7 7 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, Przasident AUGUST, 1919 BULLETIN NO. 247 DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE COTTON PLANT B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR College Station, Brazos County, Texas STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Director A. B. Comma, B. S., Vice Director J. M. Jonas, A. M., Assistant Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary —i————-—i-, Executive Assistant CHARLES Sosoux, Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE *M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief H. Scmnm, D. V. S_., Veterinarian D. l-LBsnurrrr. V. M. D., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist S. LOMANITZ. B. S., Assistant Chemist ———-————i———-, Assistant Chemist WALDO WALKER, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE H. NESS, M. S., Chief W. S. Ho-rcmuss, Horticulturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY J. M. Jonas, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations U. C. Bonus, B. S., Animal Husbandman in Char e of Reef Cattle Investigations (on leave) P. V. WING, S., Animal Husbandman in Charge of Swine Investigations _ C. M. HUBBARD, B. S., Assistant Animal ENTOMOLOGY F. B. PADDOCK, M.S.,Chief;'State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist W. E. JACKSON, B. S., Assistant Entomologist AGRONOMY A. B. CONNER, B S., Chief A. H. Lawton, B S., Agronomist E. W. GEYER, B. S., Agronomist H. H. LAUDE, M. S., Agronomist PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief FORESTRY E. O. SIECKE, M. F., Chief, State Forester PLANT BREEDING E. P. Hus/teem‘, Ph. D., Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS H. M. ELIOT, M. S., Chief SOIL SURVEY **W. T. CARTER, Jim. B. S., Chief J. F. Srnouv, Soil Surveyor T. M. BUSHNELL, B. S., Soil Surveyor W. B. FRANCIS, B. S., Soil Surveyor Husbandman FEED CONTROL SERVICE W. L. MAYER, Poiiltryman F. D. FULLER, M. S., Ch_ief - ......................... .., Dairyman JAMES SULLIVAN, Executive Secretary SUBSTATIONS 1N0. 1. Beeville, Bee County No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County I. E. COWART, M. S., Superintendent No. 2. Tronp, Smith County ‘ W. . HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Superintendent Beaumont, Jefierson County . Prunes, B. S., Superintendent Temple, Bell County _ T..K.ILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent No. 4. A. H Denton, Denton County _ H. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent Spur, Dickens County _ E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent 1'As of August 1, 1919. "" N0. 12. R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent D. L. Jonas, Scientific Assistant No. 9. Pecos, Reeves County_ J. W. JACKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. l0. (Feeding and Breeding Substation), College Station, Brazos County J. W. LUKEn, Superintendent .............................. .., Scientific Assistant No. 11. Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent Chillicothe, Hardeman County A. B. CRON, B. S., Superintendent V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Scientific Assistant No. 14. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent G. R. WARREN, B. S., Shepherd IIn cooperation with School of Agriculture, A. & M. College of Texas. *In cooperation with the School of Veterinary Medicine, A. & M. College of Texas. _**In cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. CONTENTS. PAGE. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Method of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Mineral Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Relative Proportion of Parts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Plant Food Required. . ." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1O Feeding Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] BULLETIN N0. 247. AUGUST, 1919- THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE COTTON PLANT. BY G. S. FRAPs, PH. D., CHIEF, DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY; STATE CHEMIsT. The knowledge of the composition of the cotton plant is important from several points of view. In connection with soil studies it is im- portant to know how much plant food the plant takes from the soil. The amount of plant food required by the cotton plant is important in connection with the fertilization of cotton, and the chemical composi- tion of the cotton plant throws some light upon this subject. Plants, however, may take up more plant food than is really needed by them when an abundance is present, and this applies particularly‘ to potash, which may be taken up in large excess. The feeding values of cotton stalks and leaves are of significance in connection with the fact that cattle are turned into the cotton fields to graze, partly for the purpose of destroying the boll weevil. In some cases the burs which collect at cotton gins are also fed. ~ A summary of the chemistry of cotton up to 1896 is published in a book entitled “The Cotton Plant,” published by the United States De- partment of Agriculture. Analysis of cotton leaves, seeds, stems, and lint are published by C. B. Williams in the Bulletin of the North Oaro- v lina Department of Agriculture, September, 1906. Some analyses of the cotton plant grown with different amounts of fertilizer, at different stages of growth, are published in Bulletin 114 of the Georgia Experi- ment Station, July, 1915. METHOD OF WORK. One set of samples was secured by collecting all of the cotton plants on an area of 200 square feet. The plants were then separated into leaves, stalk, bolls, burs, and seed cotton. This was done on October 6, Table 1—Cotton grown in the experiments. No. Plants _ Pounds Per Per Acre ~ Actual Actual No. Variety [Station Acre Seed 100% Stand Plants Per Cotton Stand - Acre Mebane . . . . . . . . . . Troup. . . . . . . . . 730 9680 83 8024 Crenshaw . . . . . . . . Troup . . . . . . . . . . . 750 9680 62 6001 Mortgage L . . . . . . Temple . . . . . . . . . 636 9680 98 9487 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . Temple . . . . . . . . . 804 9680 100 9680 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . Lubbock. .' . . . . . . 389 17446 75 13085 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . Lubbock . . . . . . . . 169 - 17446 75 13085 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . Beeville . . . . . . . . . 1170 7260 80 . 5813 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . Beeville . . . . . . . . . 1049 7260 85 6176 Burns . . . . . . . . . . . . Nacogdoches. . . . . 550 15840 90 14256 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . Nacogdoches. . . . . 660 15840 90 14256 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . Denton . . . . . . . . . 623 8690 75 6518 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . Denton . . . . . . . . . 967 12430 85 9965 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 1910, on cotton grown at College Station. The other analyses were made on four average co-tton plants, selected as be-ing of average size and characteristics by the superintendents of various substations, and sent by them to the chemical laboratory. The plants were then sep- arated into the various parts, Weighed and subjected to analysis. As all the plants had dried out to some extent during transit, the quantity of water lost in preparing the samples for analysis is not of significance, and is not given. The estimate of the yieldper acre is based upon the total number of plants actually grown per acre in the plots of the dif- Iferent varieties at the substations. See Table 1. Acknowledgment is hereby made to the various superintendents. who sent in the samples. The yields of seed cotton are those secured in the experiments at the substations on the plots from which the plants for analysis were taken. Table 2—-Average percentage composition as dried for analysis. Phos- phoric N itro- Potash Lime Magne- Silica Acid gen B13 Stalk, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.24 1.12 1.23 1.12 .54 .16 Stalk, “The Cotton Plant” . . . . . . . . .59 1.46 1 .41 .97 .42 . . . . . . . . Seed Cotton with Lint, Texas . . . . . . 0.71 2.22 1.01 .37 .33 .35 Leaves, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.42 2.55 1 .64 6.42 1.38 1.47 Leaves, “The Cotton Plant” . . . . . . . 1.19 3.21 1.80 4.44 0.87 . . . . . . . . Burs, Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.26 .96 3.55 1.51 I 0.44 .61 Burs, “The Cotton Plant” . . . . . . . . . .48 1.08 2.66 1 .80 .43 . . . . . . . . Bolls with Seed and Lint, Texas. . . . 0.57 1.88 1 .86 .93 .58 .25 Bolls, “The Cotton Plant” . . . . . . . . . 0.96 2.54 1.81 .51 .40 . . . . . . . . Lint, .“The Cotton Plant” . . . . . . . . . 0.10 0.34 0.46 .19 .08 . . . . . . . . LSeed, “The Cotton Plant” . . . . . . . . . 1.27 3.13 1 . 17 .25 .55 . . . . . . . . MINERAL COMPOSITION. Table 2 shows the average composition of the various parts of the cotton plant as found in these experiments, and Table 3 gives the de- tailed results of the analyses of the samples from the different stations. "The average nitrogen content of the seed is estimated from a large num- ber of analyses published in Bulletin 189. Table 3—Mineral composition of seed with lint. Phos- phoric Potash Lime Mag- Silica Acid nesia 6638 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘6643 Crenshaw Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.09 1.18 .56 .41 .56 6648 Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.07 1.01 .28 .32 47 6653 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 1.07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘6658 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 .28 19 18 6671 Burns Long . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 1.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6676 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 1 .07 36 41 20 '6707 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 1.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6712 Local Cotton (Mebane) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81 1.02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71 1 .01 37 .33 35 THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE COTTON PLANT. Table 3—Cotton Leaves. Phos- _ _ phoric Nitro- Potash Lime Mag- Silica Acid gen nesia 3178 Cotton Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 2.65 1 .72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6634 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . .32 2.27 2.02 6.79 1.57 .48 6639 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 . . . . . . . . 1 .66 6.68 1 .58 1.61 6644 Crenshaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 2.67 1.11 6.05 1.63 6.22 6649 Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 2.62 0.66 5.29 1.56 2.34 6654 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . .28 2.24 1.27 7.54 1 .22 .47 6659 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 2.26 1.70 6.92 1.57 .56 6669 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55 3.01 2.08 6.42 1.20 2.58 6672 Burns Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . .37 1.95 2.03 4.26 .80 .95 6677 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .42 . . . . . . .. 1.69 5.18 1.09 1.15 6704 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .50 2.72 1.61 5.11 1.40 0.69 6709 Local (Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . .. .66 2.71 1.60 7.83 1.51 0.60 6665 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49 2.92 2.24 8.97 1.42 2.03 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42 2.55 1.64 6.42 1.38 1.47" Table 3——Cotton Bolls with Seed and Lint. Phos- _ _ _ _ phoric Nitro- Potash Lime Ma_g- Silica Acid gen nesia 3180 Cotton Bo“s . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .43 1.69 2.80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6635 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . .50 2.42 1.95 .31 .73 . 18 6640 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 . . . . . . .. 1.92 3.05 1.17 .72 6645 Crenshaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 1.94 1.45 .56 .53 .43 6650 Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 . . . . . . . . 1.26 .46 .42 .22 6655 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 - 2.07 1 .80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6660 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .37 1 .81‘ 1.60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6668 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67 2.64 2.32 .83 .43 . 11 6674 Burns Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . .68 1.18 1.98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6679 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 1.48 1.48 .50 .38 .03 6706 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 1.72 1.65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6711 Local (Mebane) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77 2.01 1.91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6664 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 2.14 2.64 .81 .43 .05 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57 1.88 1.86 .93 .58 .25 Table 3—Cotton Burs. Phos- _ _ pho_ric Nitro- Potash Lime Mag- Silica c gen nesia 3179 Cotton Burs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .69 2.30 2.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6632 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 .69 3.83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6637 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 .68 3.32 1 .61 .49 .34 6642 Crenshaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 . . . . . . . . 2.83 1.29 .45 1 .95» 6647 Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 . . . . . . . . 3.43 1.14 .37 .58 6652 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 . . . . . . . . 3.23 1.93 .33 .28 6657 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .10 .89 4.16 2.16 .56 .32 6673 Burns Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . .15 .58 3.20 .90 .43 .22 6678 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 .52 3.84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6705 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 .96 3.77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6710 Local (Mebane) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 1.04 4.48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average“... . . . . . . . . .. .26 .96 3.55 1.51 .44 .61 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 3—C otton Stalks. Phos- _ _ _ phoric ' N itro- Potash Lime Mag- Silica Acid gen 118E121 3177 Cotton Stalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33 1.51 1.30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6631 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . .23 1 . 15 .47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6636 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 1 . 13 .86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6641 Crenshaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .29 1.42 1.03 81 .38 03 6646 Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 0.90 1.11 96 .50 O4 6651 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . .. .19 1.10 .91 1.29 .54 17 6656 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 1.06 1.07 1.49 75 33 6663 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 1.45 2.23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6670 Burns Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . .19 .66 1.09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . r6675 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 .65 1.10 72 .44 O8 6703 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 89 .90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6708 Local . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 1 .07 1.12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6667 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 1.54 2.76 1.44 65 23 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .24 1 . 12 1.23 1.12 54 16 The cotton leaves are decidedly much higher in nitrogen and potash than those analyzed in North Carolina, but the Texas average is lower than the average given in “The Cotton Plant.” The bolls and burs are high in potash, while the stalks _are not nearly so high in plant food as might be expected. RELATIVE PROPORTION OF PARTS. Table 4 contains the amount of stalks, leaves, etc., estimated per acre, and Table 5 shows the amount which accompanies 300 pounds of seed cotton. It is a Well known fact that the cotton plant varies in habit of growth. Sometimes the plant grows six feet high, but does not pro- duce any more cotton than a plant growing one or two feet high. The character of the soil appears to have a good deal to do with this kind of growth, and in some cases the use of acid phosphate as a fertilizer has been found to promote the fruiting of the cotton, and the production of lint on land which shows a tendency to produce a large stalk and a small crop of lint. Table_4—-Pounds Stalk, Leaves, Bolls and Burs Produced per Acre. Seed Stalk Leaves Bolls Burs Cotton Mebane, Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1330 460 96 460 1170 Mebane, Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . 1065 1235 623 548 804 Rowden, Beeville. .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1090 384 37 604 1049 Mebane, Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1664 962 1673 190 730 Long Staple, N aco doches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1443 470 486 627 550 Mebane, Nacogdoc es . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1372 682 290 674 1113 Rowden, Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1513 1220 83 175 623 Mebane (Local), Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2126 2077 296 192 967 Crenshaw, Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2250 1690 1558 389 750 Mort age Lifter, Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1043 543 57 558 636 Row en, Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 662 662 . . . . . . . . 169 Mebane, Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 741 310 . . . . . . . . 389 Unknown, College Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 988 528 17] 184 442 In Table 5 it is seen that from 311 to 899 pounds of stalk accom- pany 300 pounds seed cotton, with an average of 588 pounds. The THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION or THE COTTON PLANT. 9 quantity of leaves varies from 109 to 1175 pounds, with an average of 446 pounds. The quantity of bolls varies from 9 to 1175 pounds, with an average of 313 pounds. Evidently a‘ larger yield of cotton would have been produced with more favorable seasonal conditions. The burs vary from zero to 263 pounds, with an average of 162 pounds. Table 5—Pounds;Stalk, etc., per 300 pounds Seed Cotton. i Seed Stalk Leaves Bolls Burs Seed Cotton Cotton Per Acre Mebane, Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 841 118 247 118 300 1170 Rowden, Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312 1000 10 173 300 1049 Mebane, Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 184 76 181 300 1113 Mebane, Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 461 233 205 300 804 Mebane, Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 670 645 92 60 300 967 Mebane, Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684 395 688 v 79 _ 300 730 Crenshaw, Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 900 676 623 156 300 750 Long Staple, Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . 787 257 267 342 300 550 Rowden, Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723 588 40 85 300 623 Mortgage Lifter, Troup . . . . . . . . . . . 900 676 623 156 300 636 Rowden, Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870 1176 1176 . . . . . . . . 300 169 Mebane, Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 572 240 . . . . . . . . 300 389 Unknown, College Station . . . . . . . . . 671 359 121 125 300 442 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 446 313 162 ' 300 . . . . . . . . Table 6—Fertilizer constituents in a crop of Cotton yielding 100 pounds of Lint from “The Cotton Plant." (Pounds per acre.) Phos- , _ Nitro- phoric Potash Lime Mag- gen Acid nesia Roots_(83 pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 0.76 0.43 1.06 0.53 0.34 Stems (219 pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.20 1.29 3.09 2. 12 .92 Leaves (192 pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.16 2.28 3.46 .52 1 67 Bolls (135 pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.43 1.30 2.44 .69 54 Seed (218 pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.82 2.77 2.55 .55 1 20 Llnt (100 pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 .34 .10 .46 .19 0s Total crop (847 pounds) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 20.71 8.17 13.06 12.60 4.75 l The averages here given are more than double those given in “The Cotton Plant” (Table 6). Texas cotton apparently grows larger than the plants discussed in “The Cotton Plant.” In some cases, however, larger yields of cotton would have been produced under more favorable seasonal conditions, thus decreasing the proportion of leaves, stalk, etc., to seed cotton. This is notably the case at Lubbock. Where good yields were secured, with Mebane variety at Beeville and Nacogdoches, and with Rowden at Beeville, the amount of stalk is about 350 pounds; of leaves, 150 pounds; of hulls, 50~pounds, and of burs, 160 pounds per 300 pounds seed cotton. These figures come much closer to the aver- age given in “The Cotton Plant.” The yields thus depend upon con- ditions other than the supply of plant food, and at the same time there may be enough plant food taken up to supply much larger yields than those actually made. 1O PLANT FOOD REQUIRED. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 7 shows the quantity of phosphoric acid, potash, nitrogen, silica, lime and magnesia, estimated to be taken up from the soil by the dif- ferent cotton crops, and also the average of each. These results are worked out i.n Table 8. it has the average composition. An allowance is made for the cotton actually produced and picked out on these different spots, it being assumed that A Some of the products were not com- pletely analyzed. Where such was the case the average composition was used. This correction is made in the table. Table 7—Pounds Plant Food Removed per Acre for the Crop Given. Yield _ Seed of Phos- Nitro- _ _ ~ _ Mag- Cotton phoric Potash gen Silica Lime nesia per Acre Acid Mebane, Beeville . . . . . . .. 1170 13.9 36.8 57.2 11 .4 57.6 21.0 Rowden, Beeville . . . . . . . . 1049 11.1 49.9 47.1 13.4 39.5 18.8 Mebane, Nacogdoches. . .. 1113 12.5 68.5 54.3 16.1 59.9 22.0 Mebane, Temple . . . . . . . . . 804 13.7 72.7 73.2 16.3 142.4 36.5 Mebane, Denton . . . . . . . . . 967 33.9 81.1 89.2 71.3 200.4 48.4 Mebane, Troup . . . . . . . . . . 720 26.7 59.7 89.6 31.1 79.2 33.4 Crenshaw, Troup . . . . . . . . 750 36.3 84.5 127.7 124.3 138.3 49.2 Long Staple, Nacogdoches 550 15.0 64.0 47.7 12.5 49.6 26.0 Rowden, Denton . . . . . . . . . 623 14.6 49.4 63.6 14.3 84.8 28.7 Mort age Lifter, Troup. . . 636 8.9 41.8 44.3 8.3 68.1 16.4 Row en, Lubb0ck........ 169 10.2 40.9 44.4 15.1 70.8 15.4 Mebane,Lubbock........ 389 10.6 38.9 46.0 11.8 58.0 14.4 Unknown, College Station. 442 10.5 35 .1 45 .9 12.4 101 .0 15.9- Average....._ . . . . . .. 714 17.1 56.2 63.8 22.9 88.4 26.6 11 THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE Comon PLANT. vmv . . . . . ..v.ooN . . . . . . llmfiN . ..N.mm . 15mm .. Immm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1139B mum mmm 9m hm. v m mm. mAN NN.N m.m No; m.h 3. h9m . . . . . . . . . . 1.5.300 doom fin. m; Nm. m.h mm.N m . mN. m.m _o.N 9m HmA m.N hh. wmN . . . . . . ..............2_¢m Zhm m. vv. m.N m; N m m9 m; m: 9m mv.v m. hN. ma; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195m 2R. v.8 B; 9N3 mm.h m Nfl o9 Nmm mhN Nmm 84 52 m9 hh.oN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imoiwvd mohm m .3 vm m.mN N9“ v.m S. h.NN ho; m.mN Nwé 9m mv. 3.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . .....§ 58w mohm A pvnomuO QBQQQ 5x216 cassava hmN ........m.vm .. Imvw 119mm h.mv . I9v~ . . . . . . . . . ........_~5oP fin mm. m.N S. N.N mm. ma: NN.N ma S; we Nh. was . . . . . . QMSV .835 Raw 8% m. mm. h. mm. N. mN. v; NhA v4 m9~ v. om. mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..m=..m wohm m. vv 9N E ~ 7M 3 o hA mmd 9m hh.m v. NN. mhA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.32m mohm Thw 2.; m.Nm :.m v.m m9 N.mm Nh.N 92 I: 7m om. oN.N~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwwiwwq vohm N m vm. i: Nmé v.N f. n42 mm. F3 mm. N.m 8. 2.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :5 52w mohm A pwmomoO JBEQQ éwwBofl 9NN mmm 7mm . . . . Iimvm . 19mm .. . .mN~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Igwmom. 7- mm. m _ om. m. mo. m v $4 m.v 3; N _ mv. mm.N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2cm mhmm 9w vv. N E fimé 2. M9 9m mm. 9mN 5m m ~ m". vh m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $25 mhmm v.h mo; m mm m1... m.h S; m.N~ mmA 9: 2: m N Nv. Nmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..wo>wwd hhmw m.v S. 9v mm. N.N oN. h vN NN.N 9: 8A N m hv. m. Z . . . . . . 1:58 cofioU 3% whom o m vv. m.m Nh. 7w mo. mm m9 9mm 2; m m v5 Nh m: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q=Em mhmm .vN poecvmaow dwxom. dwsoowwouwZ dcwnoz 9oN . . . . 9mv . . . . . . ..m.N~ ......h.hv . . ovm . . . . . . 19mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:30P m.N mm. 9v mm. N _ mN. h.m 2; 9m mmA mm mm mm v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..m=¢m vhmm h.N mv. 9m om. v; NN. 9m mm. :5 oNm 0A 5 hN m . . . . . . . . . 12.5 mhmm h.m om. o.oN mNv m v mm. N.m mm w 9m mo N hA hm oh v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . éoZWoA Nhmm m.N mm. mm hm. 7m mm. 52 NN.N Tm mo; mm mh. mmm 1.11.258 cmfioU 8% E3 m.h vm. NA: §A m N f. m.m m9 F3 S; h.N m5 2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155w ohmm .vN ~onE3Qom dwxoh. donoowmoomz 633m 98A m-Esm 4.60 acoU dcoU fiSU AaoU dcuU and 5m 45A 5m and 5m and mom and “om and 3m 0.8% . .8 .23 wimcmwva 9:5 35m comobmZ smfionw v64 Bhomamoam 05a 80.: @O>OEONM w_fluOC@2l|w “£56k. *2 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. vmm awn Tfim . . . . . . Iwmw . . . . . . 1.5mm ........N..mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:30P wm mm. m. 5.. w. mm. fim wwa mm S; $4 EH fimd . . . . . . . . . . . IcoSoU woom o N. m... n5 8.. 5m ma. 12.. wwé f5 £4 5Q w». .32 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..m=¢m =86 93w 92 $4 0.5 36 mzmw 3a NmN Sm m.w mm. 5v 2.. $5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imoiwoq 3% w; mm. w; wm. m.N 2.. 5: mum om 8A mm .84 m»; . . . . . . ISmC coiaU “sum $3 n. 5. um 3A -~ wmm w; mm. ma 2mm 5 mm. 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :&=m $3 .... w om. 04.3 3. N. 3 0.2 om. 92 :4 m.N 3. v92 . . . . . . . .111.A$ 58w 3% 4.: honnmfiaom dsofifi 6.8202 w.w~ Immm .........v.m~ .. . Tnw .93. I5: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130B H». mm. mm S. fim mmm mmm mum 92 5A v8 1.. 3X2 . . . . . . . . . . . 1:330 Ham w :4 N~A mom m. uh. w. ww; h. N»; N. om. hm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15cm 2% Tm wmA 5mm wwm N w E ~ >5 9.1m mm 84 m; vm. vwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ImQ/wuq $2. mm 2.. >5 $4 fiw 3H 3. wm. 0.0m mmm w. .2. m; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.65m $9. as E. Nmfl Nfié N. M 2 w; ww. mdfi .24 w; 2. 8.2 . . . . . . . . . . 1351mm wmmm . .3 gonwbowaow . ozt/oom GQUQwOMm mmm . . . . . . Iwd: ....1..m.m~ .....N.m~. 1.5mm 1111mm; . . . . . . . . . 11.43am. in mm. mm S.“ mum 9.x E2 wmnm ma S; v4. C2 mum . . . . . . ..€o@ QoSoU Raw m.m SH w.m mm. w; mm. m.: 8." a5 9: mm S. mum J . . . . . . . . . ....m=..m c0920 2x5 #2 hm m H62 am.» 9w mm. mkw mm m oQN E; m.m RH mm.m~ . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.3234 $3 m. 2. m. wm. m. 2. ca Nwa m w E. Mmé C. a: . . . . . . ..€¢wv c0300 Raw wmmw Fm mm. w.: mTN w; mm. P... aw. wwm 24. m. 2. 3a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......@5m wmwm c w m». ma; mvfi m m mm m I 2: i: S; m; 2. $2 . . . . . ...........A$ 5w $2. N13 .2 .5253 ow . JEEQH dcwnog oJN ......1w.>m .....v.: . Oallmlhm ........w.mm 1111mm“ . . . . . . . . ...._3oH mmm mm. we “mm i. mmm 98 flxm w.: s; m.w E30 2.: .. . . . . . . . . IdoSoU “sum n. m». m. 5 N. f. m m N... w a; 2: m6 om. 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123m mmwm m.» “m; mAm 25w Na wv. w}: Ra mm mom m; mm. 9:. . . . . . . . . . . . . wuZwuq fimmw o.N 3i mm B} w.m 5. N m mm. 9: mw.m as 2. $4. . . . . . . . . . ............B=m mmmw m m E. m4; Q fi fl m 2 ma; 2; mm Di o.m mm. 3.2 . . . . ............A$ 13w 3H9. aux: .3 x552 ow ozguwm dcmnog £50. JavU £50 AcoU £60 $60 dad Rom £31m wand 6AA Hot and Hob and 3Q and 3m 0.8m :5 AAA miocwaqa 3E1- wuzmm sumo»: Z smfiom 23.. oiozmmoam dwscficaUllzom o5 Eat vo>cEomwmsmhwca>w|w wink. THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OE THE COTTON PLANT. . . . . . . 10$ ........w.N~ 06¢ Illllliiflmm .900 ... ......................._mwo.r mm m: hm m; mm. 0.0 NN.N m4. 00A 7m 0h. $4. . . . . . . . . . . . lcofioU 2am w»: 04mm Nw w w.h hwé 0 3 mwN 70 Nhé 0.N wm. wNh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.804 $5 3.. 0N fimé 0Q S. N4. 0m.N h.m 00.N m; 0w. £4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :25 05m wm. w; m0. w. mN. 0.m $4 06 0w.N w. Q. hhé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..w=¢m 000m fin. T: N0; m: 3. 0.: E; wfi om; win mm. 00.0 . . . . . . . . ...........J:w0m hh~m .00 ~ wN .30 ..Ssfiw w ozoU éBocxcD ........0.wm 11110.: .. . ...0.w.v ...0.wm .. . . . . ..w0_ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . 1130M. mm. w; hm. w; 9.... w.w NN.N m... 00.0 wN "h. 005. . . _ . . . . . . . . 1.5300 Ram 0N4 w.h# Nvw T2 wmN m NN ~00 1.2 w0.N H4. mm. Sfih . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IdQ/mvq mwww Q. w.N mw. m. I. N.w i; N h NmN 7N hw. 35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imsom wwww mw. Y... 3.4 0A mN. m w E; ¢.N_ wh.N wA mm. wwé . . . . . . . . . .H.......J=2m hwww N22 2 “waafigww iuonnsd ocwnvwn . H.w.0h . 17m; v13. ........0.0v . . . . ....N.0~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1430? mm. w. hm. w. mm. Wm NN.N h; ~04 NJ fih. $4 . . . . . . 18¢: cofioU 26w 8.; ma... 5w v54 .84.. m4: NN.N 03E NN.N N.N. 2.. Nw.w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ImoZwoA mwww m? v.0 5. m. m0. NJ; EN m .2 ¢0.N m4. mw. Nw.w . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....=..m $3 E. v6. NTH w. 2. ~ h 2.; 0.00 “NN.N m; 1m. 003v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.52m mwww .22 é kQnEoEwm Joonnsq EowBofl . . .. Tww ....m.w . ....m;vw ........w.§ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113cm. M5. m. m0. 7 mN. NA h0.N 0A 00A N. .hN. hm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.33m mmww NN H m2. i...“ w.N 2.. N.N~ NN.N 0w hNA m; wN. Mum... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imo>mo1~ E3 mmn vN hm. N.N mm. 53 NN.N 1w s; m4. “h. wmw . . . . . . ..@m€ cofioU Bow mmww m... 00w ma; w; wN. Tm w0. 0.2 mN.m h. N7 $5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......E=m Nmww fin 92 0N4 w; h~. “i: 2A 0.0 3. 0.N 2. 3.2 . . . . . . . . 1.11.30 5m 13w dsoffi .355 Own 0.82 .........m.wm~ ........m;vN~ ........h.hN~ ........m.vw ........m.wm . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1309 mm. h.w ww. h.w 2.. N.0m 0.0% w NN 3;. mtfi 0w.0 $12 . . . . . . . . . ............2_¢m $9.. m: N.N0~ mow f9: NN w T3. hw.N wwfi :4 w.h 3.. 21:, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1132.35 3.3 3.. NJ. wm. NJ. ww. f: NN.N 0.0 M34 N.w 00A wmh . . . . . . :6ms cofioU 82v. mvww m... 06 0NQ w.h ma; h.m wm. 0.: mwd fihé 3. 00.0 . . . . ................PSQ $3 ma... Nwfi fiw. h. m0. 0.1m $4 N.mN m0; m}. 0N. 0w.NN . . . . . . . . I130 52m $3 .w~ uoniowaow dsofifi .Bmnmco._U 14 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. . The examination of the table shows quite a decided difference in the amount of plant food withdrawn per acre by the different crops. The amount of phosphoric acid varies from 8.9 to 36.3 pounds, with an average of 17.1. The amount of nitrogen varies from 44.3 to 127.7, with an average of 63.8 pounds. The amount of potash varies from 35.1 to 84.5, with an average of 55.2 pounds. The amount of lime varies from 39.5 to 200.4, with an average of 88.4 pounds. The amount of mag- nesia varies from 14.4 to 48.4, with an average of 26.6 pounds. Table 9——Pounds Removed per Three Hundred Pounds Seed Cotton. Yield of Seed Phos- _ _ Cotton phoric Potash Nitro- Silica Lime Mag- per Acre Acid gen nesia Mebane, Beeville . . . . . . .. 1170 3.6 9.4 14.6 2.9 14.7 5.3 Rowden, Beeville . . . . . . . . 1049 3.1 14.2 25.6 8.8 19.7 9.5 Mebane, Nacogdoches. . . . 1113 3.3 18.4 14.6 4.3 16.1 5.9 Mebane, Temple . . . . . . . . . 804 5.1 27.1 27.2 6.0 53.1 13.6 Mebane, Denton . . . . . . . . . 969 10.5 25 .1 27.8 3.5 6.25 15.1 Mebane, Troup . . . . . . . . .. 730 10.9 24.5 36.7 12.7 3.3 1.3 Crenshaw, Troup . . . . . . .. 750 ' 14.5 33.7 51.0 49.7 5.5.3 19.6 Long Staple, Nacogdoches , 550 8 .1 34. 9 26 .0 6 . 8 27 .0 14. 1 Rowden, Denton . . . . . . . . . 623 7.0 23.6 30.6 6.8 40.8 13.8 Mortgage Lifter, Troup. .. 636 4.1 19.7 20.8 3.9 32.1 7.7 Rowden, Lubbock . . . . . . .. 169 18.1 72.6 78.8 26.8 12.5 27.3 Mebane, Lubbock . . . . . . . . 389 8.1 29.9 35.4 9.0 45.2 11.1 Unknown, College Station 442 7.1 23.9 31.1 8.4 68.5 10.7 Average . . . . . . . . . . .. 723 7.9 29.0 32.3 11.5 34.7 11.9 The yields also vary in the results given in Table 7. The amount of plant food taken for each 300 pounds of seed cotton produced is given in Table 9. This is calculated from the previous results. There is still a decided variation in the plant food which is consumed. The phosphoric acid used per 300 pounds seed cotton varies from 3.1 to 18.1 pounds, with an average of 8.0 pounds. This is nearly the same average as that given in “The Cotton Plant.” The potash varies from 9.4. to 72.6 pounds, with an average of 27.0, which is twice the average given in “The Cotton Plant.” The nitrogen varies from 14.6 to 78.8, with an average of 32.3, which is 60 per cent. more than the average given in “The Cotton Plant.” The results are arranged in Table 9 according to the yields of seed cotton. With yields of from 1000 to 1200 pounds per acre, only about 5 pounds phosphoric acid, from 9 to 18 pounds potash, and from 15 to 25 pounds nitrogen, are used per 300 pounds of seed cotton. When less than 1000 pounds seed cotton is produced the amount of mineral taken from the soil is proportionately greater. The plant is larger in proportion to the yield and may form bolls which do not pro- duce cotton. An excess of potash may be taken up, as is the case with other plants. In view of these facts more weight should be given to the minerals taken up when the high yields are secured. The probable needs of cotton per 300 pounds seed cotton, or 100 pounds of lint, are, therefore, estimated as follows: 4 THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE Corron PLANT. 15 Phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.0 Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .250 Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15.0 The draft 0n the soil is not in direct proportion to the size of the crop, but is somewhat more with small crops and somewhat less with large crops, particularly in Texas. Thus seasonal conditions may cut short the crop though the plant food be abundant, and good conditions may cause a good utilization of the plant food and produce a good crop, with a moderate consumption of minerals. FEEDING COMPOSITION." Table 10 shows the feeding composition. The cotton leaves are quite high in protein and fat, and low in fiber. There are no digestion ex- periments on cotton leaves. Cotton leaves should make a good feed. Judged from the chemical composition the leaves should have a better feeding value than alfalfa hay, and as there are from 400 to 2000 pounds of dry leaves per acre, they must have some feeding value per acre of cotton. The cotton bolls should also have a good feeding value. These bolls contain immature seed, and some cotton lint and are not the same as the empty burs. The composition is quite variable, probably depend- ing upon the degree of maturity of the bolls when the samples were collected. The feeding value is not nearly as high as that of the leaves. Table 10—Feeding Composition Cotton Leaves. Nitro- Protein Ether Crude gen-free Water Ash Extract Fibre Extract 3178 Cotton Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.58 12.41 12.79 31.77 7.37 19.08 6634 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . 14.22 11.80 10.14 39.28 6.22 18.54 6644 Crenshaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.69 6.51 12.05 36.64 7.61 20.50 6649 Crenshaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.40 7.54 10.82 43. 7 7.07 14.60 6654 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.01 9.62 9.08 42.74 7.34 17.21 6659 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.04 6.88 9.31 41.63 7.66 20.48 6669 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.80 4.52 9.96 43.19 5.62 17.91 6672 Burns Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . 12.22 9.20 7.23 53.92 5.64 11.79 6677 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.77 7.95 10.20 50.40 5.66 14.02 6704 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.99 3.35 9.65 44.65 7.87 17.41 6709 Local (Mebane)............. 16.94 4.66 9.13 44.75 7.03 17.49 6665 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.24 4.84 8.80 40.83 6.33 20.96 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.58 7.44 9.93 42 78 6.78 17.49 Table 10-—Cotton Bolls. 5 * Nitro- Protein Ether Crude gen-free Water Ash Extract Fibre Extract 3179 Cotton Bolls . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.41 3.74 23.94 43.75 8.83 5.33 6655 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . 15.12 2.32 14.14 54.57 6.91 6.94 3674 Long Staple Cotton . . . . . . . . . 7.35 3.05 42.49 35.08 6.34 5.69 6679 Mebane Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.58 4.07 43.99 32.24 8.85 3.27 7.7 O0 U1 OJ v-A Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.11 3.30 31.14 41.41 '16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 10—Cotton Burs. Nitro- i Protein Ether Crude gen-free Water Ash Extract Fibre Extract 3179 Cotton Burs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.61 3.31 29.99 39.48 8.93 7.68 6637 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.25 1 54 42.84 45.44 7.62 8.31 6667 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 9.92 .78 37.64 37.03 7.76 6.87 6673 Burns Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . I 3.62 .96 36.13 44.70 8.49 6.10 6678 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H] 3.34 1.38 34.15 44.09 9.80 7.24 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. y 6.35 1.59 34.15 42.15 8.52 7.24 Table 10——C otton Stalk. l _ Nitro- Protein Ether Crude gen-free Water Ash k Extract Fibre Extract 4 3177 Cotton Stalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l 9 45 78 30.84 46 31 7.44 5.18 6636 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._. g g8 g3 22.53 3% 321s 9.3g g3; "6641 c h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..; . . . . 6646 Tllalllllllpaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. i 5 64 86 43.68 39 33 6.85 3.64 6651 1x46616666 151366 . . . . . . . . . . .. l 6 86 58 33-.16 46 94 7.55 4.91 6656 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. : 6 60 76 49.82 29 49 7.79 5.54 6675 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 07 73 38.81 45 65 7 50 3.24 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l 6 69 73 41.22 39 7o 7 36 4.30 l | The cotton burs have a low feeding value, about 55 per cent. of that of alfalfa hay and perhaps a little better than cotton seed hulls. A digestion experiment with cotton burs is given in Bulletin No. 245. Cotton burs are often found outside of gins, Where they have been blown from the cotton in ginning. They are eaten by cattle, have some feed- ing value, and there is no reason why they should not be utilized as a coarse feed in the vicinity of the gin. They contain some seed and this makes the value somewhat greater than that given above. The cotton stalks are low in protein and fat, and high in fiber. The are also tough and diflicult to chew. The feeding value is low, but they could be used as roughage, when they will probably be only partly eaten. ACKNO\VLEDGMENT. Analyses and other work necessary to this bulletin was done by J. B. Rather, E. C. Carlyle, and other members of the- staff. SULI MARY A ND CONCLUSIONS. Analyses of the cotton plant were made on four plants of average size selected by the superintendents of the various substations. The cotton plant varies in habit of growth. In some cases a large growth of leaves and stalk is accompanied by a small yield of cotton, while in other cases a comparatively small g-rowth is accompanied by a fair yield of cotton. THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE CorToN PLANT. 17 The average amounts which accompany 300 pounds of seed cotton are 588 pounds of stalk, 446 pounds of leaves, 313 pounds of bolls, and 162 pounds of burs. There are large variations in the individual cases. These averages are more than double those given in “The Cotton. Plant” as found in previous studies. Larger yields of cotton would have been produced with practically the same amount of parts of the plant, if seasonal conditions had been more favorable. Where yields of 1000 to 12-00 pounds seed cotton per acre are pro» duced, the amount of stalk per 300 pounds of seed cotton is about 350 pounds; of leaves, 150 pounds; of bolls, 50 pounds, and of burs, 160 pounds. These figures correspond more closely to the averages given in “The Cotton Plant.” The phosphoric acid used. per 300 pounds seed cotton varies from 3.1 to 18.1 pounds, with an average of 8.0; the potash from 9.4 to 72.6, with an average of 27.0 pounds; the nitrogen from 14.6 to 78.8, with an average of £323 pounds. .With yields of from 1000 to .1200 pounds of seed cotton, about 5 pounds of phosphoric acid, 9 to 18 pounds of potash, and 15 to 25 pounds of nitrogen are used per 300 pounds of cotton seed. When less than 1000 pounds seed cotton per acre is produced, the amount of mineral taken from the soil per 300 pounds seed cotton is. proportionately greater. The plant is larger in proportion to the yield, and may form bolls which do not produce cotton. An excess of potash may be taken up by the cotton plant. The probable needs of cotton per 300 pounds seed cotton or 100 pounds lint, are estimated to be 7 pounds phosphoric acid, 25 pounds nitrogen, and 15 pounds potash. ’I‘he draft on the soil is not in direct ‘proportion to the size of the crop, but is somewhat larger for small crops and somewhat less for large: crops. Cotton leaves are moderately high in protein, high in ether extract‘, moderate in crude fiber, and should have a good feeding value. Empty burs, which are found around gins, contain some seed, and have a feeding value probably a little higher than that of cotton seed hulls. ¢