HIA F1LGT
VOLUME 10, NUMBER I SPRING, 
1963
...~ 4
4 -w- 4
.~Al.
1'
Ar~
4 0
so-
- -- ~, .JF
Agiutra xeien tto
AU UR UNIERIT
HIGHLIGHTS of
Agricultural Research
A Quarterly Report of Research
Serving All of Alabama
VOLUME 10, No. 1 SPRING, 1963
'3,'"'
EFFECTS OF SPIDER MITES ON COTTON PRODUCTION -
Points up, Fact that Mites are Destructive Pests 3
COTTON VARIETIES FOR 1963 - Cottons Recommended for
Northern and Southern Alabama . 4
CHEMICALS CONTROL WEEDS IN TOMATOES, PEPPERS -
Highly Effective Herbicides Available 5
WATERMELON VARIETIES FOR ALABAMA - Names New
Varieties Adapted to Alabama Conditions 6
IMPROVING CREAMED COTTAGE CHEESE QUALITY - Re-
ports on Factors Affecting Flavor and Quality 7
GRANULES OR SPRAY FOR WEED CONTROL - Formulations
Compared for Effectiveness 8
THICK SILAGE SPACING - Fails to Measure up in Alabama
Tests .....- 9
COTTON STANDS IMPROVED BY FUNGICIDES- Hopper-Box
Treating Can Reduce Disease Losses 10
REGULATION OF TRADE PRACTICES IN DAIRY INDUSTRY -
Reviews Regulated Practices in Alabama 11
APPLE DISEASE CONTROL IN ALABAMA - Can Mean the
Difference in Failure and Profits ................... 12
FARM REAL ESTATE TAXES - Gives Trends and Compari-
sons of Alabama Tax Rates ....... ,13
NEMATODES VS NEW CONTROL MEASURES- Reports Ef-
fective Varieties, Rotations, and Fumigation ........ 14
INDEX TO ARTICLES - Published in Highlights of Agricul-
tural Research in 1962 ......... 15
LAND USE CHANGING IN ALABAMA - Large Adjustments
Made During 1950-60 Period 16
Op 44fe Coe. Getting the most return from limited cotton acre-
age calls for doing a good job of all operations. Shown here at the
Tennessee Valley Substation, Belle Mina, is post-emergence weed
control treatment with herbicidal oil. On pages 3, 4, 8, and 10 of
this issue are reports of research on insect control, cotton varieties,
chemical weed control, and hopper-box fungicidal seed treating.
E. V. SMITH
COYT WILSON ....
CHAS. F. SIMMONS
KENNETH B. RoY
E. L. MCGRAW ...
R. E. STEVENSON--
Director
Associate Director
Assistant Director
-----Editor
_ Associate Editor
.Associate Editor
Editorial Advisory Committee: COYT
WILSON; H. T. ROGERS, Agronomy and
Soils Department Head; J. H. BLACK-
STONE, Agricultural Economist; 
H. J.
AMLING, Associate Horticulturist, AND
KENNETH B. RoY.
PUBLICATIONS
Listed here are timely and new publications
reporting research by the Agricultural Ex-
periment Station.
Bul. 326. Corn Earworm Control.
Bul. 332. Management of Irrigated Cotton.
Bul. 337. Nitrogen and Moisture Require-
ments of Coastal Bermuda and Pensacola
Bahia.
Cir. 136. Nitrogen for Dallisgrass Pastures
in the Black Belt.
Cir. 138. Soybeans for Oil in Alabama.
Cir. 140. Bahiagrass for Forage in Ala-
bama.
Cir. 142. Procedures for Calculating Pro-
ducer Quotas and Prices for Grade A Milk
in Alabama.
Leaf. 68. Biology and Control of Spider
Mites on Cotton in Alabama.
Prog. Rept. 82. Performance of Silage Va-
rieties.
Prog. Rept. 85. Early Thinnings from Pine
Plantations.
Free copies may be obtained from your
County Agent or by writing the Auburn
University Agricultural Experiment Station,
Auburn, Alabama.
Published by
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
STATION of
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
Auburn, Alabama
S PIIit \1 II 1s are )1'1i tlt 4 i
i'le(se titi\ ilites liarils isilble to
hcas an.od stick juices frit planits. Thel
(aiiu12e2 causied2 1)w thlist tIiti't is 1reflected
ditug of foliage2. Spider l iites en~ter Cot-
toii fields fronit \% il l, 1 uitkated plants
141 055 il( 14rb .121 The presece I ofimites5
isI itiiilk iiotic12 fitrst dlw field liai.
(,ills \% hell \ isib2I dalage to lea\ I'S 1112
('li I )It bt occaijsonally\ iso~latedi spot itt-
fistatiotis lOS be1 tutu C ill ally part (dI
a field.
Foo se cal yars, spideri mites h~a\
cauised dIlillge itl thle 1121 itessee \ alhc
ALaiatltl.lla 
and 
1 ar(e 5 ll) 
c~oillijiir 
eC('(
ob01le plests iii ceiittral antdt sotitlietIA) ALI-
lujaitlis 1)5 (\ttlisk12 list (If t 4ti
secticilfes oil clittoli. Miost of ti (Sc Ill-
5('1tic2illes (lcst! 0 prcllators a5 1(11 te
iwli('f12j iliseets \X it!liolIt eoliiollitog
'Ii5 ei i ThcIA)ec' itc91111its a b li oI,,
producest~s a 1(1 !0~lo ill2 tss ( absttence ofil
tilites.
Field Experiments
tiie leilliese Vallie\ Subhstationi at Belle
Minat ill 1 961 a1nd2 1962 ai(I
1 
at tihe Aui
Ii i itiit 1 4 itcilse Vatlki lss hitati
t SD\L
D ate i if('stc( Ttal 
Bolli
w ilt Size
Pt . P'ct.
11
1
th' \luula I196 1
junc 6 16 6
.1t11 \ 7 28 2
Auttilst 8 :31 :3
liuic 64 44 11t
lll- 5 27 1 1
lilok; i1S1 14
,\ttitiri 1962
.11ti1c .5 ---- 2 6 17
.ftls\ 2 - --- ---- 2t 16
'aiglist 6 ----- __ 1-
CiiiC'tC'Ci a Bellenl itarill il 621 to stuti
tt alll thil'iet~s ffet iktiltol iil \ittts
Sie klep The i olite fXre arti) cali
filii(Oleu al~~i't iffei t til ic Ca t h 12i r(. leit
(1111,1 at Bell( 11 M01 n1a1 ttttit 962to t itp
,trallt.\ Sptider sasit ho s w'5tcd1il ts 1 11
(Si lw t Si'toi it appiiie s tiiILto \I theiL
det Ci t~ttt s c csttl tdo \ill fil slaeill
\\asi S cp l-Iles Y 1(11141c \\th 1w j
at l~lilar llt r~al, ilid oli i i cil 1111
int I. Cotol J-, as hav .e 'to to
Y~ield of seed1 c'lttol \\Is I Ielilecoi If
to I I' ; itS ife2'ttttot oft Htill catttiIlw
pidc m2211 ite ' ill' t Ic it's otot iii 212 12
t io t (o ti l i''t1'5 2CiCtil l i (('Irl
char15ater of Seed111 and ili.t \\ttiel a
itl i esailoi is If to stt mk(55 ' \ot 12 si2i'
21 \C - sp1idcr lie" sil i o 512212 rclit
slil 12'o ' ither seac C'-csltc ill the1'ts(15 ((I
I'ttt 19i 1 held Slrtioti ill C liiolill ss eki
oirl' l1ed1 ill o lt ili 1412' I latetii( l 1. Be
(io\ tt ittlt12ll sc ttn it t'i1 2 t b11 o th itl (tt
ile paicturl Aduitsltiac femal spidermtcr-
mlinet aout7 ela rgement al lbclcit d lefand
af]o field of \ cottnetenely daagd bytilta
spider ites11u at it l h r~ilTSa
Effects of SPIDER MITES
on Cotton Production
T. D. CANERDAY and F. S. ARANT'
Deportmnent of Zoology-Entomiology
, Hudlictiolis based oil all a\eiagc of thrcc pickfiigs from ca(li tc t at B( Ilc Nliou and t\\()
at Allhill-11.
COTTON
VARIETIES
for 1963
LOUIE J. CHAPMAN, Asst. in Agronomy
WHICH COTTON variety shall I plant
on my farm?
Of the many factors involved in get-
ting the most cotton from each acre,
variety selection is among the most im-
portant. An acre planted to an un-
adapted variety will not produce top
yields regardless of the management
practices used - land preparation, fertil-
ization, irrigation, and weed and insect
control.
The varieties listed in the tables are
only those approved for planting in the
regions specified. Selection of a particu-
lar variety from those listed should be
based on the conditions under which it
is to be grown and the management
practices that will be used. For more de-
tailed information concerning cotton va-
rieties, see "Cotton Varieties for Ala-
bama-Report of 1962 Tests," pub-
lished by the Auburn University Agri-
cultural Experiment Station.
Testing Program
New varieties, promising experimental
ones, and older established varieties are
carefully compared each year in tests
at 10 units of the Auburn Agricultural
Experiment Station System. Locations
of these tests are Belle Mina, Crossville,
Alexandria, and Winfield in northern
Alabama; Auburn, Prattville, Monroe-
ville, Brewton, and Headland in south-
ern Alabama; and a special test at Tal-
lassee to study wilt resistance on severely
infested soil.
Why are so many tests necessary? The
evaluation of varieties is a complex proc-
ess because of the many factors that
must be considered, all of which are af-
fected by environmental conditions.
Therefore, many tests are required to
adequately compare performances of va-
rieties.
How Recommendations Are Made
Recommendations are made for two
general regions, northern and southern
Alabama. The chief reason for dividing
the State is the distribution of Fusarium
wilt. Heavy-textured soils of the north-
ern half, particularly the Tennessee and
Coosa valleys, usually are not seriously
infested with wilt. Susceptible varieties
have performed well in these areas.
Most of the cotton-producing soils in
southern Alabama are infested with wilt
to the extent that susceptible varieties
usually do not perform satisfactorily. For
TABLE 1. PERFORMANCE OF RECOMMENDED
COTTON VARIETIES IN SOUTHERN ALABAMA
DURING 3-YEAR PERIOD, 1960-62
Variet 
Lint 
Gin Staple
Variety yield turnout length
Lb. Pct. Pct.
Wilt resistant
Auburn 56- 801 36.8 34
DeKalb 108---- 795 87.5 34
Dixie King 787 37.8 84
Rex 780 88.0 34
All-in-One- 766 36.5 84
Coker 100A. 765 38.0 84
Plains 730 37.6 34
this reason, only resistant varieties should
be grown in this region.
Recommendations are based on aver-
age results of all tests in each region
during the preceding 3-year period.
Measurements taken and used in arriv-
ing at recommendations are yield, gin
turnout, staple length, micronaire, wilt
resistance, storm resistance, boll size,
and earliness.
Varieties for Irrigation
For maximum returns from irrigated
cotton, higher rates of fertilization, espe-
cially nitrogen, are needed than are nor-
mally used for nonirrigated cotton. These
conditions may cause certain varieties to
lodge severely, resulting in extensive boll
rot loss and harvesting difficulty. There-
fore, stem strength is an important factor
in selecting a variety. Irrigation studies
at Thorsby and Tallassee showed Stone-
ville 7A to have the strongest stem of
the susceptible varieties listed. Auburn
56 has lodged less than other wilt-re-
sistant varieties. See Auburn University
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin
332 for detailed information concerning
varieties for use under irrigation.
Mechanical Harvester Performance*
In 1961 and 1962, the test at Belle
Mina was harvested with a spindle
picker to evaluate varieties for adapt-
ability to mechanical harvesting.
In 1961, there was very little weather
loss and total field losses were relatively
small, ranging from 4.7% to 8.5%, Table
2. In 1962, weather losses were larger
and varied significantly among varieties.
Weather losses coupled with slightly
higher machine losses resulted in definite
and important differences in total field
losses among varieties. The total field
loss ranged from a low of 6.4% for Stone-
ville 7A to a high of 14.6% for Pope.
While these results indicate that the
field losses should be considered in se-
lecting a variety for mechanical harvest-
ing, the harvested yield really determines
the return from any variety. A high
yielding variety with low weather and
machine losses should be planted for
mechanical harvesting.
u Mechanical harvesting evaluations were
under supervision of T. E. Corley, Agricul-
tural Engineering Department.
TABLE 2. PERFORMANCE OF RECOMMENDED COTTON VARIETIES IN
DURING 3-YEAR PERIOD, 1960-62
NORTHERN ALABAMA
Total field loss*
Variety Lint 
yield Gin turnout Staple 
length 1961 
1962
Lb. Pct. 1/32" Pct. Pct.
Wilt susceptible
Stoneville 7A
DeKalb 220 ---------
Stardel --
Pope -.
Hale 33 .......
Fox 4 . . . .
Wilt resistant
DeKalb 108
R ex --------- --
Auburn 56_
Dixie King-
Plains - - -
Coker 100A
Empire WR-61
817
816
... 805
795
793
773
813
813
807
793
S 773
773
754
40.3
39.1
40.3
41.4
39.5
38.5
88.8
39.7
38.1
39.0
38.6
39.2
39.2
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
6.2
4.7
5.6
8.2
6.7
5.4
5.8
5.5
5.9
5.9
8.5
6.4
5.1
6.4
10.0
9.1
14.6
10.1
12.4
9.2
9.8
8.8
10.1
11.6
8.9
10.0
* These data are from the Belle Mina test only.
This clean test plot of pepper shows results
of weed control with diphenamnid. Using
PEBC gave equally good control.
)4~ ;~<
1111 ila, h t' sieul I-ic'tl'(. OdSii f p'pp
Ilt't peppers iii t tom \aates. ontrollin
teedt ill1111 l(' ) theseco s1 Sut t a g I~
an d tiltabto1r0 i scwk zis' ailtia
1i111i .((lei( ihll needed. S i ncl.te glass
il 1 9(il ell ' .115 to13 i at o es ill illior
ailt tiplaOtuMilcig of*'t(rI(e Sttito
tr'n ici f 55l ted c ( ito prii ll ) pps
I i e.5ala1t tram it oti ((1)
Thc ('It' tO11511 llipe (oii(I5 i ttill y ptu at 'n
Mid oll\\ r s p illrk L111a
pt'c)dt't 5111(1tiitiI. I(r\1applttaois tdl\
ill( adequate orlici) at 4r aiid th lb.,
Il 1p6am vir at , ra. tes of 1 S(\ llr(i1-
(isiit o ,itcd I. 2. a pie to .s ii). attis (
atic gs e '\(1'it ]i i etli. tBolth c)ropsn
\\cr ( oNr ll sm~ loas oil 1 ILit'li-
hiii '151' 11
15(1 \. 6 11).
M)(PA, 8 l1).
I iphi'oainnid. 6 lb).
PFIB( 4 lb.
thih at 8 and 1 1(1). uid CI)EC ait (6
Mi1d th II) C .t trise'iM Itii fo tnii t p's
Lll I llalteils1 ttested( ill 1960,
1 c(1 llilsliiil 1961)1 ti it(
1
Ilct5 \its dait
ptepper las us t(eilt ille(lit a1t N ort h Alit
biili e ol iII 5 111(1 Substt in, Ctl 55 (2(
controli front11 molst p1 onlisilig cheials.
te'stedl ('.lr-ier ill 1961.
41(2, II)(A ait 8 11). 111( (:1E(: itt 6
alid 8 11). a(ttixeI per 4(2(12~cr ss pl clI ,i ~d
plhlits. (ill I)(PA gai5 ( stificti('iit \51(2(
Wer1et ('5 ,lltialt(' 6 \5 ('(ks latter.
tout Stauffler heitid ets I B18.56. 13 .3441
Batill": 1.0, no colltrol 10.0, colliplete
colitiol. Made 6 wecks Liftel
I PF , BC, 
\\hich nornialIN 
rcquircs 
soil ill-
orpol 
i, tioll 
to pre\cllt 
\olitalizittioll, 
X\L1 s;Ipplied to freshly prcparcd s(,,i]. It \\aL, ill-
col-poratcd b\ 2'-in, rain Lhortly Littur
trcatill.g,
S 11).pe ace ll\C( graetpo ie
(aiijl('ctlritl as No ]\la hs A tl'ltil11t5 lii P
13t)gasIlli i t pos. In5 ('l atsu p2,ilotls, ('I
cott' rt'l \\,lit e'x1- Ice ll t irnd se ii I ts o
tiro4l Ill 'tiocc perec p11')(lots \\(8 11(
It) lb.) aesrite li leto\t 2f (td 4lii.
Pt'ltc itl e u e tals c lsd r
Chemicals Control Weeds in
Tomatoes and Pimento Pepper
H. J. AMLING and W. A. JOHNSON, Department of Horticulture
M. H. HOLLINGSWORTH, North Alabama Horicultur-e Substation
i(dd \\ (.cd
pcr control
plant littill
Wae i Xiili laIII cNXXli I Xirtliii
)i1 l Ofi i ti keti I c I nc otii di1IUIC
s istid c ofil l (111 iald sl~lIize iild file-
XtiiC idctitliII miaket\ Xcepai/Ct 41 re
ilijll Ii tlit. SliC(JIdi 1114I1 k('t IfI'C l [CCX
XOIIli~til ICeit [l ( thalt CCI tcil I tX IC 10ii
lilt X\i il(tiCIS all' IC(illii Cd tol FIC We I ik
Ii r i
1
)l I d is i i lsses II owc\ e1IXXr, i l Ieo
itili still Ii -i. I t11 4X ] i t ii l aX to II ldo111
(,llI iX oa1ti 1cS ll s .ss(iXtl eitI4C IifC iI
XXo cl 1(1 C l Xse coi ii lilsl. It 1caR
tisa llX )ita(ltICC trId ll i(fcI al lX iil
I II I I i iiII X~I)( Ii II ii(XI lI \o l h lF \ AI I Fil iX (A \IXI Al \i illtioN XNl)II i \NiIIN
A\ . A\ . Titit(
(;l I i i ai
I hl tol ;it
Ilclii I )liilliilld
( "11141o
Wi dth-
liirtli
raitio I
L 1).
20(it04
20,I56i9
17,: : 19
I1I1(5)
1it), 915
23, H(09
2011
16 .5 72
14-: )5S
Ni.
90)
801
85
80)
90
90
90I
85
90l
(.1illd
( t 11
GCiiiii
Gti 11)1(
(4 1111d
Solllhle soli(k ill \\ilt(,IllI(.lolls itiv lllo tk silars.
Bitt(,d b\ pallel frolli I for 1)lo.,t Ch.,ilithic to " I (I for Icil't (1("il ahlc.
A latio of 1.00 \\mild 1w rmnid \\hilc .50 \kotild bc t\Nt((, its its \Nidu.
aiolls, olll\- hi"ll-%iddilla \itrietics are TAIIIF 2. AND 0I'AL[l) OF ICEBOX
profitable.
I I lll is t I I it ot I wr t 1Iiti.t \ 1 it I( tics al1(1
'I hils LTolo ii ittrir 1(11 ijtIlt It is it
t tiX c ill appeal'4 a11Ce. liIIXistlc to
ilitit icit0Xt ITi4LC it p]1 (Ar (I thC to older(
iolilir X v!rieties.
has kept Congo ill p11
1
)l14rlitv dite
his tll wil1 X t StIXcCIptiiilitX
lackstone shouldi( I-cpIC(t Black Diii-
111011( XXIc aI C oi 4rc I l 1(11111ieliti is de(I
XiI Cd l)ct11c ofl its (iIIXC 1-csistil1ce
Mod1 superIior ojttiit\ A]tiowttlI Black
iid Florida Ciaiit, bad i1 iiherli 11(
(I
t 
is i scpiiittXs tw li hl o
Small Melon Varieties
lihe Xsilii friitcd. orI icebox, IllIil i
\tibirtt 11(1li thil (111tlicl IsIII areC
lliii stiig. ill) 1341Xl bild Xtifficieit Xize
ill IjialitX under11 aX trao~ CI ldit ilIX tot
1IC 4C iet al ii . ( )t IICrX 
X Cex\t rCfl " X
XIiill full o~f seedl itIld hald at teide1ItX
t rild le (IX tI ww111 (
1
~t i t-dciol
(. IXA 1, 11 ha I (X i t itt (,\ (111 171 beter 11i
sia B3ilkX ill 4(111itill it ilX Xlliic I-c
Xist4ilcC to 111)11 4iiIIXc. O)ther X\ iicticX
]Ct~ Xti C bel)F itil l isCimtillittliX\
ili izeN Xti(X beIatis co NI(iX .IXhe\iX
lltC XtiXCCptiibic to c ca XC Ciiig 1141(i1XC4XC.
Bcausie ofi id) cost of, Xeed and poor
ofI litrLr fruit sizC, iCttl shiiipping i11)11
\\WAiII-AiI(IN N Xliii AIES N ATI(IXX. X
Variety Tests
of It Io e 1)1 lilt X Ict IX tesXts lf cit I 111
1)1 ((hulLT lit CX ic I Illlicted at thet All
iliet O iltil LIlli il sob itioCI l lcatedl
thea 4 IX il lillwc.li d \iC I i ld \-i 11(
11)11 1 i t i , XC 117il I I IIl ie u tiX itX , IilLb
.Nol. Lb1)
I iko ii 3,851 12,91
Null\ I 3 l98 8 5n
(11(h iiNt :3,98 8 ,5
MiladiL 2A 49:3 25.81
Cafit. lillIX 2, 1(5 -2 2:3Sf
(;itX 1)C11c 1.581 16(5 7
TIi- :,)I:,) I ,(A19 -2.3.(6 6
Toi j :317 211 :i 4 i 89s
"htiA \ ) 1i 1,8'4:) 239o2"(
LI). Pclt.
34 7.8
N\ ilt- Hild
tli~ hiik-
111111 IIIs
I Ill.
.S.1 .9
-N Ib11 IC ~iII ill \\~11 lo T1 Meuiutl 1111 tl 5) X 111:1i II tX I it la X X1(1
WATERMELON VARIETIES
for Alabama
SAM T. JONES, Associate Htorticlturltist
8))
911
81)
9))
81)
81)
8))
80)
Mlda
Cilor
81119111
81 ri 1)11
(;Ii cci
1111l
YlIIIX
( ;I I
Givll I
(;I-a\
St ilp(d
81111)1(
St11) rip
I
I mpro vi ig
CREAMED COTTAGE
CHEESE QUALITY
R. Y. CANNON, Dairy Techno/ogist
proi cttii ill tiht State' is 1iiiil xx titait
ill other iii o t heiiiif'titi ii tiitt . i
icc alt i i iitta t tlii th oo .c.l
iidciipt otitletlot-t'ittret'milkixe tur-
ti' ta s'c tuxexxcii I)\ Aubur ike riti \
Alii iltnil txeil txo Sinilii 0at-'
tirdi Ofit the xAVC\its~l' ox (Ait iClttit' il
atN i zii .iuurth gid matt r 7 toa xrod tii g.
ata Af))t Flav.
l l(,( cii ()mlillt iii olxi Ix ctag cit ixtix,
ist I t'i ec g 'atI ilctaxih. of tlit'uii iiito Ic'
Were ali lildxitg i lto de iitillt' i fai lha
kt''pudimpijii the lai t'litti tixtx iii pxx
Srtample tof dr\xiig Bateitti ittx ofcs turd
the caciutte tiit o mak ir ltth I))li 1.
ft'e t'i''aig anti patkiwiiti fP'iCt'xx.
tllg tiit' cui ltil t~ ii am CS out' ]Tilt[-
thuing tagcird alt' (.ritcct'xxai x i tit
IllI tlit tt pax t iw itt' it i wii so iftt i i tl tt\
Determination of Keeping Quality
Cnttilc ct-q \Niilsx a math' 1n1i'l I ill
iii' iiili i i liin it ktetepin g 
qujid-
Stitijuik x toi p-rixtt il llih tetlix
ewi ito tt i ttics \ itxat illill iiali tonld 
i
turii\its xixtt itt 1p1I 4.7 andt cootkiti it
thei \\ Itix the ti1ti ti x\ ax xit' 
tl xxhe \ itli
icidifited xxattr :pIl 1 5.) xx ith 1.5 p.p.iu.
ltI l ri t il t 19( ido caii t iti ISO Fi
tin rixi ).\-irtitsadto~ tlet'11etil 
Oxe
iM lt I ill I 11 t Iltill I\
lilt ot :3 tot I xx t'ik' att 50t I"'. xxas iob-
tOg.ilttiitx I Iii 111 d tot xliii Iti xliii) lilt'.
.5 (lit xs xtiii.tgt' itt 50) F.; flit\ oi xx ix,
titidi xitxxt I it tx), i 111 tiot uit(liti i S. T] i
ii c 'lit 'ti' i 1lii ll i tl 'Ili'l'ivx iii
titx c ic .ix Ictal il bax )) tx>iicot~lit
litckat"ui \H(t I 5Sav t aXSit .50) V
P(i I-
I( xx tillit Wit
82)
12 N)
liexs thou (it))
I I00
10.00
7t
Eill:cy ol , Ll,\1 1. ol. (:O.\I\\11\\11o" 
o\ PN "'colool.) 
mw
("m \ I- ol (:Ill \\It 1) (:()1 1 \(.1, CAll 11 
[
Cruaill \\its ilmulllittrd \\ith Noctrlia Ircin (olttttg,(, dwcsu to 1)ro\icl(, illocillatiollritts its '11(mil ill t1w (1caill"d dwcm .
DaNs of toragc at 50 1'. ic(lidird toi- fla\ oi- (Irtcriorittion 
to bitlely acceptable Ijmit,,
GRANULES or SPRAY
for COTTON
WEED CONTROL?
T. E. CORLEY, Associate Agricultural Engineer
(Coop. USDA, ARS, AERD)
A LMOST ALL PRE-EMERGENCE chemicals used for weed
control in cotton are now applied as sprays. 
However, use
of granules offers these advantages: (1) 
a reduction in bulk
handled, (2) elimination of chances 
for error in mixing, and
(3) lowered cost of application equipment.
Granular herbicides have disadvantages too, the major
one being lack of versatility of application 
equipment.
Whereas a sprayer can be used for applying all 
chemicals
used in cotton production, granule application 
equipment is
presently limited to putting on pre-emergence 
herbicides and
insecticides and fungicides that are applied at planting. 
De-
spite the shortcomings, advantages of granules 
are such
that laboratory and field studies have been made 
by the
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Laboratory Study
Three makes of applicators with two designs of rotor bar
metering devices and two types of nozzles (band distribu-
tors) were evaluated for uniformity of metering and dis-
tribution. Concentrations of 5% and 20% CIPC with a gran-
ular base of 15/80-mesh attapulgite clay were used for
laboratory tests. A test stand consisting of an electric drive
and a catch pan with 1-in. divisions was used to make meter-
ing measurements and across-the-row distribution analyses.
Results of the tests showed no distinct advantages of
either metering mechanism or nozzle type. Each machine
gave uniform metering and fairly good across-the-row dis-
tribution. Depth of material in the hopper or rotor speed
did not materially affect discharge rate. Cross winds greater
than 10 m.p.h. caused severe distortion and shifting of noz-
zle patterns. A slight deviation in height adjustment and
mounting angle made little difference in distribution patterns
of either nozzle type.
Field Test
Granule distribution was also studied in field plots, using
a photographic technique. Across-the-row distribution was
found to be uneven because the smooth, convex shaped row
profile left by the zero-pressure tire of the planter caused
the granules to roll away from the center of the row. Down-
the-row distribution was fairly uniform with no difference
between machines.
The two chemicals recommended for cotton weed control
in Alabama, CIPC and diuron, were applied in granular and
liquid formulations on Decatur clay and Hartsells fine sandy
loam. Both formulations were applied at recommended rates
of active ingredients to a 14-in. band in 42-in. rows. Liquid
was applied in 10 gal. of water per acre.
There was no rain on the clay soil until 8 days after
planting in 1960, until 15 days later in 1961, and 30 days
in 1962. On the sandy soil, rain fell immediately after
treatment in 1962, but not for 2 weeks in 1961.
Half of each plot received a post-emergence oiling when
cotton plants reached 21/ in. high. In 1962 on the clay soil,
a second oiling was done 1 week after the first.
Hoe Labor Required
Effectiveness of each treatment was measured by amount
of hoe labor required to keep plots free of weeds. As shown
by data in the table, all herbicidal treatments reduced hoe
labor. The herbicides were a little more effective on the clay
than on the sandy soil. Tests on both soils were grouped to
give the comparisons recorded in the table.
There was no difference in hoe labor among the different
concentrations (5%, 20%, 35%) of CIPC granules tested.
For both herbicides, liquid-treated plots required slightly
less hoe labor than the granule-treated plots. The difference
was small, but it prevailed in all five tests with CIPC and in
two of the three diuron tests.
In the three tests using CIPC and diuron, CIPC was
slightly better in two and diuron looked better in the other.
The three-test average showed no important difference be-
tween the two herbicides. Dry weather following applica-
tion reduced effectiveness of both chemicals.
When post-emergence herbicidal oil was applied, there
was no difference among any of the pre-emergence treat-
ments. In addition, chemically-treated plots were only
slightly better than the check plots.
HOE LABOR REQUIRED FOR COTTON FOLLOWING DIFFERENT
PRE- AND POST-EMERGENCE TREATMENTS
Treatment Hoe labor per acre
Effect of CIPC Liquid
Pre-emergence Post- 
granular vs. vs.
emergence cone., diuron, granules,
3-test av. 3-test av. 5-test av.
Man-hr. Man-hr. Man-hr.
Untreated check No oil 18.4 16.2 18.5
Oil 5.0 9.7 7.8
Liquid CIPC No oil 5.8 7.7 7.3
Oil 3.0 4.6 4.1
5% granular CIPC No oil 8.3
Oil 2.8
20% granular CIPC No oil 7.5 9.2 8.8
Oil 3.5 5.0 4.5
85% granular CIPC No oil 7.5
Oil 8.2
Liquid diuron No oil 9.8
Oil 4.7
Granular diuron No oil 10.4
Oil 4.5
1 Herbicidal oil used for post-emergence treatment.
LI\~ in )xt I t ill t \1\1 .\If\" hx' .lit t \% (ix'\ c 
ii I Ite it i Ic w taiis
1i o I'fitx I.h I List xx'i' I I id s I I iN 
l ) IT) c x I it t I ik xlii iitiia of
ci I'lxi x'lo ht t it] ilxiii th s abx 
out tick co-1 an S iiiii i lil i
tilill s cl slcc " tt, 
t a l hs p c ic i'
ch cext iiix xxxix' toci tiii,'x itA 
1
ilt iill xx itl i l ltt:3 iit. 11(1
tti i stidicx xx xIi acio's Al 'xi xit xy 
iliw (st St li. t ljiti 'i. (ii
it xl'i'ii W i Beli t a Ihsit ili'i xxN ii( 
i I Iii I Icixx x. l H l
it- ilic'i l c ti itil d xi 4i i xti i f Ix 
i i tii ii xiii 41c c xx ii ii(A
x x'xtx'x. s'\'')tI i ) Bot \i lic' B 
l Hiltia~ Sii titiii
torlot slilwpruYiel anTFre Qua\cr litle 
nLt pi
of il cxik \ i\i i ixi ro\ \\ xi ii alii sc 
ate ri iatc lx e i llx' ti l xi
li c x cxioix \\it iIi li'i (il 1 lii -xx \i\t ill) 
I ii ') iuiit i xxi
xac i I, i f lixw l xii lildlx xl'xiii i'itx'x. 
\ixii it i i p tali tidi
but\iiil ii cl noi t ii) 41lii ii ill xii\\i l[ M in. 
( 1 x x i it ixlitx
ti x iti x ox xx ii ti iincsc xxiiil \\cl 4 ii. 
(11t alld i-xo i l i \ditxii
ilit iii a litxx xx i t xi'x 'c -~o\l of io" 
ill citix Ii i, lx ii'i x
(:lir. i avt liix i'iit Ill i I lxx xxI ixi ti 
ii xlbsxx i'x l i te.
ii. iixci lix l xi 
1
()x i\dt ax' cc ii'w ) atc I illxx ilxi 
\lai sm-
xx'cxII idi i l citi' loon S ti I hi 
s itt t rox x o x otx' ci'xccx'i i
aitx' iot.h l ixi A ils tix s i f x'xiiiixiix xx'xxill 
4 ilillate ) \ lb v
Id c- ) xx ix Iii ilx x l ci lliii' sc~i xx ixatci iii 
i si i tii'xan'ii ttii
ilC lixx I \ xi iltx'x l ili a wt 
1 
d le-c axx t t i iiii' t S c
a i l x'xl ti i f m x' iliiil iix ao(]Ill xi'ix 
\ix \ il 4c t re~lted
d Siii-d o ix xi iill \i to \ii iiiN llixx 
Si xli loi i ol x oxii i
tioll thall ~ S i0\ l s Ilimi. I)te oii x o\ t pi i
Ill
Sorghumui
lit
2tt
1 tt
1, b. 11111 /To1 /'l /l 
ls if J, . 1,t . P t
I11.56
1 
.52
0.T I
1)2(6
11.05S
Itt. 912
C'orii
1tt 6 1.-58
1tt 16
tt ;2 4.28
Close raw spacing and high seeding rates iteft) 
did not increase
forage yields of sorghum over conventional 
planting (right).
Thick Silage Spacing-
Good Practice or
Highly Overrated?
R. M. PATTERSON, C. S. HOVELAND,
0. N. ANDREWS, JR., and H. L. WEBSTER
Departmnent af Agronoamy anid Seits
xPicii 4 itil Iil1llx't xx'd ii" 4 i te 
It 0il. I (lxxx itlx 2411)i. ,Ccd)x.
Lecitiiii'x xx\ix, abouit tiix xiilix' tril 
id] lotlil tix'atiocilitx. Coin
xx\its alsxo lxai ixi xxI 'c 
1
)liliItedx tic i ii 1 lx',tho s iixx ii i 'xx
ixs x'il c'iiitx'iit xi'xicl i.d
Lessons Learned
T'I faix'lctx stiiiliiit ccill cltx lof tie 
xilit' txxtx:
I ) CIO ( I-M Siix ' ici - 04ii 1 i x(Vi'xli y 4 
Aiit , I iixCd tli
cIIIII x'ixx oliw' txoi 
ol\Itoll l o\I' Sxiii iiidh ll''tiilxix 
xiii'
ill(, iitcx.
ill( 1111 (it it i l t xliii s a ily xx Thixi 
J~ Ixod~ 1(l (, i'x'ix li x'xx
oif silit4x'.
:3) Ix'tiix'xx it lii liiiii xx ix lilt 
4il iatix it!xctx'x lix
ioxx xx 11th oi xx'x'xiii iitx lilit 
clii ilcxcillix' lx'iiix'i ax xx'x'x
iilu irite' iitr (or'axx I ( I\\lx xx IitlII 
dxo ixxcl s I. liot ciiicit ii
xx ilxx x IIi llix( y c i Iit 'it Ii ii' i i xi x' ci-(I
I II it ( l iiixxt i fI x ( cl I o i li Id s I I I I' i. 
(" lx cl Ii at r ix' tixt
I'i'
1
1 I tcdi lilio Atx titt III ()cad( ixt (ci ticxk 
pi ttiiw 4 lit w'ii
hli i ls.
11 I1FD1X N HItt I 512 ('1 ll) N i(( c-~l o~ t11 t 0 11
stand (21(s ' O0 itltli tlabamt 
('It Nea zo id k
itlotil tl 115 isc~r o ~oc'1 lr. 
Th s dlug
19t(1) 62 lis oor StndsP, 
th t clit 'lo
What Causes Blightss
lN 111 thit os gi So1- 111 
(1ss. A phi ngoll
1152 t l (i17' (11 (1111112d ite p e 
box (1 \v t ('col
to)se1t0ilil~ iie Cn 
pecl
55(1(2 itl (11151 1(1m Il lld hil 1 
9I'
glil. 15%' PUNII. .1111 T.5', Ii('
r pI ci f ( i l.'1111 5', ('.jttlim.
Good Blight Control
11111112 of51'i 1962, tet lo' 
2" or 7
:36.5'S t1(1 til' 12111w1k fill. 
treatm1nt s-
13726.ed 1111' . WP41)iut 141(5il 
d'((~iseases
('tttiI, SC\11 itl) 1962,1111 
\\t'o
1
it 5ii%
NPid 141 'oh t85( best 'fmw'('tjN 
iLsd nd111
XX85% b( ltN on'o \\it ('1111btjO 
Xitil bt
Wi lh i'egiuiucd seed
CllNck .t) ti. men
Naim . C 1 2 lit.
1372(1o P N X13 :311 )
Cil t t I' '51 I ('( I t I.,;31
1)ltllo \J.J' 13, )1.
311
N) .1 (111"t 1 1). U
'I III 1)
COTTON 
STANDS IMPROVE
BY HOPPER-BOX 
FUNGICID
ALBERT L. SMITH, Plant 
Pathologist (Coop. AIRS, CR0, USDA)
I 9_6l 1962
10.6 :3 6. 5
1. 71.5)
1.3.
10. 1
6. 3
1.7 6.4
1.1 
5.2
: ~4
Hopper-box treating of seed saved 
the stand
of cotton in rows at left. At right 
is an un-
treated row that had to be 
replanted.
trolill i 11 51(1( raligI' 
of soil typs.
Correct Use Important
(2:1115( II d is00 .3 11).12 of1111w 
id tor til.1121 o
ofseed. Badapcto of 10 gci12 
(1r'l('cd .
is preferred to] Ici" d ill..d SeiX 
be-
Isi. Thisp (11tlitsNill 
S (2ue itdut 11(11(
oiS tp:'o)ii the Sudticc.Q 
beldtl
planter L\ lcrteo - 1) 
e ce
~1 >.1'441 iiii of'1 NI 
iiie deIIIsc seedII Dii111'
~~~flW 5111Iht''~t1O 's III 
IIl N 'h, I'ilSNihrl(
HISTORIcALLY, the fluid milk industry
has been troubled with harmful busi-
ness practices affecting producers, dis-
tributors, and consumers.
The industry has been especially sus-
ceptible to unstable marketing condi-
tions. Few distributing firms, nature of
supply, peculiar characteristics of milk
distribution, and demand for milk have
contributed to an unstable market.
Since milk has been considered an es-
sential food for health and well-being of
the population, federal, state, and local
governments have taken steps to ensure
both orderly marketing and distribution
of wholesome milk products.
What Are Fair Trade Practices?
Fair trade practices is the somewhat
confusing term generally used to specify
business practices prohibited or con-
trolled by state laws relating to the dairy
industry. A better description would be
unfair trade practices. Most trade regu-
lations are concerned with practices of
handlers, processors, distributors, and
retailers of milk products. Determina-
tion of what is fair or unfair is largely a
problem of ethics. Rules of fair com-
petition, which are a part of the ethics
of an industry, may become legal codes.
Unfair competition by milk dealers or
distributors can eliminate milk dealers
from a market. On the belief that pro-
ducers, consumers, and dealers are ad-
versely affected by unfair competition,
the Alabama Legislature passed an emer-
gency law in 1935 dealing with business
practices in the dairy industry. It was
reenacted in 1939, and now stands as
Title 22 of the Code of Alabama.
Regulated Practices in Alabama
Dairy trade practices in Alabama's
fluid milk industry are regulated by the
State Milk Control Board. Although the
major function of the Board is fixing the
price of fluid milk in its various forms
and uses, the Board also has the power
to make rules and regulations of fair
trade practices pertaining to business
transactions among licensees.
Persons subject to provisions of the
milk control law are licensed by the
Board. Licensees are required to keep
records of certain information as speci-
fied by the Board. The Board has au-
thority to inspect books and records of
licensees. Licensees found violating pro-
visions of orders, rules, or regulations
issued by the Board are guilty of a mis-
demeanor. Licenses may be suspended
or revoked for continued violations.
Direct control of prices can be effec-
tive only if other transactions among
licensees are regulated. State milk price
control thus requires economic control
of the fluid milk industry in the State by
a regulatory agency. For example, a
dealer could charge a customer the legal
price for a quantity of milk and then give
this special customer a discount, a re-
bate, merchandise, or some other con-
sideration. The result of such action
would make price fixing ineffective.
Hence, it is necessary for the regulatory
agency to spell out in a set of rules what
constitutes unfair practices.
Unfair practices specifically stated in
the Alabama Act are: false or mislead-
Regulation of
TRADE PRACTICES in
the DAIRY INDUSTRY
LOWELL E. WILSON, Asst. Agricultural Economist
milk at prices other than the established
market price.
ing advertising; misrepresentation of
quality of products, services, or facts
with intent to defraud; any act tending
to make provisions of the Act inoperative;
and schemes that make a lottery of the
sale of milk. Trade practices currently
regulated by the Board are defined in
17 rules covering various phases of pro-
duction, marketing, and merchandising
of fluid milk in Alabama. In addition to
practices enumerated in the Act, the cur-
rent list includes rules governing deliv-
ery, purchase, and payment for pro-
ducer milk; disposition of producer
surplus milk; producer quotas; and dis-
play signs. Also, a number of other rules
and orders of the Board relate to trade
practices.
After prices for milk are fixed by the
Board, it is illegal for licensees or their
agents to buy or sell milk at any price
other than the fixed price. Any method
that has the effect of changing prices of
regulated products is illegal.
A number of other Southern States
with a milk control board or commission
provide for trade practice regulation
similar to Alabama. Some states, usually
without resale price control by a state
milk control agency, have enacted spe-
cial dairy fair trade laws. According to
these laws, regulated practices have the
intent or effect of unfairly affecting the
competitive structure of the dairy in-
dustry in the state. Further, these laws
state that regulated practices are those
that reduce competition and create mo-
nopoly conditions. Disruptive or unfair
practices most commonly found in this
legislation include advertising, loans,
credit, and sales and repair of equipment.
Illegal practices usually include price
discrimination, sales below cost, rebates
and discounts, gifts, joint sales (com-
bined prices), and false claims and ad-
vertising.
Regulation of trade practices varies
among states. An illegal practice in Ala-
bama may be considered a fair practice
in the dairy industry of another state.
Likewise, some other trade practices con-
sidered fair in Alabama may be illegal
in some states. This variation in the con-
cept of fairness among states is brought
about by the variation in development
and structure of the dairy industry from
one state or region to another.
Practices listed in state laws specify
some of the more prevalent unfair prac-
tices found in this industry. In essence,
these acts provide that persons engaged
in the sale of milk are forbidden to sell
prodfuctiiii iii Alabiaima.
Tile pr omifse of hig Ig-etin p ll 
acre
iii :3 to 5i X\cars hats i T'Siited ili acrletso
Iilltt I'lli Atlab ama. Holu cr 
suXXs %\t' XiCC Xill
ii'lflliiI' tilit XX uk. deication 
tii Icaili
1ipple ii Ill itjis i X il i'f lodc 
iio k 14iiXX lli-
lnt'iit ill all aijllq itt spil l 
ifait tit'r's
ali it k i IX to\ teg of' ptest coniitril it(' spe'
c1ial~ly pleI diiseases.
fin flhm aitid tillillor ictat 
orch'Iardls hlas
~ilXX aX's beenli a tlfiliit pi iitut'i. 
\NI urt'
eftit pefXC lst it'ldfes a ii I impfroved 
'I spitax
l coliih cd XX itti thet ltciillilndef
spi afit g , lyprgili iili golild 
hI lialIal Sii
splax 5l Should t'sstiili ifuccesst 
to ithen
CO'Stti is the tllist e 
\ Cl t pi'sticidt
sf)
1
~ arcg Sct al itfo qilt' a 
trit prot'-
dl
14
u ttioiii ltlarc iIl theltlhlii it 
'1 )1
si12 gii~ua xprmn ttci 
a
lf0 (Tl. ot spilX \\ iu' Stati 
is at tpn
1
)
Slilillili e lit' t till' 1 1t). IX~l ti. pI C xpi 
I'S
i'li't'etis e wiist iitther disease's. 
Cap-
ti i at at 2 ft 1. ra:te' iso i \i 
delg (IX ~tS 1ill
Fireblight
(l ,irist' ht Xhais lo'lit llmit's 
l'rt' lild
lugii ircliio illis t e ( s. iittialic 
it-sA
2 oii': iiissio n sill Spcl olll'f 
tX bater'ia4
tiCl~ i d~i s \sill tIll i l ) ti 
.3(1%T bliun1ll
Fruiof Ratso s andfs Sats 
rilch
spraystc litlt i ti l an15's tiioi' 
t'tl'i siX I
[Ill I ,1111 ailt itst exelent chg 
to v111 f
11
.tXX igs,
(2l til 3 l'somi litpit ' visltapplilt 
si]tit
ato avi 1111 itithii at t to 
ll 3 tblo
i.at Frito ts a ndit' Spits 11t 
ot
pill in I t illi dtlti'soiv 
.ili S id Sp i t'
Apples severely damaged by scab, left, 
and
air-blast spray machine in aperatian at Cull-
man, right.
Cedar-Apple Rust
This iiclisa' is scX &it if thre C w red'iit
Ced'(ar t rt'es adj at't'it t) apple4 treesX. Bust4
cat e e1a25itif, spo(ttii14 il Some11 X al itics 
als
wel li as lesills (il the( Ii it. jii'iiloil5 
of1)
t i c cO il i i i t r e e i i l it 1 1f ti 
leai i .1 ~
ill spaxys fromii pii ik tin oii gli hi 
Xt coIXc'I
\ill gi\e 'cotrol of cedfa 
le rust.
rictal SIiSeet
1
ittii lit tIo inilil 1w Spilay
piIN), i~oiilteail\ iniitii C' iilf fix 
paril
ttioo il theC 'alX ,fii N. 5r s Siiitiii, 
CIC
bloiii slilix 5. AX hil uili thes CI togi-
Someii C5 rictil's.
cide's artc jidic'ati't oil the plackage'. 
Thea
tu1iC I litioiCXs ili iCltlabel. ica 
fli cC
iOUawif act n ro's labels. can 'fii 1i.
be 'its\ aiif XX\ill reiii ll i i itltliigt'i 
C'
iii\itiiiii a rii tit'~ C fpl-0 i ~ito iliCi5 a d
I llto als hi it iiitflccr of o~i~thers 
fandt
CI l iii g tf ilttliti l t Ieii. h s.i
vestnitis i, ti me nd Ioisi 
(an- iii Id
I)I i li t, tii' Is dic of qtliI 
tr5t
Alaion ap i's iupiitialk tctiuir vat
brli top15 prc. tk C~
1
ti C ~i
DL 11_liltvr tpint,. IN sAsi't I ASi
PCSUEDI. Pc. CENTtO
Appleit s( it])
I 96t0
19 1
1962
1960)
AV.
9. t0.4 (0.4
9T.6 17.8 .
10 9 29.8 17.A
801.7 .51. IA .'
96.5 01.8 :3.1
7 .9 14.2 18.2
82.7. 22.1 11.5
APPLE DISEASE 
CONTROL
in Alabama
U. L. DIENER, Associate Plant 
Pathologist
THIRTY-FIVE cents per acre - that was
the average farm real estate tax levied in
Alabama in 1961.
According to USDA, Alabama in 1961
was 6th from the bottom of all states in
taxes levied on farm real estate per acre.
States below Alabama were West Vir-
ginia, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico,
and Nevada. Farm real estate value in
each of these states was considerably
below the Alabama average value of
$94 per acre.
Other States
New Jersey, with an average tax of
$10.16 per acre, was highest of all states.
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode
Island had per acre farm real estate tax
levies above $5. In the Corn Belt and
Lake States, farm real estate taxes av-
eraged about $2.50 per acre. Illinois
was highest in these groups with $4.18
per acre in 1961. In all other states ex-
cept Florida and California, taxes levied
on farm real estate were less than $1.50
per acre. Average for Florida was $1.73
and California $4.35 per acre. Differ-
ences among states reflect variation in
value of farm land and improvements
and differences in emphasis on the prop-
erty tax in local and state financing.
The average tax per acre on farm real
estate in 1961 for the 13 Southern States
was 750. Thus, a farmer with 120 acres
paid $90 in farm real estate taxes based
on the average rate for Southern States.
This ignores any exemptions or exclu-
sions in property taxes. An Alabama
farmer with 120 acres paid in 1961, an
average of $42 in property taxes on farm
real estate.
Trends
Since 1940, farm real estate taxes per
acre in every state have increased to a
level three to four times that of 1940.
DOLLARS
PER ACRE
1.25 -
--- SOU. STATES .
.00 -- ALA.
. U.S.
/
.........- '....
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
FIG. 1. Comparisons of taxes levied on
farm real estate in dollars per acre are
given in the above chart.
In 1940, the Alabama average was 200
per acre as compared with 280 for the
13 Southern States and 390 for the U.S.
average. The 1961 taxes per acre were
350, 750, and $1.29 for Alabama, South-
ern States, and U.S. respectively.
From 1890 to 1910 property taxes per
acre were stable, Figure 1. They in-
creased from 1910 to 1930 and declined
from 1930 to 1940. Since 1940, the rate
of increase was greater for the Southern
0
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960
FIG. 2. Comparisons of taxes levied on
farm real estate in dollars per $100 value
are given in the above chart.
States and U.S. than for Alabama. From
1940 to 1961 taxes levied on farm real
estate increased 75% in Alabama, 167%
in the 13 Southern States, and 230% in
the U.S.
Changes in farm real estate taxes may
be considered relative to the value of
property. Accordingly, taxes have de-
clined since 1930, Figure 2. Farm real
estate values have increased more than
taxes on farm real estate. Again, Ala-
bama was low relative to other states in
farm real estate taxes per $100 property
value. In 1959, farm real estate taxes
averaged 370 per $100 value in Ala-
bama compared with 490 for the South-
ern States and 93 for the U.S.
Relative to Net Income
Net income is generally accepted as
an indicator of ability to pay taxes. Based
on USDA figures, Alabama farmers paid
2% of their net income in farm real
estate taxes in 1961. The same was true
for North Carolina. However, in all
other states the percentage was higher.
As an average for the U.S., farm real
estate tax levies took 8.6% of net farm
income in 1961.
Problems
There are problems in assessments and
administration of the general property
tax. One problem is the tendency for
higher valued properties to be assessed at
a smaller fraction of sales value than
lower valued properties. This is known
as "regressiveness." Based on a 1956
USDA study, regressiveness in Alabama
was higher than average for the South-
east or the U.S.
Another problem is in assessment of
rural property that is on the urban
fringe. There are many other problems.
Problems exist with all forms of taxes -
especially from the taxpayer's standpoint.
No doubt you will be reminded of some
problems when completing your income
tax forms.
13
FARM REAL ESTATE TAXES
Trends and Comparisons
J. H. YEAGER, Agricultural Economist
hnan~lna
NEMATODES vs. Resistant Varieties,
Rotations, Fumigation
N. A. MINTON, Nematologist
C. A. BROGDEN, Superintendent, Wiregrass Substation
THE USE of nematode-resistant vari-
eties, crop rotations, and soil fumigation
is the most successful means of con-
trolling nematodes.
Crop rotations are beneficial in con-
trolling nematodes only when one or
more plants in the cropping sequence
are such that they prevent the reproduc-
tion of nematodes. A resistant plant may
also function in this way or it may be
tolerant to the nematodes present. In
contrast, the aim of fumigation is to re-
duce the nematode population low
enough for susceptible plants to get
established. A combination of two or
more of these practices is often more ef-
fective than either alone.
Since there are many species of plant
parasitic nematodes having different host
ranges, the effectiveness of rotations and
nematode-resistant varieties is limited by
the particular nematodes present and the
plants involved. Even within the com-
mon root-knot nematodes, there are at
least a dozen known species each differ-
ing in its pathogenicity on plants.
Field Experiments
Studies were begun in 1962 at the
Wiregrass Substation at Headland to de-
termine the effect of nematode-resistant
varieties, crop rotations, and soil fumi-
gation on certain nematodes and yields
of certain crops. All plots on which the
experiment is being conducted were
planted to corn in 1961. The soil in these
plots contained the following nematode
species: root-knot; meadow; ring; stubby
root; and dagger. Some plots were fumi-
gated with 21/2 gal. per acre of 85%
ethylene dibromide prior to planting.
Crops included in the study are: Early
Runner peanuts; the root-knot-resistant
Auburn 56 cotton, and Dixie 18 corn.
First-Year Results
First year's results of non-fumigated
plots indicated differences in nematode
reproduction under different crops, Fig-
ure 1. In November at the end of the
14
LB./A.
2500 0 0
2000 8
1500
o - 1000 - oa8m
cl IO00
500
D0 m
eU- Uto
0 
1 
1
peanuts cotton
60
40
20
0
FIG. 2. Given above are yields of peanuts,
cotton, and corn grown in fumigated and
non-fumigated plots.
growing season, a high population of
root-knot larvae was present in peanut
plots. Populations were lower in cotton
and corn plots with corn plots having
the lowest. Root-knot larvae were slightly
more numerous in cotton plots than in
corn plots and in November than in
March. The meadow nematodes had in-
creased in numbers since March under
cotton and corn but decreased under pea-
nuts. The ring nematode population in-
creased in numbers slightly under pea-
nuts and cotton. Stubby root nematodes
decreased under peanuts, but increased
under cotton and corn, with the larger
increase occurring under cotton. The dag-
ger nematode population remained low
under all crops.
These population data represent the
effects of cotton, corn, and peanuts on
the reproduction of the different nema-
todes during one growing season.
Equally important is the relative num-
ber of nematodes that survive in the soil
during winter and are present to attack
the succeeding crops.
Soil Fumigation
Soil fumigation increased peanut yields
about 50% over yields in non-fumigated
plots, Figure 2. Increases in cotton and
corn yields attributed to fumigation were
slight. These data are for three crops
following corn. The effects of fumigation
may have been different if cotton or pea-
nuts had been the preceding crop be-
cause numbers of parasitic nematodes
present would have been higher.
Much of the difference in response of
crop yields to fumigation apparently
came from differences in susceptibility
to root-knot nematodes. The high root-
knot larval count in November for pea-
nuts, low counts for cotton and corn,
severe galling of peanut roots, and negli-
gible amount of galling of cotton and
corn were indicative of the severity of
attack on the crops. Even though root-
knot nematodes in this experiment ap-
peared to have caused major damage,
certain of the other nematode species
also caused damage as evidenced by the
presence of root lesions, stubby roots,
and dead root tips.
FIG. 1. Numbers of nematodes per pint of soil recovered from non-fumigated plots in 1962
are given above.
100
80
19
THE FOUR 1962 issues of HIGHLIGHTS
OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH (Volume
9) carried 55 articles reporting research
results in 15 major areas of investigation.
For the benefit of HIGHLIGHTS readers,
articles published in 1962 are listed be-
low according to subject. Indexes for
the previous years are listed in the spring
Animal Science
CROSSBREEDING WITH BRITISH BREEDS-
Patterson, Warren, Price, and Meadows.
Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
COOL-SEASON GRAZING FOR YEARLING
STEERS-Harris, Anthony, Boseck, and
Evans. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AFFECTING Sow
PERFORMANCE-Squiers. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
PELLETED FEEDS-PROMISING METHOD
FOR IMPROVING BEEF PRODUCTION ON HIGH
ROUGHAGE RATIONs-Anthony, Harris, Starl-
ing, Brown, and Boseck. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
PERFORMANCE TESTED BULLS SIRE HIGH
QUALITY CALVES-Patterson and Cotney.
Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.
SILAGES-PRODUCTION AND STORAGE
COSTS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA-Anthony,
Harris, Boseck, and Blackstone. 
Vol. 9,
No. 3. 1962.
Dairy Science
DRUGS IN MILK-How LONG Do RESI-
DUES PERSIST?-Hawkins, Cannon, and Paar.
Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.
STORED ROUGHAGES VS. GRAZING-May-
ton, Blackstone, Hawkins, Sandy, and Lott.
Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.
Farm Economics
ALABAMA'S BROILER INDUSTRY-White.
Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.
BUYING PRACTICES OF PORK PROCESSORS
-Linton and Danner. Vol. 9, No. 8. 1962.
FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES Go HIGHER
AND HIGHER-Yeager. Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.
LOGIC OF INCORPORATING FAMILY FARMS
-Chastain and Woods. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.
MEASURING FARM EARNINGs-Yeager.
Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.
MIGRATION OF RURAL RESIDENTS-Huie.
Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.
WHAT Is YOUR FARM WORTH?-Yeager.
Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
YOUR WILL-IMPORTANT LEGAL DocU-
MENT-Yeager. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.
Farm Machinery
INCREASING Row PLANTER EFFICIENCY-
Renoll. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
issues of 1959, 1960, and 1961. Readers
may wish to up-date their files. Extra
copies of all 1962 issues are available to
those who are missing copies and wish to
complete their files. Write Editor, Au-
burn University Agricultural Experiment
Station, Auburn, Ala., for replacement
copies, specifying the issues needed.
Fertilization
LIME AND COTTON-Adams. Vol. 9, No.
4. 1962.
SOIL FERTILITY AND PEANUT YIELDS-
Sturkie and Ensminger. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.
Field Crops
COTTONS OF TOMORROw-Chapman and
Smith. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
GULF-IMPROVED RYEGRASS VARIETY-
Hoveland. Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.
SKIP-ROW COTTON PRODUCES HIGHEST
YIELDS-Sturkie and Boseck. Vol. 9, No. 4.
1962.
SORGHUM ALMUM-FRIEND OR FOE?-
Hoveland. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
VETCH MAKES HIGH CORN YIELDS-
Sturkie. Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.
Floriculture
BEAUTIFUL, FUNCTIONAL HEDGES FROM A
VARIETY OF PLANTS-Orr. Vol. 9, No. 3.
1962.
CHRYSANTHEMUMS FOR FALL PLANTING-
Furuta, Martin, and Orr. Vol. 9, No. 2.
1962.
DAYLILIES-VALUABLE PERENNIAL FOR
SOUTHERN LANDSCAPE-Orr and Martin.
Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.
FOLIAR FEEDING FOR WOODY PLANTS-
Furuta and Martin. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
IRRIGATION BY MEASURING LIGHT-
Furuta, Perry, and Martin. Vol. 9, No. 3.
1962.
Forestry
SURVIVAL AND GROWTH OF PLANTED PINES
AFTER STAND TREATMENT-Whipple. Vol.
9, No. 3. 1962.
Fruits and Vegetables
COMMERCIAL APPLE PRODUCTION-PROM-
ISING ALABAMA ENTERPRISE-Amling, Tur-
ner, and Kern. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.
COMMERCIAL STRAWBERRIES IN ALABAMA?
-Amling, Turner, and Kern. Vol. 9, No. 3.
1962.
GROWING DWARF-SEMI-DWARF APPLES
IN ALABAMA-Amling and Turner. Vol. 9,
No. 4. 1962.
Index to Articles Published in
HIGHLIGHTS of Agricultural Research
4. 1962.
15
IMPROVED PROCESS FOR PICKLING PEACHES
-Harris. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR VEGETABLE PROCESS-
ING IN ALABAMA-Kern. Vol. 9, No. 2.
1962.
RABBITEYE BLUEBERRY FOR ALABAMA-
Turner and Amling. Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.
Insects and Controls
SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDES FOR SCALE IN-
SECTS-Eden and Self. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.
Plant Diseases
DISEASE PROBLEMS OF CLOVER AND 
AL-
FALFA-Curl. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
NEW CONTROLS FOR APPLE DISEASES-
Diener. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.
PECAN PROBLEMS ATTACKED BY RESEARCH
TEAM-Diener, Blake, and Amling. Vol. 9,
No. 1. 1962.
PEANUT SEED TREATMENTS, NEW VS. OLD
-Lyle and Brogden. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.
ROOT-ROT AND SPITTLEBUGS IN COASTAL
BERMUDAGRASs-Gudauskas. Vol. 9, 
No. 3.
1962.
SPRAY VS. DUST FOR PEANUT LEAFSPOT
CONTROL-Lyle. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
Poultry Science
BEST ENVIRONMENT FOR BROILER PRO-
DUCTION?-Howes and Grub. Vol. 9, No.
2. 1962.
CALCIUM REQUIREMENTS OF LAYING HENS
-Howes. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.
POULTRY DUST-WHAT Is IT? WHAT
CAUSES IT?-Koon, Grub, and Howes. 
Vol.
9, No. 3. 1962.
Soil Pests
FooD RESERVES-FACTOR IN PLANT IN-
FECTION BY ROOT-KNOT NEMATODE LARVAE
-Cairns and Bolmar. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.
RESISTANT COTTONS, NEMATOCIDES, AND
FALLOW VS. NEMATODES-Minton, Cairns,
and Smith. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
ULTRASOUND--SPACE-AGE N EM A TO DE
KILLER-Cairns. Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.
Weed Control
CHEMICAL CONTROL OF JOHNSONGRASS,
ANNUAL GRASSES IN COTTON FIELDS-
Searcy. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.
HERBICIDES FOR SWEETPOTATOES-JOhn-
son and Amling. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.
Miscellaneous
AUBURN'S AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
STATION SYSTEM-Foscue. Vol. 9, No. 1.
1962.
EMPHASIS ON FORAGE CROPS AT TUSKEGEE
EXPERIMENT FIELD-Cope and Bertram.
Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.
INDEX TO ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN HIGH-
LIGHTS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 1961.
Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.
J. S. NEWMAN-STATION'S FIRST DI-
RECTOR-Foscue. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.
THAT OLD DEVIL POVERTY WORE COT-
TON'S FACE IN 1860-Foscue. Vol. 9, No.
Land Use Changing in Alabama
HOWARD A. CLONTS and J. H. YEAGER
Department of Agricultural Economics
Other land in farms that declined
from 1950 to 1960 included that used
for houses, lots, gardens, roads, and
wasteland. This was directly associated
with reduction in farm population and
tenants.
Overall changes in land use from 1950
to 1960 are summarized below:
MOST LIKELY some fields on your farm
that were once planted to cotton or other
row crops are no longer used for this
purpose. Such shifts are typical of tre-
mendous changes in use of Alabama
land during the past 10 years.
Land is a major part of the business
on almost all farms. Normally, 50-60%
of total farm investment is in land. Use
of this land changes with farming ad-
justments and as a result of other fac-
tors, such as government programs, off-
farm employment, and nearness to cities.
Land in Farms
In 1950, Alabama farms contained
20.8 million acres, or 63.9% of the State's
total land area. This dropped to 16.5
million acres in 1960, or 50.6% of total
area. Thus, land in farms was reduced
21% from 1950 to 1960.
Part of the change resulted from a new
Bureau of the Census definition of a farm
that was in effect in 1960. Places of 10
acres or more were counted as farms if
sales of agricultural products for the
year were $50 or more. If less than 10
acres, sales had to be at least $250. In
1950, a place of 3 acres or larger was a
farm if annual value of farm products
produced was $150. Places of less than
3 acres needed sales of $150 or more to
be farms.
Cropland Acreage
One of the most significant changes
from 1950 to 1960 was in cropland.
There was a decrease of almost 2 mil-
lion acres in cropland harvested. About
200,000 acres per year changed from
cropland harvested to other uses.
About 1.5 million acres of cropland in
Alabama are used as "cropland pas-
tured." This changed little from 1950
to 1960.
Cropland not harvested and not pas-
tured decreased from 1,393,726 acres in
1950 to 899,573 in 1960. Total cropland
declined 31% during the 10 years.
The biggest decrease in cropland, al-
most 50%, occurred in the Piedmont
Area. Except for the Tennessee Valley,
Lower Coastal Plains, and Gulf Coast,
other areas registered 30-40'% decreases
in cropland.
Largest decreases in cropland har-
vested were in Coosa, Clay, and Cle-
burne counties, see map. Only Baldwin
and Mobile counties showed increases.
Acreage in Pasture and Woodland
There was a 31% increase in land in
pasture, other than cropland and wood-
land, from 1950 to 1960. This increase
of 530,000 acres, chiefly in open perma-
nent pasture, is associated with increas-
ing livestock numbers in the State. Great-
est increases in pasture were in the Gulf
Coast, Lower Coastal Plains, and Ten-
nessee Valley areas.
Total land pastured decreased about
90,000 acres from 1950 to 1960. This
was primarily a decline in woods pas-
tured. Cropland pastured also dropped.
The decline in woods and cropland pas-
tured was more than enough to offset
the increase in open permanent pasture.
About 42% of total land in farms was
pastured in 1960.
According to the Census of Agricul-
ture, total woodland on farms decreased
almost 2 million acres, or 20%, from 1950
to 1960. Woodland pastured declined
432,000 acres, and woodland not pas-
tured, 1,532,000. Of total woodland,
38% was pastured in 1950 and 42% in
1960.
Only the Upper Coastal Plains and
Black Belt areas had increases in wood-
land during the 10 years. All others had
decreases.
FREE Bulletin or Report of Progress
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
E. V. Smith, Director
Auburn, Alabama
Permit No. 1132-2/63-IOM
Total cropland
Open permanent
pasture
Woodland on
farms
Other
TOTAL
Million acres
1950 1960 Change
8.7 6.0 -2.7
1.7 2.2 ? .5
9.7 7.8 -1.9
.7 .5 - .2
20.8 16.5 -4.3
28W INCREASE
DECREASE
LESS THAN 30%
30% TO 50% um11m
MORE THAN 50%
Percentage change in cropland harvested is
shown on the map for each Alabama county.
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE TO AVOID
PAYMENT OF POSTAGE, $300