gal/elm 72: ‘  A/aaanfim r954

Performance 0 f Cotton  Va rietiex

 in T exas, 1951-53 a

 a.“
=1‘-»‘.-"<
‘I
_ . ,1‘!-
.‘ ‘a \
UALLAM sot-mu. '|;_r.;s.,+-.g ogmJa-J Uwggorrg »filF1,-
HARTLEY MOORE wuYcv-uu- noggars hymn“
QH
QDNAM POTTER CQRSON GRAY WNEELKR
our 5mm RANDALL “W” oouecv °°lL"~'°5'
STRONG l wont»

wamm  cnsmo  smsuza emsco: HnLL IIISHD-
' c

’ I fianoimau
.
BAILEY LAMB mu: FLOYD monzv c0111: wwmann-
FOARD

WICHITA

  

HAN ZANDY

GER ‘ ' '
l _--- , ‘in I ~ .
*\ W‘ a I _ WI nzo
I‘ . a
COCNRLN HOCKLEY LUBBOCK CROSBY DICKENS KIN» KNOX SAYLOR ARCHER _  COOK‘ GRAYSDN . FANNI. 1 LAMA RWER
w w * A1.  ' '-
' . A‘. ._ g g 3 (__
. -- . I, ' ‘ ‘ z ' ' cnss
voaxuu tcanv mm emu. l xcm 5:515‘ unseat Saga’; vouuol new Lms: - ocmou cotun ‘a3. rgPKfiS E " 
- _ . "al-ljzaw‘ _____
_ ' Iii‘ - ms‘ ~ .. '_~ mum
l ‘ . - woos uPBuuN. -
suncxct- PAW PARKER nnanur onus -
same; oawson Barman scurmv nsvcn _ JONES FORD TENT-NS‘ P. o | ‘Mun V“ _  “Mmsou

I "Om Jo-wsou nus "T 5;“ . T .
“man's "Mum "ownnolwycagu NOLAN _ TAVLOR CALLANA EASYLANO E M"  L  nENDEQSON _. ANOLA
w-gv ~ .
* I j  *  \'< Mvfimo "" cwca- ‘-"

' \ . ' "M- - 012E -
1 . - W.
"so , I i _ GLASS- srca- _ Co“; ‘ - COMANCM , > _( "La-Asox .. F-
EL* I Lows “mum. ca“ 'WDLAND w“ U“ Ruuucts-cotcunu snow»: -/ ' 80mm A" ' . "fir". I “petites '_'
‘ . I  ____ "%._m:1_‘ro~ < |_|.'£— \ "o  . ' z 3 T

  

   
  
    
  
 

 

   
  
     
     

  

 

- . NcLENN-KN ' sroas ' a zf
‘ :1. L‘ - E v‘ SIINE
nuosezm cuuacnson 0pm" RU ‘m Tc M LL5 W come» - L? n wOusYon Ava.“  _
n: - >1 . - - _,
. R ea " -_ V T
REEVES l i ‘ GREEN MCIULLOCH 5m \ . n Ls - .
- saaa LA"’*‘5“5 ‘ \ "' "they". \

* ._-----—— ezu. - . n» '\ z

‘ / _ vu~ g , 8

/. . . scmmcfl“ ncruno BURNU/  MILAM waxy: g ‘ w;

\ .
' PECOS cnocxsfl’ _ _ mason Luwo - WKUAMSON . 3  ,_ 1
JEiF onvns ' - - 2* \._._\,=. u Q
' _ w .
‘L ' - - surrou KIMbLE  - k/A“ a °
i \ CILLESJIC . mmcok ‘RAW?’ ’ LEE _
. | ' - -
_ TERRELL -

*1"! KERR . _¢Q“'5\l/QASYRoP/;/ no?!»
' RD‘; ' KENDALL - -
PRESIDIO I BREWSTER VAL VERDE FDWA _ ° "FQYETTE
_ __-\ - g tl-untuy
. REAL _ EANDERA “HAG. . - ‘ - _ ‘No
I ~ J ' GUADA- cow‘ "

    

 

7 BEXAN LUPE’
KmNEY UVALCE IvEC-"I-i - a '__ '\
 L~- ozwrrr 
‘ ‘I A _ Rmmas 
COTTON VARIETY RECOMMENDATIONS BY AREAS g  ' — ,1 l°°“‘.‘°
Area Name Test Location a L‘ SAM ""22"  as; ’  /
1 Lower Rio Grande Ieslaco, Hidalgo, Cameron, . A‘, ‘W  "/
_ - I PATRICIO

Valley Iillacy Cos. ,0, ' /

2 South Texas l: Lower Beeville, Robstown, Bates- '5“ I V“ “QJFLWECE? I _‘
- - -§_xLcaeRo'
Gulf Coast ville. Port Lavaca ~ a h‘ . “STANDARD n“ LOCAHONS
Upper Gulf Coast Wharton, Angleton, Sugar Land ' ' I‘ "*1 L_ L‘
Ea:t T T l 1A,,“ -_“T- $-KENE'  " Q OTHER TEST LOCATIONS
exas y er , » - , ‘

5 Blackland Prairie k Greenville, Temple, College \ 

Central Texas Station, Prairie View -
6 Cross Timbers Denton, Stephenville
7 Rolling Plains Chillicothe, Iowa Park, Spur
8 High Plains Lubbock, Big Spr in; , Plainview
9 Trans-Pecos Balmorhea

l0 Upper Rio Grande Ysleta
Valley~

in cooperation with the _
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIIIN - - - TEXAS ACRICULTURAL EXTENSIIIN SERVICE
College Station, Texas

PREFACE

The cotton variety testing program in Texas is designed to inform growers of the
performance of new varieties and strains and to compare such types with standard va-
rieties in general use.

This bulletin gives information on the performance of cotton varieties tested dur-
ing the second 3-year period 1951-53, of the statewide varietial evaluation program.
Bulletin 739 gave varietal performance results for the first 3-year period, 1948-50.
Summary bulletins will be issued at the completion of each succeeding 3-year testing
period. Progress reports are issued by the individual stations annually on the results
of the current year’s cotton variety test at a particular location.

Texas is divided into three general testing regions to facilitate the systematic test-
ing of varieties—the Lower Rio Grande Valley and the Trans-Pecos; the High and Roll-
ing Plains; and the central, coastal and eastern portions of the State. Ten production
areas are designated to provide a more practical basis for varietial recommendations.

Yield results and other agronomic information on the performance of varieties
within each region and at each test location within the regions are given in tabular
form, pages 10 to 13. Varieties recommended for each production area are given on
pages 7 and 8. Yield in pounds of lint cotton per acre was given highest priority in se-
lecting the varieties to be recommended. Other characteristics, such as adaptation to
prevalent harvesting practices, fiber properties, disease resistance and earliness of ma-
turity, also were considered in making the recommendations.

Sources of seed of the varieties tested also are given.

CONTENTS
Page
Preface .......................................................................................................................................................................... __ 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. .. 3
Types of Tests ............................................................................................................................................................. __ 3
Regions and Test Locations ..................................................................................................................................... .. 3
Climatic Conditions and Soil Types ....................................................................................................................... .. 4
Field Design of Tests ...........................................................  ...............................................  ................................ .. 4
Interpretation of Results ....................................................................................................................................  4
Yield and Other Characteristics .......................................................................................................................  5
Statewide Results ............................................................................................................................................... .. 5
Lower Rio Grande Valley and Trans-Pecos Region ................................................................................... .. 6
High and Rolling Plains Region ...........................................................  ....................................................... ._ 6
Central, Coastal and Eastern Region ............................................................................................................. .. 6
Varieties Recommended ............................................................................................................................................ .. 7
Importance of Quality ............................................................................................................................................... .. 8
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................................... .. 8
Appendix .................................................................................................................................................................. .. 10
Tabular Data on Yield and Other Characteristics of Varieties ............................................................ .. 10

Source of Seed ..................................................................................................................................................... .. 13

 

   

MAIN PURPOSE of the statewide cotton va-
 testing program of the Texas Agricultural
 iment Station is to supply farmers with in-
Htion for use as a basis for selecting the va-
' or varieties, best suited to the varied con-
i. and farming systems in Texas. This in-
tion also is useful to plant breeders, spin-
I, d Workers in many other segments of the
u industry.

   
  
   
   
 
  
  
  

he establishment of a number of test loca-
’ makes it possible to measure the response of
 ies to different soil and climatic conditions.
L» a reliable basis for predicting the future
rmance of varieties, it is also necessary to
'n a reasonable estimate of the yearly or sea-
‘ effects. Information from only 1 year of
l» g will not give reliable estimates of per-
ance. More confidence can be placed on the
ge performance of varieties over a period

‘Although a longer period of testing may have
desirable in some cases, the pressure for cur-
information on the performance of varieties
j the adoption of a 3-year test period. Yield
‘ ation based on 3 years of testing usually
ishes satisfactory statistics on which to pre-
future performance. The testing plan per-
_ a reorganization at the end of each 3-year
period. Poor performers, revealed by the
A; can be discarded and new varieties added
-l g the next 3-year period.

f This bulletin gives information on variety

strain performance for the 3-year test per-
, 1951-53, at 21 locations over the State. At
conclusion of the next testing period, 1954-56,
her bulletin on the performance of cotton va-
ies will be published.

TYPES OF TESTS

1 Three types of variety tests were conducted
i year. One was a standard, or regional test,
it included a given number of varieties which
ained constant at each location in the region
Y, the 3-year period. Another was a supple-
tal test that included entries which varied
I year to year and from location to location.

     
  
  
 

pectively, associate professor and professor in charge,
n investigations section, Department of Agronomy;
0 cotton work specialist, Texas Agricultural _Extens1on
; ice. T. R. Richmond also is agronomist, Field Crops
‘earch Branch, Agricultural Research Service, U. S.
artment of Agriculture.

Preformance of Cotton Varietie: in T exas, 1951-53

D. T. KILLOUGH, T. R. RICHMOND AND F. C. ELLIOTT*

The third type consisted of outfield tests carried
on in cooperation with county agents of the Tex-
as Agricultural Extension Service.

In setting up the field designs of the variety
tests, the regional test of 16 standard varieties
was combined with the supplemental test of new
varieties and strains in one planting plan. This
arrangement facilitated cross comparisons and
did not affect the validity of the analysis of the
data from the separate tests. This procedure
was followed in most cases although certain sta-
tions in the different regions did not test all 16
standard varieties, while others included more
than that number.

Only the results of the standard or regional
tests are reported in this bulletin. Results of the
supplemental tests are published in progress re-
ports issued from time to time by the individual
substations, and may be obtained from them or
from the Agricultural Information Office at Col-
lege Station, Texas. Results of the outfield tests
have been published by the respective county
agents.

REGIONS AND TEST LOCATIONS

To form a general, though somewhat arbi-
trary, basis for systematizing the testing program
within those parts of Texas which are broadly
similar in climate, soils and production practices,
three testing regions have been designated. One
is the Lower Rio Grande Valley and the Trans-
Pecos. The second covers the High and Rolling
Plains. The third includes the central, coastal
and eastern portions or all other areas of cotton
production.

As the work progressed, it became obvious
that smaller and more specifically defined areas

were required if varietial recommendations were '

to have practical meaning. Therefore, the three
regions were divided into 10 production areas.
The areas, shown on the front cover, have fairly
Well-defined patterns of soil types, climatic con-
ditions and farming practices.

The irrigated region comprises areas 1, 9
and 10; the High and Rolling Plains region in-
cludes areas 7 and 8; and the central, coastal and
eastern regions which includes the remainder of
the cotton-growing areas of Texas comprises areas
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The 21 test locations from which
data were obtained for inclusion in this bulletin
are designated by stars and dots on the map on
the front cover.

By region, they are:

LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY AND TRANS-PECOS

Substation No. 15, Weslaco, (Irrigated)
Substation N0. 19, Winter Haven, (Irrigated)
Substation No. 9, Balmorhea, (Irrigated)
Substation No. 17, Ysleta, (Irrigated)

HIGH AND ROLLING PLAINS

Substation No. 7, Spur, (Dryland)
Substation N0. 8, Lubbock, (Dryland)
Substation No. 8, Lubbock, (Irrigated)
Paymaster Farm, Plainview, (Irrigated)
Substation No. 12, Chillicothe, (Dryland)
Substation No. 16, Iowa Park, (Irrigated)
U. S. Field Station, Big Spring, (Dryland)

CENTRAL, COASTAL AND EASTERN REGION

Substation No. 1, Beeville, (Dryland)
Substation No. 2, Tyler, (Dryland)

Substation No. 3, Angleton, (Dryland)
Substation No. 5, Temple, (Dryland)
Substation No. 6, Denton, (Dryland)
Substation No. 18, Prairie View, (Dryland)
Substation No. 2.0, Stephenville, (Dryland)
Main Station Farm, College Station, (Dryland)

Brazos River Valley Laboratory, College Station, (Dry-

land)
U. S. Cotton Field Station, Greenville, (Dryland)

Variety tests conducted under the supervis-
ion of county agents of the Agricultural Exten-
sion Service were not always designed in full con-
formity with the standard testing plan insofar
as number of entries was concerned. Such tests
were conducted in Zavala (Batesville), Hale, Hi-

dalgo, Cameron, Willacy, Nueces

(Robstown) ,

Fort Bend (Sugar Land) and Calhoun counties.

These cooperative outfield tests permit a
more widespread testing of old and new commer-

cial varieties and recently developed strains.

Al-

though the results of the outfield tests are not
given in the bulletin, they were used in arriving
at variety recommendations for the areas con-

CLIMATIC CONDITIONS AND sou. TYP §

Detailed information on the climatic c,
tions prevailing before and during the 3-year ‘-
ing period, and on the soil types on which
tests were conducted, is given in Table 1.

FIELD DESIGN OF TESTS

The tests were designed both as 4 x 4 .
entries), 5 x 5 (25 entries), 6 x 6 (36 ent e
and 7 x 7 (49 entries) triple lattices and as fl
ple randomized blocks, each with six replicati
Since the triple lattice designs lend themselv
analysis as simple randomized block experim,
as well as to triple lattice treatment, both an
ses were made.
simpler randomized analysis was used.

An analysis of the combined data for e’

variety for the 3-year test period was mad

each station or test location. The average yi‘
of individual entries were used as a basis fort
culating standard errors (computed from the‘
teraction of varieties x years) and least sip
cant differences among varieties. Entry a
ages also were used in the combined regi
analyses. In these cases, the within-variety ~
iances were used in computing standard erro

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Statistical analyses were made to deter I
the number of pounds of lint cotton per acre
quired for a real or statistically significant d' g
ence between any two varieties in a given
As a basis for calculating real or significant,
ference, it is necessary to assume a certain l

of probability; that is, odds that the differ
observed is statistically significant. e

The odds used in calculating the differe

required for significance between yields of v

eties, shown in the footnotes of Tables 2 to

cerned. are 19 to 1. This means that a difference as g.
Table 1. Average temperature, rainfall. length of growing season and soil types at test locations
' I Temperature, degrees Rainfall, inches Length of growing seasor .
No. Jraqafia. 1w . - - a
Location of test years Mean Mean First Last dazs sod “mes on which
reported Mean monthly monthly Average Growing No. of killing killing temp tests we” 9r°wn
annual maxi- mini- seasonl days frost frost in 32° or
mum mum in fall spring less
Region 1 
Winter Haven 36 74.0 84.7 23.22 12.18 330 Dec. 20 Ian. 25 3.2 Willacy and Hidalgo sandy 1
Balmorhea 30 64.8 80.2 49 4 13.67 9.10 230 Nov. 13 Mar. 29 58.6 Balmorhea clay and clay loam >
Weslaco 20 72.0 84.4 21.67 14.69 294 Dec. 7 Feb. 17 11.2 Orelia fine sandy loam and clay
Region 2 e
Spur 42 61.9 77. 46.9 20.83 14.41 215 Nov. 4 Apr. 3 84. Abilene clay loam _
Lubbock 42 60.0 74.6 45.5 18.66 13.03 211 Nov. 4 Apr. 7 92.9 Amarillo fine sandy loam g
Chillicothe 47 63.1 76.0 50.1 24.46 16.10 231 Nov. l1 ar. 24 69.3 Abilene loam and iine sandy 1
Iowa Park 25 64.7 77.8 51.8 30.03 18.05 221 Nov. 7 Mar. 31 63.1 Miller and Yahola series ‘
Big Spring 32 63.2 78.1 42.7 18.38 12.28 225 Nov. 10 Mar. 31 76.0 Amarillo fine sandy loam
Region 3
Main Sta. Farm, i
College Station 50 68.4 79.5 57.2 38.85 19.95 263 Nov. 25 Mar. 6 20.7 Lufkin fine sandy loam
Brazos River Valley
Lab.. College Sta. 68.1 80.2 56.1 40.82 21.76 256 Nov. 15 Mar. 7 13.8 Miller clay
Beeville 47 71.3 82.5 60.1 30.20 17.79 294 Dec. 7 Feb. 15 11.1 Clareville clay loam ,
Tyler 48 65.9 76.3 55.4 44.69 21.49 250 Nov. 19 Mar. 14 29.2 Northeast Texas sandy loams '
Angleton 39 69.1 79.6 58.7 48.09 25.77 281 Dec. 3 Feb. 25 14.2 Lake Charles clay 2-
Temple 40 67.2 79.1 55.3 34.48 18.93 248 Nov. 21 Mar. 15 33.0 Houston Black clay
Denton 40 64.9 76.9 52.9 .76 18.31 234 Nov. 13 Mar. 15 49.9 Denton and San Saba clays
Stephenville 8 65.2 76.6 53.8 30.60 17.69 248 Nov. 18 Mar. 15 36.8 Windthorst fine sandy loam
Greenville 32 64.2 78.1 50.2 41.24 22.08 235 Nov. 11 Mar. 21 45.3 Hunt clay

‘April through September. except for Weslaco where the growing season is from March through August.

4

No advantage was found, so

.T....._..».La.-o-r~.n¢-Q-¢-I-'-".'M!1<!CDQJ<U

s: new: Q a» a - ...;;-.

n). . -..

   
      
  
   
  
  
  
  
   
  
  
   
   
 

tater than the one observed would occur by
_- e only once in 20 times. Using the calcu-
value for significant yield differences, it is
ble to determine within the limits of the as-
 odds whether a given variety differs from
{other in the test. On the same basis, groups
arieties which do not differ significantly
 g themselves can be established. In this
tin, the “high yield group” contains the va-
 with the highest average yield and all others
, h do not differ significantly from it.

d1.‘
st-
he.

Entries in cotton variety tests often do not
 tain the same order of ranking from year to
f ; that is, the varieties behave differently in
_rent years. Individual varieties show differ-
cfpatterns of behavior in this regard. Certain
eties tend to rank near the top of the tests
ly every year, others rank near the bottom
‘still others fluctuate widely in ranking. This
p. action of varieties with years is apparent in
data for the 3-year period reported here. In
F!‘ combined analyses of the data from single lo-
11' fl or stations there were several instances
I" onsignificant (N/S) differences in yield; i.e.,
a1 7L.S.D.’s were so large that all of the entries
F‘ f included in the range of differences requir-
or significance. In other words, the variation

he variety X year interaction was as great or

_ ter than the variation among the average
[e ds of the varieties. Therefore, it was impos-
.' to discriminate between varieties solely on
basis of the combined data for the 3-year per-
at those locations where statistically signifi-
differences could not be demonstrated. In
 instances, the ranking of the varieties in the
rate years was used as the primary basis for
ration or choice. Factors other than yield
ed as a secondary basis for recommendation.

   
   
  
 
   
 
 
  

t’ YIELD AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS

 Information on the yield and other charac-
istics of the varieties tested is complete for

each of the 3 years at 15 of the 21 stations cover-
ed by this report. Only 2 years’ results are avail-
able at 4 stations (1951 and 1952 at Stephenville;
1951 and 1953 at Big Spring; 1951 and 1952 at
Lubbock—dryland test; 1951 and 1953 at Wes-
laco,) and only 1 year's results are available at
2 stations (1951 at Spur and 1953 at Winter Ha-
ven — Batesville) because unfavorable climatic
conditions and poor stands rendered the tests in-
valid in certain years during 1951-53.

Statewide Results

To obtain information on the statewide reac-
tion to varietal adaptation, 9 well-known and
widely-grown varieties were included in the tests
at 15 locations during the entire 3-year period.
These were Hi-Bred, Deltapine TPSA, Stormproof
No. 1, Empire Watson, Lockett 140, Texacala
5455 Rogers, Northern Star, Lankart 611 and
Rowden 41B TPSA. The yield results are re-
ported in Table 2.

While only 9 named varieties appeared at
each of 15 test locations,it is presumed that other
strains of these same 9 varieties would have per-
formed in a similar way if they had been grown
at all locations. For example, where both Delta-
pine 15 (Miss.) and Deltapine TPSA were
grown at the same test location, they made al-
most identical yields, 501 and 517 pounds of lint
per acre, respectively, Table 17. Similar results
were obtained at another location when Empire
WR (Ga.) was compared with Empire Watson,
the yields being 320 and 291 pounds, respectively,
Table 20. This same relationship in yield might
also be expected to apply where the better strains
of Acala, Mebane and Rowden are compared.

Many major types or strains of cotton are
represented by several commercial varieties. In
such cases, it has been impossible to test all of
them under a standardized system. However, all
of the known agricultural varieties offered for

Table 2. Statewide average yield. pounds of lint per acre. 1951-53

  

   
  
 

    

    
  

Variety BRVL‘ MSF’ Beeville Tyler Angleton Temple Denton Spur Igggmc: lgfifitgggg’
ed 473(5)“ 221(1) 239(6) 341(1) 6(2) 322(4) 331(7) 387(1) 144(6) 600(1)
~ ‘ine TPSA 517(1) 204(4) 252(4) 248(7) 499(1) 348(3) 366(3) 308(3) 168(2) 537(3)
proof 1 512(2) 207(3) 274(2) 223(8) 456(2) 5(1) 385(1) 378(2) 152(4) 453(5)
- ' '0. Watson 454(8) 203(5) 284(1) 291(2) 391(5) 351(2) 354(5) 252(9) 175(1) 547(2)
1 tt 140 481(3) 209(2) 236(7) 262(6) 421(4) 304(7) 385(1) 345(6) 150(5) 415(7)
la 5455. Rogers 474(4) 179(9) 225(8) 264(4) 426(3) 321(5) 367(2) 349(5) 143(7) 511(4)
urn Star 455(7) 194(8) 256(3) 263(5) 355(6) 319(6) 5(4) 328(7) 150(5) 450(6)
 611 466(6) 198(6) 244(5) 272(3) 268(8) 299(8) 338(6) 377(3) 450(6)
l ~- n 41B TPSA 393(9) 195(7) 202(9) 208(9) 317(7) 282(9) 302(8) 371(4) 133(8) 381(8)
hand continuation:
Variety Chillicothe Prairie View Stephenville Big Spring Greenville Average yield‘
0d 187(6) 503(2) 177(1) 106(2) 446(1) 329
- ine TPSA 221 (4) 475(5) 172(2) 120(1) 395(5) 322
proof 1 249(1) 481(3) 126(7) 2(3) 392(6) 316
' e. Watson 180(7) ' 515(1) 142(6) 93(5) 382(7) 308
1 tt 140 245(2) 479(4) 149(4) 98(4) 17(3) 306
cala 5455. Rogers 207(5) 448(7) 152(3) 89(7) 398(4) 304
em Star ' 225(3) 448(7) 149(4) 92(6) 420(2) 297
i ~ 611 174(8) 462(6) 144(5) 76(8) 373(8) 7
- n 41B TPSA 172(9) 345(8) 96(8) 60(9) 340(9) 253

 

    
 

~ s River Valley Laboratory. College Station.
\- Station Farm. College Station.
~ shown in parentheses.

- of 19 to 1 that such a difference is real and not due to chance.

 

‘ difference in average yield between any two varieties grown at the 15 locations must equal or exceed the L.S.D. value of 21 pounds to give

5

Table 3. Regional cotton variety test, region 1, main irri-
gated areas, average yield, pounds of lint per
acre. 1951-53

_ Balmorhea l Weslacol I Ysleta I Average
‘knew Yield I Rank ield I ank Yield Rank yield
Acala 1517C (N.M.) 966 3 866 4 1161 1 998
Deltapine TPSA 988 2 908 1 1049 2 982
Acala 4-42 ( Calif.) 930 5 823 6 985 3 913
Stoneville TPSA 933 4 825 5 932 6 897
Texacala 5455, Rogers 814 7 868 2 946 5 876
Mesilla Valley Acala 858 6 756 7 968 4 861
Hi-Bred 997 1 867 3 706 8 857
Rowden 41B TPSA 746 8 741 8 797 7 761
L.S.D. value? 164 N/S 177 107

1 Two years results, 1951 and 1953.

¢The difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or
exceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds of 19 to 1 that such
a difference is real and not due to chance.

sale in Texas have been tested at one or more lo-
cations at some time.

Lower Rio Grande Valley and Trans-Pecos Region

Yields of the better varieties grown in the
main irrigated areas of Texas averaged almost
2 bales per acre at Weslaco and Balmorhea, and
slightly more than 2 bales per acre at Ysleta,
Table 3.

The higher yielding varieties as an average
for all three stations in the order named, were
Acala 1517C (N .M.), Deltapine TPSA, Acala 4-42
(Calif.), Stoneville TPSA, Texacala 5455 Rogers,
Daesilla Valley Acala, Hi-Bred and Rowden 41B
T ’SA.

Results of the irrigated tests at Weslaco, Bal-
morhea, Ysleta and Winter Haven (Batesville)
are given in Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9, respectively.

High and Rolling Plains Region

Cotton is grown under both dryland and irri-
gated conditions on the High and Rolling Plains.
Both a dryland and an irrigated test were con-
ducted at Lubbock but data obtained under irri-
gation were incomplete. _ Data only from the dry-
land test are shown in the regional summary,
Table 4. Results from the irrigated test at Lub-
bock are given in Table 11. The tests at Iowa
Park and Plainview were irrigated. At all other

Table 4. Regional cotton variety test, region 2, High and Rolling Plains, average yield, pounds lint per acre, 1951-53

locations the tests were grown under dryland

ditions.

acceptable yields in the region.

Paymaster 54, Hi-Bred, Deltapine T
Stormproof No. 1, C A 119, Stormmaster, 
Stormproof, Lockett 140 and Northern Star f
among the better yielding varieties at most 0
testing points during the 3 years, Table 4. * I
average of all stations in region 2, the yieli
the varieties ranged from 316 pounds for 1
master 54 to 223 pounds for Rowden 41B T
Separate results of the tests at each statio
region 2 are given in Tables 10 to 16. The 
ties recommended for dryland planting alsoi
satisfactory for growing under irrigation. _

The varieties tested on the High and R0 A
Plains under dryland conditions, for the I
part, produced shorter lint than did similar
rieties in the main irrigated areas of Texas.

ever, fiber and spinning tests have shownt
in spite of their somewhat shorter length, a I,
ber of the varieties commonly grown in West t.
as had acceptable fiber strength and other-
sirable textile properties.

Since cotton in this region often is lef_
the field until nearly all of the bolls have ma "
ed and is then harvested by hand snapping or
chine stripping, increasing farmer preferenc
given to those varieties which are to some de
storm resistant. Stormproof No. 1, Stormmas
C A 119, Western Stormproof and Macha E
are storm resistant varieties which have gi

Central, Coastal and Eastern Region

This region lies to the east of a line dr
roughly from Wichita Falls in North Texas-
Brownwood in Central Texas and on to C0 l
Christi on the Gulf Coast. Practically all of v
cotton in this region is grown under rainfall k

ditions.

r

Varieties which performed well on the '5
age at the 1O testing locations in region 3, _
central, coastal and eastern portions of the S v

_ | Spur‘ | Lubbock’ P1CIIIIVIGW3 | Chilhcothe | Big Spring‘ I Avemg, 
vmlelY I Yield I Rank I Yield I Rank | Yield I Rank I Yield I Rank I Yield I Rank I i” vielcl

Paymaster 54 421 1 148 8 693 1 190 9 126 1 316
Hi-Bred 387 2 144 9 600 2 187 10 106 _ 3 285
Deltapine TPSA 308 14 168 2 537 4 221 4 120 2 271
Stormproof No. 1 378 3 152 6 453 12 249 1 102 4 267
Texacala 5455, Rogers 349 8 143 l0 511 5 207 7 89 l0 260
C A 119 372 5 154 4 481 10 184 12 100 5 258
Western Stormproof 325 13 143 l0 487 9 225 3 101 5 256
Stormmaster 354 7 140 11 490 8 197 8 93 8 255
Macha No. 1 347 9 148 8 507 6 185 11 74 13 252
C A 122 343 11 153 5 467 11 211 6 86 ll 252
Lockett 140 345 10 150 7 415 14 245 2 98 7 251
Northern Star 328 12 150 7 450 13 225 3 92 9 249
Empire, Watson 252 16 175 1 547 3 180 13 93 8 249
Lankart 611 377 4 157 3 450 13 174 14 76 12 247

89A 267 15 133 12 493 7 216 5 98 7 241
Rowden 41B TPSA 371 6 133 12 381 l5 172 15 60 14 223
L.S.D. value‘ N/S N/S 118 32 N/S 43

1 One year's results only (1951).

2 Two years’ results only (1951 and 1952) on dryland test.
3 Plainview test grown under irrigation.

" Two years’ results only (1951 and 1953).

“The difference in vield between anv two varieties must equal or exceed the amount of the L.S.D. value shown to give odds of 19 to 1 that

a difference is real and not due to chance.

6

n.

A.
re
fo

th
T:

.._. _._._._.-¢._.._n-4rn»-|m|-1rn|—1v-|-r-|l rr-(t P-‘RFPQJ 

  
   
   
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
   
   
  
  
  
    
 
   
   
  
   
  
 
  
 

.. D & P L Fox, Hi-Bred, Deltapine TPSA,
roof N0. 1, Deltapine 15 (Miss.), Empire
‘n Lockett 140 and Stoneville 2B-B7 (Miss.).
f: yields for each variety at all stations in
T3 ranged from 370 pounds of lint per acre
& P L Fox to 268 pounds for Rowden 41B
 Table 5. Performance of the varieties at
ividual stations in region 3 is given in
17 to 2'6.

f VARIETIES RECOMMENDED

,_ hile high yield has been given the greatest
tin determining the varieties of cotton to
ommended, fiber properties, boll and plant
‘ters, adaptation to local methods of har-
"g, ‘foundation seed supply and preference
A r- also were considered. For this rea-
arieties recommended for a given region
A often will not include all of the varieties
 highest yield group.

‘V either the experimental data nor the obser-
is and interpretations of experienced cotton
rs provide a clear-cut, foolproof method of
' ining the one best variety for an area or
M over a period of years. "Since the climate
ther environmental conditions for any given
Ye year cannot be predicted reliably, the most
‘cal approach for recommending cotton va-
s for an agricultural area is to select those
H consistently fall in the “high yield” group
legularly show other desired characteristics.
as believed better to select a reasonably
y performer over a period of years than a
ty which was extremely high in perform-
one year and average or low in others.

l1‘

i ach farm presents a special problem and in-
ual growers should consider all of the fac-
of production and farm management involved
I 'ving at a final decision on the variety or
i ties to be grown. The detailed data in the
s will be useful in this connection.

otfibd”

[_

‘ l5. Regional cotton variety test,
“ per acre. 1951-53

 

The following varieties are recommended for
the 10 production areas shown on the cover:

AREA 1

Deltapine-15, TPSA and similar types
Empire WR (Ga.) and Watson

Delfos 9169

D & P L Fox

Stoneville-2B (Miss.) and 62 Watson
Texacala

For dryla-nd and limited irrigation conditions: North-

ern Sta-r, Texacala, Lankart and Mebane.

AREA 2

Empire WR-Watson and similar types
Deltapine-TPSA and similar types

D & P L Fox

Lankart.

Stoneville-2B and similar types
Northern Star

AREA 3
Deltapine-15, TPSA and similar types
Texacala
D & P L Fox
Delfos 9169

AREA 4

D & P L Fox

Empire WR (Ga.) and Watson
Stoneville-2B (Miss.) and 62 Watson
Plains

AREA 5

Deltapine-15, TPSA and similar types

D & P L Fox

Empire WR-Watson and similar types

Mebane-8G Floyd and similar types

Stoneville-2B (Miss.), 62 Watson and similar types
Northern Star

Lankart

Rowden

If harvesting is to be done with mechanical stripper:
Western Stormproof, Stormproof No. 1, C A 119
and Stormmaster.

AREA 6

Deltapine-15, TPSA and similar types
D & P L Fox

Empire WR-Watson and similar types
Mebane-8G ‘Floyd and similar types
Stoneville 2B (Miss..) and similar types
Northern Star

If harvesting is to be done with mechanical stripper:
Stormproof No. 1, Lankart and Stormmaster.

region 3, central, coastal and eastern portions of the State, average yield, pounds of lint

   

  
   
  
 

¢_ Prairie Green- Stephen- ,, /
' , variety BRVLl MSFZ Beeville Tyler Angleton Temple Denton View ville ville“ Av

- Yie d Rank Yield Rank Yield Rank Yield Rank Yield Rank Yield Rank YieldTRank Yield Rank Yield Rank Yield Rank yield

" ,1. Fox 468 8 202 8 279 2 337 2 431 4 _360 1 370 4 635 1 443 2 171 4 370

' - 473 7 221 2 239 9 341 1 456 2 322 8 331 13 503 4 446 1 177 2 351

 - e TPSA 517 1 204 6 252 6 248 11 499 1 348 5 366 7 475 9 395 7 172 3 348

ooi No. l 512 2 207 5 274 3 223 14 456 2 355 2 385 1 481 7 392 8 126 12 341

‘ e 15 (Miss.) 501 3 201 9 234 11 252 10 401 7 338 6 383 3 498 6 431 3 149 6 339

V . Watson 454 12 203 7 284 1 291 3 391 8 351 4 354 11 515 2 382 9 142 9 337

140 481 5 209 3 236 10 262 9 421 6 304 13 385 1 479 8 417 5 149 6 334

' e 2B-B7(Miss.) 488 4 208 4 256 5 271 6 376 9 354 3 384 2 508 3 363 13 133 11 334

_ 91 — 3292 417 13 222 1 246 7 220 15 455 3 320 10 369 5 481 7 382 9 143 8 326

-- 1a 5455. Rogers 474 6 179 14 225 12 264 7 426 5 321 9 367 6 448 12 398 6 152 5 325

4 2-1 460 10 202 8 267 4 280 4 334 12 312 12 357 9 454 11 377 11 180 1 322

\ - Star 455 11 194 12 256 5 263 8 355 11 319 11 355 10 448 12 420 4 149 6 321

 8G,, Floyd 468 8 ~ 204 6 217 13 245 13 313 14 323 7 362 8 410 13 380 10 144 7 307

~ 611 466 9 198 10 244 8 272 5 268 15 299 14 338 12 462 10 373 12 144 7 306

’ 100 Wilt 380 15 192 13 212 14 247 12 361 10 323 7 318 14 500 5 337 15 136 10 301

n 41B TPSA 393 14 195 11 202 15 208 16 317 13 282 15 302 15 345 14 340 14 96 13 268

valuefi N/S N/S 27 66 108 N/S N/S 71 N/S N/S 33

 

a River Valley Laboratory. College Station.
Station Farm. College Station.
‘guts’ results only. 1951 and 1952.

fetence in yield between any two varieties must equal or exceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds of 19 to 1 that such a difference is

Ind not due to chance.

 

7

AREA 7

*Stormproof No. 1
Lockett 140
Paymaster 54
*Western Stormproof
Northern Star
Deltapine types

*Stormmaster also recommended
for stripper harvesting.

AREA 8
Storm-resistant types

Stormproof N0. 1
Western Stormproof
C A 119
Stormmaster

Macha N0. 1

Normal-boll types

Paymaster 54
Deltapine types
Dunn No. 7
Empire types
Northern Star
Lankart

AREA 9

Acala 1517C
Texacala
Deltapine types
Delfos 9169
Empire types
Stoneville types
Pima S-1

Pima 32

AREA l0

Acala 1517C

Mesilla Valley Acala
Pima S-1

Pima 32

IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY

During the past 10 years, fiber and spinning
tests were made 0n several of the leading varie-
ties at a number of the test locations. The re-
sults appear in various publications of the Cotton
Branch, Agricultural Marketing Service, U. S. De-
partment of Agriculture; Texas Agricultural Ex-
periment Station Bulletin 624; and reports from
the Cotton Research Committee of Texas. A pub-
lication by the Field Crops Research Branch, Ag-
ricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, entitled, “Better Cottons” gives an
excellent discussion on the fiber and spinning
properties of cotton varieties when grown at dif-
ferent locations and in different years.

The following statement quoted from the
foreword to “Better Cottons” summarizes the
values of variety (genetic constitution) in the de-
termination of fiber quality: “There is evidence
to show that the variety which makes the strong-
est yarn when grown in one soil and climate will
also make the strongest yarn when grown at
other locations. The studies indicate further that,
although environment modifies varietal charac-
teristics, it usually compensates the impairment
of one property in a fiber by the enhancement of

8

another. In other words, variety is the mo
portant single factor in determining fiber v
erties and spinning qualities of a cotton.” }

  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
   
   
    
   
   
   
  
   
   
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
   
 
   
   
  
  
 
 
  
   
  
 
 
  
  

In view of the increasing competition -
ican cotton is experiencing from foreign-
cotton and man-made fibers, careful consi
tion should be given to the development and
duction of varieties with fiber and spinning 5
erties desired by the textile industry. A
competitive variety not only must yield we
it must produce a type of fiber adaptable to k
speed processing and spinning and give su
performance in finished consumer products.
proper choice of varieties reduces the surp
of certain fiber types. This is true partic 5
of fiber length. It is a common practice t0 f
complete fiber and spinning tests on prom
new cotton strains. Checking of the establ'
varieties in commercial production also is imi
ant. f

Cotton may be compared with a three-le
milk stool; two of the legs representing grade‘
staple, the third representing additional qua
that also are involved in spinning value. p
that have developed a reputation for quality
tons to the extent that purchasers go regu
to that area to meet their needs, should be s
constantly to their favorable position in the y
ket, and should not introduce varieties inca,
of meeting such specifications. Every prod
in such an area has a vital stake in the mar

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Acknowledgment is hereby made of th‘
operation of the following superintendents of
substations of the Texas Agricultural Experi
Station and their co-workers, and the superi 
dents of the U. S. field stations and their co-W.
ers for their participation in the statewide s‘
variety testing program and for conducting 1
tests reported in this bulletin at their respe
stations: i

J. E. Roberts, Main Station Farm and B 5'
River Valley Laboratory, College Station; R‘
Hall and Lucas Reyes, Substation No. 1, Bee ‘A
P. R. Johnson, Substation No. 2, Tyler; J. C. S »
and E. R. Cozart, Substation ‘No. 3, Angleton
M. Smith and E. D. Cook, Substation No. 5, "
ple; D. I. Dudley and A. A. Baltensperger, ‘j
station No. 6, Denton; C. E. Fisher and Earl i
nett, Substation No. 7, Spur; D. L. Jones an
L. Ray, Substation No. 8, Lubbock; J. J. Ba
Substation No. 9, Balmorhea; J. R. Quinby, ,
station No. 12, Chillicothe; W. R. Cowley a {
L. Hubbard, Substation No. 15, Weslaco; 
Brooks, Substation No. 16, Iowa Park; P. Jp
erly and L. S. Stith, Substation No. 17, Yslet
C. Williams and O. E. Smith, Substation N0.;
Prairie View; B. A. Perry and C. S. Hove
Substation No. 19, Winter Haven; B. C. Lan
and W. E. McCullough, Substation No. 20, S A

  
     
  

A e; F. E. Keating, Big Spring Field Station,
Spring and D. D. Porter, U. S. Cotton Field
'0n, Greenville.

Outfield cooperative tests also were conduc-
»,'n Fort Bend, Nueces, Zavala, Calhoun, Will-
eaHidalgo, Cameron and Hale counties in co-
jtion with the county agricultural agents, the
f: Bureau, and With participating farmers on
f: farms the tests were grown. Grateful ac-
j} ledgment is hereby made to County Agents
j Worthington, Richmond; R. E. Nolan, Robs-
 ;J. L. Adams, Crystal City; C. L. Cook, Port

Lavaca; L. E. Franks, Jr., Raymondville; J. A.
Oswalt, Edinburg ; F. C. Brunnemann, San Benito,
and O. F. Liner, Plainview, for their valued as-
sistance in supervising the tests in their respec-
tive counties.

‘We also are indebted to R. L. Smith, Jr., sta-
tistical supervisor, Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, for making the statistical analyses, and
to J. M. Ward, licensed cotton classer, Depart-
ment of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, for
classifying the samples of cotton from the va-
riety tests.

APPENDIX

Table 6. Weslaco—summary oi regional cotton variety test,

1951-531 test, 1953 4
I
_ Acre yield lint, lbs.2 Liiii Lini 13°11 Acre yield Lint Lint I 1 n
Variety 1951 19§3—|_'Av_ 4% 9 1engih4 sizes Variety lint, lbs.1 i2 length3 ‘
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) 1550 990 955 9s 94 97 13911919199 TPSA 1263 39 32
Empire, Watson 1591 907 949 95 99 s9 D 9- P 1- F9== 1253 33 32
19511915195 TPSA 1494 921 909 97 99 97 C9291 1°° $191919 117° _ 36 3°
1941195 9199-9292 1419 951 995 94 94 91 H911 3 11911 117° 4° 2°
Northern s19, 199s 955 97s 9s 99 79 51911995991119- 1 . 117° 33 3°
D 5 P L Fox 1414 333 874 35 34 103 Stoneville 2B-B7 (M1SS.) 1160 35 31
Stoneville s2, Watson 1994 952 979 95 99 99 119291 2-1 1111 3° ‘ 34 ,_,
Texacala 5455. Rogers 197s 990 999 9s 94 9s 114991119 V9119Y 119919 1°31 3° 35 .
Empire WR (Gib) 1386 337 862 35 34 72 Texacala 5455, Rogers 1091 37 34
Lankart 57 1997 995 991 99 92 s4 1191111919 $19" 1°31 37 33
Coker 100 $151515 1999 909 951 94 94 9s 1591199 9153-3292 1°42 35 34 v
Stoneville 29-5295 1992 919 951 94 99 91 11991.9 1517C (11-114-1 1°33 35 3i s
Coker 100 Wilt 1410 270 940 99 94 94 1119151119: w°19°§v 334 3171 g2 ii
2=.“°"““°11"‘t°$§?1“ i323 31% 3%? 33 32 S3 s‘°“e"“° 62' “*5” s“ 9
tonevi e A . . . . . .
Deiios 91694316 i293 334 815 33 34 81 1 The driieéerfacg 1n yigldtbetweendzrdny tfwavlcag wiariletifis shovnlrln mgsé I
14551119 V4119 A5419 1290 291 75s 94 97 79 .9‘ 9x199 d i159“ 9 if 9W9 9 9 9 ° 1 "1 911° ° 1 . i
Howden 41B PSA 1227 254 741 34 32 73 2 Esxlpizsscglii argoperlézritooci Sergei-cotton that is lint A ~"
L_s_D_ value 220 62 N/s 3 Expressed 1n thirty-seconds oi an inch. 1

1 Dry weather conditions in 1953 reduced yields below normal and also
reduced the length oi lint and size oi boll.

2 The difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds oi 19 to l that such a dii-
ierence is real and not due to chance.

3 Expressed as ercent of seed cotton that is lint.

4 Expressed in t irty-seconds oi an inch.

“Expressed as the number oi bolls required to produce l pound oi
seed cotton.

Table 7. Balmorhea—summary oi regional cotton variety
test, 1951-53

Acre yield lint, lbs} Lini Lini
11951 1952 I 1953 Av. 7,2 lengt_h3_

Variety

DES Delios 8274 1446 1095 667 1069 37 33
Hi-Bred 1195 1033 762 997 40 29
Acala 504, Ysleta 1396 957 622 922 35 34
Deltapine TPSA 1415 929 620 988 37 33
Delios 9169-3292 1239 1003 714 985 35 33
Acala 1517C (N.M.) 1256 1017 624 966 35 35
Empire, Watson 1131 1103 655 963 36 32
Stormprooi No. l 1232 988 642 954 37 29
Stoneville TPSA 1289 920 590 933 35 32
Acala 4-42 (CaliL) 1159 955 677 930 35 33
Stoneville 62, Watson 1117 988 479 861 36 32
Mesilla Valley Acala 1100 837 638 858 33 37
Northern Star 1007 974 511 831 36 31
Texacala 5455. Rogers 954 834 653 814 37 32
Rowden 41B TPSA 956 798 483 746 34 32
Pima 32 596 498 344 479 29 41
Pima 3-79 515 532 201 416 30 40
L.S.D. value 330 174 102 164

1 The difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds oi 19 to 1 that such a dii-
ierence is real and not due to chance.

2 Expressed as percent oi seed cotton that is lint.

3 Expressed in thirty-seconds oi an inch.

Table 8. Ysleta—-summary oi regional cotton variety test.

1951-53 variety test, 1951-53 I‘
_ Acre yield lint, lbs.1 Lint Lint 3°11 Acre yield lint, lbs} Liiii Lini
1199911! 19 1 1952 1959 Av. 91,9 14991119 S1294 V9Y19W 195 1 5 v. 9/.= 1991119

Acala C-1. Dunn No. 7 584 574 619 592 39 30

Ysleta strain 859 1434 1218 1170 37 34 63 Stormprooi No. l 444 586 466 499 39 28
Acala 1517C (N.M.) 846 1434 1202 1161 38 35 60 C A 122 420 541 523 495 36 29
Acala 504, _ C A 89A 398 525 537 487 36 29

Ysleta strain 965 1340 1144 1150 38 33 56 (CR-S) 448 517 474 480 40 29
Deltapine TPSA 847 1325 976 1049 39 34 70 C A 119 391 526 514 477 36 30
Mesilla Valley Acala 736 1271 898 968 36 37 60 Western Stormprooi 414 466 548 476 38 29
Texacala 5455. Rogers 857 1041 941 946 39 34 65 Lankart 611 365 508 535 469 38 30
Stoneville TPSA 798 1053 944 932 37 33 65 Stormmaster 389 463 506 453 36 29
Acala Hopi 50 731 950 806 829 34 34 70 Northern Star 371 508 467 449 38 30
Rowden 41B TPSA 686 944 760 797 36 33 59 Macha Early 373 467 458 433 35 29
Hi-Bred 695 929 494 706 41 30 63 Macha No. 1 364 483 453 433 36 28
L.S.D. value 281 217 152 177 L.S.D. value 72 N/S 76 65

1 The diiierence in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds oi 19 to l that such a dii-
ierence is real and not due to chance.

2Expressed as percent oi seed cotton that is lint.

3 Expressed in thirty-seconds oi an inch.

‘Expressed as the number oi bolls required to produce l pound oi
seed cotton.

10

Table 9. Winter Haven—summary oi regional cotton v

‘Expressed as the number oi bolls required to produce l po '4
seed cotton. -

Table l0. Spur—summary oi regional cotton variety;

19511
Acre ield Lint Lint '
Variety lint, bs. %2 len
Paymaster 54 421 37 30 4
Hi-Bred 387 40 30 a
Stormprooi No. l 378 38 30
Lankart 611 377 35 33 1
C A 119 372 33 32 <
Rowden 41B TPSA 371 34 32¢
Stormmaster 354 33 33 .
Texacala 5455, Rogers 349 34 33‘
Macha No. 1 347 33 32
Lockett 140 345 35 31'.
C A 122 343 33 32 .
Northern Star 328 33 31
Western Stormprooi 325 34 32 -
Deltapine TPSA 308 36 32 _
C A 89A 267 34 32 1
Empire, Watson 252 35 33 ‘
LSD value N/S

1 The tests in 1952 and 1953 were iailures due to drouth.
2 Expressed as percent ot seed cotton that is lint.
3 Expressed in thirty-seconds oi an inch.

Table ll. Lubbock—summary oi irrigated regional -_

1 The diiierence in yield between any two varieties must equal - :1
ceed the_ L.S.D. value shown to give odds oi 19 to 1 that such _
ierence 1s real and not due to chance. '

2 Expressed as percent oi seed cotton that is lint.

3 Expressed in thirty-seconds oi an inch. -

‘Expressed as the number oi bolls required to produce l pou
seed cotton. t»

     
 
   
  

:12. Lubbock—summary of dryland regional cotton
variety test. 1951-53

 
    
  

. _ Acre yield lint. lbs} Lint Lint Boll

' vflfew 1 52 Av. %2 length?’ Size‘
Mebane 48 228 151 190 41 28 89
p. Watson 160 190 175 40 31 71
, ox 165 174 170 38 31 89
~- TPSA 177 158 168 40 32 88
*1 o. 7 171 151 161 41 29 80
611 170 143 157 39 29 69
9 156 152 154 37 29 88
M 180 126 153 39 31 82
oef No. 1 160 143 152 39 29 89
3 - Star 143 157 150 38 31 90
.5 140 187 112 150 39 29 83
 . 1 175 121 148 38 29 84
 ter 54 152 144 148 40 29 90
f. 'lle 62-84 133 160 147 39 30 87
- 144 143 144 41 28 83
 5455. Rogers 160 125 143 37 31 84
‘ - Stormproof 156 129 143 39 31 83
 -ster 25 154 140 37 30 92
‘ - 41B TPSA 112 153 133 36 31 75
- A 139 ' 127 133 37 29 91
1 \' Early 130 128 129 37 29 89

value»? a1 a4 N/S

difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-

l f the L.S.D. value shown to give odds of 19 to 1 that such a dif-
'- is real and not due to chance.
p ssed as percent oi seed cotton that is lint.
' ssed in thirty-seconds of an inch.
tossed as the number of bolls required to produce 1 pound oi
'3 cotton.

 
  
  
   
  
   
   
  
  
    
   
   
  
 

I - 13. Lubbock - Plainview test — summary of regional
cotton variety test. 1951-53

. Acre yield lint. lbs.1 Lint
. Variety 5 5 1 53 v_ %2

Lint B 011
length“ Size‘

ster 54 818 582 680 693 39 30 66
d 589 546 666 600 41 29 69

. Watson 548 528 566 547 36 32 59
 TPSA 617 391 603 537 36 33 85
~- 5455. Rogers 539 465 528 511 37 32 70
< No. 1 462 453 605 507 37 30 74
~I 467 476 535 493 36 31 74
p aster 510 519 441 490 37 31 72
rn Stormproof 499 428 534 487 38 31 72
119 415 473 555 481 37 32 74
1 22 377 446 577 467 36 31 75
proof No. 1 459 434 466 453 37 31 75
q rn Star 509 388 452 450 37 32 64
- 611 358 376 615 450 36 32 54
‘tt 140 431 256 559 415 38 30 70
~ 41B TPSA 467 246 429 381 35 32 67

.value s8 19 5s 11s

‘ difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
‘- the L.S.D. value shown to give odds of 19 to 1 that such a dif-
‘ ce is real and not due to chance.

 essed as percent oi seed cotton that is lint.

- essed in thirty-seconds of an inc .

essed as the number oi bolls required to produce 1 pound oi
- cotton.

e 14. Iowa Park—summary of regional cotton variety
1 test. 1951-53

Acre yield lint. lbs} Lint
Vsfietv 1 1s 195a v. w

Lint Boll
lengtha Size‘

  
    
   
   
   
   

» = ster 54 381 516 408 435 38 31 78
_- d 361 461 417 413 40 29 81
.- ine TPSA 312 396 466 391 37 31 92
proof No. 1 278 341 476 365 37 29 84
eala 5455. Rogers 336 356 401 364 37 32 78
v e. Watson 321 314 441 359 36 31 76
ern Star 273 370 361 335 36 31 76
f ~ t1 140 276 290 427 331 38 29 81
_ 89A 245 300 416 320 36 31 80
122 203 280 358 280 36 31 79
en 41B TPSA 215 279 324 273 35 31 78
" . value 34 46 90 75

difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
d the L.S.D. value shown to give odds of 19 to 1 that such a dif-
‘ nce is real and not due to chance.

ressed as percent oi seed cotton that is lint.

ressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

ressed as the number of bolls required to produce 1 pound of
i cotton.

Table 15. Chillicothe—summary oi regional cotton variety
test. 1951-53

_ Acre yield lint. 1135.1 Lint Lin‘ Boll

17911915’ 1951 1952 1953 Av. I 1,1’ lengthif Size‘
Stormproof No. 1 222 109 415 249 36 29 96
Lockett 140 221 137 377 245 37 29 94
Northern Star 214 118 344 225 35 31 91
Western Stormproof 221 106 347 225 37 30 84
Deltapine TPSA 221 127 316 221 38 32 98
C A 89A 181 127 339 216 35 31 89
C A 122 205 114 314 211 35 30 93
Texacala 5455. Rogers 168 122 330 207 36 32 95
Stormmaster 168 100 323 197 34 29 100
Paymaster 54 168 105 297 190 35 29 88
Hi-Bred 152 96 313 187 38 26 96
Macha No. 1 155 77 324 185 33 29 102
C A 119 170 77 306 184 35 31 97
Empire. Watson 176 81 282 180 33 32 79
Lankart 611 147 98 276 174 36 31 83
Rowden 41B TPSA 157 89 271 172 33 30 88
L.S.D. value 26 23 56 32

1 The difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds oi 19 to 1 that such a dif-
ference is real and not due to chance.

2 Expressed as percent of seed cotton that is lint.

3 Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inc. .

1Expressed as the number of bolls required to produce 1 pound oi
seed cotton.

Table 16. Big Spring-summary of regional cotton variety
test. 1951-53 '

_ Acre yield lint. lbs} Lin; Lint Boll

Vmetv 1 s1 19 | Av. w length“ saw
Paymaster 54 102 149 126 37 29 95
Deltapine TPSA 99 141 120 36 31 107
Hi-B red 111 100 106 39 28 102
Stormproof No. 1 99 104 102 37 28 94
Western Stormproof 113 88 101 38 30 103
C A 119 103 96 100 34 31 98
Lockett 140 87 108 98 36 29 90
C A 89A 91 105 98 34 31 103
Empire. Watson 86 99 93 34 31 87
Stormmaster 107 78 93 36 31 98
Northern Star 100 83 92 35 32 92
Texacala 5455. Rogers 91 86 89 35 33 102
C A 122 98 74 86 35 30 94
Lankart 611 82 70 76 35 31 80
Macha No. 1 90 58 74 33 30 109
Rowden 41B TPSA 73 46 60 32 30 98
L.S.D. value 18 39 N/S

1 The difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds oi 19 to 1 that such a dif-
ference is real and not due to chance.

1 Expressed as percent of seed cotton that is lint.

3 Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

“Expressed as the number of bolls required to produce 1 pound oi
seed cotton.

Table 17. Brazos River Valley Laboratory, College Station—
summary of regional cotton variety test. 1951-53

Acre yield lint. lbs.1 Lint Lint Boll

V9119“! 1951 1952 v. w 19.191113 Size‘
Deltapine TPSA 135 406 1011 517 38 31 96
Stormproof No. 1 140 421 976 512 37 29 93
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) 133. 356 1014 501 38 31 102
Stoneville 2B-B7 (Miss.) 165 381 919 488 34 31 93
Lockett 140 164 324 954 481 38 29 94
Texacala 5455. Rogers 124 352 946 474 37 31 94
Hi-Bred 134 349 937 473 39 28 87
D 6. P L I-‘ox 132 460 811 468 38 32 107
Mebane 8G. Floyd 137 252 1016 468 37 30 81
Lankart 611 124 242 1033 466 38 31 69
Arkot 2-1 118 339 924 460 34 30 95
Northern Star 122 359 885 455 36 30 81
Empire. Watson 146 386 829 454 36 32 76
Delfos 9169-3292 153 369 730 417 34 33 84
Rowden 41B TPSA 136 214 830 393 34 29 85
Coker 100 Wilt 94 308 739 380 35 31 99
L.S.D. value 32 77 144 N/S

1 The difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds of 19 to 1 that such a dif-
ference is real and not clue to chance.

1 Expressed as percent of seed cotton that is lint.

3 Expressed in thirty-seconds oi an inch.

‘Expressed as the number oi bolls required to produce 1 pound oi
seed cotton.

11

Table 18. Main Station Farm. College Station—summary of
regional cotton variety test, 1951-53

_ Acre yield lint. lbs.1 Lint Lint Bo"
""199! 1951 1952 1959 Av. w 191191113 saw
Delfos 9169-3292 146 188 333 222 34 30 95
Hi-Bred 160 146 358 221 39 26 102
Lockett 140 _ 144 162 320 209 37 28 93
Stoneville 2B-B7 (Miss.) 148 183 292 208 35 30 104
Stormprooi No. 1 1 146 350 207 36 28 104
Mebane 8G. Floyd 130 101 382 204 36 29 83
Deltapine TPSA 140 139 332 204 37. 30 119
Empire. Watson 151 156 302 203 35 30 85
Arkot 2-1 128 161 317 202 34 29 101
D <5 P_L Fox _ 130 163 312 202 38 30 114
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) 126 137 339 201 38 31 121
Lankart 611 104 147 342 198 37 30 75
Rowden 41B TPSA 115 120 350 195 34 30 88‘
Northern Star 120 143 320 194 36 30 90
Coker 100 Wilt 129 136 312 192 35 30 106
Texacala 5455. Rogers 122 121 294 179 36 31 105

L.S.D. value 29 37 47 N/S

1 The diiierence in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds oi 19 to 1 that such a dii-
ierence is real and not due to chance.

2 Expressed as percent oi seed cotton that is lint.

3 Expressed in thirty-seconds oi an inch.

>1 Expressed as the number oi bolls required to produce 1 pound oi
seed cotton.

Table 19. Beeville-—summary oi regional cotton variety test.

1951-53
_ I Acre yield lint. lbs.1 Lint Lin‘ Boll
V9519“! 1951 1952 1959 Av. 7,2 length“ saw

Empire. Watson 312 322 217 284 38 32 88
D 6. P L Fox 287 304 245 279 38 32 104
Stormprooi No. 1 299 306 216 274 38 29 100
Arkot 2-1 300 305 196 267 35 32 88
Stoneville 2B-B7 (Miss.) 283 283 203 256 36 31 95
Northern Star 277 289 203 256 38 31 86
Deltapine TPSA 292 247 216 252 38 31 105
Delios 9169-3292 279 267 192 246 35 32 93
Lankart 611 280 263 188 244 38 31 76
Hi-Bred 285 253 178 239 40 27 92
Lockett 140 281 219 207 236 38 29 96
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) 268 265 169 234 39 32 94
Texacala 5455. Rogers 252 263 159 225 39 32 98
Mebane 8G. Floyd 251 227 173 217 37 30 82
Coker 100 Wilt 242 225 170 212 35 32 100
Rowden 41B TPSA 222 222 161 202 35 30 92
L.S.D. value 48 41 23 27

1 The difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds oi 19 to 1 that such a dif-
ierence is real and not due to chance.

1 Expressed as percent oi seed cotton that is lint.

3 Expressed in thirty-seconds oi an inch.

‘Expressed as the number oi bolls required to produce 1 pound oi
seed cotton.

Table 20. Tyler—summary oi regional cotton variety test.

1951-53
_ Acre yield lint. lbs.1 Lin‘ Lint Bo“
vunew 1951 1952 1953 Av. ‘X,’ length3 Size*

Hi-Bred 224 363 436 341 39 28 64
D 6. P L Fox 199 336 475 337 35 32 81
Stoneville 62. Watson 205 296 461 321 35 32 71
Empire WR (Ga.) 187 345 429 320 35 34 62
C S S 9 (Plains) 207 339 339 295 35 32 69
Empire. Watson 197 296 380 291 35 32 63
Arkot 2-1 172 287 381 280 32 32 71
Hybrid 56 (Auburn) 192 302 335 276 33 32 69
Lankart 611 174 272 370 272 36 31 59
Stoneville 2B-B7 (Miss.) 208 328 276 271 34 32 68
Texacala 5455. Rogers 192 348 251 264 36 32 67
Northern Star 190 272 327 263 35 32 63
Lockett 140 197 325 265 262 38 29 65
Stoneville TPSA 161 314 294 256 34 32 78
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) 172 258 326 252 38 32 80
Deltapine TPSA 197 283 264 248 36 32 81
Coker 100 Wilt 190 264 286 247 34 33 68
Mebane 8G. Floyd 178 283 274 245 35 32 53
Stormprooi No. l 173 255 240 223 36 30 75
Delfos 9169-3292 146 247 267 220 34 34 70
Rowden 41B TPSA 139 245 240 208 34 31 57
L.S.D. value 51 46 79 66

1 The difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds of 19 to 1 that such a dif-
ierence is real and not due to chance.

1 Expressed as percent oi seed cotton that is lint.

3 Expressed in thirty-seconds oi an inch.

‘Expressed as the number oi bolls required to produce 1 pound oi
seed cotton.

12

Table 21. Angleton—summary oi regional cotton vi
test. 1951-531 ‘

Acre yield lint. lbs? Lint Lint
l 1951 1952 1953 Av. l %3 lenth‘

Variety

D eltapine TPSA 466 324 708 499 37 33
Hi-Bre d 345 359 664 456 40 27
Stormprooi No . 1 286 299 782 456 41 30
Delios 9169-3292 384 329 651 455 35 34
D G P L Fox 355 263 674 431 36 32
Texacala 5455. Rogers 392 266 620 426 38 33
Lockett 140 360 215 688 421 38 30
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) 287 237 678 401 39 32
Empire. Watson 371 340 462 391 36 33
Stoneville 2B-B7 (Miss.) 232 304 592 376 36 33
Coker 100 Wilt 225 295 564 361 33 34
Northern Star 313 243 509 355 36 32
Arkot 2- 1 235 272 494 334 33 33
Rowden 41B TPSA 234 210 506 317 35 32
Mebane 8G. Floyd 210 190 538 313 36 32
Lanka rt 611 226 258 320 268 36 33
L.S.D. value 111 86 89 108

1The test was grown in Wharton county in 1951. on the --
station in 1952. and in Fort Bend county in 1953. '

2 The diiierence in yield between any two varieties must equal t
ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds oi 19 to 1 that such 
ierence is real and not due to chance. .

3 Expressed as percent of seed cotton that is lint.

“1 Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch. *

5Expressed as the number of bolls required to produce 1 p011
seed cotton. .

Table 22. Temple-summary oi regional cotton variety

1951-53
_ i Acre yield lint. lbs.1 Lin‘ Lint I ’
V9519“! 1951 1952 1 1959 Av. 7.2 lqqtha :1
D 6. P L Fox 272 357 452 360 37 31 l
Stormproof No. 1 247 344 475 355 37 29 l
Stoneville 2B-B7 (Miss.) 289 355 417 354 35 31 1
Empire. Watson 335 343 376 351 36 31
Deltapine TPSA 238 352 454 348 38 31 l
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) 249 341 424 338 39 32 1
Coker 100 Wilt 250 311 408 323 34 32 l
Mebane 8G. Floyd 261 286 422 323 38 29
Hi-Bred 209 334 423 322 39 28 1
Texacala 5455. Rogers 249 289 426 321 38 31 l
Delios 9169-3292 305 243 411 320 35 31 1
Northern Star 238 327 392 319 37 31
Arkot 2-1 208 355 374 312 34 31
Lockett 140 249 248 416 304 38 29
Lankart 611 228 303 366 299 38 30
Rowden 41B TPSA 199 275 373 282 35 31
L.S.D. value 39 34 46 N/S

1 The difference in yield between any two varieties must equal -
ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds oi 19 to 1 that such m

ierence is real and not due to chance. ‘.

1 Expressed as percent oi seed cotton that is lint. ‘

~" Expressed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

‘Expressed as the number oi bolls required to produce 1 pou‘
seed cotton.

Table 23. Benton-summary oi regional cotton variety "

1951-53 .

_ I Acre yield lint. lbs.1 Lint Lin‘ 

Vmetv T95_|—1 195'2‘|T95'9T_'l11v. 1,2 le  
Stormprooi No. 1 29s 292 s95 955 97 2a 1
Lockett 14o 291 201 s21 995 9a 2a v

Stoneville 2B-B7 (Miss.) 244 310 599 ‘384 35 30
llgeltapine 15 (Miss.) 240 283 627 383 39 30 l

6. P L Fox 249 302 560 370 35 32 1
Delios 9169-3292 233 297 576 369 34 31
Texacala 5455. Rogers 240 260 601 367 38 30
Deltapine TPSA 232 286 581 366 37 30 l
Mebane 8G. Floyd 251 260 576 362 36 30
Arkot 2-1 257 254 559 357 33 29
Northern Star 229 292 545 355 37 30
Empire. Watson 236 281 544 354 35 30
Lankart 611 206 267 542 338 37 30
Hi-Bred 192 268 534 331 38 27
Coker 100 Wilt 177 249 527 318 32 31 1
Rowden 41B TPSA 191 249 465 302 34 29

L.S.D. value 35 44 54 N/S

1 The diiierence in yield between any two varieties must equal er

ceed the L.S.D. value shown to give odds oi 19 to 1 that such a _

ierence is real and not due to chance.
2 Expressed as percent oi seed cotton that is lint.
3 Expressed in thirty-seconds oi an inch.

‘Expressed as the number oi bolls required to produce 1 poui

seed cotton.

T|

L“

_ -L--.__.- mnmmo-hqéhn-nhnn-nluln

24. Prairie View-summary of regional cotton variety
' test, 1951-53

) v _ t Acre yield lint, lbs.1 Lint Lint I Bo“

_ c!“ Y 1951 1952 1953 Av. ‘Z,’ length“ Sizg‘__
, L Fox 433 648 825 635 40 31 92

’ , Watson 359 522 664 515 37 31 72

l!

   
   
  
   
  
   
    
  

l“”l

 

_ ' e 2B-B7 (Miss.) 382 495 646 508 36 30 79

- 300 541 668 503 41 28 68

316 504 679 500 35 31 86

380 467 646 498 40 31 89

300 540 604 481 35 32 77

463 644 481 38 29 78

140 553 600 479 39 29 76

- 470 633 475 39 31 82

~ 611 497 549 462 37 33 62

,_ 2-1 448 604 454 34 32 80

 la 5455, Rogers 509 529 448 38 31 79

rn tar 445 582 448 37 30 71

~ 8G, Floyd 410 54 410 38 31 62

- 41B TPSA 258 507 345 35 30 69
value 50 69 80 71

rdifierence in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
' the L.S.D. value shown to give odds of 19 to l that such a dil-
V e is real and not due to chance.

j ssed aggercent of seed cotton that is lint.

q sed in“t irty-seconds of an inc .

_ lsed as the number of bolls required to produce 1 pound of
i‘ cotton.

x-
if-

of

 25. Stephenville—summary of regional cotton variety
test, 1951-53

Acre Yield lint, 1175.1 Lint Lint I Bo"
1951 19452 AV. I ‘Z3 length“ Size‘

    
  
 
 

 
 
 
 
 

Variety

‘l’ 2-1 101 258 180 35 30 115
- 124 230 177 40 28 122

—  TPSA 123 221 172 38 30 131
 I. Fox 126 216 171 38 31 121

'__ v_la 5455, Rogers 111 192 152 37 30 116
~ e 15 (Miss.) 105 192 149 39 30 133

‘~ 140 123 174 149 37 28 119

- Star 98 200 149 36 32 97

1 611 106 181 144 38 30 92

 8G, Floyd 108 180 144 38 28 85
9169-3292 18 167 143 36 32 109

7 187 142 36 29 102

101 171 136 35 32 117

, 2B-B7 (Miss.) 96 169 133 35 30 107

ooi No. 1 100 151 126 37 28 121

1- 41B TPSA 81 110 96 34 31 97

 
  
     
 
  
   
  
   
  
  

32 41 N/S

difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
the L.S.D. value shown to give odds of 19 to 1 that such a dif-
-1 is real and not due to chance.
_ lsed as percent of seed cotton that is lint.
y sed in thirty-seconds of an inch.
ed as the number of bolls required to produce 1 pound of
cotton.

‘i value

EI

T. 26. Greenville—summary of regional cotton variety
test, 1951-53
Lint B011

Acre yield lint. lbs.1 Lin‘

1951 1952 1953 Av.l 1,2 length“ Sizei
.- 256 398 685 446 40 28 90
v l. Fox 338
'e 15 (Miss.) 272 327 693 431 39 32 101
rn Star 290
I 140 280
~ - 5455, Rogers 213 378 603 398 38 32 90
‘e TPSA 232

Variety

 

. ool No. 1 226 375 575 392 37 29 95
, Watson 286 298 563 382 35 32 76
9169-3292 300 334 513 382 35 33 87

- 8G, Floyd 212 361 566 380 36 31 74

' 2-l 240 395 496 377 34 33 90

611 203 336 579 373 38 32 72

' e 2B-B7 (Miss.) 232 314 543 363 35 31 86

-- 41B TPSA 213 ‘ 354 453 340 35 31 79

100 Wilt 187 320 505 337 34 33 92
’ value 48 47 126 N/ S

difference in yield between any two varieties must equal or ex-
the L. .D. value shown to give odds of 19 to l that such a dif-
‘e is real and not due to chance.

ssed as percent of seed cotton that is lint.

sed in thirty-seconds of an inch.

sed as the number of bolls required to produce 1 pound 0t
cotton.

   
    

 

Table 27. Sources of seed oi cotton varieties tested, 1951-53

Variety Source oi Seed

Acala 1517C (N.M.) New Mexico Crop Imp. Assn., State Col., N.M.
Acala 4-42 (CaliL) U. S. Cotton Field Station, Shatter, Calil.
Acala 504, Ysleta strain El Paso Valley Expt. Station, Ysleta, Texas
Acala Hopi 50 U. S. Cotton Field Station, Shatter, Calif.
Acala C-1, Ysleta strain El Paso Valley Expt. Station, Ysleta. Texas

Arkot 2-1 Cotton Branch Expt. Station, Marianna, Ark.
C A 89A Texas Substation No. 8. Lubbock, Texas
C A 119 Texas Substation No. 8, Lubbock, Texas
C A 122 Texas Substation No. 8, Lubbock, Texas

Coker 100 Wilt Coker's Pedigreed Seed Co., Hartsville. S. C.
Coker 100 Staple Coker's Pedigreed Seed Co., Hartsville. S. C.
CR-3 Agri. Expt. Station, Stillwater, Okla.

CSS 9 (Plains) Agri. Expt. Station, Auburn, Ala.

Deltapine TPSA Texas Planting Seed Assn., Bryan, Texas
Deltapine 15 (Miss.) Delta & Pine Land Co., Scott, Miss.

D 6. P L Fox Delta 6'. Pine Land Co., Scott, Miss.

Delfos 9169-3292 6, 3316 Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Co., Stoneville. Miss.
DES Delfos 8274 Delta Branch Expt. Station, Stoneville. Miss.
Dunn No. 7 Iames T. Dunn. Lamesa, Texas

Empire, Watson Ferris Watson Seed Co., Garland, Texas
Empire WR (Ga.) Empire Pedigreed Seed Co., Haralson, Ga.

Half 6, Half Sawnee Valley Farms, Cummings, Ga.
Hi-Bred B. F. Summerour Seed Co., Norcross. Ga.
Hybrid 56 (Auburn) Agri. Expt. Station, Auburn, Ala.

Lankart 57 Lankart Seed Farm, Waco, Texas
Lankart 611 Lankart Seed Farm, Waco, Texas
Lockett 140 Lockett Seed Co., Vernon, Texas

Macha No. 1 H. A. Macha, Tahoka, Texas

H. A. Macha, Tahoka, Texas

Ferris Watson Seed Co., Garland, Texas
Harper Seed Farms, Martindale, Texas

Dean L. Stahmann. Las Cruces. N. M.

Sam Little 6, Son, Knott. Texas

Northern Star Seed Farms, O'Brien, Texas
Paymaster Farm, Plainview, Texas

U. S. Cotton Field Station. Sacaton, Ariz.

U. S. Cotton Field Station, Sacaton, Ariz.
Rowden 41B TPSA Texas Planting Seed Assn., Bryan, Texas
Stoneville TPSA Texas Planting Seed Assn., Bryan, Texas
Stoneville 2B-B7 (Miss.) Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Co., Stoneville. Miss.
Stoneville 2B-5235 Stoneville Pedigreed Seed Co., Stoneville, Miss.
Stoneville 62-84 Agri. Expt. Station. Stillwater, Okla.

Stoneville 62, Watson Ferris Watson Seed Co., Garland, Texas
Stormmaster Texas Substation No. 8, Lubbock, Texas
Stormprooi No. 1 Lockett Seed Co., Vernon, Texas

Texacala 5455, Rogers Iohn D. Rogers Seed Co., Ltd., Navasota. Tex.
Western Stormprooi Von Roeder Seed Farms, Snyder, Texas

Macha Early
Mebane, Watson
Mebane 8G, Floyd
Mesilla Valley Acala
Native Mebane 48
Northern Star
Paymaster 54

Pima 32

Pima 3-79

13