48o 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
Small or Large Plots In Field Experiments. 
I would prefer one large plot rather than one small one, 
but I would much prefer dividing the large plot into a 
number of small ones to using either the large or small 
one as one plot. Very small plots are decidedly objection¬ 
able. In many cases very large ones are equally so. The 
quantity of land required for large plot experiments is a 
serious objection. At the Illinois Agricultural Experi¬ 
ment Station we make use of plots 2x4 rods, or eight 
square rods, more frequently than of those of larger or 
smaller size. We have found surprisingly large varia¬ 
tions in yields on adjacent plots of this size on prairie soils 
apparently remarkably uniform in all their conditions. We 
have some plots of one-tenth, one-quarter, one-half and 
even two acres each. G. E. MORROW. 
Illinois Station. 
Great Care Needed In Small Plots. 
While much Information has been obtained through the 
cultivation and special manuring of small plots there are 
objections to the system, especially when frequent changes 
of site are made, but where carefully commenced by ex¬ 
hausting the soil and then continuing the treatment for 
a long series of years, as at llothamsted, we think the plot 
system as followed there the only one practicable. For 
single-year tests by the average farmer, the method sug¬ 
gested by The R. N.-Y. and outlined in the circular would 
appear to be better, but if it is desired to continue the 
same tests on the same ground, great care must be exer¬ 
cised in plowing, cultivating, and in planting the crops 
succeeding the first, or no definite results can be obtained. 
Rhode Island Station. Chas. o. flagg. 
Value Depends Upon Number of Plants. 
The great fault with a very large proportion of the field 
experimentation hitherto reported in America is that suf¬ 
ficient care has not been exercised to secure uniform con¬ 
ditions. Plots have too often been laid out with reference 
to geometry only, while the contour of the surface, and 
especially the nature and drainage of the subsoil have 
been wholly disregarded. Under such conditions it is to 
be expected that plot Investigation, whether conducted on 
large or small plots, will “ yield more dissatisfaction than 
profit.” 
But it is idle to condemn the entire system of plot experi¬ 
mentation because of the crudity of the methods employed 
by many investigators; for enough has been done to prove 
that in competent hands this system may be made to yield 
results that will compare favorably with the best that can 
be obtained in the chemist’s laboratory, while the chemist 
himself has been forced to admit that there are certain 
questions which can be answered only in the field. 
In the matter of large vs. small plots, the fact is that 
the value of the test depends not at all upon the size of 
the plot, but altogether upon the number of plants under 
investigation and upon the success which has been at¬ 
tained in securing uniform conditions of soil, environment 
and treatment; therefore the ‘‘liability to wrong con¬ 
clusions” maybe just as great in dealing with large as 
with small plots. 
Certain plants and certain kinds of work require larger 
plots than others. To illustrate, in an experiment with 
onions made at this station the plots were only four feet 
square. This small size made it possible to secure al¬ 
most absolute uniformity in the soil and to regulate the 
stand with the measuring rule. The results of 30 duplica¬ 
tions were consistent throughout, and the experiment was 
far more conclusive than if it had been made on a much 
larger scale, but without duplication. 
But had the plant under the test been the tomato, in¬ 
stead of the onion, plots of this size would have been 
worthless because they would not have afforded scope 
enough for the play of individuality, a factor which it is 
as necessary to take into consideration in studying the 
plant as the animal. Different species of plants and dif¬ 
ferent strains of the same species vary greatly in this re¬ 
spect. For instance, there are strains of cabbage which 
reproduce so true to type that half a dozen heads selected 
at random will show scarcely any difference in weight, 
provided they have grown on uniform soil; while there are 
others whcse variations are so great that no trustworthy 
conclusions could be drawn from a comparison of fewer 
than hundreds of individuals. 
Corn is a peculiarly difficult plant for the experimenter 
in this respect, a fact largely due to its method of fertiliza¬ 
tion, and this difficulty Is greatly increased by the large 
amount of space required for each plant. A tenth-acre 
plot of our common dent corn will contain nearly 1,000 
stalks, as we plant it, while the same area may contain 
more than 200,000 wheat stalks, and It is to be doubted 
whether the range of individuality is not greater in corn 
than in wheat. So far as this factor alone is concerned, 
therefore, I should expect to get as trustworthy results 
from wheat plots containing 25 square feet as from corn 
plots containing one-tenth of an acre, or 4,336 square feet; 
but there are other factors that must be considered: we 
cultivate each year several hundred wheat plots of the 
size just mentioned; but the seeding, harvesting and 
thrashing must all be done by hand, and by methods 
which do not produce such accurate results as may be at¬ 
tained by the use of modern wheat machinery, and for 
this reason we dare not calculate yields per acre from 
these plots. They are cultivated for botanical purposes 
chiefly. 
In plots of one-tenth, or even one-twentieth of an acre 
it is possible to use wheat machinery successfully and 
economically; but corn must yet be harvested by the un¬ 
certain methods of hand labor, and it is an unsettled 
question with us whether the size of the plots should not 
be increased in our corn work. 
It is a far more difficult matter than one who has never 
tried It would suppose to find an acre of absolutely uni¬ 
form soil in one body, and it may sometimes be more prac¬ 
ticable to select a series of half-acre or acre plots in which 
the variations of soil will balance each other than it would 
be to accomplish the same result with smaller plots; on 
the other hand, there will be many cases In which work of 
a very useful character may be done on small plots, when 
it could never have been done on large ones, as has been so 
well illustrated by The Rural experiments. 
Let me repeat with emphasis: It is not the size of the 
plot, but the intelligence of the man who uses the plot 
that gives value to the experiment. chas. e. thorne. 
Ohio Experiment Station. 
Long, Narrow Strips, Rather Than Squares. 
I believe plot work, in the hands of a careful investi¬ 
gator, to be of unqualified and even of fundamental im¬ 
portance. That it is surrounded with difficulties affords 
no reason whatever for discarding plots, but rather for 
careful study for the purpose of eliminating, as far as pos¬ 
sible, their defects. In 14 years of plot work, I have had 
no such difficulties as have been described by two or three 
of our prominent writers. It seems to me that the diffi¬ 
culty lies at the very threshold of the inquiry; that is to 
say, unintelligent laying out of plots. A careful study of 
one’s land in hand and its previous history, and a careful 
conducting of the experiments, will result in satisfactory 
success in the end. Except under very favorable condi¬ 
tions, no sound man would be likely to draw very broad 
conclusions from a single year’s work. 
The plot work that I have conducted has proved of very 
great financial value to the farms upon which they were 
conducted, as applied to the ordinary farm practice. Every 
fourth or fifth plot should be a standard plot; that is to 
say, treated by the common methods in practice ; if it is 
for plots of varieties, for the variety in common use, re¬ 
peat It so that the variations of soil may be gauged. Then 
again, the plot work should be carried In a circle; that is, 
if 10 plots constitute a group, let the material or method 
of plot 10 for 1890 be applied to plot one in 1891, and move 
all the other plots forward one plot each. The next year 
the material of plot 10 of 1890, that is on plot one for 1891, 
should pass on to 1892, the next year to 1893, and so on until 
the circle has been completed ; then at the end of the suc¬ 
cession of years every material will have been on every 
plot and subjected to the same conditions on every other 
plot, and, if the land has been intelligently selected and the 
management competent, there will not be one trial of 
1,000 that will fail to give at least approximate and satis¬ 
factory results. 
I am glad that The R. N.-Y. is discussing the matter, 
because I confess to a feellDg that the character of the 
criticisms of plot work has not been well timed, and neither 
in the interest of the public nor of the stations, but that 
criticisms applied to the unwarranted conclusions which 
are being drawn for plots are thoroughly justified. The 
only criticism that I have to make is, that those who have 
aroused the discussion, perhaps unwittingly, have so or¬ 
dered their language that the public have drawn a con¬ 
clusion that their criticism was against the scheme of 
plot trials. 
I have noticed on soils that there will be spots where the 
strata, when closely examined, will be found to have more 
sand in them than the surrounding soil-places, and these 
some farmers have termed “pockets of sand.” From 
these places It will be found that water oozes out, not in 
volumes perceptible to the eye, but close inspection will 
perceive that the soil is darker and moister, and it will be 
found that upon such soils the crops will thrive better. 
Every little cause of variation should be detected. This 
must all enter into the laying out of plots. 
In a summary of results, if attempted, as we all like 
to make use of accumulated data, we must observe 
guarded attention to the modifying cause. The public 
must be more patient in the future, and now that the sta¬ 
tions are fairly in working order, we must restrain our 
impatience and hold data until they have achieved some 
certainty by repeated trials. This is the policy that the 
writer is now pursuing at the Agricultural College of 
Utah, although some of the accumulated data will be used 
at times and their limitations pointed out. 
As to the small plots, I agree with The R. N.-Y., in a 
general way, although I think that possibly it presses the 
point of small plots too far. When obtainable, I prefer 
long, narrow strips rather than squares; but very large 
areas are all out of the question, for they will certainly 
carry one into dissimilar areas, and only when checked by 
the system that I have proposed can they be of certain 
value. Some very hasty and some very thin material has 
been emanating from some of our stations, and I suppose 
that the original criticism of plot work was in a measure 
aroused by the fact. It is applicable to a far wider field 
than plot work. The last annual station report at hand 
from one of our foremost writers, contains an assertion 
with an air of one announcing a long-settled fact, which 
certainly is not proved and which, for one, I should utterly 
challenge. Such matter is the breeding ground for final 
public contempt of the stations unless they outgrow mere 
opinion scribbling as scientific conclusions. 
Utah Exp’t Station. j. w. SANBORN. 
MORE ABOUT THOSE APPLE ENEMIES. 
Early in the spring, before the fruit buds had begun to 
swell perceptibly, several branches from peach and apple 
trees were brought to the house and coaxed into premature 
blooming in a vase of water. As the apple buds began to 
grow they were found to be covered with myriads of the 
black aphis, enough, not only to destroy the crop, but to 
threaten the life of the trees. When the buds began to 
swell in the open air they were examined, with great anx- 
iety, for the aphis, but it was found that the enemy grew 
fewer at each examination, killed, no doubt, by the cold, 
dry weather. But if the aphis diminished in numbers other 
enemies were found. Some twigs were nearly covered by 
small, gray cocoons and many clusters of buds were found 
which were entertaining a little brown worm, which re¬ 
TUNE 27 
paid the hospitality given him by eating his hosts. Speci¬ 
mens of all these marauders were sent to Prof. J. A. 
Lintner, State Entomologist, who pronounced the cocoons 
to be those of the Apple-leaf Bucculatrix, B. pomifolia 
(Clemens) and the worm to be the larva of the Eye-spotted 
Bud-moth, Tmetocera ocellana (Schiff.) Consulting Saun¬ 
ders’s excellent volume, “ Insects Injurious to Fruits,” the 
following facts were gleaned which may be of interest. 
The larva of the Apple-tree Bucculatrix feeds on the leaves 
of apple trees. He is a lively little fellow, and if disturbed 
lets himself down by a long silken thread. When full- 
grown he is about half an inch long, with a brown head 
and yellowish green body, having a few short hairs 
Scattered over the surface. When fully grown the larva 
envelopes itself in a whitish gray cocoon where it changes 
to a brown chrysalis. The second brood hatches late in 
autumn and remains in the chrysalis state all winter. 
They are thus ready to develop into moths early in spring 
and the first brood of caterpillars is ready for work in 
June or earlier. These insects sometimes appear in such 
numbers as to be injurious. 
The Eye-spotted Bud-moth larva is dainty in its tastes 
and selects the newly formed flower buds for its food. 
It is a small, round worm, perhaps three quarters of 
an inch long. It is light brown with a black head. It 
rolls a tender leaf into a nice little tube, fastens and lines 
it with silk of its own spinning, after it has destroyed 
buds enough to suit Its fancy, and here it has a home in 
which to develop into another state of existence, for like 
all moths It is a Buddhist, except that its advancement 
is constantly in a circle and never attains Nirvana, unless 
it be through the poisons aimed at it by the spraying 
machines. 
The larva sometimes enters the end of a branch, which 
bears a cluster of buds, and tunnels it so that the twig 
dies. This insect does not confine its labors to the apple, 
but attacks the cherry and plum with equal relish. 
Since noticing these small depredators the trees have 
come into bloom, and with the blossoms comes another 
enemy. 
Northern Seneca and Southern Wayne Counties are 
the abode of enough tent caterpillars (Clisiocampa 
Americana) to eat every green apple leaf in these sections, 
unless prompt measures are used for their destruction. 
One medium-sized apple tree bore a crop of 12 caterpillar 
nests. A similar trouble was experienced in some parts of 
Wayne County last year, and some orchards lost every 
leaf and blossom. These worms attack peach trees also, 
but not with the same enjoyment which they show when 
an apple tree is their victim. g. little 
Seneca Co., N. Y. 
Live Stock Matters. 
New England Oxen. —One of our correspondents, while 
visiting in Vermont last year, took a picture of the oxen 
shown at Fig. 180. On many Vermont farms most of the 
work is still done by oxen. One frequently sees a farmer 
with a yoke of oxen and one horse hitched ahead. Many 
of these oxen, like those shown in the picture, are high- 
grade Devons, not particularly heavy but active, fast 
walkers and very intelligent. Dishorning is not practiced 
much in New England States, particularly with working 
oxen, as the horns are needed in keeping the big ox-yokes 
in place. They are cut off at the ends, and little brass 
balls are screwed on. There are hundreds of just such 
oxen to be found on the hill farms of New England. In 
Maine and parts of New Hampshire more Herefords are 
used ; they are heavier than the Devons, with better necks 
and shoulders, but not so active and smart. These work¬ 
ing oxen are finally sold for beef. The farmers claim that 
they make sweeter and juicier beef than the lazy, pampered 
animals, which do nothing but eat, sleep and grow fat 1 
These working oxen show a greater proportion of lean 
meat. Does their exercise make the beef tough and 
stringy ? Who can tell about this ? The famous “ Roast 
Beef of Old England,” which has been made a theme for 
poets, orators and statesmen, came in a great measure 
from oxen which did the farm work while they were grow¬ 
ing into beef. Nobody praises the present beef as the old 
beef was praised I 
Doctors for New England Farming.—F6w things 
have been advertised so well as the abandonment of cer¬ 
tain New England farms. The R. N.-Y. has made it a 
hobby to ask successful farmers in different parts of the 
country what they would do if they went to one of these 
farms to live. The answers are various. One man says he 
would keep Jersey cattle and ship bottled milk or sterilized 
cream. Another would raise Holstein heifers and drive 
them over Into the big dairy districts for sale. Another 
would keep poultry, another would grow seed potatoes— 
there are dozens of remedies offered, any of which would 
probably cure in the hands of the right men. Most of 
these doctors live south of these “ abandoned” farms. 
Now we get an opinion from the north. Prof. Barnard, 
of the Montreal Agricultural College, has this to say 
about it: 
hill-side farms ; the soil rocky and not prodigiously fertile, 
but, probably, infinitely superior to many a thousand 
acres of the Downs of the southeast of England that, from 
being worth from 75 to 80 cents an acre, per annum, as 
sheep-runs, have been, by treating them in accordance 
with their natural qualities, compelled to yield large crops 
of,roots, rape, barley, sainfoin, and wheat. I say “com¬ 
pelled, because no other word conveys an idea of the 
rigorous way in which these soils have been subdued to 
the will of their masters for the time being: the tenant- 
farmers, not the landlords, made the arable land of the 
Downs, and what they, with their shore and hazardous 
tenure, have done, is there any reason on earth why the 
owners of the fee simple of our farms in the Eastern 
townships should not do? Their soil is better, their 
climate is far more active in pushing crops forward in the 
summer. It is entirely owing to these two things—sheep 
