1082 
Journal of Agricultural Research 
Vol. XXVIII, No. 11 
SPACING EXPERIMENT IN 1922 
The experimental material was planted May 17, 1922. The soil used was a 
fairly fertile sandy loam and quite uniform. The plants were thinned June 14 
and 15, when they were 6 to 8 inches tall and had five to seven true leaves. To 
afford the best conditions for the 2-inch spacing it might have been better to 
reduce the stand in these rows when the plants were smaller, since that degree 
of crowding is sufficient to suppress the vegetative branches. 
The experiment consisted of 24 rows 4 feet apart and 375 feet long. The 24 
rows were grouped into five 4-row blocks with 2 guard rows on each side of the 
test to protect the outer blocks from “outside row effect.” In blocks No. 1, 
3, and 5 the plants were approximately 2 inches apart, while in block No. 2 the 
plants were spaced 6 inches apart and in block No. 4, 12 inches apart. 
The plants were irrigated as would be good practice for a commercial field, 
without reference to the different spacings, as no difference in the water require¬ 
ments of the different spacings was noticed. The plants grew to be from 4 to 5^ 
feet tall, the taller plants being on the east and west sides of the field. 
The first picking was made October 10 and 11, which was somewhat too late 
to show differences in the earliness of the different spacings. The second pick¬ 
ing was made December 20, about two weeks after the first frost. 
In picking, the test was divided across the rows into three sections, thus mak¬ 
ing it possible to obtain six direct comparisons of the 6- and 12-inch spacing 
with the 2-inch spacing by comparing each section of the 6- and 12-inch spaced 
blocks with, the section of 2-inch spacing on either side. These three sections 
are designated as A, B, and C, the length of rows in each section being 100, 125, 
and 150 feet respectively. The rows were not divided into sections of equal 
length because the plants on the east and west sides of the field were somewhat 
larger than those in the middle section, and the divisions were made so as to 
incorporate the larger plants in sections A and C and the smaller plants in 
section B. 
The weight of the first and second pickings and the total yields from each 
section of each row are presented in Table I. The yields also are shown graph¬ 
ically in figure 1. 
Six side-by-side comparisons of the 6 with the 2-inch spacing are possible by 
comparing the 6-inch plants in each of the three sections of block 2 with the 
2-inch plants in the three sections of blocks 1 and 3, on either side. 
In the first picking, made October 10, in five out of the six comparisons the 
2-inch spacing outyielded the 6-inch, while in the second picking the 2-inch 
spacing led in only three of the six comparisons. In total yield, however, the 
2-inch outyielded the 6-inch in five of the six comparisons. 
Comparison of the total yields from each section of blocks No. 1, 2, and 3 
shows that there was little difference in yield of the 6-inch and 2-inch spacings. 
The three sections of block No. 2 where plants w r ere spaced 6 inches apart, 
yielded 63.0, 74.8, and 107.5 pounds, respectively, giving a total of 245.3 pounds 
for the entire block. The yields from each section of the two adjoining blocks 
of 2-inch spaced plants were as follows: Block No. 1, 64.2, 79.5, and 112.7 pounds, 
with a total of 256.4 pounds; block No. 3, 62.5, 75.6, and 110.8 pounds, with a 
total of 248.9 pounds. Thus in block No. 1 each section of 2-inch spaced plants 
outyielded the adjacent sections of 6-inch spacing, giving a total gain of 11.1 
pounds for the entire block of 2-inch spaced plants. The 2-inch spacing in 
block No. 3 also outyielded the 6-inch spacing, but the gain was only 2.6 pounds. 
Six comparisons are possible also between the 12- and 2-inch spacing, by com¬ 
paring the 12-inch spaced plants in the three sections of block No. 4 with the 
