WINTER 1959
I ril
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
-j
'5
$0,
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
of the
ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
A Quarterly Report of Research
Serving All of Alabama
SYSTEM
j~' '
HIIGHLIGHTS of
Agricultural Research
VOLUME 6, No. 4
WINTER, 1959
WOODLOT HARVESTS- Gives Management Practices
r101 s( WooII(oI Yields
LIME FINENESS - Determining Factor in Neutralizing
Effectiveness of Limestone
REJUVENATING WORN-OUT SOILS- Cropped-Out Soils
Can Be Brought Back Into Production- ...........
FOREST INSECTS - Important Factors in Reproduction
of Pine--
RURAL HOUSING NEEDS - Points Up Need for Improv-
ing Southern Farm Houses
3
4
5
6
7
TENNESSEE VALLEY SUBSTATION - Reviews Farm Prog-
ress and Prosperity in The Region 8-9
PELLETING CONCENTRATES- A Comparison of Pellets
and Meal for Dairy Cows 10
RESTRICTED FEEDING OF LAYERS - Laying Hens Pro-
duce As Well on Less Feed 11
SEEDLING DISEASES - Presents New Problem Facing
Forest Nurserymen --- 12-
ZINC DEFICIENCY - Reports on Research Results of
Corn Disorder 13
PLANT FOLIAGE FOR DECORATION- A Survey of Foli-
age Decoration 
Preference 
-14
WINTER COATS- Reveals Fiber Preferences for Ladies
Fabric Coats- 15
BALANCE SHEET - Gives Figures on Net Worth of Ag-
riculture in Alabama 16
Published by
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
STATION of the
ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC
INSTITUTE
Auburn, Alabama
E. V. SMITH Director
COYT WILSON Associate Director
CHAS. F. SIMMONS -- Assistant Director
KENNETH B. RoY--------------- Editor
E. L. McGRAw....... Associate Editor
R. E. STEVENSON --- Assistant Editor
Editorial Advisory Committee: COYT
WILSON; E.A. CURL, Associate Plant Pa-
thologist; W. G. EDEN, Entomologist; T.
E. CORLEY, Associate Agricultural Engi-
neer; AND KENNETH B. RoY.
lwC a O74ie
PUBLICATIONS
Listed here are timely and new publications
reporting research by the Agricultural Ex-
periment Station.
Bul. 316. Agricultural Drought in Alabama
presents an estimate of drought occurence
in Alabama based on climate records of the
1930-54 period.
Bul. 317. Southern Table Peas reviews top
varieties for table use, including some strains
developed by API Experiment Station.
Bul. 318. Nutritive Qualities of Sericea
Forage reveals feed value of lespedeza seri-
cea as a forage for dairy animals.
Cir. 135. Independent vs. Contract Egg
Production and Marketing reports informna-
tion gained in a study of Sand Mountain
table egg producers.
Prog. Rept. 75. Grinding and Molassifying
Hay for Dairy Cows covers advantages and
disadvantages of this practice.
Prog. Rept. 76. Roughages for Dairy Cows
points out comparative values of different
roughages as feed for milking cows.
Free copies may be obtained from your
County Agent or by writing the API Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Ala.
9cFciad maaem eowaciea
WOODLOT HARVESTS
H. E. CHRISTEN, Forester Unmanaged stand comprised of low-grade
hardwoods and one age class of pine, right,
and managed stand resulting from removal
of undesirable trees, below.
IAH 1X I S, 1 (CXN b)e initle iii fari wooxad-
lots ait trelpIelit ilterx s provl\ided tia('
(l)\X 1( has at Simle~~l ilsic Pliti for) liiii
it I1951 i XX Illot of' apoim~)IittiX
15 aces, at patt aft het API \g it altla.Id
intenisive 0 lutst Illillage'llilt. IThe ii Li
wa.s (Il in~to) 5 XlII-,ii-itsxo
3 atires ('it I; it I UV' 01 11)51'e x as iliLdi
ofX ti'e 18 li.ll il eilih i('tlbili l I 11t \ilI
toid ttlIi the aa\7jd ei ,11(1 agc005 511 -,
Ml(i bX tilSXXillil t, 1)0x iI(10 Lit $asr'
there \ ie 5clds Reod e ciitd
Lil sti3 LI) iSg Ild it'ilpiXX ll Iit1110
tih it, XX(t1h i \vmdd be 11) .1 d at $ILll15
I'll betn tilitc IlllIil I .%st 1111
.itl it III At11) tuilet tIl 110e t'
1
L'i
1(1(111 Sill'', 1i11 tit been'. .1de ini 111
(It'd tilil\f CX 8 i. 1)10', Il flt 5ICII
tI't 2ill tiII's li ta kd.e Isi aa i I i ll 1
iw L' s lditl al - I ) L ti 
1
.
1
t ti it 5-i'i .t
ti1'IX tol be I Li)1 St(Li IS I. I ij(1.1.11 I I 
I
t') it't' t X ones 5ie \t', Ii l lij\1 ,t t o i
illulii' LiL'LXLI Xtpl p Lt i I', ia ss 11 11)1 11of
tIVCS)1 IIIlsi l~ti~ll' lillC tiLt ll I C i Ilt I'II 
1tiWI' iL. hlL II) (Ii 150 t 259L ti.IX,t's11
ill I i l 111 5 i. Iti 1 ill t di L bIIX . it it i s
it. of I(IsNrtXjj~ I ( 11 I ) I L t, I hit IlL') LII Il
s It esiX ll XIti'l It ll tilL' s 1. l ttIXX k,1
11(151, lssI did IX () L i' II ILI tie ilt 1(1111 III
(I) II 11 i ',s h .t l t ' tI tlo'.ltL 5 5tilis st n .
It tikies it grILLt Ililli)V XSmall t)rees ol
till' .11('. 1 tX L')ltul),i p)I IicO thlL filILill
clop11 ofI liliu i cc IL . Ill orde tio gieltt 1e-
lIX O\(st cu(t, it is (151lilV lit't'tssiIV I r
ftL ilIilXX k'III toX ol~st ili o hi ill -
coll'e ill site11 lu Litill' Xll ill 1111
III l(fe t~l'ill oft' It' 110 1.11)11 XX lelIillu I
UIl it) t i ills '.1X 111 t ('1111.1 to i t f1(iX ll
Aii ofillIzol' ('.) It' iv 5LIetlide i'lill
(l'L' AI fi111 Sil' I jI1.1 its i(IXX e X vt 111) I llo
FINE LIME is several times more ef-
fective than coarse limestone, yet both
cost the same!
The use of quality liming material is
highly important, in addition to spread-
ing the right amount (based on soil
tests) evenly over the land at the right
time, and mixing it thoroughly with the
soil.
Although lime may affect soil several
ways, its chief purpose is to neutralize
soil acidity. Lime quality is measured
by how effectively it neutralizes soil
acidity. This is determined largely by
(1) its neutralizing value and (2) size
of particles.
The neutralizing value of lime is ex-
pressed as equivalent calcium carbonate
content. It is a measure of how much
of the material can react with the soil
to neutralize acidity under ideal con-
ditions. Limestone should have a neu-
tralizing value of at least 90%. This
minimum neutralizing value is easily
met by the many deposits of high grade
limestone in Alabama.
Research on Quality
Even though the neutralizing value
of lime may be satisfactory, it will not
neutralize soil acidity unless the lime-
stone is finely ground. The influence of
size of lime particles on soil acidity has
been well established by research at
the API Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion.
An experiment was conducted using
limestone that was screened to separate
the particles into groups of known size.
Equal amounts of lime from the dif-
ferent size particles were added to dif-
ferent areas of a Norfolk loamy sand.
Sudangrass and crimson clover were
grown in rotation on the soil for several
years. The amount of vegetative growth
produced by each crop was measured.
The soil acidity was determined at reg-
ular intervals.
Results from this experiment are sum-
marized in Figure 1. The crop yields
and soil data covered 4 years, during
which time the coarse material exerted
its maximum beneficial effect. The very
fine material (100- to 200-mesh) was
superior to all others for the first year
or two. However, the fine material (60-
to 100-mesh) was just as good by the
third year. The medium size particles
(20- to 60-mesh) were definitely 
in-
ferior to finer particles. The coarse ma-
terial was not effective in neutralizing
acidity at any time during the experi-
ment.
A second experiment was made to
determine the influence of initial soil
pH on the amount of soil acidity neu-
tralized by various sizes of lime parti-
cles. The effects on soil acidity are
shown in Figure 2 for sandy loam soils
of pH 5.7 and 4.7. The fine lime was
superior in neutralizing acidity regard-
less of soil pH. Although the effective-
ness of medium size particles (20- to
Relative value of lime in per cent
vcVC
M
F
VF
- very coarse
- coarse
- medium
- fine
- very fine
= 4-10 mesh
= 10-20 mesh
=20-60 mesh
60- 100 mesh
=100- 200 mesh
FIG. 1. Comparison of fineness of lime-
stone on plant growth and soil acidity.
FINENESS LIME
FRED ADAMS, Associate Soil Chemist
60-mesh) was greater in the more acid
soil, there was no such effect for ma-
becomes apparent that coarse lime par-
ticles are not effective in neutralizing
soil acidity even in more acid soils.
There is no place for coarse lime in a
good liming program.
Limestone Surface
Lime particles remain where they are
placed. Likewise soil acidity does not
move, since it is attached to the soil
particles. Therefore, they must 
be ad-
jacent to each 
other for 
lime particles
to react with soil acidity. The reaction
between soil acidity and lime occurs
at or very near the surface of the lime
particle. The more limestone surface
that is in contact with the soil particles,
the more soil acidity that will be neu-
trailzed. When sufficient lime has dis-
solved to neutralize the soil acidity in
Relative value of lime in per cent
0 20 40 60 80 Io00
. Soil acidity = 5.7
F " , ." ..... .
...... .................
Soil acidity = 4.7
FIG. 2. Comparison of fineness of lime on
soil acidity at two soil pH values.
the immediate vicinity of the lime par-
ticle, any further reaction will be ex-
tremely slow.
Since soil acidity is neutralized
largely at the surface of the lime par-
ticle, it becomes apparent that the
amount of surface available for reaction
is important. The surface area of a ton
of lime will depend upon the size of
the particles. For example, lime passing
a 60-mesh screen will have about 8
times the surface area as that passing
a 10-mesh screen. Thus, it becomes ap-
parent why 60-mesh lime is much more
effective than 10-mesh.
The research results reported here
show that limestone coarser than 10-
or 20-mesh is of practically no value,
even after several years. Lime must be
fine enough to pass about a 60-mesh
screen to be effective in neutralizing
acidity. The Alabama Station recom-
mends that at least 90% of the lime-
stone passes a 10-mesh screen and at
least 50% passes a 60-mesh screen. In
summary, you get the lime you pay for
only if it is fine.
REJUVENATING
WORN-
OUT
SOILS
J. T. COPE, JR., Agronomist
THE BEST WAY to be sure soils are in
condition to produce satisfactory yields
is to fertilize them right every year.
However, you may wonder if soils 
that
have been cropped without fertilizer
for a long period can be brought back
into satisfactory production.
The answer is "yes," even for soils
that have been cropped continuously
without fertilizer and are producing ex-
tremely low yields. Their "worn-out"
condition can be corrected rapidly with
proper fertilization. 
This has been dem-
onstrated on many soils having good
physical properties and moisture rela-
tionships. It takes several years for soils
to completely recover, although most
nutrient deficiencies can be corrected
the first year.
Research Shows Recovery
Experiments have been conducted at
many locations in Alabama to determine
SEED COTTON YIELDS SHOWING EFFECT OF
SOILS AS COMPARED WI'I
Treatment
No. N-P
2
0-K
2
0
Period
of test
See(
Alex-
andria
Two-year cotton-vetch-corn rotation
5 0-0-0 1930-48 530
5 64-72-30 1949-52 1,236
4 16-54-23 1930-48 1,204
4 32-72-30 1949-52 1,352
Two-year cotton-vetch-corn rotation
2 0-54-0 1949-57 1,197
2 120-60-60' 1958 1,512
5 64-72-30 1949-57 1,246
5 120-60-60 1958 1,560
Continuous cotton
2 0-60-24 193&8-43
2 72-60-40 1944-46
5 36-60-24 1938-43
5 72-60-40 1944-46
483
1,299
1,186
1,081
Additional potash based on soil tests ap
how rapidly unfertilized soils can be
returned to production. Many longtime
tests have included check plots that
received no fertilizer or fertilizers with-
out either nitrogen, phosphorus, or pot-
ash. Yields on these plots dropped to
very low levels. Presented in the table
are results of several of these experi-
ments with cotton where fertilizer has
been added in recent years.
The top section in the table shows
cotton yields at 5 locations in a fertilizer
experiment on a 2-year cotton-vetch-
corn rotation. Yields from treatment 5,
which received no fertilizer for 19
years, averaged only 591 lb. of seed
cotton, and were even lower near end
of the period. Beginning in 1949, these
plots received a good rate of a com-
plete fertilizer and yields increased
markedly the first year. Average for the
first 4 years after fertilization 
was 1,-
306 lb. Treatment 4 was fertilized for
With proper fertilization, cropped-out soils
like that shown at left can be returned to
production like well fertilized companion
plot at right.
the entire 23 years. It averaged 1,342
lb. for the first 19 years and 1,457 dur-
ing the next 4 years. This is only 151
lb. per acre more than that produced
by the previously unfertilized plots for
the last 4 years.
The middle section of the table shows
recovery from one application of potash
and nitrogen on plots that had received
only phosphorus for 28 years. Average
yield during 1949-57 was 818 lb. In
1958 the plots received 120 lb. of
nitrogen and enough potash to correct
the deficiency in one application, as
shown by soil test. Yield was increased
to 2,017 lb. - 1,199 lb. above the pre-
vious average. Yield at Prattville was
increased about 2,000 lb. Treatment 5
averaged 214 lb. more than treatment
2, showing again that complete re-
covery was not obtained the first year.
Nitrogen Effect
The bottom section of the table
FERTILIZATION ON RECOVERY OF WORN-OUT shows effect of adding nitrogen 
in an-
FH WELL-FERTILIZED SOILS other experiment after 15 years 
of con-
d cotton yield by locations, lb. 
per acre tinuous 
cotton with only phosphate 
and
Sand Mt. potash added. Yield was raised from a
Brew- Monroe- Pratt- Substa- Average 6-year average of 429 lb. to 
1,535 lb.
ton ville ville tion for the next 3 years. Treatment 
5 pro-
duced only 29 lb. more than the pre-
271 546 
832 775 
591 viously 
unfertilized plots 
during 1944-
1,092 1,336 1,440 1,425 1,306 
46.
1,139 1,220 1,397 1,750 1,342 
Similar effects on yields have been
1,276 1,465 1,612 1,579 1,457 obtained on corn and 
winter legumes.
Striking results were obtained in a Main
484 802 934 674 818 Station experiment. One treatment 
was
1,869 2,308 2,923 1,473 2,017 600 lb()() 11). superphosphate and 100 lb.
1,450 1,518 1,544 1,571 1,466 muriate of potash but no 
nitrogen for
2,439 2,457 2,952 1,749 2,231 23 years. Yield averaged 6.3 bu. of
corn. With 80 lb. nitrogen added in
451 226 353 633 429 1948, yield was 50.6 bu. For 5 years
1,386 1,306 1,842 1,842 1,535 (1948-52) this plot averaged 45.8 bu.
1,167 824 1,177 1,636 1,198 and companion plots that had been
1,350 1,641 1,870 1,880 1,564 well fertilized throughout 
the period
plied to these plots in 1958. produced 
48.5 bu.
r ..1.
ti
3
r,
I NS EC TS -
Ocracrd4 ita
Pine
Reforestation
LACY L. H-YCflE
Assistant Entomoloie~st
ti uDT to be hlii' t',ti'i ;1i( mIiiiIi tol lit
iiil i i I'tll tlil!
ae ro tit' te ilix xv iii hlit ed ti lilt1
itog lii' 9 5 1 hi t't'i o hi f itIi i .ixilil.
iiitiiiit 195,i'xticc xxii xti xltpplx'i
Ciii ght itt' iltica tt ll ' tiJOi il ~ lli 2 to
miitixxli foiiit x'liii c. Sil to a slp ic
6ie so lciid "o\l~ ldilv
k hli.dlcd. Olle of .c\clid lc;lsolls fol
tili" dcla \ ( littill", '111d w pLillt-
ilw \\;Is to ilNoid (L1111,1"c bv pille le-
PI .( )(hictioll w cc\ ils.
Importance of Weevils
'I li( pitics il, 11111obills plIcs
(lihst.), aild pillc pitch-(,ilting \v('c\iI,
P(Alillobills picilolll.,, (:clilt., ilre (oill-
Illook to ;ls I)ill(' 1cp1mlliction
VC(lVil'i hccilww of 111cil IiA)it of fccd-
im, oI] pille wpimlliction or "ccd-
liw ";. 'I It(, \\cc\ ils, \cl\ ,it 11 ilitr ill ill)-
itle 1('ddisll-hlo\ ] I to hLtck
'11mit hcutles, litil"ill" ill size from
almill 'I to , it). lolw. '111c adilits are
leadil , N attlileted to ll(,SlllN clit pill
Ll\ their ill stilill ), ;llid loot"
the litrv;w Iccd zlild de\clop.
[);tllutge to youll'T pille pLinkttio is
i fll( 1(,Sillt of ;ldllIt fccdill'r. 'I'll(,
Illustrated in title is the pine pitch-eating
weevil and above is the pates weevil. Both
attack pine seedtings, often scriousty re-
dlucing stands in newly established plan-
tations.
l)ilik ilf I - ;iitt 2- xl -ol iijtj l xtil iiws,
ii al wiii ili . I t i iu' ix Ilixt S'ix l eit
%\ Iwoi ' uil ill ii plittdi tioo soioni
Il II ixxi il.4 t'lilii iiitt iii 11 ')i), ttui i'. Ill
('l iii i ii I titIl ix scci l .5 t a s a it'
Relative Abundance
xcii (iiit h i' tt)545 ilxoi lior:1t. oh' f
i ill xxcrl )(t]x dx cull'tht'il x i l hu Bi]it'
jil ii (11 lIcs i HK;xrx i of (he' ol xxtix 1
Control
lic.Ix itx ofi \\ cc\ if (.()ltt ol Ii xiia (.11
I o'iri it i ii 1 ~J'h
1 
uc57it i t I lilt (I ii itgi' Ixv
iii l ((I iilil( i t loll \\ c ti I t %i lot, iii titid
1 oiti cI (i lt(,6 of tIil(' xtii i d i tilc
o it llit i ,tttlilil ii u' iiii' iit
otto iid i is Uc iijlt 
It TxIl 1 ill itit 
i.
Ii xxl t I't' i lt iiiil' . ~ l( 1k 
d o
ft u x rexb cc\ ttil i)I itititt 60liitxo
itttil ui\ celilhx r xxis 16% Jjiliwedx'ui
-itllx red ift ;t isix oflix'x.t~ck
Shown here is typical damage to pine seed-
ling by pine pitch-eating and pales weevils.
In this case the bark and combium layer
have been stripped from stem.
These houses illustrate
problems and progress
being made in Southern
rural housing. There are
still many dilapidated
houses like the one at
left. Home at right
shows how many farm-
ers are providing good
housing for their fami-
lies.
r WT11'11 >A
Ram HOUSING NEEDS
BOYD B. ROSE, JAMES R. H-URST, and J. H. YEAGER
Department of Agricultural Economics
M AXNi XAS iIXX XXiiV I)C1 t'tIiiC t
\uit pSiilor1 (-roo XXLi C illt fo1i-(t tlirl
Better iii si~lik' i ilee et'i odi ii% illu
bo ~lt' t itItiii lil il t t ie i iiit'itjiii l iXe
i,ill r t ifti iI1 Xt i i iiiii t~l ueti s ouh
i. ttitIX XXhe ht'
3
u C(oii 1958~l tat,
iii' th Cotto i ef t 72 ( '11( of11 liim l it', IIt
bui.it s i l it' I9 dii~ iit4 , ii t i lit' or
h lon ' f\a'cL-i ~ Xii tlitislk ril iil l witie lld i
ptt'iituilg (5 Of' thsli it I liu )~i4.et (I 1910,
A 1,11e pa' irt oif thit stud,\X is blTui
le rii t S i h lila'i it .II r coit' m- 5(
(014Liitll fillioihit ii4 t dittililii4 ',LiCC~
ob hiiui1 ill it il C or Bei lt (14 1 t o L iX C -
It1 eachI~u Xf tid uii14X iX'ls ti]t sampleU
ofililil ri dentsIl ll~ts betll ill XXiii' Xi
XX oXl Ic li',, f i't l l iit . 1)1' i, li
tti( XX i s i IX, Lld i i tll zl-litie'l il iil
d:3%7 ri'(iIcLI. Slig2litlX' meX t' thiitd (of tIii'
I dir l)uill c' t. of hlotsc
Siiio, 1951 12.7
1 9)51) 5 
1 
10.2
l )I() 49 163.3
I )039 10.2
I 9)29 oi cirlit i :1,5.7
Amn thex' rura reiet ii.9
('(I'S, di l 3'Cloi It)d Xi their 1001 C
hoiii ls ti 5X %ea'1, 18 (% iiloCi-it-t
\oi, tl for,(L ~t I~C 10Vasill-il CICC
I hadX O IMX ill3 11he t iei lI -COIl
1
Apio 'llilii1 the mi('l' il2ii int'herited
('3r house 22%1 X i~ Ifl(Ttl \it, iii 10%
25%1( 1)LClit x(201(1 Xit ti, mlid ILO1iXC,
buX ilt
1 
I '
Almt oit 96t'I of'X te houses d iiCeei
SLjrii t.\ ()itll.\ t it'% had ht'C 101 o ld
I lltM, h iii Col p~l l i pe d 1 ll L itli d ((ii ,iit
ill ii itt'.o la t fu h tolt ,Icic
":ll" it l i 1 i ii ii(1(1(hinia r f ig t', i ) 'iii
I'll1eIXXI it) t ',Xli h ll i def( jOiieci esI
111(1e IIll i 2.51))) e 0,00(1 11iillid
(OX . 'fiC--l I I~il~ S111II' 1 X Ii'KiLd(1lt'
dthjtl i'il.e S am \it lxtil ll
1oy'
-' . I Proper land
essential for
Slike crimson
'It I ilt wat I ](, i it Ilit t I itt l \ i)t iii 's
hh I f y1 V tle 3 (it hi sx t; li fro IsIi.
the T1,)1 ~ si ( . (1 V iiuiic\ s lih ii o \ i ts I1
1("i) sh d ft 111 t \ to l. pli ()N i.ii i liii )s Ii
I5 111(5l Til ist ( 111 11 xxod IxI) I tilIl ij illilic15
hiato"t 927 \ itih lit
3
j5.lli 111 2 Itt
(iltits G 3519t)ofll ci xx)i sx is
(d lli to. ]i llttu' till) lii to) Ii it e II i ~s. i
Bccli iti di. til vi iii 11ittl iii 13 iitlIi M M1
(Fl li! it i ' piii tili it. \jeci ill i m -
N i i ilii itel 1 . I IIII(s II I i t I1 lil I I I S
N lii. he 192 iti tzii
1  
Sit imcsx cis fiti
1)32.tiu' ili oLi' xxi 2the5 iii 'IhIs xx"(,
from I ill I) ~ is st ii
xxu(ik i is xiii xxi ti i
(-It il lxx i 3 ( the1 I
I5 'i i'it Ii ii ( i'() l i CH
i 5 (,itiii i i 1
1)1 cx , x 1 1 11 ) oi f xx
('10111.
(jui') spicill" It\ u
litc k.\ tii iiiiptox ii
Ii hi 1920 toi'~i ;ii
Work Ex
N\'ill to i xx \il
pioiltut xxiu oi .(
76e TENNESSEE VALLEY
SUBSTAION-aa 
acccoe oi
Mie 'cU((e'6e9 az torozozcaa
R. E. STEVENSON, Asusiant Editor
JOHN K. BOSECK, Superinti~ndent
W. B. WEBSTER, Assistant Superiintendent
preparation proved ii!] till, sii'iii. h'it 
iiiii It3 ciii lIi lix i
success with crops 
stock xxits thieli1iii sitititilili 
hit thw
1
i
1
clover and alfalfa. 
V(111111 
id els ilt 
i ic tol
15r it Is iJ l I it .1)1,111' 
xli ( Ill te (.1( iiii 
iii ii I ii ix 1 sill
11.11111', liixxii 1 01 t dlsliiii hat ( il t istl ci i s 
i t soil .
ii lii i i it Ij~ ii til builder l l (tit 11. il ( t' s illi m 
1,111
'ii lo iol 1 . 1 ) II i- 
t(ifl its mp iiii'ii. liii 
t ii
II.11 I ill
1  
liipo x t i'ic, litsiii(( Iiit F 
i itidsti\t t1111' it
iii'llw iii)i i i i 11\i 
iwc. th t i ill 111 ki c n cr ' pp 
atc
wedcd fltl~wc l o p itse il ' xitt' ; 
I ic (!(,si t .11 3 its ii tl. p I'i ci
113 ( 11l tlil li ii( ii. s lii 
t I I iiis xx" th ii' ci lis l 'Il l 
\i'
liii' ~ ~ to it pil' 1 , ' pi lled xxix 
hc iittiitiii li lit( sthi i111
itt 5 t) i i l. 1111',S' t5 Ill 
i s i xbl lo (11 hits . iii i( i t 
ix
eliw i o 41 Imiit s i lxx (.115 i 
tSll Iis tl(.I)\ (,I 1 is t iii o li it
Fiii Ii' 1.1111 lf5 ic i ' ,,lositis tti111' iiIili s ii ili .1
The auditorium shown
at left is used tar many
meetings held at the
Substation. Houses and
other buildings are
shown in background.
Bottom defoliation ot
cotton (right) is beirg
tested in a new furrow
irrigation project that
was carried out for the
first time in 1959.
xxii kid ito u xiittxxil tiitittimiis.
*\lailiti'x ft xt xink \% i p' iiiti
paxtit x \\it AS at ( T'tittxx t \ift
Stitittit. Olitliit cbrilixs, blcuitgix, D allis-
"I ass, \\ Iliti (lo('1., lioop efiixr it] au
4
fix.pctl/iL iiiitdt 11p lt(n' fit xt tIi\tiiie
1 (Mii It. Fe till/ti itt
1 
limie t'yjici eociitx
tli iTVA i i t o Ill i)a t ixan r; iie oil
i(I ' Sihxti Fiiii xCli ti liixxS tixl ITi i
tilitit3 -cpix of i i'i lace xx~l ax I xidi
I t'ped/al set o icea ii its iit ]it itla
x ns i ii x)( succsik iixx vl Ill it theesi t'xt
A dyiji iiiit xx0 ax xtt ip iiw il of I) i
itixe lit kiiix tlisoxx Iii pa ti\%ts and Lax'
f olit i l it x ix hi'il itl I II t \ itt ti lt t i lk
t xix 1iti v tl f I itoxioli c ixt' ixx
its xttilf ittsl toiltI hoiixitt Thuxx si
Ilit t' t l ctol t\ it s t(xxtt Ii. -i iii tfll tt'I ill"
fI tx ~ 1 f lI- itle itt' \ x t h \\(ll (t iti if~ v xx Irvi
flth xx'i il i ttttl hu Jtf' ti
It\tsas f~ittt ttott'igt that
or plixl (titifi t i d at l it xxt'atf\' pcrtiit
\\ ott tlilx'at ilittti \al-ol pol'm tiol
TtnFlt't ithcet tiiti.~s\Nil 0)m 1)
producttio n itii I \ ou l x it'i idu c Ill hisma
tit tf piljt'ttx x o c liix iui st't'i
I xt \%,it Ill tflic~itt ic tat l II it a it
Iit' lhox ith l coli iug.le pcx titig' sits
dl ofi s t' fi ll e itoI lt( it l gil i ix
lwil x Ieit xx iii I i i t ii i 
c Ill , ixx til li
llilxhit't tchugc t'iidaelllft l'.(ix
xx etlcI nod i ix ti ale ill 351 ad ilid. xi'id
\\'itsti i plllil. i to ri n f t o ftalx rit to
il x te falx Ittcil l( o u f i ' c 11(111 ax id
Cotton-vetch-corn rotation (left) showed
value of legume rotation with row crops.
Grain sorghum (right) is typical of the area
as result of Substation work.
(453 11). -- anitixt'igL' dafilx, ugtiit of 1.8I
xxto T2 per heid.
h Co ctton Meldchai\ationlie vr
Zlix' fax tlt' (2) \. a it l ahof' liliitr ttiifti
hasI iletttils (it3i' I is as oficit
x)t'. to i er i i i,t' 1 oltclitt' tio an
itt! alit/at iiti ith sstciwxi the i-s
j'(xlt't'Iii,tiiiip ic atcliixLe
Ii x, hast't dcit) , xitiiltb~c dtflaborit fet'd
I, itx dixxlt'lttI x iatc I i Iie iti
\t'xxsi 
1
t \ ' I it the Itt i 'xt'' iid
l1:o1.xeto ei itt 's xxibori titi tti X
xx il oil icc tian 0iz fii'xt uit ti n anSdi
Ot 'xxls ht' i lc ito ti xxii h ('(111 tit' It
itini i ll l ri i' tII1l i ti ((lts t i t i l p it)-
bcd i ll t'\t't lt tt I i ti d ls tf ciii ig.
'~I~Y
5
I ~ -St
K 5W~~m~'~
i FEiiiNG i'm i i ii ) coliiiciitialtes is
iieah foiii. This List eiltiiiT IXis deiraihle
XX er licii (iIXs are miilkedil ii pa li s ii h
XX im Ii i lihi is pliitedsa. losii atc
t Ae iith i a l iiig ui'l cit iisci a iteic
1 clltc( iiti pellt am ohiiits o il bipiaii-
fitX (ielliigligc Tce hclilo astai in-
illti Liiit el f t he rtol h le o
steall) ~ i idl (resur ill p le ilii 
1
llctXbe
Sixe CIis oeX the Xdtop ill bltLi 1()ia
tie ii iothiii XXd ifeie'l i tsed il4 (tie
huiu. d IIxllc iid Iuli\ al (lal
Forms of concentrate
used in the tests are
shown in the photo.
Two sizes of pellets-
3, 16 ornd 3/ in. in
diameter were com-
pared with the some
feed mix in meal
form.
test. 'Iwl Xti(IX XX 15 (Iesigiicd so that
(.01t'IXX XXw \llihi be lcd eachi t -\pe it
cci itriate diii iii) g olue pci iiol. Ilate
OMiX 5 XXii fel :ill the hiSt the'X XX iiiihih
(cit lt~d guot all it aiid fidI (:iiistal
BIi iIII olgi ass.
till of' the pellets aiil iiieail arie giscii
ill ij ih t~l' Increassi(lt cold \ve iiashl
Resons e froml iels itepellets rb
Ib i rii lu'h ilite rin a i l i ll i XX t I il
XXl i'lld Xi n. li t IX stI id\ i's ic iii
t')iist' fill ithe si."i's t clags( lts lt
I X (ji mii Ile I peiii ltos tis
11i('-,I IItX (I th Ai \I IItoI)11 i d v11 \N eI'i
(1i op ill biit tei tat pci ciltagi'. Siiicec I-
ci ]iiit I ' I i ('( e ii ts, XX it' (lifferenii t I I Ill
I lil ed tl her XXICsttioll, XX itli 7 X-
sC til i'i (Al I ciiti ic l .ii' li t
'. as fid 1(6 to 20 11). of cmu'iiti ate (dailx
to ,iisiii-c a citifcal test out tlie pellets.
l)ils 4% 1(Nl produictio iii Xci agcd
ailiiist thet samle foir coiXX oil the ii tId
mnix aiiil tlie t'ilmiileci Ia pellets. I)ii tg
the set'iiit XXeek, butter fat pecciitagc
xxa- s 4.1.3% iii miilk fro oio s fedX5 1( the
heurid miN, its comiiiiisi cc vith :3.73", fori
'I'lR Nii' t X ll 10*ii] vaijatjlli l fat
test f holl loth gIiiiijs (liii hng the( first
XX i'ik ofii lei test. 1)Iii og the s'ciinid
V. ik hiiX tX i milk fro lf il cowsX fed
thle clt'iiiiircial pelle'ts tiestedIIOXc
thail diii tong the stiiitl-iittiiii pcioil.
of ilk i oiii c'ilXX5 fcd thic herd ical
Tii X.XXils ft i( s:1le illi l li the iseciondlii
tist as'(' dXiiiing thie stmaiiz jiioil
piod111, Xjtli oiIIV (lilt' ci)XX 5l~miiX g a
tlc'tliii& iii fat.
5 et that iiig'ediciits ill thei IIi itiii- deihi
ti' , illiii \vlehiitl( pei'll"u of fccd XX ill
('."iisc chiaiig(cs it) fat ciiiti'iit lit milk.
It tlsoi ills'is tat luX ('liaiiligu ill lit
('(liiui'iti ,t(' XX ill ri'teiI aboiit 2 XX i2Qs
to b lteitd.
I'IIioiI iA Ni: i ii (CXX\ O N MEA1 XiAND
PEIA' ANi ) (',0\11iilSi[0\O
.li (4i
Cldcfo plicel
N-ficcii iiia t i ' lo
cir,,lt g'ili PIo
Ililli tX
Nical
5oj)
16.7
5 1.5
10t.8
4.5
M1..5
I10.9
15.6
l..15
261.10
4.79)
7.00t
(12A.
18.0
56.9)
). 6
4.5
1It
9. 8
1.6
2.50
2600l
4.88
20).50t
6(1. 1
1.5
12.7
21t.2
187
26.401
1.8.3
7.30
PELLETED coaec(aioarea
G. E. H-AWKINS, Associate Dairy I-/isbandtman
' TDN content of compicte rations.
RESTRICTED FEEDING
ELLIS CROSS, G. R. INGRAM,' and D. F. KING
Department of Poultry Husbandry
A BE YOU WASTING money by feeding
layers more than they need?
Recent investigations by the poultry
department, API Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, have revealed that this
may be true. Feeding experiments over
the past 2 years indicate that it is pos-
sible to restrict the feed of laying hens
without adverse effects.
Restriction Practiced
Restricting the feed of chickens is al-
ready being practiced by many opera-
tors in two types of poultry enterprises.
One, growing pullets on restricted 
feed,
and the other, restricting the feed of
mrneat-type breeder hens.
Three experiments were conducted
at the Station to determine the effects
of restricting the feed of laying hens
(commercial egg-type hens). In the
first experiment four groups of 50 hens
each were used. Pullets that had been
grown on full feed and laying approxi-
mately 10 to 15% were placed in in-
dividual cages and full-fed until they
reached 68 to 70% production. From
this point on, the four groups were fed
as follows: One group was full-fed
(control group), one group was fed
5% less feed than the control group,
while the other two groups received
10% less feed.
The amount of feed to be fed the
restricted groups was figured on the
amount of feed consumed by the con-
trol group the previous week. The
amount was given the restricted groups
in seven equal feedings at 8 o'clock
each morning. The 10% restricted
groups were only restricted 5% the first
2 weeks and then restricted a full 10%
from the third week on. No hens were
culled during these experiments and
the percentage of production is figured
on a hen-day basis. The average fig-
ures for the 2-year test are presented
in the following table.
Resigned.
Restric- Produc-
tion tion
None
5
10
65.27
67.25
62.16
Av. wt.
end
of yr.
Lb.
4.65
4.59
4.29
Av.
gain
Lb.
.58
.47
.26
Feed
doz.
eggs
Lb.
4.65
4.43
4.29
From the data presented it is ap-
parent that restricting the feed up to
10% did not reduce production signifi-
cantly. The smaller birds utilized feed
more efficiently resulting in a saving
of 1- 1/ per dozen eggs.
Since the data obtained from the first
test indicated that it was possible to
restrict the feed of laying hens, tests
were then made to determine the pos-
sibility of following a pre-determined
feeding schedule. In this experiment,
three groups of 50 birds each were
used. One group was full-fed, while the
other two groups were restricted as
follows: groups 2 and 3 were fed the
same amount of feed each day that
the 5 and 10% groups had received for
the same day the previous year.
The results of this experiment are
given in the following table.
Restric- Produc-
tion tion
None
None
4
65.02
66.45
69.79
Av. wt.
end
of yr.
Lb.
4.69
4.56
4.52
Av.
gain
Lb.
.71
.65
.61
Feed/
doz.
eggs
Lb.
4.40
4.16
4.28
In this experiment group 2, which
was fed the same amount of feed that
the 5% restricted group had received
the previous year, actually consumed
more feed than the control group by
1.1%. The control group in this experi-
ment did not eat as much feed as the
same group the previous year.
Group 3, which was fed the same
amount of feed that the 10% restricted
group received the previous year, was
actually only restricted 4% when com-
pared with this year's control group.
Although the hens in groups 2 and
3 were not restricted to the same ex-
tent as the hens in the first test, the
Caged hens are shown with the amount of
feed consumed and eggs produced in a
year. Hen on left was fed 10 per cent less
on right.
data show that it is possible to follow
a pre-determined feeding schedule.
Group 3, which was restricted 4%, had
a slightly higher production percentage
than the control group.
Throughout these experiments it was
observed that the 10% restricted group
would usually be out of feed by 6
o'clock in the evening and sometimes
by 4 p.m. This group had to go without
feed until the next morning at 8 o'clock.
Time without feed would be another
practical way to restrict the feed of lay-
ing hens. The old recommendation that
hens should clean out the feeders by
the end of the day was good advice.
There was no difference in percent-
age of mortality or egg weight in any
group attributed to the method of feed-
ing during these experiments.
The data from these experiments
show that it is profitable to restrict the
feed of laying hens. Hens can be re-
stricted up to 10% without adverse ef-
fects. In one test (not discussed here)
where feed was restricted up to 15%,
egg production was not reduced more
than the 10% restricted group.
It is possible apparently to restrict
the feed of laying hens up to 10%, if
it is done properly. The best method
to use in restricting the feed is still a
question. Probably it would be best to
use a control flock on full feed as was
done in this test. If this is not possible
a pre-determined feeding schedule or
providing no feed from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m.
each day could be used.
11
I h
co
Me
bu~
Iht
sh
P ;
ht
th
ro
ve
3
P l
un
v
ice
en
sirnd
ere
>f
>a
SEEDLING DISEASES
W. H. PADGETT' and J. A. LYLE
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology
A N I's( II 'SLI INIVIIi.SiTI til('l Il0-
(Ilietlil of 
1
nilI 5CCdliligs has1 ibrou~ght
I ilit io il dI(1isease j)1)1 Collcls to forest
The 1)1111 anld papr ilitlyt anld the
Soil B~ank Pr ogiram placed illI adii onal
Ness 1115) m it'sr velt' I'stalisII by pIlipl
111(1 paper comlpanies. Niii-sei'?IIs i op-
11ltcet jnl-crasiilg (leTlaTll for piole ia'ed-
lIT'S. This crete I',tI liced for reseilCh1
of 1)11l) 011 sCTV dlisealse proiblems.
Exten~sive reschI (I ('oIl ilg fiigi
I It&ali sins a ssoiailte w'iX'ithi th di ' cii 1115C
prevaX'ilinlg il i 111SeI IS lhas ileell (OTT
Thict( ill T)sTome, rcgioTii oTf tille UnTited
States. However, iTI tile Souitheasternl
States tile hinvestigaItioni if' forTcst 1111-
scry (lisease pi T)1iCTs 1015s lagged be-
hind1( other settions of the coulntiry.
Survey Made
i'A CXl-e o~f 
dise'ases 
was m-llie 
1
iV
mlen~t, API AgiiCiltua ITTII \
1
)imid Stai-
tion?, din lg tile I 957 growX Iig sealsonT
OTlid part (If 1958. t'ilnlgs iiii(icne and1
IdiscIIsI deveiop)TlCTt oll dlaimpig Til 1T
rolot Trlt (If fiXe CsoTiltIIIT TIpiTC seedilinigs
\Nr ('Cstuldiedi. LoiIITIIIX, loilgdelf, s11111
leaf, slash1, alild Vii gillill piiies XVII C till
secics studied. Tihiee forest tree 1(111
Xli ies wXere choseii (1) Aiihii II "'ii
Xi'Tv, Atili-ii; (2) Coo(11sa i ,N iiiSTV,
C'oosa PiTl'5 11nd (.3) JohnIT IL. Miller
NurITs(1V, AtitaiIwglville.
I)is(',sed se iiigs XX ( I Collected
;tllosiXC XXel CT 1111d1 tio (eterillille fillii
li se'it. In(cuilaltlion experimcnTts Xwere
inaldi ill till grTI-illiTose to (iCtI'rli IT
Xwhlat follgi cIli5C IliXslse to il lle selli
lliTgs. IXVcIX I'diffi'iI'it sfT(iI'X Nvc(1ob
tainled from dlise~sed Xselitils of' till
1' 1111Cr gradu (ate assistanit.
Pine seedlings with root-rot infection
above (foreground), healthy seeadlingsl
(background); below left, healthy seedling,
right, seedling with Scierotium bataticola
infection.
fi\ iSfll i Sjj)i). .X ('C illeli 
I (Taill lii
5l'ti('S lt ~il mot AlaIi ils.N~ 
T\ o,1(
of,1 1 iiIXI S cIc o it I as I I T b It I tic 
ll and
lilIT i'r'i el spl.I' illr oti IlI hlse 
ll]
tpie t f' (iii l a TI C~il.T ~t ea 
TX1-si Samil
ip l l' w lcluillTg. I d l iiIlgo tS ('.111 
ill'
(ITTegIS is itlle iI'( l il s ]it (] oli Tcc.liltd
S . ailti co fes ( i'll 5 r 
1
Ito clis(.
aippeia l illie 
c c d ilill, 5l1Tl,5 t1TJITIS i jit
Nioff'. X (1 ~ i TIwe er it . Na I ~lel 
ui ill ep s
NuT il Xf ilIlcillt ape111. 
o e t
Ii I', i rtarded s ill its~ a iT) , til 
ut
1
I l
age iS, illt Il'.i X'11 (CX('I 
Is t lillt illg
/11 j"f ."jh1
I ilTwi e'xists iil pull' sI't'hilT~s, Sill'e thely
((((TIl leI till dll iilllilt I llI .(.iil (irill-
iiio obai ne \tT(T . illS dililie ro'tX s. I i
Ill Sepemer oi 11 957i'S(ldi~, Vl ro T'So t'rl'
1ci ws;lj h i ( t e ls ('lillg h 1F1.1( I (XliTs
(Ililli , t more.l T i s nnse's \\,Citgs 11o1t
5'i' t ill o in illi fil ogv The i~tli a e '( ITill-
hiill lh if slas pill tcil os siI ilsg~ svrle.
Nla tap~ fioios of'i~T~ Idilishad JIw i'-
tll' lull'l rot s,~l'I il ill lcSked X (T'el'
coor lit il~~ l 11 1lI XX t's 11 II I.IIitTs hadI
tlt he St'Ti i 
1
51 ll( III aill st r'ii ils
A NEW DISORDER appeared 
in corn
fields of central and southern 
Alabama
in the spring of 1941. The 
trouble was
zinc deficiency.
When corn was 6 in. 
to 1 ft. in
height, yellow streaks 
in the leaves and
a white to yellow top 
appeared. Most
of these plants seemed 
to recover to
normal condition after 
a few weeks'
growth. These symptoms 
were not ob-
served in many cases under 
the old
system of open pollinated, low 
yielding
varieties that received 
low rates of fer-
tilizer and. that were generally 
grown
on acid, unlimed soils. As progress 
was
made from a 25-bu. to a 60-plus-bu.
per acre yield, a new problem 
was in-
troduced to many farmers. 
The faster
growing corn plant on well fertilized,
limed soils could not get 
enough zinc
for maximum yields.
Research Conducted
Research was begun by the API 
Ag-
ricultural Experiment Station 
in 1941
to determine how much 
yields were
reduced and how to correct 
this de-
ficiency. The first tests at the Main 
Sta-
tion involved use of zinc or other 
minor
elements in an attempt to correctthese
conditions and to increase yields. 
Re-
sults of these tests from 
1941-51
showed an annual increase of over 
6
bu. per acre from an annual application
of 15 lb. of zinc sulfate per 
acre. Plots
were limed to a pH of 6.0 and 
were
well fertilized.
In 1946 zinc deficiency was observed
at the Plant Breeding Unit at Tallassee.
The addition of zinc corrected this 
de-
ficiency and increased yields about 
8
bu. per acre.
In 1951 a rate and residual zinc study
was started at the Wiregrass Substation
on an area that had shown zinc defi-
ciency symptoms. Rates of zinc sulfate
of 0, 5, 10, and 15 lb. per acre were
applied annually from 1951-54. From
Zinc deficiency is indicated
in corn by yellow streaks 
in
leaves and a white to yellow
top.
JOHN I. WEAR
Soil Chemist
ZINC DEFICIENCY
ag co on d4o4 
ofr cor
1955-58 a residual study was c
to determine if zinc applied 
di
first 4 years would increase
another 4 years. The table 
sh
a small consistent increase 
of
was obtained from the unli
(pH 5.9) and 8.7 bu. increas
limed soil (pH 6.5). No 
incr
obtained from more than 
10 11
sulfate per acre. For the 
nex
the test was continued, but no
added. The increases 
for the
zinc were 3.7 bu. on the unl
and 7.6 bu. on the limed 
soil
Field Tests
From 1954 
through 1956,
25 field tests were conducted
ers' fields in the State on m
coarse-textured soils. The 
test
measure the yield response 
o
10 lb. of zinc sulfate per 
ac
soils were selected as average
corn land without knowledg(
content. At each location yic
measured from areas with an(
RATES AND RESIDUAL STUDY OF ZINC FOR 
CORN AT THE
WIREGRASS SUBSTATION, HEADLAND
Treatment
1951-1954
No zinc
5 lb./A zinc sulfate annually
15 lb./A zinc slate
No zinc, lime
10 lb./A zinc sulfate, lime
Yield of corn per acre pH value
1951-1954 1955-1958 
of soil
Bu. Bu.
33.8'-'
35.4
37.3
,6.1
27.4
36.1
67.7
71.1
71.0
71.4
70.2
77.8
5.9
5.9
5.9
5.9
6.5
6.5
Extractable by Dithizone.
2 Yield higher second 4-year period due to more moisture.
onducted lime. These 
tests showed no increase
uring the in yield 
from zinc at any location 
on
yields for unlimed soils 
(pH 5.1-5.9). On limed
Lows that soils increases 
in yield were obtained at
3f .5 bu. 6 of the 25 
locations. Soil tests for 
zinc
med soil showed a 
range of 0.1 to 2.2 
p.p.m.
e for the extractable 
zinc. Three of the four 
soils
ease was with a 
pH value of 6.2 or 
above and a
b. of zinc low zinc content 
(less than 0.4 p.p.m.
t 4 years zinc) resulted 
in an increase in yield
zinc was from applied 
zinc. All responses were
residual from soils 
with a pHI of 5.9 or higher
imed soil and 0.9 p.p.m. 
of zinc or less. No re-
. sponses were measured 
on soils with
pH values less than 5.9 or 
with a zinc
content of more than 0.9 p.p.m.
A 2-year test at the Lower 
Coastal
a total of Plain Substation and 3-year 
tests on the
on farm- Brewton and Monroeville 
Fields have
edium to generally shown the 
same relationships
s were to as the other tests.
f corn to Zinc deficiency 
in corn generally oc-
re. These curs on limed soils 
with low zinc con-
unlimed tent. However, all soils low 
in zinc with
e of zinc high pH value do 
not show zinc de-
lds were ficiency. Other factors 
such as moisture,
d without temperature, and 
amounts of K
2
0 and
PO in the soil are 
undoubtedly of im-
portance in this relationship.
A survey conducted in 1956 in 
Ge-
Zinc neva, Pike and DeKalb 
Counties
soil, showed only 3% of the 391 fields sam-
pled had a pH value over 6.0.
p.p.m. A general recommendation of zinc
0.6 for corn at the present time is not
0.9 warranted, because field tests do not
2.0 show increases in yield on acid soils.
0.6 Zinc is recommended 
by the Soil Test-
2.1 ing Laboratory for corn on soils known
to be low\v in zinc with pH of 6.0 
or
above.
13
,Bi~s
I I
kl
T1-
1CT
l.e
d
taE
P
ne
1-e
;oi
.C3
/3
L1UIt
!-Y
Su
on
tll7
3
PLANT FOLIAGE
a DECORATION
HENRY ORR, Assci ate Horticulturist
L YOU I AlRE iiltli'itCdl ill gl11(55 nig
planits f01 100)11 inlteio 0) (ee-oatjil
xvoody fo1lage plan ts inay be) tile ill 0
sxver.
To thc co01111r.(i Col ulsers, at xx 11(1
foliage 1)111) is a0lY 1)11-dx, xx ondy planlt
th at prl )( tees a (
1
CC 01 at ixe, dllial 11
foliage and foliage branliches uxnaible ill
tiheir triliC. I lIC'se sillie plilits ciIi ibe
l(sell 1) tile, alC1.tek11 inl tn1w 1.l
In 1 958 all ex\ illilt ion stilliS Nvils
APId Xg1 illt llo1 Lt~i lllt deStilt 
xx ill fixe iCJeiI'sl1tatie C (loilpx (If muli
il~ sel~S. ihice Of these giops (oill
s istell of a11iltelil ffnxve i 1ilgel x; tite
(Otiher txxT Nvxxei e' CoIiicicI l
1  
flor iis
gi Olups. Ixx'elxe ioiiatgex \\('I(' ulsed.
Foliage Demand
Ali im11portimt nb is itin of til(, e~iil-
illalitelu gilif)'p ill fnliage'S not Coinl
101(111' lised( by' tile ColOl lci ujil flmoit.
lBronzeleaf li aeagns 11Chiinese itold
Japalnese Pilotinia xxei e pIicked lit ie
('I tllc( to the cdilk hi((f 1(11l oI (f Solih
eni Miagniola or 0 Lallieecilf Creeibl(1ier
1wx txxn oIf tit(' tivle itlll11 14bhlps.
Thi 'ColICi lila
1 
fllists priefei'r I ((I till
dar1k lealf foni of Sotloil Nliaglllia
bix en tue floliae Lfaax S i lole ilul11
ta)blle~let111I thi "n(1i lel ('dol ( for
pe ili jtpWee I'lto li Gro ,bliv
A selectibn OIf xxo(I\ follilgi plants
call b~e gilown1 ~ prlet fealix a(II' plae
ihrl s iale soi te oln si (id e If in'v
(11'(((15 n t ( plilx I \\lis I ll c 1' 1101
tilat l-pls x((1( 1( tbinIl x cx hIl111 I tildI
J pill h tli a ioth r\I 'o
OrcharIlYil xpd Loca ttio l ro
bloi I lel liii ic, lodeldii l i s 11011111 fezsIt
('l l It h off l ti(' 11ili ~ileiis4' oIf i(
CIII?.illxxlt Ieilail, 11(11'r tileiISS(I
1
ililtS.
Oril ~icharfdI Loaiogn1(1xCCiliC
Line-mass foliage arrangements are be-
coming increasingly popular for public
buildings and homes where long-lasting ar-
rangements are needed.
and1 pi Ieli( till' hnlish el pilodilct ix
e l''x(' tli. 11111' (1111) tiC rilli a~ ll ix too
ic e 1 iied x(di
Foliage Processing
lx (lila, Ci IIe nIh'lloIxoxa x I0tel (Ii
Lvlitl iiilo\C olIII in loxiC fli ',
iWCI ili be~ ctilliel(' mIf shC x I Ixipe
Fhiof tel I ll~x l lliw tOlltil (If 1l1 lCI
piI ((Sill all al xl (((1(1lce ofI dltin ((I
sh~db hiiledt((tl(I.TKldl
Branches of the dark green form of Southern Magnolia, right, are chesen by florists for
decorative work in preference to Ternstroemia, Loquat, and Bronze Elaeagnus, left,
preferred by amateur groups.
-I
S
WINTER
TOPCOAT
fiber
preference
JANET RIE MER, 
Graduate Fellow'
NELL SKAGGS GLASSCOCK, Assoc. Home Economist
IS THE LABEL in your winter coat a
good basis for selecting fiber content?
Interest in fiber content of garments
was studied in a survey made 
by 20
members of the textile class 
of the
School of Home Economics of 
The Ala-
bama Polytechnic Institute. The 
women
students were juniors and seniors 
ma-
joring in clothing 
and textiles. 
The pur-
pose of the survey was to 
determine
what fibers and fiber blends were 
pre-
ferred in winter coats owned by 
API
women students.
The woven labels of 378 fabric 
win-
FIBER CONTENT OF WINTER TOP 
COATS
OWNED BY 378 API WOMEN STUDENTS
LISTED BY PREFERENCE
Fiber content
100% wool . .
Unknown ---------------------------------
100% cashmere
90% wool, 10% cashmere
100% virgin wool ..
80% wool, 20% cashmere
Unknown amount of wool .....
Unknown amount of cotton-
80% wool, 10% cashmere,
10% orlon -------
Unknown amount of wool
and cashmere
100% alpaca ..............
O rlon -- --- -7-- -- -- -- -
Miscellaneous preference'
Per cent
19.8
16.9
12.4
10.3
5.0
4.5
4.0
2.1
1.8
1.6
1.3
1.0
_ 19.3
100.0
'Wool with either mohair, fur, acrylic,
rayon, dacron, nylon, camel's hair, lamb's
wool (each less than 1I% of preference
group).
Resigned.
Two of 20 clothing and tex-
tile majors making survey
model coats of wool (right)
and cashmere (left) as first
and second choices of 378
API women students.
ter coats were examined and the fiber
content information given on each was
tabulated. The owner was questioned
as to the fiber content of the garment
if the information was not given on the
label.
The percentages of all fibers used
were computed to determine what fib-
ers were most commonly found and
preferred.
The results in order of preference
are summarized in the table. They in-
dicate that 100% wool is the preferred
fiber for fabric winter coats; 100%
cashmere was the second choice to
wool. The favorite blend was 90% woDl
and 10% cashmere. Another common
blend was 80% wool and 20% cash-
mere.
Many of the young women preferred
cashmere or cashmere blends, as shown
by the results. The percentage of 100%
cashmere coats might have been even
higher had not the cost of cashmere
been so great. Its softness and gentle
warmth are the characteristics of this
luxury fiber that account for cashmere's
high desirability.
The fiber content of 16.9% of the
878 coats was reported as unknown,
for which there are several possible
reasons. The fiber content of some of
these coats may not have included any
wool, and as yet fibers other than wool
are not required by law to be labeled
as to percentages of content.
Probably most of the coats reported
as having unknown fiber content were
originally labeled on a "hang" tag, when
the garment was purchased. Such tags
are removed before wearing and are
usually thrown away or lost. If the
owner forgets the fiber content or 
is
not interested at the time of purchase,
there is no way of the consumer 
de-
termining content readily.
Loss of such information often 
proves
unfortunate. When an owner takes 
a
garment having no fiber-content label
to the dry cleaners, the operator must
clean it thoroughly yet not harm the
fabric. Fabrics respond in many ways
to various cleaning solvents, and some-
times fibers are even destroyed 
by
cleaning fluids. The consumers risk this
Fossibility when 
the fiber content 
is not
known. The more information the man-
ufacturer or consumer can give the
cleaner, the less is the risk of damaging
the garment.
Information about fiber content to
facilitate garment care is one of the
most important reasons for adequate
labeling of fiber content.
15
V ALUE of Alabama agriculture con-
tinues to grow. This is revealed 
by a
balance sheet showing assets and lia-
bilities for the entire State as of Jan-
uary 1, 1950, 1955, and 1958.
Total farm assets in Alabama in 1958
exceeded $2.2 billion, an all-time high
(see table). Asset valuation was about
50% above that of 1950. Assets were
controlled mainly by farmers, as 
assets
exceeded liabilities by about 9 to 1.
Total farm equities (net worth) on
January 1, 1959 were slightly 
under $2
billion.
Land and buildings comprised over
60% of asset valuation on Alabama
farms. This has increased more than
40% since 1950, because of inflation
and increased land prices. Economies
gained from increasing the scale of op-
erations and the value of real estate as
a hedge against inflation offer 
strong
support to real estate values.
Livestock Gains
Value of livestock inventories showed
significant gains since 1950. In many
cases increases reflect 
improved quality
and higher value of animals rather than
increased numbers, particularly be-
tween 1955 and 1958. While cattle and
calves have shown large increases in
number since 1950, a slight decrease
occurred between 1955 and 1958. Ex-
cept for broilers and sheep, other classes
of livestock decreased in number or re-
mained the same.
Alabama farmers have added ma-
chinery and equipment at a rapid 
rate.
The January 1, 1958 inventory figure
was 170% above 1950 and 69% greater
than 1955. The data represent average
values of one-half of the estimated 
new
cost of trucks, tractors, and equipment.
Feed crops stored on farms, house-
hold items, and liquid assets in the
EDWARD E. KERN, JR.
Ir Assoc. Agricultural Economist
form of cash, demand and time de-
posits, and convertible securities on
hand show substantial increases for the
periods shown. The main items of feed
on inventory were corn and hay stocks.
In 1958, corn accounted for about $41
million of the $51 million total. The
low 1955 inventory valuation resulted
$ 978,407
161,056
107,186
49,154
90,706
103,664
from reduced stocks following dry
weather in 1954.
Real Estate Loans
Real estate mortgages and loans
backed by net worth statements 
or
chattel mortgages are major classifica-
tions of liabilities. A 
third category is
installment credit or other 
personal
loans. Farm real estate 
loans are usually
for land purchases 
or for refinancing
outstanding debts. Loan volume 
has in-
creased at the rate 
of about 9% per
year since 1950.
Production and other loans unsecured
by farm real estate on January 1, 1958
was slightly below the 1955 
balance
and 27% above that reported 
in 1950.
As these loans represent short 
or inter-
mediate term debts, outstanding 
bal-
ances among specific periods 
vary. The
size of loan balances 
is influenced by
the ability to repay 
gained during the
previous income period plus the eco-
nomic outlook for the season ahead.
COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEET OF AGRICULTURE, ALABAMA, 
JANUARY 1, 1950, 1955,
and 19580
Item
Assets
Land and buildings
Livestock, poultry
Machinery, equipment-
Crops, supplies
Household goods
Deposits, savings, cash
Total assets ..
Liabilities
R eal estate ..........
Non-real estate .......
Non-reporting (est.)
Total liabilities ---
Net worth - -
1950 1955
Change
1950-58 
1955-58
SPct.
+26.0
+39.7
+69.0
+82.2
+33.5
+48.3
$1,098,816
123,023
171,416
28,235
99,504
127,934
$1,384,508
171,890
289,618
51,454
132,823
189,748
+ 41.5
+ 6.7
+170.2
+ 4.7
+ 46.4
+ 83.0
$1,490,173 $1,648,928 $2,220,041 + 49.0 
+34.6
$ 87,156
42,058
31,544
$ 119,476
54,023
40,517
$ 160,758 $ 214,016
$1,329,415 $1,434,912
$ 156,514
53,311
39,983
$ 249,808
$1,970,233
+ 79.6
+ 26.8
+ 26.8
+ 55.4
+ 48.2
+31.0
- 1.3
- 1.3
+16.7
+37.3
* Estimated fromgovernmental and private statistical reports.
FREE Bulletin or Report of Progress PENALTY FOR PRIVATE 
USE TO AVOID
PAYMENT OF POSTAGE, $300
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
of the ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE
E. V. Smith, Director
Auburn, Alabama
Permit No. 1132-1 /59-8M
Thousands Thousands Thousands Pct.