ROOT CROP EXPERIMENTS.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8486, 13 July 1907, Page 3

ROOT CROP EXPERIMENTS.

REPORTS BY MASTERTON FARMERS. Appended are the details in connection with the experimental schemes in manuring of plots of turnips carried out by the Department of Agriculture under the auspices of the Masterton A. and P. Association. The conditions were that seven plots of equal size were to be sown with turnips or mangels of one variety; the ground to be away, from the influence of trees and hedges and to be uniform in texture and composition; the plots to be laid off side by side, and preferably long and narrow. The exact size of the plots was not specified, it being left to the experimentalists' convenience. The manure for each individual plot contained enough fertiliser for the acre. The class, quantity, and price per ton of manure fcsed in each plot was as follows: Plot No. 1, l|cwt superphosphate per acre; £5 5s per ton net. Plot No. 2, 3cwt superphosphate per acre; £5 5s per ton net. Plot No. 3, ljjcwt basic slag per acre, l§cwt superphosphate per acre; £4 17s 6d per ton net. Plot No. 4, no manure. Plot No. 5, £cwt bonedust per acre ; 2cwt superphosphate per acre; £5 12s 6d per ton net. Plot No. 6, £cwt bonedust per acre, 2cwt superphosphate per acre, Jcwt potash-sulphate per acre; £7 per ton net. Plot No. 7, l|cwt of No. 6 mixture per acre; £7 per ton net. There were only four entries for the competition, viz., Messrs W. Perry, Gray Bros., McGregor Bros., •and Bland Rayner. All the plots were confined to a sixteen yards area on account of the bad weather and the difficulty that' ( would have been experienced by the judges had the plots oeen larger. Had a larger area been insisted upon by the Department, it is highly probable that there would have been no judging of plots at all. The reports received from the various competitors on their crops were as follow: — . Mr Bland Rayner reports that his plots were sown on December 13th, v brought under cultivation about thirty years ago. The turnips sown were Purple Top Aberdeen, and Gartons Green Top, eleven ounces of seed being sown to the acre. Sixteen square yards of average turnips were weighed, and the number of turnips on the same counted, with the following results: —

Messrs Gray Bros, report that their plots were sown on December 10th, 1906, in virgin soil of a free alluvial nature. The turnips sown were Purple Top Aberdeen and Garten's Green Top, sixteen ounces of seed being sown per acre. Sixteen square yards of average turnips were weighed and the number of turnips on the same counted, with the following results:—

The report of Mr W. Perry states that his plots were sown on December 12th, 1906, on land ploughed out of the turf. Owing to dry weather the turnips did not come up until about January 18th, 1907. This, no doubt, was the reason of the crop being thin, though there is a very marked difference in the plots. The seed sown was Elephant Swede, 10 ounces to the acre, and tested to grow 90 per cent. The limed portion did not show any appreciable difference when tested by weighing. The results wtre as follow: —

The report of Messrs McGregor Bros. states that the field was ploughed in July, 1906, and sown on - November 2C':h with lOoz of Elephant Swedes seed to the acre. The following day was showery and warm, making perfect conditions for germination, which, with the fine condition of the soil, accounts for the number of turnips on the unmanured plot. Plot No." 2 looked very bare for some weeks and evidently 3cwt per acre is too much superphosphate to apply with an ordinary drill in actual contact with the seed. For some time Plot No. 3 looked by far the best. As the weather continued unusually dry, the blight became very bad over all the plots, and No. 3 was the worst of the lot, probably on account of the turnips being much thicker than the other lots. Plot No. 4 was not so badly affected with the blight, being backward in growth, thin, and the leaves very small. When the rain came on March lith the tops were so far gone that new leaves were grown on all but Plot No. 4 and therefore the unmanured plot probably comes out much better than it

would have done under normal weather conditions. Plot No. 5 looked even better than the figures indicate, being good throughout, with nice sized tux-nips and it seemed inexplicable that there should be such a difference between this lot and No. 6. The difference is very marked, and one could see the boundary of the two plots at a glance when walking across. The results were as follow :

Weigat per No. of Weight in f'.cre. Plot, turnip-. plot. tou.cwt. qr ib 1 152 178 bs 24 0 3 1 2 85 160ibs 21 VI 0 TO 3 lGi 2lllbs 28 9 B 15 4 70 4 jibs 6 12 4 5 9!i ISOibs 25 10 1 24 6 110 180.b3 24 6 0 W 7 13H 166;bs 22 8 1 11

Weight- pe; No. of Wt igbt in acre Plot. turnips. plot ton.cwt qr.lb 1 183 203lbs 27 8 1 3 2 83 lT2ibi 23 4 2 6 3 206 2111b3 28 9 3 15 4 Not taken into cousklsi ration. 5 1C1 ITSibs 21 G 3 I 6 148 21Glbs 29 3 1 36 7 172 1731bs 23 7 1 0

Weight p:r Fo. of We : gfct in acro Hot, turnip?. plot. too.cwt.qr.lb 2 34 G71bo 9 0 3 23 2 60 861ba 11 12 1 3 3 81 135lbs 18 4 2 13 3a 72 97ibs 13 2 0 2 4 25 811)3 1 1 2 12 5 54 1071b3 14 9 0 0 5a 54 96Ib3 12 19 1 4 G 57 1271bo 17 3 0 1 7 81 911bs 12 5 3 3 8 74 1451b3 .19 11 2 14 9 67 891bs 12 0 1 14

weight per No. of Weight in acre Plot. turnips. plot. ton. cwt.qr.lb 1 147 1521bs 20 10 2 4 2 90 1091bs 14 14 1 4 3 185 130ibs 17 11 0 13 4 160 1161bs 15 13 1 6 5 133 1631bs 22 0 0 27 6 150 1281bs 17 5 2 24 7 150 1301bs 17 11 0 13