Experiment stations
| Origin: | ✈ | ? |
|---|
| Exposure: | ☼ | ?"?" is not in the list (sun, part-sun, shade, unknown) of allowed values for the "Exposure" property. |
|---|---|---|
| Water: | ◍ | ?"?" is not in the list (wet, moist, moderate, dry, less when dormant) of allowed values for the "Water" property. |
Read about Experiment stations in the Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture
|
|---|
|
Experiment stations. Every state of the Union, every island dependency of the United States, and every province of the Dominion of Canada has one experiment station for agriculture supported by public funds. A very few of the states have two stations, one being the regular federal agency in the state and the other being usually an institution established and maintained directly by the state and representing the movement that began before the passage of the federal experiment station act. By the middle of the last century, the discussion for institutions or agencies to make experiments in agriculture was well under way. It was not till 1875, however, that any legislative body made an appropriation for the establishing of such an institution. This was in Connecticut. Other stations followed in several states, some of them under direct legislative enactment and others being organizations within colleges or college departments of agriculture. These movements were marked in North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Massachusetts, and other states. The movement in the United States for a national system of experiment stations took form in a bill for the purpose introduced into Congress in 1882 by Hon. C. C. Carpenter of Iowa. The bill finally to become a law was introduced in the House of Representatives by Hon. William H. Hatch of Missouri; this became law March 2, 1887, by the signature of President Cleveland. It appropriates $15,000 to each state for the purpose of establishing an agricultural experiment station, to be located at the land-grant college unless the state shall determine otherwise. A second act, supplementing the Hatch Act, was approved March 16, 1906, by President Roosevelt, it having been introduced and carried to passage by Hon. Henry C. Adams, of Wisconsin. This appropriates $15,000 to each state "for the more complete endowment and maintenance" of the stations, with the understanding and requirement that it shall support fundamental researches. About $1,500,000 is therefore expended annually by the federal government for the maintenance of experiment stations in the forty-eight states, aside from similar grants for stations in Porto Rico and Hawaii, expenditures in the Philippines through the War Department, and in Alaska and Guam directly through the United States Department of Agriculture; and there is also a large and important expenditure in the Department of Agriculture itself, both for supervision and for investigation. The states also contribute heavily to the experiment station work. The total revenue in the United States for the year ended June 30, 1912 was $4,068,240.09. By law, reports are to be issued at least quarterly by the different experiment stations. These institutions are now issuing numerous bulletins, circulars and reports on an astonishing range of subjects and of the greatest importance to the people. The publications of the United States Department of Agriculture are very extensive and of the highest technical and general value. In Canada, the experiment station movement was practically parallel with that in the United States. The Act for a dominion system was passed in 1886. One central station, or "central experimental farm," was established at Ottawa, and the stations in the provinces are branches of it and under the administration of its director. The grant of Parliament for the year 1913-1914 for the maintenance of the system of experimental farms was $900,000. In both the United States and Canada, horticulture is one of the important subjects of experiment and research. Usually this work is in charge of a separate officer, commonly known as a "horticulturist;" and the number of associates and helpers may be several or many. The extent of horticultural research is now large and it is rapidly increasing. Persons desiring to be in touch with this work should apply to the experiment station in the state or province or to the national department; and a list of these institutions is given below. For further history and discussion of Experiment Stations in the two countries, see pp. 422-430, Vol. IV, Cyclo. Amer. Agric. In the United States the address of the experiment station and of the college of agriculture is usually the same post-office. In New York, there is a state station at Geneva as well as the federal station and college at Ithaca; in Ohio, the experiment station is at Wooster, and the college is part of the State University at Columbus; in Georgia, the station is at Experiment and the college at Athens, in the University; in Connecticut, the federal station is at New Haven, and the college at Storrs; in other states the post-offices of the two are the same. Canada. The Dominion or headquarters institution is the Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Ontario. Alberta. Experimental Station, Lacombe. Experimental Station, Lethbridge. British Columbia. Experimental Farm, Agassiz. Experiment Stations, at Invermere, and at Sidney on Vancouver Island. Manitoba. Experimental Farm, Brandon. New Brunswick. Experimental Station, Fredericton. Nova Scotia. Experimental Farms, Nappan, Kent ville. Ontario. Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa. Prince Edward Island. Experimental Station, Charlottetown. Quebec. Experimental Stations. Cap Rouge, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Lennoxville. Saskatchewan. Experimental Farm, Indian Head. Experimental Stations, Rosthern and Scott. United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. Alabama. Agricultural Experiment Station of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn. Canebrake Agricultural Experiment Station, Union- town. Tuskegee Agricultural Experiment Station, Tuskegee Institute. Alaska. Alaska Agricultural Experiment Stations, Sitka, Kodiak, Rampart, and Fairbanks. Arizona. Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Arizona, Tucson. Arkansas. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Fayetteville. California. Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of California, Berkeley. Colorado. Agricultural Experiment Station, Fort Collins. Connecticut. The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, New Haven. Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station, Storrs. Delaware. The Delaware College Agricultural Experiment Station, Newark. Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station of Florida, Gainesville. Georgia. Georgia Experiment Station, Experiment. Guam. Guam Agricultural Experiment Station, Island of Guam (address Island of Guam, via San Francisco). Hawaii. Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, Honolulu. Hawaii Sugar Planters' Experiment Station, Honolulu. Idaho. Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Idaho, Moscow. Illinois. Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Illinois, Urbana. Indiana. Agricultural Experiment Station of Indiana, La Fayette. Iowa. Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, Ames. Kansas. Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, Manhattan. Kentucky. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Lexington. Louisiana. State Experiment Station, Baton Rouge. North Louisiana Experiment Station, Calhoun. Rice Experiment Station, Crowley. Sugar Experiment Station, Audubon Park, New Orleans. Maine. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station, Orono. Maryland. Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, College Park. Massachusetts. Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, Amherst. Michigan. Experiment Station of Michigan Agricultural College, East Lansing. Minnesota. Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Minnesota, University Farm, St. Paul. Mississippi. Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural College. McNeill Branch Experiment Station, McNeill. Delta Branch Experiment Station, Stoneville. Holly Springs Branch Experiment Station, Holly Springs. Missouri. Missouri Agricultural College Experiment Station, Columbia. Missouri State Fruit Experiment Station, Mountain Grove. Montana. Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Bozeman. Nebraska. Agricultural Experiment Station of Nebraska, Lincoln. Nevada. Nevada Agricultural Experiment Station, Reno. New Hampshire. New Hampshire College Agricultural Experiment Station, Durham. New Jersey. New Jersey Agricultural College Experiment Station, New Brunswick. New Jersey State Agricultural Experiment Station, New Brunswick. New Mexico. Agricultural Experiment Station of New Mexico, State College. New York. New York Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Ithaca. North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, West Raleigh. Agricultural Experiment Station of the North Carolina State Department of Agriculture, Raleigh. North Dakota. North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Agricultural College. Ohio. Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster. Oklahoma. Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Still- water. Oregon. Oregon Experiment Station, Corvallis. Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania State College Agricultural Experiment Station, State College. Philippine Islands. Laznao Experiment Station, Lamao, Bataan. Porto Rico. Porto Rico Agricultural Experiment Station, Mayaguez. Porto Rico Sugar Producers' Experiment Station, Rio Piedras. Rhode Island. Agricultural Experiment Station of the Rhode Island State College, Kingston. South Carolina. South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Clemson College. South Dakota. South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, Brookings. Tennessee. Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station, Knoxville. Texas. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, College Station. Utah. Agricultural Experiment Station, Logan. Vermont. Vermont Agricultural Experiment Station, Burlington. Virginia. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Blacks- burg. Virginia Truck Experiment Station, Norfolk. Washington. Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, Pullman. West Virginia. West Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Morgan town. Wisconsin. Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Wyoming. Wyoming Agricultural Experiment Station, Laramie. Research in horticulture. (U. P. Hedrick.) For the purposes of this discussion we need not concern ourselves with formal definitions of horticulture nor discuss its several divisions. (For definitions, see Horticulture.) It is more to the point to indicate the nature of the research problems to be solved in the several loosely correlated industries of which horticulture is composed. Experimenters in horticulture may investigate the phenomena of science, the mechanical methods of an art, and latterly they have come to have much to do with business affairs. What should be the relative status of science, art and business in research work in this branch of agriculture? Horticulture is a "no man's land" in science. Botanists, chemists, entomologists, bacteriologists and geneticists, join in solving its problems. First one science and then another lets in its light and illuminates an obscure nook. Thus, systematic botany, in the classification of orchard and garden plants, began the construction of rational horticulture; then came chemistry to furnish knowledge of soils and fertilizers; botany and entomology brought aid in combating innumerable pests. When, however, a discovery is made in any science men are drawn to it as moths to a light, and botany and entomology, which have recently been most prominent, are now giving way in horticulture to genetics and the sciences having to do with the soil, discovery and activity being greatest in these fields. Thus, there is no science of horticulture, but there is science in horticulture. The science field, also, is as open to horticulturists as to experimenters in the sciences that form the foundation of horticulture. The application of science is art. The botanist and entomologist discover the life-history of insects and fungi; the control of the pests, by means of spraying or otherwise, is an art. The discovery of the laws that govern soil-moisture and soil-heat is a field for the scientist; the art of tillage is or should be founded on the science of soil physics. A widely different phase of physics cornea into action when the mechanical engineer is asked to help solve the problems of cooling, storing and transporting horticultural products. The manipulation of plants in propagating, grafting and training is an art based on plant physiology. Thus, research work in horticulture partakes of the "practical;" indeed, applicability usually must be a paramount consideration in investigations in this field. Much that is called "pure science" is helpful in horticulture, but the horticulturist is chiefly concerned with applied science. So, also, there are inter-relations between business, science and art in horticulture. A prevalent phase of experimentation is the determination of the cost of the unit—the barrel of apples, for example—of agricultural products; other business experiments seek to determine the outgo and the income of the orchard and garden; still others consider the relative profits of two crops in certain soils or other environmental conditions. These problems are largely studies of business methods and are not true research subjects, but one can conceive of scientific investigations in the business affairs of horticulture and certainly science and business come into close touch in this industry. The distinctions that have been made are not clearly defined in the activities of horticulturists. Too often men supposed to be engaged in research work in horticultural science are busy with the art—very often not in discovery or invention in art but simply with the details of well-established art. Much that is put out as the result of research work is a description or a discussion of the technic of horticulture. A study of business methods, pure and simple, is frequently offered as the results of research. These isolated observations on the art and business of horticulture, having no relation to either pure or applied science, ephemeral and of but limited application, bear but poorly the brand of investigation. Data in the art and business of horticulture, to be worth the while of the true research worker, must be a part of the coordinated and classified knowledge of horticulture, must be of more or less universal application, and must deal more or less directly with scientific principles. Investigating is not teaching, nor demonstrating, nor observing, nor describing, nor proving, unless primarily behind any of these is the design to discover laws. On the other hand, much that passes as scientific investigation turns out to be theory made attractive by the rouge of speculation; or it is controversy for controversy s sake; not infrequently the offering of science is an old garment made over in a new style; or it is a small truth much adorned; sometimes the scientific offering but heralds a discovery which never appears. Pseudo-research is by no means confined to the practical phases of horticulture. The writer does not overlook the body of good work being turned out by the American experimenters in horticultural lines, but this is not the subject of the present discussion. The training of research workers. The diverse character of experimentation in horticulture as set forth indicates somewhat the training that investigators in this field should have. It follows from the importance attached to science in horticulture, that thorough training in the sciences is imperative, but the distinctions here made indicate just as clearly that a person trained in the sciences and not in the art and business of horticulture is sadly handicapped. We may put down as the first essential in the mental equipment of the research worker, a broad and severe scientific training. The second essential is, perfect familiarity with garden, orchard and greenhouse plants and methods of handling their products. It is not sufficient that the horticultural experimenter know but the industry in which he may specialize. Knowledge of what is done in the greenhouse, for example, is indispensable to the experimenter with fruits, offering him suggestions at every turn. Whatever knowledge a man may possess of the needs and care of plants in any field of agriculture will be helpful in a specialized field. Perhaps the ability to correlate science and art should be put down as a third essential. But at present chief emphasis must be laid on the scientific training. The art of horticulture is sufficiently well taught in agricultural colleges, and the money- earning value of an education is in most institutions over-emphasized. The atmosphere of practicums and money-making which prevails in most of our colleges is not one in which investigators are born and bred. Instead, for the proper training of a horticulturist there should be an atmosphere of investigation for investigation's sake, of sound learning, of appreciation of science not only in its applications but as pure science and for its disciplinary value. It is desirable, almost imperative, that one training to become a horticulturist should take a post-graduate course in which special attention may be devoted to the sciences and the problems of horticulture. Equipment for research. Less need be said about the material equipment for horticultural research than the mental make-up of the worker. The nation and the states have been free in the expenditure of money for experimental work. Not a few horticultural departments in the experiment stations of the country are over-equipped with land, buildings and laboratories—the things that money can buy. Certain it is that the output from the institutions conducting research is not in proportion to the money spent or to the number of men on the staff. The fact that equipment and materials do not create, needs emphasis everywhere in horticultural experimentation. The custom of obtaining money to build up a department without specific work to be done is a vicious one from which there must in time be a reaction. Opportunity, equipment and problem should go together, and all these are valueless without a man with initiative, ideas, and training to use them. There are probably more over-equipped departments in horticulture than under-equipped ones. Large experimenting is sometimes small experimenting and small experimenting large experimenting. In one particular, however, the horticultural departments of the country are sadly under-equipped. There are no comprehensive plantations of economic plants in the experiment stations of the United States. The amelioration of plants is the chief work in horticulture and it would seem that the establishment of economic gardens is imperative, since material to be used advantageously must be near at hand. At least one station in every distinct agricultural region in the country should have an economic garden where may be found the food plants of the world suitable for the region. This should be an agricultural garden, not a plant museum to show the curious and the ornamental; in it agriculture must be dominant, not recessive. Organization for research. Horticulture is composed of so many industries and involves so many sciences that its problems are too diverse and too complex to permit of many definite statements in regard to organization for research. But several generalities may be set down as essentials to a good organization: (1) There must be a man in command—a broadly trained man. (2) The position of the experimenter should be permanent, subject only to efficiency. (3) The time and thought of the investigator must not be taken up with other activities, as administration, teaching, extension work and the like. (4) The organization must be permanent, to give continuity, coherence and exhaustiveness to the work. (5) The organization should usually correspond with the subdivisions of horticulture rather than the sciences upon which it is founded. That is, there should be pomologists, gardeners and florists, rather than botanists, chemists and entomologists. (6) Money and effort should be concentrated upon a few comprehensive problems that can be exhaustively carried to sound conclusions. Too many experiments are but fragments of a larger problem; discovered to be such, they are often discarded after waste of time and money. The third of the essentials just given needs amplification. The greatest deterrent to good work in experimentation is the association of research with teaching either in the classroom or from the institute platform. So much of the tune and energy of men having these dual-purpose positions is taken by the more present, and therefore more pressing, work of teaching that they are often investigators only in name. In every institution where teaching and investigating are combined, the demand is naturally strongest from students, and investigation suffers. There are, it is true, advantages in the combined position of teacher and investigator, but few indeed are the cases in which the disadvantages do not outweigh them and always the research work suffers. There should be cooperation between the horticultural experimenters in the several states and the United States Department of Agriculture. A most pathetic spectacle in our agricultural institutions is that of isolated men attacking one and the same problem, duplicating results, often duplicating errors and in either case wasting public funds. So far as possible there should not be overlapping of experimental work, unless duplication is desirable to make more certain the results. In the latter case the work should be jointly planned and from time to time compared and adjusted to secure efficiency and economy. The Society for Horticultural Science is an excellent clearing-house in which the official horticultural experimenters in North America may interchange ideas and adjust their work. Theories in horticulture are so general, facts so numerous, evidence of one kind or another so easily adduced, that the temptation is strong to state a theory, supply facts from the many already known, adorn the work with a dash of personally collected evidence and call the result an experiment. Such work lacks coherence and is incomplete. Few, indeed, are the horticultural investigators who make their work invincible by exhaustiveness. Again, the urgent call for results hits led to the study of problems admitting of hurried conclusions rather than those that are fundamental, and for this reason much work is unfinished and inconclusive. The superb exhaustiveness of Darwin's work, much of it horticultural experimentation, should furnish inspiration and method to investigators in this field of agriculture in particular. All call to mind that the "Origin of Species is but a short statement of the theory of evolution which is then shown to be an impregnable fact by a vast amount of evidence over which Darwin labored for twenty years, biding time until his views reached full maturity. There is every temptation to publish prematurely, but permanent work is that which is completely worked out. Besides, given time, investigation is easier, material coming of itself which, under speed, would have required travail of mind to bring forth. The immediate field. In conclusion it may be well to state, as a record of the times, and for possible suggestive value, some of the present problems of horticulture. Experimentation is needed in the oldest of horticultural operations—pruning. It must be approached through physiological botany. We know next to nothing about the feeding of plants and the influences of the food elements on plant-products—current methods of fertilizing are largely arbitrary. Many questions having to 0:0 with sex are before us. There is need of more precise knowledge about bud-formation and the setting and dropping of fruits. There is yet much to be done in the classification and description of horticultural plants. More than elsewhere in agriculture, horticultural plants are inter-planted as in catch-crops, cover-crops and in crop-rotation; the inter-relationships of plants and the effects of crop residues, therefore, must be studied. Greater knowledge of the associations of plants would throw new light on the relations of climates and soils to plant-growing— plant ecology. We have not yet reached the limit of improvement in any cultivated species and plant- breeding must be given attention. The relationships of parasites and hosts involving the whole matter of predisposition, resistance and immunity offer a series of problems. The good and bad effects of sprays, quite aside from their insecticidal or fungicidal functions, are worthy of study. Much has been written but very little is really known about the reciprocal influences of stock and graft. The whole matter of stocks needs experimental attention, fruit-growers in particular having little to guide them in the choice of stocks for the several fruits. We know that cultivated plants vary greatly: are any of the variations heritable or do they appear and disappear with the individual? A study of the last problem would bring one to a much- needed investigation of mutations. Acclimatization deserves consideration. There yet remain many native plants worthy of domestication. Forcing of plants brings up many problems; as, the influence of heated soils and atmospheres, soil sterilization, artificial lights in place of sunlight, the use of electricity in forcing growth and the physiological disturbances of the plant brought about by the changed environment. Lastly, those who ship and store horticultural products are calling for experimental aid to solve their many problems.
|
Cultivation
- Do you have cultivation info on this plant? Edit this section!
Propagation
- Do you have propagation info on this plant? Edit this section!
Pests and diseases
- Do you have pest and disease info on this plant? Edit this section!
Species
Gallery
If you have a photo of this plant, please upload it! Plus, there may be other photos available for you to add.
photo 1
-
photo 2
-
photo 3
References
- Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture, by L. H. Bailey, MacMillan Co., 1963
External links
- w:Experiment stations. Some of the material on this page may be from Wikipedia, under the Creative Commons license.
- Experiment stations QR Code (Size 50, 100, 200, 500)