LIBRARY. A a m connscs. canvas. -932-lOM-L180 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STEATIUN A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 459 ' SEPTEMBER, 1932 A DIVISION OF AGRONOMY Grain Sorghum Varigties in Texas ”,'\ AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFF? Administration: A. B. Conner, M. S., Director R. E. Karper, M. S., Vice-Director Clarice Mixson, B. A., Secretary M. P. Holleman, Chief Clerk J. K. Francklow, Asst. Chief Clerk Chester Higgs, Executive Assistant Howard Berry, B. S., Technical Asst. Chemistry: . S. Fraps, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist E. Asbury, M. S., Chemist . F. Fudge, Ph. D., Chemist C. Carlyle, M. S., Asst. Chemist L. Ogier, B. S., Asst. Chemist . J. Sterges, M. S., Asst. Chemist Ray Treichler, M. S., Asst. Chemist W. H. Walker, Asst. Chemist Velma Graham, Asst. Chemist _ Jeanne F. DeMottier, Asst. Chemist R. L. Schwartz, B. S., Asst. Chemist C. M. Founders, B. S., Asst. Chemist Horticulture: S. H. Yarnell, Sc. D., Chief "L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist H. M. Reed, B. S., Horticulturist J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist Range Animal Husbandry: J. M. Jones, A. M., Chief B. L. Warwick, Ph. D., Breeding Investiga. S. P. Davis, Wool Grader Entomology: F. L. Thomas, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist H. J. Reinhard, B. S., Entomologist R. K. Fletcher, Ph. D., Entomologist W. L. Owen, Jr., M. S., Entomologist J. N. Roney, M. S., Entomologist J. C. Gaines, Jr., M. S., Entomologist S. E. Jones, M. S., Entomologist F. F. Bibby, B.‘ S., Entomologist S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist "E. W. Dunnam, Ph. D., Entomologist “R. W. Moreland, B. S., Asst. Entomologist C. E. Heard, B. S., Chief Inspector C. Siddall, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector S. E. McGregor, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector Agronomy: E. B. Reynolds, Ph. D., Chief R. E. Karper, M. S., Agronomist P. C. Mangelsdorf, Sc. D., Agronomist D. T. Killough, M. S., Agronomist H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist Publications : A. D. Jackson, Chief >T5P1F§BQ Veterinary Science: *M. Francis, D. V. M., Chief H. Schmidt, D. V. M., Veterinarian I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian "F. P. Mathews, D.V.M., M.S., Veterinarian W. T. Hardy, D. V, M., Veterinarian R. A. Goodman, D. V. M., Veterinarian Plant Pathology and Physiology: J. J. Taubenhaus, Ph. D., Chief W. N. Ezekiel, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist Farm and Ranch Economics: L. P. Gabbard, M. S., Chief W. E. Paulson, Ph. D., Marketing C. A. Bonnen, M. S., Farm Management **W. R. Nisbet, B. S., Ranch Management A. C. Magee, M. S., Farm Management Rural Home Research: Jessie Whitacre, Ph. D., Chief Mary Anna Grimes, M. S., Textiles Elizabeth D. Terrill, M. A., Nutrition Soil Survey: **W. T. Carter, B. S., Chief E. H. Templin, B. S., Soil Surveyor ~A. H. Bean, B. S., Soil Surveyor R. M. Marshall, B. S., Soil Surveyor Botany: V. L. Cory, M. S., Acting Chief S. 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 J. R. Couch, B. S., Asst. Poultry Husbandman Agricultural Engineering: H. P. Smith, 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: F. D. Fuller, M. S., Chief James Sullivan, Asst. Chief . D. Pearce, Secretary H. Rogers, Feed Inspector . Kirkland, B. S., Feed Inspector . Reynolds, Jr., Feed Inspector . Moore, Feed Inspector . Wilson, B. S., Feed Inspector . Wickes, B. S., Feed Inspector FFTWFF“ Q“'I>Ur' SUBSTATIONS No. 1, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. , S., Superintendent No. 2, Lindale, Smith County: P. R. Johnson, M. S., Superintendent "B. H. Hendrickson, B. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion "R. W. Baird, B. S., Assoc. Agr. Engineer No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. Stansel, M. S., Superintendent H. M. Reed, M. S., Horticulturist No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. H. Wyche, B. S., Superintendent "H. M. Beachell, B. S., Jr., Agronomist No. 5, Temple, Bell County: Henry Dunlavy, M. S., Superintendent C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist “H. V. Geib, M. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion "H. O. Hill, B. S., Jr. Civil Engineer No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. Dunkle, B. S., Superintendent "I. M. Atkins, B. S., Jr. Agronomist No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: R. E. Dickson, B. S., Superintendent B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. Jones, Superintendent Frank Gaines, Irrig. and Forest Nurs. 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. 11, 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., Asst. Agronomist No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. H. Dameron, B. S., Superintendent I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian O. L. Carpenter, Shepherd ‘*0. G. Babcock, B. S., Asst. Entomologist No. 15. Weslaco, Hidalgo County: W. H. Friend, B. S., Superintendent S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist J . F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: C. H. McDowell, B. S., Superintendent L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. Mortensen, B. S., Superintendent "L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects ‘on the Station: G. W. Adriance, Ph. D., Horticulture S. W. Bilsing, Ph. D., Entomology V. P. Lee, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance D. Scoates, A. E., Agricultural Engineering A. K. Mackey, M. S., Animal Husbandry ‘Dean School of Veterinary Medicine. J. S. Mogford, M. S., Agronomy F. R. Brison, B. S., Horticulture W. R. Horlacher, Ph. D., Genetics J. H. Knox, M. S., Animal Husbandry A. L. Darnell, M. A., Dairy Husbandry TAs of September 1, 1932. "In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. SYNOPSIS Grain sorghum, the basic grain and forage crop of West Texas, ranks third in value among the crops gof Texas, yield- ing about sixty million bushels annually, which is approxi- mately half the Nation’s crop. Its excellent yield and quality of forage make it an important supplement to the corn crop in the central and southern part of the State, and in all except the extreme eastern part yields of grain quite com- parable with those‘ of corn can be obtained from the best adapted varieties. Experiments have been conducted at various Substations dur- ing the years 1912 to 1931 to determine the varieties best suited to the conditions in the widely dilferent regions of the State. Grain sorghums have been grown in Texas since the late '1880’s when Standard Yellow milo and Standard Blackhul kafir reached this State coming originally from foreign coun- tries. Since that time many varieties have appeared; the exact origin of some is not known, others have been intro- duced from foreign countries, and many improved selections and new hybrid varieties have been distributed from experi- ment stations. The extreme dilferences in type and behavior between grain sorghum varieties allow a choice of a single variety to meet a particular condition and a thorough under- standing of their growth habit and behavior is necessary in the proper use of the different varieties. This Bulletin includes a discussion of the origin and a des- cription of the varieties together with the yields in the various regions of the State, with recommendations regarding the varieties to grow. In the western part of the State, which is strictly a grain sorghum region, Dwarf Yellow milo, Texas Blackhul kafir, and Spur feterita are the varieties best adapted except where chinch bugs and accompanying disease damage milo. In the central and southern parts of the State, Hegari, Spur feterita, Texas Blackhul kafir, Chiltex, and Darso are the best varieties. In the more humid area to the east, Schrock and Darso are the most dependable for grain and forage; however, Hegari, Spur feterita, and kafir can be grown where bird damage is not too severe. CONTENTS Introduction ..................................................... N _ _ 5 The Sorghum Area of Texasi--------_i-_ei - ...................... -- 5 Climatic Conditions and Location of Experiments 6 Experimental Methods ............................................................................................ -_ '7 Spacing of Plants"--- 7 Date of Planting ....................................... Size and Arrangement of Plats _ . . . _ . . . P _ 8 Planting and Cultivation ..... -- .... .. 12 Methods of Obtaining Data __--.---12 Methodséof Obtaining Comparable Yield .................................................... __13 Description and History of Varieties .................................................................. --14 Other Characteristics of Varieties ....................................................................... -.21 Threshing Percentage ' Test Weight per Bushel-__--_-__---_-.-_-.____-4---i-., " Percentage of Grain in Forage_--_--_-_d..-.---V.“ Yield of Grain Sorghum Varieties ...... .. _________________ __25 Lubbock .................................. "25 Chillicothe .- Spur a _________ _- u‘ ._ a, ............................ "32 Dalhart Iowa Park '1 i. Denton a Temple College Station i Beeville '- _ - 41 Weslaco 42 Angleton _ O . _ . . _ A . _ . . . . ._ . 44 Beaumont 44 Troup . . . . . . . . . . . -. 45 Test of New Varieties a 46 Key to Accession Numbers ...... -- 46 Acknowledgments 49 Summary and Conclusions .... __________________________ __49 BULLETIN NO. 459 SEPTEMBER, 1932' GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS R. E. Karper, J. R. Quinby, D. L. Jones, and R. E. Dickson Grain sorghums are particularly adapted to the western two-thirds ofi Texas and although only about ten per cent of its cultivated land is planted to this crop, Texas leads all other states in grain sorghum production, growing slightly less than 50 per cent of the Nation’s crop. Grain sorg- hums rank third in total production and money value among crops grown in the State, being exceeded only by cotton and corn. The aver- age annual production is approximately sixty million bushels, having a value of about fifty million dollars for the grain alone. The forage inci- dental to this grain crop, along with sorgo hay, comprises the basic roughage on most Texas farms. Since the beginning of the present century grain sorghums have very materially changed the agricultural map of Texas. They have pioneered in the development of farming lands in all of the western part of the State and have been the important factor in changing this region from ranching to farming. THE SORGHUM AREA OF TEXAS Grain sorghums are grown in the western two-thirds of the State almost to the exclusion of other feed crops. Farther east, grain sorghum is becoming an important crop as a supplement to corn because of its excellent yield and quality of forage when the whole plant is har- vested as bundle feed and because the crop may be planted with reasonable expectation of success from as early as March 15 to as late as June 1. However, the grain yields of the best adapted varieties ‘here often oom- pare quite favorably with corn, and the acreage can well be further increased in this area. In the eastern part of the grain sorghum-producing area of the State, the acreage devoted to grain sorghums is dependent to some extent upon the crop prospects for corn and upon the need for forage. The importance of the grain sorghums in the development of the west- ern agricultural area of the State can readily be seen by comparing Fig. 1 with Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 with Fig. 4. As recently as the first decade of this century very little farming was done in the region now most densely occupied by grain sorghums. It will be noted that in 1919 (Fig. 1) the centers of grain sorghum production were largely in the four eastern tiers of counties in the Panhandle while the counties to the west were still, in the main, ranching lands. A decade later, 1929, (Fig. 2) the centers of heavy production had moved west and grain sorghums had again led in the agricultural development of these recent ranch lands. In these centers of grain production, Dwarf milo has beeen the predominating variety; however, kafir and feterita have also been important varieties. Much of the grain sorghum on these acreages Q, ,7 BULLETIITNO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION has been headed and marketed either as heads or as threshed grain. As this shift ~toe the west was made, the cash crops, cotton in the southern and wheat in the northern part of the Panhandle, came in and occupied a considerable part of the acreage formerly devoted to the sorghums. _ _ It will be noted further in Figs. 3 and 4, which show the acreage of grain sorghums and other sorghums grown for forage purposes, that - during the past ten years the sorghums have come into a great deal more prominence in all parts of the State except the extreme eastern part. In Central and South Texas the acreage of sorghums cut for forage has doubled in many of the counties during the past ten years. This increased acreage has been planted largely to the better forage varieties of grain sorghums such as feterita, kafir, Darso and Hegari. A similar increase in acreage harvested for grain in this area can be F‘s.%.-...2rt:;*;":::m?‘o%:*":..s:z%3;:;:..:°2%:%s eeee free Fiee- 1 eee 2- acres. (See Fig. 2.) CLIMATIC CONDITIONS AND LOCATION OF EXPERIMENTS Since grain sorghum is grown over such a large area in Texas, the crop encounters many different climatic conditions. In this large area the altitude ranges from almost sea-level to over 4,000 feet, average annual rainfall from 40 to 15 inches, average monthly relative humid- ity from almost 80 per cent to less than 60 per cent, and the length of the frost-free peri- od from 290 to 175 days. A complete summary of the cli- matic conditions prevailing at each of the Substations where these trials were conducted will be found in Table 1. A study (if the climatic conditions at the various locations of the ex- periments will be found helpful to a better understanding of the results presented later in this Beneee- The eheeeeeee er the Fsuiisaisszibziti: a? saeiruisagtas. we soil also has an important bear- tgeffieeriastt? (1%; fist “d ‘mreased cum sounun ACIEAGE l9 I 9 u: u: nnuaun awn un- cum soanuun ACIIAGE I929 m m mum-u u“ um GRAIN SORGHUMVARIETIES IN TEXAS 1 ing upon the yields of grain sorghums, "and both the climatic and soil con- ditions prevailing at each of the locations where the experiments were conducted are ‘ discussed more fully later on in connection with results ~ at the specificistation concern-i ed. Since there is an appreci- able difference among- grain sorghum varietiesin response to different environmental icondi- tions; "some varieties will be found better adapted to certain areas in the State than other varieties. Experiments have been conducted at 14 points in the State to determine the rela- tive value of the various vari- eties for the different regions. These experiments have includ- ed trials at locationsfairly well _ , , _ ' , ' scattered over the State and in- Fig. 3. Distribution of acreage 1n sorghums har- , . vested for forage in 1919. One dot represents eluding most of the maJor ag- 2'°°° ‘wres’ (see Fig‘ 4") ~ ricultural areas in Texas. This Bulletin presents the results of yield trials of grain“ sorghum varieties conducted at Lubbock, Chillicothe, Spur, Dalhart, Big Spring, Iowa Park, Denton, Temple, Beeville, Weslaco, Angleton, College Station, Beaumont, and Troup. The work at the Chilli- cothe_Station has been conduct- ed cooperatively by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and the Division of Forage w ' Crops and Diseases, United q States Department of Agricul- ture. Inclusion of the results from Big Spring and Dalhart has been made possible through the courtesy of the Division of Dry-Land Agriculture, under whose direction these Stations . are operated, and the DiViSl-OH Fig. 4. Distribution of acreage in sorghums har- of Cereal Crops and Diseases’ vested for forage in 1929. (See Fig. 3.) United States Department of Agriculture. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS Spacing of Plants In these experiments an effort has been made to grow the crop under as nearly optimum conditions as possible. In the early years of the experiments plants of all varieties were given the same space within roan‘: sacrum ACREAGE I919 n1 m Innuuu mm um ' roan: sonnuun nun: I929 ‘ 8 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the row, but as information was obtained concerning the response cf varieties to different plant spacings, an effort was made to thin each individual plant to the spacing most favorable to production of the par- ticular variety planted upon it. At Lubbock all varieties were spaced 18 inches until 1926 and thereafter milo and Hegari have been spaced 18 inches and the remaining varieties 12 inches. At Chillicothe, prior to 1925, all varieties were spaced about 8 inches and after that time the kafirs, Chiltex, and Premo have been spaced 8 inches; feterita, Darso, and Hegari 12 inches; and milo 18 inches. At Spur all varieties were spaced 18 inches prior to 1925 and 12 inches thereafter. At Big Spring the spacing has averaged about 14 inches, and at Dalhart about 12 inches. At the remaining Stations the spacing has been 12 inches for milo and 6 inches for the remaining varieties except in the one test at Beeville, results of which are shown in Table 11, in which all varieties were given a space of 9 inches. Information concerning the best spacing of plants of different varie- ties has been obtained from experiments, the results of which have been published in Texas Station Bulletin No. 424. Desirable spacing for milo is 12 to 24 inches, for kafir it is around 6 inches, and for Hegari and feterita it is 6 to 12 inches. Desirable stands for kafir may ordinarily be obtained by planting at the rate of two pounds per acre, which yields approximately a six-inch stand. One pound of milo to the acre will pro- duce an eighteen-inch stand under favorable conditions. Hegari and feter- ita seed do not germinate as well as those of many other varieties and to obtain desirable stands of these varieties two to three pounds of Hegari and three to four pounds of feterita seed are recommended. In South Texas, where thicker spacing is desirable, heavier rates must be used. In these experiments much heavier rates of planting were used to in- sure good stands and thinning was done to obtain required stands. Date of Planting Planting has been done in these experiments at as nearly the optimum planting date for sorghums as possible. The planting at Lubbock has usually been done about May 15. At Chillicothe the yields are the average of three plantings made as near May 1, May 15, and June 1 as possible. At Spur there has usually been one planting about May 15. Single plantings have been made each year at Big Spring between May 15 and June 1; at Dalhart around June 1; at Iowa Park during early June; at Denton and Temple about April 15; at Beeville between March 15 and April 5; at Weslaco during March; at College Station about May 1; at Angleton during early April; and at Troup during April or early May. These different dates fall in the optimum period‘ for planting at each of the designated locations. Detailed results of date-of-planting experi- ments are also published in Bulletin No. 424. Size and "Arrangement of Plats l, These variety experiments with grain sorghums have been conducted in field plats varying in size from 1/110 to 1/10 of an acre exclusive GRAIN SORGHUM ‘VARIETIES IN TEXAS 2% ...... .. ....................................... .. .. .............. -. ii: ...... .. . .. 8.8: £038: 8837:8052 .. $3 d3: 88$ 53 .52 d2? 32. m2? S3 3M8 omdw w»? and: 88:8: 5:: :53 88.3 ..... 1- n26 odd cmd 3am Ed odd ....... .- 88:85 .:o$.8:o::>m_.. KW. E dd d: E 8 B. S. E. dw d: d“. 8 dd 85:28:88: :82: :82 2 2 pd m» w: 8 8 2 w: mm pd 3 S 8:::8:8::8: 6:823: :82 .. “m. m“. d» E mm 8 S 5 S. 8 .3 d» 3 8::».8:8::8¢ 5:818: :82 8 w: S. S. fin: 3.: 3d £3 23 8d 2: K. 8.... dd. Eli»: 58:85 éwwwwmw: ddd. . . ............................................................................. .. . ............... .- 8.26 i888: 88.£-_._mo:.m . wwwm mmwm wmmd $5 dmmd. 2.: $2 3S“ 35 $3 23 33 Edd 88:5 6:: 85.: S. 3 _ .... .. _ ...... .. _ ma.» 2.3 8.2 £5: _ 3d mm.» . .............. .. 88:85 .:8$8:o:8>H , :8 d... E 3 E. dd dw 88 C. m. $ S. S. 8::»8:8:E8: :88 :82 Wm... 92. ad dd S m. i. 2. H. w: 3. mm mm dd 8::§:8:E3 E:::::: :82 i w? 3 3 up 5 8 m8 d: m: w» m8 d8 3 8:::8.8:::8: E:E:88 :82 Gd: 3. S: 83 5.: $4 $4 “dd 3d 5d 3.: 3. 8. $\33 .88:8:: 5358M “wfinfim Mmm 5d ...................................................................................................... .. m8: 68:8: 883588»: .... .. $2. 82:. m5: S3 2mm SS. $2. 8%. ma.» 88m 5S £2. 33. 88E: .5; 25$ mmwa. 3d 8.» 83. 3.8 2d i; ,3: is 8.8 ES 3.». 3d .............. .- 88:2: .=8$8.:.:8>: . Q3 8.8 dz; 9F ddw :8 NS $8 $8 :8 Q3 W3 ddw - 2:88 .8: .:£EE:: .8: $4 9S Q2. v.3 wdw dd: :3 3w 3:. 8.88 8.88 9B w? mi. .... .- 8:588:88» .58.: :82 .. Q2. 8.5 8.2 2:. gm m6: 8.2 8.2 5m 8.3 W2 5.... dad 35:28:58» 8255:» :82 ...... z d6: :3 8.2. YE. Q5 8.8 8...; “d: :3 QB. #5 :5 :3 8::.._8:8:E8» 85:82:: :82 SAd ...... .. 3. ma. mwd 3d :5 3.: dmd odd 3d 88. d? mm. i. S123 .8%£ .=.$:.fiw::m 3d ............................................................................... .. .................. £1: 23:. 63:8: 88:88:: ...... .. $3 2.2. BS. 2.3 2w” 38m S2. SE 3% m5: 3w $5 $8. 88:5 £5 2:3 5.5 . ded 5d and $6 3d dwd Sam wad $6 £3. 3d 5.: 88:85 .=8:€8:@>: Q3 8.3 ".8 8.88 dAm 8.2 pd: $5 53 8.8m 8.8m odw $8 .. :88 .8: ..§w:::: .8: .>< ddw d4: v.3 dd: NE. ddm :8 8.3 Q2. Q3 dd: :3 mdm 8::~8:8::8: :85 .882 ...... .. 8...; 8.8 8.8m 3E Q8 :88 :3 3.8 33 Q8. :3 Y; o8 8:§.:8:E8: :EE::E .882 ...... .. 8.2 w»: 8.3 ma» 8.5 8.8 3a vd: ddw Q3. .38 5s cdm 8:::::8::8» 85:58:: :82 36d ...... .. Q: 3.: 3.» dad 5d Ed <8.» ddd wwd 3.: 2.. dm. $125: .8885 :35“: u 8582230 2d .............................. .. ...................... .. ...................... .. 22:. 63.6: 88.:-..m8:: ...... .- 3E d3: SS. ES. S? 5d: wdww doe 23w Sww 32. $3 $3 88:8 5:: v53 wmdw $4 mwd wed 2.6 ma.» 5d “dd d.» $6 2...: mad 3.: ............. -- 88:85 .:o$.8.~o::>@ ...... -. Yd: “.8 8.88 <6: :8 8.3 RE 8.3. dd: dd: Q6» mdm Y3 - £88 .8: 5:352: .8: .>< ...... .. mdm m3 5:. 93 WE. 8.5 w? ma» 5x. dd: dd» mi. fimm 8:588:83 :85 :882 ...... -. 8.5. 8.5 I.“ :3 5.: $8 Q8 m8 8.2 19. Ne» 8.3 8.8 2:228:68» E2555 .882 ...... -. M12. :2 8.2 is 8.3 2.3 v.8 :3 8.3 :3. 43 98 dd: 8::»::8:E8» 5:882: :82 8.2 3.. 3. 1....“ 2d dod 2d Ed 2d 3.: mm. S. mm. i: 5|S3 .8885 £888: "xoonssq 8:983: 155:4 25:82 68D $82 J80 énvw .55‘ 39H 8:9». 5:2 ..::< n32 dorm :2. 63:32:00 0.83 3:ofliuu:no Ednmuow 5.3M 0804a A033 a: 2333a on» 30.3 dawn 182920.538: mo :::::E:w A manna. A10 BULLETIN NO. 459.‘TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ......... .- P30 .0050: vwnwémofim wmwa mama d»aa a»wa mawa m»aa was. adaa »a~m aa»m addw 23 Fdm .................. .. 00:5 .::.~ :53 wfiam aad a2 aw.a a».m am.» am.» aH.» 8.0 m3 da.a 3d aa.d ............ z 00:05 .:0WH0:0:0>H :.»» :.»» :.»» w.m» a.w» w.a» a.m» m.»» a.m». ».w» a.»» a.m» a.am .. 0:00 :0: ..$:=E=: :0: $4 ¢ .1 ad» mwm maw Na» Q5 fimm Nam Ndm m.w» d4» amw wam mwm .... .. 0.3005550: 5005 :32 . aaw a.wa a.am aAw waw ma» zNa» ».:» .m.ww maw ».am a.»a mma 3:250:50: 5:551: 5002 ...... .. adm .d.»w w.m» a.mm ada mwa a.ma ».da ,a.»m 3a aw» N:» m.»w 05505550» 5:51:05 :w02 wmaa »ad ddd amd. awa :5 wdd. 5a waa wa.d mdd GA Na: Hi2: .3505 5550M "0 300 5d , . . . , . . . . . , , . . . , , . . . . . . . . . , . . .. .. , . .............. .. . . .. ...................... -. 930 63:0: 8.0-._w9.: m 3am dw»a dmda mamd aawd ad»d :»»d awaa aawa daaa mawa dw»a amaa .................. .. 00:5 .::: 0E3 »d.»m . mNd »a.d ma.a mwm »a.» m».» d2.» mam »».a a3. mad ddd ........... .. 3:05 .:0$0.~0:a>H »d.»m ..... ., ».m» m.»» w.w» Nw» ma» m.m» :.»» Nm» m.w» a.m» Na» a.a» .- 500 :0: 5:280: 40: .>< a.mw adm ».am ».aw 2:. w.am a.am mam fia» m.»w a.aw Nam a.am 05:03:50: c005 :32 ...... 4 m.wm mda d.ma w.»m a.»w ».:» d.d» ».aw a.aw ».am a.aa maa aaa 0:350:50: 55555 5.02 ...... .. d.a» Naw a4» 3a ».aa m.ma ».ma aAa a.mm a.m» 2A» a.aw w.aw 3:220:50: 5:53:05 5002 3.2 . S.» »d.a a3 »md wad ma.d HNa 5a 2.: wwd m»d mad . Qlaaw: 60:05 53503 , ":0$.3w 03:00 dad . , . . , . . , . . . . . . a . .............. ,. , .............................. a ........ .. mama .0020: 00:53.0»: ...... .. mama aaaa wdaa aaaa am»d Fad am; w»ma aaaa »a»a amam $2. aaaa 00:5 .::: v53 maam 5d aad aw.a mam aam aa.m wd.» »m.m da.a HNa m»d 3d 00:05 .:0$0:0::>@ . . wd» .a.»» a.w» m.d» m2» m.ww a.»w w.a» ma» m.d» ».am Nm» a.»» . 500 :0: .>#E5:: :0: .>< .. w.ww m.aa a.»m Nmw a.m» ».am a.am a.am Na» a.ww Nmm fidm m.»a i: 0:303:50: 5005 5002 ...... ,. a.am w.»a ama Nmm a.mw a2» m4» a.aw ».:w a.am ama a.am d.ma 0:300:50: 5:555: :32 ...... .- a.m» Q3 w.a» 5m d.aa Nwa d.wa ada ».am a.m» .3» ».aw ».am 0550:0550: 555x05 5002 Emma . aad aaa »m.a »».a dad 8.: »a.d dma am.a mad add aad 3:122 60:05 555.32 00550:. mdd .. ...... .. = . ................................................................ .. 0.3a i020: 00:00.00»: ...... .. »aam mwam aw»a mawa d»da amaa mHaa Sam 3am daa» mma» aa»m 5am 00:5 5:: v53 3am mad dm.d »a.a 5.0 mam 2d ma.» aw.m aa.m dfia ma.d mmA ............ .. 00:05 .:0maa:0:.w>"m ...... -. a.mw fia» w.a» a.aw m.»w waw aAw Nmw d.d» a.»w a.mw a.aw a.m» ,. 0:00 :0: 5.5.0.5.. :0: .>< ...... .. a.aw ama a.am aww :.»» a.am mam 2am w.a» ».aw a.mm w.ma w.aa 53:20:50» 5005 5002 ...... .. wdm ».am »da a.am a.mw a2» a4» mmw ».am 5m ada w.wa dda 3:503:50» 5:555: 5002 ...... -. fiw» a.mm m.ww a.m» fiam w.ma m.ma aAa mAm a.m» a.»w ».aw a.am 0:303:50» 5:55.05 5002 :mda . .. . »ad ddd da.a mfid 3a mad aad wNa aa.a 23 m».: mad 3.122 60:05 50:53: 53:0 add ...................... .. = , ...... 1 ...... .- . ....................................... i. 0.3a £020: oob-amofimfl ...... .. wmaa 8:. Si. aaaa mama mSa w$a wmaa 8S 8mm mmaw »»»a aama mozfi :5: 0E3 madw . wmA mmd ama amw mNm wma Em d».w »».m aaa dad »m.: ............ .. 00:2: .:oaaw.:.:u>m ...... .. a.aw w.a» a.aw a.»w Q8 a.»m mam a.aw a.aw ».:w Naw a4» a.m» ,- 500 :0: 5:355: :0: 54 ...... .- d.aw aaa Nam m.»w a.m» 3m ».am ».am a4» m.aw a.am w.ma a.aa 0:393:50: :02: 5002 ...... -. wAm aAa mAa Em a.mw ma» 0.2. w.mw Nam a.am w.aa mma amd 32:96:53 5:552: :32 ...... .. m.w» amm a.aw m.a» w.aa a..»a a.ma mda 3m a.m» a.»w ad. mdm 0:305:50: 5:55.05 5002 aim 1.. . dHd ma: da.a add »».:. »».a ama ama aad ddd wmA 2N: 510:: 60:05 432:3: . _ $2.0m .030: 000.83‘ . , , . .. . . 10554 35:02 .000 .>0Z .30 . .a:0w .03» 3E... 0::._.. :02 .::¢ :02 50h 5am .S00:::a:0Oa .10»0:w:0o 0:03 3:05€0:M0 553:0» 55w 000:0 :03? a: 0:01:03 0n..- 593 3.30 fiNUmMAJOkOUQOE HO a:.w55:m in MJQSH» 11 GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS $5. .............. .- ...... -- .............. .. ...................... .. . . E56 6.5.65 mmtémcpi 5.2. dd: amwd 5am aaad wvad 53 awad 0.0.3. £3 3mm 56$ ma? ............... z mmZE .555 @535 2.5m avA dad m3. and is 2s Em and Si. awd add wad .:-.-x---: mmsmfi .50mas505.0>m~ 5.3. v.av adv ddv Q3. adv adv .3... 5.2. T...» mdv S... d.vv . 55mm 505 $325555: 4mm $4. ada adv #5 dava a.vv add add w.av adv dda ma... Q5. 3:. $593588 5.0055 5.002 ...... -- 1m... mad m3 ddm vaa vAv adv 5.3 .30 wda W5. W2. add mhsxzmnfim» 55555555 55mg ...... .. i... is in. adv 2a ada ada daa 5.5. vdv ada 5.8 ada 0555555535 555555.055 =32 5.5. . . m3. aad vfid add £5 ma...“ aad 23. s? mad 2..." S.” .. Hdalmaafi .3505“ .=&=w¢5 n 505m. Hvd .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. .. ................ : and“. 503mm 3.5-5.055 avdd wdvd add vwad mwdd 8S wwdd adad 55m g8. daav mama aaav ............... mmmfi .555 @515 32:. .. 3.5 vad Hvd awé $5 5.5 wad dd m3. and add waA .......... .. mm 05w .=o5§¢5@>5 : -1 5.5m add Héw ddw 3w 3w ddw ddd 3w 5.5m 3w 3w add . p500 5m5 2355555 ._m5 $4 ...... -- dda dém aaa waa ddv aéw adw aaw a.dv 0.5 v.aa 35 adm m55§hma55ma 5.025 5.33 ...... .. ddm 5.3. .25. vdm 5.5. ddv vdv v.av Héa a.vm van 0.3 adv mkswmafimq. 55555555 50mg ...... .. ddv mi wav aaw Ea 5.8 1S 1w add 3... adv 5.5 ada 0555x3555» 555555C~m5~ 553% £55 .. E3 34. =3. wad .56 .2}. $2. 3.5 £5. mad and Cl. .... Hdnlfiaa .3505 410M553 $50555wmm B.“ ...... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ................................ -- w?» 003mm mmhémfim 1...! amvd dd: maad aid dwad Hadd S3 2.3 8.3 2S addm advw .55. ................ .. wmZE .555 053$ 00.5. 2.5 wvd wvd avd S5 3.6 add 2.5 add add 3d $5 mmaufi. .=¢5@.=5@>5 aaw 3w v.av a.av 3w d.av wav a.av 12. mav adv dam W5 . 55mm 5mm. 55.562 5m» $4 ...... -- vda Q3 Q5 wav ddv 53w 0.5 v.av Q3 a.va déa v.vm 9E m55505m555m5 5.0055 5.002 x .... .- aw... 5.5. aam 23 Hda w? w; 5.2. m3 wvm W3 5:. 5.5. muffimnfiw» 55555555 50mg d.av 0.3 vdv add add dda W; dam mdw 3:. adv ada 3w musaapmafimp ~5555x5.55 50mg 5.5. . 1 . m3. avd £4. 57... .5... 5.5. $4. mad aad mad Had mHd ~d.|wHa~ .8525 655.5 25052954 Cd . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. £5 .0225. $5558.55 ...... z Q3 £2. 5% ma.» amdd vaad vavd £3. damn $8 admm 5.5. $2. M255 55.5 553$ ...... z dav add 3w aav dad adv dav wad E5 m.vv 5.2. Wad 0.5 .. 05mm 505 535M555: Am» .>< ...... -- vdv wéa W5 w? 1w 3w add ddw 12. 3; ada mi. aaa 05555505553 5x055 5.35 ...... .. ada van 5.3 ada v.av adv adv ddv daa vda W5 i... 5:. mfififimfiafi 55555515 553E ...... .. S... wdv adv 5.5 dda vda 3a dda mam add dad adv “.5. 05555535553 .55555C~.a.55 5.85 wadd . QA E5 Hdd add $5 £5 $5 3.» 3.5 2.5 da. $5 $122 $505M 555535. _ 5002mm? mwm5m>< fi 155554 35502 dmQ $02 .500 55mm $54 35a 055a has dorm 5.0a Aam55mu5oOv 63055500 0H0; mHCUEMRQQNU EUSNMOQ CMQHW UMQSQ g3 0N WHOMQNHD 0&8 EOHM 30a 303205005355 MO %HGEEUW -H Qiwdrfi 12 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION of guard rows. At Iowa Park, Denton, Temple, Beeville, Weslaco, College Station, Angleton, and Troup the plats have been 1/110 of an acre and triplicated. At Lubbock the plats have been 1/ 55 of an acre and duplicated. _ At Spur the plat area has usually been 1/44 of an acre. At Chillicothe plat size has varied, being a single 1/42-acre plat on three different dates until 1930, since which time duplicate 1/84-acre plats on three dates have been used. Duplicate plats of 1/ 10 to 1/25 acre in area have been used at Big Spring and at Dalhart 1/10-acre plats duplicated until 1929 and 1/20-acre plats duplicated on three dates since 1929. Row width has been 36 inches at all Stations except at Chillicothe, where the width was 40 inches, and at Dalhart and Big Spring, where it was 44 inches. It has been the general practice to protect the crops in the plat areas from unequal competition by the use of guard rows. Planting and Cultivation The methods of soil preparation, planting, and cultivation at each Station have been those accepted as good farm practices in the particu- lar region involved. Cultivation has been uniform each year over the area of each experiment. Thinning has been done when the plants were 3 to 6 inches tall. Methods of Obtaining Data Grain yields have been obtained ordinarily by heading the crops with a pocket knife, allowing the heads to dry, and then threshing the entire head production of the plat. Grain yields are presented in bushels of 56 pounds. Forage yields are air-dry weights in all instances, are pre- sented in tons, and are obtained by adding the production of air-dry heads to that of air-dry stover. Various methods have been resorted to in an effort to obtain accurate air-dry forage weights and at each Station the best method possible, considering the available equipment, has been used. At Chillicothe the method used since 1928 has been to take a repre- sentative sample of green forage from each plat as harvested and dry this sample beyond the point of air-dry moisture content in a forage drier that uses natural gas as a source of heat. After drying, these samples are hung under a shed to take up moisture until air-dry, and when all harvesting is completed, and after several days of dry weather, all samples are weighed. Shrinkages are then calculated and air-dry stover and forage yields computed. The number of days from planting to full boot and to maturity are, respectively, the number of days from planting until 50 per cent of the heads were in full boot and until 90 per cent of the heads had matured their seed. The measurement and observation of plant character such as height, diameter of stalk, and number of leaves were made at maturity and the figures shown are the average obtained from ten consecutive plants in GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS _ 13 the row. Height of plant was measured from the surface of the ground to the tip of the head. Diameter of stalk is the average of three measure- ments—one made at the base, one at the middle, and one at the peduncle of the plant. Exsertion of the head was measured as the length of the peduncle exposed above the flag leaf. In obtaining the count for the number of leaves, only those leaves were counted which had reached full development. Some of the basal leaves which were counted, particularly in adverse seasons, were dead at the time the counts were made. The num- ber of stalks to the plant was obtained by counting the number of stalks present in ten plants and dividing by 10. Threshing percentage was obtained by dividing the weight of clean, threshed grain by the weight of air-dry heads and multiplying by 100. Test weight per bushel was taken at threshing time just as the grain came from the thresher. Method of Obtaining Comparable Yield In the conduct of the experiments reported herein, it has been the policy to try new varieties as they have appeared and, on account of the multiplicity of varieties, it has been necessary to discontinue growing some varieties after their comparative worth had been determined. At Lubbock, Chillicothe, Spur, Beeville, Big Spring, and Dalhart not more than two to six varieties have been grown continuously for the period of years for which yields are reported. Since there is no long period of years common to many of the varieties, the average yields are not a fair basis of comparison. In order to present the yields of the different varieties on as nearly a comparable basis as possible the following method has been used in calculating an average percentage rating and a com- parable yield. Varieties which were grown for the entire period were considered as “standard,” or check, varieties and the average yield of these varieties in any year is considered to be the yield of the standard, or check, vari- eties for that year. The percentage rating of any particular variety was computed by dividing the total production of this variety by the total average production of the “standard” varieties for the same years and multiplying by 100. This percentage rating is, therefore, based on the behavior of the particular variety in question as compared to that of the “standard” varieties in the identical years when each was grown. For convenience in comparing the production of different varie- ties, since one ordinarly thinks of yield in terms of bushels or tons instead of percentages, a yield figure called “comparable yield” has been computed. This figure was obtained by multiplying the average pro- duction of the “standard,” or check, varieties for the entire period by the percentage rating of each variety. Therefore, the percentage rating and the “comparable yield” figure are equivalent to each other, one being expressed in percentage and the other in bushels, calculated upon the performance of the standard varieties throughout the whole period of years. These calculated yields allow all the varieties to be compared 14 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in terms of bushels per acre and for this reason are used as the basis of discussion of the yields throughout this Bulletin. DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF VARIETIES A brief history of the more important varieties of grain sorghums, together with a general description of the plant characteristics and growth habits of these varieties, is outlined below. Such characters as height of plant and length of growing season will vary somewhat from year to year, or in diflerent localities, but long-time averages of the various observations and measurements will be found in Table 2. No botanical classification has been included. Milo The milos have a compact, eliptical head, normally borne on a re- curved peduncle, have slender, pithy stalks bearing 12 leaves, tiller freely, and mature in 95tto 110 days. Yellow Milo: Strains representing three heights of plant are com- monly grown and known as Standard, Dwarf, and Double Dwarf (Fig.5). Standard grows 5 to 6 feet, Dwarf 3 to 4 feet, and Double Dwarf 1% to 21/; feet tall. Standard milo is the original strain introduced into this country about 1880 and a few years later appeared in Texas, where it was the only milo grown until about 1906. It is still grown to a small extent in the High Plains but has been practically replaced by Dwarf Yellow milo, which undoubtedly originated by mutation from Standard milo. A field of this dwarf strain was grown by Judge J. F. Brad- ley, at Memphis, Texas, in 1906, and arrangements were made for obtaining a supply of this seed for general distribution to farmers by A. B. Conner, Super- intendent of the Chillicothe For- age Crops Testing Station, op- erated by the Office of Forage Crops Investigations and the Texas Experiment Station. Fig. 5. Three statures of Yellow milo commonly Dwarf Yellow milo V S0011 there- grown in Texas. Standard, Dwarf, and Double after begame the most impgrt- Dwarf varieties (left to right). , ant Variety grown‘ In more re_ cent years pure strains of Dwarf milo have been widely distributed by the Texas Station. Double Dwarf Yellow milo isa double recessive for height GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS 15 and may have originated as a mutation in Dwarf milo or as a recombination product of two different dwarf strain mutations from Standard. Its place of origin is unknown but it appeared in the Imperial Valley of California be- fore 1916 and has been grown in Texas at least_since 1918. There are ap- parently several strains of Double Dwarf milo in existence. This variety is grown to some extent in regions of the State where Dwarf milo grows taller than is desirable. White Milos: The same three heights that occur in Yellow milo exist also as white varieties: Standard, Dwarf, and Double Dwarf. The origin of Standard White milo is unknown but it probably originated as a recessive mutation from yellow to creamy white seed color, and was growing in Northwest Texas prior to 1910. Dwarf White milo is a double recessive that apparently originated by recombination from a cross between Standard White and Dwarf Yellow milo. This variety is, for all practical purposes, an exact counterpart of Dwarf Yellow except for seed color and associated plant color. Dwarf White milo was first grown on the Lubbock and Chillicothe Stations in 1916, where it was obtained from farmers and probably came, originally, from northern Texas or southern Oklahoma. Double Dwarf White milo was developed at the Lubbock Station in 1925 as a double recessive from a hybrid between Dwarf White and Double Dwarf Yellow milo. In addition, there is an Early White milo, somewhat earlier than other milos and between the Dwarf and Standard varieties in height, that appeared about 1911 and has been grown at the Chillicothe Station since that time. It has subse- quently been called 60-day and 90-day White milo, and before the ad- vent of the true Dwarf White milo, it was known under that name, which fact is responsible for the general belief on the part of many that White milo is earlier than Yellow milo. Recently early yellow ‘strains have also been developed through hybridization between this milo and yellow varieties. Kafirs Kafirs are straight-headed, have stout stalks, numerous leaves, over- lapping sheaths, generally juicy and somewhat sweet stalks, a tendency not to lodge or to sucker, and have a relatively long growing period. Kafirs were first introduced into the United States in 1876 but were not grown extensively until introduced into the Great Plains region about 10 years later. New varieties of kafir have been appearing from time to time through selection. The Blackhul kafirs and varieties derived from them have white seed and black glumes. Whitehul kafir has white seed and straw-colored glumes. .Red and Pink kafirs are named for the color of their seed and have reddish glumes that fade to straw color at maturity. Standard Blackhul kafir grows 5 to 6 feet tall, has about 16 large leaves, and matures in 120 to 130 days. The original Standard Blackhul kafir that was once widely grown has, in Texas, been replaced largely by earlier and more dwarf forms. 16 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Blackhul kafir 153 is a pure line selection of Standard Blackhul kafir developed and distributed from the Lubbock Station in 1920 (Fig. 8). Texas Blackhul kafir is a pure line selection of Blackhul that is inter- mediate in height between Standard and Dwarf, has a slender stalk Fig. (LTypical heads of Dawn kafir (top). Dwarf Yellow milo, and Spur feterita (below), three of the best varieties of grain sorghums for Texas. with 15 leaves, and is as early as Dawn kafir. This is-a desir- able pure line variety of kafir developed and distributed from the Lubbock Station in 1925 (Fig. 7). Dawn kafir arose at the U. S. Field Station at Amarillo, Tex- as, in 1907 and was selected by A. H. Leidigh in the progeny of what was apparently a kafir- sorgo hybrid. This variety was at one time the principal kafir grown in Texas and is common- ly known as Dwarf kafir (Fig. 6), Dwarf Blackhul, and Santa Fe kafir. It grows from 3 to 4 feet tall, has 14 leaves, small seed, and matures in 110 to 115 days. Because of its hybrid origin this variety is not typical of Blackhul kafir in all respects. For 20 years this has been an excellent variety of kafir grown extensively in western Texas, particularly on the High Plains, until a recent epidemic of ker- nel smut reduced the supply of smut-free seed to such an extent that the acreage originally de- voted to this variety was re- placed largely by Texas Black- hul. This shift in varieties il- lustrates the necessity of main- taining an adequate source of pure, disease-free seed in the perpetuation of a variety. Sunrise kafir arose in the same progeny that produced Dawn kafir. This variety is distinct from pure kafir in several respects, includinga difference in head shape and a tendency to produce more suckers. It grows 5 to 7 feet tall, has about 14 leaves, and a slender, juicy, sweet stalk. Sunrise kafir, which matures in 110 to 115 days, is one 0f the earliest of the kafirs. Whitehul kafir was one of the original kafir varieties introduced in 1876. GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS 17 The variety is the earliest of the kafirs and grows 3 to 4 feet tall. It has disappeared from general cultivation, since it has the ‘undesirable characteristic of failing to exsert completely from the boot. Reed kafir originated in the hands of W. N. Reed, Elk City, Oklahoma, about 1918. It is not a true kafir but resembles the kafirs quite closely and is probably a kafir-sorgo hybrid. The glumes are large and black and all of the seed do not thresh from the glumes. The variety matures in about 110 days and is earlier than Standard Blackhul. It grows 4 to 5 feet tall and has 14 to 16 leaves, which have a tendency to break down and hang vertically about the stalk after maturity. Red kafir is another of the original kafir introductions of 1876. The original Red kafir, T. S. No. 46, is late, has about 16 leaves, has quite sweet, juicy stalks, and grows about 4 to 5 feet tall. This Red kafir at one time was grown extensively for bundle feed by ranchmen in western Texas. In recent years an early Red kafir, T. S. No. 17485, with pithy stalks and a tendency to sucker, has been distributed from the Experi- ment Station at Hays, Kansas. Fig. 7. Texas Blackhul kafir, the most widely grown kafir in Texas, selected and distributed from the Lubbock Station, showing the uniformity and high yield (50.2 bushels per acre) of this variety at Chillicothe in 1927. Pink kafir is another of the original kafir introductions. The late variety, T. S. No. 45, is much like Red kafir, T. S. No. 46, except that it is somewhat later, has larger stalks, a large bushy head, and has pink seed. It is capable of making unusually large yields of grain when grown under good conditions. There is also an Early Pink kafir, T. S. No. 3295, which has a slender, pithy stalk, and a tendency to sucker. 18 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION This early strain, distributed from the Hays (Kan.) Station, is much grown in western Kansas. Rice kafir is of unknown origin but types similar to this variety in seed characteristics may be obtained from the progeny of kafir x Sumac hybrids. The variety is late, has numerous and large leaves, and pearly- looking seed that give the variety its name. This variety is of relatively little importance but is grown to some extent in the deep, sandy soils in the southeastern part of the Panhandle. Fig. 8. Field of Blackhul kafir 153 grown at the Chillicothe Station in 1926, showing the uniformity of growth from pure line seed. Yield: 48 bushels to the acre. a Feterita Feterita was grown at the Chillicothe Station in 1907 from seed in- troduced into the United States by the Office of Forage Crops from the Sudan region of Africa. Feteritas are early, have a tendency to sucker, have erect, rather loose heads, and large, white seed which are in- clined to shatter. There is a brown nucellar layer present beneath the white pericarp of the seed, and in the presence of this undercoat, white seed have a characteristic chalky appearance. The midrib of the leaf is broad and white, indicating a pithy stem. Standard feterita is the original introduction, grown and distributed from Chillicothe. The variety grows 5 "to 6 feet tall, is inclined to lodge, has slender stalks, few leaves, and the plants sucker, more than other strains, except T. S. N0. 2840. This early variety matures in 90 to 100 days. Spur feterita originated at the Spur Station and was the best of a large number of selections made from the Standard variety in 1914. Spur *GRAIN.S'ORGHUM_~'VARIETIES m TEXAS 19*? feterita is about a week later thanStandard, has‘ shorter and stouterfistalltsgfii has 14 to 16 leaves, and hasa larger and more, compact‘. head (Fig.1 9-»); *5 Dwarf feterita, T. S. No§.5985,- originated fromthe- same lot of selections maturing in about 95 days, and tall (Fig. 10). In addition, there is a feterita which is designated in the tests at Chillicothe as T. S. No. 2840 (F. C. 811) that arose from a later importation from the Su- dan region than that of the Standard variety. This variety is earlier, more slender-stem- med, and has a greater tendency to sucker than Spur feterita. Fig. 9. Showing damage to milo plants by chinch _ . _ bugs and disease. (Left to right) a normal, The varlety 1s (ggnslderably healthy plant; a plant that recovered to produce . one good head; plant making only a patrtial ShOTtQI‘ than the Standard vari- $552515.’ ‘1'q'o?e“§u%li.‘}i§ Trtoiiilegntfilifi??? s21? etY and about the Same as that typical of severe damage and loss 1n milo variety in length of growing " from this disease. _ o ‘ season. Kaoliangs The kaoliangs are ‘native to China, and even though they were grown in 5 America as early as 1865, they have never been important crops here.’ The varieties which were on trial in the experiments reported as Spur feterita, and is like that 4__ _ variety except that it; is, earlier, 1 is dwarf, growing 3 to 4 feet , here- are only a few. of the types that have at one time or another been g introduced. The kaoliangs are, characterized by slender, pithy stalks that in Lthe field shortly after maturity, ‘relatively few leaves,- and glumes that are almost entirely" glabrous. Most of the kaoliangs are, quite pearly in maturity. No variety of this (group of sorghums has ever been‘, of importance in _Texas. '8 i’ l a a - ‘ a _ " i (Mi-écotililanéens‘ l w; - 4 ,,__¢_>__ . ,._ ‘Heglari-"wasi first “a grown 4at? the "Chilliicothe" Station in 1908, from, seed imported from the Sudan region of Africa by the Ofiice of TForage (Jrops. a The‘ plants of this “variety ordinarily“ (grow tojfa" g height of 3 to 5 feet i (Fig. 11). < Diameter of- stalk‘, "varies considerably, depending upon the i season and the 'locali'ty'-g"rown,7_but ordinarily_ the stems a are’ coarse. The variety tillers profusely and" has numerous," ‘large leaves. The heads are erect and. the seeds are ‘chalky-white with a brown undercoat. The variety is eratic in its "behavior from‘ year to year and from one section of ,the State“ to another. At the time of ldistribution of the crop, Hegari was considered to be‘ an o. early variety ‘but it is now known to ‘be late or early, depending upon conditions. At Chillicothe, it is one of the latest 20 BULLETIN NO. 459. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION varieties grown; at Lubbock it is ordinarily earlier than Standard Black- hul kafir, while at Beeville, Hegari is known as an early variety. Chiltex is a dwarf, early, straight-headed variety having chalky-white seed with a brown undercoat. The variety has few leaves, usually 8 to 10, and grows to a height of 3 to 4 feet. This variety is a selection from a feterita-Blackhul kafir hybrid resulting from breeding work undertaken at the Chilli- cothe Station by H. N. Vinall, of the Division of Forage Crops and Diseases, United States De- partment of Agriculture. Chil- tex was increased and distribut- ed to farmers in 1923. Darso was distributed by the Oklahoma Experiment Station in 1914 and is apparently a hy- brid between sorgo and kafir. The variety is dwarf, 3 to 4 feet, has numerous leaves, juicy stalk, and the plants sucker but little (Fig. 13). The heads are long and loose and the seeds are reddish-brown and have a bitter taste because of high tan- nin content. This variety has Fig. 10. Typical plants of Spur feterita (left) and been grown in Texas since 1916 2.122‘... ‘aria? .s:;g‘:,2>...%%::1z22‘. zzptzzssza: and is of most importance in Standard variety originally grown. ‘ the eastern part of the State. Schrock is a selection from a "hybrid which was of unknown parentage, but which was probably kafir and some sorgo. The selection was made by Roy Schrock, of Enid, Oklahoma, in 1912. The variety grows 8 to 5 feet tall, suckers moderately, is medium late, straight-headed, and brown-seeded (Fig. 12); and like Darso, the seeds are bitter, on ac- count of their high tannin content. The name of Sagrain has been given to a selection from Schrock, which is practically identical with the parent variety. Schrock is characterized also by having a waxy endosperm, the starch reserve staining red with iodine, whereas the non-waxy starch in the endosperm of other common varieties stains blue. Sagrain seed also have a waxy endosperm. Premo originated at the same time as Chiltex and was selected from the same feterita-kafir hybrid. The variety is about the same in length of growing season as the earlier kafirs. It has numerous leaves and suckers moderately. The heads are large and erect with poor exsertion. The seeds are chalky-white with a brown undercoat. GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS 21 Shallu was introduced from India in the early 1890’s, was first grown in Louisiana, and from there spread west into Texas. It has never assumed much importance in this State. It is late in maturity and grows to a height of 5 to 7 feet. The variety tillers freely and there is a tendency for the stalks to lodge and also for the seed to shatter badly at maturity. The heads are loose and the seeds are cream-colored. Freed has white seed and slender, sweet, and juicy stalks, which grow to a height of 5 to 6 feet and have 8 to 10 leaves. It is not grown to any extent in Texas. Fig. 11. Hegari, originally introduced and selected at the Chillicothe Station, produces a heavy yield of grain and forage under good conditions. This variety is more dependable in South and Central Texas. Fargo was discovered growing in Northwest Oklahoma in 1921. It is likely that this variety is one of several selections from a milo-kafir hybrid that were distributed by Mr. H. Willets Smith of Garden City, Kansas, about 1912. The variety is late, grows 5 to 7 feet tall, has a coarse stalk, and has seed the color of Yellow milo. OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIETIES Measurements and observations of plant characters have been made on varieties at Lubock in most years during the conduct of the variety ex- periments. All of the measurements and observations shown in the table were not recorded each year but, as indicated below, the averages for the various plant characteristics, in most cases. cover a period of 16 22 A BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION to -15 years. To determine exactly the number of observations that make up any given average figure ‘in Table 2 it is only necessary to note from Table 4 in which years the variety was grown and in which years measurements were taken on the various characters. Fig. 12. Showing the growth habit of Schrock, a good forage- and grain-producing variety for the humid region of eastern Texas. Data on length of period from planting to full boot were taken from 1917 to 1931, inclusive; observations on days from planting to, maturity were made from 1915 to 1931, inclusive, excepting 1917; measurements on; height of plant were made from 1916 to 1931, inclusive; diameter of stalk wasmeasured from 1918 to 1931, inclusive, excepting 1920; head ex- sertion was measured ‘from 1922 M to 1931, inclusive; number of leaves per stalk were, counted in 1915, 1918,1919, 192V1,iand 1922; number of. stalks toiplant‘ was counted from 1922 to 1931, inclusive; threshing percentages were calculated; from 1916 to 1931, inclusive, excepting 1926; and test weights were taken in 1920, 1922, 1924, 1925, and 192s to 1931, inclusive. A summary of these measurements and observations is recorded in Table 2 and the averages show the typical behavior, habit of growth, andhother plant characters for the various varieties. Most of these characteristics “have been mentioned in the previous description of vari- eties but records of the threshing percentage and the test weight, per bushel were not discussedgthere. 23 GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS Hm P». N: .. wd z ................. -..i----.-.---. ....... 353w v2: HH.“ M.“ H..N NH N N.H N . HNMHHMHHJHMMMH 1.--- Hafim HH_ 3 s H: H. M N». =55 as NH . NN H.H H.H NH H..H. F? J - vHuoHHHQm NNNH H.N. H.N NH NH H ME NN r!§-...- NNNN mm NH. m4 ma w .N N N.Ni..:.-:..:-:-.N-....----.il.--..:-N 05mph cmww NH. H N H.N NH H..HNN .4 ........... -.N.-|NN.».=N-N ....... iNiN HaHHHHHo NNNH. H N: N N éHNHHNHHHHH a. K m4 T m PT HUM H53 NH. H. N H.H NH .. H..HH 5.5.6 HNNH HHNN. N N Nwnfizw wmmfi . N . . N N N H . H. M M“ NH H. H..H. N23 HNNN mm S. HQ HA w PH wil l1||1|i|w.1.wi.-. ----~:| $33G mwmm H.N NN NH NH N. N.H . N . . . . . | . . . . 1 . | .. 25m NNNN NH N H. H ............................... .- qwuwnwwm N£H mm H.H H H..H N H}in.-.ézk....-......-z-.... 8E NNNN H.N H.N N.H H.H NH. H..H N N . NH-.H..u...“anmfinwnzwhHfim NHGHH NNNN N H.N H N N.H NH NI H..H N. N H.N H.NH H.H. N N ...... -. :!.--:N;.....-U~w-..m~mm-~w.Mcrm 3 NH. NN N.H H.HN N N.H NH. HNH H.N ...... M ...... i ........................ -. Ham H... N». H.N H.H H. H..H H.N NH.H NN H.N N ....................................... -- N 88H HNNH. NH. H.N N.H NH ml N.H NN NH.HN H.N N, .. -.»- .......... -- HEHBHHHNHN H.NH.H NH. NN . HH N HHH E N. NHH NN N .... - wwwhiH . . . . . .. 32.5w NNNH NH. H. N N.H HNH N N.H H.N NNHH; H.N ..N.Eu..H.H.HN.H-HHH-.H-HH ............ .. =25 NNH. H.N H.N .NNN.H HH N H. H..H MHH N N HNHNHN N H.N _N.».. .1 HHHHHHHBNHm 3N8. NNHH. H.N N H.N N . NH .. . H.N NNH. NN NHH H.N N 45!, ......... ..N .......... .N..N HHHHHvHoaHm NNNH H.N NN N.H H: N N H..H NHHNN N NN NHHN N NN Nw §H|,H-.Nw..w». ........... ..N HEHHHQNHHH .5 HNH. H.N NN N.H H.H NN H..N N 3 NNHN . NH. é m». HHEvHoHN-m Hm wHww NN. H.N N NN.H NH N N H..H NHfiN N. NNNNH . H.N s5 .................... .- NHH HHHHEHEHM NN NNH.H. N H H.H N! N H. N N B. N N NN HNH N. HHH. ............................. NN HHHHHHHoHNHmH NHNH. . » N N u mm . MM H.N N.H H.NH N H.N NHH N... N HH.H N NH. ................. -. QHHHHB NHHNNH H.NH.H H.N WNH. H.N H N m.H H.N HH.H NH. NN ii-..-.N.... BoHHoW HHNBHH wHHHHHoQ N NwNNw H.N N» H..H NH H. N H..H H.N . H.H..H NH. . amzw ....... --H..N.z. 82B NSBHH H.H.NN H.N H.N H..H NH H. .N NH..H H.N N N NN N 3H . NH. N. l .... AMW ..... ...Bo=8w HHEE H.NH. Hm NN N.H NH N N N H..H N... N N NH.H .. NH. ..-.§.. - .-al...ai.....N. QHHHHB Hm 3H: N H NH N H. H. H NH NH: NH. N 122%.:...-..-.»z..i-.. B2?» am . NNH. H .. . 3:2 w m5 QGHHS HHHBH. m0 mwiofim N hum . N H Fan. QHHaHHw 356A mo HHHHoHHH uoH-QENHQ JHEHHH £535 , N wwHNHHHoQ ex. mi N aw 2H mo NN . N352» dz HEmHwB HHNQHHHH. 28 HH 5H H. N . EH. N uHHmHwfl N H.NNNHHHH=NHHHNNN N . NN .m ..H. 3w? H N NH Z hvmhfiuds a4 Eonu 93w mo dz N. NN N . N. N NN . H» HJNmHQB umoa mo UCN “NH-awe nuq Nufismuufi- mo Handadwm £13m we Ufld moEwoH no nonEHHHH Nuo uHnQmHiNwNENuN HHoHH-Hwmxu flaws wQNNHwHHHHHWHHMHVfiHNwNmN Hwmwwwfiwww mo “ESQ mo NHHHHMHQ: mo HHSHHHSNHHH 3.. HE.» poop =3 o..- mauw, we HoHHHNHH-HNN, HO $Mduo>4 dumwomuwHr HEHHAmwom GMGHN uo wuouowuwsu $53M. d visa. 24 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Threshing Percentage During the years of the experiments at Lubbock, 348 thresh- ing percentages have been computed involving 35 varieties. The average threshing percentage of the 348 tests was 72.1. The aver- age shelling percentage for all milos was 72.5, and was 73.0 for the kafirs. These threshing percentages should be quite representative of what may be expected of the grain sorghum varieties and apparently the different groups or varieties do not differ much in shelling percentage. The milos, kafirs, feteritas, and varieties included in the miscellaneous group, each average close to 72 per cent of grain to the head. There is considerable variation, however, from year to year, depending upon how favorable the season is to grain production, filling of the heads, and maturity. In 1917, an unfavorable year, for instance, the average shel- ling percentage for all varieties was 62, while in 1921 it was 80. Vari- eties in these tests have threshed as low as 50 per cent grain in some years and as high as 85 per cent grain in others. A threshing percent- age of 72 can be considered about the normal average for grain sorghums. Threshing percentages at Chillicothe have been about 5 per cent below those at Lubbock during the past 8 years. During three years of these eight, however, the percentages have been unusually low at Chillicothe due to drought conditions that reduced the size of the grain while head size was not greatly reduced. Test Weight per Bushel A total of 126 records on test weight per bushel was obtained at Lubbock over a period of eight years and included records on 35 vari- eties. The average test weight for all varieties was 55.3 pounds. For the milos it was 55.7 pounds; for the kafirs, 56.4 pounds; and for the feteritas, 53.8 pounds. At Chillicothe the average of 114 records on 15 varieties, over an eight-year period, has been exactly 56 pounds per bushel. Variation in test weight per bushel depends largely upon the completeness of threshing from the glumes. The test weight is likely to vary from 52 to 59 pounds, but when threshed clean the seed will usually weigh close to 56 pounds to the bushel. Percentage of Grain in Forage It is important in the feeding of livestock to know the amount of grain contained in the forage. In Table 3 is a summary of the percentage of grain in the forage of grain sorghum varieties at Chilicothe during the years 1924 to 1931, inclusive. The average figures shown for the milos are not reliable, since milo has been severely damaged by chinch bugs in each year for which results are given except 1924 and 1931. Ordinarily about 40 per cent of milo forage is grain. The percentage of grain in the kafirs varies from 25.3 to 31.6 and average 28.1. Spur feterita forage averages about 28 per cent grain. There is about 4 per cent more grain in Dwarf than in Spur feterita forage because of the much smaller stover production of the former variety. Chiltex and Darso have relatively high grain ratios be- cause of their high grain production and relatively low stover production. GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS 25 Hegari has the lowest grain percentage of any of the 15 varieties shown because of its very high stover production and its low yield of grain since 1928. ' At Lubbock, records on percentage of grain to total plant in 1928 and 1929 show the following percentages: milo, 35.0; Blackhul kafirs, 28.5; and feteritas, 29.5. The percentage of grain to total plant for Double Dwarf Yellow milo, for the same two years, is 45.4. Dwarf varieties and early varieties, in general, produce a higher percentage of grain to total plant than the taller or the later varieties. Table 3. Percentage of grain in the forage of grain sorghum varieties at Chillicothe, 1924—-31. Percentage of grain in total plant T- S- Variety NO- 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Average Milo: 43 Dwarf Yellow ._-.._...--. 41.6 21.8 34.2 29.3 19.9 18.1 21.6 28.9 26.9 4061 xDwgarf White ..........._ 43.0 22.9 31.2 22.7 13.3 20.0 16.7 30.5 25.0 a 1r: 9195 Texag Blackhul _,____..._ ...____. --..._._ .... _... 30.7 26.8 27.8 10.1 31.9 25.5 3295 Early Pink ____..._-.-..-... ........ 31.5 38.4 32.1 29.5 28.1 17.3 32.3 29.9 17485 Early Red ______________ __ 39.2 32.0 34.1 32.8 31.0 27.0 22.9 33.7 31.6 6022 Blackhul 153 32.3 ‘30-8 31.7 31.5 24.5 25-2 2.5 24.2 25-3 6824 ___________,____.____________ 39.2 28.1 33.9 32.3 31 0 24.0 11.2 28.4 28.5 1 1927 Blgckhul 32.7 31.9 34.8 33 7 26 0 24 9 8.3 29.8 27.8 Feterita: 3232 Spur 36.7} 31.6 33.7 33.1 22.7 30.3 7.5 23-5 28-0 5985 Dwarf ...................... -_ 38.5 31 2 34.2 35-3 25 6 31 7 25-1 33-5 31-9 Miscellaneous: y 2897 Darso . 41.4 33 7 34.0 36.2 31 2 29.7 29.0 37.9 34.1 6820 Premo 38.8 300 36.6 31.9 32 0 22.6 13.6 32.5 29.8 6823 Chiltex 48.8 29 6 41.5 42.1 32 9 26.6 22.0 38.5 35.3 1942 Hegari 26.3 262 28.5 24.7 16 8 9.3 2.5 13.9 18.5 8967 Fargo 36.3 23 6 39.3 24.6 19 5 12.8 8.3 23-5 23-5 YIELDS OF GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES Results at Lubbock _, Substation No. 8 is located three miles east of Lubbock in the High Plains Region of Texas and near the center of what is known as the South Plains. The altitude is 3106 feet above sea-level. The average rainfall over a period of 21 years is 19.23 inches, 82 per cent of which falls between the months of April and October, inclusive. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first in the fall are April 9 and November 2, respectively. The optimum date of plant- ing sorghums in this section is from May 15 to June 15, and when planted at that time sorghums mature between the middle of August and the first of October, depending upon the variety and seasonal conditions. The soils on this Station are fine sandy loams of the Amarillo and Richfield series and are typical of much of the South Plains. Insects have not been particularly destructive to sorghums at Lubock; however the corn ear worm (Heliothis obsoleta) occasionally does some damage to compact-headed varieties. Kernel smut may be destructive if disease-infected seed are used but infection in the field rarely occurs. The disease is easily prevented by the use of copper carbonate or Ceresan at the rate of 2 to 3 ounces to the bushel of seed. In computing the average percentage rating and comparable yields ‘26 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in Table 4, Dwarf Yellow milo, Standard White milo, Standard Yellow milo, ~Pink kafir, ‘Dawni kafir, Red kafir, and. Standard feterita were used as standard, or check, varieties. Yields are shown for the year 1912 but the results 0f this year were not used in obtaining any of the averages. It is, evident from the results obtained with 35 varieties which have been grown for three or more years during the period 1912 to 1931, in- elusive, (Table 4) that it is important to grow adapted varieties. Com- parable yields of varieties in the milo group varied from 24.9 to 30.8 bushels, and in the kafir group they varied from 20.5 to 32.0 bushels. Less variation occurred in grain yield among the feterita varieties than rin. any of the other groups. (There was no significant difference in‘ yields of Dwarf Yellow, Dwarf White, Standard Yellow, and Standard White varieties of milo. '_ Double Dwarf Yellow has yielded below the other varieties mentioned and the difference of 2 to 3 bushels is probably a real one. Early White milo matures in too short a time to take full advantage of favorable conditions in good years and consequently has produced less than the regulai-fmilos. p I , ~ - _Texas_' ‘Blfldkliuli is the most valuable variety of. kafir for grain and forage? production (Fig. 7);. Sunrise ~kafir= is a good forage variety. The remaining kafir varieties are not ._as well adapted or have nothing in particular-to recommend them overI-"Tezfas. Blackhul, Dawn, Reed, and Sunrise. ,-:Dawn, or Dwarf kafir, which has gbeen an important variety in this region} for; inany; "years because it is l-certain of production injilry years than Jmany of, the kafirs, hascojnsistently yielded less than Texas Blackhulfand the latter-variety isi~replaeing~itwto a- marked-degree. ' Standard feterita has yielded-e-29.4 bushels and~thee yields of Spur and Dwarf are, respectively, '27.'7"_and 27.2 bushels. Standard feterita is early in maturity and is reliable in dry years as is evidenced by its -.h_igher"yields. in 1922, 1924, and" 1929. Spur feterita is a heavier pro- zducer of. forage butis not as reliableiasa grain producer‘ in dry years. iDwarfffeterita is early, certain of? production, and" valuable. for late planting. tTheikaoliangs are not desirable underthe conditions here, as they ‘are tpooriforage varietiespare notvheavy grain producers, and lodge badly. jShallu: has produced more grain than any other variety in the trials eatIiubbockylargely on account ofunusually high yields in a few years, but this’ variety has several characteristics that make it undesirable. Theseed shatter badly at maturity, thestalks lodge, and the plants grow too tall for easyharvesting. a ' l a a ‘ a The grain yield of Chiltei: has been 26 per cent above that of the standard varieties. It is strictly a grain-producing variety and is re- ‘xanemoq ‘s; qagqm ‘afiexo; go splapi MOI SGOIIPOJd qnq ‘suoseas Kip u; alqeq of excellent qualityp Premo has produced 16 per cent better than the standard varieties and is aifair forage variety. Darso has been above the average of the standard varieties in production but there is nothing in particular to recommed it for general planting under conditions at Lubbock, particularly as the seeds of this variety are not palatable to livestock. Saomflfi» N..§:§m. 27 GRAIN SORGHUMlVARIETIES IN TEXAS . @.MN . . . . . . . .2... xi... . 2... . NNNN mm NmN NsNm ...._.. NNN zfiam NNNN MAM wdm ...:. ...:. ...... ....... .5... :.... ..:... fivm cdv. .:.... “W: . fl. . a . o . . 0 . . .. . . . .3... NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN MN... NN .N....N.N NNN Q€N I O I l 0 0 c I . nnnlaa Illnll: an‘!!! n-ncun NN NN NN NN NN NN .. NNNN NN . . ...... .4... ...... ...... . . .... . . . N . NNN NNN N2. N NN. . NNN NNN. .:=..=N.m._mu_wNN _ NNNN N. N ZN . i- . . z... i... . NNN z..- ....- i- NNN ....- i. i. - .......N.._. . ©.G .5... ...... 2.... 2.... .... .. . . .2... 2.... ...... N hm N .. N NN. . N mm _ wmmfi . ©. . . . .. . n 2.... 8.... .. .. o n EN 3N NNN ZN i- i- ..N$Ba NNNN k3 R5 NNN N.NN WE NNN 9g N.NN NNN NN... N ....- NH...“ NNNN % %w NNN INN 3N NNN ZN NNN. 3N . NaN NNN N.» EN NA... .-.. ..N..m.%wNmNNmm Eww" . . ....l .2... 2.... l2! 3L! S»... a - n .. m . u .3... i2... o a . NNN 3N SN NNN EN N.NN 3N ==Em.._m aw _ . NNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _....NN Q NE ww. ..-..NN..._...N.._$ . mfifl . . . . . . . . . . . 8.... .:... ...... . . 3N NNN 3N WE 3N EN N.NN NNN 2: NNN ....- s... i- .._...u.m.__..w._m..wm EN NNN i... Nw... NwN N...N..N.. NNNN 5m w“. Nam N..N..N. . 2B5 NNN NQN 3N N.NN ...-. NNN .2: 3N NNN L. 5.. . = _._..._.._N NNNN NNN N.NN 3N NNN NNN NNN N.NN N.NN Q2 NNN N. . . . N imam Nm NNNN NNN. NNN SN NNN 3N N.NN NNN 3N NNN . .NN N.NN NMN .5. tEm N. RN» flaw NNN NNN NNN ZN Nd... .5... EN ....- z... ..NN..NNNNW NNNN N 3N NNN .EN QB 9mm 3N. NNN NNN .. hwwm . OEN w.mN ...... .2... .1... 5... .2... ..:.. ...... ........ u QNN New . . . . ...i .. .. ...... . was? NTNH £2 NNN EN New. N. N EN Nam NN. . . . ....- ww Nan 95m NNNN 2N N.NN 1N... N4... 1N. N.NN NNN. N.MN 3N. NNN NNN WNN NNN... . . ......wNEB Nbfin NNNN NNN N.NN NNN 3N N5. NNN N.NN NNN EN . N N. N N.NN N. N NNN NNN 18:3» mm NNN NNN N.NN NN... 3N N? NNN N.NN N.NN.N.NN T... “N ...N N.NN NNN NNN .323 N... N2: .. N. N NNN..NNN 3N SN .E.=£N twen EN 2N . . .. a5. A w. 1m w $3 NNNN NNNN NNNN NNN. NNNNN. NNNM R2 NNNN... 3.2 E: NNNN 2N. m2: N5 m. NN N.N.N N . . . . Pd m.u .0... P a . . . ... .._. N 2N qN... N . ; ,. . . _ . as...’ .62 MN a m m w. u. QmQQNQAN E 1.3» 5E0. w H. 9 . . n .. .. . h... .. ._. ...... . i. .. H. 471.33 ifizmwq ..~.w.._womw.wwuwv... Ewwmuow nwuww. f» .. . ......._._.........._.... 28 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Schrock, like Darso, has produced slightly more grain than the standard varieties but the seeds are high in tannin content and the variety is not desirable for general planting under the conditions here. There is no justification for growing Freed in Texas except where the rainfall is very low. The variety is extremely early and under usual conditions the yield is not as large as that of the better varieties. Hegari has made disappointing yields in the test at Lubbock and has produced 15.5 per cent less grain than the “standard,” or check, varieties. Hegari is notoriously erratic in its response to moisture conditions, and occasionally makes large yields, but in this test its yield was con- sistently below the check varieties in each of the 13 years it was grown except 1925 and 1928. This variety produces a large yield of stover. In the hands of farmers Hegari occasionally makes exceptionally good yields but when conditions are not exactly right for this variety it not infre- quently makes a complete failure in this region. Results at Chillicothe Substation No. 12 is located in the eastern part of Hardeman County, five and one-half miles southwest of Chillicothe. The altitude is 1406 feet above sea-level. The average annual rainfall over a period of 26 years is 25.33 inches, of which 79 per cent falls between the months of April and October, inclusive. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first in the fall are March 25 and November 8, respectively. The soils in this, the Rolling Plains region, have been de- veloped from the Red Beds formations and on the Station farm are fine sandy loams, loams, and clay loams. The range of the optimum planting period at Chillicothe is longer than that at most of the other western Stations, due to the difference in alti- tude,the greater variability in growing conditions from year to year, and the heavier type of soil at Chillicothe. Planting may be done at any time between April 15 and June 15 with reasonable assurance of success. Milo, however, should not be planted between May 10 and June 10 on heavy types of soil in this section. Chinch bugs, with perhaps an associ- ated plant disease, have consistently reduced yields of milo in May 15 and June 1 plantings since 1925 except 1931. The extent of the damage has varied from year to year, but in several instances complete failure has resulted. Plants are usually attacked in June when only a few inches high. The bud frequently rots, and suckers and side branches develop, which are in turn attacked, producing a dwarf bunch-like appearance of the plants and results in a crop failure (Fig. 9). It has been observed that early plantings made in April and late plantings made after about June 10 escape this damage almost entirely. Also, damage has been severe on clay loam or heavier types of soil and less severe on sandy types. As long as the loss from this cause exists, milo should not be planted on heavy soils during the period from May 10 to June 10 in this section of the State if chinch bugs are prevalent. The sorghum midge has, on rare occasions, been present but the damage has never been GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS 29 appreciable. Corn ear worms are present in many of the maturing heads each year but no measure of the damage done is available. The heads of erect-headed varieties that have a compact base sometimes be- come moldy and dirty inside on acount of the collection of excrement. Heads with a loose base are not subject to this damage. Clean seed must be used to prevent damage from kernel smut, and if this precaution is taken, infection rarely occurs. Red spot is present every year and occasionally, in wet seasons, damages the forage to some extent. Blackhul kafir (T. S. No. 1927), Spur feterita, and Hegari were used as the standard or check varieties at Chillicothe. Dwarf Yellow milo was not used, because of the insect and disease damage suffered by that variety in recent years. Spur feterita was not grown until 1919 and prior to that time the yields shown for that variety are those of Standard feterita, T. S. No. 1652. Most common varieties of grain sorghum are adapted to conditions at Chillicothe (Tables 5 and 6). During recent years, since milo has been damaged by chinch bugs, the kafirs have been producing the highest yields. The feteritas have produced consistently but have failed to take full advantage of favorable seasons and the average yields are below those of the best kafir varieties. The percentage rating of Early White milo is higher than that of Dwarf Yellow milo but Early White milo has not been grown since damage from chinch bugs has been encountered. It is susceptible to chinch bug attacks also, and had it been grown, its percentage rating would probably have been lowered. Texas Blackhul, Blackhul 153, Early Pink, Early Red, and Reed kafir have all made good grain yields at Chillicothe, and each has a percentage rating of at least 12 per cent above that of the standard varieties. Of these five varieties, Blackhul 153 has produced the most forage (Fig. 8), followed by Texas Blackhul, Reed, and Early Pink, in the order named. From the standpoint of both grain and stover, Blackhul 153 and Texas Blackhul are probably the most valuable varieties. Feterita 811 has the best percentage rating among the feterita varieties, but it is not certain that its apparent production above that of Spur feterita is real. Feterita 811 produces forage of excellent quality but somewhat less than the Spur variety. Spur feterita has an average per- centage rating about 8 per cent higher than that of Dwarf feterita. This difference is significant but the Dwarf variety will produce a grain crop under extremely adverse moisture conditions when Spur will fail to do so. The forage production rating of the Dwarf variety is 11 per cent below that of Spur. The kaoliangs have nothing to recommend them at Chillicothe. All are very poor forage varieties from the standpoint of both yield and quality. Darso has consistently produced good yields of grain. This would be a most valuable variety at Chillicothe were it not for the high tannin content of the seed. The forage production of this variety has not been high but the quality of the stover is good. Q AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ' so BULLETIN NO. V459,. TEX-A $pow~d> wnnwcwum... ._Is_....»£°u:==o as 8$wtw> .9.5Au.€m r395 Mo 3303M 6 2.3a .. , E3 Evw E3 a . E3 ...... En ES ..............mmmm vmzm _ a. .3.» Q3 E3 w E3 Ehv ...... .. @353 $3 E3 E3 E3 . 3 E3 E3 ES o Ewwwm ~v3 E3 E23 E3 w E3 w.vv ...... .. “$330 _ 33 E3 ESS E3 w ES» 3v ...... ...... .. 082m 3ww E3 EvS E3< . . v v.3 v.» w.w x823 33 E3 E33 E3 . 3 E3 E3 3v 3 ES . ompsfi $3 Eva 3a E3 w E3 ....... ...... ...... .w... i... ES w.w~ EvS E3 v E3 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ..... Ew E3 E3 Eva E3 w E3 E3 ES E3 E3 E3 E3 E3 Eww :2. ...... ...... 1.... i; ...... ...... E3 E33 E3 3 E3 Q8 Ev E3 E3 i... E5 E3 Ewv E3 Ev E3 ..!. wdw E33 v.3 w E3 ...... m.» E3 E3 Sw Sifiwm 2.3 “afihfioh E3 Evw E3 m 3.3 A... Wm. ..... ...... =2. ....... ...... I... E Em o Eww Em 3. E3 3w E3 m E3 w... L... ..... E3 E3 E3 Ew v.v w.3 3... ..... 0.25m 33 E3 Eww E3 w E3 ...» .. ...... ...... Ew E3 1531;? 33 E3 E3 Eva S E3 ...... i... v.3 E3 w...» E3 c § c Ewv aim mv Eva Ewm E3 3 Eva v.3 3f E3 E3 E3. E3 E3 Em Ev w.3 3v .. fiflcssm 33 E3 ENS , E3 w 3» wdw E» E5 .. .. . ...... ...... 2am 5a E3 ENS w.3 S 2... E3 3 . S” E3 ....... ...... ...... ...... m3 3.1.35 33 E3 v.33 E3 3 E3 E3 E3 E3 . E3 ....... ...... ...... 36M 2.3m $5 E3 EwS E3 ~. E3 E8 Ea m3» E3 ...... .1... ...... ...... i... ........ “E5 3.3M ma» 2a E33 E3 m. E3 E8 m6 E3 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...i 3.20am “WWW 3a E3 ER E3 3 E3 w? m.» E3 E3 Ev E3 E3 3.... E3 E3 3 Ew E3 ...... ...... .. 0.33.3. “HQBQ S3. E3 R3 3N3 3. P3 mm- E3 E3 Ewv E3 E3 ES“ Evw v.3 Ew 3. E3 wdw E3 .. 302w? MEQBQ wv Q-MN G W © v . :2: :1: 2.... 2.... 2:: 121 .3... O-w l: . 4.5 V $3 33 33 33 33 33 33 v33 33 33. 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 :2 A5 ME woion N A . . . _ .32.» Emu owa 05cm new 3 .0 n 0.3a écoupwm momawmaw> M w . . _ mwomfifiw dz 1S3 _z%=2w MM .a . _ . . .w d. 150D u m u. wnuw .33. o» 20:25 a“. 32> E20 n . W . _ _ wwauo>< , 31 mawmpfl, wwawcuaw... _ N. TEXAS ~GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES I m Adm. Ham. .5 am“... ma; _........._. dam mm wwwww A“? xxd w.adA awd wA aAd 3» aad awA Aw». wA.A EA. afiwwm dvaA a. raw w» m H... i“ H H H“ “H. an“ “Nmwmw Add. a.aa add v v ...:. . .. ...... aAflA Aw.A waA wwd .. A823 _ wdaA add Ya» aad aA AAd s.“ 3A aA.d aaA i.” and aad wwd 8d aaA 3A aad awA da. adA adA oPAwQ 5a , oo-AaAAoonAuA aad vdw “Ad a ahA wad waA wdd awA SA aaA ...i . Q till: .102:- nu-I- uuan: 1:: 1:.- .I.IIII .3»: 'll.'l 1::- uiuo- :1:- IIIICI §§n aad_ dd», AAd. w wdd add waA wwd A3 aad ...... awaa 3d. 3w awd wA 2;. wad wa.A dad aaA aad dAd m5 aad r2 SA aAA 5A 5d ma” aad, adw dad a add ...... . .. . . .... .. Add aaA aA.A AmA dad m3. ...... JAAw wamhfifi 3% . . , . “afiuouoh .v awd AdaA Rd a Rd ...2 w... ...... daA aaA. AEM aA. aad dda wad a aad i... 8d aAd x2 .... maria 2a.. . 5d Adw aad a Awd ...... . . afiwaa? adaA aad ada add AA aad ...... ...... ...... aAd aad, 3A aim ma. Wm aw NAM m“ am “a Mm mm Mm mm ha. zawa “a dad adaA Aad AA wad Add waA Aaé Aad wwd a3 ....,.. .,..... aaA AAEWAQQAQ £3 dad mAw, wad aA ml and 23 aad Add aad ABM 2.8m as: aad wda wad h . awd Ed 5A 3d x3 Awd S... ..:..: “Aim Eawfi wada awd d.wa awd a awd awd EA _wd.a 3m ...... 4.... . A=A§Q£m_ aaAa aaA a.wa aad dwA 2d da. had 5A aAA .4... 33>? wHmBQ A2: Aad aAw awd wA a...“ wad aaA add vadA aaA aad 3A. .. B23» $53G a. AaA ada dad a dwA 8A AdA 5N aad 2m. mafia? adaA 38 V AaaA aaaA adaA wdaA hdaA adaA £2 $2 wdaA ddaA AdaA adaA aAaA w._AaA.>AaA 92 aAaA B: , a a . was» ME Avomnvfi N m , . . a , .23» , AAcn own v8.3 now 3 .0 m . . , 2&6 éflouuwm mfipownwa» m A 3 mafia?» .02 :55 H .3 =3 m. .9 . . . . . -500; A. A. w u% m» V915 on» o» 25A E wAwTA. owwuonw _ m. H. V omuuu>< m , . . .., J . .1 w 415 gfifiio 3 832:; sinned 59%.”... wawmhvwmhaw .,a,_....,Ew.A. a . . a \.. i _ A: .. > 32 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Schrock was grown for only four years and during that time the production was no better than that of adapted kafir varieties. Consider- ing the fact that the seed of this variety are bitter, the variety is not recommended for planting here. Chiltex and Premo have both been above the standard varieties in grain production. The results in this test do not indicate the fact, but Chiltex has been found to be particularly adapted to growing on deep sandy land. Hegari has produced more forage than any other variety in the test at Chillicothe. The grain yields are good also in favorable seasons (Fig. 11). This variety has a place in this section as a bundle feed to be planted on land that usually is not subject to severe droughts. Fargo is capable of producing good yields of grain and forage under favorable conditions but there is nothing in particular to recommend the variety for general planting. Freed, on account of its early maturity, is capable of producing con- sistent yields. The production is never large, however, and the variety is not recommended for general planting. Results at Spur Substation No. 7 is located in Dickens County one mile west of Spur. Spur is in the Rolling Plains Region, being 14 miles east of the Cap Rock escarpment, which divides the Low from the High Plains. The elevation is 2274 feet above sea-level. The average annual rainfall for a period of 21 years is 21.17 inches, 82 per cent of which falls during the growing season of summer crops. The average dates of the last kiling frost in the spring and the first in the fall are April 2 and November 3, respectively. Abilene and Miles clay loams, two representative soils of the Rolling Plains Region, comprise soil types of the Station land. The optimum time of planting sorghums at Spur is about May 15 but they may be planted with success during the period of May 1 to June 15. No insects are destructive to sorghums at Spur except the corn ear worm, which, in wet seasons, may cause considerable damage to yield and quality, particularly among the varieties with compact heads. No diseases other than red spot and kernel smut are present. The former does little damage and the latter is readily controlled. Dwarf Yellow milo and feterita were used as standard, or check, varie- ties. Spur feterita was not grown until 1919 and prior to that time the yield of Standard feterita was used in its place. Milo has produced the highest yield of grain over a long period and there is probably no significant difference in yield between Standard Yel- low, Dwarf Yellow and Standard White (Table 7). The kafirs are not so well adapted to conditions on tight land at Spur so far as grain yields are concerned, but they are among the best sor- ghums for bundle feed. Texas Blackhul is better adapted than the Stan- dard kafirs. v Spur feterita has produced more grain than Standard feterita, the dif- ference in the percentage rating of the two being about 10 per cent. 83 GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS 5.8 Slvz: c3: fimuocwu wuuccwcw Scomnfiw c~mc53w¢ vdS 9cc 9vm 3 9S c c 9S» c v.m v.c 9m 9S 9vc 9cc 9S . twuwm mvcS 9mm 9cm 9cm c v.8 93 9S 9S 3N . .. . .i.. cmmc 9cm “é 9S 8 9S i: 9S 9cm 9mm 9v 9S 9mS v.2 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... 3cm 9cm 9ccS 9cm c 9mm 93 9c 93 9cm ...... ...... xwumzU mmwc 9vc .32 9mm c 9mm 9Q v.2 9cm 9cm ...... ...... ...... ...... i... 30% 33>? PQBQ vccc u nuoo-fia-oommcm c.cm v.2. 9vm mS 9S 93 w.» 93 9cm 9m 9S 9S m. SuBQ ma“ 9cm 9R 9cm c 93 ...... 9m 9cm ...i 5 9w v.2 i... 1.1:-.. . fiwvq Smmc vcm 9cm 9cm S 9cm ...... 9w 9S 93 S... mvc ...................w§.§:sw cv 9cm 9S 9vm 2 9vm 9c 9m 9vc 9cm 9c 9...; 9cm ..:5m mcmc "scion-uh 9S fix 9cm v 9S 9S ...... 9cm c ...... ...... 5i ...... c2 mmcc 9S 3x Ea m 9cm ...... ...... 95 c 5... ...... ...... ...... ...... . cv v.mm 9vw 9mm v 9mm ...... ...... cam c ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... . .5. cv c.vm 9mm 9cm c v.3 9mS 9 9mm v.2 ...... ...... ...... i; ...... ...... ...... ...... .... Sufiiwfi mw-WcmWM £3 9mm 9mcS 9cm S 9cm ...... ...... ...... ...... c.c 3 9mS w; v.2 9S 9» 93 9mv 3x -................ mums? am cvcS 3N c.mcS 9cm 2 3N v.vm 9m 9cm 9S .2. 93 9S 9cm 9mv 9mm m.» ...... 305w? Swgfi chc 9mm $2 9cm w 3m ...... ...... ...... . . v.» v.» 9S 9S 9mv 9v» BoSSoMmw-wa N5 O . . V $2 $2 £2 E: cmcS £2 £2 23 mmcS E: .5: 2.: S3 22 S2 :2 K o ME 45 common N A Mm in» um.» uEum p3 8 .0 n mrd énwouwh mwmcorfi? m M muoia> .0 n vhwizsm MM .9 ma. mam. um q wand 2S 3 Ewfimwn 5 30?» E20 . m. n - om3o>< imam ad nvfiomuflr Esnuaom =35 mo 333% .» oSAdH. 34 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Spur feterita, which has replaced practically all other strains in Texas, is an especially good forage producer and is valuable for bundle feed. Leafy feterita is a high producer of forage. The Dwarf variety has produced a lower average yield of grain than Spur but has produced more than Spur in unfavorable years (Fig. 10). The production of Darso has been slightly below that of the standard varieties at Spur. During the five years it has been grown, Chiltex has produced more grain than milo or feterita and is apparently one of the best varieties for grain in this region. Its forage yield is low but it produces a high quality of bundle feed. The behavior of Premo at Spur does not recom- mend it but it does produce a good quality of forage. Hegari is unadapted to conditions on tight land at Spur. Only twice in the 14 years that it has been grown has Hegari produced more grain than the standard varieties. This variety occasionally makes an excel- lent yield of forage and rarely fails to do so on sub-irrigated land. It is not dependable for grain on the tight soils _of this region, and Spur feterita, Texas Blackhul kafir, Chiltex, and Sumac sorgu are more cer- tain of production and more satisfactory as crops for forage and for binding and feeding in the bundle. Results ‘ at Big Spring The Big Spring Field Station, of the Division of Dry-Land Agriculture, U. S. Department of Agriculture, is located one-half mile north of Big Spring, _ Howard County, in the South Plains Region at the southern edge of the High Plains. The altitude is 2400 feet above sea-level. The average annual rainfall over a period of 16 years is 18.61 inches, 80 per cent of which falls during the months of April through October. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first in the fall are March 30 and November 2, respectively. The principal soil type is Amarillo fine sandv loam. . . ‘ j 7 The month of June is the optimum time of planting sorghum at Big Spring. Insect pests and plant diseases are‘ ‘not troublesome. Dwarf Yellow milo, Dawn kafir, and Standard feterita were used as standard, or check, varieties. H a . The differences in yield among the milo varieties are probably not significant in spite of the apparently poor production of Standard White milo (Table 8). f g g Reed kafir and Standard Blackhul are the outstanding kafir varieties at Big Spring and there is a tendency for the late varieties to produce the best yields. A period of low rainfall during July and August has occurred more frequently at Big Spring than at other Stations. This fact has been an advantage to late varieties that have not headed until more favorable conditions have prevailed in the early fall. Spur feterita has been the outstanding feterita variety at Big Spring but the yields are not much above those of the Dwarf variety. 85 GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS hvovuw.’ viavucwvm... Qvv v.3 v.3 vv v.2 o Q3 Q3 vhwwwm 3.3 Q3 Q3 Q3 m Qvv Qa v.3 3 3.8.5 33 v.3 Q5 Q5 v Q3 v.” Q3 v.5 nafivm 2.2mm v33 v.5 v.5 Q5 v v.2 Qm Q3 Qvv Z. E$_-¢=s-.§sw 33v Q3 Q3 Q3 m Q3 Q3 Q3 Qvv . ...; .5953 33 Q3 v.3 Q3 m Q3 Qv Qcw Qvv . ......... .. v6 Qw Q52» 33 Q3 Q3 Q3 vv v.5 .. .. . Qvv . ...... .596 mnfi Q3 v.3 Q3 m Q3 Qv Q3 Q5 A . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ...... Qosmvmv 33v v.3 v.v3 Q3 m v.3 w: Q3 Qvv ...... .... .. .5220 33 Q3 Q33 v.3 3 v.3 w: Q3 v.vv Q3 v.3 Q3 .. v.26 33 Q3 Qmev v.3 vv Q3 v.5 v.3 Q3 Q3 v.3 v6 . “$2.2m 33 Q3 “nncouuvvoumvvvv Qvv v.3 Q3 v. Q3 ...... ...... Qm .... .. usoem EEQE :8. v.3 Q3 v.3 w Q3 ...... Qvv m .... .. Evfidm 22: "uzavvoav: Q5 Qmw Q3 5 Q5 Q3 v.5 v.3 2 Q3 m3 Q3 Q3 ... ............ Lzwvpfim $3 Q3 Z2 v.3 a v.3 v.3 Q3 Q3 Qm v.3 m3 .m ........ .. 22.6 33 v.3 Qvov v.3 3 Q3 v.3 Q5 Q3 Qm Q3 v.3 Q3 .... .. 55w 33m . "uvvuovoh Q5 v.3 Q3 n v.3 Q3 v.3 ...... . ..... ...... .... .. ..............:........... .. v53 33v Q3 2a Q3 vv v.3 Q3 v.3 Q3 Q3 Q» v.3 v.5 Q3 c Q3 Q3. . 3m v83 Q3 v.3 Q3 m. v.5 Q3 v.vv .. .. ......... .. . . vziusm 35v. 38 Q3 Q3 Q3 vv Q3 Qvm Qvv v.3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q5 a Q3 v.3 .. v2.85 v33 Q3 Q3 Q3 m v.3 Q3 v.3 Q3 ...................... .. .. .. .... .. .. v.3 Qvov Q3 v Q3 Qvw v.3 o.3 v.3 v.3 Q3 v.3 .... i5 3.3M 33m Q3 v4.2 Q3 5 Q3 Q3 v.5 v.3 Q3 2. Q3 v.3 ¢ Qvv Qvv E55 3w Q3 Q3v Q3 3 v.3 v.2. v.3 v.3 v.3 v.» v.3 N...» o v.3 gficvusm vzfizivm 33v Q3 Qmmv v.3 3 Q3 Q¢v w: v.3 v.5 Q3 Q3 v.3 . ......... .. fie Q5 Q8 Q3 v v.3 ...... ...... v.3 .3» 3 a v.3 Q3 .... 03:3 vhszfim $3 Q3 v.v3 v.3 w Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Qvv v.3 v.3 Q3 v.3 .... .. .......... .. .......... @355 3x30 s2. v.3 N63 Q3 vv Q3 ...... ...... ...... v.3 v.vv Q5 v.vv v.5 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 v.“ o Q3 Q3 .... 3.58» vfivfisw 3w v.3 Qvvv Q3 5 v.3 Q3 .3. v.vv Q5 Q3 Q3 Q3 v.2 2» Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 o o Q3 v.3 ....... ..E.=@w twhwmv_3@ _ V $2 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 53 @3122 A5 m5 45 603mm N A _ .32.» -..-u» wmw v5.3 nov fin n 03a éiwopwnv mwvvovna.» o m 5¢€a> dZ 93a Ewvifim m.“ ‘a .2. 550 u m u. meow Eva o» mvmvvmnn av 22> nvwaw F aul. n... wwmnw>4 écvflvm Mvm aw $32.52’ Svvzvuuou 53w mo mvvvwvfi .m wvvvdH. 36 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Schrock, Darso, and Chiltex were the only miscellaneous varieties that produced more grain than the standard, or check, varieties. The first two are not recommended on account of the tannin content of the seed, and Chiltex has yielded somewhat less than the milos. None of the remaining varieties in this group apparently are as well adapted as milo, kafir, or feterita. Hegari has made very poor yields of grain at this Station. Results at Dalhart The Dalhart Field Station, of the Division of Dry-Land Agriculture, U. S. Department of Agriculture, is located in Hartley County in the northern Panhandle. The altitude is 3978 feet above sea-level. The average annual rainfall over a period of 26 years is 18.80 inches. The distribution of rainfall during the summer months has been more favorable than at any other western Station, 87 per cent of the total falling from April to October, inclusive. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first in the fall are April 23 and October 17, resepct- ively. Amarillo fine sandy loam predominates on this Station. There is, in this region, a rather definite optimum planting date for sorghums, which is about the first of June. Insects and plant diseases are not troublesome to sorghums at Dalhart. Dwarf Yellow milo, Dawn kafir, Sunrise kafir, and Standard feterita were used as standard varieties at Dalhart. Yields are shown for the years 1910 and 1911 but these yields did not enter into any of the averages. No data are available for the years 1913 to 1915, inclusive. The milos have been the outstanding varieties at Dalhart and Dwarf Yellow and Standard Yellow have produced better than the others (Table 9). Double Dwarf Yellow has produced less than Dwarf Yellow in each of the years in which they were both grown except 1930. This slight dif- ference in yield in favor of the Dwarf over the Double Dwarf variety is probably significant. Reed, Dawn, and Sunrise have been the outstanding kafir varieties at Dalhart. The differences of 1.2 bushels and 1.6 bushels between the yields of Reed and Dawn and Reed and Sunrise, respectively, are probably not significant. Standard feterita has been more consistent in producing good yields than the Dwarf or the Spur varieties. Among the varieties classed as miscellaneous, no variety was outstand- ing or produced as well as the standard varieties. Beaver has not produced as well as Dwarf Yellow milo. Hegari has been much less consistent in grain production than the standard varieties, and in two years, yields of 0 and 2.6 bushels were made when the poorest yield among the check varieties was 13.6 bushels. When planted near the end of the planting season, June 15-20, Hegari yields compare more favorably with those of the better varieties. Results at Iowa Park Substation No. 16 is located two and one-half miles southeast of Iowa 37 GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS Swamps.» wawwiwum... W3 fig S“ 3 v.3 ...£ ...... v.3 3; 3N WE c c szwsw $3 Q2 0...... 5.». v 9mm ...... w: Q3 .... .. v5.2 Q3 QC mam m ma“ ...... Q3 ...i ...i ...... 3N 3w Ba 3 Q3 Q8 w.“ v.3 c we. w? Ev ...... mam Qvw vvm m 3.3 mam Q2 “.8 E5 S..." v 2a Q3 .. .. ...... ...... 9mm 3w v.v_~... m m...” 3N EN ...mm.m..mmm...m... ocai h? 2a vvm m Em Q8 EN ...... ..... M82130 $3 u m-Socflimfimmva ...... .... .. ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... MHQBQ ucsgcmcm 303 ...... .... .. ...... ...... ...... wvm “.3 wdm ....... .. uwsufiwm 2E3 v.8 mdw “.3 v 0.3 ...... ...... ...... Q3 m. ................... cBohm ssucwfi >83 “Mcwfleuvm mam flow How 3 Qvu we» mdu v.vv v.5 Qdw mvw 3.3 mam W3 v.3 55m wmwm QE 3w 3.5 a 3N 3N ~25 v.8 Q2 2a v.5 v.8 3N 3» ...... Ewan 3%. 3N Q3 3a 3 3N 3N Q3 we. m6“ ".8 2a 3.5 2a 3N 2N m6 v6 . éwwuwww... $3 Q5 3.3 Emu 2 v.w ...... ...... ...... ...... a.» ma; Q3 9w c EN 3.3 9w .. .... 36m v83 Q3 3.3 mam 3 Q3 ...... ...... ...... i... Q8 QR “s 93 a 1.53am" 22:35 22: 2a QR Q3 S fimm 3N w; 3v v.3 u. Q3 2a 3N v.3 En o...» ............. VEE 3.5M m2» WE i: vvm m 3N v.3 w: w: 3.5 ES ...... ...... 3m zimfi .5: ~43 5w vi m 3» Q3 v.8 3v in 3N ...... ...... ...... ...§ 353x35 wwxub $5 “.3 w? Q8 S m2 m...» a...” Q3 3v 3N 3N Ea w: m5 ad“ i.» 3a ..... ._...._€E_m $3 v.3 v.8 3a E Q...“ v.8 S” 2v 3v S." a? w; 3a w; v.2 “an “.5 ...c3mO m2 Ea 9N3 2a 3 S” Wm» v.8 v.8 W3 flan 3N 3v 3a w... w...” am. 3N 36 v2 m 3N ...... ...... ...... ...... i... 3N 3N i“ ...... ...... .. 3E3 $53G 2mm Q3 $3 vvm m Q2 v.5 is vdv ...i i... ...... 323M “.3233 ufisofl mg v.3 Z6 v.3 m N3 . . . ...... 3N ...... .. .523 Eszfiw $3 m2 Q33 2a w 9mm ...... ...... ...... ...... “fin 80:8» Eséfiw fib 3.0m 3.33 3a S 36m 3v 3v “é c5 2a “é 3N v.3 3m Qw» 3N 2v 132w? twmfifia o2 ME . .5 V $3 33 33 $3 R3 33 $3 E: $3 5: 83 33 33 33 Z3 33 33 G3 33 5n bu» “.28.. N A _ 33> ow.» uEwm .3.“ 5.0 n Ens avcwu M33222, o a aawrflfiw .02 a8 16m vaséflm M“ w... .m.a E00 u m .u. 0.5a on» 3 £0835 c“ 33> Gwuufl s n owwnw>< dusfiwfi an 3303a.» Bflswuow Edam no n33? 6 03am. 38 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Park, Wichita County. The elevation is 974 feet above sea-level. The average annual rainfall for a period of 6 years is 31.98 inches. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first in the fall are April 6 and November 12, respectively. The soils comprising the Station farm are alluvial loams, silty clay loams, and clay loams of the Miller and Yahola series. Crops are grown at this Station under irri- gation, the farm being in the Wichita Valley Irrigation Project. Since irrigation water is available the optimum planting date at Iowa Park is not influenced greatly by the natural distribution of summer rain- fall. No adequate information is at hand to fix the optimum date definitely but observations indicate that good results may be had from planting at any time during April, May or June, the June date being the best. Milo is subject to the same damage from chinch bugs here as at Chilli- cothe. Iowa Park is in the area of occasional sorghum midge infesta- tion but only infrequent damage has resulted from this insect and that not severe. i The experiments cover a period of three years. The results secured ove_r a three-year period are not adequate to justify definite conclusions but it is apparent that large yields of grain and forage may be expected. Iowa Park is definitely in the sorghum belt, and with cheap irigation water available, economical as well as large yields of grain and forage are possible. This Station is in the midst of a cattle-raising country and the practice of raising feed and finishing cattle in the Wichita Valley might well be expanded. The only outstandingly low yield of grain and forage was made by milo as the result of damage from chinch bugs, as previously mentioned (Table 10). The kafirs have made satisfactory yields but during these three years have not produced as much grain as some of the other varieties. Upon the basis of these three years’ results it appears that excellent yields from any of the better varieties may be expected. Premo, Darso, Spur feterita, Hegari, and Chiltex have produced average yields above 50 bushels to the acre. Chiltex has made less forage than the remaining varieties, and Darso is undesirable on account of the high tannin content of the seeds. Results at Denton Substation N0. 6 is located five and one-half miles northeast of Denton, Denton County. The altitude is 600 feet above sea-level. The average annual rainfall for a period of 19 years is 32.81 inches, 68 per cent 0f which falls between the months of April and October, inclusive. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first in the fall are March 28 and November 12, respectively. This Station is in the important wheat- and oat-producing area of North Texas. The predominating soils are clays of the San Saba and Denton series which are typically developed on the Fort Worth Prairie, the northern part of the Grand Prairie Region. The results from this Station cover a period of 4 years (Table 10). GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS Table 10. 39 Grain and forage yields of grain sorghum varieties at Iowa Park, Denton, Temple, College Station, Beeville, Weslaco, Angleton, Beaumont, and Troup, 1928—31. Forage yield in tons to the acre Variety Grain yield in bushels to theacre and Location 1928 1929 1930 1931 Average 1928 1929 1930 193163 wdw. 3N 2a w m; mdA “NA $4 S.» vwA En mi 2m . v.3 ,. .. Afiwwm 22. v2 Q3 25A .A.mw “.2... vdw v m3... EN AAA “a... Emv 5A.. v.3 3N AAA . 25.5 3% 2.» 9mm QSA WE $6 v.3 v :5 3a 3N 3v mvd £4 95 AA.» 3N . ...... .. Awmmfiv omHaQ 3S 3A 3N m8 $2 s.» v.3 v Q3 i... AnA m5. m5 ANA 9w» pAu EvA .. . x0250 wuww 3» 3N v.3 AdAA s.” v.3 v 3v .2.“ v3 mAd $6 3N 3a 3v v.2 .. Afiwnmimv ASEQw 25 3N Adm mAw vdAA 3d mam m m2 2a v3 ma» 3w 5A Aw... 2v 3N 2w ....... 596B fig 3.». N...“ 3.2 ma: 23 EN A. “Wm wwm B.“ 3v a... 3A Q3 3A owHwQ 3% ma.” 3N 3.2 QwAA m...» 9mm w 5v mAv i.“ m»... . ......... .. Q3 .. .. ................. .. xazfim ma: h...“ S» 9E: 32 3N 3N w 2; 3m M3 v3 2v 3A Q3 c3 odA i: Eipm $2 . umnoonuAAon-EE v5 QwA Q; i: 3N 3N w v5 QwA wow AKA. v...» a. a v.5. 3a v.wA m.» Qww-Awmwh N»? an.» AdA QNNA N56 3N 3N m. $5 wdA N3 $6 m3 N3 $A “AA. m.» .2.“ odA 2: m6 Avofl ma: a3 N5 2w: 3a 3N Nd“ w Av.» NAN w; a2 m3 3w NwA 3m m3 m2 v.3 fix wdw 3N cw Qmm .3 ...§ AsAAvAuuAfl 3a 2.” 3a $2 AdAA N3 NAN w 2.... 0.3 w? s; m? v3 A3 m2 we” wwA 3AA Q3 3a 3... 2: i“ wAA .._=€_3_m mfl~A~%wA.M £5 B.“ wdA S.» wvw N3 Q2 w .A.A.~ i: 3d wAA. 3d 3A a... SA S5 AmA w.AA Ev QwA w...” m. QAA 3N Ev 1323M “in? PS d 9 d 9 w“ D J AwQA om: QNQA ma: SQA $3 £43 £2 $2 28A 33 ma: E2 82 £2 5: mm?“ m m mm mm nmmqw ms .m. s m. s3 .m.snmm mm. .9 . .a 1 .a . m5 a m. 3w€w> d2 M. . .m..A. . Mfiuda womawn u% wand ma» o» mac» 5 E2» wmwuoh who.» ma» ou 20:35 E 2w?» AIQMU E2.» m3.» . wmw v5.3 How s . u JAEAEQO Lwcounwm mo$o€w> w .9524 . wuuwnfim ..wAAA>womA 9d wwAAmAaw.» EAASMhOm MSG-AW wO mfi~wmx Ja QTANQ. =44 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION kiling frost in the spring and the first in the fall are January 18 and December 25, respectively. Fine sandy loam, of the Victoria series, comprises the principal soil of this Station. Crops at this Station are grown under irrigation. Sorghum midge frequently causes a complete ‘failure in grain pro- duction of the grain sorghums and the lesser corn stalk borer is some- times a factor in reducing yields. Sorghum midge was a factor of con- siderable importance during the unusually wet season of 1929 but the damage was not so severe in the next two years. Grain yields of Hegari and Dwarf milo in 1928 were obtained from selected areas and are such as could have been expected without the bird-damage factor operating. The average production of Darso for the four years was 44.7 bushels and the average forage production for two years was 4.41 tons (Table 10). Darso and Schrock (Figs. 12 and 13) are the best adapted varieties at Weslaco. For some reason these two varieties seem to produce seed better under midge conditions than other varieties. They are also resistant to bird damage, which is important in a grain sorghum variety for this region. The other varieties appear not to be promising; however, if the bird damage factor could be eliminated, some of the better varieties, such as Hegari and feterita, might also be grown. Sorghums will probably be unimportant in this irrigated area except as crops to be grown for forage. Results at Angleton Substation No. 3 is located three miles northeast of Angleton, Brazoria County. The elevation is 23 feet above sea-level. The average annual rainfall for an 18-year period is 45.31 inches, the monthly distribution of which is adequate for sorghums but sometimes excessive for this crop. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first in the fall are February 28 and November 30, respectively. This Station is in the Gulf Coastal Prairie Region and the soils are loams, clay loams, and clays of the Lake Charles and Edna series. Severe damage from sorghum midge may be expected frequently at Angleton, and bird damage is also severe, especially to yellow-seeded and white-seeded varieties. During the 4 years of the experiment, Schrock (Fig. 12) has been the outstanding variety, yielding 22.5 bushels of grain (Table 10). Darso is apparently not as well adapted as Schrock. From the standpoint of grain production, Texas Blackhul kafir, Dwarf Yellow milo, Spur feterita, and Hegari have been failures. They are not as well adapted to this region and the birds damage them severely. Results at Beaumont Substation No. 4 is located six miles west of Beaumont, Jefferson County. The elevation is 28 feet above sea-level. The average annual rainfall for an 18-year period is 53.45 inches, which is fairly evenly GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS 46 distributed throughout the months of the year. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first in the fall are February 26 and November 24, respectively. This Station is in the rice-producing region of the State and the soils on the Station are good rice soils, being clays of the Lake Charles and Crowley series. During this experiment there has been difficulty in obtaining stands of sorghums on the heavy, poorly drained rice soils, but this is not usually the case on the lighter, better drained soils of the region. During the first two years of the test, birds completely destroyed the grain crop. Schrock and Darso have produced grain during the last two years, the averages being, respectively, 21.7 and 14.4 bushels (Table 10). The seed of Spur feterita and Hegari were completely destroyed by birds. Average forage yields of 3.81 and 3.13 tons were produced by Schrock and Darso. Schrock and Darso (Figs. 12 and 13) are the only two varieties that can be recommended for this section, although Hegari is quite satisfactory where sparows are not so troublesome. When the crop is isolated from buildings, or planted in rather large fields, the damage from this source is much reduced. Results at Troup Substation No. 2 was located one mile northeast of Troup, Smith County, at an elevation of 484 feet above sea-level. The average annual rainfall for a 26-year period is 42.72 inches, 66 per cent of which falls between the months of March and October, inclusive. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first in the fall are March 15 and November 17, respectively. The principal soil on this Station is Kirvin fine sandy loam. The optimum planting period has not been definitely determined but probably April 15 through May is the most favorable period. Quite often drought periods during the summer make later plantings im- practicable; however, if soil moisture is adequate during the summer, plantings may be made until August 1. Sorghums may sometimes be planted on tomato or other spring truck land after the latter crop has been harvested. This Station is in the sorghum midge area but no midge damage was observed during the period of the test. Bird damage was rather severe during 1929 but was negligible during 1928 and 1930. The birds, princi- pally sparrows, seemed to prefer the Dwarf Yellow milo and did the least damage to Schrock. All varieties produced some grain during each of the three years that this test was conducted (Table 10), but the yields were quite 10w. The highest average yield was that of Darso, with Schrock second and Dwarf Yellow milo was a close third. Fertilizer applications used were equivalent to i500 pounds of 6-8-0 per acre during 1928, 400 pounds of 4-8-0 during 1929, and 300 pounds of 4-8-4 during 1930. The low yields were ap- parently not due to lack of mineral fertilizers since the applications made are considered rather heavy, and cotton fertilized in a similar 46 BULLETIN NO. ‘459, TEXAS QKGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION N.2. ,,,,, N 8.2 N.2 .1. 8.8 N.2. .. .. .... .. 88828.6 22.82 . . . . . . . . . .. N.NN -. N 8.22 2.8.2.8 8.225 2.8882 8.NN 8.2 NNNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 8.82 N.2. ................................................ .. 2.8.2.22 22.2.2 82.82 2.282 3N N.N 8.28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . N.8 8.82 . . . N . . . . . . -. 8288.2 .286 N28N2 .. .... N. 8.88 8 8N .... .. .. .. 2.88 3N .................................... .. 2.2282889 2282.288 882.8 . . . . . . . . . .. N.NN N.2 8N . N. 8.88 8.88 228.288 8N2 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.NN 8.2. 8.N2 8.8 .1. 2.5. 8.88 288885 88.2882 N828 8.82 N.2 .... -. . N. . . N . . . N . . N . . . . . . .- 8.82. 88.2882 ENN . . . . . . . . . . .. 3N 2.82 8.82 3 N82. N.N2 8.82 5N . 882.88? 888 8.N 8.88 8.8 3N 2.2.2 NNN 8.22 8.82 . . . N . . . . . . -. x83. 882 ,,,, .- s... 8.2.8 8.8 2.2.2 .. N. 82.2882 82.NN Nnaeoc-a-ounfik N.2 8 8.82 .... .- 8.NN. N.2 . . . . . . . . . . .. .......................................................... -- N2 28228288282 NN88 N.2 8.2 N.NN .. .. .... .. 8.22. 8.8 N.2 N . . . . . N . -. N 28m. .2522 882 .... .. NNN 8.8 2.8 .. .. N . N 22222288282 82.2882 8.28.22 88882 .... -. 8.8 8.82 2.2 . -. . .. 2222.2 8882 . . . N . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 N.2. 2.NN 2.882 2.8882 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. N.2 N.2 8.2. . .. N . 28.22885 N882 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N . . N . N . . . . . . . . .. . 2.28 88.8.28 2288 2.22 8.8 8.8N 2.8 2.NN 3 .... -- 8.8 8.2 ................................................ -. 28228288222 22.23883 N82 2.N2 8.2 NNN 8.8 .. N . NN 3N 8.8 2.82 8.88 ................................................ .. 222222288282 388882.82 8828 f: s--. .... -. 8.2 .... .- -. N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N . . . . . . . .. . ................................................. .- 2288.2 88.2882 8882 ........... .. 8.82 2.8 N.2. 2.8 . 82228282 8.28882 8888 .... .. N.82 8 8N 8.8 . . N . . . . . . . .- 8.88 3N ...................................... .. 28228825 228.285 888.8 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.8N .8. N.N N N.N2 8N2. 88.28222 N888 .......... .. 8.2 8N 8 N 8 .. 8.3. 82.8282 N882 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N. .. .N 8.88 8.NN 88.3.8 888 8.82. 8.N 3N . . . . . . . . . . . . N N . . . . .. 8.8 N.2 : N ................................................ -- 2288.2 $8222» 282 N. . .N NN NHSN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- .................................................................... .- .2282 a 822:2 2882 8.2 . 8.2 28.8. . . . . . . . . . . N. . : Yam N48“ HA3 . .. ................ .. .582 HEM N 0322.2 30:0? $2830.. mfiwmé N . NNNN .N N.8N ..... .. . N- 2.88 .. ............................... -. 822E 828882 a 888288.23 8882 9: NNNN N. mdu . N . . . N . . . N . N. 22mm . . . N . N . . . . . . . . N . N . . . . . . .. “Eda-awn? 88882 8.8 8 8N2 . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.8N 8.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 238220 HM ..~NN.N 2.8 8.2. N.2 . . 8.88 N22 8.N2 8.NN .............. .. 88.6882 8N88 . . . . . . . . . . N . N .N N N. NN .N .. 8.88 3.. 822E 8822;» 8.225 8.82882 N8NN2 N N N.8N . N N . . . . . . . .. . . . . . N . N . .. N. . ...................... N. $82288» .885 in n 882.23 828m N882 . z 2.8 Qwm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N N. 8.8N v.2 z . . . . . . N . . . .. >25“ 8282 IN m6 86H m6. md o N88 . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.88 8.8m ........................................... :1 30:0? $33G 2.0 N 882.2282 822... 2.5. 822E 2N82 8N2 2N2 8882 8N82q 8N2 2882 8N82 8N82 NN82 8N2 .82 . .... . . . _ 82882.28. . . N . > m .2. N 0.3a .222 8782285 E E828 2228.26 . 28.2w _ 85882222220 .. N _ 82882222282 . .2228 2E8. .822882=2.2o £888.22 88 88:82:; 88.2.2.2 2E8 e22 N8 82.28282 .N2 8282. GRAIN SORGHUM VARIETIES IN TEXAS ' 47 manner on these soils has produced about one-half bale to the acre. The low yields may have been due partially to deficiency of soil moisture at critical periods, as the water-holding capacity of the soil is naturally low and drought periods are common during the summer. The forage yields, as well as grain yields, were low in 1930, the only year that forage yields were obtained. Results at this Station indicate that grain sorghums cannot be recom- mended for the upland soils of this section except in instances where the corn crop promises to be a failure or where a late grain crop is desired to follow a spring truck crop. TEST OF NEW VARIETIES During the past few years a number of new hybrid varieties have been given a limited distribution from experiment stations in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas, and these have been included in variety tests at Lubbock, Chillicothe, and Spur to determine their value in compari- son with some of the standard varieties. Other varieties that have been, or are being, exploited have been included also. The yields pro- duced by these varieties are shown in Table 12, along with the yields of some common varieties that were grown in direct comparison. These new varieties are distinct in type from the commonly grown varieties and no doubt some of them will prove of value in certain regions. The results reported here are, however, too fragmentary for definite recommendations but some idea as to the value of these new varieties may be obtained by comparing their yields with those of Dwarf Yellow milo, Texas Blackhul kafir, and feterita. Such varieties as Day milo, Early White x Double Dwarf Yellow milo, Double Dwarf White milo, Beaver, and Wheatland are early, dwarf types which may prove of value in certain regions for combine purposes. Club kafir, Yellow kafir, and Won- der appear worthy of further trial. Ajax is a new hybrid variety of feteri- ta x kafir parentage developed and, in 1931, distributed from the Chillicothe Station. It is a dwarf, straight-headed variety, is white-seeded with a brown undercoat, has about 16 leaves, and-matures in 105 to 110 days. Ajax has given good yields in the hands of farmers, and further distribution of the seed is being made. Bishop, Darso, and Schrock have recently been sold under the names of Algeria, Maizo, and Sagrain, respectively, but there is no evidence that they differ materially from the parent varieties and they yield no better. Grohoma has been widely exploited recently, seed sold at an ex- horbitant price, and extravagant claims have been made for it as a forage and grain crop. It is apparently a hybrid between feterita and some sorgo. Grohoma has produced unsatisfactory yields in comparison with the common varieties wherever it has been grown by the‘ Texas Station. 48 BULLETIN NO. 459, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Table 13. Key to accession numbers of grain sorghum varieties. _ Number Vamity T. s F. c. c. 1. s. P; 1 Mil-o: Standard Yellow ............ _..____..- 672 234 24963 Standard White ................... ___._....-...- 1645 352 ........ .. Dwarf Yellow 670 332 24969 Dwarf Yellow 43 184 18684 Dwarf Yellow 8730 332 24969 Dwarf White -.-_ 3296 . . . _ _ . _ _ V _ , _ _ _. Dwarf White >< ........... _. 4061 627 Early White .................. _. 1926 480 Double Dwarf Yellow ........................ __ 8728 868 Kafir: Standard Blackhul __-.-_---____..-.----_.--... 6819 _____.. Standard Blackhul 6818 Standard Blackhul -_-_.. ._-. 674 207 24975 Standard Blackhul 18013 71 24979 Blackhul 153 .......................................... .. 6022 . . . . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ .. Blackhul 18003 204 ...... M a Blackhul 1.927 , . _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . . __ Texas Blackhul ..................................... _. 9195 865 ........ -. D. Ey. Blackhul ...................................... -. 18006 . . _ _ > . _ . . . . . _ . .. Dawn 673 340 24983 Sunrise 1939 472 32707 Whitehul 1920 342 ________ _. Pink 45 473 19742 Pink 3295 432 ........ .. Pink 18005 _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . ._ Red 46 ________ _. 216 19492 Red 18014 ________ ._ 34 24985 Red 18004 8987 ........ ., Red 1929 5895 . . , . . _ . . _ _ . . _ . ._ Red 1928 5896 . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . , a Red 1938 7 19751 Red 17485 6608 957 ________ .. Early Red .............................................. 1 18015 ........ .. 866 ........ .. eed 6824 11574 628 ........ __ Rice ..................................... 1 3682 . _ . . _ . . . . _ . _ . . . . _ . _ _ _ . _ ._ Feterita: Standard 1652 ........ .. 182 19517 Standard 18012 _______ .. 567 ________ _, Spur ........ u 3232 6601 623 ........ .. Dwarf ........................................................ 1 5985 6603 810 ........ _. Dwarf 2840 811 ____ .. 22329 Leafy ............................................. 1 3231 _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . . _ _ . . . . . . .. Kaoliang: Barchet 18009 310 22912 Red 1936 ____ _. 38197 Brown 1935 .... .. 38086 Brown 1934 36963 White 18008 .... __ 38205 Shantung Dwarf .................................. -- 18016 293 22010 Manchu ...................... -1 a ...................... _. 18017 171 18518 Miscellaneous: Acuff 1654 _---_. ........ .. Ajax 13619 ____ __ Beaver 9626 871 BiShOP 18010 814 Chiltex 8219 874 Darso 2897 615 Desert Bishop ....................................... -_ 18011 870 Dwarf Freed ................................. .- . 18007 ____ __ Early White x D. D. Y. milo ......... -_ 17998 - Fargo 8967 809 ........ .. Freed 41 350 29166 Hegari 1942 620 34911 Hegari 7313 _ _ . . _ . . . . . . . . . .- Manko 18002 ____ .. - Premo 8218 873 Schrock 1923 616 Shallu 1653 __ 85 Smith milo hybrid 18018 ________ ._ 808 ........ _. Day 13617 6 . . _ _ . . 1 6 _ _ _ . . >4 Wheatland _---- -- 17999 ........ 4> 18 Wheatland x D. 18000 ....... ._ 918 x 332 Wonder ................................................. _. 8964 8986 872 GRAIN SORGHUM' VARIETIES IN TEXAS 49= KEY TO ACCESSION NUMBERS The following tabulation of varieties and accession numbers assigned to the respective varieties by the Texas Experiment Station, the Division of Forage Crops and Diseases, the Division of Cereal Crops and Diseases, and the Division of Foreign Plant Introduction, and designated as T. S., F. C., C. I., and S. P. I. numbers, is included so that the varieties or strains may be readily identified as to origin and previous performance as reported upon in other publications. This key, reconciling the various accession numbers assigned to grain sorghum varieties during the past 25 years, includes most of the varieties tested in Texas. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Grateful acknowledgment is made to H. N. Vinall, Senior Agronomist, and J. C. Stephens, Assistant Agronomist, Division of Forage Crops and Diseases; F. E. Keating, B. F. Barnes, and H. J. Clemmer, Superintendents, Division of Dry-Land Agriculture, United States Department of Agri- culture; A. B. Conner, P. B. Dunkle, Henry Dunlavy, W. H. Friend, Frank Gaines, R. A. Hall, P. R. Johnson, G. T. McNess, R. H. Stansel, and R. H. Wyche, of the Texas Station; all of whom have also had a part in conducting the experiments reported herein. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Regional and local adaptation of varieties play an important part in the choice of varieties to grow. In the Great Plains Region where grain sorghum is particularly adapted all varieties produce quite well and the acreage devoted to a single variety in any locality depends largely upon whether the crop is to be used for grain or for forage, and sometimes upon quite local conditions that favor one or two varieties over all others. In the grain sorghum-producing area of Central and South Texas, however, certain varieties that are valuable in West Texas are not so important. In the other areas of the State, where sorghums are grown but little except for forage, only such varieties as Schrock and Darso have been found to do consistently well. Quite local differences in soil and climatic conditions make it impossible to limit a recommendation to one or two or even three varieties be- cause, in certain localities and under certain conditions, a particular variety that has rather limited adaptability may be the best possible variety to grow. For instance, a variety that is adapted to combine harvesting is valuable in the Panhandle but is of little use to a cotton farmer in the South Plains; Chiltex, which makes exceptionally good yields on deep sand along Red River, is not nearly so highly regarded on tight land 10 miles removed; and Hegari that will make enormous and consistent yields on sub-irrgated land, may fail to head so frequently on similar soil that is not sub-irrgated that the variety is considered worthless. These are only a few examples of conditions that justify the existence of many varieties and the distribution of still others as they are produced and found to be adapted. There are extreme differences in type and behavior between grain sorghum varieties that allow a choice of a special variety to meet a particular condition. Many times conditions will arise, such as would follow a hail, wind storm, or an unlooked-for early drought, so that a farmer must change his plans for the current crop and plant an additional grain or forage acreage. Under such circumstances the present choice of variety in West Texas would be Dwarf feterita or Early White or 50 BULLETIN NO. 459," TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Yellow milo, and in South Texas it would be Hegari. Under conditions such as these, farmers should take advantage of the opportunities afforded by the diverse types to use the variety best suited to the particular situation. West Texas has always been a milo country and that variety has been the popular one for purposes of heading, feeding, and marketing in the head. As the growing of cotton and wheat has increased in importance, varieties such as the kafirs, the feteritas, and Hegari have become important as varieties to be harvested with a row binder and fed to work stock and other livestock in the bundle. In the Blackland Prairie Region good yields are occasionally produced by all varieties, but for consistent production of grain and forage, the feteritas, the early kafirs, Chiltex, Darso, and Hegari are best. In the region south and west of San Antonio, all varieties will produce reasonably well, but all things considered, Hegari and Texas Blackhul kafir appear to fill the needs better than other varieties. In the remainder of the State to the east, Darso and Schrock are the varieties best adapted but occasional good crops of feterita and Hegari are produced. It might be pointed out here that in Central and South Texas, where grain sorghum production has been increasing in recent years and where environ- mental conditions are quite different from those existing in the Great Plains Region to the West and north, only the varieties grown or developed in the latter area have been tried because no others are readily available. There are excellent possibilities that better varieties for these newer sorghum regions may be produced than any at present being grown in these areas or in the sogrhum belt proper. The following varieties are deemed worthy of recommendation in the regions served by the designated stations, based upon their behavior in the yield trials and from a knowledge of the advantages, disadvantages, and the general adaptability of varieties to the needs of the various regions: Grain, Forage, Grain, Forage, bu. tons bu. tons Lubbock: (Jhillicothe: Dwarf Yellow H1110 .. . m. 30.3 ____ __ Blackhul kafir 153 _ 28.3 2.92 Texas Blackhul kafir . . . . -- Texas Blackhul kafii/ ______ ‘- 30.9 2.80 Spur feterita _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - _ - _ - . . . .._ Early Pink kafir ., 2.66 Sunrise kafir _. __ Spur feterita 2.40 Chiltex ............ .. ____ _. Chiltex 2.05 Hegari .... .. Dwarf feterita . . 2.09 Spur: Hegari .. _ . 25.0 3.60 Dwarf Yellow mil0 ............ -. 27.2 .. Dwarf Yellow milo I 22.3 2.31 Spur feterita ........... _. _ . 25,9 ___ Big Spring: Chiltex ________________________________ _- 28.2 .... _. Dwarf Yellow milo __________ __ 22.1 Texas Blackhul kafir _. 24.6 .... .. Standard Blackhul kafir 24.9 .... ._ Hegari . _- 18.4 ..__. Reed kafir ____________________________ __ 26.6 "m. Dalhart: Dawn kafir . .... _. Dwarf Yellow milO ........... H 30.1 .... __ Spur feterita _ .... .. Dawn kafir .................... ._ 25.9 .__-.. Iowa Park; Sunrise kafir .. . . 25.5 -_.._ Premo . ._ 6 59 Feterita 24.9 ..--_ Spur feterita. _ .. 5.98 Texas Blackhul kafir ....... .. 23.2 .__. Hegari 7.52 Denton: Darso ,. 5.96 Hegari . . 34.7 2.95 Temple: Darso .. 33.7 3.68 Chiltex . . . . 24,5 2.12 Chiltex .. .. 32.0 2.50 Texas Blackhul kafir . 23,5 2.66 Feterita . 25.3 3.37 Spur feterita . _ ....... .. 21,0 3.25 Texas Blackhul kafir ...... .. 26.8 2.97 Darso . _ 30,2 3.32 College Station: Hegari . 17.4 3.98 Darso . .. ._ _- 35.6 5.03 Beeville: Schrock 25.5 4.52 Texas Blackhul kafir 27.0 3.02 Hegari . . . . _ . _ . . . . . _- -_-.__ Hegari 19.2 3.03 Spur feterita . ____ _. Chiltex . _ 23,9 1.99 Weslaco: Schrock 27,5 3.62 Darso .. .. 44.7 .... __ Darso 26,2 3.04 Schrock . I 42.7 Angleton: Beaumont: Schrock . ________________________ _. 22.5 2.63 Schrock 21.7 3.81 Darso ........................ 12,6 2.90 Darso , ____________________________ ,_ 14.4 3.13 Troup: _ Darso . . ........................... _. 10,2 ,,,, ._ Schrock .............................. .. 8.9 .... _.