SPRING 1965 HIGHLIGHTS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH I 4 t VOLUME 12 NUMBER 1 Y ) AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION,AURNNVESTAUBURN UNIVERSITY HIGH-LIGH-TS of Agricultural Research A Quarterly Report of Research Serving All of Alabama VOLUME 12, NO. 1 SPRING 1965 MANAGING STARR MILLET FOR DAIRY COWS - Grazing Proved Better Than Green-Chop in Gulf Coast Tests 8 COTTON YIELDS - THRIPS CONTROL V. NONE - Treat- ments Result in No Yield Increases and Add to, Costs 4 PECAN INDUSTRY IN ALABAMA - Produces More Income Than Any Single Vegetable, Fruit, or Nut Crop 5 SOUTHERN BLIGHT OF PEANUTS REDUCED BY OAT RESIDUE - Better Control Than from Other Soil Residues 6 SKIP-ROW COTTON MAY FIT YOUR FARM- If Enough Good Cotton Land is Available 7 WEED CONTROL IN NEWLY PLANTED COASTAL- Effective Herbicidal Treatments Described 8 WEANED BEEF CALF PRODUCTION - COSTS AND RETURNS - Why Some Producers Achieve Lower Costs 9 PASTURES FOR BEEF COWS NURSING CALVES - May Consist Wholly of Coastal Bermudagrass with Good Results 10 FERTILIZING FARM FISH PONDS - Reports Research Point- ing to Lower Cost Fertilization ... 11 PERSISTENCE OF HARD SEEDEDNESS IN CRIMSON CLOVER - Important Characteristic Studied 12 STAND OF COASTAL BERMUDA INFLUENCED BY MANAGE- MENT- N, Moisture, Clipping Frequency Important 183 FREQUENT WINTER FIRES Do NOT DAMAGE LARGE PINES - Or Affect Their Growth 14 INDEX TO ARTICLES- Published in Highlights of Agri- cultural Research During 1964 15 PRESERVATIVE IMPROVES SUDAX-11 SILAGE - Adding Ground Corn Results in Higher Quality Roughage ....16 Ofte &e CM4 Starr millet has become a mainstay on Alabama dairy farms, since it provides good quality forage during summer when other pasture crops are not highly productive. However, selecting the best management system for millet has been difficult. Now there is research information available that shows relative merits of green-chopping and grazing of this summer forage. As reported in the story on page 3, grazing resulted in higher milk yield per cow, whereas production per acre of millet was higher when the forage was cut and fed as (green-chop. Shown on the cover grazing high quality millet is part of the research herd at the Gulf Coast Substation, where the study was done. I', Published by AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION of AUBURN UNIVERSITY Auburn, Alabama E. V. SMITH BEN T. LANHAM, JR.- 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: BEN T. LANHAM, JR.; R. R. HARRIS, Associate Professor of Animal Science; H. T. ROG- ERS, Agronomy and Soils Department Head; J. H. BLACKSTONE, Professor of Agricultural Economics; AND KENNETH B. Roy. ew and 7ie4 PUBLICATIONS Listed here are timely and new publications reporting research by the Agricultural Ex- periment Station. Bul. 344. Effects of Deep Turning and Non-Dirting Cultivation on Bunch and Run- ner Peanuts. Bul. 346. Effect of Seed Size on Vigor and Yield of Runner Peanuts. Bul. 347. Coastal Bermuda Pasture vs. Other Forages for Dairy Cows. Bul. 355. Grain Movements in Alabama: Firms, Volumes, and Transportation Used. Bul. 356. Rural Land Ownership and Use in Alabama. Cir. 145. Christmas Tree Production in Eastern Redcedar and Arizona Cypress Plan- tations. Leaf. 60. A Comparison of Starr Millet, Sweet Sudangrass, Johnsongrass as Dairy Forages. Leaf. 68. Spider Mites on Cotton in Ala- bama. Prog. Rept. 62. Commercial Fishworm Pro- duction. Free copies may be obtained from our County Agent or by writing the Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn, Alabama. 1 III rt ( {2,iliiilt prdC more glli~iellpp l X \hlei 1314/111 illiliet thau Tisi \\ ixt ilt it(, idlil coliliiOll 611111liii a13t Ili iiayi3 l t tiie ax 'it t Cu toat tiji lxi n ii hei-ii)( 1959a6t V1( iit \iltitv of etlx l et ibainaSar.itIiI i~llllel\ d iease leililit dx-o t ha hri ves l i ll td'C if'li. ili o xith h secions ofi Itlz iiip~iig i tii3 li')l.jipn'u a lti pX iiill' pids r til n i tii Guf at ii't i Xx dx a 13iIllg i ild S ilte oi l X lxlix ( tlow qii t \ tX i.llge xi ilti I ll ex till sl\Cthit i iit196)) XX illiwe fo t ile(1 \\3i 11,111 i PStIX x ll gtrci milleti XX li SIt'd \ a iigitil)Xw t i Cliiitlltitt'x. \is ie e ol fi ihi 196 this( 1962lg for 111A 5 t4d 4etil n Soil fililt( thu 11113 oftiill 1 ill. it s h:4). fri~r" to il ge /i1 prdti xiionl S ig fix I'etlot p1 illi XlPis (ilti stlbl fo lii yrtittelxl piflt't iiigii S~ilix e ho Cq'ut l llt 'ts "i/CIiie. Xxt il t' (il l i lC illf of t it Ill DIle t i i t i t i ii p-obei, gvi-Chplw apeae toofrava1ig Com arbl t grX o iiiii us fixr tttxt \ix i ti Itiin tst s. Thiis heu tld, Peiod no( li. A\ ii lmu I t ht'(l ti c-o\px o lI il iii t' ii e o tIdu e e1s111i i tx ii ili ii k t' X x t too , Idtili i\t'll ) rei ult ed Xt'iX itl l)(i iig m il \iidiper iixr oi u il ior tid iik illi i t i'ell li Ct i ' l i i liI1gi lii tai erio ds t ill 1961-62Xil)XXiiilit \i 1tt.x; tlCri i ltx. X iti i od. GRAZING BEST- Managing Starr Millet for Dairy Cows K. M. AUTREY, Dept. of Dairy Science J. H. BLACKSTONE, Dept. of Agricultural Economics HAROLD YATES, Gulf Coast Substation )letXX'l~l igh111 ii it i lxx\ till itr i1thC X e il (avei ag \\i t s a 3:3 to 351) i k ) .lxxer X ~ \ o1 ltit) m it' iiiik xxhti gid Socj ta l! iiuiiic't ( .3) S ta i i letitg e . 11) i er t (]iiix t\ Itw 3 iXX th i i of'lI Iio plaltilg prichw u i'etle l il a-u h artl pril~ii'igiar ieiit ti llii~lltoi tiit'am C o l xx ia t 1 ) xb'e is fedits x'ueitlso Gretll eIX ll ltul it'pill ltlill tl s n t e-l iliil fr i herd1111of less IthP11 a'll 0 (,\. For x lt' r herds 'x xx iiti 'ii ll t't 111111itt pix IIIXX ittiiid ihi ih lt't'ls oft eoI Ci 11tlix Ilitia iie i fa ible, fli I tplal t-.uxi are ll) e ii il 111111 i t'.rvde Iih u lt I)aily milk 1) r()(11, (.1 ion. polold, (,m Cd Go'('ri-chop WL Thrips damage to young cotton plants. (R) Plants in thrips-controlled plot. Injury usually disappears by time plants are 4 to 6 s eeks old. I \w 1 2. Vx i \llii Ii11r \\ t, 1-Is I \ Six Cos. I1ol (,XEt INtFtt\ Ix INAt~it x\ix I tillt pcr 1001 oxit , I IiIIIs see Cotll per acre IM i ct (11 ttIC C ONI tIOL OF't ttt11lPS ill Akilbatma does tot ilccsaltt ji ttalt Iloreic otttitt per acte! Ill tilet, 1ittttt ltc plots illn 111 bet s of' expert ttetst on txieldlcd treated \ ,litc of C-otittill0 thi rips ott ttiti hias beeti ixstigautc( hx -Xhiitit 1 Uin x ersitx Agit iltitial Expci itieit Statitii tlt a 1( ntmhci of it tat 110 i iii Al1.1)00) for sexea Nieisatrs. '1 (stitig iiisl'cticjilcs toi ci- tectix cless flis beeni of 1 little eoitecril siltee tlotst of those ieeotillit~illee lior cooi ti ot other elittoit pests ,tlso ecittol thrips. Ill add ittoti, , xxste llie itixeeti- \0itilw plailts fro torltipx iiojittx for sex\ xxa weeks. The miitiii ettiisidl('txtioi hats Sit Te ll Loicaltin a1nd ti ct IttII IItx I lillil I'l a tt' I 'tol (li c k 1(Ili-s Kt l 'i Motllixxi i I I iii l)i, xStiiii Chick I )i-xx stoli iteeit the x ,tlitc. if ,nx , (letk ix c ollmi Nature of Damage 111,15xv ilifsctittiits loax Catuse sex e (lilit1e tot xellig planits. Feedintg of both illtlts ilt tillmitltr c Ioriox eatitxes theI (iltil)liwt' itS (sti ~ill u leaf tissuie, \%liil texsults ill i,tiff'( crittkicd leavtxes see'( phtots se. ex iliilstttittoll xt ieto leaf bilds ittil citlse fplants tot Iceottc ex- (cxix tlxIv brtitcl le ad disxtotetdI N. N\or- miilx ittitt x is tiitgi t\xxii itt 4 to (-A cs. Control Experiments 'I'llrips LI1). 1 62 1 I1.488 1,481 1 99( 1,923 1,97 1 1,- 1:3 1,567 1,626 1,595 1,448 1,615 2,89:3 2, 915 2,847 :2,148 1,8:.5 2,(42 COTTON YIELDS- Thrips control vs. none T. F. WATSON, Zoology-Entomology Dept. Nio. 1L1. L 1). (I KA 4:3.8 1 ,99:3 'It tatc 1:3.7 1,863 .110 I )i-\ xxo 1tti 17.6 1,952 41 'Each tivcictt 1is ix tragt', x al ili of six differet c xpimnits. points wxithi regatrd to thrips ietitritl ill Alab~ama. First, il tmatny instances titrips populations at e xo ocle]igill ats to be Of little oi- 11 II) tiSe(ILICeI, attoi SCCOId, een wixxhere infest ationst are si tffhe jetitixT dlex to callse sex crc planit damlage totall .vlel dx atre nt i t dvxe rxel.x affected. Illt loat i clioT's, x'ieldx xx e e xhghtl\ gr eater xx et ii thipx xxere not eontioiledi. Thiis hals ilxo lbeett fountd ill a ttttilbr of, oither ('ltton -prodl(icii g states. experimoents ate gixven itt Tales I and 2 to shoxw t exlts of' th rix ('1)11trtol. Bo th poloiate altd I)j-sx 'trot jttxectjc-idex ej\ e glood Conttrol of' thrips tot seedlling Cotton. Results, ats shownx in these tahles, itdi- (atle that tht ipx cotrol doex flt t eex sat 'ixv tocalt alt tttcreaxc int xieilix. Inl fou ott f the six expetrimetnts, treatmttst xwitht 1)111)1te attid l)i x stittt rcxttlted ill loxwet x lelds thatt the utreated cheeks. The phoiate treati 1e t tre'slted ini a s1ltlx gTicater x ieid itt otte of tile experi- mlets txII( xxhu)i xx xll resuiltedl itt tile top) ieldl itt tile ril'aliitg text. Ill ttotne of1 tltcx(' xx ax there atll imotrtat1 differ- et tee ilt \Ie]dx lIelxx ect t rcaite(h illl Il, treated Ipltx. Conclusions It is eoit('lided ftottt tltt resillts of Iltexe expet itilit5 that thle d(ll attalges at Ishig ftoitt tlt' ctnttol tf, tlttips filt oit wxeigh illtx adx ittttItiwe that ittav lie graittel. T[ite tttaitIlot elit tresults It.11 ito 1111V lttlif tutu. x igot (lls grixxth tf thel ottttg pilats. Iloix~r vxt.Nisibile (diftetentes itt lrt-itxx th Iwwexxet tit itlred lli at 1 n 1111 p el flitits~ hlt~t itsitlly dlisappfearedi lix thle titnec tile eittitt is 4 to 6 xx (eks tol ag(e. T[he llisailx ailagex fritti cittitrolilt i tlttipx ittr-: I ) itt (t('-axex cost of utttit lit(1(1 etitilt 2) t-extlts itt itt It tetease ill x e(L attd, 3) (lextrox x blcttceial ittxeut loolal~tioix that itid llit tihe eoti of itf tttottiit pest, thle iillxxorttt. 'rABLE 1. NUMBEIIS OF T111111", Nl) YIELDS 01 Co-FiON FHONI SEVEBAi. ExeFim\IENis PECAN INDUSTRY in ALABAMA E EI KEPI pi laeial 011(1 zli a S ouc af iia~ 'i illilici toss arti netinig t'oisliiinel teinodc foi- tree' mits. Gross return s to fatrtoers of the State front pecanls ill 196:3 iioittted to 9.5 mlilliont dollars. Thlis \\-ias Ilitile thati that receiv ed from ams other silngle \egetal)Ie. frit ort ni ot crolp that \eair. 1. ithrttlli ateis, 1 oss 'el'. the ileollie experitenled~ ill 1f96:3 demoo)1strttd it ptutti Ia rlth er tillita steaidN realization incsle itiolafil fitlectitiolls ill i oiioll [ll1 the t' asra ,re ii a lee bcc ti itsitieraloli. Production Alaai itIs st'toodt to Geolrgia itt litg thet mollst till fot ttalit 11rodi l of pllaIs fi ile ic nation. Petans i le litbse to tit Statte aod aleal. Otigittails gtl os fog \\ i~f ilt its lilallttlt huh tg stI itais all r(1ivSer btom aitild 1011 itu 5 peaX itit,( Oisfoundtt to t~o t'id 5 itli tll s s i a rletles. ills Stil t't ill Si 41(1 if 11itie S 't 5orI' ft's a W\estt'rnt statt's. made Pit'att 8tt lliit t ect n arte' ts. icitg ltt,y it iee l slls orh~ilt. Pttisic its, 8li- 1f964.tiels.192 1962 it's aied tfhat ois] :3/, ecisc t'. itis. prIoll of'~ tetis'l coliii frill Illlit gitiss tO iil(Sil]\ 'tf/ recie hll ti-te illr tif the'ai it'i fill t ilt't't I l .\iialihll i 1')-Ier 5 rdco 6'1 W'(11O~ i'4 of ic \'Ilage 1 1 IT tfititi1i00\ 01* IM''t1V I alitittig te Itilt.o ('I tt't'ti s i ls thu \u'tc il ii ie\ 1 ill I o~ ~ ~arketi ng icdrs I'l-elc a Although many of the 200 pecan growers interviewed in the study had groves such as the one above, results showed that only 300 received a major portion of their income from pecans. iitiii jii't'tiots Procuree aneditis tlec mothl of pctiit' I1 ttiisc sits iiithe loc'it trilt' S tlyill te A tit'til bet, i ll-r aeliexn~ t' pitia t'att'tit v bct b 13ti 5 iitlf iiiift'titieiof tlllt8t't0 f tne SOHl Ilg'it'l 8 ittil ,.titi ac oiit i- abtli( .iiihlt o15f th ilt't'tivs t idesil the piodsode,\ttel:1acoite o 9V' of tecoomic Res eh ~ ar fet'llt' ild eatet, eht'ieis his oc itlaitillt sil lll Cil)Zt.i SOUTHERN BLIGHT, or "White Mold," is a destructive disease of peanuts in Alabama and other peanut-growing states. The blight is caused by a soil fun- gus (Sclerotium rolfsii), which attacks roots and soil-level parts of peanuts and many other plants. A wide range, of plants serves as host for the blight fungus, and it has the ability for long survival in the soil. For these reasons, control measures have been restricted to, cultural practices. The disease is usually most severe where peanuts are planted following pea- nuts or other legume crops, and less se- vere. where oats, corn, or other grain crops are planted in rotation with pea- nuts. Oats appeared to give best con- trol of the fungus in studies by Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion. Fungus Control Studied How grain crops help control the fungus and reduce disease severity is *Cooperative, USDA Agricultural Re- search Service. 6 not clearly understood. One possibility is that decomposition of plant residues by microbes in the soil creates conditions unfavorable for the Southern blight fungus. This was one possibility investi- gated in the laboratory and greenhouse studies at Auburn. In initial laboratory studies, S. rolfsii was grown in sterilized water extracts of dry plant residues. Rate of fungus growth is indicated by the following dry weights of the fungus: Extract source Clover Peanuts ------ Vetch-- Corn Oats Dry weight, mg. 84.1 64.7 52.7 47.1 35.3 Growth of the fungus was considerably less in cultures of oats; or corn than in clover or peanut extracts. This suggests that oat and corn residues may contain substances that directly retard growth of the parasite. Survival of Fungus in Soil Effects of plant residues on survival of the disease organism in soil was investi- FIG. 1. Illustrated here is survival of S. rolfsii mycelium on nylon mesh cloth buried in soil amended with dry plant residues, both sterilized and natural soils. gated. The fungus was allowed to grow over small squares of nylon fine-mesh gauze. These were then buried in steril- ized soil and in natural soil containing dry, chopped residues of clover or oats, and in soil without residue. Microscopic examination revealed that the fungus disappeared most rapidly in soil containing oat residues, Figure 1. Reduction was much greater in natural soil. This was expected because of the suppressive and destructive action of other soil microorganisms. Such rapid destruction of the fungus in the presence of the oat amendment might be expected to reduce the inoculum potential in soil, resulting in less disease severity. Residue Effects on Stem Rot A greenhouse study at Auburn was done to determine if amending soil with dry oat residue would reduce, stem rot damage of peanut seedlings grown in fungus-infested soil. Seedlings were grown in rolfsii-infested soil that was amended with clover, peanut, or oat resi- dues. A comparison treatment had no residue added. After 15 days, plants were removed and rated for stem damage. As shown by Figure 2, peanut seedlings suffered less stem-rot damage in soil amended with oat residue. Results of the laboratory and green- house studies indicate that control of the Southern blight fungus by crop rotations involving oats might result from (1) water soluble substances that occur nat- urally in oats and have a suppressive ef- fect on the fungus; and (2) unfavorable conditions for growth or survival of the fungus in the soil during oat residue de- composition by other soil microbes. DII IS STEM ROT SEVERITY RATING FIG. 2. Stem-rot severity ratings for peanut seedlings grown in fungus-infested soil amended with dry plant residues are shown. NUMBER OF MESHES COVERED WITHMYCELIUM NUMBER OF WITH MYCELIUMtiiiiiiiiiri tiiitri iitiiiiiiii SOUTHERN BLIGHT DISEASE OF PEANUTS REDUCED BY OAT RESIDUE IN SOIL AUBREY C. MIXON* and E. A. CURL Department of Botany and Plant Pathology S KIPI NOlNE,1 ' O XXI) 111 o fouri. Ala- bitla fll Inr .1111101 X 11O lLila a ho s~1w 1 cotchI roigfor skip-r~ IoXtitton. Ill 1964, :38,38.3 aci es onl 1,280 tai ii \Xci0 pidiltit ill skip iIIXX patternls. 110, X\\,its nloe thanl tXX itt tile- failOXll aiid acit ot skip-rx I Xlottoit iin 1963. Less thi fouiii\ \\cXX s X('t ki 1 pped oil 98% of tiw 1964. ductd aiti the Tekicss l' X 1 aX Still- Xtitiiii of thet Anihoiii I iXersitX' Agi- cuilturiial Expf~tin110it S tatiouI oin IDect'.i CIw il for1 iti a .7 Nar peri od. A hiigheri y iteld pe'r alcre of' cotti 11 allot iniit \Nias obitainedt X itli ski 1 ) riXX tllitii XXithl c1)11 thil sli pl 1iitilt~. Is thle ii cli '1)1 ili uiste of, sk 11) 1 i)X or ca1n'i this land( 1)e put to it ioi t'Pirofitable luse? 0(101 ti. 'I'lX XXr tit ('1111 0( i l iX IIvCaiIs. Test ofi ' li ii X-irict ii' ot thes icX roiips at tile Tei 111(55C \.ilt'X StibstaltjioiIiX tie 117 X Ceal pe'tio1 (19.59-6:3) Iiiicttcl that I' Cit Xr NiclIti Of ullili thanl 800(11i). iOf hult tottoti. 801 hol. iif torn1 anid sli,Iliti\T les's thlaii 2(0 111. ofi sii'.beais pre al d onl Decaturl clIX soils. Costs XXl ti e stimtetd ulsing per ileit' it'lds if' 700) IL. of hult eiittii TO) hi. of turii. and 2(0 Iti. Of Xso v)cims. It XX\,its iissiiiied thalt 4-rIIXX except t pliltilng 2 x. I atid 2 x. 2 ski 1 ) rowX t'ottiiii. TXX Ii FoiXX planlters XXcre uisedi for thes('e 1 )attcril . All rp tiiiv)eX Ci as- Xuliiiet to be COstoill 11111 Xestt'tl. Bclel~tl XXr iikl~t thle f1cleu \t'XSCO lt'X Siubstatiiiii iiiditated that 2 x. 2 jplinlit- iiig of c'ottoi re tsuilted ii a .56% iitieased ciittiii, the io11( s \\iX s XX:X31%. Tlit ex- 1 )Crimiiiall XX il ditd iiit iutiiiele 2 x I planlti((. leSniits oIf lCscIaich XX (rk ill thet Dt'lta (If'N MiXsis'sipp 1 ii itlIilteti that crFeast' ill Xil 10(1 s1 4 x 4. Tis XXa 115 s-1 suiot'd apicjable for' ('olparismlis pc 70(0 11). of ]tilt pt'r aeri C. tXtItt't X ittis for 2 x 2 Xvere 1,092 I1) mnid foi 4 x 4 lb] 2 x I X lelds XX 'rc 9:31 11). 13ised oii t'sti iiatc t' osIts f oi tihe thiiee' paltterns of u sk if-rlXX cittoni, 2 x2 phiait- ait ilt.e th h ihes Ciitur. t 111 1565 lillilteti eiittoii. The, 2 x I auud 4 x 4 ApprimtclC\ Ihalil the( tdiffe'reiices iii cosIt oif prodtuinig skip-i-m iX ud siilid ('(t- XXtil XX ti I' (-'11 h 'to X p i i Xkid I i i '(I for 2cos2 Xk1 1 ) I iIXX ('litli frt'C t - creaseX tracXkr, cqiciXX lttlI takt' le X. ,l s ofcr ll-ll~ p red u\th 11111(1 \ cot- 1111 Increased yield and harvesting efficiency were obtained from skip-row cotton on the Station's Agricultural Engineering Farm. turiu. If at hi ti plaiitCe 4 x 4 inisteadt ot 2 x 2, heC XX oil( be X.1c1itiihia $:32.07 pe " cr l I I rtI to1 tlIandi, 1111111,1gelliilt, .iii tixe co\t1 tsts, O i I)XX ii 1 )CIo\NXX lietiirii to 2 acres ililid 1 acret Coti f.5 acres iif 2 x I litil( .5 actt t'X(1)11 2 aIcreX 2 x 2 2ac'ts 4 x. 4 8S139.49 152.'35 163.87 1.31.80 Th' tci ing iiiid t'oittl Ilntie IiXs t1.5 acll toft 2 x 2Ikf FotiiXXid0. 1 aei If toit' ThxIsjlt ii I rna t 'iiit tlli e ost Ipe thullbtter' ti 4jijo~ x 4 i sk i o t ton.2x XXIf1( ellot' iiost'ttl.in i iile lt'' it a t'r prt abl to lit oiCa i' t X oXt-i toi i ' I tile l tx t 2 ki p i IX p ttrn IS \v'ooi' bel~l SilislI ill- orp lv-e (.11 Ct'itll SolidI 2 x 2 4\x4 Coln1 8 22:1.80 297.6)) :3-49.35 297.6(1( 80.50) 50.00) f('tulnl to land1(, Expunses mgit., & fisi'' c'osts 8126.25 166.22 18.5.48 165S.80) 41.94 :3:3. 16 8 9.55 1.31.38 16:3.87 1:31.80 .38856 t 6.84 SKIP-ROW COTTON May fit your farm E. J. PARTENHEIMER and J. H. YEAGER, Department of Agricultural Economics 0 lIt ~ .1l. 44 & -~ 5, (3'> ii, -t ii. 5' 'P 51' 45 0 Controlling Weeds During Coastal Bermuda Establishment R. M. PATTERSON, V. S. SEARCY', and RAY DICKENS Departmnt of Agronomy attd Sotls An ce til to f x \ .i T i i tri le xx enittliti t o ut xlls yFxx -ki ua i \ to d s xxt arexnt serious pt'lnit. iii t'xt ablix]iii g (am.st ill. Thes pest ]tt plitxt comptet xx itli th let \ t k'xl plainte ' ra fix ot. e\t ex lit (t'e t itttt els trot t loittii.l ts. xxus t\c''l tlat t'xtitb- hli x stx. It hits btetet ktiitxx i fot st'x t't l x cat x thatlit lri~tlltaf xx t't't ('PI l (0 be Potole b\~5. )( 2,4-b.6 D el eIAH," iil-(' 2059) hil 963 it~ilil (4kilttlitt'tx ,hi ltia Nuolt of1 iiolillttatuits tit'l x t t Cro ( ix aeralsPut St il \iti ll\itt 19(54 fr hi Uset it tot ( I \\A itil H ,tlti btlw \\ritt esxted opilIll- itti i a ntel\ A l spriggitig thet h oliiilgt-tsx. M)lA iutid These tests plots illustrate effects of herbicides on Coastal stands, as well as weed control provided. Treatments shown (left to right in each phato) are: (1) CP 17029, 2 lb., and untreated check; (2) dlacthal, 8 lb., and untreated check; (3) CP 31675, 1 lb.. and weedy border; (4) diuron, 1'/2 lb., and CP 17029, 3 lb.; (5) sim- azine, 2 lb., and diuron, 1 lb.; and (6) DMA, 6 lb., and diuron, 1 1/2 lb. per acre. I)".. P %\eret apliedl polst etoiigent to tlii xxed iti ant [)I P \\it ax lso tre itfs ax t prueietgetice Itethieile. Tireattmetnt tfieets efIft'tiX ('IX ('ee t Cl 2 :31675 at '2 11). per act e of aetix e mtatetrial at th(e Pint Br3eedhiig ,'it itl 1963. Ili 1964, etitlN xxCe et ii cot t\its (foo id ftol a11,ll ti ti t excepQUt' 1 t ( P 170(29 att 2 11). itd l)\3 ) pteetnet et ct') at 112 11). I)et acreC. 13ioa~dle'il wccd ,\evex so sprs I 2x il l all tests tluAi liilexc Wittl~l tillit d ilael lt tulier co tro ott illlul frs 3lb.1; IXPA, 4, S. anti 16 lb. tiititt., 1, 1 atiti 2 lb). C-2059, 2, 4, and) 6 lb., (1) :3167.5 I, 1 ittd 2 lb.: attd M1s31', :) and)( 6 lb). llectixe cititrti iof itlitnill gi'axx"ixttd C'oasxtal s4 td it \er te t t'tict't ini 1963 b\ siiiitt it 2, 3, phoitographis illutatle efft't't of 1 't bteitlex ott xtitttlx of (:ttlstxld, its \\(ll,I it1 tnte eitt ol. 't itlts of bt'trilifgtas \\ixx xxettlost'l corret'littd with(It xx lxx let ( 2)) stmt/itt(, I mid 2 l1). p~et iere. )3) ijttot, I atttd I" lb211. I)C tet i (4 ) (':P :3 1(56T, 5. 1 , illt)d 2 lb). p)Ti a(t; its] I.5) IXPA. 4 it] ) l1). perkt' At p t'xett soonitol is the iottl olt' of' tl'e tht is I t'gixl tr, b.\ Lx I'SI) lo t(his pittpos"' V ~' 45' S l~l~ '~' 1' 5- &5, ~ I (D W HAT DOES IT COST to produce a weaned beef calf? This question has been asked by many cattlemen. Costs vary among farms according to kinds of pastures, grain, protein and roughages fed, investment in breeding stock, and other factors. A study of major cost items, their relative importance, and why some producers achieve lower costs than others was made by Auburn University Agricul- tural Experiment Station. In the fall of 19683, 47 producers of weaned beef calves in Montgomery, Marengo, and Sumter counties were inter- viewed as well as 67 others in northern and southern Ala- bama. Physical data, cost estimates, and production practice information were obtained. Central Alabama Producers The 47 central Alabama producers averaged 23 years ex- perience in beef cattle production. Their average age was 53 years. More than one-third reported farming as the only source of income. These farmers operated an average of 1,033 acres; 40% of the farmers rented a part of the land operated. Herd size averaged 141 beef brood cows, the largest consisting of 674 cows. Average weight of calves sold was 454 lb. at 8 months of age. Farm land chargeable to beef averaged 4.5 acres per brood cow. Almost 90% of this land was in native grasses or native grasses plus clover. Very little use was made of temporary crops. Costs Involved Excluding a land charge, only 86% of all the producers interviewed had total costs of less than $25 per cwt. of weaned beef calves sold. The average cost was $26.68 per cwt. (See table.) Pasture and feed were the major cost items for all groups. Low-cost producers had the lowest pasture costs per cow and as a proportion of total costs. This was achieved by a higher stocking rate and greater dependence on native grasses and native grasses plus clover. COSTS AND RETURNS PER BROOD Cow AS REPORTED BY 47 WEANED BEEF CALF PRODUCERS, CENTRAL ALABAMA, 1962 Cost per cwt. groups Items Number of farms Av. no. brood cows Acres, land per brood cow-- Costs per cow: Pasture . . . Feed -- - -- - -- Interest on investment in beef animals ...... Marketing Buildings Other Less breeding stock sales and change in inventory- Plus purchases Adjusted net cost per cow_- Pounds of beef calves marketed per cow ...... Cost per cwt. of beef calves sold Less than $25.00 $25.00, to $34.99 17 19 165 124 3.9 4.9 $20.37 24.02 11.26 2.10 2.61 11.52 $ 42.72 29.28 11.66 2.68 3.67 14.73 $35.00 and over Average all groups 11 47 132 141 4.8 4.5 $ 46.35 36.60 9.63 1.92 3.27 14.70 $71.88 $104.74 $112.47 $34.04 28.64 11.05 2.27 3.13 13.36 $92.49 22.98 11.13 23.58 18.89 15.44 13.15 7.01 12.78 $64.34 $106.76 $ 95.90 $86.38 364 365 182 324 $17.70 $ 29.24 $ 52.63 $26.63 WEANED BEEF CALF PRODUCTION - Costs and Returns* TOM D. NOLEN Department of Agricultural Economics Types and amounts of feed fed varied among the groups. Low-cost producers used a less expensive source of protein and produced hay cheaper than the other two groups. In general, low-cost producers fed less feed per cow. The aver- age producer fed 5.2 bu. of corn, 1,584 lb. of hay, and the equivalent of 261 lb. of 41% cottonseed meal per cow. The average low-cost producer fed only 2.7 bu. of corn, 1,340 lb. of hay, and the equivalent of 260 lb. of 41% cottonseed meal per cow. Amounts of feed fed were probably above normal because of the severe winter of 1962. Interest on investment per cow was lowest for the high- cost group. This group valued cows, bulls, and replacements at a lower price per head than producers in the other groups. Average value reported per cow was $165 by low-, $150 by medium-, and $135 by high-cost producers. There were no great differences among groups in market- ing and building costs per brood cow. However, building costs per cow were closely related to size of herd. As herd size increased, building costs per cow declined. Building investment averaged $26 per cow for low-, $37 for medium-, and $33 for high-cost groups. Other costs included fencing, health, water, property tax, and labor charges. Labor cost averaged $4.22 per cow or $1.30 per cwt. of weaned beef calves sold. Output and Returns There is little difference in annual cost of keeping a brood cow regardless of whether she produces a calf. Therefore, output per cow in addition to level of costs is an important factor affecting profits. The amount of weaned beef calves sold is largely determined by percentage of calf crop, replace- ment rate if replacements are raised, and weight of calf sold. Low- and medium-cost producers sold almost the same amount of weaned beef calves per cow, although their costs per cwt. were quite different. These two groups averaged almost 0.9 calf dropped per brood cow and sold almost 0.8 calf per brood cow. High-cost producers averaged 0.65 calf born per cow and sold only 0.43 calf per cow. Average weight of calves sold was 455, 463, and 426 lb., respectively, for low-, medium-, and high-cost groups. Fifteen producers had receipts above costs as calculated excluding a land charge. However 62% of the producers had returns that equalled or exceeded cash costs. By analysis of both input and output phases of their cattle enterprises, beef calf producers can determine ways to make improvements that pay off in dollars. * This report is a part of an overall contract study on the po- tential for beef cattle in Alabama supported in part by a grant from the Southern Railway System. PASTURES for BEEF COWS NURSING CALVES W. B. ANTHONY, R. R. HARRIS, and R. R. NIX. Department of Animal Science and 0 . STARLING and C A. BROGDEN. Vt cegrass Substation * 2~, ."~" 5' I,' C ~ A t xii x i s Iitii ti t 400,00061 itcl is itt (luuastall berlloldlgu ass! Thii t ye oflg i Co(astatl itt the Soiuth- Citstei ittltild smttutltx stertt sieltutis iot ttis iiittitrx is estinmated lto Ite mtooe. thani .3.5 Itig attigl (\1)etittlctts ittnduted bts Atlltt t lix et sitx\g teriuiltuitrt ['penl ttliit Stattion iti sititheui aCenttral, it d ofitits criop, steer gTititix ttn Coa~statl ltaxe [iell gtc ati'r thi tl st'ii ait ts il othier pet ttlui'tit patsture i' t ps. sttcl) as Pettsil riceii, itt ot chardgt ass. Itt thise i5.ci- tnettts, :t 1ttmiig t (riti pe r itere itas bei Mllt ha~s lli'it lttxx. 1 his has rtaised thei qlwstii o if liCi a(I'iwe o x f ( i tit t pats- lttV i'ts till' Sith hid fitt a)I CiOi ciixx ttit tn(c it Calf. Ftrom 1958 to thei ~ i'esitt timte, hlef icitxxs toot-sit tg Cetlis 1lttse hult tused its test attittotis fur cx ilittitig pastureis at tli Piedtitttlt Slbstitltitt. (Jillf gTaitts fiir Cowxxs gTraititg( Coaistal 11.15 bee'i' qciual~ o stitpiriir lto gitit is fi- Calves titir-sitig Ciixx gt t/tttil &Illis. siticia oi- Peit tcoitt )itit. Ilt this stitihx Milk fIOltiCtiiil1 xx'its ntecisurt ciidi coxx s gtain g Coatal proi- This caw and calt herd is grazing Coastal at the Sta tion's North Auburn Beef Unit. gItica/it g iite critii o isths Anicr er caxfptrimetI a xit the coxx xxass to Coatstatl. Ci aitt feiitt i'oxxs mid cix es xxits ttsed as, it Sutpeifor fei'it pi ogratn ttt Coastal gI il/it t. Ti Citttit tts listed xx iri' I ) Coiast al gyrit/itt g altoniei, 2 Coia~stal gfrit/itg pis fi'iiliig cosNs 4 lit. of gtall pei'r htiatd ilitils , :3) Coastall Cows ~t it1x aks. Datal fotr thi' 1963 gi a/ xx as lot- thi' Jurttlioti of tew gt a/tttg Sea- sot tmtid the i itxxs xxcr mt i nlkedl at 28 dity iilti'ra Is. Stock itg rati' it tcpirit tet ii pitstitri's xxias Ilil (itt istilt il t 2 Cowxs atitd 2 id\l es pet 1 .7 5 itit is. Experimtetalt t1)llp xx ire riotati' ilt pastutri's ait 28- dlxit\ iteit 'ls. Pitsttt ti's xx(I(i treated xxith xx'its adeqitu tttiw ~tit\ iilli at :li tti'es. Th Iti xxillt ciaigi's fttr Citwxs itti Shtttx i l itt alt~ 1. Aittittigil eoxxs glitz- itt(, Coa)tstal xxil ittoilt itthet I ied g"itilled ,I'rZt III Itti t Coltt iii (Co\\ S fcd Caixcx lii 4011) Pit cii\all CO\\x per itr LI1). LI). 88 101 1(1) 186 191 218 191,3 221 88 111. dir the' silsii, fi'eiutig thin setilsOt gainl. (,o\\ galil \\-itas allso doliled by Creiep feeding cab cx. Vlit mdt oost SitittiotI it a gaol 7of 88 l1). for_ at Coxx filorsilig at calf xx oliii be iadequalte. 'I'lere- fore., Coastal pasturei fiun Iis! iii adeiqute feed for tie Coxx 111iisitig at callf, It is sigli fiicitnt to n otie cO\x (Yi1n itiilic' l~v Ceep fii'dit ig (ix is. 'Iblis inilicated thtat stockit ig( rate oil Coastal Pasture il ight bC iincreased it Caixves xxere, creep fed. alix es Col istintedi at x rage of 4.68 I1). ofi gyi ait per heail iailx. Calf rais te yixC it it Table 2. ie~d- log calx cx or fiedittg cab is andi their damtls iit si' Calf gaitl. Feedig the coxx h111( ito bl~lei'iciail effect il tihe Calf. MIilk pt tdutcti of damis xxas itot ill icased lby feudintg graitn iin adidititon to gt ait ilg. M ilk pro diltiol i of cioxxs ax er- i gfeil abouit 10) lb. pert Ctow dalil aild tieatlltitt lif letdiices xx\etc stmall. \\']ell Ce~ixis xxer in'cepeil theft iatos iltilk- prttdt etiotl tettiled to be loxwered. Thlese idata trexvcal, t II ' 111)1e, that (Co astal p)astutre is adequflIate ats tile sohii fedlfor a iti' cttx-o\ litsina it Calf. _Milk prt id iltio ll itt fleef Cowxxs is Ill rilol \\'xxtenl th iti' oltot is Coastal gtrazing, anld it is ltt ieeaseil fbx 110prox it" ti le ieit xx it!) gyrail I sltfpfleltetit. Cix is otl Coastal- gtazed dattts gil 11i' 5 Ihlt l gillen alItl byX Creep, buit thls tis h is ittl slltoxti tio he ttu for filliiillost at iV t\ pi gI it tgl~. Alsio, ats shossii ill titis tiest, bteef ciows ma~kie lilrge r sealsi ill l gail wex ll SuIppliedl it rittioti so petit I to Coastal grazit g. Af- thiough oxvelall briotid Cowx pel foroltui call bei sliglitx impfroiveid bx sitll)lx iltg shlowxs tha~t Coastatl grait/i g is ats gotod its otheir pirtoIt itt ct 1 )ist Itt 1 Cliips t all has a h igher \ id potet ial titan molist othler specti's. 'I SILL 2. CAtF INS 55 'It etutilitt Si'itsuitt giti 1 Pit ctlf (AitlIo] Co\\x S f ii ---- CaItx iS fe'i ('.ixxs iand Catlves fed Sictsoti giuittll per airi Lb 1. :149 ,)17 .386 421 'I x1i Ii, I. \\ I., I(; I I I (;x IN 01 Co\Ns per iodl 1934 to 1 9:38 intx e beetn x ideix tiialgt to tileC 1) pextot ti71t. Cotiued I exen ii at \utii- ht ax deCxelo pt'd I ~tel me~tthodls of1 upplicatnoil at iti Clilapel 17(1' til /Ci for1 otlder polds. It xx ax 01 ilallx lccoli)0llui'ldltd that fertilizer' be appflied bix 1)1 attaitigw (Ixe( xlllltxx i xxatti artax, or Iiv 1)0111111 it inl ai jiie 15 to 20( ft. from thie xlihl ci at 01111(1 xbhllttxxr pai111tx otltilt pol~lt. Later it xx l ax ill~d tlmt lest''citttili/Ct xx ax te- tlllirtlI atLi h ll t'xtitt xx clC oihtaillcil if fetrtilizert\xxtax, placed ol l l a liatforl t aibolut I It. tilltir xx %tt't. ( SeIf plmtt. Wtit Id :11 d xx axtx x Wete fC(ttix C ill Clix- platfotil tu Citt olattoll of litltro. tx ill top requltitred 11)1 lki 1) 20 % tto 40q. Fot Iti till/zat itt ol oldier pondisi xx lwtt potnd \x tt's ]lat1 Iteet i btroughit undl~er let tilii/tttol \\ xxia font iti possible. C'otl- initd 1(1 ttA till/uti olld did '7) t t re-a~ 91111ir xt tiscol acomIIplete ferltili/ter. Potids th at hadit rece~ive po 1 1tash 17(1tili/ail ftor axs ]it(, ax 2 x (,Li x no1 llltlgt' tivc(led ad- dtttiom till li ttt ox ltathis e ttilit Tis x\Cars of 117Itttili/Ittiti alsxtl tadc possxile IIICTI aC, 1ll LitlldtiC le o 'tt ctaiti igjottpx 111 Oltt (Icti tixtig iiatt'tia that ix t'ti 17111 111 lti to a polit xMictroC tilex (711111 Illix h st tC '1cili x 1711))] 1Iral llit (t'j Is Itx. Lit aleto IS(' Otitilt' ax rcl llitr c l dt i 3t xxhxeii og i) ei bod prtinx. itiii i their11)1( 4 IN A single platform can be used to fertilize up to 15 acres of water. Here the pond has been drawn down to show construction details. Fertilizer is placed on top of platform, which is 1 ft. under water when pond is full. sot itht' furhe exxtill weeix Tl lx after L1ltx fu\ \Cirx of 171'tiijatjll cxxllr\ . N itt ttgt't aiit p1tatIxim cltl a beit ttutiittt't. Iioxx txer c ol' lfilltt'( liSt' o' 1711)11 philtt ix iicct'xxai\x. Ex tn Liftei pod iati phttxphate cotsts old Li atat :30'7( as muiih axs ai 8-8-2 or 20-26)-5 ft'rtiizt'r. l'ieix ithi phoplate altiepld Nebiiai (Tel 1. Ixi lteti~r tlgaill tbln oe lextiol prioxlee Slo\ ill itiltd ttxtl1jt' pi ld Ltl) Mac maytii requixx a' tlox ticto irode il csm) tx iaditolilIull olf1iit'lii t xxr ra'i'k oit'ra all llnit'ooi tphulit'i tilld li h art' ] t o a xxlitltx t'l Ih ol xt ll) it' atW Lepthx gtt'1ittor ltate ]itrS r in. phIsIhte.x pUltiixII x t' 1 ooi'. xx't'i 'ltstidei \lx p I t't'exxa x il i'(xlltx xx llii l ar17 tittd plxd \(xili tin' to 5 w tlTih/tis a t iit ]lotte o e 11) i. excep a t ill7C 1 tf1f7lt' FERT ILIZ ING farm fish ponds H. S. SWINGLE Dept. of Zoology-Entomology FIG. 1. This is a good -it 4. growth of hardseeded crimson clover. J Persistence of Hard Seededness In CRIMSON CLOVER E. D. DONNELLY, Deportoseriit of Ag-oiiorny and Sodls P11111 hi is thc3 illst C illXIiio ta \\iX i ll- I tert ll lli C(i11 Xo e lji'tC IC.X \ll th SI.h PrA Iiio to 19X ('i flls ci.ll 1 l Xclve \its ill Ipt' d f rililt Frlei l d 1IIya It Ch \ .iit lid hadtiu'uatliie f(,\ har tei satt. Filit thatX tulil i fscCdills \ait ii suXcI Xas 11.1(1XCil 1l\filiX I)CC tC C\Ci14 ('. illillI SCCiI ii X iiiI o. teX \irfXfs Ths Xii1lIcs ii t Cls XftX XXicties Xt''o [111111 frl IX \i(,ill to iear fil te 11(4 il lifli' toL~ ceti 932 1 61 Xl( ltcli X s I'v Crimsonb th Estbished j\,l.j t(icil t~it iI ( u Ex e i t. .It iiXt i i ' scil- ill ' h if i lX v .itt'. l X 1 IiX C tor I liltcC tol wrt1ti s ioli'X col lil I Ilt'l rei11. i CIiw Notirlsedd. For 8 ,reseed.,.issed\c hm -ir 0-y U i ... o....sedi.g 953 1954 1"5 9 56 1957 -98 Figuir' :3. Each~ i(,\ ari %\as XX I lowi e to illt'1tX IIXCII] ill tile Xtill vX \cIe Is1 to 14 acreC Results sistedI it ('l 5 ItXe CI 1(14 Icc~s'Ii Ii14lirI 2. tgC (of had (I e C c cure (ICIIClituiifq tlle pciC] 1 1 957-59. 'I' IC,1 in XCI'( I CCilt- A 'ii~ fi t 9 57 X\\, 'its rdcedI 1)1 lp til I IltclX 1 1i(11 CS CI, 1i'urii 2. Ill 19.58, ICX'Cdiii14 Xslftcl X(Cli. 115 X l pr oduedli sced of ('CI lX l t Clo 'C p l-cltil(4' (If 1hard( XcII. Jilct' o lo'18)1 -) tiis nohit kloXX II. If, 1959, i111 Still) Id proue I 111(CI i level oCfCX hard seedI. Th'r X\it oS (IcIII Isistel It ti CII t to-I XXes 11 theII ll'IC~ XC l-ofii t resecrti Siiig -e (1111 iii14 tilt stud\X. OiC11c i igh levX ofIl hiardsee Xlis IXcstiilis~Ilild ill it X lrietX, casit. Conclusions I lii of Xlili' lilll'X ill tilsiX ll clovIX front11 fll( Sitesit prid. Ihe hih ICe (I illirillg Year of horvest-Taliossee, Ailabama FIG. 2 Hard seededness from continuous re- seeding and nonreseeding stands persisted at relatively high levels. ,Continuous Volunteering on the Foundation Fied_ 1' ** * t .... ,..,N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 19 194 - 9S 95 515 OS PO 16 6 *Planted in the fall: 1952 "*Continuous non-volunteer g 4 ~enerations Volunteer stand from previous non- *4 *44 4* *4* volunteer generation i 4 L x~~\ ~ 40 FIG. 3. This diagram shows the experimental plan used to determine the persistence of the reseeding characteristic in a reseeding variety of crimson clover. 1959 1960 1961 11 ISX (;I NI II LI KN\OX N tha~t llilai'r i11l t lias maoriO effects oi11 tinage \ ield alid tIitlitv ofI Coastal 1 aria a Iil i ass. Now it 1s leai iced thait t~le satillc Illili aureioeit faictioris also iiHaxc if a liiriiii o i Since Coastal is ioftein etddished l a lud ciiitioiiat.'t wXithi coiiiiioii liii iiitidai tii species Ciiiiipetis \ itli tiii pliited grass. Buit iesuilts ot Aoiioi t. i erisitv Agtricuiltuiiia ENJQI imiit Statioii ai1( tiO l cly[u 1tp ctc ~lli ti it Ji''igtilii taXt ti(iellcx acid tri gooi ipingii ipreiactiis pr ttcitlt ti) tetci Ii ic effects 1)1 i p)tlsist'i ice ioi Coastal, The expcimieiits \\('if-(, liegiiii ill [961 at the LoXX ei- Coastal Plain Sill) stationIl, Cauidecii an d at tite I'iske-ge Exper imeint Fieid. Established stai is of' Coa~stali inftedct wxiti solc ('onuoi il beri Milairas wer ct Selected fort experi- roclital sites. I hic aiiiii l itrio ~ en rates - 2)() 400,) and 6l ( 1t)tli. per ait -X t(ie uisetd, XX itli split applications at :3, 6, and [2- w eek ilitet is (lii I i the groXXiiig seat soili. HarX (st ite l s ot .3 itid (5 XWeeks wee eom~iipaii d. All tireatmenl ts were"- testedl wXith and wXithouit irrigratioi i. Ap- plic-atioii oh lime tod mncid fl ertilizers ill I1961 XXit don(eii acciirthili to soil test TAB1LE 1. Eii ici i f 10 illis IN O C'OMMxON BEHIi s. ' to iONE I I ill. est 1 11W I CIIastal uk-cF(I da~tc Plit tillu. Iil p~et. Pet. 1 .1 11.3 2.8 it0 1 .6 1.1 1.1