TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR College Station, Texas BULLETIN NO. 621 OCTOBER 1942 EFFECTS OF PLANTER ATTACHMENTS AND SEED TREATMENT ON STANDS OF COTTON H. P. SMITH M. H. BYROM Division of Agricultural Engineering “a o 3] w" .8?‘ o‘ 8 5%? *-.=;__;.-A__;>’ "$312 '- s ’ ‘~"-§.‘.'.-i3/ LIBRARY fgriculturalwfieetasaica! féaneszefiflexas Sailfigilfiiaié I AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President B20—1U42—7M—L180 Getting a good stand of cotton without having to replant is one of the chief problems of the cotton grower. That the soil must be sufficiently warmed up in the spring and that ample moisture must be present in a well prepared seedbed is thoroughly understood by cotton farmers. The type of equipment and the adjustment of the various planter attachments are therefore undoubtedly important in obtaining good stands of‘ cotton. Reported in this bulletin are the results of studies to determine the effect on stands of cotton of several planter attachments such. as different types of furrow openers, press wheels, planting at variable depths, and the treatment of undelinted seed and delinted seed with Ceresan, lime, and sulfur. All the experiment-s with planter attachments were conducted at the Main Station Farm on Lufkin fine sandy loam. This soil has a tendency to pack and crust after rains, which sometimes results in poor emergence of cotton. I Better stands of cotton were obtained when the furrow for the seed was opened with a knife or runner type furrow opener than when opened with either a narrow or wide shovel opener. The average percentage of emergence for the three types of furrow openers was 72.5, 59.3, and 55.5 per cent respectively. The knife opener gave better results probably because it left a clean furrow and a firm seedbed with little loose soil. It (11088 not disturb the soil enough to cause it to dry out as rapidly as when‘ the furrows are made by shovel openers. A narrow shovel 1 3/8 inch wide, with shields to hold the loose soil out of the furrow until the seed reached the bottom of the furrow, gave better results than a wide shovel four inches in width. The regular open center press wheel used after covering the seed and in combination with a knife opener gave a slightly higher percentage of emergence than other types of press wheels. Rolling On the seed and pressing them in the bottom of the furrow before covering did not give any better stands than when the soil was pressed with an open center press wheel after covering. All types of press wheels gave slightly better stands of cotton on the Lufkin fine sandy loam than when no press wheel was used, indicating that the press-wheel attachments were beneficial. Cottonseed planted at a constant depth gave better stands and yields on the Lufkin fine sandy loam than cottonseed planted at variable depths. The treatment of cottonseed with Ceresan produced significant in- creases in the emergence of cotton seedlings. Lime, however, reduced . the emergence to some extent. Sulphur apparently had no effect on germination and emergence. CONTENTS Page Introduction 5 Equipment 6 Effect of furroivv openers on stands of cotton 6 Effect of press wheels on stands of cotton 10 Effect of planting at variable and constant depths on stands of cotton_-__ 11 Effect of fertilizer attachments on stands of cotton ______________________________ -- 13 Treatment of cottonseed with Ceresan, lime, and sulfur ______________________ __ 13 Summary and conclusions 14 EFFECT OF PLANTER ATTACHMENTS AND SEED TREATMENT ON STANDS OF COTTON H. P. Smith, Chief, and M. H, Byrom, Agricultural Engineer, Division of Agricultural Engineering A good stand of cotton is often hard to obtain at the first planting. This may be due to many factors, such as moisture in the soil, tempera- ture of the soil, preparation of the seedbed, planting equipment, depth of planting, treatment of the seed, and viability or germinating qualities of the seed. The cotton planting equipment now on the market shows a variety of attachments which will help the skilled farmer to overcome many of the hazards he is faced with in obtaining good stands of cotton. Rapid operating, single and multiple-row machinery is available that will certainly deposit the seed on the bottom of the furrow where the greatest amount of moisture may be found. By using good judgment in selecting the planting depth and the proper use and adjustment of the various attachments available for planters a farmer can do much toward obtain- ing good stands of cotton. Reported in this bulletin are the results of Figure 1. Conventional type cotton and corn planter used in studying the efiects of furrow openers and press wheels on stands of cotton. Note the shovel seed furrow opener and the covering shovels. 6 BULLETIN NO". 6121, TEXAS‘ AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT ‘STATION studies to determine the effect of difierent types of furrow openers, press wheels, planting at variable depths, and the treatment of both undelintea and acid-delinted cottonseed with Ceresan, lime, and sulfur on the stand of cotton. Equipment In conducting these experiments the various planter attachments were mounted on two types of planters. The knife opener was used on an ex- perimental planterdesigned and built by the Bureau of Chemistry and Engineering of the U. S. Department of Agriculture. This machine fully Figure 2. Rear view of planter equipped with open center press wheel. Note that the soil is pressed on each side of the seed and that the soil directly over the seed is left loose and un- pressed. describe-d in Texas Station Bulletin 548 was too heavy for ordinary use. The narrow and wide shovel openers, and the variable-depth attachment (Fig. 5) were used on a conventional one-row riding cotton and corn planter shown in figure 1. The open center press wheel (Fig. 2), the rubber tired press wheel (Fig. 3), and the narrow wood press wheel (Fig. 4) were used on both types of planters and with each type of fur- row opener. Shovel type covering equipment was used with both types of planters. Effect of Furrow Openers on Stands o-f Cotton To study methods of obtaining the best germination, cottonseed was planted on a firm, clean seedbed. In opening the furrow for the seed EFFECT OF ATTACHMENTS AND SEED TREAT‘MENT' ON STANDS OF COTTON Pigure 3. Rubber tired press wheel used to roll on and press cottonseed in the bottom of the furrow before covering. $9“ Figure 4. Side view of narrow wood press wheel used as a subsurface packer type of press wheel. The scrapers behind the wheel fill up the de- pression m.ade by the wheel in cutting through the loose soil. in some of the tests, loose soil was not permitted to fall into the furrow before the seed were deposited on the firm bottom of the furrow. The seed were thus kept more nearly in direct contact with the moist soil 7 8 BULLETIN NO. 621, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT’ STATION and germination was aided. A well constructed knife opener having the lower end of the seed spout fitted between the wings or sides of the opener so that the seed dropped directly on the firm soil was used in one series of tests. The narrow shovel opener which was tested had shields fastened on each side of the shovel to prevent loose soil from falling into the furrow before the seed were deposited in the furrow. The wide shovel used opened a furrow in which some loose soil usually fell back into the furrow to form a thin layer of loose soil just underneath the seed. A close search has not disclosed any references to previous investiga- tions of the effect of furrow openers on the stands of cotton. Figure 5. Views of both sides variable drop attachment mounted on a one-row riding cotton and corn planter. The view on right shows pitman, whee-l, pitman arm, and rocker arm for raising and lowering the knife or runner opener. The view on left shows chain drive and pitman cross shaft. The data (Table 1) show that better stands of cotton were obtained when the furrow for the seed was opened with a knife or runner type furrow opener than when opened with either a narrow or wide shovel opener. The average percentage of emergence of cotton seedlings for the knife opener was 72.5 per cent, for the narrow shovel opener 59.3 per cent, and for the wide shovel 55.5 per cent. The knife opener gave better results probably because it left a clean furrow and a firm seedbed. No loose soil fell into the furrow before the seed were deposited on the bottom of the furrow. The knife opener was set so that it would cut into the firm, well settled soil. About one inch of soil, when pressed down, was mounded up over the seed by covering shovels (Fig. .2). The 1 3/8-inch narrow shovel opener, made a narrow trench-like furrow of about the same width as made by the knife opener but the soil was not left in such a firm condition. Some soil perhaps worked around the shields into the furrow and the seed were probably not always dropped on a perfectly smooth, clean, firm seedbed as was the 9 QR. Qmw Q2. 9% Q5 .3... BEM 80.3% @392... m5. 80.2. .293. QC. Q5 Qt. 2w Y3 Q5 33M mmimio“. .53.. woo? eobaz QM. 3,... w... Tm. #8 w... . QB .33.. 2...» ._ .. = .. Qwm Q2. Q3 Ham Q3 2.3 8.5mm 5b.... . : z : : Q2. Q2 Q2. m2. 12 2.2. $3M mnEEo. .83.. ~35. EEO x-$@ m» Q» : z : : : .%.E N65 @-% 2 Q» 2 I 2 : 2 v.2. Q5 Q$ Q3 Q3 Em... 32M M582... ~82. .538 E50 can wbtwn Hwnnnm Q3 Mém fin. ma. Q5 Qwm Y2. .96.... .28 a : 2 w... Qfl. QR. 2... Q2. v.8 .39.. sabaz : z : 12. W... Q2. Q2. 3a Q9. $2M wfikgoo $53.3 H52... .2... QB 9% v.5 w... Y2 Q2 .25.... Q93 : Q3 #2. QC. w... Qx. Q3. $22G aoflwz .. Q2. Q8 Q2. Q2. m2. 5.... 33M .52.. .25. 6>< $2 2.3 $2 82 B2 .56 _ .8550 Ho wEM ~35» Q33 Ho 3.5. @2632... wo Qwaunoopmm muoflono Bonnflu no monk». afloaoflfl. #33 uoufl #3?» 593a“. no oofiownodno no 6304MB ma?!“ no mwooflfl d fins-H EFFECT OF ATTACHMENTS AND SEED TREATMENT ON STANDS OF COTTON Q2 Mém Q2. Q3 Q8 QM... Q5 wflhzvou .5»? $2.2. 5&0 : .. Qmw Q6 Q2. adv Q2. .2. MQIQPQQ .83.. ~35... Ewno flow mkofixm : : Q3 Q8 Q3 Q5 9% ... Eh. o. who? . . Q5 Q»... m...» m6» Y2 m8 wnoZ 32...? 2B Q2 Qwm W... Q3 fimm QE “.8 magic. ma... .82.... EEO : 2 fiwm Q3 Q2 ma... Q3 fi mniwix. .83.» .833 ammo E... P525 5.5:... : : fix. 2w 2% .2... Q3 Q5 w5$>ou $33 $9.3. : .. QR. M2. QC. Q3. Q3 Q3 Qqoz $2.5 B0932 m2. o6... .2... Q2. Q2. Q2. “.2. mflmgoo .83.. $.26 EEO : ~22. méw Qqw mam. 2E h.®® muifiwoo .83.. .832. n30 v5. 33mm uwnnsm z $2. 2w Q2. Q2. i... i... mnigou 28B $.33. : Q2. QQw Q2 Q2. Q2. 2.6m 26... vficM . .5. . 25.. 3.3 3.3 25M 82 53 a Mahwamw .85 o , Mews.» mmwnn uo 25MB 80.23 Mo GDw-MH Qoqwmgwfiw Ho mmaunwoaom ,_ .... “I036... :u.w 0890x110. In, unmlofio . no .__......=n ; is... 10 v BULLETIN NO. 621, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT SLATIUN case with the knife opener. These factors probably affected the soil con- ditions enough to lower the germination below that of the knife opener. The 4-inch wide shovel opener, opened a wide and shallow furrow. Cot- tonseed dropped in the wide furrow scattered over a wider area than when dropped in the narrow furrows made by the knife and narrow shovel openers. It was necessary to set the covering shovels deeper to throw more soil to fill the wide furrow and to cover the seed adequately. The greater amount of loose soil probably dried out above the seed and af- fected their germination more than when narrow furrows were opened for the seed. Even though better stands were obtained on the Lufkin fine sandy loam soil with the knife opener, the narrow shovel would be more suit- able to use when planting in the hard bottom of a listed furrow and in gravelly or rocky soils. Effect of Press Wheels on Stands of Cotton Cotton growers use many different devices for firming the soil about the cottonseed in an effort to obtain. good stands of cotton. These devices may consist of a roller made from a log, long enough to extend across three rows, some type of drag, two-wheel rollers, or by a chain or stick of wood dragged behind the covering shovels. The average cotton and corn planter is usually equipped with a small steel press wheel which may have either a solid center or an open center; The open-center type shown in figure 2 is the most popular. In 1897 Duggar (3)* found that by rolling a 6-inch face pulley on the soil over the seed good stands were obtained whereas poor stands were obtained where no roller was used. Camp (1) obtained good stands in Arizona by the use of a small press wheel to press the seed into the furrow directly behind the planter spout. Cumings (2) obtained some increase in yield where the seed were pressed in the furrow and covered with loose soil. Jones (4) obtained somewhat more rapid germination in the subhumid regions of Northwest Texas, when a small rubber tired press wheel was rolled on the seed to press them in the furrow before covering than when the seed were not rolled before covering. Table 2 shows that on the Lufkin fine sandy loam at College Station the highest percentage of emergence, 76.0 per cent, was obtained when the regular open center press wheel was used after covering and in combina- tion with a knife opener. The next highest, 72.4 per cent, was obtained when a small rubber tired press wheel was rolled on the seed which pressed them into the bottom of the furrow behind a knife opener before they were covered. It is recognized that different results may have been obtained on different soil types. When results obtained with all three types of furrow opener are con- sidered together, the rubber tired press wheel gave a slightly higher per- *Numbers introduced thus throughout this bulletin refer to references on last page of this bulletin. EFFECT OF ATTACHMENTS AND SEED TREATMENT ON STANDS OF COTTON ll centage of emergence at College Station than the regular open center steel press Wheel or an average of 63.5 and 63.0 per cent, respectively, which is probably not significant. All types of press wheels gave better stands than where no press wheel was used. The narrow wood press wheel shown in figure 4 was weighted so that it cut through the loos-e soil and acted as a sub surface packer and pressed the soil around the seed below the surface rather than pressing the soil above the seed as is done where press wheels roll along on the surface of the soil. Shovel coverers were used in all the experiments to throw soil over the seed. Disk coverers were tried but it was very difiicult to throw a uniform amount of soil and cover the seed at a constant depth. Shovel coverers left the soil ridged-up over the seed (Fig. 2), and when rains occurred before emergence in sufficient amounts to form a hard soil crust, the soil on the sides of the ridge shrank in drying and caused a crack in the peak of the ridge over the seed and running lengthwise along the row. This permitted seedlings that otherwise could not have broken the crust to emerge through the cracks. The open-center press wheel also leaves an unpressed strip of soil directly over the seed (Fig. 2) and this condition may also aid in causing cracks in the soil crust to open up over the seed. When the soil is left flat the soil crust does not shrink and form cracks lengthwise along the row and therefore seedlings do not easily emerge. Cracks form a criss-cross pattern, when the soil is left flat. Effect of Planting at Variable and Constant Depths on Stands of Cotton An experiment was begun in 1932 to determine the effect of planting cottonseed at variable depths and at constant depths on the stands of cotton. The experiment was conducted for a five-year period (1932-1936) at College Station on Lufkin fine sandy loam soil. The attachment for planting at variable depths consisted of sprockets and chains operating from the main axle of the planter to turn a crank which moved a rocker arm up and down (Fig. 5). The furrow opener was attached to the rear end of the rocker arm so that as the planter moved forward the seed opener moved up and down, planting some seed shallow and some deep, and some at intermediate depths (Fig. 6). The idea was to have at least some seed at a depth that might prove suitable for germination. If the soil is cool and wet, the shallow planted seed should germinate best, but if the soil is dry the deeper planted seed should give the best germination. If conditions are unfavorable for either the shallow or the deep planted seed, then the seed at the inter- mediate depths might germinate more easily (Fig. 7). By having the furrow opener set to open a furrow from % to 2 inches in depth within each 14-inch cycle, cottonseed are planted at all of these depths. Figures 6 and 7 show how the seed were planted and how the seedlings emerged '12 BULLETIN NO. 621, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION from the different depths. Figure 6 B shows seed planted at a constant depth. IEigure 6. Cotton planted at variable and constant depths. A shows cottonseed planted at variable depths, while B shows cottonseed planted at a constant depth. A line of stakes are laying along the surface of the ground and the numbers on the small stakes show depth from sur- face to cottonseed. The data in Table 3 show that cotton planted at constant depths of one to one and one-fourth inches gave better stands and yields for the period than cotton planted at variable depths. This was true whether or not press wheels were used. Figure 7'. Showing growth of cotton seedlings resulting from variable depth planting. Note that where the seed were planted shallow the seed- lings have emerged but were they were planted deep they have not emerged. EFFECT OF ATTACHMENTS’ AND SEED TREATMENT‘ ON STANDS OF COTTON 13 V The results in these particular Texas trials fail to show that the use 70f a variable depth planter is advantageous. p Randolph (5) in his studies at Prattville, Alabama, obtained good iistands and better yields by planting cotton at variable depths than at constant depths in the Alabama Tests. The soil was of a difierent type ' than the Lufkin fine sandy loam at College Station, and the climatic can- gditions were also different. 1 Table 3. Average stand of plants and acre yield of seed cotton, when planted a at constant and variable depths, at College Station, Texas Plants emerging in 50 feet of row Method of planting Press wheels _ 1932 } 1933 m 1934 f 1935 1 1936 ‘Average Constant depth None 360 212 95 250 292 242 Variable depth None 352 _ 221 115 69 223 196 Constant depth Regular 323 234 139 319 % 260 Variable depth Regular 313 221 133 9'4 231 198 Acre yield seed cotton (pounds) Constant depth None 579 523 331 1098 346 i 775 Variable depth None 473 459 276 765 258 ‘ 446 Constant depth Regular 499 569 372 913 398 ‘ 550 Variable depth Regular 541 as? 282 952 241 l 52a Effect of Fertilizer Attachments on Stands of Cotton It has been shown in Texas Station Bulletins 548 and 616 that better lsstands and yields are obtained when the fertilizer for cotton is placed some two inches to the side of the seed and approximately two inches deeper than the seed. The fertilizer can be applied in the right location {by making the proper adjustments of the attachments for distributing éboth the fertilizer and the seed. In these tests the fertilizer was distributed at the same operation as the planting. The two operations done at the tame time saved time, labor, and expense. Attachments were used to ,lace the fertilizer in relation to the seed so that results could be com- pared with the well-known results when the fertilizer is applied before lanting or as a side dressing. The parts of the fertilizer attachment f7 d their operation were not permitted to interfere with the planter parts- and their operation. Treatment of Cottonseed with Ceresazn, Lime, and Sulfur a Some farmers in difierent parts of the State have used ordinary slacked 5 me to treat their cottonseed before planting. This was done in the at- ‘ mpt to control disease organisms that injure young cotton seedlings end often hinder germination and emergence. An experiment was started J 1935 to determine the relative benefits that may be derived by treat- 14 BULLETIN NO. 621, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘ STATION ing both undelinted and delinted cottonseed with Ceresan, lime, and sulfur. The experiment was conducted at Main Station Farm at College Station and at Substation No. 11, Nacogdoches. Several workers (6 to 12) have found that cottonseed treated with Ceresan produced better stands thaan untreated seed. Table 4 shows that at College Station the treatment of undelinted cottonseed with Ceresan gave an average percentage of emergence of 71.0 per cent, while the untreated seed gave 59.8, lime tested, 55.0, and sulfur tested, 59.6 per cent. At Nacogdoches the average emergency for the no treatment, Ceresan, lime, and sulfur was 59.0, 83.0, 54.0 and 58.0 per cent, respectively. Ceresan produced significant increases in the emergence of cotton seedlings. Lime, however, reduced the emergence to some extent. Sulfur apparently had no effect on germination and emergence of undelinted cottonseed. Cottonseed delinted with sulfuric acid andtreated with Ceresan, lime, and sulfur, gave average percentages of emergence of 85.4, 73.6, and 79.3 per cent, respectively at College Station and 89.4, 72.5, 82.8 per cent, respectively at Nacogdoches (Table 5). The average percentage of emergence for the no treatment was 80.5 per cent for College Station, and 80.0 per cent for Nacogdoches. The Cereson treated delinted seed gave a. substantially higher percentage of emergence- than other treatments at both Nacogdoches and at College Station. The difference, however, was not statistically significant at College Station as compared with no treat- ment. At both locations the lime treatment gave substantially lower stands than the no treatment, again indicating, as was the case with un- delinted seed, that the lime treatment reduced germination of delinted cottonseed. Sulfur did not appear to effect appreciably the germinating qualities of either delinted or undelinted cottonseed. Summary and Conclusion Different types of furrow openers and press wheels, and variable drop attachment were used to determine their effects on stand of cotton. In these studies undelinted and delinted cottonseed were treated with Cer- esan, lime, and sulfur to determine the best treatment for cottonseed used for planting purposes. A knife or runner, furrow-op-ener gave better percentages of emer- gence and stands than narrow or Wide shovel openers. The narrow shovel opener gave better stands than the wide opener. The knife and narrow shovel openers cut a narrow furrow and did not disturb and loosen the‘ soil enough to cause as much loss of moisture as when the wide opener was used. ' On Lufkin fine sandy loam the regular opener-center press wheel used after covering and in combination with a knife opener gave a slightly higher percentage of emergence than other types of press wheels. Rolling on the seed and pressing them in the bottom of the furrow be- >15’ N O T T O C F O S D m T S N O _ W. m NH H. m . . HE , BR: Hume En m W“ | 23 an ounsocwcmmm How mnmwfi ,0?» qwwBpwn wwbsvfi QEHFSHHFH T . . T _ _ A o.Hw w Hm WE T $8 Nzww 3w Qww MHK N.~a Him» e31. Hm . Q fi 6.3 m. S. méw 7 Q3 HQ. m6» Q3 9m» 9% H? H3 Mk2. T HHHHWQHHwm H Hm gm Q5 Q8 mam H2 iw Hiow Q w . . . . . H T mdw odw ma» YE. H. . . .- .H. H.Hm H 5 m Hm _ w m» cmwwHwO D a. w mm b mm m Hm w Hw w Hm mww N.mh éfiv QHHOZ E E % QHHBZHHHHQ m w: T w T S e H m mHH , 1K2 H93 HoQ m T __ 0H3. pm wucwvfiuwmm MOM mnwwi .95 cwwkpwn umbsvmt moflwnowfimm N i E . _ . _ __ _ _ , . _ wmm _ owm Q5 wd . .1 . . . . W . . . . m mi.“ _ QE i Qmm 4 3M 7 wmw w wwm _ 3M 3W w _ WE W? PE % 5.33m 0 QR w 9% _ W5 mg: _ 9% Q2 7% Q? NE H? W8 5 h? 25H A Hiam W o._mm. _ “HQ wéw _ H48 HQ. adm . a . .. .5. Wm... w S. Q3950 W W fl _ L __ w 9 m 8 o wm m $ m mm ma“. 252 A . fi AHHYHEZHHHQZD T WHHQEQQQH wufiw><__ 22 $2 k ma: __ 52 % 8x: §§~><_ 26H _ $2 _ mi: R2 _ 82 m 5B E “ _ u _ . i: _ _ _ _ \ H uwm$>< mosuowmoowZ HHoEHx-w $21.0 HFEGLxEH vim E nEHQHHn was .05: flanonoO :33 . c2393 one? uoonnowaoo 6353c E3 uuannaua: HonB 9952.3 #0300 no oonouaoio no obcafloouoa ouanohfl d. OnfldH I. - wit. , . _.wlr._bn;.. r E . = k. u. P iLf: 16 BULLETIN NO. 621, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT‘ STATION fore covering did not give any better stands than when the soil was pressed with an open center press Wheel after covering. A11 types of press Wheels gave slightly better stands than when no press wheel was used. Cottonseed planted at constant depths gave better stands and yields on the Lufkin fine sandy loam than did cottonseed planted at variable depths. The treatment of both undelinted and acid delinted cottonseed with 2 per cent Ceresan gave substantial increase in stands over seed receiving treatment of lime and sulfur and no treatment. Lime appeared to injure the germinating qualities of cottonseed while sulfur had little or no effect. REFERENCES Press Wheels 1. Camp, W. B. Townsend, J. S., 1926. Uniform-depth press-wheel cotton- planter. attachment. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Dept. circ. 381. 2. Cumings, G. A., et al., 1933. Mechanical Application of Fertilizers to gotten South Carolina 1931. U. S. Department of Agriculture circ. 64, p. . 3. Duggar, J. F., 1897. Experiments with Cotton. Ala. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 76, p. 29. 4. Jones, D. L. Unpublished data from 1936 and 1937 Annual Reports from Texas Substation No. 8, Lubbock, Texas. Variable Depth 5. Randolph, John H., et. al., 1940. Cotton Tillage Studies on Red Bay Sandy Loam. U. S. Department of Agriculture circ. 540, p. 30. Seed Treatment -6. Hale, E. E. and Armstrong, Geo. N. 1926. Cotton Experiments at Flor- ence, S. C. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull 225. 7. Hall, E. E., Delinting and Treatment of Cottonseed. 36th, 41st and 46th Annual Reports S. C. Agr. Expt. Sta. 8. Lehman, S. G., 1925. Studies on Treatment of Cottonseed. N. C. Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 26. 9. Perkins, W. R., Anderson, W. S. and Welborne, W. W. 1929. Organic Mercury Treatment for Cotton. 'Rep0rt of the South Miss. Branch Expt. Sta. Bull. 274. 10. Smith, H. P., et. al., 1936. Chemical Dust ‘Treatment of Cottonseed for Planting Purposes. Tex. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 531. 11. Wallace, H. F., and Colley, J. L., Jr., 1939. Ceresan Treatment of Cot- tonseed. Report of the Raymond Branch Expt. Sta. Miss. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 271. 12. Walters, Phillip, 1933-1934. Ceresan Treatment of Cottonseed. 46 An- nual Report of the Ga. Agr. Expt. Sta. ‘Sfldlltvfl ‘3931103 W *7 V! ‘AHVHSI’!