FOEAGE-CEOP EXPEEIMENTS AT SAN ANTONIO. 



13 



Table VIII. — Comparisoii of the row and band methods in 1909, on land summer- 

 fallowed the preceding year. 



Yield per acre. 



Mixture. 



Sumac sorghum 



Iron cowpeas 



Sumac sorghum 



Unkno^^^l co^^'peas 



Sumac sorghum 



Wliippoorwill cow'peas . . 



Sumac sorghum 



Kulthi (DolicJws biflorus) 



Average 



Table IX. — Comparison of the row and band methods in 1910 on land cropped to sorghum 



the preceding year. 





Mixtm-e. 



Yield per acre. 





Row 

 method. 



Band 

 method. 



Sumac sorghum 



} 



1 



Tons. 

 1.45 



1.33 



1.11 



.93 



Tons. 





1.76 



Sumac sorghum - 





Brabham co\\'peas 



1.18 







Kulthi {Dolichos biflorus) 



.70 



Pearl millet 





Kulthi {Dolichos biflorus) 



1.17 









Average 



1.21 



1.21 







Of the cowpeas planted by the band method fully 50 per cent 

 died before reacliing maturity, while the legumes planted by the row 

 method made a good growth, although the sorghum was too tliick, 

 not allowing the legumes to develop as well as they probably would 

 have done had the sorghum plants been farther apart. The band 

 method, it will be noted, outyielded the row method in 1909, but tliis 

 was due to the predominance of the sorghum and is no indication of 

 the comparative success of the two methods, as the forage from the 

 row method contained a much greater percentage of cowpeas. The 

 total yield from the two methods of planting was the same in 1910, 

 but the value of the forage from the row method was much liigher, 

 owing probably to the fact that the cowpeas had a better chance to 

 develop than when the band method was used. 



A test of mixtures seeded in 8-inch drills was made under irrigation 

 but was entirely too thick, so that the legumes were crowded out. 

 The yields were about the same as would have been expected had the 

 sorghums been planted alone. It is very doubtful whether it is advis- 



[Cir, lOfi] 



