LXBRARY, A & M COLLEGE, CAMPUS. E117-7M-L180 TEXAS AfiRlCULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 503 JANUARY, 1935 DIVISION OF AGRONOMY L.lBl?/\F?Y Agricultural & Mechanical College ol Texas College Station, Texas. Peanut Growing in the Gulf Coast Prairie of Texas AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President 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: G. S. Fraps, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. Asbury, M. S., Chemist J. F. Fudge, Ph. D., Chemist E. C. Carlyle, M. S., Asst. Chemist T. L. Ogier, B. S., Asst. Chemist A. 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 W. E. Merrill, M. S., Asst. Chemist W. H. Garman, M. S., Asst Chemist A. R. Kemmerer, Ph. D., Asst. Chemist A. W. Walde, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist Horticulture: S. H. Yarnell, Sc. D., Chief Range Animal Husbandry: J. M. Jones, A. M. Chief B. L. Warwick, Ph. D., Breeding Investiga. S. P. Davis, Wool and Mohair J. H. Jones, B. S., Animal Husbandman Entomology: F. L. Thomas, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist J. Reinhard, B. S., Entomologist . Fletcher, Ph. D., Entomologist . Owen, Jr., M. S., Entomologist . Roney, M. S., Entomologist Gaines, Jr., M. S., Entomologist . Jones, M. S., Entomologist Bibby, B. S., Entomologist . Moreland, B. S., Asst. Entomologist Heard, B. S., Chief Inspector Burgin, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector > i wwsgeoésaesass w=ssss@eZés omy: . Reynolds, Ph. D., Chief _ Karper, M. S., Agronomist . . Mangelsdorf, Sc. D., Agronomist D. T. Killough, M. S., Agronomist J. T. Vantine, Jr., M. S., Asst. Agronomist J. O. Beasley, M. S., Asst. Agronomist Publications: A. D. Jackson, Chief 0P1 Veterinary Science: ‘M. Francis, D. V. M., Chief H. Schmidt, D. V. M., Veterinarian "F. P. Mathews, D. V. M., M. S., Veterinarian J. B. Mims, D. V. M., Asst. Veterinarian Plant Pathology and Physiology: J. J. Taubenhaus, Ph. D., Chief W. N. Ezekiel, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist L. B. Loring, M. S., Asst. Plant Pathologist G. E. Altstatt, M. S., Asst. Plant Pathologist “Glenn Boyd, B. S., Asst. 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 1**W. R. Nisbet, B. S., Ranch Management "A. C. Magee, M. S., Ranch Management Rural Home Research: Jessie Whitacre, Ph. D., Chief Mary Anna Grimes, M. S., Textiles Sylvia Cover, Ph. D., Foods Soil Survey: "W. T. Carter, B. S., Chief E. H. Templin, B. S., Soil Surveyor J. W. Huckabee, B. S., Soil Surveyor I. C. Mowery, B. S., Soil Surveyor Botany: V. L. Cory, M. S., Acting Chief 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, M. S., Assoc. Poultry Husb. Paul D. Sturkie, B. S., Asst. Poultry Husb. 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 L. Kirkland, B. S., Feed Inspector D. Reynolds, Jr., Feed Inspector A. Moore, Feed Inspector J. Wilson, B. S., Feed Inspector . G. Wickes, D. V. M., Feed Inspector flfifili/JF“? SUBSTAJTONS No. l, Beeville, Bee County: R. A. Hall, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Tyler, Smith County: P. R. Johnson, M. S., Superintendent "B. H. Hendrickson, B. S., Sci. in Soil "R. W. Baird, M. S., Assoc. Agr. Engineer No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. Stansel, M. S., Superintendent H. M. Reed, B. S., Horticulturist No. 4, Jefferson County: R. H. Wyche, B. S., Superintendent “H. M. Beachell, B. S., Junior Agronomist No. 5, Temple, Bell County: Henry Dunlavy, M. S., Superintendent C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist "E. B. Deeter, B. S., Soil Erosion No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. Bayles, B. S., Superintendent No. 10, College Station, Brazos County: R. M. Sherwood, M. S., In Charge Erosion L. J. McCall, Farm Superintendent No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. Morris, M. S. Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: **J. R. Quinby, M. S. Superintendent "J. C. Stephens, M. A., Asst. Agronomist No. 14, 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 "O. G. Babcock, B. S., Asst. Entomologist No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: “P- L. HODRiIIB, B- s» Junior Civil Engineer W. H. Friend, B. S., Superintendent No. 6 Denton, Denton County: P. B. Dunkle, M. S., Superintendent "I. M. Atkins, B. S., Junior 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. Members of Teaching Staff Carrying G. W. Adriance, Ph. D., Horticulture W. Bilsing, Ph. D., Entomology Scoates, A. E., Agricultural Engineering . K. Mackey, M. S., Animal Husbandry G. Reeves, Ph. D., Biology S. Mogford, M. S., Agronomy F. R. Brison, M. S., Horticulture ‘Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. "In cooperation with IIn cooperation with inn with FW>PP GT“ nnnnnvnf 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 Cooperative Projects on the Station: W. R. Horlacher, Ph. D., Genetics J. H. Knox, M. S., Animal Husbandry A. L. Darnell, M. A., Dairy Husbandry R. O. Berry, B. S., Biology R. T. Stewart, Ph.D., Agronomy V. A. Little, M. S., Entomology ‘(As of January 1, 1935 U. S. Department of Agriculture. Texas Extension Service. State Department of Agriculture. In experiments with peanuts at the Angleton Station, Macspan and Spanish, both small-podded varieties, made the highest average yield of nuts, 1290 pounds and 1268 pounds, respectively, per acre, during the seven years 1927-1933. The Carolina Runner and Vir- ginia Runner, both large-podded varieties, ranked next in yield, producing average yields of 1179 pounds and 914 pounds per acre, respectively, during the period. Tennessee Red and Valencia were the lowest-yielding varieties, and made average yields of only 526 pounds and 543 pounds per acre, respectively, for the seven years. Carolina Runner ma.de the largest yield of air-dry forage (vine and nuts), 3.19 tons per acre, for the seven years. Macspan, Vir- ginia Runner, and Spanish made the next largest yields, each pro- ducing slightly more than two tons per acre. When yields of both nuts and forage are considered Carolina Runner, Macspan, and Spanish are the most valuable varieties for the Gulf Coast Prairie of the State. Comparatively close spacing of the plants, 6 to 12 inches apart in 3-foot rows, gave the largest yields of both nuts and forage in the spacing experiments with the Spanish variety. CONTENTS Page Introduction .............................. 5 Soil and Climatic Conditions in the Gulf Coast Prairie .............................. v 6 Rainfall and Its Effects on Yield of Peanuts .......................................... .. 6 Temperature -4 _ -. ....... __ 6 Soils Used in the Experiments -- ............... ** 7 Methods and Scope of Work -_ 8 Size of Plats _ 8 Rotations . _ 8 Planting _ . . _ . . . _ . . . . . . . . . _ . . -- 8 Cultivating - __ 8 Harvesting . . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . , _ _ _ C . . _ -_ 9 Description of Varieties of Peanuts _ -_ 9' Small-Podded Varieties .... -- 9‘ Large-Podded Varieties *4 ---_.10 Variety Tests -_10 Yield of Nuts ______ __ 10 Yield of Forage. s12 Percentage of Nuts in Forage ..................................................................... ~13 Spacing Tests l3 Composition and Uses of Peanuts _r__ ...................... -_14 Summary w ___-15 Acknowledgments . . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . _ -_ W16 BULLETIN No. 503 JANUARY, 1935 PEANUT GROWING IN THE QULF COAST PRAIRIE OF TEXAS R. H. STANSEL The peanut, Arachis hypogaea, is a leguminous plant that requires a long growing season with favorable distribution of rainfall for large yields. Consequently, it is grown in regions with long growing seasons, such as those in the cotton-growing states of the United States, in China, India, Dutch East Indies, and in other subtropical countries of the world. The peanut is generally regarded as a native of Brazil and was carried to Africa by slave ships. By the same means it was brought to Virginia in the colonial days and subsequently has reached its present distribution in the United States. g Over one million acres, on an average, are planted to peanuts annually in the United States to be harvested for nuts, according to statistics of the United States Department of Agriculure*. In addition, a large acreage is grown for hay or for grazing by hogs. During the 5-year period, 1927-1931, an average of over 900,000,000 pounds of peanuts was harvested annually. For the 5 years, 1925-1929, an average of 78,000,000 pounds of unshelled nuts was imported annually into this country and an average of over 4,500,000 pounds was exported. Further, over 4,427,000 pounds of peanut oil was imported each year during this same period. From 1925 to 1929 an average of 19,895,000 pounds of peanut oil entered the domestic trade channels each year. The international trade in peanuts and peanut oil is of considerable magnitude. Southern Asia and the nearby islands are the principal peanut-exporting countries. France and Germany import large quantities of nuts and export large quantities of oil. There are two major Well-defined areas of peanut production in the United States: The Virginia-North Carolina region and the region em- bracing Southwestern Georgia and Southeastern Alabama. The peanuts in the Virginia-Carolina region are produced largely for roasting While those in the Georgia-Alabama region are grown chiefly for the production of oil, peanut butter, and stock feed. In addition to these main regions, peanuts are grown in scattered areas throughout the southern states from Texas and Oklahoma eastward. In Texas about 100,000 acres of peanuts are grown and harvested annually for the nuts. There are two principal areas in the state in which peanuts are grown on a commercial scale, one in north-central Texas and the other northeastern part of the State. The Virginia-Carolina region produces higher yields of nuts than the average for the United States as a whole, while the yields in the Georgia-Alabama region and in Texas are below the yields of the country as a whole. The average yield of peanuts at the Angleton Station is slightly *Data taken from the 1934 Yearbook 70f Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture. 6 BULLETIN NO. 503, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION higher than the yield in the Virginia-Carolina region and considerably higher than the yield in the other peanut-growing areas (Table 1). Table 1. Peanuts, acreage in United States and Texas, and average yield per acre at the Angleton Station and in other peanut-growing regions of the United States, 1927-1933. Acres Average yield, pounds per acre Years Virginia- United North Georgia- At States Texas Carolina Alabama Texas Angleton - region region Station 1927 1,142,000 117,000 882 703 600 696 1928 1,211,000 126,000 989 550 650 1053 1929 1,325,000 163,000 1025 600 I 420 1596 1930 1,133,000 124,000 810 625 l 415 1842 1931 1,419,000 161,000 1115 630 I 530 1152 1932 1,607,000 180,000 1045 496 550 1449 1933 1,361,000 167,000 950 578 620 1089 Average I 1,314,000 148,000 974 597 R 541 1268 SOIL AND CLIMATIC CONDITIONS IN THE GULF COAST PRAIRIE Rainfall and Its Effect on Yield of Peanuts The average yearly rainfall at Texas Substation No. 3, located at Angleton in the Gulf Coast Prairie, approximately 18 miles from the Gulf of Mexico, was 44.53 inches for the 19 years, 1915-1933 (Table 2). While the monthly and yearly rainfall is ample, the distribution often varies widely in individual months and years. Peanuts require an ample and uniform supply of moisture for the production of large yields of nuts. Under favorable conditions the peanut plant usually “sets” and matures one crop of nuts. When, however, the growth of the plant is hindered by insufficient moisture the plant usually attempts to mature a few nuts. Later in the season if sufficient rainfall occurs, resulting in favorable conditions for growth, the plant resumes active growth and may ‘bloom and “set” a larger crop of nuts. In a similar way the plant may set a third crop. Under these conditions, the maturity of the largest crop of nuts will determine the time of harvesting. The peanut, like cotton, is able to take advantage of favorable growing conditions and produce satisfactory yields, even i.f these conditions occur late in the season. For example, in 1932 there was no effective rainfall in June and July but abundant rains came in August and September, which resulted in a goodcrop of peanuts. Further, in 1916 the distribu- tion of rainfall during the growing season was unusually favorable, which resulted in the largest yield of peanuts obtained during the 19 years of the experiment. Temperature The temperature during the growing season is favorable to the growth of peanuts. The mean maximum temperature ranged from 78.4° F. in April to 92.2° F. in August (Table 2). The mean maximum temperature ranged from 57.8° F. in April to 71.9° F. in July. PEANUT GROWING IN THE GULF COAST PRAIRIE OF TEXAS 7 The average length of the growing season at the Angletton Station is 275 days. The average date for the last killing frost in the spring Table 2.""’”l\..1'nfall and temperature during the growing and harvesting season of peanuts at the Exneriment Station, Angleton, Texas. Year April May June I July August sep‘ October Annual tember Precipitation, inches 1915 2.25 2.66 .00 3.95 13.87 6.29 2.49 48.81 1916 1.64 6.59 5.37 5.66 5.43 3.55 1.08 35.30 1917 2.37 6.04 .44 3.12 1.66 1.15 .49 22.74 1918 5.65 1.68 1.41 2.48 3.51 2.87 5.67 37.53 1919 1.35 5.27 16.57 6.55 5.42 3.62 5.93 66.79 1920 .54 3.64 5.83 4.76 9.10 2.49 6.81 49.28 1921 3.88 1.25 8.12 3.94 1.60 3.66 1.05 38.23 1922 2.17 4.98 15.05 9.29 2.92 5.67 7.02 67.96 1923 5.39 1.49 5.59 8.75 2.85 6.88 3.55 62.72 1924 1.15 4.64 4.62 1.06 3.94 1.83 .02 38.74 1925 1.23 1.49 3.73 6.52 2.71 7.06 10.54 46.61 1926 2.57 3.83 2.31 5.32 2.47 1.59 3.98 38.43 1927 ' 2.78 .14 4.42 2.72 .09 6.74 2.45 33.71 1928 1.38 2.75 4.75 .40 2.63 4.51 2.66 35.02 1929 2.94 8.35 2.21 4.45 3.17 1.82 5.41 51.05 1930 1.73 5.73 .45 2.95 2.56 3.61 9.79 43.16 1931 1.27 2.59 1.36 5.03 1.35 .96 3.99 40.81 1932 5.58 2.40 1.33 .79 12.55 5.66 2.71 46.62 1933 .40 2.96 .64 12.34 2.85 3.87 3.45 42.49 Av. 1915-1933 2.44 3.61 4.43 4.74 4.25 3.89 4.16 44.53 AV. 1927-1933 2.30 I 3.56 I 2.17 4.10 3.60 3.88 4.35 41.84 Average temperature, degrees F., 1914-1933 I Maximum 95 I 95 100 105 103 100 95 105 Mean max. 78.4 83.8 89.5 91.7 92.2 88.7 82.5 79.4 Mean min, 57.8 64.7 69.9 71.9 71.5 68.3 59.1 58.3 Mean mean I 68.1 I 74.2 79.7 81.8 81.9 78.5 70.8 68.9 No. days I I I with rain I 6.8 I 7.7 I 7.6 9.5 10.1 9.2 7.8 105.3 Humidity % II 79.0 79.1 ‘I 78.3 I 79.4 I 79.2 I 81.2 79.4 79.8 for the years 1914-1933 was February 28 and the first killing frost in the fall was December 1. Soils Used in the Experiments Peanuts usually are grown on light sandy soils, not because these soils necessarily produce the highest yields or best quality of nuts, but mainly because the peanuts are more easily harvested and the soil does not adhere to the pods, leaving them bright and clean. The experiments with peanuts were located on a light-colored phase of Lake Charles clay and clay loam soils. The Lake Charles soils are black to dark-gray in color and range from clay to fine sandy loam in texture although the clay is the most extensive type. These soils have dark-gray, heavy clay subsoils. They contain a larger proportion of clay than is desirable from the standpoint of ease in harvesting peanuts. The Lake Charles soils are rather productive when adequately drained. 8 BULLETIN NO. 503, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION METHODS AND SCOPE OF WORK The experiments with peanuts at the Angleton Station were begun in 1915 and were continued through 1933, after which they were discontinued. The variety test was conducted during the entire period but yields were not obtained in 1923 and 1925 on account of continued rains at the harvest- ing season. A spacing test was carried from 1915 to 1922. The results of these experiments are presented in this Bulletin. Size of Plats The peanuts in these experiments were planted in three-foot rows. During the period of the experiment the size of plat ranged from 1/ 44 to 1/ 11 of an acre, but since 1927 the plats have been 1/ 22 of an acre in size, consisting of two rows 330 feet long. Rotations In these studies the peanuts followed corn in the four-year rotation of corn, cotton, corn, and peanuts. During the last six years, however, grain sorghum occasionally replaced the corn in the rotation. After harvesting, the stalks of cotton, corn, and the grain sorghum usually were plowed under in the fall or winter as conditions permitted. The entire peanut crop, including vines and nuts, was removed from the land in harvesting. Planting Generally the peanuts were planted flat on land that had been plowed ' the preceding fall or winter. In some years, however, low beds were formed on the plowed land with a cultivator and the peanuts planted on these beds. Prior to 1920 the seed was dropped by hand but since that time the seed has been planted with a duplex hopper attachment on a lister planter. In the spacing tests the peanuts were dropped by hand. As a rule, the small-podded varieties were not shelled before planting but the pods were broken crosswise so that a single kernel was dropped in each hill. The large-podded varieties, however, were shelled because the kernels usually do not fill the pod and have a tendency to drop out if the pods are broken, so that an empty hull would not be planted instead of a kernel. The date of planting ranged from March 15 to June 5, but usually the peanuts were planted the latter part of April or first part of May. Occasionally it was necessary to replant the peanuts because of thin stands resulting from low germination of seed, from unfavorable weather conditions immediately after planting, or from damage caused by rodents. Further, the final stands obtained were poor in most years. Cultivating The peanuts were given about the same cultivation as cotton. Shallow clean cultivation was practiced. From three to five cultivations were given PEANUT_ GROWING IN THE GULF, COAST PRAIRIE OF TEXAS 9 during the growing season. As a rule the peanuts were hoed twice and occasionally three times, ‘which was one more hoeing than was given cotton. Harvesting The peanuts were dug with a walking mouldboard plow. As a rule the row was barred off and then the center strip containing the plants was turned over. The vines were then shaken out of the soil with a pitchfork and all of the plants on each plat, consisting of two or three rows, were heaped together for drying (Fig. 1). Two or three days’ drying Fig. 1. Stacking peanuts by hand on Texas Substation No. 3, Angleton. in the field was generally sufficient to cure the vines and nuts for stacking in the hay mow. When the vines did not dry out rapidly enough, they were turned once. DESCRIPTION OF VARIETIES OF PEANUTS The varieties of peanuts grown extensively in the United States may be classified into two main groups, the large-podded and the small- podded groups. Descriptions of the main varieties of these groups grown in the variety test at Angleton follow. Small-Podded Varieties The Spanish variety is the most commonly grown variety in this country for the manufacture of oil and peanut butter. The stems have an up- right growth and are somewhat coarse. The pods are small, containing as a rule two kernels, and form a dense} cluster at the base of the plant. 10 BULLETIN NO. 503, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The covering of the kernels is of a light-brown color and the nuts fit tightly in the pod. The Macspan variety is a selection from the Spanish variety made by G. T. McNess of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. It is similar in type and growth habit to the Spanish variety but is more erect in growth and makes a slightly higher yield at Angleton. Large-Podded Varieties The Virginia Bunch variety, also called Virginia Jumbo, is the main variety grown for commercial roasting. The nuts are large and usually contain two kernels to the pod. The vines are erect in growth and the pods are bunched around the base of the plant. The envelope covering the kernel is of a light-brown color and the nuts as a rule do not fit tightly in the pod. This variety does not have as good a flavor as the other varieties. The Valencia variety has an erect vine growth, but is not a vigorous grower at the Angleton Station. The pods are not bunched around the base of the plant as closely as is the case with the Spanish variety, but are not so scattered as in the runner types. The envelope covering the kernel is deep red in color, which is considered objectionable for milling purposes. The pods contain, as a rule, two kernels but three are not uncommon. The kernels fit tightly in the shell and the flavor is excellent. The Tennessee Red variety is very similar to the Valencia variety with the exception that the pods contain two to five kernels. It also has a red envelope covering the seed and has an upright growth, but it is not a vigorous grower at the station. The kernels fit tightly in the shell and the flavor is excellent. The Virginia Runner variety has pods similar to those of the Virginia Bunch variety, but are somewhat smaller in size. The pods usually con- tain two kernels, which do not fit tightly in the pod. The kernels are covered with a light-brown envelope. The flavor is poor. This variety has a vigorous prostrate type of growth and the nuts are scattered along the vines. The Carolina Runner variety produces a nut that is similar in type and envelope color to that of the Spanish variety, but slightly larger. The vines have a prostrate type of growth and the nuts are scattered along the vines. This variety makes a very vigorous growth, and produces high yields of both nuts and vines at the Angleton Station. VARIETY TESTS Yield of Nuts The Macspan and Spanish varieties made the largest average yields of nuts, 1290 pounds (43.0 bushels) and 1268 pounds (42.3 bushels) per PEANUT GROWING IN THE GULF COAST PRAIRIE OF TEXAS ' 11 acre, respectively, during the seven years 1927-1933 (Table 3). In the trade, 30 pounds of the small-podded varieties (Spanish and Macspan) constitute a bushel, while with the large-podded varieties 22 pounds are counted as a bushel; the weight of a bushel of peanuts is important Table 3. Yield of peanuts in pounds per acre in the variety test at Angleton Station. Srafgefgieed Large-podded varieties“ Year Spanish Carolina Virginia Virginia Tennessee Macspan Runner Runner Bunch Valencia Red I 1915 1434 931 1938 1426 1916 6048 | 4011 2926 2605 1917 1890 2363 1388 1701 1918 810 499 381 409 1919 87 128 95 68 1920 1500 1302 484 717 1921 672 480 576 451 660 1922 2391 1878 873 2233 1549 671 1924 528 309 486 1434 1085 836 1926 210 1269 700 706 506 1927 420 696 1159 356 805 257 216 1928 1158 1053 673 1054 739 552 455 1929 1740 1596 1157 1489 1267 810 1078 1930 1386 1842 2328 1085 1428 713 614 1931 1434 1152 979 1060 867 636 552 1932 1470 1449 968' 519 497 447 326 1933 1422 1089 988 836 295 389 440 Average 1927-33 1290 1268 1179 914 843 543 526 Average 1927-33] bu. per acre 43.0 I 42.3 | 53.6 41.6 38.3 24.7 23.9 ‘A bushel weighs 30 pounds. “A bushel weighs 22 pounds. only in cases where the crop is sold by the bushel ratherithan by the ton, since the bushel price probably is about the same whether the 30-pound or the 22-pound standard obtains. When considered on the bushel basis, the Carolina Runner variety made the largest average yield, 53.5 bushels per acre of 22 pounds to the bushel. It ranked third in yield on the pound basis, producing 1179 pounds of nuts per acre, or 111 pounds less than the Macspan. Virginia Runner, Virginia Bunch, Valencia, and Tennessee Red in the order named, ranked next in yield. ' The yields of the varieties were calculated on a basis of the nuts that remained on the vines after digging and handling. In no cases were the scattered nuts gathered. This amounted to a considerable proportion in some years. Prior to 1927 the yields were obtained from single plats but since that time the yields are an average of the yield of three plats for each variety, except the Spanish, which was planted in four plats each year. Since 1927 the stands for the mostlpart have been comparable but were usually thinner than desired. The yields would probably have been greater if full stands had been obtained. The actual stands were generally one-half or less of that desired (Table 4). 12 ' BULLETIN NO. 503, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The quality of nuts was, as a rule, very good. The nuts filled the pod in most cases and general observations indicate that they were larger than those of the same varieties found in the market. Virginia Bunch produced unusually large nuts, which almost‘ filled the pods in the most favorable years. Table 4. Average distance in inches between plants in the variety test of peanuts. . Virginia . Virginia Tennessee Carolina. Year Spanish Bunch Valencia Runner Red Macspan Runner 1919 102 54 i 62 72 1920 11 25 l 24 22 1921 16 15 | 19 21 18 ] 1922 17 l 22 27 24 28 17 1926 33 I 15 14 10 17 1927 35 61 61 99 71 56 32 1928 28 62 l 39 38 49 27 43 1929 28 30 38 32 32 26 35 1930 23 44 I 32 43 29 20 25 1931 24 33 I 33 32 34 35 37 1932 32 69 I 46 62 54 23 52 1933 28 88 f 45 ll 49 47 25 ll 39 Yield of Forage Carolina Runner made the highest average yield of air-dry forage (nuts and vines), 3.19 tons per acre. Macspan, Virginia Runner, and Spanish made about the same yield of forage, slightly more than two tons per acre. Tennessee Red and Valencia were the low-yielding varieties. The Table 5. Yield of air-dry forage (vines and nuts) in tons per acre in variety test of peanuts. . Virginia . Virginia Tennessee Carolina Year Spanish Bunch Valencia Runner Red Macspan Runner 1915 2.24 3.58 3.88 4.19 1916 6.64 4.81 4.49 4.46 1917 2.08 3.11 3.18 3.12 1918 1.10 1.03 .99 .90 1919 .20 .51 .32 .54 1920 2.16 2.21 1.77 1.94 1921 2.04 2.94 2.85 3.38 2.84 1922 3.04 2.97 2.09 2.93 1.45 2.95 1924 .44 2.28 2.24 .90 1.69 .86 1926 .25 1.07 2.12 2.22 .84 1927 1.47 2.01 .71 1.27 .50 1.03 4.68 1928 1.91 1.15 1.61 2.32 1.28 2.27 1.97 1929 1.80 2.03 1.38 2.98 1.44 2.11 3.30 1930 3.07 2.06 2.04 2.35 1.96 3.04 3.96 1931 2.63 2.27 2.04 3.47 1.92 2.58 3.47 1932 2.44 1.04 1.55 1.51 1.27 3.09 2.67 1933 1.42 .48 1.06 1.54 .84 1.94 2.26 Average ' 192741933 II 2.11 1.58 1.48 2.21 1.32 2.29 3.19 yields of forage have been entirely satisfactory and the quality excellent. These yields indicate that more peanuts could be profitably grown in this region for forage than are grown at the present time. Even larger yields than those reported could be expected with better stands. PEANUT GROWING IN THE GULF COAST PRAIRIE OF TEXAS 13 Percentage of Nuts in Forage (Vines and Nuts) The percentage of air-dry nuts to air-dry forage (vines and nuts) of the varieties during each year of the test is given in Table 6. The percentage of nuts varied considerably for each variety from year to year. During the years of high yields, such as those in 1916 and 1917, the Table 6. Percentage of nuts in forage (vines and nuts) of different varieties of peanuts. . Virginia _ Virginia Tennessee Carolina Year Spanish Bunch Valencia Runner Red Macspan Runner 1915 32 13 25 17 1916 46 30 45 29 1917 45 22 37 27 1918 37 18 25 23 1919 21 9 11 12 1920 35 29 14 18 1921 14 10 8 7 12 1922 31 ‘ 38 37 15 23 41 1924 35 32 24 27 25 31 1926 41 33 17 25 3O 1927 24 20 18 14 22 21 12 1928 28 33 17 23 18 25 17 1929 44 31 29 25 38 41 18 1930 30 I 35 18 23 16 23 29 1931 22 19 16 15 14 28 14 1932 30 I 24 14 17 13 24 18 1933 38 I 31 18 27 26 37 22 Av. 1927-1933 II 31 E 28 19 I 21 21 28 II 19 percentage of nuts of the several varieties ranged from 22 to 46, while during years of low yields, as in 1921, the percentage of nuts was much lower and ranged from 7 to 14. In the average from 1927 to 1933, the Virginia Runner, Carolina, Valencia, and Tennessee Red had 10w percentages of nuts. Spanish, Macspan, and Virginia Bunch had high percentages of nuts ranging from 28 to 31. SPACING TESTS The object of the spacing test was to ‘find the spacing that would give the largest yields. The Spanish variety was used. The nuts were dropped by hand at specified distances in three-foot rows, as shown in Table 7. In most cases full stands were not obtained, on account of poor germination and injury from rodents. The final stands, however, were obtained by an actual count of the plants at harvest time. In general, higher yields of both nuts and forage were obtained from the closer spacings, as shown in Tables 7 and 8. However, from the incomplete data secured, there appears to be little difference in yields of nuts or forage from 3-, 6-, and 9-inch spacings. Probably 6 to 12 inches in three-foot rows would be about the correct spacing for Spanish peanuts on these soils, when the cost of the seed is considered. The prostrate types of peanuts, on account of their nature of growth, would 14 BULLETIN NO. 503, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION probably require a wider spacing and possibly 12 to 15 inches would be correct for them. COMPOSITION AND USES OF PEANUTS Peanuts are nutritious and are used extensively as a human food as well as feed for livestock. Spanish peanuts contain 47 to 50 per cent of oil and 31 per cent of protein. The kernels of the Virginia type of peanuts contain 37 to 47 per cent of oil and 29 to 3O per cent of protein. One ton of Spanish peanuts yields 70 to 80 gallons of oil and 1300 to 1400 pounds of cake, while one ton of shelled nuts yields 100 to 115 Table 7. Yield per acre in pounds of Spanish peanuts with different spacings of plants in three-foot rows. sliacitrlg of 1915 l 1916 1917 191s 1920 i 1921 1922 Average p an s 1n . 1 row, inches I l 19164913 3 2181 807 6 5244 2061 957 2754 9 2427 4605 2034 771 2470 12 4776 2007 696 1440 2493 15 939 672 18 2235 4521 1815 783 945 564 1725 2373 21 1317 278 1554 24 3477 1509 534 729 1840 27 1968 777 288 2088 30 279 1710 36 1083 2856 204 1194 48 846 gallons of oil and 1100 to 1200 pounds of cake containing 40 to 50 per cent of protein. ~ Peanuts are often not considered as a staple article of diet, but usually as a confection in the form of roasted peanuts or in peanut candy. Peanut Table 8. Yield per acre in tons of air-dry forage (vines and nuts) of Snanish peanuts with different spacings in three~foot rows. Spacing i 6r plants, 1916 1916 1917 191s 1920 1921 1922 Average inches l I 1916-18 ‘I I I 3 I ! 2.731 1.74 1 1 6 5.75 2.64 1.s2 1 1 3.40 9 3.80 5.051 2.831 1.46 I I 3.11 12 1 6.241 2.731 1.2s 2.77 1 1 3.03 1s I I I 2.11 2.321 1 1s 349 4.06 1 2.66 1.24 2.27 1 2.331 2.53 1 2.95 21 I 1 3.54 1.321 2.091 24 3.811 2.44 .87 2.59 1 1 2.37 27 1 3.12 I 2.44 1.231 2.891 3o 1 I 1.201 2.491 36 ,1 1.69 3.131 1.011 2.091 4s I I 1 I 1.501 butter has a high nutrititive value and is largely used as a standard food. The best peanut butter is\ usually a blend of the Spanish and Virginia types of nuts. In the manufacture of peanut butter the shelled nuts are roasted; the thin skin covering the nut and most of the germ, PEANUT GROWING IN THE GULF COAST PRAIRIE OF TEXAS 15 or embryo, are removed. The remainder of the nut is ground and a small amount of salt added. \ As mentioned above, the peanut kernel contains 37 to 50 per cent of a highly digestible oil that compares favorably with olive oil for culinary purposes. Peanut oil is used in large quantities as a salad oil, as cooking oil, and in the manufacture of margarine. The inedible grades and the soap stock resulting from refining the oil are used in the manufacture of soap. Peanut oil cake, the residue after the oil has been pressed out, contains 40 to 50 per cent of protein. Experiments have shown that peanut proteins are not only highly digestible but that they rank among the highest in quality, containing all the known essential amino acids. Feeding tests have demonstrated the nutritive value of peanut proteins when used in a grain ration, and are nearly if not quite equal to the proteins of milk, meat, and eggs. Peanuts can be substituted for nuts where the latter are not easily obtained or are high in price. A highly digestible and palatable bread can be made from a mixture of wheat and peanut flour. Peanut vines make a good" quality of hay, containing 1O to 12 per cent of protein. The feeding value of peanut hay compares favorably with that af alfalfa and other leguminous hays. Peanut cake is a good source of protein for livestock rations. Hogs relish peanuts, which, however, should be fed only in moderate amounts to avoid soft pork. The nuts of the small-podded varieties make good poultry feed. It is said that turkeys fattened on peanuts yield a better-flavored and more tender meat than turkeys fattened on corn or other grain feeds. Since the farm machinery used in the production of cotton is also suit- able for the production of peanuts, most cotton growers in the Gulf Coast Prairie of Texas can produce peanuts without buying additional machinery, or equipment, of any kind. The fact that the peanut crop can be stored and the crushing process carried on in cottonseed oil mills with practically no change in equipment, offers an economic advantage in the cotton-growing states. Further, since the farm family diet is often lacking in nuts, peanuts may be used to supply the deficiency. Since peanuts may be produced easily and cheaply, the crop may be grown to advantage on most farms of the region. SUMMARY Experiments with varieties and spacing of peanuts were conducted at the Angleton Station from 1915 to 1933. The Macspan and Spanish varieties made the highest average yield of nuts, 1290 pounds and 1268 pounds per acre, respectively, during the seven years 1927-1933. Carolina Runner and Virginia came next in average yield, producing 1179 and 914 pounds of nuts per acre, respectively, for the same period. Tennessee Red and Valencia, which have the best- flavored nuts, were the lowest-yielding varieties. In production of forage, Carolina Runner ranked first, with an average yieldof 3.19 tons of air-dry forage (vines and nuts) per acre for the 16 BULLETIN NO. 503, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION seven years 1927-1933. Macspan, Virginia, and Spanish each made average yields of slightly more than two tons per acre. The results of these experiments indicate that Carolina Runner, Mac- span, and Spanish are the better varieties for the Gulf Coast Prairie’ of Texas when the yields of both nuts and forage are taken into con- sideration. In spacing experments with the Spanish variety, the best yields of both nuts and forage were obtained from close to medium spacing, 6 to.12 inches apart in three-foot rows. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is indebted to the former superintendents of Texas Substation N0. 3 for part of the data reported in this Bulletin as follows: Mr. N. E. Winters, 1915-1917; Mr. E. B. Reynolds, 1918-1919; Mr. V. E. Hafner, 1920-1925. ~ _ i. l B R A R w’ AEHCUliUFGl & Mechanical College o: 1m; QOHBBB Station, 1mg