Nov. 6 ,1916 
Grain of the Tobacco Leaf 
281 
Table IV.— Data relative to the burning quality of the tobacco grown on fertilizer plots 
at Red Lion , Pa., in IQ14 
Fertilizer applied per acre. 
Fire- 
Grain 
aggre¬ 
gation 
score 
(maxi¬ 
mum 20 
points. 
Origi¬ 
nal 
score 
X2,“) 
Treat¬ 
ment. 
Kind. 
Quantity. 
Bum 
score 
(maxi¬ 
mum 20 
points)/ 1 
Fire¬ 
holding 
capacity 
in cigar. 
holding 
capac¬ 
ity, 
punk- 
stick 
meth¬ 
ods 
Potash 
con¬ 
tent.* 1 
Chlorin 
con¬ 
tent.® 
Potash- 
chlorin 
ratio.® 
I 
Manure. 
Pounds. 
20 , OOO 
14. 0 
| 
Min. 
4 
sec. 
IO 
Sec. 
8. O 
5 - 7 
Per ct. 
3.61 
Per ct. 
1.38 
2. 6 
[Manure. 
20 , OOO 
11 
| Dissolved rock.... 
Potassium sul- 
[ phate. 
343 
100 
I16. 0 
5 
0 
6. 2 
6. 0 
3 - 85 
• 9 1 
4. 2 
III 
[Cottonseed meal.. 
Potassium sul- 
[ phate. 
1,485 
2 § 8 
i> 48 S 
190 
258 
1,485 
372 
258 
1,485 
129 
1X2 
18.0 
8 
0 
16. 8 
11. 1 
3 - 42 
. 26 
13-15 
IV 
Cottonseed meal.. 
Dissolved rock.... 
Potassium sul¬ 
phate .. 
17-5 
5 
22 
14. 8 
7 -1 
3 * i -7 
. 18 
17. 6l 
V 
Cottonseed meal.. 
Dissolved rock.... 
Potassium sul¬ 
phate. 
‘ 17 . O 
5 
45 
14. 2 
8.1 
3-75 
. 19 
T 9 * 73 
VI 
Cottonseed meal.. 
Potassium sul¬ 
phate. 
17 - 5 
c 
7 
19. 8 
8. 1 
4. 06 
•23 
i 7 - 7 
Potassium car¬ 
bonate. 
D 
VII 
Cottonseed meal.. 
Precipitated bone. 
Potassium sul¬ 
phate. 
1,485 
136 
258 
1,485 
224 
190 
1,485 
372 
.258 
18. 0 
6 
15 
20. 5 
9-7 
3 - 57 
*23 
15 - 5 
VIII 
[Cottonseed meal.. 
1 Potassium car- 
| bonate. 
17. 0 
5 
52 
10. 1 
7.0 
3 - 47 
•23 
15.08 
IX 
[Dissolved rock.... 
[Cottonseed meal.. 
< Dissolved rock.... 
1 Potassium chlorid. 
‘ 12 . O 
3 
45 
5-4 
4.3 
3 - 34 
2.44 
1. 36 
Aver 
I, 
Aver 
II] 
age for treatments 
II, IX. 
14. O 
12.5 
4 
6 
18 
6 - 5 
16. 0 
5-3 
8-5 
7.. 6 
1.58 
0. 22 
2. 7 
age for treatments 
[ to VIII, inclusive 
35 
O' w 
3 - 57 
16. 46 
a Same as for Table III. 
As is illustrated by figures 1 and 2, representing the data included in 
Tables III and IV, respectively, the curves for the burn, the fire-holding 
capacity in the cigar, and the grain aggregation show a marked parallel¬ 
ism, although in the fire-holding capacity determined on single leaves the 
second highest point in the curve does not correspond to either of the 
principal maxima in the three other curves. 
While the relative values representing the physical factors determined 
for the poor-burning samples correspond in a general way with Dr. Frear's 
