16 



much as did fields which were not poisoned. When these facts are 

 considered it becomes evident that the increase in production in the 

 plats mentioned above was largely the result of increased cultivation 

 rather than the result of poisoning. 



Mr. J. Zacliary, liockhart. 



At one end of a 10-acre field on the plantation of Mr. Zachary about 

 30 rows were poisoned from six to eight times by Capt. B. W. Mars- 

 ton; the rest of the field was used as a check. Otherwise conditions 

 were the same in the two plats, each having been planted at the same 

 time and with the same variety of seed. Mr. Zachary states that the 

 check produced more per acre than did that part of the field which was 

 poisoned. 



In addition to the 30 rows treated by Captain Marston, Mr. Zachary 

 himself poisoned some cotton, treating it about five times. In this 

 experiment also the nonpoisoned cotton was the better. 



Mr. J. T. Shanks, Cuero. 



The area poisoned was in the open field with a road on one side and 

 cotton on the other three sides. The fields were planted early in March 

 and were thoroughly worked. Plats of King and native varieties were 

 poisoned by dusting from a sack. The King cotton was poisoned five 

 times at the rate of 1 pound per acre for each of the first three appli- 

 cations and 2^ pounds each for the last two. The native cotton adjoin- 

 ing the King was poisoned four times at the same rates. Near by this 

 plat was native cotton poisoned three times and also some poisoned 

 only twice. 



The King cotton produced about one-half bale per acre. The native 

 cotton poisoned four times produced about the same. The other cotton 

 poisoned did not show any dift'erence in yield between that poisoned 

 twice and that poisoned three times, nor any material difference over 

 cotton not poisoned. As there was no check for the King cotton, there 

 is no way of telling whether that variety was benefited by the poison- 

 ing. But in the native cotton the fact that cotton poisoned twice or 

 three times did not show an increase in production ov«r cotton not 

 poisoned at all indicates that the greater production by the part 

 poisoned four times may have been due to some other agency than 

 Paris green. According to a recent statement made by Mv. Shanks 

 in the presence of the writer (November 26, 1904), there were two 

 neighboring fields planted upon exactly the same kind of soil which 

 were not poisoned, but which produced as much cotton per acre as did 

 the field in question. There is, therefore, no doubt that this experi- 

 ment is absolutely inconclusive. 



211 



