LIBRARY I A 6L L? COILLI-IGE E54-1232-6M-L180 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIUN A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BULLETIN N0. 466 DECEMBER, 1932 DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE FIG CULTURE AIN THE GULF COAST 111101011 OF 111x115 AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS “T. 0, ‘WALTON, President - y STATION STAFF-l" Administration : A. B. Conner, M. S., Director R. E. Karper, M. S., Vice-Director Clarice Mixson, B. A., Secretary M. P. Holleman, Chief Clerk J. K. Francklow, Asst. Chief Clerk Chester Higgs, Executive Assistant Howard Berry, B. S., Technical Asst. Chemistry: G. S. Fraps, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. Asbury, M. S., Chemist J. F. Fudge, Ph. D., Chemist E. C. Carlyle, M. S., Asst. Chemist T. L. Ogier, B. S., Asst. Chemist A. J. Sterges, M. S., Asst. Chemist Ray Treichler, M. S., Asst. Chemist W. H. Walker, Asst. Chemist Velma Graham, Asst. Chemist Jeanne F. DeMottier, Asst. Chemist R. L. Schwartz, B. S., Asst. Chemist C. M. Pounders, B. S., Asst. Chemist Horticulture: S. H. Yarnell, Sc. D., Chief "L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist H. M. Reed, B. S., Horticulturist J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist Veterinary Science: ‘M. Francis, D. V. M., Chief H. Schmidt, D. V. M., Veterinarian * I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian T "F. P. Mathews, D. V. M., M. S., Veterina W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian R. A. Goodman, D. V. M., Veterinarian Plant Pathology and Physiology:_ J. J. Taubenuhaus, Ph. D., Chief _ W. N. Ezekiel, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist Farm and Ranch Economics: L. P. Gabbard, M. S., Chief W. E. Paulson, Ph. D., Marketng ‘HG. A. Bonnen, M. S., Farm Management "W. R. Nisbet, B. S., Ranch Management A. C. Magee, M. S., Farm Management Rural Home Research: Jesse Whitacre, Ph. D., Chief Mary Anna Grimes, M. S., Textiles Elizabeth D. Terrill, M. A., Nutrition Soil Survey: *-*W. T. Carter, B. S., Chief E. H. Templin, B. S., Soil Surveyor A. H. Bean, B. S.,S0il Surveyor R. M. Marshall, B. S., Soil Surveyor Range Animal Husbandry: J M. Jones, A. M., Chief ~ B. L. Warwick, Ph. D., Breeding Investa. S. P. Davis, Wool Grader Botany: V. L. Cory, M. S., Acting Chief S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist Swine Husbandry: Entomology: Fred Hale, M. S., Chief F. L. Thomas, Ph. D., Chief; State Dairy Husbandry: Entomologist O. C. Copeland, M. S., Dairy Husbandry H. J. Reinhard, B. S., Entomologist Poultry Husbandry: . R. K. Fletcher, Ph. D., Entomologist R. M. Sherwood, M. S., Chief W. L. Owen, Jr., M S., Entomologist J. R. Couch, B. S., Asst. Poultry Husbandma J. N. Roney, M. S., Entomologist Agricultural Engineering: J. C. Gaines, Jr., M. S., Entomologist H. P. Smith, M. S., Chief S. E. Jones, M. S., Entomologist Main Station Farm: F. F. Bibby, B. S., Entomologist G. T. McNess, Superintendent , S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist Apiculture (San Antonio): ; "E. W. Dunnam, Ph. D., Entomologist . . Parks, B. S., Chief "R. W. Moreland, B. S., Asst. Entomologist A. H. Alex, B. S., Queen Breeder . C. E. Heard, B. S., Chief Inspector Feed Control Service: F. D. Fuller, M. S., Chief i C. Siddall, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector S. E. McGregor, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector James Sullivan, Asst. Chief Agronomy: S. D. Pearce, Secretary , E. B. Reynolds, Ph. D., Chief J. H. Rodgers, Feed Inspector ‘ R. E. Karper, M. S., Agronomist K. L. Kirkland, B. S., Feed Inspector '- P. C. Mangelsdorf, Sc. D., Agronomist S. D. Reynolds, Jr., Feed Inspector D. T. Killough, M. S., Agronomist P. A. Moore, Feed Inspector H. Rea, B. S., Agronomist E. J. Wilson, B. S., Feed Inspector , B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist H. G. Wickes, B. S., Feed Inspector -' Publications: A. D. Jackson, Chief SUBSTATIONS No. 1 Beeville, Bee County: No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: R. A. Hall, B. S., Superintendent J. J. Bayles, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Lindale, Smith County: No. 10, College Station, Brazos County: R. Johnson, M. S., Superintendent R. M. Sherwood, M. S., In Charge "B. H. Hendrickson, B. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion L. J . McCall, Farm Superintendent "R. W. Baird, B. S., Assoc. Agr. Engineer No. 11, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: i No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: H. F. Morris, M. S., Superintendent - R. H. Stansel, M. S., Superintendent **No. 12, Chillicothe, Hardeman County: ‘ H. M. Reed, M. S., Horticulturist **T. R. Quinby, B. S., Superintendent No. 4, Beaumont, Jefferson County: **J. C. Stephens, M. A., Asst. Agronomist . H. Wyche, B. S., Superintendent No. l4. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties "H. M. Beachell, B. S., Jr., Agronomist W. H. Dameron, Superintendent No. 5, Temple, Bell County: I. B. Boughton, D V. M., Veterinarian Henry Dunlavy, M. S., Superintendent W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian C. H. Rodgers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist O. L. Carpenter, Shepherd H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist "O. G. Babcock, B. S., Asst. Entomologist S. E. Wolff, M. S., Botanist No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: **H.V. Geib, M. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion W. H. Friend, B. S., Superintendent "H. O. Hill, B. S., Jr. Civil Engineer S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist No. 6, Denton, Denton County: W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist P. B. Dunkle, B. S., Superintendent J. F. Wood, B. S., Horticulturist "I. M. Atkins, B. S., Jr. Agronomist No. 16, Iowa Park, Wichita County: No. 7, Spur, Dickens County: C. H. McDowell, B. S., Superintendent R. E. Dickson, B. S., Superintendent L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist i B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist No. 19, Winterhaven, DimmitCounty: No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: E. Mortensen, B. S., Superintendent D. L. Jones, Superintendent "L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist Frank Gaines, Irrig. and Forest Nurs. Teachers in the School of Agriculture Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: G. W. Adriance, Ph. D., Horticulture J. S. Mogford, M. S., Agronomy S. W. Bilsing, Ph. D., Entomology F. R. Brison, B. S., Horticulture V. P. Lee, Ph. D., Marketing and Finance W. R. Horlacher, Ph. D., Genetics D. Scoates, A. E., Agricultural Engineering J. H. Knox, M. S., Animal Husbandry A. K. Mackey, M. S., Animal Husbandry A. L. Darnell. M. A., Dairy Husbandry ‘Dean School of Veterinary Medicine. TAs of December 1, 1932. "In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. HOn leave. This publication presents the results of experiments having to do with problems relating to the production of figs on Gull! Coast farms. The industry was started in- 1902 and by 1928 there were 16.000 acres in bearing orchards, with a considerable acreage of younger orchards not yet of bearing age. While 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 pounds of fruit were produced that year only about 14,000,000 pounds were packed, because of the lack of adequate markets. Since 1928 there has beem a marked reduction in acreage. The only commercial variety grown is the Magnolia, which compares favorably in yielding capacity with other varieties. Other high-yielding varieties for this section are Brunswick, Celestial, and Green Ischia. The Magnolia variety has been found to be relatively cold-resistant. Its chief defect is a tendency to sour, largely because of the large eye. Much lighter pruning than is commonly given may be expected to increase yields and to give earlier crops. Pests can be largely controlled by sanitation in the orchard and by spraying for rust with a 5-5-50 Bordeaux mixture. Commercial fig production is confined largely to the humid section of the Gulf Coast Prairie. Figs are grown chiefly on the Lake Charles series of soils, which are admirably adapted to this purpose. The fig tree has an extensive, shallow, lateral- root system, and shallow cultivation is necessary to prevent excessive injury to the roots. California bur clover and yellow annual sweet clover are widely used as green manure crops for improving the soil in fig orchards and are to be recommended for this purpose. CONTENTS History r 5'; Climate ' Soils Variety Test Propagation _ 12 Root System A Z 12 1 ,Cultivation » a < 12 Soil-improving Crops ' 12 Fertilizers and Soil Amendments 14 Fertilizers i I 14 is Effect of Lime 15 Sulphur as a Soil Amendment - 15 ’ Pruning Test 16 Pests - » 20 Diseases i 22 Spraying Experiments for the Control of Fig Rust ____________________________________ __24 Recommendations ...... -_ 26 Harvesting 27 Summary ' 23 BULLETIN NO. 466 DECEMBER, 1932 FIG CULTURE IN THE GULF COAST REGION OF TEXAS R. H. STANSEL and R. H. WYCHE While the Gulf Coast Prairie of Texas has proven to be highly suited to the production of the Adriatic type of fig, it is inevitable that certain problems should present themselves for solution. It is desirable to study and work out experimentally the most productive methods of orchard operation, since the methods employed have a direct bearing on net returns through their dual relationship to total cost of production and yield per acre. The results herein presented have been obtained at Substation No. 3, Angleton, and at Substation No. 4, Beaumont, both located within the fig area. The data obtained, together with other pertinent facts, have been discussed in relation to commercial fig production in this region. The first commercial production of Magnolia figs in Texas occurred between 1901 and 1903 near Algoa, Galveston County. The acreage was small and it was believed that the venture was not successful, owing to the small volume of production. The first commercial fig-preserving plant was built at Aldine, just north of Houston, in 1906. Aldine is not in the present fig-producing area. This plant was later moved to Friendswood, Galveston County, where the fig industry was first firmly established. At this time the method of scalding the figs to remove the skin before preserving was kept a secret. J. C. Carpenter, one of the early promoters, canned the Carpenter brand of figs. Cuttings were scarce during this period and the usual price for fig branches removed in pruning was $1.50 per 1000 branches. Fig trees sold for 18 to 20 cents each. é s By 1912 “or 1913 overproduction gave the industry a serious setback. In 1915 or 1916 the demand for preserved figs was again greater than ‘ the supply and by 1920 producers were receiving 4 cents to 6 cents ' per pound for their figs and in some instances as much as 7 cents _, iper pound. These prices stimulated production until in 1925 and 1926 i; the industry was again facing serious overproduction. In 1928 there * were 16,000 acres in bearing orchards and while only 14,000,000 pounds f, of figs were packed, it was estimated that 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 pounds 10f fresh fruit were produced. Since 1928 the acreage has decreased i. until in 1931 the total productive area was not over 5,000 acres. p, The method of packing has consisted in dipping fresh figs in a hot ;lye solution to remove the outer skin, and in thoroughly washing and j_ q cooking in open kettles in a heavy sugar solution. In order to keep the fruit from splitting during this process it was necessary to pick it Lbefore it became thoroughly ripe, in what has been called the com- Qmercial stage. A long cooking period is necessary for the sugar solution 6 BULLETIN NO. 466, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION to penetrate the fruit. price. syrups were used. During the period from 1920 to 1925 many new preserving plants built, largely by companies organized by the fig growers in the By 1926 there were 17 fig-preserving} The majority of these companies were under-financed ~ Price » were various fig-producing localities. plants in operation. and inexperienced in the processing and sale of food commodities. cutting soon demoralized the market and many of the plants closed. Some growers report a production of 12,000 to 13,000 pounds of fresh figs per acre in small orchards while some of the larger orchards average. The average production for the industry 5 Most growers i‘ 4,000 to 5,000 pounds per acre. as a whole has been less than 1,500 pounds per acre. agree that under present methods of production they must receive two The product was largely packed in glass con-i tainers, which made a fancy product that sold at a relatively higlii In later years more of the product was packed in tin, and lighter '_ .:» mmm W Hm .......... .. H. o“ H. ._.. ..H . . ‘ . . .H ..... t“ .... H w. ....................................... .. H gosfi Has H L NR5 Haw w H w 2 w w m H m m . .3225 HESHMH 3mm m U 33m mwwH o.HH .E.wm i“. mEH WHHN NNH ..................................................... : HHQKZHHHHHM Hzaw m w $3 HémH H; in»; ...m.H NmH 9mm w.» w. ............................................. .. “E3255 Ema W R . H Héwc , G MHRHH 5Q RHHN 3.2 HHQ mam w? mdH mH H A mama 25H ma 3am H.wH m.» mdH 90H H. wbmw w S $.23 HHHZ HfiHH H.mmH HiwH Him maH QmH w. wbmw H A HMMMH Hm = w. V ????? = H X H Him H.~oH wdH m4“ a. w. . ................................................. .. . E _ T “w, onus Hon ova» Hon . 4 HmmH $2 £2 52 £2 £2 £2 ..o.v.H dZ O. ouua H09 .2: wmaHémmH HSwHHwHw w H mPHE m . N HHHHHHonH £25.69 ommaw>4 N wwfi 3Q wwfi swam on? mwcsom I M 4&3 HHwHHHQHnH doHwHMHJw .m 67H nefifiaumlpmwa 32HH~> wrH a wExH L . L U B FIG CULTURE IN THE GULF COAST REGION OF TEXAS 9 Smyrna type of tree will often put on a heavy crop in the spring but when the figs reach a diameter of one-fourth to one-half of an inch they become tough and leathery and shed. In order to produce ripe fruit, pollen must be secured from a capri or male fig tree. Pollination is usually accomplished by the use of a small hymenopterous insect, Blastophaga. grassarium, which breeds in the capri fig.* In order to obtain information as to the yield, quality, and other characteristics of the varieties of figs commonly grown in this region, fig variety tests were started at Angleton and at Beaumont in 1924. The trees in these tests were obtained from nurserymen in this State and in some cases the varieties were evidently misnamed. This has been corrected as far as possible. At Angleton, two trees of each variety were planted while three to four trees of each variety were included in the test at Beaumont. Tables 3 and 4 give the data obtained in the fig variety test near Angleton. The trees were planted in 1924 and are located on Lake Charles clay soil and are spaced 17x17 feet apart. Due to the fact that an attempt to produce viable seed was made in 1929 and 1930 on the trees in Table 4. Summary of Fig Variety Test——Substation No. 3, Angleton. Number of figs Average Number per pound pounds figs per acre* of Variety trees 1928 1931 1924-28 1931 2 Celestial ................................ .. 20.8 30.2 390 12977 2 Green Ischia 19.1 13.9 1555 24701 1 Magnolia .... .. 12.4 11.4 3717 16713 2 Brunswick 12.5 12.4 1584 30291‘ 1 Brown Turkey .. 35.6 22.5 238 5672 1 Lemon . . . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ __ 6 ______ __ 1 White Adriatic . . . _ . _ . . . . _ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ .. 24 ______ .. 1 Yellow Neches .................... -. 24.9 .... -- 1049 ...... .. 2 Allison ..................................... .. 15.4 15.8 35 15101 2 Black California .................. .. 9.7 11.9 527 29541‘ 1 Calvert ________________________________________ ._ 16.0 821 22611‘ * Dead trees not included in average. T Frozen back in 1930. this test, no yields were obtained in these years. These trees have not been pruned since 1925. The yields cannot be compared in some cases because of the winter injury to trees of some of the varieties. Celestial, Green Ischia, Magnolia, and Brown Turkey were not injured by a tempera- ture of 11° F. in 1930 and can be considered more resistant to low temperatures than the other varieties grown in this test. For four years, 1924 to 1928 inclusive,.Green Ischia, Magnolia, and Brunswick varieties made the highest yield in spite of the fact that two Brunswick trees were frozen back during the winter of 1927-28 when a minimum temperature of 16° F. was reached. The one Yellow Neches tree made a fair yield. During the year of 1931 the Green Ischia variety made an excellent *For further information on Smyrna figs and caprification, see Bulletin N0. 208, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station——“The Fig in Texas”, by A. T. Potts, 1917. N o I T A T S T N E M I R E P X E L A R U T L U c I R G A S A X E T 6, 6 4 0 N N I T E L L U B 10 6N2 222 2.25.2.2 wwwfi. .82 2232 h. .32 .20 2.2.22 222C o5 c2 moan M22122» qwwos mwwfi 03¢ $25. w. _ 252G .............................. .. 223E232 é N2 i w é £2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 262m 2352.22 _ 22 _ w _ £2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2...» m2 w. wosumZ Eozww o2 w 2&3 2..w m2 m2 ................ .. @2532 302w? w w 2&3 262G o2 .... : 2m ww ed ................ .. mosuwZ >523? w w 2.222 _ 265 .... .. ww ............... .. 0222.22.22 @2222? 2 w 2&2 WMMQ wd 2. 9w ............... .- 0322.22.22. @2255 w w 2.22 b w. .... .. 2w ................ 1 Q2222 B2 . E3 w.2 $2 wwww mxhé 2.2. w.w2 e62 @422 NdH 252 ....................... a .2.» ma“ w wwww 2.: wwww wwww www Nam 2.: 2....“ 22mm v4.2 0.2 ............................... .. 2335M _ m _ m 2&2 wwww w.w2 wfiw 5mm mam 2.2m 06H mdH mzmm mfiw mmw ............................. .. daowdvm w m wmmfi $2 w.» fiww www www v.2. 262 wd 9m m. m2 ............................ : 2.32330 m m 2&2 2.2 2.2 was 82 m2. W: 2W2 2.2.2 w. o2 0d w w 2&2 $2.2 22.2 2.22. $2. w.w2. 2w Q2 w.w ww w. w. 2 w 2&2 mum m6 $2. 32E vim wfim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- H. .... l EH m mmmfi w2. 0.»... m3 mowfi m2. wfimfi . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 1 H. .... I ma m mNmH 2.2 Nd." Nvw mafia o6 wfiww . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i NH m mmmfi 2E2 N22. 2&2. 2.2mm 9m mww 2..w2 . . . . . . . . . . -- .... -- 2.2 w mNmH 22 w.22 2.2.2. 2.2 www w.2.2 S. w. i. ww .... -- 2 w £2 2.2a w.2.w 2.22 25 w.w2 5a 2.2. 2......“ 2.2 2.2.2. 2.2 ........................ .. 225552 2 w $2 ....... - H- www. 2.2.. 2.2 $2 2.5 wgw w.2 22222.22 w w 2.22 ............. .. 2am... 2.2.. wew 2.62 fiwm www 2&2 2238w22222m m w 2&2 52.2. www 2E 52 25w NS Qww 22w 22w w.2 w.2 .......................... .. Efiwwé 2. w 2.22 22w 5w fiww 2mm NE. Q22. 2.2 2.2 2.25 Q2 2.22 .......................... .- €o=ww22 w w 2&2 22w 5w 52. $25 2mm 2.5m mém mdm 2.41m 0.0m Wm .......................... z afioflwmqm m w 2&2 ~22. w...“ m2... 2.22. www w? 28w 3.2. www 2.22 ww .......................... -. “E5222 2 w 2.22 92am 9.95 .222 .222 2w2 $62 2.32 33 $22 2.2 5222 £2 @222 .222 .222 2.2522222 5...... haze, wwww. “H.052”. .3 2.6222622 www2w>< 222w .322 225cm 095 .322 35.2w we $5220.22 dqofismwm .2. dZ 22c$aumn22w|amwB hummus? ma“ a 2.2.22.2. FIG CULTURE IN THE GULF COAST REGION OF TEXAS 11 yield as also did the Celestial, Magnolia, and Allison varieties. Although the Brunswick, Black California, and Calvert varieties were frozen back in 1930, they made a good yield in 1931. The Magnolia, Brunswick, and Black California varieties had the largest figs while the Celestial and Brown Turkey varieties had the smallest figs. The Allison variety produced a good yield in 1931 when there was no killing frost during the fall. This variety is very late, the greater part of the crop being picked in October and November. Ordinarily the first frost of the fall occurs when the crop is about half harvested. Tables 5 and 6 give the data obtained in the fig variety test near Beaumont. The trees are located on Lake Charles silty clay loam soil and are spaced 18x18 feet apart. Part of these trees were planted in 1924 and part in 1925. A minimum temperature of 17° F. in January, 1928, caused the tips of most of the varieties to be killed back two to eight inches. The minimum temperature of 10° F. in January, 1930 killed the tips back as far as two feet in some cases, but did not kill any of the trees. All the varieties were pruned alike from 1925 to 1927, inclusive. After that the Magnolia was pruned lightly while the other varieties were not pruned except for the removal of dead or broken limbs and branches that were in the way of implements used for cultivation. The yield in pounds per acre is given in 1930 and in 1931 for all of the varieties when all of the trees were bearing and old enough to produce paying crops. The single Brunswick tree made the highest yield at Beaumont from 1925 to 1931. The Magnolia variety ranked second, followed in order ‘by Kadota, "Celestial, Ramsey, and Allison. The Allison variety made an excellent yield in 1930 but a poor yield in 1931. Table 6. Summary of Fig Variety Test—Substation No. 4, Beaumont. Pounds figs per acre Number of Variety Average trees 1930 1931 19254931 4 Magnolia ........................... _. 8035 6554 4154 1 Brunswick ........................ _. 6789 l 17209 6964 1 Ramsey .............................. _. 1990 4544 1519 4 i Allison .............................. _. 6141 565 1220 3 i Celestial ............................ .. 865 5678 1456 3 Kadota .............................. .. 2720 3155 2205 The Green Ischia, Brunswick, Magnolia, and Celestial are the highest- yielding varieties tested and are to be recommended from that stand- l point. The Black California or Mission, Magnolia, and Brunswick produce a the largest fruit, While the Celestial has the smallest fruit. The fruit ‘l of the Celestial and Allison varieties has a more leathery skin than the fruit of the other varieties in this test, does not sour as readily, and 12 BULLETIN NO. 466, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION will dry up on the tree to some extent without souring, which enables picking to be delayed a few days without resulting loss of fruit. The fruit of the Celestial and Green Ischia varieties has a tendency to turn downward when it becomes ripe, thereby making it more difficult for moisture to enter the eye. The fruit of the Magnolia variety remains upright and has a more open end than that of the other varieties, which probably accounts for its tendency to sour readily, especially during damp weather (Fig. 11). This variety is preferred by the packers largely because of the attractive appearance of the processed fruit. PROPAGATION Figs can easily be propagated by a number of means. Plants of the Smyrna type require pollination in order to produce ripe fruit, and as a result the seed produced are viable. These can be started in flats, but the germination is often poor and the seedlings obtained are extremely variable and many of them are valueless. The seeds of the Adriatic type of fig are not viable unless they have been pollinated. Figs can be grafted, budded, or propagated by layering, but they are chiefly propagated from cuttings. Figs grow readily from cuttings. Any mature wood that» is not too large will be satisfactory. Usually the wood produced the preceding year will be excellent. The cuttings are usually 6 t0 10 inches long, the lower cut being made just below a joint. They are placed in a well- prepared, firm seed-bed by pushing them into the soil by hand. The cuttings are spaced 8 to 12 inches apart in- the row with one bud remaining above the ground. Sandy soil is preferred for this work and the soil should be well drained. The cuttings should not be disturbed until they are well rooted. As many as 75% to 80% of the cuttings may produce trees, although under favorable circumstances only 35% to 50% can ordinarily be expected. The cuttings will often produce fruit the first year. In a commercial orchard, fig trees sucker readily, and these are usually removed during the growing season. These sprouts make excellent trees if removed and set out during the dormant season, many farmers preferring them to trees as commonly produced from cuttings. Care should be taken to see that the roots of the sprouts are not infested with nematodes. ROOT SYSTEM In order to determine the extent and depth of the lateral-root system of the Magnolia fig tree under Texas conditions, the lateral roots of two trees in a cultivated orchard were exposed. The data are presented in Table 7. The trees were spaced 17 by 17 feet apart and were planted in the spring of 1924. The roots of tree No. 1 were traced March 28, 1929 and those of tree No. 2 on May 29, 1930.’ The trees were growing on Lake Charles clay soil. The fig tree develops numerous lateral feeding roots that lie close to the surface of the ground, many FIG CULTURE IN THE GULF COAST REGION OF TEXAS 13 of the roots being within 6 inches of the surface of the soil. The root spread of these trees was approximately 50 feet with the maximum over 70 feet. The tips of the majority of the roots headed downward, in some cases ending 5 feet from the surface of the soil. Table 7. Root Spread of the Magnolia Fig Tree. Tree No. 1 Tree No. 2 Number of lateral roots traced _____ _, 10 7 Longest root traced (feet) 23,3 351; Average length of roots traced (feet) ______________________________________________ I 15,1 17,9 Average diameter (cm) of roots at three feet from tree .... _. 1.6 1.4 Average diameter (cm) of roots at nine feet from tree ______________ _, .7 1,0 Average diameter (cm) of roots at 15 feet from tree __________________ __ ,5 ,3 Average depth of roots (inches) at three feet .......................... I 9.3 12,4 Average depth of roots (inches) at nine feet _________ __ 10,9 8,7 Average depth of roots (inches) at 15 feet __________________________________ __ 19,3 15,0 CULTIVATION .Figs respond readily to good cultivation and for best results the orchard should be kept free from weeds or grass. One of the most common grasses in the fig orchard is Bermuda grass. When this grass becomes sodded around the trees, it can only be removed with difficulty by A hand labor, which is expensive. In a young orchard care should be l taken to prevent Bermuda or other grasses from getting started. An S" orchard that is not cultivated soon ceases to produce profitable crops. p Since the fig tree develops numerous lateral feeding roots that lie close to the surface of the ground cultivation should be shallow to prevent ~ excessive injury to these roots. - SOIL-IMPROVING CROPS Winter cover crops of legumes are commonly grown in the commercial fig orchards of this section. The use of these legumes adds nitrogen and of the plant food material. The two legumes most commonly used are California bur clover, Medicago hispida denticulata, and the yellow annual .,sweet clover, Melilotus indica. Both of these clovers are admirably suited iTf0l’ this purpose and should be more widely used. They should be sown 1 in September or October at the rate of“ 15 to 20 pounds of seed to the acre. i: If no clover has grown on the soil previous to planting, or if no nodules _' are to be found on the roots of the growing plants, the soil or seed should ._’be inoculated. This may be accomplished by inoculating the seed with commercial cultures or by spreading inoculated soil on the area to be inoculated. After the clover has been started, usually enough plants make seed to reseed the area each year. The clover is usually plowed funder about March first, immediately after pruning. A A biennial or perennial clover is not to be recommended for use in a . ig orchard, since it continues to grow during the spring and summer and organic matter to the soil, and prevents to some extent the winter leaching- 14 BULLETIN NO. 466, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION come in direct competition with the growing fig trees. In one fig orchard, near Pearland, Texas, biennial yellow sweet clover, Melilitus officinalispj. was planted by mistake, instead of the yellow annual sweet clover, ’ Melilotus indict». In the areas in the orchard where the grower had been A unable to eradicate the biennial clover, the growth of the fig trees was} much reduced as compared with the clean areas. Other crops that are; of possible value in a fig orchard are vetch, winter peas, and oats. FERTILIZERS AND SOIL AMENDMENTS Fertilizers In order to determine the effect of various fertilizers on the yield of § figs a fertilizer test was started at the Angleton and Beaumont stations in 1927. The trees were spaced 17 by 17 feet apart and were planted in 1924. The trees were located on Lake Charles clay loam soil near Angleton , and on Crowley clay, dark phase, near Beaumont. The fertilizer was applied broadcast in the early spring at the time of the first cultivation. One-row adjacent plats of 16 trees each were used. Nitrate of soda and superphosphate were applied alone, together, and in combination with muriate of potash. Hydrated lime was applied alone and in combination with a complete fertilizer. ' a The results secured are presented in Table 8. There was evidently a considerable amount of cross-feeding between adjacent plats, which would tend to minimize the effect of the various fertilizers and make the results Table 8. Effect of Fertilizers on the Yield of Figs per Acre in Pounds. No. 3, Angleton No. 4, Beaumont Average Treatment per tree Aver- Aver- of both 1927 1928 age 1927 1928 age Stations 1 pound nitrate of soda .......... 1676 2611 2144 1737 2423 2080 2112 2 pounds superphosphate ........ ._ 1699 3149 2424 1561 2445 2003 2214 ‘1 pound nitrate of soda. 2 pounds superphosphate ........ .. 1621 3024 2323 1292 2292 1792 2057 5 ounces muriate of potash 1 pound nitrate of soda 2 pounds superphosphate ...... .. 1863 2582 2223 1363 2640 2002 2112 Check, no treatment ................ 1758 2208 1983 1230 2031 1631 1807 1 pound nitrate of soda 2 pounds superphosphate 5 ounces muriate of potash 1582 2849 2216 1356 2047 1702 1959 12% pounds hydrated lime - every other year 2 pounds superphosphate 5 ounces muriate of potash .... .. 2004 3109 2557 1354 2474 1914 2235 1 pound nitrate of soda 2 pounds superphosphate ........ ._ 1732 3164 2448 1302 2172 17,37 2093 7% ounces muriate of potash 12% pounds hydrated lime ...... "I 1864 2426 2145. 1469 2126 1798 1971 FIG CULTURE IN THE GULF COAST REGION OF TEXAS 15 less conclusive. With the exception of the results at Angleton in 1927, the unfertilized plat made the lowest yield at both stations. All the fertilizer elements appeared to be of some value. Effect of lime Since the application of limestone or oystershell to fig orchards was a common practice in the Gulf Coast Prairie and since the results with hydrated lime in the fertilizer test just reported were not very conclusive, it was thought advisable to obtain further information on the subject. A cooperative test was started in 1927 on the farm of Albert Kastl, one-half mile east of the town of Angleton in Brazoria County. The soil in this orchard is typical Lake Charles Clay. The trees were spaced 17.5 by 14.5 feet apart. Hydrated lime was applied broadcast on May 6, 1927 at the rate of 2,000 pounds per acre. Five rows of ten trees each ywere limed and five alternating adjacent rows of an equal number of trees were not limed, and were used as checks. The first year a dry period followed the application of the lime, which delayed any effect the lime might have had on the crop. Yields were secured in 1927 and 1928, although no additional lime was applied in 1928. It was not possible to weigh all the picking each year, but over 75% of the pickings were weighed each year throughout the picking season and the total weights recorded have about the same relationship as the total yields. The yields secured are presented in Table 9. Table 9. The Effect of Lime on the Yield of Figs. Pounds of figs per row of 10 trees ROW N0. 1927 \ 192s No Lime i Limed i No Lime Limed' 1 i 165.7 181.9 104.2 108.9 3 185.4 192.2 106.6 118.9 5 173.8 182.1 93.9 104.8 7 179.5 160.0 101.7 97.0 9 170.1 160.5 96.9 101.9 Total 874.5 876.7 503.3 531.5 Average both years ‘ 688.9 704.1 The limed trees had a yield slightly in excess of that of the unlimed trees each year but the increase was not significant. Cross-feeding may have been a factor in this test, which would nullify yield differences between the treated and untreated plats. Sulphur as a Soil Amendment. Sulphur under certain conditions in the northwestern part of the United States has been found to be valuable as a soil amendment. An experiment testing this use of sulphur for figs was started at Angleton in 1924 and 16 BULLETIN NO. 466, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION was continued for a period of four years. The ground sulphur was applie a broadcast in the spring when cultivation was started. Table 10 presents? the results secured. Sulphur in any quantity used resulted in a reducedi yield of figs and its use as an amendment cannot be recommended. " Table 10. Effect of Sulphur on the Yield of Filgs——Substation No. 3,yAngleton. Acre yield fresh figs (pounds) Average Tree _ for each ' num- Treatment treat- ber 19024 1925 1926 1927 Average ment Check, no treatment ________ -- 90 1102 1922 2668 1446 1536 Sulphur 250 lbs. per acre ...... -- 613 2327 2472 1353 Sulphur 250 lbs. per acre 33 754 2675 2306 1442 ______ _- Sulphur 500 lbs. per acre 90 867 1959 2894 - 1453 Sulphur 500 lbs. per acre ..... _- 725 1517 2050 1073 I Check, no treatment ........ -. 155 886 2675 2788 1626 ______ -- Sulphur 750 lbs. per acre 38 396 1178 1553 791 Sulphur 750 lbs. per acre g 24 1008 1837’ 1959 1207 ______ -- Sulphur 1,000 lbs. per acre 19‘ 236 19 Dead 69 I Sulphur 1,000 lbs. per acre 104 Dead 26 v-I QQOOO-Jdimpwmp-a PRUNING. TEST In order to determine the best method of pruning Magnolia fig trees, a pruning test was started in 1927 at both the Angleton and Beaumont 3? Ill II I l. ,, ,, i? ‘lY§nm figilwilialfifi fiarrprr "fare fi ' == §?§fi%% . 4 gfiwfig ,-. r -. fifi“ .. :. .,_ “w EEEE iééiéffifi ‘- common 231mm _____ .__ 5 _=- monnnxm PRUNING =__ _- .~ no PRUNING’ 4% . -i--i ,_ =.:-:-= - *-.1=~‘1 =:.==.s:=i§§%l%%§?§5‘“ Efigfififififififi fififififififiéfiié? " .. fififififi .. §gfi5ifii§§%"fi=%§%§fififi_..‘ fi -- _ =_ “fi _;%“ :pu%a 5555i 55% w! 3 i"? I II l u IIIII E III "' “f II - III II C In: I-n i 3 55E hi‘: .amaE. .E iifiiijfiiififi $595535? . m mmfi :1 . . #55 m m fi r a he 3 fi . . %fifififi%§%%%§§* -333 e%%3%;' ' §%%fi§fi§fifiifi%"' n m. mange; fillfi hi? 3 5m ifiéiilfifi smut v ‘son a0 saonno ‘mm I BS I = I ‘F? 2i fi 1*: mam Hm M. '--. -§firfifi E %%fia%%%%a%m§§%fi§%afi J i155 r 3E5 !!i.'_ . 33E: i ii fill :_ Ii 9 % F552 % La i? i? ...... . ..... .. . . .:' .. :.. u. a 60° 1 .waa%aaggaag%gaege§§fiaeno>w 31m 1m 3% $3 2E $5 E3 :3 m?” $3 3mm 33 ...... .- Q3 o» Qw a5. 3 F65 3L“. lm 3mm 3% 8% >3~ $3 .33 $3 8E 33 $3 ...... -- Q3 o» Qw .28“. 3 .325 firm Lu. £5 iwwfi $3 38 Emu £3 2% $3. 1W8 $3 ...... .. Q3 3 Qw .943. 3 an?» omlm é Qwfiwi 0M3 33 33 $3 om§w>< 33 33 g3 wifiwpm wwnwfiflfi~~w< $2508 EB.» v.34 Awwfisoav 3o?» 9C4 ucoazwwm J dz comawamnsm copflwc< .m dZ coflwpmnsw FIG CULTURE IN THE GULF COAST REGION OF TEXAS .3315“: .33» no“ 352:6 w. 33W co QuQwBGcH .3 wish. 26 BULLETIN NO. 466, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION trees planted in 1924. The results secured in 1925 and 1926 are givei in Tables 13 and 14, respectively. A dormant spray was found to u: useless. Spraying early in the growing season protected the leav sprayed but later spraying was necessary to protect later growth. (See; Fig. 14.) A 5-5-50 Bordeaux mixture gave as good a control as 10-10-50 mixture. In 1927 the spraying test was revised. The results; secured at Angleton from 1927 to 1929 and those secured at Beaumontij from 1927 to 1930 are presented in Table 15. Fig. 13. Fig tree sprayed every thirty days. No leaves have fallen and the fruit can mature properly. Fig rust appears to be much more severe in some years and the number of sprayings needed depends somewhat on its severity in any one year. On an average, spraying every thirty days from June 1st to October 1st will keep all of the leaves on the tree until frost. While a 3-3-50 Bordeaux mixture protected the leaves at Beaumont, it failed to do so at Angleton in 1928 and in 1929 when the rust was unusually severe. A 5-5-50 mixture is to be recommended under all conditions although a 4-4-50 mixture has been successfully used by a number of growers. Since the disease appears principally on the underside of the leaves, all spraying should be directed toward that side of the leaf. Subsequent sprayings should be applied to the new growth since a leaf well sprayed once will remain protected from the rust. (See Fig. 14.) Recommendations Figs are produced on the current season’s growth and as the. new growth appears the leaves should be sprayed to protect them from fig rust. A 5-5-50 Bordeaux mixture applied every 30 days from June 1st yxlfgmi Tqfrov _~ /f'1"\v‘y|:~‘v-Vgvp , . M .,. M‘, *For further information along this line see REGION OF TEXAS H27 FIG CULTURE IN THE GULF COAST Fig. 14. Fig tree sprayed when rust first appeared and again two weeks later. The leaves at the base of the tree had been covered by the sprays and have remained on the tree all season. The leaves at the end of the branches were not old enough to have been attacked by the disease. The bare branches show the growth since the last spray was applied. The leaves that were unprotected by spray have fallen off, leaving the fruit exposed to sunburn, to October 1st will adequately protect the leaves from rust injury. All spraying should be directed toward the underside of the leaves and on the new growth. HARVESTING The Magnolia fig ripens very quickly in this section, and must be picked daily in order to decrease the loss from overripe or soured fruit. The open end in the fruit allows moisture or insects to enter and causes the figs to sour before they have ripened. Figs should be picked with the stem on the fruit. The common practice is to harvest the fruit before it becomes thoroughly ripe, in what is commonly called the commercial stage. This stage is reached when the fruit has become swollen to almost the size of a ripe fig and has turned from a green to a yellowish color, but has not as yet become soft. This allows the fruit to go through the preserving process and still retain its shape without splitting. A few “more hours on the tree will change a commercial-grade fruit into a tree-ripe fruit. The total of solids in a fig of the commercial stage is about the same as that in a fig in the ripe stage, but there is more sugar and less starch in the latter stage. This has little effect on the total food value of the fruit, since the total of carbohydrates is about the same in fruit of either stage.* The flavor of the preserved figs is usually considered to be superior when ripe figs are used, as compared with figs of the commercial stage. “Ripening and Composition of the Texas Magnolia Fig. Preliminary Report”, by Hamilton P. Traub and G 306-310, in Proceedings of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 1928. S. Fraps, pages . 28 BULLETIN NO. 466, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SUMMARY The commercial production of Magnolia figs in Texas is confined to r the humid section of the Gulf Coast Prairie, where the annual rainfall ‘I’ exceeds 40 inches. The industry started in a small way in 1902 and * reached its peak in 1928 when 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 pounds of fresheilé; fruit was produced. Marketing difficulties have caused a rapid “decline in the industry since that date. Magnolia, Brunswick, Celestial, and Green Ischia were among the highest-yielding varieties tested at the Angleton and Beaumont stations. The Celestial variety produces small figs that do not sour readily. The Magnolia, the only variety grown commercially, sours readily, largely an account of the open end on the fruit. Figs may be propagated from seed or by grafting, budding, or layering TlP but chiefly from cuttings. Rooted suckers also make excellent trees. The fig tree has a shallow lateral-root system and should receive shallow but thorough cultivation in order to “produce good crops. Yellow annual sweet clover and California bur clover make excellent soil-improving crops for fig orchards. The use of sulphur as a soil amendment for figs cannot be recommended. The common method of pruning fig trees in this section isvto prune the annual growth to within six or eight inches of the wood produced the previous year. Where this method has been followed, pruning the new growth half way back to the old wood the first year and no subse- quent pruning has resulted in greatly increased yields and earlier crops that matured in a shorter time. Sour bugs cause souring of the fruit. The best control measure is good sanitation, since these beetles breed in overripe and discarded fruit. The cotton leaf-worm moth, often called the fig moth, sucks the juices of the ripening fruit, causing souring of the fruit or reducing it to a dried pulp. An early crop usually escapes their ravages. Wood borers work in the dead wood caused by winter injury to the trees. Their workings attract ants, causing them to nest around the trees. The ants in figs cause considerable annoyance and loss. Fig rust is the most common and most important fig disease in this section. It may be controlled by four or five applications of Bordeaux mixture, 5-5-50, applied at thirty-day intervals, beginning June 1. All spray should be directed toward the under side of the leaves and to the new growth.