32 
Bulletin 91 . 
Experiment X —The seed in the following experiment was taken from 
the Rural New Yorker No. l’s of last year’s experiments. It was planted on 
heavy, clayey ground which had been a plum orchard for a number of years, 
but it had been well cultivated and manured during the previous five years. 
The water supply in the ditch gave out early in the season and the field re¬ 
ceived but two waterings. 
The ground was plowed eight inches deep in the early spring and the 
seed was planted five inches deep. The plants came up nicely and their 
foliage remained green until killed by frost. 
Plat I—Check —The tubers of this lot were smooth and clean, not a 
scabby or diseased tuber was observed in the lot. The plants were strong 
and healthy. Three hundred and forty-eight pounds of seed gave a return 
of 3,042 pounds of clean, round tubers, a yield of 8.7 pounds of tubers for 
every pound of seed planted. 
Plat II —The seed from which these tubers grew was treated with corro¬ 
sive sublimate and this seed was also treated with corrosive sublimate. It 
was an evcellent lot of seed. The plants were strong and vigorous and the 
foliage remained perfect until killed by frost. Three hundred and sixty- 
three pounds of seed gave a return of 3,429 pounds of tubers; 9.44 pounds of 
tubers for every pound of seed planted, a gain of 8%%. 
Plat III —All the long and flat tubers were rejected from this lot, only 
the clean, round and perfect shaped tubers were used. Two hundred and 
seventy pounds of seed gave a return of 3,141 pounds of tubers, a yield of 
11.63 pounds of tubers for every pound of seed planted, making a gain of 
33%% over check. 
Plat IV —The tubers in this lot were taken from the No. l’s of last year’s 
crop, but all of them were ill-shaped and more or less scabby. Two hun¬ 
dred and fifty pounds of seed gave a return of 1,559 pounds, a yield of 6.24 
pounds of tubers for every pound of seed planted, giving a loss of 28% when 
compared with check. 
Results. —1. Good, healthy seed treated with corrosive sublimate and 
planted in new soil gave a gain of 8%%. 
2. Carefully selected seed gave a gain of 33%%. 
3. Selecting all the poorest shaped, scabby and diseased seed and plant¬ 
ing it on new ground gave a loss of 28%%. 
4. The difference between best and poorest seed being 62%. 
TABLE X., SHOWING RESULTS OF EXPERIMENT NO. X. 
Plat Number 
TREATMENT 
Number Pounds of 
Seed Tubers 
Planted 
Total Number 
Pounds of Tubers 
Harvested 
Yield for Every 
Pound of Seed 
Planted 
Gain or Loss 
Yield in Sacks 
per Acre 
I. 
Check_ _ ... _ _ ___ 
318 
3012 
8.70 
60 
II. 
Corrosive Sublimate, 1 oz. to 8 gals, of water_ _ _ 
363 
3129 
9.41 
Wc 
Gain 
66 
III. 
Good Selected Seed. ... _ _ ..._ _ . 
270 
3111 
11.63 
Gain 
81 
IV. 
Poor Selected Seed—Culls . _ .. ..... 
250 
1559 
6.24 
28%* 
Loss 
44 
Experiment XI —These experiments were undertaken in 1903 to test the 
value of selecting seed and the value of treating inferior seed with corrosive 
sublimate solution. An exceptionally badly diseased lot of Rural New 
Yorker seed was secured for this test. These experiments were planted on 
an old plum orchard containing a heavy, clayey soil, but it had been well 
manured and cultivated for the past five years. The soil was plowed eight 
inches deep in early spring and the seed was planted four inches deep on 
April 9th. The plants did poorly from the first. The water was turned out 
of the main ditch during the fore part of the season so the field was irri- 
