CIRCULAR 252 MAY 1981 Suspension and Non -Suspension Fertilizer Use in the Tennessee Valley Area of Alabama ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, AUBURN UNIVERSITY GALE A. BUCHANAN, DIRECTOR AUBURN UNIVERSITY, ALABAMA CONTENTS Page OBJECTIVES...............................................4 METHOD OF SAMPLING......................................4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FERTILIZER USERS...................6 Non-suspension Users.................................8 Suspension Users......................................9 Combination Users....................................10 Switchers (Non-suspension 1977-Suspension 1978) ... Differences Among Users ............................ ENTERPRISE BUDGET ANALYSIS .............................. Soybeans.......................................... Cotton............................................ 10 10 13 13 16 19 20 23 24 24 ................................................ Implications ....................................... REFERENCES ............................................. APPENDIX ................................................ SUMMARY Survey Responses..................................... FIRST PRINTING 3M, MAY 1981 information contained herein is available to all without regard to race, color, sex, or national origin. Suspension and Non-Suspension Fertilizer Use in the Tennessee Valley Area of Alabama W. LOUIS KENNEDY, NEIL R. MARTIN, JR., THOMAS H. FOSTER, and RONALD J. WILLIAMS 12 Southeast have improved substantially over the years in response to economic signals reflecting market, educational, and technological developments. Innovation is continuing and practices are becoming more exact with each technological gain in the crop and soil sciences. Now, a relatively new innovation, suspension fertilizer, is being introduced in the Southeast by the Tennessee Valley Authority. Already a significant number of farmers have adopted the material in certain areas of Alabama and its use is growing. Suspension fertilizers are opaque fluids containing undissolved nutrient crystals held in suspension by a clay gelling agent. This fertilizer type must be agitated to maintain consistency and thus requires specialized equipment for handling. Although there is no difference in crop response to nutrients from traditional fertilizer materials or from suspension fertilizers, suspensions are purported to offer other substantial benefits (1). They have a relatively high analysis, about twice that of clear liquid fertilizers, and are easier to handle than granular or dry mixed fertilizers. Suspensions offer the opportunity for more uniform application than with granular fertilizer, in addition to being convenient carriers of pesticides and herbicides. Further, there are fewer problems with air and 'Respectively, Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology; Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology; Chief of Fertilizer, Economic, and Marketing Research Staff, Division of Agricultural Development, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, Alabama; and Agricultural Economist, Division of Agricultural Development, Tennessee Valley Authority, Muscle Shoals, Alabama. 2 Appreciation is expressed to Alabama Cooperative Extension Service personnel and retail fertilizer dealers who helped identify farmer participants for data collection purposes, and to the surveyed farmers for their support of this project. Appreciation also is extended to George L. Harrison for input into the survey and data summarization phases and to William D. Warren for input into the analysis phase of the study. F ERTILIZATION, LIMING, AND CROPPING practices in the stream pollution from the manufacture of fluid fertilizers as opposed to granular or mixed fertilizers. Thus, this type fertilizer may have the potential for additional benefits to farmers. Some farmers have accepted this product while others have continued with the traditional materials. There has been a lack of verifiable information as to why farmers have switched to suspension fertilizers and how use of this material has affected traditional cultural practices in introduction areas. Such information could assist farmers, researchers, extension workers, and agribusiness firms in improving the decision-making process and thereby contribute to increased efficiency of the resources used in the agricultural sector. The rational economic reasons for shifting to suspension fertilizer may be related to its compatibility with existing cultural practices and the opportunity to combine operations which will reduce field travel. Knowledge to support this hypothesis may be enhanced by contrasting characteristics of traditional versus suspension fertilizer users, and by determining their respective reasons for use of these materials. This study reports the results of research by the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station in collaboration with the TVA to determine selected characteristics of farmers who have switched to suspension fertilizers and the reasons for their switching. In the process of collecting data to meet these objectives, sufficient information was accumulated to compare fertilizer equipment use and ownership patterns, production techniques, and production costs of suspension versus non-suspension fertilizer users on selected crops. OBJECTIVES Objectives of the study were to: (1) determine the differences in characteristics between suspension and nonsuspension fertilizer users in the Tennessee Valley area of Alabama, (2) identify differences in production practices for selected crops associated with suspension versus nonsuspension fertilizer usage, and (3) determine the economic impact of any differences in crop production practices related to fertilizer usage, through the use of enterprise budgets. METHOD OF SAMPLING The study area encompasses six Alabama counties in the Tennessee Valley: Colbert, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Lime[4] Counties in which study was conducted. [5] stone, Madison, and Morgan, see map. This area consists mainly of row-crop operations with some livestock enterprises. The most common row crops are cotton, soybeans, and corn. During the summer of 1978, survey data on the 1977 crop year were collected. Two questionnaires were developed to profile suspensiQn and non-suspension fertilizer users in the study area. Both questionnaires were administered by enumerators, but each was executed at a different time. The two-questionnaire approach was used to eliminate collection of unnecessary data and ensure adequate representation of all fertilizer user and crop subgroups. The first questionnaire was used to solicit basic data on demographics, management decisions, fertilizer materials used, and general agronomic and economic characteristics. Dichotomous, multiple choice, and open-ended questions were asked, with each interview requiring 10 to 20 minutes. Survey responses are presented in the appendix and discussed in the next section. The second questionnaire was applied to a subgroup of farmers chosen from those who responded to the first questionnaire. These farmers were selected with regard to the crop and number of acres they produced. Information on the sequence of field operations for cotton, corn, and soybeans was obtained. No farmer was asked to provide data for more than two crop enterprises. This questionnaire format was open ended, taking 20 to 40 minutes to administer. The number of respondents sampled for this survey consisted of 43 suspension fertilizer users, 43 non-suspension fertilizer users, 14 who were using both types of fertilizer simultaneously, and 13 who used non-suspension fertilizer in 1977 and suspension fertilizer in 1978. The total sample number was 113 respondents. Survey data were subjected to analysis of variance by the simple F-test to determine relationships. A 5-percent level of significance indicates that a depicted relationship occurs by chance with only a 5-percent probability. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FERTILIZER USERS The average age of respondents was 47 years. By comparison, the 1974 Census of Agriculture revealed the average age L6] of farmers in the six-county area to be 51 years (4). The formal education of survey respondents averaged 12 years, notably above the 1970 Census statistic of 9 years for the same age group in this geographical area (5). Tenure in farming for this sample averaged 25 years, but ranged from 1 to 69 years. Eighty-one percent of the respondents did not work off the farm during the year. Seventy-seven percent were receiving all of their income from their farms and about 4 percent had some outside investment paying dividends. Those who did work off the farm usually did so during the winter months. Farmers answering the first questionnaire were divided into four groups: non-suspension users, suspension users, TABLE 1. AVERAGE FARM ACREAGES OF RESPONDENTS IN TENNESSEE VALLEY AREA OF ALABAMA, 1977 Respondents, by land classification and fertilizer type Total operated Suspension ............. Non-suspension ......... Combination ............ Switched ............... Owned Suspension ............. Non-suspension ......... Combination ............ Switched ............... Cash rent Suspension ............. Non-suspension ......... Combination ............. Switched ............... Share rent Suspension ............. Non-suspension .......... Combination ............. Switched ............... Rent free Suspension .............. Non-suspension ......... Combination ............. Switched ............... Rented out Suspension .............. Non-suspension .......... Combination ............ Switched ............... Total farm Acres 1,046 1,021 1,204 1,287 276 423 499 286 285 282 196 522 .482 299 490 471 3 0 0 0 14 18 0 0 Acreage in farms, by use of land Crop Improved Unimproved land pasture pasture Acres Acres Acres 796 688 835 965 186 236 330 212 255 187 118 320 355 253 372 433 0 0 0 0 12 1 0 0 132 201 236 288 62 131 122 59 26 59 66 194 42 25 48 35 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 22 10 0 0 15 0 0 0 7 7 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other land Acres 107 109 123 34 28 42 47 16 5 29 5 8 41 20 70 3 0 0 0 0 2 17 0 0 'Sample size was: Suspension, 43; non-suspension, 43; combination, 14; and switched, 13. [7] combination users, and switchers. 3 The non-suspension users, comprising 38 percent of the sample, most commonly used dry granulated or bulk blended fertilizer, but a few were also using clear liquid fertilizers. Thirty-eight percent of the farmers used suspension fertilizers, while 12.4 percent used both suspension and non-suspension fertilizers. Another group, which comprised 11.5 percent of the farmers interviewed, used non-suspension fertilizer in 1977 and switched to suspension in 1978. Non-suspension users owned a greater percentage of their total operated land than did suspension users, table 1. They also owned a larger percentage of cropland and improved pasture. Suspension users cash rented a larger percentage of cropland and share rented a larger portion of total farmland than did non-suspension users. There were noticeable similarities between suspension users and those who switched and also similarities between non-suspension fertilizer users and combination users. Non-suspension Users Non-suspension users averaged 47 years of age and had been engaged in farming approximately 26 years. Comparisons with all producers revealed these to be the more experienced farmers and slightly older. Seventy-seven percent of the non-suspension users were familiar with suspension fertilizers, but only 23 percent had used them. Of those who had used suspensions before but had switched back to non-suspension fertilizers, half reported problems related to dealer service as their reason for switching. Thirty percent had material-related problems and 20 percent gave no reason for switching back. Satisfaction with the fertilizer material was the reason 30 percent of the non-suspension users gave for using their present fertilizer. Satisfaction with dealer service and ownership of non-suspension equipment was reported by 6 percent and 20 percent, respectively. The remainder either reported that "habit" or "tradition" was their reason or they gave no response when questioned. For the purposes of this study the user groups were defined as: non-suspension, farmers who did not use suspension fertilizer as an N-P-K material in 1977 and 1978; suspension, farmers who only used suspensions as an N-P-K source in 1977 and 1978; combination, farmers using both suspension and non-suspension (dry bulk blended, granulated, or clear liquids) as N-P-K fertilizer sources in 1977 and 1978; and switchers, those who used a non-suspension N-P-K material in 1977 but switched to a suspension N-P-K fertilizer in 1978. _o 3 [8] Most (63 percent) non-suspension users were unsure of the agronomic value of suspension fertilizers when compared to the non-suspension fertilizers. Eight respondents (19 percent) said there was no yield difference, while six believed that non-suspension fertilizers produced better crop yields. One believed that suspension induced the better yields and another thought that the weather played a role in which of the two produced better. Suspension Users The suspension users tended to be younger and to have been in farming fewer years. Their average age was 46 years, with an average of 23 years of farming experience. Of the 43 farmers using only suspension fertilizer, 74 percent had been doing so for less than 5 years. The greatest number of these (88 percent) had switched from granulated fertilizers to suspensions, as opposed to clear liquids. Fourteen percent of the suspension users were new farmers in their 20's who had used nothing but suspension fertilizers. The big attractions of suspension fertilizer use were quality of product and flexibility of the practice. Characteristics of the material which attracted 56 percent of the users included uniform spreading, incorporating a combination of chemicals, and ability to get correct analysis. Closely related was the labor savings potential offered by suspensions, which attracted another 20 percent. The remainder were attracted by dealer services offered in conjunction with fertilizer purchases. Eighty-four percent of the suspension fertilizer users were of the opinion that there is no yield difference between fertilizer types. Five percent said there was a yield advantage in favor of suspensions, 2 percent thought the advantage went to non-suspension fertilizer, and 5 percent did not express any opinion on yield advantage. All of the suspension users were making various changes in their cultural practices as a result of their fertilizer switch. Of those who modified their cultural practices, 56 percent were mixing herbicides with fertilizer for use in a single application. Two-fifths of these farmers were mixing all their farm chemicals with fertilizer for a combined application approach. Cultural practices will be more closely examined further in this study. [9] Combination Users Approximately 12 percent of the sample used a combination of suspension and non-suspension fertilizers. Though the limited number of observations of combination users limits inferences, combination users were the oldest and most experienced of the four groups of farmers. This group had an average age of 49 years and had been farming an average of 29 years. Many of the characteristics of this group resembled those in the group of non-suspension fertilizer users. Though no single reason for this combination use dominated, the more popular explanatory statements were as follows: "I own dry fertilizer application equipment, but have suspensions custom applied because of labor shortages." "I use a combination because I cannot always get the material I want." "I like suspensions, but also own stock in a co-op that sells dry fertilizers." Switchers (Non-suspension 1977-Suspension 1978) Farmers in this group, which comprised 12 percent of the sample, had used non-suspension fertilizer the previous year but changed to all suspension fertilizer for the current year. Characteristics of this group revealed they averaged 47 years of age, 54 percent had finished high school, 77 percent obtained all their income from farming, and 84 percent had been involved with farming for more than 15 years. Farmers in this group said they had switched to suspension fertilizer because there was a cost advantage and they could incorporate chemicals and herbicides with suspension fertilizer for a single application. The farmers also cited labor savings and better quality of suspension fertilizer as reasons for changing. Differences Among Users Suspension users and non-suspension users were evenly divided and comprised 76 percent of the sample. Characteristics of combination users were similar to those of nonsuspension fertilizer users, and those who switched from non-suspension to suspension paralleled characteristics of users of only suspension fertilizer. [10] TABLE 2. DIFFERENCES AMONG USERS, BY PERCENTAGES, TENNESSEE VALLEY AREA OF ALABAMA, 1977 Item Years fanned 1 to 15 years...................... 16 to 30 years...................... More than 30 years.................... Age of operator 23 to 30 years...................... 31 to 50 years...................... 51 years and older ................... Formal education, years 11 years and less..................... High school graduate................. Over 12 years...................... Proportion of income from 0 to 99 percent.................... 100 percent......................... Result, by user group Used only Used only suspensions non-suspensions Pct. Pct. 33 42 25 F value= 1.523 14 49 37 F value= 0.0 39 39 22 F value= 21 79 F value= 0.558 61 18 14 7 F value= 63 25 12 F value 67 14 19 F value=1.353 7 7 86 F 26 35 39 14 49 37 26 35 39 3.705* 28 72 fanning Ratio of total acres owned to total acres operated 0 to 33 percent.................... 34 to 66 percent.................... 67 to 99 percent.................... 100 percent......................... How many months ago did you soil test? Within 18 months..................... More than 18 months................. Never soil test........................ Are the test results followed? Always or usually..................... Sometimes or partially................ Never soil test or follow results......... Number of available fertilizer dealers One.................................. Two ................................ Three or more........................ Distance from present dealer Own dealership....................... 1 to 6 miles .......................... 7 or miore miiles....................... Number of years with present dealer 1 to 6 years ......................... 7 to 16 years ........................ 17 or more years...................... Is your current dealer your closest? No.................................. Yes ..... ........................... Method of fertilizer purchase Cash, bank credit, other 35 28 9 28 6.946* * 74 21 5 =0.501 79 9 12 5 9 86 0.041 value= 7 56 37 F value 51 33 16 F value . 26 74 14 51 35 F value= 0 35 65 5.467** 33 28 39 5.801** 37 63 F value= 1.339vv 26 67 7 Dealer credit within 30 days ............ Dealer credit more than 30 days........ *level of significance **level of significance ***level of significance 90%. 95%. 99%. ................ 8.925*** [ 11 ] More suspension users had been involved in farming less than 15 years, whereas more non-suspension users had operated a farm for more than 30 years, table 2. There was no percentage difference in the age of the operators when divided into three groups: 23 years to 30 years = 14 percent, 31 years to 50 years = 49 percent, and older than 50 years = 37 percent. When comparing the operators by formal education, it was found that 39 percent of those who used only suspension fertilizer had less than 11 years of schooling, compared with 26 percent of non-suspension users. Also, 17 percent more nonsuspension users furthered their education beyond high school (39 percent vs. 22 percent). Seventy-nine percent of the suspension users and 72 percent of non-suspension users obtained all their income from farming. When the users were compared by the ratio of total acreage owned to total acreage operated, 61 percent of suspension users owned only onethird of their land versus 35 percent of non-suspension users. Twenty-eight percent of the non-suspension users owned all the land they operate, as compared with 7 percent for the suspension users. There were also managerial differences among the users in this study. When the respondents were questioned as to how long since their last soil test, more of the non-suspension users (74 percent vs. 63 percent) had tested their soil within the last 18 months. Also, 12 percent of the suspension users never used a soil test, as compared with 5 percent of the nonsuspension users. Of those who soil tested, more of the nonsuspension users followed closely the recommendations of the test results. Eighty-six percent of the users in both groups had access to three or more fertilizer dealers, and 7 percent of the suspension users owned a suspension dealership. Fifty-six percent of the suspension users were within 6 miles of their dealer, whereas 65 percent of the non-suspension users were serviced by a more distant dealer. Non-suspension users were almost evenly divided with respect to the number of years they had transacted business with their present dealer (1 to 6 years, 7 to 16 years, and 17 or more), whereas 51 percent of the suspension users had used their current supplier for less than 7 years. More of the suspension users were supplied by their closest dealer than were the non-suspension users. Dealer credit for more than 30 days was used by 35 percent of suspension users but by only 7 percent of non-suspension [12] users. However, dealer credit for less than 30 days was the primary mode of purchase of both groups of users. ENTERPRISE BUDGET ANALYSIS Previously reported data were from the initial questionnaire administered to all respondents. A subset of suspension and non-suspension users was selected from the first sample and interviewed concerning production practices used for soybeans, cotton, and corn. Data collected for corn were not sufficient to analyze. Results of the second questionnaire indicated that individual decision makers cannot expect significant differences in yield or input costs for seed, lime, and insecticides because of change of fertilizer type. Therefore, budgets reflect a pattern of difference only in cultural practices and herbicide and fertilizer costs as determined by the survey. Budgets of production costs for soybeans and cotton are presented for suspension users and non-suspension users. Soybeans Budgets for suspension users and non-suspension users were calculated to show the differences in soybean production costs, tables 3 and 4. The receipts section of the two budgets reflects no statistical yield difference between the two types of fertilizers. Differences in variable costs appear between the two types of fertilizer users. Non-suspension users applied less total nutrients than suspension fertilizer users. Even though the suspension fertilizer was $10 per ton lower in cost, per acre fertilizer costs of non-suspension users were $7.75 lower. Also, interest on operating capital was less for the nonsuspension budget because of the lower fertilizer cost. There were small savings per acre in the use of tractors and machinery by suspension users due to fewer trips across the field. Likewise, the fixed costs of tractors and machinery for suspension users were less. The non-suspension fertilizer budget included cost of a non-suspension fertilizer spreader and separate trips over the field for herbicide application. Summing the costs for the two budgets indicated a budgeted savings of $5.36 per acre by using non-suspension fertilizers. However, if suspension fertilizer application rates could be reduced without reducing yield, the cost advantage would shift in favor of suspension fertilizer. [13] TABLE 3. SOYBEANS, SUSPENSION FERTILIZER USERS: ESTIMATED COSTS AND RETURNS PER ACRE USING REGION OF ALABAMA, 1979 4-Row EQUIPMENTI, TENNESSEE Unt cost/unit Bu. 6.00 VALLEY Item 1. Gross receipts Soybeans................ Total..................... Quantity 30.00 Value or cost 180.00 180.00 2. Variable costs Preharvest Seed ................... Suspension fertilizer. Lime.................... Herbicide ............... Insecticide .............. Machinery .............. Tractors ................. Interest on operating capital Subtotal, pre-harvest. Harvest costs Hauling ................. Machinery .............. Subtotal, harvest ......... Total variable cost.......... Lb. Ton Ton Acre Acre Acre Acre Dol. Bu. Acre .20 125.00 12.00 15.35 6.75 2.84 11.67 .10 .03 1.20 60.00 .17 .25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 32.91 30.00 1.00 12.00 21.25 3.00 15.35 6.75 2.84 11.67 3.29 76.15 .90 1.20 2.10 78.25 101.75 16.76 11.02 6.50 34.28 3. Income above variable costs 4. Fixed costs Machinery .............. Tractors ................. Overhead ................ Total fixed costs........... 5. Labor cost Preharvest labor (tractor & machinery) ............ Harvest labor (tractor & machinery) ............ Total labor costs........... 6. Total costs............... 7. Net returns to land and management ............ Operation Date Acre Acre Acre 16.76 11.02 6.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hour Hour 3.00 3.00 2.21 .34 6.62 1.01 7.63 120.16 Times over i Labor hours Machine hours 0.475 .148 59.84 Fuel, oil, lubricant, Fixed costs repairs per acre per acre 3.22 1.08 4.15 2.03 Moldboard plow........Dec. Mar. Heavy disk ............. Fertilizer custom applied, herbicide Apr. included ............ Apr. Do-All ................. Planter................. May Row cultivator..........June Sprayer................Aug. 0.574 1.00 .179 1.00 ""'''''' 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 .188 .248 .288 .730 .336 2.543 .155 .205 .238 .603 .280 2.104 2.28 1.84 1.69 4.39 1.20 15.71 1.63 2.60 2.35 5.75 9.28 27.78 Self-propelled combine-grain ........ Totals ............... Oct. 1.00 [14] TABLE 4. SOYBEANS, NON-SUSPENSION FERTILIZER USERS: ESTIMATED COSTS AND RETURNS PER ACRE USING VALLEY REGION OF ALABAMA, 1979 4-Row EQUIPMENT, Price or cost/unit 6.00 TENNESSEE Item Unit Quantity 30.00 Value or cost 180.00 1. Gross receipts Soybeans.................Bu. Total.......... 2. Variable costs Preharvest Seed Lb. Ton Dry fertilizer Lime......................Ton Herbicide..................Acre Insecticide ................ Acre Acre Macbinery ................ Tractors....................Acre Interest on operating capital Dol. Subtotal, pre-harvest .... 180.00 12.00 13.50 3.00 15.35 6.75 3.05 12.26 2.98 68.89 .90 1.20 2.10 70.99 109.01 17.77 11.58 6.50 35.85 .20 135.00 12.00 15.35 6.75 3.05 12.26 .10 .03 1.20 60.00 .10 .25 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 29.80 30.00 1.00 Harvest costs Bu. Hauling ................... Acre Machinery ................ Subtotal, harvest .......... Total variable cost .......... 3. Income above variable costs. . 4. Fixed costs Acre Machinery ................ Tractors.................... Acre Overhead.................Acre Total fixe~d costs ............ 5. Labor costs Preharvest labor (tractor & machinery) .............. Harvest labor (tractor & machinery) .............. Total labor costs ............ 6. Total costs................ 7. Net returns to land and management............ Operation Moldboard plow....... Heavy disk............ Dry fertilizer spread ... Do-All ............... Planter 17.77 11.58 6.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hour Hour 3.00 3.00 2.32 .34 6.96 1.01 7.97 114.80 Date Dec. Mar. Apr. Apr. May Times over 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Labor hours 0.574 .179 .112 .188 .248 .0 .288 .730 .336 2.655 Machine hours 0.475 .148 .093 .155 .205 .286 .238 .603 .280 2.483 65.20 Fuel, oil, lubricant, Fixed costs repairs per acre per acre 3.22 1.08 .73 2.28 1.84 .07 1.69 4.39 1.20 16.51 4.15 2.03 1.28 1.63 2.60 .29 2.35 5.75 4.28 29.35 ............... Herbicide application . May Row cultivator.........June Sprayer............... July Self-propelled combine-grain.......Aug. Totals............ S15 ] Cotton Budgets for cotton production indicate a clear cost advantage-both variable and fixed costs-for using suspension fertilizer, tables 5 and 6. Equivalent tonnages of both types of fertilizer were applied per acre with the suspension having a $2.50 per acre cost advantage. Suspension users in TABLE 5. COTTON, SUSPENSION FERTILIZER USERS: ESTIMATED COSTS AND RETURNS PER ACRE USING 4-Row EQUIPMENT, TENNESSEE VALLEY REGION OF ALABAMA, 1979 Item Ui Unt Price or cost/unit Quantity Value or Quantitycost 600.00 .50 360.00 50.00 410.00 1. Gross receipts Cotton lint................Lb. Cotton seed................Ton Total.................... 2. Variable costs Preharvest Seed.....................Lb. Suspension fertilizer........Ton Ammonium nitrate..........Cwt. Lime......................Ton Herbicide..................Acre Fungicide..................Acre Insecticide ................ Acre Cotton scouting............Acre Custom spraying...........Acre Machinery ................ Acre Tractors....................Acre Interest on operating capital Dol. Subtotal, pre-harvest. Harvest costs Defoliant ................. Acre Ginning .................. Lb. Hauling.................... Lb. Machinery ................ Acre Subtotal, harvest......... Total variable cost .......... 3. Income above variable costs. . 4. Fixed costs Machinery ................ Acre Tractors................... Acre Overhead....... .......... Acre Total fixed costs ............ 5. Labor costs Preharvest labor (tractor & machinery) ............... Hour Harvest labor (tractor & machinery) ............... Hour Total labor costs ............ 6. Total costs ................ . 7. Net returns to land and management ............. 0.60 100.00 .45 130.00 6.75 12.00 7.68 6.75 25.75 2.00 1.50 5.82 15.59 .10 4.00 .06 .01 8.94 17.00 .13 2.10 .33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 53.90 1.00 600.00 600.00 1.00 7.65 16.25 14.17 3.96 7.68 6.75 25.75 2.00 6.00 5.82 15.59 5.39 117.02 4.00 36.00 6.00 8.94 54.94 171.96 238.04 42.03 14.72 12.00 68.74 10.08 2.62 12.70 253.40 156.60 Continued 42.03 14.72 12.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 3.36 .87 [ 16] TABLE 5 (Continued). COTTON, SUSPENSION FERTILIZER USERS: ESTIMATED COSTS AND RETURNS PER ACRE USING TENNESSEE VALLEY REGION OF ALABAMA, 1979 4-Row EQUIPMENT, Operation Offset disk Fertilizer custom applied, herbicide included.......... Do-All.............. Planter ............. Row cultivator....... Row cultivator....... Row cultivator....... Hiboy sprayer ........ Row cultivator....... Hiboy sprayer ........ Cotton picker........ Rotary mower......... Moldboard plow.. Offset disk ........... Totals .............. Mar. Apr. Apr. Apr. May June July July Aug. Aug. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Dae Times Dae over 1.00 Labor hours 0.179 Machine hours 0.148 Fuel, oil, lubricant, Fixed costs repairs per acre per acre 1.08 2.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .188 .248 .288 .288 .288 .205 .288 .205 .873 .428 .574 .179 4.232 .155 .205 .238 .238 .238 .171 .238 .171 .728 .354 .475 .148 3.506 2.28 1.84 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.27 1.69 1.27 8.94 2.60 3.22 1.08 30.36 1.63 2.60 2.35 2.35 2.35 5.02 2.35 5.02 20.80 4.08 4.15 2.03 56.74 TABLE 6. COTTON, NON-SUSPENSION FERTILIZER USERS: ESTIMATED COSTS AND EQUIPMENT, TENNESSEE VALLEY RETURNS PER ACRE USING REGION OF ALABAMA, 1979 4-Row Item 1. Gross receipts Cotton lint ................. Cotton seed............... Total........................ 2. Variable costs Preharvest Seed ..................... Dry fertilizer.............. Ammonium nitrate......... Lime ..................... Herbicide ................. Fungicide ................. Insecticide............... Cotton scouting........... Custom spraying............ Machinery................ Tractors .................. Interest on operating capital Subtotal, pre-harvest.. Harvest costs Defoliant........... Ginning .................. Hauling .................. Machinery................ Subtotal, harvest......... Total variable cost........... Lb. Ton Unt Price or Unt cost/unit 0.60 100.00 Quay t Value or cost 360.00 50.00 410.00 600.00 .50 Lb. Ton Cwt. Ton Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Dol. Acre Lb. Lb. Acre .45 150.00 6.75 12.00 9.50 6.75 25.75 2.00 1.50 6.03 16.18 .10 4.00 .06 .01 8.94 17.00 .13 2.10 .33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 56.89 1.00 600.00 600.00 1.00 7.65 18.75 14.17 3.96 9.50 6.75 25.75 2.00 6.00 6.03 16.18 5.69 122.44 4.00 36.00 6.00 8.94 54.94 177.38 Continued [ 17] TABLE 6 (Continued). COTTON, NON-SUSPENSION FERTILIZER USERS: ESTIMATED COSTS AND RETURNS PER ACRE USING TENNESSEE VALLEY REGION OF ALABAMA, 1979 4-Row EQUIPMENT, 43.04 15.28 12.00 3. Income above variable costs 4. Fixed costs Machinery ............... Tractors.................. Overhead............... 232.62 Acre Acre 1.00 1.00 1.00 43.04 15.28 12.00 70.31 Total fixed costs............. 5. Labor costs Preharvest labor (tractor & machinery). Harvest labor (tractor & mnachinery). Total labor costs............. 6. Total costs................. 7. Net returns to land and management.......... Hour Hour 3.00 3.00 3.47 .87 10.41 2.62 13.03 260.73 149.27 Operation ....... Offset disk Dry fertilizer spread Do-All .................. Planter................. Date Mar. Apr. Apr. Apr. Times over 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Labor hours 0.179 .112 .188 .248 .0 .288 .288 .288 .205 .288 .205 .873 .428 .574 .179 4.344 Fuel, oil, Fixed Machine lubricant, costs repairs per acre hours per acre 0.148 .093 .155 .205 .286 .238 .238 .238 .171 .238 .171 .728 .354 .475 .148 3.886 1.08 .73 2.28 1.84 .07 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.27 1.69 1.27 8.94 2.60 3.22 1.08 31.16 2.03 1.28 1.63 2.60 .29 2.35 2.35 2.35 5.02 2.35 5.02 20.80 .... Herbicide application . Row cultivator.......... Row cultivator........... Row cultivator.......... Hiboy sprayer........... Row cultivator.......... Hiboy sprayer........... Cotton picker........... Rotarymower ........... Moldboard plow......... Offset disk............. Apr. May June July July Aug. Aug. Nov. Nov. Nov. Nov. Totals.............. 4.08 4.15 2.03 58.31 the sample also had lower herbicide costs per acre ($1.82 less) due to use of less herbicide materials. Machinery and tractor costs per acre were less because of fewer trips over the field. Likewise, interest on operating capital was 3O0 lower per acre. The differences in variable costs summed to a $5.42 advantage per acre for suspension fertilizer. Fixed costs were $1.57 per acre lower for suspension fertilizer users because of less equipment being required. Total costs of using suspension fertilizer were $7.33 per acre less than the total for using non-suspension fertilizer. The $7.33 represented an increase in net return per acre to land and management from using the suspension fertilizer. [18] SUMMARY Suspension and non-suspension fertilizer users in the Tennessee Valley area of Alabama had distinguishing characteristics. More of the farmers using suspension fertilizer had finished high school, but a lower percentage continued their education past high school than was true for non-suspension users. A particularly significant difference between the two groups of users was the ratio of land owned to land farmed. Twice as many suspension users owned less than one-third of the land they operated compared to non-suspension users. Also, 28 percent of the non-suspension users, four times more than suspension users, owned 100 percent of the land they farmed. Suspension fertilizer users tended to purchase their fertilizer materials from dealers located closer to their farming operations than did non-suspension users. Fifty-six percent of the suspension users bought from dealers within 6 miles of their operations; in contrast, 65 percent of the non-suspension users purchased from dealers located 7 miles or more from their farms. As expected with an innovation such as suspension fertilizer, adopters had shorter histories with their dealers-half of suspension users had used their dealers 6 or fewer years as compared to one-third of the non-suspension users. Dealer loyalty appeared to be of more importance to non-suspension users than to suspension users. Twice as many non-suspension users, 26 percent, paid cash or used bank credit to purchase fertilizer. However, the greatest contrast was the 5-to-1 difference, 35 percent to 7 percent, of suspension users purchasing fertilizer by dealer credit for more than 30 days. Budget comparisons for the two types of fertilizers were tabulated for soybeans and cotton. Suspension fertilizer showed a cost advantage for tractors and machinery expenses due to fewer trips over the field and lower equipment requirements. Soybean growers who used suspension fertilizer applied more nutrients than non-suspension users without experiencing a yield increase. This would seem to indicate that equivalent amounts of suspension and non-suspension fertilizer could be used in soybean production as was found in cotton production. Fewer trips over the field, lower herbicide cost, and lower fertilizer cost resulted in a cost advantage to the user of suspension fertilizer in cotton production. [19] Implications The results of this study indicate that suspension and nonsuspension fertilizer users in the Tennessee Valley area of Alabama are similar, but with some significant differences. These differences are interrelated. From the suspension user's perspective, the common denominator of these differences appeared to be the use of suspension fertilizer and the attendant package of services (custom application of herbicide, micronutrient, and fertilizer in one operation) to relieve labor and investment capital constraints. In total, the results tended to indicate that the adoption of suspension fertilizer is not a marketing phenomenon-i.e., there are rational economic reasons for this fertilizer innovation's adoption and use by farmers. The results suggest the decision criteria in the type of fertilizer choice goes beyond acquisition cost per unit of nutrient per se and is related to farm organization, operation, and financial management. The study revealed that suspension fertilizer users (including "switchers") were younger, had been in farming fewer years, were more tenant-oriented, and supplemented farm income with off-farm employment. These features tended to characterize suspension fertilizer users in the Tennessee Valley area of Alabama as relatively new entrants in farming or part-time and full-time owner-renters who were confronted with different problems of resource access and acquisition than those faced by the established owneroperator. An interpretation that suspension users were utilizing suspension fertilizers and the attendant package of services to relieve critical labor constraints and ration limited investment capital is consistent with observations by others. Drache (2) observed that farmers who do not own sufficient land to capture the economics of commercial row crop agriculture cannot look to cashflow via technology and units of operation. Thus, custom hiring of specific jobs (e.g., fertilizer, herbicide, and micronutrient application) is an important alternative for obtaining the services of qualified labor and specialized equipment for timeliness of operation and farm firm expansion without sacrifice of off-farm income. From the investment capital perspective, the observation by Irwin (3, p. 19) that "an alternative approach is to avoid capital investment by buying only current use-rights to the assets, and thus substituting a [20] payment out of operating expenses for an investment" is appropriate. 1. Implications for Farm Management Research and Extension Acceptance of these hypotheses implies that the basic tool of farm management research and extension, the enterprise budget, needs to be revisited. Traditional budget development, synthetic or survey in origin, generally assumes perfect substitution over wide ranges of purchased inputs, equipment, and custom services. This assumption is questionable. There is no reason to expect the production function for, say, soybeans or cotton to be constant across all farming systems or organizational structure. The appropriate technology in one instance may not be least-cost and/or most profitable for another. Likewise, an incomplete application of budgeting as the criterion for choice of fertilizer decisions could lead to reduced profits. It follows that research and extension programs to develop firm growth strategies for beginning farmers and limited resource farmers should give increased attention to identifying alternative input service packages. Innovative use of such packages can impact equipment investment strategies, enterprise combinations, technology choice, and farm organization and operation. There appear to be a high potential payoffs in this area. 2. Implications for Input Marketing Firms The results and implications delineated suggest a stronger "farming systems" approach to input marketing than is presently evident. This will require some analysis of farming systems, production competence, equipment and material alternatives, and operating strategies to develop a product/ service package mix for the market area. Retailers should be cognizant of the problems and conflicts that can arise from the individual application of partial budgeting to each component of the product and service package. The optimum product/ service package mix for one farmer may be incompatible with another's operation-i. e., there is no one "program." [21] 3. Fertilizer Research and Development The immediate implication is that fertilizer research and development programs-from conceptual design of the product to market introduction-should be broader than the technical features of the product. The potential of a market, either alone or as a joint factor of production, to alter farm organization and operation necessitates a comprehensive approach to development and evaluation. It implies that field testing and introduction efforts be broadened to encompass farming systems where appropriate rather than relying solely on plot response work. Likewise, it suggests a tailoring of the material for a target consumer group as well as the crop. Each of these will require early-on feedback into the development process. This is not to imply that end-use considerations alone should dominate fertilizer technology development considerations. But there is sufficient evidence to suggest a broader perspective is needed when the technology has the potential to induce or facilitate significant changes in production practices and/or farming systems. [22] REFERENCES (1) ACHORN, F. P. AND H. L. KIMBROUGH. 1976. Suspension Fertilizers 1976. Presented at Fertilizer Industry Round Table, Atlanta, Ga. (2) (3) DRACHE, HIRAM M. 1978. Farming to Fit Today's Technology; Can the Family Farm Survive? Report of Seminar, Special Report 219. Agr. Exp. Sta., Univ. of Missouri-Columbia. IRWIN, GEORGE D. 1973. Financial Control of Farming in the 1970's; Structure and Control of Southern Agriculture. Edited by Donald C. Huffman and Garnett L. Bradford, Southern Farm Management Research Committee and the Farm Foundation. (4) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. 1977. 1974 Census of Agriculture, Alabama State and County Data. U. S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington D. C. pp. IV-103, IV-235, IV-241, IV-253, IV-271, IV-313. U. S. (5) . 1973. 1970 Census of the Population, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Alabama. U. S. Govt. Print. Off., Washington, D. C. pp. 2-422, 2-424, 2-425. [23] APPENDIX Survey Responses I. DEMOGRAPHICS A. Number of years in farming Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Years Suspension Non-suspension Combination Non-suspension 1977, suspension 1978 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40+ ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ....... .... 6 6 2 6 2 10 4 3 4 43 7 1 3 7 5 3 4 6 7 43 0 3 2 2 1 3 1 1 1 14 0 1 1 4 1 0 5 0 1 13 Total B. Age Years Suspension 25 ...... 26-30 ...... 31-35 ...... 36-40 ...... 41-45 ...... 46-50 ...... 51-55 ...... 56-60 ...... 61-65 ...... 66-70 ...... 71+ ....... Total .... Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Non-suspension 5 1 0 7 4 10 3 5 4 4 0 43 Combination Non-suspension 1977, 0 3 1 2 2 0 3 2 0 0 1 14 1 5 3 4 6 8 7 6 2 1 0 43 1 0 1 2 1 0 5 2 1 0 0 13 C. Years of education Years Suspension 1-6 7-9 10-12 13-16 16+ ....... ....... ...... ...... ....... .... Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Non-suspension 1977, Non-suspension Combination suspension 1978 2 8 16 17 0 43 4 6 24 8 1 43 0 3 7 4 0 14 1 2 8 2 0 13 Total II. MANAGEMENT DECISIONS A. Do you soil test? Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Soil test Yes ........ No ........ Total .... Suspension 38 5 43 Non-suspension 41 2 43 Combination Non-suspension 1977, 12 2 14 12 1 13 [24] B. Months since soil tested, as of July 1, 1978 Since soil tested Never ..... 6 months and less ..... 7-12 months . . . Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Suspension 5 18 10 4 3 Non-suspension Combination Non-suspensio1977, suspension 1978 2 13 15 4 6 2 5 2 4 1 1 3 4 1 1 13-18 months 19-24 months 25-30 months . 31-36 months . 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 More than 36 months Total .... 3 43 2 43 0 14 0 13 C. How often do you regularly soil test? Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Regularity Never soil test ...... Twice/year . Once/year Every 2 or 3 years . More than 3 years . Whenever it needs it . Total .... Suspension Non-suspension Combination Non-suspesio 1978 1977, suspension · 5 2 12 17 3 4 43 2 2 16 11 9 3 43 1 14 1 13 D. Who performed the soil test? Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Where tested 5 10 26 1 1 43 Combination onNSuspension suspension 2 2 38 0 1 43 [25] 2 5 7 0 0 14 N n-suspension 1977, suspension 1978 1 3 9 0 0 13 Does not soil test .... Private soil test lab .. Auburn University soil test lab .......... individual Private other than a soil test lab ................ Other ............... Total .............. t E. Do you lime and fertilize according to soil test results? Follow soil test S Always............ Most of the time .. Sometimes .......... Never ... ........ Lime yes; fertilizer no Lime no; fertilizer yes Do not soil test.. Total Response, by fertilizer used. in 1977-78 CobinaionNo n-suspension 1977, NoSuspnsio uspenssi'inCnaion suspension 1978 20 14 1 3 3 0 2 43 3 5 1 0 3 0 2 14 6 3 0 2 1 0 1 13 ............ 16 13 4 3 2 0 5 43 F. Where (else) do you get fertilizer and lime recommendations? Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Source Combination Nn-suspension 1977, Suspension s Non1978 suspesionsuspension S: Nowhere.......... Fertilizer dealer or sales representative Farm supply store or 35 34 11 10 co-ops Neighbors ....... and other farmers .......... County extension chairman or agent .. Experiment station scientist .......... Extension specialist. . Farm magazines .. Soil test 1labs ........ Local experiment stations ............ Other .............. .. . Experience ...... Total ............ 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 43 0 0 2 43 0 0 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 C. How many dealers are handy to you for fertilizer purchases? Number of dealers Suspension 1 .............. 2 .............. 3 .............. 4 .............. 5 .............. 6 .............. 3 3 9 9 Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Combination Non-suspension 1977, Nonsuspension 1978 uspension 2 4 12 10 3 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 43 [26] 0 4 3 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 13 7 9 1 2 0 0 0 0 43 7 ............ 8 .............. 9 .............. 10 .............. 11 .............. 12 .............. Total ........ 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 14 How many dealers are handy to you for lime purchases? Number of dealers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Non-Non-suspesion 77, 1977, Suspension suspension CombinationNon-suspension1978 suspension 4 8 13 8 4 5 1 43 12 5 12 6 4 4 0 43 3 2 7 1 1 0 0 14 0 4 5 0 1 2 1 13 ................ ................ ................. ................ ................ ................ ................ Total ......... H. How far from your farm, one way, is your fertilizer dealer? Distance Own dealership ...... 1-5 miles ........... 6-10 miles .......... 11-15 miles .......... 16-20 miles .......... More than 20 miles .. Total ......... .... Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 SuspensionsusNon CombinationNon-uspension 1977, suspension suspension 1978 3 20 13 4 2 1 43 0 12 13 11 5 2 43 0 5 6 2 0 1 14 1 8 2 2 1 0 13 I. How long have you been trading with your present fertilizer dealer? Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Suspension NonCombinationNon-suspension 1977, suspension suspension 1978 1-5 ................. 6-10................ 11-15................. 16-20................. 21-25................. 26-30................. More than 30 ........ Total .............. 19 11 6 2 1 3 1 43 11 12 3 8 0 5 4 43 3 4 3 1 0 3 0 14 4 1 2 3 1 1 1 13 J. Is this the closest dealer to your farm? (If no, how many are closer?) Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Suspension suspension Combination on-suspension 1977, Yes ................. N o .................. Total............... Number of dealers closer 0................ 1 ................ 2................ 3 ................ 4 ................ 5................ 6................ Total.......... 32 11 43 32 8 1 2 0 0 0 43 27 16 43 27 8 4 3 0 0 1 43 [ 27] 10 4 14 10 3 1 0 0 0 0 14 11 2 13 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 13 K. When making most of your fertilizer purchases, do you? Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Financi Suspension NonCombinationNon-suspension 1977, Suspension suspension suspension1 978 Pay cash .............. Dealer credit due within 30 days ..... Dealer credit due after 30 days............ Bank credit .......... Other ............... Total .............. 4 22 15 0 2 43 6 29 3 1 4 43 2 10 1 1 0 14 2 8 3 0 0 13 L. What services does your current dealer offer that you consider important? Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Servic Suspension NonCombinationNon-suspension 1977, Suspension suspension suspension 1978 Nothing ............. Soil testing .......... Availability of chemicals or materials ... Mixing to suit soil test Custom application .. Lowest cost for materials or application .. Delivery ............ Location ............ Dependability ....... Have stock in company Handles specific brands or products . Analysis available .... Gives advice ........ Other ............... Available credit ...... Good service ........ Fast service ......... . Furnishes equipment Agronomic information ............... Total............ 13 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 8 3 0 0 0 0 43 0 1 3 0 13 4 2 1 2 4 4 0 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 43 0 2 1 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 14 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 [28] Second most important service dealer offers. Service Nothing ........... Soil testing......... Availability of chemicals or materials ... Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 sNonCmitNon-suspension 1977, Suspension Supninsuspension ominaionsuspension 1978 13 12 1 12 4 20 1 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 43 0 14 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 13 Mixing to suit soil test Custom application Lowest cost for materials or application Delivery........... Location........... Dependability. Have stock in company Handles specific brands or products. Analysis available .. Gives advice....... Other....... ....... Available credit ... Good service....... Fast service........ Furnishes equipment Agronomic information .............. Total ............. M. Where do you get information on pesticides and herbicides? Source Nowhere.......... Chemical dealer or sales representative Farm supply store or co-op ............ Neighbors and other farmers.......... County extension chairman or agent. . Experiment station scientist .......... Extension specialist.. Farm magazines .. Local experiment stations ............ Experiment station publications ... Experience .......... Other .............. Scouts ............. Labels ............ Books .............. Total ............. Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 CobinaionNo n-suspension 1977, NoSuspnsio suspensusliinCiaion suspension 1978 0 16 6 3 0 8 10 2 0 4 1 0 2 3 0 1 0 0 43 3 2 0 2 0 0 43 [29] 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Second source of information on pesticides and herbicides? Source Nowhere.......... Chemical dealer or sales representative Farm supply store or co-op.... Neighbors and other farmers.......... extension County chairman or agent.. Experiment station scientist......... Extension specialist.. Farm magazines .. Local experiment stations ............ Experiment station publications ... Experience .......... Other .............. Scouts ............. Labels .............. Books .............. Total ............ I- IL Sseso 18 10 Response, by fertilizer used in 1977-78 Combination Non-suspension 1977, Nonsuspension 1978 isuspension 11 6 2 0 0 0 2 1 1 43 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 43 ') 0 0 0I 0 0 0 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 [30] N. Are any of these materials available in your area? Material Yes Available No Custom application Yes No Don't 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 14 4 3 16 17 6 Don't (1) Dry bulk nitrogen Suspension........................42 Non-suspension....................42 Combination ...................... 14 Non-suspension 1977; suspension 1978 13 (2) Dry bulk mixed Suspension........................42 Non-suspension....................43 Combination......................14 Non-suspension 1977; suspension 1978 13 (3) Anhydrous ammonia Suspension.......................29 Non-suspension....................26 Combination......................10 Non-suspension 1977; suspension 1978 8 (4) Clear liquids (starter fertilizer) Suspension........................17 Non-suspension....................19 Combination.......................5 Non-suspension 1977; suspension 1978 3 (5) Nitrogen solutions Suspension ........................ Non-suspension .................... Combination...................... Non-suspension 1977; suspension 1978 (6) Suspensions (slurries) Suspension ........................ Non-suspension .................... Combination. ...................... Non-suspension 1977; suspension 1978 41 39 13 13 42 29 14 13 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 2 10 40 42 11 12 41 43 13 13 20 20 5 6 16 16 1 3 40 39 10 12 42 29 14 13 10 3 1 2 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 12 6 4 3 10 11 17 5 4 17 20 7 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 16 16 7 6 2 0 0 2 0 0 5 0 0 16 17 7 2 4 1 0 1 10 0 0 16 23 6 7 8 (7) Liquid or slurry limes Suspension ........................ 11 Non-suspension..................... 4 Combination ....................... 1 Non-suspension 1977; suspension 1978 0 7 8 17 23 5 0 7 8 6 5 [31] AlBURN UNIVERSITY \W ith atn agricuL ttn-,Il research unit in~ exevrx majltr sa il area. O O 0 Auburln L'nix ersit field crhp. for estry' scivs the needs ttl liv estock, horticLnI nral p"rotd ucers in ech rcgioln iln Alkihama. Lxe er ii Zel l)t the State has I stake in this research pro)gram. silnce ,In ada:tntge fror) nexx ( ,Id ua ical xias ft proCdtut-c ing und handlingO fair m pr d nets direel lx benet its the public. citmtaming ® Main Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn. s E. V. Smith Research Center, Shorter. Tennessee Valley Substation. Belle Mina. Sand Mountain Substation, Crossville North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullman npper Coastal Plain Substation, Winfield Forestry Unit, Fayette County Foundation Seed Stocks Farm. Thorsby Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton. Forestry Unit, Coosa County Piedmont Substation, Camp Hill Plant Breeding Unit, Tallassee Forestry Unit, Autauga County Prattville Experiment Field, Prattville Black Belt Substation, Marion Junction. The Turnipseed-Ikenberry Place, Union Springs Lower Coastal Plain Substation, Camden. Forestry Unit, Barbour County. Monroeville Experiment Field, Monroeville Wiregrass Substation, Headland. Brewton Experiment Field. Brewton. Solon Dison Forestry Education Center. Covington and Escambia counties 21. Ornamental Horticulture Field Station, Spring Hill 22 Gulf Coast Substation, Fairhope. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16. 17 18 19 20