SPRING 1964
HIGHLIGHTS
OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
VOLUME 11
NUMBER 1
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, AUBURN UNIVERSITY
i\
aw
HIGHLIGHTS of
Agricultural Research
A Quarterly Report of Research
Serving All of Alabama
VOLUME 11, No. 1 SPRING 1964
BETTER SOIL SAMPLING FOR ROOT KNOT NEMATODES -
Tells Where, When, And How To Take Soil Samples 3
DEPRECIATION - A HIDDEN FARM COST- Becoming More
Important With Increased Mechanization 4
FERTILIZING AND IRRIGATING AT THE SAME TIME- Show
Profit When Practices Are Combined 5
FEEDING FOR Low COST MILK PRODUCTION - Lowering
Feed Costs Can Be Key To Added Profits 6
PINE TIP MOTH - PEST OF YOUNG PINES- Can Damage
Young Planted Pine Plantations 7
FIELD SEEDING AND TRANSPLANTING CANTALOUPES -
Yields From, Transplants Were Larger 8
FARM AND MARKET EFFICIENCY MAKE FOOD A BARGAIN-
Cheaper Than Other Consumer Goods 9
LONG-LASTING EFFECTS FROM PERENNIAL LEGUMES- Re-
sidual Value Learned In 12-Year Studies 10
MILK PRICES, MARGINS, AND RETURNS - Farmer's Share
Dropping As Marketing Costs Increase 11
CORN PRICE CHANGES AFFECT FARMERS- Need To Un-
derstand Fluctuations In Prices 12
FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS VS. RAINFALL RECORDS - Split
Applications At Proper Time Proved Best_ 13
BEST WAYS OF DETERMINING WHEN TO IRRIGATE - Rule
Of Thumb More Effective Than Mechanical Method ..14
INDEX TO ARTICLES- Published In Highlights Of Agri-
cultural Research During 1963 - 15
FOUNDATION SEED STOCKS FARM - Has Responsibility Of
Maintaining Pure Foundation Seed -- 16
Ot ff COOC M Seed processing is a necessary part of the overall
job of the Foundation Seed Stocks Farm at Thorsby. This unit pro-
duces foundation seed for cotton, corn, and other grain and forage
crops for planting by growers of certified seed in Alabama. Seed
processing facilities shown are housed in the unit's new storage and
processing building that was completed in 1960. For a brief history
and description of work of the Seed Stocks Farm, a field unit of
Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station, see page 16.
E. V. SMITH
COYT WILSON ....
CHAS. F. SIMMONS_
KENNETH B. RoY
E. L. McGRAw
R. E. STEVENSON_
Director
Associate Director
-Assistant Director
Editor
Associate Editor
-Associate Editor
Editorial Advisory Committee: COYT
WILSON; R. R. HARRIS, Associate Profes-
ser of Animal Science; H. T. ROGERS,
Agronomy and Soils Department Head;
J. H. BLACKSTONE, Professor of Agricul-
tural Economics; AND KENNETH B. RoY.
PUBLICATIONS
Listed here are timely and new publications
reporting research by the Agricultural Ex-
periment Station.
Bul. 326. Corn Earworm Control.
Bul. 332. Management of Irrigated Cotton.
Bul. 337. Nitrogen and Moisture Require-
ments of Coastal Bermuda and Pensacola
Bahia.
Bul. 350. Seasonal Variations in Prices of
Selected Farm Commodities.
Bul. 351. Hog and Pork Movements in Ala-
bama.
Cir. 126. Using Low-Volume Farm Spray-
ers.
Cir. 127. Mechanized Cotton Production in
Alabama.
Cir. 146. Precision Irrigation with Solar
Energy.
Cir. 147. Diseases of Small Grains in Ala-
bama.
Prog. Rept. 86. Performance of Sorghum
Silage Varieties.
Free copies may be obtained from your
County Agent or by writing the Auburn
University Agricultural Experiment Station,
Auburn, Alabama.
Published by
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
STATION of
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
Auburn, Alabama
I~~YY ~II I ~IIYY i .rrr~w r (I
A 4
\x II BIi 
" III \, \-,itI) 
it)\ IXI ( 
s )111(
s ;I I ) -, ' I t ' XX1 to f t ( If it IIIi I I (
it t' II 1 1 1 i IXm I( i , p )I) I I la iii I(- I siil if
(1 I lit jilt I i t ii t' I I( , it I i w i f i iiiit It I i ( f I I A
Ifil it i l i f I 1( , l v tli IT tII il i I )
XIiI id lt 1' 1I doii fit fls AlAItitI )Iit IIX fik I]-
I i I' id t (Xi i if 1 'I it t I( Xif I i , I lit\ I )( I IA
IfIt(Tl( l ~Is\ ( li s. itI' jl i tt ~ i t, X
ii(i I I i i I N ( i ( 's I 11,111 of I IfI '' d it t I,
f i i t if .3I it ' X IX i if if ,I I.(s II IT t I t IXl k i' ll t it 1.I
i litu off til t i lir i t th biiii if', 1
s itip su l h) I tliii i ltit t', l iii t if
Xliti i X f I ep ~ lit' if sii'~,t i I I Iti I fit'h
IX(" it' -ot ilt i ~I i t il til I it p it It' I X i
XX it I iIi it it I I ftIl i II ','Itt , I it fl it 1
I ( i ll ) i t t If -; h it X ii iii ( d it ll. X fit fIt)
XIffTo)Iit Ii II\ if liii if ill X I Ii i ii\ it Is lmit t i(I
lit I If Il) I tf XX I \ it I Ii i itf(i I' t l - Ilt I i SO (d I
pli1 it. I i I t I" a ip t!d itt m~ hi l' i itli tif
fuit d It itts I(((1st o sIII)( td f
1(,I(Whcn Samp liit it.1 tle i w il~(
tIXfw lw i ltt'(d fltaii t ill iti. X liltTw (\ 'ti hugt
'tI () 1(i it Xl I iii it I I IIX is I i t(if IX I I ' lit it.i
Nematologist is collecting
a soil sample from a row
of a previous crop. An
auger and plastic bog ore
the only equipment
needed.
-W-
Better SOIL SAMPLING for
ROOT-KNOT NEMATODES
R. E. MOTSINGER and E. JCAIRNS
Department o Boany and Plan Pathotogy
Ill ft' XIpi iiir \\ XX ll iI tit op is XLii ifti
I o t ki(t LIT Xii iilt " )I e ifti Hlit' Ii if) S-X
tii e l lit it I if fit i ' I I c p il t it ia f I IX1(
du XXo It iii li \i ;I . i tl 't flit ti i ('till
sil f it It ',i lt l l l iii l l bu - lwt Ii i lt I (ii
an. '\ lii Il I tI I tIf t((il' ts 1 Ifjlc o l I-,
flit' i tl (d If t ill , i ~lrit', s rll X II te ' lwiii lt
Ii Xl t1 I 'l I k h ) if 
1
t ' it (lit lit I), li t 1(
lah.i' s X f i to' bfit ore t )11t th I 'lili i il b ildt
th Toi lt t it I I i Iii i (fI('st it I t i f it' II ow
it til k , Iit it Ill iit tit', ' ut (iti 'I I i l cI t.' lit 'I
Ittitt fxat liltil )fX cut
1
e I( lic s k ill it
tfIlc ' To itl X, Al II I fit le d ilIili if, I lif
If XI ft ttiic(- itl l t Xrii i 'X i it f ill I-
;t'(
1
IwIfl l~ I I " ) i i rt o it i I Ii , plait it I itl I"
fl it ii suti, li\ (d ', de th it ii ti ii ll (
bo fl oit Xtl tcIltit I. t il fIll' 11iiXX fd t ilif
Li h owtxii Tempera t EffectlIit
offit IS it i titigl flilit Xrooflt , ttl . I( )\\-;
I\ (,XI, tlt I'llo t iii lit il t kitp if;1 its, I ittll
tiiitiiti'ki to it' XXpt IX til X tilt X11-
( hid( i if IIX itt (d laii i i 'iu f - fit
IcT tif ti, i i 'Xftot imw(l t ,t' Tot i i t i .X'
X I)iti li XX11 Itll p t1
1
X1 'tI ituiic', itt fltc
to iS' itt Iitiiiii i~ \ iii lii ifhud i I 62-6:3
l Ili toI ( plil i t i'i if f it' i i iii ttl i ' i ut i
Y OU DON'T PAY cash for depreciation
each year. Yet, when a new machine
wears out or is out of date and must be
replaced, the cash cost of depreciation
becomes real.
Depreciation is a decline in value of
an item during its useful life. It is an
expense just as feed, fertilizer, and seed.
It must be deducted from receipts to get
net income. Depreciation occurs because
of deterioration associated with use, age,
weather, extent of protection, and up-
keep. Although an item is kept in good
repair, it still depreciates.
Usually considered a part of deprecia-
tion is the process of becoming obsolete.
The rapid advances in technology mean
that new or improved machines are more
efficient. They generally cost more than
the old machines. The demand for new
machines tends to lower the value of old
machines. Often the cost of a new ma-
chine does 
not equal total 
depreciation
allowed on the old one. This is a major
argument for speed-up of depreciation.
Items That Depreciate
Not all items that farmers use in pro-
duction of crops and livestock are de-
preciable. Land is not subject to depreci-
ation. Tractors, machinery, barns, fences,
orchards, and purchased breeding live-
stock are subject to depreciation. Under
tax regulations, raised breeding stock
are not depreciable since the cost of rais-
ing them is deducted each year.
Tenant houses can be depreciated.
However, the farm operator's dwelling
cannot be depreciated since this is a per-
sonal and not a farm business expense.
Useful Life
Items subject to depreciation must
have a definite useful life and be used in
production of income. Useful life of a
given item will vary among farmers. A
farmer with a large acreage of cash crops
will use a tractor more hours each year
than a farmer with a small acreage of
cash crops. Thus the useful life of a
tractor would be less in the former case.
Useful life of a used item purchased
is normally shorter than that for a new
item. New guidelines of service life for
depreciable items have recently been
prescribed by the Internal Revenue Serv-
ice. Under certain circumstances farm-
ers may use a new life, shorter or longer
one, in computing a reasonable depreci-
ation allowance.
Methods
The method used in computing de-
preciation affects the amount of deprecia-
tion in any year. The straight line method
is a simple one that gives the same
amount of depreciation each year during
the useful life of the item. (See table.)
By this method salvage value. must be
deducted from cost prior to dividing by
the years of useful life to get annual de-
preciation.
A second method is the declining bal-
ance. In this case salvage value is not
deducted prior to figuring depreciation.
The percentage rate of depreciation is
multiplied by the cost. This gives the
first year's depreciation. To get the sec-
ond year's depreciation, the amount of
depreciation for the first year is sub-
tracted from the cost to give a balance.
This balance is multiplied by the per-
centage rate. A 5-year useful life means
a 20% rate.
Any rate not in excess of twice the
straight line rate may be used on prop-
erty having a useful life of 3 years or
DEPRECIATION
a hidden farm cost
J. H. YEAGER,
Department of Agricultural Economics
0 If. item is not retired at end of 5th year,
depreciation may still be computed at 40%
of unrecovered cost until salvage value of
$100 is reached.
more. The property must have been ac-
quired new, constructed, reconstructed,
or erected after December 81, 1953.
A third way of computing depreciation
is by the sum of the years-digits method.
Use of this method is limited to property
that meets requirements for the declin-
ing balance method with twice the
straight line rate.
With the digits method for a 5-year
life, the sum 1 + 2 ? 3 + 4 ? 5 is 15.
In the first year 5/15 or 1/3 of the cost
less salvage value gives the depreciation.
For the second year, 4/15 of the cost
less salvage value gives the allowable
depreciation. In 5 years all of the allow-
able depreciation will be recovered.
More Depreciation
The last two methods of depreciation
allow a larger amount of depreciation in
the first than in the later years. This is
more nearly in line with actual deprecia-
tion based on market value of most items.
Tax regulations also provide other ways
for taking additional depreciation.
It may or may not be to a farmer's ad-
vantage to take more depreciation in one
year compared with another. In years
of high income, it is advantageous to
have more depreciation in order to re-
duce tax. Probable changes in income
should be considered in selecting de-
preciation methods and policies. Also,
probable changes in tax rates are a factor.
Depreciation is an important hidden
farm cost. As more machinery, equip-
ment, livestock, and facilities are re-
quired, farmers will face an increasing
number of depreciation decisions that af-
fect their pocketbook.
COMPARISON OF ANNUAL DEPRECIATION FOR
ITEM COSTING $2,100 WITH A SALVAGE
VALUE OF $100 AND A USEFUL
LIFE OF 5 YEARS
Annual depreciation
Year Straight Declining 
Sum of
line balance the years-
( 20% ) ( 40% ) digits
1 ......... $ 400 $ 840.00 $ 666.67
2 ......... 400 504.00 583.33
3 ........ 400 302.40 400.00
4 ......... 400 181.44 266.67
5 ......... 400 108.86 133.3
Total ....... $2,000 $1,936.70 $2,000'.00
Salvage
value or
unrecov-
ered cost__ $ 100 $ 163.30* $ 100.00
TOKULJI FURUTA, BILL MARTIN,
and FRED PERRY
Dep.rt te i f Ho-tir uItu
\\I5 5 a lto co l i',itt.
Cii itt b) (i t iT Sepat e b ol.Iiii t )i~citii 155 ('
citt ils 'it it \ tt Ci itttiit r(ti\(,t re-ttut
t1( flo litc t iii (-t .,, it iii I itt' itt itt ti
teititits toi it i )iiitil fth tt f' t s iiies
si] ,N f l 2 ra tiipit i tt c iis f i ill'i
fIt I I le t I Nit s (I it i It(tixt I.;II(I t It t tiI i/it itiii
)I i \ hit i i l is \\ til itt'u the i fItti tc t xI ifi l l s
Iii i tt't'x )Irx toii' liii or cos't tsi o t' c i tt
(is , t i tt)ilt t I 'll i I ji! m itt I (d lt i
lcntats fetliz\Icai p rctic.
Fle rtili zin g a nd I rrig atin g
at the same time
Equipment Needed
cii .1i I' ii il t fil t I iitilliat itt
ili ii iii igilt 111 it fte Si let tilt ii ii -
to tilt ixiiii i ii p i
1
fl i t Eachi hitia ~ts it lis
df isI elx iftt t I i t i'thetit prope c(i)iiIc(']]
l ifIt it if i itt i tI ( t t'' 11 o) t itmi t 1ii fT Ii Ii I I IIII)(-
to t pc ofi iitpliit5 til. hi x 's procv
li il il' 'xi iii'~c \ i i peiicif li it t l iii Ict
ill i itiii ii ciiit't itii x iiit iij
iii timl i i'ii u i it c l l t iltd fertilize i's itt'
I ' tit tio i t '!' xli( iii I fit .ia Ti i l xiic ig
ixf iitiit i xx "l i ii at iciit. itsixthat fit i l (~itfit
This fatsia plant was grown under liquid
fertilization.
fti'l \iiittiti it Ofit htil/it toiti'i itti,t iii
fi iii xx i' t' tilt, it tiit'illr 1ti t he ix iil
is lt ,'ii t tlii il t' 5 i t i ii i'd ti i t f i
ttui tti)tl fipo t ili iix l x iii' ic liiid
Type Fertilizer Used
Itfxii \bitic t i'ii' f (it li ) Ii [\ 1w~t
it ll he i i i xhl pt'l toi tuse itii ii.\ nix xix
i'iix iiti till ic oitt complete iii l ix I ilt
i it tdo it xpii i iI )l I i' I i''I I ti flit
(III i ti l s.
%. AZkW- 
-,
FEED COSTS are often the expense items in milk production
over which the producer has considerable control!
With the present trend to high producing cows, feed costs
often become the key to profit or loss. In 1962, 20% of all
Alabama herds on Dairy Production Testing produced an
average of 10,000 lb. or more of milk per cow. Many studies
have shown that well fed, high producing cows usually are
profitable.
For a cow of a given weight and production ability, a num-
ber of feeding systems can be used to produce a fixed quan-
tity of milk, according to numerous studies. Obtaining the
least cost feed combination per cwt. of milk becomes a budg-
eting problem.
Feeding for
LOW COST MILK
Production
J. H. BLACKSTONE, Dept. of Agricultural Economics
E. L. MAYTON, Superintendent, Piedmont Substation
G. E. HAWKINS, Dept. of Dairy Science
Feeding Systems Compared
During the past 4 years, the dairy herd of the Piedmont
Substation, Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, has been studied under two feeding systems. The 
re-
sults of this 4 years' work has been standardized for a cow
weighing 1,250 lb. and producing 10,000 lb. of 4% fat cor-
rected milk (FCM). The quantities of feed used and costs
per cow are given in Table 1.
Production under the two systems has not differed. Excess
forage grown and fed to a large number of replacements was
credited to pastures, which could be the reason for lower
pasture costs for milk cows. Hay and silage yields were rel-
atively low all years. Either system could profitably be used
by dairymen depending upon their land resources.
Feeds used, especially roughages, in the two systems have
been charged to milk production at prices that include costs
of producing, harvesting, storing, and feeding. In some years
all corn was purchased. Bought items have been charged
at their cost f.o.b. farm. The 4-year average prices used were
as follows: corn silage $8.60 per ton, alfalfa hay $41.40 per
ton, concentrate ration $54.80 per ton, pasture for cows in
milk 44? per day, and pasture for dry cows 88?.
Grazing areas consisted of some permanent pasture; small
grain and clover, or ryegrass and clover in winter; and Starr
millet in summer. Total production costs, including a land
charge, were used in deriving daily pasture costs. The ration
mixture and ingredient cost as 4-year averages were as fol-
lows: 1,610 lb. shell corn @ $1.20 per bu., 940 lb. oats @
84? per bu., 450 lb. 41% cottonseed meal @ $8.45 per cwt.,
80 lb. salt @ $1.50 per cwt., and grinding and mixing corn
and oats @ 30? per cwt.
Using the 4-year results from this herd, budgets have been
used to determine feed costs per cwt. of milk for a 1,250-lb.
cow producing 10,000 lb. of 4% FCM under several alterna-
tive systems. Given in Table 2 are several systems, all with
stored roughages and drylot fed using high and low grain
rations. The alternatives vary from 70% grain and 30%
forage to the exact reverse. The two systems described pro-
vided approximately 80% grain and 70% roughages. Coastal
bermuda hay, Table 2, was at an assumed price of $20 per
ton. Some additional protein may be needed for periods of
90 to 180 days to supplement the bermuda hay. In practice,
cows generally decrease in production when bermudagrass
is the only roughage. Grain ration mixture, as explained, was
used with each system.
In addition to the systems of feeding stored roughages in
drylot, several pasture-stored roughage systems were budg-
eted. A combination of low grain ration plus corn silage, plus
Starr millet for summer grazing showed a possible cost of
$2.16 per cwt. of milk produced. The same system with
bermuda hay and some extra protein substituted for silage
showed a possible cost of $1.92 per cwt. of milk.
Conclusions from Compared Systems
Of the 12 feeding systems compared, only those using ber-
muda hay with a low grain ration showed possibility of a large
reduction in costs. With Coastal, management problems of
adjusting the ration, adding protein, and proper feeding to
bring cows to peak production are critical problems that need
further research. Corn silage can be competitive with Coastal
hay in areas where high yields will provide a fed-out cost of
no more than $6.50 to $7.00 per ton rather than the $8.60
cost at the Piedmont Station. Some management problems
with feeding corn silage need further research. Also, addi-
tional research is needed on the problem of lowering silage
costs at all stages - producing, harvesting, storing, and feed-
ing.
TABLE 1. FEED USED AND COST TO PRODUCE
10,000 POUNDS OF MILK
Kinds of feed used Stored 
roughages Conventional 
pastures
Amount Value 
Amount Value
Corn silage, lb......... 20,300 $ 87.29 1,340 $ 5.76
Alfalfa hay, lb. 3,250 67.28 220 4.55
Grain concentrate, lb.... 2,550 69.87 2,500 68.50
Pasture-
Cows in milk, days---- 0 0 290 127.60
Dry cows, days------- 55 20.90 50 19.00
Total cost per cow $245.34 - $225.41
Cost per cwt. of milk---- $2.45 $2.25
1 Silage is reported as harvested weight.
TABLE 2. AMOUNT OF FEED NEEDED PER COW AND COSTS PER
CWT. OF MILK FOR VARIOUS FEEDING SYSTEMS
High grain ration Low grain ration
Ration number and
kinds of roughages
6,350 lb.
grain +
forage
shown
Cost 
per 2,720 
lb.
cwt. of grain
milk 
forage
shown
Cost per
cwt. of
milk
Lb. Dol. Lb. Dol.
1. Corn silage- 15,000 2.38 33,000 2.35
2. Alfalfa hay 3,900 2.55 9,300 2.65
3. Coastal bermuda hay----- 4,250 2.16 10,000 1.74
4. Added protein and No. 83 180 2.22 360 1.87
1 Silage is shown as harvested weight; it is assumed that 85%
of this amount will be consumed.
6
Yk
Typical damage to young pines from tip moth is shown here: At
left is excessive branching (bushing) caused by repeated attacks;
tree at right shows terminals that were killed. The inset shows
a larva that has been parasitized by the small fly that is a natural
enemy of the tip moth. The black spot on the larva is character-
istic evidence of the parasite's presence.
,lit] 1till Aitha)11ii Fitchi!!i \ i 4x fhc itt lxic i ki tit 'tu li.i prd.~
\()it il l F fitx i i liittid ft f it i' it o x i ' c I II Itx ]t
Ph if I( til liI .1 '(I .1 1( l i m isi )11 & i i ii i pIle I iiit ) X iit
'I'lle i xiii x i ftt i i i t i ii til iliiii if 'w . iii. li tho1g.
Larvae Cause Damage
i pi i x i to i uolxxl f it ic s11 t hexl c 1)1,1ti of ig a'iig li li ts of
1il iix cimil i it lx. fto ix .xiii x ix< c aii it' tip c Zitt if it a iiix ix it
i ij taftI litili ix bac i ff i 11 lxx iu i l1 ii ftti12 x ii d i4li lt 1-c titi
il ilt toi x il -lo \ii ii lii cX.,it' t rit itciii r lx ti d f ifi 1, Itl
xflitt li i titi iix igx. \il m it Uli itiix gi 'iiii oil poo
t I x it A i i i li 
x i t) l' x 
iif ti t i 
, x xl c Ii Ig (' g r 
i I i'ca i Ii
iid li w xfi Ii i l I t'iii ' xill ti i l tito s thtix.p itie
tk lx ix uf tit) 1 i11 liix atl it llix ie~ l ii i liif ititio. L h o l ll tiltt-
ilx ' iI i f6 lit l( !xx( inno ~ tli tuti i hf i s xii jiitic i \ i c xi
xx ioii l 11! 111111 I i fit 11111 leiii] x it toi ati i c 'lig i
PINE TIP MOTH -
Pest of Young Pines
LL.HYCHE, Dept. of Zoofogy-Entemefogy
ftiixs for abut 3 ft 4 xx t'tlx itl plipiftitli occurst i xxthui tlit
Lix i fill il cix,
Itt ii. liiiit il it at It i ixt t'of fit t t ici i t i oo oti t t it) motxhif
sothil xx in' tilitra. tt i ltSat tixtii'g'it i
Ax rs ixxifthg ciitix lixililixf tcii iitari ail, pAcltgtiit it!
fi l (i iii t 11111 flig ts gi l if d it i til ii -i lv 1A1.1
Natural Enemies Aid in Control
Bcixititx Of xftilit'x t1it~rtit( flit' p:f3 \iix itdiltaft' fthat ill-
xct't paii c,' ilit ,iv piax all itlipol tauit nitc ill itfti ill i gitii
it ifiiti tilt fpoiitil hi x dii t as giiui' iii ix ii ii i it
lv l Siti iix 2 oii iti 9x high ix .3ff4 'lii ittijit 
1
x iixfi
xPci'x titt'tiiift' ti xt 'ii I lo t ii ia a it'deiiiik \it l a iihli
2 li t I i i i i l ti Ii i Ii i I }i~ i it ls 5(7. hIi filitiirx pii xtgt
xx i cilxi tfitlc xpieix x itti i tii ipiois N. iti xil sialitl
z Ji W
l \i x l is t , i It .1 ) ( k 
ii x I I i x i I l t o d i c
Ilii list' s itt i ll to il iii c itit ll
t t s A iiiII).I li (I i\ - i tl
t I IIZLI I I I tI ii Ii ti Stil xo Ia
Ici ( qtI. I tit)I xt~ (it I it Itx\ x i o tlir tc't
xc t1 iit t till IsaItoic ifi tl .lpirso l
1i.i )i1x scii itt it c( ill t iiii i it t 11) x iit i x I i
tutu] ittit ofiti iiuici lllit s.~ \ xx it tic'c
tillt N\x ii isi htix tixrat ilit it t I-ii tlicf
p itt S. iI itixi ficit if xtdtdS itt I Kts -
I'l I.c1' \iv xi'iii' pliits xxN\ cii il c-
Vaietis Compared
pt Icd l i c ji itt d Ix.l iilip ili'
Transplanted and field
seeded cantaloupes are
shown here. Note in-
creased size of vines
from transplants at left
ever field-seeded area at
right.
(: \IIo l i ts A t, l it s t i ii x 'ii
196 1
I Wi:j.
A\x r; t c
1.1).
10,: )12.9)
II .1 61 Ltt
2:3 I19 . t
15, It 4.5
Litb.
2 ,82 7.5
8,544.9)
4 454 2
5. 4: . 0t
\X'ii cii l'ttiptritip at ittits dittot tiCit'c
slIIc hiso lid oitiuto fiit. xtic p ntisi
xha ititti xli Iii tit xx X crc S Ct. i
t
o.I
Nit. 45, 1.34 F, itti Etdistoi.
Flit ttdile (itliaiitx\ itt Itilit its itl'ict
lix soitittt soidsti tititiit xx\its Ilipdictst fii
Effects of FIELD SEEDING
and TRANSPLANTING on
Cantaloupe Production
JD. NORTON, Depar'tment of Horticuture
I lii 2. \Ii x's 11111 i iii Y~ilii its ititi t'x'l i xNS LA ii xF i ) i \it I,1:DSi iii it) Cx'si xi101111.
xliiis, Atitcii., Aifitxix 19(51-19(5.)
\ iilictx
Slit ics B t i lih
1-:30tC-58
SC. Ni). 1St)
I iisti
13o Gidd
Id titcr itcri'b lix x ts
I o)62
6, 1 12.: 3
8,171.9M
5,.799.ti
5,5-0i1.9
, 0t: 1). 9
I I, 168.9
1,.516. 2
97,-111. 6
.3, 98.tt
6_50.~t9
S. 3.35.I
c),365 I.
Itt 7 11.6
1 :3, 1t O3(6
ti(.65.: 3
8t 5:1W1
/1 1).
:55 1.9
) 
1
t( IA
It (,W) 1 .2
i78:3.2
4,8 15. 9
,96i 1 3:,
.): 311. 1
15,50t. 1
9) 1tt.6
5,163. 1
xiA\ .u
19 91 -63
1ilb.
6,(ttttS.8
9, 272. 9
8,6 1 7.0t
8,69 1.2
73 17T.4
9 (60t. 1
5,StSS.5
12,121A1
)S:3t6. T
ti 7 I I M
it\ of I litiis IBst jolllio xxcr ti&itsiltistit-
Success Factors
11 ~ ~ ~ ~ i 1tl itI iii s5th.(.~ coo lr5il 
t
\li1
1 
it i l itc it t ctolibii ti Iiii Ofi dciii i (Ill
C 1I' iii (i tiso . III ai tiijtt 'itllix [
ctixd x at iltx . jt ia Ni . I iit itih[i't
chiuatt cx l isilc high t oliii. xxolids' ( p
ix iiit iiii ii tiN lila i siiS nc c cltuia for tsit(
oft i L.S a o 
1
Ittt' gaita atidoc titipde-
tcoilcit it sxxli coptittc-ci tinlis l
pisxtd.a o Itx xx Ili(.co ) i t cIItIxI ott tt
iiia it 2I xc a I dI qu l ti I I l it Fi sittl1,it
11,l'st id xit Ig \ ittlictti ,i l iii iltitic xxhigh
(1 it ii it t ritit lis tit t istt coliti ols Al t )i
itcl ct i ] 11ati it (1llicc soso tIc
Farm and Market
EFFICIENCY Make
FOOD A BARGAIN
MORRIS WHITE
Dept. of Agricultural Economics
120
110
100
90
8 0 L I l I I I I I I I I I I
1947-49 '50 '52 '54 '56 '58 '60 '62 '64 '66
*RETAIL COST AND FARM VALUE, MARKET BASKET OF FARM FOODS.
1963, 9-MONTH AVERAGE.
EXCELLENT PERFORMANCE by both were noted for eggs, 
potatoes, sweet
farmer and marketer helps make food the tatoes, and certain 
cereal products.
bargain it is today. Personal 
income of urban families
The average worker on United States been rising since 1950. 
Although ti
farms is now producing food and fiber families spent an average 
of $1,811
for 29 persons, as compared with 15 in food in 1960, as compared 
with $1,
1950. Productivity of the marketing sys- in 1950, the proportion 
of total fai
tem has increased substantially, but not expenditures that 
went for food drop
as great as on the farm. Food moved from 
30% to 24%.
through the marketing system increased Last year, only 19% of total 
disposc
32% between 1950 and 1963, but num- income was spent for food, as compa
ber of workers rose only 11%. with the post-war high of 27%. E
Per capita consumption of food prod- hour of labor continues to be worth
ucts has tended to increase since the end increasing amount of high quality,
of World War II. A fairly steady up- venient food.
trend between 1947 and 1962 amounted Price of farm foods in retail stores
to 3.5% total increase in food use. eraged 15% higher in 1968 than in 1c
Meats showed the greatest increase in 49. This was a modest increase, w
consumption, with beef and poultry be- compared with the average increase
ing the important commodities (see 31% for all consumer goods and serv
table). Use of nonfat milk solids re- in the same period.
mained about the same, but fluid milk An important factor in keeping r
and cream decreased by 16%. Decreases food prices at bargain levels was a
in per capita consumption of fresh fruits cline in prices received by farmers
and vegetables were partially offset by graph). In 1963, a farmer's return
increased use of processed fruits and veg- foods was 15% below the 1947-49 a
etables. Large decreases in consumption age for a like quantity - this while
ESTIMATED CIVILIAN PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF MAJOR FOOD COMMODITIES,
UNITED STATES, 1947-49 AVERAGE, 1954-63
Year
1947-49-
1954
1955 --
1956
1957 ...
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1968
Red p
meat
Lb.
.... 148
---- --- 155
S 163
- 167
--- -159
152
160
161
161
164
166
oultry Dairy 
Flour and Vegetables
oultryh products Eggs cereal
products Fresh 
Tol
Lb. Lb. No. Lb. Lb. Lb
22 732 385 171 120 20
28 699 376 155 107 19
26
80
31
34
35
34
38
37
89
706
703
685
680
666
653
640
637
632
371
369
362
354
352
334
326
324
816
152
150
148
150
148
146
146
143
143
105
107
106
104
103
106
105
103
102
po-
has
hese
for
130
mily
,ped
able
ared
,ach
i an
con-
av-
947-
,hen
e of
ices
.. ,I
Major reason for low retail food prices is
illustrated here. Farm prices of food prod-
ucts have gone down during the past 10
years, while consumer price index went up.
(Source: Economic Research Service, USDA.)
spread between farm and retail prices
rose 44%.
Lower farm prices were largely the re-
sult of abundant supplies of farm prod-
ucts and the consequent poorer bargain-
ing position of the farmer. Another con-
tributing factor was the general price
picture in the economy since World War
II. Cost of "services" has gone up much
faster than have prices of raw materials
and manufactured goods.
The average of all food prices has in-
creased, but some much more than
others. Retail price of poultry has ac-
tually decreased since 1947-49, while
bread has gone up 60%.
etail In general, prices have increased the
de- most for foods having the greatest pro-
(see portion of marketing services. In the
for case of bread, price of wheat has little
ver- effect on price of the finished 
product.
the If the price of wheat should 
suddenly
increase by $1 per bu., the cost of wheat
in a 1-lb. loaf of bread would not go up
much more than 1 ; conversely, a large
drop in wheat prices would cause only
a small drop in consumer 
prices of bread.
tal If the baking industry could reduce cost
. of baking and distributing bread by 3(
to 40 per loaf, the impact on consumer
0 price would be greater than if farmers
6 gave wheat away.
199
202
202
202
201
206
205
207
207
Source. Agricultural Handbook No. 258 and National Food Situation, Economic Re-
search Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Frying chickens present a striking con-
trast to the bread situation. Large de-
creases in farmers' prices of chickens
have resulted in a 170 per lb. drop in re-
tail prices since 1950. The spread be-
tween farm and retail price has been al-
most constant at 200 per lb. Thus, the
entire decrease in farmers' prices could
be passed on to consumers.
Long Lasting Effects
from Perennial Legumes
J. T. COPE, JR. and C. E. SCARSBROOK
Department of Agronomy and Soils
PERENNIAL LEGUMES, such as alfalfa, sericea, and kudzu,
add nitrogen and organic matter to the soil. This nitrogen
can be utilized by non-leguminous crops like cotton, corn, or
forage grasses, thus decreasing the need for applying ferti-
lizer nitrogen.
Effects of legume residues on succeeding crops can be
observed for several years. The magnitude of this effect is
influenced by age of the legume stand, its growth and use,
as well as soil type, fertility, and moisture relations. Amount
of the residual effect on succeeding crops and how long it
lasts determines when nitrogen applications should be re-
sumed and rates to be applied.
Residual Value Measured
Experiments were begun in 1949 at the Monroeville and
Prattville Experiment Fields following 6 years of kudzu for
hay. These studies were continued for 12 years to learn
amount and persistence of residual effects on following crops.
Treatments included rates of N, vetch for green manure,
and rotation of cotton and corn. All plots were limed initially
and were fertilized annually with 60 lb. each of P
2
0
5 
and
K
2
0. One corn treatment included magnesium and a minor
element mixture containing zinc, boron, copper, and man-
ganese.
Average yields at the two locations for continuous corn
and continuous cotton are shown in the graph. Points plotted
are 8-year averages. These include the years immediately
before and after the year plotted. Two-year averages were
used for the first and last years of the experiment.
Corn Yields Show Effects
The residue from kudzu was sufficient to produce good
corn yields for 2 years. The plot that did not receive N began
to yield less than the others in the third year. Kudzu plots
that got 36 lb. of N were as productive as the 72-lb. N plots
through the fourth year.
Corn yields were reduced by drought 3 of the first 6 years,
thus limiting effects of the treatments. After the first 4 years,
72 lb. N yielded more corn than 36 lb. In the last 4 years
this difference averaged 13 bu. of corn. Had higher rates
been used, yields probably would have been greater; results
of other experiments show responses to 90 lb. of N.
On vetch plots, corn yields were between those resulting
from, 36 lb. and 72 lb. of N. For the last 4 years, the aver-
age was 4 bu. less than from 72 lb. N. When 36 lb. of N
was used following vetch, yields were increased about 7 bu.
for the last 4 years.
Using micronutrients increased yied an additional 5 bu.,
making the minor element plots the highest yielding in the
101
experiment. These data do not reveal which element or
elements were responsible for this increase, but zinc or mag-
nesium probably caused the difference.
Cotton Needed Less N after Legumes
Residue from kudzu was good enough for 4 years to pro-
duce an average yield of 1,200 lb. of seed cotton without
added N. For 8 years after kudzu, 36 lb. N produced as
much cotton as did 72 lb.
Had weather conditions been favorable for high yields, re-
sponse to 72 lb. N probably would have occurred earlier than
the 8 years noted. The data indicate that cotton following
a good crop of perennial legume should need no more than
36 lb. of N for several years.
The experiment included a 2-year rotation of cotton and
corn, in which both crops received 72 lb. of N per acre. Ro-
tating the two crops did not increase cotton yields, and corn
yields were not increased until the eighth year. For the last
5 years, corn yields were increased 7 bu. per acre by rotation
with cotton.
1600
1400
1949 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
Years
C ONSUMERS in the United States spent in 1962 about $12
billion for dairy products or 19% of the total 
expenditures for
food. Purchases of dairy foods, in fact, 
were exceeded only
by meats (25%) and fruits and vegetables 
(24%) in the
food budgets.
In volume of product and sales value, 
milk sold to con-
sumers as fresh fluid milk is the leading 
segment of the dairy
industry. In 1962, 46% of the milk supply 
produced in this
country was utilized in fluid consumption, 
26% in creamery
butter, 11% in cheese, and 17% in other 
dairy products.
The amount spent for fluid milk by consumers 
may be di-
vided into two parts: (1) payments to farmers 
that repre-
sent returns for production of raw milk supplies, and 
(2)
payments to handlers that assemble and process 
the milk and
perform marketing services in getting 
the milk product to con-
sumers in the form, and at the time and place 
they desire.
Share of Consumer's Dollar
Studies of the farm-retail spread for all types 
of dairy
products show that the farmer currently 
receives an average
of 430 of the consumer dollar spent for dairy foods. 
The re-
maining 570 pays for costs and profits for assembling, 
proc-
essing, and distributing the milk products 
(gross marketing
margin).
During the first three quarters of 1963, the 
price of a quart
of bottled milk averaged 25.90 in the 
United States. Of this
amount the farmers' share was 11.30 and the marketing 
mar-
gin was 14.60. Thus the farmer got 440 
of each dollar spent
for bottled milk during that period. 
In recent years the
farmers' share of the milk dollar has declined 
somewhat be-
cause of an increase in marketing costs 
and a decline in farm
value of milk.
Alabama Prices and Margins
In Alabama the price of milk for fluid 
use to producers,
distributors, and consumers is fixed by 
the State Milk Con-
trol Board. Through 1963 a quart of milk 
retailed for 28.50
in the Birmingham and Montgomery markets 
and 27.50 in
Mobile, Table 1. Of the retail value 
of a quart of milk,
Alabama producers received approximately 140 or 50% in
each market. For the fluid milk sold through grocery 
stores,
distributors received about 40% of the retail price, 
retailers
8%, and producers the remainder.
Retail prices for milk sold in half-gallons were 
540 and
550 in the Alabama markets. For half-gallons, 
the farmers'
share of the retail price was slightly larger. Savings 
to con-
sumers for purchases in half-gallon containers 
resulted from
a lower marketing margin for the larger size.
TABLE 1. FARMERS' SHARE AND GRoss MARGINS FOR MILK 
SOLD
IN ALABAMA MABKETS, 1963
Quar t Half gallon
Market Retail Farm- Gross Retail Farm- Cross
ers' mar- . ers' mar-
price share gin price share gin
Birmingham, ? .... 28.5 14.0 14.5 55.0 28.1 
26.9
Mobile, ? ......... 27.5 13.8 13.7 54.0 27.7 
26.3
Montgomery, ? ... 28.5 13.9 14.6 55.0 27.8 
27.2
Birmingham, % ....100.0 49.3 50.7 100.0 51.1 
48.9
Mobile, % ........100.0 50.3 49.7 100.0 51.2 
48.8
Montgomery, % ... 100.0 48.7 51.3 100.0 50.5 
49.5
Source: USDA, Fluid Milk and Cream Report.
MILK-
Prices, margins
and returns
LOWELL E. WILSON, Dept. of
Agricultural Economics
Distributors' Costs
A study of selected milk distributors reported by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture showed that distributors received
$11.37 per 100 lb. of milk and cream processed in 1961,
Table 2. This study was based on cost accounting data from
80 fluid milk firms throughout the United States. Of net
sales receipts, $5.02 was paid for raw milk and cream plus
950 for other materials used in fluid milk products. The re-
maining $5.40 was the gross marketing margin, which must
cover all operating costs and profits.
Cost of employing workers in processing and distributing
milk accounted for more than half of the marketing margin
and about a fourth of the consumer dollar for milk. Labor
cost included salaries, wages, commissions, payroll taxes, 
pen-
sions, and other benefits.
Container cost was a major item to milk distributors, aver-
aging 5.89% of the net sales receipts. Combined repairs,
rent, and depreciation amounted to 5.98%; operating sup-
plies another 2.64%; and all other expenses 5.72%.
The net margin or returns to plant owners before 
payment
of income taxes were 430 per 100 lb. of milk and cream proc-
essed or 3.78% of receipts.
TABLE 2. COSTS AND MARGINS PER 100 POUNDS OF MILK AND
CREAM, PROCESSED BY SELECTED DAIRY FIRMS 
IN
THE UNITED STATES, 1961
Item
Net sales receipts
Cost of raw milk and cream-_
Other materials-
Gross margin---
Operating costs
Salaries, wages, commissions-
Containers---
Repairs, rent, depreciation ..
Operating supplies
Taxes
In su ran ce ---------------------------------
Services
Advertising
G e n e ra l ------------------------------------
T o ta l --- -- --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- --
Net margin'----
Gross margin
5.02
.95
5.40
Dollars
11.37
2.67
.67
.68
.30
.06
.05
.19
.19
.16
4.97
.43
5.40
44.15
8.36
47.49
Per cent
100.00
23.48
5.89
5.98
2.64
.53
.44
1.67
1.67
1.41
43.71
3.78
47.49
- - - ) - --------- --------- . . . .1
Source: Milk Distributors Operations, USDA, ERS, Nov. 
1962.
'Net returns to dairy firm owners before income taxes.
11
.. Variation in prices received for corn by Ala-
bama farmers during 1960-62 is illustrated
2 by the map. Average mid-month prices are
shown for each of the State's nine Crop
Reporting Districts.
Sby price levels in corn-surplus areas plus
S.8 movement charges into Alabama. Differ-
ences between Alabama prices and prices
at various origins of corn shipped into
the State have been about equal to trans-
S$1.26 portation plus handling costs. During
harvest time, this differential has been
5 . reduced because local demand has been
.2 supplied 
primarily from local production.
Form, whether shelled or ear, and
grade affect prices, as reflected by the
practice of paying premiums or discount-
ing based on a standard grade, usually
.2 No. 2 yellow. Grades are based on test
weight per bushel, moisture, cracked
iIii i~iii iiii corn andforeignmaterial, anddamaged
kernels. Data from an economic study
~i~i~i~i~ :i !marketed acorn rin Alabama during 1960-
_61 sold ungraded ear corn. On the basis
Corn Price Changes
Aff.ect Alabama Farmers
B. R. McMANUS, Dept. of Agricultural Economics
PRICE CHANGES influence production
and use of corn. Both the general level
of and fluctuations in prices have impor-
tant effects on corn producers, handlers,
and users. Prices are affected by such
factors as levels of production, volumes
used and stored, seasons of the year, and
marketing practices.
Corn is grown over wide areas, is sold
on a national as well as a local market
and has many important uses. Thus, an
individual farmer cannot produce enough
corn to affect market price except in a
few local situations. The major farm re-
quirement is to produce the quality of
corn desired by users at a price that will
be profitable to both buyer and seller.
Transportation and Grade Affect Prices
Alabama is still a corn-deficit 
state,
which imports one-fourth to one-half of
the corn used. Prices have been affected
12
of total sales, 60% was ear and 40%
shelled corn.
Prices Vary among Districts
Mid-month corn prices received by
Alabama farmers during recent years va-
ried among Crop Reporting Districts
(see map). However, monthly prices
varied more within districts 
than among
districts. In general, areas with least
production had highest prices. Districts
4 and 6 had highest prices and the Ten-
nessee Valley had the lowest.
On the basis of three general areas of
the State, central Alabama farmers re-
ceived the highest 3-year average price
and northern Alabama producers got
lowest prices. (Districts 1-3 are north-
ern Alabama, 4-6 make up central, and
7-9 are southern Alabama Districts.)
Price differences amounted to 80 per
bushel between central and northern and
40 between central and southern Ala-
bama.
Season Affects Prices
Based on reports from 290 farmers,
91% of shelled corn marketed in 1960-61
was sold in the fall at an average price
of $1.08 per bushel. The other 9% was
sold the following spring for an 
average
price of $1.30. The 220 per bushel dif-
ference was the return for storing 3 to 6
months. Budgets indicate that 22. per
bushel normally will give a reasonable
return for 6 months storage of shelled
corn. However, Crop Reporting Service
data for 1958-63 show a difference of 170
per bushel between the average high
monthly price period of June and July
and the average low price in November.
This difference gave more than enough
return to cover variable costs, but not
enough to pay total costs.
Corn prices were lowest in October,
November, and December and highest
during late spring and summer 
(see
table). Beginning in December, the price
gradually rose to a peak in June and
July, declined slightly in August, and
then dropped to a low in 3 months.
Seasonal price variation has been in-
fluenced by the level of price supports
of corn and by CCC selling activities.
As long as such programs remain in ef-
fect, seasonal price variation should ap-
proximately equal storage costs.
Corn prices will continue to increase
in importance in Alabama as more farm-
ers produce corn as a cash crop and as
livestock becomes increasingly important
as a source of farm income. Under these
circumstances, it will pay to become fa-
miliar with corn price movements.
AVERAGE SEASONAL MOVEMENTS OF ALA-
BAMA FARM PRICES FOR CORN, 1958-63
Seasonal average Number 
of
Month 
Price 
Pet. of 
times
1
per average
bushel price High Low
Oct..... $1.12 92 0 3
Nov..... 1.11 91 0 3
Dec. . 1.13 93 0 0
Jan. 1.17 97 0 0
Feb 1.22 100 0 0
Mar. 1.26 104 1 0
Apr - 1.26 104 1 0
May 1.27 105 2 0
June 1.28 106 2 0
July 1.28 106 2 0
Aug. 1.27 104 0 0
Sept. 1.19 98 0 0
Av. 1.21 100
1 When the high or low price occurred in
more than one month, each month was re-
ported as a high or low.
LM. WARE and W. A. JOHNSON
Department of Htoriculture
I ~li XS 5I Hi\M IM~i) 1\I tillics tlltS
ofi lurtiliztr ,t
1
)
1
licilt tlis to vo loll', vc
ofi \Ili .(1Ali Io i (i\xl Ci ca
Iisi Ilts IlI (IIIIl I Oi I~ i.\ 111'idc at thetANo
Stalt 3iii of difl(cltiit clop oiil bothi lligl
(cOil 5t) ti ii liiia\ ( Iilit) soils li iI\
sloixx\il thalit 1Iii cc (viii co(ndulition I
', v itis Ilia il v 5(1 
diSl , Hiii s lit 11)1 
or (t\(']I
(til i llsc 5 orii 6 s ta ill is iii litl'N I ll, tllI
(1i t lul oitt f l c11i iiti li i 2i ori t3 il)
titi I l ras t hr tii hao li,, hI, l~t ill ((14 ii
I it ysix of siiils.hv ld o li
i).it~t iollilt( I slithat tis are grit.
thIs l-liii 1955. vi t \9(3. it 95 xx) replit
byi icpsto di Ii d t ort tu-sttplit xx it
vId dli I r l sill i i i l I pliSt ;Ipii iiiii 5
\illio ii o it( Xl s. Sui ii thcdf
9
aittiit i\))i i iii It \\.x it lt) itiiiottl rili
lill] h(txxc iii pplicatutitls oh thlritili.'cu
au itl sitiutpliog~ tlitcs. Thli i itt of' itt
tilizer ill thtis tsptimout xx\is I1,500( 11).
pci ici t idlicd il(xxii tppliciltiiiis.
TAiii i 2. Yo ij ii i PotI. v x l' iiuxi Vnxiiu.s
Uii i i i II ii BA I Si \N i M 'lii ODSiO
Ili Lit Ai ION, Sioii' -
iet i
li/i r
I .it
Ii tid I
1 Li.
t,t0ttt
1,5t0t
2,0t00
t1,5t0t
1 00
1 t0t0t
667i
iclt! ofi No. I's
1st 211(1 1955 1956 1957
Lii). IL 1. Bag's
64
500t 72
663 (I3667 105
BIluiall l"il lx I.
Mcitiiili
NIt
It iiica its x tm nttteiltiuu I
12
10
2t 6
57
10
liSrht
ield~s ini I952 tfront siuglt tcrtulizcu
ut
1
licuitittis xx Ii c ci erigtcx i
tlihiuitt lix split app~lictiuiis. icitds xx cit
ixti-tiiitlx li\xx ill I195:3 fruom sioglc ap-
jilicititills alidtult~l tllx xx itt iiiciiscd
.5 toi 6 titocs lux splittiu tht ipplicaitimi.
tlitix sxtii still niii liuli. lii 195-1. at xcx
tlt-. icsoluui xicltls xxcit goouit froim at
'Sf
I'
.5.' ~It,,
it'
~
Both of the above plots received 2,500
pounds per acre of 4-10-7. The plot at left
received this amount in three applications
while the plot at right received the total
amount in one application.
si 1 l It)
1
)llil t ioi iii iit)] ]lit i1 tt ill-
pti Ii(d fromutihi spiltitigx ppiso aitic
ftil pitteid nsI95 actltii simila il 952
ill5i 19iit3 sI'm tth eal ii s xxi mi
pcliiitl Iiltxliii si tcipcit\'iti i. t
xxits ~ l9tst ia 
1
)lltiii LSli tlt(t gas tlid.~litst(
l ilt, lciitat iii 195 tii it 195 ht3. i
it 9st iiit li9g6. Haiiill xitoxixi tihe
thu I)iti titI lt tx \i pi iie iii c oil]5,.
foliitl t i lit aplittti sttth x H itsl~l aitti
illts t sctituh \\itsiii iii lcli 1iti6 mid his
t195t7 ii 4 X t~ti bo jt! vii \(.it c i tX-
ii castl 1 o\ ti l- sp llle lilt li i tiii I tl
\its ticst xx as (3:3' iii tt siile lilit
TxuILL 3. Xiuiiir. LEVLS ANDi EAIxisiXiL
dI ( It i' I
]:It(. tiiiiis 1 (0.52
-Lh.
1,5t00
2,500t
1,500t
-1500itt
5.5
72i
1 10
I1iitiII a l~ i Isar II
Mcliliii I.
l'it NI
\I lii -x -I o I~iliii. L.
13ia' Blags
tt 9(6
12 1t1:3
19 88
6( 157
t11
I 1
It I
Da)te fitilizui applicattion
I t oi iitinh'
19.52
2-)9 4/9
3/.31 4/15
10).tt 1.4
58
1953
4/29 2/.3 3/17
4/28 13/17 :3/:)0
.3.2 7.3 1.2
5 (6 2.3
4/3
4/15
5ft
1i )5 I 1905.5
Dtc fct itizui ipplkctiuo 2/.5 3/22 -4/14 2/1.5 3/ 1(3 4/22
Ditc ;il l iiplch 3/1.5 1/ 19 .5/:3 3/ 1.5 1/12 5/ 163
tiaiiii uaiii5 (itt.) :3.(6 1.7 1.9 1.2 2. 6 t
No, pott. 47 108tS6 1 I1 91 60t
Iiitilizii jrti xwas 1,500t 11). per icri olilid iii 2 applicattiions.
Littiit1iiii islictx ietw iliti iif fcrtiijcur ap~plicaitionu ii tditue Soil siitiics \x ri tilliti.
13
FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS
vs. RAINFALL RECORDS
M ECHANIZATION MAY PAY in most farm
operations but not in the case of deter-
mining when to irrigate potatoes and cab-
bage.
A study was made at the Auburn Uni-
versity Agricultural Experiment Station
to determine the relative effectiveness
and efficiency of irrigation when applica-
tions were determined by instrument and
and the one returning the highest in-
crease in yield for the amount of water
added was the graduated method. The
second largest increase was from the %-
%-in. rate and frequency. The third high-
est increase was from the instrument
method with tensiometer placed 8 in. in
the soil and the water applied at the rate
of % in. when the instrument indicated
TABLE 1. IRRIGATION SCHEDULE, IRRIGATION ADDED, INCREASED No. 1 POTATOES AND
GALLONS IRRIGATION WATER PER BAG INCREASED--8-YEAR AVERAGE
Irrigation Yield Increase Gal. irrig.
schedule Irrigation No. 1 No. 1 for each 100-
Tues. Fri. per acre per acre pound increase
In. In. No. In. Bags Bags Gal.
0 0 0 0 59
0 1 4.7 4.7 133 74 1,725
1/2 '/2 8.7 4.3 144 85 1,377
0 2/3 4.3 2.9 101 42 1,889
/3 /3 8.7 5.8 155 96 1,648
(1/ , 1, / )1 8.7 5.8 162 103 
L398
1/M3 1/32 13.0 4.3 135 76 1,535
2% 2/ 33 9.3 6.2 146 87 1,949
/2 /2 9.7 4.8 135 76 1,718
Irrigation applied at rate of '/3 inch twice weekly for first part of season, '/2 twice
weekly for middle, and 2/3 twice weekly for latter.
2 Amount applied when tensiometer 
4" deep indicates moisture level 
at 75% moisture
holding capacity of the soil.
3 Amount applied 
when tensiometer 
8" deep indicates 
moisture level at 
75% moisture
holding capacity.
Amount applied including rainfall.
when applied according to certain rules
of thumb.
Rates and Frequencies Used
The rates and frequencies of applica-
tion are expressed as inches of water ap-
plied on either one or two days each
week. The rates and frequencies were:
0-0, 0-1, 0-%, %z-/2, 2/3%-%, and a gradu-
ated rate with /3, , and % in. ap-
plied twice weekly during early, medium,
and late parts of the growing season, re-
spectively. Two instrument treatments
were used. These consisted of tensiome-
ters placed in the soil 4 and 8 in. deep.
Tables 1 and 2 give the weekly rates
and frequencies of irrigation, the total
number and amounts of irrigation added,
yields and increases in yield from irriga-
tion, and units increase in yield for units
of irrigation added. Results in Table 1
are on potatoes and Table 2 on cabbages.
Yields Compared
Of the 8 comparisons on potatoes, the
highest increase in yield 
from irrigation
14
the need. The instrument method re-
quired the largest number of irrigations
of any method and returned fewer po-
tatoes for the water added than any other
method. The graduated rate returned
103 bags of No. 1 potatoes from 8.7 ir-
What are best ways of determining
WHEN to IRRIGATE?
W. A. JOHNSON and L. M. WARE
Department of Horticulture
TABLE 2. IRRIGATION SCHEDULE, IRRIGATION ADDED, INCREASED MARKETABLE CABBAGE
AND GALLONS IRRIGATION WATER PER POUND INCREASED-2-YEAR AVERAGE
Irrigation Yield Increase Gal. irrig.
schedule Irrigation marketable marketable for each pound
Tues. Fri. per acre per acre increase
In. In. No. In. Lb. Lb. Gal.
0 0 24,477
0 1 5.0 5.00 46,423 21,946 6.19
/ '/2 9.5 4.75 
42,156 17,679 7.30
0 % 4.5 3.00 33,875 9,379 8.70
% %/3 9.5 6.33 50,483 26,006 6.62
(%/3, /2, /3)1 9.5 5.92 47,088 22,611 7.12
/ 1/3 2 16.0 5.33 46,268 21,791 6.65
2 23 11.5 7.67 46,528 22,051 9.46
1/2 1/' 11.0 5.50 42,493 18,016 8.30
1 Irrigation applied at rate of 1%/ inch twice weekly for first part of season, 1/2 twice
weekly for middle, and % twice weekly for latter.
2 Amount applied when tensiometer 4" deep indicates moisture level at 75% moisture
holding capacity.
3 Amount applied when tensiometer 8" deep 
indicates moisture level at 75% moisture
holding capacity.
SAmount applied including rainfall.
rigations, amounting to 5.3 in. of water
and requiring only 1,398 gal. for each
100-lb. bag increase in yield. The instru-
ment method gave 87 bags increase, re-
quired 9.3 irrigations for a total of 6.2
in. of water and required 1,949 gal. of
water for each bag increase.
In general, methods based on two ap-
plications per week gave larger increases
of potatoes than those based on one ap-
plication a week, and increases in yield
followed increases in the amount of total
water added. The important exception
was found in the method based on the
graduated rate.
With cabbages, the highest increase
from irrigation came from the %-%-in.
rate. This was followed by the graduated
%/3-1/-%/-in. rate, the %/-in. instrument
method, the 0-1-in. rate, the %/ instru-
ment rate, the /2-1/2 rule including rain-
fall, the /- in. rate, and the 0-%/-in.
rate.
An increase of 26,006 lb. per acre of
marketable cabbages was obtained by
the /%-%/-in. rate. For this increase an
average of 9.5 irrigations totaling 6.33
in. of water was required. By this
method, an increase of 1 lb. of mar-
ketable cabbage was obtained for each
6.62 gal. of water added. The instru-
ment method with tensiometer placed 8
in. deep required an average of 11.5
irrigations. An average of 9.46 gal. of
water were added for each 1 lb. increase
in cabbage produced.
In general, about twice as much wa-
ter was required to give each pound of
increase in potatoes as in cabbage. Ir-
rigation methods and rates based on rule
of thumb were as good or better than
those based on instrument. One of the
best methods is based on a graduated
rate with increasing amounts of irriga-
tion as the growing season progresses and
as the demands of the crop increase.
THE YEAR 1963 marked the first dec-
ade of publication of HIGHLIGHTS OF
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH. In this 10-year
period, the quarterly was increased in
number of pages and in circulation to
meet the response of Alabama farmer
readers and agricultural leaders.
The four Volume 10 issues featured
Animal Science
CROSSBREEDING COMPARED AMONG BRIT-
ISH BREEDS-Patterson, Vol. 10, No. 4. 1963.
DEHYDRATED-PELLETED PEANUT VINES-
A NEW ENTERPRISE FOR PEANUT FARMERS
-Anthony, Starling, Brogden, Nix, and Har-
ris. Vol. 10, No. 2. 1963.
DOES IT PAY TO LIMIT-FEED GROWING-
FINISHING HOGs?-Tucker. Vol. 10, No. 4.
1963.
MILK PRODUCTION OF BEEF Cows-Har-
ris, Anthony, Brown, Starling, Mayton, and
Smith. Vol. 10, No. 3. 1963.
Dairy Science
IMPROVING CREAMED COTTAGE CHEESE
QUALITY-Cannon. Vol. 10, No. 1. 1963.
MANAGING JOHNSONGRASS FOR HIGHEST
POSSIBLE MILK PRODUCTION-Hawkins,
Smith, Grimes, Patterson, and Little. Vol.
10, No. 2. 1963.
Farm Economics
ALABAMA CATTLE Go EVERYWHERE-
Danner and Meadows. Vol. 10, No. 4. 1963.
ATTITUDES OF RURAL RESIDENTS TOWARD
CHANGING JOBS-Dunkelberger. Vol. 10,
No. 3. 1963.
CHANGES IN THE SEASONAL PATTERN OF
FARM PRICES-McManus. Vol. 10, No. 4.
1963.
,FARM REAL ESTATE TAXES-TRENDS AND
COMPARISONs-Yeager. Vol. 10, No. 1.
1963.
LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR A $5,000 IN-
COME-Jones. Vol. 10, No. 8. 1963.
LAND USE CHANGING IN ALABAMA-
Clonts and Yeager. Vol. 10, No. 1. 1963.
LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION AND FEED USE IN
ALABAMA-White. Vol. 10, No. 4. 1963.
MANAGEMENT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN EF-
FECTIVE COTTON INSECT CONTROL-Strick-
land and Turner. Vol. 10, No. 2. 1963.
REGULATION OF TRADE PRACTICES IN THE
DAIRY INDUSTRY-Wilson. Vol. 10, No. 1.
1963.
SCHOOL MILK PROGRAMS-Wilson. Vol.
10, No. 8. 1963.
TYPES OF FARMS DIFFER-Yeager. Vol.
10, No. 8. 1963.
55 articles covering 15 major areas of re-
search. For your convenience, articles
published in 1963 are indexed here. Cop-
ies of Volume 10 issues are available.
Write Editor, Auburn University Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Auburn,
Ala., for replacement copies, specifying
the issues you need.
Farm Machinery
MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF IRRIGATED
CoTTON-Corley and Boseck. Vol. 10, No.
4. 1963.
Fertilization
COTTON GROWN ON GRAY, SANDY SOILS
NEEDS MAGNESIUM-Adams. Vol. 10, No.
3. 1963.
MINOR ELEMENTS FOR PLANTS IN ALA-
BAMA SOILs-Wear. Vol. 10, No. 2. 1963.
NITROGEN-PROFITABLE FOR JOHNSON-
GRASS-Scarsbrook, Smith, and Grimes. Vol.
10, No. 4. 1963.
SOIL ORGANIC MATTER NOT INCREASED
BY NITROGEN APPLICATIONs-Hiltbold and
Cope. Vol. 10, No. 2. 1963.
TEN YEARS OF SOIL TESTING IN ALABAMA
-Evans and Rouse. Vol. 10, No. 4. 1963.
Field Crops
COTTON VARIETIES FOR 1963-Chapman.
Vol. 10, No. 1. 1963.
CLIPPING HEIGHT AFFECTS PRODUCTION
OF VETCH FORAGE-Hoveland and Webster.
Vol. 10, No. 4. 1963.
DATE OF PLANTING RYE FOR SEED PRO-
DUCTION-King. Vol. 10, No. 3. 1968.
GERMINATION OF CLOVER SEED AFFECTED
BY GRASS ROOT ExTRACTs-Hoveland. Vol.
10, No. 3. 1963.
How GOOD ARE SORGHUM SILAGES?-
Smith, Grimes, Hawkins, Little, and Patter-
son. Vol. 10, No. 4. 1963.
IMPROVING FORAGE QUALITY OF COASTAL
BERMUDAGRAss-Patterson, Ensminger,
Evans, and Hoveland. Vol. 10, No. 2. 1963.
PROSPECTS GOOD FOR RESEEDING VETCH-
Donnelly. Vol. 10, No. 3. 1963.
TEMPERATURE REQUIREMENTS FOR GERMI-
NATION OF DIFFERENT CLOVER SPECIES-
Hoveland. Vol. 10, No. 2. 1963.
THICK SILAGE SPACING-GOOD PRACTICE
OR HIGHLY OVERRATED?-Patterson, Hove-
land, Andrews, and Webster. Vol. 10, No.
1. 1963.
WHAT CROP YIELDS CAN WE MAKE?-
Sturkie and Cope. Vol. 10, No. 4. 1963.
Floriculture
CAMELLIAS FOR ALABAMA LANDSCAPE-
Orr. Vol. 10, No. 4. 1963.
Index to Articles Published in
1-IGH-LIGH-ITS of Agricultural Research
1963
CULTURE-Cope and Mott. Vol. 10,No. 3.
1963.
15
SLOW-RELEASE FERTILIZER FOR INFRE-
QUENT APPLICATION-Furuta and Martin,
Vol. 10, No. 3. 1963.
SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA PRODUCES VALUA-
BLE FOLIAGE-Orr and Furuta. Vol. 10, No.
3. 1963.
Forestry
FAYETTE EXPERIMENT FOREST-McGraw.
Vol. 10, No. 4. 1963.
Fruits and Vegetables
PASTEURIZED REFRIGERATED PEACH PROD-
UCTs-Harris. Vol. 10, No. 2. 1963.
SOURCES AND QUALITY OF SOUTHERN PEA
SEED IN ALABAMA, 1962-63-Jones and
Carlton. Vol. 10, No. 4. 1963.
WATERMELON VARIETIES FOR ALABAMA-
Jones. Vol. 10, No. 1. 1963.
Insects and Controls
CONTROL OF HOUSEFLIES UNDER CAGED
LAYERs-Hays and Burks. Vol. 10, No. 2.
1963.
EFFECTS OF SPIDER MITES ON COTTON
PRoDUCTION-Canerday and Arant. Vol. 10,
No. 1. 1963.
NEW FIRE ANT BAIT-Baker. Vol. 10,
No. 2. 1963.
WHEN TO TREAT SOYBEANS FOR WORM
CONTROL-Begum and Eden. Vol. 10, No.
2. 1963.
Plant Diseases
APPLE DISEASE CONTROL IN ALABAMA-
Diener. Vol. 10, No. 1. 1963.
COTTON STANDS IMPROVED BY HOPPER-
Box FUNGICIDEs-Smith. Vol. 10, No. 1.
1963.
Poultry Science
CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS PRODUCE
BETTER BROILERs-Howes, Grub, and Rollo.
Vol. 10, No. 3. 1963.
THE VALUE OF GRANITE AND LIMESTONE
GRITS FOR LAYERS-Howes. Vol. 10, No.
2. 1963.
Soil Pests
NEMATODES AND PEANUTS-Cairns and
McGlohon. Vol. 10, No. 3. 1963.
NEMATODES VS. RESISTANT 
VARIETIES,
ROTATIONS, FUMIGATION-Minton and Brog-
den. Vol. 10, No. 1. 1963.
Weed Controls
CHEMICALS CONTROL WEEDS IN TOMA-
TOES AND PIMENTO PEPPER-Amling, John-
son, and Hollingsworth. Vol. 10, No. 1.
1963.
CONTROLLING CRABGRASS IN LAWNS-
Sturkie. Vol. 10, No. 2. 1963.
GRANULES OR SPRAY FOR COTTON WEED
CONTROL?-Corley. Vol. 10, No. 1. 1968.
THE USE OF LAY - BY HERBICIDES IN
MECHANIZED COTTON-Corley. Vol. 10, No.
2. 1963.
Miscellaneous
INDEX TO ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN HIGH-
LIGHTS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 1962.
Vol. 10, No. 1. 1968.
WEATHER RESEARCH PROGRAM FOR AGRI-
jLFOF (.001) sli.-) hals htiig htt;
fli ttltctitttt practices fotllowex ita crotp call
pl a it(I .
Secd Stttcks Fli to 'I lisl) \. This lonit
ofl At i i ci esitN Agi icitttil Ex-
jct itlictit Statioti has tlie resptttsilbility
ofiltaitttaitilig gciicticallx pitte fttttiilii-
lantiiig xcd. littis, .\Alitili fatinris
a~rc issirc(I (of high tItitlity 
1
)laiitittg 5(tel.
Wo trk tf' thc Sccd Stttcks Fairt is ill
clotse cooperationt jut itli thet AIlbama~ (op
tttttt. Sctd tl xi tics dcxclttpcd 1)tx -F'
ptr-inicot Statittit plattt br-ccdcis atrc slup.
(11itittit\ (ttts tto ttthti statc seed gitops.
A fttrttct Sttil Cttttscrx atitti Scr\ icc
ttttsct\ x tthe lS82 itt fitr ttt \xits dicdcd
tl-intoctt. ( pct attttl ttxas bcgttt itt 1954
tittlct ailtilittstt atitti ttf thec Iilatttiet
tof \gt tttttttt antd Sttils. Ai ttrigittil gratt
tt1itt Assttciatitttt aided ill ottttitts xwotrk
it xx a\-is tlt untit s mtajori su~pportitng
ctttp (bitt itig tbtc fitrst X cats ttt operatitnl
xxithi stili griiillx alstt ttf itll trtatc.
Wtheni A iihititi pb a t hr-ccdctx d c cit pcd
\tibii) t.56 cttontt, this x iltii c \\ filt c-
sistilt ttvxaitt iett cli tite Filtittis Ititist
ttf Autbuirn 56 is tisialixy abtttut 5t0 tils of
2.5 tttts thitat ir ctttricd.
itti andi tcrtiige tof cttops grtxx1 ttor 5t((l
itiits ttf the Eper-iocti Staitio Svstcoil
xxlct i1ri. ic. cittxcrs, otits, atl ai x 1(11 pius
(ttastilb ill iiarass stttittts. Scriia. at
tt xx Stat it tt tdec ct p( sc ricca. is now ttx e-
itita iticreasceb iiti xxii bet tiliiittiiticd.
FREE Bulletin or Report of Progres
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
E. V. Smith, Director
Auburn, Alabama
Permit No. 1 132-2/641IOM
BILL LUTA
-RUCK0'RD, A LA A MA
Auburn 56 cotton is the major crop variety
grown for foundation seed at the Seed Stocks
Farm. At right is foundation seed field of
Serala sericea, an improved variety devel-
oped by the Auburn Experiment Station.
Phy sical facilities o)' the Fat im g.ot at
b~ig b)oost w itht ctttllIpctlttf of it secd p~roc-
e'ssintg il( stot algt bitiil i ill I960. All
iJ~pprop iaLtimti of S859001) fitc 1 959
Alabama Lki~tisiatttc fiiiaticed cot istitic-
tinti t atiti proide is ailctjtiatc Ibulk stoi-
iagc spaice.
Ad(Iitioail (irs\ stotrage 1 acilitics atr
tiecdcel ftor bug timtt Seedl storagcr. Tlw
F arm attemopts tto lt ttail itt a r at xli
phis otf seed ttt (ttstit itt idctqtate Sit)-
JIillf casc ttf sccd 1 ailtit t.
A lttttttp ii tttit( ttf tltc Soed
Stttcks Fatrt is its sttitaltilitx it agrti
cititi l t scaic, w itt tttttci ttf tt( alct t
age equtippedl fottiriam. Nuhru
(ittc Ity I.SI)A Atgilici ii tia] Bcscarch
Staiti I. Statitoted alt thec Iltislt t11it
aric titi c AHiS sttil stittitists antd1(x tt
ilides.
s A*
0
Do lI -~
FOUNDATION SEED STOCKS FARM -
dedicated to producing pure seed
R. E. STEVENSON, Associate Editor
G. T. SHARMAN, JR., Superintendent
-V