A48-730-7,000-L18O TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 414 AUGUST, 1930 DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A . SOIL AMENDMENT AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFFf 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 CIIEsTER HIGGS, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLETTE, Technical Assistant CHEMISTRY: G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Chemist J. F. FUDGE, Ph. D., 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. STERcEs, 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: ' S. H. YARNELL, Sc. D., Chief i——-—— , Horticulturist RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J . J0NEs, A. M., ‘e B. L. WARwIcK, Ph.D., Breeding Investigations STANLEY P. DAvIs, Wool Grader ENTOMOLOGY: A . L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State ' Entomologist H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist R. K. FLETCHER, Ph. D., Entomologist L OWEN, JR., M. S., Entomologist . RoNEY, M. S., Entomologist E F '11 J. . GAINEs, JR., M. S., Entomologist . JoNEs, M. S., Entomologist . BIBBY, B. S., Entomologist EcIL E. HEARD, B. S., Chief Inspector OTTo MAcKENsEN, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector W. B. WHITNEY, Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: E. B. REYNoLDs, Ph. D., Chief KARPER, M. S., Agronomist C. MANGELsDoRF, Sc. D., Agronomist . T. KILLOUGH, M. S., Agronomist . E. REA, B. S., Agronomist . —, Agronomist . C. LANGLEY, B. S., Assistant in Soils N IUTIU W PUBLICATIONS: _ A. D. JAcKs0N, Chief VETERINARY SCIENCE: *M. FRANcIs, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Veterinarian E. JUNGHERR, D. V. M., Veterinarian W. T. HARDY, D. V. 1%., Veterinarian F. E. CARROLL, D. V. M., Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY . J. TAUBENIIAus, Ph. D., Chie _ . N. EzEKIEL, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist . J. BACH, M. S., Plant Pathologist . F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist M AND RANCH ECONOMICS: . P. GABBARD, M. S., Chief . E. PAULSON, Ph. D., Marketing . A. BoNNEN, M. S., Farm Management J. F. CRIswELL, B. S., Assistant i, Assistant RURAL HOME RESEARCH: _ JEssIE WIIITAcRE, Ph. D., Chief MARY ANNA GRIMEs, S., Textiles ————— , Nutrition SOIL SURVEY: _ **W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chie E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soi Surveyor T. C. REITcI-I, 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 POULTRY HUSBANDRY: _ R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., Chief AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: H. P. SMITI-I, M. S., Chief 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: 1ST. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief S wss~ FA mgr, . D. PEARcE, Secretary J. H. RoGERs, Feed Inspector iii, Feed Inspector K. L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector W. D. NORTHCUTT, JR., B. S., Feed Inspecto IDNEY D. REYNoLDs, JR., Feed Inspector P. A. MooRE, Feed Inspector SUBSTATIONS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Troup, Smith County: P. R. JonNsoN, M. S., Act. Superintendent N0. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefierson County: R. H. WYCHE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: HENRY DUNLAvY, M. S., Superintendent B. F. DANA, M. S., Plant Pathologist H. E. REA, B._S., Agronomist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations SiMoN E. WOLFF, M. S., Botanist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: R. E. DIcKsoN, B. S., Superintendent -———————-———-, 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. l1, 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 Agronomis No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. H. DAMERoN, B. S., Superintendent E. JUNGI-IERR, D. V. M., Veterinarian . T. HARDY, D. V. M., Veterinarian . G. BABc0cK, B. S., Entomologist . L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: . 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. 17, —————— ———?———-, Superintendent No. 18, —-———————— ————————-——, Superintendent No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. MoRTENsEN, B. S., Superintendent ————————-—, Horticulturist Ne. 20, —-——-———— 2 ** goo -—,’Su__iIerintenderzt Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: W. ADRIANcE, Ph. D., Horticulture W. BILSING, Ph. D., Entomology P. LEE, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance ScoATEs, A. E., Agricultural Engineering A. K. MAcKEY, M. S., Animal Husbandry *Dean School of Veterinary Medicine. S. MQGFQRD, M. S., Agronomy BRisoN, B. S., Horticulture J. F. R. ‘W. R. HORLACHER, Ph. D., Genetics H. KNox, M. S., Animal Husbandry TAs of August l, 1930. **In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. Sulphur is an essential plant food. Chemical analyses show that alfalfa, cabbage, cotton, onions, and turnips take up much larger quantities of sulphur than corn, rice, oats, and wheat. Some Texas soils are low in sulphur. Sulphur is brought down by rain and also is supplied by irrigation water and in most commercial fertilizers. The amount brought down by rain in Texas averages 4 to 12 pounds a year on each acre, varying with different sections. Pot experiments show that sulphur alone gave very poor results but when it was used to supplement a complete fer- tilizer in pots watered with distilled water which contained no sulphur, it gave, in some cases, increases in yield of crops. Additions of sulphur did not increase the amounts of nitrogen or potash taken up by crops in pot experiments, although they increased the sulphur taken up and slightly increased the phosphoric acid. There was a tendency for the sulphur re- moved by crops to increase as the sulphur content of the soil increased. Oxidation of sulphur had practically no effect upon the active phosphoric acid or active potash in the soils tested, but increased the permeability of some of the soils to water. Sulphur is not recommended as a fertilizer on soils in Texas, since a suflicient amount of sulphur is present in the soils, or is supplied by rain or irrigation water or by commercial fertilizers carrying plant food. Sulphur or gypsum may be recommended in special cases on soils which run together under irrigation, or which contain black alkali. It is possible that the use of concentrated commercial fertilizers containing little or no sulphur may cause a deficiency of sulphur in soils in some sections of the country, especially for crops which require comparatively large amounts of sulphur, such as alfalfa, cotton, cabbage, and onions. The conclusion that sul- phur is not needed as a fertilizer on Texas soils confirms the conclusions of the Division of Agronomy, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, recently reported. CONTENTS PAGE Introduction . . . . . . .’ . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Sulphur and sulphur ores in Texas . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Gypsum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Elemental sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Sulphur content of crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Sulphur withdrawn by crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Sulphur in rain Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Sulphur in Texas rain water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1O Sulphur lost by percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Sulphur in irrigation Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Sulphur in soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 Sulphur in Texas soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Sulphur as a fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 Recommendations by experiment stations regarding the use of sulphur or gypsum . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pot experiments with sulphur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .. 22 Texas experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Sulphur alone in pot experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 Sulphur in combination with nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. 27 Effect of sulphur on the composition of the crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Texas experiments . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 Effect of sulphur on plant food in the soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Effect of sulphur on nitrogen, phosphoric acid, or potash taken up by crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 Effect on nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 Efl"'ect on phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 34 Effect on potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Reciprocal relation of sulphur to nitrogen and sulphur to phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Experimental work . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35 Sulphur and nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Sulphur and phosphoric acid v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36 Relation of the sulphur taken up by crops to the sulphur content of the soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of fertilizer on quantity of sulphur taken up by crops . . . . . . 38 Oxidation of sulphur in the soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Effect of oxidation on active phosphoric acid and potash . . . . . . . . . . 40 Effect of sulphur and sulphates on percolation of water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Effect of gypsum and limestone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 41 Effects of oxidation of sulphur on percolation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Percolation of soils used in potexperiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Percolation of field soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 43 Effect of oxidation of sulphur on the availability of phosphoric acid in rock phosphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 Experimental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 44 Sulphur in fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Sulphur and gypsum for alkali soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46 Probable needs for sulphur as plant food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 48 Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 BULLETIN NO. 414 l AUGUST, 1930 POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT G. S. FRAPS Fora long time ithas been known that sulphur, like nitrogen, phosphoric acid, potash, and some other materials, is essential to plant life. Sulphur, however, is not considered to be an essen- tial constituent of commercial fertilizers, the constituents recog- nized by both law and usage being nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. This usage is based upon extensive field experi- ments and the experience of nearly a century, which are taken to mean that one or more of these constituents is needed when a soil needs plant food. On the other hand, applications of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash are usually accompanied by applications of sulphur; the nitrogen frequently being used as a sulphate of ammonia, the phosphoric acid usually as super- phosphate made by the action of sulphuric acid upon phosphate rock or bone, and the potash sometimes as sulphate of potash or accompanied by sulphate in some form. Sulphur in the form of gypsum has been applied to soils for a long time, but has not been used extensively since commercial fertilizers came into use. Fraps (18, 22), in 1900, called attention to the fact that the percentage of sulphur in plants Was higher than was generally supposed. Hart and associates (34, 85) first emphasized the importance of sulphur as a plant food and the possibility of its being needed by the soil. Numerous other workers have studied various phases of the subject. Some of these studies will be referred to later in the publication. Extensive references are given by Joffe (41), McKibbin (56), Lomanitz (49), and Cub- ben (13). In recent years, it has been found that some soils in the State of Washington (78) and Oregon (64) respond markedly to applications of sulphur, either as such or as gypsum (sulphate of lime). Improved methods of analysishave shown plants to contain more sulphur than was formerly supposed. Concen- trated fertilizers which contain little or no sulphur are coming on the market. These facts render it important to know whether there are other soils, in addition to those in Washing- ton or Oregon, which respond to applications of sulphur. It is also necessary to know if soils treated with any new concen- trated fertilizers containing only small amounts of sulphur, will need sulphur after continued usage. Other questions related to the use of sulphur in the soil need to be answered. These ques- 6 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION tions are especially important in Texas, 0n account of the large deposits of native sulphur being mined in the State, and the deposits of gypsum and, in some cases, mixtures of gypsum and sulphur, found in the Western part of the State. Sulphur and Sulphur Ores in Texas Sulphur is found chiefly as elemental sulphur, as iron pyrites, and as sulphate of li.me (gypsum or anhydrite). Iron pyrites is not suitable for agricultural purposes, though it is used for the manufacture of sulphuric acid. Native sulphur and gypsum are used to some extent for agricultural purposes and large deposits of both occur in Texas. Pyrites occur in small quantity in many parts of the state, frequently associated with lignite. They have a yellow color and being sometimes mistaken for gold, are called “fool’s gold.” The pyrite deposits in Texas are usually too small to be of commercial value. Gypsllm- Gypsum (82, 83) is a hydrous calcium sulphate, occurring abundantly in many parts of Texas in various forms- as rock gypsum, as gypsite or earth gypsum, as mica-like sele- nite, and as satin spar. The most valuable deposit of gypsum in Texas lies just below, and parallel to, the line of the Cap Rock in a belt about fifty miles wide in Western Texas, extending from Hardeman County through Foard, Stonewall, Nolan, and other counties to Sterling County. The strata of rock gypsum are often fifty or more feet thick and there are deep deposits of gypsite with little over- burden. This stratum of gypsum continues westward from the line of the belt mentioned, but it dips under the Cap Rock and at most points on the high plains it is too far below the surface to allow mining. There is a large area of gypsum and gypsite in the northern part of Hudspeth County west of the Guadalupe Mountains and another in the Malone Mountains in the extreme southern part . of the county. There is an extensive deposit of gypsum several hundred feet in thickness near Falfurrias in Brooks County. There are many deposits of gypsum throughout the Gulf Coastal Plains, but usually they are far below the surface. Gypsiferous marls and clays abound throughout central and eastern Texas, but usually they are not in workable form and quality. Mixtures of sulphur, gypsum, and earth are found in E1 Paso County (66, 75). Elemental Sulphur- Native or free sulphur in Texas is at present mined chiefly on the Gulf Coast, in Brazoria, Matagorda, and Wharton Counties. The sulphur is melted by superheated POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 7 water, and forced to the surface, where it is allowed to cool. In this form it is called crude sulphur, although it has a high degree of purity. The quantity mined is quite large, being estimated at nearly two million tons yearly. There are two kinds, and many varieties of sulphur. Sulphur is purified by sublimation. The sulphur is melted and vaporized, the vapors being condensed in large brick chambers. Part of the sulphur is condensed as a fine dust, known as flowers of sulphur. The degree of fineness depends on the size and shape of the chamber in which the vapors are condensed and on the rate of heating the sulphur. In general there are two grades, the fine flowers of sulphur, and the extra light flowers of sulphur. Some of the sublimed sulphur melts, and is cast into candles, bars, or other shapes, or allowed to solidify in the sub- limation chamber, after which it is broken into lumps. A large number of different grades and preparations of sulphur are made for various commercial uses. Both the crude and the sublimed sulphur may be ground to a very fine powder; which is called flour of sulphur. Usually there are two grades, the finely ground and the very finely ground. ‘The direct agricultural use of elemental sulphur is chiefly for the treatments of plant diseases and the control of insects. Large amounts of sulphur are used in the manufacture of superphos- phates. About one-fourth the total domestic production of sulphur is used directly or indirectly for agricultural purposes. Sulphur Content of Crops Fraps, in 1900 (18, 21, 22, 23), redirected attention t0 the fact that the sulphur in the ash of plants may be much below the amount actually present in the plants. As Referee on Ash of the Association of Oflicial Agricultural Chemists, Fraps (19, 20, 23) began studies of methods to estimate sulphur in plants which have been continued by referees on Inorganic Plant Con- stituents more or less intermittently up to the present time. Withers and Fraps (87) determined the sulphur content of a number of materials. Determinations have also been reported blyh Hart and Peterson (34), Powers (64), Shedd (72), and o ers. A number of determinations of the sulphur content of various plants and plant-products were made in the course of the work here presented. These results together with some of those from elsewhere are given in Table 1. The Texas estimations are marked with an asterisk and some are averages. The sulphur was estimated by the A. O. A. C. method (4, page 44), which uses fusion with sodium carbonate and sodium peroxide in a nickel crucible. 8 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 1—Sulphur content of various crops and plant materials. (Texas results marked *) Sulphur, Sulphur, Crop per cent Crop per cent Alfalfa hay* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.300 Lettuce leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .013 Alfalfa seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .292 Limes and seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .047 Apple and seed....... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .043 Linseed meal*_......... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .390 Asparagus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .088 Loco weed, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232 Barley* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200 Mesquite grass, dried* . . . . . . . . . . . .108 Barley straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .147 Millet see * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .132 Beans (white) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .232 Milo rain* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .098 Beets and tops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .028 M110 odder, dried* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .087 Beet pulp, dried* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .200 Milo heads, dried*....... . . . . . . . . . . . .086 Bermuda hay* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 Needle grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .097 Blackberries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .040 Oak leaves dried* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .092 Bluegrass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189 Brown corn seed* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .073 Oat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195 Buckwheat* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .118 k_ra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .054 Buffalo grass hay*..... . . . . . . . . . . .. .192 Onions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .568 Cabbage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .819 Orange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .026 Cactus, dried* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Parsley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .070 Cantaloupe seed. .065 Parsnip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .046 Carrot . . . . . . . . . .042 Peach..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .014 Carrot tops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .114 Peach seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .041 Celery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .053 Peas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .069 Cherries, including seed . . . . . . 108 Pea pods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .043 Clover, red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .164 Pepper, green bell. . . . . . . .040 Clover, sweet flowering stage. .082 Pepper fruit, dried* . . . . . . . . . . . .276 Corn stover....... . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Pepper plants, dried*. . . . . . .532 Corn, white....... . . . . . . . . . . . .170 Pepper, red bell... . . . . . . . . . .043 Corn, grain* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Pineapple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .039 Corn, yellow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Pineapple cone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .059 Cotton, leaves (dried)*....... . . . . . . . .952 Potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 Cotton lint, fresh sample... . . . . . . . .014 Plum, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .023 Cotton seed*....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .204 Plum seed, California . . . . . . . . . . . . .020 Cottonseed hulls* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .084 Radish, including leaves..... . . . . . . . .066 Cottonseed meal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .487 Rape tops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .988 Cottonseed meal* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .395 Raspberry, black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .035 Cotton stem, dried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 Rhode grass hay* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192 Cowpea seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .111 Rice*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .126 Cowpea seed* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .248 Rice bran* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .152 Cowpea vine, green . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .077 Rice hulls* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .064 Cucumber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .062 Rutabagas......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .817 Currant, red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .056 Rye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123 Cymlings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .035 Rye, heading stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 Dewberries. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .037 Rye, straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .049 Egg plant, dried*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .300 Sacchuista grass* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .167 Egg plant, fruit, dried* . . . . . . . . . . .308 Sorghum hay 0r fodder*....... . . . . . .090 Feterita chops*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120 Sorghum seed* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .088 Fillere weed, dried* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212 Sorghum silage, dried* . . . . . . . . . . . .113 Flax plant, by-product* . . . . . . . . . . .236 Soy bean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .341 Grapefruit. and seed. . . . . . . . . . . . . .065 Spinach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .063 Goat weed, dried* . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 158 Sudan grass hay*....... . . . . . . . . . . .. .116 Gooseberries. .._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .012 Sugar beet....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .138 Goose grass, dried* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Sugar beet tops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .433 Grass, Texas pasture*....... . . . . . . .. .131 Sweet potato......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .021 Grass, range* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 Tallow weed, dried* . . . . . . . . . . . . . .338 ay, mixe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .160 Timothy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Hemp... . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107 Tobacco.- average of 40 varieties. . .458 Hungarian millet, green . . . . . . . . . . .033 Tomatoes, ripe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .010 Kafir grain* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121 Turnips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .740 Kafir fodder* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168 Turnip tops..._...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .900 Kafir heads* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Vetch, flowering stage....... . . . . . . . . . 107 Kafir h_ead stems* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .084 heat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 Kafir silage, dried* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105 Wheat gray shorts*..... . . . . . . . . . . . .180 Kale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .220 Wheat white shorts* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .116 Lemon and seed.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .022 Wheat straw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .119 Sulphur Withdrawn by Crops The amount of sulphur taken up by a crop varies to a consider- able extent, depending upon the size of the crop and the per- POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 9 centage of sulphur contained in it. The percentage of sulphur depends upon the nature of the crop, but also to some extent upon the sulphur in the soil, as will be shown later. Any esti- mate of the amount of sulphur or other materials taken up by a crop is, of course, only approximate. Estimates of the amount of sulphur taken up by crops have been made by Hart and Peterson (14). - Table 2—-Plant food removed by crops in pounds per acre Sulghur Nitrogen Phosphoric Potash ( ) Acid Alfalfa,4tons................................. 22 183* 50 143 Cabba e, 14,800 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 60 20 80 Corn, _0 bushels (in corn and cob) . . . . . . . . . . 3 38 19 13 Corn (1n_stalk and leaves) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 22 6 29 Cotton (m seed and lint, 600 pounds) . . . . . . . . 1 13 6 7 Cotton (in stalk, burs and leaves—-2,400 lbs) . . 12 50 10 20 Oats, {l0 bushels (in the grain) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 25 10 7 Oats(1nthestraw)............................ 4 10 4 21 Onions, 30,000 pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 57 27 60 Potatoes, Irish (100 bushels i_n the tubers). . . . 2 20 10 36 Potatoes, sweet (200 bushels 1n the tubers) . . . 2 28 20 72 Rice, 1,900 pounds (in the gram) . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 23 12 5 R108 (ln 2,250 pounds straw) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 14 37 Sorghum, 3 tons dried......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 84 29 134 Sugar cane, 20 tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 153 15 44 Turnips, leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 . . . . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . . . . Turnips,roots................................. 23 . . . . . . . . .. 22 . . . . . . . ... Wheat, 25 bushels (in the grain)......... . . . . . . . . 2 29 13 9 Wheat (in the straw) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 13 5 14 *A part of this nitrogen comes from the air. Table 2 contains estimates of sulphur removed by crops, based upon analyses in Table 1, the table of Hart and Peterson, and other analyses and data available. The amounts of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash removed by crops are also given for purposes of comparison. It will be noted that alfalfa, cabbage, cotton, onions, and turnips take up greater amounts of sulphur than the other crops. The quantity of sulphur taken up is lower than that of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, or potash, except for cabbage and turnips. Sulphur in Rain Water Sulphur is brought to the soil by rain or snow, chiefly in the form of sulphates. The amounts may be considerable, espe- cially where much coal is burned. Estimations of the amount of sulphur brought down by rain and snow have been made at a number of places; see Joffe (41, page 9) and Wilson (86). The quantities of sulphur brought clown in a year on an acre were reported to be 6 to 8 pounds at Rothamsted, England; Catarinia, Sicily; Lincoln, New Zealand; Wisconsin and some other places; while 38 to 72 pounds per acre came down at Garforth, England; Leeds, England; Urbana, 10 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Illinois; and Petrograd, Russia (U. S. S. R.). Maclntire and Young (55) found that 12.7 to 232.4 pounds per acre of sulphur were brought down by the rain in various parts of Tennessee, the smallest being at Crossville and the largest at Copperhill. Sulphur in Texas Rain Water- For the purpose of estimating the sulphur brought down by rain and snow in Texas, samples of rain water were collected by the superintendents of the various Texas substations, and at the Main Station, and sent in monthly if the rainfall was one inch or more; otherwise the sample was held for a longer period. The analysis was made on a volume of 1000 cc., if possible, and checked by analyses of other portions, usually smaller. The water was evaporated to dryness on an ‘electric stove in a room as free as possible from sulphur, apart from the regular laboratory, and in which no gas was used. ‘The residue was taken up in acid and water, filtered, and the sulphates precipitated in the usual way. - A few of the samples were lost by breakage in transit or ‘otherwise, in which case the results are interpolated. The re- sults by months are given in tables. A summary is given in Table 3. - Table 3—Sulphur (S) in pounds per acre, brought down by rain or snow, in Texas 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 Assumed Substations 9 12 12 12 7 yearly months months months months months average Angleton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N0. 3 6.84 12.12 10.01 7.92 3.58 9.47 Balmorhea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 9 1.96 3.14 5 . 84 4. 68 1.56 4.07 Beaumont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 4 12.72 12.13 18.50 15.92 6.92 15.36 Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 1 5.57 8.80 6.77 4.29 2.94 6.56 Chillicothe . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . ..No. 12 . . . . . . .. 8.26 13.05 7.12 7.45 10.00 College Station (Main). . . . .N0. 10 12.00 9.56 13.61 11.82 8.82 12.66 Denton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 6 7.54 7.38 11.31 12.46 13.93 11.82 Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 8 3.29 4. 52 10.30 5.56 33.59 12.01 Naco doches......... . . . . . . . . . .N0. 11 11.83 10.96 12.41 9.79 7.93 12.00 San ntonio........................ . . . . . . .. 2.40* 7.04 7.21 7.34 8.22 Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 7 3.24. 6.56 10.29 5.00 10.14 7.98 Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 5 5.84 5.45 11.00 9.68 6.69 8.88 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 2 6.39 6.38 10.93 8.90 7.07 9.08 Weslaco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..No. 15 . . . . . . .. 10.37* 6.02 9.24 9.30 15.46 *4 months only. A comparison of this table with Table 2 shows that rain may bring down more than enough sulphur to supply the needs of all the crops mentioned in the table except alfalfa, cabbage, ‘onions, turnips, and in most cases, cotton. The sulphur brought down by rain seems sufiicient to supply crops with low sulphur requirements, such as corn, oats, potatoes, rice, sorghum, sugar cane, and wheat. The sulphur brought down by rain is not all .at the disposal of plants, since some is carried away in the run- off and some is lost by percolation. POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 11 The locations in Texas fall into three groups with respect to the sulphur brought doWn annually by rain. Group 1, average quantity of sulphur brought down about 12 pounds yearly; Beaumont, College Station, Denton, Nacogdoches, and Weslaco. Group 2, average quantity of sulphur brought down about 8 pounds yearly; Angleton, Beeville, Chillicothe, San Antonio, Spur, Temple, and Troup. Group 3, average quantity of sulphur brought down about 4 pounds yearly; Balmorhea. It must be remembered that the location of the rain gauge with respect to sources of sulphur, such as combustion of oil, gas, coal, or lignite, has something to do with the amount of sulphur brought down, so that the figures given above cannot be taken to represent the exact amount of sulphur in the rain in all the. surrounding country. The sulphur in the rainfall by months is given in Tables 4 t0 8, inclusive. While a portion of the sulphur is brought down during the growing season, a considerable quantity is brought down during other periods of the year, and part is lost by percolation and run-off. Sulphur Lost by Percolation- Sulphur is washed out of the soil by percolation of rain Water through the soil and the quantities lost in this Way may be large. The amounts vary with the‘ physical character of the soil, the rainfall, the slope of the land,. temperature, amount of sunshine, and other conditions. Esti- mates have been made by Lyon and Bizzell (50, 51), MacIntire (53), and others, which are summarized by Joffe (41). The annual amounts of sulphur in drainage Water Were 8 to 28 pounds per acre. Ellett and Hill (17) in 1929 found, with an average annual precipitation, 17 pounds of sulphur yearly per acre for six years,. an average outgo of about 19 pounds of sulphur from lysimeters one foot deep, 14 pounds for lysimeters tWo feet deep, and 5- pounds from lysimeters three feet deep. While one-foot lysim- eters lost sulphur, the tWo-foot lysimeter retained about 17 per cent, and the three-foot lysimeter retained 7O per cent of the sulphur in the rainfall. The amount and composition of the Water Which goes through a soil in a drain gauge may be quite different from that which percolates from a field Where part of the Water has opportunity to run off and part of the water is used by crops. _ Sulphur in Irrigation Waters Drainage Waters and irrigation waters in Texas usually con- tain sulphates, sometimes in considerable amounts. The Water 12 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION hmtofi Bo ow. om 2 moo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........00fim0>? ono om. 9o. oo mm. w; $0. 0m. .3 on. om. so. on. m .02. . . . . . . . . . . . .........0000,H $1.. 2. om. ma. mm. om. om. w? 2.0 mo. o mo. 5. m. .02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12005.2. £0 oo. oo. om. 9.. ho. hw. 8. m0. 0 moo 2. o2. o0. h .02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55w ooim mo. mm. 0m. 3A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...................0E30<0mm 8.2 0.. 2A $0 0h. oh. .8; 2. wh. wfi oh. om; :4 I ~02. . . . . . . .........m0;0c0m00w2 No.0 oo. mo. om. $0 om. 2m. om. ow. S. 00H co S.” w .02_ . . . . . . . . . . 3000004 wmh oo. mm. ow. mm. om; S... o.“ oh. 3.2 mo 3H ho ~ o .02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0300C hmo om. hmA oo.m hm. mo. 8.. .2. 0o. ho. Em 3. 2w. 2 .02 . . . . . . 10.03.05, $230 0&0 -8. m2. m2. m...” mh mo. 0w. ma: om. 8. 2o. 0x NH .02_ . . . . . m . . .. ..0502:EU 8w 3. 2. mm. oh. 8x 0h. 0a. who mo. 8.0 mo. oo 0 .021.-. .. m. ..2=>@@m 2 d“ mo. 0m; owzm mm. 2 mh 0&0 w? oo. wo 0m wh mo. 0. .02 . . . . . . J1 ..~00E=w0m 2.». mo. o 2.. mo. mm. 1.... mo hw. mh. o o o . o 02.. .. ... :.......~..00000:@m 3&2 .84 :4 s; hh. 0 oh. mo. ow. oo. on. mm. 2. m... 2 m .02 . . . . . . . . . . ... .032w0< 230000 2053b N2 60G .>02 .000 000w $04 30o 000w >02 E01‘. .002 huh .03. .0000 $0 £00000 E £00303 wwxuu. 00o mmofi 0m @5005 ha =wo00~0 0m Hsaaimlkm 0200B %%. @@. @§. xx. § i@-.<.@@-A . . . . . . . . . ........Q5Q.HP 3m wo. hh. wo. mm; 2 8. mo. mm fi w? m .02. . . . . ........20E0P ¢$.m av Ag Sx. Anaf: %§. @@. @@. awn. § oz.>...i.. ....A . . . . . .............~H—Q% 2.: ma; 0&4 mo. 3x0 m9 wo. mm; 8w 0w...“ 2 ~02. . . . . . .....mI..~...........w00000m0002 an No N9 ma. om 0m hm. ow. om hm. w .02. ... IJ . . . . . . . .. . . 0338.0 mmh mo; hfi o 2h. oh. wm oo NNA m2 N o 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..00¢0uQ 8&0 mo; 0w. m2. 3. wo. mo. $0 woe fig . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0.133 =05 02005 03:00 ooh E. mo. o S... oom mom voA mam Nmm 2 ..02.ZI.K.J . . . . . . . . . . . . ......2:>0om fihdfl 0N0 mo. 0N. $0 om .2; moo. ow. s; 0. 02m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I00000=w0m ooé Yo. o om. mm. oi oo. o o . on. o ~02. . M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........m2i000 um woo mod wv. o 0m mh ow mo. 2h n ow m 02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........03u~ 0< 000.0000 . 0020 doO 50 2 JQO 400m .w=< if. o0: h. >0 2 =00< 200503.15 130B .0000 00a £00000 0m m00$3m nmxoh. 00w QNoC 0.030000 3 zaofiau 02 2o .5 0Qi~m|€no3wP POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 13‘ .\ .1 a ... .. . 0.0.0 IN.I wo. 3.. 00.0 IN. 8. R... 00.0 NoI 00. Im. I. mI .02...... ........000Im0>P 8.0 0R. 8.. <0. 0m. 0 NN.. IR. 8. 00.0 II. moI Q... N .02... . . . . .. 1.00000. xw.@ %J&- “o! §§\- mqi .30» %N- §§~- 1x. AW’ ~°z-. w. - - . . . . . -..-:..-.Q?QE@H~ .?oam c?‘ o wN- mm. Qfi- mm. IN. m.?. wm. of. o?- §n uoz - v . . . . . ~ . - . --»aun:|_:gm 0N5 8.0 0 In. 0.. I. I. I.I..I n0. 00. IR. ooI 00. . . . . . . . . . . .. -2030 00m 0:0 0m. 3.. Nw. 00.. 00. mN. mNI 8. 9.0 EEI wNI Io. II .02 . . . . . . .. £00000 0002 0.0.... 0m. 0 I. S. wN. In. 00. I o 3.. o 9.. 0w. w .02 . . . . . . .. .. . . JI00IIQ0A wIiNI $4 Io. ...I..I m0. wN. mo; 00; 0m. mIiI NoI 2.4 >0. 0 .02 . . . . . . . . ........00000nI NwII m0; NI. wII 0.... 8. E. ow. 0.0.. 00.0 hmI oIN oI.I oI .02 . . . . . . . 100305 0m0II0U mI S 0m. ...»... 0w. 0.... 3.. Io. 0.... 0m. 3.. Nw. 3.. >0. NI .02. . . . . . . . . .........0IS00IIII.IU 00.0. wN. NI. 3.. Nm. I.I. 3.. 8.0 S. I.I. 0». wN. NI. I .02 . . . . . . . .........20>00m 00.2 2.0. E. 0.... 9.. mo. mIN 5.0 Nw. IN.I 00.0 mIZI 0w. I. .02 . . . . . . .. ...000E000.m wwé m»... o NN. NN.. mo. Nw. 3.. 3.. o Iw. wm. “I. m .02. . . . . . . . . .........00II00E 0m 2.» 0...; Nw. 0.0. vmI No. 8. 0w. No. 0w. 2.. on. Nm. 0 .02 . . . . . . 1.11.0002 04 I300. 00D .>02 .000 000m . .004 30w 0000. >0I>I E04 .002 00h 00w w00$00wn0m 0003000 00x00. 000 0.80 000 000000 E KNaI 603005 0n II000I00 00 Imv .IIIflQ_IIm.|..h 030m. . 8.0 0 00. 3.. R. 0m. 0.0. 3. 3.. S. 00. o hm. mI .02.................000Im0>> 00.3 mNI 00. 00. 0.»... 00. II.I mI..I 5.0 8.. m0; mm. _ 0: N .02........ . . . . . 11000.00. 00. II NI.I cN. BI 0m. Nm. 0m. 00. ow. mI .N 0.0.0 mo. $0 m. .02 . . . . ... . . . . ...........0I0EMI00.I. 00.2 3. NI. 0w. 0.0.0 0.0. EWI 0.... NI.I 00. 00.. Io. wI. I. .02 . . . . . . . . . . m 00s 00. 0.0. 0.. 2.. 0.... IN. mI. 0m. BI mmI No. 0.0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000004 00w I0..NI 0...; 00. .00. 00.. Nw. Q... 0.0.0 00. Nw. oI.N 0.0. mmI II . . .... ..w0II00I0m0002 00.2 wNN 0N. .2: S. 00.. NI.. wI. Nw. 0N. wNN 00. i. 0 .02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0I00nn0.I 00.2 NmI 0N. $0 00. Nm. R. NmI 2w. Nw. wNI mI. wmI 0 .02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..000.00Q 00.2 00.». E. NI.I 5.. 0.... Iw. mN. >0. mmI 3N 00. IN.I oI .02.... . . . . . . .... ..0m0II0U 00.2 0N. I No. wI. 00. 3.. Nm. NN.. 5. w. .AL. ma; o 00. I NI .02. . . . . . . . . .........0IS00:IEU 0:0 0.... oI. >0. 0.0. mo. 8. ...»: 00.. 2.. 0.0. 00. IRN I .02 . . . . . . . . . . .... . 050/0000 004: £0 Nw. NI.I 0.... ImI $0 mmI I.I.I I.m.I 00.0 Iw. m: I. .02 . . . . . . . . . . . ...000E000MI 0.0.0 5. 00. Iw. 5.. Nw. 8. oI. wI . I 0.... mNI o 3.. m .02. . . . . . . . . .........00.I00E 0m 00.2 0m. f. Nw. 9.... 00. NI.I 0.. 0...; 0.0. 00.0 om. oI.I 0 .02 . . . . . . . . . . .....00.00I 04 0000M. 00G .>02 .000 400w .004 30w 000w >0I>I F004 .002 00h .:0I. . 00030.5 0003000 00x00. 000 0.50 000 000000 E dNaI £40005 0n II000I00 E Amv 00HI0I0wILw 030E 14 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION and mo. ww. Ed ow. N? ohh. wm; 2.021.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......oum~wo>P §o.§ .?€- , x§. @w?. N ~oz . - . . -- - . . - -¢¢>>>-@2ii-..i-@§-i-iZ-¢-@.-|¢~>-Q:°-HP OZ w? NZ a. s; .2. w? a. m dz; . ....w..H bw.HHw..Hw. fiefi 2.2 flwA aw. :8 on. wo. ma. mo. h . If ........5nm mmzh fin." mm. wmzm on. mm. 3.; wm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IJIJ ..... .35.? cam g8 mm; hm; mo; hm. cod on; ofi. :.oZ................. TITKEJ....Uflm......m.Euow comZ mmdn 26 mfim aw; no. ma. m7 w . . . . . . . . iJmxoonasd maé; mm. main wmé ifim mm. mv; 2. w dZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . éoEwQ mw-m §@. @%. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . ..E...E.EE . Qmmzéou 3s 2A ma. 5A mm. mm. 31m Q. w .oZ..........~...~.~.~.. . . . . . . . . . . ..@was=_£u m3 s. :3 a. 2. a. s. a. _ ..wfi...¢ . ............. ..H $8M. and wh. wfim mo. mw. ow. 2A w? w .oZ...... . . . . . .. . . . . m. Qcofiswom am; o ow. Hw. wm. mo. mo. oo. m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mwiocswm %@.m @@- @@. awx. 51%. @%. m Avz....-.-....-.......-... . . . . . . - . . .. . . . . . - . ..-.HMQQQQ%H~< mfsofi co>ow 3E. v51. >32 EQ< .32 dob dw w cofifimnsm 13.5. . dcofism munch. um Bow Sn mwcson E 6N2 £5.55 ha 222E E Amv .5nn_:m|..w wimp. POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT ' 15 of the Rio Grande river varies in composition, but near Browns- ville (25) it contains over 75 parts per million of sulphur (S) in the form of sulphates, which is equivalent to about 200 pounds of sulphur per acre-foot of water. Many irrigationwaters in the‘ Western part of the United States contain more sulphur than the: Rio Grande, while a few contain less. The Water in the Pecos- River near Barstow, Texas (11), contains about 500 parts per" million of sulphur or about 1350 pounds per acre-foot. The water of Lake Kemp in Wichita County, Texas, contains about 180 parts per million or 400 pounds per acre-foot. Since crops which have high requirements for sulphur, as alfalfa, cotton,. cabbage, and onions, require less than 40 pounds of sulphur per acre, it is obvious that the irrigation waters in western Texas supply an abundance of sulphur for the crops grown under irrigation. Some of the river waters used for irrigation of rice in Texas (24) contain only 4 to 11 parts per million of sulphur, or 12 to 33 pounds per acre-foot, but a crop of rice requires only about 3 pounds of sulphur to the acre. Sulphur in Soils The sulphur in soils may be present as organic compounds, as pyrites, and as sulphates, such as calcium or barium sulphate. It may be found in the interior of soil particles and not be ex- posed to the action of plant roots or soil moisture. Hart and Peterson (34), Brown and Kellogg (6), Ames and‘ Boltz (2), Shedd (71), and others found that the sulphur con-- tent of many soils is low, and may be lower than the content of phosphoric acid. Sulphur in Texas Svils- Analyses were made of a number of Texas soils, selected so as to represent various geological origins and various climatic conditions. The estimation was made by the A. O. A. C. method (28, p. 30). Sodium peroxide was used in a room free from sulphur, so far as possible. Electric heat- ing appliances were used to avoid the presence of sulphur from gases. The analyses, averaged by counties, are given in Table 9. The content of sulphur is, as a rule, lower than that of nitrogen or phosphoric acid. The soils of Cameron and of Jefferson counties contain more sulphur than the others. The- group of counties where soils average smaller amounts of sul- phur includes Archer, Dallam, Eastland, Freestone, Harris, and Washington counties. Some samples are quite low in sulphur. This is shown by reference to the analyses of some soils of Har-- ris County (Table 10) and of Freestone County (Table 11). 16 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 9——Average percentage of sulphur, nitrogen and phosphoric acid in Texas soils _ _ Total _ Number Sulphur Nitrogen phosphoric of soils (S) acid averaged Archer county. . . . 5 . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0152 .076 .053 11 subsoil. . .0236 .043 .048 8 Bowie county . . . . . . . . .surface... 0308 .067 .061 45 subsoil. . .0144 .039 .055 54 Brazoria county... . . . . .surface... .0264 .142 .048 14 subsoil. . .0212 . 110 .044 10 Cameron county . . . . . .surface... .0640 112 .180 21 subsoil. . : . 0344 . 053 . 108 20 Dallam county... . . . . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0132 .070 .057 3 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0160 .063 .063 5 Dallas county..... . . . . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0292 .122 .095 14 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0368 .077 .099 13 Denton county..... . . . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0276 .091 .080 47 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0356 .057 .054 47 Dickens county . . . . . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0272 .019 .074 11 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1460 . 058 . 061 23 Eastland county......... . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0132 .066 .042 ll _ subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0176 .062 .049 11 Elhs county . . . . . . . . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0324 .155 . 124 13 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0312 .137 .125 13 Freestone county... . . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0148 .063 .044 28 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0160 .045 .044 37 Harris county..... . . . . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0128 .147 .026 13 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0196 .051 .036 19 Hays county“... . . . . . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0324 . 180 .101 6 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0276 .073 . 163 3 Jefferson county...... . . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0668 .146 .046 23 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0496 . 081 .061 25 Lee county . . . . . . . . . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0192 .035 .032 5 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0116 .039 .029 3 Lubbock county....... . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0200 .111 .072 18 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0192 .068 .061 18 Red River county ...... ...surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0188 .079 .063 23 ' subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0168 .047 .066 17 San Saba county......... .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0180 .090 .068 23 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0176 .075 .066 21 Smith county . . . . . . . . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0256 .049 .044 24 subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . 0176 .039 .044 23 Washington county... . .surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0148 .082 .047 9 subsoil. . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . 0188 .089 .048 9 Table 10-—Percentages of sulphur, nitrogen, and phosphoric acid unty in some soils of Harris C0 Labora- _ Total tory Description Sulphur Nitrogen phosphoric No. (S) acid 20037 Acadia clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0232 .109 .032 20038 Acadia clay subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0240 .169 .045 20021 Acadia clay loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '. . . . . . . . . . . 0160 .054 .017 20022 Acadia clay loam subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0140 .035 .015 20023 Acadia clay loam subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0088 .023 .012 20027 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0052 .026 .023 20028 Orangeburg fine sandy loam subsoil... . . . . . . . . . . . .0084 .021 .023 20029 Orangeburg fine sandy loam subso1l......'. . . . . . . . . . .0088 .037 .031 20030 Orangebur fine sandy loam subs0il....... . . . . . . . . . .0068 .035 .028 20031 Lake Char es fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0116 .053 .015 20032 Lake Charles fine sandy loam subsoil.... . . . . . . . . . .0024 .028 .011 20033 Lake Charles fine sandy loam subsoil........... . . . . . . .0140 .057 .019 2844 Moderate soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0068 .089 .030 2845 Subsoil to 2844 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0088 .041 .015 3409 Moderate upland.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0040 .147 .062 3410 Subsoil to 3409 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0020 .090 .045 20039 Norfolk fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0164 .063 .023 20040 Norfolk fi_ne sandy loam subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0092 .022 .011 1333 Sheldon rice soil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0160 .100 .020 23123 Surface S011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0092 .054 .028 23124 Subsoil to 23123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0068 .038 .016 20017 Victoria clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0232 .119 .027 20018 Victoria clay subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0152 .059 .016 20019 Victoria clay subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0112 .045 015 20020 Victoria clay subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0120 .039 .015 POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT ~17 Table l0—Percentages of sulphur, nitrogen, and phosphoric acid in some soils of Harris County—Coiitinue . Labor- i _ Total ator Description Sulphur Nitrogen phosphoric N0. (S) acid 20024 Victoria clay loam . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0176 .063 .018 20025 Victoria clay loam subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0092 .042 .011 20026 Victoria clay loam subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0036 .021 .012 20034 Fine sandy loam. . . . . _. . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0084 .050 .018 20035 Fine sandy loam subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0060 .031 .012 20036 Fine sandy loam subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0188 .053 .020 Table 11.—Percentage of sulphur, nitrogen and phosphoric acid in some soils of Freestone County. Labor- _ _ Total atory Description Sulphur Nitrogen phosphoric No (S) acid 15041 Norfolk fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0092 .043 .074 15042 Subsoil to 15041 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0140 .034 .022 15037 Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0076 .039 .041 15038 Subsoil to 15037 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0100 .019 .037 16110 Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0072 .046 .019. 16111 _Subsoil to 16110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .0072 .021 .048 16083 Norfolk sandy loam......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .0096 .024 .021 16084 Norfolk sandy loam......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0100 .032 .015 16112 Ochlockonee clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0268 . 144 .101 16113 Subsoil to 16112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0204 .105 .075 16119 Ochlockonee silty clay loam......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .0340 .200 .106 16120 Subsoil to 16119 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0296 .144 .096 15035 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0132 . . . . . . . . . . .050 15036 Subsoil to 15035 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0104 .044 .030 16072 Ruston fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0112 .037 .038 16073 Subsoil to 16072 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0136 .050 .038 3397 Bowie fine sandy loam, probably . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0240 .055 .072 3398 Subsoil to 3397 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0148 .041 .082 16064 Bowie fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0136 .044 .024 16065 Subsoil to 16064 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0144 .027 .020 16077 Cahaba fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0100 .025 .025 16078 Subsoil to 16077 ..... . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0124 .045 .027 16114 Cahaba sand (subsoil)......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .0048 .019 .023 15024 Crockett fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0164 .050 .040 15025 Subsoil t0 15024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0204 .058 .043 15026 Deep subsoil to 15024 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0300 .029 .041 15021 Crockett loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0260 .131 .057 15022 Subsoil to 1_5021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0224 .048 .023 15023 Deep subsoil to 15021 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0300 .032 .037 16102 Houston cla loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0232 .133 .062 16104 Subsoil t0 1 102 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0156 .039 .044 16079 Kalmia fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0076 .024 .021 16080 Subsoil to 16079 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0112 .034 .052 15027 Kirven gravel]; fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0124 .043 .040 15028 Subsoil to 150 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0196 .069 .057 15033 Lufkin fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0196 .083 .046 15034 Subsoil to 15033 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0168 .055 .061 15039 Norfolk fine sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0104 .015 .033 16081 Sumter clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0280 . 114 . 107 16069 Susquehanna clay loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0164 .036 .013 16070 Subsoil to 16069 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0176 .047 .050 3401 Susquehanna fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0160 .049 .077 3402 Subsoil to 3401 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0040 .041 .090 16105 Susquehanna fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0140 .049 .042 16106 Subsoil to 16105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0112 .035 .024 16107 Deep subsoil to 16105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0124 .034 .030 16117 Susquehanna fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0120 .040 .020 16118 Subsoil to 16117 . . . . ..i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0184 .033 .035 16085 Susquehanna gravelly fine sandy loam. . . . . . . . . . . 0128 .060 .018 15029 Tabor fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0096 .029 .115 15030 Subsoil to 15029 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0168 .041 .093 16121 Tabor_ fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0160 .091 .012 16122 Subsoil to 16121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0156 .050 .026 15018 Wilson silt loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0268 . 134 .059 15019 Subsoil to 15018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0204 .082 .033 15020 Deep subsoil to 15018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0180 .041 .040 18 ' BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Soils 0f Oregon (64) which respond to sulphur contained as. much sulphur as some of those of Texas (Table 12). It is to be noted that the Oregon soils are high in phosphoric acid. The rainfall in Oregon where these soils occur contains only a few pounds of sulphur per acre per year. Percolation experiments- on the soils, however, indicate that the soils are losing sulphur, in spite of the small amounts present. Table 12.—Percentage of sulphur in Oregon soils which respond to applications of sulphur. Increase Phosphoric of alfalfa Sulphur, Nitrogen, aci due to per cent per cent per cent sulphur, pounds per acre Salem fine sandy loam surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 015 .081 .174 2080 Salem fine sandy loam subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .030 .025 .181 Antelope clay adobe surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .020 .117 .147 4800 Antelope clay adobe subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .027 .074 151 Phoenix clay adobe surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .021 .117 110 4004 Phoenix clay adobe subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .020 .074 .165 Salem clay loam surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .027 .140 114 1700 Salem clay loam subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .024 .055 .165 Barron coarse sand surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 028 .052 .176 2166 Barron coarse sand subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .015 .015 .204 Tolo loam surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .029 .148 . 149 1532 Tolo loam subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .013 .039 . 140 Medford sandy loam surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .032 .107 .119 Medford sandy loam subsoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .016 .026 . 142 Willemette clay loarn (did not respond). . . . . .030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O Sulphur as a Fertilizer Sulphur, in the form of gypsum, which is sulphate of lime, was at one time used extensively on soils, usually in combination with manure, and especially for such legumes as clovers. It Was used in France, England, and Germany during the last half of the eighteenth century and was introduced into the United States by Benjamin Franklin. The use of gypsum has now been almost discontinued. Knowledge of the nature of plant nutrition at that time was very slight. Definite information regarding the elements essential to plants, and knowledge re- garding the deficiencies of the soil were later secured, beginning with the early part of the nineteenth century. Commercial fer- tilizers came into use for supplying the soil’s known deficiencies- in nitrogen, phosphoric acid, or potash. As gypsum alone did not supply any of the plant foods ordinarily deficient, the soil would become deficient in nitrogen, phosphoric acid, or potash; or a deficiency already existing would become more pronounced. It is obvious that gypsum or sulphur cannot correct de- ficiencies of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, or potash. It should also be clear that sulphur is not needed as a plant nutrient in soils which contain an abundant supply of sulphur or to which sufii- .. __._-__._..1..._..._.__.._......4._Qu POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT U19 cient amounts are provided by rain, irrigation water, or by fertilizers which incidentally carry sulphur. There still remains the fact that under some special condi- tions sulphur may be needed as a plant nutrient or that sulphur or gypsum may exert a favorable effect upon the physical or chemical character of the soil. J offe (42, p. 20) has summarized the results given in a number of investigations. Sulphur or gypsum has given favorable results in some parts of Washington and Oregon. Experiments conducted at the Oregon Experiment Station for more than 10 years and dis- cussed by Powers (64) show that 100 pounds of sulphur to the acre may give increases in yields for three to five years on the red hill soils of Western Oregon. Alfalfa, red clover, and alsike clover have given marked increases in yield on soils treated with sulphur or fertilizers containing sulphur. Moderate increases have been obtained with wheat and potatoes. Little increase has been secured on field peas, beans, corn, kale, rape, or sunflowers. From a study of the literature and inquiry of experiment sta- tions, Powers (64) concludes that the basaltic region of the Pacific Northwest affords the greatest field for the profitable use of sulphur as a fertilizer. Soils receiving large quantities of irrigation waters containing sulphates, those high in organic matter, and those containing saline sulphates in the Great Basin regions, are plentifully supplied with sulphur. The soils in the eastern and southern states receive a fair supply of sulphur in fertilizer, manures, and in rain, especially in the sections where coal and oil are burned in large quantity as a fuel. Shedd (72, 73), in pot experiments, found that sulphur alone decreased the yield of tobacco, but when added to a soil which received potassium nitrate, calcium phosphate, and calcium car- bonate, sulphur produced a decided increase in yield over the pot which received the additions without the sulphur. Sulphur in- creased the yields of soy beans, turnips, and mustard but gave no increase in the yields of clover, cabbage, or radishes. Recommendations by Experiment Stations Regarding the Use of Sulphur or Gypsum The following information was secured chiefly by corre- spondence with the Experiment Stations in the states named. The use of sulphur or gypsum as a fertilizer is not recommended by the following states: Alabama Georgia Louisiana Arizona Illinois Maine Arkansas Indiana Maryland Colorado Iowa Massachusetts Connecticut Kansas Michigan Florida Kentucky Mississippi 20 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Missouri North Dakota Utah Nebraska Ohio Vermont New Hampshire Oklahoma Virginia New Jersey Pennsylvania Wisconsin New Mexico Rhode Island Wyoming New York Tennessee North Carolina Texas It is believed in many cases that commercial fertilizers are more generally needed than sulphur, and where they are used supply all the sulphur needed. The rain also brings down enough sulphur in some cases. Arkansas and Nebraska tried sulphur at a number of points and secured no benefit. Kansas (79) found sulphur to decrease the production of alfalfa hay. Iowa (15) on some fields secured increases of alfalfa, clover, and oats with gypsum, while on other fields there were no increases. In some cases, the increase was sfnall; in others, it was large enough to make the application profitable. They do not recommend the use of gypsum but sug- gest that farmers try it out on a small scale on alfalfa. The Georgia Station states that some farmers use gypsum on pea- nuts with apparently good results, but other farmers fail to get any benefit from it. Gypsum is used for peanuts in Virginia with slight increases in yield, but it is believed that superphosphate would give the same result. Experiments in North Carolina with gypsum on peanuts gave only a slight increase in yield. Idaho (52) recommends the use of 200 pounds of gypsum on legumes on all cut-over lands and on most of the farms in the northern part of the state. Sulphur gives good results but gypsum is more economical. On the arid soil (63) no marked effect was produced on alfalfa. In Pennsylvania, gypsum was used in fertilizer experiments for over 4O years, and there was no apparent benefit from it as measured either by crop growth or reaction of the soil. A mix- ture of sulphur and rock phosphate gave some indication of beneficial action. Illinois (77) found little need for sulphur. There was no benefit to roses and carnations in greenhouse work (Illinois, 84). Montana recommends sulphur or gypsum for clover and al- . falfa in the Western part of the state. In some cases, yields are doubled and the feeding value of the hay increased. A number of experiments in Indiana (12) gave no increases for additions of sulphur. There was apparently no need for sulphur in Rhode Island (36) when sulphur had been omitted from the fertilizer on a number of plats for ten years. Experiments in Oklahoma (61) for eight years gave no ap- POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 21 preciable gain for gypsum on alfalfa, oats, cotton, corn, or cow- eas. p California recommends sulphur or gypsum chiefly in connec- tion with the amelioration of alkali soils. In general, however, gypsum is used to counteract sodium carbonate in the soil. It is also used to promote permeability in soils where there is very little alkali, when the soil is not readily penetrated by water. It is employed as_a soil amendment to increase the growth of al- falfa, partly with the idea that it releases potassium and partly as a means of supplying sulphur. Sulphur is recommended in spots where the soil contains insufficient sulphur for the growth of the plant and for neutralizing black alkali. It seems advan- tageous in this kind of difliculty to use sulphur first in order to neutralize a good deal of the alkalinity before any leaching is begun. If the alkalinity is first neutralized by an acid, such as is produced by sulphur when it is oxidized, the humus and some other valuable substances of the soil are not so likely to be washed away when leaching is begun. Washington (78) states that sulphur or gypsum causes in- crease in yields of legumes in some places, but that in other places they are of doubtful benefit. For this reason, farmers are advised to try out sulphur or gypsum on a small scale before making extensive applications, at the rate of 200 pounds of gypsum or 50 pounds of sulphur per acre, in the spring. It is pointed out that the increased yield will increase the draft on the other plant food and require the applications of other fer- tilizer elements in the near future. Oregon states that good results are secured from gypsum at the rate of 200 pounds per acre on soils low in sulphur, as is the case with some soils in Southern and Central Oregon. The continued use of gypsum on light sandy soils that are not fertile will generally result in rapid depletion of the soil in other forms of plant food, such as phosphoric acid or potash. According to Russel (69) sulphur has not proved especially effective to crops in England. In Massachusetts (87) (60) no indication of shortage of sul- phur was observed after 30 years of cultivation and the use of fertilizers containing little or no sulphur. In Utah (33), sulphur is not at present a limiting factor but may be in time. Pot and field experiments on Maryland soils with various crops are reported by McKibbin (56). Sulphur alone gave in- creased yields with buckwheat, corn (2 in 3 tests), cotton, soy beans (2 in 4 tests), sweet clover, and tomatoes (1 in 3 tests) ; decreases or no increase with alfalfa, corn, lettuce, peas, sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, soy beans (2 in 4 tests), tomatoes (2 in 22 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 3 tests). Sulphur added to raw rock phosphate gave increase in 12 of 17 cases. Sulphur added t0 superphosphate gave decreases in 13 out of 19 cases. Inoculated sulphur gave about the same results as non-inoculated sulphur. McKibbin attributes the in- creased yields t0 the beneficial effect 0f increased acidity upon the soil solution 0r upon the crop grown, rather than to an in- crease in water-soluble sulphates, of which there seemed to be a supply already in the- soil adequate to the growth of any crop. He concludes that light application of elemental sulphur, less than 100 pounds, on specific crops, may give increased yields in many cases, but it should not be applied mixed with super- phosphate. Reynolds, at the Texas Station (65), reports on extensive field experiments with sulphur. “The use of sulphur in amounts ranging from 50 to 10,000 pounds per acre on soils at Temple, Angleton, Beeville, College Station, Nacogdoches, and Troup, Texas, did not produce significant or profitable increases in the yield of cotton, corn, cowpeas, or oats. The work was con- ducted 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 fer- tilizer would not be profitable in farm practice. Sulphur ap- plied 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 experi- ment. The rate of application of sulphur apparently had no appreciable effect on the development or control of root-rot dis- ease of cotton on this soil, indicating that sulphur should be of little practical value in controlling the disease on highly cal- careous soils, such as the black waxy soils in the Blackland region of Central Texas.” Pot Experiments with Sulphur Pot experiments have been made with sulphur or gypsum by investigators in various states. Some workers have reported marked increases in yield of crops, especially on certain Wash- ington and Oregon soils, while others have had very poor re- sults. Lomanitz (49) found little benefit from sulphur on Texas soils. TeXaS EXperiments- Pot experiments were made to test the ‘ action of sulphur alone or in combination with othermaterials upon growing plants. A variety of soils was used. In the check experiments, made in the absence of sulphur, the materials POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 23 used Were analyzed to see that no appreciable amounts of sul- phur were contained in them, and the plants were watered with distilled water because the cistern water usually used was found t0 contain some sulphur. The experiments were conducted in 8-inch galvanized iron pots, with 5 kilograms of soil in a green- house, as has been previously described (27). Sulphur Alone in Pot Experiments. The use 0f sulphur alone, as such or in gypsum, was tried in some pot experiments, for the purpose of ascertaining Whether such applications would give responses similar to those given by the usual plant foods, nitro- gen, phosphoric acid, and potash. Table 13 contains the results of some pot experiments made in 1924, with corn, sorghum, cotton, and alfalfa, in which sulphur alone is compared with ammonium nitrate and potassium sul- phate (NK) or with ammonium nitrate, dicalcium phosphate, and potassium sulphate (NPK). The complete fertilizer in practically all cases gave higher yields than the incomplete fer- tilizer, or the application of sulphur alone. The application of sulphur usually gave lower yields than the fertilizer containing nitrogen and potash, but no phosphoric acid or sulphur. The results with sulphur are especially low, as compared with the regular fertilizer on the Norfolk fine sand, on the Norfolk sandy loam, and on the Orangeburg sandy loam, which represent soils on which commercial fertilizers are extensively used in East Texas. The growth of crops on soil treated with the sulphur averaged about 40 per cent of that with the complete fertilizer and 60 per cent of that with the nitrogen and potash. Table 14 contains the results of pot experiments conducted in 1925, in which sulphur was compared with nitrogen and potash and with a complete fertilizer. The results are similar to those presented in Table 13. The soil treated with sulphur produced about 35 per cent as much as the soil treated with a complete fertilizer and 60 per cent as much as the soil treated with nitrogen and potash. Table 15 contains the results of an experiment somewhat different from the preceding. The application of sulphur is here compared with untreated soil and with a complete fertilizer. The sulphur gave practically the same results as no fertilizer and averaged about 43 per cent of that with a complete fertilizer. Sulphur alone had little or no effect on the yields of crops grown in the pot experiments just discussed, while fertilizers containing nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash gave very de- cided increases in yield of crops on many of the soils. Sulphur alone, therefore, cannot be expected to give results on these soils, or to take the place of the ordinary commercial fertilizers. 24 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION . . . . . . . . .. - . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Qm~w.~0>< 0000 0000. $0. 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.0000000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000.02 .0300 00. 000000 0300 003 R00. 00.0. 0.00 0.00 0.000 . 0000000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 10800 .008 00.05% $000 0:0. . . . . IT. . 000. 0.2 0.0 0.0 0002m00m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000000020002 JQNN 00 0000005 mmfimm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2HOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .m0-OOwvwOONz OH ZOMQH~@ 0.000 23o. . . . . . . . . . . 20m mém w .2 . 00300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 000000020002 .0002 >00000 200000000 22mm 0B0 2N0. 000. 0.2 0 40m 0.0 0000:0080 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .000020m0002 .0002 30000 000.000.0000 22mm 0000. 0000. . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 0.00 0.00 . . . . .0000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .000000w0002 .0002 >00000 0000020000 22mm . E::@HQT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>UNZ@3 ua5ow >@H~NW QHH€ vzo%hoz $00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 0.0 0.00 .0000 . . . 5.00.1022 r00 000000002 .0002 >00000 00c 0002002 0020 0000. 0000. . . . . . . . . . . 008m N20 o0 000000 . . . . {wfilto r00 000000002 .0002 >0000 00¢ 200.0002 202m 020. :00. 000. 0.00 0.0 0.0 0000:0080 . . . . 507.00 ..00 000000002 .0002 >0000 00c 0.002002 0030 22o n20 . . . . . . . . . . 0.00 0.0 0.0. . .0000 . . . . 50050 ..00 000000002 .0002 >0000 000,0 00200002 0020 00S Hmoo. 000. M000 0.0 0 .o 0000:0080 . . . . . . . . . 5001.00 ..00 0000000002 .0000 000<0 00000002 0.020 00000 2N9. . . . . . . . . . . wax“ mflm o.m .0000 . . . . . . . . . .twml:o0 ..00 0000000002 .0000 000.0 00000002 302m womo Qmo moo. 001mm 0.2 wQ 000200000 . . . . . . . . . . 50090 ..00 000000002 .0000 00c 00000002 000.00 00.00 00E. . . . . . . . . . . 0. 20 odm m8 .0000 . . . . . . . . . . .:o2|:o r00 000000002 .0000 00w 00.0002 mwsm 0000. 0000. 000. 0.00. 0.00 22 6.0000000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $01.0. r00 00000000 >000 00 000002 00.20 0000M 008 . . . . . . . . . . 00.00 0.00 0.00 .0000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .=0|=0 r00 00000000 .>000 00m000002 00000 wofi mm: 000. 0.00 0.00 0.0.0 00000000000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .=00J.0 .0002 >000 0000000> 0020 . . . . . . . . .. .H~HOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ......\\x.%||:@ 0EN°@ ZNQU flTmQwUw> oomo. 22o 0N0. 0.00 o .02 0.0 0000000000 . . . . . . $001.00 r00 00000000 .0002 >000 >200 0000000» 00000 0000. 0E0 . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 . . .0000 . . . . . . s00|=00 r00 00000000 .0002 >000 >200 0000004 0200 030. 0000. 0&0. H .00 N. . 00 0.0 00000000000 . . . . . . . s00|=0 ..00 00000000 .0002 >000 >200 000000.00 $000 0000. 0000. . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0 . 0 h . 2 . . . .0000 . . . . . . . $001.00 :00 00000000 .0002 >000 >200 0000001» 0.0000 0000. 008. 000. 0.0.0 0.00 0.00 0000:0060 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501:0 r00 00005 .0000 000.0006 0000 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . IQHOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - -\\%I.\\© FOO Qw@a 07nom UUW%MH~% 22 0000200 0000 00 000000 0000000 000000 0000030 0000B m 22 2 2 2 0000205 0000 0000030 0000 .002 .02 0002 000000 0000000 00 0000 .00 0030005 .0000200 00000003 000 030B 00000.00 200 000000000 50B 0000000000500 000 00 0800M 00000|hmH 030,2. 25 POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT -.-.---.....-..-. %.@ §.@ --.MA.%.Qm-..-.-.-...- ...-.....Q.....-..:@.TI:WfooE.N@@EQ%N@QV%DN@QHHOPM:Qm fixaw. -.-.-..- .- .... ..nHH°U..-..-...-..... .......--...-..\\@%II~\§TOUaflw@gg>fiwnwxnvfi@gflmoflmgom QQMm ........................................ ..........................OM.®»30>< . . . . . ... min ..-.»~$Nz.................................................QUMUQWN.a-?ZOWUQN%HQ@ ......~H.~OU .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..QU HQQWN.@¢ fiCm UQMPQMfiPZ 32. 3.3 ~33 9N3 . . . E0330 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $33311. :00 3333333 .8303 3:33 E33 33> 3333333333 33mm N? 34%.. .3363 . . . . .3333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.31:0 ..o0 3333333 .5303 3E3 3:33 30> 3.523333 3N3 8o. 3.3 3 .3 @333 .. E30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:>|:o .60 3333333 .3332 333533 E33 33> 3:33.333 33mm . . . . fzwflm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:@@|.§F TCU 3860* >%@QNW 053% >HU> QQEHZGU owo. 0.3 3.3 0.03 . . . . . E300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:m3|:> .60 3333335 E303 3E3 3:33 33> 35:30 53mm 3.5 3.3 m. d E330 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:.3.|:o .60 333.333 .5303 3E3 3:33 33> 38:30 3N3 3.3 mam NS . . .3333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3R1: r00 3333333 .3332 3E3 23¢ 33> 3:330 33mm 33o. 0.33m 3.3 M33 E300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.... ..o0 333333 .3332 3E3 3:33 33> 38:30 33w . wdm 3... 3m N63 . . .3333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:.3.|:o .60 3333333 E303 x33: 333m 333332 33mm >2 3.3 3 .3 33.3.3 F50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 531:0 .60 33335? E32 >33 333m 323332 3N3 . @ . @ aw . @ . . . . . . fmafix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :m_|.=@ You JMHNQQ >wvflnflw Q=~,% >hw> fliQzfly m. . . . . . . QMkQU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:&.l-=@ TOO .ENO.— %@H:ww 03.33% ~fikU> 630.56% §.@§ . . .hmrwfl.m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - .\\&_|=@ TOO >ENO.~ >NTv @AHNEH@& M HFMOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .=F|:@ TOU JHHNA: WHZO @gfl~x.im @.@m m. . . . . . fmwzwflm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :§.|l:@ TQU ‘Efimvw >wvflflw Qamrw >HQ> QOHFMUK/ AW-flaw. fi . . . . . .C.~QU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:P|\\© FOO Jkmmwn; %%vflflw Own-Q EU? QOQMQ> 93 3.2 m3 3880 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521:» 6o 333.323 6E3 2.33 E? 353.313.3333 $33 . 3.3 @333 we . . 3333 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $333193. ..o0 333.333 3E3 3:33 33> 33303 3350 3.3a 38 3.3 3.33 92 zicou .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521R 5o .252? .353 2e is, 38323.15 £33 333 :3 333: 3333033 3E3 3W0 3:33.333 3E3. 3.30m 330532 .3:3Q3:m 33030 .073 a 3.333303% 03303330333 333.532 33333303 33333 3393M 230.30 3333B 3.3333500 0:03 3:333 33333 3330.333 3.30.8 3o 383w :3 .333m3o>P1l.33 033313. 26 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION NRA w? 93 . . . . . . . . . . HEM N. d 9m 3o. EoU E2 m2 m4; . . . . . . . . .. 5.8M mql mim 7m o5. E00 .018 ma ma: moo. E00 mama N2 m6; . . . . . . . . .. EQM odfi ofifi 5.2 . . . . . . . . .. “ca! mAm 5m 9m m8. F50 Nam mam o. 5 . . . . . . . . .. pmmvm mdm >4» m5 m5. EoU mam *2 9: . . . . . . . . . . Hcmvw h h 9m vim S? 55D 9N». “an wmm o6. FSU van 2w m...“ mom E c232» Amy 5.27mi; 55% wnw Eon wcoumwwm 3E5 uwwfinxtwm Q30 oiosmmonm oZ Enfism com 91:2 - . . . - - - - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\\&..|=@ E\%.N@O . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . - - . . ...\\N.I|\\@ >570 . . . . . . . {alts fimfiwgi .152 35mm 0cm cmccokm .. kmfllth omEEm 5x2 35mm 0cm cmcqupm mwimm .2525 omwufiw E2 flow oofliflm QRJAV .om_wwmm...w.m.mnm hzuiwum .520 v22 5535i omEEE fiumwhnm . Eu nomfiiwm . . . . . . . . . - . - . - . . . . . . . . . 5Tb wflwwflm “=82 >25 2E omREE HHHHHHHHHHRJQ GHQGE 52.19am 2E omREE . . . . . . . . .. {TE .E@=2 s20 EEHP . . . . {TE éswfi 22¢ EH29 . . - - . . . . - .02 ..6~::~v~ ofiznfiou n33 ucm mnoflmuww o: at? ufimmEoo .2533 :33 ficofiivaxw 8m E cBogm £82m 5 dnohUllmfi macaw. POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT - 27 Sulphur in Combination with Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid, and Potash. The previous experiments showed that while the soils tested gave practically no response to sulphur alone, they responded to the usual fertilizer materials. This response involves a greater draft on the sulphur of the soil. The question arises whether this increased growth may not bring about a greater demand for sulphur than the soil could supply, thereby causing a re- sponse to applications of sulphur. Pot experiments were made in which the effect of sulphur in combination with nitrogen, phosphoric acid, or potash, was com- pared With the same materials without sulphur. Table 16 con- tains the results of experiments with cotton made in 1925 and 1926. They are usually averages of two pots. The differences are in the limit of error, except with a Norfolk subsoil of Cass county, a sample of Norfolk fine sandy loam of Nacogdoches county, and Milam fine sandy loam of Milam county. Two of these soils were very low in sulphur. Table 17 contains the results of experiments in which a fer- tilizer containing nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, free from sulphur, was compared with the same fertilizers plus cal- cium sulphate. There are indications that sulphur was effective, to some extent, with Crockett fine sandy loam (subsoil) 23955, of Milam county, Norfolk fine sandy soil 23963 of Milam county, Ruston fine sandy loam 24009 of Nacogdoches county, Nueces fine sand, shallow phase, of Willacy County, both surface and subsoil 25783-4, and Irving clay 25959 of Navarro county. Table 18 contains another set of experiments conducted in 1926. The sulphur had no effect on the yield of cotton although it increased the percentage of sulphur and total amount of sul- phur in the crop. These experiments indicate that when a complete fertilizer free of sulphur is used on some sandy soils low in sulphur, and the crops are watered with distilled water free from sulphur, there will be a response to sulphur fertilization in some cases. Under natural conditions, the rain contains sulphur, and the fertilizer usually contains it. Fertilizers containing little or no sulphur are now coming on the market. It seems probable that crops which require large amountsof sulphur and which receive fertilizers low in sulphur, and are grown on soils low in sulphur and not irrigated, may need fertilization with sulphur. This possibility needs to be further investigated in connection with the use of the new concentrated commercial fertilizers some of which may contain little sulphur. Sulphur may be needed after such fertilizers are used for a few years on non-irrigated land, especially for such crops as cotton, cabbage, turnips, and onions. 28 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION v20. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . Z vhN :.0N v.0 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......5m2>:..:v|r0>5u=om owomN :0 . v. 5 N.0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5E2? .:v|:0 65mm v55 >52, >55: >QSQ vNNNN 20m XIII XIII Y5.“ v.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..SE2B...T..Q.E8_>Ea$=5 @2523 NNNNN v20. . v.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.2 9.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z5522 .:v|:0 >53 =wm owmmN N20. w.vN N.2 0 N: N 0 0.2 vv: meséwoewz .2|:v .55.: 3.5mm v50 QQEEHBEQO v00vN 20 N v2 v 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9w . we 0v N.w . . . . . . . . .5252 .37..“ .55: >053 Q50 5522 vwmmN N20. v.mN 0.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 0.2 0v v.0 . . . . . . . . . .525: .:v|:0 .55: >055 v50 52:2 @505 0N0. 9mm 5mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m .2 W3 0v: m. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5522 $51.5 .55: >50 52;? mmmmN n00. 0 0N wNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v.2 0.2 mN: w: . . . . . . . . . Z5522 .:v|:0 .55: >553 v50 355D wvmmN §%@. my . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WO§U°@wQUNz .\\&.|\\@ Jhhfiow >@.HH.NW Ucwk VZQ%MOZ 20. 0.2 NAN N.NN N.vN v.2 9w 9w v.2 . . . . . . . 6w 3:5 .:2|:v .55: >553 v50 155G NwmmN 20. v.2 0.2 2.2 N.2 N.v~ 0.2 0.0 N. I . . . . . . . . Io GEE .:vl:0 .55: >053 v50 525G Emma 20m w»: f2 .0_vN.. ImhN . ..v.vN w? 0.2 0.: . . . . . . ..ow_%55 .:vl:0 .55: >053 5c 5553M mvNmN x00. vhm omvm MZIU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:w5fl.N0mNNo~=own5w mwmNN 20 Nvm 0mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................:m5I.=owvuw.t5m N00NN ..L.... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lnmwmu ~VZQ%MQZ >%~QNQOMQ hxOwfimwm aC=0w v20. v.mN v.vN . . . . . . .. 0 0N w 2N N22 0.: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..:.:5m.mom ZNNN vvc 0 Nm 0 0m . . . . . . . .. m.0N 0.mN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5::5m5.m 50w Q0555 NNwNN 20. we». vdN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q2 0.2 v.2 Nv: . . .3523 $7.5 .55: >553 55c >52, 5o55v> vNNNN 20. 0 wN mdN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 v.2 0 .2 0.2 . .._.§.._2.$ .37..» .55: >053 05m >55 252B mNNNN mom 5 0.58mi 552w 2&2 52m 52 52w M7: 55w v5 >558 .5500 655 mom dZ 0N2 2.5m mN2 .5555?» 0505i? 05a 5:8 655w 5.. 5030a .5 Emma? umm5o><|n2 wish. 29 POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT .m. kQNM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OMMN>NZ -=R_¢l:¢ JMMQA; %@flnflm Ofl=.% PFGXOQHU . %. %.aw¢ AHMQU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ohhfi>fiz »=§~.|:@ “EMA: »%@~HNW Uni HQUZUOHU aw. R€NM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . .oh,mfi>flz »\\R.|\~@ rxfiflfiv §%@. MMHQU . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . .. -. . .- . . .Q.H.~N>NZ .=Wl-=@ ->N.@U § . my .$ M€NM . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>U.NZ@B ~\§§|:@ ¢ENQ@ n%%vflnfiw Qqi . Auw .@@\ x. MMHOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>ON@.ZB -=§l.:@ haflmfi? wwvgflw Q=@ Q.VQ dHOwwOu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . htmwfi|x~P aflmfifig Bnvzflfimy vvnnflw UQM.“ WUQOUZ @ .m@ w . Hwwflm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .:@Ml.=§ AQWNZQ anvzfifiww vgflm Qgww M00052 @@@. @ CHOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . »:@%|\\§ anwwflgg 3Q@%NQMQ @AHNW magi WUUUEZ @ . T4 . Hmofifiou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . ~\\N.|:@ bQwfizg aowwflgwv tfimmm UAM€ MUOUHFZ § . fl. M€Nm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . »:R_l.\\@ a®wflza P/oiflgmw @Q.Nm Ufizrw mwUQgz o8. 5mm 9mm :30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202:3 $7.... $2222 325223 88mm 8c W387: mfimw F .©M N . umwflm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WOSOOUNOONZ “IPI-IO .EGO~ ~nmviflw 02.22% MEENEUUUwUW . @ . Am . ch60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WQ§OQ@@OUNZ ~:§.|=@ ~ENHZ >tgflm Qc€ NHMMHNZUQUW§@ fi . % . h€flm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WUQOQwvwQUWZ ~:W|.=@ “EMA; >wvfimflm Ugz cowmgm . fi . @ . HMHQU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QQ;UO@@OUNZ -:&~|:@ “EMA: %.wvqflw ®i€ flcwwgm @ .qnfiv k€flm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WU§U°@@°U.NZ ¢=§|=ew ¢afl°w >fimmflw QQ€ @ . w . CMQU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mwfiUQtwQnvflz »IR.I<\@ “EMA: ~%@§Nw Qfizw Hikwzix M . fi . h¢flx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . wflfiOOmvwoOflz .:F|§@ Jcwn; ~%W—O Qtfim M. hdpwflx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . .\\@@|§F Jhnfla: %1@Qflw 052% ~:>.Ix 22o. mm: 9N2 EoU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8222 K221i. .82: 38mm one c822 momma § . fi . Hafiz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . »:R.|=@ “Efloé ~fifigfiw Qgz @§@. 3 . 5e . QMQU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\\§|l\\@ "Emma; %tgfim Ucx 28m m. 2N 8.82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8222 $22192. 683 8m 2:282 mwmmm moo. mmm 5m; EoU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8222 $227.3 :83 8c 20.202 momma m2. mmm c380 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8222 .:>|:o 28am was 2:882 Nmmmm mmm 2 d2 8cm! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8222 Shlxo 48mm 2E 2:02.87: Nmmmm moo. mfim Nmwm EoU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8222 .=>1:o. :83 8c 2:887: mwmmm m. . fi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .§®w|.=m. JHMNO» PUEWW Qcwvw wfi®iOQhu N20. mam mQN EoU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8222 cAI-ck. .82: 328m 8c 392250 mmmmm m8 mmfi 82:32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8222 .:h|:o .82: zucww 2E 33:28.80 wmmmm Io. . m2 min EoU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8222 521:0 .82: 38am 2E 222080 wmmmm =8 8 $52 M272 Awv .2525 n80 38:00 532v 693 mom 62 80o .62 88¢ 2o 2:235 8:25am 80:23 was :23 8022252 033800 :23 8.58259"... 8a n: 833m wnofivlflw @522. 30 3o. mwmo. 2H3 2m. wow we ah 2c. E2. 3% Xw. wfi, Q2 i: 3o. 22. Ffio 3w. N? m3 Q2 B? $2. £3 2a. ohm w . 2 N. . 2 ooo. mwoo. fig Mam; omm h . N. m .2 ooo. ooxo. $8 8w. m2 Q2 ha; 3Q. wmi. 88. $5. fia fimm wen 2o. cit. E8. who. mom m. mm wan omo. mmfi. ommo wow. omm m mm Nam cfifimwmo $52 MAZ $52 MAZ $52 MmZ grain." macho. 5 38¢ E 953w E E3 16m Amv 5:33 wEmEU owv .2535 E3 5m 396 .6 E903 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ioauowmoomZ m\\hl\\o .582 3.53 mam mccmsosvwsm . . . . éwnuoumoumZ SoTIR 5E2 3E3 mac coowsfl . . . . . awnoowmoomz Kofilzh 5E2 zwcwm 02¢ ct/bfi mwsoowwoomZ cAZJR 6 dZ n82 xwcmw one E0102 . . . . .8%%w8@z fill. d dZ 9am 2E £282 . . . . . éazamcomz s78 A .oZ v53 3E 59102 . . . . . I . . AUEQEE 057:“. 5E2 35mm BE miooo; . . . . . . . . omiwwwmi .3325 5E2 woman occ miooofi/ . . . . . . . . . . . REE sTb .252 35$ 2E =28». mom dofiou mo dwmooa cum Euw. uionnmoan domobuc 3 cooficww E 253cm Mo oootmlhwfi oEaH POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 31 Effect 0f Sulphur on the Composition of Crops It has been shown by several workers that sulphur may affect the composition of crops. Hart and Tottingham (54) reported that applications of sulphur increased the sulphur content of clover, rape, and other crops. Miller (58) found that sulphur increased the sulphur and nitrogen content of clover plants. Neidig and others in Idaho (63) found that sulphur and cer- tain of its compounds produced an increase in the percentage of sulphur and nitrogen in alfalfa. Neller, in Washington (62), reported that sulphur in pot and field experiments increased the percentage of sulphur and nitrogen of alfalfa, while it apparently decreased the percentage of lime. The results were much less pronounced in field experiments than in pot tests. Shedd in Kentucky (74) found a larger percentage of sulphur in soybean plants grown on soils to which sulphur was added in pot experi- ments than on untreated soil; this did not hold for nitrogen. Texas EXreriments- Chemical analyses of the crops grown in the pot experiments with and without sulphur showed that the addition of sulphur made a_ decided increase in the percentage of sulphur. Some illustrations are given in Table 19. It would seem that sulphur, like potash, and, to a less extent, like nitrogen, can be taken up by the plant in excess. This also occurs in field experiments, as is shown in the analyses of field crops also given in Table 19. Sulphur did not favorably influence the yields, though some of it was taken up by the crop. Table 19.—Effect of sulphur on the percentage of sulphur in crops. » No Sulphur No. sulphur added 22223 Cotton, pot experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332 .784 22227 Cotton, pot experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .336 .676 22911 Cotton, pot experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .248 .792 22918 Cotton, pot experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .236 .724 22962 Cotton, pot experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .216 .808 22222 Cotton, pot experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .520 1.012 Cotton leaves, Temple. 500 pounds sulphur per acre. .. .. . . . . 1.336 1.992 Cotton leaves, College, 200 pounds sulphur per acre. . . . . . . . . . .964 .956 Cotton leaves, Beeville, 200 pounds sulphur per acre . . . . . . . . . .952 1.172 Cotton stems, Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .148 .212 Cotton stems, Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .300 .396 Cotton stems, College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .228 .220 Pepper plants. field grown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .432 .460 Pepper plants. field grown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .512 .552 More nearly complete analyses were made of certain crops grown in the pot experiments with and without sulphur, for the purpose of seeing what effect the high percentages of sulphur had upon the other ingredients. The average results are pre- sented in Table 20. The crop with high sulphur averaged 0.82 per cent total sulphur (S), of which 0.70 per cent was water- 32 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION soluble and precipitated directly with barium sulphate. The low-sulphur plants also contained water-soluble sulphates, but much smaller amounts. The excess sulphur was almost entirely in the form of sulphates. The high sulphur content was ac- Table 20.-—~Average composition of cotton plants grown in pot experiments with and without su hur. No sulphur Sulphur added per cent per cent Total sulphur (S) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 .82 Water-soluble sulphur (S) . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . .14 .70 Ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.26 11.31 Phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 . Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.92 3.50 Nitrogen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.30 1.18 Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.34 2.12 Magnesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63 ~ .63 Insoluble ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.10 1.32 Ash not shown in analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 .98 Number averaged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 companied by a higher ash, which was chiefly accounted for by the sulphates. The phosphoric acid, the potash, and the insol- uble ash also averaged higher in the high-sulphur plants, while the nitrogen and lime were lower. The increase in bases did not correspond to the increase in sulphur; consequently, the high-sulphur plants had a more acid ash. Plants can apparently take up sulphur compounds readily when accessible. It is pos- sible that high sulphur may be of advantage to tobacco or per- haps other plants under special conditions. Elfect of Sulphur on Plant Food in the Soils Erdman (14) found that gypsum in some soils made both phosphoric acid and potash of the soil slightly more soluble in Water, but little or no effect was observed on other soils. Gyp- sum at the rate of 200 pounds per acre was beneficial to clover and alfalfa in some cases. Other workers have reported on this subject (2, 5, 67, 74). 4 Cubben (13) and Erdman (14) both pointed out that con- trasting results were secured by some workers on the effect of calcium sulphate on the potash dissolved from the soil. While appreciable amounts were dissolved in some cases, in other cases the calcium sulphate did not increase the amount of potash brought into solution in water. Cubben did not secure a marked liberation of potash. While sulphate of lime or other salts may increase the amounts of potash dissolved by water from some soils, it does not neces- sarily follow that plants will take more potash from such soils. It is quite possible that the active potash may enter the plants as readily from a soil low in Water-soluble potash as from a soil POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 33 containing larger amounts. A series of pot experiments was conducted at the Texas Experiment Station (26) using, among other additions, 400, 500, 1000, or 10,000 parts per million of gypsum in addition to fertilizer. There Was no gain in dry mat- ter of the crop caused by gypsum on any of the ten soils used. The gypsum was injurious in some cases. There Was a slight gain in the potash taken up on two of the ten soils; this differ- ence is within the limit of error. There was thus no evidence that the addition of gypsum increased the availability of the pot- ash of the soil or caused plants to take up larger quantities of potash. Effect of Sulphur on the Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid and Potash Taken Up by Crops Some workers have found that applications of sulphur in- creased the quantity of plant food taken up by some crops. If sulphur causes an increase in the size of a crop on a soil deficient in sulphur but containing good supplies of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, or potash, the increased crop will necessarily take up a larger quantity of these plant foods, though not neces- sarily a larger percentage. Such an increase does not mean that the sulphur rendered any of the plant food available. The de- ficiency of sulphur limited the ability of the crop to use the other materials, already i11 forms suitable for plant use. While the use of sulphur on a soil deficient in sulphur may have in- creased the amount of other plant foods taken up, it does not necessarily follow that it changes or increases the assimilability of these plants foods in the soil. Analyses were made of some of the plants grown in the pot experiments already discussed, for the purpose of seeing whether or not the addition of sulphur had any effect upon the amount of the particular plant food taken from the soil by the crop. The analysis was made for the particular material not added. Thus if nitrogen and potash were used, with and Without sulphur, analysis was made of the crop for phosphoric acid, to see if the addition of the sulphur aided the plant to secure additional supplies of phosphoric acid from the soil. Elfect 0n nitrogen- Table 21 shows the effect of sulphur upon the percentage of nitrogen and weight of nitrogen in some crops grown on soils receiving phosphoric acid and potash but no nitrogen. It is seen that the addition of sulphur did not in- crease the amount of nitrogen taken up, and consequently the availability of nitrogen, except possibly on one soil; but even this is doubtful. Most of these soils are low in nitrogen, so that the sulphur had opportunity to be effective. “34 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 21.——Grams of nitrogen removed by cotton grown in pot experiments (in 1926) with ‘ and without sulphur. Per cent No. Soil PK PKS sulphur (S) - added added in soil 23245 Brennan fine sandy loam, 0”—7", Hidalgo“ . . . . . . . .0724 .0677 .010 23361 Duval fine sandy loam, 0”—7”, H1dalgo..... . . . . . . .0991 .1128 - .010 23362 Duval fine sandy loam, 7”—19", Hldalgo. . . . . . . . . . .0770 .0686 .010 23948 Gause fine sandy loam, 0”—7", Milam . . . . . . . . . . . . .0947 .0959 .005 23959 Wilson clay loam, 7”—19”, Milam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1379 . 1120 .020 23966 Milam fine sandy loam, 0”—7”, Milam . . . . . . . . . . . .0733 .0482 .012 23967 Milam fine sandy loam, 7”—19", Milam. _ . . . . . . . . . .0525 .0632 .01() 24004 Ochlockonee fine sandy loam, 7”——19”, Milam. . . . I .1051 .1020 .012 Eifect 0n phosphoric acid- Tables 13 and 22 show the effect of sulphur on phosphoric acid on soils receiving potash and nitrogen but no phosphoric acid. There seems to be some tendency of the sulphur to increase the amount of phosphoric acid taken up. Table 13 contains some experiments with corn and kafir, recording similar results. Table 22.—Grams of phosphoric acid removed by cotton grown in pot experiments in 1926 with and without sulphur. Per cent No. Soil Average Average sulphur KN KNS in soil 23245 Brennan fine sandy loam, 0”—7”, _Hidalgo . . . . . . . . . .0839 .0951 .010 23361 Duval fine sandy loam, 0”—7”, Hrdalgo. . . . . . . . . . . .0241 .0252 .010 23362 Duval fine sandy loam, 7"—19”. Hidalgo. . . . . . . . . . .0199 .0275 .010 23551 Norfolk fine sandy loam, 0”—7”, Nacogdoches. . . . . .0260 .0361 .012 23948 Gause fine sandy loam. 0”—7”_, Milam . . . . . . . . . . . . .0435 .0466 .005 23959 Wilson clay loam, 7"—19”, Milam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0397 .0405 .020 23966 Milam fine sandy loam, 0”—7”, Milam . . . . . . . . . . . .0460 .0360 .012 23967 Milam fine sandy loam, 7”—19”, Milam . . . . . . . . . . .0129 .0155 .010 24004 Ochlockonee fine sandy loam, 7”—19, Nacogdoches. .0257 .0396 .012 23960 Bell clay, O”—7”, Milam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0970 .0906 .014 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0419 .0453 . . . . . . . . . . Eifect 0n potash- Table 23 contains a few experiments on the effect of sulphur on the removal of potash from soils receiving nitrogen and phosphoric acid but no potash. The results are not adequate to draw definite conclusions but there seems to be little or no effect of sulphur on the amount of potash taken up by crops. Table 23.——Grams of potash removed by 60111101? in pot experiments in 1926 with and without u r s p u Per cent N0. Average Average sulphur NP NPS in soil 23245 Brennan fine sandy loam, 0”—7”. Hidalgo . . . . . . . . . .6899 .6216 .024 23361 Duval fine sandy loam, 0"—7", Hidalgo. . . .. . . . . . . .4318 .4364 .026 23362 Duval fine sandy loam, 7”—19”, Hidalgo. _ . . . . . . . . .4242 .4117 .025 POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 35~ ' Reciprocal Relation 0f Sulphur to Nitrogen and Sulphur to Phosphoric Acid It has been shown by Mitscherlich (59) and others, that the growth of plants is influenced by other conditions in addition to the one supposed to be at a minimum. Thus, if both nitrogen and phosphoric acid in varying amounts are added to a soil de- ficient in these elements, the response in crop growth to in- creased amounts of nitrogen will increase as the quantity of phosphoric acid increases, as long as both are below the op- timum. That is to say, with a given increment of nitrogen, the increase in plant growth will depend upon the amount of phos- phoric acid added, and will bevdifferent for additions of different quantities of phosphoric acid. Thus neither nitrogen nor phos- phoric acid is an absolute limiting factor, but the response to the» one will depend to a certain extent on the supply of the other, and the soil will respond to either, applied separately. The fact. has been known for a long time in connection with field experi- ments, and accounts for the fact that additions of either super-- phosphate or nitrogenous fertilizer alone may result in increased yields. Experimental Work- Two series of experiments were made to- ascertain the relation of sulphur to nitrogen and to phosphoric acid, not only in plant growth but in the percentages and quanti- ties taken up. Sulphur and nitrogen- Three pots of sand were used for each application. The pots contained 5,000 grams of sand, and each received "1 gram of potassium phosphate, 1 gram of potassium chloride, and 1 gram of calcium carbonate. Ammonium nitrate containing 0.3 gram of nitrogen was the basal nitrogen applica- tion, and 0.2 gram of sulphate of lime the basal sulphur applica- tion. Large quantities of nitrogen and sulphur were applied to several sets of pots. Each application was made on three pots. Cotton was the crop grown. The results are given in Table 24, each being the average of three pots. The nitrogen added is shown in the lines at the head of the table, while the sulphate of lime added is shown in the column so designated. Thus the pots receiving 0.6 gram of nitrogen also received 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, or 2.0 grams of sulphate- of lime, respectively. The results are irregular but the fact that each addition influenced the other is indicated by the weights of the crops secured, and the weights of sulphur and nitrogen re- moved from the soil. That the weight of the crop increased as the sulphur increased is brought out more clearly in the pots receiving 0.6 gram of nitrogen, while the increase in the weight of the crop when the nitrogen is increased is brought out, some- what irregularly, with 0.2 gram of calcium sulphate. There is 36 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION a slight tendency for the percentage of sulphur in the crops and the Weight of sulphur taken up to increase with the increased applications of nitrogen. There is a tendency for percentages of nitrogen and grams of nitrogen to increase as the applications of sulphur are increased. The irregularities in the results, probably caused by the fact that the sand used was not very good for pot experiments, obscure these relations. Table 24.—Efi'ect of varying quantities of sulphur and nitrogen on cotton in pot experiments. Sulphate Nitrogen added, grams Soil 22194 of lime, grams 0 0 3N 0.6N 1 2N Average weight of crops, grams....... . . . . . .. 0 5.8 7.5 9.5 4.7 0.2 5.1 8.9 5.6 13.0 0.4 . . . . . . . . 8.5 7.9 5.9 0.8 . . . . . . . . 7.6 12.4 4.0 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.9 6.7 Average per cent S03 in crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 1.34 1.05 .80 1 .39 . 0.2 1.06 .86 1.48 1.26 0.4 . . . . . . .. .89 1.11 1.47 0.8 . . . . . . .. 1.20 1.39 1.67 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.54 1.04 Average SOs removed (grams) . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0808 0805 0729 .0778 0 . 2 0594 0739 1024 .1652 0.4 . . . . . . . . 0659 .1123 .0935 0.8 . . . . . . .. 0917 .2431 .0670 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1624 .0645 Average per cent N in cr0ps..... . . . . . . . . . .. 0 60 1 12 1.02 1.44 0.2 80 94 1.52 1.60 0.4 . . . . . . . . 90 1.55 1.87 0.8 . . . . . . . . 91 1.26 2.01 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 20 1.87 Average N in grams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 0357 0815 1026 .0614 0 .2 0403 0825 0842 .2071 0.4 . . . . . . .. 0762 .1062 .1123 0.8 . . . . . . . . 0704 .1512 .0804 2.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1234 . 1223 Sulphur and phosphoric Mrid- These experiments were similar to the ones just discussed, three pots of each application being used, With additions of ammonium nitrate, potassium chloride, and calcium carbonate to all the pots. Varying amounts of sulphur Were added as flowers of sulphur and phosphoric acid as dicalcium phosphate. The results are given in Table 25. Increasing the amounts of sulphur increased the efiect of the phosphoric acid on the Weight of the crops, and increasing the amount of phosphoric acid increased the effect of the sulphur. Each had an influence on the other. Increased amounts of phosphoric acid seemed to decrease slightly the percentage of sulphur in the crop With the low applications and to increase it with the high ones. Increasing the phosphoric acid increased the quantity of sulphur taken up by the crop. Increasing the sulphur tended to decrease the percentage of, phosphoric acid in the crops. a POSSIBILITIES 0F SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 37 Table 25.-—Effect of varying quantities of sulphur and phosphoric acid on the crop in pot experiments. Sulphur Phosphoric acid added, grams Soil 22194 added, grams 0 0.10 0.20 0.40 Average weight crop, grams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 - 3 .4 6.0 7.8 12.9 .05 2.7 8.7 10.5 17.0 . 10 . . . . . . . . 9 .4 12.1 . . . . . . . . .20 . . . . . . .. 6.9 12.5 14.5 .50 . . . . . . . . 5.1 8.8 4.2 Average per cent S03 in crop . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 2.3 2.0 2.1 1.7 05 2.6 2.1 1 .8 1.3 .10 . . . . . . . . 2.0 1 .9 . . . . . . . . .20 . . . . . . . . 2.3 2.0 1 .9 .50 . . . . . . . . 2.4 1 .9 2.8 Average S03 removed (grams) . . . . . . . . . . . . O .1043 .1186 .1607 .2142 .05 .0896 .1812 .1867 .2213 ¢ .10 . . . . . . .. .1909 .2208 . . . . . . .. 20 . . . . . . . . 1585 .2482 2667 50 . . . . . . .. 1230 .1661 1153 Average per cent P205 in crops . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .364 .256 .271 .302 .05 .299 .297 .263 .259 10 . . . . . . . . 190 .239 . . . . . . . . 2O . . . . . . . . 200 .206 227 _ 50 . . . . . . . . 186 .170 264 Average P205 in grams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .0116 .0141 .0210 .0379 O5 0072 0246 .0277 0438 10 . . . . . . . . 0177 .0285 . . . . . . . . 20 . . . . . . . . 0141 .0256 0258 50 . . . . . . . . 0101 .0149 0111 Relation of the Sulphur Taken Up by Crops to the Sulphur Content of the Soil It has been shown in previous bulletins that the percentages of total nitrogen (28), active phosphoric acid (27), and active potash (29, 30) of the soil are related to the quantities of nitro- gen, phosphoric acid, or potash removed by crops in pot experi- ments. Similar experiments have been made with sulphur, though to a more limited extent. All the pots received nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, in a form free from sulphur. The pots in the experiment were arranged in groups accord- ing to the sulphur content of the soils. The average results for corn are given in Table 26; for kafir, which followed corn in the same pots, in Table 27; and for cotton, in different pots, in Table 28. In all three of the tables in the first three groups, the sulphur , removed by the crops increases with the sulphur content of the - soil, but thereafter as the percentage of sulphur increases the results are irregular. This may be partly due to the small num- ber of experiments in each of these groups. If corn is assumed to require 6 pounds of sulphur. for 40 bushels and cotton 13 pounds of sulphur for 200 pounds of lint, the corn possibility can be calculated from the quantities of 38 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION sulphur withdrawn. The corn possibility is given in Tables 26- 27 and the cotton possibility in Table 28. Table 26.——Average relation of sulphur taken up by corn to the sulphur in soil. Corn Weight possibility Group according to Number crops 1n Per cent Grams Per cent of sulphur percentage of _ of soils grams, S in S in S in taken up sulphur (S) in soil NPK crops crops soil in bushels per acre Group .004—.008..... . . 5 22.0 105 0198 006 53 Group .008~.012..... .. 14 35.3 089 0306 010 82 Group .012—.016..... .. 7 30.9 129 0791 014 103 Group .016—.020..... .. 2 35.8 089 0319 018 83 Group .020—.024..... . . 2 36.6 084 0322 022 84 Group .024—.028..... . . 2 17.5 116 0200 027 33 Group .028—-.032..... . . 4 24.6 098 0257 030 39 Group .032—.036..... . . 2 23.3 125 0290 033 76 Table 27.——Average relation of sulphur taken up by kafir to the sulphur in soil. Corn Group according _ Total possibility to the percentage _ Number Weight Per cent Grams S in of sulphur of sulphur in the soil of soils _ crop S 1n S in soil in bushels 1I1 grams crops crops per cent per acre Group .004-.008..... . . 6 20.6 106 0198 O06 53 Group .008—.012..... .. 18 24.5 107 0237 010 70 Group .O12-. .. 7 32.9 104 0338 014 90 Group .016—. 2 37.5 074 0281 018 74 Group .020—. 4 23.8 120 0230 O22 61 Group .024—-. 2 21.0 108 0228 027 61 Group .028—. 4 22.9 170 0219 031 58 Group .O32—. . 2 25. 7 083 0198 033 52 Table]28.——Average relation of sulphur taken up by cotton to the sulphur in soil. Cotton Group based on Number Weight Per cent Grams Total possibility percentages of 1 of soils crop m S 1n S in S in pounds sulphur in theIsoiIs grams crops crops soil lint per acre Group‘.004—.008..... . . 4 20.6 141 0296 006 178 Group1..008—.012..... . . 13 20.2 232 0462 010 277 Group‘.012—.016..... .. 4 18.3 326 0568 014 341 Group!.016-.020..... . . 2 23.8 230 0549 020 330 Gr0up_‘.O20—.O2/1..... . . 1 45.5 O97 0440 022 264 According to these figures, while the corn possibility is good, the cotton possibility is 10W, which is evidence that cotton may need sulphur fertilizer in addition to nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. " Effect of Fertilizer on Quantity of Sulphur Taken Up by Crops. Ag pointed out previously, addition of sulphur to the soil increases the amount of sulphur taken up by the crop in pot experiments. The percentage of sulphur in the crop thus depends, to a cer- POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 39 tain extent, upon the size of the crop and the quantity available in the soil. It thus happens that while applications of nitrogen, phosphoric acid, or potash may increase the size of the crop grown in pot experiments, they may not increase the quantity of sulphur taken up by the crop. This is shown in Table 29. It is noted that where there is a decided increase in crop, the per- centage of sulphur decreases and the amount of sulphur taken up does not vary as widely as might be expected, and also that the addition of sulphur increases the amounttaken up. Oxidation of Sulphur in the Soil It has been known for a long time, that flour of sulphur or other free sulphur placed in the soil, is slowly oxidized. A num- ber of workers have studied this from various angles (1, 42). Sulphuric acid is produced which may be neutralized by the bases in the soil, producing neutral sulphates. The~sulphuric acid may make the soil acid if insufficient amounts of the bases are present. The oxidation may be effected chiefly by micro- organisms, but a slight amount is also produced by chemical action. See, Mclntire, Gray and Shaw (54). The rate of oxidation of sulphur depends upon the tempera- ture, moisture, physical character of the soil, and other condi- tions. The effect on the soil depends upon the buffer capacity of the soil "for acids, and the amount of sulphuric acid pro- duced (31). Effect of Oxidation on Active Phosphoric Acid and Potash. It has been claimed that sulphur renders plant food available. Experi- ments were made to test the efiect of oxidation of the sulphur upon the active phosphoric acid and potash of the soils. To por- tions of 1000 grams of soil, 0.1, 0.2, and 1.0 gram of sulphur was added. This was equal to 100, 200, and 1000 parts per million, or 200, 400, and 2000 pounds of sulphur to two million pounds of soil. One portion received no additions. The soils were mixed with water equal to one-third the saturation capacity, and kept at room temperature, beginning in June, for twelve weeks, water being added to restore the loss by evaporation every two weeks. The results of the analyses are given in Table 30. The oxidation of the sulphur had practically no effect on the active phosphoric acid or active potash. Some effect apparently occurred in another series in which a check sample of soil was not carried in the experiment, but the difference may be due to slight differences in the samples. 40 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . . . . . . .Eflz2 ~\\R.|=@ n>flTv ww? ciao. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smm omoo 95w SQ. . . . . . . éfiowwofiz $2JR .55: 55am 2E Qfisfiefio 5mm. $2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mmoo. ha? £2. $8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5a=§ uAZJR. .552: 3E2 vac 5222 $3. M82 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3:. mama. Mia. H98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5532 s78 .55: 35am vac 5222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8512 »=@.@|=&_ “EQQQ %.®Tv :°M@@3 mm? owoo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3mm. omwo mmmm. E8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5232 9Tb .5wo_ 35am 2a umaaU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .WQ§UO@%OUNZ »\\&.||\\@ “Eflow %%VC.NW Una vififlfikoz oomm R2 96w $2 vmwo. 8B. $5. vomo. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ewawwam {mfidk .55: 35am vac ~a>aQ .29‘... who; R? v63 25.. £2 . . . . . . . . 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . awfia: s78 .55: 35am vac 125D moon. $3 8E Ema 3S . mwaa on? §§ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . émafiam .:.\L|:o .55: 353 26 aEEEm MLZ viz waz AZ v5 ma $2 Z o mao>< owaao>< ommao>< omaau>< wmwao>< vma$>< amwao>< vmawaco>< dQaQEEoQxu 8a E acfiou a3 wcow 59c c2555 aanfiaw co ¢55U[.mm uEaP POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 41 Table 30.——Average effect of oxidation ofsulphur on the active phosphoric acid and potash of the SOll 1n parts per million. Group 1 Group 2 Number of soils. . . .._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 12 Active phosphoric acid——no addition . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 . . . . . . . . . . Active phosphoric acid—sulphur 100 parts per million. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 3O Active phosphoric acid—sulphur 200 parts per million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 . . . . . . . . . . Active phosphoric acid—sulphur 500 parts per million. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Active phosphoric acid—sulphur 1000 parts per million... . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 . . . . . . . . . . Active potash——no addition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 . . . . . . . . . . Active potash——sulphur 100 parts per million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 97 Active potash—sulphur 200 parts per million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 . . . . . . . . . . Active potash——sulphur 500 parts per million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Active potash—sulphur 1000 parts per million . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 . . . . . . . . . . Elfect of Sulphur and Sulphates on Percolation of Water It has been shown by Kelly and others that the oxidation of sulphur in the soil or the addition of gypsum, increases the permeability of soil to water 0n certain soils, especially clay soils containing much soluble salts (alkaline soils). The effect of sulphur and gypsum on the permeability of soil to water was studied in several experiments. The method of measuring the percolation is as follows: Select glass tubes one inch in diameter, measuring each tube. Tie a piece of cheesecloth over the bottom. Weigh out 100 grams of soil. Make such additions as may be assigned. Begin per- colating with distilled water in the morning, and record time of percolating of each 25 cc. until 100 cc. have percolated, or for three days. If the percolation is not finished by 4 p. m., meas- ure the amount percolated and record with the time. Then add enough water to percolate during the night. Measure the quan- tity percolated in the morning if it exceeds 25 c.c.; otherwise proceed as directed above. The final record is the number of cc. percolated per hour calculated from the rate of percolation of 100 cc. The method is, of course, purely arbitrary, and not especially accurate. The statement in terms of cubic centimeters of water an hour is made so that the figures will become larger as the permeability of the soil becomes greater. Elfect 0f Gypsum and Limestone- In this experiment, 0.1 gram of calcium sulphate or calcium carbonate was thoroughly mixed with the dry soil, and percolated as described above. The re- sults are given in Table 31. While the addition of gypsum increased percolation with some of the soils, with others there was a decrease, and with others, little or no effect. The same is true of carbonate of lime, but 42 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the decrease in percolation averaged more with the addition of carbonate of lime. It is possible that different results could be secured if more‘ time were allowed for the sulphate or carbonate of lime to react. with the soil before the percolation took place. Table 31.——Plffect of carbonate of lime and sulphate of lime on percolation in cubic centimeters per hour. With With No. No _ sulphate carbonate addition of lime of lime 12649 Miller clay, 0"—6”, Brazos Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 10.3 10.6 12651 Yahola silt loam, 0"—10", Brazos Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 7. 6 11.7 12643 Trinity clay, 0”—6", Brazos Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 .3 .2 12645 Pledger clay, 0”—8”, Brazos Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 .2 .7 12641 Trinity fine sandy loam, 0”-—12”, Brazos Co. . . .. . . 151.5 200.0 200.0 12647 Miller fine sandy loam, 0”-10”, Brazos Co. . . . . . . . 80.0 80.0 63.3 12652 Yahola silt loam, 10”—20", Brazos Co .- . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 10.1 9.7 12653 Bastrop fine sandy loam, 0”—12”, Brazos C0 . . . . . . 50.0 50.0 52.4 12654 Bastrop fine sandy loam, 0”—12”, Brazos Co . . . . . . 52.4 41.1 38.8 12663 Crockett clay, 0”—6", Brazos Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2 1.5 1.5 12667 Crockett loam, 0”—8”, Brazos Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.0 26.1 22.2 12657 Bell clay, ’—8”, Brazos Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.8 9.4 5.2 12659 Wilson clay loam, 0”—8”, Brazos Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.9 5.6 6. 7 12642 Trinity fine sandy loam, 12”—24”, Brazos Co. . . .. . 12.7 12.7 10.0 12680 Wilson fine sandy loam, 10”—20”, Brazos Co . . . . . . 5.0 7.2 5.0 21773 Laredo silty clay loam. 0”—15”, Cameron Co . . . . . . 12.5 8.3 7.7 12409 Surface soil, 0”-8”, Bell Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5 33.3 26.1 12640 Wilson clay, 12”——24", Brazos Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 3.5 2.9 12648 l\4iller fine sandy loam, 10”—20”, Brazos Co . . . . . . . 21.4 28. 5 11.1 12650 Miller clay. 6”—16”, Brazos Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 4.1 4.2 4.1 12407 Surface soil, 0"—9”, Bell Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.6 25.0 14.3 12408 Subsoil, 9”—18”, Bell Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.4 19.4 8.3 12676 Ochlockonee fine sandy loam, 12”—24”, Brazos. . . . 100.0 133.3 92.6 21782 Harlingen clay, 8"—-36”, Cameron Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 12395 Surface soil, 0”—7”, Bell Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 10.6 9.4 12397 Surface soil, 0"—10”, Bell Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.2 17.7 12.5 12678 Lufkin clay loam, 0”—6”, Brazos Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 1.0 .1 12679 Wilson fine sandy loam, 0"—10”, Brazos Co . . . . . . . 30.0 33.3 22.6 12672 Susquehanna fine sandy loam, 10”—20”, Brazos. . . . 2. 1 .9 .6 12674 Lufkin fine sandy loam, 12"—20”, Brazos . . . . . . . . . 12.9 14.3 11 . 1 21775 San Benito clay, O”—12”, Cameron Co . . . . . . . . . . . .2 1.0 .7 21777 Rio Grande silty clay loam, 0”—15”, Cameron Co. . 9 2.8 2 . 6 21781 Harlingen clay, O”—8",_ Cameron Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.5 1.0 12582 Ennis clay, 0”—6”, Ellis Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . _. . . . . . . . 12.4 7.1 2.3 12578 Susquehanna fine sandy loam, 0”-12”, Ellis Co. . . 400.0 400.0 333.3 12579 Susquehanna fine sandy loam, 12”—24", Ellis Co. . 151.6 120. 5 100.0" 21776 San Benito clay, 12”-36", Cameron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 2.4 1.8 21778 Rio Grande silty clay loam, 15”—26”, Cameron. . . . 7.8 14.3 5.5 21779 Victoria clay loam, 0”—18" Cameron . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. 5 21.8 5.2 21780 Victoria clay loam, 18"—36 , Cameron . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 6.3 7.1 12568 Houston clay, 0”—12”, Ellis Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 2.9 lost 12569 Houston clay, 12”—18", Ellis Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 2.6 1.4 12581 Trinity clay, 6”—12”, Ellis Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 3.0 2.5 12583 Ennis, 6"—18”. Ellis Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 2.0 2.0 12584 Durant loam, 0”—8”, Ellis Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.4 30.0 18.2 23095 Subsoil, Dallas Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2.0 .4 12571 Houston stony clay, 4”-—8", Ellis Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109. 9 120.5 66.6 12572 Crawford loam, 0”—12”, Ellis Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 5.4 4.9 12575 Durant clay, 8”—16”, Ellis Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 3.5 3.2 Effect of Oxidation of Sulphur on Percolation. The ggilg used in this experiment received 1 gram of sulphur to 1000 grams of soil, and were allowed to remain at summer temperature for 12 weeks, the water lost by evaporation being replaced every two Weeks. The samples were then dried and prepared for analysis. The results of the percolation are given in Table 32. The results POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 43 of this experiment are different from those of the preceding one. The oxidation of the sulphur has increased the permeability of several of the soils. As the permeability is 10W, the effect is favorable. It confirms the work of Kelly previously cited. Table 32.—Effect of oxidation of sulphur on percolation. No Sulphur _ _ sulphur added N0. DESCTlPtXOII, location, and depth c. c. per c. c. per hour hour 7172 Surface soil, Calhoun Co., 6"-16” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0 7181 Houston black clay, Dallas Co., 0”—11” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 36.3 7225 Surface soil, moderate, Jasper Co., 0”—9" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 23.9 7242 Surface soil, moderate, Comanche Co., 7”—19” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.8 54.6 7244 Surface soil, moderate, Colorado Co., 0”—14” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.4 33.3 7345 Surface soil, good, Liberty Co., 0”—5" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.3 70.5 734-7 Surface soil, Liberty Co., 0"—6”. . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.2 70.5 7357 Lake Charles clay, probably, Harris Co., 0”—12” . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 12.0 7230 Surface soil, poor, Fannin Co., 8”—20" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0 26.4 7241 Surface soil, Comanche Co., ’— ’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.7 60.2 6977 Surface soil, valley land, Wichita Co., 10”—28” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 30.0 6882 Blackland surface. Walker Co., 0”—6” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 4.5 6732 Siibsoil, Zamora Ranch, Willacy Co.. 6”-18” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.5 57.2 6731 Surface, Zamora Ranch, Willacy, Co., 0”—6" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. 5 109.9 3332 Travis gravelly loam, McLennan, 12”—24” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.5 48.0 6681 Surface soil, Chambers Co., 7”—19” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 92.6 17746 Surface soil, Colorado Co., 0”—6” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.2 100.0 7373 Surface soil, Victoria Co., 0”—6” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 31.2 7092 Surface soil, Victoria Co., 12"—24" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.4 92.8 7118 Surface soil, Fayette Co., 0”—10" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.0 17.1 7129 Surface soil, Bastrop Co., O”—8” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.0 2.0 7157 Surface soil, Wharton Co., 0"—12” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 30.7 7159 Surface soil, Madison Co., 0"—8" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . 75.1 151.5 7160 Surface soil, Madison Co., 8”—20" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 8.5 7169 Norfolk fine sandy loam, Upshur Co , 0”—6” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11._4 18.1 Percolation of Soils Used in Pot Experiments. S9115 to whigh sul- phur was added in pot experiments were prepared for analysis and subjected to percolation, With the results given in Table 33. Here, again, the sulphur increased the permeability of the soil to water. grams of soil, or 200 parts per million. Table 33.——Effect of sulphur on percolation on soils used in pot experiments, cubic centimeters of water percolated per hour. The amount of sulphur used was 1 gram to 5000 _ Before After Soil cropping cropping 21779 Victoria clay loam, 0”—18”, Cameron Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 22.6 g/Iictloria clay loaén”, g/Z-g”, Cameron Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ar in en c ay, — , ameron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21785 Norfol fine sandy loam, 0"—18", Henderson Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 31.6 21785 Norfolk fine sandy loam, 0”—18" Henderson Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 21.8 21785 Norfolk fine sandy loam, 0"—18 , Henderson Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 26.1 Norfolk fine sandy loam. 18"—36”, Henderson Co. . . . . . . . . . . . Surface soil, 0"—8" or 9", Wise Co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percolation of Field Soils. field experiments at Substation No. 5, Temple, Texas. is a heavy limestone soil. Samples of soils were taken from the The soil The results of the tests are given in 44 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 34. Each figure represents a different piece of land. While there appears to be a tendency for the applications of sulphur to increase the permeability of the soil for Water, the results are so erratic that it is not possible to draw a definite conclusion. The irregularity is probably due in part to varia- tions of the physical character of the soil in the different parts of the field. Table 34.—Percolation o_f soils from field experiments. Substation N0. 5, Temple, in cubic centimeters per hour (each quantity a separate sample). No sulphur added . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23.5 5.2 7.8 9.7 15.6 16.5 22.2 11.7 18.1 13.1 3.1 4.1 9.4 8.3 4.1 14.2 8.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 500 pounds per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.8 8.3 9.5 9.2 2500 pounds per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.3 6.6 12.5 12.5 4000 pounds per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26. 6 22.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5000 pounds per acre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.9 4.1 14. 5 18.1 10000 pounds per acrc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.7 27.3 15.1 15.4 Eifect of Oxidation of Sulphur on the Availability of Phosphoric Acid in Rock Phosphate It has been proposed to take advantage of the bacterial oxida- tion of sulphur to sulphuric acid for the purpose of rendering the phosphoric acid of rock phosphate available. For this pur- pose, mixtures were to be made consisting of sulphur, earth, and rock phosphate, kept moist, and allowed to act for several months. Some workers have claimed that an appreciable amount of phosphoric acid was made available. This procedure was suggested by Lipman (47, 48). It was studied by Ames and Richmond (3), Brown and Warner (8), Brown and Gwinn (7), and McLean (44), Ellett and Harris (16), among others (32, 68) as Well as Joffe (41), who secured a comparatively high degree of solubility. Iixperimental- Under the direction of the Division of Agronomy of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (80) in 1918, com- posts of rock phosphate, sulphur, Lipman’s starter, and several types of soil were made, in accordance with a centralized plan from the Ofiice of Experiment Stations of the United States Department of Agriculture and in cooperation with the Council of National Defense. In 1919, it was reported (81) that the- study showed‘ no practical gain in availability of plant food by the composting. The field applications showed gains in some cases. Some chemical analyses of these composts are given in Table 35. It is to be noted that there are some losses of total phos- phoric acid in some of the composts, either due to improper- mixing or sampling. The basicity of the composts, expressed. 45 POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 8. 22m $2 £2 8. mm; m»; m cfiw 8a 3.2 5&2 8. a: ww; 4 8; .3; m3: was. 8. 9: mwa m $4 mqw ow .5 wm .5 N». 8A M34 4 S; Nhé £3 mm S mm; ma; mm... m m?“ u; mwafi 2 2 ma. £5 3Q 4 :4 3N 8.2 om wfi o0. ma. 9,: m ma; w”; £4: mi: oo. S; E; 4 ha; 8.». 0043 ma: 0c. $4 ma; m fiflm Fin 3.2 8 .2 um. on; Q; 4 :4 £4 053 3 m: o0. Q: :4 m wwa SQ 8.2 .3 S 8. ma. £4 < 99m mm: wwfi mb S 3 whd $20 m mo.» 2a we 5 mm M: 8 S; Q: < ma. 5d as: mm wfi o0 m»: $4 m 2d 3a mo M: mo 2 2 m: M34 < w? 8.~ 5 M: MK M2 oo i; 3a m 2... hmfl Q92 om S BA 2: “as .4. mm. $4 om M2 S wfl 8. $4 S; m ma; S.“ mi: mfi S o0 84 2A 4 mo; £4 R 3 oo 5 R mm; £5 m mm.m >N.m 5 m: m», M3 8 $4 9: 4 ma. g4 on Nfi mm 5 oo 9g 21. m o 5A mm 2 om m: oc mfim 8a < .634 okowvm .534 ohowom cEU $34 uhowvm . M03652 Eva .52 amOQEOU 08S “o ufiwconkau 16o Qua .250 .6.“ E 365mm Axum oiosamosa 13cm. Bow uionnmcnn o_nm:w>< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fifi dZ coflwfinsm .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1: dZ cofimfinsw dZ cofifimnsm .02 Esfimfiiw dZ cofiwwwnsm .o Z comifimnsm .oZ comfifimnsm dZ cofimflwnsm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m dZ coflfim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¢m .02 ccmwaam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A dZ cofifim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i@N2 dfiwaamonn x03 Ho 30m 2.6.325.“ vEwmE/m no 542g mi? mcfifioafioo we woobmlhm viii. 46 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION as carbonate 0f lime, was measured by the amount of 0.2N nitric acid neutralized. It is to be noted that many of the soils con- tained basicity, which, though partly neutralized by the oxida- tion of sulphur, was not completely neutralized in some cases. In other cases, however, the basicity was very 10W. After all the facts are considered, the conclusion is reached that the amount of phosphoric acid made available was not sufficient t0 "pay for the cost of either the sulphur or the labor. Sulphur in Fertilizers Table 36 shows the percentage of sulphur found in fertilizers sold in Texas. Table 36.—Percentage of sulphur (S) in some fertilizers. (Each set of figures is a separate sample.) Superphosphate, 20 per cent (6 samples). . . . 11.20 11.71 10.34 Superphosphate, 2O per cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.04 10.99 10.98 Sulphate of ammonia (4 samples)....... . . . . . . . 23.96 23.90 23.38 0—15—0 fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10-3 fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7. 65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8-4 fertilizer (4 samples) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 62 8.30 9.28 4-8-6 fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4—10—7 fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12-4 fertilizer (8 samples) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.83 11.25 11. 4—12—4 fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .71 8. 06 11 . 5—15—5 fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10. 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10-7 fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-12-6 fertilizer (5 samples) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.18 7.52 11.34 9-27-9 fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16-20-0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kainit(2samples)............................ 5.98 .93 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Nitrate 0f soda (4 samples) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .08 .25 . Muriate of potash (3 samples). . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 .51 1.00 Sulphur and Gypsum for Alkali Soils When alkali soils are flooded to wash out the soluble salts‘, it frequently happens that the soil runs together so that the water percolates very slowly. The removal of the injurious saline salts may take place very slowly, or be almost stopped, so that the possibility of putting the land in cultivation may be much retarded, or even rendered impossible. This impermeable condition may exist in the surface, so that a hard crust is formed, or it may occur in the subsoil, producing an impervious layer rendering under-drainage difficult or im- possible. This impermeable condition is believed to be caused by replacement of calcium by sodium in complex soil silicates, producing finely divided deflocculated particles which retard the flow of water. Hence, if the sodium is replaced by calcium, flocculation occurs and the soil again becomes permeable, or if suitable additions are made to the soil, deflocculation does not. occur and the impermeable condition does not arise. This matter has been investigated by Hibbard (38, 39), POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 47 ‘Kelley, and associates (43, 44, 45, 70) of the California Experi- .ment Station, Burgess (9), and by others (10). Kelley (44) found that gypsum or sulphur is quite effective on black alkali soils. Sulphur Was by far the most economical material used in Kelley’s experiments. A ton to the acre was necessary on the land studied, but it was thought possible that an application of 1000 pounds would give good results if used in combination with barnyard manure or growing of an alkali-resistant legume. It is probable that black alkali soils of other types can be success- fully treated with sulphur, but the amount of sulphur required would depend upon the quantities of sodium carbonate and re- placeable sodium in the soil. Several months or even a year or more are required before the full efiects of the sulphur are mani- fest. Sulphur is not needed if the soil contains considerable amounts of soluble calcium salts. To be effective, drainage con- ditions must be favorable, an abundance of irrigation water available, and the ground water kept continuously six or more feet below the surface of the soil (with insufiicient drainage, sulphur or other applications may be ineffective). Gypsum was recommended by Hilgard in 1906 or earlier (40) and Hibben (38), Burgess in 1925 (9), and others have found gypsum of advantage with certain alkali soils. It is evident that sulphur or gypsum may be useful in connec- tion with irrigation, either in the reclamation of alkali soils, or in the treatment of soils which have a tendency to run together under irrigation, or in the prevention of the accumulation of alkali, in connection with proper irrigation and drainage. The matter requires further study. Probable Needs for Sulphur as Plant Food Although at the present time there is practically no need for "the use of sulphur on soils receiving commercial fertilizers, it is possible that a need for sulphur may develop if new synthetic fertilizers, which are low in sulphur, are used extensively. It is generally recognized that possible needs for sulphur are sup- plied by fertilizers used for other ingredients. Lint (46) states ‘that part of the superior merit of superphosphate may be due "to the sulphur it contains. Greaves and Gardner (33) believe that sulphur will become, in time, a limiting factor in plant growth on soils in Utah. C. B. Williams (85) in North Carolina believes that the superiority of potassium sulphate over potas- sium chloride on Norfolk and Durham sandy loams may be in- terpreted as a deficiency in sulphur which is brought out when other limiting elements are supplied. Sulphur is not likely to be needed as plant food in the following localities or under the following conditions: 48 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION (1) On soils which now supply sufficient sulphur for the crops. Practically all the Texas soils examined came in this group. (2) On soils under irrigation. The irrigation water contains sufii- cient sulphur for the crops grown. (3) On soils which receive ordinary commercial fertilizers since the commercial fertilizer carries sufficient sulphur. (4) By crops such as corn, rice, oats, or wheat which require small amounts of sulphur. There is a possibility for the use of sulphur as a plant food on: (1) Soils sufiiciently supplied with other plant foods but deficient in sulphur and which receive little or no sulphur in rain water or irrigation water. Soils of this kind are found in the States of Washington and Oregon, but so far none have been found in Texas. A ( 2) Soils low in plant food and sulphur on which highly concentrated commercial fertilizers containing little sulphur have been used for several years. There are no soils of this kind known to exist in Texas at the present time, but there is a possibility of their occurrence in the future. There is a possibility for the use of sulphur or gypsum as a soil amendment under the following conditions: (a) On soils which contain black alkali, the use of sulphur or gypsum may be advisable to prevent the soils from running together and to make them more easily penetrated by Water. Very little soil of this kind is known in Texas at the present time. (b) On soils which contain carbonate of lime and have such an alkaline condition that plants suffer from chlorosis, there is a possibility that sulphur or gypsum may correct the excess of alkalinity. This possibility needs investigation. (c) Soils which, for any reason, require to be made acid, may be» made acid by means of the bacterial oxidation of sulphur, but this condition of acidity is not advised, nor is the procedure- recommended, at the present time. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Analytical and other work on this Bulletin has been done by various members of the staff, and especially Harvey Stanford‘ and E. C. Carlyle. Credit should be given the superintendents- of the various Substations for collecting and sending in samples of rain water. Acknowledgment must also be made to the Free- port Sulphur Company, which aided in financing the investi- gation. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ( 1) Large deposits of sulphur and of gypsum occur in Texas. (2) Sulphur is an essential plant food but is usually re- quired in smaller amounts than nitrogen, phosphoric acid, or potash. (3) Alfalfa, cabbage, cotton, onions, and turnips take up about 13 to 39 pounds of sulphur to the acre while corn, rice, oats, and wheat remove 3 to 7 pounds. POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 49 (4) On an average of 4 years, about 12 pounds per acre 0f sulphur was brought down yearly in rainfall at Beaumont, Col- lege Station, Nacogdoches, Denton, and Weslaco, about 8 pounds at Angleton, Beeville, Chillicothe, San Antonio, Spur, Temple, and Troup, and about 4 pounds at Balmorhea. (5) Irrigation waters in western Texas supply 200 pounds or more of sulphur to the acre-foot of water, which is sufficient for all crops grown. a (6) Irrigation water in the rice-growing region of Texas supplies 12 to 38 pounds of sulphur per acre-foot of water. Rice removes about 3 pounds of sulphur to the acre. (7) A large number of soils from various sections of the State were analyzed for sulphur. The sulphur content is usually lower than that of nitrogen or phosphoric acid. Individual samples are quite low in sulphur. (8) Many soils in Texas are deficient in nitrogen, phosphoric acid or potash, or are likely to become deficient in one or more of these elements. The fertilizers which are used to supply these deficiencies usually carry sulphur. Deficiencies in nitro- gen, phosphoric acid, or potash cannot be supplied by gypsum or sulphur, but sulphur is usually applied when these deficiencies are corrected. (9) A survey shows that sulphur or gypsum gave good results in some parts of Washington, Oregon, and Montana in the Pacific Northwest. The use of sulphur or gypsum is gen- erally not advised in the other states except under exceptional conditions, such as for the treatment of black alkali in California or Arizona. (10) In pot experiments, sulphur alone did not give as good results as complete fertilizers. (11) Pot experiments in which sulphur was used to supple- ment a complete fertilizer containing no sulphur, indicated that sulphur gave increases in yield of crops in some instances. (12) Applications of sulphur increased the amount of sul- phur taken up by plants in pot experiments. Additions of sul- phur did not increase the nitrogen or potash taken up by crops in pot experiments. There was some tendency for sulphur to increase the amount of phosphoric acid removed by crops. (13) Reciprocal relations of sulphur and nitrogen or sulphur and phosphoric acid show that increasing the applications of one material may increase the effect of the other. That is to say, the effect of the minimum amount of an element depends upon the supply of other essential elements. (14) When the pot experiments are arranged in groups ac- cording to the sulphur content of the soils, the quantity of sul- phur removed by the crops grown on the soils in the first three 50 BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION groups lOW in sulphur was found to increase as the sulphur content of the soil increased but the quantity removed in the other five groups was lower and irregular. The amount of sul- phur removed calculated to the cotton possibility of the sulphur was low on some of the soils. (15) Oxidation of sulphur had practically no effect upon the active phosphoric acid or active potash in the soils tested. (16) Oxidation of sulphur apparently increased the per- meability of some of the soils to water. (17) No practical gain in the solubility of phosphoric acid by composting sulphur and rock phosphate was found in a series of tests conducted by the Division of Agronomy of this Station. (18) Sulphur or gypsum may increase the permeabilityof soils containing black alkali, thereby aiding the alkali to be washed out so that the soil can be cultivated. (19) There is a limited possibility for the use of sulphur or gypsum as an amendment on soils containing black alkali or which run together under irrigation. (20) It is possible that the continued use of concentrated commercial fertilizers containing little or no sulphur may result in deficiencies of sulphur as a plant food in some soils which will require correction. Practically all commercial fertilizers at the present time contain sulphur, but highly concentrated ~ fertilizers which contain little or no sulphur are being manu- factured. The continuous use of such fertilizers may result in a deficiency of sulphur in soils in some sections, especially for crops with high sulphur requirements, such as cotton, alfalfa, onions, cabbage. However, some sulphur is added to soils by rain and snoW. (21) Sulphur is not likely to be’ needed in Texas to supply plant food on soils under irrigation, or on soils which receive ordinary commercial fertilizer or on which crops such as corn, rice, oats, or wheat which require small amounts of sulphur are grown. In fact, sulphur at the present time cannot be recom- mended as a fertilizer in any part of Texas. This is also the conclusion drawn from the field experiments in Bulletin 408 of the Division of Agronomy of this Station. ' (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 51 REFERENCES 1921. Solvent Action of Nitrification and Sulfofication. Ohio Station Bulletin 351. Ames and Boltz. 1916. Sulphur in Relation to Soils and Crops. Ohio Agr. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 292. Ames, J. W. and Richmond, T. E. 1918. Effect of Sul- Ames, J. W. fofication and Nitrification on Rock Phosphate. Soil Science 6:351. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. 1925. Official and Tentative Methods of Analysis. Bollen, W. B. 1925. Biochemical Effects of Gypsum on Iowa Soils. SoilScience 19:417. Brown, P. E. and Kellogg, E. H. 1914. Sulfofication in Soils. Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Research Bulletin 18. Brown, P. E. and Gwinn, A. P. 1917. Effect of Sul- phur and Manure on the Availability of Rock Phosphate in Soils. Iowa Agr. Expt. Station Research Bulletin 43. Brown, P. E. and Warner, H. W. 1917. The Produc- tion of Available Phosphate. Soil Science 4:269. Burgess, P. S. 1928. Alkali Soil Studies and Methods of Reclamation. Arizona Agr. EXpt. Sta. Bulletin 123. Catlin, C. N. and Vinson, A. E. 1925. Treatment of Black Alkali with Gypsum. Arizona Agr. EXpt. Sta. Bulletin 102. Collins, W. D. and Riffenburg, H. B. 1927. Quality of Water of Pecos River in Texas. Water-Supply Paper 596-D-W. S. Geological Survey. Conner, S. D. 1921. Results of Greenhouse and Lab- oratory Research in Soil Fertility. The American Fer- tilizer 55, No. 4, page 77. Cubben, M. H. 1926. Calcium Sulphate as a Soil Amendment. Cornell Memoir 97. Erdman, L. W. 1923. The Effect of Gypsum on Iowa Soils. Soil Science 15:137. Erdman, L. W. and Bollen, W. B. ments with Gypsum in Iowa. Bulletin 232. Ellett, W. B. and Harris, W. G. 1920. Co-operative Experiments for the Composting of Phosphate Rock and Sulphur. Soil Science 10:315. Ellett, W. B. and Hill, H. H. 1929. Effect of Lime Materials on the Outgo of Sulphur from Hagerstown Silt Loam Soil. Journal of Agr. Research 38:697. 1925. Field Experi- Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. 52 (13) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27) (23) (29) (30) (31) (32) (33) BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Fraps, G. S. 1900. Report on Loss of Sulphur in Pre- paring Ash of Plants. Proc. A. O. A. C., Division of Chemistry. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bulletin 62:98. Fraps, G. S. 1901. Report on Ash. Proc. A. O. A. C., Division of Chemistry. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bulletin 67 :54. Fraps, G. S. 1902. Report on Ash. Proc. A. O. A. C., Division of Chemistry. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bulletin 73:18. » Fraps, G. S. 1902. The Determination of Sulphur in Plants. Report N. C. Agr. Expt. Station 1902:42. Fraps, G. S. 1902. The Determination of Sulphur in Plants. Jour. American Chem. Society 24:346. Fraps, G. S. 1903. Report on Ash. Proc. A. O. A. C., Division of Chem. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bulletin 81:191. Fraps, G. S. 1906. Maintaining the Fertility of Rice Soils; A Chemical Study. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul- letin 82. Fraps, G. S. 1910. Alkali Soils, Irrigation Waters. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 130. Fraps, G. S. 1916. The Effect of Additions on the Availability of Soil Potash, and the Preparation of Sugar Humus. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 190. Fraps, G. S. 1920. The Relation of the Phosphoric Acid of the Soil to Pot Experiments. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 267. Fraps, G. S. 1921. Relation of Soil Nitrogen, Nitrifica- tion and Ammonification to Pot Experiments. Texas Agr. Expt. Station, Bulletin 283. Fraps, G. S. 1927. Relation of the Potash Removed by Crops to the Active, Total, Acid-Soluble, and Acid- Insoluble Potash of the Soil. Texas ’Agr. Expt. Sta- tion, Bulletin 355. Fraps, G. S. 1929. Relation of the Water-Soluble Pot- ash, the Replaceable, and Acid-Soluble Potash to the Potash Removed by Crops in Pot Experiments. Texas Agr. Expt. Station, Bulletin 391. Fraps, G. S. and Carlyle, E. C. 1929. The Basicity of Texas Soils. Texas Agr. Expt. Station, Bulletin 400. Friedemann, W. G. 1929. Composting Barnyard Ma- nure with Sulphur and Rock Phosphate. Georgia Sta- tion Bulletin 154. Greaves, J. E. and Gardner, W. 1929. Is Sulphur a Limiting Factor of Crop Production in Some Utah Soils? Soil Science 27:445. (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40) (41) (42) (43) (44) (45) (46) (47) (48) POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 53 Hart, E. B. and Peterson, W. H. 1911. The Sulfur Re- quirements of Farm Crops in Relation to the Soil and Air Supply. Jour. American Chem. Society, 33:549. Hart, E. B. and Tottingham. 1915. Relation of Sul- phur Compounds to Plant Nutrition. Journal of Agri- cultural Research 5:233. Hartwell, Burt L., Damon, S. C. and Crandall, F. K. 1924. Field Crop Response to the Ingredients of Potassium Salts. Jour. of Amer. Soc. of Agron. 16:660. Haskell, S. B. 1927. Effect of Potash Salts on Crop Yields. Mass. Agri. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 232. Hibbard, P. L. 1921. Sulfur for Neutralizing Alkali Soil. Soil Sci. 11:385-387. Hibbard, P. L. 1922. Some Experiments on Reclama- tion of Infertile Alkali Soils by Means of Gypsum and Other Treatments. Soil Science, 13:125. Hilgard, E. W. 1906. Soils. The Macmillan Company, New York. Joffe, J. S. 1922. Biochemical Oxidation of Sulphur and Its Significance to Agriculture. N. J . Agr. Expt. Station, 374, 241. Joffe, J. S. 1923. Acid Phosphate Production by the Lipman Process 11. Building up Sulfur-Floats-Soil Mixtures with a High Content of Total and Soluble Phosphate. Soil Science, 15:41. Kelly, W. P. and Arony, Alexander. 1928. The Chem- ical Effect of Gypsum, Sulphur, Iron Sulfate, and Alum on Alkali Soil. Hilgardia. Vol. 3, No. 14. Page 393. Kelley, W. P. and Thomas, E. E. of the Fresno Type of Black-Alkali Soil. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 455. Kelley, W. P. and Thomas, E. E. 1928. the Fresno Type of Black-Alkali Soil. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 455. Lint, H. C. 1925. The Sulphur Factor in Acid Phos- phate. American Fertilizer, March 16, 1925. Lipman, J. G.; McLean, H. C. and Lint, H. C. 1916. Sulfur Oxidation in Soils and Its Effect on the Avail- ability of Mineral Phosphates. Soil Sci. 2:499. Lipman, J. G.; McLean, H. C. and Lint, H. C. 1916. The Oxidation of Sulfur in Soils as a Means of In- creasing the Availability of Mineral Phosphates. Soil Science 1:533. 1928. Reclamation Calif. Agri. Reclamation of Calif. Agr. 54 (49) <50) <51) <52) (53) (54) (55) (56) (57) (56) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The Needs of the Soils of Brazos Texas Agr. Expt. Lomanitz, S. 1922. and Jefferson Counties for Sulphur. Station, Bulletin 302. Lyon, T. L. and Bizzell, J. A. 1919. Lysimeter Experi- ments. Cornell U. Memoir 12. Lyon, T. L. and Bizzell, J. A. 1921. Lysimeter Experi- ments. Cornell University, Memoir 41. McDale, G. R. and Christ, J. H. 1925. Farming Prac- tices for the Cut-Over Lands of Northern Idaho. Idaho Agri. Expt. Station, Bulletin 136. McIntire, W. H.; Willis, L. G. and Holding, W. A. 1917. The Divergent Effects of Lime and Magnesia Upon the Conservation of Soil Sulphur. Soil Science 41:231-237. MacIntire, W. H.; Gray, F. J. and Shaw, W. M. 1921. The Non-Biological Oxidation of Elemental Sulfur in Quartz Media. Soil Science 2:249. MacIntire, W. H. and Young, J. B. 1923. Sulphur, Cal- cium, Magnesium and Potassium Content and Reaction of Rainfall at Different Points in Tennessee. Soil Science 15:207. McKibbin, R. R. 1928. and on Crop Yields. tin 296. McLean, H. C. 1918. The Oxidation of Sulfur by Microorganisms in Its Relation to the Availability of Phosphates. Soil Sci. 5:251. Miller, H. G. 1919. Relation of Sulfates to Plant Growth and Composition. J our. Agr. Res. 17 :87. Mitscherlich, E. A. 1911. Ueber das Gesetz des Mini- mums und die sich aus diesem ergebenden Schlussfolg- The Effect of Sulphur on Soils Maryland Agri. Expt. Sta. Bulle- erungen. Die landwirtschaftlichen Versuchsstationen. 75:231. Morse, F. W. 1923. Comparative Effects of Muriate and Sulphate of Potash on the Soil in a Long Continued Fertilizer Experiment. Soil Science 16:107. Murphy, Henry F. The Results of Some Fertility Experi- ments on Oklahoma Soils. Oklahoma Agri. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 155. Neller, J. R. 1925. The Influence of Sulfur and Gyp- sum Upon the Composition and Yield of Legumes. Washington Agr. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 190. Neidig, R. E.; McDale, G. R. and Magnuson, H. P. 1923. Effect of Sulphur, Calcium and Phosphorus on the Yield and Composition of Alfalfa on Six Types of Idaho Soils. Soil Science 16:127. (64) (65) (66) (67) (68) (69) (70) (71) (72) (73) (74) (75) (76) (77) (78) (79) (80) (81) ‘ POSSIBILITIES OF SULPHUR AS A SOIL AMENDMENT 55 Powers, W. L. 1923. Sulphur in Relation to Soil Fer- tility. Oregon Agri. Expt. Sta. Bulletin 199. Reynolds, E. B. 1930. The Effect of Sulphur on Yield of Certain Crops. TexasAgr. Expt. Station, Bulletin 408. Richardson, G. B. County, Texas. Robinson, R. H. and Bullis, D. E. 1905. Native Sulfur in El Paso U. S. Geol. Survey Bulletin 260. 1922. Acid Soil Studies; III The Influence of Calcium Carbonate, Cal- - cium Oxide, and Calcium Sulfate on the Soluble Soil Nutrients of Acid Soils. Soil Science 13:449. Rudolfs, W. 1921. Experimental Studies on Sulfur Oxidation by Microorganisms. Doctor’s Thesis, Rut- gers College. Russell, E. J. 1927. Present Status of Soil Microbiology. 1st Int. Con. Soil Science. Samuels, C. D. 1927. The Oxidation of Sulfur in Al- kali Soil and Its Effect on the Replaceable Bases. Hil- gardia 3:1‘, Cal. Agr. Expt. Station. Shedd, O. M. 1913. The Sulfur Content of Some Typi- cal Kentucky Soils. Kentucky Agr. Expt. Station, Bulletin 174. Shedd, O. M. 1914. The Relation of Sulfur to Soil Fer- tility. Kentucky Agr. Expt. Station, Bulletin 188. Shedd, "O. M. 1917. Effect of Sulphur on Different Crops and Soils. Jour. of Agri. Research 11:91. Shedd, O. M. 1926. Influence of Sulfur and Gypsum on the Solubility of Potassium in Soils and on the Quantity of This Element Removed by Certain Plants. Soil Science 22:335. Skeats, E. M. 1902. Sulfur in El Paso County. Uni- versity of Texas Mineral Survey Bulletin 2. Starkey, R. L. 1929. Some Influences of the Develop- ment of High Plants Upon the Microorganisms of the Soil: III Influence of the Stage of Plant Growth Upon Some Activities of the Organisms. Soil Science 27 : 433. Stewart, Robert. 1917 . Sulfur in Relation to Soil Fer- tility. Ill. Agri. Expt. Sta., Bulletin 227. St. John, J. L. and Neller, J. R. 1924. Gypsum and Sulfur as Fertilizers for Legumes. Washington Agri. Expt. Sta. Popular Bulletin 128. Swanson, C. O. and Hatshaw, W. L. 1922. Sulfur as An Important Fertility Element. Soil Sci. 14:421. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Report for 1918. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Report for 1919. BULLETIN NO. 414, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Texas Almanac. 1925. A. H. Belo & Co., Dallas. Udden, J. A.; Baker, C. L. and Bose, Emil. 1916. Re- view of the Geology of Texas. University of Texas Bulletin N0. 44. Weinard, F. F. and Lehenbauer, P. A. 1927. The Ef- fects of Phosphorus and Sulfur Fertilizers on Flower Production of Roses and Carnations. Illinois Agri. Expt. Sta, Bulletin 299. Williams, C. B. 1928. North Carolina Station Report. Wilson, B. D. 1921. Sulfur Supplied to the Soil in Rain Water. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. V. 13, No. 5, Pp. 226-229, Soil Science 15:227. Withers, W. A. and Fraps, G. S. 1902. Content of Some Vegetable Materials. Agr. Expt. Station for l902z53. The Sulphur Report N. C.