8-1084
MAY I969

   
 
   
 

?SUGAR BEETS ” 
 |N SOUTHWEST TEXAS

 Production Potentials

TEXAS Al-M UNIVERSITY 9 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 9 H. O. Kunkel, Acting Diredor, College Station, Texas

CONTENTS

   
 
   
 
   
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
   
   
 
 
  

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -;
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Production Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
General Topographic and Vegetative Characteris =

s

Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a, . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-  . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Water Supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Land Use: Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 
Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i‘

Available Information Related to Local Conditions . . . .1
Programs of Research and Demonstration 

1964»65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..§
Major Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '_f

Zavala County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Frio County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I
Uvalde County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f
Bexar County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l

Demonstrations-Vaneties and Date-of-planting . i
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

1965--66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p

Date-of-planting Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Variety Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a:

Research Plots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' a

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

1966--68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Variety Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Genetic Stocks Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Demonstration Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Economic Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 

Sugar Beet Production Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
Identification and Description of Soils of Research Sit
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,

AUTHORS _,
E. L. Whiteley, associate professor of new crops and soil
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences 

W. R. Cowley, superintendent for research, Texas  
Agricultural Research and Extension Center at Weslaco

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS Y,
Economic Analyses, i‘

A. W. Reichardt, area farm management specialist, Texas A T’
Agricultural Research and Extension Center at Weslaco

Production Practices ' 
D. N. Weaver, research assistant, Department of Soil and Cro

Identification and Description of Soils of Research Sites,
C. L. Godfrey, professor, Department of Soil and Crop Sci i»

  
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  

E

‘th sugar beets were conducted in l3 counties
Texas from 1964-68. These tests were grown
'ety of soils ranging from deep sands to heavy
- levels of management were used during the
»  studies. It was clearly demonstrated that
 the key factor in beet production. Manage-
f. the production of most crops is not of
'1; quality for the production of high yields
p‘ beets. Three factors—nitrogen, insects and
 ater-must be controlled at the proper levels
‘vtion is to be successful.

'5 964-65 season, 50 trials and demonstrations
‘W at 18 locations in 11 counties. A total of
 was harvested for brix, sucrose and apparent
 . The average yield of all beets sampled from
i“ as 26.4 tons per acre with an average sucrose
5.4.8 percent and an apparent purity of 85.1
 ever, wide ranges in yields and qualities
there are critical requirements for soil, crop
i, agement. Yields and qualities, both high and
rally related to and identifiable with manage-
i The adaptability of beets for production per
,; was clearly demonstrated; excellent progress
a determining‘ varieties, strains and genetic
it efficient performance.

a 1965-66 program, 32 trials and demonstra-
it ducted at 20 locations in the 13-county area.
 'th 38, 50 and 50 entries of varieties, strains
mocks were grown at three locations; there

SUMMARY

c were 15 variety trials of nine entries and 14 date-of-planting

demonstrations. Some 1,672 samples were analyzed for
brix, sucrose and apparent purity. Yields were generally
lower than those of the previous season, but the sucrose
levels were materially improved. The need for further
refinement of cultural practices was indicated. Results from
2 years of tests showed that the level of leaf-spot resistance
in the materials tested was not adequate and that chemical
controls would have to be used to control this disease. The
potential for the production of high yields of good quality
beets was adequately demonstrated.

Test results in l966—67 again emphasized the role of
management in sugar beet production. Where management
levels were adequate, good yields of high quality beets were
produced. The results from the research plots indicate that
the plant material available has the characteristics necessary
for the fabrication of hybrid beet varieties adapted to the
area. Several commercial varieties perfonned quite well in
the tests and could be used in the early stages of
commercial production.

In 1967, the need for grower experience in managing
larging plantings was recognized. Therefore, in the
1967-68 season, several S-acre plantings were made. Five
of these plantings were carried to maturity. Results indicate
that beets of acceptable quality can be produced under
easily achievable management practices. It was clearly
demonstrated that sugar beets are well adapted to south-
west Texas arid that the farmers in the area have the skills
necessary for producing high yields of good quality beets.

3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The successful execution of the extensive and widely
spread project was made possible by contributions of many
organizations and indivituals. The officers and members of
the South Texas Sugar “Beet Growers Association gave
freely of their time, efforts, production facilities and funds.
Banks, County Commissioners’ Courts, Chambers of
Commerce and civic organizations provided invaluable
assistance in providing grants and organizational leadership.

Many agencies of the state and federal governments
made essential contributions to supply technical
knowledge,’ materials, and, in many instances, direct
services. County agents and area specialists of the Texas
Agricultural Extension Service were directly involved in all
phases of the project. The Dean of Agriculture, Texas A&M
University, and the heads of subject-matter departments
gave administrative leadership and direction to the program.
Numerous co-workers in the Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station contributed technical knowledge and services.

Special recognition should be accorded W. A.
Goodson, technician, Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, who served as fieldman for the project and whose
enthusiasm and untiring efforts made possible its coordina-
tion and execution.

4

  
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
   
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
  

 AR ACT Amendment of 1962 and the
p tion of the U. S. Department of Agriculture
‘ge restriction on sugar beet production
'espread inquiry relative to the feasibility of
terprises in southwest Texas. Through inter-
_ the Amendment, several criteria were
 determine the allocation of acreage to new
lying new factories in new areas; these criteria
 factors as the production potential, economic
 need for the new enterprise, grower manage-
‘ties and attitutes, proximity to markets and
 capital for factory construction.

qtion was considered abundantly available to
west Texas for acreage allocation in regard to
‘teria with the exception of definitive data
l. oduction potentials. In 1964, the South Texas
‘Growers Association was organized with the
jectives to detennine the potentials for produc-
iuthwest Texas counties and subsequently to
 blishment of one or more beet mills in the
orandum of Agreement was developed with
I University, and substantial grants and other
Ce made available to determine production
‘d associated problems. Grants also were made
sts and by County Commissioner’s Courts.
o e followed in developing authentic informa-
Y~ a study of production resources, such as soils,
ter supplies, cropping patterns and related
 'ew of literature to relate available information
‘jnditions; and a program of research and
'-~ to evaluate potentials for yields and qualities
 ‘de for grower education relative to cultural
f~ ired for efficient management.

, PRODUCTTQN RESQURCES
i~ :1 1phic and vegetative characteristics

3 counties of southwest Texas shown in Figure
3 15,370 square,‘ miles and lie approximately
ounds of 28°and 30°latitude at the junction of
Tl~ Plateau, the southwestern extension of the
A 'ries and the northwestern portion of the Rio
_' . The northern tier of counties is bisected by
s Fault Zone separating the Edwards Plateau
 of 700-1 ,000 feet from the lower lying Rio
or . Below the Edwards Plateau, a broad rolling

AR BEETS m SOUTHWEST TEXAS

Production Potentials

plain with elevations ranging down to 300 feet with a
regionally southeastern slope is crossed by several small
rivers and associated tributaries. Mesquite and thorny
shrubs characterize the native tree species although such
vegetation varies with climate, soils and elevations. Bunch
grasses are found on the lighter soils while such species as
buffalo, mesquite and grama are indigenous to the heavier
soils.

Climate

As the geographic location would indicate, the
climate across the area would be classed as continental;
however, maritime influences from the Gulf area in the
warm season are often operative. The average annual
temperatures vary but slightly, 68°to 72°F., across the area
from north to south; variations in temperature extremes

‘are, however, of more critical significance. The average

annual rainfall, reflecting the maritime influence, varies
from 20 inches in the western counties to 32 inches in the
most eastern section of Hays County. The monthly
distributions of rainfall at Crystal City (Dimrnit County)
and at San Antonio (Bexar County) are shown in Table 1.

Soils

Soils, which had their origins in both fresh water and
marine sediments, are the products of varying amounts of
sorting, movement and redistribution with subsequent
profile developments under the influencing factors of
climate, topography and vegetation. Materials outwashed
from the Edwards Plateau are the parent sediments from
which the dark calcareous clays extending from Maverick to
Bexar County were formed. These outwash materials were
also deposited along streams dissecting the Coastal Plains to
give rise to alluvial soils. Alluvial soils along the Rio Grande
River, generally lighter in texture and color, were developed
from outwash sediments of the Rocky Mountains. Marine
sediments of the Coastal Plain have given rise to lighter soil
types, widely prevalent across the area.

A general soils map of the area is shown in Figure 1.
There were further refinements in soil classification by
personnel of the Soil Conservation Service in identifying
and describing the 13 major soil types of the area; these soil
types, along with the estimated acreages of each, are listed
in Table 2. The soils, by nature of their origins and
development, exhibit a wide range of physical and chemical

5

asap 1.50m zH <52. 52.5. Ema 525m m5 é fizz :8 wimwzmw é M28:

.mu=~_o= oz» wo w_Fom oz» ow oow=_o=@ om~ooo< +

..L@;~o Nmm

Mouoooo gem mwuooow oT¢ §o~ mmvoopmoo wmmv+ooo.om nomowooo wo~sPxo;oo<
éoxmnfiofiwfiwa Jomwsxooowa .m_._.Om _.m_.>:_._.m >.EMO_.

ooovooo __oz »Foo@>ouos .w=oo>~o_~o .oowo .=zo>o o_~o op ozoon ;mP»~ow

.M>@;oQ No~ ,-o>@~
&oH Joooopm xofi nowoo Nmw mxowowok Nmmv +ooo.omm um ooooo oo~E@xoLoo<

. .wu:ma:Nk@@w: ~wN~o:vu~mum .;=uuo
owro m_@ow _~@>=~P~ »E~o_ Fwopooc ozooo ;w@»~om meow - w_@om _~w>=_-
>o>o_o .uw¢w@ow F_oz op voowoov xpzopw .m=ooL~oF~o .owoo .vo»o_oo xooo

.A»~;~o Rm~ Jmownoo fimfi
m¥o@L@>~z fimfl m-oo- &o~ m-=~EWo Nm~o ooo.m- nmmmmoom ~o~E@xoLQQ<
Jfiwxwxoezfib .ww.@so.»om~um doofiucom m=ow.:..oi..o .6 wwigw 2E:

oo>o uoooFo>ov m_@ow xsmop vco >o>~Fo woooowopmo oooo .;m@=zo;n woo
_w>o»@ uom wzo»-oo uwp~»=u=w »w>o m_@om »Emo_ mzowooopmo _zo~F~;m ozoom

.Ao¢;oo omw

Hwmomoom o»~s,xo>oo<
.wo&mxaos ~wo&wum:N~m%
.oo~omv¢@_ oso wo moomo oogwwz oz» ow =oE=oo woo o=o@_~o uwooooucw om>o
m_¢om m=ooLoo_oo zsoop :o__~;w =zoLoms=@>=_- »w>o~o woo mopogw >s@_ ov
oooo_w>oo - zoooo zowz m=ooL~o_~o woos mowsoown Awoooo uvvow vow w=w_
-om osowv m_wow >o>o_o w=omoooFoo.oowu.=zo»o gmwzoom op ozoon ;m@:o_Fo>

,mmoE_o fiom mmcoowomo &o~ w._w~=o= ommo ooo.o~@

wzmooooswx won wgooom &m¢v ooo.o¢m nmmowooo m»~swxoooo<

.w-o»w:wuNmu ~m-o¢w:Nmmm .mu:mF
;@=o» gov; oowpowoowmw ow w;oP_~o ooooooucp go .o=o»moEP_
m~@om >Eoo~ woooooopoo »_;@@; .zoF_o=w .=xo»o gmpmoow

.A»~;oo &m~

uomoooom w-s@xo>oo<
. QMNNQ Q15 N Nam
-MNNQMWSWONUQ .@~NQ¢m=~@¢= .e=@>=__~ o_o woomouupoo uoo=»xo» wow»
=w vmoo_o>wo mgpowu gov: w=ou>~o_~o woos vow »~»~_o woos xppgmwpw oz?
-soooo .w_@ow »o>~_o op zsoop moouoou-mo .ommw .=;o»n xoou op >@L@ xooa

.Aom;o@ omw

>_~o>~>@
_@~¢wEm~o+ ;o>o

",_~o=oz &o~ M~oQ,=¥ &m~ n~o_~>= womv oom.¢~m.H

.AL¢;~o oom

mvowpou wow nopoopooz aoov ooo.~mm uwmoogoo opos@xoooo<
.mwwx¢aom~Gm »w-o»m:m~um ~wuam¢m:-mm .w;u@Fmu vouu;
-=u=w »o>o w_Po@ woomomo-uo xsoop zo-mzm .=;o>o u=~ mo=o@-o vow; oocw
@=Fo~L@ wpwowoow w=¢_~¥F@ czoon gwwuumg sow: mpwom >E~o_ Pogoaoc .oomo
apmpwowuos .=:oLn zwwxugm wm-Pom »~»~_o m=ooL~u-o .owwv .»~»m some

mo~oo- wofi

 

 
 

ix

 

wo

.mw@;um -Pow uomooogo M

.moxo» .;»»o3 poo“ .oo@>;ww =owoo>»ow=ou Pwom ma .=o@mo¢
;~=ow.wo@oom wo ~=osoo@~o “so~m>m =o@»~o@»?wm~_Q -Pow .~@mH .»-ow
.»»~»m »o>»=m _@owv eoowxm oowooorwwmmopu Fwom .m.: ow woooow oooow

.AL~=~o Rom

m_o>=Q wow “now: aoov oom.mm .~ nwmowouo oooE@xo;oo<
awooéfiom 6 Nufixfioi dooowucfi m5

wo woooo oogmwg oz» ow =oaEoo woo wgowpmo uoooooucw oo>o mpwom moooooo
-F~o »soo_ .:o~_~=m .=zo>n mmocosmmov oooomuoom @=@>~= ooowo vow wogozw
wm ooooo xo~oo w=ooo@o_~o mcwsoowo .w_@own=m »m>@_o op >E~o~ >>mm;
gwwvooo uwoo mmop gov: m_@om »e~o_ ovum »Po;mw_m .oomu .=zoon smwuwom

.@ou~so=o Rofi

.AL~=oo

&o~ m-W>~m wo~ mmgooa “om ,~_=~»=m oomv ooo.om~ uwmmuoofl ~o~E@x°LQo<
.m»~@om=~@@m .m%N@“@=»NU@ .mw;o=@ mo oooow zo_wo Am=@_~¥-Q

.mwm@o meow =Pv ovum mmwp mowsoump .m~womo:m »E~°_ umF-oe um» op czooo
=mPzoF_w» sow: wpwow >eooF now xucum uwoo >_»=m@~w .ooou .vw=o_oo pcmwo

.AL~goo ao~

mono: No? ,o@=o»=< oom won m_w=@?z woov ooo.mmm ummowooo m»os@xoooo<
.m%~uuw:~mum ~m%Nuuw:m~um .wozucw om|<~

ooooo zo_oo moowooopwo woos woo »o»~_o mmo_ mcwsoowo .m~Fown=m »~»~_o
owcou m=ooo~oPoo oo Poooooc .om» op oxooo gov: .mo=mEPuom Fooovwoou
ooxwe cw oosgow m_@om xsoop uwoo »_~;@¢_m .owou .=xo;o zmwxoom zoom

.A»~=oo

RON moFFP>m@zo4 wow m¥o@_m ooomooz Roov ooo.~@~ nomooooo oo~e@xo;oo<
. 3 NO» m5 QUE $6.3“ miS N MN
m=oo;~o-o .ooou .oo;o_ou xooo

.w»~_o >E@_ =@ uoeoow mppom »o>-o

.AL~=~o

&m_ m»oom aow "=¢;Qw»m Non m=P»m=< “moo ooo.moH “~@-»o~ -~EwxoLQQ<
.oo:»=o»oo@= .m-ou:»m .m~o~e woo ¥_~=o ow uosnow

mpwom >~»~_o maowooopoo .ooou »-oomgwoos ow :o_F~;w .uuLoFoo gown

. .AL~;oo ao~

uuoowxoou New mooocwa ao~ muoooowh aoov ooo.om~ uomomooo oo~s@xo;oo<
.wo&muw:Eoxxu ~m-o»m:~mum .Awmm-w ocoum

|wEw_v mwmowcoom we mwwomov m=@>o~> gov: m_@om >m»w_o moowooo-o=o= ucm
moowooo-mo .aouu >~o-»ovoe ooo xo_F~;m .=:o>o gmwouog oo uooo-oo xowc

.A>~=oo ao~,~»=o»w
moooxoogm Rom mocoooo» woov ooo.¢wo.~ Uomoogoo ~o~EwxooQn<
¢ @»o»»=oo»»= .»N~o»»=~ou= . ogowpoo o=~ ._o>~»o
.wm~p» mzopmosw-V wu=- aooom ;m=o; woo .oL=»xw» mxmpo mo m-vow »-Pu
->~»m o=~ zcoom xpumos .@=ou»~o~@u .xo_Pu:m .>~;m ozmvp op uuoo-ou xooo

=@=o¢ NQN

 

 

 

Table 1. Climatic Summary, Temperatuf

October, 1968 - March, 1968-

? and Rainfall, Carrizo Springs, Texas, and San Antonio,Texas, for the,

 
  

CARRIZO SPRINGS - DIMIT COUNTY

SAN ANTONIO - BEXAR COUNTY

 

 

       
  
   
  

Temperature Rainfall Temperature
Maximum Minimum Dept. from Dept. from Maximum Minimum Dept. from '
Month Ave. Recorded Recorded Normal Inches Normal Ave. Recorded Recorded Normal Inchelf
1964 5
Oct. 68.9 92 42 -4.5 1.48 -0.81 66.4 88 38 -4.2 1.64 5
Nov. 65.3 86 33 +3.6 0.33 -0.50 62.6 84 33 ;+3.l 4.8l'i
Dec. 55.9 88 27 +0.4 0.23 -0.94 52.3 83 24 -1.4 1.22}
1965 ‘
Jan. 57.9 86 27 +3.6 0.20 -0.82 54.4 81 25 +2.4 1.94}
Feb. 54.0 83 27 -4.2 1.90 +0.87 49.8 74 25 -5.6 6.43;
Mar. 59.9 91 28 -4.6 1.21 +0.41 54.9 85 23 -6.1 2.30]
April 74.5 98 49 +2.2 2.03 +0.35 71.6 90 44 +3.4 1.971
May 78.2 94 55 -0.6 6.67 +3.09 75.0 89 49 -0.3 8.181
June 83.7 105 67 -1.0 0.32 -2.22 81.6 95 64 -0.3 2.421
July 86.2 102 69 -0.4 0.00 -1.83 84.9 99 65 +0.9 0.08?
Aug. 85.2 101 68 -1.3 0.96 -1.35 84.0 98 64 +0.2 1.65;
Sept. 83.7 102 59 +2.2 3.60 +0.78 80.7 99 54 +2.1 3.19;
Oct. 69.1 92 43 -4.3 0.57 -1.72 66.8 90 40 -3.8 2.69:
Nov. 67.1 96 33 +5.4 1.26 +0.43 64.5 82 30 +5.0 0.897
Dec. 57.2 78 32 +1.7 3.11 +1.94 55.5 76 30 +1.8 4.51:
1966 ~F
Jan. 49.0 76 20 -5.3 1.25 +0.23 45.4 74 16 -6.6 1.47t
Feb. 53.0 80 26 -4.6 1.10 +0.07 49.8 75 23 -5.6 2.30;
Mar. 64.3 89 29 -0.2 0.42 -0.38 60.0 82 24 -1.0 1.14?
April 74.3 99 45 +2.0 5.34 +3.66 68.6 89 34 +0.4 3.20.
May 75.9 102 58 -2.9 6.94 +3.36 73.5 93 56 -1.8 3.531
June 81.5 101 63 -3.2 0.68 -1.86 78.8 95 61 -3.1 1.78.
July 86.4 103 68 -0.2 0.00 -1.83 84.2 99 67 +0.2 0.06;
Aug. 85.5 103 66 -1.0 1.86 -0.45 81.9 99 61 -1.9 4.28§
Sept. 81.2 100 62 -0.3 2.94 +0.12 77.5 93 55 -1.1 2.13§
Oct. 71.7 100 42 -1.7 0.80 -1.49 67.0 92 34 -3.6 1.11?
Nov. 66.7 89 28 +5.0 0.00 -0.83 63.0 83 26 +3.5 0.001
Dec. 54.7 85 20 -0.8 0.00 -1.17 50.7 81 19 -3.0 0.44§~
1967
Jan. 54.2 82 20 -0.1 0.10 -0.92 50.2 79 21 -1.8
Feb. 57.0 87 25 -1.2 0.57 -0.46 51.8 77 23 -3.6
Mar. 80.9 96 37 +6.4 1.90 +1.10 66.9 92 29 +5.9
April 78.6 96 58 +6.3 2.65 +0.97 76.6 93 49 +8.4
May 80.7 108 53 +1.9 0.31 -3.27 76.6 101 46 +1.3
June 85.5 104 66 +0.8 0.67 -1.87 84.5 100 64 +2.6
July 87.3 105 67 +0.7 0.16 -1.67 85.3 102 62 +1.3
Aug. 83.4 105 63 -3.1 3.07 +0 76 82.7 101 62 -1.1
Sept. 76.8 93 48 -4.7 11.00 +8.18 75.5 91 47 -3.1
Oct. 69.7 88 38 -3.7 1.46 -0.83 66.9 86 39 -3.7
Nov. 62.9 92 31 +1.2 1.92 +1.09 60.5 87 31 +1.0
Dec. 54.7 79 25 -0.8 1.67 +0.50 51.0 78 26 -2.7
1968
Jan. 53.0 79 26 -1.3 2.40 +1.38 49.8 74 24 -2.2
Feb. 52.8 79 28 -5.4 2.29 +1.26 48.3 75 25 -7.1
Mar. 60.1 86 32 -4.4 0.96 +0.16 58.0 82 29 -3.0
1/ U. S. Weather Bureau Data.

properties. In general classification, about one-third are
shallow, rocky clays; one-third are deep clays; and one-third
are deep sandy soils. External and internal drainage varies
with the topography and textural characteristics; most are
at least moderately well drained. Bloodworth (1) reports
that soils of the area have available water capacities ranging
from 1.2 to 1.7 inches per foot in sands and 2.1 to 2.7
inches in clays. The inherent fertility levels range from low
in the deep, readily leachable sands to high in the alluvial
clays. In soil reaction, the range likewise varies from near
neutral t0 strongly basic. All are adequately supplied with

8

   
      

bases, and saline or sodic conditions exist 
areas. “

Approximately one-half of the l0 ' 
13-county area are suitable for cultivatil‘
Capability Classes I to IV. A Use Inventory:
Classes is shown in Table 3. Approximately,
have been developed for irrigated producti
shown in Table 4, Irrigation Summaries‘
indicate that some 1,663,569 acres could, 
water supplies, be placed under irrigation. 

    

 'pal Soil Series in the 13-County Areal Water Suppligs

In an agricultural area of irrigation-based economy,
water supply is a factor of critical significance. Approxi-
Acres mately one-third of the irrigated acreage is supplied from
water of the streams which dissect the area. Maverick,
 Zavala, Bexar and Dimmit counties use the greatest amount
3,, 59,999 of surface water. Water flows are impounded in several
200,000 reservoirs, and studies are in progress by state and federal
agencies toward further conservation of flood flows which

 350,000

 escape toward the Gulf. Flows of streams which cross the
.‘ (°“1°”°°“s"ma“t) 50,000 Balcones Fault Zone are subject to infiltration to the
‘ ~ 200,000 porous Edwards Limestone and emerge as spring flows
299,999 when the capacity of the underground reservoir is
0 100,000 exceeded. Water qualities are good to excellent with the
 250 000 exception of the saline supplies occasionally withdrawn
 ’ from the Rio Grande.
 (overwashed)  The major sources of ground water supplies are the
’ Edwards Limestone and the Carrizo Sands underground
 . 100>000 reservoirs.
~I . 300,000 The Edw d f . .
ar s ormation lies generally along the
.5 5,000 Balcones Fault Zone extending across a six-county area
i 1 300,000 from Brackettville in Kinney County to San Marcos in Hays
 Mm 19,999 County. The area covers an estimated 7,000 square miles

I containing about 300,000 acres of land that are irrigable.
 of these soils appears in the appendix The irrigated acreage is probably less than 100,000 acres. A
0 ' predominant feature of the Edwards Reservoir is the rapid
’ rate of recharge as surface water from drainways of the
Plateau enter through the Fault Zone. Spring flows are

0 3. Use of Inventory acreage by capability classes (adapted from Table 9, CNI, USDA,
SCS, 1962)

Class Cropland Pasture—Range Forest Woodland Other Land Total

_ --------------------------------- --1000 Acres ---------------------------------- --

 I—IV 235.3 459.0 - 5.3 699.6
f V-VII 2.2 47.1 - - 49.3

Total 237.5 506.1 - 5.3 748.9

I-IV 284.6 93.9 43.0 8.0 429.5

V-VII 2.7 46.7 144.8 6.2 200.4

Total 287.3 140.6 187.8 14.2 629.9

I-VI 40.4 11.1 37.8 .6 89.9

V-VII .4 11.4 245.9 1.3 259.0

Total 40.8 22.5 283.7 1.9 348.9

t I—IV 50.8 683.1 - 32.2 766.1
T. V-VII .2 77.6 - - 77.8
Total 51.0 760.7 - 32.2 843.9

I-IV 148.4 453.9 - 1.2 603.5

V-VII 2.7 99.9 - - 102.6

Total 151.1 553.8 - 1.2 706.1

I-IV 84.2 26.0 42.7 .8 ' 153.7

V-VVII 1.0 5.4 256.8 .1 263.3

Total 85.2 31.4 299.5 .9 417.0

 , I-IV 2.5 62.3 - - 64.8
'~ V-VII - 702.8 117.7 1.2 821.7
Total 2.5 765.1 117.7 1.2 886.5

lle I-IV 73.0 754.9 - .6 828.5
.5 V-VII 1.1 119.3 - — 120.4
Total 74.1 874.2 - .6 948.9

Table 3. Continued

 

Total}

  

 
   
   
   
  
  
   
  
   
  
  

County Class Cropland Pasture—Range Forest Woodland Other Land
--------------------------------- —-1000 Acres—----------——------—-—————----—----rf
Maverick I-IV 38.5 - - 3.5 42.0;
V—VII 6.1 757.3 — .8 764.2§
Total 44.6 757.3 — 4.3 806.2‘
Medina I-IV 171.4 381.2 - 18,20 570.6 ,_
V—VII 1.6 275.9 - i 5 277.5
Total 173.0 657.1 — 18.0 848.1%
Llvalde I-IV 157.6 271.4 - 12.7 441.11‘
V-VII .3 184.2 379.9 - 564.4,
Total 157.9 455.6 379.9 12.7 1006.1;
Wilson I-IV 234.8 99.7 113.6 2.6 450.7
V-VII 7.0 31.4 10.0 — 48.4}
Total 241.8 131.1 123.6 2.6 499.1,
Zavala I-IV 89.7 632.2 - 8.6 730.5;
V-VII 2.4 84.1 - - 86.5j
Total 92.1 716.3 — 8.6 817.0;
GRAND TOTALS 1638.9 6371.8 1392.2 103.7 9506.63
Table 4. Irrigation summary for counties*
Total Area of Similar
County Irrigated by acres Soils but not
Ground Water ,Surface Water Irrigated Irrigated
Atascosa 28,330 175 28,505 192,605
Bexar 15,261 14,700 29,961 9,500
Comal 25 175 200 5,590
Dimmit 12,085 7,633** 19,718 95,318
Prio 44,595 0 44,595 276,690
Hays 1,176 1,011 2,187 16,500
Kinney 5,300 600 5,900 98,255
LaSa11e 8,724 l,45l** 10,175 174,230
Maverick 1,629 36,820 38,449 45,744
Medina 9 ,064 10 , 500 19 ,564 176 ,030
Uvalde 20,254 1,125** 21,379 124,944
Wilson 14,491 4,000 18,491 353,163
Zavala 119,852 l8,800** 138,652 95,000
Total 280,786 96,990 377,776 1,663,569

*Texas water Commission Bulletin 6515 June, 1965.

**Contains some acreage irrigated by both ground water and surface water.

indicative of the water level in the reservoir; annual
recharges of 500,000 acre feet and more have been estimated.
Except in periods of sustained drouth, discharge by spring
flows exceeds that from wells. Failures of properly
developed Edwards wells are reportedly few even in the
drouth periods; as the development of wells continues,
spring flows will no doubt be diminished, but the outlook
for irrigation supply is favorable. Water quality is satis-
factory for agricultural purposes.

The outcrop of the Carrizo Sands is a comparatively
narrow belt extending generally northward along the
western sections of Dimmit and Zavala counties thence
eastward along the county line areas of Uvalde, Frio,
Atascosa and Wilson counties. The formation dips sharply,

l0

   
   
  
    
   
  

averaging 60 feet per mile, to the south .~
estimated 260,000 acres are irrigated from g
Wells originally drilled into the Carrizo aroun
free flowing from the artesian pressure devel a
centuries. With extensive agricultural develo
drawals exceeded recharge, and well failures - l
were experienced. Recession of the water -J
directly to the pumping rate. Complete dept
Carrizo Reservoir is not anticipated under v
modern well-development techniques and .1
With heavy withdrawals, continued recession o ’
must be anticipated until cropping sy =1
economic pressures, are stablized to adjust J
Water quality from the Carrizo source is gener i?

  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 

t m
l major irrigated crops in the l3 counties in

J according to acreage (adapted from data of
Qter Commission) are shown in Table 5.

'_ ting land use to the potential for beet
inly irrigated acreages were considered; there
‘much dry-farmed and brushy range land. The
 . of the livestock economy, which is
j part by dryland and range enterprises, is
a the ranking of irrigated acreages grown to
_- res, barley and oats and forage sorghum;
= re ranked in the top five of irrigated land uses
l3 counties; barley and oats in 12 counties and
i, s in l0 counties. Grain sorghum ranked
W» five land-use crops in 10 counties, ranking
f” and vegetables ranked among the top five in

production, subject to acreage control, was
FAtascosa, Frio, LaSalle and Wilson counties.
g- use to cotton was confined in major
_, to Maverick and Medina counties. There are,
A .. d enterprises with both crops.

"1 e of farm products sold and the major source
_ involved are shown in Table 6. These data, as
‘7- the Agricultural Census of 1964, reflect, in
* the land use classifications. The livestock
 supported by dryland enterprises, was the

Table 5. Irrigated Crops Ranked in Descending Order of Acreage in

13 Southwest Texas Counties

County Crops

Atascosa Pastures, Peanuts, Oats and Barley, Vegetables,
Grain Sorghum

Bexar Oats and Barley, Vegetables, Pastures, Forage
Sorghum, Grain Sorghum

Coma] Oats and Barley, Pastures, Forage Sorghums

Dimmit Vegetables, Forage Sorghum, Pastures, Oats
and Barley, Grain Sorghum

Frio Oats and Barley, Peanuts, Pasture, Grain
Sorghum, Vegetables

Hays Pastures, Forage, Sorghum, Corn,’ Oats and
Barley, Alfalfa

Kinney Oats and Barley, Forage Sorghum, Grain
Sorghum, Pastures, Vegetables

La Salle Oats and Barley, Vegetables, Pastures, Peanuts,
Grain Sorghum

Maverick Pastures, Oats and Barley, Forage Sorghum,
Cotton, Vegetables

Medina Grain Sorghum, Oats and Barley, Forage
Sorghum, Vegetables, Cotton

Uvalde Grain Sorghum, Oats and Barley, Forage
Sorghum, Vegetables, Pasture

Wilson Pastures, Forage Sorghum, Peanuts, Grain
Sorghum, Vegetables

Zavala Vegetables, Grain Sorghums, Forage Sorghum,

Oats and Barley, Pastures

Table 6. Value of Farm Products Sold and Major Sources by Percentage in 13
Southwest Texas Counties - U. S. Census-1964

Percent From

Livestock
Value of A11 Farm and

County Products Sold A11 Crops Field Crops Vegetables Products
Atascosa $ 9,622,008 46.58 34.12 9.16 52.99
Bexar 17,334,367 29.11 15.54 7.86 70.48
Comal 2,956,128 13.78 12.16 3.36 83.71
Dimmit 5,594,205 52.12 2.69 45.17 46.81
Frio 10,242,133 65.02 53.37 11.07 34.70
Hays 8,113,080 10.42 10.18 0.86 88.56
Kinney 2,500,038 2.61 1.32 0.92 95.04
LaSalle 3,832,386 11.63 9.40 2.02 80.68
Maverick 5,884,861 24.22 14.60 9.01 81
Medina 7,543,750 46.88 44.19 3.43 50.30
Uvalde 9,997,047 15.82 9.66 5.95 82.78
Wilsoiir  6,352,344 37.63 32.24 4.43 62.21
Zavala 10,770,884 56.34 22.00 32.05 43.26
Total $101,243,231

Area Average (Z) 35.61 22.56 11.02 63.46

ll

predominant source of farm income, contributing about 64
percent. About 36 percent of the value of all farm products
sold is derived from crops. The contribution of field crops
was almost double that of vegetables, the major con-
tributing crop enterprise in two counties, Dimmit and
Zavala.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Modern day beet enterprises and associated tech-
nologies are the results of more than a century of research
and experience. The literature, through which history of
the industry may be traced, is voluminous, and only
significant milestones can be presented.

Established as a crop of economic significance in
Europe by 1830, it was not until 1870 that the first
successful enterprise was established in the United States.
The early history of American production is characterized
by crisis after crisis with the use of European varieties
which had little or no resistance to diseases, the first
apparent limitation. Production in the humid areas was
severely attacked by Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora
betacoli) and black root (Aphanomyces eachilicidas); curly
top (Ruga verrucosans) almost forced abandonment of the
industry west of the Rocky Mountains. Production practices
were developed by Overpeck and Elcock (12) in the 1930’s
to provide supplies of American-grown seed.

Research to develop disease resistance in sugar beets
was begun by the U. S. Department of Agriculture in 1925.
By 1930 the first variety with significant resistance to curly

top had been developed by Eubanks and Stahl (6). '

Although this variety was subject to bolting (seed stem
formation), effective resistance to curly top was sub-
sequently obtained through hybridization with wild types.
From screening trials conducted in 1925, Tracy (19)
isolated 14 strains with some resistance to Cercospora leaf
spot; through. the execution of complex programs of
breeding involving crosses of resistant inbreds, varieties with
effective levels of resistance were established. Starting with
a varietal development program by Coons (2) in 1936, a
succession of leaf-spot resistant strains has been produced.

In 1930, according to Coons et al. (3), Lavis and
Larmer found bolting resistance in the variety, U. S. 15, a
curly-top resistant strain; the bolting-resistant strain thus
isolated was found to have moderate levels of resistance to
downy mildew (Peronospora schach tii) and rust (Uromyces
betae). Although susceptible to leaf spot, this strain was an
advancement toward multiple disease resistance.

Multiple resistance to curly top and to leaf spot was
developed by Steward (18) and others through programs of
recurrent backcrossing and screening under conditions
heavily infectious to the two diseases.

Resistance to black-root disease was first discovered
by Coons (4) in 1940. Subsequent breeding and selection
resulted in the development of resistant varieties.

Other diseases of possible critical significance to
production as reported by Coons are Rhizoctonia
(Pellicularia filamentosa), a wet-weather disease, sclerotium
root rot (Sclerotium rolfsil) and sugar beet virus yellows.

12

   
 
  
  
   
  
  
   
  
   
  
   
     
 
    
   
    
   
   
  
   
  
  
 
  
   
   
 
  

The discovery of male sterility by 0 a
(13) and its subsequent use in breeding progr r
the development of disease-resistant hybrids of 
potential. '

Through breeding research, the industry n
with resistant strains to provide an ever-incre I
of security from crop failures. Since new i
pathogens may appear and new diseases may d;
breeding research is a continuing and major L
U. S. Department of Agriculture. Excellent 
been made in recent years toward develop’
control measures for leaf spot and elimi = "
through control of insect vectors.

Concurrent with programs of breeding
resistance, other outstanding advances were j
field. Monogerm strains were introduced intoi,
States by V. F. Savitsky (16) in 1948. Limite
was early reported as naturally occurring I‘
grown beets. Helen Savitsky (15) in 1952
contribution to the refinement of con
treatment of seedling beets for production ~i
numbers of tetraploid plants. The advantai
hybrids’ exhibiting heterosis similar to that ~f
coupled with male sterility and rapid reco .
genetic characters further advanced the deve
productive strains.

That the sugar beet has a wide range. of ’
evident from the differing climatic and soil con
major production areas of the United States. In“:
area, beets in north central sections are groj
-textured acid soils; in the rnidwest, there is
production on alkaline soils with supplemental‘ ‘I
the intermountain area, beets are grown under‘ _,
sedimentary valley soils; in the west, there l
production, as either a winter or a summer
wide range of soil and climatic conditions. - 
Skuderna (17) the sugar beet is one of the m
producers of food among all cultivated crops; a l’
producing 3,700—4,000 pounds of sugar i
byproduct value in tops, pulp and molasses ,
60-bushel-per-acre corn crop. *

Sugar beet seed will germinate in a wide 
temperatures. According to Robbins and Pri 
range is from 35°to 86°F.; germination was ' fl
high soil temperatures (126°F.) in the Impe r,
California. Beets normally require 150-21
maturity for optimum yields and quality; the’
season is, therefore, governed by conditions l,
conducive to favorable growth and sugar _
reported by Esau (5), climate is one of the mo 
factors in determining the suitability of an - ‘
production; a long growing period is required, - i
is greatly influenced by the seasonal diSllflblllliO_'
Central California, October plantings were e t
subject to curly top infection; bolting was {A
November and December plantings; March l
plantings were lower in yields and sugar. i

Ulrich (20) and others have shown that I‘
development patterns are greatly affected by -

 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
   
 
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  

i temperatures, moisture and nutrients. Day
tithe top-root ratio; with short photoperiods,
_: ~- to be proportionately greater; longer days
, top weight but increase root weights.
 Giddings (8), beets low in sucrose were
 ~ at low light intensities or at very high day
_- ratures. No particular day temperature
a mperature effects; the night temperature for
 accumulation was lower than that for
" growth. Moisture stress reduced vegetative
l teased sucrose content of beets grown at
I els of nitrogen (10). Beet juice purity and
its were increased by late-season nitrogen
f the effect of the two factors are indepen-
tive. According to Nuckols (11) transpira-
i largely determined by air temperatures;
 three—five times as much water during
"U temperature and low humidity as they use
‘I conditions. With the use of radioactive
‘rson found that beet-root activity in early
gely confined to the surface foot of the
y the season, however, roots were active t0
eet and more. The results of a number of
 are in general agreement that 65 percent
l» d by beets is obtained in the top foot and
W tained in the top 2 feet of the soil profile.
-, by Larson (9) indicated that only 5 percent
orbed came from the 3- to 5-foot depths.

t. research and experience with western-
 ets indicate a water requirement of 1.5—2.3
“ production of nominal yields. Larson and
_ termined that maximum daily moisture use
 from 0.10 to 0.24 inches. Research data are
ment that moisture stress at the maturation
 cive to and even necessary for maximum
 tion. The total amount of irrigation water
 less important than the time of application.

levels of management, therefore, are
k essful beet production. The plant has no
_- nism to initiate and maintain the synthesis
f‘ sugar. The synthesis of carbohydrates in the
j ceed the energy demand of the plant system
i ~ orage of sugar in the roots; the sequences of
A velopment are top growth, root development
I age. With the optimum availability of water
_ the first two stages proceed rapidly; without
g, to control water and nutrients (primarily
i rose level of 4—8 percent is established, and
tinue to grow. Conditions to reduce the
 ents of the plant must be achieved through
'ency, moisture stress and/or cool tempera-
Vi- crop-management practices require not only
timing and rates of fertilizer and irrigation
 t also knowledge of the nitrifying power of
if residual nutrients of previous crop applica-
- by Gardner and Robertson (7) has shown a
 ship between leaf petiole nitrogen and
i at harvest time. The critical nitrate-nitrogen
I in leaf petioles is considered to be 1,000 ppm
‘I tbasis; depletion of the nitrogen to this level

4-6 weeks before harvest is conducive to sugar accumula-
tion.

The labor requirements for beet production have
been greatly reduced in recent years by technological
advances. The laborious tasks of hand thinning have been
largely eliminated by the use of monogerm seed, precision
planting and mechanical thinners. Herbicides for control of
major weed pests are available. Developments in harvesting
and handling equipment rival those of the cotton industry.

AVAILABLE INFORMATION RELATED
TO LOCAL CONDITIONS

Climatic data indicate the possibility of both winter
and summer production in southwest Texas. Conditions
will be favorable for the development of both curly top and
leaf spot diseases. Varieties of best adaptation can be
determined only by field trials.

Available information suggests that stands of beets
might be established every month of the year; however,
high temperatures of the sandy soils might reduce gerrnina-
tion during the hottest period of the summer. More
irrigation water and more intensive weed control measures
would be required to establish and maintain stands from
summer plantings; such plantings, however, would approach
maturity in the cool season when soil nitrification is at the
lowest level, thus enhancing sucrose storage; shorter day
lengths and lower light intensities might be more influential
than the cool temperatures on sucrose content and purity.
Fall- and winter-planted beets could be grown with less
water and less hazard of weed infestations; winter-grown
beets would be slower in growth and development, more
subject to seed-stem inducing temperatures and would
mature at a time of increasing soil temperatures and
increased soil nitrification; the favorable interaction of soil
moisture and soil nitrogen levels would require precision in
management.

Fertilizer programs for optimum beet production
must of necessity encompass all crops in. a rotation;
fertilizer practices, cropping sequences and soil manage-
ment must be adjusted to meet the production require-
ments of beets. The crop preceding beets must be deep
rooted and capable of depleting the nitrogen level in the
soil profile; heavy crop residues must be avoided. The
succeeding crop must of necessity be planted in a soil low
in residual nitrogen and low in organic matter with possibly
deteriorated physical conditions.

Land-use patterns of the 13-county area would
appear to provide no major handicap to the development of
proper crop rotations with beets. Basing plans, upon
400,000 acres of land currently under irrigation and
assuming a 5-year rotation, some 80,000 acres could be
devoted to beets; an industry of 40,000 acres would seem
to be a conservative potential after allowing for such
reductions in the estimate as required by the maintenance
of acreage allotted to controlled crops and by grower
preference.

The diversity of crops and the predominance of
livestock in the economy would seem to strongly favor the
initiation of a beet enterprise if efficient production could

13

be achieved. Rotations with forage crops, particularly those
ensiled or green chopped, could be used to reduce soil
nitrogen levels. The climatic advantage of double cropping
would provide for the rapid restoration of organic-matter
levels following the beet crop. The diversity of crops
indicates wide grower expertise with machinery, agricul-
tural chemicals and irrigation. Beet enterprises would be a
most valuable asset to the livestock industry; byproducts
would provide large quantities of feed and should
materially reduce land requirements for forage production.
Farm income from beets would add economic stability and
would provide a more substantial basis than now exists for
the adjustment of cropping practices to water supplies in
areas where there are limitations.

PROGRAMS OF RESEARCH
AND DEMONSTRATION

l964—65

Some preliminary investigations preceded the
initiation of the cooperative program. In the l963—64
season, observational plantings of several varieties were
grown near San Antonio, presumably on Houston clay soil,
by Henry Van De Walle. Samples taken from plantings
made monthly from October 1963 through July 1964
indicated yield potentials of 25-30 tons per acre of beets
with acceptable sucrose and purities. Bolting, however, was
noted in the October planting following a low temperature
of 13°F in January 1964.

With the subsequent initiation of the formal program,
all research and demonstrations were conducted at outfield
locations with cooperating Association growers who
furnished land and other production facilities. Samples,
rasped in the field and immediately frozen, were sub-
sequently analyzed by the Analytical Services Department
at Texas A&M University. Weather conditions which
prevailed across the area during the period of the program,
1964-68, are indicated in Table 1.

Because of limited time and personnel, optimum
selectivity was lacking in the choice of sites. The major
objectives, however, were to screen varieties and genetic
stocks and to conduct date-of-planting tests and demonstra-
tions at locations typical of large soil and climatic areas.

Major Trials

Varieties and genetic stocks representative of the
range available were planted on farms near San Antonio,
Uvalde, Pearsall, Castorville and Crystal City in Bexar,
Uvalde, Frio, Medina and Zavala counties, respectively,
from seed supplied by personnel and breeders in the Crops
Research Division, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and by
sugar beet companies. A list of the materials included , the
sources of seed and other pertinent information are shown
in Table 7. October-planted trials, which included 40
entries, were established at San Antonio, Uvalde, Pearsall
and Crystal City; trials with 56 entries were planted at
Castroville and San Antonio in January l965;however, the
Castroville planting was destroyed in seedling stage by a hail
and sleet storm in February. The test design was that of a

14

 
    
   
  
    
  
  
   
   
  
    
    
   
   
   
   
   
 
   
   
   
 
 
   
  
  
   
 
   
   

randomized block with six replications. The plots!
row with two rows per bed. Stands and seedling i
rated after emergence by using HC-1 1 variety as a.
The plants were subsequently thinned to 6—8-inche
Notes on growth and development and on ' ,
diseases were recorded periodically. No fungic"
applied in any of the major trials. ’

Zavala County: The trial in Zavala C i
conducted on the Joe ByrdlFarm 17 miles n I
Crystal City. The soil type was Blanco silty loam;
was supplied from a l,l00-foot Carrizo well. Th
been heavily fertilized in anticipation of fall 1
production. Stands, although adequate, were ra
poor to very good reflecting differential viability,
of the entries. Breeding line SL l26xSp58 
outstanding in seedling vigor; entries with SL1
parentage were notably outstanding in growth an
ment. 

The Zavala County trial was destroyed by j”
April, and no samples were taken for yield est’ "A
and petiole nitrogen evaluations of random pl j
taken April 28, after the flooding, indicated a1
nitrate level and immaturity of the roots- Both p
and Cercospora diseases were noted, parti l‘:
susceptible lines, and Rhizoctonia infection bec
spread following the flooding. Although the trial  v
adverse weather, valuable information was 
feasibility of winter production was indicated, a
observations were made relative to site selec
preparation and management. l‘

Frio County: The Frio County trial w,‘
October 24, 1964, near Pearsall on the Fr'
Research Foundation Farm, the land of which g
by George Toalson. The soil type was Duval F?
loam; the previous crop on the site was cotton;6'
of 16-20-0 were applied as a preplant fertilizer I
Irrigation was by sprinkler application of waste ‘
the nearby Medina Electric Power Plant. The "f
established in adequate stands, but variability}
entries was recorded. The SL126xSP5822-0 p
outstanding in seedling vigor. The foliage disel
were light to severe, particularly in susceptible _
Rhizoctonia disease was noted particularly at sp i1
locations where excessive water accumulated.

The plants were luxuriant and made excell’
and development until April 26 when the trial 
damaged by hail and flooding. Portions of the J
washed out, and the foliage was badly shre
remaining plants regrew tops, and plots represenflj
entries were harvested July 17 for yield a -_
evaluations. The yields and the results of the - '
shown in Table 8. Yields of 25—5O tons per»
obtained; 11 of the entries produced very accep»;
of sucrose; the purity levels of several lines were
percent. The variety, U.S. 75, with yield of 1 
acre, produced the equivalent of 6.51 tons of,
acre. Although differences in performa
undoubtedly affected by hail damage, differen
responses were apparent to confirm that so 

  

of sugar beet material planted in the San Antonio Area

 
  
    
   
  
 
  
  
  
   
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  

Resistance
Seed Seed4/ Leaf Curly Black Bolting Other
Source Type- Spot Top Root
COM. - - - ~ Strain
of Holly
GECl/ m X§/ X x Sugar
GEC m X X X
(EC m X X x
~.3 GEC m x X
l - S401(4n)
.6 Triploid GEC m X X X
" GEC m X X X
GEC m X x X X
GBC m X X X
GEC m X X
GEC m X X X
GEC m X X
GEC m X . X
JSM2/ M X X
JSM m X X
JSM m X X
JSM m X X
JSM m X X
JSM m X X
JSM m X X
JSM m X X
JSM m X X
JSM m X X
JSM M X X
JSM M X X
JSM m X X
JSM M X X
JSM M X X
JSM M X X
JSM M X X
JSM M X X
Joey M x X
JOG m X X X X
JOG M X X
JOG M X X
JOG M X X
JOG m X X X
J06 m X X X
COM. Spreckles
Strain
COM. Holly
Strain
V} Beltsville, Maryland
?r1ane, Salinas, California
1 11, Ft. Collins, Colorado
__ disease resistance known or assumed.
,- analyses of sugar beet breeding lines and varieties in
" Y
w Plots: Planted October 24, 1964; Harvested July 17, 1965
Yield Apparent Tons of
tons Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
per acre % % per acre
37.04 15.51 15.98 84.77 5.96
31.63 16.81 14.99 89.11 4.73
33.19 18.53 15.81 85.32 5.23
47.33 14.64 13.97 92.91 6.61
37.85 14.46 13.61 89.88 5.15
35.26 17.24 14.93 87.26 5.26
47.10 16.55 14.22 83.49 6.69
38.89 16.65 14.75 90.22 5.72
39.15 15.75 14.16 88.77 5.60
41.31 16.93 14.98 89.55 6.11
31.21 18.23 15.27 84.32 4.76
24.64 16.77 13.72 81.77 3.40
32.52 15.05 12.73 83.94 4.14
25.66 12.47 9.59 84.53 2.44
44.08 14.92 13.29 84.87 5.86
38.75 13.82 11.37 83.72 4.42
25.93 13.11 11.46 87.54 2.97
44 86 13 91 10.74 76 32 4.85
50 04 12 89 10.45 80 73 5.21
44 08 15 03 14.76 93 34 6.51
29 51 13 77 12.08 87 45 3.56
36 06 16 72 14.78 90 75 5.35
36 30 16 06 13.34 83 24 4.84
35 78 18 22 15.70 86 36 5.63
38 37 13 53 11.78 88 47 4.52
32 88 15 50 14.50 93 30 4.76
5 60 1 17 2.08 2 89 1.09

store sucrose at higher levels of soil nitrogen.
lplication of nitrogen was apparently near the
‘a of excessive was indicated by petiole analyses
high root yields. The light sandy soils, easily
" d low in organic matter, lend themselves more
‘Y ontrol of nitrogen and moisture levels than do
soil types. The feasibility of winter production
‘indicated by the results of this trial.

 County: The trial was conducted on the Otto

Strube Farm 3 miles northwest of Uvalde. The soil type was
Montell clay at a site formerly grown to vegetable-field crop
rotations and maintained at a high level of fertility. A
preplant application of 500 pounds of 16-20-0 was broad-
cast prior to land preparation. Irrigation water was supplied
from an Edwards well. The plants were established in
adequate stands showing differences in seedling vigor in the
patterns noted in the Zavala and Frio county trials.

The plants grew luxuriantly under the stimulus of a
high level of soil nitrogen. Foliage diseases were noted, and
minor incidence of Rhizoctonia was recorded where water
accumulated from excessive rainfall prevalent during the
growth period.

Samples were harvested June 23 to obtain data
relative to differential responses to the high nitrogen and
moisture levels in the soil. The yields and analyses results
are shown in Table 9. Yields were excellent, ranging from
21 tons to more than 45 tons per acre. None of the entries
produced acceptable levels of sucrose;however, several lines
had acceptable purities. Leaf petiole and soil analyses
confimred that there were high levels of nitrogen in both
the first and second foot of the soil profile.

The trials were harvested again July 29; the analyses
indicated further maturity of the beets, but the sucrose still
had not attained acceptable levels. Several breeding lines,
however, appeared to be superior as shown by the yields
and sucrose percentages in Table 10.

Results of the Uvalde trial indicated that none of the
varieties and strains included had ability to store sugar
under the conditions of high nitrogen and moisture levels in

» the summer-maturing crop. The excellent adaptation of the

beets for growth and development, however, was clearly
indicated. A longer growth period than the 9 months used

Table 9. Yield and analysis of sugar beet breeding lines and varieties in
Uvalde County — first harvest

Research Plots: Planted October 21, 1964: Harvested June 23 6 24, 1965

Yield Apparent Tons of
Line Description tons BriX Sucrose purity raw Sugar
per acre % per acre

1 HH-1 35.73 14.85 11.58 77.97 4.16
2 SL126XSP5460—0 29.60 14.48 11.81 81.24 3.50
3 SL(126X128)XSP5460—0 34.72 14.49 11.37 78.15 3.88
4 F62-569H3XSP5460—0 34.33 15.03 11.58 76.84 3.91
5 F62-569H3X663 46.08 13.48 10.71 79.10 4.97
6 SL(126X128)XUS401(4n);T. 33.40 15.47 12.56 81.04 4.14
7 SL(126X128)XSP5822-0 29.35 14.41 11.41 79.07 3.41
8 F62-569H3XUS401(4n);T. 41.18 12.16 9.77 77.98 4.05
9 F62-569H3xSP5822-0 35.03 13.86 10.69 77.14 3.72
10 $L126XUS401(4n);T. 32.46 14.67 11.27 76.65 3.65
11 SL126X5P5822—0 34.18 13.83 10.85 77.53 3.70
12 SP64100-04 27.01 14.88 10.85 73.03 2.96
13 SP64100-05 29.46 14.71 11.77 80.23 3.47
14 U$H6 39.78 13.36 10.28 76.64 4.09
15 USH7 41.42 14.16 11.53 79.66 4.77
16 USH8 38.38 14.14 10.83 76.94 4.23
17 (569HOX563)X663 39.24 14.26 11.22 78.55 4.34
18 (569HOX563)XNB7 38.07 12.45 9.45 75.70 3.58
19 562HOX564X663 36.27 14.13 11.39 80.83 4.15
20 (562HOX546)XNB7 32.87 13.46 10.06 76.81 '3.34
21 (563HOX550)X464 37.52 14.53 11.60 80.00 4.30
22 (563HOX534)X464 39.86 13.95 11.36 81.66 4.53
23 (562H0XS69)X3425;T. 32.93 14.17 10.93 77.02 3.64
24 USH2; Triploid 43.44 13.24 11.05 81.05 4.76
25 USH6; Triploid 42.97 13.12 9.82 74.86 4.19
26 USH7; Triploid 39.15 13.00 10.13 77.94 4.01
27 US75 36.28 14.54 11.23 77.52 4.06
28 PS6-502 Inbred; B.R. 24.05 13.74 10.69 77.12 2.59
29 1547 Inbred; 8.R. 21.07 15;00 11.17 74.83 2.35
30 0539 Inbred; B.R. 21.49 13.24 10.25 77.44 2.18
31 F59—512 Inbred; B.R. 27.09 12.97 9.45 73.48 2.53
32 US40l 27.87 14.14 10.81 76.03 2.97
33 F61—562H0XSP5460-0 29.58 14.09 11.22 79.65 3.32
34 USH2; Diploid 42.66 14.54 11.57 79.64 5.00
35 SP5822-0 32.70 14.46 11.36 78.44 3.76
36 SP60S1-0 33.24 14.51 11.43 78.90 3.72
37 FC502X663 37.52 15.67 11.97 76.18 4.46
38 FC503 $ub—1.X663 31.51 14.70 11.94 81.15 3.74
39 S302H 33.40 13.90 10.77 77.37 3.55
40 HC1l 24.44 16.23 12.35 75.79 2.77
LSD(0.05) 9.14 1.52 1.38 5.60 1.05

15

did not at that time appear to be feasible. Special
management practices to control soil nitrogen levels were
indicated as an essential requirement, and planting dates to
afford maturity in cool weather were suggested by the
results.

Bexar County: Trials were planted on the Henry Van
De Walle Farm west of San Antonio October 20. The soil
type was Houston clay which had been grown to vegetables
under high fertility levels for many years. Fertilizer, 250
pounds per acre of 0-46-0, was used in sidedressed
application. The irrigation water was from a 1,100-foot
Edwards well.

Although established in adequate stands, the trials
were affected by continuously wet weather; no cultivation
was possible from December through March. Cercospora
infection was severe on susceptible lines; resistant lines
failed to exhibit resistance levels reported—a failure which
indicates the necessity for chemical control measures in
such adverse seasons. Curly top infection was prevalent, but
the intensity of infection was better associated with genetic
resistance claimed than was the Cercospora infection.

The trials were harvested July 7. As shown in Table
ll yields were good, generally in the 25—30-ton range.
Despite the conditions of excessive moisture and high initial
nitrogen level of the soil, 25 of the entries produced
acceptable levels of sucrose and purity; 10 of the entries
had a sucrose content of more than 15 percent with
apparent purity of more than 85 percent. The results of this
trial indicated that winter-grown beets can be successfully
produced on Houston clay soil, even in adverse seasons.

A trial of 56 entries was planted on the Henry Van
De Walle Farm January 8, 1965. This planting, made and
grown under adverse conditions of the season, grew well

Table 10. Yield and analysis of sugar beet breeding lines and varieties in

Uvalde County - Second Harvest

Research P1ots: Planted October 21, 1964; Harvested July 29 8 30, 1965

Yield Apparent Tons of
Line Description tons Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
per acre per acre

1 HH-1 33.33 16.33 12.43 76.07 4.19

2 SLl26xSP5460—0 28.19 18.09 14.12 77.97 4.00

3 SL(126x128)xSP5460-0 26.48 17.44 13.80 78.88 3.67

4 F62—569H3xSP5460—0 27.18 16.56 12.46 75.10 3.40

5 F62-569H3x663 37.22 15.72 12.33 78.73 4.67

6 SL(126x128)xUS40l(4n);T. 30.60 17.28 13.66 78.78 4.27

7 SL(126x128)xSP5822—0 32.16 16.89 12.86 75.99 4.14

8 F62—569H3xUS401(4n);T. 27.41 16.71 13.25 79.20 3.70

9 F62-569H3xSP5822—0 32.31 15.79 11.82 74.76 3.86

10 SL126xUS401(4n);T 28.42 16.92 13.63 80.85 3.90
11 SL126XSP5822—0 24.84 17.15 13.34 77.66 3.30
12 SP64100—04 26.63 17.52 13.17 78.68 3.55
13 SP64100-05 28.73 17.81 13.97 77.95 4.04
14 USH6 30.60 15.61 11.97 77.66 3.60
15 US H7 , 31.60 15.43 11.68 75.49 3.65
16 US H8 23.91 15.84 12.06 76.06 2.84
17 (569H0x563)x663 32.71 15.00 11.00 74.20 3.67
18 (569H0x563)xNB7 27.64 13.81 10.08 72.94 2.81
19 562H0x546x663 33.69 15.39 11.89 77.11 4.08
20 (562H0x546)xNB7 22.50 15.06 11.41 75.65 2.59
21 (563H0x550)x464 36.99 15.30 11.44 74.65 4.21
22 (563H0x534)x464 28.43 15.61 11.65 74.70 3.41
23 (562H0x569)x3425;Tr1p. 30.65 15.49 11.72 75.59 3.54
24 US H2 Triploid 39.95 14.22 10.75 72.42 4.26
25 US H6 Triploid 40.02 14.81 11.46 77.44 4.59
26 US H7 Triploid 34.41 14.67 11.22 76.42 3.90
27 US 75 34.57 15.73 12.04 76.44 4.18
28 F56-502 Inbred; B.R. 19.62 14.70 11.63 79.99 2.34
29 1547 Inbred; B.R. 13.32 14.80 10.93 73.70 1.46
30 0539 Inbred; B.R. 12.24 14.51 11.37 78.22 1.40
31 F59—512 Inbred; B.R. 15.50 12.88 9.69 75.11 1.50
32 US401 27.33 16.98 13.25 78.52 3.47
33 F61-562H0xSP5460-0 27.25 16.35 12.93 76.93 3.54
34 US H2 Diploid 38.62 16.17 12.57 77.29 4.83
35 SP5822-0 22.27 16.69 13.22 79.13 3.01
36 SP6051-0 31.46 16.21 12.50 77.05 3.94
37 FC502x663 30.52 17.33 14.62 78.50 4.51
38 FCS03 Sub—1.x663 28.11 16.53 12.96 78.35 3.65
39 S-302 H 29.20 15.36 11.68 75.89 3.44
40 HC-11 27.24 17.25 13.51 78.68 3.68
LSD(0.05) 8.76 1.62 1.63 5.14 1.21

Table ll.

San Antonio in Bexar County

Research Plots: Planted October 20, 1964; Harvested July 73

Yield and analysis of sugar beet breading lines and variet 9

  
  

 

Yield Appa {_
Line Description tons Brix Sucrose puritj
per acre % % J

1 HH—1 34.41 15.59 13.55
2 SL126xSP5460—0 32.25 16.71 14.78
3 SL(126x128)xSP5460-0 30.09 16.95 15.33
4 P62—569H3xSP5460—0 30.00 15.55 13.78
5 P62056H3x663 36.05 16.62 14.36
6 SL(126X128)XUS401(4n);T. 26.55 17.54 15.33
7 SL(l26x128)XSP5822—0 33.37 315.88 14.06
8 F62—569H3xUS401(4n);T. 26.60 ?16.43 14.09
9 F62—569H3xSP5822—0 27.07 "16.47 15.09
10 SL126xUS401(4n);T. 28.88 16.11 14.61
11 SL126xSP5822-0 32.73 17.10 15.11
12 SP64l00—04 23.34 19.29 16.90
13 SP64100—05 25.85 17.44 15.71
14 USH6 31.04 15.35 13.55
15 USH7 30.08 14.83 13.32
16 USH8 23.00 15.25 13.75
17 (569HOX563)X663 29.05 16.42 15.04
18 (569HOX563)xNB7 25.25 15.39 14.22
19 562H0x546x663 29.91 15.37 13.98
20 (562H0x546)xNB7 25.76 16.19 14.55
21 (563HOX550)x464 31.81 15.30 13.49
22 (563H0x534)x464 28.36 16.24 14.12
23 (562H0x569)x3425;T. 29.48 14.80 13.20
24 USH2; Triploid 35.70 14.30 12.95
25 USH6; Triploid 36.40 15.05 13.26
26 USH6; Triploid 37.87 14.53 12.67
27 US75 25.33 14.97 13.27
28 F56—502 Inbred; B.R. 14.06 18.27 16.19
29 1547 Inbred; B.R. 13.92 13.79 12.38
30 0539 Inbred; B.R. 17.72 14.20 12.70
31 F59-512 Inbred; B.R. 16.34 16.65 14.75
32 US401 28.44 15.84 14.29
33 P61—562 H0xSp5460—0 24.31 16.11 14.36
34 USH2; diploid 31.41 15.69 14.17
35 SP5822—0 25.33 16.87 15.23
36 SP6051—0 25.07 16.94 14.65
37 FC502x663 29.49 18.51 16.36
38 PC503 Sub—1.x663 25.97 15.69 12.45
39 S—302H 27.05 15.64 14.02
40 HC11 29.74 15.95 14.17
LSD(0.05) 4.80 1.39 1.43

Table 12. Yield and analysis of sugar beet breeding lines and variet*

Bexar County - January planting 9

Research Plots: Planted January , 1965; Harvested Augu!I_

Yield
Line Description tons Brix Sucrose
per acre % %

1 US401 10.63 16.92 13.64
2 F61-562H0xUS401(4n) 12.19 14.85 14.61
3 SL(129x133)xSP5822-0 12.45 16.63 13.13
4 SP5822-0 20.22 16.15 12.71
5 FC502xSP5822—0 14.26 16.30 12.84
6 FC503xSP5822-0 14.52 17.15 13.78
7 SP605l-0 22.30 14.30 11.02
8 PC502xSP605l—0 14.02 16.32 13.05
9 PC502x663 14.74 15.38 11.97
10 PC(502/2x503)xSP59B18-0 14.52 15.91 12.55
11 FC(502/2x504)xSP59B18-0 15.04 16.79 13.20
12 FC(502/2x503)xFC901 18.67 15.85 12.84
13 FC(502/2x504)xFC901 8.48 15.35 11.97
14 FC(502/2x503)xS-62-l6(4n) 10.64 17.31 13.71
15 1964-1(SL122xSP5460-0) 15.04 16.39 12.98
16 1964-2(SL126xSP5460-0) 15.04 16.25 13.42
17 1964-3(SL126xSL128xSP5460-0) 18.15 15.02 12.04
18 1964-4(F62-569H3xSP5460-0) 12.45 14.35 13.34
19 1964-12(SL126xSL128xSP5822-0) 19.97 17.61 14.29
20 1964-14(F62-569H3xSP5822-0) 17.11 17.15 13.78
21 SL128xSL133xSP5460-O 21.00 16.82 13.56
22 (SL128xSL129)xSL133xSP5460-0 16.08 17.95 14.36
23 (SL128xSL129)xSL133xSP5822-0 18.15 15.85 12.40
24 1964-11(SL126xSL133xUS401;4n) 20.23 15.53 12.11
25 1964—15(SL126xUS401;4n) 16.08 15.86 12.32
26 1964-7 (USH2) 16.34 16.39 12.91
27 SP6322-0 10.11 16.24 13.27
28 US401 13.49 15.15 11.82
29 SP6351-0 12.33 15.14 11.75
30 SP64l94-0 22.56 14.19 11.10
31 SP64100-04 12.15 15.97 12.33
32 SP64l00—05 10.87 17.48 13.71
33 463 H2 21.26 16.49 12.98
34 263 TH2 20.68 16.91 13.64
35 463 H4 15.05 17.26 13.92
36 363 H7 10.63 16.66 13.27
37 263 TH3 20.23 16.84 13.56
38 464H8 13.48 15.15 11.24
39 464 H11 16.60 15.85 12.04
40 464 H14 7.52 16.49 12.91
41 F64-425 H4 14.50 16.43 13.05
42 4404 H8 9.58 16.94 13.27
43 472 H4 6.23 16.02 12.77
44 384 11.67 17.03 13.64
45 F57-68 10.14 15.20 11.75
46 4539 H4 15.56 16.32 12.76
47 3539 H7 5.19 14.47 11.17
48 4539 H8 15.56 16.49 13.20
49 413 H4 15.04 15.85 12.48
50 F64-30H4 17.37 14.97 11.53
S1 HH1 20.23 15.45 12.11
52 HC—11 12.19 15.97 12/52
53 S-302 H 11.41 14.97 11.68
54 737 12.94 15.74 12.11
S5 S-5 17.38 16.74 13.42
56 S-1 10.79 16.85 13.39
LSD(0.05) 9.5a 2.62 2.64

 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  

 warmer spring temperatures; greatly reduced
ever, indicated the influencing factor of the
A ~ cold, wet weather. Flooding from a break in a
age reservoir destroyed four replications, and
 ‘rd of the trial was harvested. Leaf-petiole
 els were high at sampling August 24; yields and
t the analyses are shown in Table 12. Only two
26xSL128) x SP5822-0 and (SL128xSLl29) x
‘ 460-0) produced beets of acceptable yield and
f}. tent. Although the beets had an appearance of
', der the conditions of the high August tempera-
 ~ ger production period might have improved
 'th two-thirds of the trial destroyed, it did not
q eto continue.

 ‘ens-Varieties and Date-of-Planting

 assistance of county agents and research per-
Texas A&M University, selected cooperators in
 ty area conducted variety and date-of-planting
“Options under indigenous crop production pro-
: with any new crop, the outcomes reflected lack
l, e with and understanding of the requirements
E l production; the results perhaps were related
ower levels of management and to soil conditions
arietal differences. The results and associated
g factors are not related in detail since this
~ is included in county agent reports.

A, al demonstrations with the variety, 302 H, were
 the l964—65 season. Two of these tests
7. beets of acceptable quality. In Zavala County a
p. 0f 34.5 tons of beets per acre with 14.0 percent
1d an apparent purity of 86.9 percent was
7A planting in Dimmit County produced 18.0 tons
j r acre with 15.5 percent sucrose and an apparent
$82.8 percent. The beets in Atascosa and Maverick
roduced good yields but were not of satisfactory
 ese beets were high in nitrogen as determined by
tiole test, and vegetative growth had not been
ring the growing season. These tests indicate the
“ood management in sugar beet production. The
 the nitrogen level in the soil and the control of
{water are critical factors in the production of high
 high-quality beets.

te-of-planting test using the variety, 302 H, was
October 1964 and planted each month up to and
March 1965. Table 13 shows the yields and
l?» lts from these plantings. Plantings were made in
fes in October; the yields were good, but the
__-.- apparent purity, because of excessive nitrogen
A re, were not of acceptable levels. However, the
I of raw sugar in tons per acre was high because
‘ields. This indicates the potentials under proper
_.. agement. ’

tings were made" in five counties in November.
1;- of these plantings, Table 13, were not of
 quality, but some individual plantings were. A
rcentage of 15.4 was obtained in one planting
plunder an adequate level of management.

i‘ December plantings produced the highest quality

Table 13. Results from date of planting tests in 1964-65.
Figures in table are averages of all plantings for the
months listed

Yield in. Apparent Tons of
tons per Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
acre* % % % per acre

Month
planted

October 38.7 15.2 12.0 78.8 4.63
November 26.0 15.3 11.9 77.9 2.93
December 20.8 17.2 14.1 82.3 2.93
January 17.9 15.7 11.5 73.9 2.04
February 11.5 15.6 12.2 78.9 1.40

March 8.2 14.1 13.1 80.0 1.13

*A11 plots were harvested during the period June 14 to 19, 1965.

beets. Although yields were not high, the sucrose and
apparent purity percentages were acceptable for milling.
Some of the beets were in the medium and high range of
nitrate nitrogen as determined by the leaf-petiole test.
Excessive rainfall during January, February and March
1965 with relatively cold weather limited the growth of
these plantings.

The failure of the January 1965 plantings to reach
maturity by the mid-June harvest date is reflected in the
low yields and sucrose and apparent purity percentages.
Excessive rainfall and cold weather limited the growth of
these beets during January, February and March. Rainfall
measured about 20 inches, and frost occurred several times.
Hail damaged the beets during February.

The February plantings did not make adequate
growth during the early spring because of adverse weather
conditions and the short growing period. These beets did
not mature before the June harvest date, and the yield,
sucrose and apparent purity were quite low.

The March plantings were quite similar to the
February plantings. They did not mature by the mid-June
harvest date. These beets were growing well when harvested
and, consequently, were not expected to produce high
quality beets at that time. Subsequent tests made in the fall
of 1965 indicated that March plantings would produce
good yields of high-quality beets for fall harvest.

Results of date-of-planting tests indicate that beets
can be established in the winter months in the San
Antonio-Winter Garden area. Plantings can be made
through December and produce beets of acceptable yields
and quality for harvest in midsummer. Management of
fertilizer, particularly nitrogen, and water are the critical
factors in beet production. Plantings made in January,
February and March will not mature before early fall and
will require a high level of management to produce good
quality beets then. Management of crops preceding the
beets in the rotation will be critical in that they should
utilize most of the available nitrogen in the soil so that
exact amounts can be applied to the beet crop.

Table 14 shows the yields and analyses of the
sugar-beet varieties grown in six counties. These sugar beets
were planted in October and November 1964 and harvested
in July 1965. The variety 302 H had the highest percent
sucrose in five of the eight tests in which it appeared. The
variety S-5 performed well in all of the nine tests. Six of the

17

nine tests contained at least one variety that produced sugar
beets of acceptable quality. Plantings in five of the six
counties produced sugar beets of acceptable quality.

Table 15 shows the results from the variety and
date-of-planting plots. The yield, sucrose and apparent
purity varied directly with the management the sugar beets
received. On the well-drained soils in which the nitrogen
was reduced to a low level, the sugar beets were of
acceptable quality.

In Table 16 the varieties are grouped to show variety
performance in each county. Results again emphasize the
management factor in sugar-beet production. Variety 302 H
was the best performer in the tests, producing the highest
percentages of both sucrose and apparent purity. The
individual varieties performed as was expected under the
management they received.

SUMMARY

In the 1964-65 season, 50 trials and demonstrations
were conducted at 18 locations in 11 counties. A total of
1,237 samples were analyzed for sucrose and apparent
purity. The average yield of beets sampled from all
locations was 26.36 tons per acre with an average sucrose
content of 14.8 percent and an apparent purity of 85.07
percent.

Wide ranges in yields and qualities, however,
indicated critical requirements for soil, crop and water
management. Yields and qualities, both high and low, were
generally readily related to and identifiable with manage-
ment factors. The demonstration plots in Atascosa,
Dimmit, Maverick and Zavala counties illustrate the range

Table 14. Yield and analysis of sugar beet variety tests in six counties

in 1965
County Yield Apparent Tons of
and tons Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
Grower Variety per acre % % % Per dfire
Bexar 737 30.08 14.13 11.31 79.04 3.40
Van De Walle S-2 35.27 11.77 9.14 77.66 3.22
302 H 30.08 16.74 13.92 83.15 4.19
S-5 33.38 12.32 9 28 75 32 3.56
S-l 32 16 11.95 8 99 75 23 2.89
0immit S-5 31 07 19 03 17 19 90 37 5 34
Oelkers S-1 32.01 15.91 13.27 83.45 4.25
S-2 33 64 15 81 13 20 86 45 4-44
302 H 30 14 17 14 14 87 86 75 4.48
Hays S-1 18 16 15.04 12.33 82 34 2 24
Chesser 302 H 20 12 16.77 14.65 87 39 2 95
S-5 24 54 16.47 13.56 82 33 3.33
S-2 23 80 15.31 13.09 82 77 3.12
Frio S-5 39 23 ll 29 8 27 73.43 3 24
K. Yeager S-1 40 19 10 68 8 34 78.10 3 35
S-2 45 38 12 23 9 72 79.65 4 41
S-3 40 97 11 66 8 24 70.40 3 38
737 44 86 ll 23 7 83 69.86 3 51
LaSa11e S-5 39 41 15.79 11.97 74 72 4.72
Favor 5-1 2e 52 15.80 11.61 73 64 3 32
S-2 28 52 15.73 11.10 70 64 3 17
302 H 39 15 15.68 11.63 73 39 4 51
LaSa11e s-1 22 30 20 14 17 67 87 as 3.94
Culley 302 H 28 27 20 72 18 20 88 12 5.15
S-5 25 93 19 10 16 83 88 06 4.36
S-2 32 67 21 57 18 18 84 32 5.94
Wilson 302 H 16 15 17.77 16.25 91 66 2 62
gann S-1 15 89 17.03 14.65 86 02 2 33
S-2 25 23 16.91 14.36 84 99 3 62
S-5 18 46 16.91 15.01 88 71 2 77
Wilson 5-1 15 30 16.12 14.06 87 11 2 15
Higgins 302 H 24 89 15.83 13.80 85 72 3 43
S-5 23 86 16.53 14.21 85 98 3 39
S-2 25 93 15.61 13.86 88 23 3 59
Wilson S-2 26 45 15 02 13.20 87 88 3 49
V. Yeager S-1 20 22 13 34 11.02 82 61 2 23
S-5 34 22 16 80 12.62 75 12 4 32
302 H 28 52 14 54 14.07 96 77 4 01

18

Table 15. Yield and analysis of sugar beet varieties in date of N
Result Demonstrations - 1965 J

County Yield
and tons Brix Sucrose
Grower Variety per acre % %

November, 1964

Maverick 302 H l9.00* 19.90 17.55
Pendell S-1 19.00* 18.53 16.10
S-2 19.00* 18.58 15.37
S-5 19.00* 18.07 14.37
Maverick S-1 15.42 13.10 10.88
Weyrick s-2 20.56 12}so 9.96
302 H 26.16 ]14!43 11.46
I January, 1965
Maverick 302 H 19.00* 17.83 14.09
Pendell S-1 19.00* 17.49 14.50
S-2 19.00* 17.95 14.79
S-5 l9.00* 16.68 12.18
Maverick S-1 24.29 15.27 11.46
Weyrick S-2 21.49 15.15 12.91
S-5 26.16 14.19 11.31
302 H 23.36 15.74 13.05
Wilson 302 H 14.95 17.49 16.10
Gann S-1 12.15 17.95 16.24
S-2 11.68 17.60 16.10
S-5 19.62 16.44 14.65
March‘ 1965
Maverick 302 H 19.00* 16.80 13.78
Pendell S-1 19.00* 16.80 13.49
S-2 19.00* 16.91 12.62
S-3 19.00* 16.80 14.65
S-5 19.00* 16.56 13.34
Maverick S-1 12.15 14.54 11.60
Weyrick S-2 15.88 14.03 11.75
S-3 14.02 13.11 10.44
S-5 13.08 14.27 10.88
302 H 12.15 14.98 11.89

*Estimated yield
**Calculated from estimated yield

Table 16. Yield and analysis of sugar beet varieties in the varir

Yield
County Grower tons Brix Sucrose pu
per acre
Variety S-1
Bexar Van De Walle 32.16 11.95 8.99
Dimmit Oelkers 32.01 '15.91 13.27
Hays Chesser 18.16 15.04 12.33
Frio K. Yeager 40.19 10.68 8.34
LaSa11e Favor 28.52 15.80 11.68
LaSa1le Gulley 22.30 20.14 17.67
Wilson Gann 15.89 17.03 14.65
Wilson Higgins 15.30 16.12 14.06
Wilson V. Yeager 20.22 13.34 11.02
Average 24.94 15.11 12.45
Variety S-2
Bexar Van De Walle 35.27 11.77 9.14
Dimmit Oelkers 33.64 15.81 13.20
Hays Chesser 23.80 15.81 13.09
Frio K. Yeager 45.38 12.23 9.72
LaSa11e Favor 28.52 15.73 11.10
LaSa11e Gulley 32.67 21.57 18.18
Wilson Gann 25.23 16.91 14.36
Wilson Higgins 25.93 15.61 13.86
Wilson V. Yeager 26.45 15.02 13.20
Average 30.77 15.61 12.88
Variety S-5
Bexar Van De Walle 33.38 12.32 9.28
Dimmit Oelkers 31.07 19.03 17.19
Hays Chesser 24.54 16.47 13.56
Frio K. Yeager 39.23 11.29 8.27
LaSa11e Favor 39.41 15.79 11.97
LaSal1e Gulley 25.93 19.10 16.83
Wilson Gann 18.46 16.91 15.01
Wilson Higgins 23.86 » 16.53 14.21
Wilson V. Yeager 34.22 16.80 12.62
Average 30.01 17.76 13.22
Variety 302 H
Bexar Van De Walle 30.08 16.74 13.92
Dimmit Oelkers 30.14 17.14 14.87
Hays Chesser 20.12 16.77 14.65
LaSa11e Favor 39.15 15.68 11.63
LaSa11e Gulley 28.27 20.72 18.20
Wilson Gann 16.15 17.77 16.25
Wilson Higgins 24.89 15.83 13.80
Wilson Yeager 28.52 14.54 14.07
Average 27.17 16.90 14.67
Variety 737
Bexar Van De Walle 30.08 14.13 11.31
Frio K. Yeager 44.86 11.23 7.83
Average 37.47 12.68 9.57
Variety S-3
Frio K. Yeager 40.97 11.66 8.24

 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  
   
  
 
  
 
 
  

Q = and quality of sugar beets to be expected
* t levels of management. These data are
l Table 17. The adaptability of beets for
 se in the area was clearly demonstrated;
‘y ess was made toward determining varieties,
7 netic stocks of most efficient performance.
 1965-1966

A _ III 1 T€S|ZS

bf planting tests were planted in 9 of the 13
u San Antonio-Winder Garden Area. The three
u‘ H, 737 and H-l0—and were grown on eight of
 types found in the area. There were from one
its in each county. Results are summarized in
j“ sults of the individual tests may be obtained
1L. Whiteley, Department of Soil and Crop
 A&M University.

 were date-of-planting tests at two locations in
flunty. At one location, half of the test was on a
, e sandy loam and the other half on Miguel fine
‘f; The yields from this test were not high but
“been increased by the addition of nitrogen. The
 tent was about 14 percent for the three
‘made in July, August and September and
1 March 1966.

* 0nd test in Atascosa County was planted on
A sandy loam. Plantings were made in November,
and January and harvested in July 1966. Beet
_ not adequate for yield samples, but samples
 for laboratory analyses. The nitrate levels in the

[time of harvest.

N te-of-planting tests in Bexar County were made
f1 tions on two soil types. The test on Houston
iwas planted in July, August and September and
'  March 1966. The July test produced good
_ due to severe infestations of Cercospora leaf
‘August and September plantings did not. The
=1 tent of beets from all three planting dates was
for milling. These beets did not completely
 soil nitrogen prior to harvest and were in the
A ge when harvested.

beets grown on Lewisville silty clay were planted
ust, September and October and were harvested
'_ and July 1966. These plantings followed
i and the soil contained a high level of nitrogen in
l 2 feet of the profile. Yields in this test were
tons per acre, but the sucrose content was around
t. Cercospora leaf spot caused severe damage to
{and such damage would tend to lower the sucrose

f’ test in Dimmit County on Blanco silty clay loam
L; high yields (fabove 3O tons per acre) of low
l‘- iets. These beets followed vegetables and failed to
q nitrate nitrogen level below the medium range
if. growing season. Cercospora leaf spot caused
i‘ ge; the beets were defoliated several times prior
i, . Plantings were made in September and October
_ ted in June.

f‘; high, and sucrose levels were at a maintenance

Table 17. Yield and analysis of sugar beet demonstration plots in four counties

County Yield Apparent Tons of
and Variety Tons Brix Sucrose Purity Sugar
Grower Per Acre % % ° Per Acre

Atascosa

Muckleroy 302 H 23.85 14.89 12.81 81.81 2.90

Dimmit

Stahl 302 H 18.00 18.75 15.52 82.76 2.79

Maverick

Pittman 302 H 25.95 9.56 6.96 72.82 1.80

Zavala

Carnes 302 H 34.57 16.10 14.00 86.92 4.84

Zavala

Maedgen 302 H 27.10 15.89 13.16 83.56 3.57
Average 25.90 15.04 12.36 81.66 3.18

Table 18. The performance of the varieties 302H, 737 and H—lO
at seven dates of plafltiflgin 1955-55

Date of Yield Brix Sucrose Apparent Tons of
Planting in tons % % purity raw sugar
per acre* % per acre
July 21.86 17.24 14.93 85.25 3.26
August 17.80 17.77 14.84 83.23 2.64
September 20.55 14.58 12.91 86.15 2.65

October 22.41 17.28 11.42 88.62 2.56
November 10.74 17.28 15.28 88.40 1.60
January 22.43 12.86 11.85 90.58 2.66

March 9.97 15.22 13.44 88.32 1.34

* Test plots were harvested from February to July inclusive.

The test in Frio County was on Duval fine sandy
loam and was planted in July, August and September and
harvested in February 1966. The yield from the July
planting was 22.8 tons per acre with 17.3 percent sucrose
and an apparent purity of 89.3 percent. The yields from the
August and September plantings were lower than
anticipated, but the sucrose content was about l8 percent.
These beets were not thinned to a proper spacing in the
row. Cercospora leaf spot and curly top caused some
damage. The nitrate nitrogen level in the leaf petiole was
reduced to a low level about 2 weeks before harvest.

Beets were planted on five dates on Montell clay in
Uvalde County. Beets planted in August and September
were harvested in February, and those planted in
September, October and March were harvested in June. The
yields from plantings made in August and harvested in
February were good, and the sucrose content was fair.
Yields from the September planting were good, and the
sucrose level was adequate for milling. Yields from the
March planting were quite low, but the sucrose level was
near that required for economical milling.

The tests in Wilson County were grown on Webb fine
sandy loam. Plantings were made in July, September and
November and harvested in early June. Yields were not as
high as expected, but sucrose levels were acceptable. The
yields could have been adjusted upward by better manage-
ment, particularly thinning at an early date, application of
more nitrogen and better use of irrigation water.

The beets grown in Zavala County on Uvalde silty
clay were planted in September, October and January and
harvested in July. Yields from these plantings were good,
but the sucrose level was low. Several factors contributed to

19

the low sucrose content; among these Cercospora leaf spot,
improper thinning and high level of nitrogen in the soil
were the most important.

The data from all the date-of-planting tests, presented
in Table 18, reflect the influence of management on the
yield and quality of sugar beets. The three varieties grown
were not developed for planting in this area. However, given
proper management, they will perform quite well. Plantings
made in September and October, when harvested in
February 0r March, produced quite low yields and were low
in sucrose. Plantings made in July and August and harvested
in February and March produced good yields of high-
quality beets.

The data for the three varieties at four dates of
planting are presented in Table l9. The dates are averages
from all locations and all harvest dates and cover the
6-month period from February to July inclusive. Most of
the harvests were made in June and July when sugar beets
would be least expected to produce high-quality beets.
However, under high levels of management, good yields of
high-quality beets were produced.

Variety Tests

Nine variety tests were planted in July, August,
September, October and November. Then consisted of nine
varieties replicated four times. Harvests were made in
February, March, June and July. No beets were harvested in
April and May because of severe infestations of Cercospora
leaf spot in most of the tests.

The test in Uvalde County, grown on Montell clay,
was planted August 6, 1965, and harvested February 26,
1966. Data from this test are shown in Tables 20 and 21.
Yields were lower than desirable, but the quality factors
were good. Cercospora leaf spot and curly top caused some
damage. The nitrogen level, as determined by the leaf
petiole test, was in the medium range. Results indicate that
beets of good quality can be harvested in the winter
months.

The variety test in Frio County, grown on Duval fine
sandy loam, was planted July 27, 1965, and harvested
February 28, 1966. The yields were good but could have
been improved by proper spacing in the row. Cercospora
leaf spot and curly top caused some damage. The quality of

Table 19. The yield and quality of three sugar beet varieties in
the date of planCing tests in 1965-66

Apparent Tons of
Date of tons per Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
p1antiQg_ acre per acre

Variety 302 H
July 18.86 17.56 15.03 85.40 2.77
August 15.16 16.11 13.27 82.33 2.01
September 22.72 14.53 12.47 86.45 2.43
October 24.05 11.37 10.08 88.91 2.37
Average 20.20 14.89 12.71 85.77 2.40
Variety 737
July 20.51 16.80 14.03 84.20 2.84
August 17.31 18.41 15.74 83.77 2.61
September 20.86 14.37 12.27 85.47 2.31
October 19.27 15.05 13.35. 88.85 2.47
Average 19.49 16.16 13.85 85.57 2.58
Variety H-10
July 26.49 16.38 13.78 84.07 3.57
August 19.30 17.91 14.91 83.00 2.82
September 21.65 _ 14.21 12.24 86.28 2.42
October 24.39 10.58 9.32 87.97 2.21
Average 22.96 14.77 12.56 85.33 2.76

20

 
   
 
  
   
   
  
  
    
    
 
    

the beets was excellent, and better management ~=

increased yields and improved or maintained l
The laboratory and field data from the test are p ;
Tables 22 and 23.

The test in Zavala County was grown on p,
clay loam. Yields were below the desired level L.
have been increased by increasing the nitrogen p,
Quality factors of the beets were excellent and w:
with proper management, good"’oeets may be ,
the area in the early spring. The laboratory and f a
Tables 24 and 25 indicate the potential of this soil i
beet production. f

Two variety tests were grown in Bexar Co i
test, grown on Houston Black clay following
was severely damaged by Cercospora leaf spot. 
was so severe that the beets were defoliated twi i‘
time a few weeks prior to harvest. The yield 

Table 20. Laboratory data from the variety test on Otto Strubfl 3
Uvalde County, planted August 6, 1965; harvested Fe '

26, 1966
Yield in Apparent
Variety tons per Brix Sucrose purity raw '
acre % % %
5-2 15 90 18 10 15 O8 83 36 2. .
S-3 12 80 17 64 14 65 83 72 1.
S-S 16 83 16 l5 13 24 82 44 2._
202 H l3 40 18 41 15 38 83 41 2.
301 H 18 S0 15 97 13 2O 82 65 2.
737 15 41 17 46 14 87 84 59 2.
H—2 14 03 16 82 14 21 82 45 1.
l-l—4 17 19 17 49 14 51 82 73 2.
H—10 16.60 17 78 14.90 83.84 2.
LSD(0.05) 5.85 1.16 1.16 2.87 1'»;

Table 21. Field data from the variety test on Otto Strube Fan 
planted August 6, 1965; harvested February 26, 1966 ‘

wt. of Wt. of Tons of No. 0f F10
Variety beets plus beets- TopzRoot tops/ beets/ brix
tops-pounds pounds ratio acre foot i a
S-2 42.75 16.75 1:0.64 24.29 3.00 '5
S-3 35.00 13.50 l:0.63 20.09 1.82 
S-S 49.38 17.75 1:0.56 29.55 2.04 
202 H 48.75 14.45 1:0.42 32.05 2.57 19. -
301 H 44.88 19.50 1:0.77 23.71 2.54 17.
737 46.88 16.25 l:0.53 28.62 2.14 18.,
H—2 53.13 16.50 1:0.45 34.23 2.68 18. '.
H—4 41.38 18.13 l:0.78 21.72 3.25 18. V’
H-10 44.50 17.50 1:0.65 25.23 2.75 l5. 
Average 45.18 16.71 l-O.6O 26.50 2.53 I‘,

Table 22. Laboratory analyses of samples from Peanut Growers ' v
Farm, planted July 27, 1965; harvested February 28, 1

Yield in Apparent Tone:
Variety tons per Brix Sucrose purity raw '

acre % % r
5-2 21.32 18.41 15.92 86.25 3. _
S-3 21.89 18.11 15.81 86.76 3. "
5-5 21.26 20.42 17.24 87.79 3.
202 H 21.00 21.12 18.35 86.96 3.
301 H 20.74 18.70 16.28 87.17 3.
737 16.27 20.63 17.58 88.59 2.
H-2 19.19 19.23 16.83 87.44 3.
H-4 21.00 20.38 18.06 88.52 3.,
H—l0 21.39 19.10 16.72 88.11 2.
LSD(0.05) 3.53 1.84 2.06 3.60 O.

Table 23. Field data from variety test in Peanut Growers Rese 
Farm, planted July 27, 1965; harvested February 29,

Wt. of wt. of Tons of No. o ~.
Variety beets plus beets- Top:Root tops/ beets/ ‘:
foot ~ .

tops-pounds pounds ratio acre

S—2 37.88 20 63 l:l.20 17.89 4.07
S-3 40.00 21 13 1:1.l2 19.57 3.46
S-5 35.50 20 5O 111.37 15.56 3.29 ‘
202 H 32.63 20 25 l:l.64 12.84 4.03
301 l-l 37.00 20 00 1:l.l8 17.63 4.18
737 28.25 15 75 1:l.26 12.96 2.75
H—2 32.50 18 50 l:1.32 14.52 3.93»
l-l-4 33.38 20 25 1:l.54 13.62 4.31
H-lO 34.88 2O 63 l:l.45 14.78 4.04

Average 34.67 17 74 1:l.34 15.49 3.78

  

i .J. Stacy, Zavala County, variety test, planted July 29,
, 1965; harvested March 3, 1966

‘ 1 Y eld in Apparent Tons of
tons per Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
acre % per acre
18.56 18.79 16.89 89.96 3.16
18.05 18.02 15.94 88.75 4.48
19.10 19.39 17.26 88.80 2.91
11.56 19.97 17.84 89.51 2.27
22.42 18.46 16.40 88.70 3.76
15.14 20.78 18.53 89.98 2.82
16.35 22.17 20.05 90.42 3.27
16.81 21.31 19.27 89.68 3.22
17.22 20.27 18.49 91.13 3.17
6.14 2.53 2.61 2.50 1.23

‘f lLJ. Stacy, Zavala County, variety test, planted July 29, 1965;
i: harvested March 3, 1966

1' “ . o Wt. of Tons of No. of Field

I beets plus beets- Top :Root tops/ beets/ brix

' t --- ds ounds ratio acre foot
51.83 19.33 l:l.55 11.68 1.81 19.03
44.00 28.00 l:1.75 14.95 0.71 18.98
40.75 20.75 l:l.04 18.69 1.29 20.85
26.67 13.67 1:l.05 12.15 1.52 20.70
35.25 19.25 l:l.20 14.95 1.36 18.78
32.00 17.50 1:1.2l 13.55 1.14 21.00
- - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - - -- ---— 21.68
29.50 14.33 1:0.94 14.17 1.48 21.55
35.50 16.50 1:0.87 17.75 1.57 20.30
34.44 18.67 l:l.20 14.73 1.36 20.32

Laboratory analyses of variety test on Van De Walle Farm,

V‘ Bexar County, planted July 27, 1965; harvested March 24, 1966

_* v m in

Apparent Tons of

' tons per Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar

‘ acre g % per acre
185.02 16.31 13.71 83.87 2.46
15.43 14.00 14.11 84.74 2.12
17.76 16.35 13.82 84.37 2.40
16.71 15.78 13.10 83.03 2.18
17.11 15.62 13.02 83.39 2.22
20.10 16.62 13.89 83.56 2.79
19.46 17.26 14.36 83.21 2.78
17.37 16.58 13.85 83.43 2.39
19.19 16.10 13.34 82.77 2.56
4.38 2.19 2.30 1.88 0.54

Field data from variety test on Van De Walle Farm, Bexar

" County, planted July 27, 1965; harvested March 24, 1966

l'.of

 

~ Wt. of Tons of No. of Field

ybeets plus beets- Top :Root tops/ beets/ brix

~ os unds ounds ratio acre foot %
28.38 17.38 1:1.93 9.33 1.64 16.25
22.88 14.88 1:1.B6 8.30 1.64 14.60
26.50 17.13 111.83 9.72 1.61 15.93
24.63 15.63 1:1.74 9.33 1.32 17.20
24.38 16.50 1:2.09 8.17 1.32 15.50
30.00 19.38 1:1.82 11.01 1.57 18.25
28.50 18.75 1:l.92 10.11 1.32 17.83
24.00 16.75 112.31 7.52 1.18 16.33
25.50 18.50 l:2.64 7.26 1.36 16.88
25.86 17.21 l:2.02 8.97 1.44 16.53

  

_ Laboratory data from variety test on Aelvoet Farm, Bexar
“ County, planted July 12, 1965; harvested March 25, 1966

eld 1n Apparent Tons of
tons per Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar

acre % '76 per acre
35.26 14.81 12.03 81.28 4.23
30.22 15.85 12.67 80.05 3.83
30.71 14.77 11.79 79.57 3.55
27.27 14.67 11.57 78.81 3.15
31.45 14.63 11.76 80.66 3.69
35.00 15.37 12.29 79.93 4.27
35.13 14.03 11.24 80.15 3.96
30.34 14.69 11.71 79.67 3.55
35.01 14.33 11.75 82.22 4.10
3.59 2.26 1.84 2.02 0.58

  

. Field data from variety test on Aelvoet Farm, Bexar County,
“ planted July 12, 1966

 
 

 

Wt. of Wt. of »,- . Tons of No. of Field
'— beets plus beets- Topfiloot tqps/ beets/ brix
* tos- nds pounds lratio acre foot
_ 49.88 35.88 1:2.56 13.76 2.04 14.95
‘ 41.75 30.75 l:2.80 10.56 1.71 15.60
' 44.88 31.25 122.29 13.40 1.86 15.63
42.50 27.75 l:1.88 15.72 2.00 15.08
45.13 32.00 l:2.44 12.90 1.75 14.65
53.88 35.63 1:l.95 17.94 1.79 16.50
55.38 35.75 l:l.82 19.23 1.75 14.80
43.63 30.88 1:2.42 12.53 1.86 15.65
47.25 35.63 l:3.07 11.42 2.07 16.55
47.14 32.84 l:2.36 14.16 1.87 15.49

content were reduced due to active growth of the beets at
harvest time. Data from this test are shown in Tables 26
and 27.

The other test in Bexar County, grown on Lewisville
silty clay, followed vegetables that had been heavily
fertilized. Results illustrate the combined effects of too
much nitrogen and severe infestation of Cercospora leaf
spot. The beets were planted July 12, 1965, and harvested
March 25, 1966. The data in Tables 28 and 29 indicate the
production potential of this soil; however, a very high level
of management will have to be employed to produce high
quality beets. Cercospora leaf spot completely defoliated
the beets in this test about 4 weeks prior to harvest.

The test in Atascosa County on Miguel, fine sandy
loam was one of the best conducted in the 1965-66
season. The test was planted October ll, 1965, and
harvested June 8, 1966. The production indicates the
potential of this soil for the sugar beets production.
Cercospora leaf spot and curly top caused no appreciable
damage. That the fertilzers and irrigation practices were
properly managed to produce good yields of high quality
beets is indicated by the data ir1 Tables 30 and 31. The
production and quality obtained in this test are believed to
be near what should be average for the area.

Two variety tests were conducted in Hays County on
Lewisville silty clay. The first test reported, Tables 32 and
33, was planted November 5, 1965, and harvested June ll,
1966. Results indicate that good beets can be produced on

Table 30. J. D. Starr, Atascosa County, variety test, planted
October 11, 1965; harvested June 8, 1966

Yield in Apparent Tons of
Variety tons per Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
acre % % per acre
S-2 28.39 17.76 15 70 88.34 4.47
S-3 29.17 18.15 16 06 88.46 4 68
S-5 29.30 16.72 14 83 88.63 4.28
202 H 28.26 16.28 14 32 87.97 3.98
301 H 24.63 16.75 14 87 88.73 3.66
737 25.73 18.00 15 99 88.80 4.09
H-2 25.02 17.68 15 77 89.15 4.06
H-4 27 48 15.53 13 63 87.79 3.73
H-10 26.32 16.52 14.40 87.09 3.89
LSD(0.05) 9.38 2.71 1.56 1.66 1.53
Table 31. J. D. Starr, Atascosa County, variety test, planted
October 11, 1965; harvested June 8, 1966
Wt. of Wt. of Tons of No. of Field
Variety beets plus beets- Top:Root tops/ beets/ brix
tops-pounds pounds ratio acre foot %
S-2 38.38 27 38 1:2.49 11.41 1.43 19.03
S-3 38.25 28 13 1:2.78 10.50 1.43 19.53
S-5 44.00 28 25 121.79 16.33 1.43 18.13
202 H 38.00 27.25 1:2.53 11.15 1.46 17.53
301 H 36.63 23.75 l:l.84 13.36 1.50 17.55
737 37.00 24.88 1:2.05 12.57 1.11 18.50
H-2 37.75 24.13 1:1.77 14.13 1.39 18.70
H-4 40.63 26.50 1:1.88 14.65 0.96 15.53
8-10 36.00 25.38 1:2.39 11.01 1.18 18.70
Average 38 52 26.18 122.17 12.79 1.32 18.13

Table 32. Southwest Texas State College, Hays County, variety test,
planted November 5, 1965; harvested June ll, 1966

Yield in Apparent Tons of

Variety tons per Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar

acre % per acre
S-2 19.90 17.43 15.26 87.54 2.99
S-3 17.57 17.34 15.19 87.58 2.67
S-5 21.52 17.72 15.52 87.50 3.34
202 H 19.04 19.01 16.89 88.54 3.22
301 H 20.64 17.40 15.34 88.11 3.17
737 16.87 17.37 15.26 87.87 2.57
H-2 21.25 18.09 15.95 88.16 3.39
H-4 23.59 18.68 16.54 88.62 2.89
H~10 23.22 19.19 16.82 87.65 3.91
LSD(0.0S) 4.24 1.45 1.51 1.77 0.59

21

this soil type under proper management. The yields might
have been increased by increasing the nitrogen application
and by planting at an earlier date.

The second test in Hays County on Lewisville silty
produced an average of 38.5 tons per acre of beets with a
sucrose content of 12.8 percent. Results indicate the
production potential of this soil. The beets were planted
September 15, 1965, and harvested June 16, 1966. The
variety S-3 was outstanding in the test producing 52.3 tons
of beets with 13.9 percent sucrose. Better control of
nitrogen fertilizer would have reduced the yield and
increased the sucrose content. Cercospora leaf spot and
curly top did not cause appreciable damage in this test.
Data are shown in Tables 34 and 35.

The variety test in Comal County, on Lewisville silty
clay, was planted October 23, 1965, and harvested July 5,
1966. The yield and quality factors shown in Tables 36 and
37 further emphasize the potential of this soil for sugar
beet production. Although the stand was not good,
adequate yields of good-quality beets were produced.
Cercospora leaf spot caused the loss of many of the leaves,
and subsequent regrowth reduced the level of sucrose.

The test in Medina County on Knippa silty clay was
planted October 28, 1965, and harvested June 30, 1966.
The results are presented in Tables 38 and 39. Yields were
good, but the quality factors were not adequate for milling.
Damage caused by Cercospora leaf spot is responsible, in
part, for the low sucrose content.

Table 40 summarizes the yield and quality factors of
the nine varieties grown in the 1966 variety tests. These
tests were conducted in eight counties and on seven soil
types. They represent the yields and quality that could be
expected from a medium to low. level of management.
Incomplete data on several other tests conducted in the
area are not included. In most cases yields were not
determined due to poor stands.

All varieties produced more than 21 tons of beets per
acre. Only one variety produced less than 14 percent

Table 33. Southwest Texas State College, Hays County, variety test,
planted November 5, 1965; harvested June 11, 1966

Wt. of Wt. of Tons of No. of Field

Variety beets plus beets— Top:Root tops/ beets/ brix

tops-pounds pounds ratio acre foot %

S-2 33.00 20 25 1 1 59 12.53 1 63 18.33
S-3 28.63 17 88 1 1 66 10.56 1 36 17.25
S-5 35.25 21 50 1 1 56 13.51 1 46 17.80
202 31.88 19 38 1 1 55 12.28 1 71 18.80
301 H 34.25 21 00 1 1 58 13.02 1 50 17.68
737 26.50 17 17 1 1 84 9.17 1 29 17.97
H-2 35.38 21 63 1 1 54 13.81 1 68 18.23
H-4 37.25 24 00 1 1 81 13.02 1 75 18.60
H-10 34.00 23 63 1 2 28 10.19 1 64 19.30
Average 32.90 20 72 1 1 71 12.01 1 56 18.22

Table 34. Robert Knispel, Hays County, variety test, planted September
15, 1965; harvested June 16, 1966

Yield in Apparent Tons of

Variety tons per Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
acre % per acre

S-2 32.68 15.05 13.34 86.95 4 32
S-3 52.29 16.04 13.87 86.99 7.26
S-5 43 45 13.01 11 22 86.31 4 84
202 H 30 82 14.72 12 83 87.17 3.94
301 H 42 02 13.59 11 88 87.49 5 01
737 39 92 13.76 12 00 87.19 4 78
H-2 30 82 16.50 14 44 87.47 4 49
H—4 30 82 14.66 12 66 86.33 3.90
H-10 43.42 15.13 13.09 86.51 5.62
LSD(0.05) 10.16 1.72 1.60 1.52 1 30

22

Table 35. Robert Knispel, Hays County, variety test, planted .
15, 1965; harvested June 16, 1966 ‘

   

 

 

Wt. of Wt. of Tons of No. o_
Variety beets plus beets- Top:Root tops/
t ops ~pounds pounds rat io acre

S-2 28.13 17.50 121.64 19.88 1.
S-3 38.50 28.00 1:2.67 19.62 1.
S-5 37.63 23.13 1:1.60 27.10 1.
202 H 26.50 16.50 1:1.65 18.69 1.
301 H 35.13 22.50 121.78 23.60 1.
737 31.88 21.38 1:2.04 19.62 1.
H-2 30.88 16.50 111.15 26.87 1.
H—4 25.25 16.50 1:1.89 16.35 1.
H-10 36.38 23.25 1:1.Y7 24.54 1.

Average 31.48 19.66 L;1.§0 21.81 1.

X‘
Table 36. Edwin Hanz, Jr. Comal County, variety test, planted _
23, 1965; harvested July 5, 1966

  

  

Yield in Apparent
Variety tons per Brix Sucrose purity
acre % %
S-2 28.01 15.03 13.13 87.20
S-3 23.82 15.80 13.49 85.26
S-5 25.06 16.50 14.43 87.46
202 H 23.59 16.85 15.09 87.04
301 H 29.48 15.81 13.78 88.56
H-2 24.33 17.17 15.01 88.74
H—4 21.90 16.90 14.90 88.21
H-10 21.45 17.03 15.63 89.24
302 H 28.26 15.46 13.54 87.48
LSD(0.05) 1.90 1.10 1.14 2.92

Table 37. Edwin Hanz, Jr., Comal County, variety test, p1ant_
23, 1965; harvested July 5, 1966 .

   

 

Wt. of Wt. of Tons of No. o ,-

Variety beets plus beets— Top:Root tops/
tgps;pounds pounds ratio acre

S-2 34.75 28.50 1:4.56 6.14
S-3 33.75 26.00 1:3.35 7.62
S-5 35.75 25.50 1:2.49 10.07
202 31.25 24.00 1:3.31 7.13
301 H 40.00 30.00 1:3.00 9.83
H-2 33.00 24.75 123.00 8.11
H—4 29.15 22.13 1:3.15 6.90
H— 0 — — - — - - — — - - - — - — — — ~ - - --
302 H 38 00 28.75 1:3.11 9.09
Average 34 46 26.20 1:3.25 8.11

Table 38. L. E. Pope, Medina County, variety test, planted t:

1965; harvested June 30, 1966

   

 

Yield in Apparent
Variety tons per Brix Sucrose purity
acre % %
S-2 25.93 13.56 13.00 84.76
S-3 28.73 14.09 12.29 87.02
5-5 25.35 13.06 11.79 87.04
202 H 25.23 14.65 12.55 85.44
301 H 28.62 13.79 11.68 84.52
737 26.86 13.91 11.82 85.36
H-2 23 12 13.32 11.28 84.52
H—4 30 37 14.22 12.15 85.38
302 H 24.65 13.92 11.78 84.64
LSD(0.05) 4.66 2.15 2.53 3.30

Table 39. L. E. Pope, Medina County, variety test, planted '3

1965; harvested June 30, 1966

   

Tons of No. 0 :

  

   

     

Wt. of Wt. of

Variety beets plus beets— Top:Root tops/ beets].

topsyounds pounds ratio acre foot t.
6-2 36.35 27.75 1:3.26 7.95 3.36 _i
6-3 42.88 30.75 1=2.s4 11.33 3.68 ;
6-5 38.75 27.13 1=2.33 10.86 3.46 __
202 a 37.25 27.00 1;2.63 9.58 3.64 ;
301 a 44.38 30.63 1=2.23 12.85 3.82 .
737 41 38 28.75 1.2.28 11.80 3.57 ’
11-2 36 75 24.75 112.06 11.21 3.25 
H—4 45.63 32.50 1=2.48 12.27 3.9 Y
302 H 35.00 24.88 1.2.46 9.46 3.1a »

Average 39.81 28.24 1=2.47 10.81 3.5

Table 40. Summary of variety

tests grown in 1966

Yield in Apparent
Variety tons per Brix Sucrose purity
acre % % %
5-2 24.40 16.53 14.40 85.95
S—3 25.00 16.50 14.41 85.93
5-5 25.03 16.41 14.11 85.99
202 H 21.69 17.15 14.79 85.79
301 H 25.56 16.07 13.82 86.00
737 23.57 17.11 14.72 86.46
H-2 22 63 17.20 14.90 86.12
H—4 23 64 17.06 14.80 86.14
H-10 25 53 16.78 14.48 86.14
Average 24.12 16.76 14.49 86.

 

  
 
  
  
    
  
   
 
  

A ‘eties had above 85 percent apparent
Q ly good averages indicate that standard
f. - ts will produce well in the area.

<1.

rolving genetic stocks and varieties,
 r counties and on four soil types,
4 V, vior of the genetic stocks with known

_’~ rcial varieties. The genetic stocks were
 Coe, J. S. McFarlane and J. O. Gaskill of
if» nt of Agriculture. These materials have
 needed to develop a hybrid variety for
‘Winter Garden area, and their adaptation
W died in these tests.

n,

1965, harvested March 17, 1966

The study in Bexar County, grown on Houston Black
clay, was planted July 27, 1965 , and harvested March 17,
1966. The test consisted of 50 entries in a randomized
block replicated six times. The results are presented in
Tables 41 and 42. The beets in this test were severely
damaged by Cercospora leaf spot with heavy subsequent
defoliation about 6 weeks prior to harvest. A heavy
regrowth of leaves, occurring in the 4-5 weeks immediately
preceding harvest, reduced both the yield and the sucrose
content of the beets. The nitrate level in the leaf petioles
was in the medium range about 20 days prior to harvest and
too high for the accumulation of maximum levels of
sucrose in the beet roots. The average, however, for the 50
entries was 14.72 percent sucrose which is adequate for
processing. '

2 Yield and quality of sugar beets - Henry Van De walle Farm, Bexar County, planted July 27,

 
 

 
  
  
 
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
    
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
 

Apparent Tons of

Variety or Number Tons Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar

per acre % % % per acre
H2 16.60 16.34 13.59 83.14 2.23
H2 (triploid) 18.41 16.53 14.10 85.44 2.60
H6 (triploid) 14.44 17.42 14.72 84.56 2.08
H7 17.63 16.80 14.17 84.30 2.49
6» H7 (triploid) 14.81 17.23 14.53 84.47 2.14
;569Hox563)X663 17.81 17.93 14.94 83.15 2.68
“ 62HoX546)X464 19.46 15.00 12.58 83.89 2.45
63noX550)X464 20.48 15.40 12.67 82.25 2.58
4 H8 11.75 14.77 12.49 84.63 1.44
4569noX563)XNB7 11.41 15.65 13.20 84.38 1.51
,i562a0X546)XN87 12.36 15.07 12.59 83.96 1.53
*K562HOX569)X3425 14.87 17.30 14.04 83.66 2.06
‘ 75 15.65 16.38 13.51 82.66 2.09
1 H 16.77 16.74 13.92 83.15 2.33
6551-0 15.99 17.27 14.39 83.39 2.30
64100-03 12.71 18.66 15.78 84.47 1.98
SP 64100-05 15.90 17.30 14.59 83.63 2.31
¥§P 64194-0 17.89 18.40 15.60 84.59 2.81
623356-04 33 21.78 17.65 14.10 83.30 3.08
;§P 623358-04 3n 21.87 16.54 14.19 86.00 3.07
*$P 623358-06 35 17.81 17.99 15.11 83.90 2.68
;SP 623359-010 19.10 18.41 15.50 84.28 2.96
:$L126XsP5460-0 16.42 17.76 14.86 83.59 2.44
;SL(126X128)XsP5460-0 17.81 17.73 14.99 84.33 2.65
§SL(126X128)XsP5822-0 18.17 17.86 14.94 83.47 2.70
¢P62-569H3XsP5460-0 18.50 17.62 14.79 83.89 2.73
§P62-569H3XsP5822-0 16.77 17.35 14.46 83.74 2.42
gus 401 20.14 17.33 14.45 83.39 2.90
asp 5822-0 14.18 18.03 15.18 83.99 2.15
,1 H6 18 24 17.32 14.62 84.25 2.67
.SL (129X133) X SP 5822-0 17 31 17.07 14.21 83.13 2.48
f;GT SXSP 5822-0 17 98 16.59 14.04 84.73 2.47
;§L (129X133) X SP 6322-0 17 89 17.00 14.19 83.48 2.54
-SP 6051-0 13.12 17.25 14.84 85.45 1.92
FPO 502XsP 6051-0 15.47 18.26 15.42 84.45 2.36
‘;rc 502xMcParlane*s 663 17.37 18.75 15.91 84.61 2.77
1(Pc 502/2 X PC 503) X SP 5822-0 17.89 18.96 16.22 85.34 2.97
.1(PC 502/2 X PC 503) X SP 59818-0 17.72 18.82 15.91 84.57 2.80
§%Pc 502/2 X PC 504) X SP 59818-0 19.19 18.94 16.00 84.40 3.07
‘8(PC 502/2 X PC 503) X SP 621160-00 15.56 19.66 16.68 84.85 2.59
',(Pc 502/2 X SP 58119461) X SP62ll60—O0 18.65 20.82 17.79 85.40 3.29
f(PC 502/2 X PC 504) X SP 621160-00 14.64 19.18 16.17 84.31 2.37
_§(sP 581194s1 X PC 504) X SP 6221160-00 16.08 18.65 15.69 84.05 2.52
,;(Pc 502/2 X PC 503) X PC 901 18.41 18.61 15.86 85.13 2.92
; (PC 502/2 X PC 504) X PC 901 17.29 17.66 14.79 83.69 2.56
f~(PC 502/2 X PC 503) X s-62-16(4g) 17.01 18.50 15.46 83.54 2.62
2 H10 18.53 17.93 14.74 83.45 2.73
4 302-H 17.37 16.61 13.90 83.52 2.40
f'HH4 14.09 16.39 13.59 83.97 1.91
j‘202 H 14.61 18.01 15.02 83.32 2.17
;,LSD(0.05) 3.46 1.63 1.48 1.91 0.51

 

 

23

Table 42. "Field data on sugar beets — Henry Van De walle Farm, Bexar County, planted July 27, la

harvested, March 23, 1966

  

 
    

  
 
 
 
  
   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 

Total wt. Wt. of Top:Root Tons of No. of Fiel-1
Line Variety number of beets beets ratio beets/ beets/ brix 5
No. gplus tops acre foot %
1 us H2 23.3 16.0 1=2.19 7.57 1.29 17.0 ‘
2 US H2 (triploid) 23.3 17.8 1:3.24 5.70 1.14 17.3
3 US H6 (triploid) 18.8 13.9 1:2.84 5.08 1.45 17.6
4 US H7 22.6 17.0 1:3.09 5.81 1.17 16.7
5 US H7 (triploid) 16.3 12.7 1:3.53 3.73 0.88 17.7 3
6 , (569HOX563)x663 22.0 14.8 1:2.06 7.47 1.17 17.4 3
7 (562HOx546)x464 24.1 18.8 1:3.55 5.50 1.12 15.4 Q
8 (563HOx550)x464 24.5 19.8 l:l.16 4.87 1.43 16.3 i
9 US H8 15.2 11.3 1:2.90 4.04 1.00 15.5 .
10 (569HOX563)xNB7 14.7 11.0 1:2.97 3.84 1.31 15.5 5
11 (562HOX546)xNB7 15.0 11.9 112.59 3.22 1.00 15.1
12 (562HOx569)X3425 20.3 14.3 1:2.38 6.22 1.19 16.7
13 US 75 20.5 15.3 1:2.94 5.39 1.24 17.5
14 301 H 21.8 16.2 1:2.89 5.81 1.07 16.8
15 SP 6551-0 23.0 15.4 1:2.03 7.88 1.17 18.0 5
16 SP 64100-03 16.8 12.3 1:2.73 4.67 1.26 18.8 i
17 SP 64100-05 20.6 15.3 1:2.89 5.50 1.21 17.7 ;
18 SP 64194-0 25.3 17.3 l:2.l1 8.50 0.98 18.7 1
19 SP 623356-04 3Q 29.7 21.0 1:2.41 9.02 1.17 17.8 fl
20 SP 623358-04 3n 33.0 21.1 l:1.77 12.34 0.98 17.1 9
21 SP 623358-06 3Q 26.3 17.2 1:1.89 9.44 1.14 17.2
22 SP 623359-010 27.5 18.4 1:2.02 9.44 1.14 19,1
23 SLl26xSP5460-0 24.6 15.8 1:l.80 9.13 1.26 18.2
24 SL(126X128)xSP5460-0 26.3 17.3 1:1.92 9.33 1.38 18.6
25 SL(126x128)XSP5822—0 26.9 17.6 1:1.89 9.65 1.10 17.7
26 F62-569H3xSP5460-0 27.0 17.8 1:1.93 9.54 1.26 17.6
27 F62-569H3xSP5822—0 25.3 16.2 1:1.78 9.44 1.26 17.5
28 US 401 29.1 1914 1:2.00 10.06 1.14 17.6
29 SP 5822-0 21.9 13.5 1:1.61 8.71 1.17 18.5
30 US H6 24.5 17.6 l:2.55 7.16 1.12 17.3
31 SL (129x133)XSP5822—0 24.9 15.1 1:1.54 10.16 1.40
32 GT5xSP5822-0 26.9 17.3 1:1.84 9.96 1.07
33 SL(129x133)xSP6322-0 26.8 17.3 1:1.82 9.85 1.36
34 SP6051-0 20.9 12.7 1:1.55 8.50 1.29
35 PC502xSP6051-0 25.3 14.9 1:l.43 10.79 0.86
36 PC502xMcFar1ane's 663 24.5 16.8 1:2.18 7.99 1.02
37 (PC502/2xPC503)xSP5822—0 27.2 17.3 1:l.75 10.27 1.17
38 (PC502/2XPC503)XSP59B18-0 25.9 17.1 1:1.94 9.13 1.26
39 (FC502/2XFC504)xSP59B18-0 27.8 18.6 1:1.84 9.54 1.50
40 (FC502/2XFC503)xSP621160—00 25.3 15.1 1:l.48 10.58 1.21
41 (PC502/2XSP581194S1)XSP621160-00 28.1 18.1 1:l.81 10.37 1.19
42 (PC502/2xFC504)xSP621160-00 21.8 12.5 l:1.34 9.65 0.88
43 (SP581l94SlxFC504)XSP62ll60-00 23.9 15.5 1:1.85 8.71 1.48
44 (FC502/2xPC503)XFC901 28.3 17.8 l:1.70 10.89 1.29
45 (FC502/2xFC504)XFC901 25.8 "16.7 1:1.84 9.44 1.21
46 (FC50?/2XFC503)XS-62-l6(4Q) 24.4 15.9 1:1.87 8.82 0.93
47 HH10 24.1 17.8 1:2.83 6.53 1.38
48 302-H 24.1 16.8 1:2.30 7.57 1.19
49 HH4 19.3 13.6 1:2.39 5.91 1.36
50 202 H 20.1 14.1 1:2.35 6.22 1.05
Average 23.71 16.10 l:2.19 7.90 1.19
The test in Dimmit County, grown on Blanco silty in the soil. This test contained 38 

clay loam, was planted August 17, 1965, and harvested
April 2, 1966. Damage from curly top was light, but
Cercospora leaf spot was moderate to severe depending on
the line or variety involved. The nitrate nitrogen content of
the leaf petioles was in the medium range at harvest which
is too high for the production of beets with a high sucrose
content. The data in Tables 43 and 44 indicate that these
beets were not quite mature at the time of harvest.
However, evaluation of the lines was possible, and this was
the primary objective of the test.

The test in LaSalle County was grown on Duval fine
sandy loam; this soil was irrigated from a well containing
some salts, and some evidence of salt damage was apparent

24

   
    
    
 
  
  
  

randomized block design was replicated six y
and sucrose content were lower than desirab a
lines produced adequate sucrose levels. Cerc  ‘
caused light damage to this test but was not a ~¥
in the production levels obtained. The nitrate 
in the leaf petioles at the time of harvest was in,
range and was, in part, responsible for the
levels. Adverse soil conditions, along withl
irrigation, were the primary factors in the low}
results are presented in Tables 45 and 46.

The test in Uvalde County, grown on 
was planted October 26, 1965, and harves
1966. It included 38 entries and was a rand

» Yield and quality data on sugar beets — Jack Bowman Farm, Dimmit County, planted
;§ August 17, 1965; harvested April 2, 1966

   
    
 
   
  

Apparent Tons of
Variety or Number Tons Brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
per acre % % % per acre

%‘U$ H2 20.02 14.65 12.41 84.13 2.49

_ us n2 (triploid) 20.74 15.32 12.64 93.79 2.66

":03 H6 (triploid) 22.51 15.82 13.37 84.33 2.98

US H7 19.50 16.48 13.95 84.38 2.65

US H7 (triploid) 23.54 14.83 12.55 83.82 2.94

(569HOX563)X663 22.40 15.16 12.70 83.78 2.86

5 (562HOX546)X464 21.26 16.20 13.61 83.85 2.85

F‘(563HOX550)464 19.81 15.03 12.55 82.62 2.46

5 US H8 . 19.19 15.55 13.20 84.63 2.53

(569HOX563)XNB7 19.02 16.01 13.92 84.36 2.61

(562HOX546)XNB7 15.45 16.73 14.17 84.53 2.13

(562HOX569)X3425 19.19 15.98 13.44 84.03 2.55

‘ US 75 17.84 14.75 12.27 83.12 2.20

301 H 20.53 16.05 13.46 83.89 2.73

SP 6551-0 16.70 15.03 12.58 83.67 2.07

SP 64100-03 14.11 16.90 14.31 84.47 1.99

4; SP 64100-05 17.01 16.94 14.39 84.72 2.41

* SP 64194-0 18.05 14.59 12.30 84.38 2.22

SP 623356-04 3Q 19.50 “ 15.12 12.62 83.45 2.45

f SP 623358-04 3Q 18.57 14.44 12.04 83.34 2.21

‘. SP 623358-06 3n 21.26 14.23 11.87 83.32 2.53

SP 623359-010 17.32 16.30 13.80 84.65 2.37

SLl26xSP5460-0 16.96 14.44 12.11 84.03 ' 2.08

SL(126X128)xSP5460-0 18.05 14.87 12.43 83.43 2.25

SL(126X128)XSP5822—0 19.81 15.30 12.79 83.60 2.53

P62-569H3xSP5460-0 19.40 15.39 12.88 83.64 2.50

P62-569H3XSP5822-0 17.94 14.92 12.54 84.06 2.17

US 401 18.98 14.80 12.42 83.94 2.32

I“ SP 5822-0 16.60 14.54 12.16 83.55 2.00

“ us H6 17.32 16.39 13.96 64.40 2.39
T 19.50 16.16 13.66 94.40 2.62
Q5 X SP 5822-0 21.57 15.07 13.03 84.26 2.80
b}(129Xl33) X SP 6322-0 18.97 17.32 14.75 84.40 2.73
§ , 20.01 14.04 11.70 83.27 2.32
\§S02XSP 6051-0 12.45 _ 17.18 14.36 84.54 1.78
p§S02xMcFar1ane's 663 17.74 15.75 13.23 83.93 2.35
; 502/2XFC 503) XSP 5822-0 15.45 16.32 13.71 83.94 2.11
; 502/2XFC 503) XSP 59B18-0 14.73 15.96 13.47 84.31 1.98
, S02/2xFC 504) xSP 59B18-0 19.60 15.75 13.32 84.40 2.55
p 502/2XFC'503) xSP 621160-00 13.17 17.50 14.94 84.81 1.86
‘V, S02/2XSP 581194SL) X SP 621160-00 15.56 18.87 16.16 85.31 2.42
. S02/2xPC 504) x SP 621160-00 15.97 17.46 14.86 85.47 2.32
' 581194SLxFC 504) xSP 621160-00 16.29 16.77 14.29 84.79 2.24
502/2XPC 503) X PC 901 16.39 16.96 14.38 84.78 2.33
502/2XFC 504) X PC 901 17.84 16.415 13.83 83.86 2.49
A S02/2XFC 503) X S-62-16 (42) 18.05 15.32 12.86 83.91 2.31
IO 18.69 13.80 11.48 83.11 2.16
2 H 20.64 15.49 13.08 84.16 2.65
V“ 18.88 15.97 13.37 83.69 2.51
r2 H 20.43 15.22 12.74 83.59 2.58

v§(0.05) 4.05 1.93 1.83 1.41 1.79

Table 44. Field data on sugar beets - Jack Bowman Farm, Dimmit County,
planted August 17, 1965, harvested April 2, 1966

Total wt. wt. of Top;Root Tons of No. of Field
Line beets plus beets ratio beets beets brix
No. tops-pounds pounds tops/ per
acre foot
1 33.23 15.83 110.91 17.40 1.34 16.3
2 32.67 16.67 111.04 16.00 1.07 15.5
3 34.25 18.08 1:1.12 16.17 1.33 15.7
4 33.50 15.67 110.88 17.83 1.21 16.3
5 35.67 18.92 121.13 16.75 1.17 15.0
6 36.42 18.00 110.98 18.42 1.33 15.9
7 32.42 17.08 111.11 15.34 1.24 15.9
8 29.75 15.92 111.15 13.83 1.19 16.3
9 26.75 15.42 1:1.36 11.33 1.26 16.0
10 27.25 15.17 1:l.26 12.08 1.52 16.0
11 23.00 12.42 111.17 10.58 1.03 16.1
12 29.83 15.42 111.07 14.41 1.24 15.8
13 28.92 14.33 1:0.98 14.59 1.17 16.1
14 34.42 16.50 110.92 17.92 1.43 16.4
15 35.25 13.42' 110.61 21.83 1.17 15.5
16 26.92 11.33 l:0.73 15.59 1.26 17.3
17 28.67 13.67 1:0.91 15.00 1.21 16.3
18 39.33 14.50 1:0.58 24.83 1.26 15.5
19 37.17 15.67 110.73 21.50 1.17 15.0
20 41.25 14.92 1:0.57 26.33 1.00 15.1
21 42.08 17.08 1:0.68 25.00 1.10 14.0
22 34.33 13.92 1:0.68 20.41 1.14 16.4
23 37.33 14.25 1:0.62 23.08 1.29 16.5
24 40.92 14.50 110.55 26.42 1.29 15.9
25 38.08 15.92 l:O.72 22.16 1.00 15.7
26 36.42 15.58 110.75 20.84 1.29 15.7
27 36.50 14.42 l:0.65 22.08 1.24 15.2
28 35.67 15.25 110.75 20.42 1.07 14.8
29 35.67 13.33 1:0.60 22.34 1.24 14.8
30 30.58 13.92 110.84 16.66 1.26 16.3
31 39.08 15.67 1:0.67 23.41 1.05 15.4
32 44.00 13.33 110.65 26.67 1.21 15.4
33 39.83 15.25 1:0.62 24.58 1.31 16.2
34 44.00 16.08 1:0.58 27.92 1.24 14.6
35 31.42 10.00 1:0.47 21.42 1.05 17.3
36 33.58 14.25 110.74 19.33 1.29 17.3
37 37.75 12.42 110.49 25.33 1.29 16.3
38 31.58 11.83 1:0.60 19.75 1.12 16.6
39 33.17 15.75 110.96 17.42 1.10 16.0
40 32.58 10.58 110.48 22.00 1.38 17.0
41 34.25 12.50 1:0.57 21.75 1.14 18.0
42 39.17 12.83 1.0.49 26.34 1.33 16.5
43 33.58 13.08 110.64 20.50 1.19 16.8
44 34.58 13.17 1:0.62 21.41 1.24 17.4
45 32.17 14.33 l:0.80 17.84 1.26 16.2
46 39.58 14.50 110.58 25.08 1.24 16.3
47 38.25 15.83 110.71 22.42 1.43 14.9
48 33.75 16.58 110.97 17.17 1.43 15.9
49 34.08 15.17 120.80 18.91 1.43 16.4
50 37.42 16.42 110.78 21.00 1.19 15.8
Average 34.76 14.81 110.78 19.95 1.23 16.0

Table 45.

C. E. weatherford Farm, LaSa1le County, major test, planted
October 16, 1965; harvested June 15, 1966

Yield Apparent Tons of
Line of Variety tons/ Brix Sucrose purity raw Sugar
acre % % % per acre
US 401 25.50 14.49 12.55 86.54 2.99
SL l26XSP5460-0 16.42 16.98 15.11 88.57 2.32
SL (l26Xl28) X SP5460—0 17.14 16.63 13.21 87.45 2.23
SL (126x128) x SP5822-0 18.30 16.66 14.73 88.10 2.53
SL (126x128) x US 401 4n 15.42 15.65 13.83 88.30 2.17
SP 5822-0 15.96 16.71 13.04 87.02 2.06
USH6 21.02 13.58 11.72 86.22 2.46
SL (129x133) x SP 5822-0 19.55 17.20 15.26 88.07 2.85
CTS x SP 5822-0 15.26 17.18 12.85 86.97 1.97
SL (129x133) x SP 6322-0 17.13 15.00 13.31 88.40 2.36
SP 6051-0 14.80 15.79 14.00 88.43 2.04
PC (502x503) x 663 16.97 16.53 14.60 87.79 2.44
PC (502/2 x 503) x 663 16.04 16.62 14.43 88.57 2.29
(F61-56H0x2648) X SP 631225-02 16.97 15.99 14.17 88.42 2.40
USH2 18.69 14.40 12.55 87.13 2.30
U$H2 triploid 22.19 13.42 11.63 86.50 2.49
USH6 16.74 14.32 12.56 87.75 2.13
USH6 triploid 21.65 14.71 13.00 88.32 2.75
USH7 22.65 14.26 12.57 87.53 2.90
USH8 16.04 12.30 10.83 87.39 1.60
(S63H0xS50) x 464 21.72 13.22 11.52 87.02 2.50
(563HOx556) x 463 22.43 12.63 10.98 87.68 2.48
(562HOx546) x NB7 17.71 11.65 10.12 86.01 1.78
(562H0x549( x 3425 19.39 14.34 12.71 87.33 2.46
US75 16.43 14.58 12.79 87.47 2.05
(SLl26X6121) 1 6428-O 14.80 14.40 12.62 87.36 1.81
(SL129x6121) x 6428-0 16.74 _16.82 15.04 89.27 2.53
LS l26xSP 5822-0 16.27 16.11 14.12 87.74 2.21
S-2 15.50 13.27 11.69 87.67 1.76
S-3 16.58 13.26 11.51 86.35 1.70
S-5 16.66 15.58 12.61 86.63 2.06
301 H 18.53 12.89 11.17 86.52 2.04
302 H 17.05 15.39 13.52 87.72 2.15
202 H 17.52 16.25 13.80 88.16 2.38
737 23.20 15.81 13.92 88.00 3.19
H2 17.36 15.31 13.37 86.94 2.23
H4 19.07 14.66 12.76 86.74 2.36
64H22 14.25 17.37 15.40 88.29 2.08
LSD(0.05) 6.70 2.77 2.43 1.80 0.83

26

    
   
  
   
   

Table 46. C. E. weatherford Farm, La Salle County, major teit

planted October 16, 1965; harvested June 15, 1966

Total Wt. Wt. of

beets beets Top:Root
Line or Variety plus tops pounds ratio
pounds

us 401 29.92 19.59 111.90
SL126xSP5460-0 27.25 17.50 1=1.79
SL(126X128)xSP5460-0 24.33 19.25 113.00
SL(l26x128)xSP5822—0 29.59 19.59 112.19
SL(126x128)xUS401 45 23.09 16.50 112.51

SP 5922-0 25.93 17.09 111.95

USH6 29.33 22.50 113.29
SL(129x133)xSP5822—0 31.09 20.92 112.09
CT5xSP5822-0 22.50 r 19.33 112.95
sL.(129><1s3)><sl>9322-0 25.59 19.33 112.53 9
529051-0 24.42 15.93 111.94 9
FC(502x503)x663 24.42 19.17 1=2.91 5.94
I-‘C(502/2x503)x663 23.09 17.17 112.91 5.52
(F61-56HOx2648)xSP63l225-02 25.33 19.17 112.54 9.59
0992 29.42 20.00 1=:.12 9.00
0992 triploid 29.33 23.97 114.19 5.29,
usns 23.97 17.92 113.12 5.31,
usne triploid $0.59 23.17 15.13 6.92;
0997 30.75 24.42 113.99 5.91*
usue 22.50 17.17 1=3.22 4.99’
(563H0x550)x464 30.00 23.25 1:3.44 6.31.“
(563H0x556)x463 31.50 24.00 113.20 l 7.01
(562H0x546)xNB7 22.17 17.17 113.43 4.67 f
(5s2aoxss9)><342s 27.97 20.75 113.00 9.41.‘
0975 23.29 17.59 1=s.10 5.30
(s1.129><s121)><s429-0 24.97 15.93 1=1.79 9.25
(SL129x612l)x6428—0 27.42 17.92 111.99 9.88
SL126XSP5822—0 23.92 17.42 112.99 9.07
s-2 22.39 19.99 112.99 5.42
s-s 20.42 17.75 119.95 2.49
s-s 23.09 17.93 113.40 4.91
301a 26.00 19.93 113.21 5.77,
302a 25.17 19.17 112.90 9.54
2029 25.42 19.79 113.91 6.23
737 39.33 24.93 112.39 9.91
9-2 27.33 19.59 112.12 9.1!,
11-4 29.93 20.42 112.43 7.96
94922 20.09 19.25 113.19 4.

Average 29.09 19.99 112.99 s

in

design with six replications. Stands were n
this test because of herbicide damage. Red
most of the plots resulted in reduced yielh
content was adequate in most of the gene 
varieties in the test. Cercospora leaf spot ca _
damage prior to harvest. Test results are prese '1
47 and 48. h’

Table 47. Otto Strube Farm, Uvalde County, major test, p1ant_'
October 26, 1965; harvested June 21, 1966

Yield
Line or Variety tons/ Brix Sucrose
acre % X
US 401 7.48 16.03 14.24
S1 126XSP5460-0 8.85 17.95 15.95
SL (l26X128) X SP5460-0 8.95 17.44 14.97
SL (l26X128) X SP5822-0 12.76 18.92 16.82
SL (126X128) x US 401 4n 8.25 20.15 18.19
SP 5822-0 7.38 16.86 14.89
U$H6 20.40 15.53 13.72
SL (l29xl33) x SP 5822-0 9.81 17.97 15.83
CT5 X SP 5822-0 8.96 18.18 16.19
S1 (129X133) X SP 6322-0 12.54 17.86 15.78
SP 6051-0 7.32 17.83 15.84
FC (502X503) X 663 17.14 18.30 16.24
FC (502/2 X 503) X 663 17.83 17.89 15.93
(F61-56HOx2648) X SP 631225-02 12.07 18.28 16.32
USH2 6.78 16.92 14.96
USH2 triploid 15.11 15.19 13.25
USH6 17.21 17.04 14.94
USH6 triploid 19.47 13.85 12.04
USH7 20.79 17.07 15.02
USH8 16.31 14.50 12.65
(563HOX550) X 464 19.39 15.88 14.02
(563HOX556) X 463 19.39 14.15 12.47
(562HOX546) X NB7 12.30 13.20 11.63
(562HOX549) X 3425 15.96 16.76 14.77
US75 12.77 16.97 14.96
(SLl26X6121) X 6428-0 1 11.84 17.47 15.76
(SL129X6121) X 6428-O 9.97 17.36 15.37
LS 126XSP 5822-0 12.86 17.77 15.91
S-2 12.61 16.34 14.45
S-3 12.37 14.68 12.88
S-5 12.77 16.08 14.12
301 H 18.30 14.74 12.88
302 H 14.95 16.30 14.41
202 H 10.28 16.20 14.29
737 6.46 17.44 15.45
H2 7.71 16.71 14.92
H4 15.49 17.40 15.54
64H22 13.16 16.82 14.74
L$D(0.05) 4.08 2.04 1.91

  
 
  
  
   
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
   
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
  
 
  

5; irm, Uvalde County, major test, planted
‘i965; harvested June 21, 1966

Wt. of Wt. of No. of Tons of Field
beets + beets Top1Root beets/ tops/ brix

tops— pounds ratio foot acre %
pounds
13.33 8.00 1:l.50 1.81 4.98 17.50
16.50 9.42 111.33 1.81 6.62 19.03
19.17 9.58 111.00 1.81 8.96 19.47
22 33 13.67 111.58 2.36 8.09 20.27
15 17 8.92 111.43 1.71 5.84 19.37
13 83 7.92 111.34 1.93 5.52 18.82
33 00 21.83 111.95 2.98 10.44 16.47
16 58 10.50 111.73 1.76 5.68 19.18
16 17 9.58 112.09 1.48 4.29 18.62
22 92 13.42 111.41 2.38 8.88 18.35
15 17 7.92 111.09 1.10 6.77 18.25
28 08 18.33 111.80 2.60 9.11 18.62
25 19.08 111.88 2.31 9.50 18.57
19 58 12.92 111.94 2.07 6.22 19.02
11.33 7 25 111.78 1.14 3.81 17.85
21.75 16 17 112.90 2.02 5.21 15.10
28.42 18 42 111.84 2.67 9.34 17.18
29.58 20 83 112138 2.21 8.18 14.62
33.08 22 25 112.05 2.95 10.12 16.75
26.33 18 17 112.23 3.07 7.62 14.40
29.25 20 75 112.44 3.14 7.94 16.27
28.83 20 75 112.57 1.28 7.55 16.25
20.17 13 17 111.88 2.21 6.54 14.35
25 08 17 08 112.14 2.67 7.47 15.90
20 25 13 67 112.08 1.95 6.15 17.48
22 83 12 67 111.25 2.43 9.49 17.73
19 00 10 67 111.28 2.36 7.78 17.48
23 75 13 75 111.38 2.29 9.34 17.22
19 25 13 50 112.35 1.86 5.37 16.65
20 33 13 42 1:1.94 2.52 6.46 16.12
22 33 13 67 111.58 2.29 8.09 16.97
29 00 19 58 112.08 3.26 8.80 15.40
26 33 16 00 111.55 2.69 9.65 17 25
17.50 11 50 111.69 1.76 6.07 18 20
9.50 6 92 112.68 1.76 2.41 18 60
12.83 8 25 111.80 1.69 4.28 17 55
24 75 16 58 112.03 2.55 7.63 17 03
21 25 14 08 111.96 2.69 6.70 17.50
21 63 13 94 111.84 2.20 7.18 17.41

.

 the genetic stocks performed well in these
_-.-- were SP 64 100-05, SL (129 X 133) X SP
ii x 633, (FC 502/2 X FC s03) x SP
. 502/2 X SP 581194 SL) X SP62ll60-00,
A, 504) X SP 621160-00, (SP 581194 SL X
21160-00, (FC 502/2 X FC 503) X FC 901,
if 0-0, SL (126 X 128) X SP 5822-0, SL (129
20, FC (502 x s03) x 663, and FC (502/2
‘f’ ese data provide a basis for selection of
 testing in 1966-67.

.»: 5-66 program, 32 trials and demonstra-
f’ cted at 20 locations in the 13-county area.
l, 38, 50 and 50 entries of varieties, strains
Y ks were grown at 3 locations; there were 15
of 9 entries and 14 date-of-planting
, About 1,672 samples were analyzed for
 ‘and purities.

 re 5 generally lower than those of the
 tests; the sucrose levels were materially
W on prior experiences, lower fertility levels
f: of management were maintained.

tocks and parental combinations in the
j. trials were superior in performance over
testing to indicate excellent potentials for
. ough breeding.

for further rellfinement in cultural practices
Results from 2‘ years of testing show that the
_ ~ ce to Cercospora is not adequate and that
hemical controls will be required. However,
for production of quality yields has been
 fficiently to provide the basis for develop-
 tive program.

1966-1968

In the 1966-67 growing season, three types of tests
were conducted: variety, genetic stocks and several S-acre
demonstration plantings. The 5-acre plantings were added
to the program to provide for grower education and for
possible processing evaluations. A total of 544 samples was
analyzed from the variety and genetic stocks tests.

Variety Tests

A variety test, planted in Bexar County on Houston
Black clay, consisted of five varieties in a randomized block
with four replications. The test was planted July 27, 1966,
and harvested December l0, 1966, to determine the
feasibility of a short production season. This planting
emerged to a good stand; however, it was subsequently
reduced by extremely high temperatures occurring
immediately after emergence. Insect and disease damage
was moderate due to the application of proper control
measures. Yields were reduced primarily by premature
withholding of irrigation water. The immaturity of the
beets at the time of harvest is indicated by the apparent
purity percentages. The data in Tables 49 and 50 indicate
that adequate yields of high-quality beets cannot be
produced in a 4%-month growing season; the sucrose levels
were acceptable, but purities were low. Better water
management and 30-45 days of additional growth no
doubt would have improved both quality and yields.

The variety test in Frio County on Duval fine sandy
loam was planted August 18, 1966, and harvested May 13,
1967. All varieties in this test, except USH 8, emerged to a
good stand. The extreme cold and dry soil conditions in
early December caused severe damage to the beets and
further reduced the stand of USH 8 in some plots. Curly
top and Cercospora leaf spot reduced yields, sucrose
content and apparent purity of the beets. Data from this

Table 49. The yield and quality of sugar beets grown on the Van Dewalle
Farm Bexar County, planted July 27, 1966; harvested December

10, 1966
Yield Laboratory Apparent Tons of
tons brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
Variety per % % % per acre
acre
202 H 10.87 18.89 14.68 73.80 1.59
SL (129Xl33)MS X 6322-0 12.97 19.82 15.12 79.58 1.96
HHl0 12.26 19.74 14.07 71.30 1.72
U38 7 11.80 19.13 13.81 72.15 1.62
USH 8 11.92 19.14 13.67 71.78 1.64
LSD(0.05) 2.75 1.22 1.77 6.76 4.57

Table 50. The field measurements made on sugar beets grown on the
Van Dewalle Farm in Bexar County.

Wt. of Wt. of Tons of Top: No.of Field

beets plus beets— tops root beets/ brix
variety top-pounds pounds per acre ratio foot %
202 H 23.50 11.63 12.31 110.98 2.61 20.05
SL (l29x133)MSx6322—0 28.50 13.88 15.16 110.95 2.32 20.08
HH10 23.75 13.13 11.01 111.24 2.54 20.68
USH 7 25.75 12.63 13.61 1:0.96 19.75
USH 8 22.63 12.75 10.25 111.29 2.21 19.75

27

test are presented in Tables 51, 52 and 53. The data in
Table 53 indicate that Cercospora leaf spot and curly top
were severe enough to warrant supplemental control
measures. Water management also influences yields in this
test; irrigation water was not applied in November and early
December when the soil became very dry. The results of
this test again point out the important role of management
in the sugar beet production.

Another variety test in Frio County was planted
August l9, 1966, and harvested May 17, 1967. It included
five varieties in a randomized block design replicated four
times. This test emerged to a good stand and grew well until
a severe freeze in early December destroyed all top growth.
Upon regrowth, a severe infestation of Cercospora leaf spot
occurred and, no doubt, contributed greatly to the low
sucrose levels obtained in this test. The data in Tables 54,
55 and 56 indicate that the beets in this test were actively
growing at the time of harvest. Residual nitrogen released
from the second and third foot of the profile contributed
to this growth at harvest. Yields were adequate, but sucrose
and apparent purity percentages were low as a result of
management practices and associated adverse weather.

The results of the variety tests indicate that an
effective program of grower education will be required in
developing a commercial crop industry in the area. Insect,
disease and weed control can be achieved with timely use ‘of
existing pesticides. Irrigation water applied at the proper
time will solve the problems of soil-moisture control. Soil
nitrogen can be controlled by proper use of fertilizers on
the preceding crops and application of the correct amounts
to the sugar beets. The results obtained in 1966-67
indicate that good yields of high-quality beets can be
produced under good management.

Genetic Stocks Tests

A genetic stocks test, planted in Atascosa County on
Webb fine sandy loam, consisted of 17 entries in a
randomized block with six replications. The test was
planted August 15, 1966, and harvested April 29, 1967.
Most of the lines emerged to an excellent stand and grew
well until a freeze in early December. Rats reduced the
stand so that adequate yield samples could not be taken;
however, some samples were taken, and the yield of the

Table 51. The yield and quality of sugar beets gorwn on the Peanut
Growers Research Farm in Frio County
Yield Laboratory Apparent Tons of
tons/ brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
Variety acre % _ % % Per QCPQ
SL (129xl33) MS Y 6322-0 17.75 16.09 13.34 82.9 2.37
HHIO 22 08 16 97 13 49 79.5 2.98
USHB 14.60 17.32 13.78 79.6 2.01
USH7 21.49 17.21 14.21 82.6 3.05
S 2 23.36 15.44 12.33 79.9 2.88
301 H 18.45 16.80 14.07 83.8 2.60
Table 52. The field measurements made on sugar beets grown on the Peanut
Growers Research Farm in Frio County
Wt. of wc. of Tons of Top: No.of Field
beets plus beets- tops/ root beets/ brix
Variety ton-oound pounds acre ratio foot %
SL (129Xl33) M X 6322-0 36 25 19.00 16.12 1 1 10 2.64 17.68
HH10 3 50 23.63 14.83 1 1.49 2.64 19.28
USH8 28.25 15.63 11.79 1:l.24 1.75 18.00
USH7 38.75 23.00 15.65 1 l 37 2.36 17.78
S 2 44.75 25.00 18.45 l 1 27 3.25 16.90
301 H 38.75 19.75 17.75 l 1.04 2.86 15.28

28

plots was estimated. Cercospora leaf spot w g
moderate, and curly top damage was moderate t;
some lines. Some nematode damage occurredin 
VI. The estimated yields and laboratory data are
in Table 57 and the disease ratings in Table 58. q
content and the apparent purity of all the gen,

were very good.

A second test, including 44 genetic st
varieties, was grown in Atascosa County on f
sandy loam. The test was planted November 10, 3
harvested July 5, 1967. The plants were t
damaged by a freeze in early December. Cerci‘
spot and curly top caused moderate to severe - A
reduced yields to some extent. Water rnanag 

 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
   
   
 

‘m

Table 53. The incidence of diseases on sugar beets grown on t 
Peanut Growers Research Farm in Frio County
Variety Cercospora Curly Top Rhizoctonia 5

LS (129 x 133) MS x 6322-0 2""

HH 1O

USH 8

USH 7

S2

301 H

2

2

2:’:

1

2

=‘~'Rating - 1 = none, S = all plants affected

1*

l

  

  
  
  
   

 
   
  
  
  
  
   

Table 54. The yield and quality of sugar beets grown on thogf

Sam Smith Farm in Frio County j
Variety Yield per Laboratory Sucrose Apparent

acre-tons brix % % purity %

S 5 23.36 15.74 12.33 78.3
302 H 33.64 16.04 13.20 82.3
USH 8 26.16 16.44 12.62 76.8
USH 7 23.36 17.05 14.79 86.7
HH 10 24.29 15.02 12.04 80.2
Table S5. The field measurements made on sugar beets grown Y

the Sam Smith Farm in Frio County »

weight of Weight of Tons of Top: No. of
beets plus beets— tops per root beetsl

Variety tops—pounds pounds acre ratio foot
S 5 53.0 25.0 26.16 110.89 2.43 3
301 H 57.0 36.0 19.62 1:1.7l 2.86 E
usu a 47.0 28.0 17.75 1=1.47 2.70 
USH 7 50.0 25.0 23.36 l:1.00 3.43 9
HH 10 37.0 26.0 10.28 1:2.36 3.29 2
Table S6. The incidence of diseases on sugar beets grown an 3

the Sam Smith Farm in Frio County
Varie-W Cercospora Curly Top Rhizoctonia Other 
s-s 1* 2* 2*
301 H 2 2 2
USH 8 2 2 3
USH 7 1 2 2
HH 10 1 3 2

*Rating - 1 = none, S = all plants affected.

 

    
  
    
 
 
 
   
 
   
   
  
 
 
  
  
    
   
   
    

5;‘ The estimated yield and laboratory analyses of sugar beets grown on the W.E. Rupple
*3 Farm in Atascosa County

Estimated Laboratory Apparent Tons of
yield-tons brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
g per acre % % % per acre
Q 15.67 19.16 16.99 88.60 2-66
j~ 15.00 19.52 16.99 87.10 2.53
;v33)M$x5322_Q 18.83 18.63 16.75 89.97 3.14
'; 17.83 19.47 17.75 86.50 3.16
' 922-0 16.33 18.99 16.78 88.32 2.73
_ 15.50 19.40 17.14 87.90 2.65
i. 19.83 18.68 16.75 89.73 3.30
125 19.67 17.99 16.07 89.37 3.13
.27 19.00 19.02 17.26 90.82 3.27
=» 15.83 19.16 16.82 87.70 2.67
1; 17.50 18.66 16.87 90.72 2.94
» 450-0 16.50 18,78 16.68 88.87 2.75
’w33 19.17 17.98 15.81 87.90 3.01
‘E 19.50 18.96 16.61 87.53 3.22
0x032 19.00 18.14 16.22 88.63 3.09
i} 16.50 17.68 15.47 87.55 2.55
I3x663 17.33 18.23 16.03 87.88 2.77
“ 0.46

) 2.80 1.19 1.15 2.31

F’, -. - nce of disease on sugar beets grown on the w. E.

t m» in Aracm county responsible for the major reductions in yields as the beets
7 did not receive the water for adequate commercial
production. Sucrose levels of some of the genetic stocks
were excellent, and the apparent purity was acceptable in
1 301mg most of the entries; the results are presented in Tables 59
Balms and 60.

A genetic stock test, including l7 entries, was grown
in Bexar County on Houston Black clay. This test was
planted July 27, 1966, and harvested December 8, 1966. It
emerged to a good stand, but some stand loss occurred

-6lrcospora* Curly Top* Rhizoctonia Other

Yellows

Bolting

Fo-If-‘t-el-Ir-lo-Iv-Io-r-I-Ir-Ir-dr-‘b-Iwo-I
wQcwoouu-lmocouowo»
wmwMv-‘wwwwwr-‘mwémwm
mOwwwwuwc/"Iowwwomww

Bolting, Yellows

, 5°19” during the extremely high temperatures after emergence.
if n! for six replications, 1=none, 5=a11 plants affected. contfQl measures were   the  season,

The yield and quality of sugar beets grown on the J.J. Gorman Ranch in Atascosa County

Yield in Laboratory Apparent Tons of
tons brix Sucrose purity raw sugar
per acre % % % per acre
11.79 20.68 16.80 81.15 2.01
11.01 20.65 16.82 80.90 1.82
14.58 21.22 17.96 84.34 2.62
12.29 21.94 18.15 82.97 2.19
11.96 20.24 15.69 77.25 1.89
12.37 20.51 16.85 81.82 2.06
jQ5 15.31 20.30 16.05 79.13 2.40
}'460-0 12.45 20.94 17.66 84.12 2.18
i 18.76 19.42 15.81 81.42 2.96
g33)xsp5322-0 14.82 20.98 17.14 81.62 2.57
?33)xSP6322-0 13.27 21.19 17.52 83.42 2.31
é33)xsP5450-0 15.73 20.74 17.19 82.95 2.70
822-0 15.56 19.64 16.75 85.32 2.63
53Q($L125X5p5121-Q)xsp54g3-0 13.76 20.67 17.47 84.58 2.40
§3($L1Q5X$p5121-Q)x$pg423-g 13.60 20.59 17.26 83.88 2.36
9 5Q3)xSP59l3l8-Q 12.94 21.18 17.76 84.30 2.31
§,5Q3)x$P521160-00 12.45 22.25 18.23 82.73 2.28
Q 5Q4)X3p521}§g,gQ 11.79 22.05 18.56 84.25 2.17
1- 1 10.32 21.19 16.65 78.76 1.63
;,503)xp¢9Q1 14.74 21.56 19.08 83.95 2.65
?cP2648)xSE6322-Q 13.37 19.72 15.63 78.82 2.14
;¢p543_3\x3p53gg_Q 16.22 21.18 17.26 81.80 2.79
_;O2/2)xSP6322-Q 16.71 20.64 17.19 83.42 2.87
‘gx5Q1)X$p5322_Q 13.92 21.58 18.37 85.08 2.55
1¢p5433)xsP59319-0 16.22 20.41 16.61 8] 3 2.65
‘i Cont'd.

29

Table 59.‘ Continued

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
  

Yield in Laboratory Sucrose Apparent Tons of 1

Variety tons brix % purity raw sugari
4_per acre % % per acre‘
FC(504x502/2)xSP59B18—0 14.41 20.04 16.56 82.65 2.38 Q
PC(502/2x601)xSP59B18—0 16.05 21.40 17.96 84.02 2.86 1
(FC502XMcF648—3)XFC901 14.35 20.97 18.66 89.10 2.68
FC(504x502/2)XPC901 15.40 20.65 17.86 86.68 _ 2.74
PC(502/2x601)xPC901 11.10 21.60 18.50 87.45, § 2.04
(FC502xMcF648—3)XMcP663 15.53 21.04 17.69 84.201 i 2.75
PC(504x502/2)xMcP663 13.56 21.17 18.30 86.56 2.48
FC(502/2x601)xMcF663 15.81 21.21 17.60 82.93 2.76
569H3xSP6322-0 ‘ 16.63 20.15 16.12 80.12 2.68
USH 6 17.53 19.34 15.57 80.63 2.73
USH 7 17.45 19.46 15.93 81.98 2.73
US 75 - 15.73 20.43 16.76 82.02 2.60
(563HOx550)x664 16.55 20.11 15.98 78.70 2.62
(569HOx563)x663 14.15 20.59 17.14 83.20 2.40 1
HC 11 13.43 20.15 16.27 79.74 2.13 I
65MSH 37 13.93 21.58 18.13 84.00 2.51
65MSH 17 13.10 21.77 18.08 83.05 2.30
65H 25 26 13.99 20.87 17.00 81.34 2.35
64H 22 13.27 21.58 17.61 81.64 2.34 l
LSD(0.05) 4.07 1.53 1.61 5.16 0.67 &

Table 60. The yield, topzroot ratio, number of beets per foot, and field brix of sugar beets
grown on the J. J. Gorman ranch in Atascosa County

Weight of Wt. of Tons of Top:Root Average fl

beets plus beets in tops ratio No. of 5
Variety tops—pounds pounds ger acre beetsjft.

US 401 14.83 12.00 2.78 124.24 1.88
SP5822—0 15.20 11.20 2.95 1:2.80 1.94
SP632259—01O 19.00 14.83 4.10 1:3.56 2.45
SP63194-0 17.17 12.50 4.59 112.65 2.57
SP6551—0 16.25 12.17 4.01 1:2.98 1.86
SP65100—03 15.92 12.58 3.25 1:3.77 2.60
SP56100—05 19.33 15.58 3.69 1:4.15 2.55
SL126XSP5460—0 16.33 12.67 3.60 1:3.46 2.07
USH 6 24.50 19.08 5.33 1:3.52 2.74
(SL129X133)xSP6322-0 20.50 15.08 5.33 l:2.78 2.19
SL(l29X133)xSP6322-0 17.40 13.50 3.83 1:3.46 1.36
SL(126x133)xSP5460—0 21.83 16.00 5.73 1:2.74 2.07
C+5xSP5822—0 20.50 15.83 4.59 1:3.39 1.71
SP6528X030(SL126XSP6121—0)xSP6428—0 21.08 14.00 6.96 1:1.98 1.95
SP6528X03(SL126XSP6121-0)xSP6428-0 18.50 13.83 4.59 1:2.96 2.05
FC(502/2X503)xSP591318-0 18.08 13.17 4.83 1:2.68 2.67
PC(502/2X503)xSP621160-00 17.58 12.67 3.83 1:2.58 2.14
FC(502/2X504)xSP621160—00 16.83 12.00 4.75 1:2.48 2.10
GW869—65R 13.00 10.50 2.46 1:4.20 1.45
FC(502/2X503)xPC901 19.33 15.00 4.26 1:3.46 2.50
(SL129XMcP2648)xSP6322-0 18.90 13.60 5.21 1:2.57 2.06
(FC502XMCF648-3)xSP6322—0 21.17 16.50 4.59 1:3.53 2.10
FC(504x502/2)xSP6322-0 21.83 17.00 4.75 1:3.52 2.33
PC(502/2X601)xSP6322—0 18.58 14.17 4.33 1:3.21 2.07
(PC502XMcP6483)xSP59B18-0 21.33 16.50 4.75 1:3.42 2.10
FC(504X502/2)xSP59B18-0 17.92 14.67 3.19 1:4.51 1.93
FC(502/2X601)xSP59B18-0 20.17 16.33 3.77 1:4.25 2.07
(FC502XMcF648—3)XFC90l 19.00 14.60 4.32 1:3.32 2.11
FC(S04x502/2)xFC90l - 17.17 15.50 1.64 1:0.93 2.71
FC(502/2X601)XFC901 15.00 11.30 3.64 l:3.05 1.60
(FC502XMCP648-3)XMCF663 19.60 15.80 3.73 ’1:4.16 2.71
FC(504X502/2)CMCP663 17.20 13.80 3.34 1:4.06 2.40
FC(502/2x60l)xMcP663 20.33 16.08 4.18 1:3.78 2.19
569H3XSP6322-0 21.17 16.92 4.18 1:3.98 2.40
USH 6 22.50 17.83 4.59 1:3.82 2.21
USH 7 21.83 17.75 4.01 1:4.35 2.45
US 75 20.40 16.00 4.39 1:3.60 2.54
(563HOx550)x664 21.33 16.83 4.42 1:3.74 2.14
(569HOx563)x663 17.80 14.40 3.34 1:4.24 2.17
HC 11 18.00 13.67 4.26 1:2.56 2.57
65MSH 37 18.33 14.17 4.09 123.41 1.90
65MSH 17 18.25 13.33 4.84 1:2.71 2.33
65H 25 26 19.20 14.20 4.91 1:2.84 2.34
64H 22 16.60 13.50 3.05 1:4.35 2.37

  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  

j disease damage was moderate. Yields were
 short growth period and the premature
iirrigation water. The sucrose and apparent
. re adequate for commerical production.
presented in Tables 61 and 62.

f»: from the research plots indicate that plant
p. ble for developing good hybrids for the
p Combinations of these genetic stocks could
p,» the characteristics needed in a hybrid sugar
ea. Several commercial varieties perfonned
 ese tests and could be used in the early
p ‘ rcial production.

'nt is the key factor in beet production.
a ontrol of nitrogen level in the soil, insect
xntrol and water management—are basic
L? essful production.

 Program
 years of research, the prime need of the

V: t of grower education and experience in
esting and marketing beets.

J
Bexar County

Table 61. The yield and quality of sugar beets grown on the Van Dewalle
Farm in Bexar County

Yield in Apparent Tons of

tons Laboratory Sucrose purity raw sugar
Variety per acre brix % % % per acre
H“ 1g 14.09 19.31 15.62 81.17 2.20
USH 9 11.37 19.19 15.45 a0.e2 1.75
$L126x$P58221Q 12.54 19.74 16.51 83.55 2.08
U35 7 11.91 20.24 15.71 80.12 1.86
SL(129X1$})MSX53QQ-Q 13.00 19.43 15.86 81.52 2.06
spgga-QM 9.58 19.12 16.12 84.37 1.54
SP6528x029 10.36 21.29 17.76 83.40 1.85
SP6428X026 10.75 19.19 16.10 84.05 1.73
SP6528xO27 12.38 19.22 16.73 85.00 2.06
SP6528x030 10.58 20.46 17.03 83.33 1.80
SP6528x09 11.99 ~ 19.98 16.83 84.02 2.00
SL126X$P5460-O 9.97 21.08 17.48 82.85 I 1.74
SP6528XU33 11.53 18.68 15.71 84.12 1.81
SP6510-0 8.88 19.21 15.11 78.77 1.32
SP6531-70X032 12.54 18.92 15.42 81.58 1.94
SP6551—0 8.80 20.01 16.49 85.08 1.44
F59-569H3x663 11.60 19.41 16.07 82.87 1.86
LSD(0.05) 2.55 1.40 1.26 4.50 0.43

5,. The field measurements made on sugar beets grown on the Van De Wa11e Farm in

  
    

Total weight Weight of Tons of Top:Root Number of Field
of beets plus beets in tops ratio beets per brix
to0s—1bs. lbs. oer acre foot of row %

it 27.25 15.08 12.62 1:1.24 1.76 19.53
5 22¢92 12.17 11.15 1:l.13 1.64 18.83
;f5822-0 27.33 13.42 14.43 1:0.96 2.00 20.12
§. 24.83 12.75 12.53 1:1.06 2.40 20.22
333)MSx6322-0 25.08 13.92 11.57 1:1.25 1.60 19.58
J 20.00 10.25 10.11 1:1.05 1.55 19.77
,J29 24.75 11.17 14.05 1:0.82 1.88 21.00
T026 24.50 11.50 13.48 1:0.85 1.67 19.50
HT- 25.33 13.25 12.53 1=1.10 1.8a 20.13
'I30 23.75 11.33 12.88 l:0.91 2.19 20.92
;I9 27.00 12.83 14.70 1:0.91 2.17 20.48
P5460-0 21.83 10.67 11.57 1:0.96 2.00 21.50
L033 29.42 12.33 17.72 1:0.75 1.98 19.35
,1 20.67 9.50 11.58 1:0.85 1.38 19.53
370x032 24.83 13.42 11.83 1:1.18 1.52 18.78
f0 17.92 9.42 8.82 1:1.11 1.79 20.62
.H3x663 23.25 12.42 11.23 1:1.15 1.86 20.05
5 29.42 13.67 16.33 1:0.86 2.69 20.47
23.17 11.67 11.93 1:1.01 2.38 20.37

 

  
  
   
 
  
 
   
  
  
  
 
  

iv ard rows

 1967, a new Memorandum of Agreement was
th the South Texas Sugar Beet Growers
i" provide for commercial-scale plantings of 5
f. ted varieties at one or more locations in the
 ed of the varieties HH-10 and (SL129x133 x
; obtained by the Association for distribution
growers. Negotiations were initiated to get the
p. and to obtain a special freight rate to the
_. ercial mill; a summer planting season was
 ovide for harvests at the appropriate period
1:» beet harvester was donated to Texas A&.M
a anticipation of harvests. Precision-planting
 made available by the Association. A
" = ‘de, which also included an economic analysis

of projected costs and returns, was prepared by area
extension specialists. Data used in the economic analyses
are shown in Tables 63, 64 and 65.

Grower interest, which motivated the development of
the new program, was initially high. This interest waned,
however, with the continued drouth and the recession of
water tables across the area. Growers became concerned,
too, with the minimum wage rates for labor in beet
production which exceeded those for labor in other
agricultural crops. Misunderstanding and confusion
developed in regard to ASC regulations governing subsidy
payments.

Nine plantings were made in eight counties; however,

31

COSTS AND RETURNS FOR PRODUCING ONE ACRE

 
 
 
   
  
 

Table 63. Table 64. MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT INVESTMENT AND DEPRECIATIG '
OF SUGAR BEETS - WINTER GARDEN AREA 
N 9 _ 400 Acre Row Crop - Vegetable Farm __
Rim “oil gili 599g Item Initial Salage Depreciable Useful A
Cost Value Balance Life
I. Cash Production Expenses:
Tractor 8 Equipment 6-12 hrs $ 0-94 Tractor—90 h.p. $8250 $990 $7260 12 years?
Labor 14.2 hrs 1.40/hr. 19.88 Tractor-70 h.p. 6800 816 5984 12
Seed(monogerm) 10.0 lbs .40/lb. 4.00 Tractorqg h_p_ 5399 535 4654 1g
Thin F, Weed 6.0 hrs 1.40/hr. 8.40 9151581 459 54 395 15
Herbicide 3-0 Pt=- 2-59/0r- 7-77 Rotary Shredder 075 01 594 11
Fertilizer (80-80-0) 16.00 Ditcher 325 39 295 15
Irrigation water 10.0 applic 3.00/applic. 30.00 Land p1ane_49v 1699 192 1499 12
Insecticide 3-0 applia 2-64/aPPli¢- 7-92 Lister P1anter—4 row 975 105 770 1:
Insecticide Applic. 3.0 applic 1.25/applic. 3.75 Fertilizer AttaCh__4 pow 400 f 48 352 11
Fungicide (Maneb) 4.0 appliC l-QO/BPPUC- 7'20 Cultivatro(row crop)—4 row 800 '1 5,96 704 ll
Fungicide Applic. 4.0 applic 1.25/appl1c. 5.00 Offset Disk 1559 19g 1452 13
Total Production Costs $118.86 section Harrow 359 42 39g 1g
Veg. Planter 8 Cultivator
II- Harvesting 0 Haulin9= 26 tons 2-50/ton 65-00 w/Herbidice incorporator 2000 240 1760 10
Beet Thinner 750 90 660 8
III- Land Expenses: Tandem Disk, 000 96 704 13
Taxes 1 acre 1-50/acre 1-50 Reversi. P1ow—3 bottom 1100 132 908 13
Interest on investment 400 5% 20.00 gpray Rig 499 49 352 g
Total land Costs 21.50 Fertilizer App1ic__
_ Broadcast 400 48 352 l0
IV- Capital Expenses: 3 Trailers 1350 162 1199 12
Intaraat of 0PaPaYifl9 Pickup 2700 324 2376 6
capital $128.70 8%(2/3 yr) 8-67 Equipment Shed s Shop 4000 -0- 4000 20
Interest on Equipment 72.6S/acre 8% 5.81 Repair T0015 2999 -9- 2999 19
Machinery Depreciation 1 acre ll.36/acre 11.36 Rotary Hoe 511 73 533 19
Total Capital Costs 25.84 .__ __._
V. Total Expenses: $231.20 TOTAL $431586 $391075
VI. Gross Returns: _ _ _ , i
Sugar Beets(14% sucrose) 26 tons 12.00/ton 312.00 Depreclatlon/Acre z $3407 X 15 tlme on sugar beets 7 75 a.
Govt. Payment(sugar) 63.9 cwt. .80/cwt. 51.12 -
Grazing of tops 26 tons .20/ton 5.20 Sugar beets z $115559”
Total Returns: §368.32
VII. Returns Above Specified Expenses: $137.12
Table 65. LABOR, MACHINE AND COST REQUIREMENTS TO PRODUCE ONE ACRE OF IRRIGATED SUGAR BEETS
Tr. Hrs./Acre/ Times Mach{Time Labor Time *Tr.&Eq. Tr.8Eq. Labor Cost
Operation H.P. 1 Time Over Over Hrs. Hrs. Cost/Hr. Cost/Ac. /Hr.
Shred 8 DiSk 45 :50 1 .50 .55 $1.20 $0.60 $1.40
Plat break 90 .50 1 .50 .55 2.08 1.09 1.40
Chisel 90 .50 1 .50 .55 1.80 .90 1.40
Disk 90 .30 l .30 .33 1.87 .56 1.40
Float 90 .33 l .33 , .36 1.80 .59 1.40
Pertilize 70 .20 l .20 .22 1.53 .31 1.40
Bed 70 .40 l .40 .44 1.65 .66 1.40
Rebed 70 .40 l .40 .44 1.65 .66 1.40
Harrow 45 .10 1 .10 .11 1.01 .10 1.40
Plant 70 .30 1 .30 .33 1.70 .51 1.40
Cultivate 70 .33 1 .33 .36 1.05 .35 1.40
Thin 70 .40 1 .40 .44 1.53 .61 1.40
Cultivate 70 .33 1 .33 .36 1.05 .35 1.40
Cultivate 70 .30 l .30 .33 1.05 .32 1.40
Pertilize 45 .33 1 .33 .36 1.11 .37 1.40
Cultivate 70 .30 2 .60 .66 1.05 .63 1.40
Shred Tops 45 .30 1 .30 .33 1.10 .33 1.40
Irrigate .75 10 7.50 1.40
TOTAL PREHARVEST 6.12 hrs. 14.22 hrs. $8.94

*Pue1, oil, lubrication and repair

only five were maintained until crop maturity. The
plantings were inspected periodically by Texas A&M
University technicians and county agents. Brix readings
were made in the field as the beets approached maturity;
analyses for sucrose and purity were discontinued after
statistical analyses of previous years’ data revealed a very
high correlation of these levels with field brix values. None
of the plantings were processed through a commercial mill;
processing plans were disrupted by rainfall and wet soil
throughout the period scheduled for harvesting and milling.

In Uvalde County, cooperator Otto Strube made a
planting on August 4, 1967. The fertilizer rate was adjusted
according to soil and leaf petiole analyses. A herbicide was
incorporated, and the beets were planted on 40-inch

32

  
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
  

vegetable beds with two rows per bed. A 1
applied twice, as needed, to control Cerc J0
Field brix readings indicated very accpetafi.
sucrose by January 1, 1968. Yields were es 4'
tons per acre. Rainfall and wet soil preve ’
harvest. 

Plantings were made July l0, 196T
County on Knippa clay soil; only one variety 
x 6322-0 was included. Fertilizer applications.
according to soil and petiole analyses. The
made with two rows on 36-inch beds. H
fungicides were applied. Field brix readings
the sucrose content had reached accepta,
milling by mid-December. Machine harvest 

 
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  

 til March; the brix reading at that time
 content in the 15- and 16-percent range.
f“ ted at 20 tons per acre.

1 varieties were planted in Kinney County
., on the Ward Farm, two rows on a 40-inch
 Fertilizer, 300 pounds of 16-20-6, was
‘ilant application. No herbicides or fungicides
ithion was applied to control leaf hoppers
 orms. The plantings were irrigated three
" d tests indicated that the beets had reached
 of sucrose by early January; subsequent
 ~ 'cated a continued increase in sucrose with
 percent by mid-March. The estimated yield
l- r acre with the variety HH-10 producing a
I‘ er yield than the companion variety but
it y lower brix level. The planting was not
ted.

 HH-10 was planted July 19 on Blanco
fr» County on the Yeager Farm, 2 rows to the
 apart. Fertilizer, 300 pounds of 12-20-6,
i preplant application. No herbicide was used;
, s of fungicides and two applications of
Ire made. The planting was irrigated twice.
 as heavily flooded in September, and the soil
until December; growth and development of
 severely retarded, and survival of the plants
i, in doubt. However, field brix readings
i the beets had attained acceptable levels of
late December. Field tests at mid-March
 good sucrose levels. The planting was
ted, and a field day was held to demonstrate
_'_ ration. Yields of 16 tons per acre were
 the beets (top and roots) were fed to cattle.

l- varieties were planted in a sandy loam soil
43- on the Fey Farm in Bexar County in
f one row to the bed. Fertilizer, 300 pounds of
I .75 pounds of 82 percent anhydrous nitrogen,
i; in preplant and sidedressed additions,
p erbicides and fungicides were used, and the
 gated twice. Production costs were held to
_ r . Field brix readings indicated an acceptable
 by mid-January, and an excellent level was
 early March. The planting was machine

‘r interest declined because of drouth
’d because of unanticipated difficulties in
' the regulations associated with production
g. Thus, the scope of the program was
if er, the results of the commercial plantings
Y 8 program were quite conclusive in showing
I acceptable quality can be produced under
I, le management practices. Weather conditions
 ucive to production of maximum yields; an
'4 the advent of cool temperatures slowed
“I! e beets, and optimum root size was not
 e the initiation of sugar storage. Although the
i, n was of necessity adjusted to milling
results obtained do indicate that light

intensities and day lengths in the winter season are not
significant limiting factors.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

LITERATURE CITED

Bloodworth, M. E., Some Principles and Practices in the
Irrigation of Texas Soils. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 937, 1959.

Coons, G. H., Control of Sugar Beet Diseases Through
Resistance, 1918-1952. Phytopathology, Annual meeting.
Abstracts, Vol. 42:482. 195 2.

Coons, G. H., F. V. Owens, and Dewey Stewart, Improvement
of the Sugar Beet in the United States. Advances in
Agronomy. Vol. VII. pp. 89-136.

Coons, G. H., Some Problems in Growing Sugar Beets.
Yearbook of Agriculture. 1953. pp. 509-524.

Esau, Katherine, Planting Season for Sugar Beets in Central
California. Cal. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. April, 1932.

Eubanks, C., and C. F. Stahl, Studies on Curly Top Disease of
the Sugar Beet. Jour. Agr. Res. 28-4:297—320. 1924.

Gardner, R. and D. W. Robertson. The Nitrogen Requirement
of Sugar Beets. CoL Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 28, Feb., 1942.

Giddings, N. J., Two Recently Isolated Curly Top Virus
Strains. Phytopathology, Pacific Division Abstracts. Vol.
42:514. 1952.

Larson, W. E. Irrigation of Sugar Beets, How Much Water to
 and When to Apply It. Mont. Agr. Exp. Cir. 205, June,

Loomis, R. S., and G. F. Worker, Jr., Responses of the Sugar
Beet to Low Moisture at Two Levels of Nitrogen Nutrition.
Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 55:509-515. 1963.

Nuckols, S. B. Sugar Beet Culture in the Northern Great
Plains Area. USDA Farm Bul. 2029, 1951.

Overpeck, J. C., and Harry A. Elcock, Methods of Seed
Production from Sugar Beets Over Wintered in the Field.
USDA Cir. 153, Feb., 1931.

Owens, F. V., Cytoplasrnically Inherited Male Sterility in
Sugar Beets. Jour. Agr. Res. (US) 71:423-440. 1967.

Robbins, W. W. and Charles Price, Sugar Beet Production in
California. Cal. Agr. Ext. Cir. 95, June. 1936.

Savitsky, Helen, Production of Tetraploid Strains. Sugar Beet
Research 1954. C.R.D., A.R.S., USDA. p. 279. 1954.

Savitsky, V. F., Combining Ability in Tonnage and Sucrose in
Single-Cross and in Three-Way Diploid, Triploid, and
Tetraploid Male-Sterile Monogerm Hybrids. C.R.D., A.R.S.,
USDA. 1948.

Skudema, A. W., Sugar Beets in the War and Post-War Periods
from the Standpoint of the Beet Sugar Industry. Jour. Am.
Soc. Agron. 36:576-583. 1944.

Stewart, Dewey, The Development of Cercospora Leaf Spot
Resistant Monogerrn Sugar Beets. Phytopathology, Potomac
Div. Abstracts. Vol. 42:344. 1952.

Tracy, W. W., Improvement of the Sugar Beet in the United
States. Advances in Agronomy Vol. 7. 1955. Page 106.
Academic Press, New York, N. Y.

Ulrich, Albert, The Influence of Temperature and Light
Factors on the Growth and Development of Sugar Beets in
Controlled Climatic Environments. Jour. Am. Soc. Agron.
44:66-73. 1952.

33

APPENDIX

ECONOMIC ANALYSES

Depreciation

Estimating depreciation cost for machinery and
equipment was similar to estimating investment. To
determine depreciation, twelve percent of the initial cost
was set up as salvage value. The salvage value was subtracted
from the initial cost, and the difference of $39,076 is the
depreciable balance that must be recaptured from crops.
Twenty-five percent of the annual depreciation was charged
to 75 acres of sugar beets (0.25 x $3,407 = $852). On a

per-acre basis, the annual depreciation is $11.36 ($852-I—75).

Total Expense

Total expense is the summation of cash operating
expense, land expense and capital expense. Over the
long-run period, all of these costs must be covered if that
enterprise is to be continued. In a short-run period, as long
as the cash operating expense and part of capital and land
expense are covered, fann operations may continue. This,
however, is known as “minimizing loss” and cannot be
continued. The capital structure of the farm is in a state of
decay. If production receipts do not cover cash operating
expense, and this situation is not expected to change, the
enterprise should be discontinued.

Income

Income from sugar beets depends upon yield, sugar l

content, sugar price, government support level and value of
beet tops. The current price for beets testing 14 percent
sucrose is $12 per ton for the High Plains area. In addition
there is a government payment of 8O cents per hundred
weight of commercially recoverable sugar, calculated as
follows: Tons sugar beets per acre times percent sugar
content times 87.8 percent extraction rate.

In addition, if the land can be handled in such a way
as to graze cattle on the field after the beets are harvested,
there is a value for the beet tops. This is assumed to be 20
cents per ton of harvested beets.

Management Return or Net Return

Return to management, in these budgets shown as
returns above specified expenses, is the reward that the
farmer receives for making valid decisions and assuming the
risk and responsibility for carrying out those decisions.
With this income, he usually feeds and clothes his family,
increases his net worth with purchases of land or other
capital assets, saves for that rainy day and sends his children
to school.

Cash Expense

Cash operating expenses are those that are ordinarily
associated with crop production. In this budget, cash
operating expense includes fuel, oil, lubrication and repair
for machinery and equipment, seed, herbicide, insecticide,
insecticide applications, fertilization, irrigation water and

34

     
   
    
 
 
   
    
   
  
   
  
   
  
   
  
  
   
   
    
  
  

labor. These expenses are preharvest expenses)
harvest cost varies with yield. Preharvest expe i
facilitates credit planning. The farm operator ~
available or be able to borrovwenough money t‘
through the preharvest period. If he has a 
necessary operating expense and plans to borr
preharvest cost will be a guide for both borrower‘
in determining the amount of credit needed. a

Land Expense

The assumed value of land is $400 per L
budget. This figure represents the value of r
land, including the value of the irrigation syst‘
ments may easily be made to fit individual situa - _A

Capital Expense

In this budget, capital expense includes c
operating capital, cost of capital investment’ '
and equipment and depreciation of mac i
equipment. '5

Banks and credit agencies compute '
borrowed money on a yearly basis. Therefore, g
the cost of operating capital, an assumption
preharvest cost would be “necessary operating -_
money would be used and interest charged at?
percent for the equivalent of two-thirds of a y (V:

This is an “opportunity cost” if an ope a
own capital; nevertheless, it should be conside l
the total production cost. r

A summation of interest on invested 
depreciation account for a substantial part ‘i
and equipment ownership cost. To determine I
value of machinery inventory on a farm and a
acres on which the machinery will be used m a.
or assumed. Next, an approximation of i“
machinery and equipment will be used on e,
enterprise must be made. The machinery d;
listed above are for a 400-acre farm with 75 
beets. It is assumed that this equipment '
one-fourth of the time on sugar beets. l

Investment Cost

Twenty-five percent of the invest ‘
machinery and equipment was charged to 75 1 4,
beets (0.25 x $73,586 = $10,897). Since a.
investment is being recaptured each year in i
charges, the initial cost of the machinery . ~f
will be invested half the time and or half will f
the time ($l0,897-I-2 = $5,449). This 
equipment will be used on 75 acres of b
therefore, investment per acre would be $7 9
+75). An interest rate of eight percent was c 
interest expense was $5.81 per acre (8% x $1
cost usually shows up as interest on money 
buy machinery and equipment. 

  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
   
 

l I

f- a planted to sugar beets should be relatively
ll residue such as sorghum or wheat stubble.
"U be deepplowed t0 break up hardpan and

I i tance of seedbed preparation cannot be
v in obtaining a good stand of sugar beets.
r are then flattened allow adequate space for
fir d spaced 14 inches apart. The top of the
g ure 19-20 inches to allow 2-3 inches on
i e two rows. This space is necessary to allow
‘Y. of the beet roots and to avoid damaging
f4 ' g the water furrows. The beds should be
in order to assure good stands.

T ful cultivation and some hand hoeing, weeds
 in most fields. If a severe weed problem is
herbicide may be used on a band over the
‘ p s a good job of controlling broadleaf weeds
, plrporated. A rotovator or power-driven tiller
 . Label directions should be followed.
 good results as a post-emergence herbicide
r e top of young beets and incorporated into

 and phosphorus are required in fairly large
_v ever, a portion of these nutrients is supplied
QNitrogen application rates will depend on soil
 'ous crop. Generally, 80-100 pounds of
T 80-120 pounds of phosphorus will be
y oduce 20 tons of beets. Since a portion of
pplied by the soil, an application of 50-80
 nitrogen should be applied preplant.
 will depress sugar formation. Beets planted
f soils will secure nitrogen from decomposi-
 ; thus a lower rate may be needed than on a
‘ d.

Th: Beets

 to obtain a stand, beets should be checked
W planting until the thinning stage. Care
3 n to prevent soil crusting and sand damage.
 ction is required to determine whether
f: rcient for germination and emergence.

i; of monogerm seed will eliminate much hand
§ ' be necessary, however, to thin the beets to
‘f@7—8 inches. Theprecision planter will give a
i ed stand, and thinning should take less labor
past. Thinning should be done at about the
 of growth.

 - ting, the beds should be irrigated. Another

SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION PRACTICES

irrigation may be necessary for emergence, depending on
soil and weather conditions.

Seasonal irrigations should be light applications of
from 2 to 4 acre inches. Frequent light irrigations are better
than heavy applications. Short irrigation runs should be
used in order to get the area watered within 12 hours.
Standing water in fields encourages root rot and other
diseases.

Diseases

Curly top is a virus disease of sugar beets which is
spread by the beet leafhopper. Varieties with resistance to
this disease were developed in 1933, and losses attributed
to the disease have been held to a minimum. Control of the
beet leafhopper by use of Sevin‘ and Parathion‘ (2 pounds
Sevin plus one-half pound Parathion per acre) will reduce
losses from the disease.

Cercospora leaf spot (Cercospora Beticola) is the
most important disease of sugar beets in Southwest Texas.
The fungus destroys the beet leaves so that root growth is
reduced and the percentage of sucrose is cut. Epidemics
generally occur in the years when total rainfall is
abundant-the very conditions that should lead to a good
crop. Leaf spot may kill back the entire foliage bouquet
several times during the growing season. The first leaf-spot
resistant variety was introduced in 1938. Many resistant
varieties have been developed since that time and are in use
in the sugar-beet growing areas.

Since leaf spot is more likely to occur during rainy
humid periods when the temperature is high, growers
should check the beets often and regularly for leaf spot
damage. Control of leaf spot may be achieved by use of
chemicals such as Maneb‘ products (Dithan M-221, M45‘
or Manzate D1). A rate of 2-3 pounds per acre, applied in
sufficient volume of water to give good coverage of all the
foliage, will give good control if applied when the disease
first appears in the field. The beets may have to be sprayed
2-6 times depending on weather conditions.

Rhizoctonia crown rot (Pellicularia filamentosa)
occurs on half-grown or nearly matured beets. Rhizoctonia
solani, the pathogenic stage of the fungus, causes decay of
the fleshy parts of the root. This fungus occurs in all
agricultural soils and is capable of persisting indefinitely.
There is no effective control of the disease except use of
rotations which do not build up strains of the fungus highly
virulent to sugar beets. Sugar beets may be grown following
corn, small grains, potatoes and soybeans.

Numerous diseases which reduce or destroy seedlings
are called black rot. The most serious of the fungi attacking
the seedlings are Pythium spp; Phonra beta, Rhizoctonia
solani and Aphanomyces cochlioides. If seedlings are killed
during germination or within 2 weeks after they emerge

l Inclusion of trade names is not intended as an endorsement of the
product of a specific company nor is there any implication that
other formulations containing the same active chemical are not
equally as effective.

35

from the soil, the attack is considered acute. The organisms
listed can cause serious damage to stands under favorable
conditions of climate and soil. Seed treatment with copper,
mercury and other fungicides helps to prevent stand losses
from black rot.

Numerous other diseases are found in sugar beets, but
the above are the most serious threat to sugar-beet
production in Southwest Texas.

Insects

A number of insects attack sugar beets including
aphids, armyworms, cutworms, flea beetles, leaf miners,
wiseworms and webworms. Most of these do not cause
serious damage in beet fields; however, if a beet industry
were established in the area, they could become serious
pests. Most of these insects can be easily controlled by
timely application of the proper pesticides.

Nematodes of various types attack sugar beets and
can destroy a beet crop if they are present in large numbers.
The cyst-beet nematode has not been found in Texas. The
root-knot and false root-knot nematodes are present in
some Texas soils and are capable of causing serious damage
to beets. Crop rotation will reduce the nematode
population if nonsusceptible crops are used.

IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SOILS OF RESEARCH SITES

During the week of January 31 to February 4, 1966,
H. C. Dean and Jack Stevens, soil scientists, USDA Soil

Conservation Service, assisted by W. A. Goodson and Curtis .

L. Godfrey of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station,
identified the soils at the various research plots in the
13-county area under study.

The objectives were:

1. To determine the soil type(s) at each location.

2. To compare the properties of the soil(s) found
to a typical profile for the series.

3. To point out special features of the soils in the

36

   
   
  
   
  
 
    
 
  
   
   
  
   
  
   
  

Bolting

Bolting (seed stalk initiation) is an t;
in sugar-beet production in Southwest Texas 
can be grown in the fall and winter for spring 
harvest. Manifestation of bolting tendency def
two environmental factors-temperature and g
The genetics of bolting resistance is unknown. V,
established that the annualcharacter, or tende 1'
is more or less a dominant character. Selection I
lines for nonbolting has been very successful. 
genetic stocks and varieties are available for p a ,
area. Due to the extremes in temperatures co 
area, any beet variety developed or grown the 
selected with the nonbolting character as one of _l
used for its selection. '3

Cultivation

Beets should be cultivated in the seedlin
soil should be kept from the crowns so as to 
incidence of root rot. Soils that crust should ~-
after each rain or irrigation to break the crust 
any weeds that may have germinated. Shallow 
are recommended to prevent the destruction of _

plots that might affect their suitability for sugar  A
4. To estimate the extent (acreage) of 
the 13-county area. l

A brief discussion of each site in relation t
objectives follows (no attempt was made to 
growth of the sugar beets per se). Surface 
considered the upper 6-10 inches, or that a.
moved in tillage. Colors in the report are for}
based on Munsell standards. Dry colors are u i
two values higher. Acreages for soil series are es Q
include dryland and irrigated areas in the 13cm?

 
 

Soil classification
Subgroup Family

Soil Type

F ification, and interpretation of the soils at the sugar beet research sites in South Texas (See Figure l)

Description and Interpretation

Webb-like fsl Udic
V g Haplustalfs

Fine, mixed,
hyperthermic

Fine, mixed,
hyperthermic

Udic
Haplustalfb

Miguel fsl

Fine, mixed,
hyperthermic

Udic
Paleustalfb

Miguel fsl
(overwashed)

Fine, mont-
morillonitic,
thermic

Udic
Pellusterts

Houston Black
clay, terrace
phase
(formerly in-
cluded in the
suspended
Bell series

:11:
gils

‘K DQ-
'-tration
iiof
>;ting

      
   
   
  
  

Fine, mixed,
thermic

Lewisville sic Typic

i. u

1- - Haplustolls
ivtion
Y of
nting

Fine-loamy,
mixed
thermic

Venus loam Typic
~ tra- Haplustolls

gm

Fine, mixed,
thermi c

Lewisville sic Typic
,~ Haplustolls
V ion

Fine-
carbonatic,
hyperthermic

Fluventic
Ustochrepts

J **
_-ic Blanco sicl

}>tion

'1

Deep, moderately well drained, neutral to slightly acid fine sandy loam formed in
calcareous reddish clayey residium high in iron oxide. Surface is reddish brown
light fine sandy loam, neutral to slightly acid, over slightly acid red heavy sandy
clay loam subsoil (4-6 inches thick) becoming yellowish brown mottled at about 20
inches. Below about 24 inches, soil becomes mildly alkaline, changing to calcareous
with CaC03 accumulation at about 36 inches. Typical Webb soils have subsoils a
little more clayey than this soil and the subsoil is free of mottling for at least 6
inches. Webb soils are low to moderate in plant nutrients.

Estimated acreage in study area: 10,000 acres.

Neutral to slightly acid moderately well drained fine sandy loam soil with dense
clayey subsoil formed in calcareous clayey residium. Surface soil is reddish brown
fine sandy loam over brown clay subsoil with many brown and reddish brown mottles.
(Subsoil becomes extremely hard on drying.) Surface and upper subsoil, neutral to
slightly acid in reaction; lower subsoil becomes alkaline and calcareous with zone
of CaC03 at about 40 inches. This site is fairly typical of the Miguel series.
Miguel soils are low to moderate in plant nutrients.

Estimated acreage in study area: 250,000 acres.

Neutral to slightly acid moderately well drained soil with dense clayey subsoil,
formed in calcareous clayey residium. Surface and upper layers, reddish brown fine
sandy loam. Subsoil (12-18 inches) brown clay with many fine yellowish brown and
reddish brown mottles. (Subsoil becomes extremely hard on drying.) Upper subsoil
is neutral to slightly acid in reaction, the lower moderately alkaline and calcare-
ous with a CaC03 zone at about 40 inches.

This site is in a foot-slope position below an eroded field higher in the landscape.
A mantle of reddish sediments about 8 inches thick have been deposited on the site
from this field making the surface thicker and more red than typical for the series.
The site also receives extra water. The lower part of the plot, especially, is
likely too wet at times in the subsoil. Miguel soils are low to moderate in nutri-
ents. This site does not appearas drouthy as conmonly observed for Miguel soils.
Estimated acreage in study area: 50,000 acres.

Deep, slowly drained calcareous clay soil developed in calcareous clayey old allu-
vium. From the surface to about 40 inches, the soil is dark gray strongly calcare-
ous clay. Below this depth is calcareous clay but browner and more calcareous.

CaC03 concretions are common below about 30 inches and increase in amount with depth.
This soil is fairly typical of the series on old terraces. Houston Black soils are
moderate to high in plant nutrients but are strongly calcareous and very high in
shrink-swell clays, causing wide cracks as they dry.

Estimated acreage in study area: 200,000 acres.

Deep, moderately well drained clayey soil developed in calcareous clayey old alluv-
ium. From surface to about 18 inches, the soil is very dark brown weakly calcareous
silty clay or heavy clay loam. Below this layer the soil is lighter colored and
more calcareous with CaC03 concretions and threads of CaC03 present.

This soil is darker in the surface, has less free carbonates, and acts more loamy
than typical for the series, probably due to management (barnyard manures may have
been added). Lewisville soils are moderate to high in plant nutrients-- this site
is probably higher than usual because of past soil management.

Estimated acreage in study area: l00,000 acres.

moderately well drained to well drained calcareous loamy soil formed in caL
careous loamy to clayey old alluvium on stream terraces just above the modern
flood plain. Surface soil, grayish brown calcareous loam. Control section (10-
40 inch layer) is also loamy but slightly lighter in color and more calcareous.
This soil is about typical for the Venus series. It is a similar soil to the
Frio soils but is less clayey and somewhat lighter colored. It is also similar
to the Guadalupe soils but differs mostly in having a more clayey control
section. Venus soils are moderate to high in plant nutrients.

Estimated acreage in study area: 5,000 acres.

Deep,

Deep, moderately well drained clayey soil formed in calcareous clayey old allu-
vium. From the surface to a depth of about 20 inches the soil is very dark
grayish brown calcareous silty clay containing many earthworm casts and tunnels.
The layer below is a brown calcareous light clay containing a few concretions

and nodules of CaC03.

This soil site was fonnerly a sheep lot, making the surface in better tilth than
typical for the series. The soil is probably higher in organic matter and nitro-
gen than typical. Lewisville soils are moderate to high in nutrients.

Estimated acreage in study area: 100,000 acres.

Deep, moderately well drained calcareous loamy soil fonned in recent calcareous
alluvium of an active flood plain. Surface soil, light brownish gray silty clay.
loam. Control section (10-40 inches) is similar in color and texture but becomes
more silty with depth. Below about 40 inches, thin very fine sandy loam and
silty loam lenses are conmon. -
This soil is more silty than typical for Blanco soi
to high in nutrients but are strongly calcareous.
lighter colored than the associated Frio soils.
Estimated acreage in study area: 50,000 acres.

ls. Blanco soils are moderate
They are less clayey and

‘ries, classification is for a similar soil proposed as a new series in south Texas.

37

38

County 8- Kind of Soil Classification

  
 
   
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
    
  
 
  
 
 
  
 
   
   
   
   
 
   
   
  
  
   
    
  
  

Farm Test(s) Soil Type Subgroup Family " Description and Interpretation
FRIO
Mann Genetic Miguel fsl Udic Fine, mixed, Neutral to slightly acid moderately well drained fine sandy loam soil
Trials Paleustalfs hyperthermic calcareous clayey residium. Surface soil, reddish brown fine sandy lo .1

brown to reddish brown clay subsoil with many brown and yellowish brown‘
(Subsoil of Miguel soils becomes extremely hard when dry.) Surface and»
subsoil are neutral to slightly acid in reaction, but lower subsoil --_’
line and a zone of CaCO3 accumulation occurs at about 40 inches. i"
This soil is slightly redder in the surface and subsoil than typical fo g
series, probably not as hard when dry as typicalt. The site is below a l
area of Webb soils which are redder and have-lilflely influenced the soil‘
plot. Miguel soils are low to moderate in planfnutrients.
Estimated acreage in study area: 250,000 acres.

y

Yeager County Blanco Sicl Deep, moderately well drained calcareous loamy soil developed in recent,
Demon- ' of an active flood plain. Surface soil, light brownish gray silty clay:
stration Control section (10-40 inches) is similar in color but ranges from heav

a clay loam (approaching silty clay loam). Below 40 inches thin sandy a 
lenses are common. The profile in general is slightly higher in silt a
than typical for the series and probably dries out slower. Blanco soil »~=
moderate to high in nutrients but are strongly calcareous, are less cl '
the associated Frio soils and are lighter colored throughout.
Estimated acreage in study area: 50,000 acres

Tolson* County Duval fsl Udic Fine-loamy, Deep, well drained calcareous fine sandy loam soil formed in calcareous.
Demon- (calcare- Haplustalfs mixed, hyper- residium. Surface and other upper horizons total about 12-15 inches in
stration ous variant) thermic are brown in color, over a light brown sandy clay loam subsoil. Soil i t
careous throughout with a zone of CaCO3 at about 42 inches. 
Date of This soil differs from Duval soils in being calcareous and less red. l
Planting lar to Hidalgo soils but is more red. It differs from Hebb in being 

careous in the upper horizons and less red and less clayey in the subso
variant is probably of minor extent in the area, and is moderate to hi I
nutrients . i »
Estimated acreage in study area: 50,000 acres.

Tiiii
Peanut Growers Association.

HAYS

Knispel County Lewisville c Typic Fine, mixed, Deep, moderately well drained calcareous clayey soil developed in cal .
Demon- Haplustolls thermic clayey valley fill. From the surface to about 20 inches, soil is dark_
stration brown calcareous clay. Below this, soil is similar but brown in color

calcareous. Lime threads and lime splotches are common. f
This soil is more clayey than typical for the Lewisville series. Lewi v
soils are moderate to high in plant nutrients. 
Estimated acreage in study area: 100,000 acres.

SH Texas Did not Lewisville c Typic Fine, mixed, Deep, moderately well drained calcareous clayey soil developed in cal _
State record Haplustolls thermic clayey valley fill. From the surface to about 20 inches, soil is very _
College ish brown calcareous clay. Below this, soil is similar but brownish
more calcareous. Lime threads and lime splotches are comnon. ‘
This soil is less calcareous and more clayey than typical for the Lewi
series and apparently is an intergrade between the Houston Black-terry
Lewisville soils. Lewisville soils are moderate to high in plant nut l_
Estimated acreage in study area: 100,000 acres. ’

LaSALLE

Favor Date -of Frio sicl CwnuZic Fine, mixed, Deep, moderately well drained calcareous loamy soil developed in allu w
Planting Haplustolls thermic modern flood plain (overflowed once since 1937). Surface, calcareous
ish brown heavy silty clay loam. Below this, control section (10-401,
similar but becomes lighter in color below about 20 inches. A few W;
occur at lower depths. Thin lenses of lighter textured materials are

present - below control section.
This soil is in a higher position than typical for Frio soils and is g
less frequently. Stratification in lower portion not as evident as - 
found in Frio soils. Frio soils are moderate to high in plant nutrien
Estimated acreage in study area: 200,000 acres. .

MEDINA

Kelso To be Miguel fsl Udic Fine, mixed, Deep, slowly drained neutral to slightly acid soil with a dense clayey '
planted PaZeustaZfs hyperthermic formed in calcareous clayey residium. Surface soil, brown heavy fine
somewhat crusty. Subsoil, at about 12 inches, is brown clay with many.

lowish brown and reddish brown mottles - subsoil becomes dense and ext v

when dry. Upper subsoil, neutral in reaction - the lower moderately 

calcareous. Zone of CaCO3 occurs at about 40 inches. .:

This soil differs from typical Miguel in being more clayey in the surf

being less slo ing (on a nearly level area which may have collected s 

slope alluvium). Conmonly, Miguel soils occur in association with Oral

but above them in the landscape. They differ from Orelia soils by bei‘

in surface, having mottled subsoils, and by being somewhat less drouthy.

Miguel soils are low to moderate in plant nutrients. They tend to be -<'

somewhat drouthy. "

Estimated acreage in study area: 250,000 acres.

Soil Classification

Description and Interpretation

Soil Type Subgroup Family

Lemingitlfs Aquic Arenic Fine, mixed,
PaZeustaZfs hyperthermic

Knippa sic Vertic Fine, mixed,
Calciustolls thermic

T -ly included in the suspended Medio series. It has probably also been included in the Nueces series in old surveys.

Deep, slightly acid sandy soil with a dense clayey subsoil. Excessively drained
in upper part of profile but slowly drained in lower part. This soil has formed
in a shallow valley in sandy clay residium. Surface soil, pale brown fine sand,
changing to brown light loamy sand below the plow layer down to about 24 inches.
(Surface texture appears to have been made coarser than other upper layers by
winnowing.) Upper subsoil (below 24 inches), grayish brown sandy clay with many
gray and reddish mottles, indicative of periods of wetness. Below this is sandy
clay containing more red mottles and less evidence of wetness. Reaction changes
from slightly acid in the surface and upper subsoil to moderately alkaline at a
depth of around 60 inches. This soil is fairly typical for the series in profile
properties but occurs higher in the landscape than usual. Leming soils are low
in plant nutrients, especially nitrogen. Hater intake into surface soil is
initially rapid but the abrupt textural change in the subsoil probably produces
a temporary perched water table when the low water-holding capacity of the soil
is exceeded by rainfall or irrigation.

Estimated acreage in study area: 50,000 acres.

Deep, moderately well drained ca careous crumbly silty clay soil developed in
clayey outwash. Surface layer and to depth of about 24 inches, soil is dark
brown calcareous silty clay. Below this depth, the soil becomes slightly
lighter in color, slightly more clayey and more calcareous with a CaC0 zone
at around 36 inches.

Site 1: Less clayey in surface than typical for Knippa soils - has
likely had soil material added during construction of the
airfield.

Site 2: About typical for the series.

Knippa soils are less clayey than the associated Montell soils, but are clayey
and contain shrinking and swelling clays. As they dry, many fine cracks form
between strongly developed structural units rather than large cracks such as
conmonly observed in Montell soils. They are moderate to high in plant nutrients
Estimated acreage in study area: 250,000 acres.

Leming is a

39

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

40

REFERENCES

Bloodworth, M. E., Some Principles and Practices in the
Irrigation of Texas Soils. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 937, Sept.,
1959.

Brewbaker, H. E., Adaptation of the Sugar Beet to Meet the
Needs of the Sugar Industry in America. Jor. Am. Soc.
Agron. 36:570-5. 1944.

Carsner, Eubanks and C. F. Stahl, Studies on Curly Top
Disease of the Sugar Beet. Jour. Agr. Res. 28-4:297-320.
1924.

Carter, W. R., Soils of Texas. Tex. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 431.
1931.

Coons, G. H., Control of Sugar Beet Diseases Through

Resistance. 191 8-1952. Phytopathology An. ,Meeting
Abstracts Vol. 42:482. 1 95 2.
Coons, G. H., Resistance Breeding of Sugar Beets.

1918-1952. Phytopathology Vol. 43:297. 1953.

Coons, G. H. Some Problems of Growing Sugar Beets.
Yearbook of Agr. 1953. pp. 509-524.

Coons, G. H., Sugar Beet Virus Yellows in the United States.
Pathtopathology, Potomac Div. Abstract. Vol. 42:341. 1952.

Coons, G. H., F. V. Owen and Dewey Stewart, Improvement
of the Sugar Beet in the United States. Advances in Agron.
Vol. VII, pp. 89-136. 1955.

Esau, Katherine, Planting Season for Sugar Beets in Central
California. Cal. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 256, April, 1942.

Fife, J . M. and Charles Price, Sugar and Nitrogen Changes in
Topped Sugar Beets Exposed to Very High Temperatures at
Harvest. Jour. Am. Soc. Agron. 39:327-334. 1947.

Gardner, Robert and D. W. Robertson, The Nitrogen Re-
quirement of Sugar Beets. C010. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 28,
Feb., 1942.

Giddings, N. J., Two Recently Isolated Curly Top Virus

Strains. Pathtopathology Pac. Div. Abstracts Vol. 42:514. -

195 2.

Godfrey, Curtis L., Soils of the Area in South Texas Selected
for Sugar Beet Demonstrations. August, 1964.

Guflay, J. R. and R. L. Cook, The Effect of Crop Sequence
and Early Summer Temperature on the Response of Sugar
Beets to Supplemental Nitrogen. Quart. Bul. Mich. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Vol. 35, No. 4. pp. 482-488. May, 1953.

Haddock, Jay L., The Influence of Plant Population, Soil
Moisture and Nitrogen Fertilization on Sugar Content and
Yield of Sugar Beets. Jour. Am. Soc. Agron. 41:70-84.
1949.

Hansen, C. M., The Reduction of Storage Losses in Sugar
Beets by Preharvest Foliage Sprays of Maleic Hydrazide.
Jour. Am. Soc. Agron. 432340-1. 1951.

Larson, W. E., Irrigation of Sugar Beets-How Much Water to
Apply and When to Apply It. Mont. Agr. Exp. Sta. Cir. 205,
une, 1954.

Lackey, Charles F., Histological Studies of Injury Produced
by Four Strains of Curly Top Virus on Susceptible and
Resistant Sugar Beets. Phytoathology, Pac. Div. Rpt. Vol.
41:940. 1951.

Lackey, Charles F., Further Studies of the Modification of
Sugar Beet Curly Top Virus by Its Various Hosts. Phyto-
pathology, 13th An. Meeting. Vol. 19:1141—2. 1929.

Loomis, R. S., J. H. Breckley, F. E. Broadhent and G. F.
Worker, Jr., Comparisons of Nitrogen Source Materials for
Mid-Season Fertilization of Sugar Beets. Jour. Am. Soc.
Agron. 52:97-101. 1960.

Loomis, R. S. and G. F. Worker, Jr., Responses of Sugar
Beets to Low Moisture at Two Levels of Nitrogen Nutrition.
Jour. Am. Soc. Agron. 55:509-515. 1963.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

.Matocha, J. E., W. R. Cowley and B. J. L

.-

   
   
  
  
  
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
   
    
   
   
  
  
  
    
   
   
  
  

Quality of Sugar Beets Produced in the Lo as;
Valley of Texas. Texas Agr. Exp. Sta. Progress _
1964. {

Mortenson, E., Annual Report, 1940 Texas
Substa. 19, Winter Haven, Texas.

Mortenson, E., Annual Report, 1941. Tex.
Substa. 19, Winter Haven, Texas. ,

McGregor, Stuart M., Geography of Texas, T?
1956-1957. pp. 169-180. ..

Nuckols, S. B., Effects of Crop Rotation and A if:
Yield Quality of Sugar. U. S. Scotts Bluff 
1930-41. USDA, C11‘. 779, July, 1948. j

Nuckols, S. B., Sugar Beet Culture in the N
Plains Area, USDA. FB. 2029. 1951.

Overpeck, J. C. and Harry A. Elcock, Me
Production from Sugar Beets Over Wintered I
USDA. Cir. 153, Feb., 1931. 

Owens, F. V., F. A. Abegg, A. M. Murphy, _'
Charles Price, F. G. Farmer and Eubanks - »~ ‘
Resistant Sugar Beet Varieties in 1938 USDA
1939. i.

Patridge, Jay R., H. McNaband, Hugh w
Irrigation in Wyoming. Wyo. Agr. Exp. Sta. l“
1957. i‘

Price, Charles, J. M. Fife, G. E. Gillespie and W.
Sucrose Losses and Changes of Nitrogen ,
Sugar Beets under Conditions of Delayed Topp 

Soc. Agron. 33:901-7. 1941. .~

Reichelderfer, F. W., Climatography of the U H '
S. Weather Bureau. 1962.’ 

Robbins, W. W. and Charles Price, Sugar Beet 
California. Cal. Agr. Extension Service Cir. 95,1

Skuderna, A. w., Sugar Beets in the War and P 
From the Standpoint of the Sugar Beet Ind . u;
Soc. Agron. 36576-583. 1944. ‘t

Stewart, Dewey, The Development of Cerco =1
Resistant Monogerm Sugar Beets. Pathtopath p
Div. Abstract. Vol. 42:344. 195 2. ' H,

Stewart, Dewey, C. A. Lavis and G. H. Coons, 
in Sugar Beets, Jour. Agr. Res. 60:715-738. 1 ,

Stewart, Dewey, et al., Sugar Beet Research, l 
by Sugar Beet investigation, Crops Researe
USDA. »

Stewart, Dewey, et al., Sugar Beet Research, 1 A
by Sugar Beet Investigation, Crops Res. Div., - A,

Stewart, Dewey, et al., Sugar Beet Research, 1 
by Sugar Beet Investigation, Crops Res. Div., ~ ‘

Tolman, Bion and Albert Murphy, Sugar Beet l?
Intermountain Area with Curly- Top Re‘ - _
USDA, FB. 1903, May, 1942.

Ulrich, Albert, The Influence of Tempera ,
Factors on the Growth and Development of ,,
Controlled Climatic Environments. Jour. 
44:66-73. 1952. f‘

Wasleigh, c. H. and Ayers, A. D. and c. A. B "
Saline and Alkali Soil on the Growth of Sugar,
Am. Soc. of Sugar Beet Tech. 195 2. _

Weinert, McD. D., The Edwards Underground “
the Edwards Underground Water District,

Bexar and Hays Counties. Rpt. of Edwards,
Water District, San Antonio, Texas. 1964. ‘

Weir, W. W., Soil Science, Its Principles and ' ¢
Tippencott Co. Chicago, Ill. 1936. .

v
‘4

I