TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS.

BULLETIN N O. 92.

Agricultural Section-December 1906.

A TEST OF THE PRODUCING POWER 0F
SOME TEXAS SEED CORN.

BY

R. L. BENNETT
In Charge of
Cotton Investigation and Breeding

n-v '

     

   
 
   
   



 

POSTOFFICE
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS.

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIQNS

OFFICERS.

GOVERNING BOARD.

(BOARD OF DIRECTORS A. AND M. COLLEGE.)

M. SANSOM, President - - - Alvarado
F. A. REICHARDT - ~ - -. - Houston
K. K. LEGGETT - - - - - Abilene
GEO. T. JESTER - — - — - Corsicana
W.  CLAY - - - - Austin
A. HAIDUSEK - - - - - LaGrange
L. D. AMSLER - - - - - Hempstead
A.  BROWN .- - - - - - Dallas

STATION OFFICERS.
H. H. HARRINGTON, LL. D., President of the College.

J. W.CARSON - - - - - Vice-Director
M. FRANCIS - ~ - - - Veterinarian
E.  KYLE — - - - - Horticulturist
F. R. MARSHALL — - - - - Animal Husbandry
R. L. BENNETT - - - - Cotton Specialist
O. M. BALL - - - - - - Botanist
G. S. FRAPS - — A" ’ -~' - Chemist
A. F. CONRADI - - - - Entomologist
EDWARD C. GRFRN - - - Assistant Horticulturist
C. E. SANBORN - — - Co-Qperative Entomologist
JOHN C. BURNS - — — Assistant Animal Husbandry
C. O. MOSPZR - - .- . - Deputy Feed Inspector
M. S. CHURCH - - - y Deputy Feed Inspector
W. P. CONNELLY - p - - 7 Deputy Feed Inspector
C. W. CRISLER - - - - Clerk Feed Control
C. A. POFFENBIERGER - - - - Chief Clerk
Miss M. H. WATKINS - - - Stenographer

STATE SUB-STATIONS.

S. A. WASCHKA, Superintendent - - Beeville, Bee County
W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent - - ‘Froupe, Smith County

NOTE,~The main station is loeated on the grounds of the Agricul-
tural and MeehaniealCollege, in Brazos County. The Postofliee address
is College Station, Texas. Reports and bulletins are sent free upon ap-
plication Z0 the Director.

A Test of the Producing Power of Some Texas
Seed Corn.

BY
R. L. BENNETT
In Charge of

Cotton Investigation and Breeding.

The extent that corn growers grow and select their own planting seed
is not known, but as the process is simple and inexpensive, and as
yield is dependent on inherent productiveness of the seed, a test
Was made this season, 1906, of some seed corn obtained from corn growers
in different parts of the State. The test was designed to determine the rel-
ative value in productiveness of corn grown by diiierent persons and of
ears grown by the same person. Growers who do not select their seed and
start from one seed ear to propagate their seed corn, are planting seed of
parents of many characters, productive and unproductive, and of low aver-
age yield. This is well known to those who have given the subject any
thought. They know that some ears or parent plants produce a progeny
which will almost uniformly grow a good ear to each stalk, whereas other ears
or parent plants will produce a progeny which will have a varying number of
earless or barren stalks and consequently a low yield. Therefore it is clear
that seed corn should be propagated from a parent ear which has been
grown and its yielding power determined through its progeny. The im-
portance of this point is shown in the varying yields produced by ears re-
ceived from the same grower. An attempt was made to test the
relative productiveness of seed corn from a large number
of farmers, but many of whom request was made for seed ears failed to give
the matter attention. Therefore the test is not as large as desired, but it
nevertheless shows that many growers in Texas are not getting the yield of
corn that they would get if better selected seed were planted. It was re-
quested that the test ears be as good as the grower planted, or such ears as
he would plant, and doubtless the seed was an average in productiveness of
the seed corn planted in the sender’s locality. One ear was planted to a row,
each row being 500 feet long, and the yields of each are exhibted in the
sub-joined table. The winter and spring seasons were very deficient in
rainfall in the College locality and that accounts in part for the low average
yield of all the ears planted,-perhaps as much as 3O per cent, and the
College soil is poor in drouth resistance.

*The planting-and the calculations inithis test were in charge of  W. A. Price.

(3)

Ears

mlqr-u-l b-lh-li-lb-l r-w-w-‘p-A

Per cent of a perfect stand
from first planting.

(Missing hills were replanted Yield
with seed of same ear) per acre.
Netherwood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13%

Maedgen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

i‘ . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19

Bell . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2() . . . . . . . . . . _ _ , _ 12

i‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..14%

" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..16

“ . . . . . , _ . . . . . . ..30 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3%

i‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 . . . . . . . . . . . ..13%

Penn . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11%

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . ..47 . . . . . . . . . . . . 44%

i‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..15

i‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19

Brown . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

i‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15%

i‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . ,44 . . . . . . . . . . . . Il13

i‘ . . . . . . . . . . . ..4() _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . .14

Irvmg . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

‘ . . . . . . . . . . ..45 . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

i‘ . . . . . . _ . . . . . .30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

" . . . . . . . . . . . ..36 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9%

Puckett . . . . . . . . . . . ,4? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

i‘ . . . . - . . . . . . . .4() . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

H()\() . . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .

i“ . . . . . . . . . . . . .61 . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Martin . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . ..14

i‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . OI52 . . . . . . . . . . . . U020

L‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

i‘ . . . . . . . . . . . ..4() . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _19

Hull . . . . . . . . . . . . ..48 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2()

i‘ . . . . . . . . . . _ ,  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Hllbgrlq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . ..54..............18

i . . . . . . . . . . . .49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

“ . . . . . . . . . ..45 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1(,

Krench . . . . . . . . . . . .28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

(4)

Bushels belnw
highest yield
ing ear. 26.5

Per cent of a perfect stand
from first planting.

Bushels below

(Missinghills were replanted Yield highest yield-
with seed of same ear) per acre "ing ear. 26.5
“ . . . . . . . . . . ..46 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13%

" . . . . . . . . . . ..65 . . . . . . . . . . . . G017  . . . . . . . ..9%

“ . . . . . . . . . . .43 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7%

Kendrick . . . . . . . . . ..33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13%

“ . . . . . . . . . . ..65 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..23 . . . . . . . . . .. 3%

“ . . . . . . . . . . ..25 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..14 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..12I/g

“ . . . . . . . . . . .. O . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  . . . . . . . . . . . . ..20

“ . . . . ........59 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..26% . . . . . . . . . . . . ..00

“ . . . . . . . . . . I440 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..12 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..14%

Snfldl . . . . . . . . . . . ..37 . . . . . . . . . . . ..15 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..11%

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . ..42 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..18 . . . . . . . . . . . . __ 8%

“ . . . . . . . . . . . . ..62 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..22 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4%

Liverman . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

“ . . . . . . . . ll57 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2() . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6%

“ . . . . . . . . ..60 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1s . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8%

“ _ _ . . . . . . ..34 . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . ..19

Price . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

“ . . . . . . _ . . . . ..52 , . . . . . . . . . . . ..12% . . . . . . . . . . . . ..14

Woods . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

“ . . . . ._......65 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19 . . . . . . . . . . . . ll7%

“ . . . . . . . . . . . ..53 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..16 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..10%

" . . . . . . . . . . . ..48 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..15 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..11%

“  . . . . . . . . ..64 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..21 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5%-

Yakey . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  . . . . . . . . . . . . 

“ . . . . . . . . . . . ..42 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..15 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..11%

“ . . . . . . . . . . . ..54. . . . . . . . . . . ..2() . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6%

Unkngwn . . . . .. O . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . 

“ . . . . . . ..40 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..25 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1%

‘ . . . . . . .. O . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8}§ . . . . . . . . . . . . ..18

“ . . . . . . ..34 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..16 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..10%

“ . . . . . . 0034 . . . . . . . . . . . ..10 . . . . . . . . . . . . Ol16%

“ . . . . . . ..53 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13%

“ . . . . . . ..38 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..11 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..15§

“ . . . . . . ..33 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 612 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2()

“ . . . . . . 0057 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8% . . . . . . . . . . . . ..18

t‘ . . . . . . lI54 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..16 . . . . . . . . . . . . .10}

“ .....5() . . . . . . . . . . . . ..16 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1()%

“ . . . . . . ..41 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..11 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..15%

‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7% . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19

. . . . . . 

(5)

Per cent of a perfect stand
from first planting.

Bushels below

(Missing hills were replanted Yield highest yield-
Ears with seed of same ear) per acre ing ear. 2b.?)
77_ “ . . . . . . .. 0 . .10 . . . . . . . . . . . ..16§

73, “ . . . . . . .. 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7}5 . . . . . . .. ...19

79, “ . . . . . . ..52 . . . . . . . . . . . ..14Ig . . . . . . . . . . . . ..12

30, “ . . . . . . ..75 . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19%

81. ii . . . . .u..43 - . . . . , . . . . ..13 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13%

82. “ . . . . . . ..52..... ..12 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..14%

33, “ _ .50 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..20 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6%

84. “ . . . . . . ..29 . .....19 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7%

85, “ . . . . . . .. 0 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7&6 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19

86. “ . . . . . . ..24.. .13 .. .136

87_ “ . . . . . . ..42 . . . . . . .. .13 . . . . . . . . ..13%

88. “ . . . . . . ..58 . . . . . . . . . . . ..11 . . _ . . . ..15%

89. “ . . . . . . .. 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..20 . . . . . . . . . .. 6%

90. “ . . . . . . ..36 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..20%

91, Native Grown . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

92. Unknown . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15}

93. Koville Farm . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1111-

94, “ “ . . . . ..31 . . . . . . . . . . ..__ 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..17%

95. Hickory King . . . . . . .25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18%

96. “ “ . . . . .. 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..11 . . . . . . . . . . . . .45.}

97. Harrington . . ......42 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13 . . . . . . . . . . . C0139

98. ‘i . . . . . . . . ..22 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13%

99. “ . . . . . . . . ..41 . . . . . . . .. ..11 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..15§

100. ii . . . . . . . . ..47 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..15 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..11i

101. “ . . . . . . . . ..46 . . . . . . . . . . . ..15 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..11%

102. “ . . . . . . . . ..57 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 . . . . . . . . . . .. .17%

103, “ . . . . . . . . ..30 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..121/;§ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

104. “ . . . . . . . . ..29 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13 . . . . . . . . . . . ..13§

105, “ . . . . . . . . ..32 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..15 . . . _ . . . . . . . . ..11%

106. “‘ . . . . . . . . ..35 _ . . . . . . . . . . . ..11 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..15§

107. “ . . . . . . . . .68 . . . . . . . . . . . ..12% . . . . . . . . . . . . ..14

108, “  ..52 . . . . . . . . . . . ..12% . . . . . . . . . . . ..14

Average yield - - - - - - - - . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . - - - - - - - - . . . . . . 14

The corn was planted the middle of March on low beds with a corn
planter set to drop one grain every ten inches, but two grains were more

often dropped than one grain. Replanting of missing hills was done the

middle of April, but did not give a perfect stand.

A cold spell of Weather occurred after the corn was planted and before

it came up and doubtless affected the germination of all the ears.

In common farm practice the ears of this test would have been shelled
together and planted and in such a case the yield would be the average for
the Whole, which is 14 bushels per acre.

(6)

The relative value of the dif-

ferent ears would not have been shown and the low yield would have been
attributed to the very dry Weather.

The yield of the ears, however, would doubtless have been at least
30 per cent greater had a season been in the soil during the spring.

The highest individual ear production shows an excess yield of 12
bushels over the average, and this 12 bushels excess represents the loss in the
yield and is due to poor germinative and low yielding power.

The highest yielding ear No. 44, 26 bushels per acre, would no doubt
in a better season have made something like 36 bushels. But its yielding
power, could also be increased, by selection, to a higher arnount than 26
bushels.

The low germinative power and the cold after planting caused much re-
planting, and lowered the yields very greatly, but the low producing power
of the ears was of equal or greater influence in lowering the yield. This
latter is shown in the case of some ears giving a poor stand from first plant-
ing, yet exceeding in yield ears that gave a better stand and required less
replanting of missing hills.

The test shows that the seed ears were not grown nor selected for
high yielding power, nor properly gathered and stored to perserve the ger-
minative power.

It also shows on these counts that an average loss of twelve bushels
per acre, or, at 50 cents per bushel, a loss of at least $6.00 per acre, results
from using this corn for seed.

lt is not overstating the matter, perhaps, to say that a very large part
of the corn planted in Texas does not yield within one fourth of what would
be produced if the seed were grown from an original seed ear or parent that
had shown a high producing power. This difference in productiveness
would be clear gain since it would not add any expense to the cost of the
crop; its only cost would be the small expense of labor in growing and
selecting enough seed ears to plant the farm crop.

Texas farmers need not import seed corn for increased yields, they can
get greater increased yields by properly growing and selecting seed in Tex-
as. Accurate investigations in other States and extended observation show
that corn developed in a locality is not as productive in a distant locality,
North or South, as acorn grown and selected locally. Perhaps the chief
reason why southern growers sometimes get better yields from northern
seed corn, is that the imported seed has been grown and selected for seed,
while their local seed has neither been grown nor selected for planting. lf
the local seed were selected, its yield would be better.

GROWING AND SELECTING SEED CORN.

Where a grower desires to start and develop his own seed corn the
usual practice is to select a number of the right kind of ears from the prop-
er stalks and plant each ear to a row. The yield of the rows will
indicate the parent ear that has the greatest producing power, and the one
that proves itself to be the best producer is taken for the progenitor of the
seed corn supply.

THE BEST TYPE OF EAR AND STALK.

The best type depends on-what use is "to be made of the ears and
stalks. For general use on the farm it is desirable to have a stalk not extra
tall, but that has a large diameter at the base and fairly short joints. This
type of stalk will have vigor and resistance to winds and the weather. The
ear should be at a height comfortable to husk and not so high as to overbal-
ance the stalk.

The ear should have a medium diameter of cob, of good length and
filled with grains, which should be of good length, not too tapering and with
as ‘little space as possible between the rows of grain.

Professional Corn Breeders observe a more detailed scale of points in
seed selection, but the general farmer from lack of time when selecting his
seed can only observe the principal points affecting yield.

SELECTING AND STORING SEED EARS.

Seed ears should be selected in the field or seed patch and never in
the crib. To delay selecting till in the crib and at planting time may sub-
ject the ears whilein the field or in the crib to influences that will partially
or wholly destroy the germinative power. A low germinative power re-
quires more seed and the young plants may not have vigor for prompt
growth and resistance to unfavorable weather. While the germinative
power of each ear may be tested in a simple germinator before planting yet
few growers will take this trouble; but instead, they plant a large quantity
of seed to insure a stand. lf all the grains are good this results in a thick
stand, which is troublesome to thin out. A more certain method and one
which costs nothing, is to select the seed ears on the stalk as soon as
dry, then store in a dry place till planting time. This practice assures good
seed, selected from the proper type of stalk. '

(8)