tions or to other parts of the same plantation. It should not be a dif- 

 ficult matter for planters to induce their tenants to practice the fall 

 destruction of the plants as the last step in the production of a crop. 

 In an3^ case the plants have to be removed before the ground can be 

 prepared for planting the following season ; and the present recom- 

 mendation merely involves applying, at a time some months earlier, 

 the same amount of labor as is necessary in the spring. The best solu- 

 tion of the difficulty arising from the tenant system would be in the 

 inclusion, in the agreement between the landlord and the tenant, of a 

 provision which w^ould bind the latter to clean the land thoroughly 

 before leaving it. 



In a comparatively small area in southwestern Texas it might be 

 considered that there would be a further objection in the practice which 

 some farmers have of encouraging the growth of volunteer or seppa 

 cotton in the hope of procuring an early and inexpensive crop. As has 

 been repeatedly pointed out by the Department of Agriculture, this is 

 beyond question the worst possible practice in weevil-infested regions. 

 The disastrous experience of several counties in the southern portion of 

 the State during several seasons has abundantly demonstrated the force 

 of the warnings that have been issued from time to time. The staple 

 produced by volunteer plants is short, kinky, and undesirable. Before 

 the advent of the weevil the onl}^ reason for encouraging such growth 

 was to procure the first bale. Now, on account of its very detrimental 

 bearing on the weevil problem, any attempt to raise cotton from volun- 

 teer cotton should bj' all means be discouraged. 



The point may be raised that the burning of the plants in the fall 

 removes valuable fertilizing constituents and that the continuance of 

 the practice would seriously reduce the fertility of the soil. In refer- 

 ence to this matter, how^ever, it must be stated that the present general 

 practice is to clear the fields by burning the plants in the spring. 

 Therefore, practically the only additional draft upon the soil by the 

 method recommended is in the burning of many of the leaves and a 

 portion of the roots. However, destruction of the plants can only take 

 place after many of the leaves have fallen, and, in other cases, when 

 the plants have become completely defoliated by the cotton caterpillar. 

 The fertilizing constituents in various parts of the cotton plant have 

 been carefully determined.^ An estimate of- the value of all the con- 

 stituents which could possibly be removed by fall destruction, based 

 upon the schedule of trade values adopted by experiment stations for 

 1898, shows that the loss per acre w^ould be very small. It is plain 

 that the planter could not only regain this small loss but actually 

 greatly increase the fertility of the land by the use of commercial fer- 

 tilizers, which would cost an inconsiderable amount in comparison with 

 the gain in the following crop, as a result of lessened damage h}^ the 

 boll weevil. In some cases, of course, the removal of humus furnished 

 by the stalks may be more important than the removal of the fertilizing 

 elements. It is urged, however, that the cheapest and most effective 

 way to add hurtnus to the soil is by green manuring, wdiich is receiving 

 more and more attention throughout the cotton belt. 



As a matter of fact, the preceding objections are not necessarily 

 serious. They deal with general changes in cotton culture made neces- 



i See Bulletin 33 of the OflBce of Experiment Stations of this Department, pp. 

 81 to 142. 



