A6- 1 30-8,000- L180 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR College Station, Brazos County, Texas BULLETIN NO. 408 FEBRUARY, 1930 DIVISION OF AGRONOMY THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON YIELD OF CERTAIN CROPS L I B R A R Y ‘ Agricultural & Mechanical College o! Text! 01mm Station, Iexas. AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFF’; ADMINISTRATION: A. B. CONNER, M. S., Director 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 CHEMISTRY: G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist J. F. FUDGE, Ph. D., Chemist ——~———————. 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 ATRAN J. STEROEs, B. S., Assistant Chemist JEANNE M. FUEOAs, Assistant Chemist RAY TREIcHLER, S., Assistant Chemist J. K. FARMER, 1\/I. A., Assistant Chemist RALPH L. SCHWARTZ, B. S., Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: HAMILTON P. TRAUB, Ph. D., Chief ————— ——, Ilorticulturist RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JONEs, A. M., Chief B. L. WARWICK, Ph.D., Breeding Investigations STANLEY P. DAvIs, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: 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, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector W. R. JORDAN, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYNOLDs, Ph. D., Chief R. E. KARPER, M. S., Agronomist P. C. MANGELsDORF, Sc. D., Agronomist D. T. KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist H. E. REA, B. S., Agronomist ' i, Agronomist B. C. LANGLEY, B. S., Assistant in Soils PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JAcKsON, Chief VETERINARY SCIENCE: *M. FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian E. JUNGHERR, D. V. ., Veterinarian — ———, Veterinarian F. E. CARROLL, D. V. M., Veterinarian ‘ _ PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: J. J. TAUBENHAUs, Ph. D., Chie YV. N. EzEKIEL, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist W. J. BAcH, M. S., Plant Pathologist B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS: L. P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief W. E. PAULsON, Ph. D., Marketing C. A. BONNEN, M. S., Farm fl/lanagement J. F. Criswell, B. S., Assistant J. N. TATE, B. S., Assistant RURAL HOME RESEARCH: JEssIE WHITAcRE, Ph. D., Chief MARY ANNA GRIMEs, M. S., Textiles 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. \VOLEE, M. S., Botanist SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: O. C. COPELAND, M. 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 S. D. PEARcE, Secretary J. H. ROGERS, Feed Inspector W. H. WOOD, Feed Inspector K. L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector . W. D. NORTHcUTT, JR., S., Feed Inspector SIDNEY D. REYNOLDS, JR., Feed Inspector P. A. MOORE, Feed Inspector SUBSTATIONS N0. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: P. R. JOHNSON, 1W. S., Act. Superintendent No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson 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. WOLEF, 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 —————— —, 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, College Station, Brazos County: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., In charge L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. MORRIs, M. S., Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent **J. C. STEPHENS, M. A., Assistant Agronomist No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W DAMERON, B. S., Superintendent E. JUNGHERR, D. V. M., Veterinarian , Veterinarian **O. G. BABCOCK, B. S., 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 No. l7,.~— ————————, Superintendent No. 1s, ——i-—— —, Superintendent No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. IVIORTENSEN, B. S., Superintendent — —, Horticulturist No. 2), ——-—-—— i——l—, Superintendent Teachers in the School of Agricllture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: G. W. ADRIANcE, M. S., Horticulture S. W. BILSING, Ph. D., Entomology V. P. LEE, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance D. ScOATEs, A. E., Agricultural Engineering H. P. Smith, M. S., AgFiCUlillfGi Engineering R. H. WILLIAMS, Ph. D., Animal Husbandry *Dean, School of Veterinary71Medicine. A. K. MAcKEY, M. S., Animal Husbandry J. S. IVIOGFORD, M. S., Agronomy F. S. JAMIsON, M. S., Horticulture F. R. BRIs0N, B. S., Horticulture W. R. HORLAcHER. Ph. D., Genetics J. H. KNOX, M. S., Animal Husbandry TAs of February 1, 1930. **In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. ***In cooperation with the School of Agriculture. 1 The use of sulphur in amounts ranging from 50 t0 10,000 pounds per acre on soils at Temple, Angleton, Beeville, College Station, Nacogdoches, and Troup, Texas, did not produce sig- nificant 0r profitable increases in the yield of cotton, corn, cow- peas, or oats. The work was conducted over a period of six years at Temple, four years at Angleton and Troup, three years at Nacogdoches, and two years at Beeville and College Station. The results indicate that the soils on which the experiments were conducted are not deficient in sulphur and consequently the use of sulphur alone as a fertilizer would not be profitable in farm practice. Sulphur applied at rates ranging from 50 to 10,000 pounds per acre each year to the dark calcareous soil at Temple did not bring about an acid condition in the soil during the six years of the experiment. The rate of application of sulphur apparently had no appreciable effect on the development or control of root-rot disease of cotton on this soil, indicating that sulphur would be of little practical value in controlling the disease on highly calcareous soils, such as the black waxy soils in the Blackland region of Central Texas. CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Review of Other Work With Sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Object and Plan of the Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '7 Time and Method of Applying Sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Rate of Applying Sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. "7 Experimental Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Results With Cotton, Corn, and Oats at Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Yield of Rotated Cotton . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Yield of Continuous Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Yield of Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Yield of Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1O Effect of Sulphur on the Reaction of the Soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Eifect of Sulphur on Root Rot . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Results With Cotton, Corn, and CoWpeas at Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Yield of Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Yield of Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Yield of CoWpeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Results With Cotton and CoWpeas at College Station . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Yield of Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Yield of CoWpeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Results With Cotton and CoWpeas at Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Yield of Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Yield of CoWpeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Results With CoWpeas at Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Results With CoWpeas at Nacogdoches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Comparison of Results at Different Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 BULLETIN NO. 40S FEBRUARY, 1930 THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON YIELD OF CERTAIN CROPS E. B. REYNOLDS In 1921 the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station began field ex- periments With sulphur as a fertilizer t0 determine the needs of some of the more important soils in Texas for sulphur. The results obtained in these experiments from 1921 to 1928 are reported in this Bulletin. These and other experiments with sulphur were made possible through the generous cooperation of the Freeport Sulphur Company. It has been known for a long time that several elements are necessary for the growth and normal development of plants. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, and sulphur are the ten elements usually regarded as being necessary for the complete development of plants. Manganese, silicon, chlorine, and boron may possibly function as nutrient elements. Of the essential ele- ments, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur, potas- sium, calcium, magnesium, and iron are used in large amounts by plants. Small amounts or traces of manganese, chlorine, and boron are beneficial to some species of plants. i It has been found by practical farm experience and field experiments that nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium are more likely to be deficient in cultivated soils than the other essential elements. This is the reason Why these elements are used in commercial fertilizers. While sulphur is necessary for plant growth, until recent years this element has been assumed to be present in the soil in amounts sufficient for normal plant growth. Accordingly sulphur has not been regarded asbeing a limiting factor in the production of crops and has not been used extensively as a fertilizer. Investigations during the last thirty or forty years, however, have shown the importance of sulphur in the nutri- tion of plants and its relation to the fertility of the soil. REVIEW OF OTHER WORK WITH SULPHUR An extensive review of the work done with sulphur as a fertilizer need not begiven here for the reason that rather complete reviews have been made by other workers, especially Joife (at), Olson and St. John (8), Reimer and Tartar (10), and Shedd (11). A brief discussion, however, will be given to show in a general way the development of the research work with sulphur as a fertilizer. Apparently the first work reported on the use of sulphur in agricul- ture in this country was done primarily as control measures on plant diseases, especially potato scab. Halsted at the New Jersey Agricultural 6 BULLETIN NO. 408, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Experiment Station conducted several field experiments with sulphur for the purpose of controlling potato scab. In some of these experiments (2) the use of sulphur reduced the infestation of potato scab from 100 per cent to 5 per cent. The increase in yield of potatoes obtained by using sulphur in these and similar experiments elsewhere suggested the use of sulphur as a fertilizer. Subsequently, numerous experiments with sulphur as a fertilizer have been conducted in Europe and America. A large amount of work with sulphur has been carried on in the Ynited States since 1910. Hart and Peterson (3) in Wisconsin were perhaps the first Workers to study sulphur in its relation to soil fertility in a comprehensive and fundamental manner. They determined the amount of sulphur in dif- ferent soils, the amount removed by different crops, the amount lost by leaching, and the amount added to the soil by rainfall. These workers found that soils which had been in cultivation 50 to 60 years without the addition of manures had lost 40 per cent of their sulphur, in com- parison with the sulphur content of adjacent virgin soils. Shedd (11) determined the amount of sulphur in some of the soils in Kentucky and conducted experiments with sulphur as a fertilizer for several crops. He found that sulphur increased the yield of tobacco, soybeans, mustard, radishes, and turnips. Application of 7,000 pounds ofsulphur per acre caused cabbage to die and prevented the germination of mustard seed. Beimer and Tartar (10) made a rather extensive study of sulphur as a fertilizer for alfalfa on soils in southern Oregon. They found that sulphur and fertilizers containing sulphur increased the yield of alfalfa 50 per cent to 1000 per cent on some soils. These workers recommended the use of 40 to 50 pounds of sulphur along with 200 pounds of rock phos- phate per acre, or 200 pounds of gypsum alone per acre, or 250 pounds of superphosphate per acre for alfalfa on the soils of southern Oregon. Olson and St. John (8) in Washington recently made an exhaustive study of sulphur as a plant food. . Lomanitz (5) found by chemical analyses of soils and pot experiments with crops, that the soils of Brazos and J efierson counties, Texas, are not deficient in sulphur. Reynolds and Leidigh (9) at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station reported that sulphur produced slight increases in the yield of cotton on a dark calcareous soil in central Texas. v In experiments conducted by the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station ('7) sulphur increased the yield of alfalfa 1.92 tons per acre, while gypsum gave an increase of 1.35 tons. Oross (1) reported that applications of sulphur to sugar ca11e in Argentine produced small but distinct increases in the yield of cane and sugar. . McKibbin (6) in Maryland studied the effect of sulphur onsoils and on yield of crops. He used thirteen different crops, including cotton, corn, wheat, potatoes, and alfalfa, and seven different soils. Sulphur THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON YIELD OF CERTAIN CROPS 7 was used at the rates of 50, 100, and 300 pounds per acre. In twenty-one trials Where sulphur was used alone, increases in yield were obtained in aleven cases; decreases in yield resulted in seven cases; and in the other three trials sulphur had no effect on yield. The use of sulphur in mix- tures with superphosphate (acid phosphate) had a tendency to lower the yield of crops grown on Maryland soils, while sulphur in mixtures with raw rock phosphate tended to increase the yield. McKibbin stated that light applications of sulphur for specific crops may increase yields but he recommended that not more than 100 pounds of elemental sulphur per acre be applied to Maryland soils. OBJECT AND PLAN OF THE EXPERIMENT When the work with sulphur was begun in 1921 at Substation No. 5 Temple, Bell County, the two main objects in mind were to determine by the use of field experiments (1) the need of the soils for sulphur and (2) if the use of sulphur in various amounts would control root rot, a disease of cotton especially destructive in the Blackland Region of Central Texas. Later the Work was extended to the following points in the State: Main Station, College Station, Brazos County, Substation No. 1, Beeville, Bee County, Substation No. 2, Troup, Smith County, Substation No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County, Substation No. 11, Nacogdoches,iNacogdoches County. At these five places the principal object has been to determine the needs of the soils for sulphur, since the root-rot disease is not present or is not of major importance at these stations. (See cut on back page.) Time and Method of Applying the Sulphur Ground commercial sulphur was used in all of these studies. In the work at Angleton, College Station, and Temple the sulphur was applied broadcast to the land two to three weeks before the crops were planted and disked in thoroughly to mix the sulphur with the surface soil. At Beeville, Nacogdoches, and Troup the sulphur was applied in the drill at the time the seed bed was prepared. Rate of Applying the Sulphur The rate of applying sulphur has not been uniform at all the stations. At Temple the work has included light and heavy applications, ranging from 50 pounds to 10,000 pounds per acre. Only two rates of applica- tion, 100 pounds and 200 pounds per acre, were used in the experiment at Beeville and College Station. The sulphur was applied at the rates of 250 and 500 pounds per acre at Angleton, Nacogdoches, and Troup. EXPERIMENTAL DATA The data obtained in conducting the experiment with sulphur are discussed separately for each station as a matter of convenience. The 8 BULLETIN NO. 408, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION general results at the several stations are then brought together and compared in order that the experiment may be considered as a Whole. Results Obtained with Cotton, Corn, and Oats at Temple Since the object of the experiment at Substation No. 5, Temple, was to determine the need of the soil for sulphur and to ascertain if sulphur could be used effectively to control the root rot of cotton, the sulphur was used at several rates of application, ranging from 50 to 4,000 pounds per acre on cotton, corn, and oats in a three-year rotation (Table 1). Sulphur also was applied at the rates of 500, 2,500, 5,000, and 10,000 pounds per acre on cotton grown on the same land every year (Table 2). In the three-year rotation the sulphur was applied to the cotton only in 1922 and 1923, but in 1924, 1925, and 1926, the sulphur was applied to the three crops each year. Belton cotton, Mosshart Yellow Dent corn, and Texas Red Rust-Proof oats were the crops grown in the experiment. The work was conducted on Bell clay, which is a dark or black calcareous soil, previously correlated as Simmons clay. Yield 0f Rotated Cotton! The rate of applying sulphur appeared to have no consistent effect on the yield of cotton grown in rotation in 1922 and 1923 (Table 1). In 1926, however, the rates of 400, 500, 1,000, and 1,500 pounds of sulphur made considerably larger yields than the other rates of application, or the soil which did not receive sulphur. The application of 1,000 pounds of sulphur per acre produced the larg- est yield, 655 pounds of lint per acre in 1926, which was 120 pounds Table 1. Yield of rotated cotton in pounds of lint per acre in experiment with sulphur at emple, Texas Average Pounds of 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 i‘? sulphur 1922- 1921- per acre 1926 1926 None . . . . . . . . . . 269 207 303 247 157 535 290 286 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 188 319 220 172 512 282 . . . . . . . . 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 297 203 149 523 275 . . . . . . . . 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 302 234 142 454 267 . . . . . . . . 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 291 216 152 502 275 . . . . . . . . 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 317 219 142 625 300 . . . . . . . . 500 . . . . . . . . . . . 249 221 332 238 140 593 305 296 1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 211 316 225 147 655 311 . . . . . . . . 1500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 323 221 149 628 306 . . . . . . . . 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228 304 202 158 516 282 . . . . . . . . 2500 . . . . . . . . . . . 223 199 270 270 137 472 270 262 3000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 278 223 122 477 258 . . . . . . . . 4000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 320 179 135 445 255 . . . . . . . . more than the yield of the soil which received no sulphur. The 1000- pound treatment of sulphur also made the largest average yield, 3'11 pounds per acre, during the five years, 1922 to 1926, inclusive. This high average yield is due to the large yield of 655 pounds in 1926, since the treatment actually made a smaller average yield than the untreated soil from 1922 to 1925, inclusive. The average yield of cotton decreased THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON YIELD OF CERTAIN CROPS 9 as the amount of sulphur increased from 1,500 to 4,000 pounds per acre. For the six years, 1921 to 1926, inclusive, the treatment of 500 pounds of sulphur per acre made an average yield of 296 pounds of lint per acre, which was only 10 pounds more than the yield of soil which received no sulphur. While sulphur used at the rates of 400, 500, 1,000, and 1,500 pounds per acre made slightly larger average yields than the soil receiving no sulphur, the increases in yield were not large enough to pay for the cost of the sulphur used. The results indicate, therefore, that sulphur is not needed on this soil for the production of cotton. Yield 0f COIIfiIIIIOIIS COttOIH During the siX years of the experiment the yields of cotton resulting from the various treatments were rather erratic, showing no consistent relation to the amount of sulphur used, Table 2. The treatment of 500 pounds of sulphur made the largest average yield, 151 pounds of lint per acre, for the four years, 1923, 1924, I925, and 1926, as compared with 141 pounds for the untreated soil and 14'? pounds for the soil which received 10,000 pounds per acre. These data indicate that sulphur would not be profitable when used as a fer- tilizer on this soil. Table 2. Yield of continuous cotton in pounds of lint per acre in experiment with sulphur at Temple, Texas Average Pounds 0f 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 ——-—-?—- sulphur 1921- 1923- per acre 1926 1926 None . . . . . . . . . . 174 127 160 169 23 212 144 141 500 . . . . . . . . .. 152 123 162 191 42 210 147 151 2500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 112 47 209 . . . . . . . . 139 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 151 113 79 200 136 10000 . . . . . . . . . . 147 118 164 125 53 246 142 147 Yield 0f Corn: As mentioned above, sulphur was applied to corn in 1924, 1925, and 1926. In 1922 and 1923 the corn received the residual effects, if any, of the sulphur applied to the previous crop of cotton. In 1924 and 1926 apparently the heavier applications of sulphur, 2,000 to 4,000 pounds per acre, caused some reduction in the yield of gcorn (Table 3). The untreated soil and the soil to which. 500 pounds 40f sulphur were applied made the same average yield, 38.1 bushels per iacre, for the four years, 1922, 1923, 1924, and 1926. The use of 50 Fipounds of sulphur per acre resulted in the largest average yield, 40.1" ibushels per acre during the three years, 1923, 1924, and 1926, which féwas 2.3 bushels more than the yield of the soil which received no sul- glphur. The heavier applications, 2,000 to 4,000 pounds per acre, reduced ithe yield‘ of corn about five bushels per acre in comparison with the yield ,of corn on the untreated soil. ‘ " z i‘ r 2 F s 10 BULLETIN NO. 408, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 3. Yield of corn in bushels per acre in experiment with sulphur at Temple, Texas ' Average Pounds of sulphur per acre 1922 1923 1924 1926 1922-23- 24-26 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38.8 44 0 31.9 37.5 38 1 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 1 36.9 36.4 . . . . . . .. 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 2 36.9 35.6 . . . . . . .. 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43 6 32.9 39.9 . . . . . . .. 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 441 30.7 37.9 . . . . . . .. 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 0 34.1 33.5 . . . . . . .. 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 5 43 0 36.0 36.9 38 1 100D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42 5 30.8 35.0 . . . . . . .. 1500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43 9 25.5 36.2 . . . . . . .. 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 6 24.9 32.2 . . . . . . .. 2500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.6 40 6 23.8 33.8 33.7 3000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 1 22.8 28.6 . . . . . . .. 4000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42 7 23.0 31.6 . . . . . . .. Yield 0f Qats! Satisfactory yields of oats Were obtained in 1923, 1924, f- and 1926. The oats in the experiment Were practically a failure in 1925 1 0n account of being replanted in February after being killed by freezing * and 0n account of drouth later in the season, the yields ranging from 3.7 Y to 10.8 bushels per acre, as shown in Table 4. The average yields for L the three years, 1924, 1925, and 1926 show that sulphur had very little effect on the yield of oats. Table 4. Yield of oats in bushels per acre in experiment with sulphur at Temple, Texas t Average Pounds of sulphur per acre 1923 1924 1925 1926 L? " 1924-26 1923-26 5 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 73.9 72.5 8.6 70.1 50.4 56 3 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61.7 10.8 84.6 52.4 . . . . . . .. 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62.8 10.8 72.2 48.6 . . . . . . .. 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 68.1 6.0 56.4 43.5 . . . . . . .. 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.0 9.3 66.7 49.0 . . . . . . .. 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.0 9.3 71.0 49.7 . . . . . . .. 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 9 78.7 8.7 65.3 50.9 55.9 1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 83.0 7.3 69.4 53.2 . . . . . . .. 1500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 75.5 8.6 65.7 49.9 . . . . . . .. 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 77.1 7.7 64.2 49.7 . . . . . . .. 2500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69.4 73.4 6.7 66.5 48.9 54.0 3000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.3 3.9 69.9 48.4 . . . . . . .. 4000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 71.9 3.7 85.6 53.7 . . . . . . .. Elfect of Sulphur on the Reaction of the Soil Bell clay, on which the Work with sulphur at Temple Was conducted, is a dark or black calcareous soil. The soil contains about 100,000 pounds of lime in 2,000,000 pounds of soil (the Weight of the upper 6% inches of soil on an acre), as reported in Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 301. It is slightly alkaline or basic in reaction, having a pH of 7.8 to 8.0. When the experiment with sulphur was begun in- 1921, it Was thought that sulphur might be used on this soil and similar soils to control root rot of cotton, by changing the reaction of the soil. THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON YIELD OF CERTAIN CROPS 11 Sulphur was applied to the soil at rates ranging from 50 to 10,000 pounds per acre, as mentioned previously. The reaction of the soil re- ceiving difierent amounts of sulphur was determined by the colorimetric method at‘ monthly intervals during the growing season of cotton in 1922 and 1923. The small applications of sulphur, 50 to 400 pounds per acre, did not have much effect on the reaction (pH value) of the soil, as shown in Table 5. It may be explained ‘here that a soil having a reaction of pH 7.0 is neutral (neither acid nor alkaline) 5 While a soil having a value higher than pH 7 .0, such as 7.3, 7.8, 8.5, etc., is alkaline in reaction; and a soil having a value lower than pH 7.0, such as 6.3, 5.4, 4.5, etc., is acid in reaction. The largest applications of sulphur, 4,000 to 10,000 pounds per acre, reduced the reaction of the soil from pH 7.8 or 8.0 to pH 7.1 in several instances, September 15, 1922, and July 15 and August 16, 1923. An acid reaction, however, was never observed at any time in the soil on any of the plats in the experiment. The soil which received sulphur at the rate of 10,000 pounds per acre has received a total of 60,000 pounds of sulphur per acre during the six years of the experiment. This amount of sulphur when completely oxidized to sulphuric acid is equivalent to approximately 180,000 pounds of sulphuric acid. One pound of sulphuric acid will neutralize or use up about one pound of lime. It follows, therefore, that the 60,000 pounds of sulphur if completely oxidized to sulphuric acid would be more than suflicient to use up all of the lime in the surface soil. As pointed out above, however, the soil has not become acid, but it appears to be just a matter of time until enough of the sulphur is oxidized to sulphuric acid to neutralize the lime and other bases in the soil, thus” producing an acid reaction. Theoretically, that is what would be ex- pected to occur eventually, but so far the soil has not become acid. Effect of Sulphur on Root Rot It will be recalled that one of the objects of the experiment with sulphur at Temple was to determine if sulphur in various amounts would control root rot of cotton. The percentage of cotton plants that died from root rot on each plat in the experiment was obtained in 1922, 1925, and 1926. The sulphur appeared to have no efiect on the develop- ment of the disease in cotton grown in rotation, as shown in Table 6. The percentage of root rot, however, varied from one plat to another, but the variation did not appear to have any consistent relation to the amounts of sulphur used. For example, in 1926 the percentage of root rot was about the same on the plats which received 50, 1,000, 2,000, 2,500, 3,000, and 4,000 pounds of sulphur per acre, respectively. Sim- ilar results were obtained on cotton grown on the same land every year (Table 6a). The variation in the prevalence of the disease on the sev- -eral plats seemed‘ to be due to causes other than the treatments of sulphur. 12 BULLETIN NO. 408, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 1O N mwmmwwmwow¢w¢mmmwNmo 3 QPBBFFBNDBBBBBNBFPDN O 3 J mooooooommmownwwmmNo 3 Qwwwwwwwnhhwhunhnhuw w m N m m N 2 H 2 _ mma@ammamn>amvmmmm~o 2 w § Qhhhhbbhfihhhfihbhhhbw C6 C} < l M N L1 o1 5 Oi Q u) - F‘ 1-1 Q mooww>o>>>wommmwwm~w '1 % Qwwhhhwuuwhwhhhbhwwn U) m w S’ m ,_ v-l 2 0 awwwwmQwwwwmmm¢mmNa 2 E mhhbhhhnhhhhhhhhhhhh q) "1 P F? 2 . 3 mmwhwwhw¢v¢wm¢¢Nw- A 3 Qhhbhbhbbbbbbbhhh Q _ O 5 m "a r1 3 J mawamawwhhmvm¢~w g g nhhhwwuuhhhnhnnnh Q Cq (/1 E N q: O5 m “ 2 3 2 _ mwwwwwwhmvwhvwvmh '5 1 g Qhhhhbhfihfibbbhhbfi > S’ <6 £1 3 m 3 N 'd k “’.‘°.“.“‘.“°.°?"T"T‘T°'°.°°.°°."°.°°.°“:°°. 3 -5 Q-hhhhhbhbhhhhhhhn g m 4-? q m 3 mmubwmmhmwwwvwmvw 3 5 Dbhhhhhhhhhhbhhbh g w M <-l 8 ...... .... ... Q ------ .... -.- m o M ...... .... .m I Q .......... ... m “’ ::::::::;: 1:: _a__> '5; f‘ Q‘ IIIIIIIIII III In ...-...... ... P : ...... .... :m c‘ -......... I11 .---\~--- ... : .,.. . .. . .. m -.;--q-. .- H .... . .. . . . m .... . .. . . . V '5 IIIIIIII II ¢ ...... .. - .. : _...._....- . _ C?‘ oooo oooo oooo oo gmooogoooogoooogoog Q ~~mo*@22~aaas=sso Z Z Z Z ~Z THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON YIELD OF CERTAIN CROPS 13 Table 6.—Percentage of root rot in rotated cotton on soil treated with various amounts of sulphur at Temple, Texas Pounds of sulphur per acre 1922 1925 1926 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.6 60.9 59.2 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27.6 53.1 69.6 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.3 58.4 65.0 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.7 51.9 51.3 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.5 34.7 35.4 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.3 13.2 11.5 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.0 6.7 16.6 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.0 7.6 59.5 1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.3 8.0 70.8 1500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.4 9.5 40.8 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.2 6.7 75.3 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.3 8.5 74.5 2500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.9 10.1 76.0 3000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.8 20.1 72.3 4000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.4 14.8 70.3 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.6 39.4 63.0 Recent investigations on the root rot of cotton by the Division of Plant Pathology and Physiology of this Station (Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 389) have shown that the growth of the root-rot fungus in artificial _ media is inhibited at an acidity of pH 4.1 and at an alkalinity of pH 8.9; that is, the fungus does not grow in a strongly acid or alkaline medium. It was found also that the root-rot disease did not occur in very acid soils and seldom in strongly alkaline soils. Table 6a. Percentage of root rot in continuous cotton on soil treated with sulphur at Temple, Texas Pounds of sulphur per acre 1922 ' 1925 1926 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 3 21.7 99.0 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 1 33.5 99.0 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 3 35.8 98.7 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32 6 27.8 98.9 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 8 28.8 98 4 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 5 23.1 86.5 2500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 4 24.4 68.6 2500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 1 33.6 65.9 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 0 21.7 51.2 5000.‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 22 4 50.4 53.0 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 9 36.8 47.4 5000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20 9 32.2 18.6 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 7 16.4 14.7 10000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 0 39.7 30.0 10000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.5 40.7 11 5 None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.9 33.2 37 5 As stated above, the soil on which the sulphur work was conducted at Temple was highly calcareous, having a pH of 7.8 to 8.0, a reaction at which the root-rot fungus thrives. The treatments of sulphur did not cause acidity in the soil, although the larger applications of sulphur reduced the reaction from pH 8.0 to 7.4, and in a few cases to pH 7 .1, a condition approaching neutrality (Table 5). Since the root-rot fungus thrives in either slightly acid or basic soils, 14 BULLETIN NO. 408, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION that is, soils ranging from pH 6.5 to pH 8.0 in reaction, and since large amounts of sulphur aggregating 60,000 pounds per acre have not yet brought about an acid condition in the highly calcareous soil at Temple, it Would seem impracticable toattempt to control the disease on soils containing large amounts of lime by the use of sulphur. While theoretically the use of sulphur in sufficient amounts would eventually bring about an acid condition in strongly calcareous soils, the procedure would be impracticable in farm practice on account of the expense and time involved. On such soils other methods of control, such as rotation of crops and clean cultivation, should be used until more effective measures of control are perfected (Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. No. 365). On neutral or slightly acid soils on which root rot occurs, however, sul- phur in suitable amounts might possibly be used as an aid in controlling the disease, but this phase of the matter needs further study before definite conclusions should be drawn. Results Obtained with Cotton, Corn, and Cowpeas at Angleton The experiment with sulphur at Substation No. 3, Angleton, was con- ducted four years, 1925, 1926, 1927, and 1928. The Work included cotton, corn, and cowpeas. The sulphur Was applied broadcast at the rates of 250 and 500 pounds per acre to the land before planting the crops. The Work was located 011 a light-colored phase of Lake Oharles clay and Lake Charles clay loam soils. The surface soil of these types is dark gray in color and is underlain by a dense, heavy, gray subsoil. These soils are rather heavy, crust, and become hard on drying. If, however, they are plowed and cultivated at the right moisture content they crumble to a good tilth. The surface of these soils is rather fiat and this, together with dense subsoils, results in poor or sloW drainage on the surface and through the soi . These soils are productive but not quite as productive as the typical Lake Charles clay. Yield 0f Cotton! The soil treated with 500 pounds of sulphur per acre made a yield of 318 pounds of lint per acre, or only 12 pounds more than the yield of the untreated land in 1925 (Table '7). This difference in yield does not appear to be significant. In 1926, the application of 500 pounds of sulphur again produced the largest yield, 196 pounds of lint per acre, which was 23 pounds more than the yield of the land - which received no sulphur. Large yields resulted in 1927, the untreated land producing the highest yield, 508 pounds of lint per acre, which is significantly larger than the yield of 451 pounds produced by the treat- ment of 500 pounds of sulphur per acre. In 1928 the untreated land also made decidedly larger yields than the land treated with sulphur. During the four years, the untreated land made an average yield of 325 pounds of lint per acre, which is 19 pounds more than the yield resulting from the application of 500 pounds of sulphur per acre. These small differences in yield are probably not significant. The results indicate THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON YIELD OF CERTAIN CROPS 15 that sulphur is not needed on the Lake Charles soils for the production of cotton. Table 7'. Yield per acre of lint cotton in experiment with sulphur at Angleton, Texas Average Pounds of sulphur per acre 1925 1926 1927 1928 1925- . 1928 Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Lbs None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306 173 508 314 325 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 130 481 274 292 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318 196 451 259 306 Yield 0f Corn: In 1925 the largest yield of corn, 37.4 bushels per acre, resulted from the application of 500 pounds of sulphur (Table 8). In 1926, the treatment of 250 pounds of sulphur made the largest yield, 25.2 bushels, Which was only 1.7 bushels more than the yield of the plat which received no sulphur. Yields below the average resulted in 192'?’ an.d 1928. During the four years of the experiment the untreated land made an average yield of 25.2 bushels per acre, which Was 1.8 bushels and 1.2 bushels per acre more than the yield of the treatments of 250 and 500 pounds of sulphur, respectively. These small differences in yield are not regarded as significant. Sulphur did not increase the yield of corn, which would indicate that the Lake Charles soils are not at present deficient in sulphur. Table 8. Yield per acre of corn and cowpeas in experiment with sulphur at Angleton, Texas Bushels of corn Pounds of sulphur per acre Pounds of 1925 1926 1927 | 1928 I Average cowpea hay None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 23 5 18.6 24.5 25. 1754 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 8 25 2 16.0 18.6 23.4 1870 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 7 20.0 17.0 24. 1552 Yield 0f COWPBflSI The application of 250 pounds of sulphur per acre in 1926 made the largest yield of hay, 1,870 pounds per acre, While the untreated soil produced 1,754 pounds and’ the soil treated With 500 pounds of sulphur per acre produced 1,552 pounds of hay per acre (Table 8). Results with Cotton and Cowpeas at College Station The experiment with sulphur at the Main Station, College Station, was conducted in 1926 and 1927'. The sulphur was used at the rates of 100 pounds and 200 pounds per acre on Lufkin fine sandy loam soil, which is an important soil type of the region. There Were 12 plats of each of the sulphur treatments and 13 untreated soil check plats for cotton and for cowpeas, which were the only crops used in the experi- ment at College Station. 16 BULLETIN NO. 408, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Yield 0f Cotton: In 1926 the yield of cotton on the untreated plats was slightly greater than the yield of cotton on the plats receiving 100 pounds or 200 pounds of sulphur per acre (Table 9). In 1927 the application of 100 pounds of sulphur produced the highest yield of cotton, 221 pounds of lint per acre, or only 19 pounds more than the yield of the untreated soil. During the two years the untreated soil and the soil receiving 100 pounds and 200 pounds of sulphur per acre made about the same average yields, indicating that sulphur is not needed as a fertilizer on the Lufkin fine sandy loam soil. Table 9. Yield per acre of cotton and cowpeas at College Station, 1926 and 1927 Pounds of lint cotton i Cowpeas, pounds of hay 1926 I 1927 ‘Average 1926 | 1927 Pounds of sulphur per acre Average None . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364 I 202 283 3227 3359 3318 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 221 286 3122 3479 3301 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 , 208 282 3266 3545 3406 Yield 0f COWDBaSI In 1926 the application of 200 pounds of sulphur per acre gave the largest yield of hay, 3,266 pounds per acre, which, however, was not significantly greater than the yield of the untreated plats or the yield of the plats treated with 100 pounds of sulphur per acre (Table 9). During the season of 1927 the 200-pound application of sulphur again produced the largest yield, 3,545 pounds of hay per acre, or only 186 pounds more than the yield of the plats which received no sulphur. The average yields of hay on the plats receiving ‘sulphur and on the plats which received no sulphur were not significantly differ- ent, indicating that sulphur had no significant effect on the yield of cowpeas on the particular soil. Results with Cotton and Cowpeas at Beeville At Substation No. 1, Beeville, the sulphur was applied at the rates of 100 pounds and 200 pounds per acre to cotton and cowpeas. The sulphur was distributed in the row at planting time or previous to planting. The work was done on dark-colored soils mapped as Goliad fine sandy clay loam and Bee fine sandy clay loam. These soils are productive and are well adapted to the general farm crops of the region. Yield 0f Comm! It would appear from the data in Table 1O that sulphur had no appreciable influence on the yield of cotton. In 1926 the soil which received no sulphur made a yield of 123 pounds of lint per acre; the soil receiving sulphur at the rate of 100 pounds per acre produced 125 pounds of lint; and the soil receiving 200 pounds of sulphur per acre yielded 120 pounds of lint. During the two years, 1926 and 1927, the treatment of 100 pounds of sulphur made the largest average yield, 128 pounds of lint per acre, which was only 9 pounds more than the yield of the untreated soil and 10 pounds more . . , ,-..\1..a,. w, _ i ‘LI-f‘ ' .~ V‘ . m“. <~.i>...a.:'_.-M.v_~.»= amt '- " r ‘ ' THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON YIELD OF CERTAIN CROPS 17 than the yield of the soil treated with sulphur at the rate of 200 pounds per acre. These results indicate that sulphur is not needed on these soils. Table 10. Yield per acre of cotton and cowpeas in experiment with sulphur at Beeville, Texas Pounds of lint cotton Bushels of cowpeas Pwnds °f Sulphur per acre 1926 1927 Average 1926 1927 Average N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 123 114 119 6.1 5.2 5.7 10hr? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 125 160 12s 6.3 5.6 6.0 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 120 116 116 6.7 5.5 6.1 F! Yield of Cowpeas: Sulphur apparently had very little effect 0n the yield of cowpeas at Beeville, as shown in Table 10. There was not very much difference in the yield of the three treatments in 1926 0r 1927, and consequently the average yields for the two years, indicating that sulphur is not needed on the soil for the production of cowpeas. Results with Cowpeas at Troup In the experiments at Substation No. 2, Troup, the sulphur was ap- plied at the rates of 250 and 500 pounds per acre in the row before planting. The Work was conducted 011 Kirvin fine sandy loam, originally correlated as Susquehanna fine sandy loam, which usually responds readily to applications of commercial fertilizers. Cowpeas were the only crop included in the Work at Troup, the Groit variety being used. Yields of seed and hay were obtained. Yield 0f 366d! The treatments of sulphur apparently had little in- fluence on the yield of seed in 1925 and 1926 (Table 11). In 1928, however, the sulphur appeared to reduce the stand and consequently the yield of cowpeas. The cowpeas on all plats. came up to a good stand, but some of the plants on the plats which received sulphur died soon after emergence. Considering the stand of cowpeas on the untreated soil as 100 per cent, the plats treated with 250 pounds of sulphur had '70 per cent of a stand and the plats receiving 500 pounds per acre had 23 per cent. The average yield of seed of the three treatments for the four years, 1925 to 1928, inclusive, are substantially the same. Table 11. Yield jin bushels per acre of cowpeas in experiment with sulphur at Troup, Texas Pounds of sulphur per apre 1925 1926 1927 1928 Average None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.9 8 7 9.2 7.5 7.8 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.0 7 6 9.4 7.0 7.8 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 8 6 11.0 3.4 7.5 Yield 0f Hayl During the three years, 1925, 1927, and 1928, the untreated soil made an average yield of 2,508 pounds of hay per acre, which was only 104 pounds and 2'70 pounds more than the yield of the 18 BULLETIN NO. 408, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION soil receiving 250 and 500 pounds of sulphur per acre, respectively (Table l2). These results indicate that the sulphur might have caused a slight, but perhaps not significant, reduction in the yield of hay. Table 12. Yield of cowpea hay in pounds per acre in experiment with sulphur at Troup, Texas Pounds of sulphur per acre 1925 1927 1928 Average None . . . . . . f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3442 1882 2200 250s 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3275 2050 1888 2404 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3394 1999 ‘ 1320 2238 Results Obtained with Cowpeas at Nacogdoches At Substation No. 11, Nacogdoches, the sulphur was applied at the rates of 250 and 500 pounds per acre in the row before planting the cowpeas. The experiment Was located on Orangeburg fine sandy loam and Nacogdoches fine sandy loam, both of which respond readily to applications of commercial fertilizers. Chinese Red was the variety of cowpeas used and yield of seed only Was obtained. Table 13. Yield per acre of cowpeas in experiments with sulphur at Nacogdoches, Texas Pounds 0f sulphur per acre 1925 1926 1927 Average Bus. Bus. Bus. Bus. None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.0 11.7 4.0 5.9 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.9 8.5 3.7 5.4 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.5 8.8 4.0 5.8 In 1925 the yields Were small, as shown in Table 13. The soil treated With sulphur at the rate of 500 pounds per acre made 4.5 bushels of cowpeas per acre, as compared With 3.9 bushels for the 250 pounds of sulphur and 2 bushels per acre for the untreated soil. During the season of 1926, the untreated soil produced 11.’? bushels per acre, or about three bushels more than the soil which received 500 pounds of sulphur per acre. The three treatments produced about equal average yields, 5.9, 5.4, and 5.8 bushels per acre, for the untreated soil and the soil receiving 250 and 500 pounds, respectively, for the three years of the experiment. Comparison of Results at Difl’erent Stations The foregoing discussion treats of the results obtained at each station separately. At this point it is desirable to bring the average results of the stations together in order that they may be more easily compared. Yield 0f (3011110111 The treatments of sulphur Were not the same at all of the stations, but the rates of 100 and 200 pounds were used at Temple, Beeville, and College Station. The treatment of 500 pounds of THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON YIELD OF CERTAIN CROPS 19 sulphur per acre was used at Temple and Angleton; so the yields of cotton resulting from the treatment at the two places may be compared. It will be observed that sulphur gave no significant increases in yield at either of the four stations (Table 14). At Angleton both treatments of sulphur caused a slight reduction in yield. These data indicate that the use of sulphur would not be profitable on the soils at the several places for the production of cotton. Table 14. Yield per acre of cotton in pounds of lint in the experiment with sulphur at Temple, Angleton, Beeville, and College Station College Pounds of sulphur per acre Temple, Angleton, Beeville, Station, 5 years 4 years 2 years 2 years None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 325 119 283 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275 . . . . . . . . . . 128 286 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 . . . . . . . . . . 118 282 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 306 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yield 0f Cvrnr Corn was included in the experiments only at Temple and Angleton. The yields of corn on the untreated soil and on soil treated with 500 pounds of sulphur per acre are the only comparisons possible at the two stations, as shown in Table 15. There was no sig- nificant difference in the yield of corn on the untreated soil and the yield of corn on the soil treated with 500 pounds of sulphur per acre at either station, indicating that the soils are not deficient in sulphur. Table 15. Yield of corn in bushels per acre in experiment with sulphur at Angleton and Temple Temple, Angleton, Pounds of sulphur per acre 4 years 4 years None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 38 1 25.2 ‘250. .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.4 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38 1 24.0 _ Yield 0f COWPBRSI Cowpeas were used in the experiment at Angleton, jBeeville, College Station, N acogdoches, and Troup. Sulphur was ap- gplied at the rates of 250 and 500 pounds per acre at Angleton, Troup, Efand Nacogdoches, while the rates of 100 and 200 pounds per acre were included in the experiment at College Station and Beeville. At Angle- ton sulphur used at the rate of 250 pounds per acre produced 1,870 pounds of hay per acre, as compared with 1,754 pounds for the soil which received no sulphur and 1,552 for the soil receiving 500 pounds of i; lphur per acre, as shown in Table 16. The sulphur apparently re- iuced slightly the yield of hay at Troup, but had little effect on the {eld of seed at Nacogdoches. Sulphur made a slight increase in yield t College Station and Beeville. The results at these points indicate at the use of sulphur on the soils would not be profitable. - 2O BULLETIN NO. 408, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 16. Yield per acre of cowpeas ‘n th ' t ‘th l h t A l t , T Nacogdoches, College (aSxtgflndlfiielalndwlgeew/Silllg ur a ng e on roup’ Nacog- College Angleton, Troup, doches Station, Beeville, 1 year, 4 years, 3 years, 2 years, 2 years, Pounds of sulphur per acre pounds pounds bushels pounds bushels forage forage seed forage seed None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1754 2508 5 9 3318 5 7 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3301 6 O 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3406 6 1 250 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1870 2404 5 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1'52 2238 5 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . While the results obtained in these experiments indicate that the soils are not now deficient in sulphur as shown by the yield of crops, it should be recognized that there is a possibility of sulphur becoming deficient in the soil after long continued cultivation on account of the removal of sulphur in crops and in drainage water. In this connection it will be recalled that Hart and Peterson (3) found that soils in Wis- consin that had been under cultivation 50 to_60 years Without the addi- tion of manures had lost 40 per cent of their sulphur as compared with the amount of sulphur in the adjacent virgin soils. SUMMARY Experiments with sulphur as a fertilizer were conducted over a period of six years at Temple; four years at Angleton and Troup ; three years at N acogdoches; and two years at Beeville and College Station. The sulphur was applied at rates ranging from 5O to 10,000 pounds per acre at Temple; at the rates of 100 and 200 pounds per acre at College Sta- tion and Beeville; and 250 and 500 pounds at Angleton, Nacogdoches, and Troup. Cotton, corn, and oats were used in the work at Temple; cotton, corn, and cowpeas at Angleton; cotton, and cowpeas at Beeville and College Station; and cowpeas at N acogdoches and Troup. The use of sulphur made no significant or profitable increases in the yield of cotton, corn, or oats on the Bell clay, which is a dark calcareous soil, at Temple. The applications of sulphur ranging from 2,000 to 4,000 pounds per acre, however, caused a slight reduction in the yield of corn. None of the treatments made the soil acid. Apparently sul- phur had little or no effect on the development of root rot of cotton. The yield of cotton, corn, or cowpeas was not appreciably affected by applications of sulphur on the Lake Charles clay, a dark-colored prairie soil, at Angleton in the Gulf Coastal Plains. Sulphur applied at the rates of 100 and 200 pounds per acre had no significant effect on the yield of cotton and cowpeas on Lufkin fine sandy loam soil at College Station. Similar results were obtained with these crops on the dark-colored Goliad fine sandy clay loam at Beeville. Sulphur did not have much effect on the yield of cowpea seed on THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON‘ YIELD OF CERTAIN CROPS 21 Kiryin fine sandy loam at Troup, but the use of 500 pounds per acre caused a slight reduction in the yield of hay. On the Nacogdoches fine sandy loam soil at Nacogdoches, apparently sulphur had little effect on the yield of cowpeas. The results obtained at these six different places in Texas indicate that sulphur would not increase the yield of crops in general and conse- quently its use as a fertilizer would not be profitable. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The field work i11 these experiments with sulphur was conducted by the following members of the Experiment Station Staff: Mr. G. T. McNess, Superintendent, Main Station Farm, College Station; Mr. R. A. Hall, Superintendent, Substation No. 1, Beeville; Mr. W. S. Hotch- kiss, former superintendent, and Mr. P. R. Johnson, Superintendent, Substation No. 2, Troup; Mr. R. H. Stansel, Superintendent, Substation - No. 3, Angleton; Mr. D. T. Killough and Mr. H. E. Rea, former super- intendents, Substation No. 5, Temple; and Mr. H. F. Morris, Superin- tendent, Substation No. 11, Nacogdoches. LITERATURE CITED (1) Cross, W. E. 1926. Sulphur as a cane fertilizer. In Facts About Sugar 21: 688-689 (Abstract in E. S. R.-56: 37). (2) Halsted, B. D. 1895. Field experiments with potatoes. New Jer- sey Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 112. (3) Hart, E. B., and Peterson, W. H. 1911. Sulphur requirements of farm crops in relation to the soil and air supply. Wisconsin Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 14. (4) Joffe, J. S. 1922. Biochemical oxidation of sulfur and its sig- nificance to agriculture. New Jersey Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 374. (5) Lomanitz, S. 1922. The needs of the soils of Jefferson and Brazos counties for sulphur. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 3-02. (6) McKibbin, R. R. 1928. The effects of sulphur on soils and on crop yields. Maryland Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 296. (7) Montana Agr. Exp. Sta. Thirty-second Annual Report (1926), pp. 24-25. (8) Olson, G. A., and St. John, J. L. 1921. An investigation of sulphur as a plant food. Washington Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 165. (9) Reynolds, E. B., and Leidigh, A. H. 1922. Sulphur as a fertilizer for cotton. Soil Science 14: 435-440. (10) Reimer, F. C., and Tartar, H. V. 1919. Sulfur as a fertilizer for alfalfa in southern Oregon. Oregon Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 163. (11) Shedd, O. M. 1914. The relation of sulfur to soil fertility. Ken- tucky Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 188. 22 2a, 2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 10. . Gulf Coast Prairie: . East Texas Cross Timbers: . Blackland Prairie: . Blackland interior prairies: . Grand Prairie: . Central Basin: . West Cross Timbers and interior prairies: . Gulf Coast Plain: BULLETIN NO. 408, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SOIL REGIONS OF TEXAS: PRINCIPAL SURFACE FEATURES, SOIL SERIES, AND CROPS. Humid Region (30 inches or more average annual rainfall) Flat, heavy growth of coarse grasses; heavy dark soils, some sandy light colored soils. Soil series: Lake Charles, Edna, Katy, Hockley, Acadia, Harris. Rice, cotton, corn, figs, truck crops, cattle. A 2b, 2c, 2d. East Texas Timber Country: clay subsoils. Northeastern division: Rolling to hilly; pine and some hardwood tim- ber. Principal soil series: Kirvin, Bowie, Norfolk, Ruston, Susque- hanna, Caddo, Ochlockonee, Leaf, lVIyatt, Kalmia, Bibb. Cotton, corn, lumber, truck crops, fruits, livestock. Western division: Undulating to rolling; timbered with oak mainly. Principal soil series: Kirvin, Susquehanna, Lufkin, Tabor, Crockett, Ochlockonee. Cotton, corn, truck crops, fruits, livestock. Southeastern: Flat to rolling; longleaf, shortleaf, and loblolly pine. Principal soil series: Bowie, Lufkin, Susquehanna, Caddo, Bibb. Lum- ber, cotton, livestock. Central division: Rolling to hilly; pine and some hardwood timber. Soil series same as 2a except that Nacogdoches series—“East Texas Redlands”—are confined mainly to this area. Cotton, corn, truck crops, fruits, livestock. Rolling; sandy soils; oak timber. Soil Cotton, corn, truck crops, fruits. Soil series: Cotton, Soil Timbered sandy soils with Kirvin, Tabor, Ochlockonee. Rolling; grassland; dark, heavy soils. Houston, Wilson, Crockett, Ellis, Bell, Irving, Trinity, Catalpa. corn, small grain. series: Rolling; grassland; dark, heavy soils. Wilson, Houston, Crockett. Cotton, corn, livestock. . Rolling to hilly; grassland; dark, heavy soils that are shallow in many places. Stony and rough areas in southern part. Soil series: Denton, San Saba, Crawford, Trinity, Catalpa, Rough stony land. Cotton, small grain, livestock. Rolling valleys, hills and rough lands; sandy and stony soils, some small oak timber and some small mesquite timber. Soil series: Pontotoc, Lancaster, Tishomingo, Harley, Pedernales. Rough stony: land. Range livestock, cotton, small grain. Rolling to hilly; timbered with small oaks in places, small mesquite trees in places and some prairies; sandy and heavy soils. Soil series: \Windthorst, Nimrod, Den- ton. Small grain, cotton, range livestock, truck crops. series: Subhumid Region (15 to 30 inches average annual rainfall) Flat to undulating; grassland and abundant small trees (mainly mesquite) and shrubs in places, dark and light colored soils. Soil series: Victoria, Hidalgo, Willacy, Nueces, Laredo, Har- lingen, Lomalto, Rio Grande.‘ Cotton, range livestock, citrus -fruits, truck crops. ‘ ' Interior Blackland Plains: Flat to undulating; grassland and much shrub and small tree growth, largely mesquite; dark, heavy and sandy soils. Soil series: Goliad, Zapata, and others. Cotton, range livestock. 12 13 14 15a, 15b. High Plains (Llano Estacado): 16. THE EFFECT OF SULPHUR ON YIELD OF CERTAIN CROPS 23 Rio Grande Plain: Undulating to rolling; small trees and shrubs in scattering growth over grassland; mostly sandy soils, though some heavy soils. Soil series: Duval, Webb, Brennan, Maverick, San An- tonio, Uvalde, Frio. Range livestock, cotton, truck crops. Edwards Plateau: Rolling and hilly; small oak and mesquite trees and shrubs in scattered growth over grassland; soils mostly dark, heavy, very shallow and stony. Soil series: Rough stony land, Valera, Reagan. Range livestock, sheep, cattle, goats. Northwest Texas Rolling Plains: Undulating to rolling; grassland; brown and reddish sandy and clay loam soils. Soil series: Abilene, Miles, Roscoe, Spur, Rough broken land on western margin. Cotton, grain sorghums, range cattle, small grain. Northwest Texas Redland Plains: Undulating to rolling; some rough, eroded areas; grassland; mostly red sandy and clay loam soils, though some dark soils. Soil series: Vernon, Fowlkes, Wichita, Calumet, Foard, Enterprise, Miller, Yahola, Rough broken land. Range cattle, cotton, small grain, grain sorghums. High fiat to undulating; grass- land. Soils brown and reddish sandy and clay loams. Soil series: Amarillo, Richfield. _ 15a. North Plains Division: Soils mostly clay loams. grain sorghums, range cattle. 15b. South Plains Division: Soils mostly sandy and of Amarillo series. Cotton, grain sorghums, range cattle. Small grain, Semiarid Region (Less than 15 inches average annual rainfall) Trans-Pecos Region: Mountains, plains, and basins; much very rough land; no dryland farming; soils mostly brown and gray. Desert shrubs vegetation in places; considerable thin cover and some thick cover grass- land. Soil series: Reeves, Verhalen, Reagan, Toyah, Gila. Rough stony land, rough mountain land. Range cattle, sheep, goats. In irri- gated districts cotton, alfalfa, truck crops, fruits. SOIL REGIONS OF TEXAS (Prepared by W. T. Carter) ~z uriml-nfimwdiiuivf‘ _.l.sa‘v:.hvu.~‘v<. 1- w‘ . - i vlh ~‘ ' Humid Region Subhumid Region 1. Gulf Coast Prairie. 9. Gulf Coast Plain. 2a, 2b, 2C, 2d. East Texas Timber Country 2 10, Interior Blackland Plains, 2a. Northeastern division, 11, Rio Grande Plain, Zb- WGSWIH diViSi011, 12. Edwards Plateau. 20- S0Uth63St6PI1 diViSi0I1. 13. Northwest Texas Rolling Plains. 2d. Central division. 14. Northwest Texas Redland Plains. 3- East CPOSS Timbers. 15a, 15b. High Plains (Llano Estacado): 4. Blackland Prairie. 15a. North Plains division, 5. Blackland Interior Prairies. 15b_ South Plains division, 6. gPaIld1PI'&lI‘i€. 7. entra Basin. ' .' ' ' 8. West Cross Timbers and Interior Semlarld Reglon Prairies. 16. Trans-Pecos Region. (For more detailed information concerning soil regions, see pages 22 and 23.)