A166-1229-8,000-L18O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT snmow A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY. TEXAS {BULLETIN NO. 406 FEBRUARY, 1930 DIVISION OF AGRONOMY I’ 3'8! MeChfifllCfii CCHBQF m I COTTON VARIETY ExfififiifiifimvsasEL AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, - TROUP ‘AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS A ' T. O. WALTON, President A C STATION STAFF’; DMINISTRATION: VETERINARY SCIENCE: A. B. CONNER, M. S., Director *M. FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief R. E. KARPER, M. S., Vice-Director CLARicE MIxsON, B. A., Secretary M. P. HOLLEMAN, JR., Chief Clerk J. K. FRANcKLOw, Assistant Chief Clerk CHEsTER HIGGS, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant HEMISTRY: _ G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist J. F. FUDGE, Ph. D., Chemist _ S. E. AsBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist E. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Assistant Chemist WALDO H. WALKER, Assistant Chemist VELMA GRAHAM, Assistant Chemist T. L. OGIER, B. S., Assistant Chemist _ ATHAN J. STERGES, B. S., Assistant Chemist JEANNE M. FUEGAs, Assistant Chemist RAY TREIcHLER, M. S., Assistant Chemist J. K. FARMER, M. A., Assistant Chemist RALPH L. ScHwARTz, B. S., Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: HAMILTON P. TRAUB, Ph. D., Chief RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: E A P I N N N N N c N N N V. J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief B. L. WARwIcK, Ph.D., Breeding Investigations STANLEY P. DAvIs, Wool Grader NTOMOLOGY: F. L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief, State Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, 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 CEcIL E. HEARD, B. S., Chief Inspector OTTO MAcKENsEN, Foulbrood Inspector W. R. JORDAN, Foulbrood Inspector GRONOMY: . B. REYNOLDS, Ph. D., Chief R. E. KARPER, M. S., Agronomist . C. MANGELsDORF, Sc. D., Agronomist . T. KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist H. E. REA, B. S., Agronomist . C. LANGLEY, B. S., Assistant in Soils BLICATIONS: A. D. JAcKsON, Chief F11 H. ScHMIDT, D. V ., Veterinarian ' F. E. CARROLL, D. V. M., Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: . J. TAUEENHAUS, Ph. D., C 'ef . N. EzEKiEL, Ph. D., Iant Pathologist . J. BACK-I, M. S., Plant Pathologist . F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist l; AND RANCH ECONOMICS: . E A. H ;wss~ GABBARD, M. S., Chief . PAULsON, Ph. D., Marketing BONNEN, M. S., Farm Management . L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanil J. F. Criswell, B. S., Assistant **J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant RURAL HOME RESEARCH: JEssiE WHiTAcRE, Ph. D., MARY ANNA GRIMEs, M. S., EMMA E. SUMNER, M. S., Nutrition SOIL SURVEY: ' **W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chief E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soil Surveyor T. C. REITcH, B. S., Soil Surveyor A. H. BEAN, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY: V. L. CORY, M. S., Act. Chief SIMON E. WOLFF, M. S., Botanist SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: O. C. COPELAND, M. S., Dairy Husbandman POUL RY HUSBANDRY: . . 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., Qilen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief . D. PEARcE, Secretary . H. . H . L. g?‘ <0 '9 RooERs, Feed Inspector . WOOD, Feed Inspector KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector .‘D. NORTHOUTT, JR., B. S., Feed Inspectoi SIDNEY D. REYNOLDS, JR., Feed Inspector P. A. MOORE, Feed Inspector €w€um SUBSTATIONS o. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R . HALL, B. S., Superintendent o. 2, Troup, Smith County: P. R. JOHNsON, M. S., Act. Superintendent o. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent o. 4, Beaumont, Jetferson County:- R. H. WYcHE, B. S., Superintendent o. 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 o. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent o. 7, Spur, Dickens County: R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent o. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent FRANK GAiNEs, Irrigationist and Forest Nurseryman No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: I J. J. BAYLEs, B. S., Superintendent N0. 10, College Station, Brazos County: R. . SHERWOOD, M. S., In charge L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. MORRIs, M. S., Superintendent **N0. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent **J. C. STEPHENs, M. A., Assistant Agronomi: No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. H. DAMERON, B. S., Superintendent E. JUNGHERR, D. V. M., Veterinarian V. L. CORY, M. S., Grazing Research Botanis **O. G. BABcOcK, B. S., Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. FRIEND, B. S., Superintende t SHERMAN W. CLARK, B. S., Entomo ogist W. J. BAOH, M. S., Plant Pathologist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: E. J. WILSON, B. S., Superintendent Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: W. ADRIANcE, M. S., Horticulture W. BILSING, Ph. D., Entomology P. LEE, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance . ScOATEs, A. E., Agricultural Engineering . P. Smith, M. S., Agricultural Engineering . H. WILLIAMs, Ph. D., Animal Husbandry TAs of February 1,_ 1930. A. K. MAcKEY, M. S., Animal Husbandry J. S. IVIOGFORD, M. S., Agronomy F. S. JAMIsON, M. S., Horticulture F. R. BRIsON, Horticulture ‘ W. R. HORLAcHER, M. S., Genetics *Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. **In cooperation w1_th U. S. Department 0_f Agriculture. ***In cooperation with the School of Agriculture. In tests conducted with 205 varieties and strains of cotton at Substation N0. 2, Troup, during the 16 years, 1913 to 1928, inclusive, Half and Half was the highest-yielding variety, mak- ing an average yield 0f 300 pounds of lint per acre. New Boy- kin, Kasch, Mebane 804, and Harper followed next with yields of 258, 257, 255, and 252 pounds of lint per acre, respectively. Half and Half had small bolls, a high average percentage of lint, 41.9 per cent, and a staple of 3/4 inch in length. New Boy- kin, Kasch, Mebane 804, and Harper, all of which are derived from the Mebane or Triumph type of cotton, have relatively large bolls, staple averaging 15/16 to 1 inch in length, and per- centages of lint ranging from 36 to 39 per cent. Half and Half had the highest money value per acre, based on yield, production costs, and prices paid on the local market during October, 1928. The acre value of Half and Half on the local market, where cotton is bought on the “hog-round” basis, was $6.52 more than the acre value of New Boykin, the next most profitable variety. Based on prices paid for staple cotton on the central market, however, there was no significant differ- ence in the money value per acre of Half and Half, New Boykin, and Kasch, the acre values being $46.31, $45.96, and $45.73, respectively. Where two and one-half to three cents a pound more can be secured for staple cotton than for Half and Half, then New Boykin, Kasch, Mebane, and Harper would probably be the varieties to grow since Half and Half produced lint of un- tenderable length. Where suitable difierences in prices are not obtainable for staple cotton, then Half and Half, on account of its high yield, would be the most profitable variety to grow for the individual; but it would be- disadvantageous to the com- munity as a whole in that it would tend to put the entire local market on a short-staple basis. CONTENTS PAGE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Method of Conducting the Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 . Classification of Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Experimental Results by Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Results in 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Results in 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Results in 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 106 Results in 1916 . . . . . . e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 Results in 1917 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 Results in 1918 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Results in 1919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Results in 1920 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Results in 1921 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Results in 1922 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Results in 1923 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Results in 1924 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Results in 1925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Results in 1926 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Results in 192'?’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 Results in 1928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . .. 16 Summary of Yield of Lint Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1'7 Comparison of Variety Based on Money Value Per Acre . . . . . . . .. 19 Length of Lint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 Percentage of Lint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Size of Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 25 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . s é éj 2 :! a ‘a 3‘ 11" 1 . washing, is active in Washing away the plant-food materials. t BULLETIN NO. 406 FEBRUARY, 1930 COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP W. S. HOTCHKISS* AND P. R. JOHNSON The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station has been conducting experiments with varieties of cotton t0 determine the varieties best adapted to the various agricultural regions of the State since the sub- stations were established. In many cases the experiments have been conducted over a period of fifteen or more years. The results obtained at the substations at Angleton, Lubbock, Chillicothe, College Station, N acogdoches, and Temple have been published in Bulletins Nos. 354, 364, 366, 369, 384, and 399, respectively. This Bulletin is the seventh of the series of bulletins dealing with varieties of cotton and reports the results secured at Substation No. 2, Troup, from 1913 to 1928, in- clusive. Troup is located in Smith County and the results of these experiments are probably applicable to most of the soils in the north- eastern part of the State. The topography of this section is rolling to hilly with occasional poorly drained areas in the bottoms and second bottoms. Erosion, or Terraces should be built to prevent this waste. The predominant soils are the light gray sandy loams with plastic red or red with gray or yellow mottled subsoils; the deep gray sandy soils underlain by yellow or yellow mottled sandy clay subsoils; and, to a smaller extent, the strictly red lands—red fine sandy loam surface with red sandy clay subsoil. The soil on which these tests were conducted is a gray sandy loam underlain by a stiff, plastic red or red mottled clay subsoil. This soil type has been classified by the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils as Kirvin fine sandy 10am, and is characteristic of a large portion of ' Northeast Texas. All of the soils respond readily to the use of fertilizers, and greater amounts than are now used could be used profitably. A system of farming which includes a diversity of crops, and a proper use of com- mercial fertilizers, will prove to be profitable. RAIN FALL The average annual rainfall for a period of twenty-four years is 42.78 inches, and for the sixteen years covered by this Bulletin it is 42.25 inches. The monthly and annual rainfall for this station is given in *Former Superintendent, Substation No. 2. Died July 14, 1928. To Mr. i Hotchkiss belongs the credit for conducting these tests up to the time of his § death, and for the preparation of much of this Bulletin. N 0 I T A T S T N E M I R E P X E L A R U T L U C I R G A S A X E T 6 0 4. 0 N N I T E L L U B ‘E fie wwnm and Eu. 3w ~Nm~ S} Nmmh 9.. SYN and 2a S.” K2 ¢N.N owN NTN. wws 8a a; Em ~m.N 3; .21. 3; oN.N 8Q Nh. Nwé 2.» wNB o»; 3;» $1M 3Q NH; moq... wfim mmh mN.m Nv.N if“, 2. 3...“ i; h. NR6 8a EN m». $4 2a 2w. Si“ SYN mm.N hfi} wo m ma; 3p $4 Nm v Nw. 2a 34 3a 2: $5 N04 ~N. S; $70M 3x an wN. Nm. .3. Nm. owN fin; 9: dNb wNgv i5 Nb. £4 3a mPm 8. mma M?» 2w Nw.m 3mm firm mo. m: 2a wmN ma.» 84m $4 :6 3a B.» mm 2a S.” mow 5w Chm RYN Nw. 3H w?“ 34 EHAZ $4 3m Rfim 2.. 8a ofié mfiN mm; NhQ Nm? mam mm.N 23¢ 5m 2; 34 wwa 2:“ Sim $5 g. 34m .2.“ m: Nvxmfi $4 mfim 2m Nflm Nw.w Nw.N mm; 8w was 5w bod 2Q RHN n70 fie 3e .34“. “N6 mwN woe mN w 2M mwa 3.». S; 8 m. m9». Nwd mp5 35 £5 RYN mfiw 3. mmN was 8g :5 mmN NN.¢ 3h 2r 2w. 3w 2a $6 mmN NNA “Wm wm. EN 8. 84m EXN :5 S." 52m 8 w. mm fi m: m mm m mo m mmé 3Q $1.. Nmd $5 ~N.N mmN 3e Q4“ vfié :6 #0.». mm.» 2.2 8a m5“. m; Eéwwa, wwe fiimfl NN.m gofiwwa ~35 2a §.m $12 mN.m 32 #0.»: 2x2 w“; wvfioqw 8.2 .55 RMNH $12 w”? fiqmmwa £3 5.»; $42 m2: Ema 3Q mfifiwmev 3Q“fiwfiuofimmmhqmwfimw 25m ma? M33 >m..@mwwammw.wm hmdmoodm 3S Seq .>< $4 53m v5-3 $2 S2 £2 mam: $3 $2 $2 fiNmfl 0N2 32 M32 n23 £2 22 :2 m5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -.~U£EQU$O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HQ@EQ>QZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .HU@OPQO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fmfigamwflgQi . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . - - - . . . . . . . . . > . . . . . 1 - ¢ - . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . - - ~ . . . . . . . . . . . .Unmg%- .%N2 JNGQH -uo - - - - -.¢ - . . . - --@m=m:< was :23. 65;. 5mg £30k .. . . . .. >imo> JEQH wowwhoiw hNQ>|av§ ucw $20-3 n33 62mins“ 6N3 3 n23 696E dsofir i“ 3:2: E zmcia“ 353m wan Esacozll.“ Beau. COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP 7, Table 1. Examination of this table shows that over a period of years the average monthly rainfall is fairly well distributed; but When the sep- arate years are considered, a Wide variation between the various months will be found.- During many of the years there were periods of drouth in July and August with most of the rainfall recorded for those months falling as heavy rains in a few days’ time. There is also a rather pro- nounced tendency towards a wet spring. Wide variations between the total amounts for different years will also be noticed. For instance, in 1917 only 29.82 inches of rain fell, while in 1919 there were 56.37 inches of rain recorded. The variation i in the amount of rainfall naturally influences‘ the yield of cotton, but the total amount of rainfall of the region has less relative influence i than the distribution during the growing season. The yields obtained in 1917 were among the highest for the period; yet the rainfall was the lowest. The heavy rains in July, 1917, were sufficient to mature a good crop. METHOD OF CONDUCTING THE TESTS A large number of varieties were tested each year from 1913 to 1919, inclusive, after which a number of the less promising varieties were discontinued, and only those important in this section or show- ing promise of becoming important were carried. The elimination of the less desirable varieties made it possible to give the others more thorough tests on larger areas. The varieties in the test were planted either in duplicate or tripli- cate series each year. ‘The cotton was planted in three-foot rows and the hills thinned to approximately 12 inches apart in the row. All varieties weregiven the same cultural treatments. These treatments were not the same for all of the years, but were the same for all varie- ties in any one year. A more complete discussion of each year will follow later in'this paper. ' The cotton was not fertilized in 1913, 1914, and 1916. Equal parts of cottonseed meal and superphosphate were used in 1915, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1920, and 1921, the mixture being applied at the rate of 250 pounds per acre in 1915, 300 pounds in 1920, and 200 pounds during each of the remaining years. From 1922 to 1927, inclusive, amix- ture of superphosphate, cotton seed meal, and nitrate of soda, which analyzed approximately 4-10-0, was used at the rate of 300 or 400 pounds per acre. A 4-12-0 fertilizer composed of superphosphate and nitrate of soda was used in 1928, and was applied at the rate of 400 pounds per acre. Picking commenced as soon as there was enough cotton open of the earlier varieties to justify picking them. All plats in the test were picked on the same day. Pickmgs were made weekly, or as near weekly as weather conditions would permit. The seed cotton was ginned on a 20-saw gin owned by the station, and the yields of lint and seed were recorded. A sample of lint from each plat was sent to College Station, 8 BULLETIN NO. 406, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Where it was graded and stapled by ofiicial and licensed cotton classers of the Department of Textile Engineering, Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas. CLASSIFICATION OF VARIETIES The term “variety” as used in this Bulletin is synonymous with “trade name” and is not intended to imply that each cotton reported on is a distinct type with measurable differences. Many of the so-called varieties are really strains of a parent variety which have been selected and developed by individual breeders. Fresh seed for planting the variety test is obtained from the individual breed- ers each year and given separate Texas Station numbers. The sheet_ bearing this number also shows the source of the seed, the varietal name given by the breeder, and all the available history of the seed. Since the complete history and origin of many of the strains are not known, it is impossible to classify' each variety as to type. However, Table 2 shows in a general way the relationship of several of the varieties and strains commonly grown. Table 2.—Classificati0n of some varieties of cotton Type Parent variety Present trade name Mebane Mebane Cliett Superior Harper Mebane or Triumph Kasch Kasch New Boykin New Boykin Truitt Truitt Truitt . Rowden Rowden Rowden Sunshine Belton ‘ Lone Star Lone Star Lone Star Lankart Acala Acala Acala Half and Half Half and Half Half and Half Western Wonder Summerour EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS BY YEARS The varieties tested each year are arranged in the tables according to their rank in yield of lint cotton. Tables 3 to 6', inclusive, give information on the percentage of lint, the number of bolls to the pound, and the acre yields of seed cotton and of lint for the higher-yielding varieties tested from 1913 to 1916, in- clusive. Arrangements were made in 1917 to have the cotton graded and stapled, and since then the length of lint has also been included, Table 24 gives each of the varieties tested during the 16-year period, together with the source of seed and the yield for the years grown. COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP 9 During the first seven years 32 to 60 varieties Were grown each year, but only the ten highest-yielding varieties have been included in the discussion of results by years. For the yield of the remaining varieties the reader should refer to Table 24. Results in 1913 Forty-seven varieties Were included in the test in 1913. The ten varieties making the highest yield of lint cotton are given in Table 3. Hot, dry Weather prevailed during most of July and August, causing many of the bolls to open prematurely and, incidentally, causing the bolls to be smaller than in normal years. Mortgage Lifter made the highest yield of lint, 31'?’ pounds per acre. It has medium-sized bolls, requiring 88 to make one pound of seed cotton. Table 3.—Thc ten highest-yielding varieties in 1913 Yield per acre, N0. of pounds T. S. Variety Percentage bolls No. _ of lint per lb. Seed cotton Lint 152 Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.3 88 875 317 443 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.8 83 756 293 16 Crowder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.4 9 784 285 446 Simpkins Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 122 822 283 472 Peterkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.2 116 -774 280 128 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.9 82 736' 279 129 Edgeworth . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.8 7 781 272 480 Culpepper Improved Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . 35.7 102 737 263 474 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.4 97 717 254 469 Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.9 135 743 251 Results in 1914 Table 4 contains data on the ten highest-yielding varieties tested in 1914. Sixty varieties Were included in the tests that year. Excessive rainfall during May delayed the planting, and the drouths during June ' and July were unfavorable for the full development of the cotton; yet about average yields viere obtained. The highest yield was made by Hawkins, a variety having medium-sized bolls and a high percentage of lint. Table 4.—The ten highest-yielding varieties in 1914 Yield per acre,§ _ N0. of pounds T. S. Variety Percentage bolls No. of lint per lb. Seed PITFE] cotton Lint 469 Hawkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.3 89 693 251 411 Hite’s Early Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 84 715 246 443 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 38.7 79 625 ’ 242 1153 Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 68 705 242 476 Texas Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 91 702 241 474, Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 0 715 237 472 Peterkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.1 105 621 237 481 Co0k’s Improved Big Boll . . . . . . . . . 33.8 69 665 224 479 Toole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 97 643 221 129 Edgewor-th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33. 8 65 649 219 10 BULLETIN NO. 406, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Results in 1915 Data on the ten highest-yielders of the 45 varieties tested in 1915 are given in Table 5. The rainfall for 1915 was below the average, but the distribution was better than in 1913 or 1914. Cook, a short-staple variety, made the highest yield, 402 pounds of lint per acre. Table 5.——The ten highest-yielding varieties in 1915 Yield per acre, No. of pounds T. S. Variety Percentage bolls No. of lint per lb. Seed _ cotton Lint 2767 Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 .2 69 1080 402 1266 Virgatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0 62 1089 381 1373 Layton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.3 97 1048 380 1363 Moneymaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.9 87 1036 372 1153 Cook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '38. 1 66 968 369 443 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.4 72 958 342 475 Texas Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.6 82 925 338 129 Edgeworth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.7 61 975 338 1151 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0 60 942 330 1360 Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 62 996 330 Results in 1916 Thirty-four varieties of cotton were tested in 1916, and data on the ten highest yielders are given in Table 6. The cotton was planted on April 25, but on account of poor germination all varieties had to be replanted on May 13. The low yields may be due partly to damage by "the boll weevil and to the fact that the cotton was not fertilized. Table 6.-—The ten highest-yielding varieties in 1916. Yield per acre, No. of pounds T. S. Variety Percentage bolls No. of lint per lb. Seed cotton Lint 1819 Mebane Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.5 64 778 257 1822 A-711 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.2 68 639 240 1817 Ferguson’s Round Nose . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.9 62 751 240 1821 Rowden Ladd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 62 761 219 1820 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.7 64 693 211 1815 Allen’s Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 90 753 194 1827 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.4 68 644 190 1825 Hawkin’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 74 607 185 1826 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .. 35.5 70 545 177 1833 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.9 60 538 177 1 Results in 1917 Fifty-three varieties were tested in 1917, and data on the ten highest- yielding varieties are given in Table 7. Beginning with 1917, the length of lint of each variety in the test was also obtained. These data -show that the highest-yielding varieties ranged from 7/8 t0 1 1/16 inches in length, had medium-sized bolls and a high percentage of lint. The cotton was planted on comparatively new land, and some of the COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP 11 highest yields ever obtained at this station were secured, being second only to those obtained in 1927. .Cook made the largest average yield, 509 pounds per acre. a Table 7—The ten highest-yielding varieties in 1917 Yield per acre No. of Length pounds T. S. Variety Percentage bolls o N0, of l1nt per lb. staple, Seed inches cotton Lint 2477 Cook 919 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.5 82 7/8 1271 509 2464 F. G. 33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.8 87 1 1395 498 2465 Kasch’s Improved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 .7 52 1 1/16 1181 456 2471 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 . 1 67 7/8 1206 453 2472 Lone S_tar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.4 78 1 1/16 1209 444 2505 Peterkin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.7 84 3 /4 1 166 422 2504 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.6 112 - 1 1103 406 2457 Webb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.4 74 1 1187 405 2482 Matchless Extra Early . . . . . . . . . . . 35.7 99 7 /8 1191 404 2498 Moneymaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.0 100 1 1148 395 Results in 1918 The variety test in 1918 was planted on the same land as in 1917, and received the same amount and kind of fertilizer. Much smaller yields were made in 1918 than in 1917, probably on account of the un- favorable distribution of rainfall. Fifty varieties were included in the test, and data on the ten highest are given in Table 8. Cook again made the highest yield, 290 pounds per acre. l Table 8—-The ten highest-yielding varieties in 1918. Yield per acre, No. of Lenigth pounds T. S. Variety Percentage bolls 0 No. of l1nt per lb. staple, Seed inches cotton lint 3030 Cook's 931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.3 76 /8 758 290 3028 Cook’s 588 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0 79 3/4 728 265 3035 Ferguson‘s Mebane 186 . . . . . . . . . . 37 .7 59 15/16 706 262 3001 Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.3 69 15/ 16 708 246 3029 King X Triumph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.2 87 3/4 657 226 3034 Ferguson’s Round Nose . . . . . . . .. 34.8 62 7 635 218 $023 Wannamaker . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . 34.8 73 3/4 632 215 2998 Vandiver’s Heavy Frulter . . . . . . . . 33.5 69 7 8 643 214 3037 Ferguson's Mebane 184 . . . . . . . . . . 37.1 54 15/16 584 214 3020 Sure Crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 73 4 651 212 Results in 1919 Fifty varieties were tested in 1919, and the data for the ten highest- yielding varieties are given in Table 9. The rainfall in 1919 was the heaviest on record at this station. The excessive rainfall during May and June was unfavorable for the production of cotton. The yields ranged from 69 to 205 pounds of lint per acre, Mebane 804 making the highest yield. The same amount and kind of fertilizer was used as in 1917 and 19,18. 12 BULLETIN NO. 406, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 9.—The ten highest-yielding varieties in 1919. Yield per acre N0. of Lenlgth pounds T. S. Variety Percentage bolls 0 {iii No. of lint per lb. staple, Seed inches cotton Lint 804 Mebane._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.7 59 1 591 205 3674 Union Big _Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.2 74 3/4 596 189 3676 Mebane Triumph A . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.0 54 1 461 . 163 3677 Mebane Triumph B . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.3 53 7/8 459 160 3660 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.2 59 1 468 155 3659 Acala No. 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.2 68 1 1 466 155 3673 Cleveland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.5 7O 7/8 462 151 3667 Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.5 72 1 1/8 512 148 3639 Webb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 .1 63 1 447 143 3646 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.0 70 1 1/16 394 139 Results in 1920 . The cotton variety test in 1920 included eleven varieties, and the data are given in Table 10. It will be noted that the yields Were very low, ranging from 36 to 99 pounds per acre. These l0W yields were caused by an excessive amount of rainfall during July and August, and very serious damage by the boll weevil. Table 10.—Varieties tested in 1920 Yield per acre, No. of Length pounds T. S. Variety . Percentage bolls of No. of lint per lb. staple, Seed inches cotton Ljnt 4131 ' Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 59 1 1/8 304 99 793 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.5 51 1 1/8 249 79 4116 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.1 56 1 1/16 236 74 4117 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.9 54 7/8 198 72 4114 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.5 69 1 3/16 234 70 4120 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.6 50 1 202 70 4329 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.5 55 7/8 146 53 4119 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 49 1 1/8 158 52 ‘ 4115 Bennett’s Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.9 45 1 1/8 141 49 __ 3150 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.9 49 1 1/16 139 45 4118 ' Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.0 67 1 5/16 139 36 Results in 1921 Thirteen varieties were included in the test in 1921, and the data are given in Table 11. Boll weevils became very numerous during June and early July, and these insects, together with a. severe drouth in J uly following the heavy rains in June, caused most of the squares and blooms to shed and, as a result, the crop of cotton was nearly a failure. Kasch produced the highest yield, 117 pounds of lint per acre, and Snowflake the lowest yield, 23 pounds per acre. COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP 13 Table 11.——Varieties tested in 1921 Yield per acre No. of Length pounds T, S. Variety Percentage bolls of N0, of lint per lb. staple, Seed inches cotton Lint 5992 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.3 52 15/16 324 117 5995 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35.2 54 1 1/16 253 87 5984 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.7 54 1 1/16 270 86 5990 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.8 55 7/8 262 86 3637 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.1 52 7/8 237 85 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.5 56 15/16 222 76 5993 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 51 1 1/16 238 76 5994 Bennett’s Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.0 50 1 1/16 213 75 5989 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.6 53 1 173 60 5986 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.9 55 1 192 60 5988 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.4 64 1 1/16 166 5O 5987 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.9 90 1 1/8 139 39 5991 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.6 90 1 5/16 95 23 Results in 1922 There were thirteen varieties tested in 1922, and the data are given in Table 12. The yields as a Whole were larger than the average for the 16 years of the experiment. It will be noted that the shorter- stapled cottons outyielded those with longer staples. Half and Half and Mebane were the highest-yielding varieties. Weather conditions were favorable, although considerable shedding was caused by the heavy rains in July. Table 12.——Varieties tested in 1922 Yield per acre, N0. of Lenigth pounds T. S. Variety Percentage bolls o No. of lint per lb. staple, Seed inches cotton Lint 6589 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.5 69 5/8 1091 465 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.1 60 3/4 873 315 6571 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.8 66 1 1/16 893 297 6566 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 .0 56 7/8 803 278 6570 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.3 52 1 743 273 6573 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38. 6 53 15/16 654 249 6563 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36. 9 52 15/16 664 242 5984 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34. 9 57 15/16 685 235 6574 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.3 52 1 694 235 6572 Bennett’s Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.8 52 15/16 633 230 6564 Duran o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.0 82 1 1/16 668 211 6565 Lone tar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.4 55 1 564 209 6575 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.3 76 1 3/16 559 157 Results in 1923 Fourteen varieties Were tested in 1923, With the results as given in Table 13. No serious damage resulted from climatic conditions or insect damage. The yields obtained this year Were about the same as the average yield for the 16 years. Kasch made the highest yield, 275 pounds per acre. 14 BULLETIN NO. 406, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 13.——Varieties tested in 1923 Yield per acre No. of Length pounds T. S. Variety Percentage bolls o No. of l1nt per lb. staple, Seed inches cotton Lint 6810 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.0 62 1 723 275 6786 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38. 6 64 1 699 262 6803 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34. 5 61 1 716' 242 6783 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.0 58 1 666 234 7000 Startex 296 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.2 64 1 1 /16 694 232 6784 Bennett’s Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.1 59 1 1/16 643 231 6799 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.0 76 7 /8 587 228 6807 Chett Superior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.0 58 1 602 225 6780 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.4 59 1 1/16 605 220 6781 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 . 1 74 1 618 189 6797 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6 65 1 1/16 605 187 6802 Hallmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27. 1 86 1 1/8 646 170 6796 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.1 94 1 1/8 580 169 6787 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2 89 1 1/4 519 139 Results in 1924 Fourteen varieties were grown in the variety test in 1924, with the results as given in Table 14. Weather conditions during the first part of the season were such that very little field work could be done, and after the heavy rainfall during May a period of severe drouth set in. The same kind and amount of fertilizer was used as in 1923i, but the yields were low on account of insufficient moisture in July and August. The yields ranged from 150 pounds of lint for Half and Half to '71 pounds for Snowflake. Table 14.—Varieties tested in 1924 Yield per acre, No. of Length pounds T. S. Variety Percentage bolls of i No. of l1nt per lb. staple, Seed F‘ ‘ inches cotton Lint U 7468 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.4 81 3/4 364 150 7385 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39. 9 63 1 295 117 7409 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.2 73 1 321 115 7388 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.4 71 1 307 114 7408 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.0 68 1 307 113 7387 Sunshine . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.6 70 1 1/16 346 112 7383 Startex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.8 69 1 1/16 338 110 7381 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.9 75 1 1/16 313 103 7410 Watson (Acala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.4 74 1 1/16 297 99 7386 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.7 71 1 1/16 236 86 7411 Belton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.0 69 1 1/16 244 82 7391 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.2 71 1 1 /16 243 8O 7390 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30. 8 92 1 1/16 244 75 7389 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.9 91 1 7/16 267 71 Results in 1925 y Sixteen varieties were included in the test in 1925, and the data are given in Table 15. The climatic conditions this year were quite un- usual in that the early spring was comparatively dry, permitting early planting of the cotton. Dry weather during the latter part of May, COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP 15 and the light rainfall during June, was unfavorable for fruiting. Growth was renewed‘ after the July rains, resulting in yields above the average for the 16 years. So distinct were the two crops that there was a period of 43 days between the last picking of the first crop and the ,_. §~first picking of the second crop. Half and Half, Kasch, and New E iBoykin were the leading varieties. Table 15.—Varieties tested in 1925 B’ " Yield per acre g _ No. of Lentgth pounds , T. S. Variety Percentage bolls o ——?— " N0. of lint per lb. staple, Seed _ inches cotton Lint l 7835 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.5 82 3/4 963 365 7858 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.9 63 7/8 938 364 ' 7852 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.3 69 7/8 887 330 7854 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.0 81 1 1/16 971 322 7853 Trultt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.9 73 7/8 916 320 8306 Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.5 56 7/8 836 311 m 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.9 73 7/8 865 311 "._ 7859 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . 39.0 62 15/16 800 305 if 7846 Watson (Acala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.8 80 1 1/16 921 303 j 7861 Harper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.6 65 7/8 781 299 5984 Belton 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.8 62 1 876 292 ‘ 7857 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.3 ' 67 7/8 889 288 ' 7851 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.4 65 7/8 804 282 i 7855 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.3 68 15/16 778 250 _ 7849 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.7 95 1 1/4 836 225 f 7856 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.8 113 1 1/8 705 198 k’ I ti Results in 1926 y The yields of the 1'7 varieties tested in 1926 were satisfactory. The rainfall during June and July was sufficient for the proper develop- ment of the plants, and there was no serious damage done by insects. The crop as a whole was better than usual. Half and Half again made the highest yield, 386 pounds of lint per acre. The results are given in i Table 16. Table 16.—Varieties tested in 192s Yield per acre, No. of Length pounds Variety Percentage bolls of i- —-——-— of lint per lb. staple, Seed inches cotton Lint Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.7 75 3/4 894 386 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.6 65 1 971 342 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.1 61 1 865 327 Harper. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 38.0 60 1 1/32 870 326 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.9 64 15/16 887 325 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.8 66 1 969 325 Summerour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.5 80 7/8 804 315 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.1 58 1 795 309 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.9 62 1 1/16 914 308 Belton 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.8 58 1 1/16 884 306 Lankart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.2 56 1 3/32 774 300 Durango . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.7 79 1 861 288 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.6 64 1 1/16 760 268 Kasch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 .7 62 1 705 264 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.9 78 1 1/32 779 262 Watson (Acala) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34.1 73 1 1/16 720 243 Snowflake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29.6 86 1 1/4 561 164 16 BULLETIN NO. 406, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Results in 1927 . The yields in 1927 were among the highest recorded in the cotton variety test at this station. The land on which the test was conducted , had been in Bermuda sod for several years, and a crop of cowpeas was j turned under in 1926. The soil was well supplied With organic matter, and the cotton did not suffer from the drouth during July and August. Insect damage was not serious. Kasch, New Boykin, Mebane, Half and Half, and Bennett’s Lone Star were the highest yielders, in the . order named. The data are given in Table 1'7. Table 17.—Varieties tested in 1927 Yield per acre _ N0. 0f Length pounds T. S. Variety Percentage bolls o No. of lint per lb. staple, Seed inches cotton Lint 9614 Kasch. . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.5 52 1 1306 507 9608 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.8 65 1 1361 504 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.5 57 1 1/32 1264 466 9594 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.8 77 3/4 1023 443 9586 Bennetfis Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.3 51 1 1/32 1155 436 9616 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.0 69 1 5/32 1336 430 9605 Lankart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.1 51 1 1/32 1043 400 9624 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.3 68 1 1/32 1148 400 9612 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 62 1 1152 390 9604 Harper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.6 55 1 987 390 9615 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.1 63 1 1072 382 9611 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.0 55 1 976 375 5984 Belton 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.6 55 1 1008 364 9617 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.3 58 1 1011 348 9769 Cook 588 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.3 78 27/32 930 341 9609 Lightning Express . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.7 85 1 1/4 1051 339 9600 Delfos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.4 87 1 1/8 1027 339 9618 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.7 55 1 1/32 874 326 Results in 1928 Triplicate plantings of 2O varieties were made in 1928. The yields were not as high as in 1927. The Half and Half variety led all others, but was closely followed by Western Wonder and Harper. Western Wonder is one of the newer varieties, and has characteristics similar to Half and Half, as will be noticed from the data in Table 18. Harper, a strain of Mebane, tied with Western Wonder for second place in yield of lint, and was followed by Mebane and Lankart. ’ '- I B R A ~ R Y Alncultura! & Mechanical College o; 15,3, COTTON VARIETY EXPE 2, TROUP 17 Table 18.—Varieties tested in 1928 v Yield per acre, N0. of Lenigth pounds T, S, Variety Percentage bolls 0 NQ_ of lint per lb. staple, Seed inches cotton Lint 10097 Half and Half . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.4 96 3/4 1097 457 10176 Western Wonder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.6 97 3/4 1085 451 10087 Harper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.0 66 31 /32 1123 451 10090 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.2 70 1 1033 406 10073 Lankart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.3 62 992 382 10095 Cook 588 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36. 8 96 13/16 1019 374 10076 Kasc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.0 69 920 360 10088 Ferguson 406 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.6 80 6 1014 352 804 Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.9 . . . . . . . . 31 /32 975 351 10089 New Boykin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.3 82 31/32 1021 351 10093 Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.7 62 1 903 341 10077 Truitt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.3 75 31 /32 983 337 5984 Belton 91 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.7 76 1 927 332 10070 Bennett’s Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.6 73 15/16 838 316 10101 Delfos 6102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.0 108 1 1/8 997 310 10078 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 90 1 1/32 878 291 10092 Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.0 62 1 1/32 864 285 10104 Sunshine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.0 71 31 /32 882 283 7000 Startex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.6 82 15/16 817 275 10079 Acala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.8 86 1 1/8 798 247 SUMMARY OF YIELD OF LINT COTTON A summary of the yields of the varieties of cotton grown from 1917 to 1928, inclusive, is given in Table 19. It being impossible to make a direct comparison between varieties which were not grown during the same year or period of years, percent- age ratings and relative yields have been calculated. The Kasch variety, used as a standard, has been grown for the entire period from 1917 to 1928, inclusive, and was, therefore, considered the most satisfactory basis by which other varieties might be compared. The percentage rating of any variety is found by dividing its total yield by the total yield of the standard variety for the same period 0f years. For example, Harper was grown during the four years, 1925 to 1928, inclusive, and made a total yield for the four years of 1,466 pounds of lint. During the same four-year-period, Kasch made a total yield of 1,495 pounds. The yield of Harper, divided by the yield of Kasch, gives Harper a percentage rating of 98.06 and a relative yield of 252 pounds of lint. The relative yield of any variety was computed by multiplying its percentage rating by the average yield of Kasch, 257 pounds. The percentage rating and the relative yield are merely two ways of showing the relative rank of the varieties; the former is expressed as percentages and the latter as pounds of lint per acre. It will be noted in Table 19 that on the basis of this relative yield Half and Half made the highest yield of lint cotton, 300 pounds per acre, and was followed by New Boykin, Kasch, Mebane 804, and Harper, in the order named, which made yields of 258, 257, 255, and 252 pounds per acre, respectively. If yield were the only factor to be considered in selecting a variety of 18 BULLETIN NO. 406, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 2 2.2 e2 $2 5 E. o2 >2 me wm m. 3N 2m ..............wexek 65.22250 EeEwAeE .0 52. v5.55 2 mom m2 new 3m mom own ow .52 m...“ w» S. ow . . . . . . . . I .. .....m§e.2. .5292 n53. .85 .5322 . 2 S... wow u...“ wmm wwm New ow 3N oow a 2 s .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .352. éwawom. mwxaéw .< d . h 2w oow 2m wfi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Sm omm w» 2. Q. . . . . . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . .. wefifi. 25am fiezeem d .2 43w 28A mfeacem w 2m how Sm o2. mvu mom oo ow oo o2 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........wewe.2. mefiwe? .5355 d .2 . . . . ..e_ee< m 2m waw ..........~.2 wow 2m .............w§.em..ceflhzfi wfihemweemgmswkem o 2mm 3w “m” m; wow New we .. m...“ ow 2. ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......§...._. eEEeP ... d2 =éwem5=m maid. N. 2m www 5m o? mom Nam o2 o2 SN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........§e.o..E~2ee=< mfiewem d 52. . w mum Nmww mow oom wmm own 22 . . . . . . . . .. . . . 122N292. >e=w§e2 eemwiemiae w wan “so ..........wwu .12.“... meewmeqwdzeemaeownemwwxek o fie Q; e3 Em oom wow 22 . . . . .......s.£. fie55ee_ >eeww< mo? wedfiz d .< . o 3m “do 5m New 2% 8m 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .552. 2.5m e0 2.3m 35C. m 3N v2 2m ea. oom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.55.2. e33 .5532 8% gmiaaaq ......tfi=5 Q . - . . . . . . . . . . v . - - l -m - - . - . . . . - - - 1 o 3N ooo Em e2. 5H 2m . . . . . . . . . . .12....’ deefi. .eZ seseumnem $5.2. ........x.w $23.2 2 Em o.o2 a; Be SN m; 22 . . . . . . ...........mexe.2. mowaz 5w .5032 5 5e$M o ma“ 1.2 5m xx new omm 22 . .. .. . . . . . . . . .. 25B 552a .552 2.2a eefimsm .........i.€m BeZ h oom 222 S“. .2. wwm a; o2 2N ma. . ........... . . . . ........w§e.2. 96C. 82 .3 52. 22.252 2a 52m ESE 33 8Q wifit E: $2 £2 32 $2 22 $2 2N2 82 22 22 22 P30.» J5 an: ewe ween we 35cm .823.» d2 o2.» émxaem eZEem 33 8Q i5 2e 2.56m 2 32> Eeie.’ e25 .8 wheeze? e5 3 we? 2.3M 52B 2022x2250“. 2 532m Bee» e55 .2 m231e> we M252 eweoceehen me weeee. 22.» mise?» one whee.» .3 memoeie.’ 2e i5 we EemwIhHZ 25.2. COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP 19 cotton, the results indicate that Half and Half would be the variety to grow in this section of East Texas. When, however, the money value per acre, based on yield and prices paid for staple cotton on the central markets, is considered, New Boykin, Harper, and Kasch would gener- ally be more profitable to grow than Half and Half, if sufficient differ- ence for the longer staple is paid. COMPARISON OF VARIETIES BASED ON MONEY VALUE PER ACRE The money value per acre of the more important varieties of cotton grown for periods ranging from 3 to 12 years was calculated on the basis of yield and length of staple and prices paid on the local and central markets during October, 1928, and the results are given in Table 20. The cost of production, that is, the cost of producing the crop up to the time of picking, will be the same for all varieties. The cost of harvest- ing and ginning is based on the amount of cotton produced, and it is here that the calculations of the returns per acre were begun, as it is here that the differences between varieties will show up. In comput- ing the net returns per acre, the value of the seed was added to the value of the lint, and the costs of picking, ginning, and wrapping were de- ducted from the gross value of seed and lint. The price used for seed was arbitrarily taken at $30.00 per ton. Picking was charged for at $1.00 per 100 pounds, ginning at 30 cents per 100 pounds of seed cotton, and bagging and ties at $1.25 per bale of 500 pounds of lint. In calculating the acre value of the lint of the different varieties on the local market, the average price paid for middling cotton on the Hen- derson market during October, 1928, which was 17.14 cents per pound, was used, since the Henderson market is considered typical of the local markets in East Texas in the vicinity of Troup. Cotton is generally bought on these local markets on the “hog-round” basis, the same price being paid for all cotton of equal grade, regardless of differences in the length of staple. Since these local markets do not afford a re- liable index for comparison of varieties as to profitableness based on their yield and length of staple, another comparison of the money value of the varieties was made, based on yield and prices paid for middling cotton of different lengths of staple on the New Orleans market, during October, 1928. The New Orleans market is a typical central, or staple market, where premiums are paid for cotton having lint longer than 7/8 inch. The prices paid in cents per pound for middlin cotton of the different staple lengths on the New Orleans market uring October, 1928, were as follows: 7/8-inch (basis), 18.710; 15/16-inch, 19.03c; l-inch, 1959c; 1 1/16-inch, 20.210; 1 1/8-inch, 20.71c; 1 3/16-inch, 21.71c; 1 1/4-inch, 23.210. On account of its short staple, 3/4 inch, which is not tenderable on future contracts, Half and Half was penal- ized by the trade about 200 points off middling 7/8-inch cotton, or 2 cents per pound, which made the price paid on the New Orleans market for Half and Half 16.71 cents per pound. 20 N O T; T A T S T N E M I R E P X E L A R U T L U C T. R G A S A X E . T 6 O 4. 0 N N I T E L L U B mfiwm 3am 5mm 3.: 3km H w: 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......$_@=a¢qw ? . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - - - - - - - - noon ooom and: 3.: mo: fi how o: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... Qgm 26A owom Maia moo: 3.: 8B: 2N m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9:. naisim. 0521.2 fiwmm ofifi mm? 3 .: mm: fl 3w h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52m 25A Fiasco»: m . - .'. . . . . . - . . . » » . . ¢ - . - - - - . §ow omhm and: 3.: mm: : §m o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......~:o:om $2. wmnwm 5.3 3.: £2 w 2N w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acofimkf 2¢¢< 91$ wwmm 5.3 3.: £2 w mum n ............~...~..IEBmoMC w~mo< oodv om no moo: 3.: fi wmm o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dcmng/H 2.3 N25 Sow 3.: NQM : own o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dmcmhsfl mhow ofiom moo: $7: mmlm mwm o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135i. .33. 3.2. no.2 3.: nmlm 8m o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x6923: m: .3 ~33 a3: 3.: mm: H 3w m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #53184 $4.3. mix. no.2 3.: o1: fin o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sw mawfig m5? .5 .2. 2.2 3 . : NQ fin SN N: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39mm! wow? wad. 2.2 3.: 2B: wmm o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.30m BoZ 10.9. o 3.2. o $.35 o 3 .: .o w i». oom N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sam Ea :3; wcwwiO >52 cofiuwcoi 2x010 3o Z sofiwwcoi 3A2: Bow 3Q 633w E: .2: nz/ohm Ema 82E c0300 mcnwvmfi oo 5min: 4%.? Emoh mo hovimo/ no woman 98m mom v3m> .5.“ E3 venom hon Quin: vwm$>< ofifizoh uonfi: Z omm$>< duo: QQQBQO wcisw wooviai iwbqvo was _muo_ 2t. co mama 82.5 wcw .29“? Mo moms»: was 32% co Ewan wofiorz; wcwopoaim .305 23 Mo oh? SQ 0:18, mosoi wfifivhwmfionoikom Bnmh. COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP 21 The data on the prices paid for cotton on the Henderson market Were furnished by the Division of Farm and Ranch Economics, Texas Agri- cultural Experiment Station; while the data on the New Orleans prices, except the prices shown for Half and Half, were taken from the weekly reports issued from the Memphis ofiice of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture. It Will be noted in Table 20 that there is a difference of about two to six cents per pound, depending on length of staple, between prices paid for cotton of tenderable lengths of staple on the Henderson market as compared with prices paid on the New Orleans market. Deductions of about one cent per pound, however, n1ust be made on the New Or- leans prices to allow for transportation and brokerage charges in de- livering the cotton to the New Orleans market. Half and Half had the highest money value per acre of any variety on the basis of prices paid on both the Henderson and New Orleans markets, as shown in Table 20. Its acre value on the Henderson mar- ket was $6.52 more than the acre value of New Boykin, the next most profitable variety. On the basis of prices paid for cotton on the New Or- leans market, however, there was no significant difference in the money value per acre of Half and Half, New Boykin, and Kasch, although Half and Half was slightly higher than the others. Premiums may be secured on the central markets for cotton of the desired length of staple, 15/16 to 1 1/16 inches, if delivered in quan- tity lots of an even running grade and staple, either to brokers or ‘through co-operative marketing agencies. One of the most satisfactory ways of producing a uniform quality of staple cotton in large quanti- y ties is through community organization, where only one variety of cotton is grown and marketed in the community. Most of the cotton sold on the Henderson market in 1928 was of short __ staple, 7/8 inch and less in length. This condition no doubt helped to _ depress the price of all cotton sold on this market, since the basis price was figured on the average type of cotton produced by the community. i Under such conditions of marketing, quality cotton of the desired staple lengths is penalized, while cotton of poor quality and short staple is ’ often sold for more than it is really worth. This system of marketing is good for the individual ‘grower of short-staple cotton, but is bad for the community as a whole. Under the present system of marketing cotton on the typical East ‘A Texas market, as in 1928, the better-staple varieties, such as New Boy- pkin, Kasch, Mebane, Harper, and Lankart, which made high yields, ; would have to sell for two and one-half to three cents per pound more ‘l than Half and Half in order to be as profitable as Half and Half. LENGTH OF LINT 5 Table 21. The data show that thereihas been considerable variation ‘from year to year among most of the varieties, while others have been A summary of the length of lint of eighteen varieties is given in . 22 BULLETIN NO. 406, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in N. in Him i» . . . . . . 12am Ha 22H £\£ a $2». H £BH .........HHHH.H om >52 m ..... ...-.. ....-. .@@Q§QEH~T~PQMMN£UE £BH Hm $2», $2 H H . . . . . . . . 45w H5232 $2$ a $2». H H ........ . . . . . LHHEP $2.» m $2» H H IQHHHHHwHHHHm $2$ NH H H H . ZHHEM $2M v $2M“ H $2 H ..............H2H.am H m H H H .............2§H@2 $2H £ $2H H £2H .............HsH;6~H $2 H £ H $2 H £2 H . . . . . . ......aHw 26H $2 H m H $2 H $3 H . . . . . . . . ..H§HHH5 $2 H h wQmH $2 H :26 26H mbgfim $2 H Hw H H £2 H . . . . ..........E.:Qm £2 H h $2 H $3 H $2 H ......2§Homv .284 £2 H w $2 H $2 H £2 H ......AHHo3m>?v 28¢ fl Q . . . . . . . . . . . . .. m .... . . . . . . ..OWGN.~UQ M265 w$H RH: w$H m$H H$H m$H $2 H$H ¢$H £2 wHmH 22 A HHHHH mo HHBoHm 3oiw> 59.2 Em?» Ho oww$>< HQQEHHZ 3:2: E Ha: Ho nHmHHwA ik/Ouw EH3» Ho“ omwHS/w “Em Ewe» >2 33258, Ho H2: Mo HSMHHQAILHN wink. COTTON VARIETY EXT£RIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP 23 airly uniform. The length of lint is dependent both on varietal char- .cteristics and environmental factors, which accounts for the seasonal ariation within a given variety. Snowflake had longer lint than any of the other varieties, averaging . 9/32 inches, but its yield is too low to recommend it for planting in his section. Half and Half had the shortest lint, 3/4 inch. This short taple is objectionable because it is discriminated against by the spin- iers and is not tenderable on future contracts. It is even now being liscriminated against by the Japanese, who formerly purchased large [uantities of 3/4-inch cotton. The more desirable staple cottons, including New Boykin, Kasch, llebane 80-1, Harper, Lankart, Truitt, and Mebane, produced lint aver- Lging 15/16 to 1 1/ 32 inches. Cotton having this length of lint is in greatest demand by the American spinners at this time. PERCENTAGE OF LINT The percentage of lint, or gin turn-out, is an important varietal char- LClJQTlStlC and is usually considered in comparing varieties of cotton. Data on the percentage of lint of some of the varieties tested from 1917 ;o 1928, inclusive, are given in Table 22. The percentage of lint of liiy given variety varied from year to year, yet certain varieties are rather consistently high and others low. Half and Half had the highest percentage of lint of all of the varieties rsted (Table 22). For instance, Half and Half had an average per- zentage of lint of 41.9 as compared with 39.3 for Harper, and 39.0 for Kasch, the next two highest-ranking varieties in this respect. Lankart, Mebane, New Boykin, and Bennett’s Lone Star also had relatively high icrcentages of lint, ranging from 38.9 to 36.7. SIZE OF BOLL Table 23 gives data on the size of bolls expressed as-the number )f bolls required to make one pound of seed cotton. These data were zaken about the middle of the picking season and, with the exception of 1928, were obtained by weighing the seed cotton from 100 well-opened 0011s and then calculating the number required to make a pound of seed zotton. The procedure was changed in 1928 to include all the bolls produced throughout the season by a certain number of stalks (50), which is, perhaps, a more accurate method. On the average, Bennett’s Lone Star produced the largest bolls during the seven years it was grown, 55 being required to weigh one pound of seed cotton. It was followed closely, however, by Lankart, which re- quired 56 bolls to weigh one pound. Kasch, Belton, Lone Star, Mebane, Rowden, and Harper also produced relatively large bolls, 58 to 62 to the pound. All of these varieties have bolls which are more or less storm-resistant, yet they are easy to pick. The smallest bolls were pro- duced by Half and Half and Snowflake. e xmaweme :...........ovwwfl>POflm - ...». ..-.---.-.°m.nH“HHwQ .. . . . . . ........wwm%wv:mwwww.w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2GB 0M5 E34 H¥w¢awweez~o< n m ... flu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Mega: m m . . . . . . . 1% . . . . . . . . . . here“. >52 T m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . Such m m ii. . . . a ...ee>.e.wa.ahewwmwwx s W ..... .. . .. .. .............. .$ .......... ..§mivge_wm m 2 Hmmmmxum uimmnwwwwawm E we a s a s $ a a a. 2 a ..................... ....Em was ..M.. ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. E m mm mw F, mm . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rtmvwemd H N. mm .2. E .. mm mm om Q mm 123m 261w wbwism E .\ L eBeem emmeeiq. £2 R2 82 ma»; .5: £2 $2 5: 82 22 22 :2 e A mew?» we hweiwwr W“ wenEeZ cefiee weeem we venom 6e mwwen we eenfiez T WJU Eveem Ewe» eew emmeee/w wee Em?» hm wewweime/ we zen we enwmldm ownmP C % Q5 2 9% 5R mam NBN mam 9mm 08m #8 new. P8 . . . . . . . . . IexmwwBeem A mw . . . . . .. .... . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....°wflflh5a m. ....... ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N~NO< M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X 3mm m 9mm wiwm wfim mémm 9mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lecEmeem E w -¢.-.- .-¢|- . - ~ . - . . . . . . . . ' - - - ¢ T wiwm m 5mm wen wzvm wém oém mém 5mm mdm w.mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIeewwemw , Nhm m mém 7mm ohm ohm New mém ohm wdm New . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235C. W x - - . . . . . .@...-. .-¢¢-- --¢- ...-... . . . . - .- ...-»-. .-.¢-. ..--¢ . 4 m em 2 5w» w. 5 9mm we», v3 0.3 Y5 ma». 95 New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15w 25A . wen m mbm mihm Twm mew Tum mgwm 5mm Tom mew . . . . . . . Iwow eeenez O 5mm w. wflm mwm Tum wdm 06m mhm ohm. . . . . . .. Zemwm eceww wmwwoenomw N m.hm m mflvm... wRMw Qfiwm. MIWM mihfl ©.wM wihm. w.hm.. wkwm . . . . . . . Iflwvfmnwmkwvz N 5mm a New odm 7mm 06m oSm wfihm 9mm. wxwm .m.mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...e:mne2 I mdm m. mdm wdm Ndm . . . . . .. . . . . .........w.~mxewww M eam Q 9mm mam 55 mam a mm o mm 9mm mam as” 9w». 2% v.3“ . . . . fiém L v .¢-¢- . ¢ . . - -.-.-.-.-.-|vu------n-» . -¢¢|..¢- .. . - ' . .-u- ouuuhoghwi L 9Q w. wig wbw whmw 9mm wig 06¢ mimw» . . . . Iiwwwmweemwwwwm U B e2 $2 .82 32 £2 £2 .82 ma»: 5: 82 22 22 :2 we e w QBEw aweimww ieeewom Ewen we M @9834 hxwEeZ we: we emwweeeeenw Eweww meant» pew emeeee/m was W82» an mewweiwe/ we we: we emwwceewenwllfim ewneh. COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP 25 SUMMARY Two hundred and five varieties and strains of cotton were tested at Substation No. 2, Troup, during the 16 years, 1913 t0 1928, inclusive. ‘ Half and Half was the highest-yielding variety in the test, making an average yield of 300 pounds of lint per acre during the experiment. INeW Boykin, Kasch, Mebane 804, and Harper ranked next in the order ‘named, with almost identical average yields, 258, 257, 255, and 252 pounds of lint per acre, respectively. Half and Half produced the shortest lint, averaging 3/4 inch in Ylength. The staple of Kasch, New Boykin, Harper, Lankart, Truitt, {and Mebane ranged from 15/16 to 1 1/32 inches. é In percentage of lint, or gin turn-out, Half and Half ranked first, gwith 41.9 per cent, and was followed by Harper with 39.3 per cent, and Kasch with 39.0 per cent. ' Bennett’s Lone Star produced the largest bolls, 55 being required to imake one pound of seed cotton. The bolls of Lankart, Kasch, Lone Star, Mebane, Rowden, and Harper were also relatively large, averag- ing 56 to 62 per pound of seed cotton. The bolls of these varieties iwere storm-resistant, yet were easy to pick. Half and Half and Snow- »flake produced the smallest bolls. E The money value per acre of the higher-yielding varieties tested was calculated, based on yield of lint and seed, length of lint, cost of harvest- ing and ginning, and prices paid on the local and central markets dur- Ling October, 1928. Half and Half was the most profitable variety grown, -having an average acre value on the local market of $47.60 as compared with $41.08 for New Boykin, $40.87 for Kasch, $40.65 for Mebane 804, i%‘and $40.06 for Harper. Based on the central market prices, however, ..on which market premiums are paid for staple cotton, there was no Zsignificant difference in the money value per acre of Half and Half, New pBoykin, and Kasch, the acre values being $46.31, $45.96, and $45.73. 26 BULLETIN NO. 406, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ikofiwz Aw 6.3m a. Hoxwfiwcnw? .=oM EM UGGQEIBU 4mm . . . . . . . . . . . 6U dismal» roU 25m “E53 J .Z 50M EM wmsu>su am . . . . . . . . m: ohm RA . . . . dd mmcwoiO BoZ WQfiSM EEO .:oM 3M wafiofizU Am 113M . 115A wcwoiO3wZ howsoMmwksU . . . . . . . Iucmmt/vfiuavm ............mmm 110mm $3 . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwfimnmz china.‘ JBM dxM .54 NEMQN~< . . . . . . . . ficfivgfiv 6N . . . . Em . . . . . . . . .90 w~mnwn< 6U 8% 6E3 J .2 . . . . . . . . écm€>2U am 1.1m: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwmxvu. . émcionw roU uomibflm a» cwfifimm . . . . . . . . .E_on2nU Sm . .... 3N wmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ImmxoM. .52: Loam 6553M miwowuM vovw wwxwh. . . . . . . . . .E_on2sU on - u a - 0 ~ u 0 a - vi ‘a - - ~ - - - - . . nmN I133 wan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imfiwxom. éfitow .60 a“ QSAEO ucwmcBoH . . . . . . . . Qwnixm 10>? FMOGMNU wm . . . . wwMu mwfi . . . . . . . . .0 .w dovcom Jcwh ocomsfl .2 3w E84 mcpsM 6m .... mm .. .. .... .. .. 115M. .2=>§6O .B2§o:M 4M M .:oM MM 3o~oxosM fin . . . . . . - . . - . . - - . . - . . .Wo hflfimflxmw< n~°U @QQ@ -A .2 . . . . . . . . . .@UQAM@°»¢ oisofi wbwzémohM .5 .... 5M .. .. m2 mwfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d0 .3552. £32221» roU a %>%8._m M .3 oinoQ w.__23a.:m .3 - - - - - n - - mac a¢ou -q nz. - - ' ~ ~ - - - .37 .-. -... .-. . - . . . . . . . . . . - . . ..wNunQH “Hmowflfifii $26 doflgw dam .34 mmxwh. . . . . . . . . . . $320M .2 . . . . o2 mum dU 6G: =4 roU 8% 35>? 4M .2 . . . . . . . . ..@25S, ~ a p n . v ¢ o a n u§~Y . . . . NmM m2 5H @_=>mi2u $1.0m Ea 22§z . . . . 2533M fism .3 2m w? .... Sm 3N E. . .3 N“. .. .. .... .... .... . . . . . . . . . RPM. mram 3250M J M 53m 35A FSQESM .3 ----¢ --%-) --..- --.%o.? .-¢ - . - - - u . . ~ - - - ~ - - 1%? Nmm vwm mom mom Nw .. mmm ww an ow 5N .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ImmxvH . vEEPH m .02 cofifiwnnm wwxoh. . . . . . . . . . . . doioM mfi I - - . n - ~ - 1am “.00 nq oz - - - - - - ¢ . - . ~ . l ~ a - I - a . n 1 u - a - ¢ - -NU TCU 0A oz I u . I 1?? m3 fin N2 . . . . m2 2N . . 5U fifizwi< ..oU w $3M . AM . . . . Jcsouo< 58M .2 --| --> --¢ -.. .¢- - - ~ . ~ - - ~ - - -?,?h 4. 0m . . . . . . . . . . . N2 m2 .90 .3m:m:< roU Raw “o5; J .Z . . . . 4.32m mcoq . UQ>OMQE~ m.nw:< .w . . . . . . ~ . . . - - . - - . - - . . .NQ - - . -§_ ...- .-- ..-. -- - u | . ~ n-“QH la -m ¢ . . - ¢w 1-.‘ -- ..-....~ .-.-mn? ..- - - - - ¢ - u - | o - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . JnQmP .E.~N%C0=< .wh0wnvm .Q magnum. . . . . . . . . . . . . .N—GO< .fi --.-.-....-...............-, .-..o.?%i .... . - - . - - . . . . - - . » . -@i“nv<¢$ Mam cow mwm mom mm . . . . on mm oNM . . . . . . QSP 60233 603m? AM M . . . . . . . . . . . 22x04 d ¢-.¢..-..-..-..¢- .-.-..~.........1$? ........umQF»QN=H@§UfmohmaQ-nhfim . - . . . . ¢ . . . . -.mi@mw<-.P ill |l a‘ £2 “N2 £2 £2 £2 $2 $2 82 0N2 22 22 :2 £2 n23 :2 m2“; wvew Mo 082% i 3oCm> 1 . . nut-aw. .88 :5 E: u. @252“ E w?» E8 3:32: £2 3 22 :6: AFSH G v82: =85. u. m2§$>I¢~ Qzvih 27 COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP m2 2% ................dwéamsmiwrcnvwwomaoC5. . .....a . ... .... .... H H H H N: 3 2N .1..é§fiiaewzawww: hwaw .....Wrm w.“ Wwm m“ QN N2 v2 . . . . 155m. dmsaiog émwwm .830 . . . . . . . . . 633m . !¢ i - H H H . E. ........ éé 5E. éfiaw as .1.» “Hem Mwfimwm a .... mmN whfi hwfl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dwwoh. EGURQW. . . . . . . wmwawU cofifim dxm Qm< wwxwrfi uEwQm mnoq mhouwoh do . . . . . . . . . “UH .Q=@>mxh.fl—u “HQAHZHNA .2 . . . . . . . . . . . ..mQ.~.m°m -¢mw . . . . . m2 . . . .02 .o=@>m.~o5:.~wU £53m Q. .5 . . . . . . . . dpouwuazh .mw . . . . . . . . . . . . . .un@F Qflggfinflm Takwxiflg - 1U . . . . . . . . . . n“ .$@ .xo.H.cm:Co:w.wE.~whvowmcomswoh I163» com: 5h .5 . hmfi 2N EN own “mm . . . . JnOmF dmciunm finish woum aowzmhoh . . . . . . . . . . . dmoZ H H H H ME. a? 2N . . . . .8 ésm=< aw us” is, q .z . . EAWE. ¢mmwwmmm Hmm u - . . . . . . . . . . . - . - ¢ . - . INU no a?v - . - . . . . uwm . . . . . . . . ....9.:. ma. m: .... .... .... 1:5 .2_82m awz .s.._.sm 2:6 .......w.=m ram .5 .... .Q JMOQ Hzfimw? T4 .Q .@ SD. . . . . . . . . ....Q@QNH@ . . . . we . . . . ............. . .%..e=@u .25 25 @222. a 2N . . . . 2 . . . . 5 a 2 we . . . . . . . . . . . Hgmwwmjr...» mxwmag. ........ gmswsn .2 ‘VTOO U. ~ - . . . . . . . . . . m - H HHH Mm“. é . .8 Em? a. ..fi...w wwwfiwwflwmmwwkw ........ Qmmmwmm m ... .... .... ~..-xUH “onvwg JHQZQ-mwgxiflm -2 . . . . . . . . ..O@QNH:Q -@Aua . . . . .unQF iwnvflg JMQZ uwv kfiflvzfim .2 . . . . . . . . . KuwQQ-mia .fi@ _ . m m N3 m2 5.0 .m.._m:w:< roU doom ~02“? J .Z . 48m Em fiomcofi on two ffiPmflwmg< You @QQ@ -A .2 . . . . . . . . . . .=°~.Z.nQ -@¢ ofim 0mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ImmS>H5E> .. . . . 555m roU Haw 60m @_=>2_8 . . . . . . a . . 2N 8N d0 5.5354 roU Raw 35>? J . . . . fiwwwwmwumn ww . E .6 3 . H . H H H H E 5 .... 15 §§a2 0522:. .< a ..... p. . Eawhw w“ . . - . I u . - . . . - - ~ um to . < . . - . - - -A-.nv% . . . . . . . . . . . . .w-Z.VTMQ> aQz You % AMQWH@tAHUm -m . .®. . . . - . . . .Q%QN#% . . . . . :04 m w” co §~ 2m .90 §m=w=< roU 8% M653 .4 .2 . wowmvhwwwm wwfiU .3 . 2N .8 §=w=< .8 5.225s 4 z ......... ..Q....w w com . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . Iafiwnwi» 5 i . . . . ma . . . . . in? .3 Hmfi. ..a.mmnmm_,w_< ....... .5 a3 a -HM5QH~< ?.fl.w@ .Qvnm H~w< flifigfli< . . . . . . . . XOQU .©¢ . . - . - - . » . - - - - Q - - - - . - - - - - n ‘QH5@5< TNH@ Kwunm H~m< NENQN—< . . . . . . . . VTUOU .@@ - - - - a - - - - Q n | - - - u ~ - - - v »Qk5fl—5< TNH@ Jnmunm fl~w< flafinfifiwJfi . . . . . xoou .@m mow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "wE~aw_< x . . . . . ... . . . . ........=.ehw Jmwflmwmébmwfiowwmqwwi‘. Hm H H H H H H H H H Mwwu HS ,2 .H. h .2“. RR Hub 5% "i=6 .4.» .225, m ..............= awsw .3 BULLETIN NO. 406, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION III. III. I... IIII I... I... I... I... I... I... .I.. I... I... Nwm 00w 00m . hwxvIfi I I . . I . I . TOO IQ IZ . I I I I I O I I I IQQI.—%NQ .0235 622mb wowm wohmmimxcmq . . . . . . . . . Ztfl cwA d2 UH H. Ia an 5H 2N I: ..I.nII....I.II.=.IIm...II.w. HIIm...IIA IasIz ..IIIIIIII x 5 .5 .0: mwxorfi I25 5o 130E Ea Ram maze . . . . . . . . 2m. mam .2: Iimom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwmwwh. dmzmfl roU 1920i wax wouw mmxwu. . Siam wbxm 2:2 62 III. ..I. I... I... .I.. INU Iflwmmwwi< TOO @QQ@ . . . . . . I I I . I hliqmmfi . . . . ..xvP.w_:>mvim_UIwviwmd/Ek/ . . . . . . . . . .Anoxov~.~o~ .. . ................,..U.md_z>wf~mi..~oxoUMTG...cowwooUIcmcouvm.oofi IIII I II I I II I II IIII I. I I I II . I I I I IIII IIII I III I. II I III III . IU Im aIoU I I@® . . I . . . . . . IQNQUUM llIillllfiwm kwPibwsxooAéowIwhIxmMQEO . . . . . . . . . . 1:02“! Sm hillIIIIllilllllblUliillCllimn IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Iw® 2.5m mom Iivwm h: mwN own n: Nb h: mwfi wmw . . . . . .J$H.moo.~w§cmm.aowmv~ um . . . . . . . . . . IsomwM do . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwwxom. dmzmfi roU 295E wan woom mmxoh. . . . . . . . . . Icomxomm 4A“ Iiwmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZwmxoH I... I... .I.. I... .I.. I...XOII—II fwhfifixnwoq ngflgwuom I2 I3 QO@QENZU@Q>QIMQE% I%@ .III.II..IIA#&I# I.....I..I..I....UIZIZ%@QENMIMQ@M»QE@@I? J .Z QEEEoU HEZZQQQ .2 mam New 2a .....Iskév2> IIQITIIEuIIwIQ ...:.....EIEIEE .2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Iww . ........m2 “N”. .....................IIIP.I=I>I€I_Q.£I_Im.2.>> . . . . . . . . . 152cm .5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Imu Too IQ Iz I I I I Iww I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A I I I I I I I I I I I I I Imw IrH ' lmw $2 . . . . . . 52o 52m éEIEIIm m .< . . . . . . . zmxunésm aw m2 .134 .I§I_.Io E2 52am IE6 ...2?flm Iwmw {.8 . . . . . JsF.=o:@m.__@>IImEEIm . . . . . . . . . ..=I>IIm.Qw . . . . . . . . . zfikdmi .=%m.I_Eo . . . . . . ..:._I>IIE.@.II I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l Imo AZ to IE I 1% Ow“ 1.9.: . . . . 3o.ma_=>IIIIm.I8_¢u.m.Q . . . . . . . ..Q_=>IIIIIH.II I I I I I I i l I I I I I I I I IU Im m-OO I I I I I I I I Ow“ .. . . . .. 2N 2N .0 w .IE>2IIE 5o III .3512..........2=>I§:.2 2m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zfiée . 501mm? roU Bicwohug Q3253 . . . . . . . . . . QQQEE 4R I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4 I I I I I I I I I I O Cm I I I I I I I I I I In“ 1.52 .....Is.w.2=>=@2wIEIMIEwJI . . . . . . . ..%~8=~m .I..» EwiINI IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII III. .I.. .III IIII IIII I I I I I I I I I I IIx@rH Ilninwiwm '#5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ¢ I I I Io“ 22 82 £2 £2 2N2 22 Q2 E2 $2 22 22 22 22 22 E2 22 8% 3 255m >§II> 28 wwscficoo|vIum SQ “BT20 2.56m E 32> can 6336i dug 3 n23 59G QEZH 2w @033 cofioo we wvfioiswlkwm 05mm. 29 COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP 500. 5.0.... 0055 550. 0N0 110mm 500. hNm 00m 000. 000. 555.. mom HHHHw0w.mm0. 055 555. oNN ..555. 1:005 N00. E 110w 00 ..@0. .00. HHHHHHHH HHHH055. ....@05 HHHHM05. ....~.NA 3.41.5 IfmoN IIhNA 00A ....Nw5 .50 ....@m5 HHHH005. ....>55 HHHHO@. 0.05 .005. .. $5.. N00 05.0 ....0wm 05.0. 5.2. 000 050. 055.. 550. $5 $0 A05 All ....00 IIEA 005 550. ....050 ....005 HHHHw%m..... .500 ....mw0 ....HHHHm@w. wmN 005 HHHH@@5. 5555050. 1.5005 000. . .5500. .550555.5055m 55.5005 000m 55005505005 . . . . .00 05055554 :00 000m 50555,? .A .2 . . .00 .05550U< r00 m 555.5005 .50 AA .00 05055555 :00 5.00m 50555 .A .Z . . . . .00 .5w55w55< r00 5.8m 50555 . .Z . . . . 50H. 55055055 0550b 000m 550055 50m . . . . .5505. 55.05.5055 0550b 000m 5500555005 . . . . 050.5. 55055055 0550b 000m 550055590 . . . . 550M. 45055055 6550b 000m 5500555005 . . . . 5501A. 5505555055 0550b 000m 5500555005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00550.0 0050C r00 5505b @550 000m 0050M. . . . . 550M. 505.5055 0550b 000m 55030505 . . . . . 550.5. 50550.5. 0555555002 M5 um . . . . . . . .0500. 55505.5. 00555550 555300 . . . . . - - - -vnQH ‘Qnflo-RH fmQawfim -m .m . . . . .50.? 55:50.55 5N .02 550550505555 MNNQP. . . . . . . .5500. .5505§00A 5055.505 NA A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 005500. 5.50m 5500A $055004 020w 05505502 .Q .4 .. .0500. .0550m 550m .mm055550h wm .A A. . - - - ¢ - - - - .4. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0050B .5505 50am 0550b 55500.50 000m 00050.5. . 0w 05550550. éu 5055552055 .0 .55 . . . . . . . . . . . . .............00050.A. 005005 :00 5505b 0550 000w 0050M. . . . . - . . . . - . . . - . - . . .KUP ununv@fi.flfi@ 0005500 5505.505 .0550 .504 00550.5. . 1050.0 5503M. .0_05.AA0wm0~|AJ50555500.O . . 550.5. .055>5500.50 050055550m .4. .05 . . 1550M. .05555.5A 5.50.50 05002 .4. .5. 550M. 505.5055 .550055.50A|A 0% 55055.55 . . 2550M. .0595 0550.50 0.5002 .4 A. . . . . . . . . .5505. .0003 .5055.500 555505. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0058M. 6050C :00 5505K 0550 000w 00550.5. . . . . .5500. 55055055 05.50pm 000m 5505:0505 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0 fi- 550555555002/ .5505.500 .0 .O .0500 . . . . . 1550B .0003 .3055m550.50 .2 .05 - . - - n I u - c - n - n | Illllu-U Iw 0550A-A :00 000w 5.0305005 0.500500 L -.-¢..:%x%° . . . . . . . ......owA 555555555. 0550002 . 15.05 555555.515. 05505502 . .. . . . . . . . . Ifmww 55555.0 0550.502 . m 555555555555. 0550002 < 55055555? 05505502 . .555555.5.A. 05505502 . . . . . . . . . . . . .000 5555C. 0550002 ..555555555H. 05505502 . . . -. - ¢ . . . ~ - - 50.55 A0mv 05505502 . . - . . - . - - ~ - - 5055 A0mv 05505502 . . . . . . . . . . . . .5000 .Q05.0 50 0000055 . . . . . . . . . .0550n02 . . . . . . . . . 0550802 . . . . . . . . . 05505502 . . . . . . . . . . .0550Q02 . . . . . . . . . . . UGNDQE » . - . . - m um 6.5km 00050502 . . . . . . . OAQNMW WCOQ . . . . . . . 505w . . . . . . . 505m . . . . . . . 553w . . . . . . . 505m 0550A 0550A 0550A 0550A 0550A 0550A 0550A 0550A 0550A . 0095mm 055555055054 B02 . . . 5055A 0M0 0.502 . . . 5055A 000055052 . . . . . ...505A05.55>05502 . . 50m 05m 550055502 . 0550A . 0550A . .005 NMA .505 0.2 0N5 .005 HNA 0N5 0N5 0N5 .NN5 ANA 0N5 AN méddfifim I-iv-i I-(Y-‘I-(V-ii-(I-l? 1-11"! VI(Y-\V-lVIIF1I-IF1 v0: .005 .005 ....HQCHHHH ZIM. ..:@2 2a ..:§m Sm 2a .@w.2m=w=<..¢u_.8w:.___ .4. . . . . . . . . . . . $8 . ....finnwg.om ........aw.2w=w=<..¢uRzw:._=>>»a_.fi . . . . ..wo..>>mhxo,+\wwfl . w? o2 wmw éo .Sm=w=<....u $w§=>>. .z . . . . .250? 2&2. at .-.. .... -.. .-...XOHQHHQQ@H$UTOU- E%@UQZWMQH nvkm....mmwkw°hm wflvnmvk .... .... ....NMN .NU QNQWUWQ~Q.>>._... . . . . . . ..2_Ew==w.§ mmi.=.%.@u £=w=<..ouva. Hwaaqiz ....... ..:>,@=s.w.¢h_ Iéw S=@:<..¢um=c.m~m.o.m. . . . . . . ..E$Q==w.@@~ xwmfi 2N HQ»HHG.Wmmeéwzwwwwwafiflwmwwa.....;:e@ea=wa: ............:m ............3:...............................@216.wawamqvmm.HAMMQNMQH ..... .§u@=sm.s_ 3MHflnfiwfmww.Fififififimw a a é mum iiiiggwoww§>mfiwfl%“NwfimmwwflwflfififlwfluMwwwwwwmmnwhm“WWW .2222.22...:@.@___a§a_uiéomfsfiawz. . . . . . . ..2_~=a..=w.x: :2 25 w: fi......m...w.=mwww hmumhqwfimwm=mzmw Hwwxwwwwrhnwfim “m: ....................N©m ....... . . . . . . . . . .z~fiwflw—fi.m . . S; 2N . . . . . zawwm. Qmfiuflmwwm sflwwcz$¢=ohm @2295 .21 roU 13.2.0300 £50 o w a . “I Hwnfi. Es._w.m_.m._<....oqmwrv_=w.w__3iflmwwgmwuafimm m“ ....-.....-..-..-.% ‘Z ax|%°> . . B@Z..¢u@8m¢o2» 5 . . . . . . .. . .m»......§ ........s,.wpm_.m..<....u_.Q$HW__.>.WWM$M ...... ....=._.wflwwwmm_flm.wmw H gwwflfl... . . . . Jaw¢.._=>¢m$w.~@5=m. d . . . . . ...._.2.E=m.@2 ....v.nm Tfi..mokflmwihonm.mc~r~mhwoomccmfl%.~oh ....._uUNQ GOUQIOQ .mmm . . . . . . .............§se d: efiomsi» %~E..>>.2.m . . . . . . . . ..=@E»om.m.u; ¢- .-. -¢ - - - . . 1-. ~ - . . - - ~ ¢ . . . . . . . Loam 65.5% miwvofim uoow munch. . . . . . . . . . duwBofl fimfi 2; a: ............awmwflmavwwmmwmwwswswuwwwwwwwemxmxwiwwsom22 mmwewm@@m....mw@w.swmwwm: z a ...:..._: s” .........35.u_=..mm___>m.wwom:s..aom ........ fiafww“ 53H mxxxxm Hmf...§ SN Eée€Mom2=>wa¢=>zoz2.x . . . . . .....=ou>>ofl.wvH 18m 2: 8N .3.Sm=w=<..¢uRsm§=>>..5z...=..mm_m2s€ms3 111.52“ YQmfi.xxxm...u.w.w==o2é_nam.mv_ommdd . . . . ..:......mx2m.@2 . . . . . . .......-.-........U .% . .=.zws§_u..ou 3 5E . . . ..:2.m 5N 3N .5.sw=m=<..ou_.vommao=wé m1,» . . . . . . . ZMMMWWMMHTWW“ . Iimmfi ....o2,o_m>m.~on~:.=~U £8 mnfifiw . . . . . . . . ..¢o.ommEom d: BULLETIN NO. 406, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION m o‘: $2 R2 82 £2 £2 22 $2 E2 82 22 22 S2 22 22 22 .22 2.2a m. 85$ 32a> 30 wwzcficoolouom 8Q us: mo wwcsoa E 32> cam 622:3: 6N2 3 n23 50C Qsofifi i». F323 cofioo mo wofiwrzfiwldfi wink. 31 x - ... H.» 01¢ . 0 Z‘ Fw I w.» \ w... I ._mw.wm..m..mwm_ 0 §mxwum=mmm 00am... a ...._...... / s02 0.0.... =5» COTTON VARIETY EXPERIMENTS AT SUBSTATION NO. 2, TROUP .50.... NE. 00w. .00. 0w. x300. Hfipmfi ..:3._ .1000 1:02 332m 1.500.. ....~EN IImwH 0w. .3302. “@3302. 2: . >2 ....mo~ Ivlbwmfi .5010. m2. mom 0?. Sm .58 .02 1.15m» :30: 1:02 “HUME. m2 ........0..; H5500. . .103 02 ....0fi M50000“. “H3005. 3 5E. .0“ 02 ..-®h~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I500 .000 r4 .Q .0 .D .00E00A02 00w 0< . 00F 0000003 fiisxow 0w 00002000 . . . . . . .50 .2=>~=...0 .353 .0 .0 .00 .00m0w0< r00 000w 05>? .0 .Z . . . 00H. .COG.~U> JMOW 0% MQOMQEEUW .00 62052. r00 000m 0052/ J .Z . . . . .0.m.0_5>w€0E .0000h 000w 000000000 . . . . .0.w.2=>wt~m .8005 000m 5.000300% m: . . . .0 .w .05>3.5m 10x00 .5 .Q . . . . . .0 .0 050/3005 00x00 .M .Q . . . . . .000 H. $500802 £3005 00000 . .0 .0 .05>$00m :00 0. 00x00 J A. . . . .000. .QQEWUSW éowibwm 0% GNEHZQ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200x00 00E 1.00am 5800b 000530 000w 0000B . . . . 00> .0000E2fl £00m 0. 0002/ S? Q. . ~ . . . - . - - - - - - - . .U -m 0m £00m 0% 0x00000008 5P S? .... ..-. .N> »@HMQE§Q@m.WQQZ%@QQB -a F? . . . . 0.0 0,2532 .2 .820 08w 0002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000M. 6050mm r00 300E 000 000m 0000M. . . . . . . . . 00H. 0050mm 65.0mm 000m 0000060 o“; £0 0mm . .00 .0500>0A r00 000m F00Z000> . . .0 .m .05E0_00 .00000B0A .m~ .3 . . . ~ . . . . . - - . . . . . . - . - . . . N@QRQUU £00054 .50 08m @0555 .0 .0 . . . . . . 00F £50m r00 000m 3500B .20 §8w=< .00 08w 00.03 . .2 . . . . 00H. .00Ea0xw 650mb 000m 0000 00h . . . . . . . . . . NOB JMNWhm .H:Hm< nut/hm . . . . .00 £09354 :00 000w 005E? 4H .Z . . . . . . . . . . . .0507 3m Q 0500300 0.000003 . . . . . . . . . . . . .353 . . . 000d 00G 0.00? . 1.000003 0000003 . ..00>000E~ 000x03 . . . . . . . low 000x03 . . . . . . . . . . .0050? . . . . . . . 20v 000003 . ...000_0>0_0 |00x0EQ000>P . . . . . . . hQMNENGCNB . . . . . . ..~QMNENGGN3 . . . . . . . 0x00000003 . 033m 0E5 03o0mx0D . 0 > . . . . . . . . . . miwfl . . . . . . . . . . Hmwfiflhfim 03003 mL0>w000> . . . . . . . . . . 20x 00w 0.60 0300x000 . . . .000 Em 02.5 . . . . . . . . . . 10350.0... . . . . . . . . . . . . Jfiflurfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ignmannTmh . . . . . . . . . . . . Jvnvmhvfi dhfi 60M