A121-1_122-4000-L TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATILTN AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President BULLETIN NO. 302 SEPTEMBER, 1922 DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY THE NEEDS OE THE SOILS OF BRAZOS [AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES FOR SULPHUR B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION ‘ ENTOMOLOGY ' B_ YOUNGBLOOD’ M_ M. C. TANQUAnv, Ph. D., Chief; State gnnnuzs A. FELKEiLSChiL?‘Cliikmredor Entomolomst H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist s- WARE» Smut”? H B PARKS B S Apiculturist A. D. JAcxsoN, Executive Assistant C' 3 13mm i; "Entomoyogist gin’??? Gonzvcxj- Tighniclal ;4(-:§}f§';.1'g’ k A; ALEX’, B‘. Si’, Queen Breeder _ KN: Bsiizzze-M ma‘... L.-'z....-;:. w- P» B~ s» En~m~i~~ AGRONOMY _ VETERINARY SCIENCE (Illonmzn, 88., (Ahief; Crop’: s _I ’ *M. F , D. V. M., Ch‘ . . EIDXGH, . ., gronomis ;_ oi s 1% H_ SCEQE; D_ v_ S“ Vetelrellnarian E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Agronomist; Small ~ - Gr ins l v' J" BRAUNER’ D‘ v' M" Velenmman G. N. Samoa/mu. M. S., Agronomist and Far ‘ Superintendent CHEMISTRY **PEARL DRUMMOND, Seed Analyst G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist Q S. E. Asnunv, M. S., Assistant Chemist PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY S. LOMANITZ, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief J. B. SMITH, B. S., Assistant Chemist WALDO WALKER, Assistant Chemist COTTON BREEDING _ G. F. FREEMAN. D. Sc., Chief HORTICULTURE FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS H_ NESS_ M_ s" Chief L. P. GABpAnn, M. S., Farm and Ranch W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist Economlsi SOIL SURVEY _ “NW” INDUSTRY 65' %“..‘;5§§."§s.-i’s.?;a.§£'£" J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat H: VIGEHL B_ '5” S0,‘) Surveyor Investigations R. M. SHERWOOD, B. ‘S., Poultry Husbandman FEED CONTROL SERVICE . B. Yo a LOO . M. S. Ph. D., Director G. R_. WARREN. B. _S., Animal Husbandman D_ IfJr:L:ER_ IfvL S" chief Inmedo, in Charge of Swine Investigations F. S. D. PEARCE, Inspector J. L. Lvsii, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman J. H. RocEns, Inspector (genetics) W. H. Woou. Inspector L. M. MURPHY, Woolspeciatist J. J. KELLY, Inspector SUBSTATIONS No. l. Beeville, Bee County No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County I. E. COWART, M. S., Superintendent R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent N0. 2. Troup, Smith County No. 9. Balmorhea, Reeves County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County No. l0. College Station, Brazos County V. E. HAFNEB, B. S., Superintendent (Feeding and Breedin Substation) L. J. MCCALL, Superinten ent No. 4. Beaumont, Jeflerson County A. H. PniNcE, B. S., Superintendent No. 11. Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent No. 5. Temple, Bell County 4 D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent "No. 12. Chillicothe, Harileman County A. B. CRON, B. S., Superintendent No. 6. Denton, Denton County_ P- B- DUNKLE- B" S" Sulnnntmdmi No. 14. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties E. M. PETERS, B. 5.. Superintendent N 7- Spur’ Dkkens Cmmiy D. H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Veterinarian “B. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent tAs of October 1, 1922. *Iu cooperation with School of Veterinary Medicine, A. and M. College of Texas. "In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE. Introduction and Review of Literature . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Method of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Method of Analysis for Sulphur in Soils and Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Details of Pot Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Description of the Soils Used in the Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Chemical Composition of the Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Comparison of Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Percentage of Sulphur in the Crops. .’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Relation Between Sulphur and Nitrogen Content of Crops . . . . . . .. 19 Soil Acidity Caused by Sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 Sulphur ‘Content of the Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .p 22 BULLETIN No. 302 SEPTEMBER, 1922 THE NEEDS OF THE SOILS OF BRAZOS AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES FOR SULPHUR BY S. LOMANITZ* While sulphur has already at the early period of chemical investiga- tions in agriculture been found to be an, element essential t0 plant life, it was not until comparatively recent years that the possibility of this fact having a bearing upon agricultural practice has been given serious consideration. Figure 1.—Experiment with corn 0n soils}18911—-18£.)99. In 1897 Halstead (l) reported that in his experiments on some New Jersey soils, he found that peas planted on plats receiving sulphur developed one-tenth as many root tubercles as the plants on the plats not treated. In the years following, workers in agricultural chemistry in various countries took up the study of sulphur in its relation to soils and crops. _ This work was given an additional impetus by the reports of a number of investigators that the amount of sulphur in the ash of plants,——-the method then prevalent for the determination of this element,—usually represents only a fraction, quite often an. insig- nificant fraction, of the total sulphur the plant originally contained. *A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture. 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Berthelot (2), Bogdanov (3), Fraps (4), Beistle (5), Fraps and With- ers (6), Hart and Peterson (7), have all drawn attention t0 the great loss of sulphur occurring during the burning of the plants t0 an ash. In this Work With sulphur, the results reported by different investi- gators are not always in agree-ment. Favorable effects of sulphur appli- cations are reported by Boullanger (8) in the case of carrots, beans, celery, lettuce, potatoes, and onions. Bernhard (9) also reported bene- fit to potatoes and mangolds from the application of sulphur at the rate of about 350 pounds to the acre. Tottingham (10) found sulphur beneficial to rape and radishes. Magnien (11) noted the same results With turnips and beets. In the case of fruits, Lierke (12) reported beneficial results from fertilizing materials containing sulphates as compared With those not having that ingredient. Vermorel (13), also Ohauzit (14), found sul- phur favorable to grapes, especially if applied in connection With manure. » Increased yields of alfalfa fertilized With sulphur Were reported by Reimer (15). Similar results Were reported by Brown (16) in Oregon; although landplaster, he adds, gave larger increases. Experimenting in southern Oregon during 1915-1918, Reimer and Tartar (17) found that the alfalfa and ‘clover crops can be increased 50 to 1,000 per cent. by the use of fertilizers containing sulphur. Shedd (18) found tobacco and soy beans in pot experiments to have benefiited from sulphur applications at the rate» of. 240 pounds per r acre. Duley (19) reports sulphur beneficial to red clover on sand and silt loam. Ames and Boltz (20) also report increased yield of clover due to sulphur. Effects of sulphur applications altogether contrary to those men- , tioned are reported by other Workers. Gianetto (21) reports that sul- g phur applied to potatoes at the rate of 400 pounds per acre resulted in a. net loss. Voelker (22) could find no influence of sulphur as a fer- . tilizer With mustard, rape, or clover. Bosinellfs (23) fie-ld and pot . experiments With sulphur on oats, vetch, mustard, corn, beans, and rape Were not favorable to sulphur applications. ‘Unfavorable results With sulphur, on oats are reported by Pfeffer and Planck (24). Hart and Tottingham (25), While finding ulphates beneficial to Leguminosae and Oruciferae, report elementary sulphur generally harmful. Experi- y ments on oats reported by Pfeiffer and Simnicrmacher (26) are also un- favorable to sulphur. The ‘Visconsin Station (27) reports that While V elementary sulphur on oats is sometimes beneficial, it quite often exer- ~ cises a poisonous effect. According to the Ohio Station (28), “addi? tions of sulphur and sulphates have not increased the yields of corn, oats, Wheat, soy beans, potatoes. and clover.” The Mississippi Sta~= tion (29), experimenting With floWcrs of sulphur on cotton, found that i the sulphur had a depressing effect When used by itself. ‘i Shedd (18), Who, as already mentioned, found tobacco and soy beans ¢ to be benefited by sulphur, reported that on the same soil clover, alfalfa, and cabbage showed no benefit. Pfeiffer (30), experimenting With sul- phur on barley, reports that an application of 357 pounds of sulphur per acre in connection With barnyard manure decreased the yield of i grain and straW. Fellers (31) reports that sulphur applied at ‘the rate ~ NEEDS or BRAZOS AND JEFFERSON COUNTY SoILs FOR SULPHUR. 7 of more than 100 pounds per acre did not increase the yield of dry matter or seed; large amounts of sulphur proving injurious. At the Cowra (Nevw South Wales) Experiment Station farm sulphur applied t0 Wheat showed a net financial loss, and when added with superphosphate, seemed to nullify the otherwise beneficial effects of the latter. Van Rossem (35) experimented on rice With sulphuric acid in amounts equivalent to 88, 176, and 238 pounds of ammonium sulphate, and reported no evident influence upon the yield. And so We find on the one hand Shedd, Vogel (34), and others, advo- cating the inclusion of sulphur fertilization as a regular farm practice, while on the other hand We find Pfeifier and Simmermacher (26), Bosinelli (23), Stewart (35), McCool (36), and Sode-rbaum (37) as- serting just as definitely that the general use of sulphur as a fertilizer is not to be recommended. This lack of agreement in the results of experiments with sulphur on crops is not confined to the matter of yield only. While Halstead, as previously cited, reported a decrease in ‘the number of the root nodules on the plants grown on plats receiving sulphur, Pitz (38), in his experiments, records that sulphur did not affect development or number of nodules. Duley (19) even found that sulphur increased nodule production on clover. Fellers (31) also reports sulphur to have stimulated nodule formation. That size as well as number of nodules was increased with the application of sulphur fertilizers, is reported also by Reimer and Tartar (17). Different results are similarly reported with respect to» the nitrogen and sulphur content of plants receiving sulphur. Shedd (18) states that “there seems to be no consistent relation between the percentages of sulphur and protein (nitrogen X 6.25) in soy beans.” Reimer and Tartar (17) found that alfalfa hay fertilized with sulphur, contained more sulphur and more protein than the hay of the check plots. Pfeiffer (30) reports that the reverse took place with barley, sulphur decreasing the nitrogen content of the plant. The amount of sulphur removed by crops is given by Hart and Peterson (7) to- be about two-thirds, expressed as S03, that of phos- phoric acid (P2O5), in the case of cereals. With legumes the two substances are removed in about equal quantities. Some Cruciferae crops, such as cabbage and turnips, may remove two to three times as much sulphur trioxide as phosphoric acid. Daikahara (39), from re- sults with pot crops, concludes that soils with even less than 0.02 per cent. sulphur have a sufficient supply to meet the require-ments of the barley plant for that element. - Vityn (40) states that the sulphur carried down by atmospheric pre- cipitation is more than stifiicient for the requirements even of high yields of grain and straw. Stewart (35) is also of. the opinion that the sulphur supply of the soil is automatically replenished from the at- mosphere. Hart and Peterson (7), referring to conditions near Madi- son, Wisconsin, point out, that while the gain of sulphur from precipita- , tion is nearly 20 pounds per acre a year, the loss from drainage amounts to 50 pounds for the same period. Lyon and Bizzel (41) found that sulphur was removed in drainage three to six times as much as in crops. The.form in which sulphur is present in plants is chiefly organic, 8 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. according to Stutzer (42). He based his conclusion on the results of his examination of rye, oats, cocoanut cake, cottonseed meal, hay, and other plant material. Sulphates are reported (43) to be found in oats, crimson clover, cowpea vines, and cottonseed meal. Sulphates were not found in green millet, timothy hay, corn silage, or peanuts. _According to Dint (44), sulphur is oxidized in the soil completely to sulphuric acid within the first two months. Demolon (45) reports that when sulphur is mixed with garden soil and kept moist at 20° (l, sulphuric acid, combined as calcium sulphate, was formed. Shedd (18) found that 60-80 per cent. of the sulphur applied oxidized to sulphuric acid within four months. Oxidation proceeded more rapidly in fertile than in poor soil. The organic sulphur of horse manure, he reports, oxidizes slowly. Peter (46) reports that sulphur added at the rate of 500 parts to the million of soil was nearly all converted into sulphates within a month. Microorganisms, according to Demolon (45), intervene in the oxida- tion of sulphur in the soil, as he found the sulphur in unsterilized soils to oxidize more rapidly than in sterilized soil. Heinze (47) states that the action of sulphur in the soil is not entirely biological, and that the process is not Well understood. Kappen and Quensell (48) assert that bacteria aid in the transformation, and that soils differ in bacterial capacity to effect the changes. Peter (46) reports that little difference was noted in the “sulphofying” power of several soils tested. McIntire and his co-workers (49) effected a non-biological oxidation of sulphur in moist contact with relatively pure quartz. This oxidation of elementary sulphur in the soil to sulphuric acid, is reported by Ames and Boltz (20) to have increased the solubility of insoluble phosphorus compounds. Lipman and his co-workers (50) conclude from their experiments, that available phosphoric acid may be produced out of rock phosphate,-by utilizing compost heaps in which sulphofication was active. Peter (46) also is of the opinion that this may be a practical means of producing acid phosphate on the farm. Ellet and Harris (51) , experimenting with Virginia soils, conclude that the formation of available phosphoric acid by sulphofication is too slow to meet the needs of practical farming. Lipman et al. (52) re- port that inoculated sulphur is more effective in renderingphosphate rock available. The power of making phosphorus compounds more available is con- sidered by Tottingham and Hart (53) as probably a way in which sulphur exerts a fertilizing effect. Miege (54) calls attention to the theory that sulphur, by utilizing soil oxygen, releases nitrogen for nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Nicolas (55) reports that sulphur also favors the utilization of carbon dioxide by plants. It is obvious that the oxidation of sulphur will introduce an acid ingredient in the soil, the resulting acidity of which will vary with the nature of the soil in question. ‘acidity when sulphur was applied to a sand and to a silt loam soil. Ames. and Boltz (20) also report increased acidity due to sulphur in case of pot experiments. that the sulphuric acid combines with lime to form calcium sulphate. Duley (19) reports a slight increase in- From Demolon’s (45) experiments, it appears I é i i i i i l l 1 NEEDS or BRAZOS AND JEFFERSON COUNTY SoILs FOR SULPHUR. 9 According to Lyon and Bizzel (56), the presence of lime in the soil will cause a greater loss of sulphur in the drainage water. A soil rich in organic matter, Ames and Boltz (20) state, will con- tain more sulphur than a poorer soil, and the surface soil contains a larger amount of that element than the subsoil. The conflicting opinions regarding the use of sulphur in farming, should lead at least to one definite conclusion, namely: that especially with this substance, it is not safe to rely upon conclusions drawn from experiments made in other places. Results obtained with sulphur ap- plied to a crop on a certain soil may not at all be applicable to an- other soil even with the same crop. A number of factors may be the cause of the different results obtained by the investigators cited. Some of these factors are li.kely to be: differences in the sulphur content of the soils; the greater or lesser capacity of the soil to neutralize the acidity produced by the sulphur; the effect of this acidity upon the- biological activities in the soil; the effect upon the physical nature of the soil; all of which is of course subject to great variations. EXPERIMENTAL WORK In what follows is presented a study of the sulphur-needs of the soils of Brazos county and the soils of Jefferson county. A considerable number of soils of Brazos county were analyzed for their content of sulphur. Pot experiments were carried on with soils of the county representing the principal soil type; a few soils from other counties were included in the pot experiments. Various additions of fertilizing materials, including sulphur by itself or in combination, were made to the soils in the pots and the effects on the crops planted were noted. The crops consisted mainly of corn and sorghum, but alfalfa and some cotton were also planted. The crops were analyzed for their content in sulphur. On some crops nitrogen determinations were also made to see if any relation existed between the nitrogen and the sulphur content of the plant. The acidity of some of the soils in the pots was determined after the crops were harvested, and this acidity was compared with that of the original soil and with checks to which no sulphur was added. In the case of Jefferson county, the sulphur content of various soils was determined, but no pot experiments were made. Analytical M ethoa’ for Sulphur in Soils and Plan/its. The determina- tion of sulphur in the soils as well as in the plants was made according to the following method: Five grams of the sample were treated with 20 c.c. concentrated nitric ' acid; after frothing subsided and the mixture partly evaporated, 20 c.c. of a 5 per cent. solution of calcium nitrate were added and the whole evaporated to dryness and ignited to an ash. This was treated with hydrochloric acid, heated, filtered, and the sulphates precipitated in the filtrate by means of barium chloride in the usual way. The calcium nitrate solution was made by dissolving calcium carbonate in nitric acid, the calcium carbonate having been previously washed to free it from any sulphates with which it might have been contaminated. Blanks were run on the reagents and allowance made when needed. Details of Port Experiments. Into an 8-inch galvanized iron pot, 1O . TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. provided with tubes for soil ventilation, were added, first, enough washed gravel t0 bring up the weight of pot and gravel t0 2% kilograms; and then five kilograms of the soil, which had previously been pounded up with a wooden mallet until it would pass a 3-niilli1ncter siegve. The trash and rocks remaining o-n the sieve were not used. The additions to the soil were, in the case of ammonium nitrate and potassium chloride, in the form of a. solution of the salt; with the other additions, the solid substance was used. The additions, as well as cistern and condensed water, were tested for their content in sulphur. Some lots of che1n- icals and the cistern water had to be rejected and condensed water which was found satisfactory was used for watering the pots. The abbreviations used for designating the various additions made to the pots, and to which reference is made in the tables, are as follows: a Ca-S I calcium sul hate. 2 grams: Kl) : otassium sulahate 1 grain‘ / C) / ll ,‘ C ’ Figure 2.—Experiment with corn on soils 1956——,18910. S 1: flowers of sulphur, 1 gram; K, when not in an addition contain- ing‘ D, is meant for potassium. chloride, 1 grain; N: ammonium nitrate, 1 gram. In the case of small seeds like alfalfa and sorghum, the same weight, .1 gram, was added to each pot. With larger seeds like corn and cot- ton, the same number of seeds, five, and weighing the same weight Within 0.1 gram, was used; Three times a week the pots were weighed and the loss of water replaced to half the water-holding capacity of the soil. a ~ _wThe pot experiments extended over two seasons of two crops each, With a different set of soils for each season. i Season 1920. In this season the soils with the following laboratory numbers were used: 5954, 5956, 5957, 5966, 8839, 9038, 17442, and 17445. ' Soils Nos. 5954, 5957, 5966, and 9038 were planted to alfalfa; the other soils were planted to corn and sorghum. a Soil No». 17442 was also planted to cotton. NEEDS or Bmzos AND JEFFERSON COUNTY Sorts FOR SULPHUR. l1 The alfalfa was planted on the 6th of April and the first cut made September the 8th; a second cut was made November the 2nd. In case of soil 5966, a cut Was made also on June the 7th. The corn was planted April the 6th and harvested June the 10th. The pots Were then stirred up thoroughly, new additions made of ammonium nitrate and potassium chloride, and sorghum planted o11 June the 12th. This Was harvested September the 7th. The cotton Was planted April the 14th and har- vested November the 2nd, The green crops Were put in paper sacks, dried at a low heat, and weighed. The analyses Were made on the air- dry sample. Season 15121. The soils used this season Were all from Brazos county, With the following laboratory numbers: 1956, 18910, 18911, 18999, and 19000. Corn ‘was planted April the 4th and harvested May the 31st. The sorghum crop was planted the 13th of June, but no stand was secured With this nor With a subsequent planting, and a new plant- ing Was made the 9th of July. This crop was harvested September the 5th. Otherwise the procedure ivas the same as with the crops of the previous season. ' soILs USED IN THE POT EXPERIMENTS Description No. 5954——Depth 6”-18”, clay, black, from the farm of J. H. Sand- idge, 9 miles northeast of McKinney, Collin county, Texas. N o. 5956——Depth 6”-18", clay, brown, probably Crawford Silty Clay (according to Dr. G S. Fraps), from the farm of F. G. Hollekamp, Comfort, Kendall county, Texas. No. 5957——Depth 0”-9”, black sandy loam and clay; “black land,” 18 miles west of Comanche, Comanche county, Texas. No. 5966——Depth 0”-10”, black clay, “black land,” Williamson county, Texas. No. 8839 Depth 12”-24”, yellowish gray, 2 miles northeast of Eagle Lake, Colorado county, Texas. N o. 9038——Depth 0”-7”, chocolate sandy loam from Geo. D. Davis, 1% miles northeast of Brownwood, Brown county, Texas. No. 17442—Depth 0'56", reddish brown, clay loam, from S. P. Mayes, Paint Rock, Concho county, Texas. No. 17445——Dcpth 7”-18”, dark brown loamy clay, from H. S. Els- nore, Eden, Concho county, Texas. y No. 1956——Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam, sand from the farm of‘ E. J. Kyle, between College Station and Bryan, Brazos county, Texas. No. 18910——Depth 0”-7", Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam, gray sandy loam, from the farm of C. M. Evans, between College Station and Bryan, Brazos county, Texas. No. ]891].—Depth 7”-19"', clay, gray, subsoil to No. 1.8910. No. 18999—Surface soil, grayish-black clay, Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam, from the experimental grounds of the Department of Horticul- ture, of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, College Sta- tion, Texas. No. 19000—Subsoil to No. 18999. The chemical composition of these soils is given in Table 1. 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 1. Comparison of the soils used in the pot experiments. Parts per million Parts per hundred - Active Lab. Total Acid- No. phos- Nitro- Total Mag- Sulphur Phos- ity phoric gen potash Lime nesia. tri- phoric Potash ac' oxide acid 5954 0.075 0.160 0.415 24.86 0.24 . . . . . . .. 30 . . . . . . .. 0 5956 0.012 0.091 2.00 0.95 0.60 . . . . . . .. 19 694 0 5957 0.030 0.129 0.84 1.06 0.33 . . . . . . . . 30 587 0 5966 0.020 0.175 0.70 12.65 0.58 . . . . . . . . 31 176 0 8839 0.040 0.045 0.145 0.23 0.27 . . . . . . . . 5 45 230 9038 0.055 0.073 0.325 0.98 0.15 . . . . . . . . 48 285 0 17442 0.077 0.158 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 337 0 17445 0.116 0.131 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 314 0 1956 0.037 0.033 1.34 0.33 0.06 0.05 - 75 106 0 18910 0.032 0.054 1.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.04 18 117 230 18911 0.010 0.047 0.89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.04 10 50 0 18999 0.038 0.096 0.54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.08 17 95 460 19000 0.033 0.078 0.80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05 9 110 1100 Table 2. Comparison of yield of pots with various treatment. Season 1920—Crop Alfalfa. Yield in grams. Average Gain Pot _ Total per pot or loss No. Addition 1st 2nd 3rd per pot per with cut cut cut addition sulphur Soil No. 5966 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.9 7.7 0.4 12.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.3 11.8 7.0 29.1 20.5 . . . . . . .. 3_ CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0 9.9 4.0 20.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.7 6.9 2.5 13.1 17.0 —3.5 5 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.2 12.5 9.6 31.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.9 13.4 5.5 30.8 31.0 . . . . . . .. 7 KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.1 10.6 5.7 22.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.9 13.7 8.7 31.3 26.8 —~4.2 Soil N0. 5954 1 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 1 .0 . . . . . . . . 4.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.9 1.8 . . . . . . .. 4.7 4.6 . . . . . . .. 3 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.9 3.7 . . . . . . .. 9.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0 4.0 . . . . . . .. 11.0 10.3 +5.7 5 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.5 3.7 . . . . . . .. 10.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.4 2.7 . . . . . . .. 8.1 9.1 . . . . . . .. 7 KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.4 4.5 . . . . . . .. 12.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.5 3.0 . . . . . . .. 10.5 11.7 +2.6 Soil No. 5957 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 3.0 . . . . . . . . 7.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.2 1.0 . . . . . . .. 4.2 6.0 . . . . . . .. 3 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.5 2.4 . . . . . . .. 5.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 1.4 . . . . . . .. 8.3 7.1 +4.1 5 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.7 3.0 . . . . . . .. 10.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.9 2.6 . . . . . . .. 11.5 11.1 . . . . . . .. 7 KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.2 1.0 . . . . . . .. 6.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.0 1.5 . . . . . . .. 7.5 6.9 —4.2 Soil No. 9038. 1 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.0 4.0 . . . . . . . . 12.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.9 4.5 . . . . . . .. 12.4 12.2 . . . . . . .. 3 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 2.7 . . . . . . .. 9.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.5 3.2 . . . . . . .. 8.7 .2 ——3.0 5 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 2.2 . . . . . . . . 9.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 3.3 . . . . . . .. 10.2 .7 . . . . . . .. 7 KdCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.5 2.2. 8.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.1 4.0 . . . . . . .. 13.1 10.9 +1.2 Soil No. 17442—Crop cotton 1 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 17.9 . . . . . . .. 3 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.0 17.5 -—0.5 Ai|2vh>.:..e.._. LIJLZKLLAE"A.» .__. NEEDS OF BRAZOS AND JEFFERSON COUNTY SolLs F011 SULPHUR. 13 Table 2—-Continued. Comparison of yields. Crops—Corn and Sorghum. _ _ Average Gain Pot _ _ Yleld 1n grams Total per pot or loss No. Addltlon , per pot peg- with Corn Sorghum additlon sulphur Soil No. 5956 1 KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.8 48.5 58.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.8 48.4 64.2 61.2 . . . . . . .. 3 KNCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.8 27.4 54.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 KNCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.8 41.4 48.2 51.2 -l0.0 5 DN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 56.3 55.9 112.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 KDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44.8 54.5 99.3 105.7 . . . . . . .. 7 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46.1 7.2 53.3 53.3 . . . . . . .. Soil N0. 8839 1 KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . .. 2.0 3.9 5.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.2 3.7 6.9 6.4 . . . . . . .. 3 KNCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. 3.2 5.2 8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 KNCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.7 3.9 5.6 7.0 ——0'6 5 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.7 30.9 59.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 KDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.9 30.9 62.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.8 3.7 18.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Soil No. 17442 1 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.6 7.5 21.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.8 8.0 21.8 21.4 . . . . . . .. 3 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.3 8.0 20.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.4 9.5 20.9 20.6 —0.8 5 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.2 10.0 19.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.4 9.0 22.4 20.8 ——0.6 7 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.2 7.7 28.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.9 7.5 31.4 30.1 . . . . . . .. 9 KDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.6 31.0 55.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.3 45.9 74.2 64.9 . . . . . . .. 11 KDNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.8 48.0 68.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 KDNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.8 43.0 65.8 67.3 ——2.4 Soil No. 17445 1 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.9 10.2 27.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.7 10.7 27.4 27.2 . . . . . . .. 3 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.8 9.2 30.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.8 10.0 25.8 27.9 —0.7 5 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.3 8.2 29.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.9 8.0 29.9 29.7 —2.5 7 KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.4 8.9 35.3 35.3 . . . . . . .. Soil No. 1956 1 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.8 3.5 17.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.7 3.3 18.0 17.6 . . . . . . .. 3 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.7 0.2 16.9 . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . .. 4 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.2 4.0 18.2 17.5 —-0.1 5 KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.5 8.5 25.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.9 21.5 43.4 34.2 . . . . . . .. 7 KNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.2 6.0 26.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 KNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.3 12.6 39.9 33.0 —1.2 9 KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.7 2.1 18.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.5 3.5 16.0 17.4 . . . . . . .. 11 KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.6 4.0 20.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.9 3.1 20.0 20.3 +2.3 13 KPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.1 12.7 35.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.3 21.0 45.3 40.5 . . . . . . .. 15 KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.1 11.5 40.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3~1.7 2.0 33.7 37.1 ——3.4 Soil No. 18910 _ 1 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.0 7.1 19.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.0 5.8 15.8 17.4 . . . . . . .. 3 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.8 (a) 12.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.3 (a) 12.3 12.5 —6.4 5 KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.5 32.0 56.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.2 37.0 64.2 60. . . . . . . .. 7 KNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.4 22.4 47.8 47.8 —12.5 8 KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.8 7.4 23.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.9 7.8 23.7 23.4 . . . . . . .. 10 KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.4 8.0 24.4 24.4 +1.0 . 11 KPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.7 42.1 77.8 77.8 . . . . . . .. 12 KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.2 29.5 68.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.4 5.6 42.0 55.8 —22.0 14 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 2—C0ntinued. Comparison of yields. Crops——C0rn and Sorghum. _ _ Average Gain Pot _ _ Yield 1n grams Total per pot or loss N0. Addltlon i per pot per with Corn Sorghum addition sulphur Soil No. 18911 1 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.2 4.9 30.1 30.1 . . . . . . .. 2 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5 3.5 8.0 8.0 . . . . . . .. 3 KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.2 11.5 17.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27 6 29.2 56.8 37.2 . . . . . . .. 5 KNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 7 9.5 _17.2 17.2 —20.0 6 KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 2 4.8 11.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 7 3.9 10.6 10.8 . . . . . . .. 8 KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 7 4.6 21.0 21.0 +9.2 9 KPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 2 42.0 78.2 78.2 . . . . . . .. 10 KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37 7 32.0 69.7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40 0 45.0 85.0 77.3 ——0 9 Soil N0. 18999 1 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.3 5.5 15.8 15.8. 2 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.2 5.7 15.9 15.9 +0. 3 N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.3 8.0 20.3 20.3 . . . . . . .. 4 KNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.0 8.0 20.0 20.0 ——0.3 5 P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.1 9.3 24.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.6 8.0 25.6 25.0 . . . . . . .. 7 KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.5 8.0 22.5 22.5 —~2 5 8 KPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.2 31.5 80.7 80.7 . . . . . . .. 9 KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.3 32.5 81.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48 2 30.6 78.8 80.3 —0 4 Soil No. 19000 1 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.5 5.5 17.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.5 5.7 17.2 17.1 . . . . . . .. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.8 6.4 19.2 19.2 +2 1 4 KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.6 7.5 26.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.3 11.7 29.0 27.5 . . . . . . .. 6 KNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.0 9.4 29.4 29.4 +1.9 7 P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.5 8.5 25.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.0 9.5 24.5 24.7 . . . . . . .. 9 KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 5 10.2 26.7 26.7 +2 0 10 KPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49 4 36.5 85.9 85.9 . . . . . . .. 11 KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ 54 O 37.0 91.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48 3 38.5 86.8 88 9 +4.0 (a) Crop died shortly after coming up. EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON YIELDS OF CROPS The weight of the crops, on the air-dry basis, oi’ the different soils with the corresponding additions are given in Table 2. On examining Table 2, one sees that of the soils planted to alfalfa, soil No. 5966, which produced the largest crop, showed a loss with calcium sulphate, both as compared with no addition, and when the addition consisting of calcium sulphate and potassium phosphate is compared with the one containing potassium phosphate only. The other soils of the set in alfalfa produced in general poor yields. Soil No. 5954 showed an increase with the calcium sulphate as compared with the checks, while soil No. 595'?’ which showed a small gain with calcium sulphate as against no addition, showed a loss about four times as large as this‘ gain, when the addition of calcium sulphate and potas- sium phosphate is compared with the addition of potassium phosphate alone. Soil No. 9038 showed a. decrease with calcium sulphate over no addition. The addition consisting of potassium phosphate and cal- cium sulphate, showed an increase over the check, but this increase was ‘ only about one-third of the decrease in the first case. Considering the alfalfa crop as a whole, the addition of calcium; l NEEDS or BRAZOS AND JEFFERSON COUNTY SorLs FOR SULPHUR. 15 sulphate as compared with the respective checks produced a gain of i F. i.‘ i \. i‘; r 3 10.6 grams as against a loss of 14.9 grams or a net loss of 4.3 grams. _ Soil No. 17442, planted to corn and sorghum, showed two decreases with sulphur 0r calcium sulphate, totaling 1.4 grams, to one increase of 2.4 grams. This soil was planted also to» cotton; sulphur applica- tion resulted in a slight loss with this crop. All the other soils were planted to corn and sorghum. Soil No. 17445 and soil No. 19000 show a slight increase with sul- i phur or calcium sulphate. 7 j Soil No. 5956 produced a good-sized crop. The addition of calcium sulphate shows a decrease as compared with the check. i- Soil 8839 shows a slight increase with the addition containing cal- cium sulphate as compared with the check, but the yield was verypoor . in either case, and only the addition containing the three standard in- l gredients, nitrogen, potash, and phosphoric acid, produced a good crop. t‘ j Soils Nos. 1956, 18910, 1891.1, and 18999, all. showed a loss in three _; cases and a. gain in one case with sulphur as compared with the corre- sponding cheeks. g, as the gains were very small. The losses with soils Nos. 1956 and 18999 as_ well The losses in case of soils Nos. 18910 I and 18911 were rather heavy, amounting with the first soil to a loss of i 40.9 grams and a gain of 1.0 gram, and with the second soil, to a loss ti of 42.1 grams as against an increase of 1.0.1 grams. i. Soil No. 19000 shows an increase with sulphur over the correspond- ; ing additions without sulphur, but the differences were small. The results of these pot experiments lead to the conclusion that none. i‘ of the soils tested can be said to have sulphur as a limiting factor in crop production; sulphur is not in this case a soil deficiency in the t sense in which this term is used in discussions of soil fertility. The {effect of the applications of sulphur upon the yield in the pot experi- ments, considered as a whole, was anything but favorable to sulphur. The gain with sulphur as compared with parallel applications without p. sulphur, amounted to a total of 25.6 grams, while- the loss reached the figure of 93.2 grams, the ratio of loss to gain being a little over 3.5. ‘These figures refer to elementary sulphur. Y’ é’ With calcium’ sulphate ap- plications, there were ‘losses totaling 25.5 grams and gains totaling 13.7 grams. Consideri the ratio of losses to gain with sulphur is even greater still. total 22.6 grams and the losses total 91.8 grams, a ratio of 4 to 1. ng the pot experiments with the soils of Brazos county only, The gains The heavy losses with sulphur on soils Nos. 18910 and 18911, are obviously "due to the fact that these soils are inclined to a condition of acidity, ~ which was aggravated by the sulphur added. i- 16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 3. Sulphur, expressed as S03, removed by the crops. Laboratory Nos. Per Cent S03 ————-———-——-— Pot No. and Addition Total S03 lst 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd removed cut cut cut _ cut cut cut grams Season 1920—Crop, alfalfa. Soil N0. 5966 . . . . ..18611...... 17835 18612 18728 2—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 27 0.78 0.58 0.2634 17836 18613 18729 3——CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 22 0.98 0.97 0.2213 . . . . .. 1861418730 4—CaS................... 1.19 129.......... 17838 18615 18731 5— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 98 0.78 0.42 0.2280 17839 18616 18732 D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 88 0.55 0 67 0.2153 17840 18617 18733 7—-KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 15 0.90 0.50 0.1941 17841 18618 18734 8—KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 00 0.82 0.57 0.2509 Soil No. 5954 18595 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1——O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18596 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18597 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18598 . . . . . . . . . . . . —CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.74 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18599 . . . . . . . . . . . . KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18600 . . . . . . . . . . . . KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18601 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-—KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.76 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18602 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8—-—KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.69 . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil No. 5957 18719 . . . . . . . . . . .. 1—~O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.89 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18720 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.69 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18721 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3——CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.63 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18722 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.87 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18723 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5—KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18724 . . . . . . . . . . . . 6—KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18726 . . . . . . . . . . . . 8——KDCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil No. 9038 18603 18735 . . . . . . 1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.93 0.56 . . . . . . . . 0.0970 18604 18736 . . . . . . —- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.96 0.45 . . . . . . . . 0.0961 18605 18737 . . . . . . 3——CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.17 0.90 . . . . . . . . 0.1050 18606 18738 . . . . . . aS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.56 0.80 . . . . . . . . 0.1106 18607 18739 . . . . . . 5-—K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.84 1 .44 . . . . . . . . 0.0913 18608 18740 . . . . . 6—KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.85 0.60 . . . . . . .. 0.0745 Soil No. 17442——crop, cotton. 18743 . . . . . . . . . . .. 1-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.1170 744 . . . . . . . . . . .. 2—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.1200 18745 . . . . . . . . . . . . 3—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1836 ~ 18746 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.1764 ; Table 3——Continued. Sulphur removed by the crops. Season 1920——Cr0ps corn and sorghum. Laboratory Nos. Per cent S03 Total S03 -————————-i—— Pot No. and Addition .————-—-——— removed Corn Sorghum Corn Sorghum grams . . . . . . .. 18588 0.33.......... . . . . . . .. 18589 0.29.......... 18064 18590 3———KNCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 37 0.35 0.1951 18065 18591 4——-KNCaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 48 0.37 0.1858 . . . . . . .. 18592 0.31.......... . . . . . . .. 18593 0.33.......... Soil No. 17442 18078 . . . . . . . . 3——S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18079 . . . . . . .. ——S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18080 . . . . . . . . 5-—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18081 . . . . . . .. ——CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18082 . . . . . . . . 7—K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18083 . . . . . . . . 8-K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18084 18584 9—KDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.26 0.29 0.1539 18085 18585 10—KDN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . 0.15 0.29 0.2039 18086 18586 11—KDNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.36 0.28 0.2093 18087 18587 12—KDNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.36 0.37 . . . . . . . . .. NEEDS 0F BRAZOS AND JEFFERSON COUNTY SolLs FOR SULPHUR. 1'7 Table 3—Continued. Sulphur removed by the crops. Season 1920—Crops corn and sorghum. Laboratory Nos. Per cent S03 Total SO3 --_____ Pot No. and Addition ~-_-_ _ removed Corn Sorghum Corn Sorghum grams S0ilNo.17445 . . . . . . .. 18633 0.31.......... . . . . . . .. 18644 0.25.......... . . . . . . .. 18645 0.33.......... . . . . . . .. 18646 0.32........... 18092 18647 .5—-CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 0.32 0.0795 18093 18648 6—CaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.24 0.32 0.0782 18094 18649 7—KD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 0.27 0.0830 Season 1921 S0i1No.1956 ' 19138 19759 1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.33 0.25 0.0571 19139 . . . . . . .. 2——O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19140 . . . . . . .. 3—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19757 0.50.......... . . . . . . . 19753 5——KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.46 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19752 0.33.......... . . . . . . .. 19751 0.49.......... . . . . . . .. 1-9749 O.53.......... . . . . . . .. 19746 0.42.......... . . . . . . .. 19754 0.37.......... . . . . . . .. 19340 0.42.......... . . . . . . .. 19341 0.24.......... . . . . . . .. 19342 0.59.......... SoilNo.189l9 19142 . . . . . . . . 1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19143 . . . . . . . . 2—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91 . . . . . . .. 3——S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19145 . . . . . . .. 4—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. 19967 0.31.......... . . . . . . .. 19772 0.51.......... . . . . . . .. 19774 0.41.......... . . . . . . .. 19769 0.62.......... . . . . . . .. 19343 0.22.......... . . . . . . .. 19344 0.41.......... Soil N0. 18911 19146 19771 1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.25 0.55 0.0900 . . . . . . .. 19766 4—K 0.38.......... . . . . . . .. 19760 1.37.......... . . . . . . .. 19750 0.45.......... . . . . . . .. 19768 0.58.......... . . . . . . .. 19345 0.23.......... . . . . . . .. 19346 0.45.......... . . . . . . . .. 19347 0.36.......... S0ilN0.1899 19148 19765 1———O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.26 0.78 0.0697 19149 19761 2——S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.55 1.75 0. 1559 . . . . . . .. 19762 0.47.......... . . . . .. 19748 0.83.......... . . . . . . .. 19348 0.25.......... . . . . . . .. 19349 9——-KPN 0.49.......... . . . . . . . . 19350 10—KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.50 . . . . . . . . . . Soil No. 19000 19150 19763 1-——O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.23 0.81 0.0711 19151 . . . . . . . . 2—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19152 19764 3—-S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 33 1 . 58 0 . 1433 . . . . . . . . 19777 4——KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19773 1.45.......... . . . . . . .. 19747 0.48.......... . . . . . . .. 19758 0.78.......... . . . . . . .. 19351 KP 0.26.......... . . . . . . .. 19352 0.48 . . . . . . .. 19353 0.51.......... 18 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, EFFECT OF ADDITIONS ON AMOUNT OF SULPHUR IN THE CROPS. The percentage of sulphur, expressed as sulphur trioxide, in the crops of the different pots with their respective additions, is given in Table 3. Where all the cuts or crops of the same p-ot were analyzed for sulphur, the total sulphur trioxide removed is also given. The alfalfa grown 0n soil No. 5966 shows no consistent increase in sulphur content with applications of calcium sulphate as compared with the checks. N o difference is noted in sulphur content of the crop grown on soil No. 5954 between the pots receiving calcium sulphate and those not supplied with that ingredient. The crop of soil No. 5957 shows a greater content of sulphur in the plants of the pot receiving potassium phosphate and calcium sulphate as against the plants of the pots receiving potassium phosphate only. With the same soil, no ap- preciable difference is noticeable when the sulphur content of the plants of the pots with no addition is compared, with those receiving calcium sulphate. The alfalfa of soil No. 9038 shows a greater percentage of sulphur in the plants of the pots receiving calcium sulphate as C0111- pared with the plants of the checks. The cotton grown on soil No. 17442 shows an increase in sulphur content with the addition of sulphur. The corn and sorghum of soils Nos. 17442, 5956, and 17445 showed no appreciable difference in sulphur content as between the pots re- ceiving additions of calcium sulphate or sulphur and the pots not re- ceiving these additions. The other soils show a tendency for an in- creased percentage of sulphur in the plants with the addition of this element. With the soils of Brazos county, the analyses for sulphur content were made mostly on the sorghum crop, although a few samples of corn were also analyzed. There is usually a greater percentage of sulphur in these crops when supplied with that element than in the checks. This holds true of all the soils of the county used in the pot experiments. Table 4. Comparison of sulphur and nitrogen content of crops. Season 1921—-Crop, sorghum. Sulphur Laboratory Pot N0. and Addition. trioxide Nitrogen Number per cent per cent Soil No. 1956 19759 1——O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 25 0.89 19757 4——S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.84 19753 5——KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.46 2.04 19752 6——KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.33 1.09 19751 7-—KNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.49 2.09 19749 8—-KNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 53 1.76 19755 9-—KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1143 19746 10——KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 42 1.21 19754 11——KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 37 1.25 19756 12—KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14 19340 13——KPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 42 1.83 19341 14——KPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 24 1 .11 19342 15———KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.59 1.46 Soil No. 18910 19767 5—KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.31 0.75 19772 7——KNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.51 1.03 19774 8—KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 41 0.65 19769 10——KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 52 0.65 19343 11—KPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 22 0.60 19344 12—KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 41 0.94 NEEDS or BRAZOS AND JEFFERSON COUNTY SoILs FOR SULPHUR. 19 Table4. Comparison of sulphur and nitrogen content of crops. Season 1921——Crop, sorghum. Sulphur Laboratory Pot N0. and Addition. trioxide Nitrogen Number per cent per cent Soil No. 18911 19771 1——O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.55 0.68 19766 4-—KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.38 0.73 19760 5—KNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.37 1.84 19750 6——KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.45 0.71 19768 8——KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.58 0.67 19745 9—KPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.23 0.62 19346 10—KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.45 0 80 19347 11—KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.36 0.57 _ Soil No. 18999 19765 1——O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . 0.78 0.79 19761 2-—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.75 0.81 19762 5——KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.47 0.55 19748 7——KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.83 0.70 19348 8—KPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.25 0 62 19349 9-——KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.49 0 66 19350 10—KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.50 0 74 Soil No. 19000 19763 1—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.81 0.94 19764 3—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.58 0.87 19770 4—KN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.70 1.71 19773 6——KNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.45 1.59 19747 7-—KP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.48 0.77 19758 9—KPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.78 0.67 19351 10—KPN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.26 0.59 19352 11-—KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.48 0.67 19353 12-—KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.51 0.61 RELATION BETYVEEN SULPHUR AND NITROGEN CONTENT OF CROPS A considerable number of samples of the sorghum grown in the pots with the Brazos county soils were analyzed for nitrogen to see Whether any relation existed between the sulphur and nitrogen content‘of the plants. As previously cited, some investigators reported an increase in the protein content of alfalfa when fertilized. with sulphur. The fig- ures for the respective percentages of nitrogen and sulphur in the sorghum analyzed are given in Table 4. There is no consistency noticeable between the figures in the table representing nitrogen and the sulphur percentage, respectively, and no definite relation between the two constituents can be traced in this case. This is in agreement with the conclusion of Shedd (16) with respect to the‘ sulphur and nitrogen percentages of the soy bean. Table 5. Soil acidity as affected by additions of sulur. _ _ _ _ Acidity Acidity Acidity increase Laboratory Soil No. Pot No. and Addition after original with No. cropping S0ll sulphur 19354 1956 2—O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . 19355 . . . . . . . . . . 3—S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 . . . . . . . . . . 700 19356 . . . . . . . . . . S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 . . . . . . . . . . 700 19357 . . . . . . . . . . 16——KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 . . . . . . . . . . 700 19358 18910 — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 0 230 . . . . . . . . . . 19359 . . . . . . . . . . 3— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 . . . . . . . . . . 400 19360 . . . . . . . . . . —- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 . . . . . . . . . . 400 19361 . . . . . . . . . . 13—KPNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 . . . . . . . . . . 400 20 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. AGIDITY CAUSED BY SULPHUR Soils Nos. 1956 and 318910 were analyzed for acidity after the last _crops were removed. Table 5 shows the figures obtained, and also gives the figures for the original soil. It will be seen that soil No. 1956, which-showed no acidity originally nor after cropping the pot with no addition, reached a condition of acidity of 700 per million in the pots to which sulphur was added. In other words, about 2500 pounds of limestone 0r 1400 pounds of quicklime would have to be added to the soil per acre, in order to neutralize the acidity introduced by the addi- tion of the sulphur. In referring to Table it, one will notice that these pots which showed this acidity with sulphur also gave somewhat smaller yields, especially soil No. 18910. The plants in the pots marked 3-S and 4-S of this soil died a few days after they came up, and a pre- liminary test with litmus paper applied to the soils in the pots showed the soils to be acid. This soil had an acidity figure of 230 to begin with; this was increased to 700 in the case of the pot receiving no addi- tion, and‘ to 1100 for the pots receiving sulphur, an increase of 400 due to sulphur. Pot l3-KPNS of this soil, which also shows an acidity of 1100, had its yield heavily depressed as compared with the checks, as can be noted from Table 2. Table 6. Sulphur content, expressed as sulphur trioxide, of soils of BrazoslCounty. Laboratory Nos. _ $03 Percent ~__-_--—--—- Soil Type 9 Surface Subsoil Surface Subsoil 1956 . . . . . . . . Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam (Sand) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05 . . . . . . _ _ 6953 6954 Tabor Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05 0.06 6955 6956 Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.07 0.06 8329 8330 Lufkin Clay Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.06 0.20 8331 8332 Ochlockonee Silt Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.08 0. 17 8333 . . . . . . . . Pledger Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.19 . . . . . . _ _ 8335 8336 Crockett Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.18 0.17 8337 8338 Susquehanna Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.15 0.10 8339 8340 Wilson Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.08 0.16 8341 8342 Norfolk Fine Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.18 0.19 . . . . . . . . 8344 Lufkin Fine Clay Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.20 8345 8346 Crockett Clay Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.22 0.19 8347 8348 Yahola Silt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.08 0.17 8349 8350 Miller Find Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.13 0.15 8351 8352 Tabor Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.20 0.21 8353 8354 Ochlockonee Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.23 0.19 8355 8356 Wilson Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09 0.18 8357 8358 Ochlockonee Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.23 0.23 8359 8360' Miller Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.24 0.25 8361 8362 Wilson Clay Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.23 0.06 8363 8364 Norfolk Fine Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.07 0.17 8365 8366 Bell Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.28 0.24 8367 8368 Tabor Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.19 0.22 8369 8370 Miller Fine Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.21 0.16 8371 8372 Miller Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 17 0.27 8373 8374 Bastrop Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.24 0.14 8375 8376 Crockett Clay Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.15 8377 8378 Tabor Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05 0.11 8379 8380 Miller Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.16 0.18 8381 8382 Crockett Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.17 0.15 8383 8384 Bastrop Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.12 8385 8386 Trinity Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.16 0.15 8387 8388 Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . 0.10 0.13 8389 8390 Susquehanna Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.15 0.16 8391 8392 Susquehanna Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05 0.08 8393 8394 Susquehanna Gravelly Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.13 8395 8396 Susquehanna Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 12 0.06 12420 12421 Lufkin Fine ‘Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.08 0.14 12639 12640 Wrlspn Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.08 0.06 12641 12642 Trinity Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.06 * 0.06 12643 12644 Trinity Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.10 0.07 12645 12646 Pledger Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.11 0.09 12647 12648 Miller Fme Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05 0.08 ’ - . NEEDS or BRAZOS AND JEFFERSON COUNTY SoiLs FOB. SULPHUR. 21 Table 6. Sulphur content, expressed as sulphur trioxide, of soils offBrazosfCounty. S03 Percent Soil Type ————————_—- Subsoil Surface Subsoil 12650 ‘ Miller Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.07 0.06 12652 Yahola Silt Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.07 0.08 12654 Bastrop Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.05 0.05 12656 Bastrolp Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03 0.03 12658 Bell C a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O 10 0.05 12660 Wilson Clay Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09 0.08 12662 Tabor Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 04 0.06 12664 Crockett Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 10 0. 10 12666 Crockett Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.07 0.05 12668 Crockett Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.07 0.07 . . . . . . .. CrockettClayLoam.............................. 0.08 12672 Susquehanna Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 12 0. 10 12674 Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09 0.07 12676 Ochlockonee Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09 0.07 f; . . . . . . . . 12678 Lufkin Clay Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 10 i- 12679 12680 Wilson Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 13 0.06 g 18910 18911 Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.04 0.05 e_._ 18999 19000 Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.08 0.05 i» Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12 0.12 5 Table 7. Average sulphur content of the soil types of BrazosfCounty. Z. * Average S03 per cent 1 N0. Soil Type ———-———i—— a analysed Surface Subsoil 7 Lufkin Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.07 0.08 5 Tabor Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.11 0.13 3 Susquehanna Fine Sandy Loam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09 0.11 ’ 3 Crockett Clay Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.17 3 Miller Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.14 0.16 3 Miller Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.13 0.17 Q Table 8. Sulphur content of the soils of Jefferson County. Lab. ' S03 No. Soil Type - per cent 890 Lake Charles Very Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.10 2409 Lake Charles Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12 2410 Lake Charles Clay, subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 10 4644 Acadia Very Fine Sandy Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _0. 10 7613 Lake Charles Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.15 10606 Lake Charles Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.10 10607 Lake Charles Clay, subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.20 10608 Lake Charles Silt Clay Loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09 10609 Lake Charles Silt Clay Loam, subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09 14844 Rice Soil, surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.18 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12 SULPHUR CONTENT OF THE SOILS In Table 6 is given the percentage of sulphur, expressed as S03, of mrface and subsoils of Brazos county. In Table '7 is shown the average nulphur content of various soil types of the county. The average of all ;he surface soils of the county analyzed is 0.12 per cent. as S03, or 2400 )0l1I1dS per acre. Figured to e-lemental sulphur, this amounts to 960 munds per acre. This is a considerably larger figure than found by lhedd (57) in the large majority of Kentucky soils analyzed by him. lnd while he invariably found the phosphorus content of the soil to 22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. exceed that of sulphur, the reverse is true with the soils of Brazos county used in the pot experiments, as can be seen from Table 1. The average percentage of sulphur of the subsoils of Brazos county is the same figure as for the surface soils, which shows these soils to be well supplied with sulphur, the analysis bearing out the results of the pot experiments. Table 8 gives the sulphur content of some of the soils of Jefferson county. The average for all the soils analyzed is 0.12 per cent., the same as in the case of the Brazos county soils. These soils, too, may therefore be considered as containing a good supply of sulphur. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Soils of Brazos county and of Jefferson county were analyzed for their content in sulphur. 2. P01; experiments to test the effect of applications of sulphur on corn, sorghum, alfalfa, and some cotton, were carried on for two years with soils of Brazos county and of some other counties. 3. The analyses and the pot experiments, both, show that these soils are not deficient in sulphur. 4. Sulphur exercised a harmful effect upon some of the soils of Brazos county tested, reducing the yield and causing the plants in some pots to die very young. 5. The acidity of some Brazos county soils was increased by the addition of sulphur. 6. No relation was found between the percentage of nitrogen and that of sulphur in the sorghum grown in the pots. '7. The plants showed a tendency to take up more sulphur with an increased supply of -this substance. 8. The soils of Brazos county tested, contain more sulphur than phos- phoric acid. LITERATURE CITED B. D. Halstead, Proc. Soc. Prom. Agr. Sci. (1897), pp. 7'7-81. M. Berthelot, Comp. Bend. Acad. Sci., 128 (1899), No. 1. Bogdanov, Bul. Soc. Chem. Paris (1899), p. 965. . S. Fraps, Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc. (1901), p. 1.99. . P. Beistle, Jour, Am. Chem. Soc. (1902), No. 11. . S. Fraps and W. A. Withers, Exp. Sta. Rec. XIV, p. 1043. . B. Hart and W. H. Peterson, Jour. Am. Chem. Soc. (1911), No. 4. ‘ . 8. E. Boullanger, Comp. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris (1912), No. 6. 9. Bernhard, De-ut. Landw. Press (1.912), No. 6. 10. W. E. Tottingham, Wisc. Sta. Bulletin No. 288. . Magnien, Jour. Soc. Nat. France (1913), 4. TQPYQEPWF“? HCDQQQ’ A E. Lierke, Deut. Obstbau Ztg. (1.913), No. 4. 13. V. Vermorel, Exp. Sta. Rec, XXIX, p. 822. 14. J. Chauzit, Rev. Vit. Fr. (1914), 41. 15. F. C. Reimer, Pacific Rural Press (1914), No. 26. 16 G. G. Brown, Oregon Sta. Bull. No. 141. F. O. C. Reimer and H. V. Tartar, Ore. Sta. Bull. No. 163. M. Shedd, Ky. Sta. Bull. No. 188. ' f‘ f=w3~\""'"~_'?>""‘ ' ' _ ,..\-. W... u ,... f‘? P‘ P‘ H‘ P’ 3° f‘ 9 5° aww@ua¢ww““~ ¢@#@wew@eg3$ sens $$$$ $$$$$$$$¢% N EEDS OF BRAZOS AND JEFFERSON COUNTY SorLs For: SULPHUR. 23 L. Duley, Jour. Am. Soc. Agr. (1916), No. 3. J. W. Ames and G. E. Boltz, Ohio Sta. Bull. No. 292. F. Gianetto, Bol. Soc. Agr. Ital. (1912), No. 14. J. A. Voelker, Jour. Royal Agr. Soc. (1913), No. 74. G. Bosinelli, Staz. Sper. Agr. Ital. (1915), 83, No. 58. T. Pfeffer and E, Planck, Landw. Versuchst. (1914), N0. 5. E. B. Hart and W. E. Tottingham, Jour. Research (1915), N0. 6. ' ' T. Pfeifer and W. Simmermacher, Fruhling’s Landw. Ztg. (1915), Nos. 9-10. Wisconsin Sta. Bull. No. 268. Ohio Sta. Annual Rprt. 1919-1920, p. XXIII. Miss. Sta. 34th Annual Rprt., 1921. Pfeiffer, Fruhling’s Landw. Ztg. (1917), Nos. 7-8. C. R. Fellers, Soil Science (1918), N0. 6. Agr. Gaz. New S. Wales (1920), No. 7. Exp. Sta. Rec. XXXV (1921), p. 622. J. Vogel, Central. Bakt. (1914), 1-8. R. Stewart, Ill. Sta. Bull. No. 227 (1920). M. M. McCool, Mich. Sta. Quart. Bull. 3 (1920), No. 1. H. G. Soderbaum, Exp. Sta. Rec. XXXIV (1921), p. 129. W. PitzfJour. Agr. Research (1916), No. 16. G. Daikahara, Bull. Imp. Cent. Agr. Exp. Sta. Japan, 1. (1907), No. 2. . I. A. Vityn, Exp. Sta. Rec. XXV, p. 317. T. L. Lyon and J. Bizzel, Cornell Sta. Mem. (1918), 12. A. Stutzer, Biochem. Ztschr. 7 (1908). Exp. Sta. Rec. XIV, p. 11-4. _ H. C. Dint, Jour. Ind. and Eng. Chem. (1914), No. 9. A, Demolon, Comp. Rend. Acad. Sci. (1913), No. 9. A. M. Peter, Ky’. Sta. Rprt. (1918), p. 389. B. Heinze, Naturwissenschaften, 1 (1913), p. 111. H. Kappen and E. Quensell, Landw. Versuchst. (1915),.p. 1. W, H. McIntire et al., Jour. Ind. and Eng. Chem. (1921), No. 4, .310. J. G.pLipman et al., Exp. Sta. Rec. XXXIV, p. 26. W. B. Ellet and W. G. Harris, Soil Science, N0. 10 (1920), p. 315. J. G. Lipman et al., Soil Sci., 1]. (1921), No. 2, p. 87. W. E. Tottingham and E. B. Hart, Soil Science, 11 (1921), No. 1, p. 49. - E. Miege, Rev. Sci., Paris, 1914, I. G. Nicolas, Comp. Bend. Acad. Sci., 172 (1921), p. 85. T. L. Lyon and J. Bizzel, Jour. Amer. Soc. Agr. (1916), N0. 2. O. M. Shedd, Mo. Sta. Bull. No. 174. _ ACKNOIVLEDGIIENT The thanks of the Writer are due to Dr. G. S. Fraps, Chief of the )ivision of Chemistry, of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, or his stimulating guidance throughout the work here presented.