ELECTROCULTURE 



27 



and three hours in the afternoon. A generally favorable influence for 

 the discharge treatment was reported. Unfortunately total weights 

 were not included. The results for the second year were generally 

 unfavorable for the discharge treatment, and Dorsey concluded that 



Eerhaps slight differences in the slope of the two plats may have 

 een responsible for the favorable results of the first year. 5 

 At the present time perhaps the best evidence of plant response to 

 electrical discharge is that obtained by Blackman (4, o, 6, 7, 8) 

 of the electroculture committee of the British Ministry of Agricul- 

 ture and Fisheries. His experiments extend over a period of years 

 and comprise field trials, pot cultures, and laboratory tests, all of 

 which he interprets as affording converging evidence for a favorable 

 growth response to the application of electricity. On account of the 

 practical possibilities associated with a treatment assuring increased 

 growth it seems desirable to examine in some detail the data which 

 have given rise to this assurance. 



The field trials carried on in England by Blackman and his as- 

 sociates have given the results which are summarized in Table 28. 



Table 28. — Results of electrocultural treatments of grain crops in England, as 

 reported in field experiments by Blackman 



Crop and year 



Location 



Acreage 



Duration 

 of treat- 

 ment 

 (hours) 



Yield per acre 

 (bushels) 



Ratio of 

 treated to 





Treated 



Control 



Treated 



Control 



control 



Oat: 

 1915 





1.5 

 1.0 



.33 



.33 



.33 



.25 



.25 



.25 



.11 



.11 



.11 



.50 



.25 

 .25 

 .50 

 .11 

 .11 

 .11 

 .33 



.33 



. 0125 



.66 



.66 



.66 



.50 



.50 



.50 

 .50 

 .25 

 .25 



.50 



"750"" 



1.5 



1.0 

 .33 

 .33 

 .33 

 ,06 

 .06 

 .06 

 .11 

 .11 

 .11 

 .33 



.33 



557 



848 



1,060 



1,060 



1,060 



704 



704 



704 



710 



710 



710 



456 



456 

 456 

 456 

 911 

 911 

 911 

 793 



793 



1,500 

 643 

 643 

 643 

 786 

 786 



854 

 854 

 727 



727 



940 

 940 

 940 



20.7 



62.8 

 54.8 

 42.2 

 36.9 

 75.5 

 84.9 

 80.4 

 36.6 

 45.1 

 53.3 

 47.0 



63.8 

 50.8 

 60.2 

 36.2 

 43.5 

 51.8 

 50.0 



52.5 



17.8 

 44.7 

 47.4 

 40.4 

 31.7 

 33.0 



21.4 

 22.3 



18.84 

 18.35 



7.6 

 } ,3 



16.0 



42.0 

 48.9 

 44.9 

 38.1 

 56.1 

 58.4 

 46.3 

 45.2 

 43.8 

 28.9 

 53.6 



48.2 

 48.2 

 59.6 

 44.8 

 46.1 

 33.0 

 56.0 



56.0 



13.1 

 36.4 

 52.7 

 36.3 

 29.5 

 25.17 



14.3 

 17.4 

 20.4 

 18.24 



10.0 

 1 7.9 

 \ 6.3 



1.29 



1916 



1917 



1917 



1917 



1918 



1918 



1918 



1919 



1919 



1919 



1919 



1919 



1919 



do 



do 



do 



do 



do.... 



do 



do 



do 



do ._ 



do 



Harper Adams Agricul- 

 tural College. 



do. 



do 



do 



Lincluden__ . ....... 



1.49 

 1.12 



.93 



.96 

 1.34 

 1.45 

 1.73 



.80 

 1.02 

 1.84 



.87 



1.32 

 1.05 



1919 



1920 



.33 

 .11 

 .11 



.11 

 .33 ? 



1.01 

 .80 



1920 



do . 



94 



1920 



1920 



1920 



do 



Harper Adams Agricul- 

 tural College. 

 do 



1.56 

 .89 



93 



Barley: 



1917 



Rothamsted. 



.0125 



.10 



.10 



.10 



.50 



.50 



.50 



.50 



. 25 

 .25 



.33 

 .33 

 .33 



1 35 



1918._ 



1918 



1918 



1920 



1920 



Winter wheat: 



1919 



1919... 



do 



do. 



do 



do 



do 



do 



do... 



1.22 

 .89 

 1.11 

 1.07 

 1.31 



1.49 

 1 28 



1920 



1920 



Spring wheat: 



1919 



1919 



1919 



do 



do 



do. 



do 



do 



.92 

 1.006 



.76 

 .92 

 1.15 



Average. .. . 



1. 14 

















4 Correspondence with the Office of Biophysical Investigations, Bureau of Plant Industry, September 

 2, 1924. • ' 



