A STUDY OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF VARIOUS FACTORS CONTROLLING PROFITS IN STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION By Neal D. Peacock A THESIS Presented to the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Horticulture East Lansing, Michigan 1957 CL~fJ7,/?'sy ProQuest Number: 10008403 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10008403 Published by ProQuest LLC (2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346 CONTENTS Page PART I - REVIEW OF LITERATURE HISTORICAL------------------------------------------- 4 The European Strawberry-------------- 4 The North American Strawberry------------ 5 Introduction of the South American Species and the Development of Crosses------- ---- ---------— 6 The Rise of Commercial Strawberry Growing in the United States --------------------------- 8 A Sound Basis for Development------------- *----- 11 EUROPEAN CULTURE OF THE STRAWBERRY------------------- 12 — ---------------- 12 Development of Field Culture -------------------- 15 Garden Culture and Forcing STRAWBERRY CULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES----- 16 Influence of European Methods------------------- 16 Extensive Spread of the Industry Resulted in New Methods----------------------- ----- — — 18 The Selection of a Suitable S o i l ---------------- 19 Soil t y p e ------------------------Crop rotation------ *-----------■------Soil acidity--------------------Other factors — -------— -- 19 21 21 22 The Selection of Varieties--------------- — — — - 25 The Selection of Plants for Setting------------- 24 2 STRAWBERRY CULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES (Continued) Cultural Methods------ Page 26 Methods of setting-------------------------Cultivation--------------------------------Life of a commercial plantation------------Fertilization - Recommendations of last 27 27 28 Fertilization - Negative evidence------ —---Fertilization - Positive evidence ----------Fertilization - Conclusions must be indefinite------------------------------- 51 52 57 Insects and Diseases------------ 59 Economic Problems of Importance-------- 41 Y i e l d s -------------------------------------Labor requirements-------------------------Cost of production----------------Profits reported ---------------------------Factors affecting p r ice ----------------Recent Research of Importance---------- 41 42 44 45 46 48 PART II - FACTORS CONTROLLING PROFITS IN MODERN STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION METHODS OF THE PRESENT S T U D Y -------------------------- 51 Statement of Conditions in Tennessee During the S t u d y -------- 51 Production Records from Representative Growers --- 52 Direct Comparisons in Field Plot Tests ----------- 55 COSTS WHICH DIRECTLY INFLUENCE PROFITS ----- 54 General Distribution of C osts------ 54 Analysis of Production C o s t s ----------------- 55 5 COSTS WHICH DIRECTLY INFLUENCE PROFITS(Continued) Overhead or Fixed Co s t s -------------------------Land use -------------— ---Equipment depreciation---------------------Cash Expenses---------------------------- Page 56 56 57 57 Plants-------------------------------------Fertilizer----------------------- 57 58 Labor Requirements and C o s t s --------------------- 59 Establishing the plantation ----------------Field culture from setting toharvest-------- 60 61 Harvesting and Handling Costs -------------------- 65 Packages------------------------------------ 65 Grading and packing------------------------Hauling — ----------------------------------- 67 68 FACTORS WHICH CONTROL STRAWBERRY YIELDS--- ------------ 69 Adaptability of the S o i l -------- 70 Characteristics of so-called "Strawberry Inspection before planting as a guide -------Importance of available phosphoric acid ----Influence of previous c a r e -----------------Method of Cultivation — --------------------------Amount and thoroughness of cultivation •— Depth of cultivation--------------Cultivation after the first crop -----------Fertilization-------- 72 74 77 78 78 84 86 91 Evidence from field records ----------------92 Nitrogen applications------ — ----- — --- *-------- 95 Non—nitrogenous fertilizers----------------100 Conclusions --- — *---------------- *----105 4 FACTORS WHICH CONTROL STRAWBERRY- YIELDS (Continued) Page 103 Effect of Mulch Applications-------------------Evidence from field records -------------------Results of experimental comparisons ------------ 103 105 Selection of Plants for Setting--------------------- 108 Source of plants------------------Age and size of plants ------------------Varieties----------------------------- 111 Season of Runner Formation-------------------------- 119 Stand of Plants in the Matted R o w ------------------- 122 Relation of Climate to Y i e l d s ----------------------- 126 Precipitation during the growing season — Rainfall during harvest -----------------------Spring frosts or freezes -------------- 127 129 Field Losses at Harvest---------------------------- 108 113 131 134 Selling price --------------------------------Carelessness in picking and handling----------Size of berries------------------------------Classification of culls according to the c a u s e ------------------------------ 135 135 138 FACTORS WHICH AFFECT THE SELLING PRICE ------------------- 140 138 Competition Among Widely Separated Producing Price Trend During a Period of Y e a r s ------------------ 143 Comparison of Tennessee and competing Correlation with economic conditions ----------- 144 Fluctuation in the Price During a Season ------------ 145 Influence of Quality on Selling P r i c e --------------- 147 5 FACTORS WHICH AFFECT THESELLING PRICE (Continued) The Possible Development of Freezing as an Outlet forSurplus Fruit ----------------------DISCUSSION---------------------------------------------- BIBLIOGRAPHY---- — -------------------------------- Page 149 152 161 A STUDY OF THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF VARIOUS FACTORS CONTROLLING PROFITS IN STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION Introduction The strawberry is the most popular of all small fruits. The beauty of the fruit, its delicious flavor, and the fact that it ripens before there are other fresh fruits available insure an active demand for them in all markets. In addition to its use as a dessert fruit the strawberry is widely used for canning, for preserves, and as a flavoring for ices. The recent development of a method for preserving the fruit by freezing has brought promise that the quality of fresh strawberries may be enjoyed throughout the year. From the standpoint of the grower the strawberry has several advantages. It offers a source of cash in the early summer. The period of time between the setting of the plants and the first harvest is less than with other small fruits and much less than with tree fruits. The strawberry is adapted to culture in the garden under very intensive con­ ditions or in the field where it can be given less detailed attention. It can be produced successfully on a wide variety of soils, under widely different climatic conditions, and it is attacked by comparatively few serious pests. The strawberry is principally a crop for the small farmer. expensive equipment is required for its culture. No A large amount of work, especially that of harvesting, must be done with hand labor, and, there­ fore/ the farmer with his family can care for a small planting of from 2 one to three or four acres with very little outlay of money and compara­ tively little hired help. This is the common practice in Tennessee. Large acreages are rare and most of the production comes from such small family patches. Since the early introduction of strawberry growing into the middle west and south, Tennessee has been prominent among strawberry producing states. During the period from 1918 to 1924, inclusive, this state led all others in carlot shipments, and since that time it has been among the leading states*(14) According to the statistics prepared fcy the United States Department of Agriculture, Tennessee has ranked third in acreage, third in total production, and seventh in the value of the crop during the period 1931-1936, i n c l u s i v e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , there are hundreds of growers who, during that period, did not secure returns sufficient to cover the cash expenses and leave anything for the labor of growing the crop. Observations during the past five years have indi­ cated widely different cultural practices among the growers within each major producing region and even greater differences in the methods which are followed in different parts of the state. There is an obvious need for more definite information concern­ ing the relative value of different cultural practices and the determi­ nation of those factors which are most influential in determining the success of any program. The plan of this work has been to make a care­ ful survey of the literature dealing with strawberry growing, to deter­ mine the methods which were followed by the more successful and less successful growers in order to determine, if possible, the significant differences in their programs, and, finally, to check the importance these differences by field experiments* P A R T R E V I E W 0 F I L I T E R A T U R E PART I - REVIEW OF LITERATURE HISTORICAL The European Strawberiy The strawberry (Fragaria) is a native of the temperate lati­ tudes of both hemispheres. Native species are common in Europe, Asia, and in both North and South America. Even though both Virgil and Ovid refer to it the early Greeks and Romans seem not to have grown it in gardens. Early interest in the plant seems to have been centered about its ornamental value as is indicated by a statement made as late as 1629 by Parkinson, the apothecary-gardener of London. His statement, concerning the value of the strawberiy, was quoted by Roe(74) as follows: 11It may be eaten or chewed in the mouth without any manner of offence; it is no great bearer, but those it doth beare are set at the toppes of the stalks close together, pleasant to behold, and fit for a gentlewoman to wear on her arme, as a varietie in­ stead of a flower.” According to the account given by Bailey in his Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture, the earliest record of garden culture is the growing of the native wood strawberry, Fragaria vesca, in France early in the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth century wild plants were commonly transplanted into the English gardens where they were grown for their fruits. This practice is indicated 13y the following quotation, from the writings of Tusser, which is given by Beckett(7) in the ”Book of the Strawberry”: 5 ’’Wife, into thy garden, and set me a plot With strawberry roots of the best to be got: Such growing abroade, among thorns in the wood, Wei chosen and picked, prove excellent good;” Interest in the strawberry developed gradually and during the sixteenth century it is mentioned frequently in several herbals. Further evidence of its popularity during the latter part of that century is found in the third act of Richard III where Shakespeare places these words in the mouth of Richard, Duke of Gloster: ”B/y lord of Ely, when I was last at Holborn I saw good strawberries in your garden there, I do beseech you send for some of them.” By the latter part of the seventeenth century rather defi­ nite cultural practices were established and the strawberry was recognized as a desirable addition to the garden. The historical sketch which is given by F u l l e r 1887, includes the following statements: ’’Gerarde, in 1597 enumerates but three varieties, the white, red and green fruited.” ’’Quintinye, in his ’’French Gardener,” translated by Evelin in 1672, mentions four varieties, and gives similar directions for cultivation as prac­ ticed at the present time (1887), viz, planting in August, removing all the runners as they appear, and renewing the beds every four years.” The North American Strawberry In north America the native strawberry, F. virginiana, was recognized to be of value by the very early settlers and rapidly be­ came popular. In the introduction to ’’The Strawberry" Fraser(55) cites the following quotations: 6 "Coming to more recent times, in 1629 William Wood, in writing of the attractions of the new land, says, 1There is likewise Strawberries in abundance, verie large ones, some being two inches about,f and in 1645 Roger Williams states, *This berrie is the wonder of all the fruits growing naturally in all these parts*." The native American strawberry was carried into European gardens comparatively early.(^6) "Its culture dates back to an early period in the annals of American Horticulture. It was found growing wild when the country was discovered and I find mention of Fragaria virginiana, our North American species, being introduced into European gardens as early as 1624." Introduction of the South American Species and the Development of Crosses The South American species, F. chiloensis, came into the picture only a little later. It was first introduced into French gardens early in the eighteenth century. In 1712 Frezier, a French officer, returned to France from Chili taking with him a few plants of this species which attracted his attention because of their large fruits. This proved to be a pistillate type and produced very few fruits so that it was considered a failure in France. In the "French Gardener," as translated about 1691 by Evelin, there is this statement: "Strawberries are of four kinds; the White, the Large Red, the Capprens, and the Small Red wild strawberry." All of these types were probably selections of the native species because it was nearly three quarters of a century later, in 1760, 7 that another Frenchman, Duchesne, published a book describing differ­ ent sex in strawberry flowers and he is supposed to have been the first to originate new sorts by crossing. The importance of this discovery was not appreciated for many years. In fact, as late as 1828 the idea was expressed in Loudon1s Gardenerfs Magazine that the kind of strawberry makes little difference because the care and culti­ vation are responsible for quality and size of fruit. It is obvious, therefore, that the modern strawberry as we know it is of comparatively recent development. It is thought that the strawberiy from which our modern varieties have been developed originated as a iybrid of the two species, F. virginiana and F. chiloensis. The following statement appears in Bailey’s Standard Cyclopedia of H o r t i c u l t u r e : "The first of the modern race of large-fruited varieties was the Keens1 Seedling, originated by Michael Keens, of England, in 1819; it was a Pine (either a form of F. chiloensis or a hybrid of that species with F. virginiana) and from it have sprung most of the European varieties of today. The Hovey, from which m o d e m North American varie­ ties have descended in large measure, was undoubtedly a Pine in part, but there is considerable evidence that one of its parents was a variety of F. virginiana.” Soon after the development of the Keens1 Seedling variety another Englishman, Knight, produced successful crosses which gave varieties of great commercial value. Bty 1856 as many as one hundred varieties were included in English catalogs and more than two hundred varieties were listed by French nurserymen. Many of these English varieties were introduced into the United States but the results 8 were usually disappointing because the plants proved unsuited to this country. In 1834 an American nurseryman, Hovey, produced a seedling which he named the "Hovey." It was a cross between the large-fruited Pine strawberry from Europe and the hardy, vigorous, native species, F. virginiana. In discussing the importance of this development, Fraser says^*^: "It was the sensation of the age with its large handsome fruits and by 1850 it had established the strawberry as one of the leading fruits in America, a position it has never lost." The Hovey proved to be a pistillate variety and because the sex characters of strawberry flowers were not understood it was never really successful as a market variety. The real commercial develop­ ment of the strawberry industry did not begin until the middle of last century. The opening sentence in Fletcher1s "Strawberry Growing"(3*5) is as follows: "Commercial strawberry-growing in North America may be said to have begun with the introduction of the Wilson, in 1854." The Rise of Commercial Strawberry Growing in the United States Following the introduction of the Wilson there was a feverish interest in strawberry growing and especially in the development of new varieties. The most heated discussion during this period centered about the flower characters of the plant. About 1834 Longworth, a prominent horticulturist of Cincinnati, discovered the imperfect 9 flowers of some varieties and for a period of more than ten years a heated discussion concerning the true character of strawberiy flowers was carried on, in the current periodical magazines, between Longworth and Hovey. In Volume 12 of Hovey1s "Gardener1s Magazine," 1846, the editor summarized the discussion fcy stating his belief that there were no separate male and female plants, that staminate plants could not be made pistillate or the reverse ty cultural practices, and that perfect flowering plants were necessary to insure good crops . Two years later in the same periodical a committee of the Cincinnati Horticultural Society (largely under the influence of Longworth) re­ ported that strawberry flowers were either pistillate or staminate and that they knew of no such thing as a perfect flowered strawberiy plant. jn the first volume of "The Horticulturist," 1846, the editor, Downing, (^9) announced his agreement with Longworth that staminate plants should be set with pistillate plants to insure largest yields. He disagreed, however, with Longworth*s view that the flower character of a strawberiy variety never changes and contended that there was a tendency to change from perfect to imperfect flowers. This controversy was continued and until the very last of the nine­ teenth century there were frequent statements that the question of the importance and proper use of pollinators had not been settled. Gradually, however, the necessity of considering flower characters in the selec­ tion of strawberiy varieties was recognized. During this discussion a great interest was aroused so that authors, nurserymen, and growers took sides. Careful study was given 10 to such questions as the effect of pollen on the fruit of the ferti­ lized blossom, the number and distribution of pollinators which should be used in a planting, and especially the development of suitable hermaphrodite varieties. The result of this interest was reflected in the rapid expansion of strawberry growing. From less than 1500 acres at the time the Wilson was introduced the plantings increased to more than 150,000 acres before the close of the century* Fletcher makes the following statement concerning this expansion: "The 1strawberry-fever* that swept over the country between 1858 and 1870 has not been equaled in intensity by the boom days of any other fruit." Following this unusual expansion there was the inevitable re­ action which resulted in a considerable reduction in acreage, but from 1850 to the present the general trend has been upward. The acre­ age devoted to strawberries in the United States at the close of the century in 1899 was reported as 151,373. This was followed ty a considerable decrease so that the average acreage for 1917, 1918, and 1919 was 8 5 , 6 7 0 , but since that time the industry has expanded so that the average acreage since 1950 has been approximately 180,000. In 1934 the commercial strawberry crop in the United States ranked fifth in value among the fruit crops of the c o u n t r y . I n Tennessee the trend has been quite similar. The acreage in this state was 11,548 in 1 8 9 9 * It was 10,550 in 1 9 1 9 ^ ^ and averaged 16,300 from 1930 to 1936, inclusive.^8) Before the industry became so widely spread Cincinnati was considered the center of the commercial culture while garden culture 11 was general near the cities in the eastern states. Since 1870 com­ mercial strawberry growing has gradually increased and garden culture has gradually declined. The rapid spread of strawberry growing through the United States was reported frequently in the pages of current periodical literature. In 1855 reference was made in the Rural New Yorker to the recent introduction of strawberries in California. Three years later the same publication reported 1000 acres in Southern Illinois. In 1881 the crop Is referred to as important in Arkansas and the next year an article in the same magazine recommends straw­ berry growing in Texas. The commercial industry began in Missouri in 1889 when the first shipping association was formed in that state, and according to the American Fruit Grower, the first small shipment moved from Plant City, Florida to Philadelphia in 1889. The Louisiana straw­ berry industry began about 1890 and, according to the best records which are available, commercial growing in Tennessee dates back to 1880 when shipments were made from Hamilton County in East Tennessee and 10,000 crates were shipped from Humboldt and Gadsden in the western part of the state. A Sound Basis for Development Two factors have contributed largely to the spread of this in­ dustry. The plant has been found to be adapted to a wide variety of conditions. In 1898 C o r b e t t m a k e s the following statement: nWe are coming to realize as a nation, that this berry, counted a delicacy on the millionaire’s table, can be had by any owner of a patch of ground, who will spend the little time and labor necessaiy." 12 Later in the same publication he says: "There is no other fruit that can be had with so little expenditure of time and money.’1 In 1950 Strawbridge^89) made a similar statement. He says: "The strawberry is adapted to practically all tilled sections of the United States. It is an early cash crop for each locality in which it is grown." The second and perhaps the more important factor which has influenced the widespread distribution of the industry is the develop­ ment of improved transportation, especially the development of re­ frigeration. In 1866 Earle began shipping strawberries from Cobden, Illinois in chests with ice, and by 1869 he had begun to ship in car(3 ) loads with iee.v 1 In 1891 over 600 refrigerator cars were used for fruits and vegetables and in 1929, 40,741 were used for fruits and vegetables including 15,000 which were used for strawberries alone. EUROPEAN CULTURE OF THE STRAWBERRY Garden Culture and Forcing Strawberry culture in France and England has been on an in­ tensive rather than an extensive scale since its beginning. In both of these countries the forcing of strawberries in greenhouses or specially constructed beds has remained very important until quite recent times. "The French Gardener," translated by E v e l i n ^ ^ in 1691, gives a good idea of the intensive methods employed. lowing quotations are taken from that translation: The fol­ 15 "The soyl (soil) which they most affect, is rather a sandy than a stiff, and therefore you shall make choice of that part in your garden for them, which most approaches this mixture," "The 1Small-red wild strawberiy* need not be culti­ vated but may be gathered from the woods or planted in beds about the home and given no special care. Other types (Large-red, White, and Capprens) are planted in borders or low beds with a path between." "To order them well, you must dress, weed and loose the mould about them very diligently, and to have fair and clear fruit, you shall stick a smaller prop to every plant, to which you shall bind their stalks with a straw." "When your strawberries shoot their strings, you must castrate them, and leave them none but such as you reserve to furnish you with plants." Much the same recommendations appear prominently in periodical literature during the early part of the nineteenth century. In the early volumes of Loudon's Gardener's Magazine from 18£6 to 1840 Knight and other writers favored the intensive culture but questioned the desirability of cutting all runners and stirring the beds in the fall. Great emphasis was placed on deep soil preparation and the liberal use of manure. the use of nitrate. There were frequent favorable references to The practice of allowing runners to set in matted beds, which were mowed and manured after picking and retained several years, was referred to by most writers as a careless, undesirable method which produced continuously smaller and poorer fruits. Development of Field Culture Discussions of field culture first appeared in the Gardener* s 14 Chronicle about 1850, The hill system was used, and vegetable crops such as onions, spinach, and endive were suggested as intercrops* All writers agreed that a fertile soil was necessary but some recom­ mended a sandy soil while others preferred a heavier type. The inten­ sive methods of garden culture and forcing were reflected in the recommendations for field culture. In the first volume, 1872, of "The Garden” which was edited fcy Robinson, (^5) following statement is found: ”Three main points to be observed in strawberry growing are digging deeply, planting early and manuring heavily.” A discussion of soil preparation about twelve years later ty the same editor showed a somewhat different opinion. After stating that trench­ ing was generally considered necessary and admitting that it probably was essential in veiy light soils he said(^): ”......... I can safely assert that trenching is (under other conditions) quite unnecessaiy and in some cases it has proved actually disadvantageous." For both field and garden culture late summer or fall setting was recommended. Either the plants which had been forced were used or the first runners were rooted in pots in the field. By these methods August setting was quite successful and good crops of fruit were har­ vested the following spring. For many years during the last half of the nineteenth century there were comparatively few important changes in cultural recommenda­ tions. There was the usual discussion as to the proper time to apply mulch, the best season for setting, and the value of spring cultivation, 15 but, nevertheless, there was general agreement. In 1890 a paper on "Strawberries for Market,” was read by Bunyard^*^) before a meeting of the British Fruit Growers Association in which the following state­ ments occurred: "Deep cultivation, heavy manuring, clean culture, end care in sorting the fruit, appear to be essentials.11 Earlier in the paper the writer said: "I am of the opinion that, as far as culture Is con­ cerned, we have reached the best possible; and the only thing I object to in our Kent field system, is the late hoeing which is often given. If the land is thoroughly cleaned and pulverized, by the time the flower trusses show, and before they open, it would be preferable to finish hoeing at this stage, and not delay the work until the flower is out ♦ About the beginning of the present century frequent references to overproduction began to appear in periodical literature, Beckett, in "The Book of the Strawberiy,'1 which was published in 1902, explained that foreign competition, that is shipments of fruit from France, was not important because the fruit deteriorated so much in transit that it was of poor quality on arrival. Only five years later, however, it was reported in the "Gardener’s Chronicle" that the transportation of strawberries from Western E^land and from France was greatly hurting the greenhouse culture. Even though the production in France was concentrated near the cities and came from small plantings the crop was reported to be of considerable economic importance. following statement: In 1895 de Vilmorin^^) made the 16 "From a commercial point of view the culture of the strawberry (in France) is nearly as important as that of Asparagus." There was continued increase in production in spite of declining prices until by 1911 the prices had dropped sufficiently to discourage French shipments. During this same period a great deal of discussion occurred concerning the deterioration or "running out" of varieties. Leaf spot and eelworms were considered the principal causes and growers were urged to introduce healthy, vigorous plants from other sections at least 100 miles distant. This introduction of fresh stock and greater care in cultural practices failed to stop the deterioration and about 1928 careful research was begun on the problem. time Wardlow, About that of Glasgow University, was assigned to study of a common strawberiy root disease. He said: "The disease which is seen at its worst in May and June, is definitely diagnosed as a root disease due to the destruction of the root system by soil fungi under soil conditions unfavorable to the plant." His later recommendations suggested no direct control but suggested more attention to the selection of favorable soils, liberal feeding, careful tillage, the use of good plants, and crop rotation. STRAWBERRZ CULTURE IN THE UNITED STATES Influence of European Methods During the early period of strawberry growing in the United 17 States the cultural practices were patterned after English methods. Frequent references may be found in the magazines of that time to practices which closely resemble the forcing methods followed in England and France. The setting of pots in the field in order to root the runners during the summer and thus provide potted plants for late summer or fall setting is an example of such practices. The state­ ments of William P r i n c e 1828, are descriptive of these early methods. He recommended the fall setting of strong vigorous plants and said: "These may be placed in beds from three to four feet wide and from ten to twelve inches apart each way, according to the extent to which the variety usually expands its growth." Later in the same discussion he said: "Most varieties do best when allowed to run together, so as to form a complete mat— as in this case one forms a shelter for the other from excessive heat— but when fruit is desired of the largest possible size, the plants must be kept distinct, and at a distance of one foot asunder, and the runners should be cut off as fast as they appear." In the early volumes of Hovey*s Gardener*s Magazine many sys­ tems of strawberry culture were discussed. Forcing, bed culture, row culture, hill culture, and, less frequently, the practice of allowing the plants to set runners forming more or less matted rows were given considerable attention. The editor expressed a preference for the bed culture in Volume 1; in Volume 4 Downing suggested the hill system, and Bayne, just a few years later, recommended that plants be set three feet apart and runners be allowed to fill alternate middles. Thus, 18 the discussion has continued until very recent times. have favored one plan and others have favored another. Some writers All of the time many growers have been quite successful with widely different methods as was so strikingly expressed ty Hovey,(^®) 1861: "The strawberry is cultivated in a great variety of modes, viz in rows, in hills, and in beds, some al­ lowing the plants to bear only one crop, others two, and some three. Some mow the leaves after the crop is gathered; others turn in the old plants to make place for the new runners, and thus keep the beds on the same ground for several years. In either way, with good judgment and proper treatment, good crops may be produced; and under ordinary garden cultiva­ tion it is hardly possible, with a good soil and liberal manuring, to prevent a successful result, whatever may be the mode adopted." The Extensive Spread of the Industry Resulted in New Methods With the development of more extensive commercial strawberry growing there was a very definite tendency away from the more inten­ sive methods of culture. Forcing and the culture of this fruit in beds have practically disappeared. Strong statements may be found concerning the relative value of the hill system and matted row cul­ ture and often a modification of these, known as the hedge-row or the controlled row, has been recommended. A careful study of recent literature leads to the conclusion that the matted row plan has been generally adopted fcy commercial growers in most sections of the United States. The lower south and parts of the northwest, however, have turned to the hill system. The commercial crop in Tennessee is pro­ duced entirely according to the matted row plan. 19 The Selection of a Suitable Soil Soil Type The selection of a suitable location for a strawberry plant­ ing has been recognized as a matter of great importance since the beginning of the industry. Among the factors which should be con­ sidered in the selection of a desirable site, the soil has been given the most attention. "Whether or not it is for a market or home patch, the results secured will, in a general way, be measured by the adaptation of the soil.” (90) One of the early statements which described the characters of a good strawberry soil was made by William Prince.^®) He said: "A light rich loam is considered the most favorable, being soft, and pliable so that runners may easily penetrate it with their roots.” (54) One hundred years later a similar soil was described by Loreev 7: "Good crops of strawberries may be grown upon almost any type of soil, provided it is retentive of moisture, fairly fertile, and well drained.” During this century and up to the present similar statements have been very common, though some variations may be found. The following statements may be taken as representative of the general opinion: "The type of soil, whether it be sand, silt, or clay, is not so important as that it should be well sup­ plied with humus." (25) "The best soil for the strawberry is a deep rich loam. Deep it must be, if large berries and plentiful crops are desired." (50) 20 "Any well drained soil of moderate fertility that has high water holding capacities is suitable. The ideal soil would be a sandy or gravely loam underlain with clay.” (15) "Deep santy loam is most desirable.” "Good moisture penetrating and holding ability (is) necessary." (17) ”••••••• the happy medium between the light sandy loams on one hand and heavy waxy lime lands on the other is best." (58) Some writers favor a rather heavy type of soil while others recommend a light texture but in almost all cases they agree that humus is es­ sential, that good drainage is necessaiy and that at least moderate fertility is very desirable* The following summary statement by Fletcher,(^3) gfves a fair explanation of these minor differences: "A survey of soil preferences in different parts of the continent discloses the fact that more straw­ berries are grown on a sandy loam underlaid with a clay than on any other soil type. The demand for early berries has had much to do with this choice. The most popular strawberry soil in the northern and central states is a gravelly loam with a clay sub­ soil. Heavy loams, silts and light clays are pre­ ferred for late varieties in the East and are used very generally on the Pacific coast for all varieties." "New ground" has been recommended frequently as most desirable for strawberries. This is probably due to the fact that such land usually has abundant humus, is in good physical condition, and is comparatively free from serious weeds* In some sections growers have depended upon "new ground" for most of the strawberry acreage but usually such land has become scarce and it has been necessary to prepare old land for this crop. 21 Crop Rotation No recommendations are found in recent literature for continu­ ing strawberries on the same land for any great length of time. The accumulation of insects and diseases, the withdrawal of certain ele­ ments from the soil and the reduction of the humus supply, leading to soil erosion on even moderate slopes, are the usual reasons which are given for crop rotation. An almost endless variety of rotations are suggested ty different writers but certain recommendations are similar in nearly all references to this subject. Perhaps the most important of these is the use of some green manure crop, preferably a legume, in the rotation in order to maintain the humus supply. The (91) following statement ty Talbert' ' expresses the opinion of most writers: "Crop rotation systems using legumes and non-legumes, with and without manure, are valuable in preparing old land for strawberry production.” The other important point upon which practically all writers agree is that strawberries should follow a clean cultivated crop in order to reduce the problem of weed control and the danger from in­ sects, such as cut worms and white grubs which often accumulate in sod land. Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, or other vege­ tables are considered suitable crops to precede the planting of straw­ berries. Soil Acidity During recent years attention has been given to soil acidity 22 as a factor in determining the suitability of a soil for strawberry growing. It has been recognized for many years that wildstraw­ berries are found on soils which vary widely in this regard but that a slightly acid condition is most common. Morris, working with strawberry plants growing in nutrient solutions, found that the pos­ sible limits were quite wide but that best growth was produced in slightly acid solutions. He says: "Best results were obtained in the pH 6 solution; however, there was not a striking difference be­ tween the plants grown in the four solutions from pH 4 to pH 7 inclusive." The belief that successful strawberry production under ordinary con­ ditions is not limited by the soil acidity is indicated ty the fol­ lowing statement of Morris and C r i s t ^ ^ : "The reactions commonly found in so-called "Agri­ cultural" soils are probably per se not important limiting factors in strawberry production.” The statement of Waltman^^) favors the use of sufficient lime to promote the growth of clovers. "A reaction that was most favorable for growth also induced greatest fruitfulness." "It seems probable that enough lime can be added to the soil to promote the growth of clover without making the reaction too alkaline for the growth of strawberrie s subsequently •" Other Factors Aside from the selection of a suitable soil there seems to be practically complete agreement in regard to other characteris­ tics of a good strawberry site. sidered necessary. Both air and water drainage are con­ Where early ripening is of great importance a 25 southern exposure is usually suggested. Steep slopes which are sub­ ject to severe erosion are to be avoided. The Selection of Varieties A very large place in the literature of strawberry growing is occupied with discussions of varieties and the characteristics of desirable plants. The selection of suitable varieties is generally considered as fundamental to success with this fruit. Oskamp^4^ made the following statements "It Is conservative to say that without any increase in acreage the growers of the State could double their output of this important small fruit ty the judicious selection of varieties and the use of proper cultural practices." In 1861 Hovey stated in the columns of his "Gardener1s Magazine" that the culture of the strawberry had not advanced during the pre­ ceding ten or fifteen years and gave the introduction of excessive numbers of inferior varieties as the principal reason. At the begin­ ning of his chapter on varieties in "Strawberry Growing" which was published in 1917 F l e t c h e r i n d i c a t e d that the influence of these poor varieties was still apparent. He says: "The Strawberry is burdened more heavily with indefinite and mediocre varieties than any other fruit." During the time intervening between these statements, however, the aims of the strawberry breeders and the standards ty which new varieties were judged changed very greatly. At the time Hovey wrote, 24 during the strawberry boom, and for some time later, the chief inter­ est was in the development of large fruited varieties and in the study of flower characters. According to Darrow, one of the leading workers in this field, the interest of m o d e m strawberry breeders is centered on quality, disease resistance, and the adaptability of the new vari­ ety to definite uses. From the standpoint of the grower the basis of selecting varieties is stated ty Thayer^4 ) in the following words: "In selecting a variety, sex is of minor considera­ tion. Vigor, productiveness, resistance to disease and insects, and good fruit characters are the things to be considered." Two types of flowers are recognized, the pistillate and the hermaph­ rodite, but the hermaphrodite varieties which are grown today are veiy much more fertile than those grown seventy-five years ago, and are so desirable in other characters that they have largely replaced the pistillate kinds. Since the introduction of the first "everbearing" variety early in this century there has been some interest in their cultivation. They have not become of great commercial importance, due probably to the fact that they require a more fertile soil, and more careful at­ tention. The everbearing varieties lack in runner production and there­ fore are less adapted to the matted row system of culture. The Selection of Plants for Setting The discussion concerning the type of plant which should be 25 set has centered almost entirely about the size and age of runners. The use of plants which have been rooted in pots has been common where strawberries are forced in greenhouses or in beds, but it has seldom been followed for field culture. Field grown plants are used and there is general agreement that old mother plants and those which have exhausted themselves by fruit production are not desirable. The following statement by Fletcher(^5) suramarizes the discussion on the selection of runner plants: "For many years it was the prevailing opinion that the first, second, and third runners are valuable for setting in the order named; that runners formed later than these, and especially alley plants, never should be used, even though of good size........ Later evidence has shown that tip plants of fair size start off better in the spring, and have fewer fruit buds than older plants, which is an advantage." Later in the same paragraph he says: "It is likely that thevigor of the plant, particu­ larly the strength of the root system, is more im­ portant than the timeof year when it was produced." Later writers on thesubject generally agree with this statement. In Kansas Circular 162, the a u t h o r s a y s : "Available evidence does not sustain the popular idea that late set runner plants, those at the tip of the runner, are less valuable than the earlier-rooted ones." During recent years some attention has been given to so-called "pedigree plants," those which have been grown from selected mother plants, but most writers agree that such plants are very little better than others. In 1926 Talbert(^1) made the following statement: "Pedigreed strawberry plants are rarely better than the original variety." 26 A more complete statement occurred, 1909, from the Central Experi­ mental Farm, Ottawa, Canada: "While the results obtained do not warrant the pur­ chase of "pedigree" plants rather than others where there is no special claim as to selection, we believe that the principle of selection is good and if thoroughly carried out, is bound to result in an im­ proved strain, which, however, can only be maintained by continued selection." Cultural Methods With the spread of commercial strawberry growing and the develop­ ment of extensive plantings many of the extreme practices associated with forcing and garden culture were found to be impractical and there was a tendency to question all of the old methods. The following statements of growers and correspondents, which appeared in the Rural New Yorker between 1850 and 1855, indicate this critical or question­ ing attitude: "We are persuaded that a great mistake is made in manuring too much." (77) "I have never trenched my ground and some of the best crops I ever raised were grown on land simply plowed the usual depth." (78) "Nor is mulching a perfect substitute for the hoe in summer." (79) The result of such attitudes was the development of all sorts of vari­ ations from what might be called a standard system. Some writers were inclined to defend the old intensive methods but many turned to the other extreme and a great confusion resulted. Gradually, however, 27 some practices have become standardized and generally accepted. Methods of Setting From the very early days of commercial strawberry growing to the present there has been practically complete agreement that great care should be exercised in the setting of the plants and the recom­ mendations have changed very little. In "The Horticulturist," 1861, Fuller recommended that the roots be trimmed for spring planting but not for fall setting, and he suggested that setting be done on cloudy days to prevent drying of the plants during the planting. He empha­ sized especially that the roots be spread evenly, that the plants be set deeply but not deep enough to cover the crown, and that the soil be firmed carefully about the roots* The recommendations of recent writers on this subject are fairly represented by the following quo­ tation from Auchter and Knapp(^): "Set the plants firmly, at the proper depth and when the soil is moist. Any planting method that takes account of these factors will give good results..... Set the crown at ground level....... If the roots are long and straggling, clip slightly to aid in planting•" Cultivation Leading writers uniformly emphasize the importance of thorough soil preparation, that is, deep plowing or sub-soiling followed by careful working. Though contradictory statements are found frequently concerning the comparative advantages of deep and shallow cultivation, there is almost complete agreement that strawberries respond to frequent, 28 thorough tillage which controls weeds and grass during the growing season. Statements similar to the following may be found in most discussions of this subject. "Thorough cultivation during the first season can not be too strongly urged. It conserves moisture, promotes the growth of plants, keeps the weeds down and is in every way beneficial." (20) "Frequent and shallow tillage the first season is one of the secrets of successful berry growing." (64) "The old saying ’tillage is manure’ holds true for strawberries." (92) Life of a Commercial Plantation In some phases of strawberiy culture there is not such uni­ formity of opinion. For example, in regard to the profitable life of a strawberiy plantation, there is a wide difference of opinion. Some authors recommend that only one crop be harvested. The follow­ ing statement appeared in the "Rural New Yorker" ( ^ ) : "Any strawberiy bed which needs a plow to assist in cleaning it up, should never be run the second year." Taylor^^) expressed the same opinion, 1911: "Usually it is better to set new beds each year than to continue the old ones." The more common recommendation, however, Is that two or possibly three crops may be taken from a planting. The plans which are suggested for the renovation of a strawberry field after the first crop vary greatly. A review of periodical literature indicates that many growers practice no cultivation between the first and second crop, 29 but simply mow the weeds once or twice during the summer. Other growers and most of the leading writers recommend rather thorough working during the second summer. follows: Such a thorough program may be outlined as after the first harvest the tops are burned or mowed, the rows are narrowed with a plow or other cultivator, the plants are thinned in the row and grass or weeds are removed by hand. Following this renovation the cultivation is continued throughout the summer as it was the first season. The exact method of renovation, in fact the decision as to whether a planting should be worked at all after har­ vest, will depend upon the conditions of that particular field. Fertilization— Recommendations of Last Century It is in regard to strawberry fertilization that the literature becomes hopelessly confusing. On this subject the writings of the past two decades are fully as contradictory as are those of last cen­ tury. Before the spread of extensive commercial strawberry growing it was the custom to incorporate large quantities of manure into the soil as it was being prepared. The practice was generally adopted for field culture but differences of opinion were common. Pardee(65) was among the first prominent writers to question the heavy fertilizing of this crop. In 1853 he said: "Almost everyone who cultivates strawberries, I notice, has fallen into two very great errors. First, of al­ lowing different varieties to intermingle....... The other error, I observe, about as universally prevalent, is over feeding, and as a consequence, an over growth of vines and a deficiency of fruit..... . Such highly enriched soils can be in a measure counterbalanced by liberal applications of potash, lime, and salt." 50 The next year, 1854, in Hovey*s "Gardener*s Magazine” the editor gave a review of the book "Complete Manual for Culture of the Strawberry” which had recently been published ty Pardee, In this review he took strong issue with the statement, "Few good soils need enriching at all for the Strawberry.” In answer to this statement he said: "This may be true, but so far as our experience goes — the experience of 25 years - we are sure that fine fruit of the largest size cannot be abundantly raised without a good soil well manured........ whoever attempts to raise fine strawberries without manure (or its equiva­ lent, guano) will signally fail." (47) The idea that vezy fertile soils were not desirable for straw­ berries was widespread for several years but the following statement from a special committee report(87) presen-fce(i before the Illinois Horticultural Society in 1877 indicates that by that time there had been a renewed interest in fertilization: "The theory formerly prevalent, that the soil should not be made rich for strawberries, has been generally practically abandoned by cultivators of this fruit." A very careful study of the literature dealing with strawberry fertilization, since the beginning of the century, shows two almost opposite schools of thought, those who do not believe that the appli­ cation of fertilizing materials is profitable and those who recommend the rather liberal application of one or more elements. The most striking difference of opinion concerns the application of nitrogen. A few quotations are given in the following paragraphs representing the first of these groups. 51 Fertilization— Negative Evidence D a v i s , o f the Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Canada, makes the following statement: "One thing which stood out, however, was that the plants when set out were incapable of utilizing a readily available' supply of nitrogen and in many instances nitrogen applied at that time resulted in injury to the newly set plants, even though the fertilizer did not actually come in contact with the foliage." The effect of fertilizer on the carrying quality of straw­ berries in Alabama is reported ty Kimbrough. He says: "Judged ty their condition on arrival after being shipped by express or transported by automobile a distance of over two hundred miles, the carrying quality of berries from these plants (those made excessively vigorous ty 400 pounds of nitrate of soda in the spring) was not as good as that of ber­ ries from less vigorous plants." He continues to say: "Heavy applications of muriate of potash did not improve the carrying quality of strawberries. "It seems evident that fertilizer treatments may affect the carrying quality of berries, but the extent of this effect is probably not as great as has been thought." The report of a strawberry fertilizer experiment which is given in the Annual Report of the Kentucky Experiment Station, includes this statement: "The results continued to show that a foundation treatment of the soil with lime and phosphate and the use of sweet clover as a rotation crop has made a very favorable condition for strawberiy produc­ tion. The addition of fertilizers containing nitro­ gen, phosphorus or potassium, either separately or in combination, has not increased the yield. The addition of nitrogenous fertilizers sharply reduced the yield in all cases this year." 32 In a recent bulletin T a l b e r t , o f Missouri, makes the fol­ lowing statement: "When strawberry soils are handled as suggested, it will rarely be necessary or profitable, to apply fertilizers after planting." Cochran and W e b s t e r , o f Oklahoma, report the effect of nitrogen as follows: "In all cases under field conditions where the ap­ plication of nitrogen was high, fewer plants came through the dry season, with a smaller yield per plot." (39) Grevev ' has reported experiments concerning the effect of nitrogen on the growth and blooming of the Howard 17 Strawberry in Maryland. In the report of this work he says: "In general, there is little indication that summer and autumn nitrogen applications were in any way either significantly beneficial or injurious under the not unusual conditions surrounding the experi­ ments •" Such evidence as has been presented above seems sufficient to prove that the application of fertilizing materials to strawberries is of very doubtful value, that it may prove injurious and that it cannot be considered a profitable practice. The literature of this same period, however, is filled with information from equally reliable sources which is almost directly contradictory. Fertilization— Positive Evidence Among those who recommend liberal fertilization of the straw­ berry there is wide variation as to the best materials but the most 33 writers agree that manure is beneficial. Many of those writers who recommend other materials emphasize the value of humus and veiy few of them offer any objection to manure. The following quotations indicate the widespread preference for manure during the first two decades of the present centuiy. ’’Poor land will not grow strawberries profitably...” ’’Nothing is better than stable manure ” (70) ’’The best fertilizer for strawberries is well-rot barnyard manure, which should be used in large quantities." (57) The statement by Shaw^®®) from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture indicates a very definite preference for manure over the chemical fertilizers. After expressing this preference, however, he says: "As a rule, an abundance of nitrogen will pro­ duce heavy yields and large berries, but suffi­ cient phosphoric acid and potash, in available forms are needed to develop the flavor, color, and firmness of the fruit." "The use of these fertilizers (chemical ferti­ lizers) alone, without the addition of sufficient vegetable matter, will soon leave the land in an impoverished, unproductive condition.” Very significant statements were made in 1918 ty Halligan,^^ of Michigan, concerning the subject of strawberry fertilization: "In considering the food supply of a strawberry plant, there are two important requisites, namely, good soil texture and a liberal amount of plant food........ While strawberries do not remove excessive amounts of plant food from the soil, there is no crop that responds more readily to heavy fertilizing. An imbalanced ration, how­ ever, should be avoided....... Farm manures are the best general purpose fertilizers for straw­ berries •" 34 During the last fifteen or twenty years attention has shifted largely from manure to the commercial chemical fertilizers. This has been due probably to the increasing scarcity of manure and the great improvement of the other materials. The comparative importance of different materials has been the subject of much discussion. In 1919 Mooers^^) presented a discussion of this subject before the Tennessee Horticultural Society. He reported that the evidence on the value of liming for strawberries indicated that applications directly for strawberries were not apt to be profitable and might be detrimental. He said that there was clear evidence that strawberries were sensi­ tive to deficiencies in phosphoric acid and recommended four hundred pounds per acre as a reasonable application. Potash, on the other hand, was considered much less important and more than very light applications were discouraged. Concerning the use of these materials he says: "Acid phosphate may be the best single fertilizer material for the strawberiy grower to rely upon, but acid phosphate, together with some such material as nitrate of soda, is generally needed to give best results." Several years later, in 1930, Hoddy^^^ reported to the same society that the strawberry growers in Blount County, Tennessee, had realized great profit from the application of potash to their fields in the spring. The annual report(^) of the Arkansas Experiment Station, 1930, is in general agreement with the statement of Mooers: 55 "The results from fertilizer treatments on old strawberiy fields for 1950 were not only incon­ sistent but contradictory* There were, however, indications of benefit from phosphorus and of injury from the use of too much nitrogen." "Accumulated evidence from previous seasons shows that on both heavy and light soils phosphorus from the standpoint of production is the most important fertilizer. Nitrogen is next in im­ portance but there is danger of using too much at a single application. Potash is the least important, but it is necessary for maximum pro­ duction on light soils." Nitrogen is given much greater importance in comparison with the other materials by many writers. Linberiy and Mannv 1 make the following statement concerning the effect of nitrogenousfertilizers on strawberiy production: "Spring applications of quickly available nitro­ gen, sodium nitrate or ammonium sulphate, in­ creased the yield of strawberries but the ripen­ ing was delayed and the caraying qualities lowered." Based upon pot experiments with strawberries at the Michigan (55) Experiment Station, Loreev 1 concluded that spring applications of nitrogen stimulated vigorous runner production while summer applica­ tions had little effect on runner production but favored crown develop­ ment. In regard to the importance of nitrogen he says: "Nitrogen has been the chief limiting element. It is an important factor in promoting vegetative growth and is particularly important at the time of fruit bud differentation." He found no indication that fertilizer treatments had any effect on the moisture content, texture or quality of the fruit. 36 In the south, fall and early winter applications correspond, so far as their effect on plant growth is concerned, to spring ap­ plications in the northern sections. In 1932, T a y l o r , o f Alabama, made the following statement concerning the effect of such applica­ tions: "In general, applications of nitrogenous fertilizer to strawberries in Alabama in the fall and early winter increased the numbers of flower clusters, flowers, and fruits.” Darrow and Waldo ('26) found that the vegetative stimulation which resulted from applications of nitrogen to strawberries, or from any other cause, tended to increase the amount of decay which occurred in the field. Nevertheless, in regard to the important fertilizer ap­ plications they say: "Superphosphate was apparently somewhat more ef­ fective than potash in increasing the yield of fruit.” "The use of nitrogen fertilizers is essential to the production of large yields of early berries in this section.” Occasional references may be found to the profitable applica­ tion of fertilizers to strawberries in the spring of the crop year. Such results are reported by Baker in transactions of the Indiana Horticultural Society, 1932,v J but there seems to be general agree­ ment that fertilizers intended to increase yields should be made dur­ ing the summer or fall of the preceding year. In this connection Loree(^) makes the following statement based upon his pot experi­ ment: 57 "Applications of fertilizers in the spring of the fruiting year have no effect on the number of clusters, or the number of flowers per cluster." Shoemaker and Greve^®®) found that spring applications of nitrogen, in Ohio, did not increase yields while applications in August of the preceding year made marked increases. Veiy similar results are re­ ported by T u c k e r i n a Virginia Bulletin: "Repeated tests have demonstrated that a fall application (in late August or early September) is more suitable than a spring application." A study of the "Seasonal Changes in Nitrogen and Carbohydrate Content of the Strawberiy Plant," as reported ty L o n g , ^ ^ of Missouri, gave emphasis to the importance of summer and fall care. He says: "The fruit production of a strawberry plant is determined by the food reserves that accumulate during the growing season and are made available in the spring." The effect of varying nutritive conditions both in the soil and in the plant at different seasons of the year were given careful study by Gardner^®*^ in Missouri. In the discussion of these tests the following statements are made: "It is clear, however, that the nutrition question, as it relates to strawberries, Is a late summer and fall question to a much greater extent than has been generally suspected, and that investigators and growers can well afford to give it consideration from this point of view." Fertilization— Conclusions Must be Indefinite In spite of the inconsistent and contradictory results which have been reported from experimental tests, the application of 58 fertilizers is a general practice among commercial growers in the leading strawberry states. So many other factors influence the yields and quality of berries that it is often difficult to determine the real effects of fertilizer treatments. The possibility of such con­ fusion is indicated ty the following statement ty Kimbrough, of the Alabama Experiment Station: "Comparisons of the quality of strawberries based on determinations of moisture content, sugar con­ tent, and firmness showed a much greater differ­ ence in the berries due to rainfall and to varia­ tions in soil moisture than to fertilizer treatment." A study of the effects of fertilizers on the yields and quality of strawberries in North Carolina is reported in the Annual Report, 1950, of the North Carolina Experiment Station. "It must be concluded, therefore, that the care exercised in picking is probably more important in influencing rot, disease and carrying quality than possible differences due to type and kind of fertilizer used." Such a review of the literature concerning the fertilization of strawberries leads to rather indefinite conclusions. of Cochran The statement in the Biennial Report, 1922-24, of the Oklahoma Experi­ ment Station, represents the opinion of many leading writers. He says: "It seems quite probable that the strawberry should be grown on land containing a good deal of humus and that the fertilizer had best be applied to the crop preceding the strawberries, depending upon the decaying of organic matter for the fertilizer for the berries." The statement culturist" more than it was then. which was made ty the editor^®) of "TheHorti­ half a century ago is probably as truetoday as 59 "Understanding the general principle, or that the strawberry roots deep, good common sense must then guide as to the condition of the soil, and its want of manure or otherwise." Insects and Diseases Among the important fruit crops the strawberry is one which staffers less from insects and diseases than most. In this review no attempt has been made to follow in detail the literature concern­ ing the various pests. A regular program of spraying has never been adopted ty most of the growers in any commercial section because such cultural practices as careful plant selection, crop rotation, clean cultivation, and thorough sanitation have prevented or greatly re­ duced the losses from the common pests. In the Introductory para­ graph to Chapter XIV In "Strawberry Growing" Fletcher(35) says: "Fifty years ago, when the same plantation was fruited ten to fifteen years, damage from pests was much more pronounced than now, when most plantings are fruited but one year and practically none more than four years." Later in the same paragraph he says: "Probably over ninety-five percent of the commercial strawberry crop is grown without any spraying what­ ever ." Probably the most generally distributed strawberry diseases are those which affect the leaves such as the leaf spots, scorch, leaf blight, mildew, yellows, and strawberry dwarf or "crimps." Except for the last two of these, commercial control has usually been secured 40 by the selection of resistant varieties, and the careful burning of the old leaves after harvest. In unusual cases the use of Bordeaux mixture as a dip for the plants before setting or a spray as growth is starting in the field has been used. Strawberry yellows has been most serious on a comparatively new variety, Blakemore, and no control has been developed except the planting of disease free plants well isolated from infected plantations. Strawberiy dwarf or "crimps” is caused by a nematode, different from the one which causes root knot, and is controlled best ty rather long rotations and careful rogueing. The most serious strawberry root disease is one known as "Black Root." This disease usually first appears with hot weather and may cause the death of a considerable percent of the plants dur­ ing the summer. The fungus which has been most frequently reported as associated with the trouble is Rhizoctonia but many writers believe that the condition described as "Black Root" is often caused by winter injury. Roberts, Wisconsin, found that mulching previous to temperatures of 20° F. prevented the blackening of the roots as is commonly found in the field. Fruit rots of the strawberry, such as gray mold, leather rot, hard rot and leak (Rhizopus), often cause heavy losses in the field, in transit or in the market. The leather rot, hard rot and even gray mold are usually more serious in the field and the losses correspond closely to the weather conditions. spread of these diseases. Warm rainy weather favors the Discussing the "Relation of Strawberry Fruit 41 Hots to Weather Conditions” R o s e ^ ^ makes this summary statement: "Therefore the inference seems justified that, in the regions studied, rot of strawberries in the field (Leather rot and all other rots) is depen­ dent upon two factors, rainfall and temperature.” The Rhizopus fruit rot, frequently called "Black Mold” or "Leak,” is responsible for more loss in transit than all other kinds of rots combined, according to the work reported by Hose^®^ in 1926. These losses are, also, closely related to the weather conditions. Considering the conditions in Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana, the author makes the following statement: ".......in the two wet years for all three states the total average rot was nearly five times as great as in the two succeeding dry years." Among the insects attacking the strawberry the crown borer, white grub, end weevil are the most serious. The leaf-roller and root louse are widely distributed but usually are not of great economic im­ portance. Under ordinary conditions crop rotation, careful sanitation, and the selection of plants makes it possible to avoid serious losses. Economic Problems of Importance Yields Since the early spread of extensive strawberry growing the crop has maintained a place of Importance as a cash crop. There have been periods of expansion and periods of decline but the general trend has been toward a wider distribution both of producing areas and of market 42 outlets. The general trend in yield per acre, however, seems to be downward. The popular strawberry literature between 1850 and 1875, while the industry was expanding so rapidly and spreading into new territories, contains comparatively few references to yields of less than 50 bushels per acre and most reports give yields ranging from 100 to 150 bushels per acre. The popular literature of more recent times indicates that the yields range from 50 to 100 twentyfour quart crates per acre. In his report on "The Cost of Producing Strawberries,” 1930, Waller says that among 103 records there were 26 growers reporting yields less than 2000 quarts (about 83 crates) and 24 growers reporting more than 4000 quarts (about 165 crates) per acre.^^*^ The average yield in the second early group of states, which includes Tennessee was, 1930, approximately 2000 quarts per acre.(89> Labor Requirements The labor required for the production of strawberries was given by Hutson^®^ in Kentucky Bulletin 225, 1924. The average for 63 growers was given as 111.8 man hours for the first crop, 51.2 hours for the second crop, and 34.7 hours for the third. horse hours decreased in a similar way. The number of The average requirement of horse labor was 65.7 hours for the first crop, 2.9.6 for the second, and 20.8 for the third. Concerning the importance of abundant labor the author made the following statement: "A careful analysis of the data available suggests that most growers could increase their profits from strawberries by giving the growing crop more care­ ful attention.” 45 "Figure 7 also shows that some fanners got about two crates of strawberries for each hour spent in cultivation, while others devoted almost two hours for each crate. This difference is due, to a great extent, to efficient and inefficient practises," According to Arkansas Experiment Station Bulletin 218, 1927, the cost of producing, harvesting, and delivery for shipment in 24 quart crates was about eight cents per quart. The labor and farm power previous to harvest was said by the authors to range from 5 to 10 per cent, of the total, while harvesting, packing, and deliveiy for shipment amounted to 50 per cent, and the cost of the crates alone amounted to 15 per cent, of the total cost.^0^ The labor requirement for strawberry production under Maryland conditions in 1929 was given by Whitehouse, Hart and Walker. In the Marion area where strawberries were a veiy important cash crop about 12 cultivations and four hoeings were given during the first year and three cultivations with one mowing and raking but no hoeing were given the second season. For such a program the labor requirement was 186.6 man hours and 66.9 horse hours for the first year and 18.0 man hours and 15.0 horse hours for the second year. The authors gave the approximate distribution of costs in this region as follows: 14.5% 47.5% 27.2% 6.8% 4.0% preharvest labor and power harvest labor and power materials miscellaneous expenses interest 44 Cost of Production The attempt to analyze the cost of producing strawberries, especially the distribution of the cost among the separate items, and an attempt to determine the profits which have been received by the producers of this crop is very unsatisfactory. General state­ ments concerning the cost of production may be found scattered through the popular literature but very little actual data are available. In Volume 4 of "The H o r t i c u l t u r i s t , " a grower of Watervliet, Michigan, reported a cost of $60.00 per acre. Pardee,^6) 1858, gave the cost of cultivation as $15.00 to $25.00 per acre. A grower near Wallingford, Connecticut, gave, in more detail, the costs of producing 9j acres of strawberries. A summary of this record Team work and labor...... Manures Bog hay and straw mulch... Interest on capital, taxes $ 836.75 415.63 378.00 109.15 Total production costs.... $1739.50 is as follows: Picking and marketing.. $846.04 Freight, traveling, tel. 565.60 Commission......... 279.42 Team work........... 60.00 Wear ofcrates....... . 125.00 Total marketingcosts..$1875.96 A much more detailed statement of production costs was given in the American Fruit Grower for February 1919. In this r e p o r t t h e expenses are given separately for the first and second years: First Year Rent..................... Taxes ...••*• Plowing Harrowing Marking ........ Setting, four days........ Plants and digging....... Cultivating, seven times.. Second Year $ 7.00 $ 7.00 1.80 .............. . 1*80 2.00 Mowing.................. 1,00 1.00 Rejuvenating............... 2.50 .15 6.00 1.50 3.00............ . six times... 5.00 (Continued) 45 (Continued) First Year Second Year Hoeing, cutting runners and blossoms 500 lbs. fertilizer. Sowing 1 bushel oats 200 crates, 16 quart Picking...... ..... Packing and hauling Total # 8.00 6.00 1.20 24•00 40.00 10.00 Mulch........... Mulch application Mulch removing... 100 crates....... ................ ................ Total #111.65 # 4.00 3.00 1.50 12.00 25.00 7.00 #67.80 An examination of this information shows that approximately 65 per cent, of the total cost was that of picking and handling the crop and between 50 per cent, and 60 per cent, of the production costs were re­ quired for labor. Profits Reported Genera.1 statements concerning the profits derived from straw­ berry growing should not be expected to agree because so many faetors of a local nature influence the results. Hooper,the In "The Horticulturist," 1859, secretary of the Cincinnati Horticultural Society said that profits under the best circumstances should be #100.00 to #120.00 per acre clear of all picking costs. In the Rural New Yorker, 1869, a grower, Purdey,^9^ from western New York, said, in answer to the question, "Do strawberries pay?": "I can say that they have paid us and will do so, so long as we can get even 6^ a quart here." In the proceedings of the 16th Session, 1877, of the American (8 ) Pomological Society, Berckmans' * of Georgia reported an average price of 12^0 per quart and said: 46 "This admits of veiy satisfactory profits when this fruit is properly grown." At the Annual Convention, 1921, of the Tennessee Horticultural Society, Garrison^®) reported profits of $335.00 per acre based on the records of 23 farms. Since that time prices have declined to a point where many growers report returns which are barely sufficient to cover the cost of production. It is not surprising that reported profits vary greatly because many factors influence both the cost of production and the returns. Most recent writers agree that the most important are associated with of thesefactors yields per acre and quality. Gardner(®7) makes the following statement in Missouri Research Bulletin 57, 1923: "Success in the commercial production of straw­ berries, as of most other fruits, usually depends on yield to a greater extent than on any other single factor." A very similar statement is made fcy Loree(^): "The profits from strawberry growing are propor­ tional to total yield and the quality of the fruit produced, and these, in turn, are determined largely by the intensity of culture." The improvement of the quality of the strawberries which are placed on the market is not a new problem and its importance has been emphasized ty writers since the very early days of commercial straw­ berry growing. Factors Affecting Price In addition to the yield per acre the market price is an im­ portant factor in determining profits. Five factors which affect 47 strawberry prices are quality, quantity, condition which causes a variation in demand, the bargaining ability of growers organizations and the efficiency of the whole marketing system. A very recent publication by T h o m s e n c o n t a i n s this statements "Yearly fluctuations in the price of strawberries in the United States are largely the result of changes in the quantity marketed andin the pur­ chasing power of the consumers.’1 Since the early days of the extensive field culture of straw­ berries there have been repeated discussions of the danger of over­ production. As early as 1868 such discussions were common in the pages of the Rural New Yorker and other periodicals and again twenty years later considerable emphasis was being placed on the danger. As the industry has spread through widely separated sections and the trans­ portation facilities have been greatly improved so that such a per­ ishable crop can be put in distant markets successfully the matter of over-production is an interstate problem. For example, the Tennessee strawberry season extends from late April to early June. corresponds almost exactly with This season the Arkansasseason and competes with the peak of the crop from NorthCarolina, Kentucky, Virginia,Missouri, and overlaps with the crop from states both north and south of these. (89) The marketing problem has received much attention in strawberiy litera­ ture during the past few years. The following quotations indicate the relation which is recognized between problems of production and market­ ing: "From the viewpoint of marketing it is important that the best cultural and handling methods be used by the growers because quality aids in the sale of the berries." (49) 48 MThe best of* marketing facilities, however, cannot overcome the handicap of indifferent handling methods•. .... " (41) 11A rigid system of inspection at the loading station is a prerequisite to the permanent success of ship­ ping associations." (41) Recent Research of Importance The strawberry literature of the past fifteen or twenty years shows a decided trend toward more scientific investigations* In these studies much attention has been given to questions concerning runner production, fruit bud formation, and plant nutrition. Among the early works of this type, "Studies in the Nutrition of the Straw­ berry," by Gardner, (^7) may ij_s-ted as one of the most important* In the introductory statements the author emphasized the importance of yield and he continued to say: "Yield depends directly on the number and size of berries per plant or per unit of area. The number of berries depends in turn, on the number of flower clusters per plant, the number of flowers per cluster and the percentage of these flowers that set and mature fruit." The importance of favorable nutritive conditions during the summer and fall is clearly indicated by this work and the relation which exists between the number of pistils in the flower and the size of the berry is established* Practically all of the writers during this period agree that early set runners are very desirable. following statement: In 1922 D a r r o w ^ ^ made the 49 "Varieties differ greatly in the number of runners produced and in the time of producing runners." Later in the same publication he said: "Runner plants formed during July and August produce more fruit than plants formed later." Richey and Schilletter^"^ reported in 1929 that with the Dunlap variety in Iowa the first runner plants are formed about sixty days after setting and that the different runners in a series are formed from ten to eighteen days apart. These authors reported the results of flower counts with that variety. Mother plants consti­ tuted 4.5 per cent, of all the plants counted but produced 10*54 per cent, of all the flowers, mother plants with the first five runners constituted 69.8 per cent, of all the plants but they produced 87 per cent, of the flowers while the runners from sixth to tenth in the series constituted 29.19 per cent, of all the plants counted and pro­ duced only 15.55 per cent, of the flowers. More recently a r e p o r t o f a conference on strawberiy in­ vestigations, between various bureaus of the United States Department of Agriculture and the North Carolina Experiment Station, contains this statement: "The earlier the runner plant roots in the summer the greater the average number of flowers and berries per plant and the yield per acre." The investigations dealing with the differentiation of fruit buds throw more light on this subject. Most writers agree that the principal period of flower bud formation is in the summer and fall 50 preceding harvest, that varieties differ greatly in the time as well as the rate of flower bud development, and that external factors such as low temperature, lack of moisture or unfavorable nutritive condi­ tions influence this development. Darrow and W a l d o m a k e the fol­ lowing statement: "In Florida the varieties there evidently initiate fruit buds continuously throughout late fall, winter and spring, as flower cluster production is a con­ tinuous process from November until June. From Georgia to North Carolina winter temperatures are cold enough to enforce short dormant periods, but the fruit-bud formation of fall is again resumed as soon in the spring as the temperatures become high enough for growth. From Virginia northward there seems to be no period of spring fruit-bud formation, and con­ sequently no second crop.” That fruit bud formation was closely correlated to the leaf area of the plant was reported ty P i c k e t t i n Illinois as long ago as 1917. "...... so far as strawberries are concerned, abundance of foliage and high production go hand in hand. There­ fore, not only variety selection but all that good culture implies should be effective in increasing yield." In the 1955 proceedings of the same organization, Darrow^^^ makes a very similar statement and strongly emphasizes the importance of avoiding crowding in the matted row because of reduced leaf area per plant. He says that plants in crowded matted rows with two leaves produced only one fifth as much as the plants in spaced rows with ten leaves. PART F A C T O R S I N M O D E R N II C O N T R O L L I N G S T R A W B E R R Y P R O F I T S P R O D U C T I O N 51 PART II - FACTORS CONTROLLING PROFITS IN MODERN STRAWBERRY PRODUCTION METHODS OF THE PRESENT STUDY Statement of Conditions in Tennessee During the Study Tennessee has been, for many years, one of the leading straw­ berry producing states* For a period from 1919 to 1923 it was first in acreage and in production, and, according to the best statistics that are available, it holds third place at the present time* The strawberry is a rather intensive crop. It is planted, usually, by individual growers in rather small acreages and is pro­ duced at a comparatively high cost per acre. The more than 60 com­ mercial growers who cooperated in this study reported an average of only two acres in each planting and they fairly represent the growers throughout Tennessee* Large acreages are occasionally found in single plantings but in most instances the strawberry is a family crop and the acreage is limited to that which can be cared for by the family labor with additional help during harvest. It is a common practice for extensive growers to divide their total acreage into small units so that each family in their employ can have a comparatively small area. The strawberry crop, like all agricultural crops, follows rather regular cycles. There are periods of increased interest dur­ ing which the acreage is rapidly expanded, followed by definite periods 52 of decline. With this as with other crops, however, the normal trend has been disturbed by the abnormal economic conditions of the past ten years. As a result there has been a period of several years, longer than would occur in a normal cycle, during which a large per­ centage of the commercial growers have found it impossible to make even a small profit. Under such conditions there is more than the usual interest in all of the factors which influence the possible profits from this crop. The investigations which are reported in this publication were planned to throw light on this problem by deter­ mining the relative importance of the various factors. The study was begun in 1929 when conditions were comparatively favorable and has continued through the most difficult years of the depression. Production Records from Representative Growers The problem has been approached from two angles. First and major attention has been given to a study of the commercial practices and methods of production which have been well established and are widely accepted in the state. Through the cooperation of county agricultural agents, vocational agricultural teachers, and others, contact was made with strawberry growers in each of the important pro­ ducing sections and production records were secured. These records show the methods employed, the labor distribution, and all important production costs. These records represent the widely different condi­ tions under which strawberries are produced in Tennessee. Both 53 progressive and unprogressive growers were included and the work was continued during a six year period from 1929 to 1934, inclusive. In all 69 records were secured and their average should present a fair picture of existing conditions. Direct Comparisons in Field Plot Tests Supplementary to this study experiments were planned and con­ ducted to provide direct comparisons between different methods of cultivation, fertilization, and other important cultural practices. Several of these tests dealing with methods of cultivation and ferti­ lization were conducted at different places in Tennessee. In Middle Tennessee tests were conducted at the Mericourt Experiment Station, Clarksville, and on the farm of a commercial strawberry grower, Mr. H. H. Gregory, in Sumner County. In the eastern part of the state tests were conducted on the farm of Mr. Lee Widener and on the Uni­ versity Farm at Knoxville. In this way the tests were placed on dif­ ferent soil types and under different conditions of soil fertility. All comparisons were run in triplicate, unless otherwise noted, and were repeated during two or more growing seasons. The experimental plot work has been conducted continuously at Knoxville since 1931. Many phases of the problem have been included in this experimental program. The usual statistics from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Agricultural Census and similar reliable sources have been used 54 in a brief discussion of the marketing problem. Recent work done by the Tennessee Valley Authority in cooperation with the University of Tennessee is the authority for brief statements concerning the pos­ sible development of the frozen fruit industry as an outlet for our surplus volume. COSTS WHICH DIRECTLY- INFLUENCE PROFITS There can be no argument that strawberiy profits like those from any agricultural crop depend upon three factors, namely, the cost, the yields, and the selling price. General Distribution of Costs The total cost involved in the production and harvesting of the first strawberry crop from a new planting, according to the aver­ age of 65 records, was $120.27. The average cost of the second crop, for which the cost of establishing the plantation was not necessary and for which the period of cultivation was shorter, was $77.90 per acre. Less intensive culture was given ty most growers during the second year of the plantation's life. All of these costs fall naturally into one or the other of two large groups, first, the production costs which were involved in the growing of the crop to maturity and, second, those expenses which were necessaiy for the harvesting and handling of the fruit after it had been produced. Based upon the production records of commercial growers Table 1 shows the relative importance of these two groups. +* 9*3 Table 1. Cost Per Acre of an Average Strawberry Crop o 3 ncj Eh 3 O w ©a w 5 *p C • to LO to * to o - rH Ch cd O -P o Vi. Eh TO aS CD o Ph CD CD Ph Ph O CO to • £ Ob to § •H •P rH cd -P O Eh O <+_| O -O§ CD c • 00 to "=d Ph to • CO to • H 1 02 Ph «H O -P tQ o o Ph —1 cd o i § •H -P o 3 Xoi O -P to 0)Vi. E H to S3 CD CD a Ph -P CD cd CO Ph P h O C"| to cd Ph CD o CD Ph Ph O 02 o to -p CD rH to o IQ to o O W TO U u o CD *8 !23 to CO 0} EH -P CO Ph •H pH o « CO rH 02 • rH CO CO 00• O H• 1 02 rH i— 1 O02• 04£f Cto• o- 00 • to to • Oi £>• CD 02 to Cf> Ph cd tO* i 02 • i—t to CO • o HC I I co • 02 H* co • 02 i—1 to tO• CD 02 l>[>• O- • CD rH —1 Ch cd o -P o •p Vi, Eh to o CD o Ph -P c d cd Sh o Xl Ph OPh cd ►H CD Ph Ph CD O Ph *=d i o O CD P3 Ph cd 0) >H « tO GO =€©= Ph H CQ {>H 55 For the first crop nearly half of the total expense was in­ curred before the fruit was mature, while for the second crop threefourths of the expenses occurred during the harvesting and handling of the fruit* A careful analysis of the items which compose both the cost of production and the cost of handling the fruit, therefore, is a logical step in the consideration of this problem* Analysis of Production Costs It is convenient to separate the production costs into three parts, as is done in Table £. This table shows that labor was an important part of the pro­ duction cost, representing 51*£ per cent, of the total during the first year and 40*6 per cent, of the total during the second year* The cash outlay which was involved in the production of strawberries was not excessive but does represent a significant proportion of the total cost. During the first year in which the plantation was estab­ lished the average cash outlay was $19.95 per acre which was 55.8 per cent, of the total production cost. An important reason for keep­ ing a strawberry plantation for the second crop may be found in the greatly reduced cash expenditure. According to the average of 40 records only $5.77 in cash was required to produce the second crop of fruit. It may be seen from this table, also, that the overhead or fixed cost did not vary greatly in amount but represented a much 56 larger proportion of the total cost during the second year than dur­ ing the first* Overhead or Fixed Costs Land Use The charge for land—use has been listed as rent and 10 per cent, of the land valueis charged. on the land which to the value of his entire farm in relation to conditions in the com­ munity. Each grower was asked to place a value was occupied ty the strawberry planting according This value was discussed and checked with the local agricul­ tural agent or vocational teacher in order to avoid large inconsisten­ cies. As would be expected there was a wide variation ranging from $25.00 per acre in some of the more isolated sections where a compara­ tively poor ridge land was cleared and used for strawberries, to as much as $200.00 per acre in a few cases where strawberries were pro­ duced near large cities. The more common range was from $40.00 or $50.00 up to $100.00 and the average for all records was approximately $70.00 per acre. These amounts fairly represent the value of land which is used for strawberry growing in this state. Land rental, therefore, was an item of considerable signifi­ cance since, according to Table 5, it represented 11.9 per cent, of the total production cost for the first crop and 58.6 per cent, of the production costs for the second crop. 57 Equipment Depreciation As an additional fixed cost some charge was necessary for the use of equipment. With the exception of a disc, which is used during the first preparation of the soil, the entire cultivation of a straw­ berry planting, according to the methods which are followed in Tennes­ see, is done by very durable and inexpensive tools. All of the culti­ vation is done with one-horse plows and after careful consideration it was decided to charge one cent per horse hour for equipment de­ preciation. As can be seen in Table 3 this represented a very small part of the total production cost and less than 10 per cent, of the overhead. Cash Expenses The cash expenses which are involved in the production of strawberries are very important to the commercial grower. Since a large part of the labor is performed by the family and, therefore, does not require an outlay of money and since the fixed charges are usually even less tangible there is a tendency for the grower to con­ sider the cash expenses somewhat more important than they really are. Plants The largest single item according to this study was the cost of plants which represented 55.1 per cent, of the cash expenditure during the first year. There was considerable variation among the Table 3. Detailed Analysis of Production Costs Per Acre Item First Year Second Year 63 40 Number of records----------------------Total overhead charge R e n t -----------------------------------% of overhead c o s t --------------% of production costs --------Equipment charge-------% of overhead c o s t % of production costs $ 7.27 $ 6.61 90.9% 11.9% $ 7.57 $ 7.39 97.6% 38.6% $ $ .66 9.1% 1.2% .18 2.4% 1.0% Total cash expense Plants ---------------------------------% of cash expense-------------------% of production c o s t s ---------------- $19.93 $10.98 55.1% 19.7% $ 3.77 Fertilizer c o s t ------------------------% of cash expense % of production costs $ 5.83 29.3% 10.4% $ 2.29 60.8% 12.0% M u l c h ----------------------------------% of cash expense % of production c ost s $ 3.12 16.6% 5.6% $ 1.48 39.2% 7.7% Total labor c o s t --------------------------Establishing plantation or renovation --% of-labor c o s t -----------% of productioncosts $28.53 $10.90 38.2% 19.6% $ 7.77 $ 2.04 26.2% 10.6% Summer cultivation ---------------------% of labor c o s t % of productionc o s t s $16*06 56.3% 28*8% $ 5.10 65.8% 26.7% Spring c a r e ----------------------------% of labor c o s t ---------------------— % of productioncost s $ 1.57 5.5% 2.8% $ .63 8.2% 3.3% $55.72 $19.11 Total production costs 58 growers in this charge because many of them purchased their plants locally at a cost frequently running as low as $1.25 per thousand or used their own plants and recorded a similar charge* Other growers cooperating in this study purchased plants from distant plantsmen at prices ranging as high as $5*50 or $4.00 per thousand. Additional variation was caused by the fact that some growers set eight to ten thousand plants per acre while others spaced the plants much more widely and set only four to five thousand plants. In most cases the growers who purchased expensive plants spaced them more widely and placed them on a better quality of soil than the average. The average cost given in Table 3 is $10.98 per acre for plants and approximately one third of the individual records show a charge within $2.00 of that amount. Fertilizer The second largest expense was for fertilizer even though 23 per cent, of the growers made no application during the first year and 5.5 per cent, of the records for the second year show no fertilizer cost. The average expenditure by those growers who made an application during the first year was $7.49 per acre, and the average for those making an application during the second year was $5.08 an acre. Con­ sidering the average for all records, however, as is given in Table 3, the first year fertilizer cost represented approximately 30 per cent, of the total cash expense and 10 per cent, of the total production cost. The second year fertilizer cost represented 60 per cent, of the 59 total cash outlay and 12 per cent, of* the total cost of production for that year. Mulch A similar condition exists in regard to the use of mulch. Only 40 per cent, of the growers cooperating in this study applied mulch for the first crop and only 25 per cent, made an application for the second crop. The average cost for those growers who made an application was approximately $7.00 per acre and was, therefore, a very significant part of the total cost of production. Labor Requirements and Costs The cost of farm labor varied considerably during the period of this study. The rate according to the average of all records was 14.1 cents per hour. During the first two years, 1929 and 1950, the usual charge was 20 cents per hour but during the most difficult years of the depression farm labor was available as low as six or eight cents per hour. It seems that these two extremes balance each other and the average fairly represents the usual cost of farm labor in Tennessee. A similar variation occurred in the cost of horse labor which showed a range from six to ten cents an hour with an average of slightly more than eight cents. A considerable part of the hand labor which is performed in a strawberry plantation is done by boys and this has tended to reduce the average cost per hour. In an analysis of the labor required for the production of 60 strawberries it is convenient to separate the total amount into three parts. First of all there is the labor required for establishing a plantation or renovating the planting after the first crop. Second, we should consider the labor required for cultivation and other care during the growing season, and, third, the labor required during the spring before harvest. Establishing the Plantation The different types of land which are used for strawberiy growing cause rather wide variations in the expense necessary for soil preparation and the establishment of a plantation. In East Tennessee a considerable proportion of the strawberry acreage is on new land or land that has been cleared only a very short time. Five of the production records included the cost of clearing land with an average of 87 man hours and 60 horse hours per acre. Since the other records did not Include such an item and since the cost of clearing cannot properly be charged against the strawberry crop this item is omitted in Table 4 where the distribution of labor is presented. According to the data presented in this table it is clear that the labor required for the preparation of the soil, setting, and other work connected with the establishment of a strawberry plantation represented nearly one third of the total labor required for the first year. The hand labor of setting plants was the largest single item and represented 17.5 per cent, of all labor before the first crop was harvested. The amount of time required for setting varied greatly CO > o <4 CD b fl £ cd cd SH S CD 4 Ch CD P3 to iv 02 • • * O' 02 O rH i— 1 CO r H i—irH cd cd cd p p O o o P p p CO ft cm f t o o O V iV tV i S3 O *iH CO 73 Sh O O CD Sh P cd P rH ft CD to SO S3 Sh *H CD M co cd ft co P ft Sh cd p ft ft •H co cd cd t o -p P O i—I LO rH cd p o p Ch O o -P CO CD • • to to Sh 1 1 Sh O P cd i—t CD to f. M o a C « O O cd co P P P CD lO• cd • i— 1 CD 02 i—1 bo S3 1 Sh -H O P Sh P O cd cd Sh O Sh P O rH cd rH CD to ft S3 Sh Sh cd O Sh •H «=tj Sh ft CO CD Sh O X I ■8 cd CO CO O O CD Sh • CO Sh P rH • to 02 $O «• Sh O Sh O cd CO CD •H P cd rH ft CD O f t to Sh rH CD CO •• St o •H Sh cd p CO Er< ft St ft to CD rH p p o <4 <4 Sh S3 Sh O p CO O a id Sh O Sh 02 CD rH rH 9 p cd Sh cd * O P O cd CD P rH Sh cd o •• to to* Sh JL^ 3 P O P pj 3 i— 1 a i—t cd P CD «s! CD <33 • • Sh CD CO 03 >• > *=4 O 1 a ••s (0 3 o p bfl S3 Sh bO £ cd 3 O cd CO Sh a a Sh S ft CO LO 73 CO Sh P P CO rH r—1 cd cd p p o o p p ft f t o o ViVi •r\ • • CO to Sh Sh ftp P o Sh a • • O CO Sh •v CO 00 73 rH Sh i — 1 CD to • rH b'd* 73 73 CD CD P ■P CD Sh cd O P a m HsJL AJ U •H ft to CD I--I 02 i—| • * LO o> P CD O O ft CO rH rH rH i—1 O • rH cd cd CD CD cd 9 9 St P p C o o a 1 O <4 <4 o I i 1 p CD CO P O rH cd P rH P • CO Sh 73 Sh Sh CD Sh Sh f t ft Sh O E-H i— 1 cd p o p Sh o S3 CD • H P P P cd cd Sh Sh Sh O CO <=4 02 4 03 to i—1 cd p o p CD CD bO 73 73 ft---- rH CD CD CO Sh CD cd bO S3 Sh O cd c d o Sh a a bO CD « 02 • Sh _ O CD Sh IV CD Sh O ft CD P (V • V- o o CO p CO d) f t 73 • f \ O Sh Sh co Sh O to • Sh Sh CO Sh CD p x i 73 XI 73 Sh Sh CD O O to r H § rH * m O • • o rH CM rH CD Sh CD cd LO Sh Sh O bO O S3 CD m h •H Sh •P Sh LO V i V i O rH -p p P rH * • CO £ to to • • to o 02 co to CO 73 73 -p -P O o Sh 6 St *H o -P © to ft CD MV Sh O Sh ViVi V i P O to to cd cd O > "Si <4 t. M (V iv o 0 0 t • o • cd o Table 4* Analysis of Labor Distribution (On an Acre Basis) CO *■— ■» rl O Sh Sh CO 50 O 05 CO CO CO O rH rH of Klondyke CO rH . O CO . lO 05 j O O O o o to O O O O O CO rH i—1 i—1 i—1 rH 02 O O J O LQ | . . 05 05 ^ to total yield. to 02 according 00 rH 02 \ set 1929, grouped 02 . CO 7/17 H W \ 00 CO 02 CO CO 15.6 ^ O H W W 00 CO LO . Records 6.5 02 fcO s * 5.5 DO -st1 CO H 1 LO 19.6 No. Cultivations Plow Hoe Date Cultivation Last Per Acre Man hrs. Horse hrs. Soil Preparation Land Per Acre Value [Man hrs. Horse hrs. Fert* Cost o No. Grower Table 6. Relation Between Cultural Factors and Yields • •p O) CD CO U) io i s 70 Adaptability of the Soil Among the many factors affecting the profitable production of the strawberiy crop the soil requires first attention and is tremen­ dously important. Growers speak with considerable assurance that certain areas have a strawberiy soil and other locations do not. Experience and observations make this fact quite certain even though definite proof is difficult to secure and strawberries are recognized as a crop which can be grown on a wide variety of soils. The charac­ teristics which make a soil satisfactory for strawberry culture are many and varied. Each factor exerts its influence but no one or two factors completely determine the suitability of a given soil. Characteristics of So-called "Strawberry Land" A very desirable strawberry soil may be described as a sandy or gravelly loam which is in good physical condition, contains abun­ dant humus, is at least moderately fertile, and is well drained. The lighter types of soils are more easily worked, more responsive to care, and are generally preferred ty successful growers in Tennessee. Be­ cause strawberries are frequently grown in newly cleared land which is naturally poor some have formed the opinion that it is a poor land crop. Observations throughout this stucfer and the expressed opinion of successful growers throughout the state, however, indicate that satisfactoiy yields are veiy difficult to secure on poor land. Most growers in this state who use thin unproductive soil consider "new ground" to 71 be necessaiy and usually attempt "to grow only one planting of straw­ berries on a single location* To be satisfactory, a strawberry soil must be well drained yet retentive of moisture because plants are easily injured by either a water soaked condition or a definite lack of moisture in the soil* as harvest approaches* This is especially important in the spring It is desirable to have a subsoil slightly heavier than the top soil because such a condition tends to retain fertilizers and moisture but it is very important that the subsoil be sufficiently open to allow the penetration of strawberry roots and to permit normal drainage. The many factors which go to make up a desirable soil for strawberry growing are interdependent* If any one is seriously defi­ cient it may become the limiting factor and practically prevent suc­ cessful culture. When the factors are well balanced the most satis- factoiy yields are secured with reasonable effort. Nevertheless, ob­ servations have lead to the conclusion that the physical condition of the soil and the previous care which it has had are of greatest impor­ tance. In Tennessee, strawberries are produced entirely by the matted row system of culture, and thorough cultivation is difficult after many runners have become established. If the soil has been poorly managed in previous years so that it is infested with weeds of various kinds the successful growing of this crop is difficult indeed. It is for this reason that successful growers prefer to plant strawberries fol­ lowing a clean cultivated crop like tobacco or a truck crop. Observa­ tions during this study have indicated repeatedly that low yields and 72 unsatisfactory results usually follow the planting of strawberries on foul land. Inspection Before Planting as a Guide In order to secure evidence on the importance of the soil in determining strawberry yields the soil was rated or scored by the writer in the fields which were included in Table 6* The rating of the soil was given at the time the planting was made and was based upon the factors which have been discussed above. In Table 7 those fields having more desirable soil are separated from the ones which had less desirable soil and sufficient data are included to indicate the care which the fields had before the first harvest. In most cases, though not in all, the land which was given a high valuation by the owner was rated as satisfactory for strawberry growing by the writer even though the land valuation was not considered in the scoring. The fields in both groups were given practically the same care in preparation, but the group on the more desirable soil was given some­ what more careful cultivation during the season and cultivation was continued later in the summer. No doubt this additional care had some influence on the yields which were secured but it is not sufficient to account for all the difference. It is interesting to note that five of the six growers having less desirable soil applied fertilizers while only two of those in the group having more desirable soil made such applications. Except in one instance the soils judged to be more satisfactory produced high yields in comparison with those considered co CD CD P Fh Fh cd cd o Fh Ph O C Oto IS O (S o CO rH rH CO CD -P -P ^ rH 00 rH O O ■P COrj td aJ 3 R hi O O O 0 0 CO ^ CIS CO W O W H 1 CO OO 00 CD LO ^ tO W 00 00 H IS CD IS CO rH 03 IS- •tf IS- CO ts- 00 c- ts- c^‘\i— I (M X rHWrH ct. 00 o to CO o •rH co 03 c— to ^ co p CO rH CD •H Ph ? o O rQ cd Ml CO CM $3 P P •rH p 03 c rH P p p Fh CO CD O Pm O o •H P © CD Q CD CO U o a C rH cd cd m 3 P* O O CD 03 O I I IO • I I 1 • 03 03 TO CD fctO *3 •rH LO 05 ^ H 1 ^ O rH rH Cv2 C\2 CM tO o o o J2J Ph H O o w o o O ^ LO CO CO ^ "H1 03 to o 3 CM CM H W O CO CD CO cd Pi CO CD Q O 05 tO W CD LO rH i — I tO rH i—t i—I O CO O O O O O CD O O O O rH rH rH rH 4©= O rH IS- O i —•I CD Id CJ3 02 (d > 03 O CO rH w O Tf Fh o w o o to o w d 1 tO CM rH tO i—I 03 O O CO O tO to CM tO rH to CM tsCD to O tO tO O O O O to CM LO 'H1 O CO • CO =€©= to 03 IS- "sH 03 0 S 02 •H ►d •H Pm to to to lO ^ ts- *& o CO CM CD H 1 CO H 00 X ^ O 'Cl Fh • ca TO rH t-H C\2 O i—I Ol i — I rH 00 CO CO O CD 03 rH rH CD ■ 3 EH CD ca ca CD o •rH P cd 0 F-i u si O P h•=$ 0 U Fh PH 0 Ph i —1 *H O CO O ts- ts- ^ O CM rH rH rH rH 02 &*( CO C d !h •H CM 03 d CO 1S© to CD CD Cut) “g I—I •rH O tO CO cd § o 0) a CO £ CM CM tO ^ CD CO cd •iH CO ^ tiO •H p -p i —I rH cd > lO *vt< lO C£1 tS- 00 03 LO CD CM CM o s Cd > o 0 Ph (1) Average $7*50 for those including fertilizer. (2) Average $7.30 for those including fertilizer. CUD CO 73 less desirable. The low yield for Record 4 may be explained by notes which were taken during the growing season showing that the land was worked a little wet during soil preparation and only about 60 per cent, of a stand was secured at setting. Notes that were made in the fall indicate that later cultivation was very desirable but that some vacant places did not fill properly with plants. Among all the production records which were made in this study 29 fields produced a yield above the average which was 67 crates per acre. $50.00. Only seven of these 29 fields had a land valuation less than Ten were valued from $50.00 to $100.00, and 12 were valued at $100.00 or more. The average value of all fields included in this survey was approximately $70.00, and 18 of the 29 fields which pro­ duced a yield above the average were given a land valuation above the average also. There seems to be no doubt, therefore, but that in most cases successful strawberiy growers use good land and not cheap land which is worth very little for other purposes. The importance of a good soil was clearly indicated during the field experimental work which was conducted in this investigation. In 1932 cultural plots were established in three locations near Knox­ ville. All three of these plantings were on soil of similar type, being of dolomitic origin, but one of the soils had been worn out with long cropping so that it was less fertile, contained less humus, and was inclined to run together more seriously than the others. of the three soils had been veiy carefully managed during previous One 74 years and an alfalfa sod was turned during the early fall in prepa­ ration for a spring planting of strawberries. This soil was in excellent physical condition, was distinctly more fertile, and would be considered more desirable in every way than the first. planting was made on a soil intermediate in condition. The third It was less impoverished than the first but was distinctly less fertile than the second. Similar field tests were conducted on all three locations and the average yield which was secured reflected the original condi­ tion of the soil. The poor soil averaged 75 crates, the most fertile soil averaged 163 crates, and the intermediate one produced 92 crates per acre. Many similar observations have been made throughout the state during the course of this investigation. Importance of Available Phosphoric Acid An attempt was made to secure more specific evidence by col­ lecting and testing samples of the soil from the fields where records were being kept. The available supply of phosphoric acid and nitro­ gen was determined by the method described in Michigan Technical Bulle­ tin 132. The acidity was determined by the LaMotte test and the humus content was determined by burning a sample of soil to constant weight. All of the soils included in the survey were distinctly acid in reaction. The approximate pH value ranged from 4.9 to 6.2 but no significant relation could be found between acidity and yields. The test for potash which is described in Michigan Technical Bulletin 132 was not sufficiently sensitive to show variations and, therefore, no evidence was secured for that material. In regard to available nitrogen 75 the data were equally inconsistent. A group of 22 records in Monroe County included ten which reported a yield above the average for the group but only four of these ten high yields came from fields show­ ing more than an average amount of available nitrogen. Of the 12 fields which produced a yield less than average, six were soils test­ ing below and six above the average in available nitrogen. The only consistent data secured in this study was on the importance of phos­ phoric acid. Soil samples were secured for testing from 52 fields from which production records were available. Seventeen of these soils showed 75 pounds or more of available phosphoric acid per acre. Eight, or 47 per cent, of these soils, came from fields which produced more than the average yield, 67 crates per acre. Twenty of the soils tested 50 pounds available phosphoric acid and nine, or 45 per cent., of these samples came from fields producing yields above the average. Of the 15 soils which tested 25 pounds of available phosphoric acid or less only three, or 20 per cent, came from fields where high yields were secured. Among the fields producing yields above the average there were 20 which were tested for available phosphoric acid and of these 15 per cent, showed 25 pounds or less, 45 per cent, showed 50 pounds, and 40 per cent, showed 75 pounds or more of available phos­ phoric acid. A group of 22 records from fields which were set in 1952 in Monroe County were included in this study. Ten of these fields pro­ duced a yield above the average (62 crates) for the group and only one of these showed 25 pounds or less of available phosphoric acid, four showed 50 pounds and five showed 75 pounds. Of the 12 fields which 76 produced yields less than the average only two showed 75 pounds of available phosphoric acid or more and six showed 25 pounds or less. To secure additional evidence soil samples were collected again in 1954 from fields where labor records were not available but from which yield records could be secured. Forty—six of these tests were made and the average yield per acre for these fields was 81.6 crates. The data concerning acidity and the available nitrogen sup­ ply were equally as inconsistent as in the previous study. Nineteen of these fields produced yields above the average and 79 per cent, of these high yielding fields showed 75 pounds or more of available phosphoric acid while only 51.6 per cent, of the 27 fields producing yields below the average showed this high amount of available phos­ phoric acid. Twenty-five records with the Aroma variety are included in this study and ten of these fields produced yields above the average (79.9 crates per acre). Only two of these ten fields had less than 50 pounds of available phosphoric acid per acre. Though not conclusive these results do indicate the importance of phosphoric acid in strawberry soils. Throughout the studies inconsistent results could frequently be explained by notes which were made during the growing season. Mari­ time s the low yield in a field which showed favorable amounts of phos­ phoric acid was explained by poor cultivation, a poor stand of plants, or failure to harvest the entire crop. On the other hand, high yields from fields where the soil did not show a favorable amount of avail­ able phosphoric acid could frequently be explained by the unusually good care which was given during cultivation and harvesting. 77 Influence of Previous Care In this study some indication was found that humus is an im­ portant factor in strawberiy soils but no significant data were se­ cured. One group of treatments were intended to reduce the humus. For this purpose a series of three plots was kept free of all growth during the entire season and in another series of plots corn was grown with careful cultivation. Another group of treatments were planned to add organic matter to the soil without nitrogen and for this pur­ pose weeds were allowed to grow without control in one series of plots, and sudan grass was seeded in another series. A third group of treatments were planned to add both nitrogen and humus to the soil. For this purpose an application of ten tons of manure was made in the spring and another application of ten tons was made in the fall to a series of three plots and in another series a spring crop of peas was turned under followed by a summer crop of soy beans which was turned under in the fall. To the final series German peat was applied at the rate of 10 tons per acre. In the spring of 1932 straw­ berries were set in these plots and the plants were confined to the hill system. The production of runners recorded frequently during the growing season serves as an index of comparative vigor. Table 8 shows the results of this test at the first crop which was produced in 1933. The humus content of the soil was influenced by its treatment during the previous summer. The yield both in weight and in number of berries corresponded rather closely to the humus content. Evidence is pre­ sented showing that the proportion of large berries was increased as the soil condition was improved ty the addition of humus. ■H e HN 0) pq I nN to rH • o 02 O ♦ E'­ en co • e- to • rH O * to fH to • N* 00 E• 00 rH • to • tH • c• iH E-- E- to to ts- E- 00 02 CO to 02 E• rH N1 • rH rH rH rH to to 02 02 02 rH to to rH CO CO CO i— 1 E• O o rH O- o I rH i— 1 E• rH rH o ErH co 02 02 02 02 CO 02 tuOXJ cd rH Fh 0) 0 •rH r* bH 02 t*• 00 O 00 • o rH 02 t• CO rH 00 • to rH rH « 02 rH T) to

• H1 02 i—1 00 IS • to to rH • tO 02 rH • in CO • to 02 02 cd Fh a g 3 p CO o •rH -P sd S> •rH g -P Fh o O o • poN rH -P O E-* • ta 0 • *rl O Fh J3 S> U cd ca -p cd • lO 00 0 rH rQ cd E-t O •s CO CO p c 0 0 -P cd 0 Fh E-h 1 a o •H -P cd t> jp •rH 3 P 0 i— 1 O O to Td 0 © ca 0) 0 0 C3 nd cd g a 3 02 TJ © 0 E= P cd nd CM AVERAGE CO U5 ^ tO W tO W 00 $6.00 . CO rH CM+ t- to Records of Klondike fields set 1929. Cultivations Hoe 1 Plow Land Value Soil Preparation Hours Per Acre Man Horse Fert. Cost -p rH TO 3 U I3 t§ 5 7/20 8/19 O M N O W ^ CM i—1i—1W H H 5.60 e *cm AVERAGE Date Last Cultivated 00 LO O ^ rH ^ rH CM CM rH Lvation Per Acre Horse H 00 C" 00 00 t>- t- 05 O rH CM rH rH c-W c-W 00 t>- t>- CO Crates Per Acre of Cultivations on Yields Effect of the Number Table 9. rl ^ 00 O H ^ 79 except one, Record 5, are included in the high yielding group, and only one in which cultivation was stopped in July is included in this group. To secure more direct comparisons and more reliable data field tests were arranged to determine the influence of efficient cultiva­ tion on strawberiy yields. In 1930 plantings for these tests were made at an experimental substation near Clarksville on the farm of a commercial grower in the strawberry section near Portland, and at the University, Knoxville, Tennessee. The Aroma, Premier, and Klondyke varieties, respectively, were used in these tests. Each test was run in triplicate with three record rows in each plot and a guard row between the plots. Clean cultivation was practiced in all plots dur­ ing the early summer and was continued in one series throughout the summer and early fall. This cultivation was sufficiently frequent and intensive to control weeds and to keep the soil in reasonably good condition. In one series no cultivation was practiced after August 1 and in the third group of plots only horse cultivation was continued after that time because the matted row made hoeing difficult and ex­ pensive. The season of 1930 was relatively dry so that late summer neglect did not result in a serious growth of weeds as would occur during normal seasons. To secure some competition in the planting at Portland a very light seeding of spring oats was made in early fall in those plots where cultivation had been discontinued. of this competition is clearly indicated in Table 10. The effect In this table - . . 00 to CrP rH i—1 en 0 0 0 P 0 0 02 on Yield - cd rH CL, P Jh 0 0 -H 0 > M 0 ■0 Pi CQ 0 Eh U o 02 o o 0 o t>00 c- LO iO Ph o LO LO O cd i— I P h P 0 02 02 LO O to to 0* o o LO O LO Jh 03 C2 EH CO O O to CO 03 H 0 CO LO * • > >H 0 02 *0 Ph c- CO LO Jh 03 CO h=L O C0 T3 rH Fh 0 0) *H CO 03 t- a 0 CO 03 CO CO lO Jh LO 02 LO D- Ph CO CO P 0 02 H1 to 02 0 P O to 03 cd H Ph I—I to LO 0 *H 0 LO LO CO o hj)'d H 0 0 LO 00 t> >H 0 «i p Ph U ■* O Jh W 0 XT O 0 0 a p Jh Eh 00 o- LO LO o £>i—I 03 p p o H S3 O CO 0 0 > CQ cd P o « 00 C- co’ Ph 0 H • i—I Jh o cd 0- 03 0 EH to P P O to o to 0 0 •rH • H P P 0 0 0 0 I— I rH Ph P h 0 Jh ca *0 > fcio hD O 00 CO Jh m 0 0 Ph 0 0 0 LO 0 to P P CO ca 0 © > Jh Jh 0 0 •* 0 0 03 to 03 03 i— 1 i— 1 03 03 i—1 i—I P 0 O fc0P rH to * * rH r H to ca H Table 10. Effect of Fall Cultivation to o T3 0 0 •iH Jh P O P I 0 O 03 02 • o 0 Jh O P -0 H U 0 0 P Ph O EH to CO O 0 ad 03 CO cd Oh 0 i —I •H P t§ I Jh 0 _| +3 cd p p 0.. 0 faD 0 rH 0 O O -0 £5 Jh 0 cd pi 00 j—I •H -P B CO I H O P Jh 0 0 0 -0 « O P P p P to 0 § 0 0 J 0 O O H PI O0 PEh h I I 0 I— 1 i—1 •H J* 0 P 0 0 rH O 1 1 1 TO 0 0 rH P 0 o Ph 1 I I t 10 0 0 •H £3 s o 0 Jh 0 *0 PH J ! 1 1 i—102 P P ca 0 0 0 Eh Eh Test 3 — Klondyke — Knoxville Planting 1930, harvest 1931 Labor charge, man hours 200, horse hours 100. 0 80 the average labor and yield for each test is presented and in addi­ tion the three tests are averaged in order to permit a comparison of yield, total labor and labor cost. The difference in yield is suf­ ficient to be significant and definitely favors continued careful cultivation during the summer. The reduction in yield where horse cultivation only was continued is much less severe than where all cultivation was stopped. It is clear from this table that the cost per crate and the yield per acre favor efficient cultivation. For one picking late in the season (June 9) all of the fruit in Test 1 was graded carefully according to size. It was found that those plots which had been cultivated all summer had 62.7 per cent, of the fruit above seven-eighths inch in diameter while those plots in which cultivation was stopped August 1 had only 47.1 per cent, of the fruit above that size. Similar determinations were made during the four last pickings in the Klondyke tests at Knoxville and it was found that those plots in which careful cultivation was continued throughout the summer had 67.7 per cent, of their fruit above threequarters inch in diameter and those In which cultivation was stopped August 1 had only 58.7 per cent, above that size. To secure further evidence arrangements were made with two commercial growers in Monroe County to conduct a demonstration with a planting of strawberries. One of these demonstrations was on the farm of Mr. W. T. Smith, Madisonville, and was located on a Knox shale soil which was in excellent physical condition and which had 81 been given very good care during previous years. A good crop of clover and one of lespedeza had been ‘burned under shortly before the soil was prepared for strawberries. In this field the top soil was about eight inches deep but there was no clear line sepa­ rating it from the subsoil. The entire area was gently sloping to the west but was not subject to erosion. Previous care of the land had controlled weeds veiy thoroughly. The second demonstration was on the farm of Mr. Anderson about two miles from Mr. Smith1s field. a red Tellico sandstone. The soil in this area was It was old land which had been rather worn out by continual cropping and appeared to be deficient in humus. The top soil in this field was not more than four to six inches deep and the subsoil was of rather heavy nature. The entire area sloped gently to the south but was not subject to erosion. Previous manage­ ment of this area had not been Intensive and the common weeds proved to be rather a serious problem in the care of the strawberry planta­ tion. The entire area in both demonstrations was given the same care in soil preparation, fertilization, and planting. Following the establishment of the plantation, however, one-half of each field was given very thorough and careful cultivation In order to keep the soil in the best possible condition and prevent the competition of weeds at any time. The other half was given more ordinary care. Cultiva­ tion was delayed until it was needed but was given before the average grower would consider the planting very seriously injured. Mr. Smith 82 plowed and hoed the part which was being given most careful attention six times. times. He plowed the other half only four times and hoed it five Probably the care which was given the second half was some­ what too good for the best demonstration because the soil was so free of weeds and was in such good condition that at no time did any part of the planting really suffer. At the time of the first harvest there was very little difference in the total amount of labor which had been given the two areas. The difference amounted to only 20 man hours and five horse hours per acre. There was an increased yield, however, of 23 crates per acre in the part of the field which had been given most care. The condition on Mr. Anderson*s farm was quite different. weed problem made cultivation much more important* The He plowed the more carefully cultivated area six times and hoed it seven times. The other area he plowed five times and hoed six times which was more cultivation than is done ty the average strawberry grower in Tennessee. Nevertheless, the weeds became serious and made cultivation expensive when it was neglected until they were well established. As a result the part which was given fewer cultivations required 20 hours more man labor before the first harvest and only four hours less horse labor than did the area which was cultivated more times so that the work was done more effectively. The influence of this neglect was quite evident in the yields because there was a difference of 30 crates per acre in favor of the more intensive cultivation. During the course of this investigation field tests have been 83 conducted in order to secure more direct comparisons on the impor­ tance of cultivation and its influence on strawberry yields. In 1935 a planting was made at the University to secure more accurate information corresponding to the demonstrations described above. The test was run in triplicate with four test rows in each plot and a guard row separating adjoining plots. this test are presented in Table 11. The results of This test was conducted on a red dolomite soil which was of moderate fertility, in reasonably good condition, but somewhat deficient in humus. Previous care of the area had not controlled the weeds as perfectly as is desirable for a strawberry planting. The results corresponded closely to those reported from the commercial demonstrations in Monroe County. The difference intotal labor is not as great as would be indicated by the number ofcultivations because of the additional work which was necessaiy after a period of neglect. That part of the planting which was given careless culture was not neglected more seriously than a large percentage of the commercial strawberry growers in Tennessee are in the habit of doing. It was neglected sufficiently, however, to permit definite competition with weeds and the result was a greatly reduced stand of plants and some injury to the plants when they were cleaned out. Even the neglected area produced 40 crates per acre which was above the yield of many commercial growers following the dry summer of1953. The summary which Is given in Table 11 shows a very great increasein cost per crate when neglect results in CO 0) a) fn aj o C\2 CO to 03 P fn to H O 03 02 PI • _ ** £ •o C cd PQcoN a (U •H -2 § W 03 CO tajH -P d cd cd O fn P H 03 O Ph *h o• OC~- *h <3 02 to to p P LO o •H C\2 P 03 fn P 03 CO 03 cd O Ph f-t O o to 03 P Pi Jh o rH cd p P» bO P O o EH O O E-( O OO «h O SS o *H -P cd <—I 03 03 rH 02 t>- ES — i 1 -O - CO to O EH 02 O O CO o £d fH P o h Pl o q r-> 0 Sh cd co o C\Z £ PJ fn cd o O O CO O fn X o — #fc1 1 X o LO PS LO o PI 02 LQ cd » cd 02 Oh 10 o u fj 03 p o -— xi 03 LO rH «H O Cd a <3| •H O 03 rH P CD Eh to to 3 S t 1 CO fH O o P — p 1 1 cd P h PI to CO 03 LO O 53 rQ cd EH P P I cd 03 fH pi H 03 Cm p 03 03 P {> fn rH cd P O O C O C O 03 03 fj i— I P 03 P fH rH cd P o o 84 seriously reduced yields. The results of these tests justify a strong statement that the timeliness of cultivation is of tremendous signi­ ficance in the production of reasonable yields at a reasonable cost* Depth of Cultivation Observations throughout this study have indicated a very wide variation in the methods of cultivation which are practiced "by com­ mercial growers. In most instances tools which stir the soil deeply are used even during comparatively dry seasons and on soils where surface cultivation is common with other farm crops. This observation raised the question as to whether strawberry yields are improved by shallow or deep cultivation and in order to secure evidence on this point additional field tests were planned. The results of six such tests are presented in Table 12. Three of these tests were conducted in 1930, two in 1931, and one in 1932. The work was repeated in Middle Tennessee at both Clarksville and Portland, and on the University Farm at Knoxville. The three leading varieties, Aroma, Premier, and Klondyke, were in­ cluded in these tests. In Table 12 the results of a test at Knoxville on Klondyke are presented in more complete form. in each plot was counted after the close of the yields per 100 plants are included. The number of plants the growing season and During the harvest of these plots in 1933 the percentage of berries which were below three-fourths of an inch in diameter was determined throughout the entire picking season and the percentage of small berries is presented in the table. 0i 00 i—t Xf to 0 T3 -P g p. o & 0 iH rO 3 O Ph Ph Pl, CD to Cvi 00 to LO CD CD c- to 0 U <1) -P 0 Ph ■sH « CD 00 soil 00 o CD • to Oi Oi 00 LO a LO O 000 I—I TO -P rH Ph O O i—I Pi to 03 iH si $e o O p H C D PQTO| P P TO TO TO O Pi Pi Pi o . CD • * P h P. o O fH Pi O o LO Pi 0 0 rH rH 0 rH 0 i—1 i—f xJ •H i— i •H rH Pj J> i—1 *H CD TO •H TO 1--1 > JX X | !l U X Pi o Pi TO o TO i—1 p O rH W Ph O £ O rH i—I 0 M 0 M Pi -P iH 00 Eh rH Pi Pi to to *P t—I i —I LQ CD to O CD 00 CD Pi CD Pi O to P- -P -P -P -P -P TO UO tO CD CD TO CD to tO CD Eh rH Pi -P O o TO tO tO pH CD CD Eh i—I O to PI •H to 00 LO to O CD CD CD rH to LO c- CD H -P TOrH CD Eh LQ 00 o •H EH to rH TO -P rH TO Pi tO oo to o oo Pi LO i —1 to o c- to P! O CD *H O P Pi O *H a p to to a o tO CD rH CD CD 00 <~H_ P PI CD 8 ai CD Pi Eh TO TO cm Pi •H 3 •P CO 3 TO *H l> x3 -h CD P » 3 O first crop — excellent o- p o PL TO 0 > 0 *H « P o >> 0 TO •H TO TO TO P £3 E P S O 0 O o O rH Pi U 1—1 Pi P h 00 -teu -*>, ft ft 00 • • • • H CD 00 rl rH 02 -C*02 'C*. to 00 02 f t 05 02 • • * ♦ • * Oi i—1 ft ft O CD CD =€$: 02 02 02 02 Oi Oi ( • • I Oi ~CN 02 • LQ 02 -0- -C*. P O O O • • • • I— 1 to LQ to LQ 02 02 to ra p o P. •—I O P 0 £ o u o Q ed P O tO02 ft I W i— ICO 02 o Harvest Cd fH P Q) O Ph E—* Following * • • •j J i l l t i l l fn pi cd p O 00 Oi 00 i—1 CD f t to o i— 1 O • * . • 02 CD LQ LQ Oi to to to 05 • . 02 f t 05 O 05 f t O . • • ft 02 rH P ft to =©?r XJ 0 0 fH 0 p £p ♦H CiD cd •H ft |P o* p • O• ft t»D O • fl fH IQ o to 02 *H O ft 05 O ft 02 05 . • » 05 00 05 to P 02 ft 02 O CD to o • * • • • . . P o to 00 O ft to to LQ CD ft ft 00 LQ O I I I I LQ LQ LQ o •. . . I D. 05 * ft CD ft02 I P ft P ft ft p £ •H P 0 P 0 t i l l I I 1 I 0 P cd ft O CD ft 00 00 ft CO ft CO O CO IO N o o Hi ft 02 02 ft to . • • . * . CO ft ft i — 1 ft o 05 LQ ft LQ LQ ft P P P p LQ . 00 02 i —1 02 ft » « i— 1 CD ft CD P p 14. Table ft i xJ i P H ra O 0 ft i —Ift i —I Ph >H CO •P o Pi S cd rH Ph 60 CD 05 CO ft r-^ IN- CD CO CD CO CD CD fH 05 CD CD f t ft CD 00 . • • • • • • LQ 05 ft CD i— 1 O 05 to P f t 02 ft LQ 00 i— 1 i—E I—1 6 P 1 I cm i— 1 02 02 o ft 1 ft LQ CD ft i— 1 • 1 • • • • CD ft to to LQ O o 00 P N CD C- LO tQ 00 I 00 i—Ii—Ii—IOi CO CD § 05 to O 00 • • • « 00 LQ ft 00 i— 1 rH rH 'feS* to to • 1 . 1 ft 02 P cd U5 ^ O IN P INW ifl P Oi tN- P P P P 00 O LO P (M Oi o t> o ?H ft CD Oi to I —I Ph to 0 LQ ft CD LQ 00 ft * • • P LQ CD 02 00 05 00 • 00 IN- LQ ft LQ 02 • * 00 o 02 1— 1 Hfc 00 05 . CO ft LO I I m fn O *O i —I>— 0 f t o o P O Q C O *H * 02 ft O IOi ft Oi 02 02 IIN-Oi CD ft P i— I i— I Oi c- 1 1 1 00 00 05 1 ft IN- CD 05 CD ft i— 1 CD 02 CD i— 1 00 CD 02 P !§ oR oR e p ra * o ? 00 o ft 1—1 P • • • # ft 05 05 05 —I P <—I P i O ra P P P P 0 0 0 0 CQ CO CO ra ft ft p OO 05 05 02 05 ft P i— 1 ft ft to to to ! i 1 > i i Qb 1 ft IQ CO t> o a 0 00 ft o INft ft ft 00 * . . • PC? ft LQ ft ft LO 0 tuO P Cd ra M ! 1 1 0 0 i i i Eh t> cd p IQ LQ LQ ft © ft • 1 • » 0 ,P ft 1 LQ i— 1 o 1— 1 i— 1 X © S © ra fn p ft o i—tXJ ft 0 fn cd C O 0 0 ft 04 P is P o ft S P P to fn e 0 o o * o fn P i—I 05 05 p CD to <; w w 02 ft ft CD O ♦s «\ 05 LQ 00 00 0 > xs O O P cd p to to to ft cd 05 05 05 p s p 02 to ft LO CD cd p ra 0 EH P P EG EG CD 0 Eh ft p 0 fH EH P EG 0 EH +5 EG 0 EH 0 hO P P U P © Eh > ra cd 0 02 to ft LQ CD -H P P P P ra EG w EG EG EG 0 0 0 0 0 0 ft ft ft Eh Eh EH 0 bJO cd fH 0 > © ©i —11—i *h ft •H !> R ra £ o o O M 1— 1 05 ft CD oo LQ ft O • . • • CD i— 1 ft 02 ft to ft P fn 0 fn fn ►*4 *=E| -=*? 0 00 00 oo cd 00 05 O 05 I I P O CD <41 to I I 02 H1 i—I i—I 02 CD f t fH fH CD Ph CD W ft 02 ft ft to iiP 02 IQ rl p i? p 0 tx! O X3 O rH P O = ■fcS.ftroN W 02 « * to O 02 02 i— 1 P O © *3 p 0 0 N •H P oo i— 1 •rl ft P .P^ P ■S? fn £ EG p fn XJ 0 > ft P -H O e 0 »H ft P fH o & LQ fH 02 P • 3 Pi403 H 0 0 I —I P P ** Pi O IEG 0 fn |P CD Cd Ph fH iO p to • 05 02 S3 $ Effect of Cultivation ftO O 02 Vi ft LQ CD P P P EG EG EG 0 0 0 ft EH E h p p ra rH p p p ra ra 0 0 0 0 tuO 0 P CO CO CO cd P w © fH I I —IEh 1 0 i I I I > P 02 t o P 89 second crop. The amount of the reduction depends upon the soil and weather conditions during the growing season and in some cases the reduction may be so great as to reduce the total yield of fruit at the second harvest. The value of cultivation during the season is very clearly indicated on the basis of the yield per 100 plants. In every case where such a record is available there is a signifi­ cant increase with cultivation. The proportion of berries which are above the minimum size for U. S. No. 1 is another important consi­ deration in determining the value of cultivation following the first harvest. In all instances except one there was a distinct increase in the proportion of fruits above this minimum size and the average for the five tests indicates a significant value from this view point. The amount of labor which was used in these plots was as much as is usually required during the first growing season. The delayed renovation which is frequently practiced by growers did not result in labor saving because of the large amount of hand work which was required to put the field in reasonable condition after the weeds had become well established. From these results it seems clear that under normal conditions cultivation will definitely increase the amount of fruit which is produced at the second harvest when such cultivation does not seriously reduce the stand of plants and that the size of the fruit will be improved try such cultivation. It is very important, however, to note the increased labor cost per crate which follows this intensive culture during the second season. In Tests 1 and 2 which 90 were given quite intensive cultivation following the first crop un­ favorable weather conditions reduced the yield to such a point that the cost per crate was excessive and the work was definitely not profitable. The following note was made near the close of the grow­ ing season concerning the second test reported in this table: ’’The season of 1931 following renovation was excess­ ively dry and practically no new plants were formed in plots where thorough renovation was practiced and no serious weeds or grass developed in the un­ cultivated plots.” Intensive renovation of a strawberry field may be accom­ plished in different ways. Many growers prefer the following plan: as soon as possible after harvest the plants are mowed and the tops are raked from the field together with the mulch which had been ap­ plied during the late winter or early spring. The middles between the rows which have been packed fcy the pickers during harvest are cultivated in order to destroy weeds and to loosen the soil on the surface. A few days later the rows are barred off with the turning plow leaving them from eight to 12 inches wide and covering all plants and weeds between the rows. The narrow row which remains is then hoed or chopped in such a way as to remove weeds and thin the straw­ berry plants. After this has been done the middles are cultivated carefully and dirt is thrown back to the row or slightly over the row in order to add fresh dirt about the crowns of the plants which remain. Frequently a turning plow is used so that the row is covered and then the dirt is leveled with a harrow until the strawberiy plants begin to show. 91 A very much less intensive method of renovation is recommended by many growers, especially in seasons when the soil is not in good condition to work. By this plan the rows are not barred off but the middles are carefully cultivated with a double shovel or three foot plow. The work is continued until the soil has been thoroughly pul­ verized and weeds or strawberry runners have been destroyed. Then the strawberry row itself is cleaned out by hand with a hoe. By this method the row is not reduced in width and the plants are not thinned as severely as they are by the more intensive plan. To secure some evidence as to which method is most desirable tests were conducted during 1952 and 1955. tests are reported in Table 15. The results of these These results indicate that more plants are available for the second crop following the less intensive method of renovation, but that the increased yields per plant largely balance this so that the yield per acre is not greatly affected. The large amount of hand work which is required for cleaning out the row without barring off makes the total labor cost as much or slightly more than when the more intensive practices are followed. The con­ clusion which follows this work is that the method of renovation is of comparatively little importance so long as the work is thoroughly done and therefore the method should be adjusted according to the soil conditions and the stand of plants. Fertilization Among the factors which were found to be significant in the 05 OH rH OH rH CD a . • o OH ISrH i —1 <3 OH OH . 1— t rH *«rH O a a LO O rH CO to • O rH LO CO CO e'­ CD LO CO en • a . . Cv O IS* 0 1— 1 rH 05 LO CO OH Sa a • . CS 0- LO CO OH rH OH rH LQ O ts- LO a a a a LO 05 O 05 to to to to OH a CO to to 0- ts- CO a a . a to LO rH rH 10 O LO LO 1— 1 H rH CO a LO -ti. -Ci. LO 05 » a H 4 CO rH 1— 1 a 05 CO rH a 05 Methods to fH Pi O ft cd ft CP o Table 15, Comparison of Renovation 0 CD ft 0 O ft 0) CO fn o ft o H cH o 1 Ti ■©■ f« fn cd ft Pi cd s CO £ o ft CO Pi f3 — ft • CO CD fH CD P CD fn cd ft O U -=d o o ■ft o rH rH CD •H CO ft pi S fn rH CD ft ft & o 5; rH CD ft to ft t J a O rH CO rH CD ft P h •H 1— 1 co • -p O c & cd i— I ft ft C CD € P cd CD fH Eh iH OH LO OH . * m » O «>- ts- H 4 02 to OH to . 05 OH hn rH o to O . • a . rH OH to Oi H 4 H 4 OH to CD a CD to CO eo H 4 CO . • • . CO LO 0 H 4 05 Oi LO i— 1 rH CD a rH OH rH ft ft •H £ Pl O •H P rH rH $ H o to O IS- 00 CO ts• . . . CO to H 4 to 1— 1 OH . LO oi to • . 1 • H 4 05 1 H 4 i— 1 rH TSQ. O• OH rH CD •H CO S3 CD P ft 0 O CD § *H P s* f> o p! CD ft S3 *H in fH cd P ft ft P ♦H Ch «H O | to a 05 o 0 O P! CD ft CD > •H CO Pi CD 0 M W CO CD Oi to 0 OH CO to 05 LO a a • a 00 to OH OH OH OH a H4 CD OH IS* a a 1 a H 4 H 4 t LO rH OH CD a H4 rH ft M Hte isrH a a • a IS- ts- O LO to co =fc Cco » 0 CO a a a • rH to O O Oi CO OH CO 00 H 4 H 4 CO C^- OH i— 1 OH 05 LO CD CO 1— 1 rH 10 to OH 1— ! rH H 4 IS- ft to O H to O 05 CD to OH rH rH OH OH LO rH rH OH to H4 CD fcuO Cd rH OH to H 4 CD hC cd fH CO ts. CD CO P to CD EH CO H H 4 Oi c- OH P P CO CO CO CD CD CD Eh EH EH u CD > Oi OH O' OH Oi H 4 CO CO P CO CD Eh P CO CD Eh P CO CD Eh P 01 CD Eh 05 ft 9 (poor soil). (good soil). Jh O ft CD cd JH ft O -OOO * CD 1955, Aroma, Knoxville 1933, Aroma, Knoxville rH LQ OH LO • • a • OH CO ci— 1 Labor charged 200 man hours and 100 horse hours. 1 — Renovation, 1952, Klondyke, Knoxville. 5 — Renovation 2 — Renovation, 1933, Klondyke, Knoxville. 4 — Renovation CD ft -P cd to fn O O o 92 cost, of* strawberry growing the item of fertilizers was prominent. It averaged 45 per cent* of the total cash expense and 11.2 per cent, of total production cost during the two years. Among the 69 records which were included in this investigation 49 included a charge for fertilizer during the first year and 15 of the 40 records for the second crop included a charge for that item. It is evident that the application of commercial fertilizers to strawberry fields is gen­ erally practiced and is a matter of considerable importance. Evidence from Field Records Observations during this investigation have led to the con­ clusion that there is very little uniformity in this practice. It seems that some of the most successful growers consider the straw­ berry to be a crop which does not require liberal fertilization while others believe the application of comparatively large quantities of fertilizers is a necessary part of successful culture. This apparent inconsistency was equally evident in a study of the detailed records which are included in this investigation. Among the 12 records which are tabulated in Table 6 the highest yield was produced on a field which received rather liberal fertilization and the lowest yield came from a field which was not fertilized. The fifth highest yield, however, was produced on the field which received the largest quantity of fertilizer and all except one of the group which produced compara­ tively low yields received moderate to liberal applications. When these same records are classified according to the 93 application of fertilizer, as is done in Table 16, it appears that this factor is of minor importance in the production of high yields. Only one unfertilized field failed to produce a high yield and only two fields which were fertilized produced a yield above the average. This distribution of records adds additional emphasis to the impor­ tance of cultivation which has been previously discussed* A study of 17 records on Aroma fields from Monroe County failed to show any greater consistency. Nine of these 17 growers spent more than the average for fertilizer but only three of the nine produced a yield above the average for the entire group. Among six growers in this group who produced yields above the average, 65 crates per acre, three spent more than the average and three less than the average for commercial fertilizer. When the 17 records are divided into two groups, placing eight in the higher and nine in the lower group, on a basis of yields and again on the basis of fertilizer cost, four which appear in the high yielding group are also in the group re­ ceiving larger amounts of fertilizer and four are in the group re­ ceiving smaller amounts of fertilizer. From all of these observations, therefore, it appears that the practices which are now followed by commercial strawberry growers are not producing consistent results and therefore a group of field tests have been conducted to secure additional information on this phase of strawberry production. Nitrogen Applications Observations throughout the state and a study of the production $109.56 H 1 ISH* Ci a ■ CD H tO Oi Oi H 1 rH Oi to 02 CO IS- 02 Oi a a a a * S Oi r l ^ to CO H H 1 --1 • CO to to H1 CJi ^ Oi O IS rH i—1 H* rH O 00 O w w ^ ^ w SO.6 CD IS- IS- 03 IS- 00 H 1 IS- H 1 to Ci IS- O r l i—1 rH (—I i—1 i—1 Oi rH 05 rH O O 00 O 05 to 00 rH rH Oi a Oi O rH CD rH Oi Oi H H H1 H1 H1 CD GO 00 CO OO i— 1 O ^ ^ Oi w to W W H H O O O tO H* CD 0 i CO Oi CO rH Oi i—1 H1 i—1 i—I to Oi to 05 to tO rH O O O O CD CO 05 CO i—1 CO rH rH Oi O o o to O O O O CO O rH rH rH rH to 05 tO to o O O O O CO Ci H1 O O to O i—1 i—1 rH CO a to Oi 19 00 Oi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 H1 LO CD Ci Oi W rH IS- O O IS w oo 05 00 00 O Oi i—1 77.6 ^ O 02 CO 00 N H1 W CD to CO O H* CO 02 tO U5 CD C- AVERAGE CD to • Crates O Ci O O O O O O H1 CO O O to O i—1 Oi rH H O rH 00 Oi H* rH H AVERAGE 1 1 61.3 CD of Klondyke Oi CO CO H* CO Fields •H to CD CD H1 H1 to set 1929. 171.38 Oi ts- rH O O to Oi o to 00 a . . • a 05 o to O to Ci H* to co Oi rH 21.8 0 rH 00 H 01 Oi Ci \ N .W O CO 00 IS- rH 0 rH 01 o . . CO H O O i—1 rH 4.9 CD a to 8/26 ^ OO U5 o to . . H* to H tO rH 7/24 a CD tO O Oi is . . to to 00 I i—1 No. Grower Fert. Cost o to ^ a Oi Ci to U) IS Oi to ^ 02 tO O . Oi Ci i -p LQ CD ^ ^ a • 'si1 Oi to CV2 CD 'st* t— ts. . IS- 05 CD IS=€©= 16.8 O • c d o > S3 *H -P 'sh to a O ^ O • o 1—1 1 —1 4©= H c o •H -P IO to a to 03 Oi to a cCD =€&= 15.6 CT> IO IS OO a a tO H CO to =€&= •ffy OO LQ O) H * • o O H N i—1 75.5 Total Costs Profits Net Returns r l HO H Oi CD a a a CD tO 05 O (O ^ i—1 rH Plow O to ♦ rH ^ rH Hoe ts to • N (O Soil Preparation Cultivation |Date Land Hours Per Acre Hours Per Acre Last Value! Man Horse Man Horse on Yield Application of Fertilizer Effect Table 16. 1 —1 O w CO • • to to O W i—1 94 records indicated quite clearly that nitrogen was considered the most important fertilizing material by commercial strawberry growers. First attention, therefore, was given to the investigation of re­ sults which may be secured from applications of nitrate of soda. In Table 17 the effect of applications at setting and during the first growing season are presented from four different tests. All of these tests were run in triplicate and the averages of each test are pre­ sented in the table. Test 1 was conducted at a substation in Middle Tennessee on a comparatively poor soil which had been out of culti­ vation for two or three years. The yields from individual plots in this test were less consistent than would be expected, and the value of nitrate of soda was not clearly indicated. Test 2 was conducted on the farm of a commercial grower near Portland, Tennessee, with the Premier variety. The conditions for this test appeared to be unusually favorable, there were no apparent variations in the soil, and all plots started to grow quite uniformly. Observations during the growing season did not show any marked difference in the vigor of plants or in the color of foliage according to the fertilizer treatments. In this test, as in Number 1, there was as much varia­ tion among plots with the same application as between different treat ments, and there was no consistent evidence that applications of ni­ trate of soda were effective. Tests 5 and 4 were conducted near Knoxville; Number 3 on a moderately good soil at the University and 4 on poor land a few miles from the city. The area for both of these Crates per Acre 154.1 164.8 i 156.1 151.2 158.12 Season the Growing During on a New Planting of Soda Applications of Nitrate Effect Table 17. 9*991 nd P rH O © rH *H a M © © fn P £ *2 rM 3 rH P P to Hi• 02 03 CO . 00 CO Oi to Od» 03 03 to CO. to 03 02 C". O 03 ca. 02 a 25 o to H* 02 to 02 l—1 to to to 02 o C O 02 0 3 0 3 02 o ■o« LO LO CD . Hi C-. LO CO. LO a rH. a a 03. H* to to♦ c- 03 to . LO o t—I to 02. to O i—1 Hi to . O 00 o 02 . a a o 03• a a o 03 Hi LO to LO i—1 C"H rH to to 03 i—( H1 a a Hi h 8^ rd • rH O © © O P •H H H >h a _ 'O P rH O © i—1*H hi a tH P 03 fn 00 © 02 © En 1 a to -P (0 E©h 02 P 03 EH © fH © rH P rH d\ P 0a a P rH O © rH *H a fH a H © to 3 •—I S'"" P ca -a P rH O © rH *H a fH © M © LO 3 r~^ P a *, p a © s p © © fH EH to 1 1 ao 02 . CO to to H*. to 00 C"O. o a Da. o o- I l 1 t o o02 O' 03 02 to 03 02 a a 02 I I rH to. to o rH O 00. o rH Oi CO to• H1 O rH to 02. to oH r a a. a o rH a a. a 03 c00 rH to o 02 i —1 to 02 02 rH CO I —1 o 02 o i —i 02 •Hi O• H* O- rH rH. oo o- to 02 . 02 C- fr. a rH O. o t" a rH• Hi a OH< 02 o CO 02 i —! LO 02 03 02 02 a 02 a 02 02 to 03 »H Pr a a -P to o o O O P —II —f (h H f-tI 0 o o a o -p -p p ^ *H (0 to to o fn fn fH fH ** H< J P «© ST *H S _ rH TO ^O * C © LO fti © S3 fti © f>J s a ii *B r?T5 & .g LO rO (1) of Time of Spring Application * o 05 CO i —I CO ts- O CO LO to . . LO LO O ts. IS- o rH i—I rH CD CO t— 1 tH 05 fr. . iD Ci ID O ♦ . Ci O i—1 rH rH OO 00 tO H 4 CO O . . O rH CD O ci ci . ID Ci rH . . . 05 ID 05 rH rH 05 05 ID rH CO IS- . 05 ts- H4 0— . ^j) ts- Ci 05 . . ID tsIS- CO ci LO tS- CO Ci O * to o . . rH rH fH CD tO 00 cr> O LO o 00 to o CO Ci IS- . . to is. to oo i— 1 ID 05 H 4 Ci . . (S- 05 is- ci CO 00. i— 1 • . CO Ci to rH rH 05 00 05 i —I i—1 . rH rH rH P«4 fti Ufl O ft) P •H C OO i C- CO CO O H4 • ts- H4H4 . » © ft) © S £ -p 3 •H to co to 00 . . 05 00 Ci IS- o ID . 0 0 05 05 00* O 00 • rH O ES- Ci ts- iH 05 * i —Ii —I m H4 G> rH i —I 00 tsc- 05 c- ci Ci LO CO • OO CO rH Ci Is- Ci 00 Ci • . 00 H* «5j> to O 05 . . ID O IS- to tO H* rH rH co co Ci 05 • • o 00 13 o ci iH H4 ... 05 CO C- ts- to 05 rH 05 O i—I CO LO ©1 c— Pm I © -p aj u'©otj p> •H Effect to -t P h CO w © © © © E-!__ E-4 _£± TJ e tHcoH4 © . •H £ W O © •H iH P H4 o -P 10 © Eh rH Ph © 0. O ft) O & O U TO i— 1 © TO rH © o. ftj © Oi ci © M © fH P no & © © © O •H ft) O ft) P£ © > *3 © ft> ft) *3 o ©IH4 O *© © ft) no © © a fti © Oi > © p © rH ft) © O ft] •H Eh . 1931, Portland, Premier, 1st crop. 4 — 1932, Portland, Premier, 2nd crop. 1931, Clarksville, Aroma, 1st crop. 5 1932, — Clarksville, Aroma, 2nd crop. 1933, Knoxville, Aroma (Poor Soil) 1st crop. 6 1933, — Knoxville, Aroma (single rows). yield for 2nd crop is given on basis of single row. rH 1 — 2 — 3 — Average © P 97 In. 1933 an application was made preceding the third harvest on a planting of Aroma at the University. The result of this test strengthens the suggestion that old plantings are more likely to profit from spring applications than are young plantings. No ap­ preciable difference resulted from the application of this material as a single treatment or divided into two or three smaller appli­ cations. The only possible conclusion from these tests is that spring applications of nitrate of soda have failed to produce signi­ ficant increases in yield. The problem of maintaining satisfactory yields during the second crop is very difficult and the practice of applying fertili­ zers after harvest in order to increase these yields is quite general among those growers who practice cultivation following the first har­ vest. Some growers who do not practice cultivation make applications of fertilizer either during the second summer or in the spring before the second crop. Five tests to determine the value of applications of nitrate of soda after harvest are presented in Table 20. In every case except Test 5 which was seriously injured by a very dry growing season following the 1933 harvest the effect of nitrate of soda applied at the time of renovation is indicated distinctly. The exceedingly dry summer following the 1931 crop almost caused the failure in the plots at Clarksville presented in Test 2, but in spite of these conditions the influence of nitrogen can be seen. The soil was in reasonably good condition for cultivation at the time renovation 34.28 31.81 41.51 LO • OO CM • D- d. E>- Plot Yield O LO . LO CM CM . rH CM to IS- • i—1 OS CM . OS rH * . rH to to C MC M CD OS . D- Treatment cd Q) -P cd a o ♦h -P cd fc* Hfc ft o o -p d LO *H H H Cd W *H nH 3f t 13 fe 5 cd o o (£ O !§ CM CM CM tO to to to to OS OS OS 05 1 — II— II— II— I -p -p o Pm Qh Ph Oh . rH OS CM . LO rH LO • CO . fB fS CM 101.63 Plot Yield O S tR rH a • CO rH C*- . rH O- 9*6 20, * ^ CD 6*6 Table to i— I C vi tO ^ LO 98 was done and the application was made but there was very little rain following that date and plant growth was very much suppressed. The conditions for renovation in Test 5 were very much less satisfactory. There had been no rain during harvest and the soil was very hard and dry when renovation was done. There were rains during late fall, however, which stimulated plant growth and resulted in reasonable yields as reported in this table. The different soil conditions at the time of renovation and fertilization probably explain the re­ sponse in Test 2 and the lack of response in Test 5. The influence of nitrate applied in September is less marked than that of applica­ tions made at renovation. During this investigation an attempt was made to compare ap­ plications of sulphate of ammonia with nitrate of soda and four such tests are summarized in Table 21. In three of the four tests slightly lower yields resulted from the use of sulphate of ammonia, but the difference was not significant with the possible exception of Test 4. Cottonseed meal as a source of nitrogen was used on two occasions during this experimental work, but in neither case did yields vary appreciably from those where nitrate of soda was applied. In the first test which is reported the percentage of fruits which were below three-quarters of an inch in diameter was determined and there is some indication that applications of nitrate of soda produced the largest average size and that there was very little increase in the size of fruits following the application of sulphate of ammonia. Observations have been made repeatedly during these ts •P © Fr © ft> •rl Q ft O Id o © ■H Fh © §■ o o • t— 1 cvi © rH P a3 e-i Crates Per Acre 151.8 156.7 149.6 © © •H h H © o a © tua o Fh -P •H ©I • tit Xl rH O TO P Fh © O +3 g> •H rH rH > H Oh t> © O O S3 G c © © Fh Fh * P P P © © © ft H» CD * ID CO Cvi . ID LD 00 C"• CO CVi ID CO. CD Cvi CO CVi . i—1 CO • © -P rH ft to 05 . cvi CD O « to H4 O • to XJ rH © *H ft CD ♦ rH rH CO • (—1 iH CD cvi . (—1 rH • x) rH O TO © O -P •H H H rH ID • 05 05 . 05 ID . ID TJ r—1 o © O Cvi •H rH JH -P © © _ EH P O Oh cvi cvi . Oh Eh Cvi CO • to H4 H4 H4 • ID H4 • Xl £ rH O © Ph *rl ft P c © S P cd © Fh O rH • CD i—1 Cvi o Fh © N •H rH •H P Fh © ..SL£d O . 05 i—1 CD . ID Cvi H4 ft «h O © P © IH © P nd •H O Sn tO . O © P © © *H ft O H | p a <*> *3 . . u © a XI *H •H rH rH rH •H rH ft ft ft ft f t ft f t © © © •l •» •v 1-1i—1 rH *H *H •H O O O TO TO TO XI © ft © rH •H O TO Fh Fh Fh O O O O O o O O bfl ft ft ft a 9\ (X f t f t • f t o o O P o Fh S h o O xl S3 to Oi rH I I I 1 © I I M II Td a Cvi t © X? © 03 •H o o o F-t u* <>3 4 -P W © Td EH & iH o © ft «H ft . TO © > u © p © Sh o Js Ph rH LO O 0) P cd lo Hi O O P Cvi CVi»H Dm US S; rH P p Pi P •s o o •H •H LO LO LO rH to to to rH P i P OS OS 03 P i P i 1—1 rH i—1 H PH '•tf LO • ^ 19.8 Crates Per Acre Average at Renovation of Fertilization Effect 6. rH tnH P PQ . TJ ^ r*H O <1) PS *H >H 23* Table TJ • H O W P O P •H f—1 rH H PH P P cd Pi Hte P O *H O S rH 1 102 of nitrate of soda following harvest at the time of renovation may be distinctly valuable• A similar test conducted on vezy poor soil during 1954 is omitted from this table because applications did not directly correspond, but in this test the use of phosphoric acid resulted in an increase of 5.3 per cent, and applications of potash resulted in an increase of 6 per cent, in the total yield. Both phosphoric acid and potash in this test resulted in an increase of approximately 11 per cent. A large group of commercial growers in Monroe County practice the application of muriate of potash in the spring as growth is starting and are firmly convinced that it is their most profitable fertilizer application. Several growers scattered throughout the state have found such applications profitable, and, in order to se­ cure direct comparisons, field tests were conducted at the University. Seven such tests are reported in Table 24. In every case except Test 3, which was on a very poor soil, distinct increases in yield followed the application of 100 pounds of muriate of potash in the early spring. Results in these tests are more consistent than any which have been reported. Detailed yield records of individual tests show great consistency, and there is no doubt but that under the soil conditions at the University such spring applications of potash are very effective. The average of these seven tests showed an increase of 12.7 per cent, in the yield per 100 plants when spring applica­ tions of potash were made. Table 24. Effect of Spring Potash Application No Potash 100# Potash March (as growth starts) Test 1--- % below Yield 100 Plants Row Yield 19.8 7.87 71.64 18.6 8.68 80.05 Test 2--- % below Row Yield 11.2 30.73 12.8 36.22 Test 3--- Yield 100 Plants Row Yield 3.54 26.30 3.97 26.13 Test 4--- % below j" Row Yield 11.1 17.42 10.2 19.50 Test 5--- % below J ” Yield 100 Plants Row Yield 5.8 2.33 25.38 5.6 3.98 27.44 Test 6--- % below J 1' Row Yield 27.7 28.18 25.5 32.34 Test 7--- Yield 100 Plants Row Yield 3.78 17.29 3.15 18.31 Average-- % below Yield 100 Plants Row Yield Crates per Acre 15.1 4.38 30.99 154.6 14.5 4.94 34.28 171.4 1 — 1933, Triplicate, Bl&kemore, 1st crop. 2 — 1933, Triplicate, McClintock, 1st crop. 3 — 1933, Triplicate, Aroma, 1st crop, poor soil. 4 — 1934, Triplicate, McClintock, 2nd crop. 5 — 1934, (5 replications) Aroma, 2nd crop. 6 — 1934, (5 replications) Blakemore, 2nd crop. 7 — 1934, (10 replications, poor soil) Aroma, 2nd crop. All tests located at Knoxville. 105 Conclusions It is difficult to draw definite conclusions from the tests which have been reported concerning the fertilization of straw­ berries* Inconsistency is evident in many of these tests, as was found in the records of commercial growers and observations over the state. Certain conclusions, however, appear to be justified. The application of fertilizers is of doubtful value on good land during the first growing year. The only application which has pro­ duced uniformly favorable results during the spring before the first crop, is an application of muriate of potash as the plants are be­ ginning growth. On poor soils the application of phosphoric acid and potash during soil preparation before planting, and, under ex­ treme conditions, the application of nitrate of soda during the first growing season may be profitable. There is no evidence that appli­ cation of nitrate of soda in the spring before harvest is likely to prove profitable on strawberries. After the first harvest applica­ tions of phosphoric acid and potash will be profitable only on soils below the average in fertility, but applications of nitrate of soda at renovation will probably stimulate the formation of a larger num­ ber of runners and increase yields. Effect of Mulch Applications Evidence from Field Records The application of a mulch to strawberry fields has long been 104 recommended but* it has never been widely practiced in Tennessee. Among t-he 69 records which are included in "this study only 24 re­ port an application of mulch. The average cost of the material applied by these growers was $7*79 per acre, and the labor of apply­ ing the mulch amounted to $1.85. In most cases this represents a cash outlay and is an item of considerable importance in relation to other cash expenses. In the analysis of production costs it was found that nearly 30 per cent* of the cash expense was represented by mulch, for those growers who made such an application, and that this expenditure represented approximately 10 per cent, of the total cost of production. Very few growers use mulch material preceding the second harvest. Only nine of the 69 growers who cooperated in this investigation made such an application, and they used less material than was applied following the first growing season- The use of mulch by commercial strawberry growers is limited to a com­ paratively small section of the state. Of the 24 growers who reported the use of mulch 19 were in Monroe County or the area immediately adjoining that County. Practically none of the growers in West Tennessee follow this practice, and, according to the observations which have been made during the past five years, less than half of the growers in the eastern part of the state made such an applica­ tion. Considering the 24 records in which mulch was included the value of the practice is not clearly indicated because only ten of these 24 fields produced a yield above the average for the entire group. 105 Results of Experimental Comparisons This practice has been so persistently recommended that field tests were planned to secure more accurate comparisons* In 1931 at the substation near Clarksville a test was made, applying straw at the rate of 3000 pounds per acre December 15, Februaiy 1, and March 15* Three row plots were used with a guard row between and the test was in triplicate* Unfortunately plots without mulch were not included because of the limited area. The results were quite con­ sistent and the average yield per plot for the application December 15 was 49.54 pounds, for the application February 1 it was 59.11 pounds, and for the application March 15 was 73.03 pounds. All of the plots appeared quite uniform during the growing season and at the time of mulching. The winter of 1950-1931 was mild so that there was no heaving or other winter injury in any plot. At the beginning of harvest those plots which had had the application of straw in March appeared more vigorous and had darker green color than those which had the application in December. It was obvious that spring growth had been delayed fcy the winter application. The harvest re­ cord indicates that those plots receiving mulch in midwinter did not produce as much fruit during the early pickings as did those which had the application in March. The difference in yield is carried with some uniformity throughout the season but is most marked during the early pickings. During the same season two other tests were conducted, one at Clarksville and one at Portland in order to determine the effect of 106 different, amounts of mulch. The test at Clarksville was conducted on an experimental substation where records could be secured from the very beginning to the very last of the picking season. The test at Portland, on the other hand, was conducted on the farm of a com­ mercial strawberry grower. Accurate yield records were taken but the fruit was handled through commercial channels and, unfortunately, the pickings were stopped at the close of the commercial season. The total yields from these two tests showed opposite results. The test at Clarksville showed an increased yield following the appli­ cation of mulch and this increase was according to the amount of mulch that was used. season. These plots were picked twelve times during the During the first three pickings the yield was distinctly in favor of those plots which had not received any straw and was least where the largest amount of straw had been applied. The yields for the fourth, fifth, and sixth pickings remained in this order but the difference was very much less marked and the yields for the seventh, eighth, and ninth pickings reversed slightly showing an advantage where the large amount of mulch had been applied. The last three pickings at the veiy close of the season showed a large increase in favor of heavy mulch applications, and a distinct increase following lighter applications. At least two of these last pickings were after the close of what would be considered the commercial picking season, and since these late pickings were not secured from the planting at Portland the results of the two tests are in reality not contradictory. 107 The last picking which was recorded from the plots at Portland showed a distinct advantage in favor of mulch applications. Under conditions which place a distinct premium on early fruits the disadvantage of delayed ripening which follows the ap­ plication of mulch may be of economic importance. It appears that increased yields following mulch applications cannot be expected un­ less picking is continued to the close of the harvest season. The experience of commercial growers in Tennessee has been that price decline and the reduced size of the fruit makes these late pickings of doubtful value. Other tests were conducted from 1932-1934 and the results are summarized in Table 25. The results of these three tests do not indicate any increase in yield following the application of mulch; in fact, the advantage is in favor of those plots which had no such application. They indicate that applications, made in early spring are more desirable than midwinter applications under conditions where serious winter injury is uncommon. When the yields are placed on a basis of 100 plants there seems to be a slight advantage in favor of midwinter applications. Straw applied at the rate of 3000 pounds per acre may, under some conditions, smother plants and reduce the number in the row at harvest. The advantage which has been claimed, that mulch will reduce the percentage of culls, is supported by these tests since there was a decrease of 30.7 per cent, in culls when an application of mulch 198.6 4.64 • to 4.8 os 49.55 6.19 o •v •\ •v cd cd o o to o B S S d d k <=d * 3 1 t © i —1 to 60 . to OO W * to cvi tO • LO 43.25 © © rH rH i—1 *H rH rH > ♦H •H to & & « O O to rH £ a O •t Cvi to t o t o to os os OS —1 1—11—I -p -p -p to to to No Mulch Test 1 LO 39.77 5.57 LO • H • CO © * 0 to ♦rH © -P 0 •H d -P . © © -p > © *H t o to to es •H d d rH © © P -P -p • H cd cd d © © -p P P © © d d d •H to to « £ £ & o O o d d d © © © rH rH i—1 tuO t uO t© d d d •H • H *H to to to ®» P P P O O O u d d o o o •p d d m d d rH cvi cvi © © > > to W cd d d © l> d to m . . • Cvi t o rH 108 was made about- the middle of* March, It is important to consider that the picking season was not extremely wet during any of* these years. Therefore, the effect of mulch in protecting the fruit from dirt and field rots during wet weather is not evident in these results. Ob­ servations have indicated very clearly that this advantage frequently means the difference between a profitable berry crop and a complete failure. It is not uncommon to find strawberry crops which have been made practically worthless try dirt on the fruit following heavy dash­ ing rains. Conditions where field rots cause serious losses during wet seasons are very common. It is under such conditions that the advantages usually claimed for mulch are most evident. Selection of Plants for Setting The importance of securing a good matted row as early in the summer as possible is generally recognized by commercial growers in Tennessee, and the selection of suitable plants for setting is con­ sidered by many to be one of the principal factors influencing the results. Source of Plants There is a rather general opinion that plants imported from a distance have a distinct advantage over locally grown plants and that it is almost necessary to renew the stock frequently if it is not done every year. It is quite obvious that the presence of ser­ ious strawberry pests such as the crown borer, root rot, etc., may 109 make "the use of local plants very unwise- Aside from this factor the value of importing plants seems doubtful and tests were conducted to provide direct comparisons. In these tests plants were secured from reliable sources in Arkansas, Maryland, and Indiana, and for comparison plants were secured from successful commercial growers in Blount, Sumner, and Hamilton Counties, in Tennessee- These tests were begun with the 1930 planting season and were located at Clarksville, Portland, and Knoxville with triplicates at each place- The results of these three tests did not indicate a distinct advantage for any one source and indicated quite strongly that Tennessee grown plants were as desirable if not more desirable than those secured from other states. In 1934 the same test was repeated at Knoxville in order to secure more complete records. This test was placed on a very good soil and was given careful culture throughout the season. All four tests are summarized in Table 26, together with some detailed records from Test 4. It is interesting that in every test the lowest producing plots were developed from plants imported from outside the state and that in three of the four tests the highest yielding plots re­ sulted from plants secured within the state- It is clear that no single source of plants consistently proved superior to others. Vari­ ations in yield are explained very much more accurately by the notes which were made concerning the condition of plants at the time of setting than ty the source from which the plants came. For example, in Test 1 the plants from Sumner County, adjoining the county in which © ra ft CD O cd oft f ©t CO to to a Hi 03 00 a CO rH rH C• CO H i— 1 rH • H H1 rH rH • Oi to rH ft* £i 2—I o ft* © M © ft* •H Sm O to . to Oi to * oi Oi to 00 * OO oi 03 Hi • CO to trH C O CO . to to o to rH • 0- to . to o . e- 00 H< Oi . OO H< . o • Oi • CO . CO • CO * CO Oi a CO CO • to to uo to a 1—1 to CO • to Hi 60 LO co 00 03 LO CO t- O © O I-H ft* © •rH H ©J - ft 8 CO H1 00 LO CO * CO Oi t03 Hi rH Oi OO . a Oi Hi to Hi Hi 00 CO CD 00 CO d © to £ T3 -P <3 H E-* -p -p -p © © © H H H (33 t-• 03 Oi © £ TO to to © Ph © CO Oi 43 O rH © Eh & a a o o o ft ft ft o o o • rH rH O • 03 rH rH • l>rH to COa Oi 03 CO rH a 0 a 00• Oi Oi Hi to Oi to co to rH CO 00 e• COa 00a 00 0 a to rH rH Hi 03 Cs. a a to C-rH oi to 00 Oi rH H< CO c- © © © see 0 o o ft ft ft <*! «a* «** 1 i I © © H © & tj O rH Ph © •H M to oi a CO 1— 1 to LO to rH rH a Oi Oi a CO a CO 1— t rH 1 1 H A4 rH f t -P © ft O O fOt* !©2 rH H H H to to to a Cm -P © 3 o © &£ o CO © © © § 3 t3 & © © © O © O © © ■ft © £ O O © © 3 © O • a o co © O © O © © ft © © © © 3 0 'd a rH © |l a E©h f t5 Eh CO ^ -a* -w' © -ft © rH . 8 © 1cd Eh trj Aroma, 1st crop 03 i —I ^ rH O3 (good soil). rH © ft? © •H © Table 26. Oi CO 00 • 00 03 03 03 rH i—I i—I -P -P -P © © © © £ © W © t © W © t, © ft! Harvest 1953, Knoxville Influence of Source of Plants on Yields TO -P I SI rH § < — O Oi • Coi H W tO ^ 110 the test was made, were set as soon as they were received without being heeled—in at all. Plants from all other sources were heeled—in when they were received and were given uniform care. During the time the plants were heeled—in they started to grow slightly. Those from Maryland and Indiana especially had developed definite root action and had formed one or two new leaves. The yields indicate that it is an advantage to set the plants as soon as possible and that when plants have been heeled-in long enough to begin growth they are less desirable for setting. Notes concerning the plants for Test 2 are significant in a similar way. dried slightly during shipment. Those from Indiana and Arkansas had In this case, also, the plants for all plots except those from the local county, Sumner, had been heeledin before they were set in the field. Those from Indiana had started to grow somewhat more noticeably than those from other sources. Almost the same observations were made concerning the plants in Test 3. Local plants from the adjoining county, Blount, were planted almost immediately after they were dug, and those sent from Sumner County arrived so that heeling-in was unnecessaiy. The other plants were treated uniformly and were heeled—in before setting. When the test was repeated in 1932 these differences were avoided. All plants were handled in the same way and all were quite uniform except that those which had been shipped from Maiyland had dried slightly during shipment. Ey careful handling, however, no re­ planting was necessary in any of the plots. Notes which were made late in the growing season indicate very uniform rows throughout the Ill entire test, with somewhat fewer plants in one row of the Maryland series* The poor showing of this one row is not explained but is responsible for a considerable part of the difference in the final yield* The result of this test certainly indicates the importance of good plants and suggests that it is a definite advantage to se­ cure such plants locally and to set them without delay. There is no indication that the importation of plants from outside the state is an advantage where insects and diseases are not present. Age and Size of Plants In order to secure evidence as to the kind of plants which are most desirable for setting, a preliminary test was conducted in 1931 in which a group of original parent plants were selected from a one-year-old row and runners were followed from these parent plants so that the first and third offsets in a runner series could be secured for a planting. Practically all of the parent plants had compound crowns with more than one bud. In this group plants were selected which had an abundant supply of bright new roots, though many old roots were present on the crown. Twenty-five uniform plants in each group were selected and washed free of soil. Their compara­ tive size is indicated by the weights which are recorded in Table 27. After setting, the flower clusters were removed approximately once a week and the total number recorded. On June 21, the number of runners which had formed from the original plants in each row was counted and the average is given in this table. The test was conducted Table 27. The Selection of Plants for Setting Plants for Setting Weight of 25 Plants No. of Flowers Removed Number Runners 6/21/51 Yield per Row % Above 7/8"(1) Crates per Acre Parent Plant 25*5 oz. 291 174 56.26 16.5 181.5 First Off-set 5.8 oz. 129 108 54.45 15.1 172.2 Third Off-set 4.7 oz. 120 102 52.00 14.8 160.0 (1) Pickings 6/10 and 6/15 at close of season are included in this count. 112 -*-n triplicate, both at Knoxville and at Clarksville and the results were quite uniform and consistent* The averages presented in Table 27 are for the planting at Knoxville. The greater vigor of the older and larger plants is indicated in these results but the small­ est group which was included proved to be large enough to be quite satisfactory • The total yield favors the larger plants and shows no disadvantage of old plants when they are selected with sufficient care to avoid diseases and to include only well rooted, vigorous specimens. Practically all nurseiymen and commercial growers who supply plants grade out the old crowns and the very small late runners but do include plants varying greatly in size* In order to secure addi­ tional evidence as to the advantage of large and small plants, other tests were planned with this in mind* For Tests 1, 2, and 4, re­ ported in Table 28, a large commercial shipment was inspected and a group of plants representing the smallest of the shipment, and another group representing the largest of the shipment was selected for this test. fruited was dug. For Test 3 a one-year-old matted row which had never The old plants and the worthless small plants were discarded, and then from the remainder two groups were selected repre­ senting the large and the small sizes. All tests were conducted in triplicate and the results were quite uniform. nitely in favor of the larger plants. The yields were defi­ The number of plants was counted, at the beginning of harvest, for Tests 5 and 4 and the greater vigor 4.71 660 5.78 N «h ^ O O W O •H C O 58.37 55.86 1147 966 tO to CO f-tTO O O O O cu ha cd cd cd cd a a a a o o o o oi 12.87 354 •H TO d Test 3 fH 5 02 18.07 0) w> 450 i Yield § 02 02 12.44 a 00 tO . * to Oi 15.11 cd CO CD C D Large in Test 4 U o Row No. Plants iPlants Yield Yield CO 100 -P O • O ■P +> -P +5 CO CO CO CO & K £ E cd cd cd cd Xl r-<3 O O cvi W to to to to CD CD (7) CD I —I rH rH rH -P -P -P -P 0) 0) iH hO a ■0w fn 0 IQ tQ tQ IQ 1 O a) 00 00 CM CO 02 LQ CD IQ Klondyke Aroma Blakemore Or O IH O XJ Fh •H X E-t 250.8 181.5 W H IS . . . IQ CD H* tO CM V6.V6.V6. CD H* tO . . . 00 to to rH rH 3 H4 CO 05 rH U 05 © tH ttO fl tO H4IN* IS05 tQ CX5 . . . rH IN- tNH4 tO LQ IS(SCM tQ CM LQ CD LQ a D"* ^r-f^CO^ tQ IQ IQ 999 OS 9 Variety to to 05 rH tQ rH rH CM . . to ^ TJ CO to 0 to CD H4 rH 00 CO 05 170.8 3.05 VC CD . CO CM 30.54 75.84 51.87 05 O •co p *H ti j & -P IH M CO «H O (34 *rt U P-i •H O .V>. -M4 IN- O . . . pH 60 H N H CD to rH . . C— CM CO (H Klondyke Aroma Blakemore Q« 507.6 214.5 Plants 100 Last 3 Pickings £ O i—1 rH 191.6 Crates Per Acre Above Yield )S Oi 05 . IQ C^. CM 00 118 three-quarters of an inch during the last three pickings is reported for each variety and this shows an outstanding advantage of the Aroma over the other two. It is interesting to note that in a comparatively thick row where there were probably five or six plants per square foot the Blakemore produced a very large yield per plant* The second season was very unfavorable. The lack of rainfall following harvest in 1933 prevented vigorous plant growth and there was not sufficient moisture during the spring before harvest to pro­ duce an abundant crop on the plants which were available. The same tendency of Klondyke and Blakemore to run down in size during the last few pickings is emphasized again in this harvest. Conditions for renovation following the 1934 crop were veiy favorable and plant growth was vigorous so that the yield for the third year was almost twice that of 1934. Throughout the entire life of these plantations Blakemore proved to be most productive and Aroma least. When the yield of fruits above a minimum size of three-quarters of an inch is determined there is much less difference among these varieties. commercial growers indicate even less difference. The reports from Among the produc­ tion records which were considered in this investigation 24 fields of Klondyke produced an average yield of 67.4 crates while 52 Aroma fields produced a yield of 62.1 crates. A recent survey, which was made by Mr. Harry Carlton of the Tennessee Experiment Station, through the county agents in strawberry producing counties, presents an 119 estimated total production of 62*8 crates per acre for Aroma, 62*3 crates per acre for Klondyke, and 78.5 crates per acre for Blakemore. In 1935 plantings of Dorsett, Fairfax, Blakemore, and Aroma were made under similar conditions. Weather conditions were quite favorable during that season and all varieties produced plants liber­ ally . At the close of the season the number of plants per row was determined for each variety and it was found that Blakemore had pro­ duced the most, 1840, Aroma was next with 1300, then Dorse tt with 1124, and Fairfax with 661. Unfortunately a very severe freeze dur­ ing the blooming season of 1936 made it impossible to secure repre­ sentative yields from these plantings. Indications are that the yield from Dorsett would correspond favorably to that of Blakemore and that the Fairfax would be less productive than Aroma. Season of Runner Formation The labor and expense involved in the care of a strawberry plantation is greatly increased after runners begin to set. Most growers are of the opinion that it is very important to secure a good matted row as early in the summer as possible. Nevertheless, many of them have harvested excellent crops following unusually diy seasons during which most of their plants were formed in September. During the growing season of 1930 some runner plants were staked and dated in order that the importance of early runners could be es­ tablished. In this preliminary work only a few plants were included, 120 but the yields indicated definitely that there was comparatively little difference between plants which were formed in June, July, and August. Aroma plants formed as late as September 9 produced a yield equal to that of plants set in July or August and greater than that of the June—set plants. Following this preliminary work runners were staked during the growing season of 1952 and the yields were secured from individual plants the following spring. The re­ sults are presented in Table 51 and the yields indicate that runners set before early September have practically an equal chance. In fact, very early runners, set in June, are frequently stunted ty dry weather during the summer and develop leaf spot or other troubles which reduce their productiveness. Quite satisfactory yields re­ sulted from runner plants set during September, and those set as late as October 11 were reasonably productive- During the season of 1952 Aroma continued to set plants through late October and November while Premier formed practically no plants after early October. This variety characteristic is recognized by commercial growers, and veiy dry weather during July and August is considered more serious with fields of Premier’than with Aroma. Additional evidence is presented in Table 52 which shows that the number of runners formed before the middle of July is not a sig­ nificant factor in determining the yields of the following spring. From the record of a planting of Premier at Portland, which had had ■uniform cultivation and fertilization, 15 rows have been selected Table 51, Date Runners Set Effect of Age of Runners on Yield 1933 Aroma Yields, pounds No* Per 10 Plants Total Plants Date Runners Set 1933 Premier Yields, pounds Per 10 No. Total Plants Plants 6/2/32 63 7.80 1.24 7/15/32 14 2.85 2.03 7/2-8/32 83 8.53 1.03 8/ 4/32 28 6.63 2.37 7/18-22/32 94 11.88 1.26 9/12/32 25 3.27 1.31 8/2-8/32 59 5.65 .96 10/11/32 21 1.74 .83 8/10-25/32 81 8.09 .99 9/12/52 83 7.85 .95 10/11/52 69 2.23 .32 11/3-8/32 30 .22 .07 Table 32. Relation of* Early Runner Production to Yield No. Runners 7/16/32 Yield lbs• per Plot No. Runners 7/16/32 Yield lbs. per Plot 190 82.50 206 102.10 216 95.40 176 93.45 202 78.70 217 70.80 183 94.25 202 86.45 218 106.90 187 131.90 199 86.00 247 115.00 189 95.05 209 120.25 255 95.50 Average Average Average Average Average 185 99.43 Average 204 94.70 230 96.72 Three rows in each plot, l/60 acre. Yield No. Runners lbs. per 7/16/32 _ Plot 121 and grouped according to the number of runners which had formed by July 16* The yield records of these individual rows are presented in this table* There is no significant difference in the yields which were produced by rows which had formed the fewest runners by mid—July and the group which had produced most runners by that time* Unfortunately the total number of plants which were present at har­ vest was not determined, but it is evident that the yield was not influenced by so-called early set runners. These results indicate that cultivation may continue without regard to the establishment of a matted row until midsummer, but that the soil should be kept in a condition which favors the establishment of runners during late July, August, and early September. Normal weather conditions in Tennessee favor plant formation during this period and very early runners are frequently killed by the midsummer drought. It is important, however, that cultural conditions during late summer and fall favor the development of large, strong crowns. In the spring of 1934, before harvest, a matted row of Aroma plants was veiy carefully examined. Plants in a section of this row were staked and harvested in three groups according to the size of the crown. When these groups were harvested it was found that 100 plants with large crowns produced 265 berries weighing a total of 3.38 pounds, and that only 18.3 per cent, of these berries were less than threefourths Inch in diameter. One hundred crowns of medium size in this row produced 125 berries weighing a total of 1.8 pounds, while 100 122 small crowns which had a diameter of approximately one—fourth inch produced only 24 berries weighing *55 pound. Competition with grass or weeds, a hard packed soil, or any condition which does not favor the development of strong crowns during the fall is sure to result in low yields the following spring. Stand of Plants in the Matted Row Strawberries are produced fcy the matted row system in Tennes­ see, and sometimes the plants become very crowded in these rows so that there is serious competition for moisture and plant food mater­ ials* Tests were attempted in 1930 to determine the value of thin­ ning plants at the close of the growing season in order to avoid this competition. Plantings of Aroma were made at the substation near Clarksville and at the University for this purpose. The dry growing season of 1930, however, prevented the development of a thick matted row so that when thinning was attempted in the fall it was found that practically none of the plants were closer than three or four inches apart in the row. Nevertheless, one series of rows was thinned to six inches, another was thinned fcy dragging a section harrow across the row in order to pull out the small late formed plants which were not well established, and other rows were left as they had grown. The yields which were secured in 1931 indicate that too many plants were not present in any of the rows. The yields were reduced fcy thinning and were reduced in proportion ty the severily of the work. 123 This test was repeated in 1932 under more favorable conditions* The same plan was followed and the hand thinning was done quite carefully in order to secure a uniform distribution of plants* results of this test are presented in Table 33. The These results in­ dicate that crowded plants do compete with each other so that the yield per plant is reduced and to some extent the number of small berries is increased* Nevertheless, in eveiy case the largest total yields were secured where there were the most plants. Another attempt to secure evidence along this line was made by studying plants which had been set in beds according to the hill system where no runners were allowed to become established- In these tests which were conducted in 1931 it was found that increasing the distance between the plants from 8 to 12 inches decreased the number of plants in a given area approximately 55 per cent, and resulted in a decrease of only about 22 per cent. In the yield. This indicated that the yield per plant was distinctly increased by the wider spac­ ing. Such a condition was found to be true when yields were tabulated from runner plants which had been spaced accurately during the 1932 growing season. It was found by this work that increasing the spac­ ing of runner plants from 8 to 12 inches increased the yield per plant approximately 35 per cent. It is interesting to know that increasing the spacing of runners from 4 to 8 inches increased the yield per plant between 75 and 80 per cent. Evidently there was definite compe­ tition among the plants when they were crowded in the row. 05 05 to CM o 05 H1 to £ 0 ft O s rH nH <1) £ to CD H4 © ft d P . CM 8 ISo CO ft to C O • -p o d ft aj rH ft o CD H4 CM ft 00 ft O H* CO to CM to o CO CO © W> ft £ ft . to ft ft ft CD ft & CM CM IS05 IS- 0) ft to H4 ft rH ft tti H -P C D O *H H to • CM H4 rH 05 O s rH ©IH &H to -p ft to 05 C£> • CO 00 05 CO H4 O * H4 H4 to ft CO to ft 05 H4 H4 »- o O ft ft ft ft Eh rH © P O Eh ft H* © o O d •H d £ *H ft Eh CO ft CM 05 IS rH . . rH 05 H 4 tO to O H l>~ . . to CO tO ^ to ft CO 05 rH H 4 to H 4 C" CO ft t"» © o o P 9 cd a p ft © P H4H4H4ft © © ft ft CM 05 H 4 05 CM CO CM H 4 . . . . « w © to i 13 rH S d 02 -ft rH © *H d 05 © P rH ft & o o• £ O © tnN rH ~ H4 H4 o o ft ft -p d (D p P 43 rd d O © occj ft *H *H ft to CO P ft •H O o © £ -P ft © d P .3 O ft 1932 Size ,9 ft ° and on Yield Row Matted the of Thinning Effect 00 rH © 55 . o to ft « a 1 Table Oto ft O © H4 CO to ft ft 05 00 ft. 05 CO ft «... ft ft CO CO 00 O CM set to -p © CO d © O P CQ CQ •H CD § g o © E-* m © tO H* IQ • CM CM 00 CD tO CD tO rH rH iH rH (M to HC • CM CM D- CD tO CD to rH rH r— 1 © W O O -P P © * 00 rH to 00 CM CD i—I <3)10 CMtO - - £>- * 00 I •» *». rH CM CD rH I (M O tO (MtO CD«rH CD Hr O CD to i—I • rH • tO • tO to rH tO OCD CD i —I i —I ------ to— L O CM CM O CDtO rH rH CM tO • t*- LO 00 CM CM CD tO CD CO rH rH rH to 00 00 CM CDrH CM H* Cv2 H1 H1 CM H CM00 LO * tO • CM • tO CD CD £>- CD si o © E-c O CM to 00 © P rH CQ © C£) CM 00 CM CM LO to r-f (M rH CM CM CD CD 00 to tO 00 H* CM CM rH CD CD i —I & U U IH © - © © 0 © © © tH* Cvi rH rH tO LO tO CM CD CD I—1 rH tO CM H tO CD i—I © © CQ © P O 53 >H & © hfi © U i> <4 © H rQ © s © 3 I p CQ \ p © o © a © © © © CD h to CD P 3 »rf CM CM CD Tt 0 o .1 O H IH © © S i P LO o H © O P* w © rO & T*t •H a M J. © o o CM S-t 3 © © I © Tt «h O © ,n © © © to rH 00 CCM CD rH u ^ © hD I © p© & © © 4 rH OT & © o rO rt g U S> I I ra «H o © S -9 >H S2J M !S5 hQ I -P s ra © £ © rH *3 rH CM rH C*- • F-i S> Table 36* rH cd rH rH © U P o to CM CO • CM C"- cn to 05 o rH H *3. © — > __ -•-- - V. 1 DO » p 1 © © p !H © © © o © > *4 *H S I •H hD Pk © ♦H *H § & H Tt CH . P « W © rH O © *H > P P H O © © E-r P tEt Source — United States Weather *Days with less than .05 inches Average Picking Season based on East Tennessee 5/11-6/5; Central © O CQ ,M O 0} Bureau, Knoxville, Tenn, (14 year average 1922-*35 inclusive). of precipitation are considered without rain. growers records. Tennessee 5/5-5/30; West Tennessee 4/30-5/20. CO (M S3 150 until early in June. The harvest season in Middle Tennessee is just a few days, perhaps a week earlier, and that in West Tennessee is approximately two weeks earlier. The data presented in this table show that under average conditions there is not sufficient rain dur­ ing the picking season to seriously interfere with the harvesting of the strawberry crop. Usually, however, there are two or three good rains with a total precipitation of between three and four inches and such conditions are quite favorable. Periods of excessive rain­ fall such as occurred in the East Tennessee Section during the har­ vest of 1928 always cause serious losses. That season there was rain on more than half of the days during the picking season, and the total precipitation was more than double the average. Such condi­ tions cause soft berries which do not stand shipment, and result in large field losses so that the harvest records do not represent the actual production. Seasons of extreme drought during harvest, such as was exper­ ienced throughout the state in 1925 and again in 1931 and 1932, are responsible for equally severe losses. The amount of loss which re­ sults from such abnormal weather conditions is difficult to measure. Notes were made during this investigation in many fields where pro­ duction cost records were being kept. These notes show estimated losses ranging from 10 or 15 per cent, to as high as 50 or 60 per cent, due to the drought of 1931 and 1932. Such notes as the following are common and indicate the severity of the damage: 151 "The dry season has ruined the size. There is a very heavy set of fruit but not more than onethird was picked." Another quotation: "Fruit veiy small. About 55 per cent, of the ber­ ries failed to mature normally,” and again: "Extremely dry. Did not attempt to pick culls. Left probably 50 per cent, in the field." Occasional notes indicate damage from excessive rain though there has not been an extremely wet year during the entire period of this investigation. During the season of 1954 one grower reported a loss of approximately 55 per cent, of his crop due to rain and lack of proper management during the picking season. The yields which are reported from the field tests in this investigation reflect quite clearly the influence of weather during the harvesting period. diy. The seasons of 1952 and 1956 were extremely During both of these years there were only three rains during the picking season and the total precipitation was only about onethird of the normal. The 1935 season was dry also but there was not so serious a deficiency, and during 1934 and 1935 conditions were quite normal and approached the average both in distribution and total precipitation during harvest. Spring Frosts or Freezes Spring frosts are the cause of serious damage under some con­ ditions, but the strawberry has a long blooming season and it is 132 quite unusual for the crop to be destroyed in this way. Some vari­ eties of strawberries such as the Klondyke, and, to a less extent, the Blakemore produce blooms on tall fruit stalks which are held high among the leaves or above them so that frost injury is frequent* Other varieties such as the Aroma have veiy short fruit stalks so that most of the flowers are protected ty the foliage and there is less injury from ordinary spring frosts. It has been shown in pre­ vious discussions that the application of a mulch will considerably delay blooming and reduce the danger of loss from this cause. Two instances of injury have occurred during the field tests in this investigation. to 12 degrees on March In 1932 at Portland the temperature dropped 9and to 31 degrees on March 23. Growthhad started and fruit stalks were developing rapidly at the time of the severe freeze on March 9because of a rather extended period ofmild weather which preceded the sudden drop. As a result the tenderfoli­ age was killed and a veiy large percentage of the flower clusters were damaged. Notes which were made in this planting as late as April 22, shortly before fruits began to ripen, indicated that the effect of the freeze and late frost was still evident. The following quo­ tation is taken from these notes: "Most of the plants have a cluster of dead buds. All have many dead leaves* Most have a cluster of buds nearly ready to open, with an occasional bloom." The variety in these tests was Premier and it produced a very satisfactoiy second crop of blooms so that the total yields were reason­ ably good. 135 In 1936 there was a killing frost at Knoxville, April 8, about eight or ten days later than the average last killing frost, and at that time early blooming varietieswere nearly in full bloom. Counts were made shortly after this frost and it was found that 72 per cent, of the and 84 blooms which were open on Blakemore were injured per cent, of those which were openon Dorsett were injured, while only 50 per cent, of the Aroma blooms showed any frost damage. In addition to the relative percentage of blooms which were killed it is important to note that there were less than half as many blooms open on the Aroma as on either the Dorsett or Fairfax. Counts were made during the present blooming season, 1937, on April 24, to get additional information on relative blooming dates. It was found that at this time Aroma had only a very few blooms open. Less than 100 flowers could be found on a 60 foot row. Dorsett was blooming freely with an average of approximately 1200 blooms per row and Blakemore was blooming even more abundantly with approximately 1600 blooms per row. All of these rows had been mulched with 3000 pounds of straw per acre and the mulch was allowed to remain over the row as long as was possible without injury so that the blooming season was considerably delayed. The loss which results from spring frost is not entirely due to reduced yields. A large part of this loss is due to the production of many imperfectly formed berries which growers call buttons. These berries are culls and must be graded out at har­ vest or the grade of the entire crop will be reduced. 154 Field Losses at Harvest During the course of this investigation it has become very clear that losses which occur in the field during harvest are of tremendous importance and that they greatly reduce the amount of fruit on which the grower secures a return. These losses frequently amount to a very large percentage of the total production but it has been found practically impossible to measure them in any satis­ factory way. A recent survey which was made by Mr. Harry Carlton, of the Tennessee Experiment Station, through the County Agricultural Agents in 16 of the leading strawberry producing counties gives some inter­ esting estimates as to the proportion of the 1935 crop which was lost* It was reported by these agents that an average of 8.4 per cent, of the total production was not sold. This represents approximately 56,000 crates and is an item of real importance. The maximum loss was 30 per cent* reported in Meigs County in East Tennessee, and 25 per cent, reported in Haywood and Madison Counties in West Tennessee. Even though these estimates are based only upon observations and are not supported by actual data, they give a fairly good picture of the seriousness of this problem. Losses due to frost injury and to weather conditions during harvest have been emphasized in the preceding dis­ cussion. While many of the best growers report practically no field losses even in years when conditions are not favorable other growers who have practiced equally good cultural methods report losses 135 amounting to from 10 to 25 per cent, of the total crop. No doubt, unfavorable weather conditions are responsible for the largest per­ centage of field losses, but many other causes are of significance. Selling Price During the seasons 1932-1935, inclusive, the selling price was so low that profits were very doubtful. Under such marketing conditions a large percentage of the fruit was left in the field when the selling price dropped to so low a point that the grower could not handle the fruit and receive any return for the cost of production. The seriousness of this situation is clearly shown by the records of 15 Aroma fields, in Monroe County, for the 1933 crop. Seven of these 15 growers report very little loss of fruit in the field. Four growers report that from 10 to 20 crates per acre were given away, and three of the 15 growers estimate that 25, 30, and 50 per cent., respectively, of the fruit was left in the field when picking was stopped because of unsatisfactory prices. Similar conditions have existed throughout the state during this period. Carelessness in Picking and Handling Careless picking and insufficient supervision of pickers is frequently a very important cause of field losses. In 1934 and again in 1935 observations were made in an excellent field of Aromas where lack of proper field management, careless picking, and similar causes, resulted in the loss of fully one-third of an excellent crop. A 136 large percent-age of the strawberries in Tennessee are picked by the owner*s family with the help of the neighbors, and very little real supervision is given to the pickers. Very often, under such condi­ tions the work is done very well because all who are engaged in it are interested in the crop. Large growers, on the other hand, employ many pickers who have no interest in the crop, and who are inclined toward careless work unless very careful supervision is given. Ripe berries may be left in the field and they may be brought in as overripes at the following picking. Green or imperfectly formed berries may be picked in large numbers and fruits which are on the vine may be damaged fcy crawling or walking carelessly along the rows. losses can largely be avoided by proper supervision. Such Many growers have found that a field boss should be employed to supervise about 15 pickers, and that a careful check of individual work should be made in order to eliminate those who are careless. Delay in picking is a very common cause of serious loss. Table 36 shows that during a picking season, even in a normal year, there are two or three periods during which it rains on two or more consecutive days. In very wet years these periods may extend for four or five days so that it is almost impossible to get the berries picked before they become overripe. Such unfavorable weather condi­ tions make it necessary to provide sufficient labor to harvest the entire acreage t a minimum of time. It is desirable to harvest every day during the main picking season when weather conditions favor rapid 157 **ip©uiug • The serxous increase in the proportion of* overripe ber­ ries which results from infrequent picking was illustrated in the careful classification of culls on the plots at Clarksville, during the 1952 picking season. The fruit was being sold locally so that the berries which were reported as overripe were not lost in this particular instance. Commercial growers who are shipping to distant markets are inclined to follow the same plan of picking only eveiy other day, and frequently allowing two days to pass between pickings* With this schedule it was found that 61 per cent, of the culls which were found at a picking made May 25, 1952, were due to overripes* A similar determination was made at the next picking on May 25 and it was found again that 56.5 per cent, of the culls were due to over­ ripe fruits. Delay in handling the fruit from the time it is picked until it is placed under refrigeration or on the market, and especially the exposure of the fruit to the sun, are important causes of loss in many strawberiy fields. Careless handling by graders and packers fre­ quently reduces the quality of the fruit as it appears on the market and therefore reduces the returns. If pickers can be supervised care­ fully and taught to grade in the field so that it is unnecessary to turn the cups in the packing shed much of this loss can be avoided. During periods of high prices growers in Tennessee practice this method of harvesting to a considerable extent, but when prices approach the point where profits are doubtful such careful supervision is dis­ continued . 138 Size of Berries Reference "to Table 50 shows the great importance of size as a cause of culls* In this table the proportion of the total yield during the last three pickings of the season which was below the minimum size for U* S. No. 1 varied from 6.1 per cent, with Aroma 1935 to 71.4 per cent, with Klondyke in 1933. The proportion of small berries for the last three pickings during the entire life of the plantation averaged with Klondyke 50.6 per cent., with Aroma 11.3 per cent., and with Blakemore 47.2 per cent. Considering the proportions of berries which were below the minimum size during the entire picking season Aroma averaged 4.3 per cent, for the entire life of the plantation, while Klondyke and Blakemore averaged approxi­ mately 19 per cent. These large losses due to size may reflect un­ favorable weather conditions or careless cultural methods, and are of tremendous importance to the strawberry growers of this state. Classification of Culls According to the Cause During the season of 1932 all of the culls which were pro­ duced on a series of plots at the University were carefully analyzed in order to determine the relative importance of different causes. A summary of this information for the season is presented in Table 37. It is important to remember that the 1932 picking season was extremely dry and, therefore, the percentage of berries which were culled be­ cause of size is very high. During the blooming season in 1932 there was a killing frost which caused the formation of an unusually large f-i 0) o CP •p -p 01 ra i —I 3 o <4M o § *H •P «S 0 ■H i—I 3 o O -p Em -i tO <£> •P & m •ft rH o U0M CD o o rH • CD C** 03 00 H1 CD • 03 g 0 01 cd 0) Ph to no a> fH o s a> cd rH CQ P *H J5 « ■& a o rH M 02 •H P-. to 03 rH 139 number of buttons* The most important single cause of culls during this picking season was this late spring frost. The culls which are listed as due to mechanical injury are largely the result of bird pecks. Most commercial growers simply do not pick such fruit and have no measure of the amount which occurs in the field. The low total yields which are reported are due principally to the re­ duced stand of plants following an abnormal summer drought during the growing season of 1931. In this analysis berries which showed more than one defect were listed in both groups so that the total percentages exceed 100 in most cases. A considerable percentage of those berries which are listed as buttons were also below threefourths inch in diameter but showed definite evidence of frost damage. The comparison of varieties which can be made in this table is inter­ esting and fairly represents these varieties as they are grown in Tennessee. A larger percentage of culls are due to size with Klon­ dyke than with Aroma and a smaller percentage are due to rots. The Klondyke fruit stalk is quite strong and holds the fruit up off the ground so that field rots are comparatively unimportant. The fact that Aroma shows a distinctly smaller percentage of buttons than Blakemore and Klondyke may be due to a later blooming season and to the protection of Aroma flowers ty the foliage. 140 FACTORS WHICH AFFECT THE SELLING PRICE The profits which are realized from strawberries or any cash crop depend not only upon the cost of production and the yields which are secured but also upon the selling price* In some respects this factor is less under the control of the individual grower than are those factors which determine the cost of production or the yields per acre* Competition Among Widely Separated Producing Areas During the very early life of strawberry growing, production was limited to areas closely adjacent to centers of population* Since the development of refrigeration and the perfection of the re­ frigerator cars the producing areas have spread widely and they have become competitors in all of the important markets. More recently the development of an extensive system of improved highways together with the veiy rapid expansion of commercial trucking facilities has further complicated this problem* The recent survey which was made by Mr. Carlton through the County Agricultural Agents in 16 straw­ berry producing counties indicates that in 1935 from 70 to 75 per cent, of the production in East Tennessee moved to the markets by trucks and in West Tennessee from 40 to 50 per cent, of the crop was handled in this way. Truck movements are very much less accurately reported and market information is, therefore, less reliable than it was a few 141 years ago when practically all perishable products moved, into the larger markets over the railroads. These improved means of trans­ portation have brought widely separated areas into direct competi­ tion. Xt is custoraaiy to divide strawberry producing states into four groups according to their shipping season. The marketing season for states in different groups, however, frequently overlaps sufficiently to be an important factor in the market supply. The real competition which Tennessee strawberries meet in the markets is indicated more clearly in Table 39 where the weekly shipments are shown for the period during which Tennessee strawberries are moving. The states in the extreme eastern part of the United States such as North and South Carolina and Virginia are not listed in this table even though they are included in the second early group and are moving their crop at the same time. Strawberries from these eastern states move into northeastern consuming centers almost en­ tirely and do not occupy any important place in the consuming centers of the middle west where practically all of Tennessee strawberries are sold* California movement is not indicated in this table for the same reason. Comparatively, a small proportion of California straw­ berries move into the important markets of the middle west under normal conditions. A study of Table 39 shows in a very striking way that Tennessee strawberries meet the heaviest competition of the en­ tire season. The peak of our movement, based upon a five year aver­ age, comes during the middle of May, and the total snipments for the Table 38. Classification of Strawberry Producing States According to Season of Marketing Early Group Second Early Group Intermediate Group Late Group Alabama Arkansas California Indiana Florida Southern California Delaware Iowa Louisiana Georgia Illinois Michigan Mississippi North Carolina Kansas New York Texas South Carolina Kentucky Ohio Tennessee Maryland Oregon Virginia Missouri Pennsylvania New Jersey Utah Oklahoma Washington Wisconsin CO -P to ©2 1 rH T3 0 CO •H 0 P P C Q P P a CD <4 g p rH Pi m o «H 05 1 to P cd P O 02 1 C02 , CO 02 J o 02 Eh 5 •rl £ CQ 0 P $ CQ tJO P P CD 05 rH cd 1 S to rH 02 rH 1 CO f 0 TJ 3 LO 1 CD CD CD C2 01 01 CD p 00 02 1 02 02 CJ CD Eh S 0 1H LQ o 02 • • p P & O 05 CQ 0 o * D» 02 to CO P 00 P 00 * • • • • 02 t- P P 02 P O • CO 000 CD 02 00 O 02 CO • • • « • • o- t- p 02 O c»P to O to to 02 02 02 • 02 lO to rH 00 • 00 H1 to rH 00 • IO rH 02 • 05 05 02 rH CO • CD 00 00 02 • CO• o• P• • P• P• P• P to 60 P 60 O to 02 CD 05 P i—1 P P P P P CO• CO o • • • • O- P C"- to 00 rH to o CO to P • CO rH to O 02 P o • • • • O- to 02 to CO to to H1 1 00 <—1 I O •H til) P t! CO 02 • • * to CD P cd P CO • CO • t=> 0 < —I rH P cd p o cd Eh 1 P 0 P P • 13 CQ •v • CO CO O 60 P 05 S H >> o 13 p 02 0 o to 0 o 05 fe w rH £ 1—1 0t aj CO © p P 0 to cd cd cd CO b P to P s to CQ 3 o P *H CO 3 (3 s,M P Cm to Eh o 142 entire United States are heavier at that season than at any other time. The principal volume of competition which our fruit meets during mid—season comes from Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, and Mis­ souri. The Mississippi crop is declining rapidly as our season approaches its peak and though both Louisiana and Alabama are past the peak of their season the volume of shipments from these states is a very important factor in midwestern markets. The shipping seasons of Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky occur most nearly at the same time. The peak movement from Tennessee and Arkan­ sas comes during almost exactly the same period. Missouri and Ken­ tucky reach their peaks after the heaviest volume from Tennessee has moved* Strawberry production in Tennessee is divided into three rather distinct districts. The marketing season for East, Middle, and West Tennessee strawberries is shown in Table 40. The movement starts several days earlier in West Tennessee and usually a few days later in Middle Tennessee than in the eastern part of the state. Dur­ ing recent years the Blakemore has been introduced into West Tennessee in considerable quantities so that the shipping season from that section extends as late as that from either Middle or East Tennessee, go large a proportion of the strawberries from both East and Central Tennessee move by truck that the table probably does not show either the earliest or latest shipments from these sections. The comparative importance of different states which compete Table 40. Weekly Carlot Shipments from the Important Districts of Tennessee with the Total for the State East April 22-28 May J une 29-5 6-12 13-19 20-26 27-2 3-9 10-16 17-23 — — 24.4 48.4 88.2 55.8 8.2 .6 — Sections of Tennessee Central West 1.2 45.0 66.8 28.2 5.0 — State Total 8.0 8.0 131.0 254.6 208.6 71.6 15.4 155.4 304.2 341.8 194.2 51.8 1.8 1.0 .6 7.4 1.0 .6 .. . Five year average 1932—1936, inclusive. Taken from the ’’Weekly Summary of Carlot Shipments” U* S. Dept, of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics. 143 with Tennessee is indicated in Table 41 where the acreage is listed for the years 1928 to 1936, inclusive* The general trend in acre­ age has been remarkably uniform in this group of states. The only significant difference is that the earlier states including Tennes­ see have for the most part shown a decline in acreage during the past three years, while states to the north have remained quite con­ stant* Both Missouri and Arkansas show a slight increase for 1936* Considering both the acreage and season of shipment Tennessee can expect the greatest competition from Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Kentucky* Price Trend During a Period of Years Comparison of Tennessee and Competing States The fluctuation in acreage which is shown in Table 41 cor­ responds closely to the general profitableness of the crop during that period* Acreage changes are less abrupt than fluctuations in selling price and usually lag one or two years behind. In Table 42 the trend in strawberry prices is given for Tennessee and competing states. Throughout the entire period from 1928 to 1936, inclusive, the average seasonal price in Tennessee has been below that in the other states, and the average price of Louisiana strawberries has been distinctly higher than that from any other state. The unusually high price which is reported for that state may be due in part to the efficiency of their marketing system and to the fact that a 1956 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o W O O^ N#S^ ftt, D C D W N CM CM IQ 00 00 02 •H H H o Pi LQ•v rH t>~ rH O O O O O O O O O OOO OOW O O V2 CD rH O Pi 207,600 O O O O W#vC DtvOft C OftL OftC ft i Wft Mississippi Louisiana Alabama Arkansas Tennessee Missouri Kentucky Indiana cd EH 1928 ^3 O O <30 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 0 0 0 3 H i t O O H * ^ ft is tv t> ft ft ft ^ ^ < D O ) W W W Pi P i rH P i 03 tO 02 o 03 *H <30 U U O £ cd Ch «=£j 03 SH •P 4^ a co 03 1 t -ap 5H Jh cd cd Pt o 03 CQ « U. S. Total 1929 cd rH rH •\ O 03 rH Pi <30 C3 o W -p O O O O O O O O C i O O O O O O O O ic O U iC D ^ C D tO H •v ft tv ft tv ft ft rH 02 i—1 rH 03 03 d C3 o 1 -p a o (H 1261 to Acreage 03 GO CO CO O *rH 154,570 f Ot o 'S 3 0) 196,500 | 03 O O O O O O O O ^ o o o o o o o O J ^t\- tv ^ ttvO tv O H»1t O O ft 0 3 C J > C J 3 O 0 3 tO rH P i rH i—1 176,010 <30 •PHJ 195,700 1954 CO *30 GO P CD * H -P -P cd +3 O CO QU 03 T 3 cs 03 -P p . S o o u 144 large part of their production is marketed early in the season be­ fore the crop matures in competing states* In the table, averages are given in parentheses with the Louisiana figure omitted in order to get a true representation of the trend in the average prices from the competing states* Following a series of very good years during 1929, 1930, and 1931, there was a period of extremely low prices but a gradual improvement seems to be evident during the seasons of 1935 and 1936. The average price of Tennessee straw­ berries has fluctuated during this nine—year period from $1*05 to $3.10 per crate with an average for the period of $1.90. The aver­ age price for all competing states except Louisiana has fluctuated from $1.24 to $3.67 with an average of $2.46 per crate. In Table 43 the average price, as reported ty the commercial growers cooperating in this investigation, is presented together with the highest and lowest price which was reported ty individual growers during each season. In every instance there is a very wide spread between the highest and lowest price reported fcy individual growers. The indi­ vidual records show a rather uniform distribution of prices between these extremes. The same serious drop is indicated by these records as was shown in Table 42 for the entire state and the competing states. Correlation with Economic Conditions The fluctuation in strawberry prices which was shown in Tables 42 and 43 cannot be explained, however, entirely on a basis of the quality and condition of the fruit or the volume which moved <31 to CO to H 4 . • « CM CM CM o cZT b- H 4 ♦ . CM CM 2.74 tO CM . CM 1.90 Average rH tO O tO rH tO • * « CM H 4 CM 0 0 0 & p States Competing 0 CO to oi 1— 1 LO to Cl rH to to O CO o to to • • • • CM H 4 CM CM to rH « CM to to ♦ to to O O H4 • • to to H 4 o' O <31 • . to CM rO CD 00. CM g CQ •iH U cd m 1 -p t o 0 0 Pi o o o 0 3 Strawberries of Tennessee Price to O « rH O to to to O <31 <31 O CD • * • * . CM rH i— 1 rH O O CM CM • • rH rH 00 H* H 4 CM * . rH i—1 CM C* i— 1 0 .s CO to 01 rH I C\2 rH 0 0 > •H h0 o O _s CM to 05 i— 1 to O O O 00 C- to <31 . • • • rH CM rH rH to O O O CM O <31 CO • • • « i— 1 CM i—1 rH CM <31 <31 O. • i— 1 rH to <31 • i— 1 •H Pi tuD • rH to 05 rH to O• CM O to <31 to O O O o to o O rH CO 1 —1 to to 00 CO • • . • • » . . CM to to to to H 4 H 4 to rH O O to O O to O 0S <31 to to o to • • • • . • « H4 CM CM CM to to CM CM rH rH <31 . • to CM C*CM • to C<31 eo • « to to o o . H4 rH rH to o o o o o O o to E-- H4 CO H4 CO CO rH • • • • . a • . to CM CM CM CM CM to to o o fr• • to CM 0 •• •H & . ^O Eh 0 0 CO • CO » t=> 0 T3 Pi o •H <31 CM <31 p u to ft CM <*1 to O rH 00 <31 rH 0 Table 42. to to CJ1 rH $ 0 O Pi PQ c d a t»o 0 0 ft •iH -P 01 Pi 0 p cd -p to 0 O 0 t* 0 ■b tH D 0 tuO cd U 0 > 0 0 O Pi ft 0 -P P *3 o cq ft •rl td 0 0 ft o p o •H a states £ *H cd competing and Those w *H 01 •d i3 the o o * CM of i —1 O 00 CO • • rH rH 0 most from to o> rH O to O O O to to o CO o H 4 to rH o- CD <31 • • . • » . « * rH tO rH rH rH rH rH iH 0 o o __s H4 ft to to . CM and <31 CO H 4 CM . • CM CM s— ' Tennessee O to O to to to o o H 4 C- i— 1 <31 CO 0- to CM • • • * « • • • CM to CM rH rH CM CM CM Table 45. Price Trends from 1930 to 1954 Klondyke Hiehest Aroma Highest Average $2.55 $4.01 $5.25 2.62 2.26 5.04 2.66 2.57 1.65 1.66 2.51 1.97 1.15 .98 1.09 1.45 1.28 1.10 1.66 1.29 Year Lowest 1950 $2.24 $5.00 $2.68 1951 1.95 5.50 1952 1.25 1955 .90 1954 Average Not suj ‘ficient r ecords Lowest Based on the average of the records from commercial growers co­ operating in this investigation. 145 into the consuming centers during the shipping season. fundamental factor influenced these seasonal trends. A more In Table 44 information is presented which shows a veiy striking correlation between the price of strawberries, which was received by the grower, and general economic conditions throughout the country. In order to secure a picture of the general economic conditions index num­ bers representing the general business activity, employment, com­ mercial pay rolls, and non—agricultural income were secured from tabulations in the Annalist and publications by the United States Department of Agriculture. From a veiy satisfactory condition in 1929 there was a continuous decline in general economic conditions to 1955 which was the low point by all three methods of measuring the conditions. The season of 1953 was also the low point in the seasonal strawberry prices. The improvement since that time has indicated an equally close correlation. There can be no doubt but that the ability of people to bty is a dominant factor in determin­ ing the selling price of strawberries. Fluctuation in Price During a Season A study of the individual records in this investigation shows that the fluctuation in the price during the picking season is a factor of tremendous importance. The average price of the first picking is, in almost all cases, the highest. The decline in price corresponds roughly with the increase in volume and the progress of Table 44. Relation of Strawberry Prices to Economic Conditions Year Strawberry Price (1) Per Crate Business (2) Activity Index of (2) Employment 1928 $ 1.90 105.3 97.4 100.4 1929 2.40 114.8 105.1 110.9 107 1930 3.10 101.6 95.2 95.0 100 1931 2.50 89.8 79.9 72.5 85 1932 1.25 66.2 64.7 47.6 67 1933 1.05 74.1 62.1 41.9 63 1934 1.10 85.2 81.0 65.5 70 1935 1.65 82.7 81.8 68.4 75 1936 2.15 94.3 84.8 76.1 85 Index of (5) Payrolls Non- (4) Agricultural Income (l) Average price received try growers for the crop marketing season. U.S.D.A. Bureau of Agr. Econ., Crop Reporting Board, Strawberries - TC - 36: 1235. (2) The Annalist. Published by the Mew York Times Co. Vol. 47, p. 943, June 1936, and Vol. 49, p. 599, April 1937. The average of the indexes for March, April, May, and June is recorded. (3) The Annalist, Vol. 45, p. 162, Jan. 18, 1935, Table 7, Recent Economic Changes in United States, and Vol. 47, June, 1936. (Average 1923 — 25 = 100) (4) The Demand and Price Situation, March, 1937, U.S.D.A. Bureau of Agr. Econ., Washington, D. C. (Average 1924 - 29 s 100) 146 "tiie shipping season. Diming midseason "the largest pickings averaged only 75 per cent, as high in selling price as did the first picking. The price at the close of the season after the size and quality of the crop had declined was only 50 per cent, as high as it was at the start. In only IS cases out of the 67 reports which are avail­ able the prices diming late season were as high as at the beginning. In all but three of these cases the Aroma variety was being marketed late in the picking season. This decline in price toward the close of the picking season causes many growers to leave a considerable percentage of their fruit in the field during seasons of low prices. To present a more complete picture of the fluctuation which occurs in strawberry prices, information is presented in Tables 45 and 46 concerning the market conditions in two of the leading straw­ berry consuming centers. In Table 45 the Cincinnati strawberry mar­ ket is presented, for the season during which Tennessee berries were moving in 1932. Similar information for the Chicago strawberry market in 1955 is given in Table 46. conspicuous in these data. Two important price fluctuations are There is a continuous and frequently a very extreme fluctuation in price from day to day and, also, a wide variation in the quotations on any given day. Many factors contri­ bute to these price fluctuations and the importance of at least three such factors may be seen by a study of these market reports. The influence which the variety of fruit has upon the price is very evident. In both markets Klondyke and Blakemore consistently O I P o Pi to O • O H P rH LQ CvJ § cr 03 Pi Pu tS 0) o o Tennessee Season 1952 o •>o o• o • O CM to * oI 4©= to Io Io o o o Q LO • I • cm *4s©i CM I40 u o * LO * Pi 0 •0 O i—I r—1 H O < cn 0 •H Market, Pi ■«=> 0 0 0 o © rH £= w o o• 03 40 Strawberry Cincinnati 45* Table o o P to o s d O ♦H P •H Xf 0 JM O o P CO g o LO 40 Pi 0 Pi O O ch Pi 0 Pi O O CW 0 0 CM O O• CM CM <4 O* VO o rH O- © | g •H ■fr g bd a o o• LO I o LO LO 0 • CM two I • CM rH LO • d 0 LO 0 M rH LO CM • CM cm rH CM 0 0 I) d li I rH o rH o to • Pi 0 Pi O O 40 is 0 t*i pt. Ih O I o 0 rM iH Hd W 0 to 03 Pi 0 0 d XI a wj 0 *H 0 3 XJ rH o o LO w W O O CM cm CM CM o LO LO • I LO rH 4©i LO V I I CM • CM CM • CM Td * O XJ TJ 00 00 IO 1 i —i & d •H 0 HO to rH LO £4 0 fcg 0 O §> &-h U P rH P rH IPi- W8 IPi ’* P0O rH 0 03 0 P, O P 1 I O P O O S od S ol S ol GO 0 0 Hd g Pi 0 XJ *H 0 0J 0 XI •H £5 o 0 d HOP HO 3 tiS3 ol Pi 0 Pi O 0 © *3 0 P xJ 0 3 'g *H O O pci ^ i>- >? d 2 rH P »H 0 XJ O Pi ts o rH • iH t>5 I 0 P Pi *H © rH d 0 0 p •S •H o & cvi GO iH a oo 03 00 to 03 i—I o Hd § Pi •H d HO O 0 xJ _£U p Pt o E-t CO rH IH pL, O O• • • £ •H rH 0 O P Pi a 4 13 p d © o 0I —I w w LO 4#j Pi 0 Pi O O C- X Vi CM 0 o 40= PI LO • & 0 0 LO 11 O o I o 43= 3 ■B o p p i 0 P- 0 0 Pi o 0 ♦H o § • x) LO 0 0 0 0 0 d d rC( O O o cm O LO * CM CO Si O p I—1 5=3 Cd I O O CfP o • a P P O C- 0 535 Ui rH rH P o rH o t§ • Xl P d o ' •& d O rH M CM rH X I HS- M LO •vO • *H § O M S0 *H g O o o Vi d S A CO § * to 0) P O o p« £ 0 Vi LO 03 i —I 03 04 03 0 _Pt Fh 5 © p 0 Q to LO CM to LO to to CM to 03 o rH CM to to p o 53; LO to iH 02 « © © TO TO 1952 t (—I Season o © Tennessee § TO I* § oo rH O 4 W 02, TO TO I 4> O © m TO O TO isO o P-i 0-1 M a r k e t, O 02 © £ © •H TO TO > M © M •S TO e to g o o TO rH d -3 w © IS !gI rH d4 o o O • to in • « 02 I in 02 O i—I rH 02 02 f I 02 tO I I & a # o * • in m o rs02 o • • I CM tO tO Td co TO o o O 4 -2 o TO Eh CO irH TO © P O g >» S CD to CO 'TO 00 00 4 00 00 rH m O 05 rH 02 TO © TO O O O O Oh s TO TO Oh s O <& O TO • rH *=*1 TO « • § TO) <13 TO TO >> TO o fit H O 4 *g 'rH rH *H rH »H TO P P P d TO P •rH »rH TO TO »H TO © © td rH T3 © TJ TO O TO TO TO TO TO © O © © O cr © O TO) cr O o © gSg o> 02 m t- t3 H t>> *H TO - P P TO «H TO *rl *H © «H © rH *t3 © TO O oi o ol *? o m • m o m o m C-> 02 c- ts• • • • • to • ■ • to 02 tO tO 02 02 t—I 0 2 rH 02 rH 02 I 1 I I I o o m mI mI O O A O O O O o- 02 P m m P o• m 02 m m m o • • • • w • • CO rH 02 02 02 tO -Hffar -*A02 O H 02 rH rH o SS? HMV JtSt V4r4nr H2r*r wr vir * ff H4/3=4$= S 4/3=4$=4/H4/3=4©=4/3 02 tO '2* rH m ts- TO rH a3 P TO 0 I o O O TO TO _ TO TO US «TO *p • £h EH Eh TO Eh • o W W Oh 63 W TO W W Oh a W Oh 03 14 W W Oh T3 • TJ O ti O o TO O TO) O TO) nd O •73 o tj O TO HO o o £ « $ TO *rf © rH TO TO © TO • pH TO 4/3=4/3( 4/3■C/3 43 P O TO o AJ •H © P O •H P o O O O • m 02 4/3 TO TO •TO 6s o o t? ^ TO Oh s o cM o m o m O LO o o in in 02 m• 02 m ts- m o o o » • • • • 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 •& 4 4 * O I • © TO © TO O © © *H TO to a e * TO o © © O TO TO 04 04 T O © <*} £-i TO O TO © O P to TO in TO • I O TO rH O W O r 4/3= 4 /^ TO • TO g TO 0 O O O TO rH TO *5 W -TO • • •P Eh Eh TO I * a§ 02 tO g . TO | 4 $ rH TO © LO TO to M IS to © ^ TO EH P« • TO © £ in o O 02 o TO TJ g iH CO rH rH 00 H to to CM H to to to e- CO OS 1952 Economics $1.4 0 of Agricultural Poorer • CO » Bureau • Port.A rom a CO • $ 1 .5 0 -1 .6 0 i o O P. CM • O 1.50 Port.Aroma o 23 CM Mostly U © • 1.60 [P ort.A rom a Port*Arom a m Mostly 11*50-1*65 o o CM 1 LO o-# iH 4$ Generally good q u a lity * cond. Generally good q u a lity * cond. Generally good q u a lity * cond. ♦ * PH Or iH CM O to * i—1 to CM • rH * Indicates broken cars on track* Compiled from United States Department of Agriculture, Washington Daily Market Report; Strawberries* to n td 1 Jj» -p Jh o Pi 22 U cu cd td 11 15 fc © $ 1 .7 5 -1 .8 0 $ 1 .5 5 -1 .4 0 JH O & to CM • i—I 4® m td 1* 3 15 E .T .K lon, A r* Port*Arom a $1.00-1.£5 $1.50-1.65 LO to CM • C-• rH rH 1 1 o o o• to• i—1 rH 4*3=40= i ] o o to• o• i—1 CM 1 1 to o CM • tO* rH rH \Mostly N otes Season Few h ig h e r Poorer 1 1 *00-1*25 Tennessee • ■«*{ td •v 0 PJ o o $h i—1 o to LO CM * ■—1 CO LO to CM CM cM to LO CD 00 CD 1— 1 to 5/15 H 02 5/14 57 to CM co 05 CO 5/21 Ordinary, small PQ o •H JH P-4 10 Total Supply.. Market, Tennessee Season d 4/30 Date 5 Arrivals Term. Total Chicago Strawberry !I Table 46, o> o o o o o • • to lO to 4 1 LO CM . CM 1 O o «