1855-221 {ISM -I . TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS w. B. BIZZELL, President BULLETIN NO. 275 FEBRUARY, I921 DIVISION OF AGRONOMY . I ANICP-L Agmcuhvmkkadxixl IEEICIIERARY COLLEGE OF EX % SPUR FETELRITA B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION. BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION B YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Director Cues. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary A. D. Jecxson, Executive Assistant Cnmtns Sosoux, Technical Assistant M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Assistant Chief Clerk VETERINARY SCIENCE ‘M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief H. Scmwmr. D. V. S., Veterinarian D. H. BENNETT. V. M. D.,Veterinarian CHEMISTRY G. S. FRAPS. Ph. D., Chief,- Stale Chemist S. E. AsRuRv. M. S., Assistant Chemist S. LOMANITZ, B. S.. Assistant Chemist J. B. SMITH. B. S., Assistant Chemist WALDo WALKER, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE H. NESS, M. S.. Chief W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY J. M. Jones, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations H, M. SHf-RWOOD, B. S., Poultry Hus- bandman G. R. WARREN, B. S., Animal Husband- man in Charge of Swine Investigations Dairy Husbandman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. R. A. BREWER, B. S., Assistant Animal Hus- bandman, Sheep and Goat Investigations ENTOMOLOGY M. C. Twoutnv, Ph. D., Chief; State Inte- mo/ogist H. i. REINKARD, B. S., Entomologist L. B. W/vrsow, A. M., Apiarist C. S. Bums, B. S., Assistant Entomologist AGRONOMY A. B. Cowman, B. S., Chief; Crops A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronomist, Soils E. B REYNOLDS, M. S., Agronomist, Small (iruins . W. GHYER, B. S., Agronomist; Farm Superintendent **SAL<)ME CHMSTOCK, B. S., Seed Analyst PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. l)! Fuu. R, M S., Chi S. D. PE\RCE, Executive Secretary FORESTRY E. O. SIECKE, B. S., Chief; State Forester PLANT BREEDING .................. .. Chi FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS A B Cox, Ph. D. Chief J. W. ELLIOTT, B. S., Graduate Assistant SOIL SURVEY **\V. T. CARTER, JR., B. S., Chief T. M. Busimiz-LL, B. S., Soil Surveyor H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor SUBSTATIONS Io. 1. Beeville, Bee County _ l. E. COWART, M. S., Superintendent Ho. 2. Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent l0. 8. Angleton, Brazoria County V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent Ho. l. Beaumont, Jeflerson County A. H. PRINCE, B. S., Superintendent Io. I. Temple, Bell County D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent Io. l. Denton, Denton County C. H. McDowizLL, B..S., Superintendent TA: of February 15, 192 No. 7. Sour, Dickens County R. E. Dicxsou, B. S., Superintendent No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County B. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent No. 9. Pecos, Reeves County V. L. CORY, B. S., Superintendent No. 10. (Feeding and Breeding Substation). College Station, Brazos County L. J. McCALL. Superintendent No. ll. Nacozdoches, Nacogdochel County G. T. McNizss, Superintendent "'No. 12. Chillicothe, Hardeinan County A. B. CRON, B. S., Superintendent No. l4. Sonora, Sutton-Edwnrdl Counties E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent 1. ‘In cooperation with the School of Veterinary Medicine, A. A: M. College ot Texan. "In cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Credit is due, and grateful acknowledgment is hereby made, to Mr. R. E. Karper, Superintendent of Substation N0. 8, Lubbock, Texas, for the results presented in Table 7, and for the photographs used in Figures 8 and 9. Credit is also due; and acknowledgment is hereby made, to Mr. D. T. Killough, Superintendent of Substation No. 5, Temple, Texas, for the ' results presented in Table 8. [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] CONTENTS. PAGE History and Requirements of Unimproved Feterita . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . '7 Origin of Spur Feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Has Thick Strong Stalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Not so Tall as Unimproved Feterita . . . . . . . t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Threshes High Percentage of Grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Requires Slightly Longer Growing Period than Unimproved Feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Grain Production Large . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Shows Good Performance in General Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 25 BULLETIN N0. 275. FEBRUARY, 1921. SPUR FETERITA BY A. B. OONNER AND R. E. DIOKSON Spur feterita is a new and distinct variety of feterita With superior grain producing qualities developed by plant breeding Work at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at Spur. Its performance since its development has been such that a supply of seed has been increased and distributed to farmers throughout the grain sorghum belt.* Accurate information as to the origin, description, and performance of Spur feterita will be helpful at this time. HISTORY AND REQUIREMENTS OF UNIMPROVED FETEBITA In order that the reader may readily appreciate Spur feterita, it is thought desirable here to give a brief statement of the introduction and the requirements of unimproved feterita, the crop from which Spur feterita was derived. Feterita Was first introduced from the Sudan re- gion in Africa into the United States in 1909 by the Office of Forage Crops, United States Department of Agrculture, and it was tested out for the first time at the forage crop testing station at Chillicothe, Texas, operated jointly by the Office of Forage Crops, United States Depart- ment of Agriculture, and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. The introduction of feterita marked the entry of an altogether new type of grainsorglium. It proved to be somewhat earlier in maturing than even dwarf milo, and to be a crop especially well adapted wherever the supply of moisture is limited. The feterita as introduced normally grows to a height of from 5.‘; to 6% feet, and, therefore, seemed com- parable to What is known as standard milo. The stems of unimproved feterita are somewhat more slender than those of milo, and lodge or fall down more readily, especially if left in the fieldfor a time after the crop is thoroughly ripe. The fodder or forage is of good quality, being considered superior to that of milo. The seed head is elipsoidal in shape, being rather pointedat the tip and not well filled with seed at the base. The grain is somewhat larger than milo grain and chalk white in color on account of which the crop has a very attractive appear- ance in the field. From the initial introduction, feterita soon found its way into the hands of the farmers and came to be recognized by many as a valuable addition to our grain sorghums throughout the re- gion Where they are grown. The yields of grain secured have in most cases been equal to those of milo and, in some cases, greater, notwith- *In 1919 a distribution o_f 12,000 pounds of Spur Fetcrita seed was made to farmers by the Office of Dryland Seed Distribution. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.,Sthis seed having been increased under the direction of the Texas Agrioul tural Experi- ment taticn. ' TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. was v93 ho mfiwhoflw och. gnaw h éuxbfib hum!» 2 Emma: mo hwifinmofim n23 Ho cowmuw 5w o5 E woaomzwow fiiwomnhw mfiuowoh Uvk/OMQEMGD. o Z coflafinsm a . fi ohsmmh SPUR FETERITA. 9 standing the fact that feterita as introduced lacked the improvement that is found in our best varieties of milo. Feterita is adapted to all sections of Texas Where grain sorghum may be grown. It is especially well suited as a crop under conditions of limited moisture, being somewhat earlier in maturity than dwarf milo, and, therefore, more evasive to drouth. It responds well in production to favorable growing conditions, being one of the best grain sorghums for silage purposes for use in the humid regions of the State. It makes .a large forage growth under humid conditions and very frequently sets good crops of seed, probably on account of earliness and consequent ability to evade the midge. _ Feterita may be planted three or four weeks later than Indian corn. The seed coat, unlike that of kafir and milo, is checked and seems to absorb water more readily, making the seed more susceptible to decay before germination when planted in cold soils. Early planting should be thicker than seedings made after the soil is thoroughly warm. Fet- erita is commonly planted with a lister planter in the same manner as kafir and milo. Four to six pounds of seed is a suflicient amount to plant one acre, and under favorable conditions a good stand may be had by planting from one to one and one-half pounds to the acre. The preparation of the land for feterita should be done early for the purpose of storing moisture. Listing and relisting the land is a good practice, which provides for the storage of water, promotes the avail- ability of plant food, and tends to prevent soil movement by winds. Soils that cannot held by listing should receive no preparation until late in the spring. The cultivation of feterita is much the same as that "of Indian corn, of kafir, and of milo. It may be given two or three harrowings when the plants are small and later given a fairly deep and thorough culti- vation. Subsequent cultivations should be shallower to avoid breaking the surface roots.‘ Clean tillage is most important. Experiments have shown that clean tillage is the outstanding factor in obtaining large grain yields. ' For use as forage, the crop should be harvested in the late dough stage, in which case it may be cut with a corn harvester and cured in shocks of from twenty to thirty bundles each. After the cutting, from thirty to forty days will be required for the bundles to cure sufficiently to be put into the stack. These bundles of forage, including the grain, make a most excellent feed for horses and cattle, and, if shredded, little or no waste will be had. For use as a grain crop, harvesting may be done by cutting the heads and throwing them into a wagon, in which case the stalks are left in the field and utilized for pasture, or they may be allowed to mature a sucker head crop and then be harvested as bundled feed. In any event, harvesting should be done promptly, as feterita deteriorates rapidly after ripening. Feterita, however, may be left in the field for a time after ripening without serious loss from shattering. ' onrenv or SPUR Fnrnnrrit Spur feterita was originated by the Texas Experiment Station at Substation No. '7, Spur, Texas, as a result of selection and head-row planting of more than one hundred feterita plants. These selections 1O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL» EXPERIMENT STATION. >93 ohowon 3.33 wofixzww $2.. Mo 2:3: wfiwwmn mm mfihowv fl Qsnw N dz cofimumnsm AS5003 h mo wfiwbw 9:5 mcisoow E Guam K .oZ cofifiwasm i» ocow v20? $2.“ ash. N Qzwrm ._.4 SPUR FETERITA. 11 were made by the junior author in 19141 "from a feterita grown by the Texas station under Texas Station No. 10, original seed of which was secured from the Office of Forage Crops, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. 0., which carried it under Seed and Plant Introduction No. 19517. The seed from the selected heads was planted in the spring of 1915, but during that growing season no appreciable variation was observed. Individual selections were made from different rows, however, and these were planted in head-row plats in 1916 for further observation, when variations occurred in stature, earliness, type of head, size of stem, and, in fact, a number of other characters. Two selections were made, one carried under Pedigree No. 410-3 and the other carried under Pedigree No. -t0-92, which were especially promis- ing. From each of these, further selections were made. At the close x 9 aefizr Figure 3. A field of Spur Feterita grown from the seed distributed in 1919. of the season of 1916, selection No. 40-3-6-15 was considered sufficiently outstanding to warrant its increase, and so it was assigned Texas Station No. 8232 and increased as rapidly as possible for distribution to farm- ers. Twelve thousand pounds of seed were grown under contract dur- ing the season of 1918 and purchased by the Oflice of Dry Land Seed Distribution, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. 0., for distribution. This seed was sent to farmers in Texas, in Oklahoma, in Kansas, and in other states. More than eight thousand pounds were distributed in Texas. The distribution of seed in 1919 resulted in a considerable supply of seed being available for the crop of 1920 and at the present time Spur feterita is perhaps more com- monly grown in Texas than the unimproved kind. 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. .22 5am s a2 émpwgmnaw 8 “Hcvtm 3 dz 5 .252 8 mums: E8 £8“ 3 ma? a QSmE SPUR FETERITA. .52 ..5Qm,..> dZ coiwinsw duwovzom ma? wthwgwh 25m A033 59¢ muted-oh ow .0 Z “o 5.95m dwcmwwfio of E was“: @093 32m .m opswE 14; i ‘ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT.STATION. HAS THICK. STRONG STALK Spur feterita is a stocky plant, the stem averaging 2'7 per cent. larger in diameter than that of unimproved feterita. This stocki- ness seems to be of value in that the plant does not lodge or fall down so readily as the unimproved feterita. The size of the stem as compared to that of milo, of kafir, and of feterita is shown in the fol- lowing table where successive dates of planting have been made through- out the season, subjecting the crop to varying seasonal conditions. Ten consecutive plants in each plat were measured and the measurements averaged. ' Table 1.—Diameter of plant in_ centimeters—1919 T. S. Variety April May May June June July July Aug. No. Name 15 3 15 2 16 2 15 1 Average 3232 Spur Feterita.... 1.9‘ 2.1 1.9' 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.4 1.88 1652 Unimproved l » Feterita.... 1.4] 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 15 12 1.47 670 Milo . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.51 1.8 1.8 1.1 1.9 1.5 1.60* 673 Kafir 1.6 1.6 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.8 ....I.II:IIII 1.85** I Note: *Average of seven. **A-verage of six. The average diameter of the stem of the Spur feterita is 1.88 centi- meters eas comparedto 1.4.17 centimeters in unimproved feterita, or 2'7’ per cent. greater: It is seen that the stem of Spur feterita is larger than that of milo and approximately the same as that of kafir, and hence is less susceptible to lodging or falling down if left in the field until overripe. Spur feteritastands Well in the field, even after ripening. NOT SO TALL ‘AS IlNIh/[PROVED FETERITA The stalk of Spur feterita is about twelve inches less in height than that of unimproved feterita, yet it is not what would be termed a “dwarf feterita,” as it is not comparable with dwarf milo. The height of Spur feterita as compared to that of the unimproved feterita, milo, and kafir is shown in the following date of planting test from which measure- ments of ten consecutive plants from each plat were averaged: Table 2.—Height of plant in centimeters—1919 T. S. Variety April May May June June July July Aug. No. Name 15 3 15 2 16 2 15 1 Average 3232 Spur Feterita. . . . 175 142 125 195 162i 136 151 163 156 1652 Umm proved v Feterita. . . .. 218; 175' 170 208 196; 184 176 181 188 670 Milo . . . . . . . . . . .. 130, 101l 100 114 106} 102 108 . . . . .. 108* 673 Kafir . . . . . . .. .. 118‘ 106' 107 116' 112‘ 108‘ . . . . . . . . . . .. 11l** ' I Note: *Average of seven. **Average of six. It is seen that the very early and the very late plantings have grown tallest. On averaging the dates of plantings, however, for each of the four grain sorghums, it is seen that Spur feterita is 82 centimeters, or approximately one foot lower in stature than unimproved feterita. It is somewhat taller than milo or even kafir. SPIjR FETERITA. 15 16L TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPLRIMENT STATION. fiazsgwm f a 7i e Q J} “E fi saw I“ ma: an Figure 7. ‘"148 ‘L ‘ON uonvasqns ‘L161 ‘61310103 Q7 ‘olq puno; s12 sxflms 21419125130 sadfi] xgg ‘g 01:185.; ,1’? 18 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. THRESHES HIGH PERCENTAGE OF GRAIN Spur feterita has a rather compact seed head, Well filled with seed at the base. The compactness of the head seems to be due to the better filled seed branches throughout the head. That the heads are well filled is shown by determination of the percentage of grain turnout from a series of date plantings throughout the season and by comparing these percentages with those obtained from a similar series planted to com- mon feterita, milo, and kafir. The data are shown below, as obtained from the grain turnouts from the difiierent plats and averaging: Table 3.—Per cent. Grain to head—1919 ' l T. S. Variety April May May June June July July Aug. l No. Name 15 3 . 15 2 16 2 15 1 I Average 1 r 3232 Spur Feterita. . .. 79.41 78.63} 79.41 78.35 77.14 76.19 73.17 71.14 76.68 1652 Unim proved _ Feterita. . . . .| 71.76 75.81 73.14 74.161 76.17 71.12 70.71 68.14 72.62 670 Milo . . . . . . . . . . .. 79.82 76.41 78.84 77.65 76.64 74.14, 71.19 . . . . .. 76.38* 673 Kafir . . . . . . . . . .. 71.76 73.47 75.40 76.71 74.50 73.91’ . . . . . . . . . . 74.29** Note: *Average of seven. **Average of six. It is shown here that Spur feterita threshed approximately the same per cent. of grain as milo and a higher percentage of grain than either unimproved feterita or kafir. High threshing percentage is desirable as a better turnout of threshed grain is secured. i REQUIRES SLIGHTLY LONGER GROWING PERIOD THAN UNIMPROVED . FETERITA Earliness in maturity enables grain sorghum in periods of extreme shortage of water supply to frequently evade or to escape drouth, and even to produce a "fair crop. A series of date plantings of Spur feterita, unimproved feterita, milo, and kafir shows the relative earliness of these crops as obtained by recording the date on which 50 per cent. of the seed were ripe on each plat and averaging. Table 4. Length of growiing period in days-1919 T. S. Variety April May May June June July July Aug. No. Name l5 3 15 2 16 2 15 1 Average 3232 Spur Feterita. . . . 113 106 109 95 91 87 87 89 97 1652 Unimproved ' Feterita. . . . . 108 101 97 87 89 80 78 83 90 670 Milo . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 95 96 93 91 89 89 . . . . . . 94* 673 Kafir . . . . . . . . . .. 118 123 123 115 107 ~ 105 . . . . . . . . . . .. 115** Note: *Average of seven. **Average of six. It is seen that, while the growing season required varies with the _ time of planting, the average time required for Spur feterita is about a week more than that for unimproved feterita and three days more than that for milo. It would seem that in periods of extreme shortage of moisture its lateness might lessen its production. Its performance, however, under such conditions has not shown decreased grain production. SPUR FETERITA. Figure 9. 19 20 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Figure 10. 21 SPUR FETERITA. “£58 I. F»? Jayme»: E3; a m9: 1K2"; 3 m: 5:. 1mg H $33, ~OD Zo. s fiw Mk2; o». Ciauwofiwn mafia» 96B $5.5 x émw morwnrwm. 95w. 5:. . 22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. GRAIN PRODU CTION LARGE A series of plantings of Spur feterita, unimproved feterita, milo, and kafir were made for the purpose of determining the relative grain yield of these four crops. The results from each of eight different plantings, together with the average results in grain yield, are shown in the fol- lowing table: ' Table" 5.-—Yield of threshed grain in bushels to the acre-1919 T. S. Variety April May May June June July July Aug. N0. Name 15 3 15 2 I 16 2 15 1 Average I 3232 Spur Feterita. . . . 66.44 63.94 68.00 71.72 49.39 44.59 22. 13 14.93 50.14 1652 Unimproved _ Feter1ta..... 60.48 57.18 61.77 58.85 56.85 39.95 21.10 8.29 45.55 670 Milo . . . . . . . . . . .. 55.18 49.23 40.26 37.82 33.11 25.33 23.48 0.00 33.05 673 Kafir . . . . . . . . . . . 51.02 45.60 37.02 35.26 33. 95 31.06 00.00 0.00 29. 23 It is seen in this test that Where each crop was subjected to varying seasonal conditions throughout the planting period, Spur feterita showed superiority in grain yield in every case but one and averaged five bushels t0 the acre more grain than the unimproved feterita, seventeen bushels more than milo, and twenty-one bushels more than kafir. SHOWS GOOD PERFORMANCE IN GENERAL TESTS Spur feterita has been grown in a comparative way with unimproved feterita for five years at Substation No. '7, Spur, Texas. The results are shown in the following table: Table 6.-—Yicld in bushels to the acre, general tests at SDur. l 1916 i 1917 V1918 1919 1920 Average Spur feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. 52 22. 39 i 0 50. 14 49. 29 30. 67 Unimproved fcterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~. . . . 22.84 14.32 0 45. 55 31.18 22. 78 *Crop failure on account of extreme drought. It is seen that Spur feterita has constantly given better yields than unimproved feterita, and that itshows an average yield for the five- year period of 7.89 bushels more than unimproved feterita. Spur feterita has been grown in comparison with unimproved feterita for three years by Mr. R. E. Karper, Superintendent, Substation No. 8, Lubbock, with results as shown below: Table 7.——-Yield in bushels to the acre, general tests at Lubbock. 1918 1919 1920 Average 3232 Spur feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.56 58.68 35.84 39.36 1652 Unimproved feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.48 68.25 26.27 36. 66 It is noticeable here that Spur feterita yielded more grain than un- improved feterita two years out of the three tested, giving an average of 73.70 bushels of grain more per acre. SPUR FETERITA. “XABALGPKIULTURALEXPERIM ’ SPUR FUERII’ APRIL towwM Ftnnn4\ } SWR FETERITA LMAY CMIGUQFEERKTA 60-46 % 1.16anuzzsszzszasxzsisis:xszznmms V V7.16 4'9. 23 sszziazzzsasnzaaaxs£2:m; ? 1 SPUI? FEIERUA JMAY Conmfériasm as 1 ?m|1..o¢% KAFIR % 40.26 muss:zsssxmiasaxza 6LT! @222; CmmETERnA MILO 1 WAPEIERITA (‘onmfimzm l6 MiLO KAHQ. was Figure 12. 23 24 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. ical . Below typ k, 1920. d Feterita . 8, Lubboc ion N0 'pical Well filled heads of Unimprove ads 0f Spur Feterita, Substat . Above t Well filled he Figure 13 SPUR FETERITA. 25 Spur feterita has been tested two years by Mr. D. T. Killough, Super- intendent Substation No. 5, Temple, Texas, in comparison with unim- proved feterita, giving results as follows: Table 8.—Yicld in bushels to the acre, general tests at Temple 1919 1920 Average Spur feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.25 10.25 12.25 Unimproved feterita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.43 9.50 10.96 It is seen that Spur feterita at Temple has marked superiority for grain production over the unimproved variety. SUMMARY Spur feterita is the name of a new and distinct variety of grain sorghum developed by plant breeding work ‘by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station at Substation No. '7, Spur, Texas. Spur feterita is the first highly improved named variety of feterita which has been developed and widely distributed in the United States. Eeterita was first introduced into the United States in 1909 and first grown at Chillicothe, Texas. Feterita is widely adapted in Texas and the United States; its cultural requirements and the general farm operations necessary to produce the crop are similar to those of the other grain sorghums. The unimproved. feterita commonly grown possesses certain defects, and its improvement is highly desirable. In view of the performance and of the characters of Spur feterita the work of the Texas Agri- cultural Experiment Station in improving feterita has been fully justified. i ' Spur feteri-ta has a thicker stalk than kafir, milo, ‘or unimproved feterita. It stands up better in storms or at maturity than the un- improved feterita. It does not grow so tall as the unimproved feterita. Spur feterita has a compact, well-filled seed head, and it produces ahigh percentage of grain in the head. Spur feterita matures in a shorter growing period than that required for kafir, but itself requires a longer growing period than milo or unimproved feterita. It produces heavy yields of grain and is well adapted not only to planting in season, but also to very late planting. Its yields have exceeded yields of unimproved feterita by approximately eight bushels to the acre at Substation‘ No. 7, Spur, and approximately two and three-fourths bushels at Substation No. 8, Lubbock, and by approximately one and one-fourth bushels at Substation No. 5, Temple. APPENDIX The following tables show the monthly distribution of rainfall for the crop years referred to in this bulletin, at Spur, Lubbock, and Temple. 26 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. ioonnsd .w dZ cofimwmnsm 6N2 £13m QGQEEQQNMM coflfiofl o5 no mfiuvuoh 25m wmfimPiwfi .3 Miami SPUB FETERITA. . .27 Table 9.——Precipitation:by months-Substation No. 7——Spur. Month 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 January . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l-T .22 T .28 1 31 February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _T 51 .64 .21 T March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .43 T .30 3.56 . 16 April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.35 1.27 .62 3.78 .99 May....._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.31 1.71 2.44 4.37 6.91 June . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.36 .14 1.97 2.03 3.36 July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .56 2.17 .44 2.60 .75 August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.01 1.58 1.42 2.44 8.34 September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.12 4.12 .92 4.26 2.20 October; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.63 .12 2.60 7.48 2.49 November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 .07 . 20 . 80 1.11 December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00 .00 1.37 T .38 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.59 11.91 12.92 31.81 28.00 Table 10.-—Precipitation by months—Substation No. 8—Lubb0ck. ' Month 1918 1919 1920 January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 .12 .90 February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 .25 . 11 March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .05 3.39 .24 April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3. 53 . 15 May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 169 2.10 2.91 June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 95 3.52 3.66 July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .53 2.28 2.19 August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 2. 83 _ 2.64 September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79 5. 70 1.63 October . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .51 7.34 1.43 November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 .36 2 21 December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 03 .19 .09 Total . . . . . . . . . . . ll? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.17 31.61 18.16 Table l1.—Precipitation by months—Substati0n N0. 5—Temple. Month 1919 1920 January . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.51 4.81 February . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 36 . 79 March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.95 1.98 April . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.77 .52 May . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.20 4. 80 June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.87 3.06 July . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .92 3.66 August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . .. 5.10 10.41 September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.09 5.76 October . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 08 2.37 November . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 44 5.40 December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.16. 1 . 17 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 45 44 73 Table 9, showing the rainfall at Spur, brings out that the seasons of 1916, 1917, and 1918 were all seasons of low rainfall. Nineteen sixteen, however, was a fair crop season, inasmuch as it followed 1915, a season of plentiful rainfall. Nineteen seventeen, although a year of low annual rainfall, had favorable’ distribution during the growing period of the crop, and, therefore, favored fair crop production. No appreciable amount of rainfall occurred, however, from September, 1917, to May, 1918, hence the year 1918, with slightly over seven inches of 28 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. rainfall from January to August, was a disastrous crop year and re- sulted in crop failure. Nineteen nineteen and 1920 {were favorable. crop seasons. Table 10, showing the rainfall at Lubbock, brings out the fact that May and June of 1918 had a plentiful supply of rainfall for a good season, which assured a fair crop. Nineteen nineteen and 1920 were seasons of plentiful rainfall for satisfactory crop production. Table 11, showing the rainfall at Temple, sets forth Well distributed rainfall for the seasons of 1919 and 1920, amounting to 4'7 and 44 inches, respectively. 3705?£ .1;l-w--s