CORNELL UNIVEKSITY EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETINS. 281 



ing for home cultivation of the tomato, and we believe that it can be made 

 profitable for the early crop in market plantations. The j)lant8 can be tied 

 to stakes, to cords stretched up and down between two horizontal wires, or 

 to any support which the grower may fancy. The important points are to 

 let but one stalk grow, and to keep it securely tied to its support. 



16. Fruit-rot. — It is well known that the rot of the fruit is influenced 

 to a considerable extent by the method of growing and training the tomato. 

 Single-stem training, as discussed above, usually lessens the rot, and so 

 •does any system of training which keeps the plant open and dry. Last 

 year we found that weak plants — those which had been poorly handled 

 before setting in the field, and which had no fertilizer — gave more diseased 

 fruits than those which were strong and vigorous and had been well fed. 

 The plants set very early in the field also gave more rot than those set in 

 June. It is impossible to say, however, if these variations were due to the 

 treatments, or if they were merely incidental. Accurate observations were 

 made this year in all our tomatoes, and the most important of them are 

 tabulated below: 



Table XXII. — Fruit-rot under various treatments. 



Per cent rot. 



1. Land heavily manured in spring with stable mannre Ki 



J. '• " " '■ fall with stable manare.. 14.0 



3. " fairlj rich, no manure nor fertilizer.. 6.1 



4, " same as 3, one application nitrate soda (1, Table I> _ 6.tf 



6. " " '•" four applications nitrate of soda (2, Table I) 9.3 



6. " ' (3, Table!.).. 7 



"L " fair, with nitrate of soda (1. Table IV> 5.S 



8. " " " bone-black (2. Table IV) .. 4.1 



9. " " " muriate of potash (3. Table IV; 8.3 



10. " " " nitrate and bone-black (4, Table IVi.. 16.6 



11. " " " nitrate and mariatH potash (i. Table IV) 8.2 



12. " '■ " muriate and boue-black (6. Table IV) 8.7 



13. " " " all three above (7, Table IV) 14.1 



14. " " no treatment (8, Table IV) 11.9 



15. '• good, earliest setting, May 7(1, Table VII) 4.5 



16. " " second setting. May 9 fi. Table VII)... 10.0 



17. " " generalst'tting, June 1 (3. Table Vll) 5.4 



18. " " earliest sowing, January 19 a,T.ble IX) 13.7 



19. " " second sowiug, February 12 (2, Table IX) 8.0 



20. " " third sowing, February 24 (3, Table IX) 6.3 



21. " " late sowing, March 14 (4, Table IX)... 8.4 



22. *' " once transplanted (1, Table XI) . . 5.2 



23. " " • three times transplanted (2. Tdble XI).. 3.7 



24. " " flat-grown, late (I, Table XII) 7.8 



25. " " pot-grown, late (1, Table XII) . 7.8 



26. " " flrtt-grown, early (2. Table XII) 8.6 



27. '• " pot-grown, early (II. Table XII) 7.i 



28. " " normal plants (1, Table XVII) ...._ 13.2 



29. " " leggy plants, r>'>t-grown (.'.Table XVII) 8.5 



30. flat-gn.wn t3. Table XVII) 8.1 



81. " fair, single-stem training (I, Table XXi) 7.0 



82. " '• check (2, Table XXI) 0.7 



There are no constant variations in these figures, and apparently nothing 

 to show that the cultivation exerted any influence upon rot. If these 

 various treatments determine to any extent the prevalence of rot, the 

 results were probably obscured this year because rot was everywhere very 

 slight in our plantations. 



Following is a record of the amount of fruit-rot in different varieties 

 grown this year: 



Table XXIII. — Fruit-rot in varieties. 



Per cent rot. 



Ignotnm 7,0 



Long Keeper . ... . 7.1 



NicholNo. 5 . 5.2 



Trophy 7.0 



Plentiful.. . ... ... 8.1 



Telegraph.. IB 



Belmont,.. . . . Id.O 



Royal R^d 5.5 



Picture Rock .. 3.2 



Yellow Plum % 



36 



