TEXAS AIIIIIEIIIINIIAE EXPERIMENT SIAIIIIN AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President '- BULLETIN NO. 321 . MAY 1924 DIVISION OF AGRONOMY COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT TIIE MIIIN STIITI0N,E I912 T0 I922 l k7,] "‘ “hi!” 'l|'._~ IIQM/MINNIIIIIIIIIE I.'-.I I ' a IIII” . '~IIIIMINIIIIIIZIiwI-“ fi $13k? B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR ' COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS STAFF (As of July 1, 1924) ADMINISTRATION : B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CONNER, M. S.. Vice-Director A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Assistant Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Cleric A. S. WARE, Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, J R., Ass’t. Chief Clerk J. M. SCHAEDEL, Executive Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE: ‘FM. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief of Division H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian V. J. BRAUNER, D. V. M., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY: G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief of Division; State Chemist _ S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist W. H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist J. E. TEAGUE, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. K. BLUM, B. S., Assistant Chemist H. STANFORD, B. S., Assistant Chemist K. KITSUTA, M. S., Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: A. T. POTTS, M. S., M. S. C., Chief of Division; Citriculturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY: J. M. JONES, A. M., Chief of Division; Sheep and Goats J. L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Husbandman, Animal Breeding G. R. WARREN, B. S., Swine Husbandman R. M. SHERWOOD, B. S., Poultry Hus- bandman J. J. HUNT, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief of Division; State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist; Cotton Insects H. B. PARKS, B. S., Apiculturist (San Antonio) A. H. ALEX, B. S., Qneen Breeder (San Antonio) C. S. RUDE, B. S., Chief Foul Brood Inspector W. R. JORDAN, B. S., Apiary Inspector AGRONOMY: . E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief of Division; , Soil Fertility ‘ A. B. CONNER, M. S., Agronomist,Grain_ Sorghums A. H. LEIDIGH, M. S., Agronomist, Small Grains G. N. STROMAN, Ph. D., Agronomist, Cotton Breeding C. H. MAHONEY, B. S., Cotton Breeding PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief of Division FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief of Division B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph .D., Farm and Ranch Economist V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist (Sonora) H. E. REA, B. S. Assistant in Farm and Ranch Economics SOIL SURVEY: ‘ T. CARTER, B. S., Chief of Divis- ion; Soil Surveyor _ H. W. HAWKER, Soil Surveyor E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY: - H. NESS, M. S., Chief of Division PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JACKSON, Chief of Division STATE APICULTURAL RESEARCH LABORATORY: (San Antonio, Bexar County) H. B. PARKS, B. S., Apiculturist in Charge A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder MAIN STATION FARM: D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent FEED CONTROL SERVICE: B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief of Division . S. D. PEARCE, Secretary 9. 'J. H. ROGERS, Inspector W. H. WOOD, Inspector J. D. PREWIT, B. S., Inspector T. C. DAVIS B. S., Inspector J. F. SCHULTZ, B. S., Inspector G. M. Morris, B. S., Inspector Assistant in SUBSTATIONS: No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: A. B. CRON, B. S., Superintendent No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLES, B. S., Superintendent No. 10, College Station, Brazos County: (Feeding and Breeding substation) G. R. WARREN, B. S., Animal Husband- man in Charge; Swine Husbandman R. M. SHERWOOD, B. S, Poultry Husband- man L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: G. T. McNESS, Superintendent f? **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: g D. L. JONES, Superintendent = No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent D. H. BENNETT, D. V. M., Veterinarian V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Llano Grande, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent Teachers in the School of Agriculture carrying cooperative projects on the Station: S. W. BILSING, Professor of Entomology R. C. WHITE, Associate Professor of W. L. STANGEL, Professor of Animal Hus- Rural Sociology bandry (Hogs) G. P. GROUT, Professor of Dairy Husbandry F. A. BUECHEL, Professor of Agricultural H. V. GEIB, Assistant Professor of Economics Agronomy G. W. ADRIANCE, Associate Professor of E. O. POLLOCK, Assistant Professor of Horticulture A g ronomy W. E. GARNETT, Professor of Rural Sociology *In cooperation with School of Veterinary Medicine. _ **In cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT THE MAIN STATION 1912 to 1922 l G. N. Stroman Variety tests are important for two reasons: (1) to find the variety which is best adapted to a particular region, and (2) to test new varieties which are being produced. When varietal experiments are first started in a particular region they necessarily include every variety that is available. Then as the results are compiled only the more promising varieties are re- tained for further tests. Thus gradually the number of varieties is nar- rowed down to those which have shown superior qualities and are worthy to be considered as standard fora given region for the time being at least. When this point is reached these standard varieties become valuable as measures, not only among themselves, but of the value of any newly intro- duced or developed strains. This measuring process is what is meant by the variety tests. This Bulletin contains a report on eleven years of cotton variety tests conducted at College Station, Texas, by the Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion. These results will probably best apply to the fiat-woods countryof East Central Texas. The soil upon which these tests were conducted is classified by the Soil Survey as Lufkin fine sandy loam as reported in the Soil Survey of Brazos County, Texas. The surface soil is a fine sandy loam underlaid by a highly plastic and impervious drab clay, which drains very poorly. The rainfall at College Station for an average of 32 years is 37.83 inches and for the 11 years reported herein is 38.24 inches. Method of Making the Tests The seed that was used in the variety test for each particular year was new, and was secured, in every possible case, from the original breeder of each particular variety. In the method used, each set of variety tests consisted generally of one. plat of each of twelve varities plus four plats of one variety used to measure the variationof the soil. There are 16 plats to the acre, each plat being 1-22 acre in size exclusive of guard rows. Each individual plat consists of seven rows three- feet apart, although records are taken on five rows only, the other two rows (one on each side of the plat) being guard rows, the yield of which is" not included in the yield recorded. The plants have been thinned usually to 12 inches apart in the row. The varieties are planted also on a second acre as a duplicate of the first acre, in order to increase the reliability of the results. The four soil checks on each acre are used to measure the variation of the soil. One variety only is used in planting the soil-check plats, which are of the same size as the other plats and are arranged so that four regular plats come between each soil-check plat. This arrangement affords a method of correcting the yields of regular variety plats if the soil should be so variable as to warrant it. On the other acres an auxiliary test is conducted for trying other varieties of less known behavior. This is preliminary to the regular variety test and as promising varieties appear they are transferred to the regular test for the following year. fompara$7frc xbkffs 9/1/71/ @7750 fl°rv4cre A v e raqeor fax/r fio/zr/ 7/ 7/713 Z j/‘zc/wiye / 15;. / 1%?‘ per 445m: i v9 Y“ 7 § 5 147K ‘ I Be/fon 771/777“ AGO/d Laneszzr Howe/en Durcmqo Kass/v i Mebane Bennefif: FT-T-T-“a This method is the one that is used now at the Main Station, but in the early years other methods were in use. However, the results are com-- parable, as they are shown in yields per acre. ' General Results The summary of the results of the varieties from 1912 to 1922, inclu- sive, as regards yield of lint cotton per acre, is shown in Tables 1 and 2- Only the varieties which have the most promising value, that is, those which have not been discarded for one reason or another, and at the same time have beengrown for at least four comparable years at College Sta- tion, are included in Table 1. In Table 2 are shown a few averages of addi- tional periods of years and the table includes especially the earlier years of the test. The averages for the different varieties included those which were grown during the same years. That is, average yields are given on a num- ber of varieties which were grown during the four years, 1912 to 1915, inclusive; an average of another group of varieties which were grown dur- ing four years, 1919 to 1922, inclusive; an average of six years, 1914, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1921 and 1922; for a period of seven years, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922; and for other periods of years. Also, for three varie- ties, Lone Star, Rowden, and Mebane, which were grown during the entire eleven years, "1912 to 1922 inclusive, average yields are shown for the eleven-year period. In order that the varieties may be justly compared, the averages must be for the same years that they grew together in the variety test. The average is for production of lint in pounds per acre. The percentage of lint is also included in Table 1. vm m. o»: __ wvfiwflBoiw mm. m mom . . N .............aawiflwmm N» H NNN H . .............. nazwm N». N >>N . _ Hm H NQN ............. ¢:=Ha w“ v 3m. mm w m3 summM HN Q NHN QN N m»H NN H NNH NN N mmN . ............ ¢N=NH=o N» N HNN NN H NNH ............... NHN~< N» N HHN NN m o>H NN N NHH NN N NHN .NN N NNN ............. ~=NH@HH NN N NHN NN N mwH NN N omH MN N NNN MN N HNN ............. =~@a¢m NN N Hmm NN N NNH HN H L ¢@H NN N Hwm HN H HNN ........... HNHw @=¢A Td 1 Td 1 14 u _ 1 Td _ a 1 Td _ H 1 41 .1. ,_ 1. 4 1. t i‘ # ._ fiorifw [ lvl \l\‘1 ‘ Y! l: \1 [‘ x _ _ ‘ _ . NNNH .HNNH .NHNH NNNH .HNNH .¢NNH H¢¢H.NNNH OH NHNH Ho=H.NNNH 0» vH@H .NHNH .>HmH .HHNH .mH@H.¢H@H.mHmH.NHmH H@=H NNNH ¢H NHNH . wHawW we wuoiwm vfiwawmwmmm MOM wwmwpw>< wwEwrHEw mo 051R mo wwwucwonom was 20¢. .5.» cop $00 3.51m mo 32M 9.3 wcrfiosm dwxom. iompsuw wwwzoO 6235.5 Nag B. NI: iaww? mo wwoiom HO.“ H8300 we amok Nflwwfifw Q5 we Nnafigeiw ~@A§205; . . . . . 0565mm . . . . . . . . o2.» Ucwmsmc wimwmcwosd H855 20mm -.---.- mmzmlowm . Hobm ma: gmvmbm goimmwm HEARS. @0452.» mzoslqmwm Hoe? e22.“ C535 mi W0C. . . . . » “Exam e>wvm m F» v2. >36. 411a: $26 50¢ msicmam m: Hugo ~ m wmmwm m wmmwm p wmuwm a zmmwm. Ho wmwwm Haw-Q? For i3». $5. 3T». ZIP QT». $3. fiZmLmZw 5Q. HmZm-Hwww F2. HwHmLwwm F2. HS? g: 53m. 3Q mxi. o». film _ . L R L . R L R L ._ R L m R L R NZ w “mm m Hm» m E; m NS » N3 w Cm m w? w ~w¢ N mpm m . . NE. _ w w?» w w; m __ I Hbw w N3 Z _ N3 m m“: _ q S» w T?» w ~§ m P2 w 5m w M3 _? m :3 m T5 w. mww H. w?» w Nam Q m>~ _ m w? q MA» L k» r3 A" Eu a m; ~» NE. M ~NQ .1. Nwq m k . . £5 w N3 w. :3 w 8 Bulletin N0. 321 Highest Yielding Varieties for- East Central Texas Table 1 shows several varieties that made the highest yields of lint per acre. These are discussed as follows: ' Lone Star is a consistent yielder. It ranks first in the average for eleven years; also in an average for six years, 1914, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1921,“. and 1922; and second in the average for six years, 1917 to 1922 inclusive. .~ Also, it ranked fourth for the years 1919 to 1922 inclusive, and third in another average for seven years, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1919, 1920, 1921, and: 1922. = The Truitt variety ranked first in an average for seven years, 1912,’ 1913, 1914, 1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922, and (as shown in Table 2) in the ‘ average for the years 1912 to 1915 inclusive. Also, Truitt ranked second if in an average for four years, 1919 to 1922 inclusive. '- Acala is a dependable variety in this section, ranking first in the averages for years 1917 to 1922 inclusive, and third in an average for the’ l" four years 1919 to 1922 inclusive. This variety was not grown during the " other periods of years that were averaged. l The Belton variety ranked first in the average for the years 1919 to 1' 1.922 inclusive, the only years it was grown in the test. A The varieties, Mebane, Rowden, Durango, Kasch, Snowflake, and Bennett have continued in this test and are varieties which do compara- i tively well in this section. Any of the varieties just mentioned is considered ' standard for this particular region of Texas. Detailed Data and Results The ten highest-yielding varieties as shown by the variety tests at ; College Station for each year of the experiment reported (1912 to 1922 inclusive) are given in tables as listed below. The results with the other‘ varieties that were in the tests are listed in Table 14. In Table 3, the data for 1912 are found; Table 4, 1913; Table 5, 1914; i Table 6, 1915; Table 7, 1916; Table 8, 1917; Table 9, 1918; Table 10, 1919; ‘ Table 11, 1920; Table 12, 1921; and Table 13, 1922. . 7 The data given in the tables listed above include only the ten highesz- producing varieties as regards the number of pounds of lint per acre. ‘ There are, however, only nine varieties for 1920 and 1921, as those are all ' _the varieties that were reported for those years. The Relation of Rainfall to Yield The rainfall by months for each year of the test along with the average for 32 years is shown in Table 15. It is to be noted that high yields seem to be correlated with well dis- tributed rainfall especially in June, July, and August. This is illustrated in 1917, a season of small amount of rainfall and especially dry during June, July, and August, a year when very poor yields were obtained. Also, in 1912, the year which gave the highest yields, although the rainfall was only Cotton Variety Experiments at the Main Station Farm 1912 t0 1.922 9 30 inches for the entire year, it was well distributed throughout the growing season. The correlation coefficient for the relation of the average yield per acre of the ten high varieties for each year (this average appears at the bottom of each table for its particular year) to the amount of rainfall in June, July, and August, was +.27i.19. Although this coefficient is not statistically significant, as it is less than twice its probable error, it does indicate, however, that the amount of rainfall during these three months influences the yield to some extent. The total amount of rainfall during. June, July, and August was used to figure the correlation. It is notable that it is not so much the total amount of rainfall as the distribution dur- ing these three months which most affects the yield. A correlation co- efficient calculated for the yearly amount of rainfall from November to October, inclusive, with the average yield per year of the ten high varie- ties, was +.15i.20, which seemed to show that the total amount oi‘ ra1n- \ fall for the whole year had no influence whatever on the yields either high or lOW. Percentage of Lint The pounds of seed cotton per acre, pounds of clean lint per acre, pounds of clean seed per acre, and percentage of lint or gin-turnout are given in Tables 3 to 13, inclusive, for each of the ten high varieties for each year. These ten high varieties for each year are listed in each table in their order from highest to lowest as regards their production in pounds of lint per acre.’ The percentage of lint or the gin-turnout is not very important in comparing varieties in order to determine which one the farmer should grow. The farmer desires the variety which will bring him the most dol- lars and cents per acre. Percentage of lint or gin-turnout has very little to do with the most dollars and cents to the acre unless the production of lint per acre is the same for all varieties undervconsideration. If the yield of lint is the same for two varieties then all that the higher percentage of lint can make for the farmer is a small saving in picking expense. It is a question of how much lint a farmer can get per acre, because it is the num- ber of pounds of lint per acre which brings to the farmer the most cash. No Significant Correlation Found Betweet Percentage of Lint and Pounds of Lint Per Acre A correlation table between percentage of lint and pounds of lint per acre was made by using only the ten highest varieties in lint yield for the years 1912 to 1922 inclusive, as given in Tables 3 to 13 inclusive. The Cor- relation coefficient was +.1243i.0654. This coefficient isnot significant on account of the fact that it is less than two times the probable error. So it is seen that, even though this correlation was figured on a highly special- ized class of 110 samples, there was no significant correlation between per- centage of lint and pounds of lint per acre. 10 Bulletin N0. 321 Length 0f Lint The length of lint is more important than percentage of lint. Even the length of lint has not been so important in the past because the local » buyer did not pay a premium on length of staple. In such a case if the ‘ length of lint is better than 7A; inch and up to 1 1-16 inches, the pounds of ~ lint per acre is the only important consideration. Still, if we have a variety that has a long staple and at the same time has the best producing qualities ; as regards pounds of lint per acre, this variety will bring the farmer more 3 dollars and cents, provided it is produced in large enough quantities to . attract the buyer who recognizes its superior merit. Still, it seems as if A our high-producing varieties have been the ones with comparatively short staples. There is a general trend toward recognition of better staples in the markets and the production of these will probably become increasingly profitable. m.‘ Quality of Lint Quality of lint is important, but on account of the fact that quality is influenced very greatly by the cleanliness of picking, as well as by. the weather, it would hardly justify us to compare the varieties in this regard at this time. Our ideal, though, is for a good quality of lint, especially as to strength, color, and texture. Basis of Selecting the Variety to Plant Then, in selecting the variety to plant the farmer should want to know, first, the producing power of the varieties as regards pounds of lint per acre; second, length of staple; third, quality; and fourth, percentage of lint or gin-turnout. It is very important that the farmer should not decide on the variety he wants to plant just because it will give him a high gin- turnout. Summary and Conclusions The experiments on varieties of cotton carried on at College Station, Texas, from 1912 to 1922, inclusive, are reported in this Bulletin. The results of the experiments reported herein are perhaps most applicable to the section of East Central Texas generally known as the fiat- woods country. The data and results for the eleven years of the experiment are shown in the accompanying tables and illustrations. The ten high varie- ties for each year are shown and a summary table is given showing the average yields for certain periods of years for those varieties which have been in the test for four years and have not for one reason or the other been discarded. These are considered the standard varieties for this section of the State. These rank according to the different averages as follows: 1. An average of four years, 1919 to 1922, inclusive: Belton, Truitt, Acala, Lone Star, Rowden, Durango, Kasch, Mebane, and Bennett. ‘ 2. An average of six years, 1917 to 1922, inclusive: Acala, Lone Star, Rowden, Durango, Mebane, and Kasch. Cotton Variety Experiments at the Main Station Farm 1912 to 1922 11 3. Anaverage of six years, 1914, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1921, and 1922: . Lone Star, Rowden, Mebane, Durango, and Snowflake. 4. An average of seven years, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1919, 1920, 1921, and 1922: Truitt, Rowden, Lone Star, Durango, and Mebane. 5. An average of eleven years, 1912 to 1922, inclusive: Lone Star, Mebane, and Rowden. A table is given showing the yield in pounds of lint per acre of each variety for each year for all varieties grown in the variety test during the period from 1912 to 1922 inclusive. There is some relation between yield of lint and rainfall, although no close correlation can be traced. Yield of lint per acre is much more important than percentage of lint or gin-turnout. No correlation was found between percentage of lint and pounds of lint per acre. Length of lint is not as important as yield of lint, but it is more im- portant than percentage of lint, provided the staple is longer than 7/3 inch. The farmer in selecting a variety to plant should consider, first, its productive power as regards pounds of lint per acre; second, length of staple; third, quality of lint; and fourth, percentage of lint. TABLE 3 The Ten High-Yielding Varieties for the Year 1912 _ Lbs. Seed ‘ _ » Variety Cotton y Lbs. Lint Lbs. Seed Per Cent per acre i per acre per acre Lint Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505 ¢ 35.37 L_..o l r Virgatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1621 577 1044 35.60 Bohemium Big Boll . . . . . . . . 1540 558 982 36.25 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1540 523 1017 33.93 Chambers Staple . . . . . . . . . . . 1320 509 811 38.59 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1320 ' 502 818 38.03 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1375 491 884 35.70 Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . .. ' 1457 488 969 33.50 Unknown _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1360 472 889 34.71 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1284 468 815 36.42 Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..[ 1511 468 1043 30.94 12 Bulletin N0. 321 TABLE 4 The Ten High-Yielding Varieties for the Year 1913 _ L_bs. Seed Varlety Cotton Lbs. Lint Lbs. Seed \ Per _Cent ‘ per acre oer acre per acre Lmt Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299.6 35.33 Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852 323 529 37.93 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 907 317 590 34.90 Half & Half . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . .. 865 316 549 36.50 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 831 311 520 37.39 Huffman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 927 308 619 33.21 Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 886 306 580 34.58 Luce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 873 296 577 33.85 Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755 278 477 36.88 Cannon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 806 273 533 33.86 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . 782 268 515 34.24 TABLE 5 The Ten High-Yielding Varieties for the Year 1914 Lbs. Seed _Va.riety Cotton Lbs. Lint Lbs. Seed Per Cent per acre per acre per acre Lint Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 . 36.05 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755 269 486 35.67 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 710 265 445 37.32 Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 692 251 441 36.24 Peterkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 606 243 363 40. 15 Crenshaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633 230 403 36.31 Broadwells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 669 226 443 33.72 Dongola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 225 425 34.63 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 595 218 377 36.64 Simpkins . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 596 215 382 36.02 Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . .. 624 210 414 33.65 Cotton Variety Experiments at the Main Station Farm 1912 t0 1922 13 TABLE 6 The Ten High-Yielding Varieties for the Year 1915 i A - Lbs. Seed i i Variety Cotton_ Lbs. Lint \ Lbs. Seed PellkCgnt per acre é per acre per acre § m Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 236 l 36.99 Huffman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 279 490 36.27 Cooke 729 . . . . . . . . . . .. e37 274 413 39.87 Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 721 247 474 34.27 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 659 ' 245 415 37. 10 Ricks . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 563 244 320 43.31 Ferguson's Round Nose... .. 670 220 450 32.90 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640 219 421 34.22 Bates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . 542 218 324' 40. 15 Half & Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 584 208 376 35.58 Cooke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565 203 357 36.19 TABLE '7 The Ten High-Yielding Varieties for the Year 1916 Lbs. Seed . Variety Cotton Lbs. Lint Lbs. Seed Per Cent per acre per acre 3 per acre i Lint Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 352.1 35.45 Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1121 438 683 39.07 Ferguson's A-711 . . . . . . . . . 1055 417 638 I 39.53 Mebane 804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1040 351 688 33.75 Ferguson's Round Nose. . . . . 1009 354 646 ‘ 35. 12 Wannamakefs Big Boll. . . . 928 338 572 36 .45 Cleveland Big Boll... . . . . ..: 992 334' s43 33.76 Allen’s Express . . . . . . . . .. 1017 324 692 31. 80 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 927 ' 349 .573 37 . as Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1003 327 676 32.60 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 834 289 534 34.70 14 Bulletin N0. 321 TABLE 8 The Ten High-Yielding Varieties for the Year 1917 Lbs. Seed i Variety Cotton Lbs. Lint Lbs. Seed ‘ Per Cent per acre i per acre per acre i Lint i i 7m N Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.7 37.13 F. G. s3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 71 131 35.15’ Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 64 91 41.19 Kasch’s Improved . . . . . . . . .. 150 61 89 40.67 Webb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 61 98 38.50 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 51 93 35.52 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 131 49 82 37.49 Acala. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 48 87 35.68 King X Triumph . . . . . . . . .. 132 47 85 35.65 Improved Champion . . . . . . . . 117 44 73 37.46 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 121 41 80 34.03 TABLE 9 The Ten High-Yielding Varieties for the Year 1918 Lbs. Seed Variety Cotton Lbs. Lint Lbs. Seed Per Cent per acre per acre per acre Lint . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 144 i "3519 ____:________ I Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . .. 486 180 306 i 37.02 Fergusorfs Triumph . . . . .. 454 165 289 i 36.36 Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 463 160 303 i 34.56 Cook's 931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 387 153 234 I 39.56 Ferguson's Mebane Triumph 406 150 256 i 36.94 Ferguson’s Lone Star . . . . .. 415 143 272 i 34.41 F. G. 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 381 139 245 i 36.27 Ferguson's Round Nose. . ... 387 123 264 i 31.76 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 347 '117 230 | 33.67 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 356 115 241 i 32.31 .. -:.-u_~u.a.ri.mmrmn».-i;.n..vri-mm'u31.1mm Cotton Variety Experiments at the Main Station Farm 1.912 t0 1.922 The Ten High-Yielding Varieties for the Year 1919 TABLE 10 =15 I Lbs. Seed Variety I Cotton I Lbs. Lint Lbs. Seed Per Cent I per acre I per acre per acre Lint “MN W I» I I Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| I 263 I 36.12 Acala No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 987 358 629 36.23 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 921 324 597 35.18 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895 I 306 I 589, 34.19 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . 806 I 296 I 510 36. 67 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 818 I 296 I 522 36. 13 Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 759 292 V467 38.46 Half & Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 823 280 543 34.02 Triumph No. 406 . . . . . . . . .. 713 275 438 38.55 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 769 267 502 34.72 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 715 I 265 450 37.09 TABLE 11 The Nine High-Yielding Varieties for 1920 Lbs. Seed I Variety Cotton I Lbs. Lint Lbs. Seed Per Cent per acre per acre per acre . Lint I I Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..| 408 35.15 I I I _ I I (111 __ _(_-1_1_1|. i1 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .! 1359 I 476 883 I 35.00 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1346 I 458 888 I 34.01 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1333 I 450 883 I 33 75 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1294 I 426 868 I 32.94 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1197 I 410 787 I 34.26 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1185 I 400 785 I 33.77 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1014 I 390 624 I 38.44 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 949 345 604 I 36.31 Bennett 832 I 315 517 I 37.84 16 ' Bulletin N0. 321 _ TABLE 12 The Nine High-Yielding Varieties for the Year 1921 Lbs. Seed i ' Variety I Cotton = Lbs. Lint Lbs. Seed i Per Cent per acre per acre per acre Lint Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 118 31. 19 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412 . 137 275 33.15 Mebane 804 . . . .» . . . . . . . . . . 436 137 299 31.29 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472 127 345 36.75 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 388 122 266 31.44 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 419 120 299 28.64 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 357 113 244 31.51 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 111 238 31.76 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 318 108 210 33.96 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| 299 91 208 30.20 TABLE 13 The Ten High-Yielding Varieties for the Year 1922 { Lbs. Seed Variety Cotton Lbs. Lint Lbs. Seed Per Cent per acre per acre per acre Lint Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 g 34.50 \l L Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747 } 260 487 34.80 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i 755 \ 257 498 34.08 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 697 214 483 30.64 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597 200 370 33.50 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 190 484 28.16 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 566 188 378 33.19 Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 172 ‘ 289 37.23 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461 164 297 35.64 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 149 226 39.69 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 360 138 223 38.10 Cotton Variety Experiments at the Main Station Farm 1912 to 1922 TABLE 14 Varieties which were included in the variety test at College Station, Texas from 1912 to 1922, inclusive, with their respective yields in pounds of lint by years. 17 I . Variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 A1len..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 350 184 173........... .. .. . . . . .- Alabama Wonder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 118 164.... . .. . .. Allen’s Long Staple... . . . . . . .. Alabama Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151 335........... . . Allen'sExpress . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 18 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 91 267 450 113 188 Acala No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 357............ Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 399 243 163 184 305 17 114 Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 457 213 Burns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 211 176 . . . Brabham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 206 117 . . . Bohemian Big Boll . . . . . . . . . .. 558 186.... . . Bradburn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 230 . . . . . . . Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158 131 . Broadwells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 226 . . . . Brazos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Bohlers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 169.......... . . . Bostwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 195... oykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63 160 292... Bates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 218.... . Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 254 315 84 172 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 306 458 122 257 Buckelew Big Boll . . . . . . . . . 1'72............ Broadwells D. Jtd. . . . . . . . . . 17... Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 412 311 218 149 334 20 86. ClevelandxCook . . . . . . . . . . . 184............ Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 317 141 Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 285 250 180 406 438 .27 . . Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 502 316 265........ Chandlers Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . 412 202 . . . . Chambers Staple . . . . . . . . . . . .. 509.... Cannon . .. 273 190 Culpepper . 320 303 136 . . Chindo . . 220........... Crenshaw . . 230 Chisholm . 195........ 51 100 265.... Cook 729 Cook Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . Cook’s588 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Cook’s 931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 . . Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 491 154 151 280 22 66 227 426 120 214 Dixie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 275 244 192 . Dillon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 59 170 . Dongola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 256 225 Early King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304 21 87 Edgeworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 254 159 . . . . . . . . . . . . Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 74 Ferguson’s A 711 . . . . . . . . . . 417........ Ferguson’s Lone Star . . . . . . . 143 Ferguson’s Mebane Triumph........................... 150.......... Ferguson’s Roundnose . . . . . . .. 419 220 354 42_ 123 258 . Ferguson's Triumph 184 . . . . . F.G. 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71 139 247............ Foster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 227............ Floradora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 356 156 133... .. Gilstrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II‘ . . . . . . .. 249............ Haaga 316! 174 132....1. Haaga’s Express . . . . . . . . . . .. Half-and-Half . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . .. 316 189 208... 20.... 280........ Hallmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 18 Bulletin N0. 321 TABLE 14—(Continued) 1 | 1 *- Variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l9l2ll9l3ll9l4 1915‘1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 Hartsville7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 206 228 Hartsville9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harvell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 353 41....125............ Hastings’ Mortgage Lifter....... .. Hasting’s Upright . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. 267 19 1 a 1 | Hawkins Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 167 314 19 . . Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 387 194 165 201 295........ gitesProlific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15... ites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110 194.. Holdon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42 92 182 Huffman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 187 Improved Champion . . . . . . . . 332 44 Ideal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 324.......... . Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 425 278 237............ Jackson’s Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . Karachigis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 213........ Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 244 389 73 149 Ka.sch’s Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61 100 Keenan Goodson . . . . . . . . . . .. 412.. Kekchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.... King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 131 Kings Express Early . . . . . . . . . . .. 38....... KingxTriumph . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 47 110... King 850 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 144.. Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 382 234 209 245 327 34 115 324 400 115 164 Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 433 267........ Luce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205... . Mokpo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 115... . Matchless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 275........... . Mafichless Extra Early Big Boll............. 21 108.. . Mc elson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 275 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 468 240 175 219 349 49 117 265 345 108 138 Mebane 804 . . . . . . . . . . . 137 175 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 322 42 180 296.... Mexican Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . Mixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 246... . M. S. LoneStar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 Money Maker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12... Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448 268 206 142 263 21 .. . . . . . . Pemiscot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 110............ Perry's Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189........ Peterkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 243 157 . . . . 16 . . Petways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 . . . Petways Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 . Iéedk Leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 91 2891 .. . ics .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3231 251 247 Rublee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 452 236] 178 196 289 41 76 231 410 91 260 Rowden-Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Rowden576 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64... ..[.. Rowden Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299......... . .f.. Rowden Ludd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332 Rowden Choice Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| . . . . . . . 25 . . . . Russell Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226< . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sea. Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . . . . .] 47 . . 84 Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Simpkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 215 84].. Simpkins Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..!....| . . . . . . 27 73... . . . . . . .. Cotton Variety Experiments at the Main Station Farm 1912 to 1922 TABLE 14—(Continued) 19 I Variety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .l1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 I I _ ? Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 158 140.... 23 92 206.... 127 189 Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 354......... Sunbeam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332.......... Sunflower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 .. Sure Crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 287 18 Simpkins Ideal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 Silk Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 103....... . Texas Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 199 141 167.... . Texas Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 41 107.. TexasWood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 211 158 169.... Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 387 306 176 161... Trice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 213........... 27 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 522 246 269 133.. . 296 476 137 200 Triumph 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 275.......... Uncle Sam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . ..f 488 220 210.... 309 21 121 251 Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l472 247 Unknown Long Staple . . . . . . . . . .. 153 . . Vandivefs Heavy Fruiter......... 26 77... . Virgatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 577 262 215 .. . Wannamaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48 Wannamaker Big Boll . . . . . . Webb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 110 272........ Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 121 89 . Webber49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 251............ . Webber82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281...... . Willis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 270 Wooten’s Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 275.... .. . Yuma .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.... 48...... 5w E... i... ww.w 2... 5w w..... ww... w..... ww. S... ww... .6..E..8o .w.w w...w ww... .....w 51w ww.w .3... w... ... S... ....w ww... .6..E..>..z 22w ww.. w... .5... w..w w... w... ww. ....... S... ..w.w i... .6..B@c 5w w... S... ww... www .w... w...w .w... 3.... ww... ...... 3.. wwnfiwfimw www w..... ..w... .3... 3.... ww... w...w ..w... www. w... 3.... .w... 25.3.. .....w ww... 3.... .3... S... 5.... ..w... ww. .3... 2.... ... w...w 3.... www S... ww... w... ...... wfiw ....... .....w w...w w... w... .w.w .25.. S... S... ..w.. 2.... ww.w wmw ww.. .5... ....... S... 31w w... S... M. S... ww... ......w. 3.... ww. w... ......w ww... .....w. www w...w ...w .23.. 3 w...w 2w w... 2... . 3w ww... w... ww... ww. i... www ww... =95... .. 3w w... ww. ..w... ww... ww... .w.w ....... .3... wmfiw www www .. .. 2.3.... M ww.w ww. w...w ww... w... w... ww. i... www mw... www w..... 2.25.... . _ . m. wmw w... E... ww... w...w. 5... w...w ww... _ w... _ i... w..w S... .....w..w=< 5E. $5.... .22. 6 m wwéw ..w.w.. www. wwé... 2.3 wwéw ..w.w. ....ww w...w.. Q wwww 3:5 ww...w .39.. ww... . .w... ..w... .3... w w.... S... I S... B... .3... w... w.w. .262 _ , f 5.02 $3-2 s...» 6.12:2: ww... o.‘ N13 mwxwa. Eowawwm 09.200 as qnwcwmwm Guam... 3.23% dc... zifiioz w. SQM