The Project Gutenberg EBook of Science and Practice in Farm Cultivation, by James Buckman This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org Title: Science and Practice in Farm Cultivation Author: James Buckman Release Date: July 10, 2012 [EBook #40190] Language: English Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SCIENCE AND PRACTICE IN FARM *** Produced by Steven Giacomelli, Harry Lamé and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive) Please see Transcriber’s Notes at the end of this document. Cover SCIENCE AND PRACTICE IN FARM CULTIVATION. BY JAMES BUCKMAN, F.L.S., F.G.S. LATE PROFESSOR OF GEOLOGY AND RURAL ECONOMY AT THE ROYAL AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE. LONDON: ROBERT HARDWICKE, 192, PICCADILLY. 1865. COX AND WYMAN, ORIENTAL, CLASSICAL, AND GENERAL PRINTERS, GREAT QUEEN STREET, LONDON, W.C. TO JOHN CHALMERS MORTON, ESQ., The talented Editor of the “Agricultural Gazette,” MANY OF THE FACTS AND OPINIONS ALREADY DETAILED IN WHICH INFLUENTIAL JOURNAL ARE HERE BUT REPEATED, THIS WORK I S D E D I C A T E D AS A SMALL TOKEN OF ADMIRATION AND RESPECT, BY HIS FAITHFUL FRIEND, THE AUTHOR. CONTENTS. —— PART I. HOW TO GROW GOOD ROOTS. CHAPTER PAGE I. On the Origin of Root Crops 1 II. On the Origin of Sorts of Roots 9 III. On Trueness of Sorts in Roots 13 IV. On Degenerate Roots 18 V. Effects of Growing Seed from Degenerate Roots 23 [v] VI. On the Adulteration of Seed, more particularly of Turnips 29 VII. On the Art and Mystery of Turnip-seed Adulteration 37 VIII. General Conclusions 49 —— PART II. HOW TO GROW GOOD GRASSES. IX. On the Nature of Meadows and Pastures 51 X. On the Species of Meadow Grasses 56 XI. On Meadow Plants other than Grasses 73 XII. On the Weeds of Pastures 78 XIII. On the Irrigated Meadow 87 XIV. On the Laying Down of Permanent Pastures 92 XV. On the Management of Permanent Pastures 98 XVI. On the Management of Lawns 102 —— PART III. HOW TO GROW GOOD CLOVERS. XVII. On the Nature and Properties of the Clover Family of Plants 109 XVIII. On the Farm Species of Clovers 113 XIX. On the Varieties of Red Clovers 121 XX. On the Clover Allies 125 XXI. On Clover Sickness 137 XXII. On the Weeds of Clovers 148 XXIII. On the Parasites of Clovers 156 —— PART IV. HOW TO GROW GOOD CORN. XXIV. Nature of Corn 161 XXV. Wheat: its Origin and Acclimatization 163 XXVI. The Wild Oat as the Origin of the Cultivated Varieties 168 XXVII. On the supposed Origin of Barley and Rye 176 XXVIII. Epiphytical Parasites (Vegetable Blights) of Corn Crops 180 XXIX. Insects (Animal Blights) affecting Corn Crops 192 XXX. Science in the Cultivation of Corn 204 XXXI. On Harvesting Corn 213 —— PART V. HOW TO GROW GOOD FENCES. XXXII. On the Nature of Fences 217 XXXIII. On the Plants for “Live” Fences 220 XXXIV. On the Hearing and Planting of Hedges 227 XXXV. Weeds of Hedge-row Fences 234 XXXVI. On Hedge-row Timber 239 XXXVII. On the Vermin of Fences 246 XXXVIII. On the Management of Hedge-row Fences 254 XXXIX. Covenants with regard to Fences, &c. 259 —— PART VI. HOW TO GROW GOOD TIMBER. XL. On the Value of Timber for Ornament and Profit 265 XLI. On the Kinds of Timber best adapted for different Situations 274 [vi] [vii] XLII. On the British Oak 278 XLIII. On the Chestnut and Walnut 291 XLIV. On the Elm 296 XLV. On the Ash, Beech, and other White-wooded Trees 302 XLVI. On Soft-wooded Forest Trees 313 —— PART VII. HOW TO GROW GOOD ORCHARDS. XLVII. On the Apple and Pear as Orchard Fruits 319 XLVIII. On the Production and Choice of Fruit Trees 328 XLIX. On the Gathering and Storing of Fruit 338 L. On Cider-making and Management 345 LI. On the Uses and Economy of Cider and Perry 351 Postscript 357 THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF ROOT CULTIVATION. CHAPTER I. ON THE ORIGIN OF ROOT CROPS. Few people who have studied the matter attentively but have arrived at the conclusion that those plants which we cultivate for their roots were not naturally endowed with the root portion of their structure either of the size or form which would now be considered as essential for a perfect crop plant. Thus the parsnip, carrot, turnip, beet, &c., as we find them in nature, have nowhere the large, fleshy, smooth appearance which belongs to their cultivated forms; and hence all the varieties of these that we meet with in cultivation must be considered as derivatives from original wild forms, obtained by cultivative processes; that is, collecting their seed, planting it in a prepared bed, stimulating the growth of the plants with manures, thinning, regulating, weeding, and such other acts as constitute farming or gardening, as the case may be. Hence, then, it is concluded that such plants as are grown for their roots have a peculiar aptitude for laying on tissue, and thus increasing the bulk of their “descending axis,” that is, that portion of their structure which grows downwards— root. Besides this, they are remarkable for their capability of producing varieties—a fact which, united with a constancy in the maintenance of an induced form, renders it exceedingly easy to bring out new sorts which will maintain their characteristics under great diversities of climate, soil, and treatment. The facility with which different sorts of roots may be procured can readily be understood from the many varieties, not only of turnip—which may perhaps be considered as an original species—but also of swede, which is a hybrid of the turnip and rape plant. Of the former we have more than thirty sorts grown by the farmer, and as many peculiar to the garden; whilst there are probably more than twenty well-recognized sorts of swedes. Of beets, with mangel-wurzel, we have almost as great a variety; so also of carrots. Of parsnips we have fewer varieties, to which may now be added the new form called the Student parsnip, the growth of which is so interesting that we shall here give a short history of its production, as an illustration of the origin of root crops. [1] [2] Parsnip roots Figures 1 and 2.—Roots of Wild Parsnips. Natural size. In 1847 we collected some wild parsnip seed from the top of the Cotteswolds, where this is among the most frequent of weeds. This seed, after having been kept carefully during the winter, was sown in a prepared bed, in the spring of 1848, in drills about eighteen inches apart. As the plants grew they were duly thinned out, leaving for the crop, as far as it could be done, the specimens that had leaves with the broadest divisions, lightest colour, and fewest hairs. As cultivated parsnips offer a curious contrast with the wild specimens in these respects, we place the following notes, side by side, on the root-leaves of plants of the same period of growth. 1st. Wild Parsnip. 2nd. Student Parsnip. Ft. in. Ft. in. Whole length from the base of the petiole to the apex of the leaf 0 8 Whole length from the base of the petiole to the tip of the leaf 2 0 Breadth of leaflets 0 03⁄4 Breadth of leaflets 3 01⁄4 Length of ditto 0 1 Length of leaflets 0 61⁄2 Petiole and leaflets, hairy. Colour, dark green. Petiole and leaflets without hair. Colour, light green. We have before remarked that neither in size nor form are the wild roots at all comparable with the cultivated ones. Our figures 1 and 2 were taken from fine roots of the wild parsnip of the first year’s growth; that is to say, just at the same time as a crop parsnip would be at its best. They were purposely taken from specimens obtained from the same district as the seed with which our experiments were commenced. Our first crop of roots from the wild seed presented great diversities in shape, being for the most part even more forked than the originals, but still with a general tendency to fleshiness. Of these the best shaped were reserved for seeding; and having been kept the greater part of the winter in sand, some six of the best were planted in another plot for seed. The seed, then, of 1849 was sown in the spring of 1850, in a freshly-prepared bed, the plants being treated as before, the results showing a decided improvement, with tendencies in some examples in the following directions:— 1st. The round-topped long-root, having a resemblance to the Guernsey parsnip. (Panais long of the French.) 2nd. The hollow-crowned long-root. “Hollow-headed” of the gardener. (Panais Lisbonais type.) 3rd. The short, thick turnip-shaped root. “Turnip-rooted” of the gardener. (Panais rond form.) These three forms were all of them much mis-shapen, with forked roots, that is, fingers and toes; but still each of them offered opportunities of procuring three original varieties from this new source. As an example of progress, we offer the following engraving of a specimen of our Round-topped parsnip of 1852. Fig. [4] [5] 3. Round-top parsnip Fig. 3.—Round-topped Parsnip, five generations from wild root. This it will be seen has strong, fleshy forks, and a tendency to form divided tap-roots; otherwise the shape is greatly improved, and the skin is tolerably smooth. At this time our stock was for the most part fleshy and soft on boiling; the flavour, too, though much stronger than that of the usual esculent parsnip, was rather agreeable than otherwise. This matter of flavour is a subject of interest, as most lovers of the parsnip, as a garden esculent, had got to complain of this root becoming more and more tasteless. That this was so our own experience most fully confirms; we have now, however, mended this root very materially in this respect. Our experiments were only carried on with examples of the Hollow-crowned form, which following out from year to year, we at length obtained so perfect in form, clean in outline, delicate in skin, and unexceptionable in flavour, that we were induced to cause its seed to be distributed through the medium of the trade. In 1881 we sowed a parcel of seed in our own garden obtained from the Messrs. Sutton, after having received from them the following notes upon the growth of the roots in their grounds:— We are happy to tell you that in lifting some of each of all the varieties of parsnips in our trial-ground, your “Student” was decidedly the best shape, varying in length, but always clean and straight. [6] Student Parsnip 1861 Fig. 4.—Student Parsnip of 1861. Two-thirds of natural size. The engraving (Fig. 4) is taken from our garden stock of 1861, as being a common shape of this new variety. It is not quite so long and slender as the usual Long-horned parsnip, but its clean unbranched outline and solidity of structure recommend it as a good variety, whilst its flavour has been highly extolled by the lover of this, to some, favorite root. In size it is scarcely large enough for a field crop, but though not at present recommenced for the farm, its history may well serve to explain the origin of crop plants, as derived from the cultivation and improvement of wild species.[1] It may here be noted that the Student parsnip took the first prize for this root at the International Show at the Horticultural Society’s Gardens in 1862. CHAPTER II. ON THE ORIGIN OF SORTS OF ROOTS. As crop plants are derived from wild ones, as the effect of cultivation, it follows as a matter of course that these will be varied, both in form and constitution, according to the circumstances under which they have been produced. Thus we may expect that any attempts to ennoble a wild root in different countries would not, even if successful, be sure to bring about the same results. Much depends even upon the individual root with which our trial may be started, and more upon the judgment employed in selecting the stock from which the experiments are to be continued. That position and soil may make a great difference may be inferred from the fact that the attempts to improve the wild parsnip and carrot have met with varied success. De Candolle is reported to have tried to improve the carrot with success, whilst with the parsnip he utterly failed; whilst Professor Lindley, in Morton’s “Cyclopædia of Agriculture,” tells us that M. Ponsard has ascertained that “the wild parsnip becomes improved immediately when cultivated, and that experiments in improving its quality promise well:” how well, indeed, may be seen from the foregoing chapter. But still, we utterly failed with the wild carrot. Having collected seeds of the Daucus Carota (the common wild carrot) from some fine specimens growing on the road-side between Cirencester and Cheltenham, they were subjected to experiment at the same time as the parsnip, but with little, if any, favourable result. Upon this plant Professor Lindley observes as follows:— That the hard-rooted wild carrot is really the parent of our cultivated varieties, remarkable as they are for the succulence and tenderness of their roots, has been experimentally proved by M. Vilmorin, who succeeded in obtaining by cultivation perfectly tender, eatable roots, from seeds saved from plants only three or four generations off the wild species. [8] [1] [9] [10] Still, a modern French naturalist of great experience, M. Decaisne, tells us that he has tried to ennoble the wild carrot, and has not succeeded; and from this he draws the conclusion that our cultivated forms were created specially for the use of man. As we should suppose that very few botanists agree to this theory, we shall let the facts we have already brought forward stand in maintenance of its opposite, namely, that cultivated forms are derived from wild species often apparently very different; but at the same time it may be well to state, that in all probability some of the discrepancies of experimenters may have arisen from some confusion in the species operated upon. In 1860 we gathered some seed of the Daucus maritima (sea-side carrot) at Bognor, which, on being sown in a prepared plot the following spring, certainly resulted in fairly succulent roots, which on being cooked were pronounced by our party of four to be excellent. While on this subject, it may be mentioned as not a little remarkable, that so many of our garden esculents should be derived from sea-side plants. Thus, probably carrot, but certainly celery, sea-kale, asparagus, and cabbage. This would seem to point to the fact that cultivation requires a complete change of the circumstances necessary to maintain a wild condition; and hence cultivated plants can only be kept up by the labours of a cultivator. Now, as regards the sea-side carrot, we are after all inclined to the belief that it is the parent of the cultivated varieties, whilst, on the other hand, we view the Daucus Carota (the wild inland carrot) as a probable descendant from the cultivated or garden stock; and if this be so, the Daucus maritima is the original species from which both the wild and cultivated races have descended. Bentham, indeed, carries this view a little further, the following remarks tending to throw doubts upon the carrot in any form as being a true native. Under the heading of Daucus Carota he says:— Probably an original native of the sea-coasts of modern Europe, but of very ancient cultivation, and sows itself most readily, soon degenerating to the wild form, with a slender root, and now most abundant in fields, pastures, waste places, &c., throughout Europe and Russian Asia; common in Britain, especially near the sea. Flowers the whole summer and autumn. A decidedly maritime variety, with the leaves somewhat fleshy, with shorter segments, more or less thickened peduncles, more spreading umbels, and more flattened prickles to the fruits, is often considered as a distinct species. Seeing then that crop plants are derivatives from a wild stock, we can readily understand how the varying circumstances attendant upon the development of the former should tend to the production of varieties, and this merely as the result of the treatment of the fairly derived legitimate seed. If, again, we take these variations for the purpose of obtaining hybrids, we need not wonder at the infinite variety of sorts which can be brought about, but rather that any sort could be maintained in that trueness of character or in that state of permanency which we sometimes find to be the case. CHAPTER III. ON TRUENESS OF SORT IN ROOT CROPS. The importance of trueness and purity of seed arises from the evenness of growth of a good genuine strain; while if this quality be wanting we have some parts of our crop growing well, whilst others get on but poorly. Thus a free-growing plant beside one over which it has got the advantage, maintains it for the most part through the whole period of growth. Again, some sorts are of value for being early, others for lateness of growth, and some kinds are better fitted for early than late sowing; if, therefore, we have a mixture in these respects, we may at least expect a partial failure; for whichever is best for our purpose, if mixed will be accompanied by those which are not so good. A want of trueness to sort may arise principally from the following causes:— 1st. Want of selection in seeding bulbs. 2nd. Hybridization. 3rd. A mixture of seeds. 1st. The propriety of selecting the specimens from which seed is to be grown is admitted by all: by the seedsman, who always advertises his turnip and swede seed, for example, as being “from selected bulbs;” and by the farmer, as this announcement is only made to induce him to buy. It is not only important that the roots should be selected, but that they should be stored and then planted in a fresh soil; for as these latter are among the cultivative processes by which sorts have been obtained, so should they be repeated in order to ensure a continuance of the induced condition. Seeding upon the same soil and in the same bed in which the seed is sown is hardly the way to keep up a form induced by cultivation, as this is exactly what would be done by the plants in a state of wildness. In selecting roots for seeding, care should be taken to choose good-shaped examples, in which a clean unbranched bulb, not too large, with a small tap-root and a small top, confined to a single central bud; a branched root and a many- headed top being true signs of degeneracy. And no less so is neckiness in swedes and mangels, as well as a coarse corrugated skin in roots of all kinds. Taking such points as these into consideration, how absurd must appear most of the huge mis-shapen roots to which prizes are usually awarded at shows, where the specimens are chosen for size, and trimmed up with the knife, to make them look more presentable. As an evidence of the mistaken principles upon which prizes are awarded to bundles of [11] [12] [13] [14] roots, let any one seed such examples, and we will venture to assert that such seed would produce a large proportion of degenerate examples, without affording so good a crop as would seed, from middle-sized but well-shapen specimens. 2nd. Some of the forms of roots, and more especially those belonging to the Brassicaceæ, such as turnips and swedes, seem to have a wonderful facility for hybridizing; and this not only to the extent of one sort of turnip with another, but sports may be caused by the fertilization of the turnip with rape and its congeners. Indeed, the hybrid with turnip and rape is doubtless the origin of the Swedish turnip; but there is reason to believe that mixtures may accidentally be made with such wild plants as charlocks and mustards, the growth of which in the vicinity of a seeding crop tends to the production of degeneracy. Seeding-patches, then, and the ground about them, cannot be kept too clean. Again, if trueness be aimed at, there should be no mixture of sorts in seeding examples; all of the same kind should be selected for seeding-plots, as even one or two of a wrong sort may result in a very mixed sample, as it would seem that sometimes strange plants exert more than ordinary influence. Of course, the putting seeding-patches of different sorts side by side is to be reprehended. If more than one sort be seeded in a season, it is advisable to place the patches as remote from each other as possible. And we would here remark, that, for seeding, the roots should, as a rule, be farther apart than when grown for bulbs, both in rows and in sets; as, if too close, the stems grow up thin instead of robust, and a smaller seed, with a tendency to the growth of smaller roots, will be the result. 3rd. Mixtures of seeds should be avoided for the reason assigned, that “sorts” do not usually grow evenly; and when one sees (as is by no means infrequent) a patch of swedes overshadowed by a mixture of some large early turnip,—the Tankard, for example, our crop of swedes will certainly suffer for it, even supposing the turnip to be as useful as the swede, which is seldom the case. Mixtures, again, do not come up at the same time; sorts may differ in this respect, but especially do old and new seeds vary as to their germinating powers: two-year-old seeds taking four or five days more to come up than a new sample; thus giving a greater chance for the ravages of the flea-beetle than where the seed all comes up quickly. Now, as a practical application of these remarks, we here quote from an article in the Agricultural Gazette of May 24th, 1862. Who among seedsmen does not profess to offer the seeds of swedes and turnips from selected bulbs? And though it is quite true that the practice is not so universal as is the profession of it, yet the general assumption of its being so on the part of seed growers and sellers is an admission that it would be for the advantage of the buyer of seeds were the roots from which seeds are to be grown carefully selected. And on the other hand, let the observant agriculturist take a journey on any of our great lines of railway (in early summer), and he will be struck with the many patches of bright yellow flowers which he will not fail to notice on either hand. In nine cases out of ten, these are fields or portions of fields of turnips, either the Swedish or common kinds, which, from the abundance of keep, it has been thought would be more profitable to seed than to eat off, especially as they have so rapidly grown out of the way. Are these patches of selected bulbs? We happen to know, from a more than ordinarily careful examination, that not one per cent. of seeding-patches are from selected roots; but they are seeded just as they grew, and we do not know of a single instance where in such seeding the objectionable roots have been removed; but we do know of plenty of cases where the worst part of a field has been saved for seed, doubtless as the most profitable way of dealing with it under the circumstances wrought out by the spring of 1862. Of course, this will all come into the market, and too much of it, under a stereotyped declaration of ‘from selected bulbs.’ That all the seed grown in 1862 will be sown in 1863 is simply impossible; but no matter, it will find a market somehow, some time. With such facts as these before us, who can wonder that any plant should become degenerate? Let some of the seed of this year be watched, and we will answer for its evil results; and if these be facts, it then behoves the farmer to look well to pedigree in the matter of his seed. But even here, his forethought must not end; for however select the parent may be, there is still something in ‘bringing up;’ for, however good the sort of turnip, we shall not grow its seed in perfection by selection merely, but we should transplant well-chosen roots, and so put them in a new scene, away from subjects which might contaminate them. This is indeed to bring them up in a good school, for which their seed will amply repay the trouble and expense. CHAPTER IV. ON DEGENERATE ROOTS. If the reader revert to page 6, Fig. 3, he will see that the progress from a wild to a better root-form is marked by a more fleshy, but still a much forked, or finger-and-toed example. Now as it is held that a clear unbranched outline is essential to a well-formed root crop of every kind, whenever a crop becomes fingered-and-toed, it is looked upon as a disease. It must be understood that we are here speaking of finger-and-toe as distinct from anbury, which latter is a decidedly diseased condition, whether caused by insects or resulting, as some affirm, from a defect in the soil. The difference in the two states may be briefly summed up as follows:— Finger-and-Toe. Anbury. [15] [16] [17] [18] Root simply branched or forked, with tapering fleshy rootlets; occurs in turnips, parsnips, carrots, and mangold. (See figs. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.) Root infested with irregular nodular protuberances, or with tumours suspended by roots, having very much the aspect of rows of ginger; occurs in turnips alone. (See fig. 12.) The example of a root at page 6 is a good form of a parsnip progressing from wildness to a better cultivated form. We now offer an engraving (fig. 5) of a hollow-crowned crop parsnip, fingered-and-toed, and evidently of a very objectionable form, as it will be seen on comparison how nearly alike are figs. 3 and 5. Degenerate parsnip Fig. 5.—Finger-and-toed degenerate Parsnip. Half nat. size. Now, as every degenerate crop of parsnips will be found to offer a large proportion of such roots as fig. 5, we seem bound to conclude that, inasmuch as our fig. 3 represents a root in progress towards ennobling , so fig. 5 is that of a root declining to its level,—in other words, degenerating; seed, therefore, that produces such roots can only come from a poor stock. Our next fig. (6) is of a parsnip that had prematurely flowered. Sending up flowered stems the first year, in the case of a biennial, can only be looked upon as an instance of degeneracy. Plants that “run,” as it is termed, being comparatively useless, the best use, indeed, that can be made of them being that of pulling them up and giving them to the pigs. [19] Carrot run to seed Fig. 6. Carrot of First Year run to Seed. Half nat. size. Now this propensity is always accompanied with forked roots, more especially in carrots, which roots are even more degenerate than those represented in figs. 3 and 5, as those were fleshy and succulent; but when the roots of runners are examined, they are always found to be tough and woody, and, in fact, they very nearly resemble the wild examples. [20] Forked carrot Fig. 7. Forked Carrot run to seed. Half nat. size. Fig. 7 is taken from a carrot that has run, and its rough, woody, nodular, forked root is fully apparent. Forked Belgian carrot Fig. 8. Forked Belgian Carrot. Half nat. size. Fig. 8, from a specimen of White Belgian carrot, forked as it is, is yet not uncommon; still, here the divided roots are succulent. This differs from the annual or run-to-seed roots, as this is a real biennial; but its other mark of degeneracy, besides that of finger-and-toe, was in its possessing a top (removed for experiment before the drawing was made) of many buds or heads. Now a multiheaded root, whether in turnips, carrots, parsnip, or mangel, is another sign of degeneracy, especially in the carrot or mangel, as the wild examples are remarkable for this condition; and in ennobling these roots, one of the difficulties is to get rid of this propensity. Hence, at root shows all forked examples of bulbs, multiheaded and necky examples, should be rejected; they are, however, sometimes made so fat with manuring that [21] they pass muster for size, which indeed seems to be the great quality required at shows: which is a serious mistake, as being no sort of criterion of the state of a field of roots, unless it be an adverse one: as a 10 lb. malformed root, with its huge top, will require more ground to grow than will half a dozen roots averaging 2 lbs. each; whilst the latter are certain to be better and will keep longer. CHAPTER V. EFFECTS OF GROWING SEED FROM DEGENERATE ROOTS. That the seed of malformed roots would be likely to produce a poor crop was a subject admitted by all; but neither the form nor extent of the mischief resulting therefrom had been stated upon the authority of exact experiment. In order, therefore, to arrive at direct evidence upon a point upon which so much of practical importance depends, we carefully carried out the following experiments. Malformed parsnip Fig. 9. A Malformed or Degenerate Parsnip. Two-thirds of nat. size. On the 26th of March, 1860, we selected two roots from a store, namely, one of a Student parsnip from our own stock and one of a Skirving’s swede. Before committing these to the ground for the growth of seed, we made careful portraits of the two roots, of which that of the parsnip will be found in fig. 9, that of the swede in fig. 10. [22] [23] [24] Malformed swede Fig. 10. A Malformed or Degenerate Swede. Two-thirds of nat. size. Now had we been going to grow the best of seed, we should of course have selected the best-shaped roots for our purpose; but in this case, as will be seen, the most viciously formed examples were chosen. Both of the examples whose portraits we have here given, were planted in our private garden (where, it is right to say, they were the only seeding specimens), in due time their seed ripened, which was carefully collected and stored. Early in April, 1861, these seeds were sown in our experimental plots, without manure, in the following order:— Plot a. Seed obtained from the malformed parsnip, fig. 9. b. Seed of Student parsnip of the same year as that of plot a. c. Seed of malformed swede. The plot b was sown by way of comparison, and we can only regret that no plot of good swede seed was sown with the same object, and we must, therefore, compare with a piece of swedes in an adjoining field. The following are the tabulated results:— TABLE OF RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS. lb. oz. Plot a.75 roots, forming the crop from seed of the malformed parsnip (fig. 8) weighed in all - 7 4 Plot b.63 roots forming the crop from seed of good Student parsnips - 14 0 Plot c.70 roots of swedes from seed of malformed plant (fig. 10.) - 19 8 70 roots from a row in the field, at a distance of about 30 yards - 35 0 The roots from plot a may be described as small, though not so much fingered-and-toed as we had expected; still there was only about half the crop when compared with plot b, which latter, indeed, was only small in weight, which may be accounted for from being grown without manure. During their progress of growth the difference was very perceptible— the small leaves of a contrasting most unfavourably with the broader, brighter coloured ones of b. As regards the swedes, they were indeed a very poor crop, presenting all the evils of degeneracy—neckiness, for which it will be seen that their parent was distinguished—want of a bulboid form; none of the 70 roots being better than a thin tap-root, and these were forked, shapeless, and fingered-and-toed in endless variety. Their spindle-shaped roots were quite remarkable, and they were the rule, although in good seed, however bad the soil, they would have been the exception. Those in the field hard by were bulboid, and averaged half a pound each—no great weight, as the land in which they were grown is only second-rate. They, however, were grown with manure, to which, of course, much of the difference is due, and yet not so much as may fairly be imputed to the difference in seed. From these experiments we [25] [26] conclude:— 1st. That a degenerate stock will, as a rule, result from the employment of degenerate or badly-grown seed. 2nd. That besides ugly, malformed roots, degenerated seed does not produce nearly the weight of crop of good seed, under the same circumstances of growth. 3rd. That by means of selection we may produce roots that are well-shaped, and have the capabilities of affording the best crop. 4th. That by designedly selecting malformed degenerate roots for seeding, we may produce a seed that will result in as great or greater degeneracy. “That these are important conclusions”—we quote from the Agricultural Gazette—“few will be disposed to deny. They have most interesting bearings on the subject of vegetable physiology, and consequently should be studied by the farmer.” It is a practice much to be desired, that not only should a proper choice be made of seeding examples, but that there be a change of situation, and, if possible, a time of storage before being planted for seed. These are all cultivative processes, and to the care with which they are carried out must we look for permanence in our derivative root-crops. It cannot be too strongly urged, that, as an efficient sort of root has only been arrived at as the result of great care—that is, by successful breeding,—so every care must be taken for its maintenance. Defect in seed results in defect in the produce of that seed; and downward tendencies of this kind are common results of even most careful cultivation. With carelessness in this respect we must not be surprised at rapid degeneracy. CHAPTER VI. ON THE ADULTERATION OF SEEDS, MORE PARTICULARLY OF TURNIPS. In order to make the experiments which illustrate this chapter tell their tale to the fullest extent, we would set out with the two following postulates:— 1st. All well-grown, well-preserved new seeds should be capable of germinating to the extent of at least 90 per cent. 2nd. Seeds in general, and more especially turnip seeds, as usually delivered to the farmer, are generally incapable of germinating to the extent of from 25 to 30 per cent., and very frequently even more. We shall hereafter see, that this want of germinating power is too often the result of mixing charlock, Indian rape, and the like, by way of adulteration, which latter are killed to prevent “their telling tales.” But to our experiments:— A number of tin cases were made of the following proportions: Length, 15 inches; width, 10 inches; depth, 4 inches. These, which were well perforated at the bottom, were divided across into ten equal parts, each of which was filled to within an inch of the rim, with a mixture of fine mould and silver sand. In these, seeds of different sorts of turnips were sown, and the whole was put into a bed of sand in our forcing-house. We could, however, see no difference in the results, nor could we trace any in the germinal or cotyledon leaves of swedes, turnips, or charlock. But, of course, samples of turnip-seed could not be tested as to freedom from charlock by this experiment, because charlock is killed before being mixed with the turnip. Now, seeing that we could get no trustworthy results by this kind of experiment, it struck us that our germination-pans might be used to test the germinating power, not only of the samples we had obtained for a different purpose, but of others also. We first, then, counted a hundred of each of the following sorts of seeds, and carefully dibbled them in a fresh mixture of soil, in September, 1860; the results, which were as carefully noted from day to day, are shortly given in the following table:— Table 1. Germination of Ten Sorts of Turnips. No. Name, Copy of Label. Came up per cent. No. of Days. 1 Mousetail, 1859 96 10 2 Pomeranian, or White Globe, 1859 86 11 3 Nimble Green Round, 1859 96 7 4 Lincolnshire new Red Globe, 1860 90 9 5 Yellow Tankard, 1859 92 9 6 Smart’s Mousetail, 1860 98 7 7 Green-topped Stone, 1860 84 8 8 Sutton’s Imperial Green Globe, 1860 98 9 9 Green-topped Scotch, 1860 90 9 10 Early Six-weeks, 1860 90 10 Came up = 92 [27] [28] [29] [30]