319 



has been generally introduced several years since.* It has been found 

 to be perfectly feasible to use the poison in the pure state, i. e., without 

 admixture of flour, thus saving the cost of the ingredients and the 

 trouble in mixing. Some farmers still persist in poisoning only two 

 rows of cotton at one time. The practice most prevailing now in Texas 

 is to cover three rows at one time, i. e., the two rows between which 

 the mule or horse is trotting, and adjacent parts of the two adjoining 

 rows. Where cotton is smaller and the rows closer together it has 

 been found practicable to poison more than 3 rows at a time, and as 

 many as 8 rows have been eftectually treated by i)lanters in the cane- 

 brake region of Alabama in 1889 and 1890.t 



The great waste of poison that is inevitably connected with the pole 

 system, and the want of uniformity in the distribution of the poison 

 over the plants, led to the invention of several machines intended for 

 the even distribution of a given amount of dry poison over many rows. 

 The increase of the worms in the year 1889 was the impetus that brought 

 forth these machines. So far as I could learn three machines were pat- 

 ented in 1890 — the "Eoach cotton worm destroyer," patented by the 

 James P. Roach ManufacturingCompany, Vicksburg, Miss.; the "Rich- 

 ard's dry poison distributer," patented by Richards »& Co., LaGrange, 

 Tex. (U. S. patent, No. 423814, March 18, 1890), and the Brown machine, 

 manufactured and sold by L. M. Rums^y «& Co., St. Louis, Mo. Owing to 

 the fact that these machines had not been used for at least two years, I 

 had great difficulty in seeing any of them, and those 1 saw were in rather 

 dilapidated condition. Owing to the high price ($50 and upward) verj' 

 few of these machines have been sold, and on my trip I met only with a 

 few planters who have used the Richards and Brown machines.| Cir- 

 culars sentout by the inventors claim that in afavorable breezethe poison 

 is blown from the machine over 15 rows of cotton or more, while I was 

 informed by planters that from 7 to 8 rows can be satisfactorily poisoned 

 during calm weather, but that owing to the unreliable negro labor the 

 working of the machines in the field has to be constantly superin tended. § 



After passing throngh four of the most important cotton States I 

 have come to the conclusion that these machines will never become 

 very popular, mainly for the reason that the pole system has given such 



* I have not been able to, ascertain on my trip Avhen and where this improvement 

 was first suggested. 



t Tho practice of dusting many rows of cotton with the pole system in the State 

 of Alabama has been fully treated of by Prof. G. F. Atkinson in Bull. 17, Ala. Agr. 

 Exp. Stat. (July, 1890). Owing to the absence of worms in 1894 I had no opportu- 

 nity of witnessing this mode of poisoning. 



+ 1 did not see the Roach machine, and while at Vicksburg, Miss., I ascertained 

 that the Roach Manufacturing Company had gone out of business. Professor Atkiu- 

 son, in the bulletin above referred to, records some favorable experience Avith this 

 machine, made by planters in Alabama. 



^ A fourth machine of the same type is the Strawson Seeder and Fertilizer (U. S. 

 patent, No. 411692, September 24, 1889, and previously patented in England). I am 

 not aware that it has been used anywhere in the cotton States. 



