744 
THE RURAL MEW-YOBKEfi. 
W5V 40 
farm ^Topics. 
BREED OR FEED 
In Flit 
Seeds Grown on Poor Soil. 
Seeds Grown on Rich Soil. 
Which Produce the Stronge r Plants ? 
Points for Seedsmen to Consider. 
Any Fair Comparison Between Plants 
and Animals in this Respect? 
A GOOD TOPIC FOR THE EXPERI¬ 
MENT STATIONS. 
A great many practical farmers and gar¬ 
deners claim that a seed grown on poor soil 
will give better results, when planted in soil 
better than that in which it was produced, 
than will a seed produced in soil richer than 
that in which it is planted. Such persons like 
to compare a plant with an animal. It is 
quite a favorite saying with good breeders 
that they can turn a scrub into a first class 
animal, by giving it improved care, while a 
superior race of animals can be dwailed and 
weakened by neglect continued for several 
generations. “ Take, for example,” say these 
breeders, 11 a herd of Holstein cattle from a 
land of abundant pastures and place them in 
the piney-woods region of the South. After 
a few generations, the characteristics of the 
cattle would be changed entirely, lake the 
lank, piney-woods cattle and put them in bet¬ 
ter pastures, and a few generations will show 
marked improvements.” It is urged that, in 
a like manner, seeds of plants grown on poor 
soil will give much finer plants when sown in 
a rich garden, and that seeds of plants grown 
in rich soil will produce degenerate plants in 
the average garden plot. It is assumed bx 
those who believe in this theory, that all seeds 
ottered for sale ought to be grown in poor soil, 
and it is also assumed that most seedsmen 
handle seeds grown in strong and rich land. 
This question has been referred to the persons 
whose remarks follow. It is evidently a mat¬ 
ter that our experiment stations might well 
investigate. 
PROM PROF. C. S. PLUMB. 
Land may be so sterile that only puny, 
sickly-looking plants may be developed. 
Again, under most unusual circumstances, a 
soil might be so rich as to produce plants over¬ 
grown and abnormal. The former case is 
usual, especially in some localities—the latter 
unusual. I do not believe, however, that 
seeds grown on poor lands produce stronger 
and better plants than those grown in very 
rich soil. Tennessee probably has its full 
share of run-out soil, and on the University 
farm we have a good sample. And this is so 
poor it w r on’t grow cow-peas, and land that 
w on’t do that in the South is consideied past 
redemption—by the majority. I believe that 
plants grown on average garden soil, will pro¬ 
duce more perfect plants than on either poorer 
or better land. 
At the New York Experiment Station, I 
planted some selected seed wheat, there being 
1,00) grains of the largest, plumpest ones I 
could get from the farm bin, and a like num¬ 
ber of the puniest, smallest, perfect seeds I 
could secure. This seed was planted in prac¬ 
tically the same soil it was grown in. Five 
rows of large seed produced a total of 3,472 
panicles, or an average of 694.4 panicles per 
row; five rows of small seed yielded a total of 
2,205 panicles, or an average of 441 per row. 
The plants from the large seed yielded three 
pounds 8.2 ounces of straw, and one pound 
eight ounces of grain; the small seed yielded 
one pound 13.5 ounces of straw, and 11.8 
ounces of grain. 
To be sure, this is a case of selection, but 
it illustrates the point just as fully, viz. : that 
both of these lots of plants, grown on essen¬ 
tially the same soil, produced improved seeds 
over the parent stock, and especially those 
from large seed. 
In Germany, Hellriegel carried on experi¬ 
ments in growing seeds, and, in the course of 
his work, there came up a comparison between 
plants grown on poor land and those on gar¬ 
den soil. He found that poor, light seeds ma¬ 
terially improved in plant production, when 
grown in rich garden soil rather than in sandy 
soil, where they had great difficulty in getting 
a start. 
I do not believe in the theory that seeds from 
plants grown in very rich ground will prove 
disappointing to the farmer if planted on poor 
soil; it ought rather to be the contrary. It 
isn’t the character of our soil that so often 
injures crops so much as it is the care they 
receive. Seedsmen give their fields the test 
of culture. Seed breeding is much like live¬ 
stock breeding Starve and neglect a horse 
or cow, and either will certainly not produce 
the vigorous offspring that he or she would 
have with proper care. Neither will the pro¬ 
geny make a good growth if allowed only in¬ 
ferior food and shelter. 
Tennessee Experiment Station. 
FROM PROF. GEO. C. BUTZ. 
This is a question of great complexity from 
the fact that so many circumstances may in¬ 
fluence the growth of a plant; and, again, be¬ 
cause the value of a crop does not always de¬ 
pend upon the perfection of the same part of 
different plants. In the beet it is the root; in 
the cabbage, the leaf; in the tomato, the fruit. 
A large beet is not the best; a large cabbage 
is desirable; much vigor in stalk and leaf is 
against the production of the best tomato. I 
think, however, it is quite true that seeds 
grown on rich soil will not produce plants, 
when sown in an average soil, that are equal 
to the parent plants. But I am not ready to 
be convinced that the defect lies in the seed in 
any degree. It must be in the soil and culti¬ 
vation. The well-established fact that our 
fruits and vegetables are improved by high 
cultivation, improving not only individual 
plants, but inducing a variation that becomes 
a hereditary trait, is in itself a strong rec¬ 
ommendation in favor of seeds grown on rich 
soil. Rich soil will produce a large head of 
cabbage; a poor soil will produce a smaller 
head of the same variety. Knowing, then, 
what we do of heredity in nature, what results 
should we obtain by sowing seeds from these 
two cabbages in the same medium soil, with 
the same treatment? Logically, the seed of the 
former should give the better result. Practi 
cally, I cannot now say whether the question 
has been made the subject of careful observa 
tion or not. 
Pennsylvania Experiment Station. 
FROM PETER HENDERSON. 
I do not think that seeds grown on poor laud 
produce stronger and better plants than those 
grown on very rich land, for the reason that 
we find California seeds, which are grown on 
the very richest land we have in the country, 
produce more robust plants and have longer 
vitality than seeds grown anywhere else that 
I am aware of. It is not so much a matter of 
soil that causes the vitality of the seed and 
the vigor of the plant as it is that the climate 
is in the right condition for the p rfection of 
the seed. Again, so muen depends upon what 
the seed is. For example: Oats, grown in 
England and Scotland, weigh 50 pounds to the 
bushel, while the same oats, grown here, at 
once dwindle *o 40 pounds, and, if sown again, 
will further dwindle to 35 pounds per bushel; 
and the next season they will be reduced to 
the condition of our normal weight of oats, 
which is from 28 pounds to 30 pounds per 
bushel. The reason of that is, that the low 
temperature of Great Britain is more condu 
cive to the better development of oats than 
our tropical summers. Again, on the other 
hand, our maize would not ripen there at all, 
for the reason that it is a product of the 
tropics, and requires our warm summers for 
maturing its seed. 
The subject is a very extensive one, having 
great ramifications, and no fixed rule will be 
found to be applicable as regards soil unless it 
is combined with climate for the best develop¬ 
ment of seeds, and hence the best development 
of plants. 
FROM W. ATLEE BURPEE. 
Our superintendent of cultures, who natur¬ 
ally makes a study of this subject, gives his 
ideas as follows: 
“ Our experience is against either very poor 
or very rich soil for seed-growing. Not only 
do the best strains deteriorate under under¬ 
feeding or over-feeding, but the profits also 
are diminished, as the bulk of the crop under 
either condition will proportionately decrease. 
As this may seem paradoxical I give my rea¬ 
sons for the above conclusions, which have 
been illustrated in my experience in growing 
seeds. To take, first, the poor soil, which 
some seem to think will be the 1 cure-all.> 
The apparent advantages of such a soil are, 
slow growth in the parent plant, strong, and 
consequently tough fiber, and the seeds, being 
formed and ripened slowly, would be sound 
and of stiong vitality; but, by this very slow 
growth and strength, much of the tender and 
fine quality of the vegetable would be lost, 
and, if the soil is very poor, the parent fruits 
will be deformed in size and shape, as well as 
being insipid and fibrous in quality. The 
seedsman also under such conditions, as is 
readily seen, has none but the veriest scrubs 
which would not produce remunerative crops 
of seed. 
Now, for the very rich soil, which many 
think it is the good fortune of every seed.-man 
to possess. I think it is almost equally objec¬ 
tionable—meaning, of course, by this, soil not 
merely ordinarily rich or in good heart, but so 
extraordinarily so that it is capable of produc¬ 
ing the immense specimens shown in the cat¬ 
alogues of some of our esteemed competitors 
The objection from the seedsman’s point of 
view is that the parent plant makes an abnor¬ 
mal growth, setting the fruit very late. The 
fruit, under these conditions, develops very 
rapidly and consists mainly of watery flesh, 
and the few seeds formed are but imperfectly 
developed, and when dried have not sufficient 
substance to preserve their vitality for any 
length of time. For these reasons, I believe 
that a good soil, well-fertilized, which will 
produce a fair crop of good vegetables, is the 
best for seed-growing—both as a remuuf rative 
crop to the seed-grower and the most profita¬ 
ble strain for the market gardener’s use. All 
farmers know how distinctly the offspring of 
their live-stock will inherit the blemishes and 
imperfections of the parents; this is equally 
true of vegetables. A crop from the tough and 
.scrubby fruit of the poor land will be scrubs, 
and the crop from the rank and poorly-ripened 
parent, will lack vitality to succeed except 
under the most careful nursing.” 
FROM EDWIN TAYLOR. 
It is important, if it is true, that crops raised 
from poor-land seeds are better than those 
raised from rich-land seeds. It is a theory 
that has been supported with some ingenuity 
of reasoning, but I never heard of any satis 
factory proof having been offered in its favor 
Like the mooted question, whether fence- 
posts should be set top-end down or butt-end 
dow n, this proposition can be decided only by 
trial. If I remember correctly, it was Brof. 
Real who settled the fence-post controversy by 
a test, thorough and extended enough to be 
conclusive, which showed that fence-posts last 
as well set one end down as the other. Quite 
likely this seed question will turn out in much 
the same way; at any rate, instead of starting 
an avalanche of philosophizing about it, I sug¬ 
gest that the Rural take the matter up by 
adding this to its list of experiments, which 
have already cast so much light into the ag 
ricultural gloom, and settle the truth respect¬ 
ing rich-land and poor-land seeds by asking 
the seeds tuemselves. „ 
Wyandotte County, Kansas. 
FROM E. S. GOFF. 
I know of no experimental evidence bearing 
directly upon this question, though I have an 
experiment in progress intended to answer it, 
so far as the potato is concerned. I should 
expect that plants grown on soil too fertile for 
their most complete development, would pro¬ 
duce degenerate offsprings, as we know they 
produce fewer offsprings. 1 his law seems to 
apply in the animal kingdom. 
New York Experiment Station. 
FROM A. C. BATES. 
My observation of seeds, both wild and cul¬ 
tivated, would lead me to believe that those 
grown on moderately rich soil, are the surest 
to produce hardy plants. Still, a full-grown 
seed well-matured will produce a good plant 
irrespective of the soil that produced it. 
Seeds grown on very rich soil are too apt to 
be late in ripening. Nature, too, is earnest in 
producing this year’s fruit and not the seed 
for the next crop; and on too poor ground 
the seed appears to lack the necessary vitality. 
But give me a good, honest, intelligent seed- 
grower, and I would much prefer to buy my 
seeds of him than to grow them. My crop is 
earlier and better. Raising vegetables for sale 
and growing seeds to plant are two separate 
kinds of business, and my experience teaches 
me that they should be kept apart. 
A good garden soil will bring a good result 
from matured seeds, let the seeds be grown in 
either rich or poor soil. My experience teaches 
me that we will note quite a difference in seeds 
grown north or south of us; northern seeds 
maturing earlier and sduthern seeds later. I 
would not plant seeds from a plant that show¬ 
ed no vigor in its growth, nor would 1 from 
one that was too rank in its growth to mature 
seed early. 
Parke County, lad. 
FROM W. G. WARING. 
Whether seed from a plant grown in very 
rich ground is on that account likely to make 
poor growth in poorer soil is quite an undeter¬ 
mined question I think. Such a plant is not 
likely to yield so much seed as one that has 
suffered a little starving; but what seed it 
does yield, if duly matured, should be heavy 
and good. It holds good through both the 
vegetable and animal kingdoms that parents 
who have but scant and plain living have the 
most and usually the strongest and healthiest 
progeny. In the rich limestone valleys of the 
Alleghany range in which wheat is largely 
grown, the amount raised per acre is greater 
than what can be raised on the poor shales of 
the mountain slopes, but the quality of the 
grains from'the poorer land is the finest. 
Tyronne, Pa. 
FROM F. S. WHITE. 
The proposition that seeds grown on poor 
soil will produce stronger or better plants 
than seeds grown on very rich soil, is con¬ 
trary to my experience in a general way, 
though there are circumstances in which tnis 
proposition might hold good. I have thought 
that in our short seasons when we have a 
very wet, cold season, some seeds would ripen 
more perfectly on a thinner soil than on our 
heavily manured land. In these wet, cool 
seasons, our seed plants grow too much top, 
and a great amount of mildew is the result. 
Then again, in a very wet season plants on 
our highly enriched land want to grow too 
late in the fall, and the frost is likely to kill 
them with a large amount of unmatured seed 
on them, so I think this is a matter that de¬ 
pends largely on the season. I have always 
Fig. 376. 
grown what seed I grew on highly enriched 
land, and i am sure of one thing at least, 
which is, that for years I have sold my 
neighbors seeds and plants grown on highly 
enriched land, and their crops have always 
been better from my seed or plants than the 
crops they grew from seed raised on their 
own lands, which in most cases have been 
thinner than mine; so, as a rule, I would choose 
good soil on which to grow seed, and I am not 
ready to believe that seeds grown on poor land 
are better than well matured seeds grown on 
our rich garden lands. 
Nor do I accept the proposition that 
seed should be planted on a soil richer 
than the one on which the seed was grown 
in order to reach its best development. 
My experience is to the contrary—Our old 
home farm in Middle Tennessee is a heavy 
clay soil and rather a thin one, and has 
never been highly manured. I still own the 
old farm and every year I send seed from 
here, raised on the very richest and highest 
cultivated land, to plant the gardens on the 
old home place, and in almost every instance, 
these seeds have given the very best of re¬ 
sults; so here is a case where seeds grown on 
rich soil give the very best of crops on a poor 
soil: and another point here is that the 
seeds I send from here and have planted on 
the old home place, have always produced 
better plants and crops than the seeds raised 
on the farm. Frequently I bring back seeds 
from the Tennessee farm and plant them here, 
and such seeds have proven a failure in al- 
mi st every instance. I have had some water¬ 
melon and bean seeds that have done well, 
but other things have been a failure. Here 
we have the change both ways, and the seeds 
transferred from the rich to the thinner soil 
have done well, while the seeds taken from 
the thin soil to the richer have been a failure. 
So I fail to see any reason why the seeds 
grown on rich laud are not as good as those 
