TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT sTXEFBIEIOm BULLETIN NO. 219 SEPTEMBER, 1917 PRQGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION NO. 8, LUBBOCK, TEXAS 1909-1914 B. YOUNGBLOOD, Dmmoqzon COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIzzELL, A. M., D. C. L., President TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS JOHN I. GUION, President, Ballinger E. H. AsTIN, Bryan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. J. R. KUBENA, Fayetteville ......... .. A. B. DAvinsoN, Cuero.... .. WILL A. MILLER, JR., Amarillo .. JOHN T. DIOKSON, Paris ................... .. H. A. BREIHAN, Bartlett F. M. LAW, .................................................. i. L. J. HART, Vice President, San .................................................... ..Term expires 1919 .................................................... ..Term expires 1919 .... expires 1919 .................................................... ..Term expires 1921 .................................................... ..Term expires 1921 ................................................... .. Term expires1921 .................................................... ..Term expires 1923 .................................................... ..Term expires 1923 Term expires 1923 MAIN STATION COMMITTEE L. J. HART, Chairman WILL A. MILLER, JR. GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATIONS P. L. Downs, President, Temple .......................... .. CHARLES ROGAN, Vice President, Austin..= ........... .. W. P. HOBBY, Beaumont J. E. BoOG-ScOTT, Coleman . ................................. .. .................................................... ..Term expires 1919 Term expires 1923 .................................................... ..Term expires 1919 .................................................... ..Term expires 1921 *STATION STAFF ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Director A. B. CONNER, B. S., _Vice Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary W. T. BRINK, B. S., Executive Assistant. DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE **M. FRANcIs, D. V. S., Veterinarian in Charge _ _ H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chemist in Charge; State Chemist W. T. P. SPROTT, B. S., Assistant Chemist CIIARLEs BuciIwALn, NI.- S., Assistant Chemist C. R. FIscHER, B. S., Assistant Chemist DIVISION OF HORTICIJLTURE_ - H. NEss, M. S., Horticulturistin Charge W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist DIVISION OF ANIMAL HIJSBANDRY J. C. BURNs, B. S., Animal Husbandman, Feeding Investigations J M. JoNEs, A. M., Animal Husbandman, Breeding Investigations . **L. B. BURK, B. S., Animal Husbandman, Swine Investigations DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY _ _ F. B. PADDOCK, M. S., Entomologist in Charge; State Entomologist _ R. REINHARD, B. S., Assistant Ento- mologist County Apiary Inspectors: R. C. Abernathy, Ladonia; William Atch- ley, Mathis; J. W. E. Basham, Barstow; Victor Boeer, Jourdanton; T. W. Burle- son, Waxahachie; W. C. Collier, Goliad; E. W. Cothran, Roxton; G. F. Davidson, Pleasanton; John Donegan, Seguin; A. R. Graham, Milano; J. B King, Bates- ville; N. G. LeGear, Waco; R. A. Little, Pearsall; M. C. Stearns, Brady; S. _H. Stephens, Uvalde; M. B. Tally, Victoria; R. E. Watson, Heidenheimer; W. H. White, Greensville; F. C. Belt, Ysleta; R. A. Nestor, Buffalo; H. A. Jones, Oak- ville; T. A. Bowdon, Palestine; George J. Elam, Marlin; E. R. Jones, Beeville. DIVISION OF AGRONOMY _ _ A A. B. CONNER, B. S., Agronomist in Charge A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronomist ***H. H. JOBsON, B. S., Agronomist Louis WERMELSKIRCHEN, B. S., Agronom- ist DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J.‘TAIJBENIIAus, Ph. _D., Plant Pathol- ogist and Physiologist in Charge DIVISIO_N OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY . R. N. HARVEY, B. S., Poultryman in Charge DIVIJSION OF FORESTRY: FOSTER, M. F., Forester in Charge; State Forester DIVISION OF PLANT BREEDING E. P. HUMBERT, Ph. D., Plant Breeder in Charge DIVISION OF DAIRYING V. A. DOUBT, Dairyman DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE JAMEs SULLIVAN, Executive Secretary J. H. RoGERs, Inspector W. H. W001), Inspector S. D. PEARCE, Inspector W. M. WICKES, Inspector SUBSTATION NO. 1: Beeville, Bee County I. E. CowART, M. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 2: Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 3: County N. E. \VINTERs, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 4: County H. H. LAUDE, B. S., Superintendent J. B. COCKRELL, B. S., Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell County D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 6: Denton, Denton County C. H. McDowELL, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 7: ~ Spur, Dickens County R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 8: Lubbock, Lubbock County R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 9: Pecos, Reeves County J. W; JACKSON, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 10 (Feeding and Breeding Substation): College Station, Brazos County _ ' E. R. SI ENcE, B. S., Animal Husbandman, in Charge of Farm SUBSTATION NO. 11: Nacogdoches, Nacog- doches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 12: Chillicothe, Harde- man County _ ****R. W. EDWARDS, B. S., Superintendent V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Scientific Assistant SUBSTATION NO. 14, Sonora, Sutton County E. M. PETERS, B. S., Acting Seperintendeng Angleton, Brazoria Beaumont, Jefferson CLERICAL ASSISTANTS J. M. SCHAEDEL, Stenogra her DAISY LEE, Registration lerk - W. F. CHRISTIAN, Stenographer E. E. KILBORN, Stenographer C. L. DURsT, Mailing Clerk A. T. JACKSON, Copgist *As of September 1, 1917.: CARL ABELL, Scientific Assistant R. C. FRANKS, Copyist W. L. HEARN, Stenographer M. B. GARDNER, Stenographer MAE BELLE EvANs, Stenoarapher **In cooperation with A. and M. College of Texas." ***On leave. ****In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. A2l8-l18-10m ‘fut in Fig. 2's place should be Fig‘. 3. ‘ut m 191g‘. 3's PlHCG should li>e Fig. Si). ut 1n 191g". Ws place should be l7ig. 2.- ‘agi; 3U, Table 43, change “grilled.” to Wad “dn-llcdy, FOREWORD. The annual progress reports of ‘the various substations may be con- sidered part of the general annual report. Much credit is due Mr. A. B. Conner, in his capacity as Vice Director, and Mr. A. H. Leidigh, in his capacity as Agronomist, for painstaking Work in checking figures and editing this and other substation progress reports, and grateful acknowledgment is hereby made. B. YOUNGBLOOD, Director. [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION NO. 8, LUBBOCK, TEXAS, 1909-1914. B. E. KARPER, SUPERINTENDENT. INTRODUCTION. Substation N0. 8 is one of the thirteen experiment substations which constitute the out-of-doors laboratories of the Texas Agricultural Ex- periment Station, administered by the Director. This report covers the work of Substation No. 8 from its establish- ment in 1909 to the end of the year 1914. The experiments conducted during this time have been mainly the testing of vari-ous crops to determine those best adapted to local conditions, crop rotations, soil fertility and dry-farming studies; methods of production tests with various crops, and the testing of fruits, vegetables, ornamental shrubs and shade trees. It is believed that this substation has already ren- dered great service to the farmers of this section of the State through p its various activities, and it is hoped that the data, representing the results of experiments conducted, which are presented herein, will be of still further assistance to the farmer and the new settler in the - Great Plains region of Texas, in solving some of the problems with which they are confronted. HISTORY. Substation No. 8 was established in 1909 for the purpo-se of collect- ing reliable information and data through experimentation bearing; on the agricultural problems pertinent to this section. One hundred sixty acres of virgin land, a five-room cottage and a well, were deeded to the State of Texas by the citizens of Lubbock county. Additional necessary improvements, such- as a barn, imple- ment shed, tenant houses, chicken house, and fences were added by the state. It was also necessary to put the land under cultivation and prepare it for experiment plat work. NOTE.—-W. S. Hotchkiss, Superintendent of Substation No. 2, Troup, was the first Superintendent of Substation No. 8. He was transferred from Substation No. 2, for the time, to take care of the preliminary operations when this sub- station was established. A. L. Paschall was Superintendent of the substation from 1909 to 1912. V. L. Cory was Superintendent from October, 1912, throughout the rest of the period -covered by this report. It is desired to give Mr. Cory and his prede- cessors full credit for conducting the work herein reported upon. 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. LOCATION. The substation is located three and one-half miles east of the city of Lubbiocl<};-=-Lubbock county, which is in latitude~33 degrees and 3'?‘- minutes north and longitude 101 degrees and 45 minutes West. The land is more or less typical of the surrounding country, embrac- ing practically all types of land of the South Plains region above the Cap Rock line. SOIL. The soil on the substation belongs to the Amarillo and Richfield series. The surface soil is sandy loam of reddish brown color, with a somewhat heavier subsoil, grading down to a calcareous material below, known as “Cap Rock.” Much attention has been given to platting the ~ farm so as to secure uniform areas, as the soil varies in depth from 8 to 10 inches on the north and northwest part of the area to about 6 t0 8 feet on the south to southwest part. Since the land was all new and without necessary improvements con- siderable time was required for getting it in cultivation and in tillable condition. Following this necessary preliminary Work, experiments were started pertaining to the problems confronting this agricultural region. ' The year 1912 was the first year in which the work done may be regarded as experimental. The experiments conducted have been as follows: 1912, 350; 1913, 2547; and 1914, 2362. OLIMATIC CONDITIONS. Table 1 shows the average annual. rainfall and its distribution by months for a period of four years, 1911 to 1914, inclusive. ~ TABLE 1. PRECIPITATION INJNCHES. Recorded at Substation No. 8, From April 1, 1911 to 1914, Inclusive. Y Crop-Growing Season. V ear Jan. Feb. Mar. April May lune July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.36 .72 .28 6.75 .21 1.33 1.08 .22 1.55 . . . . . .. 1912 . . . . .. .02 1.28 .61 .50 1.58 .96 3.35 2.37 .73 2.81 .01 .38 14.60 1913 . . . . .. .04 .20 1.18 1.82 .24 5.88 .40 .32 4.19 1.53 1.54 2.13 19.47 1914 . . . . .. .15 .10 .29 1.47 4.04 3.86 6.17 5.95 .46 7.12 .35 1.47 31.43 Average. .07 .53 .69 1.54 1.64 2.74 4.17 2.21 1.68 3.14 .53 1.38 20.32 One year of the four had abundant rainfall; but the average for the period is perhaps less than the average would be for a longer period. A 28-year record at Mt. Blanco, Crosby county, shows an average . yearly rainfall of 21 inches and a 21-year record at Plainview, Hale county, shows on average yearly rainfall of 20.9 inches. From a study of the above table it will be noticed that about '75 per cent. of the yearly precipitation falls within the six months of the crop growing season, April to September, inclusive. The {seasonal dis- PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION N0. 8, LUBBooK, TEXAS. 7 tribution of rainfall has a. vital connection with plant growth and the fact that about three-fourths of the annual rainfall is received during the crop growing season is a distinct advantage to this section. Un- i usual or unfavorable distribution is not uncommon, but with the knowl- edge of this fact and the practice of good farming methods in storing rainfall occurring in the latter part of the crop season for use in crop production during the succeeding season, there is no reason why com- plete crop failures should occur. The average date of the last killing frost in the spring, for a period of three years, is April 8; and the average date of the first killing frost in the fall for the same period is November 1. This gives a. long growing season and permits a wide range in the planting period. The altitude of the section is approximately 3200 feet. ' The temperatures are not extreme, not often registering to zero in winter or above 100 degrees F. in summer. GRAIN ‘SORGHUM. Grain sorghum is probably the most valuable crop to the Plains farmer. The acreage devoted to grain sorghum annually in this sec- tion is almost equal to that of all other crops combined. Grain sor- ghum is to the Plains country of Texas what co-rn is to the corn belt. The selection of good strains and the proper proportioning of the acre- age between these, together with good seedbed preparation and clean culture, should insure grain and forage production every year. Variety Tests-Jllhe results of experiments with grain so-rghums are reported on the following pages. These results indicate that the dwarf varieties of kafir and milo, together with feterita, are on the average the surest of production. While feterita has some disadvantages and is not so widely grown at this time, yet its certainty of production assures it a place among the grain producing sorghums for this section. Variety tests of the better known grain sorghums were started in 1912 and have been continued each year. A total of nineteen varieties have been tested two years and seven varieties have been tested each year for three years.. The information gathered from this series of tests is embodied in Table 2. 'has shown about the same production as dwarf milo. 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE 2. VARIETY TEST OF GRAIN SORGHUMS. T s Yield in Bushels to the Acre. N0. Variety. Average Average i 1912, 1913 1913 and 1914.; and 1914. » 45 Pink Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.60 44 Blackhul Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.55 35 Blackhul Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.07 43.40 1649 Sod Land Feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.85 1648 Feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. 60 1647 Feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.10 40.55 671 Dwarf Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.30 46 Red Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.25 39.95 1645 Standard White Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.35 670 Dwarf Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.60 39.00 669 Feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.95 1644 Standard White Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.50 1643 Standard White Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.03 37.45 672 Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.84 37 25 1646 Dwarf M110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.90 1650 Feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.90 34 Dwarf Blackhul Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.40 673 Dwarf Blackhul Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.38 34.85 674 Blackhul Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.70 In 1913, a year of limited rainfall, the early dwarf kafirs gave bette yields tha11 the standard kafirs. During 1914, however, a season o’ favorable rainfall, the standard kafirs showed greater response t‘ abundant moisture conditions and produced the .larger yields. Th’ average yields for the two years seem to indicate that the early and dwarf varieties are the more dependable. The results show better yields during the dry year of 1913 from the dwarf milos than from the standard milos. Furthermore, the dwarf- varieties seemed equally as responsive to the favorable moisture con-t; ditions occurring (luring 1914 as was the standard milo. These re-r sults indicate clearly that the dwarf milos are superior in production‘: both in favorable and unfavorable years. White milo during both years. The yields of the varieties of feterita are not widely different but results seem to indicate that T. S. Nos. 1647’, 1648 and 1649 are slightly better producers than others tested. A A dwarf variety of feterita of considerable promise is at this time. being propagated but was not included in the test reported above. A direct comparison of the three most important grain sorghums is set forth in Table 3. As an average for the three years’, feterita and _ kafir gave better yields than milo. Since feterita and milo require almost the same time to mature seed, the above table shows that feterita is a dependable crop. A p2JAIA~ TABLE 3. COMPARISON OF YIELDS OF ALL VARIETIES OF KAFIR, MILO AND FETERITA, 1912, 1913 AND 1914. Average Yield in Bushels to the Acre. Crop—All Average Varieties Tested. No . No. No. ' 1912—-14. Tests. 1912. Tests. 1913. Tests. 1914. Feterita. . .- . . . . . . . . .. 1 18.21‘ 5 26.48 e 5312s 32.65 Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s 11.89 7 22.02 7 56.83 30.25 Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. a 11.67[ 7 20.70 7 54.00 28.79‘ P" PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION N0. 8, LUBBooK, TEXAS. 9 The average of the varieties tested does not show the individual highest yielding varieties. These are summarized in Table 4, in which a feterita is the highest yielding variety for the three years, although in a two-year average this is not borne out in Table 2 where three kafirs are shown to exit-yield the best feterita. TABLE 4. BEST PRODUCING GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES OF EACH TYPE-- COMPARISON OF YIELDS 1912, 1913, AND 1914. Yield in Bushels to the Acre. Average T. S. Variety. 1912 | 1913 1914 1912 to 1914. 1647 Feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .21 27.10 54.00 33. 10 35 Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.41 24. 5O 62.30 32.07 670 Milo . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. 13.81 21 .30 56.70 30.60 Table 5 gives a comparison of the yields of Dwarf kafir, Dwarf milo and feterita for 1913 and 1914. For the reason that in Table 2 a number of the larger growing and later maturing varieties were in- cluded with the kafirs and milos, it is deemed advisable to contrast the yields of feterita with those of the dwarf varieties of these other two crops. In this comparison, Dwarf milo shows a yield of 4.9 bushels to the acre more than kafir and 3.4 bushels to the acre more than the most dwarf feterita of the five varieties tested. As a dwarf variety of each of these crops seemsto be in demand this showing of the milo is worthy of some comment. It should be stated that the feterita used for comparison is not a dwarf feterita in the true sense, but it is the most dwarf of any of the five feteritas in the variety test. TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF YIELDS OF DWARF KAFIR, DWARF MILO AND FETERITA, 1913-1914. Average Yield in Bushels to the Acre. T. S. Variety. No. 1913 1914 Average. 671 Dwarf Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.30 58.30 40.30 1650 Feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.00 47.80 36.90 34 Dwarf Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.80 44.00 35.40 l Spacing Test1‘ . yielded in excess of twenty tons of green forage to the acre in 1914.10 The varieties of Sumac, Honey, Planter and Red Amber are shown to be the highest yielders for this period. A considerable difference in l the yields of the different Sumac sorgos will be noticed. which tends i‘ to show the importance of selected or improved strains of seed of this crop. TABLE 23. VARIETY TEST OF SORGOS FOR FORAGE PRODUCTION, 1914. Yield Forage in Pounds to the Acre. T. S. Variety. No. Green. Dry. 1661 Sumac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43780 18700 1660 Honey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41580 17600 1665 Sumac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42020 16500 1658 Honey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43780 15840 1768 Planters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37400 12100 42 Red Amber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30360 11880 1662 Red Amber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28600 11880 1659 Gooseneck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29260 11000 1656 Black Amber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26840 11000 1769 Minnesota Amber . . . . . . . . . . . .9 . . . . . . . 27280 10780 1657 Orange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23980 10560 161 Sumac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15400 9460 1666 Freed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17160 6600 41 Freed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . 18040 5500 Seed PTOdUCtiOflr-SHICG sorgo is important in the semi-arid section of the country it is, of course, necessary and often profitable to raise seed of this crop. It will be of interest, therefore, to know the yields that may be expected from the different varieties. The comparative yields of varieties of sorgo for seed production are shown in Table 24 in the order of their rank. Planter, Sumac, Orange and Red Amber- lead in seed production for this season. It will be noticed that the Honey sorgo, which is one of the highest yielders of forage, does not give as large a yield of seed as some of the other varieties. A wide difference in the yields of the diiferent varieties of Sumac (Red Top) PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION No. 8, LUBBooK, TEXAS. 21 sorgos is shown. The seed yields of sorgos seem to compare favorably with those of the grain sorghums for the same year. ' TABLE 24. COMPARATIVE YIELDS OF VARIETIES OF SORGO FOR SEED PRO- DUCTION, 19l4. . T. S. Yield in Bushels Seed N0. Variety. to the Acre. 1768 Planters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69.87 1665 Sumac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.64 1657 Orange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.30 1662 Red Amber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59.22 1656 Black Amber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54.56 42 Red Amber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.24 1660 Honey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.16 1769 Minnesota Amber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. 5O 1666 Freed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.83 1659 Gooseneck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . 38.98 41 Freed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.46 ' 161 Sumac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.32 1661 Sumac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 21.47 Rate of Seeding Tests.—In 191.2, 1913 and 1914 a number of tests were conducted of the rate of seeding difierent varieties of sorgo in close drills for forage production. In 1913 the highest rate, eight peeks to the acre, gave the highest yield to the acre for each variety, and in 1914 the lowest rate, two peeks to the acre, gave the highest yield to the acre for each variety. These results appear to show that - in a more favorable year less seed may be used than is the case in a less favorable year, such as 1913. As the results of this series of tests are not fully comparable, they are not presented in detail. The three- year average and yearly production of Sumac sorgo for two rates are shown, however, in Table 25. TABLE 25. RATE OF SEEDING SORGO IN CLOSE DRILLS FOR FORAGE PRODUC- _ TION, 1912, 1913 AND 1914. Yield Forage in Pounds to the Acre. Variety. Rate Peeks. _ 1912 1913' | 1914 | Average. Sumac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3000 5671 15170 7947 Sumac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 3000 5864 14162 7675 i 1 ' LEGUME AND NON-LEGUME MIXTURES FOR HAY. There is a certain attractiveness to the idea that sorgo, Sudan grass. millet or other crops may be plantediwith some legume to produce a hay crop that will be larger than that of the legume and richer in protein than the other crop used. Experiments here seem to indicate that under dry farming conditions and with a comparatively short season, this practice is scarcely justified. Oowpew-Sorgo Misctures.—A number of tests for forage production i with sorgos and legumes mixed were conducted in 1912, 1913 and 1914. Results of these tests are shown in Tables 26, 27 and 28. The pro-i portion, by weight, of seed planted, of one part of sorgo to four parts 22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIoN. of cowpeas, gave the highest yield both in 36-inch rows and in cl; drills, as shown in Table 26. TABLE 26. CLOSE DRILLING AND ROW PLANTING EXPERIMENTS IN 6 TO 1 A V 4 TO 1 MIXTURE OF COWPEAS AND SORGO, 1913 AND 1914. 7 Yield in Pounds Forage to the Acre. ' Pounds Mixture. Average ~ - of Seed Yield Bo 1 How Planted. Planted to 6 of Cow- 4 of Cow- Mixturesb 1. the Acre. peas to 1 peas to 1 Method o j of Sorgo. of Sorgo. Planting. 36-inch rows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 5435 5560 5487 Close drills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 2680 3488 3084 Average yield for both methods for mixture used. 4057 4524 i’ When seeded at difierent rates to the acre in drilled plantings, yields obtained have been as shown in Table 2'7. TABLE 27. CLOSE DRILLS RATE or SEEDING EXPERIMENT-"COWPEAS A soneo MIXTURES, 1912, 1919 AND 1914. A Mixture 4 parts cowpeas and 1 part sorgo. Yield in Pounds Cured Forage to the Acre. Rate of Seeding in Pounds to the Acre. Average. 4 1912 1913 1914 —i-—-————— "_ 1912 to 1914.’ 1913 and ’ 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3850 1650 i 5327 3609 t 3488 = 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2640 4915 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3777 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2750 4502 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3626 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3410 4296 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3853 6O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2750 3740 4674 3721 4207 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2150 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1750 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- In this experiment the seasonal distribution of the rainfall had“ very great deal of influence. It is advised that under favorable e07 ditions two to three peeks of seed be used to the acre. When the so preparation has been poor or the seed is of inferior quality, three ‘i four peeks to the acre should be used. " In row plantings much less seed is required. Two years’ tests p four seeding rates were carried out and the results are given in Table 2g The rows were 36 inches apart. - '3 TABLE 28. ROW PLANTED RATE OF SEEDING TEST COWPEA AND SOB MIXTURES, 1913 AND 1914. ' =. Mixture 4 parts cowpeas and 1 part sorgo. Yield in Pounds to the Acre. Rate of Planting, , Pounds to the Acre. Avera e of 7 191s 1914. 191s an 191 _ 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6820 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4840 8580 6710 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4840 9165 7002 PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION N o. 8, LUBBOOK, TEXAS. 23 It is evident from Table 28 that heavy seeding gave the best yields. While the feeding value of the various legume mixtures is greater than where the legume is not used, it would seem that the mixture yields poorly and there also is added expense in harvesting. These con- siderations make it appear that probably the crops should be produced separately and then fed together, if mixed feed is desired. Cowpeas-Sudan Grass Mixtures. In 1912 Sudan grass and cowpeas were planted as a mixture for hay, with the following results: TABLE 29. SUDAN GRASS-COWPEA MIXTURE FOR HAY. l Mixture used, 6 parts cowpeas and 1 part Sudan grass. Number Peeks of Seed to the Acre. | Yield Pounds of Cured Hay to the Acre. - 4 i 3300 e j 2950 s I 3350 The 1912 test having given no appreciable variation in yield, due to thick seeding, in 1913 the experiment was modified and the results shown in Table 30 were secured. TABLE 30. SUDAN GRASS WITH AND WITHOUT LEGUMES. Rate 0f Seeding, Pounds to the Acre. Yield in Pounds Mixture. a??? to the Acre. Sudan. | Cowpeas. Sudan grass alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . 1764 Sudan grass alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3O . . . . . . . . . . . ., 2887 Cowpeas and Sudan grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6O i 1056 Cowpeas and Sudan grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 60 2039 The results shown in Table 30 are in favor of heavy seeding, but as the crop secured was almost wholly Sudan grass and as the mixture yielded much less than Sudan grass alone, it is evident that Sudan grass did not readily adapt itself to use with cowpeas. COTTON. Cotton is the money crop of this section, and the average yields are very satisfactory. The acreage devoted to the crop‘ is rapidly increas- ing. A number of experiments with cotton are reported herein. Cotton was planted on the substation in 1912, and yields of from three to 525 pounds of seed cotton to the acre were secured. In 1914, owing to the very favorable season, a remarkably heavy crop was secured. These high plains are at present boll weevil free, and loss because of that insect probably never will be serious. The season is relatively much shorter than it is in the cotton belt. Because of these things, it has been possible to conduct tests of a wider range of varieties of 24 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. cotton,and some very good yields have been obtained from varieties that would receive very little attention in central or eastern Texas. As the earliness of the varieties which are finally recommended for use here is a very large factor, it seemsimportant to carry the variety testing further than the weighing of the amount of seed cotton pro- duced. For that reason, size of boll, quality of lint and other factors are being studied. One of the most important determinations it has been possible to make was the counting of all the bolls harvested. This has given reliable information on the size of boll of the different vari- eties grown. Variety Test.—-Table 31 gives the averages of fourteen varieties of cotton grown in the three-year period, 1912 to 1914, and forty-seven varieties grown in the two-year period, 1913 and 1914. A number of varieties were grown in only one of these years but are not included, ~ because of there being no other year with which to average. The yields in Table 31 are seed cotton yields. The lint turnout has been carefully recorded, but is not a great enough variable materially to change the relative rank of the varieties in this test. 35,52 Fig. 6—Cotto-n Variety Test in 36-inch Rows, August 21, 1914. Much of This Cotton Made in Excess 1?; Bales to the Acre. I The column headed _“nu1nber of bolls to the pound, 1914” gives the number of bolls required to weigh one pound. All of ‘the bolls har- vested were weighed and as some rather Wide variations were found‘ the midseason pickings are used for this table. These size o-f boll data are valuable, since they indicate that the best producing cotton varieties here are not the large boll varieties. It would appear from the results of these cotton variety tests that earliness of fruiting has probably had a great deal to do with making the varieties rank as the-y do at this time. PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION No. 8, LUBBooK, TEXAS. 25 TABLE 31. SUMMARY-"VARIETY TESTS OF COTTON. 1912, 1913 AND 1914. Average Yield in Pounds ' _ N0. Seed Cotton t0 Acre. T. S. No. Variety. Bolls to 1912,1913 1913 and Lb. and 1914. Rank. 1914. 479 Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1614.2 479 Hawkins. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1581 .3 699 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 1199.5 1 1539.9 446 Simpkins Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1498.2 700 Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1464.0 476 Texas Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1450.0 472 Peterkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1435.5 152 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1381.5 475 Texas 00d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1373.0 487 Dongola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1335.4 474 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1328.9 415 Huffman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1322.1 480 Culpepper’s Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1304.7 128 and 698 ebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 980.4 2 1276.3 481 Co0k’s Improved Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . 62 . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . 1248.3 135 Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1242. 1 443 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 . < ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1234.3 445 Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1229.9 16 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50- 894.9 4 1225. 1 466 Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1182.0 444 Haaga's Extra Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1175.9 496 BroadwelYs Double Joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1155.7 118 Clarksville Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 922.9 3 1145.4 7 and 120 Burn’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 844.6 5 1143.5 129 Edgeworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1137.1 411 H1te’s Early Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132.7 482 Bohler’s Triple Joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130.4 413 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1123.6 486 Robert's Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1119.2 348 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1116.8 412 Foster’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1104. 1 and 483 Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 804.4 1086.2 414 and 504 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1084.2 14 Unknown Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 744.7 1015.4 130 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1002.9 1, 485 and 951 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 748.0 8 995.4 74, 478, 5 and 121 Allen's Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 748.4 7 963.2 15 and 77 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 704.8 11 942.3 170 Hartsvillc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 929.2 11 and 942 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 707.6 10 902.0 78 and 495 Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 634.1 12 865.2 470 Sunflower Long Staple . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817.4 473 Willet’s Red Leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708.6 471 Dillon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485.0 477 Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352.3 119 and 484 Keenan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 242.4 13 243.4 10 uma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94 132.3 14 160.9 Table 31 shows Burnett and Mebane Triumph to be the best of the varieties tested for three years, while Burnett is third in rank for 1913 and 1914. Not much may be said regarding the quality of the lint of the high- est producing varieties. Some growers contend that the larger boll varieties are to be preferred here, because of their better lint. These questions of comparative yield versus size of boll_and quality are being given more attention and in future publications it is hoped that defi- nite facts on the subject may be presented. , Spacing TeSts.-—Under the dry-farming conditions prevailing in this district 0f Texas one of the most necessary lines of investigation with cotton is to study the proper stand of plants to leave on the land. Some growers contend that cotton does not need to be thinned, while others 26 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. say that a very thin stand is necessary, because of a possible shortage of moisture. In the spacing or rate of thinning experiments with cotton conducted on this substation the seed is planted thickly in the drill and later thinned accurately by count and measurement. The stand desired was not ‘obtained in all cases. The distances reported here are for the actual final stand obtained. Table 32 gives the average yields of three years’ rate-of-thinning tests . with Mebane Triumph cotton. The results indicate that there were no great differences between the various stands from '7 to 16 inches apart in the roW. i TABLE a2. RATE OF THINNING TEST WITH COTTON, 1912, 191a, AND 1914. T. S. No. 698, Mebane Triumph in 3-foot rows. Yield Pounds Seed Cotton to the Acre. Actual Space, Inches,‘ 1912 I 1913 1914- Average. 7 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 484 1873.28 869.09 9 and 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 275 528 1819.00 874.00 11 and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 _ 583 1866.58 883.19 13 and 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 275 480 1817.74 857.58 15 and 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 477 1829.76 833.92 Comprehensive rate-of-thinning tests were carried out in 1913 and 1914 with three varieties of cotton, one of these being the Mebane Triumph, also used in the 1912 test. The results of these tests with three varieties are given in Table 33, which shows no very conclusive differences in yields. TABLE 33. RATE OF THINNING TEST WITH COTTON, 1913 AND 1914. Mebane Triumph, Burnett, Long Staple. Average three varieties in 3-foot rows. ' Yield Pounds Seed Cotton to the Acre. Actual Space, Inches. 1913 I 1914 Average. 7 and 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 710.5 2047.98 1379.24 9 and 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 515.9 1888.58 1202 24 11 and 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 813.6 1985.46 1399.53 13 and 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 664.0 2004.50 1334.25 15 and 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 622.0 a 1833.33 1227.66 The 1914 thinning tests with the three varieties of cotton are re- ported only in part in Table 33, since there were plats with stands above and below those represented in the average. Rate of thinning was studied in its efiect on the earliness of fruiting and size of boll. The figures are not conclusive but are important. The year 1914 was a wet year. Three acres of cotton were planted to three varieties. These acres are composed of 28 plats each, or a total of 84 plats,- and rep- resented thinning rates from 4 inches apart to 23 inches apart by actual measurement and count of all stalks. All of the bolls were counted on the three acres. The rates of stand represented on each acre gave the following results: PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION No. 8, LUBBooK, TEXAS. 27 TABLE 34. COTTON SPACING TEST, 1914. Mebane Triumph, Burnett, Long Staple. Average of three varieties in 3-foot rows. Yield in Pounds Seed Number Bolls to the Space in Row, Inches. Cotton to the Acre. Pound of Seed Cotton. 6- 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2287 78 4 8- 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2127 76 5 10-11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1927 74 4 12-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2033 74 2 13-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. \ 2014 74 3 14-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1994 74 6 15-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1823 7a 9 A few rates were not present on each of the three acres and are not included in Table 34, because it is an average of all three varieties. Of the plats having a stand between 4 inches and 6 inches the bolls were smaller than those of the same variety at a 6-inch rate. In the plats having a stand between 16 inches and 23 inches the bolls were larger than in the thick seedings of the varieties represented. The thicker stands yielded best in the early pickings and the thinner stands yielded best in the late pickings. Thick planting influenced the size of the bolls somewhat, making them smaller than those in the medium and thin spacings. The entire available information regarding the proper spacing of cotton on this substation indicates that stands of 12 inches apart in three-foot rows may be regarded as satisfactory. Thick stands may be expected to force early fruiting and thin stands will cause later fruit- ing. As early cotton is very important here, because of the altitude and early fall frosts, this is important. Thick planting results in slightly smaller bolls and, of course, a small increase in cost of picking. C OWPEAS. In this part of Texas there is great need of legume crops. The sor- ghums and cotton are the most successful crops, and it is only a matter of time until the virgin soils will require the use of legumes as crops to use in rotation, if the crop yields are to be maintained. The experiment work with legumes consists of an endeavor to find a legume which is well adapted to the Great Plains of Texas and to determine the best varieties and most successful method of growing those legumes which we already have. Cowpeas, peanuts, alfalfa, sweet clover and field beans are the most important legumes under experiment here. The cowpea is at present the best annual legume. The seed yield of this crop is usually good, but the yield of forage is rather low. Variety Test.-’1‘he results of two years experiment tests of nineteen varieties of cowpea-s for seed production are given in Table 35, in the order of their rank. From a11 examination of the table it will be seen that this crop can possibly be raised. profitably for seed production in this section. ' 28 a TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE 35. VARIETY TESTS OF COWPEAS FOR SEED PRODUCTION 1912 AND 1914. T s Yield in Bushels to the Acre. No . Variety. . Average 1912 1914 1912-1914 217 Khotan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 91 20.8 16.85 208 Old_Bokhar_a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 22.3 16.04 59 Whip oorwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 093 30.5 15.79 203 Iron. Lar e Blackeye . . . . . . . . . . ..‘...... 1 8 29.5 15.74 218 Chinese Ye low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 6 875 20.4 13.63 216 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 26.3 13.61 197 Iron X Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 56 25.2 13.38 214 Red Ripper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 29 24.4 13.34 200 Iron X Large Blackeye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 81 23.8 13.30 211 Early Buff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 22.0 13.29 196 Iron X Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 33 23.2 13.26 198 Iron X Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 81_ 21.7 12.25_ 191 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 04 23.0 12.02 199 Iron X Large Blackeye. . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 60 20.8 11 .70 192 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 35 . 21.2 11.27 204 Iron X Whippoorwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 45 20.7 11 .07 202 Iron X Large Blackeye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 771 19.6 10.68 201 Iron X Large Blackeye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 605 16.4 9.50 215 Tinkle’s Holstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 771 15.9 8.83 Rate and Blethod of Seeding Taste-The heaviness o1": seeding asa well as the method of planting cowpeas has been under investigation since 1912. In that year three varieties were tested in close drills tori forage, the results being as shown in Table 36. f» TABLE 36. COWPEA RATE OF SEEDING TEST IN CLOSE DRILLS FOR FORAGB»: PRODUCTION, 1912. g ‘g Yield in Pounds to the Acre, When Planted ‘at the» Following Number of Peeks to the Acre. Variety. m fi " » Four. Six. EightFY Peerless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1400 2120 2330 Brabham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1850 2250 1900 Whippoorwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900 1000 900 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1383 1790 1710 For forage, one variety gave the highest yield planted at the rat} of eight peeks to the acre. In the case of the other two varieties, a r of six peeks to the acre gave the highest yields. ~ - In 1913 the seeding rate test was conducted with the New Era vari; ety only, and the season’s results are given in Table 3'7. 7 1 s» i . TABLE 37. COWPEA RATE OF SEEDING TEST IN CLOSE DRILLS FOR FORAG PRODUCTION, 1913. i Yield in Pounds to the Acre, When Planted at - f? v Following Number of Peeks to the Acre. f; Variety. T v F s wo. our. even. New Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2068 2078 - 3212 1 In the test in 1913 the seven-peck rate gave somewhat the yield. A similar test to that of 1913 was carried out in 1914 two varieties, as shown in Table 38. PROGRESS REPORT, Sunsrnrron No. 8, LUBBooK, TEXAS. 29 TABLE 38. COWPEA RATE OF SEEDING TEST IN CLOSE DRILLS FOR FORAGE PRODUCTION, 1914. , Yield in Pounds to the Acre, When Planted at the __ Following Number of Peeks to the Acre. I Variety. Two. Four. Seven. New Era.._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3300 4125 4125 Whippoorwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3025 3300 3570 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3162.5 3712.5 3847.5 The heaviest seeding rate gave slightly the greatest crop in 1914. Table 39 presents a summary of these tests with the crop for forage in close drills. TABLE 39. RATE OF SEEDING TEST OF COWPEAS IN CLOSE DRILLS, FOR FORAGE PRODUCTION, 1912, 1913 AND 1914. Yield Pounds to the Acre. Rate of Seeding, F Peeks w the Acre. l 1912 I 1913 I 1914 I 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206s 3162 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1383 207s 3712 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1790 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3212 3847 s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1710 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. It would seem from these results that six to seven peeks t0 the acre is the proper amount of seed to sow in close drills for the maximum forage production. It is frequently desirable to plant cowpeas in rows. The field work is rapidly do-ne and the field may later be cultivated, to kill weeds and conserve moisture. In 1912 a series of fifteen tests of Whippoorwill cowpeas in rows yielded at an average rate of 1609 pounds of cured forage to the acre; whereas, the same variety in close drills yielded less than one-half that amount. In Table 42, however, an average of three varieties is used in comparing the results 0f row planting in 1912. Thus the results are directly comparable to those in Table 36. In 1913 the row method of planting for forage production was tested with the New Era variety at six rates of seeding, the results of this test being presented in Table 40, which is comparable to Table 37. TABLE 40. COWPEA RATE OF T3118; IN ROWS FOR FORAGE PRODUC- fiYield in Pounds t0 the Acre, When Planted at the Following Number of Pounds to the Acre. Variety. 31-2 I 91-2 I 10 13 I 181-2 |' 20' New Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2475 i 1507 1540 1320 1815 1815 l , A dry period in midsummer, followed by favorable September, evidently resulted in the thicker seedings being injured more than the thinner plantings, and unable to recover rapidly. 3O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. In 1914 the row method of planting for forage was tested at four . rates of seeding, with the same two varieties used in the drilling experi- ment of that year. The year’s yields are as shown in Table 41. TABLE 41. RATE OF SEEDING TEST WITH COWPEAS IN ROWS FOR FORAGE PROi DUCTION, 1914. Yield in Pounds to the Acre. When Planted at the Following Number of Pounds to the Acre. Variety. g Four. Nine. Thirteen. Eighteen. Whippoorwill . . . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2749 2887 3093 3300 New Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2259 3093 2990 3366 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2504 2990 3041 3333 The year’s work was done under favorable moisture conditions, and the heaviest seeding gave the largest crop. ‘ Table 42 presents a summary of these tests with the crop for forage ' in rows. TABLE 42.‘ COWPEA RATE OF SEEDING TEST IN ROWS FOR FORAGE PRODUC- y TION, 1913 AND 1914. Yield in Pounds Forage to the Acre. Rate of Seeding Group Average in Pounds to the Acre. 1912 1913 1914 for Comparable _ Rates. 3 1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2475 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2504 2489 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2990 9 1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1507 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1540 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2256 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1320 3041 2180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3333 18 1-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1815 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1815 2574 Average of 15 plats . . . . . . . . 1609 A comparison of the close drill and row methods of seeding for forage shows that the close drilled planting gave the heaviest yields, as shown in Table 43, the data then presented being taken from Tables K 39 and 42. l TABLE 43. GRILLED PLANTING VERSUS ROW PLANTING FOR COWPEAS AS A FORAGE CROP. - Yield Pounds to the Acre. Year Drilled. Rows. 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1790 1609 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3212 2475 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3847 3333 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2949 2472 PROGRESS REPORT, S-UBSTATION No. 8, LIUBBOOK, TEXAS. 311' While the results are somewhat in favor of the drill method of seed- ing for forage, nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that the row method of planting is the safer and simpler practice under less careful supervision than. is used on the substation. ' PEANUTS. Peanuts are usually successful in this section and are an excellent‘ crop, especially where there are suflicient hogs kept to harvest them by hogging them off. Fig. 7-—Sp'anish Peanut Experiments, 1914. In 1912 of three varieties tested the Spanish variety gave the highest‘ yield, producing 23.3 bushels to the acre. In the season of 1913 the Spanish, Tennessee Red and Virginia Improved varieties were planted but- on account of the very dry weather they did not come up for a month, which made them late. With later damage by rabbits and: ground squirrels the crop was virtually a failure. In 1914 the Spanish- variety planted on May 30 and harvested October 19 gave a yield of 73.27 bushels of nuts t0 the acre. I The yield of the Spanish peanuts for the three years is as follows: TABLE 44. SPANISH PEANUTS YIELDS. Yield in Bushels of Nuts to the Acre. 23.3 O 73.27 32.15 ALFALBLA AND SWEET CLOVER. ' , A number of experiments have been started with the production of alfalfa under dry farming conditions. The majority of these tests were started in 1914 and since it takes considerable time to get the 32 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT SrAqiroN. land in proper condition and obtain a stand of alfalfa and results from such an experiment, the yields from this work ivillappear in a future report. It may be stated here, however, that considerable suc- cess has been had with this crop under dry land conditions at this sub- station. The results to date seem to favor planting alfalfa in rows, and giving the crop regular intertillage With a cultivator, rather than planting in close drills. Tests of sweet clover were started in the same year as those with alfalfa, and the results cannot be reported here. This crop is giving considerable promise, however, as a pasture and hay crop for this section. GUAB AND MOTH BEANS. Tests in 19111 with guar and moth lac-ans show guar to give about two and one-half times the amount of forageproduced by the moth _ beans, but the guar has little value as forage, while the live stock seemed to relish the moth bean hay. Definite seed yields were not obtained, due to the difficulty in getting the seed to thresh out of the pods. DRY BEANS. Teparg/ Beantsr-Teparyr bean is a successful crop in this section. In ‘ 1912 the yield of dry beans was 7.65 bushels to the acre. A number of tests with this crop in 1914 gave an average yield of 27.69 bushels to the acre. As an average of the two years, the yield of tepary beans is 17.67 bushels of dry beans to the acre. ~ Navy Beans.-A field test of garden bush beans in 1914 gave a yield at the rate of 5.6 bushels of dry beans to the acre. I/ima Beans. Extra Early Lima beans in a field test in 1914 yielded 16.73 bushels of dry beans to the acre. BROOM CORN. Broom corn has not been a popular crop in this part of the state, although the climate is suited to its production. In 1912 and 1913 broom corn tests gave very good crops, as will be seen by referring to Table 45. These yrields are very good. The largest yields were received from plantings made the first part of May. Broom corn is a specialized type of the sorghum plant. The seed available for planting is poor, due to lack of selection, and also to field cross fertilization. TABLE 45. BROOM CORN YIELDS, 1912 AND 1913. Yield in Pounds to the Acre. 1912 1913 Variety. Length of Cured, Clean Cured, Brush - Brush. Inches. Stripped Brush. Not Stripped. Dwarf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 198 1622 Dwarf Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 251 I 2355 Standard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 257 PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION No. 8, LUBBOOK, TEXAS. 33 SMALL GRAINS. If there is an abundant supply of moisture in the soil in the fall, small grains may be planted with a reasonable assurance of obtaining a crop. On the other hand, if there is no moisture in the soil the crop is almost sure to be a failure, due to the lack of winter rains. A number of tests of varieties of Wheat, oats and barley have been conducted at this substation. The results of these tests are given in the three following tables. Due to the dry, Windy Winters, and dam- age by soil blowing, Winter Wheat sometimes fails to produce a crop. Some seasons excellent yields of Wheat are produced in this section, however, and. more especially on the heavier soils. An increased acre- age of winter grains is being grown here especially for winter pasture, and this seems advisable, especially when abundant fall moisture is available. Rye, wheat and emmer all make excellent Winter pasture. Wheat V ariety Tests. In the fall of 1911 twenty-seven variety tests of wheat were planted.‘ Thecrop ‘N218 a failure. In 1913 of the eighty- three tests with winter small grains, seventy-six were with Wheat, three with emmer, two with rye, one with spelt and one With barley. Liight acres were planted to these crops. The dry, windy Weather of the Winter months destroyed much of the stand so that in the spring all but one acre of Wheat, which was the least affected by soil blowing, were disked up and planted to oats. In 1913 nine varieties of winter wheat were grown, with the Burger, Turkey and Crimean giving the largest yields and an average’ yield of all varieties of 4.8 bushels to the acre. Table 46 contains the results of this experiment. The yields were all materially affected in this test by the soil blowing, which damaged the stand. All varieties were planted at the rate of three peeks to the acre. TABLE 46. VARIETY TEST OF WINTER WHEAT, 1913. l . l‘ T. S.’ Yield in Bushels N0. Variety. to the Acre. I“ 589 Burger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ’ 702 Malakof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 581 Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 689 Crimean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 587 Crimean. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 Eversole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580 Defiance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 586 Kansas Botany No. 415 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 l wmmemwmwm mwwwmomsk Oats Wzriety Tests.-—Nine varieties of oats Were grown in 1913 and 1914. Table 47 contains results of trials with oats. In 1913 the vari— eties were planted at the rate of six peeks to the acre. The Kherson and Sixty Day varieties gave the highest yields, making 11.9 bushels to the acre. In a test of the same varieties in 1913 the Burt and Red Algerian gave the highest yields. All varieties were attacked by the rust. The Kherson seemed to suffer more severely from the rust than did the other varieties, while the Burt seemed to Withstand the attack 34 » TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. better than any 01E the other varieties. Nine other acres were plante to oats in 1914, seven to Burt and two to Red Algerian. The averag yield of grain from these acres was 7.1 bushels for the Burt and 10. A bushels for the Red Algerian. As an average for the two years, th Burt gave the highest yield of grain per acre, with Sixty Day rankin second. a i TABLE 41. VARIETY TEST or OATS, 1913 AND 1914. Yield in Bushels to the Acre. T. S. Variety. No. 1913 | 1914 | Average. 633 Burt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.3 11.7 11.5 679 Sixty Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 .9 9.0 10.4 677 Sixty Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.5 8.9 10.2 680 Seventy-five Day . . . . . . . . . . . 11.6 7.6 9.6 681 Kherson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.9 7 0 9.4 678 Red Algerian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 11 .0 8.6 683 Red Rustproof . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 7.9 7.85 682 Red Rustproof . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 5.9 5.8 632 Red Siberian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 6.2 4.1 Barley Variety Tests.—--Six varieties of barley were grown in 1913i and 1914. These varieties were planted April 9 in 1913 and April 10;‘ in 1914 at the rate of eight peeks to the acre. The shortness of the growth of barley in this section is such that the crop is not satisfactoryzf Table 48 shows the results of the variety tests for two years. Odessa, give the highest yield of 10.25 bushels to the acre, with Caucasian rank- ing second with a yield of 9.65 bushels. This experiment shows an average yield to the acre of 7.5 bushels of all varieties of barley for the two years. I TABLE 48. VARIETY TEST OF BARLEY, 1913 AND 1914. Yield in Bushels to the Acre. T. S. Variety. N0. 1913 1914 Average. 639 Odessa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 16.8 10.25 638 Caucasian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 15.7 9.65 637 Stavropol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 10.5 7.25 640 Yenidje . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.7 7.5 7.10 641 White Smyrna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 9.3 6.45 642 Black Smyrna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 4.9 4.30 Rye-Rye was planted on the substation in 1914 as a cover crop iny.’ the orchard. Also one acre was planted for grain and gave a yield of 10.8 bushels to the acre. Rye is hardy and seems to succeed very well in this section. It makes an excellent winter pasture. Vi Fertility Investigati0ns.--A piece 0t sod land in one corner of the farm was cro-pped for the first time in 1913. ' , In 1914 a series of dry farming fertility conservation experiments was started on this series of plats, the investigations being parallel to those at Substation No. '7, Spur, Texas. In 1914 the only comparable data from these plats consisted of a comparison of the yields of feterita and cotton, where manured and not manured. ' PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION No. 8, LUBBocK, Texas. 35 A Tables 49 and 50 give these comparisons. Manure was applied late Tin the spring after the seedbed was prepared. I In this series of experiments only two tons of manure to the acre TABLE 49. MANURE VERSUS NO MANURE, FQR FETERITA, 1914. Manured. Not Manured. Yield in Bushels _ Yield in Bushels Experiment Number. to the Acre. Experiment Number. to the Acre. = 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.7 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.3 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.3 l2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47.3 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.6 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.9 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.5 e23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48.8 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54.3 l Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.4 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.0 Gain for manure . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4 .. The return for two tons of manure is 2.4 bushels of feterita." Valuing ain sorghum at $1.00 per 100 pounds, the manure gave a return , alue this year of 6'7 cents to the ton. It costs 3O cents to haul and pread a ton of manure. Deducting the spreading and hauling charge, "t had a net value of 3'7 cents a ton. Since manure is known to benefit drops for several years after being applied to the land, the value of the ,anure is only partially used this year. On this land only cropped *1 ne year the gain for the manure applied is very creditable. TABLE 50. MANURE VERSUS NO MANURE, FOR COTTON, 1914. Manured. Not Manured. Yield in Pounds _ Q Yield in Pounds Experiment Number. of Seed Cotton Experiment Number of Seed Cotton to the Acre. t0 the Acre. o7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1560.3 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1646.6 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1774.4 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1575.9 "q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1467.2 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1332.8 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1695.6 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1474.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1468.4 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1591.2 l Average . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1593.1 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . 1524.2 Gain for manure . . . . . . . . . . . .68.9 The return for two tons of manure was 68.9 pounds of seed cotton, inning 35.3 per cent. lint. Valuing lint cotton at 10 cents a pound d. the seed at 1 cent a pound, the manure gave a- return value of .43 to the ton. Deducting the cost of spreading and hauling this ves a net value this year of $1.13 a ton. Since manure is known to inefit crops for several years after being applied to the land, the value i the manure is only partially used this year. On this land only opped one year the gain is very creditable. Averaging the manure value in the ten feterita tests and the ten cot- tests, there was an increase in crop of 1.2 bushels of feterita or 34.4 nds of seed cotton. These gave an average value of $1.05 to the ‘i ' j ton for the manure. At this value that would cover the cost of sprea 36 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. ing the manure on the land, and yet- give a per ton value of 75 cen ’ for the manure the first year it was used. ~ GARDEN CROPS. Tests with vegetables of many kinds are conducted on this substatioi The work so far has consisted mostly of testing the different varietii to determine those best suited to this region. Only a. general summai of the work can be given here. A good garden is a necessity for every farm. The garden should ~ well located so ‘that it may be irrigated from the windmill or ta‘ when necessary, which is usually several times during the season ' this region, depending on the vegetables grown. ‘i The vegetable work in 1912 was fairly successful, with especi favorable yields and qualities of sweet potatoes, egg plant and salsi j The following data are from the 1913 and 1914 crops. i~= Sweet potatoes do well in this section. Comparative yields fro garden rows in'1913 were as follows: Bushels. Early Golden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .555.5 Pride of Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .396.0 Yellow Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .396.0 Southern Queen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3'78.0 Red Bermuda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IISO?IO Yellow Nansemond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..291.0 Black Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .231.5 Red Nansemond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..223.0 V arietg/ Tests for Irts7z*P0tat0es.~Irish potatoes have not gener been very successful here. Potatoes command a good price in tl part of the state, and their culture is worthy of investigation. O preliminary variety tests have been made up to this time. Due to error in Weighing, it is not possible to present a true two-year aver’ of all varieties tested. The results are, however,‘ presented in Ta.‘ 51‘ for what they are worth. These potatoes were not irrigated. '1 TABLE 51. VARIETY TEST OF IRISH POTATOES. Yield in Bushels. Variety. 1913 1914 Banner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3 239.2 Early Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.6 . . . .. Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63.8 . . . . .1; Extra Early Waubonsie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67.3 Irish Cobbler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . .4 Spaulding Rose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V 231.1 *Grown in 1914 but there was an error in the weights. Results of Other Crop Tests.—Tomatoes produced a large crop both 1913 and 1914 and are one of the best vegetables adapted to PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION N0. 8, LUBBooK, Texas. 3'7 region. Six varieties were tested in 1913 and fifteen varieties in 1914. Ponderosa and Challfs Jewell Were the best of the varieties tried. Eight varieties of corn were grown for table purposes. The White Australian, Adams Extra Early, and Country Gentleman were the best of those tested. The ear worm and Harlequin cabbage bug are quite destructive to this crop. Onions did fairly Well in 1913. Of thirteen varieties of onions tested in 1914 the New Gigantic Gibraltar and Prizetaker were the two best varieties. Two Bermuda onions tested were failures. ' The cabbage crop was destroyed both seasons by the Harlequin cabbage bug, Which is especially destructive to this crop. The Oxheart and Half Long Orange varieties of carrots grew suc- cessfully in 1913. Seven varieties planted in 1914 Were destroyed by insects. _ Parsnips, loeets, Swiss Chard and salsify were all uniformly success- ful both seasons. Turnips have been successfully grown and do well both for early and late plantings. The early‘ turnips, however, have suffered from insects. Spinach and lettuce both made satisfactory growth. (Jucumbers were very prolific in 1914. All of the beans except one of the Lima varieties produced abundantly. New peas were moderately successful. Egg plant, pepper plants, kale and collards did not succeed. Garden lemons yielded very abundantly. Fifteen varieties of watermelons were grown in 1914. Most of the varieties did very well. The Golden Honey, Improved Klecley, Hal- bert Honey, Pride of Georgia and Angel Kiss were all of excellent quality’. Baby Delight, Princess and Pickaninny were small melons of inferior quality. Iceberg made large melons of poor quality. Sweet- heart produced large melons of fair quality. Tom Watson made the heaviest melons, ‘which were also of fair quality. FLOWERS AND ORNAMENTAL VINES. Extensive tests of flowers have been carried out each season. The most successful flowers were Cosmos, Four O’clocks and Phlox Drum- mondii. Other flowers and vines grown successfully were Morning Glories, Cypress Vine Nasturtiums, Verbenas, Asters, Centaurea, Mig- nonette, Datura, Chrysanthemums and Petunias. Thirteen tubers of dahlias were planted and the plants bloomed very well. The Sundew produced more than sixty-five blossoms during the summer. Fifty-nine Gladiola bulbs and 200 bulblets were planted March 2'7, 1913. This included twenty-six named varieties. One of Groif’s hy- brids was selected as the best one. It produced thirty-one blossoms, blossoming from July 4 to July 17, or thirteen days for the thirty-one blossoms. The blossoms were yellow splotched with dark red. Cannas were grown successfully. 38 TExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONm Thirty-two German Iris, all named varieties, were grown with fair success. _ The Virginia Creeper and the Japanese Kudzu vines were planted. The Kudzu vine made a rapid and extensive growth. O SHADE AND ORNAMENTAL TREES AND SHRUBS. Tree planting should be practiced t0 a much greater extent through- rout the plains of Texas. There are practically no native shade or or- znamental trees growing in this section. The trees planted on the sub- —sta‘tion grounds consist mostly of black locust, seedling apricots, Nor- ‘way and Lombardy poplars and weeping willows. With a little care Ithere is no difficulty encountered in growing shade trees. Wherever tpossible, trees should be grown in rows or in such position that they can be given clean culture. Fig. 8—A comfortable farm home helps make farm life more at- tractive. This house was made attractive by the use of some of the common flowers and shrubs adapted to this section. Residence on Substation No. 8, Lubbock, Texas. Several rose bushes and bridal wreaths were planted and were suc- cessfully grown. The Superintendent’s residence issurrounded by a lawn which is bounded by a hedge of California privet. It has grown successfully and ma-kes an attractive hedge. ORCHARD AND VINEYARD. An orchard of 182 trees was set out in 1911 and 1912. It consists of peaches, apples, apricots, pears, plums and cherries. No fruit with the exception of a. few apples was produced previous to 1914. The orchard is growing nicely and should produce well later. A vineyard consisting of 125 vines was planted in 1911 and 1912. PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION No. 8, LUBBooK, TEXAS. 39H A number of the vines died out and had to be replaced, but grapes are, especially well adapted to this section and the vineyard is now pro- ducing an abundance of fruit. Fig. 9—View of orchard, which at present time is devoted to variety testing of fruits. SUMMARY. Substation No. 8 was established in 1909 for the purpose of collect» ing reliable information on agricultural problems which would be of assistance to the farmers in this region. The surface soil is sandy loam with a subsoil of sandy loam to sandy clay. The annual rainfall is about 21 inches; an average of four ye-ars rainfall at the substation, however, shows 20.32 inches. - About three-l fourths of the annual rainfall comes during the growing season. The average dates of the first and last killing frost are April 8 and November 1 for a three-year period. Of seven lots of grain sorghums tested for three years, the varieties ranked as follows: Feterita. Blackhul kafir. Dwarf milo. Of eighteen varieties of grain sorghums tested for two years the varieties ranked as follows: Pink kafir. Blackhul kafir. Feterita. Dwarf milo. Averaging all tests, feterita has made slightly better yields than have the other grain sorghums, with kafir second and milo third. Of the dwarf varieties, milo has been the best yielder. 40, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Results for 1913 and 1914 with spacing tests with grain sorghumsf seem to indicate that the thicker rates of planting gave the higher yields. f When cowpeas have been planted between -rows of grain sorghums., there has been a loss in the grain crop which is probably greater than the small gain in the hay crop resulting. 2 Corn is not a dependable crop for this region. It cannot compete successfully with. the grain sorghums as a grain crop. As an average for three years, corn produced approximately 11 bushels less grain to the acre than three typical grain sorghums. . The work of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Stations through‘ the dissemination of seed and other activities has established Sudan‘ grass firmly in this part of the state. A . Sudan grass and cowpea mixtures showed a less yield than Sudanf A grass alone. ‘ ‘ a The maximum rate of 6.9 pounds of Sudan grass to the acre in 36-inch rows gave the maximum yield of 4.45 tons of hay to the acreQ When planted in close drills a rate of 15 to 20 pounds to the acre gave: best returns. Eighteen-inch rows gave highest yields as an average forl two years, while 22-inch rows yielded the best in 1914. Results from date. of seeding experiments with. Sudan grass favor. the earlier dates of planting, although good yields were obtained by planting as late as the middle of June. ' . a A yield of over twenty-one tons of green forage and nine tons of dry, forage were obtained from sorgos in 1914. The Sumac variety is best] adapted to this section. The sorgos are an important crop in this I section for silage and roughage. The seed yield of these crops often compares favorably with that of the grain sorghums. 3 With a sorgo-legume mixture the proportion of one of sorgo to four l’ of cowpeas, planted in 36-inch rows, gave the best returns. The seed- ing rate should be at the rate of some 15 to 20 pounds of the mixture i to the acre. Cotton is well adapted to this district and produces well. As an»; average of three years, Burnett has yielded 1199 pounds of seed cotton, '1 and Mebane has yielded 980 pounds of se-ed cotton. Burnett has a’ medium small boll, while Mebane has a large boll. A distance of from six to nine inches apart in three-foot rows gave the best yields of cotton in 1914. Results seem to indicate, however, 7* that during a favorable season there may be a Wide range of spacing _ between plants in the row Without materially affecting the yield. In a‘; ’ thinning test covering three years, the average yield favors a space of _ A between nine and twelve inches apart in three-foot rows for cotton. . " The cowpea is the best annual legume. The seed yields are usually i good but the forage production is rather low. As an average of three. g years, when cowpeas were sown in close drills for forage production A rate of seven peeks to the acre gave the highest yields of hay. As an average of two years, when cowpeas were seeded in rows for; forage production, a rate of 18 to 20 pounds to the acre gave the heaviest ‘ PROGRESS Baron, SUBSTATION No. 8, LUBBOCK, Trams. p41 qyields, with one exception. Close drilling has yielded more forage than ; row planting. _1_ As an average of three yea-rs, Spanish peanuts have yielded 32.15 bushels tothe acre. . T Alfalfa is being raised with a fair degree of success on the sub- station; the work, however? has not progressed far enough to appear .ain this publication. Growing this crop in rows has considerable promise. j} a Sweet clover tests thus far conducted have been very favorable. gt ' Field beans have been grown with satisfactory results. ' ' In favorable seasons, winter wheat is a successful crop. . southern varieties. - a Spring barley has yielded slightly better than the better sorts of ‘Lspring oats. . Two tons of manure to the acre produced a gain of 2.4 bushels of 3 feterita and 68.9 pounds of seed cotton. i Results are reported on work with garden crops, flowers and vines, _ shade and ornamental trees and orchard and vineyard. Early varieties of spring oats have made better yields than the