , . 29 1 1 3.217 1 74.7 1 802 1 18.0 1 179.20 4.2 .54.10 1.4 49.10 1.1 4,298 $5,001 to $7,000, . . 4r,| 4,038 78.41 9051 15.0 1 229.90 3.9 61.60 1.0 04.80 1.1 5,924 $7,001 to $9,000,. . 38 1 0.125 1 70.01 1.307] 10.3 ! .329.50 4.1 117.60 1.51 116.20 1.5 7,995 $9,001 to $11,000,. 22 1 7.0731 1 77. 9| 1,4501 14.8 411.80 4.2 163.50 1.7 138.40 1.4 9,841 $11,001 and over. 18 1 9,7.31 1 75.11 1.8.371 14.8 1 1 1 ! 709.30 1 5.5 302.40 2.3 296.90 2.3 12,876 l.")0| j .$5,572 1 1 1 1 7G.9l$l,14Gj 15.8 1 j$310.30 4.3 $109.00 1.5 $105.10 1.5 $7,243 plies and 1.5 per cent in cash. The proportion in real estate is small when compared with that of other types of farming, but the buildings are worth an average of $2,925, or 52 per cent of the real estate value. The poultryman’s dwelling is worth $1,662, or about 30 per cent of the total real estate value. Much of this investment is necessary for the operator’s house. The necessary investment in land is comparatively small, yet the value per acre is $480, a comparatively large amount. The buildings and fences added to the land have materially raised the acre value, the build- ings alone having an acre value of $250, leaving an acre value for land and fences of $230. The average value of land itself was about $200 per acre. This value is largely on account of vSec N. j. Agr. Exp. Sta. ILillctins 294, 312 and 320. Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 31 location and not because of high fertility. Prices have increased much during the last few years. Amount of Capital and Labor Income Like other types of farming, greater profits are derived when sufficient capital is available for conducting an economic busi- ness of large volume. On these 150 poultry farms, profits in- creased with each increased investment until the class of farms having over $11,000 was reached (table 5). This class had slightly decreased profits. Table 5 Relation of Capital to Profits on 130 Poultry Farms in New Jersey CAPITAL No. of Farms i Average Capital Birds Per Farm Labor Income Investment Per Bird $3,000 or less, 3 $2,470 332 $196 $7.44 $3,001 to $5,000 29 4,298 513 351 8.38 $5,001 to $7,000 45 5,924 616 580 9.63 $7,001 to $9,000 38 7,995 852 743 9.38 $9,001 to $11,000 22 9,841 923 1,270 10.66 $11,001 and over, 13 1 12,876 I i 1,095 1,259 11.76 1 150 1 1 $7,243 j 737 $730 $9.83 Though the number of farms is too small to permit the draw- ing of absolute conclusions, these data would tend to show that an investment of $15,000 or more, in the hands of the average poultryman, would not return so great a profit as $10,000 to $12,000. The highest labor income ($3,867) was obtained from an investment of $10,910. The highest amount of capital per farm was $15,455, and the labor income from this farm was $1,216. The investment per bird increases with increased capital. Apparently, this increased capital is for a larger business as well as a more pretentious outlay. This large investment has been made from the standpoint of pleasure as well as of business. The lowest investment per farm was $2,131, and this farm gave a minus labor income of $208. The greatest loss was a minus labor income of $1,013, on a farm where the capital amounted to $6,092. Much of this loss was due to sickness and dying of the chickens. 5 * 32 BuIvIvETIN 329 Return on Capital Invested The capitalist is usually most interested in the rate of interest he will receive on the money he invests. • The farmer is more interested in the total return above his 5 per cent interest charge. Fig. 2. Relation of Capital to Labor Income on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey. If $15,000 will return $2,550 above expenses, the return would be at the rate of 17 per cent on the investment. Should the PRoms ON 150 P0U1.TRY Farms in New Jersey 33 farmer invest $10,000 and receive $1,800 above expenses, the return on the money invested would be 18 per cent, or a higher rate of interest, but less money is left for the farmer to live upon after deducting the 5 per cent interest. In such a case the operator could afford to increase his business with a $5,000 added investment and be more prosperous. The farmer views the business as a unit from which to obtain a living, and not as a mere investment. TabivE 6 Relation of Capital to Return on Investment on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey CAPITAL No. of Farms Return Per $1,000 Invested Per Cent Return $3,000 or less, 3 $129 132 12.9 $3,001 to $5,000 29 13.2 $5,001 to $7,000, 45 138 13.8 $7,001 to $9,000, 38 143 14.3 $9,001 to $11,000, 22 179 17.9 $11,001 and over, 13 148 14.8 150 $151 15.1 The average return on the investment was 15.1 per cent (table 6). To obtain this the operator gave all his time and supervi- sion. The highest return was obtained for an investment of $9,000 to $11,000. This appears to be the most efficiently capi- talized unit for these poultry farms. A man should have at least $5,000 to $7,000 before he can hope to be moderately suc- cessful with poultry. Size The size of these poultry farms is best measured by the num- ber of fowls per farm or per flock. In most types of farming we usually find that the size of farm, number of crop acres, or the amount of livestock should be above the average in size to be most profitable. Relation of Size of Flock to Labor Income The average number of chickens per flock on these farms was 736, of which 17 were cockerels. There was an average of 43 34 Bulletin 329 hens per cockerel. The labor income for these flocks increased with each increase in size of flock. The lowest labor income per flock was received on farms having less than 300 birds, while the highest was from the farms having over 1500 birds per flock (table 7). Table 7 Relation of Number of Fowls per Flock to Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey Number of Fowls per Flock Number of Farms 1 Average Number of Fowls Per 1 Flock, Nov. 1, 1 1915 Average Number of Hens per Flock, Nov. 1, 1915 ' Cockerels Per j Flock Number of Hens Per Cockerel Labor Income Labor Income Per Hen Number With Minus Labor In- come .300 or less, . . 19 255.7 249.1 6.6 37.8 $178 $0.71 7 301 to 500, . . 42 446.2 437.5 8.7 50.0 313 0.71 8 501 to 700, . . 29 621.2 607.8 13.4 45.6 423 0.69 8 701 to 900,,. 23 842.5 823.7 18.8 43.7 779 0.94 1 901 to 1100,. . 12 1025.5 998.0 27.5 36.2 1,387 1.39 1 1101 to 1500,.. 17 1338.8 1308.8 30.0 43.6 1,668 1.27 2 1501 and over, 8 1806.8 1757.5 49.3 35.5 2,217 1.26 0 Average, . . . 150 736.8 719.8 16.9 42.4 $730 $1.01 27 These flocks have not, as a class, become too large for the greatest profit. The greatest profit per hen was obtained from flocks of from 900 to iiou birds. Larger than this, the profits per bird began to decrease. When smaller than this, the profits likewise decreased. From the standpoint of the individual hen, this was the most efficient unit, or size of flock. But for larger total profits per flock, a larger number of birds is necessary. The 8 farms having an average of 1807 fowls per farm gave the largest labor income. How much more these flocks could be increased and bring a larger profit is not shown on these farms. It appears, however, that the profits per bird begin to decrease, since the labor income per hen is only $1.26 in the largest class, apparently as the result of the greater size of flock. Should a man wish to keep or develop a poultry industry of great size, it probably would be advisable to maintain units of a certain size, that is, about 2000 fowls per unit or a flock each large enough to keep two men busy throughout the year. PRoms ON 150 PouIvTry Farms in New Jersey 35 Fig. 3 . Relation of Number of Fowls per Flock to Labor Income on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey. Relation of Size of Flock to Farm Organization In all business there is a certain size which is most desirable and most profitable, because this size allows the most efficient ■operation, of man labor, horse labor, machinery and buildings all costing less in proportion to the service they render in pro- ducing crops and stock products. 3 ^ Bui^IvETin 329 In the average flock it rec[uired one man’s time for almost two months to care for 100 fowls, and in the small flocks 4.3 months, while in the 8 largest flocks one man cared for 100 birds in 1.6 months (table 8). When the man’s time is reduced to money value, we find it cost $182 to care for 100 birds per year in the small flocks, while in the large flocks it cost but $65, or a trifle above one-third as much. The average cost per 100 birds was $81 per year for man labor. With such a great difference in labor cost per 100 birds for the large flocks, it should be much easier to make more money per hen. The larger flocks are far more efficient units for operation than the smaller ones. Table 8 Relation of Size of Flock to Labor Expense on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey NUMBER OF FOWLS PER FLOCK Number of Farms Labor Cost Per Farm Besides Ope- rator’s Months Worked by Operator Total Man Labor; Months Months of Man La- bor Per 100 Birds Total Value of Man Labor Cost Per 100 Birds Number of Horses Per Farm 300 or less 1 19 1 1 $18,101 10.5] 10.9 4.3 $465 1S2 0.6 301 to 500 42 1 69.001 10.4] 12.1 2.7 517 115 0.5 501 to 700, 29 1 .33.501 11.6] 12.4 2.0 530 85 0.2 701 to 900 23 1 104.101 11.7] 14.2 1.7 606 72 0.5 901 to 1100 12 1 185.10] 12.0] 16.4 1.6 700 68 0.5 1101 to 1500, 17 1 2.56.80] 11.9] 18.0 1.3 770 57 0.6 1501 and over, 8 I 668.60] 1 1 11.2] 27.2 t 1.6 1161 64 1.1 Average, 150 .$123.9o| 1 1 _ -| 11.2] 1 1.92 1 $597| 81 0.5 1 Horse labor on these farms was relatively unimportant. Less than half of the farms had horses. There were 75 horses on 150 farms. Many farms had no need for horse labor except a small garden and patch for roots and green feed, such as cabbage. For this they could hire horse labor far cheaper than they could keep a horse and do it themselves. Around the Vineland area many poultrymen took their eggs to the trolley car in wheel- barrows. This was the cheapest form of transportation found in the area. Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 37 The total value of equipment per farm increases but not in proportion to the number of crop acres (table 9). The value of the equipment used for poultry alone decreased approximately 50 per cent on the larger farms. After a size of 700 to 900 fowls per flock was reached, the efficiency in the use of poultry equipment no longer increased to any apparent extent. As far as the use of poultry equipment was concerned, a flock of 701 to 1100 was as efficient as or more efficient than any other size. MontKs Ma.a Labor per 100 Birds Fig. 4 . Relation of Size of Flock to Labor Expense on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey. The building investment (table lo) shows very much the same relation to size of flock as equipment and labor. The average value of poultry buildings per bird was $1.54. On the smallest class of farms this was $2.79, while on the largest it was $1.09 per bird, or less than half as great. When we usually find that 38 BuIvLKTIN 329 the rate of depreciation on buildings is 3 per cent, the interest 5 or 6 per cent and insurance i per cent, or a total of about 10 per cent, we can appreciate the difference in the charge for building cost per hen. This would amount tO' about 27 cents per hen for the small flocks and 1 1 cents per hen for the large ones. This is a large item for overhead expense. Table 9 Relation of Size of Flock to Equipment Investment on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey FOWLS PER FLOCK No. of Farms Total Equipment Poultry Equipment Per Farm Per Crop Acre Per 100 Birds Per Farm j 1 Per 100 1 Birds 300 or less 19 $183 $46 $72 1 $152 1 1 1 $59 301 to 500 42 232 52 53 157 1 1 35 501 to 700 29 280 95 45 234 1 1 38 701 to 900, 23 291 95 35 231 1 1 28 901 to 1100, 12 282 58 28 210 1 1 21 1101 to 1500 17 545 69 41 452 34 1501 and over, 8 I 720 74 39 346 19 150 $310 $67 1 “$42 1 $230 $31 Table 10 Relation of Size of Flock to Building Investment on 130 Poultry Farms in New Jersey Farm Value Jltry Bird Total Value FOWLS PER FLOCK Dwelling Colony House Brooder House Feed House All Poultry Buildings Value of Poi Buildings Per Proportion of Real Estate ^500 or less, $1357 $67 1 $1171 1 1 $107 1 1 $714 $2.79 Per Cent 16 301 to 500 1731 51 205 105 1 955 2.14 17 501 to 700, 1741 54 203 1 no 1 996 1.60 18 701 to 900, 1598 92 263 157 1 1125 1 1.33 21 901 to 1100 16.58 1 206 384 1 160 1206 1 1.17 19 1101 to 1500 17121 i 179 1 3341 1 206 1 1781 1.33 29 1501 and over 1813 1 150 1 1 350 1 1 375 1 1 2138 1.09 30 Average, $1662 1 1 $89 1 1 $233 1 1 1 $137 1 j $1135 $1.54 1 1 20 The ix)ultryman’s dwelling on most of these farms was modest and not so pretentious as the dwellings on some other types, such as potato, dairy, truck or general farms. However, most of them were comfortable and adequate. Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 39 Relation of Size of Flocks to Receipts and Expenses All business will reach a point of diminishing returns, if in- creased indefinitely. Whether these poultry farms in the largest class are returning the largest receipts per hen might be ques- tioned by the small-flock enthusiast. Fig. 5 . Relation of Size of Flock to Equipment Investment on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey. The egg production per hen as well as the egg receipts per hen are about the same regardless of the size of flock. Conse- quently, the large flocks are not too large for normal production. The total receipts per bird are greater on the farms having a small number of birds per flock because proportionally more chickens are raised. These chickens were included in the inven- 6 * 40 BuIvIvETin 329 tory at the end of the year, and considered in the calculations the same as a receipt. The crop receipts are likewise somewhat greater. Another significant fact about these small flocks is that Fig. 6. Relation of Size of Flock to Building Investment on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey. more old hens are kept over for the following year. Only one- third of the flock is sold as culls during the year, while for the larger flocks about half are sold as culls. The poultrymen who Table ii Relation of Size of Flock to Receipts on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey SIMOJ PIO SB PXOS 8IAVOJ JO juao aa<3 « © Ml Mt M' CO fo 10 © (N W (N 88 1 $2.20 1 14.7 1 1.9 1 $80.20 1 $1297 $1.68 1 1 $0.20 50.1 to 60, 204)9 2.40 15.3 1 71.70 1527 1.74 .19 60.1 to 70, 2060 2.30 15.3 1.7 71.70 1566 1.76 .20 70.1 to 80, 1 1481 2.20 12.2 1 1.9 80.20 1111 1.68 .21 80.1 to 90, 1 1402 1 2.00 14.7 1 2.9 122.40 974 1.93 .21 9P.1 to 100, 1 1102 1 j 3.. 50 1 11.4 1 1 3.6 1 151.90 751 2.37 .31 1 1 i $1726 1 j .$2.. 34 1 i 1 1.9 1 1 1 $81.20 I $1301 $1.76 $0.21 1 - Relation of Proportion of Pullets per Flock to Capital Invested and Experience Since the men included in this survey had such different pro- portions of their flocks in pullets, it is possible that their capital Profits on 150 PouIvTry Farms in New Jersey 67 and methods of investing their capital varied in a similar way. Table 27 shows that the total capital on these farms is about the same, except for farms having all pullets at the beginning of the year. The value of the real estate is about the same for all but the farms having nothing but pullets. The value of the poultry equipment is greater on the farms where 50 to 70 per cent of the flock are pullets, while the number of birds per flock decreases as the proportion of pullets increases. Table 27 Relation of Proportion of Pullets per Flock to Capital Invested and Oper- ator’s Experience on 150 Poultry Farms in Nezv Jersey PER CENT OF FLOCK IN PULLETS Capital Per Farm Value of Real Estate Per Farm Number of Birds Per Farm Value of I’oul- try Ecpiipment Per Farm Years' Experience of Operator 50 or less .'1:7418 $5816 771 $202 9.5 50.1 to 60 7086 5151 875 276 7.6 60.1 to 70 1 7658 5700' 1 8.88 259 6.0 70.1 to 80 7442 5992 1 659 1 205 7.8 80.1 to 90 8138 67.50 1 503 194 4.1 O'.).! to 100 5124 40.50 1 316 1 163 2.6 $7243 $5572 1 1 737 1 $230 1 6.7 Men who have less than 50 per cent of pullets have been in the business over 9.5 years, while those who have nearly all pullets have been in the business only 2.6 years. The man with least experience and a small flock evidently keeps more pullets because he is increasing the size of his flock and that is usually done by raising more. As his flock increases he decreases the proportion to 50 per cent or more. Some of these men have too large a proportion of old hens for the maximum profits. As shown above, the properly balanced flock should have 50 to 70 per cent of pullets to give the highest egg production, allow the sale and use of hatching eggs, and maintain the vigor of the flock. Area of Poultry Farms Poultry can be kept in quite close quarters without much ap- parent injury to the egg-producing ability or vitality of the 68 Bulletin 329 flock. Because of this fact, the man who wishes to invest but little capital in farming can buy a home with 5 to 20 acres of land, and after erecting his poultry building and laying out his yards and ranges, he is equipped for the poultry business. In spite of the fact that the poultry industry has been studied for years, we still have no data which show conclusively that a hen should have a certain amount of space for range or yard in order to lay the greatest number of eggs. The average size of these poultry farms was 11.6 acres. The smallest farm contained i acre, and the largest 150 acres. This is a wide range, but the most important point is to determine the area per 100 hens that is best for the production of eggs and the vitality of the flock. This might be expressed in terms of profit, eggs produced per hen, deaths per 100 hens or in other ways. Relation of Area to Profits and Capital When expressed in terms of labor income or profit, there does not appear to be any area too small for the most profitable pro- Table 28 Relation of Area per lOO Birds to Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 1 1 Real Estate Value ACRES PER 100 BIRDS No. of Farms Area Per Farn Area Per 100 Birds Crop Acres Per Farm Capital Per Farm Per Farm Per Acre Per 100 Birds Labor Income 0.5 or less, 26 1 1 Acres 1 3.6 Acres 0.4 1 1.3 1 $7203 1 $5473 $1564 $651 $1056 0.6 to 1.0 47 1 6.7 0.9 1 2.4 7128 1 5550 828 49'2 663 1.1 to 2.0 43 11.4 1.5 1 4.6 7257 1 5541 489 745 743 2.1 to .3.0 16 1 16.6 1 1.8 1 6.8 7532 1 5937 360 947 350 0.1 and over, 18 1 1 32.5 1 1 I 4.9 1 12.7 I 1 7293 1 1 5567 1 171 1 540 734 1 150 1 1 11.6 1 i 1 1.6 1 1 4.6 j $7243 1 $5572 . $480 $756 $730 duction on these farms. The farms having the smallest area per 100 birds had a greater acre value. This is largely true through- out the Vineland area where land values were greater than in some of the other areas. The operators of some of these farms were paying for location and buildings rather than land. There Profits on 150 Poui^try Farms in New Jersey 69 were 26 farms on which the farm area for their chickens aver- aged only 3.6 acres (table 28). In spite of their small area they had the largest labor income of all classes. The capital invested per farm was about the same regardless of the area. It appears that location and buildings are the major consideration in the purchase of one of these poultry farms. Close confinement of birds has not decreased profits or appreci- ably affected them. This is another advantage for the poultry industry, and should encourage the keeping of village and town flocks. Relation of Area to Production, Receipts and Expenses If the small areas of some of these flocks were injurious to the health of the fowls, we would expect a lower egg production, less receipts per hen and a larger percentage of deaths. If these factors do not decrease it would appear that 3.6 acres per 100 birds are sufficient to maintain their health, vigor and production under the soil and climatic conditions of the areas studied. Table 29 Relation of Area per loo Birds to Egg Production, Receipts per Hen and Per Cent of Mortality on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey ACRES PER 100 BIRDS Dozens of Eggs Sold Total Receipts Number of Birds Per Flock Value Per Bird Sold Years’ Experience of Operator Per Farm Per Hen Per Flock Per 100 Birds 0.5 or loss, 1 1 7274 1 8.5 $3312 1 1 $379 1 1 873 $0.25 6.4 0.6 to 1.0 1 6137 1 8.6 1 2705 1 374 721 .35 5.4 1.1 to 2.0 1 6368 1 8.8 1 2877 1 386 743 .37 8.1 2.1 to 3.0 1 5185 1 8.5 1 2360 I 376 627 .28 6.3 .3.1 and ovpi- | 1 5632 1 1 8.7 1 1 2667 1 1 403 1 661 .47 7.9 6238 8.6 $2818 1 1 $382 737 $0.32 6.7 The number of eggs sold per bird is about the same regardless of the area per 100 birds, while the same is true of receipts (table 29). The flocks on the farms having the smallest areas are somewhat larger than on those of a greater area. One factor would indicate that these poultrymen are cramped for space when 70 BULI.ETIN 329 we study the price received per bird sold. Those on the smaller areas sold the young cockerels when 3 to 6 weeks of age,, that is, as soon as they can distinguish them, for the very low price of 10 to 20 cents apiece. The poultrymen having larger areas kept more of them until older, when they were sold for broilers. If the space would have permitted, probably it would have paid all of these men to feed and fatten their own cockerels instead of selling them to some one else to fatten. TabivE 30 Relation of Area Per 100 Birds to Expenses on 1^0 Poultry Farms in New Jersey ACRES PER 100 BIRDS Total Expenses Feed Cost Labor Cost Per 100 Birds Per Cent of Deaths of Mature Birds Amount of Receipts Above Expenses Per Bird Per Farm Per 100 Birds Per Flock Per 100 Birds Months Per Flock Months Per 100 Birds 0.5 or less, $1815 $216 $1488 $161 13 1.49 $61.70 6.6 $1.63 0.6 to 1.0 1685 236 1298 178 14.1 1.94 81.80 5.1 1.28 1.1 to 2.0 1771 2.38 1343 170 13.8 1.86 78.30 7.3 1.48 2.1 to 3.0, 1635 260 1215 193 14.5 2.33 97.60 11.6 1.16 3.1 and over, 1567 1 237 1044 157 16.4 j 1 [ 2.48 105.50 9.0 1.66 1 1 1 $1726 1 1 1 $234 J $1301 1 1 $176 1 14.1 1 1 1.92 $81.20 7.1 I 1 $1.48 The expenses in these flocks do not appear to be greatly in- fluenced by the area of the poultry farm (table 30). The only item which shows any difference is that of labor. Flocks on the smaller areas are kept at a smaller cost of labor per bird. To some extent this would be influenced by the size of the flock, but the dilference in size was not sufficient to make such a great difference in labor cost. Evidently, flocks kept on a smaller area recjuire less labor to care for them. The death rate is not quite so great for the flocks on the smaller areas. If the small amount of range allowed these flocks were detrimental, it should show in the death rate. They were fully as healthy as those on the more extended ranges. For an area such as Vineland, diseases prevalent in one flock are much inclined to s])read throughout the entire community because of the close proximity of these farms. This is a marked disad- Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 71 vantage for an intensive poultry district such as that of Vineland. The feed cost per bird is about the same regardless of the area. Although there is some variation, it does not appear to show much, if any, difference due to difference in area. From these data it appears that chickens can stand close con- finement without injury. Probably the most serious objection to so densely populated a poultry section is the close contact of the individual flocks which makes the spread of contagious diseases dangerous. One of the most troublesome diseases in this section was chicken pox. The year of this survey the area was quite free from the disease, while the following year the disease was quite prevalent. This made the death rate for 1915-16 lower than normal, and gave an egg production about 5 per cent above normal. This disease is most prevalent in the late summer for about six weeks, when the production is cut to about 50 per cent. Monthly Egg Production and Per Cent of Total Receipts Per Month Mens lay the major portion of their eggs during March, April, May, June and July. Consequently, at this time of the year the Table 31 Relation of Month of the Year to Egg Production and Receipts per Flock on S6 Poultry Farms 1 MONTH 1 Receipts 1 Per Cent Production Per Cent Jann.iry 7.7 6.5 February 7.S S.5 March 1 10.0 1 12.8 April 10.4 1 i 14.1 May, 10. .3 1 13.7 June 9.4 1 11.3 July 9.7 9.7 Auarust, 9.1 7.6 September 6.9 4.9 October 5.4 1 3.1 November 5.5 1 3.2 De^-ember 1 1 7.1 1 1 4.3 1 1 100.0 i 1 1 100.0 poultry receipts are higher than during other portions of the year. However, the price of eggs will vary with the time of the year so 72 Bulletin 329 as to encourage a greater production during the months from August to March. By hatching early chicks this production can be modified so as to give a larger egg yield while the higher prices for eggs prevail. Fig. 17 . Monthly Egg Production and Gross Receipts per Farm. Table 31 shows the per cent of egg production for the year by months as well as the per cent of receipts for the year by months. From figure 18 it will he noticed that if the high point of egg production could be shifted from the spring months so as Proi^its on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 73, to make a more even distribution of production, the poultry men would have better profits for the entire year. Percent of Production Percent ofPeceipts- flonths Fig. 18 . Per cent of Total Yearly Egg Production and Total Yearly Egg Receipts by Months per Farm. Cost of Egg Production By separating the poultry farms on which nothing but poultry products were sold we can figure the cost of producing eggs on commercial poultry farms. There were lOO' such farms. 74 Bulletin 329 Since the raising of young stock was always a part of the busi- ness it would appear proper in this case to include the cost of maintaining the farm flock in calculating the cost of commercial egg production. For most kinds of livestock this would not be desirable, but on these poultry farms it appears more satisfactory. On November i, 1915, there were on these 100 farms 75,898 birds, of which 1,864 were cockerels (table 32). The cockerels were considered the same way as the hens in reckoning the costs per bird. Also the total cost per bird includes the cost of raising young stock to maintain the flock. Table 32 Number and Value of Birds on lOO Poultry Farms from zvhieh only Poultry Pro duets zvere Sold Beginning of Y'ear Nov. 1, 1915 End of Nov. 1, Year 1916 1 i Number 1 Value 1 Number 1 Value Pullets 1 1 46,509 $69,921 50,274 $74,856 Yearliufjs 1 27,525 30,433 31,390 35,822 Cockerels, 1 1,864 1 3.818 2,333 4.858 Total 1 75,898 1 $101,172 83,997 $115,536 1 Value per bird, | $1.37 1 $1.37 While the number of birds had increased at the end of the year, the laying flock was considered as the number of hens at the beginning of the year. While this is subject to slight error, it appeared nearer to the correct number than any modification of this number that might be made to allow for this increase. Some of the birds (7.1 per cent) inventoried at the beginning of the year died, while still others were culled out before the end of the year. The increased number of pullets and yearlings at the end of the year would approximate the loss from the first inventory. Depreciation of Hens 'Phe depreciation of the birds is an item of much importance and should be carefully considered in holding over pullets and yearlings. A hen has a meat value and a laying value. The Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 75, latter is potential and will almost always be greater than her meat value. Consequently, as hens grow older they decrease in potential egg-laying value and approach their meat value. Table 33 Deprcciatioji of Pullets and Yearlings on loo Poultry Farms in New Jersey KIND OF CHICKEN Value Per Bird Depreciation Per Bird at EthI of Year Per Cent Depreciation Per Bird Pullet, t 1 $1.53 1.11 .55 1 1 1 .$ 0.42 .56 1 1 20 50 Yearling I Two-Y"eai‘-01d, i By the time these pullets become two-year-old hens and are sold for meat, they depreciate from $1.53 to $0.55, or 6.4 per cent (table 33). During the first year of the pullet’s life, she depreciates from $1.53 to $1.1 1, or 29 per cent. In the second year she depreciates from $1.1 1 to $0.55, or 50 per cent, when she is sold for her meat value. The death rate would further enter into this depreciation, but this presumably would be ap- proximately the same for both pullets and yearlings. Inasmuch as the yearlings depreciate $0.14 per hen more than pullets, it appears that they should lay 5.7 eggs more per hen (when eggs sell for 33.9 cents per dozen) than pullets in order to be as profitable as the latter. This would be true were it not necessary to have a certain proportion of yearlings in the flock to act as a stabilizer and for breeding stock. Beyond the number necessary for that purpose nO' yearlings should be kept in the place of pullets. They lay fewer eggs per hen and depreciate more rapidly. However, if pullets at the end of the year had to be sold for their meat value, then their depreciation would be 64 per cent, or $0.98. In that case they would need to lay 2.9 dozens more (when eggs are selling at 33.9 cents per dozen) than a 55-cent hen in order to make the same profit. Itemized Costs and Receipts The cost of egg production in 1916 expressed in dollars and cents would not be the same as in 1917 or 1918 when prices of feed, labor and materials have changed. But the amount of feed Table 34 Cost of Egg Production on loo Poultry Farms in New Jersey Number of Chickens No'vember i, 1915 75,89^ Number of Chickens November i, 1916 83,997 76 Bulletin 329 -212 a; C5 PPPOpkO •pppppppnoitononopnoppiopnono PnOTPlOlO -r-inOr-inOrHe^lOlMDSIlMDlMlNr-IUOMDiDIW Cl Cl CO •H- OOt-'^COCOr-l iO 00Pt-lO^Pr-ICDTj-iOo5-rHCPpOP^PPCPPC .024 .008 .099 .030 .497 CO >0 Oi CO* 1 $131,052.00 1 958.50 1 431.38 47.116.30 9,606.42 2.431.00 1 7,702.0es of farming in the state (table 38). While there is a smaller proportion of poultry farms on which a large labor income is made than the potato farms, there is also a smaller proportion on which the operators are losing money. Compared with the other types of farming, poultry excelled in 1916. At present, with the change of grain and egg prices, as well as other of farm products, this relation would probably be different. However, the poultryman who has kept his two major factors, viz., size of flock and production, above the average, has not suffered much. SUMMARY 1. New Jersey has some marked advantages pertaining to the poultry industry, especially those of markets, climate, soils and an established business of much reputation. 2. The poultry areas of New Jerse}^ are devoted almost exclusively to poultry raising, without any other line of agriculture important in the areas. 3. Four poultry associations, branches of the state association, flourish in these poultry areas. 4. The flook practice of these commercial poultry farms is quite uniform. 5 . The floor space in the laying houses was 3.9 square feet per mature bird. 6. Yearlings are largely kept every winter as breeders for the production of hatching eggs. 7. Eggs are carefully sorted, and those of medium size and uniform shape are used for hatching. 8. Most of the hatching is done by incubators having a capacity of 360 to 400 eggs. 9. Culling of the chickens begins immediately after incubation, and before they are placed in the brooder. 10. Small chicks are fed four times a day for the first week, three times for the next two weeks, and twice a day thereafter. 11. The most common type of brooder house is one 14 to 20 feet in width, and long enough to care foT the desired number of chicks. 12. Colony brooder houses are largely used on the newer poultry plants. 13. Few hens are kept after they are two years old. 14 . Most young cokerels are separated from the rest of the flock as soon as distinguishable, which is four to five weeks after hatching. 15. The number of pullets and old hens in these flocks on November i, is considered as the size of the flock for the year. 16. The majority of the poultrymen buy their grains separately and mix them. The ration used is largely that recommended by the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station. Profits on 150 Poultry Farms in New Jersey 83 17. The ranges for the poultry O'cciipy 3.2 acres per farm, or over 27 per cent of the total farm area. 18. White Leghorn fowls comprise 94.3 per cent of the total number on these farms. 19. These poultry farms received from products other than poultry an average of $62 per farm, largely from fruit. 20. The farms were all O'ccupied by owners. 21. The average labor income for the 150 farms was $730, almost $1.00 per hen. 22. The average capital per farm was $7243. 23. The largest capitalized farms gave the largest profit. 24. The average per cent returned on investment was 15. i per cent. 25. The average size of these flocks was 737 fowls, of which 720 were hens and 17 cockerels. 26. The largest flocks gave the largest profits per farm. 27. The largest flocks were the most economical to- operate. 28. The average building investment was $1.54 per bird. 29. The amount of receipts above expenses, not including the operator’s labor, was $1.48 per bird. 30. The average egg production per hen was 109 eggs for the year. 31. The average current expense per hen was $2.34. 32. The average receipts per bird were $3.82. 33. An average of 1.7 months’ labor was required to care for 100 mature birds and chickens raised per 100 mature birds per year. 34. The flock with the highest production showed the greatest profit for the year. 35. Eleven per cent of the flocks gave a production of 45 per cent above the average for the 150 farms. 36. Experience was quite necessary to success on these poultry farms. 37 . The poultrymen on these farms were engaged in many different lines of work prior to entering the business. 38. The proper proportion of pullets to yearlings was 50 to 70 per cent of the number of The flock. 39. The size of the area per flock did not appear to affect the egg produc- tion, or the number of deaths in the flock. 40. The average depreciation of pullets was 29 per cent and of yearlings 50 per cent, while the average depreciation of a pullet until she was sold as a two-year old was 64 per cent. 41. The average cost of producing eggs in 1916 was 29.3 cents per dozen. 42. The average amount of feed required for the laying flock and 3^oung stock was 82.97 pounds per hen. 43. The average amount of labor for the laying flock and young stock was only 1.77 months per 100 birds. 44. The average profit per hen on 100 farms was 41 cents. 45. The major factors essential for success on these poultr}' farms were: (i) size O'f flock, (2) egg production per hen, (3) experience of operator, and (4) proportion of pullets to yearlings. 46. The two most essential factors were size of flock and production per hen. 84 Bulletin 329 47. Poultrymen having flocks whose production and size were above the average made an average labor income of $2002, and those with flocks having only size or production as good as or better than the average received only $659, while those in whose flocks neither size nor production was as good as or better than the average made an average labor income of only $106. Acknowledgment The authors take pleasure in acknowledging the courtesy of Dr. J. G. Lipman, dean and director, for his support in the work, and express their appreciation to the poultrymen who gave these data so that the work was made possible. Mr. A. G. Waller collected the data and assisted in tabulating a portion of the survey. He also wrote the portions of the manu- script devoted to the Description of the Areas, Poultry Associa- tions, Flock Practice, and the Laying Flock. Prof. H. R. Lewis gave his counsel, and read and criticised the manuscript after it was prepared by the senior author, who directed the work, pre- pared and studied the data and wrote the manuscript except such portions as were written by Mr. Waller. Plate 1. Fig. 1, Modern poultry plant in the Vineland area, showing buildings. Fig. 2. Modern colony houses with the ranges in the Vineland area. Plate 2. Fig. 1. Typical brooding scene in Vineland area, showing coal stove Ijrooders which are used almost nniversally. Fig. 2. Faying houses of one O'f the pioneer i)oultrynien in the Vineland area. Plate 3. Fig. 1. Common arrangement of a long laying house located in the center of a peach orchard. Fig. 2 . Laying houses in the Vineland area, showing the range. Plate 4. Fig. 1, Range houses in the Vineland area. Fig. 2. A method commonly used in marketing in the Vineland area. The eggs are taken to the tro'lley express in wheelbarrows. Xjum New Jersey Agricultural experiment Stations BULLETIN 330 Main Building at the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR FOR 1918 New Brunswick, N. J. NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS* NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J. STATION ESTABLISHED 1880 BOARD OF MANAGERS His Excellency WALTER E. EDGE, LL. D Trenton, Governor of the State of New Jersey. W. H. S. DEMAREST, D. D New Brunswick, President of the State Agricultural College. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph. D Professor of Agriculture of the State Agricultural College. County Atlantic Bergen Burlington Camden Cape May Cumberland Essex Gloucester Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Name William A. Blair Arthur Lozier R. R. Lippincott Ephraim 1. Gill Charles V^anaman Charles F. Seabrook Zenos G. Crane Wilbur Beckett Diedrich Bahrenburg Egbert T. Bush losiah T. Allinson Address Elwood Ridgewood Vincentown Haddonfield Dias Creek Bridgeton Caldwell Swedesboro Union Hill Stockton Yardville Cou nty Name Address Middlesex James Neilson New Bruns’k Monmouth William H. Rcid Tennent Morris John C. Welsh Ger’n Valley Ocean Joseph Sapp Tuckerton Passaic Isaac A. Serven Clifton Salem Charles R. Hires Salem Somerset Joseph Larocque Bernardsville Sussex Robert V. Armstrong Augusta Union John Z. Hatfield Scotch Plains Warren James I. Cooke Delaware STAFF Jacob G. Lipman, Ph. D Director. Frank G. Helyar, B. Sc Associate in Station Administration. Irving E. Quackenboss Chief Clerk, Secretary and Treasurer. Carl R. Woodward, B. Sc Editor.* Hazel H. Moran Assistant Librarian Frank App, B. Sc Agronomist. Irving L. Owen, B. Sc. Associate Agronomist J. Marshall Hunter, B. Sc., Animal Husbandman. Charles S. Cathcart, M. Sc Chemist. Ralph L. Willis, B. Sc. .. .Assistant Chemist. Archie C. Wark Laboratory Assistant. W. Andrew Cray Sampler and Assistant. Harry C. McLean, Ph. D. . Chemist, Soil Res’h. William M. Regan, A. M. .Dairy Husbandman. Forest Button, B. Sc., Assistant Dairy Husbandman. John Hill, B. Sc., Assistant Dairy Husbandman. Thomas J. Headlee, Ph. D Entomologist. Chas. S. Beckwith, B. Sc., Asst. Entomologist. Mitchell Carroll, B. Sc. ..A sst. Entomologist Charles H. Connors, B. Sc., Assistant in Experimental Horticulture. Arthur J. Farley, B. Sc., Acting Horticulturist. William Schieferstein .... Orchard Foreman Lyman G. Sciiermerhorn, B. Sc., Specialist in Vegetable Studies. Vincent J. Breazeale, Foreman, Vegetable Growing 11. M. Biekart Florist. Harry R. Lewis, M. Agr., Poultry Husbandman. Ralston R. Hannas, B. Sc., Assistant in Poultry Research Morris Siegel Poultry Foreman. Elmer H. Wene Poultry Foreman. John P. Helyar, M. Sc Seed Analyst. Jessie G. Fiske, Ph. B....Asst. Seed Analyst. AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1888. BOARD OF CONTROL The Board of Trustees of Rutgers College in New Jersey. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD W. H. S. DEMAREST, D. D., President of Rutgers College, Chairman New Brunswick. WILLIAM H. LEUPP New Brunswick. JAMES NEILSON New Brunswick. WILLIAM S. MYERS New York City. JOSEPH S. FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan J. AMORY HASKELL Red Bank STAFF JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph. D Director. ilENRY P. SCHNEEWEISS, A. B Chief Clerk. John W. Shive, Ph. D Plant Physiologist. Earle J. Owen, M. Sc. .. .Assistant in Botany. Frederick W. Roberts, A. M., Assistant in Plant Breeding Mathilde Groth Laboratory Aid. Thomas J. Headlee, Ph. D Entomologist. Alvah Peterson, Ph. D..Asst. Entomologist. Gertrude E. Macpherson, A. B., Research Assistant in Plant Pathology. ‘Staff list revised to October [918. Augusta E. Meske. .. Stenographer and Clerk. Melville T. Cook, Ph. D.. Plant Pathologist. Jacob G. Lipman, Ph. D., Soil Chemist and Bacteriologist. Augustine W. Blair, A. M., Associate Soil Chemist. Selman a. Waksman, Ph. D., Microbiologist, Soil Research. Cyrus Witmer. ... Field and Laboratory Asst, ( 3 ) NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ORGANIZED 1912 AND NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE DIVISION OF EXTENSION IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS ORGANIZED 1914 Alva Agee, M. Sc., Director. Mrs. Frank App, Assistant Home Demonstra- tion Leader. Victor G. Aubry, B. Sc., Specialist, Poultry Husbandry. John W. Bartlett, B. Sc., Specialist, Dairy Husbandry. Maurice A. Blake, B. Sc., Acting State Superintendent and State Leader of Farm Demonstration. Roscoe W. DeBaun, B. Sc., Specialist, Market Gardening. J. B. R. Dickey, B. Sc., Specialist, Soil Fer- tility and Agronomy. Elsie Ditmar, Assistant State Club Leader. Marjory Eells, D. S., Home Demonstration Agent. Edna Gulick, Home Demonstration Agent. Arthur M. Hulbert, State Leader of Boys’ and Girls’ Club Work. Ethel Jones, M. A., Asst. State Club Leader. William F. Knowles, A. B., Assistant State Club Leader. Van E. Leavitt, Specialist, Fruit Growing. William M. McIntyre, Assistant Specialist, Fruit Growing. Charles H. Nissley, B. Sc., Specialist, Fruit and Vegetable Growing. Carl R. Woodward, B. Sc., Editor. H. E. Baldinger, B. Sc., Demonstrator for Sussex County. William P. Brodie, B. Sc., Demonstration Agent, Salem County. Frank A. Carroll, Demonstrator for Mercer County. Elwood L. Chase, B. Sc., Demonstrator tor Gloucester County. Laura V. Clark, A. B., Home Demonstration Agent for Newark. Bertha Cold, B. Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Jersey City. Louis A. Cooley, B. Sc., Demonstration Agent for Ocean County. Herbert R. Cox, M. S. A., Demonstration Agent for Camden County. Josephine C. Cramer, B. Sc., Home Demon- stration Agent for Middlesex County. Lee W. Crittenden, B. Sc., Demonstrator for Middlesex County. Ellwood Douglass, Demonstrator for Mon- mouth County. Arden M. Ellis, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Monmouth County. Harry C. Haines, Demonstration Agent for Somerset County. Margaret H. Hartnett, Home Demonstration Agent for Paterson. Cora A. Hoffman, B. Sc., Home Demonstra- tion Agent for Morris County. j William A. Houston, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Sussex County. Lauretta P. James, B. Sc., Home Demonstra- tion Agent for Mercer County. Philip F. Keil, Demonstration Agent for Bur- lington County. May D. Kemp, B. Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for the Oranges. Harvey S. Lippincott, B. Agr., Demonstrator for Morris County. L. F. Merrill, B. Sc., Demonstrator for Ber- gen County. Adelia F. Noble, Home Demonstration Agent for Princeton. Warren W. Oley, B. Sc., Demonstrator for Cumberland County. Lena R. Pierce, B. Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Trenton. Regine Porges, .B. Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Passaic. Caroline R. Simons, Home Demonstration Ap'ent for Camden. James A. Stackhouse, B. Sc., Demonstrator for Cape May County. Eunice Straw, B. Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Monmouth County. Jessie D. Ross, B. Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Elizabeth. Norine Webster, Home Demonstration Agent for Bayonne. Harold E. Wettyen, B. Sc., Demonstrator for Passaic County. Carolyn F. Wetzel, Home Demonstration Agent for Bergen County. Albert E. Wilkinson, M. Agr., Demonstration Agent for Atlantic County. CONTENTS Page The Station’s Activities 6 Chemistry 9 Inspection of Commercial Feeding Stuffs 9 Inspection of Commercial Fertilizers 10 Registration 10 Inspection of Agricultural Lime 10 Inspection of Insecticides 10 Horticulture 10 Animal Husbandry 11 Poultry Husbandry 11 Dairy Husbandry 18 Experimental 13 Extension Work 18 Advanced Registry Work 13 Glassware and Testers’ License Law 18 The Dairy Herd and Equipment 13 Seed Control 13 Agronomy 14 Agricultural Extension 15 Soil Chemistry and Bacteriology 15 Field Plots 15 Cylinder Experiments 16 Potash Availability 16 Soil Fungi and Bacteria 16 Potato Fertilizer Experiment 16 Botany 16 Entomology 17 Plant Pathology 19 Publications 20 Bulletins 20 (brculars 20 Reports 21 Ilints'to Poultrymen 21 Publications of the Division of Extension 21 Technical Papers 22 Popular Papers 23 Staff Changes 24 Appointments 24 Resignations , 25 NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS BULLETIN 330 AUGUST 15, 1918 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR FOR 1918 Jacob G. Lipman Competition of war industries has brought about marked changes in the farm practice of the past season. It happens that New Jersey has a large number of these war industries within its borders and many more in adjacent territory. Naturally, the scale of wages in vogue at plants manufacturing war supplies and equip- ment is very much beyond that formerly, and even at present, pre- vailing on the farms of the state. Experienced farm help has been attracted by the high wages and has been lost to the farms. Not only is there a shortage of experienced farm labor, but much of the labor remaining on farms is, on the average, less com- petent than formerly. An effort has been made to replace the men who have left the farm by boys of school age and by women. This replacement is not in all cases satisfactory. Fortunately, coopera- tion on the part of the Commissioner of Labor of New Jersey, of the Federal Department of Labor and of the State Agricultural Col- lege has served to distribute as well as is practicable the scant sup- ply of farm labor. Much uncertainty has also prevailed in the supply and distribu- tion of raw materials needed in crop production. The delivery of fertilizers was very slow in the spring and, in a number of instances, farmers were compelled to plant their crops without fertilizer which had failed to arrive in time. Similarly, the deliveries of farm im- plements, of seed and of insecticides has been uncertain. The price of these commodities also has gone up. Feed for domestic animals has increased in price to such an extent as to hamper seriously the feeding of poultry, swine and dairy animals. The farmers in our state are realizing that it will be necessary to place orders for raw materials used in crop production at a much earlier date than here- tofore. The disturbed condition of the farm labor market and the en- hanced prices of farm supplies have brought about, in certain sec- tions, a more or less far-renching readjustment in the crop practice. In some of the South Jersey counties the acreage of potatoes was 6 Bulletin 330 materially reduced and the acreage of tomatoes increased to a corre- sponding extent On the whole, there has been an increase in the acreage of corn and of small grains, and a very marked decrease in the acreage of vegetable crops grown under normal conditions. There has been a marked decrease in the number of dairy cattle in the southern part of the state. There has also been a very marked shrinkage in the amount of poultry in the state. It may be noted here that home gardens still continue to be a factor in food pro- duction. The total acreage devoted to home gardens in 1918 is probably less than that in 1917. On the other hand, the gardens are evidently receiving much better care and the volume of food produced from these gardens should be fully as great in 1918 as it was in 1917. It is already apparent that the unusual industrial conditions now prevailing will react on agricultural production in the state. It is safe to assume that there will be an extraordinary demand after the war for desirable farm lands and that many new settlers will come to New Jersey from other states. For this reason, it would be wise to anticipate the utilization of farm lands now partly or entirely neglected and the putting under cultivation of a great deal of land not yet improved for farm purposes. Some stress will have to be laid on the desirability of organizing as fast as may be prac- ticable agricultural courses in our secondary schools, for we shall depend on these courses for the training of a new generation of farmers. It may be suggested, also, that a greater degree of co- operation will be developed among farmers of New Jersey, both in respect to production and marketing. The Station's Activities The progress of the war has brought about some readjustments in the organization and conduct of the work of the Experiment Station. A very considerable number of the stall terminated their connection with the institution to enter the military service of the country. A list of former employees of the station now in the service is given elsewhere in this report. In so far as it was pos- sible, vacancies created by enlistments or draft were filled by men above draft age or those placed in the deferred classes on account of dependents. Nevertheless, the increasing scale of salaries, a sequel to the high cost of food and of other commodities, has tended to interfere with the progress of the Station’s work. Among the accessions to the land, Iniildings and equipment of the station, there are several which are deserving of special men- tion. Mr. James Neilson — a trustee and tried friend of the College — has placed at the disposal of the College and Experiment Station his farm-land and outbuildings. There is a total area of about 260 acres owned by Mr. Neilson. Of this acreage 150 acres are tillable and in a good state of cultivation. Mr. Neilson, with his usual generosity, is allowing the College the use of his land and outbuildings without charge. The increased acreage which was made available by Mr. Neilson ’s action made necessary the engaging Repokt of the Dikectok for 1918 7 of additional men for farm work and the purchase of additional ecpiipment. An effort was made to solve the labor problem by putting in use three tractors owned by the Station. The excessive rainfall during the early part of the season interfered more or less with the fullest use of these tractors. Nevertheless, results thus far obtained indicate that the farm tractor may be made a valuable ally in general farming. In view of the high cost of feeds, as well as of labor involved in the care of livestock, motor-driven farm machinery should prove an acceptable substitute for draft animals. The completion of the Dairy Barn, so badly needed, has been delayed on account of the inability of the contractor to secure l)uilding materials. It is hoped that it will be completed before cold weather conies on. The completion of the barn will permit of a more economical use of the labor employed in our dairy de- partment. 'It is expected that the new barn will be conducted as a commercial unit of about 45 milking cows, and that the old barn will be used for heifers and calves. A number of bull pens have been completed and enclosures provided for the young stock. All told, there has been very marked progress in the dairy department. The number of pure-bred and registered animals is steadily in- creasing. and the time is near when all of the livestock in the dairy department will be pure-bred. Three of the prominent breeds, viz. : Holstein, Jersey and Ayrshire, are well represented. The number of Guernseys in the herd is still very limited, but a good beginning with this breed has already been made. It may be noted here that several Milking Shorthorns were purchased last fall and that a few of these animals will be kept for educational purposes. It may also be noted that the Hock of sheep acquired by the Station will be enlarged as conditions may permit. Certain alterations are being made in the Short Course Build- ing to provide for the establishment of a Home Economics Labora- tory in which experimental and demonstration work in home eco- nomics may be carried on. This laboratory should be a valuable aid to the home economics specialists in the state, for it will give them an opportunity to test out recipes and methods before recom- mending them for general adoption in the state. While every effort has been made to economize in the use of labor on the College Farm Grounds, some progress has been made nevertheless as incidental to the work of crop production. The lines of the first quadrangle of the College Farm have been marked by the planting of shade trees and by a limited degree of grading and filling. The approach to the College Farm is to be made more attractive by the paving of Nichol Avenue, now in progress. This work is being done by the Department of Highway Engineering of the state. It is the pleasant duty of the director of the Station to express his feeling of appreciation to the State Highway Depart- ment for the helpful cooperation extended to both the College and Station. The constant demand for additional space on the part of the extension department of the College and Station has made it neees- 8 Bulletin 330 sary to utilize a large part of the Farm House for this purpose. The offices of the state leader of boys’ and girls’ clubs, as well as the office of the home economics specialists, are now located in the Farm House. Notwithstanding the use of most of the Farm House for this purpose, the Agricultural Building is very much crowded and some of the departments of the Station are suffering from lack of adequate office facilities. It is hoped that the re- quest of the College and Station for a Horticultural Building, re- peatedly presented to the Appropriations Committee, will be met in the near future. There is also an urgent need for the construc- tion of a machinery building, in which farm tractors and other farm niachinery may be stored and in which instruction in farm mechanics may be carried on. It is realized that the growing in- terest in the use of motor-driven niachinery will compel the agri- cultural institutions of the state to accumulate first-hand informa tion on the construction and costs of operation of such implements and machinery. It is hoped that funds may be available for the construction of a Machinery Building. Some of the research work of the Station has been curtailed on account of the lack of fuel. Two of the station green houses were not operated last winter in order that the consumption of coal might be reduced to a minimum. It is expected that through the coming fall and winter economy in the use of coal for greenhouse purposes will be even more rigid. In so far as possible, wood fuel will be used at the College Farm as a substitute for coal. In spite of the most drastic economy, however, very considerable quantities of coal will be needed for heating the offices and labora- tories. We hope that this coal will be made available. The rapidly mounting cost of supplies of all sorts is imposing on the station administration the duty of scrutinizing every item of expense in order that the station budget may be kept within the limits of the appropriation. The cost of feeds and of labor is an important item in the station budget and is, for this reason, receiving special consideration. An effort is being made to increase the production of home- grown feeds. The production of alfalfa and of other forage crops is considerably beyond the actual needs of the livestock, and some hay will probably be sold. If the growing conditions remain at all normal, the production of corn should not only be sufficient for filling the silos, but should also furnish one-third of the corn needed by the dairy, poultry and animal husbandry departments of the station. A very considerable quantity of oats and peas will also be made available for furnishing part of the concentrates needed in the dairy and animal husbandry departments. The Experiment Station has enjoyed within the period covered by this report the cooperation of the United States Department of Agriculture, and of the State Departments of Conservation and Development, Education, Labor and Agriculture. The station has also enjoyed the cooperation of the State Agricultural College and State University of New Jersey. Experimental work carried on in cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture Report of the Director for 1918 0 has included studies of plant diseases affecting tomatoes, the feed- ing of garbage to swine and the fertilizer requirements of soils especially adapted to the growing of cranberries and blueberries. The Department of Conservation and Development has cooperated, as formerly, with the Experiment Station in the conduct of soil surveys of the state. The State Department of Agriculture has continued its cooperation in certain control work on insects and plant diseases, the organization of farmers’ institutes and the carrying on of educational work relating to crops and animals. The enactment of the so-called Smith-Hughes Bill has pro- vided for cooperative work between the State Department of Edu- cation and the State University of New Jersey. Indirectly, this cooperative work affects the activities of the Experiment Station. The organization of agricultural courses in the secondary schools of the state, as a result of this cooperation, will bring to the Ex- periment Station a certain degree of responsibility in the supply- ing of technical information on crop production. The Experiment Station has enjoyed in many ways cooperation with the State Uni- versity in the conduct of demonstration and experimental work. This cooperation allows the most economical use of buildings and equipment, and accrues to the advantage of both institutions. A summary of the activities of the several departments of the station, as submitted by these departments, is herewith given. Chemistry The previous annual reports contain the results of the inspec- tions of feeding stuffs, fertilizers, agricultural limes and insecti- cides, but since this report is for only eight months, it is impossible to report in detail the results of all of the inspections. The in- spection of commercial feeding stuffs is the only inspection that has been completed since the last report, and the results obtained are noted. Brief statements also are made in regard to the other inspections in order that a record may be made of the conditions at the time of rendering the report. Inspection of Commercial Feeding Stuffs The manuscript for the bulletin containing the results of the inspection has been prepared and is in the hands of the printer. During the year, 469 manufacturers and jobbers registered 2553 brands of feeding stuffs which they would offer for sale in this state. The inspectors found 39 brands that were being sold before registration was made. This is an improvement over the preceding year, the local manufacturers being largely responsible for these brands. The total number of samples examined was 977, and 260 — or 27.9 per cent — did not substantially satisfy the guarantees given for the minimum content of protein nnd fat, and the maximum content of fiber. The deficiencies found consisted of the following ; protein, 87 ; fat, 83 ; and fiber, 151 ; 207 samples being deficient in one nutrient; 45 deficient in two nutrients and 8 deficient in the three nutrients. These figures, when compared with the previous 10 Bulletin 330 inspection, show that there was an improvement in the character of the feeds examined. The tonnag-e of feeding stuffs sold as shown in the tabulation amounts to 234,040 tons, which was about 1300 tons less than was sold during the preceding year and about 6000 tons more than was sold in 1915. Inspection of Commercial Fertilizers The collection of the samples of fertilizers representing the spring shipments has been made, and the chemical examinations are being made by the entire chemical force, but the work has not progressed sufficiently to permit any statements as to the character and composition of the materials sold. Registration The fertilizer registrations received between November 1, 1917, and January 28, 1918, were published in Bulletin 321. Inspection of Agricultnral Lime The inspection of agricultural lime products is being carried along with the fertilizer work as usual. Inspection of Insecticides Samples of insecticides are being collected. The chemical ex- amination will be made and the results published as usual. Horticulture The peach experiments in Orchard No. 1 at Vineland have been conducted for a period of ten years, and, since it is now very difficult and almost impossible to secure some forms of plant-food, this portion of the Avork has been concluded. The orchard, how- ever, has become the oldest one in the district in commercial con- dition, and it offered a good opportunity to demonstrate the com- mercial iiossibilities of an orchard beyond its tenth year. Each alternate row of trees was pruned back severely in the last winter in order to develop a new top, and a vigorous growth resulted. The other rows Avill be headed back in the same manner either next year or the following year, so that the entire orchard may be kept vigorous and with low heads. The extensive peach pruning experiments at Vineland have been continued and a full crop is now on the trees. Some detailed studies are being made this year of the rate of groAvth of the fruits and twigs in each treatment. A record has been kept for a period of years of the number of borers removed from each tree in the experiments at Vineland, and this work has been maintained. The number of trees infested and the number of borers found Avere greatly reduced this year, I)robably as the result of the work of parasites. A Avhite seedling freestone peach that ripens a few days before Carman is being propagated for distribution. Report of the Director for 1918 11 Several promising carnation seedlings deserve to be propa- gated for distribution as soon as conditions permit. Animal Husbandry Three distinct lines of feeding experiments received attention in the animal husbandry department during the period November 1, 1917, to June 30, 1918. One of these feeding experiments consisted of a comparative study of self-feeders versus hand-feeding for market pigs that were allowed access also to forage crops. The second trial, a continua- tion of earlier experimental work, began on June .15, 19i7, with 20 pigs; and the third trial began on July 25, 1917, with 30 pigs. All of the animals were under experiment from weaning time until ready to go to market. It is expected that a fourth test will be carried out in the season of 1918 in order to make certain that the results of the last two seasons are properly checked. Cooperative experiments are being conducted on the feeding of garbage to hogs. The State Hospital, at Trenton, and the United States Department of Agriculture, as well as the Experi- ment Station, are participating in this work. The experimental work was begun on June 7, 1918, with 60 pigs. It is proposed to continue the experiments until the animals obtain a marketable weight of from 200 to 250 pounds. The 60 animals are divided into six lots of ten pigs each. They are to b.e fed as follows : Lot 1. Cooked garbage. Lot 2. Raw garbage. Lot 3. Raw garbage finished on a grain ration Lot 4. Raw garbage with 1 per cent of grain. Lot 5. Straight grain ration. Lot 6. Raw garbage with green forage. Still another experiment deals with alfalfa as a hay and forage crop. The alfalfa crop used in the experiment was seeded on August 14, 1917. The first cutting was made on May 27, 1918, and the animals were turned into the alfalfa pasture on June 10, 1918. An attempt will be made to determine the value of alfalfa in the economical production of pork. Poultry Husbandry The work of the department of poultry husbandry has pro- gressed very satisfactorily during the past eight months in spite of the serious handicaps occasioned by war conditions. The change in the date of issuing the annual report makes it impossible t(» report fully on the details and progress of the various research projects. These will be fully reported upon in the next annual report. The staff of the department has been subjecteil to many changes, due to demands for men for service in the army. This has handicapped the work at the Vineland contest very materially. The extreme shortage of staple feeding stuffs and the inability 12 Bullbtin 330 to obtain them during certain parts of last winter was a very serious problem, making it necessary to curtail many of the feeding research projects. The experimental feeding work has been cen- tered more largely on war emergency problems in an effort to find efficient concentrates which would meet the needs of poultry rations at a moderate cost. One very valuable factor learned dur- ing the last year’s work is the possibility of greatly increasing the amount of mash fed to laying hens and growing stock, and greatly reducing the amount of grain fed. Such practice results in a great reduction in the cost of the ration and more efficiency in production and growth. New Jersey, among the other eastern states, has been hard hit in its poultry industry, because of the great distance over which feed and fuel must be transported, as well as the scarcity and high prices of these commodities. In order to help meet this emergency, the poultr;>" husbandman of the Experiment Station has personally devoted considerable time and energy to meet these problems through cooperative and organization methods. The cor- respondence of the department has increased during the year, much of wliicli has been of an emergency nature. Practically all of the breeding work which has been under way for the past few years has been maintained, though somewhat reduced in volume. The work at the Vineland contest has pro- gressed in an exceptionally gratifying manner. The two-year-old hens during the current year have succeeded in laying a production nearly ecpial to their pullet performance. Excellent results have been attained in the hatching and rearing of the young stock from the contest birds, and a very promising year of the contest is an- ticipated. The contest has brought out many valuable research results, from a breeding as well as from a feeding standpoint. The policy of the poultry department in meeting the war cmiergency is two-fold : first, to keep thoroughly informed of ex- isting conditions in the state by studying through every possible means the condition of every changing factor affecting the industry and to determine the reaction of such conditions upon production; and, second, to attempt to stimulate in every possible way a greater efficiency in poultry production and to strive in so far as is con- sistent with cost and revenue factors, to maintain production With the aim of meeting this program, definite suggestions and teachings have been promulgated and given wide publicity through personal contact with organizations, through demonstration pro- jects, and through individual visits, as well as through the agri- cultural and poultry press and through our regular Hints to Poultrymen. ’ ’ The aims and purposes in administering the forces of the poultrv" department are and will be to help win the war by uniting the poultry interests of the state ; by fostering the industry through proper counsel and advice, and through the closest attention to these efforts to support the nation in the production of an ade- ({uate supply of poultry and eggs. Report of the Director for 1918 13 Dairy Husbandry The following five principal lines of endeavor have been pur- sued by the department of dairy husbandry during the eight months ending June 30, 1918. Experimental The experimental work has consisted principally of the long- time experiment on the conformation of dairy heifers as indicating their future production. This experiment has been running for two years. A new experiment, The Milking Machine and Its Re- lation to Sanitary Milk Production, has been started during the past year. Extension Work The dairy extension work has been exceptionally heavy during the past year. Advice and assistance to the dairymen of the state nave teen given through cooperative dairy projects, correspon- dence. personal visits and institutes. One new dairy record association has been formed, makinj> in all nine active dairy record associations. The formation of the State Dairymen’s Association has been completed. Advanced Registry Work There has been a slight increase in the number of cows on ad- vanced registry. From this it is evident that the breeders, even under the adverse conditions of feed and labor, have confidence in the future of the dairy cattle industry. Glassware and Testers’ License Law The supervision of the creameries and milk plants in the state with reference to their testing of milk and cream where milk and cream are purchased on the butterfat basis has been carried on in a similar manner as in the previous year. A total of 1,985 pieces of glassware were tested with an average proportion of inaccuracy of 3.8 per cent. This shows that the law is having its effect in bringing a better grade of glassware into the state. The Dairy Herd and Equipment The dairy herd has seen a substantial increase to June 30, 1918, totalling 102 animals. The total at the end of the last fiscal year was 74, showing an increase of 28 animals. A new addition to the barn has been almost completed. This work has been very much hindered because of inability to get ma- terials, but undoubtedly the barn will be ready for the stabling of cattle by cold weather. Seed Control The unusual conditions of the country’s seed supply, the de- mand for crop production and a growing appreciation of the im- portance of good seeds in relation thereto, have had a marked effect 14 Bulletin 330 on the extent of service demanded from the seed laboratory. For- tunately, conditions enabled this department to meet the demand and much has apparently been gained in establishing the necessity of maintaining the seed laboratory. In particular, it was possible to perform a very beneficial serv- ice to the corn growers of the state, who faced the 1918 season with a very uncertain supply of seed. Testing many samples for farmers, issuing instructions for home testing and emphasizing the need of most careful discrimination in selecting seed corn saved many thousands of dollars to the state. The official inspection of dealers’ stock has been seriously limi- ted by lack of funds. This is a most important phase of the work and, if neglected, the object of the law will be altogether nullified. Pffir this work there is most urgent need of a man who can be in the field all the time, if necessary, maintaining contact with dealers throughout the state and sampling dealers’ stock freely. In this way only can the seed laboratory approach the desired condition of assuring accuracy of label statements to purchasers. The labora- tory is organized and equipped, and to do its utmost there must be sufficient appropriation to extend the work as indicated. Agronomy The agronomy department has continued the work of the pre- ceding year, some of which has been finished and has been placed in manuscript form for publication. The study of the source of al- falfa seed, the time of seeding alfalfa and the methods of raising alfalfa, together with that of sweet clover, is much the same as in the preceding year. Because of lack of assistance and shortage of funds, the work on varieties of grains had to be discontinued at this time. P^’ami management on poultry farms and the cost of egg pro- duction was studied during the past year in cooperation with the poultry department. The study has brought to light some very ])ertiuent information on this important industry which has suffered so severely because of war conditions. The study of the cost of milk production and the organization of dairy farms was also made and completed during the past year, so that the Station was enabled to produce real evidence when in- vestigations were made on the cost of milk production for the New York and Philadelphia markets. This evidence was presented to the New Yoi-k Dairy Committee, appointed to investigate the cost of milk production, the Federal Milk Commission for the New York market, as well as the Commission of the City of New York alone, which investigated the cost of milk production. Much time has been given to emergency work concerning such I)roblems as alfect the farm most vitally. Farm labor has received considerable attention through this department. .Much time has been devoted to the distribution and use of good alfalfa seed, while the improvement of corn through out the state has been given considerable attention through the ex- Report of the Director for 1918 15 tension division and through the State Corn Show, which was under the direction of the agronomy department. The marketing and grading of alfalfa also has been taken up by the department, so that we can now assure the farmers who wish to grow this crop that there is a good and definite market waiting for their product. Agricultural Extension Emergency war work has interfered seriously with the regular educational work of specialists and county farm demonstrators. Only one thing really counts today, and that is the winning of the war. The members of our staff have neglected their educational projects only so far as immediate necessities required. The policy has been to maintain the leading ones, but the urgent calls of the national government for service have not been neglected. The reports of leaders in county farm demonstration, home demonstration, boys’ and girls’ club work and the reports of the specialists are submitted with a considerable degree of pride. The thorough organization of county farm demonstration is due largely to Mr. John li. Ilankinson, who resigned from the state leadership iMay 1, 1918. Our thanks are due to Prof. Prank App, head of the department of agronomy in the Station and College, who most kindly became acting state leader and served most efficiently until the close of the fiscal year. The home demonstration work has been well organized by its state leader, and is especially serviceable under present war con- ditions. The state club work has been put upon an especially satisfac- tory basis by its state leader. Our farm demonstration work, manned by a staff of earnest, efficient men, owes much to the specialists connected with the central office. Probably the outstanding fact in the eight months’ experience is the development of community interest and team work in our various counties, with the assistance of capable farm demonstrators, that is helping in a practical way to win the war. The extension staff has worked as a unit in a most gratifying degree. Soil Chemistry and Bacteriology The report for this year is short, since the date for the ending op the fiscal year has been changed from October 31 to eJune 30. Field Plots This work has been continued as outlined in previous reports and bulletins. This year being the first of the third 5-year period, the majority of the plots are in corn. The land was plowed and prepared early and the corn planted about the middle of May. With the exception of considerable cool weather, the season has been favorable and the corn is now in excellent condition. The scarcity of potash, together with the fact that these plots 16 Bulletin 330 have had generous applications of this material for the past ten years, led to the decision to omit the potash from most of the plots this year. It is believed that such omission will not in any way interfere with these experiments. Other fertilizers were applied in accordance with the plans. The work with ditferent varieties of soybeans on lime and unlimed plots is being continued. At this writing all varieties on limed plots are much superior, both as to size and color, to corre- sponding varieties on unlirned plots. Samples of soil have been collected from most of the plots for future analysis. Cylinder Experiments The experiments on the availability of nitrogen in different nitrogenous materials and the accumulation and utilization of ni- trogen by means of leguminous crops are being continued. This season begins the fifth 5-year period for the loam soil cylinders where nitrogen availability studies are being carried on. These cylinders are now in corn and this is in excellent condition, except where the fertilizer treatment has been adverse. A partial summary of the results from these cylinders for the first twenty years has been published. Potash Availahility The work on the availability of potash in greensand marl is being continued by means of pot experiments. The plan calls for the growing of certain crops such as soybeans and buckwheat which may be able to utilize slowly-available potash, these crops to be used in turn as manure crops to supply potash for such crops as require a more available supply of potash. Soil Fungi and Bacteria On account of the withdrawal of Messrs. J. R. Neller and R. E. Curtis for other service, little work was done on these projects during the period covered by this report. After the first of July the work will be carried on by Dr. S. A. Waksman, who was former- ly connected with this department. Potato Fertilizer Experiment The cooperative fertilizer experiment with potatoes at Elmer lias been continued. The work this year is practically a duplication of last year’s work. The plan allows for a study of the residual effect of the marl which was used last year. There are very strong inclications that there is a close relationship between the fertilizers used and tlie early dying of the tops. It is hoped that the problem can be further studied next year. Botany The projects carried on in this department may be briefly des- cribed as follows : Inheritance of Hybrid Characters. Subjects in hand are (1) Report of the Director for 1918 17 the bean hybrid between “Scarlet Runner” and “Refugee Wax”; and (2) the egg-plant hybrid, a union of “Dwarf Purple” and “Scarlet Chinese.” Two hundred plants of the former and fifty of the latter are now growing for study and comparison. Inheritance of ProUficness. Selections of prolific and non-pro- lific plants are made according to yield. No definite results have been obtained as yet. The Fixation of New* Types. Desirable strains often result in breeding work. Size of Seed as Related to Position in the Pod. The plants of this experiment are beans, peas, peanuts, soybeans and grains. Depth of Planting as Related to Viability, Vigor and Yield. Beans, corn and soybeans come under this heading. The planting depths for beans are 1, 2 and 3 inches; for corn, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 inches. Plant Physiology. During the year particular attention has been given to the following lines of work: A study (1) of the salt requirements of plants at different stages of their development, in sand and in solution cultures, (2) of the relation of moisture con- tent of various types of soil and sand to the proportions of the fertilizer constituents as these affect the growth of plants, and (3) of the influence of moisture content of the substrata upon the tox- icity of certain inorganic salts toward plants. Entomology In this period of eight months the entomologist and his as- sistants have handled 4000 letters, and inquiries concerning 82 species of insects have been received and answered. For the first time it has been determined that summer-strength commercial lime-sulfur (1 gallon to 40 gallons of water) may be used to hold the pear psylla in check. Satisfactory control of the plum curculio on apple has been obtained through maintaining a coating of summer-strength com- mercial lime-sulfur (1 gallon to 40 gallons of water) and arsenate of lead (2 pounds to 50 gallons) on fruit and foliage from the fall of blossoms until a period of three weeks has passed. To maintain this coating the ordinary spraying schedule must be modified by substituting for the spray recommended ten days after the blossoms drop a treatment one week or less after the blossoms fall and another treatment ten days later. It has been determined that the sprinkling sewage filter fly, a small insect of considerable economic importance and always found in connection with sprinkling sewage filters, may be destroyed by submerging the filter for a period of 24 hours with the ordinary sewage. A cooperative study of the biology of a sprinkling sewage filter has been organized and money provided therefor. The co- operators are the New Jersey State Board of Health, the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station and the Joint Sewer Commission of the City of Plainfield and the boroughs of North Plainfield and Dunellen. 18 Bulletin 330 An organization has been created and is now carrying forward, under a plan made in conference by the growers and the director and entomologist of the Station, investigations of the plant-food problems, soil acidity problems, soil moisture problems and insect [)roblenis of cranberry culture. It has been determined that 08 to 100 per cent of aphid eggs, which are well coated with a mixture composed of commercial lime- sulfur, 1 gallon in eight or nine gallons of -water to which 40 per cent nicotine has been added at the rate of 1 to 500, are destroyed pro- vided the application is made just before the leaves project from the opening apple dower buds like tiny squirrel ears. It has been determined that 1^ to 2 per cent of crude carbolic acid to which fish-oil soap is added at the rate of 1 pound to b gallons of water gives considerable promise as an agent for destroy- ing apple aphis eggs when applied at the time above mentioned. It has also been shown that when 40 per cent nicotine (I to 500) is substituted for the crude carbolic acid the same result follows. It has been shown that card protectors placed on peach trees in late June and kept thoroughly sealed throughout the season to October first prevents all or practically all of the trees from being infested with worms arising from eggs laid during that season. A contract for cutting 275,862 linear feet of ditching in the salt marshes of Ocean and Cape May counties has been let to the United States Drainage and Irrigation Company for the sum of $9600. Hudson, Bergen, Passaic, Morris, Essex, Union, Middlesex, xMomnouth, Ocean, Atlantic and Cape May counties are working on the control of mosquitoes during the present season. Hudson, Bergen, Essex, Union and Atlantic counties are attacking the prob- lem of controlling all species that breed within their limits. Pas- saic County is attacking the problem of controlling all species that Itreed in the southern half of the county. Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean and Cape May counties are devoting practically their entire attention to the salt-marsh mosquito problem. Morris County is making a survey of the mosquito-breeding places within its limits with the view to the formulation of plans for attacking the problem as a whole. Plans for nios(iuito control at the Raritan Ordnance Depot at Bonhamtown, N. 4.; at the New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Canulen ; at tlie New Jersey and Pennsylvania Shipbuilding Com- panies in Cloucester; at the Atlantic Loading Company in Ellwood, and the Ikdldehem Steel Testing Plant at JMays Landing, have been [)repared and su])mitted to the organizations in question. The work is now going forward at the Raritan Ordnance Depot and at the Camden and Gloucester Shipbuilding plants. Plans for moscjuito elimination in the Prank Creek section of the Kearney marshes west of Prank Creek have been prepared and submitted to the Hudson (hmnty Mos([uito Extermination Com- mission. Plans for the installation of a 3-flume tide-gate at the mouth Report of the Director for 11)18 11 ) of Saw Mill Creek are being prepared and the money involved has been raised. At the request of the chief of sanitation and health of the Emergency Fleet Corporation, plans for the control of mosquitoes at the International Shipbuilding Corporation plant, located on Hog Island, for the AVestinghouse electric plant, located at Essington, and various housing propositions connected therewith, and plans for the control of mosquitoes at the three shipbuilding yards in Wil- mington, North Carolina, have been prepared. Work is now going forward at these points. An investigation has been made and plans for mosquito control for the area beginning at Penns Grove and extending northward to Camden and Gloucester have been prepared. All told, these plans are made to provide protection for ap- proximately 177,000 people at a cost of a little less than half a million dollars. Projects involving the expenditure of $263,000 are now going forAvard, and the employees and persons living adjacent to the International Shipbuilding Corporation, the Westinghouse Electric Company, the Wilmington Shipyards, the NeAV York Shipbuilding Corporation, the New Jersey Shipbuilding Company, the Pennsyl- vania Shipbuilding Company and a Bag Loading Plant below Glou- cester either are already or soon will be atforded a reasonable degree of protection from the mosquito pest. Plant Pathology Mr. C. M. Haenseler, Mr. R. P. Poole, Mr. F. P. Schlatter and Dr. W. H. Martin are in the United States Military Service. Mr. C. A. Schwarze resigned as assistant nursery inspector June 1, 1918. Dr. L. M. Massey, of the United States Department of Agri- culture, has been assigned to New elersey for.extension work in plant pathology and is stationed at New Brunswick. Mr. Erdman West, of Pennsylvania State College, has been employed as assistant nur- sery inspector. The research work has been greatly reduced because of war conditions, but studies are being continued on tomatoes and potatoes and on other diseases wherever possible. It is very important that special studies be made on seed-bed diseases and upon the diseases of truck crops, and also upon the influence of disease on perishable products in shipment. There should be another worker in the department giving the greater part of his time to the study of resistant strains of plants. There should be another Avorker devoting practically all of his time to the study of the diseases of potatoes, especially those that are transmitted in the seed. Studies should also be continued on celery and other truck crops. It is very important that something should be done to put the herbarium in condition for work to the best advantage. The plant disease survey of the United States Bureau of Plant Industry, carried on in cooperation Avith the various states, is prov- 20 Bulletin 330 ing very helpful and there should be a more thorough survey of the diseases of New Jersey. Publications The office of the editor has been concerned during the fiscal year with the following main lines of activity: (1) the revision of the mailing list, (2) the editing and publishing of the regular Ex- periment Station and extension publications, (3) special publica- tons, (4) special publicity work and (5) plans for the improvement and expansion of the publications and publicity work. The revision of the mailing list has involved much time and effort. Several thousand ''dead” addresses have been dropped from the old list ; names of persons on the old list who still desire our publications have been retained and new addresses have been added through the use of the mailing lists of the State Department of Agriculture, the county boards of agriculture and the poultry associations. The work of revision is still in progress at this writing. The list has been carefully classified, and through the use of a new addressograph machine equipped with a selective device, which was installed during the year, a great saving is being accomplished in our publications as well as better service to persons receiving them. It is planned to increase the efficiency of the mailing service still further by the use of a graphotype machine, making it possible for us to make our address plates in our own office, as soon as funds will permit. The following regular publications have been issued during the year, and have been or will soon be sent to the mailing list : Bulletins No. 315 Analyses of Materials Sold as Insecticides and Fungicides for 1917. 316 The Influence of Lime upon the Yield of Dry Matter and Nitrogen Content of Alfalfa. 317 Report of the Director for the Year Ending October 3, 1917. 318 Analyses of Commercial Fertilizers and Ground Bone: Analyses of Agricultural Lime. 319 A Study of Physiological Balance for Buckwheat Grown in Three- Salt Solutions. 320 Farm Profits and Factors Influencing Farm Profits on 460 Dairy Farms in Sussex County, N. J. 321 Fertilizer Registrations for 1918. 322 Results of Seed Inspection, 1917. 323 The Value of Nitrate of Soda in Crop Production. 324 The Strawberry Weevil. 325 Poultry Buildings: Laying and Breeding Houses. 327 Commercial Feeding Stuffs and Registrations for 1918. 32 8 Some Important Orchard Plant Lice. Circulars No. 88 Common Diseases of Berries. 89 Common Diseases of Garden Vegetables and Truck Crops. 90 The Feeding and Management of Swine. 91 The Bean Weevils. 92 The Angoumois Grain Moth, Report of the Director for 1918 21 93 Spray Calendar for Apples and Quinces. 9*1^ Spray Calendar for the Peach. 95 Seed and Soil Treatment for the Control of Potato Scab. 96 Leaf Bligm, of the Tomato. 97 Common Diseases of Ornamental Plants. 76 Spray Calendar for Pears. (Reprint.) 77 Spray Calendar for Sweet Cherry. (Reprint.) 78 Spray Calendar for Plum. (Reprint.) Reports 1917. Thirty-Eighth Annual Report of the New Jersey State Agri- cultural Experiment Station, and Thirtieth Annual Report of the New Jersey Agricultural College Experiment Station. Hints to Ponltrymcn (monthly), vol. 6, no. 2-9. Publications of the Division of Extension Extension Bulletin Vol. 1, No. 14. No. 15. No. 16. No. 17. No. 18. Proper Care and Use of Farm Manure. Home Canning and Curing of Meats. Boys’ and Girls’ Club Work in New Jersey. Breads: Good Breads that will save Wheat. Farm Labor. The Farm Demonstration Exchange (monthly), Vol. IV, No. 1-5. The Weekly News Letter, vol. 5, no. 1-35. Poster Bulletin 1, “Prevent Waste of Farm Manure”. Also, the editor has assisted in the preparation of the monthly news letters of the county offices of farm demonstration. Beginning with January, 1918, provision was made for the editor’s office to handle the editorship of the ‘‘Voorhees Parmer”, a monthly agricultural journal established by the E. B. Yoorhees Agricultural Society in 1917. The members of the Experiment Station staff have given valuable cooperation in conducting this journal. The station editor has continued his work with ‘‘Soil Science,” which is published by the Waverly Press, of Baltimore, Md. This journal has furnished a useful medium for the publica- tion of many research articles prepared at the Experiment Station, and has thus effected a saving of station funds which would have otherwdse been used in printing the papers as station publications. The “Experiment Station News” has been continued as a medium for local Experiment Station publicity of interest to the staff mem- bers, and for the local newspapers. A limited amount of special publicity work has been done for the Experiment Station. Special articles have been written for the daily papers of New Jersey, and distributed through one of the news agencies of the state. The editor has been greatly assisted by the cooperation of the Publicity Committee of the Experiment Station Council. The committee made a study of the present publicity system and its needs, and outlined a policy which was adopted by the Experiment Station Council. Several of the recommendations have already been put into effect, and it is planned to follow out the whole pro- gram as soon as conditions permit. A summary of the recommenda- tions follows: (1) Brevity, clearness of expression and emphasis 22 Bulletin 330 of the practical aspects of recommendations in popular bulletins and circulars, (2) the more extensive use of suitable illustrations in popular publications, (3) the publication of condensed, one-page extension circulars or cards, (4) the enlargement of the mailing- list, (5) the publication of a well-illustrated circular describing in a popular way, the work of the Experiment Station, (6) the use of a slip bearing summarized information concerning the Experi- ment Station, to be enclosed with correspondence, (7) a publicity service to the newspapers of the state and other agencies, consisting of special multigraphed letters, (8) the establishment of a clipping service, (9) the preparation of cardboard posters telling how th*'^ Experiment Station may be of assistance to the farmer, to be dis- tributed about the state, (10) the installation of a midtigraph ma- chine, and (11) provision in the budget for more finances to support publicity work. This report indicates the needs of the editor’s office and shows the lines of work along which effort is being made. Throughout the year special attention has been given to the emergency condi- tions arising from the war, and a large proportion of the work has been directly concerned with problems of increasing food production as related to war needs. Technical Papers Experiments -with Sulfur-Phosphate Composts Conducted under Field Conditions. J. G. Lipman and H. C. McLean. Soil Science, vol. 5, p. 243 (1918). Twenty Years’ Work on the Availability of Nitrogen in Nitrate of Soda, Ammonium Sulfate, Dried Blood and Farm Manures. J. G. Lipman and A. W. Blair. Soil Science, vol. 5, p. 291 (1918). Abortiveness as Related to Position in the Legume. Byron D. Halsted. Proceedings of the Thirty-sixth Annual Meeting, Soeiety for the Promotion of Agricultural Science, November, 1917. Color in Vegetable Fruits. Byron D. Halsted. Journal of Heredity, vol. 9, p. 18, January, 1918. Reciprocal Breeding in Tomatoes. Byron D. Halsted. Journal of Herdi- ty, vol. 9, p. 169, April, 1918. Toxicity of Monobasic Phosphates Towards Soybeans Grown in Soil and Solution Cultures. J. W. Shive. Soil Science, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 87-122 (1918). A Comparison of Salt Requirements for Young and for Mature Buck- wheat plants in Water Cultures and Sand Cultures. J. W. Shive and W. H. Martin. American Journal of Botany, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 186-191 (1918). Effects of Ammonium Sulfate in Nutrient Solutions on the Growth of Soybeans in Sand Cultures. M. I. Wolkoff. Soil Science, vol. 5, no. 2, p. 123-150(1918).^ The Oxidation of Sulfur by Microorganisms in its Relation to the Avail- ability of Phosphates. H. C. McLean. Soil Science, vol. 4, no. 4, p. 337 (1917). Studies on the Correlation between the Production of Carbon Dioxide and the Accumulation of Ammonia by Soil. J. R. Neller. Soil Science, vol. 5, no. 3. p. 225 (1918). Some Availability Studies with Ammonium Phosphate and its Chemical- Biological Effects upon the Soil. F. E. Allison. Soil Science, vol. 5, no. i, p. I (1918). d'he Mosquito Question: Migration as a Factor in Control. Thomas J. Headlee. Scientifie American Supplement , vol. 85, no. 2205, p. 214, April 6, 1918. Report op the Director for 1918 23 Effective Methods of Fly Control : ^ A Review of the Factors that Under- lie the Problem. T. J. Headlee. Scientific American Supplement, vol. 85, no. 2201, p. 150, March 9, 1918. The Problem of Mosquito Control. T. J. Headlee, Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario, January, 1918. _ Studies on the Morphology and Susceptibility of the Eggs of Aphis avence Fab., Aphis pomi DeGeer and Aphis sorbi Kalt. Alvah Peterson. Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 10, p. 556-560 (1917). Some Experiments on the Adults and Eggs of the Peach Tree Borer, Sanninoidea exitiosa Say and Other Notes. Alvah Peterson. Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. ii, p. 46-55 (1918). The Rectal Tracheae and Rectal Respiration in Mecistogaster Modestus (Odonata). Mitchel Carroll. Proceedings of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences for 1918. Popular Papers Our Fertility Resources as Bearing on the Present Emergency. J. G. Lipman. N. J. State Department of Agriculture Bulletin ii, January, 1918. Soil Bacteria as a Factor in Soil P'ertility. J. G. Lipman, Philadelphia Society for Promoting Agriculture, Bethayres, Pa., March, 1918. Articles on Organic Matter, Lime and Fertilizers. Alva Agee. The Farmer’s Own Encyclopedia. How Shall New Jersey Peaches be Graded and Marked? M. A. Blake. Proceedings of the New Jersey State Horticultural Society, 1917. The Fruit Exhibit at the Trenton Fair. M. A. Blake. Voorhees Farmer, November, 1917. Observations upon Summer Pruning of the Apple and Peach. M. A. Blake. Proceedings of American Society for Horticulural Science, 1917. Important Points in Apple Spraying. M. A. Blake. Voorhees Farmer, May, 1918. Suggestions to Fruit Growers. M. A. Blake. Voorhees Farmer, March, 1918. Fine Apple Crop in Demonstration Orchards. M. A. Blake. Voorhees Farmer, July, 1918. Apples and Peaches Ripening Early. M. A. Blake. Voorhees Farmer, July, 1918. Experiments on Making Peach Syrup and Marmalade. M. A. Blake. Voorhees Farmer, July, 1918. Paper Pots and Dirt Bands. L. G. Schermerhorn. Rural New Yorker, March 2, 1918. Notes on New Varieties of Strawberries. A. J. Farley. Voorhees Farm- er, June, 1918. In the Interests of Fair Play. John P. Helyar. Seed World, July, 1918. Make it Buckwheat. Frank App. Voorhees Farmer, May, 1918. Alfalfa in New Jersey Gets Big Boost. Frank App. Voorhees Farmer, February, 1918. Corn Show a Big Success. Frank App. Voorhees Farmer, February, 1918. What About Next Year’s Farm Labor? Frank App. Voorhees Farmer, January, 1918. New Jersey’s 1918 Corn Crop. Frank App. Voorhees Farmer, April, T918. Caring for the Crops, Frank App. Voorhees Farmer, June, 1918. Alfalfa Association Making Progress. Frank App. Voorhees Farmer, • March, 1918. Home Preservation of Eggs. R. R, Hannas. Rural New Yorker, April 6, 1918. Quality in Market Eggs. R. R. Hannas. Country Gentlemen, April 27, 1918. Care of Growing Chicks. R. R. Hannas. Pennsylavnia Farmer, June i, 1918. The Relationship of the Manufacturer to the State Official. C. S. Cath- cart. Feeding Stuffs Trade Paper, July, 1918. Fertilizers Essential for Big Crops. A. W. Blair. Hoard’s Dairyman, February 15, 1918. 24 Bulletin 330 An Experiment in Pig Feeding. J. M. Hunter, Rural New Yorker, July, 1918. Feeding Soft Corn to Hogs, J. M. Hunter. Voorhees Farmer, Novem- ber, 1917, Hogs and The World War. J. M. Hunter. Voorhees Farmer, December, 1917. The Winter Care of Farm Horses. J. M, Hunter. Voorhees Farmer, January, 1918, Replies to What the Farmers are Asking. J. M. Hunter, Voorhees Farmer, February, 1918. Replies to What the Farmers are Asking. J. M. Hunter. Voorhees Farmer, March, 1918. Replies to What the Farmers are Asking. J. M. Hunter. Voorhees Farmer, April, 1918. The Swine Industry in New Jersey. J. M. Hunter. Voorhees Farmer, May, 1918. Use Wheat Substitutes for Pigs. J, M. Hunter. Voorhees Farmer, July, 1918. * Dairying in Winter, J. W. Bartlett. Pennsylvania Farmer, January, 1918. Calf Club Work in New Jersey. J. W. Bartlett. Kimball's Dairy Farmer, July 15, 1918. The New Jersey State Dairymen’s Association. J. W, Bartlett. Hoard’s Dairyman, June 12, 1918. Control of Orchard Plant Lice. T. J. Headlee. Pennsylvania Farmer, March, 1918. Staff Changes A list of changes in the station staff during the past eight months is given herewith : Appointments C. S. Lamson Isabel V. Delaney William Whynman Cyrus Witmer A. Sydney Carroll Ernest O. Winkler Hazel H. Moran Frank G. Helyar Maurice Fincken Nils B. Swenson Helen L. Goodwin Sarah E. Van Middlesworth M. E. Stone C. S. Clarkson W. B. J. Reitze Noyes S. Purrington Mitchell Carroll Cyrus H. Harrison Clifford Strohmeyer William J. Stoneback Russell H. Sears Irving L. Owen Fred Boorman Robert H. Cole Louis Schwartz Fred C. Corwin F. A. Hall P. C. Cameron E. B. Bleeker Fred Freund Charles M, Mulhollan Research Assistant Telephone Operator Poultry Assistant Assistant, Soils Department Teamster Helper Assistant Librarian Associate in Station Administrat’n Orchard Foreman Helper Statistician Office Assistant Helper Assistant Chemist Contest Foreman Fertilizer Sampler First Assistant in Entomology Helper Helper Assistant Chemist Orchard Assistant Associate Agronomist & Farm Mgr, Helper Assistant Chemist Assistant Chemist Helper Helper Temporary Assistant Biologist Field Assistant Helper Helper Report op the Director for 1918 25 The following also were employed in a temporary capacity: George W. Woods, James McPherson, Felix Ramsey, Zelik Schutzbank, Freder- ick C. Bruer, Richard Goines, Harold Barbour, Isaac Reis, Cornelius A. Perry, Svenn A. Rusch, Harry M. Allen, Frank Welchman, Louis Zim- merman, Walter R. Robbers, Dudley Cobb, Charles H. Cane, Benjamin Masurovsky, Eugene W. Bates and Joseph Fox. Joseph R. Neller Robert F. Poole Charles S. Lamson William H. Martin Russell E. Long Edward W. Harvey Hubert F. Brennan Merrill G. Clayton W. Raymond Stone D. James Kay Paul S. Race James G. Rugh Allen G. Waller Marie A. Klein Joseph Schmidt George T. Reid C. S. Clarkson R. L. Scharring-Hausen Joseph Kovanda William B. J. Reitze Melvin Cosh John H, Hankinson Robert Poultney Charles S. Van Nuis Willard C. Thompson William Whynman liesignations Research Assistant Research Assistant Research Assistant Research Assistant Office Assistant Research Assistant Night Watchman Helper Orchard Foreman Assistant Chemist Helper Contest Foreman Assistant Extension Specialist in Agronomy Statistician Helper County Supt. of Farm Demonstra- tion for Burlington County. Assistant Chemist Field Assistant Helper Contest Foreman Helper State Leader of Farm Demonstra- tion. Assistant Extension Specialist in Dairy Husbandry. Associate Agronomist and Farm Manager. Assistant Poultry Husbandman. Poultry Assistant. The following members of the staff have resigned to enter the military service of the country: Louis K. Wilkins, Herman J. Levine, David Schmidt, Orville C. Schultz, Conrad M. Haenseler, Thurlow Nel- son, John Monteith, Jr., Lawrence. G. Gillam, Howard F. Huber, Julian F. Miller, Fidel P. Schlatter, Richard Goines, William H. McCallum, George M. Dunn, Carl Egerton, J. Manderson Evans, Robert F. Poole, Joseph R. Neller, William H. Martin, Russell E. Long, Allen G. Waller, Robert P. Marsh, Charles S. Lamson, Willard C. Thompson, William Whynman, George W. Martin, David A. Coleman, Carl R. Fellers, Joseph Schmidt, W. J. Stoneback, A. P. Muller, Robert E. .Welsh, Robert I. Clark, Harry M. Allen, J. H. Dumm, Leslie Morrow, L. W. Hill, Robert Poultney, A. H. Sanford, William H. Nulton and Albert Smith. 4 V ' ■ v-^v. ■\t I >(• v\^=> J '1 ■ ^ / j “ '■ . Z' V ANALYSES OF COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS, FERTILIZER SUPPLIES AND HOME MIXTURES ^Rsrfr OF iiy^s:s APR 30 1919 JSTEW JEE8EY AGRICULTURAL xperimeiit BULLETIN 331 New Brunswick, N. J. NEW JERSEY ftGRIGULTURftL EXPE,RIMENT STftTIONS* NEW BRUNSWICK. N. J. STATE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1880. BOARD OF MANAGERS. His Excellency WALTER E. EDGE, LL.D Trenton, Governor of the State of New Jersey. W. H. S. DEMAREST, D.D New Brunswick, President of the State Agricultural College, JACOB G. LIPMAN, Pii.D Professor County Name Address Atlantic William A. Blair Elwood Bergen Arthur Lozier Ridgewood Burlington R. R. Lippincott Vincentown Camden Ephraim T. Gill Haddonfield Cape May Charles Vanaman Dias Creek Cumberland Charles F. Seabrook Bridgeton Essex Zenos G. Crane Caldwell Gloucester Wilbur Beckett Swedesboro Hudson Diedrich Bahrenburg Union Hill Hunterdon Egbert T. Bush Stockton Mercer Josiah T. Allinson Yardville of Agriculture of the State Agricultural College. County Name Address Middlesex James Neilson New Bruns’k Monmouth William H. Reid Tennent Morris J ohn C. .W elsh Ger’n Valley Ocean James E. Otis Tuckerton Passaic Isaac A. Serven Clifton Salem Charles R. Hires Salem Somerset Joseph Larocque Bemardsviirc Sussex Robert V. Armstror !g Augusta Union John Z. Hatfield Scotch Plains Warren James I. Cooke Delaware STAFF. Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D Frank G. Helyar, B.Sc Irving E. Quackenboss Harriet E. Gowen Frank App, B.Sc Agronomist. Irving L. Owen, B.Sc. .. Associate Agronomist. J. Marshall Hunter, B.Sc., Animal Husbandman. Charles S. Cathcart, M.Sc Chemist. Edson j. Currier, B.Sc Assistant Chemist. F. Raymond Hunter Assistant Chemist. Ralph L. Willis, B.Sc Assistant Chemist. Archie C. Wark Laboratory Assistant. W. Andrew Cray Sampler and Assistant. William M. Regan, A.M.. Dairy Husbandman. Forrest Button, B.Sc., Asst. Dairy Husband’n. John FIill, B.Sc., Assistant Dairy Husbandman. Walter R. Robbers, Superintendent of Advanced Registry. Thomas J. Headlee, Ph.D Entomologist. Chas. S. Beckwith, B.Sc. .Asst. Entomologist. Mitchell Carroll, B.Sc. .. .Asst. Entomologist. Vincent J. Breazeale, Foreman, V^egetable Gardening. .■\rtiiur J. Farley, B.Sc., Acting Horticulturist. .Director. .Associate in Station Administration. .Chief Clerk, Secretary and Treasurer. .Chief Stenographer and Clerk. Charles H. Connors, B.Sc., , Assistant in Experimental Horticulture. William Schieferstein Orchard Foreman. Lyman G. Schermerhorn, B.Sc., Specialist in Vegetable Studies. 11. M. Biekart Florist. Harry R. Lewis, M.Agr. . Poultry Husbandman. Willard C. Thompson, B.Sc., Assistant Poultry Husbandman. Ralston R. Hannas, M.Sc., Assistant in Poultry Research. George H. Pound, B.Sc Poultry Assistant. Morris Siegel Poultry Foreman. Elmer H. Wene Poultry Foreman. Torn P. PIelyar, M.Sc Seed Analyst. Jessie G. Fiske, Ph.B Asst. Seed Analyst. Carl R. Woodward, B.Sc Editor. Ingrid C. Nelson, A.B Assistant Editor. Hazel H. Moran Assistant Librarian. Leslie E." Hazen, M.E., In Charge of Rural Engineering. AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1888. BOARD OF CONTROL. The Board of Trustees of Rutgers College in New Jersey. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD. W. H. S. DEMAREST, D.D., President of Rutgers College, Chairman New Brunswick. WILLIAM H. LEUPP New Brunswick. JAMES NEILSON New Brunswick. WILLIAM S. MYERS New York City. JOSEPH S. FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan. STAFF. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D Director. HENRY P. SCHNEEWEISS, A.B Chief Clerk. John W. Shive, Ph.D Plant Physiologist. Earle J. Owen, M.Sc Assistant in Botany. Frederick W. Roberts, A.M., Assistant in Plant Breeding. Mathilde Groth Laboratory Aid. Thomas J. Headlee, Ph.D Entomologist. Alvah Peterson, Ph.D. .. .Asst. Entomologist. .\UGUSTA E. Meske. ... Stenographer and Clerk. Melville T. Cook, Ph.D. ... Plant Pathologist. William H. Martin, Ph.D., Associate Plant Pathologist. Gertrude E. Macpherson, A.B., Research Assistant in Plant Pathology. Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D., Soil Chemist and Bacteriologist. Augustine W. Blair, A.M., Associate Soil Chemist. Selman a. Waksman, Ph.D., Microbiologist, Soil Research. Jacob Joffe, B.Sc Research Assistant Cyrus Witmer, Field and Laboratory Assistant. Stair list revised to February 1. 1919. ( 2 ^ NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ORGANIZED 1912 AND NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE DIVISION OF EXTENSION IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS ORGANIZED 1914 Louis A. Clinton, M.Sc., Director. Mrs. Frank App, Acting State Leader of Home Demonstration. Victor G. Aubry, B.Sc., Specialist, Poultry Husbandry. John VV. Bartlett, B.Sc., Specialist, Dairy Husbandry. M. A. Blake, B.Sc., Acting State Superintend- ent and State Leader of Farm Demonstra- tion. Roscoe W. DeBaun, B.Sc., Specialist, Market Gardening. J. B. R. Dickey, B.Sc., Specialist, Soil Fertility and Agronomy. Marjory Eells, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent. Edna Gulick, Home Demonstration Agent. Howard F. Huber, B.Sc., Assistant State Leader of Farm Demonstration. Arthur M. Hulbert, State Leader of Boys’ and Girls’ Club Work. M. Ethel Jones, M.A., Asst. State Club Leader. William F. Knowles, A.B., Assistant State Club Leader. William M. McIntyre, Assistant Specialist, Fruit Growing. Charles H. Nissley, B.Sc., Specialist, Fruit and Vegetable Growing. Carl R. Woodward. B.Sc., Editor. Ingrid C. Nelson, A.B., Assistant Editor. H. E. Baldinger, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Sus- sex County. William P. Brodie, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent, Salem County. Frank A. Carroll, Demonstrator for Mercer County. Elwood L. Chase, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Gloucester County. Laura V. Clark, A.B., Home Demonstration Agent for Newark. Louis A. Cooley, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Ocean County. Herbert R. Cox, M.S.A., Demonstration Agent for Camden County. Josephine C. Cramer, Home Demonstration Agent for Middlesex County. Lee W. Crittenden, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Middlesex County. Elwood Douglass, Demonstrator for Mon- mouth County. Arden M. Ellis, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Monmouth County. Irvin T. Francis, A.B., Demonstration Agent for Essex County. Harry C. Haines, Demonstration Agent for Somerset County. Margaret H. Hartnett, Home Demonstration Agent for Paterson. Cora A. Hoffman, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Morris County. Harry B. Holcombe, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Burlington County. William A. Houston, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Sussex County. Elva Hughes, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Burlington County. Lauretta P. James, B.Sc., Home Demonstra- tion Agent for Mercer County. May D. Kemp, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for the Oranges. Harvey S. Lippincott, B.Agr., Demonstrator for Morris County. Zelma Monroe, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Trenton. Adelia F. Noble, Home Demonstration Agent for Princeton. Warren W. Oley, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Cumberland County. James A. Stackhouse, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Cape May County. W. Raymond Stone, Demonstrator for Bergen County. Eunice Straw, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Monmouth County. Norine Webster, Home Demonstration Agent for Bayonne. Harold E. Wettyen, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Passaic County. Carolyn F. Wetzel, Home Demonstration Agent for Bergen County. Albert E. Wilkinson, M.Agr., Demonstration Agent for Atlantic County. CONTENTS PAGE Staff 2 Tabulated Analyses 5 Examination of Unmixed Fertilizer Materials 6 Nitrate of Soda 8 15 per cent Nitrate of Soda 8 Sulphate of Ammonia 9 Dried Blood 9 Dried and Ground Fish 9 Crude Fish 9 King Crab 9 Fish and Tankage 10 Tankage 10 16 per cent Acid Phosphate 12 14 per cent Acid Phosphate 13 Basic Lime Phosphate 13 The Examination of Home Mixtures 14 Commercial Fertilizers 16 h'urnishing Nitrogen, ITosphoric Acid and Potash 16 Furnishing Nitrogen and PhosjdToric Acid 30 ( 4 ) NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS BULLETIN 331 OCTOBER 10, 1918 ANALYSES OF COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS, FERTILIZER SUPPLIES AND HOME MIXTURES Charles S. Cathcart, State Chemist"^ The fertilizer law of this state requires an inspection of the mater- ials sold as fertilizers, and such an inspection includes the collection of the samples as well as the chemical analyses of the various brands located. The collection of the samples for 1918 has been completed and this bulletin contains the results of the chemical analyses of practically all of the brands collected during the spring months, with the exception -of the samples of ground bone and sheep manure. A collection was made of the shipments of fertilizer intended for fall use and the results of these analyses, as well as the analyses of the brands that were collected in the spring and are not reported at this time, will appear in a later bulletin. This second bulletin will also contain a discussion of the entire inspection. Tabulated Analyses The results that are tabulated on the following pages show the composition of 204 brands of fertilizers containing nitrogen, pbos- phoric acid and potash, 274 brands containing nitrogen and phos- phoric acid, 5 home mixtures and 114 samples of fertilizer materials. In addition to the above the analyses of 17 duplicate samples of commercial fertilizers are tabulated in their proper places. The total number of analyses reported in this bulletin is 614. *The chemical analyses were made by Ralph L. Willis, Robert H. Cole, Louis Schwartz and Archie C. Wark. ( 5 ) 6 Bulletin 331 Examination of Unmixed Fertilizer Materials The results of the examinations of 114 samples of standard un- mixed materials are given in the following pages in tabular form. With a few exceptions, the analyses indicate that the materials were of good quality but that there is a great necessity to study the guar- antees as given in order to know the total amount of plant-food that will be obtained in a given weight of the material. Nitrate of Soda. Twenty-two samples of nitrate of soda were examined and the nitrogen content varied from 14.40 to 15.45, with an average of 15.16 per cent. The samples contained from 87.4 to 93.8, with an average of 92 per cent of nitrate of soda. One of the samples represented the material purchased from the United States Department of Agriculture and contained 15.45 per cent of nitrogen. Two samples of 15 per cent nitrate of soda were examined and they contained 12.20 and 12.15 per cent o4 nitrogen, respectively, the guarantee stated in terms of nitrogen being 12.34 per cent. Sulphate of Ammonia. Only one sample of this material was re- ceived and it contained 19.97 per cent of nitrogen, the guarantee being 20.50 per cent. The nitrogen content was equivalent to 94.2 per cent of sulphate of ammonia. Dried Blood. Three samples of material sold as dried blood were examined. One of these samples, however, contained an excess of phosphoric acid and a corresponding decrease in its content of nitrogen, which indicates that it was not an unmixed product. The two samples of dried blood averaged 12.78 per cent of nitro- gen and 1.00 per cent of phosphoric acid. Dried and Ground Fish. Four samples were examined and the nitrogen content varied from 8.24 to 9.12, with an average of 8.75 per cent. The content of total phosphoric acid varied from 1.10 to 8.06, with an average of 4.18 per cent. Crude Fish. The one sample examined contained 7.60 per cent of nitrogen and 5.72 per cent of phosphoric acid. King Crab. Three samples of this material were received and the nitrogen content varied from 7.06 to 9.90, with an average of 8.86 per cent. The content of phosphoric acid varied from 0.91 to 1.44, with an average of 1.13 per cent. Fish and Tankage. Two samples of this material were examined and had practically the same composition. The average composition is : nitrogen 2.87 per cent and phosphoric acid 7.08 per cent. Analyses of Fertilizers 7 Tankage. Thirty-seven samples were examined and the usual variations were noted : Two samples, Nos. 18310 and 18352, represented a material sold by one manufacturer as “Prepared Tankage.” Nearly three-fourths of the nitrogen content was derived from ammonia salts and the organic nitrogen was of low-grade quality. The analysis indicated that this material was not what is known as tankage and the manu- facturers decided to discontinue its sale under the brand name as given. Sample No. 180130 was in such a condition that it was impossible to make the mechanical analysis. This shipment, and also ship- ments represented by Samples Nos. 18603, 18233, 18305 and 180193, were not accompanied by the required guarantees. Omitting samples Nos. 18310 and 18352, the content of nitrogen in the samples varied from 3.03 to 8.03, with an average of 5.72 per cent; and the content of phosphoric acid varied from 5.40 to 23.46, with an average of 11.89 per cent. The mechanical condition of the samples was as variable as the content of nitrogen and phosphoric acid. The finest sample con- tained 66 per cent, and the coarsest sample contained only 29 per cent of material that was fined than 1/50 inch. Acid Phosphate. Thirty-eight samples were examined, 24 repre- senting the 16 per cent grade and the remaining 14 samples repre- senting the 14 per cent grade. The samples of the 16 per cent grade varied from 15.07 to 17.80, with an average of 16.41 per cent of available phosphoric acid. The other samples varied from 12.51 to 17.24, with an average of 14.49 per cent of available phosphoric acid. Basic Lime Phosphate. The one sample received satisfied its guarantee and contained 13.27 per cent of available phosphoric acid. 8 Bulletin 331 NITRATE OF SODA Station Number 1 Manufacturer or Dealer and Place of Sampling Nitrc ■a c 3 O u. )GEN •o V V c 03 a 3 O American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York City. % % 18751 A. P. Wooley, Matawan, N. T 15.09 15.00 American Fertilizing Co., Baltimore, Md. 18661 George Elvins, Hammonton, N. J 14.80 14.82 Armour Fertilizer Works, Baltimore, Md., and Chrome, N. J. 18041 J.. S. Collins & Son, Inc., Moorestown, N. J 15.34 14.81 18073 J. W. Heal, Beverly, N. J 15.27 14.81 J. H. Baird & Son, Marlboro, i\. J. 18825 J. H. Baird & Son, Marlboro, N. T 15.30 14.82 Bowker Fertilizer Co., New York City. 18289 H. Measley, Elm, N. [ 15.16 Coe-Mortimer Co., New York City. 18741 Van Mater & Weigand Trading Co., Hazlet, N. T 15.09 15.00 E. Dougherty, Philadelphia, Pa. 18776 Albert Haines, Moorestown, N. J 14.40 Godfrey Co-operative Fert. & Chem. Co., Newark, N. J. 18491 Palnighi Bros, Vineland, N. J 15.31 15.00 Martin Fertilizer Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 18255 Charles A. Crowley, Blue Anchor, N. J 15.23 18685 Baron de Hirsch School, Woodbine, N. J 15.23 14.80 Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, Freehold, N. J. 18103 Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, Freehold, N. T 15.34 14.80 Nitrate Agencies Co., New York City. 18620 C. Ronchetti, Vineland, N. J 15.09 15.00 18606 W. Wilde, Vineland, N. T 15.31 15.00 llasin-Monumental Co., Baltimore, Md. 18445 M. Feinstein, Bridgeton. N. J 14.80 14.82 F. S. Royster Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. 18738 Collins Bros., Keanshurg, N. J 15.27 15.00 I. Serata & Sons, Bridgeton, N. 'J. 18319 T. Serata & Sons, Bridgeton, N. J 15.16 I. P. Thomas & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 18428 T. J. White, Inc., New Lisbon, N. J 15.23 15.21 18756 W. Brown, Freneau, N. J 15.13 15.21 Trenton Bone Fertilizer Co., Trenton, N. J. 18132 i T. S. Borden, Beverly, N. J 15.34 15.58 1 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. 18992 1 J. H. Hankinson, Glen Moore, N. J 15.45 ! West Jersey Marl and Trans. Co., Woodbury, N. J. 18279 1 J. Cliver, Gloucester, N. J 15.34 14.81 j Xv'crfl^c 15.16 15 PER CENT NITRATE OF SODA F. W. Tunnell & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. 18649 J. TI. Lii)pincott, Moorestown, N. J 12.20 12.34 180139 H. W. \’an Artsdalen, Titusville, N. J 12.15 12.34 Average 12.18 Analyses of Fertilizers SULPHATE OF AMMONIA 9 Nitrogen Station Number Manufacturer or Dealer and Place of Sampling 1 1 Found Guaranteed 18104 Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, Freehold, N.' J. Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, Freehold, N. J % 19.97 1 1 20.50 DRIED BLOOD Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid [station Number Manufacturer or Dealer and Place of Sampling Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed Baugh & Sons Co., Philadelphia, Pa. % % % % 18694 ^Germania Fruit Growers Union, Germania, N. J Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, Freehold, N. J. 10.18 11.50 5.40 18106 Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, Freehold, N. J.. I. P. Thomas & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 12.80 12.75 0.88 18425 J. J. White, Inc., New Lisbon, N. J Average 12.76 12.78 12.30 1.11 1.00 *Not included in the average. Manufacturers state that error was made in the guarantee at- tached. Sale was made on the unit basis (9.83 per cent nitrogen). DRIED AND GROUND FISH 1 American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York City. 1 18081 College Farm, New Brunswick, N. J 8.70 8.23 8.06 Nitrate Agencies Co., New York City. i 18605 W. Wilde, Vineland, N. J 8.24 [ 8.22 6.20 4.57 Trenton Bone Fertilizer Co., Trenton, N. J. 18072 J. W. Heal, Beverly, N. J 8.95 1 8.20 1.35 18129 T. S. Borden, Beverly, N. J 9.12 8.20 1.10 Average 8.75 ... 4.18 CRUDE FISH 1. P. Thomas & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 180126 T. R. Hunt, Lambertville, N. J 7.60 5.75 5.72 3.00 KING CRAB A. R. Kohler, Westville, N. J. 1 18330 A. R. Kohler, Westville, N. J 9.90 0.91 Jos. R. Moore, Swedesboro, N. J. 18331 J. Carter, Thorofare, N. J 9.61 1.03 I. P. Thomas & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 18556 Robbins Bros., Swedesboro, N. J 7.06 8.22 1.44 Average 8.86 1.13 10 Bulletin 331 FISH AND TANKAGE Station Number Manufacturer or Dealer and Place of Sampling Nitrogen Phosphoric . Acid Pound Guaranteed Pound Guaranteed 18155 18439 Keystone Bone Fertilizer Co., Philadelphia, Pa. J. E. Chambers, Riverton, N. J G. H. Wilson, Paulsboro, N. J Average 1 % 2.80 2.94 2.87 % 3.28 3.28 % 7.13 7.02 7.08 % 5.00 ! 5.00 1 TANKAGE .Station Number Manufacturer or Dealer and Place of Sampling Mechanical Analysis Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid h'iner than 1/50 inch Coarser than 1/50 inch T3 C 3 O LL Guaranteed Pound Guaranteed % % % % % % Active Chemical Co., Camden, N. J. 18310 *H. P. James, Sewell, N. J 72 28 i 1.6^ 1.23 2.63 3.00 18352 •Active Chemical Co, Camden, N. J 73 27 1.71 1.23 2.58 3.00 Baugh & Sons Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 18437 G. A. Rode, Swedesboro, N. J 54 46 4.30 4.40 18.51 19.26 18202 J. L. Lippincott & Co., Riverton, N. J. . . 45 55 6.74 6.58 11.60 4.00 18601 W. Wilde, Vineland, N. J 50 50 6.50 6.58 12.59 4.00 18314 A. S. Clark & Son, Pitman, N. J 46 54 6.73 5.80 10.06 3.00 18413 W. Frederick, Swedesboro, N. J 35 65 5.38 5.80 14.52 3.00 18557 W. E. Ashcraft, Swedesboro, N. J 29 ! 71 1 5.38 5.80 15.14 3.00 18434 G. A. Rode, Swedesboro, N. J 48 52 6.75 5.76 11.64 18495 H. L. Sickel, Vineland, N. T 43 57 ! 5.34 5.76 9.83 3.50 18603 W. Wilde, Vineland, N. J 37 63 , 7.32 8.59 Beckett & Beckett, Swedesboro, N. J. 18410 W. Davison, Swedesboro, N. J 52 48 6.19 5.76 11.63 10.00 18571 C. M. Lamson, Repanpo, N. J 45 55 i 5.27 4.94 8.69 10.00 The Berg Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 18229 T. Schleinkofer, Atco, N. J 44 56 i 4.98 4.53 9.89 15.00 D. Fullerton & Co., Paterson, N. J. 1 1S0130 H. J. Appert & Son, Allendale, N. J i 7.03 6.15 Godfrey Co-operative Fert. and Chemical Co., 1 Newark, N. J. 1 1 180095' L. B. Coddington, Murray Hill, N. J.... 51 49 1 5.53 4.94 5.40 12.00 180169 L. W. Smith, Florham Park, N. J 65 1 ^5 i 7.20 7.40 12.08 6.89 •Material was misbranded. Samples contained 1.20 per cent of nitrog-en in form of ammonia salti and the organic nitrogen was of inferior quality. Analyses of Fertilizers TANKAGE — ( Continued ) 11 Mechanical Analysis Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid Station Number Manufacturer or Dealer and Place of Sampling Finer than 1/50 inch — Coarser than 1/50 inch Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed 18S81 Heritage '& Bro., Mullica Hill, N. J. Heritage & Bro., Mullica Hill, N. J % 42 % 58 % 4.41 % 4.90 % 19.46 % 12.00 18233 Locke & Black, Swedesboro, N. J. Mrs. F. H. Brewer, Blackwood, N. J 51 49 6.39 11.59 18305 J. P. Kincaid, Sewell, N. J 66 34 6.75 12.06 18411 S. Butler, Swedesboro, N. T 45 55 6.79 6.38 12.37 18438 S. G. Haines, Mickleton, N. J 50 50 4.93 5.15 11.74 18252 Martin Fertilizer Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Chas. A. Crowley, Blue Anchor, N. J.... 46 54 6.84 6.54 8.41 18416 G. A. Rode, Swedesboro, N. J 35 65 6.03 6.54 8.55 18684 Baron de llirsch School, Woodbine, N. J. 46 54 6.52 6.54 7.05 18415 G. A. Rode, Swedesboro, N. J 34 66 4.69 4.94 7.06 180193 Middlesex Fertilizer Co., Plainfield, N. J. Middlesex Fert. Co., Plainfield, N. J 32 68 6.41 8.20 18105 Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, Free- hold, N. J. Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, Freehold, N. J 48 52 8.03 8.03 7.75 7.00 18332 Jos. R. Moore, Swedesboro, N. J. J. Carter, Thorofare, N. J 49 51 4.42 4.53 13.61 15.00 18374 1 S. M. Cook, Paulsboro, N. J 40 60 4.78 4.53 10.80 15.00 i 18747 ! N. J. Fertilizer and Chemical Co., Jersey City, X. J. L. D. Roberts, Keyport, N. J... 58 42 5.71 5.75 7.24 6.87 18444 Raisin-Monumental Co., Baltimore, Md. M. Feinstein, Bridgeton, N. J 53 47 4.08 5.76 23.46 i 18595 Reading Bone Fertilizer Co., Reading, Pa. J. E. Gaventa, Pedricktown, N. J 39 61 5.85 5.75 10.60 9.00 18334 Scott Fertilizer Co., Elkton, Md. L. Leonard, Thorofare, N. J 48 52 3.03 4.94 19.49 9.16 1 18339 i I. P. Thomas & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa. A. R. Kohler, Westville, N. J 48 52 4.87 4.90 16.98 12.00 18363 W. Fink, Mickleton, N. J 40 60 4.81 4.90 17.84 12.00 18429 ' J. J. White, Inc., New Lisbon, N. J 42 58 4.22 4.90 18.21 13.00 18130 ! Trenton Bone Fertilizer Co., Trenton, N. J. T. S. Borden, Beverly, N. J 57 43 6.39 6.56 12.76 18591 West Jersey Marl & Trans. Co., Woodbury, N. J. J. Dietrick, Pedricktown, N. J 53 47 5.09 1 4.94 8.40 3.00 Average 46 1 54 5.72 ' 1 11.89 12 Bulletin 331 16 PER CENT ACID PHOSPHATE c o 18660 I 18021 J 1 i I 18142 ! 18459 I 18602 ! 180269 I ! i 18154 180145 ISOOli 18253 18665 18682 18082 18447 180158 18615 18551 18793 180221 18698 18774 180121 180025 18714 Phosphoric Acid Available Manufacturer or Dealer and Place of Sampling American Agr, Chemical Co., New York City. P. A. Myrick, Hammonton, N. J Armour Fertilizer Works, Baltimore, Md., and Chrome, N. J. Manning Co., Sussex, N. J Baugh & Sons Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Hitchner & Bassett, Woodstown, N. J.... Quinton Glass Co., Quinton, N. J W. Wilde, Vineland, N. J Belle Mead Farmers Club, Belle Mead, N. J Coe-Mortimer Co., New York City. L. Horner, Palmyra, N. J Consumers Chemical Corporation, N. Y. City. H. W. Van Artsdalen, Titusville, N. J . . . Godfrey Co-operative Fert. and Chem. Co., Newark, N. J. A. G. Cole. Three Bridges, N. J Martin Fertilizer Co.. Philadelphia, Pa. Chas. A. Crowley, Blue Anchor, N. J.... Geo. Elvins, Hammonton, N. J Baron de Hirsch School, Woodbine, N. J. Nitrate Agencies Co., New York City. College Farm, New Brunswick, N. J Rasin-Monumental Co., Baltimore, Md. M. Feinstein, Bridgeton, N. J Reading Chemical Co., Reading, Pa. E. Crowell, Blairstown, N. J F. S. Royster Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. C. Ronchetti, Vineland, N. J Swift & Co., Baltimore, Md. I. H. Weatherby, Swedesboro, N. J Swift & Co., Kearny, N. J. Burlington County Farmers Exchange, Mt. Holly, N. J Armstrong & Demarest, Lafayette, N. J.. f. P. Thomas & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa. G. Hanselman, Germania, N. J Albert Haines, Moorestown, N. J Trenton Bone Fertilizer Co., Trenton, N. J. Lambert & Kerr, Lambertville, N. J Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., N. Y. City. G. F. Hill & Co., Gladstone, N. J Woodward & Dickerson, Philadelphia, Pa. N. E. Diament & Son, Cedarville, N. J... Average % % % % % % 15.20 1.91 0.63 17.74 17.11 16.00 13.66 1.90 0.52 16.08 15.56 16.00 15.22 1.56 0.68 17.46 16.78 16.00 15.94 1.51 0.26 17.71 17.45 16.00 13.68 2.49 0.46 16.63 16.17 16.00 14.48 2.26 0.15 16.89 16.74 16.00 14.40 1.68 0.67 16.75 16.08 16.00 14.00 3.01 0.30 17.31 17.01 16.00 15.14 0.82 0.10 16.06 15.96 16.00 15.24 1.92 0.91 18.07 17.16 16.00 10.74 4.99 2.01 17.78 15.73 16.00 14.04 2.24 1.69 17.97 16.28 16.00 13.58 2.14 0.62 16.34 15.72 16.00 14.00 2.63 0.73 17.36 16.63 16.00 14.18 2.82 1.51 18.51 17.00 16.00 14.60 2.41 0.72 17.73 17.01 16.00 11.98 3.98 1.07 17.03 15.96 16.00 12.52 2.55 0.52 15.59 15.07 16.00 12.22 2.93 1.06 16.21 15.15 16.00 13.40 1.85 1.64 16.89 15.25 16.00 11.60 4.21 1.33 17.14 15.81 16.00 15.58 2.22 0.37 18.17 17.80 16.00 14.00 2.77 0.42 17.19 16.77 16.00 14.52 2.47 0.34 17.33 16.99 16.41 16.00 Analyses of Fertilizers 14 PER CENT ACID PHOSPHATE 13 Phosphoric Acid Available Station Number Manufacturer or Dealer and Place of Sampling Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Pound Guaranteed American Agr. Chemical Co,, New York City. % % % % % % 1822» J. Price, Chews Landing, N. J 12.06 2.40 0.53 14.99 14.46 14.00 18297 S. Smedley & Son, Glassboro, N. J 10.30 4.09 0.55 14.94 14.39 14.00 180101 S. S. Baldwin, Murray Hill, N. J Baugh & Sons Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 9.70 4.26 1.80 15.76 13.96 14.00 18036 F. B. King, Mt. Holly, N. J Godfrey Co-operative Fert. & Chem. Co., New- ark, N. J. 12.80 2.61 0.51 15.92 15.41 14.00 18007;‘ J. W. Snyder, Pittstown, N. J S. M. Hess & Bro., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. 12.40 1.55 0.78 14.73 13.95 14.00 1899(< A. S. Golden, Hopewell, N. J Listers Agricultural Chemical Works, Newark, N. J. 10.98 4.15 0.75 15.88 15.13 14.00 18009;< A. D. Sutton, Califon, N. J Albert Nelson, Allentown, N. J. 11.00 3.18 0.67 14.85 14.18 14.00 18918 Albert Nelson, Nelsonville, N. J Ellwood Roberts Co,, Philadelphia, Pa. 11.36 1.15 0.85 13.36 12.51 14.00 18635 Ellwood Roberts Co., Winslow Jet., N. J. F. S. Royster Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. * 15.82 1.42 0.36 17.60 17.24 14.00 180081 E. N. Strong, Ringoes, N. J Swift & Co., Kearny, N. J. 10.28 4.11 1.22 15.61 14.39 14.00 18979 J. T. Van Nest, Martinsville, N. J I. P. Thomas & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 10.60 3.21 0.42 14.23 13.81 14.00 I 180067 J. H, Hann, Barbertown, N. J J. E. Tygert Co,, Philadelphia, Pa. 9.94 3.90 1.09 14.93 13.84 14.00 18707 T. I. Grant, Toms River, N. J Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., N. Y. City. 11.52 3.30 0.77 15.59 14.82 1 14.00 18088 College Farm, New Brunswick, N. J Average 11.30 3.52 0.73 15.55 14.82 14.49 14.00 BASIC LIME PHOSPHATE American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York City. 180083 F. Welch, Potterstown, N. J 0.70 12.57 1.88 15.15 13.27 14 Bulletin 331 The Examination of Home Mixtures Five samples of home mixtures were examined, and the results are tabulated on the following pages. The formulas used in pre- paring these mixtures are : No. 180129 1000 lbs. Acid Phosphate 1000 lbs. Tankage No. 18715 200 lbs. Acid Phosphate 50 lbs. Nitrate of Soda 50 lbs. Cottonseed Meal No. 180128 500 lbs. Acid Phosphate 200 Ihs. Ground Bone ■ No. 180083 2000 lbs. Acid Phosphate 800 lbs. Hen Manure No. 18657 200 lbs. Nitrate of Soda 200 lbs. Dried Blood 300 lbs. Tankage 200 lbs. Ground Bone 1100 lbs. Acid Phosphate HOME MIXTURES S 3 c o C/J 180129 18715 180128 180083 18657 H. J. Appert & Son . N. E. Diament & Son T. R. Hunt E. N. Strong A. S. Walton Prepared By Address Allendale . . Cedarville . , Lamhertville Ringoes . . . Moorestown Analyses of Fertilizers 15 HOME MIXTURES Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid Potash As Nitrates As Ammonia Salts \s Soluble Organic Matter As Insoluble Organic Matter Total Pound Total Guaranteed Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Aval •o c s o CL Guaranteed S Found Guaranteed Tr. 0.11 0.39 2.90 3.40 1 ] 5.78 2.35 4.57 I 12.70 8.13 2.15 0.01 0.22 0.77 .3 15 i 1 I 10.78 1.26 i 0.27 12.31 12.04 Tr. 0.02 0.26 0.38 0.66 1 5.88 6.29 6.30 ! 18.47 12.17 0.19 0.01 0.11 0.48 0.79 1 5.46 4.45 0.62 10.53 9.91 0.40 2.17 0.06 0.28 1.68 4.19 ! ’ 5.98 3.34 ' 3.48 12.80 9.32 16 Bulletin 331 COMMERCIAL FERTIIilZERS Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Station Number Manufacturer and Brand Where Sam feed 18256 Acme Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. Potato Climax No, 2 Blackwood 18244 * Potato Climax No. 2 Blackwood 18359 Active Chemical Co., Camden, N. J. Semper Peerless Camden 18197 Semper Excello Camden 18150 American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York City. Sampson Potato and Truck Manure Riverton 18220 * Sampson Potato and Truck Manure Elmer 18225 Superior Fish Guano for Broadcasting Laurel Springs .... 18221 * Matchless Potash Manure Glassboro 18850 18935 j All Crop Fish Giiann Hightstnwn .... Odorless Grass and Lawn Top Dressing, Revised New Brunswick . . . 180213 j Bradley’s New Method Fertilizer, 1916 Roselle 180174 Bradley’s Potato Manure, 1916 Florham Park 18941 Crocker’s Universal Grain Grower, 1916 Millstone 180135 Crocker’s Harvest Jewel Fertilizer, 1916 Paterson 18566 East India Black Hawk Potato and Truck Fertilizer Princeton Junction. 18735 East India Corn King, 1916 Red Bank 180105 East India Unexcelled Fertilizer, 1916 Millington 180103 East India Economizer Phosphate, 1916 Millington 180104 East India Potato and Garden Manure Millington 180029 Great Eastern General, 1916 Bernardsville 18956 Milsom’s Potato, Hop and Tobacco Fertilizer, 1916 Bound Brook 18957 Milsom’s Wheat, Oats and Barley, 1916 Bound Brook 180148 Northwestern Shawnee Phosphate, 1916 Titusville 180147 Northwestern Diamond Potash Mixture, 1916 Titusville 180149 Northwestern Complete Compound, 1916 Titusville 18983 Packers Union Potato Manure, 1916 Hopewell 18984 Packers Union .Superior Crop Grower, 1916 Hopewell 18985 Packers Union Universal Fertilizer, 1916 Hopewell 18703 Read’s Farmers’ Friend Superphosphate, 1916 Pomerania 18704 Read’s Vegetable and Vine Fertilizer, 1916 Pomerania 180016 Read’s Leader Fertilizer Three Bridges .... 18431 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Complete Manure, 1916 Thorofare 18432 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Fish Guano, 1916 Thorofare 18613 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Vegetable and Potato Manure Vineland 18912 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Soluble Tampico Guano, 1916 Robbinsville 18222 Tygert- Allen’s Reliable Crop Grower, 1916 Glassboro ^ . 18224 Allen’s Sweet Potato Manure, 1916 Blackwood 18298 Allen’s Potato and Truck Manure, 1916 Glassboro Duplicate samjjle. Analyses of Fertilizers CO>Il\IEKCIAL FERTILIZERS 17 Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid i Potash As Nitrates As Ammonia Salts As Soluble Organic Matter As Insoluble Organic Matter Total Found Total Guaranteed Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Avail T3 c 3 O CL Si Guaranteed — Found 1 Guaranteed ' 1 2.64 0.05 0.09 >0.15 2.93 3.28 0.70 6.91 0.76 8.37 ! 9.00 7.61 8.00 1.78 1 2.00 2.58 0.01 0.01 >0.19 2.79 3.28 Tr. 6.15 1.84 7.99 ! 9.00 6.15 8.00 2.29 2.00 0.51 0.19 0.03 0.12 0.85 0.82 6.34 3.57 0.65 10.56 11.00 9.91 10.00 1.34 1.00 0.91 0.51 0.02 0.19 1.63 1.64 7A.\ 3.00 0.60 10.72 11.00 10.12 10.00 1.44 1.00 0.87 0.93 0.51 0.48 2.79 3.29 4.1)1 4.59 1.16 9.93 9.00 8.77 8.00 2.76 1 3.00 1.33 1.15 ■ 0.20 0.43 3.11 3.29 2.94 5.11 1.51 9.56 9.00 8.05 8.00 *2.90 3.00 0.91 0.98 0.21 0.52 2.62 3.29 1.60 3.56 1.04 1 6.20 6.00 5.16 5.00 1.25 1.00 0.28 0.55 0.35 0.34 1.52 1.65 2.76 5.38 1.30 1 9.44 1 9.00 8.14 8.00 2.06 2.00 0.14 0.53 0.50 1.17 1.23 6.: 6 4.55 1.29 ! 12.60 1 11.00 11.31 10.00 1.07 1.00 2.50 0.18 0.70 3.38 3.91 4.18 2.06 0.59 ! 6.83 6.00 6.24 5.00 1.64 1.00 0.05 0.13 0.62 0.80 0.82 4.94 3.92 ' 1.37 10.23 9.00 8.86 8.00 *1.13 1.00 0.81 0.47 : 0.49 ! 0.55 2.32 2.47 5.26 3.58 2.78 11.62 10.00 8.84 .9.00 1.27 1.00 0.15 0.07 1 0.13 0.45 0.80 0.82 3.94 4.67 1.09 9.70 9.00 8.61 8.00 *1.10 1.00 0.73 0.05 I 0.21 j 0.57 1.56 1.65 7.40 1.78 1.54 10.72 10.00 9.18 9.00 *1.07 1.00 1.55 0.30 0.21 i 1.07 3.13 3.29 5.30 3.15 1.68 10.13 9.00 8.45 8.00 3.20 3.00 1.30 0.38 0.07 I 0.61 2.36 2.47 7.54 1.63 i 1.70 10.87 10.00 9.17 9.00 *1.12 1.00 0.31 0.43 I 0.29 0.78 1.81 2.06 2.84 5.07 ! 1.76 9.67 9.00 7.91 8.00 *0.96 1.00 Tr. 0.30 0.21 0.43 0.94 0.82 5.10 2.97 1.18 9.25 9.00 8.07 8.00 1.22 ! 1.00 1.54 0.61 0.42 0.61 3.18 3.29 6.74 2.41 1.72 10.87 10.00 9.15 9.00 1.51 j 1.00 0.16 0.08 0.12 0.32 0.68 0.82 4.82 4.31 1.18 10.31 9.00 9.13 8.00 *0.86 1.00 0.78 0.15 0.41 0.67 2.01 2.06 7.20 3.05 1.53 11.78 11.00 10.25 10.00 1.32 1.00 0.03 0.11 0.59 0.73 0.82 4.34 3.54 1.53 9.41 9.00 7.88 8.00 1.22 1.00 0.64 0.40 0.05 0.70 1.79 1.65 5.56 4.52 1.92 ! 12.00 10.00 10.08 9.00 *1.74 1.06 0.31 0.33 0.17 0.69 1.50 1.65 6.14 3.63 1.61 11.38 I 11.00 9.77 ! 10.00 *1.50 1.00 0.14 0.10 0.16 0.52 0.92 0.82 4.80 3.44 1.11 9.35 9.00 8.24 i 8.00 *1.49 1.00 0.78 0.17 0.39 I 0.71 2.05 2.06 7.24 2.95 1.55 11.74 11.00 10.19 1 10.00 1.29 1.00 Tr. 0.08 * 0.24 1 0.34 0.66 0.82 7.20 2.97 0.99 11.16 11.00 10.17 1 10.00 1.18 LOG 0.04 0.13 0.66 0.83 0.82 5.16 3.28 1.42 ' 9.86 9.00 8.44 8.00 1.18 1.00 0.74 0.78 0.12 1 0.39 2.03 2.06 4.82 2.89 2.13 i 9.84 i 9.00 7.71 8.00 *1.55 1.00 1.08 0.99 0.17 0.40 2.64 2.47 5.00 4.39 1.59 10.98 i 10.00 9.39 9.00 *1.47 1.00 Tr. 0.24 ' 0.18 i 0.50 0.92 0.82 4.46 3.76 1.86 p b 00 9.00 8.22 8.00 *1.46 1.00 Tr. 0.76 1 0.52 0.48 1.76 1.65 4.86 5.46 1.77 ’ 12.09 1 11.00 10.32 1 10.00 *1.34 1.00 Tr. 1.02 j 0.37 0.58 1.97 2.06 i 5.02 2.58 2.02 9.62 i 9.00 7.60 i 8.00 *1.11 i.oe 1.06 0.87 0.20 i 0.25 2.38 2.47 6.30 2.78 1.71 10.79 , 10.00 P 9.08 1 9.00 *1.02 1.00 1.58 0.57 0.37 0.60 3.12 3.29 6.58 2.54 1.80 ! 10.92 10.00 9.12 I 9.00 *1.26 1.00 0.16 0.57 0.37 0.57 1.67 1.65 4.48 5.42 1.94 11.84 : 11.00 9.90 10.00 1.22 1.00 0.85 0.61 ! 0.18 1 0.51 2.15 2.06 4.86 4.43 1.45 10.79 ; 11.00 1 9.34 10.00 *1.09 1.00 0.71 0.86 0.28 0.54 2.39 2.47 4.98 3.99 1.44 10.41 ^ 10.00 [ 1 8.97 9.00 1.23 ' 1.00 * Potash largely, if not entirely, from sulphate. ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. 18 Bulletin 331 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Manufacturer and Brand Where Sampled 18673 ; 18348 j 18349 ! 180255 18261 18420 18422 18148 18149 18111 18692 180219 180243 18804 18054 I 18786 j 18005 j 18388 ! 18590 ! 18461 j 18312 ; 18209 18713 I 180183 18288 18284 180178 18750 18139 18986 180058 180059 180208 American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York City — (Continued) Wheeler’s Potato Manure, 1916 : Wheeler’s Corn Fertilizer, 1916 Wheeler’s Reliable Manure, 1916 Williams & Clark’s Special Prolific Crop Producer American Fertilizing Co., Baltimore, Md. American Potato and Truck Guano American Eagle Crop Grower - American Fish and Potash Compound Armour Fertilizer Works, Baltimore, Md., and Chrome, N. J. Armour’s 4-8-3 Armour’s Wheat, Corn and Oats Special Armour’s 4-8-2 Sterling Potato, 1918 I Armour’s Crop Grower Tuscarora Standard Baltimore Pulverizing Co., Baltimore, Md. Special Potato Mixture *Special Potato Mixture i Pennimans Special Guano Baugh & Sons Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Baugh’s White Potato Special * Baugh’s White Potato Special Baugh’s Durable Plant Food Baugh’s Double Eagle Phosphate Baugh’s General Crop Grower for all Crops Baugh’s Potato and Truck Special for all Truck Crops Baugh’s High Grade Potato Grower Baugh’s Special Potato Manure Bowker Fertilizer Co., New York City. Stockbridge Complete Bowker’s Standard Phosphate Bowker’s Complete Bowker’s Hill and Drill Phosphate, 1916 Stockbridge General Crop Manure, 1916 Bowker’s Lawn and Garden Dressing, 1918 Bowker’s Farm and Garden Phosphate, 1916 Bowker’s Sure Crop Phosphate, 1916 Bowker’s Corn Pho.sphate Cape May Williamstown Williamstown W. Hoboken Elmer Westville Westville Riverton Palmyra Englishtown Tuckahoe Sussex Caldwell Medford Mt. Holly Mt. Holly Cranbury Jamesburg Mullica Hill Quinton Pitman Camden Barnegat Stockton Elm Elm Stockton Matawan Daretown Trenton Lebanon Lebanon Union Duj)licate sample. Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS 19 Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid Potash .'\s Nitrates .\s Ammonia Salts Soluble Organic Matter .\s Insoluble Organic 1 Matter | Total Found Total Guaranteed Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Available Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed 0.71 0.57 0.22 0.54 2.04 2.06 4.58 4.95 1.55 1 11.08 1 11.00 9.53 10.00 1.22 1.00 0.26 0.61 0.20 0.45 1.52 1 . 65 - 3.40 5.68 1.70 10.78 11.00 9.08 10 '. 00 1.07 1.00 1.73 0.05 0.17 0.33 2.28 2.47 4.68 4.92 1.83 11.43 1 10.00 9.60 9.00 1.30 1.00 0.03 0.23 0.46 0.72 0.82 5.12 3.26 1.15 9.53 i 9.00 8.38 8.00 1.11 1.00 2.70 0.05 0.24 ^ 0.40 3.39 3.29 6.00 2.22 1.03 9.25 i 9.00 8.22 8.00 M .87 2.00 0.30 0.47 2 0.86 1.63 1.65 1.90 5.28 i 2.08 9.26 9.00 7.18 8.00 * 2.32 2.00 0.18 0.60 0.91 1.69 1.65 1.84 6.07 ' 2.52 1 10.43 9.00 7.91 8.00 2.98 i! 3.00 i 1.65 i 0.72 2 0.80 3.17 3.29 4.56 3.52 1 1.82 9.90 . 8.50 8.08 8.00 . 2.97 ' 3.00 0.14 0.14 ; 0.11 2 0.31 0.70 0.82 4.52 3.03 0.45 ! 8.00 7.50 7.55 7.00 ;; M .31 1.00 0.31 ; 0.68 1.72 2.71 ! 3.29 2.76 4.39 3.69 10.84 : 8.50 7.15 8.00 2.18 2.00 1 0.16 0.35 0.44 0.95 0.82 4.46 3.19 1.46 9.11 7.50 7.65 7.00 0.96 ; 1.00 0.49 0.21 0.37 , 1.07 : 0.82 3.32 4.81 . 1.03 9.16 8.50 8.13 8.00 2.01 1 2.00 0.22 0.61 0.10 -' 0.70 1.63 1.65 4.44 4.33 2.14 10.91 8.50 8.77 8.00 2.20 ' 2.00 1.45 0.01 0.11 30.19 1.76 1.64 1.66 5.96 1 1.04 8.66 8.00 7.62 7.00 1.45 1 1.00 1.59 , 0.02 0.08 0.19 1.88 ! 1.64 0.22 ' 4.64 1.21 607 8.00 4.86 7.00 1.19 1.00 1.12 0.01 0.08 0.13 1.34 0.82 0.38 6.05 1.30 1 7.73 9.00 6.43 8.00 1.41 1.00 0.30 1.96 0.45 0.47 3.18 i 3.30 6.16 2.63 1.97 : 10.76 8.00 8.79 8.00 2.63 ' 3.00 0.96 1.65 0.07 0.57 3.25 3.30 5.76 3.02 1 1.84 1 10.62 8.00 8.78 8.00 2.80 ! 3.00 Tr. 0.63 ' 0.59 0.54 1.76 1.65 1 6.90 1.36 1.52 9.78 ; 8.00 8.26 8.00 1.53 2.00 1.04 0.23 iO .50 1.77 1.65 7.18 2.47 1.70 11.35 8.50 9.65 8.50 * 0.85 1.00 Tr. 0.10 0.29 2 0.43 0.82 0.82 5.38 2.79 1.60 9.77 8.00 8.17 8.00 * 0.80 1.00 2.11 0.07 0.24 20.41 2.83 2.88 7.40 2.89 1.57 11.86 10.00 10.29 10.00 * 1.44 1.00 2.44 ! 0.29 0.62 ! 3.35 3.30 8.12 i 1.61 1.21 10.94 8.00 9.73 8.00 1.09 1.00 Tr. 0.60 1 0.41 2 0.49 1.50 1.65 7.92 1.78 1.38 11.08 10.00 9.70 10.00 * 1.18 1.00 0.71 1.60 0.06 0.41 1 2.78 4.11 6.10 1 4.64 1.28 12.02 11.00 10.74 10.00 3.19 4.00 0.45 0.51 1 0.27 0.35 1.58 1.65 3.00 4.80 1.46 9.26 9.00 7.80 8.00 1.58 2.00 1.01 0.82 1 0.31 0.76 2.90 3.29 7.44 3.71 1.01 12.16 11.00 11.15 10.00 2.36 3.00 0.93 0.57 0.37 0.57 2.44 2.47 6.12 3.19 1.30 10.61 10.00 9.31 9.00 1.34 1.00 0.92 1.17 0.50 0.44 3.03 3.29 4.02 5.47 1.55 11.04 10.00 9.49 9.00 1,12 1.00 0.80 0.66 0.36 0.59 2.41 2.47 6.48 2.71 1.03 10.22 9.00 9.19 8.00 1.20 1.00 0.52 0.09 i 0.32 0.57 1.50 1.65 7.04 3.17 1.64 11.85 11.00 10.21 10.00 1.26 1.00 0.16 0.13 ! 0.11 0.36 0.76 0.82 7.06 2.94 2.05 12.05 11.00 10.00 10.00 1.18 1 1.00 0.82 0.06 0.28 0.54 1.70 1.65 6.30 4.02 1.25 11.57 11.00 10.32 10.00 1.24 1.00 * Potash largely, if not entirely, from sulphate. ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. The excess of total nitrogen partially offsets the amount of inferior quality. * Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. * Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. The excess of total nitrogen offsets the amount of inferior quality. 20 Bulletin 331 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash k. e p c o cr Manufacturer and Brand Where Sampled 18027 18135 18632 18576 180226 18283 18966 180007 180227 18790 18841 18028 18184 18010 180237 1886*3 18864 i 18820 j 180071 180167 180196 180199 180202 18138 18213 18215 18390 j 1858'/ i E. D. Cliittendon, Bridgeport, Conn. Chittenden’s Potato .Special with 3% Potash Coe-Mortimer Co., New York City. E. Frank Coe’s H. G. Potato Fertilizer, Revised E. Frank Coe’s General Crop Manure, Revised E. Frank Coe’s Empire State Brand, Revised E. Frank Coe’s Red Brand Excelsior Guano, 1916 E. Frank Coe’s Standard Potato Fertilizer, 1916 E. Frank Coe’s Universal Fertilizer, 1916 E. Frank Coe’s New Englander Special, 1916 E. Frank Coe’s Gold Brand Excelsior Guano, 1916 Columbia Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. Columbia Soluble Guano Columbia Clarion Guano Consumers Chemical Corporation, New York City. Consumers Pure-Sure Potato and Vegetable with 3% Potash... Fogg & Hires Co., Salem, N. J. Wonder Brand, 1917 Forman & Dilatush, Dayton, N. J. Forman & Dilatush’s Special Potato Manure Alex. Forbes & Co., Newark, N. J. Perfection Lawn Dressing — War Brand Godfrey Co-operative Fert. & Chem. Co., Newark, N. J. Godfrey’s Potato Manure, Revised ^Godfrey’s Potato Manure, Revised Godfrey’s Potato and Truck Fertilizer Godfrey’s Spec. Grain and Sure Crop Fertilizer, Revised Godfrey’s Celery and Onion Grower, Revised Godfrey’s Velvet Lawn Dressing, Revised Godfrey’s General Crop and Corn Fertilizer, Revised Godfrey’s Premium Potato Manure, 1917 Thos. Y. Hackett, Daretown, N. J. Hackett’s Special Fertilizer Hackett’s Superior Potato Grower Hackett’s Special Phosphate Hendrickson & Dilatush, Robbinsville, N. J. High Grade Potato Manure, No. 2 Heritage & Bro., Mullica, Hill, N. J. Pancoast’s Royal Fish and Potash Mixture Cr anbury . . Daretown . . Grenloch . . . Repaupo . . . Elizabeth . . Elm Pennington Skillman . . . Elizabeth . . Lewistown . Englishtown Cranbury . . Salem Cranbury . . Newark . . . . Jamesburg . Jamesburg . Freehold . . . Pittstown . . Madison . . . Plainfield . . Boonton . . . Boonton . . . Daretown . . lilmer Monroeville Jamesburg . Mullica Hill Duplicate sample. Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS 21 Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid Potash \s Nitrates As Ammonia Salts Soluble Organic Matter As Insoluble Organic Matter Total Pound Total Guaranteed 1 Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Pound Total Guaranteed Found < 6> Guaranteed 2 <6 Found Guaranteed 1.74 0.14 1.24 3.12 3.30 2.72 6.29 1 1.64 10.65 1 i 9.00 9.01 8.00 *2.45 3.00 1.52 1.16 0.26 0.36 3.10 3.29 5.26 4.95 1.18 11.39 11.00 10.21 10.00 *2.91 3.00 0.38 0.30 0.12 0.20 1.00 0.82 5.46 3.29 0.73 9.48 9.00 8.75 8.00 *1.82 2.00 0.43 0.57 0.22 0.32 1.54 1.65 2.64 5.38 1.18 9.20 9.00 8.02 8.00 *1.83 2.00 1.16 1.56 0.36 0.84 3.92 4.11 4.46 3.96 1.71 10.13 9.00 8.42 8.00 *1.04 1.00 1.18 0.98 0.34 0.44 2.94 3.29 2.68 6.87 1.38 10.93 10.00 9.55 9.00 1.07 1.00 0.40 0.28 0.21 0.59 1.48 1.65 6.32 3.33 1.47 11.12 10.00 9.65 9.00 *1.12 1.00 Tr. 0.17 0.15 0.36 : 0.68 : 0.82 4.50 3.22 1.08 8.80 9.00 7.72 8.00 1.04 1.00 0.93 0.58 1 0.30 0.48 2.29 2.47 7.20 2.32 1.75 11.37 10.00 9.62 9.00 1.31 1.00 0.29 i 0.69 0.08 0.55 1.61 1.65 2.64 5.02 2.19 9.85 8.50 7.66 8.00 *1.86 2.00 0.26 1.41 0.53 1.15 3.35 3.29 4.24 4.06 1.77 10.07 8.50 8.30 8.00 *2.73 3.00 .... j 1.57 j 0.59 1.39 3.55 3.29 2.60 4.39 3.40 10.39 9.00 6.99 8.00 *3.25 3.00 2.45 a38 0.13 '0.38 3.34 3.29 3.72 4.51 1.65 9.88 8.00 8.23 8.00 *3.30 3.00 2.02 0.52 10.77 3.31 3.29 3.94 3.31 2.45 9.70 8.50 7.25 8.00 3.09 3.00 1.67 0.01 j 0.07 0.68 2.43 2.47 2.42 4.70 5.22 12.34 10.00 7.12 8.00 0.98 1.00 Tr. : 1.76 0.22 0.98 2.96 3.29 4.64 4.02 0.62 9.28 9.50 8.66 9.00 1.79 2.00 1.84 1 0.06 0.02 ; 1.23 3.15 3.29 6.72 2.72 1.39 ’ 10.83 9.50 9.44 9.00 2.14 2.00 1.78 j 0.11 , 0.39 0.81 3.09 3.29 7.00 2.15 1.77 10.92 8.50 9.15 8.00 *2.86 3.00 0.55 i 0.09 0.55 1.19 0.82 1.96 6.09 1.21 ; 9.26 8.50 8.05 8.00 *1.30 2.00 — 0.72 1 0.17 ^2 0.63 1.52 1.65 2.66 5.48 1.77 : 9.91 8.50 8.14 8.00 *3.16 3.00 1.10 0.29 0.89 2.28 2.47 5.32 2.57 1.05 ! 8.94 8.50 7.89 8.00 *1.32 1.00 Tr. 0.53 0.13 0.88 1.54 1.65 8.32 2.56 1.49 j 12.37 11.50 10.88 11.00 1.72 1.00 Tr. 0.43 ' 0.66 2.18 3.27 3.29 3.24 4.31 3.52 11.07 8.50 7.55 8.00 2.70 2.00 2.39 1 1.03 * 0.08 0.09 3.59 3.28 6.32 3.11 0.90 10.33 9.00 9.43 8.00 *2.67 3.00 3.37 0.05 I 0.26 ‘0.55 4.23 4.12 6.10 2.12 i.o:j 9.24 9.00 8.22 8.00 *3.45 3.00 2.66 0.05 1 0.20 ‘0.59 3.50 3.29 4.82 3.87 0.96 1 9.65 9.00 8.69 8.00 *3.14 3.00 0.95 1.15 0.43 0.99 3.52 3.29 4.16 5.25 1.94 i 11.35 11.00 9.41 9.00 *3.05 3.00 0.60 : 0.18 0.89 1.67 1.65 1.64 6.50 1 2.34 1 10.48 I 9.00 8.14 8.00 *3.45 3.00 * Potash largely, if not entirely, from sulphate. ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. The excess of total nitrogen partially offsets amount of inferior quality. ® Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. 22 Bulletin 331 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash e 3 C O 18475 18476 18988 18259 18025 180085 18321 18765 18927 18928 18929 18945 18975 180253 18732 180146 180242 180240 180241 18523 18175 180249 18471 18696 180026 18663 18664 18060 Manufacturer and Brand S. M. Hess & Bro., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. Fish and Potash Manure, 1916 Potato Manure, 1916 Keystone Phosphate International Seed Co., Rochester, N. Y. International Special Manure Keystone Bone Fertilizer Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 1918 Keystone Supreme Potato and Truck Manure . Keystone Grain and Grass Manure Wm. Lancaster, Philadelphia, Pa. 1918 Grange A Brand Potato Manure *1918 Grange A Brand Potato Manure Listers Agricultural Chemical Works, Newark, N. J. Listers Corn and Potato Fertilizer, 1916 Listers 4-8-3 Listers Perfect Potato Manure, 1916 Listers U. S. Superphosphate, 1916 Listers Special Crop Producer, 1916 Listers Success Fertilizer, 1916 Listers Standard Pure Superphosphate of Lime, 1916 Listers Valley Brand Fertilizer, 1916 Listers Vegetable Compound, 1916 Listers Lawn Fertilizer, 1916 Listers Potato Manure, 1916 Locke and Black, Swedesboro, N. J. Atkinson’s No. 4 Spec. Sweet Potato Fertilizer Atkinson’s No. 1^^ .Spec. White Potato Fertilizer ... Frederick Ludlam Co., New York City. Ludlam’s General Fertilizer Mapes Formula & Peruvian Guano Co., New' York City. Mapes’ Potato Manure, 1916 Brand Mapes’ Top Dresser, Full Strength, 1916 Brand Mapes’ Corn Manure, 1916 Brand Martin Fertilizer Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Martin’s Bull Head Fertilizer Martin’s 4-8-3 Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, Freehold, N. J. Triangle Brand 4-8-3 Where Sampled Greenwich Greenwich Hopewell Elmer Perrineville Ringoes Bridgeton Bridgeton Robbinsville Robbinsville Robbinsville Middlebush Somerville Bloomfield Red Bank Titusville Orange Valley Orange Valley Orange Valley Swedesboro Salem Caldwell Greenwich Germania Gladstone Hammonton Hammonton Mt. Holly . . ., Error made in shipment. Material paid for in accordance with the analysis. Analyses of Fertilizers COM^IERCIAL FERTILIZERS 23 Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid Potash As Nitrates As Ammonia Salts \s Soluble Organic Matter \s Insoluble Organic Matter Total Pound Total Guaranteed Soluble in Water ! j Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Aval •a c 3 0 u . 5 “ Guaranteed 2 1 Found Guaranteed 0.15 0.87 0.11 0.54 1.67 1.65 2.06 6.08 2.13 10.27 10.00 I 8.14 : 9.00 0.98 j 1.00 1.21 0.73 0.15 0.35 2.44 2.47 5.20 5.03 1.48 11.71 10.00 ; 10.23 ; 9.00 1.51 1.00 0.05 0.12 0.59 0.76 0.82 4.62 3.44 1.57 9.63 9.00 8.06 8.00 1.25 1.00 0.70 0.40 0.51 1.61 1.65 4.74 5.37 1.83 11.94 11.00 ' 10.11 10.00 *^1.51 1.00 1.58 0.45 0.56 2.59 3.28 5.94 3.21 0.85 10.00 9.00 9.15 8.00 *1.26 2.00 0.33 0.06 0.41 ! 0.80 0.82 0.42 5.40 2.96 8.78 8.00 5.82 7.00 1 *0.75 1 1.00 0.58 1.04 0.45 0.84 2.91 3.30 4.84 3.91 1.19 9.94 9.00 8.75 8.00 1 *^2.42 1 2.00 2.27 0.33 0.71 i 3.31 3.30 6.74 3.00 j 0.84 10.58 9.00 9.74 8.00 *0.35 2.00 0.75 0.22 0.33 0.75 2.05 2.06 6.34 2.39 1.54 10.27- 9.00 8.73 8.00 1 *1.20 1.00 1.61 i 1.08 0.20 0.57 3.46 3.29 4.02 4.40 1.72 10.14 9.00 8.42 8.00 *2.75 3.00 1.10 i 0.62 0.52 0.98 . 3.22 3.29 5.14 3.81 2 . 19 ' 11.14 10.00 8.95 9.00 *1.08 1.00 0.21 0.10 0.59 0.43 : 1.33 1.23 7.62 3.65 1.78 13.05 11.00 11.27 10.00 *0.97 1.00 Tr. 0.11 0.27 0.38 : 0.76 0.82 ! 4.17 4.53 1.75 10'.45 9.00 8.70 8.00 *0.58 1.00 0.25 0.12 0.29 0.52 ' 1.18 1.23 6.56 3.38 2.25 i 12.19 11.00 ' 9.94 10.00 1.04 1.00 1.12 0.48 0.35 0.50 2.45 2.47 8.64 1.37 0.89 10.90 10.00 ! 10.01 9.00 *1.53 1.00 0.08 0.14 0.56 0.78 0.82 7.26 3.94 1.84 13.04 11.00 11.20 10.00 *1.11 1.00 1.54 1.47 0.43 0.56 4.00 4.11 5.46 2.75 2.03 10.24 9.00 8.21 8.00 *1.27 1.00 0.67 0.27 0.55 0.59 2.08 2.06 5.96 ! 1.76 1.65 9.37 9.00 7.72 8.00 *1.41 1.00 1.20 1.55 0.65 0.66 4.06 4.11 4.90 3.24 1.77 9.91 9.00 8.14 8.00 .,.14 1.00 0.54 0.20 0.76 1.50 1.65 2.20 5.99 2.77 10.96 9.00 8.19 8.00 *3.04 3.00 2.38 0.05 0.25 ^0.68 ! 3.36 3.29 3.34 4.28 1.07 8.69 9.00 7.62 8.00 *3.44 3.00 1.02 0.48 0.26 0.52 2.28 2.47 6.76 2.08 2.94 11.78 10.00 8.84 9.00 1.31 1.00 3.09 0.02 0.13 ^0.44 i 3.68 3.71 2.42 5.91 2.05 10.38 8.00 8.33 8.00 ''1.45 1.00 10.54 1 0.02 0.02 0.20 ! 10.78 9.88 0.52 4.98 1.74 7.24 8.00 5.50 5.00 *1.89 1.00 1.97 0.02 0.11 20.50 2.60 2.47 7.58 4.47 12.05 10.00 7.58 8.00 *1.32 1.00 2.72 0.03 0.03 ^0.39 3.1-7 2.47 0.68 6.01 2.27 8.96 9.00 6.69 8.00 *1.36 1.00 1.69 0.03 0.09 10.39 2.20 3.30 0.04 7.33 2.22 9.59 9.00 7.37 i 8.00 *2.85 3.00 1.50 0.86 0.47 0.64 3.47 3.29 2.84 5.57 2.54 ! 10.95 9.00 8.41 8.00 *3.24 3.00 * Potash largely, if not entirely, from sulphate. 1 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. 2 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. The excess of total nitrogen partially offsets amount of inferior quality. 3 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. The excess of total nitrogen offsets amount of inferior quality. 24 Bulletin 331 COM3IERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash S 3 "Z c _o (75 Manufacturer and Brand Where Samples 18514 18516 18478 18479 18481 18234 18949 180096 18914 18919 18767 18180 18451 18630 18593 18633 18029 18185 18562 18833 18835 18855 18455 18496 18499 J. R. Moore, Swedesboro, N. J. J. R. Moore’s H. G. Potash Sweet Potato Manure J. R. Moore’s Early Truck and Potato Manure J. R. Moore’s 2-8-2 Sweet Potato Manure J. R. Moore’s Superior Gold Edge Sweet Potato Manure J. R. Moore’s Baxter Special Tomato Grower Nassau Fertilizer Co., New York City. Nassau Special, 1916 General Favorite Fish Mixture Wheat and Grass Grower, 1916 Albert Nelson, Allentown, N. J. Nelson’s Special Fish and Potash Nelson’s H. G. Potato Phosphate Patapsco Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. Patapsco Fish Guano, 1916 Rasin-Monumental Co., Baltimore, Md. Rasin’s Electric Truck and Vegetable Manure Rasin’s Champion Potato and Vegetable Manure Rasin’s H. G. Potato and' Truck Manure Reading Bone Fertilizer Co., Reading, Pa. Blood, Meat and Potash Mixture Ellwood Roberts Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Jersey Special F. S. Royster Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. Royster’s True Blue Compound *Royster’s True Blue Compound Royster’s Fish, Flesh and Fowl Phosphate Royster’s Dreadnought Fertilizer Royster’s Big Bet Fertilizer Schanck, Hutchinson & Field, Hightstown, N. J. Davison’s Fish and Potash Mixture for Potatoes Scott Fertilizer Co., Elkton, Md. W. R. Hackett’s No.^1 Special Potato Manure Harry L. Sockel, Woodbury, N. J. E. Sickel’s 2-8-2 for Sweet and White Potatoes B. Sickel’s 1-8-1 Special for Sweet Potatoes Swedesboro Swedesboro Swedesboro Swedesboro Swedesboro Atco Bound Brook New Germantown.. Nelsonville Nelsonville Red Bank Salem. Bridgeton Evesboro Pedricktown Winslow Junction. . Robbinsville Salem Swedesboro Tennent Tennent Hightstown Quinton Vineland Vineland Duplicate sample. 25 Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid Potash As Nitrates As Ammonia Salts .\s Soluble Organic Matter .As Insoluble Organic Matter Total Found I'otal Guaranteed Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Pound Total Guaranteed Ava TJ C 3 O u. Guaranteed i 2 i ^ Pound Guaranteed | 0.67 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.86 0.82 7.14 1.87 0.50 i 9.51 9.00 9.01 8.00 4.72 5.00 3.15 0.02 0.03 0.18 3.38 3.29 4.58 4.24 i 0.82 9.64 : 9.00 8.82 8.00 * 2.46 2.00 1.40 0.03 0.16 1.59 1.65 1.80 6.83 i 0.80 9.43 i 9.00 8.63 8.00 * 2.25 2.00 1.32 0.02 0.10 0.21 1.65 1.65 7.50 1.60 . 0.42 9.52 9.00 9.10 8.00 * 3.03 3.00 3.65 0.01 0.14 ^ 0.21 4.01 3.70 3.52 3.90 1 0.69 8.11 8.00 7.42 7.00 * 1.58 1.00 1.18 0.70 0.19 0.39 2.46 2 . 47 . 5.74 3.81 1.51 11.06 10.00 9.55 9 . 0 f ' 1.28 1.00 0.24 0.14 0.17 0.77 1.32 1.23 6.88 3.52 i 1.60 12.00 11.00 10.40 10.00 1.17 1.00 0.20 0.32 0.07 0.41 1.00 0.82 4.92 3.10 1.34 9.36 1 9.00 ! 8.02 8.00 1.00 1.00 1.08 0.02 0.10 ^ 0.37 1.57 1.65 6.90 1.37 ' 0.68 8.95 9.50 8.27 8.50 0.80 1.00 2.03 0.07 0.21 3 0.80 3.11 3.29 5.00 3.23 1.12 9.35 1 9.00 8.23 8.00 3.36 3.00 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.71 1.12 1.23 6.10 3.67 i i 2.46 12.23 11.00 9.77 10.00 M .73 1.00 2.83 0.04 0.18 0.46 3.51 4.12 7.80 1.13 ; 0.85 ^ 9.78 9.00 8.93 8.00 3.25 3.00 2.16 0.05 0.27 3 0.54 3.02 3.29 4.40 3.69 1.17 9.26 9.00 1 8.09 8.00 3.12 3.00 2.61 0.03 0.17 3 0.41 3.22 3.29 6.08 2.03 1.12 i 9.23 9.00 8.11 8.00 1.85 2.00 0.75 0.63 0.41 1.79 1.64 2.90 5.51 1.70 10.11 9.00 8.41 8.00 1.99 2.00 0.14 0.17 0.48 0.79 0.82 3.96 3.80 1.02 8.78 8.00 7.76 8.00 1.12 1.00 2.03 0.46 0.67 3.16 3.29 3.88 4.32 : 1.34 ! ! 9.54 8.50 8.20 8.00 * 3.14 3.00 1.89 0.32 0.98 3.19 3.29 3.40 4.84 2.20 1 10.44 8.50 8.24 8.00 * 2.88 3.00 0.12 0.96 0.41 30.39 1.88 1.65 4.84 3.93 1.06 9.83 I 8.50 8.77 8.00 * 2.80 3.00 Tr. 0.88 0.32 0.54 1.74 1.65 4.12 3.73 1.65 i 9.50 8.50 7.85 8.00 * 2.58 2.00 Tr. 1.66 0.21 1.24 3.11 3.29 4.56 4.13 1.34 10.03 8.50 8.69 8.00 * 2.34 2.00 2.41 0.19 1 0.15 0.25 3.00 i 1 3.29 5.06 3.67 1.37 10.10 9.00 8.73 8.00 2.99 3.00 1.87 0.16 0.38 1.53 3.94 4.10 Tr. 7.79 1.74 9.53 12.00 7.79 10.00 5.34 5.00 Tr. 0.74 0.43 ^ 0.57 1.74 1.65 6.28 2.33 1.72 10.33 8.00 8.61 8.00 1.75 2.00 0.12 0.41 2 0.39 0.92 0.82 6.90 2.08 1.01 9.99 8.00 ;! 8.98 8.00 * 1.27 1.00 * Potash largely, if not entirely, from sulphate. ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen offsets the amount of inferior quality. * Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets the amount of inferior quality. * Insoluble nitrogen of inferior quality. 26 Bulletin 331 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash 1 u ^ , e ! s c .2 Manufacturer and Brand ! Where Sampled 18609 South Jersey Farmers Exchange, Woodstown, N. J. A 3% Exchange Special H. G. Potato Fertilizer Bridgeton 18548 B 3% Exchange Special White Potato Manure Daretown 18442 B 5% Exchange Extra Special Potato Fertilizer Bridgeton 18608 D 3% Exchange Extra White Potato Fertilizer Woodstown 18550 1 B 3% 1 Exchange Special White Potato Fertilizer Elmer 1852'f Woodstown 1852!> :B:3% Exchange Special White Potato Fertilizer Woodstown 18521! :E:2% Exchange Sweet Potato Fertilizer Woodstown 18526 :E:5% Exchange Special Sweet Potato Fertilizer Woodstown 18506 i *:E:5% Exchange Special Sweet Potato Fertilizer Swedesboro 18545 B 3% X Exchange Special White Potato Fertilizer Woodstown 18546 *B 3% X Exchange Special White Potato Fertilizer Woodstown 18544 (B 3%) Exchange Special White Potato Fertilizer Elmer 18267 South Jersey Farmers Exchange 4-8-3 Elmer 18759 Standard Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. . 4-8-3 Ti ri ^Ptnn 18762 4-8-2 18257 Swift & Co., Baltimore, Md. Swift’s Red Steer P' 1 m 18538 *Swift’s Red Steer Vineland 18559 Swift’s White Potato Fertilizer Swedesboro 18026 Swift & Co., Kearny, N. J. Swift’s Market Garden Manure Perrineville 18045 Holley Market Garden Manure Mt. Holly 18723 Swift’s Garden and Truck Fertilizer Lakewood 18977 .Swift’s Truck and Vegetable Fertilizer Martinsville 180036 Swift’s Corn Grower Gladstone 180050 Swift’s Standard Potato Fertilizer Far Hills 18205 Taylor Bros., Camden, N. J. High Grade Potato Phosphate .» Camden 18206 T. B. Superior Ammoniated Phosphate Camden 18340 I. P. Thomas & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Potato Manure with 2% Potash Thorofare 18426 Truckers’ High Grade Manure New Lisbon 18655 Special Mixture No. 2 (formula given) Moorestown 180123 I. P, Thomas’ 4-8-3 Fertilizer Lambertville 180064 Superior Superphosphate Barbertown 180065 Grain Special Fertilizer Rarbertnwn 18364 Tip Top Fertilizer Mickleton Duplicate sanii)Ie. Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS 27 Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid Potash As Nitrates 1 1 As Ammonia Salts , As Soluble Organic Matter i As Insoluble Organic ; Matter ' 1 Total Found Total Guaranteed | Soluble in Water Soluble m Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Aval ■D C S O u . S' Guaranteed i Z n Found Guaranteed 2.20 0.21 1.45 3.86 4.11 8.80 1.52 1 0.84 11.16 11.00 10.32 i 10.00 "^ 2.91 3.00 1.84 0.38 0.99 3.21 3.29 3.88 4.60 1.79 10.27 9.00 8.48 ' 8.00 * 3.12 3.00 1.82 0.23 0.17 0.91 3.13 3.29 7.08 2.05 1.70 j 10.83 9.00 9.13 8.00 i * 4.72 5.00 Tr. 1.94 0.42 1.83 4.19 4.11 4.44 4.56 1.41 i 10.41 9.00 9.00 , 8.00 ^ * 2.85 3.00 1.97 0.06 0.34 0.80 3.17 3.29 6.90 2.01 1.54 10.45 9.00 8.91 8.00 * 3.21 3.00 0.22 0.42 0.64 1.28 0.82 1.78 6.33 2.46 j 10.57 9.00 8.11 8.00 * 4.51 5.00 0.91 1.36 0.09 1.00 3.36 3.25 3.52 4.90 1.34 9.76 9.00 8.42 8.00 i * 3.06 3.00 Tr. 1.51 0.20 ^ 0.55 2.26 1.65 2.88 4.98 1.09 8.95 9.00 7.86 8.00 * 2.34 2.00 0.49 0.06 0.25 30.37 1.17 0.82 Tr. 8.29 2.15 10.44 9.00 8.29 8.00 ! 4.95 5.00 0.61 0.09 0.03 30.37 1.10 0.82 4.22 3.52 2.91 10 65 9.00 7.74 8.00 ^ 5.48 5.00 2.08 0.06 0.36 0.95 3.45 3.29 6.55 2.87 0.93 10.36 9.00 9.43 8.00 * 2.67 3.00 1.86 0.06 0.80 0.60 3.32 3.29 4.76 3.61 1.50 9.87 9.00 8.37 8.00 * 3.03 3.00 0.80 0.89 0.23 1.61 3.53 3.29 2.18 5.37 ' 2.42 9.97 9.00 7.55 8.00 3.14 3.00 1.75 1 0.14 0.83 0.71 3.43 3.29 4.96 3.10 i 1.78 9.84 8.50 8.06 8.00 * 3.05 3.00 1.56 0.07 0.16 M .14 2.93 3.29 6.18 3.16 0.54 9.88 9.34 8.00 * 2.73 3.00 1.66 0.04 0.13 1.30 3.13 3.29 6.02 2.71 i i 0.48 9.21 8.73 8.00 2.23 2.00 0.55 0.20 0.08 2 0.73 1.56 1.65 5.44 1 3.17 i 0.93 9.54 8.00 8.61 8.00 1.91 2.00 0.68 , 0.08 0.13 ’ 0.84 1.73 1.65 4.38 4.08 1.80 10.26 8.00 8.46 8.00 1 2.05 2.00 Tr. 1 I 2.38 0.38 0.57 3.33 3.29 3.18 5.00 2.17 10.35 8.00 8.18 8.00 2.44 3.00 1 i 2.09 0.16 0.80 3.05 3.29 2.46 4.96 1.86 9.28 8.00 7.42 8.00 ! 3.36 3.00 0.38 1.69 0.25 0.86 3.18 3.29 4.16 3.59 1.68 9.43 8.00 7.75 8.00 1 * 3.16 3.00 0.35 1 . 62 : 0.30 0.76 3.03 [ 3.29 5.76 2.03 0.84 8.63 8.00 7.79 8.00 1.53 1.00 0.33 0.72 1 0.12 0.76 1.93 1.65 5.30 5.22 1.64 12.16 8.00 10.52 8.00 0.75 1.00 Tr. 0.18 0.37 0.93 1.48 1.65 3.63 6.38 2.34 12.35 10.00 10.01 10.00 0.82 1.00 0.33 1 0.26 0.10 1.18 1.87 1.65 4.40 3.36 0.97 8.73 8.00 7.76 8.00 1.97 3.00 0.16 0.93 0.22 ’ 0.50 1.81 1.65 8.10 1.97 1.41 11.48 10.00 10.07 10.00 1.16 1.00 0.56 0.15 0.40 2 0.51 1.62 1.65 7.42 2.01 1.39 10.82 1 8.00 9.43 8.00 1.01 1.00 1.03 1.45 0.14 0.79 3.41 3.25 1.52 7.28 1.54 10.34 8.50 8.80 8.00 * 2.32 2.00 1.22 1.30 0.08 0.52 3.12 3.25 4.20 4.58 1.45 ; 10.23 8.50 8.78 8.00 * 1.33 1.00 1.22 0.22 0.31 1.17 2.92 2.76 5.09 2.41 10.26 7.85 2.24 0.65 1.31 0.18 0.88 3.02 3.25 4.08 4.62 1.52 10.22 8.50 8.70 8.01 3.01 3.00 0.05 0.19 ’ 0.61 0.85 0.82 0.62 5.66 3.87 10.15 7.50 6.28 7.00 * 1.04 1.00 0.66 0.04 0.13 3 0.19 1.02 0.82 0.48 6.74 1.98 9.20 8.50 7.22 8.00 2.00 2.00 0.96 1.17 0.11 0.54 2.78 ' 2.45 3.96 4.01 1.29 9.26 8.50 7.97 8.00 1.22 1.00 * Potash largely, if not entirely, from sulphate. 1 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets the amount of inferior quality. 2 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. ® Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen offsets the amount of inferior quality. 28 Bulletin 331 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Station Number Manufacturer and Brand Wherb Sampled Trenton Bone Fertilizer Co., Trenton, N. J. 18133 4-8-3 Potato 1 Beverly F. W. Tunnell & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. 18007 1918 Special Potato Manure Allentown 18391 Monmouth’s Pride Potato Manure Cranbury 18101 *Monmouth’s Pride Potato Manure .• Freehold 18009 Robbinsville Potato Special Allentown 18181 1918 Pride of Jersey Salem 18204 Beverly 18269 1918 Sweet Potato Manure Westville 18350 1918 Truck Manure Williamstown 18351 1918 Jersey Potato Manure Williamstown J. E. Tygert Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 18533 Standard Fertilizer Vineland 18535 Sweet Potato Guano, 1916 1 Vineland 18536 Paramount Potato and Truck Manure, 1916 Vineland 18868 Golden Harvest Phosphate, 1916 Burlington Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., New York City. 18024 C & B XXXX Fish and Potash Potato Manure with 3% Potash Perrineville 18894 *C & B XXXX Fish and Potash Potato Manure with 3% Potash Cranbury 18031 V. C. C. Co.’s Double Owl Brand Potato and Truck Fertilizer with 3% Potash Englishtown 18085 V. C. C. Co.’s Universal Fertilizer for all Crops Beverly 18517 *V. C. C. Co.’s Universal Fertilizer for all Crops Swedesboro 18264 V. C. C. Co.’s Owl Brand Potato and Truck Fertilizer with 3% Potash Elmer 18084 j V. C. C. Co.’s XXXX Fish and Potato Mixture Beverly 18814 1 V. C. C. Co.’s Double Owl Brand Potato and Truck Fertilizer with 1% Potash Freehold West Jersey Marl and Transportation Co., Woodbury, N. J. 18144 Early Potato Manure Daretown 18162 1 1-8-3 Brand Delair 18273 Special Sweet Potato Manure Woodbury 18336 i Tomato and Potato Manure Thorofare 18276 High Grade Truck Manure Gloucester 18335 ' All Crop Mixture Thorofare 18368 I 2-8-2 Brand Thorofare J. K. Wyckoff, Princeton Junction, N. J. 18567 Wyckoff’s Special Potato Fertilizer Princeton Junction. 18569 Wyckoff’s Market Garden Manure Princeton Junction. Duplicate sample. Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash 29 Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid Potash Available O o 'S ■3 •3 13 Kf) ’c s o •o V V •h> c U V a CJ •o u u 3 V .2 ‘S o s o .w 3 3 3 o c 3 O u. 3 u 9 3 o V .si ’u'c 3 3 c o u. 3 2 o 3 V V c 3 in ^ c a ’« •2 p 3 ■2 *3 ■3 C 3 3 3 3 C 3 3 3 ir, ^ o o 3 o » o O o 3 O 3 < <3 <1^ E- cn c/^<: b- H U. O u. o 1.60 0.43 0.42 0.69 3.14 3.28 6.30 2.61 1.86 0.50 0.78 3.14 3.30 4.0'6 4.08 0.62 1.30 0.33 0.90 3.15 3.30 3.06 5.24 2.07 0.15 0.70 3.22 i 3.30 3.08 5.22 1.73 0.67 0.70 3.10 : 3.30: 4.76 3.55 1.32 0.58 1.23 3.13 ! 3.30 3.16 4.10 1.09 0.11 0.14 U.03 2.37 1 2.46 i 1.76 2.99 0.4:1 0.74 0.19 0.57 1.93 1.64 1.08 6.31 1.79 0.74 0.79 3.32 4.12 1.64 5.86 1.83 0.60 0.84 3.27 3.30 1.36 5.60 0.44 0.49 0.20 0.37 1.50 ! 1.65 2.80 4.73 0.41 0.43 0.42 1.26 1.23 4.48 5.45 1.46 1.09 0.11 0.46 3.12 3.29 2.64 5.53 Tr. 0.21 0.42 0.35 0.98 0.82 5.12 3.21 1.88 0.94 0.02 10.31 3.15 3.29 6.22 2.04 0.21 1.80 0.46 0.77 3.24 3.29 2.04 5.69 0.15 1.79 0.72 0.72 3.38 3.29 2.14 5.56 Tr. 0.50 0.36 0.24 1.10 0.82 0.82 8.09 1.47 0.14 0.27 0.63 2.51 0.82 7.60 1.73 1.4.1 0.08 0.21 0.09 1.81 1.65 5.70 2.93 0.76 0.32 0.08 0.32 1.48 1.65 6.02 2.91 2.75 0.36 0.66 3.77 1 3.29 4.70 2.48 0.92 1.74 0.09 2 0.54 3.29 3.28 6.16 2.15 Tr. 0.18 0.42 20.48 1.08 0.82 5.68 2.40 1.04 0.10 10.50 1.64 1.65 6.92 3.02 0.91 1.20 0.10 0.52 2.73 2.87 7.88 2.47 0.24 2.09 0.18 10.62 3.13 3.28 7.28 1.58 0.71 0.22 0.21 0.81 1.95 2.05 4.02 2.53 0.13 0.76 0.53 ! 2 0.52 ! 1.94 1.65 7.16 1.65 1.78 0.36 P bo 2.94 3.29 4.96 3.15 1.92 0.18 0.22 0.66 2.98 I 3.29 !! 3.30 4.74 * Potash largely, if not entirely, from sulphate. ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. 2 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. amount of inferior quality. 3 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. of inferior quality. 1.54 10.45 9.00 8.91 8.00 *2.85 3.00 1.52 9.66 9.00 8.14 8.00 3.10 3.00 1.12 9.42 : 9.00 1 8.30 8.00 2.35 2.00 0.88 ' 9.18 9.00 8.30 8.00 1.99 2.00 1.20 9.51 9.00 ' 8.31 8.00 3.74 4.00 2.42 ! 9.68 8.00 7.26 7.00 1; *2.05 2.00 0.66 ; 5.41 ! 1 1 4.75 5.00 *0.88 0.50 2.61 , 10.00 I 9.00 7.39 8.00 *1.83 2.00 1.81 9.31 7.00 7.50 6.00 1.04 1.00 2.26 ; 9.22 9.00 6.96 8.00 *1.25 1.00 1.68 9.21 ' 9.00 7.53 8.00 1.81 2.00 2.29 ! 12.22 11.00 9.93 lO.OO 1.23 1.00 1.49 9.66 9.00 8.17 8.00 2.84 3.00 0.96 9.29 1 j 9.00 1 8.33 8.00 1.10 1.00 0.36 8.62 9.00 8.26 8.00 *3.01 3.00 2.07 9.80 9.00 7.73 8.00 *3.06 3.00 1.78 ■ 9.48 1 9.00 7.70 8.00 *4.04 3.00 2.27 11.18 I 10.00 8.91 9.00 *3.17 3.00 0.80 10.13 10.00 9.33 9.00 1.38 3.00 0.55 9.18 9.00 8.63 8.00 *2.81 3.00 1.12 10.05 9.01) 8.93 8.60 1.34 1.00 0.82 8.00 9.00 7.18 8.00 *1.62 1.00 1.47 9.78 0 06 8.31 8.00 *3.34 3.00 1.80 9.88 j 8.00 8 08 8.00 *2.78 3.00 1.77 11.71 9.00 9.94 9.00 0.90 1.00 1.67 12.02 10.00 10.35 10.00 1.29 1.00 1.46 ' 10.32 8.00 , 8.86 8.00 1.13 1.00 3.03 9.58 6.00 6.55 6.00 1.09 1.00 1.56 10.37 8.00 8.81 8.00 *1.60 2.00 1.50 9.61 8.00 8.11 8.00 2.85 3.00 1.72 9.76 8.00 8.04 8.00 *3.20 1 3.00 Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets tkc Excess of total nitrogen offsets the am*««t 30 Bulletin 331 CO>IMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing' Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid V a ! 3 Z C _o OS t)) I 18430 18573 18577 18396 18358 18353 18198 18360 18356 18344 180045 18637 18675 18243 180112 18227 18219 18247 180046 180211 18887 i 180212 18094 180247 18095 ; 18733 i 18736 ; 180136 I 180137 I 180107 18387 180017 18851 j 18237 j 18611 ! 180164 Manufacturer and Brand Acme Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. Perfect Potato Ammoniated Fish Guano No. 1 Acme Early Truck No. 1 Active Chemical Co., Cam.den, N. J. Semper Potato King Fertilizer Semper Corn Grower Semper All Crop Fertilizer Semper Condor Semper Special Fertilizer Semper Active Fertilizer Semper Premium Fertilizer American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York City. Ammoniated Fertilizer A Ammoniated Fertilizer A A Ammoniated Fertilizer AAA Ammoniated Fertilizer A AAA High Grade Ammoniated I-^ertilizer Superphosiihate wdth Ammonia 4 Per Cent XXX Ammoniated Fertilizer Great Truck Special Soluble Grain Mixture Special Potato Phosphate Bradley’s Special Superior Compound, Revised . . Bradley Truckers’ Delight Crocker’s Champion Potato Grower Crocker’s Special Colonial Fertilizer, Revised . . . . East India Victor Special, 1916 East India Special Improved Compound East India Early Market Milsom’s Golden Eagle Milsom’s Potato Producer Potomac Top Dressing Manure Read’s Top Notch Mixture Read’s Practical Grain Grower Read’s Farm and Garden Manure Sharpless & Carpenter’s Gold Seal Potato Manure Sharpless & Carpenter’s Grain Mixture .Sharpless & Carpenter’s Practical Guano Where Sampled W estville Repaupo Repaupo Salem Camden Camden Camden Camden Camden Sewell ; Neshanic I Woodbury Cape May I Blackwood River Edge Chews Landing .... Elmer Blackwood j Ne^,hanic I Roselle I Plainsboro j Roselle Marlboro Orange Marlboro Red Bank Red Bank Paterson Paterson Bernardsville Cranbury Three Bridges Hightstown Blackwood Vineland Hainesburg ". . Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS 31 Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid Manufacturer and Brand Phosphoric Acid As Nitrates .\s Ammonia Salts ! .'\s Soluble Organic Matter As Insolunle Organic Matter Total Found Total Guaranteed Soluble in 'Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Avail; ! •a c a o u . » i ^ Guaranteed | ^ 3.83 0.01 0.09 10.16 4 . 09 3 . 28 1.06 5 . 91 1 , .25 8 . 22 9 . 00 6.97 8.00 2.54 0.02 0.10 10.19 2 . 85 2 . 46 1.20 6 . 33 1 . ,33 8 . 86 9 . 00 7.53 8.00 3.98 0.01 0.19 10.17 4 . 35 4 . 10 0.92 5 . 32 1 , ,21 i 7 . 45 8 . 00 6.24 7.00 0 . 7 ;; 1.08 0.05 0.14 1 . 99 ■ 1 64 6.12 3 . 97 0 , i .61 10 . 70 11 . 00 10.09 10.00 0.51 0.17 0.05 0.10 0 . 83 0 . 82 7.72 2 . 57 1 0 .62 10 . 91 11 . 00 10.29 10.00 0.98 0.54 0.02 0.19 1 . 73 1 . 64 4.54 3 . 55 0 , .30 1 8 . 39 9 . 00 8.09 8.00 2.06 1.44 0.01 0.15 3 . 66 4 . 10 6.18 2 . 06 0 .24 I 8 . 48 9 . ,00 8.24 8.00 1.61 i 1.11 ; 0.03 0.11 2 . 86 3 . 28 7.60 2 . 19 0 . ^4 1 10 . 33 11 , ,00 9.79 10.00 1.23 0.79 ; 0.17 0.13 2 . 32 2 . 46 5.46 ^ 2 ,44 1 ^ .34 : 8 . 24 9 . ,00 7.90 8.00 2.32 0.01 I 0.02 0.07 2 . 42 3 . 28 1 6.36 2 . ,50 0 .47 1 9 . 33 9 . ,00 8.86 ! 8.00 0.01 ‘ 0.29 0.46 0 . 76 1 1 82 6.20 4 . .04 1 . 6 C 11 . 84 11 . .00 i 10.24 1 10.00 0.49 ' 0.53 1 0.14 0.43 1 . 59 ■ 1 . 65 6.88 3 . ,90 1 1 .63 12 . 41 11 . ,00 10.78 10.00 0.82 0.75 0.29 0.44 2 . 30 ’ 2 . 47 5.86 4 , ,55 i 1 .00 11 . 41 11 . .00 10.41 : 10.00 0.96 1.24 0.40 0.33 2 . 93 i 3 . ,29 6.00 4 . .60 1 .25 11 . 85 11 . .00 10.60 10.00 1.32 1.07 0.63 1.09 4 . 11 ! 4 . 11 5.48 2 . .67 1 1 .42 1 9 . 57 9 , ,00 8.15 : 8.00 1.49 0.84 0.10 . 0.41 2 . ,84 i 3 , ,29 4.24 4 . .39 ! 1 .13 1 9. 76 i 9 .00 8.63 8.00 . .. . 1 0.41 0.61 ^ 0.42 i 44 ' 1 . ,23 5.46 4 , ,46 i 1 .08 11 . 00 ^ 11 . .00 9.92 10.00 1.54 ^ 1.62 0.37 0.77 30 4 . ,11 6.60 4 , .04 ' 1 .13 11 . ,77 j 11 , .00 10.64 10.00 0.04 0.30 ■' 0.56 1 0 . 90 : 0 . ,82 4.30 4 . ,13 .92 35 ' 9 . ,00 8.43 8.00 0.52 0.10 ’ 0.42 0.47 1 . .51 : 1 , ,65 7.34 4 .93 ! 1 .17 13 . 44 13 , .00 12.27 12.00 0.71 0.01 i 0.27 0.59 1 . .58 ; 1 ' ,65 5.88 5 .08 ! 1 .51 12 . ,47 i .00 10.96 10.00 0.83 1.04 0.38 0.75 3 . ,00 I 3 , .29 6.78 3 , .77 1 .08 63 ! 11 , .00 10.55 i 10.00 1.53 0.65 0.51 ' 0.70 3 . .39 1 3 , .29 6.24 3 .91 1 .49 11 . ,64 i 11 .00 10.15 10.00 1.15 0.27 0.34 0.46 2 . ,22 1 2 , ,47 6.70 3 .22 2 .25 12 . ,17 i 11 .00 9.92 10.00 1.50 • 0.69 ! 0.49 1 0.65 3 , ,33 3 .29 6.94 3 .16 1 .56 11 , ,66 1 11 .00 10.10 1 10.00 0.21 I 0.12 ; 0.66 : 0.64 1 . .63 ! 1 , .65 5.36 4 .26 2 .25 11 . ,87 ! 11 .00 9.62 i 10.00 0.94 ! 0.42 1 0.43 1 0.62 2 . ,41 2 , .47 7.76 2 .51 1 .88 12 . ,15 1 11 .00 10.27 i 10.00 0.10 0.91 ! 0.59 1 , .60 ! 1 .65 5.12 4 .53 2 .26 11 . 91 11 .00 9.65 , 10.00 1.61 0.43 0.45 0.65 3 , .14 i .29 7.16 3 .00 2 .09 12 . ,25 i .00 10.16 , 10.00 3.42 1.52 0.25 ! 0.42 5 . .61 5 . .76 4.80 1 .62 1 .88 8 , .30 ! 7 .00 6.42 : 6.00 1.60 0.61 0.30 1 0.64 3 .15 ' 3 .30 8.10 2 .26 1 .26 11 , .62 i 11 .00 10.36 10.00 0.33 0.11 0.44 0.60 1 .48 I 1 .65 5.84 4 .35 1 .84 12 , ,03 11 .00 10.19 10.00 0.48 1.68 0.23 1 0.97 3 .36 i 2 .47 5.88 3 .27 2 .33 11 , .48 11 .00 9.15 j 10.00 1.53 0.87 0.16 1 0.48 3 .04 3 .29 5.94 4 .58 1 .20 11 . .72 11 .00 10.52 10.00 0.36 0.53 0.19 0.41 1 .49 1 .65 6.46 3 .85 1 .64 11 , .95 11 .00 10.31 10.00 1.00 0.25 1 0.53 ! 20.63 2 .41 i 2 .47 7.16 2 .61 2 .33 12 . ,10 11 .00 9.77 10.00 ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen offsets the amount of inferior quality. * Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. * Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets amount of inferior quality. 32 Bulletin 331 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric; Acid Station Number Manufacturer and Brand 1 Where Sampled 18936 American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York City — (Continued) Williams & Clark’s Spec. Potato and Root Fertilizer Milltown 18890 Williams & Clark’s Sterling Mixture Dayton 180138 W illiams & Clark’s Mammoth Crop Producer Dundee Lake 18260 American Fertilizing Co., Baltimore, Md. American Fish Special Elmer * 18419 American Eagle Potato and Truck Grower Westville 18889 American Special Fish Guano Prospect Plains .... 18001 Armour Fertilizer Works, Baltimore, Md., and Chrome, N. J. Armour’s Potato and Truck Fertilizer Skillman 18002 Armour’s Corn, Grain and Grass Fertilizer Skillman 18004 Armour’s Top Dressing for Grass Sods Skillman 18223 Armour’s 5-10 Fertilizer Chews Landing .... 18797 Armour’s 4-10 Fertilizer Medford 18798 Armour’s 3-10 Fertilizer 1 Medford 18402 Armour’s 2-10 Fertilizer Salem 18691 Blood and Meat, 1918 Tuckahoe 18693 Sweet Potato, 1918 Tuckahoe 18846 Armour’s 1-10 Fertilizer Hightstnwn 18096 J. H. Baird & Son, Marlboro, N. J. J. H. Baird’s 4)4-1014-0 Marlboro 18052 Baltimore Pulverizing Co., Baltimore, Md. Practical Fertilizer Mt. Holly 18039 Baugh & Son’s Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Baugh’s H. G. Ammoniated Animal Base Moorestown 18035 Baugh’s The Old Stand-by Dissolved Animal Base Mt. Holly 18923 Baugh’s Wheat Fertilizer for Wheat and Grass Hightstown 18628 Baugh’s Corn and Oats Fertilizer Moorestown 18152 Baugh’s Truckers’ Favorite Palmyra 18140 Baugh’s Superb Potato Phosphate Woodstown 18462 Baugh’s Peninsula Grain Producer, 1918 Quinton 18464 Baugh’s Half and Half Mixture Quinton 18230 The Berg Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Berg’s Animal Bone and Meat Atco 180185 Berg’s Special Wheat Grower Flemington 180153 Berger Bros., Eaaton, Pa. Berger Bros.’ Lehigh Superphosphate, 1916 Asbury Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS 33 Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid Manufacturer and Brand Phosphoric Acid As Nitrates j As Ammonia Salts As Soluble Organic [Matter As Insoluble Organic Matter Total Found Total Guaranteed 1 Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Pound Total Guaranteed Avail TJ C 3 O a, 3“ [Guaranteed ^ 1.36 0.68 0.53 0.56 3 13 3 .29 6 .46 3. 35 2 . 10 11.91 11. 00 9 .81 10.00 0.63 0.22 0.34 0.53 1 72 .1 .65 7 .26 3. 15 2. 61 13.02 11. 00 10 .41 10.00 1.31 0.34 0.25 0.55 2 45 2 .47 7 .16 2. 59 2. 53 12.28 11. 00 9 .75 10.00 Tr. O.OS 0.67 ^0.96 1 68 1 .65 6 .56 3. 65 2. 64 12.85 12. 00 10 .21 11.00 2.53 0.04 0.27 0.57 3 41 3 .29 6 .94 1. 97 1. 01 9.92 9. 00 8 •91 8.00 0.01 0.24 0.50 0 75 0 .82 6 .10 4. 83 2. 22 13.15 11. 00 10 .93 10.00 1.40 1.38 0.20 1.31 4. .29 4 .11 10 .08 1. 15 2. 22 13.45 10. 50 11 .23 10.00 1.89 0.03 0.02 0.55 2, .49 2 .47 13 .00 0. 76 0. 78 14.54 14. 50 13 .76 14.00 6.34 0.05 0.08 0.28 6, .75 6 .56 6 .00 T. 53 2. 87 10.40 6. 50 7 .53 6.00 0.83 1.28 0.32 1.53 3. .96 4 .11 1 9 .08 1. 17 0. 93 11.18 10. 50 10 .25 10.00 1.74 0.04 0.28 1.12 3, .18 3 .29 8 .90 1 1- 08 0. 69 10.67 10. 50 9 .98 10.00 0.74 0.46 0.08 1.00 2, .28 2 .47 7 .66 i 1. 77 0. 75 10.18 10. 50 9, .43 10.00 0.21 0.21 0.39 1.07 1. .88 1 .65 8 .96 1 65 1. 00 11.61 10. 50 10, .61 10.00 Tr. 0.42 0.24 i 0.93 1. .59 1 .65 9 .30 2. 11 0. 87 12.28 10. 50 11, .41 10.00 Tr. 0.26 0.39 0.63 1, .28 1 .23 4 .76 5. 09 3. 70 13.55 9. 50 9 .85 9.00 Tr. 0.03 0.45 0.36 0. .84 0 .82 7 .60 0. 42 2. 00 10.92 10. 50 8 .92 10.00 1.89 0.05 0.50 1.29 3, .73 3 .70 8 •42 2. 69 2. 15 13.26 12. 75 11 .11 10.50 0.81 0.01 0.02 0.22 1. .06 0 .82 0 .70 5. 76 0. 56 7.02 8. 00 6 .46 8.00 1.21 1.23 0.14 0.65 3, .23 3 .30 8 .46 2. 76 2. 22 13.44 10. 00 11 .22 10.00 0.53 0.60 0.14 0.38 1, .65 1 .65 9 .92 3. 02 0. 99 13.93 12. 00 12, .94 12.00 0.44 0.38 0.27 0.58 1, .67 1 .65 8 .06 ; 2. 90 1 . 31 12.27 10. 00 10, .96 10.00 0.39 0.12 0.57 =»0.44 1, .52 1 .65 7 .94 1. 68 1. 51 11.13 10. 00 9, .62 10.00 Tr. 0.13 1.62 0.73 2. .48 2 .47 5 .42 4. 41 3. 65 13.48 10. 00 9 .83 10.00 1.48 2.03 0.34 0.35 4. .20 4 .12 9 .20 ! 1- 46 0. 73 11.39 10. 00 10 .66 10.00 0.09 0.60 20.43 1. .12 0 .82 7 .30 2. 57 1. 18 11.05 9. 00 9, .87 9.00 0.16 0.58 0.65 1, .39 1 .23 5 .62 6. 11 9. 22 20.95 19. 00 11, .73 12.00 1.40 0.06 0.45 1.46 3, .37 3 .30 1 .92 9. 12 6. 90 17.94 17. 00 11, .04 0.03 0.49 1.37 1, .89 1 .65 4 .92 3. 54 4. 23 12.69 11. 00 8, .46 8.00 0.62 0.18 0.21 0.45 1, .46 1 .65 6 .92 3. 81 1. 99 12.72 11. 00 10, .73 10.00 ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets the amount of inferior quality. 2 Insoluble organic nitrogen of infeiior quality. Excess of total nitrogen offsets the amount of inferior quality. ® Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. 34 Bulletin 331 CO>OIERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid u X: g 5 c o n it: 18316 18728 18749 18811 18285 18070 18192 18191 18895 18153 18199 18200 180006 18740 18049 18050 18051 18652 18791 18792 18842 18963 180236 180014 180069 180201 180012 180070 180072 180200 18838 Manufacturer and Brand Where Sample* Bowker Fertilizer Co., New York City. Bowker’s Superphosphate with Ammonia 1% Bowker’s Superphosphate with Ammonia 2% Bowker’s Superphosphate with Ammonia 3% Bowker’s Superphosphate with Ammonia 4% Bowker’s Superphosphate with Ammonia 5% Burlington County Farmers Exchange, Mt. Flolly, N. J. Circle A Brand 4-10-0 ^Circle A Brand 4-10-0 Circle A Brand 2-10-0 Chamberlin & Barclay, Cranbury, N. J. C & B 1918 Top Dressing Coe-Mortimer Co., New York City. E. Frank Coe’s Prolific Crop Producer, 1916 E. Frank Coe’s Original Ammoniated Dissolved Phosphate, 1916 E. Frank Coe’s Gardeners’ and Truckers’ Special, 1916 E. Frank Coe’s XXV Ammoniated Phosphate, 1916 E. Frank Coe’s H. G. Ammoniated Superphosphate, 1916 J. S. Collins & Son, Inc., Moorestown, N. J. V. C. C. Co.’s Special 3-10 Fertilizer 3- 10 Fertilizer 4- 10 Fertilizer Special 4-10 Fertilizer ' Columbia Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. Columbia Vitalic Ammoniated Superphosphate Columbia Reflex Ammoniated Superphosphate Columbia Ammoniated Phosphate Mixture Jas. G. Downward Co., Coatesville, Pa. Pioneer Potato Phosphate Alex. Forbes & Co., Newark, N. J. Garden Fertilizer — War Brand Godfrey Co-operative Fert. and Chem. Co., Newark, N. J. Godfrey’s Vegetable Mixture Godfrey’s Corn Mixture Godfrey’s Early Potato Mixture Godfrey’s Soluble Top Dressing for Timothy, Revised Godfrey’s Special Mixture Godfrey’s Potato Mixture Godfrey’s Grain Grower, Revised Godfrey’s Potato and Truck Mixture Bridgeton . . . Red Bank . . . Matawan . . . . Medford .... Elm Mt. Holly ... Collingswood Collingswood Cranbury . . . . Palmyra Riverside . . . . Riverside . . . . Skillman .... Hazlet Moorestown . Moorestown . Moorestown . Moorestown . Lewistown . . . Vincentown . Tennent Trenton Newark Three Bridges Pittstown . . . . Boonton Three Bridges Pittstown . , . ; Pittstown . . . j Boonton .... 1 Englishtown . Duplicate sample. Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS 35 Fui’nishiiig Nitroj^eii and Phosphoric Acid Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid As Nitrates 1 .\s Ammonia Salts As Soluble Organic Matter As Insoluble Organic Matter Total Found Total Guaranteed Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Found > CD 5" Guaranteed Z ** 1 Tr. . 0.13 0.61 20.30 1.04 0.82 7.36 3.44 1 1.12 11.92 1 11.00 10.80 10.00 0.2C 0.13 0.61 0.56 1.50 1.65 4.70 5.11 2.33 12.14 , 11.00 9.81 10.00 0.88 0.40 0.46 0.59 2.33 2.47 7.46 2.77 1.84 12.07 ! 11.00 10.23 10.00 1.21 1.04 0.23 0.58 3.06 3.29 6.76 3.45 1.85 12.06 11.00 10.21 10.00 1.85 1.17 0.19 0.47 3.68 4.11 5.18 3.99 0.95 10.12 I 9.00 9.17 8.00 1.87 1.08 0.06 0.24 3.25 3.28 6.40 3.99 1.53 11.92 ; 11.00 10.39 10.00 3.12 0.03 0.09 0.19 3.43 3.28 5.62 4.87 0.54 11.03 11.00 10.49 10.00 1.34 0.01 0.04 0.16 1.55 1.64 5.58 1 6.44 2.11 14.13 11.00 12.02 10.00 7.60 7.60 7.38 7.08 1.08 Tr. 8.16 8.00 8.16 7.00 0.81 1.49 0.40 0.49 3.19 3.29 5.70 4.87 1.28 11.85 11.00 10.57 10.00 0.39 0.61 0.52 1.52 1.65 5.68 4.14 1.01 10.83 11.00 9.82 10.00 1.76 0.82 1.17 3.75 4.11 5.96 3.18 2.22 11.36 1 9.00 9.14 8.00 0.04 0.30 0.54 0.88 0.82 4.10 5.57 2.73 12.40 i 11.00 9.67 10.00 1.15 0.41 0.39 *0.62 2.57 2.47 8.14 2.40 1.46 12.00 11.00 10.54 10.00 0.81 i 0.33 1.20 2.34 2.47 7.70 ' 3.17 0.67 11.54 ! 11.00 10.87 10.00 0.94 0.15 0.30 ! 1.10 2.49 2.47 7.42 2.54 1.96 11.92 10.50 9.96 j 10.00 1.65 0.49 i 0.79 2.93 3.29 7.32 1.77 0.71 9.80 10.50 9.09 10.00 3.13 ■0.14 0.51 3.78 3.29 8.36 i 2.43 0.35 11.14 11.00 10.79 10.00 0.65 0.19 0.99 1.83 1.65 5.60 3.01 1.53 10.14 8.50 1 8.61 8.00 0.01 0.40 0.37 0.78 0.82 5.58 4.44 1.01 11.03 ■ 10.50 10.02 10.00 1.70 0.26 1.15 3.11 3.29 7.74 i 2.34 1.37 11.45 ; 10.50 10.08 10.00 0.70 0.04 0.13 ^0.44 1.31 2.46 0.24 6.47 4.51 i 11.22 i 11.00 6.71 10.00 0.63 0.05 0.19 0.52 1.39 1.65 1.04 4.01 6.26 11.31 10.00 5.05 8.00 Tr. 0.39 0.53 1.19 2.11 2.47 8.44 1.81 1.31 11.56 ; 10.50 10.25 10.00 1.19 0.19 j 0.73 2.11 1.65 8.44 1.89 1.38 1 11.71 1 10.50 10.33 10.00 1.88 0.43 0.29 0.89 3.49 3.29 8.16 ' 1.85 1.81 11.82 10.51) 10.01 10.00 1.90 ! 1.50 ' 0.22 I 1.70 5.32 5.76 6.20 1.44 1.27 8.91 6.50 7.64 6.00 1 0.18 0.18 , 0.52 0.88 0.82 6.86 ' 2.86 0.73 10.45 ' 10.50 i 9.72 10.00 0.70 0.49 0.12 1.13 2.44 3.29 5.50 2.07 0.85 8.42 8.50 1 7.57 8.00 0.28 0.12 0.19 0.63 1.22 1.23 6.36 3.33 2.14 11.83 9.50 9.69 9.00 0.82 1.00' 0.41 1.59 3.82 4.11 9.14 1.32 0.79 11.25 1 10.50 1 10.46 10.00 ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. * Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets quantity of inferior quality. 36 Bulletin 331 COMMERCIAIi FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid
  • 0.68 1.22 0.27 0.94 3 .11 3.29 7 .68 3 . 03 0.88 11 .59 1 11 .00 10 .71 9.00 1.00 0.13 0.16 0.36 1 .65 1.65 7 .64 3 . 66 1.14 12 .44 11 .00 i 11 .30 9.00 0.55 0.05 0.25 0.76 1 .61 1.65 9 .54 ' 3 . ,14 3 . 04 14 .72 ' 11 .00 i 12 .68 9.00 1.91 0.05 0.40 1.59 3 .95 4.10 7 .90 2 . 58 1.21 11 .69 11 .00 1 10 .48 9.00 2.61 0.06 0.53 10.83 4 .03 4.12 6 .56 : 1 , .95 1.00 9 .51 9 .00 8 .51 8.00 0.28 1.94 0.61 1.12 3 .95 4.11 7 .06 i 2 . 69 2.03 11 .78 11 .00 9 .75 1 10.00 0.67 0.04 0.26 0.70 1 .67 1.65 5 , .88 4 . 83 1.72 12 .43 11 .00 10 .71 10.00 1.00 0.68 0.19 0.37 2 .24 2.47 6 .90 1 3 . 75 0.99 11 .64 11 .00 10 .65 10.00 0.01 0.20 0.43 0 .64 0.82 6 .56 3 . 51 2.37 12 .44 11 .00 10 .07 10.00 0.64 0.16 0.22 0.48 1 .50 1.65 6 , .18 4 . 09 1.54 11 .81 11 .00 10 .27 10.00 0.10 0.47 10.58 1 .15 1.64 6 . .46 4 . 76 1.93 13 .15 1 1 11 .00 11 , .22 10.00 0.75 0.04 0.09 0.18 1 .06 1.23 3 , .04 6 . 83 6.42 16 1 .29 9 .87 15.00 0.66 0.49 0.09 0.33 1 .57 1.65 5 , .94 i 4 . 47 1.00 11 .41 ‘ 11 .OCf 10 , .41 10.00 0.26 0.20 0.19 0.27 0 .92 0.82 6 , .20 1 4 . 09 0.99 11 .28 11 . 0(1 10 , .29 10.00 0.60 0.15 0.51 0.99 2 .25 2.47 7 , .00 ' 2 . 77 1.17 10 .94 ; 10 .50 9 , .77 10.00 0.54 1.71 0.29 1.34 3 .88 4.11 8 . .78 1 . 65 0.95 11 .38 ! 10 .50 10 . .43 10.00 1.78 0.20 0.42 0.87 3 .27 3.29 8 . .34 2 . 42 1.69 12 , .45 10 .50 10 , .76 10.00 0.11 0.66 10.64 1 .41 1.64 7 , .66 3 . 24 0.82 11 . 1 .72 I 11 .00 10 , .90 10.00 1.07 0.44 0.82 2 .33 2.46 5 . .98 3 . 84 0.97 10 , .79 ' 12 .00 9 , .82 10.00 0.26 2.64 0.28 0.59 3 .77 4.10 8 , .82 1 . 68 0.73 11 , .23 i 11 .00 10 . ,50 10.00 0.06 0.19 ^ 0.63 0 .88 0.82 5 . .36 3 . 71 0.79 9 .86 1 10 .00 9 , .07 9.00 1.08 0.55 0.63 2 .26 0.82 6 . .60 4 . 56 1.01 12 , .17 13 .00 11 , .16 12.00 0.10 0.54 0.32 0 .96 0.82 ! 3 . .50 8 . 35 2.61 14 , .46 13 .00 11 . ,85 12.00 0.73 1.12 0.38 0.87 3 .10 3.30 i 8 . .76 1 . 92 0.61 11 . .29 11 .00 10 . .68 10.00 0.33 1.12 0.38 0.84 2 .67 2.46 7 , .38 2 , 59 1.25 11 , .22 ' 11 .00 9 . .97 10.00 2.42 0.55 0.87 3 .84 4.12 8 . .76 1 2 .. 12 0.82 11 , .70 11 .00 10 . ,88 10.00 0.34 1.14 0.13 0.70 2 .31 4.12 6 . .30 3 . 45 1.47 ' 11 , .22 11 .00 9 . ,75 1 10.00 1 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. • Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality, amount of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets 38 Bulletin 331 CO>IMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid S c o ca W 18100 18724 180020 18822 I 18870 I 180090 ' 180047 j 18231 ’ 18524 18505 18580 180250 18306 18697 180217 18249 : 18250 I 18251 18379 18418 I 18032 I 18059 I 18817 I 18823 I 18826 i I 18501 18515 1 18950 180095 180057 Manufacturer and Brand Listers Agricultural Chemical Works, Newark, N. J. Listers Superior Ammoniated Superphosphate, 1916 Listers Excelsior Guano, 1916 Listers Crescent Ammoniated Superphosphate, 1916 Brakeley’s Special Mixture, 1916 A. B. Special Mixture Listers Plant Food, 1916 Listers Ground Bone and Tankage, Acidulated Locke & Black, Swedesboro, N. J. Atkinson’s No. 1 H. G. Onion and Early Truck Fertilizer with- out Potash Atkinson’s No. 3 Special Sweet Potato Fertilizer without Potash Atkinson’s No. 5 Special Early Tomato and Asparagus Grower. without Potash Atkinson’s No. 3j4 Sweet Potato Fertilizer without Potash .... Frederick Ludlam Co., New York City. Ludlam’s Sickle Fertilizer No. 3, 1916 Mapes Formula and Peruvian Guano Co., New York City. Mapes’ 5 Per Cent Ammonia Special Mapes’ General Crop, 1916 Brand Mapes’ Top Dresser, Half Strength, 1916 Martin Fertilizer Co., Philadelphia, I’a. Martin’s Pure Dissolved Animal Matter ’. Martin’s Ammoniated Phosphate 4-8 Martin’s Ammoniated Phosphate 3-8 Martin’s Crop Producer Martin’s Ammoniated Phosphate 2-8 Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, h'reehold, N. J. Triangle Brand 5-10-0 Triangle Brand 4-10-0 Triangle Brand 8-6-0 Triangle Brand 2-11-0 Triangle Brand 1-12-0 Jos. R. Moore, Swedesboro, N. J. J. R. Moore’s 2-10-0 Sweet Potato Manure J. R. Moore’s 4-10-0 Potato Manure Nassau Fertilizer Co., New York City. Common Sense Fertilizer, 1916 Old Hickory, 1916 Buckwheat Special Where Sa.mpled Freehold Lakewood Three Bridges Freehold Bordentown Califon Far Hills Blackwood Swedesboro Swedesboro Mullica Hill Caldwell Sewell Germania Sussex Blue Anchor Blue Anchor Blue Anchor Bridegton Swedesboro Englishtown Mt. Holly Freeehold Freeehold Marlboro Swedesboro Swedesboro Bound Brook New Germantown. . White House Sta... Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing: Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid 39 Manufacturer and Brand Phosphoric Acid As Nitrates As Ammonia Salts As Soluble Organic Matter As Insoluble Organic Matter Total Pound Total Guaranteed Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Found < Guaranteed ^ 1 .57 0 71 0.38 0 46 3 12 3 29 8 .14 2 .18 1 .40 i 1 .72 11 .00 10 .32 10.00 1 .10 0 14 0.62 0 79 2 65 2 47 7 .82 2 .75 2 .68 ' 13 .25 11 .00 10 .57 10.00 0 .70 0 32 0.13 0 56 1 71 1 65 7 .30 3 .61 1 0 .95 11 .86 11 .00 10 .91 10.00 1 30 0.44 2 12 3. 86 4 11 5 .02 1 .94 3 .19 10 .15 9 .00 6 .96 8.00 1 .49 1 36 0.03 0 98 3 86 4 53 7 .28 2 .71 1 .33 11 .32 11, .00 9 .99 10.00 0 01 0.18 ^0 65 0. 84 0 82 5 .40 4 .95 1 .62 11 .97 11 .00 10 .35 10.00 0 32 0.54 1 91 2. 77 2 67 2 .52 3 .97 8 .05. 14 .54 12 .00 6 .49 1 .77 0, .08 0.44 1. 11 3. 40 3. ,70 7 .98 0, .59 1. .32 9 .89 9 .00 8 .57 8.00 0. .09 0.64 0. 72 1. 45 1, ,65 8 .20 2 .90 2 .03 13 .13 12 .00 11 .10 11.00 2 .11 0, .06 1.10 11. 11 4. 38 4. ,32 6 .62 1, .93 1, ,22 9 .77 9 .00 8 .55 j 8.00 0 .92 0, .03 0.25 0. 30 1. 50 1, .65 5 .60 2, .26 1. .29 9 .15 9 .00 7 .86 8.00 1 .12 0. ,23 0.45 0. 53 2. 33 2. 47 7 .22 2 , .67 2. ,97 12 .86 11, ,00 9 .89 10.00 4 .00 0. .01 0.01 20. 41 4. 43 4. 12 2 .80 5, .35 3, .57 11 .72 10, .00 8 .15 8.00 1 .27 0. .01 0.18 20. 37 1. 83 1. 65 2 .82 4, .65 4, ,04 11, ,51 10. .00 7, .47 8.00 4 .70 0.31 0. 29 5. 30 4. 94 1 .08 1, .49 2, .28 4, .85 4, .00 2, .57 2.50 0, .33 0.43 0. 94 1. 7C 1. 65 8 .72 3. .08 1, .90 13, .70 12. ,00 11 , .80 1 .40 1 , .30 0.12 30. 34 3. 16 3. 30 7 .10 2, ,49 1. ,43 11. .02 8. .00 9, .59 8.00 0, .82 0.42 30. 57 1. 81 2. 47 6 .78 3, ,47 1. ,74 11, .99 i 8. .00 10, .25 8.00 0 .21 0, .05 0.17 30. 36 0. 79 1. 03 7 . 54 ! 3. ,85 2. .33 13. .72 1 11. ,00 11, .39 10.00 0 .60 0, .06 0.11 30. 77 1. 54 1. 65 6 .10 2, .23 2, 69 11 , .02 9. .00 8, .33 8.00 1 .74 1. .00 0.06 1. 21 4. 01 1 4. 11 7 .10 2. ,94 2. ,32 12, .36 11. ,00 10, ,04 10.00 1 .51 0. ,79 0.23 0. 92 3. 45 3. 29 8 .06 [ 3. 13 1. 70 12. OS 00 11. ,00 11, .19 10.00 5 .80 0. ,06 0.16 0. 68 6. 70 6. 58 6 .64 1. ,20 1. 67 9. ,51 7, ,00 7. .84 6.00 0 .49 1 0. ,08 0.34 0. O 00 1. 71 1. 64 8, .58 i 2. ,52 3. ,49 14, .59 12. .00 11, ,10 11.00 ... 0. ,04 0.32 0. 66 1. 02 0. 82 5 .22 5. ,93 5. ,30 16, ,45 13. ,00 11, ,15 12.00 1 1 .19 i 0. ,02 0.16 0. 15 1. 1 52 i 1. 65 8, .20 2. ,30 0. 54 11. ,04 11. 00 10, ,50 10.00 3 .17 0. .01 0.02 0. 16 3. 36 3. 29 8 .42 2, ,34 1 . 01 11 , ,77 1 11. 00 10, ,76 10.00 0 .68 0, .33 0.10 0. 52 1. 63 1. 65 7 .68 3. 31 0. 74 11. i 73 1 11. 00 10. 99 10.00 . . . 0, ,06 0.08 *0. 62 0. 76 0. 82 5, .66 4. ,27 1 1. 53 11. ,46 1 11. 00 9. ,93 10.00 0. ,19 0.29 0. 45 0. 93 0. 82 5. .64 1 3. 04 1 0. 87 9. 55 1 9. 00 8. 68 8. op ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets amount of inferior quality. * Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen offsets amount of inferior quality. * Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. 40 Bulletin 331 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid u B 3 c .2 o OQ 18913 18915 18916 18917 18766 180061 18948 18062 18061 18815 18448 18908 18869 180043 18594 180155 180156 180157 18030 18836 18563 18565 18617 18616 18739 18937 18771 18828 18930 18931 18856 18857 Manufacturer and Brand Albert Nelson, Allentown, N. J. Nelson’s Special G & G Guano Nelson’s Special Potato Grower Nelson’s Superior Potato Grower Nelson’s R & W Guano Patapsco Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. Patapsco Truckers’ Delight Philadelphia Guano Works, Philadelphia, Pa. 1918 Corn and Vegetable Manure 1918 Grain Superphosphate Rasin Monumental Co., Baltimore, Md. Rasin’s Potato and Vegetable Ammoniated Superphosphate Rasin’s Special Fish Guano Rasin’s Potato and Truck Compound Rasin’s Empire Superphosphate Rasin’s Special Crop Preparation Rasin’s Special Fish and Bone Guano Rasin’s Special Fish Mixture Reading Bone Fertilizer Co., Reading, Pa. High Grade Truck Food Reading Chemical Co., Reading, Pa. Pennant Winner Reading Soil Builder Reading Royal Fish Guano F. S. Royster Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. Royster’s Curfew Ammoniated Superphosphate *Royster’s Curfew Ammoniated Superphosphate Royster’s Flamingo Ammoniated Superphosphate Royster’s Abundant Ammoniated Superphosphate Royster’s Penguin Ammoniated Superphosphate Royster’s Gazelle Ammoniated Superphosphate Royster’s Landmark Ammoniated Superphosphate Royster’s Royal Blue Ammoniated Superphosphate Royster’s C. B. Fish Mixture Royster’s Innovation Ammoniated Phosphate Ruckman Bros., New Brunswick, N. J. 5 and 8 Fertilizer Special Grain Grower Schanck, Hutchinson & Field, Hightstown, N. J. S. H. & F. Corn Mixture S. H. & F. Potato and Vegetaljlc Compound Where Sampled Nelsonville Nelsonville ' Nelsonville I Nelsonville j Red Bank ! Annandale j Bound Brook j Edgewater Park . . . I Edgewater Park . . . I Freehold I Bridgeton j Windsor i Burlington Neshanic Pedricktown Blairstown Blairstown Blairstown Hightstown Tennent Swedesboro Swedesboro Vineland Vineland Keansburg Millstone Red Bank Tennent New Brunswick . . . New Brunswick . . . Hightstown Hightstown Duplicate sample. 41 Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid As Nitrates As Ammonia Salts \s Soluble Organic Matter As Insoluble Organic Matter Total Pound Total Guaranteed Soluble in Water I Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Found ^ CB liable 1 c 2 el 3 O 0.69 0.34 0.52 1.55 1.65 5.72 3.59 2.62 11.93 11.00 9.31 10.00 2.34 0.04 0.24 0.61 3.23 3.29 6.28 1.65 1.02 8.95 9.00 7.93 8.00 2.54 0.06 0.63 1.00 4.23 4.12 6.34 1.62 0.93 8.89 9.00 7.96 8.00 0.05 0.39 0.45 0.89 0.82 4.24 4.21 3.01 11.46 10.00 8.49 9.00 1.12 0.40 0.31 0.49 2.32 2.47 7.20 2.88 1.58 11.66 11.00 10.08 10.00 0.43 0.39 ’ 0.79 1.61 1.64 6.30 3.18 0.64 10.12 11.00 9.48 10.00 0.47 0.38 0.35 1.20 0.82 4.12 7.75 1.29 13.16 13.00 11.87 12.00 2.22 0.30 0.81 3.33 3.29 6.12 1.85 0.54 8.51 9.00 7.97 8.00 0.06 0.59 0.92 1.56 1.65 5.98 ! 4.98 2.37 13.33 12.0-0 10.96 11.00 2.59 0.05 0.05 0.54 3.23 3.29 7.74 2.25 1.18 11.17 11.00 9.99 10.00 1.60 0.0-5 0.30 ^0.41 j 2.36 2.47 7.16 2.55 1.37 11.08 11.00 9.71 10.00 0.67 0.36 0.54 1 1.57 1.65 7.52 3.90 1.87 13.29 11.00 11.42 10.00 .... 0.08 0.77 0.74 1.59 1.65 5.94 4.80 3.29 14.03 12.00 10.74 11.00 0.03 0.45 0.38 ! 0.86 0.82 7.76 2.82 1.84 12.42 11.00 10.58 10.00 2.06 ! 0.78 1 0.44 3.28 3.29 9.44 2.85 1.92 14.21 13.00 12.29 12.00 2.13 0. 16 0. 13 2.42 2.46 6.56 4.38 0.65 11.59 10.94 10.00 0.87 0.36 ■^O. 19 1.42 1.64 4.50 5.88 1.34 11.72 10.38 10.00 0.76 0.02 1 0.11 30.18 1.07 1.03 6.94 5.15 1.59 13.68 12.09 12.00 1.49 0.53 0.78 1 2.80 3 . 29 5.50 2.42 1.33 9.25 8.5C 7.92 8.00 1.58 0.43 1.16 3.17 3.29 4.82 3.38 1.31 9.51 8.50 8.20 8.00 1.11 0.51 0.46 2.08 2.06 9.64 2.52 1.16 13.32 12.50 12.16 12.00 ; 2.35 0.27 1.26 3.88 4.11 8.62 1.49 0.82 10.93 10.50 10.11 10.00 0.82 0.34 30.57 1.73 1.65 6.46 3.37 1.65 11.48 10.50 9.83 10.00 1 0.97 0.83 0.71 2.51 2.47 6.56 2.83 1.54 10.93 10.50 9.39 10.00 i 1.56 0.41 1.36 i 3.33 3.29 7.64 2.31 1.49 11.44 10.50 9.95 10.00 0.06 0.50 30.40 0.96 0.82 5.64 4.26 1.65 11.55 10.50 9.90 10.00 0.81 0.15 0.62 1.58 1.65 5.14 2.95 1.10 9.19 8.50 8.09 8.00 1.11 0.30 1.07 2.48 2.47 5.60 2.49 1.54 9.63 8.50 8.09 8.0-0 2.34 0.17 0.24 1.36 4.11 4.11 6.16 3.01 2.78 11.95 10.00 9.17 ! 8.00 0.88 0.38 0.23 0.80 2.29 2.47 6.82 3.74 2.44 13.00 11.00 10.56 , 10.00 0.98 0.21 0.29 1.48 1.65 6.56 2.23 0.50 9.29 9.00 8.79 ! 8.00 2.60 0.02 0.18 0.33 3.13 1 3.29 8.60 : 1.63 0.98 11.21 11.00 10.23 1 10.00 ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. * Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets amount of inferior quality. 42 Bulletin 331 COIVOLERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid 0 .^ S 3 z c _o 18292 18293 180074 180075 18042 18539 18497 18498 18547 18371 18443 18386 18584 18531 18530 18582 18585 18528 18760 18761 18763 18509 18553 18558 18560 18561 18832 Manufacturer and Brand Whkrb Samplbo Scott Fertilizer Co., Elkton, Md. W. R, Hackett’s No. 2 Special Corn and Tomato . . \V. R. Hackett’s No. 3 Special Tomato Manure . . . Scott’s Ammoniated Base Scott’s Crop Grower M. L. Shoemaker & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Swift-Sure Phosphate for Tobacco and General Use Swift-Sure Guano for Tomatoes, Truck and Corn . Harry L. Sickel, Woodbury, N. J. C. Sickel’s 4-10 for White Potatoes A. Sickel’s High Grade White Potato Fertilizer ... South Jersey Farmers Exchange, Woodstown, N. J. A Exchange H. G. Potato and Truck Fertilizer ... C. Exchange General Use Fertilizer Quinton . . , Quinton . . . Frenchtown Frenchtown Moorestown Vineland . , Vineland . . Vineland . , Daretown . Mickleton . 1 Exchange High Grade Potato Fertilizer Bridegton I C I Exchange General Use Fertilizer Bridegton I F I Exchange Special Asparagus Fertilizer :C: Exchange General Use Fertilizer :F: Exchange Special Asparagus Fertilizer A Exchange X H. G. Potato and Truck Fertilizer C Exchange X General Use Fertilizer Special Early Tomato Fertilizer Standard Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. Mullica Hill Woodstown Woodstown Mullica Hill Mullica Hill Woodstown 3-10 4-10 5-10 Swift & Co., Baltimore, Md. Swift’s General Crop Fertilizer Swift’s Jersey White Potato Grower Swift’s Jersey Sweet Potato Fertilizer Swift’s Clay Soil Special Swift’s Truck and Potato Fertilizer . Swift’s Special Baltimore Formula . . Bridgeton . Bridgeton . Bridgeton . Swedesboro Swedesboro Swedesboro Swedesboro Swedesboro Tennent . . Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS 43 Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid V c 5 u W *3 in 2 '5 o S ! i c s u o 3 3 ^ 1 ! .H c rt o u 3 3 3 ^ "1 Found 1 •a 4 > V C es tm a 3 o V "S .s c 6 < O V c w "cS 3 3 C /)< 3 ■5 15 ■3 C 3 e C 3 (fi < <§ o o H o CO c 1 H 0 * H 0 LL 3 c 0.08 0.72 1.71 2.51 2.50 1 7.40 3.66 7.38 18.44 1 16.00 11.06 16.00 0.10 1.09 2.28 3.47 3.69 7.18 2.77 3.66 13.61 1 15.00 ; 9.95 , 13.00 0.03 0.67 0.83 1.53 1.65 9.80 2.91 1.56 14.27 1 14.00 12.71 ; 12.00 0.06 0.61 10.68 1.35 1.65 6.90 2.25 1.00 10.15 10.00 1 9.15 !| i 8.00 0.69 0.01 0.87 ! 1.51 3.08 3.29 7.80 ' 3.75 2.96 14.51 1 12.001 '1 i 11.55 i 9.00 0.57 1 0.02 0.57 0.79 1.95 1.65 4.54 : 4.72 4.68 13.94 10.00 9.26 8.00 0.76 ! 1.50 ! 0.32 0.44 3.02 3.30 9.10 1.31 1.01 11.42 10.00 * 10.41 i 10.00 0.82 1 0.71 0.31 10.54 2,38 2.47 7.76 2.19 1 1.58 11.53 10.00 9.95 10.00 2.27 ; 0.28 1.20 3.75 1 4.11 8.72 2.01 1.05 ‘ 11.78 11.00 10.73 10.00 0.81 0.43 ; 1.20 2,44 2.46 7.60 ! 2.63 1.24 11.47 11.00 10.23 10.00 2.03 0.18 1.22 3.43 1 3.29 7.82 1 . 94 * 1.10 10 . 8 f 1 11.00 9.76 10.00 0.68 0.08 2.04 2.80 2.47 7.64 2.10 1.10 10.84 11.00 9.74 10.00 1.40 0.36 2.91 4.67 1 4.93 6.50 2.18 : 1.27 9.95 9.00 8.68 8.00 0.90 0.88 0.11 0.74 2.63 ; 2.45 7.44 2.75 1,58 11.77 1 11.00 J i 10.19 10.00 1.64 1.87 0.11 1.13 4.75 4.90 8.00 2.24 1 0.89 1 11.13 9.00 10.24 8.00 2.33 0.01 0.19 1.12 3,65 4.12 9.82 1.22 ' 0.51 j 11.55 11.00 11.04 1 10.00 1.44 0.07 0.03 0.75 2.29 2.46 9.18 2.17 0.90 12.25 11.00 1 11.35 ! 10.00 2.61 0.22 1 0.11 2.29 5.23 5.33 6.32 2.24 2.20 10.76 9.00 i 8.56 1 8.00 1.44 1 0.01 0.28 0.61 2.34 2.47 8.88 2,28 ' 0.66 11.82 11.16 10.00 Tr . 1.32 0.33 0.65 2.30 3.29 9.92 1 .58 1 0.60 i 12.10 11.50 1 10.00 2.76 0.02 ! 0.14 ’ 0.72 3.64 4.12 9.24 1.62 0.83 : 11.69 1 10.86 i 10.00 0.23 0.83 1 1 1.47 2.53 2.47 5.58 1 3.20 1.57 1 10.35 9.00 8.78 9.00 0.20 1.35 0.25 1.53 3.33 3.29 5.34 • 2.38 1,09 8.81 8.00 7.72 i 8.00 0.87 0.04 0.50 1.41 1.65 5.02 : 2.80 0,63 : 8.45 8.00 1 7.82 , 8.00 0.30 1.17 0.04 * 1.09 2.60 1.65 6.30 2.95 1 .35 i 10.60 12.00 9.25 1 12.00 0.25 1.54 1 0.10 1.26 3.15 3.29 6.00 I 3.00 1 .10 ! 10.10 8.00 9.00 i 8.00 0.26 1.85 0.06 1.16 3.33 3.29 6.68 2.80 1 .50 ' 10.98 10.00 1 9.48 10.00 ^Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen offsets amount of inferior quality. 44 Bulletin 331 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid (U £ Manufacturer and Brand Where Sampled B 3 o 18069 18861 18862 18097 180207 18827 18169 180205 180206 18166 18171 18789 18794 180048 18978 180038 18427 18654 18653 18326 18337 18780 180063 180066 180068 18134 18942 18971 18944 18968 18969 18972 18998 Swift & Co., Kearny, N. J. Holly Harrison Formula Fertilizer Swift’s Special Crop Grower Swift’s Special Pride of Jersey Fertilizer Swift’s Long Island Favorite Fertilizer . *Swift’s Long Island Favorite Fertilizer . . Swift’s Special Harrison Formula Swift’s Truck and Potato Fertilizer .... Swift’s Special Fertilizer for Grass Swift’s Special Fertilizer for Corn Swift’s Special Top Dressing Swift’s Special Long Island Fertilizer . . Flolly Special Harrison Formula Swift Pure Truck and Potato Fertilizer . Swift’s Wheat and Rye Grower Swift’s Diamond C Grain Fertilizer Swift’s Three, Ten, Naught I. P. Thomas & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Long Island Special 4-10-0 Special Mixture No. 3 (Formula stated) Special Mixture No. 4 (Formula stated) Fish Guano 7 Per Cent Guano Dugan’s 5-10-0 Thomas’ Triumph Manvire Thomas’ Wheat and Corn Guano Raw and Acidulated Rone Trenton Bone Fertilizer Co., Trenton, N. J. Borden’s Fish Mixture Sweet Potato and Corn Corn Special Oats Mixture Si^ecial Mixture No. 108 4-8 Potato Bone and Tankage Special Grain Mt. Holly Jamesburg Jamesburg Marlboro Greystone Park . . . Marlboro Fish House Greystone Park . . . Greystone Park . . . Fish House Fish House Pennington Mt. Holly Far Hills Martinsville Gladstone New Lisbon Moorestown Moorestown Bridgeton Westville Moprestov/n Barbertown Barbertown Barbertown Beverly Middlebush Pennington Middlebiish Pennington Pennington Pennington Hopewell Duplicate sample. Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAL EEKTIJAZEKS Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid As Nitrates As Ammonia Salts ^s Soluble Organic Matter As Insoluble Organic Matter Total Pound Total Guaranteed 1 Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Avai i ■o c 3 O U. Guaranteed S (t ' 0.35 1.74 0.17 0.75 3.01 3.29 1 6.96 I 3.33 1.79 12.08 10.00 10.29 ! 10.00 0.13 0.76 0.16 0.31 1.36 1.65 6.50 3.60 1.48 11.58 10.00 10.10 10.00 0.15 2.41 0.33 0.93 3.82 4.11 6.26 2 . 08 1-.20 9.54 8.00 8.34 8.00 2.21 0.35 0.92 3.48 4.11 7.12 3.02 1.91 12.05 10.00 10.14 10.00 2.27 0.43 0.96 3.66 4.11 7.28 ’ ' 2.78 2.20 12.26 10.00 10.06 10.00 0.15 1.94 0.12 0.96- 3.17 3.29 7.98 1.87 0.99 10.84 10.00 9.85 10.00 0.46 1.96 0.11 0.87 3.40 3.29 5.42 2.60 1.45 9.47 8.00 8.02 8.00 4.56 0.06 1.00 1.02 6.64 6.55 3.40 2.12 1.59 7.11 6.00 5.52 6.00 0.41 1.61 0.20 , 0.70 2.92 2.75 8.54 2.86 1.96 13.36 12.00 11.40 12.00 2.62 2.06 1.04 1.42 7.14 8.23 4.46 1.33 1.94 7.73 5.00 5.79 5.00 Tr. 2.91 0.60 ' 1.25 4.76 4.94 6.04 2.27 2.00 10.31 8.00 8.31 8.00 1.39 0.39 0.57 0.79 3.14 3.29 8.22 2.17 1.88 12.27 10.00 10.39 10.00 2.02 0.20 0.21 0.79 3.22 3.29 5.36 2.74 1.60 9.70 8.00 8.10 8.00 Tr. 0.29 0.22 1.03 1.54 1.65 2.78 3.79 2.24 8.81 8.00 6.57 8.00 0.54 0.03 0.13 0.20 0.90 0.82 6.32 2.55 0.58 9.45 8.00 8.87 8.00 0.56 0.06 0.28 1.19 2.09 2.47 4.28 1 4.06 2.68 n.02 10.00 8.34 10.00 1.21 1.20 0.18 0.48 3.07 3.25 6.14 3.61 1.22 10.97 10.50 9.75 10.00 1 .32 1 0.17 0.42 1.29 3.20 8.36 1.91 1.42 11.69 10.27 i 0.04 0.47 0.78 1.29 4.16 7.73 6.67 18.56 11.89 0.90 2.26 0.17 0.62 3.95 4.10 9.00 2.21 1.26 12.47 10.50 11.21 10.00 1.84 2.49 0.34 0.83 5.50 5.75 8.20 1.15 0.44 9.79 8.50 9.35 8.00 0.70 1.52 0.23 1.46 3.91 4.10 9.48 1.83 1.26 12.57 11.31 10.00 0.48 0.16 0.40 1.04 0.82 6.60 3.86 2.25 12.71 10.50 10.46 10.00 0.85 0.20 0.49 1.54 1.65 6.20 3.41 1.72 11.33 10.50 9.61 lO.O'O 0.04 0.61 1.86 2.51 1.65 1.20 12.26 9.35 22.81 17.00 13.46 1.83 0.15 0.72 1.39 4.09 4.10 3.72 2.42 0.95 7.09 6.00 6.14 5.00 0.55 0.05 0.33 0.64 1.57 1.64 8.42 3.31 1.29 13.02 11.00 11.73 10.00 1.50 0.07 0.47 0.33 2.37 2.47 9.08 2.68 1.61 13.37 12.00 11.76 11.00 0.21 0.03 0.19 10.39 0.82 0.82 6.88 4.30 0.63 11.81 11.00 11.18 10.00 1.21 0.34 10.40 1.95 2.05 4.56 5.86 1.50 11.92 11.00 10.42 10.00 1.58 ! 0.05 0.50 10.92 3.05 3.28 5.90 3.62 1.33 10.85 9.00 9.52 8.00 0.26 ' 0.13 0.83 1.23 2.45 2.06 2.78 6.61 5.70 15.09 9.00 9.39 8.00 0.50 0.03 0.31 0.49 1.33 1.64 6.86 5.15 1.57 13.58 10.00 12.01 9.00 45 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. 46 Bulletin 331 COMMERCIAL FERTUilZERS ' Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid 18064 18075 18128 18236 18235 18270 18299 180166 18272 18468 18487 18543 18647 180008 180028 18068 18865 18047 18048 18519 18772 18859 18083 18896 18157 18248 18367 18278 18596 18568 18991 18990 18989 I Manufacturer and Brand j F. W. Tunnell & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. 1918 No. 2 Potato and Truck Manure 1918 No. 1 Potato and Truck Manure Long Island Trucker 1918 General Crop Grower 1918 Fish and Tankage 1918 Lightning Guano .* 1918 Fish Manure 1918 Corn Mixture Grain Manure 1918 Raw and Acidulated Animal Compound 1918 N-2 Sweet Potato Manure 1918 Potato and Vegetable Manure High Grade Fish and Truck Guano Wheat Grower 1917 Potato and Vegetable Manure J. E. Tygert & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Tygert’s Great Advancer Phosphate, 1916 Tygert’s Ammoniated Fertilizer — A Tygert’s Ammoniated Fertilizer — A A Tygert’s Ammoniated Fertilizer — AAA Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., New York Citj'. V. C. C. Co.’s Truckers’ Mixture without Potash V. C. C. Co.’s 20th Century Potato Manure without Potash.... V. C. C. Co.’s Ammoniated Bone Phosphate for All Crops V. C. C. Co.’s H. G. Ammoniated Bone Phosphate C & B XXXX Fish and Potash Potato Manure without Potash V. C. C. Co.’s Double Owl Brand Potato and Truck Fertilizer without Potash West Jersey Marl & Transportation Co., Woodbury, N. J. Brand 4-10-0 Brand 5-10-0 Brand 3-10-0 Brand 2-10-0 J. R. WyckofF, Princeton Junction, N. J. Wyckoflf’s Special Formula Wyckoff’s Special Harrison Formula Wyckoff’s Special Corn Grower Wyckoff’s Three, Ten, Naught j Where Sampi.bi> Edgewater Park . . . Beverly Beverly Blackwood I Blackwood I Westville Glassboro ! Morristown Westville Bridgeton Swedesboro . Bridgeton i Moorestown Skillman Bernardsville Mt. Holly Burlington . Mt. Holly I Mt. Holly Swedesboro Moorestown Jamesburg Beverly Cranbury Beverly Grenloch Thorofare Gloucester Swedesboro Princeton Junction. Princeton Junction. Princeton Junction. Princeton Junction. Analyses of Fertilizers COMMERCIAIi FERTILIZERS 47 Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid Nitrogen ,! Phosphoric Acid .‘\s Nitrates As Ammonia Salts .\s Soluble Organic j Matter | 1 As Insoluble Organic 1 Matter ! 1 Total Found Total Guaranteed 1 Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found , 1 1 Total Guaranteed Avail •a c 3 0 u. Guaranteed ^ i 0 21 0 76 0.51 0.93 2 41 2 .46 5. ,14 4. 84 1. 70 11 .68 11. 00 9. ,98 10.00 0 47 0 86 0.21 0.53 2 07 3 .30 7. ,10 3. 63 0. ,83 11 .56 11. 00 10. ,73 10.00 2 50 0.60 0.92 4 02 4 .12 8. ,72 2. 08 0. 89 11 .69 11. 00 ( 10. ,80 10.00 1 07 0.44 0.89 2 40 2 .46 7. ,28 3. 71 0. 90 11 .89 11. 00 ! 10. 99 10.00 1 03 0.59 1.23 2 85 3 .30 4. ,48 2. 41 0. ,48 7 .37 5. 00 6. 89 2 54 0.72 0.73 3 99 4 .12 1. 50 5 . 82 1 . 96 9 .28 9. 00 7. 32 8.00 0 65 0.33 0.89 1 87 1 .64 6. ,06 4. 12 1. 13 11 .31 11. 00 1 10. 18 10.00 0 0 14 0.33 ’-0.56 1 50 1 .64 5. 76 4. 72 0. 69 11 .17 11. 00 10. 48 10.00 0. ,08 0.32 20.52 0, .92 i 0 .82 ! : 9 . 00 3. 71 0. 84 13 .55 13. 00 12. 71 12.00 0. 28 0.64 0.73 1, .65 1 .64| i 6. ,24 4. 14 7. 37 17 .75 15. 00 10. 38 10.00 0. 46 0.40 0.89 1, .75 1 .64! 1 6. ,26 4. 30 1. 27 11 .83 11. 00 10. ,56 10.00 0. 53 0.45 0.80 1, .78 1 .64 1 ,10 3. 58 0. 70 11 .38 11. 00 10. 68 10.00 2. 35 0.59 ; 0.69 3, .63 3 .30 1 8. ,00 2. 57 1. ,08 11 .65 11. 00 10. 57 10.00 0. 22 0.23 0.51 0, ,96 ! 0 .82 2, ,94 6. 90 0. 94 10 .78 10. 00 9. ,84 9.00. 0. 99 0.11 0.74 1 , .84 : 1 .64 ; 2. ,80 7. 26 0. 86 10 .92 11 . 00 10. 06 10.00 0. 81 1 . 28 0.42 0.34 2, ,85 3 .29 6. ,20 4. 49 1. ,25 11 .94 11. 00 i lO- 69 10.00 0. 24 0. 24 0.19 0.27 0. .94 0 .82 5. ,50 5 . 26 1. ,09 11 .85 11. 00 10. 76 10.00 0. 78 0.67 0.39 1, .84 1 .65 6. ,78 3. 20 1. 62 11 .60 11. 00 9. 98 10.00 0. 67 0. 83 0.37 0.50 2, .37 2 .47 6. 50 4. 05 1. 40 11 .95 11. 00 10. 55 10.00 3. 81 0 04 0.06 0.96 4. ,87 4 .94 7. ,42 0. 95 0. ,47 8 .84 9. 00 8. ,37 8.00 0. ,29 3 , ,44 0.16 0.26 4, .15 4 .12 9, ,78 1. 37 0. ,45 11 .60 11. 00 11. ,15 10.00 0. 31 ’ 1 . 10 0.11 0.35 1, .87 1 .65 6. ,74 3. 60 1. ,04 11 .38 11. 00 10. 34 10.00 1. ,14 0. 03 0.14 0.32 1, .63 1 .65 9. ,40 2. 72 0, ,92 13 .04 13. 00 ! 12. 12 12.00 2, ,68 0.15 0.42 3 .25 3 .29 7. ,04 1 . 95 0. ,74 9 .73 9. 00 8. 99 8.00 Tr. 2 . .36 0.42 0.44 3 .22 3 .29 6, .76 2. ,71 1, ,29 10 .76 11. 00 9. ,47 10.00 1, . 15 ! 1. ,29 0.16 0.71 3, .31 3 .30 7, .84 2. 15 2. 94 12 .93 10. 00 ! 9. 99 10.00 3. ,45 0.21 0.52 4, .18 4 .12 9. .56 1. 39 0. 87 11 .82 10. 00 ' 10. 95 10.00 1, ,00 1 0. ,16 0.39 0.76 2 .31 2 .47 7, .12 2. 70 3. ,77 13 .59 10. 00 - 9. 82 10.00 Tr. j 0, .76 0.44 »0.35 1 .55 1 .65 7. ,66 3. 32 1. ,90 12 .88 10. 00 1 10. 98 10.00 Tr. 2. ,01 0.35 0.79 3 .15 3 .29 7. ,80 2. 19 1. 36 11 .35 10. 00 9. 99 10.00 0, .74 0. .75 0.35 : 1.13 2 .97 3 .29 5. ,04 4. 24 1. ,32 10 .60 10. 00 9. 28 10.00 0 .57 i .05 0.16 10.72 1 .50 1 .65 5, ,62 4. 26 1. 30 11 .18 10. 00 9. 88 10.00 1 .49 ‘ 0. .09 0.20 1 0.97 2 .75 2 .47 5, .30 4. 64 1. 60 11 .54 10. 00 9. 94 10.00 ^ Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. 2 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets quantity of inferior quality. I New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Stations BULLETIN 332 SOME STUDIES ON THE EGGS OF IMPORTANT APPLE PLANT LICE New Brunswick, N. J. ‘■"♦I*-; • ' ’•r YfiA fiC I J V t:y,U.ll1('YlUI3Yllll' A^i: . . i '•>*' CONTENTS Page Staff 2 Introduction ’ 5 Methods 7 AForpholog-y and Behaviour of the Eg^. . . \) Susceptibility of Eggs to iMoistnre and Temperature 15 Moisture 15 Temperature 21 Contact Insecticides and Other Chemicals 22 Lime-Sulfur 21) Orchard Experiments 52 Miscible Oils 51) Soaps 45 Nicotine 48 Crude Carbolic Acid, Phenol and Cresols 51 Various Chemicals - 58 Summary 59 Control ^Measures • bO Acknowledgment bl References b2 Y(;/iri(l4J :^v: /. i: Atf; u 6 p L *• I -r ■ i it NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS BULLETIN 332 SOME STUDIES ON THE EGGS OF IMPORTANT APPLE PLANT LICE By Alvah Peterson, Ph. D. Introduction This paper treats of some recent investigations on the structure, behavior and susceptibility of the eggs of three important aphides found on apple trees, Apltis avence Pabricius, ApJds pomi DeGeer, and Aphis sorhi Kaltenbach. It takes up a th.orough discussion of the results obtained during the season of 1916-17 which were pub- lished in brief form in the Journal of Econoniic E ntoniologij for December, 1917. It also includes a report on the extensive experi- ments and observations conducted during the past season (1917-18) on the eggs of A. avcnoe. A considerable amount of work has been conducted by various investigators on the effect of the more common contact insecticides on aphid eggs, but few if any good reasons have been advanced which explain the varying results. To get at the causes for these results involves a careful study of the physical and chemical struc- ture of the egg, particularly the egg shell and the response of the egg to various stimuli such as temperature, moisture and chemicals. Studies pertaining to all these points have not been made, but some have been conducted, viz., the gross morphology of the egg coverings and their behavior previous to the emergence of the nymph, the susceptibility of the egg to variations in temperature and to differ- ent percentages of moisture, and the physical changes produced on the coverings of the egg by a number of common insecticides and other chemicals, and also the influence of these substances on the normal percentage of hatch. The eggs of the three species of apple plant lice were collected from different orchards throughout the state of New Jersey during the past two seasons. In 1916-1917 the eggs of the so-called apple- bud-aphis, oat-aphis, or European grain-aphis, A. avence, were abundant in the orchards on the College Farm and at John II. Bar- clay’s orchard, near Cranbury, N. J. During the same season the eggs of the rosy aphis, A. sorhi, also occurred in these orchards, but in no collection did they exceed 15 per cent of the total number. The Bulletin 332 (I eggs of the green apple aphis, A. pomi, were very abundant on water sprouts in an old unkept orchard near Scott ’s corner, a few miles from Plainsboro, N. J., 1916-17. On i\lay 1, some eight hundred stem mothers were collected from the water sprouts in this orchard and A. ponii made up 71 per cent of the total number, A. sorhi 26 per cent, and A. aveiiCE 3 per cent. This count, along with others, shows that A. sorhi probably made up 25 to 30 per cent of the total number of eggs. During the past dormant season, 1917-18, the fall migrants and oviparous females were observed in a number of orchards through- out the state and in the majority of places A. avence was the only species present; A. pomi and A. soi'hi were comparatively rare in most orchards. The investigations during the past season deal only with A. avence. Three orchards were choseii for supplying mate- rial: John 11. Barclay’s orchard, near Cranbury, N. J. ; George Smith’s orchard near South River, N. J.; and J. L. Lippincott Com- pany’s orchard, near Riverton, N. J. All observations made in respect to the location of the eggs of the different species and the time of hatching conform closely with those made by Baker and Turner (2, 3) and other investigators. The eggs of A. avence and A. sorhi, for the most part are deposited under buds or in small crevices in the bark on second-year growth, and to some extent on larger branches, 2 inches in diameter, and oc- casionally on one-year growth. They are usually distributed even- ly throughout the orchard. It has also been noted that varieties of apple trees which retain their leaves the longest in the fall of the year are apt to have the heaviest infestation. This is probably due to the fact that the oviparous female feeds on the under-side of the foliage and when the leaves fall from the tree she may disappear with the leaves, or if she is located on the branches of the tree when the leaves fall she is deprived of the opportunity to obtain food wliich is j)roliably essential to tlie development of the greatest num- ber of eggs. The eggs of A. ponii are deposited on one-year growth, particularly at the distal ends of water sprouts, and they are often scattered over the smooth surface of the twig. Usually the infesta- tion is local, the eggs being confined to a few twigs on a trx^e and also not evenly distributed throughout the orchard. Frequently the eggs of A. pomi are very abundant in young orchards; this was true of John II. Barclay’s orchard in 1915. During 1917 the eggs of A. avence started to hatch about March 31, and, so far as observed, had completely hatched by April 6 or 7, while the eggs of A. pomi and A. sorhi started to hatch about April 12 to Id, and completed liatching in a week or ten days. A. sorhi apparently preceded A. pomi by two or three days, at least the stage of development of the nymphs after all eggs had hatched indicated Studies on Eggs op Apple Plant Lice 7 as much. In 1918 the eggs of A. avence started to hatch ou March 21, and completed hatching on April 5. This early hatch was un- doubtedly due to the unusually warm weather during IMarcli, 1918. The percentage of eggs which hatch varies among the different species (compare the percentage of hatch in the different checks). Out of 1200 eggs of A. avenw, 50 per cent hatched in 1917, while in 1918 only 30 per cent hatched out of 1800 eggs. The percentage of hatch in the different checks may vary considerably (25 per cent), when only a few eggs (50 to 100) are observed. The decided dif- ference in the percentage of hatch for 1917 and for 1918 of this species is probably due to climatic conditions. The eggs of A. pomi and A. sorhi during 1916-17 were mixed together on the twigs used in the experiments (approximately 70 and 30 per cent, respectively), and this makes it impossible to determine the percentage of hatch for each, but out of 800 eggs in this mixture, the hatch was close to 25 per cent. The percentage of hatch for A. pomi is probably somewhat lower than that of A. sorhi, for the eg'gs of A. pooii are scattered promiscuously over the surface of the twigs and thus exposed to accident and to unfavorable weather conditions. The above percentages of hatch are considerably higher than those recorded by other investigators. Gillette, in Colorado, observed that only 1 per cent of the eggs of A. pomi hatched. This seems ex- ceptionally low; however, environmental factors, such as a low per- centage of humidity, may bring about this decided reeduction. Methods All records in the table which pertain to the condition of the eggs, were made by carefully observing each egg under a binocular microscope and then noting whether it was normal, split, hatched or shriveled. In this way one can readily distinguish a normal egg by its plump and well rounded appearance ami homogenous surface (plate 1, fig. 1), an egg with its outer semi-transparent covering- split shows a distinct ghxssy black streak p usually along the meso- dorsal line (plate 1, fig. 2 to 5), a hatched egg possesses a distinct opening in its surface (fig. 8 and 9), and a shriveled egg is dry and collapsed (plate J, fig. 11 and 12). During 1916-17 approximately 10,000 eggs were carefully ob- served, while in 1917-18 over 40,000 eggs were used in the various experiments, and a careful record was made for each egg. When- ever material was needed for experimental purposes, collections were made from the aliove-mentioned orchards and in all cases this material, when used for out-of-door experiments, was kept out-of-doors and exi)oscd to all conditions of the weather, ex- cept for the few minutes required to examine the eggs under a 8 Bulletin 332 binocular microscope. Before starting or spraying any set of twigs, all eggs on each twig, 8-12 inches long, were carefully observed and their condition noted. If any egg was shriveled or hatched or ap- peared to be abnormal in any respect, it was removed ; thus in the various experiments only normal-appearing eggs were used. Every twig bearing five or more normal eggs fin exceptional cases 200 eggs of A. pomi were present on one small twig) was given a string tag, and on this tag was written the number of the experiment, the source of the material, the treatment given, the number of normal eggs at the beginning of the experiment and In many cases the num- ber of discarded abnormal eggs, and hatched eggs, if such were present. The various common contact insecticides, lime-sulfur, miscible oils, laundry and fish-oil soaps, nicotine sulfate and nicotine resinate, and other chemicals such as crude carbolic acid, phenol c. p., meta cresol c. p., ortho cresol c. p., para cresol c. p., sodium h^wlroxide, sodium chloride, sodium sidfo-carbonate, pyridine solution, etc., wei-e applied to the twigs by means of a small atomizer which was connected with a foot pump. The atomizer gave a coarse spray and the force of the spray was weak, for the greatest pressure could not tlirow tlie material over three feet. The twigs at the time of spraying were held a few inches from the tip of the atomizer, and, so far as possible, all sides of the twig and all the eggs were hit with the spray. Pro])a])ly not one egg out of a thousand was missed. Exi)eriments with the various contact insecticides and chemicals during 11)13-17 were comhictcd iii tlie greenhouse on the eggs of ^l. avenxv, and out-of-doors witli the eggs of all three species. In 1917-18 a duplicate set of experiments was started in the green- house and out-of-doors with the eggs of A. avonv, })ut a shortage of coal during the month of February made it necessary to close the greenhouse. The twigs were brought into the laboratory from the greenhouse and ])laccd iu a large tin compartment, but the results obtained from these' experiments wci*e not as satisfactory as they would have been under greenhouse conditions, conseepiently they have been largely omitted from this })a])er. 81ince it was necessary to close down the greenhouse, a more strenuous effort was made to run a larger number of expei-iments under out-of-door conditions. The twigs used in the experiments in 1913-17 in the greenhouse were [)laced iu tumblers and these were S('t on tanglefoot paper in order that the nymphs might not escape. The temperature of the greenhou.se averaged 35° F., and the humidity was about 75 per cent most of the time. In all the out-of-door experiments conduct- ed at the laboratory the twigs bearing the eggs were suspended on wires which extended across the tops of large empty wooden boxes. These boxes were located in an open place near the laboratory and completely exi)osed to all conditions of the weather, thus duplicat- ing. as nearly as })o.ssible, tlie (»rchard environment. The results Studies on Eggs of Apple Plant Lice i) from this laboratory method were very satisfactory during both seasons for they exactly duplicated the results obtained in the or- chard where lime-sulphur, lime-sulphur^combiiied with nicotine, and “Scalecide” were used. The loss of eggs in handling the twigs usually did not exceed 10 per cent, and in most cases it was less than 10 per cent. When a few eggs were lost, it is assumed that the loss was proi)ortionally shared by eggs which wouM hatch under nonnal conditions and those that would not hatch. , ^lORPilOLOGY AND BeIIAVIOR OF THE EgG Tlie eggs of A. avcnce, A. pomi and A. sorhi are glossy black, oval in form and slightly flattened on their ventral aspects, adjacent to the twig (plate 1, fig. 1 and 0). The eggs vary somewhat in size, but generally speaking they are about 1/45 inch in length and 1/90 inch in width. According to Baker and Turner (2) the eggs of A. pomi average 0.572 mm. by 0.281 mm., and of ^1. sorbi 0.550 nmi. by 0.272 mm. The newly laid eggs are soft and retain this consist- ency, more or less, even after the outer shell hardens. A new egg has a light yellow color which soon changes to a green tinge and then gradually darkens to a deep black. This change usually takes place in a few days, one to four according to Baker and Turner. During the past season it was noted that a small percentage of the eggs of A. aveme recpiired ten or more days to change to a glossy black and some never changed, but retained their greenish tinge throughout the winter. Apparently these eggs are abnormal, for they did not hatch, so far as observed. Other abnormal eggs had a light brown tinge and they did not liatch. The glossy appearance, particularly true of a newly deposited egg, is due to the moist glutinous layer which entirely surrounds it. This layer t hardens and glues the egg to the twig and also acts as a protective layer to conserve the moisture content of the developing embryo. After the outer layer hardens one can remove it by care- ful dissection, and then its thin, colorless, semi-transparent and somewhat tough consistency can be seen. This layer probably originates as a secretion from accessory glands in the oviparous female, at least such glands are present in the female. The black or pigmented portion p of the egg is entirely confined to the slightly tough and elastic membrane directly beneath the outer semi-transparent layer. The glossy black and moist appearance of this layer is readily observed in eggs wliere the outer semi-trans- parent layer t has split (plate 1, fig. 2-10). The pigmented layer undoubtedly is a true chorion for it is found about the egg as a dis- tinct pigmented layer wdien the egg has nearly completed its forma- tion wdthin the oviparous female. The chorion is secreted by the ovarian cells about the ovum. The i)igmented layer may serve as a protective covering, but, so far as w’ater conservation is concerned 10 Bulletin 332 and also as a protection against certain chemicals, it is of little use, as shown in various experiments. A third layer, which* is a thin transparent membrane, sur- rounds the nymph as it starts to emerge. This layer is shed by the nymph as it emerges, consequently it must he an exuvium. The east skin v may be seen as a shriveled white mass at the cephalic end of the opening of a hatched egg. The two layers of the egg and the skin about the nymph as it emerges undergo certain changes at the time of hatching, and these are significant, for they have an important bearing upon the re- sponse of the egg to differences in temperature and moisture and to common insecticides and other chemicals. These changes have been observed for two seasons on the eggs of all three species, but they have been observed with special care on the eggs of A. avence. In 1917 it was noted that the semi-transparent outer layer t of many eggs of all three species splits (plate 1, fig. 4 and 5) along the meso-dorsal line a short time previous to the emergence of the young nymph. The split starts near the cephalic end (plate 1, fig. 4) and usually extends to the posterior end, and in nine cases out of ten occurs along the meso-dorsal line. In exceptional cases the outer layer t may show several breaks (plate 1, fig. 2 and 3), or the single split may not follow the meso-dorsal line (plate 1, fig. 9). The time interval between the splitting of the outer layer and the rupture of the pigmented layer was not definitely de- termined in 1917, for the significance of the splitting was not realized until it was too late to make the necessary observations. It was observed, however, that the eggs of A. avence under green- house conditions showed a split outer covering about 48 hours before any hatching occurred, while the eggs of A. pomi under out-of-door conditions showed a split outer shell some eight days before any hatching occurred. During 1918 the first split eggs of A. avence were seen on February 15. Just previous to this date we experi- enced a few warm days after a continuously cold and severe winter. From February 15 on, the percentage of eggs showing a split outer covering increased. The eggs were observed in batches of 200 to 500 collected from various orchards. The eggs collected from J. L. Lippincott Company’s orchard at Riverton, N. J., showed the following increase in the percentage of eggs with split outer shells (kept out-of-doors) and these observations are typical of eggs collected from other orchards in 1918: February 19, 2 per cent split; February 26, 10 per cent split; March 1, 20 per cent split; March 4, 25 per cent split; March 11, 33 per cent split; March 19, 43 per cent split; and March 25, 47 per cent split (also see dia- gram 1 ) . So far as observed, about 95 per cent of all the live eggs had broken their outer semi-transparent shell before the first uymphs emerged. Studies on Eggs of Apple Plant Lice 11 So far as is known, no egg hatched under out-of-door con- ditions without splitting its outer semi-transparent layer at least 48 hours before the nymph emerged. The above 47 per cent of split eggs observed on March 25 probably increased to 53-55 per cent be- fore all the eggs hatched, at least other checks showed a total of 53 to 55 per cent of eggs with split outer coverings. This 53-55 per cent of eggs with split outer coverings shows that this percentage of eggs was normal, alive and preparing to hatch, but during the past season an average of 29 per cent of all the eggs actually hatched. In other words, 24 to 26 per cent of the eggs after splitting their outer covering were unable to complete the process of hatching. Eggs of A. avence (200 collected from J. L. Lippincott Co.) were brought into the laboratory on Eebruar}^ 26, 1918, and kept in a moist chamber (70° P.). The percentage of split eggs increased with great rapidity because of the increase in temperature over out-of-door conditions: on February 26, 10 per cent split; Feb- ruary 27, 23 per cent split; March 1, 25 per cent split, and 1 per cent hatched; March 6, 33 per cent split and 10 per cent hatched; March 11, 20 per cent split and 29 per cent hatched; March 13, 9.5 per cent split and 41 per cent hatched ; and March 15, 7 per cent split and 43.5 per cent hatched. There was no increase in hatched or split eggs after March 15. The minimum period of time between the splitting of the outer covering and the emergence of the nymph under indoor conditions was not observed ; however, so far as known all eggs split their outer shell at least a few hours before emergence. In these indoor experiments only 28 per cent of the eggs showed a split outer covering when the first nymphs emerged. This means that only 55 per cent of the live eggs which were preparing to hatch had split their outer shell before the first nymphs appeared. This is quite different from the 95 per cent among the live eggs kept out-of-doors. Temperature, therefore, has a marked influence on the rapidity with which the nymph will emerge after the outer shell is broken. In the above indoor experiment it was also observed that 50.5 per cent of all the eggs split their outer shells and that 43.5 per cent of all the eggs hatched. In other words only 7 per cent of the eggs with split outer coverings failed to hatch, while 24 to 26 per cent of the eggs with split outer shells failed to hatch when kept out-of-doors. The explanation for this decided difference is probably due to differences in moisture (evaporating factors) as explained further on. The splitting of the outer layer is probably due to the pressure exerted along the meso-dorsal line by the developing embryo or nymph. It is also possible that certain secretions may help to dissolve or weaken the brittle outer layer. A careful histological study may throw some light on this question. All eggs with a split. 12 Bulletin 332 F:XPI.A NATION OF FIGI UES All figures are known to be typical of J. azriuc and .4. pomi (and pi’obably A. sorbi) unless otherwise designated. Fig. 1 — Dorsal view of a normal dormant egg. Fig. 2 & 3 — Dorsal views of eggs showing unusual types of splitting in the outer semi-transparent covering. Fig. 4 — Dorsal view of an egg showing an early stage in the usual type of splitting of the outer semi-transparent layer. Fig. 5 — Dorsal view of an egg showing an advanced stage in the usual type of splitting of the outer semi-transparent layer. Fig. 6 — Lateral view of egg seen in figure 5 showing the elevated inner pigmented layer, or chorion. Fig. 7 — Dorsal view of an egg of . /. avcmc showing an early stage in the emergence of the nymph. Note the egg burster on the head of the nymph along the meson and the cut pigmented layer. Fig. 8 -Dorsal view of an empty egg shell showing usual method of splitting. Fig. 9 — Dorsal view of an empty egg shell showing unusual method of splitting. Fig. 10 — Doi’sal view of a nymph of A. az’ciuc emerging from an egg; nymph about to free itself completely from the egg. Fig. 1 1 — Dorsal view of an egg partly shriveled. Fig. 12 — Dorsal view of an egg completely collapsed. Fig. 13 — Dorsal view of an egg, similar to figure 5, which has been sprayed with a 2 per cent solution of crude carbolic acid. Observe the wrinkled outer semi-transparent layer. Fig. 14 — Dorsal view of an egg, similar to figure 5, showing early stage in usual method of shrivel when egg has been treated with various sprays, particularly crude carbolic acid and miscible oils. AIIIIKFVIATIONS ant. Antenna b. Egg burster d. Depression e. Elevation n. Nymph p. Inner pigmented layer (chorion) s. Split or opening in empty hatched eggs I. Outer semi-transparent layer V. Exuvium (?) Studies on Eggs of Appi.e Plant Lice Plate 1. Eggs of ^1. arciuc and .1. poiiii. 14 Bulletin 332 outer, semi-transparent shell are readily distinguished from dor- mant eggs by the decided glossy black appearance of the exposed and unbroken pigmented layer p, while the portion of the egg covered with the semi-transparent shell has a duller black color. After the outer shell splits and when the young nymph is ready to emerge it exerts pressure along the meso-dorsal line and severs the pigmented layer (plate 1, fig. 7) with the sharp dark-colored ridge or egg burster b located along the meso-dorsal line of the head of the nymph. The egg burster b was observed on the dorsal aspect of the head of A. avence and A. pomi. It coincides with the usual location of the stem of the epicranial suture. During emergence this ridge disappears and only a faint line remains along the meson. No egg burster was seen in the nymphs of A. sorbiy but this was probably due to the fact that the nymphs were not seen immediately after they cut their way through the pigmented layer. The origin and disappearance of the egg burster has not been carefully worked out, but it is possible that this ridge or cutting edge belongs to the exuvium or skin which seems to be shed by the nymph as it emerges. If such is the case this will account for its disappearance. Tile pigmented layer which is severed by the nymph is some- what elastic. This is shown in the fact that the egg is a trifle larger at the cephalic end after the outer layer splits. Also, the pigmented layer is elevated to a slight extent between the edges of the broken outer layer, as seen in figures 4, 5 and 6. This elevation is jirobably due to the pressure exerted by the nymph within the egg as it tries to cut its way out. The elasticity is also shown in liatched eggs, for the pigmented layer contracts somewhat after it is niptured and the edges of this rupture often coincide with the margin of the broken semi-transparent outer covering (fig. 8 and 9). The wriggling and twisting of the nymph as it emerges may also help to push the pigmented layer back to the point where it coincides with the margin of the split outer shell. As the nymph of A. avencn starts to emerge it is covered with a thin transparent skin which it sheds before it is out of the shell. 3diis skin is exceedingly thin and very difficult to see. The writer was unable to determine the exact time in the emergence period when the nymphs f)reak tliis skin. If the egg burster belongs to this first exuvium it is shed a short time8:)efore the nymph reaches the stage shown in figure 10. This same membrane in A. pomi^ apparently is not shed until the nymph is almost out of the shell. Observations concerning the above point need to be repeated for all three species. The nymph of A. avenm is usually two-thirds out of the egg before the appendages of the body become free and use- ful. The antenna? are the first to be free of the exuvium and the Studies on Eggs op Apple Plant Lice 15 legs come next, starting with the prothoracic. The last appendages to free themselves of the egg and exuvhim are the metathoracic legs and mouth-parts. A distinct skin is withdrawn from the beak. This in part probably surrounded the maxilloB and mandibles. The process of hatching is apparently a difficult one, for many nymphs are unable to free their various appendages, especially the meta- thoracic legs which often remain attached to the white mass of skin at the cephalic end of the open egg. Numerous nymphs are thus killed in the very last stage of hatching. The above fate of many a nymph may be due to the fact that the exuvium hardens on long exposure to air and this makes it very difficult for the nymph to remove the last pair of legs. The above detailed observations on the morphological struc- ture of the egg and the behavior of the respective coverings during the hatching period (February 15 to April 5 for A. avence) shows conclusively that the egg is not a hard resistant body and that it goes through a critical change previous to the emergence of the nymph, which means that it is not as resistant during these changes as in the dormant period. It is in the midst of these changes or just previous to any visible change that certain control measures may produce their greatest effect. Some eggs start to split 30 to :15 days before the first nymphs appear, but the largest percentage of split eggs, 47 per cent or better, occurs at the time the first nymphs emerge (only 29 per cent of A. avencB emerged this past season). In brief, the percentage of eggs showing a split outer shell is pro- gressive and this is an important point when one wishes to obtain the best results with certain contact insecticides. Susceptibility of Eggs to Moisture and Temperature Moisture A few experiments have been conducted with the eggs of A. avence and A. pomi to determine the effect of different per- centages of moisture on the hatching of the egg and the relative permeability of the two outer layers. The results of these few experiments are very suggestive and undoubtedly have an im- portant bearing on the percentage of hatch which will occur under varying out-of-door conditions. They also throw considerable light on the problem of how certain contact insecticides may prevent hatching. During 1917 experiments were conducted with different per- centages of moisture in the incubators and moisture control ap- paratus used by Dr. T. J. Ileadlee in his investigations on grain- infesting insects ; the writer wishes to express his appreciation for the privilege of using this efficient apparatus. The four incubators 16 Bulletin 332 TABLE 1 Table Showing Effect of Variations in ^Ioisture on Eggs of A. A VENAE AND A. POMI AT A CONSTANT TEMPERATURE OF 80° F. C 3 (U -•-> O M Q. E t) c m (Ut oJ- CLO ■O tt) “ ® ; DC eo > ^ t. Ej (Jr ol Q(0o: 101 A. avemic 1 )ry Mar. 25 Mar. 27 1 1 25 ■ 1 10 14 4 3 days; Alar. 28 i 25 1 0 24 102 A. ai'cnac 22 Mar. 25 Mar. 27 25 0 12 13 12 4 days! Mar. 28 05 0 4 21 Mar. 29 25 3 0 22 1 102 A. avcnae 63 Mar. 25 Alar. 27 25 0 lit 6 ' 20 ' 10 days| Mar. 28 25 2 12 11 Mar. 29 25 3 7 15 Mar. 31 25 3 2 1 20 Apr. 4 25 5 0 I 20 104 A. iwenae 100 Alar. 25 Alar. 27 25 1 24 ; 0 36 10 daysj Mar. 28 25 6 17 1 Mar. 29 25 7 14 4 i 1 Mar. 31 25 7 9 9 Apr. 4 25 9 0 16 1 105 A. pODli Dry Apr. 6 Apr. 7 102 2 54 46 2 5 days Apr. 9 102 2 5 95 Apr. 11 102 2 0 j 100 lOG A. pomi 22 Apr. 6 Apr. 7 101 0 52 1 49 00 5 days! Apr. 9 101 0 6 1 95 .Apr. 11 101 0 0 1 101 107 A. point 63 A pr. 6 Apr. 7 100 1 73 26 20 8 days .Apr. 9 1 00 10 35 55 L Apr. 11 100 18 5 ' 77 1 Apr. 14 100 20 0 80 j 108 A. ponti 100 Apr. 6 .Apr. 7 100 3 • 95 ! 46 8 days j- Apr. 9 100 45 28 .A])!'. 11 100 46 2 52 i Apr. 14 100 4 6 0 54 109 A. ponii Dry Alar. 14 Alar. 17 175 0 100 75 00 7 days Mar. 19 175 0 25 150 |AIar. 21 175 0 0 175 110 A. pomi 22 Mar. 14 i Alar. 17 250 0 210 i 40 00 11 days Mar. 19 250 0 160 1 90 iMar. 21 250 0 200 Mar. 23 250 0 10 240 ,Mar. 25 250 0 • 250 : 111 A. ponti 63 Alar. 14 Mar. 17 250 0 235 215 00 24 days Alar. 19 250 0 215 35 Alar. 21 250 0 195 55 Mar. 23 250 0 180 70 Alar. 25 250 0 150 100 Apr. 4 250 0 50 i 200 Apr. 7 250 0 0 250 112 A. pomi 100 Mar. 14 i.Mar. 17 1 25 0 120 ; 5 i 00 24 days Mar. 19 125 0 no i 15 ' 1 Mar. 21 125 0 100 1 25 Mar. 23 125 0 85 I 40 Mai-. 25 1 25 0 35 90 A))!-. 4 125 0 35 90 Apr. 7 125 0 0 125 Studies on Eggs of Apple Plant Lice 17 registered 8()°E., and each was fitted with one moisture-control apparatus; one contained dry air which always registered less than 0.5 per cent moisture, another air of 22 per cent moisture, the third about 63 per cent moisture, and the fourtli air completely saturated. Practically no variation occurred in the dry air and in the satura- ted, while in the case of 22 and 63 per cent moistures the amount occasionally fluctuated 1 to 5 per cent. The eggs were carefully selected and removed from the twigs by cutting the bark adjacent to them, or very small twigs bearing numerous eggs were chosen, and these placed in 80cc. glass bottles fitted with rublier stoppers having two short glass tubes which connected the bottle with the moisture- control equipment. Table 1 shows the results of a few inculiator experiments con- ducted with A. aroia and A. pomi. The various columns are self explanatory ; the second from the right gives the total percentage of hatch of all the eggs after all hatched or shriveled, and the column to the extreme right gives the number of days re({uired to shrivel and kill all the eggs. The percentage of hatch might have varied a little in the different experiments if a larger number of eggs had been used ; however, the results unquestionably show that different percentages of moisture have a decided influence on the emergence of the nymph. The largest percentage of hatch occurred in satura- ted air, and practically no hatch in dry air. This decided influence of moisture probably accounts for the low percentage of hatch recorded for A. pomi by Gillette (6), in Colorado, where the rela- tive humiditv of the climate is much less than at New Brunswick, N. J. The rate of shrivel of the eggs in the different percentages of moisture in all the experiments is also significant. This is par- ticularly true in the experiments with the eggs of A. pomi (exp. 109-112) which never hatched. Eggs of A. pomi will not hatch when brought into greenhouse or laboratory temperatures unless it is near the normal out-of-door hatching period, not over 20 to 30 days before hatching. In experiments 109-112 dry air completely shriveled the eggs in 7 days while saturated air required 24 days. In other words, in these experiments and also in all others pertaining to moisture, the rate of shrivel shows that the water evaporated from eggs in dry air, or 22 per cent humidity, in one-half to one-third the time re- quired for eggs under 63 per cent moisture, or complete saturation. Comparing the rate of shrivel of the eggs in experiments 109-112 started on March 14 with those of the same species (exp. 105-108) started on April 6, the eggs of the latter shriveled more rapidly. This increase in the rate of shrivel is closely correlated with the greater percentage of eggs showing split outer coverings near the hatching period. 18 Bulletin 332 The above experiments show that the outer, semi-transparent brittle layer of the egg is permeable to water and cannot conserve the moisture content of the embryo when exposed to adverse dry conditions, but it does conserve a sufficient quantity of moisture under normal out-of-door conditions, so that 25 per cent or more of the eggs hatch. These experiments also indicate that the eggs are most susceptible to drought just previous to the hatching period. This is apparently due to the fact that almost all the normal eggs preparing to hatch show a split outer covering and this splitting of the outer shell exposes the permeable pigmented layer to adverse conditions, thus increasing the rate of evaporation. A simple experiment was conducted to determine the relative permeability of the pigmented layer and the outer semi-transparent layer. The outer layer t was carefully removed from 15 "normal eggs of A. avenecB on April 5, and the plump-skinned eggs were transferred to a Syracuse watch glass with a piece of blotting paper on the bottom. Fifteen normal plump eggs also were placed in the same watch glass and a piece of moist blotting paper was added^ but this did not come in contact with any of the eggs. A similar watch glass was used as a cover. TABLE 2 Influence op Moisture on Skinned Eggs and Normal Eggs Condition of eggs 90 minutes 4 hours 24 hours 48 hours* 8 days 15 skinned eggs 12 slightly shriveled; 3 normal 15 shriveled; 8 completely collapsed 15 completely collapsed 15 completely collapsed 15 completely collapsed 15 normal eggs 15 normal 15 normal 13 normal; 1 2 shriveled 11 normal; 2 shriveled; 2 hatched 9 shriveled; 6 hatched ♦Observations made between 48 hours and 8 days omitted from table. The results from these experiments are conclusive; the pig- mented or second layer about the egg is very permeable when compared with the outer semi-transparent layer, for the water con- tent of all the skinned eggs was completely evaporated in 24 hours. The normal eggs were much more resistant, for in 24 hours only two eggs showed a slight indication of sliriveling, none of the skin- ned eggs hatched, while 6 of the 15 normal eggs hatched in 4 days. In brief, this experiment shows that the lirittle outer layer acts as a preventive agent against water evaporation under normal conditions, while the inner pigmented layer does not perform this function to any great extent. ruder out-of-door conditions the percentage of hatch of the eggs of A. avence has been observed for two seasons. In 1917 Studies on Eggs of Apple Plant Lice 19 approximately 50 per cent of the eggs of this species hatched, while in 1918 about 30 per cent hatched, a difference of 20 per cent. Among selected eggs used in the checks for experiments conducted out-of-doors from February 19 to April 1, an average of 56 per cent of the eggs hatched in 1917, while 44 per cent hatched in 1918, a difference of 12 per cent. The above difference in the percentages of hatch for the two seasons is believed to be due to the decided difference in the weather. In 1917 we experienced many wet and cold days throughout the last two weeks in February and almost all of March. The last two weeks of March in 1917 were par- ticularly wet (March 15-31). In 1918 the later part of February resembled the same period in 1917, but the entire month of March was comparatively dry, especially the last two weeks, and this weather was very conducive to high evaporation. Unfortunately, only occasional records were made of the humidity during these two years, but in 1918 a number of days in the last weeks of March showed 40 per cent of moisture at mid-day. Table 3 shows the rainfall for the two seasons covering six weeks, February 15 to IMarch 31. A comparison shows immediately a decided difference in the amount of rainfall, especially for the last weeks in March, and these weeks are the most important for at this time the greatest number of eggs have their outer coverings split, thus exposing the permeable pigmented layer to evaporating factors such as low humidity, high temperature and wind velocity. During March 15 to March 31, 1917, 1.59 inches of rain fell, 8 days out of 19 gave over 0.01 inch of rain and 9 days out of 15 were cloudy or partly so, while in 1918, 0.22 inch of rain fell, and only 3 days out of 15 were partly cloudy. During March 15-31, 1917, there was a mean maximum of 53 °F., and a mean minimum of 32.1 °F., Avhile in 1918 the mean maximum was 59.3 °F. and the mean minimum 33.6°F. thus in 1918 there was an increase of 6.3°F. in the mean maximum and 1.5 °F. in the mean minimum. This difference in temperature along with the decided difference in rainfall and cloudy days means that the humidity Avas probably greater in 1917 than in 1918. All the above characteristics of the weather for March, particularly March 15-31, show that the evaporation of moisture from the split eggs would be much greater in 1918 than in 1917, and this being the case the percentage of hatch would be lower for 1918. This is actually true, as shown above among eggs collected from various orchards and also among selected eggs used as checks in various experiments for the two seasons, 20 Bulletin 332 TABLE 3 Precipitation for February 15 to March 31, 1917 and 1918 Precipitation 1 March Precipitation March | Precipitation ruary : 1917 ' 1918 1917 1918 1 1917 1918 inches inches Inches Inches Inches Inches 1.') 0.02 1 0.03 17 i 0.49 1(> 2 0 . 23 18 t 17 3 T 19 18 4 1.18 20 19 0.43 5 0.09 0.18 21 0.17 20 0.11 0.92 (i 0.04 1 22 21 7 0.19 1 23 1 22 0 . 29 0 . 05 8 0 . 50 24 0.42 0.22 28 t 9 t 0.02 25 24 0..37 10 0.20 26 1 1 2n 11 0 . 09 27 0.37 20 0. 98 12 0.02 28 0.14 T 27 0.03 13 i 29 T 28 0.35 14 0.18 0.84 30 15 1 0.01 0.03 31 t 16 'I'otal 1.15 2.40 2.28 1.15 ' 1.59 0.22 T — trace One may question the influence of humidity on the percentage of hatch for the past season and claim that the smaller percentage was due to the decidedly cold and severe winter (1917-18). The influema' of cold weather is (piestioned hy the author for two reasons. In tlie flrst place from 50 to 55 [ter cent of the eggs out- of-doors split tlieir outer coverings, thus giving conclusive evidence lhat the.v were alive and [ ■repariiig to hatch. In the second place, (in February 20, eggs were collected from Jolin Barclay’s orchard and brought into the laboratory (70°P\) and placed in a chamber which continuously registered 90 per cent moisture or even greater. Of these eggs 50.5 per cent split their outer shells and 43.5 per cent hatched; while a similar lot of eggs (500) from the same collection were kept out-of-doors where the humidity on some of the days (March 15-31, 3918) registered 40 per cent or below at mid-day, ?ind showed only a 29 per cent hatch, or a difference of 14.5 per cent when compared with the indoor experiment. This difference in percentage of hatch is accounted for by the decided difference in the percentage of moisture. The foregoing experiment, the important observations on the morphological changes which take place in the egg before the nyni[)hs emerge, the records made on the percentage of hatch of .4. ai'fiun during the decidedly different seasons of 1917 and 1918 (.March 15-31 ), the i-e.sults obtained from the experiments conducted with controlled moi.stures in the incubators during 1917, and the significant facts observed with skinned and normal eggs under laboratory conditions, make us conclude that the percentage of Imtch among (‘ggs of ap|)le nphides is influenced to a considerable Studies on Eggs op Apple Plant Lice 21 extent by weather conditions, especially during the few weeks previous to the emergence of the nymph. In brief, the existence of high evaporating factors during the dormant season, especially after the outer egg shell has split, kills a large number of eggs which would normally complete the process of hatching in weather with low evaporating factors. In order that the above relationship between the percentage of hatch and the condition of the weather may be proved and its significance ascertained, especially in regions where the average humidity is low, it is suggested that observations be made in various states, on the percentage of hatch for the various species concerned. Temperature Temperature has a marked and peculiar influence upon the liatching of the eggs of all three species. Some of these influences have been mentioned. In 1917 eggs of A. pomi and A. sorhi were brought into the greenhouse during February and the early part of March (up to March 14) and these failed to hatch, while eggs of A. avence brought into the greenhouse at the same time showed a normal percentage of hatch. During 1917-18 eggs of A. aveme collected in November and placed in the greenhouse showed a 10 per cent hatch during the first week in February^ while eggs collected on February 26, and put in a moist chamber in the labora- tory showed a 43.5 per cent hatch. This difference in the per- centage of hatch (also true for other experiments during December and January) ma}^ be due to the fact that an exposure to low temperatures is beneficial for the majority of the eggs of A. aveme. As noted before, the greenhouse was closed early in February during 1918 and the transfer of the eggs to a moist tin compart- ment in the laboratory may have had some influence on the per- centage of hatch. In order to be sure of the above statement con- cerning the eggs of A. avence it will be necessary to repeat these experiments. Eggs of A. pomi and A. sorhi will hatch under laboratory or greenhouse conditions provided they are not brought into the laboratory or greenhouse over 20 to 30 days before they normally hatch out-of-doors. The above peculiarity in the hatching of the eggs has also been noted by Baker and Turner (2) and other investigators. For some unknown reason, long exposure to low tem- peratures is essential for the normal development of the embryo of A. pomi and A. sorhi, and it may be beneficial for the majority of the eggs of A. avence. Temperature also influences the egg when it is preparing t(^ hatch. It was repeatedly noted that the percentage of eggs with a split outer covering would always show a decided increase during or following a day or two of exceptionally warm weather. This was particularly true during the latter part of February and the 22 Bulletin 332 early part of March. When the nymphs were emerging (March 21 to April 5) the rate of emergence was influenced by the tempera- ture. On warm days the greatest number came out. The eggs of A. avenm started to hatch on March 21 during the past season, while in 1917 the first nymphs were seen on ]March 28. This dif- ference is undoubtedly due to the dilference in the temperature mentioned above for the last two weeks in March for 1917 and 1918. After the nymphs have emerged they are somewhat susceptible to low temperatures. At least it Avas noted that on A.pril 6, 1918, in many unsprayed orchards, especially around Riverton, N. J., the nymphs of A. avenoi were very abundant, each bud on some trees showing ten or more. On April 9-11 a severe drop in tem- perature took place (enough to frost the edges of the small pro- truding leaves), and a heavy snow and sleet storm accompanied the change in temperature. On April 18 these trees Avere examined and the lieaAW infestation was reduced beloAV the danger point; in fact, in some orchards adjacent to the DelaAvare rAer no aphides could be found. The results of spraying experiments in this section of the state and likeAvise in other portions during the past season Avere not as striking as in 1917, on account of the storm. Possibly the sleet and snoAV AA^ere as beneficial in killing the nymphs as the cold AA'eather. Contact Insecticides and Other Chemicals The foregoing morphological and ecological stud}" of the eggs of apple plant lice sIioavs conclusively that they are not as firm and impenetrable as some entomologists Avould have us believe, and furthermore they are especially susceptible to ditferences in moisture and temperature a feAV Aveeks previous to the emergence of the nymph and also as the nymph emerges. These facts naturally lead us to assume that certain common contact insecticides and various chemicals applied just before the nymphs emerge should affect the eggs and cut doAvn the percentage of hatch. This is unquestionably the case, for a number of investigators using lime-sulfur at Avinter strength, crude oil emulsion and other sprays have met Avith success in killing the aphid in the egg stage Avhen the spray Avas applied late in the season, in most cases just as the buds Avere bursting. A brief revieAv of these investigations has been made by P. R. Jones (12). Dr. T. J. Ileadlee’s experiments Avith lime-sulfur in 1916 at John Barclay’s orchard also shoAV that the rosy aphis, A. sorhi, is killed in the egg stage. The exact physical and chemical effect of the various sprays on the egg has never been explained and, so far as is knoAvn, is still more or less a mystery. Tn order to understand the chemical reaction of various substances on the egg-shell, it is necessary to Studies on Eggs of Apple Plant Lice 23 have some knowledge of the chemical nature of the layers about the egg. A few qualitative- tests have been conducted with this point in view, but as yet nothing definite has been determined. Prom a physical standpoint the effect of certain substances has been observed and these will be discussed briefly. In order to control the aphid in the egg stage the material used must prevent the nymph from hatching or it may be of such a nature as to kill the nymph as it hatches. The preventive may act in several ways.' Any substance which will harden the outer semi- transparent shell and thus makes it impossible for the nymph to emerge would be satisfactory, or the material used could have the opposite effect, that is, soften or dissolve the outer layer and thus expose the inner, pigmented layer to evaporating factors such as wind, heat or low humidity. Furthermore, many substances are splendid dessicating agents and any material possessing this quality might be able to extract the water content of the ovum or embryo and thus prevent further development. Again, the use of any toxic substance which will penetrate the egg coverings and attack the living embryo would naturally be a control measure. Another possible means of control would be the discovery of some chemical which will loosen the egg from the twig and cause it to fall to the ground. Dormant lime-sulfur apparently hardens the outer covering, at least it was noted that a number of treated eggs did not com- pletely collapse and in many cases the outer layer retained its normal shape while the black pigmented layer and the contents of the embryo within were completely shriveled. Such eggs are easily recognized in that they are lighter in color because of the air space within. Besides this hardening effect, lime-sulfur seems to act as a dessicating agent and it may also actually penetrate all the layers and serve as a toxic substance on the embryo. So far as could be seen with a microscope, no decided visible effect was evident in eggs treated with other common contact in- secticides such as nicotine, soap solutions and miscible oils. In some cases where eggs were treated with miscible oil, particularly oils which possess some crude carbolic derivatives, they appeared to be more glossy. So far as is known, the above substances probably act as toxic agents which kill by penetrating the layers of the egg and attacking the embryo. A weak solution of crude carbolic acid will soften and ap- parently disintegrate the outer shell of the aphid egg. In several experiments the eggs of A. avencc and A. pomi were sprayed with a 1 per cent and a 2 per cent solution of crude carbolic acid, and with varying strengths of cresol (U. S. P.) plus enough laundry soap to break the surface tension. In a few minutes after treatment Results of Sfrayjxg Expehuments With Eggs of A. Avenae and A. I^)mi (A. sorbi) for 1917 24 Bulletin 332 a> Ol'O re Co iMC£>oooooio«MOicxuo(Ma50050ooooooooeoc£)03i-icooiHOireooooa> a>-M u re Q. Tt^C^fMCOOOO^jCiOOit^t^^OrH 0^0 O iH O O #<1 CS| O 00 ^ O 00 O 00 05 O CO CO OOCO^^^^CSIIO'^’^CO'^^ C<1 1 — s: 1 T Ota Hate THC£)'ct*coa5t>»{Ma5COiiOc-LOir: — ^ ^ 2 fo --0 ’ t'" >'• ® "-n ?r> CO o o o o t- 1 7^01 i-Hi— I.— Ii-(r0 lrHi-lCT’r-T;’T:r;xTr'T^Tr''r'crU O o o o >^ re s. a CO c-i K K •loocooooo ;|. rt?'p'=5 ' C.Otx'^^CjXX'^ I I uu.i.uu%.^ 3d::d3P.-;2 73 OT 02 .=« M C« . C! 'hc'fcc h£|6JDb£b£^^<12 1) — — — — — — —— S'iOr-CCCCCrrI— i E o X 5 UJ I z r- 01 M 1* lit CO I X or: rM O CO [ xt* 10 C'~ c>0 05 o T-l 03 CO ■'1 I C-l 01 '^^ 'M M '='> CO CO CO CO CC :COCCCCCCCCCC :00000! 34.6 Sthoies on E(;(js of Appt.e Plant Lice OOCOt^C'JOr^'^'M’^Oi-HOOO'MOCOC'tOOOO’^t^OC^C'.OOOCtOOOtCCCT < o ^1 O »C CC O O ^ • lOC^ C>tO Oi ' O O ^ 1-1 CC O CC T lO OCCCCC'lOCl I O O Ol CC T-I r- i-( ' M ^ t- -ri O I-I O 1 o ut o cr. 1-1 lo 1 ^ ex ^ ^ ^ C- Ci O ic O 'M c: O ' cc cc c«t re o cr o I- t-i- t- ei o o c: o c: o — — I - '^U- ei ri ei t— rt cc ce rt cc re cj s^i 'M i- ' fa ra t- fi r^ (J C- r. t; t ^ ra t; i; £; >* - Q O K K ~ o O O O O O O S2 - - - - - ?3 c c e - a e G g g c a B * - - - - - ~ ^ ^ o lo ^ o o O ^ ei rt d aj ww5 .-a,.t,-^ G e « c c c a IC o.a; .a 0^0;::; C =_§ o 2 oj P I g s ?. s ^ (U ^ a; 0) X! -573-C'a^'C p S S S S C ? h O o O O 2 <> ! o o_o_o _o ’ooo’o’o 5 S S 5 o o o o o O) 0) CJ O , -a. o o o o o o o o o o g O) 0) !li OJ 0) 13 73'^'^'^ c3 oj Oj cS o3 00000 xn^Jim’Tirsi 33 0.aa^&^37rTb cooo'gggg^lgocooooo I t - 00 Oi , _ . I'-S io 00 9 000 000 c £s|S^rtPd gocooooocci I 'JL'''ill9=3~.2:3(^o9;s ^ K 3 w M K M w 3 wjcxrxi'C.cxJx: — — m w o “ .S a . 22 ““-gg og . - ^ jdh^dr^PlP3JH2dt2lfcfcfcEplHfeClHEtHplHfej^COa.'a!jH4^d O T-t CM eva -t- ..7 TO !>. OC T. O ;-) aj -r ■• 1 cc so C. O iH a ' eo 1 9 2^ 2l *9 ^ ‘a Lo Lo ira Lo i;a 1^1 10 TO ^9 ^9 ^ as TO TO CO f'- h- ' ' • ‘ , *^7 , 7 ^7” OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO^^'^CO -Greenhouse and O — Out-of-door Experiments. 26 Bulletin 332 the brittle outer layer, split or whole, was softened and wrinkled (plate 1, fig. 13) and could be easily removed. Furthermore, it was noted that in all experiments where crude carbolic acid was used as a spray, especially in strengths greater than 1 per cent, the eggs had an unusually bright shiny appearance after the spray had dried. This glossy appearance indicates that the semi- trans- parent outer layer has undergone some sort of a change. It was also observed that many eggs with split outer coverings treated with crude carbolic acid and cresols shriveled along the meso-dorsal line (plate 1, fig. 14). This type of shrivel which also takes place to some extent with other treatments indicates that the pigmented layer of an egg showing a split outer shell is particularly susceptible to various chemicals. Furthermore, treated eggs with a whole outer covering frequently shriveled in a like manner. This indicates that the outer shell is weakest along the meso-dorsal line and any foreign inatcrial which can soften or disintegrate the outer layer would naturally penetrate this portion of the egg first and cause it to show its early stage of shriveling along the least resistant portion. A number of other chemicals were tried and their effect noted, ])ut their mode of attack has not been observed with sufficient care to warrant a statement at this time. Possibly it would be worth while to call attention to the fact that sodium hydroxide seems to react upon the glutinous layer in such a manner as to loosen the egg from the tree and cause it to fall to the ground. At least a large number of eggs were lost in all the experiments with sodium hydroxide. A large number of experiments were conducted with various common sprays and other chemicals during March and April, 1917, and the results of the more important of these are recorded in table 4. The predominant species of eggs used in the various experi- ments is indicated in the table. In the experiments with A. avencE a few eggs of A. sorbi were present, but, so far as is known, these never exceeded 15 per cent of the total number, while in the ex- periments with A. pomi the eggs of A. so7'bi ran close to 30 per cent (at least a number of counts of newly-hatched stem mothers gave this approximate percentage). This percentage of the eggs of A. sorbi in the experiments shows that the eggs of this species resemble those of A. avence and A. pomi in their response to various stimuli ; however, there is apparently some difference in the suscep- tibility of the different species. At least there is good indication of this if one compares the percentages of hatch among the different s|)ecies under similar treatments. A. avence is probably somewhat more susceptible than either A. pomi or A. sorbi. Another point of iiiterest in respect to susceptibility is the fact that all eggs of Studies on P]ggs of Apple Plant Lice 27 one species are not alike ; some are less resistant than others, conse- (juently some are killed by weaker strengths of insecticides. This is well illustrated in all experiments, particularly in the experi- ments where the percentage of hatch runs between 10 and 25 per cent among treated eggs. The percentages of hatch or kill in all the spraying experiments in the greenhouse or out-of-doors at the laboratory for the two sea- sons are figured on the basis of considering the number of eggs present at tlie time the final observations Avere made. In a former ])aper (19) tlie percentage of hatch Avas figured on the basis of considering the percentage of hatcii in respective checks for each set of experiments as 100 per cent, and then the number of eggs hatched in the various experiments coiopared Avitli Ihe check. Ex- l)erience has shown that this method is subject to considerable variation due to the variation in the percentage of hatched eggs in the checks; conseciuently, this method Avas abandoned for the above mentioned form. In all the tables the percentage of hatched eggs is given for each experiment and one may obtain the percentage of killed or dead eggs by subtracting the percentage of hatched eggs from 100 per cent. The results given in table 4 Avill be considered in the various discussions on the different insecticides and chemicals. Upon completing the investigations on the aphid eggs for the season of 1916-17, it Avas observed that the susceptibility of the eggs to various insecticides and different percentages of humidity seemed to be greatest just prior to the emergence of the nymph. AVith this obseiwation in mind, a large series of spraying experi- ments, starting Avitli November 30, 1917 and continuing until April 1, 1918, AA^ere conducted out-of-doors at the laboratory for tne purpose of determining the relative susceptibility of the eggs throughout the dormant season. ' Diagram 1, by an intersection of plotted lines with perpen- dicular lines (representing dates of application) shows the results of the more important experiments conducted with the eggs of A. avence. The dates at the top of the chart indicate the time of application of the Amrious substances used. Other applications Avere made throughout the month of December and January, but the results of the spraying experiments for December 15 are typical of all these. The points of intersection of the various types of plotted liTies with the perpendicular date lines indicate the per- centage of hatch if one examines the column of figures to the left, and the percentage of dead eggs if one examines the column of figures to the right. Each treatment or substance used as a spray is given a definite letter, the explanation of AAdiich may be found at the bottom of the chart. The chart also shows at the top the source or orchard Avhere the eggs Avere collected and on the bottom 28 But.letin 282 line th(' pereenta^'e of e^i^'s showing a si)lit outer shell at the time the treatment was <:«'iven. The average pereentag-e of hatch, 48 f)er cent, or pereentage of dead eggs, 52 per cent, for the untreated eggs, or checks is represented hy a straight line. Diagram 1. Chart showing progressive decrease in the percentage of hatched eggs or increase in the percentage of dead eggs with the various sprays when they are applied nearer the time when tlie nymphs emerge (Emergence March 21 (o April 5). a — Lime-sulfur, 1-9 b — Lime-sulfur, 1-9 plus nicotine, 1-500 c^ — “Scalecide,” 1-15 d — “Scalecide,” 1-40 plus cresol, 1 % e — “Scalecide,” 1-15 plus ciude carbolic, 1'/ f — F. o. soap, 1 gm.-5 0 c. c. plus phenol, 1% g — F. o. soap, 1 gm.-5 0 c. c. plus nicotine, 1-5 00 h - F. o. soap, 1 gm.-50 c. c. plus crude carbolic, 1% i Laundry soap, 1 gm.-200 c. c. plus ci’esol, 1% j- F. o. soap, 1 gm.-lOO c. c. plus crude carbolic, 0.5o; k~ F. o. soap, 1 gm.-lOO c. c. plus cresol, l'/(, 1 — Fish oil soap (solid), 1 gni.- 5 0 c. c. m Resin fish oil soap, 1 gm-5 0 c. c. n Nicoliue resinate, 1-500 Several interesting and import ant points are lu’onght out in this chart, hut tlie most striking and signifiiund one is the fact that almost till the substances used show a gradual progressive decrease in tlie number of eggs hatched (or vice v(*rsa, a progressive increase in the number of dead eggs), when the spray is applied m^arer the Studies on Eggs of Appi;E Plant Lice 29 time when the nyniplis emerge'. In all the (*x[)eriinents, no matter what snbstanee was nsetl, the percentage ot* hatched eggs was less when the substance was applied on March 23 than when ajiplied in December, fl a unary, Eebrnary or .March 4. Briefly stated, the greatest number ol‘ eggs are killed in all the experiments when the siiray is applied just [irioi* to the emergence of the nymph. This gradual increase in susceptibility is dependent upon the increase in the percentage of eggs showing split outer shells. • On the basis of the facts shown in the chart and from foregoing observations on the morphology and behavior of the egg previous to the emergence of the nymph, we may conclude that the greater the percentage of eggs possessing split outer shells the greater will be the percentage of dead eggs when contact in- secticides are used. Llue-Sulfur A large number of experiments were conducted on the eggs of all the species in the greenhouse, out-of-doors at the laboratory, and in various orchards during the past two seasons, using different strengths of lime-sulfur and lime-sulfur combined with nicotine. During February, March and April, 1917, experiments G-12 to (1-17 and 0-18 to 0-25 (table 4), were performed in the greenhouse (G) and out-of-doors (0) with the eggs of all three species, and the results show a very decided reduction in the percentage of hatched eggs and in some instances a complete kill. Eggs of A. avenw sprayed with lime-sulfur 1-8 and kept under greenhouse conditions or out-of-doors at the laboratory showed a very small percentage of hatch or a complete kill (3.9 to 0.0. per cent hatch). Eggs of .4. pomi receiving similar treatment showed a 2.0 to 7.3 per cent hatch. A comparison of these percentages among the two pre- dominant species in the resiiective experiments shows that the eggs of A. avence are more susceptible to lime-sulfur than A. ponii. Lime-sulfur 1-6 and greater strengths gave better control than 1-8 or 1-9. In a few ex])eriments lime-snlfur was combined with sodium chloride, a pyridine solution and nicotine sulfate. The results of the experiments with the first two chemicals mentioned are dis- cussed under otlnu* cliemicals. During 1917 one experiment (exj). 0-25. tal)le 4) was conducted out-of-doors at the laboratory witli the eggs of .4. })o)tn where nicotine, 'Mllack-leaf-40”, was used at tlie rate of 1-500 and tlie ])ercentage of liatch was 0.9 ])('r cent, while another exjunanumt with lime-sulfur, 1-8 (exp. 0.24, table 41 gave a 4.6 per c(mt hatch. These results indicated the ])ossibility of obtaining a mor(‘ perfect control when a ('oud)ination s])ray was used, conse(piently a large nnmber of (‘xjxnaments were conducted TABLE 5 Experiments With Lime-Sulfur and Lime-Sulfur Combined With Nicotine ('‘Black-leaf 40”) on Selected Eggs of A. Avenae, 80 I Bulletin 332 X o <1> s: O 62.2 t 47.1 46.0 33.3 47.6 45.7 44.2 32.6 sBB3 |b:^oj. pub p^^o:^BH ! 134 h 215 116 h i 246 2d 00 00 T— 1 LO LO -tr eo rC •M O O CO .c! CiiH 00 O ’OZ cx: rec/) t- w C5) ■2 O) Eu 3 z'S Spi-ayed Apiil 4 and Uollecded April 4 April April 4 1 1 ,'>04 ■,()4 in; 2 : 5. 2 ' 1 1!) 184 ;i(:.2'/ 4') 8.9% 204 40.5% 204 07.4%, Sprayed April 2 and Collected April 14 April d; 1 ■ 5114 118 I 11 2% 435 77% (dieck: (Collected Maieh 21 Aindl April 1 1 :i(;o :!(;o 10 ;: ‘ 2S..27r 118 I ;i2% in; 22 % 4 1 % 141 29% 228 00.1%. Check. Collected .\pril r, itiii *^7;“ ni; 125 ".VP/ 14C 27%, March 24 April 11 4(;(i 29 !> 10 157 ^ (14. 19 ? 2 . 1 % 22.7 % hatching period of A. sorbi. Dr. Ileadlee’s observations show that during 191() the rosy aphis started to hatch on April 15 in this orchard. Dormant lime-sulfur 1-9 was sprayed on tlie trees west of the lious(* on March 81, 191 I, and on the lilock east of the house on April 2, 1917. To onr surprise, it was discovered that the eggs were actively hatching at this time, but the nynii)hs proved to be A. aveiur. The ont-of-door experiments at the laboratory showed SOUK* hatch on March 80 and over 20 per cent had hatched by A[)ril 2. .Mr. Barclay continued to put on the lime-sulfur after Studies on Eggs of Apple Plant Lice 33 April 2 but added “ Blaek-leaf 40” at the rate of 1-500 in order to kill the nymphs. Lime-sulfur 1-0 alone will not kill all the nymphs of any of the three species. A large number of nymphs and adults of each species were sprayed with lime-sulfur 1-9 in the laboratory and only a few were killed, A. pomi being the most susceptible. This also agrees with Dr. Ileadlee's (9, 10) experiment with A. sorM in 1916, where nymphs lived and apparently did not suffer with lime-sulfur on their bodies. Regardless of the fact that the lime-sulfur was not applied before the eggs of A. avenoi started to hatch, an interesting series of observations were made which show conclusively that lime-sulfur is effective in killing the egg during the hatching period. Two collections were made from the trees in the block east of the house before the siirav was put on and TABLE 7 RETiATiON Between Percentage op Hatch, Percentage of Normal Eggs and Percentage of Shriveled Eggs Among Sprayed Eggs and Eggs in Check in Table 6 Check (3) Observed Apr. 3 Sprayed Eggs (1) Observed Apr. 4 Difference 28.3%o hatched 23.2% hatched — (a) 5.1% difference in hatch 33%, normal 36.3%o normal — (b) 3.3% difference in normal 39% shriveled 40.5%, shriveled — (c) 1.5% difference in shriveled Eciuation: (b) 3.3% + (c) 1.5%, = (b + c) 4.8%,. approximately equals (a) 5.1%C'. Check (4) ' Observed Apr. 5 Sprayed Eggs (1) Observed Apr. 4 Difference 59% hatched 23.2% hatched — (a) 35.8% difference in hatch 14% normal 36.3% normal — (l3) 22.3% difference in normal 27%, shriveled 40.5% shriveled — (c) 13.5% difference in shriveled Equation (bi 22.3%, H h (c) 13.5%. — (b + c) 35.8%o, equals (a) 35.8%. Note; For complete i)iformation read discussion. the percentage of hatch in these checks was two or three times as great as in the sprayed twigs collected after the lime-sulfur was applied. Table 6 shows the various percentages of liatch and per- centages of shriveled and normal eggs found in this portion of the orchard. If lime-sulfur is a good control measure, then at any period of observation the percentages of hatch on the spray twigs should not show a marked increase over the first observation of April 4 which was made 12 hours after the spray was put on. The first observation on sprayed eggs showed a 23.2 per cent hatch, and a second observation on April 11, which was aliout five days after all normal eggs had hatched, showed 23.5 jier cent hatched, giving a 0.3 per cent increase. On April 14, another collection of twigs 34 Bulletin 332 was made and out of 564 eggs, 20.9 per cent had hatched, thus showing conclusively that there was no appreciable increase in hatch after the lime-sulfur was applied. Furthermore, in compar- ing the percentage of hatch among the sprayed eggs with that of eggs receiving no treatment, it is evident that the following inter- relationship between the percentages should hold. If the lime- sulfur acts as a control, then the percentage of hatch will not increase among sprayed eggs, while normal untreated eggs will continue to hatch. The percentage of hatch, then, in sprayed eggs is a constant number. If such is the case, then the difference (a) between the percentage of hatch in sprayed eggs and the percentage of hatch in untreated eggs should at any time equal the difference (b) between the percentage of norinal eggs among the sprayed eggs and the percentage of normal eggs among the untreated eggs plus the difference (c) between the percentage of shriveled eggs among the sprayed eggs and the percentage of shriveled eggs among the TABLE 8 Results of Spraying With Lime-Sulfur, and Lime-Sulfur Com- bined With Nicotine AViien the Nymphs AA^ere Emerging AT John 11. Barclay's Orchard in 1918 1 Date Observed Check Lime-sulfur 1-9 Lime-sulfur 1-9 “Black- Leaf 40” 1-500 Hatched Eggs and Total Eggs Percent age Hatched Hatched Eggs and Total Eggs Percent- age Hatched Hatched Eggs and Total Eggs Percent- aae Hatched April 1 55 h 243 22.0 19 h 191 10.0 27 h 292 9.2 April 8 77 h 243 35.8 29 h 191 15.0 29 h 292 9.6 April 1 150 aphides to 100 buds 5 aphides to 100 buds 0 aphides to 100 buds April 5 350 aphides to 100 buds 25 aphides to 100 buds 10 aphides to 100 buds untreated eggs. Table 7 shows this comparison for the observations made on April 3, 4 and 5 in experiments 1, 3 and 4. The same relationship will hold for observations made on April 11 and 14, but these have not been included in this discussion. The figures in table 6 and 7 show that lime-sulfur sprayed on the eggs of A. avence during the hatching period prevented 99 per cent of the eggs from hatching which had not hatched at the time of application. Several careful examinations were made throughout the or- ^ chard during the month of April and only an occasional aphid could be found, one or two per tree. Nearby orchards along with one nnsp rayed tree in Barclay’s orchard showed a heavy infesta- tion, approximately five aphides to a bud. Examinations made the latter part of Alay and in June showed practically no A. avenw on trees sprayed with lime-sulfur or combined lime-sulfur and Studies on Eggs op Apple Plant Lice 35 nicotine, but some of the trees did show a few clusters of curled leaves due to A. sorhi, rosy aphis. A. sorbi is somewhat more re- sistant than A. avence. During 1918 careful observations were made on spraying operations conducted in several orchards throughout the state. At John II. Barclay’s orchard near Cranbury the first nymphs emerged on IMarch 21, and 10 per cent of the eggs had hatched on March 30 when lime-suUur 1-9 was sprayed on 150 nine-year- old apple trees (Duchess). On April 1 about 80 trees of the same variety were sprayed with a combination of lime-sulfur 1-9 and nicotine 1-500. A large number of twigs were collected from sprayed and unsprayed trees and observed on April 1, about ten hours after the combined spray was applied. Since the nymphs were emerging very rapidly on April 1, the difference between the percentage of hatch in the sprayed and unsprayed twigs observed on April 1 can be in part accounted for in the delay of ten hours before the observations could be made. Table 8 shows the effect of the sprays on the eggs and nymphs when the nymphs were emerging. On April 8 after all the normal eggs had hatched it was noted that the number of hatched eggs on the unsprayed branches in- creased 13.5 per cent, while the percentage of hatch among eggs sprayed with lime-sulfur 1-9 showed a 5 per cent increase and those sprayed with a combination of lime-sulfur and nicotine did not increase more than 0.5 per cent. This experiment shows that eggs are killed with lime-sulfur sprays and also brings out the increased effectiveness of a combination spray of lime-sulfur and nicotine over lime-sulfur alone. Tlie trees were also examined for nymphs. Check trees on April 5 showed 350 aphides to 100 swollen fruit buds, while trees sprayed with lime-sulfur alone showed 25 aphides to 100 buds and the combination sprayed showed 10 aphides to 100 buds. It should also be observed that the lime-sulfur alone did not kill all the nymphs which had emerged at the time the spray was applied, while the combined lime-sulfur and nicotine did kill all the nymphs. Again, the combined spray demonstrated its superiority over lime- sulfur alone as a control measure for nymphs. The above sprays were applied by means of one ‘‘Hardie” gun attached tb a sprayer ^vith 225-pounds pressure. The opera- tor stood on the tank and sprayed the trees on each side of the row, thus giving each tree two applications from opposite directions. This type of instrument is very useful and well adapted to dormant spraying when it is necessary to hit all parts of the tree with con- siderable force. On March 28 at J. L. Lippineott Company’s orchard, at River- ton, N. J., a combination spray of lime-sulfur 1-9 and nicotine 36 Bulletin 332 1-500 was sprayed on some early varieties of apple trees (Star, etc.)- The fruit buds on these trees were swollen and some were showing the tip ends of very small leaves. Twigs were collected and exam- ined six hours after the spray was applied. The unsprayed twigs showed a 9.5 per cent hatch of all the eggs while the sprayed branches showed 6.3 per cent hatched. Comparing the percentage of hatch of these eggs with those collected near New Bruns- wick, it is evident that the majority of eggs hatched about 48 hours earlier. This is due to the fact that Riverton is approximately 50 miles south of New Brunswick. The above twigs were examined again after all the normal eggs had hatched (April 8) and the percentage of hatch in the check was 32 per cent, or an increase of 24.5 per cent, while the sprayed eggs showed 8.9 per cent hatched, or an increase of 2.6 per cent. On April 5 the orchard was exam- ined for nymphs and the sprayed trees showed 17 nymphs to 100 fruit buds, while the buds of nearby unsprayed trees were in many cases completely covered with aphides. The above orchard experi- ment again shows the value of spraying eggs and nymphs at the hatching period with a combined spi*ay consisting of lime-sulfur 1-9 and nicotine 1-500. The proportion of eggs which hatched after they were sprayed in this orchard was about 2 per cent higher than at John Barclay’s orchard. This was pro])ably due to the fact that the material was applied by using long rods and putting the ma- terial on in the form of a mist. Furthermore, an examination of the trees after the spray was applied showed a less thorough job than at ]\Ir. Barclay’s orchard. This difference is possibly due to the different types of instruments used in spraying the two or- chards. Other orchards were carefully observed during the delayed dormant spray period and in all cases good results were obtained when the material was applied with extreme care. After April 18 the decided value of applying a delayed dor- mant spray of lime-sulfur and nicotine for the control of aphides was not as conclusive this past season as in former seasons, because of the fact that a period of cold stoiMiiy weather accompanied by snow and sleet in most ])arts of the state occurred on April 9 and 10, and this weather killed a lai*ge ])(‘rcentage of the newly-hatched nymphs. In fact, some unsprayed orchaials which had their swollen fruit buds covered with aphides on Ai)ril 8 did not suffer from aphis attack after the stormy weather was past. During the past s(‘ason, a lai‘ge number of adult co(‘ein(*llid b(M‘tles and larva* of .syn)hid flies also were })resent in most orchards. The time to apply the dormant spray is very important. As a general rule apply the dormant s])ray as late as possible, for at this tiitie the greatest number of (‘ggs an* sjilit and probably some are hatching, especially eggs of A. avenw. The lime-sulfur can be ai)plied with safety as the buds are swelling (plate 2, fig. B) and Sti’dies on Eggs of Apple Pi.ant Lice ‘M first show and until the small h'aves project like small scpiirrcd ears (plate 2, fi^. C). When the yonno- leaves have separated somewhat and appear as distinct strnetnres, then the dormant strength of spray will l)nrn them (plate 2, fig. D). The outline drawings of the twigs show the various stages of develoj)- ment of a fruit si)ur or teniiinal bud. Stage A is a dormant twig showing eggs of A. ponii scattered over its surface, stage B shows a slightly swollen terminal bud with eggs of A. avcnce about the dormant buds and nymphs of A. avence near the green exposed tip. Stage is a more advanced stage of a swollen terminal bud and Plate 2. Fruit buds in different stages of development. is in the last stage Avhen it is safe to apply a dormant lime-sulfur spray. Nymphs .and eggs of A. avencB are shown on this twig. Stage 1) shows distinct and well separated leaves. The nymphs of aphides, if presfuit on such a twig, would be found to a consider- able extent in between the leaves in protected places where it is next to impossible to hit all of them with a contact insecticide. .Most v^arieties of apples with twigs in an advanced state cannot be sprayed with a dormant strength of lime-sulfur without injuring the young leaves. The length of the period from the time when the buds first show green and until they are too far advanced for dormant spray varies with the growing season. It may be less 38 Bulletin 332 than a week or more than ten days. In using a combination spray it would be better to apply the material thoroughly somewhat early than to wait too long, for as a rule weather conditions are very changeable during the latter part of March. Other workers have had some experience with the combination spray. AVilson (24) in 1912 recommended for A. pomi and A. sorhi: Spray in the spring just as the buds are opening with lime-sulfur plus ‘Black-leaf 40’ or ‘Black-leaf 40’ alone. Spray thoroughly applied at the time when the buds are opening will prevent 95-100 per cent of the aphis infestHtiou. The lime-sulfur should be used winter-strength and the ‘Black-leaf 40’ added at the rate of 1 part to 900 parts of diluted lime-sulfur”. Air. AA^ilson does not indicate 'in his experiments whether the eggs have all hatched or not. In either case the combination will undoubtedly succeed, but nicotine sulfate alone at the strength of 1-900 would not kill many of the eggs, according to our experience. During the spring of 1916 a number of experiments were con- ducted in various orchards in the state of New York by P. J. Parrott, IT. E. Hodgkiss and P. PI. Lathrop (18) with the use of lime-sulfur 1-8 plus ^ pint of nicotine solution (40 per cent) to 100 gallons of solution. In these experiments, “the spraying was purposely delayed until the eggs had begun to hatch and it is reasonably certain that most of the nymplis had emerged.” The results obtained in the various orchards were altogether satisfactory and they agree in large measure with those secured by various orchardists throughout New Jersey. The principal difference, how- ever, is the fact that the eggs of A. sorhi had not started to hatch when the material was applied April 8, 1917, at Air. Barclay’s orchard ; nevertheless they were killed. In the various experiments conducted in New York it is possible that some of the eggs had not hatched, for according to the authors’ own statement they were only “reasonably certain that most of the nymphs had emerged.” It may be possible to delay the “dormant spray” in New York or- chards until the eggs of all species are hatched, but this is not the ease in New Jersey, for the eggs of A. pomi and A. sorhi in two successive seasons, 1916 and 1917, did not hatch to any extent until the leaf buds had burst and the small leaves were well sepa- rated. Dr. T. J. Ileadlee (9, 10) in 1916 carried on an extensive series of experiments against the rosy aphis at John II. Barclay’s orchard and a brief summary of his data shows that the rosy aphis can best be destroyed by making a dormant treatment with lime-sulfur and following that with a green-bud treatment of “Black-leaf 40” (1-1000) plus soap (2 pounds to 50 gal.), or by delaying the dor- mant treatment of lime-sulfur until the buds begin to show green, and then api)lying it mixed with “Black-leaf 40” (1-500). These Studies on Eggs op Apple Plant Lice 39 results, so far as similar experiments are concerned, agree with those obtained by the author during 1917 and 1918. Miscible Oils A considerable amount of investigation has been conducted with various kinds of oils, commercial and otherwise, on the eggs of apple aphides. A number of workers have experimented with crude oil emulsions and miscible oils. The most recent work is by P. R. Jones (12), who in a preliminary report treats of various contact insecticides, but deals particularly with different oils as miscible oils, distillate oil emulsion, asphalt emulsion, crude oil emulsion, etc. His general conclusion in respect to these products is that oils having a specific gravity, 14° -29° Baume, are much more effective in killing the eggs of aphides than ' high-gravity oils, 31°-41° Baume. His recommendation reads, ‘‘As far as can be de- termined at present under western conditions it is believed that dormant treatment for eggs of the apple and purple aphides should be either commercial crude oil emulsion, 1-9 or 1-10 (where the concentrate contains 85 per cent crude oil) ; home-made crude oil emulsion, 19°-23° Baume — and the application made as late in the winter as possible before the buds start to show green.” He ex- perimented with various miscible oils, some made from low-gravity oils and others from high-gravity oils, and so far as can be learned from his report the above conclusions pertaining to specific gravity of oils in general also hold for miscible oils. His results will be compared with those observed in this study. No attempt was made by the author to carry on an extensive investigation with various oils, but two commercial miscible oils which are utilized extensively in New Jersey and other eastern states have been tried in a number of experiments, and their results carefully observed. The trade names for these oils are “Mechling’s Scale-Oil”, manufactured by Mechling Brothers Manufacturing Company, Camden, N. J., and “Scalecide”, manufactured by B. G. Pratt Company, New York City. Both of these oils are largely made from oils which have a comparatively low specific gravity; the specific gravity and the information furnished by the two concerns confirms this statement. The specific gravity of “Mechling’s Scale-Oil” used in the experiments was 28° Baume at 65° F., and of “Scalecide” 25° Baume at 65° F. The B. G. Pratt Company reports, “We use as a petroleum an asphaltum base oil from which the light inflammable and heavy lubricating oils have been removed and which has an oil grav^ity of about 26°-30° Baume.” The .Mechling Brothers Manufacturing Company reports, ‘iMechling’s Scale-Oil is composed of three entirely different oils, a vegetable oil, a cresote oil and a paraffine oil. the largest part being the latter,” and their guaranteed analysis shows 85-88 per cent mineral oil. The specific gravities of these two oils are 40 l^UJ.LETIN 332 about the same, but if there is a differeiiee “Mechliug’s Scale-Oil” is lighter than ‘ ‘ Scaleeide. ’ ’ During March and April, 1917, a number of experiments were conducted with the above-mentioned miscible oils on the eggs of yl. avemv in the greenhouse and on the eggs of A. avence, A. pomi and A. sorbi out-of-doors at the laboratory. Also one experiment was conducted with “Scaleeide” against the eggs of A. aveme (A. sorbi, 15 per cent) at John 11. Barclay's orchard. The results of tile more important experiments with “iMechling’s Scale-Oil and “Scaleeide” are shown in table 4. Experiments G-27, 0-29 and 0-31 where “ .Mechling’s Scale-Oil” was used at the rate of 1-19 showed a 6.3, 8.1 and 8.5 per cent hatch, respectively, while ”Scale- cide” 1-15, in experiments 0-34, 0-36, 0-38 and 0-40, showed a 23.0, 34.6, 22.8, and 31.7 per cent hatch, respectively. In other words, three to four times as many eggs hatched when treated with “Scale- side” as with “Mechliugs’ Scale-Oil.” A comjiarison of the results olitained in the use of the two miscible oils shows that “Scaleeide” 1-15 is not as etfective in killing eggs as “ iMechling ’s Scale-Oil” 1-19, and that neither may be depended ui)oii to kill all the eggs or act as a satisfactory control when applied at the sti*engths recommended for dormant spray. Since both sprays are manufactured from low gravity oils it was im- possible to ex])laiu the decided dilferemee in the percentage of kill on the basis of the specific gravity of the oil, but it was apparent that some chemical might be ])resent in one which did not occur in the other. In conjunction with the experiments wdtli miscible oils, crude carbolic acid was used alone and in combination with the miscible oils, and it was noted that the eggs of all three species were highly susceptible to ci'esols and phenol; consequently, it was thought that the presence of these chemicals might explain the difference in the effectiveness of the two oils. In the first place, it was noted that ”Mechling’s Scale-Oil” had a distinct phenol odor, while this was not true of ” Scaleeide.” The two oils were subjected to two (pialitative tests (Landolt’s and Lieberman’s) (14, 22) foi* cresols and ])henol. ”i\Iechling’s Scale-Oil” gave a decided f(*st for cresols and ])henol while ” Scaleeide” gave no in- dication. A short time aft(‘r this the two companies kindly sub- mitted an analysis of their respective ]:)rodncts. And the manufac- tures of ” Scaleeide” definitely stated that their })rodnct contained no carl)oli(‘, a('id while i\re(*hling Brothers’ Mannfa(4nring (k)mpany gave a guaranteed analysis of 4.5 to 6.5 jxn- ('(uit of plnmol deriva- tives for ”M('(4ding’s Scal(*-Oil”. The ])r(‘senc(‘ of tin* ])hcnol derivatives in ”Mechling’s Scale- Oil” and tlu'ir absence' in ” Scal('('id(‘ ” p}‘obal)ly accounts in large measure' foi’ the eh'cieh'el elifference' in the effectiveiK'Ss e)f the two nils. In all the' e'.xpe'i'ime'iits 0-28. 0-)10, (J-35, 0-37 anel 0-39 (table TABLE 9 Experiments With “Scalecide” and “Scalecide’’ Combined With Crude Carbolic Acid, Phenol c. p. and Cresol u. s. p. on Selected Eggs op A. Avenae (Out-of-doors, 1918) Studies on Eggs of Apple Plant Lice 41 March 23, 1918 Barclay's Percent- age Hatched 13.0 0.0 1.0 4.4 38.2 O l>- 1 12.5 32.6 Hatched , and Total Eggs -C id LT 0 h 104 1 h 93 4 b 90 39 h 102 . 1 ii 99 3 h 110 e*5 ■»*> rHO 34 h 104 March 20, 1918 Lippincott’s Percent- age Hatched 1.8 ! 0 ‘0 1 0.0 o 1 00 1 1 1 O o’ o o’ 1 9.0 Hatched and Total Eggs O O O o 8 h 102 o o cr. i_ ja ^ o S3 0.0 o i 1 ' ^ ! ! a: 1-H 1 00 O 1 I M 1 March 14, 1918 Barclay’s Percent- i age Hatched If: - 10.7 o X) 30.8 3.0 L o 34.3 Hatched | and Total Eggs 03 --O C-O CO --r f— 1 i t-oc OJ 00 1 7 b 110 35 h 102 C- C'i Oi r-i CM March 5, 1918 Lippincott’s Percent- age Hatched 1 1 o 1 1 lO 1 O'O O 10.0 ) cc cc Hatched and Total Eggs ! ! 1 -C O OC 'r^ X 5: i . rH 00 -j; 10 li 101 L Id ir: cc i Feb. 19, 1918 Barclay’s Per- centage Hatched 24.6 i :i CO 25.4 ! ^ Ol 1 1 18.5 53.3 Hatched and Total Eggs 19 h 77 1 17 h 98 tC' (M ^MO x: x: CO CO c-l 5^3 80 h 150 Feb. 1, 1918 ! Barclay’s Per- centage Hatched 2.5 . 0 1 22.2 3S.3 o 68.5 Hatched and Total Eggs 30 h 1 120 x: ^ oc 27 h 81 x: o « -C o cvi f.; Date sprayed and source of eggs Spray “Scalecide” 1-1.5 “Scalecide” 1-15, Crude Carbolic 1-99 “Scalecide” 1-15, Cresol 1-99 “Scalecide” 1-15, Phenol 1-99 “Scalecide” 1-40 “Scalecide” 1-40, Crude Carbolic 1-99 “Scalecide” 1-40, Cresol 1-99 “Scalecide” 1-40, Phenol 1-99 Check 1 ln(Iic;ates hatched egg:s 42 Bulletin 332 4) where crude carbolic acid was added at the rate of 2 parts to 98 of miscible oil spray (making a 2 per cent solution), the per- centage of hatched eggs was decreased to 3.9 per cent or a complete kill where ‘'Scalecide” 1-15 was used, and all eggs were killed when the acid was added to ‘'Mechling’s Scale-Oil”. These re- sults show that miscible oils would be much more effective in killing aphid eggs if crude carbolic acid (principally cresol) derivatives were present. Comparing the results of the experiment where two heavy miscible oils were used with those obtained by P. R. Jones (12). there is some disagreement. ‘‘Scalecide” is unquestionably a low gravity oil and it was used at the same rate as Miscible Oil No. 1, which gave good results in California. This apparent inconsistency in results cminot be explained on the basis of specific gravity, so the question is raised in respect to the presence of phenol or cresols in Miscible Oil No. 1, and also whether these active antiseptic agents were present in the various oils used in the western states where good results were obtained. It is thought that the presence of these chemicals may prove to be far more important than the mere specific gravity of the oil. Possibly one can add crude carbolic acid to oils in general and increase their insecticidal value. In 1918 a number of experiments were conducted during Feb- ruary and March with ‘^Scalecide” at varying strengths and in combination with crude carbolic acid, cresol U. S. P., and phenol c. p. on the eggs of A, avence out-of-doors at the laboratory. The purpose of these experiments was to determine what material in crude carbolic acid is the most effective agent in killing aphid eggs and how much acid should be^ added to a miscible oil in order that it might kill 100 per cent of all the eggs with which it came in contact. ‘‘Scalecide” was chosen as a favorable oil, for chemical tests show that there was little or no carbolic acid of phenol de- rivatives present in it. Table 9 shows in condensed form the re- sults of these experiments. In the left-hand column the treatments of the series are given, and at the top the date of the spraying and the orchard from which the eggs were collected. In the two spaces for each experiment there are shown the number of hatched eggs (h), the total number of eggs used, and the percentage of hatch. The results of the experiments' with ‘"Scalecide” show con- siderable variation in the respective series, more so than in any other series of experiments with other sprays. These somewhat inconsistent results are not understood ; however, if one studies the table it is seen that the eggs are most susceptible to “Scalecide” (alone or in combination with the acids) near the time when the nymph emerges, or in other words, when the greatest number of eggs show a split outer covering. ‘‘Sealecide” 1-15 is more effective Studies on Eggs op Apple Plant Lice 43 than ‘"Scalecide” 1-40 but when crude carbolic acid or cresol is combined with these two strengths the difference between the re- sults is not as marked. Crude carbolic acid (100 per cent acid), 1 part to 99 parts of spray, combined with ‘"Scalecide” 1-15 makes the most effective (100 per cent) kill and also the cheapest killing agent of the three acid combinations tried out. Combinations with cresol U. S. P. are almost as effective as crude carbolic but combina- tions with phenol c. p. are the least effective and also the most expensive. TABLE 10 Experiments With ‘'Scalecide” Combined With Cresol on Selected Eggs of A. Avenae Collected Prom J. L. Lippincott AND Company; Out-op-Doors; Sprayed March 26, 1918 Number of Experi- ment Spray Total Eggs Total Hatch Percentage Hatched 331 Check i 106 57 53.7 333 “Scalecide” 1-15 106 9 8.4 333 “Scalecide” 1-15, plus cresol 0.5% 75 9 2.6 334 “Scalecide” 1-15, plus cresol 1% 85 0. 0 335 “Scalecide” 1-15, plus cresol 1.5% 82 0 1 0.0 336 “Scalecide” 1-25 112 16 14.2 337 “Scalecide” 1-25, plus cresol 0.5% 83 9 2.4 338 “Scalecide” 1-25, plus cresol 1% 91 3 3.3 339 “Scalecide” 1-25, plus cresol 1.5% , 90 1 1.1 340 “Scalecide” 1-40 88 7 7.9 341 “Scalecide” 1-40, plus cresol 0.5% 93 2 2.1 342 “Scalecide” 1-40, plus cresol 1% 93 1 1.0 343 “Scalecide” 1-40, plus cresol 1.5% 103 0 0.0 *The cresol was composed of one part meta-cresol, one part ortho-ci-esol and one part para-cresol. Another set of experiments, shown in table 10, were conducted on March 26, 1918 with ‘‘Scalecide” 1-15, 1-25 and 1-40 alone and each in combination with 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 per cent cresol. The cresol mixture was made up of one part meta cresol, one part ortho cresol and one part para cresol. These experiments show again a decided increase in the effectiveness of the ‘ ‘ Scalecide ’ ’ when cresol is added. In all cases the 1.5 per cent cresol combinations showed the smallest percentage of hatch, in two experiments a complete kill. The experiments also show that the percentage of hatch in the various strengths of ‘‘Scalecide” (alone) varies more than when the same strength of ‘ ‘ Scalecide ’ ’ has a given amount of cresol added to it. In other words, the strength of the oil when in com- binations with cresol is not as important as the strength of the cre- sol. This same thing holds true for crude carbolic when combined with a miscible oil. Comparing these foregoing experiments with miscible oils and others of a similar nature conducted this past season with those of 1917, it is evident that a miscible oil spray needs to possess 1.5 to 2.0 per cent crude carbolic acid or cresol as it goes on the tree in 44 Hulletin :532 order to kill all the eggs of A. avence. Eggs of A. pomi and A. sorhi also respond in a similar manner to combinations of “Scale- cide” and crude carbolic acid; however, they are apparently some- what more resistant, and consequently more will hatch. In the orchard ‘‘Scalecide” 1-15 was given a trial at John H. Barclay’s place in 1917 in conjunction with a combined spray of lime-sulfur 1-9 and ‘‘Black-leaf 40” 1-500. During the morning of April 7, Mr. Barclay sprayed 100 large apple trees with “Scale- cide” 1-15. The buds were swollen and some of the leaves were out about 34 inch. These trees at the time of spraying averaged five nymphs of A. avence per bud. A careful examination was made of several hundred buds at 5 o’clock the afternoon of the same day, and at this time the nymphs averaged 1 living aphid to 25 buds; in other words, the ‘‘Scalecide” killed 99 per cent of the nymphs. These trees were again examined on April 14 when the leaves were out 34 to 34 inch long, and at this time the nymphs averaged one to every two buds, but these were mostly nymphs of A. sorhi. Out-of-door laboratory experiments conducted during this period showed that all eggs of A. avence had hatched by April 6 or 7, and the eggs of A. sorhi commenced to hatch about April 12. Accord- ing to these data the eggs of A. sorhi hatched after April 7, and ‘‘Scalecide” did not prevent all the eggs of this species from hatching. In fact, the infestation was severe enough to demand the use of ‘‘Black-leaf 40” 1-500 when the lime-sulfur 1-40 was applied at the pink-bud stage. Even though this measure of pre- caution was taken the results were by no means satisfactory. In contrast to the above experiment, lime-sulfur 1-9 plus '‘Black-leaf 40” 1-500 was applied to about one hundred infested trees (5 nymphs to the bud) on April 7, and an examination made in the afternoon of the same day showed that so many of the nymphs had been killed that none could be found. A vast ma- jority of the eggs of A. sorhi also were killed, for no nymphs could l)e found on April 14; however, a very few did survive, for in the latter part of May and in June an occasional tree showed a few clusters of leaves infe.sted with A. sorhi^ but the majority of the trees were entirely clean. The trees treated with “Scalecide” on April 7 and later sprayed with lime-sulfur 1-40 plus “Black-leaf 40” showed during i\Iay and June a comparatively heavy infesta- tion. No tree was completely free and in many a considerable amount of fruit was damaged. - One tree which had received no dormant treatment or nicotine sulfate served as a check, and this tree was severely infested, over 75 per cent of the leaves being badly curled and a large percentage of the fruit ruined. These experiments, along with those conducted at the laboratory, show the superiority of lime-sulfur 1-8 or 1-9, plus “Black-leaf 40” Studies on Eggs of Apple Plant I^ice 45 1-500 over “ ScaleeiOe” 1-15 for the control of aphids in the nymph and egg stage. They also bring out the fact that a most careful attempt to ‘‘clean up” aphis by adding 40 per cent nicotine to summer strength lime-sulfur at the cluster-cup or pink-bud stage will at times fail. A few young trees not over six years old were sjirayed with “Scalecide” 1-15 plus crude carbolic acid, 1 part to 99 of the spray (1 j)er cent solution), on .Alarch 18, 1918. These were care- fully observed at the time the leaves came out. On most of the branches of the syirayed trees the leaves appeared to be normal, l)ut on a few of the lower branches the buds were backward in opening and some seemed to be dead. Before the combination of “Scalecide” and crude carbolic acid can be recommended as a dormant spray for killing aphid eggs, it will be necessary to give this combination a thorough trial and note its effect upon various varieties of apple trees. Soaps Common laundry soap, commercially called “Fels Naptha”, and hsh-oil soaps (made from commercial licpiid and solid forms) were used chiefly as spreaders in a large number of experiments with nicotine, crude carl)olic acid, j)henol c. p., cresol U. S. P., meta cresol c. ])., ortho crc'sol c. p., para cresol c. p., etc. In all these experiments the soap was always given a separate trial in order to determine’ its inflnence on the percentage of hatch. Be- sides using laundry soap as a s})reader, a lai'ge number of exy)eri- ments were conducted with ditferent concentrations of fish-oil soap (made fi’om l)oth solid and liijuid forms) and resin fish-oil soap on the eggs of A. aveiuv. in out-of-door experiments throughout Febru- ary and Alareli, 1918. .In the majority of experiments (tables 4 etc.) where the soa]is were used at the rate of 1 gm. to 200 cc. (1 pound to 24 gallons) there was a slight reduction in the percentage of hatch. This can be seen by comparing the percentage of hatch among the sprayed eggs with the respective checks. Even though this reduc- tion was small it demonstrates the fact that some of the eggs of each species are much less resistant than others. A limited number of experiments were conducted in 1917 with fish-oil soap (exp. 0-61 to 0-68 and 0-64 to 0-67, table 4) and the results indicated that this soap was very effective when in concen- trated form. The results of these experiments, however, were ques- tioned, for unfortunately they were dislodged by a heavy wind and covered with snow for two days before the accident was discovered. In spite of this unfortunate occurrence, these experiments and others indicated that it would be advisable to make an extensive study of the effect of different strengths of fish-oil soap on the TABLE 11 Experiments With Fish-Oil Soap Sprays (Made From Solid and Liquid Forms) on Selected Egg5 of A. Avenae; Out-op- Doors, 1918 46 Bulletin^ 332 22, 1918 clay’s Percent- aae Hatched CO C 53 h 105 ! i 1 67 h 112 16 1 OC Cl Cl c; 1 ■H T3 Cl cr:> 1 CO 1 j \ 1 o 1 j ^ C- b- CM O 1 rH i ! • ! i i 1 1 ■ ! , T3 ^ 0) C 1) ^ CO <£> 00 00 t> CO 00 w O) T- >. 05 7^ s. ^ CO 00 CO o 00 C-l rH i Feb. 1 Bare Hatched and Total Eggs 80 h 150 14 h 106 54 h 111 31 h 89 b- rH O 1 .c ^ 47.7 33.3 it Hatched ! and Total Eggs 38 h 94 -C CO o CO I ■ I Tf' c^l ! ur. CO 3, 1918 lay’s Percent- age Hatched 50.0 48.3 43 . 5 1 L CO CO ut) Feb. 1! Bare Hatched I Eggs , and Total 801 ^ ts 68 1 ^ 2f 1 41 h 94 sa o o 00 Id 1, 1918 • :lay’s Percent- I age ! Hatched 28.0 o CO 52.2 33.3 1 o Id Feb. 1 Bare Hatched and Total , Eggs J S3 LO lO> CM 00 1 J C> a. I 22, da . 05 dm re « ™ w _ ! 1 - - _ foa, H h D) -H 0 i- 0 Cl ic 0 t- <10 0 -t -H ■M 0 C'J 1—1 '<• CO 0 i E i 1 1 re 1 1 • T3 1 1 ! 4J 0) C 0)^ CO CO Cl } i.O -r Cl 1 Cl T- W O 05+^ rH rH T D. 1 1 i 05 o , E ^ 1 1 ■O 05 d m - 1 re. 9- 1° C5) -* ! IS-J “P U) re-oUJ 14 91 '-t c^} X 1 a:. rH 1 00 0 1 i I E ! re n C rt, 1 gno.-l fl b ^ : Sc 0 CC resinate 1000 cc. resinate 500 cc. resinate 250 cc. : a° (/) (U ' ^ ft 0 T & 1: § 0 ^ X 0. T efi X 3 t 3 a h — indicates hatched eggs; s — indicates solid Itsh-oil soap. 50 Bulletin 332 to 0-44, table 4) at the rate of 1-100, 1-250 and 1-500, and laundry" soap (1 gm. to 200 cc.) was used as a spreader. The percentages of hatch in the check and in the experiment where the laundry soap was tried alone were approximately the same, 40 per cent and 39.2 per cent, respectively; consequently the soap must have had very little effect on the percentage of hatch when combined with the nicotine. The percentage of hatched eggs was reduced in all the experiments with the nicotine. Where the nicotine was used at the rate of 1-500 the percentage of hatch was 22.4 per cent, or 17.6 per cent lower than in the check. The greater strengths of nicotine showed a still greater reduction. According to the above experiment with ‘‘Black-leaf 40” 1-500, when combined with enough laundry soap to act as a spreader, the reduction in the number of hatched eggs is not sufficient to warrant the use of the same as a control measure. Greater strengths than 1-500 are pro- hibitive on account of the cost. During the dormant season of 1917-18 a number of experiments were conducted with “Black-leaf 40” combined with lime-sulfur 1-9, fish-oil soap and resin fish-oil soap. In all but one or two of these experiments the combined spray was considerably more ef- fective than the lime-sulfur, hsh-oil soap, or resin fish-oil soap alone. This was particularly true when the combined spray was applied near the time wlien the nymph emerges, or in other words, when the greatest number of eggs show a split outer shell. The superi- ority of a combined nicotine and lime-sulfur spray over lime-sulfur alone has been considered under the discussion on lime-sulfur. The experiments with the combinations of “Black-leaf 40”, and fish-oil soap sprays made from solid soap show the greatest percentage of kill, 100 per cent, where the “Black-leaf 40” 1-500 was combined with fish-oil soap, 1 gm. to 50 cc. (= 1 pound to 6 gallons), or 1 gm. to 25 cc. (= 1 pound to 3 gallons), and sprayed on the eggs of A. avencp as they started to emerge, March 22. Fish-oil soap alone at the same respective strengths and applied on tlie saine day killed only 85 and 92 per cent of the eggs. A comparison of the results in the two tables (11 and 13) shows the relative superiority of a combined spray of nicotine and fish-oil soap over fish-oil soap alone. A number of experiments were conducted also with nicotine com- bined with fish-oil soap sprays made from liquid fish-oil soap, and with similar concentrations (by weight) the percentage of kill was not as great as with fish-oil soap made from solid soap. This ’is undoubtedly due to the fact that commercial liquid hsh-oil soap possesses a considerable portion of water (60-70 per cent) ; conse- quently, there is not as much soap present when diluted to the desired strength. Studies on Eggs of Apple Plant Lice 51 A few experiments were conducted with combinations of nico- tine and resin fish-oil soap, and these indicate that resin fish-oil soap is not as effective in combination with nicotine as fish-oil soap made from solid soap. Nicotine resinate, containing 40 per cent nicotine, was also given a thorough trial during February and March, 1918, on the eggs of A. avenoi out-of-doors at the laboratory (table 13). This material behaves like a soap solution and has good spreading and lasting qualities. Nicotine resinate is more effective in killing aphid eggs than “Black-leaf 40” combined with weak solutions of laundry soap. Nicotine resinate at the rate of 1-500 killed 88.4 per cent when the material was applied on iMarch 22, while the same amount of nicotine in “Black-leaf 40” combined with fish-oil soap (solid form), 1 gm. to 50 cc. killed 100 per cent (0.0 per cent hatched). All the experiments where nicotine is used show that some eggs are killed with nicotine and where nicotine is combined with lime-sulfur, fish-oil soaps, resin fish-oil soap and resin (nicotine resinate) the percentage of kill is increased, and in a few experi- ments no eggs survived. The experiments also show that the great- est number of eggs of A. avence are most susceptible to nicotine during the latter part of March, or in other words, when the largest number of eggs show a split outer covering. This brings out the significant relationship between the time of application of the spray, the behavior and structure of the outer semi-transparent layer of the egg, and the suscejitibility of the eggs to certain contact insecticides. Crude Carbolic Acid, Phenol and Cresols During the past two seasons a large number of experiments were conducted with eggs on twigs in the greenhouse, out-of-doors at the laboratory and on young apple trees in the orchard with crude carbolic acid, phenol c. p. cresol U. S. P., meta cresol c. p., ortho cresol c. p., and para cresol c. p. The eggs of all three species of aphides were experimented with in 1917, but only those of A. avence were obtainable during the past dormant season (1917-18 ). The results of the following experiments recorded in the various tables show that crude carbolic acid gives some promise of becoming c\n important snbstance for the control of aphides in the egg stage, provided it is applied when the tree is dormant. During March and April, 1917, crude carbolic acid only was used and not any of the pure cresols or phenol. The crude acid had a dark brown color and was approximately 100 per cent acid (no water). It was purchased from Eimer and Amend, New York City, at 60 cents per gallon (ante bellum price). According to Merck and Company, IManufacturing Chemists, lids crude carliolic TABLE 14 Experlmkxts With (hiUDE (Lvrbolic Acid, Cresol U. S. l \, Biienol e. p., Meta Cresol c. p., Ortjio (Jresul e. p., and Bara Bresoe t'. p., ox Selected Eggs of A. Avenae; Laundry Soap Used as a Spreader; Out-of-Duors, 1918 Bulletin 332 25, 1918 clay's Percer age Hatch' S. ' ■Drew re CD (U +J O) 2 ^ ° D) ohuj m'o AS i CO r- C 0 ) f 0) Olii re 1) X Q. "Dree/) re-D I c o ii a re Q. E D-C OJ O) <-> o re "tj ■D™ (0 o “1—0) re-D Ire a) r; I Q- . re n CQ "o re w (U+J o) •c O D 1 fCTJ I E ■ -a - w 1 u re «r> X i o <« (U ^ Y C5) n oP o) ro'OUJ 1 Ire X O'. OC CO ■D >, c re i o >,UJ ao t/) (U Qw 72 .- - I . ^ 5^ F ::2 - br- 72 c Studies on K(}gs of Addle Plant Lice 53 ('oiisistecl chietiy of tlie tlireo isomeric cresols and possil)ly some xylenol and bigln'r liomolo^nes. The crude foiau used in the fol- lowing- experiments may liav(‘ also contained some i)henol. No (piantitative tests were made of this acid, hnt the extensive ex- periments conducted with pure phenols and with all three isomeric (-resols during 11)1 S sliow tln^ relativi' value of each constituent of ('rude carholic acid in res[)ect to killing aphid eggs. The crude (-ai-holic acid at varying strengtlis, 0.5, 1. 2, 5 and 10 per cent, was used in experiments (L4() to (L51 and 0-52 to ()-58 (table 4) and in all ('ases a small (piantity of soap was used as a spreader. These (‘xperimeiits show an im-rceise in tln^ ('tl'ectivi'ness of the spray as the stiaeigths of tlu^ ai'id was incirased. Strengths l(>ss than 2 pei- (-ent acid did not kill a snfhc'ic'iit nnmhei- of ('ggs to 1)(‘ considered effec- tive, whih‘ sti-engths greaten* than 2 i)er e(Mit acid kilh'd all eggs, and a 2 pee* cent a(‘id spi*ay killed Oh to 100 p(‘r e(‘nt. Some expei'i- ments where a small amount of tish-oil soaj) was used as a spreader also were tried with varying strengths of crude carliolic acid, and tli(' resnlts obtained were similar to the foregoing experiments. In combining ciTide carbolic acid with soa]) solutions, it was noted that the crude acid mixes more readily with a fish-oil soap solution than with a laundry soap (“Pels Naptlia”) solution, and also when thoroughly mixed with a fish-oil soap solution it will remain constant throughout for a considerable period. Tn pre])aring mixtures of crude car])olic acid and soap solutions it was advan- tageous to mix the acid thoroughly with two or three times its volume of soapy water, and then make the desired dilution. Fish- oil soap is also superior to laundry soaj) in that it has greater insecticidal properties. The results of the experiments for 1917 indicated that it would be worth while to make a sindlar but more extensive study of the various isomeric cresols and phenol which go to make crude carbolic acid and note the effect of each on the eggs of aphides. This was undertaken during the past season, with crude carbolic acid, cresols and phenol at varying strengths and in combinations with different strengths of fish-oil soap, such as solid fish-oil soap, liquid fish-oil soap and resin fish-oil soap. In the first place, a number of experiments were conducted from December 15 to ]\larch 25, 1918, with a 1 per cent solution (1 part to 99 of soapy water! of crude carbolic acid, phenol c. ])., cresol U. S. P., meta cresol c. p., ortho cresol c. p., and para cresol c. p. ; laundry soap (“Fels Naptha”) being used at the rate of 1 gm. to 200 cc. The purpose of these experiments was to de- termine the relative killing effect of the various acids on the eggs of A. avence. The experiments show that the soap solution alone had little oi’ no effect upon eggs, for the percentage of hatch in the TABLE 15 Experiments With Crude Carbolic Acid, Cresol U. S. 15, and Phenol e. p., Combined With Different Strengths of Fish-Oil Soap (solid soap) on Selected Eggs of A. Avenae; Out-of-Doors, 1918 Studies on Eggs op \pple Plant Lice lO CO ^ i c - 1 t- to = j CO CO lO c^? rc 1 c I O c: 1C 1 0 c 1 - 1 i Cl 1 i tH 1 ^ o 1 1 O 00 ^ «AC i Ol Ol a 00 Cl i rH 01 to 1-1 CTj CO • 1-H c;' Cl ,-1 rH 0 1 i 1 i o a; o VO o i Ct 1 -H* iO -r CO o o CO CO Ol d 1 t- CO ' CO Ol CO CO 1 01 tH Ol i , ^ -a CO o O AT CO »0 LO O LO l.O 1- CO LO i-i ^ •r 00 CO CO 0 T-i O oi o CO Ol Ol o CO rH 01 00 rH 0 CO 1 i rH 1 . ! lO o oo ■' Ol OC 1 .c rH d r- n' t- 1 1 ! 1 i Cl 1 j j [ t- IC CO o o l- 00 Ol wH OI o 0-1 1— 1 Cl c; CO Ci 1 -^’ 0 rH 1 i oc o <01 Ol O 1' o 01 to CO 00 oc c;- rH c: 00 CO to Ol CO 01 1 Ol ! Ol Ol CO 1 : X L ( 1 - T- T-H rH lO o 00 S: Ol tH 00 00 o LC cc 0 Cl So CO CO (to C-1 T-i 0-1 lO Ol CO Ol o Cl 0 CO tH rH Cl 1 " 1 ^ T— ! tH o cCO is o . O 1 -o ‘"S tH 1 o m tH O liO <3, ^*0 ic m 0 \a> .0 ^ rH tH a ao w o w o 1? iH o g .Ha 11 •.§ & o X! o t-m 1 r T-i a M c ^xn , S. P., Soap 1- a . d -arH ra ad 0 .m U5 rH 1 — 1 a .* d ao m ^ fi bn 03 ua: o 3 ua d 0.a: P.a: !^.a! 0 6 ^ 6 ^ 29 9 o 9 0)9 < 3.9 o 9 -09 ■09 •39 o'o •SO %% m g§ '2 a! g.2 a 5 A g “ W£! g 2 g.2 W rj i Ouiiiu '.u XJ^x, Old CL[d Sid Scd 55 h — indicates hatched eggs. *In these experiments the crude carbolic acid, cresol or phenol was 2.5 per cent by mistake. I^ULLETIN 332 ')(] various clierks e()rresi)ouds with the percentage of hatch where the laundry soap was used at the rate of 1 gni. to 200 cc. The results of the experiuients with a 1 per cent solution of the various acids are not very conclusive, and they are also somewhat inconsistent. This is probably dne to the fact that a 1 per cent solntion is not strong enough to produce an appreciable amount of actual kill, especially when applied early in the season. A 2 per cent solution probably would have given better results, at least the experiments ('onducted in 1017 indicate as much. Even though the 1 j)er cent solution did not ])roduce a great amount of kill, neverthe- h'ss the smallest percentage of hatched eggs occurred when the spray was applied in the latter part of iMarch near the time when the nym})hs enierg(o In order to determine the etfectiveness of the varying strengths of crude carbolic acid, cresol U. S. P., and phenol C. P. with fish- oil soa]), a large number of experiments were conducted out-of-doors at the laboratory throughout the month of iMarch, 1918. The acids were used in three different strengths 0.5, I, and 1.5 per cent, and the fish-oil soa]) solutions (made from solid soap) in two strengths: 1 gm. to 100 cc. (= 1 pound to 12 gallons) and 1 gm. to 50 cc. (== 1 pound to 6 gallons). All ])ossible combinations were made between the three strengths of each acid and the two strengths of the tish-oil soa]). Table 15 shows in condensed form, similar to foregoing tables, the treatment given, time of application, source of the eggs, number of hatched eggs (h), total number of eggs and the ])ercentage of hatch. A general survey of the results of the experiments in table 15 again ])rings out the ])oint that a contact insecticide applied late in Mareli just before the nym])hs emerge will kill the greatest number of eggs. In tlie four trials with each strength of acid on iMarcli 1, 5, 14 and 23 the smallest percentage of hatch occurred where the applications were made on iMarch 14 and 23, and in most cases when applied on March 23. These results indicate that the acid can more readily })enetrate to the embryo through the pig- mented layer alone (after the outer shell splits) than through both layers when the outer covering is whole. The greatest number of eggs showed a si)lit outer covering on iMarch 23. A comparison of the effectiveness of the three acids at similar strengths shows that crude carbolic acid killed the largest per- centage and plienol the least while cresol U. S. P. was almost as effective in some experiments as crude carbolic acid. A comparison of all the experiments, wliere the acids eom]U)sed 1.5 i)er cent of the spray, brings out the resj)(‘etiv(‘ etfectiveness of the three acids. Why 1h«‘ ('iMuh' earbolie acid shouhl b(' the most effective is un- Studies on Eggs op Apple Plant Lice 57 known. The greatest strength, 1.5 per cent, of the three was the most effective. Furthermore, whenever the same strength of one acid was used witli the two different strengtlis of fish-oil soap the greatest percentage of kill took place when the stronger tish-oil soap, 1 gm. to 50 cc., was used. If all the above facts are consistent throughout then the one experiment where crude carbolic acid composed 1.5 per cent of the spray combined with a fish-oil soap solution, 1 gm. to 50 cc., and applied on ]\Iarch 23, should show the smallest percentage of hatch. This is the actual case, for the experiment, which fulfills the above requirements, is the only one in the entire lot which shows no hatch, or 100 per cent kill. All other experiments showed some hatch. If the above requirements were fulfilled in orchard spraying it would be possible to control the aphis with this spray. These experiments and others not shown in this paper indicate that a 2 per cent solution of crude carbolic acid combined with a strong fish-oil soap solution would come nearer to controlling aphides in the stage than a 1 or 1.5 per cent acid solution. A somewhat similar series of experiments (not shown in the table form) were conducted with crude carbolic acid, cresol U. S. P., and phenol c. p., combined with fish-oil soap solution which had been made from liquid fish-oil soap. In these experiments the effective- ness of the combination between the acid and the fish-oil soap was decreased as the strength of the fish-oil soap was increased. This apparent inconsistency was probably due to the fact that the liquid tish-oil soap is strongly basic, and this basic condition of the soap neutralized the acid as its strength was increased. Similar combinations between the three acids and resin fish-oil soap were tried, but these were not extensive enough to warrant a conclusive statement concerning their effectiveness. A comparison of these results with combinations of the acids and fish-oil soap solutions made from solid fish-oil soap showed that the effectiveness of the combinations between the acids and the resin fish-oil soap was somewhat h‘ss tlian when tlie acids were combined with fish-oil soap solutions made from solid soap. The effect of crude carbolic acid on various fruit trees during the dormant season has never been determined, so far as is known ; consequently it was necessary to conduct some preliminary experi- ments along this line. Six apple trees were experimented on, one old tree and five 6-year-old trees. On April 2, 1917, two of the 6-year-old trees and a portion of the mature tree were sprayed with a 2 per cent solution of crude carbolic acid plus laundry soap at the rate of 1 pound to 24 gallons of water. During the same day two 6-year-old trees were sprayed with a 5 per cent solution of crude carbolic acid with laundry soap as a spreader. One 6-year- 58 Bulletin 332 old tree and the unsprayed portion of the old tree served as checks. Frequent observations were made of these trees during the period between the bursting of the leaf and the fruit buds and to full blossom and, so far as could be observed, no injury was found on any of the trees. Similar experiments were conducted on March 18, 1918, with fish-oil soap, 1 pound to 6 gallons of water, plus cresol U. S. P. 2 per cent (2 parts to 98 of solution), and again no injury could be detected. On the basis of the above experi- ments, apparently one can safely apply on dormant trees a spray composed of 2 per cent crude carbolic acid plus fish-oil soap. V^ARious Chemicals Sodium sulfo-carbonate having a specific gravity of 35° Baume was tried in one set of experiments (G-3, G-76 and G-77, table 4). The effect of this material on the eggs is similar to that of dormant strength lime-sulfur. The proportion of hatched eggs was 15.3 per cent with a 1-19 dilution, and 2.6 per cent with a 1-9 dilution, while tlie check showed 62.8 per cent hatched. These results are similar to those obtained when lime-sulfur was used, and it is possible that sodium sulfo-carbonate as a spray might be used witli as much success as lime-sulfur. fSodium chloride (common salt) was experimented with at the rate of 1 gm. to 5 cc. of water on the eggs of A. avenw in the green- house (exp. G-4 and G-75, table 4) and out-of-doors (exp. 0-6 and 0-74, table 4) and the proportion of hatched eggs was somewhat lower among the sprayed eggs than in the respective checks. This shows that sodium chloride may prevent the less resistant eggs from hatching. Common salt in combination with lime-sulfur apparently does not materially increase or decrease the effectiveness of the lime-sulfur spray, according to the results in experiments G-17, 0-20 and 0-21 (table 4). Sodium hydroxide at the rate of 2 gm. to 98 cc. of water has a decided intluenee on the percentage of hatch of the eggs of A. (ivenm in the greenhouse and out-of-doors. In experiments 0-72 and 0-73' (tal)le 4) the proportion of hatched eggs was reduced to 9.6 i)er cent and 1.8 per cent, respectively. A 2 per cent solution has a decided caustic ('ffect whicli is particularly noticeable if the material is allowed to remain on tlie bare skin of one’s hand. No experiments wei*e conducted with this material on trees during the dormant season; consequently, its effect is unknown. Pyridine (10 cc.) combined with xylene (10 cc.) and resin (enough to make 25 cc. of solution) is a very effective mosquito larvicide, so this mixture was given a trial. In experiment 0-78 (table 4) where the above mixture was used at the rate of 2 parts to 98 of water plus enough soap to make the spray spread well, Studies on Eggs op Apple Plant Lice 59 there was little or no reduction in the percentage of hatch. This solution was also mixed with lime-sulfur (G-IG, table 4) with no apparent change in tlui results. It was also combined with crude carbolic acid (exp. 0-79, table 4) at the rate of 1 xiart of each to 100 cc. of soax^y water, and the percentage of hatch was reduced to 13.3 x>er cent. This decided decrease was umpiestionably due to the crude carbolic acid. The pyridine mixture is highly volatile and this may account for its ineffectiveness. Summary In the summary only the new and important features of this investigation will be considered. A morphological study of tlie eggs of three ax^ple x>lant lice A. avenai, A. pomi and A. sorhi shows two distinct layers in the egg shell, an outer semi-transparent layer which is soft and glutinous when the egg is deposited, but hardens and becomes somewhat tough (may be brittle) and impervious upon long exposure to weather, and an inner soft, elastic, membraneous, black layer. A third layer thin and membraneous, may be seen about the nymph when it starts to emerge. This skin is probably the first exuviuui, since it is shed by the nymph as it emerges. Under out-of-door conditions the outer layer of the egg usually splits along the dorso-mesal line a number of days (2 to 30 or more for A. avenw) before the nymph emerges. So far as observed under greenhouse conditions the eggs of all three species split their outer covering at least a few hours before the pigmented layer is severed. In 1918 the first eggs of A. avemv with split outer coverings were seen on February 15, and wlien the first nymphs emerged, on March 21, approximately 95 per cent of the normal live eggs (45-50 per cent of the eggs were dead) had split their outer semi- transparent covering. Tliese observations on the morphology and behavior of the egg coverings show conclusively that the egg is not a hard resistant body, and that it goes through a critical change previous to the emergence of the nymph. It is in the midst of this critical period that the egg is most susceptible to evaporating factors and certain contact insecticides. The outer semi-transparent layer of the egg is somewliat im- pervious to water ; conserpiently, the water content of the embryo does not undergo very much evaporation in moist weather, or in other words, when low evaporating factors exist, such as high humidity, low temperature, and prol)ably small wind velicity. The outer layer, however, is not entirely impervious, for extreme drought 60 Bulletin 332 will cause the vast majority of the eggs to shrivel and never hatch. In other words, low humidity, high temperature and probably air velocity undoubtedly bring about a greater evaporation of the water content of tlie enduwo, and thus destroy the living form. The inner pigmented (black) layer of the egg is not an efficient protector against evaporation. Numerous and varied ex- periments at the laboratory and observations made on the per- centage of hatched eggs of A. avence during the past two totally different seasons, 1917 and 1918, show conclusively the pervious nature of this layer. The eggs are most susceptible to evaporating factors and con- tact insecticides during the latter part of iMarch, or in other words, when the greatest number show a split outer layer, and this occurs when the first nymphs start to emerge (hg. 7 and 10). Experiments conducted in the laboratory under controlled percentages of moisture and also experiments where similar eggs of A. avoKv were kept out-of-doors during the critical period (February 15 to iMarch 31, and especially important iMarch 15 to iMarch 31) in 1917 which was wet, while in 1918 this period Avas dry, show (piite conclusively that the percentage of hatched eggs is much higher in a low evaporating environment than in a high e V a p 0 r a t i n g 111 e d i u ni . Contact insecticides jirobalily prevent the egg from hatching in several ways. From a physical viewpoint some substances tend to harden the outer semi-transparent shell (lime-sulfur), and this makes it impossible for the nymphs to split the hardened layer. This hardening effect may be due to dessication. . Dessicating sub- stances may also remove the water content of the embryo within, especially if applied after the outer layer has split. Other sub- stances soften and disintegrate the outer impervious layer (crude {'arbolic acid and cresols) and thus expose the inner pigmented layer to evaiiorating factors. 3die above physical reaction of con- tact insecticides on eggs of aphides may be important, but it is j)robabl(‘ that th(‘ toxic* effect upon the embryo of various contact insecticides is more* important. So far, no technic has been found which will determine the penetrative ability of the various chemicals used. Control Measures In conclusion to the foregoing experiments and observations we can safely recommend as a control measure for aphids a delayed dormant spray of lime-sulfur, 1-8 or 1-9, combined with nicotine (“Black-leaf 40”), 1-500. The combined spray kills 98-100 per (‘(•nt of all the eggs that are (*oated and will also kill all the newly- hatch(*d nyitii)hs, j)rovid(‘d they are hit with the spray. Dormant Studies on Eggs of Apple Plant Lice (il lime-sulfur 1-9 by itself will kill a large percentage (90 per cent or better) of the eggs, but not enough to rely upon it alone. Furthermore, lime-sulfur alone will kill only a small percentage of the newly-hatched nymphs if they have made their appearance. Therefore, a combined spray is better, for it will kill a greater percentage of eggs and all the nymphs. The time of application is important. In the foregoing dis- cussion on the behavior of the outer layer of the egg it was shown that the egg is most easily killed when the outer shell has si)lit (plate 1, tig. 2-5) and the greatest num])er of eggs show a split ont(U' shell when the nymphs are emerging. With these facts in mind one can get the best results by dela^dng the dormant si)ray until the fruit ])uds start to swell and when they first show green. At this stage the eggs of the oat apliis A. avence will be hatching while the eggs of the rosy aphis, A. sorbi, and the green apple aphis, A. pomi, will not hatch for 7 to 14 days later. The dormant spray will not injure swollen fruit buds (jilate 2, hg. B) or those showing short jirojecting tips of leaves (i)late 2, hg. C), while a dormant spray applied when the leaves are distinct and separated (plate 2, hg. D) will burn the foliage of most varieties. Also, the recently- emerged nym])hs of the aphides will coiu'eal themselves to a large extent between the se])arated leaves, and it will be im})ossible to liit all of them with a contact spray. A miscible oil, “Scalecide” 1-5, has l)een given a thorough trial in the orchard and at the laboratory, but it has not produced satisfactory results. Some ('ggs are killed by ^LScalecide” and other miscible oils, but we have not used any which give as good control as a combined lime-sulfur and nicotine spray. iMiscible oils containing derivatives of carbolic acid give more perfect control than those which do not possess the same; however, there is some indication that an amount of acid (2 per cent of the spray) suf- ficient to kill all the eggs may be detrimental to dormant buds. Other contact sprays, such as a strong solution of fish-oil soap, combined with nicotine 1-500 or crude carbolic acid 1.5 to 2 per cent, give considerable promise of becoming effective sprays for the control of aphides in the egg stage when applied near the time wlu'ii the uymjdis (Miiergi'. These' studies are as yet in the experi- mental stage, C()nse(|ueutly, we eaniiot recommend the treatments for orchard spraying. Any soap spray spreads bettei- than lime- sulfur, and for this reason they may prove to be more efficient. Crude carbolic acid or cresol T^. S. P. combined with fish-oil soap will not injure dormant buds, so far as observed. Acknowledgement : The author wishes to express his thanks to Dr. T. J. Headlee for the sincere interest shown and the many valuable suggestions received. He is also indebted to Dr. W. A. 62 Bulletin 332 Riley for information on the identification of the various layers about the egg, to Mr. J. J. Davis for help in identifying specimens, to Mrs. John B. Smith for the privilege of experimenting upon a few young apple trees and to various fruit growers throughout the state for their cooperation in spraying. References (1) Aldrich, J. M. 1904. Winter spraying for apple aphis. Idaho Agr. Ep. Sta. Bui. 40. . (2) Baker, A. C., and Turner, AV. F. 1916. Morphology aiul biology of the green apple aphis. In dour. Agr. Res., v. 5, p. 956-990. (3) Baker, A. C., and Turner, AV. F. 1916. Rosy apple aphis. In Jour. Agr. Res., v. 7, p. 321-343. (4) Davidson, AA^. AI. 1914. AValnut aphides in California. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bui. 100. (5) Folsom, J. AV. 1909. Entomology with Reference to its Bio- logical and Economic Aspects. ]). 129-130. P. Blakistons’ Son and Co., Phila., Pa. (6) Gillette, C. P. 1910. Some insecticide tests for Ihe destruc- tion of Apliididce and their eggs. In Jour. Econ. Ent., V. 3, p. 207-210. • (7) Gillette, C. P., and Tayhn*. E. P. 1908. A few orchard plant lice. Col. Agr. Ex]). Sta. Bui. 133. (8) Gillette, C. P., and Taylor, E. P. 1908. Orchard plant lice and their remedies. Col. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 134. (9) Ileadlee, T. J. 1916. Apple plant lice. In N. J. Agr. Exp. Sta. 38th Ann. Rpt., p. 494-501. (10) Headlee, T. J. 1918. Some Important orchard plant lice. N. J. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 328. (11) llenneipiy, L. Felix. 1904. Les Insectes, Morphologic- Re- production-Embryogenie, Paris, Alasson et Cie, Editeuro. (12) Jones, P. R. 1915. Preliminary report on spraying eggs for the control of the purple and green apple aphides of Cali- fornia. In Cal. State Com. Ilort. AIo. Bui., v. 4, no. 1, p. 20-30. (13) Korschelt. 1C. and lleiihn*. K. 1899. Text Book of Em- l)i*yology-Invertebrates, v. (Translation). 33ie Alacmillan Company, N(‘w A^ork. (14) Lnnge, G. 1911. Technical AFethods of Chemical Analysis (Ti'anslation) by C. A. Keane. Tests for phenol, v. 2, p. 821. A^an Nostrand Co., New York City. (15) Less, A. II. 1916. AVinter Cover-washes. In Ann. Appl. Biol., V. 2, p. 245-250. Studies on Eggs of Apple Plant Lice 63 (16) Packard, A. S. 1901). A text-book of Eiiloinology. The Mac- iiiillaii Co. New York City. (17) Parrot, P. J., and Hodgkiss, 11. E. 1915. The status of spraying practices for the control of plant lice in apple orchards. N. Y. (State) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 402. (18) Parrott, P. J., Hodgkiss, IT. E., and Lathrop, E. H. 1917. Plant lice injurious to apple orchards. II. Studies on con- trol of newly-hatched aphides. N. Y. (State) Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 431. (19) Peterson, Alvah. 1917. Studies on tla^ niori)hology and susceptibility of the (‘ggs of Aphia (ivoia, Fab., Aphis pomi, l)e Geer, and Aphis sorhi. Kalt. /a Jour. Econ. Ent., v. 10, p. 556-560. (20) Regan, W. S. 1918. Late dormant versus delayed dormant or green tip treatment for the ('ontrol of apple aphids. In Mass. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui, 184. (21) Kumsey, W. E., and Peairs, L. 1912. Apple aphis con- trol. /a W. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Rpt. 1911-12, p. 19-24. (22) Smulyan, 51. T. 1917. Key and descriptions for the separa- tion and determination of the first instar stem mother of the three species of ajihides most commonly attacking th<“ cultivated apples. In Psyche, v. 25, p. 19-23. (23) Weiss, J. 51., and Downe, C. H. 1917. The deterniination of phenol in crude carbolic acid and tar oils. In Jour. Indus. Engin. Chem., v. 9, p. 569-580. (24) Wilson, W. F. 1912. Plant lice attacking orchard and bush fruits in Oregon. In Ore. Agr. (N)l. Bien. Crop Pest and Hort. Rpt., 1911-12, p. 81-97. n, L hU 2 ^ ANALY^S OF MATERIALS SOLD AS INSECTICIDES AND FUNGICIDES DURING 1918 NEW JEH8EY AGRICULTURAL Bulletin 333 New Brunswick, N. J. NEW JERSey AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS* NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J. STATE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1880. BOARD OF MANAGERS. His Excejjlency WALTER E. EDGE, LL.D Trenton, Governor of the State of New Jersey. W. H. S, DEMAREST, D.D New Brunswick, President of the State Agricultural College. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D Professor of Agriculture of the State Agricultural College. County Atlantic Bergen Burlington Camden Cape May Cumberland ICssex Gloucester Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Name William A, Blair Arthur Lozier R. R. Lippincott Ephraim T. Gill Charles Vanaman Charles F. Seabrook Zenos G. Crane Wilbur Beckett Diedrich Bahrenlmrg Egbert T. Bush Josiali T. Allinson Address Elwood Ridgewood Vincentown Haddonfield Dias Creek Bridgeton Caldwell Swedesboro Union Hill Stockton Yardville County Name Address Middlesex James Neilson New Bruns’k Monmouth William H. Reid Tennent Morris John C. Welsh Ger’n Valley Ocean Joseph Sapp Tuckerton Passaic Isaac A. Serven Clifton Salem Charles R. Hires Salem .Somerset Joseph Larocque Bernardsville Sussex Robert V. Armstrong Augusta Union John Z. Hatfield Scotch Plains Warren James I. Cooke Delaware STAFF. Jacob G, Lipman, Ph.D. Frank G. Helyar, B.Sc Irving E. Quackenboss. Frank Apf, B.Sc Agronomist. Irving L. Owen, B.Sc. . .Associate Agronomist- r. Marshall Hunter, B.Sc., Animal Husbandman. Charles S. Cathcart, M.Sc Chemist. IIalph L. Willis, B.Sc Assistant Chemist. .\rchie C. Wark Laboratory Assistant. W, Andrew Cray Sampler and Assistant. William M. Regan, A.M.. Dairy Flusbandman. Forest Button, B.Sc., Assistant Dairy Husbandman. John Hill, B.Sc,, Assistant Dairy Husbandman, Thomas J. Headlee, Ph.D Entomologist. Chas. S. Beckwith, B.Sc. ..A sst. Entomologist. Mitchell Carroll, B.Sc... A sst. Entomologist. VHncent j. Breazeale, Foreman, Vegetable Growing. Arthur J. Farley, B.Sc., Acting Horticulturist. Charles H. Connors, B.Sc., Assistant in Experimental Horticulture. Director. Associate in Station Administration. Chief Clerk, Secretary and Treasurer. William Schieferstein, B.Sc., Orchard F'oreman. I.YMAN G. Schermerhorn, B.Sc., Specialist in Vegetable Studies. , H. M. BiEKART..r Florist. i Harry R. Lewis, M.Agr. .Poultry Husbandman. ^ Willard C. Thompson, B.Sc., Assistant Poultry Husbandman. Ralston R. Hannas, M.Sc., Assistant in Poultry Research. Morris Siegel Poultry Foreman. I Elmer H. Wene Poultry Foreman. ; John P. Helyar, M.Sc Seed Analyst. j Jesse G. Fiske, Ph.B Asst. Seed Analyst. Leslie E. Hazen, M.E., I In Charge of Rural Engineering. Carl R. Woodward, B.Sc Editor. Ingrid C. Nelson, A.B Assistant Editor. Hazel H. Moran Assistant Librarian. AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1888. BOARD OF CONTROL. The Board of Trustees of Rutgers College in New Jersey. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD. W. H. S, DEMAREST, D.D., President of Rutgers College, Chairman New Brunswick. WILLIAM H. LEUPP New Brunswick. JAMES NEILSON New Brunswick. WILLIAM S. MYERS ; New York City. JOSEPH S. FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan. STAFF. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D Director. HENRY P. SCHNEEWEISS, A.B Chief Clerk. John W. Shive, Ph.D Plant Physiologist. Earle J. Owen, M.Sc Assistant in Botany. Frederick W. Roberts, A.M., Assistant in Plant Breeding. Mathilde Groth Laboratory Aid. Thomas J. Headlee, Ph.D Entomologist. .\lvah Peterson, Ph.D Asst. Entomologist. .\ugusta Meske. ... Stenographer and Clerk. .Melville T. Cook, Ph.D Plant Pathologist. William II. Martin. Ph.D., Associate Plant Pathologist. Gertrude E. Macpherson, A.B., Research Assistant in Plant Pathology. Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D., Soil Chemist and Bacteriologist. Augustine W. Blair, A.M., Associate Soil Chemist. Selman a. Waksman, Ph.D., Microbiologist, Soil Research. Jacob Joffe, B.Sc Research Assistant. Cyrus Witmer, Field and Laboratory Assistant. Staff list revised to January 1, 1919. C2) NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS BULLETIN 333 October 26, 1918 ANALYSES OF MATERIALS SOLD AS INSECTICIDES AND FUNGICIDES DURING 1918 By Charles S. Cathcart, State Chemist, AND Ralph L. Willis, Assistant Chemist In accordance with the requirement of the law of New Jersey entitled “An Act to Regulate the Sale of Insecticides,” the annual inspection for the year 1918 was made and the results obtained are lierewith presented. / Registrations The law requires' an annual registration of the brands of materials that will be offered for sale, and in accordance with this require- ment the following manufacturers registered 192 brands : Allen Manufacturing Co. . . . Aphine Manufacturing Co . . E. J. Barry James A. Blanchard Co Bowker Insecticide Co Bristol-Myers Co. Cinnakol Chemical Sales Co Corona Chemical Co Danforth Chemical Co Devoe & Raynolds Co., Inc. Quakertown, N. J. Madison, N. J. New York City. New York City. Boston, Mass., and Baltimore, Md. Brooklyn, N. Y. Bayonne, N. J. Milwaukee, Wis. Leominster, Mass. New York City. ( 3 ) Bulletin 333 Dow Chemical Co Felton, Sibley & Co., Inc Samuel H. French & Co General Chemical Co The Glidden Co Grasselli Chemical Co Hemingway & Co Morris Herrmann & Co Interstate Chemical Co Kentnck}^ Tobacco Product Co The Kil-Tone Co P'red L. Lavanburg Co Arthur Laver Leggett & Brother Lehn & Fink, Inc John Lucas & Co., Inc McCormick & Co., Inc Mechling Bros. Manufacturing Co . . The Mendleson Corporation Merrimac Chemical Co Niagara Sprayer Co Nitrate Agencies Co Pfeiffer Color Co The Plantlife Co Powers- Weightman-Rosengarten Co B. G. Pratt Co The Rex Co Riches, Piver & Co Schering & Glatz, Inc. .Sherwin-Williams Co H. J. Smith & Co Smith, Kline & French Co Sterling Chemical Co Vreeland Chemical Co . M idland, Alich. . Philadelphia, Pa. . Philadelphia, Pa. .New York City. .Cleveland, O. .Cleveland, O. .Bound Brook, N. J. .New' York City. .Jersey City, N. J. .Louisville, Ky. .Vineland, N. J. .New York City. . Bernardsville, N. J. .New York City. .New York City. . Pliiladelphia, Pa. .Baltimore, Md. . Camden, N. J. .Albany, N. Y. . Boston, Mass. . Middleport, N. Y. .New York City. .New York City. .New York City. .Philadelphia, Pa. .New York City. .Rochester, N. Y, .Hoboken, N. J. .New York City. .Cleveland, O. .Utica, N. Y. .Philadelphia, Pa. .Cambridge, Mass. .Little Falls, N. J. Inspection The collection of the samples of insecticides, taken as a whole, is more difficult than any of the inspections which the Station is re- quired to make, and this is largely due to the mechanical condition of many of the materials used. It is fully appreciated that in order to secure results by the chemical analyses which would represent the shipment, it is absolutely necessary to have a sample that is repre- sentative. Accurate sampling of the dry, powdered materials can be made without much difficulty provided the usual care is taken, but the ANAI.^■Sl•:s OF I XSKCTK'IDICS AND FUNGICIDES 5 sampling of the materials in a paste form presents problems which under certain conditions cannot be overcome. The instructions given the sampler for securing the samples of such materials would result in securing an accurate sample from a package which had not been opened, because the material must be thoroughly mixed before the sample is drawn. Very frequently, however, a request is made to take a sample from a keg which has been opened and a portion of the contents removed. It is quite possible in such cases that the sample will have a lower content of water than was contained in the material at the time of shipment, and consequently there would be a higher content of the solid con- stituents. The result of this condition is that the analysis of the sample taken may give the correct percentage for the weight of material purchased, or it may indicate that the material contains a higher percentage composition than guaranteed. It is safe to say, however, that the results would seldom show a lower composition than the actual figures obtained at the time of shipment. In order to secure results that would fairly represent the brand, it has been our practice to obtain samples in their original packages as well as those taken from the larger shipments. The samples ob- tained in original packages are subsampled in the laboratory and in such a manner as to remove any possible doubt as to the accuracy of the portion taken for analysis. In making an interpretation of the reports it is necessary to have in mind the above facts in order that correct conclusions may be reached. The total number of samples collected was 95. This report con- tains the results obtained by the analysis of 89 samples, consisting of : 12 samples of Paris Green. 25 samples of Lead Arsenate. 9 samples of Bordeaux Mixture. 6 samples of Lime Sulphur. 4 samples of Tobacco Products. 33 samples of Miscellaneous Brands. Twelve samples of Paris green are reported, six of which were received in original packages. The samples received in original packages were carefully weighed with and without the container and all of the packages were found to contain the full weight claimed. 6 Bulletin 333 The law fixes the standard for Paris green, since the material is deemed adulterated ( 1 ) if it does not contain at least 50 per cent of arsenious oxide, and (2) if it contains arsenic in water-soluble forms equivalent to more than 3.50 per cent of arsenious oxide. In accordance with these requirements all of the samples were satis- factor^L Paris green is essentially copper aceto-arsenite and, if pure, the ratio of the content of arsenic stated in terms of arsenious oxide to the content of copper stated in terms of copper oxide is 1.87 to 1.00. The ratio was calculated for each of the samples examined, and it was found that five samples, Nos. 18067, 18041, 18060, 18088 and 18042, gave a wider ratio than the theoretical, which would indi- cate the presence of uncombined arsenic. Table 1 Paris Green ! Arsenious Oxide . Total Water- Soluble Station Nunibei ! -Manufacturer or Jobber and Trade Mark or Brand Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed not more than C V 1806/ E. J. Barry, New York City Strictly Pure Paris Green ... % 52.17 % 50.00 % 2.68 % 3.50 % \ 17 .01 18041 Jas. A. Blanchard, New York City. Lion Brand Paris Green 1 50.90 50.00 2.91 3.50 24.84 18060 Lion Brand Paris Green 55,02 50.00 2.01 3.50 28.82 18006 1'. M'. Devoc & C. T. Raynolds Co., New York City. C. T. Raynolds & Co.’s Paris Green 56.06 50.00 1.45 3.50 i i 30.03 18088 Fred L. Lavanburg, New York City. .Star Brand Paris Green 56.52 50.00 1.34 3.50 j 29.67 18005 Leggett & Bro., New York City. .Anchor Brand Pure Paris Green 56.17 50.00 1.12 3.50 1 30.03 18083 .\nchor Brand Pure I’aris Green 55.33 50.00 1.01 3.50 29.67 18040' Nitrate Agencies Co., New York City. \’itrio I’aris Green 54.66 50.00 1.45 3.50 29.43 18042 Vitrio Paris Green 56.17 50.00 1.79 3.50 28.58 18043 Pfeiffer Color Co., New York City. Strictly Pure Paris Green 55.52 50.00 1.34 1 3.50 1 29.55 18072 Strictly Pure Paris Green 55.40 50.00 1.34 3.50 1 29.31 18004 .Sherwin-Williams Co., Cleveland, O. Strictly Pure Paris Green 55.94 50.00 1.68 1 3.50 30.27 Analyses oe Insecticides and Fungicides 7 Table 2 Lead Arsenate — Paste — Original Packages .Slation Number Manufacturer or Jobber and Trade Mark or Brand : 1 U Total Arsenic Oxide ____ i Water- Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) Lead Oxide Soluble Impurities (exclus- ive of Soluble Arsenic) Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed not more than % % i % % % % % Grasselli Chemical Co., Cleveland, 0. ' 1 1 18094 Grasselli Arsenate of Lead Paste. | 48.78 16.83 ; 15.00 0.18 0.50 31.62 0.71 Hemingway N- Co.. Inc., Bound Brook, | 1 1 ! 1 N. J. ^ ' i 1 i 18078 Lead Arsenate Paste j 43.68 ! 16.70 ! 15.00 0.15 0.50 38.44 1.06 Interstate Chemical Co., Jersey City 1 18061 Target Brand Arsenate of Lead Paste 40.69 17.59 15.50 0.11 39.46 1.76 18084 Key Brand Arsenate of Lead Paste 32.13 21.36 15.50 0.13 43.86 1.61 Powers- W'eightman-Rosengarten Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 18081 P-\V-R Lead-Arsenate Paste 1 46.98 17.25 15.00 0.14 0. 75 33.89 0.65 Lead Arsenate — I’aste — Samples of L.arger Shipments 18021 j Ansbacher Insecticide Co., N. Y. City. Triangle Brand Arsenate of Lead Paste ! 49.25 i : 16.33 15.00 0.74 0.50 31.08 2.08 18081 Bowker Insecticide Co., Boston, Mass. Bowker’s Arsenate of Lead Paste 1 47.25 15.91 14.00 0.20 1 *0.39 33.53 2.05 18046 General Chemical Co., New York City. Orchard Brand Standard Arsenate of Lead Paste 46.91 16.98 15.00 0.49 0.49 34.07 1.35 18022 Interstate CLemical Co., Jersey City, Key Brand Arsenate of Lead Paste 50.28 16.18 15.50 1 I 0.27 1 31.93 0.83 * Calculated from guarantee given in terms of arsenic oxide. s Bulletin 333 Table 2 — (Continued) Lead Arsenate — Powder Station Number Manufacturer or Jobber and \ Trade Mark or Brand Total Arsenic Oxide Water Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) Lead Oxide Soluble Impurities (exclus- ive of Soluble Arsenic) 1 Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed not more than % % % % % % Ansbacher Insecticide Co., New York City. 18029 Triangle Brand Dry Arsenate of Lead.. 32.4? 30.00 0.92 20.65 62.67 2.09 Corona Chemical Co., Newark, N. J. 18032 Dry Powdered Arsenate of Lead 33.12 ^29.90 0.46 0.50 64.05 0.95 18089 Dry Powdered Arsenate of Lead 32.40 129.90 0.36 0.50 65.10 0.44 General Chemical Co., New York City. 18024 Orchard Brand Standard Powdered Ar- senate of Lead 31.97 31.00 0.82 0.96 64.31 1.74 18025 Orchard Brand Standard Powdered Ar- senate of Lead 31.03 30.00 0.82 0.98 65.09 2.04 Grasselli Chemical Co., Cleveland, O. 1 18093 Grasselli Arsenate of Lead Powder . . 1 . . 32.18 31.00 0.37 0.50 64.98 1 0.39 Interstate Chemical Co., Jersey City, N. J. i 18008 Key Brand Dry Powdered Arsenate of Lead 26.93 30.00 0.5o 0.75 70.86 1 1.24 18023 Key Brand Dry Powdered Arsenate of Lead 26.21 30.00 0.28 0.75 70.12 1 1.32 The Kil-Tone Co., Vineland, N. J. 1802? Green Cross Dry Powdered Arsenate of Lead 30.24 30.00 0.45 0.66 66.57 0.80 18074 Green Cross Dry Powdered Arsenate of Lead 31.46 31.00 0.45 0.66 65.22 0.70 18071 Green Cross Dry Powdered Arsenate of Lead 31.03 31.00 0.64 0.66 66.02 1 0.52 Sherwin-Williams Co., Newark, N. J. 1800? Dry Powdered Arsenate of Lead 32.54 30.00 0.36 20.65 63.47 1.44 18030 ! Dry Powdered Arsenate of Lead 33.06 30.00 1.37 20.65 62.42 1 1.14 1 Thomsen Chemical Co., Baltimore, Md. 1 18075 Orchard Brand Powdered Arsenate of Lead (Standard) 31.82 31.00 1.12 0.98 64.15 2.13 Vreeland Chemical Co., Little Falls, N. J. 18050 Electro Dry Powdered Arsenate of Lead. 31.03 31.00 0.42 0.66 63.31 1.33 18065 Electro Dry Powdered Arsenate of Lead. 31.60 30.00 0.42 1 0.50 65.22 0.88 1 Calculated from guarantee given in terms of metallic arsenic. Calculated from guarantee given in terms of arsenic oxide. Analyses of Insecticides and Fungicides 9 Twenty- five samples of lead arsenate were examined, nine of which were in the paste form and the remainder were in the form of a dry powder. Seven of the samples were received in original [>ackages and the net weight of the contents in six instances equalled or exceeded the weight claimed. The other sample, No. 18084, was in the paste form and the carton was damaged. It is quite possible that the difference in weight was caused by a loss of water, as the analysis shows a low water content for this class of material. In accordance with the standard as given in the law, a lead ar- senate would be considered adulterated (1) if it contains more than 50 per cent of water, (2) if it contains less than 12.50 per cent of arsenic oxide, and (3) if it contains water-soluble arsenic equiva- lent to more than 0.75 per cent of arsenic oxide. Seven of the samples in the paste form satisfied all of the re- ([uirements, but one sample. No. 18022, contained a slight excess of water, and another sample. No. 18021, contained an excess of water- soluble arsenic. Eleven samples of the powdered lead arsenate satisfied the guaran- tees given. Two samples. Nos. 18008 and 18023, were low in con- tent of total arsenic oxide, and three samples. Nos. 18029, 18030 and 18075, contained an excess of water-soluble arsenic. Bordeaux Mixtures 18011. Lion Brand Bordeaux Mixture. Manufactured by Jas. A. Blanch- ard Co., New York City. 18033. Corona Dry Bordeaux Mixture. Manufactured by Corona Chemi- cal Co., Newark, N. J. 18047. Orchard Brand Bordeaux Mixture (Paste). Manufactured by General Chemical Co., New York City. 18012. Key Brand Bordeaux Mixture (Dry Powder). Manufactured by Interstate Chemical Co., Jersey City, N. J. 18063. Target Brand Bordeaux Mixture (Liquid). Manufactured by In- terstate Chemical Co., Jersey City, N. J. 18086. Key Brand Bordeaux Mixture. Manufactured by Interstate Chemi- cal Co., Jersey City, N. J. 18059. Leggett’s Dry Bordeaux Mixture. Manufactured by Leggett and Brother, New York City. 18077. Anchor Brand Bordeaux Mixture (Paste). Manufactured by Leg- gett and Brother, New York City. 18068. Sterlingworth Liquid Bordeaux Mixture. Manufactured by Ster- ling Chemical Co., Cambridge, Mass. 10 Bulletin 333 Sample No. Water Copper Found Guaranteed per cent per cent per cent ISOll 71.16 4.28 4.00 18033 1 10.94 11.00 180-17 60.65 10.09 9.00 18012 10.31 10.00 18063 73.43 3.88 4.00 18086 77.97 4.05 4.00 18059 1 12.01 11.00 18077 53.23 5.67 4.50 18068 68.22 3.01 3.00 Lime-Sulphur Solutions 19038. Orchard Brand Lirne-Sulphiir Solution. Manufacture by General Chemical Co., New York City. 18082. Grasselli Lime-Sulphur Solution. Manufactured by Gra.sselli Chemi- cal Co., Cleveland, O. 18091. Grasselli Lime-Sulphur Solution. Manufactured by Grasselli Chemi- cal Co., Cleveland, O. 18039. Lime-Sulphur Solution. Manufactured by J. L. Lippincott Co., Rive- erton, N. J. 18064. Lime-Sulphur Solution. Manufactured by Mechling Bros. Manufac- turing Co., Camden, N. J, 18070. Lime-Sulphur Solution. Alanu factored by Mechlin Bros. iManufac- turing Co., Camden, N. J. Sample No. : Sulphur in Solution Density : Degrees Baume Found Guaranteed j per cent per cent i 18038 25.67 25.00 ,! 33. 18082 1 26.74 25.00 ! 33. 18091 1 26.26 25.00 33. 18039 1 15.89 24. 18064 i 1 26.44 25.00 33. 18070 1 ! 28.13 25.00 34. Tobacco Products 18092. Grasselli Brand Sulphate of Nicotine. Manufactured by Grasselli (.'hemical Co., Cleveland, O. 18002. Nico-Fume Liquid. Manufactured by Kentucky Tobacco Products ( !o., Louisville, Ky. 18003. Black Leaf 40. Manufactured by Kentucky Tobacco ITodncts Co., Louisville, Ky. 18001. Sterlingworth Powdered Tobacco. Manufactured by Sterling Chem- ical Co., Cambridge, Mass. Analyses of Insecticides and Fungicides 11 Sample No. Nicotine Found Guaranteed per cent per cent 18092 17.09 15.00 18002 40.40 40.00 18003 40.92 40.00 18001 0.77 1 0.35 Miscellaneous Materials 18019. Triangle Brand Adheso Green Label. Manufactured by Ansbacher Insecticide Co., New York City. Sample from 300-pound package. Found j Guaranteed W ater per cent i 61.30 ' per cent Total Arsenic (Metallic) 5.62 1 5.50 Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) 0.14 ! *0.50 Lead Oxide 1 16.53 Copper (Metallic) 1 4.34 4.00 ^Guaranteed “less than” percentage given. 18053. Triangle Brand Adhe.so Yellow Label. Manufactured by Ansbacher Insecticide Co., New York City. Sample from 300-pound package. 1 Found j Guaranteed ! \Yatcr i per dent I 68.45 per cent 6.01 i 7.80 18054. Triangle Brand Ansbor Green Powder. Manufactured by Ans- bacher Insecticide Co., New York City. Sample from 100-pound package. Found 1 Guaranteed Total Arsenic (Metallic) Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) Copper (TvXetsllic) per cent 14.11 0.47 17.70 per cent 11.00 *3.00 1 .... ^Guaranteed “less than” percentage given. 18013. Pyrox. Manufactured by Bowker Insecticide Co., Boston, Mass. Sample from 1 -pound package. 18016. l^yrox. Manufactured by Bowker Insecticide Co., Boston, Mass. Sample fixim 50-pound package. 12 Bulletin 333 1 1 Sample 18013 Sample 18016 ' Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed Water Total Arsenic (Metallic) Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) | Lead Oxide | Copper (Metallic) | per cent 61.06 4.94 0.21 13.08 3.12 per cent 3.42 1 ‘0.75 1 12.00 1 1.50 per cent 58.37 5.49 0.22 20.21 2.97 per cent 3.42 ‘0.75 i 12.00 i 1.50 ‘Guaranteed “not more than” percentage given. 18048. Orchard Brand Powdered Arsenite of Zinc. Manufactured by ^^neral Chemical Co., New York City. Sample from 300-pound package. Found j Guaranteed Total Arsenic Water-Soluble (Metallic) Arsenic (Metallic) per cent 33.50 0.18 per cent 30.50 ‘1.00 ‘Guaranteed “not more than” percentage given. 18045. Orchard Brand Bordeaux Lead, Paste. Manufactured by General Chemical Co., New York City. Sample from 100-pound package. * Found Guaranteed Water Total Arsenic (Metallic) Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) T>ead Oxide Copper (Metallic) per cent 46.23 4.93 0.20 18.38 1 7.18 per cent 3.90 ! ‘0.49 1 5.40 ‘Guaranteed “ not more than” percentage given. 18035. Lazal. Manufactured by General Chemical Co., New York City. Sample from 10-pound package. 18049. Lazal. Manufactured by General Chemical Co., New York City. .Sample from 100-pound package. Sample : 18035 Sample 18049 Found Guaranteed Found 1 Guaranteed 'I'otal Arsenic (Metallic) per cent 27.38 per cent ! 27.00 per cent 26.87 j per cent i 27.00 Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) 0.18 *1.00 0.27 j ‘1.00 ‘Guaranteed “not more than” percentage given. 18937. Orchard Brand Atomic Sulphur. Manufactured by General Chemi- cal Co., New York City. Sample from 300-pound package. 18076. Orchard Brand Atomic Sulphur. Manufactured by General Chemi- cal Co., New York City.. Sample from 300-pound package. Analyses of Insecticides and Fungicides 13 Sample 18037 Sample 18076 Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed Water per cent 50.50 per cent ' per cent 50.91 per cent Sulphur 46.21 45.00 45.97 45.00 18079. Caascii. Manufactured by Hemingway &: Co., Inc., Bound Brook. X. J. Sample from 5-pound package. 18080. Caascu. Manufactured by Hemingway & Co., Inc., Bound Brook, N. J. Sample from 1-pound package. Sample : 18079 Sample : 18080 Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed Total Arsenic (Metallic) Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) Copper (Metallic) per cent 20.73 2.02 7.23 per cent 17.00 *4.00 per cent 19.43 1.93 6.68 per cent 17.00 *4.00 ^Guaranteed “not more than” percentage given. 18062. Target Brand Bordo Lead. Manufactured by Interstate Chemical Co., Jersey City, N. J. Sample from 1-pound package. 18073. Key Brand Bordo Lead. Manufactured by Interstate Chemical Co., Jersey City, N. J. Sample from 1 -pound package. 18085. Key Brand Bordo Lead. Manufactured by Interstate Chemical Co., Jersey City, N. J. Sample from 1 -pound package. j Sample ■ 18062 Sample 18073 Sample 18085 j Found Guaranteed 1 Found 1 Guaranteed Found Guaranteed Water per cent 60.68 per cent per cent 40.83 per cent per cent 57.79 per cent Total Arsenic (Metallic) . . 5.63 7.50 8.49 5.00 5.53 5.00 Water-Soluble Arsenic (Me- tallic) 0.15 0.21 *0.50 0.14 *0.50 Lead Oxide. . . 18.68 24.25 17.69 Copper (Metallic) . 1.58 3.40 1.99 *Guaranteed “not more than” percentage given. 18017. Improved Kil-Tone. Manufactured by The Kil-Tone Co., Vine- land, N. J. Sample from 150-pound package. 18057. Improved Kil-Tone. Manufactured by The Kil-Tone Co., Vineland, N. J. Sample from 100-pound package. 14 Bulletin 333 Sample 18017 ! Sample 18057 Found Guaranteed Found Guaranteed Water Total Arsenic (Metallic) Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) Lead Oxide Copper (Metallic) per cent 43.31 8.02 0.24 27.60 2.64 per cent 5.80 0.11 per cent 1 54.80 7.00 0.24 22.46 1.94 per cent 5.80 0.11 18058. Modified Kil-Tone. Manufactured by The Kil-Tone Co., Vineland, N. J. Sample from 150-pound package. Found Guaranteed Water Copper (Metallic) per cent 5.58 18018. Beetle Mort. Manufactured by The Kil-Tone Co., Vineland, N. J. Sample from 75-pound package. 18056. Beetle Mort. Manufactured by The Kil-Tone Co., Vineland, N. J. .Sample from 40-poimd package. Sample 18018 Sample 18056 Found Guaranteed Found j Guaranteed Total Arsenic (.Metallic) Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) Coi)per (Metallic) 1 ]ier cent per cent 13.05 13.50 0.59 ^0.66 • 4.65 3.00 per cent 13.79 0.27 4.28 per cent ' 13.50 *0.66 3.00 ' ^Guaranteed “not more than” percentage given.' 18051. Green Cross Sulpho-Arsenate Powder. Alanufactured by The Kil- Tone Co., Vineland, N. J. Sample from 100-pound package. Found Guaranteed Total Arsenic (Metallic) Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) Lead Oxide Sulphur per cent 10.65 0.36 32.89 48.79 per cent 10.10 *0.66 48.00 *Guaranteed “not more than” percentage given. 18014. Dry Bordeaux Alixture and Paris Green Compound. Manufactured by Leggett & Brother, New York City. Sample from 1-pound package. Found Guaranteed per cent per cent Total Arsenic (Metallic) 14.87 12.50 Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) 0.55 *2 . 00 Coi)per Oxide 18.66 19.00 ^Guaranteed “not more than’’ percentage given. Analyses of Insecticides and FuN(iicTDfi:s 15 18034. B-Bly-D Bug Dust No. 3. Manufactured hy Leggett & Brother, New York City. Sample from 25-pound package. Found j Guaranteed Total Arsenic (Metallic) Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) Copper (Metallic) per cent 16.43 0.23 9.45 per cent 16.00 *2.00 i *Guaranteed “not more than” percentage given. 18020. Mecb ling’s Green Label Hydroxide No. 2, Paste. Manufactured by Mechling Bros. Manufacturing Co., Camden, XL J. Sample from 1-pound package. Found Guaranteed W ater Tatal Arsenic (Metallic) Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) Lead Oxide Copper (Metallic) per cent ' 43.62 9.21 0.15 30.39 1.94 per cent 6.50 *0.50 1.50 ^Guaranteed “less than” percentage given. 18015. Tuber-Tonic. Manufactured by Sherwin-Williams Co., N. J. Sample from 25-pound package. 18090. Tuber-Tonic. Manufactured by Sherwin-Williams Co., XL J. Sample from 50-pound package. 18052. Tuber-Ionic. Manufactured by Sherwin-Williams Co., X'ewark, , Newark, , Xewark. X. j. Sami)le from 1-pound package. i Sample 18015 Sample 18090 Sample 18052 Found 1 Guaranteed Found Guaranteed j Found Guaranteed Total Arsenic per cent 1 per cent . per cent perxent per cent per cent (Metallic) , Water-Soluble Arsenic (Me- 26.77 24.00 24.36 24.00 26.00 24.00 tallic) Copper 0.55 *3.00 0.55 *3.00 0.55 *3.00 (Metallic) 23.13 * 23.25 23.37 ^Guaranteed ‘'not over’* percentage given. 18095. Dry Powdered Insecto. Manufactured by Sherwin-Williams Co., Co., Newark, N. J. Sample from 50-pound package. Found Guaranteed Total Arsenic (Metallic) Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) Lead Oxide Copper (Metallic) per cent 11.14 0.27 33.54 5.13 per cent 12.00 *0.50 Guaranteed “not over” percentage given. 16 Bulletin 333 18069. Dry Powdered Arsenate of Calcium and Lead. Alanufactured by H. J, Smith & Co., Utica, N. Y. Sample from 50-pound package. ! Found Guaranteed Total Arsenic Water-Soluble Lead Oxide . , (Metallic) Arsenic (Metallic) per cent 13.75 0.46 2.15 per cent 13.00 *1.40 ^Guaranteed “not over” percentage given. 18028. Orchard Brand Powdered Arsenite of Zinc. Manufactured by Thomsen Chemical Co., Baltimore, Md. Sample from 50-pound package. Found Guaranteed Total Arsenic Water-Soluble (Metallic) Arsenic (Metallic) per cent 33.17 0.27 per cent 30.50 *1.00 *Guaranteed “not more than” percentage given. 18031. Electro Micro. Alanufactured by Vreeland Chemical Co., Little Falls, N. J. Sample from 100-pound package. Found Guaranteed Total Arsenic (Metallic) per cent 10.39 per cent 9.25 Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) 0.27 *0.50 Lead Oxide 31.18 Sulphur j 50.37 48.00 ^Guaranteed “not more than” percentage given. 18066. Electro Bordo Lead Mixture. Alanufactured by Vreeland Chemical Co., Little Falls, N. J. Sample from l-pound package. j Found Guaranteed per cent per cent Water 51.83 Total Arsenic (Metallic) 4.18 3.64 Water-Soluble Arsenic (Metallic) 0.18 *0.50 Lead Oxide 11.21 Copper (Metallic) 1.95 ANALYSES OF COMMERCIAL iFERTILIZERS AND GROUND BONE; ANALYSES OF AGRICULTURAL LIME NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL sperlmeiit Btotisni BULLETIN 334 New Brunswick, N. J. NEW JERSEY ftGRlGULTURftL EXPERIMENT STftTIONS* NEW BRUNSWICK. N. J. STATE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1880. BOARD OF MANAGERS. His Excellency WALTER E, EDGE, LL.D Trenton, Governor of the State of New Jersey. W. H. S. DEMAREST, D.D New Brunswick, President of the State Agricultural College. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D Professor of Agriculture of the State Agricultural College. Address Elwood Ridgewood Vincentown Haddonfield Dias Creek Bridgeton Caldwell Swedesboro Union Plill Stockton Yardville County Atlantic Bergen Burlington Camden Cape May Cumberland Essex Gloucester Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Name William A. Blair Arthur Lozier R. R. Lippincott Ephraim T. Gill Charles Vanaman Charles F. Seabrook Zenos G. Crane Wilbur Beckett Diedrich Bahrenburg Egbert T. Bush Josiah T. Allinson County Name Address Middlesex James Neilson New Bruns’k Monmouth William H. Reid Tennent Morris John C. Welsh Ger’n V alley Ocean James E. Otis Tuckerton Passaic Isaac A. Serven Clifton Salem Charles R. Hires Salem Somerset Joseph Larocque Bernardsville Sussex Robert V. Armstrong Augusta Union John Z. Hatfield Scotch Plains Warren James I. Cooke Delaware STAFF. Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D Director. Frank G. Helyar, B.Sc Associate in Station Administration. Irving E. Quackenboss Chief Clerk, Secretary and Treasurer. Harriet E. Gowen Chief Stenographer and Clerk. Frank App, B.Sc Agronomist. Irving L. Owen, B.Sc. . .Associate Agronomist. J. Marshall Hunter, B.Sc., Animal Husbandman. Charles S. Cathcart, M.Sc Chemist. Edson j. Currier, B.Sc Assistant Chemist. F. Raymond Hunter Assistant Chemist, Ralph L. Willis, B.Sc Assistant Chemist. Archie C. Wark Laboratory Assistant. W. Andrew Cray Sampler and Assistant. William M. Regan, A.M.. Dairy Husbandman. Forrest Button, B.Sc., Asst. Dairy Husband’n. John FIill, B.Sc., Assistant Dairy Husbandman. Walter R. Robbers, Superintendent of Advanced Registry. Thomas J. Headlee, Ph.D Entomologist, Chas. S. Beckwith, B.Sc. .Asst, Entomologist. Mitchell Carroll, B.Sc. .. .Asst. Entomologist. Vincent J. Breazeale, Foreman, Vegetable Gardening. Arthur J. Farley, B.Sc., Acting Horticulturist. Charles H. Connors, B.Sc., Assistant in Experimental Horticulture. William Schieferstein Orchard Foreman. Lyman G. Schermerhorn, B.Sc., Specialist in Vegetable Studies. H. M. Biekart Florist. Harry R. Lewis, M.Agr. . Poultry Husbandman. Willard C. Thompson, B.Sc., Assistant Poultry Husbandman. Ralston R. Hannas, M.Sc., Assistant in Poultry Research. George H. Pound, B.Sc Poultry Assistant. Morris Siegel Poultry Foreman., Elmer H. Wene Poultry Foreman. John P. Helyar, M.Sc Seed Analyst. Jessie G. Fiske, Ph.B Asst. Seed Analyst. Carl R. Woodward, B.Sc Editor. Ingrid C. Nelson, A.B Assistant Editor. Hazel H. Moran Assistant Librarian. Leslie E. Hazen, M.E., In Charge of Rural Engineering. AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1888. BOARD OF CONTROL. The Board of Trustees of Rutgers College in New Jersey. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD. 'W. H, S. DEMAREST, D.D., President of Rutgers College, Chairman New Brunswick. WILLIAM H. LEUPP New Brunswick. JAMES NEILSON New Brunswick. WILLIAM S. MYERS New York City. JOSEPH S. FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan, STAFF. JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D Director. HENRY P. SCHNEEWEISS, A.B Chief Gerk. John W. Shive, Ph.D Plant Physiologist. Earle J. Owen, M.Sc Assistant in Botany. Frederick W. Roberts, A.M., Assistant. in Plant Breeding. Mathilde Groth Laboratory Aid. Thomas J. Headlee, Ph.D Entomologist, Alvah Peterson, Ph.D. .. .Asst. Entomologist. Augusta E. Meske, ... Stenographer and Qerk. Melville T. Cook, Ph.D Plant Pathologist. William H. Martin, Ph.D., Associate Plant Pathologist. Gertrude E. Macpherson, A.B., Research Assistant in Plant Pathology. Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D., Soil Chemist and Bacteriologist. Augustine W. Blair, A.M., Associate Soil Chemist. Selman a. Waksman, Ph.D., Microbiologist, Soil Research. Jacob Joffe, B.Sc Research Assistant. Cyrus Witmer, Field and Laboratory Assistant. Staff list revised to February 1, 1919. ( 2 ) NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ORGANIZED 1912 AND NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE DIVISION OF EXTENSION IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS ORGANIZED 1914 Louis A. Cunton, M.Sc., Director. Mrs. Frank App, Acting State Leader of Home Demonstration. Victor G. Aubry, B.Sc., Specialist, Poultry Husbandry. John W. Bartlett, B.Sc., Specialist, Dairy Husbandry. M. A. Blake, B.Sc., Acting State Superintend- ent and State Leader of Farm Demonstra- tion. Roscoe W. DeBaun, B.Sc., Specialist, Market Gardening. J. B. R. Dickey, B.Sc., Specialist, Soil Fertility and Agronomy. Marjory Eells, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent. Edna Gulick, Home Demonstration Agent. Howard F. Huber, B.Sc., Assistant State Leader of Farm Demonstration. Arthur M. Hulbert, State Leader of Boys’ and Girls’ Club Work. M. Ethel Jones, M.A., Asst. State Club Leader. William F. Knowles, A.B., Assistant’ State Club Leader. William M. McIntyre, Assistant Specialist, Fruit Growing. Charles H. Nissley, B.Sc., Specialist, Fruit and Vegetable Growing. Carl R. Woodward. B.Sc., Editor. Ingrid C. Nelson, A.B., Assistant Editor. H. E. Baldinger, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Sus- sex County. Wiixiam P. Brodie, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent, Salem County. Frank A. Carroll, Demonstrator for Mercer County. Elwood L. Chase, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Gloucester County. Laura V. Clark, A.B., Home Demonstration Agent for Newark. , Louis A. Cooley, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Ocean County. Herbert R. Cox, M.S.A., Demonstration Agent for Camden County. Josephine C. Cramer, Home Demonstration Agent for Middlesex County. Lee 'W. Crittenden, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Middlesex County. Elwood Douglass, Demonstrator for Mon- mouth County. Arden M. Ellis, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Monmouth County. Irvin T. Francis, A.B., Demonstration Agent for Essex County. Harry C. Haines, Demonstration Agent for Somerset County. Margaret H. Hartnett, Home Demonstration Agent for Paterson. Cora A. Hoffman, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Morris County. Harry B. Holcombe, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Burlington County. William A. Houston, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Sussex County. Elva Hughes, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Burlington County. Lauretta P. James, B.Sc., Home Demonstra- tion Agent for Mercer County. May D. Kemp, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for the Oranges. Harvey S. Lippincott, B.Agr., Demonstrator for Morris County. Zelma Monroe, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Trenton. Adelia F. Noble, Home Demonstration Agent for Princeton. Warren W. Oley, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Cumberland County. James A. Stackhouse, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Cape May County. W. Raymond Stone, Demonstrator for Bergen County. Eunice Straw, B.Sc, Home Demonstration Agent for Monmouth County. Norine Webster, Home Demonstration Agent for Bayonne. Harold E. Wettyen, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Passaic County. Carolyn F. Wetzel, Home Demonstration Agent for Bergen County. Albert E. Wilkinson, M.Agr., Demonstration Agent for .Atlantic County. ( 3 ) CONTENTS PAGE Analyses of Commercial Fertilizers and Ground Bone 5 Authority for Making the Inspection 5 Registrations 5 Reports of Tonnage 6 Rules and Regulations 6 The Trade Value of Essential Elements of Plant-Food 8 Collection of Samples 8 Official Samples Selected for Examination 8 The Chemical Examination 9 Average Guaranteed and Actual Composition 10 Quality of the Plant-Food 13 Station’s Valuation and Selling Price 14 Ground Bone 15 Commercial Fertilizers 20 Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash 20 Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid 23 Ground Bone 28 Sundry Materials 32 Agricultural Lime 33 Registrations 33 Inspection 34 Lime 35 Limestone 36 Brands Registered for Fiscal Yead Ending Oct. 31, 1918. . 37 ( 4 ) NEW JERSEY Agricultural Experiment Stations BULLETIN 334 December 23, 1918 ANALYSES OF COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS AND GROUND BONE ; ANALYSES OF AGRICULTURAL LIME BY Charles S. Cathcart, State Chemist ^ A portion of the results obtained during the fertilizer inspection for 1918 was published in Bulletin 331, and the remaining analyses, together with a discussion ob the whole inspection, are herewith presented. Authority for Making the Inspection The law entitled “An Act Concerning Fertilizers,” approved March 27, 1912, requires fertilizers to be sold under certain regula- tions and it also requires an annual inspection of the materials sold. This law has been published several times and it does not seem necessary to repeat it at this time. All persons interested in the sale and use of fertilizers, however, should be familiar with this law. Printed copies of this law are available and will be forwarded to those interested. Registrations During the year 122 manufacturers and jobbers registered 1408 brands of mixed fertilizers and fertilizer materials. ^The analyses were made by Ralph L, Willis, Robert H. Cole, Louis Schwartz and Archie C, Wark. ( 5 ) 6 Bulletin 334 All of these registrations were not made at the time prescribed in the law, since our inspectors secured samples of 51 brands before they were registered. Last year there were 86 brands found in this condition and the improvement, is appreciated. It has been our practice to publish in January of each year the registrations made up tO' that time. In accordance with this practice Bulletin 321 was issued under date of January 28, 1918, and it con- tained all of the registrations for the fiscal year made up to that date. The registrations received since that date will be found in this bulletin. Reports of Tonnage The law requires the manufacturers or parties responsible for the sale of fertilizers in this state to render on April first and November first of each year a certified report of the tonnage sold during the preceding months. The reports were duly rendered and table 1 will show the tonnage reported during the last six years. table 1 SUMMARY OF TONNAGE REPORTS April Reports November Reports Year Mixed Fertilizer Mixed Fertilizer Total for Fertilizers Materials Fertilizers Materials the Year Tons Tons Tons Tons Tons 1913 ... 87,446.91 10,303.17 51,706.28 7,204.79 156,661.15 1914 ... 78,768.27 8,735.62 59,223.26 8,686.99 155,414.14 1915 ... 87,052.13 7,276.45 53,288.11 5,459.28 153,075.97 1916 ... 61,368.88 9,032.68 52,328.81 7,069.70 129,800.07 1917 ... 86,840.44 9,146.80 74,231.13 6,264.73 176,483.10 1918 ... 90,371.85 6,544.66 51,404.20 4,877.90 153,198.61 Rules and Regulations The law provides that the state chemist shall have authority to establish rules and regulations in regard to the inspection, analyses and sale of fertilizers. In accordance with this provision the fol- lowing rulings have been made: 1. Two reports are required annually, and the dates fixed by the law are April first and November first. The April report covers the sales from November first to April first, and the November report covers the sales from April first to November first. Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime 7 2. Whenever a corporation, firm or person shall have filed a statement required b}^ section 2 of the law and shall have paid the inspection fee as required by section 4 of the law, no other agent, importer, corporation, firm or person shall be required to pay the inspection fee upon such brands. 3. All corporations, firms or persons who have registered the regular brands manufactured by them and, also, tlie fertilizer materials offered for sale by them, can furnish mixtures, commonly known as “Special Mixtures” or “Special Compounds,” which are prepared for immediate delivery and in accordance with a formula submitted by the purchaser, without having the mixture registered before filling the order, provided the following procedure is adopted : (a) A certified statement is to be filed with the state chemist that it is desired to make “Special Mixtures” for immediate delivery in accordance with formula submitted by the purchaser, and that the tonnage of material used will be accounted for in the reports that are required to be rendered. (b) The shipments of these “Special Mixtures” during the fiscal year are to be numbered consecutively, a record being made so that the formula with the guaranteed analysis of each ingredient used or the calculated guarantee of the mixture can be furnished the state chemist when he so requests. (c) The shipments are to be in plain bags with tags attached, giving the following information : Special Mixture No. (5). Mixture of Registered Ingredients Prepared for (John Jones, Salem, N. J.) Manufactured by (Smith Fertilizer Co., Camden, N. J.) 4. Reports on samples which are found to satisfy substantially the guarantees will be marked “Official,” and are submitted to the consumer on the same date as to the manufacturer. When analyses show samples to be deficient, reports are submitted to m.anufacturers, and objections to the report or requests for a portion of duplicate sample must be made within 10 days from the date of report in order to receive consideration. Should a manufacturer’s report on the official sample differ from our report, every effort will be made to locate the cause, but only those results that can be duplicated in this laboratory by the use of the methods adopted by the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists will be accepted as official. 8 Bulletin 334 The Trade Value of the Essential Elements of Plant-Food The fluctuations in the prices of standard raw materials and chemicals during the years of 1916 and 1917 were so great that it was not deemed advisable to prepare a schedule of trade values. Inasmuch as the condition had not improved during the present year it is necessary to omit the schedule for the year 1918. Collection of Samples The work of collecting the samples of fertilizers and fertilizer materials was entrusted to our two inspectors and although an early and thorough inspection was made it was not possible to secure as many different brands as in the past few years. This condition may have been due to a smaller number of brands being sold or to the fact that fertilizer shipments are being made earlier than in the past years. In addition to the usual spring collection, samples of the fall ship- ments were secured and as a result a few new brands were located as well as a number of samples of the brands which had been previously collected. The inspectors visited every county in the state and a total of 1385 samples were received at the Station, all but a small percentage of which were collected by the official inspectors. The samples re- ceived represented the stock of 526 dealers and consumers who were located in 208 cities and towns. The samples that were forwarded by individuals were duly exam- ined and the reports submitted to the parties requesting the analyses. Official Samples Selected for Examination The samplers receive definite instructions regarding the method of sampling and also in regard to the number of samples to be taken of each particular brand, and as a result, in most cases two samples of a brand are collected and in other cases a larger multiple is received. It is not possible to examine all of these samples, and it is, therefore, necessary to make a selection from the collection at hand. In making this selection every brand collected is examined. If only one sample of a brand has been received there can be no selection but when more than one sample of a brand has been received it is our practice to select the one that represented the largest stock on hand at the time of sampling. Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime 9 During the past few years the department has endeavored to dis- courage the sending of samples of the commercial fertilizers by individuals and the reason for this is that usually the sample does not represent the material and the value of the results obtained by the analysis of such a sample is doubtful. We are more than will- ing to be of service to the citizens of this state and this service can be made beneficial provided there is no injustice done to either the consumer or the manufacturer. If an analysis of a shipment is desired, the proper thing to do is to notify the state chemist that the shipment has been received and inform him as to the brand name of the material, the name of the manufacturer and the number of tons of the brand in stock. Upon receipt of such information, if the tonnage warrants, arrangements will be made to have an official sampler draw the sample for analysis without any expense to the party making the request. The analysis of such a sample would give more satisfactory results than it would if the sample had not been accurately drawn. The samples analyzed during the present year consisted of the following: 502 Samples of Commercial Fertilizers. , 69 Samples of Commercial Fertilizers (duplicates). 5 Samples of Home Mixtures. 10 Samples of Humus and Manures. 114 Samples of Fertilizer Materials. 46 Samples of Ground Bone. 168 Samples of Sundry Materials. 914 Samples, Total. The Chemical Examination Chemical investigations have shown that of all of the chemical elements necessary to plant life only three elements, nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash, are likely to be deficient in the soils or most quickly exhausted by the production and removal of crops. These three elements, are, therefore, called “essential elements.” In order to meet this condition about 6,500,000 tons are sold annually in the United States, while the approximate annual tonnage in New Jersey is 170,000 tons. It is almost impossible to give an accurate figure as to the cost of fertilizers used in this state, but for the year 1918 it undoubtedly amounted to $6,500,000 or more and, conse- quently, is an important item in our expense account. 10 Bulletin 334 All brands of commercial fertilizers are mixtures of various materials and the differences that exist in the brands of the different manufacturers are due to the differences in the chaiacter and to the variations in the quantities of the materials used in preparing the different brands. The value of any fertilizer depends upon the amount and form of the nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash contained. Generally speaking all o4 the manufacturers have an opportunity to secure the same classes of materials, while the amounts of these products used in the mixtures will depend upon the desires of the manufacturer at the time of making his mixtures. The difference between a good fertilizer and a poor one is not so much a difference in the total amount of plant food contained as it is in the difference in the quality of the materials used to prepare the mixtures. This statement may be made clearer by assuming that one mixture had been prepared by the use of low grade nitrogenous materials and untreated phosphate, while another mixture had been prepared by the use of high grade ammoniates and acid phosphate. The total plant food in the two mixtures may be exactly the same but the immediate results obtained by the use of the first mixture would not be as satisfactory as those obtained by the use of the second mixture. In order, therefore, to know the true value of a fertilizer it is necessary to determine not only its total content of plant-food but also the form in which these elements are present in the mixture. The results tabulated in Bulletin 331 and on the following pages will show the form of the essential elements as well as the total con- tent of plant- food and will thus permit those interested to determine which brands are best suited to their needs. Average Guaranteed and Actual Composition The total number of brands of mixed fertilizers examined was 502, of which 214 were guaranteed to contain nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash and the other 288 brands did not guarantee potash. Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime 11 TABLE 2 AVERACiE OF 214 BRANDS CONTAINING NITROGEN, PHOSPORIC ACID AND POTASH Average Found Guaranteed Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Nitrogen, as nitrates 0.79 Nitrogen, as ammonia salts 0.63 Nitrogen, as water-soluble organic 0.27 Nitrogen, as water-insoluble organic 0.62 Nitrogen, total 2.31 2.33 Phosphoric acid, total 10.19 Phosphoric acid, insoluble 1.66 Phosphoric acid, available 8.53 8.33 Potash 1.96 1.89 TABLE 3 AVERAGE OF 288 BRANDS CONTAINING NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORIC ACID Average Found Guaranteed Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent Nitrogen, as nitrates 0.72 Nitrogen, as ammonia salts 0.60 Nitrogen, as water-soluble organic 0.34 Nitrogen, as w’ater-insoluble organic 0.73 Nitrogen, total 2.39 2.43 . Phosphoric acid, total 11.64 Phosphoric acid, insoluble 1.82 Phosphoric acid, available 9.82 9.55 By referring to tables 2 and 3, it will be noted that the average composition of the brands examined was substantially equal to the average guarantees, the figures for total nitrogen being slightly less and the figures for phosphoric acid and potash being larger than the average guarantees. A detailed study of the record for each indi- vidual brand, however, will show that 114 brands fully sustained their guarantees and that 238 brands were substantially in the same condition. There were 150, or 30 per cent, deficient brands, 134 being deficient in one element and 16 deficient in two elements. In order to compare the deficiencies with the preceding years table 4 has been prepared. In preparing this tabulation, deficiencies of 0.20 per cent or less of nitrogen and 0.30 per cent or less of phosphoric acid have been disregarded. 12 Bulletin 334 TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF DEFICIENCIES FROM 1908 TO 1918 Year Number of Brands c C o 3 ^ Actual Deficiencies xi a W Q Ph C Q >5 s < Ph CL, 1908 .. 463 227 236 51 1,389 96 149 31 19.8 1909 .. 483 280 203 42 1,449 71 137 36 16.8 1910 .. 520 316 204 39 1,560 51 142 45 15.3 1911 ,. 514 341 173 34 1,542 36 115 42 12.5 1912 .. 536 326 210 39 1,608 47 146 33 14.1 1913 .. 623 457 166 28 1,869 74 86 36 10.5 1914 .. 608 420 188 31 1,824 63 92 49 11.2 1915 .. 543 367 176 32 1,629 94 83 31 12.8 1916 .. 565 356 209 37 1,406 139 81 17 16.9 1917 .. 552 380 172 31 1,360 85 88 15 13.8 1918 .. 502 352 150 30 1,218 82 69 15 13.6 In the 502 brands examined there were 1218 deficiencies possible, and of this number 166, or 13.6 per cent, were found. These defi- ciencies were distributed as follows : — nitrogen 82, phosphoric acid 69, and potash 15. The record for this year compares very favorably with the report for 1917, if one is satisfied with such facts computed on a percentage basis. We have repeatedly stated that we believe the manufacturers intend to deliver the materials as guaranteed and we have no' reason to change our opinion at this time. The deficiencies that have been found in the past were likely caused by inequalities in the mixing or by too closely calculating the formula from the analyses of the materials to be used in the mixtures. The margin of profit, per ton of mixed goods, has been relatively small for several years, and it is safe to assume that during the past year on account of the high prices and scarcity of the standard raw materials, the manufacturers could not afford to be too liberal in the use of the available stock when preparing their mixtures. The purchaser of fertilizers should not expect to receive more plant-food than he paid for. He should, however, not only expect and demand the amount guaranteed, but it should be derived either from standard materials or from materials that had been treated in Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime 13 order to make them available. There is, also, a possibility of an error having been made in the shipment, and in such cases there is no doubt but that the manufacturer will rectify the error, but it would be necessary to present conclusive evidence that an error had been made before the question could be satisfactorily settled. It is, therefore, necessary to make these purchases in a careful manner in order that the money will be wisely invested, and the only way to do this is to have a positive knowledge of the composition of the material secured. Quality of the Plant-Food It is well known that the elements of plant-food are contained in many different materials, some being in a good form to> use as a fertilizer while others are not much better than an inert filler. There are also several materials that make poor fertilizers in their original condition, but which can be treated at the factory by some method in order to make the plant-food contained available. On account of this condition it is of as much importance to know the form of the elements in a fertilizer as it is to know the total quantity of nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash contained. Of the total number of brands of mixed fertilizer examined, 308 contained a portion of the total nitrogen content in the form of nitrates, 299 brands contained nitrogen in the form of ammonia salts, and 175 brands contained both of these available forms. Tlie organic nitrogen was present in two forms, soluble and insoluble. The soluble portion is considered in an available form, but the value of the insoluble portion depends largely upon its source. Determina- tions were made in order to ascertain the value of the insoluble nitrogen, and the results show that in 418 brands this form of nitrogen was available while 84 brands contained nitrogen of an in- ferior quality. Of the number of brands containing inferior nitro- gen, 37 carried an excess of total nitrogen which would offset, in part at least, the quantity of inferior quality. These figures com- pared with those of last year will show that a larger number of brands this year contained an inferior grade of organic nitrogen than was found during the previous inspection. This is a condition that deserves the most careful attention. 14 Bulletin 334 The tabulations given in the reports show the percentage of in- soluble nitrogen, and in those cases where it was found to be of inferior quality special attention is called to the fact. When no reference is made the results obtained show that it had an availability equal to some of the standard materials. There are three forms of phosphoric acid usually present in a fertilizer and they are designated as (1) soluble in water, (2) soluble in ammonium citrate and (3) insoluble. The portion that is soluble in water is more widely distributed in the soil than either of the other forms. The sum of the portions that are soluble in water and soluble in ammonium citrate is called available phosphoric acid,' and is considered to be readily available tO‘ the growing crops. The value of the insoluble portion depends upon its source, but since the greater portion of the phosphoric acid in mixed fertilizers is derived from treated phosphate rock, the amount that is insoluble is not an important item. The potash content as reported is water soluble and is readily available. Station's Valuation and Selling Price It has been customary at this Station to calculate the valuations of the fertilizers examined, but for reasons given on a previous page we were unable to make any valuations this year. As soon as con- ditions become normal these valuations will be given in order that the information may be more complete. For years we have presented a tabulation showing the average composition and selling price of the fertilizers containing nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash. We wish to keep this tabulation, but during the past three years it has not been complete on account of the valuation question. Table 5 will show the average composition of this class of fertilizers for the past ten years and the average selling price for seven years. Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime 15 TABLE 5 AVERAGE COMI>OSITION OF FERTILIZERS FOR TEN YEARS c S . ^T3 u ^ S s O .. I- ‘ TJ pH pH u ^ c ; ^ o ^ t O 'ol ’flj a o .B 'O cj nj CO CO w u ^ PP pq " S ^ 'M S T 3 r; c TJ TJ C u 's ^ ^ w;z;§upq;z:^p P ^ O t I Is U V a V ^ Q Z 2 H O ^ o 0 ^ < pH s -B o o c < O 1) c s s h < << c .2 O U c /1 « 3 tS Ph a ”1 X 2 c4 hA PP o . o n! O bo D3 ea ™ ^ C7^" rt J3 O O 3 cq H PP PP M Cos Sp^ 6 pj u o •3 "H O £ 5 « s Sow (/) bo £ O cn •£ CJ 2 S 22 « 33 a d < cS Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime 17 (Nj •fOWCq • - CM f'5 • — I —I • -l .COrHrt.-l .CM^ .CN1I-I.-IVO .rtCO co'OCMvOrgr-i^coroc^r^-.^lvoc'ji^ CO VO CM VO CO 2 12; I .s M « o 3 Ci « § 'y -rl I c 'q, ° ■ y .2 .iS « ® j3 _a -5 p.. o _r 03 rj ‘i- S I ^ y pL, tc CQ X! PP "o *0 bo Cfl c o .G uJ CL, CU V ^ I ^ ’S o 3 ^ := ^ £ .2 ^ . ^ § -- 2i & Cl, c/) O ^ O ^ s e"J MS, o o ^ ™ u g<3^ ic3 6 I ^ PM o ^ -p: u mP qM I-, U J; PP « S 1^ P< £ s I h; 2 t'i 3P C 3 S c 4> 3 +- « £ z < a n c PP 2 i o ,Q M® 3 u P< u. i» 3 P^ 2 "3 > rt ^ U S Pi W as w „ - •3 O P-i e.2 > V ,/) V « J.^'E odd o8 0%) ? rt c E .E -T ^ 5 ™ ^ & .1 ^ E c/5 t/: cn c/: h over 0.2% low in nitrogen, 0.3% low in phosphoric acid and potash. Summary of the Results Obtained with the Mixed Fertilizers l.xamined During the Inspection of 1918 18 Bulletin 334 Number of Samples Deficient in — SJU3U13J3 33Jqj, 1 ■ * * i SJU3UI3I3 OMJ^ JU3UI913 3UQ ID CNJ S'] fO i-H (N qsB;oj : : : : : Pj.')V orioqdsoqj « ^ t-H CNJ - 1-1 U3SOJ4[Iy[ IM Cl D — 1 . .CD ,S33iUBaBui) paysiiEg X[[BiiuBisqns sajduiBg JO jaquini^ tN* rs. CNJ *r; ro saaiiiBJBtiQ payspBg sajdiuBg JO jaquin^ ' CNj rvj 1-* fo CO pauiuiBX^ s3[duiBg 1 ■ JO aaquin^ 19 IT 31 8 17 11 6 P3A}333^ spuBag JO aaquin^Nj 17 9 26 8 12 11 6 Address 1 1 Philadelphia, Pa... Trenton, N. J Philadelphia, Pa. . . Philadelphia, Pa. . . New York City. . . . Woodbury, N. J . . . Princeton Jet., N. J. Manufacturer I. P. Thomas & Son Co Trenton Bone Fertilizer Co F. W. Tunnell & Co., Inc J. E. Tygert Co Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co West Jersey Marl & Transportation Co J. R. Wyckoff 20 Bulletin 334 Commercial Fertilizers Furnishing’ Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Station Number Manufactvirer and Brand Where Sampled 180272 American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York City. Bradley’s Unicorn, 1916 Belvidere 180271 Bradley’s New Method Fertilizer, 1916 Belvidere 180341 East India Unexecelled Fertilizer, 1916 Monmouth Junction 180276 Wheeler’s Wheat Grower, 1916 Lebanon 180314 Williams & Clark’s Special Prolific Crop Producer Dayton 18053 Baltimore Pulverizing Co., Baltimore, Md. *Corn and Grain Grower Mt. Holly 18787 *Corn and Grain Grower Mt. Holly 180319 Baugh & Sons Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Baugh’s General Crop Grower for All Crops Dayton 180288 Bowker Fertilizer Co., New York City. Bowker’s Staple Phosphate, 1916 North Branch 180326 Consumers Chemical Corporation, New York City. Consumers Pure-Sure Plant Food Titusville 180298 Listers Agricultural Chemical Works, Newark, N. J. Listers Special Crop Producer, 1916 Three Bridges 180300 Listers Ammoniated Dissolved Superphosphate, 1916 Far Hills 180302 Listers Standard Pure Superphosphate of Lime, 1916 Far Hills 180303 Scott Fertilizer Co., Elkton, Md. * Scott’s Soluble Phosphate, 12 and 2 Baptistown 180357 I. P. Thomas & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Thomas’ 4-8-4 Westville 18076 F. W. Tunnell & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. *1012 Mixture Beverly 18246 *1013 Mixture Blackwood Nitrogen not guaranteed. Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime 21 Commercial Fertilizers Furnishing Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid Potash 1 As Nitrates 1 1 1 As Ammonia Salts As Soluble Organic Matter As Insoluble | Organic Matter Total Found Total Guaranteed j Soluble in Water 1 Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed 1 Available Found Guaranteed 1 Found Guaranteed 0.51 0.28 0.14 0.72 1.65 1.65 4.90 4.68 1.53 11.11 10.00 9.58 9.00 1.02 1.00 Tr. 0.16 0.18 0.39 0.73 0.82 1.94 5.58 2.51 10.03 9.00 7.52 8.00 0.91 1.00 0.51 0.67 0.22 0.62 2.02 2.06 4.90 3.73 2.01 10.64 9.00 8.63 8.00 0.94 1.00 Tr. 0.12 0.21 0.31 0.64 0.82 3.02 5 78 2.24 11.04 9.00 8.80 8.00 0.86 1.00 0.19 0.14 0.03 0.35 0.71 0.82 1.96 5.77 2.17 9.90 9.00 7.73 8.00 0.82 1.00 1.06 7.35 2.67 11.08 12.00 8.41 12.00 1.12 1.00 0.38 7.33 3.06 10.77 ! 12.00 7.71 12.00 0.98 1.00 0.18 1 i 0.26 10.50 0.94 0.82 5.54 2.27 1.46 9.27 8.00 1 7.81 8.00 1.25 1.00 Tr. 0.11 ‘ 0.26 0.35 <1.72 0.82 1.40 5.66 2.58 9.64 , 9.00 7.06 8.00 0.88 1.00 0.36 0.19 1 0.51 1.06 0.82 5.36 .3.22 1 1.65 10.23 9.00 8.58 8.00 1.02 1.00 0.29 1 0.05 1 0.25 0.29 1 0.88 0.«2 7.16 1.89 1.46 10.51 9.00 9.05 8.00 1.18 1.00 1 0.25 0.61 11.12 1.98 2.06 6.72 1.52 2.30 10.54 9.00 8.24 8.00 1.19 1.00 Tr. i 0.91 0.57 2 0.96 2.44 2.47 7.94 1.71 1.84 11.49 10.00 9.65 9.00 1.31 1.00 i 1 7.80 4.39 0.87 13.06 12.19 12.00 2.05 2.00 0.86 1 1.13 0.39 0.72 3.10 3.25 2.40 ' 5.91 2.08 10.39 8.50 8.31 1 8.00 3.70 4.00 Tr. 1 0.35 0.13 0.34 0.82 0.80 7.53 2.57 10.90 j 11.00 8.33 1 10.00 *0.92 1.00 Tr. 1 1 0.05 0.17 i 0.22 1.90 t 8.11 1.19 11.20 i 11.00 10.01 10.00 *0.79 1.00 * Potash largely, if not entirely, from sulphate. 1 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets amount of inferior quality. 2 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. 22 Bulletin 334 Commercial Fertilizers Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid u Manufacturer and Brand a C ,2 Where Sampled in 180269 180273 180277 180312 180313 180315 180263 180266 180267 180268 180281 180317 180318 180283 180284 180285 180286 180283 18029( 180321, 1 803211 18032 ) 18026 1 180323 180324 18032 7 1803.: 8 American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York City. Soluble Grain Mixture Bradley’s Golden Crop Compound Bradley’s Special Superior Compound, Revised East India Special Improved Compound Read’s Practical Grain Grower Williams & Clark’s Sterling Mixture American Fertilizing Co., Baltimore, Md. American Fish Special Baugh & Sons Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Baugh’s The Old Stand-by Dissolved Animal Base Baugh’s Wheat Fertilizer for Wheat and Grass Baugh’s Half and Half Mixture Baugh’s Truckers’ Favorite Baugh’s Corn and Oats Fertilizer Baugh’s Peninsula Grain Producer The Berg Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Berg’s Special Bone Manure Berg’s Special Wheat Grower Berg’s Animal Meat and Bone Berg’s Special Truck Grower Bowker Fertilizer Co., New York City. Bowker’s Superphosphate with Ammonia 1% Bowker’s Superphosphate with Ammonia 2% Coe-Mortimer Co., New York City. E. Frank Coe’s Original Ammoniated Dissolved Phosphate, 19 J 6 E. Frank Coe’s XXV Ammoniated Phosphate, 1916 E. Frank Coe’s H. G. Ammoniated Superphosphate, 1916 Consumers Chemical Corporation, New York City. Consumers Pure-Sure Corn and Vegetable (without Potash)... Consumers Pure-Sure Ammoniated Bone Phosphate Consumers All Crop Compound (without Potash) Consumers Pure-Sure Corn and Grain Bone Phosphate ;)as. G. Downward Co., Coatesville, P«. Ammoniated Phosphate Belvidere . . . Belvidere . . . Neshanic . . . . Hightstown . Hightstown . Dayton Salem Belle Mead . Belle Mead . Belle Mead . Pittstown . . , Burlington , , Dayton Flemington . Flemington . Flemington . Flemington , North Branch Somerville . . Hopewell . . . Hopewell . . . Hopewell . . . Salem Titusville . . . Titusville ... Titusville . . . 'I'ren ton . . . , , Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime Commercial Fertilizers Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid 23 Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid As Nitrates As Ammonia Salts As Soluble Organic Matter As Insoluble Organic Matter Total Found Total Guaranteed Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Found Sw Wailable 'O •u c rt rt 3 o 0.02 0.29 10.46 0.77 0.82 6.06 1 2.69 1 j i 1.21 9.9C j 9.00 8.75 8.00 0.78 0.39 0.23 0.99 2.39 2.47 6.86 3.93 1 1.14 11.93 ! 11.00 10.79 10.00 0.53 0.06 0.20 •0.70 1.49 1.65 7.24 2.97 ! 1.64 11.85 11.00 10.21 10.00 0.61 0.05 0.21 0.63 1.50 1.65 5.84 i 5.10 ! 1.33 12.27 1 11.00 10.94 10.00 0.48 0.11 0.46 0,60 1.65 1.65 6.80 i 3.59 1 1.76 12.15 , 11.00 10.39 ; 10.00 0.46 0.05 0.33 '0.63 1,47 1.65 5.74 ! 4.64 1 1.61 11.99 j 11.00 10.38 i 10.00 0.02 0.51 1.10 1.63 1.65 8.46 3.64 1.34 13.44 12.00 12.10 11.00 0.93 0.20 '0.37 1.50 : 1.65 9.22 2.C3 C.77 12.02 12.00 11.25 12.00 0.56 1 0.48 '0.50 1.54 1.65 8.00 2.05 1.18 11.23 10.00 10.05 10.00 0.02 i 0.28 0.84 1.14 1.23 3.64 7.28 7.46 19.38 19.00 11.92 12.00 1.36 0.35 '0.59 2.30 2.47 8.66 1.67 1.09 11.42 10.00 10.33 1 10.00 0.60 0.42 '0.58 1.60 1.65 8.06 2.29 1.43 11.78 10.00 10.35 10.00 0.07 i 0.47 20.49 1.03 0.82 6.60 2.52 0.81 9.93 1 9.00 9.12 9.00 0.67 0.03 0.70 1.39 2.79 i 2.00 4.04 1 4.17 7.07 15.28 11.00 8.21 7.00 Tr. 0.03 0.52 21.12 1.67 : 1.65 4.94 2.76 5.56 13.26 11.00 7.70 8.00 1.36 0.07 0.53 1.51 3.47 ! 3.30 3.44 5.64 9.37 18.45 17.00 9.08 1.02 0.04 1 0.46 1.05 2.57 2.47 6.50 3.82 5.02 15.34 10.32 10.00 0.03 0.20 2 0.65 0.88 0.82 6.66 3.84 0.94 11.44 11.00 10.50 10.00 0.53 0.06 0.22 0.71 1.52 1.65 6.86 4.06 1.45 12.37 11.00 10.92 10.00 0.60 i 0.06 0.18 0.65 1.49 1.65 5.80 4.73 1.53 12.06 11.00 10.53 10.00 0.01 0.22 0.57 0.80 0.82 6.84 3.58 1.13 11.55 11.00 10.42 10.00 0.72 0.34 i 0.30 0.85 2.21 2.47 7.44 3.01 1.39 11.84 11.00 10.45 10.00 1.56 0.06 0.89 2.51 2.47 6.02 4.04 1.13 11.19 11.00 10.06 10.00 0.08 0.56 1.01 1.65 1.65 5.84 1 4.69 1.40 11.93 11.00 10.53 10.00 0.03 i 0.26 0.61 0.90 0.82 6.92 3.52 i 1.83 1 12.27 10.00 10.44 9.00 0.28 0.49 1.08 1.85 1.65 8.10 : 4.62 1 0.85 I 13.57 13.00 12.72 12.00 0.01 0.02 0.15 0,18 0.82 2.20 1 5.32 1 i.iol 8.62 ' 11.00 7,52 10.00 ^ Insoluble erganic nitrogen of inferior quality. •Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets amount of inferior quality. 24 Bulletin 334 Commercial Fertilizers Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid 1 Station Number Manufacturer and Brand Where Sampled 180329 180301 Hendrickson & Dilatush, Robbinsville, N. J. Rnbbinsville Listers Agricultural Works, Newark, N. J. Listers Crescent Ammoniated Superphosphate, 1916 Far Hills 180275 Mapes Formula & Peruvian Guano Co., New York City. Mapes’ General Crop, 1916 Brand Chester 180330 Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, Freehold, N. J. Triangle Brand 2-11 Hightstown 180334 Albert Nelson, Allentown, N. J. Nelson’s Special R and W Guano Nelsonville 180332 Nelson’s Special G and G Guano Nelsonville 180291 Philadelphia Guano Works, Philadelphia, Pa. 1918 Grain Superphosphate Bound Brook 180363 1918 Grain Superphosphate Belle Mead 180349 1918 Corn and Vegetable Manure Monmouth Junction 180364 1918 Corn and Vegetable Manure Belle Mead 180350 1918 Wheat and Grass Grower Monmouth Junction 180295 Rasin-Monumental Co., Baltimore, Md. Rasin’s Special Fish Guano North Branch 180297 Rasin’s Special Fish Mixture North Branch 180304 Scott Fertilizer Co., Elkton, Md. Scott’s Ammoniated Base Frenchtown 180362 South Jersey Farmers Exchange, Woodstown, N. J. Exchange Brand Grain and Grass Fertilizer Bridgeton 180352 Wheat and Grass Fertilizer Woodstown 180353 Swift & Co., Kearney, N. J. Holly Special Harrison Formula Fertilizer Mt. Holly 180354 Swift’s Special Corn Grower Mt. Holly 180355 Holly Special Diamond A Fertilizer Mt. Holly 180356 Swift Pure Truck and Potato Fertilizer Mt. Holly 180306 I. P. Thomas & Son Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Thomas’ Triumph Manure Barbertown 180307 Raw and Acidulated Bone Barbertown 180339 Trenton Bone Fertilizer Co., Trenton, N. J. Bone and Tankage Pennington 180310 Special Grain Lambervtille Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime 25 Commercial Fertilizers Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid 1 1 As Nitrates As Ammonia Salts As Soluble Organic Matter As Insoluble Organic Matter Total Found Total Guaranteed Soluble in Water Soluble in Ammonium Citrate Insoluble Total Found Total Guaranteed Available Found Guaranteed Tr. 0.06 0.45 1.07 1.58 1.65 7.88 3.35 1.60 12.83 11.00 11.23 9.00 0.13 0.65 0.72 1.50 1.65 8.18 2.39 2.31 12.88 11.00 10.57 10.00 0.78 0.01 0.21 ‘0.48 1.48 1.65 0.80 4.90 6.20 11.90 10.00 5.70 8.00 0.41 0.05 0.59 0.73 1.78 1.64 5.32 4.97 4.37 14.66 12.00 10.29 11.00 0.03 0.42 0.27 0.72 0.82 5.10 4.05 1.70 10.85 10.00 9.15 9.00 1.00 0.47 0.43 1.90 j 1.65 8.24 3.24 1.96 13.44 11.00 11.48 10.00 0.33 0.23 20.48 1.04 0.82 8.80 4.18 1.00 13.98 13.00 12.98 12.00 0.10 0.25 0.42 0.77 0.82 9.60 3.02 0.51 13.13 13.00 12.62 12 . 00 0.95 0.09 j 0.61 1.65 1.64 8.18 3.43 0.87 12.48 11.00 11.61 10.00 0.75 0.48 0.36 1.59 1.64 7.92 3.19 0.78 11.89 11.00 11.11 10.00 0.03 0.19 20.64 0.86 0.82 2.62 7.34 1.50 11.46 10.00 9.96 9.00 1 0.07 0.89 0.77 1.73 1.65 7.82 4.20 1.96 13.98 12.00 12.02 11.00 0.04 0.41 ‘0.30 0.75 0.82 8.38 2.34 1.23 11.95 11.00 10.72 10.00 Tr. 0.33 0.46 0.96 1.75 1.65 8.24 3.95 1.28 13.47 14.00 12.19 12.00 0.37 0.03 0.37 0.84 1.61 1.65 6.84 3.38 3.90 14.12 10.50 10.22 10.00 0.06 0.58 1 . 10 1 . 74 1.65 5 . 74 4.87 5.92 16.53 10.61 10.00 0.77 0.13 0.31 1.99 3.20 3.29 5.14 i 4.34 0.72 10.20 10.00 9.48 10.00 0.64. 0.28 0.11 0.64 1.67 1.65 6.94 i 3.59 0.69 11.22 10.00 10.53 10.00 1.09 0.07 0.08 1.25 2.49 2.47 3.90 3.95 0.73 8.58 8.00 7.85 8.00 1.19 1.13 0.47 0.35 3.14 3.29 3.34 4.64 1.12 9.10 10.00 7.98 10.00 0.08 0.34 20.42 0.84 0.82 7.56 4.31 1.37 13.24 10.50 11.87 10.00 0.01 0.03 1.72 1.76 1.65 3.46 6.44 9.90 19.80 17.00 9.90 0.15 1.12 '0.85 2.12 2.06 2.44 5.27 6.28 13.99 9.00 7.71 8.00 0.06 0.75 ' 0.64 1.45 1.64 3.66 5.21 1.70 10.57 10.00 8.87 9.00 1 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. 2 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets amount of inferior quality. 26 Bulletin 334 Commercial Fertilizers Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid c .2 180335 180336 180338 180359 18126 180361 180367 180366 Manufacturer and Brand Where Sampled F. W. Tunncll & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. Grain Manure 1918 Fish Manure 1918 Raw and Acidulated Animal Compound Wheat Grower ’■^Pea Manure Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., New York City. V. C. C. Co.’s Ammoniated Bone Phosphate for All Crops V. C. C. Co.s Ammoniated Bone Phosphate for All Crops V. C. C. Co.’s H. G. Ammoniated Bone Phosphate Titusville . Titusville . Titusville . Bridgeton . Beverly . . . Jamesburg , Belle Mead Belle Mead * Nitrogen not guaranteed. Humus and Manures 180176 American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York City. Pulverized Sheep Manure 18362 Armour Fertilizer Works, Baltimore, Md., and Chrome, N. J„ Armour’s Sheep Manure 180113 M. B. Atkinson, Bogota, N. J. Atkinson’s Prepared Humus 180248 Darling & Co., Chicago, 111. Darling’s Sheep Manure 180198 Godfrey Co-operative Fert. & Chem. Co., Newark, N. J. Godfrey’s Sheep Manure , . . . Plainfield 18952 Hudson Carbon Co., Ballston Spa. N. Y. Davidage’s Concentrated Manure 18882 H. B. Kemp, Long Branch, N. J. Kemp’s Pulverized Sheep Manure , . , , Long Branch 180132 Natural Guano Co., Aurora, Hi. Sheepshead Brand Pulverized Sheep Manure 18876 New York Stable Manure Co., Jersey City, N. J. Diamond Brand Compost — Well Rotted Horse Manure 18307 Swift & Co., Kearny, N. J. 1 Swift’s Pulverized Sheep Manure 27 Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and L.ime Commercial Fertilizers Furnishing Nitrogen and Phosphoric Acid Nitrogen Phosphoric Acid 0.11 0.33 • 0.52 0.96 0.82 9 , ,04 0.86 0.22 ' 0.64 1.72 1.64 7 , ,06 0.55 0.64 0.85 2.04 1.64 5 , ,18 0.13 0.04 " 0.53 0.70 0.82 1 , 26 0,06 0.18 0.30 0,54 5 .28 0.47 0.14 ' 0.94 1 55 1,65 5 , 68 0.08 0.89 0.72 1,69 1.65 5 .96 0.09 0.75 1.16 2.00 1.65 8 .14 3 , 61 0 ,77 13 , ,42 13,00 12 . 65 ' 12.00 3 , 61 0 81 11 , ,48 11.00 10 . 67 1 10.00 5 CO o 5 , ,69 15 ,95 15,00 10 . 26 i 10.00 8 , 73 1 , ,51 11 , ,50 10.00 9 . 99 9.00 6 25 1 .09 12 ,62 11 . 53 10.00 L 75 2 , , 16 12 , 59 11.00 10 . 43 10.00 3 , ,96 1 . .73 11 , ,65 11.00 9 . 92 10.00 4 , .50 1 .59 14 , .23 13.00 12 . 64 12.00 1 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets amount of inferior quality. * Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Humus and Manures j 1 • • • • 1 1 0.49 4.86 2.35 2.06 0.32 1.49 0.56 2.37 1.25 1.81 2.06 V 1.00 1 0.40 4.32 1.72 1.65 0.06 0.94 0.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 3.95 3.25 0.22 12 0.80 1.02 1.25 0.16 0.15 0.17 0.48 1.00 0.31 1 0.45 ! 4.95 2.40 2.06 0.46 1.20 0.96 2.62 1.00 1.66 1.32 1.00 0.29 ' 21.28 1.57 1.65 0.32 0.61 0.12 1.05 1.00 0.93 3.39 3.25 0.59 ! ^ 0.75 1.34 1.00 0.20 j 4.90 7.53 12.63 1.00 5.10 1.68 0.34 4.72 2.06 1.65 0.28 1.25 0.15 1.68 1.00 1.53 2.70 1.50 0.46 0.48 1 4.81 2.75 2.25 1.70 0.72 0.11 2.53 1.25 2.42 1.00 2.23 1.50 0.26 4.96 2.22 2.06 0.54 1.22 0.46 2.22 1.79 1.76 1.50 0.90 1.00 i 0.12 i 21.23 1.35 1.65 a 40 1.01 0.37 1.78 1.00 1.41 1.90 1.50 1 Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Excess of total nitrogen partially offsets quan- tity of inferior quality. * Insoluble organic nitrogen of inferior quality. Mechanical . Phosphoric Analysis Nitrogen Acid 28 Bulletin 334 punoj paajuBiBnQ punoj[ qouios/T UBqj j 3 saB 03 qoui OS/I UBqi J 3 UT J o CM O 1 w ^ (A rt V M pq <0 " s a a 3 ® 3 pq bb £ <; w jaqiunjvi uopBjs CM 00 (» o O ^ 00 CM CO CO 00 00 00 Philadelphia, 29 Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime in csi CM CO CsJ 00 tN. to m > o oa o o ro: i; § « c r •rj rt ui t; -o p< o >, O C u a T) s bO 3 (n "u bo 3 3 2 U ‘n pq & C/3 § iE q- tn (O to tfl §« . CA 3 73 u ^ C Ph oa 3 „ o o 2 o § 5 M § ca « ^ i c /3 ■5 ■? '$ '% '% ’5 'S C/}.-mC/ 3 C/}C/}C/ 3 C/ 3 C /3 Ph s'- V I « CQ 3: -C V. V 3 ^ ^ 3 3 U « g 3 , n o ca g pq ^ 5 fe OOP O 3 o Pi « 2 O O t; ^ 3 3 H p 4 pH Cf\ OOCJOOOlOro 0\ ^1-H l^fTi C^ 0\t^'0rct^ro 0\ rOTf vora O Orxt^t^oocM \o 'rr-r O ooooooDooO cc 0000 oocc 00 00— IT-I--I.-.CO -H rH-H ^ Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime VO fO fO cj ^ (U (U C ^ w E J bo rt" V 6 S' ’o ^ u T3 "TS C C rt rt O > > ’ bn o bo C W si CJ rt '■« G C > M oT Ta -o n G 6 u rt O o3 •|> o o rr O ON O Tt- ir> 00 00 32 Bulletin 334 SUNDRY MATERIALS. 18058. Flue Dust, Submitted by Wm. Wilde, Vineland, N. J. It contained 5.95 per cent of water-soluble potash. 18102. Potash Salt. Sampled from the stock of the Monmouth County Farmers’ Exchange, Freehold, N. J. It was guaranteed to contain 26.00 per cent of potash, and it was found to contain 22.47 per cent. 18280. Canadian Wood Ashes. Submitted by Duke Farms Co., Somer- ville, N. J. It contained 0.59 per cent of total phosphoric acid and 0.81 per cent of potash. 18409. Horn Shavings, Submitted by Garden State Orchard Co., Phila- delphia, Pa. The sample consisted of 30 per cent of horn shavings and the balance was large pieces of horn. The sample contained 13.93 per cent of nitrogen. 18621. Ashes. Submitted by M. D. Lyons, Trenton, N. J., and contained 0.62 per cent of potash. 18624. Kelp Potash. Submitted by the Cedar Crest Orchard and Produce Co., Cedar Crest, N. J. It contained 40.75 per cent of potash. 18670. Alpha Potash Lime Fertilizer. Represented the stock of Eldredge & Phillips, Cape Ma}", N. J., and was sold by the Alpha Portland Cement Co., Easton, Pa. It was guaranteed to contain 2.50 per cent of potash, and was found to contain 3'.04 per cent of potash and 28.48 per cent of lime. 18678. Sewage Residue. Submitted by J. C. Stuart, Beverly, N. J. It contained 34.45 per cent of water ; 0.94 per cent of nitrogen ; 0.41 per cent of total phosphoric acid and 0.31 per cent of potash. 18757. Lime-Fertile. Submitted by Theo. Chamberlin, East Paterson, N. J., and was manufactured by The Fertile Chemical Co., Cleveland, O. 180035. Lime-Fertile. Taken from the stock of Ellis Tiger Co., Gladstone, N. J., and was manufactured by The Fertile Co., Cleveland, O. Lime Magnesia 1 Total Phosphoric Acid i*'ound Guarant’d Found Guarant’d Found Guarant’d % i % % % % % Sample 18757 25.79 ' 35.84 15.45 ! 4.96 3.59 3.00 Sample 180035 27.13 35.84 16.98 4.96 2.55 3.00 18958. Marl. Submitted by Chas, Fraser, Marlton, N. J., and contained 6.41 per cent of total potash. 180109. Cocoanut Peelings. Submitted by Sharp and Street, Merchant- ville, N. J. The analysis showed it to contain the following; Water, 4.07 per cent; oil, 43.01 per cent; nitrogen, 1.34 per cent; total phosphoric acid, 0.46 per cent, and total potash, 0.42 per cent. 180216. Phoslime. Stock of Fanwood Lumber and Supply Co., Fan- wood, N. J., and sold by Florida Soft Phosphate and Lime Co., Ocala, Fla. It contained 21.96 per cent of total phosphoric acid, and it was guar- anted to contain 22.00 per cent. 180369. Nitrapo. Submitted by W. P. Hunt, Pennington, N. J. The Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime 33 guarantee attached to the sample was nitrogen 15 per cent and potash 15 per cent. It contained nitrogen 14.13 per cent and potash 20.39 per cent. 180370. Bat Manure. Submitted by W. P. Hunt, Pennington, N. J. It contained nitrogen 0.04 per cent; total phosphoric acid 0.06 per cent and Potash 1.15 per cent. 180371. Horse Manure. Submitted by H. J. Appert & Son, Allen- dale, N. J. 180372. Horse Manure. Submitted by H. J. Appert & Son, Allen- dale, N. J, Sample 180371 Sample 180372 . % % Water 42.67 42.67 Nitrogen 0.56 0.61 Total Phosphoric Acid 0.33 0.24 Potash 0.50 0.50 180373. Green Sand Marl. Submitted by H. R. Cox, Berlin, N. J. It contained 4.96 per cent of total potash. 180374. Bat Guano. Submitted by The Elizabeth Nursery Co., Eliza- beth, N. J. 180375. Bat Guano. Submitted by The Elizabeth Nursery Co., Eliza- beth, N. J. Sample 180374 Sample 180375 % % Nitrogen j 0.96 0.62 Total Phosphoric Acid 19.74 10.55 Potash 0.60 0.34 AGRICULTURAL LIME The law entitled “An Act to Regulate the Sale of Agricultural Lime” became effective on January 1, 1914. The essential features of this law, briefly stated, are : 1. Registration of the brand name and guarantees that will be attached to the materials as sold. 2. The constituents that must be guaranteed. 3. The name and address of the party responsible for the ma^terial. 4. The official inspection of the materials offered for sale. Registrations During the past year 35 manufacturers registered 70 different brands of agricultural lime. The names and addresses of those who have registered their products are : 34 Bulletin 334 Acme Lime Co., Inc Baltimore, Md. American Agricultural Chemical Co New York City. American Cyanamid Co New York City. J. E. Baker Co York, Pa. S. W. Barrick & Sons Woodsboro, Md. Beaver Dam Marble Co Cockeysville, Md. Blair Limestone Co Martinsburg, W. Va. Carbo Agricultural Lime Co Wilmington, Del. Judson Conover Matawan, N. J. G. and W. H. Corson Plymouth Meeting, Pa. Dietrick Bros Reading, Pa. Edison Pulverized Limestone Co New Village, N. J. Fountain Rock Lime Co Woodsboro, Md. M. J. Grove Lime Co Lime Kiln, Md. J. B. King & Co New York City. Knickenbocker Lime Co Philadelphia, Pa. E. J. Lavino & Co Philadelphia, Pa. LeGo re Combination Lime Co LeGore, Md. Weller C. Leigh Lebanon, N. J. John Meehan & Son Philadelphia, Pa. Merion Lime and Stone Co Norristown, Pa. Michigan Limestone and Chemical Co., Inc Buffalo, N. Y. M. C. Mulligan & Son Clinton, N. J. E. J. Neighbour German Valley, N. J. Palmer Lime and Cement Co New York City. Philadelphia Lime Co., Inc Philadelphia, Pa. C. T. Russell Jersey City, N. J. Security Cement and Lime Co Hagerstown, Md. Standard Lime and Stone Co Baltimore, Md. Standard Lime and Stone Co Buckeystown, Md. Steacy & Wilton Co Wrightsville, Pa. Tidewater Portland Cement Co Baltimore, Md. Todd •& Cordes Peapack, N. J. Twining & Large Co Carpentersville, N. J. Charles Warner Co Wilmington, Del. Inspection The samples of lime products received consisted of burned limes, limestone, and refuse products. The results secured by the analyses of 20 samples are given in the following tabulation. Several other unofficial samples were analyzed, but the results are not included because of the uncertainty as to whether they were representative of the products claimed. Lime ^ n rt 4) e ^ B o <«-;3 - i 6 I' "S .s c - t 3 rt C rt rt '• O a IJ u ^ r u) jy) o “n m S w CO S-3 u -n W) lU h-1 6 U V a ij il c T 3 3 iii C ^ U €) O a a r 'ij j (3 ’T 3 X) . I-H ^ o‘ u ■ £ a y ^ 2 <« G -n ^ ^ 'S - o 3 U *u ^ . e .ti n! C G I u *0 V Q 3 ^ ^ in f? O rt w G «n > Q G , . G U O G^ a nJ CO' CJ O C w H G G G C G fG > pq hJ 18717 ^By-Product from Acetylene Gas Three Bridges 38.11 Tr 21.70 180042 2By-Product from Acetylene Gas Trenton 36.23 Tr 18.86 18758 *By-Product from Presto-Lite Elizabeth 40.70 Tr 16.01 Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime 37 Brands Registered for Fiscal Year Ending October, 31, 1918 Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Nitrogen Nitrogen Equivalent to Ammonia Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phosphoric Acid 1 Water-Soluble j Potash j Active Chemical Co., Camden, N. J. 1 Semper Tankage Prepared 1.23 1.50 3.00 2.00 Semper Soil Dresser 1.64 2.00 3.50 3.00 Semper Peerless 0.82 ! 1.00 11.00 ! 10.00 1.00 Semper Vital 1.64 : 2.00 3.50 3.00 1.00 American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York, N. Y. j i Star Phosphate with Potash 11.00 10.00 1.00 Alkaline Grain Mixture 12.00 11.00 2.00 Peerless Special 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 New Jersey Truck Manure 3.29 4.00 10.50 9.50 2.00 Moro-Phillips C. & G. Complete Fertilizer, 1916. . | 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Potomac Golden Harvest, Revised 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Potomac Top Dressing Manure 5.76 7.00 7.00 1 6.00 Potomac Complete Manure, 1916 .' 1.65 ' 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Potomac General Crop Compound, 1916 2.47 i 3.00 10.00 1 9.00 1.00 Potomac Golden Potato Manure 3.29 1 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Potomac Odorless Lawn Manure 3.91 ! 4.75 6.00 5.00 1.00 Potomac Special Truck Manure, 1916 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Armour Fertilizer Works, Baltimore, Md. Harvest Queen, 1918 0.82 1.00 10.50 10.00 Sweet Potato, 1918 ’ 1.23 1.50 9.50 9.00 Blood and Meat, 1918 1.65 2.00 10.50 : 10.00 Armours 3J y Hendrickson & Dilatush, Robbinsville, N. J. Steam Bone 2.47 3.00 22.00 Grain Grass Manure No. 2 1.65 2.00 11.00 9.00 H. G. Grain Grower 2.47 3.00 11.00 9.00 Ferris Grass Manure No. 7.38 9.00 7.00 5.00 Heritage & Bro., Mullica Hill, N. J. Animal Tankage 4.90 6.00 12.00 Hubbard Fertilizer Co., Baltimore, Md. Hubbard’s Farmers’ 1 X L 1.64 2.00 9.00 ; 8.00 2.00 Hutchinson & Rue, Windsor, N^. J. Corn Mixture 1^-15 1.23 1.50 16.00 15.00 International Agricultural Corporation, Buffalo, N. Y. Buffalo Sixteen Percent Acid Phosphate 17.00 16.00 Buffalo Special Mixture No. 2 15.00 14.00 2.00 Buffalo Special Mixture No. 1 1.60 2.00 13.00 12.00 2.00 Keystone Bone Fertilizer Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. 1918 Keystone Sweet Potato Manure 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 A. R. Kohler, Westville, N. J. King Crab Meal 9.88 12. Off William Lancaster, Philadelphia, Pa. Grange General Manure 0.82 1.00 13.00 12.00 Grange E Brand Potato Manure 1.64 2.00 11.00 10.00 Grange Superior Fish Manure 2.46 3.00 11.00 10.00 Locke & Black, Swedesboro, N. J. Bone Tankage 3.70 4.50 20.00 Ground Tankage 5.14 6.25 8.00 Ground Tankage 6.25 7.60 11.00 Ground Tankage 6.58 8.00 11.00 Martin Fertilizer Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Martin’s Nitrate of Soda 15.22 18.50 Martin’s Acid Phosphate 16 per cent 17.00 16.00 Martin’s Tankage 6 per cent 4.94 6.00 10.00 Martin’s Tankage 8 per cent 6.58 8. Off 10.00 Martin’s Ammoniated Phosphate 2-8 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 Martin’s Ammoniated Phosphate 2-10 , 1.65 2.00 11.00 10'. 00 Martin’s Ammoniated Phosphate 3-8 2.47 3.00 9.00 8.00 Martin’s Ammoniated Phosphate 4-10 ! 3.30 4.00 11.00 10.00 Martin’s Two Eight and Two 2-8-2 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 2 . 00 Martin’s Three Eight and Three 3-8-3 2.47 3.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Martin’s Four Eight and Two 4-8-2 3.30 4.00 9.00 8.00 , 2 . 00 40 Bulletin 334 Brands Registered for Fiscal Year Ending Oct. 31, 1918 — Cont. Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Nitrogen Nitrogen Equivalent to Ammonia Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phosphoric Acid Water-Soluble Potash Monmouth County Farmers Exchange, Freehold, N. J. Ground Dried Blood 12.96 15.75 Ground Tankage 8.02 9.75 7.00 Triangle Brand 1-12-0 0.82 1.00 13.011 12.00 Triangle Brand 2-11-0 1.64 2.00 12.01) 11.00 Triangle Brand 6-5-10-0 5.35 6.50 10.00 10.00 Triangle Brand 8-6-0 6.58 8.00 7.00 6.00 Triangle Brand 3-8-2 2.47 3.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Triangle Brand 3-10-3 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 3.00 Joseph R. Moore, Swedesboro, N. J. 9.88 12.00 J, R. Moore’s 5^4 per cent Tankage 4.53 5.50 15.00 J. R. Moore’s 7 per cent Tankage 5.76 7.00 3.00 J. R. Moore’s 8 per cent Tankage 6.59 8.00 5.00 4.00 National Plant Food Co., Pensacola, Fla. Red Snapper 5.00 6.07 12.00 4.00 1.25 Nitrate Agencies Co., New York, N. Y. N. A. C. Brand Nitrapo 15.00 18.25 Ground Dried Fish 8.22 10.00 5.57 Philadelphia Guano Works, Philadelphia, Pa. 1 1918 Strawberry Mixture 3.30 4.00 11.00 10.00 Potash Grain Manure 0.82 1.00 8.00 7.00 1.00 Reading Chemical Co., Reading, Penn. High Grade Phosphate 17.00 16.00 Royal Fish Guano 1.03 1.25 13.00 12.00 Reading Soil Builder 1.64 2.00 11.00 10.00 Pennant Winner 2.46 3.00 11.00 10.00 F. S. Royster Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. Nitrate of Soda 15.00 18.24 Royster’s Fine Ground Bone Meal 2.47 3.00 22.90 Royster’s Pure Raw Bone Meal 3.70 4.50 21.50 Royster’s Grain and Grass Special Royster’s Phosphate and Potash Mixture 0.82 1.00 8.50 12.50 8.00 12.00 2.00 Schanck, Hutchinson & Field, Hightstown, N. J. S. H. & F. Corn Mixture 2-8-0 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 S. H. & F. Grain Mixture 2-8-0 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 S. H. & F. Potato and Truck Manure 4-8-0 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 S. H. & F. Potato and Vegetable Compound 4-10-0 3 29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Special Fish Mixture for Potatoes with 2 per ceni Potash 4-6-2 3.29 4.00 7.00 6.00 2.00 Davidson’s Fish and Potato Mixture for Potatoes 4-8-3 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Analyses of Fertilizers, Ground Bone and Lime 41 Brands Registered for Fiscal Year Ending Oct. 31, 1918 — ^Cont. Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Nitrogen Nitrogen Equivalent to Ammonia Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phosphoric Acid Water-Soluble Potash I. Serata & Sons, Bridgeton, N. J. Nitrate of Soda 15.58 19.00 Truck Fertilizer 2.47 3.00 10.00 10.00 Potato Fertilizer 3.29 4.00 10.00 10.00 Top Dressing Fertilizer 4.12 5.00 10.00 10.00 M. L. Shoemaker & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. Pure Raw Bone Meal 3.30 4.00 20.00 “Swift-Sure” Bone Meal 4.53 5.50 20.00 “Swift-Sure” Guano for Tomatoes, Truck and Corn 1.65 2.00 10.00 8.00 “Swift-Sure” Phosphate for Tobacco and General Use ! 3.30 4.00 11.00 9.00 South Jersey Farmers Exchange, Woodstown, N. J. South Jersey Farmers Exchange Brand 4-8-3 .... 3.28 4.00 8.50 8.00 3.00 Special Fertilizers for Second Crop Cobblers 3.48 4.25 11.00 10.00 2.25 Standard Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. Standard’s 2-10 1.64 2.00 10.50 10.00 Grange Commercial Store Prize Winner Potato Manure 2.46 3.00 10.50 10.00 Grange Commercial Store Mammoth Potato Manure 3.28 4.00 10.50 10.00 Standard’s 5-10 4.00 5.00 10.50 10.00 Standard’s 4-8-2 3.20 4.00 8.50 8.00 2.00 Standard’s 4-8-3 • 3.28 4.00 8.50 8.00 3.00 Grange Commercial Store Special Potato Manure. 3.28 4.00 8.50 8.00 3.00 Swift & Co., Baltimore, Md. Swift’s Jersey Sweet Potato Fertilizer 1.65 2.00 8.00 8.00 Swift’s General Crop Fertilizer 2.47 3.00 9.00 9.00 Swift’s Three Ten Naught Brand 2.47 3.00 10.00 10.00 Swift’s Special Pride of Jersey Fertilizer 4.11 5.00 8.00 8.00 Swift’s Special Phosphate and Potash 10.00 10.00 2.00 Swift’s Wheat Grower Phosphate and Potash 12.00 12.00 2.00 Swift’s Baltimore Formula 3.29 4.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 Swift’s Four Ten Three Brand 3.29 4.00 10.00 10.00 3.00 Swift & Co., Kearny, N. J. Swift’s Corn Grower 1.65 2.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 Swift’s Special Fertilizer for Corn 2.88 3.50 12.00 12.00 Swift’s Special Fertilizer for Grass 6.58 8.00 6.00 6.00 Taylor Bros., Camden, N. J. Taylor Brothers’ Superior Ammoniated Super phate 1.65 2.0CI 8.00 8.0(1 1.00 Taylor Provision Co., Trenton, N. J. John Taylor’s High Grade Potato Manure No. 1 . . 3.30 4.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 42 Bulletin 334 Brands Registered for Fiscal Year Ending Oct. 31, 1918 — Cent Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Nitrogen Nitrogen Equivalent to Ammonia Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phosphoric Acid Water-Soluble Potash F. \V. Tunnell & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa. Special Mixtures in accordance with ruling of . State Chemist — Nitrate of Soda, 15 per cent 12.34 15.00 Nitrate of Soda, 18 per cent 14.81 18.00 Pea Manure 11.00 10.00 1918 Corn Mixture 1.64 2.00 11.00 10.00 1918 General Crop Grower 2.46 3.00 11.00 10.00 Burlington Truck Manure 3.30 4.00 9.00 8.00 High Grade Fish and Truck Guano 3.30 4.00 j 11.00 10.00 1918 Truckers’ Pride 3.30 4.00 ' 11.00 10.00 1918 Jersey Special 3.71 4:50 10.00 9.00 7-8 5.77 7.00 9.00 8.00 1918 10 per cent Top Dresser 8.23 10.00 4.00 Potash Grain Grower 0.82 1,00 8.00 7.00 1.00 Burlington Countv Potato Manure 3.30 4.00 8.00 j 7.00 1.00 Excelsior Potato Manure 3.30 4.00 9.00 8.00 4.00 Jacob R. Wyckoff, Princeton Junction, N. J. Wyckofif’s Special Corn Grower 1.65 2.00 0 0 d 10.00 Wyckoff’s Clay Soil Special 1.65 2.00 12.00 12.00 Wyckoff’s Tliiee Ten Naught 2.47 3.00 10.00 10.00 Wyckoff’s Special Formula 3.28 4.00 10.00 10.00 Wyckoff’s Special Flarrison Formula 3.28 4.00 10.00 10.00 Wyckoff’s Special Potato Fertilizer 3.28 4.00 8.00 8.00 3.00 Wyckoff’s Market Garden IManure 3.28 4.00 8.00 8.00 3.00 Wyckoff’s Special Potato Manure 3.28 4.00 1 8.00 8.00 5.00 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS FOR 1919 NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL BULLETIN 335 New Brunswick, N. J. NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS* NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J, STATE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1880 BOARD OF MANAGERS His Excellency WALTER B. EDGE, LL.D.. . .Trenton, Governor of the State of New Jersey W. H. S. DEMAREST, D. D New Brunswick, President of the State Agricultural College JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D Professor of Agriculture of the State Agricultural College County Atlantic Bergen Burlington Camden Cape May Cumberland Essex Gloucester Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Name William A. Blair Arthur Lozier R. R. Lippincott Ephraim T. Gill Chas. Vanaman Chas.P. Seabrook Zenos G. Crane Wilbur Beckett D. Bahrenburg Egbert T. Bush J. T. Allinson Address Elwood Ridgewood Vincentown Haddonfield Dias Creek Bridgeton Caldwell Swedesboro Union Hill Stockton Yardville County Middlesex Monmouth Morris Ocean Passaic Salem Somerset Sussex Union Warren STAFF Name Address James Neilson New Bruns’k William H. Reid Tennent John C. Welsh Ger’n Valley James E. Otis Tuckerton Isaac A. Serven Clifton Charles R. Hires Salem Joseph Larocque Bemardsville R. V. Armstrong Augusta John Z. Hatfield Scotch Plains James I. Cooke Delaware Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D Frank G. Helyar, B.Sc Irving E. Quackenboss Frank App, B.Sc Agronomist Irving L. Owen, B. Sc. A ssociate Agronomist J. Marshall Hunter, B.Sc., Animal Husbandman Chakles S. Cathcart, M.Sc Chemist Ralph L. Willis, B.Sc. . .Assistant Chemist Archie C. Wark Laboratory Assistant W. Andrew Cray. . . .Sampler and Assistant William M. Regan, A. M. Dairy Husbandman Forrest Button, B.Sc., Assistant Dairy Husbandman John Hill, B.Sc., Assistant Dairy Husbandman Walter R. Robbers, Superintendent of Advanced Registry Thomas J. Headlee, Ph.D Entomologist Chas. S. Beckwith, B.Sc. Asst. Entomologist Mitchell Carroll, B.Sc.. Asst. Entomologist Vincent J. Breazeale, Foreman, Vegetable Growing Arthur J. Farley, B.Sc., Acting Horticulturist Director. Associate in Station Administration. Chief Clerk, Secretary and Treasurer. Charles H. Connors, B.Sc., Assistant in Experimental Horticulture William Schieferstein . . Orchard Foreman Lyman G. Schermerpiorn, B.Sc., Specialist in Vegetable Studies H. M. Biekart Florist Harry R. Lewis, M.Agr., Poultry Husbandman Willard C. Thompson, B.Sc., Assistant Poultry Husbandman Ralston R. Hannas, M.Sc., Assistant in Poultry Research George H. Pound, B.Sc.. . .Poultry Assistant Morris Siegel Poultry Foreman Elmer H. Wene Poultry Foreman John P. Helyar, M.Sc Seed Analyst Jessie G. Fiske, PH.B...Asst. Seed Analyst Carl R. Woodward, B.Sc Editor Ingrid C. Nelson, A.B Assistant Editor Hazel H. Moran Assistant Librarian Leslie E. Hazen, M. E., In Charge of Rural Engineering AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE STATION. ESTABLISHED 1888 BOARD OF CONTROL The Board of Trustees of Rutgers College in New Jersey EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD W. H. S. DEMAREST, D. D., President of Rutgers College, Chairman New Brunswick WILLIAM H. LEUPP New Brunswick JAMES NEILSON New Brunswick WILLIAM S. MYERS New York City JOSEPH S. FRELINGHUYSEN Raritan STAFF JACOB G. LIPMAN, Ph.D HENRY P. SCHNEEWEISS, A.B.. John W. Shive, Ph.D. . . .Plant Physiologist Earle .1. Owen, M.Sc. .. Assistant in Botany Frederick W. Roberts, A.M., Assistant in Plant Breeding .Mathilde Groth Laboratory Aid Thomas J. Headlee, Ph.D Entomologist Ai.vah Peterson, Ph.D.. Asst. Entomologist Augusta E. Meske. .Stenographer and Clerk .Mklville T. Cook, Ph.D.. .Plant Pathologist WiDi-iAM H. Martin, Ph.D., Associate Plant Pathologist Director. Chief Clerk. Gertrude E. Macpherson, A.B., Research Assistant in Plant Pathology Jacob G. Lipman, Ph.D., Soil Chemist and Bacteriologist Augustine W. Blair, A.M., Associate Soil Chemist Selman a. Waksman, Ph.D., Microbiologist, Soil Research Jacob .Ioffe, B.Sc Research Assistant Cyrus Witmer, Field and Laboratory Assistant Staff list revised to January 1, 1919. NEW JERSEY AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION ORGANIZED 1912 AND NEW JERSEY STATE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE DIVISION OF EXTENSION IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS ORGANIZED 1914 Lons A. Clinton, M.Sc., Director. Mes. Feank App, Acting State Leader of Home Demonstration. ViCTOE G. Aubey, B.Sc., Specialist, Poultry Husbandry. John W. Baetlett, B.Sc., Specialist, Dairy Husbandry. M. A. Blake, B.Sc., Acting State Superin- tendent and State Leader of Farm Dem- onstration. Roscoe W. DeBaun, B.Sc., Specialist, Mar- ket Gardening. J. B. R. Dickey, B.Sc., Specialist, Soil Fer- tility and Agronomy. Maejoey Eells, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent. Edna Gklick, Home Demonstration Agent. Aethue M. Hulbeet, State Leader of Boys’ and Girls’ Club Work. Ethel Jones, M.A., Asst. State Club Leader. William F. Knowles, A.B., Assistant State Club Leader. William M. McIntyee, Assistant Specialist, Fruit Growing. Chaeles H. Nissley, B.Sc., Specialist, Fruit and Vegetable Growing. Cael R. Woodwaed, B.Sc., Editor. Ingeid C. Nelson, A.B., Assistant Editor. H. E. Baldingee, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Sussex County. William P. Beodie, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent, Salem County. Feank A. Caeroll, Demonstrator for Mercer County. Elwood L. Chase, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Gloucester County. Lauea V. Clark, A.B., Home Demonstration Agent for Newark. Louis A. Cooley, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Ocean County. Herbert R. Cox, M.S.A., Demonstration Agent for Camden County. Josephine C. Cramer, Home Demonstration Agent for Middlesex County. Lee W. Crittenden, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Middlesex County. Elwood Douglas's, Demonstrator for Mon- mouth County. Arden M. Ellis, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Monmouth County. Irvin T. Francis, A.B., Demonstration Agent for Essex County. Harry C. Haines, Demonstration Agent for Somerset County. Margaret H. Hartnett, Home Demonstra- tion Agent for Paterson. Cora a. Hoffman, B.Sc., Home Demonstra- tion Agent for Morris County. Harry B. Holcombe, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Burlington County. William A. Houston, Assistant Demonstra- tion Agent for Sussex County. Elva Hughes, Assistant Demonstration Agent for Burlington County. Lauretta P. James, B.Sc., Home Demon- stration Agent for Mercer County. May D. Kemp, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for the Oranges. Harvey S. Lippincott, B.Agr., Demonstrator for Morris County. Zelma Monroe, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Trenton. Adelia F. Noble, Home Demonstration Agent for Princeton. Warren W. Oley, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Cumberland County. James A. Stackhouse, B.Sc., Demonstrator for Cape May County. W. Raymond Stone, Demonstrator for Ber- gen County. Eunice Straw, B.Sc., Home Demonstration Agent for Monmouth County. Norine Webster, Home Demonstration Agent for Bayonne. Harold E. Wettyen, B.Sc., Demonstration Agent for Passaic County. Carolyn F. Wetzel, Home Demonstration Agent for Bergen County. Albert E. Wilkinson, M.Agr., Demonstra- tion Agent for Atlantic County. 3 New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Stations BULLETIN 335 JANUARY 30, 1919 Fertilizer Registrations for 1919 Charles S. Cathcart, State Chemist The law entitled “An Act Concerning Fertilizers,” which was approved March 27, 1912, requires the state chemist to publish an- nually a list of the brands of fertilizers that have been registered. In accordance with this requirement the following tabulations are pre- sented. They contain all of the registrations of fertilizer materials and mixed fertilizers that have been received up to the date of this bulletin and which will be in force for the fiscal year ending October 31, 1919. 5 6 BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Nitrogen Nitrogen Equiva- lent to Ammonia Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phos- phoric Acid Potash % % % % % Acme Guano Co., Baltimore, Md. 14.76 1 18.00 S. C. Phosphate 16.00 3.28 4.00 4.00 Harvest King, No. 2, 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 Ideal, No. 2 1.64 2.00 9.00 8.00 Ammoniated Pish Guano, No. 1, 2.46 3.00 9.00 8.00 3.28 4.00 9.00 8.00 4.10 5.00 8.00 7.00 Special Sweet Potato, No. 2 1.64 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Fish Mixture, No. 2 2.46 3.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Willoughby’s Mixture, 2.46 3.00 9.00 8.00 4.00 Potato Climax, No. 2, •3.28 4.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 1919 Potato Climax 3.28 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Acme Early Truck, No. 2 4.10 5.00 8.00 7.00 2.00 Active Chemical Co., Camden, N. J. S^TTip^r . 3.69 4.50 8.00 Semper Corn Grower 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 Spmjipr Soil Hrcsser 1.64 2.00 3.50 3.00 .^pTnppr All Crop 1.64 2.00 9.00 8.00 Semper Potato King, 1.64 2.00 11.00 10.00 SpTYippr Ar*tivp 2.46 3.00 9.00 8.00 Semper Grain Royal 2.46 3.00 11.00 10.00 iih^mppr Premium .... 3.28 4.00 9.00 • 8.00 S^mp<^^’ Spppial 3.28 4.00 11.00 10.00 ■temper Crmrlor 4.10 5.00 9.00 8.00 CJfirnper Vim 4.10 5.00 11.00 10.00 Semper Peerless, 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Semper Vigor 1.64 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Semper Excello 1.64 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Semper Versus 2.46 3.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Alpha Portland Cement Co., Easton, Pa. 2.50 Alphano Humus Co., New York City. ! 1.25 'Or'rvrvo Alr-iVtorirw T^UPVTllG . . 1.50 The American Agricultural Chemical Co., New York City. XTifpof^ rvF Q/Arl Q 15.00 18.23 1 0 / 7 / A r»Ul T>Vi/YcrtV»Q to . 13.00 12.00 RciQir* T.imo T^ViocjriVi n tp 14.00 13.00 15.00 14.00 14^^ Acid Phosphate, Phosplicit©, 17.00 16.00 PhosphcX,t6 with PotRSh 1 11.00 10.00 1.00 Dissolved Phosphate and Potash 1 11.00 10.00 2.00 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS FOR 1919 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 7 Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Nitrogen Nitrogen Equiva- lent to Ammonia Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phos- phoric Acid Potash % % % % % The American As’l Chemical Co., IV. Y. City — Cent. Fine Ground Bone, 2.47 3.00 22.88 High Grade Ground Bone 3.29 4.00 20.59 Soluble Grain Mixture 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 XXX Ammoniated Fertilizer, 1.23 1.50 11.00 10.00 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.65 2.00 13.00 12.00 Homestead Good Grower 2.06 2.50 9.00 8.00 Ammoniated Fertilizer AAA, 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Superphosphate with Ammonia 4^, 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 Ammoniated Fertilizer AAAA 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 High Grade Ammoniated Fertilizer 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 Great Truck Special, 4.11 5.00 11.00 10.00 Sterling Truck and Top Dressing Mixture Revised 5.76 7.00 7.00 6.00 High Nitrate Mixture for Top Dressing 8.23 10.00 6.00 5.00 Eagle Phosphate, 0.82 1.00 8.00 7.00 1.00 Royal Potash Mixture 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Wheat Corn and Grass Fertilizer 0.82 1.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Seeding Down Mixture 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 All Crop Fish Guano, Revised, 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 • 1.00 All Crop Fish Guano 1.23 1.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Matchless Potash Manure 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 General Crop Grower, 1916 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Soil and Crop Invigorator, Revised 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Gardners Delight, 1916 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Top Dresser for Cranberries, 1916, 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Sure Growth Phosphate, 1916 (Sulphate) 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Corn and Vegetable Compound, 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Superior Pish Guano for Broadcasting 3.29 4.00 6.00 5.00 1.00 Samson Potato and Truck Manure 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Complete Potato Mixture, 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 3.00 Odorless Grass and Lawn Top Dressing, Revised, 3.91 4.75 6.00 5.00 1.00 Truckers Best Fertilizer, 4.11 5.00 11.00 10.00 4.00 Special Grass and Garden Mixture, 1916 8.23 10.00 6.00 5.00 1.00 Bradley’s Special Superior Compound, Revised, . . 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 Bradley’s Golden Crop Compound, 2.47 3.00 11.00| 10.00 Bradley’s Truckers’ Delight, 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Bradley’s New Method Fertilizer, 1916, 0.82 1.00 9.00| 8.00 1.00 Bradley’s Eclipse Phosphate, 1916 1.23 1.50 11.001 10.00 1.00 Bradley’s Unicorn, 1916, 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 8 BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 Nitrogen V o i luarani A > o "3 £ ^ £ c o b£)+j o c oi teed M malysii o a m o a; h m w. 3 Available Phos- 5' phoric Acid ^ 3 1 c % % % % % The American Ag’l Chemical Co., N. Y. City — Cont. Bradley’s Patent Superphosphate, 1916 2.06 2.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 Bradley’s Half Century Fertilizer, 1916, 2.06 2.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Bradley s Potato Manure, 1916, 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Bradley’s XL Superphosphate of Lime, 1916, . . . 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Bradley’s Complete Manure for Potatoes and Vegetables, 1916, 3.29 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Bradley’s Peerless Potato Fertilizer 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 3.00 Bradley’s Golden Eagle, 1916, 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Crocker’s Special Grain Grower 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 Crocker’s Special Colonial Fertilizer, Revised, . . 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Crocker’s Champion Potato Grower 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Crocker’s Universal Grain Grower, 1916, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Crocker’s Complete Manure, 1916, 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Crocker’s New Rival Fertilizer, 1916 1.23 1.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Crocker’s Harvest Jewel Fertilizer, 1916 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Crocker’s High Grade Special, 1916, 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Crocker's Special Potato Fertilizer, 1916, 3.29 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Crocker’s Special Potato and Cabbage Manure,.. 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 3.00 Crocker’s Best Truck Manure, 1916, 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 East India Special Improved Compound 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 East India Early Market 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 East India Victor Special, 1916, 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 lifist India Economizer Phosphate, 1916, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 East India Mayflower, 1916, 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 East India Corn King, 1916, 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 East India Potato Special, 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 East India Potato and Garden Manure 3.29 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 East India Black Hawk Potato and Truck Ferti- lizer, 1919 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 3.00 Great Eastern Dissolved Acid Phosphate, 15.00 14.00 Great Eastern General, 1916, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Great Eastern Special Crop Fertilizer, 1916, .... 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Great Eastern High Grade Potato Fertilizer, 1916 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Great Eastern Wheat Special, 1916, 2.06 2.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 Great Eastern Northern Corn Special, 1916 2.06 2.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 Great Eastern Vegetable, Vine and Tobacco Fer- tilizer, 1916, 2.06 2.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Great Eastern Tomato and Potato Special, 1916, 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Milsom’s Golden Eagle 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 Milsom’s Spppjjil TTflrrow Brand, 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Milsom’s Potato Producer 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Milsom’s Wheat, Oats and Barley, 1916, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Milsom’s Potato and Cabbage Manure, 1916 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS FOR 1919 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 9 Guaranteed Minimum Analysis 1 Nitrogen Nitrogen Equiva lent to Ammonia Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phos- phoric Acid 1 Potash The American Ag’l Chemical Co., N. Y. City — Cont. % % % % % Milsom’s Soil Enricher, 1916, 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Milsom’s Buffalo Fertilizer, 1916, 2.06 2.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 Milsom’s Potato, Hop and Tobacco Fertilizer, 1916 2.06 2.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Milsom’s Corn Fertilizer, 1916, 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Milsom’s Medal Brand Manure, 1916, 3.29 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Milsom’s Truck Fertilizer, 1916, 3.70 4.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 Moro-Phillips’ Farmers’ Potato Mixture, 1916,.. 1.23 1.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Moro-Phillips’ Pure Phuine, 1916 Moro-Phillips’ Special No. 1 Potato and Truckj 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Manure, 1916 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Moro-Phillips’ High Grade Truck Manure, 1916,. 3.29 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 North Western Complete Compound, 1916 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 North Western Challenge Fertilizer, 1916 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 North Western Farmers Standard, 1916, 1.23 1.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 North Western Shawnee Phosphate, 1916 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 North Western Diamond Potash Mixture, 1916,.. 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 North Western Homestead Fertilizer, 1916 2.06 2.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 North Western Red Line Fertilizer, 1916, 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 North Western Garden Manure, 1916 Packer’s Union Superior Acid Phosphate 3.29 4.00 1 10.00 15.00 9.00 14.00 1.00 Packer’s Union Universal Fertilizer, 1916 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Packer’s Union Superior Crop Grower, 1916 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Packer’s Union Animal Corn Fertilizer, 1916, .. 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 ^ 1.00 Packer’s Union Potato Manure, 1916 2.06 1 2.50 1 11.00 10.00 1.00 Potomac. Fruit Tree Specia.1, 1.65 I 2.00 j 13.00 12.00 Potomac Golden Harvest Revised 2.47 1 3.00 2.00 1 11.00 10.00 Potomac Complete Manure, 1916, 1.65 1 10.00 1 9.00 1.00 Potomac Potato Special 3.29 1 4.00 1 9.00 8.00 3.00 Potomac Golden Potato Manure, 3.29 1 4.00 1 10.00 1 9.00 1.00 Preston's Pioneer Fertilizer, 1916, 0.82 1 1.00 1 11.00 1 10.00 1.00 Preston’s Corn, Tomato and Potato Guano, 1916, 1.65 1 2.00 1 10.00 1 9.00 1.00 Preston’s Special New Jersey Brand, 1916, 2.47 1 3.00 1 10.00 9.00 1.00 Read’s Practical Grain Grower, 1.65 2.47 1 2.00 11.00 1 10.00 Read’s Farm and Garden Manure 1 1 3.00 11.00 1 10.00 Rparl’s Tr>p Notch TVTi'vtiirp 3.29 1 4.00 11.00 1 10.00 Read’s Leader Fertilizer, 0.82 1 1.00 9.00 1 8.00 1.00 Read’s All Crops Fertilizer, 1916, 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Read’s Corn, Wheat and Rye, 1916 1.65 2.00 10.00 1 9.00 1.00 Read’s Farmers’ Friend Superphosphate, 1916, . , 2.06 2.50 9.00 1 8.00 1.00 Read’s Vegetable and Vine Fertilizer, 1916 Read’s High Grade Farmers’ Friend Superphos- 2.47 3.00 10.00 1 9.00 1.00 phate, 1916 3.29 4.00 10.00 1 9.00 1.00 Read’s Truck Fertilizer, 1916 4.11 5.00 9.00 1 8.00 1.00 lO BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 |! Nitrogen j uarant A , os'S > o '5 S ^ c c o 0) bc+j P (1) ;eed M malysii o .c a to o Available Phos- a' phoric Acid a 3 Potash % % % % The American Ag’l Chemical Co., IV. Y. City — Cont. Reese’s Ammoniated Phosphate Mixture, 1916, . . 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Reese’s Potato Manure, 1916, 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Grain Mixture, 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Practical Guano, 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Gold Seal Potato Manure 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Griscom’s King Crab Compound, 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Royal Spring Mixture, 1916 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Farmer’s Brand Phos- 1 phate, 1916, 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Pish Guano, 1916, Revised 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Sharpless & Carpenter s Potato, Corn and Truck 1 Guano, 1916, 1.23 1.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s, No. 1 Brand Phosphate, 1916 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Complete Manure, 1916, Revised, 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Complete Manure, 1916, 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Fish Guano, 1916, 2.06 2.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Vegetable and Potato Manure, 1916 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Sharpless & Carpenter’s Soluble Tampico Guano, 1916, 3.29 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Allen’s Popular Phosphate, 1916, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Tygert-Allen’s Star Potato Grower, 1916 1.23 1.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Tygert-Allen’s Standard Brand Phosphate, 1916, 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Tygert-Allen’s Reliable Crop Grower, 1916 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Tygert-Allen’s Star Brand Phosphate, 1916 2.06 2.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 Allen’s Sweet Potato Manure, 1916, 2.06 2.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Allen’s Potato and Truck Manure, 1916, 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Allen’s 10% Guano, 1916 8.23 10.00 6.00 5.00 1.00 Whcp.lcr’.'? PpprlesR Arid Phnspha.tp, 15.00 14.00 Wheeler’s High Grade Acid Phosphate, 17.00 16.00 Wheeler’s Royal Wheat Grower, 1916, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Wheeler’s Corn Fertilizer, 1916, 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 AVheeler’s Potato Manure, 1916 2.06 2.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Wheeler’s Reliable Manure, 1916 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Wheeler’s High Grade Special, 1916, 3.29 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Williams Xj Clark’s Stprling’ Mixtiirp 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 Williams & Clark’s Mammoth Crop Producer, . . 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Williams & Clark’s Special Potato and Root Fer- tilizer, 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS FOR 1919 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 1 1 G c (U ho o uarant A . .5 > O ‘B S s o 0) bXl-M o c tn (U Z eed Mi nalysis 't. o .c a o p p i 3 ■ Available Phos- | g' | phoric Acid | p ■ =5 il i M +3 o '%■ % % 1 % % The American As’l Chemical Co., N. Y. City — Cent. 1 Williams & Clark s Special Prolific Crop Producer 0.82 1.00 9.00| 8.00 1.00 Williams & Clark’s Matchless Fertilizer, 1916, . . 1.65 2.00 10.00| 9.00j 1.00 Williams & Clark’s Meadow Queen Fertilizer, 1916 2.47 3.00 10.00| 9.00| 1.00 Williams & Clark’s Potato Special 3.29 4.00 9.00| 8.00 3.00 Williams & Clark’s Americas High Grade Special! 1 for Potatoes and Root Crops, 1916, 3.29 4.00 lo.ooj 9.00 1.00 Williams & Clark’s Utility Brand 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 3.00 American Fertilizing Co., Baltimore, Md. High Grade Acid Phosphate, 15.00 14.00| 16.00j American High Grade Acid Phosphate, 17.00 American Alkaline Mixture, 9.00 American Phosphate and Potash, 11.00 8.00[ o.UU 1.00 American Dissolved Phosphate and Potash 11.00 10.00| 2.00 American Special Pish Guano 0.82 1.00 11.00 lO.OOj lo.ooj American Champion Ammoniated Phosphate, .... 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00| American Fish Special, 1.65 2.00 12.00 ll.OOj American Eagle Ammoniated Compound 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00| American Eagle Potato and Truck Grower, 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 1 American Truck and Vegetable Fertilizer, 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 American Truck Ammoniated Superphosphate, . . 4.12 5.00 9.00 1 8.00| I American Potato Superphosphate 4.12 5.00 11.00 10.00 1 American Reliable Guano 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Ammoniated Crop Compound 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 American Grain and Grass Grower, 0.82 1.00 10.00 9.00 3.00 American Eagle Crop Grower 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 American Pish and Potash Compound, 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 American Pish and Potash Compound, Revised, 1918 1.65 2.00 9.50 8.50 1.00 American Eagle Guano, Revised •2.47 1 3.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 American Potato Guano with 1^ Potash, 3.29 1 4.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 American Potato and Truck Guano, 3.29 1 4.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 American Eagle Truck and Vegetable Manure, . . 3.29 1 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 American Potato and Vegetable Manure with 1^ Potash, 3.29 1 4.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 American Potato and Vegetable Compound, . . . . 3.29 1 4.00 11.00 10.00 2.00 American Eagle Truck Fertilizer with 1% Potash, 1 4.12 5.00 9.00 8.00 1 1.00 American Eagle Truckers Special 1 4.12 5.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 American Potato and Truck Compound, 1 4.12 5.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Armour Fertilizer Works, Baltimore, Md. Acid Phosphate, 14.50 14.00 Star Phosphate 14.50 14.00 Acid Phosphate 16.50 16.00 Phosphate and Potash, No. 1 10.50 10.00 2.00 12 BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 Nitrogen ' O i c Nitrogen Equiva- ^ lent to Ammonia P 5. :eed M malysi! o 't, o x: o m o .s: 'O S' 1 Available Phos- 5' * phoric Acid ^ 3 1 xi 3 +J O Oh % % % % % Armour Fertilizer Works, Baltimore, Md.— — Cont. Phosphate and Potash 10.50 10.00 2.00 Bone Meal 2.47 3.00 22.00 Animal Bone 2 47 3.00 22.00 Raw Bone Meal, 3.70 4.50 21.50 Tuscarora’s 1-10-0 Fertilizer, 0.82 1.00 10.50 10.00 Armour’s 1-10-0 Fertilizer 0.82 1.00 10.50 10.00 Armour’s li/^-9-O Fertilizer 1.23 1.50 9.50 9.00 Tuscarora’s l^/^-O-O Fertilizer 1.23 1.50 10.50 10.00 1.65 2.00 10.50 10.00 Armour’s 2-10-0 Fertilizer, 1.65 2.00 10.50 10.00 Armour’s 3-10-0 Fertilizer, 2.47 3.00 10.50 10.00 Tuscarora's 3-10-0 Fertilizer, 2.47 3.00 10.50 10.00 Tuscarora’s 4-10-0 Fertilizer, 3.29 4.00 10.00 Armour’s 4-10-0 Fertilizer, 3.29 4.00 1 10.50 1 10.50 10.00 Armour’s 5-10-0 Fertilizer 4.11 5.00 10.00 Tuscarora’s 5-10-0 Fertilizer 4.11 5.00 1 10.50 10.00 Wheat Corn and Oats Special, 0.82 1.00 1 10.50 1 7.50 7.00 1.00 Ammoniated Phosphate 0.82 1.00 1 7.50 7.00 1.00 Crop Grower, 0.82 1.00 1 8.50 8.00 2.00 Royal Ammoniated, 0.82 1.00 j 8.50 8.00 4.00 York State Special, 0.82 1.00 1 8.50 8.00 4.00 Grain Grower 1.65 2.00 1 8.50 8.00 2.00 Standard 1.65 2.00 1 8.50 8.00 2.00 Tuscarora’s 2-8-5 Fertilizer 1.65 2.00 1 8.50 8.00 5.00 Fruit and Root Crop Special 1.65 2.00 1 8.50 8.00 5.00 Armour’s 4-8-3 Fertilizer 3.29 4.00 1 8.50 8.00 3.00 Tuscarora’s 4-8-3 Fertilizer 3.29 4.00 1 8.50 8.00 3.00 Tuscarora’s 4-8-4 Fertilizer, 3.29 4.00 1 8.50 8.00| 1 4.00 Armour’s 4-8-4 Fertilizers 3.29 4.00 1 8.50 8.00 4.00 M. B. Atkinson, Bogota, N. J. Atlrinsnn’s FrAparprl ’FTnmiiR 1.25 1.50 1.00 James H. Baird & Son, Marlboro, N. J. 4 1/9-1014-0 3.70 4.50 12.50 10.50 Baltimore Pulverizing €o., Baltimore, Md. Special Spring and Fall Mixture, 9.00 8.00 1.00 Fnrn anrl t^rain 13.00 12.00 1.00 Ammonisit^d FipVi 1 2.46 3.00 9.00 8.00 Farmers’ Favorite Fertilizer 0.82 1.00 8.00 7.50 1.00 Penniman’s Special Guano 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Special Potato Mixture 1.64 2.00 8.00 7.00 1.00 Ammoniated Fish Guano, No. 2 2.46 3.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Special Strawberry Compound 3.28 4.00 8.00 7.00 1.00 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS FOR 1919 3 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 The Barrett Co., JVew York City. Arcadian Sulphate of Ammonia Baagh <& Sons Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Dried Ground Blood, Nitrate of Soda Sulphate of Ammonia Baugh’s Pure Steamed Bone, Baugh’s Raw Bone Meal Baugh’s High Grade Tankage, Baugh’s High Grade Tankage, Ground Fish Baugh’s High Grade Tankage, Ground Fish, Ground Fish, Finely Ground Pure Phosphate Rock Unacidulated Baugh’s 14% Acid Phosphate Baugh’s 16% Acid Phosphate Baugh’s Peninsula Grain Producer, 1919, Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Baugh’s Corn and Oats Fertilizer Baugh’s The Old Stand-By ; Dissolved Animal Base Baugh’s Truckers’ Favorite Baugh’s High-Grade Ammoniated Animal Base, . Baugh's Superb Potato Phosphate Baugh’s General Crop Grower for All Crops, . . . Baugh’s Special Vegetable Fertilizer, Baugh’s Complete Animal Base Fertilizer, 1919, Baugh’s Special Potato Manure, 1919 Baugh’s Durable Plant Pood, Baugh’s High-Grade Potato Grower, “Big Potato” Brand Baugh’s White Potato Special Baugh’s Peruvian Guano Substitute for Potatoes and All Vegetables, 1919 Various Special Mixtures of Registered Ingredi- ents, in accordance with ruling of State Chemist. Berger Bros., Elaston, Pa. Peerless Phosphate, 1916 Lehigh Superphosphate, 1916, The Berg Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Berg’s Raw Bone Fine Berg’s Special Wheat Grower Berg’s Special Crop Grower, Berg’s Special Bone Manure without Potash, . . . I Nitrogen 1 1 1 Nitrogen Equiva- 1 1 lent to Ammonia 1 Total Phosphoric Acid 1 Available Phos- phoric Acid m 2 o % % % % % 20.75 25.25 9.88 12.00 15.23 18.50 20.57 25.00 1.65 2.00 25.00 3.30 4.00 18.30 4.94 6.00 3.00 5.76 7.00 3.50 5.80 7.00 4.80 6.58 8.00 1 4.00 7.42 9.00 6.00 8.23 10.00 6.87 30.50 14.00 14.00 16.00 16.00 0.82 1.00 9.00 9.00 1.65 2.00 10.00 10.00 1.65 2.00 12.00 12.00 2.47 3.00 10.00 10.00 3.30 4.00 10.00 10.00 4.12 5.00 10.00 10.00 0.82 1.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 0.82 1.00 9.00 9.00 3.00 1.65 2.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 1.65 2.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 1.65 2.00 8.00 8.00 2.00 I 3.30 1 4.00 8.00 8.00' 1 1.00 3.30 4.00 8.00 8.00 1 3.00 4.12 5.00 1 8.00 8.00 1 1.00 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 3.00 3.64 22.00 1.65 2.00 11.00 8.00 1.65 2.00 14.00 10.00 2.00 2.43 1 11.00 7.00 14 BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Nitrogen Nitrogen Equiva- lent to Ammonia Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phos- phoric Acid Potash The Berg Co., Philadelphia, Pa. — Continued. % % % % % Berg’s Special Truck Grower 2.47 3.00 14.00 1 n on Berg’s Bone and Meat 3.30 4.00 17.00 1 4 00 Berg’s Uneed Bone Manure, • 1.65 2.00 11.00 8.00 1.00 Berg’s Bone and Potash Guano, 1.65 2.00 14.00 10.00 2.00 Berg’s Vigor Volo Bone Manure, 2.00 2.43 11.00 7.00 1.00 Berg’s Standard Bone Manure, 1919, 2.47 3.00 14.00 10.00 3.00 Bon Arbor Chemical Co., Paterson, N. J. Wood Ashes 1.00 1.00 Bon Arbor, No. 1 Soluble Plant Life, 15.00 18.21 5.00 5.00 5.00 Bowker Fertilizer Co., New York City. Bowker’s Soluble Phosphate, 15.00 14.00 Bowker’s 16^ Acid Phosphate, 17.00 16.00 Bowker’s Fresh Ground Bone, 2.47 3.00 22.88 Bowker’s Superphosphate with Ammonia 1^, . . . 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 Bowker s Superphosphate with Ammonia 2^, . . . 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 Bowker's Superphosphate with Ammonia 3^, ... 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Bowker’s Superphosphate with Ammonia 4^, . . . 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Bowker’s Superphosphate with Ammonia 5%, . . . 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 Bowker’s High Nitrogen Mixture without Potash, 8.23 10.00 6.00 5.00 Bowker’s Staple Phosphate, 1916, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Bowker’s Wheat and Corn Fertilizer, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Bowker’s Sure Crop Phosphate, 1916 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Bowker’s Standard Phosphate, 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Bowker’s Farm and Garden Phosphate, 1916, Revised | 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Bowker’s Farm and Garden Phosphate, 1916, . . . 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Bowker’s Sweet Potato and Truck Manure, 1916, 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Bowker’s All Round Fertilizer, 1916, 2.06 2.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Bowker's Lawn and Garden Dressing, 1918 2.47 3.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Bowker’s Hill and Drill Phosphate, 1916, 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Bowker’s Superior Fish Guano for Broadcasting, 3.29 4.00 6.00 5.00 1.00 Bowker’s Potato Special, 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Stockbridge General Crop Manure, 1916 3.29 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Bowker’s Complete, 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 3.00 Louis Burk, Philadelphia, Pa. Tankage 3.60 4.38 19.90 12.71 Chamberlin & Barclay, Cranbury, N. J. Chamberlin & Barclay’s, 1919, Special, 3.29 4.00 8.00 8.00 3.00 Chicago Feed & Fertilizer Co., Chicago, 111. Magic Brand Pulverized Sheep Manure 1.85 2.25 1.50 1.43 1.25 The Coe-.>Iortimer Co., New York City. E. Frank Coe’s Basic Fruit and Legume Phosphate (Basic Lime Phosphate) (Key-Plow Brand), ... 14.00 13.00 E. Frank Coe’s High Grade Soluble Phosphate, . . 16.00 14.00 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS FOR 1919 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 15 Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Nitrogen Nitrogen Equiva- lent to Ammonia Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phos- phoric Acid Potash % % % % % The Coe-Mortimer Co., ]Vew York City — Continued. E. Frank Coe’s 16% Superphosphate, 17.00 16.00 Fine Ground Bone 2.47 3.00 22.88 E. Frank Coe’s XXV Ammoniated Phosphate, 1916 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 E. Frank Coe’s Original Ammoniated Dissolved Phosphate, 1916, 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 E. Frank Coe’s High Grade Ammoniated Super- phosphate, 1916 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 E. Frank Coe s Prolific Crop Producer, 1916, .... 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 E. Frank Coe’s Gardners’ and Truckers’ Special, 1916, 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 E. Frank Coe’s Top Dressing Manure, 1916, .... I 6.58 8.00 9.00 8.00 E. Frank Coe’s New Englander Special, 1916, .. 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 E. Frank Coe’s General Crop Manure, Revised, i 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 E. Frank Coe’s Columbian Corn and Potato Fer- tilizer, 1916, 1.23 1.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 E. Frank Coe’s Empire State Brand, Revised, . . . 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 E. Frank Coe’s Universal Fertilizer, 1916, 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 E. Frank Coe’s Gold Brand Excelsior Guano, 1916 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 E. Frank Coe’s Standard Potato Fertilizer, 1916, 3.29 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 E. Frank Coe s Monmouth County Special Potato Fertilizer, Revised, 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 E. Frank Coe’s Red Brand Excelsior Guano, 1916 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Country Club (Reg. U. S. Pat. Office), Golf and Lawn Fertilizer, 1916, Brand A. for Putting Greens 5.76 7.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 J. S. Collins & Son, Inc., Moorestown, N. J. Armour’s Bone Meal Fertilizer j 2.47 3.00 Dried and Ground Fish 10.00 12.00 Nitrate Soda 14.81 18.00 16% Acid Phosphate, 17.00 16.00 Special 2-12 Fertilizer 1.61 2.00 13.00 12.00 Special 3-10 Fertilizer, 2.46 3.00 11.00 10.00 Special 4-10 Fertilizer 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Armour’s Sheep Manure, 1.66| 2.00 1.00 1.00 3.25 The Consumers Chemcial Corp., New York City. Consumer’s Dried Fish, 8.23 10.00 Consumer’s Tankage, 8.23 10.00 Consumer’s Nitrate of Soda, . . •. 14.81 18.00 Consumer s Pure-Sure Acid Phosphate 15.00 14.00 Consumer’s High Grade Acid Phosphate 17.00 16.00 Coiisiirn6r’s Bone 2.47 3.00 22.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Phosphate and Potash, . . . 10.00 9.00 2.00 Consumer s Pure-Sure Potash Mixture, 11.00 10.00 1.00 i6 BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31 , 1919 Nitrogen P Nitrogen Equiva- lent to Ammonia p .nalysi! ;eed M o o a W o S' Available Phos- P‘ phoric Acid g P 1 02 S O % % % % % The Consumers Chemical Corp., N. Y. City — Cont. Consumer’s All Crop Compound (without Potash) 0.82 1.00 10.00 9.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Ammoniated Bone Phos- phate, 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Corn and Grain Bone Phos- phate, 1.65 2.00 13.00 12.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Corn and Vegetable (with- 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Potato and Vegetable 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Potato Manure (without Pota fib , 4.11 5.00 11.00 10.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Truckers’ Mixture (with- mit Pnta.sb ) , 4.94 6.00 9.00 8.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Plant Food 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Consumer’s All Crop Compound, 0.82 1.00 10.00 9.00 3.00 Consumer’s XXXX Fish and Potash Mixture, . . . 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Consumer’s Complete Compound, 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Fertilizer for General Use, 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Corn and Vegetable (with Potash), 2.47 3.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Potato and Vegetable (with Potash), 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Potato and Vegetable (with 3% Potash) 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Consumer’s Pure-Sure Potato Manure (with 1^ Potash) 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 E. Dougherty, Philadelphia, Pa. XitrRt<^ nf Pnfla 15.00 18.23 of Ammonia 20.15 24.50 A'^id PbF>‘*pbaf<^ 14.75 14.00 AojH PViospViato 16.00 Dom^Sti'’ PofapiVi IVTa ferial 23.00 o^ 40.00 Sulpha '^f Potash 47.00 Muriate of Potash 50.00 Pulverized Sheep Manure, 1.64 2.00 1.00 Ground Steamed Bone, 2.46 3.00 22.88 Tankag<^ 4.11 5.00 6.86 T£inkfi£‘^ iiiiiiTi --- - . 4.94 6.00 9.16 Fish Guano Compound, 5.75 7.00 4.57 JameN G. Downward Co., Coatesvllle, Pa. Phosplif^t^ i * 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 *PVlAQnliatA 1.65 2,00 11.00 10.00 Pioneer Potato Phosphate, 2.46 3.00 11.00 10.00 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS FOR 1919 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 17 Guaranteed Minimum Analysis 1 Nitrogen Nitrogen Equiva- lent to Ammonij Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phos- phoric Acid Potash % % % % % The Fertile Chemical Co., Cleveland, Ohio. Lime-Fertile, 3.00 Nitro-Fertile 2.00 2.40 3.00 3.00 3.00 J. Fischer & Co., Keyport, N. J. Nitrate of Soda Sweepings (Sifted) 10.00 12.14 Fogg & Hires Co., Salem, X. J. Wonder Brand 3.29 4.00 8.00 8.00 3.00 Alexander Forbes & Co., Newark, N. J. Forbes Complete Garden Fertilizer War Brand, . . 1.65 2.00 10.00 8.00 Forbes Perfection Lawn Dressing War Brand, . . 2.47 3.00 10.00 8.00 1.00 D. Fullerton & Co., Paterson, N. J. Tankage, 7.03 8.53 6.15 Godfrey Co-operative Fertilizer and Chemical Co., • Newark, N. J. Godfrey’s 14^ Acid Phosphate 14.50 14.00 Godfrey’s 16^ Acid Phosphate 16.50 16.00 Godfrey’s Phosphate and Potash, 10.50 10.00 2.00 Godfrey’s Pure Bone Meal, 2.47 3.00 23.00 Godfrey’s Raw Bone Meal 3.70 4.50 21.50 Godfrey’s Special Florists’ Tankage, 4.94 6.00 12.00 Godfrey’s High Grade Florists’ Tankage 7.40 9.00 6.00 Godfrey’s Special Mixture, 0.82 1.00 10.50 10.00 Godfrey’s Grain Grower 1.23 1.50 9.50 9.00 Godfrey’s Corn Mixture 1.65 2.00 10.50 10.00 Godfrey’s Vegetable Mixture 2.47 3.00 10.50 10.00 Godfrey’s Early Potato Mixture 3,29 4.00 10.50 10.00 Godfrey’s Potato and Truck Mixture, 4.11 1 5.00 10.50 10.00 Godfrey’s Special 0.82 I C W V 1.00 7.50 7.00 1.00 Godfrey’s Special Grain and Sure Crop Fertilizer, Revised, 0.82 1.00 8.50 8.00 2.00 Godfrey’s Superior Grain Fertilizer, 0.82 1.00 8.50 8.00 4.00 Godfrey’s Grain and Grass Fertilizer, 1.65 2.00 8.50 8.00 2.00 Godfrey’s Corn and Truck Grower 1.65 2.00 8.50 8.00 5.00 Godfrey’s Corn Grower, Revised 1.65 2.00 10.50 10.00 2.00 Godfrey’s H. G. Market Garden Manure, Revised, 3.29 4.00 8.50 8.00 1.00 Godfrey’s Potato and Truck Fertilizer, 3.29 4.00 8.50 8.00 3.00 Godfrey’s Potato and Truck Grower, 3.29 4.00 8.50 8.00 4.00 Godfrey’s Potato Manure, Revised 3.29 4.00 9.50 9.00 2.00 G. G. Green, Jr., Woodbury, N. J. Pure Ground Bone, 2.47 3.00 22.90 Hafleigh & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. Pure Raw Bone Meal, 3.75 4.50 26.84 i8 BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 G c v Efi ‘^y Trertiliy.er 4.49 5.45 17.18 IdnterN Agricultural Chi^mical Works, Newark, N. J. 1 1 Listers Buyer’s Choice Acid Phosphate, 1 15.00 14.00 T.iatoTQ 1 p'‘Vi Ar*iH 17.00 16.00 Listers Dissolved Phosphate and Potash, 1916, . . 11.00 10.00 1.00 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS EOR 1919 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 21 Nitrogen 1 ruarani A C > O ■3 £ G 0 CU hb-t-' ? ” ^ 0) Z teed M Lnalysi 0 .c a in 0 P “ 5- 1 Available Phos- phoric Acid g rr Potash % % % Listers Ag’l Chemical Works, Newark, N. J. — Cont. 11.00 10.00 2.00 Listers Bone Meal, 1916, 2.47 3.00 23.00 Listers Celebrated Ground Bone and Tankage 2.67 1 3.25 12.00 Listers Plant Food, 1916, for Grain and Grass, . . 0.82 1 1.00 11.00 10.00 Listers Plant Food, 1916, 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 Listers Crescent Arnmoniated Superphosphate, 1916 1.65 ! 2.00 11.00 10.00 Listers Crescent Arnmoniated Superphosphate, i 1916, for Grain and Grass, 1.65 1 2.00 I'l.OO 10.00 2.47 j 3.00 11.00 10.00 Listers Superior Arnmoniated Superphosphate, 1916 3.29 1 4.00 11.00 10.00 Listers Atlas Brand Fertilizer, 1916, 4.11 i 5.00 9.00 8.00 Listers Brakeley Special Mixture, 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 A. B. Special Fertilizer, Revised 4.11 5.00 11.00 10.00 Listers Special Potato Fertilizer, 1916, 4.11 5.00 11.00 10.00 Listers Squirrel Brand Fertilizer, 1916 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Listers 1-8-2 Fertilizer, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Listers Valley Brand Fertilizer, 1916, 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Listers Success Fertilizer, 1916 1.23 1.50 11.00 , 10.00 1.00 Listers Harvest Queen Phosphate, 1916, 1.23 1.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Listers U. S. Superphosphate, 1916 1,23 1.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Listers New York Special Fertilizer, 1916 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Listers Wheat and Rye Fertilizer, 1916 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Listers Corn and Potato Fertilizer, 1916 2.06 2.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 Listers Arnmoniated Dissolved Superphosphate, I 1916, 2.06 1 2.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 Listers Lawn Fertilizer, 1916 2.06 2.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 Listers Special Wheat Fertilizer, 1916, 2.06 2.50 9.00 8.00 1.00 Listers Potato and Corn, No. 2 Fertilizer, 1916, . • 2.06 2.50 11.00 10. Od 1.00 Listers Standard Pure Superphosphate of Lime, 1916 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Listers 4-8-3 Fertilizer 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Listers Perfect Potato Manure, 1916, 3.29 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Listers Vegetable Compound, 1916, 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 liOcke & Black, Swedesboro, N. J. Ring Crab 9.22 11.25 Bon^ 4.10 5.00 21.00 Bone Tankage 4.51 5.50 21.00 5.12 6.25 7.00 6 25^ Pure Animal Tankage, 5.51 6.75 13.00 6 75^ High Grade Animal Tankage, 7 50^ High Grade Animal Tankage, 6.15 7.50 10.00 No 3 Sweet pritafr* RArtiliTier, 1.64 2.00 11.00 10.00 No. 6 All Around Fertilizer, 2.05 2.50 8.00 7.00 22 BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 Nitrogen o luaran I 1 03 ‘S > O c o (X)4-' o c OI z teed M Lnalysi o 'C o Xi n tc o .c H inimur s W a; 11 i-g. << Potash i % % % % % Locke <& Black, Swcdesboro, N. J. — Continued. No. 1 High Grade Potato, Onion and Early Truck 3.70 4.50 9.00 8.00 No. 5 Special Early Tomato & Asparagus Grower, 4.10 5.00 9.00 8.00 No. 7 Sweet Potato Fertilizer Swedesboro Choice, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 5.00 No. 4 Special Sweet Potato Fertilizer 1.64 2.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 No. 2 White Potato and General Crop Grower, . . 2.46 3.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 No. 1^2 Special White Potato 3.28 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Frederick Liidlam Co., New York City. Sickle Fertilizer No. 1, 1916, 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Sir*irlp Fprtiliy.pr No 4, 1916 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Sickle Fertilizer No. 5, 1916 4.11 5.00 9.00 8.00 Palmetto Fertilizer, 1916, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Cereal Fertilizer, 1916, 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 A. B. F, Fertilizer, 1916, Revised, 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 •General Fertilizer 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Cecrops Fertilizer, 1916, 3.29 4.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Cecrops Complete 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 3.00 The 3Iai»es Formula <& Peruvian Guano Co., New York City. Mapes General Crop (1916 Brand), 1.65 2.00 10.00 8.00 Map*^*^ FIy*^ Ppr Cpnt Arrunnrtia. Special, 4.12 5.00 10.00 8.00 Mapes C S Special (without Potash), 4.12 5.00 4.00 4.00 Mapes Corn Manure (1916 Brand), 2.47 3.00 10.00 8.00 1.00 Mapes Potato Manure (1916 Brand), 3.71 4.50 8.00 8.00 1.00 Mapes Tobacco Starter, Improved 4.12 5.00 8.00 6.00 1.00 W ill. Henry 3Iaule, Inc., Philadeliiliia, Pa. Panmure Plant Food, 1919 3.29 4.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 .'Vlitchell Fertilixer Co., Tremley, N. J. TVTi t/-'Vipl 1 ’c 14c/ Acirl PVinsnhate ! 15.00 14.00 Mitchell’s Special Lawn Dressing Fertilizer, Re- vised 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Mitchell’s Special Lettuce Fertilizer, 1916, Revised 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Mitchell’s Special Celery Fertilizer, 1916, Revised 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Mitchell’s Special Vegetable Fertilizer, 1916, Re- vised 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Mitchell’s Special Cabbage Fertilizer, 1916, Re- vised 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Mitchell’s Special Corn Fertilizer, 1916, Revised, 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Mitchell’s Special Tomato Fertilizer, 1916, Revised 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Mitchell’s Special Asparagus Fertilizer, 1916, Re- 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Mitchell's Special Lawn Dressing Fertilizer, 1916, 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS FOR 1919 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 23 G c o s t-i 0) z teed M Lnalysi o .cl a M o P “5-1 Available Phos- 1 5‘ I phoric Acid g 5 Potash % % % % % Mitchell Fertilizer Co., Tremley, N. J. — Continued. Mitchell’s Potato Fertilizer, 1916, Revised, 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Monmouth County Farmers^ Fxchange, Freehold, N. J. 14.80 18.00 Sulphate Ammonia 20.50 25.00 Acid Phosphate, 16.00 16.00 Potash (Jesse Lake) 27.00 1.64 2.00 22.00 5.35 6.50 9.00 Triangle Brand 2-11-0, 1.64 2.00 12.00 11.00 Triangle Brand 4-10-0, 3.29 4,00 11.00 10.00 Triangle Brand 4-8-3 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Joseph R. 3Ioore, Swedesboro, N. J. J. R. Moore’s King Crab, 9.87 12.00 J. R. Moore’s 5^^ Tankage 4.53 5.50 15.00 J. R. Me ore’s 7^ Tankage, 5.76 7.00 5.00 J. R. Moore’s 8^ Tankage 6.50 8.00 7.00 Moore’s 2-12-0 Sweet Potato Manure, 1,65 2.00 12.00 12.00 Moore’s 4.10,0 Potato Manure, 3.29 4.00 10.00 10.00 Moore’s Asparagus and Truck Manure 5-10-0, . . 4.12 5.00 10.00 10.00 Moore’s 1-9-3 Sweet Potato Manure, 0.82 1.00 9.00 9.00 3.00 J, R. Moore’s High Grade Potash Sweet Potato Manure 0.86 1.00 8.00 8.00 5.00 "Potn tr» IVTaniire 1,65 2.00 8.00 8.00 2.00 J. R. Moore’s Early Truck and Potato Manure, . . 3.29 4.00 8.00 8.00 2.00 Moore’s Superior Potato and Truck Manure 3.29 4.00 8.00 8.00 3.00 J. R. Moore’s Baxter Special Tomato Manure, . . 3,71 5.50 7.00 7.00 1.00 Moore’s Baxter Improved Tomato Manure, 4.12 5.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 Nassau Fertilizer Co., New York City. Snliihle "Pbospbatf*, 15.00 14.00 ’pTig-Vi (T-rflflp Snpp.rphospha to, 17.00 16.00 Buckwheat Special, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 Old Hickory, 1916 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 Common Sense Fertilizer, 1916, 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 Amm'^’^’^^'^*^ Potato Compound, 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Ammoniated Truck Producer, 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Wheat and Grass Grower, 1916 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 General Crop Fertilizer 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Special Mixture, 1916 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 General Favorite Fish Mixture 1.23 1.50 11.00 10.00 1.00 Plow Brand, 1916, 1.65 2.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 Big Yield, 1916 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 Nassau Special, 1916 2.47 3.00 10.00 9.00 1.00 24 BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 Xassau Fertilizer Co., New York City — Continued. Gladiator Truck and Potato, Revised National Plant Food Co., Fan Claire, Wis. Red Snapper Natural Guano Co., Aurora, 111. “Sheep’s Head” Pulverized Sheep Manure, Albert Nelson, Allentown, N. .1. Nitrate of Soda, Nelson’s 14^ Acid Phosphate Nelson’s 16^ Acid Phosphate Nelson’s Special R. & W. Guano, Nelson’s Special G. & G. Guano Nelson’s Special Corn Guano Nelson’s Special Potato Grower Nelson’s Superior Potato Grower, Nelson s Special Pish and Potash, Nelson’s Special Potato Fertilizer Nelson’s High Grade Potato Phosphate, Nelson’s Superior Potato Guano N. ,1. Fertilizer and Chemical Co., New York City. Ground Dried Blood Nitrate of Soda Sulphate of Ammonia, Acid Phosphate 14^ APA, Acid Phosphate 16^ APA Precipated Bone, Ground Steamed Bone, 1 and 60 Ground Steamed Bone, 2 and 60 Ground Steamed Bone, 3 and 50, Ground Tankage 7^ and 15<^ BPL Ground Tankage 9^ and 20^ BPL, Tobacco Dust Croxton Prepared Poultry Manure, Croxton War Special Croxton Special Garden Fertilizer Croxton Complete Truck Guano, Croxton Special Lawn Fertilizer New York Stable Manure Co., Jersey City, N. J. Dried Ground Manure, Compost-Diamond Brand, I’atapseo Guano Co., New York City. Patapsco Pure Dissolved S. C. Phosphate, Patapsco High Grade Acid Phosphate, Patapsco Ammoniated Compound Patapsco Golden Crop Fertilizer, 1916 Guaranteed Minimum Analysis 3.29 5.00 2.25 14.82 0.82 1.65 1.65 3.29 4.12 1.65 3.29 3.29 4.12 13.16 14.80 20.56 I .JS aj C > O •3S c o o c tv 4.00 6.00 2.73 18.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 16.00 18.00 25.00 0.82 1.65 2.46| 5.751 7.40| 1.65| 3.35| 3.30| 3.30| 3.35 5.00 2.06 0.82 1.65 1.00 2.00 3.00 7.00 9.00 2.00 4.05 4.00 4.00 4.05 6.00 2.50 1.00 2.00 11.00 12.00 1.25 15.00 17.00 10.00 11.00 11.00 9.00 9.00 10.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 Cu ^ V S-n 5:; % 10.00 4.00 1.00 14.00 16.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 8.00 • 8.00 8.50 8.00 8.00 8.00 15.00 17.00 30.00 27.46 27.46 22.89 6.87 9.15 2.00 8.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.79 15.00 17.00 11.00 11.00 14.00 16.00 26.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 1.50 14.00 16.00 10.00 10.00 3.00 1.25 1.50 1.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 5.00 2.00 1.00 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS FOR 1919 25 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31. 1919 Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Nitrogen Nitrogen Equiva- ! lent to Ammonia' Total Phosphoric | Acid Available Phos- phoric Acid Potash % ' % % % % Patapsco Guano Co., New York City — Patapsco Truckers’ Delight, 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Patapsco Early Market Garden, 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Patapsco Diamond Truck Manure, 1919 4.11 ' 5.00 9.00 8.00 5.76 7.00 7.00 6.00 Coon Brand Guano, 1916, Revised, 0.82 1 l.OOj 1 10.00 9.00 1.00 Patapsco Pish Guano, 1916, Revised, 0.82 1.00 1 11.00 10.00 1.00 Grange Mixture, 1916, 1.65 2.00 1 10.00 9.00 1.00 Patapsco Special Prolific Potato Phosphate, .... 3.29 4.00| I 11.00 10.00 3.00 Philadelphia Guano Works, Philadelphia, Pa. 1 Pure Ground Bone 2.46 3.00 1 23.00 1919 Wheat and Grass Grower, 0.82 1.00 9.00 Grain Superphosphate, 1 0.82 1.00 1 10.00 1 13.00 12.00 1919 Corn and Vegetable Manure I 1.64 2.00 1 11.00 10.00 Acidulated Animal Compound 1.64 2.00 15.00 10.00 1919 B Brand for Potatoes and Truck 2.46 3.00 11.00 10.00 1919 A Brand for Potatoes and Truck 3.30 4.00 11.00 10.00 1919 Truckers’ Pride, 4.12 5.00 1 9.00 8.00 1919 Standard Truck Guano, 4.12 5.00 1 11.00 10.00 1919 Sweet Potato Manure 1.64 2.00 1 9.00 8.00 2.00 1919 High Grade Potato Manure 3.30 4.00 1 9.00 8.00 1.00 1919 Extra Potato Manure, 3.30 4.00 1 9.00 8.00 2.00 New Jersey Potato Special 3.30 4.00 1 • 9.00 8.00 3.00 1919 Truck Guano, j 4.12 5.00 7.00 6.00 1.00 Special Mixtures, in accordance with ruling of 1 1 State Chemist. 1 1 The Pulverized Manure Co., Chicago, 111. 1 1 Wizard Brand Manure, I 1.80 1 2.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 Rasin-Monumental Co., Baltimore, Md. 1 Rasin’s Acid Phosphate, 15.00 14.00 Rasin’s 16^ Acid Phosphate, i 17.00 16.00 Rasin’s Special Alkaline Mixture 9.00 8.00 3.00 Rasin’s Phosphate and Potash, Revised, 11.00 10.00 1.00 Rasin’s Phosphate and Potash Fertilizer, 11.00 10.00 2.00 Rasin’s Special Fish Mixture 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 Rasin’s Special Crop Preparation, 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 Rasin’s Special Fish Guano, 1.65 2.00 12.00 11.00 "plrppirp Snpprphnspba te, 2.47 3.00 11.00 10.00 Rasin’s Potato and Vegetable Fertilizer, 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 Rasin’s Potato and Truck Compound, 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Rasin’s Truck Ammoniated Superphosphate 4.12 5.00 9.00 8.00 Rasin’s Jersey Potato Guano 4.12 5.00 11.00 10.00 Wm. Penn Crop Grower 0,82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 Rasin’s United Grain Grower 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 26 BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 Rasin-Monumental Co., Baltimore, Md. — Continued. Rasin’s All Crop Guano, Rasin’s Empire Guano, . . . ; Rasin’s Royal Fish and Potash Mixture Rasin’s Emergency Royal Fish and Potash Mixture Rasin’s Universal Crop Manure Rasin’s Empire Guano Special, Revised, Rasin's Empire Guano Special Rasin’s Potato and Vegetable Guano Rasin’s High Grade Potato and Truck Manure, Revised Rasin’s Champion Potato and Vegetable Manure, Rasin’s Potato and Truck Manure Rasin’s Special Potato and Truck Fertilizer, .... Rasin’s Truck and Vegetable Manure, Rasin’s Truck and Vegetable Special, Rasin’s Electric Truck and Vegetable Manure, . , Reading Bone Fertilixer Co., Reading, Pa. Nitrate of Soda 14% Clear Acid Phosphate, 16% Clear Acid Phosphate, Pure Bone Meal Animal Tankage Reading Special Grain and Grass Producer, Dissolved Animal Matter, Reading Special Potato and Tobacco Manure, , . . Reading All Crop Special Animal Tankage Mixture, Reading Prize Winner, Reading Four and Eight High Grade Truck Food, Reading One Ten and One Blood Meat and Potash Mixture Reading Four Eight and Three, Reading Chemical Co., Reading, Pa. Reading Clear Acid Phosphate, High Grade Phosphate Farmers Meat Mixture Farmers Favorite Reading Soil Builder, Pennant Winner Complete Fertilizer Old Standard Guaranteed Minimum Analysis Nitrogen Nitrogen Equiva- lent to Ammonia Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phos- phoric Acid .c m oS O d. % % % % % 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 5.00 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 1.65 2.00 9.50 8.50 1.00 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 5.00 2.47 3.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 2.47 3.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 LOO 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 2.00 4.12 5.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 4.12 5.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 4.12 5.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 15.00 18.00 15.00 14.00 17.00 16.00 2.46 3.00 23.00 5.75 7.00 9.00 0.82 1.00 8.00 7.00 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 0.82 1.00 13.00 12.00 1.64 2.00 11.00 10.00 1.64 2.00 15.00 14.00 2.46 3.00 10.00 9.00 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.29 4.00 13.00 12.00 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.00 1.64 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 15.00 14.00 17.00 16.00 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 0,82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.64 2.00 11.00 10.00 2.46 3.00 11.00 10.00 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 1.00 1.64 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS FOR 1919 27 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 Guaranteed Minimum Analysis 1 Nitrogen Nitrogen Equiva- lent to Ammonii Total Phosphoric Acid Available Phos- phoric Acid Potash % % % % % Robert A. Reiehard, Allentown, Pa. 15.00 14.00 American Eagle Phosphate 11.00 10.00 2.00 2.88 3.50 22.00 3.70 4.50 23.00 0.82 1.00 11.00 10.00 1.64 2.00 13.00 12.00 Ideal Truck Phosphate, 3.28 4.00 11.00 10.00 Farmers’ Choice Phosphate 0.82 1.00 8.00 7.00 1.00 Surpass Phosphate j 1.64 2.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 Special Manure, 3.28 4.00 7.00 6.00 2.00 Ruokman Bros., New Brunswick, N. J. Acid Phosphate, 15.00 14.00 Ground Bone, 2.47 3.00 20.00 Special Grain Grower, 2.47 3.00 12.00 10.00 Phosphate and Tankage, 3.29 4.00 12.00 6.00 Five and Eight, 4.11 5.00 10.00 8.00 Schanck, Hutchinson & Field, Hightstow’n, N. J. i S. H. and F. Corn Mixture, 2-8-0, 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 S. H. and F. Potato and Truck Manure, 4-8-0, . . 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 S. H. and F. Potato and Vegetable Compound, 4-10-0 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Special Fish Mixture for Potatoes, 4-6-2, 3.29 4.00 7.00' 6.00 2.00 Davison’s Fish and Potash Mixture for Potatoes, 4-8-3 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Special Fish Mixture for Potatoes and Vegetables, 4-10-2 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 2.00 The Scott Fertilizer Co., Flkton, Md. Nitrate of Soda | 15.23 18.50 Scott’s Tip Top Soluble Phosphate, 15.00 14.00 Scott’s Tip Top Soluble Phosphate, 17.00 16.00 Scott s Soluble Phosphate and Potash, 14.00 12.00 2.00 Scott’s Pure Bone Meal, 2.50 3.00 23.00 Scott’s Ground Raw Bone, 3.70 4.50 21.00 Ground Tankage, 4.94 6.00 9.16 Scott’s Special Grain Grower 0.82 1.00 12.00 10.00 Scott’s Crop Grower, 1.65 2.00 10.00 8.00 Scott’s Ammoniated Base, 1.65 2.00 14.00 12.00 Scott’s Ammoniated Superphosphate, 3.30 4.00 12.00 10.00 Scott’s Pennsylvania Potato Grower, . . . . i 0.82 1.00 10.00 8.00 2.00 Scott’s Sure Growth Superphosphate, 1919 1.65 2.00 10.00 8.00 1.00 Scott’s Victory Brand 1.65 2.00 10.00 8.00 3.00 Scott’s Potato Grower, 1919 1.65 2.00 12.00 10.00 1.00 28 BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 Nitrogen O c Nitrogen Equiva- ^ lent to Ammonia eed M .nalysij . o o ft m o 3 Available Phos- 5’ phobic Acid § Potash % % % % % The Scott Fertilizer Co., Flkton, Md.— Continued. Scott’s Sure Growth Compound, 1919, 3.30 4.00 12.00 10.00 1.00 Special Mixtures in accordance with ruling of State Chemist. Searfii, Roebuck & Co., Chicago, Hi. 15.50 18.25 16.50 16.00 Reputation Acid Phosphate 20.50 20.00 1.60 2.00 10.00 2.50 3.00 10.00 4.10 5.00 11.00 Reputation Truck and Garden Fertilizer, 4.10 5.00 12.00 11.00 M. Li. Shoemaker & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, Pa, Pure Raw Bone Meal, 3.30 4.00 20.00 Swift Sure Guano for Tomatoes, Truck and Corn, 1.65 2.00 11.00 9.00 Swift Sure Superphosphate for Tobacco and Gen- eral Use, 3.30 4.00 12.00 9.00 Swift Sure Bone Meal, 5.14 6.25 20.00 10.00 Harry L. Sickel, Woodbui*y, N. J. Sickel’s Sweet Potato Fertilizer, 2-10-0 1.65 2.00 10.00 10.00 Sickel s Fertilizer for Sweet Potatoes, 2-12-0, . . . 1.65 2.00 12.00 12.00 Sirkcl’!:! Truckers’ Fs.vnrite .^-1 0-0, 2.47 3.00 10.00 10.00 Sickel’s Good for All Crops Fertilizer, 4-10-0, . . 3.30 4.00 10.00 10.00 Sickel’.s Asparagus Fertilizer, R-l 0-0, 4.12 5.00 10.00 10.00 Sickel’s Best Sweet Potato Fertilizer, 1-9-3, .... 0.82 1.00 9.00 9.00 3.00 Sickel’s High Grade for Sweet Potatoes, 2-8-2, . . . 1.65 2.00 8.00 8.00 2.00 Sickel’s 2-10 with Potash, 2-10-1 1.65 2.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 Sickel’s White Potato Fertilizer, 4-8-1 3.30 4.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 Sickel’s White Potato Special with Potash, 4-8-3, 3.30 4.00 8.00 8.00 3.00 Sickel’s Early Crop Fertilizer, 5-8-1 4.12 5.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 South Jersey Farmers^ Exchange, Woodstown, N. J. 1 rirniinrl TCing Crab 10.25 12.50 Mi t rate .*^nfla 15.00 18.50 Acid Phosphate 17.00 16.00 E 2^ Exchange Sweet Potato, 1.65 2.00 9.00 8.00 D Exchange Grain and Grass, 1.65 2.00 11.00 10.00 C F.vehange (T-eneral Use, 2.46 3.00 11.00 10.00 Steamed Bone 2.46 3.00 22.00 8.00 Iilvehanpe PTigh C-rade Potato 3.29 4.00 11.00 10.00 Raw Ground Bone, 3.29 4.00 20.00 5.00 A Exchange High Grade Potato and Truck 4.12 5.00 11.00 10.00 F Exchange Special Asparagus, 4.92 6.00 9.00 8.00 Tr^f^rly T'nmatn 6.33 6.50 9.00 8.00 Armiial T'ankape 6.74 7.00 12.00 6.00 t troll ml Fish Scrap 9.02 11.00 6.00 2.50 FERTILIZER REGISTRATIONS FOR 1919 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 29 Nitrogen | ! o luaram A 1 ■- si C o "5 S c o biC+^ o c u " < 1 c % % % 1 % % South Jersey Farmers’ Ex., Woodstown, X. J. — Cont. E 5^ Exchange Special Sweet Potato, 0.82 1.00 9.00 8.00 5.00 B 2% Exchange High Grade White Potato, .... 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 B 3^ Exchange Special White Potato 3.29 4.00 9.00 8.00 3.00 Standard Guano Co., Baltimore, 3Id. Grange Commercial Store Standard Farmers’ 2.46 3.00 10.50 10.00 Grange Commercial Store Standard Keystone 3.28 4.00 10.50 10.00 Grange Commercial Store Standard Royal Gem, 4.10 5.00 10.50 10.00 Grange Commercial Store Standard Royal Crop Grower '. 3.28 4.00 8.50 8.00 4.00 Swift & Company, Kearny, N. J. ! Swift’s Garden City Phosphate, 14.00 14.00 Swift's High Grade Acid Phosphate, 16.00 16.00 Swift’s Gpig’Pilatinizpd BnnPi Fertili!>:ftr 0.82 1.00 30.00 Swift’.s Stea.med Bone Fertilizer, 1.65 2.00 28.00 Swift’s Wheat and R.ve Grower, 1.65 2.00 8.00 8.00 Swift’s Special Corn Grower, 1.65 2.00 10.00 10.00 Swift’s Truck and Potato Fei'tilizer, j 1 3.29 4.00 8.00 8.00 Swift’s Special Harrison Formula, 3.29 4.00 10.00 10.00 Swift’s Long Island Favorite Fertilizer, 1 4.11 5.00 10.00 10.00 IVTammoth Potato Grower, I ' 4.11 5.00 10.00 10.00 Swift’s Special Long Island Fertilizer, 4.94 6.00 8.00 8.00 Swift’s Top Dresser Formula, No. 1, 5.76 7.00 8.00 8.00 Swift’.s TiOng Island Top Dresser, 8.23 10.00 7.00 7.00 Swift’s Reliable Grain Fertilizer, 0.82 1.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 Truck and Vegetable Fertilizer, 1.65 2.00 8.00 8.00 1.00 Swift’s Red Steer, 1.65 2.00 8.00 8.00 2.00 Special Potato Fertilizer 2.47 3.00 8.00 8.00 3.00 N. Y. State Potato Fertilizer 3.29 4.00 8.00 8.00 2.00 White Potato Fertilizer 3.29 4.00 8.00 8.00 3.00 Swift's Market Garden Manure, 3.29 4.00 8.00 8.00 3.00 Round Potato Fertilizer 4.11 5.00 8.00 8.00 4.00 Taylor Brothers, Camden, N. J. T B Superior Ammoniated Phosphate, 1.65 2.00 10.00 10.00 High Grade Potato Phosphate 1.65 2.00 10.00 10.00 1.00 The Taylor Provision Co., Trenton, N. J. John Taylor’s Standard Grain Grower, No. 2, . . 0.82 1.00 13.00 12.00 John Taylor’s P. D. B., Revised 1.64 2.00 11.00 10.00 John Taylor’s High Grade Corn and Truck Ma- nure, Revised, No. 2, 2.46 3.00 11.00 10.00 John Taylor’s High Grade Potato and Truck Fer- tilizer, Revised, No. 2, 3.30 4.00 11.00 10.00 John Taylor’s Reliable Potato Manure 3.30 4.00 9.00 8.00 2.00 BULLETIN 335 Brands Registered for the Fiscal Year Ending October 31, 1919 30 Guaranteed Minimum Analysis . ce c t> o "3 S eg fl o