TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN N0. 171 DECEMBER, 1914 DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY LOSSES OF MOISTURE AND PLANT FOOD BY PERCOLATION POSTOFFICE: COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS E VoN BOECKMANN-JONES Co., Pnmnzns AUSTIN, TEXAS 1915 BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL A70-315-10m TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN N0. 171 DECEMBER, 1914 DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY LOSSES 0F MOISTURE AND PLANT FOOD BY PERCOLATION I l BY | G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chemist POSTOFFICE: COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS ..-“'¢..".-'~-- A w. ‘Wqp v4.1 V ON BOEGKMANN-JONES Co., Pnxursns AUSTIN, TEXAS 1915 AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, A. M., D. C. L., President TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS ‘m1 OHN I. GUION, Vice-President, Ballinger .......... .. . H. AsTIN, Bryan ............................................ .. . HART, San Antonio ................. .. . . BENNETT, Paris .......... ..'. ..... .. . . BATTLE, Marlin..................... . . WILLIAMS, Paris ................... .. . LLEN KYLE, Houston................ awrm tar“ éh-Iu > >51; . B. CUSHING, President, Houston ........................ .. LTON PETEET, W'ac'O ........... ............................. .. .................................................... ..Term expires 19 15 .....Te_rm expires 1919 ....Term expires 1919 ....Term expires 1919 ....Term expires 1917 “..Term expires 1917 ....Term expires 1917 ...Term expires 1915 IIIIIIIIIiIiII]..-..IlIIIiIIIlIIIiIIIIIQjmTerm expires 1915 GOVERNING BOARD, STATE SUBSTATIONS P. L. DowNs, President, Temple ............................ .. CHARLES ROoAN, Vice-President, Austin ........... .. W. A. TYNES. Cooper ............... ........................ .. ROBERT L. \VARREN, Terrell ................................ .. .................................................... ..Term expires 1919 ....Term expires 1917 ....Term expires 1915 . ..... ..Term expires 1915 STATION STAFF* ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Director _‘ A. B. CONNER, B. S., Assistant Director CIiAs. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary DIVISION OF VETERINARY SCIENCE M. FRANcIs, D. V. S., Veterinarian in harge _ H. SCHMIDT, D. V. M., Assistant Veter- inarian DIVISION OF CHEMISTRY G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chemist in Charge _ J. W. CHEWNING, B. S., Assistant Chemist R. H. RIDGELL, B. S., Assistant Chemist FRANK HoDoEs, B. S., Assistant Chemist DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE H. NEss, M. S., Horticulturist in Charge W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist DIVISION OF ANIMAL HUSBANDRY J. C. BURNS, B. S., Animal Husbandman in Charge Feeding Investigations J. M. JONEs, M. S., Animal Husbandman in Charge Breeding Investigations DIVISION OF ENTOMOLOGY WILMON NEWELL, M. S., Entomologist in Charge F. B. PADDOCK, B. S. E., Entomologist DIVISION OF AGRONOMY A. B. CONNER, B. S., Agronomist in Charge A. H. LEIDIGII, B. S., Agronomist in Charge of Soil Improvement H. H. JoBsON, B. S., Assistant Agronomist ?——-——, Assistant Agronomist DIVISION OF PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY F. H. BLoDoE-IT, P_h. D., Plant Pathologist and Physiologist in Charge TDIVISION OF FARM MANAGEMENT REX E. WILLARD, M. S., Farm Management Expert in Charge DIVISION OF POULTRY HUSBANDRY T. _J. CONWAY, B. S., PoultrgHusbandmqn in Charge DIVISION OF FEED CONTROL SERVICE W. L. BOYETT, Supervisor J. H. ROoERs, Feed Inspector . H. WOOD, Feed Inspector H. WOLTERS, Feed Inspector D. PEARcE, Feed Inspector M. ScHAEDEL, Feed Inspector AMES SULLIVAN, Feed Inspector W. M. WICKES, Feed Inspector SUBSTATION NO. 1: Beeville, Bee County E. E. BINFORD, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 2: Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCI-IKISS, Superintendent J. W. JAcKsON, B. S., Assistant Superin- tendent SUBSTATION NO. 3: County N. E. WINTERs, B. S., Superintendent TSUBSTATION NO. 4: County _ H. H. LAUDE, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 5: Temple, Bell County A. K. SHORT, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 6: County _ T. W. BUELL, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 7; Spur, Dickens County R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 8: Lubbock, Lubbock County V. L. CORY, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 9: Pecos, Reeves County H. C. STEWART, B. S., Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 10: (Feeding and Breed- ing Substation) College Station, Brazos County T. M. REDDELL, Superintendent SUBSTATION NO. 11: doches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Scientific Assistnt. as i-IQUJ Angleton, Brazoria Beaumont, Jelferson Denton, Denton Nacogdoches, Nacog- CLERICAL ASSISTANTS STATION C. A. CAsE, Stenographer MATrIE THOMAS, Stenographer C. L. DURsT, Mailing Clerk *As of November 30, 1914. FEED CONTROL SERVICE DAIsY LEE, Registration Clerk T. C. STROETER, Stenographer C. L. DURsT, Tag and Shipping Clerk tIn cooperation with United States Department of Agriculture. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Quantity of Water Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “bu; Water Available to Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \| .. , 6 Percolation Apparatus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 8 Description of Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Rainfall . . ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14 Percolation Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 16 Efiect of Soil Type on Percolation and Evaporation . . . . . . . . . . . . >0 . 23 Eflfect of Cultivation upon Evaporation and Percolation . . . . . . . . . . 25 Effect of Sulphate of Potash and Manure on Percolation . . . . . . . . . . 29 Quantity of Nitric Nitrogen Percolating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Nitrates from Manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 42 l Percolation from Nitrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Percolation of Potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46 Phosphoric Acid ....§ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4s Lime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Acknowledgment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50 Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5O BLANK PAGE IN ORIGINAL LOSSES OF MOISTURE AND PLANT FOOD BY PERCOLATION BY G, S. FRAPS, PH. D., OHEMIST. Certain fundamental conditions are essential to plant life. These include light, water, favorable temperature, favorable soil conditions, and plant food. A deficiency of any one of these will limit the growth of the plant. From the standpoint of plant nutrition, no one is more important than the others. From the viewpoint of the farmer, however, the important conditions are those which, under ordinary agricultural conditions, may be deficient and so control the growth of the plant and the crop produced, and which. being deficient, may be supplied, to a greater or less extent, or the deficiency controlled, by the farmer. ‘In other words, the practical farmer is not much concerned with condi- tions beyond his control which limit plant growth, or those which are favorable under ordinary agricultural practice. He is much concerned, however, with deficiencies which he can correct or control. Tempera- ture and light are little subject to control in agricultural practice, but water, soil conditions, and plant foods ordinarily deficient-phosphoric acid, nitrogen and potash—are more or less subject to control. The quantity of rainfall cannot be regulated, but the amount of water stored in the soil and that lost by evaporation may, more o-r less, be modified by agricultural practices. ~ QUANTITY OF WATER NEEDED. The quantity of water ‘needed by the plant depends upon conditions, _ but is very large. According to estimations of King, corn requires 233 to 2'72 pounds of water to produce one pound dry matter. This does not refer to the grain but to the entire plant. Barley requires from 262 to 7'74 pounds of water to produce one pound dry matter, and red clover from 249 to 453 pounds. The quantity estimated by different investi- gators varies, but we can assume, as a basis for calculation, that" one pound of dry; matter requires 300 pounds of water. This quantity of water is taken up by the roots of the plants and [evaporated through their leaves. An additional quantity of water is lost by evaporation from the soil, during the period of growth of the plants. The amount of water required by plants* depends upon several con- ditions: (a) Dryness of the air. Plants evaporate more water into a dry atmosphere than into a moist. - (b) The water in the soil. Plants evaporate more water from a soil when wet than from the same soil when it contains a fair quantity of moisture. (c) Light. More moisture is used in light than in darkness. (d) Fertility of the soil. Plants "use less water when grown on a fertile soil than when grown on a poor soil. The addition of needed *Fraps, Principles of Agricultural Chemistry, p. 120. 6 lhixiis AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. plant food to a poor soil decreases the consumption of water. Hence, the use of the proper kind of plant food will economize water. For example, the Nebraska Experiment Station found that corn grown on a poor soil used 540 pounds of water for each pound of dry matter pro- duced. When same soil was manured, corn used only 350 pounds water per pound of dry matter produced. (e) Variety of plants. Different varieties vary considerably in their requirements for water. If we estimate that it requires 300 pounds water to produce 1 pound dry matter, to be evaporated l3)" the plant, the following are the approxi- mate quantities of several crops which would be produced per acre by one inch water (227,000 pounds) used by the crop: Cotton, pounds, lint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 80 Corn, bushels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Wheat, bushels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Oats, bushels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Alfalfa, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . 760 Hay, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760 The supply of water is undoubtedly, at various times, the controlling condition of plant growth, and unfavorable moisture conditions often have their effect upon crop production. Methods for decreasing the effect of unfavorable moisture conditions are, therefore, of great advan- tage in practical agriculture. WATER AVAILABLE TO CROPS. The amount of water at the disposal of the crop will depend upon: (1) The quantity of available water in the soil at the beginning of the growing season. The amount and distribution of rainfall during the period of crop growth. (3) The loss from the soil by evaporation from its surface. (4) The loss of the rain water which runs off on the surface of the soil. (5) The loss from water which passes through the soil and into the ground water. ' The quantity of available water present in the soil at the beginning of the growing season depends, in, turn, upon a. number of conditions. These include: (a) Character of soil, (b) depth of soil, (c) charac- ter and depth of subsoil, (d) rooting habits of the plant, (e) quantity and distribution of the previous rainfall, (f) previous treatment of the soil. The character of the soil determines the amount of water it will hold when saturated, its readiness to lose water by evaporation or percola- tion, and the quantity of water which, though present, is held so firmly that plants cannot take it from the soil. r The depth of the soil, together with the depth of the subsoil, deter- mines the volume of soil from which water may be drawn. It is ob- vious, for example, that when plant roots can occupy eighteen inches of the soil, they have more water at their disposal than when they occupy - Lossns on Morscrunn AND PLANT F001) BY PEROOLATION. '7 only twelve inches of the same soil. The depth and character of the subsoil affect the soil volume occupied by the plants, the quantity of water retained in the subsoil, and the quantity of water which can be moved by soil forces, from areas below the roots, to within reach of the roots. The rooting habits of the plant determine, to a certain extent, the soil volume which the roots will occupy. There is a great difference in plants in this respect. In arid climates, plants seem to send their roots deerver than in humid sections. The quantity and distribution of the previous rainfall determines the degree of saturation of the soil at the time of planting. The soil may, or may not, be saturated at this time. Insome sections, it is usual to speak of having “a good season in the ground,” meaning thereby that the previous rains have placed the soil in a good condition of satura.- tion at the time of planting the crop. The previous treatment of the soil may have some effect upon the depth of rooting of the plant and thus on the soil volume occupied. Subsoiling may, with certain soils, be of advantage in this respect. The previous treatment will also determine, to a certain extent, whether the winter rains sink into the soil or run ofi? on its surface. It will also determine whether the soil has been in good condition to absorb the rains, and will affect the losses of water by evaporation. Shallow sur- face cultivation, previous to planting the crop, may be needed for the purpose of conserving soil moisture. Fall plowing may be needed to open the soil to the winter rains. On the other hand, fall plowing of other soils may he a disadvantage. Spring plowing may be all right on some soils and in some seasons, “rut, under other conditions, it may cause loss of moisture through the drying out of the soil. It is not our purpose to discuss fully any of the factors above men- i tioned. The amount and distribution of the rainfall during the period of growth of the crops affect not only the quantity of WZIlZQI‘ which pene- trates into the soil and the quantity which runs off, but also the length of the period between ra.ins governs the length of the time during which the plant must rely upon the store of water in the soil. The loss of ‘the rainwater which runs off from the soil surface de- pends on the slope of the soil, the condition of its surface, and the character of_ the soil. The average run-off, due to the average precipi- tation, is considered to be approximately as follows :* Run-oil" on Rainfall. Steep Gentle slopes. slopes. 5 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O inches O inches 10 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 inches 0 inches 15 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 inches 1 inch 20 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 inches 3 inches 25 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 inches 4 inches 30 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 inches 8 inches 35 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 inches 12 inches 4O inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 inches 15 inches 45 inches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 inches *Wilson, Irrigation Engineering. 8 TExAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. The run-off in dry climates is less than in humid. It is, of course, difiicult to estimate accurately’ the "run-off from cultivated lands. The above figures may be an aid in forming an estimate. The run-off also depends on the rate of precipitation. ‘There will be more run-off from a precipitation of one inch during three hours than from the same quantity during forty-eight hours. PERCOLATlON APPARATUS. A percolation apparatus consists of a "definite area of soil. enclosed in a water-tight receptacle, with an outlet tube at the bottom, and a vessel to receive the Xvater which percolates. All the water which falls in this apparatus must either evaporate or percolate through the soil. i ’l.‘la.ere is no run-off. In some experiments, lalants have been grown in such vessels. Percolation apparatus are in use at the Rothamsted, Eng- land, Experiment Station, at the New York Cornell Station, and at the Florida Station. Other investigators and experiment stations have also carried out experiments With this form of apparatus. Description of Alpparatus.-_The percolation apparatus used in this Work consists of 48 galvanized iron cans 12 inches in diameter and 24 inches deep, with a block tin tube at the bottom. These cans are buried in the ground. Figures 1 and 2 are drawn to scale, and sh-o-w the arrangement of the apparatus. The cans are connected with the bottles to receive the water by means of a tight cork. The apparatus was set up and filled with soil in March, 1910. Six pots were filled with each soil. Each pot of the same soil receives a different treat- ment. Each of the pots received first ten pounds o-f washed gravel, which filled them to a depth of one and one-half inches. The sub- soil and surface soil were then placed in them. The first forty-two pots were filled in the middle of March, 1910. The last six pots ‘were filled about ‘ten days later. As the earth settled considerably, fur- ther additions of soil, to the amounts shown in the table below, were made on May 24, 1910. The soil was in all cases in a. moist condition as it was received from the field. On ziccount of various difficulties and for the purpose further of allowing the soil to settle and assume more or less its natural condi- tion, the percolation waters were not collected until January 1, 1911. At. the end of December, 1910, a heavy rainstorm set in, which saturated the soils thoroughly; they therefore went into the experiment in a satu- rated condition. a 'l‘he following table shows the quantities of the soil added to the pots: Pots Nos. 1-6 inc.—Norfolk sand, surface soil about 11'?’ pounds,‘ No. 23'2"? a Pots Nos. 7-12 inc.-—Orangeburg fine sandy loam, 110 pounds, No. 2378. . YPots Nos. 13-18 inc.—Houston loam, 5'7 pounds surface soil, No. 3333; 5'7 pounds subsoil, No. 3334. Pots Nos. 19-24- inc.—-Houston black clay, 4L5 pounds surface soil, No. 3335; 45 pounds subsoil, No. 3336. ' Pots Nos. 25-30 inc.——Yazoo clay, 47 pounds surface soil, No. 3341; 4-7 pounds subsoil, No. 2334?. ' 9 Lossms OF MOISTURE AND PLANT F001) BY PERGOIJATION. EQUQH 1 HQHQHUM I HM QEUHQWQMAUHQW ‘N~ M\§u|n. MPTEY k K ést wqswwrfi LS zotuwfi gkfit Mi. / / \\\\\ IHIH Q b 4. .,A /" .. H ,/ W/M, Q \tbm\mv MYQUW: SXW 5Q éstvqmwmwQ b6 \<_m\\\_ max >\ w z 1 I mfliflflmflll I .. ., l 1©fin 0.0M . o Q U @\§\Q > $9.12. HQ Qogggggggfivcqgmu @332; mam wvwmuwawowmv How l (L t A 10 _ TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Pots Nos. 31-36 inc.-—Miller fine sandy loam, 56 pounds subsoil, No. 3337; 56 pounds surface soil, No. 3338. Pots Nos. 37-42 inc.—Crawford clay, 5O pounds surface soil, No. 3343; 50 pounds subsoil, No. 3344. Pots Nos. 43-48 inc.—Lufkin fine sandy loam, 55 pounds surface soil, N0. 3631; 55 pounds subsoil, No. 3632. Additions May 24, 1910: Pots Nos. 13-18—35 pounds soil No. 3333. Pots Nos. 19-24-—15 pounds soil No. 3335. Pots Nos. 25-30-12 pounds soil No. 3341. Pots Nos. 31-36—-33 pounds soil N0. 3337. Pots Nos. 37-42-10 pounds soil No. 3343. Pots Nos. 43-4°-——33 pounds soil No. 3631. On September 16, .1910, a small quantity of earth was removed from each of the pots, so that the surface of the so-il would be brought to a distance cf 3 inches from the top of the pot. The object of this was to allow T0011} for the accumulation of a heavy rainfall. Treatment.—The objects of the experimentwere to ascertain the amount oil percolation and evaporation from various Texas soil types, and the effect of cultivation, manure and fertilizers upon the amount of water percolating and on the losses of plant food in the percolating ivater. The following table shows the treatment to which the various pots weie subjected: TABLE NO_. 1. Plan of Treatment of Pots. a? 3 s .. ~ E g C1 C2?’ t‘ é >, E é >, i? i5 s ‘Ea L‘ s’: "Q12 ' Q2 E N m2 W? “" m2 Treatment. :2 5 m n‘; i; 2 6 5 Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot Pot N0. N0. No. No. No. No. No. No. N0 treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 7 13 19 25 31 37 43 Cultivated two inches . . . . . . . . . . . . 2* 8* 14* 20* 26* 32* 38* 44* Cultivated three inches . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 15 21 27 33 39 45 Sulphate of potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1O 16 22 28 34 4O 46 Manure, October 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 11 17 23 29 35 41 47 Manure, March 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 Soil numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2377 2378 3333 3335 3341 3337 3343 3631 *Nitrate added March 15, 1912. The cultivation was done by means of a trowel, tothe depths given, every week, and as soon after every rain as the soil reached the proper condition. The pots which received the manure and sulphate of potash were not cultivated. .4dditi0ns.—Additions were made as follows: Potash additions to pots 4, 10, 16, 22, 28, 34, 40, 46. October 15, 1910-—] gm. sulphate of potash No. 13274. October 15, 1911-—1 gm. sulphate of potash No-. 4563. March 15, 1912—2 gm. sulphate of potash No. 4563 to 4, 10, 16, 22. March 15, 1912—4 gm. sulphate of potash No. 4515 to 28, 34, 40, 4 . October 15, 1912—1 gm. sulphate of potash No. 4563. ' LossEs or Morsrumz AND PLANT Foon BY PERCOLATION. 11 October 15, 1913—1 gm. sulphate of potash N0._4563. Manure additions to pots 5, 11,- 1'7’, 23, 29, 36, 41, worked in to the depth of 3 inches. October 15, 1910—30 grams excrement No. 3223. October 15, 1911-30 grams excrement N0. 4561. October 15, 1912—30 grams excrement No. 3258. October 15, 19].3—30 grams excrement No. 3258. Manure additions to pots 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42, 48. March 15, 1911 30 grams excrement No. March 15, 1912—30 grams excrement No. 3258. March 15, 1913 30 grams excrement No. 3258. Nitrate additions: March 15 and November 15, 1912—Added 1 gm. nitrate of soda No. 13967 to 2, 8, 14, 20; added 2 gm. to 26, 32, 38, 44. DESCRIPTION OF SOILS. The soils and subsoils used are described as follows :: 2377—-Norfolk sand; gray sandy soil, surface; Jacksonville; culti- vated 15 years; has been idle t6 years. 23"/8-—Orangeburg' fine sandy loam; red sandy soil; surface; on C. D. Jarrett’s farm near Dialville; cultivated since 1855. 3333—Houston loam, 0-10"; J. N. Worthy’s farm, 4?; miles from Waco; good upland, rolling prairie; produces 25 to 30 bushels corn and .1, to § bales cotton per acre; light brown sandy soil; suffers from (lrought: known as mesquite and post oak land ; cotton and corn are the principal crops; cultivated since 1882; no fertilizer used; no green crops PlOWQCl under, and no manure used. " 3334-—Subsoil to 3333, 10-22"; dark brown loam. 3335—PIouston black clay, 0-1.2”; black clay; sticky when wet; Mrs. Ellis Blake, Waco; known as “black waxy land”; very good soil; pro- duces 4 bale cotton and 35 bushels corn; cotton and corn chiefly grown; no fertilizer used; soil packs, dries into clods; does not wash, and dirt docs not wash onto it; cultivated 3O to 40 years; no green crops or manure ever plowed under. 3336—Subs0il to 3335, 12-24"; black clay. 3341—Yazoo clay, 0-12"; 6 miles east of Waco; farm of Dr. Sander- son; black clay; fertile bottom la.nd, subject to overflow; produces 4 bale cotton, 40 to 50 bushels oats, 45 bushels corn; cotton, corn and oats chiefly grown: no fertilizer used; sticky in wet seasons; works well in dry; does not pack or crack; crumbles on drying; does not wash; cultivated 50 years; no green crops or manure plowed under. 3342—~Subsoil to 3341, 12-24". 333'7——Miller fine sandy loam, 0-12"; Mrs. Ellis Blake, Waco; light brown sandy soil; behaves well in wet and dry seasons; good soil; level; produces 30 to 35 bushels corn and l, to 1 bale cotton; cotton, corn, fruit and wregetables are grown; no fertilizer used; soil crumbles and does not pack, crack or wash; nor does dirt xvash onto it; cultivated 30 to 40 years; no green crops or manure plowed under. Z~i338—Subsoil to 3337, 12-24”; yellow clay. 33/13 Crawford cla_v, depth 0-7" ; 6 miles east of Waco; farm of Dr. Sanderson; rolling, dark broxvn clay; poor yields except in wet seasons; 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. behaves poorly when dry; grain chiefly grown; 15 bushels corn and 25 bushels oats peracre; no fertilizer used; does not crack, pack or run together; dirt does not wash onto it; does not. wash; has not been cul- tivated much; no manure used. a 334<1—-Subso-il to 3311-3, 7-14"; black clay. 3631—Lufkin fine sandy loam, O-6"; moderate upland; 1% miles southwest of Giddings; produces 1200 pounds seed cotton, 415 bushels corn; well drained; moist in dry seasons; does not wash; crumbles; commercial fertilizer and manure tripled the yield; mellow in wet sea- sons; does not crack on drying; cultivated 25 years; 8 tons manure applied per acre. - 3632—-q.ubsoil to 3631, 6-1.2". Composition of S0iZs.——'l‘he chemical composition of the soils is given in Table No. 2 following: 13 LOSSES OF AIOISTURE AND PLANT F001) BY PERQQLATION, 8H8 .88N .58 .888 .8H.N .88 .88 s8 .88N N3 .8HH 88H 88H .8 . . . . . . . . . . . ..HH88.BHH 88,284 .8H .H.8 N88 .38 .88 .NNH .88 .8HHH 8N .88 .8H .HN .8 .88 . . . . . . 8H2... 8888888888 82838 . . 828.2 Sm 888m . . . . . 8N8 NN8 N8 8N4. 8N8 HN.8 88H. 8H H8. ...............-...........2H:8H82 0 u . - o | - n - - - . 8- - - - u n ¢ - Q o o | ool ~ Q Q Q u Q - - ¢ Q u |~n- w once-nu OIIIIII an - - n ¢ ¢ u o uuo-coiéigm? NN8N 88. H8 88> 88.8.8 8N. 88 N848 88.8 8N8 N888 8N8 8N8 H.888 8.88 NNN8 . . .858 88268 85.. vHHHHHHomHHH H.8.HH 8.8 N8.8H 88.8 88.8 H8.N 3.8 8N8 88.: N8.: 88.8 8N.N 8H4. HN.H ....=8.H.;88H.H88 8E... 85638. 88. . 8H 88. H8 8N. 8H. H8 8N 88 H NH H 88H. NH. 8H. 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...8H.....E882 88. 88. 8N H NH.H 8H. 8H. N8 N 88 N 8H; 88 8 88H. NH. HH. 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........EHm 88. 88H. R. H8. 8N. N8NH H.8.H 8N. 8N. 8N. 8H. HN. m7 3m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..88S#H 888. 888. 88. H8H. 888. 88 N8HH 8H. 88. 8HH. 8H8. H88. 8H8. 88 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8888.22 8H8. 888. 8H. HN. 888. 88. 8N EN. 88. HH. NH8.. N8. N8. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8888 88888888HE .. mmoomofl N888 H888 $88 8888 8888 N888 N888 H888 8888 8888 H.888 8888 8N8N R8N 2082mm 8838mm zowamm 38.2mm 205mm 0892mm mownmm uommmmm momnmm 0081mm mownmm oowfimm mownmm oomfimm aug upgnq. "A210 PJOJAABJD 9H9 JQIIIW ‘£210 0022A uo1snoH ‘uxeq uo1snoH ‘tneol Kpues any Slnqafiuelg "£210 302m .8135 memfifloumom m“ womD mmcm uc 8358:5580 d .OZ HHMZHH. 14 RAINFALL. TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. The rainfall by months and by quarters is shown in Tables Nos. 3 and 4. \ 0n December 4, 1913, there was a rainfall of 7.54 inches, following a steady rain of 1.39 inches the previous day. the capacity of the apparatus, as the cans overflowed at the top, and the percolating bottles were also full. is excluded from the discussions in this Bulletin. This greatly exceeded For this reason, December, 1913, TABLE NO. 3. Rainfall in Inches, 1911. Days of Month. September. November. December. 0000- ~¢¢ao u»..- nun-- r000: u-ao- unucu n...- 000-0 0000i nan-O cunn- 100i: c0000 IOIII coo-o ¢--». IIIOI . - Q ¢ ¢ - Q - .- IIIIO .---» ¢ - . - - - - . .- ----¢ - » Q ¢ a - - - .- OIIII IOIII --¢-. 0000c 11-10 noun: .¢--. -.¢-- ---»- u...- E’ . 3 é Tl >3 c5 ~ g a: a cu g Z’ in 2 <3 2 F": 5% .02 .75 . . . . . . . . .. .33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .98..... .03 . . . . . . . . .. 1.22 . . . . . . . . .. .02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .09 .19..... 1.42 . . . . . . . . .. .82 .11..... .03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1'.29.......... .09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .11 .02 .01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .01 Trace .09 .02 . . . . . . . . .. .17 .' . . . . . . . .. .05 . . . . . . . . .. .05 .06..... .50 . . . . . . . . .. .16 .41 .05 . . . . . . . . .. 2.74 2.33 .35 . . . . . . . . .. .14..... . . . . . . . . .. .04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .31 .20..... .25 1.26..... .04..... .36 .03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .01 .13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .92 Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. .01 . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 3.50 3.03 7.08 2.70 .38 5.67 Rainfall in Inches, 1912. . . . . . . . . .. .10..... .37..... .02..... .47 .27 .19 .02.....Trace .03..... .01..... .89 . . . . . . . . .. 1.60..... .01 .34..... . . . . . . . . ..Trace .42 .08 .021.49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .05 .10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .....Trace .15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .03 .23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. 1.07 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ..Trace..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .06 .84 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .82 .02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .101.85 unau- o-n.» cacao 00000 JIOII I000: Q ¢ ¢ - . a ¢ - - r LOSSES 0F MOISTURE AND PLANT F001) BY PERCOLATION. 15 TABLE NO. 3—-Continued. Rainfall in Inches, 1912. >2 . ‘=5 25 ' - Z’ S »-¥ g 8 "E "Q Days of Month. a: s fi __- w q, .1: q, E I3 "* L4 "" >1 Q ;>, g” -o-> O > 3 S. fi “ B. °“ g g :1 3 *6 ¢> v ‘w in 2 <2 2 h» w <1 m O Z Q 2O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 01..... .04..... 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 01 72 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 06..... 228 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .08 01..... 07 73 26 g2 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. O6 1 85 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trace 44 251111111111111111111 0111111'T'r1-1bé111111111111111 0111111 . . . . . ' 11211111 g9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(.)é....._.1_....Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Trace..... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .05._.... 10..... 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26 13(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Trace...(.)i..... Totals 92 2 53 6 58 2 11 4.12 2 21 2 98 21 1 14 1 64 92 5 33 1 Rainfall in Inches, 1913. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Trace..... 13.....Trace 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .04 124..... 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 01..... 85 .15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .02 139 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Trace 08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Trace 45 .07 7 54 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 021.22 75 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .03 Trace ‘g . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .28 Trace 02 911111111111111111111Trace 117s 11111"1221111111111"116111111111111111 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16 62 .04 Trace .04 .01 Trace 01 . . . . . . . . .. 03 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 54 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .01 lTrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 01 .02 1.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 01 Trace 01 13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Trace 03 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .31 . . . . . . . . .. 24 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .04 . . . . . . . . .. 01 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 02 . . . . . . . . .. .02 Trace . . . . . . . . .. 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.00 04 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .12 09 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 01..... 06 .081.03..... 66 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 07..... 07..... .05 01Trace i?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Trace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .01 Trace 3.1211111111111111 ($531166 11711111Trace1111111111111111111111165 éelifiéé . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. race.......... 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0 1.34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24 86..... 3% . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Trace . . . . . .01..... 07...(.) . . . . . . . 35 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 64 01 . . . . . . . . .. 27 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 95100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .02..... 21..... 85 79 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .58 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 11 29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 94 01 3(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 01...O4 .73 74..... 04...... Totals..... 2.98 3.63 3.23 2.98 2.44 1.53 .06 .88 3.15 4.43 4.7412.66 16 “ TEXAs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE NO. 4. Rainfall in Inches, College Station, Texas——19l1, 1912 and 1913. . *- r- ' :>. Z’ - g r-I B .23 *~ “‘ .c: “ E °’ E E - w ' E Q "' ' o g ‘u a Q 0 To‘ g Q g; a g c, g on 3 3 > U .- cu <9 9* 53 :1 5 u) Q o Q o '—= in 2 <fi 2 *1 v—> <1 m O Z Q F‘ 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0..31 3..50 3. 7 08 2..70 0.38 5..67 2..64 1..61 3 55 1 87 7..25 39.61 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0..92 2..53 6..58 2 11 4..12 2..21 2..98 0..21 1..14 1 64 0..92 5.33 30..69 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2..98 3..63 3.. 2 98 2..44 1..53 0..06 0..88 3..15 4 43 4..74 12..66 42.71 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6..86 10..16 9 92 12.67 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10..03 8...44 4 33 7..89‘ 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..48 6..95 4 09 21..83 THE PERCOLATING YVATER. The following tab1e——Tab1e N0. 5—sh0ws the quantity of water which percolateed from the various pots, by months, during the calendar years. 191.1, 1912 and 1913. The symbols after the names of the soils refer to the treatment (Tescrihed 0n page 10. a 1'7 LOSSES 01v MOISTURE AND PLANT F001) BY PERCOLATION. 8.2 3Q m“... S; . ow. $4 .. . om; mad $4 mmw EXT. Zm“HEIRSRRIRTHJRUHQwOlbfiouhogmhuwm NOOH NNO 2w. OH». H .. mO. vNN . . . . .. OHYH OOO OO. H HO H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . tOlhfio HZPKPMHU pm OH . H HQ. NO. nO. . . . . . . . . . . . . OH. . . . . . . . mm. mO. HH . . . . . . . . . . . . . Job»; .o.~DGmE..O||Emo_ >33 25 .5252 Om mmioH mwé Hw. mm. . . . . . . . . . . . . mu. . . . . . . HEN mm. mw. .\ . . . . . . . . . 55300 vm:cwE-O|Emo_ 35mm mam .8252 mm mal§ wot | - \ - Q - - - - o n - - Q u - u - NOc Nfin O - o .- > - i a - .- ¢ - - - - ¢ ¢ p u o a n n u a @§- @%. . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . £x. m§¢ .? . . . . . . . i . . . . .. . . > .- .. .. . Q .- . . . . ¢ O - .|n\\£ NOOH :1. OH . 3. . . . . . . . .. HH . H . . . . . . OO.N mm. Ow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ...:N Qllamfii ~m©¢mw ocfl .552 NO . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ONOH HNKHN mw. Ow. . . . . .. Om. HOH . . . . .. “Own Hm. H OOYH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5952 .o.~5GmE|O||%m_o comm? Om hHOH :3. HO. OO.H . .. ON. OOH ONO HN.H OmIH . . . . . IuoQoU-QO Qu5GmE|OIIPBQ ooNmWON ONJH HO? m». NO. . . . . ION. hNH . .. HHO wOH ONWH . . . . . . . . . . ..hom__m-olhw_ooc~wwwm . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . - . - . -@-||\\£ HOTMH OORL. wm. O0. . . . . . . . . . . .. m0. . . . . .. .H Gain... OHYH @©.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....2N QI|%QHO OONNFON N“: Q - n ¢ u. om. - u - - -. o -.-¢-- -¢-.¢u--u..u-¢-.-o> - Q - a uni u ¢ a - ¢ u a - - anno\\o%lnlhw.?u OO.NH NOLw wO. . hNH . . . . . . mm. OO .H . . . . . . MON hNH .8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . nubwfi wpflcmflTOllhmB xowz cofisam HQN HNZHH HmTH OO. H mHiH . . . . . . OH». OOH . . . . . . . H OOO HNmTH HO H . . . . . . . . . . . QoQoOcO wpflcmaOllhfio x923 mofisofl ON $£ -%\ §¢- Y mo. i0. - . ¢ . . . . . . . . . ii. - -.? if». i 3 - . - . . . .- O .- .. .- .- . .- O > i N > .. - . ~ . . - - - . wHOH OOO Ow@ wNH . QM... HO~N . . . . .. H M34 “m; OO.H ..333W.....pflflfl...winolfisoxuwwihoflasamfim NmfwH OHO ma. HNNH ..... Om. ma; . .H bNQ S; i.“ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ttN Qlhfio V165 cofisom ON NOHH ONO NO H Hm. H . . . . . . i“. N“. H . . . . . . H O¢ m. HNO H Xv; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .tO.|%.m_o “BBQ nofisofi OH HH .OH NH.m aw. 3 .H . . . . .. NO. OOH . . firm NH .H S. H .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .£u.:wH>H .o.~5QmE|OlIEmo~ Gowmfiom OH OOOH mob wNH NOH . . . . .. OH“. “b. H . . . . .. .H HNH 4N OOH NOH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . flonowoO vwHfiGmQTOIEomH Gowmflom hH wwéH mqv Hw. ma. . . . . .. vN. hNH . . . . .. .H NHim OOH OH_H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Qm vHAOI-EQQO Qowmflom OH OO.OH nOO Ob. mOH . . . . IHlfl OhTH . . . . .. _H hw..N OHfiH OO.H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....:mO||Emo~Go.._mDoH|HmH @%..vv. . . . . . . . . . . . . -.% . é . % . . . . . . . . z . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . .nn\\N hOOH OO.m HO HNO. H . . . . .. HNN. Om H . . . . .. H MO m OO H Nv. H . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {OIGEQH flowwfloHlH mH %@. §@. . . . . . . . . . . . . @@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jgnvhflg .U-HHHHHNEIOIENQH \@@H.H.Nw QHHZU @M=QU%HHWHO Ni. . . . . - . - . - . . . . . . - . . . . . - - - . - - ma! M”! . . . . . . . . . . . . . mmuw O0: Oct Q . u o n Q o - - n u o n mo: n Q 0 ¢ I a u m O‘?! - Q Q o o Q | ¢ - . n - ¢ - 0 Q a n 0 o In @ww. UV@. . . . - . . . §@. . . . . . . m3. .% $@. % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -¢o:m nwcz @ NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . KtN QUEQOH kflfiflflw UGQ WMHHQOMGNHQ w mfiub You You o o - Q o u ¢ v6. - Q n Q o o mo. mo’ - - - - - - ¢ - . - - . - ~ . - - ¢ Q - - - - - - » I ¢\\O|Emo.¥ fi@. .@ . . . . . . . . . . . . fix. . . . . . . @¢. m@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0M“; .U¢HHHMH.NEIOIII.@HHNW xiomw-moz @ @aw. awmw. maw. . . . . . . . fifi. . . . . . . .. @@. fiAw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-H®QQHOO .UHHHH.H.QEIQI@HHNW VHHAXTHQZ @ .%£.@ . ..| - - . . . . . - . . - . - - . u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . ¢ . - - - . 1 o - v-‘Omflmlollnwgww € €O¢ - - - - - - . . - - - - . % f é o a . - - . - . - . . . . . . ¢ . - - . . . - . . . . - - o - - - - -Ol\\m m . . - . . . . . . - . . fi - - u - £.P. .P h? m@. .? - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . - . . . - - . . . . . . - . . . 0CI\\N N NmOH mmiN HO .. . .. . . . . .. ON. .. .. OH. OO H HO. Hwm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....:Ol|©Q.mwxHo.HnoZH P. % m m m N. W. .... m. w w. w w. w M 1. 0 A 1. d Q0 .._.Al H B J m q H 1. B 9 9 O M. n . .9 nu O J n 1 w m w. m w. . q m. m N G. U. .1 a. ¢ . 1 X .0 m. a a ..A . . W. "4 AHmH 6212i E OBu-oohom p355 .m .OZ HHMH QNW aw U. $42 3m. fie m? S. . . . . .. I; . . . . 12.. ma...“ 3. 2: $0 E _ w .6 ‘H? . . . . . . M . . . . . . MB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-IN o|lENO_ kflmufiflw Gmvzgg wmm. N~£. . . . . . . . . . . . . $N_. - . . . maw. . éx- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .QOMGE .QHS.CNEI Ill wwm m.“ W? m? .... .. w. mi .... .. m? MW.“ m; M? ........................ IIHOQOHOO éfiamgwclwgo EOEQHU a fimw. . . . . .. §dw. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,wo@umloll%fl@nv wuhQhtw/NHU . . mww. . . . . . . .m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lll\\m olkflflTv wvHO%k/N|~U u m m w m.“ w w m. w w _ w w“ w. m 1. no A m M 8 M u m u. m N m a w w 9 m w .u. e 1 o 0.. q M... 0.. . J ..A . m m m MA J1: 6053i E wfls¢u$m .5535 ._5.:E.8o|m .OZ HHNWvH~NM Ucz H®@—@2 h? Q“ HQ! . . . . - . - . . - - - . - - - - - .?c- mfi- NN. am. N Ne. ma. - . - - - - - . . . . . . - - . - X - n - OI\\N wa-b mo; . - - - . - . - - - - . . . . - - - mo. 6?: 7e. mm. ¢ OMMOMOMMMOMONOM-i . - . - - - - - . SSS MS; S. 1:3 ..%@S. i. SN. S; 2.51;... mm. 2x ..............@punumr;t$2.E=SSE-QI>HS_QSQSS>Sm $2 2S 3 51.. S. s. 2.. m? m? c; s. ..................... ..;.;.S..@.;...S=..Me-@|.;._..55a S... SS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - -2. S. S. 2.; Si. S. S. ..... ..;.SS-QIS._.CQN.ZS £o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mOO. $x. xi. % £0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . nll\\m Ow.O~ wO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. NO. MO. OAS. Ow.H Mw.M OO. WC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z-IN Q|iww~v OONG> ON wm-a You ¢ - - - - ¢ - - - - - . - - - - a. we» av- am. ha. No- -M-i.--¢--¢¢---¢.- - - - - - - - -a - - ¢ - Q - | - - - Q SS 2.; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S. S; S. S. ; wad XX 2x r..::..... . ;Sb£>; ...:;E....E-o|>2Q S22; 5:25 S SS; 3S S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mm. S; S. 2a SS Sw; S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .._.@..;.¢.m.n wfiamgvolbwv. S22; 2..._...2.S S. SS S. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S. S. S. S2 S; S. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o.w M61220 S83 522E mm ES; 2.». S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S. S; 3. SS SS. SN ; m... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...:m olbso 2.22; 5.225 S 8.2 mo.” S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S. S; S. 2.; S m. Sm. ; m; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rm. oléso S22; =Sw2E SN .54“; SSS S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. S. S; S. SS Se S; S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {olwsv S22; .6325 S; 3.2 1W4. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2. S; S. Q2 ; 2.4m AK. S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.22 .2_=§E-o|E2._2:m__¢S w; MKS; S; S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1S. S; 2.. SS SSS S; S. . . . . . . .. 3226c. QM==MEASIEQQSSSSS=QS S; mwiOfi ZWN mO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Ow. ma. MN. MO.~ bM.M Mb. Nw. .. . . . . . . .. Cw vwnQlLbmAifiowmflom OH ONZO~ N; .M BO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. uvM. wO. H Mfi. NmiN MO.N ab. MM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122M Q\.EQO~ cofisom mfi §~Q- . . . - - . - - . . . . . . . . . . ém. .?N. N £@- NX. - . . . . . . . . - . . - . . . . . . - . - . - . . . - . . . . .QQ\\N Om.- OO.N MO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. MO. ~HQ Nd». OfiN ~M.M wNfi ON. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ltQlgmfiiflOwwficm MH @@.@ @%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .w@. %@. . W3. . . . . . gnvhfig QUMDAHNEIQEENQ@ ~@@H~.Nw Uzi %QHMQU@QNMO SS. mm; S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S. Sm. S. S. ; SS S. S. . . . . 2.2.50. mwfimgvolfiwo; >225 2E m.=..;@w=2o S Oman Nfi- - . - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . - . . . . - . . €o. £0. . . . . . . . . . - - . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1M QIEGA: \mmvflflm QGQ WMEQQWCNMQ O im-a w“; .? - . - - - . . - - . . . . - - . - . . - . . . - . . - - . . ab. 7m. Om. ? Nw- - . . . . - . . - - . . - . - - . - a -00\\N w Nm.w am. is; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. . . . - . . Mo. Nw- .7 mo. €O. . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . - . - . . -\\O|E.moé h dmuw o o ¢ u - - . - . - . - . . - » . - - . . . . . . - - - - - - ow. mo. o“. N on. u - - . - - - - . - . ~ - - - . - - - - Q I n $ fi@.§ @@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MXO. ww. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .H©QQQOO .®%gfi%sloll|@cflw MZQOHMOZ @ MOR. mMQ fiO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. fiO. MO. flO. MwQ ONZM mM. fiw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Gm vmuQllfiflmm vicfOzv fiwlm won won Q - - o - . - - . - n . - - ¢ u u - “N: “h. cw! wwu om “No woo . ¢ - u - - | - - ¢ - - - - - - - Q - - o o u Q u ~ ~ o - ~ . - nll\\m m N? Mo» - - - Q n - - - ¢ - - - - - - Q - - wN- “w. Y ~ - - - - - | - - . Q | - | o ¢ o - o - - - n - ¢ ¢ - - u - - -IQOQQ\\N N NM w MN. NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. fiO. Ow fi OO.N MN. MO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . {Avlfiflww vZOwQOZ M S P. P. f u m. m m a w m. n w w w m 8 w. 1 Q A m. m a A w m u. m m. w. 1 1 m m a. q a m . . . ... w n B N . a. m. m m w. . e m .0 W.“ m . m m . ‘WHQAH cofia-oouwh EOHM WQ>QEQNM p855 MO moaonm .;.2:;€8o|m .OZ HHQ%NWU wuhnzafluu éa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %%. An~%. mm. m@. Q3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .QOZNmIO\~%Q._Q whAyvaflku £1: m: .m .8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. mm S. 2 .N mwm wm; N~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...=m QIlmEQ whcwamku m». u m m m w. ‘W m m. w W w fi w< w 1. o A M M 8 .A u m n. m u. u 1 W no 9 q m0 n . -ad . "l; D m n N m» w m a w w... mu. B m 0 u. a. .1 a. . 1 x . m m w 1 . 68% nomfificuuom EOh-w UQ>OEQMM .3555 .wO WQSU-MM amifitaolm dz HAMZQ. 21 LossEs OF MOISTURE AND PLANT F001) BY PERCOLATION. . . . . OOwHI bh.~ vC. mm. wvlN BwQ. fifilw l l l l ll IIOIII llll O IO Ne: own l lllolnloalcaolooonl\\o|%.mio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I l I . . . . . . . . . I . . . . m3. %@. UV@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .gUHMw2 _@HH:M.NEIQ‘ENQ+ %@C.NW Qcx . . . .. . . . . . . . . @%.-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %@. R.@. @R.. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..~U@QHOQ Tmvhficflgloigflm; Wwuiflw Ufii hmizz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. x3. HOG @x. . . . . I . 1 . . . . . . . . . . .QOZNmIQIENOi QGZ . . . . . . . . .. éa- #4:. “NI ..i.........»al\\.%u< Olefin; \@@CQW Dana H@@=2 . . . . .. %@. x3. ¢@. .. .. . .............\\OI»EGQ@ >@cmww Qca-mmxzz . . . . .. “wO §$. @@. %@l ........................QQH.NE»QH:AH.NEIQI>W@U OQNQ> . . . . . . % x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . @@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .»MUQQQUC Q%H~G@“EICI>N@Q CONN? - l l l OI IIIOIO OQIIII lllll-Non QIIIIIIIIIQIIIIOIIOGIQOIIIIIIIIII . . . . . . . . ......xol . . . . n n a | I l o a I l I I l I 0 l I l I I l l I l l a I a o I lien mfin l? ma: 0 I l I a l I l I I I l l I u I . . . . . . .% x . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . m@. fl§l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fmfiQcQUo .UHH~QNEICN\%N@U VQUWQ£ cowmsa: . . . . . . . . .. é § .lu:m colwmflwcm . . . . x cl>fiénv gofimflwom . . . . .. x cawwwdnvm . . . . .. .@ @ . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. .. . avae- .@ . .. . . . . . .gUH~w2 lUlmmwcflaloleflow ccwmfiom . . . . . . é mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . &.%.ll. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .LQQCQUQ ‘Uhzcmwglouflcflo? cofimfiwom . . l . I . N . . .|. . - . . . . . . . . . I . . £0. €fiv Xfi. .2 . I . . . . O . I . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . I I . . . . u 0 u I I l mm! N n u n a I a o l 0 u l I l c 0 u a l 7c! o H IN mNu H .. I I u n u o l o I o c u n I c a l c n u n I a c I u l l I a l IQ\\N . . . . . . . . . . % % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 . . . . . . . . .CUH.N2 .QQSGHWEIOI|IENAZ >ficmw Uzi wH:QU@cflho . . . . . . % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . %@l 5%. . . . . . . . . fhfliomhuo ‘Uhflwflfiglollemwoi. >@Qmwm 9C1 @h:QU%-Hflhc . . . . I . ax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .@@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .QO%NMIQIIE.NQ@ >@g.mww Qcz @HH~QU%CNMQ . . . . .. ...... ...... L. C ....................ll:m OIENO— >@.cfiw QG€@H§QQ%QQHO . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. .. . .@@. m$l . ....l¢:N. olafloé .%.@CNW Qfinz %HH~QU%H~NHO . . . . . . . . .. é § . . . .. .. . . .. . . . @@. .% .. .. ..- znvhflz .UM:H~NEIOI@QNW V.T_.O%HQZ . . . . . . é . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-QQQPUO lUhgcflaloll-wvclflw V#@o.#.moz l . . . II ...... ICOIIONQC . . . . .. ...... . ¢.l\\% ol%uc.flw.v@éo%hoz . . . . . . . . S P1 f f mm m m m @ w m m m m m w W m 0B w A 0 1. hm A a A n... 1 1 n my. w m w. m w . . m. m m. . m WI w. q .1 q . m A . a T» u w m l 5Z3 63h noflficulom Eon.“ wmwfiauhoh amen? u: MUJOGH ._x.====¢o|.m .OZ HAMFH 22 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 'mm. T u Q Q o a n Non fiw- - n n u u - - | u - u - u - o u o - o n a Q a n To: mo- Nml ac‘ owe . - | - - - - - - - u a n wQ-w - ~ - u 0 a wNu ab: l? - Q o 0 o - - - a o o » a n u - u Q Q o o - 0 » Ec- Ho! ab. é oa- é - - - - - - - - - - o ~ - . u u a wm- - o u Q - . o . ~ ¢ - Q - ~ | ¢ ~ - ¢ u - Q u 0 mo- Q60 mm. E “w. i . - . - - . . . - . - - . . . - - . . ¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . w m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ifi\\m Qlafln; wnmvflflw Uri,“ CUZSQ .?©. flu- - . ¢ . . - Nfio .? - - - . » . . . - . - . . - - - - . . . . . . . NO. £o- . ..? . ¢ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . OI\\N aw . q ¢ ~ o Q o - .?N> n . u Q . | - - - ~ | - . - | o - n u u - ¢ . - - O we! a f - ? o - - - - . . - . . . . - . - . - - - - - - - . - - - ¢\\©I&.mo? - - ¢ . - - - - » - - - . - . - - - - - - - ~ - mo» GN. Y“. . . . . . . - . . . - . - . . - . . . - fim I a o I vw. ma! E | | - - - - . - - ~ - u ~ - - . - - Nob a 1 N . .7 - E . - - . - . - - - - - - - . - ~ . . - - . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. @@. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mlclx%w@nv .@HQ%.B.NHU mwiww . . . . .. mm.w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Nmfw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iim Qlkmflfiv mvnOwaflh-U u m m m w w w. w w W w w w w W. a 9 0 m... n . 9 MA H. 9 J n s w w w w w. . u. m m m o. a. 1 a. . . J A . Ad Ad a nA . .1 u .1 . ‘MHQAM cofluivouoh EQuM woww-ouuoh HQHGB uO WQJOGH ._5==s==o|~ .OZ HAMZQ. Lossns or Morstrunn AND PLANT Foon BY PEROOLATION. 23 . EFFECT OF SOIL TYPE ON PERCOLATION AND EVAPORATION. The soils may be divided into two groups with respect to the quan- tity of water which passed through them when uncultivated: (a) Those whoseaverage annual percolation is less than 10 inches, and (b) those Whose average annual percolation is over 10 inches. 'I.‘able No. 6 contains a summary of percolation from the uncultivated soils by groups. i TABLE NO. a. Total Percolation in Inches from Uncultivated Soils. 1913 Aver= Evapo- i Pot N0. . Name. 1911. 1912. (Decem- age. ratlon. _ ber ex- _ eluded). 5d 1 Norfolk sand . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .72 4 52 .28 3.51 . . . . . . . . 7 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . 7.45 6.32 4.85 6.21 . . . . . . . . 31 Miller fine sand-y loam . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.75 7.98 5.84 8.19 . . . . . . . . 43 Lufkin sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.74 7.17 4.69 7.53 . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.67 6.50 3.92 6.36 27 09 13 Houston loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.07 11.56 7.53 11.72 . . . . . . .. 19 Houston black clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.92 12.77 11.29 13.99 . . . . . . .. 25 Yazoo clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.36 9.98 9.55 11.30 . . . . . . .. 37 Crawford clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.52 11.14 10 .92 13.86 . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.97 11.36 9.82 12.72 20.73 Average rainfall, December, 1913, excluded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.45 The average percolation from the clays is double the quantity from the sands or sandy loams. Conversely, the sands and sandy loams lost much greater quantities of water by evaporation than did the clays. The above refers to the uncultivated soils. The average annual rainfall for the “three years (December, 1913, excluded) is 33.45 inches. According to the table previously cited, we may expect a loss by run-off of about 8 inches on gentle slopes and 17 inches on steep slopes. As a portion of the Texas rainfall comes in heavy rains of short duration, we may consider a loss of 8 inches by run-off as a moderate estimate. ' The run-off of 8 inches is, however, less than the amount of perco-i latio-n from the sands and sandy loams. In other words, there would be no percolation if we deduct this quantity of run-off. The percolation from the Houston loam and the clays exceeds the estimated run-off by 6 inches. The quantity of percolating water may be assumed to represent that at the disposal of the crops. This is not strictly true, for the shade and presence o-f the growing crop decreases evaporation from the soil; while, on the other hand, a large portion of the percolation comes dur- ing the winter season when there is no crop on the ground. Hence, this water can be of advantage only if it remains in thesoil, instead of percolating. These facts must be duly considered, and also that the uncultivated soil only is being considered. [The following is the crop yield for which the average amounts of percolating water given above would suffice, based upon the assrzaampxt/ion that the water required is the quantity given on page 6 of this Bulletin. 24 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Water for Crop Production. Sands and loams. Clays. No run-off assumed——- ' Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510 lbs. lint 1,016 lbs. lint Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 bu. 76 bu. Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 bu. 114 bu. Alfalfa or hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 4,860 lbs. 9,650 lbs. Run-off of eight inches assumed—— Cotton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 376 lbs. Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 bu. Oats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 bu. Alfalfa or hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . 3,570 l_bs. It must be remembered that these are uncultivated soils, and that, when cultivation is given, much larger quantities of Water are retained by the cultivated soils. , The rainfall, percolation and evaporation at Rothamsted, England, for an. average of twenty years, are given below, together With similar results of the Texas experiments: i Rainfall. Percolation. Evaporation. Rothamsted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.5 15.0 13.5 Texas, light soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.15 7. 67 27.09 Texas, heavy soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.15 14.15 20.73 The Rothamsted soil is a heavy clay, andis not cultivated. Evap- oration at Rothamsted is much less than in TeXas,'but the percolation through the heavy soi.ls of Texas is remarkably close to that through the one at Rothamsted. Evaporation. and Percolation by Quarters.-—The following table, No. *2’, shows the evaporation and percolation from the uncultivated soil types by quarters. The results given are the average of the three years. TABLE N0. 7. Percolation by Quarters. .Ian., April, July, Oct., Feb., May, Aug., Nov., Mar. June. Sept. Dec. Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.41 1.08 0.07 0.95 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.92 1.80 0.02 1.47 Miller fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . ..» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.17 2.19 0.19 2.64 Lufkln fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.23 2.31 0.26 2.73 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.43 1.85 0.14 1.95 Houston loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.64 3 .43 0.59 4.39 Houston black clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .» . . . . . . . . . . 5.08 3.56 0.76 4.96 Yazoo clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.10 2.43 0.45 4.32 Crawford clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.05 3.40 1.09 4.99 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.47 3.21 0.72 4.67 Losses or MorsrUREANn PLANT F001) BY PERGOLATION. 25 TABLE A. Group 1, Sands. Precipitation. Percolation. Evaporation. Per cent evaporated. January, February, March . . . . . . . . . 8.91 2 43 6.48 72 April, May, June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.52 1 85 6.67 78 July, August, September . . . . . . . . . . 6.11 0 14 5 .97 98 October, November, December. . . . . 9 91 1 95 7.96 8O .1. Group 2, Clays. Precipitation. Percolation. Evaporation. Per cent evaporated. January, February, March... . . . . . . 8.91 4.47 4 44 5O April, May, June . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.52 3.21 5 31 62 July, August, September . . . . . . . . . . 6.11 0.72 5 39 88 ‘October, November, December. . . . . 9 .91 4.67 5 24 53 If we assume ‘that all the ivater precipitated during the quarter either evaporates or percolates during that quarter——an assumption which is not true, as some of the water may be stored up, or some stored up may be evaporated-the results would be as given in Table A. Attention should he directed to the high percentages of water evap- orated, especially during the summer months. This emphasizes the need for storing water in the soil. IEEFFEOT OF CULTIVATION UPON EVAPORATION AND PERCOLATION. Table No. 8 shows the annual percolation from the soils, uncultivated, and cultivated, to the depth of two or three inches. The cultivation was made every wireek throughout the year, or, in- case a rain intervened, as soon as the soil became in condition. suitable for cultivation. The soils are divided into the same two groups as in the previous discussion. The average gain in percolation, due ‘to the cultivation to a depth of 2 inches was, with the first group, 3.52 inches, and in the second group, zero. Cultivation. to a depth of two inches caused a gain in percolation from all the soils in Group 1. TABLE NO. 8. Percolation in Inches from Soils. Cultivated. No cultivation. - 2 inches. 3 inches. Norfolk sand—— A - 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.72 16.94 13.97 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.52 11.12 5.64 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.28 8.93 0.31 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.51 12.33 6.64 Orangeburg fine sandy loam-— 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.45 13.22 13.26 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.32 9.51 9.65 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.85 6.48 8.00 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.21 9.74 10.30 26 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. TABLE NO. 8—Continued. Percolation in Inches from Soils. _No Cultivated. cultivation. 2 inches. 3 inches. Miller fine sandy loam- 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.75 10.93 12.85 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.98 7.17 8.62 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.84 7.74 8.27 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.19 8.61 9.91 Lufkin fine sandy loam— 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.74 13.05 13.62 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.87 9.18 8.23 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.69 5.01 7.78 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.77 9.08 9.88 Group average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.42 9.94 9.18 Houston loam— 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.07 15.07 16.60 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.56 10.32 10.76 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.53 9.61 9.09 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.72 11.67 , 12.15 Houston black clay— . 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.92 18.52 19.13 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.77 12.20 12.76 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.29 10.80 12.26 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.99 13.84 14.72 Yazoo clay- 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.30 13.91 17.20 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.98 10.89 11.21 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.55 8.31 11.03 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.30 11.04 13.15 Crawford clay- 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.52 17.05 19.55 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.14 10.57 10.88 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.92 8.25 11.45 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.86 11.96 13.96 Group average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.22 12.13 13.50 On the other hand, cultivation to the depth of 2 inches did not cause a gain in percolating water with any of the soils in Group 2. Cultivation to the depth of three inches caused a less average de- crease in evaporation with the sands and loams than did the two-inch cultivation. There is a. decrease Withtwo of the soils, and an increase With the other two. Cultivation to the depth of three inches decreased evaporation on an average, from all the loam and clays of Group 2. Water‘ was observed to stand upon pots 14 and 15 of the Houston loam, and on pots 43, 44 and 45 of the Lufkin fine sandy loam more fre- quently than on other pots in the series. This is reflected in the table, by the decreased percolation from these “two soils in 1912 and in 1913. The following table shows the average evaporation from the two groups of soils: Evaporation from Uncuitivated and Cultivated Soils. No Cultivated. cultivation. _ 2 inches. I 3 inches. Four sands and loams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.03 23.51 i 24.27 Four loams and clays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.23 21.32 19.95 Losses or Morsruar: AND PLANT F001) BY PERGOLATION. 2'7 It is evident, from the foregoing discussion, that cultivation is much more effective in decreasing evaporation from some soils than from others, and that those on which it is effective are the sands 0r 10am soils which lose water rapidly by evaporation from the uncultivated soil. The difference, however, may be due to some other factor operating. during wet periods, and not to natural evaporation differences. The average evaporation from the clays and loam is much less, even from the uncultivated soils, than it is from the sands and loams. A three-inch cultivation may also be effective on the heavier soils, where a ttvo-inch cultivation has little or no value. The gain of water due to the checking of evaporation "by a two-inch cultivation of the sands or loams averages 3.52 inches per year. If this saving of moisture occurred during the crop season, and could all be utilized by the crop, it would be sufficient approximately for the fol- lowing production: Cotton, pounds lint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 280 Corn, bushels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 Wheat, bushels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Oats, bushels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Table No. 9 shows the percolation by quarters from the cultivated and uncultivated soils. Table No. 10 shows the increased quantity of water percolated, due to the cultivation. The table brings out clearly the low percolation during the summer months. Part of the diminished percolation during the winter months may be due to the replacement of water evaporated during the summer. These tables again emphasize the necessity of storing water in the soil and subsoil for use during the growing season. They also bring out the very slight effect of the cultivation of the clay group of soils, on the loss of water in percolation pots. TABLE NO. 9. Percolation in Inches by Quarters. No Cultivated. cultivation. 2 inches. 3 inches. January, February, March, 1911-1912- Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.41 4.47 2.31 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . 2.92 4.10 4.19 Miller fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.17 2.92 3.53 Lufkin fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.23 2.26 2.82 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 43 3.44 3.21 Houston loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.64 3.60 3.59 Houston black clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.08 4.99 5.54 Yazoo clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10 4. 56 4.93 Crawford clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.05 4.92 4.79 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.47 4.50 4.71 April, May, June, 1911-1912- Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.08 2.99 2 54 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .80 2.45 2.43 Miller fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.19 1.98 2.18 Lufkin fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.31 2.51 2 94 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.85 2.48 2.52 28 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATBON. TABLE NO. 9—-Continued. Percolation in Inches by Quarters. No Cultivated. cultivation. 2 inches. 3 inches. Houston loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 43 3 .20 3.06 Houston black clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3 .39 3 .62 Yazoo clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 43 3.13 3.09 Crawford clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 40 2.56 3 .31 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.21 3.08 3 .27 J ly, u t, S pt mber,1911-1912— . u Norfdilsc sariid .91 . . . . . . . Z . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .07 .72 .66 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02 .26 .21 Miller fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .37 .44 Lufkin fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 .43 .44 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 .45 .44 Houston loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 .50 .86 Houston black clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 . 83 .90 Yazoo clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45 .64 .66 Crawford clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.09 .78 .98 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 .54 .85 October, November, December, 1911-1912— Norfolk sand . . . . .., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .95 4.15 1.13 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .47 3 .30 3 .44 Miller fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 64 3.34 3.77 Lufkin fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.73 3.44 3.99 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.95 3.56 3.08 Houston loam . . . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.39 4.33 4.41 Houston black clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.96 4.63 4.65 Yazoo clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.32 3.28 4.47 Crawford clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.99 3.69 4.88 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .~ . . . . . . . . . . 4.67 3.98 4.60 TABLE NO. l0. Increase in Quantity of Water Percolated, by Quarters, Over Uncultivated Soil. Cultivated Cultivated 2 inches. 3 inches. Sand Group——- January, February, March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 0.78 April, May, June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.63 0.67 July, August, September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.31 0.30 October, November, December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 61 1.13 Clay Group— January, February, March . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .05 .24 April, May, June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .13 .06 July, August, September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 .13 October, November, December . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69 .07 The decreased loss in evaporation, due to the cultivation during the six crop months, is nearly an inch of water, which Would be sufficient for about 80 pounds cotton, 6 bushels corn, or 9 bushels oats. The average production of cotton in Texas in 1909, according to the U. S. census, is 125 pounds cotton lint, and 14.’? bushels corn. The gain of water by cultivation would thus be two-thirds of the average cotton crop or ‘two-fifths of the average corn crop. It might, indeed, be much more. Table No. 11 shows the percentages evaporated, based upon the as- sumption that all the water which fell during the season either evap- LossEs or MOISTURE AND PLANT Foon BY PEROOLATION. 29 orated or percolated. This assumption is, of course, not true, but the table emphasizes the high percentage evaporation during the summer months, which are probably really higher than the figures given. TABLE NO. 11. Percentages Evaporated and Percolated (estimated). I a - :11 g“ 51 g *3 i: 3' g ' c a, E w E1: '* c‘ .9 >: '-- > o3 “EQ .9 +-' “>01 >4 “i: cu ‘i El $3 E's E ‘E112 9*. '5 o “>3 Q‘ ° 31-‘ o o E3,- Q, m2‘ Q q: :1 i’ ‘a > E ‘* 8 ‘r ° Q1 Q4 [-11 CL‘ (L fSandy Group— . January, February, March . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.91 3.44 5.47 61 72 April, May, June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.52 2.48 6.02 71 . 78 July, August, September . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 6.11 0.45 5.66 93 98 October, November, December . . . . . . . . . 9.91 3.56 6.35 64 8O Clay Group—— January, February, March . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.91 4.71 4.20 47 50 April, May, June . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.52 3.27 5.25 62 62 July, August, September . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.11 0.85 5.26 86 88 October, November, December . . . . . . . . . 9.91 4. 60 5.31 54 53 EFFECT OF SULPHATE OF POTASH AND MANURE ON PEROOLATION. Table No. .12 compares the percolation from the soils which received sulphate of potash, and manure, with the zero pot. None of these soils were cultivated, except to, the extent necessary t0 work in the manure when_it was applied. Sullphate of potash caused an average increase of percolation with the sandy soils. This increase occurred with two of the four soils of the group; with tl1e Miller fine sandy loam, there was a decided de- crease. On the other hand, the sulphate of potash caused a decided de- crease in percolation with the loam and clay soils, amounting on an average t0 3.20 inches, and occurring with all the soils of the group. "This is perhaps due to the saline material causing the surface soil to run together, decreasing ‘the penetration of water, and causing it to re- main near the surface to undergo evaporation. The Houston black‘ clay, particularly, showed a great decrease in percolation, due to the presence of the sulphate of potash. The quantity of sulphate of potash used in 1911 was equal to an annual application of 68 pounds potash (K20). In 1912-, three times this quantity was added to the Norfolk sand, Oranlgeburg fine sandy loam, Houston loam and Houston black clay, and five times as much to the Yazoo clay, Miller fine sandy loam, Crawford clay and Lufkin fine sandy loam, but there is no evidence that the increased application caused an increased evaporation during the year 1912 over that of 1911. According to these results, application of soluble salts to the heavy soils may result in no increased loss of moisture. The application of the manure resulted in a decreased loss of water by evaporation from the sandy soils especially. With the clay soils, the manure applied Octobler 15 caused a decreased loss of water,while that applied March 15 increased the loss. With almost all the soils, 30 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. the fall application of manure result-ed in a greater saving of moisture than the spring application. Some of the pots to which manure was applied evidently had something wrong with them and did not allow the water to percolate as it should. This is particularly true of the Miller fine sandy loam, and also the Lufkin fine sandy loam. TABLE NO. 12. Percolation in Inches from Uncultivated Soils. N0 Sulphate Manure, Manure, addition. of potash. Oct. 15. Mar. 15. Norfolk sand— 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.72 9.31 11.42 13.59 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.57 7.05 8.30 8.34 1,913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.28 5.77 7.21 10.36 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.52 7.38 8.98 10.36 Orangeburg fine sandy loam— 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.45 8.33 12.39 8.94 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.32 5.91 7.94 6.50 15913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.85 4.28 7.68 7.92 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.21 6.17 9.34 7.79 Miller fine sandy loam—— I 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.75 7.93 10.53 1.19 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.98 6.38 5.89 0.94 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.84 4.94 - 2:00 1.22 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.19 6.42 6.14 1.12 Lufkin fine sandy loam- 191.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.74 11.13 13.20 13.67 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.87 8.23 8.86 6.04 19113 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. l 4.69 6.36 6.66 1.53 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.77 8.57 9.57 7.08 Average of sands and loams. . .. . 6.42 7.14 8.51 6.69 Houston loam— I 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 16.07 14.84 18.80 16.11 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.56 10.49 12.78 10.50 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.53 8.88 11.67 10.33 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.72 11.40 14.42 12.31 Houston black cl ay— 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17.92 4.73 14.71 12.69 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.77 3.01 13.06 8.85 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 29 0.64 11.56 4.16 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.99 2.79 13.11 8.57 Yazoo clay- 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.36 14.26 15.17 15.25 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.98 9.79 10.71 8.53 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.55 9.08 10.35 5.81 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.30 11.04 12.08 9.86 Crawford clay—- 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19.52 17.64 18.64 17.29 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.14 10.26 11.81 10.09 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.92 10.66 9.34 10.31 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.86 12.85 13.26 12.56 Average of clays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.72 9.52 13.22 10.83 The average saving of moisture by ‘the manure on the sandy and loam soils is follows: Manure—()ctoher 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.09 Manure—Maroh 15 . . . . . .» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.27 Lossns or MOISTURE AND PLANT Foon BY PEROOLATION. 31 The saving by cultivation is 3.52 inches. The saving due to the manure would suflice for the production of the following crops, if it could all be used: Manure, October 15'. Ootton, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 167 Oorn, bushels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Wheat, bushels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Oats, bushels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Hay, pounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1600 With the clays and heavy loams, the saving is much less. The important eflfect of manure on the saving of moisture with the sands and sandy loam soils deserves especial emphasis. Manure or green crops are undoubtedly needed by these soils, not only for this p-ur- pose, but for the other favorable effects upon the condition of the soil. But it appears that an application of ten tons of manure per year on the sands and sandy loam soils may result in a saving of moisture from loss by evaporation sufficient to make more than an average crop of cotton, and nearly an average crop of corn. PERCOLATION OF NITRATES. 'I.‘he plan of the WOTk at first included only the estimation of the nitrates from the pots not cultivated, which received no addition, and which received manure March 15 and October 15. Later, however, the plan was expanded to include the estimation of nitrates in all the percolates. The nitrates were in each case estimated colorimetrically by the phenol-sulphuric acid method the same day that the percolates were collected. We will discuss first the results from the work which was carried out on the original plan, and take up the other nitrate Work on another page. Tllable No. 13 shows the nitric nitrogen in the percolates for 1911, 1912 and 1913 in parts per million of the percolating water. This gives the concentration of nitric nitrogen in the percolate. Table No. 14L shows the quantity of nitric nitrogen lost per pot per month, in the groups studied. As pointed out elsewhere in this Bulletin, a heavy rain in December, 1913, exceeded both the capacity of the free space of the pots to retain on the surface, and the capacity of the bottles which received the per- colates, and, for this reason, December is not included in the Work for the year. As, however, the analyses are of some interest, they are re- corded in the ‘tables. 32 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. fim om wm vfi . . . . .. mm um mm mm v.wm ....................................I.........I~...-_mmImm_~_mmm~Zwv m w mfi fim . . . . .. fim fim vv mm mm . . . . . . . . . . .. ow mfi mv .....I.........~mmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Znv fi fi N om m fifi mfi mfi hfi mfi . . . . .. . mm mm mm .....Z........fm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..m¢ ow wm om wm mv mo mm mofi mm mmfi mvfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imv ow flu mm wm >m. um ow aw mm um oofi mcfi mm ow mm ...........I...m.-.~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ifiv fim mm hm mm mm om om Nv an fin mofi wofi ox fiw mmfi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . zmm fi on mm mm . . . . . . . . . . .. fififi wmfi . . . . .. nfifi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..wm mm fim . mm mw . . . . . . . . . . .. fin oofi . . . . .. fififi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mofi ........ .......... ..........mm-.._ . . . . . . . . . . ..mm . . . . .. mm mw ow ...... ...... fin mm ...... mofi ...... vfi ...... oofi mfi ..................... .................fim wv mm om ow mm . . . . .. vs fim oofi mmfi mmfi .....................................I........~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iom on wv ow bv mm . . . . .. mm wmfi mm wwfi mm . . . . . .. wwfi oofi ......... ........-~..~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..@~ wv mm um wm ow . . . . .. mm oofi . . . . .. owfi owfi . . . . . . . . . . .. mmfi com . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Imm om v mm om ..... . mm om . . . . .. om . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..vm wm mm fim wfi ow mm mm mm mm fiv mm mm wm wv fin ..........I.....m.mm~m.~ . . . . . . . . . . . . Imm wfi mfi cm mfi Nfi mm wm mm mm fiv mo wm mm an mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..@_ wfi Nfi vfi mfi fifi nfi mfi mm mm fim mm ......................................I........-~ . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwfi mfi Nfi wfi mfi m wfi wfi mm mm wm mm mm mm mm mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..mfi fifi fifi mfi wfi fifi mm mm mm mm mm . . . . .. mfi om mm mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..mfi ... mfi fim am . . . . . . . . . . .. on ww fin ww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....................I.........~ . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Imfi ofi wfi mm mfi . . . . . . . . . . .. fim ow mv wm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..fifi . . . . .. mfi mm wm ...... ...... wu mm hm fififi ...... ...... ...... om fififi ................... .... ...............> mfi ofi fifi Nfi . . . . . . . . . . .. mm wm . . . . .. mm ...........................................I..........~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..w x £ . . - . . . . . . . -. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . .. ......................} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -@ ..... h mfi ofi . . . . . . . . . . .. vfi mm . . . . .. om . . . . . . . . . . ....mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. fi .:fiofi .=fi@ sfiwm sfimm ..;.¢N .=fi¢_ nfiofi .afim .@~m afium .@~¢N fiwfim .@~m .@~mN .nfiafi|wfi QQQEDZ fionfi .%mw4 ZfiQ<. .ao~m§fi .>fim:~n9m fifimfi .:c=fififi>fi 8m 28m .mvOud_.OO.fiQnH wofimbfiZ . éfi.OZHHQm>mowmoNNmwmoNvw; Q fi wmm~wo@N~¢~~NmomwbNNm~~~ 0 w nmmN¢o¢mmmmwwmwm~amommuw a N v-lv-H-l v-1v-n-1 1-1 v-n-a C 3 _ mmwmowwm@n~mmow~o¢woooNm @ 5 NOwmmOh©©NmNmO©wOO©OOmmm Q w omwwmhwmwowmmmwwomwommom F4 1-1 w-u-qwi v-4 v-qNNNv-qgqw-qv-QNN v-h-i , mmmmmwwmwmwmommmwwowmomw fi mwmwmwmmoo>moNmmmwo~oomh m wwm m vw¢m~mommcmwww~wm~ F4 v—l1-1:\]C\]C\]v—1v—(v-1F-4v—(C\] v-q _ -w---omowv-mowmo-vvmmom .Q E -m---wmowo mo~¢m-common w w -m---uwwwm mmw~N'%mNhoo 3 _ mmm~~o~oowmwmmw~~wmmmmN~ o 5 vomN~N¢oommmomw~~vmmowmw Z Q aw ~ nwmmum~mw~~ mmfiwoo F1 v-l r-lw-lw-ifilCflv-ir-lv-l NNN v—n-1 5 -wvvmm -N - ----u-- N I 0H 0 O I I 0 I n 5 _ m mwwoommmo~¢woom~owm g fi N Nowo@mmNowm~~wmwvwm y @ mwwmmmowobwflmuwmww Q F; v—1P4 v-n-nq 1-11-11-1 _ Q , _ womcvm-v - -N i 5 mmmomw-m --- v <1 N . ‘ . . - _ . -v~mo@amvm---wmm g E -mmwmuomom --mmm - N -mww~mmumw --mmo - <5: o] -' v-(P-i r—1v—( - - -r-4¢\]v—1 - , wmow-mom~wNmvwwmvwvvmnvu 5 v~om~wov>wwwnNvmvNmm~~m~ Q mmw - mwmwwmvmvm~mv¢mmvm .- N ' 2 ,5; - : : : :°. . 5 . . . 4, . o . - . .w - H ... . Q . I o q n 5 Z ‘OJ o Q ~mwm~NmNwmmwmd6~mwNéd£&w ~~~NNmmmmmmmvvvvv 33 34 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. - Ov-wOkfiOOmQOOO v-4I\OOI\€‘I\C.OOOOI\OO Nfifi-w PINWMfiN July Aug. 25th. -|n 1 . - -o|_o . . . . H“ . . . _ . . . -'_g 25th. N 'C\lOO>v-\¢O0O0O0CC‘O - -OOc\1I-Ov-<wm~mmmmw~wmv3Swv~vm m~ mmm~~~N wwhwmv-mwwmwm 28th. TABLE NO. 13. Nitrates Percolated, Parts Per Million, 1912. W-‘i ' Nv-ICINP-WYDOONO? ' ' '<1"OOLQ€‘Q" February. 19th. l\0Ol\v-1€"lfDN0Or-1OO'>0UP4<"©0OLO 'LOO5CVJI.\CT.‘IO MNLOQHOLONLOOOUDOIOQLQOO QC?) WOQOOQOOQCv-i 651-1 l\l\¢D€*F"C\lfiv-—10O0O[\ 06$ -QOOOOOQ‘LOQD Jan. 16th. Pot Number. LossEs OF M01sTURE AND PLANT F0010 BY PEROOLATION. TABLEINO.1& Nitrates Percolated, Parts Per Million, 1912. _ -mOOmOOOmmm-wO-O---Nmmm- 3 -w¢m~o¢mmwm-oo-m---mwmm ~ -owmwmmmwwo-mm-w --wmmu _ mmmOnhOmOmmm¢w¢OmOOm>©Qm fi mNwowwm~mmmmm¢N@¢u>mwwwm w u~wmww~mmu>o~@mwmmwuw¢ww N 1-1 v-(v-lv-i r-1C\1v—n-4 P1P: T' -ooooowwo~wom -Hp-mmo-~~ E ~ooooowmm¢moom-¢m»wm¢-~m m -OOOOQ -OC\1OO w-wco H . ... . . .. .... . 3m :::'::'::::':::..:-:': Q _ wmomwNmNvm¢~ommmoooowmom fi ummomouumowwmuvumwnwwmou 1\ r-YJv-1 P4 HLOQWONNONv-flbhvv-Mohxncbfi v-a P‘ 010101 v-H-‘H N _ -m----ouommwoo~m--uow- - fi -m----mmomowoo~m--mmm--- N -w----mmww@mmo~v--w>m--- '_1 a a 0 u a '_(y—('-1 a n a 0 a mm-m--wwvmmo-owe -vwoo-- A oo-o--wwwvmm-mmo--moom-- 3 - --mmmwww-ww~--wwwm-; . .. .1 . _ _ oo oo-ooooo-ooooo-oo-oo- Z f mm-mm-mwmmo-ommwo-om-mm- 2g I IC5V-1ZCQCYUCWv-4INY-1I I +3 I O O +3 Q CD w s-I 0 . g i 2 . 4-? o 0-1 n O 36 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. OQQLQQQQLFJ-OOLOLOLOOO ' ' 'O_OLOLQ©© ~hmowmm~mm~omow---~m~wmo 28th. - - . 7-1?‘ - .mm n - -m m April. 12th 'C\1¢OC'O WQNLOQWQNCONCMIDLO - -O> @3000] --+c\1--<Q>OO 8101 43.5 January. 14th. 15 0 36 0 '67IS 16 87.0 'i8i 88.5 18.0 149 O N Q‘ 10th. 11816 31.5 >2 I I I I <9 . . . . .12 . . . . E ' . ' : : 2 I . . . +-> I '. I I ¢> . . . . v-Irdcdliv-Icfiorifioddcviwilriddv-hricdliv-ioicviliod w-w-lv-w-iHwNmNflmmmmmvfifififi LossEs . 0F MOISTURE TABLE NO.l& Nitrates Removed in Parts Per Mill ionin 1913. AND PLANT F001) BY PERCOLATION. _ Q --o-oommcomooommmomomoo Q3; --N-~m¢wmvm>mmmo¢w¢w¢¢m ,_),...'_ Z ' I P101 NM \/ . ;;@:mQ@oqommomooommmomo § --N-omwmmmmwwmmmgwmwwgg . . H N a . Q____ Qqqoo coco -oooooo 5 N"'--fiON¢¢-®®NN--bwNOh© w - o a . .'-qc\]'_1 o , , , H .. . . .. . Q;;o Zoqooomoomommoommoo E o-3w -¢w¢mwmawv~mg¢m:m$w H . v . . ¢ - - no‘. o o v3 : : : . ' : ' : 11° : : _ o . . .. . ... .. k . ........ ... . 3 o oQo-o-oo- oooooo E 5 w ~¢~-w-wm- vwmwmm 8 m . . H Q .' . .' Q m- .¢, . . 5Q‘ f‘ ' ' ' : $2 ....................... oi .@@@©@.@ .©.@........ Pg u n -y—(o§,-1'_q -'-( .10 .r-1 O u c n q . . (y; . .(_\] . . . . . . _ Qoocooooooooooooooocoooo f omuowmmmmmmwwmo~mmoomm0m w, N ©1001 HwcOmHv-1hv-1Nm 6 _ oooooooooooooooooooooooo © wmwwmwmwumwowoommmmwomvm g ~m~n~u H~vvm@mNwmmmmw~mw v-i Y-lv-i _ -ooocooooooooooo -oooooo Q fi -wmwowcoommowoom--mwwoom 0 5 -mm mmmvmwwwmmv --mowvww Q '01 v-(v-1 v-cw - v—1v-1 g _ -ooooooooooooooo--ooooo- ¢ fi -~oNow~wmmwavwww--cmwo@- z Q - mHoofiNvmmvN0Lo~ - -C>C7><1“CYJ2:' -—<:l\: 1N0] N . . . . 5 -cooooooooo-oocooococooo § s -vuwwommmww-mwomowwwvvoo H H -mimwummmww-nvmwomowmmmo Q l\ - - v-iv-l v-u-u-e v-i v-i O . . _ vwwvowmomwwowoovmoowomoo @ m~wNN¢~¢mmawmowwm>m~pmom g ~w¢ m¢mm¢¢¢¢vww~mbm¢©~vv h -womm-w-mwm-nwno -mum - 3 5 -om~o-o-ooo-ooom -oo~:- h, u‘: . . . . . . . . . _ wowwvomowwoowww-----y-ow fi omnommwumwv~~H@ -o-flo to ‘#71 N om u i? N . . . . 2 , --o -wovoo-mwoo oww--- 5 --m -o¢o¢m-~o~~- ooo--- fi . . . . Q II I'I I OJ . . . . . ,.Q . . . . . . . E : : : : : ' 2 . . .... P II ‘I IIIII o ... .. .. .. Q ... . .. .:. .. H@b&Am5&¢&5ém5d~@¢&A&5&d -<-<-<---1c\1c\1c\1c\1oommcnm22 2a s52 mm mm mm . . . . .. mm mm fim mm é . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . a? mmswm 2a 3M2 mm » - . - . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - - mmm mmm 2: mmm mm im mmm 2m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . :8 mmmomoo mméma 5Q ofism mm mmm mom mm mm mm mmm m? ma.» . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . q . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .50 2E? mm mam mmm g m: m; mm n: mm mnzmmmwmmémimmmm. mQmE =S§fi mm mmm mmm m2 m2 cm oom mmm 3m . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 munomuO umsmmcm >30 mQmE mommsomrm mm mmm mom m2 2m mm 2: mmm mmm . . . . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 moms 822E 2 mmm m: mm m5 mm Rm mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mm mmmmmm wmsmmcm .58. mommsomm mm 2.; 2m g mmm mm mmm m» mmm ..ZL.............TT. H.....mm mmmofio vmscmi Ems Ezmaomm S 13m no wm mmm mum wmm mm m3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .89: mommsom mm n a o 0 a a a a n n a n o a o a o o u 0 a a o o u u n c - - Q Q u u q Inc ...... ... . .. .. . . .. wm umm w R: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1mm mQQQmQQ Qmsmmi Emom 35mm vac mmsnuwmwmO I - - ¢ - - Q - - - . . - - - a - O 0 a 0 o - . . . - . - . . - - . . - . . . - . u - O - O . - . . . - - - - . . . - § . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fim-fi HTQHNE m®hggfla T@gflm.. Vzmfaknvz mw . . . . . . . . . . . . N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MQQOQYOO Okinawa mwufiflw vZO%MOZ @ m; m ow mv mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lémmmvzommoZ m .>oZ :30 $54 .35, $32 .554 Q32 imam munEmmZ mom 38 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. .22 .552 8m 8m 8m aaszmmmamm. E mmfizz .3 dz mmmfim. 39 LossEg 0F MQISTURE AND PLANT F001) BY PERGOLATION. 0.0H0 N. H00 . . . ... . . . 0.0H N.0 5N0 0.N.NH H.NN 0.N . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ... ..0H 030H>H M00000E 100230000 000 0200A 00 N000 0.N00 H.0 H .0 H.0 . . .. H .00 0.00 08H N.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .0H 0000000. 3000E E02 030000 000 02000 N.0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q . Q Q Q Q Q QQQQQ Q Q Q Q Q QQQQQ. QQQQQQQQ»E.WO%%.©QWW 0.HNHH 0.00m 00H H.000 0S N.00 >BOH 0.00H HQH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......0H 030H>H 00000E$000 00.00.030.00 N0 0.00NH 0.00m. . 0.0N 0.00 N.0 0.00 m. HOH N. HOH 0.0N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .0H 00000.00 0000000 0000 32330 H0 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQQQQQQ-QQQQQQQiQQQQQQQhm?nw mimm m! QQQ mic Q QQQQ NQO §Q¢ QQQQQQ QQQQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Imfi w! Q Q Q hlfi Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q wQN Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Hlo mIo Q QQ iQo @Qx £Q@ Q Q Q Q Q QQQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQa€o%%wq.m% Q Q Q.Q Q Q fiQo Nlm ml“ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q i Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q£.P h.000H 0.000 N.0 0.0H 0.00 H.NH 0.00 0.HNN N.00H 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000.00 3000E >000 0000? 0N QQ Q fiQ? ¢Q€ w!” Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQQQQQQQQQQQQQ@ Q Q Q Q Q QQ~ Q Q Q Q Q Q QQhmyo 0.00m 0.000 .... 0.0H 0.00 0.0. 0. H0 N..00H 0.00 N. H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0H 00.002 .3000E .020 00000 000.0002 0N 0SO0H 0.N00 H.0 0.0H 0.00 0.0 0.0N 0.00 0.0N 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . 1070000000 3000E >20 00000 0000005 0N Q Q Q Q QQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQQQQQQ-QQQQhwéQ 0.0N0 0.000 N.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0N 0.00 0.0H 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0H 0302 .3000E .E02 0000020 0H H.0N0 0.000 H.0 0.00 N.0 0.00 0.00 N.0N 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0H 00000.00 3000E E02 0000003 0.H 0.00.0 0.0H0 0.0 0.0N 0.0 0.0N 0.00 N.00 0.0H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . ..E02000w00$ 0H Q Q Q Q Q . Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q I Q Q Q §Q% Q . Q Q . Q Q Q . . . Q . Q Q Q Q Q Q Q@@ SOQHWE .0H-Paws ‘MHWA: %.b.i.ww QQ€ %Q~D.QQ%Q.NQHQ 0.000 N.0NN . . . H.0 0.0 . . . . . . 0.00 0.3% 0.H0 00H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0H 0000000 3000E E02 E0000 000 0000000000 HH Q Q Q QQQQ QQQ QQ éQo Nim aim Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q . Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQQQQEQO? SQ on: IO vNOH III aQN $8M Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q QQQ Q Q Q Q Q Q Q IICOIMfi w 0.0H0 0.000 0.0 0.H . .. 0.00 0.H0 0.HH N.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000000 3000E 0000 0:00.002 0 0.H0H 0.0N H.0 0.0 0.0m N.0N 0.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......00000_200Z H 0000B 00G .>0Z .300 .0000 .002 .0004. .0002 00h .000 000E070 00m N000 Q5002 00h 00h 00m 00:20:02 0m 30.5070 .00 QOZ HAMFH . £.x£ %-£ u 0 0 1 - - ¢ - - .?o¢ x.o x.£ . . . - - - O - » . - . . - . - - . - - . 0 O e@% 0.00m 0 R . . . . .. .. N0. T0 0.0» 0.9.4 . 0.000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......: 000800 0.6508 800E050... 050 .6000 .2 f. . . - - .- . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . . . . - . -.--.. ¢ . - . -...-.--Emo? “.002 0.000 0.08 N00. @002 060 N03 0.0mm 0.000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . . .3 40.82 .0.=E0E $20 0000B00U N0. N . - . - . . . . - . . . - . . - . . . . . . . . . - . - - . u - 0 0 ¢ u -£.? - - . . .. --- . . - . - - - . . - . - . . - . . ¢ . - -u - - u . ~ ¢ - - ¢ -@ v - . . - -@- ~ ¢ - - n -%N.?Q . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m. an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... JORGE Twhfiflfla KQMNOT» %Ufl.®w Qflmw . . - . . - . . - . . . - . - . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . ~ . - . -@.P m-o w-w we. - - Q - ¢- m-c . . - . . . - . . . ~ . . - . - - - - - . - - v00 . ¢ . - - - - - ~.-.--.E.-@o% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . - . . - . - 0.2302 MAKN 0.0% NS. 5 0.0m 0.02 0.000 0.000 . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... . .2 0220000 00:53: .0020 0000? 0N . . . . - . . . . . . - . . . . . . .-¢...-» - - - . --¢.-.---u-.»-..-.--hméo 0.03 0.0 0. I S0. N0 0.0 0. S T02 0.02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :2 00:02 .2258 .220 00000 0325i 0.0 @1000 0.02 0.0mm m . $0 2.3 5N0 0.02 0.002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 0000000 0.00005 >020 0020 0000003 mN N . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - - . . . - » . - . . . . . . - - . ¢ - - - - . - - .-.-.%@i,mv miavm NAN. 0.902 mmc. Q52 mQN mNm wiwfi ohm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IIIDmH £0.82 .0.5cmE .E002c0~ws0E m2 mfmvm wNa NdmN . . . . .. wmqw mtwfi 0.0m wfim NR“. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.12 0220000 0.5005 E002 c3252 2 m.:N odN @502 0N0. mmé 240 mql 9N2 NMwN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ifimficowwnom m2 0.000 0.000 :00 . . . . . . 00. 0.0 0.0m. 0.0m: N2 Em . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 A0002 .0.5E0E .8002 30:00 0E0 000.200.00.20 NH @002. 0.3 0.3 .30 00.0 2R N50 0.00m 0.0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 0000006 000005 E02 30000 0E0 $530030 I . . . . . - . . . . . . - . . . . - - - Q . Q - ¢ Q - - - - ¢ - - - - - § mdom mdoN mdmfi mo. 0N0 To wAN vRN w.mm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 £0.82. 0.5005. 0:00 0202.002 w mdaN o6 Ndw 2N0. nwN N.m uNN n80 N52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0220000 0.5005 200mm 50.202 m m5 ......w.o . . . . I5 . . . . ..w.o who 0.“. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iwcmwvzofio2 2 4000M. .>02 .000 .33. p902 219% .002 £00m .502. .00nE:2 0on2 40 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 5:3 E 00h 00h 0500352 n“ 00§8$m $30032 :3 .O2 @0020. Lossns on Morsrunn AND PLANT F001) BY Pnnoonarrioiv. 41 QUANTITY OF NITRIC NITROGEN PEROOLATING. Table N0. 16 is asummary of Table No. 14 and shows the total quan- tities of nitric nitrogen percolating from the uncultivated soil, both those which received no additions and those which received manure. An examination of the ‘tables show that the concentration of the nitrates in the water percolating from the pots reaches its maximum in the "fall, usually in December, and its minimum in the spring, usually in April. This may be due to the accumulation of nitrates during the summer months, when the temperature is favorable to nitrification, and there is little percolation, and to ivashing the nitrates out by the fall and winter rains. Nitrification is of course less active during the win- ter months. From Table No. 14, showing the nitrates in milligrams percolated per pot, we likewise see that the nitric nitrogen washed out in December forms a large proportion of the total loss. NITROGEN LOST IN POUNDS PER ACRE. The loss of 1 mg. per pot represents a. loss of 0.122 pounds per acre. Table No. 15 shows the average loss of nitrogen in pounds per acre per year for the several soils (December, 1913, excluded). The loss varies from 26.7 to 244.2 pounds per acre. The average for the sandy group is 67.2 pounds a.nd for-the clay group 168.6. The nitrogen content of soil and subsoil also stated in the table. It is seen that the loss of nitrates i is related to the total nitrogen of the soil. The quantity increases with the content of soil and subsoil in nitrogen. As it takes approximately 1.5 pounds nitrogen tor grain, stalk, leaves, etc., for a bushel of corn, we have also calculated the loss of nitrogen to bushels corn per acre. This is 45 bushels for the first group and 114 bushels for the second. TABLE NO. 15. Loss of Nitric Nitrogen Per Year Per Acre. I . Per cent Per cent Average Corn in Pounds nitrogen. nitrogen. of surface bushels per acre. Surface. Subsoil. and_ equal to subsoil. nitrates. Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.7 o3 . . . . . . . . . . .03 1s Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . 81 . 9 04 . . . . . . . . . . .04 54 iller fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . 85.5 O5 .035 04 57 Lufkin sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75. 6 05 063 059 51 Average for group . . . . . . . . . 67.2 044 044 . . . . . . . . . . 45 Houston loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7s . 9 034 04o .037 51 Houston black clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147.0 119 079 .099 99 Yazoo clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244.2 . 149 152 .151 162 Crawford clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203.1 151 098 .125 135 Average for group . . . . . . . . . 168.6 113 .092 . . . . . . . . . . 114 While it is not probable that all the nitrates produced were washed from the soil each year. yet the figures ought to give us a fairly good idea of the amount formed. We can also compare these figures with the corn 1Jossibility based upon the nitrogen taken up in pot experiments as follows: 42 Tbsxxs AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Per cent Corn nitrogen Corn possibility average of equal to of total soil and nitrates. nitrogen. subsoil. (Bushels per acre.) Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .03 18 13 Houston loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .037 51 13 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .04 54 18 Miller fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .04 57 18 Average of first group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .044 45 .18 _Lufkin sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .059 51 18 Houston black clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .099 99 28 Average of second group ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .092 104 28 fCrawford clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125 135 38 Yazoo clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 l 162 43 1t is evident that the average (luantityr of nitrates produced is la.rge. The losses from cropped land would, of course, be much less than these given here. The nitrates formed would be absorbed by the crops. 'l‘he percolation would be reduced, both by the water evaporated from the crops, and by xvater running ofif on the surface. Nevertheless, considerable losses of plant food may occur from bare, uncropped soils during the winter months. The nitrates are not all taken up by the plants, and a portion of the water percolates from the soil. NITRATES FROM MANURE. 'l‘able No. 16 shows the nitric nitrogen, in milligrams per pot, perco- lating from the manured and unmanured pots. As previously stated, manure was added at the rate of 30 grams of dried sheep excrement per pot, on October 15 or March 15. This represented an application of 9.15 tons per acre of manure containing 80 per cent water. The quan- tity of nitrogen added was equal to 456 milligrams per year, October 15, and 474 milligrams March 15, or 55.6 pounds per acre for the former. An examination of the table shows that, with one exception, more nitrates percolated from the manure applied October 15 than from that applied March 15. This may be compared with the fact, dis- cussed elsewhere in this Bulletin, that the manure applied October 15 decreased evaporation better than that applied March 15. The difi- ference may be partly clue to the fact that some of the pots to» which the manure was applied March 15 did not percolate properly. The average quantity of nitric nitrogen per year produced from the manure applied October 15 is as follows: _ Sufiicient Milligrams Pounds for bushels per pot. per acre. corn per acre. G 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 28.5 19 Gigs? 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 256 31.2 21 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 29 .8 20 Lossns or Biorsrunr. AND PLANT Foon BY PERGOLATION. This is 53.7 per cent. of the 456 milli._g'ran1s nitrogen applied in the According to this, an application of 9 tons manure per acre annually would raise the corn possibility (so far as nitrogen 1s manure each year. concerned) 20 bushels per acre. TABLE NO. 16. Nitrogen Percolated as Nitrates in Milligrams Per Pot. No Manure Manure addition. October 15. March 15. l Norfolk sand, 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 516.0 1009.0 1134.0 Norfolk sand, 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 131.8 510.9 412.4 Norfolk sand, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.3 209.3 509.5 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219.0 603.4 685.3 Orangeburg fine sandy loam, 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116.5 168.5 1090.0 Orangeburg fine sandy loam, 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395.2 536.0 578.9 Orangeburg fine sandy loam, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455.2 766.8 960.9 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 671.8 995.9 876.6 Miller fine sandy loam, 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1489.0 1869.0 435.0 Miller fine sandy loam, 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423.2 456.6 33.3 Miller fine sandy loam, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 193.7 220.3 159.3 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702.0 848.6 209 .2 Lufkin sandy loam, 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 716.0 1253.0 1199.0 Lufkin sandy loam, 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 448.5 498.2 519.5 Lufkin sandy loam, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 697.2 354.4 58.5 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620.6 701.9 592.4 Average for group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553.4 787.5 590.9 Houston loam, 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston loam, 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston loam, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston black clay, 1911. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . Houston black clay, 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houston black clay, 1913. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yazoo clay, 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yazoo clay, 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yazoo clay, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crawford clay, 1911 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crawford clay, 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . Crawford clay, 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . Average for group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1459 629 543 1161. 528. 349. 679. 1605. U3 1P- \1 O0 OOlO 1000C O’) UJCHQ OJ COF-‘O CD ¢OCOO N CC w p 0 uw coo m was m mmo w m~o. w CD CD o wk §wo ~ mmo @ wpo Q mmo 44 TICXLXS AGRIQLTIJEUEAL EXPERIMENT STATIQN. ' - -c1::'C\P.1_,\!2Q’J '6 - -OLOQ 4“? --mavwwco m--om~ Jmmmmq --owNmwmm n -Nmw - -v—|v-< v—1C\| - " Moccocmcwwooomcm - WW3 Egchmgfimmngggggg L’: v-wg v-4v—-moooomo woo ~ - 0 wNm bN- N F-( ‘Joqmog 'Jaquua1dag ‘lsnfiflv A -mm~OOOOO-m©mOOO qmzlmi -we-Nwmw~-wmwumw -N -~m~mN- w Nm ----m©mo--mm-mmm Qunf . . . .@C>OoLo .¢\]@Q-; -NO~O®m-©N-fiO - . . -O[\. .o,-q . . . . N .QOCYQ .'_|LO -0-mwm©No@-wowow p19 Qunf -c> ~- OHOBCYD -cOl\OC\1»-1 Nm -w-m~mNmN¢-mNmH¢ fimBmkfiwi-fbmfiOdifiOfifiOQ WGXWN flm mwmoowmomuwom m m NHM w w ¢~m -mwho~ooNw-wwmow qulnmv -wmmmwbanw-wmmmv - m N N w-w m v mmvwmmooo~mm~oww QUIHMV ~Nw©mwwwom¢¢mowm ‘1-1 P‘ N 000100 1D LOw-cx-H mmmow~~mowNwomom TUQII-IdV v-HLDNQQHOOOOOOOOCOCDOOCDOB v-i v-i CONLO CO Nfifi’) m@mmhmmwmmO©vO®¢ 1111.8 IPJBW woo~mcoooooo v-1 v-H-iv-i LO v-i €DO€"O'3C\1¢OO?QO‘<1“l\LO0OCYD0Ol\v-¢ P88 IIQ-IBW‘ F-wOOBOOOM-mooov-wowtflflmd" v—< C\l P-H-(OON bv-(HWJN TABLE NO. 17. Nitrates Percolated Parts per Million 1912 (March 23 to December 31.) 1' Norfolk sand, 0". . .. 7 Orangebilrg fine sandy loam, 0". . . . ._ . . . . . . 8 Orangeburg fine sandy loam, 2" and nltrates. y, 2" ahdiiiiiétééff .' f f I I 2 Norfolk sand, 2" and nitrates. . . . . 13Houstonloam,0”............. 14 Houston loam, 2" and nitrates. . 19 Houston black clay, 0". . 20 Houston black 01a 25Yaz0oclay,0"............ .. 26 Yazoo clay, 2" and nitrates. . . . . . . 31 Millerfine sandyloam,O”................ 32 Miller fine sandy loam, 2" and nitrates. . . . . 37 (Iravvford.cla3n O”.. .... .... ..... ..... ... 38 Crawford clay, 2" and nitrates. . . 43 Lufkin sandy loam, 0". . . . . . . . . . .. 44 Lufkm sandy loam, 2" and nitrates. . "JQQIIIHN 10d Lossns or MOISTURE mvn PLANT Foon BY PERooLATIoN. 45 The results here given show a high nitrification of the manure ac- companied with a high- percolation of the nitrates produced. The manure applied was (lry, finely ground sheep excrement, and should not nitrity as readily as ordinary barnyard manure, which has usually fer- mented to some extent. ' LOSS OF NITRATES BY PERCOLATION. On B/Iarch 15, 1912, and again o-n November 15, 1 gram nitrate of soda containing 152 mg. nitrogen was added to four cultivated pots, Nos; 2, 8, 14 and 20, and two grams were added to four others, of difierent soils, Nos. 26, 32, 38 and 44. The object of the application was to ascertain how rapidly the nitrates would percolate. The addi- tions made were at the rate of 122 and 244 pounds nitrate bf soda per acre. _ . Table No. 1'7 shows a comparison in parts per million of nitric nitro- gen of these pots and the soils receiving no additions. With two of the soils, an increase i11 the proportion of nitrates is seen at once, but with the other six the nitrates had no effect on the percolating water until the collection otApril Gthor April 11th, the third or fourth percola- tion since the nitrates were added. The loss of nitrogen in milligrams per month for the year is shown in Table No. 18. "TABLE NO. 1s. Milligrams Nitric Nitrogen Removed Per Pot, 1912. h i Q e O w Q4 :3 :3 o Q O o. 2 <11 2 h. »—. Z Q H 1Norfolksand,0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.9 3.3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 26.7 67.0 2 Norfolk sand, 2.. and nitrates . . . . . .. 30.8 29.9 41 6 76.0 13 5 ..... 241.8 433.6 7 Orangeburg fine sandy loam, 0.... . . . 32.6 28.0 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177.3 238.0 8 Orangeburg fine sandy loam, 2.. and . nitrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 70.8 54.5 20.5 46.0 . . . . . . . . .. 312.5 504.3 13 Houstonloam,0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 20.0 3.5 23.4 0.7 .....419.0 482.1 14 Houston loam, 2.. and nitrates. . .. . .. 12.4 10.0 28.3 69.8 14.4 1 2 273.3 499.7 19Houston black clay,0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 49.6 31.2 .9 41.8 3.6 543.1 679.2 20 Houston black clay, 2.. and nitrates. . 71.3 123.0 30.3 64.6 15.0 0 2 787.1 1091.5 25Yazoo c1ay,0... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 128.3 62.9 4.4 40.0 1.5 .....877.81114.9 26 Yazoo clay, 2.. and nitrates . . . . . . . . . 84.6 276.3 39.9 78.5 . . . . . . . . . . 788.0 1267.3 31 Millerfine sandyloam,0 . . . . . . . . . .. 16.4 14.0 0.1 0.5 0.1334.1 365.2 32 Miller fine sandy loam, 2.. and nitrates 192.8 179.9 18.2 43.2 0.2 0.2 599.1 1033.6 37 Crawford clay,0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.8 29.7 8.3 65.3 34.4 . . . . ..557.1 712.6 38 Crawford clay, 2.. and nitrates . . . . . . 40.4 49.5 35.5 62.2 0. . . . . . 776.5 964.2 43 Lufkin sandy loam,0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.7 95.5 2.8 11.1 1.1 0 1199.0 324.3 44 Lufkln sandyloam, 2.. and nitrates. . 13.9172.6 17.5 42.0 1.0 ..... 414.2 661.2 The difference in the nitrates from. these pots is due, however, not only to the addition of nitrates, but also to the cultivation, the pots to which the nitrates were added being cultivated, and the pots to which no addition was made not being cultivated. It is diflicult to allow for this difference. The cultivation caused a greater percolation through a number ofthe pots, and consequently a greater removal of the nitrates. There appears to be little danger of loss of nitrates during the growing reason. a 46 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. PEROOLATION OF POTASH. One gram sulphate of potash was added to pots Nos. 4, 10, 16, 22, 28, 34, 40 and 46 on October 15, 1910, 1.911, 1912 and 1913. In a.ddi- tion, two grams were added to pots Nos. 4, 10, 16 and 22 and four grams to 28, 34, 40 and 46 on March 15, 1912. The object of these extra additions was to see i"? they increased the loss of potash. The sulphate of potash used aontained 50.1 per cent. potash (K20). One grant of sulphate of potash is equal to an application of 122 pounds per acre of sulphate of potash, or 61 pounds actual potash per acre. The parts per million of potash in the percolates is given in Table No. 19. The addition of fertilizer potash increased the potash content of the percolates in several instances. TABLE NO. 19. Parts Per Million of Potash in Percolates. Potash. L; , .. F] i L‘ :1 . ,. - a . .. . .. jg Sgmgggfifififififififi-s a v-t o _ Jog l; ov-i v-i o “BI-i v-4 o 8 ‘ z J“: m?“ "Hr-i v-THv-T v-i v-T PIN-JP: v-T P‘ . ---< d) OJ . . . . ' a sgssssssssss-Eg 0-4 w w w w w w w w w w w 1 Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 . . . . . . 17 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Norfolk sand and potash . . . . . . . . . . . 16 19 5 11 18 9 1 11.6 7 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . 27.7 3O 26 22 26 17 1 24.3 10 Orangeburg fine sandy loam and pot- ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 33 27 22 . . . . . . 20.5 21.9 13 Houston loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 8 6 5 4.2 8 .2 16 Houston loam and potash . . . . . . . . . . 11 9 7 4 7 4.8 10.9 19 Houston black clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 5 ' 5 3 2.2 5.5 22 Houston black clay and potash . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . 5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Yazoo clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 31 31 22 28 16.0 25.9 28 Yazoo clay and potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 29 33 20 30 18.8 31.7 31 Miller fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 26 24 24 17 11.7 20.9 34 Miller fine sandy loam and potash. . . 34 41 32 30 36 26.9 29 .8 37 Crawford clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 13 16 12 12 3.0 12.6 40 Crawford clay and potash . . . . . . . . . . 22 13 17 15 15 3.0 14.7 43 Lufkin fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 4 5 3 2.1 5 4 46 Lufkin fine sandy loam and potash. . . 3 4 6 13 6 2 6 8.1 '_l‘ahle No. 20 shows the potash, in mgr., percolating from the un- treated soils, and those which received. potash. In consideringthe potash applied, that introduced October 15, 1910, is excluded. The maximum loss in the three years on any one soil, is 303 mg. with the Norfolk sand, which is 12 per cent. of the potash added. Next comes the Miller fine sandy loam, 142 mg. or 4 per cent. of that added, and the Lufkin fine sandy loam, 4.5 per cent. loss. The Crawford clay lost a little less than 2 per cent., the Orangeburg fine sandy loam 2.2 per cent., the Yazoo clay 0.3 per cent. and the Houston loam and Houston black clay, none. Losses OF MOISTURE AND PLANT F001) BY PERCOLATION. 4'7 TABLE NO. 20. Potash in Milligrams Per Part from Untreated Soils and Soils Which Received Potash. N0 Potash Loss. Pot- addition. added. ash addd- 3 , 1911 19121913 Total. 1911 191219131911 19121913 Total. Mgs. Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . . . . 165 75 . . . . 240 281 162 101 115 87 101 303 2500 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 371 261 156 788 450 235 159 79 . . . . 3 55 2500 Houston 10am . . . . . . . . . . 236 123 98 457 230 95 112 . . . . . . . . 14 . . . . . . 2500 Houston black clay . . . . .. 141 104 69 214 33 28 .... .... .... .... . . . . .. 2500 Yazoo clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . 851 438 350 1639 845 412 390 . . . . . . . . 40 14 3500 Miller fine sandy loam. . . 508 323 138 959 506 368 247 . . . . 45 109 142 3500 Crawford clay . . . . . . . . . . 567 253 129 949 577 285 150 10 32 21 63 3500 Lufkin fine sandyloam . . 73 58 24 145 94 168 51 21 110 27 158 3500 We must take into consideration the fact that these soils Were un- cropped and uncultivated, and that all the Water which fell 0n the soil either evaporated 0r went through. Growing crops would, of course, use the potash in solution, and decrease the percolation of water, as they evaporate it also. Hencethe loss of potash due to the fertilizer would be less on a cropped soil. We should judge from these results that there is little loss of potash of fertilizer, due to percolation, when the potash is applied to a soil on which crops are growing. Even on the light sandy soil, the Norfolk sand, there should be only small loss, if any. Table No. 21 shows the loss of potash in pounds per acre, from the Llncultivated, unfertilized, uncropped. soils, to which no fertilizer had been applied. The loss varies from 9.7 to 66.6 pounds per acre. These losses would, of course, be much less when crops are grown on the soil. TABLE NO. 21. Average Loss Per Year in Pounds Per Acre. i Potash. Lime. iMagnesi a. Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . .§ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .7 70.4 13.0 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 . 1 181 .0 26.8 Houston loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.5 258.1 46.8 Houston black clay. ..' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 .2 441.7 40.5 Yazoo clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.6 582.0 51.1 Miller fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.0 259.0 49 .2 Crawford clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 569.0 43.3 Lufkin fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.6 172.0 52.7 Let us assume that a bushel of corn requires one pound of potash. Then the quantity of potash lost by percolation would produce thequan- tity of corn given in the following" table. We also give "the average active potash content of these soils, and the corn possibility as based on the active potash: Corn equal Active Corn to potash potash of posslbility removed so1l. of ac_tive in so1l percolate. potash. Houston black clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 362 157 Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 .7 69 3 Houston loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.5 134 51 Orangeburg fine sandy loam. . . ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.1 153 80 Crawford clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 515 182 Miller fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 .0 275 120 Lufkin fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58. 6 280 120 Yazoo clay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.6 911 230 48 rfEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. There is little relation between these figures, except that, in a gen- eral xvay, with the exception of the Houston black clay, a higherper- centage of active potash is accompanied by a higher percolation of potash. The percolation of potash depends, however, not only on the solubility of the soil potash but also on the fixing power of the soil, and, as we have seen, the fixing powers of these soils are such as to reduce to a minimum the loss of fertilizer potash by percolation, except with the Norfolk sand; It is of some interest to note, however, the quantities of potash. which percolated from the- uncultivated soil. It is evident that losses of soil potash take place during the winter and spring months, when there are often heavv rains, and the soils are not covered with crops. PHOSPHORIO ACID. The quantity of phosphoric acid in some o-f the percolates is given in Table No. .22, but the quantities are very small. The maximum quantity lost in 191.3 is 11.5 milligrams, or about 1.5 pounds per acre. The AVQTEIgG quantity lost is 4.1 mg. per pot or 0.5 pounds per acre. These figures serve to show the small losses of phosphoric acid from these unfertilized soils. ' . LIME. As was to be expect-ed, large losses of lime occurred. Table No. 23 shows the lime and magnesia in parts per million, and Table iNo. 24 in milligrams per pot. With one exception, the addition of pot-ash in- creased the loss of lime, although the increase is slight with several of the soils. TABLE NO. 22. Phosphoric Acid in Percolates. Parts per million. _ Magnesia per pot. g aseasaefisszazgss E or c» c» c: o: s; a‘, c» o: ov ,_, f: i; “o"‘ “o” ""o.-< .o"" “o” .0 , P1 75 -+-> » u» - --+-> He» a H» - .-<+-> Z 1-4 v-1 v-i v-1 v-l P: v1 v-i v-4 h P1 __;~ ~ Z*=:'1:'Z'2*-3'dd'2"5<53 s: :ss:sg%ss:~5 § 1 Norfolk sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Norfolksand and potash . . . . . ., . . . . . . . . .. 0.3 0.3 . . . . .. 2.7 0.5 3.2 7 Orangeburg fine sandy loam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.2 . . . . . . 1 .8 0.2 2.0 10 Orangeburgfine sandy loam and potash . . . . . . 0.2 0.3 . . . . . . 1.5 0.1 1.6 13Houstonloam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.3 0.3 . . . . .. .6 1.8 5.4 16 Houston lo'am and potash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.2 0.5 . . . . .. ‘ .2 2.8 5.0 19 Houston black clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.3 0.25 . . . . .. 4.1 1.7 5.8 22 Houston black clay and potash. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25Yazooclay. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.3 1.4 0.3 6.5 1.4 2.0 3.4 28Yazooclayandpotash . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.3 1.4 0.7 6.5 1.4 4.3 5.7 31 Millerfinesandyloam . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.5 0.5 0.65 2.4 4.7 0.8 5.5 34Mfllerfinesandyloamandpotash.... 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.6 2.6 1.3 3.9 37Crawfordclay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.5 0.6 0.2 3.0 7.2 1.5 8.7 40Crawford clayand potash . . . . . . . . . .. 0.5 0.7 0.4 3.0 8.4 3.1 11.5 43Lufkinfine sandyloam . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0.5 - 0.3 0.2 2.2 2.0 0.4 2.6 46 Lufkm fine sandy loam and potash 0.4 0.2 0.4 2.0 1.7 1.4 3.1 Table No. 21 shows the lo-ss of lime and magnesia. in pounds per acre. The loss of lime varies from '70 to 58.2 pounds per acre per year, on the average of three years. The loss of lime and magnesia is, in a general way, related to the lim.e soluble in strong hydrochloric acid. This is brought out in the table below. 49' LOSSES 0F Moxsnrunm AND PLANT F001) BY PEROOLATION. .wo2m2oo.2oh :2 aim-Eng was 0E: mo c2222 20h mink ANN .OZ HAMZNH NN2. 2.NN NN N2 N2. 2N N2. N.NN 2.22 2N NN NN2 N22 N22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22222:. 2.6.. 66.2 NNNNN 8N 2.2.262 N.NN N.NN NN 2 22. 2N N2. N.NN N.NN NN2 NN NN2 N22. 222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N .6282 NNNNN 6.22 62.212 9N2 2.2 N2 2.2 NN N N2 N.NN2 N.N2.N NNN NN2 N2N NN2 NNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2288N 2.6.. >26 2:62.60 N22 N22 N2 N N2 N N2 N.NN2 2.2N2 NNN 2N NNN NN2 NNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125.2“. 2.662260 N.NN N.NN NN N NN N2. N2. N.NN N.NN2 NNN NN NNN NNN NNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . NNNNNN 2.26 682 3E8 8N 6.2222 N . 2N N.NN N2 N NN NN 2N N.NN N.NN N22 NN NNN NN2 NNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..N .682 N268 222.2 .2222 N.NN N.NN NN N NN N2 N2 NN2 2..NNN 2NN 2N2 NNN NN2 NNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222N322 2.6. NN2“. 82.8w 22.2%. N2N N N NN 2N 2.2 N22 2.NN2 NNN N22 NNN NN2 N22. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..o.>N2N NNN...» N.N2 N.N2 2. N N2 22 N2 N.NN2 N.2N2 NN NN N2 NN2 NN2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2226 2.8 NN2» .283 5.22.2.2 N.NN N.N N2 N N2 N2 N2 N.NN NN2 NNN NN NN2 NN2 0 NNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..N 2N2“. .2882 NNNNNNE N2 2x2 NN N2 NN NN N.N N. 2N N.NN N22 NN NN2 NN NN2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NNSNN 2.6.. 682 62.28822 N2 N.N2 NN N2 NN NN NN N28 22.3. NN NN N3 22 2.2.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..N 66.2 228N862 N.NN 2. 2N NN. 2.2 NN NN NN N.NN NN2 NNN 2N 2N2 N22 2.NN . . . . . . . . 1822.62 2.6. 682 NNENN 22c mNsnNmcNNO N.NN N.NN NN 22 2N N2 NN N. NN N.NN2 N2 NN N2 NN2 NNN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .N 6.82 NNNS 822 NNNQNNNNNO N. 2N N.NN NN N2 NN N2 N N.NN N. 222 NNN 2N N22 NN NN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222222 2.26 268 52.26.72 N.NN N.N2 2 2 NN 2 N NN2. N.NN NN2 NN N22 NN NN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.6... 2226.72 qwwwwwwwwwmvv.wwmwwwwwwwwmwww_ NMMNuMMunwwmNwNruMMu ufixluuwwmmNl ‘I121 “.1121. ‘I121 ‘I121. ..I1.I. 11.1 111W. ‘I121.