BOLL-WEEVIL COTTON IX TEXAS. 13 



thinned a little later than the 12- inch and no doubt were handicapped 

 somewhat by their proximity to 12-inch rows. As already explained, 

 the earlier thinned 12-inch rows, not being restricted like the 6-inch 

 rows, could produce earlier buds and breed more weevils to attack 

 the later thinned rows. 



At Greenville. Tex., in 1921, unthinned row- with plants averag- 

 ing about 3 inches apart gave the highest yields in a carefully con- 

 ducted test. The next highest yields were from 6-inch rows, and the 

 lowest yields from rows with 12-inch spacing. The 6-inch rows gave 

 an average increase of 18 per cent and the 3-inch rows an average 

 of 25 per cent over the 12- inch rows, as reported by Homer C. Mc- 

 Xamara, who conducted the experiment. These results were from 

 repeated comparisons of the different spacings, and all the blocks 

 were thinned on the same day. Moreover, the results were con- 

 sistently in favor of the closer spacings, whether the blocks were 

 treated as wholes or as individual rows. It was noted also that 

 plants with the very close spacing were more slender and erect and 

 grew to a somewhat greater height than those in the 6-inch and 12- 

 inch blocks and that the lanes appeared wider between the close- 

 spaced rows. The season at Greenville was unusually dry and re- 

 stricted the plants to a moderate growth. 



Placing the rows farther apart should be considered as a measure 

 of safety to avoid the condition of boll- weevil cotton rather than as 

 a way of securing the largest possible yields under the most favor- 

 able conditions. But a general advantage could be claimed for a 

 system that produced better crops under extreme conditions and did 

 nor fall seriously behind in ordinary seasons. As Mr. Simpson ob- 

 serves, in the San Antonio district many farmers in the drier parts 

 have more land than they cultivate, so that the chief object in cultural 

 methods is to produce a given quantity of cotton at the smallest labor 

 cost rather than to secure the highest yield per acre, if this should 

 require more labor. Reducing the number of rows might save labor 

 in dry regions where the weed problem is less serious. 



If a simplified method should enable larger areas to be handled at 

 the same labor cost and larger yields secured in this way, the farmer 

 would have an advantage, although the yields per acre might be less. 

 Experiment's were conducted at San Antonio in 1915, 1916, and 1917, 

 with plants spaced to about 6 inches in rows 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 feet 

 apart. The yields of the rows gave very definite increases with the 

 greater width of lanes. In 1915 the increased yields of the widely 

 separated rows, including those that were 6 and 7 feet apart, were 

 sufficient to equalize the yield per acre with the closer rows. In the 

 two succeeding years the larger yields were with rows closer to- 

 gether, but the differences of labor cost were not reckoned. 



Undoubtedly the possibilities of securing advantages from dry 

 weather are greater in Texas than farther east, so that the spacing 

 problems are different. Along the northern rim of the Cotton Belt, 

 where the seasons are short and the weather seldom is dry enough 

 to stop the multiplication' of the weevils, no advantage would be ex- 

 pected from placing the rows farther apart. Very large yields. 2 

 bales or more per acre, are reported by W. C. Bailey at Covington. 

 Tenn.. with rows only 2 feet apart and the plants only 3 or 4 inches 

 apart in the rows. Such a field was visited by Robert L. Taylor, of 

 the Bureau of Plant Industry, and photographs were taken (PI. IV). 



