30 



CIRCULAR 112, BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY. 



Table III. — Record of the hills on 1 acre having vines but producing no hops, for the years 



1909 to 1912, inclusive. 





Total 

 hills. 



Re- 

 planted 

 hills. 



Productive hills. 



Nonproductive hills. 



Hills 

 dead the 



Year. 



Previous 

 year. 



Follow- 

 ing year. 



Previous 

 year. 



Follow- 

 ing year. 



following 

 year. 



1909 



43 

 21 



2 50 

 58 



CO 



2 

 19 

 3 



CO 



17 

 25 

 51 



36 



18 

 37 



, (!) 



CO 



2 

 6 

 4 



1 

 1 

 5 



0) 



6 



1910. . 



2 



1911 



s 



1912 



CO 







i No record. 



2 The crop on 24 of these hills was lost through defective supports, which allowed the vines to fall to the 

 ground. 



This table shows that the relation existing between the newly 

 replanted hills and those having vines but no hops is less close than is 

 generally supposed, since the number of the latter which were replants 

 is small both in comparison with the total number of hills having vines 

 producing no hops and with the number of lulls successfully replanted, 

 as shown in Table II. The figures in columns 4 and 5 of Table III 

 indicate that of the hills having vines but no hops in any given year 

 the greater number were productive in the previous year as well as 

 in the one immediately following. Similarly, the figures in columns 

 6 and 7 show that very few of these hills were nonproductive in either 

 the previous or the following year. Finally, from the last column 

 it appears that relatively few of the hills having vines but producing 

 no hops are numbered with the dead the following year. 



In view of the facts here presented there seems no escape from the 

 conclusion that a large number of the cases of lulls having vines but 

 no hops arise through neglect or carelessness in cultivating or caring 

 for the plants up to harvest time. 



LOSS IN YIELD DUE TO DEFECTIVE STAND. 



Everyone recognizes that, as a rule, a poor stand means a diminished 

 yield, but it frequently happens that the extent of this loss is not 

 fully appreciated. This is particularly true when the number of 

 missing or nonproductive lulls is small, for then the grower often feels 

 that the saving would not be large enough to warrant his giving the 

 time and attention necessary to maintain a full productive stand. 

 This impression is likely to persist unless some relative numerical 

 expression is found that will approximately represent the extent of 

 the loss. A fairly satisfactory method of estimating loss is to deter- 

 mine the percentage of productive stand and the actual yield, say on 

 1 acre, and from these figures to calculate what the yield would be 

 on the basis of a productive stand of 100 per cent. The difference 

 between the estimated yield and the actual yield will then represent 



[Cir. 112] 



