CORN, MILO, AND KAFIR IN THE GREAT PLAINS AREA. 



11 



have produced fodder each year, but in only one year has there been 

 a creditable production of grain. 



The differences in the yield from different methods have been com- 

 paratively small. Summer-tilled land shows a small increase in the 

 yield of both grain and stover over all other methods. Fall plowing 

 has proved a somewhat better preparation than either spring plow- 

 ing or listing. Subsoiling has failed to increase yields over fall 

 plowing. 



Listing shows a small profit of 67 cents per acre. All other 

 methods show losses ranging from 19 cents per acre by fall plowing 

 after corn to $2.85 on summer-tilled land. 



Table VI. — Summary of yields and digest of the cost of production of com by 

 different tillage methods and crop sequences at Amarillo, Tex., 1907 to 191Jf, 

 inclusive. 





Fall plowed. 



Spring plowed. 















Yields, values, 



etc. (average 



per acre). 



After 



corn. 



(1 plat). 



After 



small 



grain 



(11 plats). 



After 



corn 



(1 plat). 



After 



small 



grain 



(3 plats). 



Subsoiled 

 after corn 

 (1 plat). 



Listed 

 after corn 

 (2 plats). 



Summer 



tilled 



(1 plat). 





.9 



03 



o 



o 



02 



.a 

 o 



o 

 02 



.a* 



03 



o 



I 



02 



'3 



o 



O 

 02 



.a 



03 

 u 



O 



Eh 

 0J 



o 



02 



.a 



03 



o 



o 



02 



.3 



03 

 U 



C 



0J 



i> 

 o 



02 



Yields for the 

 year: 



1907 



1908 



1909 



1911 



1912 



1913 



1914 



Bush. 

 1.4 

 22.9 

 2.7 

 9.2 

 . 7 

 

 3.6 



Lbs. 

 3,270 

 4,580 

 1,310 

 2,075 

 1,680 

 380 

 4,140 



Bush. 

 2.3 

 19.8 

 



8.9 

 1.7 

 

 5.1 



Lbs. 

 2,997 

 3,107 

 1,596 

 2,145 

 1,848 

 773 

 3,641 



Bush. 

 3.1 

 20.3 

 .6 

 8.1 

 2.6 

 

 1.1 



Lbs. 



3,280 



3,300 



560 

 1,945 

 2,160 



700 

 1,500 



Bush. 

 2.1 

 14.7 

 



9.5 

 1.1 

 

 2.6 



Lbs. 

 3,010 

 2,863 

 1,383 

 1,960 

 1,S29 

 383 

 2,733 



Bush. 



1.1 



25.7 



1.7 



7.1 

 1.0 

 

 5.1 



Lbs. 



3.490 



3,810 



990 

 1,720 

 2,080 



430 

 4,850 



Bush. 

 2.2 

 24.7 

 5.4 

 7.8 

 1.7 

 

 7.0 



Lbs. 

 2,935 

 2,390 

 1,043 

 1,998 

 2,015 

 225 

 2,870 



Bush. 

 5.7 

 27.6 

 6.4 

 9.3 

 3.3 

 

 8.0 



Lbs. 



3,710 



3,700 



1,890 



2,050 



2,840 



1,750 



5,320 



Crop value, 

 cost, etc. : 

 Average. 



5.8 



2,491 



5.4 



2,301 



5.1 



1,921 



4.3 



2,023 



6.0 



2,481 



7.0 



1,925 



8.6 



3,037 



Value . 



$2.32 



$4.98 



$2.16 



$4.60 



$2.04 



$3.84 



$1.72 



$4.05 



$2.40 



$4.96 



$2.80 



$3,851 $3.44 



$6.07 



Total value 

 Cost 



$7.30 

 7.49 



$6.74 

 7.49 



$5.88 

 7.11 



$5.77 

 7.11 



$7.36 

 8.18 



$6. 65 

 5.98 



$9.51 

 12.36 



Profit or 

 loss 



- .19 



- .75 



-1.23 



-1.34 



- .82 



.67 



-2.85 



RESULTS WITH MILO AND KAFIR AT INDIVIDUAL STATIONS. 



Milo is undoubtedly the leading grain crop grown in this section 

 and has given surer and better grain yields, on the average, than 

 any other crop grown at the stations included in this study. Two 

 types of this crop are commonly grown, namely, Standard and 

 Dwarf. The Standard type grows a stalk averaging about 4£ feet in 

 height, depending upon seasonal conditions, while the Dwarf prob- 

 ably will not average over 3 feet. Differences in yield due to 

 seasonal conditions so far overshadow any differences in type that 

 it is almost impossible to draw any definite conclusions as to just 



