~-

S..

t~,gM4~

DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
1)1- johI
I

_ AdIiti

X. sI

oIitI.t)IoftIXXII

ilog to iliportll)ic

iaod addresstX

tliill il

orli fI' XrittcIstIX itiiid.

I~)II

jilki 1974. t,

llitl) IllisiXoIIl 1)11

LaIIId-(;1 dt iiiiiX l)Iiti.', has At dii that \%it cls(talbhla i.X Tis~ IlIsIIXXIIl is to pro for)I a~gictlitualJ idti' reit'XI.'at'iI A-X i liIl. \X ]iII I AtXuii UnI..IiX I

\I.iii 1111.
1o111II'

IIIXi lit\ ed 111 Iltill il

11111. i
ill iX II

Iish(d

~oppot
it

Mdl fholctr\ ilctiX itliX fol
Xis

th12 pcople of'
iss Xion m'X X~~n~ritaII X(rI l itlid M.. ilIlI. XX-e IcIl

il(iAt conltibu~lte to o\ craX

of 'X %inall~

of' 'lai...i liAjoi iattlitiI II ilist cI. ((tillu II ( ), : till pro madIe .l.I~

1le~P peop

GllIIKI\ . Al\adane

GALE A. BUCHANAN

(((tiltStaItionl ciiiries otit its Iiitrl\

m~issionI iX aiciA~

Sitwi' rilI'

~tI iI.?)IL

f'II olltstli

it

it X(I-\Xes it] clti/~ilX. folId for IIXI'ilth. tlIl'

1

Agbcil-lralRecrcinio

Ilrlltcstl

illIlotiicdjII This

proIct 11(11 ii

lshe I

~

it coX IlXItit\

(XIfII

SPRING 1981

VOL. 28, NO. I

A( I II il

I tc

( \\)I t

l

I\\ IIIdi
XI

b\ IXI (
I li\ atlIti I

l I

liA-Ii.....\X

Itla h/hwilwito

al

iI

tit I)l it tI III, \ Illi

I rol II.

ill(

jpliVI

("

thAl

iX

t

,

inc

th

XlIIIc iIll

I.

11( tl

to

sIIlIXel

Iwd II.X t~ I.lIXtill(t 'I)i

((ls

(XX

p

lIiI

XiII

IItil~ct ioll

I.Xt.tf-llfilc

s

o

sc

s

"Xelil

a

\l . X.P

I

./ . .X.II~/ .l .

m t J-iis IlIXXI

l(

1t

ON THEIA CVR Acmeca farm in survey.See story,: page .

ufrs

ALABAMA'S COMMERCIAL TURFGRASSSOD INDUSTRY is relatively young. De-

velopment of the industry in the State began in the early 1940's with introduction of several improved turfgrass species. The industry grew slowly in the 1940's and 1950's. Rapid growth of the industry started in the late 1960's when acreage expanded from 500 in 1968 to 3,300 in 1979. Lack of information concerning the status and economic nature of commercial turfgrass production has been recognized as a major problem affecting the industry. To correct this situation, Auburn University's Agricultural Experiment Station initiated an economic analysis of the industry. A list of 40 growers was developed by contacting county extension personnel throughout the State, the Division of Plant Industry of the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, and individual sod producers. From this list, 26 bonafide turfgrass farms were identified. Nurseries with less than 10 acres ofturfgrass or which resold sod strictly on a retail basis, stripper operations which sold pasture grass, and new turfgrass operations which were not in production in 1978 were excluded from the analysis. Fifteen producers participated fully in the study by supplying detailed information about production, harvesting, and marketing. In 1979, turfgrass production had expanded to include 30 growers in 19 counties in the State. Largest concentrations of acreage and the majority of these producers were located in counties situated within or bordering major population centers. Fifty-eight percent of the total output of the industry in 1979 was cultivated in Lee, Shelby, and St. Clair counties. Growers marketed approximately 4.4 million sq. yd. of turfgrass from approximately 1,100 acres in 1979. Gross farm income was estimated to be $4.2 million wholesale, excluding delivery and installation charges. Bermudagrass was the most important sod species in terms of acres grown (70%) and gross farm income (60%). Centipedegrass and zoysiagrass comprised 15% each of the acres sold and 18 and 22%7 of gross farm income generated, respectively. Landscape contractors were primary buyers of turfgrass with almost twothirds of total sales. Garden center operators, homeowners, and golf course operators purchased 18, 12, and 4%, respectively. Seventy-eight percent of all sod produced in Alabama was sold within the State. The Birmingham and

Tuscaloosa areas were major sales regions, with Huntsville, Mobile, and Montgomery being important markets. Out-of-state sales went to contiguous states plus Arkansas, with Georgia receiving over three-fourths of the volume, primarily in the Atlanta area. Average investment per acre for sod producing firms was $1,670, with land, equipment, and buildings comprising 37, 60, and 3% of the total, respectively. Investment allocations to land were lessened by the fact that on the average growers rented almost 50% of the acreage maintained in sod. On a size of operation basis, average investment per acre for small (less than 100 acres), medium (100 to 250 acres), and large (more than 250 acres) farms was $2,440, $1,610, and $1,690, respectively. Small acreage producers had the highest average per acre investment in land and buildings plus irrigation and maintenance and establishment equipment. Large operations had the largest average per acre investment in trucking and harvesting equipment. Land investment was highest for small growers because they owned 90% of the land utilized for turfgrass. Average investment per farm for small, medium, and large operations was $81,000, $298,000, and $932,000, respectively. Equipment investment per acre for each size category varied widely,especially for small farms. Fixed costs for such factors as insurance, taxes, depreciation, interest on fixed capital, rent, and management and land charges averaged $260 per acre for all growers. This charge varied little among size categories. Depreciation on equipment and buildings was the major fixed cost item, comprising approximately one-third of the total. Average variable cost per acre was $665 for all turfgrass producers. Hired labor, fuel and lubrication, and fertilizer and lime were major variable cost outlays at 53, 17, and 10% of the total, respectively. When evaluated on the basis of size, average variable costs per acre declined between the small ($660) and medium sized ($446) categories but increased between the medium and large ($742) categories. Total costs per acre averaged $926 for all producers. Small operations had an average total cost of $929 per acre, while medium and large sized firms had costs of $701 and $1.003 per acre. respectively.

Commercial

Turfgrass Production in Alabama
JOHN ADRIAN of Agricultural Department and JOE YATES Economics and Rural Sociology

of sod reported the highest net returns of $427 per acre, while large and small firms had average net returns of $404 and $246 per acre, respectively. These values represented conservative estimates of return because they were based at the farm level and did not include delivery charges. Delivery charges varied widely both in method of charging and rates. Larger producers generally charged by the load ($150 to $180) or by the loaded mile ($0.45 to $1.80). Smaller growers generally charged from $0.10 to $0.20 per square yard for delivery. Since large producers delivered approximately threefourths of their product, delivery income was an important factor affecting their returns. Net returns to turfgrass production indicate that this enterprise can be a feasible production alternative. However, it represents a high risk venture which requires a large capital outlay. An important factor affecting the success of sod

farming is availability of viable markets. A guaranteed market for sod does not exist in Alabama, and the demand for sod can be highly variable. Producing a quality turfgrass at minimum cost does not ensure the profitability of a sod farm. If Net return to overhead and risk from demand for sod decreases or if markets the sale of turfgrass averaged $391 for all do not exist near the operation, the producers. Firms having 100 to 250 acres chance for success is greatly reduced.

Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station

'NiNG

OF PEACHES

I~I Ij

spir.a\ N

. Ii l()\ (i, (

ii I() x t

I IIi it Ii II

1

it rlsiiiil-

a ''

rIlItf

W A. DOZIER, JR ,Department ot Horticulture C, C. CARLTON and K. C. SHORT. Chilton Area Horticulture Substation J. A. McGUIRE. Department ot Research Data Analysis

Sensitivity to Chemical
)
tlliitid (i

Tr 1

jG
t \idiN c

till

,T

\ctii

-I

titc . i. (-,

siN

it ] lot ii t
illijlii x

i) tlt ll (dli

nlj~ ixll

xx

hiil' tlix'

iii'

still
i II I xc(It\N
ilt IiI

\igorotiils

ti ('t ill

I li

I I'l, N '
i IL t

Ii ii 11111)111i.l

I

lh iN.Ii

24t li II;t

tt

)111.2
tii l liiIi 11111111w(1 I ca\(",I
iN

iii

a11)1) itt

Ioll .

"Iillc

xii

I ~lit fl i'. iali

fi-Il ittt

tli

I iii llii

Att'iit. i

oii

t ill
ii Ito

t histci l

i x do c Ilililid ii \ i1)1 -(I till IilitallI itpiit.tjiii of iiiitiii) li\\
O e lii\i\ t r atle i" o

I toiii(i)1iwi h\ill

i

t)111

Ii it liltI

-,il

I t ti' ix

'1\\ oll tx Ip)liitii

i. lilN4 ill26 itt~m il2I
t

tlIi iii k
mid
tlili i

li i
It7

\\ ii iill iii
t'

cc ( xx -IN

,1 t i
ill\

t l

\ crc Sit .i 5

(:(;-

15281iii

\

tillli ~

d

-'eiwi

)it \. iii

lii,

.i

.5 iii
N1ii3 ii

xand

i t ill)-

l it

11 o\l i iti tii

ll IN I I i t ilI(

ti'txl I
Npix

l

)I trx i

Il

lilik li I

)n

ic

'tiil

I ItN

it 24(twi
fr)ilit or r)1 lii It il

iii(l
li i\\i.,

d \ Zu iiil ti' I

ii H

i

i

lld

t

il

i

tti

i

ilIt

flixd to "i /(

increii'liits
i c do

iixx,

IrI

l

it it ie x i

T-cc tildx

iill

I I IN.

pi i I 1 rc ds i\

\\iii(-1

\ il

~Ic i

I tt1

'ltiisc ill

t 'iit lilt \i

itik i iii ii

IlN\ l iu

iit 15
,I

ith

t tt

lilill

llil l

iii

Io t

xx IN

il

ti ii Ill -

(

c

o

d

tilio cdI( I'll",M

xx i( i 8.8, I t 8I Ii :

I(-Iii tI\I.

tilit

i
ii it

lit I

tit iiIII
ii Il t

x iit

i

lil till ill i

1 xli I

I

R(I siINx

)F i

ii \ i
xii
ix

tii- )i i L l. i\(N ;l

i.v it

xiitti't

li tlililt

Ii

152 I 1a i i -

.i IN i ii ii h

xI \(.I
I al~ Ii

I,i t \

lltc(

\

(

t I

p

l

i lll I it Ii I II

Ii it 2 , I

ll (

I II it t0.2.1 .22 .22
.22

2

.

......

8t1

470

It 1

Secod-Year 'Ili(I
tIl5

Teiet s xi tilt plii ,(A; ) S
li-'i \

241.1 p 1 I itppliluatili ) t.3iWt p p ii1 I ipll li il 2411) p l -.1 2 plilutiol .i . 30 pp ill 2 ) 1ppiI(IIs . .. i I tiiN 48it1) p) i11.l 2 aiiplii AtiiiltN 2410 p)Ip II 3 i1)1ipiiiIi ll 1 ,t M :361 1)1 1,-:i tliliii aiti I 3

2.3 2.8
1. t

174
tIW

542 46 I 4.35

1211
10i2 96

1.8 19 2. 6 :3.11 3A3

Ill)1)
\ it,,

(,i\
xxi

15 8
ipplid t

5.t t.1

03 14
I
i

387
341) 067 l1. 160

SI

ri I28 It ld

d-

9. 1
9.5

9188 21 (
I

.2-4
.25

311 28

1.5
5.0i

hull.

l(itit

doo ix ~ll

tsilliNl't

24ttioi3t)
68.,77
.iiii

75 F it icipIit\xi

it( anitil.

spr p

ii.tix'itiIixtN illr

ks1 )) i

it

\\

(Ii c

lxB 1, dliii \u

2.

4

lt \'t'ti i t l i

it n .5 s

It

-'

131x l\l s llt

i

1-uFii'i )t
xiix \1il

xl i

)

1,ii 1 I :i1i, )ii ll xlii 19i\~.t79

Ips :

CCA 15281 ticatmeiit'
Ii

) Oclt lix ii
HI ilix istili
l1w] titt' tIll I illt 2 .t

\\ tistllt
tc

illi

i

thu iliilZl

2

401 ppi i i.-pi 11 210, Nix 4 . . . ... 23:3 2411 pp ii i. ipi 1i 28 . . . . . .. 51 30 lip~ \pi 11 -Iix 4 ..... 257 3601p p. I I \ti 28. ................ 92 4810 pp. II \pi1 211.................. 50 4801,1).1I t )ii128 .. . 18.5

I 1:3

66

W1

.10
31)

29Y3

1
31

3.5
2,311
-1 i.

115 17 T18 1001
19)8

AI
.,311 311

2)9
215

252

iii tI ii I I It

lI il ll I 1

11 1IIllit .III )Ii its N , I xx

Iji

\\ I

i

i i l.I(.( it 111111 Ii

II

lililli itti

oi

11111 cl

lci re

l l

ii 11d i

ttti

'll I ilt c '

l~)pp'(IfnItii (i l

klibill-11 I lot crsitll ligricflllllr(d Vx1wrimclit Sleltion

harvests
it

From
'9,

'14

planting -I
First crop grain sorghum nearing harvest. C. G. CURRIER Department of Agronomy & Soils J. G. STARLING, Wiregrass Substation Stalk regrowth for second crop of grain sorghum.

tiigt

ii

el

aitu

xx ro

xiliiki70t1xt.li iitti-

retporitedi

ale

I'i (lll oIIlI I \ea

ofi ex-

leiit toii

prioiucrs

ithttlittl

xtain toN

x tt't

oil i)t'ct hi>
ill

siioiw for theiir eftirtx. Intretst ill g.raili
sori ilil
tis

xilo\Iixi ill

tis il ii eaiiixii beci

it

ibctr 5. 'I ht xi\ ix the tale xxtrc oltaiiurtf frill
tt'

a ilittscltill

tll t di

ei.et i\

t

it

lilii

11 11

that ti]

('dii'

ttxt. Raiiifall wxax attua till xtdxiiil, hut \xa \it 'ili

ilt
fill ieii ii( Aotrt torait af tti . i rain 1)0 et'illi cliill) s('ni that iit-x i i xxg

[t fibtx x utlitijii. esol pritiit'i No01 it) \a 0 li

100

bx hlx, iiil

1 iIii ti('ull p 11(1~i' lxoi iltilli iithat the. ratiloli cropi~ rteducets the tiost per iiiixl of' rriii pr oducaed. Ratiiii crop-

girowxing stilxii

'Ihei kLoxfactiirx for' slii.

111c1
hai'iiiii ii ii ttr tns is its fiilic lith

(lixx proe

0 i II x nx''xlilig hi I-x iii> ghes 19825 ]t. peri\n liiint

4

(jillxit

,'riproduto

arke: ailt \\ iiii o

illiirx o

nitjlit\ Station>\\ itiaxx Siithxtarto Htatliai titirlug thop 19ffei ist cr that xxel ax \id te 'I'l iiiSecio iinti cois
aiitiCl~-( txx Wli 1)shti iltiitiix. tiltafotil iit\I ttiof' rtiui alx aslt ab fii til iituig all ti croptiat rt x int

totl

lro Il test xllr i

at

i ot e.oc

i

l.

dilticcs

xiti

rtlix

l))ti

an tii, f

Iii.

ip

iia are

xI'it
chittti

dtbtiit ill iiilx Brawltiamdi~hid tii xc
ti iii) t(I OPh

11)0ol ttxtps
forioti xtt

'I i'l

i old
11(1

cog tb l) 01 0 tlixx 16i'7

ili,

ot'i. fiiis the

rii

t

graixiii mt

I xxi1)it'ti
itit\

re,u

ttingiistialksi'to

i

iollg

grii

soghil 0 biiiiii h Ao

xttgo.

itl a I, lent

Bo-rIII (;u ai i
ilet riib

hXaigox 1
x xiia~r otot

te \\arailxx
iixt

Sta

'5 xxl itb ar ikx riofa thub ttto4W xx

IX'kiiii I) 42A .. Funks C 22A x .. Coikr 737 ....
R~ig Aiomiti -73:3(B Fmils G-53221)11
.

B a. 7ff
71

64
)6

Bu. 25 24 25 24 24 2ff 19 25
20f

(illtoi' rtha
M id
1)1)

to 4

fIintt'

xl~ltuoat ix
o, txo

tn ac 80t).

aln sidei

cs xapilication

Siiigro ORO(1 1 . THA Soigro ORO( XT. Il -uk' G(55 3ff.......54 Norithiup Kig 2779

38 (it
(it

57

89 88 85 82 81 8f( 79

olitrol pe auii (ll toi xhiitl t\)'t t Wibaii ahiuntr' oi tll t helit cr liii

~') art iittix
I

aiii

stot to 14'/

llioisturc and .50

kili ii

( llirvi

ii u/

A-ii'l/il//1.

A/t~wimc ili

Sfaionil

Effect of Coccidiosis in Broilers on Digestion of Nutrients
GEORGE JENG and S. A. EDGAR, Department of Poultry Science is perhaps the most prevalent and important disease of poultry. The economic losses encountered from the disease and from prevention annually cost the industry in the United States more than 100 million dollars, 60-80 million dollars for drugs alone. There are nine species of coccidia that cause coccidiosis in chickens reared on litter. Moderate to severe infection by at least eight species may cause death and/or morbid losses such as depressed growth and impaired feed efficiency. The morbid losses in broilers because of the importance of feed efficiency are more costly than the usual low mortality with present methods of control with anticoccidial drugs. It has been estimated that one point in feed efficiency (difference between e.g. 2.00 and 2.01) of growing broilers was worth approximately 16 million dollars to the broiler industry in the United States in 1980. It is well known that a low grade infection by one or more of eight species can cause 1 to 50 or more points loss in feed efficiency for a flock of broilers or a severe drop in egg production of laying hens. During recent years, several researchers have reported poor absorption of nutrients during coccidial infections with several species. None, however, reported the effect of this disease on digestion, or that poor digestion might be one of the underlying reasons for poor absorption. Proteins must be broken down to amino acids and the polysaccharides of carbohydrates to monosaccharides before they can be absorbed. It had been observed by the junior author during the past 40 years that a good deal of undigested food passes in the feces of chickens during the peak of infection especially from those with moderate to mild coccidiosis. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the digestion of feed during coccidiosis by analysis of protein and carbohydrate in the feces. Five-week-old, battery-reared broilers were used in three trials. They were infected with coccidia at 4 or 5 weeks of age and their lower intestinal contents and/or feces were analyzed for protein and carbohydrates. Analysis included gross, microscopic, and chemical tests. Chemical tests included determination of protein and carbohydrates. The ration was a standard broiler starter consisting of

COCCIDIOSIS

TABLE 1. EFFECT OF COCCIDIOSIS ON WEIGHT GAIN AND FEED EFFICIENCY OF BROILERS

Treatment

Bird weight' in grams

D D+10 1,353a 989a2 Control . ................... b a 1,205 1,006 . E. acervulina ............. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a E. maxima 1,017 1,198 b 'Mean of 4 reps., 6 birds per replication. 2Different letters in same column signify significant differences (P < .05). 31,000,000 oocysts per bird. 4100,000 oocysts per bird.

D to D+10 Grams Feed conversion gain a a 448 2.42 b b 3.20 b 258 206 b 3.95

TABLE 2. THE EFFECT OF COCCIDIOSIS ON CARBOHYDRATES DIGESTED BY BROILERS

Treatment Control ................ . acervulina .......... E. maxima ............ 'Days 4 and 9-no data.

D+3 a 91.5 a 90.3 a 90.0

D+5 a 89.3 81.0c

Percent' D+6 D+7 a a 90.4b 89.5 a 81.4 b 87.1 81.9 .b
76 3

D+8 a 89.6 a 87.2 8 1 .6 b

D+10 a 91.3 a 89.8 a 90.5

TABLE 3. EFFECT OF COCCIDIOSIS ON AMOUNT OF UNDIGESTED FOOD PARTICLES IN FECES'

Particle counts Treatment Control ................

Washed feces, pct.,
D+8 88 80 8 120 120 6 D+6 33.5
a

Size (mm)
1 2 3 1 2 3

D+6 72 25 4 48 44 4

D+7 96 104 14 96 128 28

D+7 34.3
a

D+8 32.5 a
a

E. acervulina ...........

34.5a

45

.1b

32.4

E. maxima .............

a 38.6 1 72 80 32.5 56 2 40 64 100 3 2 24 12 'Fecal sample washed with 100 mesh sieve; each value mean of 8 replications.

a

36.4

a

corn-soy mash with 21.5% crude protein and 1,440 calories per lb. Birds were weighed daily and daily water and feed intake and feces passed were determined. The rate of passage of food through the digestive tract was determined with the aid of inert dyes. Protein was measured with a Kjeldahl and carbohydrate detennrmined by extraction. Results of but one of the three experiments are reported here which was representative of the other two. Growth of birds and feed efficiency were depressed significantly during Eimeria acervulina and E. maxima infections, from day 5 through 7 and 5 through 8 postinoculation, respectively, table 1. Feed consumption decreased greatly. Analysis of digested protein in feed is expressed as the percentage of protein ingested less the protein passed in feces, divided by the protein ingested. The E. acervulina infected chickens digested significantly less protein on days

5 and 6 than uninfected birds. The effect of E. maxima infection from day 5 through 10 was more severe than the E. acervulina. Digested carbohydrates were calculated as above. E. acervulina infected chickens experienced significantly less carbohydrate digestion (10% less) than uninfected birds on days 5 and 6 and for E. maxima infected ones (10 to 15% less) from day 5 through 8, table 2. Both coccidia infected groups had more large feed particles in their feces than the uninfected controls, table 3. These data agreed with the chemical analysis for protein and carbohydrates in the feces, table 2. Results show that poor digestion of food may be as responsible for the suppressed growth and poor feed efficiency as poor absorption. Therefore, the problemn of poor digestion during the infection should receive further consideration.

Auburn Un iersity Agricultural Experiment Station

ROTATE PEANUTS WITH CORN
it)11
shouldXI CiIX ]I( (iti X\HII il ( MX R , Chli )tht1~illiillAX OX

t,]ll\ 11

.'X1iltX

ll (X

l

tll'

J. T. COPE, JR. Department ot Agronomy and Soils J. G. STARLING and H. W. IVEY. Wiregrass Substation

til'

\\

il21

bliX shol't~t I

X (aIX

IIIll h

XXII\

likIiest

X

\cl~LX(IXrs

e rttc \o\

%i~ itX aiiLlbIiiti
p1 I

jotll' / tiil\

cIops, schit
CI IX

its

Al)1

Alitl

i

i

is

d

t

e

\i

]I7

0

1)

c

do IilII(-I It( jli
C'IilI of

tssI i \ I P(II

(tAX

Corn Yields Not Affected
(210111I CC(_I

lost v4
.1, "

o+

ll

til'

I

~

Ii2'

idi (lcltal\ l

.'i.t'(I ii L'Ix

fit

i

I )uttigu its clit'lv

l\ ihi(i \A
illl

i

ii

( 1)11

i 1201t)li. I p)11 that XXt, I ltt AX aw

,iC I iX

' i il tih pe1~iilits
?.~'

Iliii I IPLs troping Tls 11)79.t tI tIll'

Itil) X Al
'4

*:4~

tnil ersi

A(((Xltilal

EXIc i

' (lisitlX
I

chut'1

tio

bc1111111(111'

XX AX

ii

1:
'I

SPeanu II ts iIt o1(

I)I xIrespond ,It Rttion

ifici'i t.

197.

79W iii I-'' i s

XIII'

(Hilt

l.

tIi

.IOt

i

clil~i

Por11

K

.Iti

liii

r

)) (1

tolill

sonw ii
~'

ilI )LI 111

I(t(((IC'I

X

XI

X

Xl iiplii.

AX

XX AX t

op

to\j)oI. till

111
I i .1t
X

(aItioll

i

p li li~

l

is

I I ((

I

.i i,(,1
llL (il III

o111 itid 11111 I

i (

11 tXX\ ( '\( I til ,
l) C it

tX ii

s ClIr
Il

I iI I _.t'iI It I i
l iS I X

()I (iji
i it

Peanut '1li
imii i k ofit litil

itdu

ill111 I"

(liii (I ii

u'oihh

lltti

thN 995di79 d 111(2 llitX
Iwltsl It iti

(Xl
(iiiiiiiui ('XI'

iXXllol AX
l Il Ilit sIl I

ut
i

i(h 11(11(' wlei tlii( th g
\'C

liK iiIXl_ 'lo

t iti CC t I

i () I

Pnd
Ki

(

1(11I

t ti
Xi X

Iiclj( t
icIll'iiti

Ill't itlclt(13lil

ii

fi X I ill

) (XX

oiL t' 79t(

~i-a l to
I7 Xti tiX

Itill tril

iitill (Xli

i

ts

i I d11

(ot

I'l

F F(I I Ml

lii
to\

I \

\\[ XN\,

IhXii PIII I (
II

o 1 iI\

II i I

(II

s X'Xii h I IIU

249t
oi

(1911'

l1lizli

ii\i willh

11

\ lli((I' icill ti

So

. i) () I: 1) 1,\N I siX 11
Ii

ss M i s SXX

A\I (iWl

Il f 1 i
t(.( Ii (i

5-X (-,11

IX c I (Al'(

1 oltiiI.\(

c o

a

P td

IL. W
cI no

ii kA

.11 i

Io

1

I]iil(

till

((

ill'

hI l

lt
I)
40)

113I)1)

'7

7

3 7

1)

It 2)) 0) 1i

65-.

1./i

,15/i

0).
1351)

0).
2 291

0/i.
2,57))
I7T10

illIwalli .\ic]I'sI,,

,

\

t,- \\ i w

P i

li

t)I K i

ii till'

iicI

at11 Iigh

21.4210:3, 30 2,000 2,()60)
3051

401 401

1 380) 1A3))
I,1001.

i 940

2,450)
1 6211

2 1401 :2Ml)
1 .5001 2,6W9 I80) 222(10
1(65) :2,01501 :3,090

1.7 6

2, S33 NM

), 321) NM\
III 1111 Ii"t Ila
ill pai(111 'IitlickiX til ((X iiiI Xlii t)i I

NYI
'All 1, 'Llid K applird
2 .\ , t ( I I, k i II( I i t 11i It

1 610

2 ,261113,120
1

NM

NM

NMS
ljktt \

t(

to) ( ol it ill 'thrl

,(iI

Itill

illtXilildcX

till

:,\S ilidic-atc, that

It (,Ili I ()ttt i()Ij \\ a, iL',IiitI(aiit at Ilw 5"( Iu\ (d. (11w to P alld Klatc, w tillit, ( dappli( ittioll \ cw 11(ot

ailt.

lillhil) ?I I -it it

-tilt111 (11 11x1w) imcol Sial ion

Common Wood Borers Associated With Hardwood Timber
D. J. WATERS and L. L. HYCHE. Department of Zoology-Entomology

1) cidile, ilic .sollic of, dic illost ithilildallt ttild illiportililt \\ood bolers occull-iog ill

Alabinnii. For this rcivoii, borers ol'this group associated \%ith hill(k\oods hilc bccll sUbjects of' stud\ at thc Auburo Uiii\crsit\ Agricultural Experiment Stittioll for flic past -) \ ears.
'I'lic insccts cliks"ified ofthis f klllil\ bol-cl-s" ill-c coricetl\ ill that \\ood its -\Aood

It'.l

II to

till

i

ll I(

,

r I)

I 1)11 - (

(xljl IIx (It (

1

. "freit' t', \

l lci

t'tee,t

Illtil

o

xf~tt'lU

ballaes,

ti',ll

bar rc

ices, pox tt' tol a
e

is the priniar\ trce part attacked ill at Icast "ollic stage of' thc illsect", dc\cloplilciltill (.\dc. Ill ('('llerilL uclalllh cid illults itic (.Nhodricid, cloilgate, loligleggcd bco,'tics, \ill-\ ill" gieatl\ ill sizc itild coloriltioll b\ specills. \till)\ spccies posm-'s loog collspicuous alitelillitc, fig111c 1, thils thc nallic 1oll(_-hol-ll(,d wood borers. Adults arc iwIj\(- dto-mg \%itrm Illootlis ( Milr.-Oct.)-soluc throll"holit, others hillitcd to siligdc or periodic veilk's oI, it(.ti\ it\ it,, (Ictcrillilied h\ spccics, ildlilt lollgc\ it\ , itild 1111111her (d gcoeritilliolls tiolls pur suilsoll. Adult, e6ibit % f'Ccdjllg b(diii\ iors, oil pollell, tree sill), \ cgetitfloo, or llot itt all.

xos treest' tiic' il \ xt:3,tl (.\lilix ilgc, ittlii' oft l
ha11tc

Ux i hli~
xil

clil)il

I til\

llil

11.

il

ll 1

)11)1 iltrc se

tilt',s xxd uis.l l bore x

L/llphlillid l'xicxlos.

i U e of li~',)

iti

t' laix A

l t0t

ll

ix

Ix (1111 wood oirllt ligoitr

l'x

aii

(mh'x ',t'tic
ilax

II

li

I/Lt 1

"It'l'' 111111 1w 'h t \A1 ate oak~,

to', ick

11,1>c 1 ,11mid

take xxiit'

\it',, xV (111 cit bi (It('Itl\ ('\ crlills

l

t) 1111' a lix t i g l f,'fc t to

It'111)
i ir

I

A

A'

4.5

4

,_-

Iw

1'

~

V
FIG. 1. Typical long-horned adult; FIG. 2. Eggs of red-headed ash borer; FIG. 3. Fullgrown larva of red-headed ash borer; FIG. 4. Larval tunnels; FIG. 5. Pupa of red-headed ash borer; FIG. 6. Red-headed ash borer adult.

-

k II I) III-) I t 'II i I cr,; it I/ k - ri(-11It 111WI I-'A I )CI-i II IC 11t S f (I I it) 11

THE ECONOMIC WELL BEING of Alabama farms is affected by the complexities of a rapidly changing society. One such complexity is the expansion of those areas of law directly affecting agricultural production. It is recognized that there is a need for all farmers to be more aware of their legal rights and responsibilities. A determination of which areas bear additional emphasis is important to both educators and practitioners. Statutory and case laws were used to prepare a questionnaire for survey purposes. The questionnaire was used by researchers in the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Agricultural Experiment Station, to survey personally 202 Alabama farmers to determine the extent of knowledge of legal rights and responsibilities. The questionnaire contained a general data section and 50 fact situations in question form. The extent of knowledge of Alabama farmers of various legal situations was measured and tabulated from information obtained from the questionnaire. Each farmer was presented 50 fact situation questions regarding diverse legal subjects. The questions were divided into fact situation groups and each was assigned a subject name describing the fact situations. The 50 fact situations were grouped into 13 subject area groups. The percentage of farmers giving the correct response for the subject area is indicated in the table. The subject area of Contracts had nine fact situations. The farmers averaged 62% correct answers for Contracts, ranging from a low of 28% to a high of 93% correct. They averaged below 50% in only two situations, thus indicating that Alabama farmers have a fairly good working knowledge of contracts. Offers and Mistakes, which are usually part of contracts, but were separate in this study, had four fact situations.
PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS GIVING RIGHT ANSWER WITH RIGHT REASON, BY FACT SITUATION AND SUBJECT AREA,

Legal Knowledge Possessed by ALABAMA FARMERS
SIDNEY C. BELL and ANN E. BURBACH Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
Farmers scored very low on the three fact situations for Offers, ranging from a low of 10% correct to a high of only 31% correct. They did better on Mistakes, scoring an average of 52% correct on the one fact situation used. These results indicated Offers, which is an essential part of a contract, is the most misunderstood subject covered in this study. Farmers definitely need more educational work in this important area of contracts. Farmers scored very well on the subject area of Negligence, averaging 71% correct answers on the two fact situations used. They scored 85 on one fact situation and 56% correct on the other, indicating a fairly high level of knowledge in the area of Negligence. The legal aspects of Farm Visitors were covered in seven fact situations. The farmers averaged only 55% correct answers, with a low of 29 and a high of 84% correct. They scored below 50% on two of the seven fact situations, indicating additional education or training is needed in this area. Attractive Nuisance was covered by only one fact situation, since-this is not an area in which farmers are subject to incur loss very frequently. The farmers indicated a fair level of knowledge on this subject as indicated by the score of 57% correct. Bailments were covered in two fact situations. The farmers averaged 50% correct but had a wide difference with a score of only 14% correct on one and 85% correct on the other fact situation. The fact situation on which farmers scored the lowest had some contractual elements in it, thus indicating again that farmers are not well aware of the different legal aspects of contracts. The subject area ofEmployees had five fact situations. The results indicated Alabama farmers are not well aware of their legal responsibilities to their employees, scoring only an average of 36% correct, ranging from a low of 22% to a high of 85%. The fact situation on which the farmers scored only 22% correct dealt with an aerial spray company hired by a farmer. The area of Liability for FarmAnimals was covered in eight fact situations. The farmers scored an average of 50% correct

answers, ranging from a low of 12% to a high of 93%. Rulings in recent cases have changed farmers' liability for animals on highways and contributed to the low score of only 12% correct. Farmers scored only 27% correct on a fact situation dealing with a farmer's responsibility for maintaining an adequate legal fence to prevent liability for animals on highways. The subject Mineral Rights had only one fact situation, and farmers scored 83% correct on this situation, indicating adequate knowledge. Estate Planning had six fact situations, and the farmers scored only 39% correct answers, ranging from a low of 21%, to a high of 65% correct. Farmers scored very low, 21% correct, on a situation dealing with rights of a widow with a lifetime interest in the farm her husband owned. They also scored only 21% correct on a situation dealing with who would inherit 100 acres of land when a farmer died intestate. The broad area of Land had three fact situations. The farmers averaged 54% correct, with two low at 31 and 27%, and one high with 95% correct answers. They scored low on fact situations dealing with acquiring land through adverse possession and a landlord's rights in a crop produced on his land by a tenant. The last subject area was Water Rights. There were two fact situations used in this area and farmers scored an average of 55% correct. This indicated a fair level of legal knowledge on Water Rights. This subject will probably become more important in the future as more Alabama farmers use water for irrigation of crops. This study indicates an important need on the part of all professional agricultural workers to aid farmers in becoming more aware of their legal responsibilities and rights. There is a need for lawyers to specialize in agricultural law or to become more familiar with the legal problems faced by farmers so they can more adequately assist them in estate planning and other specialized areas where they have legal needs. For additional information write Research Information Auburn University for Bulletin 526.

202
Fact situations 1-9 10-12 13 14-15 16-22 23 24-25 26-30 31-38 39 40-45 46-48 49-50

FULL-TIME FARMERS, ALABAMA, 1979

areas Contracts Offers Mistake Negligence Farm visitors Attractive nuisance Bailment Employees Anima s Mineral rights Estate planning Land Water rights

Subject

Percent 62 17 52 71 55 57 50 36 50 83 39 54 55

Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station

The Relationship of Fertility to Shell Quality
G. R. McDANIEL and J. T. BRAKE, Dept. of Poultry Science M. K. ECKMAN, Cooperative Extension Service

tics: one group consistently producing good shell quality eggs (1.080 specific gravity or above with an average of 1.091) and the other group producing poor shell quality eggs (specific gravity below 1.080 with an average of 1.073). The hens were artificially inseminated with pooled semen, thereby eliminating any male effect. The results of this experiment are presented graphically in the figure. Those females producing eggs with good shell quality maintained 100% fertility up to 7 days after insemination then declined gradually, whereas, those producing eggs with poor shell quality started declining 3 days after insemination. It was also observed that hens producing eggs with poor shell quality were considerably overweight. This problem was compounded as the age of females increased. As a breeder hen ages, egg shell quality normally begins to decline, body weight increases, and fre quency of mating decreases. The aging effect, with regard to decline in shell quality and subsequent fertility and hatchability, seemed to be accelerated in overweight females. This, of course, can vary markedly with different strain crosses, feed formulations, and feed management programs. Feed management must be "finetuned" on a flock basis with regard to body weight and resulting percent production, fertility, and hatchability. Across the board feeding programs must be considered as guidelines only with adjustments by flock, made on the basis of experience and proper programs, relative to body weight, production, and strain cross. Obviously, there is a great deal to learn with regard to managing heavy breeders (male and female) if efficient production in parent flocks is to be compatible with fast-growing, efficient, and profitable broiler progeny.

IS WELL DOCUMENTED that the male can play a major role in fertility problems associated with broiler breeder flocks. However, recent studies conducted by Auburn University's Agricultural Experiment Station have shown that a female plays a much greater role in percentage fertility than once thought.

IT

Previous studies conducted at Auburn demonstrated that the shell quality of eggs produced by broiler breeders had a significant effect on overall hatchability and chick quality. In flocks with hatchability problems, it was observed that eggs with the best shell quality produced the highest percent hatcles. Further, it was observed that in breeder flocks reporting egg shell quality problems, percentage fertility was dramatically affected as, of course, was hatchability. Flocks producing eggs with good shell quality consistently had higher fertility percentages than did flocks producing eggs with poor shell quality, and eggs with poor shell quality accounted for most of the major problems in fertility. No logical explanation for this phenomenon could be offered. To verify these observations, tests were conducted in the field utilizing records from selected commercial flocks of broiler breeders varying in age from 6 to 15 months. Shell quality was determined by the use of the specific gravity method and eggs with a reading of 1.080 or above graded high, whereas those with a reading below 1.080 graded low. Data from this study are presented in the table. The differenein fertility between the good and pour shell quality eggs averaged 3%; however, in some cases, depending upon the severity of the shell quality problem, the difference ran as high as 8 to 10%. Significant differences were also noted between shell quality, hatchability, and early and late embryo death. To verify results obtained in the field studies, further research was initiated. Broiler breeder females were selected and grouped according to their egg shell quality eharacteris-

THE RELATIONSHIP OF SHELL QUALITY TO FERTILITY, HATCHABILITY,

EARLY EMBRYO DEATHS, AND LATE DEAD OF SEVEN
COMMERCIAL BROILER FLOCKS

SpecificFilityHatch of gravity Fert fertile
Av. of seven flocks 1.080 1.080 943a 91 5b 93.0a
8 3 0b

Early dead
4.2a
1 0 1b

Late dead
4 2

1.8 a b

Means which possess different superscripts differ significantly (P-,<.01).

Percent fertility 100. -

60-

40
-

~shell
---

\ \ \\ ,

20

quality High 1.091 Law 1.073

I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011I

12 13

14 15

16 17

Days after inseminatian

10

1Auburn

University Agricultural Experiment Station

11

I
.11

~ Ii

ci
. fi i~tX' hit
pasitlireX.

C
iii

0(01, St AS) INA

ipalit\

f br )

I- t ke tI tct

andi~ Retgal iiili

i

liiiih

Good Grazing Gains on Orchardgrass-Ladino Clover
C. S. HOVELAND and R. L. HAALAND. Dept of Agronomy and Soils R. R. HARRIS. Dept. nf Animal and Dairy Sciences

(ill

i Teit i

c

s

141 \ii \XXIII

i

1

tiii1

Ituidi E\I)cii uit Stittii ii
Ju t( t Il
XXcci

W. B. WEBSTER and V. H. CALVE RT, 11,Tennessee Valley Sub.

uiiIh iX

Xt~i~irX

gr

ilill
i iltilli~lid

i \\

li i
Itl

id

iii ScItuiilii

1977 .Si,\

1)111

l

Cdii

*it Xoil X

i ll
Xc

)iii cre4

ii froi

XXilcl

Iltl

iti i

illUix Xidik

1111( it (II (IX

i s iltl il ilii

c13

I

4il

)iin

i I,() eri

stand ill

illtiiiI

XX

l

t

llX

I ill

l

i~l

(il)in

"l XX114

h

l

(1

u t111111'1c car X h .3-\

1w

iId

(i\

iIt

(

t

il

i

1

e 11

lilliXgo d

it(tliII

th ird

lwl-sistcoccof,

orX

lin

t ade 1 11141 ll

'I 11411 ll

11 dt

11

tiliX \atI il

I

i I

Iti

ill

It

illi

Iir i

83
)i

I TI)\\at
50 xinaek 1).cich

(Illikl
iiti

onger114 ii 114 IX 1114

Iltiikti iliX( It
.

tr i 11 ti il II \ici1Id c
( ilt11 o IX litdg

ils. it
Xl

rci>X 111111 ha

Il

l

iI XX,
i111

orI

I 38rze
t"

1)I 84 (

4astle

IiII11111(1

I

i

1111

11 1111111

I itll

First

X

car, 1978

Seconid Near, 1978-79

Thlird Near, 1979-80)
Iittllll(S p .4-ic 5 ....

Allbill-11 I 'nil cl-0111

A-viculill)-al

Vq)('0111clit Stalioll

Too Much Cottonseed Meal, Soybean Meal Bad for Dairy Cows
T. O. LINDSEY and GEORGE E. HAWKINS, Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences

DURING

RECENT YEARS the percent-

ages of protein fed in dairy rations have been increased markedly in order to meet the protein needs of cows with high milk production potential. Cottonseed and soybean meals are supplements commonly used to increase the protein level of dairy rations. The method used to process cottonseed and soybean meals affects the solubility and degradability of the protein in the rumen and the amount of residual oil in the meal. In addition, direct solvent processed (oil removed chemically) cottonseed meal has a higher level of free gossypol than that processed by the screw pressed method (oil removed mechanically). The use of cottonseed meal containing high levels of free gossypol in rations of non-ruminants is limited due to its potential toxicity. Although gossypol toxicity had not been reported in mature ruminants fed cottonseed meal containing high levels of free gossypol, intravenous administration of gossypol resulted in toxicity symptoms similar to those in non-ruminants. High Protein Rations Evaluated The physiological effects of feeding high levels of cottonseed and soybean meal to Holstein cows with high milk production potential were studied at Auburn University's Agricultural Experiment Station. The 24 experimental cows were mature Holsteins that had produced over 65 lb. of milk daily at peak of a prior lactation and had calved 9 to 31 days prior to entering the experiment. All cows were fed a standard ration for 2 weeks and then changed to one of three test rations in which 82% of the protein was supplied by protein supplement. Protein supplements were: (1) direct solvent extracted soybean meal (DSSBM), (2) direct solvent extracted cottonseed meal (DSCSM), and (3) screw pressed cottonseed meal (SPCSM). The protein supplements were premixed with ground corn, molasses, minerals, and vitamins, and then blended with corn silage at the two daily feedings. Rations were formulated to provide 24% crude protein in the dry matter. Average concentrations of free and total gossypol in the DSCSM ration dry matter were 0.094 and 0.695%, compared with 0.016 and 0.616% in that of the SPCSM ration. The DSSBM ration contained no gossypol.

Cow responses to rations containing the different protein supplements were evaluated by measuring ration intakes, milk production and composition, and by sampling and analyzing blood, rumen contents, and liver tissue. Cow Performance Varied Average body weights, ration dry matter intakes, daily milk production, and milk fat percentages were compared among rations, table 1. During the first 6 weeks, average daily milk production was not affected by the ration fed. During the next 8 weeks (weeks 7-14), however, cows on the SPCSM ration produced more milk than those fed the DSCSM ration. Levels of rumen ammonia nitrogen and blood ammonia were similar on the three rations, possibly reflecting the relative solubilities of the protein supplements. Ration effects on blood and liver components are given in table 2. Temperature Effects Noted Two of the eight replicates of cows on each ration were on the experiment through the month of July and were exposed to daily temperatures above 90'F. Those fed the DSCSM ration panted for air throughout most of the day, including early morning. In contrast, the respiration rate of cows fed the DSSBM and

SPCSM rations was only moderately elevated. One of the cows receiving the DSCSM ration during the hot weather collapsed while eating and died almost instantly. This cow was 7 years old, and 4 days prior to death had a very high respiration rate, low levels of hemoglobin and packed cell volume, and severe hemolysis of erythrocytes. Necropsy revealed areas of fatty degeneration of the liver and the highest level of total gossypol (264 tg per gram dry liver tissue) found in any cow on the experiment. Death appeared to be related to the high level of gossypol intake. The levels of protein fed in this experiment are higher than the 13-15% recommended for normal herd use. The presence ofgossypol in plasma and livers of cows fed high levels of cottonseed meal (DSCSM and SPCSM rations) indicates that the capacity of the rumen to detoxify ration gossypol is limited. Further, the results suggest that gossypol intoxication is possible in high producing dairy cows in which most of the high protein requirement is met by a protein supplement containing a high level of free gossypol. Experience suggests that all protein supplements fed in this experiment are safe when fed at conventional levels in which total crude protein content of the ration dry matter is 18% or less.

TABLE 1. MEAN BODY WEIGHT, RATION INTAKE, AND MILK PRODUCTION AND MILK FAT PERCENT OF COWS BY RATION GROUPS

Response DSSBM

Results, by ration DSCSM

SPCSM 1,194 49.3 65.6 54.2 59.1 3.2

1,298 1,324 Body weight, lb........................... 49.5 45.8 Ration DM intake/cow/day, lb............. Daily milk production/cow, lb.1 65.2 62.9 W eeks 1 to 6 ........................... 44.9 49.2 W eeks 7 to 14 .......................... 53.5 55.1 Average, weeks 1 to 14 .................. 3.5 3.5 M ilk fat, pct......... ..................... 1 Covariance adjusted to take into account initial differences among cows.
TABLE 2. RELATIONSHIP OF RATION FED TO CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED COMPONENTS OF BLOOD AND LIVER

Component

DSSBM

Result, by ration DSCSM

SPCSM 0 0.57 10.6 1.7 59 80 used. Liver

0.7 0.4 Toxic lymphocytes in blood, incidence .... .59 51 Erythrocyte fragility (50% hemolysis)..... . .. . .. . . . . . . . 10.1 11.3 Hemoglobin, g/100 ml blood 1.9 0 Plasma, bound gossypol, /Lg/ml ............. 94 03 Liver, free gossypol, gg/g dry tissue ........ 136 03 Liver, bound gossypol, g/g dry tissue ..... iBuffered salt concentrations at which 50% of cells lysed, 98th day. 2Samples from 9th week. 3 An interferring compound, not gossypol, gave low apparent levels by method samples from 98th day, all rations.

12

Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station

ti(

has' ou g )1
l is

Iit It

% c iii t(til/i

iBiit tis

,t 1' fh r il

liptila t \%iti ill-

1 1 z',isiI ,,t ) ilt thui

tit]*-(I

~I i

,"t
li 111c I It

i

Nitrogen Economy with Nitrification Inhibitors?
A. E. HILIBOLD. Department ot Agronomy and Soils

)Iil a I) ilil1\ tIit p Ii to i
x

txo iI ii dI i I iitig l lost
, i I

.'dIl(' i
tildt

il t

Ill

t t

halcdti\

(Iii ilix if icat'till

tVs(

l' Nc x pr\pcii te i I dti ll (

atupi ct tl
ic I i
tlict ii

)x

dl

xxc
i ilt
h

(titi idi dix

illti 979 miid 1980ltt

ti(i Tiiiwt'd

li\llilix io t
\\ )11( l-

ii

litii
i

it f d ltdstiliix

ti it, t
lt
l

1ilictiti
dtt' iit'

inl I979,

xt't'il dli (.i\c-i

,ih i iiiI \
itt'

itio te it

Atc xxAx . teu

lil

1

~l itixx ii iii h
ii liil

tilt' fotilowx
itr \iiI

tiltlr at
iiti

lilliit'~:
Ratl
iiio

ilI xih) the
roti to alitrit

itil

l hu liii )11 ) illtto b\x s)11 Lix t el

' it
h.(1 \ lit

itt deiill

crop kk ccA

til iiii

N\ to

U1 il/i

%Vit/i
"xiiic

ki iili~il

1)i ill/ N

inh/ibitolt

12 I dt ' s utoc

hi 1 lii a il i

lT

t ch

t

c i

it hut'l~iu tlli). Sitji Eaiiter x toicl miti rittu ort t i lit' P1itix w ia t uttix li t x ii

ITenneissee Valle\x Subsxtationi
.*
. . .

8.7

5St

(til at
tht\dll

Sitixltilo'l' isi 1978e 1979

nid 191)
iuiiit'illx

co1,11 iii) ill

3.o .3 ....... 2.) 1 ... ... 2.1
.2
.. ti
1

:3.7

iMxx ti
boixthI iittilii thulil P

1

'

ix

t titctti

tix xhtx lliii
I~i l

10 l

. ...

...

2.8 1.7 3

Ii -4,
il

nit'i
iii

dii( iitl

i ' ii

it.

stlill ii lii i

-I Iii)tiiuix a.3 dei itIfhuicittlix lose

.. . .

.. . .

1.3

1

ti

I2,

5l ..4

xi

i

i ii l i i itii

ttlic tl'h\
i

it\

ci

al)1titir a ii i'lito iii l ,

uiikcwh

ckitiiiiil I'ol tit( itiltcf

]iilltill

lit'i'tilt'~

iiiti D\it l xxtciNe i diiir~ n lo\

li

dhui

itt

hold

ht sil tlit'\ xilpii t 'N t Iiit ('. IzIt
c .t
I

1ilt'ax iilb' 'N ill i tta d ctl tilt' tillittt

1

ha

iiiiit,

ititr

4 xx cx, lsiill iii
ti itit' ith i tt
i

l dikiltil

tS I I ) ix fi Ii
ii

ti r i o ,

tii t

I II

x

s11 I-I it
iiit-

aliititx
Iiiitlitlifili iii f
ofi i ti ll-

'N xxcit

xavdxt.

}Acxiliau
oil
At

rotlii llflit, itui ii
gi tittil

172il. o'

it'exks

tipn xx\1iilliiltitoiii xitil\itout, a

Si I i[ iii

('lii'

x\I) (o i o\i \i\Xlilt 1\l1il i liux[A\[ s

IHii
i c x

lol \I M'xio \11, -li x\xNll'ii lit' i Sit Fs A( liislx N ii iN ,xi
tm
1 Iill i I t(] ,-

xiiu'
:a4 iilu litit
.3

Sciii.
1I 17 P7

slltx l),

V )uuilliliiul

.... .

4.:3
.P4

J314

t

19 .

1t~ 1 oI8 13Fl.

Sub t.,

tP80

Biu.

197t9 IL).

1980 L..

Icxail
o I'Sii )i t rt.. . . )% (11xi

-X 11111111111111 i

it tl itt

1(,l(T( it'

12T

8mt 1111iiti itt 1111 ic l

.

149

Xi

iii111 t lin

lf it(I' 1)xx Ii

i'l

...

151

27T14 2,7Th3

2, 166

iiit'ilitd itiiiiiiiiti',

bu

tt

x xwerex dii ii

2,83 1 tI ( a- N ixi( 15T 90( Soium 1)xxtll 1ole ..... 67 2

....

....

2,86i I 2,T (t1 20(
2,64h

o)1
90(

62
62

2,782
:2,76h

S(

al i

iiii

'iltfI t' ( ) 1 1" x t lixt

llti

it

tti

It i I itt of, soda ilI Si
'

t1

iioi iti)si I ie

I

Allbill-11 ( nit cl-sity

kg6 11/1111-0 Plxp( limcilt Soo(lti(m

Differential Expense Increases

What's Happening to Farm Costs and Expenditures by Farmers?
J. H. YEAGER Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology

creases in the cost of fertilizer, land, chemicals, fossil fuels, and interest rates have changed incentives to substitute capital for labor. The major effects of inflation on the input side of farming are that input costs rise and farmers tend to accelerate the purchases of capital goods. They reason that prices paid are likely to increase Changing Structure further. Thus, they buy larger machines The changing structure of agriculture in an attempt to increase efficiency. With has made farmers more vulnerable to rising land values and costs, there is also risks associated with fluctuations in a tendency for lenders to make credit prices paid. Over the years there has available even without full utilization of been a dramatic decline in the labor in- the resource immediately. With more puts and fanrm-produced items used in debt and increased costs of operation, the production. This has been offset by in- problem of "cash flow" has hit many
OF THE MOST PERPLEXING PROB-

O NE

LEMS facing farmers in the 1980's is rising costs. Escalating prices paid for the many items farmers buy are a part of the overall inflation complex that prevails in the economy. The question arises, what has happened to farm costs and what are some of the implications?

creased use of capital goods, such as fertilizer, machinery, and associated fossil fuels. Farms have become larger in acreage and in volume of business. In 1950, labor accounted for almost 40% of the value of resources used in farming; by 1977 it had declined to 14%. In 1950, capital (machinery, chemicals, etc.) accounted for 25% of the resources used in farming; by 1977 it had increased to 43%. Thus, today's farmers depend on purchased farm inputs. The mix of capital inputs purchased in recent years has also changed. Most capital goods used on farms in the 1950's are obsolete today. Until the 1970's there was rather strong incentive to substitute capital for labor because of the increase in wage rates. In more recent years, inTABLE 1. FARM PRODUCTION EXPENSES AS A PROPORTION OF CASH RECEIPTS FROM FARM MARKETINGS, PER FARM BASIS, UNITED
STATES, SELECTED YEARS

farmers.

The Squeeze

Farm production Expenses as Year expenses a proportion marketings of receipts per per farm farm Dol. Pct. Dol. 1940 1,320 82 1,080 1945 3,631 2,189 60 1950 5,039 68 3,445 1955 6,337 4,764 75 1960 8,643 80 6,908 1965 11,729 10,026 85 1970 17,138 88 15,064 1975 31,879 27,417 86 1976 34,617 30,362 88 1977 39,752 37,482 94 1978 47,477 42,528 90 1979 56,348 50,844 90

Cash receipts from farm

The squeeze in fanning today is illustrated by the proportion that farm production expenses take of cash receipts from marketings on a per farm basis, table 1. Until 1976, average per farn production expenses took 88% or less of cash receipts from farm marketings. Since 1976, it has required 90% or more of cash receipts from farm marketings to cover production expenses as an average for the United States. This growing demand on receipts to cover costs has provided incentive for farmers to expand production-to get larger and to borrow more money. For other farmers the squeeze has caused them to consider non-farm sources of income in order to continue to farm or to give up farming altogether. Since the latter part of the 1960's, income of farm operator families per farmn from off-farm sources has exceeded that from farm sources. Since the squeeze has led to expansion of farm production on individual farms through added acreage, the demand for farm land increased. Potential purchasers of farmland by farmers include those with income from non-farm sources. In many cases this group can outbid those with income from farm sources only. Therefore pressure is
created for farm real estate prices to rise. Commodity programs and tax policies also affect this situation.

Some expenditures by U.S. farmers have increased considerably more than others in the past 10 years, table 2. These figures reflect both the changes in prices paid for production items as well as quantities purchased. The largest percentage increase occurred in interest paid on the non-real estate farm debt. In 1979, non-real estate interest paid was more than four times that of 1969. The next two items of farm production expenses which were not greatly different in their percentage increases were the cost of seed and interest on the farm mortgage debt. Other expenses that increased 200% or more in the 10-year period were repairs and operation of capital items and livestock purchased. Included in repairs and operation of capital items were expenditures for petroleum fuel and oil used on the farm which showed a substantial increase. Among the expense items showing the smallest increases from 1969 to 1979 were those for lime, taxes on farm property, and hired labor. Since interest costs on non-real estate and real estate debt were among the leaders in production expense increases in the past 10 years, the change in average farm debt per farm was determined. As of January 1, 1980, non-real estate debt per farm in the United States averaged $30,619, compared to $7,178 on January 1, 1970, according to USDA figures. Comparable figures for average real estate debt per farm were $35,567 and $9,896. The cost and farmn structure changes that have occurred over the years and the farm cost situation faced by famnners today present a challenge like that never faced before for top farm financial management.
TABLE 2. CHANCE IN FARM PRODUCTION EXPENSES, UNITED STATES,

Item Feed purchased

1969 To 1979 1969
Mil.

1979 Change
Mil. Pct.

dol. dol. ...... 7,100 17,004
.. 4,225 12,684

Livestock purchased

Seed purchased ...... Lime ................

871 3,400
103 159

139 200

290

54
203

Repairs and operation of capital items ..... 4,507 13,665

Hired laboro.......... 4,152 9,239

123

real estate debt ..... 1,434 6,576 Interest on fan mortgage debt . 1,625 6,260 Depreciation ......... 6,574 18,954 Taxes on fann property ........... 2,456 4,259

359 285 188 73

Net rent to nonfarm landlords ...... 2,061 5,320

158

14

14 Aurburn(iuii-sity A g'ic tilt ti Ol

LxI)rimcnt Station

IN

\

HIj(

F

AB1I

I lI

11.1 tl

lj\l'

Iwo I Ili

\ itI ill

liiil

th I
1il 1 tII'( l

l it
I.

i II I I t1 (11 1'. Ir it I I'\ Ii Iid
it lit II

MARGARET CRAIG-SCHMIDT MARGARET WICKWIRE RODNEY LAND Department ot Home Economics Research JOHN WEETE Department ot Botany, Plant Pathology and Microbiology

II) L

((-S i \

I IxIx t

toI\ I I

xI

iu 1

)1ltII 111)1

t'i \liii( ilh ,. '' t

lIi xii I1

I
I Graduate student milking rat.

co\ xI I Ii co ti d I IIi ltl I I1.1 It lIii
)ti txil xmilltlti

ili I111

(.I I i
i l( Ii I

tdIi ii IIII lat. itt i I
iiI I I.

I i xltitt IItt it il .

ii.it] I
tuI, llul

It Ila I cxt ' )
l,(' ItI(

1 111 i C iit I I li

(' ( t

Iiti 1) i
i'

x i I

IIIIIII t it l.,

x itt

i

I iic '

Stti

titt

II\ It Il' w

iiai

til

itilttit

tit'

ilx

EFFECT OF MATERNAL DIET ON MILK COMPOSITION
t idl' itfi

A
.1 iii

I

I, lll,t iio

I

i

l ilt
t

li

~
till.

itt tll\ I
It

lix 1()I It. ,Lt ittixx c )\ l m i 'Nt l)i tt I trti I Ix Il.I , t itt (,rIIiIk ci
ii (t ttx it IIII Ii ( 111 it I I Il
1111 Ii i lt

Stll lilt it

it 11111 t 1 tl)tl- 'it iii
Iil I

i

l1 1
ix ti

illd

Ii i iiIIIt xx Ii iI
i ii tilitIL

I i tii' I I Ii Ik , ,i',i' t ia 1 tiw I it

I i

i

t tI I it -i i, l'ii I I It1)(i I 1i

i Ilk xx ii ti'ill it ii. 'Il ix, i i~r ll t t it
ti

ll. lt ill t

t w 1

-11 lit I( It ii

I I I Ik I)t it I i Ili i
ltI xx iI til li ,I

x
i

i t itt lit

Ix Ii c111 it I lix -i ifi til t lit
-,'I l I Iti IIx t tIiw ilt I I it'l Iio_ k I
)i
li

iii'

Ii 111

I I.i' it t l 11it( I I I

li \ \\1 xx
tii t

ii til A s il t

Ii

Ii

Itt I

t

t Ir I

t

it txl

th

li

xx I ixI t fl tI

i

t

)lI

x

il t'th A

it

l

tl

tti l i itw t I"

Rat litIt I Itil

Ik liixx Ix
it li. i tt I

i

Ii I I xI i tl(. i it
fi ill'I i I I 'it I (II it i l tiI i d Iitt]I i I i t ll I l t'll l t it k Li

l

it illi111 I iii
lit I

()I P \Ii1 1\1,1,) I)][ I [()Ili

11) I)lio (.[ \ \ j I'l) V \i 1\ I Ill 1) B it \Ili K

\ 1 \1 I li\ \[
II
I

Iill

it

1, ,lu-i c

~t

idPi

I II t II

l

\ 11 ii

km i1S21w

1,(

I( .i

~a

\

o t

t ml

to1ilk

Calulllatcd ()It thc h't'i, ()f1)7 T 111illilitcl, 11jilk pimhl(cd pcl (lit.\ lv\ klat wil'iw-, (tt\ 10 p),tImItI1111. titt t
ilx .
)1\x I I Ix ii I titk II() i t

plip

il

it I I

! '' ,I

I[t Ii xi
IL I

(u At lI IL

I

it'

lfi ill
_

3Wi x u

o______ t i

Ill

Ii

Xjwrilnclit statioll Allbill it I llil crSitil Agricillifill-al 1'1'

I" \ Ii I, %; I I I.I, I ) , I, I, " I ,, ( Ii
it I- )II

a II (I

I I(- lxiIISi

im I- I it x ] ii
x-~tti iii iii

It I
t-I t ix t ,

I

iI
tn i I

i I Ii

xII t .

tI)Ii ii

tI
ii

ci

nx Ip
tixiS calx

it

li

(,II

iI t

ii

lxiut
I

Ii Ii i t li

x im xi i-it'l

.lx -t4 Ii i
\iit I

xx

I I IiI -I xxd m itt l

Ir \ 1,u) l l i h h
-tt-i ill

ti lifiid ii x

12
12

c th i ,
it-Li!

i
I I

tr}(

ti.III

li

t xx I IIi-t i x txI Ii\2c
i li

l -1
ih oit

S
it_ xx (IV

lo,i--ir

K ( I I II xlI)I,tI I o ],,I tilt

id)( xIIi

--..trol c-

'-t ii'

tit \\

it ii

xx xkii \\

xx i-iit\(i -a-ad ii

4 -Ixt\
ii i

\\i~~xtIx ill i 1(hut

ii x

S

xx

itlo\i .

~lii

7) xx it"

li
xx

io
ix

Horn
.~A4-b -pT

PFhe

i

-x

ii

ii ll. ll

-i-

Ilt-I

lI li ati xi

io Ii

Ii ttil

i,_,I it

i

xxx-c

GARY MULLEN and NANCY HINKLE, Department at Zoology- Entomology GENE SIROTHER, Cooperative Extension Service L. A. SMITH, Black Belt Substation

lix Ilxxi

liiiic i lxxt kllxtiit'
iixidit

th l xi iwtd til 1 it

ili
21x iixx P

I

ii)

xi itix, p(.1

ti

rl xxa'l xio it

I I itI x I n

i ( 1 R II x

_'I~ , Ii coixi iittI iii I t I Ix lxi lx o I I 1(1\x I iii ai,I xx()I'('( I'I'cI ii i i t Ixt (lx \-x I I ( Ii I-ia itx I I i I ii lxx I tI( I it( t th hit txi li t i atl triati( Ii h]i (t l)(I-III iix x il d il xxi-it tii I It i I itt ( (I (,t tI ()I I lIi IIt i Ix I I Iii Ii -I-l~ It xi II x x I -i ttI c 'd II I ii x1 1iixxii1

lxt('ii
H OtitHi FLtx1 i iiitiw txxi hxxii titi-- Ilit

xx i

f I ll iiaxt ,i ll ill

t x ii lo mi-li

laI

i i

II

tii i.

Ix Ix-i x i-ti IxIti ilj)Ic I

t I th l

dli it i

I

i-i(IS

c\i
-x

xiii

lxi t x ix

1i1l

tI

i

li x)I Ie tt

h\xi

xi'IIc1

il Jitt hx-xt i-itix

iiil-

iiill Iw
ua

lx Ix

t ti J. t I Iii

1i-ix pcix-tt ix 2xll Ix\il cat
aIltdtilix, o lx il-att alx111ii li11 l iltl - I l-x-tiio tI
1

iiliiiit

ittii -h lt-ti -l4, xii i oftl I

itt-iiI

xxiixil -itixitil
Wii i] xi \\itl xi t xIwi it-i i

itxtitital xx
i iii liii 5 t x

it(x Ix lI I I(- x

lxioidii cwcii I ii
xixlxxxxi l i lili xx -ixx it iIll l ix xt iclxIIII x ix i i t(, Ixxi x l li xx i f iwlxiilIt w hl ti \ i li. xl 13a ii t' xoliiitillalii , to slxxi \ iVii li, x xiix t li lIx
111lttixxx iit ilt-

x t it iil

lxiili t

Il

Ii x

Ii I i

lx )lii - i lIi
itxx IxtI Ii
L

lto l i i Ii _, I tt
x xxdII I I

-'I I t il

t it lii IxtttI ,I

lii f )
II I

x tit I

lii

t I

xI (. i I

x11I( -I ilt )

I tI

[iiit

tilIt h) t1

II

l0IIt-II

ltoii t i-it- lixxix t i ( lx/
Id tx

ilt iW -itcwu d ii t tilitIc cm i

Percent control
0 0

xxxiiiI- lirtl ill i

All tagged 1/2 tagged
1/3 togged

xii x. t-xxll olix p x it
3iI xl xxxiiti

i t lix

xlii

lI
xw I

50-

Raon

9

il

tiw xiixtll

lxii li to l-t it it/

xIi Ili wi \to
txi W

xx ii

Ilicic It l\ I
)It xx

tit(

ith -

l xii '(

i t i ti hh

li( \- tl 11

xiii lix

i tc xz ji ihi\ -itt

I lit lxi -

Sim,

L 0 5
IO * May

Ectrin

'

2~~--

6
Jue Jl u et C

',It i itr d w \ l I Hi t x li xxi /i iit

~xx oli

plte tl,(o l ' x iii- Ixx li)i,
x

Illit itx-I

I

i-

, iixix

l tit lli-i, A li-i
lti

Cox.,xlll-,x l xxxix x

tiil xi
i/i11111'

.(lI
to t

lx x tl -s

xxi

Itt

t\~ill x

N.xx,
ii

alix-x i-it- t\

i/-i] (it

x

-1 liio_/licitti (

i

tllp it i ll lii xx it

/iItilx

ti '

h

lxiit-

i i c

-lo l -

tl

'L

lii

ill,

\ I I/ ) II I I I I Ii I I f , i / I/ \ _,I i ( Ii / I II I / / \ / f I i II I( II / , I ( I I I , , I I

igestion of Animal Waste
I.~~4
At I \it lt it'. I I 1\1 it

1_

.W~t\LA

K)&.

0

L

Ji

L(AU

)

JY

(T

'

-4-V

C-,

It ti i((It

,

Au.rtl. I

it I11 it
)iittI ( tI iI

I'Awi I It It ('It
dlt'I

Itt ii I
w I is

I t)tltl ( ll ed tl

D. T. HILL. Department of Agricultural Engineering

i't i

lIi

t

)]

,Ill hlit'ttii

til

lq~

iii il

i

i

1 it

I tII II I) '

I'i t ltit s

i Ir t\liit

t

d ilt i

i X

tt.1JI

Mi /do 00 poton, do ro60lr

)it

liii
II I ti II toII(t it)I~t IX l L. ( ( t I ( XX I Ist iItiti tIlt. lits it III t il iit IA I1I I' iti I I, t

lilA

0
KW 5

I

ISIi'r ItIX i It t
t i I it' I

600

Ne erIy proudi

Ii it I

Iiil lit

itr III

ieri00.
40C 40

0

It t Ia itI

tit(IIt I I I i It I t if II itIIII t' It
iit

lh ilt

iitii it dilp

ll

i li~

t11tilts.

it I;\( t

( sillpOX I

siit I I '\lil illli'rt it l tit( d iii l\ il

llitilti
XXiti

ii I I I

ttIt

lil I II I I11 s

I'

0 0

l t ii itt'l''ll it I ii i t i llt (101,

iii
t tIl

I IXw

IL. Ii I
X

Ii

I I Il 2 l l( I II
t lIt lii IiI,(tl lI

I 111 (to t il

Ii

tt IiI
i

0

-

01

lit

pt

lrsifiil

t(

\ i Xil-tilIlcs

()I)-l~/l
ill XXI

i tt iii I II

.I II
I.11

111

It l it I till \ s1t IilI

hIIX

il

il l tIXIX00 I (\ It I~ ti II I II s1 iii it It

2

Itl'I I1,1 chi 2 IlI~ t't

Iti;

-m

iilti

ii

'11i I

) crlti-rtk~ii
It I 1 1( . 1)

1).it l

ttt
Ii r

it ).il ij r i I IiiIt~ I
XI

~

Ii)I11 I I~ it1t tit12' II iXX i It

I

01 II ttI I Iti

i IX

tat
il

Itl

ti

:
11 it

it Ii I

Ii

~

t

i Ii i i

ttt IX I
I II Il I

ll

I tI

It I

i il i

' tttt'i ti
111

s t

i t Ii .IIit

i

sli_' t IilI t';I Itt I I

Its cmii

i(tt

fll

t \tlto

i tt I

l t titidi\

il1.() t

Ii s\
Im\ p1]

)IrI ti I I ii( It
I Ii)I i it' l q u d Ii(1t

l

ttt

ti.

thu

(d vil iii
it

liiX
tit l
.

l
[lit lt,

I'llIll~v it

tilllito ttI'lti

sii "u llil W

kit'

lrit

t

i

t~ltl

)II I Ii

i - Iit t L i iit'itt iti I X I t i
11 1 w , ili i_(-t( it () e d m , r

11
h i

ik
l \\ ll I ak a

i

th
.d

l w p
th .

)

s. lw . i tt'

I IX

(ill I

Itt ii
I i

mt)I liiii p (
o l lli i. (t .1 t ill

i ti l tiit tti li

iai XXtpc~l.( )Ii tiiI.t~ir i till ! i 111 ittal

t

it i Il tI I liti iit (

I XII

I Ili

I It'll I i I)I
PiI~ti

sis' (d li

pat lt" lii ililc l

ilt'

it

ttii

Vim1

\ \ I \1 \I

1)l s ( II I Ift

X I) X

It) 111111 Iw '
Nk It XX X ill it ii

ilt li til it f(

s

ItC11 iL 1(I

-i

t(
d

pli ( t sI. I
CX1111 i~ to1

I )I sol 1) low

t i

XI mi

I

it lit
1

I11 itI t , )il 11(

~~I
I ()tt] 'tid,
tilt

I

I

II

11' I I c.il ItXit

t
'Itil i 110 t' R111110itlilt

tt t

Isill IL i l

si LIilit

t1i

IX Ii I

.I

lst)I I lw

t

t1

1.61 i X1

.16

1i

XX 11111t1

I' I1

It ic II I II

s I 1c1III

i llit lit (,I ,

I

0.7ti, 1 2 W it)til I 11'1. itA t'

XII

iii '1111

it

It I111\ /

11

(

lt itM

lit tIi i \

XX 111II ill'I 111

\tt/ii t

I

Itif (

'tilt)

i

it// t~il

I

i1-,o

m tI

tt

Stitt

il

below 75'F. Likewise, herbicides have intensive control systems (treatments 3, been identified that provide various de- 4, 9, 10, and 11 in the table) for both row grees of selective control in soybeans. spacings. With excellent growing condiInformation from this past research tions in 1979, however, less weed control provided the foundation for research by inputs (numbers 1, 2, 7, and 8) provided Auburn University's Agricultural Exper- good results, indicating the increased R. HAROLD WALKER 1, TED WHITWELL, iment Station begun in 1978 to identify competitiveness of the soybeans. J. R. HARRIS, and D. L. THURLOW, workable systems for controlling Where growing conditions were less Dept. of Agronomy and Soils sicklepod in soybeans. Experiments than optimum in 1978 and 1980, the less J. A. McGUIRE, Dept. of Research were conducted at the Tennessee Valley intensive control systems established Data Analysis Substation, Belle Mina, between 1978 trends toward better performance when and 1980, and at the Gulf Coast Substa- used with the 10-in. row spacing (treatments 1 and 2 vs. 7 and 8). The narrow tion, Fairhope, during 1980. Essex soybeans were planted the first rows better compensated for the poorer ICKLEPOD HAS RAPIDLY moved to the week of May during 1978-80 and Lee 74 soybean growth. Likewise, where no top of the list of most troublesome weeds the last week in June during 1979-80 at sicklepod control was applied (treatin Alabama row crops, especially in soy- Belle Mina. The same control systems ment 6 vs. 13) soybeans in 10-in. rows beans. were used for each planting, thus provid- yielded more. Where plots were hand Research in Alabama and other South- ing information on effectiveness with hoed (5 vs. 12), 10-in. rows influenced eastern States has documented the vari- early season vs. late season plantings. yield less. ous biological characteristics of sick- The three growing seasons over which Sicklepod control systems are availlepod (Cassia obtusifolia L.) that con- the data were collected were all differ- able that producers can use and get yield tribute to its competitive ability. At the ent. Growing conditions were fair to comparable to production from hand same time, its only identifiable weak- good in 1978, excellent in 1979, and poor hoeing, but at more economical weed nesses are its intolerance of shade and in 1980. control costs. Control of sicklepod slower growth when temperatures drop The experiment at Fairhope was should not be confined to chemical planted the first week of July 1980, with treatments only. Much can be gained by 'The authors acknowledge the valuable as- Ransom soybeans. Treatments were taking advantage of cultural practicessistance provided by W.B. Webster and V.H. identical to those at Belle Mina. such as narrow row spacing-that proCalvert II, Tennessee Valley Substation, and Consistent control of sicklepod and duce maximum crop competition with E.L. Carden and F.B. Selman, Gulf Coast Substation. better yields were evident with the more the weed.

Systems for Controlling Sicklepod in Soybeans

S

INFLUENCE OF SELECTED CONTROL SYSTEMS ON SICKLEPOD CONTROL AND YIELD OF SOYBEANS

Control systems-treatment number and lb. active/acre
30-in. rows 1. Tolban + Sencor-PPI (3/4 + 3/8) 2. Lasso + Sencor-PRE (2 1/2 + 3/8) 3. Lasso + Sencor-PRE cultivate; Lorox + Butyrac 200-PDS (2 1/2 + 3/8; 1/2 +1/4) 4. Tolban + Vernam-PPI

Planting dates 1

Belle v :abl- Mina, 1978 Sicklepod Soybean

control Pct. 23 15 98
-

yield Bu. 30 30 42
-_

Belle Mina. 1979 Sicklepod Soybean yield control Pct. Bu. 66 30 95 20 100 87 98
95

Belle Mina. 1980 Sicklepod Soybean control yield Pct. Bu. 3 59 0 82 93 100 89
95

Fairhope, 1980 Sicklepod Soybean yield control Pct. Bu. 48 56 97 95 23 24 34 32

May

June/July
May June/July May June/July May June/July May June/July May June/July May June/July May June/July May June/July May June/July May June/July May June/July May June/July

66 24 64 25 62 32 62
192

16 7 16 12 28 13 31
13

-

cultivate; Sencor
PDS (1/2 + 2 1/2; 3/8)

5. Hand hoed check 6. Non-treated check 10-in. rows 7. Tolban + Sencor-PPI (3/4 + 3/8)
8. Lasso + Sencor-PRE

100 0
-_-

29 25

98 60 0 0 80 70 100 56 100 100 -

65 27 56 17 59 29 60 30 62 31 -

92 90 3 0 18 81 12 98 92 100 62 96 64 100 98 96 8 9

23 11 10 3 21 11 24 11 31 10 25 9 23 7 33 6 16 5

98 0 59

34
17 29 28 39
-

92 96

reIt37
33

(2 1/2 + 3/8) 9. Lasso + Sencor-PRE; Toxaphene-POT (2 1/2 + 3/8; 3; 3) 10. Tolban-PPI; Toxaphene-POT (3/4; 3; 3) 11. Lasso-PRE; Toxaphene-POT
(3; 3; 3)

64
97
-

-

90

32 32 35
-

94
98
-

12. Hand hoed check 13. Non-treated check
1

98 38

35 33

91
100 41 0

56 28 64 26

0

25

Essex soybeans planted first week of May and Lee 74 planted last week in June at Belle Mina. Ransom soybeans planted first week in July at Low yield due to injury from Sencor post-directed.

Fairhope. Soybean seeding rate was same for both row spacings, 130,000 plants/acre. 2

18

Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station

PAY

LTION

D(
West

LTION

Alabamians
View the Issues
JOSEPH J. MOLNAR and LEISLE A. EWING Department of Agricultural Economic,s and Rural Sociology RURAL AREAS have traditionally been characterized as cleaner, healthier environments than more densely populated locales. Industries were primarily located in urban centers, and industrial wastes have been a major source of both air and water pollution. As the decentralization of the nation's (and Alabama's) population proceeds, it is followed by a corresponding trend toward rural industrialization and changes in the rural environment. Although the most recent wave of industrial expansion is occurring in a midst of heightened sensitivity to pollution and expanded regulatory controls, many rural places are confronting tradeoffs between employment opportunities and some level of environmental deterioration. This analysis examines survey results from a 1% random sample of residents age 18 and over in eight west Alabama counties (Choctaw, Clarke, Greene, Hale, Marengo, Pickens, Sumter, and Washington). Termed the Tennessee-Tombigbee corridor, the area's location along a major new transportation route is expected to bring significant growth and industrialization to some communities. Personal interviews were conducted with 926 residents in the eight-county area, an 85.6% completion rate. The sample generally reflects population profiles, but is slightly older, slightly underrepresents black males, and slightly overrepresents black females.

The table shows responses to four survey items relating environmental concern to economic growth. Most residents favored or strongly favored the idea that natural resources should be used whenever possible to increase economic growth (Item 1). Item 2 revealed a great deal of indecision about relaxed environmental standards. Although 44% favored less stringent requirements, a third were undecided, and 23% opposed a change. Among subgroups, the majority of black females were undecided, as were more than a third of the black males. Most white males favored relaxed environmental standards, but white females were almost equally divided over this issue. Most respondents thought that the destruction of some places of natural beauty was a price one has to pay for the sake of economic progress (Item 3). More blacks were undecided about this item, but more white respondents opposed the idea that such losses were inherent in the economic development process. The fourth questionnaire item found most respondents in favor of increased regulation of industrial natural resource use. More blacks were undecided here.

SUR

VEY RESPONSES OF WEST ALABAMA RESIDENTS

CharateristiStronglynh-suareti Strongly Characteristic favor By sex and race

Response (nereent)

Favor

Undecided Oppose

trongly oppose

Chi-square

Item 1: Our natural resources should be used whenever possible to increase economic growth. 2.8 3.3 17.7 51.7 24.5 All respondents ...... Black males ....... 19.4 54.8 21.0 2.4 2.4

Black females ...... White males ....... White females .....

21.2 28.9 26.5

50.0 52.2 51.6

25.9 9.9 14.7

1.8 4.7 3.9

1.1 4.3 3.2

34.8*

Item 2: Do you favor relaxing environmental standards in order to achieve economic growth? 13.4 9.6 33.3 27.4 16.3 All respondents ...... By sex and race 8.1 8.1 38.7 30.6 14.5 Black males ....... 2.9 5.1 53.8 24.2 14.1 Black females ......

White males ....... .22.8 13.9 White females .....

32.3 25.0

17.2 23.9

7.8 16.4

19.8 20.7

138.2*

Item 3: The destruction of some places of natural economic progress. 44.0 16.4 All respondents ...... By sex and race 48.4 10.5 Black males ....... 47.3 12.6 Black females ......

beauty is a price we have to pay for the sake of 16.0 19.4 23.6 11.7 12.1 9.7 11.8 9.7 4.7

White males ........ White females .....

22.5 17.9

39.0 42.9

8.2 11.4

10.8 14.3

19.5 13.6 69.8*

Item 4: The government should exercise greater resources. 31.2 28.5 All respondents ...... By sex and race 30.1 32.5 Black males ....... . 33.3 24.6 Black females ......

control over the way industries use our natural 20.4 24.4 34.1 6.7 4.9 4.0 13.2 8.1 4.0

White males....... White females.....

30.7 28.8

33.3 27.8

7.4 16.0

8.2 8.9

20.3 18.5
94.1*

* p < .001

Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station

19

Objective Alternatives for Improving Delivery Route Efficiency
WILLIAM E. HARDY
Department ot Agricultural Economics and Ruoral Sociology

Cotnl)ltiterized Routing Anaksis )h icOiN (" ( (mlp I Itc I ize (I teul I I I iqllc ', iff, 1% itilillde to ilid Illitililgelliclit ill ("'ItIllittill(-, illid redc"i'L"llilli-, their tralls-

.)Itt'

I

t'.o atis

til

tl

elI~a iii.' (tii

1)()rt it join ii(,t\x ork. The (Iittit Yi\ (ill ill IIw tithIc iti-c fi-olli the ('its(, "told desiglicd to illustriotc git i II,, that call be rcitlizcd t1w lisu (d Issist ( (I I lhit Iili ttttiti it' lit itliillsis. The stil(IN fil'ill Sel"Ves illi cxcess (A'600 %diolesitleiiiilk custonwrs ill it iiiiti-kct incit c()iisisting (doiw 111iit)(w c-it\, sc\criol sillall to\\11s, itild thc sliri-ollildill", 1-111-al ill-cil.s., t' al o "I'lle c\istilit" deli\ er\ S\ stelli w(plired tti'l. )o tril)s p(ii \\ (i(,k to ilwet ill] custollicr (Icillitilds. Tllc c()lllI)llwl- allill \ s i " I-(cotli ,iiXIiiX \\ i iXt \ (,it I( (I III tt I II( IIIIIIII)(i I ()f, Iri I)s C-(IIo: I)( )I I \V thu flt II d i iIItll
in
theil

llil

t'.

i

itX

toil t's

t

\.ccm

ble

Xl d

li.47. XI

ii

XX .1

i

illij-l IXtittt'ill itt' Xl

tIa ill'.jti illftt tt cIX IX i' il

tXbo tI.

itiitd ce
itil

reducedtOT-I.This sigilil'icillit(Icclille is l-(ifl(i(.t(id ill ill] Awl- 111cisill-cs of' lwi-forc III III( C oI (I c ()st .T t i I i i i iI( s 1) r \\ ( c k it rc

XwIXl'hl i'. X

i

\ill 209

tciti ii'li

tutu

tk itl

it

i-k

i-c(luced :34',,( , au iiiiI)()rtioiit ciiiisiderittitill with flit, hityll fticl c()sts (dtodil\. hi additioll, a 29'4 sil\iligi, \\iti, I)rojccted ill the tillw required to ser,,eall clistolliers. C()st to] both the c\istillgr illid illlJ)r()xcd wcl-( calcillatcd oil the foII()\\illg hilsis. It \%it', iLssullied that t 6 - I't . r(if'rigerated trucks, costiiw
's20,500, \\()uld 1w iis( d ft)r dclker\.

\rllilitlitt
XXiac Ct{
.

tilt'. t

riii

ili

o

t

e

l

iq)()tii

74c ,

7.8

' t' 1it'.tll(tit ' I 11ic l' 111

t

ilth X

icost

ot'

'I'lics(I \ chides \\ ()uld hilvc it 5-\ (,ill us(fi II lil'c' gi\ illi-, allillial (kil)r(iciatioll (d 8:3,690. Otlicr iiiiiiiial l'ix(,(l (-()st.,, werc:
hisurmicc, S5501 taws, SIIO jutcwst, S1,446; mid (d I)ciiscs, $1,454. It \\its flirtlici assunwd that ()It it pci lildc bitsis, filel wolild cost 1.5celits, itild lilailltellillwe \\()111(1 he6celits.1-his

ilt te ltit tlilt.

1

Xlil lit i

lidtit
iii'.

Ili
Iolli4.Ii

XW

t'tk......
ilit'.trip .. .

68:37
7 6.10

4,495
h.

A'.
jlitteltic

XX 'tigt

:34.3 7 201

tf(ilt.~r) 11111

talit

i

l.ijil.li ilwt 111

tX li ti lt']ww.

,,it\ (i it \ iti-jidde (q)(iratiiig (-()st (d :34.5 C-clits lwr 11ii1c. 'I'()taI \ ages \% (11-C itsslillied to b(i S20,800 I)cr \('it]- w ith

hlrt.)
till'.)
iiost

..
ip

7:35.7 8.2
122,6.56 t...

.519. 29.3 9 7. t0 14.6
80,640t

AX criiL1' timtli'

. . . (dl.)

. ..

34.3

at'i

'.inti

IIX i 4

Xiitui

wri ti

ije ttedh

ii

\1 ili-I)ll\ , V iti, del I 1 1. it] )d W ill i,till F. I Iit I (k, J I. F fficielit Ve Illicle Routilig-A NII I k i
II)istribution Example. A uhm it I i C I II t III al F, \ p( . I i II 'I I t S tilt i ol i
UT I 1\ C I it\ --\ I , B illictill I-) I t__

'XlI itiii

lixtil
a

coit

("i~~~l.) . . .138, 1:3th ..

1:30,h76h .571 t500h

Iittit

alii

oiisi t

Febrititr\
(ii itti

It)79.

(doll. .....

. 58:326

stich

ii s il

i

H e tota 11

tl ii-k

t ii

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

AUBURN UNIVERSITY
PUBLICATION

AUBURN UNIVERSITY, ALABAMA 36849
-Highlights of

POSTAGE PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

AGR; t1lt BULK RATE

Agricultural Research 3/81 Penalty tor Private Use. $300