LIBRARY, CAEIPUS’. A19-222-10M-L TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION’ AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS‘ W. B. BIZZELL, President BULLETIN NO; 288 v l. A _ ‘ ~ FEBRUARY, 1922 DIVISION OF COTTON BREEDING COTTON VARIETY ‘EXPERIMENTS, 1912-1920, SUBSTATION NO. 7, R SPUR,TEXAS A - I I IAGRICKILTIIR/gy (g 1.1 COLLEGE o? T} {I1 917111111111211, ..‘ I‘ w w 1k‘ f.it4.z'4‘,'wv’ B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR. COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION B. YoUNGBLooi), Ph. D., Director CHARLES A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary A. D. JAcKsoN, Executive Assistant CHARLES GORZYCKI, Technical Assistant M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Assistant Chief Clerk VETERINARY SCIENCE *M. FRANcis, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. S., Veterinarian J. J. REID, D. V. M., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. AsBURY, 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 R. M. SHERWOOD, B. S., Poultry Husbandman G. R_. WARREN, B. _S., Animal Husbandman in Charge of Swine Investigations J. L. Lusn, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman ENTOMOLOGY M. C. TANQUARY, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. REINRARD, B. S., Entomologist . R. WATSON, A. M.. Apiculturist . S. RUDE, B. S., Entomologist . H. ALEx, B. S., Queen Breeder . P. TRicE, B. S., Assistant Entomologist RONOMY . B. C0NNER, B. S., Chief; Crops . H. LEmion, B. S., Agronomist, Soils . B. REYNoLns M. S., Agronomist, Small Grains g>nr A ma» Q E. W. GEYER, B. S., Agronomist; Farm _ Superintendent PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief COTTON BREEDING G. F. FREEMAN, D. Sc., Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS A. B. Cox, Ph. D., Chief SOIL SURVEY **W. T. CARTER, JR.,_B. S., Chief H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor H. V. GEIB, B. S., Soil Surveyor FEED CONTROL SERVICE B. YOUNGBLOOD. Ph. D.,_Director F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief Inspector S. D. PEARcE, Inspector J. H. ROGERS, Inspector (genetics) W. H. Woon, Inspector SUBSTATIONS Nu. l. Beeville, Bee County No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County I. 'E. CowART, M. S., Superintendent ‘No. '2. Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent 3N0. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent 7N0. 4. Beaumont, Jelferson County A. H. PRINCE, B. S., Superintendent ‘No. 5. Temple, Bell County _ D. T. KiLLoUcE, B. S., Superintendent 3N0. 6. Denton, Denton County C. H. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent No. 7. Spur, Dickens County _ R. E. DicKsoN, B. S., Superintendent TAs of February 1, 1921. R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent No. 9. Pecos, Reeves County V. L. CoRY, B. S., Superintendent No. 10. College Station, Brazos County (Feeding and Breeding Substation) L. J. McCALL, Superintendent No. 11. Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent **No. 12. Chillicothe, Hardeman County A. B. CRoN, B. S., Superintendent 4. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Veterinarian No. 1 E. D *In cooperation with School of Veterinary Medicine, A. and M. College of Texas. **In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. CQTTQN VARIETY EXPERIMENTS, 1912-1920. SUBSTATION NO. 7, SPUR BY . G. F. FREEMAN AND R. E. D1cKsoN.* Substation No. 7 of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station is located one mile west of Spur in the southern part of Dickens County. The average annual rainfall is 22 inches, the elevation is 2,274 feet above sea level, and the latitude and longitude are 33 N. and 100 de- grees W., respectively. The soil consists, for the most part, of a heavy red clay loam, known technically as “Vernon heavy clay loam.” There are also parts of the farm that consist of heavy silty clay loams of a chocolate color, known technically as “Foard heavy clay loams.” It is fairly rich in plant food and lime, but is deficient in humus. Spur is located On the Wichita Valley Railroad and is sixteen miles east of the caprock bordering the plains of Northwest Texas. “The agricultural region served by this Substation is that of the red lands below the cap- rock of the plains, which is kn-own as the Permian Red-beds Region.” t It is the purpose of this bulletin to record the results obtained in com- parative tests of varieties of cotton which have been grown on Sub- station N o. 7 during the past eight years. The data are presented in tables, each table representing the work of a single year. The yields are made up by averaging the data of duplicate or triplicate plats. The accuracy of the work is further safeguarded by using numerous soil checks to correct for soil variation, and guard rows are planted“ on the outside where necessary to protect from the influence of roads, etc. The work has been continuous, and each year is recorded separately. However, where the data are not dependable on account of some un- controllable factor such as storms or flood or accident, they are omitted. Unwarranted conclusions are thus avoided. The column headings in the tables are as follows: (1) T. S. Number, (2) Variety Name, (3) Per Cent. Stand, (4) Pounds of Seed Cotton" per Acre, (5) Pounds of Seed per Acre, (6) Pounds of Lint per Acre, (7) Per Cent. Lint, and (8) Length of Lint Expressed in 16th of an Inch, and (9) Commercial Grade. " ( 1) When a package of seed is received at the Experiment Station it is given a serial acquisition number which, for convenience, is spoken of as its “T. S.” or Texas Station number. A card is then made out and filed giving a complete history of the seed so far as known. Its name, source, history, purity, cost, etc., are set down. The T. S. number is given for each variety in order that it may be traced and *Credit is also due A. B_. Conner, E. P. Humbert, and A. H. Leidigh for supervising the geiflofdlng. checking. compilation and calculation of much of the quantitative data contained erein. . tSee introduction to Texas Bulletin No. 218 and Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Rept. No. 33 (1920), p. 57. 4 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. thus give to the reader an easy method of inquiry concerning that par- ticular variety 0r lot of seed. (2) The variety" name given in the tables is the one given by the seed firm or individual furnishing the seed. Confusion is inevitable due t0 the fact that often the same variety is listed under several different names and likewise different and distinct varieties are listed under one name. The temptation is great to sell the seed of some unpopular variety under new and catchy titles and to- sell odd lots of seed under the name of. a popular variety. The naming of selections that are not distinct from theparent variety also adds to the confusion. It is not possible to properly place each and every variety; however, the real history of many of them is known and used in interpreting the data. ' ‘ (3) Per cent. of stand obtained by count of stalks. (4) The cotton weighed before ginning gives the pounds of seed cotton per acre. It includes the weight of the seed, the weight of the lint, and any dirt contained. (5) After ginning, the seed is weighed to give pounds of seed per acre. (6) This weight subtracted from the weight of seed cotton gives pounds of lint per acre. ‘(Except for the year 1919, when the weight of the lint was also» determined.) _ (7) The weight of lint divided by the weight of seed cotton gives the per cent. of lint. (Except for the year 1919, when the per cent. of lint was found by dividing the weight of the lint by the sum of the weights of seed and lint.) (8) Length of lint expressed in inches (stapled by expert cotton classer).* (9) Commercial grades as given by an expert cotton classer. 1912. The results for 1912 are shown in Table I and include thirty-two plots, of which six were check plots planted with seed of a long-staple variety grown on this Station in 1911, but coming originally from a Dallas seed house. *The classing and stapling of these samples have been done, for the most part, by Mr. J. B. Beers, in charge of this work in the Extension Department of the Texas A. & M. College whose cooperation is hereby acknowledged with thanks. COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS, 1912-1920. Table N0. I. Cotton varieties, Substation No. 7, Spur, 1912. (Sequence of varieties as in the field.) Pounds Per Cent T. S Per Cent Seed Pounds Pounds Per Cent of Average No Variety. and. Cotton Seed Lint Lint. Yield of Per Acre. Per Acre. Per Acre. Seed Cotton. 128 Mebane’s Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 15 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '75 220 129 91 41.3 55 16 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 330 198 132 40.0 82 24 Virgatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 77 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 229 147 82 35.8 57 79 Jackson's Variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 339 199 140 41.3 84 78 Hendrick’s Variety . . . . . . . . y . . . . . . . 75 220 124 96 43.6 55 11 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 440 260 180 40.9 109 C ck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 330 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 82 1 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 440 265 175 39.8 109 7 Burn’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 426 257 169 39.7 105 2- Bolivia-Long Sta e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 440 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109 3 v C umbia Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 426 302 124 29.1 105 Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 343 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85 14 Long Staple (Unknown) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 469 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 116 119 Keenan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 516 356 160 31.1 128 118 Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 550 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 136 5 Allen's Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 591 378 213 36.0 147 Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 371 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 92 8 Brabham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 536 330 206 38.4 133 12 Floradora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 477 342 135 28.3 118 74 Allen's Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 550 344 206 37.5 136 76 Floradora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 488 338 150 30.7 121 ' Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 357 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 89 120 Burn’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 516 320 196 38.0 128 121 Allen’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 516 332 184 35.7 128 122 Cook’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 550 _ 362 198 36.0 136 9 Brabham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 481 370 111 23.1 119 Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 385 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 96 10 Mit Afifi (Egyptian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 17 Sea Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75 130 87 43 33.1 32 Especial attention is invited to T. S. Numbers 119, 118, 5, 120, 121, seed cotton per acre. and 122, which produced yields of more than five hundred pounds of The good showing of the Upland long-staple vari- eties is also noteworthy. T. S. Numbers 10 and 1'7, being tropical long- staple varieties, made very slow growth and correspondingly light yields. The average yield from the ten plots of Upland long-staple Numbers 2, 3, 5, '7, 14, 74, 11.8, 120, 121, and 122 was 503 pounds per acre. The average of all plots was 403 pounds.’ t 1913. In 1913,'forty-siX varieties of cotton were planted, but because of drouth did not come up until July. A number of the varieties lived through the dry weather, but the fall rains did not come early enough to enable. them to mature a crop. The following fourteen varieties Were noted as showing good drouth resistance: T. S. No. Variety 11..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......Lone Star. 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ilnknown Long Staple. 118. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Long Staple. 128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mebane Triumph. 169 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Webber. 411 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . .Hite’s Early Prolific. 412 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Foster Long Staple. 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. T. S. No. Variety 413 . . . . ....................Snowflake. 414 . . . . ..................:.Durango. 443........................HalfandHalf. 446 . . . . . . . . ................Simpkin’s Prolific. 466. . . . . ........_...........Webber. 469 . . . . . ...................Hawkins. 472 . . . . . . . .................Peterkin. 1914. The variety tests of cotton in 1914 consisted of a series of fifty-five plots, planned in duplicate. Of these, eleven plots of each set were planted to T. S. Number 804, Mebane, for use as soil checks. Two varieties, Sea Island (T. S. Number 958) and Webber (T. S. Number 477), failed completely. In looking over the results of this test, one must keep in mind the fact that at no time'during the growing period did any variety’ want for soil moisture. This is a very unusual condition for this section of the country. The first and most striking thing to observe is. that none of the Texas varieties hold a high place in yield. . The Mebane, which is generally considered to be the best variety for this section, ranks fifteenth, Triumph seventeenth, Chisholm nineteenth, Lone Star twenty-first,» Rowden twenty-second, and Half and Half thirty-first. The long-staple cotton varieties made a much better yield than was expected. Hendricks produced 562.79 pounds of lint cotton per acre and several of the long staples produced over 400 pounds. The high-yielding cotton varieties had a large number of bolls per stalk. The King Cotton, although making a high. yield, is not at all practical on. account of the trouble in harvesting the small bolls. Table No. II. Cotton variety test, Substation N0. 7, Spur, 1914. (Average of duplicate series.) Pounds Per Cent Percentage T. S. _ Per Cent Seed s Pounds Pounds Per Cent Total of Av e No. Variety. Stand. Cotton Seed Lint Lint. Crop in Yield o Per Acre. Per Acre. Per Acre. First Seed i Picking. Cotton 958 Sea Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 477 Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 495 Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 1577.2 1014.41 562.79 36.00 72 115 504 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 1313.0 899.83 413.21 31.47 . 82 96 483 Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 1178 .9 780 .49 398 .45 31.55 51 86 445 Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 1006.5 715.15 291.38 28.92 46 74 348 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . .. 107 996.2 633.43 362.82 25.63 53 73 470 Sunflower Long Staple. . 97 731.6 542 .34 189.25 25 .88 65 53 118 Unknown Long Staple. . 86 1192 .6 804 .23 388.41 32 .57 69 87 939 Floradora . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 1120.4 794 .04 326 .35 29 . 13 74 82 7 Bmns Long Staple. . . . 99 1399.0 988.11 410.88 34.21 69 102 498 Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 1474 .5 1032 . 17 442 .37 30.00 63 108 414 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 1285 .4 855 .43 429 .96 33 . 45 85 94 413 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 87 1304.9 900.25 404.64 31.99 68 96 466 Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 948 .4 644 .85 303 .60 32 .01 64 69 I114 Unknown Long Staple.. 88 937.8 607.03 330.76 35.27 50 69 942 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 1206.5 733.48 473.01 39.21 70 88 130 Bank Account . . . . . . . .. 80 1306.5 872.44 434.15 36.84 82 96 959 isholm . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 90 1329.8 817.46 512.39 38.53 78 97 494 Cannons’ World Skinner 88 1598 .0 1024.12 573 .92 36.54 73 117 CoTToN VARIETY EXPERIMENTS, 1912-1920. r7 Table No. II. Cotton variety test, Substation No. 7, Spur, 1914——Continued. (Average of duplicate series.) v Pounds Per Cent Percentage T. S. , Per Cent Seed Pounds Pounds Per Cent Total of Aver e' No. Variety. Stand. Cotton Seed Lint Lint. Crop in Yield o Per Acre. Per Acre. Per Acre. . First Seed Picking. Cotton. 941 Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 1432 .8 904 .66 528.18 36 .86 76 105 482 Bohler’s Triple Jointed. . 96 1460.9 934 .98 525 .92 36 . 0O 69 107 496 Broadwell’s D. Jointed. . 108 1653 1 1049 23 603.86 36.52 80 121 940 emiscott . . . . . . . . . . . .. 88 1244.4 878 98 365.47 29.77 58 91 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 87 1684.1 1091 13 592.97 35.21 74 123 473 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 831.1 539 71 291.38 35.06 79 61 77 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 1333.7 880 11 453.59 34.01 78 98 443 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . 93 1058.3 650 57 402.68 38.05 71 77 474 ruitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 109 1683.6 1111 73 571.87 33.99 77 123 479 Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 1618.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 119 152 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . 85 1312.9 874 55 438 39 33.39 78 96 938 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94 1670.3 1075 99 594 36 35.58 87 122 476 Texas Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 1673.4 1104 27 569 12 34.01 73 123 11 Lone ar . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80 1147.5 757 50 390 05 33.99 76 84 472 Peterkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 1464.3 892.35 571.94 44 .96 78 107 485 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . 75 1474 .2 982 .35 492 .39 33 .40 80 108 487 Dongola Big Boll . . . . .. 102 1608.5 1072.08 536.41 33.67 72 118 486 Robert's Big Boll . . . . . . . 97 1601.9 1040.74 561.07 35.03 71 117 135 Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . 69 1237.2 820.72 415 .52 33.67 73 91 480 Culpepper Big Boll. . . . . 104 1759.7 v 1156.30 603.40 34 .29 76 129 951 Cleveland Big Boll. . . . . 108 1660.0 1049.49 610.55 36.96 85 122 481 Cooks Improved Big Boll 107 _ 1642 .8 1047. 76 595 .09 36.22 73 120 783 Kmg._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 1680.2 1091.73 588.51 35.03 85 123 469 Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 1543 .2 1009.75 533 .49 34 .57 65 113 804 Mebane, Average of Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 1361 4 822.55 536 77 39.52 75 100 1915. The climatic conditions for 1915 were probably a little better than the average for this section, notwithstanding the fact that from June 9th to August 29th there was only an occasional summer shower, total- ing 2.29 inches. These showers were of little or no benefit, as none of them p-enetrated through the deep soil mulch. The early spring rains, however, put an abundance of moisture in the soil and proper cultiva- tion made a good crop possible. The rain which fell during the grow- ing season was 1.83 inches below the normal. During June, July, and August, the temperature was below normal and hot dry winds did little damage. On the other hand, the low tem- peratures prevented maximum growth. The last spring frost was April 3rd and the first killing autumn frost was November 14th, sixteen days later than the average. The late frost gave-the crop more time to mature than usual. i a Thirty-eight varieties of cotton were planted in duplicate on the 23rd. of May. The rows were three feet apart and the plants thinned to~ 18 inches apart‘ in the row. A good stand was secured. Three early cul- tivations were given with a harrow, one later with a lister cultivator, and two with an Oliver cultivator. The number of bolls per pound of seed cotton were obtained by counting the number of open bolls imme- diately before the first picking and dividing this by the yield.- The cotton was ginned in March, 1916, and since the weather was very dry, the percentages" of lint are high, due, doubtless, to the shrinkage in the weight of the seed. 1 8 I TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. . Table No. III. Cotton variety test, Substation N0. 7, Spur, 1915. Average Number Pounds ' Per Cent of Bolls T. S. _ Seed Pounds Pounds Pounds Per Cent Required , No. Variety Name. Cotton Seed Lint Lint of to Make » Per Acre. Per Acre. Per Acre. Average one Lb. of f Yield. Seed * Cotton 1153 Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1180.8 755 .0 425 .8 36 .06 149 69.0 1371 Boswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 .0 475 .4 329.6 40 .94 101 76 .3 1374 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 876.1 543 .6 332.5 37.95 110 71.0 1276 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 907 .1 550 .4 356.7 39 .32 114 68.5 1260 Ricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 902 .3 577.0 325 .3 36 .05 113 78.5 1370 Simpkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811.6 492.7 318.9 39.29 102 87.3 1277 Rublee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 856.2 561.3 294.9 34.44 108 66.5 1359 Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 921.1 577.6 343 .5 37 .29 116 65.5 1361 Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 764 .5 471.0 293 .5 38. 39 96 ‘ 72 .0 1375 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1004 .1 665 .6 338 .5 33 .71 126 73 .0 1364 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 834.3 529.0 305.3 36.59 105 101.0 1366 Toole. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 737.0 449.9 287.1 38.95 93 91.0 1151 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 877 .5 564 .9 312 .6 35 .62 110 69 .5 1358 Texas Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 847.2 530.5 316.7 37.38 107 94.0 1362 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 779.5 488.4 291.1 37.34 98 78.7 1357 Bates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 833.3 519 .2 314 .1 37.69 105 98.5 1372 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767.7 497 .9 269.8 35.14 97 85 .5 1275 Rowden . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 696 .7 440 .5 256 .2 36.77 88 71.5 1379 Ferguson Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 871.4 558.3 313.1 35.93 110_ 63.5 1363 Money Maker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 805 .1 499.0 306 .1 38.02 101 84.5 1263 Hartsville No. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631.6 365.0 266.6 42 .21 79 74.7 1369 Cooke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 659.3 406.7 252 .6 38.31 83 90.5 1274 Hufiman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 811.0 526. 5 284 .5 35 .08 102 70.0 1377 Cook 729 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 838.0 576.1 261.9 31.25 105 62.5 1376 Cleveland X Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 944.0 655 .6 288.4 30.55 119 77.7 1152 King X Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 786 .4 522 .7 263.7 33.53 99 81.5 1267 Ferguson Round Nose . . . . . . . . . . . 907.5 626.7 280.8 30.94 114 60.5 1378 Ferguson Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801.0 538.5 262.5 32 ". 77 101 73.5 1 1262 ' Webber No. 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 751.7 517.0 234.7 31.22 95 71.0 1360 Roberts . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 837 .8 555 .1 282.7 33 .74 105 86 .5 ‘ 1261 Webber No. 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 678.9 450.3 228 6 33.67 85 79.0 1368 Texas Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 874.0 568.6 305 4 I 34.94 110 102.0 1264 Goodson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644 .8 421.1 223.7 34 .69 81 77.5 1266 Virgatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633.7 415 .8 217 .9 34 .38 80 83 .3 1373 Laytons Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 628.2 405.0 223.2 35.53 79 102.5 1367 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 686.5 457 6 228 9 33.34 86 83.5 942 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 572.9 365 5 207 4 36.20 72 70.5 473 Red Leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 453.7 306 1 147 6 32.53 57 92.5 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 882.0 519.5 362.5 40.11 110 71.6 1705 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 864.4 551.5 312.9 36.20 109 72.2 The highest yielding variety was Cook (T. S. Number 1153). This was also among the highest yielding varieties in 1914. Other high yield- a ing varieties were Cleveland X Cook, Russell, Ferguson’s Round Nose, Ricks, Mebane, and Cleveland. Attention may also be called to Durango, which made an excellent yield as well as a long staple. T. S. Number 1705, Lone Star, was used as a check and gave a yield of 312.9 pounds lint per acre. On account of its exceedingly good storm- resistant qualities, it deserves careful consideration. 1916. The 1916 cotton crop at Spur was a failure due to its having been A destroyed by hail on June 9, 1916. 1917. In the spring the ground remained cold so long that cotton made a very slow early growth. It was the latter part of June before growth amounted to much. In a very few places the cotton reached a height of twenty inches during the growing season. The summer was very COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS, 1912-1920. 9 dry and caused cotton to shed a, good many blooms and young bolls. Cotton set after the September rains did not mature. Since the early frost was followed by dry Weather, there was but little loss from the decaying of bolls. ~ Like 1914, the year 1917 was characterized by the good showing of some of the long-staple varieties, noticeably Durango, Express, and Trice. Other high yielders were F. G. 33, Cook’~s Silk Long Staple, Match- less Extra EarlyBig Boll, BroadwelPs Double Jointed, Half and Half, and Peterkin. Attention should be called to Boykin, which produced a 'good yield and also had very large bolls, requiring only fifty-four to make a pound of seed cotton. Attention is called to the fact that in spite of high yields, small-boiled cottons are not well adapted to the conditions of western Texas on account of their lack of storm resistance. Table IV. Cotton variety test, Substation No. 7, Spur. 1917. Number ' of Bolls Pounds Pounds Pounds Per Length Grades Average Required T. S. Seed Seed Lint Cent Lint of Lint. Yield to Make No. » Variety Name. Cotton Per Acre. Per Acre. Lint.. 16th. Seed- One Lb. of Per Acre. ‘ inch. Cotton. Seed - Cotton. < 2456 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 382.00 241.0-4 140.96 36.80 8 L. M. 85 71 2457 Webb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430.00 276.06 153 94 35.80 10 L. M. 96 71 2458 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 364.50 243.12 121 38 33.30 14 S. L. M. 81 64 2459 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 443.50 275 86 167 64 37.80 12 S. L. M. 99 ~57 2460 Harvell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440.00 285 57 154 43 35.10 14 L. M. 98 64 2461 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439.50 277.77 161.73 36.80 17 S. M. 98 4 "2462 Improved Champion . . . . . . . 367.50 234.10 133.40 36.30 12 L. M. 82 55 2463 Vandivers Heavy Fruiter. . . . 385.00 235.24 149.76 38.90 12 S. L. M. 86 52 2464 F. G. 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 529.00 324.81 204.19 38.60 12 M. 118 80 2465 Kaschs Improved . . . . . . . . . . 477.50 285.46 192.04 40.20 - 12 L. M. 106 55 2466 Cooks Silk Long Staple . . . . . . 532.50 348.79 183.71 34.50 10 S. L. M. 118 71 2467 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409.00 278.94 130.06 31.80 19 S. G. C; 91 . 69 2468 Texas Progress. . .. . . . . . . . 398.50 256.64 141.86 35.60 12 L. M. 89 62 2469 Ferguson Round Nose . . . . . . 385.00 242.94 142.06 36.90. 12 S. M. 86 57 2470 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . .. 409.00 258.90 150.10 36.70 12 S. L. M. I 91 56 2471 Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488.00 289.39 198.61 40.70 12 L. M. 108 54 2472 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 457.00 279 69 177 31 38.80 14 S. L. M. 102 61 2473 Holdon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409.00 258.08 150.92 36.90 12 M. 91 49 2474 Wannamaker Cleveland. . . . . 433.50 267.60 165 .90 38.20 10 G. C. 96 66 2475 Cleveland 641 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 .50 260.09 159.41 38.00 12 S. G. O. 93 74 2476 King X Triumph . . . . . . . . .. 392.00 250.88 141.12 36.00 12 S. G. O. 87 58 2477 Cook 919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484.50 280.53 203.97 42.10 12 L. M. 108 69 2478 Surecrop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512.50 331.08 181.42 35.40 12 S. G. C. 114 57 2479 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . 412.50 266.48 146.02 35 .40 10 S. G. O. 92 57 2480 Hastings Upright. . . .. . . . . . . 437.00 280.96 156.04 35.70 12 G. C. 97 57 2481 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457.50 298.75 158.75 34.70 12 L. M. 102 79 2482 Matchless Ex. Ea. B. B. . . . . 536.00 346.26 189.74 35.40 10 _ L. M. 119 74 2483 Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . .. 402.00 264.11 137.89 34.30 14 S. G. C. 89 65 2484 Allen's Express . . . . . . . . . . . . 412.50 194.11 118.39 28.70 18 L. M. 92 91 2485 Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 382.00 252.50 129.50 33.90 14 L M. 85 65 2486 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323.00 209.31 113.69 35.20 12 L. M. 72 75 2487 Simpkin's Prolific. . . . . . . . . . . 405.50 243.30 162.20 40.00 12 L. M. 90 101 2488 Early King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412.50 269.36 143.14 34.70 8 S. L. M. 92 88 2489 Simpkin’s Ideal . . . . . . . . . . . . 440.00 286.88 153.12 34.80 10 L. M. 98 85 2490 Rowden’s Choice Prolific. . . . 295.50 194.73 100. 77 34.10 16 S. L. M. 66 89 2491 Mebane Triumph. . .. . . . . . . . 443.50 277.19 166.31 37.50 16 L. M. 99 62 2492 Jackson Big Boll . . . . . . . . . .. 443.50 285.61 157.89 35.60 12 S. L. M. 99 61 2493 King’s Early... .. . . . . . . . . . . 455.50 303.23 152.27 33.80 14 S. G. O. 101 95 2494 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464.00 305.32 158.68 34.20 18 G. C. 103 65 2495 Wannamaker . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 409.50 261.26 148.24 36.20 10 S. G. C. . 91 52 2496 Hite's Prolific. . . . . . . . . . . . . 447.00 284.74 162.26 36.30 12 S. G. C. 99 80 2497 Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443.50 281.18 162.32 36.60 14 L. M. . 99 68 2498 Money Maker . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492.00 304.54 186.46 37.90 12 G. O. 109 73 2499 BroadwelYs Double Jointed. 574.00 374.25 199.75 34.80 12 S. G. C. 128 73 2500 Mexican Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . 409.50 285.02 124.48 30.40 14 S. M. 91 76 2501 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553.00 364.43 188.57 34.10 14, S. M. 123 69 2502 Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732.00 ~ 527.04 204.96 28.00 18 SJ L. M. 163 79 2503 Trice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 615.50 407.46 208.04 33.80 18 S. L. M. 137 81 2504 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 667.00 421.54 245 .46 36.80 16 M. 148 68 2505 Peterkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 653.00 425.76 227.24 34.80 12 'M. 145 62 2969 Heavy Fruiter, Average of t - Check..._ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 442.37 279.14 163.23 36.90 .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 98 60 ' a . a 10 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 1918. The crop season of 1918 has probably been less favorable than for "1 any other year since the Station was established. Men who have been in this country for many years claim it to be the hardest year since 1900. A As there was a scant rainfall in 1916 and 1917, there was an accumulated _l deficiency of moisture. There was not enough moisture in the ground _ at planting time to germinate seed. Throughout the growing season i there was only one rain of over one inch. Planting followed this rain; therefore, much of the moisture was lost as the planting was done with j lister planter. Forty-one varieties of cotton were planted in duplicate on _ Acre C 51-60 and 61-70, but as Acre G 51-60 was a complete failure, ' the results obtained on the latter acre only are tabulated. The yields ‘_ on Acre 61-70 are due largely to the fact that this. acre is on overflow i land and received a good soaking in the fall of 1917 and another in i June of 1918. The water, however, was not distributed uniformly over the acre. In order to judge the comp-arative values of the different - varieties, a correction in the yields for the favored and unfavored parts .. of the field must be made. This is rendered possible by the fact that f) one variety, T. S. Number 804, Mebane, was repeated twelve times at ~ regular intervals. through the field and thus gave a constant soil check. ‘ By correcting to this constant, the following observations may be made. a _(See column of corrected relative yields in Table V.) i Cook’s 931 (T. S. Number 3030) ranks first, followed by two Triumph . strains. The Cook cottons have held a prominent place for several years, ranking high for the years 1914, 1915, 1917, and 1918. It is poor in < storm resistance and in staple length and quality. These are defects ; which go to offset its good yielding qualities. Lone Star, F. G. 33, and p Mebane have been making really good showings. . The following varieties of cotton may be listed as being poor in storm resistance in 1918 : T. S. No. Variety 2995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Union Big Boll. ' 2996 . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . .Hastings’ Upright (very poor). 2997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Matchless Extra Early. 2998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Vandive1’ s Heavy Fruiter. 3021 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Hastings’ Mortgage Lifter. 3022 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bank Account. 3023 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wannamaker. 3026 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oook’s Silk Long Staple. 3027 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wannamaker. 3028 . . . . . ; . . . . . . . i. Cook’s 588. 3030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cook’s 931. 2990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Snowflake. 2989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .King’s. 3033 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ideal. 3045 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Allen’s Express. 3044. . . f . . . . . . . . . .Cleveland Big Boll. 3047 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simpkin’s Prolific. i 3046 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Early King. 3061 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Durango. 3062 . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . .Express (very poor). COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS,‘ 1912-1920. 11 Table V. Cotton variety test, Substation'_No. 7, Spur,[1918. Pounds Relative T. S. Seed Cotton Yields ‘ No. Variety Name. ' Per Acre, Corrected‘ ' . Actual Yields. Per Cent. = 2994 Texas Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570.62 102 3056 Improved Champion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605.00 116 3000 F. G. 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 708.12 153 2995 Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 605 .00 125 2996 Hasting's Upright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ 350.62 82 2997 Matchless Ex. Ea. Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 .75 85 3004 Webb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 .50 112 3001 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 446.87 137 3003 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 302 50 3002 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323. 12 103 2998 Vandiver’s Heavy Fruiter. . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288.75 91 3005 Lonestar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 . 62 69 3006 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364.37 ‘ 101 3021 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343.75 89 3022 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 268.12 70 3020 Surecrop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330. 00 69 3023 Wannamaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 . 75 99 3025 Acala. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206.25 67 3026 Cook's Silk Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.25 83 3027 Wannamaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 .50 89 3028 Cook 588 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343.75 165 3030 ‘Cook 931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412.50 209 3029 King X Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371.25 170 2990 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.25 112 2991 Holdon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240.62 125 2989 King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240. 62 116 3057 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151.25 69 3039 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158.12 77 3038 Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 185.62 107 3034 Ferguson Round Nose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247.50 142 3033 Simpkin’s Ideal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.12 62 3035 Mebane 'I‘riumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254.37 186 3036 Lonestar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 .25 160 3037 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 .37 61 3040 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144.37 91 3045 Allen's Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110.00 49 3044 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.12 56 3047 Simpkin’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158.12 106 3046 Early King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 .00 35 3048 Kaschs Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130.62 105 3061 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 .25 77 3062 Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.00 38 3063 Trice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.75 60 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 .25 99 804 Mebane, Average of Check. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271.56 104 *Relative yield using the average of all plats as 100 per cent, after correcting the yieldsfof each plat to a standard based on the ratio WhICh its nearest check plat bears to the average of all of the check! plats (Mebane T. S. 804). I a This was made necessary by unevenness of water supply, duetolfiooding of a part_of the_field (see text). 1919. The year can be considered a very favorable one for cotton production. The early part of the year was some colder than desirable, and moisture conditions were such as to promote a large and vigorous growth of weeds that gave considerable trouble and did not permit the best cultivation. During the blooming period and fruiting stage, conditions were good. The latter part of August and the first of September were dry and caused all varieties to shed the young fruit and prevented the full de- velopment of the older bolls. The low grades and short staple are due in a large part to this dry spell. Harvesting conditions were not ideal, as the fall months were wetter and colder than normal, but aspthere were several periods of warm dry days, the cotton was harvested with little damage and no loss. As the dry spell stopped the growth in late August and September, there was but little “Bollie” cotton. 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Forty-four varieties were tested in duplicate plats. Mebane gave the highest single plot yield. Other high yielders were Belton, Acala (T. S. Number 3658), Chisholm, Snowflake, and Cook. l ' Cook has consistently been a high yielder, but it is very poor in storm resistance. The earliest varieties are Truitt, Mebane, Boykin, Buckelew, Kasch, and Acala. Among those showing a high ginning out-turn may be men- tioned Cook, Kasch, and Triumph, with 40 per cent., Mebane with 39 per cent., and Willis, Acala, and F. 33 with 38 per cent. Varieties which have been best in storm resistance are Lone Star, Kasch, and Rowden. Those very poor in storm resistance are Cook, Half and Half, Union Big Boll, Foster, Kekchi, and Buckelew. Those varieties which shed the least fruit during the August dry spell may be listed as follows in their order of resistance to drouth: Lone Star, Gilstrap, Mebane Triumph, Mebane, Triumph, and F. G. 33. Cook, Belton, Lone Star, and Snowflake produced the tallest, and Bennett had the shortest stalks of the cotton varieties tested. Snowflake and Durango had the longest staple. Lone Star was one of the most promising varieties, but it had rather too much tendency to produce a crop of “bellies” at this Station. Acala, Boykin, and F. G. 33 appeared to be promising varieties. Mebane again demonstrated its reliability as a cotton for this section. It does not always stand at the head of the _ list in yields, but it is usually above the average in both good and bad years. Table VI. Cotton variety test, Substation N0. 7, Spur, Texas, 1919. . '2 c; . <1» a .3; c: .2 ° =1 5 Q °" '8 - *" - W5. .2: “3 ‘*5 75p "M3 o. 2 s“; £3 53 a, .. sag are a. m??? o . <1 <4 q F‘ . C! w! f, m . 4:2 '-<"-‘ 0350 Z B‘ -€*-"® -@ -§ 03W “+1 @3315 gA-C! ' "on. 35.1%: - ,9 c138 c163 :15 1,8 0.5 o>§3 :53 % E3 38683 "3 g go< gm gm s»: 3:4 3 cu m :1. Q cu m A <5 0 Z 804 Mebane. . . . . 1278.20 768.90 437.25 72.05 36.25 134 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3632 Mebane..... 941.60 550.11 319.44 72.05 36.74 99 12 Boller Poor 92 3633 Mebane. . . . . 948.20 588.12 325 .98 34.10 35.66 100 12 Boller Fair 87 3634 Mebane. . . . . 1137.40 684.26 422.34 30.80 38.16 120 12 L. Poor 69 3635 Mebane. . . .. 1041.15 670.01 371.14 00.00 35.65 109 12 S. L. M Poor 73 804 Mebane. . . .. 952.05 583.55 325.05 43.45 35.77 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3676 Mebane. . . .. 1085.70 604.78 384.67 96.25 38.88 114 12 M. Poor 79 3677 Mebane. . . . . 979.55 578.00 364.15 37.40 38.65 103 12 S. L. M. Poor 84 804 Mebane. . . . . 1006.50 642.62 333.08 30.80 34.14 106 12 L. M. Poor 67 3636 Mebane . . . . .. 1007.05 577.89 478.01 51.15 39.54 106 14 L M. Fair 83 804 Mebane. . . . . 876.15 517.22 294.03 64.90 36.24 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3642 Lone Star. . . 1003.75 619.19 350.46 34.10 36.14 106 14 L. M Soft 71 3643 Lone Star. . . 841.50 518.93 281.32 41.25 35.15 88 12 S. L. M Good 102 3644 Lone Star. . . 876.15 560.51 284.84 30.80 33.69 92 14 L. M Fair 85 3645 Lone Star. . . 1007.05 623.65 332.25 51.15 34.76 106 12 L. M Fair 73 804 Mebane. . . . . 996.05 600.00 341.60 54.45 36.28 105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3646 Lone Star. . . 917.40 612.87 284.73 19.80 31.72 96 16 S. L. M Good 79 3648 Lone Star. . . 731.50 443.58 257.12 30.80 36.69 77 12 M. Spot Fair 125 3150 Lone Star. . . 838.20 522.23 288.47 27.50 35.581 88 14 L. M. Fair 90 3637 Kasch. . . . . . . 797.50 461.34 312.51 23.65 40.38 84 12 S. L. M. Good 108 804 Mebane. . . . . 879.45 532.68 302.22 44.55 36.20 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3650 Rowden. . . .. 879.45 557.26 298.54 23.65 34.88 92 14 M. Fair 98 3651 Rowden. . . . . 1003.20 636.46 353.54 13.20 35.71 106 14 S. L. M. Good 79 793 Belton . . . . . . 944.90 580.91 319.44 44.55 35.48 99 16 L M. Good 81 3653 Belton . . . . . . 1123.65 727. 360.69 35.20 33.14 118 12 L. M. Good 65 804 Mebane. . . . . 954.80 575.52 324.83 54.45 36.08 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3638 Boykin 1058.20 643.06 381.04 34.10 37.21 111 12 L. M. Good 66 3657 Acala . . . . . .. 755.70 446.66 278.24 30.80 38.38 79 16 S. L. M. Fair 94 3658 Acala . . . . . .. 1174.80 721.33 370.97 82.50 33.96 124 16 S. L. M. Fair 61 3659 Acala . . . . . .. 972.40 577.61 357.39 37.40 38.22 102 16 S. L. M. Fair 66 804 ‘Mebane. . . . . 989.45 589.27 335.28 64.90 36.26 104 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3639 Webb . . . . . . . 954.80 607.48 315.92 31.40 34.21 100 12 L M. Good 71 3640 Bennett. . . .. 845.35 498.41 302. 44.55 37.76 89 14 S. L. M. Fair 98 3647 Jackson. . . . . 1009.80 625.41 346.99 37.40 35.68 106 14 L M. Fair 70 .3649 Holdon . . . . .. 986.15 614.24 320.76 51.15 34.30 104 14 S. L. M. Fair 76 A.nnaM4L .415‘. . “.:..4.A.44Mlh'444LLi‘1é~r CoTToN VARIETY EXPERIMENTS, 1912-1920. 13 Table N0. VI. Cotton variety test, Substation No. 7, Spur, 1919—Continued. ,6 . g w: 8'3 m: <9 g - l ‘g S’ w g we. =1» a5 =1 a5 *5 5*, ° ° m": - i} 55;, c323 I58 .6 p #219 glw g. 551E908 é :>.’ g8¢5 g‘: w“: gm 5,; 8E1’ 0g‘: . 8% figfipgq, - 32> 1:188 :16 ‘fir. he Us v§3figg % 2g ga-ee "3 g3 go< gm gm. 5.4 3.4 g-cw £1.11... é; gm véndzmm P‘ > 13-1 Q-1 13-1 Q4 Q-1 r-J C.) 804 Mebane. . . . . 889.90 529.76 298.54 61.60 36.04 94 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3654 Willis . . . . . .. 897.05 512.49 319.66 64.90 38.41 94 12 S. L. M. Fair 80 3655 Round Nose. 1085.70 687.61 350.24 47.85 33.75 114 12 - M. Good 69 3660 Truitt . . . . . .. 1089.00 656.70 388 30 44 00 37.16 114 14 S. M. F _ 68 pot air 3661 Chisholm. . .. 1151.15 739.26 364.04 47 .85 32.99 121 14 M. Fair 65 804 Mebane. . . . . 880.00 524.37 297.33 58.30 36.18 92 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3662 Harvell. . . . . 707.85 443.41 223.19 41.25 33.48 74 12 M. Fair 114 3664 Gilstrap. . . . . 910.25 502.26 284.79 123.20 36.18 96 12 S L M. Fair 99 3665 Buckelew.... 920.70 558.31 331.59 30.80 37.26 97 14 S L. M. Good 84 3666 Durango. . . . 652.85 426.36 198.99 27.50 31.82 , 69 17 L. M. Fair 83 804 Mebane. . . .. 899.80 543.57 308.93 47.30 36.24 95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3668 Foster . . . . .. 673.20 454.25 202.45 16.50 30.83 71 16 L M. Good 88 3669 Kekchi . . . . .. 927.85 605.28 285.17 37.40 32.02 98 16 S L. M. Good 74 3670 Snowflake... 1123.65 701.42 367.23 55.00 34.36 118 16 Boller Fair 57 3673 Cleveland... 952.05 591.36 312.29 48.40 34.56 100 14 L M. Fair 70 804 Mebane. . . .. 865.70 513.15 290.95 61.60 36.18 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3674 Union B. B. . 944.90 570.46 305.69 68.75 34.89 99 12 L. M. Soft " 61 3675 Half and Half 920.70 570.08 299 .47 51.15 34 .44 97 12 L. M. Good 57 3707 Cook . . . . . .. 1082.40 601.87 408.48 72.05 40.43 114 12 S. L. M. Spot Soft 60 3000 F G 33 1003.20 576 29 353 76 73.15 38.04 106 14 M Good 61 804 Mebane. . . .. 883.80 522 39 296 01 64.90 i 36.17 93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1920. The cotton variety plots at Spur were planted May 22 and were up May 29th. They were then destroyed by a hailstormon June 19th. The plots were replanted June 24th and the cotton was up by June 30th. Between August 25 and September 10 practically all bolls set were de- stroyed by worms. Such as were finally produced were, for the most part, too late to open. Only six of the varieties, namely, Mebane, Row- den, Kasch, Bennett, Lone Star, and Belton matured any cotton at all. These yields were too small to warrant their use for comparison of the productivity or earliness of the varieties. SUMMARY. Table VII has been prepared as a means of summarizing the results of the variety tests of cotton at Spur from 1912 to 1920. All of the varieties tested during this period are listed in the left hand column. The next six columns give the results for the years 1918, 1912, 1917, 1915, 1919, and 1914, respectively. . t The years are arranged in ascending order according to the average acre yields of seed cotton of the varieties tested in that season. Thus in 1918, the average yield per acre was 269 pounds, being the smallest of the six years, whereas the greatest average yield, 1366 pounds per acre, was produced in 1914. As previously noted, the cotton crop failed en- tirely at Spur during three years of the period, i. e.,_,in 1913, 1916, and 1920. ' » Now for each given season the" average yield of all of the varieties is taken as 100 per cent. Then by dividing the yield of each variety, in turn, by this average yield, we obtain their comparative yields as per- centages of the average. This enables us to average the results of good ' and bad years without giving too great emphasis to the good years. 14 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. In fact, the best varieties for general growing are those which made fair - yields on favorable years and which are most likely to make a profitable crop on bad years. Thus if one year is more important than another in determining the choice of varieties, it is certainly the bad year on l which emphasis should be laid.‘ In the columns showing the comparative yields are small figures in parentheses. These indicate the length of staple expressed in sixteenths q of an inch where such was determined. The last three columns indicate average length of staple, number of I years tested and the average comparative yield. It should here be em- " phasized that a test extending over four or five years gives a much " better estimation of the value of a varietylthan one which includes but F one or two trials. Accidents or the peculiar climatic conditions of a I given year may favor a variety and give it a high yield for one year ‘~ in spite of the fact that this variety might be wholly unadapted to ; general planting, year after year in that section. One year’s test, therefore, gives only a preliminary indication, but where a variety does well for several years and keeps near the top on bad as well as good years, we may then be assured that it is safe and worthy of general" planting. CONCLUSIONS. In Table VII, our attention is first called to Cook, which has yielded well above the average for all five years tested. Were it not that this _ variety is poor in storm resistance it could be recommended without hesitation for the conditions at Spur. F. G. 33 is also consistent in high yields. Round Nose has made a good showing, but its yields are somewhat erratic. Chisholm, Boykin, and Truitt are also worthy of mention. Lone Star is very interesting in that its best showings were made on bad years. Its order of merit seems to rise in proportion to the unfavorableness of the season. It is also probably the most storm resistant of the varieties tested. Among those averaging more than an inch in staple length, Snowflake and Durango have made the best show- ing. Acala seems to do well in favorable seasons, but its average is reduced by its comparative low yields in seasons of great drouth. Me- bane and Mebane Triumph, throughout, have shown consistent good yields on both favorable and unfavorable seasons. For a number of years they have been popular varieties in this section. Unless, there- ~ fore, future test should demonstrate the decided superiority of some other variety, it would not be advisable to recommend to the farmers to discontinue the planting of Mebane. However, no cotton tested has a combination of characters that make it ideal for this section of the country. Selection work is, therefore, under way to develop a cotton which is peculiarly adapted to the region served by this Station. CoTToN VARIETY EXPERIMENTS, 1912-1920. 15 Comparative yields of seed cotton varieties at Substation No. 7, Spur, 1912-1920. (The years 1913, 1916 and 1920 were complete failures ) Year 1918 1912 1917 1915 1919 1914 Length Averag 269= 403= 450= 795= 951 = 1366= of Lint No. Relative Average Yield of Seed Cotton 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 16ths Years Yield Per Acre Taken as 100 . Inch. Tested. Per Cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent ' Allen's Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 137 Cook’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 136 CulpepperBigBo1l.................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 129 . . . . . . .. 1 129 Coo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 . . . . . . . . 108 (12) 111 114 (12) 121 12 5 128 Keenan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 128 Peterkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 12 2 126 F. G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 153 . . . . . . .. 118 (12) . . . . . . .. 106(14) ., ... 13 3 126 Brabham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 126 Broadwell’s Double Jointed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 12 2 125 King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 . . . . . . .. 2 120 King X Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . 170 . . . . . . . . 87 (12) 99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 - 3 119 Cleveland X Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 119 Dongola Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 . . . . . . . . 1 118 Cannon’s World Skinner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 . . . . . . . . 1 117 Russel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 116 Texas Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 . . . . . . . . 123 . . . . . . . . 2 116 Round Nose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 . . . . . . . . 86 (12) 114 114_(12) . . . . . . . . 12 4 114 Bolivia Long Staple... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 . . . . . . . . 2 114 icks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 113 Roberts . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 . . . . . . .. 117 . . . . . . .. 2 111 Chisholm. .5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 . . . . . . . . 85 (8) . . . . . . . . 121 (14) 97 11 4 110 Burn’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . 117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 . . . . . . . . 2 110 elton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 (14) . . . . . . . . 14 1 109 Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 . . . . . . . . 108 (12) . . . . . . .. 111 (12) . . . . . . . . 12 3 109 Rublee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 108 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 114 (14) 123 14 3 108 Holdon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 . . . . . . . . 91 (12) . . . . . . . . 104 (14) . . . . . . . . 13 3 107 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 (16) . . . . . . . . 97 (12) 77 14 3 107 Bohler’s Triple Jointed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 . . . . . . . . 1 107 Money Maker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 (12) 101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 105 ates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 105 Columbia Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 105 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . 112 . . . . . . . . 91 (1 . . . . . . . . 118 (18) 96 18% 4 104 Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 (14) 93 . . . . . . . . 119 14 3 104 .Webb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 112 . . . . . . .. 96 (10) ..... . 1.. 100 (12) . . . . . . .. 11 3 103 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 . . . . . . . . 2 103 Matchless Big Boll . . . . . . . . . 85 . . . . . . . . 119 (10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 102 Hufiman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 102 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 . . . . . . . . 99 (12) 111 102 (12) 100 12 5 103 Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 . . . . . . . . 163 (18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2p 101 Boswick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 . . . . . .\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 101 Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 (14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 14 2 101 Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 . . . . . . . . 89 (14) . . . . . . . . 99 (12) 91 . 1.3 4 101 Mebane Triumph. . . . . . . . . . . 103 92 95 (12) (16 112 . . . . . . . . 105 14 5 101' Cook’s Silk Long Staple. . . . . 83 . . . . . . . . 118 (10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 101 Floradora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 . . . . . . . . 2 101 Simpkifis Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . 106 . . . . . . . . 90 (12) 102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 3 99 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 109 103 (14) i (18) 105 93 (14) 86 15 6 102 Hite’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1 99 Improved Champion... . . . . . 116 . . . . . . . . 82 (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 99 Kekchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 (16) . . . . . . . . 16 1 98 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 (12) 111 100 (14) . . . . . . . . .13 3 98 Buckelew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1 . . . . . . . . 14 1 97 ackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 99 (12) . . . . . . . . 106 (14) . . . . . . . . 13 3 96 Gilstrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 (12) . . . . . . . . 12 1 96 Texas Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 . . . . . . . . 89 (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 96 Kas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ‘ 105 . . . . . . . . 106 (12) . . . . . . . . 84 (12) . . . . . . .. 12 3 95 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 . . . . . . . . 123 (14) 110 69 (17) 95 161/; 5 95 Willis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 (12) . . . . . . . . 12 1 94 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 . . . . . . . . 92 (10) 97 . . . . . . . . 96 10 4 94 Wannamaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 . . . . . . . . 94 (10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2 94 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . 56 109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 . . . . . . . . 3 . 93 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 . . . . . . . . 102 (12) 105 . . . . . . . . 96 12 4 93 Virgatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 . . . . . . . . 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 93 Vandiver’s Heavy ‘Fruiter... 91 . . . . . . .. 92 (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 92 Sure Crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 69 . . . . . . .. 114 (12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 2 92 Mexican Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 (14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 1 91 Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 . . . . . . . . 86 . . . . . . . . 2 91 emiscott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 . . . . . . . . 1 91 Hastings Upright . . . . . . . . . . 82 . . . . . . . . 97 (1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2 90 Trice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 . . . . . . . . 137 (18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . . . 18 2 89 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . . . 98 (17) . . . . . . . . 102 (16) . . . . . . . . 16% 3 89 Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 (14) . . . . . . . . 14 1 89 *Planted July 7 TDestructive hail storm, June 9th _ iDestroyed by hail June 19th Replanted June 24th, too late for maturity RELATION BETWEEN YIELD AND RAplNFAIi-L. A study of Table VIII shows that the cotton did not suffer seri- ously 1914 and 1919, resulting in yields per acre, respectively. Nineteen fifteen was 16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Comparative yields of seed cotton varieties at Substation No. 7, Spur, 1912-1920—Continued- (The years 1913, 1916 and 1920 were complete failures.) Year 1918 1912 1917 - 1915 1919 1914 A Length No Average _ ' 269= 403= 450= 795= 951 = 1366= of Lint Years Relative Average Yield of Seed Cotton 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 16ths Tested. Yield Q Per Acre Taken as 100 Inch. Per Cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Per cent Unknown Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 . . . . . . . . 2 88 Harv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 (14) . . . . . . . . 74 (12) . . . . . . . . 13 2 86 ‘WebberNo.49............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 85 Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 . . . . . . . . 2 85 Webber No 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. y 95 . . . . . . .. 72 . . . . . . .. 2 84 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 56 74 (14) h: - (16) 88 99 (14) 98 14% 6 82 Goodson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 81 Simpkin's Ideal . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 . . . . . . . . 98 (10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l0 2 80 Hartsville No- 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . 79 . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 79 Laytonsflmprpved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 79 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73 . . . . . . .. 1 73 Allen’s._Express . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 . . . . . . . . 92 (18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2 71 Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71 (16) . . . . . . .. 16 1 71 Early King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 . . . . . . .. 97 \11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 2 66 Red Le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 . . . . . . . . 61 . . . . . . . . 2 59 Sunflower Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 . . . . . . .. 1 53 Sea Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 32 Mit Afifi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 27 Table VIII. Precipitation at Substation No. 7, Spur, 1911-1920 Average Year Jan. Feb. Mar April May June July Aug Sept. Oct- Nov Dec Total Yield ' Cotton 1911. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.28 1.15 .56 4.97 1.69 1.34. 1.03 .39 2.89 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1912. T 1.15 1.02 1.05 1.99 3.14 .53 1.66 2.04 1.87 . . . . .. .60 15.05 403 1913. .04 .41 1.23 .77 .44 4.35 .70 .07 5.72 2.94 3.64 1.89 22.20 ffrikll a1 ure 1914.. .09 .19 .33 1.99 10.58 1.28 4.70 5.89 1.41 5.23 .87 1.57 34.13 1366 1915.. .40 2.10 3.20 7.64 2.31 4.08 .78 1.48 7.65 5.17 T 1.05 35.86 795 1916.. T T .43 2.35 1.31 T236 .56 4.01 1.12 2.63 .82 T 15.59 Destroy- ed by hail 1917... .22 .51 T 1.27 1.71 .14 2.17 1.58 4.12 .12 .07 . . . . .. 11.91. 450 1918... T .64 .30 .62 2.44 1.97 .44 1.42 .92 2.60 .20 1.37 12.92 269 1919... .28 .21 3.56 3.78 4.37 2.03 2.60 2.44 4.26 7.48 .80 T. 31.81 951 1920. 1.31 T .16 .99 6.91 3.36 .75 8.34 2.20 2.49 1.11 .38 28.00 I Average. .26 .58 1.14 2.17 3.32 2.33 1.82 2.86 3.08 3.16 .79 .98 22.49 . . . . . . .. for moisture at any time during the growing season in the years of 1366 and 951 pounds seed cotton also favorable except for the month of July, in which less than an inch of rain fell. Its effect in the reduction of the yields for that year to 7 95 pounds is marked. Nineteen seventeen was a poor year on account of a dry spring. Only two inches of rain fell between January 1 and May 1. than two inches and there was only .14 inch in the critical month of i The rain in May was less June. In spite of the unfavorable conditions, an average yield of 450 pounds per acre was obtained. In 1912 the rains were evenly dISlITIbf uted but were very light. This was followed by a dry August, and re- COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS, 1912-1920. 17 sulted in a further reduction of the yield to an average of 403 pounds per acre. Again, in 1918 the early spring was dry, followed by light rains in May and June and a very dry July. The crop was, therefore, reduced to an average of 269 pounds of seed cotton per acre. Finally, in 1913, the spring was so dry (only 2.49 inches since January 1) that the cotton did not come up until July. The record shows a good rain- l fall for June, but this came in heavy storms after the 20th of the month and was followed by July and August with less than an inch of rain. A large proportion of the plants lived over the drouth, but they were so late that the ample September rains were without value in bringing them to maturity. The crop for this year was therefore a failure. In the nine years we, therefore, have three years of failure; one due to lack of rainfall and two to destructive hailstorms in June (1916, 1920). These hailstorms are usually quite local and seldom cover more than a restricted area either as an isolated spot or as long narrow strips. In the other six years there was one year of low yields due to lack of moisture, two years of medium yields, and two years of good yield, and one year of excellent yield. Now, even counting the three years of total failure, the average yield of cotton for the nine years was 481 pounds of seed cotton per acre. This is greater than the average yield of seed cotton per acre in the State as a whole. We may, therefore, conclude that if the farmer is prepared to withstand an occasional year of failure his average results with cotton in Dickens and surrounding counties are at least as good or even better than the average for the State.