BULLETIN No, 118.,AURY JANUARY, 1902. 93 ALABAMA. Agricultural Experiment Station OF THE AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, AUBURN. COWPEA CULTUIRE By J. F. DUGGAR. BROWN PRINTING CO., PRINTERS & BINDERS. MONTGOMERY, ALA 1902. COMMITTEE OF TRUSTEES ON EXPERIMENT STATION. THOS. WILLIAMS ................ HARALSON. Wetumpa. ........................................ Selma. JONATHAN STATION COUNCIL 0. D. SMITH.. P. B. ................................... Acting President. Director and Botanist. H. MELL..................................... B. Ross............................................Chemist. (C. A. CARY, D. V. M...............................Veterinarian. J. F. E. .J. M. Wilcox.. T. DUGGAR..........................................Agriculturist. ........................ Biologist and Horticulturist. Associate Chemist. ANDERSON- ...............................- ASSISTANTS. C. L. HARE.................................. First Assistant- Chemist. T. BRAGG........... ......................... Second Assistant Chemist. Third. Assistaunt Chemist. J. R. C. PHELP~S............................... T. U. CUTER.. ................................ W. Superintendent of Farm. Agriculturist. .. CLARK.....................Assistant C. F. AUSTIN.......................... Assistant Horticulturist. The Bulletins of this Station will be sent free to any citizen of the State on application to the Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. COWIPEA CULTURE. BY J. F. DUGGAR. sunmmar"y. June or July. For Cowpeas iay be plauted in most the production of seed, planting in Jule has May, beeu satisfactory. By planting New' Era cowpeas April 26, two crops were matured before frost. Early planting lengthens the period of growth and increases the tendency for the plants to form runners. Weevil in cowpea. seed should be destroyed by the use of carbon bi-sulphide. Subsoiling and liming failed to increase the yield. In one test.broadcast sowing yield of hay than did drilling and cultivation, but the latter method is more certain to afford a fair crop of peas in an unfavorable season. varieties have been tested, both as A large number to yield of seed and of hay. Those averaging the largest production of grain are New Era, Black and lRed The varieties making the largest average Ripper. yields of hay for three years are Wonderful and Clay. afforded'alarger of Wonderful, with or Unknown, is a stand'ard general purpose cowpea for the central and 'southern parts of the State. The number of see'd in a bushel the Taylor variety, -to more than varied from 94,634 236,000 with -New Era and Small Black. The number of pounds of dry unhulled peas required to shell a bushel of 60 pounds- varied betweeu, 78 pounds with Brown-eye Crowder and 90 pounds with Wonderful. Fertilizer experiments at Auburn on soil repeatedly fertilized showed very slight gains from any fertilizer, but on poor sandy or loamy soils an application of acid phosphate, with or without potash, is recommended. In three tests acid phosphate proved superior to crude or raw phosphate. In composition icowpea hay resembles wheat bran, and the seed are much richer in nitrogen, or muscleforming material, than either wheat bran or corn. By the use of a good quality of peavine hay the usual corn ration of working teams can be greatly reduced. As compared with the velvet bean as a forage plant, cowpeas have the -advantage in convenience of curing and in palatability, but are at a disadvantage on certain soils by reason of the susceptibility of cowpeas to the attacks of the nematode worm and of several fungous diseases. Velvet belans, and beggar weed were found to be exempt from injury from nematodes. At Auburn the yield of forage has averaged higher from cowpeas than from velvet beans, soy beans or beggar weed. There is great need for a suitable grass to grow with cowpeas to aid in retaining the cowpea leaves during curing and to hasten the curing process. A volunteer this purpose. Gergrowth of crab grass often serves man millet has been found fairly satisfactory for sowing with the early varieties, but it matures too early for use with medium and late varieties. Sorghum sown with cowpeas increased the yield of hay, but did not make curing easier. The most profitable method of disposing of the growth of cowpeas consists in cutting the vines for hay and using the roots as fertilizer for the next crop. Where haying is not practicable and picking too expensive except for seed, the vines should be grazed while the leaves are still retained. Cows pastured on corn stalks and drilled cowpeas between the corn rows afforded butter and increased live weight worth in 1900 $4.47 per acre grazed over; the next year the returns in butter alone from cowpeas drilled between the corn rows was $5.28 per acre. As an economical method of harvesting the grain of cowpeas the use of a scythe or reaper is practicable for the bunch varieties, the entire mass being thoroughly cured. In curing peavine hay no rule as to the number of hours of exposure in swath, in window, or in cocks can be blindly followed, as the method must vary with the luxuriance and succulence of the, vines and the condition of the weather. The aim should be to retain all the leaves, which requires that Ithe exposure of the unraked hay be as short as practicable and that part of the curing be effected while the partially cured material is in windrows or (cocks. Hay caps make haying with cowpeas less risky, and when they are repeatedly used in curing hay from a succession of plantings, they soon repay their first cost. With different varieties from 51 to 75 per cent. of the weight of the entire plant was obtained in the hay, the remainder being in roots, stubble, and fallen leaves. The leaves averaged 30 per cent. of the weight of the hay. Analyses made of leaves, pods and blooms, fine stems, coarse stems, fallen leaves, roots and (stubble, showed that the leaves were at least twice as rich in protein (or muscle-forming material) as the other portions of the plant. INTRODUCTION. This bulletin gives the results of experiments made at Auburn during the past six years. The experiments have been planned and directed by the writer and all the weighings and supervision of labor have been in charge of Mr. T. U. Culver. Our work with cowpeas is divisible into two parts, that which relates to their cultivation and use as forage plants and that which takes note of their value as fertilizers, or soil improving plants. This bulletin treats only of the first division of the, subject. Our next bulletin will record results showing the fertilizing value of cowpeas and the best methods of disposing of this plant when the improvement of the soil is the principal aim. The cowpea is highly appreciated by the best farmers in every southern state, yet several times as many acres as at present might be devoted to it with advantage. An enormous increase in the acreage of cowpeas would do more, we think, than any other immediately practicable reform to cure the ills of southern farming, to enrich the soil, to raise the acreage yield of all other crops, to build up the live stock industries, and to promote diversified farming. TIME FOR PLANTING COWPEAS. The cowpea is very tender as regards cold. It is strictly a hot weather plant and the seed should not be planted until the soil is quite warm. It can be planted as early as the beginning of the cotton planting season. But such early planting is unwise in itself as. well as in conflict with other work that is imperative in April. Usually nothing is gained by planting before the first of May, and our largest yields of seed have been obtained by planting after the first of June. It should be noted that in the variety test of 1901, where most of the plots afforded more than 20 bushels of seed per acre, planting did not occur until June 28. Rather late planting tends to promote seed production and to reduce the growth of vine. Early planting promotes a luxuriant growth of vines, with consequent increased tendency for the vines to run and tangle, and often results in a decreased yield of seed. Whippoorwill peas planted in drills, April 19, 1898, and cultivated, did not ripen seed until the latter part of summer, and a period of 160 days elapsed between the dates of planting land picking, though properly the harvesting should have taken place several weeks earlier. This was in a year when the rainfall was deficient up to July, and ,abundant after the first week in July. Compare this with the Whippoorwill variety planted July 1, 1896, in drills in the special phosphate test. Here all the pods were ripe 87 days after planting. Notice also that, in 1900, in the fertilizer experiment, only 99 days elapsed between the planting and picking of the Whipporwill cowpeas. Likewise Whipporwill peas planted June 28, 1901, were picked almost clean 102 days after the date of planting. These and other examples which we might cite indicate that by planting cowpeas rather late we greatly shorten the period of growth. Even when it is desired to grow two crops of cowpeas the same year it is not necessary to plant many days before May 1. In 1901 we grew two crops of New Era cowpeas to. full maturity, the second crop being from pods ripening in midsumer. 8 The seed planted April 26 matured a crop which was picked July 22 and planted July 26. This planting in turn afforded 'a crop (of mature pods) before frost, about 90 per cent. of the pods being ripe on November 1. The New Era is only one among the varieties tested here, from which we have endeavored to obtain two crops in one year. Such 'a course is probably advisable only where cowpeas for planting are scarce and costly. The middle o'f July is probably the latest date of planting with the expectation of getting a large yield, and with most varieties planting in June seems preferable at Auburn. To destroy the weevil that becomes so destructive in stored cowpeas 'on the approach of wa'rm weather, we use carbon bisulphate, which is 'also needed as a means of destroying the weevil in corn. The cost. is 10 to 20 cents per pound, and one pound will treat a number of bushels of shelled 'cowpeas. About an ounce of the liquid is poured into an open 'can and placed upon the upper surface of the peas in 'a box or barrel and 'a cloth spread over all. The treatment may be repeated after a few days. The liquid evaporates rapidly,.and the vapor of carbon 'bi-sulphide destroys insect life. The vapor is highly inflammable and no flames or lighted pipe should be allowed near until the o'dor has disappeared. ithe PREPARATION AND PLANTING. The place in the rotation usually a'ssigned to cowpeas is that of a parti'al crop planted between the corn rows at the last or next to last cultivation, or else that of a second crop on the land ;where oats, wheat, or rye has been harvested. It is not putting ithe matter too strongly to say that 80 per cent. of the acreage of corn in this State should have cowpeas between the rows and that at least 80 per cent. of the area from which small grain is cut in May and June should be 'planted in cowpeas. On sandy upland where the corn rows are five feet apart we prefer to plant the cowpeas in a single drill half way between the lines of corn and to plant at the next to the last cultivation, so that the last cultivation serves also to give the cowpeas a start. On good bottom land, well supplied with moisture, we prefer to cow cowpeas broadcast in corn, and this, of course, can be done only at the time of the last cultivation. On rich land care should be taken that the sowing of ,covpeas, especially of the running varieties, does not take place so early that the corn will be overrun by the v'ines. Avoidance of this trouble lies either in late planting or in the use 'of the 'bunch varieties. In drilling 'cowpeas 'between the corn rows we obtain a more uniform start by employing the planter than by dropping the seed by hand in the first or center scrape furrow and covering with the two siding furrows of the scrape run next to the corn. We have employed numerous methods of planting cowpeas 'after small grain. Since work is pressing at this season and the soil sufficiently moist for plowing only for relatively brief periods, our usual policy is to plant the seed without waiting to make thorough preparation. There is room 'for considerable ingenuity in determining the best method of completing the preparation and giving the first cultivation. One of the most important aims to be kept in view in this is to keep the land nearly level so that the plants may better resist drought and so that a mower may be conveniently- used. After the first cultivation, when this serves also as a partial 10 scrape or other shallow-working. implement should be used. Though drilled cowpeas on the Experiment Station farm when growing alone are usually hoed once, yet we are inclined to think this is often an avoidable and unprofitable operation. With cowpea's intended for hay, pasturage orfertilizer, it is, of course, even less necessary than where the prime objecit is the production of seed. Possibly the weeder, which we have successfully used on other crops, and which others have run over cowpeas withou,'t injury, may -prove a partial substitute for the hoe. It should be employed when grass and weeds are extremely small. We have made no test to ascertain'the best amount of seed, which will doubtless vary somewhat with different varieties.. The usual amount is cue to one and one-half bushel when sown broadcast and about half a bushel per acre when planting is, in drills far enough apart to permit cultivation. The grain drill, with all tubes open or with part of them stopped, is sometimes used in planting cowpeas. blielkicig. only the heel SUBSOILING. Two tests of the effect of subsoiling for cowpeas have been made on reddish loam soil, in the same field as that used for similar experiments with corn 'and cotton. In both cases the variety Wonderful was employed. The peas were in drills 'and were cultivated several times. In cowpeas were planted on a plot that had been imperfectly subsoilecd in February, 1896, using a scooter run to depth o'f four inches in bottom of the furrow made by a one-horse turn plow. opera- 1897 a bythe This tion was not repeated in 1897. 11 On both the plot treated and on that which had never been the crop was exceedingly poore The plot once subsoiled yielded at the rate of 6.7 bushels per acre and that not subsoiled 5.6 bushels. In May, 1898, cowpeas were planted on a plot which had been 1subsoiled as above in the preceding.February. The yield of hay was 5,120 pounds on the subsoiled plot and only 40 pounds less on the plot never subsoiled. A different result might have resulted from ough work with a subsoil plow. sub-soiled thus thor- DRILLING VERSUS SOWING BROADCAST. May 12, 1898, Wonderful cowpeas were sown broadcast at the rate of 60 pounds per acre and plowed in with one-horse turn plows. On the same date an equal quantity of seed was planted in drills, which was done by dropping the seed by hand in every third turn plow furrow, the nex t furrow-slice serving as acovering. On all plots the fertilizer, phosphate and muriate of potash, -was applied broadcast on the plowed.surf vce and harrowed in. The vines were cut September 13. After curing for a week, most of 'timge in cocks, the weights of hay were found to be follows Pounds (of this as : cowpea hay per acre fromt drilling versus broadcas~t sow(ing. Hay per acre. Lbs. >6,400 ........... 6)4O0 5,600 Plot No. 4 Broadcast.. .... ........................... 7 Broadcast.. .................. ......... 5 Drilled ............................... In this test broadcast sowing afforded 800 pounds of more .than'drilling. hay dicate that the season was per acre favorable The yields inand the rainfall large 12 records show that a large amount of rain fell in July and August. The drilled peas were cultivated twice with scrapes, the total number of furrows per row being three. In addition to experimental plots we plant every year considerable areas of cowpeas, both broadcast and in drills. In deciding on the best method of planting in this "general crop" we are governed by the price and available supply of seed and labor. We use four to six pecks of seed sown broadcast and two or three pecks in drills. In 'sowing broadcast we seldom plow in the 'seed, as in the above-described experment, but sow them on plowed land and cover seed and fertilizer with disc harrow or with one-htorse cultivator. In planting in drills we open the drills in plowed or unplowed ground, and are careful either to apply the fertilizer in the covering furrow or else to mix it with the soil before the 'seed are dropped. Where the ground has 'been plowed, the combined grain =drill and fertilizer distributor would doubtless be satisfactory, stopping most of the tubes .ifit is desired to drill the seed in rows wide enough for cultivation. Our observations lead to fthe belief that in unfavorable seasons drilling and cultivation gives the largest yield of hay (and always of seed) and that in seasons of abundance of rainfall broadcast planting affords the greater amount of hay, but not of seed. VARIETIES. the During each of the past six years one or more tests of varieties of 'cowpeas have been undertaken. Some of these tests have been vitiated by agencies that need not be stated here, and only those are here reported -which have been free from inequalities and errors. 13 of cowpeas have, been tested both with reference to the yield of seed and to the yield of hay. The variety Whippoorwill (a speckled bunch pea) has com its yield has been taken as peted in all these tests a basils by which rthe yield -of any other variety may be Thns, taking the yield of grain conveniently stated. from Whipporwill il 1897 as 100, that of Wonderful for the same year is 106, or cent. greater. The grain yield varieties eowpeas. The follow- Varieties and of 6 per of ing table gives the results of four tests of varieties on, the basis of seed production, all varieties planted in drillsi and cultivated. In dl cases bushel of shelledpeas is assumed to -weigh 60 pounds. Yields a of grain of varieties of cowpeas. VARILETY. Relative yield taking Yield per acre in \t hipporwill yield as 100 per cent. 97 '9 '00 01'97 '98 '00 01 Av. Bus. Bus. Bus.,Bus 00%00 00 00 Clay .......... 9 1 T Crowder, Brown-eye Crowder, Large ....... .. TT-7 White.. ... Crowder, Yellow. Brown-eye, White .. Black, from 5 0....f 63 58 7.6 .... 14.0.. ..... .. 19.3 .... .... ...... 87 .... ...17.5 .... .... ...... 116 .... .... .... ................... 23.3 .... I 105f.... ......... 17 Black, Black, Wood.from Ala. Ex. St . from Hastings... 2.5S.... ........... ... 21.0 .... 21.2f.... ... 140 9.6 .... .... ...... .... .... .... .f 6f 118 64. .... .... .... ... ..... Black, Large Early, from Packard ... Black-eye. Large 7.8 .... .... ...... 52 .... .... Black-eye, Early (Wood) .... .... 19. . . .. .. ... 15.0 .... 9.0...... ... 130 .... 100 .... ! .... 86 .... 19.0 .... 92 Large White from Willett......... Bakee, Extra Early...16.2 Early Brown Dent..... .... Iron....................14.9...............99............ .............. 53......... Jones White................8.0 91...........59............ ..... Lady................. Lealand ......... Bullock..... .... 60.........-e .... 16.6 ....... 108 . 75. 92 23.41...........1561............ .... 145..... .... .... .... .... 21.81..... .... 54 ............ 17.6 .... ........ 1117 ....... .... 104 125 122.0....122.01....1 146 79........... Ross White...........1....111.91............. Red Ripper ........... 1.... 118.51.... .120.11... .1 1231. .. .1 91 107 Miller...................8.2............. Mush ...... .......... ..... New Era . .................. Taylor ...... ......... ..... ..... 17.51........1......116 .... .... ... . .... i....1....1....123.6!....1....1.....1 .....-- 1071... . White Giant .......... Unknown .............. Wonderful...... ...... Whippoorwill...... ... 10.8115.91....1....1 7Sf 721 74 I17.4115.21. 8.31..........1061........1........ ... 12.6194! 101 .... .j 98 98 7..8(15.0l414.4122.01 1l01 f01 10l1f100 100 14 Varieties averaging large yields of seed have been New Black (from Wood), ,and Red Rpper. Wonderful wants only per cent. of equalling the average yield of Whi pppoorwill. Varieties making large yields, but which have been tested only once, are Early Brown Dent, Early Bullock, Large Early Black (from Packard) Lealand, and Lire, White Crowder. Additional tes'ts must be made before conclusions can be drawn as to the relative values of these varieties for seed production. There is need for a variety of covpeas that in addition to the good qualities of Whipporwill, prolificacy, upright growth, and earliness, shall be more resistant to mildew or rotting of the pods than is this standard kind. The writer will glad-ito test any local varieties for which this quality is -claimed. Si e of seed.-The following table gives the weight of 10 cowpeas of varieties grown in 1901, also the calculated number of seed in a bushel of 60 Era, 2 'be (the and pounds: o VARIETY.Wg.o Taylor ....................................... White Giant.................................. Brown-eye Crowder ........................... Yellow Sugar Crowder........................ Black ....................... Red Ripper......................... ......... Extra Early Black-eye ......................... Large Black-eye ............................... Whippoorwill ....... .......................... No. sedof sedi 1 bush. (60 100 seed 28.72 25.45 24.74 23.16 22.07 20.89 20.74 20.04 17.98. lbs.) 9,3 106,797 109,858 117,314 123,153 130,110 131,051 135,638 Wonderful ....................... 'Clay ......... ................................ Jones' Perfection White ......................... New Era..................................... Small Blck...... ................... 18.86 1786 13.97 11.49 11.30 150,621 144,117 151,629 194,560 236,545 240,531 1.YeloSga ?. 00w,-e Crowder 4. 5. Crwd New Hra W oefl '*-'*' ,-r*~ gam 9. 40. 11. Wo od. Large. }]laI ee e. Lx. Early' filael{ eye. NlaR. from 16. 12. ('lax. 14. Red Ripper. 15. White Giant Jones White. 17 Taylor had the largest seed, of which only 94,634 were required to make a bushel. New Era has the smallest seed of any kind in the variety test, having 236,545 seed in a bushel. In rows three feet apart, and three seed per foot of drill, an acre would require about 11 pounds of New Era or about 28 pounds of Taylor seed. Small Black, grown in another field, had seed slightly smaller than those of New Era. WHERE TO GET SEED. The Station cannot undertake to supply seed. The addresses of the parties from whom this Station has obtained seed, given below, will enable intending buyers, who cannot get seed nearer home, to correspond with seed'smen or growers. New Era, from J. C. Little, Louisville, Ga. Numerious varieties from H. P. Jones, Herndon, Ga.; Alexander Seed Co., Augusta, Ga.; Willett Seed Co., Augusta, Ga.; !ark W. Johnson Seed Co.) Atlanta, Ga.; Curry-Arrington Seed Co., Rome, Ga.; H. C. Hastings, Atlanta, Ga.; E. G. Packard, Dover, Del.; and T. W. Wood & Sons, Richmond, Va. The hay yield of varieties of cowpeas.-These tests were all made on poor 'sandy u-pland, though the land used for this experiment in 1897 was richer than that occupied by this test in the other years. In 1897 the seed was sown broadcast; in 1898 and 1899 the seed was planted in drills about 21 feet apart. The yields are lower than we usually obtain in our fields sown for hay, which may be partly due to the fact that the peas in the experiments were sown late,-the last week in June,-and that the product was weighed only after the hay had become extremely dry. (as 18 Yields of hay of varieties of cowpea. VARIETY. Relative yield, Yield per WhipprowillAcre in 100 per cent. '97 '98 '99 '97 '98; 99 Av. lbs. lbs. lbs.00 o0 Black-eye, Extra Early.......... .1416........ . .. .. . Black-eye, Large................ Black......................... 222012880 1618 89 105 83 92 Black, Large Early......................1383.........68 Clay .............. ............ 3975 3373 1209 160 121 59 113 Crowder ................................ 1308.........64. Crowder, Large White..............1280(2034. 47 100 73 Iron.............................4080 2154. 150! 106 128 Lady..................................1401.......(.69.... Lealand ..............................2206.......119 .... Miller..... .............................1623......... 79 ... Mush................1929.........95 .... New Era...............................2310..........113.... Ross White.............................2430!........I(119 Red Ripper ..................... 3720!.... ..... Whippoorwill...................2485 2720j2030j(100 l001 100 Wonderful ........... 370014160(15691 126 . 1361........ 1481 1531 771 1001 The largest average for three years was made by the Wonderful (or Unknown) variety, followed by Clay. Iron, which tested only two years, surpassed all other varieties in the average yield for tho'se two years. The'ease of harvesting varies greatly with different varieties, the running kinds affording greatest difficulty. The quality of the hay differs 'somewhat with different varieties. For example, Wonderful has larger stems was the than any other variety tested and hence its hay ap- pears coarser. Nevertheless, the large yield a very popular variety for hay. summnner. .and erect stem make this It is too late to mature seed in a high latitude or when planted very late in On the, whole, as a. general purpose cowpea, suitable for either grain, forage, or fertilizer, we may safely plant the Wonderful or Unknown in the central and southern parts of the 'state until sonme other variety is 73l proved to be superior. Perhaps an exception should be of the Central Prairie Rlegion where there is complaint that there is an extreme tendency for cowpeas to run to vine and fail to fruit properly. It is suggested that the early bunch varieties, especially New Era, planted late in June, be tried on these soils; also that when seed are desired from medium'and late varieties, that'they be planted early and thick in the drill. made unshelled cowpeas. seed and Proportion The following table give's the number of pounds of seed in 100 pounds 'of unshelled cowpeas. In 'all cases the peas were not beaten out until a't least 'several weeks after the -date of picking, thus giving time for thorough drying. 4 of halls in Pounds seed ins on~e htundred pounds co wpcas. lYrs. Lbs. Brown-eye, White. iBlack, from Wood .. Black, from Ala. Ex. Staf Black, Large Early, from Packard .... ........ Black-eye, Large, from ......... Wood ...... :... from Willett ..... Black-eye, Large White, Black-eye, Extra Early, Black-eye, Extra Early, from Wood ......... Clay .................. Crowder .............. 'Crowder, Brown-eye .... Crowder, Yellow Sugar. Crowder, Large White of unshelled Dent.. IYrs. Iabs. 1 '(7 82 1 11 otI 2 3 70 Early Brown 76!Early Bullock........ 69'Iron .................. Jones, White .......... 76 Lady.............. 21 Lealand.............. 77 Miller....... ......... 73 Mush................ New iEra ............. Ross White ........... Red Ripper.......... 21 ~l ii 76 Taylor ... ............ 67 'White Giant .......... 75 Unknown........... 85 Wonderful ............. 84 Whippoorwill..... .... 83 I 2j 69 1 I 31 77 1ii 77 I i 83 I 21 '(3 1 69 I 4 71 11' 77 I 21 71 1 j 21 jI 69 67 I41 'r -seed 'and hull's varies according to The proportion In our tests it is' highest with the several the variety. Crowder varieties, and lowest with Wonderful and Clay; thoroughly dry unhulled peas in number of poun'ds the pod required to make ,a bushel (60 poun'ds)of shelled peas was only 78 pounds with Brown Eye Crowder of of 20 and 90 pounds with Wonderful. To get corresponding figures for any other variety the reader can divide 6,000 by the, figure opposite each variety. It should.be percentage of grain in the same stated here that variety varied greatly in different 'the years. EFFECTS OF LIME ON COWPEAS. Two tests were made on this pointt, using drilled cowpeas of the variety Wonderful, fertilized with acid cultivated 'sever-al times. phosphate stiffer than that in In 1897, on reddish loam soil, 5.6 bushels of pea's without yield the later tests, only 5.2 bushels where slaked lime at the lime rate 'of 640 pounds per acre had been 'applied bro'adcast in February of the preceding year. Whatever lime renaied in the 'soil was evidently of no benefit of 'cowpeas. used as a In March, 1898, water slaked lime on gray sandy soil. It was used at top dressing on oats the unslaked lime, the rate of 1,000 pounds per -acre which is equivalent to 'a much larger weight of the and and the was and was of 'slaked material. After the ots were cut the land was plowed and cowpeas drilled and cultivated a's necessary. The yield follows : in Plot not limed, 13 bushels :cowpe'as per 'acre. Limed plot, 10.2 bushels cowpeas per 'acre.. Clearly liume was of no benefit, bu't apparently injuriou's-a's regards seed There was no notable difference in 'appearance 'of the vines. the formation. FERTILIZER EXPERIMENT. This test was nmade in 1898 with Whipporwill cowpeas' on gray or white 'sandy soil on hilltop. Two -cultivations were given, requiring altogether three- furrows per row. The result's follow: .a Results (of I 21 fertilizer experiment with cowpeas in 1898. FERTILIZER. Plot No. Per acre. Lbs. 2 3I 4 .5 6 1 KIND. Yield of seed per acre. Bus. 13.9 240 Acid phosphate.................. K1] 00 X240 51] 240 .... Muriate of potash ........... No fertilizer.................... Acid phosphate................. Muriate of potash . 15.9 16. 15.4 Acid phosphate................. 151 Muriate of potash............... ............ Nitrate of soda ..... 210 Acid phosphate............. Muriate of potash ................ ................ 19.1 . 16.7 15.2 7 8 9 Av. Av. Av. A'v. 10 3& 8 1& 7 2 &10 4, 6 &9 240 00, 240 51 51 00 240 51 ............ Acid phosphate ...... No fertilizer .................... Acid phosphate................ Muriate of potash............... Muriate of potash............... No fe~rtilizer........................ ............... .... Acid 14.3 14.9 M criate of potash ............ Phosphate and muriate............ phosphate ... . 15.1 15.1 14.1 14.5 15.3 Apparently none of the mineral fertilizers was decidedly advantageous, though with the complete fertilizer there was'anl increase of four bushels per acre. The infailure of 'acidphosphate and muriate of potash crease the yield is surprising, and the only explanation we can suggest is the fact that both phosphate during potash salts had been liberally used on this each of the preceding five years, and probably these ma~terial's had been applied annually f'or 'about fifteen years. This view implies, that even on this gray light sandy soil, containing s'ome flint 'stones, and unde~rl'aid by 'a rather stiffer sandy sub-so il,acid phosphate and potash are not wholly used up or lost during the year when they to field and ,are applied but exert'a considerably residual or cumu- lative effect. 22 Is NITROGEN ADVANTAGEOUS IN A FERTILIZER FOR COWPEAS? Cowpeas are able Ito grow on poorer soil than is cotton or corn. This is because the cowpea plant, through the agency of the specific enlargements or tubercles or nodules on its roots, is able to draw a part of its nitrogen from the air, while ,corn, cotton, grasses, etc., are entirely dependent for their nitrogen on the soil and fertilizer. Since the cowpea plant possesses this source of supply it is reasonable to assume that nitrogen can be omitted from its fertilizer, thus reducing the cost of fertilization. On ithe other hand it has been stated that during the early period in the life of this plant the tubercles ,afford no nitrogen, and that nitrogenous fertilizers are beneficial during this early period. One writer has recorded as his observation that cotton seed meal is a suitable fertilizer for cowpeas. To put this latter statement to a test, four plots of drilled cowpeas in 1898 were employed. All were fertilized with 240 pounds of acid phosphate and 48 pounds of muriate of potash per acre. Two plots received in addition cotton seed meal at the rate of 100 pounds per acre. The cured hay averaged practically 2% tons per acre, the plots with cotton seed meal affording only 40 pounds of hay per acre in excess of the others. There was a practical equality in yield, and a failure of cotton seed meal to exert any appreciable effect. This is in accord with nearly all of the published fertilizer experiments with cowpeas. We have found the tubercles on cowpea's when the plants were only a few inches high and a few weeks old. Apparently the nitrogen in the seed and that which even a poor soil yields is usually sufficient for the little 23 plants up to the time when the root tubercles begin to eyei t se their function of supplying nitrogen. The fertilizer test detailed in a preceding paragraph shows thait with a complete fertilizer the yield of peas 3.8 bushels per acre greater thal where only phosphate and potash were used together. This increase seems to be attributable to the use of 80 pounds of nitratte of soda. with the one The majority of experiments where cotton seed meal was used in indicting that nitrogen is not a profitable constituent of the fertilizer for cowneas. was agree FoRMs OF PHOSPHATE FOR ICOWPEAS A test was made in 1896 of acid phosphate, crude Florida. soft phosphate, and a moistened mixture of these two, which mixture shound have a produced reverted phosphate. The crop failure, probably because of injuries to the roots by nematode worms, and there were only slight differences in the yields of seed on the plots differently fertilized. This was on very poor white sandy soil. In 1898, co-operative tests of acid phosphate in comparison with equal weights of Florida soft phosphate was (crude) were made f'or Gregor, on a. loam with clay sub-soil1, at Town Creek, Ala., and by Mr. J. P. Slaton, on sandy soil 'between Notasulga and -Tuskegee. Apparently the at Town soil this Station by Mr. A. A. Mc- Creek was soil in rich in lingme, the other poor lime. Unfortunately there was a failure to pick the peas in both the tests, but the notes mnade by both of the perimenters ex- have no doubt as to tile superiority of (acid phosphate over insoluble phosphate as a fertilizer for 24 cowpeas. At Town Creek, where pods did not mature, the vines made the best growth where acid phosphate was applied; no difference could be detected between the growth of the unfertilized plot and that on the plot where Florida soft phosphate was employed. On the sandy soil near Notasulga "the plot fertilized with acid phosphate seemed to me one-third better" than the 'one with the r'aw phosphate. These observations as to the superiori'ty of acid phosphate agree with the results of experiments made at the Georgia Experiment Station and with a test made at Auburn in 1898, the results in our test being as follows: Bus. seed per acre. 9.4 13.9 15.2 Cowpeas, with no phosphate ................................ Cowpeas, with 240 lbs. Florida soft phosphate .............. Cowpeas, with 240 lbs. acid phosphate ..................... Apparently the raw or Florida soft phosphate was beneficial, and the acid phosphate still more so, the increase with the latter being 5.8 bushels of seed per acre, w'hic'h gives 'a 'fair profit after deducting the cost of the 2409 pounds of acid phosphate used on an acre. Fertilizing cowpeas between corn rows.-In 1900 on one plot only half of the acid phosphate was applied to corn, the remainder (12.9 pounds per acre) being reserved and drilled with Whippoorwill cowpeas July 7. There was practically a failure of both the corn ,and cowpeas on this series of plots, so that the products of the several plot's were not harvested separately. However, so far as 'could be judged by the eye, there was never any difference in the growth of the vines directly fertilized with phosphate and those which must have drawn sorhe of their phosphate from the fertilizer that was applied to the corn some months before. 25 NUTRITIVE VALUE OF COWPEAS AND COWPEA VINES. The high nutritive value of the seed, the green vines 'of the cowpea plant may be seen from the following figures adapted from Prof. W. A. Henry's book on "Feeds and Feeding:" the hay, and Lbs. digestible. Muscle Starch, Ft formers et Fat 100 lbs. cowpeas (shelled seed) contain*..l17.3163.1f.7 1.1 38.6 100 lbs. cowpea hay contain............10.8 8.7 .2 100 lbs. green cowpea vines contain. 1.8 *Assuming same digestibility as for meal from Canada field peas. Cowpea. hay contains almost exactly the same amounts and-proportions of digestible materials as wheat bran. far The seed 'is more nutritious than wheat bran richer in protein,-the so-called "muscle formers," than is corn. In our feeding experiments with pigs it has proved itself better than corn when constituting only a, portion 'of the grain ration. By feeding farm teams on a liberal allowance of peavine hay the amount and of corn necessary can be reduced much below that usually 'consumed. Cow peais ison can beversus velvet beans as [orage.-Thi's comparmade on the basis of (1) palatability and nutritive value, (2) cost of growing The numiber ton -of each, (3) productiveness., and (4) hardiness. and harvesting a of analyses of velvet bean hay is insuffi- cient to give an accurate 'of its exact nutritive value, in which, however, it is probably about equal to peavine hay. In palatability the advantage is decidedly with peavines. We have found it practically impossible to use the mower in cutting velvet beans and when both crops are cut with the scythe our -records show that the velvet determination 26 beaus require more labor than cowpeas. have not yet found a thoroughly Indeed we practicable and econom- ical means of cutting and handling velvet bean vines. In regard to the yields of hay from the two plants, when groawn side by aside, the following are the resuliti thus far at Auburn, the variety of cowpeas employed being the Wonderful or Unknown. hay CopaVelvet CopaIbean 1hy Drilled crop, 1897, lbs. hay per acre..............2420 Drilled crop, 1897, lbs. hay per acre.................8930 Broadcast crop, 1898, lbs. hay per acre...........4160 Broadcast crop, 1898, lbs. hay per acre...........4160 6400 Broadcast crop, 1898, lbs. hay per acre........ *128 lbs. velvet beans sown broadcast per acre; beans sown broadcast per acre. 3872 7300 4480* 280t 5360 t64 lbs. velvet On the score of productiveness our experiments are soils this slightly in favor of cowpeas, though result might be reversed. to the relative hardiness of the two plants, the It suffers less velvet beau is undoubtedly superior. from the attacks of leaf eating 'insects, and, though the young plants of the velvet bean are not exempt from the attacks of a fungous root rot, characterized by whitish to. brownish, small, spherical, sclerotia, on the stem near the surface of the ground, yet the velvet beans are much more resistant to it than are eowpeazs, which some parts of the Station farm are ahuosit ruined by on other As in this disease. (owp eas were For example, in 1899, on adjoining plots, ruined by Septeumber .12, at least half the yield per the plants see(d having died prematuirely, of being reduced to less than two bushels acre, while velvet beans were perfectly healthy and extrenmely still more important as regards the relative hardiness 27 of the two plants is their susceptibility to injury the attacksof the microscopic nematode worms that infest the soil, especially in gardens and orchards, in parts of the Gulf States. These worms enter the roots of Jinlay plants, cowpeas, c'tton, peaches and numerous c-geta es, causing swellings, which, as they become lariger, result in depriving t'he infected root of its fun;lton supplying water and food to the plant. It is important for farmers to distinguish these nematode injuries from the beneficial tubercles naturally present. Speaking generally and disregarding the advanced cr corky stage of the nematode swelling, tubercles am ne~matode bumps may be by their positiou.The beneficial tubercles are located outside of the outer surface of the. root, and to the side of the same; the injurious enlargements are usually spindle shaped and their posi tilon is such that the root seem to be growing through the center of the swelling. In other words, the root is enlarged symmetrically on all sides in the early stages of nematode injuries. front hi ().' distinguished Cowpeas bodes. beans are highly resistant to such if not entirely exempt fronm them. We have been able to find no plain indications of nematode injuries on the roots of velvet beans. Velvet are very susceptible to injuries from nema-. attacks, This is a matter of much importance, especially when a choice must be made between these two legumes forgrowing in old garden spots, which are likely be infested with nematodes, or with a fungus root di'sease. In this land -to connection it shoild be -said that Or- ton ment of Webber, of the United States DepartAgriculture, found the Iron variety of' 28 ccowpeas to.be resistant both to nematode attacks and to cowpea wilt, the latter being a fungus disease differthat is most destructive at Auburn. The remedy for all these troubles consists in.practicing such a rotati-on as will keep susceptible plants off years. the infested o'r infected fields for at least In brief, the, cowpea as a forage plant is superior to the velvet bean in palatability and ease of curing and only inferior in hardinesis or resistance towards the tacks of certain insects and fungous diseases. Gowpeas versus beggar weed and soja beans as forage. At Auburn the yield :cowpea hay has greatly exceedted that of beggar weed hay and has been superior in quality. The advantages in favor beggar weed are its greater ease of curing, resilting from its more erect and its practical or complete exemption from neinatode injury. Beggar weed also seems resistant to the fungus root rot. Compared with sojia or soy beans, at Auburn have averaged 'a heavier yield of hay and have sur- ent from the one ,of a few at- of of .growth, cowpeas passed only in the greater ease with which the soy been bean, on 'account .of its erect growth, can be harvested. The cowpea ha's been able to make a fair growth land too poor for soy beans. on COWPEAS IN VARIOUJS MIXTUTRES FOR IIAY. The leaflets easily drop from the vines in curing unless speci'al care is exercised. This loss can be avoided and and the curing process facilitated by growing the peavines in 'combination with grass that cures -readily and which serves with its blades, fine stems to tie the sonie whole mass together 'so that 'the leaflets of the legume are not lost. For this purpose crabgrass is one of the best, and the only 'disadvantage is that as a volunteer 29 growth must be relied on, there is some uncertainty as to the stand and as to the grass growing to sufficient height on the poorer spots. We have found German millet useful in this respect. This grass makes it for fair and good soils. necessary to choose an early variety of cowpeas to sow it with, else the millet will be ready for the mower while the peas are entirely too immature. Whipporwill 'cowpeas and German millet make a fairly saitisfactory combination, and the qualities of 'the New Era lead us to the hope that it will make a still more- desirable comnbination with German millet. The usual quantity of millet 'seed is one peck, wi'th a bushel of peas, per 'acre. Possibly the later varieties might also be suitable for sowing with German millet, if the seed of the latter could be put in the ground a few weeks 'after the peas had germinated. In one case we tried this, drilling a row of millet within six inches of the pea row. The millet was sown 17 d'ays after the peas were planted and yet it ripened before the Wonderful cowpeas were ready for haying. This was also true in the lcase of Japanese millet, 'and with two millets which were untrue to name, and which seemed to be Hungarian millet and 'common fox tail millet, the latter very much like German millet. Apparently the millets did not add to the yield of hay, but in the same test the yield of hay was materially increased when Amber sorghum 'and Wonderful peas were drilled together May 14. These two plants were ready for mowing at the same d'ate. In the following table are given the yields of hay afforded by cowpeas alone and in various combinations, all such mixtures being sown broadcast June 24, 1898, the peas, sorghum and corn at the rate of 64 pounds, the millet at the rate of 16 pounds per acre. The soil was a light sandy upland and no nitrogenous fertilizers were used. 30 Yields of hay from cow peas alone and various cow-peas in mixtures. MIL LET, Etc. eYield hay pr acre~ 4560 4240 4240 3860 4320 3840 3520 3780 3780 5440 5040 ° COWPEAS. 3N IWhippoorwill. ,3 S Whippoorwill. 4N Clay............. 4S Clay ............. 5N Whippoorwill... German millet.................... Texas millet...................... Japanese barnyard millet......... Japanese barnyard millet .......... White Kafir corn................. Texas millet...................... Stowell's sweet corn.............. Texas millet ...................... Early Amber sorghum............ 5N Clay............. S Clay............. I4720 6 S IClay ............. 7NIClay ............. 7 SJBlack............ 8N Clay .............. :8 SBlack........... Early Amber sorghum ............ the nilhlets and of sweet corn and The stand of very poor. The Japanese and German Kafir cornw as Kafir corn -millet ripened earlier t'han all (a non-saccharine was desirable. and Amber sorghum) sorghum were the only kinds which added to the yield of hay produced by cowpeas alone. Even this increase may have been chiefly water, for our n oltes show that the hay from the sorghum mixture was iorenoist than the other would kinds and donbtless in unfavorable weather have been mztore difficlt to cure. it We hope to continue the search for a grass-like plant prenilnently suitable for sowing with cowpeas. Such a plant should have a fine stem like German millet and a longer period of growth. would Until this ideal plant ' is found German millet as an aid in curing the early varieties of peas and possibly as suitable for drilling in or working we recommend in with a weeder several weeks after the later var:eties have been sown. Amber sorohum is recommended as a mpe ins of increasing 'the yield on good land, but not as Eameans of making curing easier. 31 MOST PROFITABLE MTHIOD OF STOCK FOOD. UTILIZING CowPEAs AS by It may be of interest to record here the fragmentary data rellative to this ploint that are afforded our experiments at Auburn. Only with the variety Wonderful or Unknown have we accurate determinations of tle amount of seed and the amount of hay when the condition's of soil, fertilization, and culture were absolutely identical, this being done by making hay of the entire growth 'on certain plots and by harvesting only the seed on adjacent plots. made produced Relative yields of seeds and hay cowp2eas. made by Wonderful Bus. seed. 11.0 In 1897, drilled cowpeas yielded per acre. In 1898, broacast cowpeas yielded per acre..........6.7 In 1899 broadcast cowpeas yielded per acre..........7.9 Average three years I6400 2004 3608 Lbs. bay. 2420 8.5 hulls, The 8.5 bushels of seed, with would weigh only about one-fifth as nlch as tie weight accompanying is to of hay recorded 'ahove. Hence, it evident that the mlost profitable use of tile cr'op as stock foo'd would be utilize the hay rather than to. wait for all the seed to ripen. If, however, it should be impracticable to harvest and utilize the cowpea as hlay, our next reconluendation would be pasture -hogs or cattle -on the pea fields., of to course reserving a sufficient area 'to produce seed for tile next year's planting. Wi+'th nearly ulature cowpeas utilized in this way we obt'ained Auburn the following returns foran acre of cowpea pasturage, after first deducting the cost of the additional f'oo'd fed 'while tile aninlals were grazing on cowpeas : at 32 Net return from 1 acre. stalks and Bul. With milch cows in 1900 grazing drilled cowpeas between on corn (Ala. corn rows butter at 20c. and beef on foot at 2 1-2c per lb . With milch cows in 1901 grazing on drilled cowpeas between corn rows . ..... 114); $4.47 corn stalks and (only butter con- sidered) ... ............ ... .................... $5.28 $10.65 $4.90 With shoats sold at 3 cents per pound, grazed in 1897 on cowpeas yielding about 13 bush. per acre (Ala. Bul. 93) With shoats in 1900, sold at 4c per lb. grazed on drilled cowpeas (about 10 bus. per acre) .............. ripe When the cows grazed on parts of the corn and pea field where the 'peas were few or small and overripe the value ,of the pasturage on an acre fell far below the figures given 'above for 1901. We have successfully preserved peavines in the silo, and at all stages of grow'th from early bloom until first pod's 'color. They should be run through a silage cutter, and the silo heavily weighted. If the vines are put in without cutting the silage is often inferior and always difficult to remove. Special care in packing and weighting uncu't peavines is necessary. METHODS OF HARVESTING COWPEA SEED. Picking cowpeas is slow and expensive work. The charge 'for picking is frequently half the crop. If picking cannot be done promptly the crop is frequently ruined by mildew or rot of pods and seed. Hence some more rapid method is desirable. Possible methods are (1) cutting the vines with scythe or reaper when most of the pods are ripe, and latter running the product through the threshing machine or beating the peas out by the slow process of flailing; (2) pulling the vines when the crop is thoroughly mature and beating out the seed with a flail; and (3) the use of a peavine picking machine. 33 While the latter is a possibility, we are unable to report any test made here of a pea-picking machine. It is to be hoped that the pea picker may be further simplified and especially that its price, which, as quoted to us, was prohibitive, being several times that of a mower, may be greatly reduced. In 1898 we made a test of pulling Wonderful cowpeas when 'fully matured and beating them out with a flail. Even with hands unaccustomed to the work, pulling was much more rapid than picking, the rate per man being one and one-fourth acres per day. The process of beat_ing out the peas was much slower, a.nd this tedious work, together with the increased loss from shattered peas when the vines were pulled, and the removal of the plant -food contained in the roots, were serious objections to this method. Apparently under some conditions it can be used to advantage as compared with picking. Cutting the mature vines with a scythe early in the morning when there was least 'danger from shattering, was quite satisfactory, especially with the New Era ,variety, as it doubtless, would be with any bunch pea on which the pods all ripen at about the same time and from which the leaves are dropped by the time the pods are mature. Scything will doubtless be more satisfactory with peas sown late because of their more erect and less tangled condition. The blade should be kept sharp to avoid shattering. We have not tried the mower in harvesting cowpeas for seed because so mnany of the peas after cutting would be trampled over by the team in making its next round. The work of the reaper in green peavines indicated that it would be a 'satisfactory machine for harvesting mature cowpeas where the vines are not tangled. Preliminary tests in running peavines through a grain thresher with concave removed resulted in breaking about half the seed. 84 The very limited tesits made here several years ago of two patterns of pea threshers, or hand machines, for beating out peas after the pods had been picked by hand, failed to show any great saving by the machines tested as compared with flailing. As the particular machines employed were afterwards claimed to be not fair represetatives of those now ,on the market, we must await the results of further tests before drawing conclusions. Our purpose is to continue the experiments as to the beslt methods o'f harvesting cowpeas. CURING COWPEA HAY. Long exposure to sunshine causes the leaflets, the most nutritious portion of the plant, to drop. Hence cowpea hay should be cured largely in its own shade, that is, with 'as little exposure as practicable of the mass of the hay. This is. the foundation principle in haycuring, but its application will vary greatly according to the state of the weather and the succulence of the vines when cut. No definite rule can be given as to the necesisary number of h'ours of sunshine, but a few examples, will show the methold pursued at this Station under same conditions: 1898- Sept. 13, A. M. Cut with scythe, leaving vines in small loose windrows. Windrows turned over with fork, having received about 8 hours of bright sunshine, and exposed leaves having become just crisp enough to rustle when touched, but not dry enough to cause any perceptible loss of leaves in handling; weather during preceding 24 hours had been dry but partly cloudy. Sept. 14, 4-5 P. M. Piled vines in large cocks, where, the weather being fair, they were left until Sept..21, when the vines, now dryer than necessary, were hauled and stored in barn. If rain had been threatened hauling would have occurred about Sept. 15, or else canvas haycaps would have been placed on the cocks. 1899-Sept. 12. Mowed Wonderful variety. Given 12 hours sunshine while spread in swath; then raked 35 and immediately cocked, in which condition was left 48 hours lbefore hauling. hauled the hay contained somewhat more moisture than was thought safe for storing in large masscs, though not too much for storing thin layer. 1900-Sept. 24, . M. Mowed Wonderful cowpeas in bloom and having 'a few colored pods, growth not rank and containing some crabgrass. Received in swath 24 hours' exposure, including about 10 of bright sunshine. Sept. 25, A. m. Raked into windrows and eight hours afterwards, or before night the same day, hauled. Ordinarily it is safest not to haul direct from the windrow's, but to leave the partially cured hay in cocks for several -days and, if necessary, to open out these cocks an hour' or two before hauling. A part of the same field of cowpeas last referred to was employed in testing the practicability of very rapid curing and of storing hay in barn in very green condition, a's is sometimes done with clover in the North, and a's has been advocated for cowpeas in the South when When it in a full threatening wea-ctt herr hastens hauling. 1900-Sept. 24. Immediately after the morning dew dried off, or about 8 to 9 A. i1~., the vines were mowed and left undisturbed and exposed on dry ground to bright sunshine for eight hours; then immediately raked, hauled, pounds of half-cured hay in small tight house. and stored 1,525 It i's claimed th'at when hay is stored in 'a very green condition it should be 'tightly packed and not a'fterwards moved, 'however much heat it may develop. This was packed in three feet deep and 'covered with other dryer hay, and the hay house ;closed.; The weather remained fair and dry for two weeks after this hay was stored. In five days, the tempera- 36 ture had risen to 122 degrees at a point fifteen inches from the wall. This seemed to be the maximum temperature and by October 4 the thermometer had dropped to 110 degrees and white mould was abundant. When the material was opened April 4, 1901, the entire mass, except for a space of about six inches next to each wall, was entirely rotten, and not simply blackened, as sometimes happens with an inferior but serviceable article of peavine silage. The amount 'of 'material taken out was only 545 pounds, or about one-third as much as was put in, part of the loss being moisture, but a large part of it being dry 'matter driven off by fermentation. This is an extreme case, but ,other instances where heat and white mould have developed in hay, field cured for 'several days, 'but stored too green, raises the suspicion that in our moist climate hay cannot be stored in as moist a condition 'as is sometimes done in the North. We should avoid both extremes, of storing hay when too green, and of exposing it too long in the field at the expense of color and nutritive value. If urged to outline a general course of procedure founded on average results here, we would suggest cutting one day, and 24 hours later raking into windrows, where the hay may remain 24 hours; then cocking, and, if practicable, leaving these cocks in the field .for two or three days, at the end of which time they may be opened for a few hours before hauling, or hauled without opening, according to the condition of the hay. SSpecial devi'ces, for example, frames on which the stack or rick is to be built, or small poles with horizontal base on which the cock is built, have been recommended for use in curing peavine hay. Our experience with canvas hay caps as covering for hay cocks during .a 37 wet weather is very satisfactory, though the first cost is considerable. By cutting the crop little at a time and at intervals of a week or more, the hay caps may be repeatedly used, and a few dozen caps may thus serve in the curing of a considerable area of.cowpeas. Additional experimental work in curing peavine hay is planned. COMPOSITION OF THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COWPEA PLANT. To obtain data as the relative value of leaves, stems, and other parts of the plant, both as food and as fertilizers, samples were taken of 'six of the varieties grown in 34-inch drills in the variety test of 1899. These plants had been sown in drills 'on June 23, so that when samples were taken September 12 they had been growing not quite three months, and in some varieties none of the pods had colored. The roots were dug out to a depth of six inches, which depth seemed to contain all the larger ,roots and nearly all of the smaller ones. If harvesting had been delayed a week or two, which, with all these varieties could have been done without their getting too old to make good hay, the yields would doubtless have been larger. The average yield of the six varieties sampled was 1,745 pounds of hay per acre on the basis of the weights of the samples 41 days after the vines were cut, or 1,628 pounds of the same degree of dryness as the samples when analyzed two years later. The following table shows in percentages what proportion of the entire plant consists of leaves, pods and blooms, coar se 'stems, fine stemls, fallen leaves and stems, and roots with attached stubble about two inches long. 38 -Percentages in entire air-dried and blooms, fine ste ins, coarse and roots and stubble. plant of stens, fallen leaves, leaves, pods G;3 Variety. % A: 0 I%l Miller ........................ 0 21.01 1.6 17.0123.3 Whippoorwill ................. 17.0 23.3 Iron ......................... Wonderful .................... 18.7 7.8 Jones White .................. 21.3 13.0 Clay .......................... 19.9 5.9 00 % 00%100% 19.9 14.8 157.31117.7 25.0 16.4 16.4 15.3 30.5 13.0 18.7 18.7 18.0 16.2 12.3 75.4 3.7 21.6 75.4 I 3.7 21.6 59.8 19.2 20.3 71.0 14.3 14.5 51.1 22.9 26.0 Average, 6 varieties........... 19.1 12.0 16.2116.41 63.6 15.5 21.0 The chief difference among varieties as shown in the above table is in the percentageof pods and blooms. Naturally this was greatest in the Whippoorwill, for this was the earliest variety, and when cnt September 12 it had more large pods than did any other. This showvthe earlier natnrity also makes the animal highest percentage of its weight available food, viz : 75.4 per cent. On the other extreme is Clay, which, when cut 'at this stage immaturity, (only about 2 per cent. of pods having colored), had only about half the weight of the plant available for hay. Taking the average of all varieties, 63.6 per cent. of the air-dry weight of the plant was contained in the hay. The leaves, the most valuable portion except perhaps the pods, constituted per cent. of the weight of the entire plant, or 30 per cent. of the of the hay. Of the hay cut at 'a stage when on some varieties from 2 to 10 per cent. the pods had colored, and w"hen Whippoorwill for of 19 weight of on others no pods had colored, the pods and blooms averaged 12 per cent. of its weight. The leaves of all six varieties were mixed together after being weighed, and in like manner'compositeaples of the other parts of the plants obtained. The table below gives the composition of leaves, a mixture of stems, etc., each sample being made up the corresponding parts of all six varieties. The analyses were made by the Chemicatl Department of this Station. In noting the -small amounts of moisture it should been kept in an be borne in mind that the saniples office building for two years -before the analyses were made. Weevil injured the pods so they were antilyzed. presence of considerable sand on roo and fallen leaves explains the high percentage of ash. were of had The that not Con position of the parts of the cowpea plant, cut Sept. Average of 6 varieties. Leaves .... .......... 10.65 0II I10.98 22.44131.69I16.78 7.46 4.92 0 0 00 0 Fine stems, etc................. 8.97] 6.87 Coarse stems .................. Fallen leaves, ........... Roots and stubble.............. etc.. 8.47 11.88130-74143.591l 9.44133.12 42.19 1.75 1.86 6.62 1.48 9.75 20.78 10.44131.96 20.45 5.25 24.75] 8.63] 3-.82156.25 40 Let the reader note that the leaves were nearly twice as rich in protein !as the fine sters ; we may also infer from the small amount of crude fiber in the leaves that they are much more digestible than any other parts analyzed. These considerations emphasize the importance of retaining. the leaves during the curing of peavine hay,.