‘ Cotton Productiott on the ' T exm 112g]? Plains 14pm’! I956 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. LEWIS, D nnnnnn n. c LLLL ea s TTTT 0N. TEXAS SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Lower cost 0f production is the keynote to successful cotton production on the High Plains of Texas. The area is well adapted to mechanized farming. SEEDBED PREPARATION The rolling type stalk cutter is more economical than power-driven types and produces satisfactory results under most conditions. List land in beds 6 to 8 inches deep with a 40-inch row spacing. Other tools may be needed for special conditions. The standard cultivator equipped with knives and sweeps can be used for preplanting cultivation. Bed cultivation should be shallow to conserve moisture. PLANTING Plant in a shallow, 3 to 4-inch furrow and cover seed 1 to 2 inches deep. April plantings are not recommended. Plant at first warm period in May after the minimum soil temperature stabilizes at 60° F. Plant 20 to 30 pounds of treated seed per acre. Where the mechanical stripper is used for harvesting, the final stand should be three to four plants per foot of row. The planter should be equipped with the seed press wheel which runs over the seed before covering. The opening plow should be narrow 31d shielded. Depth adjustment should be exact. CULTIVATIONS Use the rotary hoe attachments for the first cultivation. Use the minimum cultivations needed to control weed growth. IRRIGATIONS Level and float the land. Use contour irrigation on sloping land. Replenish soil moisture in the top 5 to 6 feet with a preplanting irrigation. Summer irrigations normally will be half the amount of preplanting irrigations, or about 4 inches. Begin postplanting irrigations at the time of blooming and continue until mid-August. FERTILIZATION No definite response to fertilizer can be expected from cotton on the fine sands, loams and clay soils. In the deep sands, nitrogen and phosphorus will increase the yield. The use of organic material, such as cotton burs, as a surface mulch increases yield under irrigation. INSECTS Check the crop closely for insects during the growing season. Use Extension Service Leaflet 218, “Texas Guide for Controlling Cotton Insects,” to determine the need, time and rate of insecticide application. DISEASES Bacterial blight and Verticillium wilt are the major diseases of cotton of the area. Varieties tolerant to bacterial blight offer the best control of this disease. VARIETY An early-maturing, stormproof boll variety, with 15/16 to 1-inch staple is recommended. Tolerance to disease should be considered. DEFOLIATION The bolls should be 80 percent open when defoliated. HARVESTING The use of the mechanical stripper to harvest the entire crop in one operation gives greatest return. ‘ FIELD STORAGE Field storage of stripped cotton is practical if the cotton is dry and contains no green bolls. ‘@- fflGH PLAINS AREA OF TEXAS PRODUCES Lately one-third of the State cotton crop, "estimated 2,025,000 acres for 1955. Most ‘rmland in this area is planted to grain or cotton. Cotton gives a much greater ‘nd its acreage probably would be higher , or. control measures. uccessful cotton program for this area is ’ lower cost of production. This can be ished only by a thorough understanding ‘(rs influencing cotton production, so that 3 integrated production program can be In an area of low rainfall, cotton yields ryland conditions are low and erratic. - of low moisture, a short growing season temperatures, it is impractical under economic conditions for this area to pro- longer staple cotton grown in many f» areas. Most varieties grown have a ngth of approximately 15/16 inch. Scar- local labor and a level, uniform terrain v- for power farming also point out the r mechanization of the entire cotton pro- i process. f rainfall and prolonged dry periods mini- ' ; - weed problem, and cultural weed control ient. mechanical harvester reduces the cost of roduction. Since yields are relatively low "ied, the harvest machine must be inex- ‘ and economical to operate. The answer echanical cotton stripper which harvests I ire crop in one operation and fits the roof type of cotton. SEEDBED PREPARATION '11» residue management is a part of seed- paration. The conservation of soil mois- ‘ntrol of soil blowing, proper soil tilth and ‘ -rata part of the total production problem y. of the major objectives. ithe stubble is sufficient to furnish adequate 'on, allowing it to stand until early spring ’ nd practice for wind erosion control. In 'vely, superintendent; agricultural engineer, co- ely with Agricultural Engineering Research i’ U. S. Department of Agriculture; assistant ist; assistant irrigation engineer; agronomist; ogist, Substation No. 8, Lubbock, Texas; and f» professor, Department of Plant Physiology and _»; , College Station, Texas. i Production on the T exax H iglo Plains f D. L. JONES, E. B. HUDSPETH, JR., L. L. RAY, E. L. THAXTON, JR., H. J. WALKER, ' W. L. OWEN, JR. and H. C. LANE* light stubble, running the chisel plow diagonally across the rows (Figure 1) after harvest, helps control erosion and gives better water penetration. The high-speed, low-cost, four-and-five-row, rolling stalk cutter (Figure 2) knocks down cotton and sorghum stalks and leaves the ground in a roughened condition, which helps control soil blowing. An operator can cover 60 to 75 acres per day with this machine. Compared with the rolling cutter, most power shredders are expensive and slow; the small amount of crop residue in the area usually does not warrant their use. i The rolling stalk cutter does not cut the sorghum stalks close to the gro-und, and many stalks 5 to 7 inches in length are left attached to the root system. These stalks and roots clog cultivating tools and mechanical harvesters. A knifing attachment mounted on the rolling cutter CONTENTS Summary and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Seedbed Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Planting Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 Furrow Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Covering Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Type of Seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Planting Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 Planting Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Mechanical Thinning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Skip-row Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Vleed Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Supplemental Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Fertilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Hail Damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 Bacterial Blight (Angular Lea! Spot) . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Verticillium Wilt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Seedling Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Stormprooi Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Gin Turnout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Fiber Length ....._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..13 Fiber Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 Cottonseed Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Deioliation . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Harvesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Field Storage of Stripped Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Station Publications Available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 (.0- Figure l. The chisel plow, oiten used as the first op- eration in seedbed preparation, is run diagonally across the rows. Figure 2. Stalks leit irom- the previous crop are cut as the first operation in seedbed preparation ior a row crop. Figure 3. A kniiing attachment mounted on the rolling stalk cutter helps eliminate the trash from sorghum stubble. 4 cuts the root from the sorghum stalk, and eli; nates some clogging of equipment (Figure 3) Bedding with a lister is the next operat (Figure 4). Three bottoms set on 40-inch cen are used. Forty inches is rapldly becoming. standard row width for mechanized farming. Stubble mulch tillage is a means of maint ing the crop residue on the surface and he control wind erosion (Figure 5). In this area of low rainfall, listing is econoi cal and profitable for dryland and irrigat farming. Flat breaking is a more thoro p) method of seedbed preparation than listing bu more expensive and should not be used except accomplish some special purpose. Deep plowi 12 to 20 inches, can be used to stabilizesoil m0 ment. The flat-broken ground allows more ra penetration of water into the soil when the p planting irrigation water is applied; however, needed penetration can be obtained by leveling and using contour rows. Weed growth before planting can be , trolled by different tools. The oldest metho through the use of the knife sled (Figure i Usually the knives run too deep with a resul loss of soil moisture since the ground dries to y depth the tool cuts the soil. Another metho by using the cultivator equipped with sweeps =i short knives. The sweeps operate in the mi and top of each bed while short knives fit the ~ of the bed (Figure 7). More positive depth p trol is obtained so that the soil is not distur as deep as with the knife sled. Less moistur lost with this tool as compared with the knife s PLANTING Getting a good stand of cotton without ha to replant is one of the chief problems of ? cotton grower on the High Plains. Soil temp ture and moisture, depth of planting furr depth of seed cover and planting equipment tribute to a stand of cotton. Planting Date Cotton in this area should be planted as as possible because of the short growing seal The average last frost date is April 6. Cool ni, and frequent thunderstorms keep the soil temp ature too low for satisfactory germination r about 1 month after this date. a Tests on the High Plains indicate that percent or more of the cottonseed usually cop up if planted when the minimum soil tempera j averages 60° F., 8 inches deep in the bed, for days (Figure 8). Since soil temperature a planting also affects emergence, the use of minimum soil temperature before planting? predict percent emergence is not entirely reli But it can be used to determine the earliest d, after the last frost in the spring, that a plan favorable for obtaining a stand could be mad l, g! _ iaverage minimum temperature of 60° F. is not reached until May 1. The highest "ge emergence usually is between May 10 yp-Planting after June 1 shortens an already owing season and lowers yields. June 15 Y the last practical date for planting. iDepth ierally cotton is planted in a furrow with type planter. The furrow gives some in to the young seedlings from high winds wing sand. uent high-intensity rains during the 0;: season wash soilinto the planting fur- p en the soil dries, it forms a heavy crust g seed. This creates a problem in obtaining p, and is the main reason for having to fin this area. A planting furrow 3 to 4 beep is sufficient to place the seed in moist, il when planting after a preplanting or after a rain. fillow furrows lessen the chance of having i nt after washing rains, require less tractor increase first cultivation speed, increase r efficiency by raising the height of the j; iting branch and hasten first emergence. Depth fttonseed should be covered 1 to 2 inches iBecause of the danger of drying out, the en are covered as deep as 4 inches. Seed ‘Verge from this depth but growth is delayed v plants are weak. Rain after planting revents getting a stand from this depth f . Using the seed press wheel to run over v before covering prevents drying out. lanted 1 to 2 inches deep give a higher an seed planted 3 to 4 inches deep. The emerge more rapidly because the soil is and the covering is shallower (Figure 9). §lSeed isfactory germination can be obtained 'ther fuzzy or delinted cottonseed. There 5 d toward the use of delinted seed because seed tube stoppage, greater ease of han- taster germination and greater uniformity ‘ds. ‘u the same seeding rate (pounds per f machine-delinted, chemically delinted or sseed is required to obtain comparable i The difference in the number of seed per Ibetween machine and chemically delinted eismall. In 1951, dryland cottonseed chemi- linted averaged 5,029 seed per pound and ed, 4,749; irrigated cottonseed chemically l. averaged 4,650 and fuzzy seed, 4,343. as a difference of 6 and 7 percent, respec- Most of these were stormproof varieties. 310 to 12 percent may be expected for s having heavy linters on the seed. Dif- jvairieties range from 4,000 to 5,000 seed ; n . Figure 4. Bedding with a lister is the usual practice. Figure 5. Stubble mulch tillage helps control wind erosion. Sweeps often are mounted on the tool bar for this purpose. Figure 6. The knife sled is used for a preplanting bed cultivation. Running knives too deep may cause loss of valuable moisture. 5 spacing. The overall stand population shouldle 40,000 to 50,000 plants per acre. The number of plants per unit area alone not a reliable indicator of stand. Irregular skippy stands lower the yield and reduce mach harvest efficiency. Low plant populations sho’ be avoided because the yield usually drops L skips exceed 3 feet. Normally, the best yi comes from 3 to 9-inch spacing under both i‘ gated and dryland conditions (Tables 1 and 2 Close spacing makes the plant more suitae for stripper harvest by decreasing the ove plant height and plant spread, increasing height to the first limb and decreasing the e meter of the stalk at the base (Figure 11)? . The resulting small mass of material to Figure 7. The regular sweep cultivator can be adapted pulled through the narrow Stripper thrOat to, bed ¢ulfivqti°n_ fingers increases stripper efficiency by reduc' field losses _(Figure 12), gathering fewer sti Chemically delinted seed can be graded closer ggipsggregsréguliztlilligsgliglgigafligtg? lglilge than fuzzy or machine-delinted seed. This is an b in un d u b the Stri er e advantage in years when the initial germination e g p e p y pp ' t of the seed is low before grading is attempted. TABLE l. PLANT SPACING IN INCHES, PLANTS PER Chemically delinted seed emerge faster and 0F 30W AND THE NUMBER 0F PLAN-m- e more uniformly than fuzzy seed (Figure 10). ACRE FOR A 40-INCH ROW SPACING a e The rapid emergence produces a stronger plant Plants per Inches between plants p, and probably accounts for the slight increase in ioot of row plants s acre yield. Fungicidal treatment of all seed planted 12 10 156 816 is recommended for disease control. 1o 1:2 1301530 : . 8 as: Plqntmg Rate 2 gig 521212 Thinning or chopping of cotton is not prac- 3 4.0 39.204 , ticed on the High Plains; the rate of planting % 13-3 controls the stand. Proper planting rate is impor- _5 24:0 6:534 tant because it influences the yield and also .3 40.0 3.920 because the stand modifies plant characters, which in turn affect stripper effciency. Cotton - adjusts itself to a wide range of spacing, one to Tests show that an average of 20 to; six plants per foot of row making little difference pounds of seed per aere is the proper rate un in yield. Plants per foot of row multiplied by both irrigated and dryland conditions, 13,068 will give plants per acre with 40-row Expected emergence is important for pro planting rate. Tests show that 50 percent ( 1o or minus 10 percent) of the seed come up uni x_x__x emeeeeuee normal conditions. In a few instances it was? so m". Se“ Tenn ‘e DAY M, 9o percent, but where crusting, cold temperatur 3 _ other unfavorable conditions were present l. § 5° />< e 8° “- 10 to 20 percent of the seed emerged. Emerg g5 x \ LU is extremely variable; therefore, planting sh 5 “° 10E be at a rate that would, under favorable co *- ‘g,’ tions, result in a stand on the thicker side of § 3° 5° i; optimum range. A thicker stand helps i? 5:» e0 so é against replanting and losses during the gross x period because of hail, cultivations, disease a m 4o otherd preducgozi’? hazlagrds. d Genierallyf 20 t)o poun s o see o see per oo o row o j necessary to obtain such a stand for both irrig '° AzfmL 3° '° “is 3° and dryland cotton. Necessary adjustm should be made to meet soil moisture and seas Figure 8. The relationship oi cotton emergence to soil eenditjens and Seed Size and qua]jty_ Extre temperature, Lubbock. 1953. The soil temperature was 10W rates, less than 15 pounds per acre, ‘at measured 8 inches below the top oi the bed and plotted as a IO-day average. 6 be avoided. AVERAGE RESULTS OF COTTONSEED PLANTING ‘RATE STUDIES ON IRRIGATED LAND, LUBBOCK. 1951-54 i: ted Average ’ Acre yield. Lost in strip- Height to Plant Length of Diameter oi plant spacing, lint. per harvest, first limb. height. longest limb. stalks at ~ inches pounds percent inches inches inches base. inches 1.8 584 2.3 6.6 18.5 4.4 .26 2.2 ' s26 2.1 5.8 o 19.5 5.0 ~ .27 2.9 646 2.9 5.9 20.4 5.8 . .29 4.3 665 3.1 5.0 22.2 _ 8.1 .32 8.3 653 4.0 4.0 26.2 i 12.2 .39 Equipment uncleaned planting seed are used. A swinging ‘irm, moist, warm seedbed and a planter $31138 and covers the seed at a unlform necessary to obtaln a uniform adequate {stool bar planter attachment designed at bock station incorporated features that p} many objections found in standard panting equipment (Figure 13). l many planters, the seed furrow opener by friction clamps which slip and are to adjust after the equipment becomes 150111161’ planters use a bolt through the foot ‘s: v these, though positive, do not allow close gent. A threaded rod used on the experi- jattachment to attain this adjustment holds "pment firmly and is easy to make. h standard equipment, especially where a ovel is used to open the seed furrow, the p elds do not keep the loose soil from filling 50W before the seed fall. This experimental went has a narrow-shielded opener that .;all the seed to reach the bottom of the for uniform covering and also insures that low press wheel will run over them. These (being only 3A; to 1 inch apart, may add “Problem of seed tube stoppage if very fuzzy, "-7 DAYS AFTER PLANTING IIII4 DAYS AFTER PLANTING 2" A 3" 4" g DEPTH OF COVERING 9. The relationship of cotton emergence to depth g. Greater emergence occurred after 7 days for coveringdepth. :2 arm attached to the foot piece prevents the shielded opener from being plugged with moist soil when the planter is dropped at the turn row. As the planter moves forward, the arm swings back as the lister enters the ground. A hollow, rubber-tired 1 x 10-inch seed press wheel, spring loaded, runs over the seed before they are covered. The seed are pressed into moist, undisturbed soil and can be covered 1 to 2 inches deep without the risk of drying out. This wheel firms the seed in the soil and prevents the baking and crusting that sometimes iscaused by running a packer wheel after covering. The . harrow drag used for covering reduces wind erosion in the lister furrow. Use of the experimental planting attachment gave 300 percent greater initial emergence (stand counts made the first day plants were up) and greater final emergence in most tests. The gross income averaged $9 more per acre where the experimental attachment was used. Mechanical Thinning Mechanical choppers operate satisfactorily under lister furrow conditions; however, because the yield is not increased, the operation is not recommended. Mechanical harvesting (stripper) 7O A-FUZZY SEED B-MACHINE DELINTED C-CHEMICALLY DELINTED 50 _ l-t r- _ .. r T .5 E 7 DAYS AFTER PLANTING 6o 1:] l4 DAYS FA_FTER PLANTING 3O PERCENT EMERGENCE OOOOO COO C OOOOOOO . O OI 00004 _ . . . . Q , , » . o . c . o . o . . . O . O . . O . O ‘ 0 . O . . O . 0 , . . Q .9 Q o 0 0 - Q o Q 0 o o , ' . 9 Q O O l o a _o:o:o:o:1 0 O O O O O 4 C O > OOOOOOOOO . l ' OOOO 0 0 0 - o o ' ' 9' . ¢ ' - ¢ ¢ _ ¢ ¢ v , v ¢ , Q , w , 0:0: :O:Q 0:0: D O ' O O O O ........... . 1 O O O O 7.9.... g u.‘ o o o o > o 0 vO-Qooo- nvfuvfx ~ . ¢ . ° ° . . ° ° ‘k 3 ........ ti. ABC ABC ABC ABC ABC A C MID LATE EARLY MID LATE EARLY APRIL APRIL MAY MAY MAY JUNE Figure l0. Tests with different seed types at Lubbock in 1954-55 show that chemically delinted seed at all dates gave greater initial‘ and final emergence. The seed press wheel was used. A 7 \ \ y X x/ y \ / W" LOWEST PLANTING RATE AVERAGE PLANT SPACING, 9.9 INCHES HIGHEST PLANTING RATE AVERAGE PLANT SPACING, 2,2 INCHES Figure 11. Typical plants obtained from thick and thin stands in planting rate tests at Lubbock. 1951-53. Figure 12. Harvest losses on 200 feet of row in the 1951 cotton planting-rate test. Losses from the 45-pound planting rate on the left were 127 pounds of seed cotton '1 per acre, 182 pounds from the ZS-pound planting rate and 230 pounds for the B-pound planting rate. Figure l3. A tool bar planter attachment using a shield- ed seed furrow opener, hollow rubber-tire seed press wheel and positive adjustment for the seed furrow opener and harrow drag. 8 efficiency has been consistently higher in thinned cotton. Skip-row Planting The practice in some areas is to plant rows and skip one, allowing each third row. remain unplanted. a w Four years of tests on dryland showe yield for every row planted of 257 pounds of per acre; where every third row was skip the yield was 210 pounds of lint per acre. r years of irrigated tests, the yield was appri mately the same, 460 pounds of lint per acre each row planted and 461 for the skip- f planting. Under dryland conditions and conside yield only, this practice is not recommended. der irrigation the practice is optional from standpoint of yield. Wind control, lack of gro z cover, vegetativeness of plants in relationship, machine harvesting and irrigation efficie should be considered. WEED CONTROL Low rainfall, adequate intervals betw rains and a small amount of grass make the W problem for the High Plains less serious tha . more humid areas. Most of the problems p with annuals such as Russian thistle (Souls Icali) and careless or pigweed (Amaranthus f, I Some local areas are infested with perennials i as field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), wh weed (Solomum elaeagnifolium cav.), bluew (Helianthus cilia/It's) and J ohnsongrass. Eliminating annual weeds in row crops chemicals or flame is more expensive than us mechanical control. Tests show the rotary ~ used with the knife sled and with the reg ~_ cultivator reduces hand hoeing about 50 perc (Figure 14). After the plant has reached a six-leaf stage, a spring weeder attachment on front cultivator sweeps controls small weedsl the drill if a slight ridge is maintained at the j of the plants (Figure 15). i The friction trip is preferred to the conv tional spring trip in mounting cultivator (Figure 16). It has fewer parts, operates clea c maintains its setting better and costs less. ’ Perennial weeds are difficult to eradicate; mechanical means. Usually a combination y chemical and mechanical methods is necess Specific recommendations for the control 0 particular weed should be followed.i * SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION An understanding of the rainfall and temp ature pattern and the demands by the crop water are necessary for effective use of irriga. water. ~ The 44-year record of the monthly and an I rainfall for the area presents a somewhat va 4:- ' j~ for both yearly and seasonal fall (Table mean yearly expectancy is 18.37 inches, ent of which can be expected between d October. During 25 of the 44 years, ual rainfall has been below 18.37 inches. 5e rainfall, based on 10-day averages, shows ‘y H; to 2O is the driest time of the summer 17 . e cotton plant is indeterminate in its fruit- f: effectively using water over a wide (f the time during its growth period. A a of bolls can be set in approximately 3 From studies underway it appears that is available, cotton uses .25 inch of e per day during the peak of blooming and tion. Beginning early in September this 5use drops as the daytime temperatures w cool. Peak blooming normally occurs July to mid-August. tton utilizes water to a depth of 6 feet; iyr, the most efficient use is from the first iifeet o-f the topsoil. . ring 1937-41, cotton receiving a heavy pre- 'g irrigation produced as much lint per a Water applied as other treatments (Table e preplanting irrigation during 1950-54 24-... as much per inch of water as additional irrigations (Table 5). This does not tthe value of summer irrigations, when Ery, but does point up the value of pre- ' irrigations. i, preplanting irrigation, the soil should be p. 6 feet deep. Summer irrigations should it half as much as the preplanting. On the ndy loam soils, the top 3 feet should be (field capacity with each summer irrigation. clay loam soils, only the top 2 feet should because of the slow infiltration and the of temporarily water logging the soil. oisture should be maintained above the point during the summer with the last ion not later than August 20-25. Usually g mer irrigations will be needed. Caution be used in applying late summer irrigations ey delay the crop and increase the amount ligature fibers. Mills are penalizing fibers low micronaire value which results from re fibers. nd should be leveled and floated to assure i. application of irrigation water. On tie sloping lands, contour irrigation should ticed (Figure 18) . FERTILIZATION ‘ils of the High Plains are deep and respond supplemental irrigation. Few farms have nder irrigation more than 20 years. No inorganic fertilizer recommendations for " based on experimental evidence, have been J d for this new irrigation area. Inorganic _Figure 14. A rotary hoe being used with a regular cultivator for early cultivation. Figure 15. The weeding attachment shown gives ex- cellent control oi weeds in the drill if a slight ridge is main- tained at the base of the plants. Figure 16. The spring cultivator trip on the left has no advantage over the friction trip on the right. 9 A September. l.O - INCHES OF RAIN. l-IOII- 2O Zl-BOHOII-ZO 2l-3l l-IO ll-202l-3l l-‘IO ll-2O 21-31 l-IO Il-ZO 21-31 l-IO 11-20230 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT Figure 17. Rainfall is highly variable at the Lubbock station. An average of the rainfall data for 44 years shows two peaks during the growing season. The first peak is in May and early Iune. the second is in late August and About 70 percent of the 18.37 inches annual precipitation occurs during the growing season. fertilizer tests on the two major soil types of the area, Amarillo fine sandy loam and Pullman clay loam, showed no definite, economic response in yield. These tests included rates of 0, 40 and 80 pounds each of nitrogen, phosphorus and potas- sium alone and in combinations. Fertilizer appli- TABLE 3. RAINFALL RECORD AT THE LUBBOCK STATION. 1911-54 cations were made before planting, 3 inches =4 and 3 inches to the side o-f the seed. r A darker green color, larger plant and f - open bolls on September 21 may be observe fertilized cotton. This visual difference does always mean an increase in yield. ' Initial tests on Brownfield soil series in T county on irrigated cotton showed a higher p when fertilizer was applied. Thirty poun nitrogen and 90 pounds of phosphorus were ' alone and in combination. Thirty pounds of n' gen increased lint yield an average of 74 po per acre. The 30-90-0 rate increased lint an average of 136 pounds per acre. “ Although the use of commercial inor fertilizer materials on cotton cannot alway expected to increase yields, probably their will become more profitable with irrigation r continued heavy crop removal. . Cotton burs applied to the land increase lint yield under both dryland and irriga, Table 6 gives the results under irrigation. Ad organic matter to the soil through the us Ian Feb March April May Iune Iuly Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1911 .38 5.83 .43 2.36 .72 .28 6.75 .21 1.33 1.08 .22 1.55 1912 .02 1.28 .61 .50 1.58 .96 3.35 2.37 .73 2.81 .01 .38 1913 .04 .20 1.18 1.82 .24 5.88 .40 .32 4.19 1.53 1.54 2.13 1914 .15 .10 .29 1.47 4.04 3.86 6.17 5.95 .46 7.12 .35 1.47 1915 .09 3.00 2.52 6.18 1.52 4.01 1.42 2.96 7.86 1.52 .04 .76 1916 .17 T 1.15 2.63 .39 1.52 .36 2.45 2.79 2.91 .55 .11 1917 .35 .05 .21 .58 1.07 .64 1.42 1.16 3.03 .14 .08 T 1918 .84 .58 .05 .72 1.67 2.95 .53 .79 .79 .51 .69 2.03 1919 .12 .25 3.39 3.53 2.10 3.52 2.28 2.83 5.70 7.34 .36 .19 1920 .90 .11 .24 .15 2.91 3.66 2.19 2.64 1.63 1.43 2.21 .09 1921 .14 .45 1.47 .24 .43 7.71 .84 .92 4.50 .02 T T 1922 .34 .20 .55 3.59 3.50 2.43 1.36 .28 .17 .60 1.50 .07 1923 .24 .76 1.04 3.18 2.77 3.98 1.65 ~ 1.59 2.67 6.80 .85 .64 " 1924 T .17 .96 .86 .90 1.79 1.20 1.76 1.25 .47 .03 .06 1925 .65 .02 T 1.12 2.31 .86 3.38 3.32 9.44 1.33 .11 .21 1926 .56 .04 1.64 1.81 5.14 1.10 1.03 2.75 4.15 8.40 .67 1.77 1927 .79 .37 T .40 T 2.91 2.16 .59 1.16 .40 T .81 1928 .31 1.18 T ‘ .09 3.08 1.06 6.78 4.04 .08 2.10 .74 .28 '1 1929 .43 .34 2.03 .15 6.91 .90 .20 1.68 1.36 3.56 1.00 .07 5 1930 .61 .03 .45 1.04 1.71 1.70 .12 1.34 .11 3.91 .94 1.44 5 1931 .32 1.98 1.34 1.82 1.32 .95 2.17 2.44 .72 3.47 1.39 1.44 1932 .93 1.09 .04 1.84 2.37 5.66 1.90 3.15 3.41 1.29 T 2.48 1933 .37 .95 .02 .06 2.97 .21 1.36 2.19 .71 .42 .99 .06 1934 .06 .06 1.98 1.08 1.26 .28 .65 1.66 1.86 .28 .55 T 1935 .12 .60 .89 .04 3.49 2.57 1.25 1.69 3.02 1.22 2.04 .33 ‘ 1936 1.08 T .59 .92 5.86 .92 1.13 .13 13.93 1.52 .74 .21 1937 .26 .01 1.81 2.01 4.00 3.12 1.32 2.06 3.85 3.22 .07 .52 1938 .91 1.18 .49 .14 1.99 5.89 4.01 .47 .63 .51 .27 .03 1939 2.45 .19 .09 .28 1.82 .67 1.73 2.75 .01 .94 .18 .60 1940 .23 1.97 T 1.84 1.74 2.06 T 1.57 .73 1.07 2.35 .20 1941 .55 .61 3.56 2.23 12.69 4.13 3.68 1.85 4.47 5.89 .17 .72 1942 .04 .18 .51 3.25 .35 1.74 2.58 4.97 7.61 3.39 .01 2.70 1943 .04 .02 .25 .53 2.71 2.37 3.17 T 1.16 .10 .62 1.87 1944 1.28 1.36 1.09 .84 3.03 1.75 2.93 2.37 3.73 .80 1.72 1.64 1945 .69 .39 .10 .46 .46 .36 3.08 2.17 2.22 2.26 .27 .32 1946 1.18 .15 .76 .07 1.49 2.72 .58 3.55 3.49 4.67 .44 1.04 1947 .82 T .92 1.13 6.03 .55 1.18 .25 .13 .74 1.37 .51 1948 .11 1.59 .22 .48 2.05 1.22 1.22 .31 1.06 1.09 .02 .10 1949 3.67 . .38 .78 1.78 6.95 4.62 2.47 2.36 4.87 1.02 .00 .39 1950 .23 .07 .00 .68 2.51 .77 2.67 1.40 2.24 .29 .03 .02 1951 .21 .72 .61 .55 2.61 1.91 1.92 3.93 .50 .64 .13 .00 1952 1.16 .14 .02 3.39 1.73 1.76 3.31 1.17 .90 _ .00 .74 .22 1953 .35 .09 .97 .48 .85 .45 1.07 2.21 .08 4.02 .12 .00 1954 .00 .09 .01 2.01 5.33 .39 .30 1.68 .00 3.08 .00 .80 Mean .. .53 .65 .78 1.37 2.72 2.25 2.03 1.96 2.60 2.18 .55 .69 10 L14. SUMMARY cor-row IRRIGATION. 1997-411 Increase or Total Lint yield agirelhfifii decrease over irrigation per acre 1 ‘ preplanting, pounds pounds 0 309 15.7 tings 6 457 - 18.8 0 ‘g 3 387 17.6 -70 ' 9 0' anting 6 442 18.0 — 15 fing antings 9 464 16.9 +17 ‘ranged from 11.71 to 40.55 inches. urs, grain stubble or legumes is a sound The cotton bur test indicates that suc- "yearly applications on the same land may profitable than applications on a different ch year. HAIL DAMAGE . High Plains, having an elevation of $3,000 feet, is a natural site of violent it. storms. Hail is frequent during the ~and early summer and often causes damage i; amounting to thousands of dollars. ' eriments have been conducted in recent ito determine the actual extent of hail Various types of simulated injuries, leaf destruction, bud destruction, stalk _ and bruises and stand reduction have been Lone and in all combinations as a measure page. .9 results will help farmers and insurance to understand more about the growth 5n and to reach equitable settlements for from hail. 5. SUMMARY COTTON IRRIGATION 1950-54 Lint Lint per Increase or N 533C: Totall Yield _acre decrease over tion w ter per acre pgrilcfilés pregtlairllmtggg’ 13.2 165 12.5 —255- y 9.2 21.4 42o 19.5 - 12.2 25.4 451 17.9 + 91 12.0 25.2 470 18.7 -|- 50 12.5 25.7 517 20.1 + 97 12.9 26.1 468 17.9 + 48 16.2 29.4 588 20.0 +168 15.5 28.7 590 20.6 -|- 170 19.5 32.7 518 15.8 + 98 made near these dates each year: > 5 plus rainfall. Figure 18. Contour irrigation is recommended on mod- erate and steep slopes. The short growing season on the High Plains has only two parts, early and late. The early season lasts until about July 1. Generally cotton can take a tremendous “beating” before July 1 and recover to make a good yield. During the seedling stage, injuries have no great lasting effect provided a uniform stand of 13,000 plants per acre lives and regrows. Loss of all leaves during the seedling stage may be serious because recovery is slow and doubtful. Loss of leaves on plants over 2 weeks old is not as serious. Stalk cutoffs during the early season are not important provided the cuts are above a live bud. Hail on o-r after July 1 can be most damaging. Even slight injury often is serious because insuf- ficient time remains for regrowth of fruit and maturation of bolls. Destruction of leaves during the peak bloom period reduces yields sharply. Fiber quality is affected in two ways during this period. Hail injuries which delay the maturity of the crop cause immaturity of fiber; destruction of leaves Figure 19. Cotton that has been damaged by hail. 11 TABLE 6. COTTON YIELD RESPONSE FROM COTTON BUR FERTILIZATION, LUBBOCK. 1953-55 Burs applied Yield, pounds of lint per acre P91’ "c"?! l°n5 19531 19541 19551 Average 0 379 449 545 491 2 422 537 834 597 4 421 490 1000 537 6 453 555 1164 7Z4 ‘Total water available for the crop varied from year to year. Sixteen inches oi water were available in 1953; in 1954. 18 inches, and in 1955, 30 inches. during late August and September causes incom- plete development of fiber because 0f the lack of v raw materials made in the leaves. The cotton plant has a remarkable ability to recover from serious injuries. On the High Plains, time is generally the critical factor in determining the outcome of hail damage. Hail before July 1 has caused less damage than expect- ed; hail after July 1, many times has caused greater damage than expected. Figure 19 shows early-season hail damage. INSECTS The principal insects causing damage to cotton are thrips, fleahoppers, aphids, lygus bugs, bollworms and spider mites. Because infestations do not follow a reasonably constant pattern in appearance or rate, as they do in the more humid areas, large losses can and do occur (Table 7). Excellent control is obtained with the use of new organic insecticides. Extension Leaflet 218, “Texas Guide for Controlling , Cotton Insects,” may be used to determine the need, time and rate of insecticide applications. Either of two early-season insect control programs may be followed. Insecticides may be applied on a regular schedule without regard to infestations, or only when damaging infestations are known to occur. The first program controls insects and proves economically sound over a period of years. The second program requires frequent checking of cotton for infestations and damage. Either program may be followed at relatively low cost. TABLE 7. YIELD PER ACRE IN POUNDS OF SEED COTTON FROM FLEAHOPPER AND THRIPS CONTROL EX- PERIMENTS. 1954 Check Toxaphene spray Gain Experiment 1 1326 2053 727 2260 934 Gross value oi Dieldrin spray Gain gain per acre $106.36 $123.83 Experiment 2 1033 1686 653 1733 700 Gross value oi gain per acre $92.84 $86.57 12 Economical late-season control depends of knowledge of insect infestation in the fi Cotton should be checked frequently and ins cides applied as damaging infestations app and before serious damage has been done. Ap, cation of insecticides, when injurious insects ='= not present in damaging numbers, may cause la ’ infestations through an immediate reduction the population of beneficial insects. While be ficial insects should not be relied on to con infestations of suchinjurious insects as the b Worm, they often may check light infestations =4 delay treatments as heavier infestations devel DISEASES Until the last few years there have been V serious threats to cotton production on the H'_ Plains from disease. Lack of rotation and rapid increase in irrigated acreage have cont I_ uted to the buildup of disease, which is now ca ing a loss of about 5 to 10 percent. 1 Most of the damage is caused by bacte A blight, Verticillium wilt and seedling disease, ' bacterial blight the most prevalent. I Bacterial Blight (Angular Leai Spot) This disease is caused by the bacteria, X thomonas malvacearum. Leaves, stems or u may be infected. In this area, it is more noti. able in the leaves and is commonly known =1 angular leaf spot because of the angular bro‘ spots or lesions on the underside of the leaf. , infection first appears as a small, oily-gr lesion, which becomes dry and brown as it 1. Large lesions may break and fall out, leavin torn, ragged leaf. Leaf shed is heavy wh serious infestations occur. Boll lesions are ro ' and at first have an oily-green appearance W \_ becomes a shrunken leathery-brown spot with = The lesions penetrate into the bolls, staining fiber yellow. This is one of the biggest factors since any appreciable amount of s stains puts the cotton into a spotted grade. ’ Stem infections are not frequent. Lo black areas on the stem are indicative of ' phase. It is difficult to ascertain the amount of a from angular leaf spot. Under heavy infecti the yield may be reduced 3O to 50 percent, lar ; because of the loss of leaf area through sheddi Clean seed, either from areas not infec. or seed properly treated, give some protec against the disease in the early stages of gro However, later infection probably would be set l by wind-blown or soil-borne material. e Rain, especially a hard, driving rain wind, sets up the disease. Occurrence of an 1 leaf spot can be related closely to the freque of summer showers. The use of sprinkler irri tion or watering down the row increases % severity of the disease. ' 7: promising control for angular leaf ' use of resistant varieties. Such varie- 'g developed by a number of breeders. _,ntative release was obtained for a Wriety, Blightmaster, from the Lubbock s is a cross of (Stoneville 20 x Acala) ‘ster. It is a stormproof type and well in the 1954 and 1955 tests. Wilt isease, first identified on the High can be found throughout the area ft in large amounts. It is more pro- 1 heavlily irrigated, poorly drained clay H S01 S. I ngus enters through the roots and water transporting system of the e stoppage of the vascular tissue of the 5' be seen as dark brown discolorations iftem is split lengthwise. This causes ~ wilt; yellow mottling of the leaf oc- sible total defoliation and death. J Verticillium wilt is confined to a perhaps where water collects, but through a field. Tillage implements 7» the disease, which is carried in the éoving infected stalks from the field o1 the disease. There are no resistant g known methods of chemical control. ds, shallow planting, avoidance of root nd moderate irrigation are the best y.» ures. Spots of severe infection should g to a nonsusceptible crop, such as Tr small grain. i"; ' =ases diseases can be caused by a number of isms. Under normal conditions, no jj blem exists in this area. Seedling sually are present during cool humid Infected plants often die but generally plants are left for an adequate stand. diseases cause a brown discoloration m of the seedling just below the ground n leaving the stem shrunken or con- f‘ loss of stand because of seedling death "fin 1954 from root-knot disease. The s or knots on the roots of the infected f-caused by the nematode, which is ‘f'sible to the naked eye. VARIETIES an varieties vary in their genetic makeup arious characteristics should be consid- ire a variety is selected for planting. nd general crop management affect the qualities of the crop. V? variety selected should have high yield- . Most of the currently grown varieties adapted to this area are high yielders. Variety tests show that the average yield in this area may vary from year to year and place to place and none of the adapted group consistently outper- forms the others. With the number of high yielding varieties available, the variety selected often is based on harvesting type or character- istics. Stormprooi Cotton Preharvest and harvest losses delayed wide acceptance of the mechanical stripper. Develop- ment of the stormproof boll largely removed this objection. From the standpoint of harvesting, bolls may be classified in three types: normal or open-boll types in which the carpels of the boll open wide and the locks fluff, making them relatively easy to remove from the bur; the storm- resistant type in which the locks also fluff but adhere more tenaciously to the carpel and are more difficult to remove; and the stormproof. types in which the locks adhere throughout the length of the carpel wall and remain held in the carpel so tightly they do not fluff. Stripped cotton from stormproof varieties is usually one to two grades higher than open-boll types... Maturity Early-maturing varieties are best adapted to the short growing season on the High Plains. Even with a variety which is inherently early, poor management, such as excessive irrigation, can result in immature cotton which is fine and weak. Gin Turnout Most varieties turn out 25 to 30 percent lint from stripped or hand-snapped cotton. High turnouts reduce hauling and ginning costs. Storm- proof varieties generally turn out about 2 percent more lint than the normal or open-boll varieties. Fiber Length’ Cotton varieties adapted to the growing con- ditions of the High Plains have a staple length of 15/16 to 1 inch. Cotton having fiber lengths of 1 1/ 16 inch when grown in other areas, seldom has a staple length over 1 inch on the High Plains. Fiber Quality Cotton is sold on grade, staple length and character. Laboratory measurements have been TABLE 8. AVERAGE COMPOSITION AND GRADE OF COT- TONSEED FROM STORMPROOF AND NON- STORMPROOF VARIETIES GROWN IN THE LUB- BOCK DRYLAND AND IRRIGATED COTTON VARIETY TESTS. 1948-50 Oil. Protein, Lint, variety grcmp percent percent percent Grade Dryland tests Stormprooi types 20.4 21.8 8.2 109.9 Non-stormproof types 18.8 21.7 12.4 104.8 Irrigated tests . Stormprooi types _ 19.7 21.0 7.9 104.7 Non-stormproof types 18.1 20.6 12.4 100.4 13 TABLE 9. DEFOLIANTS AND DESICCANTS COMMONLY USED ON THE HIGH PLAINS Trade name Chemical compound Acre rate Deioliants: Aero Cyanamid Calcium cyanamid 30-35 lb. Amino Triazole Amino triazole l . lb. Shed-A-Leai “l." Sodium chlorate-metaborate 2 gal. Chem-Frost Sodium chlorate-sodium and ammonium borate l0 lb. Magron Magnesium chlorate 1 gal. De-iol-ate Magnesium chlorate l0 lb. Desiccants: Golden Harvest Pentachlorophenol 3 qt. Permaguard Pentachlorophenol 2 qt. Stauffer Penta Pentachloro-phenol 6 qt. developed recently to determine the spinning quality of fiber more accurately. Most varieties, especially stormproof, need a coarser, stronger fiber. However, production practices and seasonal conditions greatly influence fiber quality. Cottonseed Quality Cottonseed is sold on grade, based on the percentage of oil, protein, lint and trash. Oil content is the most important measure in deter- mining grade. Seed of stormproof types have a higher grade than normal boll types because they have a higher oil content (Table 8). DEFOLIATION The application of a defoliant or desiccant on the cotton plant can be useful in mechanical harvesting. Defoliation is the pre-frost dropping of the leaves by chemical means. The plant forms an abscission layer which separates the leaf petiole from the plant. A defoliant applied under proper conditions before a freeze hastens the leaf drop and harvesting can start sooner after frost. If the cotton is fully matured before frost, the application of a desiccant to kill the plant and Figure 20. Fender-equipped stripper in stormproof cot- ton. Mature stormproof deioliated cotton, properly harvested with the cotton stripper. produces good quality fiber at minimum cost. 14 dry the leaves makes it possible t0 use i mechanical stripper before a frost. a Defoliants should not be applied to fiel cotton with less than 6O to 8O percent of the * open. On the High Plains, where the open do not reach this high percentage before Oc 15, it is doubtful that the application of a defo is economically sound because it reduces the quality and may reduce the yield. Ninety if percent of the cotton should be open befof desiccant is applied. Commonly used che p and rates are listed in Table 9. i HARVESTING Hand-harvesting is the most expensive r’ tion in the production of a cotton crop 0n- High Plains. Harvesting of cotton by snapping instead of hand-picking has be practice in the area since the early 1920’s. shortage of labor and the possibility of red harvesting cost have brought about the incr use of mechanical cotton harvesting machi Types of mechanical cotton harvesters cotton strippers and cotton pickers. Pi machines actually pick the cotton from the» Fluffy, open-boll varieties are best adapt this type of harvesting. The picker is a cost, one or two-row machine and has p to be practical in high-yielding cotton ar The cotton stripper is best adapted to _, Plains conditions. The initial cost is lower, operation is more economical than the p‘ Stormproof varieties, which are adapted to per harvest, prevent high preharvest storm l that occur with open-boll varieties. Types of strippers being used are th type and the finger type. Both are twig. machines. A roll-type machine is sho a Figure 20. l The performance or efficiency of the st _ harvester varies from year to year; ho P when it is used on stormproof cotton plan j 40-inch rows with three to four plants per of row, 96 to 98 percent of the cotton on the i can be placed in the trailer by the machine. In tests comparing harvest methods, g net returns were obtained by stripping the a crop by machine (Table 10). Better grad be obtained only by hand-snapping early i season. After frost, there is little grade d ence between hand-snapping and machine- ping. Harvesting methods do not appreciably fiber properties. Seasonal conditions s practices before harvesting determine the fiber quality. Much of the poorest fiber, attributed to the stripper-harvest method, 'f result of stripping the immature top crop the mature cotton has been hand-snapped. f iber can be obtained by stripping where ractices are followed. i i n can be harvested with a stripper for per bale; the cost for hand-snapping s om $30 to $40 per bale. l}- or wheel shields reduce harvesting re 20). The air-blast attachment on per elevator helps load the trailer and i;be used for green-boll separation. TORAGE 01-" STRIPPED COTTON j shift from hand to mechanical stripper of cotton on the Texas High Plains has i the harvesting season. ginning usually is completed by Jan- ethere is a period each season when the ‘several hundred bales behind the harvest. l; must be used until the gins can catch ilers frequently are used for storage and pmon for a farmer to have trailers with a for 25 to 5O bales. f analysis of the rainfall record for the years at the Lubbock station shows that "nt of the time the total rainfall during and December was not more than 2.27 if ‘ s show that this amount of precipitation damage field-stored bur cotton, if the j AVERAGE RESULTS OF HARVEST-METHOD TESTS. SNAPPING THE FIRST CROP. LUBBOCK. 1952-54 Figure 21. The front-end loader is an economical method oi loading field-stored stripped cotton. cotton is dry and contains no green bolls. There- fore, storage of stripped cotton ona well-drained and cleared part of the field is practical. Field storage helps eliminate congestion at the gin and lowers production cost by reducing the cotton trailer inventory. Front-end and suction loaders reduce man- power costs for loading cotton from the storage piles (Figure 21). MACHINE-STRIPPING THE ENTIRE CROP VS. HAND- Lint yield Pounds harvested Lint value Harvest cost Net lint Tethod per acre. cotton to give Per pound. Per acre. per acre. return. pounds 500-pound bale dollars dollarsl dollars with i i ‘cal stripper 628 2033 179.32 6.28 173.04 ed first chine-stripped 634 2125 184.75 32.06 152.69 _- harvest. ping cost $1.75 per hundred weight. Stripping at $5 per bale for the once-over operation and $8 per bale for the 15 STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE Bulletins 683 686 720 735 757 762 765 788 813 828 Comparison of Different Methods of Harvesting Cotton. Smith, H. P., Rouse, J. T., Killough, D. T. and‘ Jones, D. L. 1946. Factors Affecting the Performance of Mechanical Cotton Harvesters (Stripper Type), Extractors and Cleaners. Smith, H. P., Killough, D. T. and Jones, D. L. 1946. The Cleaning of Mechanically Harvested Cotton. Smith, H. P., Jones, D. L. and Miller, H. F., Jr. 1950. Economics of Mechanical Cotton Harvesting in the High Plains Cotton Area of Texas. Williamson, M. N., Morgan, Q. M. and Rogers, Ralph H. 1950. Fiber Characteristics and Spinning Performance of Mechanically-stripped Cotton on the High Plains. Ward, J. M., Hessler, L. E. and Paulson, W. E. 1953. Cotton and Manpower—Texas High Plains. Moth- eral, Joe R.,‘ Metzler, W. H. and Ducoff, L. J. 1953. Storage of Seed Cotton as an Aid to More Efficient Ginning and Marketing. Ward, J. M., Paulson, W. E. and Jones, D. L. 1953. Performance of Cotton Varieties in Texas, 1951-53. Killough, D. T., Richmond, T. R. and Elliott, F. C. 1954.; Ten/ure and Mechanization of the Cotton Harvest, Texas High Plains. Adkins, William G. and Metzler, William H. 1955. - Changes in Investment and Irrigation Water Costs. Texas High Plains, 1950-54. Hughes, Wm. F. and Magee, A. C. 1956. Leaflet 292 Blightmaster. Jones, D. L. and Ray, L. L. 1956. Miscellaneous Publications 123 Effects of Injuries Simulating Hail Damage A 170 Progress Reports 1415 1484 1547 1673 1688 1701 1728 1773 1859 Cotton. Lane, H. C. 1955. Cotton Spacing—A Review and Discussion. L_ H. C. 1956. . Influence of Rate of Planting on Seedling Eme i ence of Cotton under Crusting Conditions. L. L., Hudspeth, E. B. and Jones, D. L. 1951. Influence of Depth of Planting Furrow on Em a; ence, Harvester Efficiency and Other Related E tors in Cotton Production on the High Pl Hudspeth, E. B. and Jones, D. L. 1952. '6 The Use of Fuzzy, Machine and Chemically-delin: Cottonseed for Planting on the High Plains Texas. Hudspeth, E. B., Ray, L. L. and Jones, D. 1953. Planter Equipment Test, Lubbock, 1949-53. H I peth, E. B. and Jones, D. L. 1954. Emergence and Yield of Cotton as Affected , Depth of Covering Seed. Hudspeth, E. B. =4 Jones, D. L. 1954. p~ Cotton Fertilizer Trials, High Plains of Texas, 1, Box, John and Jones, D. L. 1954. l" Field Storage of Bur Cotton on the Texas A Plains, 1951-52. Hudspeth, E. B. and Jones, D.’ 1954. Cotton Variety Test at Lubbock, 1951-54. Ray, Lx and Jones, D. L. 1955. " Thrips and Cotton Fleahopper Control on the v I Plains, 1955. Owen, W. L., Jr. 1956. 1