A16-1218-8m TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President BULLETIN NO. 237 NOVEMBER, 1918 Progress Report, Substation No. 11, Nacogdoches, Texas, 1909-1915 (11/11111 B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR College Station, Brazos County, Texas STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION _ B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S.,_ Director A. B. CoNNER, B. S., Vice-Director J. M. JONEs, A. M., Assistant Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary _ _ W. T. BRINK, B. S., EzrecutiugAssistant in Charge of Library and Publication _ .................................. Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE _ *M. FRANcisjD. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. S., Veterinarian D. H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Veterinarian . CHEMISTRY G. S. FRAPs, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. AsisuRY, M. S., Assistant Chemist S. LOMANITZ. B. S., Assistant Chemist FRANcEs SUMMERELL, B. S.,Assistant Chemist WALDO WALKER, Assistant Chemist TOMMIE FRANKLIN, Laboratory Assistant GUss1E BROCKMAN, Laboratory Assistant VELMA GRAHAM, Laboratory Assistant HORTICULTURE H. NEss, M. S., Chief W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY _ a J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Chief; Sheep and Goat fnvestigations. . C. BURNs, B. S., Animal Husbandman in Charge of Beef Cattle Investigations (on leave) P. V. EWING, Animal Husbandman in Charge of Swine Investigations C. . HUBBARD, B. S., Assistant Animal H usbandman W. A. DOUBT, Dairyman ENTOMOLOGY F. BQPAnoocK, M. S., Chief : State Entomologist i H. J. REiNnARn, B. S., Entomologist .............................. Assistant Entomologist AGRONOMY A. B. CONNER, B. S., Chief _ A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronomist: E. W. GExER, B. S., Agronamist ’ ......... ..... .......... Assistant Agronomist PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief FORESTRY E. O. SEICKE, M. F., Chief; State Forester PLANT BREEDING E. P. HUMBERT, Ph. D., Chief FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chief JAMES SuLLivAN, Executive Secretary FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS THE DIRECTOR, Chief SOIL SURVEY **\V. T. CARTER, JR., Chief J. F. Srnouo, Soil Surveyor NEAL GEARREALD, Soil Surveyor T. M. BUSHNELL, B. S., Soil Surveyor SUBSTATIONS I No. 1. Beeville, Bee County I. E. COWART, M. S., Superintendent No. Troup, Smith County W S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent 2. No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S., Superintendent 4. No. Beaumont, JeEei-son County H H. LAUDE, M. S.,_ Superintendent AARON HARMON, Scientific Assistant No. 5. Temple, Bell County D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent No. 6. Denton, Denton County _ C. H. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent No. 7. Spur, Dickens County R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent TAs of Deceiriber 1, 1918. No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent D. L. JoNEs, Scientific Assistant J. W. PRESTON, Forestry and Nursery Foreman No. 9. Pecos, Reeves County J. W. Jackson, B. S., Superintendent No. 10. (Feeding and Breeding Substation), College Station, Brazos County J. W. JENNINGS, B. S., Superintendent H. G. WARE, Scientific Assistant No. 11. Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County G. T. McNEss, Superintendent No. 12. Cliillicothe, Hardeman County A. B. CRoN, B. S., Acting Superintendent V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Scientific Assistant No. 14. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties E. M. PETERs, B. S., Superintendent '*In cooperation with the School of Veterinary Medicine, A. 59c M. College of Texas. "In cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. TABLE OF CONTTJNCPS PAGE Meteorological data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. '7 Tobacco fertilizers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 Corn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 Variety test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9i Seeding rate test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..11 Cotton .' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..12 Thinning and rate of planting experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..12 Variety test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Cowpeas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Variety test for seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 Variety test for forage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 Width of r0-W and rate of seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..15 Soybeans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Variety test for seed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 Width of row and rate of seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 - Peanuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Width of row test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Il17 Forage test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Seed preparation test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..19 Forage sorghums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Crop introduction tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..20 New legumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Sudan grass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 Japanese sugar cane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..23 Truck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Badishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 English peas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Beans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Irish potatoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Clantaloupes . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Watermelons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 Tomato fertilizer test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..25 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] BULLETIN No. 23'?‘ NOVEMBER, 1918 PROGRESS REPORT, SUBSTATION NO. ll, NACOGDOCHES, TEXAS, 1909-1915 G. T. MoNEss, SUPERINTENDENT The substation at Nacogdoches was primarily established for the in- vestigation of tobacco, which investigation had previously been con— ducted by the Bureau of Soils of the United States Department of Agriculture. This work was begun in 1903, at N acogdoches, and other points in East Texas, upon leased land. In 1909, the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station entered into a cooperative experiment with the United States Department of Agricul- ture to continue these investigations upon leased land. Under the eo- operative agreement then adopted, the United States Department of Agriculture continued to conduct the investigations and the State Agri- cultural Experiment Station paid a portion of the expenses. This cooperative work was conducted for two years, and in 1911 the State granted an appropriation for further investigations in tobacco and other crop-s, and made it mandatory for the State of Texas to own the property and conduct the investigations; the United. States Department of Agriculture cooperating only in a limited manner, but it was not until 1914 that the station at Nacogdoches became one of the regular substations of the Texas Agricultural. Experiment Station system. Substation No. 11 is located“ in Nacogdoches county, two and three- fourths miles’ north of the town of Nacogdoehes upon the Henderson and Nacogdoches road, on soils which are red or gray, with red sub- soils. These soils belong to the Orangeburg and Greenville series. The predominating soils are the Orangeburg, of which the Orangeburg fine sandy loam forms the bulk used in the experiment work. The station contains eighty-two and one-half acres of land. There are at the present time, 30.4 complete (net) acres used for experiment p-urposes, 6.9 acres in station roads and turn rows, 1.1 acres taken by the public road, 2.2 acres in farmstead, and 41.9 acres in timber and pasture. The farmstead consists of the superintendenfis cottage, oflice build- ing‘, laborers’ cottage, tobacco curing barn, stock barn, and implement shed. The entire property is under woven wire, hog-proof fence. The tillable portion of the station is laid oif into 8x20 rod acre plats with a 16.5-foot road around each acre. In connection with the actual investigations, there is conducted a systematic crop rotation over that portion of the station used for ex- periment purposes. This rotation consists o-f eight series, embracing two, three, and four-year rotations. By this system the soil fertility of the field is maintained and increased. Due to a b-adly run-down condition of the farm when secured, it has been easy to build up the soil and this is shown in the rapid increase in the yields secured since the station first started. 6 AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE or TEXAS. Since the establishment of this station a general improvement of the farming methods in the surrounding country has occurred. For the last two years an average of 600 farmers have visited the station at various times of the year in order to watch the experiments under progress and to seek information in regard to their own farming oper- ations. The work of the Nacogdoches County Experiment Association brings the station in closer touch with the people and through the association new crops and improved methods of farm practice are demonstrated to the people not only of Nacogdoches county but to the surrounding coun- ties of East Texas which this station serves. The introduction of Sudan grass and improved varieties of cowpeas alone have brought to the county more money than the cost of the sta- tion since it began operation in.1912. Exhibits from the station have been made at the State fair, the corn exposition at Columbia, South Carolina, and at local fairs in East Texas, by this means bringing be- fore the people the work of the station and the results obtained for the betterment of agriculture in East Texas. Fig. 1.——Terraced field on Substation No. 11. A11 of the cultivated land on the substation is terraced and many old ditches have been filled. During the four years’ operations covered by this rep-ort investiga- tions have been conducted upon the following lines: Introduction and testing of new field crops. Field crop variety tests. Plant breeding. Method-of-production tests with staple field crops. Fertilizer and rotation tests with field crops and tomatoes. Vegetable culture and production tests. Orchard introduction and variety tests. Arboretum. Seed production tests. Forage production tests. Increase plantings of the better varieties of crops. INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED UPON SUBSTATION No. 11. '7 Soil improvement tests. Terracing and draining. Meteorological data. METEOROLOGICAL DATA In 1913, the substation was equipped with apparatus for securing weather and climatic data. At the present time records are made of rainfall, snowfall, evaporation from a free Water surface, percentage of atinosp-heric humidity, maximum and minimum temperatures, and Wind movements. Obervations are made twice daily. Summaries of the substation meteorological records for 1914 and 1915 are given in tables 1 and 2. Table 1.—Miscellaneous meteorological data, 1914. _ _ Average Mean temperature Mean Precipi- wind per cent. tation, velocity, —-—-_——?——_ _ humidity inches miles Maximum Minimum 1 Mean per hour January . . . . . . . .. 64 40 52 59 1 22 5 3 February . . . . . . . . 57 36 47 75 5.03 5 6 March . . . . . . . . .. 65 43 54 64 4.24 5 1 April 75 53 64 71 4 08 4 1 May . . . . . . . . . . .. 80 63 71 79 8 96 3 4 June . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 70 81 68 1 .25 2 8 July . . . . . . . . . . .. 96 72 84 57 O 26 3 4 August . . . . . . . . .. 90 71 8O 75 4 10 2 9 September... . . . . 88 65 76 57 2.91 2 9 October . . . . . . . . . 77 55 66 66 0.33 2 7 November . . . . . . . 67 45 56 75 5.76 2 9 December . . . . . . . 49 36 42 ~ 89 9.72 3 8 i— Table 2.-—Miscellaneous meteorological data, 1915. _________.__ _ _ Average Mean temperature Mean Precipi- wind per cent. tation, , velocity, _ _ _ humidity inches miles Maximum ‘ Minimum Mean per ‘hour January . . . . . .. 55 35 45 78 4.72 4 4 February . . . . . . . 62 41 51 78 3.87 4 7 March . . . . . . . . . . 59 38 48 71 2.51 5 5 April . . . . . . . . . . . 76 54 65 63 4.04 4 3 May . . . . . . . . . . .. 84 62 73 67 4.11 4 5 June . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 70 81 59 1.09 3 3 July . . . . . . . . . . .. 91 70 80 62 5.56 3 0 August . . . . . . . . .. 88 69 79 72 11.14 3 1 September . . . . . . . 88 67 77 78 2.14 2 5 October . . . . . . . .. 81 55 - 68 68 0.97 2 7 November . . . . . .. 71 47 59 72 4.51 4 1 December . . . . . .. 63 40 51 79 3.35 5 O As the Weather Bureau of the United States Department of Agri- culture has had a cooperative Weather observer near here for a much longer time than that included in the substations records, it is evident that more reliable conclusions may be drawn by combining the infor- mation collected by the Weather Bureau with that of the substation. Tables 3 and 4 give rainfall and temperature data from this source. 8 AGRICULTURAL AND lYIECHANICAL COLLEGE or TEXAS. Table 3.—Precipitation in inches.* Crop-growing seasons Jan. Feb. Mar. April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1912.... 1.96 3.57 7.18 7.46 9.44 4.66 .64 2.30 T .91 .80 6.49 45.41 1913.... 4.04 3.98 4.63 4.46 5.01 1.61 1.59 1.4512.39 4.44 2.94 6.14 52.64 1914 1.22 5.03 4.24 4.08 8.96 1.25 .26 4.10 2.91 .33 5.76 9.72 47.86 1915 4 72 3.87 2.51 4.04 411 1.09 5.5611.14 2.14 .97 4.51 3.35 48.01 16-year average 2.68 4.23 3.84 5.06 5.53 3.88 4.68 2.87 3.35 2.90 4.08 5.28 48.50 Table 4.-—Mean temperature.* Crop-growing season Year Annual Jan. Feb. Mar. April MayI June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 1912. . . . 44 45 53 64 72 75 82 80 77 67 53 45 63 1913. . . . 48 47 54 63 70 76 82 82 72 63 63 48 64 1914. . . . 52 47 54 64 71 81 84 80 76 66 56 42 65 1915. . . . 45 51 48 65 73 81 80 79 77 68 59 51 65 15-year - average **48 49 58 64 71 78 81 81 76 65 57 **47 65 The growing season is comparatively long. In the last sixteen years the last freezing temperature in the spring has occurred eight times in February, seven times in March, and one time in April. In seventeen years the first freeze in thefall has occurred three times in October and fourteen times in N ovemberfl‘ TOBACCO FERTILIZERS The object of this test was to determine the effects of various amounts of fertilizers for four years on the yield and quality of tobacco, corn, cotton and oats in connection With catch crops to be plowed under for soil improvement. This project was begun in 1912 to supplement the data contained in Bulletin No. 144, “The Culture of Cigar Leaf ’l‘obacco in Texas,” published in that year. Tobacco was the principal crop in the test, all other crops being secondary in the rotation. Very heavy applications of fertilizers were given in some plats, but these were for the purpose of studying the effect on the tobacco. The data secured is being pre- pared for publication as a special bulletin on tobacco, only a few gen- eral statements on this experiment being included here. The residual effects of the fertilizers of the preceding year was notice- able during the latter part of the test. This test shows that tobacco responds to and shows a large increase in money value to the acre where a complete fertilizer is used. The value of the check or unfertilized *All data prior to July, 1913, are from cooperative observers’ records, U. S. Weather Bureau. after which time the records are from Substation No. 11. The average was calculated in decimals and these are not shown. . **Mean of the monthly mean except January, 1907, and December, 1910. INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED IIPoN SUBSTATION No. 11. 9 plat is $8.25 an acre while the acre value where cottonseed meal, in rather large amounts, and acid phosphate and potash are used is from $66.09 to $77.92 an acre, showing a large increase in value and a large margin of profit due to the use of the fertilizers. Cottonseed meal appears to be the prime factor in increased yields. Although the yield of cured tobacco is greater than the check, Where acid phosphate and sulphate of potash are used either separately or in combination, the yields are not so great as When used in connection with cottonseed meal. Cotton shows a. gain in money value only where cottonseed meal is used and then only when it is used in reasonable amounts. The use of acid phosphate and sulphate of potash separately or in combination shows a loss of profit in cotton. The same conditions apply to corn. Lime added to the commercial fertilizer did not appear to give any beneficial results with cottonseed meal and acid phosphate, except where sulphate of potash was used in connection with the other two fertilizers. CORN Variety Test The object of this test is to determine what varieties of corn are best adapted to East Texas conditions, and to compare the yields and habit of growth of the various varieties tested. Fig. 2.—The difference in growth of corn of same planting with complete fertilizer on right and no fertilizer on left. Photographed 1914. g1 __g_) Each year the test was repeated four times and these four different yields for each variety were averaged. The four-year averages reported here are, therefore, really from sixteen separate tests. l To secure perfect stands of corn in this experiment, the grains were planted four in the hill and the plants were thinned out at different periods of growth to one stall; to the hill. Fertilizer consisting of 200 pounds of cottonseed meal and 200 pounds of acid phosphate was used to the acre. placing same in the drill about ten clays before the corn 1O AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL CoLLEieE or TEXAS. was planted. Frequent and shallow cultivation was practiced and this cultivation was continued until the silk on the ear had died and fallen. In 1912 only eight varieties of corn were planted. The number was increased in 1913 to thirty-four varieties. In 1914, thirty varieties Were planted, half of the test being conducted on bottom land while the balance was planted upon up-land. In 1915 a total of one hundred and one varieties was planted, including a variety test of thirty-five varie- ties for the Texas Field Crop Association. The highest yielders of each year are as follows: 1912 Munson T. S. No. 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..30 bushels to the acre. Temple T. S. Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . .26.’? bushels to the acre. Hastings T. S. No. 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..24.1 bushels to the acre. 1913 Surcropp-er T. S. No. 318.. . . . . . . . . . ..1'7.6 bushels to the acre. White Dent T. S. No. 315 . . . . . . . . . . ..1'7.3 bushels to the acre. Mexican June T. S. No. 321 . . . . . . . . II].6‘l5 bushels to the acre. 1914 Bottom land. ChappelPs Prolific T. S. No. 909. . . .22.’? bushels to the acre. Chisholm T. S. No. 925 . . . . . . . . . . . .21.2 bushels to the acre. Selection 911. T. S. No. 911 . . . . ..21.2-bushels to the acre. 1914 Upland. Ferguson Surcropper T. S. No. 924. .20.-2 bushels to the acre. Ferguson Surcropper T. S. No. 922. .19.2 bushels to the acre. Fentress Strawberry T. S. No. 59... .18.0 bushels to the acre. 1915 Hasting’s Prolific T. S. No. 1228 . . . . ..21.0 bushels to the acre. Squaw T. S. No. 1244 . . . . . . . . . . . . .20.0 bushels to the acre. Foster’s Cash T. S. No. 1308 . . . . . . .19.9 bushels to the acre. In the last three yrears of this variety test the yields are shown in averages in table 5. Table 5.——Summary of corn variety tests, 1913 to 1915. Average yield to the acre T. S. N0. Variety 1913~—14—15 1$1)%4— Bushels Rank Bushels - r 929, 1324. . . . Strawberry (Fentress) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l 17. 7o 922, 924 1 1285, 1286 1283, 1284 . 1225 . . . . . . . . . . Surcropper (Ferguson) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.36 1 17.04 928, 1288.... Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.63 2 15.89 911 . . . . . . . . .. U. S. Selection 159 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.47 927, 1245. . . . Oklahoma White Wonder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 .82 7 14.83 919, 1237.... Cocke’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13.29 6 14.58 917 . . . . . . . . .. Blount’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14.11 4 14.02 918 . . . . . . . . . . Virginia White Dent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.14 3 13.77 925, 1226, _ 1306 . . . . . . . . . . Chisholm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.33 5 13.29 932 . . . . . . . . . . Mosby’s Prolific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.00 912, 1290.... Laguna Selection 136 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.81 909 . . . . . . . . . . Cha _pell’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.45 915, 1243.... St. harle’s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12.27 907 . . . . . . . . . . U. S. Selection 77 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.93 916, 1240. . . . Boone County White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11.64 8 11.56 913, 1233.... Creole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..I . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.65 9 11.33 914 . . . . . . . . . . Wisconsin White Dent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.27 920 . . . . . . . . . . Snowflake. ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.91 931. . . . . ,. . .. Mortgage Lifter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.10 910 . . . . . . . . . . Rogefs White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.22 INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED UPON SUBSTATION No. 11. 11 The experiments with the corn varieties to date indicate that for upland conditions here, Surcropper and Strawberry are the reliable varieties. For rich bottom lands or where the moisture supply is good, varieties of the “Prolific” type are recommended. Seeding Rate Test. Tests are under way to determine the proper stand of corn for our conditions. In these tests all of the rows have been thirty-six inches apart, while the corn has been accurately thinned to- an exact stand which represents the desired space. The yields from the first two years of the experiment are given in table 6. Table 6.—Rate of seeding corn. Average yield, bushels Spacing rate in 36-in. rows Average of 1913 | 1914 1913-14 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.4 1.75 3.07 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2 5 2.15 2.32 3O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.00 . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 7 1.45 5.07 48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.65 . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 1 1 .75 6.42 These years were dry and unfavorable for corn especially on old worn land such as had to be used in this experiment. The table makes it appear that on the substation soil it is easily p-ossible to plant or thin corn so that there is too heavy a stand on the land. The highest yields we had from the thinnest plats, yet a fairyield was had from spacing single plants three feet apart each way. It would appear that under average conditions of soil fertility in this sec- tion the proper spacing of corn is about three by three feet each way. Tests were made as to the proper row width for corn. These were all carried out with equal numbers of plants to the acre, but the hills were differently distributed on the land. A The results of the test when carried out with corn alone and with corn and coWpeas are shown in table 7. Table 7.—Comparis0n of effect of different distribution of hills of corn in corn with ard with- out cowpeas. Average of 1913 and 1914. Plats had the same number of stalks of corn. Yield in bushels to the acre Average Arrangement of hills, inches apart. —?-?—————————— corn with Corn without Corn with and without coWpeas cowpeas cowpeas 36x36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.85 , 5.87 7.86 72x18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.52 9.50 8.51 Double 36 x 18 rows 108 inches apart . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.70 4.20 4.95 Average of all plats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.69 6.52 7. 10 In both years for corn alone the results favor the regular 3x3-foot distribution, rather than the use of wider rows. When coWpeas were seeded in the middles, however, the yields were reduced, the six-foot middles yielding almost as mu-ch with coWpeas as 12 AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE or TEXAS. the best yield without cowpeas. On the whole the figures thus far at hand favor regular distribution of the corn, except where cowpeas are to be seeded, in which case the wide middle gives a better all round crop, since it lowers the corn yields very little and gives a very good crop- of cowpeas. The matter of planting cowpeas in corn seems to depend a great deal on the time at which the cowpeas are planted or, in fact, on the size of the corn when the cowpeas begin competition with it. To deter- mine What effects early and late planting of cowpeas would have on the corn, an experiment was carried out as shown in table 8. Table 8.—When to plant cowpeas in corn, as iudged by yield of corn. Stage of growth of corn when cowpeas were planted. Average 1913 and 1914 12 inches high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 4.17 36 inches high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. 12 60 inches high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.35 Tassel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.65 The experiment shows that the later the cowpeas are planted or the more advanced the corn when the cowpeas begin to draw on the soil for support, the greater will be the yield of corn. This seems to indi- cate that in corn production there is not moisture and plant food enough available at once for the two crops. COTTON Thinning and Rate 0f Planting Experiment This test was made to see what effect the distance between the hills would have on the yield of cotton, when planted a.t rates of one, two and three plants to the hill. The experiment has been carried only one season and. the results may be regarded as inconclusive. The larg- est yields were produced with two plants to the hill, with hills vsiide apart—eighteen to thirty-six inches. The experiment is being con- tinued. Variety Test Cotton being the staple crop of East Texas, it is important that in- vestigations be conducte-d looking toward the improvement of cultural methods, control of insect pests and the improvement in the quality of the staple, as well as higher yields. The testing_ out of various varie- ties under the same cultural and soil conditions for a. series of years should show what cotton varieties are best adapted to local conditions. Such a test has been made at Nacogdoches each year. The varieties were planted upon a. sandy loam soil, rather _low in fertility, a repre- sentative type of the cotton soils oi’ a large portion of the eastern part of the State where a definite cropping system has not been practiced. Fertilizer consisting of 100 pounds of cottonseed meal and 200 pounds of sixteen per cent. acid phosphate to the acre was applied in the drill some time before planting time, and well incorporated with the soil. The rows were thirty-six inches wide and the cotton was thinned to twenty-one inches between‘ plants. \ INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED UPON SUBSTATION No. 11. 13 . Frequent and shallow cultivation was practiced each year, and cul- tivators Were kept busy in the cotton as long as they could be used Without damaging the bolls. Three pickings were made from each variety, these being Weighed separately and varieties being separately ginned to obtain the grade and ginning percentage of each. The following table shows the results obtained from this test. All of the varieties that have been grown tor three or more years are pre- sented. The cotton varieties having high ginning percentages are all Texas bred cottons. The station recommends that every grower select his seed from selected plants, as in so doing he will always have a good yielding, high ginning strain of cotton. Table 9.—Summary, variety test of cotton. 1912-1915. Average 1913—14~15 1912-13-14-45 Variety Lint Acre yield Lint Acre yield turn out seed cotton turn out seed cotton l Per Per cent Rank Lbs. Rank cent Rank Lbs. Rank ._ _ Hawkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.6 7 790.8 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cannon’s W. Skinner . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.8 5 758 .4 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mebane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.6 4 723.3 3 37 9 3 660 8 1 Hartsville No. 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 .4 10 707 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 8 694.5 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rowden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38.6 3 688.7 6 38 2 650.6 2 Cleveland Big Boll . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 6 667.5 7 34.9 4 634.4 3 Texas Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ . . . . . . . . . 39.1 2 634 8 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lone Star . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.6 1 588.8 9 39.8| 1 555.0 4 Broadwell’s D. J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.4 9 587.8 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Willet’s Red Leaf . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31.1 11 531.6 11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. In addition to the varieties shown in the above table, the following varieties which have not been tested throughout all these years, have made good yields when tested: - Texas Wood. Toole. Crowder. Hartsville No. '7. Culpeppe~r’s Big Boll. Cook, T. S. No. 1153. Virgatus. Foster's Long Staple. Similarly some of the best varieties from a standpoint of ginning percentage have not been test-ed every year. The highest of these not shown above are as follows: ' Crowder. “Half-and-Half. Cook, T. S. No. 1153. In 1913, Half-and-Half ginned out 41.5 p-er cent. lint. Two varie- ties were higher in this respect; these being Lone Star and Webber, both of which gave a ginning per cent. of 41.7, as against 41.5 for Half-and-Half. Lone Star and Webber both produced a medium to a long staple. lint, whereas, Half-and-Half lint was very short. In that year there were three varieties in the test, which produced more lint 14 AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE or TEXAS. cotton to the acre than did Half-and-Half. These were Culpepper’s Improved Big Boll, Mebane Triumph and Peterkin. In 1914, Half-and-Half madea ginning turnout of 38.5 per cent. There were five varieties in the test which did better than this. These Were Cook 1153, 41.99 ; Texas Oak, 41.36 ; Toole, 39.29 ; Bohler’s Triple Joint, 38.88; and Lone Star, 38.52. In that year ten varieties exceeded Half-and-Half in the amount of lint produced per acre. These were as follows: T. S. No. 1153, Cook. Toole. Bohler’s Triple Joint. Edgeworth. Hawkins. Hartsville No. '7. . Cannon’s World Skinner. T. S. No. 485, Cleveland Big Boll. T. S. No. 951, Cleveland Big Boll. Cook’s Improved Big Boll. The variety tests of cotton justify the substation in advising the con- tinued use of the three following well known varieties: Mebane. Rowden. Lone Star. These three varieties are well suited to the region. If the markets demand a longer staple than Mebane then Lone Star with its slightly lower yield but its excellent staple can be made to outrank the other two varieties in profit to the producer. COWPEAS Variety Test for Seed During the last three years, 1913-15, fourteen varieties of cowpeas have been tested for seed yields. This test was planted in May of each year in a three-year crop rotation consisting of corn, cotton, oats, and cowpeas, the cowpeas being planted upon the oat stubble after the oats were harvested. In 1913 and 1914 the planting was made in duplicate, while in 1915 the planting was quadrupled. Table 10.—Variety test of cowpeas for seed production, 1913-14-15. ' Average yield of clean seed, in bu. to the acre Variety ——-———-————-—————- 1913-14-15 1914 and 15 Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.27 8.17 New Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.85 7.95 Chinese Red . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.74 Red Ripper. T. S. No. 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.48 6.33 Whippoorwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.07 5.84 Brabham, T. S. N0. 325 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.83 Blue Goose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.74 The Unknown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.80 5.65 Iron X Whippoorwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10 5.48 Iron . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.46 5.10 Groit, T. S. No. 86 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.35 4.85 Blackeye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.17 3.52 Red Ripper. T. S. No. 214 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.91 3.41 ;I'inkle's Holstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.75 INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED UPoN SUBSTATION N0. 11. 15 Cowpea seed production requires the selection of varieties suited to that purpose. Clay, New Era and Chinese Red are the best varieties thus far tested. Of these the Chinese Red is a very early variety and excellently suited to use for intercropping, catch cropping, etc. The other two varieties are more like the genera] run of cowpeas and their use is advised. Variety Test for Forage In the variety test for forage yields in 1912 with cowpeas planted in 18-inch and 36-inch rows, Iron T. S. No. 55 gave 1700 pounds of cured hay, the highest yield in 36-inch rows, While Whippoorwill T. S. No. 59 gave 1260 pounds, the highest yield in 18-inch rows. The complete results of the test are shown in table -11. Table 11.—Variety test of cowpeas for forage. Two trials each, one in 18-inch rows, one in 36- inch rows. Average yield Variety name pounds cured hay to the acre Iron. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1400 Peerless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1227 Whippoorwill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1185 Wonderful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1100 Brabham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 New Era . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 870 Clay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 830 Red Ripper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 The foregoing test represents one yeafs work, but makes it very evi- dent that the seed-producing varieties are not the highest in forage pro- duction. The showing made by the Iron variety is especially important, since it is resistant to the “wilt.” Because of this fact, it is the variety advised for forage production. A Width of Row and Rate of Seeding Test with. Cozupeas for Forage In 1912 the eight varieties tested for forage yields were planted in 18-inch rows and 36-inch rows. The results of this width of row test is shown in table 12. Table 12.—Width 0f row test with cowpeas for forage, 1912. Yield of cured hay in ' pounds t0 the acre. Number of varieties average 18-inch rows I 36-inch rows 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ 925 ‘ 1040 This experiment indicates a. small gain by planting in the 36-inch rows. The foregoing two widths of rows were tested two years with regard to the amount of seed required for best results. 16 AGRICULTURAL AND lWECHANICAL COLLEGE or TEXAS. Table 13.—Rate of seeding test with cowpeas in 36-inch rows. _ ' Yield of cured hay, Rate of seeding. pounds to the acre pounds t0 the acre 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 940 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1030 Table 14.—Rate of seeding test with cowpeas in 18-inch rows. Yield of cured hay Rate 0f seeding. pounds to the acre pounds to the acre 3O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960 6O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1180 These tests made it evident that much heavier seedingymay be done than is usually practiced. When seed is cheap it would be desirable to use more. ‘ SOYBEANS Variety Test for Seed This test was planted in 1913 and 1914 upon a. sandy 10am soil. N0 fertilizer was used and the same kind of cultivation was given the soy- beans as the cowpeas tested the same years. Small yields were ob- tained, the stand of plants being injured by rabbits. The yields ob- tained are shown in table 15. Table 15.—Variety test of soybeans for seed. Yield to the acre, Average _ bushel yield to Variety to the 1913 1914 ' acre, bu. Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.56 1.83 3.69 ilson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.56 1.23 2.89 Meyer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4.35 1.42 . 2.88 Austin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3.35 1.4 2.87 Mammoth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.43 1.72 2.07 Cloud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1.7 1.4 1.5 Duggar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.36 .46 .91 ekin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . 13 .62 87 Jet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 .69 77 Taha . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 65 77 Ito San . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 .65 56 Hollybrook . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.27 . . . . . . . . . . . . Width of Row and Rate of Seeding. In 1912 two varieties Were compared for forage in 18-inch and 36- inch rows with results as shown in table 16. Table 16.—-Width of row test with soybeans for forage, 1912. Yields of forage in pounds to the acre In 18-inch In 36-inch rows rows ‘Number of varieties averaged 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 1295 I 950 INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED UPoN SUBSTATION No. 11. 1'7 This p-reliminary experiment seems to indicate that planting for for- age had best b-e in close drills. _ ' A soybean seeding rate test was conducted in 1913 and 1914 in 18- inch and 36-inch rows. An average of the 36-inch rows for the two years gave 1080 pounds of cured forage to the acre at a. seeding rate of 18 pounds to the acre While in 18-inch rows the yields Were smaller and favored a heavy seeding rate. This test is shown in table 1'7 and table 18. ~ € As in- the test for seed yields, this test was also injured by rabbits, and the results shown are for this reason not entirely reliable. Table 17.——Ra te of seeding test with soybeans for forage in 18-inch rows. Yield of cured forage, pounds to the acre Rate of seeding, pounds to the acre 1913 y 1914 | Average 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 800 i 200 t 500 60 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1200 130 665 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1680 220 l 950 Table 18.—Rate of seeding test with soybeans for forage in 36-inch rows. Yield of cured forage, pounds to the acre Rate of seeding, pounds t0 the acre 1913 | 1914 ‘ Average 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 960 * . . . . . . . . . . 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1260 160 710 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2000 160 1080 *Destroyed by rabbits. On the whole, the soybean ha.s not been a profitable crop here. Per- haps this is due to the lack of dependable and adaptable varieties. PEANUTS Peanuts are very well adapted to the majority of the soils of East Texas. Experiments with them at this substation ha.ve been broadened from year to year and are of importance. While it is common knowledge that. the crop can be grown as a main crop, it has not been known that it is an excellent second crop for this part of Texas. Our investigations with peanuts as a main crop are be- ing continued and are not reported herein. All of the data reported upon in this bulletin, except the 1912 crops, are on peanuts as a second or catch crop planted after a crop of oats was harvested, planting being done in the first week in June. Peanuts planted at this season of the year can be produced more cheaply, even though a slightly lower yield is had, than when planted during the first part of April as the main crop. When peanut planting is deferred until June not only is a crop of oats secured but there is very small expense incurred in cultivating the peanut crop. Width 0f Row Test A width of row test with Spanish peanuts was carried. out in 1914 and 1915. The results are reported in table 19. 18 AGRICULTURAL AND MEoHANIoAL COLLEGE or TEXAS.‘ Table 19.—-Width of row test with Spanish peanuts, 1914-1915. Yield in bushels to the acre Year 18-in. rows 36-in. rows 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36.00 ' 33.33 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37.00 35.00 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.50 35.66 The yields obtained make it appear that there was little difference in the crops. It is thought that with more favorable seasons the thicker seeding would make still higher yields. These, however, probably would be more profitably secured by thick planting in the row rather than by the use of narrow rows, which are difficult to cultivate. Fig. 3.——Curing Spanish peanuts from experiment plants. Forage Test Peanuts undoubtedly are of very great value for p-asture and hay, as well as for the nuts. Since 1912- the forage production of peanuts has been tested each year on the substation. The results of these tests are given in tables 20 and 21. In general the Spanish variety has been used in these tests. In 1912, however, a variety test was planted in April. The peanuts we-re hulled. and planted in rows 36 inches apart and 12 inches in the row for the Spanish and 15 inches. in the row for the Improved Virginia. and Tennessee Red. All of the varieties made good growth of vines but on account of a drouth setting in at the close of the growing season the larger varieties failed to fill out, with the result that most of the crop was pops. The Spanish variety filled out its nuts in spite of the unfavorable climatic conditions at the latter period of growth. This test is reported in table 20. INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED UPoN SUBSTATION N0. 11. 19 Table 20.—Peanut variety test for forage, 1912. Cured forage yields, pounds to the acre Name _ 36-in. rows I 18-1n. rows I Average Spanish. . . . r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4500 4200 4350 Improved Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3820 3880 3850 Tennessee Red . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3550 4000 3775 The forage yields of both wide and narrow rows show the Spanish to be the highest yielder, producing 4500 pounds cured forage to the acre in the 36-inch rows and 4200 pounds cured forage to the acre in the 18-inch rows. To further test this matter of row width, the test has been continued with the Spanish peanuts and is shown in table 21. Table 21.—Width of row test Spanish peanuts for forage, 1912-15. \ Yield of cured forage, pounds to the acre. Year 36-in. rows 18-in. rows 1912 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4500 4200 1913 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3620 2770 1914 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2840 3070 1915 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3210 3070 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3542 3277 Gain for 36-in. rows . . . . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . 265 The tests for forage yields conducted for four years in succession on 36-inch and 18-inch rows show that when the Spanish peanuts were planted in rows 36 inches apart and 12 inches in the drill they gave larger yields than when planted in the 18-inch rows. As the width of row test for forage progressed it has seemed that probably the 36-inch rows ma.y profitably be made to carry a somewhat heavier stand than the substation has had. Seed Preparation Test Usually peanut planting seed is soaked twelve to thirty-six hours before being planted. This practice is advisable for the main crop in early planting in moist ground. In planting a catch or second crop in June the ground is very often dry and it has seemed somewhat doubt- ful whether the seed should be soaked for planting in dry ground. To furnish some data on this point it was decided to plant dry seed, com- paring cracked shells and whole shells. The results of this experiment are given in table 22. Table 22.—-Shells cracked versus uncracked shells in peanuts’ for planting seed. Yield in bushels t0 the acre Average IS-in. rows I 36-in. rows Shells not cracked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 34 35.5 Shells cracked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 36 36.5 20 AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL CoLLEeE or TEXAS. There is little in favor of breaking the hulls of the peanuts before planting. The results of the test show that When planted with un- broken hulls, 18-inch rows gave as high yield as when the hulls were cracked. This was largely a matter of obtaining a stand. The ex- pense of cracking the hulls when a large acreage is to» be planted would be considerable and, if good sound seed is planted, there is no use in going to the expense of breaking the hulls. FORA GE SORGHUMS Both the climatic and soil conditions of East Texas are favorable for the growing of sweet sorghum, particularly for use as a silage crop. Variety tests, coupled with rate- and method-of-planting tests, indicate- that for an early crop either an early grain sorghum such as- fetcrita or one of the amber sorghums may be used to advantage. For the main crop» the Sumac variety, sometimes called “Little Bed Top,” should be- used. When planted for silage, Sumac sorghum should be treated as a row crop, the rows being three or three and one-half feet apart and suffi- cient seed used to have one good plant every three to nine inches in the row. As many of the soils in this region are low in fertility, it is important that Sudan grass and the sorghum-s be grown on land which has been in a good rotation, or if that is not possible, about. ten tons of manure and 200 pounds of acid phosphate should be used per acre. Where fertilizers must be depended upon for nitrogen, the sorghum crops should have 200 pounds of cottonseed meal and 200.pounds of acid phosphate per acre. Usuallv very great gains are produced in these forage crops by the use of added plant food. CROP INTRODUCTION TESTS Each year a number of field crops new to East 'I‘e~xas conditions have been tested as to their adaptability to the soil and climate and also for their economic value as crops for this section. Only a few things were thus tested previously to 1914 but Sudan girass was introduced here as a result of’ the 1912 tests. During 1914 there were groxvn in this test Japanese sugar cane, Florida beggar weed, Japanese sword bean, mung bean, Dol/ichos Zablab, moth bean and kulthi bean, while in 1915 there were tested Japanese sugar cane, frijole bean, mung bean, fllelilotus~ aZba. and a number of less well known clovers. N e10 Legumes The kulthi and moth beans produce heavy _vields of fine quality forage but do not produce pods early enough in the season to mature. The yields of kulthi in 1914 were 4400 pounds to the acre, while the moth bean produced 1870 pounds of forage to the acre, but on account of not producing seed in this locality and the difficulty of obtaining seed they are not recommended as suitable. forage crops. The Florida beggar weed appears adapted to low moist ground here, while in Florida. it can be found grouting in all corn fields after the corn is laid by. In this part of Texas, owing to the lack o-f humidity and soil moisture, it makes only a stunted growth upon uplands. INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED UPON SUBSTATION No. 11. 21 The Japanese sword bean appears to grow well even under adverse climatic conditions, but is of no value as a stock feed on account. of not being palatable to stock. It has value, however, as a soil builder and can be recommended for that purpose. The mung bean tested in 1914 and 1915 is a new crop that is adapted to East Texas conditions. It is a. soil builder and also produces good crops of forage. The seed matures early and is a. fine poultry feed. This legume can be planted after oats and treated in every way the same as the cowpea. Dolichos Zablab grows well in East Texas and produces both seed and large yields of good quality hay. In two tests made upon the station in 1914 this crop produced 2360 pounds and 2640 pounds of hay to the acre. It. is also a. good crop for building up the soil. In 1915, frijole beans were tested for the first time. They were planted on April 30 and made a fairly good growth of vine but failed to produce any beans. Of the clovers tested, aside from the Southern bur clover which is now growing wild here, M elilotus alba, white sweet clover, was the only one that gave promising results. Two tests were ma.de with this clover, the yield of cured hay to the acre being 1056 pounds and 1340 pounds, respectively. On East Texas soil a liberal application of lime probably must be used in order to obtain results with this clover. Sudan Grass Sudan grass was first tested out upon this station in 1912, along with other new crops. From the first, this new crop showed signs of merit. The first season two cuttings were made from the one row grown. The crop was fed to various kinds of stock to see if any preference was given it in comparison with the forage crops used in this section. In 1913, tests were made with this grass on poorly drained land, planting broadcast. and using twenty-four pounds of seed to the acre. That planted on June 1 gave the largest yield, making double that of the plats sowed at an early date, thus showing that, like the other sorghums, it required a warm, well drained soil.‘ Table 23.—-Sudan grass, time of planting test. Average yield, Date of planting. Date of harvest pounds April 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420 April 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. July 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. April 15 . . . . . . . . . . . .. July 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 410 April 15 . . . . . . . . . . . .. July 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. May 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. July 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 850 May 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. July 28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. In 1914 Sudan grass was planted in 36-inch rows, 18-inch rows and in close drills, which were compared to see what effect the manner of planting would have on the yield. These plats were planted in June upon oat stubble, in duplicate, and a. good one-cutting yield was ob- tained when the grass was planted as late as June 24. 22 AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE or TEXAS. Table 24.—Method-of-planting test. Acre Average Plat N0. Date_of Method of Date of yield, yield, planting planting harvest pounds pounds 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 5 . . . . . . 18-in. row . . . . . . . . Sept. 16 . . . . . . 3900 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 24 . . . . . . 18-in. row . . . . . . . . Oct. 9 . . . . . . 3300 3600 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. June 5 . . . . .. 36-in. row . . . . . . . . Sept. 16 . . . . . . 3440 4 . . . . . . . .' . . . . . . . . June 24 . . . . . . 36-in. row . . . . . . . . Oct. 9 . . . . . . 2570 3013 5T . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. June 5 . . . . .. Close drill . . . . . . .. Sept. 16 . . . . .. 3090 _6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . June 24 . . . . . . Close drill . . . . . . . . Oct. 9 . . . . . . 3000 3045 These yields favor the earliest date for planting after the oats were harvested, thus emphasizing the importance of immediate action Where a crop is t0 follow oats. i The exact method-of-planting seems to be somewhat in favor of the IIEIITOW TOWS. Table 25.--Rate of seeding test, Sudan grass. \ _ Acre yield, Rate of seeding, pounds to the acre pounds 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 970 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1050 The heavy seeding yielded best in this test. The experiment is not concluded. In tests at other places if the heavy seeding makes the larg- est yields at the first cuttings it has usually been a. rather low yielder in the later cuttings. Because of this fact, it seems best to continue to advise seeding at from five to fifteen pounds "to the acre. Sudan grass is now one of the standard grasses of East Texas and has filled a long felt want amongst the dairy farmers of this section. Until Sudan grass was introduced by the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station, there was no annual grass to use here that could be planted in a crop rotation. Bermuda grass, Johnson grass and other grasses common to this section could only be used in permanent pas- tures, the only forage crops that could be used in a rotation being the millets and sweet sorghums. . On the East Texas farm Sudan grass now takes the place of the mil- lets a.nd is used in rotation with cotton and corn. Thus a. long felt want has been filled and Sudan is rapidly taking rank as the leading upland hay grass of this section. It is also of importance for grazing, and too much emphasis cannot be placed upon the use of this Sudan in East Texas as a summer pasture crop, especially where a little nitrogen fertilizer can be applied to the crop. This condition holds on farms where there are small dairy herds and for the small farm which has no field grass. INVESTIGATIONS Conn-norm) UPoN SUBSTATION No. 1.1. 23 J apanese Sugar Cane Tests with Japanese sugar cane were first made upon this station in 1914, when cane sent from sub-station No. 4, Beaumont, Texas, was planted. This cane is like the true ribbon cane and has to» be planted as seed cane, since it does not produce seed heads i11 this country. The plat yielded green forage at the rate of 15,504 pounds to the acre. To test its sirup qualities, some of the crop from this plat was taken to the mill. Nine gallons of juice of the Japanese sugar cane produced one gallon of sirup, while at the same mill it Was taking eleven gallons of juice of the ribbon cane to make one gallon of sirup. The yield of sirup is not high, however, when compared to the ribbon cane. One acre of Japanese sugar cane with the yield above stated produced 64 gallons of good sirup. The value of Japanese sugar cane, however, is as a green forage a.nd silage crop. As soon cut, the canes can b-e stacked in a building with the fodder out on all sides to prevent the canes from freezing a.nd they will then remain good and sweet until the following fall. Cane was stacked and kept in this manner on this station in 1914 and stock fed on it the following September, at which time it vas sound and sweet. If stacked in the open, it is best to stack the fodder inside and then protect the stack with oat or other straw. Fig. 4.—Harvesting Japanese sugarcane. Several crops can be raised from the stubble WltllOUt replanting. In 1915 a method-of-planting test was carried out. This caneywas planted in February. In all plats the rows were sixty inches apart. The canes were planted. in three different manners and in duplicate. The three methods of seeding were as follows: cut to two node-s to a piece of cane and dropped in the drill every twenty-four inches; single canes in a continuous row with ends just lapping; a double row of c-a.nes in a continuous row with ends just lapping. 24 AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE or TEXAS. Table 26.—Method-of-planting and seeding rate test in five-foot rows. Forage Average Plat N0. Date Date germ. Metho_d of yield, yield, planted planting acre pounds 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Feb. 18 . . . . . .. Mar. 20 . . . . . .. 2 nodes . . . . . . . 7,050 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Mar. 4 . . . . . .. April 1 . . . . . .. 2_ nodes . . . . . .. 3,700 6,375 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Feb. 18 . . . . . .. Mar. 20 . . . . . .. single 17,100 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mar. 4 . . . . . . . April 1 . . . . . . . single c . . . . . . . . 7,800 12,450 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Feb. 18 . . . . . .. Mar. 20 . . . . . .. double c . . . . . .. 13,410 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Mar. 4 . . . . . . . ‘April 1 . . . . . .. double c . . . . . .. 10,200 11,805 The largest yield was obtained from the plats planted with a single cane, one plat yielding as high as 177,100 pounds to the acre. Early planting was very important. This cane can be grown well on upland. It can be grown upon land that will not produce ribbon cane. Probably its chief use when it be- comes known among the farmers will be for silage. It also affords a little grazing during the spring, but stock must be taken off in time for the production of a crop of canes. TRUCK During 1915 tests were started to determine what varieties of radishes, English pea-s, snap and lima beans, Irish potatoes, lettuce, cantaloupes and watermelons are best adapted to the soil and climatic conditions of East Texas. The land was fall plowed and planted to a cover crop of small grain which was, in turn, plowed under in the early spring. Fer- tilizer consisting of 200 pounds each of cottonseed meal and 16 per cent. acid phosphate was applied to the acre. Rad/ashes Twelve varieties of ra.dishes were planted. Very little difference was noticed in the rapidity of growth. The round varieties, however, ma- tured a. little earlier than the long ones. French Breakfast appeared to be one of the most desirable varieties, yielding 15.25 pounds to the plat, while writh the long varieties Long Vienna and White Strasburg were the highest yielding, giving, respec- tively, seventeen pounds and thirteen pounds to the plat. English Peas iEnglish peas were a failure on account of the late planting. Beans Thirteen varieties of beans ivere planted. Red Valentine proved to be best. I risrh Potatoes Eight varieties of potatoes were planted. Dreer’s Early Standard gave the largest yield of merchantable tubers, 56 bushels, culls 86.1 bushels, or a total yield of 92.1 bushels to the acre. Bliss Triumph, which is the favorite commercial variety of East INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED UPoN SUBSTATION N0. 11. 25 Texas, yielded merchantable tubers, 48.1 bushels, culls, 28.6 bushels, or a tota.l of 7’? bushels to the acre. Burbank was the lowest. yielder, with 12.6 bushels of me-rchantable tubers, 9.3 b-ushels culls, or a total yield of 21.9 bushels to the acre. Cantaloupes Twelve varieties of cantaloupes were planted. Nixon Was the highest yielder, averaging 4.7 pounds per melon. It, however, is not a melon of high quality. Watermelons. Sixteen varieties of watermelons were planted. All varieties made good vine growth. Cuban Queen and N abob were the highest yielders. With these, however, there was a tendency for the flesh in the center of the melon to crack and have a hard woody center. This may have been due to the climatic conditions of the season. The Watson only yielded one-third as much as the previously men- tioned varieties but is a desirable variety, being a good shipper and of fine quality. TOMZYFO FERTILIZER TEST This experiment was to determine the effect of cottonseed meal, acid phosphate, sulphate of potash, nitrate of soda, and stable manure in various amounts alone and in combination upon the yields of tomatoes. Two varieties of tomatoes, Bedfield Beauty a.nd Acme, were used with each fertilizer. Space enough was left between plats so that the fer- tilizer used o-n “one plat would not affect the plats adjoining. Some time before the plants WETB set the fertilizer was placed in the drill and well mixed with the soil. In April the plants were transplanted to the plats and set 36 inches apart. The plants were trained to the single stem, all suckers were kept pruned and when tree b-loom clusters appeared upon the plants they were topped. The plants were sprayed with Bor- deaux mixture for the prevention of blossom-end rot, and with a Paris green solution for the tomato worm. For the two years that this experiment has been conducted the high- est yield was obtained from the plat ifertilized "with twenty loads of stable manure to the acre, while 200 pounds of cottonseed meal and fifty pounds of sulphate of potash to- the acre produced the ne-xt highest yield. These fertilizers also brought about the highest yield in the test ' of 1915, producing 9625 pounds of tomatoes to the acre. It would seem that, in general, nitrogenous fertilizer was the controlling factor and that it was profitable in all cases. 26 ZXGRIOULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE or TEXAS. Table 27.—Tomato fertilizer test. Varieties used, Redfield Beauty and Acme. _ _ Redfield Average Fertilizer used, acre Year Beauty. Acme, Total yield, pounds pounds yield pounds 200 pounds cottonseed meal. . . . . 1914 19.0 22.5 41.5 1915 62.0 65.0 127.0 84.2 200 pounds acid phosphate . . . . . . 1914 17,0 10,7 27,7 1915 71.0 65.0 136.0 81.8 50 pounds sulphate potash . . . . . . . 1914 6,0 8,5 14,5 1915 55.0 86.0 141.0 77.7 Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1914 1.3 4.7 6.0 No fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1915 65.0 52.0 117.0 61.5 200 pounds acid phosphate . . . . . . 1914 15.3 16.5 31.8 100 pounds nitrate of soda. . .. . .. 1915 66.0 65.0 131.0 81.4 200 pounds acid phosphate. . .. .. 1914 25,0 37,5 62,5 200 pounds cotton seed meal. . . .. 1915 68.0 72.0 140,0 101,2 200 pounds cotton seed meal... . . 1914 30.0 28.0 58.0 5O pounds sulphate of potash. . . 1915 88.0 87.0 175.0 116.5 Check . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1914 5.0 4.9 9.9 No fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1915 55.0 64.0 119.0 64.4 200 pounds acid phosphate . . . . .. 1914 17. 7 10.5 28.2 5O pounds sulphate of potash. . . 1915 64.0 80.0 144.0 86.1 200 pounds acid phosphate . . . . . . 1914 50.5 48.7 99.2 200 pounds cottonseed meal. . . . . 1915 74 55.0 129.0 114.1 50 pounds sulphate of potash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 pounds acid phosphate . . . . . . 1914 30.5 38.0 68.5 100 pounds cotton seed meal. . . .. 1915 56.0 69.0 125.0 96.7 50 pounds nitrate of soda. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Check... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1914 15.5 14.0 29.5 No fertilizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1915 34.0 27.0 61.0 45.2 200 pounds acid phosphate . . . . . . 1914 52.0 35.5 87.5 100 pounds cottonseed meal. . . . . 1915 57.0 59.0 116.0 101.7 100 pounds nitrate of soda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- 50 pounds sulphate of potash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 loads stable manure . . . . . . . . . . 1914 76.0 92.0 168.0 1915 57.0 59.0 116.0 142 0 SUMMARY This bulletin contains details and conclusions of agricultural experi- ments conducted near Nacogdoches in Central East Texas. The agricultural station at Nacogdoclies is one of the substations of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. Meteorological data are given for the region. A general summary of experiments with fertilizers for tobacco is presented. Cottonseed meal with other materials and in rather large amounts seemed to be the most effective agent used. Smaller amounts of fertilizers. Were effective for other crops than tobacco. From eight to 101 varieties of corn have been tested during each of four years. Surcropper and Strawberry: are advised for uplands. The “Prolific” varieties are advised for bottom lands. Experiments to de- termine the proper seeding rate for corn indicate that the stalks should be thinned to three by three feet. When corn alone and corn and cow- peas Were compared, the results indicated that the later the cowpeas are planted the better the yields of corn Will be. w-fl-wwwwwv‘ y____,_..r---m-a-m-uwmqyw-_-..-s- . INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED UPoN SUBSTATION No. 11. 2'7 Thinning tests with cotton are being conducted. The largest yields have been obtained from hills eighteen to thirty-six inches apart, con- taining two stalks to the hill. Results of three and four years of cotton variety testing are reported. Mebane, Rowden, and Lone Star are the varieties advised for use. Of the cowpea varieties advised for seed production, Clay and Newt Era are suitable for general. use, while Chinese Red is suitable for catch cropping. The Iron cowpea is advised for forage. Wide row planting given more cowpea hay than narrow row planting. Heavy seeding of cowpeas has given larger crops than light seeding. Soybean tests are reported and the crop does not appear profitable. Peanut experiments are reported, particularly with the crop as a catch crop. Peanuts in 18-inch rows have not shown a profitable gain over 36-inch rows, when grown for nuts. The Spanish variety of pea- nuts is advised for forage. In width of row test with Spanish peanuts 36-inch rows produced more forage than 18-inch rows. It did not pay to crack the shells of peanuts when planted. . Sumac sorghum is advised as a silage crop. _ A considerable number of new crops have been tested each year. 0t“ these the Kulthi moth bean, Florida. beggar weed, Japanese sword bean and frijole bean are of little importance. The mung bean and the Dolichos lablab are of value. A large number of clovers are being tested. a Sudan grass newly introduced by the station is of great importance here as an annual hay and pasture crop. In date and rate of plant- ing test with Sudan grass the results indicate that rather late springs planting is necessary or that early planting after oats is practical. Tt is advised that the crop be planted in rows at from five to fifteen pounrls of seed to the acre. Japanese sugar cane is a newly introduced crop xvhich has consider-- able promise as a silage crop. It should be planted early. Variety tests with seven difierent truck crops have been started and preliminary conclusions are reported. A fertilizer test with two varieties of tomatoes has been carried for the past two years. The largest yield has been obtained from plats given twenty loads of stable manure to the acre. A nitrogenous fer- tilizer seems to be needed for tomatoes.