A148-331-12M-L180 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 424 ' APRIL, 1931 DIVISION OF AGRONOMY Grain Sorghum Date 0f Planting and SpacingEExperiments AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFF T ADMINISTRATION: A. B. CoNNER, M. S., Diredor R. E. KARPER, M. S., Vice-Director CLARicE MixsoN, B. A. Secretary M. P. HOLLFMAN, JR., Chief Clerk J. K. FnANcicLow, Assistant Chief Clerk CREsTER Hiocs, Executive Assistant C. B. NEBLBTPE, Technical Assistant CHEMISTRY: G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief," Stale Chemist S. E. Asisuiiv, M. Chemist J. F. Fuuoiz, Ph. D., Chemist li. C. CARLYLE, B. S., Assistant Chemist WALno ll. WALKER, Assistant Chemist VELuA GRAiiAu, Assistant Chemist T. L. OoiER, B. S., Assistant Chemist ATRAN J. STKRGES, B. S., Assistant Chemist JEANNE M. FuEoAs, Assistant Chemist RAY TnEiciiLER, M. S., Assistant Chemist _ RALPH L. SciiwARTz, B. S., Assistant Chemist C. M. POUNDERS, B. S., Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE: S. H. YARNELL, Sc. D., Chie L. B. HAwTRoRN, M. S., orticulturist RANGE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY: J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief R. L. WARwicK, Ph. D., Breedin Investigations STANLEY P. DAvis, Wool Gra er ENTOMOLOGY: l". L. THOMAS, Ph. D., Chief; State Entomologist lI. J. REiNiiARi), B. S., Entomologist R. K. FLETCHER, Ph. D., Entomologist W. L. OwEN, JR., M. S.. Entomologist J. N. RONEY, M. S., Entomologist J. C. GAiNEs JR., M. S., Entomologist S. E. JoNEs, M. S., Entomologist F. F. BiimY, B. S., Entomologist CEcii. E. HEARD, B. S., Chief Inspector Orro MAcRENsEN, B. S. Foulbrood Inspector W. B. WiirrNEY, Foulbrood Inspector AGRONOMY: l‘). B. REYNoLos, Ph. D., Chief R. E. KARPER, M. S., Agronomist . C. MANoizLsnonr, Sc. D., Agronomist . T. KiLLouoR, M. S., Agronomist . E. REA, B. S., Agronomist C. n: u-n , A gronomist B. LANGLEY, B. S., Assistant in Soils PUBLICATIONS: A. D. JAcKsoN, Chief VETERINARY SCIENCE: ‘M. FRANcis, D. V. M., Chief_ _ H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M. Veterinarian F. P. MATREws, D. V. ., M. S., Veterinarian W. T. HARDY, D. V. M., Veterinarian F. E. CARROLL. D. V. M., Veterinarian PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: J. J. TAuEENi-iAus Ph. D., Chie _ . N. EZEKIEL, P . D., Plant athologist J. BAcR, M. S., Plant Pathologist i, Plant Pathologist FA M AND RANCH ECONOMICS: . P. GAnRARn, M. S ie . E. PAuLsoN Ph. Marketing C. A. BoNNEN, S., Farm Manaegment "W. R. NISBET, B. S., Ranch Management "A. C. MAGEE, M. S., Farm Management RURAL HOME RESEARCH: JEssiE WHITACRE, Ph. D., Chief MARY ANNA GRiuEs, M. S., Textiles ELIZABETH D. TERRiLL, M. A., Nutrition SOIL SURVEY: "W. T. CARTER, B. S., Chie E. H. TEMPLIN, B. S., Soi Surveyor A. H. BEAN, B. S., Soil Surveyor R. M. MARsiiALL, B. S., Soil Surveyor BOTANY: V. L. C0RY, M. S. Act. Chief SIMON E. WOLFP, . S., Botanist SWINE HUSBANDRY: FRED HALE, M. S., Chief DAIRY HUSBANDRY: . C. COPELAND, M. S., Dairy Husbandman POULTRY HUSBANDRY: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S.. Chief AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING: H. P. SMITH, M. S., Chief MAIN STATION FARM: G. T. McNEss, Superintendent APICULTURE (San Antonio): H. B. PARKs, B. S., Chief A. H. ALEX, B. S., Queen Breeder FEED CONTROL SERVICE: . D. FULLER. M. S., Chief . D. PEARcE, Secretary . H. RocERs, Feed Inspector . L. KIRKLAND, B. S., Feed Inspector DNEY D. REYNoLns, JR., Feed Inspector . A. MooRE, Feed Inspector . J. WiLsoN, B. S., Feed Inspector H. G. WICKES, B. S., Feed Inspector 2": 2% MWQRSWWI SUBSTATIONS No. l, Beeville, Bee County_: R. A. HALL, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, TroupfSmith County: l’. R. JoiiNsoN, M. S., Superintendent No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: R. H. STANsEL, M. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: R. H. WYcRE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: _ HENRY DuNLAvY, M. S., Superintendent ——i- , Plant Pathologist H. E. REA, B. S., Agronomist," Cotton Root Rot Investigations _ SIMON E. woLi-‘E, S., Botanist; Cotton Root Rot Investigations No. 6, Denton, Denton County: P. B. DUNKLE, B. S., Superintendent No. 7, SpDur, Dickens County: _ R. E. ICKSON, B. S., Superintendent i, Agronomist No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: D. L. JoNEs, Superintendent FRANK GAiNEs, Irrigationist and Forest Nurseryman No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. BAYLEs, B. S.. Superintendent No. l0, College Station, Brazos County: R. M. SHERWOOD, M. S., In charge L. J. McCALL, Farm Superintendent No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: H. F. MoRRis, M. S., Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: J. R. QUINBY, B. S., Superintendent **J. C. STEPHENS, M. A., Assistant Agronomist No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. H. DAMERON, B. S., Superintendent —-——-—i-—, Veterinarian W. T. HARDY, D. V. M., Veterinarian **O. G. BAEcocx, B. S., Entomologist O. L. CARPENTER, Shepherd No. l5, Weslaco, Hidalgo County W. H. FRiENn, B. S., Superintendent _ SHERMAN W. CLARK, B. S., Entomologist W. J. BAcii, M. S., Plant Pathologist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: N C. McD0wELL, B. S., Superintendent ml,——————————~— No. 18, —-—i———-——, Superintendent No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. MoRTENsEN, B. S., Superintendent N L. R. HAWTHORN, M. S., Horticulturist azm-——————————— , Superintendent , Superintendent Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: G. W. AiJRiANcE, Ph. D., Horticulture S. W. BiLsiNo, Ph. D., Entomology V. P. LEE, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance D. SCOATES, A. E., Agricultural Engineering A. K. MAcKEv, M. S., Animal Husbandry ‘Dean School oi Veterinary Medicine. J. S. IVIOGFORD, M. S., Agronomy F. R. BRisoN, B. S., Horticulture W. R. HORLACHER, Ph._D., Genetics J. H. Knox, M. S., Animal Husbandry 1A! of April 1, 1931. "In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. Temperature conditions and the distribution of summer rainfall are important factors that determine the optimum time for planting grain sorghums. Dwarf Yellow milo and feterita generally pro- duced highest yields of grain from June 15 planting at Lubbock, Spur, Big Spring, and Dalhart; from May 15 planting at (‘hillicothe and Temple; and from April 1 planting at I3eeville. Dwarf Black- hul kafir produced highest grain yields from May 15 planting at. Lubbock, Chillicothe, Spur, and Temple; from June 15 planting at. Dalhart and Big Spring; and from March planting at Beeville. The best grain yields of hegari are usually produced from the later plantings. At Big Spring, hegari planted June 15 yielded 7 bushels, or 40 per cent, more grain than when planted earlier than this date. Forage yields are ordinarily increased and better quality of forage is produced from the later plantings. At Chillicothe, June 15 plantings returned the highest yield of forage, and at Temple yields were highest from May 15 plantings. The spacing requirements of grain sorghum varieties depend largely upon their tillering habits. For best yields of grain, varie- ties that tiller freely require greater plant space than those that tiller but little. The milos are freely-tillering in habit, are grown primarily for grain, and should be spaced 12 to 24- inches. Approxi- mately 20 per cent more grain, or five bushels, was produced from milo spaced 18 to 36 inches in the row at Lubbock than when spaced 3 to 9 inches. The average results at all stations indicate the best spacing of milo to be 12 to 24- inches. Kafir is sparsely- tillering in habit and produced the best yields from a close spacing of around 6 inches, yielding 10 to 20 per cent more grain, or three to four bushels more, than when spaced 12 to 24 inches. Hegari and feterita tiller freely but as they are important forage types they should be spaced so as to allow 6 to 12 inches between plants in the row. The largest yields and best quality of forage of all varieties were produced from close spacing. Kafir and milo, spaced 3 to 9 inches, produced 11 per cent more forage than when spaced 12 to 18 inches. Losses in grain yield, due to planting in wide rows instead of normal rows, are too great to withstand unless the use of wide rows fits in with some other farm practice, such as planting wheat following grain sorghum. Forage yields are reduced when plant- ing is done in the wider rows instead of normal rows and over a period of years a reduction of about 25 per cent occurred in forage yields when grain sorghums were planted in wide rows instead of normal rows. Under certain circumstances paired rows can probably be used to advantage, in view of the comparatively small reduction in grain yield resulting from the use of paired rows, particularly with milo. The average decrease in grain yield from paired rows, as compared with that from normal rows, was 1.1 bushels to the acre, and the corresponding decrease when grown in wide rows was 4.6 bushels. The results are fairly con- sistent in favor of normal rows, but a smaller reduction in yield from using the wider rows occurred at Chillicothe and Spur than at Lubbock, Big Spring, and Dalhart. Grain yields of kafir were reduced 4.3 bushels; feterita, 6.9 bushels, or about 25 per cent, when cowpeas were planted in alter- nate rows with these grain sorghums, and forage yields were also decreased about 25 per cent. The use of the most effective commercial dry-dust seed disin- fectants increased germination and emergence of feterita seed 30 to 40 per cent over that of untreated seed. Either Copper Carbonate or Ceresan, applied at the rate of 2 to 3 ounces per bushel of seed, is a convenient and effective dry-dust treatment for sorghum kernel smut. CONTENTS PAGE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Scope of the Bulletin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5 Location of Stations, Climatic Conditions, and Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 Experimental Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 Dates of Planting Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Response of Sorghum to Time of Planting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13 Plant Development in Relation to Rainfall Distribution . . . . . . . 14 Time of Planting in Relation to Growth Period . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 Effect of Time of Planting upon Stands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 Influence of Time of Planting upon Plant Characters . . . . . . . .. 20 Time of Planting in Relation to Yield in Various Regions . . . . . . .. 20 Dates of Planting and Yields at Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Dates of Planting and Yields at Chillicothe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23 Dates of Planting and Yields at Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Dates of Planting and Yields at Big Spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 Dates of Planting and Yields at Dalhart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31 Dates of Planting and Yields at Temple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33 Dates of Planting and Yields at Beeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Summary: Effects of Time of Planting upon Yield . . . . . . . . .. 37 Experiments on Spacing of Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39 Effects of Spacing on Different Types of Grain Sorghum . . . . . . . . . . 39 Effects upon Tillering and Grain Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42 Statistical Nature of the Relationship between Spacing and Grain Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Effects upon Forage Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46 Effects upon Size of Head and Recurving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 Effects upon Shelling Percentages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 Spacing of Plants and the Effect upon Yield in Various Regions... 49 Spacing and Yields at Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50 Spacing and Yields at Chillicothe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Spacing and Yields at Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52 Spacing and Yields at Big Spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53 Spacing and Yields at Dalhart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54 Summary: Eflects of Spacing of Plants upon Yield . . . . . . . . .. 55 Rate of Planting Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 57 Grain Sorghum in Normal, Paired, and Wide Rows, and Interplanted with Cowpeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 58 Spacing of Rows and Interplanting with Cowpeas at Chillicothe. .. 59 Effect of Spacing of Rows upon Grain Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 59 Effect of Spacing of Rows upon Forage Yield and Tillering. .. 61 Alternate Rows with Cowpeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Spacing of Rows at Spur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62 Spacing of Rows at Lubbock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63 Spacing of Rows at Big Spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64 Spacing of Rows at Dalhart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Summary of Spacing of Rows and of Interplanting with Cowpeas. . 66 Experiments with Commercial Seed Disinfectants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69 BULLETIN NO. 424 APRIL, 1931 GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS R. E. KARPER, J. R. QUINBY, D. L. JONES, AND R. E. DICKSON“‘ T1111 grain sorg1111111s 1111111’ 1111111 111 101111 11111111101111111 111111 111111101 1111110 1111101154" 1110 crops grown 111 'l‘0x11s. 111-1110‘ 0100011011 01111 111' 1-11111111 111111 00111. T110 101111 average a111111111 pr11111101111111 is approx1111111011 s1.11_1-1111'00 11111111111 1111s110ls, 11a11119; 11 111111101 1111110 111' 111111111 111'1_1-11110 11111111111 11111l111s 1'01 1110 grain a1o110. T110 1a1110 111' 11110 10111011 11101110111111 111 1111s grain 010p 1s o1't1i1110s 1111110rest1111at0d s1111-0 it 1s 0111111111111 01111s11111011 1111 "1110 1111111 1111010 it is 111011110011 but it 1s 1:110 1111s10 1011g1111g0 111111 l'0111g0 111 1110 11'0s10r11 part 111' 1110 State. 1‘0.\'11s 1s 1110 1011111119; s11110 111 0111111 s111'_<_{'1111111 11101111011011, p11111110111g, 0111111111111, 11110111 ~17 p01‘ 001111 111' 1110 1111111 11101111 in 1110 111111011 States (lfig. 1). W111i 1110 01001111011 111' .1\1'17.01111 111111 C‘al110r111a, 1111010 111111-11 01f 1110 010p is grown 11111101- 111-1411111111, '1‘0x11s also 1'111115 MILLIONS or Busnccs ‘ Fig. l. Total production of grain sorghum, by states, 1919-28, inclusive. Texas pro- (lures 47 per cent of the Nation’s crop. ' l (‘tliinatic lactors, especially rainfall, are recognized as having a most intpoltiallti influence on production. Cultural practices also materially intluenec production, and these, to some extent at least, are under the vulllfOl of the grower. '.l‘wo of the most important factors in obtaining maximum production are planting at the optimum time and the correct spacing ot’ plants. Because of the different climatic conditions existing in the several grain sorghum producing regions in the State and the variability exhibited liiv (litferent varieties under different climatic condi- tions and cultural 1)1'21(ftlCOS, investigations have been conducted at the several state and "federal experiment stations to study more fully these various rtaetors in produif'tion. (train sorghum varieties have been planted at ilitferent dates, at differ- ent spacingxs within the row, in normal, paired, and wide rows, and in rows alternated with cowpeas. Yields of grain and forage resulting from sueh plantings are presented here along with data to show the develop- inent; of varieties under‘ "iiiic environmental conditions existing at the various stations. Data are presented to show the effect of various com- GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 7 mercial seed disinfectants upon the germination and emergence of giain sorghum seed in comparison with untniateed seed. lnlforniatioii upon rate of planting‘ and stands obtained. "from seeding ]. 72. 3, l, and 5 pounds of Dwarf Yellow milo and Blackhnl kalir seed to the aere is also presented. Fig. 2. Distribution of grain sorghums in Texas. One dot represents 100 acres ;' 1919 census. LOCATION OF STATIONS, CLIMATIC CONDITIONS, AND SOILS A brief discussion of the location, soil types, and climatic features existing at the various stations Where these experiments were conducted is given here. A summary of meteorological data by months is shown in Table 1. It will be seen that the location of these experiments has been fairly Well distributed over the western part of the State where the sorghums are of principal importance. A study of the climatic condi- tions at the various points will be found helpful to a better understanding of the results of experiments presented later in this Bulletin (Figs. 3 and 4). 8 BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION 55.n- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. ...........w~%mw@.@QF~UQQQMIQmOM d .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..WQ£OC@ .CO@w5wh%CQfl\/m . . . . . . . . 5.... mm Q B R 55. m... 2 w... Q w... mm . . . . . . . ....::_......5E...5 =38 .535 . . . . . . . . 55 5.5 .\.N 55 N... 55 N5 >5 5.5. 55 wN 5N >5 . . . . .0.5J.~5w.50Q5.5.50w E55E5EE cmo5>5 .. .. . . .55. . . $5. 155 .55. .55 .55 .55 55 R. 55 55 N5 55. . . . .@..:5w.5v.5E@5 EsEiwE cwo5>5 -5 55 55 5m 5w 5 N5 5 55 N 55 N 5.5.5 5N 55.5 m». 55. NN. . . . . . . ..5m-5555 £35255 .=&=Gm . 5252555555 1 ...-.....-.-.>NNLNNJNNL.i . - ¢ - 01100001 - - 1 - - - - - 1 - 1.1.111. - - - u ¢ - » Q o . -..-11-..¢1u- ..........W\%m@»tO@HQQUUM%IQWQ-Mh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......WUZQC..~ . . . . . . . . 55.55 55. 55 5 5.5. N5 N5 55 2 55 5.... 5.5. 55. . . . . . . . JCBmEQQEQQ. 56E cmo5>5 . . . . . . . . N55,. 2.. 55 55 N5 55 3 m5 55 55. 55. N5 .\.N . . . . .o..:5w2o5Eo5 EsEEE. E352 . . 5.5%. . . B... ....5 5h 55 5.5 .5 55 55 R 55 55 55 . . . QESEQQES EsEccwE E335 5.5. 55 5 5b NNN 55.N 55.N 5N5 mmN 55N mNN 55.5 55. 55.. . . . . . . 15515555 .3552: 53:85 . 55.52.55 55m 1 1 55555555 - . u .1 - - . - - . - . - - - - 1 - - - - . - . - ~ - - - . . - 1 - » - - - - - 1 - - ~ - - . - - - 1 - 1 - 1 u 1 1 1 1 - 1 » - ¢ . | u 1 . - - . - . 1 - . u 1 v.15 .... . . . . . . .. 5.5.55. 5...5N5. 5555. 55.5.5 5555 .555. 555.5. 5.555 555... 52.5 5N5. 5555. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132E .52 55>? 5.5.5.. . .. . RN C. 5 55 5 55.5 555 55 5 55.5 5N5. N5.5 55 .5 5N5 55N . . . . . . . . . . . 33.53: .c.o55.2o5m>5.5 . . . . . . .. 5.5 5.5.5 5:55. ... 55. 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5.55 5N5 5.55 v.55 5.55 11.5550 .525 $555255 55x5 d>< . . . . . . f 5x55 5.55 N55 5.N5 5.5.5. 5.55 5.55 5R“ 5.55 5.55 >5... 5.55.. N55. ........P.:5m.5o5E@5 553E c5352 . . . . . . .. 5. 55. 5mnN 5.55 5.55- 5.5.... 5 ...5 5R5 55.5.5 58......“ N55. 5.55 5 . 55.. 5.5N .....u5:5m..o.5Eu5 55555555555 c5552 x .5555... .. N5... 5 .55 N C. 5 .5 5 5.5 m. NN5 N55 5 5.5. 5.5.5 5.55 5.55 ....o2:5.2o.5Eu5 EsEimE E352 55 5o m5 h... 5.. N KN 5.5. N 8.5 5N 55N 55N 55. 5.5. 5m. . . . . . . 155-5555 £25.55 555ml F555 1 . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . ¢ u . W55... 5.. . . . . . . .. ......m_ 5N5. .5555 5555 5N55 5N55. 555.... 5555 N555 5N55 5555 55.5.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 525E .52 55./z .....5........5. .. . 55... .......N 55 5. 55...... 8.5 55.5 555 55.5. 5 5 .... .... 55.5 N5.N . . . . . . . 1119250.: .:o..5m..o.5m>m5 . . . . . . .. 51.15 5.5 5.5 5.5 5N5 5.5m. 5.5 5.255 5%.... 5.5m N. 55 5.55 .1155... .65 25.552. 55E .w>< . . . . . . .. 5.55 5.55. N55 5N5 b5» NN5 5155 5.5.5. 5.5m 5.N5 5N5 5.3. N55 .........2:5m225Eo5 cmvE c5335 . . . . . . . . 5. . c5. 5..m.N 5M5». 515.... 5 N5 >55 5. 5» 5.5 5.55 5.55. 5.55 5.5m 5.5N . . . . 5225.25.55.55 E:E5E.E E335 .. i $.55“. .. ... .5...“ 5 55 m...» 5B5 5.55 5.55 5N5 7N5 N5“ n55 5. 5... .. . ..Z:55EQ.5EQ5 EsEimE c5552 5- .... 5 N5 5 m5. 5 N5.N .........N .......N N515 55.5 NmN 55.5 N52 5.... . . . . . . 155-5555 .3555: 5.555535 “255255550 1 . . | . . . . . . . - . - . . . . - - . . . . . . . . - - - - . - - - ¢ » . . . - . ~ . - - - - - - . - - - - - 1 1 1 - 1 . - - - . . . - - 1 1 \ . - . - - ~ . . - ~ ~ ¢ 1 . 1 .5...._......5 . . . . . . . . 555... N52 5555. 55.5. 55N5. 555. nN55 55.55 5:555 5555 55.5.... 55-5.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3555 .52 55>» .:. 5...... .. . . 5.5 2.5.. 5...... 2...... t: £5; 5N w $5 2 5 .5 m ZKN 5...... . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2.55 ..S:....._...5>5.5 . . . . . . . W»... . _ .... 5...... .15 ...? 5...... 5.... .45.... .3... 12. m 3. 2.... .15 .. Z28 3.. $2.25.. 52.5 ¢>< . , . . . . t ...... P... ....£. ...... ... E WE 5w» 55...... .5 55 5.5m 5. .5... 515+ 5.55.. .........:.:.:@.5E.: .52.. .232 . . . . . . .. 5.5 . 5 ..N 5 .55 5:55. 5R5 5.55 5.5 5.55 5 5... 55w 5. 5-5 .....5N 5.5.N . . . . 5553.25.55.55 E:E5EE c502 ... . . 55... 5N5 5.5.... 5.5.. 5. 55 5N5 5.55 5 55 5 5-... 5 55 5.55 N55 . . . 5252525555505 EEECBE 55535.25 5.. :5 .5» 55. 5.5. N 5N 55N 55 .N .....WN 55 N N55 55 ...“. 55. .........55-5555 £25255 525ml 5.555515 55:555.. .255 .>o./. 550.5555 .553... .5525. 2E5. 5.55/5 5254 .5554 .5955 .555. .U»¢5.5J1~50u v.75» 2.r:ct.:7¢ 5G55£M50w E525 $5555 555555.,» 5m 95055553 @555 E025 55555 5mu5mo5o5oo5oE .50 .Cm5EE:mI~.5 v3.5.5. 9 GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w-/fi¢.w NNNNN . . . . . . .. NSN NNS. N?N ?NN S3 8Q mQmw NNNN NNNN NNNN NSN NNNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :£=.E .5: NE? Nv N... . . . . . . .. 3N NNN EN. Nb...” S? NN? NN? SN NNN NNe. SN NNN . . . . . . . . . . 2x505 =2NNNNNN>NN . . . . . . .. N? N? N? N? N? H? N? N? N? N? N.? HNN. N? .1133 5N SNNEEEN 6m .34 . . . . . . .. N? NN... #3 N? NNN NNN NNN N NN NNN N? NNN 9mm NNN ........NNE.NNNQENN 58E 532 . . . . . . .. NNN N22. N NN N 5 N NN Y? N? N t. NMNN Ndw NNN Np? NS. .....E_SNNNQENN Eszzfifi N82 . . . . . . : NNN NS .......<. N 3N N NN NNN NNN ? NN NSN NNN N.? N? ._...\.N .. . NNENNNQENN NEENNNE =82 3. NN . . . . . . .. SN NN.N NN N NNN NNN NNN N; N woé NNN ?N.N 3A NN; . . . . . . iNNéNNfi 8N2: Ewwwwwmom . . . . . | . . - - - . - . - . - . - . . - - . - - . . . - - . - . - - - . . ~ - . - - - . - - . - - - - - - - . . . - . . . . - - l.‘ . . . . . - - - - - . - . - . . . . - . - . NNN.§ . . . . . . .. 35m SNN 2am NNNN NNNN NSN ENN .\.NNN NNNN NNNN NNNN. S? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..mN=€.=P~ NE? SNN . . . . . . .. 5N NNN $4. NNN SN NNN NN? NNN 2.. N SN NNN _N.N ...::.......NNNNNN =QSNSQN>M . . . . . . .. ?.N? N? N? N? N? fisN NS Ni. N? N? NNN N? P? .::ENN EN Nimitz: NE .22. . . . . . . .. N NN N 3 NS N B N? N NN N NN NNN N? NNN NNN NNN #5. . NENNNNQENNENNE E82 . . . . . . .. N S. N. S Ni. N N... ? NN N. R N I. NNN NS N N... NNN NNN NNN ....:E:NN.NNQENN Esszifi E32 . . . . . . .. N ? N 5 N? NNN N NN N NN N NN NNN NNN H? N? §NN FNN .. . NNENNNQENN MNEEQNHNH =82 NN NN . . . . . . .. .\.N N 2 N ?.N NN N E N fi. _ 3N NNN NNN NNN HNN NNN .........om-m$H 8%.: =flhmw=mww lo HULLPYFIN NO. 424, 'I'E.\AS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION The Luhhoek Station is loeated three miles east of Lubbock i11 the lligh Plains llevgion of 'l'e.\'as and near the center of what is known as the South Plains. The altitude ls 3106 feet above sea level. The average Iviillfall me!‘ a perlutl of ‘it! years is lihli iIIClIGS, 83 p81‘ (381113 0f whieh falls during the months from .\pril to tlvtohel‘. inClUSiVe- The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring" and the first killing frost in the fall are .\pril ll and .\TtJ\'i'llll)(‘l‘ '3. llllle soil is 0f the Amarillo and lhehlield line sandy loam types. which 511T’ typical of a considerable portion of this airea. The Chillicothe Station is loeated in the eastern part of Hardeman (3ount_y, five and (inc-half miles southwest of (‘l1illicothc, about midway between the lied and Pease ltivters. The altitude is 1406 feet above sea level. The average rainfall over a period of 25 years is 25.51 inches, of whieh about so per cent falls during the months from April to October, inclusive. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first killing‘ frost in the fall are March 724C and Xovember 6. The soils in this seetion of the State were derived from the Weathering of the Permian lied Beds. 'l.‘he soils r-omprising the station farm are fine sandy loanis. loams, and clay loams of the Foard and Vernon series. This station is operated in eooperation with the Otliee of Forage Crops and Diseases, 1'. S. Department of Agriculture. The SD11!’ station is located in Dickens County one mile West of Spur. Spur is in the ltolling Plains Region, being 14 miles east of the Cap Rock esmii-piiuiiit, which (livides the Low Plains from the High Plains. The elevation is '3'.’7J¢ feet above sea level. The average annual rainfall for a period of 20 years is 21.41 inches, S3 per cent of which falls during the growing period of summer crops. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first killing" frost in the fall are April 4 and Noviembei- ll. Abilene and Miles clay loams, two typical soils of the southern Red Beds Region, comprise the land on the station. The Temple Station is located in Bell County and before its removal to a. new site in 1927 and during the duration of the experiments reported liere was located about four and one-half miles southwest of 'l‘e.niple.. 'l‘ht> elevation is 7'40 feet above sea level. The average annual rainfall for the period of 18 vears is 313.35 inches, about 61 per cent of_ whieh falls from March to September, inclusive. The average dates of the last killing frost in the spring and the first killing frost in the fall are Mareh ‘.’l and November l1. The soils on this old location are dark- brown to blaek elavs of the Simmons and Lewisville series and are not strietl_v' tvpieal of the ltlaekland legion. The Beeville Station is loeated in ltee County in the Interior Black Prairie ltegion at an altitude of 21H feet above sea. level. The average ttlllllltll rainfall for a period of '37 years is £30.31 inches. of which 66 per taint falls between March and September, inclusive. The average dates of the last. killing frost in the spring and the first killing frost in the GRAIN SORGHUM DATE—OF-PL.ANTlNG AND SPACING EXPERIMENTXS 11 fall are February F272 111111 l1e1ve111ber T1. \'i1-11i1ria 111111 1111111111 s111111_y l1111111s and clay loa111s are 1110 pri111-1pal soils 1-11111prisi11g 1110 1111111 111' the station. The Big Spring Field Station is 101-1111-11 11110-111111 111il1- 11111111 111' Hi1; Spring i11 1101111111 (,.‘o1111ty i11 the S11111h Plains l111gi1111 111111 a1 1110 s1111111111-11 edge o1’ t11e lligh Plains. 'l‘l10 11111111110 is 211111 11-1-1. 111111\'1- sea level. 'l‘111- average 11111111111 1'11i11l'1111 over 11 1101-11111 111' 1T1 years is 18.1.‘; inches, 81 p01" cent of which 1'11l1s 1l11ri11g‘ the 111o11111s 1'r11n1 April t11r1111g11 11011111011 T110 average 11ates o1’ t11e 111st killing frost i11 1110 spring 111111 1110 first 111111111; frost i11 t11e 11111 are 111111-11 3O and l.\'11v011111er '2. The principal soil type is Amarillo 11110 s1111dy 10a111. The Big‘ Spring 1710111 Station is 111101111011 by the (11111-1- 111' 111'_y-1.111111 Agriculture, 11. S. Dep11rt111e11t 111' .»\_;ri1:11lture. The Delbert Field Stfltiflll is located i11 llartle_y' 11111111111)‘ i11 11111 1111111111111 Panhandle. The altit111le is Z5971< .1001. 11111110 sea level. The average rainfall over a period of 72.3 yjears is 18.11.71 inches, S?" per 1-1-111 111' which falls during t11e period from April 1o (11-101101‘, i11c111si\"e. The 1111111111111 dates of the last 111111111; frost i11 t11e spring 111111 the. first killing‘ frost i11 the fall are April 23 and October 111. i-Kniarillo sandy 11111111 soils p11‘- dominate 0n this station. The Dalhart Field Station is oI10rat1-1l 11y t11e Ofiice o1 l)r_y-11an1| Agriculture, U. S. Depart111e11t of Agriculture. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS The yields reported i11 this Bulletin were computed to 1110 1101c lmsis from experimental plats. The plat sizes and number of 1'epli1'(fIIl. clean, threshed grain. Forage yields are the total 110111 pr111l1101io11 of l1eads 211111 stover 11.1111 are presented i11 tons of air-dry 111111ter 111 t11e acre. The measurement 111111 observation 111' plant characters were 1na111- at maturity 111111 are 1111s0d on t11e aver-age of 1011 consecutive plants i11 11110 row. BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION écofiwpw wsovfit/ on» pm wfisnwpow mo spBopm ma» moms wucwsccm woucsocopn w min: pwnopoO o» 32w 59G mswsofi wan mxwwm m5 E cofimi?» m5 E5 wcomww» mso€m> m5 E BWEEw Emsmxmmpw E compsnvfiwmw .25. 93s AwQ E5 @325 mmm QDQW dnpooEEsO Joonnsd pa dEwsfiofiE dmTwfiafi dwowpwn zww-cmp >2, dwsucm E Saws?» owaaw>< .m drm qzmauziOpor QQ §z§|zu» >m auto»: z_ 435:8. uu< 52 0mm .>oZ FOO FEW .034 521 @231 5E 4§Q< .3 .._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ ~Anh~ \ , / \. , .// ~ /r...i/ ... o. J... ............PG(IJd . |.|oz_amn 9m . I I ll I 5.1m L ... . | . I uvfloufiwzzu l a zuogaq . E 2 ‘Iwamvu J0 cannon GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 13 Diameter of plant is the average of three measurements, one taken at the butt, one at the middle, and one at the peduncle of the plant. Number of days from planting to full boot, to full head, and to matu- rity are, respectively, the actual number of days from planting until 50 per cent of the heads were i11 full boot, until 5O per cent of the heads were in full head, and until 90 per cent of the heads had mature seed. The period from planting until maturity is called the growth period or crop-growing season. Per cent of stand is the ratio of actual number of plants obtained to the desired number of plants, expressed as a percentage. All possible care was taken to insure good stands; planting was done at heavy rates, and the poor stands that were obtained were due to inability of the seed to germinate under the unfavorable conditions. Thinning to desired stands was done, ordinarily, about the time the plants were four to six inches high. The heads were harvested with a pocket knife and cured until dry enough to thresh. The stover was cut by hand or with a row binder. Forage weights were computed by adding the air-dry head weights to the air-dry stover weights. The figures presented for grain and forage yields are the actual acre yields of grain and forage of the designated. plats. A few exceptions are indicated as calculated or interpolated yields. The calculated yield of grain of the 3-inch spacing of kafir at Lubbock, in 1917 (Table 16), is typical of the method used in computing calculated yields. The 6-incl1 spacing of Blackhul kafirwas reliable in each year of the ten-year period, 1916-25, inclusive, but the 3-inch spacing was not reliable in 1917 be- cause a dependable stand was not obtained on that plat. The ratio between the average grain yield of the 6-inch spacing and of the 3-inch spacing was determined for this period of years, excluding 1917. The calculated yield of the 3-inch spacing in 1917 was made to conform to this ratio with respect to the yield of the G-inch spacing of that year. In this particular case the ratio of average production was found to be 1 to 1 and, therefore, the yield of 7.2 bushels produced by the 6-inch spacing in 1917 was also the calculated yield of the 3-inch spacing that year. The interpolated yields included in Table 8, the date of planting tests at Chillicothe, are yields taken from a planting of each variety made at about the designated date at some location on the station other than that of the date of planting test. DATES-OF-PLANTING EXPERIMENTS Response of Sorghum to Time of Planting The time of planting sorghums has an important relation to the coinci- dence of the vegetative and fruiting periods of the plant with an environment favorable or unfavorable to best growth and development. If sorghums are planted too early, before the soil is thoroughly warm, it is diflicult to get good stands. Too early planting may prolong the l-i HULLPYYIN NO. 424, TTIXAS .-\GRI(,‘L'LTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION gi-oirth period of a variety’ throughout a longer season and expose the erop to more hazards ot untayoralihe temperatuiwi- or moisture. (lrziin sorghums .~ire _gw,-nerall_y groyvn in regions where there is a period or [ieioils ol' low summer rainfall and satislzietoiy yields cannot be obtained when the tiruiting‘ period ol the erop eoineiiles with such depressions in iu-iiulkill. ln t)l'tlt~l' to iletermine how the sorghum plant responds to these ilitlerent ellk-ets Wlltjll planted at ilitlerent times, data on various eharaeters were i-i.>ll<_»<.-tel ot‘ which was on August :3 and the latest on September 5. (hi the whole. booting early in July resulted indecreztsed yields. It seems app.-irent‘ that planting' should be done on a date that will allow heading in late July‘. August. or tj-zirly September (ilfig. 5). At Lubbock, June ‘Z0 to July 20 and August '30 to September 1U constitute periods eharaeterizeil by the lowest 1'aiiit'all of the growing season and sorghums etiiuiug into head iluring these periods are apt to suffer a loss in yield. (in the tither hand. peaks in the tlistribution of rainfall occur, on the z-ivtrrage, between July 2t) and August 2O and between September 10 and 20 (Fig: 3i and if the sorghutns are lteading during these periods l5 GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS W W mw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.. 28w N 28w mm .95 w.“ .95 22 .95 3 .23 S. .925 2. .95 E >23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22292 22222220 @522. E 28w E .95 2 .95 E .95 mm 23 mm .23 E .95 E .23 E >23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .e.222..2..22._.2.,,: E 28w f1. .95 2.. 95 2.. .95 S 23 2m .23 2 .95 S. 23 2 .22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $222.22.; 252w E 28w E .95 2 m5 S .95 0m 23 E 23 E .95 E 23 E .95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....222..2..22 2:9::..2w 2 2.5 S 28w E 28w 2 28w S. .95 2 .95 w 28w E .95 E .925 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:282 2222.2 Cw Aw . @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E .80 E 28w E 28w E 28w E .95 E .925 .2. 28w w .95 w .95 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5292 2222820 2:22.85 2.. 2.2.0 2. 28w mm .95 2 28w w .95 0N 23 ww .95 2 95 2 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12082 222222.25 2235 2 28w 92 .95 E .95 2w. .95 2 .95 3 23 E .95 2.0. 23 E 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .326 822.23 Ewvsfiw E 28w 2m .95 E .95 ww .95 w. .95 E 23 E .95 22m .23 w 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.225 82222.2.» 2820 E 28w :2 .95 E .95 9.. .95 2w 23 E 23 .2 .95 9.. .23 w .223 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $225 >528.» 22822E2w 2.2 28w 2...]. .95 22 .95 2. .95 :2 23 E 23 E .95 9.. .23 22 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122E .,:2_._8>2.__§,0 E 2:3 E Q2 @1225 E .223 E 2:2 E 22:5 E 223 E 222 E 2E5 :0 002003 00:3 2322:2052 .20 020G :0 00252:: 00:3 :00: :5 .20 020C :0 0020020 00:3 2002 :0: .20 020G .2002 dméfifi £00220‘: 2m wofloifi» EsswEw 222.2% mmficfim 20 Bu: E02 2322505 .20 0cm .0002 :3 20 .2002 :3 m0 $20: 892825.10 03mm. 1i; ISULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION l l Luaeocx CHlLLlCOTHE. '*—*-— SPuR — — —- —- - BIG 5PR|~6 —-X-— DALHART - - - . . . . .. / W” // / r X b / 4’ s /,‘/ ///" / -' y// , ;\‘-<%/ f’ -_I_T_~” ' Temperatures — DEGREES FAHRENHEIT. RAINFALL ~ mcni: I / ,1 , w x // Jaw. Fae MAR. APR. MAY Jim: JULY Aus. SEPT. Oct. Nov. Dec. Fig. 4. Mean monthly rainfall (below) and mean maximum and mean minimum temperatures (above) at the Lubbock, Chillicothe, Spur, Big Spring, and Dalhart stations. higher yields will be p1'odui~e(l solely by "the mevailing temperatures. Sorghums have the ability to withstand severe droughts before the crop boots and then to nnike an excellent crop ol‘ grain if good rains come. It is this characteristic of the sorghums that makes them particularly well adapted to the Gareat Plains region. When severe drought prevails prior to heading, the plants practically cease growth and the retardation of growth results in a longer growing season. The reaction of plants to drought conditions causes the extreme differ- ences in length of growth period for any one date of planting of any one variety, as shown in Table 3. Also, varieties differ in reaction to extreme drought conditions. It is characteristic of milos and feteritas to con- tinue growth and to mature, whether rains come or not. l§ali rs, on the other hand, are more likely to cease growth almost entirely and not heail. until rain comes. In either case the growth period is lengthened but this characteristic difference in growth habit between varieties accounts for the greater differences between the shortest and longest growth periods exhibited by the kafir varieties. Effect of Time of Planting Upon Stands Good stands were more ditficult to obtain on April. 15 than on hlay’ 1.5‘ or June 15 planting dates. On account of the soft, starchy nature of sorghum s-eed they are liable to attack "from fungi, which rot the seed and prevent germination. The seed germinate slowly and may rot when planted before the soil is thoroughly warm. Germination of ieterita seed is particularly low and stands of feteritas, particularly when planted early, are harder to obtain than stands of other varieties. The per- centages of stand of the varieties planted at the various dates are shown 1k BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION N2: v0: n»: MN: NA. 9:: : : I: IN: 1:: A: 3:: ¢:_ A. xN: MN NB: 3% Z”: AMA: 2N: :A: Pr: :N: 3A: Ax A:: bx h»: “L: CA: HZ ::: h»: t»: ML: AMA: HZ IA: NZ MA: NI: NA: P4 2A: A... N»: f: m 35 misabzw: 2;: ¢~.-@:.; 12.915 QQCCI. >.m~: >m_ ~55 _m_ _.@~: w~_ Nm: wm: Q.m@: m@_ ow: N“: ~.@~_ wm_ n_: _m_ @.:~_ @~_ w:_ w~_ _.~:~ ~»_ am: ma. ~.mN_ wm_ w_: _~_ 5::~_ 5m: mm: m~_ w.@:_ n__ am: Nh_ _.¢@_ m@_ mofi _@_ :.~__ :@_ mwfi ~:_ ¢.~»_ am: QJ: mm: §.m: aw w: bx _._¢_ bx w: ~@_ ¢._~_ -_ n__ -_ _.~¢ hm ha ww @ _¢_ hm @=_ @=_ w _~_ -_ @__ -_ :.m: bx “Q ~@_ :.:= mm _¢_ ~:_ ~‘-_ -_ @__ m~_ E ma bx H: ms. 5 :5. bx .5. _¢_ _._~_ mm. @=_ _~_ @m=h@,< @~¢_ @~¢_ _~@_ 9.2. i623 5.53m :0 5E6‘: E mvoflwa firm :0 wfmcfi 2cm m: om: m2 m: mm: :5: NA“: 2N2: 6.25mi do: 25w we: m: . . . . . . .. * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m: 95:. . . - - . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - -. . . .m~.? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “hi; 25.: wc: mo: . . . . . . .. * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h: 3:1. . . . . . - . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lcmx 23: we: mo: . . . . . . .. * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . h: 95:. . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .mv? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lama Esxufim: Emwcfim 0o: mo: . . . . . . .. :5: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In: 25:. . - . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . .-m.? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:2 2525s.»: Ema/C m... ma . . . . . . .. oo: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In: 25:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52E v2.25 22:25am m... om . . . . . . .. so: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In: 25:. . . . . . ¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -m.? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52E 52:?» T532 ca ma . . . . . . .. no: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In: 3:1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52E 3525? 232cm; I: ax . . . . . . .. ca: . . . . . . . . . . . . . E . . . . . . . In: 2:1. . - . . - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w: 0:: mi “m: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :2 2.E< 52E 302w? .2532 fix: S2 5Q: :22 M22525 2c 3mm: W232i», Eszwhov. 52w mcficfia :0 wBmQIM. 2.29:. 19 GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS m: 10M‘. M“. QLTC 010110 Am .92 371GB ha: afi .3 e8 aw a2 Q 2: Q: mfi ww 3 m: ma mm. aw mg nmfi aw Q: wfi aw m2 wfi ma m3 m2 5 Q: w: aw w“: w: SW o: o“: "3 m: m2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m; mil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In; 2W2 . . - . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . - -mu? usziu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 055% . . . . - . . . . . . - . . . . - . . . . . . - - . - - . . - . - - - - . . ¢ - ¢ - ¢ - . - HMCWM ~D£MON~m mmxoh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imé wash. - . . . . . . . - . . - . - . . . . - . . . .m% . - - . - - - - . - . . . . . - . - - . - . -mv§ QITFIO.“ Tw>>Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0C5». . . . . . - . . . . . ..$?\’u.m2 . . . . . . . - . . . . ASCEB 55w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2 25w . . . - . . . . . - . - - - -v.-.---m?.h.m2 . - - - . - . - - . - - . . - - . . . - | a Hmibifl vkmwcwum 2o BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICUUFURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in 'l‘able 3. Poor stands no doubt have some intltience u on ield‘ 4 r 2 _ J ntwet"tlitaless poor stands do not account wholly' ‘tor the lower yields of April l3 plantings. ’l‘ht: ‘average per cent of stand of the April 15 plantingj ot llwart Yellow milo was H-l per cent; the May 15 planting, H?» per eent. 'l‘he yields, however, ditler by (5.3 bushels 1n favor of May l3 plantiitg: Like-wise, the average per cents ot stand of lied kafir were ill and it!) tor the two dates, res )CL‘ll\'Ol\" vet the earlier date has the . v J ., ltight:r average vield bv 1.53 bushels. Influence 0f Time 0f Planting Upon Plant Characters Plant lteight; aml tiliamtitei‘ oi stalk are inlitiencetl more by soil-moisture eondititins than by temperature conditions. ln general, however, shorter and more slender platits result trom April l5 than from May 15 and June l5 plantings, although the average height at maturity and the diameter ot stalk diller but little (Table (i). Also, there is very little dillereiieie in the amount ol? suckeriitg but here, also, the later plantings, on the average, have the higher number oi’ stalks to plants. No doubt, the poorer stands that l°ret\1'tttt1tt'es tiptinium "for growth of sorghums do not exist until stimetimt: a l'tei' lillt) last ltillitig 1l'rost in the spring (Table 1 and Fig. 4) and the growing settson ot grain sorghums, therefore, does not coincide with the lrost-l'i'ee ]l(‘I‘l0(l. The soil is warm enough and mean tempera- tures are high enough to 2lll()\V planting by’ February 15 in the southern part and by April 1 in the northeifn part of the State. Since favorable growing tionditions for grain sorghum usually exist right up to the date ot’ killiitg‘ trost in the fall, and since the latest out’ the grain sorghums grown will mattire, ortlinarilyf, in 1'20 to 130 days, the possible range of planting date covers a period of at least 90 day's, even in the northern 0 ._ GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 2.32 fiwN "C flQfi Nh CA: 2: 00w mm SQ 3 flm 3H mm. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315225 Q43 QQQ 2.2 3.8 .5 Q2 QQ Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 3 QQ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5333 uivssm 85F 3.2 #2 Q2 Q3 E QQ 2Q 3 Q2 QQ 3 3 2 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5:55. Qaac . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..©WJN.~U>/\ Q34. Q.» QQQ v5 3 Q2 3 2Q Q2 3 3 QQ E 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~3v~33 :53. Q . QQ Q. E QQQ Q2 3Q Q2 3 QQ Q2 2 QQ Q2 3 S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5138 122.233 N . W c _ h . . - - ~ - . . - | ¢ - - ~ - | o - . - - ~ - u I . o - - u ~ . v - | o a - - - - - - Q . - ¢ ¢ - Q ~ . - ~ - ¢ ~ . - -fl#%firifl§\/(1 h . MN N. . NN m. . MN m . NN mm OCH 3 QQ 0A: Oh 2Q GA: 3 2Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mcfi JGWQ 3 . 2 .12 fQQ. Q. 5 Q2 3 3 Q2 3 QQ Q2 3 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 B: ...: flN xdN 3. ~N C.NN QQ OO~ mm QQ 2: mm mm Om: m6. “Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . {S234 zivtfim #2133237. x . w; MiCN O. ~N 2.3 3 Q: Om: 2: OO~ Q3 2Q CA: 3. fih . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lin»; EQQQQQFA 1x32 - - Q - - ¢ - a - ¢ Q. - - - - | ¢ o u ¢ o 0| - - - n - - ¢ - - ¢ a- . - - - ¢ - - Q - | - » ~ - . ~ ~ » - ~ . Q. 2Q 3 . 3 QQQ 2 . 2 3 Q2 3 3 Q2 3 3 Q2 3 3Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2? SE3 QEQQQE QQQ QQQ 3Q Q12 3 Q2 QQ QQ Q2 Q 3 Q2 QQ 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2? 22B 2.52m Q. 2Q 3.3 3.3. Q2 Q3 Q2 QQ 3Q Q2 R QQ Q2 3 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35 >S=Q> E3533. m3 Q3 QQQ 2 . S. QQ Q2 3Q Q2 Q2 3 3 Q2 3 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QQE 30:3? imam 2 3 3 3E a5 3E a5 3E E a5 ~hmwmr€ 0mm»: Q.%mw%.~é U~O>< HHU>< H~0>< Qo>< wuEwbxm mwEobxM 3533mm kmwuima/ “WW3 2m 3 II 2 23 2 >33 2 EQ< Qmwwfimfi m“ 33M Qmfiw 223w “o 236 Em azfizogQ .2322 £25.15 2Q mwfiuflmk/ Emnmhom 52w 3252a “o 33mm Eob 5.3m 3o E2.» QwQhr/m wcm 622830 mam? Mo 356 5Q @2336 can @m§@><|.m 03mm. 22 BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION dmmkiw .08N-Nt.. dwfl6>w 035m... ..... . AA N 2 NA m N N m AA NA m 0A NA NA mA mA .._0>A.. 000A. .202 200A @2000 AASAEQAA A0 £50 00m .0220 S 928m nSAQEEA. JAANAEA A0 WQNNEPAA. . . . . .. NN AN AN NA mA A.A NmA NmA mmA . oN mN mN o AA m.A N.A NA NAA NAA NNA omA . N m m o 0A oA A.A oA NAA NmA AAA NNA . NN Nm AN NN m.A NA AA N.A Nm.A NmA Nm.A mmA . NA 3 NA NN NA oN N.A mA NmA mmA NNA mmA NA mm NA mN NA N.N NA A.A NAA AN.A NAA NA.A N NA NA m A.A A.A N.A A.A NNA mNA NNA NNA . N N 0A m AA AA AA AA ANA NNA ANA coN . N N NA m A.A AA N.A AA NNA NNN mNA NNA . NA mN oN NA N.A N.A NA AA NmA mmA 8A NmA NA Nm Nm NN NA NA mA mA AA.A mmA mAA NNA NA NA NA om N.A N.A mA N.A AAA mAA mAA 0AA NA Nm om NN NA NA mA NA NNA NmA NNA NNA Am Nm Nm 8 0N AN 0N 0N mAA omA AAA mAA mA mA mA mA mA mA mA mA mA .034 000A. .032 2.54 ..6>< 000A. N02 200A. .._o>< 000A. N0 A205 0.60000 92.50 A020 0A 0000080000 @0020 A0 A000 08A $2230 A0 000802 .0000 A0 0000805 . . . . .. .-..¢-...-..Qmdo%o>< NN NA AN mN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........w82mO NA NA NA NA . . . . . .1000 00000 mwxvrA. AA NA NN NA . . . . . . . . . . . {NAAEBQA TERA if. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nm Nm om Nm . . . . . . . . . . 02020,. AVENAENAw Nm mm Nm Am . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fAAEA 022m Am Am om Am . . . . . . . . . .........Am.$A 23A NA NA NA NA . . . . 0200A 20003.05 0:00am NA NA NA NA . . . . . . .000 E0000 000G Nm Nm Am Nm . . . . . 302E 025$ AVENAESN NA AA AA NA . . . . . . . . . 02E 825$ AENBQ Nm Nm 0N Nm . . . . . . .028 00:90» AYEAEEN 2. 0. 0. 3 . . . . . . . . 2s e20.» 0.000 mA mA mA .025. 000A. >02 200A. - l||||||||» 32.5.» @2302 0005000 é 3000 0.0222: 5NINANA JAQOQQAAQ A0 @0002 0002.60 000 d00z00m N025; 2020 dwm00>m 0.35mi NEEEQ .20 20A. N0 100000202 m0 00200200.» 802N000 025w mo 0000:0000 Acfimlm 030B dmmhz/m Emmhim... . . . . .. ANA EA 0AA Nm Am wm w a w . AN mm moA ..........0mm00>< 2.. Nx _ .5 2AA mm cm NA Am a N mA m 0N .5 ow Am ...... . . . . . . ...**0AS22U m: IA 0AA 0AA mm 0N Am 0N 0 N m 0 Nw AN 0N 00A . . {.153 EAEEWAAA 288A. 20A Nu 0... AmA Am Am mm ..m 0 0 0 N 0N N0 N: .5 . . . . . . . . .._.fi03.: A0032 00A 2.. m... NmA 2.. mm . Nm 1m N N w N mm . 0N ...N 00A . . . . . . . . . . . 0:000: 05w. i: 3,. N: AmA cm Nm ..m 31. x x x N ..N 00 mN 2.. . . . . . . . .3257: 0.200000% m: mA mmA N: 0A.. _ NN mm 2|. 0A a AA AA NcA A: A:A AmA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.2 x02; mrA ..mA ...mA NA A am m AN. mm cm a .0 N AA NANA i .5 AmA . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...:=:$A 00K mNA NmA AmA w; A mm W NN ..m mm 0A a AA AA ANA 0a A; mmA . 502 E0020 0.0200001. 0AA I; mAA _ m2 Am mm M. f». NA... w H .0 N a ww NN AN. Q: . . . .0002 0:00.20 A0032 00A A... 0: mmA -m Am A t1. mm w. 0 x w N Ax 0N NN A; . . . . 02E 020.3 0.00000; mcA c: msA , AmA Am Nm . Am mm N N x N Am No Aw ma . . . . . 02E 020.5 .2033 Q: m... 2.. mmA mm Am m 2:. AN. w x w N NN AN 0N A: . . . 02E 30:0? 000000;. 00A 0... 0: ANA Nm Nm N: 0N a N a N NN N0 0N AN . . . . . 02E 302.0% AEBQ . , _ _ 09;. NA NA _ mA 0.2/4 mA NA mA .00....< 2 mA mA .E>< mA mA mA 000A. >0; _ A204 000A. >5; A2004 000A. .02,“ 2.004 000A. N02 2.54 - - - -- t !.-l-llaiii.ili- r1 \11- t! lvlzlllllvl: 502.03’ 12.22000 . >JCAAAA~A= . 0000 20A 0A 0000 20A 3 555:0 JuEQ 0A 002A 20A .m>mQ A000 :3 Ecb 990C 0A $0.50 520D .2002 dmiAmA JA00000A E kzpAAAAwA-N 0A 0:00.00 0.0.: 00m 202000000 0A 0000 20A Eoé .0000 20A 0A 000A 20A Eob .0000 2.; 0A 003050 05C .100 A0 000-000 umAfiP/A. $02050 A0 300 .3 000000202 mm N232?» 000.3000 0200M m0 @0230 AAABEUIRAA 030B GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 23 part of the State. In the southern and eastern region, where. the sorghum midge is a limiting factor in production, grain sorghunis must be planted early enough t0 allow heading and ‘flowering before the inidge becomes numerous. Even here, however, there is a possible range of planting date of some 90 days. Dates of Planting and Yields at Lubbock Ten of the principal varieties of grain sorghum were planted over a period of eight years at Lubbock on three dates: April 15, May 15, and June 15. Three additional varieties were grown for shorter periods. Plantings prior to April 1 are not feasible because of the dillicultyr of getting stands. Plantings made zifter July 1 are ‘frequently c: ught by frost and stands are sometimes hard to obtain because of (leflt-ient soil moisture. These three dates are representative of the possible range o1‘ planting in this region. In the following discussion, varieties grown for only txwo _vears will he disregarded. The grain yields resulting from April 15 plantings are generally lower than from May 15 and June 15 plantings (lllalilr: '7'). Dwarf Yellow milo producet 27.1 and 72715 hushels~ on the May 15 and June 15 plantings, and 21.1 bushels on the April 15 planting. li)wa‘rl' Blackhul kafir produced 21.0 and 20.3 bushels on the hlay 15 and {June 15 plantings, and 18.1 bushels on the Apfll 15 planting. Spur feterita produced 25.0 and 23.7 bushels on the May 15 and June 15 plantings, and 20.4 bushels on the April 15 lalanting. Yields of the late-maturing varieties, Standard l3lackhul kafir, Bed kafir, and Pink kafiif are not in line with the results from the earlier varieties. The differences in pro- duction of these late varieties, when planted on April 15 and May 15, are probably not significant but are in favor of the earlier date. The reduction in yield of these later varieties in the June 15 planting is due largely to their being caught by an early frost in 1919, and with that year excluded, the yields of June 15 compare favorably with those of April 15 and May 15 plantings. Apparently these late varieties of kaiir may be planted earlier than milo and feterita. This condition is brought about by the fact that the long growing season. and habits of growth of these varieties, when planted on April 15, causes them to mature about the same time that earlier varieties mature when planted 30 or 40 day's later. Dates of Planting and Yields at Chillicothe Three varieties, Dwarf Yellow inilo, Dwarf Blackhul kafiif, and fcterita were planted on different dates each. year at Chillicothe from 1913 to 1928, excluding 1918. Whenever soil and climatic conditions would permit, plantings were made from April 1 to June 1, at 15-day intervals. In early years plantings were made up to July 1 but beginning in 1919 the last planting was made on June 1, and an early planting on March 15 was added. June 1 does not represent the latest possible planting date at Chillicothe, and unfortunately the yields for the early years are not representative because of a series of unfavorable seasons. The yields 24 BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . MQCQJ z:r_ “i: cg; 5M; m... vi: 5m cdm 5mm wt: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I2 ocsw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . wdm ca: ma: m4: mgm mfifi 9mm v.3“ 9Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120:3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “.52 1:32am gw=men 32.. ohm mam v6. mfg a 3 5cm mhm 5mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1w; 0:3. o . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . § . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..m? 5.2 __.fizsm.tmas . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . - . - -m.a? ea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P. . N $- r\l . m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _...\.m chm .43 w cm ofim wém maflm mam minm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I: 2:1. x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5:5 3E3 19:2 .....M..m “fir. 5r; 51.. 52.. w. 3.. mdm ngm mfid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1...; ...::_. rJmm 5S... 5mm 5mm xmmm 5mm V: cg: NAM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m.- .234 ... i 53.. 52 .1. a .... f w. E c w; y. fi ¢.§.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....c.__.:._. rqvhhmkc17. wihm adv 9mm x cm odm n41 xbn 5mm 7cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.14 x51. 52.. 5.: _ m.w_ h mm 7mm cgm _ chm QQm 5A3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1w; Biz. @. hm N- w. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M _ n . . k u. - ,- ‘ i I 1|. _ m i- btFr/ 4 3.: .21.... _ 5: F mfl: mmi _ 2...! 32 $22 _ ~ _ m=:=m_; “c 3x2 _ E2" EC 3 2232s .22.». EEC 0772712 .@~..4.La_ ...._..onn:J H. 52m “o $22.». 23 wax 33min.» Essmhow =§w @5253 “o wBmQIR 2pm.? 19.0 GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS C§l\l\ OOIFRD v-n-n 7 8 29.0 v- v—le grmving‘ condi- tions late in the season due to the long afroiifliiig season oi that varietyx The April plantifrigs of feterita, lllili? tI1i11~=11 111' kalir and niilo, pro- duced lower grain yltlllilt-S. There is 111~el111l.1l,1" 1111 significant; dillbiwuiei: in yield between the May plantings and the .,l11111~ plantings. _l“t‘ll0l‘liil, lIOWQVGI‘, usually responds better t0 late planting than the other vmietiies. Dates 0f Planting and Yields at Big Spring Dwarf Yellow milo, Dawn kafir, Standairifl ‘l’et11i~1'il1'1,, and hegari have been planted on different dates at Big _Spri11g in rc~ertain years during the period 1919 to 1930. Plantings were nnidr- at 154111)’ intervals :l'ro1n April 15 through July 1. In general, highest yields have resulted lfrom glnne. 1 and June 15 plantings (Table 11). Larger ditlerences result ifroin different dates of planting than at Lubbock, Dalhart, (‘hillicotlu-i. or Spur. '.l‘he yields from the April 15, May 1, and May 15 plantings oi’ each variety are lower than those from the June 1, June 15, and .l'11l'_v 1 plantings, with one exception: the yields of Dawn katir on the llliiyi l and May 15 plantings are higher than the July 1 planting. The yields of milo, 28.1 and 27.8 bushels on June 1 and June 15, and yields of 18.7, 18.8, and 21.0 bushels, respectively, on Nlay 1, Miay 1‘5, and July 1 show the advisability of planting milo (luring late May and the first half of June. Quite similar results were obtained from other varieties except hegari, which apparently responds better to late planting than other varieties. Dawn kafir produced 20.8 and 18.0 bushels of grain from June 1 and June 15 plantings and less than 15 bushels when planted either earlier or later than these dates. Standard ieterita pro- duced 19.5 and 18.5 bushels of grain from June 1 and June 15 plantings, and 15.0 bushels or less on each earlier or later planting. The highest grain yield of hegari, 24.8 bushels, was produced from June 15 planting and the next two highest yields, 20.3 and 19.4 bushels, were from July 1 and June 1 plantings. A yield of 18.9 bushels was made from May 1 plantings and during this period of four years in which hegari was grown, that variety has made good yields in individual years from each date of planting. Hegari is notoriously erratic in its response to climatic and soil condition and it is difficult to predict its behavor. However, it seems that with this variety late planting will return the most consistent yields of grain. Hegari also is an excellent forage variety and produces a high quality of forage, especially when planted late. There seems to be a more restricted period of optinimn planting of sorghums at Big Spring than at some other western stations. The period of low rainfall during July and August (extends over a rather long period (Fig. 3). Sorghums planted in June reach the heading period in late August and September, when rainfall (renditions are more favorable, and this undoubtedly accounts for the better yields obtained from planting in June rather than April or May. \\ 30 BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION m? 3.“. Ca in w: HQHUHLHHWHHHHHHHiimfi. ................................... a: a. %.% AL AL a .. 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..@u¢.? vb; own ;.o; adv ad; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..; 25;. @ 5 3 fie @ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....@.% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... fie . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..@.% "immom 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..% mix; ;.;~... Nfim v mm 0B; 50m n.;; o ;..;.m NAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.395;. m5; mg»; cmm mdm 5w; wfl; 3;; v5; wd wém . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..; 95;. x %. 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..@.€ ;~ ax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...% .. . a... H; ;.m; o m; ;.o; o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12:; < “Siofix; Emwcfiw 92 o. my: ;_m; P»; #3 o 52 ;\N o; man 9mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..; 32;. o .2 ;;.; x m». .... 2 a g. ;;; c w.;m m4; .1. mam mam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In; 25;. .43. ck; . . . . . .. 2:1. ;.~..; .42. we; m; ma; Q8 $2.. Q2 9mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..; 95;. Ni: f: . . . . . .. $2.. o f: ma; s... ah; aé; o o m3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m; 53>; 1x2 x5; . . . . . .. $.21. wtm; m3 ma; 5m 7mm Q5 o c awn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..; 53>; y. . . . . . .. c O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..%.;ué Ccmx 23mm; W3 3w; f3. m5; o 5w; Nd 5;: 9E. cam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...; .23. 1 T. r f. ... .2. M. i. M. _; m mm w w; o T? Q5 mam :5 93w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m; 25;. f5 2...; #2 :5». o8; #3.. m4; ;.;; Qwm mam wen“ wa... F? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I; 95;. x 2 m5; 3.2; ~22; o $2.. #2 hi; ~23 ~15 o o ma... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m; 53>; .1....:1. hi; #2 5mm ;.;. we. .99.“ F? o a ma? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..; 53>; .~.. 2.1 of; 7.» 2: o a.» 7m; o NNN o was . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m; 2.54 5:5 Bozo? ;Zm3m; .._..>< :2: .52 1N2 “ma; 3.3 $3 35; Q2 $2 $2 82 3;: wcicmi; .;o 3am; oCw 3S o; .2332; .32.; EEO .¢.Lw:_.:: dmAZa; datum Em; Hm 58w .3 mwruw». us; wcw mfifixbfi/ Esswhow 52w mcficfim Mo mBmQIK: 229;. GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 31 Dates of Planting and Yields at Dalhart Dwarf Yellow milo and Dawn kafir have becui grown in date of plant- ing experiments for a period of 12 yjears. 1919 through 1930. Feierita was grown from 1921 and hegari from 19.31“ through 1930. Dnriiig the period from 1919 to 19321, inclusive, plantingxs WOTC made on four (litter- ent dates at 15»~day intervials, beginning May 1. From 192.2 to 15126 an additional planting was made 011 July 1. lilrorii 19537 to 1930, in- clusive, plantings were made 011 only three dates: May 15, June 1, and June 15. The results are recorded in 'l‘al1le 12. Each of the three ‘varieties grown over a sufficient period to render the results reliable has produced the highest yiieltl 11111111 the June 1 or the Junoe 15 planting. The earliest a11d the latest ilaies. May 1 and July 1, produced the lowest yields in all varieties. Average yields 1311111 the May 15, the June 1, and the June 15 plantings of l[)\\~'arf Yellow milo, for the entire IfZ-year period, were 30.3, 34-31“, and $34.0 bushels to the acre, respectively. The corresponding yiielils of l)a\v11 kdlll‘ were 30.0, 30.4, and 30A bushels to the acre. It seems to be typical of kafir varieties to have a longer range of optimum planting date but it is true with kafir, as with milo, that yields of May 1 yilaiitings were below those of later plantings 011 illay 15, June 1, and June 1:"). Yields of Standard 1010111321 from the dilfeifeiit dates of planting indi- cate a rather definite optimum planting date. The best yields, 29.9 and 28.41 bushels, were produced on the June 15 and the June 1 plant- ings. Standard feterita, 011 account of its early maturity’, will stand late planting better than kafir or milo, but even with "feteritzi there was a reduction in yield when planting was done as late as July 1. The results with hegari are too fragmentary to allow conclusions to be drawn but the indications, which are supported, by the behavior of the crop elsewhere, are that hegari will PTCNlUCQ the heaviest yields when planted comparatively late. Julie 1)1'Ol)&1l)l_y’ the optimum time for planting hegari. The summer rainfall depression is 11ot nearly’ so pronounced at Dalhart. as at other stations and the low trough followed more closely by a favorable rainfall peak during the first ten days in August (Fig. 3).. Sorghums have produced exceptionallyi good ylQldS rather consistently over a long period of years at this station, and this favorable distribu- tion of rainfall is largely responsible for these consistent _yields. There is a rather definite optimum planting time for grain sorghums at Dal- hart, around the first part of June, due partially to the fact that the heading period of sorghums planted at this time coincides with a favor- able rainfall period, a11d further to the ifact that earlier plantings en- counter less favorable temperature conditions due to the higher altitude of this region. For instance, the mean temperature for June at Dalhart is '72 degrees and is quite similar to the mean temperature at Chillicothe for May, 70.4 degrees (Fig. 4). 32 BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION ._§2=Qau* . . . . . . . - . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (..? . . . . . 1min». wdw adv 5mm ...................m~0:3. . . . . . .. wflm Nwv 9:1. . . . . . .. -.-......-.........................................-..-........ ..................-mv?%m2 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-.? Himwoi . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...? aim m1.» m T." "mm m mm v.2 mtmm #2.. *3 "M: ¢sm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.2.3 7mm my; a o“. can ma; wgm m mm vgm wdm mdm... wAm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . llfl 22;. Q.6L¢J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..? 33232 wpmwcwdm E2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. odm v12 ma; 5mm o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Z3. *3“ 2.3” ma... wan wgm wam 9cm #2” can m; “am fimm i? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1222:. 73.. 5D. 5.1 #2. :5 5%.. Y? w?” w?” Q2‘. 2:. *8 $5; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 2.3 2.3.. ... n: 0.: I; 7m". mam $3, wAN w?” ¢.~_ 14% mSN we . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.: T22 :._.~.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. aBm chm wgm 5mm 7mm mtmm wtwm 5m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . n-fl >32 2cm; c252 h: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5%.. ohm w w mam vJ: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I~ 3E. c 3.. c mm m2. c m“. mam 53H #5 wnm ma? 9m msm 5Q m3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1m; 22:. 5; x i. w. E ¢$ N? wwm mam mam mew. war. Y?“ 5mm #5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I~ “E3. x i _.1.m .1. 2. N. “w f? Mgm www miom M; g: 9mm mtam ma? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :2 >32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . ...? 52E .50:®\W ffisfl .._..>< .5: 1&2 mm: 5.: wfl: £2 32 ma“: NQ: $2 32 22 wctcfia Ho QfiwQ uhum v5 3 20:95 .22» 52G JV/wmfilufim JuNvZNQ a6 56pm wO mgwm.» on“ UGN mo$v€m> Eflfimhfim 52m UGSGN?» m0 wo¢mQ||.N~ MZQNP GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERlMENTS iii} Dates of Planting and Yields at Temple The results at Temple extend over ll-snu" _"i'1‘z1I‘S. 1919 to IWBL’. l’lant~ ings of tour varieties were made 2113 1£3~d:i_i' intervals, beginning‘ with llclFarcli 1 and (aiding with August 1. lllhe yields are lower than are ordinarily to be expected in (lentrzil 'l‘e:~:zis 1111c to» the fact that crowdeil conditions 0n the station made it necmissziify" to put this test; on some relatively poor lkllltlt ’l‘he jyields resulting" 11-15mm. the various (lattes o1? planting should be comparable, however. Mean temperatures at Temple during" lllznfirh and April are only slightly higher than those at Chillicothe and Lubbock, but enough higher to allow stands to be obtained. byf ivlzizri-li For this 4-yieai' period the highest yields o1’ both grain and llUllillllg‘ n-ere ()l)ll2llll(‘(l_ from the Nlay 15 planting (Table 13). The yjiehls n1’ grain. hoxvever, wiry xvithin a narrow range of about two to three lullilfllilida to the acre "from all plantings from March 1 through ._lu1w 1. Ml of these plantings matured sometime during the month of ;\1l§__’,'l.1t:1t, lfilH.‘ earliest. plantings early i11 the month and the later planting close to tlnr Olltl of the month. Plantings made between June 15 and J uly 15 martini-ed, in Se.pt;eii1beir, and ziugust 1 plantings of ngiilo and feterita nnitiniwril in (,l(‘lj}()l)0I‘. Kalli‘, planted on August 1, failed to mature before ;l'rost:. The length of growing‘ season for plantings made after June 1 zire imucli shorter "than those of earlier plantings. Plantings made after June 15 spend their entire growing period during the months of low’ summer- raintall. 'l‘he maturity is hastened by the high temperatures zunl plants and heads are small. The month of May appears to be the optimum planting period for gra.i11 sorghums at Temple but not much reduction in grain yield will result from earlier planting. During the four yiears this experiment was conducted at Temple there was no appreciable damage from sorghum midge. Temple is, however, in the territory where the midge does occasional damage. Forage yields of more than four tons to the acre were obtarinc< 006 I”; 8.» 2a 00% Nmé 00h 07m Se. :20 0N0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indigo“ 22:55 05m av; 000 5a 2 . w 3a nae. 00.0 00% N00 max“ 00.0 . . . . . . . .52 zzzewi 050cm; 3a fig N00 mmvw. was Nah 00.0 0min 0.0.0 firm 0N0 E; . . . . . . .....£$_ Efiavzm 033D 00.0 Nb; Maw 21m 00% 2 .0 E6 07v mwa. mm m 0m m 0h; . . . . . . . . . . . IozE 30:0? $63G. 96m o5 3 was .301» uwmhob . . . . . .. 0A m“ 0x x0 0.2 LVML 02 “H: 50H T: m2 .................um.fio>< 7: 0A “M... .52 0.: ma; NBA 0.: T: “a; T: 52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ifitid “Z3255 fix 0. T». f. w.“ n0 0.: 0.2 ~12 .1: 0.0 w. L . . . . . . . 15E _=€Bm_m @2355 0G 0. m.» f. m.» 0.x 72 M; 0.0 5w x0 c0 . . . . . . . . . 12%.: _=€B2mtwac 0.0 ma T... “w 0.0 0A1 0.2 2: 9g 0.: w0~ 00H . . . . . . . . . . . ..c:E3o:o>TmBC .:>< fi 0:4 w; x14 fl .23. 2 3:1 00:3. 2 an; fi i“; w; 2.5a» _ En< 2 .502 H .32 23C?) 0P5 of o“ mfiwzn .33.» EEO ¢>a=_2; .mm-0~0_ .2550‘ i" mufiutw.» Eszmkow 52w w=s=fia 0o Pint Est awake“ wen 59% 0o 32>. aum~o>111-1.-_ 1s 111111 11111111111)" 111 111111111g1: ‘from 11111.15. Ilegjari 1111s beeonle 11-13" 111111111111‘ 1111'1111;_"1111111 1111s .<1-1-1i1111 111+1zzu1se it produces good 311-1115 of 11111111 111111 1'111':1;_"1- 11\'1-l' 21 \\'1111- 111111411 111' ]11211111111(£_§ (121195. It 1S 01.11011 111111111111 111 .-\11;;f11.<1 11111-1 1111- 11111 1'11i11.~% 111115111 111111 when p1a111e11 lute or 11,~1~11 11> :1 1111111 1-1-1111 1111111111115 (15111111 _\'11‘111.\,i 111' (Lf_'1'21111 811d Tblflgi‘. 191g. 5. Typical heads.of Dwarf Blackhul kafir, Dwarf Yellow milo, and Spur feterita from late planting at the Lubbock station. Three of the best varieties of grain sorghum for Texas. GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 3T There is no consistent increase in forage yield with later planting because plantings made dlJOllt April 1 or (iarlier will iTrequently' produee two crops when later plantings do not. The ziverage ;l'or all varieties shows April 1 to be the best planting date. '.l‘he ;l'orage yield itor all varieties shows April 1 to be the best planting (late. '_l‘he ftorage yield for all varieties, when planted March 1t). April 1. April 20, and J.\lay 19 average 2.55, 3.11, 72.60, and 22.83 tons to the acre. iespeetxivelyf. The results at Beeville show a greater (litfereiiee in response of varieties to date of planting than at any other station and the indications are that all varieties should be planted before April 1U. but that liegari ean stand plantings up to illay 1 better than other varieties. Summary: Effects of Time of Planting Upon Yield Grain sorghums are not greatly iestricrted in their date ol’ planting requirements. The crop responds well to the climatic (itllltillfiltillS of Texas during the entire growing season, except in the ver_y early spifing. This wide adaptability in time of planting grain sorgliuins increases their usefulness and allows for an (ifgtllllZfllltill of l'arn1 work so that; planting, cultivation, and harvesting of the l'ee1». mm was QJHEG “AN fimnyzva Q3 w. 39m Synzwc Sa 5H5?! . . . . 1&3 wéh. c». 2am moHtws fiwm ao.%mw.o aém m. an; zvflufiwe Zwfi Summaal . . . . 5N2 .:%. _m fie wfiHweé 3a abused “Q m. ma; S.%£.Q 9a fiHfilvl . . . . .623 w: 3.. S: ~@.Hl.....@ t: moflmad 93 m HQA waumwvo mo; wofimwndl . . . . 5:: 2N; hm TVs £m . . . . . . . . .. nm._ m._m co“ an mb.~ mv ................I.........vm . . . . . . . . .. _x.~ n.~m co“ mm ~h.~ fiv .................I....... _m . . . . . . ... .a.~ o.nm oofi mm mw.H mv ............I.............x~ . . . . . . . . .. aa.~ m.mm oofi mm ow.~ av .............I............n_ . . . . . . . . .. m~.N m.mN ma mu mm.H Hv ..............I...........m~ . . . . . . . . .. »m.m H.wm cow mm av.~ ow ..............I...........a zpmr: 2a mwmm 2w N» N: 3 ....r..qnwrrwmflMHuMm mm N w -~ mm ~w wm ~ mv HLcmx_::zom2-LmB- mw mm.~ ».mm oofi on mm.~ wm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..wm ow mw.~ m.wm oofi N» mv.~ mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..mm wm am.~ m.mm oofi aw mv.~ wm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..om mo ~w.~ m.@m oofi fin ~v.~ wm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....wm ow mm.“ m.wm oofi on mw.~ an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....+m . mm ~a.~ m.@m oofi aw ~w.~ an . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._m so ww.~ m.@m. oofi fin wm.~ am . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...w~ we mw.~ N.wm oofl fin mm.~ wm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..m~ ea Nw.H v.mN ma no mm.~ mv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..m_ mm mw._ w.~m wm mu nm.~ mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..a mm wwmfi wmxw mm on mmmfi um ...............I........m.w 1 ow ~ aw “w wfi ~ fin uo::L.$o:u>.LLw3~_ ~@¢Lm_ wcod msonmsn mhwawflzficuu wozucw .=mmLow_ .:_wLwv ccmam acme hum .x_m~m Lo »w:L:.m~: w@:;:_.w~:m_Q CLP$;c£ :;:m~m2_ Ucwo L~n~ m~:_¢=Lw ~@U@~:mmn~ Uw ¢;wL@- 1.19.: T. fir.» f; mw_orfl Qhum @wm.@>/~ c_:H.u:@>~:@@L.@mm~:u@L~ .@>@w=_@=m.m~-@~@_ Q mc_:@:w..:m1L~o.:5@~cm~v .x@onn:J fiwwmmhv wan Unmfiwz co oocosfliz w ~*v:m =@@.w we wn_@w» ~@m:w.$o~@z~c@m~:m7_Lcmx~Z:Wo:C_ivmcCmQm||4Z Bnwk -v»---- I-....-v GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMICN'I‘S ~19 produced, whether the)‘ be ifrom close- or \\'l(l(*—.-=]")210t*(l plants, or whether the heads be small or l&l1‘§IU. lfiilir and llllltf) lliltl 2l\'(‘l'&l§_"(‘ shelling" per cents of 74.6 and ‘Till, 1‘0S])(‘('ll\'l*l_\'_ slur the lU-jvcar period. It is a flan-t that milo grain (lOOs not thrcsli out ol the lit-ail ans well zis kalir grain and this may account slor thc lower Threshing per vent; ul niilo, but incomplete threshing ol’ grain from the head is i-hami-tiwristii: o!‘ inilo. Fig. 8. Dwarf Blackhul kafir heads (left) and Dwarf Yellow milo heads (right) from plants spaced 3, 6, 9, 15, and 27 inches apart in the row at Lubbock, 1925. Increasing the space between plants increases the size of the head but the best yields of.‘ kafir are produced from the closer spacing. Milo yields increase as the space between plants increases (Table 16). Spacing of Plants and the Efiect Upon Yield in Various Regions The preceding discussion has dealt with the general eilects of spacing on two distinct types of grain sorghnnr, kalir and milo. The principles involved in the effects oi’ spacing are similar "for other varieties {lllll are 5U BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION undoubtedly' applicable to other regions. For example, kafir, or any non-tilleriiig type ol' sorghum, will probably require closer spacing t0 produce maximum yields than does milo, no matter where the crops are grown. Front the practical standpoint, however, it is desirable t0 know exactly the spacing" which will produce the highest yield of grain in a given lot-alitv. This inlorniatioti is available from experiments in spacing conducted at six dilTt-rent stations in Texas. The results are presented in detail lor each station in the lolloyving pages: Spacing and Yields at Lubbock 'l‘he results ol.' spacing experiments at Lubbock have already been presented in the preceding discussion ol the general effects of spacing and only a bricl' restmnt need be given here. The reader may refer to the preceding pages lor l'urthei' details. Two types of grain sorghum, kalir and milo, were included and the spacing‘ was varied from 3 to 36 inches l'or both. The optimum spacing‘ lor kalir was 3 to 9 inches. \\'hcn planted at this distant-t» kalir has yielded 15 per cent, or approxi- mately -I bushels, more g'raiti than when the distance was over 18 inches. 'l‘he optimum spacing‘ lot‘ milo proved to be 18 to at; inches. Planted at this distance milo has yielded approxin1ately' 20 per cent, or 5 bushels, more grain than when thickly planted, I; to 9 inches. The annual yields and the average yields ol' grain til these two crops with dillerent spacing distances are shown in Table 1t}. Spacing and Yields at Chillicothe Early results with spacing ol' milo and katir at Chillicothe cover a period ol' live years. The spacings used were l, 8, 12, and 16 inches. 'l‘his range ol’ spacings is not great entitigh to show the effect of spacing upon the yield ol.’ milo but a later plant-spacing test of milo is included in an experiment; with ro\v spacing, and in that test 6, 12, 18, and 24 inches were used and ('O\'t‘l‘ the period ol’ years, 192-1 to 1930, inclusive, excepting 11128 when the milo crop was destroyed by chinch bugs. The results ef spacing in the early _vears are shown in Table 20 and those with milo plant-spacing‘ in the width of row test are shown in Tlablt? 2U. The average grain yields ol’ kalir from the 4v, 8-, 12-, and 16-inch spacings l'or the early period ol' _vears were 19.4, 2.3.7, 21.2, and 20.0, respectivcl_v. About h’ inches appears to be the proper spacing for kafir. The average grain _vields ol' mile from the l; 8-, 12-, and 16-inch spacings tronl this early test are not significantly different. In the later test. the grain _\'lQl(lS in normal rows il'or (i, 12, 18, and 2-1 inches were. 26.11, 28.8, 2L5, and 27h bushels to the acre, respectively. Small tilillerenees in yield should not be considered significant because in several years during which the experiment was conducted the chinch- bug‘ damage was severe and was unequally distributed over the plats. No significant reduction in grain yield resulted from spacing as wide as '31 inches, and considering the results with plant spacing in wider GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 51 rows, also shown in Table 213, the indications are that spacing‘ 1;’ to ‘31 inches i11 the row will return greater yields than spacing 11 int-hes. From the standpoint 131' lorage yields. the results at (‘hillieolht- eon- form exactly to those at ililuhhoek. (‘lose spacing resulted in higher forage yield than wide spacing. With liillll’ the i1\'1‘l't1_$2‘1‘. forage yields from the »1-, 8-, 12-, and l13-incl1 S]1;11.'111_L1‘S were 1.111, $3.138, 3.131;, and 2.518 to11s to the acre, respet-tivel)‘. The ('0l'1'esp131idi1ig yields o1‘ milo were 3.11, 3.03, 2.89, and 2.139 tons to the acre. Table 20.—Spacing of milo and katir plants in the row and the. yields of grain and forage at (Ihillicothe. (irain yield, lmshels 113 the acre Distance between plants 111117 111118 11111 11115 11117 .'\\'1~l'.|(lc Blackhul kafir: 1 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. *2:'3.7 27.1 (3.8 213.-1 11.2 111.1 8 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 131.13 131.13 111.4 28.13 113.8 213.7 12 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 211.8 27.7 111.7 27.11 ‘.1.8 '.21.‘.2. 113 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30.11 211.13 12.1 21 .»1 7.11 211.11 Dwarf Yellow milo: 4 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 134.5 13 ‘1 2Z3 8 1311.11 13 1 21.7 8 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 131.8 23 1 151.13 213.11 3 1 .212 12 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 213.1 .211 7 21 8 28.13 ._ '3 .21.7 113 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.1 17 ‘1 21.8 27.1 13 7 ‘...-1.‘.1 Blacklrul kafir: l inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.37 2.88 7.1313 3.71) 2.1311 1.111 8 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.54 2.1113 13.48 3.21) 2.21 3.138 12 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.18 2.119 5 88 3.2) 13.114 3.1313 113 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.13 13.113 4.11.") 2 131) 1.87 2.118 Dwarf Yellow milo: 4 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.113 2.1 '3 . 1313 11.131’) .139 3.44 8 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .112 2 . <1 3 1.41) 13.89 1.131) 3 1)13 12 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.213 13.11) 4 15 4.18 .82 2.81) l6 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.78 2.13 4.18 4.01) 1.413 2.1113 *Calculated. Variations in spacing of milo plants had a marked infiuerice upon the development or suppression o1’ suckers. The average 1iun1l3er of stalks to plant for a 6-year period was 1.2], 1.80, 2.12, and 52.58, respectively, for the 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-inch spacings in normal rows ('l‘al3le 213). That the number of stalks to plant increased directly as plant space increased was undoubtedly the result of the interaction o1’ a numher of factors, the most important o1’ Wl11Cl1 were shading and the amount. of moisture in the soil. When plants were crowded in the row, competition for sunlight and soil-moisture was so keen that suckers were almost entirely stippressed, and even some plants died. Only 21. suckers per 100 plants developed when the plants were 1S inches apart, 811 suckers developed when the plants were 12 inches apart, and 158 suckers de-i veloped when the plants were 21 inches apart. The unequal suekering of milo in the various spacings had a tendency to equalize the forage yields, but since 16,583 stalks developed per acre 52 BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION in the 724-inch spacing and 30,722 in the 6-incl1 spacing, the closer spacing returned the higher yield. The forage yields produced by these two spacings‘ were not in proportion to the number of stalks produced, because larger plants ileyclopeil with the with-r spacing. Spacing and Yields at Spur Spacing experiments. with milo were conducted at Spur (luring the years lrolil 19H to 11128 with several years omitted. The test ‘was planted in lnost years but when the stands were not reliable the test was abandoned tor that _year. (train yields t'rom this experiment are presented in Table f3]. 'l‘ablc 21. bpacing of Dwarf Yellow milo plants in the row and the yields of grain at Spur. (lrain yield in bushels to the acre Distance between plants, Average inches _____i______ 1914 1015 1916 1919 1920 1924 1925 1927 1928 Years Excluding grown 1914, l5, 27 l 54 1 36.1 25.4 75.5 55.4 2.0 62.7 38.0 24.0 41.5 40.8 ti . 25.1 64.8 62.1 5.1 61.8 20.5 23.4 37.5 40.4 9.. 53.8 28.1 27.0 69.3 68.0 5.8 60.8 33.8 28.4 41.7 43.2 12. 76 4 28.8 27.3 71.5 69.5 11.4 49.8 41.1 35.5 45.7 44.2 15. 69.4 29.1 28.6 61.2 71.9 12.8 51.0 . . . . .. 43.6 46.0 44.9 18.. . .. 32.7 53.9 63.6 13.9 54.6 453 39.7 43.4 43.1 21 .. 49.6 . 31.7 66.3 60.1 13.8 59.3 . . . . .. 34.7 45.1 44.3 24 . . . . . . . . .. 29.5 28.8 63.8 54.2 15.4 42.3 49.1 35.8 39.9 40.1 27.. 30.4 60.0 55.4 17.3 41.8 . . . . .. 25.2 38.4 38.4 30.. 32.4 69.9 42.4 18.7 39.7 . . . . .. 26.9 38.3 38.3 33.. 31.1 65.9 52.3 17.9 35.8 . . . . .. 23.9 37.8 37.8 36 18.5 28.3 61.6 48.3 17.4 29.5 42.6 36.1 35.3 36 9 .-\ rather wide range of spacing", from 3 t0 36 inches, with 3-inch inter- vals. was used at Spur and the results covering this range are complete l'or six oi’ the nine years reported upon. When the average yields for these six years are considered. it is seen that the G-inch spacing pro- duced -l(l.~l-; the 12-inch spacing", 44.2; the 18-inch spacing, 43.1; and the 21-inch spacing, 40.1 bushels to the acre. The 21-inch spacing yielded +1.13 bushels, or about the same as the 12- and 18-inch spacings. The lowest yield. $16.9 bushels. was produced from the 36-inch, or Widest spacing. The different-e o1‘ about one bushel between the 19- and 18- inch spacings, and a similar ditlierence with the 21-inch spacing, is probably not sigrnilieant, but the optimum spacing "for milo during this period ol' what might be (ronsidered favorable years was apparently around 1h‘ inches. While. the results at Spur indicate the most desirable spacing‘ ol’ milo to be 9 to 21 inches, a somewhat smaller space per plant than the optimum space per plant at Lubbock. it will be noticed that with the exception olf one year, 1924, yields shown were good to abnor- nially good. indicating‘ excellent $O2lSU11fll conditions. Under those cir- 01111151311008 close spacings would be tixpectecil to return good yrields. Had more years such as 1924. or other poorer years. been included there is no GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 515 doubt but that wider spacings would have returned higher yields and niore nearly have substantiated the results at Lubbock. Spacing and Yields at Big Spring Dwarl’ Yellow niilo and Dawn katii‘ have been grown with dillereiit. spacings, ranging lroin 6 inches to 250 inches, at 13-inch intervals, .iii -11- inc-h rows, for the period of y'ears itroni 1918 through 1926 (Table 2'12). The highest yield with niilo, 21.7 bushels, resulted troni a spaeiirg ot 18 inches but the yield from spacing 30 inches was only slightly lower, 21.1 bushels. The lowest yield was inade by’ the ti-ineh spacing and was 2.3 bushels below the yield o1 the 18-inch spacing, 'l‘al>le 22.———Spacing of milo and kafir plants in the row and the aniiiiiil and average yields of grain at Big Spring, 1918-19215, inclusive. Grain yield, bushels to the acre Spacing, inches. 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 19215 1921 1925 1926 Aver. Dwarf Yellow milo: 6 0 46.1 41.2 20.5 152.5 415. 8.9 8.2 1.5 22.1 O 157.’) 41.15 29.4 1515.8 156.1) 11. 2.1i 15.5 22.9 O 60 7 159.5 24.4 151.1 155 i 115.1: 12.13 4.1’ 21.7 0 615.4 25.6 27 7 28.2 152 12.1 12.6 6.6 215.1 47 6 39.8 155.9 213.1 3O 9 11). 11.13 9.4 24.1 1.0 46.8 43.9 15.9 21.1 215.3 .15 17.7 28.6 22.1 1.15 32.7 21.1) 21.6 19 5 20.4 5.6 15.15 28.1 18.1 2.7 31.4 26 3 15.0 15 2 18.8 7.2 15.8 21.4 17.1 4.0 27.3 27 0 17.9 13 6 16.5 4.9 14.5 21.4 16.5 20.4 154 .5 12.6 10 5 15.8 8.15 12.3 19.3 15.1 The yields of kaiir decreased consistently as space per plant iii- creased. The highest yield of 22.1 bushels was produced by the 6-inch spacing and the lowest, 15.11 bushels, by the 30-inch spacing. As at Lubbock, an adverse season caused the largest yields to be niade 011 the wider spaced plats. These results, for both kafii‘ and niilo, are in exact agreenieiit with those at the Lubbock station except that at Big Spring there is not as great a reduction in the yield of milo, on account o1’ close spacing. Average yields for the Wider spacings were approximately two bushels above the yields of close spacings. The reason the wider spacing showed a smaller increase in yield at Big Spring than at Lubbock was that the experiment was conducted in 4.4-inch rows at the former and in ISG-iiieli rows at the latter station. While the response of kafir and niilo to plant-spacing shoyvs that, on the average, kafir is more productive when spaced about 6 inches and niilo more productive when spaced 18 to I50 inches, during individual seasons the results are the reverse of the ziverage yields for the yieriod. This same condition exists at all other stations and indicates tlie 54 BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION siniilarit_\' of growing‘conditions over a large area represented by the five stations and to a (ronsistent i-ezit-tion of varieties to spacing and soil- Inoisture conditions. Spacing and Yields at Dalhart lhvarl‘ Yellow lllllO and Dawn lflllll‘ were grown with different spacings within the row at Dalhart from 1911! to 1926, inclusive. The spacings used were (i, 12, 18, '24, and 30 inches in 11-inch rows (Table 23). ‘Fable 2IS.~Spa(-.ing of milo and kafir plants in the row and the annual and average yields of grain at Dalhart, 19l9-l‘.)26, inclusive. _ Grain yield, bushels to the acre Spacing, inches 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 Aver. Dwarf Yellow milo: ti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54.5 30.1 38.9 8.5 20.0 33.2 .9 38.0 33.2 1.2 . . . . . . .. 53.0 27.9 38.9 12.5 31.0 31.3 21.8 42.0 32.5 18 :34.3 25 2 311.3 11.8 31.6 30.4 22.0 38.8 31.1 24 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.9 281 31.3 11.2 31.1 23.4 21.8 39.3 30.3 l0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.5 35 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Dawn kulir: 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.5 39.1 $3.0 0 23.2 443 48.4 30.7 30.7 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.0 27.9 $0.4 6.7 23.0 38.8 47.7 28.2 29.1 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.7 24.3 33.9 8.3 21.3 33.0 42.1 25.4 28.0 211 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33.9 21.0 27.1 112 27.7 29 6 38.6 26.8 27.0 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21.7 20.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. The Dwarf Yellow milo average yiields decreased as the space per plant increased. The highest yield of 33.2 bushels was made by the (i-ineh spacing and the lowest yield of 530.3 bushels was made by the 24- inch spacing. However, a ditterence in yield of less than one bushel between the 6-inch and 12-inch spacings cannot be considered significant and were it 11ot for the miexplainable high yield of the 6-inch spacing in 15123, the 12-inch spacing would have produced the highest average yield. The row width at Dalhart was 41 inches and it would be expected that larger yields of niilo would result from thicker spacings if the rows are widened. In addition, planting thicker in 41-inch rows so as to have the saine number ot plants to the acre as i11 36-inch rows Will. produce Fewer suckers. Also. on sandy soils and at the higher altitude ot llalhart inilo plants grow more spindling‘ and have a tendency to ])I‘O(l11(‘L! fewer suckers. These factors. therefore, would tend to produce unlike results with inilo at Lubbock and Dalhart. When Linderstood, however, there is no disagreement in results at the two stations but apparently tor (iptimuni yields niilo should be spaced at least six inches closer in the row under conditions such as prevail in the Dalhart region. Over the period of years, as at other stations, Dawn kafir yields de- creased with wider spzicing", but in occasional individual years wide spacing induced greater yield. These results are explained on the same _ basis as those at Lubbock. The average yield of Dawn kafir in the 6-inch spacing is 30.7 bushels and the yields show a gradual decline to 27.0 GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 55 bushels for the 21-inch spacing. a difference of 3.’? bushels "for these extremes in spacings. In the dry year of 1992, 0 inches yrroved to be too (vlose for l. Fig. 9. Close spacing of kafir produces high yields of grain and forage. Standard Blaekhul kafir 153, a pure line growing at the Lubbock station. ()n the basis 0t these experiments it can be concluded that sparsely- lillering‘ types, such as the kalirs, Illarso, and sorghunis of similar habit, ineluiling‘ the kaolialigs, should be ‘spaced (I‘lOSGl_Y, 6 t0 8 inches in the row, lor maximum yields 0t both grain and forage. Hegari and feterita tiller quite lreel_\' but as they are important forage types, they should be planted so as to allow (3 to 112 inches between plants in the row. If foraire is a prinuir_\' (‘()1lSl(l01‘2ltlO1l, a spacing of around 6 inches is desirable. The miles are lreelyf-tilleriiig i11 habit, and as they are grown primaril_v for grain IHWHlllCllOIl for best results they should be given more row space per plant, 1'2 to 2t inches. When niilo is spaced even as Wide as 3O inches, usually no reduction i11 grain yield occurs. GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 57 EXPERIMENTS ON RATES OF PLANTING Results of spacing experiments at all stations have shown eonehisively that grain sorghum varieties dilfer in spaeing reqniifeiiieiiis. '.l‘hiele.lw;-.e.n plants at Chillieothe. Space between plants, inches Pounds of seed to the acre 1925 1926 1927 1929 1930 Average Dwarf Yellow milo: 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.7 14.8 23.3 15.2 14.5 H33 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.1 7.3 10.4 7.1 7.8 7.9 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.2 5.8 6.3 4.2 4'.5 5.2 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.7 4.5 4.4 3.8 3.6 4.0 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.7 2.3 3.6 3.0 3.0 2.9 Dwarf Blaekhul kafir: 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.0 9.2 12.6 14.0 14.2 12.2 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.1 5.6 6.4 7.4 5.8 (3.5 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.7 2.9 4.1 4.4- 4.4 3.) 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.7 2.2 2.8 3.5 3.5 2.‘) 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.0 1.8 1.8 2.9 2.6 2.2 Planting in each instance was made in the field in a well prepared. seed bed at about the usual date of planting sorghums, using seed of good germination. The seed were planted in a shallow listcr inrifoxv. At least two plantings were made each season, but WlICH heavy, washing rains or drying-out of the soil prevented. good germination or emergence, the results are not included. For instance, in 1928 several. plantings were made but no results are recorded because heavy rains and soil crust- " ing interfered with emergence. The planting of one pound and of two pounds of milo seed to the acre resulted in average stands of 16.3 inches and 7 .9 inches laetween plants. When one pound and two pounds of kafir seed wereplanted to the acre, distances of 12.2 inches and 6.3 inches betxveen plants were obtained. .58 BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION When [rlitllltflil at the same rate thicker stands were obtained with kafir than with milo because katir seed are smaller than milo seed. An actual count of good, plump seed used in 1925 showed milo to have 13,115 seed and kalii" ‘lH,l5~l seed to the pound. 'l‘lu-si+ results indicate that il’ the crop is to be grown for grain the planting‘ ol‘ one pound ol’ milo to the acre should give an adequate stand under g-otid conditions tor germination and when good, sound seed are usml. The planting of one pound of kafir is hardly sufficient but the planting" of two pounds should place the plants about six inches apart, whit-h distanee spacing experiments have shown to be about the optimum for this variety. lleguri and Ieteritfzi are also two important varieties of grain sorghum. llegari seed are about the same size as kafir seed and feterita seed are slightly larger than milo seed but both hegari and feterita have soft, starchy seed, which olttimes germinate poorly unless soil and tempera- ture eonditiciiis are tiavorablc. Since both of these are also important forage varieties and should be spaced six to twelve inches in the row, hegari will require two to three pounds and feterita three to four pounds of seed to the acre, (lepcniiling upon the time of planting. GRAIN SORGHUM IN NORMAL, PAIRED, AND WIDE ROWS, AND INTERPLANTED WITH COWPEAS The number oE plants in a given area can be increased or decreased by varying the width of the row as well as by varying the plant space in normal rows. The number of plants to the acre may be reduced by one- half it’ the plant space in a normal row is doubled. Likewise, the num- ber ol’ plants to the acre may be reduced by one-half if the row space per plant remains the same and the width of row is doubled. Provided plants of grain sorghum arc able to feed over a suflilciently large area, it would naturally follow that yields would be the same from rows twice the normal width if the plants in the row were spaced twice as thick. ‘It is apparent that there may be certain advantages in planting the crop in wider TUWS. Any’ reduction in actual length of row to be traversed in planting, cultivation, and harvesting would be an advantage. Also, in sections where grain sorghum and wheat are grown in rotation, rows planted wide enough apart to allow clean cultivation of the wide middle with a. disk and seeding of wheat with a drill between the rows of grain sorghum, \\'(_)lll(l be an atlvantage. Furthermore, there is some interest in growing cowpeas intcrplantcCl with grain sorghum to maintain soil fertility. .l‘iX})(‘l'llll01llS with certain phases of grain sorghum production in nor- mal and wide rows. and when interplantcd with cowpeas have been con- ducted at Chillicothe, Lubbock, Spur, Big Spring, and Dalhart. Normal rows are those of ordinary width. Paired rows are those that result from leaving evertvf third row unplanted. Wide rows result from leaving every other row unplanted. GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 59 Spacing of Rows and Interplanting with Cowpeas at Chillicothe Experiments to determine the influence of growing sorghunis in normal, in paired, and in wide rows upon production of grain and forage have been conducted at (‘hillictitxlie with milo, kalir, and ieterita. Different spacing of plants in the row wtwe used with all the different row Widths. Milo plants were spaced 6, 12, 18, and 24 inches in normal rows; 4, 8, 12, and 16 inches in paired rows; and 3. 6, El, and 12 inches in Wide rows. These spacings per plant allowed "for ‘£6,136, 13,068, 8,712, and (63,534, plants to the acre in each of the ililferent row spacings. Kaiir and feterita plants were spaced 16 and 8 inches in normal rows, 8 and 4 inches in wide rows, and 6 inches in paired imvs, allowing plants at the rate of 17,424 and 234,848 to the acre in normal and Wide rows, and 84,848 to the acre in paired rows. (ilowpeas were grown in alternate rows with kafir and with feterita. The plants were spaced 8 inches in the row, making 17,4241- scirghum plants to the ziere. Experiments with kafir and feterita, and. with these two varieties alternated in rows with cowpeas, were contliicted from 1!)18-10?373, in- clusive, and those with milo from 1924-1930, inclusive, except 1028, when chinch bugs destroyed the milo crop. Chinch bugs have inteiffered with production of milo in each year of the exp-erinient;s except in 1021i. The damage has not been uniform over the total zirea of the tests and small differences in yield, therefore, should not be consideifefl as having significance. Effect of Spacing of Rows Upon Grain Yields Grain yields appear to be slightly influenced by width of row but there seems to be no consistent difference from year to year in "favor of any particular width of row. The results with milo over the period of six years are slightly in favor of-paired rows over normal rows and of normal rows over wide rows (Table 26). The average grain yield for paired, normal, and wide rows, considering all spacings in the roxv, are, respectively, 28.0, 26.6, and 25.6 bushels to the acre. Results with Dwarf Blackhul kaiir and feterita from 1918-1022, in- clusive, are shown in Table 2'7. Average grain yields of kafir in wide rows, normal rows, and paired rows, when spacing in each case was such as to allow 34,848 plants to the acre, were, respectively, 18.2, 17.1, and 16.0 bushels to the acre. Average grain yields of feterita, with the same number of plants to the acre for normal, wide, and paired rows, were, respectively, 217.4, 243.0, and 24.2 bushels to the acre. lmiaon- sistent yields in indiviidual years are responsible for the conflicting results and it seems probable, in the light of the forage yritalfls and the yields from other stations, that grain yields of normal rows should be slightly higher than from paired rows, and yields from paired rows slightly higher than from wide rows. 60 BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION .00A0A:0A0U* 00. A 0w. 0A.. 0.... A 0w. A 00. 00A 0.00 00A 0.00 0.00 w. A 030.: w . . . . . . 0000.500 5A.; 00000000700 00A AoA 00A 0A.N 00.?“ 0.0.0" 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000. 0A0“ 00000 0 .....................~..00.AA0~A A.wA N0. 00. NA.N 0wA 00. 0.00 0.00 Adm N00. 0A0. A.m 00000 0 03>? 00A wA.A AmA 00.0 00.0 00. 0.0.0 0.00 :00 0&0 Q00 0A 00000 w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A0.€807A 0AA 00. 00. 00A 00A 00. 0.00 0.0m A00 0.00 0.00 ANNARA w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 03>? 00A 0AA 00A 00.0 N010. 00. 0.00 0.00 Adm .000 NRO. w.A ANNARA 0A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IA0E00Z . QBCBPA 00A m0. AA.A mAfi 001A AR. 0NA A0 w.AA 0.00 A.wA 0 0N0: w . . . . . ..w00Q300 5A3 0000:8003» 00A 00A 00A 00in 00.? 00.0“ 00A 0AA 90A 0.00 0.0m... 0 00000 0 ......................~A00.AA0~A 00A 00A 0wA 000.. 0A.N 00. NwA 00A Adm A00 0.0m o 00000 0 02>? 00A 00A AAN 00.0 00.0 00; ABA 0N 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00000 w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A0E007A 00A AoA 00A 00.0 00.0 m0. A.wA 90A 00A 0A0 0.00 0.0 0000A w 00A 00A mwA F10 00.0 ww. 00A 00A 010A Adm 0.00 0 0N0: 0A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A0E007A E000 _=0€2m 80am 0.60 000E .00>< 000A A02 000A 0AOA wAOA w6>< 000A ANOA 000A mAmA wAOA 0A3 00 0A3 00. 300E 00000 050003 A0 008802 A0 07A 30E 0.80 0A3 0A 0:00 .2010 owmhorvA 0000 0:0 0A 200000 A0020 50.0.0 ...0>00:A0A0A fimlwAaA 620002200 A0 0w0A0A 0:0 E000 A0 0010A? .0000>>00 5A3 0000000010 0:0 .003» .00.:0Q A0880 030.0 ASA? 03.0003 A000 0000A Asszofim T03Q|Nm 0301A. A00 0AA A00 00.A 00.0 00.0. A00 0A0 A.0A 0.00 0.00 A200 A00 0.00 00.0 0AO0A 0000 0000 0A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100A? 00.0 AA.A 00A .20 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00 00A 0.0A 0.00 A00 0.00 0A0 .0 .0 003A 0000 0000 0A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0205 00.0 00A 0._..A 00.0. 00.0 0A A 00.0 0.0.0 00A 0.0 0A0 0.00 00A 0&0 00.0 0000A 0000 0000 00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A0882 AOA 00. 0....A 00.A 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.00 0AA 0.0A 0.00 0.00 00A A00 00.A 0000A 0000 0E0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..00A>> 2.0 AAAA 00A 00.0 00.0 00A R0 0.00. 00A 00A 0.00 0.00 0.0A 0.00 00.0 0000A 0000 02.0 0A 0008A 0A0 00. 00A 00.0. 00.0 0AA 00.0 0.00 00A 0.0 0A0 0.00 0.0 A100 00.0 000$ 0000 0C0 0A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A0882 00.0 |_ 00A 00.0 00.0 00A 00.0 0.00 50A 0.0 0.00 0.00 0AA 0.00 AOA 0000A 0000A 0000A 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10050 00.0. 0A A 00A 1.0.0 0AA. 00A 00.0 0.00 00A 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0A 0A0 AOA 0000A 0000A 0000A 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..00.00.A 00.0 01.. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00A 00.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0.... 00A 0.0.... 00A 00000 0000A 0000A 0A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._08.5Z 0A0 AAA 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 0._.A A00 A00 00A 0.00. 0.00 0.00 00A 0.00 00. 00000 00000 00A00 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0000» 00.0 0AA 00.0 00.0 00.0 0AA 00.0 0.00 0 AA A00 0.00 0.00 00A 0.00 00A 00.0.00 I000 00A00 0 . . . . . .. , 0008A AK 0 00 A 00 0 HA. 00.0 00A 00.0 _ 0.00 00A 0.00 0.00 0A0 0AA A00 AmA 0080 A0000 00A00 0 . A0852 A 0 0 220 0:05 00.020 .25. .00.: _ 9.2 . B2 5.; 00.: M 5: .55. . 00.: 0m: _ “m: 000A 000A .32 0500 El- 020E 02005 0 A m _ _ 00 A0030 .0003 080808 00 008002 l! 000000 E: 2.00 .05 00 .260 .0000». 0008i 00.00 00A 00 0A0AAmEA .200». EEO 00 .02 0000 000 0A. 0008C .0>A02.0E .00-0m0A 0AAA00AAAEQ A0 000.60 000 .0000 00 020?. 000. 080 080.. 02.: 000 .00.AA00 A0580 E 2A8 80:0.» t0kO|00 0AAA0.A. GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 61 Effect 0f Spacing 0f Rows Upon Forage Yield and 'l‘illering There seems little doubt that early in the season, when the plant root systems are small, plants in normal rows are able to use more ol' the available soil moisture and plant tood than plants in either paired or wide rows. This (iondition 1)1'obz'1bl_y' continues until the root systems occupy the entire area between the rows, at which time the plants are well along in their growth. That plants in normal rows utilize more completely the available moisture and plant food is indieatsetl by their higher yields of forage. Forage yields from pair-ed. rows and itrom wiidtv rows of milo are quite consistently’ lower than those .l'rom normal rows but the greatest (litterences occur where plants are spat-ed thickly Illl the row (Table The forage yields ot milo in normal, pairml. and wide rows, the plants in these row widths being spauul L12, 8, and t; inches apart, respectively, and each area having‘ 13,()(S8 plants to the 2l('l'l', were 2.67’, 2.16, and 2.2-1 tons to the acre. The plants in these ditterent; row spacings tillered at unequal rates and over the si.\'+_y'ea1' period normal rows produced 23,379 stzilks to the acre zigainst 119,130 l'or the paired and 16,999 tor the wide rows. The average number ol' stalks per plant; i11 normal, paired, and wide rows were, respectpivelyi, 1.80, 11.53,], and 1.3.]. The forage yields reitlect the difference in number ot stalks piviiliieed per acre in the various row widths. As might be expeetetl ‘from the results previously presented on tillering as intluencerl by "plant spacing in the row, the largest amount of tillering also took place in this "test where the plants were given the greatest space in the row. That t;he amount of sunlight has an important bearing upon the extent ol? tillering is shown by the amount of tillering that occurred. on plants given tiqual space in the row but in different widths of row. Plants in normal rows, given a space of 6 inches, produced 21 tillers per 100 plants, and plants in wide rows, given the same space, produced 31 tillers. (Jori'esponding figures for plants spaced 12 inches apart in the two row widths were 8O and 108 tillers per 100 plants. If the amount ol' tillering depended entirely upon moisture Mlpply, plants in wide rows would have been expected to tiller enough to produce as many stalks to the acre as the narrow rows; or instead of 31 tillers, 112 tillers should have been pro- duced, and instead of 108 tillers, .260 tillers should have been produced. Crowding and shading appear to have a markeil influence upon the amount of tillering. Since the (litt-“erences in the zlmount o1 tilhii'i|ig in the wide and the narrow rows have been small but have been consistent from year to year, it seems likely that this small increase in tillering in the wide rows is due to the tact that the plants in the wide rows have more available soil-moisture. Forage yields from paiifetil. rows and Wide rows of katir and teterita were consistently lower than those from normal rows (Table 2'7). Kafir and teterita, spaced 8 inches in normal rows, produced 1.97 and 1.5-5 tons to the acre; spaced 6 inches in paired rows, 1:37 and 1.4-1 tons; and spaced 1 inches in wide rows, 1.69 and 1.27 tons. 62 BllLLkYPlN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION Alternate Rows with Cowpeas Both. grain and forage yields (if kafir and feterita were lower when every altr-rnatr: row was planted to eowpeas than when every row was planted 1n grain serghiini, or than when every second row was left blank trllilllll‘. '37 ). With kziifir and feterita spaced in such a manner to leave 17,4121 plants to the acre, grain yields in normal rows were 16.9 and 25.8 lmslurls, as eompziiwul with 12.6 and 18.9 bushels where alternate rows were: dwoteil to C0\\'])021.<. The corresponding forage yields of the two wwietcies in normal rows were 1.76 and 1.49 tons to the acre, and when alternated with etiwpeas, were 1.30 and 1.09 tons to the acre. 'l‘he ditll-rentre in yield ol? kafir in favor of normal rows over rows alternated with (zmvpeas was 4.3 bushels of grain and .46 ton of forage to the aere. Tln: (lillferenee in yield of feterita in favor of normal rows xvas (L!) Imshels of grain and .40 ton of forage to the acre. In these experiirieiits with kafir and feterita the introduction of a crop of cowpeas in alternate rows with these sorghums has resulted in a reduction in the yield of both grain and forage amounting to approximately 25 per cent. Spacing of Rows at Spur ‘Experiments with spacing of rows were carried 011 at Spur with milo for eight _years ('l_‘ablc 28). Thinning was done so that there were 9,68%) plants to the acre in each of the row widths, making the space hetxveen plants 18 inches in normal rows, 12 inches in paired rows, and 9 inehes in wide rows. Girain yields from normal, paired, and Wide rows were, respectively, 33.7’, 33.5, and 33.3 bushels to the acre. With the exception of 1914 and 1930, the yield from wide rows has consistently been lower than from normal and paired rows. The indications are that not much reduction in grain yield occurs from planting in paired rows instead ot’ normal rows but that a slight reduction in yield may he ('Xp(‘(:t0(l oi-diiiarilyt from planting in wide rows. In only two out of the eight years did wide rows produce a higher yield than normal rows. 'l‘he. largest difference in favor of wide rows occurred, as would be expected. in a very dry year, 1930. i 'l‘ahle 28.—-Milo in normal, paired, and wide rows and the yields of grain at Spur. Grain yield, bushels to the acre \\’i(llh of rows 1914 1915 1916 1919 1925 1926 1928 1930 Aver- Normal... . . . . . . . . . . . .. -l5.9 36.0 26.5 41.6 38.9 55.3 20.4 4.9 33.7 Paired.... . . . . . . . . . . . . ..*‘15.4 31.8 23.8 45.4. 40.2 54.1 20.9 6.1 33.5 Wide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 52.5 31.0 22.2 40.1 36.8 50.3 18.6 14.8 33.3 *Caleulated. GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING IEXPIIRIMIQIWPS i321 Spacing of Rows at Lubbock The results with milo in normal unit's and paired rows at laihhotiek cover a period of tour years, 1997-~1tl£l0, invliisire. Row spat-e per plant was the same in each witltli of 11311’, nntltiiig the number o1‘ plants 1n the acre two-thirds as great in the ].l1t1l1?‘0tl retire. '..l‘he average grain yield from normal rows was 728.8 btishels to the acra: while "lroni the paired rows the yield was 26.2 liuishels, a. di'l1’e1."e~11ce. of bushels in favor of the normal rows (Table 99). Table 29.—-Dwarf Yellow milo iinnormal and in wide rears. ithc tgfftwct on plant ehar-aeters and on grain yield at Lubbock. 192L119. ilfnrltlsitrti». Average Per cent. Ptwr cent of heads Height No. of of Iilants Width of row of plant stalks to having inches plant suckers Erect Inclined Pendent Normal (3-—foot) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 1.8 64 59 29 12 Paired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2.5 73 44 =15 ll Grain yield, bushels to the acre Width of row 1927 1928 1929 193!) Average Normal (3—fo0t) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 32.1 46.1 21.9 14.9 28.8 Paired . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28.5 42.0 20.1 14.2 26.2 Unequal suckering of plants in the two row widths resulted in almost equal numbers of stalks to the acre. In the narrow rows 17,421 stalks per acre were produced against 16,135 stalks in the paired routs. Plant- ing in the normal rows resulted in more erect heads and fewer inclined heads. In normal rows, 59 per cent of the heads were erect and 29 per cent inclined, while in wide rows 44 per cent were erect and 45 per cent inclined. There was no appreciable diiterence in the production of pendent heads. Table 30.—Kafir, milo, and feterita grain yields in bushels, from normal, wide, and paired rows, and rows interplanted wit-h cowpeas at Lubbock, 1913-14. Kafir Milo Fctcrita 1913 1914 1913 1914- 1913 1914 3—foot rows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.8 56.6 5.2 58 7 3.1 68.9 6—fo0t rows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2 41.2 5.4 54 7 2.6 536.3 Rows in pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.2 . . . . . . .. 4.4.- . . . . . . .. 2.3 . . . . . . .. Rows alternated with cowpeas. . . . . 3.6 . . . . . . . . 2.1 . . . . . . . . 1 .8 . . . . . . Rows in pairs with cowpeas........ 3.3 . . . . . . .. 2.3 . . . . . . .. 1.6 . . . . . . .. Some early results at Lubbock, in 1913 and 1914, with kafir, milo, and feterita show a reduction in yield due to planting in paired or wide rows (Table 30). A decrease in yield of 8.5 bushels of kafir, 6.5 bushels of feterita, and 1.9 bushels of milo resulted from growing these sorghums in wide rows instead of ordinary or narrow rows. Milo, in wide rows, 64 BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION has made relatively better yields than kafir or feterita because of its ability to tiller lrc-ely' and ntore contplt-tel_y' utilize the increased area per plant. .\ further reduction in yiehl occurred in 1913 when cowpeas were planted in every second row; also when planted i11 every third row. Spacing of Rows at Big Spring llwarl Yellow milo and llayrn ltalit- were gjroyvn in normal and in wide rows tor a period ot’ three years, 1919 to 1.921. Spacing in the row was such that lire dillereiit numbers ol plants to the acre occurred in the rows ol the two widths. The strait-hugs between plants in normal rows yrere ti, 1'3, l8, :31, and 3t) inches, and one-hall? these distances in wide rows. .\ reduction in yield almost invariably resulted "from planting in the wider rows ('l‘ahle 2}] ). The highest average yield of milo, 41.5 bushels, was produced on the 18-inch spacing in normal rows while the corre- spontlillj! yield in wide rows was 33.2 bushels. In 1921, when the lowest production in the three yiears occurred, there was, on the average, less dillerence in yield in lavor olf the normal rows than in 1919 and 1920. llisregarding" the space between plants in the row, normal rows yielded. on the areragre, 39.7’ bushels to the acre and wide rows yielded Sims bushels, an increase ol approxilnately‘ eight bushels in favor of rows o|' ordinary width. 'l'able Z11.—--l)\var1' Yellow milo and Dawn kafir in normal and in wide rows, and the yields 0f grain at Big Spring, 1919-21. inclusive. Grain yield, Row, bushels to the acre Manner 0f planting space, lllCllCS 1919 1920 1921 Average Dwarf Yellow milo: Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 46.1 41.2 20.5 \\'ide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 43.4 38.5 13.1 31.7 Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 37.5 41.6 29.4 36.2 Wide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 29.6 26.4 29.3 28.4 Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 60.7 39.5 21.4 41.5 \\'ide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 44.3 32.0 23.4 33.2 Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 211 63.4 25.6 27.7 38.9 \\'ide. .. . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . .. 12 42.5 20.5 25.7 29.6 Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30 47.6 39.8 41.1 \\'ide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 32.8 32.8 27.3 31.0 Dawn kalir Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 46.8 43.9 15.9 35.5 \\'ide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 39.1 30.3 14.1 27.8 Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 32.7 21.6 21.6 25.3 \\'ide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 26.5 23.3 16.3 22.0 Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18 31.4 _26.3 15.0 24.2 \\'ide , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 28.7 23.9 12 1 21.6 Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 27.3 27.0 17.9 24.1 \\'ide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 21.4 24.3 15.3 20.3 Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 20.4 34.3 12.6 22.4 \\'i(le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15 22.3 26.0 13.1 20.5 GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXP1i-('1l|'(-(l over an eight-_vear period with feterita, when planted .\pril 13, .\la_v 15, and June 15 were 58, (i8, and 91-, respectively. A similar laek ol perteet stands with earl_v plantings ot’ feterita occurred in date o1 planting‘ experiments at (‘liillit-otlie. From 111215 to 19:50 an experiment was tonduetetl at (‘hillieothe with Spur lettaita to (letermine the possibilities- o1 getting better stands through the use of commercial seed disinteetzints. 'l‘he results are recorded in 'l.lable 31. The seed disinteetants. known ('()1l1ll1t!1'('l2lll_\' as (Topper Carbonate, lfspulun, l’»a_vei~ llust, >Teniesan, Semesan J12, and (‘ieresan were used. From two to three triplieziteil plantings in one-hundredth-aere lield plats were made throutiliout. the spring eaeh _vear. 1n each planting the number of plants that emerged from the untreated seed was taken as 100 and the (‘.llI1'l'|LIt’ll('t‘ trom treated seeds was expressed as a percentage 0t’ that lignre (351). 'l'al>li- ."» I. -'l'reat|nent of felerita with commercial seed disinfectants at Chillicothe. Ratio of stands olitaintrd from treated and untreated seed. l)ale No (lnpper Bayer Semcsan, - Year planted treatment (I-arbonate Uspulun Dust Semesan Jr. Ceresan 1‘.l2t'i..... .\pril 111 101) 1115 131 1117 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lune l1 101) 121) 133 121 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._ . . . . .. 11127. . . .. \pril 2T 100 15h 171) 18-1 210 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .\la_\' 1t‘) 100 1112 161 18-1 211 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lune 23 100 121 1715 15G 132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11128. . . .. .\pril1;'> 100 103 104 128 13') . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. lune 1Z1 101) 107 11)) 122 ()7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. June 22 100 ‘.17 ‘l2 10-1 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.1211. . . .. April 1.3 100 132 1:12 131 123 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. May 22 100 151 176 173 147 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. June l-l 100 1 .3 12L) 113 105 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 111.111.... May 8 100 101i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 112 110 9'3 June 2 100 109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 108 118 116 .i\verage.. . . . . . .. 100 127 138 139 134 114 105 'l‘he use ol' all olf the seed disinfectants resulted in some increase in germination and emergence. When the stands of all treatments and plantings are eompareil with stands lrom untreated seed it is found that treatment with tspulun, Bayer Dust, Stimesan, Copper Carbonate, Semesan .1 r., and (‘eiesan gave increases 01' 3b’, 3!), 331, 27, 11, and 5 per eent. respeetivelv: Semesan .1 r. and (‘ores-an were used only during the last _vea r and tor this _vear they were about as elteetive as any other dust. 'l‘he better germination and emergence resulting from the use ot’ seed ilisinteetants is due to the laet that these fungicides create a sterile zone on and zibotit the seed which prevents lungri from developing. ln general. the benefits from seed treatments were more pronounced at the early planting dates when soil-temperature conditions were least tavoiahlt‘ tor good germimitioii ot’ untreated seed. When conditions were more tavorahlti tor germination 0t untreated seed, only small in- creases resulted ltom using treated seed. GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 69 Better germination and emergence was the only benefit apparent from using treated seed. There appeared to be no appreciable stimulation in growth after emergence. After the plants were four to five inches high the plats were thinned to a uniform distance of twelve inches between plants. Careful observations indicated that at no time was there any stimulation in growth and development of the crop. Grain yields were taken for three years and the yields from treated and from untreated seed were practically identical in all cases. These seed disinfectants are inexpensive and may be used to advantage in improving the germination of sorghums in certain instances, espe- cially when planting is done early. Also dry-dust treatments are a con- venient and an effective means of treating sorghum seed for kernel smut. control and where smut is prevalent this is the most important con- sideration in connection with the use of these compounds. Both Copper Carbonate and Ceresan are practical and economical dry dusts which can be used effectively in the control of sorghum smut. Sorghum seed should be treated with these dusts at the rate of two to three ounces to the bushel of seed and thoroughly mixed to insure a good covering of all the seed. Whenever sorghum seed infected with smut or seed ol’ unknown origin are to be planted, they should be treated for smut. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Texas produces about 4'7 per cent of the total grain sorghum grown in the United States and also ranks high in yield per acre, averaging 25.4 bushels. Grain sorghums rank third in total production and money value among the crops grown in Texas. Results of experiments with grain sorghum varieties planted at differ- ent dates, difierent spacings within the row, planted in normal, paired, and wide rows, and in rows alternated with cowpeas, and also experi- ments on rate of seeding sorghums and treatment of seed with com- mercial dusts are reported, These experiments have been conducted for a number of years at the experiment stations at Lubbock, Chillicothe, Spur, Temple, Beeville, Big Spring, and Dalhart. A brief resume of the soil and climatic conditions, as affecting grain sorghum growth and development, is pre- sented for each of the regions represented by these stations. Dwarf Blackhul kafir produced the highest yields of grain from early planting, March, at Beeville; from medium early planting, May 15, at Lubbock, Chillicothe, Spur, and. Temple; and from later planting, June 15, at Dalhart and Big Spring. Dwarf Yellow milo produced the highest yield from April 1 planting at Beeville; from May 15 planting at Chi.llicothe and Temple; from June 15 planting at Spur, Big Spring, and Dalhart; and produced approximately the same yield at the Lubbock station when planted May 15 or June 15. Forage yields are ordinarily increased and better quality of forage is 70 BULLETIN NO. 424, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION produced from late plantings, so long as planting is done sufficiently early to bring the crop into maturity before frost. Favorable moisture conditions at time of heading is highly associated with large yields of grain and forage. Unfavorable temperature con- ditions for growth and development of grain sorghums in the early spring in West; 'l‘cxas prevent maturity before about the middle of August, even when planted at the earliest possible date. The distribu- tion of summer rainfall is such that the period of least rainfall of the summer months occurs at most stations from June 20 until July 20. 'l‘he yields from all western stations indicate that poor yields are likely to be produced if heading takes place during early July. Planting should be ilomr, insofar as possible, so the crop can bridge over this ilepressioii, when the plants are young and not in a critical stage of development, and have the heading period coincide with the more favor- able rainfall periods in August and September. 'l‘he time of planting has an important bearing upon the length of the growth period of sorghums. Early planting results in retarded early growth with a ironser|uent lengthening of the growth period. Dwarf Yellow milo and Spur feterita mature in approximately 125 days when plainteil April l5; in 100 days when planted May 15; and in 94 days ivhcn planted June 15, while Dwarf Blackhul kafir matures about 10 days later "from similar dates of planting. (lood stands were more diflieult to obtain on April 15 than on May or {lune 15 planting dates. Germination of feterita and hegari are particularly poor when planted early. lJater planting of varieties of grain sorghum results in taller, thicker plants and a larger number of suckers, indicating that better growing conditions exist in the summer and fall than in the spring and early summer. From the results of spacing experiments with grain sorghums it is concluded that sparsely-tillering types, such as the kafirs, Darso, kaoliangs, and sorghums of similar habit, should be spaced closely, 6 to 8 inches in the row, for maximum yields of both grain and forage. Hegari and feterita tiller quite freely but are important forage types and should be planted so as to allow 6 to 12 inches between plants in the row. If forage is a primary consideration, a spacing of around 6 inches is de- sirable. Freely-tillering types grown primarily for grain production, such as the milos, should, "for the best results, be given more row space pcr plant, 12 to 24.- inchcs. When milo is spaced even as wide as 30 inches, usually no reduction in grain yield occurs. The (lifference between milo and kafir in response to spacing is ac- counted for by marked difference in tillering habits. Milo is a profusely tillering type and kafir a sparsely tillering type. In both varieties the number of tillers increases with the distance between plants. The type of relationship between row space per plant and yield of kafir and milo is shown to be curvilinear rather than linear. In milo the corre- lation is in the positive direction and normally in the negative direction for kafir. GRAIN SORGHUM DATE-OF-PLANTING AND SPACING EXPERIMENTS 71 Larger forage yields of better quality may be expected "from the thicker stands with both kafir and milo. Plants grown with wider spac- ings are slightly taller and have thicker stalks but the larger size of the plant in the wide spacings does not offset the larger number ol' stalks in the close spacings suffieiently to equalize the forage yields. Where the crop is to be headed by hand it is desirable, the yields being equal, to have the heads as large as possible. Wider spacing results in larger heads in all varieties. Spacing plants of milo wider than 12 inches apart results in an increase i11 the number of recurved, or “gooseneclc,” heads produced. While the size of the head in both milo and kafir increases almost directly as the space between plants increases, there is no (lifiierence in the shelling percentage of the heads produced, whether tl1ey be from close- or wide-spaced plants or Whether the heads be large or small. As an average for a 10-year period, kafir and milo have had shelling per- centages of 74.6 and 70. Planting of one pound and two pounds of kafir seed to the acre re- sulted in average stands of 12.2 inches and 6.3 inches between plants. Planting of the same amounts of milo seed resulted in stands of 16.3 inches and 7.9 inches between plants. Planting one pound of sound milo seed to the acre should produce a satisfactory stand, and two pounds of kafir seed should place the Plants about 6 inches apart, which distance is about the optimum for kafir. Hegari will require two to three pounds and feterita three to four pounds of seed to the acre, depending upon the time of planting. Results of planting grain sorghums in normal, paired, and wide rows, considering all the yields of milo, kafir, and feterita, are in favor of planting in normal rows rather than in paired rows or in wide rows. The average decrease in yield when paired rows were used as compared with normal rows, was 1.1 bushels and the corresponding decrease when Wide rows were used, was 4.5 bushels. The yield of milo was reduced 3.3 bushels and the yield of kafir was reduced 5.7 bushels when planted in wide rows instead of normal rows. Closer plant-spacing is necessary in wider rows than in normal rows; else a further decrease in yield can be expected when paired rows or wide rows are used. Planting grain sorghums in wide rows instead of normal rows resulted in a loss of about 25 per cent in forage yields. Grain yields of kafir and feterita were reduced 4.3 bushels and 6.9 bushels, or about 25 per cent when cowpeas were Planted in alternate rows with these grain sorghums. The use of the most effective dry dust seed disinfectants increased germination and emergence of feterita 30 to 40 per cent over that of untreated seed. Benefits from seed treatment were more pronounced from the early dates of planting when soil-temperature conditions were most unfavorable for germination. Copper Carbonate or Ceresan, applied at the rate of 2 to 3 ounces to the bushel of seed, are convenient and effective forms of treatment for sorghum kernel smut.