rwv———— ' u/ATEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR I COLLEGE STATION, mmzos COUNTY, TEXAS f -BULLETIN NO. 364 AUGT, I927 t‘ u. C.‘ -_4:y DIVISION OF AGRONOMY VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS _ AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF “TEXAS . T. O. WALTON, President \ ADMINISTRATION: *B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Ph. D., Director A. B. CONNER, M. S., Acting Director . E. KARPER, B. S., Acting Vice-Director . M. ScHAEDEL, Secretary . P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk . K. FRANcKLOw, Assistant Chief Clerk CHEsTER HIGGS, Executive Assistant . B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant CHEMISTRY: __ G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., C emist _ S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist WALDO H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist _ ADAH P. STURGIS, B. S., Assistant Chemist R. O. BROOKE, M. S., Assistant Chemist T. L. OGIER, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. G. EvANs, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: Chief H. NEss, M. S., Berry Breeder RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations _ J. L. LUSH, Ph. D., Animal Iglusbandman; Breeding Investigations . H. DAMERON, B. S., Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: I F. L. THOMAs, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist _ . J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist . K. FLETcHER, M. A., Entomologist . L. OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist . C. GAINEs, JR., M. S.. Entomologist RANKLIN SHERMAN, III, M. S., Entomologist F. BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist . B. COFFIN, B. S., Entomologist _ . R. ADKINs, B. S., Assistant Entomologist . CUNYUs, B. S., Assistant Entomologist . J. uzuw gm: MCCOY, B. S., Assistant Entomologist TODD, B. S., Assistant Entomologist . E. McGREGoR, JR., Acting Chief Foulbrood Inspector TTO MAcKENsEN, F oulbrood Inspector GILLIs GRAHAM, Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief A. B. CONNER, M. S., Agronomist; Grain Sorghum Research _ R. E. KARPER, B. S., Agronomist; Small Grain Research P. C. MANGELsDORF, Sc. D., Agronomist in charge of Corn and Small Grain Investi- gations D. T. KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton Breeding C. CUsHING, B. S., Assistant in Crops R. JOHNSON, B. S., Assistant in Soils wn250? "’ NU/VBKR or aAus-s T/lousAA/DS 400 500 270 m0 7074L 70/741. I00 200 300 400 500 60o | 5.6 is/z 964 I m8 /9/5 89.2 /9/4 908 /9/5 92.6 19/6 as; /9/7 s95 xs/a e51 . A1919 ax: /920 s54 /92/ as: 1922 7242 . 1925 s94 L924 62.4 = I925 6&9 mzssao Figure 2.-—Total annual production of cotton in the Panhandle and South Plains region of grtlhvgist Texas, 1912 to 1926. Note the relatively rapid increase in total production in the 1g ains. m MAR. 2e ocr. zz MAAzzQ won / APR. l3 9C7- 1-5 APR. 12 ' ' 0W Z7 APR. a mm m APR: l5 ' ocz 1.9 AMY- 6 ocr I8 APR. z/ " xvov. 9 MAR. ll ' - IVOK x2. APR, 21 ' ' Nov 2 APR. n NW 9 wmaa/ wav x3 04x29 - NW 6' APR. 2s 0c): 24- 1mm /.9 - obr za APP. /5 ~ mav. .9 APRrQ . - /vav. z Figure 3.—Annual and average frost free period for sixteen years, 1911 to 1926, inclusive, at Texas Substation No. 8, Lubbock. 10 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION taken place in the region above the Caprock has advanced from 4 per » cent of the total to 40 per cent of the total of this entire region in the '3 past fifteen years. It will be seen that the most rapid strides‘ in pro- duction have been made since 1921 in both the High Plains and the Low 3 Plains region. A THE COTTON HARVESTER OR SLED New development in cotton-harvesting methods in northwest Texas i. materially reduced the cost of harvesting the 1926 crop. Large areas of level land adapted to large-scale farming operations, comparative freedom from insect injury, troublesome weed growth and excessive i moisture enables one man to cultivate successfully and grow up to harvest i. time large areas of 150 to 200 acres of cotton with little extra help. i; Clearly then the problem of harvesting is the limiting factor in deter- 7 mining how much cotton a farmer may plant. Labor is usually scarce, the harvesting season short, and cold weather intervenes before the crop is gathered. While unfavorable to hand picking the late fall is dry and otherwise favorable to field work. Normally, ten to twenty per cent of the "crop on the Plains is harvested by snapping. Snapped cotton as differentiated from picked cotton is open cotton harvested by pulling the t whole bolls, which are run through a special cleaning equipment at the gin, separating the seed cotton from the burrs. Bollie cotton is ofttimes harvested and consists of the unopened or partly opened bolls, which may be immature, stained from effects of frosts, and contain “perished” staple and immature seed. The natural small stalk-growth made by the cotton plant in northwest Texas is especially favorable to the operation of the cotton stripper. This is particularly true of cotton on the High Plains at the higher altitudes, where the plants grow normally one to two and one-half feet high and the bolls constitute a comparatively large per cent of the total L; growth of the plant. The season of 1926 was very favorable for me- chanical harvesting with the sled or stripper inasmuch as practically the whole crop opened well and there were almost no bollies. Less favorable conditions exist usually so that for best success with the sled early varieties which shed their foliage and open promptly after the first frost, having a thin burr which dries out quickly and threshes out clean at the gin, will be advantageous in producing cotton of better grade with less stain and discoloration from the immature bolls. Varieties that make a small vegetative growth have a light foliage, and fruit heavily, with a somewhat determinate growing habit, and mature quickly and uniformly are best adapted to the most satisfactory use of the sled method of har- vesting. Experiments at this station have shown the Westex, Burnett, Cooke, and Lightning Express to be promising varieties having a short growing season, short opening period,_ adaptable to harvesting the whole crop by sledding and likely to give fair grades of lint when so harvested. Scarcity of labor, high charges for picking and hand snapping, low prices for cotton, weather conditions adverse to harvesting by hand, and an unusually large crop were conditions confronting the cotton farmers in northwest Texas in the fall of 1926. They were forced to adopt more vArumrtnggopj-‘oorrox p; NQRTHWEsTMTIQxAs _ ._..~.~-J 11 . _. ,-_. i; .‘_ k v. villi \' -— . ., t‘ ‘ rapid and economical measures of harvesting in orderltoisavéfthe crop and show a profit. The cotton sled, or stripper, an implement used as early as 1914, and to a very small extent several years later, notably 1918, 1920, and 1921, was practically forced upon the growers in order to harvest the largest total crop ever produced. Probably sixty to seventy per cent of the crop was harvested either by this method or by hand ‘ snapping. The machines used Were home-made or made by the local blacksmiths and showed little standardization of design. They cost ten to thirty dollars each depending upon the type of sled and the material used. Four to six acres, or two bales per day, was about the average amount of cotton harvested by one man and team at an approximate labor cost of $2.50 per bale. The two principal types of harvesters used were the finger type and the slot or rafter type. The box of all types of harvesters is about the same and is usually 10 feet long, 4 feet wide, and 3 feet deep. One-inch material, either four or twelve inches wide, is used for the sides and bottom and the corner and cross braces are 2x4 or 2x6. This structure is mounted upon skids or runners extending the entire length of the box. It is desirable to mount on a pair of wheels so as to carry the main part of the load and thus greatly reduce the draft. i l The finger type of sled has an opening in the center of the box in front the width of the finger assembly. Twelve to sixteen pieces of one-inch reinforcement iron about two feet long are pointed bluntly and bent ’ . upward at one end while the other end is bradded to a piece of strap arwurvrrwsv-v-wyyqg-vvrrw-yyagmuv- “Hm < i rv~ ., - , iron, spacing the fingers about one-half inch apart. *The whole assembly is fastened into the opening in the box, the front end of the fingers sliding on the ground and being about six inches lower than the rear end (Figure 4:). As the fingers pass over the cotton plants the bolls are stripped off and raked into the box by the operator. A modified finger type which proved very satisfactory was made by extending the finger assembly approximately fifty-six inches to the rear in the box. The fingers are made of T-angle iron 78 inches long and one and one-fifth inches wide. The rear end of the fingers are drilled and bolted to a solid block built up in the box to a height of about eighteen inches above the ground. The front end is pointed bluntly and turned upward slightly to permit sliding along on the ground. Having a slope of about eighteen inches, this type of finger tends to strip the cotton from the plant While it is in a normal and upright position, and prevents clogging and a consequent waste of cotton which is pulled through between the fingers. It is imperative that the front end of this sled be braced properly to prevent squeezing the fingers together when power is applied to the hitch at the corners. The Slot 01' rafter type may have a box of the same dimensions or it , may be longer and deeper to accommodate taller cotton and permit of é stripping from the plant in an upright position. or box is in two sections being divided by a slot six inches wide at the The floor of the sled base and extending the entire length of the box. The floor of each side of the box extends about fifteen inches in front of the box proper, is 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION rounded at the front forming guards which guide the plants into the slot. Two Zxéts, forming an opening or slot for the cotton stalks to pass through, extend from the rear top part of the box to the front and bottom with about a two-inch space between them. A two-inch strap iron is then fastened to these rafters and extended on to the guards in front. The opening between the 2x4s is reduced to a slot three-fourths of an inch wide by extending the strap iron over their sides. Figure 4.—The finger type of cotton harvester used extensively on the High Plains in 1926 About ninety per cent of the harvesters in use at the end of the season were of the finger type. Earlier in the season before the plants had deteriorated from excessive moisture and the cotton wasted out of the bolls the slot type worked very well. While the machines were being de- veloped, made, and put into operation, the crop was deteriorating and wasting from the bolls so that an unusually large waste accompanied some of the harvesting by this new method. If the crop is sledded as VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS l 13 soon after frost as the leaves are shed it is believed a relatively small loss will be incurred. It may be found desirable to harvest before the bolls have fully dried out and place the crop in storage where it Will com- plete drying-out and opening. In any event this rapid method of har- vesting will undoubtedly call for storing the crop on the farm for a period "inasmuch as it would not be profitable or economical to establish gins sufficient to handle the crop of a locality in such a short harvesting season if sledding became the universal practice. iThe grade of snapped or sl.edded cotton is on the average one to two grades below the same cotton picked. The gins on the whole are well equipped with the most modern machinery including burr extractors Figure 5.—The slot or rafter type of cotton sled. ‘grand cleaning devices. Marked improvements in cleaning equipment jare being made by the manufacturers of gin machinery and the grade of A ithe snapped cotton will likely continue to be improved. Cooperation Itoward the realization of this end is essential to both the growers and gmanufacturers as a means of improving the quality of the lint and avoiding the penalty involved in marketing the lower grades due to excess dirt and trash. An understanding and recognition of the real alue and merits of snapped or harvested cotton should soon establish Y“? 1,‘) _ gts true value and eliminate the undue penalty and discount in classifica- 14 _ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION tion and selling price which at present often accompanies the. marketing of this product. Spinning tcsts* with snapped and picked cotton have shown that the spinning qualities were practically the same; that there was about five per cent more waste in the snapped cotton but that the percentage of waste was not materially greater than in picked cotton of equal grade. Itrequires approximately two thousand pounds of snapped or sledded cotton to make a bale, leaving a residue of about five hundred pounds of burrs at the gin. These burrs accumulate in great piles at the gins and become fire hazards or are burned as fuel for the operation of the plant. Analyses of the ash and slag accumulating from the burrs burned for fuel have shown as high as forty-two per cent of potash. At present these burrs are an economic loss and should be returned to the soil. A burr extractor on the farm either as a ‘separate unit or as a part of the harvestel is a possible means of retaining the burrs on the land as well as effecting a saving in ginning costs. The development and progress made with the cotton harvester, even within this one season and from the crude machines first brought into use in this emergency, was very marked and vastly greater improvements in types and efficiency of the harvesters, practices and methods of handling the crop when gathered, and in the cleaning and ginning machinery may well be expected. THE WEATHER AND COTTON PRODUCTION The record of the rainfall at this Station, by months, for the fifteen- year period 1912 to 1926, inclusive, is given in the accompanying table. The average annual rainfall at this point for the period for which records are available is between twenty and twenty-one inches. The distribution is favorable to summer crops with 85 per cent of the total precipitation falling during the growing season, from April to October, inclusive, and the lowest rainfall during the winter months. The dis- tribution of annual rainfall for the years in this period has varied from 65 per cent to as high as 95 per cent of the total falling during the growing season. The distribution on the average is extremely favor- able for summer row crops; however, occasional seasons with a total an- nual amount ample for good crop yields may be unfavorably distributed and be the limiting factor in production._ On the average, 51 per cent of the annual rainfall comes in June, July, August, and September, when the cotton crop is most in need of moisture. The yields of cotton presented in this table for comparison with the annual rainfall represents the average of the ten highest-yielding varie- ties in the variety test for each year, respectively, with the exception of 1917. The variety test was a failure in that year and the yield given is the average yield of Mebane cotton produced in another test that season. Including the yields of 1917, as stated, the average yield of lint cotton for this test for the fifteen-year period has been 310 pounds. *Spinning Tests of Picked and Snapped Cottons, Preliminary Report, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture. VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 15 The length of the growing season, date of the first killing frost in the fall, and mean temperatures in the early fall months are important factors in cotton production on the Plains and must be taken into con- sideration in choosing the variety of cotton to grow. The average num- ber of days between the last frost in the spring and the first killing frost in the fall for this sixteen-year period, 1911 to 1926, is 207 days (Figure 3). The shortest season was 166 days in 1917, and the longest 246 days in 1919, there being a spread of 24 days between the earliest and the latest date of the killing frost in the fall and a difference of 7 9 days between the longest and the shortest growing season for this period of years. The average date of the last killing frost in the spring is April 9 and the average date of the first killing frost in the fall is November 2. The mean temperature for the months of June to Sep- tember is quite uniform and ranges above 70 degrees. The mean tem- perature for October drops to 59 degrees. The cool nights at this altitude tend to retard development and prolong maturity so that with late-maturing varieties there is a tendency to produce too large a per- centage of bollies in- certain years. A fall with high rainfall accom- panied by low night temperatures beginning in August and extending through September and October, thus prolonging the period of maturity, .may be more of a limiting factor in yield than is lack of moisture. 1916, 1917, 1920, and 1925 were seasons which suffered a reduction in yield from this cause. In these years the early, adapted varieties proved i a great deal more successful than the big-boll types of later maturity. A good stand of cotton at planting time is an important factor in production and securing it~ demands careful and timely operations based upon the soil and climatic conditions existing at planting time. T_he period of favorable conditions for planting is often quite short and it is important to plant rapidly in order to take advantage of these optimum conditions. Surface soil moisture is depleted rather rapidly and may soon be insuflicient for good germination. Cotton ‘seeds covered with fuzz do not lie in close contact with the soil and if the moisture content of the soil is rather low a long time may be required for the fuzz and seed to take up sufficient moisture to grow, in which case an adequate i ‘stand will not be secured. Soaking the seed in water just before plant- ing is often helpful. Cotton should be planted with a lister planter run i shallow to medium-deep and the seed deposited on firm, moist soil either directly on the bottom 0f the lister furrow or in a clean, narrow trench behind an opener provided to follow the lister bottom. Trial plantings of delinted cotton seed have been made on the Station 1 farm a number of times with excellent results. Good germination and stands have been obtained with delinted seed under soil moisture condi- , tions entirely inadequate for-satisfactory germination of non-delinted i. seed. In 1924 delinted seed came up from 5 to '7 days quicker than ' ordinary-ginned seed and also gave a more nearly perfect stand as well as a gain in the length of growing season. Since obtaining a stand is one of the most difficult problems connected with cotton-growing in the 16 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Q. 2m m .>oZ flaw we. ee. fivm ma...“ Ea i: mma 3a mm: Neé 8.. Hm. .. . . . . .....wmm~o>< wmaS e .>oZ mo? RA 2. 9Q £4. m§m .84 2A 3b $4 S; E. em. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iemefi $42 wm J00 mfimm fin. Z. mm; 3.5 Sn wma ow. 101m NWH H. me. me. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16mg mmémm $.30 2. m we. me. Ev. mm; i; om; ehA ee. em. 2... S. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ifii 3.48m m >02 hfem 3. ma. ewe 5a mm; Q: 3m Ra in i: 3. fi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4&2 mm a2 2 .>oZ $0: 8. an; ee. S. wm. £4 m2 3m emfm mm. em. £1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZNmmH “wane. e .>oZ Q m: H H Ne one ma. Kw. is Q. 0%.. UNA Q. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :5: Nmtmmm m .32 8H2 me. 5a ma; $4 Ea min i; 3N 2. w“ I. ee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :32 2x5» NHSQZ 5.3 i. em. £5 2mm 3N £5 mmim 2a mma .5». mm. Q. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I22 m: men e .>oZ .3 fi 2a me. B. i. E. mm. $.m $4 w... me. $1 fie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14:2 ee >2 2 .30 mfiw ee. we. i. 3m a; NANA we. heA mm a. me. mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:2 3 mam 2 .30 me 2 S. ma... 5a 9km fiwm em. mm; em. m; 2A H 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I32 Q Se. @462 £3 3H E. $4 3s 8a $4 SQ $4 2a firm ee.m ee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122 2.9x. 2.. .30 3H5 UNA mm. NHS 9.. $4.. .540 gm 8+ Difi em. 2. m4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.32 $3M wmmfio 5N2 2 m EA mm; 24» mm. 9.. Mew...“ 3 Q: wfié em. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.23 i. o2 w .52 ee 3 wm. fie. fiwfi m». 5N mm...“ 8. ma: S: S. ma; me. . . . . . . . ...........N$H 5.300 =mh 130B 3Q . >oZ .30 Qmom .w=< 33. wash. >32 ~CQ< n52 duh .52. ha»? e54 E 23h II] B‘? minim $53G E fieawm o m~o>< embh vfiwQ eNeTNZZ 62.55 EETZ m5 .~0.* 32w 33 3 c038 as: Mo 22% awake?» one. Si? uwneomoe .23 on» E fiofi wEEx 3E 0o 32. ommhz/ m. was cwscca 2S wnm qofiwtamuwkm 125cm 53E was wvbncm QQJHCOE mafia cfificoi o5 wEBonw|A awash. VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 17 Plains region, ‘the use of delinted seed for planting purposes will be a material aid to success. Delinted seed should be more universally used for planting here and the practice will undoubtedly increase in the future as the advantages are learned. COMPARATIVE DROUTH RESISTANCE OF COTTON AND GRAIN SORGHUM A A measure of the drouth-resistance of cotton is indicated when the yield of this crop is considered along with comparative yields of feterita, which is recognized as one of the most drouth-resistant grain sorghums grown. Experiments here under an average annual rainfall of around twenty inches have shown cotton to be a remarkably drouth-resistant crop. The ability of cotton to withstand hot, dry summers has been recognized but it has not been placed in the category of dry-land crops. That it can safely be so placed is evidenced by comparative yields here and that cotton can well take its place as a drouth-resistant crop along- side of the sorghums, which are recognized as being the premier drouth- . resistant crops adapted to dry-land agriculture, is clearly shown. The following table shows the comparative acre yields of lint cotton and feterita over a twelve-year period. These yields represent an average‘ of twenty-one tenth-acre plats each of feterita and cotton, grown in direct comparison in a series of rotations, for each of the years 1915 to 1926, thus giving a reliable and parallel average for each of these two crops. The table also shows the annual rainfall, the seasonal rainfall, May to September, and the pre-season rainfall, from September to April, inclusive. Table 2.—The annual, seasonal and pre-season rainfall and yields of cotton and feterita. Rainfall Average Acre Yie‘d Seasonal, Pre-season, Year Annual ay to September _Pounds Bushels Rainfall September, to April, Lint Cotton Feterita Inclusive Inclusive 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.88 17 77 21.19 418.90 35 81 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.03 7 51 14.13 246.01 17 1917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.73 7 32 7.55 16.45 1O 68 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.15 73 5.44 148.91 9 38 1919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.61 16 43 11.31 477.10 46 17 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.16 13 O3 14.99 250.20 59 1O 1921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.72 14 4O 7.66 344.59 35 23 1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.59 7 74 9.20 210.34 21 93 1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.17 12 66 7.56 339.13 32 78 1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.45 90 12.95 247.36 21 98 1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.75 19 31 3.60 150.30 2O 11 1926 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.06 14 17 15.14 269.44 29 1O Average . . . . . . . . 19.69 12.00 10.89 259.89 28.33 The relation prevailing between the yields of both lint cotton and feterita with annual, seasonal and pre-season rainfall is further shown by the following correlation coeflicients calculated from the data above: 18 _ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Correlation Coefficients Rainfall Cotton \ Feterita Annual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 i .09 .55 i .14 Seasonal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 i .14 .55 i .14 Pre-season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 i .15 .45 i .15 It will be seen from these coefficients that there is a relatively high degree of relationship between the yield of cotton and feterita and the rainfall; however, the probable errors are naturally high owing to the comparatively small number of years involved in these calculations. Cotton having a longer growing season than sorghum, it would seem reasonable to suppose that it is more dependent on the total annual rain? fall than feterita. This seems to be borne out by the size of the correla- tion coefficients, the coeflicient between yield of cotton and total rainfall being considerably higher than that between feterita and total rainfall, although the difference between these two coefficients is barely significant on account of the small size of the sample. There is little difference between these two crops in their relation to seasonal and pre-season rain- fall, both showing about the same relationship but indicating the im- portant bearing 0f moisture on the production of high yields. The ACRF W520 40 l a0 25' 200 20 I50 £5 I00 l0 ¢orra~ 5‘, 5 g ————/£r£>?/m \4 YEW? Figure 6.—Comparative yield of cotton and grain sorghum, 1915-1926. VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 19 effect of rainfall during the growing season seems to be slightly more- marked than is that of the fall and winter preceding. The average yield of cotton for this twelve-year period has been 259.89 pounds of lint as compared with an average yield of grain of 28.33 bushels. In Figure 6 is portrayed the average yield _of lint cotton in pounds and grain sorghum in bushels for each of the years 1,915 to 1926. The yields on the graph are based upon an ordinate value of five bushels of grain sorghum being equal to fifty pounds of lint. Actually, on the average forthis period, a yield of 5.66 bushels of‘ grain sorghum is equivalent to 51.97 pounds of lint, or approximating closely one bushel of grain to ten pounds of lint, this relationship holding so closely from year to year that the yield for either one being known, the yield of the- other could be rather reliably predicted. This graph shows the manner in which the yields of cotton and grain sorghum fluctuate together- With the exception of the year 1920, a low yield of one is accompanied by a corresponding low yield of the other. The exception shown in 1920- was due largely to the fact that the season was unfavorable for maturity and opening of the cotton crop, which resulted in a rather large crop of bollies unharvested. The low yield of cotton, therefore, was not due to lack of suflicient moisture. Comparison of the yields of cotton and feterita with the annual rain-- fall indicates that on the average a fair yield can be depended upon any time there is a high pre-season rainfall, regardless of whether the sea- sonal rainfall be favorable or not. An abundant supply of sub-soil moisture at planting time is indicative of a normal yield and an im- portant factor in cotton production. Both a high seasonal rainfall and a high pre-season rainfall occurring together is accompanied by unusual yields. On the other hand, a low pre-season rainfall is a fairly good index that the yield of cotton or grain sorghum will be low and. the yield is certain to be low if the seasonal and pre-season moisture are both below the normal. This brings out the significant value of under- ground season, or sub-soil moisture, which has such an important bear- ing on satisfactory yields in this region, and shows the certainty with which one can proceed in planting a crop of cotton with reasonable assurance of a normal yield when the pre-season rainfall has been normal or above. Under such conditions, the banks would be justified in enlarging their extension of credit and the farmer justified in seeking it or drawing more heavily upon his reserve resources for the purpose of extending and intensifying his operations. Inversely, the season pre- ceded by low rainfall should be approached more cautiously. Thus being guided in advance by the outlook will result in greater profit from» year to year, tend to reduce risks from the weather hazards, determine the best practices to follow, such as rate of planting and cultivation, and‘ tend to stabilize the farming industry’ in general. CONDITIONS SURROUNDING VARIETY TESTS The foregoing discussion indicates that cotton-growing in the Plains region is confronted with conditions differing in many respects from ‘those encountered in the older parts of the Cotton Belt. To insu I 2O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION maximum production and the highest returns the best-yielding varieti must be grown. Following is a record of the performance of cotto varieties here during the past fifteen years, together with a discussio of the conditions surrounding their growth and development during t’; season. A study of these varieties from year to year, their character tics, growing habits, and production will be of value to the farme~ l growing cotton in this region. ' j’ The cotton varieties were grown in rows three feet apart and if plants spaced a uniform distance apart in the rows by measurement an - count. The row space to the plant was usually eighteen inches, excer, in earlier years when the space was twelve inches. Up until 1920, du, ing which time a large number of varieties were tested each year, t -.. "were planted in plats of one one-hundred-and-tenth acre in size a replicated from two to three times. Since 1920 the plats have been Q - sixteenth acre in size and duplicated. In each instance the plats ha “been properly protected by guard rows. The yields recorded are W zaverage for all replications of the variety. ‘f Prior to 1919, the method of preparing the seedbed was by plowin and intervening tillage consisted of disking and harrowing to settle l? pulverize the seedbed and to keep down spring weed growth. Late_ however, it was found desirable from the standpoint of soil manageme f particularly the prevention of soil blowing, to prepare the seedbed by If lister method, leaving the ground rough. Listing was usually done ‘February to a depth of six inches and the middles‘ “busted” back l; relisted again in March or early April. The crop was planted with»; ‘lister planter, bursting the beds and planting in a shallow furrow. Ear A cultivations were done with the harrow, knives, or go-devil and the la ones with the riding cultivator equipped with sweeps. Uniform I. clean cultivation was practiced. a No commercial fertilizer or barnyard manure was used in these teqj ' All tests were conducted under dry-land conditions and grown on are‘: in established rotations; however, the land on which these variety w,‘ were grown was ofttimes preceded by a green-manure crop or fall 1' ‘prior to 1921, while since that time the test followed on land which ha, been in cotton or grain sorghum the preceding year. The green-man ~ -crop consisted of sorgo plowed under when in full boot. When plan on land thus treated as well as that fallowed the previous year, s, "varieties in these tests as a whole were given an advantage in the way t, moisture and plant food which permitted maximum production and ga yields above the average for the season. * The crop was harvested in three to five pickings until 1922, Wh weekly pickings of all varieties were instigated, beginning with the fi i bolls to open, and continued on the same day of the week throughout j, ‘harvesting period. Each variety was ginned on the small experimen :7 gin to obtain lint percentages and the samples of lint graded and stapl.’ by the Textile Department of the College. l. VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 2k . A separate table is given presenting the results of cotton variety tests or each year from 1912 to 1926, except the year 1917, when the variety ° est of cotton was a complete failure. The results are reported for each ariety in the experiment each year. The varieties are listed in the bles in order of their rank in yield. 1912 and 1913 sted in 1912 and 1913 and include twenty-four and thirty-three vari- i ies, respectively. The linting per cent and lint yield were not ob- iined in these two seasons. In 1912 the upland long staple varieties were among the best pro- Lucers, but No. 669 Burnett, which is a short staple and small boll eriety, was outstanding in yield above all other varieties. . It will be noted that Sea Island and Yuma, two typical long staple varieties, produced very low yields this year as they did also in all ture years during which they were tested. 1 In 1913 six varieties produced above 1000 pounds of seed cotton to~ e acre. No. 4'79 Toole produced 1511 pounds of seed cotton and as the best yielding variety. Favorable yields Were made by some of‘ e better staple varieties but the shorter staple varieties are the more rominent in yield this year. le 3.—-Cotton Variety Test in 1912. Varieties arranged in order of yield of seed cotton. os- Variety Name Aifgufiffsld’ ' seedcotton 1- Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Clarksville Long Staple. . . . . . _ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ' ' H "" Allen’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' ' . ' 4 ' ' ‘ D ' ' ' ' ‘ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " 425]) 2 Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ ' . ' ' . ‘ . I ' ~ . ' ' . V ' 4 ' ' ' ‘ _ . I ' ' i ' ' H 403'} 28 Mebane........................ ‘ ' . I ' ' ' ' ' D ' ' ‘ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ' ' ' ‘ ' ' " 3883 "I Cook’sLongStaple..............:..: ' - ' ' ' ' . . ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' H 355}; 24 Ferguson Round Nose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . ' ' I ' ' . ' ' ' ‘ ' ' D ' ' . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " 350]) Allen’sLongStaple.................iiiiiiiii . Q ' ' ' ' I 4 - ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " 331'3 Egalléh§1trg1£:....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 325.0 gum;Longstapleii:J::::;:::::::::::;::::::: """"""""""""""" '" Z13"? ow en . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' ' ' " ' 1 ClevelandBigBoll...................: ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " 32g? 9 Keenan..............................:ii I I . . ' ' . D ' 4 ' . ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' I Q H 2406 _ 1.3 Columbia Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' ' ' ' . ' ' ' ' . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " 240]; 6 . ' ' _ ‘ ' . . ' Q ' . _ ' ' . ' ' . H 234'4 _4 UnknownLongStaple.......................:::: . _ ' ' ' . ‘ ' ' ' D ' . Q ' H 203i} 15 Allen’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' I _ i ' ' D ' ' ' I . ' ' ' H 200]) >7 Burns’LongStaple...........................:: . . ' _ ‘ . ' ' I D I ' 1813 " Jackson.......................................:::: ' ' ' . ' . ' ' ' ‘ 4 ' H 173']; 8 Hendricks....................................... I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ‘ ' ' ' " 171'9 _ Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . ' . ' . i ' ' ' ' i . H 163-3‘ VI Yuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' " 751i 7 seaIs1and.....................................IIfIIIIIIffI'if"' 25o Tables Nos. 3 and 3A give the yields of seed cotton for the varieties‘ i The abundant rainfall from April to August followed by a dry Sep- i 22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 3A.——Cotton Variety Test in 1913. Varieties arranged in order of yield of seed cotton. is _ Acre yield; r T. S. Variety Name pounds ~. No. seed cotton f 479 Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1511 . 12 472 Peterkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1168.75 475 Texas Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1111.00 476 Texas Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1069.75 - 469 Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1046.30 446 Simpkin’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . 1022.60 669 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949.80 16 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860.75 443 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 818.60 152 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804.00 700 Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 798.87 128 Mebane . . . . . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 792.83 444 Haaga’s Ex_. Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759.90 698 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 754.00 478 Allen’s Imp. Long Staple . . . . . _ . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 750.75 348 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 724.60 135 Union Big oll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 720-. 50 415 Huffman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . 714.90 412 Foster’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 699.85 486 Robert’s Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 669.60 118 Clarksville LongStaple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . 662.75 129 Edgeworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 648.83 77 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 643.50 170 Hartsville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635.25 474 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 616.00 414 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562.80 14 Unknown Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . 550.00 7 Burns’ Long Staple. .* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532.00 ‘f 413 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531.66 . * 11 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473.00 130 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415.25 473 Willetfs Red Leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378. 12 l0 Yuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272.25 1914 The performance of the varieties in the test in 1914 is especially in-'_;; teresting because this season was particularly favorable to cotton pro-j duction and the best yields of the fifteen-year period were made this year. l“ The planting was made May 12 in duplicate. The plants were thinned ; when about six inches high to a stand of ten inches between plants. l tember enabled most varieties to mature well a heavy yield which was z harvested in from three to five pickings of all varieties. - I The per cent of lint, yield of seed cotton and yield of lint is given ‘for fifty-seven varieties of cotton in the test in 1914. Thirty of these i ‘varieties yielded above a bale to the acre and thirteen yielded over 600 f pounds of lint to the acre. The season of 1914 was very favorable to +cotton production because of abundant rainfall well distributed and a growing season of about average length. The early spring rains per- Initted a rapid and early development of the young plants. In this season of favorable weather conditions and high production it is worthy of note that the varieties of superior length of staple do not in general , come among the highest yielders. Data on the number of bolls required to make a pound of seed cotton and the total number of bolls to the stalk were obtained from the dif- pt. . *5 mi VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS .. 23 i ferent varieties. It is worthy of note that the highest yielding varieties were generally small bolled cottons and carried a large number of bolls to the stalk. ‘ A Table‘ 4.—Cotton Variety Test in 1914. Arranged in order of yield of lint. Acre Acre N0. Bolls Per Cent Yield Yield T. S. Variety to the Lint Pounds Pounds No. -—-————-— Seed Lint Pound Stalk Cotton 469 Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . 85 19 34.2 2116.2 723.7 476 Texas Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 18 34.7 2035.1 704.9 485 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 16 32.7 2355.9 680.8 783 King. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 16 34.1 1944.3 663.0 446 Simpkin’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 16 33.3 1973.9 656.2 480 Culpepper’s Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 14 30.8 2103 .4 647.8 474 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >63 14 31.5 2059.8 645.2 699 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 16 30.4 2129.9 640.5 481 Cook’s Imp. Big. Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 14 30.9 2056.6 634.9 487 Dongola Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 14 29.8 2133.3 634.7 700 Long‘ Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 13 28.9 2129.2 613.1 698 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 1O 34.2 1779.3 604. 8 472 Peterkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 16 35.3 1702.3 601.5 443 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 ' 12 35.4 1650.0 587.9 415 Huffman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 13 30.0 1930.1 585.0 496 Br0adwell’s Double Jointed . . . . . . . 55 10 32 . 9 1766.9 580.9 479 Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 21 33.3 1717.4 571.1 482 Bohler’s Triple Jointed . . . . . . . . . . . 54 14 31 .8 1632.4 561 .1 938 Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 10 32 8 1689.2 555.6 445 Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 16 26 6 2082.1 553.8 941 Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 11 33 1 1664.5 550.9 § 135 Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 16 29.9 1831.5 548.1 i ' 129 Edgeworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 16 32.9 1625.3 534.7 7 Burns’ Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 10 30.5 1755.0 534.1 152 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 12 29.7 1959.0 533 .4 475 Texas Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 17 32.3 1635.0 531.5 411 Hite’s Early Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70 22 31.7 1668.6 528.7 , 130 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 15 32.7 1590.5 519.4 16 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50 17 30.2 1845.3 513.7 ~ 414 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 15 29.8 1625.0 500.0 =% 466 Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 16 27.6 1781.4 491.6 3 504 Durango. . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67 15 30.7 1586.1 486.8 413 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 13 28.5 1715.6 484.1 f 486 Roberts’ Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 13 30.8 1568.9 482.3 r 483 Columbia....................... 48 13 29.1 1667.9 481.6 11 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 11 33.0 1419.3 465.6 118 Clarksville Long Staple. . . . . . . . . . 73 14 28.2 1628.0 460.7 412 Foster’s Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 15 29.0 1508.4 437 .4 939 Floradora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 15 27.4 1571 .0 433.5 444 Haaga’s Early Long Staple . . . . . . . 95 14 26.6 1591.9 430.0 495 - Hendricks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 14 32.5 1289.1 421.1 498 Bolivia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 15 28.5 1465.1 418.6 14 Unknown Long Staple. . . . . . . . . .. 56 11 27.1 1544.1 418.0 942 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 1O 33 . 3 1243 . 0 413 . I 77 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 13 29.5 1482.2 410.3 348 Black Rattler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 11 24.2 1509.1 363 .7 170 Hartsville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 12 29.5 1223.1 362.81 473 Willet’s_ Red Leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 19 34.6 1039.1 350.9- 478 Allen’s Imp. Long Staple . . . . . . . . . 92 16 29.0 1175.7 340.8; 494 Cannon’s World Skinner . . . . . . . . . 49 14 30.7 961.4 294.4. 940 Pemiscot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 16 27 . 1 1067. 1 289 .0 - 470 Sunflower Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . 88 16 26.6 1025.8 277.8 471 Dillon . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 25 33 1 649.7 214.6 477 Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 . . . . . . 26 9 545.2 147.0 484 Keenan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 7 24 5 314.9 77.1 10 Yuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 4 29.2 49.5 14.5 958 Sea Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 53.3 13.8 1915 The yields of forty-four varieties in 1915 are reported. This season. represents one of abundant rainfall, well distributed, and a long grown- 24 TEXAS ZAGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ing season, and was in general favorable to cotton but not as favorable’ as the preceding year. The first killing frost in the fall occurred November 12, 0r ten days later than normal. The planting was done May 11 and the plants thinned to eighteen inches apart in the row. The stand was injured somewhat by several days of high winds and drifting sand the latter part of May and the plants Were set back and prevented from making a good growth early. This injury to the stand on the duplicate planting made it necessary to discard those yields and the yields given, therefore, are from only single plats. Cleveland T. S. No. 1375 was the highest yielding variety. Burnett, Cook and Mebane were other high yielding varieties which have also ‘yielded well in other years. Table 5.—Cotton Variety Test in 1915. Arranged in order of yield of lint. Acre Acre _ _ Per Yield, Yield, T. S. Variety ~ Cent Pounds Pounds N0 Lint* Seed int Cotton ‘1375 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 1533.13 521 26 ‘.1373 Layton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.1 1179.06 496 38 699 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 .6 _ 1419.69 448 62 "1357 Bates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.4 1031.25 426 93 ‘1369 Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.8 1093.13 424 13 700 Long Staple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.9 1381.88 413 8 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 1185.95 403 21 1376 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 1130.94 384 51 ‘1264 Keenan-Goodson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.1 1000.31 381 1377 Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.8 6.69 378 95 1363 Moneymaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.4 962.50 369 60 "1277 Rublee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.7 862.81 368 41 1370 Simpkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.8 1038.13 361 26 1361 Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.1 1203.13 350 11 1364 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 979.69 337 01 1371 Bostwick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.7 866.25 335 23 1360 Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.8 1086.25 334 56 1372 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.1 1093.13 329 O3 1260 icks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 924.69 314 39 1366 Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.3 935.00 311 35 1362 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 904.06 307 38 1152 King X Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.7 800.94 301 95 1358 Texas Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.7 859.38 298 20 469 Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.7 828.44 ' 279 18 1266 Virgatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.0 646.25 271 42 1359 Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.8 866.25 266 80 ‘"1274 Huffman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0 873.13 261 93 1367 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.5 828.44 260 95 1368 Texas Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.3 807.81 260 92 "1151 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 763.13 259 46 698 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.2 752.81 257 46 1267 Ferguson Round Nose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.9 852.50 254 64 1378 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.6 708.13 252 09 1379 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 739.06 251 28 793 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.8 598.13 238 05 1263 Hartsville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5 790.63 225 32 1374 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.2 718.44 216 96 2020 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.0 574.06 189 43 1261 Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0 625.63 187 68 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.1 505.31 172 31 1262 Webber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4 608.44 166 71 1276 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.1 443.44 151 1 942 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.3 360.94 20 9 1275 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 364.38 114 05 *Note.——The per cent lint was obtained from the average of tests in other years. VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 25 1916 The season of 1916 was characterized both by light rainfall and a. short growing season, which factors materially reduced the yields ob-» tained. The yields are somewhat low in all cases. Of the better staple varieties the Allen’s Express gave the highest" yield of seed cotton and matured early but gave a low per cent of lint._ Cook gave the highest yield of lint and a high per cent of lint turnout._ Allen’s Express and Cook, while outstanding in both yield and maturity, showed poor storm resistance. Three strains of the Lone, Star variety all made a yield above the average of the varieties this year and com~ paratively a better showing for the variety than it made either of the two previous years; which were seasons more favorable to high produc- tion. The proportionately better showing of this variety this year is: due probably to the character of the season, having a tendency to pro~ _ mote maturity and retard vegetative growth. Table 6.—Cotton Variety Test in 1916. Arranged in order of yield ofilint. Acre V-Acre Per Yield, QYieId, T. S. Variety Cent Pounds ¥_Pounds. No. Lint Seed Lint Cotton Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.8 745.85 334 14 1861 Ideal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.4 768 24 302 68 1852 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.2 742 44 268 76 1849 Sunbeam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.6 704 66 264 95 1830 Wannamaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0 744 20 260 47 1889 Stormproof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.5 738 98 254 94 1815 Allen’s Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.9 845 57 244 36 1933 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42.0 512 16 215 10 1826 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.3 594 66 209 911 1825 Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 33.2 601 53 199 7O 1827 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.5 560 28 187 69 2540 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.9 462 27 165 95 1818 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.7 429 66 144 79* 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.0 424 68 144 39 1834 Simpkins’ Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.4 393 58 143 26 1848 Matchless Ex. Ey. Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.7 372 90 140 58 1800 Wqoten’s Columbia Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 493 24 137 12 . 1851 Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.2 395 28 135 18! 1850 Hastings’ Upright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.9 390 11 132 24 1835 Webber 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.7 385 00 125 89* 1847 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.5 402 98 122 90 1823 Early King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.5 328 24 113 24 699 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.9 302 50 99 52 1828 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.2 285 28 94 711 1837 Keenan-Goodson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.1 247 44 94 2'7“ 1846 Surecrop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.3 252 61 79 06 1829 LongbStaple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.9 206 20 63 71 1838 Web er 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.3 190 74 52 07 1836 Hartsville 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.6 108 24 29 8T ' 1853 Yuma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.9 7 33 23 12 1824 Sea Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.5 36.80 10 48 1917 The variety test of cotton was a complete failure in 1917 because of deficient moisture in the spring and inability to get the cotton up to a. stand in time to mature. The varieties were planted May 14 in soil too dry to give a good stand and later light showers came in amounts 26 'TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION just sufficient to spoil the seed. y Subsequently a standwas obtaine from later planting of some varieties but it was too late for cotton mature and no yields were obtained. “ 1918 'The comparative yields of the. difierent varieties in the test in 191 zare given below. Lack of stand in a number of varieties rendered “Q incomparable, and they are omitted from the table, which include thirty-two of the varieties tested. The season of 1918 was one of 1o ‘j- rainfall, preceded by a year similarly deficient. The late date of kill- ing frost in the fall“ gave a long growing season for the later maturin’. varieties. ‘j Improved Champion and F. G. 33 were the best short staple varietiesf ‘Of the better staple varieties Allen’s Express, Acala, Trice, Express and Durango, the first mentioned was the only one which yielded as much as the average of all varieties. Allen’s Express also gave a high yield.‘ in 1916. - i Table 7.—Cotton Variety Test in 1918. Arranged in order of yield of lint. Acre yield in pounds, 3 T. S. _ Per Length Grade of " .No. Variety Cent of Staple, Lint Seed _ Lint .Inches Cotton ' Lint 3056 Improved Champion . . . . . . . . . 37.28 5/8 S M 1474.57 475.12 I 3000 F. G. 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.95 15/16 S M 1209.99 434.78 " 3047 Sim kins’ Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.17 15/16 M 1327.73 423.29 3046 Ear y King . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.34 7/8 S L M 1017.50 399.41 3022 Bank Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 39.72 7 /8 S L M 1020.93 398.75 3028 Cook 588 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 38.61 5/8 M 1096.56 393.58 3030 Cook 931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.07 5/8 M 952.18 385.00 3006 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.31 7/8 S L M 1350.69 363.72 3004 Webb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.38 p 1 L M 1125.02 354 89 3027 Wannamaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.21 7/8 S M 946.71 323 12 E3045 Allen’s Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.47 1 3/16 M 1129.21 302 50 3303.7 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.27 1 G M 811.24 302 50 33002 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.88 1 1/16 S L M 923.88 284 48 33040 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . 39.44 7/8 G M 737.34 269 83 -_ 3033 Simpkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.59 5 /8 M 782.03 269 83 -3036 Lone Star . . . . . .9 . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 .82 1 M 756.25 268 29 3029 King‘ X Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.77 3/4 M 811 .24 262 95 3026 Coo ’s Silk Long Staple . . . . . . 36.15 3/4 M 783.75 250 03 3020 Surecrop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.69 7/8 S L M 859.10 239 96 3044 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . 35.06 15/16 M 701.24 220 00 53025 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.66 1 1/8 S M 663.43 219 01 23057‘ Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.48 l 1/16 S M 667.05 209 82 73063 Trice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.85 1 3/16 S M 783.54 199 37 13048 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.72 1 S M 598.12 190 30 Z3034 Ferguson Round Nose . . . . . . . . 29.49 3/4 G M 785.81 189 03 13062 Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.37 1 1/8 M 804.37 178 64 T3023 Wannamaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.63 5 /8 G M 724.80 177 07 13061 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.08 1 1/8 S M 556 87 162 14 3035 Megane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.62 15/16 G M 605 00 158 73 .2995 Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 .25 3/4 M 476 95 139 20 2998 Vandivefs Heavy Friiiter. . . . 36.92 15/16 S M 358 35 98 16 2997 Matchless Ex. Ey. Big. Boll. . 33.33 7/8 G M. 558 46 77 31 Beginning with 1918 the grade of lint and length of staple data are included in the tables. The samples were graded and stapled by spe- cialists from the Bureau of Markets of the U. S. Department of Agri- ~culture and the Extension Service of the Texas Agricultural and Me- .. 7,7. VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 27 chanical College, cooperating from 1918 to 1920 and by the Division of Cotton Breeding of the Experiment Station in 1921. The data on length of staple is of value in arriving at the acre value of different varieties where a known premium is paid for extra staple length. No attempt is made to analyze the varieties each year from this standpoint, but with the yield and staple given for each variety the necessary premium to give acre profit can be easily arrived at. 1919 Forty-three varieties were tested in duplicate plats in 1919. Plant- ing was done with a lister planter May 16 and the cotton thinned to eighteen inches between plants July 2. The climatic conditions this year were very favorable. The rainfall was above normal and well dis- tributed. The growing season was longer than normal, the late killing frost in the fall giving an ample growing season. High winds were not Table 8.—Cotton Variety Test in 1919. Arranged in order of yield of lint. < ~ ~ ‘@WY“C"'W'fWMVf1"' Acre yield in pounds, T. S. _ Per Length Grade of —i———-~—?——-— . Variety Cent of Staple, Lint Seed _ ' Lint Inches Cotton Lint Union Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.01 3/4 S G O 1567.60 532 11 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.94 3/4 L M 1333.75 421 75 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.60 7/8 S L M, T 1192.81 409 87 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.69 3/4 L M 1148.12 407 74 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.50 3/4 S L M 1062.18 393 30 C00k....................... 41.83 3/4 SLM,T 959.05 35686 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.65 1 1/8 S L M 924.68 316 14 Acala No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.16 1 S L M 924.68 301 99 Allen’s Express . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.29 1 1/8 L M 1024.37 287 08 Webb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.84 1 S L M .37 ~ 283 86 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.43 3/4 L M, T 892.02 270 97 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.92 1 S L M, T 842.18 269 01 Acala . . . . . . . ..~ . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.25 1 1/16 S L M 797.50 266 32 Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.62 1 1/16 L M 859.37 264 94 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.97 3/4 L M 680.62 255 28 Ferguson Round Nose. . . .. . . . 30.26 7/8 S L M, T 862.81 253 17 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.17 7/8 L M 701.25 248 07 Jackson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.66 1 S L M 697.81 237 06 Webber 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.44 1 L M, T 768.27 236 69 Hartsville 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.42 1 3/16 L M 752.80 236 54 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.33 7/8 L M 670.31 223 41 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 72 7/8 L M 653.11 209 17 B0 kin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 25 3/4 S L M 598.12 206 56 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.33 7/8 S L M, T 625 .62 203 30 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.60 1 1/8 S L M, T 642.31 201 01 Triumph (406) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.76 3/4 S L M, T 570.61 196 89 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.58 7/8 S G O 594.68 193 06 Bennett. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.78 7/8 M, T 507.02 191 46 Mebane. '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.58 7/8 S G O 567.18 183 01 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.59 7/8 S L M, T 512.18 182 28 Rowden r . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.92 7/8 S L M, T 544.84 180 31 Willis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.17 1 L M 512.18 178 97 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 03 7/8 M, T 625.61 178 75 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.09 1 1/16 S L M 450.30 167 02 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.33 1 S L M 498.43 166 13 Holden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.95 7/8 S L M, T 546.56 166 06 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.14 1 L M 429.68 159 58 Kekchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.90 1 S L M 587.81 156 78 Foster. . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.08 1 L M 548.27 137 62 Buckelew Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . 35.71 1 S L M, T 366 09 129 19 Gilstrap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.94 3/4 S L M, T 381 55 121 71 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.02 1 L M 372 96 . 101 93 Harvill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.33 7/8 S L M, T 161 56 51 02 28 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION prevalent so that little damage resulted to non-storm resistant varieties. l The frequent and heavy rainfall in October, however, did materially i lower the grades of lint from all varieties. ; Union Big Boll, Burnett, Cleveland, Half and Half, Mebane T. Sf No. 3676, and Cook were the six best yielding varieties. Of these A varieties the Mebane carries desirable storm resistance and size of boll l qualities which are lacking in the others. l? Snowflake, Acala No. 5, and Allen’s Express were the highest yield- -_ ers of the longer staple varieties and stood well up toward the top of ‘f the list this season. Neither of the Acala cottons tested this War gave 5 the expected length of staple?“ Y 1920 The number of varieties was reduced to eleven in 1920. These were ' grown in duplicate in one-sixteenth-acre plats. The annual rainfall for r the year was below normal. The distribution, however, was good. More- l. over, a good supply of stored soil moisture carried over from 1919 pro-i; vided conditions rather favorable to cotton. The first killing frost ‘i was only two days later than normal and a fairly large bollie crop was -. produced by some varieties which reduced their yield of lint. . Burnett, Mebane, and Lone Star gave the highest yields in the order named. The yield of Lone Star was reduced by the larger crop of f bollies. Durango stood first among the better staple varieties. Table 9.—Cotton Variety Test in 1920. Varieties arranged in order of lintlyield. Acre yield in pounds, y T. S. Per Length Grade of ————i—-——'-—_. No. Variety Cent of Staple, Lint Seed a Lint Inches Cotton Lint 4226 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.89 1 S L M 1936.0 582.67 4120 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.38 3/4 S L M 1336.5 477.09 4119 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.32 1 M 1204. 5 398.09 I 3150 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.01 1 M 1028.5 315.72 ‘j 793 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.00 1 1/16 M 951.5 287.40 j 4116 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.36 1 1/16 M 1001.0 281.57 * 4114 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.13 1 1/8 S L M 797.5 259.13 j 4131 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.47 1 1/8 M 770.0 230.75 ‘ 4117 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.74 5/8 M 654.5 211.00 .' 4118 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.70 1 3/16 M 726.0 189.83 "j 4115 Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.40 1 1/16 M 478.5 163.37. 1921 Thirteen varieties were tested in 1921 in the same manner as the *- previous year. The season of 1921 was characterized by low rainfall, ~ but this rainfall was so distributed as to make it an extremely favorable .{_ year for cotton production. The months up t0 June were unfavorable}, but the ample rains in June, during which month almost one-half the’ total annual rainfall fell, started cotton off to a vigorous growth and 3 *For a comparison of the staple of all varieties grown at stations at different points in the State see Bulletin No. 266, The Staple of Texas Cotton. VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS . 29 the heavy setting of fruit. Light rainfall in the summer months pre- vented excessive vegetative growth and the 10w rainfall in October, y. together with the late killing frost, were very favorable for complete L maturity. The negligible rain in the fall months was ideal for har- vesting and production of high grade samples. Next to 1914 this was i > the most favorable year for cotton reported herein. .. Burnett, a small boll Variety, and Lone Star, Truitt, and Bowden, . three large bolled varieties, stood at the top in yield this year. The value of the better staple and larger boll varieties is apparent in such @ a season favorable to maturity and free from bollies. An examination of the comparative yields of the leading varieties this year with their i yields in 1920, which was less favorable for later maturing varieties, shows the advantage in earliness for consistently good yields. . ' Of the better staple cottons, Acala gave a higher yield than Durango f but produced a shorter staple. There was awide difference in yield "i between the two strains of the Mebane variety. T. S. No. 804 had a : shorter staple but gave the highest yield. Table 10.—Cotton Variety Test in 1921. Varieties arranged in order of lint yield. - Acre yield in pounds, T. S. Per Length Grade of ‘*4?- N0. Variety Cent of Staple, Lint Seed Lint Inches Cotton Lint i 4226 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.98 7/8 S M 1773.72 581.15 @ 5995 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.48 1 3/16 S M 1377.08 491.24 ; 5990 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.12 1 1/16 G M 1340.44 478.25 .-_ 5993 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.62 1 1/8 M 1376.08 448 19 f 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.64 1 1/32 G M 1354.74 441 08 » 5986 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.16 1 1/8 S M 1269 17 431 58 4; 5988 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.56 1 1/16 S M 1279 84 403 58 ‘l 5994 Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.24 1 5/32 S M 1131 30 399 97 _ 5987 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 74 1 5/16 S M 1225 60 375 72 .; 5992 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.64 1 S NI 948 62 338 03 " 5991 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.33 1 5/16 S M 1016 55 334 18 if 5989 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.89 1 1/8 G M 921.26 324 50 5984 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.64 1 1/8 S M 830.50 273 18 1922 __ V, The thirteen varieties under test in 1922 were planted May 22 and i T‘ came up to a stand May 30. This is slightly past the optimum date of éjplanting, but with the climatic conditions favorable to complete maturity ? which followed throughout the remainder of the season, no difficulty was encountered in this respect. This season was favorable for cotton pro- duction, except for the extended dry period covering the months of July, ;; August, and September. Abundant rains came in April, May, June, iand the first few days of July, and carried the crop well into the summer in excellent condition. Continued dry Weather the latter part of August ‘and during September caused deterioration and materially reduced the jvprospective yields of cotton this year. The very dry late summer and ffall, as well as the latest killing frost on record in the fall was especially favorable for the late-maturing varieties. Consequently, the crop opened 30 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION and was picked under ideal weather conditions several weeks ahead of thenormal harvest period, producing an excellent grade of lint, but of . short staple. Burnett, Rowden, Kasch, and Improved Mebane were the four high- U est-yielding varieties. ' Lack of moisture during the last half of the growing season was almost exclusively the limiti.ng factor in cotton production this year. All varieties were under severe stress in this respect. Their comparative performance in yield, therefore, is a very good measure of their drouth- l resistance. Of the longer staple varieties, Durango seems more drouth- resistant than either the Acala or Lightning Express, the plants of this ' variety showing not only a less distressed condition, but responding with a higher yield. Table 11.—Cotton Variety Test in 1922. Varieties arranged in order of yield of lint. _ A Acre Yield in Pounds T. S. Per Length of Grade ‘N 0. ' Variety Cent Staple, of Lint Seed Lint Inches Cotton Lint 6314 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 . 10 7/8 G.M. 707.63 219 34 6574 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.73 1 1/16 S.G.M. 615.12 209 99 6573 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.23 1 G.M. 540.21 207 6563 Mebane Imp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.72 1 G.M. 573.76 207 40 5984 Belton 793 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.27 1 G.M. 584.54 199 65 6564 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 ._61 1 G.M. 555.39 196 68 804 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.76 15/16 G.M. 596.86 193 82 6572 Bennett . . . . . . . l . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.55 1 G.M. 501.38 192 17 6566 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.52 7/8 G.M. 524.37 184 91 6565 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.91 15/16 G.M. 498.63 183 6567 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . . . 29.63 1 3/16 G.M. 587.95 172 81 6571 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.48 1 1/16 G.M. 511 06 170 72 6575 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.28 1 1/8 G.M. 467 83 139 48 1923 The same number of varieties was planted this year as in 1922. Two early plantings of the crop were made on May 9 and May 29, but were destroyed by hail and sandstorms. A good stand was secured and main- tained on the final planting made June 11 and was recorded as up June 18. This date is very late for planting cotton here, especially for the late-maturing varieties, unless very favorable conditions follow throughout the remainder of the season. The moisture condition was favorable at planting time. The season remained hot and dry throughout the summer, with only a few light rains coming in July. The stored moisture from early spring rains permitted the plants to set a good crop of fruit, and timely rains the latter part of August and the first of September fully developed this cropand produced an excellent staple. These rains, however, came too late to revive plant growth sufficient to set and mature an additional crop of fruit. _ The killing frost occurred November 5, which is later than normal, and this also was in favor of increased production and maturity. Lightning Express, Mebane, T. S. No. 804, Belton, and Durango were VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 31 the highest-yielding varieties in the order named. With the exception of Mebane. these varieties have not commonly been the high-yielding ones. All varieties produced good yields this season because of the late frost and the seasonal conditions favorable to maturity. The large-bolled varieties made a good showing and in some cases yielded better than the small-bolled varieties. Belton, Truitt, Kasch, and Rowden gave com- paratively good yields. Lightning Express is a variety having long staple, low lint percentage, small bolls, fair storm-resistance, and early maturity. Its earliness and yield this year, together with its long staple, would seem to recommend it for this section when it is desirable to grow a longer staple variety. Table 12.——Cotton Variety Test in 1923. Varieties arranged inorder of yield of lint. " Acre Yield in Pounds T. S. _ Per Length of Grade -——————?—— No. Variety Cent Staple, of Lint Seed _ Lint Inches Cotton ' Lint 6567 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . . _ 30.88 1 1/4 S.L.M. 1195.51 365.70 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.75 1 1/8 S.L.M. 942.20 334 77 5984 Belton 793 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.79 1 1/8 L.M. 943.89 316 91 6564 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.00 1 1/4 S.L.M. 944.60 299 31 6566 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.35 1 1/8 M 859.33 291 16 6571 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.24 1 1/8 S.L.M. 855.88 289 73 6573 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.01 1 1/8 M 770.64 287 13 6780 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.05 1 M 871.36 284 08 I 6314 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . 32.65 1 1/8 L.M 877.19 282 48 6574 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.42 1 1/16 S.L.M 824.29 279 17 6572 Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.85 1 1/8 L.M 569 :88 208 40 5991 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.78 1 1/4 M 692.29 204 67 6565 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.93 1 1/8 S L NI 402.84 139 65 1924 The cotton variety test in 1924 consisted of fourteen varieties planted May 16. r Conditions were not favorable for germination of the crop and considerable time was consumed by the plants in coming up. The varie- ties were up to a stand on May 26. Sandstorms which followed damaged the young plants somewhat, and they grew off slowly. The mean tem- peratures for March, April, and May were decidedly below normal, pre- senting a cold, late spring. . . Before the seedlings developed sufficiently to become permanently established a hitherto unknown extreme period of hot ‘winds and high temperatures followed. This period of continuous daily hot winds pre- vailed for eleven days, from June 9 to 19, on nine days of which the temperature registered 104 degrees or over. The maximum temperature was 108 degrees, and is the highest ever reported at this point; while the mean maximum for the month of June was ten degrees above normal. This period of extreme weather was disastrous to cotton, and many of the plants died; but where a large amount of seed had been planted, g suflicient survived to furnish a stand. Otherwise, on many farms the l, stand was badly damaged, if not completely destroyed by the hot winds. : ‘A very timely rain of 1.02 inches fell on June 21, reviving the young ' i.‘ cotton plants and starting them off to grow. 32 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION This year was next to the lowest in rainfall 0n record. The total precipitation of 9.45 inches Was less than fifty per cent of the normal, but 7.7 6 inches, or 82 per cent of the total, fell during the growing season. The rainfall was very light throughout the year and at practically no time was it suflicient to relieve the stress on the crop except for a short time. The moisture stored in the soil from the preceding heavy autumn rainfall played an important part in making the crop this year, enabling the production of normal yields. This is an example of the value of stored moisture, or an “underground season,” following a Wet fall; and the role it plays in the production of good cotton yields the following year. Such a condition is always favorable for getting a stand of cotton and for cotton production in this region. Moisture came in fair quantities during the last of August and the middle of September, which, together With favorable temperatures, en- abled the cotton crop to revive and put on additional fruit which opened late in the fall. The first killing frost came October 24 and stopped growth, but did not completely kill vegetation, except the leaves. Stalks and bolls remained green for a month longer, when they were killed by a freeze on November 24. This condition permitted development, ma- turity, and the opening of many bolls which put on late and which would otherwise have made only bollies or unopened bolls. Table 13.—C0tt0n Variety Test in 1924. Varieties arranged in order of yield of lint. Acre Yield in Pounds T. S. Per Length of Grade -————i—i-—- No. Variety Cent Staple, of Lint Seed _ Lint Inches Cotton Lint 7381 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.72 1 1/16 G.M. 887.48 303 31 7388 Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.72 1 G.M. 797 43 298 O8 7385 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.07 1 G.M. 746 55 296 54 3666 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.98 1' 1/8 S.G.M. 861.40 279 64 7886 Mebane 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.54 15/16 G.M. 734.17 252 91 7387 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.00 1 1/16 S.M. 730 76 243 37 8487 Westex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.23 1 G.M. 687 43 224 75 7394 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . .. 30.75 1 3/16 G.M. 677 82 208 00 7408 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.06 1 1/16 S.M. 596 70 205 92 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.18 1 S.M. 650 29 200 01 6314 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.07 1 S.M. 587.76 186 28 7386 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.42 1 1/8 S.M. 528. 99 183 42 - 7411 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.96 1 1/16 G.M. 500.46 165.71 7391 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.75 1 1/16 G.M. 459.88 153.77 Acala, Boykin, Kasch, Durango, and Mebane 406 were the five high- yielding varieties in the order named. Acala, Kasch, and Durango NW6 been grown in past years and have not been the leading varieties in yield. The early-maturing varieties have, as a rule, in the past given the highest yields, but this year they were uniformly poorer in yield than i A those listed above, but slightly better than the varieties of the big-bolled type, such as Lone Star, Belton, and Rowden. The probable reason for the early-maturing varieties not making their usual high yields lies in their fruiting habits. They were carrying a heavy crop of fruit during VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 33 i’ the most severe dry Weather and were not revived at as early a stage in the development of the plant by the late August and mid-September irains as were the slower growing varieties. Consequently, they failed to put on late blooms, as did the other varieties,- which were in this case able to mature them into bolls with the favorable fall and late frost, as is shown in the high yields of the last two weekly pickings made during ‘the forepart of November. 1925 Sixteen varieties, planted in duplicate, were included in the variety 5test in 1925. On account of unfavorable climatic conditions it was ynecessary to replant this experiment several times, the final planting ibeing made June 12, which came to a stand on the 18th. The rainfall "for the year was somewhat above normal but Was poorly distributed, icoming largely during the latter part of the season. The rainfall for ittSeptember was 9.44 inches, the largest amount ever recorded for this Lfrnonth. The heavy rainfall caused the cotton varieties to take on luxuriant growth and retarded maturity of the crop so that when the jrst killing frost occurred on October 28th, which was close to the ormal date, the plant and bolls were green and full of moisture. Con- fquently, a large percentage of the crop was damaged by the freeze, Qthe bolls rotting and failing to open. Notwithstanding the fact that _ e outlook for cotton production was very good during the early fall, felds were materially reduced, being considerably below those usually obtained in very dry years. Table 14.—_Cotton Variety Test in 1925. Varieties arranged in order of yield of lint. Acre Yield in Pounds _ Per Length of Grade i; Variety Cent Staple, of Lint Seed _ Lint Inches Cotton Lint Westex (B 9-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.13 15/16 M 467.50 149 22 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.94 1 S.M. 484.00 144 29 Acala._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.45 1 1/8 S M.T. 408.03 134 75 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . . . 31.92 1 1/8 S.M. 365.06 116 05 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.28 3/4 G.M. 244.75 105 13 urango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 93 1 1/4 G.M. 313.15 102 80 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 75 1 S.M. 184.25 70 15 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 90 1 1/1~6 G.M.T. 198.68 68 57 '- 04 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.13 1 1/16 S.M.T. 208.31 64 19 7889 Mebane (406) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.86 1 G.M.T. 166.37 62 96 . Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.23 1 1/16 S.M.T. 176.00 55 02 , New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.09 15/16 S.M.T. 104.50 39 27 f: Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.58 1 1/16 M 74.25 26 46 Harper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.04 1 M T 59.12 20 35 g 91 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.60 1 1/16 M.T 61 87 19 31 7859 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.35 1 1/16 S.MT 17 18 5 96 Because of the late date of planting, unfavorable growing conditions _e first part of the season, and the high rainfall during August and eptember further retarding maturity, the early-maturing varieties roved decidedly the best this year, yielding two to five times as much 34 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION as the later-maturing varieties. Contrast this season with 1921, when cotton was planted as late in June as this year and yields considerably above normal obtained because of the dry fall and normal to high temperatures prevailingin late August, September, and October. The grade of staple produced by these cotton varieties was poor, but the length of staple was above normal. Westex, Burnett, and Acala were the three highest-yielding varieties. Acala, Lightning-Express, and Durango, all varieties of superior length of staple, gave better yields than the ordinary big boll types of cotton. This season is a repetition of 1917 and 1920, showing that when low temperatures or high rainfall, or both, characterize the early fall, such conditions can be as serious in limiting cotton production as a dry season and, furthermore, that late planting is unsafe, but where necessitated by an unfavorable planting seasom-only the early-maturing varieties can be depended upon to succeed. 1926 Fourteen varieties or strains of cotton, with three replications of each planting, were grown in the 1926 variety test. On account of the excessive fall rains in 1925, coupled with well dis- tributed rainfall during the early spring, excellent moisture conditions existed at planting time, May 15th. A good stand was obtained on prac- tically all plats. The cotton grew ofi’ well, receiving, however, a slight setback on June 3rd., when a sandstorm burned some of the tender plants. A dry period extending from the 4th. of June until August 12th. caused some shedding and undoubtedly cut down yields. On September 26th. a temperature of 36 degrees, combined with a cold rain, caused the leaves on all the plants to be shed soon thereafter. This, coupled with the dry period of the early summer, possibly influenced the hastening of maturity so that the crop as a whole was several weeks earlier than normal and also the entire cotton crop opened over a much shorter period than usual. Table 15.——Cotton Variety Test in 1926. Varieties arranged in order of yield of lint. Acre Yield in Pounds T. S. _ Per Length of Grade ————-— —— No. Variety Cent Staple, of Lint Seed _ Lint Inches » Cotton Lint ____i________ I 8708 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.74 3/4 G.M. 822.45 377 68 8598 Triumph (406) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 38.58 7/8 G.M. 970.04 368 04 8487 Westex. . .: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.87 5/8 G.M. 916.95 326 O9 8599 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.12 . 7/8 G.M. 8 5.42 319 46 8606 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.54 1 S.M. 882.78 319 06 3666 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.68 1 1/8 G.M. 873.34 306 76 8590 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.82 7/8 G.M. 790.84 296 03 8585 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.08 7/8 S.M. 719.07 289 79 8607 Harper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.18 7/8 G.M. 732.66 280 48 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.94 15/16 G.M._ 809.52 280 41 8596 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - 36.77 1 1/32 G.M. 777.10 279 18 6314 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.66 7/8 G.M. 8 9.04 278 94 8605 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . . . 31.12 1 1/8 M. Fair 814.71 251 .52 8588 New Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.37 . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . 537.59 222.37 _ VARIETIES OF. COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 35 The grade of lint was 10w except in the early part of the season and the staple length was only fair. The poor grade was due to the frequent a showers during the early fall, sandstorms, and the inability to obtain ; pickers when the cotton first opened. The short staple is probably due _ g to the relatively dry period in July and August. Half and Half, Triumph 406, and Westex were the three highest- yielding varieties. Acala gave a higher yield than either Durango or T; Lightning Express. i SUMMARY OF VARIETIES Table 16 lists the yields of lint of some of the better varieties tested , more or less continuously through this fifteen-year period. Each year i is presented except 1917, when the variety test was a failure. Con- t}, sideration should be given this year of failure in examining the four- f. teen-year average shown in the table. ' The table is self-explanatory, showing the yield of lint per acre pro- duced by each variety and the average yield of lint cotton to the acre vforfourteem, nine-, and five-year periods for the varieties presented. fjThe four varieties tested for the fourteen-year period maintain the a same relative rank in yield also for the nine- and five-year averages. The ten varieties given here were all grown consistently for each of 11the five years, 1919-23, and the five-year average for this period is fcspecially significant in showing the relative performance of varie- ties involved. The first and last years of this period were favorable and above the average in rainfall while the other three years were comparatively dry and below normal in the moisture supply. 1922 was the most deficient in this respect, both with reference to the total Yand distribution of rainfall, and the yields produced in this year "show the performance of the varieties under severe moisture conditions. t. ' Table 1'7 presents a summary of the results of the variety tests of cotton for the entire period, 1912 to 1926. All of the varieties tested listing the varieties is maintained with reference to the number of years e variety was grown, those tested the greater number of years appear- u g first and in descending order of the average relative yield per cent. , The average yield of seed cotton of all the varieties grown in a given ear is obtained and this average taken as 100 per cent. The individual jeld of each variety is then divided by this average, giving the com- arative yields as percentages of the average. The arrangement adopted l: this table lays the varieties out in such a way that their average per- drmance can be analyzed Without too great emphasis on an occasional 2' good or very poor yield. It affords a convenient comparison of the lative yielding ability of each variety with any other variety for a even season. The last column, showing the average relative yield per cent, is a re- $11: ble index of comparison, especially when comparing the varieties town for the same period of years and when grown for a sufiicient 1 ber of years to obtain a reliable average and warrant conclusions. during this period are listed in the left-hand column. The order of- N m T A T S T N E M I m X E L A R U T L U C I R G A S A X E T 36 $223» 53> ~..*** dwfl6>4 2.8V w: ¢w§a>< .50? m? holmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....ov.wowwfi.mmfi nw.ammhm.mwfiwwém~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . Ifivcaom wwbmm ...~....JJIITIIN...hwéomwvmmmfiwwmwmmmwdwfivfwfim . . . . . . . . . . .. IWQNSn~IIWNwxw=3ocw Zbmm $a2*** . . . . . . . . . 11m 2 fin m: 5.3m we $1: mhwiwsfi mm H2 33m . .. . dozwm wmhvm mmiomm . . . . . . .. mhawmmfi? _a.@@~mfi>w~¢@.>¢~mo.wmm8.2m3N28 2: . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ..:€wmm mm Em ma m3 ...@Q..3ME.§A zwmommzwwwmvofiwmaowmvomwwawgom Hofimif. . . . . .. 113x01» 2x3“ wmawm @>.@¢m¢w.~o_ wwahmfimawamwmwwmwfi mfifimmfimmm Sgomfiafi mafimocdomwmswfi owcwEQ i in Nmmwwmvw,“ ~58? . . .. Eda R52 .255 8.2K 243% hmawfl 5.02 Q2.» $4.3 $4“: and? 5.3m mw? ..=%a¢m wmxgm 32mm wvfim .8 2a £23 flaw“ mwamfi wimfi fi. S? gwam 3.0g 39K @952 38w e99? mwsfi 3E: 5w 25A 21am wmgm miwom Q own A; E 8.8m Ramm £52 woa$ 3RD.“ amaam 9&3 mméfi 5M3 owia mmeww wjwfi zaapvfi Q >3» Z >mm$ wmammuw ifiwhm “.53; M59: Mawmwm £41m 2.3m .53.“ $5.5M ... . . . mméw 8&3 39a $93» 8&2 ..§.E=m @122 .322 .594: S2 $2 $2 ma? i ma»: j S2 0N2 22 22 £2 l £2 i 32 22 Ni? mbwo? m Ewfirm . hfiwimkw omm~v>< $56k 65¢ 23 3 find Ho 32M, £3.39. wofiomfig .6300 23 “o oEow >9 wvoswoha as: Ho 32> wmw~o><||.w~ Bnwh. VARIETIES OF COTTON ’IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 37 l. While asingle trial, or that for a short period of years, will give some L, indications as to the merits of a variety, the performance covering a - longer period of years is necessary to establish its final-merits as being f; a safe and profitable variety to grow. ’ A study of the two summary tables presented reveals the relative standing of the varieties tested each year since 1912 with the exception ' of 1917, when a stand was not obtained in the variety test because of dry soil conditions. Mebane has yielded consistently above the average for a long period of years. It has stood the test among the growers and ~ held its place as a popular variety i'n this section. This is particularly true of the old-type Mebane and the strains of this variety which are i fairly early in maturity, so that until some other variety proves to be superior or more profitable the better strains of Mebane can be recom- ‘, mended as a safe and reliable variety for general planting. 1 If yield alone was the only factor to consider, the Burnett variety jcould be recommended unreservedly. It lacks in size of boll and storm- resistance, which are objectionable to its use as a variety for general and iexclusive planting. On account of its good yielding qualities and its consistent early maturity in this section, however, it can be used very qprofitably when late planting is forced for any reason or when replant- eing is necessary at a date too late to be safe with the later-maturing 00d yields, is even earlier than the Burnett, and these two varieties ‘l-are of particular value for growing further to the north and west in the cotton area in this section where maturity is o1": first importance. Q Lone Star, Belton, Bennett, and Rowden have desirable storm-resist- imce, size of boll, and qualities of lint, and do well in this section in avorable years. They are not consistently good producers, however, cause of the tendency to produce too large a per cent of bollie cotton ' certain seasons. Cook, Toole, and Allen’s Express have produced tisfactory yields considerably above the average during the time they fig’: ve been tested. ‘ Varieties having superior length of staple which have produced well fiuring the past five years are Acala, Lightning Express, and Durango. f»? I point of yield, Acala and Lightning Express have been on a par dur- w g this five-year period and both of these varieties have yielded better ‘an Durango. The length of staple produced by Durango and Light- 7'g Express has, on the average, been about the same and somewhat nger than that produced by the Acala variety. The Lightning Ex- ress is early and yields well, but lacks somewhat in storm resistance. nowfiake has produced longer staple than either of the above varieties ut has yielded low and can not be recommended as a staple variety to ow in this region. >varieties. Westex, a new variety developed at this Station, has given i 31141., .331. 1.115.}. A. 38 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 0G M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :5 ww ....0~Qm:wm::OQm.G.:5m~ m0 m 00 0w 00: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....0n1:mc0w wm m . . . , . . ~ . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . ¢ 0 v . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ - . . . 00: m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0:: 00: 0w . . . . . . . . . . ..........0:00Q0:: m . 4 . . - . . - . . - - - - . . . . . . . . v . . . . . . - . - . . - - . - . . . . . - . . . . . - - - - - - - » - - - t ~ . . . . . . - - . - . . I - - . 00: m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 0N: m0 . . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . . . 005.00: 00: m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w: m: ww . . . . . . . . . . . . 10003000 w:: m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :0 w0: 0w: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30003 0006:. m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wQOQ QZT/wxhflwu 0m: m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00: 0:: N0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0:00P Nw: m m: N:N N0: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . .1553’? wm: m . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Nw: :0: 00: J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I......ww0.Exm: 0.00:4 0N w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I: . . . . 2m 0m 0N . ‘ . . . ‘ . .........0E:V mm w - . > . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . 0 . » - - . . | - v | - - ¢ . . ¢ - - - - - - . . . - . ¢ - - ~ - . . . . . . . . . . o n - - - » u .g% wo: w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0N: :0 . . . . .. 00 . . . . . . . . . . .. 0N: .0007: 0000M: :00: 00,: “V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jwimflaw WCOIM v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . - . . - . ~ . . ‘ - . . , . . . - . - ¢ q - . . - . . . . . ~ . . - . . - . . v . . . - . - . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - - - - ¢ - ¢ . - . . - - u - . > . 0:: w N0: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10m: . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . mo: 00: . . . . I . . . . . . .20: 0:0 .20: 0N: w . . . . .. ::: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 1:0 0m: 0w: . . . . . . . . . . . ......x0O 0006:. 0N: w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. mm: w0 mm: 0m: . . . . . ‘ , . . . . . , . . . . . 05x30: wh m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I00 00 N0 ww 0h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........:.00.E0m: ::: m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 0:: n0: ::: N0: mm . . . . . . ..:c:000< xcwm: @ . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ - - - . - n n - . . . . ‘ , . . . . . m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ohfim fi . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. ... . ... .. .. .... .. . . . . . . . . . ..mw®.: Nm N0: m. ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . mm: 0N: ww: 0:: 0N: . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1x000 00 n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ww ww __ 0w 0:. wN: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0:: :0 . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 00100395 n0 N. . _ . . .. .. . . . . ..w0: w0 00: ......N0 . . . . . . . . . . Iw0 Nm: Nw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......fi.€0,:. mu w . . . . .. 0N wv w: m0: 00 00 :0 . . . . . . . . . . .. >0 .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 033m: ww 0 0w ww ::: m0 >0 R 00 :0 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. c093: 0:: 0 00: mw: N0: w0: N0 m0: R 0:: R . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2004 0.0 N: m0: Nw: wN: w:: 00: 00: 0w 0w m0 . . . . . . :w N0: m0 . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000.50: 00 m: . . . . .. 00 00 00: 0:: N:: :0: 0:. R 0w :w m0 0w Nw . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0355M: Nw: m: :0: 0NN 5 00: 0N: 0w: m0: 0w: . . . . 00 :0: 0m: 0N: 0w: . . . . , 4 . . . . . . . .3005»: 0w w: 00 wm w» 0w 0w m0: N: w0 0w m: N0 m0 m0 w:: . . . . . . . . . . . 53m 0:01: N0: w: 00 0m m0 0:: m0: 00 mm: N0 m0: m0 Nw w:: m0: 0m: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000002 Q. Q0 :0 Q. Q0 w. 0 Q0 0. a. 0 .00 0. a. 00:" 00:" 00:" 00:" 00:" 00:" 00:" 00:" 00:" 00:" 00:" 00:" 00:" 00:" R. 0% 0NN E0 0N0 000 0:N: 000 w: £0 mww 00w 0mm: 0E 0.\1N 0:0:? 0030:. . 03:20:: $00? 0000 00m: 00: m0 0003:. £0300 000w :0 0055A: 0:0:? 00000.}: ~$0i0> 0m000>< .07: 0N0: _ 0N0: _ wN0: _ 0N0: 0 NNO: A :N0: _ 0N0: _ 0:0: _ 0:0: _ 0:0: _ 0:0: y w:0: _ 0:0: _ N:0: .80? .0N0:|N:0: .0320 0032.05’ :0 c0300 0000 :0 030w: 0>::000.:E0UI|N: 0302:. .. 3.1 101111.12 13.11.4513 9 3 . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z . . . . . . . . .............mo@wm~ M nfiyimfimnwnunmflnA...HiHfiuuunzfiwmwHH....N....QHHHHHGHHHNNN...H.......N....NNN.NN..N.W.NMMN N2 N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........._..NN. NMMNA .5 . ................ .. . .... .. ......... Q... ......;..=N~mNNNwN.N.. NNLNN. N2 N .1mm..H.HH@N@.QHUH.T:........H.m.Wm.MMN_.0.m . n; N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :00... . . . . . . . . .........ENN.NNBN fi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ .. . . -. . ............-¢.. QEQ N: N Ne. NNN N: N ....i......w..w..................N.._NNB..NN..N.N N. N: N . ................................. N: .... .. .. ........ .. was A m M .......... .. . 3...E...5.»..w...hHP.HHHHmW 0...... NN; NNWNNNNNM x N... N a NN; :...I.....QHH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ........pHmHmw..........N.&Nm m N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wNMOEUGOm T E N HxnnmmmnmnmnuIfHuxmmmmMmfmxmmm. N.» i5uiximHiHw..€N.N..N...M~.mwwmm S NN N ........................................ .. ......... ....._......N..NN E NN N .................................. ......... ..............N...a w w. m ........................................ w... ....... ......=.........@-..NN....N m NM m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :2. . . . . . . . . . . :02 . . . . . . . . . . . ......:€E3NH R NN N HmfiumpuwmwmnwumnuwnHi5HwunnpmHwnNN....HHNNN... :.:.:..:HHHHHKYMNNGNNNPVNWMNN. o NN N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ........2...NN ........... .. .582 5 N a N ........................................ ..N...0..gw.............Th .. ................. ..NNNN..MW.N.N.NM_MM$ m; w? m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FNENN. N N064 95am Pa Mam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............wmo._x w m2 m ........................................ ......§ ........... ........>._..m N. N. N HHmmmxHHHHHUHHHmxflmxT.....mum...:......QHUr.£@ NNTQGQHHHUHHHH .... NNNNNN. 0 NNN N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1R0. 5N .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .535 C x . . . . . . .-W@ .............-..... .. . hmvxflsfiflnmfi; F N2 N mumHxmflxnmmmmmmmxxxxmxzz:mumxxx..¢..N$...@m@..mumfxmxw.....wNNMwWNm .0 N: N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. a: NN. .........N.N_ a s N. N {TN .... LN NNNNNNNN E m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . flgonhxflmD I ww m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.11.00 w“. vw . . . . . . . . . . . . 0333.53 T ww m . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-om mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Immfifiwouw I . m N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. 5 V 00~H 00~H 00~H 00~H 00~H 00~H 00~H 02H 00~H 00~H 00~H 00~H 02H 00~H w 010m. wow 0mm 3.0 0mm wmm 03h 000 mi. m3 NE. 00w 002 wfi. EN. okwflfiwwmwflfl 03007 . 0.000 00m 00w mm cwxmh. 50.500 000m m0 mwnflofi .237 0wm00>< haoiw? 0mm$>< .02 wmmfi0mmw~_.wmmfl_mmm~_mmmfi _ g2_0N0~_0~0~_w~0~_0~m~Am~0H_30~_m_0~ _ NR3 .507 dvduflconvlwmmfififimfi .5395 mo$oia> a0 00.500 woo» m0 N301» ofiuupanionvlxk 011i. 4O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Y-l vi P1v-II-iriv-(vdriv-lvfiwir-lv-(v-lr-iv-iwh-iwlv-lv-(Flwlwiv-lv-i P1IIlI-l Q. 32> ow/SEQE wmwLo>< uBwQP wbww? dz Q8 8w n wow 8 8T 0mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1mm gxmzzp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :§ . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ff? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zww . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :8 . . . . . . . . . . . . T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zww fp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zw» .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..rm.r.qw.rflw..pnftmxxuQw. Hx@fiHHr@....r.@Hr... .w...x...@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T :5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. Qw . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ......:....ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 8H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :2: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R: ...“; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18H . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 2w: Q. w“ Q8 Q8 w. a. w. 8 w. Q8 8T 8T 8T 8T 8T 8T 8T 8T 8T 8T 3w 8w www 2Q www wR www wfi oww 82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Azzwi . . . . . Io dZ uzt/wfimfl . . . . . . ......_wt:._h hw/moi wwwviwnaww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505G 4 . . . lav dZ dwnnwg . . . . . . . . W . . .B23_u:m - - . - - - - - . - - n 1 woacEm mica PcoccmU d???‘ seq wogowcsw . . . . . . . . . . . éwoowwiwm . . . . . . . . Iiliwmz? . . . . . . . Ziiwsfiw w; . . . . . . .........cww_oE . . . . . ..........EoxuM Ifiafim mnoA wEEEQU . . . . . . . . 1.15 onwEU .....Eww&D w. 52E . . . . . . . . ....oow~.H 293w mcod vEw wkooU . . . . . . . ......v_o€5wom . . . . . ..........v2n:fl . . . . . .. . . . . duowwhzm . . . . aw dZ éiw/wfiwi e258 QECH mmwumvm . . . . . ...........wxo@fl . . . . . . . . dmzcum 33E . . - . . - n a . . . - . . - . EQEEoU P5500? ...........wow-Eoh. 255G zoBuwowm . . . . . Ziiifimnnmwm “x. “m. 8w H 8T wfi 8m wGQ-U 5m ww C0351? fiofioU $00M m0 wwcsom UNNMQ>< wwi _ wwi _ £2 _ wfl: _ NNAZ __ E3 _ 82 _ 33 _ wz: _ £2 _ 22 _ E2 53> _ n25 _ N23 wfiuimww iwsaicoUlwmmTmflmfi £303 wwfioi?» Mo cofioo uwvw “o wwfiotn ofififimnionvlknfl QEwH VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 41 BLOOMING AND OPENING OF VARIETIES Fruiting habits of cotton varieties as judged by their rate and time of blooming and rate and time of opening are reported in considerable detail in the pages which follow. The bloom counts were obtained for each variety by counting the number of White blooms appearing on one hundred plants at weekly intervals and on the same day of each week, ' beginning with the first bloom to appear and extending throughout the blooming period. In 1922 the blooms were recorded in periods of five- day intervals instead of seven-day intervals. Weekly pickings of all the open bolls on duplicate plantings of all the varieties were made on the same day of each week beginning with the first open boll to appear and continuing throughout the season. Both the blooming record and the picking record for all varieties in the test are complete for the three years 1922 to 1924, inclusive, and were made without interruption except that occurring in the picking record for October 25 and November 1 in 1923. Wet weather prevented har~ vesting at this period. I Tables 18 and 19 are a record of the blooms and pickings for the weekly periods each of the three years 1922-24. The figures are reported in percentage of the total number of white blooms existing on the one hundred plants on each date of the period and calculated to the nearest whole number. The picking record is reported in percentage of the total seed cotton harvested on the respective dates. These data are represented on a cumulative percentage basis by the graphs in Figures '7 and 8. A tabulation of the blooming and opening of varieties at regular inter- vals permits of laying their fruiting habits out to be judged on a com- parative basis as to the variation characteristic of the variety in these respects. The rapidity, time, and duration of blooming and opening and the relation between the time of blooming and maturity and between the numberof blooms set and the total yield of seed cotton produced are apparent. The blooming habits of the cotton plant and the opening of the matured bolls when plotted approaches the normal or frequency curve. It is evident that the curves obtained in plotting the weekly pickings may be bi-modal for most varieties because of certain disturbing climatic conditions. For instance, in 1924 the normal picking peak occurred at the fifth week of harvesting while a second peak at the tenth week occurred because of the intervention of a killing frost October 24 stopping growth and causing the rapid opening of the remaining bolls. In all except the very early varieties there is usually a pronounced increase shown at the first'or second picking after frost. This is a clear index of the earliness of the varieties. The percentage of the total crop picked before frost can be easily seen by referring to the tables and curves and the frost data given in Figure 3. A- similar, though less marked, bi-modal tendency may be found in the blooming of the plants due to the suppression of fruiting by periods of dry weather and the 42 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION <1 E 7o - s g Bl/R/l/[ff a § 2 '3 w E /.922_./¢'n'4'./1/~ E E5, q . L“ x Z “u ‘d * “I i‘. A g q B Lmi-E/"Ju-Lhm: m M?! w; Df/RA/VG 0 PFRC E/V 7 707,41. § a’ E g g KASCH g E é Figuye 7b.——Curlr{1ul2A1tive curves showing the peFcent of thQ total n_umber of blooms, (left) 2‘1[pp.8aI_‘lDg y wee s, and th_e per cent of the total seed cotton p1cked,_(r1ght) by weeks. Cotton arletles, 1922-24. I g; wmr; Y 5L 00/1 cou/vr VARIE'I‘IES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS g. a 5a ro/v g é M O R0 was/v LO/VF 574R waz/rz Y p/Z/r/A/as 705,41. ‘Pf/Win’! 7077M. - o WVP/Vzffifi/Vf _ T/PU/TT 17:54”: 40s 144/924 M 5 '3 s/vownn/re a Swear/v: nv 1.924- O Figure 8.-——Continuati0n of Figure 7, cumulative curves for cotton varieties. 43 44 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q .... IQQQQQQQS QQQQ Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q ........2QQQQQ,Q QQQ Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q .. . .QQQQQQQQ QQQQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q . .. .....QQQQQQ§Q QQQQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q .. .. . . . .. .. .. . . .......QQQQQQ> QQQQ Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q ..:BQQQQQQQ QQQQ . .. .. .. .. .. .. Q Q Q QQ QQ Q.Q QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ Q.Q QQ QQ Q Q Q ....:QQQQQQQQ.Q QQQQ . .. .. .. .. . Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q. Q Q .QQQQQQ>Q.QQQQQ QQQQ Q .. .. Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q. Q Q ........£QQQ.QH QQQQ Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q ......QQQQ QQQQQ QQQQ Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q. Q Q ........QQQQQQQ QQQQ Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q QQ QQ Q.Q QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q ..QQQQEQQQ QQQQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ .QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q. Q . IQQQQQQm QQQQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q . EQQQQQQ QQQQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q IAQQQQQQQQQ QQQQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q .. QQQQQQQQ QQQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q. Q Q Q. Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q . .QQ2QQ=QQ QQQQ Q Q. Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ QQ Q Q IQQQQQQQQH QQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQIQ QQQ Q|Q QQQ QQQ QQQ QQ QQQ QQJQ QQ|Q QQ|Q QQ|Q QQQ Qua QQQ QQQ QTw Qnw Q.Q QQQ Q|Q QTQ _QQ-Q QQQ QQQ 21w cTwQm|w QQQ QQIQ QQIQ QQQQ > Hm d wQQQcQQB Mao? Jodmm 382m QQQQQE mo QQQQQO Sm QwQQmQQQH QQQ»? QwQQmQQQH 98w m QQQEQH 382m 3.8m. mo fiuoo Sm QZB Aodfl QQQQooQm QQQoH we QQQQO 8m QQQQ QQQQ QQQQ .QQQQ.Q. QQQQQQQQ QQQQQQo QQQ .QQQQ QQQ QQQQ QQQ QQQQQQQQ QQQ QQQQ Q QQQQQQQQ QQQQ QQQ QQQQQQQQ QaSQQ Q22 QQ QQQQQ QQQQIQQ QQQQQ. 45 VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS QQ QQ Q Q 33 Q Q 3 Q Q Q . . . .............QQQQQQQ QQQQ Q3 QQ Q Q Q 33 33 Q Q Q Q . .. . . . . . . . . . .....QQQQQ3 QQQ 5.? 5 q w w a a Q a a n a a o n u n I o o I o a - . . Q Q - ~ - - 0 ooncix%om 3Q Q3 Q Q Q3 Q3 Q3 Q Q Q Q .. .. .. . .. . . ...........QQQQQQQQ QQQQ Q Q3 Q Q Q 33 Q3 Q3 QQ Q Q . . .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . ......QQQQQQ> QQQQ QQ QQ Q3 Q3 Q3 Q Q Q Q3 Q3 Q3 QQ 3Q 33 Q 3 Q Q . . . . . . ....QQQQQQQQQ 3QQQ . . . QQ QQ QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q3 Q Q Q3 QQ Q3 Q Q Q Q . . . . . . . .....QQ.Q3333Qm QQQQ . 3 QQ 3Q Q3 Q3 Q Q Q Q3 QQ Q Q3 3Q Q3 Q Q Q Q . . . . . ..QQQQQ3>3.Q3333 QQQQ .. . 3Q QQ Q3 Q Q3 Q3 3 Q Q3 Q Q 3 QQ Q3 Q3 Q 3 Q . . . . . . . . . . .3333. QQQQ 3Q QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQ 3Q QQ Q Q 3 Q Q Q3 Q Q Q3 QQ 3Q Q Q 3 Q . . . . . . . . ...3Q3_w QQQ3 QQQQ QQ QQ Q3 Q Q Q3 33 Q Q Q Q QQ Q3 33 Q Q3 Q3 3 Q Q3 Q Q Q3 QQ Q3 Q3 Q Q Q . . . . . . . . ziésm QQQQ QQ Q3 Q Q Q3 Q3 Q3 Q 3 Q Q QQ QQ Q3 Q3 33 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q3 QQ QQ Q3 Q Q Q . . . . . . . . ....33QwBQm QQQQ QQ Q3 Q Q Q3 Q3 33 Q 3 Q Q 3Q 3Q Q3 Q3 Q3 Q 3 Q Q Q Q Q3 QQ QQ Q3 Q 3 Q . . . . . . . . .....QQQ3QQ3 QQQQ Q3 QQ Q Q Q3 Q3 Q3 Q Q 3 Q Q3 QQ Q3 Q Q3 Q3 Q 3 Q Q Q Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q 3 . . . . . . . .....Q3QQ< 3QQQ Q3 QQ Q Q Q Q3 Q3 Q Q Q Q Q3 QQ Q3 Q Q3 Q3 Q 3 Q Q Q Q3 QQ 3Q Q3 Q3 Q Q . . . . . . .....QQ33Q.333Q QQQQ Q3 Q3 Q Q Q Q3 Q3 33 Q Q Q Q3 QQ Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q Q Q Q Q Q 3Q Q3 3Q Q3 Q Q . . . . . . . . ....QQQQQQQ QQQ Q 33 Q Q Q Q3 Q3 Q3 3Q Q Q Q QQ QQ Q3 Q3 Q . 3 Q Q Q Q Q 33 QQ QQ QQ Q3 3 . . . . ........QQ.Q33Q33m Q3QQ Q3 Q3 33 Q Q. Q3 Q3 Q 33 Q Q Q 3Q 3Q Q3 Q3 Q3 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q3 Q3 QQ Q3 Q3 Q ZQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQE QQQQ Q3 Q33 QQ QQ Q3 QQ3 QQ3 QQQ Q3Q 33Q QQ QQ Q3 Q33 Q3 33 QQ3 QQQ QQQ Q33 QQ Q3 Q3 QQ3QQQ 3Q|Q 3Q QQ 3Q|w 33 .Q3 Q3 Q3 33 33 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Qz l . QQQQQQQQ Q .,3. MGQwZflW M00? Jo.w@ Qwcfiomm 330B *0 uGQQ 8m Qwfiwcm Mwwg "maxim M00? Q JO®E~ Qwfimomm 1x39 m0 QGQQ 80% seam Qwfixomm fimuOE m0 pflwmw u®&_ QQQ3 QQQ3 QQQ3 Q . GM GOQuOQ m0 mwmpvidQw .32 flOmdwm wflmMQmQ 0H3 QsonwsofiQ M303 Jowo UOMOMQ Q95 3Q?» m0 uGQo Qwmrlfi 236E 46 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION later recurrence of favorable moisture conditions. This is then reflected again in the picking records later. Table 20 shows the total number of White blooms appearing on one hundred plants in each variety for the combined periods of blooming during the years 1922-26, inclusive, and the total amount of seed cotton per plat produced by each of the varieties. It will be seen that there is a tendency for the free-blooming varieties to also turn out a higher yield of cotton and while this tendency is less marked in some years than in others, on the average for the five years there is a marked rela- tion between the number of blooms produced and the final yield. Light.- ning Express, Acala, and Durango produced the largest number of blooms and in general the small-bolled early varieties were heavier bloomers than the large-boll varieties. Table 20.——T0tal number of blooms recorded and yield of seed cotton per plat for varieties of cotton, 1922-26. Total Blooms Counted Total Pounds Seed Cotton _ Per 100 Plants Picked Per Plat Variety Ave. Ave 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 Burnett . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . 372 278 187 231 217 257 32.17 39.82 22.37 22.00 15.04 26.28 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338 302 213 231 198 256 25 .25 42.92 39.15 14.23 18.17 27.95 Mebane 804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 233 210 237 258 246 27.13 42.83 25.40 9.47 15.17 24.00 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . 290 224 180 213 154 212 26.73 54.34 30.15 16.59 16.59 28.88 c a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 295 216 192 236 115 211 23.22 38.85 40.34 18.55 15.90 27.37 Improved Mebane. . . . . . . . 243 255 159 198 165 204 32.83 39.61 27.12 .78 12.76 22.62 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 178 160 184 108 190 25.06 34.53 33.93 8.38 13.32 23.04 Lone Star . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . 216 197 166 199 128 181 22.67 18.31 21.25 3.38 14.79 16.08 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 183 152 259 . . . . . . 219 26.57 42.90 22.75 2.81 . . . . . . 23.76 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 166 183 189 . . . . . . 202 27.96 37.47 20.90 9.03 . . . . . . 23.84 Westex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 258 193 215 . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.25 21.25 16.79 23.10 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 243 118 181 . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.18 8.00 15.54 18.91 Mebane (406) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 231 155 171 . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.78 7.56 17.15 17.83 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 301 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324 21.28 31.47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.38 285 181 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 233 23.84 39.06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.45 Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 144 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ 196 22.79 25.90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.35 HalfandHalf............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 230 130 180 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.13 1510 13.12 Harper.................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 212 133 173 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.69 1479 8.74 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151 118 135 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.75 14.93 9.69 Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 150 . . . . . . . . . ..4. 150 ...' . . . . . . . .. 36.05 . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.05. PER CENT OF CROP PICKED BY PERIODS Table 21 gives the per cent of the total crop of each variety picked at the end of each of four chosen periods in 1922 to 1924. These data were obtained from the Weekly pickings and calculated to the nearest whole number on a percentage basis. The number of days from the date of the comi.ng up of the crop to the picking periods used varies slightly from year to year but approximates 115, 135, 150, and 165 days from date up. A great deal of variation in the time required for the begin- ning and completion of opening will be noted among the different varie- ties and for the three different years. In 1922, for instance, a short season was required, one-half of the crop of most varieties being picked 135 days after the crop came up, whereas, in 1924 a period oi about thirty days longer was required before the same proportion of the crop opened. i VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 47 Table 21.—Per cent of total crop picked at each of fou r periods in 1922-24 for cotton varieties. 1922 1923 1924 Days from Date Up Days from Date Up Days from Date Up T. S. Variety No. 114 135 149 163 117 130 151 165 122 143 164 178 % % % % % % % % % % % % 6567 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 10 2 21 30 21 28 11 36 23 30 6314 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 59 2 3 8 29 25 38 29 43 9 19 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 61 12 5 19 24 13 44 12 38 16 33 6564 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 61 33 _' 7 16 26 16 42 8 32 21 39 6571 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 50 16 12 24 19 12 44 7 38 22 33 5984 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . 6 61 21 11 9 27 13 52 1 32 14 52 6574 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 62 22 11 3 24 16 56 1 31 16 51 6573 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 55 7 20 13 23 11 53 2 30 20 47 6565 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 53 22 17 1 12 23 64 0 15 19 66 6563 Improved Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . 3 42 19 '35 10 26 21 42 0 17 23 60 6566 Tru' t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 55 19 16 14 24 10 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6572 Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 52 26 21 3 19 22 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5991 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 35 35 29 0 22 14 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8487 Westex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 42 10 20 7387 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 39 23 35 7388 Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 36 21 39 7889 Mebane (406) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 26 21 50 Table 22.~—Average per cent of total crop of varieties picked at a selected number of days after planting date. 5 Year Average 3 Year Average 2 Year Average S 1922-1926, incl. 1924-1926, incl. 1925-1926, incl. T. . N0. . Variety Per cent picked in Per cent picked in Per cent picked in 126 days 1-40 days 131 days 143 days 135 days 145 days ' 6314 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 62 27 61 26 61 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 46 14 47 15 51 6571 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 21 37 15 31 ~19 31 6564 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 41 14 38 18 44 6567 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . 28 57 23 54 29 63 6573 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1O 24 5 17 5 15 6565 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 19 5 14 8 18 8588 New Mebane. . . . . p . . . . . . . . 8 20 2 9 3 8 8487 Westex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 48 24 42 7387 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 24 14 23 7889 Triumph (406). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 35 10 43 8599 NewBoykin.............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 21 9 19 8708 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 49 8607 Harper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 17 The per cent of the total crop harvested on the average for the five years is presented in Table 22 for the various varieties, 126 and 140 days after the planting date. From this and the previous table it can be determined approximately What per cent of ‘the crop one may expect to be ready to pick at a given time in the fall. Fifty to sixty per cent of the total crop has been harvested on the average from the very early varieties one hundred and forty days after they were planted while with the large-boll varieties only twenty to twenty-five per cent of the crop was harvested in this same period. The grower should consider the date of planting and the average date of the first killing frost in the fall in arriving at the growing period available for the variety of cotton he 48 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION chooses to grow. It is obvious that a late-maturing variety of cotton planted as late as June 1 may have a relatively large per cent of its crop immature When the first frost stops growth in the fall. A study of the above tables will aid the farmer in choosing the variety best suited to fit the conditions with which he is confronted and give him a better understanding of the fruiting habits and requirements of the different varieties. GROWING SEASON REQUIREMENT FOR BLOOMING AND OPENING OF COTTON VARIETIES The number of days required annually and on the average for the blooming and opening process of the different varieties of cotton grown are tabulated below. These data are calculated from the date of plant- ing. The variation in the number of days from planting to first bloom from year to year is not marked and averages about sixty days for most varieties. The time required for the first bolls to open, however, was materially prolonged in 1925 and a considerable variation is noted for the different varieties. The environment and climatic conditions are of course intimately associated with the time required for these de- velopmental processes of the cotton blooms and bolls and the effects of these factors can be clearly seen from this table and those preceding. The opening and maturing of the bolls appear to be more variable from year to year and the varietal differences in time required for the crop _to open are more pronounced than they are in the flowering of the ' plants. In seasons conducive to early opening the early varieties pro- duce their first open bolls in one hundred to one hundred and ten days and reach the height of their picking season about thirty days later. The picking peak for later-maturing varieties usually follows some ten to twenty days later than this. From this table the grower can deter- mine rather closely when the bulk of his crop should be ready to harvest. Table 23.—-Yearly and averagedays growing period requirement for fruiting and ~ opening of cotton varieties. Number of Days from Planting to: Number of Days from: Variety Year _ First First Bloom Bloom Peak First Open Bloom Picking to First to Picking Bloom Boll Peak Peak Open Boll Peak , Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . 1922 59 101 80 122 42 42 1923 52 108 66 157 56 91 1 924 69 1 1 1 83 125 42 42 1925 62 139 90 146 77 56 Average. . . . .... 61 115 80 138 54 58 Durango . . . . . . . . . . 1922 59 108 9O 136 49 46 1923 52 101 73 157 49 84 1924 69 125 90 174 56 84 1925 62 132 90 146 70 56 Average. . . . . . . . . . 61 117 86 153 56 67 Mebane 804. . . . . . . 1922 59 101 75 129 42 54 " 1923 52 » 101 66 157 49 a 91 1924 62 118 97 174 56 77 1925 62 139 90 146 77 56 Average . . . . . . . . . . 59 115 82 152 56 7O VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 49 Table 23.——Yearly and average days growing period requirement for fruiting and opening of cotton varieties—Continue . Number of Days from Planting to: Number of Days from: Variety Year First First Bloom Bloom Peak First Open Bloom Picking to First to Picking Bloom Boll Peak Peak Open Boll Peak Lightning Express. . 1922 59 101 75 122 42 47 1923 59 101 66 150 42 84 1924 69 125 9O 174 56 84 1925 62 132 97 146 7O 49 Average . . . . . . . . . . . 62 115 82 148 53 66 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1922 59 101 8O 136 42 56 1923 52 101 66 157 49 91 1924 69 118 97 174 49 77 1925 62 132 9O 153 70 63 Average. . . . . . . . . . 61 113 83 155 52 72 Kasch . . . . . O . . . . . 1922 64 108 90 136 44 46 1923 52 108 66 164 56 98 1924 76 125 83 174 49 91 1925 69 153 97 153 84 56 Average. . . . . . . . . . 65 124 84 157 59 73 Lone Star . . . . . . . .. 1922 64 108 85 136 44 51 1923 59 108 73 1 57 49 84 1924 76 132 97 174 56 '77 1925 69 160 90 160 91 70 Average . . . . . . . . . . . 67 127 86 157 6O 71 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . 1922 59 108 9O 136 49 46 1923 . 52 101 66 157 49 91 1924 69 125 83 181 56 98 1925 62 153 97 153 91 56 Average . . . . . . . . . . . 61 122 84 157 61 73 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . 1922 64 108 9O 129 44 39 1923 » 52 108 66 157 56 91 1924 69 125 97 181 56 84 1925 62 146 9O 146 84 56 Average . . . . . . . . . . . 62 122 86 153 6O 67 Improved Mebane. 1922 70 108 90 136 38 46 1923 52 101 73 157 49 84 1924 76 132 111 181 56 7O 1925 69 160 97 160 91 63 Average. . . . . . . . . . 67 125 93 159 58 66 Westex . . . . . . . . . . . 1924 69 111 90 125 42 35 1925 62 132 90 153 7O 63 Average. . . . . . . . . . 66 122 9O 139 56 49 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . 1924 69 125 97 . 181 56 84 1925 62 139 90 153 77 63 Average. . . . . . . . . . 66 132 94 167 66 73 Mebane (406). . . . . 1924 76 125 97 174 49 77 1925 69 139 97 160 7O 63 Average. . . . . . . . . . 73 132 97 167 59 70 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . 1922 70 115 95 144 45 49 1923 59 122 66 157 63 91 Average . . . . . . . . . . . 65 119 81 151 54 7O Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . 1922 64 108 95 136 44 41 1923 52 108 66 157 56 91 Average. . . . . . . . . . 58 108 81 147 5O 66 Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . 1922 64 115 9O 136 51 46 1923 59 108 87 157 49 7O Average. . . . . . . . . . 62 112 89 147 5O 58 New Boykin . . . . .. 1924 76 125 83 174 49 91 1 - 1925 69 160 97 160 91 63 Average . . . . . . . . . . . 73 143 I 90 167 7O 77 50 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERLMENT STATION VARIATION IN PER CENT OF LINT AND LENGTH OF LINT Comparative data for eight of the standard varieties of cotton covering a seven-year period and showing the varietal and seasonal variation in both length of lint and per cent of lint are given in the accompanying tables. . The significant points brought out in these tables are: first, that the percentage of lint from year to year is quite constant and shows only slight seasonal fluctuations, and, secondly, that the length of staple ex- hibits a rather wide fluctuation for the different seasons. Variations for the average staple length show as much as one-eighth to three- sixteenths of an inch in different years. The varieties are arranged in order of their length of staple, which shows their inherent varietal characteristic in this respect. The variation for the different seasons seems to be highly associated with climatic conditions, principally rain- fall. A study of the daily and monthly precipitation records in con- nection with these staple lengths indicates a high degree of relationship between the amount of moisture falling at the time the bolls are fairly well developed and the length of staple produced. The seasons which had good moisture conditions in September when the major crop of _ bolls were developing into maturity show superior length of staple. Four years out of the seven produced staple above the average in length. These were seasons having favorable rainfall in September. The season of 1923, which was one of a very dry summer, but with favorable moisture in September, produced an excellent length of staple uni- versally in the Plains Region for all varieties of cotton. These data further show that the length of staple produced on the Plains by these commonly grown varieties is acceptable and adequate to meet the market demands. The first three varieties, of recognized short staple, come well within the minimum staple for tenderable cotton, while the staple produced by the other varieties is comparable to that produced " by them in other sections under normal conditions of fertility and moisture. Table 24.-—-Per cent of lint f,or different varieties of cotton, 1919 to 1925. _ Per Cent of Lint Variety 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 Average Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.59 34.74 37.64 39.23 38.01 40.07 38.75 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.72 34.32 38.48 38.91 34.93 34.42 36.58 Mebane 804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.58 37.38 35.64 32.76 35.75 32.18 34.13 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.92 31.36 34.62 34.73 34.42 33.75 34.90 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.03 32.47 36.56 33.48 34.24 34.72 34.45 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.94 33.89 33.98 31.10 32.65 32.07 33.94 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.60 35.13 32.74 35.61 32.00 32.98 32.93 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.02 32.00 34.64 34.27 33.79 34.96 32.60 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.67 33.91 35.53 35.01 34.47 34.39 34.78 p VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS i 51 v» Table 25.——Annual and average length of staple for different varieties, 1919 to 1925. Length of Staple in Sixteenths of an Inch -Variety 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 Average w; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 1s 14 14 1s 1e 16 15.1 in 804 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 12 16 15 18 16 17 15.4 _'- - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 12 16 16 18 16‘ 16 15.4 ~- den . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14" 17 18 17 17 17 17 16.7 ‘g1 Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 16 19 15 18 18 17 16.8 _ n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 17 18 16 18 17 17 17.0 ' a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 18 17 17 18 17 18 17.2 go . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 18 20 16 20 18 20 18 5 Average . . . . . . . . .I . . . . .. 14.8 15.7 17.2 15.7 18.1 16.8 17.2 16 5 THE RELATION OF PERCENTAGE OF LINT TO YIELD f The percentage of lint was obtained for all varieties grown in the _'ven-year period, 1914-25. Linting percentage is an inherent quality aracteristic of the variety and is a character which is given consider- ?» weight by the farmer when it comes to choosing the variety of itton hewill grow. It is of value, therefore, to analyze as_ far as fssible the relationship "between the percentage of lint and the yield _» ‘lint produced and to determine the direction and extent of such ociation if it exists. ‘A (krrrelation coefficients have been calculated for percentage and yield “1 lint for each of the individual years 1914-25, including all the varie- 'es grown each year as shown in Table 26. The varieties grown for iy year, therefore, constitute the sample and all are subject to the same pvironmental influences due to climatic conditions. ~ While there may be certain objections to throwing the varieties, with __ l their inherent differences for producing a characteristic percentage " lint, into a single sample, and it is not possible to analyze the causes the relation between percentage of lint and yield, this procedure does ord a measure of the tendency for high or low yields to be associated 'th high or low percentages of lint among the particular varieties which e being compared with each other. Table 26.—Correlation between percentage of lint and yield of lint. Extremes of _ No. of Lint Per Cent Correlafaon >1 Year Varieties Cvfifiiclent . Lower I Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57 24.2 35.4 .55 4 .06 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 27.4 42.7 .34 =1; .09 1916 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 27.3 44.8 .66 =|= .07 191s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s2 28.4 43.0 .38 4 .10 71919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43 26.0 41.8 .44 =|= .08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 27.7 37.4 .22 =1= .19 921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 32.7 38.4 .06 i .19 1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 29.6 39.2 .37 =2 .16 1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 29.7 38.0 —.1l =|= .18 1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 30.7 40.0 .45 i .14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 31.9 43.2 —.07 =1; .17 52 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION In nine years out of the eleven, as shown in Table 25, the correlation i has been in the positive direction. During the first five years the num- ‘ ber of varieties in the sample was reasonably large and the correlation Y coeflicients are fairly high and significant with a low probable error. Since 1920 the number involved has been low and the probable errors a correspondingly high, showing a fairly significant correlation only in * 1924. Grouping the 283 varieties grown during this period, dividing e; the values of percentage of lint and yield of lint at the median and j assuming the distribution to be a normal one the correlation is .28 i .04. Calculated on the basis of Yule’s Coefiicient of Association, which takes a higher value than the correlation coefficient, the relation between these two characters, when all varieties grown are considered, is expressed by the coefficient .44 i .03. There seems to be, therefore, some tendency for the varieties having . low percentages of lint to produce low yields and vice versa. This may not, and probably does not, mean that the varieties with extremely high linting percentages are the highest yielders but those varieties carrying a percentage of lint which falls above the average on the scale also have a tendency to produce an acre yield above the average. RELATION BETWEEN PERCENTAGE OF LINT AND LENGTH OF LINT - The relation between the percentage of lint and length of lint for the varieties grown in the variety test each year from 1918 to 1925 is shown by the correlation coeflicients in the following table: Table 27.~—Correlation between Percentage and length of lint. Number of Correlation Year Varieties Coefficient 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 —— 45 :1: .09 1919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 — 44 i .08 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 —— 55 :1: .14 1921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 -— 37 :1: .16 1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 — 52 :1: .14 1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 — 50 :1: .14 1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 —— 4O :1: .15 1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 — 74 :1: .08 The number of varieties involved in calculating these coefficients was l rather small with the exception of the first two years and, consequently, the probable errors are rather high. The relation between percentage of lint and length of lint, however, is shown to be in a negative direction in each of the years involved and the size of the correlation coefficient is significant in most cases. It seems that with the varieties which were included in this test there is a strong tendency for the varieties which have a longer staple to have a correspondingly low ginning percentage. VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 53 COMPARISON‘ OF LENGTH OF STAPLE AND YIELD‘ 1 The correlation between the length of lint and yield of lint for the [rieties grown in the experiment each year since 1918 is shown in able 28. With the exception of the first two years, the number of rieties involved has been inadequate and the coefficients for the most do not show a significant relation and have high probable errors. ,1 table is given, however, to show the trend or tendency on the '4 ole for ].ong staple to be accompanied by lower yield. In all except e year the correlation was in the negative direction and this ten- ncy is more significant than the degree of correlation shown. Table 28.—Correlation between length of staple and yield of lint. Extremes of Length of _ No. of Staple in 16th Inches Correlation Year Varieties 1 Coefiicien 1 Lower I Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 10 19 —.19 =|; .12 -? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43 12 18 —.27 d: .09 I! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 1o 19 -.2e :1; .16 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 14 21 —.22 i .18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 14 19 -——.42 =1: .15 -' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 16 20 .04 =|= .18 ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _ 14 15 19 -—.06 :1: .18 v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16, 12 20 -—.02 i .17 the table appearing below is presented for the purpose of showing comparison between the length of staple and yield of some of the p ed representative, and the best in their class, of the various staple i s from g to 1 3/16 inches are given and their actual yields of _ to the acre recorded for the past eight years. king the 1-inch staple, represented by the Mebane variety, as 100 jcent, it will be noted that there is a gradual decline in yield _gly as the length of staple increases. The gi-inch, or shortest e, gave an increased yield of 13 per cent over the inch staple and xzrease of 34 per cent over that produced by the longest staple. =verage per cent gain or loss in yield is given for each class of staple. best varieties, having a length of staple from 1 1/16 to 1 3/16 l: yielded 79 per cent as much lint to the acre as the best variety a staple of g to 1 inch. It will be seen from the table that a yd inverse» correlation exists in these varieties between length of ‘V and acre yield of lint. This relation holds true in six out of ght years under consideration. ,= may be’ considered as an exhibition of varietal excellence rather portrayal of the difference between the yielding power of long- ort-staple cotton on the whole. These are admittedly somewhat rily chosen varieties, representing as they do a range in staple ' 5| minimum tenderable length to the staple lengths. Even so, r, they are consistent in a marked decrease in yield accompany- _ increase in the staple length. eties chosen to represent the various staple lengths. Varieties con- . 54 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION dmivmmfl Each E >HUTHN> omifisn? 3&1: 55m Grimm @530. 3N2 wwéa hwgaw wwdfi wfifim mwawfl 3.3m £5 H . . . . . . . . . . . .*8_§a¢=w a; ll 26¢ 5.3m wpim mNawmfi 5.8m mvmwm N502 Man? 6.53m waqom w: fl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1334 wmzfii Nw m» gwfi mobmm wfiwm flwmwfl $52 Mawn: wflzé gwmm 8.3m S: fi . . . . . . . . . . . :86 28A o Q92: woumm 3.9% 2 aw 8.8m R . 3m 8 . m2 we. 3% 8. Ev $1.5m w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2562 @o.2+ 2. m2 I 2m 3 m5 mm 3; 3%: Mawwwm 3.2m 2.5m 5Q.“ r55“ w; . . . . . . . . .......32C:m °£o~n wmoq .8 2 8m umw$>< £2 ma»: i»: $2 $2 32 $2 Q21 @235 s80 n05; we JEA “o rvifi/ asu 5m a? .233 o m$>< 2:4 Ho mwcsom 32W 304 fiEU Sm dm-mtfi dofiou Mo wwfifihq; vfififizwmvpmfi p2 i: *0 swmnfl wcm 22> 5533a semi?“ osPuldm Baum. "'1 VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 55 This is not an argument in favor of planting short-staple cottons, below % to 1 inch, which are the typical tenderable grades of commer- cial cotton. It is rather intended to point out the need for an ade- _ quate premium for the longer staple and for permitting the normal . premium paid for additional length of staple to reach the producer. Furthermore, the farmer has no incentive to grow a long-staple variety p’ here unless he does receive the premium due him for the product of , higher quality. ._ Until the past two or three years, there has been very little of the l so-called “Half and Half” cotton, producing staple under ~51 of an inch T in length, grown in this region. Recently, however, there has been a §, tendency on the part of some growers to plant this shorter-staple cotton. This quality of cotton is not acceptable to the trade, is penal- ized on the market, can only result in a loss to the region as a whole, 1 and should not be grown. Experiments here show that varieties pro- a ducing around an inch staple are satisfactory in yield and in general ; are the ones which should be grown in this region. ' Northwest Texas is not without good producing varieties of superior length of staple, and the Acala, Lightning Express, and Durango are Q early, staple varieties which can be planted with profit where a corre- sponding premium is passed on to the grower. SIZE OF THE BOLL The size of the boll in cotton has a bearing on the cost and ease of ‘picking and is of importance in determining the merits of a variety. iThe number of bolls required to weigh one pound was recorded for _.-.cotton varieties grown the past six years and are shown in the follow- fing table. The size of boll characteristic of the varieties and the vari- ;ation from year to year due to environmental influences are shown. Table 30.—Size of boll of cotton varieties, 1921-1926. Number of Bolls Required to Weigh One Pound ‘ Years Average Six Three Years 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 Years Years Grown Variety urnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8O 98 72 95 63 78 81 79 81 ll rango . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83 89 71 86 63 81 79 77 79 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 91 71 74 60 75 74 70 74 ebane 804 . . . . . . . . . . . 73 81 48 87 87 82 76 85 76 ew Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . 75 62 68 65 63 50 64 59 64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 74 51 64 64 53 60 60 60 56 65 47 69 48 76 60 64 60 n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 71 54 64 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 wden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 59 . 49 69 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 ghtnmg Express . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 76 9O 73 89 . . . . . . 84 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 91 89 68 83 'tt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 63 56 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 estex. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 72 83 . . . . . . 80 80 ew Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 67 72 . . . . . . 72 72 numph 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 56 65 . . . . . . 65 65 me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 61 60 . . . . . . 63 63 ett. .... 58 . . . . .. 49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53 and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 56 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BREEDING NEW VARIETIES The conditions under which cotton is grown in the South Plains and Northwest Texas are vastly different from those in the older cotton- growing regions. Cotton breeding and the development of the vari-i eties now in general use in Texas have been with the conditions and requirements of the central and eastern part of the State in view. These varieties, for the most part, form the bulk of the cotton grown here and some of them have done well while others are wholly un- suited. Peculiar climatic conditions not found in another part of the Cotton Belt, particularly rainfall and temperature, together with the. altitude, are factors which must have consideration in developing a variety of cotton best suited to this region. There is, at this time, no variety especially adapted to the needs and conditions here. Breeding and selection work were started at this Substation several years ago with the view of developing varieties or strains of cotton better suited to the region. The plant-row method is being used almost exclusively, the major selections being from the old Mebane stock and also from Durango and Burnett. Some promising selections are being increased for comparison and further test and it is hoped to find some better adapted than those now used. Westex is the name given‘ a new variety developed at this Sub- station through single-plant selection, the original selection being made in a field of Burnett cotton in 1921. This variety has been increased and seed distributed, particularly to the counties north and northwest of the Station, Where there has been, in very recent years, much interest in cotton-growing for the first time and where an early variety is essen- tial to success. It is believed that the particular value of this variety will be that it will make possible the profitable growing of cotton fifty to one hundred miles to the north and northwest, Where other varieties are "now uncertain. Westex is a very early-maturing variety, comparatively heavy-fruit- ing, and yields satisfactorily under less favorable conditions of drouth or 10W temperatures. It has a linting percentage of 34 and a staple of {v to 1 inch in length. It is lacking in size of boll and storm re- sistance. This variety possesses seedling vigor and ability to grow off under low temperatures, which is of value when planted under un- favorable spring conditions such as often exist on the Plains, and for growing toward the northern margin of the cotton area. The adapta- bility of this variety for an extension of the cotton area farther north into the Panhandle is shown by the fact that it produced 235 pounds of lint to the acre at the Fort Hays Experiment Station, Hays, Kansas, in a cooperative test grown there in 1926. Another companion selec- tion, even slightly earlier than the Westex, yielded 249 pounds at Hays this year. , This variety makes a small vegetative growth, has small leaves, and with its early and quick habits of growth, approaches the nature of a determinate growing habit. The burrs are thin, and dry out rather VARIETIES OF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 57 f quickly, and with the first frost the whole crop remaining opens rap- idly. It, therefore, has advantages as a variety adapted t0 the re- quirements for more successful harvesting with‘ the cotton sled or stripper, which was so universally practiced in the Plains region in 1, 1926. The size of boll is objectionable for hand picking, but if ma- chine harvesting becomes a more universal practice the size and shape '7? boll will be factors of relatively smaller importance. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS o 1. Cotton-growing has increased almost one hundredfold in the High Plains region in the past fifteen years and has proven to be a depend- l: able crop here at an altitude of 3200 feet with an average growing .1 season of 207 days. ‘ 2. The distribution of the rainfallon the Plains, with 85 per cent 50f the total falling during the growing season, is favorable to cotton- growing. Length of season, first killing frosts in the fall, and occa- sional subnormal mean temperatures in the early fall months must be considered in choosing the variety to grow. _ 3. Cotton compares favorably with the sorghums as a drouth- éffislStallt crop adapted to.dry-land farming, producing on the average ten pounds of lint to one bushel of grain sorghum. l 4. A high pre-season rainfall is in general indicative of an aver- age yield-of cotton and has almost as effective an influence on yield 31s does seasonal rainfall. _ 5. Conditions on the Plains favor cultivation of large areas per "man and harvesting the crop with cotton harvesters or sleds. 6. The early-maturing varieties have consistently given the highest iyields. The Burnett has given the best yield and while it has a small boll and lacks storm-resistance it is a profitable cotton to grow under ,xtreme conditions because of its earliness. The medium to early trains of Mebane have given satisfactory yields, possess fair staple ound one inch, and storm-resistance. Under ordinary conditions a ood strain of Mebane cotton should be grown here. l; 7. Lightning Express, Acala, and Durango are early varieties of longer-staple cotton, which produce well and can be profitably grown a corresponding premium for the extra staple length is passed on ‘:0 the producer. A 8. Weekly bloom counts and weekly pickings show considerable ariation in the fruiting habits of the different varieties. The vari- 'es producing the most blooms also gave the largest yields of cotton, five-year average shows the early varieties to have 40 to 60 per cent _ their total crop open 140 days after planting as compared with to 25 per cent for the large-boll varieties in the same period. j) 9. The percentage of lint outturn of the varieties tested was quite nstant from year to year while the length of lint showed a rather fluctuation for the different seasons. The length of lint pro- ced here is adequate to meet the market demands. ' 58 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 10. Correlations between the percentage of lint and yield of lint i would seem to indicate that those varieties with a linting percentage above the average also have a tendency to produce an acre yield above the average. 11. A rather consistent, high and negative correlation, ranging from --.37i.16 to —.'74Li‘.08, exists between the percentage of lint and length of lint for the varieties grown the past eight years. 12. Among the varieties grown, a correlation in the negative direc- tion but not highly significant is shown between long staple and yield of lint in seven out of the eight years. The best varieties, having a staple of 1 1/16 to 1 3/16 inches, yielded, on the average for eight ' years, '79 per cent as much lint as those having a staple of g and 1 inch. _ -»,y,i,.,,~i 443k‘)? W .4- VARIETIES ‘QF COTTON IN NORTHWEST TEXAS 59 Table 31.-——S0urce of, seed of cotton varieties grown, 1920-1926, inclusive. T. S. No Variety Source 4131 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. D. Watson, Italy, Texas. _ 5988 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Watson Seed Farms, Waxahachie, Texas. 6571 cala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7381 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7854 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jno. D. Rogers, Allenfarm, Texas. 8609 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 793 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5984-91 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas Substation No. 5, Temple, Texas. 411 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4115 Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ 5994 Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. L. Bennett & Sons, Paris, Texas. 6572 Bennett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7388 Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 7852 Boykin, New . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ferguson Seed Farms, Sherman, Texas. 8599 Boykin, New . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4226 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bert Raithel, Ralls, Texas. 6314 Burnett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. H. Wooley, Ralls, Texas. _ 3666 Durango.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. C. Tracy, Carlsbad, New Mexico. 4114 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5987 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas Substation No. 8, Lubbock, Texas. 6564 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7888 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U. P. Pace, Lubbock, Texas. 8708 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jeff. Summerour, Duluth, Georgia. 7861 Harper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. M. Harper, Martindale, Texas. 8607 Harper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wharton Mercantile Company, Wharton, Texas. 4117 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5992 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6573 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ed. Kasch, San Marcos, Texas. 7385 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7858 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8585 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . Geo. W. Baker & Son, Lockhart, Texas. 6567 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . _ _ 7394 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . Pedigree Seed Company, Hartsville, S. C. 7847 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . 8605 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . 4119 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5995 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6565 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. A. Saunders Seed C0., Greenville, Texas. 7386 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7851 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8590 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ 3150 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R. H. Hiesch, Clarksville, Texas. 5986 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Main Station Farm, College Station, Texas. 804 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . H. A. Brewer, Dale, Texas. 4120 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. P. Horner, Lockhart, Texas. 5989 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. D. Mebane, Lockhart, Texas. 6780 Mebane. 7408 Mebane. ‘ 7859 Mebane. . . A. D. Mebane Sales Agency, Lockhart, Texas. 8588 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . 6563 Mebane Improved. . . . . . . . . A. D. Mebane, Lockhart, Texas. 7886 Mebane 406 . . . . . . . . . Ferguson Seed Farms, Sherman, Texas. 7889 Mebane 406 . . . . . . . 4116 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . 5993 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . _ _- 6574 Rowden. . . . . . Bowden Brothern, Wills Point, Texas. 7391 Rowden. . 7855 Rowden. . . . . . . . 8613 Rowden. . . . . . . . . 4118 Snowflake. . . . 5991 Snowflake . . , John McLernon, Clarksville, Texas. 6575 Snowflake. . . 7387 Sunshine . . . . . _ _ 7857 Sunshine . . . . . . . J. W. Davidson, McKinney, Texas. 8596 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . 8598 Triumph (406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ferguson _Seed Farms, Inc., Sherman, Texas. 5990 Truitt. . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T. . Truitt 8c Son, Waxahachie, Texas. 6566 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8592 Wacona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lankart-Bred _Seed Farms, W300. TBXHS- 8487 Westex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Texas Substation No. 8, LIIbbOCk. T61185-