e ' -<.. - .~ \,___ ’ A97;A29-11,000-L180 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT $TATl0N ‘A. B. CON N ER, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY. TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 397 JUNE, 1929 DIVISION OF AGRONOMY Corn Varieties in Texas; Their Regional and Seasonal Adaptation AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. 0. WALTON, President STATION STAFF} ADMINISTRATION: . B. CoNNER, M. S., Director . E. KARPER, M. S., Vice-Director . M. SCHAEDEL, Secretary . P. HoLLEMAN, JR., _Chief Clerk . K. FRANCKLOW, Assistant Chief Clerk HESTER Hmcs, Executive Assistant . B. NEBLETIE, Technical Assistant RY. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist . E. AsBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist . C. CARLYLE, B. S., Chemist _ ALDo H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist ELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist . S. Oscoon, M. S., Assistant Chemist . L. OGIER, B. S_., Assistant Chemist . G. EvANs, ASSISlGIIl Chemist _ ATHAN J . STERGES, B. S., Assistant Chemist . S. CRENSHAW, A. B., Assistant Chemist JEANNE M. F UEGAS, Assistant Chemist _ HANs PLATENIUS, M. Sc., Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: HAMILTON P. TRAUR, Ph. D., Chief ——-——————-, Berry Breeder RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JoNEs, M., Chief; Sheep and Goat Investigations J. L. LUSH, Ph. D.,-Animal Husbandman; Breeding Investigations STANLEY P. DAvIs, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: _ F. L. THOMAS, _Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist _ H. J. REINIIARD, B. S., Entomologist_ R. K. FLETCHER, Ph. D., Entomologist W. L. OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist FRANK M. HULL, M. S., Entomologist J. C. GAINEs, JR., M. S., Entomologist C. J. ToDD, B. S., Entomologist F. F. BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist _ S. E. IVICGREGOR, JR., Acting Chief Foulbrood Ins ector O'rro NFAcxENsEN, Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: _ E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Chief _ _ R. E. KARPER, M. S., Agronomist; Grain Sor hum Research O ~am E (D I-l Q P. C. ANGELSDORF, Sc. D., Agronomist; in charge of Corn and Small Grain Investi- ations _ D. . KILLoUGH, M. S., Agronomist; Cotton Breeding H. E. REA, B. S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations W. E. FLINT, B. S., Agronomist _ _ B. C. LANGLEY, B. S., Assistant in Soils PUBLICATIONS: _ A. D. JAcKsoN, Chief VETERINARYISCIENCE: _ *M. FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian F. E. CARRoLL, D. V. M., Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: J. J. TAUBENHAUs, Ph. D., Chie W. N. EZEKIEL, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist and Laboratory Technician W. J. BACH, M. S., Plant Pathologist J. PAUL LUsK, S. M., Plant Pathologist B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chie W. E. PAULsoN, Ph. D., Marketing Research Specialist C. A. BoNNEN, M_. S., Farm Management Research Specialist _ V. L. CoRY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanist J. F. CRIswELL, B. S., Assistant; Farm Records and Accounts _ **J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant; Ranch Records and Accounts RURAL HOME RESEARCH: JEssIE WHITACRE, Ph. D., Chief MAMIE GRIMEs, M. S., Textile and Clothing Specialist EMMA E. SUMNER, M. S., Nutrition Specialisl SOIL SURVEY: **W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chie E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soi Surveyor T. C. REITCH, B. S., Soil Surveyor L. G. RAGsDALE, B. S.,, Soil Surveyor BOTANY: ——————?——, Chief SIM0N E. WOLFF, M. S., Botanist SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: O. C. CoPELAND, B. S., Dairy Husbandman POULTRY HUSBANDRY: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief ***AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: MAIN STATION FARM: G. T. McNEss, Superintendent APICULTURE (San Antonio): H. B. PARKS, B. S., Chief A. H. ALEx, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief . D. PEARcE, Secretary . H. RoGERs, Feed Inspector . H. W00D, Feed Inspector . L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector . D. NORTHCUTT, JR., B. S., Feed Inspectoi SIDNEY D. REYNOLDS, JR., Feed Inspector P. A. MooRE, Feed Inspector éwéw‘ SUBSTATIONS N0. 1, Beeville, Bee County; R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No.2, Troup, Smith County: _ P. R. JoRNsoN, B. S., Act. Superintendent No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefierson County: R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: _ HENRY DUNLAvY, M. S., Superintendent B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist H. E. REA, B. S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations _ SIMoN E. WOLFF, M. S., Botanist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: _ R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent W. E. FLINT, B. S., Agronomist No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent FRANK GAINEs, Irrigationist and Forest Nurseryman ’ No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J . J . BAYLEs, B. S., Superintendent No. 10, Feeding and Breeding Station, near College Station, Brazos County: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Animal 1lusband- man in Charge of Farm L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches Cou" ty: H. F. M0RRIs, M. S., Supcrintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent **J. C. STEPRENs, M. A., Junior Agronomist No. 14, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties.- W. H. DAMERoN, B. S., Superintendent E. A. TUNNICLIFF, D. V. M., M. S., Veterinarian _ V. L. CoRY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanis **O. G. BAiacocig, B. S., Collaborating Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintendent SHERMAN W. CLARK, B. S., Entomologist W. J. BACH, M. S., Plant Pathologist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. WILsoN, B. S., Superintendent _ J. PAUL LUSK, S. M., Plant Pathologist Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: G. W. ADRIANcE, M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture S. W. BILSING, Ph. D., Professor of Entomology _ V. P. LEE, Ph. D., Professor of Marlceting and Finance D. ScoATEs, A. E., Professor of Agricultural Engineering _ _ H. P. SMITH, M. S., Associate Professor of_ Agricultural Engineering R. H. WILLIAMS. Ph. D., Professor of Animal Husbandry A. K. IVIACKEY, M. S., Associate Professor of Animal Husbandry J . S. IVIOGFORD, M. S., Associate Professor of Agronomy F. S. JAMISON, M. S., Associate Professor of Horticulture TAs of June 1, 1929. **In coopera *Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. tion with U. S. Department of Agriculture. .......n.. --..........+;An with the School of Aariculture. This Bulletin interprets the results of experimental work from 1918 to 1927 on the elfects 0f time of planting on many different varieties 0f corn in eleven localities in Texas. Varieties differ greatly in their response to regional condi- tions. Some varieties, such as Surcropper and Ferguson Yellow Dent, exhibit a wide range of adaptation to regional conditions and are almost equally productive in all parts of the State. Other varieties, such as Strawberry, Hastings’ Prolific, Chisholm, Brazos White, Bloody Butcher, Horton, and Oklahoma White Wonder, show a medium range of regional adaptation and are better than the average in several localities and poorer than the average in others. Varieties with a nar- row range of adaptation are those which yield extremely well under one set of regional conditions, but are very inferior under another set. This class includes such varieties as Thomas, Tuxpan. and Blount’s Prolific. All varieties which are adequately tested show a reduced yield as the result of late planting, but varieties ditfer greatly in their response to time of planting. Mexican June and Sur- cropper are only slightly affected in yield by time of planting, while Ferguson Yellow Dent, Chisholm, Strawberry, Okla- homa White Wonder, and Brazos White, are considerably re- duced in yield as the result of late planting. Other things being equal, varieties which show a wide range of adaptation to seasonal conditions are to be preferred, as they permit a greater latitude in time of planting. In many cases, how- ever, maximum yields are made by varieties which have only a narrow range of seasonal adaptation, but are planted at the optimum time. The reduction in yield resulting from late planting is un- doubtedly partly due to the accompanying delay in time of blooming and maturity. It is shown, however, that a delay of ten days in time of planting results in a delay of only about five days in time of silking. On the basis of the experimental results reported in this Bulletin, recommendations regarding time of planting and choice of varieties are made for nine regions of Texas. ‘Lin?! TABLE OF CONTENTS P < Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; Scope of the Bulletin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan of the Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Method of Presenting Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . Method of computing percentage rating and corrected yields . . . . . . Replanted plats and crop failures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Soil checks and date checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. pi Adaptation of Varieties to Regional Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Adaptation of Varieties to Seasonal Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relation Between Time of Planting and Date of Silking . . . . . . . . . . . [5 Relation Between Time of Planting and Yield of Varieties . . . . . . . . . Results at Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results at Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results at Beaumont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results at College Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Results at Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results at Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results at Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . 1 Results at Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I Results at Chillicothe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Results at Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Results at Pecos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __ Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~_ Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. iii-ax” ' "' BULLETIN NO. 397 JUNE, 192.9 ‘CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS; THEIR REGIONAL AND SEASONAL ADAPTATION P. C. .MANGELSDORF _From the standpoint of acreage, production, and total value, corn ranks second among the wide variety of crops grown in Texas, being exceeded only by cotton. Because corn-growing is largely confined to the eastern half of the State, as shown in Figure 1, and because most of the crop is fed on the farms where it is grown, and only a small por- centage is sold for cash, the importance of corn in Texas has probably been minimized. It is not generally known, for example, that Texas, with an average annual acreage of 5,911,000 acres ranks sixth among the States in corn acreage, exceeding in this respect two of’ the States gen- erally regarded as “corn belt” States. The average yield per acre in Texas, however, is low, only 19.2 bushels per acre for the period from 1909 to 1926. In this respect Texas ranks fortictii among the States. In view of the large acreage annually planted to corn in Texas it follows that any general increase in yield, however small, resulting from the use of better varieties or improved cultural practices, will greatly afiect the total production of corn in the State, or the production re- maining the same will reduce the acreage now required for corn and permit the substitution of other crops. The Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station has, since 1894, conducted experiments aimed at the im- provement of the corn crop. Results of these experiments have been published from time to time in bulletin form. Since all the early sta- tion bulletins dealing with corn are now out of print and not available for distribution, it seems worth while to summarize briefly some of the earlier experimental work with variety tests or corn conducted by the Texas Station. Bulletins No. 34, 1895; No. 45, 1897; and No. 49, 1898, include re- ports of variety tests conducted at McKinney, Wichita Falls, College Station, and Beeville. In these tests a large number of varieties from many different regions were compared. It appears that the main object of this test was to determine the relative value of local and northern varieties, a question which was apparently of considerable interest at that time. Although these tests were not completely conclusive in their results, they showed clearly that during normal seasons the local varieties were superior to northern sorts, while in seasons when an early drouth destroyed the crop some of the earlier-maturing northern varieties made the higher yields. Bulletin No. 49 states the problem so concisely that it deserves repetition: “It must be clearly borne in mind that it is the last thirty days’ growth that determines the success of corn in Texas. 6 BULLETIN NO. 897, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION It must be grown to ‘beat the drouth.’ With early-maturing kinds t f falls Within the thirty days extending from the ninetieth to the _ hundred and twentieth day from germination, while with late varie ' the crucial test is to be expected between the one hundred and twenti_ and one hundred and fiftieth day after germination.” g Bulletin No. 120, published in 1908, presents the results of a c0: parison of twenty-eight varieties of corn exhibited at the Dallas F: with a selection of corn made by R. L. Bennett of the Texas Statip n TEXAS conu ACREAGE 1924 one dol represents 2000 acres . .'.. l.’ _‘~' I a I d + o. i _ . a,’ goo‘. a . 7.....- i. --_ p o "Efl - a" l"; l":'fi';, ' """£-‘.:l~.~':° q 2°- 1 .- I131 J "TTTT rfJTI 15%:- i=-= .1 l it O ‘I l‘ 0' a‘ LE" ' IT .".'. .. .%. c ‘Q0 T__l”l—_+—+—| 4:15 sand‘. I‘ . a o ' ' } nuglnll] ...- I.. | .. l“..- lngmql-{g up ‘U . ' 0 . ‘as: o: ‘g9; y ' ' . 4 ' '1 Fig. 1.—The distribution of the corn crop in Texas. Practically the entire acreage is gro l east of the line of 30-inch rainfall. Half dots and quarter dots represent approximately 1, and 500 acres, respectively. and a sample of corn of unknown breeding, selected out of the crib planting time. In practically every comparison the local Bennett strain? or the home-grown, crib-selected seed proved more productive than thef “show corn.” The report of this test 1's concluded with the following statemezztr»; “The conflicting and disappointing results of most of the kinds of co p‘ i supposed to be most highly improved would seem to justify cautioi CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 7 before buying seed at a distance, whatever the claims may be as to purity and improvement in yielding power. So far as this season’s results indicate, the improvement affected was local, was fanciful, or failed to be transmitted in the crops grown here.” This statement, made at a time when confidence in the corn shows and in selection on a score card basis as a method of improvement was almost nation-wide, is of particular significance. Though the reliability of a single year’s test may be questioned, the conclusion drawn from it has been amply borne out by numerous experiments conducted in other States until today most breeders realize the futility of attempting to increase yields by selection according to the old “show type” score card. Variety tests with corn have been conducted at most of the Texas Sub- stations where corn can be grown. These results have been presented in Progress Reports from Angleton, Denton, Beaumont, Troup, Beeville, Temple, Spur, Lubbock, Pecos, and Nacogdoches, and in Bulletin 2'76, “Corn Variety Experiments, Substation No. 3, Angleton.” SCOPE OF THE BULLETIN Two of the most important factors in obtaining maximum produc- tion are the use of adapted varieties and planting at the optimum time. Earlier experimental work has shown in a general way the varieties of corn best adapted to Texas conditions. The corn-growing area of the State is so large, however, and is subject to such diverse soil and climatic conditions that a variety of corn adapted to one part of the State may be of little value in another. »Furthermore, the weather conditions are such that the growing season for corn varies greatly in the different parts of the State. The growing season is generally considered to be the period from average date of last killing frost in the spring to aver- age date of first killing frost in the fall. In the case of corn, however, the growing season is definitely terminated by the occurrence of hot, dry weather during the summer months. The time of occurrence and period of duration of the summer drouth vary from season to season and with different regions of the State. It is, however, a very general phe- nomenon and is undoubtedly the limiting factor in corn production. It follows that maximum _yields of corn will be obtained only through complete utilization of the growing period through the use of varieties that are capable of maturing their crops before the drouth begins and by planting at such dates that the crop will suffer the least damage from cold weather during early development or from hot, dry weather at maturity. 4 In other words, varieties of corn in Texas are subject to both regional and seasonal variations. To determine the adaptation of varieties to these two influences a variety-date-of-planting test was instituted in 1918. This test has been conducted at eleven substations throughout the State, in most cases for a period of ten years. In interpreting the results of the test, answers to the following questions have been sought: ' 3 i _ 8 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 1. What is the optimum time for planting corn in the vabious re-g gions of the State? 2. Does the delay between early and medium planting have the samj effect as a delay between medium and late planting? it 3. Which varieties make the highest yields in early planting? ' 4. Which varieties make the highest yields in midseason planting?‘ 5. Which varieties make the highest yields in late planting? 1i 6. Which varieties are above 0r below the median in yield in each _ of the three plantings? i; 7'. Which varieties make the highest average yields at all dates planting ? .-= 8. How do varieties differ in their reaction to time of planting? 7 9. Which varieties have the widest and which the most limited range of adaptation throughout the State? g 10. Which varieties can be recommended for each region? 1}. These questions are answered in detail for each region by the tables which accompany the discussion. In addition to the tables, a diagramf has been included for each station, which shows at a glance (1) the, ranking of varieties according to average yield, the highest yield; made in the entire test, (3) the highest yielding variety in the early“, plantings, (4) in the medium plantings, (5) in the late plantings, (6) l; the optimum time of planting for each variety within the range covered by the test. PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENT ‘iii. The plan of this experiment was uniform at most of the stations and with a few exceptions the experiment has been conducted strictly accord- ing to the original plan. ’ The test occupied three acres every yea-r, one acre each for early, , medium, and late planting. Each acre was divided into sixteen plats, ‘Y each plat comprising seven rows three feet apart and 132 feet long. The two outside rows of each plat were discarded at harvest, making the net {,8 size of plats five rows or 1/22 acre. Every fifth plat was planted to the same variety and used as a soil check. In addition to the soil checks each acre included three “date checks,” in which one variety was planted r at three dates. Since all varieties except those used as soil checks are replicated only once at each date of planting, the yields of the date checks are useful as an indication of the productive hapacityig of the three acres used each year for this experiment, and serve as a i‘; measure of the reliability of the experiment. In other words, if the yields of the date checks in which three plantings were made on each acre rank in the same order as the other varieties, in which each plantingef? was made on a separate-acre, it is fairly certain that the differences in. yield between different plantings are due to the effect of time of planting and not to variation in fertility of the three acres used in the experiment. i The dates at which the three plantings, hereafter termed “early,” “medium,” and “late,” were made varied with the locality and season, 1*; 7i two and four weeks later. i delayed one or more of the plantings, but over a period of years the I average dates of planting correspond fairly well to the plan as outlined. - following method : CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 9 but so far as possible the early planting was made as early as prac- ticable and the medium and late plantings at intervals of approximately Unfavorable seasonal conditions frequently The varieties used in this experiment include those which proved to be most promising in preliminary variety tests which had been conducted at the several substations. Varieties which made a poor showing in the early years of the test were discarded and replaced by others. In tabu- lating the data, varieties which were grown less than two years have generally been omitted. METHOD OF PRESENTING DATA The results of this test are presented separately for each station, with a discussion of the soil and climatic conditions as related to the test. So far as possible, the following tables are presented for each station. For the purpose of convenience in applying the results of these tests to various regions of the State, they are presented in the same order as the regions shown on the map in Figure 15. 1. Summary of dates of planting, stand percentages, average yields of date checks in comparison with average of all varieties. 2. Annual and average yields of all varieties in early planting ranked according to yield. 3. Annual and average yields of all varieties in medium planting ranked according to yield. 4. Annual and average yields of all varieties in late planting ranked according to yield. 5. Annual and average yields of all varieties. plantings ranked according to yield. 6. The effect of time of planting on the yield of different varieties. Average of three Method 0f Computing Percentage Rating and Corrected Yields The figures presented for yields represent the actual yields in bushels of shelled corn per acre, with few exceptions in which yields are com- puted 0n the basis of ear corn. Since all varieties were not grown during the entire ten-year period, the average yields are not a fair basis of com- parison. In order to study the varieties on a comparable basis, a per- centage rating and corrected average yield have been calculated by the All varieties which have been grown for the entire period of the test are considered as checks or “standards.” The percent- age rating of any variety for any planting is found by dividing its aver- age by the average for three plantings of the “standard” varieties for the same period of years. For example, at Angleton, six varieties, Chis- holm, Ferguson Yellow Dent, Hastings’ Prolific, Surcropper, Thomas, and Tuxpan, were grown every year of the test. Florida Flint, how- ever, was grown only from 1918 to 1920. When only actual averages 10 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION are considered, Florida Flint ranks first among the varieties with 26.9 bushels per acre, as shown in Table 30. When the percentage rating is calculated, however, by dividing the average yield of Florida Flint, which is 26.9 for the years 1918-1920, by the average yield for three plantings of the six “standard” varieties for the same three years, which is 29.1,j giving a percentage rating of 92.4, the rank of Florida Flint is reduced _ The corrected yield, "l from first to ninth place, as shown in Table 30. shown in the last column of the tables, is added merely for convenience because it is easier to consider corn yields in terms of bushels than in percentages. It is obtained by multiplying the average yield of the “standard” varieties for the entire test period by the percentage rating, The values of the percentage rating and of the corrected yields are iden- tical except that one is expressed in percentages, the other in bushels per acre. This method of presenting the average yield was adopted because it appeared by actual comparison of several methods to be the most accurate for ranking varieties grown during different periods and because it elimi- nates the very marked errors which frequently occur when a corrected yield is obtained by the common method of calculating the percentage rating of each variety for each year separately, and obtaining an average rating by dividing the sum of the individual ratings by the number of I years grown. Such a method invariably gives the highest ranking to those varieties which produce the highest yields in unfavorable seasons when other varieties are almost complete failures. Replanted Plats and Crop Failures Occasionally one or more varieties failed to make a satisfactory stand in one of the plantings and were replanted at a later date. In such cases the yield of the replanted plat is not included in the tables. from one of the plantings has been omitted, the yields of the other plant- ings are ignored in calculating the average of the three plantings for this variety, but are included in determining the average yield of the variety for all plantings. For example, at Angleton four varieties failed to make a satisfactory stand in the early planting of 1924 and the yields from these plats have been omitted, so that the average yields for the early planting are based on nine years’ results. The yields of these varieties for the medium and late plantings are included in the tables showing these plantings, but are omitted in making the calculations, so that the average yields in the three tables are based on the same period of years. In Table 30, however, where the average for all plantings is shown, the yield for 1924 of these varieties has been determined by aver- aging the medium and late plantings. In very unfavorable years, at several stations some of the varieties produced no crop. In such cases the yield is considered tobe zero and the average is calculated on this basis. When none of the varieties pro- duced a crop, the season is omitted in making up the averages. .. .,.....i;r.im4wsa;rra:aa@4v£ i“ ~ ~.~"~' When yields CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 11 Soil Checks and Date Checks Varieties used as soil checks, which occupied four plats on each acre, are represented in the tables by the average yield of the four plats. Varieties used as date checks, which were planted at three different dates on each acre, are represented in the table only by one plat, the one which corresponds to the other varieties on the same acre, so that the three plantings of the date checks are represented by the early planting on the first acre, the medium on the second acre, and the late planting on the third acre. It should be particularly emphasized at this point that slight differ- ences in yield between varieties are usually not significant. It is prob- ably safe to conclude, however, that varieties which have been above the average in all three plantings are superior to those which have been below the average in three plantings. ADAPTATION OF VARIETIES TO REGIONAL CONDITIONS A study of the yields of varieties at various localities, which are pre- sented in detail later in the Bulletin, indicates that some varieties rank high in all localities, while others may rank high in one locality and be almost worthless in another. In other words, some varieties appear to have a wide range of adaptation within the State, others a comparatively narrow range. It would seem to be desirable to find some method of expressing in a single term the range of adaptation of each variety. This has been at- tempted by summarizing the percentage rating of each variety at all the localities where the variety was grown. The results of this summary are shown in Table 1. Only the results from the eight stations in the eastern half of the State have been included and all varieties which have been grown at less than two stations are omitted. The two last columns of figures considered in connection with the results from each station separately furnish an indication of the range of adaptation of any variety. A variety that has a high average per- centage rating and a small difference between the highest and the lowest percentage rating is obviously one having a wide‘ range of adaptation. Surcropper and Ferguson Yellow Dent are the only varieties included in this category. Sureropper undoubtedly exhibits the widest range of adaptation of any variety included in these tests, having a percentage rating above 100 at each of the eight substations. Also, the percentage rating for Surcropper is very similar in all localities, the difference be- tween the highest and lowest rating being only 12.5 per cent. Ferguson Yellow Dent resembles Surcropper in having practically the same per- centage rating in all localities, but is inferior to it in yield at every station except Temple. 12 BULLETIN N0. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION mmmwwwwnm» Wfi ca»: ifiuhwwmm.... HMHHHump...$fiwm@umwwwwoww §a22= m. a >2 m. a ...................... . . Ea ...... . . N. a .................... . €=sE $200M Boimcafhw max“ Nmww 3mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Qwm . . . . . . 1a.: ab.“ . . . . . . . . . . . . loczokm wbcizm fiafisvmé 98 fi .3 w? . m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fig H .3 a3 . . E . . . . . 2% . . . . . . . . . 45G 35>? EEEC/ E286 m mm m6; mam: N 2w 3g o S . 9% . . . . . . . . . “.3 m3 . . . . .8263 0:55 wifisxo Eiuficmaum mhm who ado .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wéofl mdh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....nofiofl EEEQE Aioofi T: . . . . . . . . . . . .... . 062 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9g . . . . . . _ . . . . . llhonofimm >wo2m Kobmcofiofi ohm v.3 . . . . . . . . . . lmSofi .. 6m; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152i: sfiéwemi: o? ...:...@.@@ Q2: 2.: m? E . . . . . ...\..~: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........Q.E>>@SSM “mcofimpw mm gm 555w go: wwfioim> QWWMQMEM mm ME n“ 3M “a xm EM 3M m? MHMHHHHMHHHHHHHHHJMMEMQE. EiwoEfihm 9% 9% wam 5E. m9: 90m mg: n63 v.3 . . . . .........ow=okm.m =wwwm Esmwwamsm v.3 $2. >42 m?“ m2 mi: 9N2 flaw #8 . . . . . . . . . . . ....E$Qa~bm w?» .33 mt: 98 >422 :3 m 3 v.8 $45 vém mfi: . . . . .. . $28G 859w cowsmhoh 03B 1W2 Qmfi mdofi 9N2 .012: ma: mflcfi “i: ~82 N53 . . . . . . . . . . ...s@%§=w Uwqofimuw 2m i». 555w mufiumhm> mafia H.332 oz? oEEvH COaGQQ n3 Efiwwm fiHoE monoow QEZH nowfifimwww oww Jmvamfi bum 63:4 omozoU Baum $952 mo omnmfl nthvohom dwcmfl wmm$>< an mafia“ omwwcofiom dqommou msoiw> 5 @952 owmucoohoa hm woumofiz: mm woioiw> Mo qoflmamwm Ho 09:: 133mg onHlA “inmh. CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 13 Varieties with a medium range of adaptation are those which are better than 100 per cent at several stations and which show an inter- . mediate difference between the highest andylowest yield. This class in- chides Strawberry, Hastings’ Prolific, Chisholm, Brazos White, Bloody Butcher, Horton, and Oklahoma White Wonder. All of these varieties gave excellent results at several stations, but were inferior in other localities. Varieties with a narrow range of adaptation are those which yield extremely well under one set of regional conditions, but are very in- ferior under another set. This class includes Thomas, Tuxpan, and Blount’s Prolific. These varieties are all very productive within a limited region and very unproductive in some other localities. A fourth class includes varieties which appear to be unadapted to Texas conditions and have a percentage rating less than 100 at every locality where they have been tested. This class includes Virginia White Dent, Cocke’s Prolific, (Iharles White, and Nacogdoches. In connection with these varieties it should be mentioned that none of them have been tested at all the substations and, if this were done, it is en— tirely possible that some of them would prove to have a narrow range of adaptation. Also, these varieties may be of value for very early or very late plantings and yet have a low average yield. ADAPTATION OF VARIETIES TO SEASONAL CONDITIONS The results on effect of time of planting on yields of different varieties, which are presented in detail later, shows that almost all varieties are less productive in the late planting than in the early. The degree of loss resulting from late planting varies with the variety and with the locality, but in ninety comparisons involving sixteen varieties only seven showed a gain due to late ‘planting. It is evident that some varieties are less subject to loss as a result of late planting than are others, and an attempt has been made to describe the varieties in this respect by summarizing the results from all stations. This has been done in Table 2. Due to the fact that the loss was con- sistently greater at some stations than at others, an adequate comparison of varieties is possible only when the varieties have been grown at the same stations. Consequently, the varieties grown at all stations have been separated, in Table 2, from those which were not grown at all stations. Among the six varieties which were grown at all stations the loss due to late planting varies from 13.3 per cent in the case of Surcropper to 26.5 per cent in the case of Strawberry. Among the remaining varieties the differences between early and late plantings range from a gain of 0.1. per cent in Cocke’s Prolific to a loss of 41.8 per cent in Nacogdoches. In this (connection it should be mentioned that the Mexican June variety, which unfortunately was not included in tests in the eastern part of the State, probably has a wider range of adaptation to seasonal conditions than any other variety. This is indicated by the general 14 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION dmfi 3E .3 wououwa 3,22: wowwfi: wcwmofifi! 3:1; :<* wév . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I wAm . . . . . . . . .. mNm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . iwwnoowmoowZ wém . . . . . . NdN who fiNfi wém . . . ‘ . . . . .. vbN . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..otn2/woNwLm EQN h.» 9mm oNm >8 50v . . . . . . . . .. v.3 m4; ...:;:.E_¢B@:=B~E¢=~v_o mAN 0.2 wAN mhfi Nhm mQN . . . . , T . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wNfi . . . . . . . . . . . Iofisk/ wwimnU aw w -®? - - . . . - - . » - ~ . . . . . . . . . . .i.wfi - . | . . . . - . - - n ‘ . . - . . . - » . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . » . . - . - . § . . . . . . . . . . N .- .. a mm: o6 E: . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9mm . . . . . . . . .. mdN . . . . . 4 . , . A . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . dofioi Na: E2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . .. mSN . . . . . . . . .. wdfl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inwafirfi Nb w.ww+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.: N.o~ mam 11¢ . . . . .. E3 . . 4 4 . . . . . iwcvfl ofisgmdamb> 9m >Sw+ w.w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 9: . . . . . . . . .. 9m mfmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iloadflohm wbcsofim To + wqmv+ . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N.m~ . . . . . . . . .. NdN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......oc:o.~m wbxuoU Hwcofimam =w aw c>>okm “be wwflwifiw méN fimw 9mm ma». $.12 mam msm wi mN . T . . . . . . . . . . . .M.......>..:@@a~,sw wam a a #8 nbN w?“ NNm #3.. 5Q N.m + , , . . . . , . . . . . .. E1525. N.mN “a mbN NAN N.mm Ndv T: Nwm N6 , . . . . . . 120G 381w? comswhvh wNN ma + NQm #8 T2 v.8 oAZ QQN N.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1252B v.2 mNN NAN NAN *2 :5 m; fimm me + . . . . . . . . . . . . . dfizmm umizwm W2 fim H Z m 2 92 #3. o.oN hfiN 73+ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $98526 Hmcoflmww =w F. =3o~m wwfivim> $3 "£33m MJQEQF nofiED =o§w=< aofiwum E05 wwnoow 95C. .5 swam uwwzoU 153m Imoow Z om§8>< @5282 33.. mo .32? dcmacfln 3E Eofi mnwfismvk um vwwmfi .8 5mm wmwwmoohwm J55 3Q oofi wm wmiowmmcoo $32 wax 2.8m 23 he wofiwofifi: mm moSomb?» we nowfifiamwm Rcomwom QJPHIMN Bnmh. CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 15 experience of farmers throughout the State and is partly substantiated by the results at Chillicothe and Pecos. The results at Chillicothe, illus- trated in Figure 12, are particularly interesting in showing the great difference between Mexican June and such varieties as Strawberry and Chisholm in their reaction to effects of time of planting and the inter- mediate position of Surcropper in this characteristic. These averages furnish a more or less accurate measure of the adapta- f tion of varieties t0 seasonal conditions. It might be supposed that the varieties which show the widest range of adaptation to regional condi- tions would also be those which show the widest adaptation to seasonal conditions. This is only partly true. The Surcropper variety shows a wide range of adaptation to both conditions, but other varieties differ considerably in the two series. It should be emphasized that the adaptation of a variety to seasonal conditions is not in itself a measure of the value of a variety for any locality. Some of the least productive varieties show the least effect of time of planting. On the other hand, where two varieties are equally productive, preference should be given to the one which suffers the least loss due to late planting, as the use of such a variety allows a wider latitude in time of planting. RELATION BETWEEN TIME OF PLANTING AND DATE OF SILKING The results of the tests on the effect of time of planting on yield at eleven localities in Texas are rather consistent in demonstrating that early planting is associated with higher yields, except where other factors such as low February rainfall at Beeville or root-worm damage at Beau- mont exert a limiting influence on early planting. These results are in agreement with those from other sections of the country and it may be said, as a general rule, that the earlier corn can be planted without sacri- ficing stand and seeding vigor the higher will be the yield. It would be difficult to determine all the factors which contribute to these results, but it is entirely obvious that in Texas a large share of the superiority of the earlier-planted corn is due to the fact that it blooms and matures earlier and, as a consequence, is less subject to injury from hot, dry weather. This brings up the question of the relation between time of planting and time of maturity. Space will not permit a com- plete treatment of this subject in the presegit Bulletin and it is hoped to take up this phase of the experiment in a later publication. It may be helpful in this connection, however, to present one example of the relation between time of planting and date of maturity. For this pur- pose the results at Substation No. 5, Temple, have been chosen. Since the time of ripening is difficult to record accurately, and as varieties show their greatest differences in the period between planting and silking, and comparatively little difference in the length of the period between time of silking and ripening, the date of silking is gen- a erally the best criterion of maturity. The relation between date of planting and number of days between 16 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION planting and silking for five varieties grown at Temple from 1918 to 1924 is shown by Figure 2. The regression line in the diagram repre- sents a statistical estimate, in the form of a straight line, of the aver- age dates of silking of these five varieties, when planted on any date between March 1 and May 9. If a longer planting period were to be considered, this relationship should undoubtedly be represented by a curved line rather than by a straight one, but, so far as these data are concerned, a straight line appears to furnish a fairly satisfactory esti- mate of the relationship. l1 9x Q § :: "3 Q 1o 9* 8 E \ Q 9o ' g m R \0 0 0 S ' 0 0 (f? CO ; \ . o) 0 f? 0 0 l? 70 . g Q \ o K Q . E no a % gflmi-‘m- i“? L‘ a Marc/r / Marc/z /0 Marc/QO 449/Zfl50 Aprv/Q Apr/HQ Aprv/ZQ May/Q fla/e 0/’ p/an/uvy Fig. 2.-—The relation between time of planting and number of days from planting to silking, Texas Substation No. 5, Temple. Ten days difference in time of planting results in approx- imately five days difference in date of silking. The regression line shows that ten day's’ difference in time of planting is associated with only approximately five days’ difference in the period between planting and silking. In other words, the later that corn is planted the shorter will be the period between planting and silking. This is true for each of the five varieties included in computing the averages shown by the black dots in Figure 2. The regression lines of the varieties are almost identical. Ten days’ delay in planting results in shortening the period between planting and silking, 5.18 days for Oklahoma White Wonder, 4.62 days for Strawberry, 5.18 days for Chis- holm, 4.97 days for Surcropper, and 4.92 days for Ferguson Yellow Dent. CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 17 It is obvious from the data in Figure 2 that a variety of corn cannot be accurately described as a IOU-day, 120-day, or 150-day variety. Even when grown in the same locality, a variety of corn that requires 150 days t0 mature When planted 0n March 1 may require only 120 days to mature when planted on llilay 1. Also, a variety of corn that matures in 150 days when planted March 1 in North Texas may mature in con- siderably less time when planted on the same date in South Texas. These, however, are questions which deserve additional study. The main object in presenting the data from Temple is to show that time of planting is intimately related to time of silking, and hence to danger of injury by hot, dry Weather, and that differences in date of planting result in much smaller differences in date of silking and maturity. RELATION BETWEEN TIME OF PLANTING AND YIELD OF VARIETIES The general conclusions from the ten years’ test with corn have al- ready been presented. In this section of the Bulletin the detailed re- sults from each station are presented separately, with a discussion of the conditions under which the tests were made. On the basis of these detailed results, recommendations regarding time of planting and choice of varieties are made at the conclusion of the Bulletin for nine regions of Texas. The data are presented in the same order as the regions are numbered in the map (Figure 15) on page '70. Results at Troup Texas Substation No. 2 is located in Smith County, one mile north- east of Troup. The soil is Kirwin fine sandy loam and is typical of large areas in Northeast Texas. The average date of last killing frost at Troup, for a period of twenty-three years, is March 14. The average rainfall for the ten-year period covered by the test was 43.88 inches, of which 21.44 inches, or almost half, occurred during the five months, March to July, inclusive. v . Table 3 shows that the average dates of planting were March 25, April 8, and April 22, respectively. The difference of fourteen days between the early and medium plantings was accompanied by an average reduction in yield of 2.3 bushels per acre. The averagedifference of fourteen days between the medium and late plantings, however, was associated with a gain of 1.3 bushels. These results are contrary to those of any other station and are probably partially due to the poorer stand of the medium plantings. The average of the date checks shows the late planting to be 1.5 bushels lower in yield than the medium planting. Table 3 shows further that the early plantings ranked first in five of the ten years, the medium planting first in one year, the late planting first in three years. while the early and late were equal in the remain- ing years. ~ 18 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURALEXPERIMENT STATION Tables 4L, 5, and 6 show the ranking of all varieties at three dates of planting. Ferguson Yellow Dent. Surcropper, Bloody Butcher, and Chisholm ranked above the median in each of the plantings, While Thomas, St. Charles White, Blount’s Prolific, and Oklahoma White Wonder were below the median in each planting. Table '7 gives the results of ranking the varieties on the basis of the average for all plantings. Surcropper, Chisholm, and Ferguson Yellow Dent are the three highest yielding varieties when all dates of planting are considered. Surcroppef‘ Chisholm Ferq us on Yellow Deni Davis Prolific §frawberry filooofy Bufcher" Has/in 9s Prolific OHa/woma W/Ii/e Wane/er‘ Virgin/a W/zi/e Den/ ~51 Char /e.5- W/n/e D loun is Prolific Thomas 1o 1s 2o Y/e/a’ in bus/vols Per- ache 6 Fig. 3.———The average yields of varieties in early, medium, and late plantings at Texas Sub- station No. 2, Troup. These results are applicable to the counties in Region No. 1 of the map (Fig. 1 19 CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS .00 000004 0523150.. @-.ml . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 v.0 0.0.[ 0.0] 0.0|| 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o0m0|:0:00.o0>0 0.0] 0.0] 0.0 0.01 0.0|1 0.0! 0.0 0.0.! 0.¢| 0.0] 0.0] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E=_.0§E->0$m 00.02% 000 00000000030000 0020250 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 v0 00 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.2-0080 0N0 00 0 00 0 00 00 00 0 00 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6000-50.00.02 000 00 000 00 0 00 00 00 00 v0 v0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .000:003E|>00wm0 000000000000 :0 000503.000 P0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.v0 0.000 0000 0.00 vv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Io0w10 000 000 0.00 0Y0 v.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0X00 0.v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E=00.o0>0 0 v0 0 00 0.00 0.00 v.00 0.00 0.00 0.v0 0 000 0 000 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000x010 030000005» 00w 0o @0002? 0.00 0.v0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 v.00 0.00 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z3000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 00.00 0.00 0.00 00.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E:0050>0. 0.00 0.00 v.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1330 5.000200. @0000. 0o $0200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.v0 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0500 0.v0 v.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.0v v.00 0.v0 000 0.00 0~v0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E:0060>0 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.v0 0.00 0 00 0.v0 0 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...%00wm0 00.0030 .0003 0on0 00 000004 00 000004 0 >32 0N 000004 00 000004 000 000004 00 000004 00000004 00 000004 00 00.0004 00 00004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 3x0 0 000.04 00 000004 00 00004 00 .032 00 00004 000 000004 0 000.04 0 000.04 0 000004 00 000.04., 0 00.0004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .000:00.o0>0 00 .0w0>0 00 .0w0>0 00 000004 0 .0w0>0 0 00004 0 000.004 00 .0w0>0 00 .0m0>0 v0 .0w0>0 00 .0m0>0* 00 .0m0>0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.8M 0000000000000 0o $0.000 0003204 v000 0000 0000 00000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 .9300. .0 .o70 coflmfimnsm 098.0. 020000800 3x0 0:00». .E:006E S0003 c0 300000000» 020w @0020“. 300. 0o .0320 Q0000?!“ 0.00s 653m 0.03 020 6000520 0o mBmQIum 000090. i _ . L h. w fl 90- 92 0.0: f3 . . :.:: w.00 N.0 . .. .0.0 0.:: 0.0 0.N: . . . . . . . . . . . ..........o0=o.~n: mbnucqm: b-.?.? . . . - ¢ . - - - . . - . . . - . - . - . - . - . . . . - - . . . - .. o-w w.” ...~.-l.........v€qwn :..:: v.00 0.N: 0.0: 0.0N 0.0 0:: 0.0 :.N: . . . . . . . . 120500? 5N: 0N0 :.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..w.0 0.: N.: 0.w . . . . . .. ofinkwwuiwnU 0m w.0: 0.0:. 0.0: .. .. .. .. . . . . . . . 10.0: 0.0 :.N: 0.w: . . . . . ......o0=o.~n:.m:>mn: w.0: 0.0:. w.0: 0.wN ..N.0w : 0 0.0: 0.0 0:: 0S 0.0 :.N: w.0 . . . . . . . . . . 150:0? 35>? 0500030 x . . . - ~ . . . . . .. . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0w: w.00 0.w: v2 w.00 0 0 0F 0.0: 0.0: 0N: :.0: :2: 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . ....ow::O.:n: mwqsfim N. 0: w.00 :20: w.NN 0.00 0 0: :.0: 0M0 0.0: N.N: 0.0: 0.: .0 N. ..........JE.@Q 32E» comamhfi: 0.: 0.00 :0: 0.0: 00w N 0 0 N: N.w: 0NN N.0: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IzphvnBwbm 0.: 5:0: 0.: :0: 0.00 0 0 0.w: 0 0: :: 0.:: 0.0N bw: N.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Eo.:wEU 0.0: w.::: 0.0: N.:N :.:w : 0: 0.w: N.wN 0.0: 0.:: 0.:: :..:N 0.0: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .50 c0950 0mm 0N0: 0N0: 0N0: wN0: 0N0: NNO: :N0: 0N0: 0:0: 0:0: 0:2.» 05:3 Lo>< 520a,? vfiooioU omficoohon: 0:06 hQQ 22:35 H: .Q::Q.:,H. .N .07: coflmwwnsm wmxoh. 622% 000.530 0cm $55G doS2bw> =0 05052:: 05:00:21.0 220:. .0 @020 no 032. 03x30. E 005.630 m: mEB.» us: mfiwouioo 0o 00:32: m1: h. .33 ma: 0o 02:5 3E5 on: 055:. 065035000 c3000 v53 sums? $52505 2m 0o mint: 0o 00:50 uiam o5 .30 0:2.» @0952“ o5 ha: 002.205 some 0o 32> 00.326 o5 $20020 i: 0002059. 3w .03wo:0c: wfliosgo owes: 39x6 $20.3 mfiwuooosm sm :58 203 m5.» 5052a 0000:0000“: 050* ‘I20 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 0.: 0.00: 0.: 0.0: 0.00 0:: hw: 0.0: w.m: :.: 0w: 0.wN 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......om3o>< 0w: :00 :50: 0.:N v.00 w.0 N0: .:m0: 0:: . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13590:. 0w: :00 0.0: . . . . . ..0m0: :0: N.:N N.w . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......3E>Pw2bwnUJm 0.0: :00 0.0: 0.0: v.00 0.0 w 0 w.:: 0.:: N..0N 0 0: oRN 0:. . . . . . . . . . . .......2ESm M05200: M UV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.: 0S0 :.w: . . . . . . . . . . ..0.w: 0.0: 0.0 0x: ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....o§:o.:...: wbcsflm: N.: 000 NE: :...0:..0.0w..w.::. 0:: .0.NN..N.0:..0.:.: 0K. 0.0: w.0 ..............s:.=¢>>2.._r,>§=o.02v_o w.: w 00 N0: . . . . . . : 0: 0 0: 0.NN 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10:60: 35>? @0590» 0.0: 0.00: 0 0: 0.NN 000 0:: 0.0: 0 NNZw 0: 0.0: 0.0 0.0N w.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E=..:¢.Eu :20: 0.00: 0.0: NWON 0.00 0.0 0.0: j . :90: :.w: 0 0: 0S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $232.0 00020: 0.0: 0.00: 0M0: w.0: 0.0N w.0: 0.N: 0.NN 0.0: 0.0: 0N: 0 0N 0.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000000350 0.0: 0.00: 0.0: 0.0N.. 00:1 0.w: N.w: 0.: 0 0N 0.N: . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.28m: 80:3? comsmhon: 0.NN 0.0N: w :N . l . . 0 0: 0 : h m: N00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dmzokn: M300: . 0mm 0N0: 0N0: 0N0: wN0: 0N0: NNO: :N0: 0N0: 0:0: 0:0: . £02.: *w=€fi Lo>< .3008»? wofiuwfioU 00300000.“: v.60 .80 22:35 a: 0:2? dflouh .N .07: coflmfinnm wmxPH 632% 000.63“ 05w 3:55 502.9, =w 00302.: hiwmlhw 030:. 21" CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..QwN-:O>< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..WNEQ§P @ aw . . . . .. .....@.x Mwiw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..U€.:Ohm m¢.wq:°@m w.w: :.n:. w.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . 19w w.w: w.w: 9w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..v.t::>Pmoim::U.:m w.:: 5mw w.m: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . .. . . .. w.:: 9:: w.w: 9w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :mm:: visa win??? :.w: www :.w: 9w: 9mm w: w.m: 9:: 5:: 9m: w.w: :.w: w.w . . . . . . . . . . 356B 33>? “E2330 w.w: #8 o.w: 9w: w.wm 9w 9w 5o: 9w: m.w: m.m: w.wm 9w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2E.:m umieém w.w: m.wm 5.w: ma». m2. 9o: w.w: . . . . . . . . . . ..m.:: :.m: 9:: 9w HH.......HflflfluflwflfiQwaaim >wosm w.w: : wm w :.: : :1: Q5 9:. w.w: w :: :.w: :8: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......b$.<>~:w :>: 5:.m 9w: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9w: 9m: 9:: 9m: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o¢::o.:n: Mrrwn: 9.w: 9mm: 9w: 5mm w.wm :.m: 9w: w.w: :6: 9w: 9cm w.wm 9w ..::....:...:$Q 2.58» cowsmhon: w.w: :48: 9w: 5:m w.wm :..w 5w: m.mm 9w: :.w: :.om w.wm 7m . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZSSEEU w m: m w: wm: :.om w.wm 9w: 9:: w.wm m.w: w.w: 5w: w.wm 9:: . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113a 285 own :mm: wmm: mmm: :mm: mmm: mmm: :mm: omm: m:m: w:m: E2.» mafia: J6>< 5o€w> UQQUmYHFVU wwficvohf: 30m 3Q Evian E E27 dsoC. .m .07: zofimfinsm maxvu. dfiww wnfinmi: 3.5: .:O.~ mofioifi/ zw :0 mEQQ» @w2@><|.: Baum. w.w: mi w.w: 9om :3 m.w w.:: w.w: 9:.: 9:: 9m: 9w: 5:1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ivwmho>< 9:: wéw 9m . . . . . . . . . . 19w 9w m.m 9w: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....oc:o.:n: mbnsoqm: 9m: miww 9m: 9m: :.wm m4. 9:. w.w 9m: . . . . .. . . . . . . ......wmEo.:,:. 9m: 9E 9:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..w.w w.w: 9w: w.w .. .333 mvianUdm 5:: o E .: :: mw: w.wm 9:. 9m: o w: 9:: 9:: 5w: 9o: 9:. .. 3:52,? 33>? “Efisxo . . . . . . . . . . - » . . . - . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . ¢ . . ..fi.€? . . . - . . - ‘ .-.--PQ®Q w.w: 9cm mmm: j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19m: 9: 9w: m.:: .............~..~.....~...~.o§:o.~n: mt/an: ...... 5w: 9mm w.w: w.mm #2 m.m: mw: . . . . . . . . . . 19w: mw: :..m: m.w .. .s=..€.m >w¢2m 9:.: : :.m w.w: :..w: fifi. :.w m: w.w: 9:1: we: w.wm m5: 5w .........m.... .. . .2.E2m uwizwm m.w: 0:5: m.w: w.w: w ww 9:. w.w: m.m: 9w: w.w: w.wm m.mm 9w . . . . . . . . Qnow: ao=firqom=whvm m.m: P2: m.m: :.:.m w.wm ww w.w: m.wm 90m m4: w.wm w.m: 9w fl.... 823.6 9:m o om: o :m w mm w.wm 9m: #2 w.wm m.m: w.:.: m5 w.wm 9w: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .6»: 285 l| own :mm: wmm: mmm: :mm: mmm: mmm: :mm: omm: m:m: w:m: E2.» mafia: J6>< 3viw> wBooEoU wmmwcufion: 0:01“ SQ 233E: c: v1.17 5:25P .m .07: flofimwwnsm mmxvh. £22k @982,“ was 3:53 iofiowfl?» =a .m.55..:a ofiwAIw 03mm. 22 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 8.—~The effect of time of planting on yields of different varieties, Texas Substation N0. 2, Troup, 1918-1927. Percentage gain'_or Yield in bushels per acre loss between plantings Variety Early- Early- Early Medium Late medium late Surcro er . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.9 19.5 21.0 3.2 11.1 Hastinpg’ Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.3 14.6 17.0 —10.4 4.3 his 0m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.6 17.8 19.2 -—- 4.3 3.2 Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.5 17.3 16.0 4.8 — 2.9 Ferguson Yellow Dent . . . . . . . . .. 19.0 16.7 18.2 —-l2.l — 4.2 Bloody Butcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.7 14.3 16.7 —-23.5 —10.7 St. Charles White . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.9 12.7 13.0 ——14.8 —12.8 Virginia White Dent . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.4 11.7 14.9 ——32.9 —l4.4 Oklahoma White Wonder . . . . . . . 17.2 13.4 14.7 —22.1 —14.5 Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.5 11.7 12.0 —19.3 -—17.2 Davis Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.0 13.4 15.8 ——39.1 —29.1 Blount’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17. 0 11 . 1 11 .3 —34. 7 —33.5 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.6 15.3 16.6 ——13.1 -—— 5.7 Table 8 shows the effect of late planting on different varieties. The effect varies from a reduction of 33.5 per cent in the case of Blount’s Prolific to a gain of 11.1 per cent in the case of Surcropper. In gen- eral, the varieties which produced the lowest average yields are those which suffered the greatest reduction from late planting. The most productive varieties suffered the least reduction or actually appeared to benefit from late planting. Results at Nacogdoches Substation No. 11 is located in Nacogdoches County, about one-half mile north of Nacogdoches. The soil is classed as Nacogdoches and Ruston fine sandy loam. The average date of the last killing frost in the spring is March 15 for the thirteen-year period, 1914-1926. The average rainfall for the ten-year period of the test was 51.77 inches, with 25.22 inches occurring during the growing season, from March to . July, inclusive. The yields of corn in this region fluctuate widely from year to year, due probably to irregularity in the distribution of rainfall, to large run- off loss, and to the fact that the upland soils, as typified by experimental plats on the station, show the effects of drouth very quickly. Lack of moisture is frequently a limiting factor in corn production, even though the average rainfall for this region would be ample for the corn crop were it favorably distributed and completely retained. The variety-date test of corn was conducted at Substation No. 11 every year of the ten-year period. Conditions affecting the test during this period have been as follows: In 1918, all varieties Were injured by drouth. In 1919, the late planting was severely damaged by the corn ear worm. In 1922, young corn plants in the medium and late plantings were severely damaged by a heavy storm on April 27. 1.1. ‘kg. 1.1. CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 23 In 1923, all plantings were damaged by heavy rains and low tempera- tures, the earlier plantings apparently suffering the greatest injury. In 1925, a pre-seasonal rainfall below normal, followed by a drouth during the growing season, caused a complete failure of some varieties. The average dates of planting for the ten-year period were March 8, March 23, and April 17, and the stands were 87.4, 85.4, and 85.8 per cent, respectively. The yields of the date cheeks were 12.9, 12.2, and $512795 gwfific 5/620: Wh/e 5/00/76‘ fiofific 5/06» Gram §u/’c/"0/0/0 6/" CA/Mo/m ZZZZ”Z>ZZ/ ‘iififif 75.‘; a. §//'aw.5erry Mscoyo/ocfies V/ ' fsr/ m,‘ Mome: 4@O/,Um_ 2;??? [a/e_____ /7'or~/0n Cociek Pro/ME o 5 /0 A5 20 25 ~34 We/c/ in busfie/s per“ acre Fig. 4.-—'l‘he average yields of varieties in early, medium, and late plantings at Texas Sub- station No. 11,_ Nacogdoches. These results are applicable to the counties 1n Region N0. 2 of the map (Fig. 15). 24 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 0.0! 2.2! 022i mNl. 0m] m2 2.20‘ 2.0‘ N.m.l o.2NI| v.20 . . . . . . . . . . . .....B2-b§m 50' NN] 0 o1! 2.N m 2I| m 0 220 01ml mal 522' 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0202-E:22002 0.0] 0s]. 902i 20%| 0.0‘ 0.0! 0.2T wNla m2 0.0] 22.27! . . . . . . . ..........E:2200E|>2Q0m2 020202» E 000302.222. 0205mm 0.00 22 2m w», Nm 2w 0m 2m N20 n20 mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0202422Q0m2 o . mN 2 w 2N oN 2020 00 mm 0N w2 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0202..E32002 0.02 h mN 22 N2 2.2 o2 m2 m2 mN 2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . ......E:2200E|>2Q0m2 “2222220022 222 00002022220 $20G o.o2 2b mioN mtN 0.2.2 wd v.22 22.22 22m 2.2. w.m2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 02012 .0202 mK. m.2N Nmo N20 ma», 0H0 2.02 0.02 w.2N 0.0. . . . . . . . . . . . .....E:22002 0.02 Nm2 0.2m 0 2» m 0 m w 0 m2 0.0m 0.22 2.wN 2.22 . . . . . . . . . . .......>2Q0m2 232202.20.) 220 .20 02.202? 0.22 m0 méN mic 20d v.2. 9w 2.0.22 o.w2 N62 w.m2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 02012 N.N2 v.0 oJNN N.o 2.22 m6 m.o2 2062 20.02 NmoN m.m2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E0220022 m.N2 0.20 2iwN m6 v.0 23w m6 @222 n62 2~SN m.m2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.8M "$200220 023. .20 020202? 0.00 0.00 0mm» 00.2. 000 22w 00m 0.5 0.00 mNm 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . ................020w2 220w 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0m N. 2% .0100 N50 0.2.. 20.2% . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1225220022 0.5 0.02.. 2 5 2 hm h 0w o 2.0 0.00 0.20 0.0m N022 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . 1.122.232 2200020 2:00 Q02 n2 22224 om Q32 0 22.2220. 02 2254 w :54 m >02 20 >02 mN 22.2.24 02 22.54 202222.224 2.2 22.224 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0202 mN Q32 mN Q32 2 22.522 mN Q32 02 Q32 NN Q32 >2 Q32 02 Q32 oN Q32 mN Q32. 2 22.204 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252222002 w 2N2 2N2 a 2N2 Q .262 m. 3N2 m. R262 P H262 M R262 E 3N2 0V 2&2 H262 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QwTHNQ 0022.820 .20 0020C 0w0Q0>< R2 0N2 0002 0N2 0N2 NNm2 2Nm2 0N2 212.0202 0S2 00x02. 0052020 023 20:0 .EE200:Q . 002002000002 .22 .072 00220202225 .3200 E 002202.52» 20:0 $200220 0230 20 020202» 0m0Q0>0 2E0 .2530 2000 Q00 $520222 .20 030G116. 0220.2. g. E. 5 5 CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS . 25 111.6 bushels, compared to 16.0, 10.7, and 10.0 bushels for all varieties._ The yields of the date checks and all varieties are not in close agree- “? ment, although the yields of the three plantings rank alike in both series. Considering the average yield of all varieties, the early planting ranked first in seven of the ten years, a11d ranked second in the remaining three l years. The lower ranking of the early planting in 1923 is probably due to the poor stand, which averaged only 47.0 per cent. ' The average difference of 15.3 days between the early and the medium plantings is accompanied by a reduction in yield of 5.3 bushels or a loss of .35 bushels per day. The difference of 25.0 days between the medium and the late plantings, however, is associated with a decrease in yield of only .7 bushels, which is practically negligible. Tables 10, 11, 12, and 13 set forth the yields of all varieties for each planting and their averages for all plantings. Hastings’ Prolific, Brazos White, and Surcropper were above the median in each of the three plantings, while Strawberry and Cocke Prolific were below the median in each planting. Considering the averages of all plantings, Hastings’ Prolific, Brazos White, and Blount’s Prolific are the three highest rank- ing varieties in the order named. The variation in reaction to time of planting of all varieties is shown in Table 14. It may be noted that every variety in the test suffered loss -in productiveness by the delay in planting. This loss varied from E g 62.3 per cent in the case of Blue Grain to 5.6 per cent in Blount’s Prolific. It is noted that the varieties which suffered the greatest loss from late planting are also, with one or two exceptions, those which yielded above the average in the early planting. It is evident from the results of these tests that the maximum production in this region can be at- tained by early planting of late-maturing varieties, such as Blue Grain, Hastings’ Prolific, and Brazos White. If these varieties are to be grown, they must be planted early in order to avoid a loss of approximately 40 per cent. 26 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........Qmfl-U>< 00 000» 0.0 . .. . . . . . . . . . . ..v.00 0.0. 0.N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ioasobm oxuoU 0.0 0.000 0.0 0.0» 0.0N 0 0 0.0. 0.0 N.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0N . . . . . . . . . . .0250? 0:5,? 050002006 00 00v 0.N0 0.v 0.v0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3000.600 0M0 0€0v 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0N 0.N0 0.0N 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220E200. 0 0 0.vv 0.0 v.0 v.00 0.0 .0.0~ v.0 0.0 0.NN . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..w000000000w70 000 0.00 v.0 v.00 0.00 0.0 0.N 0.0 0Y0 0.00... 0.0N v.0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;C$n3w.50 0fl00 v~N0 0M0 0.0 . 0.0N. . 0M0 0N0 v.0 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5006 0:000 0.00 0.00 0 v 0.0 0M0 0.0 v.v .. ..0.00 00.00 v.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..000:00n0 M05005 0.00 0.00 0.00 N.00 0.00 00.0 0 0N 0.v 0.v 0.00 0.00 N00 0.N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000000 M0000wm00 0 00 v 00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0N 0.0N N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.....E0o00w00U 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.v 0.0N 0.0 0.0 00.0 0.0 v.00 0.00 0.0N 030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..00000>> 85:0 0.00 0.0.0 0.00 0.0 0.NN 0.0 0.v 00.0 0.v 0.00 0.00 0.0N 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...6000._3:0 0.N0 0X00 0.N0 0.0 0.0N 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0N 0.00 0.N0 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 100500 30:30 002005.00 00w vN00 0N00 0N00 0~N00 0N00 NN00 0N00 0N00 0000 0000 0.002% 00000.0 L030. 000053/ 00003000 00000000000 30w .50 2000005 :0 000007 ivnoowwoom Z .00 .070 0000032000 $00.0. £0.03.» 00020.6 0:8 00:00:“ 62000000, :0 .®0.0S0000Q Es000v0>0l.00 00000.0. 5E2? 0.5 00 $000304... 0.00 0.vN0 0.00 N.00 0.00 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0N 0.000 0.0N 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..00@.6>< 0.00 0.000 0.N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..N.00 . .0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.000000 000000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.v0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10000000 0.N0 N.00 0.N0 0.0 0.0N 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0N 0.2 v.v0 0.v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262? Q-m? Q-m m-m q-m . - . . - ‘ .0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N00 0...N00 0.00 . . . . ..0.0 0.00 0.0» N00 . . . . ..0.v . . . . Z0» 00 . . . . . . . . . . . ..00:00n0 P0500000 0A0; 0.000 0i0q0 0.00 0.0N 0M0 0.0~ 0.0 N00 0M0; 0.00 0.00.. 0.0 I MU..I.UUM.....00QQ 30000? cows0br0 0 00 0.000 v.00 0.0» 0.v0 0 0 0.0 N00 0 N0 0. 00 j . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..w@00oo00000wZ 0.00 N000 0i00 v.00 N.vN 0.0 v.00 0.00 N.v0 N.0N v.v 0Q 00 0 0N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E000wEU 0.00 v.000 0.00 N.0N 0.0N 0.v 0.N0 0.0 N00 0.00 0.00 v.0N 0.v0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z1000 003:0 0.00 0.000 0.00 N.00 0.0N v.0 0X0 v.0 0.00 0.0N 0.0N 0UON 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . ..000.co>> 035$ 0800000000 0.v0 0 00.0 W5 0.NN. 0.00 0.0 0.0 N00 N.0N N.0N 0.00 0 0N v.v IX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0003 35200 0i00 0.000 .00 v.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.NN 0.0N N.0N 0.00 . 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200E000 000002000 0.NN 0.0~v0 N.00 00.00 N.00 0.N 0.N0 0.0 v.v0 . . . . ..0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..00m0U0:0m0 00w vN00 0N00 0N00 0.N00 0N00 NN00 0N00 0N00 0000 0000 00000.» 00000.0 1:54 3000003/ 00000000000 0000060000 0.00M 00D 00000025 00w 50000000000070 .00 .070 00000002000 90x00. £00000» 00:25» 0.5.». 00:55 600000000» 00m 0000000000 %00wm0||.00 o0 00w P 7 2 m-h h.w - . - - - . - . - » - . . . - . - - - - - . -. -.¢-¢ . - - . . . . - . - .-O~.Y.F h-fi w~h - . . - - - - . ¢ -- - - . . ¢ ' . - . 0.00 0.0v 0.00 0.0 0.v0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .....:00.60.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0N 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 v.0 0~0N 0.00 0.00 N.0 MRI... . . . . .......w0E000.0. fi-o? §-$ .?-£ m-o f-fi 7-k4v .? . - . ' - - . . . . . - . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . Aha.@.€ @.@ Aa.@ ¢.§ é @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ....>.MHQQa.NHF@ 0.00 v.00 0.00 0.0 0 0N 0.N 0.0 0.v 0.00 0.v0 v.00 0.00 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . 100000,? 35>? 050002000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0 0N v.0 v.0 0.v 0.v 0.v0 0.00 0.0N 0.v ......_........0:000 30:0? 002.0000 N.N0 0.00 N.N0 0.0 v NN 0.N 0v 0.v v.0 0N00 0N0 N.NN 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250002.00 0.00 0.v00 0.00 0.00 00N v.N N0 0M0 0.00 0v0 000 0.0N v00. ........TIIIY........_000000.50 0.00 0.000 0N0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.v N v 0.00 . . . . 10.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....:00.0003m0 0.00 N000 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . ..v.0 0.v 0.0 0N0 . . . . ..0.0 0.00 N00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..000000n0 0.000000 N00 v.N00 N00 0.N0 0.NN 0.N 0.0 N.00 0.00 0.00 0.v0 0.0N 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10005,? 0000.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.0 N00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0N v.00 0.00 0.0N 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..000000.0n0..m0c$w000 000 vN00 0N00 0N00 0N00 0N00 NN00 0N00 0N00 0000 0000 S 002% 00000.0 J00>< 0000.03? A 00000200 0000000000 M 0.000 020 m0000w=n :0 002W T m. 0000000000070 .00 .070 0000009050 00x00. £0000 02000000 00000 .60 000000.50? =0 .00 000000 0000030100 200E S fi 0205M 0B0 00 000002.000 m H“ 0.00 0.0v 0.00 0.0 0.0N 0.N 0.0 0.0 v.00 0.00 0.0 0.v 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0m0._0>< V %.N. Aw.© .%.M~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..WQ§UO@@QQ.WZ N 0.v 0.00 0.v 0.0 0.00 v.0 0.N 0.0 0.0 000* 0.0 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..>:..x0a~:m R 0.v 0.00 v.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.0 v.0 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..00:0o.0n00x000 O 0.0 0.00 N.v 0.0 v 0N 0.0 v.0 0.0 0.v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....s0m.000:_m0 C 0.0 0.0v 0.0 0.0 v.0N v.0 0.0 0.00 0.N 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 .......I......0:0O 3000.0 0009000000 0M0 00v 0.0 0.N 0.0N v.N 0.N 0.v 0.0 0.00 0 0 0.0 v.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E000w000 0.0 0 0v 0.0 0.0 0.00 N.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.v0 0.0 0.0 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . 100003,? 025,? 00000030 0 0 00v v.N0 0.0 v.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000.600 0.0 00v 0.0 N.0 0.0N 0.0 v.0 0.00 0.00 v.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00800.0. 0.N0 N 00 0.N0 0.0 0.0N 0.0 v.v 0N0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 v.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...s000.s:_m 0.N0 0.000 0.N0 0.N 0.00 0.0 0.N 0.0 0.00 v.00 v.0 0.0 0.0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:03.0 00030000 0N00 0.000 0.00 N.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 v.00 0N0 0.00 0.0 N.0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10005,? 82:0 0 00 0.000 0.00 . . . . ..0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 . . . . ..0.0 0.00 0.0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300E000 P005000 . . 000 vN00 0N00 0N00 0N00 0N00 NN00 0N00 0N00 0000 0000 002% 0200.0 L0>< 000200? 000000.000 0000000000 0000 .000 0000035 :0 002V 000000000002 .00 .0 .70 000000300 @000 10.. £002.» 000.820 000 00:55 £202.50» =0 0500000 00§0|LN0 200.0. 28 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 14.-—The effect of time of planting on yields of different varieties, Texas Substation N0. 11, Nacogdoches, 1918-1927. _ _ Percentage gain or Yield in bushels per acre loss between plantings Variety _ Early- Early- Early Medium Late medium late Blount’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 10. 6 15.0 —25.4 —- 5.6 Horton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.8 8.9 9.4» —24.6 —20.3 Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.5 9.5 9.5 —24.0 —24.0 Brazos White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.8 11.5 13.1 —35.4 —26.4 Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.6 11.9 12.0 —28.3 —27.7 Cocke Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 5.9 7. 5 —44.3 —-29.2 Hastings’ Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.4 11.1 12.6 ——48.2 -—35.1 Ferguson Yellow Dent . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 . 12 .4 8.9 —13.9 —38.2 Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 10.3 7.4 —23.1 —44.8 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.4 11.3 8.9 —31.1 —45.7 Oklahoma White Wonder . . . . . .. 16.8 8.1 9.0 -—51.8 —46.4 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.9 9. 8 7.1 —34.2 —52.3 Blue Grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.0 10.4 8.3 -—52.7 —62.3 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.0 10.7 10.0 —33.1 -—37.5 Results at Beaumont Texas Substation No. 4 is located in Jefferson County, about six and one-half miles west of Beaumont. The soils are largely Crowley and Lake Charles clay. The precipitation in this region is very high, aver- aging 55.32 inches for the period 1918-1927. Of this amount, 23.90 inches fell during the growing season. The average date of last killing frost in the spring is February 23 for a period of twenty-nine years. However, the combination of heavy soils and high rainfall frequently renders early planting of crops impossible or results in a complete loss of the crop after planting. The early plantings are also subject to con- siderable damage by corn-root worms, as is amply illustrated by the sum~ mary of seasonal conditions affecting the experiment, as follows: _ In 1918, the medium and late plantings were complete failures and no yields were recorded. In 1919, the early planting was lost as a result of excessive rains and cold weather. No yields whatever are presented for 1920. The early planting was’ completely ruined by corn-root worms, the medium planting could not be made because of unfavorable Weather, while in the late planting only six to seventeen plants per plat survived and no accurate yield data could be obtained. In 1921, no test was conducted. In 1922, all plantings were abandoned because of heavy rains, which destroyed all varieties except a few plants of the Nacogdoches variety. In 1923, the early planting was submerged by rains and the soil re- mained too wet to make additional plantings. In 1924, the early planting was omitted on account of adverse weather conditions; the medium planting was completely destroyed by root worms, while the late planting was severely injured by these insects. In 1926, results are available only for the medium and late plantings. {QM W». ha‘ ‘ vwkipzugm.x ,.. 11.’ 41h _i. l<* $7 Minn “HM H wan WW I wmT wan wmfi WWW. HmHHHHHHHHHHHHHMKWWNMMHMWMWH“ we 1| H.w ll mic |l 3w 0Q l. HHH] Q8! ma l| Him I1 . . . . T . T . . wmzmmwflmgnmmawwafiHzmnm vm mm an Tm om ow Hm wH em J M H H H H H .. .. H .. H H H H .. ..w.flmn_vwm__w\_mwhwwwwfiHH E E 3. mm 3 m“ m3 m m3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E:__.@E-b$m mH wH wH m 0H “M53572 E véfififi. M>NO 9mm N3 $3 we? a?» ZN 9%. 9Q W.“ HxxmHHHHHHHHHHHHHHtQQQ mam 9mm 06m NH? NQN Pwm Pom ~23 mfiH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .€.:\2HH_u~wwMHM.~@ Hhm H. w“. w ww H M5 H 00H w mm a m5 m i: m M? 353m Hcoo Em EH =54 w =22. mm =2? 5 .22 mm .32 wm ..a2 an .32 3 :34 :..H H H H H H H .. H H H H H H H H H H .. . . .83 H»? 2.23% m3 v82 m: v52 Hm SW2 Hm v52 mH v52 wH _._w2* on v82 m: w$2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H.:.:~2Hw~mvm2 N. 5W2 mm huh mm huh mm v82 HH Q32 m .82 m. .52 HH .32 w .52 “M25353 T nwHwHwQ umm$>w R2 3.2 3&2 ma? 5.; 32 22 £2 hmETw AEQENHW wmozou diam GOUNHW 5x2 $52233 33 Hi8 55365 £22m“. E @2325? 22m Him 9322c 33. 2o 3am 5Q Evian c“ 2:2» wmwkfié can 653w 3.6a SQ afiésm 2o wfiwoldm v33. 35 CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS £5.95» 03¢ we 0mm??? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...QMN.MQ>< wow “mum .o~.m KI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . ¢ . . . . . . . . . hliiuoaoodmovaz hmfim ha? ........I who . . . . . .. whm ohv v.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. dis; wfibwnnvaw N. mm o.hw . . . .. . . . . . . . . . Nhm wfiw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..oc:o~m.m.oxuoU mhm woo i: . . . . .. wam Ném aem mam #3 m.» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2ESm mwizmm whm wQo . ME... mom whm NB? fihm 0.5» o4; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113E029 wow oHo . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wow How wdh ohH . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZEwEoAPV EEAEAU fi R o.wo oQN . . . . . . mwm 2K . . . . . .. 95 9% #2 . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . IEQQ 35>? wuirz/ ES W9: wow ...... H wm NH: 5mm 9% #8 F»: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IEQQ 30:»? nomsmgoh w wm F2: ..o om. hfiw ~hm oomu." wow wwh . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IEBQBwSw 9% 2N2 . mam ohm . . . . . . .. 1% w? .012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..£=8m $8.2m é . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..MQQQO.~UHH~@ hmom ‘we fimw LIIM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..._oo=o>? v23 wEonmEO w on obi . . 9Q ohm oow whm ma.“ mom . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zcsmawsmv E3550 wow hbofi . . . . . .. how . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE/SQZ wkooU Now obofi w..hN ohm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . ..@tn>Pwo~m~m ado w w: o wm . . . . . .. oww ohm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . , . , . . . . ‘ . . 4 . . . . . , . . . . . . . Inofiom .82 $2 $2 HQ: 52 32 Q22 22 gr» @522 again? WQQQQAQOU ommocofiom 32». 5Q Songs E 32> . dofiwom owwsoU .E.:wh coSmow Hafiz 532% wwwkwiw c5». _m:EE dfiooimk/ zw 32.2mm Eiwwzlumm 01GB dcowbw o?“ we omwhf/g.“ own N62 9mm how wem Nwm 2% “w? ohh m3 . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . ....@w~$>< wdm wow omhm .- hfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 4 . . . . ‘ . . . . . ....wosooomouwz @610. www fl mm Nhfi f: mhm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Q? 9: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IEQQ 35>? 25mg, whm Hho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. odm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IoZfiwZ @3000 mhm ohm wvmom . . . . . . .. own . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....ofin>P mouwhm mflw vmwo .... . . . . . . . . . . . .. whmfi . . . . . . .. wflh oquv moo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o:n>Pm3.5nU#m owm Nfiofl m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fi .mh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dczokm P3300 ohm h fiofi .. m . . . . . . . . . . .. hwm wfim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I o wv hhm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lloamfiehm wbnsfixm mom who~ ohm mo.“ hwm hhmvw miam wow oAm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ImwEonH N. om w o: w .8 . . . . .. “v.2 hhm i? v.3 5mm o4; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IQMEEQ mmizwm . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........~0QQQMOH5@ mimw m8: mSw . . . . . . .. wwH how . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........co€o$ 5mm mo: 1m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ohm . . . . . . .. ooh owm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IGwEonHv EoonfinU Nmwm mo: wkw flfim . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z6353 @355 mEonfixO w mm mbfl fimm . . . . . . 9mm #8 “Y? w? ohh 9mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IEQQ 32E» =3=wa§ mi" mafi w.hm . . . . . . wow mom :6 mom ohm own . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¢ . . . ..Eoma§.mv nzonmiU fi R. @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..>.MHQQBN.HQZ nfli 32 $2 $2 E2 32 22 £2 32> wqfiwu 3253/ oouoouuoU ummécoopom 95m 8a mflonwsn E 22V . as BULLETIN N0. s97, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ._ ... .... R a 1- u. o- n u- n0 wdfl c m .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..J_qoQo£a>? SE h? ®.MN M mw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Omw:Ohfl.m Qmmflsmdm ném w m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .333 352m 06w N. fi. whv Q2 1.1M................mmEon..-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wdm o. w. . . . . . . . . . . imwm 9w vdm . . . . Ivdm 53“ imm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........o¢:o.~m wbcsofim 1S m. w. mam wb w? #2 9mm wgm whm mam QAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........Eo§:...mv S15E30 QR w. m. aém Q3 mam 9mm 9mm fimm m6». Q5 e64 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IfiEO assw cowswuoh x. N. ...... - . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . - . - . . - . - . . 9mm w. v. wdm 9M2 . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....5wso>>ofln>>aEo:m_xO wmmm o. v. mdm 7cm wAm wvfi wém . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........fl.....cov~om @ @. mw. . . . . . . - . . . . . .......-- .... own R2 £2 $2 $2 $2 E2 0N2 22 £2 E22» E522 1:34 3eia> wowoufioU ommpcuohom 0.6M 5m @1525 E E2? . doSmM-m omo=oU .E.6.m coflmum 5E2 ifimw mnfiafin 09:3 .5.“ mofioifi/ zw Mo @301» owwgo><|laqm Baum. , dcwwfiw ~55 we vmw~o><... . . - - - . . . . . - - . . . - - . - v.3 9mm .. . . . . . . . . . m6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o>$mZ mkooU . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . . . ....... . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . .~..mUQOO@wQQGz mvfl 9mm 5mm . . .. ¢.m~ . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ofia>PmoNw~m o.@.? . .- §-£ o-N . - - . . - ..-. - . . . . - . . --|-oavéoofim v.2 MAv 5mm . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6955 wink’ mEonExO . . . . . ... &~-% . . . . ..... . . . . . . . ....w=UQ anvwimv? nMQWH~®kQm nbm fvv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wém . . . . . . .. wfim wqim m6 . . . . .........I....P...utn>Pmo1mnU Aw @.@§ . . . . . . . . . - . . . . .... .- .... ¢.@ . . . . . . . . - . . .. wfim mvv wfim . . . . . . .. wk; mvm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Iaoiom . l.» . - - . - - -. . - - . . . . . ¢ - . . . . . . . . . . . . 0mm 5mm wql QNH 9: oém 7mm... 7mm ovw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............>.~.~onBm.Sm . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ../ . . . . .....A=om:@kQmaE°;Wfi§U . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................~0Q OuOufiw whm whw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wvfi avm . . . . . . .. wbm ohw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........o¢:o~m 9153i wmw mhw 9mm . . . . . . .. v.w 9mm mvm wIfiw 53w To . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......wwEonP mém fliww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9mm v.3» 9m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ioczoum wbxooU . R2 $2 $2 g: 82 32 Q23 22 Bu?» mafia“ 5013/ 130330 owficoohom whom .82 Evian E E2? dofiwvm 3.220 .83..“ uomfifim EESH 630$ ommhrwm v5». Hanan £o$2§> =w Mo mafinfia ogudldnm vEflH CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 37 Table 25.—The effect of planting on yields of different varieties, Main Station Farm, College Station, 1918-1927. _ Percentage gain or Yield in bushels per acre loss between plantings Variety Early- Early- Early Medium Late medium late Virginia White Dent . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.3 21.5 20.5 10.2 ——10.2 C0cke’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.9 23.7 24.5 —18.0 —15.2 Blount’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.0 29.0 23.8 0.0 —17.9 Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.9 25.4 23.8 -—15.0 —20.4 St. Charles White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.3 21.5 20. 5 —21 . 3 ——24.9 Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 29.1 23.7 —— 9.6 —-—26.4 Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.3 20.1 15.3 ——— 9.9 —31.4 ChIShOlIII (Ferguson) . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.5 29.6 23.4 —14.2 —32.2 Horton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.5 32.9 21.6 1.2 —33.5 Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.1 28. 8 23.0 —-17. 9 -—34. 5 Brazos White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.3 30.2 17.2 14.8 —34.6 Chisholm (Thomas) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 26. 3 20.6 —20. 6 ——37.8 Hastings’ Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30. 7 25 2 19.0 —17.9 —38. 1 Ferguson Yellow Dent . . . . . . . . .. 33.3 27.8 19.9 —l6.5 -—-40.2 Oklahoma White Wonder . . . . . . . . 33.2 29. 5 19.7 ——11 .2 —-40. 7 Cook's Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.8 29.8 10.7 15.5 —58.5 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.9 i 28.7 21 7 -—— .7 ——24.9 Results at Angleton Substation No. 3 is located in Brazoria County, about three and one- half miles northeast of Anglcton. The soil, classed as Lake Charles and Edna clay and silt loam, is, in general, a heavy dark-gray to black clay, underlain by a subsoil of gummy clay, which varies from yellow to black in color. The region surrounding Angleton is extremely flat, with poor drainage. Experimental plats on the station, however, are fairly well drained, being in proximity to a large drainage system. The rainfall at Angleton is comparatively high, averaging 4'7 .99 inches annually for the ten-year period 1918-1927. The average monthly dis- tribution of the rainfall during this period would indicate that from the standpoint of rainfall alone the region is extremely well adapted to corn, the precipitation in June and July being rather high. In some regions corn produces maximum yields in seasons when the moisture supply is rather limited during the earlier development of the plants followed by abundant moisture during and after blooming. From this standpoint, conditions at Angleton would appear to be ideal. At first glance it would appear that the necessity of managing the crop to “beat the drouth” is not so urgent as in other regions of the State. Neverthe- less, the corn crop in this region frequently suffers from drouth as the result of unfavorable distribution of rainfall. Offsetting the abundant average moisture supply during the growing season are the facts that high rainfall and poor drainage sometimes delay farming operations and frequently make it impossible to plant corn at the optimum time or to cultivate at the most favorable periods. Another unfavorable factor is the prevalence of weevils, which fre- quently cause considerable damage to standing corn. The damage from this source appears to be unusually high in this region and suggests the 38 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION necessity of growing varieties With long heavy shucks, which serve as protection against insect damage. ‘ All three plantings were made every year at Angleton during the J Brazos fl/fiz/e Surcro/o/oer Tuxpan fies/my: I90 //r7¢ S/rawé e/vy lre/“gz/son )é//ow flen/ 750mm: ll/o. 527 V/ry/n/Za ”fi//e 0e n / i _ lr/or/oé lr/M/ eA/SAO/m _ Ok/aé Oma Wif/e %/7o/e/' 75 omas /1/<>.55/7 gggg u 3/ Char/es 16/ e "‘_ Wéi/‘e 0 5 /0 /5 2 0 25 5U Y/e/a/ /'/1 busfie/s loan acre Fig. 7.——The average yields of varieties in early, medium, and late plantings at Texas Sub- station No. 3, Angleton. These results are applicable to the counties in Region No. 5 of the map (Fig. 15). ten-year period, although there is considerable variation in the dates at which these were made. In 1924, four of the varieties failed to produce a satisfactory stand CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 39 in the first, planting of April 18 and were replanted on May 23. The yields of the medium and late plantings of these varieties have been omitted in determining the effect of time of planting on yield of differ- ent varieties, but have been included in comparing the average yields of the varieties for all plantings. Yields are reported in bushels of. shelled corn per acre, except those of 1921, which represent yields in bushels of ear corn per acre. Table 26 shows the dates of planting for every year in the test and a comparison of the annual and average yields of the date checks and other varieties. The average dates of planting were March 23, April 16, and May 1. The date checks produced 23.2, 22.5, and 19.4 bushels, re- spectively, in the three plantings, While the average for all varieties was 23.0, 20.8, and 18.2, respectively, These averages agree fairly closely and indicate that soil variability is not a disturbing factor when the entire ten-year period is considered. — The average difference of 24.5 days between the early and medium plantings was accompanied by an average reduction in yield of 2.1 bush- els per acre or .09 bushels for each day’s delay in planting. The average difference of 14.5 days between the medium and late plantings is asso- ciated with a further reduction in yield of 2.6 bushels or an average loss of .18 bushels per day, a loss twice as great as the loss between the early and medium plantings. Table 26 shows that the early planting made the highest yield in seven of the ten years, While it ranked third in the remaining three years, 1921, 1925, and 1927. Two of these years, 1921 and 1927, were char- acterized by the lowest May rainfall of the ten-year period, and it is probable that the earlier plantings were more severely injured by lack of moisture than thelater ones. In 1925 the average stand of the early planting was low, and this probably accounts for the low yield of the early planting. On the whole, however, there can be no doubt that over a period of years early plantings produce the higher yields in this region and that the reduction in yield due to late planting becomes more pronounced as the season advances. The yields for all varieties for each planting and the average yields for all plantings are shown in Tables 2'7, 28, 29, and 30. Brazos White, Surcropper, Hastings’ Prolific, and Tuxpan were among the most pro- ductive varieties in all plantings and are probably the best varieties for general planting in this region. St. Charles White, Oklahoma White Wonder, and Thomas 551'? were below the median in all three plant- ings and appear to be unadapted to the region. The other varieties included were low in some plantings and high in others and may possess merit under certain conditions. Table 31 shows that only one variety, Surcropper, made a higher yield in the medium planting than in the early, while in the late planting all varieties yielded less than in the early planting. There is considerable variation, however, in the reaction of different varieties to the effects of 40 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION late planting. Chisholm, Ferguson Yellow Dent, and St. Charles White suffered most, with a reduction of 36.8, 35.2, and 35.2 per cent, While Oklahoma White Wonder and Florida Flint were least afiected, with a reduction of 7.7 and 8.3 per cent, respectively. Since both of these varieties were also low in the early planting, however, their ability to produce proportionately higher yields in the late plantings does not bring them to first rank in the late planting. Of the four varieties ‘which gave the highest average yield in the early planting, Tuxpan suf- fered the greatest reduction, as a result of late planting, while Hastings’ Prolific, Brazos White, and Surcropper were about equal, with a reduc- tion of 11.8, 12.1, and 15.5 per cent, respectively. Since the Tuxpan variety is very generally grown in this region because of its heavy shucks, "which serves as a protection against weevil damage, and as this variety is reduced in yield more than the average by late planting, it would appear that early planting is particularly important in this region, in spite of the fact that rainfall is not a limiting factor to the extent that it is in other regions. 41 CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS .?-m m-Nlll m-mllll w.” -?~©I m-ml -n¢-.--un- - - - v u.oao\fimél%éa%.wm w ml 2d 2M 2N2 0.2] 2 m!» 2.8! 2&2] 92x1 2322]. 2H2 . . . . . . . ..v2m2-E::Qo2>2 I » . . - . - . » - - . . HEQ2> :2 oucohfimw m222gm2 9% mm mm m2» mm 2a mw 2% Q wm om . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . afiinQwm m 22 2N2 m2 m2 m om 2.2 2.2 3 2 m2 . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . _ ..w2w2-EE2.o2>2 m. 6N m2 w mm mm 3 3 o2 mm wm m2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E:225E->2Qwm2 "@5283 :2 wonuQobfiQ w>wn2 NM: mam Q52 222% N.» 2M2 2X2. ad w? 2.62 2Y3 . . . . . . . . . . . . 0X12 wbm w m2 Q2 mam N.w m.w2 mam m; n22“ 2am 5N2 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 22252252 22mm F2 i: 24mm 5N2 m m2 2. mm 2.» 2W3» wnm $62 . . . . . . . . . . iécwm uwu22w2Qw> 22m .20 muECw 23.2 3mm mim2 wfim o.o2 m8 2.w m.22 05m wflm 9N2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3x12 mam 225m 9N2 06m m.22 22.2w 2.3 m.m2 ma» 5mm Q2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1532322 N - . - . . . . . - o - - | . - . - . - ¢ --.u>é4%wm “$20220 33. 2o 3.22% 22w msm 22w... @502 21% mw.» 2.2% m? waw 22.25 0.2.2. 3x12 Qrww N23 9% 3W2 #3 21% msw N? NR2. 21R 2.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zaaQa2 m Q Ndm 2.262 21w 21% 2.2K. m? ....£ was 2&8 212w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..>2.am Qucfiw 25o .2002 2 >32 w 22QQ< w2 >32 2. >32 m». >32 o2 >32 m2 >32 a >32 m2 22:72 2 22.224 o2 2254 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .323 m2 22224 mm Q32 m. >32 2.32.5 om >32 2 22.522 mm 22.522 mm 22.54 9... Q32 a 22224. mm Q32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E32622 mm Q32 o2 Q32 mm 2254 3 Q32 w2 22.54 2. Q32 o2 Q32 m2 22542 m Q32 m2 Q32 22 Q32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $232 “wcicfia 2o mBwO @9203» 2N2 £2 $2 2&3 $2 NE: 2S2 82 22 22 5225228222 3S 2.28 .5331: do2u2wc< .m 672 coflmfinsm 288,2. Qmififl H22 wOfi-OTZE/ ZN USN $20220 QQNU a0 0.2.06 .622 22295 2.2m m2v2o2> QWNMQ>N USN MGSCMTR .20 MQHNQIAwN 0236...? ...... . ...a%.<.i1.n1......!iu ...... w.oN wad F8 f: w.NA www N.w w wA ... vN w w w Av A.wN N..NA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..wmm.$>< HE ...... i: ..... . .. .. .w......um..w.m..uiw..v.é.. NHHpNEHqu..m.xw_em._..__uem .w.N.A www 9S m4: ... w Nww w w o wA w.NN w w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N.Aww mwEoAAP mRA www 92 N.AA w.m owN we wwA N NN . . . . .. w wv w MN . . . . .. HABQ 35>? EEmEC/ miwA www w.N.A Q2 N.AA N.wN w.N.. w.wA wvm . . . . .. m . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Eww.AAw>/3An>? wEoAAwAvAO f: v.8 w oN o.N.A wwA w.AN N w A.vA v.NN N.N. 93v w.wN 06A W . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . IEAQAAwAAAU NMwA A.Nm NMwA N.wA wNA wNm A.N. i8 A wN A.w...o.ov o.vN A; .......nNwwmEoAArA. A.oN wwm w.N.N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .. N ov a vm 9w . . . . . . . fish wAEoAnA w.oN v.8 wNN NwA N..oA w.N.m A.w N..vA N. AN w w m.N.v . . . . . .. . . . . . . . m. . . . . . . . . . .. Ebwawbm wdN Q8 wNN N.wA 06A wmww v.w NRA wAN ow... Adv A.N.N n.NA .IN..............A.AAQD 302w? cownmhwh MANN Ni: EN m? A»: m? 9N 9S P5 A17. ME. . vua». wm... ....@ ............... ..2ESE Mwizwm w m». wwAA N.NN NwA wwA w.vw 92 w.AN v.Aw . . . . ...............ILMHASAAAN’? wovfim N..vN vwAA N. vN NNw wAA w N.v w AA A wN a wA P2 o Av mam o.vA . . . . . . . . . . . . . Icwnxsm. N.wN v.NNA mSN N.wN w.wA m? mNA N.AN v.8 N. oA wNv w wN w wN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Evnaopopsm vwm N.N@A wNmA wNmA vNmA wNwA NNwA ANwA wNmA 22 wAwA E2.» mafia J6>< 5253/ wBooioU omficoopwm Atom BAA Evian E E2? d32w=< .M.. .02 HAOAANQMQDW wmxwh. £30?» QMNNON/Q USN AGAAAAAAQ JQBQTANN/ ZN .NAA$A.ANAQ UAQNP BULLETIN NO. s97, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION mNN o.N.oA mNN f: wwA AwN N..NA m2 NFNw Aw adv www mi . . . . . . . . . , . , , . . . . . ....wmm.Ao>< N.wA Nww w.vN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ivvw .N..oN vwA . . . . . . . . IQAAAARAmQAAEsUAw v.2 ...? A.wA vwA v.N.A 92 A.AA wwA f...“ ....I. III IIMI . . . . . . . ..E..=.¢3@EEE>>~aoE.EEo i: NAm wwA w.wA mwA w wA wwA o.vA o ww n A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N.Aww waEoFA. A.oN wwm v2 v.vA w.wA N.AN N.AA v.vA vww . . . . . . . . . . .. N.wN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IAAEQ 35>? mAEwbNw wwN who wBN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . flIImNv nvw Nrw . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IAEHAEAVEQFA w.AN N..AoA wwN wdN wRA w.wA . . . . ..A.oN wdw AN www . . . . . . . . . . . . .. EQAAEWEHw wNN NvoA wNN wwA v.2 wwN w w . F»: vmm Aw Nvv w N.w w wA jflii. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N.Nm wmEoAAA. vwN NdoA avN wwN w.N.A w AN . A wN www vmN #9.. Aww msm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..EAoswAAAU w.wN A.oAA AwN N.wA i: N AN . . . . .. N..NN w Aw N. A w Nw www N.wN . . . . . . . . . . . . IAEQQ 30:0? nomswavh mivN wvAA A.wN NKwN o.NN h wN . . . . IvwN w Nw wA N..vv A.wN Nkow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IEAAQoAPEm wvN wvAA wvN N_.wA wAN w ow v12 w.oN ca». w.N. .. wwv. o wv aw . . . . . . . . . ..2.Eo._nA mmizmm wwN wdAA N.wN N.NN N.NN wwN v.vA o..NN oww . IZTT. .... . . . . . . . . . ..BE>?moNw._mA AwN oNNA A.wN w.wN NwA A ow w.N.A w NN v wN ... v w vv w Nv v.NN . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . InwaxPA. vwm R2 wNmA wNwA vNmA wNaA NNwA ANmA oNmA mAmA wAwA 32> 952 J6>< hwoisw QQAOQFAOU ommwcvawm Atom AQQ 20:25 E E2? 42 éAOAoAwAA< .m 67A cogfiwwsw 9281A. dwAuTA wmwhtrw AXE Aanccm fioioiAg A? wEfiAmAAA hAhwmAlflN QAAAPH. 43 0.33 w ww 363 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mwm o.w3 0.03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35>? $333230 3m 3&3 9% m4: @133 N33 2K ww W2 mi. ww IJQKXI . . . . . . . . . . . ..v3ww 22:053. w.w3 o.vw 3iv3 w.w3 w.w3 w mm 3 m 3.w3 v.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3.0.30.5w>?.m3.33.3>?.w333033m5O 3N2 v.8 3X33 v.2 3.2 3 wm w w w.3~3 v.w3 0.3“ 9Q Nfim 3.0m IN . . . . . . . . . . . .. E3o5w5U w m3 w mm awn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0&3» 3» mm w a . . . . . . . .. 3351.3 0303.873 w.m3 #8 33m 3.v3 Q33 v mm v.v 92 0.0m . . . . .. w.3w m3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150G 35>? 33033333? mam ii“ wdw 93m v.w3 w mm w.w v.w3 i... ww 3Y3 wwm 3.33 . . . . . . . . . . Ivmw $505.3. new 93$ W00 m on 3N3 3Q... we v.w3 31: vN w 3 mwm v..v3.. IIWIIILT5.0D.%.03_.~.> sowsw$w3 3.0m wwm mom N63 Q2 v.3 v.w 0.33 w.w3 we 3...? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533053035 w mm w wo3 wwm wdm m.w3 v.3w 3; 3.3.03 wwm m; m2. ma». w o3 03503.33 .2053“: 05m W83 9mm 3. mm 30...: mww 3N3 m.w3 o.v3 0.33 vww 5mm w.w3 IJKWIIIIITK . . . . . . ..cm0x:.3. new @333 @330 mam 3.1.3 3. vw 0&3 0.0m 34%. ma. m.fl~..w.3..w..mvw.. ~I...............U..U...$.3.3030.3=m a 3m w w33 w mm w mm wdm 0am w.o3 3am new . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35>? wSEm 0mm R2 0N2 $2 3&2 $2 NQ: 3N2 0N2 3333.03 w3m3 53> @532 J6>< 305w? 30.303300 0mm50030n3 030w .3033 £33223 :3 3.303? .H30.~0_M3.3< 1m .02 aosminsm $030.3. 63x30 M53533 00.33.33 30.3 mOMMOM3N> Zfl .30 203013 QMN3O>?m030m5U.3m f; mdw w.w3 v.3m w.v vem 3.6L. w.w wN 33m 31mm w.w3 3.0.33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IE305w5U m.w3 w.3v w.w3 NQN 31.. 31% ow ms 9m 3X3 vww 3.w3 N33 ...............300O 2,0330% aowsmfivh w.v3 v.ow w.3~3 3.wm Nwm wwm ow v.03 ad. v6 .....T.I . . . . . . . . . . . . ..v3wwmmE05F Aw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..>%,3.~@Q3N.~#@ m.v3 www v w3 3.vm 3.w3 mam ww 0.2 ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23030003,? 35>? 05052030 N.w3 0....» N.w3 3.0m N.v3 0.3m w.v 0a we 0.2 vww m3m 3.0.03 flflfl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:m0x0.3. v.w3 0x8 FM: mvm w.w3 mww 3.v 30.2 ww w v mimw w w3 3x2 m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vmw 3505B w.w3 o ww w mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mfiw w.w3 w. m3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1357.3 30103.3 w}: 3.3m w3m wwm m.w3 wfiw v.w w.w3 we . . . . .. 30$ 0.3 m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336G 035?? x3533? v.00 3x20 3 mm www 9N3 3.3 3.053 m.w3 m.v a w ma». i: 0.3m .II_.._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..30.3330.63:w 0.3m 3.0.02 w 3N @133» w.v3 w ww 3.v Q33 miw v m3 m? 0am 3:3: m. Ijw . . . . .2220 hmcfiwmi mam o 83 o 3N mam mam v mm 3.v mam 3.w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..35>? 853m 0mm R2 0Q: $2 $2 mfl: $2 3S3 0S3 @303 w3m3 303.03% M33333 J$>< 0330353? 3.030330U 0wm30o030n3 0.30m .333 23395 E 3.303? 5033035. .m. .073 cofiafinsw mamoh. 63.303? 0929:». 30cm 3x055 d0$033w> 3.3m $353050 o3ww3|ldm 05x13. 44 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 31.—The effect of time of planting on yields of different varieties, Texas Su No. 3, Angleton, 1918-1927. V a Percentage 1" Yield in bushels per acre loss between ~ Variety .; _ Early- t. : Early Medium Late medium ~ Virginia White Dent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.1 17.9 19.5 -—11.0 —- * Oklahoma White Wonder. . . . . . .. 19.4 18.5 17.9 —— 4.6 —-— Florida Flint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 20.1 18.8 —— 2.0 —-._ Thomas N0. 5517 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.5 17.8 17.3 -— 8.7 -—~ * Hastings’ Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.5 22.3 21.6 -— 9.0 — Brazos White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 23.5 22.5 — 8.2 — Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24. 5 26.2 20. 7 6.9 — Thomas No. 327 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.3 19.7 18.7 —11.7 — Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.8 20.8 17.3 —~ 4.6 — Tuxpan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.1 24.7 18.2 —— 5.4 — St. Charles White . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.2 12.1 11.8 —33.5 — Ferguson Yellow Dent . . . . . . . . . . . 23.6 20.9 15. 3 ——11 .4 — Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.4 19. 3 14.8 —17. 5 — Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.9 20.8 18 2 —- 9.2 — Results at Denton Texas Substation No. 6 is located in Denton County, about five I one-half miles northwest of Denton. The soil devoted to experim plats consists of Denton clay and San Saba clay. These soils are {it cult to handle during Wet weather and acorn planting is frequently layed, or cultivation neglected, as a result. The ‘growing seaso Denton begins rather late, the average date of last killing frost s?“ period of fourteen years falling on March 28. The average rainfall Q“ the ten-jyear period of the test Was 33.3’? inches, of which 15.64 inc or almost half-of the average total, occurred during the five mon March to July, inclusive. In spite of the fairly favorable distribu, of rainfall, the corn crop frequently suffers from drouth. Especi is this true when planting is delayed by cold, wet weather in the sp Conditions affecting the ten-year test conducted at Denton have Ff as follows: In 1921 and 1923, all varieties in the early planting were injured‘ cold weather and these were replanted as the “late” acre. In 1922, all plantings were severely injured by wet weather latej May. The seasons of 1924 and 1925 were two of the most unfavorablef record for corn production and the conditions are reflected by the” tremely low yield recorded in the test. In 1925, the three planti though nineteen and seventeen days apart, all germinated on the H; dav. In 1926 and 1927, only two plantings were made and, consequen the results of these two years have been omitted from all averages If ing the effects of time of planting. They have been included, how I in all averages shown in Table 36. t . Table 32 shows that the average dates of planting were March » i CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 45 April 4, and April 20. The difference of seventeen days between early and medium plantings was accompanied by a decrease in yield of 4.3 bushels, an average daily loss of .25 bushels per acre. The difference of sixteen days between the medium and late plantings Was associated with a further decrease ol’ 2.1 bushels per acre, 0r an average daily loss of .13 bushels. Table 372 further SllOWS that the early planting ranked first in seven of the ten years, WlIllO the medium planting ranked first in the remain- ing three. SU/“C/"O/O/Oef‘ f/‘e/"yz/son) tsurcro/oloer /@en/0n/ firaz 0s /fl//e _..__..__ Lll fl/oooj/Bu/CAQ» OM96 oma /V/7/'/e /Vo/7o/er' FQF 080/7 YeJ/ow Qe/z/ J/rawbe/"ry ‘ c/Wa/m/m i? f/romas Co/ra/zis )_€-//0W Dem‘ flas/énys Pro/Mic _ [@/;>/--_ a Afeoliurfl- i /. C7»: / " / __ Sat/Z as “e g 30 4U o /o 20 We/c/ m bus/ze/s per acre Fig. 8.—The average yields of varieties in early, mediuma and late plantings at Texas Sub ~ zstation No. 6, Denton. It should be noted that these varieties are ranked according to the average yields from 1918 to 1927, while the yields represented by the columns are those of 1918 to 1925. This accounts for the apparent misplacernent of Brazos White. These results are applicable to the counties in Region 6 of the map (Fig. 15 46 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Tables 33‘, 34, and 35 show the average yield 0f all varieties at three- dates of planting. Ferguson’s Surcropper, Denton Surcropper, Bloody Butcher, and Chisholm ranked above the median in all plantings, While Brazos White, St. Charles White, Hastings’ Prolific, Cowan’s Yellow‘ Dent, and Thomas were below the median in all plantings. It should be pointed out again i11 this connection, however, that in computing the averages in these three tables, the results of 1926 and. 1927 were omitted, while in the averages of Table 36 they are included. This accounts for some of the apparent disagreement of the results pre- sented in the tables. Brazos White, for example, ranks very low when only its 1924 and 1925 yields are considered, but ranks third among all varieties when the 1926 and 1927 results are included. This variety, apparently, is potentially a high producer, but is practically valueless in an unfavorable season. The results of 1924 and 1925 are particularly valuable in showing the ability of varieties to produce grain under drouth conditions. In both of those years the Ferguson and Denton selections of Surcropper pro- duced practically twice as much grain as the next high-yielding variety. Table 37 shows that the loss suffered as a result of late planting varies from 61.4 per cent in Thomas to 13.5 per cent in Ferguson’s Surcropper- In the case of Surcropper, there is no difference between the early and‘ medium plantings, and it appears that early planting of this variety is not essential. 47 CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS . . . . . . .. m. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ....Qwd~l~m~.3flm 3.m| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. o.3| $.34] w.m| m 3| m3] 3.0 3.m m.ml| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..033..3-E33352 mvfi!‘ w¢m . ¢ - ~ - . 1v m-T‘ N-N mum w 7 1| m-il fi-mllln mu“! h-fill . . . . . . . . . . ~ - - 303333 333 003533.33: 2235M %m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .UPN@I>%TMNQ m3 . . . . . . .. m3 >3 3 m 4N 33 .413 mm 3N . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .03m3|E:33.02 >3 w3 on 2 o3 33 2 om f m3 m3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .E333.0E:333mm3 um33cm35 3 000030333: $30G 0.333 . 34:34 o3 m: 34.33 v.3 33.03 33.4w n64 N34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113013 50m mbm . . . . . . .. oN m: Nhwm 9mm o.w3 534m 4.33m 3.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2333002 9mm mdm 4.3m m: 0.0 32mm 3mm @333 3.0m ma? 4N3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1523 $3303.84» :0 .30 333.33% 7mm wdm w: wmm wwm @343 n53 wwm @304 wfl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........03m13 0.0m 0.4m 3.94 o3 m3 mam 5mm 0.2 mam 9M4 0.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3333002 - . . . . . . . . - - . - - . . - - - ~ - "$30230 3m: 30 $033? 08m 3.34m wmwm 1K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.34m m.mo3 mama @803 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z0303 mmha 3.mo3 9mm IIZIIJ . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.3m 5mm 3503 c503 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2333002 N h w m: . - - > - . . . . . - ¢ . .- - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - - - 3.53m 300 .65 0N =34 . . . . . . . . S =54 2 =34 m 3M2 33 =54 2 =54 m4. =34 2 =54 mm =34 N254 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :33 4 :54 4 :54 4 3:354 om .302 mm :54 m :54 mm .32 33 :54 mm .32 mm .32 3 :54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133362 m3 n62 n3 v82 m3 .302 33 .32 m3 :54 mm n82 w .302 mm .32 33 .32 o3 3W2 om .302 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $330M 533333835 30 030D 50.1.54 “g3 023 0N2 3&3 3&2 Q53 3N3 82 @303 22 33033303 d .073 aofiminsm 338,3. $933035 0303 35m .3033: £3300 3 00:30:35 3E0 $300.30 03m: .30 $0303.» 0330.350 35w 333m 3:00 305 £03035 .30 n30 Ollflm 03330.3. 48 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION N. h. .........~............UWGMUP< ..... . . . . ... . . . . . . ..... ..... ....... . . . . . .......OH@H~3QQ_HN§U.H@ .Z. . @.... .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......-..O_....~:Ok@ ‘Mwfiiflmfi: v.2 N.mv om mom vNm m2 wé . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................Q~E>Pmonahm m2 v mv v.2 . . . . .. . . . . 12w v 2m N.mN cAN w.w_ vAN Niv . . . . . . . . Ziléaofl Bozo? PcwBoU NmoN mfimw om: 22m Tvv Nmc 9m 2 oN mNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IwaEoAF v NN Qmm w 2 mum Nbv N.o m5. Al». oéN 2.2 ma...“ wan o.v . . . . . . . . . . Zuowcok/ “SE3 “Eoqsxo o.mN i; 0.2 P? m3 v.2 9w méN m.2 v.2 9mm v.2“ N.v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............?a£>2$ wéN 9Q: ma“ mam w? w.N .92 vdN wam 0.2 mdN q? o.v . . . . . . . . . . Iidaofi aoazrnonéwhwm wdN N w: w 2N mum #3 m; 9m mam wan T2 9mm Q3 2.2 . . . . . . . . . . 8:52am TvN mé: 92 Nbv m/wm m2 wv Nhm mdN v.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........~ono..:m 352m v.vN m6: obN v.Nm w? NH v.2 95 13 mAN v.NN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . éBSQV “Znoazéw TwN iw: N mN m mm m Q w m #2 Q3 NdN new mam m? ~42 . . . . . . . . ..::é=.%wsmV BEEBS own vN2 82 mN2 2N2 mN2 NN2 2N2 oN2 22 22 V * Eur» “wmcfimk |$>< 2oim> wSbwEoU owficoohwm 96w 5a fluawsn E E2? dofiEQ d .o Z cofimwwnsm mmxoh. 632% ommbmz/m was 125cm dufiwifi/ sm .mc$cfia Eiwwzlém oEmH 609:2: won vN2 Es wN2 .3 333w? dimN #2: oAN mam NEE m.» o w v.mN NhN m.2 #3 m? v.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....wmw.$>< 92 who vmN w%m..wmwmiwfi...omwl . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Imm..........ofin3 woufim v.2 w.wv m.NN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ZoAN wam Nd .....otn>Pwo1mAU.~m 98 1% v.5 . . . . . . . . .. . m6 mAN 2.2 NAm mivw wv . . 051mm mwizwm wNN Y? #5 . . . ... . v.2 NflNN mbm ndN . . . . .;u1@m Q2 . . 4 . . . . . . . . IEQQ 30:0? PEwBoU méN 262 MR2 v.5 v.vw m.o 3N m.vN N.vN . . . . . ........émEonP TmN 262 w? o.wN $5 w.N va v.oN Nbm N62 w?“ Q? v.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . @=@Q.a¢__8w.=ow=w~@m NdN v.0: v.8 v.vN 02% Tm Pw P5 92 i: “Nam v.5 9w Esiqu mdN ca: 2.2 TNm w? w; ob v.mN HvN NAN ‘ . .. 8.33m $32M N.vN m4»: mbN w? PB v.2 N.m F3 fimm 92 . . . . .. $1? miNM . . . . . . . . . . 5:63 035$ aaezzo mvN m6: w NN N mN 2 vm m; N.N vAN wflN W2 cam 95 v.2 . . T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IFCQQQ/wbm TwN :2 N.mN <5 n.3, m w N 2 v mm v 2 5mm w?“ Ndw f: . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Eo8msmv bgasai . 2.0m N62 v.8 vdN N? o6 92 mdm w? mNN LYNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....€B.aov honaashaw own vN2 wN2 mN2 “N2 mN2 NN2 2N2 0N2 22 22 * 32> * wifit 1:54 3oiw> EQHOQMQOU vmmpcookofi whoa 5Q fionwsn E 32> 4255C d .oZ aoflwfimnsm mwxuh. £301» ommuuia wan Fauna iomuvifi/ zm .m=$n2@ 35ml. 6m Bnwh. 49 NEH wNw mdN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ..w.wH w.wm w.w . . . . . . .4553 wuHbfiHU=Hw &--§.? . . . . . ¢ - - . . . . . - . . . - . - . . .. %&.$ N-m .¢ - - ' - - - - - - - - ¢ u-.-.ogréovfim .2: wdh m1: .. . ......o.w v91. w.mN f: w.w HNm 9w ...............E@Q 32E» 9.8300 oHN www wdH wHm mhw N.o N.N w.oN odH . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Idwiosm. wNN was HMNN Q8 mmhm w; ma wSN NdH :2 :5 Nhw ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........EHoHHwH_HU mam n. w». mam 9E w? H.H o.» mHN wNH HMwH msm 92 H6 IN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......>:Ba2$ w.mN 5M3 w.mN >dm H on 0N 2w w? wNN HRH oBN mww we. .. ...~........HH5Q 302v? nowsmhoh mimN N? mtmN wwm Hdm 5o wN H.wN N.oN NEH NHm wwwl m.» . . . . . . . . . ......$H.co>? v2.55 “Eonmio %.@N@ Aw § @.@ . . . . .- .... . . . . .. . ../ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..¢~Q.§U.#:m >%vo°%m mhN wéoH m.mN wmm Hwm ad 9m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z353 wonwLmH w? NSoH wwN mHm w? o.@ wHH 2%. HMNN oHN msm . . . . . . ésflsov kumaohoém mbN mdoH mbN miwm m? H5 wHH *3, HHNN oHN N.mm w mm “.2 .. . . . . . . . . . .. Eom=whumv §Eo~2=w emu hNmH wNmH mNmH wNmH mNmH NNmH HNmH oNmH 2H: H22 . 22> mHHUmH J6>< kfioifi/ HvouomfioU uwwfinxtum 30w 5Q wHoHHmEH E 32> dSHSO d .oZ ccfifimnsw wmxoh. dofiww ma??? @023 3H modxoim> Ho 2:2} vmfiv><|¢m oEwrH. HSHEHQHHH Hon $2 Ho w:=$m* CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS HHwH HAK 92 w mw o H m m w wH NXHH w m: w wN m mw N w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iom~v6>< m6 mmN N.H w.mm H.o N.N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IuflHHk/woumhm c6 wow min mNw o.o wd w.mH wS . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ImwEoHHP w-m? m ¢ - . . . . . - . . . . . . . - u. w-w Him @.o . . . . . - - - . . . . -¢ - ' - . - . - . . wbH wbw ma: . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . INEH Nwhm n.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIQHHHHR/woimnflvdw H.@H o.wo H.mH fl . . . . . . . . .. w.H mNN N.wH o.wH o w Hwm @.N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lfipcom 30:»? muEBQU wHH m. m“. w.wH N.ww H.o v.0 ammH Nd Q3 w.HN o aw m. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....>:2Ha~bw i: fifi mdH m mw H.o w; H oH m; 06H wHm N. hw m N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15953 035$ wEo-HEVHO w.wH mdw mHH mHm. w.o 5m mNN wNH NMwH . . m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zhonfism 3.02m NNH H Hw abH NBN m.o wN mdN w.NH w.wH owN Hgmw h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . ........EHoHHwHnU 92 w Nw NbH ma». m... 5w oHN wNH NdH 5% 9Q ab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IHHBQ 3.5a? aiiwmwm mw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hQQQQhUH5@ mwN w NoH H oN o? H.m m6 adN 92 w mH m w», w mw H HH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Eczakomv sipaza vEma cNaH mNmH wNmH mNmH NNmH HNmH oNmH mHmH £2 izvtn ‘flwasfi LQ>< 3u€m> HvfiovboU wwmHcoohonH 96w 5m 20:35 E 32V . ;.@.?.,.m!rl. Y?‘ It! \ £0130“ .0 .oZ nowwawwmum munch 5.23M omwfizé H28 1.21.28 dowb1m> an iafinfin ufiwdldm o3“? .. 50 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 37.—The effect of time of planting on yields of different varieties, Texas Substatid N0. 6, Denton, 1918-1925. e _ Percentage gain or I Yield 1n bushels per acre loss between plantin Variety _ Early- Early- Early Medium Late medium late ’ Surcropper (Ferguson) . . . . . . . . . . . 28.1 28.1 24.3 0.0 —13.5 St. Charles White . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.7 16.9 15.8 ~— 9.6 —15.5 Ferguson Yellow Dent . . . . . . . . . . . 25.1 24. 6 19.6 — 2.0 —21.9 Surcropper (Denton) . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.1 27.7 23.4 —- 8.0 —-22.3 Hastin s’ Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20. 6 17.0 15.6 —17.5 —24.3 Chishom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.2 26.4 19.2 0.8 —26.7 Bloody Butcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.3 27.1 18. 8 3.0 ——28.5 Cowan’s Yellow Dent . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.8 18.9 16.1 —17.1 ——29.4 Oklahoma White Wonder . . . . . . . . 27.2 22. 7 18.5 ~16. 5 —32.0 Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.3 23.0 17.4 —15.8 -——36.3 Brazos White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.6 17.4 6.9 11.5 —55.8 Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.9 20.2 9.6 —18.9 —61.4 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.4 22.8 18.7 ——10.2 -—26.4 Results at Temple Texas Substation No. 5, in Bell County, was located, before its removall to a new site in 1927 and during the period of this test, about 4.5 miles , southwest of Temple. The soils on this location are dark-brown tovf black clays of the Simmons and Lewisville series. These soils are not strictly typical of the Blacklands region, but in other respects conditions- i; of Substation No. 5 are fairly representative of the region. The average i date of last killing frost for a period of 13 years is March 30. The- I average annual rainfall during the period of the test Was 36.98 inches,. ' of which 16.32 inches occurred during the months from March to July, .; inclusive. a i No results are available from Temple for the three years, 1925-1927, i} inclusive. In 1925, all varieties failed to produce ears and were cut for ‘ fodder. In 1926, only one planting was made, and in 1927, all plats were destroyed by root worms. The fact that no results from these- unfavorable years are included, causes the average yields from 1918- 1924 to be unusually high, though the averages of different varieties and’; different plantings are strictly comparable. Table 38 shows that the average dates of planting were March 10,. March 24, and April 12, respectively. The difference of 14 days between i. the early and the medium plantings was associated with a decrease in yield of 8.3 bushels, an average decrease of .59 bushels per day. On the- other hand, the difference of 19 days between the medium and the late- plantings resulted in an average gain of .7 bushels per acre. These . results, however, are contrary to those of the date checks, in which the same variety was planted at three different dates on each acre. In the‘ latter case the greater decrease resulted from the late planting. Tables 39, 40, and 41 show the yields of all varieties in each planting. Ferguson Yellow Dent, Surcropper, Mosshart Yellow Dent, and StraW--- berry ranked above the median in each planting while St. Charles White, CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 51 ILé/“yl/SO/I }’e//0W 090/ ii l —_— ‘Xgflfjjj’ Mossfiar/ Ye //on/ flen/ $//"aw6e/"Q/ V/Il/II/IAV/l/II/l/l/l/l/Aé? G fi . § yj/Ljzfw l, i‘ ig Chlwfio/m How/on W/ll/l/AV/ll/l/Il/ll/l/l/Agl/A 512920.: fl/MQ '///////1 l/l/l/A’ ///////.|= e” $819798 50/976‘ V/Il/l/l/lf/l/l/l/l/AV/l/l/lfll VlllllllA/%flé OA/ ' % “Znder 6/0 ow PPM/fie 8 Char/es , ,‘ f / — - °”Y—— ”6//8 A/eayu/TL- __% mamas “f8 O /0 20 J0 40 50 Y/‘e/a’ in bus/ze/s per" acre Su§;%é§i;:§2f’ 2? °T'"ifi*pfif‘d»ifiisi 322331 i2r§a§%,%1i?a%§‘fe‘"& iii? iztilfiLinfinisegoEelfiif 5%; the map (Fig. 15). 52 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Thomas, Oklahoma White Wonder, and Blount’s Prolific were below the f median in each planting. Table 42 sets forth the average yields of each variety for all plantings. A Ferguson Yellow Dent, Surcropper, Mosshart Yellow Dent, Strawberry, and Gorham’s Yellow Dent are the five most productive varieties. Table 43 shows the eifect of time of planting on diiferent varieties. i The results are very conclusive in showing the superiority of the early » plantings. In each of the fourteen varieties included in the test, the _ early planting was more productive than either the medium or the late. i.” The decrease in yield resulting from late planting ranged from 8.8 per cent in Blount’s Prolific to 31.2 per cent in Thomas. The four most promising varieties, Ferguson Yellow Dent, Surcropper, Mosshart Yel- y. low Dent, and Strawberry show an average reduction of 16.3 per cent as a result of late planting. Table 38. ——Dates of planting, and average yields of date checks and varieties in early, medium and late plantings, Texas Substation No. 5, Temple. 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 Av. Dates of planting: Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 20 Mar. 1 Mar. 1 Mar. 3 Mar. 6 Mar. 12 Mar. 27 Mar. 10 Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . April 9 Mar. 13 Mar. 13 Mar. 17 Mar. 13 Mar. 23 April 16 Mar. 24 Late . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 25 April 5 Mar. 29 Mar. 31 April 11 April 6 May 6 April 12 Yields of date checks: Early . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.8 52.0 43 5 9.0 37.6 43. 39.2 Medium . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.4 48.7 48 6 53.1 37.3 42.5 28 5 37.4 Late . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.2 48.5 4O 1 3 23.5 38. 32.4 Yields of all varieties: arly . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.7 56.4 58.1 46.5 38.3 42.4 32.9 39.6 Medium . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.7 41.0 38.0 50.4 30.0 32.9 24.8 31.3 Late . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.4 49.9 43.0 53.1 25.6 38 1 14.0 32.0 Days difference in plant- 1ng: Early-medium . . . . . . . 2O 12 12 14 7 11 20 14 Medium-late . . . . . . . . 16 23 16 14 29 14 20 19 Early-late . . . . . . . . . . . 36 35 28 28 36 25 40 33 Bushels difference in yield: a Early-medium . . . . . .. —1.0 ——l5.4 —20. 1 3.9 —8.3 —9.5 —8.1 —8.3 Medium-late . . . . . . .. —-1.3 8.9 5.0 2.7 —-4.4 5.2 —-10.8 0.7 Early-late . . . . . . . . . .. -2.3 —— 6.5 —-15 1 6.6 -—12.7 ——4.3 —-18.9 ——7.6 53 CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS Q .......-.......-..-..--Q@NHQ>< mmo 0.00 moo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. omm mmm m.0 .IIIZJII...K._..o2n>Pno:.:w:Uaw wwo o.0v woo o0: v.wo . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIéwEonP mwo o.ov mwo o.vo omo who oww woo www 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5363 @232» mEoAwEO . - . - . . - . - . . - . ~ ¢ - . . - . - . . . . . . . - 0.oo 0ow woo v.0m wmm o6: mww v.0m . . . . . . .. no . . . . . . . . . . ................o.:n2/ mouwpm: moo wow 5oo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o.:w m.o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........oo:o~m mbcsofim . . . . . . .. ..2-.-..--§-¢-¢-?M0Eh@mw .1 ..1 - ' . - .- ---¢-...~.. v.:m wow v.:m 5:m 0.vm mmo mmw w.mm méw ms . . . . . . . . . . . ......Aqom:w.~ob0 §Eonz=m 5mm mmo 5mm who 04m w.0m mam wwm mmw v.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.223.: e219 comsmuwh 5mm mmo mwm 98 vmm 0.wm owm 0.mw ooo asswtmfimowé mmmm mwo mmm 0mm moo mmm w.ow 00w 50w m0 .. K . . . . . ..H....E_2_w£u o mm moo wmm mmo mom 5wm wAm . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..cofio:|: 9mm v.00: 5vm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. o.vm mAm 0.ww wAm v.0 . . . . . . . . . . Z1250: z/ooowwmubwnhofi owfiv>< woo: moo: ooo: 82 coo: 22 £2 32> m5?! 5253/ wufixrioU omfidofiom whom :5 mfinwsn E 32 7 dEEoH d dZ coflfiwnsm mmxoh. £301» vwmhZ/a 38 dwsnqm dofiois.» mm $50520 ESSuQQ/HIAVA» vEmF . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - ¢ ooo mow ovo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . oom vow 5:1HmTMIJK.X...I...o2A>>wo_.:wnUam 50m 0.mw 5vo w.vo woo .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L . . . . . . . . . . . . .....mwEonP w.0m oow omo . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 mw wm .. . . . . . . . . . 220215: wbnsofi: . . . . ... @.§ . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ..A.MUE.~Nmv kQQQQhUhH-Z 5vm owo: w.wm o.om o.om mom 0.:w . . . . . . ... . . . . . ZXIHHXIIT. . . . . . . . . 1.1.55.8: o.om 0.0: v.0w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wwm w.ww mwm 0.5 v.0 . . . . . . .. . 28G KQEVFFEAWHEQU mom 0.0: mom 50m mmw wmm v.mw woo 0.o0 m: .L..fl....flfl..mvuawv?.wfin>P “E2120 50w mm: 50w 5mm 00w v.vm mmww o.0m vom 9w... . .....=Z.fiEu 50w wm: wow 5wo wom 0.vo m. E o wv w.vm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5228a h £32.: 00w vw: 00w v.om mmw mow w.0w 0.0m 5:0 om .....H....A=...m1w~@m0 $2286 mAw v.0: m? mom wmw w.vm 5mm W8 m.vw w0... . . . . . . . ......b:5a_w:m w? w.v: 0.ww wow v.vw w.ww wow o ow . owm . . . . J 25D Boafirzwammofi 5mw vAo: wom m.vm wow oom v.ww W5 o.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2332/ mSEm. 5ww wwo: 5ww mmm m.vw oow 50m : 0v w mm fi w . . .. 45G 30:»? comsmkoh ommhE/fi woo: moo: ooo: E2 ooo: 22 £2 32% mafia“ 52Hm> 300302.200 umficwohom whom 8n mmwnwsn E 32V 639.com. 6 .0 Z cofimunnflm munch. £301: ommhtww was i555 £202.28» =w $5233 ziwnmlhom 03mm. 54 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION . . $30204 , .5 . 0, 0.0 0.0.0. 0.0 , m.0m mAv v.mm 0.v0 0.0m . . . . . . . . . . . ...U...........m0E0..0P m.0m 00v 0.0m .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. 0.00 000 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00003001000 0w 0.0m m.00 m.mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. 0.m0 0.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........o0:0.0m 0.0000000 0.m0 m.00 0.m0 0.0m m.00 0.0m 0.00 0.00 0.00 v.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . ....00300>>o0003 0500030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......O@:O.~@ Mwflfiwwflm . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...-THQEH.NhQ m.00 0.00 0.00 0.0m 0.00 0.0m m.00 0.v0 . . . . m.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..000n>Pw0NwLm 000 0.00 m.00 0.0m 0.00 0.m0 0.00 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.000001 m~00 0.00 m.00 0.0m 0.00 0.00 0.00 m.00 0.00 0.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....E_0n2nU 0.00 0.000 0..v0 . . 0.00 0.00 m.00 0.00 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0020 30:0? 0.500000 . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . ---.---%Q-MQQ3“HPW 0.00 .0250 000 00m R00 0.00 0 ~00 0.00 000 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205G 30:0? 0000302 0 00 0.000 0 00 0 vm 0 00 0.00 0 00 v.00 m 00 v.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12000000050000000000 0.v0 v.000 0.v0 0.0m 0.00 0mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 v.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000m- 30:0? 00200090 000 0000 0m00 N000 0m00 0000 0000 0000 00.2% 0200.0 I00>< 0000000/ 000000.30 00300200 30m .000 200025 00 32 M. 0350M. .0 .0 Z 0000002000 936.0. .3020 0000520 00.50 .000 0000005.»? =0 00 0300.» omw$>> 0.033 0500030 0.00 m.00 m.0m 0.00 0.v0 0.2 0.00 m.00 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20033 0000.5 0 00 0.00 m.00 0 .00 v.0m 0.0m 0.m0 0.00 000 ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6020b» M02303 000 0.00 0 00 0.00 0 00 m 00 m.00 0 00 0 v0 0N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........E_00200U m.m0 0 00 0N0 0.00 000 0.0m v.v0 1000.. 0.00 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000030000 vm0 0~m0 000 0m0 0 00 00m 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000005 0.00 0 00 000 J v 0m 0.00 m 00 0.v0 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I0=0Q 80:0? 0.0000100 m.00 000 0 00 J1 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0m0 v.00 .m.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1220:0100 000000050 0.00 0.00 0.00 m 00 v.00 0.0m 0 00 0 00 0.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30:00- 20:81:05,002 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.0m 0.00 m.v0 m.00 000 0 00 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000C 3000.00 08:20.0 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 v.00 0.00 0 00 m.v0 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A00m:0.6h 00009650 om~00>< 0m00 0m00 0N2 0000 0m00 0000 0000 32% 0200.0 00010? 000000.000 omfiaontom . 0.80 .60 0000705 E 32 V 2050B .0 .0 Z 000000300 00x09 .032.» 000.520 300 R2000 .m202.8> =0 0000020 Q00A|IA0 030E CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 55 Table 43.——The effect of time of planting on yield of different varieties, Texas Substation No. 5, Temple, 1918-1924. _ _ Percentage gain'or Yield 1n bushels per acre loss between plantings Variety _ Early- Early- Early Medium Late medium late Blount's Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.8 29.3 28.1 —--4.9 —— 8.8 Surcropper (Farmer) . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.7 31.1 33.2 —15.2 -— 9.5 Surcropper (Ferguson . . . . . . . . . . . . 40. 6 31 .7 36. 1 -—21 . 9 —11 . 1 Horton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.1 35.2 32.7 —- 5.1 -—-11.9 Gorham’s Yellow Dent . . . . . . . . .. 39.2 35.6 33.1 — 9.2 ——15.6 Mosshart Yellow Dent . . . . . . . . . . . 41.6 33.1 33.4 —— 0.4 —19.7 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 40.1 33.5 31.9 ——16.5 ~20.4 Ferguson Yellow Dent . . . . . . . . . . . 44.1 33.1 35.0 ——24.9 —20.5 St. Charles White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.2 23. 6 22.9 ——l9.2 -—21.6 Hastings’ Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.1 28.9 31.3 —27.9 —21.9 Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.3 31.5 32.2 ——23. 7 —22.0 Oklahoma White Wonder . . . . . . . . 39. 3 28. 3 29.3 —28. 0 —25.5 Brazos White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43. 1 29. 0 30. 5 ——32. 7 -—29.2 Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.1 24.8 20.7 —17.6 —-31.2 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.6 31.3 32.0 —21.0 —-l9.2 Results at Beeville Texas Substation No. 1 is located in Bee County about 5.6 miles north- east of Beeville. The soils, Goliad loam and a 10am of a series not yet named, are typical of an extensive area, and are very productive in seasons of adequate rainfall. The growing season begins early, the average date of last killing frost for a period of 24 years falling on February 23. The limiting factor in corn production in this region is rainfall. The average precipitation for the ten-year period of the test was 31.61 inches, of which 13.37 inches occurred during the growing season, February to June. Furthermore, the rainfall is so distributed that the crop is sub- ject to drouth both at the beginning and at the end of the growing season. Planting is frequently delayed, or early growth retarded by lack of moisture in the spring and promising crops are often reduced by drouth in June. A study of the rainfall distribution indicates that early maturing varieties are needed in this region and suggests that early planting may not be as important as it is in other regions. Conditions affecting the ten-year test conducted at Beeville were as follows: All plantings sufiered from drouth in 1918, 1923, and 1927, and from chinch bug injury in 1926 and 1927. In 1924, through accident or error, the late planting was omitted. Consequently, in computing the average yields of each variety for three plantings, the data from the early and medium plantings in 1924 have also been omitted, though these data are shown in the tables. Table 44 shows that the average dates of planting were March 5, March 20, and April 6. The early planting ranked first in four of the ten years, the medium planting in four years, and the late planting in the two remaining years. The average yields of all varieties in'the three plantings show a slight superiority of the medium planting over 56 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Su/"c/“o/o/o er I TAO/ms /l/O55/7 imvlnmmzm $1,551.59; 1M’ Ewwlllmm / /// ////////41 %,/Z”ZVZ’Z/s f/r omds V s f/W ffiomw/ Sf/"dwéer/y’ Z/Z/f/IZ/cben/ WI/IZ IFe/"g USO/I )é//0W flen/ 7Z0mas /Vo.a27 l//////. Cfi/sfio/m flow/on Cocéefs‘ /}'0///7c IIIA /'%=*$//h9~» 904% Sf Cfiéfl/QS [ac/yi- n/Me W M€O//U/77_ B/aun/s floflflk Z/l/l/l/l/l/l 1/1/1/1/1/0/1/4/1/1/4 i 3 ~§ *2 S‘ 1,; Dxpan 1s 2o 25 3J5 O .5 l0 Mela’ in éus/re/s [oer acre Fig. 'l0.—-The average vielzls 0f varieties in eaily, medium, and late plantings at Texas Sub- station N0. 1, Beevllle. These results are applicable to the counties inlReglon N0. 8 of the map (Fig. 15) CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 57 the other two. The averages of the date checks during the same period, however, show the early planting to be the most productive. The differ- ence, though probably not significant, may be accounted for by the fact that the date checks were planted each year to a medium or later- maturing variety, while the test as a whole included many early varieties. The average difference of 15 days between the early and the medium plantings was associated with an average gain of 1.2 bushels per acre. The difference of 17 days between the medium and the late-plantings was accompanied by a loss of 2.1 bushels, or an average daily loss of .12 bushels. Table 45, 46, and 47 show the yields of all varieties at three dates of planting. Surcropper, Thomas, and Horton ranked above the median in all three plantings, while Hastings Prolific, St. Charles White, Tux- pan, and Blount’s Prolific were below the median in each planting. Considering all plantings together, the results in Table 48 show Sur- cropper, Thomas (T. S. No. 5517), and Reese Drouth Resister to be the highest-yielding varieties. It may be of interest to note that Thomas (T. S. No. 5517) is a selec- tion developed by the Beevjlle Station through ear-to-row breeding. It originated from the Thomas variety commonly grown in this region and shown in the tables as T. S. No. 327. The selection proved to be superior to the original in the early and medium plantings but was less productive in the late plantings. Table 49 shows the reaction of all varieties to delayed planting. The effects varied from a loss of 26.5 per cent in Thomas to a gain of 48.6 per cent in Virginia White Dent, these results showing a striking con- trast with those at other stations. It is noted, however, that the most productive varieties, Reese Drouth Resister, Thomas, Surcropper, and Horton, all show a loss in the late planting, though all but Thomas show a slight gain in the medium plantings as compared to the early. N m .8328 80%|?“ T A M 8.71 1o h o w. 2i w 0| ma! o NI. h w. w w hwl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .;38_-38M T ENI. vwnl h w|. w w l: . . . . . . .. h w] wAl o 7| h w w w N.w|| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o8_|c=3wu2 N N.“ w.w o w _ h|| #8] a... w.N| o 2| oo h A w.h . . . . . . . . . .........E~3woE-.»18M fl .23.» 3 vucvhomfl. 2215M M. Nw ow ww mN ow ow ow “a 0N 2w 3 .................I..B2-.:Em E h~ w~ N2 2 2 wN wN 2 Z hfl 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82-E=:z2 P 2 2 2N 2 m: 2 NN a m. .2 2N . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .E=:s&-z$m X @5228 3 oocokowmv mmmfi E L o.w~ w.w ~AN Ewfl . . . . . . .. h.w w.oN 0;“; EwN w.ww N.h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188A A #8 h.w wQN 8.2 h wN iii N.NN o3 “v.2 h.ww <2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233352 R i: N.w wAN w wN NAw ww p.18 0.: 8.2 w.ww m.h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1338M W $832.8.» :8 we $33? L W2 m.w wAN w 2 hww w w 9Q m3 TNN whw o w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68A % wk; w.h m3 2 2N o.Nw w h f: Nmhfi N.N~ P3 h I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133252 I .< oN w w h.2 h 8N oNw w 2 N 8 w oN w I w 2. N 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.38M % “$32? 38w we $33? A Nfiwman m Nw OXWG w.ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. wwwm. wKbw mlwm “w.ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . Ioumwm S P8,. o ww w wh w.ww fi ww o 3 o ww N8 w w: w.ww Eww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z3382 m a 2.... N 8 w.ww 1mm w 5 m 8 Nhm o 2w wAm a 2w w.ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sm E . T w =E< H =28 m :34 E .52 N 1.34 E :34 m. 1.54 mm .52 2 =54 h =54 2 E54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 7, 0N ~82 m: ~82 NN ~82 hfl .82 wfl 182 wN .82 w .82 w .U82 N 3.54 2N ~82 w E54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E=:z2 W. w .82 N .82 ~ 82 N .82 w .82 2 .82 2 AQm wN nah 8N .82 h .82 2 .82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...w_.:.w.=._w._mhwwwwvwwm O. . N N 88.354 hNwfi £2 82 £2 82 NNmH 2N2 0N2 22 22 I T E 88 dmE a . m» 6:30am J dwfcowfuwww 5m»; . a .m Q . % H. .33 v82 38 333.3 18¢ 3 mvfioifi/ 38 mxoono ‘.586 w E 3 m3 a 38 38$ wave .3 .333 we 38G] 3Q 038B B 58 59 CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS :.0N 0S0 0.0: v.0 0.vN v.0: 0.0N v.:: NNN 0.0: v.0: :5 v.0: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..om.w.~o>< 5N: v.:0 0.0: :.0:. N :~N 00 N0: . . . . I 0S: v.N :.v: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o::::o:n:.m.:c:o_m: . . . . . - . . . . . . . . » . . . . . .. AW- Q . . . - - . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . ' . - . - - . . . - . . .. --»¢ m.w: w m“. mifim. O.:~ QJvN ©.NH GAMN ©.W mint: O.M: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. OGZOMA: Mwimwmmm :.v: 0N0 0.:N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..:.0: 0.00 0.:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....:3:::>>ww:bw::UJm :2 :.00 :.0: v.0 0.NN 0.0N hHN 0.0: v.0N . 0.0: 0.v0 . . . . .. ..............§=6>>3EB weonsxo 0.0: v.:0 N0: 0N 0.vN N.NN 0.0N 0N: 0.: 0.0: 0.0 00v 0.0.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E_o=wEu 0.0N 0.00 :2 0.:: :Z0N 0.0: :.0N 0v: :.:N 0.0: 0.:: :..:.v NS: $300? comswhwh N.:N v.N0: NH: 0.0 0.NN v.0: :.0N 0.0: v.0N 0.0: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . .. ....>fi@n>>m.5m v.:N 0.00: 0.0: 0.0 N.NN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:350:00 :55 wmEonH. 0.NN v.00: :.0N . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 0.0N 0.0N 0.0: :.0v 0.0: . . . . . . . . . . . . ...:.:.N0.o7:.m..:.0 mmfiozh. N.NN 0S0: 0.0N . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. 0.00 :.00 0.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......ow:::o~n:m.vxuoU 0.NN 0.00: :.NN 0.0 0.0N :.0: . . . . .. 0v: . ......0.0v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................:ofio:: 0.NN 000: v0: hmh 0.0N 0.0: :.0N :_0 0.NN v.:N .:m...@.zQflmPozmuwv mafia: NmvN :.v:: 0.0N 0 0: 0.0N v.0N 0SNIh h: 0.0N 0.0: 0.0N 0.00 00: 000000350 00N 0.0N: v:N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 0.0N 11.0.0: . . . . . .wcwm:ofl_:>>miiw.a> v.0N 0.:v: 0.:N v.0: 0.NN . . . . .. .. .. . ................._o...wMwo.n:afizfiflowvvm: awn 0N0: 0N0: 0N0: vN0: 0N0: NNO: :N0: 0N0: 0:0: 0:0: 0:2.» 0522 95>»: 3oim> 030330 “@2880 30m .60 wfivnmsn a: 0:2? 6:30am: .: .0 Z cofiwuwnsm mmxoh. 632% owwht/w :25 Emacs .3325; =0 0:02:20 E3E2|0v Saw 1:. 0.0: 0.:0 N0: N.0 0.:N 0.0N N.:0 0.0 0.vN 0B: v.0: 0.00 0B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..vmm.~o>< N.:: :_v0 0.:: . . . . . . . . . . ..0.0N N.:N 0.0 0.0: . . . . ..0.N: 0.0 0.0 I..............~..1250?:mbqsofim: 0.: n00 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.: v.NN 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...amnxs.:. 0.0: 0.00 NS: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. v.0N 0.0N :.v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o0:o~n: Po ooU v.v: v.00 0.N: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.0N . . . . 10.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12am: v0.53 2E h> 0.0: 0.0N. 0.0: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..h.0N NSN 0.N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......ofin>Pm2.8:.:U¢m 0.: 0.v0 N.v: :.N N.0: 0.0N 0.0v 0.0 0.0N :0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ....u0::ob: .wm:5ww: 0.0: 0.00 0.0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0.vN 0.0N 0.:: v.00 v.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . I§N0 ozdwwvmmfionh. v.0: 0.00 :.v: N.0 0.NN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153530 40:30: owoom 0.0: N00 0.0N 0v 0W:N v.0N 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. ..._.IIIfiZIIIIflPIdofio: 0.0N 0.00 0.0: N. 0 N. 0: :.NN 0.:0 0.“. : 0N 0.0: 0.: N 0v 0 2 .. . 512E020 0.0N 0 00 0 0: 0.0 v.0N 0.0N 0 0N 0.0 0.NN 0.0N 0.0: 0.0v v.0: . . . . . . Gun: 3:50.00 nomnmhch Q.%§ §.@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . .. ..... . . . . .. .. . -.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..AW.NEO§F m WNEQgH 0.:N 0.00: 0.NN 0.v :.vN :.NN 0.:v v.0 0.vN . . .. 0.: 95. . ................~...:vco>> 85>? Qafisxo 0.:N 0.00: 0B: v.v v.0N v.0N v.:0 0.0 N.0N :0: . . . . .. ............IZKI.~...;€.6n3mbw 0.NN 0.00: h.:N 0.0 0.0: 0.0N N.vN v.0: 0.NN :.v: 0N0 00v N.N: . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. Hsgqakosa 0.v.m 0.0:: 0.0: 0.v :.0N v.0N 0.hN 0.0 0.0N 0.0N .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. C.:00 o7: w P0 mmEfii. vmw hN0: 0N0: 0N0: vN0: 0N0: NNO: :N0: 0N0: 0:0: 0:0: 32> 0:52 J$>< 03223/ 0309200 omwwcoopon: 98w .80 22:25 a: 0:2? dzt/wwm: .: .07: nomamfimnnw mmxoh. 630:2 owwhz/w :23 35min £o$oia> ::u 0:50:31: h:.:wm:ll.0v Baum. 60 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 6526M . m .02 nofiwwwnsm munch. £33m OUNMAK/N USN ~NH~GGG dofioimk» ZN énflafim Qwflwmul. Q3 92 21.8230 aw ........ . . . . .......O@§O.um QDW§MQMGM|H ma: 9mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........uc:o~m PoxooU v.2 wdmamh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......qofioi v.2 v.2 mv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....E~onmMnU $-m.? . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . - . - . . . - . - . . - . . . . . . . . . .°z -w -H\Q x-ON °.@ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aha uoN i -§? . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . - . - - . . . . . . . . . . . - ' . . . . . , . . . . . . . ~ . . mZQN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......%hhflfl>rflh.ww wdm av“ m6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lAmmEoaPqmuim/vmaioau. NAN 9mm o6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ihowcok/ “Si? nEonSxO vAN n63 mdfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . blilkwumwmwm AQEQ 303w wém To“ “to wfim o8 mQN . . . . . ..A:mm..mZ....PvwwEonP vdm vaw v.2 9mm Tmfi ovm v.2 w? adv 93 . . . . . . . . . . . .. QQQQEQEm www 52 32 $2 vfl: mmi a: Q2 32 22 £9 E2.» mafia Lv>< fioiwkw UQMOQaQOU wwwgcwohom 95m 5Q 221mm E 3.2? d=w>wom J dZ coflfiwnsm mmRoH dofiww mcficmim v35 ho.“ mufibiwk/ mm Ho 3:22 @m~$><|.wv 22mm. i: waw mi ma. 7g T2 .. 5m MYQN 0.2 fivm mimv NS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iumwho>< $.o? . . . - . . . . . . . . I - . . . . . - . . ..o.o . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..--.-HH.QQMH%—_H> vdfl wdm 9Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . llmlmfi wdm 9N .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ofinkwfiviwnnv um 9m.“ mhw o.: oh NNN n5 ......m.m NAN ob . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1053.5 Mmcflmwm oALA mkmw v.2 Tm ma: . . . . .. . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . .Q\.J@Mwomn~=o.~n~om@@fl ma; 3w“. my: J . . . . . . . . nlmiw . . . . Olmlm w.flfi vdm odv 9Q ..............m.m....o¢:o._m wbnsoum fi.@? fi x - . ALv-fi . . . . . . . . . . .- -... . . . . . . . . V . . . . . . . Q0QCII>IHH®Q$NHHW 0.x? m.“ . . . . .-o.w . - . . . . . - . - - ~u| ......-......-@§\.?mm .02 um urH% mi v3 w 5 fiv 9% #2 . .>.@ mam 9Q 50m mam 9w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........E:.fiu6 5M3 v.00 9mg vN wdm N.v~ . . . . Olmlm . . . . . . . . . . Indv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . 255.53 wdfi 0.8 TM: 9m v.2 mdfi . . . . .. miv Nam mMQN fimm 52v Th . . . . I . . . . . . . . IfiSQ 32E? qomnwhoh mdfi who odm . . . . . .. . . . . . Olmlmm N. m; héfl w.mv w.w . . . . . . . . . . . .. AhNmdZwmPvmmEosP wdw wvm ovfi wd mém . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . IIAmNEoBHUm avwmioah. v.2 ohm wvm . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . . . . ...h.vN Nhv mv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iouzopmfioxoonv >3 98H NAN h w 95. 9E . . . . . . 9w ham .. mam mam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q9263 3E3 @8520 vAN m.mo~ 0.: . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 1.50m .1205 . . . . . . . . . . . . .....pnuflofis>?w_cmmhfl> ~28 Q2: THN ma Thu v.8 . . . . .. q: #8 NMHN mam N? v.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......a.&%§=m 0mm R2 £2 $2 vfl: mmi uni S2 0N2 22 M32 E2» mafia» n6>< . hpoim? vouoouuoU omgnoouom whom 3Q flonmsn E Bu“? u. 2&8. ylww- 1.7..“ ""<é-C.»";.‘~ F, "i F " "“"'\ v“ ‘W??"'3 “-"7""’"‘ 37".’ vaawmq-m. w.,.<__<- "wn-wm- ~ "w . ~11»; 12km h 2r» . Q... CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 61 Table 49.—The effect of time of planting on yields of different varieties, Texas Substation No. 1, Beeville, 1918-1927. _ _ Percentage gain or ‘ Yield in bushels per acre loss between plantings Variety _ Early- Early- Early Medium Late medium late Virginia Whit_e Dent . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 25.6 21.4 77.8 48.6 Blount’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.2 12.7 16.2 13.4 47.7 Cocke’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.6 22.2 19.7 63.2 44.8 Thomas (N0. 327) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.3 22.0 19.3 20.2 5.5 Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22.6 24.2 21.9 7.1 -— 3.1 Oklahoma White Wonder . . . . . . . . 21.5 18. 7 20. 7 ——13.0 —— 3.7 Horton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.9 22.5 18.7 13.1 — 6.0 Thomas (W. H. Thomas) . . . . . . .. 21.4 21.4 19.6 0.0 — 8.4 Ferguson Yellow Dent . . . . . . . . . . . 20.6 20.5 18.8 -— 0.5 —— 8.7 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.3 18.9 18.3 —— 6.9 — 9.9 Tuxpan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.5 16.4 10.3 42.6 —l0.4 St. Charles White . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.3 17.1 12.4 11.8 —19.0 Hastings’ Prolific._ . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.5 16.5 13.6 — 5.7 —22.3 Reese Drouth Resistor . . . . . . . . . . . 19. 7 29.4 15.0 49.2 ——23.9 Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.9 21.2 16.4 —— 3.2 ——25.1 Thomas (No. 5517) . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24.5 22.7 18.0 —— 7.3 -—26.5 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.9 20.1 18.0 6.3 — 4.8 Results at Chillicothe Texas Substation No. 12 is located in Hardeman County 521 miles southwest of Chillicothe. The average annual rainfall for the period of the test was 28.14 inches, of which 14.35 inches occurred during the months of March to July, inclusive. The test at Chillicothe was conducted according to a somewhat differ- ent plan from those at other stations, being part of a test designed to compare the productiveness of corn and grain sorghums at six dates of planting. Only four varieties of corn were included and these were it - planted at successive intervals of approximately fifteen days, from March 15 to June 1. , The annual and corrected average yields of these four varieties for each planting are shown in Table 50. The percentage rating in this table was determined by dividing the average yield of a variety for any planting by the average yield of all varieties at all plantings for the same period of years. Mexican June made the highest yield in each of the six plantings, Surcropper ranked second in average yield, while Chisholm and Straw- berry were practically alike. All varieties showed a general reduction in yield as planting was delayed after March 15 and the average yields of the June 1 planting were 28.7 per cent lower than those of March 15. The data from Chillicothe, because they include six plantings, are particularly useful in showing the differences between varieties in their reaction to late planting. This is illustrated by the regression lines in Figure 12. These regression lines represent a statistical estimate, based on the nine years’ data in Table 50 of the average yields of each variety at any date of planting between March 15 and June 1. These lines show, not only that Mexican June is clearly the most productive variety, but also that it is less subject to reduction in yield 62 BULLETIN NO. 897, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION q _ fla/e pen/ad vap/e/y j Alex/can c/u/ze Mimi /5 SWZTOPP?" Sf/"dz/vber/"y C/z /Ls*/7 o/m V/I/II/l/AV/I/II/I/AV/Ifl — Mex/can c/u/ze Ap/v/ / Sew/upper‘ . S/rawb e/"ry *1’ e-f C/z/Ls/ro/m I llllllllllll lllllllllllllllllll llllilllllll k/Is/ex/cd/v c/z/ne - z/rcro per A/Ofl/ ['5 Sf/‘au/beg/“y C/r/lr/zo/xrv V/l/l/I/IAV/l/Il/I/Af/l/I/J, 45k x/can c/u/ze urcropp er- Aéy j Sf/"an/b erry Cfi/Lsfioh? gex/can da/ze " z/rc/"opper M’), f5 Sf/"dwber/y C/I/3/7 o/m Vl/I/Il/IAVI/I/l/l/AV/l/IA J/ex fad/v dame June j Sz/rc/"opper Sf/"a Wb e wry C/r/Ls/z o/m A z/e/‘aye Mex fcan c/u/‘ve d// L éfiiiiii/iflj" plan/my: C/z/S/i o/m e 0 /0 _ 15 2o 2.5 CoPrec/eJ.)7e/0/ //2 éusfie/s per’ acre. Fig. 11.—Yields of four varieties of corn at six dates of planting, Texas Substation No. 12,. Chillicothe. These results are applicable to Northwest Texas, and to the heavier soils in the counties of Region N0. 9 see map (Fig. 15). as a result of late planting. In this respect Sureropper ranks next, While Strawberry and Chisholm rank third and fourth, respectively. These results are rather convincing in refuting the opinion very com- monly expressed that June corn is most productive when planted later than other varieties of corn are oixlinarily planted. It is true, that the (life/renew in yield between June corn and other varieties become more pronounced and noticeable as planting is delayed, but so far as actual yields are concerned June corn resembles other varieties in making higher yields at earlier plantings. It differs from other varieties mainly in the degree of reduction that results from late planting. Although very little corn is grown in Hardeman County, the results from Chillicothe are useful in showing approximately What may be expected from corn in regions of Texas, that have an annual rainfall of less than 30 inches and are also subject to hot, dry Winds. CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 63 It is doubtful Whether any variety except Mexican June deserves con- sideration under these conditions and incidentally it may be mentioned that even this variety does not compare with the sorghums in grain production. l7 l Q) e M” W 156a $1 ‘g 11.06‘ P t, °\ $1.4 “s” We/aé m b f \ \ e161 I t, \ .9, é ll ll b \ C7 ‘e4 x5716 °4> \ "956 Es / l J / / / ‘March l5 A/o/v/ / 40/7/15 May 1 Md y [5 J1me 1 Dd/e 0/’ plan/fay Fig. 12.——The effect of time of planting corn on four varieties at Texas Substation No. 12» Qhllhcothe. These regljession lines which are based on the data in Table 50, illustrate the differences between varieties in their reaction to time of planting. 64 BULLETIN NO. 39')", TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION a w: . w . .. 9N: w w :...N :.w ma: w.w: :. : es 92 9N: . . .........25:. qwoiwe: Nw: www :.w: eeN w.w:_ ew: w N. 9w . . . . .. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wwfiw>< es Nww 9S w: :.w 9:: w w 9w . . . . ..w mrqw.HHHffwmmxnm..w..a:2:w:::u 9w New Ne: wwN :.w: ww w w N. wzvwawsw :23 :.:: Nsw w.w: esN Nw: 9w: w w. e.» . . . . .. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Qwwwwwfiww . w.e: w.w:: w.eN NwN wNN wwN w ww . . . . 1w .83 wwwiwe: w.N: www: wwN Nww 9w w.w: w Nw e.w :.wN :.N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zwwwhéwe w.2 www wwN eww :.N 9w: . :9N fie ww: w: ..........w.............r.....r.yuxxx...fi:owww:u 9:: :.:w wNN eww 9e w.:: w e. e w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . swwvwawbw w: wwe: w.N: www: w.:w :.ww we we: w ew w.e w.N: 9w ....:..::.:E2=w :.w: 9NN: NNw 9ww e2 N.:N . . . . .. Nw we :.w w .23 wwowse: 9w: eNw: NNw N.:w w. 9w e. ew w.w ws: 9:: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zwwwwwi: 92 w.:w eNN wwN w 9w :. :.w 9w N.N: 9w: MHJJAHHMHHHHHMHHHHHH . . . . . . ..E:w::w:::u w.:: www Nww w.:w w 9w w e.N 9N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....i$wa..::w : >22 :.w: Nww: w.wN www w 9w: :.: :.w N.w w.:: 9w: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qowweeww N.w: w.w:: wsw wew :.: 9:: . . . . .. N.w Nw: N.wN e. . . . . . . . .252. wwowse: N.N: :.ww ewN wwN w. 9:: :.w 9:. 9:: ew: 9w: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $w2w>< 9:: www :Hw: eeN 9N 9w 9N ws w.w 9w: w.:: HHQHJHHMMHMHHMMMKH . . . . . . ..E:2:2.:u w: E3: :1: w.:w w eN NwN w N.» e. 9w 9w: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jwbwwawsw 9N: www: N.wN NwN w ww: 9w ws 9w w.w: N.w: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qwwwobwww ww: Nww: NNw eNN w w.N: . . . . ..9:: ee: wwN 9w . . . . . . . . . . . . 125:. wfiweew w.w: www: NwN 9w . .:.N: ww 9N: N.w: w.w: :.:N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $wN$>< w.N: 99: 9NN e.N . . . . .. :.:: 9N w.N: www: 9N: wwN Hwm...“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E:2:m:::u . . . . .. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~%.~HQOT£INHHZ fi . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HQQQQ.MUH§@ we: 9w:: 9R wwN . . . . 19w: . . . . :e.w: 9w: ws: 9w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125w wwawwe: we: 9N2 ww: we: . . . . . . . . . . .. we 9w: e.w: :.w: 9w: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . niommho>< w.N: e.:w: w.w: w . . . . . . . . . . : Ne :.w w.NN 92 wwN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..E:2:m:::u . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~N2 9N: www 9:N w.w . . . . . . . . . . .. ew 9w: :.w w.N: N.eN y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......:2:.:83=w 92 www: e.:N w.:w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. :.wN e.:N 9w: 9w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138. wNonse: NNw: wNw: wNw: eNw: wNw: NNw: :Nw: wNw: w:w: 825E 32> mafia: w$wiw> BNQ wwwowboU wwwwcwo$m 0.6m 5:: 233:5 2M “#37 awxawwwu .N: dz =22$mw=w n33. $5222.: .3 wows“. n? 2w ww$o2w> .50.: “o wEoTw owmhtww was _w:::::<|.om oEwH CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 65 Results at Spur Texas Substation No. 7 is located in Dickens (lounty, one mile West of Spur. The soils, Abilene clay loam and Miles clay loam, are poten- tially very productive. The main limiting factor in corn production in this region is a lack of sufficient moisture at critical periods in the de- velopment of the corn plant, the average annual rainfall in the region being less than 22 inches. The average date of last killing frost in the spring for a period of 1'7 years falls on March 27. Average of’ n/ir/ . Vdr/ef/V . 5‘ u c o r" 40PM /6 chi/tiff’? Mex/can June J‘ fl/qy 6‘ er Alex/can June §ur~cr~opper li/Qy 17 Cfi/JfiO/fl? Mex/can Jone 5 dww / céfiifififivpe" fl/exicah a/urze Juror-op er Q/l/"e /4 C/r/s/ro/m p Alex/can June 5w‘ 0,0 r k/l/é/ 7 C/z/sc/zro/n/voe M ex/can L/Ufle A???” ézwppe" ‘ s o m fi/lan/fny Mea/x/can June '0 20 50 Yie/o/m busfie/s per acre Fig. 13.——Yields of three varieties of corn at six dates of planting in 1919, Texas Substation No. 7, Spur. A variety-date-of-planting test With corn was conducted at Spur from 1919 to 1923, inclusive. Because the dates of planting varied greatly from year to year, and some varieties Were grown only a single season, the results are difficult to interpret. It is possible_, however, to make an approximate summary for three varieties for the period 1919-1921. These are shown in Table 51. In addition to the data shown here, it may be mentioned that in 1922, four varieties planted on April 1'7 made a few ears, while eight varieties planted on May 3O were complete fail- ures. In 1923, Surcropper, Strawberry’, and Pioneer were complete 66 failures in two plantings, while three varieties of corn received from Colorado produced an average of 11.4 bushels per acre when planted on April 1 and an average of 7.7 bushels when planted on May ‘l These results considered in connection With those in Ta p that the earlier plantings are in general the more productive. The f data are less conclusive in indicating the most productive variety, al- though each of the averages in Table 49 shows Surcropper to be higher in yield than either Chisholm or Mexican June. be needed to substantiate such a conclusion. crop than the grain sorghums. Table 51.—Yields of three varieties at several dates of planting, Texas Substation No. 7, Spur. BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 1. ble 51 SlIOWD Further tests would... There is, however, very A. little justification for conducting additional experimental work with ,7 corn at Spur as it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the sorghums.’ are far superior to corn as a grain crop in this region. however, a number of counties in West Texas in which the soils are. predominantly sandy, where corn is proving to be a more satisfactory There are," i i 1 2 Average Yield in bushels per acre r Average date of Variety planting 1919 and 1919 1920 1921 1919-1920 1921 _ Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 16 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15. 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.9 11.9 . . . . . . .. 12.9 . . . . . . . . .. May 6 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.2 12.8 . . . . . . .. 19.0 . . . . . . . . .. Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.3 11.3 . . . . . . .. 17.3 . . . . . . . . .. Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.8 12.0 . . . . . . .. 16.4 . . . . . . . . .. Surcro per . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.2 . . . . . . .. .6 . . . . . . . . .. 10.9 May 17 Chisho m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.0 . . . . . . .. .0 . . . . . . . . .. 7.0 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.8 . . . . . . .. .3 . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 Surcro per . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 1 Chisho m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.3 22.6 .0 17.0 8.2 June 14 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.2 11.9 . . . . . . .. 7.6 . . . . . . . . .. Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.2 12.8 .7 7.0 2.5 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.2 15.8 .4 10.5 5.4 Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 7 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.1 17.2 16.2 10.0 all _ Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.5 12.4 . . . . . . .. 12.0 . . . . . . . . .. plantings Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.9 12.0 2. 12.0 7.4 CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 67 Results at Pecos Texas Substation No. 9, before its removal to a new site i11 1922 and during the period of the test here reported, was located 3.5 miles West of Pecos in Reeves County. The soil types on this location are Reeves silty clay loam and Reeves fine sandy loam. Crops in this region can ordinarily be grown only under irrigation, as the average annual rain- fall is less than 12 inches, although it was practically 15 inches during the three years covered by the test. Due to high temperatures, ex- cessive wind movement, and considerable evaporation, this region is less suitable to corn than other crops, even though the limited rainfall could be adequately supplemented by irrigation. d / - llFelgig/‘inyd e VdP/e/y Mex/can dune . My a4 §z;2;%/’"~ 5/rawbe/"ry__m Me x/ca/v c/un e A“ J1me e ‘§/7,§%27§f;"_’" S/‘ran/é erry___ Mex/can dune,” Q Suflcroppe/fl ‘Ame 3 C/v/s/ro/m ___1 S/rdwb e/"ry_._ llj/{ex/ban c/unew FC/‘O 9/‘___ JU/y 6 Cz/s/zo m/i mi Jfrawberr_y__ A/o. We/a’ Az/e rag e Me x/ban Jun e_ a// 5w" 0/" oppe r'__ (‘/2 "s h o / “m p/an/ihys‘ Sfr/"awbgr/y m( 0 l5 Cameo/e; fie/a/ in éuéofie/is- per acre. Fig. 14.—Yields of corn varieties at successive dates of planting at Texas Substation No. 9, Pecos. This corn was grown under partial irrigation. A variety date-test Was conducted at Pecos during the three years, 1919-1921, inclusive. Four varieties were included and four dates of planting are tested. The dates of planting were not identical each year but were sufliciently alike to be considered together in averaging the results. As Mexican June was the only variety grown every year, the average yields of this variety are used as a standard in computing the percentage rating and the corrected yields. Table 52 shows the results of the three years’ test at Pecos. Mexican June is clearly the most productive variety, exceeding all other varieties 68 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in average yields for each of the four comparisons and in actual yields in ten of the eleven individual comparisons. . The efiects of time of planting are not so pronounced. The yields of I Mexican June are practically identical at each of the four dates of planting. Other varieties show a slight decrease as planting is delayed, though the highest average yield for all varieties combined occurs in f. the second planting. Table 52.—Annual and average yields _of four varieties at four dates of planting, Texas Substation No. 9, Pecos. Average _ Yield in bushels per acre date of Variety Percentage Cor rected ' planting rating yield - " 1919 1920 1921 Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.1 16.9 *12.2 98.1 10.4 Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.5 T 8.4 84.8 9.0 May 24 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.8 2.8 Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.2 15.4 1.6 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2 14.2 7.3 74.5 7.9 Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.3 23.2 * 6.7 104.7 11.1 Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.1 1' 2.6 100.0 10.6 June 8 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.2 1.3 Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 6.4 .7 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2 22.2 3.3 86.8 9.2 Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.5 16.3 * 4.5 101.9 10.8 Surcro per . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.8 T 2.9 62.7 6.6 June 23 Chishom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.5 .9 Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5.1 .5 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.1 14.0 2.6 71.7 7.6 Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.8 6.7 . . . . . . .. 100.0 11.2 Surcro per . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..'. . . . . . . .. 3.9 . . . . . . .. 24.7 2.6 July 8 Chishom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. _1.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.2 2.4 Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.8 ' 5.3 . . . . . . .. 62.5 6.6 Mexican June . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.2 15.8 * 7.8 100.0 10.6 1. Average Surcropper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.1 1' 4.6 71.2 7.5 all hisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.1 1.8 I; plantings Strawberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 9.0 1.0 *Average three strains. TAverage two strains. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ~ The writer of this Bulletin is responsible only for the interpretation g given the data. Credit for the planning and direction of this experi- F; ment should go to Mr. A. B. Conner, who planned and directed the Work from 1918 to 1923, and to Mr. E. B. Reynolds, under Whose super- vision the experiment has been continued since 1923. Particular credit is due the superintendents and former superintendents of the substations who performed the field operations and collected the‘ data. The size of this task may be appreciated when it is considered that this test involved a total of approximately 300 acres under controlled experi- i‘ mental conditions and comprised over 4,000 individual plats. CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 69 Sections of the Bulletin dealing with the results of each station separately have been read and approved by the present superintendents of the respective stations, and former superintendents Who are still mem- bers of the staff. In this connection the writer Wishes to acknowledge the assistance and helpful suggestions of Messrs. R. A. Hall, P. R. J ohn- son, R. H. Stansel, It. H. Wyche, Henry Dunlavy, P. B. Dunkle, R. E. Dickson, J. J. Bayles, H. F. Morris, J. R. Quinby, G. T. McNess, D. T.. Killough, and H. E. Rea. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1. A comparison of the yield of corn planted at different dates in eleven localities of Texas, shows that early-planted corn is usually more productive than medium-planted corn and practically always more pro- ductive than late-planted corn. 2. The loss in yield due to late planting varies with the season, the variety, and the locality. In general, the optimum time of planting is approximately the same as the average date of last frost. 3. There is an intimate relationship between time of planting and date of silking. The later that corn is planted the shorter is the period between planting and silking. 4. Some varieties of corn exhibit a wide range of adaptation to regional conditions and are almost equally productive in all regions of the State. Other varieties exhibit a medium or narrow range of regional adaptation and are productive in some regions and inferior in others. 5. Some varieties exhibit a wide range of adaptation to seasonal conditions, being only slightly affected by time of planting; others are greatly affected by time of plan ting. 6. Maximum yields of corn can be obtained only by planting at the optimum time and growing varieties which are well adapted to the region. '7. On the basis of the experimental results reported in this Bulletin, recommendations regarding time of planting and choice of varieties are made for various regions in Texas: These regions, which are shown in figure 15, were determined on the basis of soil type, rainfall, and temperature, which are undoubtedly the main factors affecting the adaptability of corn varieties in Texas. This division is necessarily rather arbitrary but in general the counties Within each region resemble each other more closely than they resemble counties in other regions. It may be noted that the figures for rainfall, average annual tempera- ture, and average date of last frost show the approximate range Within each region. In the case of rainfall, the lower figure applies to the western part of the region, the higher figure to the eastern part. In the case of average temperature and date of last frost, the lower figure applies to the southern part of the region and the higher figure to the northern part. In other words, the rainfall decreases from east to west while the meanannual temperature decreases from north to south and 70 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION - the average date of last frost becomes increasingly later from north a south. ‘ Ti- A brief description of the conditions in each region, together wit? recommendations regarding the time of planting and the choice o varieties follows: a Fig. 15.——Map_showing the regions to which the egrperimental results presented _in t Bulletin are applicable. Black dots indicate the location of the experimental tests 1n ca. region . Region No. 1 Location: Northeast Texas. . Soils: Shallow, light colored, fine sandy loams on clay subsoil. Average annual rainfall: 40-47 inches. Average annual temperature: 64°-65° F. Average date last frost: March 15-March 25. Optimum planting time: Same as last frost date. Varieties for maximum yield: Davis Prolific, early planting; Sur cropper, late planting; Chisholm, medium or late planting. a CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 71 Varieties for early planting: Davis Prolific, Ferguson Yellow Dent, Surcropper. Varieties for medium planting: Surcropper, Chisholm, Strawberry. Varieties for late planting: Surcropper, Chisholm, Ferguson Yellow Dent. Varieties for all planting dates: Surcropper, Chisholm, Ferguson Yellow Dent. Region N0. 2 Location: Central East Texas. Soils: Mainly fine sandy loams, underlain by very nearly impervious subsoil, in southern part, considerable areas of red sandy soils. Average annual rainfall: 40-50 inches. Average annual temperature: 66°-67° F. Average date last frost: March 5-March 15. Optimum planting time: Same as last frost date. Varieties for maximum yield: Blue Grain, early planting; Hastings Prolific, early planting; Brazos White, early planting. Varieties for early planting: Blue Grain, Hastings’ Prolific, Brazos White. Varieties for medium planting: Ferguson Yellow Dent, Surcropper, Brazos White. Varieties for late planting: Blount’s Prolific, Brazos White, Hast- ings’ Prolific. Varieties for all planting dates: Hastings’ Prolific, Brazos White, Blount’s Prolific, Blue Grain. 7 Region No. 3 Location: Southeast Texas. Soils: Northern part, sandy soils with heavy subsoils, southern part heavy dark gray and black clays. Average annual rainfall: 45-52 inches. Average annual temperature: 68°-69° F. Average date of last frost: February 20-March 5. Optimum planting date: March 15-March 30. Earlier plantings are injured by excessive moisture and root worms. Varieties for all planting dates: Tuxpan, Hastings’ Prolific, Sur- cropper. ' Region N0. 4 Location: East Central Texas. Soils: Shallow sandy soils on very heavy, almost impervious subsoils. Considerable areas of rolling black lands in western part. Average annual rainfall: 35-45 inches. Average annual temperature: 66°-68° F. Average date of last frost: March 1-March 20. Optimum planting date: Same as last frost date. 72 BULLETIN NO. 897, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Varieties for maximum yield: Strawberry, early planting; Chis- holm, early planting; Ferguson Yellow Dent, early planting. Varieties for early planting: Strawberry, Chisholm, Ferguson Yel- low Dent. Varieties for medium planting: Horton, Brazos White, Chisholm. Varieties for late planting: Thomas, Blount’s Prolific, Surcropper. Varieties for all planting dates: Surcropper, Horton, Strawberry, Chisholm. Region No. 5 Location: Central Gulf Coastal Plains. Soils: Dark grey and black clays and clay loams. Some alluvial soils in central part between Colorado and Brazos rivers. ‘ Average annual rainfall: 35-47 inches. Average annual temperature: 69°-70° F. Average date last frost: February 25-March 5. Optimum planting date: Same as last frost date when soil conditions permit. Varieties for maximum yields: Tuxpan, early planting; Brazos Whit-e, early planting; Surcropper, medium planting. Varieties for early planting: Tuxpan, Brazos White, Hastings’ Pro- lific. Varieties for medium planting: Tuxpan, Brazos White, Surcropper. Varieties for late planting: Brazos White, Hastings’ Prolific, Sur- cropper. Varieties for all planting dates: Tuxpan, Brazos White, Surcropper, Hastings’ Prolific. Region No. 6 Location: North Central Texas. Soils: Mainly black or brown clays, strongly calcareous, narrow strip of sandy soil in western part. Average annual rainfall: 32-38 inches. Average annual temperature: 64=°-65° F. Average date last frost: March 15-March 30. Optimum planting date: Same as last frost date. Varieties for maximum yield: Denton Surcropper, early planting; Ferguson; Surcropper, early or medium planting; Strawberry, early planting. Varieties for early planting: Denton Surcropper, Ferguson Surcrop- per, Strawberry. Varieties for medium planting: Ferguson Surcropper, Denton Sur- cropper, Bloody Butcher. Varieties for late plating: Ferguson Surcropper, Denton Surcropper, . Ferguson Yellow Dent. Varieties for all planting dates: Ferguson Surcropper, Denton Sur- cropper, Bloody Butcher. CORN VARIETIES IN TEXAS 73 Region No. 7 Location: Central Texas. Soils: Mainly black and brown, calcareous clay soils. This region includes the main part of the Blacklands region. Average annual rainfall: 28-36 inches. Average annual temperature: 66°-68° F. Average date of last frost: March l-March 20. Optimum planting date: Same as last frost date. Varieties for maximum yields: Ferguson Yellow Dent, early plant- ing; Brazos White, early planting; Mosshart Yellow Dent, early plant- ing. Varieties for early planting: Ferguson Yellow Dent, Brazos White, Mosshart Yellow Dent. Varieties for medium planting: Gorham’s Yellow Dent, Horton, Chisholm. Varieties for late planting: Surcropper, Ferguson Yellow Dent, Mosshart Yellow Dent. Varieties for all planting dates: Ferguson Yellow Dent, Surcropper, Mosshart Yellow Dent. Region No. 8 Location: $outh Central Texas. Soils: Mainly dark soils, more or less calcareous, ranging from fine sandy loams to clays. Average annual rainfall: 25-31 inches. Average annual temperature: 69°-71° F. Average date last frost: February 5-February 28. Optimum planting date: February. 15-March 1. Varieties for maximum yields: Reese Drouth Resister, medium planting; Thomas, early planting; Surcropper, medium planting. Varieties for early planting: Thomas, Surcropper, Strawberry. Varieties for medium planting: Reese Drouth Resister, Surcropper, Thomas. Varieties for late planting: Surcropper, Oklahoma White Wonder, Virginia White Dent. Varieties for all planting dates: Thomas, Surcropper, Reese Drouth Resister. Region N0. 9 Region No. 9 includes the entire western half of Texas. It includes many diverse soil types, ranging from fine sandy soils to clays. So far as corn is concerned, this region is uniform only in that it has a rela- _tively low rainfall, ranging from 10-30 inches. For this reason, the grain sorghums prove to be superior to corn practically throughout the region, except in certain irrigated areas and in several counties, such as Oollingsworth, Wheeler, Terry, and Gaines, where the soil is too sandy for grain sorghums but appears to be well adapted to corn in spite of 74 BULLETIN NO. 397, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the 10w rainfall. Areas in Region N0. 9 that are subject to hot d winds, should grow no variety except Mexican June. Areas that a not subject to this hazard will probably find Surcropper more producti These two varieties should ~ meet the needs of practically the ent region. The limited data available on efiect of time of planting in t region indicate that corn should be planted as early as seasonal con tions permit.