• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Board of trustees and station...
 Table of Contents
 Summary
 Introduction
 Acknowledgements
 Soils
 Origin of soils analyzed
 Chemical analysis of pineapple...
 Hilgard's average of soils and...
 Mechanical analysis of soils and...
 Spruce pine and index of soils...
 Description of the field
 Object of the experiments
 Fertilizers and opinions of...
 Discussion of fertilizers used
 Analysis of fertilizers used and...
 Plan of the field for application...
 Plan of the field for applications...
 Size of the plots
 Fertilizer effecting leaf area
 Table showing relative leaf area,...
 Table showing relative leaf area,...
 Table showing relative leaf area,...
 Table showing relative leaf area,...
 Quantity of fertilizers and freeze...
 Quality of fertilizer and freeze...
 Leaf area and freeze resistanc...
 Fertilizers controlling earlin...
 Fruit, size of, picked June 29,...
 Table classifying plots and giving...
 Remarks on notes taken June 28...
 Analysis of pineapple
 Fruit, soil, and fertilizer
 A plan for fertilizing
 Appendix
 Some books useful in studying fertlizers...
 Explanation of plates














Group Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Title: Pineapple fertilizers
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027116/00001
 Material Information
Title: Pineapple fertilizers
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 104 p., 8 leaves of plates : ill., charts ; 21 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Rolfs, P. H ( Peter Henry ), 1865-1944
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Lake City Fla
Publication Date: 1899
 Subjects
Subject: Pineapple -- Fertilizers -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by P.H. Rolfs.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (p. 103).
General Note: Cover title.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027116
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - AEN1425
oclc - 18155298
alephbibnum - 000920985

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page 1
    Board of trustees and station staff
        Page 2
    Table of Contents
        Page 3
        Page 3a
        Page 4
    Summary
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Introduction
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Acknowledgements
        Page 9
    Soils
        Page 9
    Origin of soils analyzed
        Page 9
    Chemical analysis of pineapple soil
        Page 10
    Hilgard's average of soils and pineapple soil compared
        Page 11
    Mechanical analysis of soils and subsoils
        Page 12
    Spruce pine and index of soils and locating the experiments
        Page 13
    Description of the field
        Page 14
    Object of the experiments
        Page 15
    Fertilizers and opinions of fertilizers
        Page 16
        Page 17
    Discussion of fertilizers used
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Analysis of fertilizers used and formula used as a normal fertilizer
        Page 30
    Plan of the field for application 1
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
    Plan of the field for applications 3-5 inclusive
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
    Size of the plots
        Page 57
        Page 58
    Fertilizer effecting leaf area
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
    Table showing relative leaf area, incomplete fertilizer
        Page 65
    Table showing relative leaf area, ammonias compared
        Page 66
    Table showing relative leaf area, potash
        Page 67
    Table showing relative leaf area, phosphoric acids compared
        Page 68
        Section 2
        Section 3
        Page 69
    Quantity of fertilizers and freeze resistance
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
    Quality of fertilizer and freeze resistance
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
    Leaf area and freeze resistance
        Page 78
        Page 79
    Fertilizers controlling earliness
        Page 80
    Fruit, size of, picked June 29, 1899
        Page 81
    Table classifying plots and giving fertilizers
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
    Remarks on notes taken June 28 and 29, 1899
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
    Analysis of pineapple
        Page 93
    Fruit, soil, and fertilizer
        Page 94
    A plan for fertilizing
        Page 95
        Page 96
    Appendix
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
    Some books useful in studying fertlizers and soils
        Page 103
    Explanation of plates
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
Full Text



BULLETIN 50. MAY, 189g.

Florit Agricultural Experiment Station

Pineapple Fertilizers.























By P. H. ROLFS.

The Bulletins of This Station Will be Sent Free to Any Address in Florida
Upon Application to the Director of Experiment Station,
Lake City, Fla.

















BOARD OF TRUSTEES.


HON. E. K. FOSTER ............................ Gainesville
HON. J. D. CALLAWAY ............................Lake City
H-oa L. HARRISON ..............................Lake City
H oN. F. E. HARRIS.................................. Ocala
HON. Gwo. W. WILSON......................... Jacksonville
HON. E. D. BEGOS.............................. Pensacola
HON. C. A. CARSON ............................. Kisimn Mee


STATION STAFF.


W. F. YOCUM, A. M., D. D ....................... Director
P. H. ROLFS, M. Sc.............. Biologist and Horticulturist
H. E. STOCKBRIDQBP PH. D................ .....Agriculturist
H. K. MILLER, M. Sc............................. Chemist
IH. A. GOSSARD, M. Sc ...................... Entomologist
W. P. JERNIGAN .................... Auditor and BooMteeper
JOHN F. MII CIHELL ................ Foreman of Station Farm
JOHN H. JEFFRIES. ...... Gardener in Horticultural Dgartment
LUCIA MCC'TLLOUCH ........................ ... Librarian









IE O. Painter & Co., Ptrs., DeLand.


'% ';

















CONTENTS.



Board of Trustees. ................. ...... ............... 2
Experiment Station Staff...... .... .... ... .. .... ...... 2
Summary...... .......... .. ......... ........... ........ 5
Introduction... ...... ... ............... .. ................ 7
Acknowledgements ...... .... ... ...... ...... ...... ...... ... 9
Soil ........... ... ........ ...... ...... ................. 9
Origin of Soils Analyzed ...... ............ ..... ............. 9
Chemical Analysis of Pineapple Soil....... .... ............... 10
Hilgard's Average of Soils and Pineapple Soil Compared......... 11
Mechanical Analysis of Soils........ ........... ............. 11
Table of...... ....... ........ ...... ... ....... .......... .. 12
Spruce Pine and Index of Soils.. ................ ........... 13
Locating the Experiments..... ............... .............. 13
Description of the Field.... .......... ................ .... 14
Object of the Experiments ..................... ........... 15
Fertilizer...... .................. .. ......... .............. 16
Opinions of the Fertilizers....... ...... ...... ..... ............ 16
Discussion of Fertilizers Used. ............................... 18
As Source of Ammonia;............... ................ 1
Cotton Seed Meal....... .... . ....... ... ..... 18
Dried Blood...... ..... ............. ............... 19
Blood and Bone.... ...... ... ........ .. .... ........ 20
Tankage .......... ...... ...... .... ...... ..... 20
Nitrate of Soda ...... ....... .... ... ............ 20
Sulphate of Ammonia....... ..... .... .... ... ..... 21
As Source of Potash...... .... .......... ....... ......... 21
Methods of Preparing Hight Grade Potash Salts.......... 211
Kainit.. ......... .. ......... ....... ...... ......... 22
Sulphate of Potash, Low Grade....... ..... ....... ..... 3
Sulphate of Potash, High Grade ..... .... .... ........ 23
M uriate of Potash.... ...... .... .. ...... ...... ....... 24
Potassium-Magnesium Carbonate .... .................. 24
Effects of Different Forms of Potash..... ............. 25
As Source of Phosphoric Acid...... ........................ 26
No Sulphuric Acid in Acid Phosphate ................... 26
Well Made Superphosphate Contains No Free Acid ... 26
Bone Meal..... ... .... .... .. .... ..................... 27











Acid Phosphate..... ................. ...... .......... 27
Analysis of Fertilizers Used, Table ................... ........ 30
Formula Used as a Normal Fertilizer..... ............. ....... 30
Plan of the Field for Application ................... ......... 81
Fertilizer Formulae for Application 1, Table.... ............ 32
Plan of the Field for Application 2-5 inclusive........................ 37
Object of the Sections ................. ................... 38
Fertilizer Formulae for Application 2. ................... .. 39
Size of the Plots .............. .... .... ... ............ 57
Fertilizers Effecting Leaf Area ....... ......... ................ 59
Table Showing Relative Leaf Area, Incomplete Fertilizer........... 66
"Table Showing Relative Leaf Area, Ammonias Compared........ 66
Table Showing Relative Leaf Area, Potash....................... 67
Table Showing Relative Leaf Area, Phosphoric Acids Compared.. 68
Diagram Illustrating Leaf Area... ...... ...... ..Plates 1 and 2
Quantity of Fertilizers and Freeze Resistance...... ............. 70
Table Illustrating Effect of Freeze, etc...... ...... ... ....... 72
Deduction from Table..... ...... ..... ...... ... ...... ..72
Quality of Fertilizer and Freeze Resistance ........................ 73
Complete Formulae .. ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... .... 73
Ammonias Compared.... ...... .... ... .............. 73
Potashes Compared.... ... ... ... ..... ..... ....... 73
Acid Phosphate and Bone Meal...... ... ................ 74
Incomplete Formulae .. ...... ...... ...... .. ............. 74
Conclusion..... ..... ....... ..... .. ... ... .......... 74
Table Illustrating Freeze Resistance-
Ammonias Compared...... ..... ....... ...... ... ..... 76
Potashes Compared...... ..... ....... ... ...... ....... '76
Bone Meal and Acid Phosphate Compared ................. 77
Leaf Area and Freeze Resistance..... ...... ...... ...... ..... 78
Fertilizers Controlling Earliness..... .... ... ......... .......... 80
Fruit, Size of, Picked June 29, 11899 ................... ........ 81
Table Classifying Plots and Giving Fertilizers... ................ 62
First Class Plots...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... 8
Second Class Plots ...... .... ...... ...... ...... ..... 82
Third Class Plots ... .. ...... .... ...... ...... ...... 3
Fourth Class Plots ....... .......... ...... ...... ....... 83
Fifth Class Ilots...... ....... ............ ... ...... 84
Sixth Class Plots ............ .... ...... ...... ........ 84
Remarks on Notes Taken June 28 and 29, 1899 ..................... 86
Table Illustrating Notes Taken June 28 and 29, 1899........... 93
Analysis of the Pineapple. ................................... 93
Analysis of the Ash of the Pineapple .. ... ....... .... ........ 94
Fruit, Soil and Fertilizer...... ........... ..... .... ........ 94
A Plan for Fertilizing..... .......... ....... ...... ... .... 95












Appendix..... ................ ...... ............... 97 to 104
Diseases..... .... ... ...... ...... ...... ....... ... ... 97
Spike, Long Leaf............ ....... ......... ....... 9
Sanding...... ....... ............ .......... ...... 99
Red Spider..... .............. .................... 99
Scale.......... ...... ...... .. .......... ........ 100
Resin Wash... ........... .............. ..... 100
Mealy Bug ........................................ 10W.
Blight, Wilts ............... .............. ......... 10
Tangle Foot..... ....... .... ...... ............... 102
Remark............ ................... ............. 10
Some Books Useful in Studying Fertilzers and Soils............... 103
Explanation of Plates... ... ............ .... ............ 104














SUMMARY.



I. Comparative tests of fertilizers on pineapples have not been
heretofore reported.
2. The pineapple fields on the spruce pine land afford an ideal
soil for testing the effects of fertilizers.
3. The results thus far obtained are decisive so that no close
discrimination were required.
4. The experiments have been in progress for eighteen months
with more than gratifying results.
5. The experiments should be continued for at least five years
and also duplicated.
6. The experiments indicate that the fertilizers used to supply
ammonia stand in the following order, beginning with the
best: (i) blood and bone, (2) nitrate of soda, (3) cotton
seed meal, (4) sulphate of ammonia.
7. The potashes stand in the following order: (i) potassium-
magnesium1 carbonate, (2) low grade sulphate of potash,
(3) high grade sulphate of potash, (4) muriate of potash,
(5) kainit.
8. Bone meal is very much better than acid phosphate.
9. The normal formula in this Bulletin is an arbitrary basis
upon which to begin work. The experiments indicate that
the following formula is nearer correct for new spruce pine
land and probably for all lands-ammonia 4 per cent., pot-
ash 6 per cent. and phosphoric acid I per cent.
10. There is a certain amount of ammonia, of potash and of
phosphoric acid which if applied to the soil proves of
greatest benefit to the plants; any variation, either a de-
crease or an increase of any one or more of these fer-
tilizers will be disadvantageous.
11. The amount of ammonia, of potash and of phosphoric acid
which may be applied to the soil to produce the best re-










sults varies with the different sources from which it is ob-
tained.
12. There is a certain amount of ammonia, of potash and of
phosphoric acid which produces the greatest freeze-re-
sistance in pineapple plants; any increase or decrease of
any one or more of the ingredients produce a less freeze-
resistant plant.
1,3. Freeze-resistance varies with the sources from which the
ammonia and potash is obtained.
14. Caution. Any one using a fertilizer that is satisfactory should
give the new fertilizer a year's trial on a small area of
typical soil.














PINEAPPLE FERTILIZERS.



INTRODUCTION.


The pineapple plant is a native of Tropical America. Con.
sequently the history of its cultivation does not date back of 1492.
While this fruit has been considered a luxury from the first, its
cultivation on a large scale has been somewhat tardy. During
the earlier times after its discovery, it was grown as a hot house
plant in various European countries, but only to a limited ex-
tent, the cost of its production being so great that only the
favored few were able to propagate it.
In the West Indies it has been grown on a commercial scale
for many years, thriving there without special protection or cul-
tivation. From these islands the plants were gradually dissemi-
nated to the Keys of Florida and finally to the main land. The
increase in production on the Florida coast has been somewhat
slow until quite recently. According to Prof. Webber* the total
number of pines raised in Florida during the year 1894 was
about 3,000,000 fruits, or 56,209 whole barrel crates. In 1895
there were 22,835 whole barrel crates shipped from Florida.
Since then the crop has been increasing rapidly again, but this
year it has again been severely reduced by the freeze of last
February.
The area of the State in which pineapples are being grown
is also rapidly extending. Formerly it was thought that only the
East Coast was adapted to the raising of pines. Later they were
introduced into the Avon Park and Fort Myers section. Now
they are being planted more or less extensively at Orlando, the

*Report Florida State Horticultural Society, 1896, page 93.










St. Petersburg Peninsula, along the Manatee, at Citra, and at
DeLand.
In the more northern localities they are carefully protected
from frosts by sheds* and fires. The most rapid increase in
acreage has been along the East Coast on the Indian river, and
it is probable that this will continue to be pre-eminently the pine-
apple section of Florida. The rapid transportation facilities af-
forded by the East Coast Railway have had a stimulating effect
upon the increase of acreage of this fruit in that section.
In the body of this bulletin the details of the experiments
have been reported as fully as seemed practicable. This is done
for the benefit of the pineapple growers who, as a whole, are
thoroughly interested in this work, and will necessarily find much
information in these details that could not be brought out clearly
in general statements.
All details that seemed confusing have been placed nearest
to the part to which they relate so they need not be considered
until the facts contained in them are needed for a clear under-
standing. A considerable amount of field notes have been
abridged but it is hoped that this abridgement has in no wise
made the text matter less clear or definite. That there is much
which is not entirely clear to those not engaged actively in pine-
apple growing is evident, but it is hoped that those who are ac-
tively engaged in growing pines will find no difficulty in under-
standing the thoughts intended to be conveyed. With it all,
there are many important questions that occur'to those who
think on this subject that neither science nor practice is able to
answer.
The complete report of the work also assures the pine-
apple growers that the conclusions must not be accepted as
dogmatic truths. Before the whole work can be considered as
finished the experiments will have to be tried repeatedly and
under varying conditions. Unfortunately the cost of carrying
on complete experiments was heavier than the Experiment Sta-
tion could undertake. Consequently only about one-third of the


*Fla. Exp. Sta. Bul. 37, p. 397.









9

work has been undertaken, but this has been sufficiently com-
plete that valuable deductions can be made from it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

In this connection I wish to offer my sincere thanks to
Messrs Ballentine and Moore, who generously put two acres of
pineapples at my disposal.- I also extend my hearty thanks here
for the constant and ready support given us by the East Coast
Railway Company, particularly to Col. J. E. Ingraham, who has
been active in furthering the work of these experiments.

SOILS.

From a geological standpoint Florida is of very recent ori-
gin, especially is it true of that portion south and east of a
line drawn from Jacksonville to Tampa. We are told that at
one time all of this portion of Florida was part of the great sea
bottom, not very deep, and that coral reefs formed along the
shore. As these gradually accumulated material, soil was built
up by Mangrove trees and other vegetables arresting the sand
which was finally blown higher by wind, forming sand dunes.
Later another reef would form outward in the sea repeating the
process cited above. Finally we have as the latest one formed
the island outside of the Indian river, thus making the land
to the west of the Indian river and east of the Glades of com-
paratively very recent origin. Careful examination of the soil
shows that the whole section along the East Coast is decidedly
of marine origin.

ORIGIN OF SOILS ANALYZED.

The following table of chemical analysis* of Brevard county
soil indicates very clearly that it is deficient in all of the essential
elements of plant food. By comparing this further with other
soils in various parts of Florida, it will be noticed that it con-

"*A. A. Persons, Bulletin 43, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station,
pg. 664.









9

work has been undertaken, but this has been sufficiently com-
plete that valuable deductions can be made from it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

In this connection I wish to offer my sincere thanks to
Messrs Ballentine and Moore, who generously put two acres of
pineapples at my disposal.- I also extend my hearty thanks here
for the constant and ready support given us by the East Coast
Railway Company, particularly to Col. J. E. Ingraham, who has
been active in furthering the work of these experiments.

SOILS.

From a geological standpoint Florida is of very recent ori-
gin, especially is it true of that portion south and east of a
line drawn from Jacksonville to Tampa. We are told that at
one time all of this portion of Florida was part of the great sea
bottom, not very deep, and that coral reefs formed along the
shore. As these gradually accumulated material, soil was built
up by Mangrove trees and other vegetables arresting the sand
which was finally blown higher by wind, forming sand dunes.
Later another reef would form outward in the sea repeating the
process cited above. Finally we have as the latest one formed
the island outside of the Indian river, thus making the land
to the west of the Indian river and east of the Glades of com-
paratively very recent origin. Careful examination of the soil
shows that the whole section along the East Coast is decidedly
of marine origin.

ORIGIN OF SOILS ANALYZED.

The following table of chemical analysis* of Brevard county
soil indicates very clearly that it is deficient in all of the essential
elements of plant food. By comparing this further with other
soils in various parts of Florida, it will be noticed that it con-

"*A. A. Persons, Bulletin 43, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station,
pg. 664.









9

work has been undertaken, but this has been sufficiently com-
plete that valuable deductions can be made from it.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

In this connection I wish to offer my sincere thanks to
Messrs Ballentine and Moore, who generously put two acres of
pineapples at my disposal.- I also extend my hearty thanks here
for the constant and ready support given us by the East Coast
Railway Company, particularly to Col. J. E. Ingraham, who has
been active in furthering the work of these experiments.

SOILS.

From a geological standpoint Florida is of very recent ori-
gin, especially is it true of that portion south and east of a
line drawn from Jacksonville to Tampa. We are told that at
one time all of this portion of Florida was part of the great sea
bottom, not very deep, and that coral reefs formed along the
shore. As these gradually accumulated material, soil was built
up by Mangrove trees and other vegetables arresting the sand
which was finally blown higher by wind, forming sand dunes.
Later another reef would form outward in the sea repeating the
process cited above. Finally we have as the latest one formed
the island outside of the Indian river, thus making the land
to the west of the Indian river and east of the Glades of com-
paratively very recent origin. Careful examination of the soil
shows that the whole section along the East Coast is decidedly
of marine origin.

ORIGIN OF SOILS ANALYZED.

The following table of chemical analysis* of Brevard county
soil indicates very clearly that it is deficient in all of the essential
elements of plant food. By comparing this further with other
soils in various parts of Florida, it will be noticed that it con-

"*A. A. Persons, Bulletin 43, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station,
pg. 664.













CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF PINEAPPLE SOIL; BREVARD COUNTY.


TYPE OF SOIL "Field" Patches "Saw Pa etto "Yellow Soil" -White Soil" General O nge
Scrub" Sub-Soil Soil

Station Number.............. Soil Soil Soil Sub-Soil Soil Sub-Soil Soil Sub-Soil Sub-Soil X
_________________ 12 13 21 22 38 39 40 41 37____
Coarse Earth............... 21. 00 24.90 3.20 4 00 11.40 7.90 12.20 5.20 11.70 ..
Fine Earth.................... 70 00 75. 10 96.80 96.00 88. 60 92.10 87.80 94.80 88.30 ........
H umus...................... .24 .21 .71 .07 .18 .02 .16 .01 .12
Nitrogen................... .0378 .0252 .0742 .0126 .0182 .000 .0042 .000 .000 .0261
Moisture at 1000 C........ .4000 .2940 .4880 .3140 .1820 .1000 .0400 .0080 .0925 .2100
FINE EARTH 0
Insoluble Residue........... 97.5085 98. 2100 92.3635 82.8206 97.2875 97. 8545. 98. 6490 99..4480 98.2240 98.1951
Potash (K20)............... .0086 .0111 .0612 .0564 trace .0077 .0034 .0048 trace .0198
Soda (Na20)................. .0510 .1285 1911 2150 .0516 .0492 .0714 .0344 .0781 .0120
Lime (CaO)................. .2100 .1075 2.2325 7.5250 .0400 .0000 .0000 .0000 .0000 .1150
Magnesia (MgO)............ 0225 .0099 .0207 trace .0090 .0990 .0634 .003 .0243 .0197
Ferric Oxid (Fe203) ........ .345 1312 1 .8602 .1472 .3180 .7750 .4360
Alumina (Algt()............ .1169 .0596 .6 156 .4011 .1328 .0935 .3688 .2440
Phosphorus pentoxid (P203).. .0336 .0192 .0544 .0672 .0416 .0637 trace .0160 .0112 .0333
Chlorin ................. ...... trace trace .0086 trace trace trace Itrace trace trace trace
Sulphur Trioxid (SO3)...... 0145 .0103 trace trace trace .0060 trace trace trace .0530
Carbon Dioxid (CO2 ......... 0000 .0000 1 6060 5.4280 .0000 0 0000 0000 .0000 .0000 .0000
Water and Organic Matter.. 1 799 1. 3127 2. 8464 3.5500 1 8600 .6400 .7860 .1600 .6250 .8010
Total ..................... 100. 0000 100. 001100. 0 1000 100..000 100 1681 99. 9840 99 85321u0.u783 100.1064 99.9550











tains much coarse earth (sand), and that it is especially low in
humus and nitrogen, and as noted above, it is also. wanting in
potash and phosphoric acid. Samples numbers 12 and 13 were
selected by Mr. S. T. Carrow of Sewell's Point. Numbers 21 and
22 were selected by Mr. L. B. Dowson of Narrows.


HILIGARD'S AVERAGE OF SOILS AND PINEAPPLE
SOIL COMPARED.

Prof. Hiligard states that soils containing less than one-
tenth of one per cent. of either lime, potash or phosphoric acid
may be regarded as being deficient in that particular substance,
or substances. Appended is a table giving that average chemi-
cal composition of 466 soils taken from the humid portion of the
United States.* Applying this standard to our Florida pine-
apple soils, we would find them exceedingly deficient in the es-
sential constituents for plant growth.



Hilgard's FLORIDA PllNEAPPLE SO8LS.*
average Mean of
of Soils. Soils Sub Soils. all
Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct.
Potash.. ........... 0.216 .oi68 .0230 .0199
Lime... ......... .io8 .5180 2.5083 1 1.5131
Phosphoric acid ...... .113 .0298 .0489 .0393
Magnesia ......... .225 .0251 .0342 .0296
Nitrogen ......... .0319 .0042 .0181


MECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF SOILS AND SUBSOILS.**

Any person having travelled over the section of Florida in
which pineapples are grown will have been struck by the course
texture white color of the soil. While no very large pieces of


*Compiled from table on pg. 664, Bulletin 42, Fla. Agrl. Ex. Sta.
:* Milton Whitney, U. S. D. A., Division of Soils, Bulletin 13, page 20.









12

gravel are found within it there are still some decidedly coarse
grains. Appended is a table giving a physical average of analy-
ses of a number of samples of the West Palm Beach pineapple
soil from the Bulletin No. 13, A Preliminary Report on the Soils
of Florida, by Prof. Milton Whitney, Chief of the Division of
Soils, U. S. D. A.



MECHANICAL ANALYSIS OF SOILS AND SUBSOILS.*

WEST PALM ROCKLEDGE
BEACH
"k1ineapple "Spruce-Pine
LInd_" Scrub"
Soil S. Soil Soil S
0.-- 6-38 in. 0.- iln. 6-8 in.
depth depth depth Idepth
of of of of
Moisture in air, dried sample ........ 15 .07 .15 0.25
Organic matter ................... 1.21 .31 I.o06 0.45
Gravel (2-I mm) .... ....... ...... .23 .6 .65 o.66
Coarse sand (I-o.5 mm) .... ........ 3.02 3.0812.36 9.07
Medium sand (0.5-0.25 mm) .. ....61. 1157.5041.4232.58
Fine sand (0.25-1 mm) ............ 33.7637.7841.18 52.13
Very fine sand (0.I-o.o5 mm) ...... .54 .59 2.40 3.26
Silt (0.05-0.1 mm) ...... ........ .22 .07 .i6 0.23
Fine silt (o.o-o.oo005 mm) ......... .06 .13 .o6 o.I8
Clay (o.oo5-0.oooi mm) .... ...... .50 .521 .35 0.51



By comparing the table of the chemical analysis of the soil
and subsoil the eye is at once struck by the smallness of the
amount of moisture present in air dried sample of the soil. Also
with the low organic contents. Just how it is that the pineapple
"plant can thrive in such soil that seems to be exceedingly defi-
cient in all the necessary qualifications of good land has not
been explained. It will probably be necessary to institute care-
ful physiological experiments with the plant itself before the
matter shall be thoroughly understood.

"*Div. Soils, U. S. D. A. Bul. 13, p. 28. (Averages.)









13
SPRUCE PINE AN INDEX OF PINEAPPLE SOIL.
While chemical analyses and physical analyses of the soil
have given us no sure index by which we may choose soil for
pineapple growing we have another means of determining tnis,
which is much less expensive, and at the same time quite reliable.
This is by observing the native vegetables upon the piece of land
in question. The native spruce pine land with a fairly good
sprinkling of hard wood, such as hickory and scrub oaks, can al-
ways be relied upon as being land that will produce a good field
of pines, other conditions being favorable. This kind of an index
is not confined to the pineapple land by any means. The ham-
mock lands of Florida have long been known to be of superior
quality for raising oranges and vegetables. First class pine land
also gives good results. So that all we have to do is to go to
nature and ask her the question, and if we are sufficiently taught
we may read the answer. Hundreds of thousands of pineapple
plants have been set out upon flat woods lands, also upon low
spruce land; while now and then some of these fields succeed
90 per cent. fail.

LOCATING THE EXPERIMENTS.

During the fall of 1897 the Experiment Station decided to
undertake some comparative tests of the effects of different fer-
tilizer ingredients upon pineapples. In studying the situation,
before going into the field it became very evident that the East
Coast of Florida was pre-eminently the section devoted to tihe
growing of pineapples. It was, therefore, thought that this would
be the best place to locate the experiments. Inquiries were made
as to where the most suitable field could be obtained, the Ex-
periment Station agreeing to plan the experiments, furnish tfie
fertilizer, and superintend its application, and the pineapple
grower was to furnish the field in which the experiments were
to be conducted. The fruit to belong to the pineapple grower,
but the Experiment Station was to have the right to ascertain
the quantity and quality of the fruit. The readiness with which
the pineapple growers responded to these requests was certainly









14

commendable. In less than a week's time more than a hundred
acres of pineapples that were thought to be in proper conditions
for experimenting upon were offered to the Experiment Station.
After discussing the matter carefully with disinterested people
and with those who were thought to be fully familiar with dif-
ferent locations and conditions, it was finally decided to accept
thi plot offered by Messrs. Balentine and Moore near Jensen.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FIELD.

This field is located at Chetolah station immediately west of
the railroad track. The land was formerly covered with spruce
pine with a mixture of a few trees of scrub oaks and hickories.
It had been cleared of nearly all the stumps and most of the
trash removed, much of it being burned on the field. As a
whole the field presented a very even appearance, the west end
being well upon the hill, the east end near the railroad track.
After the clearing the field had been broken up and raked over,
no fertilizer being applied before the plants were set. The plants
were set out during the summer of 1897 in lands running north
and south, varying from 29 to 33 plants deep, and 107 to 118
rows from north to south. The paths between the lands are
about four feet wide. The plants are set in checks about 22
inches each way.
The surface of the soil is of the ordinary white sand so com-
mon along the East Coast. The hill upon which the field is
located rises gradually to the height of probably 30 to 40 feet.
In no portion of the experiment plots is the rise abrupt. While
the land as a whole, is somewhat more productive at the foot of
the hill, there is no abrupt variation, excepting those few small
spots which are always apparent in fields. As a whole the loca-
tion and field must be regarded as being as nearly ideal for
experiment work as could be well obtained without selecting the
virgin land and preparing it from the beginning with this end
in view. More fertile lands could easily have been secured, but
these conditions would tend to vitiate the very result at which
we were aiming, viz, the effect of certain fertilizers and certain









15

fertilizer combinations upon the plants. The point we were
aiming at was so well stated by a visitor to the field that his
quotation will bring out the facts exactly. "I didn't come here
to see fine pineapples. I can raise those myself, but I came here
to see what fertilizer is detrimental to pineapples and what is
beneficial to them so I can use the cheapest and receive in return
the greatest yield. Then, again, I want to see what is detri-
mental so I can avoid that. We all know that there are many
more bad fertilizers than good ones, and these experiments
ought to prove why they are bad."

OBJECT OF THE EXPERIMENTS.

The above short talk expresses the object of the experiment
so well that it hardly need be repeated. We must emphasize
the fact that under the conditions of the soil employed we should
not expect to find a majority of the plots coming out favorably.
If 50 per cent. of the experiment plots had given fine growth.of
the pineapple plants it would have been a very discouraging ex-
periment indeed, from the standpoint of fertilizer tests, as it would
have indicated that the cause of much trouble in pineapple fields
must be sought in an entirely different line, but the fact that a
few plots have given unusual returns, a few quite favorable re-
turns, a few good returns, a few indifferent, and a large percent-
age either bad or very bad, indicates very clearly that this is
an unusually profitable field for investigation. The experiments
being located on soil that is practically devoid of plant food,
there was no other source from which the pineapples could de-
rive their nourishment. Had productive land been accepted,
many of the plots that are now classed as 5th and 6th rate would
have gone into higher classes, some doubtless to'the Ist class,
thus defeating the very result sought.
We must dismiss from our minds all ideas of having an ideal
pineapple field when we are seeking facts in regard to the effects
of fertilizer. To produce a perfect field is the object of every
pineapple grower, and the Experiment Station wishes to ascer-
tain WHY he fails.
Bul. 40-2








16

FERTILIZERS.
One of the most difficult problems in connection with mod-
ern horticulture is to ascertain just what commercial fertilizer
can be applied to best advantage to any particular crop. The
whole subject is of such recent origin that we have not yet had
time to settle this matter very definitely. A typical pineapple
field under ordinary conditions in Florida is pre-eminently an
ideal place for experimenting with these substances. From the
foregoing discussion of the chemical analyses of the soil the
thoughtful reader will have discovered that we have here an
almost insoluble medium in which the plants rest. Any addition
to the soil must, therefore, react directly upon the pineapple
plants. The whole field is nearly in such condition as the scien-
tific workers desire to have for studying the effects of plant food.
The experimenter thus having almost insoluble medium in which
to grow plants may add the commercial fertilizers in such quan-
tities and combinations as he desires. The pineapple soil being
practically insoluble the disturbing agent, if any exists, must be
contained in the fertilizer. Thus having such ideal conditions the
work of these experiments was begun with enthusiasm that was
only surpassed by that experience as the work progressed.

OPINIONS OF FERTILIZERS.

There is probably no greater diversity of opinion on any
subject than in regard to the kind of commercial fertilizer to be
used. Every pineapple grower seems to have a favorite fertilizer
house and a favorite brand of fertilizers. By turning to the re-
ports of the State Chemists from various portions of the United
States one is astonished by the number of different brands of
fertilizers that are placed on the market. The number in the
United States as a whole would reach up into the thousands.
It will, therefore, be seen that it would be a hopeless task to ex-
periment with any private brand, as it likewise would be of no
value. A fertilizer house of good standing among the vegetable
growers of Florida during the winter 'of '97 and '98 used sul-
phate of ammonia as a main source of its nitrogen. This same









'7

house selling the fertilizer under the same name and for practi-
cally the same price six months later used nitrate of soda as the
main source of nitrogen. Of course there was nothing wrong
in the change from sulphate of ammonia to nitrate of soda, as the
fertilizer house had not agreed to use either one or the other as a
source of nitrogen, and it was to the interest of the firm to use
whatever material was the cheapest. So far as we know the
vegetable growers were served as well in one case as in another,
but if this same change should be made in pineapple fertilizer the
matter would be quite different. It, therefore, becomes impera-
tive for pineapple growers to know not only what the analysis of
their fertilizer is, but also just what the source of each fertilizer
ingredient is.
Before beginning the experiments upon pineapples diligent
inquiry was made among as many pineapple growers as could be
interviewed, and notes taken upon their advice and recommen-
dations in regard to fertilizers. A compilp'-on of their opinions
was found to give very contradictory information. Some general
points were conceded b- a considerable majority. The most
striking of these is that a mixture of cotton seed .- :al and to-
bacco dust are useful for placing in the bud of young plants to
keep them from "sanding," and to destroy the red spider. An-
other opinion that acid phosphate is not a good substance to
use in connection with pineapples seems to be quite general.
A considerable number of prominent growers advocate the
use of cotton seed meal as a source of nitrogen. Nitrate of soda
does not seem to stand well; still it has advocates and admirers.
Sulphate of ammonia comes in for a generous share of commen-
dation. The use of blood and bone is advised by a number of
prominent growers. Bone meal has very few admirers.
As a source of potash, high grade sulphate of potash seems
to be the greatest favorite. Low grade sulphate of potash has
some strong advocates. Kainit is condemned by most of the
growers. Muriate of potash has but few admirers. There are
only a very few people who advocate the use of no potash at all.
To enumerate the private brands that receive commenda-
tion would almost be equal to enumerating all that are being sold.









i8

On the other hand to enumerate those private brands which are
condemned by some pineapple growers would likewise be equal
to enumerating all the private brands sold. Some of this trouble
is doubtless the fault of the grower and some of the trouble
must be the fault of the fertilizer houses. The fact cited before
that certain fertilizer houses change the ingredients used in their
fertilizer without giving the information to their purchaser makes
a certain brand good at one time and bad at another. Of course
there is no implied or stated agreement that the house shall use
any one form of nitrogen or any particular kind of potash. As
a rule their statements in regard to the composition of their fer-
tilizers are so general that nearly any substance may be used as a
source of ammonia, and most of the forms of potash may be in-
terchanged and possibly exclude acid phosphate.
The compilation of opinions from various pineapple growers
mentioned above gave authority for condeming any form of am-
monia that was offered for sale on the market. Also any form
of potash that was'being sold. Under these conditions the dili-
gent inquirer after opinions found himself decidedly at sea. On
the other hand as stated above it is not difficult to find people
of more than local standing to advocate the use of any form of
commercial fertilizers that were on the market. Undoubtedly
most of the opinions are founded upon experience, costing the
grower a considerable amount of money.

DISCUSSION OF FERTILIZERS USED.

AMMONIA.

COTTON SEED MEAL.
This substance is so common to our market, and has been
of such general use that every one seems to know what it is.
Not many years have passed since this product was regarded as
a waste and in the way. Sometimes the substance is added to the
soil in the form of whole seeds; that is, the whole cotton seed
without having the oil expressed. This, however, is a waste of
labor and material inasmuch as the oil it contains is of little or no









19

value as a fertilizer, and makes up a very considerable portion of
the weight of the cotton seed. After the oil has been expressed
the remaining material is ground up in fine flour known on the
market as cotton seed meal. The price of cotton seed meal is
quite constant, bright cotton seed meal being slightly higher
priced than the dark. The difference in prices represents ac-
curately the difference in value as a fertilizer.
As a source of nitrogen for pineapples we would not con-
sider it as of first class value, especially for spruce pine land.
Low spruce pine land, long leaf pine land, and the close compact
soils generally give fair returns for the cotton seed meal used as
a source of ammonia. As a first application to keep plants from
being "sanded" (see appendix) it is of decided value, but for.
later applications it stands rather low in the the list of those fer-
tilizers which are sources of ammonia. Some very excellent
fields of pineapples have been produced with nothing else than
cotton seed meal, but this can not be continued indefinitely.
The pineapple grower, who finds cotton seed meal a source of
ammonia for his particular piece of land, should not change the
source, except as an experiment, until he is convinced that there
is a better form. Besides being a source of ammonia, cotton
seed meal contains a small quantity of potash and phosphoric
acid, but these quantities are really too small to be taken into
consideration when we are fertilizing on typical pineapple land.


DRIED BLOOD.

This, too, was formerly a refuse and one which
created more or less disturbance at packing houses. Chemical
investigation showed that blood was rich in ammonia, and con-
sequently the dried product would give a fertilizer of great value.
It contains about twice as much ammonia as cotton seed meal,
being thus a concentrated form, and sells for about twice the
price. To the pineapple grower this is quite an item, especially
in view of the fact that all of the fertilizer has to be applied by
hand.









20

BLOOD AND BONE.
This substance was formerly produced from refuse meat,
bone and blood of the packing houses collected in vats, dried
and ground, making more or less a finely divided stinking sub-
stance. This has met with so much favor tnat the price has
gone up to a considerable more than the real value as a ferti-
lizer for ordinary crops.

BLOOD AND BONE AND TANKAGE.

Tankage is the contents of the stomach and intestines of
slaughtered animals. This material is collected in vats, dried and
pulverized. Its value as a fertilizer is small. In more recent
years the packing houses have mixed with the tankage a certain
amount of dried blood and ground bone. This has been placed
upon the market as blood and bone, giving us an odorless, or
nearly so, blood and bone. It was this variety of the blood and
bone that was used upon the experiment plots.

NITRATE OF SODA.

This substance is known by various names in various por-
tions of the world. The term nitrate of soda, however, is so
generally applied to it in this country that the others need not
be considered. This is mined in Chili from natural deposits in
several places of that country. It is useful mainly as a source
of ammonia; one that is quickly available, especially to the pine-
apple plant. Experiments in connection with the use of nitrate
of soda as a source of ammonia indicate that it must be used
with some precaution. It has a strong affinity for water, and may
destroy plants that we seek to fertilize if applied in large doses.
In using this substance for pineapples or any other plant we
should apply a little at a time, and apply it frequently. In the
experiments this was not done, because of a desire to keep the
work as uniform as possible, and to keep it in the line with the
work that was usually being carried out by the pineapple grow-
ers.
Fertilizer houses usually employ this as a source of quickly









21

available ammonia, using cotton seed meal or dried blood as a
form to be more slowly available. This seems to give an ideal
way of preparing the fertilizer, but it must be done with some
reservation, as more recent experiments indicate that a very
considerable portion of the ammonia may be changed to a form
not available when several of these compounds are mixed. Usu-
ally nitrate of soda is the cheapest form of ammonia.

SULPHATE OF AMMONIA.

Great quantities of sulphate of ammonia are manufactured in
England, from where vie receive the greatest amount of this
material. In the burning of coke in the coal districts a gas rich
in nitrogen is given off. This is arrested in retorts and deposited
as ammonium sulphate, or sulphate of ammonia, as it is
called on the market. This is the most concentrated form' of
ammonia which we have for fertilizing purposes, containing
nearly 25 per cent. For many plants it has a decided advantage
over nitrate of soda, but for the pineapple plant'on high spruce
land we must consider it as of low fertilizing value. This is some-
what of a surprise, especially in view of the fact that it has proven
itself so valuable in connection with other fruits.

POTASH.

METHODS OF PREPAPING HIGH-GRADE POTASH SALTS.*

"The potassium chloride [muriate of potash] is prepared by
leaching the carnallite or other crude salts containing potassium
chloride, either with hot water, or a hot concentrated solution
of magnesium chloride in such proportions as to dissolve the
potassium and magnesium chlorides but not the common salt.
On cooling this solution to 70 deg. C. and and allowing it to
remain for some time, the potassium chloride is deposited in a
crystalline form. A second crop of crystals is also obtained by
cooling the mixture to usual temperatures. On concentrating

"*Wiley, Dr. H. W., Yearbook, U. S. D. A., 1896, p. 119.









22.

the residual mother liquor, another crystalline deposit, consisting
of mixed potassium and magnesium chlorides, is obtained, which
can be added to the crude salt and re-treated as above. The
crystals of potassium chloride obtained by the first two crystalli-
zations are washed, drained, dried, and packed for shipment.
By repeated evaporations, crystallizations and resolution, about
85 per cent. of the potassium chloride is finally obtained, only
about 15 per cent. being lost in the waste waters. Even those
waters are evaporated and sold for fertilizing purposes to nearby-
farmers.
"Potassium sulphate is most easily prepared by treating the
chlorine compounds of potash, obtained as already described,
with sulphuric acid. Free hydrochloric acid is generated by this
treatment, which may be collected in cold water in the usual
way.
"The double sulphate of potash and magnesia is made for
commercial purposes from the impure kainite as it comes from
the mines. A saturated solution of the crude kainite, made with
water under pressure at a temperature of 250 deg, C., will deposit
the double sulphate in fine crystals on cooling.
"Potassium carbonate is made from the chloride [muriate]
or sulphate by roasting the salts with finely divided charcoal
and carbonate of lime. By this process potassium carbonate is
formed, which can be extracted by lixiviation. For fertilizing
purposes this salt is used chiefly for tobacco."

KAINIT.
This is a mineral salt composed of potassium sulphate, mag-
nesium sulphate, magnesium chloride, and a small amount of
potassium chloride. These salts are mixed in various propor-
tions. It was thought that this was deposited from sea water.
The largest mines are located at Stassfurt, Germany. These are
being worked extensively and produce the kainit brought to the
United States. As the composition of this salt varies considera-
bly so the color of it varies somewhat from a dirty gray to a
yellowish-red mass.
For some crops it can not be used profitably as a fertilizer,









23

because of the amount of chlorine contained within it. Other
crops, however, are benefited by an application of this potassium
salt. Pineapples are injured by its application, probably not
because of the presence of chlorine in the composition, but it
may be for some other reason. At the present time we simply
know that the substance is injurious.

SULPHATE OF POTASH, LOW GRADE.

This is also known on the market by the name of double
potash salts, being a sulphate of potash and of magnesia. Its
origin is from kainit. By washing and several forms of treat-
ment double salts, sulphate of potash and sulphate of magnesia,
are secured. This substance on our market ranges usually from
22 to 26 per cent. of potash, or what is frequently labelled 44 to
50 per cent. sulphate of potash. This simply means that the total
amount of sulphate of potash is 44 to 50 per cent., while the
amount of actual potash is only from 22 to 26 per cent.
The sulphate of magnesia in this mixture is thought to be
of special value in connection with certain crops. It seems to be
of some importance in connection with fertilizing of pineapples,
as is indicated by the experiments.

SULPHATE OF POTASH, HIGH GRADE.

This potash salt is a still more refined product than the
sulphate of potash, low grade, being the most refined product in
the process of refining sulphate of potash salts, double salts,
or low grade sulphate of potash, containing the residual impuri-
ties. Sulphate of potash, high grade, frequently contains as
much as 98 per cent. sulphate of potash or an equivalent of 53
per cent. of actual potash, though as a rule the amount of potash
is somewhat lower than this, and for practical purposes we would
find about 50 per cent. the right figure to consider. For many
plants this grade of potash is very superior. For- pineapple it
stands among the good potash salts, but is somewhat lower in
the scale than low grade sulphate of potash.









24

MURIATE OF POTASH.
As was stated before kainit is the direct product of nature
occurring in that form in the earth. This substance is mined
and washed, and further treated when finally the muriate of pot-
ash results as a product. While most of the muriate of potash,
which is found on our market contains about 50 per cent. of
actual potash, there are some forms of muriate of potash that
are slightly higher, but for practical purposes we may re-
gard them as containing about 50 per cent, of actual potash.
Frequently labels state that the substance is 95 to 98 per cent.
pure. This does not mean that it contains 95 to 98 per cent.
potash, which would be a physical impossibility, but simply
means that it contains 95 to 98 per cent. of muriate of potash.
For many crops muriate of potash is the cheapest form of
potash fertilizers. If the pineapples are to be used at home or
sold in local markets we will probably find muriate of potash a
little better than the sulphate of potash, from the fact that it
adds very considerably to the sweetness of the pineapple. On
the other hand it makes a very tender apple, and one that is very
liable to "plug," and does not ship very well.

POTASSIUM-MAGNESIUM CARBONATE.

This form of potash has also its origin in kainit. It contains
about 18 per cent. of actual potash. It has,not been offered to
the southern trade so we can not say just what the prices would
be, but we are assured that the price per unit of the actual pot-
ash will be the same as that in other potash salts. This salt
being a carbonate it is in the same form as the potash present
in ashes. They have been considered a favorite source of
potash for pineapples, and it was for this reason that the car-
bonate of potash was used in the experiments. By referring to
the photographs and tables it will be seen that this form of
potash has thus far proved itself superior to any other form. It
should, however, be used for a number of years, say five or ten,
before it can be recommended without reservation. The pres-
ent indications are, however, that not only will the plants be









25

fairly productive, but that the fruit will be of good size and have
good shipping qualities together with excellent flavor.

EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF POTASH.

A number of people have expressed their surprise that the
different forms of potash should cause such a variation in the
size of the plants and quality of fruit, but when we consider the
matter from a chemical standpoint, we are really more surprised
that these substances which are so radically different and similar
only in one respect, in that they contain potash as one of the
elements, should give results so nearly alike. In the case of
kainit we have a sulphate of potash mainly to do with, but be-
side this we have a large quantity of sodium chloride (table salt)
magnesium sulphate, magnesium chloride and various other ma-
terials. All of these are brought into the soil, some of them in
quantities equal to that of the fertilizer constituent. In the case
of sulphate of potash, low grade, we have fewer foreign sub-
stances introduced. In the case of sulphate of potash, high
grade, we have almost a pure substance composed of two atoms
of potassium, one atom of sulphur, and four atoms of oxygen.
These substances must be decomposed before the potash can
be made useful to the plant. In the case of muriate of potash
the substance is quite pure, but this is radically different, be-
cause it is made up of one atom of potassium and one atom of
chlorine. Before the potash can be utilized in building the plant
tissue, the chlorine has to be separated from the potassium. In the
case of potassium-magnesium carbonate the substance is quite
impure, containing considerable material beside that which is
actually wanted by the plant, it being made up most largely
of potassium, carbon, oxygen and magnesia. Before the potas-
sium can be utilized by the plant it must be separated from the
carbon and oxygen.
From the foregoing discussion it will be seen that it is really
surprising that the plant can separate the desirable elements
from those that are not essential, especially when so many of
them are introduced with the essential element, potassium.









26

The same line of discussion might be taken up in the case
of the substances which give us ammonia, but this whole ques-
tion would really require a volume by itself, and after all that
we know about it should have been written we would find that
we were merely beginning to learn something about it.

PHOSPHORIC ACID.

The supply of phosphoric acid has been from two sources.
First that of bone meal, and second that of acid phosphate or
dissolved rock. A good deal has been said about tlhe presence
of free sulphuric acid in acid phosphate and also about it in
dissolved bone. The following quotations from authorities on
this subject are, therefore, in place:

NO SULPHURIC ACID IN ACID PHOSPHATE.*

"In practice it is usual to take less than the theoretical
quantity of sulphuric acid, so as to be sure that there be left over
in the superphosphate mixture, no free unconsumed acid which
would be injurious to vegetation.

"WELL MADE SUPERPHOSPHATES CONTAIN NO FREE ACID.**

"In the earlier history of the use of acid phosphates, or
rock superphosphates, 'objections were urged against them, and
are to some extent at the present time, because of the supposed
deleterious effects of the acids contained in them, and these ob-
jections were undoubtedly encouraged-certainly not discour-
aged-by those manufacturers who used only genuine bone su-
perphosphates. While the objections on this ground may have
had some basis in earlier times, before their manufacture was
well understood, there can be no rational objection to their
use at the present time, when they are properly made; for while

"*Pickell, Dr. J. M., Fla. Exp. Sta. Bulletin 10, page 15.
**Voorhees, E. B., Fertilizers, p. 189 (see appendix.)









/ 27
in fresh superphosphates a portion of the phosphoric acid may
be in the form of 'fresh' phosphoric acid, this. form in ordinary
superphosphates is practically all combined with lime or other
minerals before it is placed upon the market, and there is really
no more 'free' acid in the rock superphosphate than in any
other. It is quite likely this erroneous impression arose from the
fact that strong sulphuric acid was used in the manufacture, and
the belief existed that it remained as such. No free sulphuric
acid exists in well made superphosphates. The sulphuric acid is
combined with the lime to form gypsum, as already described,
and the free phosphoric acid combines with the lime to form
either a soluble or a reverted form."

BONE MEAL.

In making the application of bone meal it was considered
that there would be 4 per cent. of available phosphoric acid, and
the amount applied was guaged accordingly. The origin of the
bone meal is probably familiar to every pineapple grower. Bones
in various degrees of decomposition from those of the animals
just slaughtered to bones that have been bleaching in the sun
for a considerable time are placed in mills and ground. This
material is then put upon the market as bone meal. It is re-
duced to various degrees of fineness. Sometimes the finer forms
are known as bone flour, bone dust, etc. Some of the coarser
forms are sometimes spoken cf as ground bone or broken bone.
The more finely divided the bone the better it is for the use of
fertilizer. The fine particles being incorporated into the soil and
the roots coming in contact with these the process of absorp-
tion begins.
Bone meal has been used for fertilizer for many years. In
the European countries no bones are allowed to go to waste or
be destroyed, but they are carefully gathered and either broken
into pieces or ground and then applied as fertilizer. In America
the industry has been limited to within the last decade or two.
It has not been many years sitce the great number of buffalo
bones wasting on the prairies have been collected and utilized.








28

It has been difficult to establish what portion of bone phos-
phate in ground bones is really available to plants. Recently
some chemists in Germany have been investigating this matter
and declare that bone phosphate is not available as plant food,
substantiating their position by a great number of experiments
continued through many years. Later come equally positive
statements that seem to be founded on good evidence that a
certain amount of the bone phosphate is available to certain
plants. We are not in a position, therefore, at the present time
to say definitely that the value of bone meal exceeds that of the
ammonia contained in it, or say about $12 per ton. The ex-
periments reported in this bulletin have not been continued a
sufficient length of time to allow any definite conclusion on this
to be drawn. After the work shall have been continued for a
period of five or ten years on the same plots, the phosphoric acid
originally in the soil would doubtless be entirely exhausted, and
some interesting conclusions may be possible. At the present
time, however, the indications are that bone meal for some rea-
son or other has a value as a fertilizer beyond that expressed
in the nitrogen it contains. That is, those plots fertilized with
bone meal show decided advantage over those being fertilized
with otherwise identical material, but wanting bone meal. In
this connection it is interesting to note that the position held
by those who regard the phosphore acid in bone as not avail-
able to plants, is based principally upon the work by Professors
Maercker and Steffek, of the Halle Exp. Station, Germany. In
New Jersey Exp. Sta. Report for 1895, pages 93-99, we find some
interesting discussion in this line. The authors make the fol-
lowing pertinent statement: These studies indicate, first, that
on the average more than one-fourth of the phosphoric acid in
bone is in an available form; as a rule the finer and softer the
bone the greater the degree of availability.
Even after it has been definitely settled that bone phos-
phate contains no phosphoric acid available to the plants origi-
nally experimented with in pot cultures, such as were used in
Germany under the artificial conditions, it will still remain a









29
question to be solved as to whether the phosphoric acid is not
available to the pineapple plants under the conditions of our
fields. The fact that pineapple plants will flourish in soil which
from a chemical standpoint is deficient in all the elements which
go to make up a fertile soil and in a soil that is radically different
from other fertile soils in physical constitution throws us into
an entirely new field of investigation.
We have here a plant which increases in size and weight
during the season of greatest drought, when there may be no
rains for six, eight, and at times ten weeks, in a soil containing
"99.44 per cent. of insoluble residue!"
During the dry season dews are usually heavy, giving the plant
considerable moisture, which is conducted to the root system by
its peculiarly shaped leaves. Dew formed on living plants has been
shown to contain a very considerable amount of carbonic acid in
solution. This water which contains carbonic acid in solution
is a much better solvent of tri-calcium phosphate than purewater.
Is it not possible that we have here a partial explanation of the
strange fact that this plant may flourish in a soil so nearly sterile?


ACID PHOSPHATE.

The pineapple growers of Florida are so familiar with the
origin and treatment of phosphate rock to produce a common
acid phosphate for our market that a repetition of that would
seem almost useless.
The phosphate rock is taken from the earth either mined or
dredged from beneath water in creeks and rivers. It is then
washed to free it from dirt. The rocks are then subjected to
a grinding process, thus being reduced to small size, afterwards
to the condition of flour. In this state it is treated with sul-
phuric acid to make acid phosphate, superphosphate or what
may be called available phosphoric acid. The substance usually
found on the market contains from 6 per cent, to 14 per cent. of
available phosphoric acid. This substance has been used for a
number of years as a source of phosphoric acid in fertilizers,
but pineapple growers have gradually discarded its use in con-








30

nection with pineapple fertilizers. In connection with vegetables
and fruit trees its value can hardly be denied.
Many of the pineapple growers believe that acid phosphate
was detrimental to pineapples on account of free sulphuric acid
being used to make the phosphate available. This conclusion is
not borne out by the result of the experiments. In those plots
which were supplied with phosphoric acid from acid phosphate,
we find almost without exception, in sections where the great-
est quantity was supplied it is slightly different (sometimes bet-
ter, sometimes poorer) than where the least quantities had been
used. If the difference had been due to the presence of the sul-
phuric acid in the material the section which received ioo per
cent. more of acid phosphate would have been decidedly inferior
to those in which only one-half of the amount had been used.
ANALYSIS OF FERTILIZERS USED.



P. ll I q a,

Cotton seed meal ....... 81 31
Sulphate of ammonia .. ..1 25 I 6o
Nitrate of soda ...... .. I 19
Blood and bone ......... . i ? i ?
Kainit ........... ..... 121 I 101 201 33
Sulphate of potash low grade I 221 31 44 3
Sulphate of potash high grade 481 461
Muriate of potash ... .... 501 48
Pot-magnesia, corbonate ... I 18 ? 16 I
Bone Meal .. ....... 5 7 231
Acid phosphate ... 14 3 151*451
FORMULA USED AS A NORMAL FERTILIZER.
As a starting point upon which to base the applications of
fertilizers the following formula was used:
Nitrogen ................. 3 per cent.
Potash ................... 7 per cent.
Available phosphoric acid .. 5 per cent.
"*Sulphate of lime.









31

On February 7 and 8, 1898, an amount of fertilizer that
would be equal to about one and one-half tons of:the above
formula was used. A second application equal to about two. and
one-half tons per acre was applied June 27 and 28, 1898. A
third application equal to about two tons of the above formula
was made November 4 to 12, 1898. A fourth application was
being planned at the time of the freeze of February 13, 1899.
On account of this freeze the application was delayed until April
I, 3 and 4, 1899. At this time an amount equal to about one
and one-half tons of the above formula was applied. A fifth
application of the same quantity was made July 6, 1899. After
the freeze of February 13, 1899, it was thought best to reduce
the amount of fertilizer to be applied because the leaf surface of
the pineapple plants had been greatly reduced.
The formula used as a basis for these experiments was one
suggested by Mr. T. V. Moore. The amount of fertilizer to be
used as standard was left to his discretion, and the fertilizer was
applied as nearly as practicable at the time he suggested. Mr.
Moore having had long and extensive experience in pineapple
growing, his suggestions in connection with the experiments
were found to be of the greatest value, especially that part which
is connected with the practical growing. In short this experi-
ment is a co-operative one in which Mr. Moore gives the Ex-
periment Station the benefit of his practical experience, and the
Experiment Station furnished and prepared the fertilizer. For
his kindness and suggestions in many ways the Experiment Sta-
tion is under many obligations, and pineapples growers who
find themselves benefitted by this work should likewise feel that
Mr. Moore deserves credit and consideration for devotion to
their interests.

PLAN OF THE FIELD.

The field under experimentation contains about two acres:
All plots treated with incomplete fertilizer (one in which one or
two of the three fertilizers, nitrogen, potash or phosphoric acid
is wanting) were four rows wide or contained about a..one-hun-
dredth acre. All plots fertilized with complete fertilizer (one
Bul. 40--3








32

containing nitrogen, potash and phosphoric acid) contain about
ote-twentieth acre.
The following table gives the exact number of plants to
each plot and the amount and kind of fertilizer applied to each
plot for the first application, February 7 and 8, 1898. The basis
for determining the amount of each kind of fertilizer is stated
on page 30 under the discussion of chemical analysis of a Nor-
mal Fertilizer. The chemical analysis of each ingredient is
given on page 30 giving a table of analyses of fertilizers used.

FORMULAE FOR


Application i, applied February 7 and 8, 1898.

LAND I, 33 PLANTS DEEP.

Plot 1-4 rows (rows 1-4) I-Ioo acre.
8 Ibs. cotton seed meal.
Plot 2-4 rows (rows 4-8) I-Ioo acre.
8 lbs. cotton seed meal.
4 Ibs. sulphate potash, low grade.
Plot 3-24 rows (rows 8-32) 1-2o acre.
8 lbs. cotton seed meal.
S 20 lbs. sulphate potash, low grade.
80 lbs. bone meal.
Plot 4-4 rows (rows 32-36) I-ioo acre.
2 Ibs. cotton seed meal.
16 Ibs. bone mea 1.
Plot 5-24 rows (rows 36-60) 1-20 acre.
40 lbs. cotton seed meal.
20 lbs. sulphate potash, low grade.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 6-4 rows (rows 60-64) T-ioo acre.
8 lbs. cotton seed meal.
6 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 7-4 rows (rows 64-68) I-too acre.
8 lbs. cotton seed meal.
2 Ibs. muriate potash.
Plot 8-24 rows (rows 68-92) 1-20 acre.
8 lbs. cotton seed meal.









33

8 lbs. muriate potash.
80 lbs. bone meal.
15 1-2 rows to uncleared land not fertilized



LAND 2, 33 PLANTS DEEP.

Plot 9-23 rows (rows 1-23) I-ioo acre.
40 Ibs. cotton seed meal.
8 lbs. muriate potash.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot Io-4 rows (rows 23-27) 1-1oo acre.
8 lbs. cotton seed meal.
8 lbs. kainit.
Plot 11-24 rows (rows 27-51 1-20 acre.
8 lbs. cotton seed meal.
40 lbs. kainit.
80 lbs. bone meal.
Plot 12-24 rows (rows 51-75) 1-20 acre.
40 lbs. cotton seed meal.
40 lbs. kainit.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 13-4 rows (rows 75-79) I-ioo acre.
8 Ibs. cotton seed meal.
5 lbs. potassum-magnesium carbonate.
Plot 14-24 rows (rows 70-103) 1-20 acre.
8 lbs. cotton seed meal.
25 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
8o Ibs. bone meal.
5 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.



LAND 3, 33 PLANTS DEEP.

Plot 15-25 rows (rows 1-25) I-Ioo acre.
40 lbs. cotton seed meal.
25 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 16-4 rows (rows 25-29) r-ioo acre.
8 lbs. cotton seed meal.
2 lbs. sulphate potash, high grade.
Plot 17-22 rows (rows 29-51) 1-20 acre.









34

8 lbs. cotton seed meal.
8 Ibs. sulphate potash, high grade.
80 lbs. bone meal.
Plot 18-24 rows (rows 51-75) 1-20 acre.
40 lbs. cotton seed meal.
2 lbs. sulphate potash, high grade.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 19-4 rows (rows 75-79) i-Ioo acre.
2 lbs. sulphate ammonia.
Plot 20-4 rows (rows 79-83) I-Ioo acre.
2 lbs. sulphate ammonia.
8 Ibs. sulphate potash, high grade.
Plot 21-24 rows (rows 83-107) 1-20 acre.
2 lbs. sulphate ammonia.
8 lbs. sulphate potash, high grade.
80 lbs. bone meal.
2 and 1-4 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.


LAND 4, 33 PLANTS DEEP.
Plot 22-24 rows (rows 1-24) 1-20 acre.
2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
8 lbs. muriate of potash.
80 lbs. bone meal.
Plot 23-24 rows (rows 24-48) 1-2o acre.
io lbs sulphate of ammonia.
8 Ibs. muriate of potash.
30 Ibs. acid phosphate.
Plot 24-24 rows (rows 48-72) 1-20 acre.
2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
40 lbs. kainit.
8o Ibs. bone meal.
Plot 25-24 rows (rows 72-96) 1-20 acre.
Io lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
40 Ibs. kainit.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
15 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.


LAND 5, 33 PLANTS DEEP.
Plot 26-24 rows (rows 1-24) 1-20 acre.
o1 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.









35

25 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 27-4 rows (rows 24-28) I-Ioo acre.
3 lbs. nitrate of soda.
Plot 28-4 rows (rows 28-32) I-ioo acre.
3 lbs. nitrate of soda.
2 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
Plot 29-24 rows (rows 32-56) 1-20 acre.
14 lbs. nitrate of soda.
8 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 30--24 rows (rows 56-80) 1-20 acre.
14 lbs. nitrate of soda.
8 Ibs. muriate of potash.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 31-24 rows (rows 80-104) 1-20 acre.
14 lbs. nitrate of soda.
20 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
7 rows to uncleared land not fertilzed.


LAND 6, 29 PLANTS DEEP.
Plot 32-24 rows (rows 1-24) 1-20 acre.
14 Ibs. nitrate of soda.
40 lbs. kainit.
30 Ibs. acid phosphate.
Plot 33-24 rows (rows 24-48) 1-20 acre.
14 lbs. nitrate of soda.
25 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 34-24 rows (rows 48-72) 1-20 acre.
34 lbs. blood and bone.
Plot 35-23 rows (rows 72-95) I-ioo acre.
34 lbs. blood and bone.
8 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
15 rows, 3-4 row and 1-4 row to uncleared land not fertilized.


LAND 7, 29- PLANTS DEEP.
2 short rows not fertilized.
Plot 36-24 rows (rows 1-24) 1-20 acre.
34 lbs. blood and bone.









36

20 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
Plot 37-24 rows (rows 24-48) 1-20 acre.
34 lbs. blood and bone.
40 lbs. kainit.
Plot 38-24 rows (rows 48-72) 1-20 acre.
34 lbs. blood and bone.
8 lbs. muriate of potash.
Plot 39-24 rows (rows 72-96) 1-20 acre.
34 lbs. blood and bone.
25 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
18 1-2 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.-



LAND 8, 32 PLANTS DEEP.
2 short rows not fertilized.
Plot 40-5 rows (rows 1-5) i-Ioo acre.
8 lbs. cotton seed meal.
2 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
6 lbs. acid phosphate.
o1 lbs. lime, air slacked.
Plot 41-4 rows (rows 5-9) I-ioo acre.
2 lbs. nitrate of soda.
8 lbs. kainit.
6 lbs. acid phosphate.
o1 lbs. lime, air slacked.
Plot 42-4 rows (rows 9-13) i-ioo acre.
"2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
"2 lbs. sulphate of potash ,high grade.
6 lbs. acid phosphate.
Io lbs. lime, air slacked.
Plot 43-4 rows (rows 13-17) i-ioo acre.
7 Ibs. blood and bone.
5 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
6 lbs. acid phosphate.
io lbs. lime, air slacked.
Plot 44-4 rows (rows 17-21) I-ioo acre.
8 lbs. cotton seed meal.
2 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
6 lbs. acid phosphate.
Ioo lbs. muck, air dried.
Plot 45-4 rows (rows 21-25) I-ioo acre.
2 lbs. nitrate of soda.
8 lbs. kainit.
6 Ibs. acid phosphate.










37

ioo lbs. muck, air dried.
Plot 46-4 rows (rows 25-29) I-iOO acre.
2 lbs. sulphate of ammoma.
2 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
6 lbs. acid phosphate.
ioo lbs. muck, air dried.
Plot 47-4 rows (rows 29-33) I-Ioo acre.
7 lbs. blood and bone.
5 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
6 lbs. acid phosphate.
ioo lbs. muck, air dried.
Plot 48-4 rows (rows 33-37) I-ioo acre.
1-2 lb. sulphate of ammonia.
5 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
15 lbs. bone meal.
30 lbs. lime, air slaked.
ioo lbs. muck, air dried.
Plot 49-24 rows (rows 37-61) 1-20 acre.
Io lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
20 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 50-24 rows (rows 61-85) 1-20 acre.
2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
20 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
80 lbs. bone meal.
Plot 51-24 rows (rows 85-1o9) 1-20 acre.
10 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
20 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
30 lbs. acid phosphate.
9 1-4 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.

PLAN OF THE FIELD FOR APPLICATIONS 2 TO 5
(INCLUSIVE.)

After the first application all plots containing twentieth
acres (24 rows) were divided into six equal sections lettered from
A to F, inclusive, containing as a rule 4 rows (about i-ioo acre).
Sections A were treated with a fertilizer containing the normal
amount of ammonia, of potash and of phosphoric acid. Sections
B were treated with twice the normal amount of ammonia and
the normal amount of potash and phosphoric acid. Sections C
were treated with the normal amount of ammonia, twice the
normal amount of potash, and the normal amount of phosphoric









38

acid. Sections D were treated with the normal amount of am-
monia and the normal amount of potash, and twice the normal
amount of phosphoric acid. Sections E were treated with one
and one-half times the normal amount of the normal formula
Sections F. were treated with twice the normal amount of the
normal formula.

OBJECT OF THE SECTIONS.
If, therefore, sections A in any particular plot is better
than any other section we must conclude that this amount and
this combination is better than any other used in the plot.
If section B of any particular plot turns out to be the best
section we must conclude that more ammonia from that partic-
ular source may be used by the plants than that applied to sec-
tion A.
If section C in any particular plot is better than any other
sections we must conclude that more potash from that particular
source than is used in the normal formula, or section A, is
needed.
If section D is the best one in that plot we must conclude
that more phosphoric acid from that particular source may be
used by the plants than is supplied by the normal formula, or
section A.
If section E turns out to be the best we must consider the
normal formula is practically correct, and that sectfon A did not
receive a sufficient amount of fertilizer, while section F received
more fertilizer than could be used by the plants.
If.section F is the best section of the plot we must conclude
that the normal formula is practically correct and that section
A and section E have not received as much fertilizer as the
plants could use.
If section A is the poorest in the plot we must regard it
as due to an insufficient amount of the normal formula of the
fertilizer.
If section B turns out poorer than section A, E or F, we
must regard it due to an oversupply of that form of ammonia.
If section C is poorer than section A, E or F, we must
regard it as due to an over abundance of that form of potash.









39
If section C is poorer than sections A, E or F, we must con-
sider that too great a quantity of that form of phosphoric acid
has been used.
If section D is poorer than section A it is probably due to
the application of too much fertilizer; in that case section F
would be the poorest in the plot.



FORMULAE FOR

Application 2, June 27 and 28, 1898.
LAND I, 33 PLANTS DEEP.
"Plot 1-4 rows (rows 1-4).
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
Plot 2-4 rows (rows 4-8.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
i Ilbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
Plot 3.-
Section A-4 rows (rows 8-12.)
3 lbs. cotton seed meal.
ii lbs. sulphate of potash, law grade.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section B-4 rows (rows 12-16.)
21 lbs. cotton seed meal.
r1 Ibs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section C-4 rows (rows 16-20.)
3 lbs. cotton seed meal.
22 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
31 lbs bone meal. t
Section D-4 rows (rows 20-24.)
o Ibs. cotton seed meal.
II lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Section E-4 rows (rows 24-28.)
4 1-2 lbs. cotton seed meal.
16 Ibs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
46 bone meal.
Section F-4 rows (rows 32-36.)
6 lbs. cotton seed meal.
22 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
62 lbs. bone meal.









40

Plot 4-4 rows (rows 32-36.)
3 lbs. cotton seed meal.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Plot 5-
Section A-4 rows (rows 36-40.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
11 Ibs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows ( rows 40-44.)
36 lbs. cotton seed meal.
11i bs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 44-48.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
22 Ibs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 48-32.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
illbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows 52-56.)
27 Ibs. cotton seed meal.
16 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 56-60.)
36 Ibs. cotton seed ,meal.
22 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 6-4 rows (rows 60-64.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
19 Ibs. acid phosphate.
Plot 7-4 rows (rows 64-68.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
5 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
Plot 8-
Section A-4 rows (rows 68-72.)
3 lbs. cotton seed meal.
5 1-2 Ibs. muriate of potash.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section B-4 rows (rows 72-76.)
21 Ibs. cotton seed meal.
5 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section C-4 rows (rows 76-80.)
3 Ibs. cotton seed meal.










41

ii lbs. muriate of potash.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section D-4 rows (rows 80-84.)
o lbs. cotton seed meal.
5 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Section E-4 rows (rows 84-88.)
4 1-2 lbs. cotton seed meal.
8 lbs. muriate of potash.
46 lbs. bone meal.
Section F-4 rows (rows 88-92.)
6 lbs. cotton seed meal.
Ir lbs. muriate of potash.
62 lbs. bone meal.
15 1-2 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.



LAND 2, 33 PLANTS DEEP.
Plot 9-
Section A-4 rows (rows 1-4.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
5 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-3 rows (rows 4-7.)
36 lbs. cotton seed meal.
5 1-2 Ibs. muriate of potash.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 7-11.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
ii lbs. muriate of potash.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 11-15.)
18 Ibs. cotton seed meal.
5 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows 15-19.)
27 lbs. cotton seed meal.
8 lbs. muriate of potash.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 19-23.)
36 lbs. cotton seed meal.
11 lbs. muriate of potash.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.









42

Plot Io-4 rows (rows 27-31.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
21 lbs. kainit.
Plot ii-
Section A-4 rows (rows 27-31.)
3 lbs. cotton seed meal.
21 lbs. kainit.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section B-4 rows (rows 31-35.)
21 lbs. cotton seed meal.
21 lbs. kainit.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section C-4 rows (rows 35-39.)
3 lbs. cotton seed meal.
42 lbs. kainit.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section D-4 rows (rows 39-43-)
o lbs. cotton seed meal.
21 lbs. kainit.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Section E-4 rows (rows 43-47.)
4 1-2 lbs. cotton seed meal.
31 lbs. kainit.
46 lbs. bone meal.
Section F-4 rows (rows 47-51.)
6 lbs. cotton seed meal.
42 lbs. kainit.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Plot 12-
Section A-4 rows (rows 51-55.)
18 Ibs, cotton seed meal.
21 Ibs. kainit.
19 Ibs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 55-59.)
36 lbs. cotton seed meal.
21 lbs. kainit.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 59-63.)
18 Ibs. cotton seed meal.
42 lbs. kainit.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 63-67.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
21 lbs. kainit.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.









43
Section E-4 rows (rows 67-71.)
27 lbs. cotton seed meal.
31 lbs. kainit.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 71-75.)
36 lbs. cotton seed meal.
42 lbs. kainit.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 13-4 rows (rows 75-79.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
15 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
31 lbs. bone meal (mistake made by laborer.)
Plot 14-
Section A-4 rows (rows 79-83.)
3 lbs. cotton seed meal.
15 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section B-4 rows (rows 83-87.)
21 lbs. cotton seed meal.
15 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
31 lbs. bone meal (laborer's inadvertance.)
Section C-4 rows (rows 87-91.)
3 lbs. cotton seed meal.
31 Ibs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section D-4 rows (rows 91-95.)
o lbs. cotton seed meal.
15 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Section E-4 rows (rows 95-99.)
4 1-2 lbs. cotton seed meal.
23 Ibs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
46 lbs. bone meal.
Section F-4 rows (rows 99-103.)
6 Ibs. cotton seed meal.
31 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
62 lbs. bone meal.
5 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.


LAND 3, 33 PLANTS DEEP.
Plot 15-
Section A-4 rows (rows 1-4.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
15 1-2 Ibs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.









44

19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 4-8.)
36 lbs. cotton seed meal.
15 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
19 Ibs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 8-12.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
31 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 12-16.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
15 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows 16-20.)
27 lbs. cotton seed meal.
23 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-5 rows (rows 20-25.)
36 lbs. cotton seed meal.
31 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 16-4 rows (rows 25-29.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
Plot 17-
Section A-4 rows (rows 29-33.)
3 lbs. cotton seed meal.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
31 Ibs. bone meal.
Section B-3 rows (rows 33-36.)
21 lbs. cotton seed meal.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section C-3 rows (rows 36-39.)
3 Ibs. cotton seed meal.
12 lbs. sulphuate of potash, high grade.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section D-4 rows (rows 39-43.)
o lbs. cotton seed meal.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Section E-4 rows (rows 43-47.)
4 1-2 lbs. cotton seed meal.
9 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade
46 Ibs. bone meal.









45

Section F-4 rows (rows 47-51.)
6 lbs. cotton seed meal.
12 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Plot 18-
Section A-4 rows (rows 51-55.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 55-59.)
36 lbs. cotton seed meal.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
19 Ibs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 59-63.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
12 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 63-67.)
18 lbs. cotton seed meal.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows 67-71.)
27 lbs. cotton seed meal.
9 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 71-75.)
36 lbs. cotton seed meal.
12 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 19-4 rows (rows 75-79.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
Plot 20-4 rows (rows 79-83.)
5 1-2 Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
Plot 21-
Section A-4 rows (rows 83-87.)
I lb. sulphate of ammonia.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section B-4 rows (rows 87-91.)
6 1-2 Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section C-4 rows (rows 91-95.)
I lb. sulphate of ammonia.









46

12 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
31 Ibs. bone meal.
Section D-4 rows (rows 95-99.)
o Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
6 Ibs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Section E-4 rows (rows 99-103.)
I 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
9 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
46 lbs. bone meal.
Section F-4 rows (rows 103-107.)
2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
12 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Sand from ditch thrown into rows 3 and 4.
2 and 1-4 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.



LAND 4, 33 PLANTS DEEP.
Plot 22--
Section A-4 rows (rows 1-4.)
i lb. sulphate of ammonia.
5 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
31 Ibs. bone meal.
Section B-4 rows (rows 4-8.)
6 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
5 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section C-4 rows (rows 8-12.)
I lb. sulphate of ammonia.
II lbs. muriate of potash.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section D-4 rows (rows 12-16.)
o lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
5 1-2 Ibs. muriate of potash.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Section E-4 rows (rows 16-2o.)
I 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
8 lbs. muriate of potash.
46 Ibs. bone meal.
Section F-4 rows (rows 20-24.)
2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
ii lbs. muriate of potash.
62 lbs. bone meal.









47
Plot 23-
Section A-4 rows (rows 24-28.)
5 1-2 Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
5 1-2 Ibs. muriate of potash.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B'--4 rows (rows 28-32.)
S1 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
5 1-2 muriate of potash.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Secton C-4 rows (rows 32-36.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
ii lbs. muriate of potash.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 36-40.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia
5 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows 40-44.)
8 Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
8 lbs. muriate of potash.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 44-48.)
II Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
Ii lbs. Muriate of potash.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 24-
Section A--4 rows (rows 48-52.)
I lb. sulphate of ammonia.
21 lbs. kainit.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section B-4 rows (rows 52-56.)
6 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
21 lbs. kainit.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section C-4 rows (rows 56-60.)
I lb. sulphate of ammonia.
42 lbs. kainit.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section D-4 rows (rows 60-64.)
o lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
21 lbs. kainit.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Section E-4 rows (rows 64-68.)
I 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
31 lbs. kainit.
Bul. 40-4









48

46 lbs. bone meal.
Section F-4 rows (rows 68-72.)
2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
42 lbs. kainit.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Plot 25-
Section A-4 rows (rows 72-76.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
21 lbs. kainit.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 76-80.)
II lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
21 lbs. kainit.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 80-84.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
42 lbs. kainit.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 84-88.)
5 1-2 Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
21 lbs. kainit.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows 88-92.)
8 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
31 lbs. kainit.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 92-96.)
ii lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
42 lbs. kainit.
g8 lbs. acid phosphate.
15 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.



LAND 5, 33 PLANTS DEEP.
Plot 26-
Section A-4 rows (rows 1-4.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
15 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 4-8.)
ii lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
15 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.









49
Section C-4 rows (rows 8-12.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
31 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
19 Ibs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 12-16.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
15 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 row's (rows 16-20.)
8 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
23 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
28 Ibs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 20-24.)
ii Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
31 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 27-4 rows (rows 24-28.)
7 lbs. nitrate of soda.
Plot 28-4 rows (rows 28-32.)
7 lbs. nitrate of soda.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
Plot 29-
Section A-4 rows (rows 32-36.)
7 lbs. nitrate of soda.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 36-40.)
14 lbs. nitrate of soda.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 40-44.)
7 lbs. nitrate of soda.
12 Ibs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 44-48.)
7 lbs. nitrate of soda.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows 48-52.)
1o I-2 lbs. nitrate of soda.
9 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 52-56.)
14 lbs. nitrate of soda.
12 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.









50

38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 30-
Section A-4 rows (rows 56-60.)
7 lbs. nitrate of soda.
5 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 60-64.)
14 lbs. nitrate of soda.
5 1-2 Ibs. muriate of potash.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 64-68.)
7 lbs. nitrate of soda.
i Ilbs. muriate of potash.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 68-72.)
7 lbs. nitrate of soda.
5 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows 72-76.)
o1 1-2 lbs. nitrate of soda.
8 lbs. muriate of potash.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 76-80.)
14 lbs. nitrate of soda.
ii Ibs. muriate of potash.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 31-
Section A-4 rows (rows 80-84.)
7 lbs. nitrate of soda.
ii Ibs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 84-88.)
14 lbs. nitrate of soda.
ii lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 88-92.)
7 lbs. nitrate of soda,
22 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 92-96.)
7 lbs. nitrate of soda.
i Ilbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
38 Ibs. acid phosphate.









51

Section E-4 rows (rows 96-oo00.)
Io 1-2 lbs. nitrate of soda.
16 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 1oo-o04.)
14 lbs. nitrate of soda.
22 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
38 Ibs. acid phosphate.
7 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.


LAND 6, 29 PLANTS DEEP.
Plot 32-
Section A-4 rows (rows 1-4.)
6 lbs. nitrate of soda.
19 lbs. kainit,
17 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 4-8.)
12 lbs. nitrate of soda.
19 lbs. kainit.
17 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 8-12.)
6 Ibs. nitrate of soda.
38 lbs. kainit.
17 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 12-16.)
6 lbs. nitrate of soda.
19 lbs. kainit.
34 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows 16-20.)
9 Ibs. nitrate of soda.
28 lbs. kainit.
25 Ibs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 20-24.)
12 lbs. nitrate of soda.
38 lbs. kainit.
34 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 33-
Section A-4 rows (rows 24-28.)
6 lbs. nitrate of soda.
13 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
17 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 28-32.)
12 lbs. nitrate of soda.









52

13 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
17 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 32-36.)
6 lbs. nitrate of soda.
27 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
17 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 36-40.)
6 lbs. nitrate of soda.
13 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
34 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows 40-44.)
9 lbs. nitrate of soda.
20 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
25 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 44-48.)
12 lbs. nitrate of soda.
27 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
34 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 34-
Section A-8 rows (rows 48-56.)
31 lbs. blood and bone.
Section B-8 rows (rows 56-64.)
41 lbs. blood and bone.
Section C-8 rows (rows 64-72.)
62 lbs. blood and bone.
Plot 35-
Section A-4 rows (rows 72-76.)
15 1-2 lbs. blood and bone.
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
Section B-4 rows (rows 76-80.)
33 lbs. blood and bone.
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
Section C-5 rows (rows 80-85.)
19 lbs. blood and bone.
14 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
Section D-5 rows (rows 85-90.)
28 lbs. blood and bone.
io lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
Section E-5 rows (rows 90-95.)
38 lbs. blood and bone.
14 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
15 rows, 3-4 row and 1-4 row to uncleared land not fertilized.









53

LAND 7, 29 PLANTS DEEP.
2 short rows not fertilized.
Plot 36-
Section A-4 rows (rows 1-4).
15 1-2 Ibs. blood and bone.
S1 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
Section B-5 rows (rows 4-9-)
38 lbs. blood and bone.
14 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
Section C-5 rows (rows 9-14.)
19 lbs. blood and bone.
28 lbs. lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
Section D-5 rows (rows 14-19.)
28 lbs. blood and bone.
20 Ibs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
Section E-5 rows (rows 43-48.)
38 Ibs. blood and bone.
28 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
Plot 37-
Section A-4 rows (rows 24-28.)
15 1-2 lbs. blood and bone.
19 lbs. kainit.
Section B-5 rows (rows 28-33.)
38 lbs. blood and bone.
24 lbs. kainit.
Section C-5 rows (rows 33-38.)
19 lbs. blood and bone.
48 lbs. kainit.
Section D-5 rows (rows 38-43.)
28 lbs. blood and bone.
36 lbs. kainit
Section E-5 rows (rows 48-52.)
38 lbs. blood and bone.
48 lbs. kainit.
Plot 38-
Section A-4 rows '(rows 72-76.)
15 1-2 Ibs. blood and bone.
5 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
Section B-5 rows (rows 52-57.)
38 lbs. blood and bone.
7 Ibs. muriate of potash.
Section C-5 rows (rows 57-62.)
19 lbs. blood and bone.
14 lbs. muriate of potash.









54

Section D-5 rows (rows 62-67.)
28 lbs. blood and bone.
10 1-2 lbs. muriate of potash.
Section E-5 rows (rows 67-72.)
38 lbs. blood and bone.
14 lbs. muriate of potash.
Plot 39--
Section A-4 rows (rows 72-76.)
15 1-2 lbs. blood and bone.
13 1-2 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
Section B-5 rows (rows 76-81.)
38 lbs. blood and bone.
17 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
Section C-5 rows (rows 81-86.)
19 lbs. blood and bone.
34 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
Section D-5 rows (rows 86-91.)
28 Ibs. blood and bone.
25 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
Section E-5 rows (rows 91-96.)
38 Ibs. blood and bone.
34 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
18 1-2 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.



LAND 8, 32 PLANTS DEEP.
Plot 40-5 rows (rows 1-5.)
21 lbs. cotton seed meal.
7 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
18 lbs. acid phosphate.
o lbs. lime, air slaked.
Plot 41-4 rows (rows 5-9.)
8 lbs. nitrate of soda.
20 Ibs. kainit.
18 lbs. acid phosphate.
o Ibs. lime, air slaked.
Plot 42-4 rows (rows 9-13.)
5 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
18 Ibs. acid phosphate.
o lbs. lime, air slaked.
Plot 43-4 rows (rows 13-17.)
17 Ibs. blood and bone.









55

15 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
18 lbs. acid phosphate.
o lbs. lime, air slaked.
Plot 44-4 rows (rows 17-21.)
17 lbs. cotton seed meal.
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
18 lbs. acid phosphate.
o Ibs. muck, air dried.
Plot 45-4 rows (rows 21-25.)
8 lbs. nitrate of soda.
2o lbs. kainit.
18 lbs. acid phosphate.
o lbs. muck, air dried.
Plot 46-4 rows (rows 25-29.)
5 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
18 lbs. acid phosphate.
o Ibs. muck, air dried.
Plot 47-4 rows (rows 29-33.)
17 lbs. blood and bone.
15 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
18 lbs. acid phosphate.
o lbs. muck, air dried.
Plot 48-4 rows (rows 33-37.)
5 Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
15 lbs. potassium-magnesium carbonate.
31 lbs. bone meal.
"o Ibs. lime, air slaked.
"o lbs. muck, air dried.
Plot 49--
Section A-4 rows (rows 37-41.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
6 Ibs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 41-45.)
II lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 45-49.)
5 1-2 Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
12 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.
19 Ibs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 49-53.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
6 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade.








56

38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows 53-57.)
8 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
9 Ibs. slulphate of potash, high grade.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4 rows (rows 57-61.)
ii lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
12 lbs. sulphate of potash, high grade
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Plot 50-
Section A-4 rows (rows 61-65.)
I lb. sulphate of ammonia.
11 Ibs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
31 lbs; bone meal.
Section B-4 rows (rows 65-69.)
6 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
ii lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section C-4 rows (rows 69-75.)
I lb. sulphate of ammonia.
22 Ibs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
31 lbs. bone meal.
Section D-4 rows (rows 73-77.)
o lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
11 Ibs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
62 Ibs. bone meal.
Section E-4 rows (rows 77-81.)
I 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
16 Ibs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
46 lbs. bone meal.
Section F-4 rows (rows 81-85.)
2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
22 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
62 lbs. bone meal.
Plot 51-
Section A-4 rows (rows 85-89.)
5 1-2 Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
II lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section B-4 rows (rows 89-93.)
II lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section C-4 rows (rows 93-97.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
22 Ibs. sulphate of potash, low grade.









57

19 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section D-4 rows (rows 97-101.)
5 1-2 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
i lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section E-4 rows (rows ioI-105.)
8 Ibs. sulphate of ammonia.
16 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
28 lbs. acid phosphate.
Section F-4. rows (rows 0o5-109.)
11 lbs. sulphate of ammonia.
22 lbs. sulphate of potash, low grade.
38 lbs. acid phosphate.
9 1-2 rows to uncleared land not fertilized.




SIZE OF'THE PLOTS.

In the beginning of the experiments it was thought that the
plots which contain one hundredth acre would be too small to
give very definite information, but by referring to the
plates at the close of this bulletin it will be seen that
no difficulty is experienced in this way. It goes with-
out saying that a more definite conclusion would be
reached by using one-tenth acre plots in the place of one-hun-
dredth acre plots, but this would really have placed the work be-
yond the reach of the Experiment Station, and those who were
undertaking it. The variation due to different fertilizers in the
various plots has been so decided that there can be no doubt
as to the desirability of using one-hundredth acre plots, or small-
er plots, in preliminary experiments upon pineapples. By re-
ferring to the various plates illustrating the plots, taking for
example the one on which plot 29 is represented we notice that
the change in the fertilizer makes a decided change in the size of
the pineapple plants, to the row. By turning to the plate upon
which plot 22 and plot 23 may be seen we will notice that the
stake row, which is fertilized on one side by formula 23 and on
the other side by 22 occupies quite an intermediate position be-
tween the two plots and the size of the plants is about









58

intermediate. A more sharply defined intermediate may
be seen by referring to the plate illustrating plots 12 and 13., By
turning to plate upon which are represented plots 49 and 50 and
by counting 4 rows to the right from the stake we notice that
section F in plot 29 is sharply defined from section E. This
section (F) was treated with the same fertilizer as section E,
section E receiving one and one-half times the normal amount
of'the normal fertilizer, while section F received two times the
amount of the identical formula and the identical fertilizer.
The whole series of experiments came out in such a de-
cided and positive way that the conclusions- are not based
on hair-splitting differences. Referring to such plots as 12, 23
and 29 and contrasting them with the adjoining plots, we can
readily see that the first 4 rows tell a sufficient tale. We can see
scarcely any perceptible difference between the second, the third
and the fourth rows in any section. The same is true of every
section in the entire field of nearly 200 divisions. As the first
fertilizer was applied in Feb., 1898, and these photographs taken
in July, 1899, we can see that the fertilizer had plenty of time to
spread through the soil if there was to be such a process. In many
cases fine plots were located towards the top of the hill from plots
that were very poor, as in the case of 38 and 39 being located
above 49 and 51, yet no change in these plots (49 and 51) could
be attributed to the fertilizer leaching through the soil. Plot 29,
a very poor one, was located just above plot 34 without detri-
ment to the latter. Plot 30, a sixth class plot, was located above
plot 35, a first class plot, yet no change could be noticed in the
plants in plot 35 that would .lead one to believe that the fertilizer
was leached from plot. 30 to 35.
From a general review of these plots one is forced to the
conclusion that one-hundredth acre plots are abundantly large
for preliminary,tests in pineapple fertilizers. The soil does not
permit of checks being placed between different plots. Other-
wise for preliminary purposes the plots might be one-half the
size of those used, thus materially reducing the expense of the
experiments. Under the existing conditions it is quite probable
that the plots might have been shortened 25 or 50 per cent. and
yet give definite information.









59

FERTILIZER EFFECTING LEAF AREA.
The effect of fertilizer upon young plants is somewhat dif-
ferent than it is upon fruiting plants. The observations on leaf
area were taken on November 12, 1898. Observations were
again taken on January 8, 1899, giving practically the same re-
sults as those on November 12, 1898. That is the plants from
November 12 to January 8 had made no marked progress in
growth, nor had there been any noticeable change in the relative
growth of the different plots.
To obtain the relative positions in the following table leaves
in various plots were measured. The area was obtained by
measuring the width of the leaves at the base and then their
length, then multiplying the length by the breadth of the base
and dividing by two. Although this does not give us the exact
area of the upper surface of the leaf, it approximates so closely
that for the sake of comparison and all practical purposes, it is
sufficiently correct.


















Fig. I.--st Class Plot.-Blood and Bone and Potassium-Magnesium
Carbonate.


Those plots whose leaves showed an average of 40 to 34
square inches per leaf on the upper surface were put in class one.










6o




















Fig. 2.-2nd Class Plot.-Blood and Bone and Muriate of Potash.



Those plots whose average leaf surface showed an area of
34 to 30 square inches were put in class two.




















Fig. 3.--nd Class Plot.-Nitrate of Soda, Low Grade Sulphate of Pot-
ash and Acid Phosphate.






























Fig. 4--3rd Class Plot.-Sulphate of Ammonia, Kainit and Bone Meal.

Those plots whose average leaves showed an area of 30 to
26 square inches were put in class three.



















Fig. 5.-4th Class Plot.-Nitrate of Soda, Potassium-Magnesium Car-
bonate and Acid Phosphate.

Those plots whose leaves showed an average of 26 to 22
square inches were put in class four.









62




















Fig. 6.-4th Class Plot.-Nitrate of Soda. Kainit and Acid Phosphate.


Those plots whose average leaves gave an area of 22 to 18
square inches were put in class five.





















Fig. 7.-5th Class Plot.-Sulphate of Ammonia, Kainit and Acid Phos-
phate.









63

















Fig. 8.-6th Class Plot.-Sulphate of Ammonia, Muriate of Potash and
Acid Phosphate.
Those plots whose average leaves gave an area of less than
18 square inches were put in class six.

By adopting the above standard blood and bone was found
to give us the largest leaf area, or approximately an average of
34.6 square inches per leaf. The plots fertilized with nitrate of
soda gave an average of 23.6 square inches. Those plots fer-
tilized with cotton seed meal gave an average of 23.2. Those fer-
tilized with sulphate of ammonia 22.4. It will thus be seen that
blood and bone produced plants with a much larger leaf surface
than either nitrate of soda, cotton seed meal or sulphate of am-
monia.
Considering the different forms of potash we find that po-
tassium-magnesium carbonate stands at the head with an aver-
age of 30.8 square inches to the average leaf. Sulphate of pot-
ash, low grade, coming second with an average of 28.8 square
inches, muriate of potash standing next with an average of 28.4
square inches, sulphate of potash, high grade, coming fourth with
an average of 28 square inches, and kainit coming last with an
average of 25.6 square inches.
The difference in the average leaf surfaces between those
plots fertilized with bone meal and those fertilized with acid phos-
phate comes out more strikingly than any other of the ingredi-
ents used. The average of those fertilized with bone meal being
Bull. 40-5









64

32.4 square inches, while those fertilized with acid phosphate
gave anly an average of 25.2 square inches.
In short, then, when we are fertilizing young pines for leaf
area, or to obtain vigorous growth, as a source of ammonia we
would find that blood and bone give the best results. Next to
this nitrate of soda, then cotton seed meal, and the poorest re-
sults were obtained from sulphate of ammonia. In the use of
potash we find that the carbonate stands highest, sulphate of pot-
ash, low grade, second; muriate of potash, third; sulphate of
potash, high grade, fourth; kainit last. Bone meal seems to give
an abundant supply of phosphoric acid.
Comparing those plots with incomplete fertilizers we find
that where no potash was used the leaf surface averaged 28 square
inches per leaf, while the average of the plots fertilized with
complete fertilizers gave an average of 28.3 square inches.
Kainit on the average fell to 25.6 square inches, indicating
that the plots which received no potash did better than when
kainit had been added, thus indicating very clearly that kainit is
worse than useless.
Those plots to which no phosphoric acid had been supplied
gave an average leaf surface of 26.8 square inches, while the aver-
age leaf surface of the plots fertilized with a complete fertilizer
gave 28.8 square inches, showing very clearly that the soil was
likewise deficient in phosphoric acid. Those plots treated with
acid phosphate gave an average leaf area of 25.2 square inches,
showing that this substance was worse than useless.
The plots fertilized with ammonia alone gave an average of
26 square inches.
In the connection with incomplete fertilizers there were
some very interesting plots. Number 27, which received only
nitrate of soda, gave an average of 37 square inches leaf sur-
face. Number 28, which had in addition to the nitrate of soda
sulphate of potash, high grade, gave the same size leaf surface.
Plot 27 was very severely injured by the freeze, while 28 came
through better.
Plot number 19, fertilized with sulphate of ammonia, gave
only 16.5 square inches of leaf surface. Number 20, fertilized
with sulphate of ammonia and sulphate of potash, high grade,








65

gave the same size leaf surface. Plot number 34, fertilized with
blood and bone, having the largest leaf area, was very severely
injured by the freeze, fell to the second class plot by July 6,
1899. Plot number 14 stood second in size leaf area and fer-
tilized with cotton seed meal, bone meal and potassium-mag-
nesium carbonate was only slightly injured by the freeze, but
fell to the third class plot by July, 1899.




TABLE SHOWING RELATIVE LEAF AREA. INCOMPLETE
FERTILIZER.-NOV. 12, 1898.

NO POTASH. NO PHOS. ACID CONT'D.
"Plot i2 314 5 6 Plot I 1 1213141516
I I I 1o0 I I*
41 I I3 I I__1_ 1
61* 1 1 1 T61 1-l J I I I
191 1 1 1 191 *
271 I 201 I I *
341* I 27 *1 I 1__
__ 281* I
NO PHOSPHORIC ACID. NEITHER POT. NOR PHOS.
Plot 1 121 3 4 6 Plot 2 1 3 1 4 5 6
'I I I -1 I _I I I i* I
2! __I I 1 11 i91 I I I I *
71 I 1 1- 271* 1 1 I I I







66
TABLE SHOWING RELATIVE LEAF AREA.-AMMONIAS
COMPARED.-NOV. 12, 1898.
COTTON SEED MEAL. SUL. AMMONIA CONT'D.
Plot 11 2 31415 6 1 1 213 41 5 16
I| I I 261 I I I*
21 I 1 421 I I
3l 46 I ~
41 I 1* 486 1
1 I 1 1 49l I I I*
5_1__ 1* 50| 1**1 ___
761 1 1 11 5 *01 1 I I 1 -
71 1 1 s I I I
8| *
81 -- NITRATE OF SODA.
9| 11 1 I -1-- -
1loI I Plot I 2 3 14 5 6
I I I I 1 27 1 I I
121 I l 281 I I
131 *1 I 29 1 I *
141s*- 1 # 301 *3
16 1 1 321 *I _
I71 |- t 33 1 I I
i87 I I 4133l I **
I8|) |T! 4i|_________ *
401 *1 I 451 *I
441* I BLOOD AND BONE.
SULPHATE AMMONIA. plot I I 2 3 4 5 6
Plot I 2 3 4 51 6 34 I I I
191 I I I I 351 I i
20]1 11 36 I I I
21 1 I 371 I I
221 I* 1I 381 *
1231 I 139 I I I
24 *1 I 43 1 I I
*251 *| 471 *


See illustration on previous page. Photographed November, 1898.








67
TABLE SHOWING RELATIVE LEAF AREA.-POTASHES
COMPARED.-NOV. 12, 1898.
KAINIT. SUL. POTASH, H. G., CONT'D.
Plot I I112 34 5 6 Plot I 213 145 6
o1l I I 11 I 4o1 1 I I
III I I 42 1 1 II
121 1 1i 1 441 I I I I
$24! '1 I I1 461 I I I *
325! 1 I 491 I
321 II II MURIATE OF POTASH.
371 1 I I
411 1 t I Plot I 2 3 14 15 6
45 1 I 71 1 I
8[ I I
SUL. POTASH, L. G. 91 *
Plot I 1 1 2 13 41 5 6 22 1 I I
21 1 I I I 'f23|1 I I I 1 *
31 1 1 1 1 1 30o 1 I I
51 I 1 1381 1 1J
t3I1 I
361l I POT.-MAG. CARBONATE.
50o I I Plot I I 2 1314 5 16
141 I
SUL. POTASH, H. G. i151 *1 I I -
15__1 _1 1 1_ 1 I
Plot I 1 2 13 14 15 16 261 I I *1
161 I 33l 1 I I
171 I 1 1391 I
r81 I 1 I 43 1 i* I_
201 I 471 I 1 *
211 I I T 481*1 I I
281 I I I

351 I I 1 I 1 1 1

See illustration on previous page. Photographed November, 1898.








68
TABLE SHOWING RELATIVE LEAF AREA.-PHOSPHORIC
'ACIDS COMPARED.-NOV. 12, 1898.
BONE MEAL. ACID PHOSPHATE CONT'D.
Plot | I 2 13 4 5 6 Plot I 2 3 4I 5 6
31- I I I 81 i I *
41 |* I _23| *
81 _1251 _____-I* I-
SI 2I 2 *
III *I I I 261 1 *
141 29 11 *
I71 1 I I 1*1 301 1*1
211 1*1 1 t3I1 1 1* 1 _
22j 1*I 1 1 I t321 1*1
.241 I 1 __1___ t331 1 _* I
481 I I 40 1*1 I
50 o I1 411 I
421 1 I
BLOOD AND BONE. 431- 1
Plot (I 2 3 14 5 6 44[ 1
341*1 I I I 4 1 451 1
351 46 1_ I
36[ I I 471 I I
371 I I 491 1 *1
1381 1 I si 5 1
1391 "I I I* I I
431 *1
471 1 I 1 I I
ACID PHOSPHATE. I
"Plot I i 2 1 31 4 1 5 6
51 I *____ I I I I
61 I 1*
I21 i 1*1 I I
____See illustration on previous page Photograed November, 1898.

^See illustration on previous page. Photographed November, 1898.







PLATE I.








F Pot 2





-
Pio t 6

Plat 8





P at 9

P t 10


P1 161








it










ipiii


lm '4 I-i -- --











Diagrams to Illustrate Size and Shape of Average Leaf.






PLATE II.





1 27

Plot128
1231



Plt 31
,'l
Pl A 31

II


,--- -I- ---

71t 37

P2 138




ilil Il
Eli....= 13




P1 t 4


----t 4 9
P1 A 49




Diagrams to Illustrate Size and Shape of Average Leaf.









69

The foregoing diagrams illustrate the relative amount of
leaf area. The width of each triangle represents the width of
the leaves, and the length of each triangle the length of the
leaves of the plot corresponding to the number given. The space
between two lines represents one inch in length and each square
a square inch. By looking over the various plots it will be no-
ticed that there is decided variation in the width of the leaves.
Plot 45 had the narrowest leaves, being only one and three-
eighths inches wide, though not the shortest leaves. Plots 17,
20, 32 (see fig. 6) and 41 come next in order with leaves an
average of one and five-eighths inches broad at the base. Plot
36 had the broadest leaves, being two and five-eighths inches
broad at the base. Plots 35 (see plate 6), 39 (see fig. I) and 48
had leaves with an average width of two and three-eighths
inches at the base. There is also a very considerable variation
in the length of the leaves, this, however, not being coincident
with the width of the leaves. Plot 41 had the shortest leaves, but
not the narrowest. Plot 20 had leaves whose average length
was twenty and one-half inches, just a little longer than plot 41.
Plot 28 (see right half of plate 5) had the longest leaves, averag-
ing thirty-three inches. Plot 27 had plants with leaves thirty-
one and one-fourth inches long. In plot 25 (see fig. 7) the
leaves of the plants had an average length of 31 inches. In
plots 14 and 50 (see left half plate 8) the plants had leaves with
an average length of 30 inches. In plot 34 the average length
of the leaves is 32 inches. By looking over the diagram it will
be noticed that the widest leaves are not the longest leaves. In
plot 34 the leaves had an average surface of 40 square inches,
yet the leaves were neither the widest nor the longest leaves,
being 32 inches long and two and one-half inches wide.
On the other hand the shortest leaves are not the narrowest
leaves, as we will notice by comparing leaves in the table. We
will, however, notice in the table that the five best plots-num-
bers 35 (see plate 6), 36, 37, 38 (see plate 8), and 39 (see fig. i),
have a very large comparative leaf surface. However, plot num-
ber 34, which was fertilized with blood and bone only had the
largest leaf surface (Nov. 8, 1898,) in the field. What the yield
in fruit would have been had no freeze occurred can be approxi-









70
mated more or less closely by the number of blooms which did
occur. By referring to the notes we find that only two per cent.
of the plants were in bloom at the time of the freeze. Yet while
this plot had the largest leaf area in the field it produced a small
amount of fruit and was very seriously injured by the freeze..
Plot number 14 came second in size in regard to leaf area,
showed very little fruit, matured less than one per cent., and
stood the freeze remarkably well. Plot 27 was next in order of
leaf area, showed twenty per cent. of plants in bloom at the time
of the freeze and matured less than one per cent. of very small
apples. (It will be remembered that this plot was fer-
tilized with nitrate of soda only.) It suffered excessive injury
from the freeze, which reduced the leaves almost to zero, but
rapidly recuperated during the spring. Plot 28 (see right half
of plate 5), came next in size of leaf area, showed twenty per
cent. of fruit, being very much larger than those matured in 27.
The frost resistance of this plot was strikingly better than that
of 27.

QUANTITY OF FERTILIZERS AND FREEZE RESIST-
ANCE.

It will be remembered from previous statement that all sec-
tions A received the normal amount of the normal fomula of
fertilizer. That all sections B received twice the normal amount
of ammonia and the normal amount of potash and phosphoric
acid. That all sections C received the normal amount of am-
monia; twice the normal amount of potash, and the normal
amount of phosphoric acid. That all sections D were fertilized
with the normal formula, but received 50 per cent. more fertilizer
than sections A. That all sections F received o10 per cent. more
of the normal formula of fertilizer than sections A.
As soon after the freeze as conditions would permit inspec-
tion to be made, notes were taken upon the effect of the freeze
on different sections, as well as upon the different plots of the
field. Plots 3, 5, 8, II, 14, 31 (see fig. 3), 49 (see right half of
plate 8), and 51 showed some variation in the different sections
of the same plots in freeze resistant qualities. Plots 12 (see right
half of plate 3), 15, 17, 18, 21, 22 (see right half plate 4), 23









71
(see left half plate 4), 24 (see fig. 4), 25 (see fig. 7), 26, 29 (see
left half plate 5), 30, 32, 33, 34, 35 (see plate 6), 36; 37; 38 (see
fig. 2 and plate 7); 39 (see fig. I) and 50 (see left half plate 8),
showed no variation of the effect of the freeze in different sec-
tions of the same plot. The remaining plots had been fertilized
with incomplete fertilizer formulae, or were not sub-divided into
sections. Consequently these could not come into the present
consideration.
In plot 3, section D was injured least. Sections A, B and
C were injured more than D. Sections F more than A, B and
C. Section E was injured most.
In plot 5 section F was injured most, E least and the re-
maining four sections about equally, and more than E and less
than F.
In plot 8 section A was injured least, B stood next, C and
F next, and B and E were injured most.
In plot 9 sections C and D were injured least and about
equally. Sections B and E were equally injured, but less so
than A. Section F was injured most in the plot.
In plot iI section F was injured least, E stood next and the
rest were about equally injured and more so than E.
In plot 14 section F was injured least, sections E and C
stood next, and sections A, B and D were about equally injured
and worst.
In plot 31 section A was injured least, B, C and D were
about equally injured and stood next to A. Sections E and F
were about equally and most severely injured.
In plot 49 (see plate 8, right half,) section D was injured
least, the other sections being injured about equally and more
than D.
In plot 51 sections E and F were injured least and about
equally, the remaining four being injured more and about equal-
ly.









72

TABLE SHOWING EFFECT OF FREEZE WHEN AFFECTING
SECTIONS DIFFERENTLY.


0 0 0 0 0 0
i- R B '
S u o ou U
PLOT. 4 r a a
31 2*1 2 2 I 4 3
5121212121213
81 i 2 3 4 4 3
91 3 2 I I 2 4
"II1 3 3 1 3 3 2 I
141 3 3 2 3 2
31 I 2 2 2 1 3 3
491 2 2 211 2 2
511 2 2 21 1 I


DEDUCTION.

Reducing the whole matter to a table, we can make the
following interesting deductions: When there was any differ-
ence in the sections of a plot A, C and D stood the
freeze best on an average. Section Bi stood the freeze
next to A, C and D. Sections E and F were most
frequently injured most severely. Sections B were sevcre--
ly injured on the average. By further generalizing upon
this we may see that the normal formula, or an abundant
supply of potash and phosphoric acid caused the plants to be
somewhat frost resistant. The extra supply of ammonia caused
the plants to be sensitive to frost. An abundant supply of the
normal formula caused the plants to be more sensitive

fThese figures refer to relative standing of the sections in the plot,
1 resisting freeze best, and 6 least. Where the same number occurs
twice no difference was noticed between the sections having the same
figures. The figures of different plots bear no relation to one another.
For example, section A of plot 9 may have been more severely or less
severely frozen than section A of plot 11.










73
to frost. Sections F, though having just as much am-
monia as sections B, were on an average less frost resistant
than sections B. This is probably due to their having an addi-
tional amount of potash and phosphoric acid, though sections
F were not on an average as frost resistant as sections C and
D, nor can we ascribe this peculiarity to the plants in these sec-
tions, being of a more succulent growth, as this does not seem
to be borne out by the notes. At least that was the condition
of the growth it was not apparent. It is also interesting in this
connection to notice that plots fertilized with acid phosphate are
no more nor less frost resistant than those fertilized with bone
meal.

QUALITY OF FERTILIZER AND FREEZE RESIST-
ANCE.
COMPLETE FORMULAE.
Turning our attention now to the plots which showed no
variation of sensitiveness to frost in the various sections we-find
a much more interesting variation in the frost resistants of the
several plots due to a difference in source of the fertilizer.

AMMONIAS.
Comparing the different forms of ammonia we find those
plots that are fertilized with nitrate of soda very sensitive to
frost, those fertilized with sulphate of ammonia stand next in the
scale, those fertilized with cotton seed meal coming third and
those fertilized with blood and bone least sensitive. There being
somewhat of a regular step between the four different forms,
nitrate of soda standing at 5 points, sulphate of ammonia 4.20
points, cotton seed meal 3.55 points, blood and bone standing at
2.75 points. Zero representing plants not injured and six
points representing plants frozen to the ground.

POTASHES.
By adopting the same standard for determining the relative
position which the different forms of potash occupy we find that
kainit stands at 4.77 points. Muriate follows this as a very close
second with 4.14 points. Sulphate of potash, low grade, comes









74

third in the list with 3.71 points. Sulphate of potash, high grade,
stands fourth with 3.15 points. Potassium-magnesium carbonate
coming in as most frost resistant with a very wide gap in its
favor, standing at 2.77 points.
ACID PHOSPHATE AND BONE MEAL.
So far as these experiments go bone meal seems to have no
advantage in producing freeze resistant plants over acid phos-
phate. This is quite remarkable in view of the fact that bone
meal produces so much more leaf surface than acid phosphate.
INCOMPLETE FORMULAE.
Those plots fertilized with incomplete fertilizers in which
potash was wanting stood at 4 points. Those' plots in which
phosphoric acid was wanting stood at 3.9 points. Those fer-
tilized with ammonia alone stood at 4.23 points. The number
of incomplete plots and the arrangement of tflm make these
results less striking than they would probably be if this portion
of the experiment had been carried out with greater detail, but
the matter of the freeze in connection with these experiments
was altogether incidental, and not a part of the plan.
CONCLUSION.
In brief it may be said that plots treated with a
fertilizer whose ammonia) has been derived from' blood
and bone are more frost resistant than plots fertilized
with ammonia derived' from cotton seed meal, sulphate
of ammona, or nitrate of soda. That plots upon which
potassium-magnesium carbonate has been used as a source of
"potash are more frost resistant than where kainit, muriate of
potash, sulphate of potash, low grade, sulphate of potash, high
grade, has been used. That on a whole plots fertilized with
incomplete fertilizers, i. e., one in which one or two of the three
essential elements are wanting, are less frost resistant than the
average of those that have been fertilized with a complete ferti-
lizer. An excess of ammonia over the normal formula appears to
make the plants less frost resistant. An excess of potash or
phosphoric acid does not seem to increase the frost resistant
qualities over the normal formula.








75
TABLE ILLUSTRATING FERTILIZERS AND FREEZE RESIS-
TANCE. AMMONIAS COMPARED.-FEB. 18, 1899.
COTTON SEED MEAL. SULPHATE AMMONIA CON'TD.
Plot 1li2 3 14156 1 213- 41516
II I I l 261 I I
21 1 I I I 42 i*
31 I *11 ___ 461 1 4
41 I 1_*1 48j l*1
51 1 *I t 49l 1 I
6)1 t5 I I I 50
71 1 511 I 1*1
sI I* I *NITRATE SODA.
91 II 1
iol 1 Pot 112 3 14 1516
II II 271 1 1
t121 1 1*1 1 8 -_ i *I
41 I I I 301 1 I
i41 *
'61 I I I*1 1 1321 _j I I
i61 I $32 j _I 1
71I ( 33 I*1
181 *1 411 I I *
4ol 4
401 1 451 1 1 I
S 44) 1 BLOOD AND BONE.
SULPHATE AMMONIA. Plot I I 2 1 3 4 1 5 6
PlotI | 2 13 4 51 6 341 *1
191 1* t351 I I I I
2zol0 I 1* 361 1I I
21i I 1*1 371 1 I 1*
t221 1 I I t3 8 I I* r
t231 I 1*1 I 39 1 I I I
*241 _I I 431 )i 1I
251 1 *1 I I 471 I
"*For explanation see discussion of ammonias, page 73.
tIllustrated by a figure, see previous pages. These photographs were
taken November, 1898.
Illustrated by a plate, see end of bulletin. These photographs were
taken July, 1899.
Bul. 40-6







76
TABLE ILLUSTRATING FERTILIZERS AND FREEZE RESIS-
TANCE. POTASHES COMPARED.-FEB. 18, 1898.
KAINIT. SUL. POTASH, H. G. CONT'D.
Plot I ( 2 3 4 5 6 PlotI 112 3 4 5 6
tol *I I 401 1*
I'll 1*1 421 I*I I
fl1 441 *1
$241 1 1 461 I 1
$251 I I t491 I I _
1321 I I I MURIATE POTASH.
37\ 1*1 *= = = = = =
37 I -Plot 1 2 3 14 5 6
451 1 1 71 I
451 I [8 | *7
81 11* I 1
SULPHATE POTASH, L. G. 9 1 I I
"Plot I 2 3 14 6 t221 I I I
21 I I I tI231 I .1*
31 11* I 3o01 1 I*
51 1 I I t381 I I *I
3I ___ I POT.-MAG. CARBONATE.
361 I I Pl 1
t5o1 I Io I 1 3 1
5o31 I I I
5_ *1 '41 I*I I I
SULPHATE POTASH, H. G. l 5j I *
Plot I 2 314 5 6 261 I I I --
161 1 I $33I 133
71 _* __ 391 I I I
181 I*1 43 *1 _* I I4
i-81 I I I IT T-I
S|__ 4*I I I I----
'j2i|f ___ 48| II -- p -
t291 I I I I I -1
t351 I I I ----
*For explanation see discussion of ammonias, page 73.
TIllustrated by a figure, see previous pages. These photographs were
taken November, 1898.
tIllustrated by a plate, see end of 1 ulletin. These photographs were
taken July, 1898.








77
TABLE ILLUSTRATING FERTILIZERS AND FREEZE RE-
SISTANCE.-BONE MEAL AND ACID PHOS-
PHATE COMPARED.-FEBRUARY 18, 1899.
BONE MEAL. ACID PHOSPHATE.
Plot I 2 13 4 5 6 Plot I 2 13 4 5 6
31 I 51 1 I I
41 I I I 61 *I
81 1 1 I* 91 __
IIIl I I *-I t12 I I -* I
I41 I I51 2 *
171 1 1 1 -18 I 8I I I
I7[1 I I I I
211 t231 I
t221. *I I $25[ I *
241 I *1 261 *1 I1
481 I t291 1 I
t5ol I I 1 301 I I
BLOOD AND BONE. $311 1 1 1 1*
$32|1 I I1 *__
Plot I I 2 3 1 4 5 6 33 1 1
341 1 1 I 401 I I
t351 I I I I 4 I I I 1*1
361 I I 42! I I
371 I* 431 I I
Vt381 I I 441 I I I__
1391 I I 451 I I
431 *I I 1 46 1 i *I
471 I 4711 I I
S I I I t49 I
I_ I 1 I I 1* I


"*For explanation see discussion of ammonias, page 73.
jIllustrated by a figure, see previous pages. These photographs were
taken November, 1898.
tIllustrated by a plate, see end of bulletin. These photographs were
taken July, 1898.









78

LEAF AREA AND FREEZE RESISTANCE.
It is not an unusual belief among pineapple growers, and
also among experimenters with fertilizers, that the production
of leaf area and freeze resistance are coinicident, i. e., many peo-
ple believe that certain pineapple fields escape being frosted be-
cause they contain a greater amount of foliage than neighbor-
ing fields which were more severely hurt. All other conditions
being exactly the same it goes without saying that the field of
pines with an abundant foliage is much more frost resistant than
one with less amount of foliage. Also that the difference of a
few rods in a field often makes a difference between that of plants
being frosted and plants escaping. A very slight protection, as
a tree or shrubbery or a wind break often has the same effect.
Fortunately for our experiments none of these conditions came
in to make any difference in the field, i. e., those plots which
have been compared had an identical exposure without any dif-
ference in the way of frost protection of trees and the plots being
very small, only a few square yards, puts it practically out of the
question that there was any other disturbing agent than that of
the fertilizers applied to the soil. This is further enforced by
the fact that the freeze cut the plants exactly to the row. So
that plants occupying a place only a few inches removed from
the others showed a marked difference in their frost resistance.
This was so noticeable that it could be seen from the car win-
dow while riding on a passing train. Photographs were taken
with the hope that some difference could be detected in these,
but unfortunately the proper kind of plates were not obtainable
at the time. Later when the frozen leaves were broken down
and showed a clear contrast between the frozen and the portions
that were not frozen the time could not be spared to get these
photographs.
By turning to the table on pages 65-7 which compares the
leaf areas of different plots we find that plots 34, 27 and 28 are
among those that have the greatest leaf area. Plot number 34
seems to stand first, and at the same time was probably hurt
worse than any other plot in the field, unless possibly 27 was
injured more. Yet plot 34 occupied a place in the immediate
vicinity of plots only slightly injured, and nearly contiguous to










79
plot 39 (see fig. I), the plot injured least in the whole field by
the freeze. Plots 27 and 28 were contiguous, and yet plot 27
was frozen almost to the ground, while plot 28 escaped, with
about 30 or 40 per cent. of the area of the leaves. We might
compare plot 28 with plot 29, the former having an abundant
leaf surface, the latter not more than about one-fourth of the
area, yet 29 came through with a much less comparative loss
of leaf surface than 28.
In view of last winter's experience we can hardly do other-
wise than come to the conclusion that pineapple plants may be
so fertilized as to cause them to be much more frost resistant
than they are at present. When we remember that during the
freeze of last winter plugs of ice formed in the bud of the plants
we are really astonished that pineapples escaped total destruc-
tion.
In the following three tables a star in column I denotes that
the plants escaped with a loss of less than 20 per cent, of its
foliage. In column 2 denotes that 20-35 per cent. was lost. In
column 3, 35-50 per cent. In column 4, 50-65 per cent. In col-
umn 5, 65-80 per cent. And in column 6, over 80 per cent.
Compare table on pages 65 to 67, illustrating fertilizer and
freeze resistance and plates I and 2, showing diagrams of leaf
area.









8o

FERTILIZERS AS CONTROLLING EARLINESS.
On the foregoing pages we have been considering the effect
of fertilizer in producing frost resistance in plants. It is like-
wise interesting to notice that some fertilzers under similar con-
ditions seem to force plants into bloom earlier than others. Ni-
trate of soda seems to start the plants early and cause a large
number of blooms to appear. In plot 28, 90 per cent. of the
plants showed bloom at the time of the freeze, February 13, 1899,
while less than Io per cent. of the plants matured fruit. This io
per cent. includes some of the fruit that was not frozen at that
time. Taking into further consideration plots 35 (see plate 6),
36, 37, 38 (see plate 7), and 39 or the five plots belonging in
first class, we find that these had many flower bud showing at
the time of the freeze. Plot 35 showing 92 per cent. of the plants
in bloom, while 15 per cent. of the plants matured fruit. Plot
36 showed 70 per cent. in bloom, while 10 per center matured fruit.
Plot 37 showed 60 per cent. of the plants in bloom and 3 per cent.
matured fruit. In plot 38, 90 per cent. of the plants showed
bloom and 17 per cent. matured fruit. In plot 39, 50 per cent.
of the plants showed bloom and 30 per cent. matured fruit. Plot
34, in which no potash was used, there was only 2 per cent. of
blooms showing and the plot matured only io per cent. of the
fruit. From the experiments at hand it would seem that among
the potashes high grade sulphate of potash, induced the plants
to bloom early. Next would come muriate of potash, then low
grade sulphate of potash, kainit, and next potassium-magnesium
carbonate would retard them most. Nitrate of soda and high
grade sulphate of potash induced an early bloom, and one that
was very sensitive to the frost; consequently few plants in plot
28 matured fruit. The following table shows the approximate
size of the fruit and the amount produced by each of the five
first class plots, giving them by sections.
By studying the table page 81 one is surprised to find how
uniformly sections A, B and C are superior to D and E. It
seems to indicate that the limit of profitable fertilization has
been reached in section A. But we must not generalize on this
table since we do not know what would have been the results
had no freeze occurred. We have no reason for supposing that









81

the sections would have occupied the same relative positions had
no freeze occurred. It is certain, however, that those buds that
would have made the largest apples and the best-paying ship-
ments were the ones that were frozen.
When the pineapples were packed it was found that there
were 4 crates of 36s, 6 crates of 42s, 4 crates of 48s, and 2 crates
of 54s, indicating that the estimate of the size of the pines which
was made in the field was below the right figure.


TABLE OF FRUIT PICKED JUNE 29, 1899.

PLOT 35. PLOT 38.

0 0
SSIZE OF FRUIT. 9 U SIZE OF FRUIT.
"r ________ d "6 _________
30os36s|42s|48s|54s Z 30os36s|42s|48sl54s !
A- 5 8221 6 41 A 21 9 30
B 6 4 2 23 B 4 4 3 4 15
C 3 11 3 4 21 C 9 20 4 33
D 2 2 D 6 5 11
E 2 12 E 2 4 7 13
1 [ 141 301 291 121 89 41 421 411 151102
PLOT 36. PLOT 39.
A I 41 15 A 27 8 1237
B 2 9 4 6 B 132513 51
C 64 2 12 C 23 7 838
D 3 7 10 D 10 II 21
E 2 6 8 E 0 i 6 27
I 141 I9 27] 1 61 I I 831 621 391174
PLOT 37.
A I8 7 16
B 2 2
C 33 6
D I 1 2
E 66
_ I i 9 111i 11 32









82

TABLE CLASSIFYING PLOTS AND GIVING FERTILIZERS--
FIRST CLASS PLOTS.

SOURCES OF SOURCE OF POTASH.


Ammonia Phos. Kainit Sul.Pot. Sul. Pot Muriate Pot-Mg No.
Acid. lowgr. high gr. Potash. Carb. Potash.
Blood and Plot 37. Plot 36 Plt 35 Plt 38 t Plot 39
...Bone. poorest. eql to 35 betr. 37 sec bst. best
SECOND CLASS PLOTS.
Nitrate
Soda. No. Plot 28
Acid Plot 41
Do. Phos. Lime.
Blood and
Bone. Plot 34.
Blood and Acid Plot 43 $
Bone. Phos. Lime.:
Plot 'i'lt
Do Do. Muck.
Saulphate Bone Plot 48
Ammonia. Meal. MK & L-
Acid Plot 42 \
Do. Phos. Lime.
Cotton P ct 10 1
Seed Meal. Do. Lime.





SThe ,osti, n these plots occupy cannot be credited to the presence
of muck or lime. The amount of work done is not sufficient to make
any generalization upon, but the indications are that both the lime and
muck were slightly detrimental.
-Illustrated by a figure, see previous pages. These photographs were
taken November, 1898.
Illustrated by plate, see end of Bulletin. These photographs were
taken July, 1899.










83

THIRD CLASS PLOTS.

SOURCES OF BOURCEB OF POTASH.

Phos.
Ammonia. Acid. Kainit. -ul Pot. !ul Pot. Muriate Pot. Mg. No
low grd. high gr. Potash. I arb. Potash.
"Cotton Bone Plot 12 $
S. M. Meal. __ _

Do Do. Plot 14
Sulphate
Ammonia. Do Plot 22 _

Do. Do. Plot 50


FOURTH CLASS PLOTS.


Cotton No. Plot 1
S M. ____
Bone
Do. Meal. Plot 8.

Do. Do Plot 11
Sulphate
Ammonia. No. Plot 20
Nitrate
Soda. No. ____ Plot 27.



Received one application of bone meal November 4-12 by inad-
vertent laborer.
fIllustrated by a figure, see previous pages. These photographs were
taken November, 1898.
Illustrated by a plate, see end of bulletin. These photographs were
taken July, 1899.











84

FIFTH CLASS PLOTS.


SOURCES OF SOURCES OF POTASH


Ammonia. Phos. Kainit. Sul. Pot Sul- Pot. Muriate Pot. Mg. No Potash
Acid low grd. high gr. Potash. Carb.
Cotton
Seed Meal. No. Plot 2.
Bone
Do. Meal. Plot 3.

Do. Do. ______ Plot 4.

Do. No. Plot 7

Do. No. Plot 10.

Do. No. Plot 16.
Acid Plot 44.
Do. Phos MuckS
Sulphate
Ammonia. No. Plot 19.
.Bone
Do. Meal. Plot 21.

Do. Do. Plot 24 __
Acid
Do. Phos Plot 26.

Do- Do. _Plot 49 __

Do. Do. Plot 51.__
Nitrate
Soda Do. Plot 31 f

Do. Do. Plot 33 f



jSee first foot note, page 82.

tIllustrated by a figure, see previous pages. These photographs were
taken November, 1898.
Illustrated by a plate, see end of bulletin. These photographs were
taken July, 1899.











85

SIXTH CLASS PLOTS.


SOURCES OF SOURCES OF POTASH.

Suphate Suphate
Ammonia. Phos. Kainit Potash. Potash Muriate Pot-Mg. No
Acid. low grd. high gr. Potash. Carb. Potash.
Cotton Acid
S.M. Phos. Plot 5.

Do. Do.____ _______ Plot 6

Do. Do Plot 9

Do. Do Plot 12

Do. Do Plot 15

Do. Do. Plot 18
Bone
Do. Meal. _Plot 17
Sulphate Acid IPlot
Ammonia Phos. ____ 23

Do. Do. Plot 251
Plot 46
Do. Do. Muck t _
Nitrate
Soda. Do. Plot 29 _

Do. Do. Plot 30

Do Do. Plot 32 t
Plot 45
Do. 0o. Muck :


jSee first foot note, page 82.
tIllustrated by a figure, see previous pages. These photographs were
taken November, 1898.
.Illustrated by a plate, see end of bulletin. These photographs were
taken July, 1899.









86

SOME REMARKS ON THE NOTES TAKEN JUNE 28
AND 29, 1899.

Plot 3.-Taking this plot as a whole it would be put in the
fifth class. See table. There is some variation in the sections
which is interesting to note. Section E stood first, distinctly so.
Section B second, section A third, section D fourth, section C
fifth and section F sixth. This indicates pretty clearly that the
normal formula when these substances are applied is about cor-
rect. Also that the amount applied to section E or 150 per cent.
of the normal application is the amount which the plants can
appropriate to the best advantage. Two hundred per cent. of
the normal amount proved too much for the plants, and in the
place of doing them an additional benefit it proved detrimental.
Plot 6.-The only points of interest here is that the sub-
stitute for acid phosphate in bone meal in plot 3 reduced the
plot to the sixth class.
Plot 8.-In this plot section A stood first, B second, C third,
D fourth, E sixth and F fifth. The plot was fairly uniform so
that no very strict deductions can be made from it. It is prob-
able, however, that in section A the normal amount was all that
the plants could use. It is possible, of course, that this was even
more than enough. It is interesting to note that section C which
had a double supply of muriate of potash, showed no marked
bad effect.
Plot 9 belonged to the sixth class. Probably every section
in this plot was so bad that none could be really worse.
Plot. i.-This plot belonged to the fourth class, only sec-
tion B going at a little higher rate or about third class. Sec-
tion B stood first, section E second, section A third, section C
fourth, section D fifth and section F sixth. The choice between
D and E was not decided. This plot is interesting from the' fact
that the normal formula did not seem to be the best. That is-
the pineapples could make use of more ammonia than occurred
in the normal formula. Hence section B came out best, and
when the additional amount of potash, this being in the form
of kainit, was added, it reduced the section immediately to a
lower grade. The additional amount of phosphoric acid still









87

further lowered the grade, so as to reduce this section F to the
poorest in the plot.
Plot 12 (see right half of plate 3), in which occurred kainit
and acid phosphate; there was no choice, all being equally
poor.
Plot 12 (see left half of plate 3); was treated to an incom-
plete fertilizer, one wanting in phosphoric acid. By referring
to plate 3 we see that there is quite an advantage in a change
of potash and a rejection of the acid phosphate with which plot II
was fertilized.
Plot 14.-In this plot the sections were not so variable as in
some of those we have just studied. Sections A, C and D were
about equally good and best. Section B was just slightly poorer.
Section E stood about third and section F fourth, or poorest.
From this we may learn that the normal amount of the normal
formula was better in this particular case than in an increase of
of the quantity of any of the fertilizers. While sections C and D
were equal to A no advantage could be seen, excepting that C
and D bore some fruit, while the other sections did not. The
fact that section E was poor and section F poorest shows that
we have at least reached teh limit of the amount of fertilizer that
the plants could use in sections A, C and D.
Plot 15.-All sections equally poor and sixth class.
Plot 17.-All sections equally poor and sixth class.
Plot i9, fertilized with sulphate of ammona, only, fifth class.
Plot 20, fertilized with sulphate of ammonia and sulphate of
potash, high grade, fourth class, showing that potash in addition
to the ammonia was an advantage.
Plot 21, as a whole, belonged to the fifth class. Section A
stands slightly best in the plot, indicating that the amount of this
formula of fertilizer that the plants can use was either the amount
applied to section A or something less.
Plot 22 (see right half of plate 4).-This plot, as a whole, is
rated as third class. Section B stood first, F second, A third, D
fourth, E fifth and C sixth. Section B was decidedly the best
section in the plot, indicating that from this source the amount
of ammonia used in section A was not as much as the plants
could use. Section C fell to sixth class, probably because muri-









88

ate of potash in this combination is a bad fertilizer. The fact
that section E stood fifth and section F second is hard to ac-
count for. In section D ammonia was derived from bone meal
(see formula, page 46), but not as much was used as in section
B.
Plot 23 (see left half of plate 4 and fig. 8) was sixth class
and uniformly, bad.
Plot 24 (see fig. 4.)-Section E stood first, D second, F third,
A fourth, C fifth, B sixth. Under these particular conditions
the plot indicates that the plants couldmake use of more fertilizer
from this source than would be given by the normal amount of
the normal formula. That section D stood second shows that
in this connection the ammonia from bone meal could be utilized
to better advantage than sulphate of ammonia. Otherwise sec-
tion B would have stood higher.
Plot 25 (see figure 7) was sixth rate, and uniformly bad.
Plot 26 was fifth rate with no section showing any advantage
over another.
Plot 29 (see left half of plate 5) was a sixth rate plot. Section
E stood first, section F standing second and A, B, C and D all
about equally poor. The fact that section D was not perceptibly
worse than section A rather discourages the idea that acid phos-
phate is detrimental because it contains some free sulphuric acid.
And the fact that E and F are both better than sections B, C or
D indicates further that the condition of the plants was not
brought about by an excessive quantity of fertilizer. We can
.scarcely come to any other conclusion than that the combina-
-scarcely escape from the belief other than that of the combina-
tion of nitrate of soda and sulphate of potash either high grade
or low grade and acid phosphate is a bad combination for pine-
apple fertilizer.
Plot 30.-In plot 30 sections C, D, E and F were all equally
bad, and poorer than A, B being the best section in the plot.
Plot 31 (see figure 3.)-Section A stood first, B second, C
third, D, E and F equal, but worse than C. In this plot we
have nitrate of soda, sulphate of potash, low grade, and acid
phosphate. While the combination is a bad fertilizer it is not
quite so bad as when high grade sulphate of potash is used.








89

The fact that section A is best indicates that the remaining sec-
tions have received so much fertilizer as to prove injurious to
them.
Plot 32 (see figure 6.)-Section D stood first, A second, C
third, B, E and F were about equal and stood fourth. Here
again we have evidence that the detrimental quantities of acid
phosphate are not due to some caustic property within it. Oth-
erwise section D would have been poorer than section A. We
must simply put it down as a fact that this combination of in-
gredients makes a bad fertilizer.
Plot 33 (see figure 5) is not of any particular interest, the
sections coming out almost like those of 32. The plot, as a
whole, being one grade better.
Plot 34 is interesting from the fact that it was fertilized with
blood and bone. Until November, 1898, this plot seemed to do
as well as other plots fertilized with blood and bone to which
had been added potash. This is quite interesting from the fact
that up to this time there seemed to be a sufficient amount of
potash in the soil, or otherwise available to carry the plant along
without any perceptible disadvantage, but it showed a decided
disadvantage in passing the cold weather, for by the time the
freeze occurred there was a perceptible falling off in the size of
the leaves. The freeze wrought great injury from which the
plot has not been able to recover. It seems quite evident that
it is merely a question of time until this plot must be abandoned.
In the matter of taste the pineapples from this plot were
flat and insipid, being neither sweet nor having any edge to
them. This plot was decided in three sections-A, B and C. A
received the normal amount of ammonia, B 150 per cent. the
normal amount of ammonia, C 200 per cent., the most
normal amount, while plot C matured the greatest num-
ber of apples, otherwise there was no perceptible advantage.
At the time of the freeze only 2 per cent. of the plants
were in bloom, and only 13 per cent. of the plants matured fruit.
Supposing that all of the blooms which showed at the time of
the" freeze were killed we would find that blood and bone used
alone as a fertilizer would give us only 15 per cent. of fruiting
plants for the first crop.









90

Plot 35 (see plate 6.)-Of this we can say very little except
that all sections appeared to be about equally good. By referring
to the table on page 81 it will be seen that the greatest amount
of fruit occurred in section A. The next in sections B, C and
E being decidedly low in the amount of fruit. By referring to
the table it will be seen that there was about 90 per cent. of the
plants showing fruit at the time of the freeze. Many of these
fruits must have escaped the freeze from the fact that over Io
per cent. of the plants matured fruit. The fact that sections D
and E matured so little fruit is at least partially accounted for
from the fact that these were slightly more advanced than in the
other sections. The main reason, however, is that the limit of
fertilization had been reached in section A, since an additional
amount of blood and bone or of sulphate of potash, high grade,
gave a slight diminution in the leaf area and of fruit.
Plot 36.-This plot was remarkably even, all the sections
being equally good. If any difference existed it might possibly
be in section E, being slightly poorer than the others. From
this plot we learn that the amount of blood and bone and sulphate
of potash, low grade, used on section A was better than in a
larger amount of either blood and bone and potash, or both
together. By referring to the table on page 81 we will see that
the amount of fruit produced in the various sections was quite
even excepting in E which fell slightly below the rest.
Plot 37.-This plot was also very even excepting that sec-
tion E fell below the rest. The plot, as a whole, however, was
not so good as plot 36. By referring to the table on page 81
we will see that the amount of fertilizer used in section A was
better than any succeeding ones. By referring to the table on
page 82 we will see that this plot is listed as the poorest of the
first class. The amount of buds showing at the time of the
freeze was about 60 per cent., the amount of fruit maturing about
Io per cent. Nearly all of the leaves were frozen down to about
one-fourth of their length.
Plot 38 (see plate 7 and figure 2.)-This plot seemed to be
very uniform throughout, there being very little difference, un-
less section E was slightly below the rest. In the matter of fruit
buds there were about o9 per cent. showing at the time of the









91

freeze, while about 16 per cent. of the plants matured fruit show-
ing that some of the fruit buds which were showing at the time
of the freeze possibly passed without being destroyed. At least
25 per cent. of the plants escaped with one or more of their ex-
posed leaves not frozen.
Plot 39 (see figure I.)-In most respects this plot is the best
in the field. The sections were unusually even. Scarcely any
perceptible difference exists. From this we may infer that the
amount of fertilizer used on section A was sufficient, and that
while using more fertilizer did not prove disadvantageous to the
crop it was just that much material added more than necessary.
By referring to the table on page we notice that only about
50 per cent. of the plants were in bloom at the time of the freeze.
A number of these escaped. About 30 per cent. matured fruit,
making a showing of about 80 per cent. of the plants to produce
fruit for the first crop-not so good a showing as in plots 35, 36
and 38. In the matter of taste the fruit was fully equal to 35 and
36, also in general appearance and shipping qualities. This was
the most frost resistant plot in the whole field, showing its ad-
vantage to the row, while the leaf area was not quite up to 35 and
36. While in most respects this plot was the best in the field, it
was exceeded'by plots 35, 36 and 38 in the number of plants that
would have produced fruit the first year in the normal condi-
tions. Another disadvantage is that the plants are somewhat
yellowish, exhibiting none of the deep blue green manifested by
plants in plots 35, 36 and 38. Plots 40, 41, 42, 43 and 48 were
treated with air slaked lime at the time of the first application,
February 7 and 8, 1898. As these plots showed no advantage
from the application of lime they are of no special importance.
Plots 44, 45, 46, 47 and 48 were treated with air dried muck,
but we find no special advantage from its application.
Plot 49( see right half plate 8.)-Section D stood first, C
second, A third, B fourth, E fifth and F sixth. Section D com-
ing first in this plot shows that the plants could make use of
more acid phosphate than is given to them in section A. Also
that section C gave better results than A and showed that more
sulphate of potash, high grade, than was given to section A
could be used by the plants. The fact that section B took
Bul. 40-7








92

fourth place indicates that the amount of sulphate of ammonia
in combination with the other elements applied to this section
was detrimental. This conclusion is further borne out by the
results of sections E and F. The fact that section F is worse
than either D, C or E forces us decidedly to the conclusion that
this combination of fertilizers is not a good one, and that the
limits of fertilization of this combination is somewhere below the
amount applied to section A.
Plot 50 (see left half plate 8).-Section B stood first, C sec-
ond, A third, D fourth, E fifth and F sixth. The fact that sec-
tions B stands first and that as a whole this section must be
rated at about a second rate we must conclude that sulphate of
ammonia in itself is not a bad form of ammonia for pineapples,
but that there are combinations in which we cannot use it to
advantage. Since section F stands lowest and E stands next the
amount of this fomula used in section A is sufficient or more
than sufficient. But since sections B and C are better than A we
are inclined to believe that the normal formula for this combi-
nation is not the best one.
Plot 5z.-Section i stands first, section E second, section B
third, F fourth, and C and D about equally poor. The fact that
section A is best indicates that the normal amount of the normal
formula is the best that has been used in this plot. Since sections
C and D are both poorer than E and F we must regard that sul-
phate of potash, low grade, and acid phosphate are the fertilizers
in this combination that make it undesirable.








93
TABLE ILLUSTRATING NOTES TAKEN JUNE 28 AND 28, 1899.

Z z z 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z z z
PLOT. o 2 PLOT. 2 2 2 2 2
T H H H H E. HH H
U U U U U u u u u u u
Un l E C n W ) tV) n U2l U
3 33 2 5 4 I 6 t291 3 3 3 I 3 12
81 1 2 3 4 6 5 30) 2 13 3 13 3
91 6 6 6 6 6 6 31 I 2 3 4 4 4
11 3 1 4 5 2 6 3321 2 4 3 I 41 4
t121 6 6 6 6 6 6 t6331 2 2 2 1 3 4
14l I 2 I I 3 4 341 2 1 2 2
151 6 6 6 6 6 6 t351 I I I I I
17 6 6 6 6 6 6 361 1 I I I I
-211 5 5 5 5 5 5 371 I 11 I I
"f221 3 I 6 4 5 2 t1381 I I I I I
tf23 6 6 6 6 6 6 391 1 I I I I
$241 4 6 5 2 I5 3 t491 3 4 2 1 5 6
1251 6 6 6 6 16 6' t5o1 3 I 2 4 5 6
"261 5 5 55 5 1 5 511

ANALYSES OF PINEAPPLE.*
The following table shows the food constituents contained
in pineapple. In this connection our main interest centres in Lhe
last named material, ash or mineral matters:
Water ................... 89.3 per cent
Protein ........... 0.4 per cent
Fat .............. 0.3 per cent
Carbohydrates ..... 9.7 per cent
Total... ......... ........ 10.4
Mineral matter (ash)............ .3 per-cent

100.00
*Atwater and Wood's 4th Annual Report, Storr AgrI. Exp. Sta. 1891,
page 87.
"Bowery, J. J., F. C. S., F. I. C.. Island Chemist, Bul. Bot.
tIllustrated by a figure, see previous page. These photographs were
taken November, a898.
TIllustrated by a plate, see end of bulletin. These photographs were
taken July, 1899.









94

As above stated we will now look into the ash** constituent
Dept., Jamaica, Vol. III, part o1. (Oct. 1896), page 236.
ASH OF PINEAPPLE.
Potash KO. ...... ...... ..... ....... 49.42
Chloride of potassium KC1 .............. .88
Chloride of sodium NaC. .............. 17.01
Magnesia MgO... ........ ... ........ 8.80
Lime CaO... ...... ... .............. 12.15
Phosphoric acid P206... ... ... .......... 4.08
Sulphuric acid HSO. ................ Trace
Silica SiO ... ... .. ....... .. ........... 4.02
Phosphate of peroxide of iron............. 2.93

99.29
FRUIT, SOIL AND FERTILIZER.
Turning our attention to the chemical analysis of the pine-
apple we notice that nearly one-half of the ash constituent of it
is potash (K2O). Turning now to chemical analysis of the soil
and remembering Hilgard's average, we see at once that our
soil is exceedingly deficient in potash, the most abundant ash
constituent in the pineapple.
Comparing the amount of soda contained in the pineapple
with the amount present in the soil we are led to believe that
this mineral constituent may be there in sufficient abundance.
This belief is still further enforced by the fact that those fer-
tilizers, excepting nitrate of soda, which contain a considerable
quantity of soda were detrimental to the growth of the pineapple.
Comparing the amount of magnesia in the soil with the amount
required by the pineapple plant we are inclined to believe that
this mineral constituent in the soil is somewhat low, and again
the results of the experiments seem to support this conclusion
from the fact that in a general way the double salts of potassium-
magnesia carbonate and low grade sulphate of potash, gave
slightly better plots than high grade sulphate of potash, which
contained no magnesia. The carbonate of potash also contains
carbonate of magnesia, but since the form of potash is slightly
different from that in the case of the low grade sulphate of pot-
ash, the comparison is not so direct or striking. Lime is also one
of the important constituents of the pineapple. We find some
soils, however, that are entirely wanting in this important min-









95

eral, while others are abundantly supplied. By referring to our
table on page 30 of the fertilizers used it will be noticed that
low grade sulphate of potash, yields a considerable quantity of
this mineral. There is also a considerable quantity of lime in
potassium-magnesia carbonate, but the exact amount is not at
hand. The other fertilizers, excepting acid phosphate, are quite
deficient in this respect. In regard to the amount of phosphoric
acid present in the pineapple we will notice that there is less
than one-tenth as much by weight as potash. Referring to the ta-
ble of the soil analysis we notice that the soils contain consider-
able quantity more of phosphoric acid than of potash, and since
the pineapple requires less phosphoric acid we can see that it is
not surprising that those plots in which phosphoric acid was
wanting gave better results than those in which potash was
wanting. The results of our experiments show that the normal
formula contained more than enough phosphoric acid. By com-
paring the amount of iron (Ferric oxide) present in the soil we
see that this mineral is comparatively abundant in Brevard coun-
ty soils.
Looking at the matter from a chemical standpoint of view
we are inclined to believe that low grade sulphate of potash or
potassium-magnesium carbonate give us the best form of pot-
ash to apply to the particular class of soils, and since the ex-
periments lead to the same conclusion the opinion seems to be
pretty well founded.

A PLAN FOR FERTILIZING.

Having the foregoing experiments in mind, and consider-
ing the general conditions of the leading pineapple section, the
following general plan for fertilizing pineapples on high spruce
pine land may be recommended. If plants are set out during
July or August, immediately after setting out drop into the
bud a small handful of fertilizer. This should be composed of
three parts of cotton seed meal and one part fine ground to-
bacco dust that has not been leached. This will keep the
plants from being sanded (see appendix) and will give them
some fertilizer to start them as soon as the soil is sufficiently
moist. It will take about 300 pounds of cotton seed meal and





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs