PERFORMANCE OF COTTON VARIETIES IN TEXAS, 1957-59 Contents Preface ...................................................................................... .. 2 Introduction .............................................................................. .. 3 Test Procedures ...................................................................... -- 3 Climatic Conditions ......... .................................................... -- 4' Test Results ............................................... ........................... .. 4 Lower Rio Grande Plain ................................................ .. 5 Coast Prairie and Upper Rio Grande Plain .............. .- 5 Brazos River Valley .......................................................... .- 5 Blackland Prairies and Rolling Plains ......................... .. 6 High Plains ........................... ......................................... .. 6 Trans-Pecos ........................................................................ -- 6 Recommendations of Varieties ............................................ .. 6 Acknowledgments .................................................................... --‘l0 Appendix .................................................................................. __ll Characters Reported in Tables .................................... __ll Preface Performance data for cotton varieties tested at 26 locations in T are summarized for 1957-59. Information is given on lint yield, lint centages, boll size, staple length and micronaire (fiber fineness). Yield performance data for the various land resource areas in T are summarized in Tables 2-7, for both dryland and irrigated variety tri Performance data for individual locations are given in the Appendix. Classification of varieties into varietal types is presented, and rec mendations in terms of varietal types are given for the various land resou areas in Texas. COTTON HAS BEEN THE MAJOR AGRICULTURAL CROP of I Texas for many years. The Texas Almanac, 1961-62, gives Texas production in 1959 at 4,416,000 bales valued at almost 700 million dollars, an amount exceeding the combined crop values for grain sor- hum, wheat, rice, corn and oats. The additional A alue of cotton seed, approximately 75 million (lollars annually, makes cotton production a most significant part of the agricultural economy of the State. In 1959 cotton acreage allotments were made for 49 of the 254 counties in Texas. These areas en- ompass a wide range of environmental conditions gn respect to soil types, rainfall, elevation and grow- ng season. The adaptability of cotton to such diverse roduction conditions and the many uses for cotton iber and seed contribute to the continuing position f. cotton as the leading agricultural crop in the State. The adaptability of cotton in Texas has been ncreased by the continued efforts of plant breeders o develop varieties more specifically suited to various limatic conditions and production systems. New arieties are continually being released as possible . eplacements for older, less suitable varieties. The otton variety picture has changed notably within ecent years, and few of the varieties of 15 years ago re still in production. Today, several dozen named arieties are offered for sale in Texas, although many f them are variate forms of certain basic types. The cotton producer thus has a wide choice, and is success in production may be influenced consider- ably by the variety he selects for planting. Choice 1 variety is influenced not only by production poten- l, but also by disease tolerance, suitability for echanical harvesting, earliness of maturity, quality ) fiber, etc. Performance testing of cotton varieties has been . nducted actively by the Texas Agricultural Experi- nt Station for 60 years. The program has been nti-nually improved and expanded and today variety .- ting is carried on at more than 24 locations through- , t Texas. Measurements are made on yield, boll e, lint percentage, earliness, staple length, grade r d fiber fineness. Data from the tests are summar- espcctively, assistant professor, Department of Soil and Crop i iences; and agronomist, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. partment of Agriculture, cooperating with the Texas Agri- ltural Experiment Station, College Station, Texas. Performance of Cotton Varieties in Texas, 1957-59 G. A. Niles and T. R. Richmond* ized annually in mimeographed form, and compiled for publicationat regular intervals. Consistency in varietal performance is influenced often by the effects of season and location, and varie- ties can be evaluated most reliably when their per- formance is considered over a period of years or at several locations, or both. Demand for current in- formation, as well as technical considerations, makes 3 years the minimum time in which varietal per- formance of cotton can be evaluated adequately in Texas, and tests results are summarized and published in bulletin form at the end of each 3-year testing cycle. This bulletin, the fourth in a series of 3-year summaries, presents data obtained from cotton variety tests conducted in Texas during 1957-59. Three similar bulletins were published for the 3-year periods of 1948-50, 1951-53 and 1954-56, bulle- tins 739, 788 and 877, respectively. The first of these summarized performance data for the testing period and discussed briefly aspects and methods of cotton production in Texas. The following two were limited to presentation of cotton variety test data. A comprehensive discussion of general cotton pro- duction techniques is given in TAES Bulletin 938, “Cotton Production in Texas.” TEST PROCEDURES Because of the great diversity of soil types, climate and production practices in Texas, variety test sites have been established in practically all land resource areas of the State. Locations of the various test sites are shown in Figure 1. The entries included in the various tests differed from year to year, although certain designated varie- ties were included in all years to provide a consistent basis for comparison. Tests were designed as either randomized block or triple lattice, depending on the number of entries, and planted generally in six repli- cations. Where a lattice experimental design was employed, data were subjected to both randomized block and lattice analyses. However, the gains in efficiency from lattice analysis were small and the statistics reported herein were derived mainly from the randomized block analysis. 14156463 Mum sueaum srono ocmfiee LIPSCOMB f um noose um- noaenrs uewmu. more»: POTTER y“ on weeten flJ on; sumo amom. ‘m oontev °°LL'"°5‘ ‘ 0 wonm maven CASTRO a a nscoe ma; WW" 45W ness _ » '_, . _J " Z HAR D I amtev emu r1 no monev cqnte \'-4 wig“- M romo sea "u v on cnen CL“ '3 - coo E amrson FANNIN . tmm I ’ ' cocnnm uocxeev t x cnosav o xeus xmo mo: an t g . . ' l nun I o: , . , - T n INS ' 3 sroue- MSKELL T" I?" vouuc JACK e . oi cotuu - a YOAKUII v tvuu nu xem | I 2:8 ) "LI- "o o“ H l _ . cmw - I A "Mi ' - - ' more III.“ - ms wooo ,uwsuua. -M ' snacx - , ,,_, PAW ARK m: wr DALLAS - onmes oawsoc RDEN scuanv rasuen JONES F01 .. e .. 9mm j “up ' \ “ mm 0 5o ' ELLI Y l O00 . p S AR Mn-CHE N N T rml AN ND ‘ ' z-e _ k D » ANDREWS MA£4 I‘ ‘< e n ‘Si: _ ‘Z ‘ K ' I \»< NAVARRO _ . T R . A‘. I LL - ‘ ' o mo “A 5T5 ' . OKE ‘ com n >-. _ . I ‘-°"'"° -'""'“'ER‘>E°T°" m L x um; IRUNN s teu . an -/ W050“ A‘ ' . ' ' c, "wé-LMILTOM ' ' LIIE . H ' , ~ ‘ LENNAN I HUDSPETH CULBERSON WARD \ MILL \ came UPTON REAGAN coma“ ' _ ‘ "no" TOM c c" - . eves GREEN ULL n "- Q \ _ 2s - ‘ “ting / N \/ scutencuefi memm unner/ - as" DAVE _ Pggos cnocxefl’ mason LLANO z . Wu‘ mo" - Q . .$ r4 SUTTON Km,“ \_ R BL ' "- j i; I A . ‘reanett HAYS KERR | - . "Esmm an“; R var veaoe xeuontt)’ . I {IT-r ' count / eauoena vl p flALDE MEDINA ‘\ TEST LOCATIONS LAND RESOURCE AREAS l. Weslaco l4. Greenville A. East Texas Timberlands 2. Rio Grande City l5. Denton B. Coast Marsh 3. McCook l6. Stephenville C. Coast Prairie 4. La Feria l7. Iowa Park D. Blackland Prairies 5. Lyford 18. Chillicothe E. East Cross Timbers 6. Robstown l9. Spur F. Grand Prairie 7. Beeville 20. Lubbock G. West Cross Timbers 8. Refugio 21. Plainview H. North Central Prairies 9. Victoria 22. Tulia-Kress I. Central Basin l0. Sugar Land 23. Brownfield J. Rio Grande Plain ll. Prairie View 24. Big Spring K. Edwards Plateau 12. A8cM Plantation 25. Pecos L. Rolling Plains 13. Temple 26. Ysleta M. High Plains N. Trans-Pecos Figure 1. CLIMATIC CONDITIONS In general, growing conditions during 1957-59 were favorable for cotton production. The extended drouth of the l950‘s was alleviated late in the 1957 growing season and rainfall in 1958 and 1959 was near or above average at most test locations. Although climatic conditions during the growing seasons of 1958 and 1959 were reasonably good, excessive rain- fall during the harvest periods caused considerable damage to lint quality at certain locations. Soil types and climatological data for various locations are presented in Table 1. Tests were con- ducted mainly at substations, but some were grown with farmer cooperators. In some cases, meteoro- 4 MAVERICK ZAVALA . - JAcxsonY "\ ‘TASCOSA ARNES unncono - I cou- WEBB LA SAL LE I I . nutter‘. “:_'__i\‘,7e3 l- J I PATRICIO DUVAL JIM WELLS ZAPATA 4"‘ ‘Mormons -xeneov noes ,-¢--- a? -. ' c:‘1ou 4 Land resource areas of Texas and cotton variety testing locations. O L C- A nun ",_" '_- ‘an. g--"Ur-r¢.:~..~.~ logical data were not available for the off-stati locations. lint per acre, lint percentage, boll size, staple len Statisti and TEST RESULTS Data reported in this bulletin included yield micronaire index (fiber fineness). analysis of yield data was made to determine significance of difference among mean variety yiel f" least significant differences (L.S.D.) , calcula V. The at odds of 19 to 1, are shown for the annual a 3-year averages at each test location. value is the amount by which average yields The L.S 1 differ before the difference can be considered as r } and not due to chance. In some cases the differen s. d‘ n TABLE 1. SOIL TYPES AND CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA FOR COTTON VARIETY TESTING LOCATIONS, 1957-59 Precipitation Average for Total for Location Soil t e Av r we . Total annual ' YP an; :51 growmg growing season season 1957 1958 1959 1957 1958 1959 cWealaco Willacy 10am 22.66 11.47 20.12 31.13 14.36 13.50 4.65 3.69 . Boeville Clareville clay loam 29.70 15.81 40.04 33.06 30.86 25.03 4.09 14.55 ‘Victoria county Victoria clay 34.69 21.98 47.56 41.01 35.22 32.40 18.63 20.39 Ilort Bend county i. (Sugar Land) Miller clay 39.50 30.86 51.23 36.99 73.60 31.46 19.49 41.64 e View Hockley fine sandy 10am 34.61 19.04 32.61 35.79 48.76 22.62 17.68 30.07 V. 842M Plantation Miller clay 38.61 19.99 57.49 45.00 45.01 30.81 30.82 29.69 {Temple Houston Black clay 34.00 15.36 47.35 33.75 46.87 15.96 14.78 19.91 y rzeenville Hunt clay 41.17 22.28 75.24 42.85 46.35 48.97 29.06 20.71 Danton San Saba clay 32.44 16.07 56.42 28.41 28.44 33.22 15.91 14.70 § owa Park Yahola very fine sandy 10am 29.42 17.95 39.97 23.34 37.00 24.02 15.45 22.92 Chillicothe Abilene loam 24.50 13.86 34.21 21.55 28.51 14.28 12.98 18.74 5F- » Abilene clay loam 20.60 14.32 28.38 20.43 23.66 16.01 11.47 15.94 ' '- view Amarillo fine sandy loam 19.84 10.03 24.90 17.18 17.43 12.97 8.15 8.96 'bbock Amarillo fine sandy loam 18.29 13.69 24.51 19.91 18.19 18.32 12.15 15.03 f elch Brownfield loamy fine sand 9.70 6.00 i. wnfield Brownfield loamy fine sand 6,10 9,40 wisher county Pullman clay 10am 20.00 3.40 15,33 ; Spring Amarillo fine sandy loam 18.36 10.89 23.14 18.35 14.19 7.57 econ Reeves silt loam 14.00 11.79 9.89 ‘ Paso Glendale-Gila silt loams 7.90 5.20 6.52 17.32 3.97 3.11 11.10 2.90 ‘ong mean yields were found to be nonsignificant n/s), meaning that under the conditions of the test one of the differences among average variety yields ould be considered real. In the test location sum- waries presented, nonsignificant differences were .used mainly by variety-year interaction, or incon- itency in relative performance of varieties in differ- J nt years. In order to present a comprehensive summary varietal performance, the data have been sum- arized for various cotton production areas in Texas. . ese areas correspond as closely as practicable to f’ e land resource areas of the State, although certain e uction areas have been combined on the basis of yilarity in soil and climatic conditions or general ioduction practices or both. The area summaries en include only those varieties which were grown " all locations. or Rio Gronde Plain i Cotton in this area is produced under both irri- ted and dryland conditions; the irrigated growths predominant, however. The principal varieties p. open-boll Upland types with medium to long “ples, harvested mostly by hand and machine pick- In the dryland areas there is some interest in '7 large-boll, storm-resistant varieties. Table 2 sum- _ 'zes the yield data for the irrigated and dryland conducted in this area during 1957-59. Per- j ance data for the individual locations are given fTables 9-13 of the Appendix. t Prairie and Upper Rio Gronde Plain i The consolidation of these two regions was con- ed to be justified because of the similarity in soil and climatic conditions, as well as the predomi- nant cotton production practices. Cotton yield data are summarized in Table 3 for tests at the Beeville and Prairie View stations and at off-station locations in N ueces, Victoria and Refugio counties. Summaries of performance of varieties at each location are given in Tables 14-18 of the Appendix. The varieties of principal interest in these areas are both open-boll and storm-resistant types. Hazards of heavy rain and wind damage from late summer Gulf storms have prompted increasing interest in the storm-resistant varieties which are less subject to yield and grade losses from weather effects. The greater portion of the cotton crop is produced under rain- grown conditions, and harvesting is done by hand picking, hand snapping and machine picking. Brazos River Valley The cotton variety tests conducted on the A8cM College Plantation, College Station and in Fort Bend county (Sugar Land) were located on the alluvial soils of the Brazos River flood plain. Conditions in this region are comparable to those encountered in the alluvial bottomlands of South and Central Texas, such as those of the Trinity, Colorado and Navasota rivers. Soils of such areas are generally productive and rainfall is normally adequate for efficient pro- duction of cotton. During recent years, supplemental irrigation has been used and yields under such pro- duction systems may approach 21/2 to 3 bales per acre. The varieties grown are mainly open-boll types of medium staple, and harvesting is done mostly by hand snapping and machine picking. Yield data are sum- marized in Table 4 for the 1957-59 cotton variety 5 tests conducted in‘ Fort Bend county and at AScM Plantation, College Station. Data for the individual locations are given in Tables 19-22 in the Appendix. Blackland Prairies and Rolling Plains Although these two areas are discrete in regard to soil type, they are combined in this bulletin mainly because the major production practices, varieties grown and gross climatic conditions are similar. In this region of the State, use of the cotton stripper is increasing, and the overall trend is toward the grow- ing of storm-resistant or stormproof varieties which are relatively early in maturity and adapted to limited rainfall conditions. In certain areas, supplemental irrigation is employed, but the major portion of the crop is produced under dryland conditions. Yield data for irrigated and dryland tests in these areas are summarized in Table 5; individual location summaries are presented in Tables 23-31 of the Appendix. TABLE 2. LOIVER RIO GRANDE PLAIN —SUMMARY OF AVERAGE YIELDS OF COTTON VARIETIES, 1957-59 Pounds of lint per acre Irrigated locations Variety Weslaco‘ (13:11:12)? Rlocfitléndfi Average Stoneville 7 1046 1007 1134 1061 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 960 1000 1190 1049 Hale Deltapine 33 1131 966 1039 1044 Deltapine TPSA 943 926 1147 1004 Rex 1055 929 1017 1000 Delfos 9169 968 926 1099 997 Stardel 1006 1027 961 997 Coker 124 932 946 1079 985 Tideland, TPSA No. 1 922 857 1157 978 Coker 100A (WR) 880 922 1063 954 L.S.D. n/s 70 222 n/s i Dryland locations v ' - anew 13231128, McCooka Average Stoneville 7 627 512 570 Wescot 626 437 532 Stardel 608 447 528 Deltapine TPSA 576 467 522 Rex 544 485 514 Lankart Sel. 611, 600 413 506 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 603 401 502 Lankart Sel. 57 535 438 486 Coker 100A (WR) 553 416 484 Stormking, TPSA No. 1 557 407 482 Coker 124 540 395 468 Delfos 9169 554 381 468 DScPL-Fox 4 504 425 464 Hale Deltapine 33 511 393 452 Northern Star 11 534 362 448 Tideland, TPSA No. 1 537 359 448 L.S.D. n / s 57 64 11957-58. 21959 only. 31959 only. 6 High Plains This sizeable area comprises the largest cott producing area in Texas with an annual producti of almost 2 million bales. The average annual ra' fall of approximately 20 inches supports relativ 10w and erratic yields, and much of the crop is gro with supplemental irrigation. The limitations moisture and low temperatures during a short gr ing season favor the production of determinate a l early-maturing cottons, most of which produce sta lengths 15/16 to 1 inch. Hand harvesting is decl ing as a general practice and much of the crop handled with cotton stripping machines. where yields are high, the spindle picker machine proved to be practical. During 1957-59, irrigat variety tests were conducted at Lubbock, Brownfie Plainview and in Swisher county (Tulia and Kre dryland tests were conducted at Lubbock, Brownfi A and Big Spring. Yield summary data are presen in Table 6 and results from individual locations . summarized in the Appendix, Tables 32 - 38. Trans-Pecos In the Trans-Pecos area of West Texas, cott is produced almost exclusively under irrigation. Ra '1 fall in the area is low, averaging about l0 inc 3 annually, and consistently high unit-production ' possible with adequate irrigation and fertilizer. area is noted for the production of long staple, h' ' quality cotton, most of which is of the Acala ty Cotton harvesting is done to a considerable de by hand picking, but the increasing scarcity of la and cost of hand harvesting has caused a shift the use of mechanical pickers in the area. COt variety tests were conducted at Pecos and Ysleta, . the 1957-59 lint yields are summarized in Table ‘ Separate summaries of the Pecos and Ysleta tests . presented in Tables 39 and 40 of the Appendix. J In fir I 3 3 S 1 The Texas production of the American-Egypt cottons is limited to the Trans-Pecos area where proximately 28,000 acres are grown. The Americ Egyptian type is characterized by an extra-long sta , of high quality that is best produced in the hi altitude, irrigated regions of West Texas. No formance data concerning the American-Egypt varieties are presented in this bulletin. RECOMMENDATIONS OF VARIETIES Each of the three previous bulletins in the se carried a list of recommended varieties. mendations were based mainly on test performa data, but to a large degree they were based also less objective considerations such as plant and a = characteristics, disease tolerance, adaptability to l‘ tain production systems, farmer-preference, availabi of seed and such. Although such factors deserve c 3 sideration, they are not completely determinant, . the resulting recommendations were more or less a 4 trary (depending on the region or area involved) . The rec ' 5 ABLE 3. COAST PRAIRIE AND UPPER RIO GRANDE PLAIN—SUMMARY OF AVERAGE YIELDS r-v pa» C a VARIETIES, 1957-59 OF COTTON Pounds of lint per acre 4 ected compromise between the use of test data and nal judgment. For reasons discussed below, the ctical value of recommendations of specific varieties '1 the various production areas in Texas was believed Ttionable, and no such recommendations will be en in this bulletin. Instead, recommendations will ‘given in terms of varietal types, and the following h“ ion will point out certain of the more com- fling reasons for adopting this practice. The inherent growth and fruiting behavior of iton results in considerable variability in perform- " from location to location or for different years. lifruiting behavior cotton is basically an indetermi- 1e species; that is, it tends to bloom and set fruit an extended period of time, as long as environ- ’ Vital conditions are favorable. Where favorable i ing conditions exist late in the fruiting period, lvarieties in a test tend to continue fruiting, and gsuch cases the differences in performance between i‘1y"~and “late” varieties are not manifested. In “nces where growing conditions cause the fruiting iod to be shorter than usual, the earlier-fruiting “eties may be favored and the contrast with late "eties is exaggerated. These and other flexible th responses are often manifested in relatively 1 variety-year or variety-location interactions, and ‘ftical analysis of data from such tests is often in- wlusive. As a result, it is difficult to discriminate _ ately enough among the average yields of the i'eties tested tfo establish which are the most con- nt and the highest performers. lfflThe scope of the cotton variety testing program iiffexas is limited by practical as well as technical iderations, and it is impractical to test all of I different varieties available. Consequently, any mmendation of specific varieties should be quali- valet?’ Prairie Beeville Nueces Victoria Refugio Average , View county county county‘ _ .. 492 4ss 588 559 474 509 '1¢ 8202 4s2 444 565 517 486 468 , ‘lle 7 s9s s47 611 48s 4s9 455 -» e WR 469 s77 525 429 454 450 m s51. 57 450 s47 54s 459 4s6 448 1.. King 475 s48 5s1 422 424 440 ~. . . Star 11 429 s57 524 461 426 489 i 449 s17 562 416 410 4s1 _ Ln»; 4 s97 s02 527 472 s74 414 M 9169 40s 275 509 428 4281 410 . . 124 s95 s09 524 4s2 s4s 401 g - pine TPSA s58 s24 515 425 sss s92 ftapine 15 s7s 296 526 400 s50 s89 pine Smooth 1841 416 sis 558 4ss 211 s88 < 1517c 275 2s0 482 ss2 274 s19 a '5 Rowden s92 25s ss5 s46 195 s04 6- so 291 272 s22 s48 275 s02 j,_L.s.n. 9s 65 n /s 102 s7 51 x758. fied, inasmuch as all varieties are not tested, and any compilation of recommended varieties may be in- complete and erroneous. Furthermore, the methods and techniques of cotton variety testing may not render a true evaluation of a variety. Practical con- siderations also make it necessary to compromise on the cultural practices used in variety tests. All varie- ties in a test are planted at the same time, thinned to the same stands, fertilized and irrigated in a similar manner and defoliated and harvested at the same time. The general cultural methods followed are those which have proved to be best in that particular locality and most efficient for the predominant varie- ties or types produced in the area. Under such con- ditions certain varieties in a test may be favored TABLE 4. BRAZOS RIVER VALLEY—SUMMARY OF AVERAGE YIELDS OF COTTON VARIETIES, 1957-59 Pounds of lint per acre Irrigated locations Variety Fort Bend A8cM Avera e county Plantation g Stoneville 7 932 1216 1074 Deltapine 15 883 1 196 1040 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 901 1098 1000 D&PL-Fox 4 859 1121 990 Stoneville 3202 885 1096 990 Deltapine TPSA 848 1 106 977 Delfos 9169 864 1089 976 Brazos 838 1070 954 Lankart Sel. 57 822 1085 954 Northern Star ll 783 1011 897 Empire WR 777 985 881 Acala 1517C 804 943 874 Malone’s Rowden 668 913 790 Floyd 8G 749 816 782 L.S.D. 92 l 19 94 while other varieties are penalized because of cultural treatment. In such cases, there may be an appreciable The preceding discussion enumerates several A the complex problems which cotton research work bias, and the evaluations of varietal erformance should consider when formulatin s ecific vari v . P . g. P . may be confounded or inaccurate. recommendations. Many of these difficulties can I Recommendation for specific varieties should eblilaeed bY Conslderlng Varlétal types rather t Z take into account not only data on yield, boll size, Yanetles’ as suehj The CaUIMgKHE of Yarletal ty l lint percentage, etc., but other factors which are not 1s somewhat erbltrery’ but speelee Vaneues ean_ readily measured in conventional cotton variety tests. eeeveelentllf Smuped together} en the basls of s1 Seedling vigor, disease tolerance, plant type, leafiness, lenty 1n Ongm’ grewtlehebitf" fiber type’ eon t7 . fruiting pattern, storm-resistance and other qualities‘ ete‘ _I_n general} the Ver1eues_ melueed Wlthm e t 1 may be important in judging vari€ties_ Measurg classification will_be similar in major agronomic . i ments such as these, however, are not easy to analyze fiber eharaeterlstles’ and prilbably W111 perigee‘ z objectively, nor can they be included practically with- mueh the same manner ee average genffge in the Scopg of the present testing program. This scheme of type_classi ication shoul_ a l; i‘ _ _ _ _ better basis for drawing general conclusions ab 4 Many Varletles m_ Pljeduetlee tedaY Can be traeed agronomic performance, and still provide latitude ' back to essenuanY Slfnllar ongms> _a_nd presumablY additional judgments by the individual farmer. are related closely, which makes specific recommenda- _ “ _ _ l tions difficult. The constant selection pressure for TAES Buueue gee’ Cetteepreduetlen m trex l yielding ability earliness of maturity and efficiency shows a elasslfleeuen of Vanetel types devlsed of fruiting has resulted in varieties which are much Rleereend and Niles to meluie fee numerous eet i alike in their general level of production. The most Vdrleues grown 1n Texas’ as e1 ews‘ notable differences resulted from selection for various Type 1. Texas Big Boll. Varieties included i plant and boll types, fiber quality and adaptation to this group are derived principally from the Lone S i] specific growing conditions. These differences among Mebane and Rowden stocks. This Big Boll type i g certain varieties become even smaller in the numerous formerly the most popular cotton in Texas and o ( variate forms of certain basic types which resulted pied the greatest acreage in the eastern two-thirds “ from selections for enerall sli ht differences in the State. In recent ears, the o ularit of t . _ _ g Y g _ _ Y _ P P Y specific characters. varieties has lessened considerably, although th TABLE 5. BLACKLAND PRAIRIES AND ROLLING PLAINS-SUMMARY OF AVERAGE YIELDS OF COTTON VARIET l 1957-59 ‘I i Pounds of lint per acre Variety Dryland locations f Temple Greenville Denton Stephenville‘ Chillicothe Spur’ Avera Gregg 394 478 445 405 233 419 396 Lankart Sel. 57 380 431 505 376 238 336 378 Paymaster 54B 340 465 446 408 220 359 373 » Northern Star ll 322 420 462 402 200 322 355 ~ Blightmaster 360 358 432 412 236 306 351 a Empire WR 355 385 469 340 222 316 348 Lockett 88 345 364 453 386 247 285 347 . Western Stormproof 325 350 455 366 243 268 334 Deltapine TPSA 317 373 420 342 213 282 324 L.S.D. 92 75 76 n/s 52 n/s 32 1 Irrigated locations _ Variety Iowa Park Chillicothe Spur’ Avera Gregg ' 689 672 675 678 _ Paymaster 54B 791 619 626 678 i, Empire WR 697 638 697 677 i Lankart Sel. 57 771 569 548 629 i} Northern Star ll 653 535 582 589 Western Stormproof 725 469 524 572 - Lockett 88 666 485 564 571 , Blightmaster 653 526 512 563 Deltapine TPSA 681 445 518 547 Acala l5l7BR-1 612s 477 462 516 L.S.D. n/s n/s 149 85 g 11957-58. ‘ 21958-59. “Acala 1517C. 8 i'l are a good many varieties in production that _e developed from the Big Boll stocks. Current " 'eties that can be considered in this group include ey’s B17 Rowden, Malone’s Rowden, Malone’s f ane, New Mebane, Anton 22, Qualla 60, Kasch i’ -No. 7, Floyd 8G, Mebane B1 and others. 1 Type 2. Storm-resistant Big Boll. This type in y respects resembles the Texas Big Boll group, 'ng principally in the degree of storm-resistance n in boll characters. Many of the varieties in- d in this group were selected from older Texas Boll stocks; others probably were derived as i ids between the Big Boll and special breeding . Current varieties that can be included in this V p are Northern Star ll, Wacona, Northern Star 5, 1 rt Selection 611, Lankart Selection 57, Anton proof 99, Stormking, Kasch SS Strain, Bagley’s W -Tex 157, Stufflebeme Stormproof, Dunn 7, nes Machine Harvester and other similar L 1 Type 3. Western Open Boll. A number of ties of this type have been developed in Texas Oklahoma in recent years. Most are early- ing varieties, lacking in a high degree of storm- gtance and with rather short staple lengths (M; to _ch). Included in this type are Paymaster 54B, tt and Stoneville 62. Type 4. Texas Stormproof. The practice of ting by hand snapping and later by machine ping, principally in North and Northwest Texas, ted a need for highly storm-resistant varieties. rfirst such variety, Macha, was offered for sale in and became the forerunner of a group of varieties n be classified under this type. A large number ese highly storm-resistant varieties are now sold exas and grown extensively on the High and f g Plains. A number of varieties comprise this ; including Lockett Stormproof No. 1, Blight- 711m‘, Paymaster 101, Lockett 88, Gregg, Western proof, Qualla l0, Watson’s Stormproof and l others. V‘ l. |y'“”‘§|wv-—'~'v.w-'- Type 5. Trans-Pecos Irrigated. This type in- d varieties derived primarily from the old a” introductions made from Mexico in 1906. 2}» group has varieties of medium to long staples t are adapted primarily to irrigation on the T- r elevations of the Trans-Pecos area. Limited uction of this type is found on the fertile irrigated hot the High Plains and a few small, scattered ‘ ngs occur in Central and South Texas. The pal current varieties include Acala 1517C, Acala BR-1; Texaeala, Mesilla Valley Acala, Earlistaple Del Cerro Acala. Type 6. Medium-staple Open Boll. In Texas, itelargest number of varieties grown fall into this It is characterized by medium-size bolls with i to poor storm-resistance and with staple ~ usually averaging 1 to 1-1/16 inches. Varieties rlzszisezsqmt» at; 16 of this type are grown mainly in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Gulf Coast areas, the bottomlands of Central Texas and elsewhere to a limited extent. Two groups of varieties can be delineated within the type primarily by the areas in which they were developed. The Delta and Southeast group are com- prised of medium-boll, medium-staple varieties which were bred primarily in Mississippi, the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee and Louisiana. The prominent varieties in the Delta and Southeast group, which are now offered in Texas, include Deltapine 15, Coker 100A (WR), D8cPL-Fox 4, Delfos 9169, Stone- ville 3202, Stoneville 7, Auburn 56, Plains, Stardel, Empire WR, Deltapine Smooth‘ Leaf, Coker 124, Pope, Rex and Dixie King. TABLE 6. HIGH PLAINS-SUMMARY OF AVERAGE YIELDS OF COTTON VARIETIES, 1957-59 Pounds of lint per acre Irrigated locations Variety 122:: ‘£12111 12:25; Rex 639 859 810 576 721 Austin 617 820 810 536 696 Gregg 706 775 667 622 692 Empire WR 620 755 772 566 678 Lankart Sel. 57 614 786 678 525 651 Paymaster 101 594 757 699 530 645 Paymaster 54B 587 678 767 524 639 Western Stormproof 619 836 563 535 638 Lockett 88 648 745 551 600 636 Blightmaster 594 778 596 514 621 Acala 1517C 589 675 587 581 608 Northern Star ll 581 703 619 530 608 Brazos 616 759 522 515 603 Dunn 24BR 603 737 620 430 598 Deltapine TPSA 584 758 543 464 587 Aca1al5l7BR-1 542 615 609 496 566 L.S.D. n/s n/s 105 n/s 80 Dryland locations Variet y Lubbock2 Iii-gig?- Big Spring‘ Average Western Stormproof 326 773 196 432 Lockett 88 370 697 215 427 Deltapine TPSA 364 635 206 402 Austin 280 656 205 380 Northern Star 11 334 616 186 378 Lankart Sel. 57 314 600 200 371 Gregg 324 I 574 183 360 Blightmaster 326 557 174 352 Empire WR 274 582 180 345 Paymaster 54B 262 564 196 341 Paymaster 101 281 423 192 299 Acala 1517C 298 425 164 295 L.S.D. n/s 134 n/s n/s 11958-59. 21957-58. 31958 only. ‘1957-58. TABLE 7. TRANS-PECOS——SUMMARY OF AVERAGE YIELDS OF IRRIGATED COTTON VARIETIES, 1957-59 Pounds of lint per acre Variety Pecos‘ Ysleta Average Acala l517D 1269 1312 1290 Acala 1517C 1153 1316 1234 Acala l517BR-1 1242 1139 1190 Wescot 1 179 1146 1162 Empire WR 992 1034 1013 Deltapine TPSA 962 1035 998 Northern Star 11 934 1051 992 Mesilla Valley Acala 1008 824 916 Earlistaple 766 894 880 Del Cerro 876 Acala 874 830 852 Lankart Sel. 57 872 768 820 Mesa Acala Improved 825 766 796 Ma1one’s Rowden 672 735 704 Floyd 8G 553 549 551 L.S.D. 204 255 153 11957 and 1959. Another group of varieties similar in major re- spects to the Delta and Southeast group were de- veloped mainly by Tex-as breeders and designated as the Texas-Delta group. The varieties in this group are grown mostly along the Gulf Coast, in the Lower Rio Grande Valley and on the bottomlands of Central Texas. Many were selected from the Delta and South- east varieties for better adaptation to Texas condi- tions; others were developed from hybrids among various varieties of this general type. Principal cur- rent varieties included in the Texas-Delta group are Deltapine TPSA, Watson’s Empire, Deltapine STPSA, Texacala X, Austin, Brazos and Tideland. Type 7. American-Egyptian. In addition to the upland types grown most extensively in Texas, there TABLE 8. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF UPLAND COTTON VARIETAL TYPES IN TEXAS Land resource area Varietal type A East Texas Timberlands Type 6 C Coast Prairie Types 2, 6 D Blackland Prairies Bottomlands, or irrigated uplands Type 6 Uplands Type 2 for machine stripping Type 4 E, F East Cross Timbers and Grand Prairie Types 2, 6 for.machine stripping Types 2, 4 G, H West Cross Timbers and North Central Prairies Types 2, 4, 6 for machine stripping Types 2, 4 J Rio Grande Plain Lower Irrigation Type 6, Dryland Types 2, 6 Upper Types 2, 6 L Rolling Plains Irrigated Types 2, 4 Dryland Types 2, 4 M High Plains Irrigated Types 2, 4, 6 Dryland Types 2, 4, 6 N Trans-Pecos Types 5, 6, l0 is another type which is limited to the Trans-Pe region. This American-Egyptian type is characteriz by extra-long staple of high quality that can be p i duced to best advantage in the far western areas Texas. Only one American-Egyptian variety is n I available, Pima S-1. The foregoing discussion enumerated the ma' differences in plant, boll an‘_d fiber characterist which may serve to delineate the various varie types. are given in terms of types, and reference to All of the recommendations listed in Tabl i individual test summaries presented in this bulle i should afford supplemental information whiclf help each farmer in his choice of the variety that fit best into his farming system and produce the t. and quality of fiber he wishes to produce. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have contributed to the success the cotton variety testing program in Texas, by th 1 continuing interest and more directly, by activ cooperating in organizing and conducting the test The authors acknowledge with appreciation participation of the following research coworkers conducted the tests and gathered the performa data reported in this bulletin: J. L. Hubbard and W. R. Cowley, Substation 15, l/Veslaco; S. G. Black, Lucas Reyes and E. Neal, Substation No. 1, Beeville; B. E. Jeter and A Smith, Substation No. 3, Angleton; O. E. Smith - ~ J. C. Williams, Substation No. 18, Prairie View; E. Cook and R. M. Smith, Substation No. 5, Tern D. D. Porter, U. S. Cotton Field Station, Greenvi . N. V. Thurmond and D. I. Dudley, Substation N0 Denton; B. C. Langley, Substation No. 20, Step ville; L. E. Brooks, Substation N0. 16, Iowa P J. R. Quinby, Substation No. l2, Chillicothe; W. Hatchett and P. T. Marion, Substation No. 7, S ' L. L. Ray, D. Bilbro and C. E. Fisher, Substa No. 8, Lubbock; G. L. Randel and Earl Burnett, Spring Field Station, Big Spring; E. L. Thax Substation No. 9, Pecos; and M. D. Bryant and P Lyerly, Substation 17, El Paso. The several outfield tests were made poss through the interest and efforts of county agricult agents, farmers and research cooperators. Their as ance was most helpful, and we gratefully acknowl i the participation of the following cooperators: R Nolan, Nueces county agent, Robstown; D. F. B thauer, Refugio county agent, Refugio; D. B. Combs, Victoria county agent, Victoria; R. L. W0 ' ington, Fort Bend county agent, Richmond; B. Frierson, Texas Department of Corrections, S Land; and H. D. Loden, Paymaster Farm, Plainv i_ Statistical processing and analysis of test u were done at the Data Processing Center, The ‘» cultural and Mechanical College of Texas, appreciation is expressed to Brad Lisenbee and ' ~ 1 ., for their significant assistance in the data ing of the lint samples was done by M. ,epartment of Agricultural Economics and , and his continuing interest and enthusi- peration are acknowledged. APPENDIX tables presented in the Appendix summarize ormance data for the cotton variety tests d at each location during the 1957-59 testing All varieties included are commercially avail- no data are given on experimental strains ing this period. In order to present the prehensive summaries possible, data for all ‘I tested during these 3 years are reported. In s, all varieties listed were not grown in all d an overall statistical analysis of the yield not feasible. In these instances, the analysis e only on the varieties tested in all years, . values are presented to serve as guides in "the differences among average yields. Com- _verages, as shown for such tests, were calcu- order to eliminate seasonal effects on LACO-SUMMARY OF IRRIGATED COTTON VA- RIETY TESTS, 1957-58 _ Pounds lint Comparable average p" “c” Lint Lint Boll Staple 1957 195s yield % size length 1242 1131 33.9 7s 35 1100 1055 37.2 73 34 1022 1070 1040 37.0 s4 34 s73 1153 1013 35.s 70 34 s91 1121 1000 35.3 s0 34 s07 1130 90s 33.7 71 30 Leaf s34 1037 900 3s.0 s0 34 s00 1100 950 34.3 73 34 s03 1023 943 30.0 s1 34 s34 1049 942 34.9 0s 34 s20 1039 932 35.0 7s 34 No.1 M 770 100s 922 30.0 s0 34 * f. s02 1013 90s 30.0 77 34 707 1045 900 3s.0 7s 34 7s2 979 sso 34.0 70 34 9s7 s70 35.9 09 34 s0s 929 s0s 34.0 04 34 904 s53 30.2 70 34 917 s00 33.0 03 33 051 702 33.7 73 30 100 156 n /s Characters Reported in Tables Lint yields —— pounds of cotton lint produced per acre. Lint 7) —percentage of lint in seed cotton. In certain instances onlypercentages of lint in bur cotton were available, and these are shown as lint 970 (stripped or pulled). Boll size — number of bolls required to produce 1 pound of seed cotton. Staple length — classer’s length in 32's of an inch. Micronaire- an index of fineness (or coarseness) as determined on the micronaire instrument; the higher the index, the coarser the fiber. L.S.D.—shown only for lint yield; is the least amount by which average yields must differ before the differences can be assumed to be real and not caused by chance. All L.S.D. values reported were based on a probability of 19 to 1. Where differences among aver- age yield could not be statistically discrimi- nated, a notation of n /s (nonsignificant) was- given. TABLE 10. CAMERON COUNTY (LA FERIA) — SUMMARY OF IRRI- GATED COTTON VARIETY TESTS, 1957-59 Pounds lint Comparable average Variew p“ m‘ Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- 1957 1958 1959 yield % size length naire Stardel 984 1 1 73 924 1027 36.6 85 34 4.0 Stoneville 7 984 1071 967 1007 37.7 87 33 4.2 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 969 1147 883 1000 38.6 91 34 4.3 Stoneville 3202 951 1089 951 997 36.5 84 34 3.8 Hale Deltapine 33 883 966 36.1 84 33 4.6 Coker 124 940 1051 848 946 35.9 81 34 4.4 Deltapine STPSA 927 1 107 804 946 37.5 85 34 4.1 Deltapine 15 939 1033 854 942 37.7 88 34 4.2 Rex 846 929 36.3 74 33 4.3 Deltapine TPSA 856 1049 872 926 36.6 87 34 4.2 Delfos 9169 841 1020 916 926 35.2 80 35 4.2 Plains 868 863 924 35.0 80 34 4.0 Coker 100A (WR) 925 1028 814 922 35.5 87 34 4.2 Wescot 836 919 38.1 88 33 4.1 Arizona 44 827 910 39.0 71 34 4.3 Dixie King 865 899 36.8 75 35 Brazos 984 867 37.0 84 35 D8cPL-FOX 4 779 862 35.0 80 34 4.6 Tideland, TPSA No. 1 812 1013 746 857 37.0 87 33 3.6 Watson’s Empire 974 857 35.2 70 33 Acala 1517C 803 837 36.9 74 36 Empire WR 767 975 830 36.8 70 33 Texacala 5455 ‘ 899 782 37.9 76 35 L.S.D. 66 78 n / s 70 ll TABLE 11. RIO GRANDE CITY (STARR COUNTY) — SUMMARY OF TABLE 13. McCOOK (HIDALGO COUNTY) — SUMMARY OF IRRIGATED COTTON VARIETY TEST, 1959 LAND COTTON VARIETY TEST, 1959 _ Pounds lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- . Pounds lint Lint Boll Staple Variety . . Vanety . per acre % size length naire per acre % size length 1 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 1190 37 .7 82 34 5.1 Stoneville 7 512 40.2 87 33 Tideland, TPSA No. 1 1157 36.8 71 32 4.3 Rex 485 40.5 75 31 Deltapine TPSA 1147 37.1 82 33 4.5 Deltapine TPSA 467 40.1 89 32 Wescot 1134 37 .6 78 34 4.8 Stardel 447 87 32 Stoneville 7 1134 37.1 77 34 4.4 Lankart Sel. 57 438 14244 59 31 Delfos 9169 1099 34.4 68 36 4.1 Wescot 437 40.0 86 32 Coker 124 1079 35.9 75 33 4.7 DSePL-Fox 4 425 38.5 87 32 Stoneville 3202 1063 e 36.5 78 32 4.8 Stormking, TPSA No. 1 407 41.1 64 31 Coker 100A (WR) 1063 34.4 73 35 4.2 Coker 100A (WR) 416 38.4 83 32 Deltapine 15 1056 37.7 78 34 4.6 Lankart Sel. 611 413 40.2 70 30 4.4 Hale Deltapine 33 1039 35.4 79 32 4.9 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 401 40.7 89 32 Deltapine STPSA 1035 36.9 75 34 4.6 Coker 124 395 38.7 86 33 Plains 1034 35.9 72 33 4.5 Hale Deltapine 33 393 39.0 85 30 Rex 1017 36.1 64 33 4.4 Delfos 9169 381 37.6 78 33 D8cPL-Fox 4 990 35.2 78 33 5.2 Northern Star ll 362 37.7 63 32 Stardel 961 35.9 80 35 4.6 Tideland, TPSA No. 1 359 39.1 75 31 ' Arizona 44 839 37.1 65 34 4.4 L.S.D. 57 L.S.D. 222 TABLE 14. NUECES COUNTY-SUMMARY OF COTTON V TESTS, 1957-59 Pounds lint Comparable average TABLE 12. WILLACY COUNTY1— SUMMARY or DRYLAND COT- 1'11"” if; Lin! Lint Boll Stapl TON VARIETY TESTS, 1957-59 1957 195s 1959 yield % sire lens -_ Pounds lint Comparable average pope 392 535 3&1 193 30 Variety per acre Lint Lint Bo“ staple MiCro_ SLOIICVHIC 7 1957 195s 1959 yield % size length nairc 4412:“ :2: g2 3g"; 3151 g‘; Stoneville 7 404 615 s61 627 s7.1 s6 s4 4.2 23 :3 20:17) 14142 g: Wm“ 377 333 331 34 33 3'3 Paymaster 54B 452 577 ss.1 s4 so 512M131 313 331 333 333 33 34 3'3 Stoneville s202 495 79s 402 565 s7.4 9s s1 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 339 622 849 603 37.2 84 35 4.0 Brazos 450 844 302 562 3,7 5 g5 34 Lanka" se1- 311 343 33° 932 3°° 33-1 33 33 4'1 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 411 s6s 400 55s ssi7 104 ss 111x“ King 347 373 333 343 33 33 Lankart Sel. 57 42s 7s4 4ss 54s ss.4 70 s2 Deltapine TPSA 29s 5s4 s51 576 s6.1 s1 s5 s.9 stormking TPSA N4 4 832 000 540 30 4 78 42 Blightmaster 329 555 568 36.0 75 34 Arizona 44’ 798 544 8745 7,7 32 Stormking, TPSA No. 1 s06 569 s27 557 s6.7 60 s4 4.s Dixie King 455 707 404 534 408 84 42 Delfos 9169 s64 561 7s7 554 ss.0 74 s6 s.7 044444.04 4 375 787 410 527 3044 40 4 44 C- A- 113 - 332 334 34-3 33 33 Coker 124 797 s76 524 s5.4 90 s2 C°1"=' 133A (WR) 23° 39° 731 333 1 332 31 33 4'3 Northern Star 11 4s0 710 ss2 524 s5.s 7s ss 1331141311“ STPSA 331 333 343 34 33 Deltapine 15 s6s ss6 s75 526 ss.2 94 ss 13°‘ 393 743 344 343 73 33 4'3 Empire WR 454 751 s69 525 s5.s ss ss C91“ 124 37° 733 34° 333 3° 33 3'3 Deltapine TPSA s52 799 s94 515 s6.6 100 ss Tideland, TPSA No. 1 7ss 5s7 s5.s 76 s5 s.6 B44404 0400 305 78 4 040 500 350 04 4 4 Lankart se1. 57 2ss 502 s21 5s5 s7.0 57 s4 4.5 4.4444444 X 700 348 500 30 4 0 4 32 Northern sm 11 2s2 554 767 5s4 s4.4 67 s4 4.1 Coker 4004 (WR) 3 47 702 477 505 35 2 404 40 11mm" WR 343 433 323 343 33 34 Tideland TPSA No. 1 s25 767 402 49s 55:0 99 s2 Paymaster 54B 277 506 517 s5.4 72 s2 T 0x4 c4145 455 340 708 404 30 l 00 42 Hale Deltapine ss 762 511 s4.s s2 s4 4.1 44444 4547C 200 747 440 482 340 80 45 D8ePL-Fox 4 755 504 s6.6 7s s4 4.9 Part0“ 740 454 44:7 8 4 42 Bagley’s B17 Rowden 230 479 33.6 71 34 Plains 405 625 440 3446 03 32 Roger’s Texacala 205 501 478 34.4 74 36 Kasch LL No. 7 342 43,7 34 8 81 32 @411“ 3° 191 44° 343 74 33 Acala 442 290 415 s6s 7s s2 Watson’s Mebane 20s ss4 419 s4.9 62 s2 M41004“ Rowden 210 345 04 4 80 44 11-5-11 34 34 3° 11/ s Floyd s1; 197 s22 ssiz s2 so L.S.D. 66 71 6s n /s lSan Perlita in 1957, Lyford 1958-59. 12 i ' 16. BEEVILLE-SUMMARY OF COTTON VARIETY TESTS, TABLE 17. VICTORIA COUNTY-SUMMARY OF COTTON VA- 1957-59 RIETY TESTS, 1957-59 Pounds lint Comparable average Pounds Lint Comparable average Vaiie"! p“ m“ Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- Variw/ P" 3°” Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- 1957 1958 1959 yield % size length naire 1957 1958 1959 yield % size length naire 586 450 37.1 77 32 3.8 Rex 785 641 35.0 82 32 3.9 ' 354 359 585 433 36.5 73 32 4.2 Austin 312 489 877 559 36.6 79 33 4.1 A WR 261 311 558 377 36.6 75 32 4.0 Lankart Sel. 611 452 805 556 36.4 74 30 4.6 i: ~~- - Star ll 260 306 505 357 35.5 68 32 4.3 Stoneville 3202 334 501 716 517 37.4 98 32 4.5 ' I A 4 - -_, TPSA No. 1 169 382 505 352 37.0 64 30 4.4 Stoneville 7 348 460 641 483 37.1 101 33 4.4 Q ~ King 272 317 455 348 36.0 71 32 4.4 D8ePL-Fox 4 284 456 675 472 36.2 95 34 4.8 t . 1 c 7 260 294 487 347 37 5 88 32 4 6 Northern Star ll 348 411 624 461 35.0 76 32 4.5 ‘- - Scl. 57 223 270 547 347 37 9 64 32 4 9 Lankart Se]. 57 288 434 656 459 38.2 67 31 4.6 I e 8202 27 0 298 464 344 37 3 87 32 4 7 Tideland, TPSA No. 1 300 477 563 447 36.0 92 33 4.2 A’ _ - 100A (WR) 322 472 342 35 4 84 32 4 4 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 317 426 572 438 37.6 95 34 4.9 _-' »~--» TPSA 204 321 446 324 36 7 88 32 4 6 Coker 124 _ 442 556 432 34.3 87 33 4.0 e Smooth Leaf 274 472 318 38 6 86 33 4 8 Stormking, TPSA No. 1 280 434 578 431- 36.0 68 32 4.7 is» 206 307 438 317 36 5 82 32 4 1 Empire WR 288 465 534 429 34.4 70 33 3.9 I -» d, TPSA No. 1 153 312 463 309 34 8 81 32 4 l Delfos 9169 324 405 556 428 33.6 86 34 4.0 ' - 124 445 309 35 0 88 32 4 2 Kasch LL No. 7 281 425 35.5 63 30 5.3 i cl 440 304 37 2 97 32 4 6 Deltapine TPSA 268 428 578 425 35.4 91 32 4.4 _ Fox 4 213 272 422 302 36 3 86 32 5 1 Dixie King 298 414 555 422 34.9 77 32 4.3 F» pine 15 165 281 442 296 38 5 87 32 4 8 Acala l5l7BR-l 400 586 421 35.6 81 34 4.0 v 4 v - 5455 172 252 280 37 0 77 32 3 9 Brazos 308 416 525 416 36.4 88 33 3.9 '~ ~ 9169 217 238 371 275 34 5 80 33 4 0 Coker 100A (WR) 234 387 583 401 34.5 97 33 4.1 -- 409 273 36 6 90 33 4 7 Deltapine 15 296 451 453 400 37.7 94 33 4.6 I - 8G 163 272 35 4 66 30 4 7 Watson’s Stormproof 516 372 35.2 74 29 4.2 i I v 1 X 164 270 376 270 36 4 80 32 3 9 Floyd 8G 204 348 35.4 58 32 4.9 ' 60-7 147 256 36 3 74 32 4 8 Malone’s Rowden 202 346 33.4 70 32 4.5 ~0- c’| Rowden 144 253 34 2 69 32 4 3 Acala 1517C 166 404 426 332 34.4 88 35 3.8 W» 1517C 97 260 332 230 34 9 78 34 3 9 Arizona 44 296 366 327 321 35.3 79 33 3.9 ‘ . 44 54 48 65 Anton 12W 294 294 34.6 74 34 3.8 L.S.D. 56 53 203 102 =gelqlglglyvilvnvwevefiw~ TABLE 18. PRAIRIE VIEW-SUMMARY OF COTTON VARIETY TESTS, 1957-59 Pounds lint Comparable average Vaiiw/ p“ m“ Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- l957 1958 1959 yield % size length nairc 16. REFUGIO COUNTY - SUMMARY or COTTON VARIETY ' TESTS, 195758 Austin 618 322 537 492 36.2 71 31 4.4 Dixie King 696 294 496 476 96.9 66 92 4.6 g Pounds Hm Compmable average Paymaster 54B 602 291 692 476 96.7 72 90 4.8 p vme pe, am. _ _ _ Empire WR 699 920 494 469 96.2 69 92 4.2 I ‘Y Lin‘ L11" B011 $91118 Mum- L001<0i¢ Sel. 67 661 916 984 460 99.2 61 91 6.0 1957 1953 Yield % Si" length mi" B10000 687 268 992 449 96.9 76 91 4.6 CORCI‘ 100A (WR) 677 229 602 496 96.9 76 92 4.6 ' e 9202 492 641 486 96.6 96 90 4.6 Stoneville 9202 661 261 999 492 96.6 s4 91 4.7 ‘ . 627 474 98.1 89 99 4.4 1101600100 8010010 Leaf 681 190 416 429 98.4 86 92 6.1 A WR 991 616 464 96.1 84 92 9.9 180010000 s00 11 640 276 970 429 96.8 70 91 4.6 101 994 447 94.4 99 99 4.2 Delfos 9169 666 248 919 408 96.1 79 91 4.6 ' e 7 446 492 499 96.7 96 92 4.6 8100101 296 976 404 97.4 88 92 4.8 i tSel. 67 977 496 496 97.7 70 90 6.0 D8cPL-Fox 4 617 227 948 997 96.1 86 99 6.2 0 9169 982 479 428 94.0 86 94 9.8 Texacala 6466 671 299 989 996 97.1 78 91 4.4 cm sm 11 962 489 426 94.9 76 91 4.6 CORCI‘ 124 966 996 96.9 77 92 6.0 King 990 618 424 96.4 77 92 4.4 Stoneville 7 670 214 996 999 96.0 86 92 4.6 .. _ 969 466 410 96.6 82 92 4.9 Malone’s Rowden 681 294 992 94.0 66 90 4.6 -Fox 4 940 409 974 96.0 92 99 6.0 Pope 209 977 98.6 89 90 4.6 ~ pine 16 297 960 97.1 92 99 4.4 Deltapine 16 647 196 277 979 98.6 84 91 6.0 . 124 *6 996 949 99.6 87 99 9.8 Texacala x 696 209 912 970 96.9 79 92 4.4 . pine TPSA 900 977 998 96.2 92 99 4.4 Deltapine TPSA 686 228 269 968 96.6 80 92 4.8 11060100 972 919 96.2 86 91 4.1 Anton 22 186 964 96.4 68 29 6.1 . ac 222 276 96.6 71 91 4.9 K0006 LL No. 7 648 960 96.9 66 91 6.9 ~ 1617c 182 966 274 99.7 86 94 9.9 P0006 666 902 944 96.6 79 92 4.6 ~ 0100 8010010 Leaf 264 211 97.0 90 99 4.8 Floyd 8c 489 291 94.8 60 90 4.7 0611010100 142 196 92.6 76 99 4.0 Acala 1617c 488 179 166 276 94.9 77 96 4.2 ~ n. 69 69 87 L.S.D. 81 40 88 99 TABLE 19. FORT BEND COUNTY-SUMMARY OF IRRIGATED TABLE 21. A8cM PLANTATION —SUMMARY OF DRYLAND COTTON VARIETY TESTS, 1957-59 TON VARIETY TESTS, 1958-59 Pounds lint Comparable average Pounds lint Comparable average Vafiw/ p“ m” Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- Vafiflv p“ “a” Lint Lint Boll Staple 1957 1958 1959 yield % size length naire 1958 1959 yield % size length Stoneville 7 1165 929 701 932 37.9 83 34 4.7 DScPL-Fox 4 875 783 35.1 82 34 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 1142 942 645 901 38.8 83 34 5.2 Delfos 9169 658 861 760 33.0 69 35 Rex 627 903 37.0 80 33 3.9 Empire WR 663 854 258 34.1 60 33 Wescot 894 632 894 38.2 78 34 4.8 Stoneville 3202 670 832 n‘ 751 35.8 80 32 Coker 100A (WR) 1124 982 554 887 36.3 81 33 4.8 Stoneville 7 556 944 750 35.6 85 32 Stoneville 3202 1140 890 625 885 37.4 84 32 4.7 Deltapine 15 604 868 736 36.0 73 34 Deltapine 15 1144 906 599 883 38.6 80 34 4.7 Brazos 601 856 728 36.1 70 32 Stardel 1139 899 605 881 37.0 88 34 4.7 Lankart Sel. 57 685 747 716 36.0 55 32 Delfos 9169 1090 846 556 864 34.4 73 34 4.2 Northern Star 11 658 700 679 34.1 63 32 a‘, DScPL-Fox 4 583 859 36.7 77 36 5.1 Deltapine TPSA 571 749 660 34.0 76 32 Dixie King 1102 803 667 857 37.0 65 33 4.7 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 577 733 655 36.5 84 33“ ’ Arizona 44 866 851 38.0 67 34 4.5 Acala 1517C 564 686 625 32.0 70 36 Deltapine TPSA 1099 923 521 848 36.5 82 33 4.7 L.S.D. n/s 154 n/s ‘ Tideland, TPSA N0. 1 1071 888 583 847 36.8 74 32 4.7 ' Coker 124 1156 876 506 846 35.7 77 34 4.5 Brazos 1 116 826 573 838 36.9 73 33 4.6 * Plains 1081 860 563 835 35.8 77 33 4.5 ' Lankart Sel. 57 1084 769 614 822 38.8 55 32 5.3 _ Acala 1517C 1089 825 497 804 35.4 70 35 4.2 ' Auburn 56 1108 900 398 802 34.7 77 32 4.7 Acala 1517BR-1 762 380 802 36.4 68 36 4.5 1 Austin 1046 735 599 793 36.4 73 33 4.4 Northern Star 11 1074 768 783 35.8 64 32 4.8 Empiriwk . 1°88 698 544 777 35's 63 33 4'5 TABLE 22. A8¢M PLANTATION - SUMMARY 01-" SUPPLEM Watson s Empire 1067 738 503 769 34.8 63 33 4.5 COTTON VARIETY TESTS 1957 59 Floyd 8G 1010 749 35.0 66 31 5.2 ’ ' Texacala 5455 984 792 446 741 36.7 74 34 4.1 P d r t C bl Texacala ss-s1 760 4s? 729 55.4 7s s4 4.4 _ °““ s "‘ “npa” ° ‘“’°"‘g° Malone’s Rowden 929 66s ss.1 62 ss 4.5 Vanew P" M" Lin. Li," m,“ sup], L.S.D. 79 108 1 10 92 1 957 1958 1959 yield % size length Austin 1370 792 1317 1160 36.5 72 32 Stoneville 3202 1448 819 1136 37.0 80 32 4 Auburn 56 1198 976 1 132 1109 33.9 76 33 " Wescot 855 1150 1102 37.7 74 33 Empire WR 1290 861 1063 1071 35.1 63 33 Coker 124 1156 871 1163 1063 36.2 73 32 Brazos 1342 751 1049 36.8 76 32 Deltapine 15 1138 637 1233 1046 38.3 80 33 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 1358 718 1040 38.8 83 32 Acala 1517BR-1 1236 738 1147 1040 36.2 68 33 Plains 714 1162 1038 34.3 76 32 Rex 1474 698 928 1033 33.5 73 32 ‘ Stardel 1075 899 1 110 1028 36.4 84 34 Stoneville 7 1340 639 1089 1023 37.2 84 31 Tideland, TPSA No. 1 1360 746 955 1020 36.7 77 33 Pope 1246 748 1000 37.1 80 30 Deltapine TPSA 1274 677 984 978 36.4 83 33 Delfos 9169 774 978 33.3 73 32 Northern Star ll 1252 697 977 34.6 62 32 Dixie King 1138 833 945 972 34.6 64 32 TABLE 20. A8¢M PLANTATION - SUMMARY OF IRRIGATED Parrotr a 1170 971 89.0 74 81 COTTON VARIETY TESTS, 1957.59 Watson’s Empire 1106 90s s45 951 s5.0 65 s2 Watson’s Stormproof 751 951 950 36.1 58 32 Pounds lint Comparable average P33411351“ 54B 1148 949 37-3 72 31 variety p6, am. L_ _ _ Stormking, TPSA No. 1 1089 s45 906 947 s59 57 s2 -.-_--_-- "It L11" 3°11 staPle Mlm- Texacala 5455 12s2 71s s10 999 sea 74 s2 1957 1953 1959 Yield % Si" length "aim Lankart Sel. 57 107s 92.4 s02 9s6 ss.4 571 s1 Acala 1517C 1191 654 954 933 33.7 69 34 Stoneville 7 1262 1174 1213 1216 37.8 80 32 4.8 Coker 100A (WR) 1069 713 977 920 34.6 79 33 Deltapine 15 1176 1 194 1218 1196 39.7 75 33 4.9 Blightmaster 1059 716 969 915 35.4 75 32 DXcPL-Fox 4 1117 1072 1174 1121 35.7 79 33 5.1 Lankart Sel. 611 1112 913 35.3 72 32 Deltapine TPSA 1135 1002 1182 1106 36.4 74 32 4.8 Anton 3-45 1188 611 902 36.2 68 30 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 1085 1150 1098 38.7 80 34 5.2 Texacala SS-31 699 888 893 34.7 76 34 . Stoneville 3202 1181 1048 1096 37.2 81 32 5.0 D8cPL-Fox 1014 745 882 36.8 80 32 Delfos 9169 1089 1073 1106 1089 34.6 69 32 4.3 Mesa Acala Improved 1010 732 874 31.0 72 36 Lankart Sel. 57 990 1137 1128 1085 37.3 55 32 5.2 Anton 105 662 866 35.4 60 31 Brazos 987 1057 1167 1070 37.2 72 32 4.6 Anton 12W 908 775 844 35.1 64 34 Northern Star 11 971 902 1159 1011 35.5 62 32 4.7 Mebane B1 1041 842 32.1 64 31 Empire WR 924 915 1117 985 34.8 61 33 4.3 Acala 4-42 994 795 35.6 63 33 Aeala 1517C 830 1003 996 943 34.1 71 34 4.1 Arizona 44 964 749 609 774 35.3 66 34 Malone’s Rowden 875 913 33.5 59 32 4.8 Texacala X 882 596 7 83 754 36.1 79 33 Floyd 8G 778 816 35.4 56 32 5.2 Mesilla Valley Acala 732 533 32.0 66 38 L.S.D. 214 n/S n/s 119 L.S.D. 255 178 255 198 14 m°g*gg_|gp—gqgynnwnv-v-w—- n NVILLE—SUMMARY OF COTTON VARIETY TABLE 24. DENTON—SUMMARY OF COTTON VARIETY TESTS, TESTS, 1957-59 1957-59 Pounds lint Comparable average Pounds lint Comparable average p“ m‘ Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- "afiw/ p" we Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- 1957 1958 1959 yield % size length naire 1957 1958 1959 yield % size length naire 493 43g 39,1 5g 30 5,0 Stoneville 7 324 516 708 516 37.7 92 31 4.8 405 460 537 435 33,1 75 32 4,5 Rex 313 446 786 515 36.9 90 31 4.4 433 473 33,4 32 23 5,2 Austin 301 448 797 515 37.0 84 31 4.8 422 446 523 465 40,0 73 30 4,3 Lankart Sel. 57 347 471 698 505 39.6 69 30 5.1 488 450 431 456 39.4 85 32 4.9 Qllalla 10 475 499 38.1 85 27 5.4 893 459 496 449 38.6 74 32 4.5 P098 457 481 35.7 96 30 3.9 412 453 449 433 41,4 34 33 4,3 Brazos 340 459 635 478 37.4 88 31 4.6 393 399 502 431 41,0 61 32 5,3 Empire WR 282 419 705 469 36.3 74 31 4.5 452 409 414 425 33,5 33 32 5,4 Lankart Sel. 611 312 416 673 467 36.6 77 30 4.3 Lam 446 431 394 424 41,2 30 32 5,3 Northern Star 11 264 402 719 463 36.4 73 31 4.7 _ 333 437 435 420 33,6 66 31 4,9 Deltapine 15 . 304 460 39.3 115 29 4.6 .157 346 495 412 39.7 62 31 4.8 Western Stormproof 352 482 530 455 ' 39.0 79 29 4.5 336 425 402 404 36,6 79 33 4,2 Gregg 298 405 661 445 34.3 89 30 4.8 586 404 33,5 33 33 4,6 D&PL-Fox 4 297 636 454 35.9 88 31 5.1 334 369 456 403 35,7 63 31 4,5 Parrott 305 424 631 453 37.7 76 30 5.2 337 331 435 401 39,1 61 31 4,7 Lockett 88 288 403 668 453 37.3 87 27 5.1 376 444 331 400 41,1 71 29 5,5 Watson’s Empire 281 446 629 452 36.5 73 31 4.5 ~ 396 362 422 s93 68.6 69 s1 4.5 Malomfs o, 1 334 426 417 392 39,9 63 30 5,0 Machine Harvester 308 355 676 446 37.9 71 30 4.8 351 421 391 40,0 g3 30 4,0 Paymaster 54B 262 420 656 446 36.6 87 29 4.8 552 411 386 33,0 64 30 5,0 Watson’s Stoneville 62 280 436 37.3 90 29 4.4 362 399 394 335 37,4 63 33 4,7 Blightmaster 279 .420 596 432 36.0 87 30 4.4 Coker 100A (WR) 275 431 37.3 86 30 4.6 333 349 472 335 39,2 63 30 4,9 Watson’s Stormproof 271 422 587 427 35.7 84 29 4.9 395 373 365 379 39,0 75 32 4,6 Texacala 5455 268 424 38.3 89 30 4.4 1 377 417 334 376 39,9 30 31 4,4 Deltapine TPSA 254 441 565 420 36.6 96 31 4T8 297 393 431 375 33,5 70 30 4,5 Delfos 9169 252 433 572 419 34.3 85 33 4.3 404 333 335 374 33,6 g2 31 4_2 Stormking, TPSA No. 1 270 414 567 417 37.5 71 30 4.7 361 344 416 374 39,7 7g 30 4_7 Paymaster 101 254 364 630 416 36.9 90 28 4.5 356 360 405 374 33,5 g1 31 45 New Mebane 231 418 414 38.4 64 30 5.4 394 391 334 373 3&0 75 33 4A Deltapine Smooth Leaf 442 541 414 37.2 96 32 5.2 374 409 335 373 393 g5 33 4g Qualla 60-7 389 413 37.1 67 30 5.5 339 346 431 372 37,5 6g 32 45 Anton Stormproof 99 394 580 409 36.6 70 30 5.0 392 390 325 309 33,5 30 30 4_7 Kasch LL No. 7 250 406 36.3 67 29 5.1 275 450 357 304 405 74 29 5_0 Malone’s Mebane 270 388 544 401 37.1 77 31 4.4 354' 407 312 353 373 79 31 45 Bagley’s Storm-Tex 157 285 394 522 400 37.9 68 31 4.9 312 376 333 357 33,7 55 30 5_0 Stufflebeme Stormproof 280 376 526 394 36.5 71 30 4.9 324 375 355 37_2 7g 28 54) Acala 1517C 253 385 531 390 35.2 80 32 4.4 390 370 293 353 3g_0 75 29 43 Floyd 8G 202 394 388 35.1 74 30 5.5 304 424 252 350 4L3 75 30 45 Mebane B1 228 384 33.3 84 31 4.4 f . . 303 345 394 34g 3&4 57 31 4_7 Anton 22 228 357 382 37.4 66 30 5.4 332 371 334 345 333 67 30 50 Ma1one’s Rowden 224 423 498 382 34.8 74 31 5.0 302 340 359 335 353 55 32 45 Dunn 24BR 562 382 35.9 82 30 4.6 337 327 42_0 32 30 43 Bagley’s B17 Rowden 211 362 376 34.0 70 30 6.0 333 323 3&9 65 31 4_9 Anton 606 195 364 370 34.9 67 31 6.0 303 331 322 37_0 65 31 55 Anton 105 521 341 35.5 75 31 4.7 2.26 s25 s16 36.2 7s s2 4.1 L-S-D- 45 38 76 76 294 A 312 36.1 66 31 6 0 66 50 82 75 ‘d! 4 "-3 15 TABLE 25. TEMPLE—SUMMARY OF COTTON VARIETY TESTS, TABLE 27. CHILLICOTHE-SUMMARY OF DRYLAND C 1957-59 VARIETY TESTS, 1957-59 Pounds lint Comparable average Pounds lint Comparable average V9119” p“ m“ Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- "army _________p°r acre Lint Lint % Boll Staple 1957 1958 1959 yield % size length naire 1957 1958 1959 yield pulled size length Rex 575 530 475 36.4 103 s0 4.0 Dunn 7 376 265 25.8 27 i Lockett Stormproof No. l 372 41 l 38.7 119 30 4.2 Rex 366 215 252 24.8 92 30 Gregg 247 455 453 394 34,9 157 g9 4_5 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 160 374 250 24.8 125 30 Lankart Sel. 57 262 557 s20 380 41.0 91 29 4.9 Lockett 88 172 374 194 4 247 25.9 98 29 Brazos 226 601 309 379 37.7 117 30 3.9 Malone’s Augtin 125 537 42g 37g 37,5 151 35 4_2 Machine Harvester 162 362 207 244 26.1 76 31 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 562 s44 s76 37.4 105 s2 4.5 Western Stormproor 149 381 200 243 26.1 90 29 Lankart Sel. 611 198 622 294 s71 36.9 94 29 4.2 Lankerl Sel- 611 154 858 211 241 24.7 82 30 Stormking, TPSA No. 1 234 562 s01 s66 38.4 97 29 4.6 Anton Stormproof 99 159 351 238 25.6 71 50 Blightmaster 240 530 309 s60 37.0 111 30 4.0 Lankart Sel. 57 162 328 224 288 25-6 82 30 A Empire wR 166 527 371 355 36.4 100 s0 4.0 Lockett Ngw Mebane 547 s53 33,7 92 32 5,2 Stormproof No. 1 158 404 151 238 25.3 100 28 Deltapine 15 194 607 255 s52 38.7 112 s1 4.1 Stormkillg, TPSA No. 1 166 s64 180 237 24.8 78 31 Delfos 9169 188 551 s50 34.6 120 s2 4.0 Blightmaster 157 331 220 236 24.8 96 30 Lockett 88 202 495 339 s45 38.4 112 28 4.4 Gregg 146 s16 238 233 22.5 99 29 ' Qualla 60-7 538 s44 39.1 95 31 4.9 Northern Star 5 175 322 232 22.5 88 s0 Bagley’s Storm-Tex 157 201 539 288 343 38.3 90 29 4.5 Coker 100A (WR) 342 231 24.8 29 Stoneville 7 147 532 344 s41 38.1 128 s0 4.5 Parrott 148 341 198 229 25.3 91 29 Paymaster 54B 160 497 s62 s40 38.8 119 30 4.4 Austin 119 363 189 224 23.3 100 s0 Malone’s D8ePL-F0x 4 135 347 224 24.4 110 30 Machine Harvester 197 518 s38 38.4 108 29 4.1 Kasch ss Strain 15s s29 224 24.1 86 29 Anton Stormproof 99 190 524 338 37.3 86 31 3.9 Empire wR 122 345 198 222 23.6 87 s1 Kasch ss Strain 181 s36 40.5 75 27 4.8 Bagley’s Storm-Tex 157 146 s26 220 24.4 79 30 Stufflebeme Stormproof 181 531 280 331 37.6 91 30 4.2 Paymaster 54B 106 349 205 220 22.6 108 29 Floyd 8G 148 552 330 36.3 96 29 4.8 Paymaster 101 15s s09 191 218 23.7 98 29 Western Stormproof 229 524 221 325 37.7 101 29 3.9 Brazos 139 328 180 216 23.7 110 30 Anton 3-45 149 540 280 s23 37.9 104 29 4.7 Malone’s Mebane 138 322 214 24.2 93 29 Northern Star 11 176 485 s04 322 36.0 99 29 4.2 Anton 3-45 133 341 167 214 24.5 83 29 Texacala x 174 501 s18 36.8 120 30 4.0 Pope 115 346 214 25.1 112 s0 Deltapine TPSA 178 494 279 317 36.3 119 30 4.2 Deltapine TPSA 134 325 179 21s 23.8 104 31 Qualla 10 505 311 37.2 111 30 4.2 Northern Star 11 114 287 199 200 23.0 85 s0 D8ePL-Fox 4 134 279 s04 36.3 119 31 4.8 Watson’s Stormproof 132 313 153 199 24.2 84 s0 Watson’s Stormproof 190 440 221 284 36.4 88 s0 4.1 Acala 1517BR-1 135 288 169 197 23.3 100 32 Acala 1517c 85 512 225 274 35.4 115 s3 3.9 Texacala 5455 129 296 165 197 23.1 101 29 Anton 606 146 419 263 35.0 87 30 5.4 Qualla 60-7 118 196 22.2 84 29 Malone’s Rowden 99 522 151 257 35.9 106 31 4.1 Kasch LL No. 7 115 19s 22.8 91 29 Dunns 24BR 198 237 37.9 105 29 4.2 Anton 12w 112 190 23.9 94 32 L.S.D. 20 55 4s 92 Mebane Bl 107 185 22.9 84 31 Acala 1517c 132 252 142 175 21.3 104 3s L.S.D. 29 51 s5 52 TABLE 26. STEPHENVILLE - SUMMARY or COTTON VARIETY TESTS, 1957-58 Pounds lint Comparable average variety per acre . . . _ 1957 1958 yield % size length naire VARIETY TESTS, 195769 Blightmaster 343 481 412 36.4 88 32 4.2 Pounds lint Comparable average ' Pa master 54B 344 472 408 38.6 82 29 5.2 . Grigg 460 405 35.5 88 31 5.0 Varmy iii Li!" Lin! % B911 $1391 Northern Star 11 s67 437 402 37.0 71 32 4.8 1957 1953 1959 Yidd P111194 Si" 19118 Brazos , 344 455 400 37.4 90 32 4.6 Acala 1517C 370 424 397 - 35.4 80 35 4.2 Gregg 750 672 23.9 ' 30 Deltapine l5 384 388 386 39.3 102 32 4.5 Empire WR 629 638 23.3 62 34 Lockett 88 369 403 386 39.6 78 30 4.8 Paymaster 54B 550 619 Delfos 9169 300 463 382 39.3 84 32 4.3 Rex 597 606 23.9 64 34 Stoneville 7 303 461 382 35.6 94 32 4.7 Lankart Sel. 57 504 589 614 569 25.8 60 31 Lankart Sel. 57 283 468 376 39.8 64 30 5.4 Stormking, TPSA No. l 534 543 24.6 57 33 Stufflebeme Stormproof 347 403 375 36.4 70 30 4.6 Northern Star ll 445 596 565 535 24.6 58 32 D8cPL-Fox 254 494 374 34.2 97 32 4.6 Lockett Western Stormproof 292 439 366 40.0 92 30 4.8 Stormproof No. 1 469 509 528 24.2 78 30 Floyd 8G 309 364 34.5 65 30 5.2 Blightmaster 366 654 558 526 25.0 76 33 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 412 357 40.7 99 32 5.6 Texacala 5455 474 582 477 511 23.5 70 33 Paymaster 101 331 376 354 37.6 90 30 4.6 Parrott 498 525 440 488 24.6 78 31 Qualla l0 400 345 39.0 92 30 5.0 Lockett 88 330 736 388 485 26.3 86 31 Deltapine TPSA 303 382 342 38.0 100 31 4.6 Acala l5l7BR-l 489 458 485 477 22.8 73 34 Empire WR 266 413 340 35.5 75 32 4.4 Western Stormproof 497 363 469 26.3 68 30 Malone’s Rowden 265 320 34.7 73 32 4.6 Deltapine TPSA 388 424 445 23.7 76 32 L.S.D. n/s 66 n/s L.S.D. 91 82 90 n/s 16 SUMMARY OF DRYLAND COTTON VARIETY TABLE 31. IOWA PARK-SUMMARY OF IRRIGATED COTTON TESTS, 1958-59 VARIETY TESTS, 1957-59 Pounds lint Comparable average Pounds lint Comparable average 129i Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- Variflv P“ w‘ Lint Lint B011 Staple Micro- 1958 1959 yield % size length naire 1957 1958 1959 yield % size length naire 355 483 419 32.9 89 30 4.0 Paymaster 54B 716 910 746 791 38.4 65 31 4.8 317 401 359 33.8 80 30 3.8 Lankart Sel. 57 704 891 719 771 39.0 55 32 4.9 348 352 33.7 75 31 3.7 Western Stormproof 788 892 495 725 38.9 65 30 4.6 348 344 37.0 68 32 3.4 Deltapine Smooth Leaf 606 722 37.5 78 34 5.4 339 343 32.6 77 32 3.8 Empire WR 663 847 581 697 35.1 58 33 4.3 374 303 338 34.3 93 30 3.4 Paymaster 101 562 843 677 694 36.4 65 30 4.9 306 371 338 34.6 90 32 3.7 Kasch LL No. 7 642 691 35.4 62 30 4.7 317 355 336 37.2 70 30 4.0 Gregg 485 918 665 689 37.8 80 30 4.6 330 ' 326 36.8 64 30 4.0 Deltapine TPSA 716 819 508 681 36.6 74 32 4.5 329 314 322 34.4 82 30 3.6 Dunn 7 835 670 37.1 62 32 4.5 307 333 320 36.1 85 30 4.2 Lockett 88 . 647 895 456 666 36.6 73 30 4.7 340 291 316 34.2 78 32 3.6 Blightmaster 575 822 563 653 ‘ 35.8 70 33 4.2 304' 307 306 32.6 96 30 3.3 Northern Star 11 570 846 542 653 36.1 64 32 4.2 301 297 37.9 65 31 3.7 Watson’s Stormproof 534 650 34.4 69 32 4.8 294 290 37.0 91 30 3.4 Lockett 362 208 285 35.3 102 28 3.8 Stormproof No. 1 586 802 533 640 36.5 73 30 4.2 325 240 282 32.8 102 32 3.8 Dunn 24BR 502 618 35.9 69 33 4.4 Acala 1517C 677 759 399 612 34.1 63 35 4.0 285 281 38.9 63 30 3.6 Floyd 8G 561 610 35.7 65 31 4.4 252 308 280 32.4 92 30 3.6 Ma1one’s Rowden 540 598 33.6 65 32 4.2 327 209 268 37 .0 90 30 3.6 Anton Stormproof 99 742 577 36.5 56 32 4.4 270 266 29.0 61 30 3.5 L.S.D. 55 68 61 n / s 251 255 33.1 92 28 3.7 6N0. 1 244 248 30.4 97 30 3.4 n/s 69 n/s TABLE 32. LUBBOCK-SUMMARY OF IRRIGATED COTTON VARIETY TESTS, 1957-59 SUMMARY OF IRRIGATED COTTON VARIETY ‘ TESTS, 1958-59 Pounds lint Comparable average y variet per acre . . . P969“ "m Compalabk =~mg= y ‘imam 535$ ‘"5" E31‘ F35‘; Wm‘ Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- , a 1958 1959 Yidd % Si" length "aim Gregg 767 s62 46s 706 66.1 s5 29 4.0 Lockett ss 641 797 506 64s 66.9 91 29 6.6 720 774 65.5 64 61 4.2 Rex 474 669 66.0 66 60 6.7 764 742 766 67.6 66 62 6.6 Dunn 7 671 746 626 65.4 66 6o 6.4 776 722 66.9 72 64 6.7 Empire WR 665 692 504 620 65.9 66 60 6.6 766 712 40.4 65 34 4.5 Western Stormproof 669 757 430 619 38.0 78 29 3.6 776 61s 697 66.2 62 64 6.6 Austin 452 617 67.0 91 29 6.7 714 666 675 64.7 72 60 4.4 Brazos 724 442 616 65.6 74 60 6.4 649 664 642 66.2 65 61 5.0 Lankart Sel. 57 70s 671 464 614 67.9 61 60 4.1 644 607 626 67.6 66 62 4.2 Dunn 241m 466 606 66.0 s9 29 6.7 597 56s 562 65.6 62 62 4.1 Blightmaster 647 666 496 594 65.2 66 60 6.6 1 516 567 66.6 52 61 4.1 Paymaster 101 692 71s. 672 594 66.9 61 60 6.6 760 696 564 65.6 7s 61 4.2 Acala 1517c 724 616 426 569 65.1 75 62 6.1 595 502 54s 66.0 56 62 4.4 Paymaster 54B 606 716 46s 567 66.6 62 60 6.7 59,5 r 541 66.0 57 66 4.1 Deltapine TPSA 675 699 676 564 65.1 7s 60 6.2 __ 524 65.2 74 66 6.6 Northern Star 11 669 659 414 561 65.0 69 60 6.6 576 524 66.6 64 62 4.4 Lankart Sel. 611 654 667 57s 66.0 76 61 6.6 . 665 401 516 66.2 76 64 4.4 c. A. 119 606 712 575 64.6 s6 60 6.4 . 544 479 512 66.9 71 61 6.6 Lockett I 552 498 37.7 59 33 4.7 Stormproof No. 1 615 549 36.9 74 30 3.4 491 466 466 66.6 71 60 4.1 Acala l5l7BR-l 572 446 542 65.9 60 62 6.2 545 660 462 65.0 6s 66 6.7 Floyd 6c 571 505 61.9 72 60 6.5 696 452 66.7 77 26 6.5 Malone’s Rowden ‘ 551 465 62.9 67 62 6.1 111 154 149 L.S.D. 54 96 61 .n/s TABLE 33. BROWNFIELD‘— SUMMARY OF IRRIGATED COTTON TABLE 35. SWISHER COUNTY1— SUMMARY OF IRRIGAT I VARIETY TESTS, 1958-59 TON VARIETY TESTS, 1957-59 Pounds lint Comparable average Pounds lint Comparable average variflY P“ “C” Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- "army p" “c” Lint Lint Boll Stapl 1958 1959 yield % size length naire 1957 195s 1959 yield % size length Rex 806 859 37.8 30 4.0 Gregg 531 886 448 622 36.0 81 30 Western Stormproof 1045 626 836 39.4 63 30 3.8 Lockett 88 421 942 436 ' 600 36.8 80 27 Austin 845 796 820 40.0 67 30 4.2 Acala 1517C 447 440 ‘. 581 39.2 83 29 Lankart Sel. 57 871 700 786 41.8 57 30 4.8 Rex 784 526; 576 37.8 72 30 Blightmaster 856 700 778 37.8 70 28 4.4 Empire WR 320 865 514 566 35.4 70 31 Gregg 778 772 775 37.6 74 29 4.4 Dunn 7 347 876 554 40.5 73 30 Brazos 920 598 . 759 37.6 76 30 4.0 Austin 743 488 536 36.9 71 29 Deltapine TPSA 916 600 758 38.0 76 32 4.2 Western Stormproof 302 947 356 535 36.6 82 28 Paymaster 101 834 680 757 38.8 67 29 3.9 Paymaster 101 484 695 410 530 38.8 78 29 A. Empire WR 838 672 755 38.5 67 31 4.1 Northern Star ll 340 810 440 530 37.0 64 30 C. A. 119 843 754 37.7 71 31 3.5 Lankart Sel. 57 329 817 430 525 35.6 56 31f‘ Lockett 88 852 638 745 39.0 71 29 4.4 Paymaster 54B 485 708 378 524 36.8 72 29 . Dunn 24BR 648 737 36.8 29 3.8 Brazos 761 428 515 38.2 72 30 Dunn 7 817 728 39.5 65 29 4.5 Blightmaster 294 751 498 514 37.5 76 29 Northern Star ll 772 634 703 37.4 65 30 4.2 C. A. 119 369 763 508 36.8 79 28 Paymaster 54B 753 602 678 42.0 86 28 4.0 Acala 1517BR-l 724 428 496 37.4 76 30 Acala 1517C 756 594 675 39.6 71 34 3.6 Deltapine TPSA 698 390 464 34.0 88 32 Acala 1517BR-l 656 574 615 40.1 67 34 4.0 Dunn 24BR 314 430 38.2 67 28 L.S.D. 172 52 n/s L.S.D. 44 122 59 n/s 1Tulia in 1957-58. Kress in 1959. TABLE 36. LUBBOCK—SUMMARY OF DRYLAND COTT V RIETY TESTS, 1957-58 TABLE 34. PLAINVIEW —SUMMARY OF IRRIGATED COTTON VARIETY TESTS, 1957-59 Pounds lint Comparable average fie per acre _ , , Pounds lint Comparable average Va ty 1117:‘ 1:31: is: vafiet?’ per acre Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- 1957 1958 1959 yield % Silt? length 113111! Dunn 7 283 456 370 401 91 29 Lockett 88 322 418 370 38.6 90 29 Austin 551 858 1022 810 36.9 56 32 3.8 Rex 428 368 38.9 84 33 Rex 1022 810 36.4 60 34 Deltapine TPSA 288 440 364 37.6 98 32 Dixie King 857 803 38.1 59 34 2.8 Brazos 394 334 37.5 90 31 ’ Empire WR 468 842 1006 772 36.9 53 33 4.2 Northern Star 11 275 393 334 34.9 78 30 Paymaster 54B I 638 738 883 767 39.5 60 31 3.6 Acala 1517BR-l 390 330 37.3 82 34 Paymaster 101 461 749 886 699 . 38.8 61 31 3.5 Blightmaster 259 393 326 36.7 100 30 Lankart Sel. 57 344 766 925 67 8 38.9 51 32 3.6 Lockett Stormproof No. 1 266 326 37 .6 88 28 Gregg 425 754 823 667 37.8 69 31 4.4 Western Stormproof 246 406 326 40.8 92 30 Dunn 24BR 832 620 37 .8 70 30 Gregg 299 348 324 34.3 100 28 . Northern Star ll 376 680 800 619 37.2 57 32 3.4 Lankart Sel. 57 299 329 314 38.7 73 30 2 Acala 1517BR-l 378 576 873 609 37.8 61 34 3.2 Lankart Sel. 611 255 373 314 36.5 81 30 Blightmaster 290 721 778 596 37.3 68 32 3.7 C. A. 119 247 372 310 36.4 105 31 Acala 1517C 314 555 891 587 36.6 63 34 2.7 Stufflebeme Stormproof 363 303 38.2 80 31 Western Stormproof 252 678 758 563 38.7 68 31 3.2 Acala 1517C 216 381 298 36.0 88 32 Lockett 88 225 621 808 551 38.4 72 30 3.4 Floyd 8G 225 285 35.6 81 30 Lockett Paymaster 101 264 29s 291 91.9 9s 29 Stormproof No. 1 311 571 547 37 .2 74 30 3.0 Austin 189 372 280 38.8 81 30 Deltapine TPSA 280 580 768 543 37.2 71 32 3.4 D8cPL-FOX 4 172 389 280 36.4 100 32 ‘ Floyd 8G 267 533 34.8 56 30 3.5 Ma1one’s Rowden 220 280 33.6 81 32 Ma1one’s Rowden 266 532 35.2 59 29 3.4 Empire WR 185 363 274 38.3 68 30 Brazos 734 522 37 .2 74 33 Paymaster 54B 262 262 262 37.9 83 30 L.S.D. 84 70 133 105 L.S.D. 63 66 n / s 18 VARIETY TEST, 1958 ' WNPIELD-SUMMARY or DRYLAND COTTON Pounds lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- per acre % size length naire 773 41.7 76 30 4.2 697 40.6 93 26 4.2 656 42.6 81 30 3.5 685 38.4 101 30 3.8 620 42.4 78 28 4.4 617 41.3 95 30 3.2 616 39.1 73 30 4.1 600 44.4 64 30 4.6 582 40.3 91 32 4.4 574 41.4 81 31 4.1 566 38.9 91 31 3.2 564 40.5 97 32 3.8 557 42.4 91 32 4.0 445 41.4 86 32 3.4 425 41.5 84 32 3.6 423 41.1 78 30 3.8 VARIETY TESTS, 1957-58 SPRING-SUMMARY OF DRYLAND COTTON Pounds lint Comparable average P" “m Lint Lint Boll Staple Micro- 1957 1958 yield % size length naire 200 1s4 215 50.0 s4 2s 4 s No. 1 25s 17s 20s 50.2 92 29 4 2 257 207 55.0 s9 51 4 5 224 1s7 200 55.0 s7 52 4 5 22s 1s2 205 55.0 s2 52 4 4 229 151 205 50.5 s0 51 4 0 240 105 202 50.2 s5 50 4 4 257 105 200 59.0 70 50 4 0 229 199 50.2 s7 51 5 0 107 257 140 19s 50.2 75 50 5 1 220 190 55.0 77 52 5 2 217 170 190 57.2 92 50 4 2 259 152 190 55.0 s5 50 4 2 21s 100 192 55.2 94 50 4 4 219 1s9 50.5 75 51 4 0 207 104 1s0 55.2 7s 52 4 4 214 1s4 55.9 s9 54 4 0 212 154 1s5 54.0 9s 50 4 0 i i» 250 155 1s2 54.0 72 52 4 7 211 151 55.2 91 55 4 9 - 210 144 1s0 54.0 74 52 4 5 02 209 179 54.5 91 52 4 0 20s 17s 57.5 75 52 4 7 192 155 174 54.4 9s 51 4 1 ~ 205 175 55.4 7s 55 5 s m p 172 52.9 s0 51 4 5 - "I 141 171 54.5 05 52 4 2 1s7 149 10s 55.0 ss 51 4 2 1s0 14s 104 55.4 s0 55 4 0 4 so 197 129 105 50.2 75 52 4 7 3 195 105 52.4 7s 55 4 2 170 140 50.5 s1 52 5 9 10s 15s 54.2 7s 52 4 9 100 150 54.9 75 52 4 s 45 29 n /s TABLE 39. PECOS — SUMMARY OF IRRIGATED COTTON VARIETY TESTS, 1957 AND 1959 Pounds lint Comparable average Variew p" "c" Lint Lint 15011 Staple 1957 1959 yield % size length Acala l5l7D 1226 1269 36.8 60 38 Acala 1517BR-1 1279 1204 1242 38.6 59 38 Wescot 1136 1179 40.8 67 35 Acala 1517C 1205 1101 1153 37.4 58 38 Mesilla Valley Acala 956 1061 1008 35.5 58 38 Empire WR 1022 962 992 37.8 54 34 Deltapine TPSA 1074 850 962 38.2 68 35 Northern Star 11 977 934 36.4 59 34 Del Cerro 876 Acala 831 874 33.6 57 41 Lankart Sel. 57 954 790 872 39.6 54 32 Mesa Acala Improved 782 825 a 31.9 39 Earlistaple 809 766 31.9 67 39 Ma1one’s Rowden 715 672 35.9 57 35 Floyd 8G 596 553 37.7 59 34 L.S.D. 157 191 204 TABLE 40. YSLETA — SUMMARY 0F IRRIGATED COTTON VA- RIETY TESTS, 1957-59 Pounds lint Comparable Average Variflv P" “c” Lint Lint Boll Staple 1957 1958 1959 yield % size length Acala 1517C 1316 1461 1171 1316 38.4 60 38 Acala l5l7D 1102 1312 37.4 61 ~38 Wescot 936 1146 41 .4 68 35 Acala 1517BR-1 1183 1300 933 1139 39.0 59 37 Coker 124 882 1092 38.5 71 35 Acala 4-42 1230 1064 39.4 53 35 Northern Star ll 1095 1051 38.6 58 34 Deltapine TPSA 1109 1236 761 1035 39.0 70 35 Empire WR 1070 1219 813 1034 38.3 55 35 Arizona 44WR 1185 1019 36.9 54 36 Deltapine Smooth Leaf ~ 779 989 40.3 74 36 Stoneville 7 751 961 39.3 74 34 Earlistaple 938 894 34.6 65 41 Delfos 9169 652 862 37.9 66 35 Del Cerro 876 Acala 620 830 34.2 58 41 Mesilla Valley Acala 910 947 824 35.0 60 41 Brazos 607 817 39.1 62 34 Texacala SS-31 951 785 38.1 68 35 Lankart Sel. 57 836 907 560 768 39.8 49 33 Mesa Acala Improved 932 7 66 32.7 60 41 Ma1one’s Rowden 779 735 36.4 56 36 Floyd 8G 593 549 37.9 55 33 L.S.D. 190 137 149 255 19 ..'..| l ,__|_,_..z.... Li. i: _m tT T... ...'.Tl"‘iI'TTlZ g __ ___T;ft_ "w" |“""'/lko_____"" . I /‘""\< I F'- "Tl-w \;(. _\\rl_ . i um: snnou o nu mmncms g nu new LAIOIlYORIES 4 oooouumm sumo» Location oi iield research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies ORGANIZATION OPERATION Research results are carried to Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemakers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service joclay 2 Kesearclz ~95 flOniOffOl/U 2 I”OgI”Q65 State-wide Research it Q, The Texas Agricultural Experiment Statio is the public agricultural research agency oi the State oi Texas, and is one oi the parts oi the A<§M College oi Texas. IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 13 su matter departments, 3 service departments, 3 regulatory services and administrative staii. Located out in the major agricultural areas oi Tex 2O substations and IO iield laboratories. In addition, there are 13 cooper stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the Forest Service, Came and Fish Commission oi Texas, Texas Prison Sy U. S. Department oi Agriculture, University oi Texas, Texas Technolo College, Texas College oi Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. experiments are conducted on iarms and ranches and in rural homes. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 450 active research projects, gro in 25 programs, which include all phases oi agriculture in Texas. these are: Conservation and improvement oi soil Beef cattle Conservation and use oi water Dairy cattle Grasses and legumes Sheep and goats Grain crops Swine Cotton and other iiber crops Chickens and turkeys Vegetable crops . Animal diseases and parasit Citrus and other subtropical iruits Fish and game A Fruits and nuts Farm and ranch engineering Oil seed crops Farm and ranch business Ornamental plants Marketing agricultural prod Brush and weeds Rural home economics Insects Rural agricultural economics Plant diseases Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central se AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS. the WHYS, the WHENS, the WHERES and the HOWS oi hundreds oi problems which coniront operators oi iarms _ and ranches, and the many industries depending on or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Main Station and the iield units oi the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station seek diligently to iind solutions to these ‘ problems. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, R. D. Lewis, Director, College Station, Texas.