22 
January S. 
All experiment stations and progressive farmers test 
the soil in their fields by devoting various plots of 
ground to the crop under test, fertilizing each plot 
in a different manner, and judging from the yield in 
forage or grain which system of fertilization is best 
for that crop in that field. The objection to the 
average farmer in these so-called field tests is that 
they are comparatively expensive, and that a year is 
gone before the results of the test can be known. 
Prof. Whitney’s substitution for field tests is a method 
by which soil from the field in question, treated to 
as many systems of fertilization as are desired for 
the experiment, is put into a number of small sne- 
cially constructed pots. The comparative growth 
of seeds in these pots, each representing a different 
method of fertilization, will disclose in a few weeks, 
at a trifling expense, what would take months of 
time and much more expense in field tests. This test 
is not a study of the requirements of the plants, but 
an experiment to find out the fertilizer requirements 
of the soil under test. IA description of these pots 
will be found below Fig. 8. Eds.] 1 hat these “rapid 
transit tests’’ can be relied upon is thus answered 
affirmatively in Prof. Whitneys bulletin, as follows: 
“The plants in that pot (test with wheat seed) you 
have before you show a satisfactory growth. If it is 
followed out, will it develop grain in the same ratio? 
Have you conducted any tests of this kind.''’ Prof. 
Whitney replied: 
“We have conducted some tests in pots made in 
this same way, but much larger, and the indications 
we got at the start continued on up to the maturity 
of the plant,—that is, the yield was of the same order 
as our 10-day test in the small pot. We have tested 
this method in connection with the plot experiments 
at the Rhode Island Experiment Station, and also 
at the Ohio Station, where they have had plots under 
observation for 10 or 12 years, and the results, that 
ice get with these small pots in two weeks, give the 
order of-the differences they hare got with the differ¬ 
ent fertilizers over a period of 10 years. 1 believ** 
that these pot results will give you a relative indication 
of the number of bushels of grain the soils will 
produce. It is a safe indication of the relative order 
of efficiency of the fertilizers; but you must remember 
that we are dealing with the fertility of the soil and 
not with the yield, because the yield depends upon 
o her things in addition to the fertility.”' 
Again, in answer to the following, “The question 
of liming soils is a very interesting one to most of 
us and also a very important thing. What test would 
vou advise the farmer to make to prove that his soil 
is deficient in lime or that his soil was neutral and 
did not require lime”? Prof. Whitney answered: 
“If you will turn to that basket method and test your 
soil with and- without lime, in three weeks from now 
you will know whether lime is needed.” 
On March 28 therefore, the experiment was started. 
In the first place, soil was obtained from the farm 
just purchased, and inoculated soil taken from an 
Alfalfa field nearby. The sample fertilizers and lime 
were also obtained from the manufacturers. The 
experiment was made by the use of the following: 
3. Paoli soil. 2. Ground limestone. 3. Inoculated 
soil, from Alfalfa field one year old. 4. Nitrogen 
bacterial culture. 5. Raw bone, muriate of potash, 
analysis 3-15-5. G. Raw bone meal, 3- l /2-21 phos¬ 
phoric acid. 7. Burnt lime. These materials were 
all carefully weighed on scales and placed in the 
various combinations, as given in the table below. 
The soil mixed with the fertilizers was then left for 
a couple of days, while the Alfalfa seeds were lying 
between two layers of cloth and moist sand, in a 
box over a hot-water radiator. 
When they had sprouted, seven of the strongest 
seeds were selected and planted in each pot in the 
form of a Maltese cross. The pots were all kept in 
the same conditions of light and temperature. The 
pots were filled to within about an inch of the top, 
and about one-quarter of an inch of sand spread over 
this. The pots were then dipped, bottom down, into 
hot paraffin, in accordance with Prof. Whitney’s 
instructions. From the first, the growth from the 
various pots was very different. 1 he great length 
of time occupied by the experiment was due to the 
fact that the pots were permitted to be placed out¬ 
doors, and the change from under glass retarded the 
growth. As an example of this, the pots were carried 
into' Philadelphia to have their photographs taken, 
and were placed for two days in the glass-enclosed 
roi m where the photographs are printed. The plants 
in this room, where the sun and heat were both 
slrong, seemed to jump, and some of the plants 
actually grew a half inch in their two days’ stay. 
It will be understood, of course, that it is necessary 
for each farmer to try this method of “soil interro¬ 
gation,” from which he can make his own deductions 
for the proper treatment of his own farm. It is 
interesting to note, however, some of the points 
brought out in the test, as shown at Fig. 8. While 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER 
the time that lapsed between sowing the seed and 
taking the pictures was 64 days, the actual difference 
in the height, color, and general physical condition of 
the plants could be seen in much less time than that, 
to which should be added the mistake of taking the 
plants out from glass and in the raw Spring air. 
Thirty days should show the changes in the growth 
of the plants. 
Examine pots No. 2 and No. 5, Fig. 8, with five 
and 10 tons of lime respectively, but without inocu¬ 
lation. The plants are small, yellow, thin and have 
no nodules. Now turn to pots No. 3 and No. G. I he 
only difference in the ingredients supplied is that 
No. 3 and No. 6 have inoculated soil. Note the 
difference. The latter are respectively seven and 
four times as tall as the former; their physical con¬ 
dition is better, and the nodules are many and of 
large size. Add to Paoli soil (No. 1) five tons of 
limestone (No. 2 and No. 5) and you have no im¬ 
provement; add 400 pounds of raw bone (No. 9) 
and you have practically no improvement; add 400 
pounds of bone and potash (No. 8) and you have a 
little gain; add to Paoli soil inoculation (No. 15) 
and you have a large growth. One more point may 
be noted. You will observe that lime, raw bone, bone 
and potash of little value compared with inoculation, 
and by themselves, will not assure the best growth. 
On the other hand, inoculated soil does well with 
cither of the three ingredients,—lime, raw bone, bone 
and potash. In No. 14, inoculated soil does as well 
or better, with 400 pounds of bone and potash, as 
inoculated soil does with lime in No. 3, No. G and 
No. 18. 
The most important factor, in this test, therefore, 
is shown to be inoculated soil. In fact, after this and 
many other experiments in the field as well, it would 
National Apple Show— Score Card 
Q,„ _ No._ 
ENTRIES 
1 
8 
20 
001.0* 
10 
•iza 
in 
UNirOMMITV 
20 
CONDITION 
1 
1 ■ 
i ? 
K>0 
TOT** 
MC* (Mi) 
4 
• U*G> 
4 
4 
4 
COUPIC'HIM 
4 
TOT** tO 
Award* 1 tf__ 2nd - W- 
OMc-- Judgr 
SCORE CARD OF NATIONAL APPLE SHOW. Fig- 9. 
seem just as sensible in our soil, to lay out an Alfalfa 
field without seed, as to sow the seed without inocu¬ 
lation. It will also be noted that in all but one 
(No. 11), inoculated soil does better than “nitrogen 
cultures,” although the latter is far better than no 
inoculation at all. The difference between five tons 
and 10 tons of lime is comparatively small, however. 
The difference between ground limestone and burnt 
lime is also comparatively small. 
Now, as to the practical side of the matter. We 
have read in The R. N.-Y. how that successful and 
practical Alfalfa grower, Charles B. Wing, recom¬ 
mends lime in quantity, and I for one, believe in his 
advice. For some soils, lime may be absolutely es¬ 
sential ; for others, not so much so. Some soils have 
already the inoculation so necessary to a permanent 
Alfalfa field; on the other hand, some soils have no 
inoculation; again, some soils have all the soluble 
phosphorus, potash and nitrogen ready for the farm¬ 
er's crops; other soils have not. The question there¬ 
fore resolves itself into this: What elements or in¬ 
gredients must be supplied in your soil to grow the 
best possible craps of Alfalfa, clover, wheat, potatoes 
or corn? Prof. Whitney, the Chief of the Bureau of 
Soils at Washington, cannot answer this question by 
a mere chemical analysis of your soil, nor can Mr. 
Wing tell you. But you, yourself, can in a few 
weeks find out exactly what your soil requires,—the 
soil on your own farm over which you have spent so 
much time and effort. 
Take for example, our own clover field. This year 
it was an absolute failure. Our farmer said that it 
was a fly or insect that ate it out. One neighbor 
said the Winter killed it. A friend, farming on a 
different kind of soil, said what we needed was potash. 
Every farmer in the neighborhood had a different 
opinion, and each adviser hoped we would try his 
cure, which, by the way, would have taken half a 
century. What was to be done? Write to Washing¬ 
ton? Write to The R. N.-Y.? To the State Experiment 
Station? No, indeed; make the inquiry where we 
will get the surest answer,—ask the soil where the 
clover failed. And that is just what we shall do 
this Winter, before sowing the next clover seed in 
the Spring. Don’t spend your evenings and use up 
your energy writing to Mr. Wing, your experiment 
station or to Prof. Whitney. Send now for Bulletin 
No. 257, make use of a few spare moments this 
Winter, and ask the soil on your old farm what it 
most needs to give you the best possible results. 
In this way, every farmer can find out the individual 
characteristics and requirements of his own soil. As 
for me, on my soil, I would as soon sow an Alfalfa 
field without seed, as to sow the seed without 
inoculation. richard haughton. 
KEEP BERRIES OUT OF A PEACH ORCHARD. 
In reply to G. G. S., page 1082, in regard to plant¬ 
ing strawberries and raspberries between his peach 
trees, I would say don’t do it, as it would not help his 
peaches in any way. From experience here, we have 
found that strawberries were a drawback to the 
peaches; they did not begin to grow until we took out 
the berries. As for raspberries, 1 look at it this way. 
His idea is to set out one row of raspberries between 
each two rows of peach trees. I will surmise that 
row is to be down the middle. It takes two years or 
longer for raspberries to come into profit. At the 
end of that time he will see where his peach trees are: 
they are pretty well branched out, in fact branched 
out enough to lap over his raspberries. Here is the 
point, cultivation. You cannot cultivate the raspber¬ 
ries without disturbing the fruit buds of peaches, 
which no man who has a peach or any other kind of 
an orchard cares to do, especially in peaches, because 
enough drop off as it is. So I think, if I were G. G. S., 
I would rather put in a hoed crop, so as to encourage 
thorough cultivation in his peaches. 
Merchantville, N. J. p. a. o. d. 
THE MULCH METHOD vs. CULTIVATION. 
I have been much interested ill the discussion of a 
“mulched orchard.” I have noticed one thing as being 
very marked, not only in these articles, but also in 
everything written by the mulch advocates. That is 
that no mulched orchard should be given serious con¬ 
sideration except where the system of mulching has 
been carried on according to the most approved 
methods, everything else being cited as an unfair 
example. Yet in speaking of the cultivated orchards 
they do not seem to be so exacting, classing everything 
as a cultivated orchard from those where the system 
is properly carried out (i. e., a cover crop being worked 
in early in Spring, fertilizers being applied and clean 
culture given, allowing no weeds or grass to show 
close to the trees or anywhere until midsummer, 
when it is again sown to a cover crop, the kind to 
depend upon the needs of the orchard), to the one 
which is plowed some time during Spring, leaving a 
strip three or four feet along the tree rows, that 
perhaps has not been moved since the orchard was 
set, and where the quack grass has full possession 
of the ground in 10 days, and keeps it until the end 
of the season. They almost invariably figure the 
cost, however, on the first mentioned method of cul¬ 
tivation, and the result very often on the latter. As 
to which system is better, I do not believe anyone 
should be governed largely, but rather absolutely by 
the conditions, as they appear. I have a firm convic¬ 
tion that the mulch method, no matter how carried 
out in this section, must be more or less a failure, 
while T know of other places where I am just as sure 
no system of cultivation would be a entire success. 
Columbia Co., N. Y. wm. hotaling. 
BANDING FOR CODLING MOTH. 
I have thought that it would pay me to band my apple 
trees with the sticky stuff that is used on the elm trees. 
Will it do away with spraying for Codling moth, etc.? 
Redfield, Conn. *t. c. 
We consider spraying for the Codling moth to be 
by far the best remedy known. The Codling moth 
lays its eggs in the Spring on the leaves and young 
apples, and the majority of the larvae hatching there¬ 
from enter the apples through the.blossom end, and 
after living within the apple for 30 days, leave it, 
climb down the trunk and spin cocoons under the 
bark of the tree. While the larvae are migrating from 
the apples down the tree they may be caught by put¬ 
ting bands around the lower branches and the trunk of 
the trees. These bands, however, should be of such 
a nature that the larvae will use them as hiding places 
in which to spin their cocoons. They are usually made 
of hay-rope or cloth sacks folded several times and 
wound about the tree. Sticky bands would not be 
of much use in this warfare, as the aim is not to 
catch the larvie, like the canker-worms, but rather 
to furnish a place in which they will hide, and from 
which they can be taken and killed. In order to get 
the best results with these bands they must be put on 
about one month after the blossoms appear, and must 
be examined about once a week until August, and all 
the larvae found each time destroyed. It will be seen, 
however, that all larvae which get beneath the bands 
have already done their injuries. Hence the remedy 
is not one for the present year but a preventive one 
for the succeeding year, and at best is only a partial 
remedy. In fact, one hardly ever nowadays hears this 
method of fighting the Codling moth discussed. The 
best remedy is spraying with arsenate of lead, three 
to five pounds in of)’gallons of water, or Paris green. 
GLENN W. HERRICK. 
