flullem 739 649/

Texas Agricultural September 1951 Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station Extension Service

flm/aamance of
CQTTQN VARIETIES IN TEXAS

l948-50

TEXAS AGRICIIILTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
R. D. Lewis, Direcfor. College Sfafion. Texas

“m or 1,‘:

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
G. G. Gibson, Direcfor, College Sicilian. Texas

alum: ucflnmnrunrnoulnuvocell

IAIvuv no: IIIIDD- %"?= i
n:

mun 0mm can: uuv maul

cumin moan. '~' aunuv """
In: III"

an; . *9‘
l.“ '
. O
miuv | eovvu

m.“ , In»: H-w .  “I g 
m: , . 

    
 
 
 

"Luugqanonivonuun

w i m 

IQIV

uncu-
nunn. NOV LYI- “'“ nu “"'°"
1 {A    1i.

' noun . .
up“ onion loluzj wmv _ mung mus w” _ .
IOLH HVLO

J@.
‘in ma“. nq-‘g kvcutu

Ewoumubun-g

__.. L“ .......  1m...»  1:1  '1”; f ,
1L9 W‘ l, 1 J-g‘; F?

mgfllibll IAM _ _
Glut! urvon In"! mo. 10m ‘comm;

  
      
   
  

' GI}!!! _ cu“

./_ m“ 

n? QQJQ
N , W119‘ - o

 m.“ 

' no: " locum '
muono I F"‘"" “L v Lf" \.
_ ‘ml . I000!!!

   

+1

u flan,‘ \.:‘\~Iu*/

COTTON VARETY REDGMEMNTCIS BY AREAS

Ntlm TcsfLoctlfidrl
LwtRio Gvundo Vdoy Vloducofl-iddgofiaruoryvfillocy Cos.
SoulhTonosflLouurGalfCouf Bowls; Holman, Ellndo
UpperGnflCoost Whnrton
EodTemas Tyler
BadIIadProiriQGOQrMuIElU Gncnvifirmh, CdQguSiuOiotyPrdiQVIQn
Ooaflrburs 0mm, Stqinnvilo

1mm; | 7%
.
Ll SM

a. QT
‘i

Rolling Plains Oilicothq, Iowa Rrk, Spa

Hiw Ploiis lalabodz, Big Spring

Tran-Paces Balmorhoa i’ Staudad ‘M? Locoliun
UpperfiofiufloVolloy Ysloto O OthqTat Lwgm;

(U5911704)

Figure 1

Foreword

The cotton variety testing program in Texas is designed to
inform growers 0f the performance of new varieties and strains
and to compare such types with standard varieties now grown.

This bulletin gives information on the performance of cotton
varieties during the first 3 years, 1948-50, of the reorganized
state-wide varietal evaluation program. Summary bulletins will
be issiued at the completion of each succeeding 3-year testing
perio .

Texas has been divided into three testing regions to facilitate
systematic test layouts. Ten production areas were designated to
provide a more practical basis for varietal recommendations.

Yield results and other agronomic information on the per-
formance of varieties within each region and at each test loca-
tion within the regions is given in tabular form, pages 18
to 30. Varieties recommended for each production area are given
on page 12. Yield, or the pounds of lint cotton produced per
acre, was given highest priority in choosing the varieties to be
recommended. Other characteristics, such as adaptation to prev-
alent harvesting practices, fiber properties, disease resistance
and maturity also influenced the recommendations.

Sources of seed of the varieties tested are given along with a
list of the available publications on cotton production practices.

CONTENTS

Page
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Types of Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6

Regions and Test Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7

Climatic Conditions and Soil Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

Field Design of Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Interpretation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8

Fiber, and Spinning Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Yield and Other Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

State-wide Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

Lower Rio Grande Valley and Trans-Pecos Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

High and Rolling Plains Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10

Remainder of the State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11

Varieties Recommended for the Dilferent Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12

Cultural and Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13

Cropping Systems . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Seed Storage, Processing and Treating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . 13

Cultural Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14

Disease Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15

Insect Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Defoliation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16

Mechanical Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16

Yield, Other Characteristics, and Sources of Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18-30

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31

Information on Cotton Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32

538-1051-7500-L15O

Bulletin 739 B-191

Texas Agricultural September 1951 Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station Experiment Station


CQTTQN VAR|ET|ES |N TEXAS
/9#8-50

D. T. Killough, E. F. McFarland, T. R. Richmond and F. C. Elliott*

OTTON RANKS SECOND only to petroleum in total annual

revenue produced by a natural resource or commodity in

Texas. Production in 1949 reached an all-time high of nearly
6,000,000 bales with a value of more than $900,000,000.

Employment is given many thousands of people in the har-
vesting, ginning and merchandizing of the cotton crop, and in
the processing and manufacturing of a vast array of products
made from the lint and seed. The annual revenue from such
employment often far exceeds the total value of the lint and
seed produced.

The average annual production and acreage of cotton in Texas
during the 10-year period, 1940-49, was approximately 3 million
bales on 8 million acres. During the decade, 1920-29, an average
of 4 million bales was produced on 15 million acres. Although
favorable climatic conditions contributed, increased efficiency in
farming practices was largely responsible for the 41 percent
average gain in the per-acre production of cotton in Texas dur-
ing the past 10 years.

Favorable Weather conditions, a more extensive use of com-
mercial fertilizers and organic manures, and the control of insect
pests and diseases are necessary in producing maximum per-acre
yields of cotton. However, one of the most important single fac-
tors, and certainly the least expensive one, involved in the
profitable production of cotton is the planting of Well-adapted,
high-yielding and high-quality varieties. The more extensive
growing of improved varieties will continue to increase the over-
all production of cotton in Texas, and at the same time lower
the per-acre cost and improve the quality of the crop.

Texas farmers are active in the 7-Step Cotton Improvement

*Respectively, associate professor, instructor and professor in charge,
Cotton Investigations Section of the Department of Agronomy; and cotton
work specialist, Texas Agricultural Extension Service. T. R. Richmond also
is senior agronomist, Division of Cotton and Other Fiber Crops and Dis-
eases, Bureau of Plant Industry, Soils and Agricultural Engineering, U. S.
Department of Agriculture.

__5._

Program sponsored by the Texas Agricultural Extension Service
in cooperation with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station;
the Soil Conservation Service and the Bureau of Plant Industry,
Soils and Agricultural Engineering of the U. S. Department of
Agriculture; the National Cotton Council; the State-Wide Cotton
Committee; the Texas Cottonseed Crushers’ Association, and
other organizations interested in cotton improvement. One of
the “steps” emphasizes the importance of planting the “right”
vfirfiiities-those that will give a good yield of the desired types
o er.

The primary purpose of the state-Wide cotton variety testing
program of the Texas Station is to supply farmers with infor-
mation to be used as a basis for selecting the variety, or varie-
ties, best suited to the varied conditions and farming systems
in Texas. This information will be useful also to plant breeders,
spinners and Workers in many other segments of the cotton
industry.

The establishment of a number of test locations makes it pos-
sible to measure the response of varieties to the different soil
and climatic conditions. To form a reliable basis for predicting
the future performance of varieties, it is necessary also to obtain
a reasonable estimate of the yearly or seasonal effects. Obviously,
information from only one year of testing Will not give reliable
estimates of performance; in fact, conclusions based on such
data are dangerous. Much more confidence can be placed on the
average performance of varieties over a period of years.

Although a longer period of testing may have been desirable
in some cases, the pressure for current information on the per-
formance of varieties led to the adoption of a 3-year test period.
Yield information based on 3 years of testing is reliable and
furnishes satisfactory statistics on Which to predict future per-
formance. The testing plan permits a reorganization at the end
of each 3-year test period. Poor performers can be discarded and
new varieties added for testing during the next 3-year period.

This bulletin gives information on variety and strain perform-
ance for the 3-year test period, 1948-50, at 15 testing locations
over the State. At the conclusion of the next testing period,
1951-53, another bulletin on the performance of cotton varieties
will be published.

TYPES OF TESTS

Three types of variety tests Were conducted each year. One
was a standard or regional test that included a given number of
varieties which remained constant at each location for the 3-year
period. Another was a supplemental test that included entries
which varied from year to year and from location to location.
The third type consisted of outfield tests carried on in coopera-
tion With county agents of the Texas Agricultural Extension
Service.

___7__

Only the results of the standard or regional tests are reported
in this bulletin. Results of the supplemental tests are published
in progress reports issued from time to time by the individual
substations. Results of the outfield tests have been published by
the respective county agents.

REGIONS AND TEST LOCATIONS

To form a general, though somewhat arbitrary, basis for
systematizing the testing program within those parts of Texas
which are broadly similar in climate, soils and production prac-
tices, three testing regions have been designated. One is the
Lower Rio Grande Valley and the Trans-Pecos. The second covers
the High and Rolling Plains. The third includes all other areas
of cotton production.

As the work progressed, it became obvious that smaller and
more specifically-defined areas were required if varietal recom-
mendations were to have practical meaning. Therefore, the three
regions were divided into 10 production areas. The areas have
fairly well defined patterns of soil types, climatic conditions and
farming practices. These areas are shown in Figure 1.

The irrigated region comprises areas 1, 9 and 10; the High and
Rolling Plains region includes areas 7 and 8; and the region
which includes the remainder of Texas comprises areas 2, 3, 4, 5
and 6. The 15 test locations from which data were obtained for
inclusion in this bulletin are designated by stars on the map.

‘ By region, they are:

LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY AND TRANS-PECOS

Substation N0. 15, Weslaco, (irrigated)
Substation No. 9, Balmorhea, (irrigated)

HIGH AND ROLLING PLAINS

Substation No. , Spur, (dryland)
Substation No. , Lubbock, (dryland)
Substation No. , Lubbock, (irrigated)
Substation No. 12, Chillicothe, (dryland)
Substation No. 16, Iowa Park, (irrigated)
U. S. Field Station, Big Spring, (dryland)

REMAINDER OF THE STATE

Substation No. , Beeville, (dryland)

Substation No. , Tyler, (dryland)

Substation No. , Temple, (dryland)

Substation N0. 6, Denton, (dryland)

Main Station. Farm, College Station, (dryland)

Brazos River Valley Laboratory, College Station, (dryland)
U. S. Cotton Field Station, Greenville, (dryland)

Testing was done at other locations, shown by dots on the
map, but information from them was not included in the bulletin.
The results of the cotton variety tests at Substation No. 17,
Ysleta, are given in Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin No. 719. Test information was not available from Sub-
station No. 18, Prairie View, and from Substation No. 20, Ste-
phenville, for the 1948-50 testing period.

G7®<l

CfllQI-l

_g_

Variety tests conducted under the supervision of county
agents were not designed in full conformity with the standard
testing plan. Such tests were conducted in Maverick (El Indio),
Hidalgo, Cameron, Willacy, Nueces (Robstown) and Wharton
counties.

These cooperative outfield tests permit a more widespread
testing of old and new commercial varieties and recently-devel-
oped strains. Although the results of the outfield tests are not
given in the bulletin, they were used in arriving at variety rec-
ommendations for the areas concerned.

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS AND SOIL TYPES

Detailed information on the climatic conditions prevailing
before and during the 3-year testing period, and on the soil
types on which the tests were conducted, is given in Table 1.

METHODS
Field Design of Tests

The tests were designed as 4 x 4 (16 entry) triple lattices
with six replications. Since these designs lend themselves to
analysis as simple randomized block experiments as well as to
triple lattice treatment, both analyses were made.

A comparison of the relative precision of the two methods of
analysis indicates that, under the conditions of the cotton per-
formance trials conducted during this test period, there was no
significant gain in precision in the triple lattice over the ran-
domized block field design. Apparently the type of soil variability
was such that the corrections in estimates that may be made
by triple lattice analyses are not required with the small number
of entries used in each test. Therefore, the least significant dif-
ferences were calculated by a simple randomized block analysis.

Interpretation of Results

Statistical analyses were made to determine the number of
pounds of lint cotton per acre that are required for a real or
statistically significant difference between any two varieties in
a given test. As a basis for calculating real or significant dif-
ference, it is necessary to assume a certain level of probability;
thgt is, odds that the difference observed is statistically sig-
ni cant.

The odds used in calculating the differences required for sig-
nificance between yields of varieties, shown in the footnotes of
Tables 3 to 20, are 19' to 1. This means that a difference as
great or greater than the one observed would occur by chance
only once in 2O times. Using the calculated value for significant
yield differences, it is possible to determine within the limits
of the assumed odds whether a given variety differs from any
other in the test. On the same basis, groups of varieties which
do not differ significantly among themselves can be established.

_9_

In this bulletin, the “high yield group” contains the variety
with the highest mean yield arid all others which do not differ
significantly from it. Recommended varieties, page 12, were
taken from the “high yield group” in the appropriate tests in
each cotton production area, (Figure 1).

FIBER AND SPINNING TESTS

Financial considerations made it impossible to obtain fiber
and spinning test information on the varieties in the standard-
ized testing program. However, within the past 10 years such
tests have been made on several of the leading varieties at a
number of the test locations. The results appear in various
publications of the Cotton Branch, Production and Marketing
Administration, U. S. Department of Agriculture; Texas Agri-
cultural Experiment Station Bulletin 624; and reports from the
Cotton Research Committee of Texas. A publication by the
Division of Cotton and Other Fiber Crops and Diseases, Bureau
of Plant Industry, Soils and Agricultural Engineering, USDA,
entitled, “Better Cottons,” gives an excellent discussion on the
fiber and spinning properties of cotton varieties when grown at
different locations and in different years.

The following statement quoted from the foreword to “Better
Cottons” gives an excellent summary of the values of variety
(genetic constitution) in the determination of fiber quality:
“There is evidence to show that the variety which makes the
strongest yarn when grown in one soil and climate will also
make the strongest yarn when grown at other locations. The
studies indicate further that, although environment modifies
varietal characteristics, it usually compensates the impairment
of one property in a fiber by the enhancement of another. In
other Words, variety is the most important single factor in
determining fiber properties and spinning qualities of a cotton.”

YIELD_AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS

Information on the yield and other characteristics of the va-
rieties tested is complete for each of the 3 years at 12 of the 15
stations covered by this report. Only 2 years’ results are avail-
able at three stations (1949 and 1950 at Spur, 1948 and 1949 at
Iowa Park and 1948 and 1949 at Tyler) because unfavorable
climatic conditions and poor stands rendered the tests invalid
in 1948 at Spur and in 1950 at Iowa Park and Tyler.

State-Wide Results

To obtain information on the state-Wide reaction to varietal
adaptation, six well-known and widely-grown varieties were in-
cluded in the tests at 12 locations during the entire 3-year period.
The yield results are reported in Table 2.

Certain varieties appeared to be widely adapted to varying
soil and climatic conditions, while other varieties showed a more
local adaptation. The yield performance of the six varieties

_..]0_

tested at each of the 12 locations shows that Deltapine (TPSA)
and Stoneville (TPSA) were more uniform in productiveness
and ranked consistently higher in yield. Hi-Bred showed wide
variation in yield from location to location and was more local
in its adaptation. Rowden was a consistently lower yielder than
the other five named varieties tested. Texacala and Mebane 8G,
Floyd were relatively good performers in several of the tests.

While only six named varieties appeared at each of 12 testing
locations, it is presumed that other strains of these same six
varieties would have performed equally as well if they had been
grown at all locations. For example, where both Deltapine 15
(Miss.) and Deltapine (TPSA) were grown at the same test
location, they made almost identical yields, 718 and 727 pounds
of lint per acre, respectively (Table 6). Similar results were
obtained at the same location when Stoneville 2B (Miss.) was
compared with Stoneville (TPSA), the yields being 678 and 671
pounds, respectively. This same relationship in yield might also
be expected to apply where the better strains of Acala, Mebane
and Rowden with good breeding are compared.

Many major types or strains of cotton are represented by
several commercial varieties. In such cases, it has been impos-
sible to test them all under a standardized system. At some time
in the past, all of the known agricultural varieties offered for
sale in Texas have been tested at one or more locations. Persons
who desire information on varieties not covered by the present
study are referred to older bulletins and progress reports of the
Texas Station.

Lower Rio Grande Valley and Trans-Pecos Region

Yields of the better varieties averaged considerably more than
a bale per acre in the main irrigated areas of Texas, as repre-
sented by the tests at Balmorhea and Weslaco (Table 3).

The higher yielding varieties, in the order named, were Delta-
pine (TPSA), Empire WR, Stoneville (TPSA), Stoneville 5A,
Delfos 9169, Acala 1517A-2815, Mesilla Valley Acala, Coker 100
Staple and Texacala, Rogers.

Results of the tests at Weslaco and Balmorhea are given in
Tables 6 and 7, respectively.

High and Rolling Plains Region

Cotton is grown under both dryland and irrigated conditions
in the High and Rolling Plains. A dryland and an irrigated test
were conducted at Lubbock. The test at Iowa Park was irrigated.
At all other locations the tests were grown under dryland con-
ditions.

Paymaster 54, Deltapine (TPSA), Stormproof 1, Hi-Bred,
Stoneville (TPSA), Stormmaster and Northern Star were the
better yielding varieties at most of the testing points during
the 3 years (Table 4). As an average of all stations, the varieties

_..11_._

ranged from 434 pounds of lint per acre for Paymaster 54 t0 313
pounds for Rowden 41B (TPSA). Separate results of the tests
at each station are given in Tables 8 to 13.

The varieties tested in the High and Rolling Plains, for the
most part, produced shorter lint than did similar varieties in
the main irrigated areas of Texas. The better yielding varieties
in the Plains tests had lint ranging in length from 13/16 inch
(26/32) for the shorter staple varieties, such as Hi-Bred, to 1
inch (32/32) for the better staple varieties, such as Deltapine
(TPSA), Stoneville (TPSA) and Northern Star, (Tables 8 to 13).

Fiber and spinning tests showed that, in spite of their shorter
length, a number of the varieties grown in West Texas had
acceptable fiber strength and other desirable textile properties
(TAES Progress Report 1370).

Since cotton in this region often is left in the field until all
of the bolls have matured and is then harvested by hand-snap-
ping or machine-stripping, increasing farmer preference is given
to those varieties which are to some degree storm-resistant.
Stormproof No. 1, Stormmaster and Macha Early SP‘ are storm-
resistant varieties which have given acceptable yields in the
region.

Remainder of the State

This region lies to the east of a line drawn roughly from
Wichita Falls in North Texas to Brownwood in Central Texas
and on to Corpus Christi on the Gulf Coast. Practically all of the
cotton in this region is grown under dryland conditions.

Varieties which performed well at the seven testing locations
included Empire WR, Deltapine 15 (Miss.), Deltapine (TPSA),
Northern Star, Stoneville (TPS-A), Lockett 140-46, Stoneville 2B
(Miss.) and Lankart 57. Average yields for each variety at all
stations ranged from 407 pounds of lint per acre for Empire
WR to 354 pounds for Lankart 57 (Table 5). Performance of
the varieties at the individual stations is given in Tables 14 to 20.

VARIETIES RECOMMENDED FOR THE DIFFERENT AREAS

While high yield has been given the greatest weight in deter-
mining the varieties of cotton to be recommended, fiber proper-
ties, boll and plant characters, adaptation to local methods of
harvesting, foundation seed supply and preference by farmers
also were considered. For this reason, varieties recommended
for a given region or area often will not include all of the
varieties in the highest yield group.

Following consultations with the cotton work specialist of the
Texas Agricultural Extension Service, superintendents of the
substations and with other cotton workers of the Texas Station,
the following varieties are recommended for each of the 10
production areas in Texas, (Figure 1) :

_12_

AREA 1
Deltapine types
Deltapine (TPSA)
Deltapine 15 (Miss.)
Stoneville types
Stoneville (TPSA)
Stoneville 2B (Miss.)
Empire WR
Delfos 9169
In addition to the above varie-
ties, those recommended for
planting under dryland condi-
tions include Northern Star,
Rowden and Mebane.

AREA 2

Deltapine types
Deltapine (TPSA)
Deltapine 15 (Miss.)

Stoneville types
Stoneville (TPSA)
Stoneville 2B (Miss.)
Empire WR

Delfos 9169

Texacala, Rogers

Northern Star

Lankart 57

Rowden 41B

Mebane, Watson

AREA 3
Deltapine types
Deltapine (TPSA)
Deltapine 15 (Miss.)

AREA 4

Deltapine types
Deltapine (TPSA)
Deltapine 15 (Miss.)

Stoneville types
Stoneville (TPSA)
Stoneville 2B (Miss.)
Empire WR

AREA 5

Deltapine types
Deltapine (TPSA)
Deltapine 15 (Miss.)

Stoneville types '
Stoneville (TPSA)
Stoneville 2B (Miss.)
Empire WR

Rowden 41B

Lankart 57

Northern Star

Mebane 8G, Floyd

Mebane, Watson

For stripper _harvesting in

Area 5, such varieties as

Lankart 57, Northern Star and
Lockett 140-46 are recom-

mended.

AREA 6
Deltapine types
Deltapine (TPSA)
Deltapine 15 (Miss.)

Rowden types
Rowden 41B
Dortch 1

Mebane 8G, Floyd

Empire WR

Northern Star

Lankart 57

AREA 7

Deltapine types
Deltapine (TPSA)
Deltapine 15 (Miss.)

Stoneville types
Stoneville (TPSA)
Stoneville 2B (Miss.)

Storm-resistant types
Stormproof 1
Stormmaster

Mebane types
Native Mebane, Little
Mebane 8G, Floyd

Western Prolific

Hi-Bred

Northern Star

Paymaster 54

Lockett 140-46

Texacala, Rogers

AREA 8

Deltapine types
Deltapine (TPSA)
Deltapine 15 (Miss.)

Stoneville types
Stoneville (TPSA)
Stoneville 2B (Miss.)

Storm-resistant types
Stormproof 1
Stormmaster
Macha Early Stormproof
CA 89A Stormproof

Paymaster 54

Northern Star

Lockett 140-46

Hi-Bred

Native Mebane, Little

Texacala, Rogers

Western Prolific

AREA 9

Deltapine types
Deltapine (TPSA)
Deltapine 15 (Miss.)

Stoneville types
Stoneville 5A
Empire WR

Acala types
Texacala, Rogers
Mesilla Valley Acala
Acala 1517

Pima 32

AREA 10
Acala types
Mesilla Valley Acala
Acala 1517
Pima 32

_13_

CULTURAL AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

In addition to planting high-yielding, well-adapted cotton va-
rieties, good cultural and management practices should be fol-
lowed to produce the crop at the lowest possible cost per acre.
Only generalizations and broad recommendations calling atten-
tion to important practices will be made here. More detailed
information and recommendations are given in the publications
cited in the section of this bulletin entitled, “Information on
Cotton Production.”

Cropping Systems

Suitable cropping systems, along with the growing of legumes,
are important. The legumes should be fertilized with adequate
amounts of phosphate to produce maximum growth. In addition
to supplying essential nutrients, this practice provides humus,
or organic matter, which increases the water-holding capacity
of the soil. It also improves soil structure and increases the
availability of certain soil minerals. Many efficient cotton farm-
ing systems also include livestock.

Fertilizers

The application of proper amounts and ratios of complete
commercial fertilizers at or before the time of planting is recom-
mended for those soils which respond to inorganic fertilizers.
Side-dressings of high nitrogen fertilizers, such as ammonium
nitrate or anhydrous ammonia, to the cotton at the beginning
of flowering also have given significant increases in yield in areas
where soil moisture conditions are favorable.

Seed Storage, Processing and Treating

Treating cotton seed with a suitable chemical preparation
provides a disinfected zone around the germinating seed which
reduces infection from damaging fungi and bacteria. A better
stand of healthier plants is obtained than ordinarily would be
the case where untreated seed are planted. The Slurry Process
of treating seed is coming into general use in many sections of
the country. Culling, cleaning and delinting planting seed are
oilzher practices which promote better stands and more vigorous
p ants.

When delinted seed are‘, planted with 2 and 4-row tractor-
mounted planting equipment, the tractor can be operated at a
higher speed, since such seed flow more readily than do fuzzy
seed.

Completely delinted cotton seed germinate and emerge rapidly
under optimum conditions, but when heavy rains and cold weath-
er occur immediately after planting, such seed often rot and
replanting is necessary. On the other hand, partially delinted
seed may require 2 or 3 days longer to emerge, but the protection
afforded by the remaining seed fuzz and natural wax enables

_14_.

them to withstand a certain degree of unfavorable weather and
to come up to good stands.

Cotton seed for planting should be stored in such a manner
as to prevent overheating.

Cultural Operations

Several new methods and mechanical devices—such as furrow
openers, press wheels and hill droppers-—improve planting and
facilitate uniform stands and prompt emergence. The efficiency
of their use depends on the degree to which the seed fuzz has
been removed.

Because of variable soil and climate, it is impossible to set a
definite optimum planting date in a given area. General practice
indicates that planting as soon as possible after the danger of
frost is past and soil moisture conditions permit, gives best
results over the years. In general, the following dates are usually
considered safe for planting cotton in the 10 production areas.

In Area 1, planting may be done between February 15 and
March 10; in Areas 2 and 3, between March 1 and March 20; in
Area 4, between April 10 and 20; in Area 5, from March 20 in the
southern half to April 20 in the northern half; in Area 6, be-
tween April 1 and April 20; in Area 7, from April 10 in the
southern half to May 15 in the northern half; in Area 8, between
April 20 and May 20, depending on location; and in Areas 9 and
10, between April 1 and April 15.

Proper spacing of plants in the row and the proper width
between rows are important considerations in producing max-
imum yields of cotton. These practices are especially important
when using modern power-driven farm implements in planting,
fertilizing, thinning, cultivating, spraying and dusting for insect
control, and in harvesting the crop, since machinery is usually
“set” for definite row widths for best operation.

Recent experiments in cotton, as well as with other field crops,
show that increased yield usually follows increases in the number
of plants per acre (closer spacing). Additional experiments are
required to determine the point of maximum returns in regard
to close spacing in the different cotton growing areas.

Considerable attention has been given recently to developing
more efficient grass and weed-control practices. Improvements
have been made in conventional tillage tools, and attachments-
such as rotary hoes—have been coordinated with the tools to
permit ‘high-speed operation of tractor-mounted equipment. In
addition, flaming has been effective in certain areas and under
special conditions. More recently, the use of pre-emergence
chemicals and post-emergence herbicidal oils have given prom-
ise of controlling grass and weeds effectively at relatively
low cost. This method, as is the case with many other mod-
ern farming operations, must be used skillfully if damage to

__15__

the plants is to be avoided and practical control is obtained. In
view of the considerable amount of experimental work being
done with herbicidal oils and other chemical preparations, farm-
ers may expect to receive additional information on this grass
and Weed-control practice within the next few years.

Proper irrigation practices can materially increase yields of
cotton. Experiments conducted at Weslaco, Ysleta, Balmorhea,
Lubbock and Iowa Park show that the time, frequency and
amounts of irrigation water applied have significant influences
on the growth, maturity and yield of cotton. Tests at Ysleta
show that the use of wide beds and the watering of alternate
middles on land heavily infested with Verticillium wilt reduced
losses from the disease and consequently increased yields. Deep
chiselling of the soil also increased water penetrations at Lub-
bock; however, the practice of irrigating alternate rows for
postplanting waterings was neither practical nor profitable. The
development of efficient sprinkler systems has stimulated inter-
est in supplemental irrigation in many traditionally dry-farming
areas.

Disease Control

Losses caused by cotton root rot may be reduced through
cropping systems or rotations in which a legume is used along
with phosphate and potash fertilizers. Including a fibrous-rooted
crop—such as corn, sorghum or grasses-—in the rotation will
also help reduce losses from root rot.

Rapid strides have been made by breeders in recent years in
developing varieties of cotton that are resistant to Verticillium
and Fusarium wilts and to bacterial blight. The planting of
these disease-resistant varieties on Wilt and blight-infested land
may mean the difference between profit and loss in producing
the cotton crop. Losses resulting from bacterial blight also may
be reduced by seed treatment. '

Insect Control

The timely and effective control of cotton insects is essential.
If left uncontrolled, such insects would reduce yields regardless
of other desirable cultural practices employed. Recently-devel-
oped, multiple-ingredient cotton insecticides, that may be applied
in either dust or spray form, have greatly reduced the hazards
of growing cotton in insect-infested areas.

Systematic examinations should be made of cotton plants in
the field, particularly early in the season, to detect the presence
of specific insect pests and to form a practical basis for planning
a thorough campaign of control. This enables a more economical
and effective use of cotton insecticides at the time when they
will do the most good. There is nothing to be gained, however,
in applying insecticides unless they are needed, as revealed by
periodic field inspections.

_.16_

Defoliation

The defoliation of cotton plants is an aid in harvesting the
crop by hand or by machinery. The shedding of the leaves as a
result of the chemical action of the defoliant, allows the bolls to
open more uniformly and makes harvesting easier and less ex-
pensive. Usually, lint from defoliated plants contains less trash
and other foreign matter than that from plants which have not
been defoliated.

There are several commercial chemical defoliants on the mar-
ket. Some of them may be applied to the cotton plants as a dust
or as a spray. In using a dust defoliant, best results are obtained
when high humidity conditions prevail, such as heavy fog or
dew. Defoliants used in spray form may be applied at any time
of the day.

Defoliants should not be applied to the cotton plants until 5
or 6 Weeks after the period of maximum flower load is past and
the full elongation and inner cell wall development of the fiber
of most of the bolls have taken place.

Mechanical Harvesting

In many cases, cotton may be harvested with either the picker-
type or the stripper-type harvester at considerably less cost per
bale than by hand picking or hand snapping, even though field
losses are appreciable and grades may be lower. If the crop is to
be harvested mechanically it should be planted and cultivated in
such a way that all the plants will be growing on a uniform, “fiat
ridge” at harvest time. This will enable the machine to operate
more efficiently, and a minimum of cotton will be left on the plant
or will fall to the ground at harvest.

Careful harvesting is essential in maintaining the highest
possible grade of cotton, which in turn will have a ready mar-
ket and command the best price. Whether the cotton is to be
harvested by hand or by machinery, it should be handled so
that it will contain a minimum of trash and other foreign matter
and be free from excess moisture at the time of ginning.

The compilation following, made by the cotton work specialist
of the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, shows a marked
increase in the number of cotton picking and stripping machines
purchased in the last four years.

Year Pickers Counties used in Strippers Counties used in
1948. . . . . 92 23 4,223 61.
1949.. . . . 370 70 7 ,003 84
1950.... . 293 63 7,138 72
~ 1951. . . .. 582 74 7,500 91

_]_7__.

The figures for 1951 are estimates of the numbers of mechan-
ical pickers and strippers that farmers indicated they Would
buy that year in addition to those already on hand, (Figure 2).

    

COTTUI PICKERS and STHPPERS
Former: hdicotod They Wodd Buy i1 l95l

Pidan- 582 in T4 counties

 firippors- 7,500 in 9| counties

 

ljllhllll ma” ‘m; smppqg"

Figure 2. Present distribution pattern of pickers and strippers. The
shaded area shows spindle pickers in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, South
Texas, along the Gulf Coast, through Blackland Prairies (river bottoms
in particular), Red River bottom, El Paso Valley and Pecos area. Strippers
are Well adapted on the High and Rolling Plains and also are operated
on the uplands of Central Texas.

_13_

2022025. 0. 220.522 225...: 02 c00000 05E...» 0222 0.2022?

$05200? 00.2 2200a». ..20222c050m 2255.222. :.222<2

.520 522E 2.102. 2N .532 N2 452 02.0 2.0.00 2.2.22. 2 .00 0.02. 2.2.2. 2.2.. . . . . . . . . ..0:2>c00.2U
0.520 .2200 .0 d. c0502 0.02. m2 .522 .2 :52 E20 2.0.02 3.2..» 2.0» 2.4.5 0.2.2. 02.. . . . . . . . . . . . ..E..=0Q
.2020 .2003 c0.0252.2 0.00 02 .522 2m :52 w...“ 2.0.02 c2 .02.. 0.00 N00 2 2.2. 2.» . . . . . . . . . . . 02050.2.

02:20.2. 300220.202.

:0 0:00 2.5.2.222 20 0.»:
5500002202 022502 02:50 2.00 02 .52.: 02 452 02.2.. S . 2N N022. ~00 0.2. 0.02. m... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.02.2.2.
c502 .520 0:50.520 ~22 2.2 420.2 2. .002 2.2.0 00.2.2 2.2.2.2.. 0.02. 2.2.2. 2.12.. 2.2. . . . . . . . . . . 1022:5022

.520 5:222 2.2.2 0 .532 v2 :52 20mm 00.0w 2.. 22. 0.222.. 0 .00 2.02. m . . . . .80 .200 .2202
.2025.» .2022 0005.222
2253 02.250 0222.2 221C222 0.2.0 0 .522 mu .>02 3N 20.02 2.0.00 0.0.. 2.02 2.00 2.0 ....E...£0 0002200
c2522 c0252m c522
"m c02u0~2

E2: 2.5.0 0E. 0222.325. 0.02 22.. .22 2.2 .32 v00 2K .02 20.02 0.00 2.02. 0.2x. 2.0 . . . . . . . . . 05.2.20 0.22
002.200 0202232 Q 5:22 0.2. 2 x2224 2. :52 Nam 00.02 2.2.2.2.. 2.2.0 0.2.0 2.2.2. mm . . . . . . . . .0252 .0252

22502 .22.c00
0c: 2.c0 22502 0c02222< 2.12. 0N .532 22 :52 5N N902 E 0N 0.00 2.12.0 2 .02. 02. .. . . . . ....022.00::22O
22502 .520 0:02:20 N00 m ..222< v <52 020 00.2.2 2.2.20 v.00 0.02. 2.20 02. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.225%
c502 .5250 0c: 0222.52.24 0&0 2. ..:2< 2. :52 22w 2.302 2... .02 0.00 2 .23 0.2.0 2.2. . . . . . . . . . . ..20022.2222

"N 0020022

2:502
.520 Q .2020 5022202222022 2.0m 0N .552 m2 :52 200 m»... 2.0.2.2 2.2.0 2.2.0 2.2.2. 0N . . . . . . . . ....022:.E2=m

0:502 .22.c00
0052.222 Q .2005? m.” mm .52. 2.0 00G 2.2..» 2502 00.0.2 0.02. N60 0.2;. 2.. . . . . . . . . . . 20002003

"2 2.020002
02.2.50 25.2 c2
c.2500 c2 200.22 .00.2.2 2
2202223 c0 0022.2. 220w 0002 .5 02222202 0:22:02 0.202.. 2200000 522cc< c2222: c2222: 522:5. 2m 0. 20 22025002
000.20 @002 20.22.22 .20 .02 02.2.5.0 |2c2c2 2052c c0022 2.0
-02. mm |||| |il|| | 222502.22 .2_222.c02>2 $5220..
.2250. 0.02. 00000.5. 0.50.2
0.252. .02
.02 c00000 0530.5 .20 22.02202 00220222 £55522 000.2002. 0022500222252.
02205232.- 0222.00. 5 0022.3 :00 ©2222 22002.00 02:30.0 .22. 222M222 43.22.2202 0.222222202222202 0M2~20>< .2 02220.2.

AIQA

 

cr-cfitcnaa >0=a> 002M mcsahmm

.550 5.08m .52.
iimey @=.>o=8m E5

A<mmky 0:E.020Q 0003 c2330 S c0350 E96 uni-ca.- is: 32-32950 M-ZFOJm 0053.2; .m0m0-=:0.-na E Ffiosm :53 :33 c0530 4000 .3.‘ E2.» E ©0015.-
05. 00:020.» 0i ..A=:0:v0m:00 6053...?» uzcia 30m.» E 00:95am. we 00:55:30 9:30am m3:- nmflnuumo 3 0333.80 0m: 3 13509.0 yo: ma? u?

_ 8y £3

 

S.” Amy i» Amy $0 8y 0% 6y 3a. Qy 3N Amy m3 8y SN Amy oNN 3y E» Amy 0S 8y S.» . . . . . . . . . . gfiwmey m2. =2E§

w?" Amy 2:. A: m3. A: 3N Amy 3N c; N3 Amy 3N 8y >2 ANy 1.4.. A: 2N Amy w?" A: 3w Amy :3 ... . . . . . . . flash d0 @5302

:5 Amy 23 6y EN Amy m3 ANy m?» Amy m2. 8y 3N A: I: Amy NNm A: 3N A: 2:. Amy :6 Qy 03 . . . . . . . . 19.00am .n_nodu0h.

00m A: N3 c; t.» 3y N3 A: 2K Amy 3m A: 2N Amy mAN Amy 2;. Amy 3N Amy w? 8y 20 ANy Ex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IBQQM$H~

Q3 Amy 5:. Any NNM. ANy 3m Amy 2K ANy hum Amy 3N Amy AZN A: i» ANy EN ANy 2E Amy =3 Amy S0 . . . . . . . . . . . . ziwmmey 0E>QEZW

0E. A: M»; Any $5 A: 12.. A: -m A: Sm ANy Ea A: mam A: 3m A: 3» A: m3 A: $0 A: 5» . . . . . . . . . . . . 1350.5 0593mm
22> 0:?» 0:?» 32m 12m 055m 0:600 wfiihn w2&:._.: d0: .3015»
a: 150050 :3:0Q 0350B 00M 03:20 00230 Em AE-AO x2235 xucnand 1:35am 002003
ém-wvi .030 .3 as: .3 mus-En .32.» 0320.5 owmB-fifiw d 03mm.

__2()_

Table 3. Regional cotton variety test, Region 1——Main irrigated areas, average
yieldkpounds of lint per acre, 1948-50

Balmorhea Weslaco
Variety Average
Yield Rank Yield Rank yield
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . . . . 857 1 727 2 792

Empire WR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802 4 750 1 776

Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . . . . 833 2 671 7 752

Stoneville 5A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 780 5 678 6 729

Delfos 9169 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 752 6 695 5 724

Acala 1517A-2815 . . . . . . . . . . . 857 1 580 13 719

Mesilla Valley Acala . . . . . . . . . 829 3 559 14 694

Coker 100 Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . 691 7 637 9 664

Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . . . . 681 8 646 8 664

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 13 696 4 654

Dortch 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549 14 718 3 634
Mebane 8G, Floyd... . . . . . . . . 660 9 591 10 626
Acala 4-42 (Calif.) . . . . . . . . . . . 650 10 586 12 618

Acala 1517B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 11 590 11 605

Rowden 41B (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 616 12 541 15 579

Coker Wilds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 11 439 16 529

Least sig. dill.‘ 19:1 . . . . . . . . . . 212 115

lThe difference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or
exceed 212 pounds at Balmorhea and 115 pounds at Weslaco to give odds of
19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due to chance.

__21__

53.3.1: now-I- i395 ma? wink d3: we 5-300 duahr; haomlrta;

     

>w E mz E 2: m2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 d:- wi 33a

2» E w: S Nwv 2 nwN m: wNN 3 vmw : wvw . . . . . . . . . . gfiwmev n2. no-YFQH

mNw N~ w: A: 3m w vww N_ wwN w~ www 2 www . . . . . . . . . . . . Ala-h .Uw @5232

hNw a :2 m www v vww Z vwN v~ www w~ wvN . . . . . . . . . . . . ....£:..._m zhowmo?

www 2 v: 3 www w wNw v~ ~NN u :3 3 N; ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12mm NN~ <0

.34.. B ww_ 3 vww 3 wwN a wvN : 5v w S» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._8m..m miafl

wvw w. I: w www S NNw 2 wwN 2 vwv 3 E.» . . . . . . . . . . . . IP-owefl i-uuanon.

www w vw- Nw wNw w vvw E ~NN A: wwv m m: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .313; 236.5

www w~ vw~ Z www v~ www v wmN w vvv v wNv . . . . . . . . . . . . . in 22m .2152

www w i: 2 wNw I w; m IN w =5 2 N~w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1&5 <3 <0

www w ww~ v 2E w. wNw w EN N~ wwv fi wvw . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 5.5m =._2=.:.z

www _ _ w: w wvw w Nww w wvN w wwv w www . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .::3EE...=m

S» m w: w 3m N~ f» v vhN v Sm N Ev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qmmev 25285

vww _ EN w www 2 www S mwN w w? w Ev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. @295

www v wwN N F3 w wNw w 3N w vow w www . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Gaiiwfim

www N IN ... vwm ~ www ~ wNw N www w. vww . . . . . . . . . . . . .9492; ofinnfiofi

vwv w wwN ~ w: N Qw N 2N ~ wvw ~ new . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 xzmuihwm
_ i»: Ev; aim 3o; 55m Ev; xii 3o; i2: www» 1.5m 3o;
E2.»
owa~o>< 95.5w m5 11am a3: oficufianO $541M .39 wowaurri 15am .3015»
125...:

wwwvww 6.6a :5 “c: we mwnacn .30?» owQHmKQIIQEw-m wniofi E3 fiEIN cemwom .33 32b?

c330 fiwcfiwofi .v Baum.

_22_

63203" haoh-QBFM
£25m 5.22m c???

-m.IQuN.-Cn—dw— kQ=fl> “vii mONfiumI

  

ww wm wh mz wv wN Nh IIIIXII III. ii Imaod
mwN wI mhN wI aIN wI wvN wI IIN wI vwN mI wwN wI fiv . . . . . . . . . ZGIEOV Nv-v 2.84

wen vI www NI wow 2 NwN 2 whN wI vwN NI wvN wI ovv ‘ . . . . . . A<mAIPV mIv =2E3I

vNm wI Q3 mI vhN 3 m3 NI wwN m w...» wI wmN vI 3v , . . . . . . . . . Im-omcfi aisiwe

m2. mI www vI v.5 w 3m mI mmN h vmN w wwN II 2m . . . . . . . . . . ..:2Ba>> 65235

m2 NI Nwv oI 25 2 NhN II wwN w vmN h vhN NI 2m . . . . . . . . . dwI-PFI c.5303

i.» a vNv h w?" a v3 a 2N mI whN vI wvN 2 hwv . . . . . .. $3.5 .335 I IIQfSQ

Ivw w 2:. w wvw II wwN vI vhN NI whN 2 mvN m Nwm . . . . . , . . . IrIorI d» 0:532

B» 2 NNv II hcw vI 3N w wvw a wwN I vaN w vvm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...I.o.-mI-III

v3 v 2v m 3m w wIw wI 8N wI wwN II hvN w hww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .hm IEEIEQI

www w wNv MI E5 v v3 v 3m II IwN oI IwN h 2m . . . . . . . AdmIvIC MIN gifizsw

S» II hIv a B» NI hwN m www vI whN m wwN m mwm . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwv-wvI 30:25

hwm w Iwv w NNw h 28 h Inn w wmN m wwN v hwm . . . . . . . . . .. QmAIHV Q=I>Q=Bm

www h wNv N 3» w i.» w wvw m wmN N mmN wI mNm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52m .5532

whm n 3v v 3» w S» w 3H N In v vwN I Sm . . . . . . . . . . .325 3383a
Nam I 2v w .3» N mvm N 2v v 2» w hhN N mhm . . . . . . 322v mI QEIIEIQAI
hwv N vhv I wan I Iwv I wwv I w; w whN m vhm  QIIIIEQ

h 53M 3o; xuafi I10; 55m Ila; iim Bu; anal Ev; III-um Io; “Iaafl Bu;
32
OMIPIO>< 05350.19 ncwcomI QIIIEQI. wuQ-MH. oIII>ooMI fmmg IAIZIH .232;
5E5 ouQIIoO
wmévwI

6.8a .8; In: Io mIEIEII .22.» vuuhrélwuobw wIIIEZw I533 waxwb Q5 we hwwcIwiuIléu afimom .62 53??» .333 1223a

a QEFI.

._23_

Table 6. Weslacm-Summary of regional cotton variety test, 1948-50

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 1950 Avg} % length? sizel‘
Empire WR. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 733 800 716 750 35 33 64
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715 725 727 37 34 95

Deltapine 15 (Miss.) . . . . . . 733 . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 39 34 76

Dortch 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 733 . . . . . . . . . . . . 718 36 32 70

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660 816 612 696 40 28 73

Delfos 9169 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 707 687 691 695 33 34 72

Stoneville 2B (Miss.) . . . . . . 693 . . . . . . . . . . . . 678 34 35 67
Stoneville 5A. . . . . . . . . . . . . 632 750 653 678 34 34 80
Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670 658 671 35 34 70
Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 625 717 595 646 35 34 76
Coker 100 Staple . . . . . . . . . 728 667 517 637 34 35 77
Mebane 8G, Floyd. . . . . . . . 691 620 463 591 36 31 56
Acala 1517 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 610 610 550 590 36 34 66

Acala 4-42 (Calif) . . . . . . . . 570 507 680 586 36 33 67

Acala 1517A (2815) . . . . . . . 604 617 519 580 34 34 67

Mesilla Valley Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . 584 520 559 33 37 63

Rowden 41B (TPSA). . . . . 560 567 . . . . . . 541 33 33 57

Coker Wilds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515 429 373 439 32 39 76

lThe difference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 115 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due
to chance. » -
2Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.
3Expressed as the number of bolls required to Weigh one pound.

Table 7. Balmorhea—Summary of regional cotton variety test, 1948-50

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 1950 Avg.‘ % length? sizes
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 481 1017 1073 857 36 31 74
Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 495 1110 894 833 35 32 67
Mesilla Valley Acala . . . . . . 406 979 1101 829 34 36 59
Empire WR. . . .. . . . . . . . . . 430 1132 843 802 38 32 47
Stoneville 5A. . . . . . . . . . . . . 563 825 953 780 34 30 70
Delfos 9169 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573 822 862 752 35 32 69
Acala 1517A-2815. . . . . . . . . 531 1065 973 857 36 32 55
Coker 100 Staple . . . . . . . . . 448 828 796 691 35 33 74
Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 437 988 618 681 37 32 63
Mebane 8G, Floyd... . . . . . 429 689 862 660 36 29 52
Acala 4-42 (Calif) . . . . . . . . 499 883 568 650 37 32 61
Coker Wilds . . . . . . . . . . . .. 425 748 682 619 33 38 79
Rowden 41B (TPSA). . . . . 415 810 623 616 35 31 51
Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464 604 764 611 40 28 53
Acala 1517B . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 820 703 619 34 33 53
Dortch 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391 634 622 549 36 32 66

lThe difference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 212 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due
to chance. -

2Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch (1949 only).

sExpressed as number of bolls required to weigh one pound (1949 only).

_.24_

Table 8. Spur—Summary of regional cotton variety test, 1949-50

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety Lint Lint Boll
1949 1950 Avg.‘ % length? size3
Paymaster 54.... . . . . . . . 749 261 505 35 29 67
Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . 646 303 474 35 32 66
Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 695 228 461 38 27 61
Macha Early SP . . . . . . . . 634 225 429 33 29 68
Lockett 140-46. . . . . . . . . . 601 230 415 35 29 64
Stormmaster. . . . . . . . . . . . 559 232 395 33 29 68
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . 517_ 272 394 36 30 72
Early Foster. . . .. . . . . . . . 591 183 387 32 30 70
Stormproof 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 505 262 383 37 29 70
Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . 525 234 379 34 30 66
Rowden 41B (TPSA) . . . . 481 205 343 35 30 62
Northern Star. . . . . . . . . . 516 164 340 34 30 56
CA89ASP............. 424 200 312 34 30 68
CA 122 SP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394 230 312 34 29 60
Mebane 8G, Floyd . . . . . . 420 192 306 33 30 52
Western Prolific . . . . . . . . . 348 149 248 37 28 69

‘Analyses of these data indicate there is no statistical difference between
any two varieties.
zExpressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.
“Expressed as the number of bolls required to Weigh one pound.

Table 9. Lubbock—Summary of irrigated regional cotton variety test, 1948-50

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety — Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 1950 Avg.‘ % length? sizea V

Paymaster 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . 546 509 574 543 37 304 57
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 809 375 421 535 38 32 65
CA 89A SP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688 403 438 510 35 30 57
Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 713 395 414 507 37 32 59
Stormproof 1.... . . . . . . . . . 690 385 438 504 37 27 62
Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644 439 350 478 41 27 62
CA122  653 318 411 461 36 30 60
Stormmaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550 394 429 458 35 32 64
Macha Early SP. . . . . . . . . . 528 389 414 444 35 29 60
Lockett 140-46 . . . . . . . . . . . 628 377 312 439 38 28 59

Early Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525 387 400 437 34 29 62

Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . . . 577 360 354 430 37 31 52

Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 521 359 332 404 37 31 60

Western Prolific . . . . . . . . . . 584 263 292 380 39 30 61
Mebane 8G, Floyd. . . . . . . . 534 298 272 368 35 27 51
Rowden 41B (TPSA) . . . . . 440 275 347 354 35 31 53

1The difference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 104 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due
to chance.

2Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

aExpressed as the number of bolls required to weigh one pound.

41948 only.

_25__

Table l0. Lubbock——Summary of dry-land regional cotton variety test, 1948-50

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 1950 Avg.‘ % length? size“
Deltapine (TPSA.) . . . . . . . . 212 534 214 320 41 32 80

Paymaster 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 480 205 279 39 30 65

Stormproof 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 457 219 278 39 28 76

Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 148 464 211 274 37 30 70

CA 89A SP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 452 224 271 36 30 76

Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 470 190 270 38 31 66
Macha Early SP... .. . . . . . 135 467 163 255 34 28 75
Stormmaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 406 208 249 37 30 78
Early Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 395 194 240 35 30 76
Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 420 148 239 41 27 75
Western Prolific . . . . . . . . . . 149 370 182 234 40 29 66
Mebane 8G, Floyd... . . . . . 140 386 163 230 38 28 63
Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 141 362 186 230 37 32 76
CA 122 SP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 311 244 221 37 24" 744
Lockett 140-46 . . . . . . . . . . . 145 351 167 221 39 29 71
Rowden 41B (TPSA). . . . . 135 364 160 220 36 31 66

lThe difference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 57 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due
to chance.

2Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

aExpressed as the number of bolls required to weigh one pound.

41948 only.

Table ll. Iowa Park-Summary of regional cotton variety test, 1948-49

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 Avg.1 % length? size“
Paymaster 54 . . . . . . . . . . 632 804 718 36 30 74
Stormproof 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 540 807 674 37 30 80
Hi-Bred................ 556 775 666 40 28 79
Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . 529 665 ' 597 34 32 74
Western Prolific. . . . . . . . . 542 624 583 38 30 76
Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . 521 631 576 33 34 71
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . 471 657 564 36 34 98
Texacala, Rogers. . . . . . ._ . 469 630 550 34 34 83
Stormmaster . . . . . . . . . . . 466 631 548 34 30 82
Mebane 8G, Floyd . . . . . . 492 582 537 35 31 63
Macha Early SP . . . . . . . . 436 637 536 32 30 88
Lockett 140-46. . . . . . . . . . 414 641 528 36 30 78
CA89ASP............. 508 538 523 34 33 78
CA 122 SP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 456 561 508 33 31 85
Early Foster. . . . . . . . . . . . 441 566 504 31 32 84
Rowden 41B (TPSA). . . . 399 585 492 33 32 72

lThe difference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 76 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due
to chance.

2Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

“Expressed as the number of bolls required to weigh one pound.

.__25_

Table 12. Chillicothe—Summary of regional cotton variety test, 1948-50

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety — Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 1950 Avg} ‘Z1, length’ size“
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 318 436 349 368 38 32 75
Paymaster 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . 280 392 381 351 38 29 64
Lockett 140-46 . . . . . . . . . . . 285 451 295 344 39 28 65
Western Prolific . . . . . . . . . . 253 447 303 334 41 29 68
Mebane 8G, Floyd. . .. . . . . 321 413 267 334 38 30 58
Stormmaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 428 277 332 36 28 75
Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 415 309 328 36 32 64
Stormproof 1.... . . . . . . . . . 275 411 299 328 38 29 73
Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 264 413 288 322 38 32 70

CA 89A SP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 438 240 318 36 31 71

Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 252 414 287 318 36 30 66

CA 122 SP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 417 229 312 36 30 63

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 378 293 306 40 28 69
Macha Early SP. . . . . . . . . . 254 357 298 303 34 29 76
Rowden 41B (TPSA). . . . . 260 373 258 297 35 30 62
Early Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256 344 267 289 33 30 71

lAnalyses of these data indicate there is no statistical difference between
any two varieties.
zExpressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.
sExpressed as the number of bolls required to weigh one pound.

Table 13. Big Spring—-Summary of regional cotton variety test, 1948-50

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety ————— -—— — Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 1950 Avg.‘ % length? size3
Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 154 314 214 39 25 81
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 165 115 353 211 39 31 88
Stormproof 1.... . . . . . . . . . 167 116 336 206 38 26 89
Paymaster 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 149 329 206 38 29 81

Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 112 129 356 199 35 30 78

CA 89A SP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 124 311 197 36 30 85

Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 131 147 294 191 37 31 86

Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 154 296 188 36 29 75

Lockett 140-46 . . . . . . . . . . . 123 126 304 184 38 27 87

Western Prolific . . . . . . . . . . 133 117 292 181 40 27 91
Mebane 8G, Floyd. . .. . . . . 119 131 279 176 37 28 71
Stormmaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 122 271 176 36 29 89
CA122  138 123 262 174 36 29 78
Rowden 41B (TPSA). . . . . 113 121 276 170 34 29 73
Early Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 125 240 166 33 29 87
Macha Early SP. . . . . . . . . . 111 137 244 164 34 28 93

lThe difierence in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 37 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due
to chance.

2Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

3Expressed as the number of bolls required to weigh one pound.

_27_

Table 14. Main Station Farm——Summary of regional cotton variety test,

1948-50
Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety — ———-— — Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 1950 Avg.1 970 length? size“
Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 371 323 294 41 26 78
Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 361 322 293 37 3O 78
Lockett 140-46 . . . . . . . . . . . 183 378 296 286 39 28 80
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 210 369 274 284 37 32 97
Empire 178 373 284 278 36 30 70
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) . . . . . . 173 362 296 277 39 32 99
Western Prolific . . . . . . . . . . 182 351 288 274 39 29 84
Mebane, Watson . . . . . . . . . 180 318 306 268 37 30 71
Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 17 8 350 252 260 34 32 86
Stoneville 2B (Miss.) . . . . . . 160 320 273 251 34 32 83
Lankart 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 319 271 247 36 32 74
Rowden 41B (TPSA) . . . . . 155 327 256 246 34 3O 78
Mebane 8G, Floyd... . . . . . 143 317 275 245 35 32 67
Dortch 1 (Row. Roldo) . . . . 147 330 251 243 34 30 78
Acala 4-42 (Calif.) . . . . . . . . 143 294 277 238 39 33 82
Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 122 318 269 236 36 32 86

‘The difference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 28 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due
to chance. -

2Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

aExpressed as the number of bolls required to weigh one pound.

Table 15. Brazos River Valley Laboratory-Summary of regional cotton
variety test, 1948-50

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety a Lint Lint Boll
194s | 1949 1950 Avg.‘ % length? size“
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 483  523 786 597 38 34 82

Deltapine 15 (Miss.) . . . . . . 494 539 703 579 38 32 82

Empire WR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582 439 702 574 36 32 63

Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 465 484 752 567 34 32 71

Lockett 140-46 . . . . . . . . . . . 476 482 737 565 37 29 77

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493 426 712 544 40 27 73
Stoneville 2B (Miss.) . . . . . . 515 417 682 538 33 34 71
Lankart 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487 435 690 537 36 32 63

Mebane 8G, Floyd . . . . . . . . 510 451 636 532 36 32 59

Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 461 623 528 36 31 72 g

Mebane, Watson . . . . . . . . . 496 411 633 513 36 30 66

Western Prolific . . . . . . . . . . 433 460 634 509 38 30 81
Dortch 1 (Row. Roldo) . . . . 462 463 537 487 34 31 64
Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 439 401 608 483 35 34 78
Acala 4-42 (Calif.) . . . . . . . . 441 330 608 459 37 33 74
Rowden 41B (TPSA) . . . . . 443 371 506 440 34 32 70

lThe difference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 72 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due
to chance.

gExpressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

aExpressed as the number of bolls required to weigh one pound.

__28_

Table 16. Beeville—Summary of regional cotton variety test. 1948-50

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 1950 Avg} % length’ sizes
Empire WR . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 349 243 318 39 30 75
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 310 394 229 311 40 31 95
Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 382 324 219 308 38 32 85
Deltapine 15, (Miss.) . . . . . . 308 378 222 302 40 31 90
Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 359 203 296 37 30 74

Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 331 332 226 296 36 32 81

Mebane, Watson . . . . . . . . . 323 337 222 294 38 29 68

Western Prolific . . . . . . . . . . 336 346 200 294 42 28 83

Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298 350 220 289 43 27 78

Lankart 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 332 210 283 39 29 68
Stoneville 2B (Miss.). . . . . . 289 348 206 281 36 31 83
Mebane 8G, Floyd. . . . . . . . 278 337 205 273 38 30 69
Dortch 1 (Row. Roldo) . . . . 295 299 218 270 35 30 72
Lockett 140-46 . . . . . . . . . . . 298 285 228 270 39 27 80
Rowden 41B (TPSA) . . . . . 245 259 197 234 36 28 74
Acala 4-42 (Calif.) . . . . . . . . 211 253 150 204 38 31 77

lThe difference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 40 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due
to chance.

*Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

“Expressed as the number of bolls required to weigh one pound.

Table 17. Tyler-Summary of regional cotton variety test, 1948-49

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 Avg} % length? sizes
Empire WR . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 677 406 37 31 71
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) . . . . . 185 625 405 40 30 88
Lockett 140-46. . . . . . . . . . 139 582 360 38 28 73
Stoneville 2B (Miss.) . . . . 143 573 358 37 30 79
Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . 144 542 343 37 32 72
Hi-Bred................ 154 527 340 40 26 74
Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . 131 531 331 36 31 84
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . 124 517 320 38 31 96
Dortch 1 (Row. Roldo) . . 133 453 293 36 30 69
Lankart 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 413 290 38 30 54
Western Prolific . . . . . . . . 145 432 288 40 28 77
Texacala, Rogers. . . . . . . . 118 443 280 36 32 79
Rowden 41B (TPSA) . . . . 112 442 278 35 29 70
Mebane 8G, Floyd . . . . . . 129 418 274 37 30 59
Mebane, Watson. . . . . . . . 145 373 259 37 29 59
Acala 4-42 (Ca1if.) . . . . . . 125 297 211 37 32 79

lAnalyses of these data indicate there is no statistical difference between
any two of these varieties.
zExpressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.
3Expressed as the number of bolls required to weigh one pound.

._.29_.

Table 18. Temple—Summary of regional cotton variety test, 1948-50

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety — Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 1950 Avg} % length? sizei‘
Empire WR. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 275 502 427 401 37 31 77
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) . . . . . . 165 478 393 345 37 31 116
Mebane, Watson . . . . . . . . . 228 431 359 339 36 30 68
Stoneville 2B (Miss.) . . . . . . 206 395 400 334 34 30 94
Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 393 369 333 36 31 83
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 158 423 413 331 37 31 114
Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 167 432 389 329 33 32 102
Lankart 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 380 383 316 37 31 71
Dortch 1 (Row. Roldo) . . . . 192 394 357 314 36 30 75
Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 179 346 360 295 35 33 93
Mebane 8G, Floyd. . . . . . . . 247 260 357 288 37 29 75
Lockett 140-46 . . . . . . . . . . . 1.76 327 359 287 37 27 90
Western Prolific . . . . . . . . . . 151 326 340 272 39 29 87
Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 311 360 259 40 26 104
Rowden 41B (TPSA). . . . . 182 259 315 252 34 30 82
Acala 4-42 (Calif.) . . . . . . . . 136 286 316 246 36 32 90

lThe difference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 76 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due
to chance. .

2Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

3Expressed as the number of bolls required to weigh one pound.

4 Table 19. Denton——Summary of regional cotton variety test, 1948-50

Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 1950 Avg} ‘V0 length? size“
Empire WR. . . .. . . . . . . . .. 412 372 403 396 36 32 74
Northern Star... . . . . . . . _ . 358 394 308 353 37 30 72
Mebane 8G, Floyd. . . . . . . . 311 366 351 343 37 30 71
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 288 373 357 339 39 30 94
Lankart 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 410 356 339 36 30 66
Deltapine 15 (Miss . . . . . . . 297 377 342 339 38 31 92
Dortch 1 (Row. Roldo) . . . . 283 394 338 338 35 28 70
Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 298 353 316 322 35 30 85
Lockett 140-46 . . . . . . . . . . . 260 308 376 315 38 27 82
Western Prolific . . . . . . . . . . 303 356 269 309 40 28 86
Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 351 345 307 40 27 83
Rowden 41B (TPSA) . . . . . 244 332 343 306 34 29 72
Stoneville 2B (Miss.) . . . . . . 291 332 291 305 35 30 84
Mebane, Watson . . . . . . . . . 304 322 286 304 37 29 64
Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 228 309 286 274 36 31 89
Acala 4-42 (Calif) . . . . . . . . 200 217 239 219 37 32 81

lThe difference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 56 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due
to chance.

2Expressed in thirty—seconds of an inch.

aExpressed as the number of bolls required to weigh a pound.’

__30._

Table 20. Greenville——summary of regional cotton variety test, 1948-50
Acre yield lint, lbs.
Variety — ———— —— Lint Lint Boll
1948 1949 1950 Avg.‘ % length” sizes
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) . . . . . . 399 626 472 499 41 32 90
Empire WR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368 550 504 474 37 31 68
Deltapine (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 341 573 475 463 41 32 93
Lankart 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 551 480 463 39 30 64
Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . 371 565 447 461 36 31 78
Mebane 8G, Floyd. . . . . . . . 417 524 349 430 38 31 63
Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . . . 386 488 410 428 36 32 73
Stoneville 2B (Miss.) . . . . . . 374 - 521 389 428 36 31 82
Dortch 1 (Row. Roldo) . . . . 378 493 402 424 37 30 69
Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287 547 432 422 42 28 79
Lockett 140-46 . . . . . . . . . . . 309 535 408 417 39 29 80
Western Prolific . . . . . . . . . . 335 534 338 402 41 29 84
Texacala, Rogers . . . . . . . . . 319 509 352 393 37 32 81
Rowden 41B (TPSA). . . . . 357 464 337 386 36 31 70
Mebane, Watson. . . . . . . j 295 483 316 365 38 30 65
Acala 4-42 (Calif.) . . . . . . . . 258 346 233 279 39 32 77

lThe dilference in yield between any two varieties shown must equal or ex-
ceed 56 pounds to give odds of 19 to 1, that such difference is real and not due

to chance.

zExpressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.
3Expressed as the number of bolls required to weigh one pound.

Table 21.

Sources of seed of cotton varieties tested, 1948-50

Variety

Source of seed

Acala 1517A-2815 . . . . . . . . .
Acala 1517B . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acala 4-42 (Calif.) . . . . . . . . .
CA 89A SP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CA 122 SP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Coker 100 Staple . . . . . . . . . .
Coker Wilds . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Delfos 9169..............
Deltapine (TPSA). . . . . . . . .
Deltapine 15 (_ Miss.) . . . . . .
Dortch 1 (Rowden, Roldo) .

0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

New Mexico Crop Imp. Assn., State College, N. M.
G. N. Stroman, State College, N. M
U. S. Cotton Field Station, Shafter, Calif.
Texas Substation No. 8, Lubbock, Texas.
Texas Substation No. 8, Lubbock, Texas
Coker Pedigreed Seed Co., Hartsville, S. C.
Coker Pedigreed Seed Co., Hartsville, S. C.

. Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Co., Stoneville, Miss.

Texas Planting Seed Assn., Bryan, Texas
Delta & Pine Land Co., Scott, Miss.
Robt. L. Dortch Seed Co., Scott, Ark.

Dortch 1 Robt. L. Dortch Seed Co., Scott, Ark.
Early Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W. H. Cunningham, Littlefield, Texas
Empire WR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Empire Pedigreed Seed Co., Haralson, Ga.
Hi-Bred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. F. Summerour Seed Co., Norcross, Ga.
Lankart 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lankart Seed Farms, Rt. 6, Waco, Texas

Lockett 140-46.... . . . . . . ..
Macha Early SP . . . . . . . . . .
Mebane 8G, Floyd . . . . . . . .
Mebane, Watson . . . . . . . . . .
Mesilla Valley Acala. . . . . . .
Northern Star . . . . . . . . . . . .
Paymaster 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rowden 41B (TPSA) . . . . . .
Stoneville (TPSA) . . . . . . . . .
Stoneville 5A . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Stoneville 2B (Miss) . . . . . .
Stormmaster..:.........
Stormproof 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Texacala, Rogers... . . . . . . .

Lockett Seed Farms, Vernon, Texas

H. A. Macha, Tahoka, Texas

Robert M. Harper, Martindale, Texas

Ferris Watson Seed Co., Garland, Texas

Dean L. Stahmann, Del Cerro, Las Cruces, N. M.
Northern Star Seed Farms, O’Brien, Texas
Paymaster Farm, Box 328, Plainview, Texas
Texas Planting Seed Assn., Bryan, Texas
Texas Planting Seed Assn., Bryan, Texas _
Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Co., Stoneville, Miss.
Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Co., Stoneville, MISS.

. . Texas Substation No. 8, Lubbock, Texas

Lockett Seed Co., Vernon, Texas
John D. Rogers, Navasota, Texas

Western Prolific. . . . . . . . . . mVon Roeder Seed Farms, Snyder, Texas

_31_

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Acknowledgment is hereby made of the cooperation of the
following superintendents of the substations of the Texas Agri-
cultural Experiment Station and their co-workers, and the super-
intendents of the U. S. field stations and their co-workers for
their participation in the state-wide cotton variety testing pro-
gram and for conducting the tests reported in this bulletin at
their respective stations:

J. E. Roberts, Main Station Farm and Brazos River Valley
Laboratory, College Station; R. A. Hall, Texas Substation No. 1,
Beeville; P. R. Johnson, Texas Substation No. 2, Tyler; J. R.
Johnston, Texas Substation No. 5, Temple; D. I. Dudley, Texas
Substation No. 6, Denton; R. E. Dickson and C. E. Fisher, Texas
Substation No. '7, Spur; D. L. Jones, Texas Substation No. 8,
Lubbock; J. J. Bayles, Texas Substation No. 9, Balmorhea; J. R.
Quinby, Texas Substation No. 12, Chillicothe; W. R. Cowley,
Texas Substation No. 15, Weslaco; L. E. Brooks, Texas Substa-
tion No. 16, Iowa Park; F. E. Keating, U. S. Field Station, Big
Spring; and D. R. Hooton, U. S. Cotton Feld Station, Greenville.

Outfield cooperative tests were also conducted in Wharton,
Nueces, Maverick, Willacy, Hidalgo and Cameron counties in
cooperation with the county agricultural agents, the Farm Bu-
reau, and with participating farmers on whose farms the tests
were grown. Grateful acknowledgment is hereby made for their
assistance.

INFORMATION ON COTTON PRODUCTION

A list of publications dealing with cotton varieties tested in
Texas and improved cultural practices that Will increase cotton
yields follows. Single copies of these publications, which are
issued by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, and the
Texas Agricultural Extension Service of the Texas A&M College
System, and by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, are obtain-
able free upon request to the respective agency. As the Texas
Agricultural Experiment Station has a limit of not more than
12 different publications to one person, requesters are urged to
list only those publications they have reason to believe will be
useful immediately, and which they will take the time to study.

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Publications

BULLETIN S

380 Investigations on the Control of the Cotton Flea Hopper
393 Plants Susceptible or Resistant to Cotton Root Rot and Their Rela-
tion to Control
401 The Cotton-square Borer
416 Methods of Ginning in Relation to the Grade and Staple of Cotton
452 The Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton
490 The Effect of Time and Rate of Application of Nitrate of Soda on
the Yield of Cotton
494 Growing Cotton under Irrigation in the Wichita Valley of Texas
501 Price-quality Relationships in the Farmers’ Cotton Market of Texas
526 Calibration of Cotton Planting Mechanisms

538 The Effect of Exposure in the Field on Grade, Strength, and Color of

Raw Cotton

543 Irrigation Requirements of Cotton and Grain Sorghum in the Wichita
Valley of Texas

545 Relation of Soil Acidity to Cotton Root Rot

548 Machine Placement of Fertilizer for Cotton

573 The Control of Cotton Root Rot in the Blackland Region of Texas

580 Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton as Affected by Varietal Character-
istics and Other Factors

616 Germination of Cottonseed as Affected by Machine Placement of Fer-
tilizer and Soil Disturbance

621 Effects of Planter Attachments and Seed Treatment on Stands of
Cotton

627 Cottons Resistant to Wilt and Root Knot and the Effect of Potash
Fertilizer in East Texas

638 Hibernation of the Boll Weevil

683 Comparison of Different Methods of Harvesting Cotton

686 Factors Affecting the Performance of Mechanical Cotton Harvesters
(Stripper Type), Extractors and Cleaners _ _

697 Cleaning Quality of Raw Cotton as Affected by Physical Properties
of Fi ers

699 Control of Cotton Root Rot by Sweetclover in Rotation

704 Mechanized Production of Cotton in Texas

713 Responses of Cotton to 2,4-D

719 Cotton Variety Tests in the El Paso Valley, 1943-48

720 The Cleaning of Mechanically Harvested Cotton

731 Hairy Vetch, Bur Clover and Oats as Soil-building Crops for Cotton
and Corn in Texas

735 Economics of Mechanical Cotton Harvesting in the High Plains Cotton
Area of Texas _

736 Breeding Strains of Cotton Resistant to Bacterial Blight

_33_

CIRCULARS

39 Cotton Production in Texas

117 Cotton Statistics for Texas (1947)

123 Agricultural Insecticides and Fungicides in Texas, 1949-50
124 Plant Diseases in Texas and Their Control

PROGRESS REPORTS

668
733
912

954

1002
1029
1103
1111

1141
1167
1192
1217

1219

1225
1228

1230
1254

1262
1273
1284
1286
1293

1300

1303
1308

1312
1316

1319
1336

1337
1340
1356
1357
1364
1370
1377
1379
1382
1384

1394

Seed Treatment of Cotton

Placement of Fertilizers for Cotton

Estimates of the Cost of Producing Cotton in Eight Selected Areas
in Texas

The Effect of Foreign Matter on the Grade, Staple and Price of
Cotton

Control of Cotton Flea Hopper with DDT

Factors Influencing Cotton Harvesting Methods on the High Plains
New Organic Insecticides for the Control of Cotton Insects

Waste in Harvesting Cotton with Mechanical Strippers on the High
Plains of Texas, 1947

Williamson County Cotton Variety Tests, 1946-48

Control of Cotton Insects in the El Paso and Pecos Areas of Texas
Spray vs. Dusting for Cotton Insect Control

Growth and Yield of Cotton on Willacy Loam as Affected by Different
Irrigation Levels

Effect of Fertilizers on Yield of Lint Cotton on Miles Fine Sand at
Chillicothe, Texas

El Paso Valley Cotton Variety Test, 1949

Effect of Sulphur, Nitrogen and Phosphorus Amendments on Cotton
Production at the Blackland Station, 1949

Cotton Fertilizer Tests in the El Paso Valley, 1949

Soil Treatments with Sulphur and Other Chemicals to Control Cotton
Root Rot in Central East Texas

Storage of Cotton Seed for Planting Purposes

Cotton Variety Tests in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, 1950

A Tractor-mounted Spray for Cotton Defoliation

Results of Cotton Insect Control Tests Conducted in 1950

The Effect of Legumes and Nitrogen on the Yields of Cotton and
Corn on Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam at College Station

Some Effects of Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton on the Ginning
Business

Fertilizers for Cotton Near College Station

Views of Ginners Regarding Some Effects of Mechanical Harvesting
of Cotton on the Ginning Business

Size of Spray Nozzle in Relation to Cotton Insect Control
Anhydrous Ammonia Fertilizer Tests on Various Crops at Bluebonnet
Farm, 1950

Cotton Defoliation Tests at the Blackland Station, 1950

Effect of Sulphur, Nitrogen and Phosphate Amendments on Cotton
Production at the Blackland Station, 1950

Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton in Texas

Water Conservation Increases Cotton Yields

The Effect of Sucrose and Maleic Hydrazide on the Chemical Defo-
liation and Inhibition of Second Growth of Cotton

Effect of Summer Fallow on Yields of Cotton and Sorghum in the
High Plains of Texas

gotton Root Rot and Land Use Studies at the Blackland Experiment

tation

Quality and Fiber Characteristics of Mechanically Harvested Cotton
on the High Plains, 1949-50

Effect of Methoxone on Young Cotton Plants

Barnyard Manure and Cotton Burs as a Dryland Fertilizer for Cotton
Cotton Defoliation Tests at Lubbock, 1950

Planting Each Row of Cotton as Compared with Planting Two and
Skipping One

Germination of Seed Harvested from Cotton Plants Damaged by 2,4-D

0

_34_

1395 Cotton Yields in the El Paso Valley as Influenced by Applications of
Ammonium Nitrate and Superphosphate
1397 Cotton Defoliation in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, 1951

PR-1400 Cotton Yields at Pecos as Influenced by Applications of Am-
monium Nitrate, Superphosphate and Muriate of Potash

PR-1401 The Eifect of Spacing and Fertilizer on Boll Production and
Cotton Yield on Houston Black Clay at Temple

PR-1404 El Paso Valley Cotton Variety Tests, 1950

PR-1406 American-Egyptian Variety Test at the El Paso Valley Experi-
ment Station, 1949-50

PR-1408 Cotton Variety Tests in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, 1951

PR-1412 Control of Seedling Grass in Cotton

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS
59 Irrigated Agriculture in Texas, 1950

Texas Agricultural Extension Service Publications

BULLETINS

51 Terracing in Texas

157 Cotton Statistics for Texas

165 Fertilizer Recommendations for Texas
167 Fertilizers and Their Use

CIRCULARS

' 136 Steps in Growing Cotton

182 Guide for Controlling Cotton Insects
291 Do We Need More Cotton in 1951?
4-H 14 Cotton Demonstrations

MIMEOGRAPHED

467
477
478
479
480
485
489
792

SHEETS

Recommended Practices
Recommended Practices
Recommended Practices
Recommended Practices
Recommended Practices

for East Texas Area, Revised

for Rio Grande Plains Area, Revised
for Gulf Coast Prairie Area, Revised
for Blackland Area, Revised

for West Cross Timbers Area, Revised
Recommended Practices for High Plains Area, Revised
Recommended Practices for Rolling Plains Area, Revised

Soil Fertility Removed by Farm Crops

FARM & HOME HINTS
378 Anhydrous Ammonia as a Fertilizer

LEAFLETS

45 Labor Saving Devices-Two-row Distributor for Commercial Fertilizer
106 Soil Testing
145 Cotton Defoliation Guide in Texas, 1951

U. S. Department of Agriculture Publications

FARMERS’ BULLETINS

1384 Community Cotton Production

1661 Farm Study of the Cotton Plant
1686 Common Errors in Cotton Production
1688 Insect Enemies of the Cotton Plant

_35_

1729 Machinery for Dusting Cotton

1745 Cotton Diseases and Methods of Control
1748 Ginning Cotton

1802 Modernizing Cotton Gins

CIRCULARS

144 Farmers’ Experiences and Opinions as Factors Influencing Their Cot-
ton-Marketing Methods
736 The Packaging of American Cotton and Methods for Improvement
726 Use of Commercial Fertilizers in Cotton Production
768 Cotton Seed Handling with Small Air Pipes

LEAFLETS

151 Effects of Feeds and Saw Speeds on Cotton Turn-out and Quality
167 Facts About Cotton

169 Preventing Gin Damage to Cotton

181 Drying Seed Cotton

198 Cottonseed Treatment

211 Cotton From Boll to Bale

217 Cotton Ginning for Pure-Seed Preservation

246 Safeguarding Identification of Cotton Bales

TECHNICAL BULLETINS

503 Effects of Gin-saw Speed and Seed-roll Density on Quality of Cotton
Lint and Operation of Gin Stands
508 Effect of Artificially Drying Seed Cotton Before Ginning on Certain
Quality Elements of the Lint and Seed and on the Operation of the
Gin Stand
623 Fumigation of Baled Cotton with Hydrocyanic Acid for the Pink
Bollworm
662 Cotton Sold in the Seed in the United States
663 Effect of Cleaning Seed Cotton on Lint Quality and Ginning Efficiency
755 Cotton Price Relationships and Outlets for American Cotton
903 Effect of Variety, Location, and Season on Oil, Protein, and Fuzz of
Cottonseed and on Fiber Properties of Lint
931 Fiber and Spinning Properties of Cotton with Special Reference to
Varietal and Environmental Effects
948 Cultural Practices as Related to Incidence of Cotton Root Rot in
Texas
956 Bacterial Blight of Cotton Under Conditions of Artificial Inoculation
970 Fiber and Spinning Properties of Cotton: A Correlation Study of
the Effect of Variety and Environment
1025 Cottonseed Treatment: Its Effect on Seedling Emergence, Seedling
Survival, Plant Stands, and Yields

MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATIONS

239 The Vertical Drier for Seed Cotton

310 The Classification of Cotton

445 The Work of the U. S. Cotton Ginning Laboratory
595 Facts About Cotton and Southern Farming

YEARBOOK SEPARATES

1578 Plant Breeding and the Cotton Industry (1936)
1805 Climate and Cotton (1941)
1934 What Makes Cotton Good? (1947)

{i i
w?‘

Cooperative Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, the Texas A.
and M. College System and the United States Department of Agriculture cooper-
ating. Distributed in furtherance of the Acts of Congress of May 8 and June 30, 1914.