44 
This, it is true, is but a local result. It is within the limits of 
possibility that in another region the Welcome might have been su- 
perior, yet the trial may stand forth prominently as a test that may 
be read thus:—some one variety of seed may find better adaptation 
on a farm than the seed in use, and the cheapest way to secure in- 
crease in crop without extra expense in the growing may often be 
from the change of seed from a less prolific variety to a greater. 
The Welcome oat showed a weak straw,.and before the harvest, 
was flat upon the ground. The White Russian oat possessed a stiff 
straw, and stood erect until close upon harvest, when it was partially 
bent over by astorm. ‘The Welcome oat was harvested on July 31, 
the White Russian ten days later, or on August 10. It was quite 
evident that the White Russian, although exposed for a longer period 
to the vicissitudes of the weather on account of its lateness of ma- 
turing, yet could have borne a heavier crop without becoming pro- 
cumbent ; on the other hand the Welcome oat bore a heavier crop 
than its straw could support, and a larger proportion of its grain was 
probably saved under the careful harvesting of a plat, than under 
the ordinary process of field work. ‘These circumstances lead us to 
believe that the practical prolificacy of the two kinds are different 
through the inherent qualities of the plant, and that hence their re- 
actions to fertilizer may be different. We may express this idea in— 
its practical relations by the following proposition: If the maxi- 
mum yield of an oat plant is 50 bus. per acre, then it is not essential 
to fertilize beyond this 50 bushel limit; if the maximum yield of an 
out plant is 80 bushels, then we should fertilize beyond the 50 bush- 
el limit, and up to the 80 bushel. ‘This relation between fertilizer 
used and the plant may again find expression in the statement that 
on poor soil and under unfavorable conditions a radical difference in 
prolificacy between two varieties may become obscured, while upon 
rich soil and extra favorable conditions, it may become widely differ- 
entiated. We may follow with the statement of a probable truth, 
that the farmer who uses improved varieties of seed can afford to 
use a larger amount of fertilizer than he who grows crops from un- 
selected and carelessly secured seed. 
The nomenclature of farm seed is in a state of chaos. There 
seems to be no authority which shall settle the question of variety, 
and hence the name under which a variety is sold is a matter of ac- 
cident, or ignorance. For us to recommend the White Russian or to 
condemn the Welcome oat, is simply to express the facts of this year 
with reference to seed planted under these respective names. If we 
should base our opinion of values upon this year’s trials upon our 
soil and recommend the White Russian for general culture, the 
farmer who desired to follow this decision into practice could not be 
assured that in purchasing his seed he was obtaining under the 
name the variety or the strain which with us yielded the good crop. 
In our test of varieties this year we find the White Russian distribu- 
ted by seedsmen under several names, as also the Welcome oat. Al- 
though our study of varieties has been carried forward under unus- 
ually favorable opportunities, yet at date we are unable to give de-. 
scriptions which shall enable varieties to be safely recognized by the 
reader, and until this be done, variety tests as to value for crops 

ie ie 
se 
a See 
