CORNELL UNIVERSITY EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETINS. 269 

 Table III. — Single vs. intermittent fertilizing. Detail record. 



July 27 . 

 Ang. 8 . 

 Ang. 20. 

 Aug. 22. 

 Aug. 29. 

 Sept. 2.. 

 Sept. 6.. 

 Sept. 8.. 

 Sept. 14. 

 Sept. 21. 

 Sept. 28. 



Date. 



PJotl. SiDgle 

 fertilizing. 



No. 



frnits 



picked. 



6 



25 



34 



42 



4 



77 



42 



32 



102 



Wt. of 

 picking. 



lib. 



9 

 14 

 17 



1 

 31 

 20 

 14 

 .S9 



Plot 2. Inter- 

 mittent fertiliz- 

 ings. Jane 20- 

 Jaly 27. 



No. 



frnits 

 picked. 



32 

 14 

 2« 

 1 

 60 

 52 

 36 

 50 



Wt.of 

 picking. 



lib. 



9 



5 



12 



27 

 26 

 18 

 21 



Plot 3. Inter- 

 mittent fertiliz- 

 ings. Jane 20- 

 Ang. 26. 



No. 



frnits 



picked. 



13 



8 



11 



1 



52 

 64 



27 



48 



Wt.of 

 picking. 



lib. 



23 

 28 

 12 

 20 



Plot 4. Check. 



No. 



frnits 



picked. 



1 



12 

 13 



8 

 17 

 SO 



2 



50 

 44 

 22 

 39 



Wt.of 

 picking. 



4 

 4 

 2 

 7 



11 

 1 



19 



18 

 9 



10 



It appears that all the fertilizer plots were about equally early in first 

 fruits, but after the first two pickings the single treatment plot gave the 

 heaviest returns, and this advantage was maintained throughout the pick- 

 ing season. As between the two intermittent treatment plots (Nos. 2 and 

 3), it will be observed that heavy pickings were much more early in No. % 

 in which the fertilizing was completed late in July. The habit of the 

 variety as to the season of its bearing was not greatly affected by the 

 different treatments, but the amount of fruit borne at stated intervals was 

 greatly influenced. It is probable that the plant had determined the date 

 of its first fruiting, so to speak, before the fertilizer became available to it, 

 for the plants were beginning to flower when the first application was made; 

 but as soon as the fertilizer came into use, the habit of the plant was 

 influenced, and the late fertilizing delayed, in a measure, the productive- 

 ness. At all events, I can offer no other explanation of the facts at the 

 present time. 



But these tests afford a means of comparing nitrate of soda with no fer- 

 tilizing, for the check plot (No. 4) received no treatment. In each case, 

 the check plot gives the poorest results, showing that nitrate of soda has a 

 distinct value as a fertilizer. The differences in the appearance of the two 

 plots (Nos. 1 and, 4) is well shown in the accompanying engraving (page 

 198) in which the check plot occupies the left-hand portion. This appears 

 like a contradiction of some of our former experiments in which we found 

 no benefit to arise from the use of this material. But in former tests, the 

 soil was very poor and there was very little potash or phosphorus to mate 

 the nitrogen in the nitrate of soda; but in this test, the soil was fairly 

 good. If we repeat our statements of a year ago, it will be seen that our 

 present results are a confirmation of former trials rather than a contradic- 

 tion of them: "It should be borne in mind that this substance '(nitrate of 

 soda) is an incomplete fertilizer and that unless the soil contains potash 

 and phosphorus in sufficient amount the nitrate is nearly valueless. It is 

 simply a convenient and useful form in which to apply nitrogen alone." 

 So that, while nitrate of soda is a good tomato fertilizer when applied early 

 upon fairly good soils, we can not recommend that anyone should rely upon 

 it exclusively year after year. Potash and phosphoric acid must also be 

 applied at intervals. 



