Vol. LXVI. No. 2983. 
NEW YORK, MARCH 30, 1907. 
WEEKLY, £1.00 PER YEAR. 
A BIG TOMATO CROP. 
How It Was Grown and Handled. 
The recent discussion on growing- tomatoes on page 
128 has tempted me to put in my oar. Like Mr. Hul- 
sart, I think some of us would have more to the good 
if we did a little figuring, for I find the hardest man 
to compete with is the man who is growing produce 
for less than cost. If that class would do a little fig¬ 
uring they would soon mend their ways, or leave the 
field to those who must do some figuring to make 
their business profitable. The above applies to growing 
tomatoes as well as all other produce. For instance, 
G. W. S., Newtonville, O., is putting three tons of 
tomatoes on the market at a loss. What is the trouble? 
In the first place, his yield is altogether too small, also 
the price received (less than $7 per ton). As G. W. S. 
does not make the price, he must either increase the 
yield per acre or reduce the 
cost of production. Presum¬ 
ing that the labor question in 
Ohio is as far from solution 
as in New York State, the re¬ 
duction of labor involved is 
out of the question ; therefore 
he must figure for an increase 
of yield. 
About 15 years ago I had 
set a piece of early tomatoes 
which promised to be a ban¬ 
ner crop, and as the question 
of profit or loss meant make 
or break to me, I was forced 
to do some figuring. At the 
close of the season I found 
that my yield was 398 bush¬ 
els, or about 12 tons, which 
brought on an average 35 
cents per bushel (my first 
bushels sold for $3, some sold 
later on for 10 cents per 
bushel), or $139.30. As the 
crop was peddled out the cost 
was much greater than if it 
had been hauled to the can¬ 
ning factory, and of course 
the price obtained was some¬ 
what higher than canners' 
prices. Now, about cost of 
production and profit for one 
acre: Plowing, $1.50; har¬ 
rowing, 50 cents; marking, 50 
cents; 3,111 plants, at $5 per 
1,000, $15.50; setting, $2; six 
barrels hen manure, $6; apply¬ 
ing manure, $1; cultivating five times, $5; hoeing twice, 
$3; rent of land, $6; picking, $10; cartage, five cents a 
bushel, $20; total cost, $71. This left me a profit of $68.30 
per acre. Taking Mr. Hulsart’s figures, my profit would 
have been $94.70. Taking G. W. S.’s price received, $100, 
and presuming his cost of production the same as Mr. 
Hulsart’s, his profit with the above yield would have 
been $35 per acre. But as G. W. S. cannot raise the 
price he will have to raise the yield or quit. 
Fifteen years ago a yield of 400 bushels per acre 
was considered a good yield with the varieties then in 
use in these parts. The reader can imagine my feel¬ 
ings when, after relating the above large yield to a 
market gardener, he said he had done much better by 
raising 900 bushels per acre. I thought it rather fishy 
until five years ago, when my yield was 617 bushels, or 
18)4 tons per acre. I then made up my mind that 900 
bushels could be reached and started forthwith to ex¬ 
periment, with the following result: 1902, 617 bushels, 
or 18J4 tons; 1903, 567 bushels, or 17 tons; 1904, 620 
bushels, or 18)4 tons; 1905, 138 bushels, or 4 tons; 1906, 
•890 bushels, or 26)4 tons. What is the matter with 
1905? Blight. And 1906 was the most favorable sea¬ 
son I have ever seen, with all conditions and operations 
right. 
Presuming that most of my readers, like G. W. S., 
are particularly interested in the crop of 1906 and how 
it was produced, the variety was Earliana. Seed was 
sown in flats in greenhouse March 12, in rows two inches 
apart, about 10 seeds to the inch. Temperature was 
55 to 65 degrees at night; bottom heat five to eight de¬ 
grees higher. After the first leaves were well formed, 
flats were removed to cooler part of house, where tem¬ 
perature was 10 degrees lower, to harden off, and 
watered very sparingly to prevent damping off. April 20 
plants were pricked out in cold frame, three inches 
apart both ways; soil in frame was spaded six inches 
deep; two bushels of hen manure to the square rod were 
raked in before pricking out plants. The plants were 
then well watered and shaded with burlap during the 
day, until they had overcome the shock of transplanting, 
which generally takes from three to five days, accord¬ 
ing to the amount of sunshine, the glass being put on 
nights. Water was withheld to almost the point of 
wilting, and when watered only enough was given to 
wet the soil about three inches deep. If a heavy rain 
appeared the sash were put on. The object in thus 
sparing the water was to encourage root growth, and 
confining the roots to that stratum of highly fertilized 
soil three inches deep. If an over-abundance of water 
had been supplied many of the roots would have struck 
down deep, and would have been broken in remov¬ 
ing to the field. As the glass was used only when 
there was danger from frost, the plants were very hardy 
and stocky by the first of June; they were six to eight 
inches high, with a dark purple stalk about the size 
of a lead pencil, with a cluster of fibrous roots, hungry 
for more room and a chance to grow. Plants grown in 
the above manner will stand a great amount of cold 
without injury, whereas a plant taken from a hotbed 
that is soft and succulent would either perish or linger 
along for several weeks, and in the end would not be 
ready for business until the season was half gone. 
The tomato, being a tropical plant, requires a warm 
soil, which, of course must be light. In former years 
I have always chosen a sunny side hill with a western 
or southern exposure, setting on soil that had grown 
corn the year previous. The soil was plowed and har¬ 
rowed, no stable manure or commercial fertilizers were 
used, except a handful of hen manure around each 
plant at the first hoeing to stimulate the plant to set its 
load of fruit. If the weather continued moist and the 
blight did not appear we checked the growth by break¬ 
ing down the plant, thus checking the -flow of sap and 
forcing the crop to ripen. In this manner the crops of 
1902, 1903 and 1904 were raised. From a small experi¬ 
ment in 1904, I discovered that the Earliana tomato 
would stand a liberal amount of manure without run¬ 
ning to vine, while several other varieties planted in 
the same plots gave me an abundance of vine and but 
little fruit. With this lesson 
in mind, I set out the plants 
for the crop of 1905 (some 
1,750 plants). About the first 
of July the weather condi¬ 
tions were very favorable for 
the development of blight,, 
and not knowing that the To¬ 
mato blight was the same or 
second cousin to Potato 
blight, the crop was permitted 
to go to ruin for want of 
spraying, which accounts for 
the crop of 1905 being very 
poor. As experimenting has 
been a.great part of my life 
work, the Spring of 1906 
found me more anxious than 
ever to try for that 900-bush¬ 
el yield. I selected a’ piece 
of moist gravel loam that 
would produce 250 bushels of 
potatoes per acre, the previ¬ 
ous crop being corn. We ap¬ 
plied stable manure at the 
rate of 10 tons per acre. The 
ground was then plowed and 
harrowed. The first week in 
June the piece was again 
harrowed and marked out 
3)4 x 4 feet, and the plants 
(grown as before mentioned) 
were set. The following 
week, the plants having over¬ 
come the shock of transplant¬ 
ing, a large handful of hen 
manure was scattered around 
each plant and hoed in by hand. The cultivator was 
kept at work at intervals of one week five times, twice 
the 3)4-foot way and three times the four-foot way; 
they were again hoed after the last cultivating, thus 
taking out the few weeds that had escaped the culti¬ 
vator teeth. The piece was kept practically level. 
Soon after setting the Potato beetles appeared in 
great numbers, also the brown cutworm, necessitating 
the resetting of some plants. The piece was then thor¬ 
oughly sprayed with Bordeaux Mixture (six pounds 
blue vitriol, five pounds lime, one pound Paris-green, ' 
50 gallons water). A second spraying was made just 
before the first fruit ripened (about July 4). If the 
weather had remained moist I would have made another 
spraying 15 days later. By August 1 the plants were 
loaded with fruit. I anticipated no injury from blight 
as long as the weather was dry. About August 20 a 
few plants were affected with blight, but as the plants 
were loaded with all the fruit they could ripen no at¬ 
tempt was made to check it. A week later the blight 
increased to such an extent as to stop all bloom and 
further setting of fruit, thus exposing the fruit to the 
MILKING TIME ON A WEST VIRGINIAN FARM. Fig. 125 . 
