133 



descriptive notes on a few of the varieties. Drought and ground squir- 

 rels interfered with the yiekls. 



Smuts. — This consists of extracts from the article by Dr. J. C. Arthur 

 in Bulletin No. 28 of the Indiana Station (See Experiment Station 

 Record, Vol. I, p. 207). 



Virginia Station, Bulletin No. 5, March, 1890 (pp. 14). 



Notes on feedings stuffs, W. Bowman, Ph. D. — This includes 

 explanations of the technical terms used in statements of analyses of 

 feeding stuffs, and a tabular record of analyses of corn meal, coru-and- 

 cob meal, wheat bran, cotton-seed meal, and corn silage, made at the 

 station. 



Virginia Station, Bulletin No. 6, March, 1890 (pp. 20). 



Variety tests witu potatoes, W. B, Alwood and R. H. Price. — 

 The importance of potato culture in Virginia is illustrated by the cita- 

 tion of statistics for the six principal crops grown in Virginia in 1887. 

 " The acreage of the sev^eral crops ranges from more than sixty times 

 as many in the case of corn down to four times as many acres in tobacco, 

 which ranks next above potatoes in number of acres under cultivation. 

 The value of an acre of potatoes, according to these statistics, is four 

 times that of an acre of corn, more than four times that of an acre of 

 wheat, nearly six times that of oats, and about two and two thirds that 

 of hay. Tobacco alone exceeds it by one half in A^aluatiou per acre of 

 crop." By high culture and the use of fertilizers, the authors are confi- 

 dent that the yield of potatoes in Virginia can be greatly" increased. 

 The variety tests at the station in 1889 were made to secure compara- 

 tive data concerning earliness, yield, marketable quality, table quality, 

 and general character of the tubers. The results are stated in tabular 

 form for 33 early, 34 medium, 20 late, and 44 unclassitied varieties. 



The bulletin also contains brief notes on the potato rot {Phytophtliora 

 infestans). 



The followin g are the authors' vie ws on plat experiments as given in this 

 bulletin: '■'• In an experiment designed to have a direct, practical bearing 

 upon held work, the larger the area, within certain limits, the more reliable 

 are the results, considered on general principles. But in exact ex[)eri- 

 ment work there must be a sharp limit to size of plat, and generally it 

 is not a question as to how large the plats can be made, but what is 

 the minimum size whiuh can be used and obtain reasonably reliable 

 answers to the questions proposed. The time and critical attention 

 which must be given to an experiment makes it imperative that the area 

 shall be reduced to the snjallest compass possible. Hence, in an experi- 

 ment like the one under consideration, the inquiry must be limited, and it 

 must not be presumed that the results can be accepted as couclusivo 

 even on the points uoted. The results, especially as to yield, on small- 



