4

I

St
1-

-.W-M

lip

r,

t 4
4
0
a

At
#DNA-~

fIt

V

'4

$1

I

DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
tt

" ae 6edacce . ..
ii I l I'
','

N I

t [I i Ii,

]I

ll t l

fokiI~II.

Xk I I t I I

t i I I I, I I II tIt I) ( (. i

kI t

\ k t kk 1 L k

I , 1it.

)I

it() il' III a

l I ( Il

t

.ti's

\ a mtI I kk Il 'ii
k

lt

i(

it(plt

i t1 1a

hI-(,ilI l
i'.I (iiII iiIll s

.it

t Itll it ia I t t

Is)t

i

ji
kk

ti

lI

r

II

.7

I

t

h )

o

l

i

Iit l (II

it()I I

I ttt I

I

i

lIIi I

*k ri

t(

kI ,(I 1) li I Ilk I i! 1

( ,l kk

It

i

lit ! N ll

II it t )Ill

It, 111 ki t

iI t
1II I

ltil l flili i

i

Iiilttlt ( i i

ttuo

list

t I
I

ItIt

I

tillf

i IfII ti , Ikk I t i

t

it

itkhI

111 tl I I t

kI I il

GAI
tti

A. BUCHANANI

Xll,toi (

'I

t,

ik

ll Iilik

il

iilt

Iit

Xd kI
cl lIi

I

lt

di t I It

t

l(,kit

i 11lk( It . m 111 ic toi1 if a

,~

ilil-

IkIII

l

il-t

I s IN plk t ( o'p

il or
kt

a

1 IiIl o I~k~k I( 1k
k"

i

t) I ()"I ill ,l (
It( ik

t

'

Il lli.

iiIl

I

ikII

Ikk

ll

onl iI I I i
Il I I

~

ili iilk
k ltI i l k

tI I Itt

ht

Il -'(

kit Ik

lt

Il I
it

ii~titi

N

1k

kI t

lto

li'it

II

I koi l

ill)

iat \ I

Il I t1k i t

1.1lt'

t

k

t

hc i tk

'Iso.

t(

k th

ii

k

i It 1li s( l)ph I itiI" itt

til

till

it!

ll

hI Il

ul t

itf iii1 tlhtllc

kt

Il(It

Il lll

tk

t

t

tBtUG AL

A.t

CiHiAtiNil t ANlttilii

WINTER 1982
1

V.OL 29. NO, 4

litil I Il(.11 iii iitt

111k

k' h\

ll c

itil

I'

I

(t

li

t

i

1 t
ik

k

i

i

IIlIk -I k it li

k

1

1

I ilt
I
CIil\

i Ilh\i l

wctill illdi

il l
ii

iii

ii Il kr (1 1'1i I
IcklIt!

,IiI I , Ii

,

I

iktkIi Ik

l

'

i

i t 1kk
o k

111tii

I ll

kil

it

1kal

I

I~k 11111!tlt sr k 'd l it i

It tcakI

i

I

l)ii
111
S( I 1 (L IT I \1,1 h

i-

fot

S

I

,(\

. . ...

t i tI s s 1
-I(. I

I Ill I

t

)m 1I
kI'

k.tsIl1l I

lit ())(-1 t l Ik I k iIId I l.., I il

1

(I I 1 i ll t I I

1

1 t

i Il .
1 1 \

m IsIL i
-l 11 lZ(((I I k

Il'fI Ik.1i
I i
t

t It

SI

I ( i i \ mi

I

i/dit,

I I tt ll , i id

I iisar lil1 tt,() i p I
Ilk h\
tlllitI ,I

I

caii kll
I

I

. iolt
liii
u.

'ki fist

kl I
I''

kt

(it ill i i l I

itl( 11
\I il
,il !tu

(lif ,i
ill IiI

kilN-tOii

Ilti M (

tilt ii 1

k

IM itt - i
k

tIilit
k

11kI

1.1i IIill (

I ukI ( it I ilt

(allk

lit'I

'I' I11

t i\I ill

it

i

''

I,,!

it

Ct

Iillt

tI

ki ttl

I,1

iii Itt Ill

k kI

Ill

ii!ll . t~

oi.m

Ois(N HE

OERss )

seolefcionil mpIove

b'oyight Pof

canel

cafih o.Reltd story'

page 7.

CONFLICTING RESULTS have been reported on the tenderness of grain-fed versus pasture-fed beef. Some reports indicate no difference in tenderness, but further studies are needed to determine magnitude of the breed effect on the quality of animals fed on the different regimes. Tests are currently being conducted at the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station to compare some breeds finished on grain and forage, determining whether the breed or feeding regime effect is more significant on the quality attributes of the beef produced. In the present study, 26 steers were finished on rye and ryegrass pasture, while 29 steers were finished on a blended highenergy ration (70% corn, 12% hay). The breeds used in this study were Angus, Angus x Hereford, and Santa Gertrudis x Hereford crossbreds. The live weights of the animals ranged from 790 to 1,175 lb. and all were A maturity. Quality grades ranged from high USDA Choice to high USDA Standard. Six 1-in. rib steaks were removed from each animal (from the 10th, 11th, and 12th rib section) and used for subsequent sensory and chemical evaluation.

Eight sensory panelists were selected from the staff of the Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Auburn University, to rate the quality attributes of the steaks. Each panelist was asked to rate tenderness, juiciness, connective tissue, and flavor. The Warner-Bratzler Shear test (which measures the force required for a pressure-monitored knife blade to shear a 1-in. cylinder of meat) was used as an objective indication of tenderness. Also, cooking losses were determined for each steak. Table 1 indicates that yield grade of grainfed animals was significantly less desirable than pasture finished, regardless of breed. This was because of higher backfat and kidney, pelvic, and heart fat of the grain-fed cattle. The quality grade attributes shown in table 2 indicate that grain-fed Angus x Hereford crossbred cattle had a higher quality grade than the other comparisons. The lean firmness of the grain-fed cattle was rated more desirable than that of the pasture-fed cattle. Angus x Hereford crossbred cattle finished on pasture were rated the least desirable in all quality grade attributes, while the

TABLE 1. YIELD GRADE VARIABLES

Breeds

Live wt. Lb.

Carcass Lb. 570 615 580 589

Backfat Dressing thickness Pct. 60.7 60.3 57.0 55.7 In. 0.7 .6 .4 .3

Rib eye area Sq. in. 10.1 10.6 11.1 10.3

Body cavity fat

Yield grade

Grain-fed Hereford-Angus Santa Gertrudis Pasture-fed Hereford-Angus Santa Gertrudis

x ...... 939 x ...... 1,020 x ...... x ...... 1,019 1,057

2.4 2.9 2.0 1.6

3.6 3.4 2.4 2.6

TABLE 2. QUALITY GRADE VARIABLES

Breeds

MbMarbling r

g

Lean

Lean

Lean

Quality

Pasture-fed Hereford-Angus x ...... 4.0 Santa Gertrudis x ...... 4.1 11 fine, 2 = medium, 3 = coarse. = '1 = very light cherry red, 7 = black. 31 very firm, 7 = very soft. = 41 = very fine, 7 = very coarse.

1.6 1.2

2.0 1.9

2.7 2.5

3.1 2.9

GoodGood-

TABLE 3. PROXIMATE ANALYSIS AND SENSORY EVALUATION

Breeds

Moisture Pct.

Fat Pct. 4.6 3.5 2.6 2.5

Tender- Juici2 ness 1rnessness

Connec-Cooking tive Flavor4 Closs tissue3 ss Pct.

Warner Bratzler Shear Kg 8.2 10.0 8.3 6.7

Grain-fed
Hereford-Angus Santa Gertrudis Pasture-fed Hereford-Angus Santa Gertrudis
11 2j

x... x ...

72.2 73.6

5.1 4.9 4.0 4.4

5.8 5.3 5.1 5.5

5.7 5.3 5.3 5.7

5.3 5.2 5.3 5.4

22.2 24.0 24.8 23.3

x... 74.4 x ... 74.1

31 41

extremely extremely abundant, extremely

tough, 8= extremely tender. dry, 8 - extremely juicy. 8 = none. bland, 8 = extremely intense.

same breed group was rated most desirable when finished on grain. The proximate analysis data showed that grain-fed cattle had a higher fat content than pasture-finished cattle, regardless of breed. All other properties were similar for breeds and feeding regimes except tenderness. Sensory panel ratings indicated that grainfed Angus and Hereford were the most tender, while pasture-fed Angus and Hereford were the least tender. Warner Bratzler Shear values, however, were highest for grain-fed Santa Gertrudis crosses and lowest for pasture-fed Santa Gertrudis crosses. The major differences between the cattle studied for this project occurred between the forage- and grain-fed cattle rather than between the breeds compared. A major factor contributing to this difference was the additional fat content of the grain-fed cattle. Sensory properties indicated there is not a great deal of difference between the eating quality of any of the four types studied except when tenderness is considered. With further research designed to increase tenderness of pasture-fed beef, many breeds of cattle may produce forage-fed beef equal in quality to grain-fed beef.

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station

S,P SCHMIDT, Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, E.D. DONNELLY and 0.5. HOVELAND', Department of Agronomy and Sails, P.A. MOORE, Upper Coastal Plain Substation
tahlishcd. All pacldockx xxcrc :3 acres il size. In ,tclclit ion, 5 act e paxtorex of' ,lfllfland Set ala xci icea we re planlted( to boldI extra s~ teers needed( to adIjust stockinig rates, to i 001 iti consi',tan t gin~ g piressuiie onl all the /i experimen'ttal paddocks,. Thexe additional steers x ec cixeci to keep x 1 )iiut-and-take" pl ant height onl the p~addclks b~etxween 4 at ii

Attu-, I

The cirought of' 198t) dlelax ed the g~ra.incr text until 1982. All paiddockx, excep)t three \LT I oaii pacddol cks xNxxc clix i(led in toi three re c I ,lctc xul pad cl ckx atd xcie rotat tot al lx 1( g a/edl -Steers xx c riitatedl xc'ilic'tiall\ to x t le next airea eciei \eck. 'f'lu( remiiiing x diec AU I I tat pat(lci cks ctc gi aii'l cilxx tiiiuoilx thirouighout the( gt lxxinig xeca'oii. The pacldclkx xxerce stoced xxith 501(1 i. Angtnx x I Id'refird steeirs. (rizing hegali March 7 on the ,~ilf~inc cl Apt il aon the txxo xei icecax. Sal sha,cc andc xxatei xxetc axailable inl aill padcdocks alll ill acfclitiiiii steeri gr az'in g thet al ftl 1, padldocks x ic p oicliecl x pIl'ioxaletic lcks, it bloat cottl. XfAfaf t epitationl ax a hiigh iualitx flotagie xxax xci iled ii lic I c1982 gi azing text. Tfli ailtadfii icl d 141 (laxyx of' gi aziig cin-i AU Lotan rotational grazing (left) and Serala p rox paired toi 16 a x s ilt thle tw rotational grazing (above). h xxi c iced', xcc tab lec. Allal 1, alsoc had tl Ic b exst c'arrx itig taSI1' of, ciinll ieitx andc tlic' hiighiest ax ciagecl(aIx g'ainl bioth xci icia atid alfalfai appear-to idfer exceltnt t cial t itttogc'nl ' it i Iiz foriig t',ix paxturc'x resxultitig itliticarl\ 201(1). muore beef aii pet lc'nt altcernativec' to the pc'retitial grassxex. flax c'aiicl a t c'toxx c'c inte'ret' iti lcgiiticx. actre thlanilli' xci iceax. Tht'x alxo offer tlic additional ,iclxantagc' of' Outc ofi the lug ticecix iti thei Souithieas'terni x cii though xteer gaitnx on thle alfalfal rec'iiiiing no tiitt'ogc'ti fertilization. Statex ix a high x iclcittg xiinii er peri't i iil xxerce flext, gait i oil ill the ',ericea paddo11 cks B~oth Serala and AL' Iittin xxitlixtancl hot lc'guiiii' that xwill produltce Ii rage xxith inc ax erigecl i cat l 2 lb). pe r clax xwhitel ix alsoi xxeathei'r andc are' tiilcratit of'acid xsoilsx. Alfailfal xsifficictitlx hligh ujcialitx goiodl ,iiial fot cexccllenit. Th'le apparentt loixx xtockii tate of, ix iiit asx xxicl' adlal~ted ax xci icca, linit ciii gaitlx. F'it 't-x rexult', iif a gi lwing expe icci thec rotatiotiall', giazcc A t' lotati x\as tni',tlx hec gtow iit xxcll cl-aittcl, fe'rtilc' xiiilx oix ii c it it the LUpper tCoastal Plai nStilixtatiuin becausxe iiia poot' xtatial ilii hu padclick. th roiigho cit the State. inicatc' that txx \illii (lexel ii Nii c'cncl ixicii canl be' iraxi atcr jus t I xat ictiex iui fill thix nc'ecl. cixcl ti Alabatia ',uc'h ax be'rtimiclat',ixx andl x-M crof gi a/itlg. Bitt thic t'exnltx indlicate that Sit ala and AU l,uitan xc'ric ea xx cic'i llliagt ax', pirodcucec xc'a',lonuig gaitix of' ',('iicca ati c all il canll be utilIizc'd p'oti talxl leasecd inl 1962 ainci 1980, rexpect ix clx b\x thce iitdx ,iliit 0.85 to 1.2 11). pei cLix 1)ailx tgainsx liii' xlii iir paxturec'x. If graing r'cesul tx con . Alabuamia Agr'ic'iltiital Fxpeiii c'tit Statioti. iii xtcci otil dallixgi lixx iret'c eicallx\ a little' tin ic' toiwli satixfac'tot itl tis xexpetrimttti Boithi aitc fit i c te ii iitcl, hcal' at ietic'x hlcttc'i thiait bl't'tiiagtaxx ut hialliagiaxx, kit Alahatilia cattlecillec'i l iioikcI ht alle to ticSit ala ix hligh inl tanniti c'itciat, xxhilce AU the xtiic'kinig rt is ixniot asx high. Ilitix, xxithi xclii) liixx c'-c'iit pasxtuire xxyxtems to be'at thc' Iaitati cilttaitix iiti1x about iti'- halt ax tou1ch the( gaiix seeti iti the fit xl x eat iftlix xtiiclx hiighi coitstof' fittiget i f't'tiIizc'r. tanit. Ax a rc'silt, AU laitan i' s271/( highiet iii cdigextiblce cix\ miatte'r. AL lii iiiixii C \i\,I~ ii',ix Sti i xiix xxu 'i i 198x2uuc 8.5% ax iiuic'h hax ax clot'' Sert hi ai ix 7'%C flax stage. Inl thc' xpintg of' J9801 threcei Aimail Beuit gut -\x ila It', rl-\'ii ak1/Ct clix /act i pit act ic uuil' gainl Rotatinill gia/itigan Sci ala xc ticel antI xix paddoi cks, of AL' L~otati xciica xxr latcl cit ait the' L'i)pc Coiaxtal Niio Vo. No. Lb. Lb. Plain Suk'tatioti. Ducritng tilt faill of' 1980) thirieec paddou cks, of'C illarto utI ll alfal xxere cx A lf~tlf . .. . . . .. . . . .
Bet 01 cdl Noix Ptoeso
oft Axii i

Coitntticuousx gr'azing I165
1.22 2012 401.3 1.89

XIa I

iia

A f,,Ocii to 1'a E x'/)i- imient Staticoni

D.b

AU-XvER, D)L !Hul LA, Ofa U v. Uk-X ,'L Deportment of Agronomy and Soils

ON
ill-l iiitlt

OF 01 THE MOS L
(I Xi0siois Xi o\ bc

importint nmooi
0( lu"oXI ilokt'X Marl\ it(.lt
llt fh1 X\irict'X

1(XX 9T6

tt

1981,

XX)'!)

llst( to t IiX c' B x altit' iiuitiitsitt' \ oic \~i (Iit
X111fith \\I

-nctt
tit

h i ccc X
iI1I ll X

ol
i)X 10

f't'tt

fit '

piIt

(20(2110(1

Ihloti

I t't
XX

lt' X

t' i

t

hlu

i

Xill

i

t'tXic thet

fiXiIII fIlc

(tkt'r 1:36
(I IX ititlI 1111Ito to LirtilpX ftll i I itksI X I

itliB X itit' it

ttf0.

19,

Xt't

table,

976-

rlilt'c
IXtcit'IilIIlt

111,1c(l

osts.( pes

reaiX on101 lit'tXc i
'fit

1978

iiI 1979-I 9M1
ti (X IX itX ititisc II
iX, ( ltkt'i

t

t

illothes

The2(1P

2:37 B

110.25 oti-

bitii

ts

b( ca(XIX(f l InIlIlit fIX lli

1(

liiic tes I till (2 p

it

IIr

th

itst1 pi'

II' ill sil)~'

iiiiltiiit

',11
ofe

lii

t r ll

(Ii

t'Ill other,Itltc

Itl itl

okt\i

18 1 o-li p tlit'i o-

tIC

I

I

tIX)

Xliti

cmil oll

IX tiftc

prodution'

l

l ohe sl

cmI )Irlit'tit

It')
I I ,t'llili( sil \11 to X~ i l o 21 Xitil \ ilrc1

tiI
Xt'I

\ clt ii ih li it ('ItX

li

o\21

h

l

st i i

(,~I-\it lioit t ' p ctft'o'rilat'cc

\

idit

it pom X( t

Ir)\I S icis 0\3lolt ' tf

fs It
It'tltiil

X

X

itiX

b1

both

fit

((1(1111tic

(It
(

1 po

ilti',

Xhe illl

ptlSilt'

o iii~tt'

i

rf

XX111 itiiiit'oditilt Ilt

)

\lIiX

I' thiltolhi~ itX I

no1t Xlii

XXc1111(1 lit! i it\l

f)1 O Itiiiljillilac

111111 Xc IttI

of'

oXfl~ilft par

ti llr cIm i(It) X('iIl
tlo

cll

b1tt'riIItX

((noit ( b\

tlt't' ii i~t'titv il'

A\ lilovl SI ID

\ltiiong-tli tXX i

(Icl iteit'X

itil

l IIOX

gt X11 of,1( \a (('IX

S(,)t \lu's M IS', om) Y[I'Ll),,, Dr\ I mov, Cofill icliAls(B) lolo SI \I,1i\rSo)BI1\\ \ ull 1111s

I 976- 7TS
ttitsi I XXli

I 97191) 1

I976-7') 1

1979-81

19716 7'

1979-81

l'

X

lill i

litli

fittli

\iut flttl

13(11 Group V
F'a (1~t. Gr'outp V11

131i
22.

hot
fti

these ('lltitisar
lillX~ XjXil oaion. t

i1 itol
fti

ff~il~ ai oticrXt t't m it' if\\ it ilit i 01 o

:30.

III . ,, ('okci 156.t ((kl I 36. ( tici Ill
Tra(\1.. ..

:34.5)

*

29.,S 33.3
310

Croup \ 11 Ii .. . iuu
Braon .i

.36.6
.36. 1

(

((hI'!

13

Gru'ip N II I

('uoli.3l
('oVc i

:36. 0 36i 2

I'!
l S ot I c/l'! I

37.2
(iI Isac1cp cI\\wocIl

(h 1 o(11 ( Zlt ctIi

lIaN

\

iuklc(l estilliates of, B not sigilificillith

V(ilmnui Ai-icidtiwal 1"'xiicrimcitt Shition

Synchronized breeding would allow producers to schedule labor to attend farrowings.

(' liititatl
Icit liil.iX 'I w

lit i -IIt(
it til ,

i lll im'd ti

i ii
o

XIIII

til r
t

itllt
it

IX,( t

tI

itw \\(.I(,

t

Iii(Li itIXLik
Im itt Im iiitiltIc

i

X itm
1

hlti ,i aii
iil

i illc tt l i

it

I I2 'til
i
.

ii l

iiti.L l I

Iit

hltttlitlX tiltmtct

till

\11

(il k~XXI

lc

ill

ii

l

ii

\oI i

ilit

lt

\It jli matlt (d it Il

7(

(((

Id~it i\liiI lw

(1111w

tiic

i iti

_iii

it\il(it

XXc h\

t ti

iiiI'

ill-

Auburn Evaluation of Altrenogest Shows Promise for Swine Estrus Synchronization
DN M/_RLTjP I oi a L - epar, ifUiq IFT, J DIEHL, Department of Animai Sciences, Clemson University Diry ) erace

,,

ii1il

it ti l

tit ill i I ( , il

il itttiI.LIiiiIIIi

it.'itt

St
IL

l
t

lilt

Il.1. il otmithitl,

16.5 f1111 tt
\Nit
Xi

fit

t it
lt ,

a1 t tici l
h\

li
it lt(, ii

mit fi llX
ii ()I

lii t X

it
t

I

XX It XX l II l

i
(

ll .

\

I

i

i

ii

it

) I lti.1

i

l'ic ht
Iif ?(li t 2 ;iii,, tii

-il
t it

il
iii
\itiit l

l

tuu X
t
i

)ltiit - 1 oitt ) .11 iXi 1i 1
i ilt i t tc it

t
C

( I

lk ittrc \ If

X I tlt.

I li

f (II w111

I IIIIII

Ii I 'X
I I iii iii

tic lIt

itttltttlitt

c\ittik.I l ,\ iI

ott II -it ' I(t I I

11(, t iiti( ill I)I

h~ ii 1c ,ac ( il )l

XItt aciicttit tilt

lm tX
iltl ti

it

l

w (X-lt 'Ittt

Xlii X

Xi

li

t 'I i I

it

iii I

i
it

t

Itt i

Xlii IX

tt

ii

til r

it

iic it,XX I N I
m

Iit

il

1iii hc
() li X ,i nu andtiii r i t

ttXTtiili
ttt Ii

litck iittt

aiii

(I ,

it ul

XXIit o

Xk Ill-

Xlitit i t

il

111 I it) i lt iI

tl
IIll it 1, (

til i Ii
ill I fii t I i
t'k

jiiit itjtttt

iit

Ii X i 1 1i 111
tIlt(
1

CIt(itt,tl litilli it titi l 'L

i tlaht

l i (ii tiltii ,ii lt* liiit\\liitt i , ilt I 11

lo

I i ItI), I Il qI(I I I t

lI

1till 11

I It i ( It( l

Il Ii)111t
(Iti lIliti oii i

I I)I Iit it
till ( 11((1) iiiti

til 9X
)t 1 1iili*

i1111

\\ii I I( I
it\ ill( ii XIt a tt

i

i 1, I

)

I III tt it

I

I

I

I I

1-i

l t I

tilt\ t-\

Sit it i I
\\i

1 I t lt IIII
I I ill I ( t

1 of I I I i - It I ( tit
XX i it I

xI
t Il

lii)(t I I , itlii

i t
it

ll

. titi

.11

it
t li i

tl

I(ii it't

ct It.litt ii i X i itt i

i i lk

XItX

11;1\IX tlt(1 li I ti
I\ ".I -IIn)II ItX,, itt

i

t o tit
,

l

dil It w 21
X)

fi

I(itt

lii
XIX I

i

i

II

t

l ilt

It it Ix

i

*Xf

ill

It I Iii )
i XI

ill
of 1t I

\
\ I

ScI X(tt I~ It i It I X tX Iti

I

i

tilt It, tiil
(L

'111IX I it

i

lit

I

I dilt i

ca

11th,11itiXi

ii till

(iiIXX

hi l it i\iltit \\Ili
iiIXt\

I I

li t t I
tlit I I I It

Ii itlt i l itI
I

(1 It
tiXX X I I (.)i ot

t

lil t I
i

It/ In

I I \
,i .~it II I

i () iIII XX I1I I
t I Ii

t it II

Itili iwtOliit lt tIlat 2i

ttiX

iit\

idi

rI r I ZX I i

Ii (\ (LfIi (II I

I

XIdIX I

tI

i

II
)t It

i

It
1itIX li

I

I t

til

I 2 11 \t( t

1 \it1t

tt

Ii

\ Itt II

I

t

It

It Itt (

t~ Ii

I I

I111 tIlt

i itt i

l )l

(L

lit

tt

i

t tt

I
X i

IX i I i 11 X t 1 I uiI 1 t t t i

ti I it tI L

I II It
tI

ti i

t I tI

I(t

t

tL1IIt

f

I

l

I

it XX I It

ii_IItI

Xktl/uttltt

Xk-i / iIt

iil

1I.til

uictil

Stit/Ititi

,- ' j -r11SMITH-ERMAN Departmet of Fisheries arc Alliea Aquac.. tJre'

I11) I I t u XI t

I Ii I I I II I I

I

I

li

IX I t

II I I t
/lui Ii t

riii

lit II

\

I(il I t I II tI t

i f I II toitIi
i I It

Ii I i
I (

t

(l-i, I t

X IIII II i ()I I i

!II
I Ifi

I I uI a l
i I( I I Iltil i)

l
t(

tII I I
i ('I t

t i- l I ttII

l

I -tI (I i i
XX

II I(
1-1

t

1 tnt 1 1 i

I

S

tII i l t

I

fli

Ii

I) up-

, ABOVE: Selected brood fish with brand marks. S LEFT: Branding gun used for heat branding channel catfish broodstock.

,,I a I I icc

Ii i II I k1 t\ u,i t I
i I t
i

l
i

d

k

II[ tiII,

w tt

Ii'(

tilihlilo 1( 1 c
aII f

LT tti I
lIi o Ii I Ii I IfI t I tI i X I
XI

iliiiiiiliti i 111 u~ u
'111

t oIl 'it,

(
tim l

1iiX

I Xl ilitX IiI

t

t

I I II

I
t it I

'a i I I I I II

ii

tI(,hl~ I

ti II I I i h)I

XX )L i I It i

I

ItItt,

tI

i

mI I)1

1 ITI 1

I

(I Irit I

li

i

ti 1

t li H

it

XI ltIl

I I

I i iii

(Iii ' Ii I II] i

XX

iiI

ifi

I

ii l(

11111c "It It ill a Xl s i

10"

tlls

t

t I XXI I
(I t It

luiuN IIII(,,IN II
I2 t t I11 I I ii

(
i
I

t
I

(I
I It
III it

Ii

II

ii I

ii( )

tIX '(

i If

i a t mIX i (I

II

lI It

Xi

I it Ii

IXX I ItI

I
IX

It Il I it

IIi
i

fi

I tt

lIit

I

I~ii

i

iiS XI

i

li
ii it11111

\

X'

t'( I I \\i

t)

I

I I

I I

t l 11

INI

I \I X

tltl0

'

I, \ i

'I I

I

It'ii

it

ii 11111 ita lt i

Xii I lIt -I

Ill
inn

(.u 11111

II

1~)

'si lit
Ii

II
ni
11 It

K

a

I

itl

It

)t I

S

ii till

If
If

I

lii,

in
lit

In

liii

liii

IIQI\ I IIII ,

I II IIIII\ (II ) -11 1~n d I L i 11 (

I'

Ii tIll

k//(

loti

t

it/t

11

Ly )

tiot

lit

Stl/

iti

Charolals-Hereford-Angus row with Limousin-sired calf at Black Belt Substation.

Brec Combinatioi Affec Bet Procuctic
T.B. PATTERSON, Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, LA. SMITH, HW GRIMES, and J.L HOLLIMAN, Black Belt Substation

Itt

1)itu c

theIli I)XX 'X

I Ii

(I liiiv t.

ilt. \ i

I' i
ti~hlii.Ctl di
i

XXhuhtbil-tiS

tI

I

Ic

tc

ilii

X

iC

iliurs

liii

tii tXo

csc ili I h il t\ tilt liite'.(IX t t (111till loissia
luti(. l t i ii

I1iiitli~i1i) X

conIvf tt'c(I

c.i\

il

hltI' l ifiti til
XcioiiIIIX C\u ig

]tX XIi~Ii'dnc i llii

(itlSis~(t

~git i

tcker e( 't. ofit.lti

l

ati \\icalliti

gc ilX ociircdli

dl c op
ii

iiiirc ciiiliiili
X

his T
t'iiiii

\its

surri

igHitii becus

allCttXX
eIC st

iii It ii 'd dl~ii lii

ill t i

ca Idi X c t'

ciii ii iii

t h

tb tI~c-I-'(Iji b

til \\ i'S ltcCiiii'

S

1ti111 IICFiN itI~ l Fi'iX itiF H

lccI ci hlli

bs

I Ici cliii

c ciiaii iij) ilil.

I

h~i'CStiiti'ih.

I

I'X ti I)t.CtiX

Cili )1li

lf''~ call \citi

Id

initX itch
Xigiih

2)l(r laii
e iti r

s XX
t))tt i'

itiiiiic cti l liii to Pr produicXXigit iitc a tnd maximidze ki
i ii ('ll

c',hh tha.t XXci c' ll1 i dtcali cii ies tor
XXcic
Xiic

cl liii Xlg I d iic',ii-cit ih~)ItX

b\i iX

moulhilsin
of,

oI. lll
iX

'Ililititii'ir XXch(Ills, I'it ic' art, X\iil" ,]Xto\\

ciIX

XXc

\ikiicXXti~ilts,

ill tit t'

2 ti Xii

T w

1ii 1 l

iit I

~

1li:i P l' iliit mi \iI r m lili I D1

.01

i

\itc~itX

lito.
45

lid 95' SS.:

liiCii Blac ilicI'i

(u

aii0 IX. X tt

iiI

XIii io. of t tlt (:il\ili~l(,' 1
X

txPo

e.

... . .

....... .. ..

62 S2.2

79)

Dicd' )(t . ii .. . . .. . Vt taiit't pcitifc \ St t'Xpitw'i
liii
X(II lt f 'tli 5-iici

2.0
S0, 6 di ed \ii

55.6 4.3
)4. S cN tlcxPh i XI %\(I(-i

S) I. 7(3
717.1s
ill ili('id

1.
S2 I

IXt o

Xc',Iiliihc. l

ithaX ib
X

f1

cakes Iwrl

2ol

dcad S tit o',

XXa'111c4

anc' 21i bCi'i

diti

'.X

rthlc i'ii
c

\Ni'l)Iit.iidcI XXciii\ ' Iiu2.
l

2.5)

(iX St

, 1l

st.',IX CX

Blccd comparison

libe ofX

lint li

XX itl

2.11II(_ %\IX 1,

Sit cki'

It I3S I

XIIi. .

. .. . .6

Xi t'i~it

.556.2
56S. 1
5IS, 4a

1.Iik

11110

14.2
1. T a
13
i9a

527.7a
6117l0ii
Chit oat',
.1l~ (

14. 61t
1I1 31 1 I-I.21)

11-

1

73.4a
51)(i 11) 46. Yii S. lit

(

iiiX r s h ii........ ... XX ait

172
0

572.5li

ili Vi

i(

i/2iliXil

.55 S.9il
59S. 91)i

(thur

(ocitt

1:3 - a\t'i,r ( lttc

14 -uc Imlti ic' cetc

Alabama Al-rictiltural Expci-iinctit Station

Isola~tionl and
P !
Io

\ii

I

(

iiitic

jIi V)I 1

ill

1-llX

~

Itl(litI

Infection of Plant Protoplasts with a Virus
ds~

.t lltilt
lbtt(l'

thl
ll

i

Xt c

ll I I tlii lits imt
1 XIX p li

lil

ilt. t\ cizXX li lit
lptlit

initilst.l~

Ill

IX j~lit, tisXliii>~

pIo

,* , - " t ,
p1(1 iiIst o('tilIli ii>l
iiilit I lilt-) I ,aI I l jilXl

mXilt
I

t(

il

it

c

cII (iX

li

VK VARNER and R.T. GUCAUSKAS Department of Bolta v, Planmt rathology arc Miciabolagy
I.II
i

o ' X

prt)Itlal J 11 1
itIt , '

111(11 ii]fllshit l

1

110

l

lis

fo-p

\

ool

,, , ' : , ll 't

il

-

i

it

t

I

)t dic "i (ii IX\ fi tIll . Ilti catll

i1

l tIt
tiltItX 11I 1

I

tili

Iii XtlilttI iltitl
n

X 1>11,l

i/i] XI!

I

hii
ltlll

li

itic1(11 ii ii liuitillt c

Iili ill t iti I I t\
lIitig

(It)
iit t

il)o
11)11

gitti l t
111cciXX

c biitIlli
ill-

M OM\I I
tii

il ,

l

l

tlol

XX

111) I Xlolito
tlt It-o ii

Itt
dlitrit ilcolt I~prtitt>lilt, Iitli 'Iti

tI X

i)

(li)i'lisX

xlt]

llOl

l~tilso

tll] i

)5 (

Iii11 ll

ttiItlit.

ti,i(

Ill

till

llltliXXof pill

tiI

tit

111

Xii

b\ (

IIiX

iI
t
t

I

ti

ils \\
l~

\ (itt
hltt it

Ii b

t itt tll
it ith It, t

liii ittI

illoctiltil

It , t

i c

111

lih

.1 \lost

pt

c 'i ill tl ii

ptl it ii t

, mid tilltIilli

fI

3.Nubes f partocsowilsin irs-ik

ex-s

corn protoplast ft' actcc romac \inocu lati with maie dwar (t

t neras atter mosacvrs

FIG. 1 (above). Protoplasts isolated from corn leaves; magnified 2,OOOX. FIG. 2 (below). Virus-like particles (long, filamentous rods) in an extract from corn protoplasts inoculated with maize dwarf mosaic virus; magnified 77,OOOX.

rtl>
4Il
700

les pet grid

900-

500

300

r

20

40

60

60

Hours after inoculion~t

Alahaina A-1-icultill-a/ 1"'XI)cOlliclit Statioll

EFFECT VARIES

OF LEAF SCALD DISEASE .AMONG PLUM VARIETIES

J.D. NORTON, V.M. SNELL, and H.M. BRYCE, Department of Horticulture AJ. LATHAM, Department of Botany, Plant Pathology, and Microbiology C.C. CARLTON and K.C. SHORT, Chilton Area Horticulture Substation WA. GRIFFEY and H.E. BURGESS, Piedmont Substation, J.G. STARLING and H.W. IVEY, Wiregrass Substation DISEASE IS A MAJOR FACTOR limiting production of plums, and leaf scald is one of the most serious problems. The organism causing leaf scald on plum trees, a rickettsia bacterium, will also infect peach trees. Leaf scald has appeared on infected Japanese plums from mid-June until July in Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station research orchards. The first symptom is a slight chlorosis or bronzing along the margin or tip of the leaf. The discoloration intensifies, sometimes appearing water-soaked before turning brown and drying. The affected area becomes delineated from the unaffected area by a chlorotic band. As the dieback gradually progresses, several bands may appear in the necrotic tissue. Leaf scald may appear on one or more areas of an or over 2 or more years. Plum trees planted in 1973 at the Wiregrass Substation have exhibited a uniform infection. Data for 1976 and 1978, before and after disease occurred, are presented in table 1. Yield, weight, and total soluble solids of fruit were reduced by the disease and tolerant trees were less affected than susceptible ones. Homeside, Mariposa, and Morris cultivars and Methley A-21 and Ozark Premier F-2 seedlings showed least effects from the rickettsia infection. Plant growth appeared to be normal, with little or no discoloration of leaves, in 1977. However, reduced growth was observed on Mariposa and Morris in 1978 and 1979. All trees except Ozark Premier F-2 received disease index ratings of 1 for leaf scald in 1977, table 2. Leaf scald ratings increased to 2 and 3, respectively, for TABLE 1. YIELD, WEIGHT, AND TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLIDS OF FRUIT OF PLUM Mariposa and Morris in 1978 and 1979. TREES, WIREGRASS SUBSTATION, HEADLAND, 1976 AND 1978 Intermediate responses to the disease Cultivar or Yield/tree Fruit weight Total soluble solids were found for Crimson, Giant Cherry, Methley, and Ozark Premier cultivars. seedling 1976 1978 1976 1978 1976 1978 The trees appeared to be normal in apLb. Lb. g g Pct. Pct. pearance in 1977; in 1978, however, yield, Homeside ....... 130.5 140.9 68.3 62.7 19.3 18.9 12.8 17.9 48.3 fruit weight, and total soluble solids were 53.8 55.7 73.5 Mariposa ....... greatly reduced. Leaf scald ratings for these Morris.......... 67.3 46.3 46.3 41.9 16.2 15.5 Methley A-21... 148.7 154.0 63.7 59.7 19.7 18.4 trees were 5 by 1979; trees also were in an Ozark Premier advanced state of decline. F-2.......... 144.3 158.3 47.7 45.7 17.9 16.3 The most severe effects of the disease Crimson......... 107.9 33.8 47.3 38.4 18.3 14.4 were observed on Frontier, Purple, and Giant Cherry... 62.4 27.2 28.6 17.9 19.5 14.5 Methley ....... 94.8 27.2 41.3 29.3 18.8 16.2 Santa Rosa cultivars and Burbank D-1 and Ozark Premier. . 101.7 21.2 49.9 38.3 16.3 13.6 Ozark Premier F-1 seedlings. Yield, weight, Burbank D-1 ... 78.8 31.7 39.6 28.3 18.7 16.1 and total soluble solids of fruit were severely Frontier ....... 71.1 35.5 57.9 42.1 16.6 15.2 reduced; all trees received a rating of 5 for Ozark Premier F-1 .......... 39.0 0 63.5 45.6 19.9 14.7 plum leaf scald. Trees were in an advanced Purple........ . 78.5 19.5 61.5 41.8 15.2 13.3 state of decline in 1978. Santa Rosa ..... 57.3 27.5 44.4 20.4 18.7 16.3 Results from plantings of plum trees at the Main Station, Chilton Area Horticulture TABLE 2. INJURY FROM PLUM LEAF SCALD DISEASE, WIREGRASS Substation, and the Piedmont Substation SUBSTATION, HEADLAND, 1977, 1978, AND 1979 were similar to those recorded in the planting at the Wiregrass Substation. Cultivar or Disease index' Plum leaf scald ratings, table 2, corseedling 1977 1978 1979 Average responded to the concentrations of rickettsia Homeside.................. . 1 1 1 1.0 bacteria in the twigs, roots, and leaf petioles. Mariposa ................... . 1 2 3 2.0 In breeding tests, observations of sympM orris..................... 1 2 3 2.0 toms of plum leaf scald and monitoring of Methley A-21............... 1 1 1 1.0 Ozark Premier F-2 .......... 5 1 1 2.3 progeny from interspecific crosses, culCrimson ................... . 5 5 5 5.0 tivars, and seedlings indicate that resistance Giant Cherry............... 3 4 5 4.0 to the rickettsia organism is heritable and 5 5 5 5.0 Methley ................... present in the Auburn developed material. Ozark Premier .............. 5 5 5 5.0 Burbank D-1 ............... . 5 5 5 5.0 Uniform infection of seedlings was insured 5 5 5.0 Frontier ................... .. 5 by double budding of 1-year whips with buds Ozark Premier F-1 ........... 5 5 5 5.0 from infected trees. Resistance to leaf scald Purple..................... 5 5 5 5.0 has been incorporated into horticultural Santa Rosa ................. . 5 5 5 5.0 'Disease index: 0 = no scald, 1 = 1-20%, 2 = 21-40%, 3 = 41-60%, 4 = 61-80%, and5 = 81-100% scald types, and seedlings are currently being evaluated for possible release. leaves. affected leaf and may involve as much as three-quarters of the leaf before abscission occurs. In early phases of the disease, leaf scald may occur on only a few twigs or large branches; during later phases, however, symptoms may appear on almost all of the foliage. The banded appearance of the necrotic tissue is especially evident during autumn. As a consequence of premature defoliation during September and October, diseased trees may develop new leaves that are malformed, leathery, and rolled; these leaves may also develop the scald appearance. The effects of leaf scald include a reduction in new tree growth and in size, quality, and yield of fruit. Decline of trees may occur in one season

10'

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station

Quantifying
Temperature and Nutrient Dependence in Poikilothermic Organisms and Plants
T.P. MACK Department of Zoology-Entomology

0

Limiting Nutrient Conc. -FIG. 1. A temperature-mediated functional response surface. TEMPERATURE and the supply of a limiting nutrient are probably the most widely recognized factors regulating the activity of plants and poikilotherms (coldblooded animals). Temperature influences these populations in a density-independent manner-that is, temperature affects all members of a population regardless of the population size. However, the supply of a limiting nutrient depends on the population size. For example, many plants in a given area will probably use more nitrogen from the soil than only a few plants. Factors acting in this manner are commonly referred to as density-dependent factors. Ecologists have tried for many years to determine whether density-dependent factors or density-independent factors are the most important in regulating the growth of populations. Current thinking is that density-dependent and density-independent actions are intertwined so at any given moment either type of factor may be limiting. Two years ago.an equation was developed by the author at Pennsylvania State University before joining the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station that quantified the interaction of a limiting nutrient and temperature on poikilothermic activity rates. This equation was named a temperature-mediated functional response equation (TMFRE). The mathematical components of a TMFRE were tested by fitting the components to data from a wide variety of organisms, covering a broad range of biological processes. The temperature component satisfactorily described the rate change with temperature for two bacteria, a ciliate, two diatoms, a higher plant, many insects, and a fish. The rates this component described included photosynthetic, 02 consumption, glucose oxidation, parasitization, feeding, growth, and developmental rates. The limiting nutrient component of a TMFRE was a
functional response equation that has been

tested by hundreds of researchers and proven applicable. Thus, the foundation of a TMFRE appears to be solid. A TMFRE, figure 1, is a quantitative answer to whether, at a given moment, a density-independent factor (temperature) or a density-dependent factor (a limiting nutrient) regulates population growth. It also helps to write down these interactions in a mathematical form so they can be incorporated into computer models. Computer modelling of plant and animal populations is one of the fastest growing areas of the biological sciences. It is an area with the potential for vastly increasing our knowledge of how species interact and ecosystems change. Once a computer model describing the interaction or ecosystem is developed, many years of field observations can be simulated in a few minutes of computer time. A TMFRE can greatly increase the accuracy of certain computer models, figure 2. The worth of a TMFRE is in its ability to aid in understanding the multiple species interactions occurring every day. For example, the interaction of an insect predator with its prey is temperature and food dependent with a TMFRE. This implies that the impact of the predators on the prey population will change with temperature. This is an important concept, since traditionally predator-prey models in ecology have ignored temperature effects. A TMFRE also allows for temperaturedependent refuges to exist. For example, a crop may be able to grow in temperatures where certain weeds, pathogens, or other pests cannot. Thus, the damage potential of these pests at that temperature would be zero, even if the pest population was quite high. This too is an important concept, since

we almost invariably equate a certain pest population size with an economic injury level. With a TMFRE, the pest may or may not be causing economic damage, depending on the temperature. Probably the most important concept, though, is that most of the rates we think of in plant or poikilotherm population dynamics are, with a TMFRE, temperature dependent. The egg laying rate of an insect pest, the growth rate of a parasitic organism, and the longevity of a fungus may vary at least partially according to temperature. This allows us to ask interesting questions, such as: does a "common cold" virus replicate faster or slower when we run a fever? Do some insect pests become problems late in the season because that is the time when temperatures favor their development? Like many things, a TMFRE may provoke more questions than it answers.
Green peach ophids, no. 1,864.8 A

1,243.3

-

621.8 -

-_

0.3
0 10

.

.

I. '....
19

...
29

CaD . . . '..# i
38

Time, days

FIG. 2. Computer simulation model results illustrating the effects of a temperature change on green peach aphid population dynamics. A and B are cool temperature regimes for 20 days, and C and D depict hot temperatures for 20 days. Note the large differences in population size at day 38, which would not have occurred in a temperature invariant model.

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station

11

Effective Tax Management Can Reduce Farm Taxes
G.D, HANSON and A.B. WOODHAM, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology UNTIL THE BEGINNING of the 1970's, income tax management was not crucial for most farmers. However, higher farm incomes, changes in key tax provisions, and increases in self-employment tax rates changed this. Farmers recognized that good tax planning could reduce taxes substantially and, at the same time, provide important incentives to invest in land, machinery, breeding livestock, and other assets. Because of the need for tax planning information, a study was begun by the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station. Sufficient farm records were not available from Alabama farmers, so farm record data from 76 commercial farms in another state were obtained and analyzed. Since federal tax laws, production technology, and market forces are similar throughout the United States, the relationships portrayed in the tables are believed to be typical for similarsized commercial farms in Alabama. Management methods that would reduce taxes in one state should provide the same advantage in another. Capital gains deductions on livestock saved the small farmers $577 in taxes annually as an average over the 12-year period, table 1. This deduction was the largest component of the $1,413 total tax savings for small farmers. Rapid depreciation (instead of using the straight-line method) saved the large farmers more than either capital gains or investment credit. Medium-sized farmers saved mnore taxes with use of investment credit ($903). Clearly, average annual tax savings of $1,413-$4,242 are large enough to warrant careful tax management. Many of the years shown in table 1 (1967-78) were better net return years than more recent ones. Because costs to the farmer have been increasing faster than farm prices, many farmers have recently experienced consecutive years of low income or net farm losses. This is causing economists to re-examine tax management practices in agriculture. For example, investing in a new combine provides large tax deductions for depreciation and loan interest, as well as a 10% investment tax credit. These deductions are only useful if the farmer has taxable .income. However, the production cost increases associated with a new combine (or other farm investments) may result in low farm income or increased farm losses. This
suggests an appropriate new question. Have

management has been "over-done." Table 2 responds to this question, using the latest 4 years' data to provide a more recent picture. The first item in table 2 shows that $552, or 24% of the $2,199 available investment credit, was not used because federal income taxes had already been reduced to zero. That is, about $1 of every $4 of investment credit was not needed during 1975-78. Similarly, 18% of available federal tax credits were lost as well as 17% of personal deductions and exemptions. (An unused investment credit can be carried forward to a future year, but personal credits, deductions, and exemptions are permanently lost if not used in the tax year to which they are applicable.) Also, 22% of operating losses (item 4) were not used in the year they were available. The numbers in table 2 are averages for all 76 farmers. The losses of available tax savings, credits, and deductions are much worse for many of the farmers. For example, the average unused investment credit was $1,651 for the 14 farmers who did not use all available investment credit. It is this group of farmers that truly needs to improve tax management skills. In sum, table 1 suggests that tax management can save farmers thousands of dollars in taxes. Table 2 shows that many farmers were not able to effectively use available tax savings. Farmers need to consider not only the tax savings effects of farm management, but also whether they will have the income to take advantage of such tax savings. It is economically more sound to pay modestly increased taxes during the years of aboveaverage returns than to increase risk by borrowing heavily to purchase farm assets that increase costs. An advantage of paying above average taxes in years of high net returns is that past tax liabilities become available as a
TABLE 1. AVERAGE ANNUAL TAX DOLLARS SAVED

cash refund during low return years that follow. Finally, the following guidelines for effective farm tax management are presented: * Estimate your tax bill in the late fall of the year while there is ,still time to take tax management actions. * Keep your taxable income high enough to make use of personal deductions and exemptions. For a married family, $1,000 is exempted per family member, and $3,400 is the standard deduction (or a total of $7,400 for a family of 4 under present federal income tax regulations). * Maintain as steady an income as possible. Plan ahead on use of extra income from sales of timber, small land parcels, breeding cattle, and unneeded machinery. It may be wise to save such income for years of low farm profits. * Consider seriously the straight-line depreciation option under the tax law. Depreciating a new building or tractor in 5 years may result in tax losses (that are not wanted), followed by relatively high taxes after the 5 years have passed. o Try to make use of available investment credit in the year received. oDo not grow in capital investment simply to avoid payment of taxes. Excessive investment (to reduce taxes) may greatly increase risk in farming. Improved management is the best and safest basis for growth in farming. And tax management can be used to assure that available tax savings are not lost.
TABLE 2. ANNUAL TAX SAVINGS NOT USED OR LOST BY76 FARM OPERATORS, 1975-781

Deductions or tax credits

Pet. remaining or lost

DURING 1967-78 BY 76 FARM OPERATORS'

Item

Small farms

Medium farms

Large farms

560 269 258 Tillable acres... Crop and livestock sales.... $61,051 $65,626 $145,271 Tax dollars saved Capital gains on $ 783 $ 776 livestock ..... $ 577
Accelerated depreciation Investment credit .......... 452 384
.$1,413

786 903

1,940 1,519

tax benefits of farm investments been emphasized at the expense of production cost efficiency? If more tax deductions and credits have been accumulated than are needed, tax

Total savings

$2,465

$4,242

'Above tax savings are for combined federal income, state income, and federal selfemployment taxes. Data are from records of a sample of farmers in Minnesota.

1. Investment credit $2,199 Available ......... 522 24 Remaining ...... 2 2. General tax credit 152 Available ........ 18 28 Lost............ 3. Federal income tax personal deductions and exemptions 7,092 Available ........ 17 1,163 Lost ............ 4. Federal income tax net operating losses 1,610 Original ......... 22 348 Remaining ...... 'Data are from records of a sample of farmers in Minnesota. 2 The general tax credit no longer applies; however, standard deductions and the earned income credit have been increased since 1975-78.

12

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station

G

til s

I s, t 1A\

11-BIL

II'i

)I

,tti

I

of

ill gll

IXgh Ih iclilto

ll

for S\.Sllll
less dc h lf (If l
'clc

of''lln
o i l fo sstil1

111

1

161 5

tMlItI

FIG. 1.This solar collector, made of stacked solid concrete blocks with a surface of two layers of fiberglass material, offers limited storage capabilities.
( I Ii'

I ti

Xlt 'l i Itill

11 i )11 t(,

or , i 1111111 (i tII

i I \ )ci-I F I

l li1111 iX s
enit pli t

I

til it ('(] ol

till

ar I It i ilo,' O

(Xi 1ItIIII(I cXl s ll i'

I. IX( It X\ X ill I f

XXXiI " I11

fao IIi i

ADDING STORAGE CAPABILITY EXPANDS SOLAR HEATING VALUE
J L. KOON and CA. FLOOD, JR. Department of Agricultural Engineering RN BREWER, Department of Poultry Science
nlch fl
Xtli lii'lt4 iI-qi(Ictilli \,i (X ill

,

lli( li-

Ji 111(1c ('(XIX l-

illcr\

1 i "Ii'(t
'

II t.i Heslits

Ill llc t XX A

~

o

I (

)'II

II

I

1111111 t\\i (11

l

ks

Thu'~l (Ittll

iItkX
41 iII

tltal

III

f' sf i

93

tI XIf t esO'X

sIf XI'..ll i

of, t\% oIfli\l'(io til Xii aal \\tlII diI

ieil(

thlX ii

"l Iii 1111i\ d

,ititi t~\it'(

cXIII-

jiXX t,a 111111(41tll:1,11

iiI ill

FcI.oco 2. Energ

patternsouring 4-weektri
\1111 \lltill'i fIXtll' l \\i''I (Iotll' llX ail I IX sup ll illenXXIIil o IXI ( X 'I'll c

III (XXII Ill'
l

th oub

tusps
id

h sill
'I

llIil
r

r

ltlti
I

l
0.eqIII

(lilt

l( ('ill

ill

i cII

'141'

XIII XXX I al('XII I

to11

fact 'Xic It ili'X i(XIti ieiteit ( to

p

lit mos li

~~

~

~

~

XaIX

II (

IX j11iI tli1 Xlc ' ('tI(.iXi

the

'lito ithc1

Itojciliiiaii

\atXI

litIitib

I

t

XX

Iic

all

fist6

x

ck5

ro \\ihbctriislt der

tII( till i

no (' ll it, IXu t ing This

tat

l

MR] Ileclalicll c itlilio l,

ils

ici c(

t
of'I ('ill, o1(411111( XXil

tiii'

XI'i'~l (

I

'la

PEgNifct 3

oil(Ic Dayili ltril s of, ,

FIG. 3. Temperature rise and energy gain of ventilation air.
Temperature, degrees F PEN 3 DAY 15
Energy, bt /hour u (15,000 90 (13,500 (12,000
--

Inlet temperature Heal gain

-10,500 -9,000

kA bnttmertr
40 30 20-

7,500 -6,000 4,500 13,000

0 0 21 Time, hours Sidewoll heat gain (ventilation role 385 cfm, 510 ot 8 00)

24

Vabania Aocultm-al 1.1'xitwi-iment Station

The Relationship of Premolt Performance to Postmolt Performance of Broiler Breeder Females
GR McDANIE Department of Po jtry Science

,

iI (II (it

1 \\

1

1

1

[ 1 tl t_

.111 1

1It ( lIt tI (~t

fIt

I

it )I

It I f t
( IIt( dt I 'i )I

I

IIt
tilt

iio
(0(lit ii tt

I ti
111 , F t

I I S
i
\

t

( l)II
t

til

I ,I I IIIIIIw
t

i f

I I , ()
It I t

ofi i t
1 i

()

I

it

ilt , 1 I

I
I

1

iit

li

t

'ii ctt i

i

it

it\ d

ill i f fit" t
it i
iO t1

liiic

it

I11 t t I i

I

i t

t

11111( lt i i-o \\

ft(, I Itill~
I

Il tI I(i I I ((\ I
tlii

I

I

I t k t~ f

it

it
I,

,ilitt

" (dtil lit 10

i ljit

i tII

ii icit

t f
iti ll II

it

fl(II it i

ti,

t)), li(lt f itti

1c itt
i

ti 1i \ lIltI t

I t1 k t i(
iit It wct )(1

i ( t i it til it

I

I
i

litf(.Ii11 t
It Iiiu it1 ii l

10l

t1ut] itIlt f it t

fit\II

\(L~ft\\ M

ii o \itt
lit(- 11 1 tt f

t t io i i i i fil itt
It )1it

if

flitk
I '1

Iil I

i

f I
o fit ll

i

Iift

II a

fI)

i
Iit i t

) ITi I f

it

i

if
I

it I
lioid It

111

iit

i

t (It
Itt
tilt

tiw illli t I t

i

f)1" l)I t

Ill

11(

it

l

i
lt

li

it

itii

it im t

t ,l

vitttt It i

tit) _ it

d

fil l

ntil
iItI fc I

Ii

tut
I

2
t I

lc ,ilI

a

i,,lI)

li \i

lt

it
fi

It

t iii

I It
t

~i

ti

l
fi

ilt ill i t I

)It til
it)lt l

,ItlificIIit

ci

ill

i It tlit
1

ft111 .1111 It~ It I tII I

i i

ll

m111 I I ttll it t

iic
il

t io ii
t

it~k

I-1ha i t ii

dit tiitttilw f

t

i

tlt t ill

)1i t

dlrll.

trlttt

l

il

li \ iII ( 11 o
\t I t

f i

t i

t

I-

I

,II

ii

iii

tt\

t1c

1111

lii tk
i

ii
l

1111

ii

i
iiil

l if
ft iti

i(,liii

il
.i i

lii itt,

It
l

l t i if

ito

ft

t10
IT

ItiH
it i

t Ii

II
i rii ) (, I II

t

Il L I I

I

til
I I1

i

I

I

t It Ii, w it I
271 26)

1 ,I

l

f
i

f

It I I

o

It Il it

1itt i

ii 1i t

I

f it

It 1f I Ii ft 1(
t ill(

I ( 22It ii (
i tt I( f

ff11 itt (,I1 1 tt -(Iit

itiil.

iI i

i

(dfititii

Ill

2tt t

Ii

ititII

t

Ft1

ti1 t Ilt Ii )
fl t111\,)

i]t();\1\\

lititfI;ttiiIt ft

,I\() ttit

t i

t

\tt i \i

I i if(Ill I tIf

T1 i

it

Ilwk
F i1
1 1

P( "t 1 1( dt

lit (.11 )11 to

P( ) t 11 loll

h ( ill( dt

Po Ili( )It ),t
001 lit,

I 1i

ft1( 1

ht I I f It It I
ft I

It it iii

itit

Itif 11
t

It

iI ii

I f kI1 om hf \ '
1 Iiu

....... )((1 o _ \
m

10 ,0 if t
ff111

11511

f

715

ff52
fit

I

I

fli ft01

fit

Il it

10 -

L i itttl(1

kX/(Ihl tol

kI i

ii

u1/fl

if!(/

I. i/ti

'o hlf it ii

Si/I i ti

THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY TAX ACT of 1981 was enacted August 13, 1981, and involved the largest tax cut in history. One of the purposes of the changes in tax provisions was to stimulate the economy. Taxes for individuals and businesses were cut. Estate tax provisions were changed to cause estate planning to take on a new meaning. The many changes in income, estate, and gift tax laws are important to farmers as individual taxpayers and as operators of farm businesses. Although, at present, farmers are not as much concerned with taxes as with economic survival, provisions of the 1981 tax act can be of benefit to farmers and will affect the overall structure of agriculture. Some of the Changes More than 100 tax changes were made in the new act; only some of the major ones, significant to farmers from an income and estate tax standpoint, can be presented. Expensing. Under prior law, there was no special provision for farmers to expense (immediately deduct) the cost of certain types of property purchased. Generally, such property, if depreciable, had to be depreciated. In other words, for personal property such as machinery and equipment, under the new law all or part of the income tax basis or cost can currently be deducted. The total amount eligible for expensing in 1982 and 1983 is $5,000 each year. This is increased to $7,500 per year in 1984 and 1985 and $10,000 per year in 1986. In the case of a trade-in, only the cash difference paid can be expensed. Expensed property is not eligible for investment tax credit. Also, expensed property will not be eligible for deferral of gain under an installment sale. Accelerated Cost Recovery System. Under the old law, cost or other basis of assets used in trade or business, or for the production of income, was depreciable over the estimated useful life.of the asset. After useful life was determined, an appropriate method of determining depreciation was selectedand used to-recover the cost basis of the property over this period of years. Under the new. law, an Accelerated Cost Recovery system is in effect for assets placed in service after 1980. In most cases, the
write-off periods under this system are shorter than useful lives under the prior law. Recovery periods are 3 years for hreeding hugs, light trucks, and automohiles; 5 years for farm machinery, equipment, fences, single-purpose structures, and hreeding and dairy cattle; and 15 years for other farim huildings. Annual percentage depreciation deductions are provided in tahles for each of the categories of property. For example, for 3-year property, 25% of the cost hasis can he deducted the first year, 38% the second year, and 37% the third year. Slightly different percentages apply to property placed in

THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY TAX ACT OF 1981
J,H, YEAGER Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology

service in 1985 and after 1985. Salvage value of the property does not have to be deducted from the cost basis in determining the depreciable amount. To provide more flexibility in ation, one of two additional recoverydepreciperiods may be used for each class of property. Use of these alternate recovery periods would allow a farmer to spread depreciation over an extended period of years rather than recovering the cost basis in a few years. Investment Tax Credit. Under the old law, an investment tax credit of up to 10% of the purchase price was allowed for qualified investments in certain types of property used in farming. Farm machinery, equipment, livestock, and certain single-purpose agricultural or horticultural structures qualified. Generally, land and land improvements such as farm buildings did not qualify. Amount of the investment eligible for credit varied with the useful life of the property. Both new and-used property qualified with $100,000 limitation on the amount of used property. There was also a limit on the credit for a tax year. Under the new law, the types of property eligible for investmentunchanged. However, thetax credit remain investment credit will be increased to 6% for eligible property with a 3-year recovery period and 10% for property with a recovery period of 5, 10, or 15 years. The maximum investment tax credit for any tax year was increased over the old amount and the carryover period was also extended from 7 to 15 years. Recapture provisions were also changed. Long-term Capital Gains. Under the old law, only 40% of the long-term capital gains was subject to tax. At that time, the top tax bracket was a 70% rate; thus, the maximum amount of tax was 28%. Under the new law, the top tax bracket rate is 50%; thus, only farmers in the highest tax bracket will pay a maximum of 20% on long-term capital gains. Estate Tax Provisions. Changes in the

estate tax provisions provided the first major relief since the early 1940's. The 1976 Act provided for an estate tax credit and the 1981 Act expanded the benefits associated with the tax credit. Under the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, persons dying in 1982 have a combined estate and gift tax credit of $62,800 which offsets value of property for an estate of $225,000. In other words, the tax credit provides for exemption of an estate with a net value of $225,000 in 1982. The credit is graduated upward each year with the exemption reaching $600,000 in 1987. Estate tax rates were also changed. Under the able old law, rates rangedor less 18% 70% taxestates of $10,000 from to on on taxable estates exceeding $5 million. Under the new law, estate tax rates are scaled down for estates in tax brackets of $2.5 million or above between 1981 and 1985 with the maximum rate being reduced from 70% to 50%. Tax rates in the lower taxable estate value brackets remain the same with taxable estates not over $10,000 taxed at 18%. Under the new law, an unlimited marital deduction is allowed for spousal transfers. The rule applies to both estate and gift tax laws. Also, the rules applying to jointly held property were changed. For individuals dying after 1981, the estate of the first spouse to die will include half of the joint interest held with the spouse. The amount of the contribution to the property made by each spouse is no longer important. Gift Tax Exclusion. Under the new tax law, the annual gift tax exclusion for each individual is $10,000 per recipient and $20,000 per recipient for split gifts made by spouses. This was increased from $3,000 and $6,000, respectively, under the old law. The results of these and other changes in tax laws can have far-reaching effects on farmers. They call for planning ahead, recognizing the need for assistance in tax and estate matters, and seeking competent help.

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station

15

(I'iliis

ill

til

I

il'a

edci ( anil l't'(licIii il tili

ll

11111 11111.Al tiici ,ti
spore liilufuliistll3ilt5 T.

di e 5pi)'lv

2 ill-

itrpodcd

aitc spo illt.i'i

Sot'is tiahiiiisilt'(s of, spot'
itiiltt't tiiiles I i('11o111

\\ h'Ii(t 1111
lt1 \\

tr ilt'iii'

\it it',i

itr

II I ti tiiiii lia1I tiitsi \114t'i~l ii s cI sIlln-cX11.i Ii i I Ii I i l(titils IIil a i I (" i'cit c(1i I \cItlli
i (I I l

)'ti IIs II
fIat't ll-l I n(.(,

till

In fiiii

1)11Illcict'a si' iii it'.itic lon so

cI II iSes i't'sl ti lcr I cr it

sprtiis

I' .\tt ,

'l

i

cl

i it

Il

tlt'ili

ilt'

~ilt'l
s (ieliat i oll\' iii l 'is
llilstti l
l, .1ai

Ii iiilit, tit' til

iit's'. lloi\exss(1-ngc s
i

litIl
t'~lcllt

iil11 cIht'l t'iuirce

1as pl

Iis

tiit'
thisl

fini,,lcidt hile Itas

t' a

ssilt'

I

\\1iiii

t lll iil i

lititiol t

a

t

i(

t'k
fiic

ill5

s
f

iiil

2

I miit' iiit'i

lcv

le

PRACTICAL CONTROL METHODS DEVELOPED FOR ENTOMOSPORIM LEAF SPOT OF PHOTINIA
JM, MULLEN, AX. HAGAN,

FIG. 1 (above Iet)-Upper and lower leaf surface of affected leaves; FIG. 2 (below)-good control resulting from Daconil treatment (left), as compared with untreated plant (right).

and R.L.SHUMACK Cooperative Extension Service C.H. GILLIAM and JS. CROCKETT Department of Horticulture
P10T) IN comn a'1III
shilli

"if..,-',
"'I'-

4k~
A 1

i)o
i ll

Ic t'opii is a [popui~i la lniliitli

tit('

Ili-

l

111 iii.1 )5 t. Liointro i l plii ll -11111 ]]] 0 lilli i -si- iu re blocics( s

iIlIs'N
5

111 1 I Ill(
I'\ SI

I ()i I1,1
'

ll[

S )\ C o\II S

11)1 () 1 II 1 , I 1 v~ 1i 0\\i
I'll

NIl I 'l( I

" I

)

I\115

I I\, II

i

1

1

,

.

1'tt
(I.ht
11

tilli It~ilt'iil

iol ls

sc

,It

1'li /

ii.

Ica 's is

dtisit.sth

Borideauxs inistiirt'

a pplicatins . . . tI)1 )2 :3 ( 1111)1 thaihiiiltbsp -3 aipp] iat iilis .. . \ Ia*lcozcb 1 tbsp. S appictations ........... B( I )111\1-1 1/3 ti)51) I iipplicatlion2 ...S L/iii~tli).3 2 applicationis .. ...... in l.s..tl.i .. . 1-1 .3 Bi'iinin111/:3tb~sp ipplit ...... (n triil . . ............ ...... '0 n lii~lstase,

.. 5 5 II Is, 11J
63

1 .6 i iiiliiil
Illiilllii'iillI iiti 11111 Iid 2 ts +

I 6 1.6 1. 3. 5

91
91

28
4S

'It'lidillSicon-1/ Chllt hah

tsp.

9.3
II6 701

5S
5 13 501 91
om Ai(ii-pt 7 to if

51 91

iItsp

5 -SI

.ii'i 1(10%hcatac

lsascdi Control +i "511il 1

99
T 7-11 2 tsp.
it

aici 2-1. lNl Sinlide applicatio 'Tsx, appli athills Mlatch 12 ind \li ol It 24. 26, \lin It 12,aloo MIarch 24. tioiis Fe'tiai\ oil Ililue ipplil

1001
2-\ tk ilntti 5 11 St

I'llmnjo id'

\ ('I r appllied

Iiiii

4.

Vabanla

A-"i-icultill-al 1"XI)cii-iniclit Station

1

)l

\\M))S

I

,iplidiX

etlsilii

XptticeX

the Do)luglas fir (XX1f

11th

raiikcc

iiii auth Dlll.s
poi-c XXt ttliX

fir, after 6 Xiiis of' cxbti i

RewiltX letv

iXs ])ilost iihiIlli tault aSSCt,

ilt!olji t~l

XXXXiai

the itti tratiXe tiniil de\ eloped iiie
dl

color. The baltd tX Ilt Xl
Xliifact

eheeckiug buit hatd no
ii)ti I iiiij tlilt ratni.

IPeii~c t han brickX ork.
pu

Woo iof
tietaX aoiiot

tX prcs is kiio\ ii

l-cd titdir aind hilti rcsistilnt to to Lbt liilX X hilt (lit leartX (Int lolgaX fii, oIt
1) itiXIhilt jiltitand hall isX Ill ilo(tinee II)

il liii! sxii di ii(' o i pi tic of, rtcIXXo t 11111i i ret! cetdi XX re coile Xliifact chiecking and dclaX . 'Ilie Iki ii XXaIs XsicrllIX ll)XX tiXXithi IIXciall Xti ctiit iratiosX tie XXorst iof all XX itlisc Xe ci itkiiig tletaN 1 lf,T78% ailld 77)/ itXI)tctiX tIX t llipiitti tol i id thlow XXest illectt ii cdl prilliert it X XXeatlitreti Xiltllirl iipin I laau hatf tlic' sIdIlli. illi the It iX Xtiggtltecl thait pl X1)11th( il)XXs t~tjirl)ii (t \\ Xilliii ((Xii all Xtiiltli o

iiltn

XX)

aiitlie iiXllinXXilu

CilcriiitI

thit

Xirlfie lIliiilItX

anti

the

tltgi ionl of, suirface ilat

i 1 ialit\

ani loss of' X'

iii

J)lXX oni sitilig_ iX nolt tietittt IX tilt miiiiiii iel ci aid ntisotl \\ ilililit liii Xtlilimil Imiiitilig2 or IRttlXouitldt rctl cedliari XI)II iinill h
wXithi t~t ii liX It[c i~s

( ~wri~llX,

ii mhidtibtcatile tlitx Ila\ c itnitiji to detl .X i li 1T)dtth IliiiIlic teefcO of, X\ erili it mc stimlc (icc (liii tlc initial color, stii
iniitial
too r-csistaiic t 1)1\ IoXIwil.I4 sxL chiliilliilcil woo (1)1 eiil ,i 5/S ill. thick) XX rc t\posl Slitdiiig PIiiiiXl to wIl cll

Effect of Weathering on Six Commercial Species of Plywood Siding Used in Housing

{~otiX \ctfoi 6r cat sii Auburn ii h \ ii ii \itic c, i ti ii1 ittd tetiai I i fin bii l r ha

S If.t \Xti c\posccl is of' cachIu tXcc 14 I shownX i in t figinrc. ()ie oat 1 of' each e Xp~ccieX wXasi(XIoed facir innrthi onle east, onil souithi iiti onl X\ est. Aftei 6 X ears of'
expostli e tin( collor liteach sIjitit XXl cliii1

p~ai tt to ilitiaii conitiol coloir of liiiitXjIn'tt piiicls. Ill addiionii tit( ljniiX ot' stiridet il
dud IX \iliIt.l FilialX

ctcli e~~lxttse
16oi

tiaicl XXas tnt lip) to oiitaili test sptciliinl

Results (Color. Siii fac
It' tllxttLc

puimls XX eaili

EJ. BIBLIS, Department of Forestry
attiattoXiXIii dcgrec \k liliiglillit. thc \jaine

slfccc
Wei tri
SiitX

iialit
d

tif'l liilli illX v oo osli itatti\ thohrs Xc If
fir

I

ii

oI. sii illi m

A lr 6

1\j

ni (
i

ln I (i Sm [m lo k

, i Lien Pe s ic

tti

(i\\oi
(t

(illiiX

les actiif t.

I, jA 'I 11, SI' (5l IM IBC IA N lii S5,5901) S63,031) 821, 13) 6 16 0 10 551, 570O 379,3,(1 0 96 92 69 62 -42 DO F SPI' (5 11C OV IN

I'lt X
3"S 10 1001 , 31901 S8 3, 160 82 2,770 72 2,290) 601 57 2,200( tic SP 1) (5l lBC MV IN

I'
220 199 182 177 1.54 10)7 100 91 831 81 70) 49 SP' ( ' 1MW IN 11C DF

telilill
dud se
1

irhiaes clc X
ltdiiiiiidtpilii

ccdaiii
Xtlific

b\t

6:35 .5S9 5IT 460 457 4.46

100 9:3 81 72 72 70

Ste haic

th

Drouert . s

I~ll adton u
t

1i1( l~lli Xc t1

iii

k~t il(,A (,

o sii v

~Xen

~ai

h

11I

p

Alabama A-t-icultut-al 1"'xpcOnictit Station

PROBLEMS AND

OPINIONS DIFFER
BETWEEN SMALL AND LARGE FARM OPERATORS
J.J, MOLNAR and SL. SMITH Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology MOST ALABAMA FARMS are small by several definitions. Annual gross sales of $20,000 are frequently employed as an economic criterion of size distinguishing small from large farms. In Alabama, over 78% of the farms would be small by this standard. If the division point were $10,000, 69.7% would be classified as small. A majority of Alabama farms are small even at gross sales of less than $5,000. If the number of acres is used to judge size, most Alabama farms are still small. Over 74% of Alabama farms are less than 180 acres. When a farm size of 50 acres or less is used to delimit smallness, 36% of Alabama farms report this acreage or less. Small farms, though great in number, only account for a small part of the total volume of production. Why then are their numbers growing, and why are officials in agriculture giving small farm operators increasing attention? Their opinions and perceptions of publie issues often are distinctly different from other segments of agriculture. This difference was apparent in results of an Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station mail survey conducted in the spring of 1981 to learn how small and large farmers see themselves and each other. The sample was drawn from a master listing of farm operators maintained by various agencies in the State. From an initial mailing to 1,005 farm operators, 705 usable questionnaires were returned and available for analysis. The amount of gross farm sales in 1980 was used to differentiate the size of the farm. Farms with sales less than $20,000 were considered as small and farms with sales greater than $40,000 were classified as large. The farms with intermediate incomes were classified as medium in size. The table presents crosstabulations of various attitude items by gross farm sales. Over 80% of the small farmers agreed that there should be special government programs for small farmers, item 1. Less than 57% of the large farm owners agreed, but a majority of respondents, regardless of size, recognized the special needs of small-scale operators. Item 2 indicates that small farmers may feel slighted with respect to the public services they receive. More than 79% of these farmers, as opposed to less than 44% of the large farm operators, thought that small farmers were not equitably served by public agencies. Regardless of farm size, however, most farmers thought that small farms were deserving of assistance tailored to their particular needs, item 3. Item 4 asked whether large farms get more than their share of governmentbenefits. More small than large farm operators thought that government benefits were not fairly distributed; nevertheless, each group but the largest tended to agree. Willingness to take risk was reflected in item 5. More than 74% of the large farm operators, as compared to less than 58% of the small farm respondents, agreed with the item. An aversion to risk, debt, and new practices frequently is an obstacle to improvement for small farm operators. Item 6 suggests that social reasons for farming were not important for a majority of farmers in any economic class, but were important for twice the proportion of small-scale operators (30 versus 15%). A majority of all respondents agreed that programs should be set up to help farmers directly sell their products to the consumer. The small farm operators were somewhat more likely to agree with this item than were the large farm operators. Nearly 70% of the big farmers indicated that understanding new technology will help their-future in farming. Less than 47% of the small farmers agreed. Also, the larger farmers were more likely to report that their families will be a help in the future. The last item is somewhat at odds with the commonly accepted notion of the family-centered, small-scale farm. Apparently, family involvement plays a more critical role in larger operations. The widening split among small farms, large operations, and the narrow segment in between is a continuing trend in Alabama agriculture. As the size distribution of farms becomes even more bimodel, the pressure for specialized programs, policies, and research that reflects the segmentation of the industry will increase..

18

1Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station

FOLACIN IS NOT a common household word, but maybe it should be. This is the name of one of the essential nutrients of the B-complex vitamins, and something that plays an important role in human health. Because of its importance, folacin is getting major emphasis in human nutrition research at the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station. Folacin is a general term used to describe folic acid and chemically related compounds exhibiting biological activity of folic acid. Folacin occurs naturally in many commonly consumed food staples in the form of folate salts. There is no single chemical form with the name folacin. The different chemical forms have similar activity when ingested by man and higher animals. In foods, folacin may be present as folic acid or in conjugated forms of folacin with either two or seven glutamic acid groups per molecule. These conjugated forms, called polyglutamates, serve as the major precursors of the vitamin in the diet. Folacin is essential to man and it is needed for normal growth and reproduction, for prevention of a blood disorder called macrocytic anemia, and for important biochemical reactions within each cell of the body. In macrocytic anemia, the mature red blood cells are fewer, larger, and contain less hemoglobin than normal. The young red blood cells in the bone marrow fail to mature during dietary folacin deficiency. An unknown proportion of the population has marginal folacin status and is at moderate risk of developing folacin deficiency. Population groups who may be at risk of developing folacin deficiency include premature infants, adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, alcoholics, and patients with malabsorptive gastrointestinal diseases. Recently, a cross-sectional study was conducted by the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station on the folacin status of 103 girls, ages 12, 14, and 16 years. These adolescent females were selected from eastcentral Alabama; approximately half were black and half were white. About 40% of the girls were 12 years of age, 40% were 14 years old, and 20% were 16. Fasting blood samples were obtained and
analyzed for folacin levels in blood serum and red blood cells. Folacin present in serum and red blood cells was determined by a microbiological assay using Lactobacillus casei as the folate-responsive organisms. Dietary folacin intake was determined from 24-hour food recall data and from appropriate food composition tables. Dietary folacin intake was lower in girls aged 16 years than that observed for the other two age groups, table 1. The Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDA) show that adolescent females should consume 400

pg (micrograms) of folacin per day. Only 11%
of the girls exceeded this RDA folacin intake level. Mean serum folate values did not differ markedly with age or race, table 1, but blacks had lower values than whites in the 14- and 16-year-olds. Similarly, the mean red blood cell folate level did not differ in the girls aged 12 and 14 years but was lower in the 16-year-old group, table 1. The assay of serum folate levels indicated that 11.7% of the adolescent girls were deficient in folacin, whereas the red blood cell folate levels indicated that 47.7% were deficient, table 2. Serum folate levels are not a reliable indicator of the degree of folate deficiency because low serum folate levels may be a reflection of recent low dietary intakes of the vitamin and provide little information concerning tissue reserves. On the other hand, red blood cell folate level is regarded as a more accurate index of folacin status because it reflects the tissue folacin status at the time the red blood cells were formed. This report has attempted to describe some of the symptoms of folic acid deficiency in humans and has evaluated folacin status in adolescent females. Many of the girls had low dietary intake of folacin and almost half had red blood cell folate levels that indicated a deficiency. This evidence suggests that a deficient folate status in adolescent females may be widespread and constitute a public health problem. Next year, the same girls will again be analyzed for their serum and red blood cell folacin levels. This will provide longitudinal evaluation on folacin status of the girls which will allow researchers to see if folacin status changes as the girls become adults.

TABLE 1. MEAN DIETARY FOLACIN INTAKE AND MEAN SERUM AND RED BLOOD CELL FOLACIN LEVELS BY AGE AND RACE IN ADOLESCENT FEMALES

Age and race 12 years All ............ Blacks ......... Whites ........ 14 years All ............ Blacks ......... Whites ........ 16 years All ............. Blacks ......... Whites ........

Serum Red blood Folacin cells intake ng/ml ng/ml pVg/day 7.6 7.5 7.7 6.5 5.5 7.5 5.2 4.8 5.7 178 185 172 177 145 208 136 128 146 190 182 198 205 198 212 156 151 162

TABLE 2. FOLACIN STATUS OF ADOLESCENT FEMALES AS DETERMINED BY SERUM AND RED BLOOD CELL FOLACIN LEVELS'

Age and race

Subjects classified Number of as deficient subjects SerumRed blood Serum cells

Pct. Pct. 12 years All ......... 39 7.7 38.5 Blacks ...... 19 10.5 21.1 Whites ..... 20 5.0 55.0 14 years All ......... . 41 12.2 46.3 Blacks ...... 20 15.0 55.0 Whites ..... 21 9.5 38.0 16 years All ......... 23 17.4 65.2 Blacks...... 11 36.5 72.7 Whites ..... 12 0 58.3 All ......... . 103 11.7 47.7 'Criteria used to determine deficient folacin status were for: serum, less than 3 ng folacin/ml; and red blood cell, less than 140 ng folacin/ml.

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station

19

lIVXIi t iii
fitt ' ill,,

t

I l4i'*ti Itx a
0111 It('tiIt
low

i iii

Ii(I il itt i' i 'nm Iiii li t 1o iii

111>1ki

coii4'tiicIi xxax 141 t a l l

lui(I

opt sl tat t a'iiii' if,dr il lost,
11(1xit xi

11utc iiiiat uc(111 t it xiiif i " lso ax tipp

til, a ilf i 1 to 11111 ctc 1111

iii14iI i(
xxllixli't

itst c

oual so\\11 that 1111id

twii

TJ PRINCE, EL WILLIS, and D.N MARPLE Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences

tltlTi

hhs

ilcthe

lx'ti,ri' IM

ax

tlwiiitif

f~iti

xcct ( I itiii l A 011 k tli'i till' iiit

w

tiiccSi al xt
i

l

t

isxi
tc i

lol
i(

itt iii tiii' li
t li

of at

w

It

x~~lillosc

sttil o

ii

~iliiii(. Ir lt
ii'f
ti ltl a

ix

ix1
ili

'xpi'ill x tiill till. Ic tiltf ('it Illi,

i ((' 1'tii it x fi ll(i i \Iiixx ' thliii ximi I iil14i it (Ii t w so\\. ',11
l)ii

xi

ic lxxttllI(

ix

il t l t I

l"

\ ;I(

xi~li

t iii I

iii ht'1 l( ('iii

ixillt

\11'

Ii'tx( xxlil' a iitt

Ic
c

iii
p114

ix ii

i4'

ii

xxit] it ,

i

tr lt 'iit lw

ic

I -m xli

iii I I I I iI l (111

a iiii'ct

Ii \\

i. Iu

lb'I- lciit

x a hi ix 11111

iitiih t't1111

ill i

141 iiI x iii

ilfilti Ilix

ill

I

it, i ot dtit'i(

xxl tlt i I'

ill

i1ic t1w xx1 iII

4 it

iiit iiiii
1lii.l l iitill 'I(('('1 ,111 1 il

siii hut

l 'li(ilti

iii till' btitctill

pro-

hd a ll
t't fil6

\ i ct

lic t

tii,caroi' 111 I

ix

lix

Cimoi

itii

111(1 lixd

t111till hiii

ttixiti

xxo ti Tik iil i, i'st
\\ it' ( il
1111114till

01i1 Ijliihi I huh 'ctibiitii/ I.

iti

ii(l. t

'i

ctill'c So\\1

C(

il'

,,,, k It x it -I i x , t li t iii
l

xt(i( (ixl

xi l t Ihatti( x11 111la

wi li'ii

41 3 6:3.6 4. 5 1 7 67.4 5S. (is.6 51.6
: mt t a I l

1
, 31 1t 5

133 5 21) 1 btil

39,2 3. 1) 56

. 'li 1
114rall

lxi's ill-

silt \ill -\ 1)ilt it ic,t

11

Iii c

iitit

hi l

ii

tii'tI k1 ilitiiiiti 1

377~lo

-Itt t

)t.2

xIliii
1ii

d' \iitl,l at ,ii

sixit l

~i' l1 '

i

xiiui i i (.ill]\ ill-

:39i T

5() i

ii lxiii

it('11

i I llao it\

of dwst ii1111 x

ii iixit

t

7

Iwcl con'xduited \\,11th 411arc toi, lt til ii ai l ii

t11

;xx1114

i ofth i I o

i

ia '
4
i

foirxii i

lizaition1

AGRtCULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AUBURN UNIVERSITY AUBURN UNIVERSITY, ALABAMA 36849
Gale A. Buchanan, DIrector
PU BILICATION -Highlights ot Agricultural Research 982 Penalty tor Private use, $300 10M

POSTAGE PAID U.S. DEPARTMENT

fii JIll

1,11iitx

liii I i'

liiiiti

, i xtt ii,

ilitx
x,t lix

t lil'

tilli f

m

OF AGRICULTURE AGII 101 BULK RATE

It xIxx li mill lt 1iiil

x

' till the i~oit'i ice

la

101 'i(ti hit cea lix\

Ii

i

x uiini'

t

1t ix