NEGenWeb
Resource Center
On-Line Library

blood lines. A judge in a swine show would look at him just long enough to see the part in his hair on his back and consider him no further. He may he just as good in every way as the pig without the swirl but not quite so pretty. The farmer demands perfection in his pigs, why should he not demand it in corn?

      The Aberdeen Angus Registry association will not record an animal that has a white spot on it. Would the white spot detract from the meat or breeding value of the animal? Not in the least, but Angus breeders want uniformity in color in their cattle.

      We are holding a potato and apple show in connection with our corn show. Will the prize winning sample of apples produce more prize winners? Will the first prize sample of potatoes produce more and better potatoes?

      Grand champion sires of cattle, horses and swine do not as a rule produce grand champions in their offspring, yet live stock shows are not considered failures because of that fact. Should we then consider the corn show a failure because show ears do not reproduce themselves?

      I favor a continuation of competitive corn exhibits. Without competition there can be no show.

      However, if as corn improvers we can spend our time and money to better advantage in some other way than to continue the show I am sure that the members of this organization are ready to take up that work. But if our corn show is to continue we should make it a real corn show and conduct it in the same way as the other shows are conducted. As we stand today we are divided on the corn show question.

      At our last business meeting a resolution was adopted which was to do away with competitive corn exhibits, Later this was found to be

unconstitutional. Therefore, our show was held as usual. This was rather embarrassing for the officers of the organization and I would urge at this time that enough farmers remain for the business meeting, to keep us within bounds of our constitution at least.

      Stock, grain, vegetable and fruit shows have a tendency to create interest in the several industries, to bring new and better methods into use, and most important of all, they should bring together men who are pursuing the same lines of work, thereby inspiring them to raise more and better crops of all kinds.

      This is especially important during our present war. "Food will win" and as an organization we should stand united and work together. No organization of any kind will ever make progress when one half its members pull one way and the other half another. In union there is strength, and if we don't hang together we will surely sound the death knell of the Nebraska Corn Improvers' Association.

---

      Before discussing the subject, "The Futility of the 'Pretty Ear' Corn Show,'' let me say that to my mind we should clearly distinguish between the "pretty ear" phase of the corn show and the corn show itself. Note that my thesis is the futility of the ''pretty ear'' phase of the corn show, not the futility of the corn show as such. Theoretically and in the abstract the two questions are entirely distinct. Concretely I am not going to deny that in the actual holding of a corn show the two great questions have a certain relationship.

      With the "pretty ear" eliminated, the practicability and wisdom of holding some other sort of a corn show is a question which would have to be faced. The question of whether a satisfactory substitute could be found for the "pretty ear" is one on which equally honest and open-minded men could be expected to disagree. I have just carefully read the bill thru which our appropriation from the state was secured, and it is my understanding that the Nebraska State Legislature made the appropriation to the Corn Improvers' Association at least in part to help defray the expenses of holding an annual corn show. The law makers appear to me to have made no specifications as to what kind of a show should he held, but in any event, however, it seems plain that some form of show will have to he staged, if we are to continue to bye up to the letter of the present legal enactment and draw our funds as heretofore. For my part, I am of the opinion that a creditable show, which would be satisfactory to the legislature, could be

gotten up without any material use of the "pretty ear" idea. This, however, is a separate question--at least as far as this paper is concerned.

      It appeals to me that there are some five rather important reasons which may more or less logically be advanced for the holding of a "show" or exposition. No doubt these can, if desired, be used as argument for the holding of a corn show which might consist entirely of "pretty ears." Let me first state these reasons, as follows:

     1. Drawing people together into closer acquaintanceship and sympathy--exhibitors as well as visitors.

     2. Developing superior products.

     3. Education of the public to an appreciation of better products.

     4. Direct and exclusive financial gain to the exhibitors themselves.

     5. Attracting a crowd of people and securing their attention so that less appealing but more important matters may find an audience.

      Doubtlessly there are other reasons which might be given in justification of exhibitions, but these are the only ones that impress me just now as important and they are the only ones that I have time to discuss at this meeting.

      Whether a state corn show consisting mainly of exhibits of "pretty ears" is justifiable on the ground that it draws people closer together in acquaintanceship and sympathy is doubtless a matter on which you people direct from the farm are probably much better able to judge than am I. For my part I suspect that it has at least some slight value in this respect. However, I am inclined to the idea that as far as the participants are concerned our contests for premiums and honors, like most contests of this kind, do almost as much harm in breeding jealousy, envy, and ill-feeling on the one hand as they do good in increasing acquaintance, sympathy, and good will on the other. As far as the non-exhibiting members and the public in general are concerned, I feel that our programmes (sic), with their formal, well-prepared papers and the formal, snappy discussions following, are a far more important instrument in this respect. I also suspect that if the money now spent on ''pretty ears'' could be devoted to a really educational corn show and added to the improvement of our programmes (sic), it would he far more wisely spent. I cannot say how it was formerly, but I feel that now there is no very close relation between exhibiting at the corn show and being there in person. I feel also that there is even rather little relationship between exhibiting at the corn show and attending any of the midwinter meetings at all--to say

nothing of being present at the programme (sic) of the Corn Improvers' Association. You know for yourselves that interest in the business meetings is so lax that for years a very few old veterans have had to do most of the work and shoulder nearly all the responsibilities. Regardless of how this may all be, I feel sure for my part that any merits which a corn show consisting mainly of "pretty ears" may have in these respects, can be at least equalled (sic) by any kind of corn show that is based on substantial things and that can be made to live at all.

      The second argument for the holding of a corn show is that of developing a product of really superior quality. A consideration of quality in corn at corn shows nowadays involves two supposedly different things--"fancy points" and the so-called "utility points." There is no hard and fast line between "fancy points" and "utility points" in corn, but most points fall fairly definitely into one or the other of these two classifications.

      Unfortunately the group of points now called the "fancy points" were in the early history of corn shows really supposed to be highly utilitarian. Under this heading were included cylindricity of ear, depth of kernel, shape of kernel, roughness of kernel, filling of tip, and rounding of butt. They all centered around and were really measured by and sum-totalled (sic) in the one single quality of ''shelling per cent." It was sincerely and devoutly believed that a high shelling per cent was a measure of high yield.

      It was around the point of high shelling per cent--sum-totalling (sic) as it did all the other supposedly ideal qualities that the "pretty ear" excitement of recent years raged. It was of this point that the so-called "gospel of good seed" was born. It was assumed that when the high shelling, ''pretty ear'' was planted in the field it would produce, in turn, progeny of its own kind and the yield of corn would be increased at least correspondingly. By continuing this process and constantly selecting the ears of highest shelling per cent, the yield of corn could be increased almost indefinitely. In that time of glorious prospects, any man who seriously denied the probability that the yielding power of corn could be very greatly increased--if indeed not doubled--thru the mere selecting out of the good show ears would have been "balled out" as a pessimist and a knocker. I happen to have visited the experiment station of a neighboring state in 1905 and was escorted thru the Agronomy quarters by a young man who was exceedingly enthusiastic about the wonders to be accomplished thru selecting along the lines laid down in the newly discovered gospel of "pretty ears." He showed me samples of corn grown from seed secured from various farmers in the state; and as I recall it, the yields of these various corns

at the Station ranged from in the neighborhood of 30 bushels to well toward the 80 bushel mark. The whole thing was simply a matter of selecting out the proper ears. Ability to pick out the proper ears was merely a matter of taking easily learned lessons of some good agronomist who understood the science.

      Men established reputations which ran like wildfire from coast to coast on the grounds that they were excellent corn judges. No point seemed to be too fine spun in judging corn. Judges looking grave and wise as owls stood ponderingly over exhibits of corn, settling such momentous questions as to whether this exhibit containing two ears with somewhat "pinched in" butts was or was not superior to another exhibit in which was an ear with an exposure of cob at the tip of exactly three sixty-fourths of an inch. Meanwhile, wondering crowds of awe-stricken people stood open-mouthed, watching the judges make their epoch-making decisions. I am afraid that some fourteen years ago I was one of these same unsophisticated, open-mouthed, wonderstruck spectators, and I regret further to say that I am especially afraid that much of the time since I have been one of the pious frauds who were presumed to know by some delicate process of divination just which ear or exhibit was better than another. The whole thing would have been ludicrous if it had not been so pathetic.

      Fortunately, even when the "pretty ear" craze was at its height, there were a few level-headed scientists who did not quite lose their ability to question and wonder, nor their desire to subject every important agricultural question to the test of actual experimentation. Unfortunately for the peace of mind of the "gospel spreaders," when two or three of these investigators subjected the "pretty ear" idea to actual yield test in the open field the whole thing fell fiat. Let him who does not believe this statement betake himself to Ohio Bulletin No. 282, "Corn Experiments," and to the various publications of Professors Montgomery and Kiesselbach of this Station.

      It may be argued that excellence in "pretty ears" is not built entirely upon fancy points. It may be shown that the score card lays great emphasis upon "adaptation" and upon "soundness and viability." In theory this is true. However, nobody judges corn by the score card (and it would be unsatisfactory if they did) and in practice it is fancy points which actually tell the story. In placing exhibits the judge, being merely human and not being gifted with any form of second sight, can not tell to an absolute certainty whether or not the corn in rival exhibits will or will not grow. Similarly, the relative excellence of rival exhibits in the quality of adaptation is in practice exceedingly hard to justly determine. The fancy points, tho very unimportant, are visible and tangible. Furthermore, in close competition rival exhibits are apt to be so nearly equal in utility points that the judge is almost sure to place the exhibits according to their excellence in fancy points.

      The score card of 1916, in that it heavily emphasized utility points, was, it seems to me, considerable of an improvement over previous score cards, and especially that of 1905. Apparently, however, the root of the trouble, and the essential absurdity of the ''pretty ear'' exhibit, cannot be destroyed by any remedy that is now in sight. In other words, the originally noble and dignified art of exhibiting and judging corn has become a mere matter of corn fancying, very similar to an ordinary poultry show. As you are probably aware, the thing that counts at the poultry show is not whether a hen will lay 200 or more eggs. That is too hard to determine. Consequently the ribbon goes to the hen which has a feather of exactly the correct color at precisely the proper place on the leg. If the corn show and all that goes with it could be put squarely before the public on the basis of mere corn fancying, I could look at the matter a little more indulgently. If we could put up, at all corn shows, a certain notice and if there were some way in which the meaning in this notice could be driven into the minds of the public, I could at least partly cease my objection to exhibits of ''pretty ears.'' The notice, which should be displayed in a prominent place over the corn show, should read something like this: "This is all a joke, folks. Don't take the thing too seriously. It should be distinctly understood by all visitors that this is just a little game we boys have gotten up among ourselves. It has no relation to utility. Our prize-winning exhibits, upon which we so pride ourselves, mean nothing. They will not yield any more than other ears. We have simply decided that the kind of ears we are exhibiting here is prettier than common ears. The whole thing is essentially a farce but it's lots of sport, and people simply must have a little fun." In other words, it would not he so bad if we took the public into our confidence and would frankly acknowledge that we had deliberately set up an arbitrary and artificial standard of beauty and that all this hurrah and hullabaloo had little or no relation to what farmers are really interested in, namely, bushels of shelled corn per acre, profitably raised.

      Unfortunately corn shows were begun and have been carried on too long on the assumption that the pretty ears are really superior ears. So much has been claimed for these ''pretty ears'' and such a clamor and halo has been raised about and around them, that it is now probably not possible or at least not practical to turn back and shift the familiar single or ten ear exhibit to a new basis. Baby shows, or at least such baby shows a we now have at our State Fair, have in recent years been shifted from the old basis of mere "baby fancying"--mere beauty shows consisting largely of gurgles, smiles, good looks, flounces, laces, ribbons, and sachet powder, to a new basis which is at least partly sound. I have no doubt that the qualities which won at the original baby shows still exert a certain influence--at least sometimes. I suspect that sometimes when the judge is a man and the mother of the pretty youngster is herself young and very good looking as well as present in person, the decision may be based in part upon old-time 'fancy points." On the whole, however, a real baby show of today is probably resting on a fairly substantial basis. Unfortunately in corn we have nothing anything like as tangible and as measurable as we have in the case of babies.

      As to the development of the public's appreciation of quality in corn, I concede that the general publc (sic) has, to at least some slight extent, been educated to admire the pretty ear type of corn, just as not a few people nowadays can at least tolerate Wagnerian music. However, it will be found that this admiration is more intense and more widely spread in exhibitors and people who make a business of the exhibit side of farm products than it is among the average farmers who raise corn to feed hogs rather than to look at. I have already discussed what is to me the evident fact that there is no virtue worth mentioning in the "pretty ear." Then why admire it? It seems to me that in any field of art or science any ideal of beauty that is not founded on really superior quality and performance is a questionable ideal of beauty to say the least. Especially do I think this is true in all lines of field crops. Excellence of field crop plants and products has little or no relation to merely arbitrary ideals of beauty. In field crops, beauty, so called, is merely a matter of usefulness.

      In floriculture, a man who produces a rose with what is considered a little more beauty than other already existing roses is properly enough hailed as a genius. Horticulture, and especially the horticulture branch of it, is to a considerable extent a thing of fancy and caprice. Not so with field crops. It is the mission of field crops as a branch of the agricultural world to see that the world is fed, not fancifully, not daintily, but cheaply, healthfully, and abundantly. Any field crop ideal not in essential conformity with this fundamental idea is, it seems to me, doomed to failure. I might work a lifetime on getting a corn which, besides producing as well as ordinary corn, had a beauty that were marvelous indeed. The tassel and pollen might be a beautiful scarlet. The stalk might be a deep marine blue. The husks and leaves might be a riot of color and the silk contain every possible hue and shade of the rainbow. A creation of this kind might be a veritable delight to an artist or even a landscape gardener. Should, however, my prosaic friend Jim Jones produce, with far less imagination, skill, and technique, a variety of corn which, under identical conditions, would yield one bushel more than my "creation," my corn would not have as much as a ghost of a show in competition with the plain, prosaic, plug-ugly creation of my friend Jim Jones.

      I wonder if we have not--in our admiration of the corn ear--come to accept pretty much a sort of "hand-me-down," ready-made, "blown-in-the-bottle" standard of beauty; possibly because we think that to admire an ear of this kind is quite the correct thing. You probably are aware of the fact that any social butterfly can easily go into raptures over the poetry of William Harold Glib, simply because it is all the rage and quite the correct thing to admire the works of William Harold. Similarly, is our supposedly mutual admiration of the "pretty ear," really because we ourselves admire it or is it beacuse (sic) it is the proper thing to admire it? At best, in my opinion, such admiration as exists for the "pretty ear" is a blind admiration of something which has at bottom little if any value in it.

      As to whether a corn show is justifiable merely from the standpoint of direct financial gain to the exhibitors alone thru premiums and the sale of products exhibited or similar goods still at home, I also doubt that this is worth while. A privately financed commercial exhibit of products, whether conducted by individuals, groups of individuals, or special business interests, is always in order. In this case, of course, the whole undertaking becomes essentially an advertisement. Even a public or semi-public show supported at least in part by appropriations from the public treasury, might be all right if held only at rather long intervals and if the public also derived from it considerable educational benefit. Especially might such a show be justifiable if no admission is charged.

      On the other hand, it seems to me that very serious questions can be raised where rather the reverse conditions exist. Let us imagine for a moment a show regularly and fairly frequently held. It is sustained largely if not entirely by appropriations publicly made from the public treasury. There is considerable temptation for an exhibitor to exhibit in another's name, more especially in the name of his child. The exhibits mean little or nothing in themselves. There are no real and substantial benefits, educational or otherwise, accruing to the public. Such benefits as there are go almost entirely to the exhibitors. Moreover such benefits (whether thru exhibit money or thru the advertisement and sale of products) go to essentially the same exhibitors year after year. Even if no admission is charged, the whole matter, under these circumstances, becomes a somewhat questionable expenditure of public funds. At best such an institution is defended with difficulty. I leave the whole matter to you, without further comment on my part, as to whether our corn show does or does not embody the features I have mentioned in the abstract.

      The idea of drawing people together into a crowd by means of some trick, striking sight, or other such attraction, so that attention may be called to some much less attractive but more important matter, is a device long antedating the beginning of written history. It is certainly as old as any definite human teaching or religious proselyting. The Hindu Rishi, or yogi, for instance, plants a mango seed in the ground and in a few moments shows his awe-struck audience a full-grown mango tree with fruit hanging on it. The fact that the tree which appears exists purely in the imagination of the onlookers is not, in the opinion of the yogi, an especially important matter. The people, thinking they see the mango tree, are attracted by the sight and quickly fall into a receptive frame of mind. Having secured the attention and childlike interest of his audience, the Hindu priest impresses upon his hearers what is to him a profoundly valuable moral or religious truth. Religious teachers geographically less remote than those of India are recorded to have performed marvelous things in connection with, or in preparation for, the imparting of important moral or religious precepts.

      I have no doubt but that in the early days of the Nebraska state corn show men with minds not yet fully awake on agriculture were drawn to Lincoln at least in part by the corn show. Once here, they were in some way made deeply interested in better corn production and for that matter in all other phases of improved agriculture. I have little doubt that there are men here right now--men who have for years been staunch members of the Corn Improvers' Association who were at least in part drawn here and first interested in this very way. Probably this is still going on to some slight degree, especially among the young.

      However, I suspect that such virtues as the foregoing idea had were far more potent, operative, and justifiable in the past than they are in the present. I am by no means convinced that deliberate faking is ever justifiable, even when the best of intentions are back of it. However, even a slight degree of educational moonshine is, in my judgment, far more nearly justifiable in the case of immature children than with adults. It is also far less reprehensible, it seems to me, in the case of the stupidly indifferent and densely ignorant adults than in the case of wide-awake knowledge-hungry grown-ups.

      In any event 1 feel that if the "pretty car" hoax would ever, by the wildest possible stretch of the imagination, have been justifiable in Nebraska agriculture, that justification is not now. Simply because a few men who several years ago glimpsed the truth, have insisted upon telling it, the magic spell of the "pretty ear" has been forever broken at least in Nebraska. The idol is a corpse, and we, its keepers, high priests, and to a certain degree its creators, have it on our hands to bury or otherwise dispose of. We may for a short time electrify this

corpse into imitation life, but I feel that most of us in the bottoms of our hearts know only too well that the "pretty ear" corpse is really as dead as the proverbial "Caesar's ghost." If we persist in maintaining that this old dead fake idol of ours really is alive and sound, even the most unsophisticated of its worshipers will vet curse its for the deception. By being honest with ourselves and courageously acting now, we can at heart offer the valid excuse that we have only recently learned that our idol was a fake and that such delay as we have been guilty of was due to the fact that we have had to have a little time to catch our breath and decide just what ought to be done. If we add blunders of the heart to those of the head, we shall deserve the severe condemnation which we are sure to get.

      Men interested in better agriculture are sometimes almost crushed by the spirit in which their well-meant efforts are often received. In my estimation one of the greatest justified reasons for wide-spread indifference, distrust, and occasional outright hostility to the so-called "scientific agriculture" is the continued boosting of the "pretty ear" and other equally notorious fake ideas as scientific agricultural facts. The manly thing for people who have been mistaken is to admit it frankly and openly. The sooner and more openly this is done the better. Honestly made blunders are no sin. If each of us were hanged the moment he first spoke falsely, the world's population would quickly be composed of babes who could not talk. It is the keeping up and continued teaching of ideas which the teachers themselves know are outworn and discredited which makes cynics and pessimists of knowledge--thirsty people and keeps the world in intellectual bondage. It is this which makes self-despising hypocrites of those who teach-by whatever professional name they may be called. Continued teaching of that which is known to be fake is to my mind the sin of sins.

      I feel that in keeping up this force of the "pretty ear" we are not merely wasting precious time but are preparing trouble for ourselves. We may, if we are determined to do so, continue to mislead for a time some of the ignorant and unsophisticated, but it can not be for long. To borrow an expression from the street, the people who are wise are already "dead onto us" and the otherwise soon will be. Our persistence in the "pretty ear" hoax is in sharp contrast to almost everything else we do and say in the Association. To my mind our adherence to this fake is at once the most strange, enigmatical, and inconsistent thing in the entire history of our organization.

      I am for the "pretty ear show" every time; if I can impress that thought upon your minds, I believe I can hold my own. Possibly I cannot do it, but I know I have a great many thoughts that I would like to present to you.

      We might go back to the time when there was no agitation in trying to improve corn. This crop started from a very inferior or mediocre corn and was brought up to a certain standard some years ago, which I know to be the real and test type for us to grow. Our teaching has been on that theory; but this type is now condemned by the persons who taught us the standard type. I believe we farmers are accomplishing much because we know we have a type which is better than it was forty years ago.

      I have been practically forty years in this State, making a special study of corn, and before that 1 got my advice from my father and it was the ''pretty ear'' that was selected,--and that was the generally accepted rule until the last few years.

      Now coming down to the main discussion, and that is the "pretty ear" corn show. Mind you, a corn show is not based entirely on the "pretty ear." it has not been for a long time. I do not care how pretty the ear is, the judge will judge it according to the merits of the kernels. It has been the utility ear. Take the livestock show: How long would the judge look at the animal that is not well developed. How is that animal developed to perfection? Through feed. Is there any evidence on earth that that animal is going to produce that same kind of an animal? We thought so for a long time, but there is no more reason to argue that that animal will reproduce the same kind of an animal in every respect, any more than one kind of corn will reproduce the same kind of ear or kernel. But in the long run, we are certain that they do make some improvement. My predecessor tried to compare the "pretty baby show" and the "pretty ear show." How many babies that go into the baby show come up to the perfect score? Very few. How many of those that obtain the highest scores in a baby show are really beautiful babies? The most beautiful babies on exhibition are only a small per cent of the number entered. But is that any reason why the mothers should not enter their babies and still study means and methods to safe-guard their health, the best methods of feeding, and so on? So it is with the "pretty ear" corn

show. So in horticulture,--in the growing of plants and the grafting of a branch of one tree on to another tree, the same principle applies. In the case of corn, we bring out the same principle. Here is where we have the best of the horticulturist--we do not have to graft to get improvement.

      The question has been raised about the possibility of dishonesty in connection with exhibits of one person entering corn under some other person's name; or some parent entering in a child's name. If you hunt for it, you will find dishonesty in almost any business. All exhibitors agree to hold to the rules. I think we will give the exhibtor (sic) the benefit of the doubt because we believe, upon the whole, that our exhibitors are honest, and it is pretty hard for an exhibitor to get away with anything that is not honest.

      Now in regard to the use of public funds. If we doubt the wisdom of expending this money for a pretty ear show because the Legislature has appropriated it, and say that the "pretty ear" show has accomplished nothing, then we can equally argue, with the same consistency, that the State University Farm, because it is not getting along any faster in an experimental way, should have no state support.

      In regard to the appropriation, I claim that the intention of the Legislature was that a part of the appropriation should be used for a corn show and the constitution and by-laws of our association so provide. The constitution and by-laws, as drafted, say you shall, they do not say you may hold a show. They say you must hold it in connection with the annual meeting. We claim that the intention of the Legislature was that a part of this money should be expended for premiums and other show expenses, as they are incurred. I also claim that it was the intention of the Legislature that the corn show should be held, because a constitution was drafted which says it shall be so held.

      We must keep up the fertility of our farms. I can point to a case where corn or alfalfa ground produced at the rate of 80 bushels per acre; and that another field of corn right by the side of it went 40 bushels to the acre. You can find no "pretty ears" in the forty-bushels-to-the-acre field, but you can go to the alfalfa ground corn and find them numerous.

      If we do not gain but a single thing, whether we have the shallow grained ear, deep grained ear, smooth ear, or rough ear--if we can, through the corn show, teach our boys to keep up fertiiity (sic) of the soil

and trust to the elements for the maturity, we will have gained all we need for the corn show, because the cost of carrying on the "pretty ear" show is so insignificant.

      In conclusion let me urge that we go right ahead with the corn show. The corn show and the apple show, the State Fair Agricultural show and other shows have proven that their maintenance is for the good of the State. If any one thinks that this corn show is dead, he is badly mistaken, or else it is a pretty lively corpse.

      The corn show is not an exepriment (sic) station, in fact. it never was intended as an experiment station. The Experiment Station is located here in Lincoln for the purpose of carrying on the work that the people want done.

      I have been following up the corn show ever since 1895 when we started in with it and also the national corn show. I have met some of the men that ran up to the highest notch with their exhibits.

      At one of our corn shows held at Council Bluffs,--I forget the man's name who conducted it, but he dealt extensively on the value of those exhibits which were premium winners. I bought one of those exhibits and brought it back home, and it has proven a handsome winner for me. I have received prizes on corn grown from it. I have sold seed from corn raised from it. One farmer thought it a big price to pay me for some of the seed. I never asked him in regard to the outcome of the corn, but he came to me and said, "1 made the greatest mistake of my life in not buying more. It went just ten bushels to the acre more than any other corn I had." That was from prize winning corn and I have followed these practices year after year and received prizes and sold seed. I have planted nothing except from perfect ears and perfect kernels as nearly as I could.

           I believe the show can do us no harm, and by holding it, we surely draw more people to Lincoln to attend the lectures and different meetings held during "Agricultural Week" here at the farm. Then let us boost for the Corn Show and for a bigger and better one for 1919 than Nebraska has ever seen.

---

© 2002 for the NEGenWeb Project by Pam Rietsch, Ted & Carole Miller