SUMMER 1965
HIGHLIGHTS
OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
VOLUME 12
NUMBER 2
4..t
~
,. .4.-4-
4-- -
* -
* *
a.'
~.
-4-..-..
-4.'--
4-
-A
~ ~ -4.
4 -
.4.
--.-- *4~1~
- .4,
V.-
-4
* -
* . '4-'
I~
-4.
4 p
0
%
2
*'z. -
-
~ -4
,z~ .. ,. ,~
-* a
~ - -~
- -," .4 -~
.p~.,..
* 4,i~
a-~ -~
:
- h. -~
* -,, 4
4'. . ..
* -.-
.4 4. - -q
4'
r. 
--
V.
-4--
'-4'
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, AUBURN UNIVERSITY
H-IG-LIGHTS of
Agricultural Research
A Quarterly Report of Research
Serving All of Alabama
VOLUME 12, NO. 2 SUMMER 1965
Row-CROP MACHINE CAPACITY IN TERRACED FIELDS- De-
pends on Row Length, Row Direction, Type Terrace 3
PASTURE VS. DRYLOT SYSTEMS FOR DAIRIES IN THE GULF
COAST AREA - Two Forage Systems Under Test 4
BOLLWORMS ARE AS MUCH A THREAT AS BOLL WEEVILS-
Correct Timing Is Key to Control of Worms 5
GERMINATED SEED EXTRACT STIMULATES ROOT GROWTH -
When Applied to Various Plant Species 6
PYGMY CRICKETS - GUILTY OF DAMAGING WHITE CLOVER
- Can Cause Newly Seeded Stands to Fail 7
COOLING LAYERS TO OVERCOME DEPRESSED EGG PRODUC-
TION - May Help Combat Heat Stress Losses 8
How MUCH Do URBAN FAMILIES PAY FOR FOOD? - Some
Groups as Low as 220 Per Meal___ 9
SOURCES OF TRASH IN COTTON HARVESTING - Trouble-
some Material Identified in Auburn Study 10
DECREASING LIGHT SCHEDULE RESULTS IN FAST BROILER
GAINS - Yields Good Feed Conversion 11
MOST FARMS Too SMALL TO NET $5,000 INCOME IN TEN-
NESSEE VALLEY AREAS- 4 out of 5 Undersize ........ 12
HIGH CONCENTRATE LEVELS PLUS COASTAL FOR DAIRY
Cows - Do Not Ensure Satisfactory Production-- 13
CHEMICAL WEED CONTROL IN SOUTHERN PEAS- Impor-
tant Since Acreage in Alabama is Increasing 14
How AND WHERE ALABAMA BROILERS ARE SOLD - Most
Birds Go to Out-of-State Outlets 15
FINENESS OF FEED AFFECTS EFFICIENCY OF HOG PRODUC-
TION- Offers Chances for Added Economy 16
Of C oCeC' Field capacity of row-crop 
machines is influenced
by row length. Parallel terraces are conducive to long rows 
thereby
reducing machine time in the field. Fields without terraces or 
with
parallel terraces and long rows favor increased ground 
speeds of
machinery. Also parallel terracing systems tefid to reduce 
per cent
turning for row-crop machines. The influence of terraces on 
row
length, row direction, and row-crop machine capacity is being
studied at the Auburn University Agricultural Experiment 
Station.
Published by
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
STATION of
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
Auburn, Alabama
E. V. SMITH . -Director
BEN T. LANHAM, JR. Associate Director
CHAS. F. SIMMONS---- Assistant Director
KENNETH B. ROy --- ---- Editor
E. L. McGRAW........ Associate Editor
R. E. STEVENSON - Associate Editor
Editorial Advisory Committee: BEN T.
LANHAM, JR.; J. L. TURNER, Instructor
of Horticulture; R. R. HARRIS, Associate
Professor of Animal Science; H. T. Roc-
ERS, Agronomy and Soils Department
Head; AND KENNETH B. ROY.
PUBLICATIONS
Listed here are timely and new publications
reporting research by the Agricultural Ex-
periment Station.
Bul. 332. Management of Irrigated Cotton.
Bul. 337. Nitrogen and Moisture Require-
ments of Coastal Bermuda and Pensacola
Bahia.
Bul. 348. Relationships of Marketing Meth-
ods to Costs of Assembling, Grading, and
Packaging Table Eggs.
Bul. 357. Optimum Farm Organization
with Different Livestock Prices, Limestone
Valley Areas of Alabama.
Cir. 136. Nitrogen for Dallisgrass Pastures
in the Black Belt.
Cir. 146. Precision Irrigation with Solar
Energy.
Leaf. 22. Raising Crickets for Bait.
Leaf. 68. Cooler Homes from Attic Venti-
lation.
Leaf. 70. Serala-A New Sericea Variety.
Prog. Rept. 84. Rainfall Distribution in
Alabama.
Prog. Rept. 85. Early Thinnings from Pine
Plantations.
Free copies may be obtained from your
County Agent or by writing the Auburn
University Agricultural Experiment 
Station,
Auburn, Alabama.
Parallel terraces ore conducive to long rows
and reduce machine time in the field.
I VI A)i t ii li CA t.'(X) olif tito it iIt 1i2
I i ttit Sp cf( iii . iii ht it I I X liiih theX
(I111w oftI tX i t i I t i ] t r it i) i
Terrace and Row oLength
ttX C ti ii ii Iti iiX)(t io\ lltitX I l Xiai
1
)ttit it i itv' i I is il,t litil it ill
I l In t [ l (it tXXX S u It tX "X i itit i e lt
o tX o5 11w i t! iit I i ( I i tt It lil1 , z i tl( liii.
ti t FoX Ii I t I I I I11) Ii tIt it It XX i tgI!
XX (I icttii iit i
Merace CapacwLety
tt iiii XXii . tit So ] (o ls,.ito I p iX. ti' o i s it I iti
(oiittX X iX .1.3 itte v, lii' iitt XX it (1
pit 6 Xiit tl~l ilt , t iti tit io i t
1
)it'jt\ XX s
X \ ( l ilil I I i i w S\ I X t ll is i;I
IilIi - ti 'ttt ,,
lilt tillc t iI ic 1
lit( iill l l. I
-N
4',
Row-Crop MACHINE CAPACITY
in TERRACED FIELDS
E. S. RENOLL, Deparitnetit of Ajti cifturaf F g~eern
ittittitll the t(
I iiX (I it Tis I
tI li Oi. itl I tit
time It r 196.3
Ai tilltiX ofX ii
i lli4 i it fijii
pitt tlt! t(Il itt
t24tX ( It ill Tll
Tmiiii 2.
I Ii tX I (Itl
t\itt ii'
ci tpi.tX ,it\ (ici
itl.g, ttll', ( I
FX il lit jti'
( ft . )
, ap it.
'111tiviltol oil short poil it Tlw tillw per t Ill I I [or tlwse short 1'o\\ s
1-1-itc1c, Cliallild I I c( I I I ( I It Iv \vios (Irciltcl thill I f or low, 1-o\\ s prillial il\
to di(y illto tll(, t (,I rac-C beeillise tit(, torli ill-cit for short ro\\s \\iks
Illil-cs additiollid tillw to oil the terlace slolw. This cooditioli flulde
-ol-rectl , \ ildjll"to, d ill Id is it sollle\\ I litt di f ficl ilt to colllpl( te the birl I
difr( Iellco_, ill adjustilwilt illid illc] ( ased t1w ti if Toil lo tillie. Tli(
and 1964. Yreater tuilling tinic of' 14'!c r(,fl(,cts the
I 4-row eultivatoi operat- (,xtiit tfim, iwudcd per turo I'm- poillt I'M\s
with liollpill-illicl alld extlit tilrils 1wr iwiv. 1,111-11ilig tillie
s, itild \vitholit tcl-laccs is per ccilt lot- the parallel terlilce alvil aild
2. Olltkiltor cilpiwit \ wils the itivil \\itliolit U'l-liwes \Nils ( sselltiilll.v
t1w sillll( itild ilidi(-Acs it silllililrit\ of
L 1, 1 I\ OPP HATION 
I o\\ Illillibers ill)(I 
](,Tl(,tlls 1)( I- acre.
11( dllced ('111ti\ iltor cilpaelit ill tel -
I ilccd ill uits is it I efIcH ioll of lo\\ (,I. it\ (,I--
t( rrit( WI I'iWCS il"(, 111)('ed lot ill] 
to\\',' ill tit(' iticil. Oper-
tcrlitcc.s
iltilw the triloor itild (.111tiXiltor oil slop-
ill(T itleil of tli(. tcrril(v lislial1v calls for
extril eillitioll oil tli(. pill-t of t1w op riltor.
5.0 6. 4 7. 6 
Glutiol I I Id I )s 1)1.(,\ ( l 
it dito lilge to ])]it[ its
III It of te I I I eq I I i It's it led I I ctio I I i I I sp('ed.
1 1.0 8.3 8.5 Wlicil (.111tkiltilw short 
poilit I*o\xs ill
1,250 1,175 
1,125 the 
liollpalalld t( 
I'I*iIC(1 ill'Cil, the 
tritc-tol.
opelittor tcods to (11 k c A it slo\ver litte
1. 0 .1.5 5.1 thall oil ]oil" ro\ks. Thi" is I'(41ceted ill the
J('1111ilicd lot actlial till). 
dilferellee ill spe( 
ds I'ol- t1w t\\o
IIICIIKIC idl fi('I(l ItOj) itl)d t(TIiICVd ill-CilS.
(ititir s\XXc ii l hr bii
0 .6 ilcivs I)(,]- holir Illore ill the it I eit
icld A Ficid A, \\ithollt t( Irilo..(,s thill) ill llollpalilll(A tel -
rilc( S. ( itpilcit \ ill the parall(A tcrriwe
iffcil Will, "reatcr thall ill tll(, liollpill-alld
0. 0 t(,l riwe itivil, but \\ its k'ss thall t1w cil-
8.5 IA piwit.\ 
ill t1w ill-(,a \Othollt tcrriw( 
S. Evell
85A 90.0 
tholl(di the ](,])(,tli 
lol. all ficlds \\it,, 
Iwill-N
tll(. silllw, 1.o\\ iti-rillw('111cilt lot- Hit. lloo-
5A ) 6. 1 pillalld tcl-riw(. alcit ilot oilk resillted i!l
)lit \\itli It(,\\ tcr- 
solll(. short poillt 
rows, blit idso ilwivilsed
the liilTlll)(,I- of ro\vs per i1cre.
Conclusions
(;:
1
iwt it t of, XX (I it
1  
It titci i Is is itt-
I iX Xll aX Ii b\ it it(S X iii ( t i S iiIX
I
I
IT
PASTURE vs. DRYLOT
Systems f or dairies in
the Gulf Coast Area
J. H. BLAC.KSTONE, Dept. of Agrcultiural Economics
K. M. AUTREY, Dept. of Dairy Science
HAROLD YATES, Gulf Coast Substation
l1Vi,AIAI DAxiMxi ) MAN\xix litax chiiiiix olic Of Stx tuill xxaxS
ofi pidi i ig fliiist fii hix dtiji xherid. Buot, tire hlall(s
tihe xtli
Fitch ofi scx ti'ill tt'(liii.g xx tciiis that Inax' be liicd hasx
iliffii tiittx ill icud ciists per cxx 1. of iiilk proidutted. Siit'hi) has
itti thie catst xxithi piil t and coiii xiliwc ill the Guilf
('xix) A\il.
Two Systems Under Test
esiiiic~ iii th oiug oat S ihu a ti ta5. tis d F it'e it' lni tof
iiix . ( li t.1/il is lctit citoa xpii nstici iattill iOnetsihall
thi diix. i u'giixx, ill cr1o lxx tifo til1 ii xxiits thextil t
\lllt I-is i illc ow iiiilx ( 'frxail lycrtops ill)i n i ftit ill g. ilu il
tallc iii tl x oil c.iaiigp i l t's l ixil t liii uiloomt ixxizil Ilix.
xx ih iiill 1tiiu. uixtl i to itite 5. (.uixtaI ]fiix is ax iiilt'l
tliilx titllt xxtii c'oxxx. \ iolt c tiltia tilixx xdw ti) il tit
of x11iili\ o g ri l itt111 lii 1ii li lit\l il i i t xi it
Priiilictiiiii piir (,xx\, 4' *CNI1 I).
lix, x liti~ I lixt-Ilitfa
A(rs I 96;3 atil
196:3
2 x lir ixtcriig)'
1)rylt
g-roupi~
21.7
10,:343
4.19
8.98
25.9
4.18))
8 1 .9
:2.0)7
2.0)2
Pa'axiiure
g.roupil
2:3.8
10,475
:3.93
8.95
:32.4
28.9
.27
2.17
TIe ic owe~xr feci ciost of ix ilk p
1 
ioccd 1)ix the tirx'I tt ctoxxs
is iIicctlx i-clittil tii tilii xiligte Nitlix. hiticixiasd costs ftor
bothi gfrip s ill thic setoitld xtt cxltcd large.ly tunal ill-
xxtic iiiiic t iixtlx the sciixd x cx .. \t tiic xiliic tillic, tlici c
xx(]' crc11 tlcthiig)cs ill the in~puts iistd to pirodice at cwxt.
ott milk.
1T1c drlixvhit ttcth(iiig arildgeicitt is r-clutix clx Siimple fiir
lioldilil ad priinhig iiccdcd attciitiox to dajir coxxx. p
pi oxiiixttlx 2.5 coxx sart hielt il 4 iii'iii' land. Laioi aiid
IiililxtiCHit 
litciti tiii iiildiiigr, 
fccdiu ig aiid 
ixlox ill(, dxxx\
toii o 111( ioth tli( milk lxiii atre simlei anid stiidarich'cd.
Pu ix idit~ ig tiiig oil i if va-oiixt basis is hiss I ixkx anit ic-
quiies less laid thli lixt of it pastille Sstemi. Thie cap
1
ital
ioxiestintlit is soic higheri foir thie (rlht.
Flti t is Sioe iuidicitiiii thiat tht d xliit ii lgitwlicil places
xolinc ilitccl ticx s tilllIch coxf o it iitiicc and siii t ctlixxu
ats didi the ttxx ol paxtiiit. Alxo, tht 2-.x to stuii iiiticatcs
that tiiliii
4
( xxill bt sliglIitlx\ Iiilii liii tolt thixlii-0t girolup.
May Choose Best Adapted System
Eithe~r xx xtcmi tail lie nxct lbx most clad xiiiiii ill tiji ( 11
( >iaxt Ari a. Each systcim pi oxdcs ain oppoi tiIiitx tot liiakt
soilic xSubstituitionis bctxxcn lo
1
.ld labotr, cap)ital, iid Iixuiiagc-
iiut. E~ach tlaii x fari ii x ttilth ociii to ciiitsitir his altci.
liatixi ittive cr xiitiuig frii'ii iiiie sx'stcii to thie iitici. l)iixv
huh xx iimi arc ilitti cstcillii thcs) teiciig xx steinx ioi tliii (lxxii
aim11s xxoulid pmrofiit byx dcxcltipitig at piil of. oftgc i catii
sx shcI for thieir liilit. A\ ctmiparisoin of thc txx o lidii.cts Should
ilisxx ci tquestionis aititit thit ielatix cpriofits froiti thetxc txxo
xx stcIlls oil iniidu tal t d-iills.
fiilk. C iiwx iii the( (lix hiot, liii x , axi di fed 1 l1). ot, .41 %' xov
iiiii nial pci' dily pci- CONN' ill adlit ohl to thc gi iii irationi.
At the (')d of, a lactatioi pcjod. cicli cio\x ciliiigc groiips.
Tis tiiiia t cic is dlti i iidci to tiij itc ijitlixidital cowx
(Iilicitiicex. ("il[i siligi is It'd fict' clilict txx itt' tlii tii ctixxs
iii thci (l\ixot. Mlilk is niciistl cd xx vki xx ilt, loittelitt it old
si hs Ioait clitclui tiit if tit' iuilk, iic 11icixuil-ch xiiitlilx.
Results Show Little Difference
I illoxx dlig taiiie as ial iiil ax rat lox thi 2 x cm pciriod
ofi tiiti Stud\
THE BOLLWORM AND TOBACCO BUDWORM may cause as much
or more damage to cotton than the boll weevil!
The two, commonly referred to as bollworms or bollworm
complex, have been economically important for many years.
Recently, outbreaks have become more frequent and severe.
In addition, populations in some areas of the Cotton Belt
(exclusive of Alabama) have developed resistance to some
of the chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides.
Nature of Damage
Damage is caused only by the larval stage, which feeds
on tender terminal foliage, squares, and bolls. To prevent
damage, control measures must be applied while the larva is
still small, particularly during the first 3 or 4 days. If not
controlled, the larva may completely strip a cotton plant of
its bolls and squares. Damaged squares usually drop from
the plant and damaged bolls are often destroyed, either by
larval feeding or by fungi, which act as secondary invaders.
Two Generations Important
Bollworms, as a rule, complete 3 to 4 generations in a
year. Usually though, only 2 are of any importance to cotton
production. Eggs are laid individually on various parts of the
cotton plant by the gravid moth. Under summer conditions,
hatching occurs within 3 to 4 days. Upon hatching tiny
black-headed larvae begin feeding almost immediately on
tender leaf tissue. Six larval instars (stages), each becoming
heavier feeders than the previous, are passed in a period of
12 to 16 days. Upon completion of feeding period, the larvae
drop to the ground, burrow into the soil, and pupate. This
resting period is completed in 14 to 18 days and moths
emerge to begin anew. A female is capable of laying 1,000
to 3,000 eggs in her lifetime.
Field Experiments Conducted
Separate field experiments were conducted by Auburn
University Agricultural Experiment Station at its Wiregrass
Substation, Headland, Ala., to: (1) control bollworms, (2)
control boll weevils, and (3) compare application schedules
for most effective control of both pests. These experiments
were done in the same field of cotton and all treatments in
TABLE 1. INFESTATION COUNTS OF BOLL WEEVIL AND BOLLWORMS
ON UNTREATED COTTON, WIREGRASS SUBSTATION,
HEADLAND, ALA. 1964
Dates of observation
Infesta-
tion July August 
Sept.
23 29 6 12 18 27 1 10 17
Boll
weevils* 14 48 65 54 66 92 85 89 93
Boll-
worms** 2 22 22 8 14 4 6 2 10
* Per cent boll weevil-punctured squares.
** Number of bollworms per 100 terminals.
TABLE 2. YIELDS OF SEED COTTON PER ACRE, WIREGRASS
SUBSTATION, HEADLAND, ALA., 1964
Treatment
1st 2nd 3rd Total
harvest harvest harvest yield
Lb. Lb. Lb. Lb.
No control 850 154 31 1,034
Bollworm control 1,577 862 52 1,991
Boll weevil control 706 596 405 1,708
Bollworm + boll
weevil control 1,544 946 339 2,829
BOLLWORMS are
as much a threat
as Boll Weevils
T. F. WATSON, Department of
Zoology-Enfomology
M. C. SCONYERS, Wiregrass
Substation
each experiment were randomly repeated 4 times. In one ex-
periment - application-schedule test - the check plots 
re-
ceived no insecticides. Thus, cotton losses 
resulted from
activity of both boll weevils and bollworms. In 
the boll
weevil control experiment, all plots were treated with 
DDT
to standardize bollworm control. Therefore, 
most or all
losses in the check plots were from boll weevil damage. 
The
last test was concerned with control of bollworms; all 
plots
received malathion to standardize boll weevil control. Thus,
most or all check-plot losses in this experiment resulted 
from
bollworm damage.
To show the additive effect of controlling both weevils
and bollworms, a treatment from the application-schedule test
that was begun at the same time as the previously described
experiments is included for comparison with no control 
or
control of either pest. This treatment consisted of Guthion?-
DDT applied on schedule after 10% of the squares were
punctured.
Results Point to Controls
Both bollworms and boll weevils caused significant yield
losses unless control measures were applied. Heavy infesta-
tions of both occurred in the field during the latter half of
July. Given in Table I are the seasonal infestation counts.
Yields from the various treatments are presented in Table
2. A comparison of yields from the first harvest shows that
bollworms caused all of the yields losses sustained from that
part of the total crop. In the second picking, however, yield
losses were about the same, whereas boll weevil damage was
considerably greater in the third harvest.
Results in Table 2 further show the additive effect on
acre yield - 2,829 lb. of seed cotton - when both bollworms
and boll weevil were controlled. In contrast, when only boll-
worms were controlled, the acre yield was 1,991 lb., while
the yield from control of boll weevil was 1,708 lb.
This and other similar experiments at the Wiregrass Sub-
station have shown conclusively that the bolworm complex
can reduce cotton yields as much or more than the boll
weevil during years when the weevil does not reach the
economic infestation level until midseason or later.
Gi (RN lINA Fit itl) 4 SEED Ofi cnitlisi p' ilit
to o \\ in ol u ntitiiin uii t'iitc ixthis
Ill t l ill' cit of i lii. ilI i Ouii t fli t'it ii i 4
Il ilaill"(0 si .iwcd lhoi.c I" ('.\tf stlit'il
t tlit th hiit i11 sc it clitt'if itl ioc iiui
sI1lbe iii f 11si'd t I iit or ittii4 xxdc tiSnii ,itttf lx
illg 'unspit u''il x ll)i l(' u ' F~ h-itt (ss
at thc ii ii ors)iliil lls iti of Tcii ilnis i iii
showii5 t i it ci't'tuu s it al st A io iac Luim
d i'l t i - c iii iiii IC' \\i iii I i l it I i
It I iisc I i l't' sI c ix Ii iii ( uts i it iik
"uItiu\i tl.TItls o i'ittiii s ha iitii st itls ltl
sI ti I lia I t'l i Ifi 4i\\1 ii Ii Wstsi tIc Ast I It
Stittio 4I I ulf t (.i it s
1
t'ti('s \ iidc
1
i1ofuifs
I-is liii \\ t'd i ll iii u11 ' 1 1 1 i I it ilii ,iit
If llc ji't'
iisiialls ilili xx cak liinioiis ikil ii ailtil to
I lix ii ili 41 in tl i i i ti l 1 i Ii t' 4 \\x
sult ot tIc I' iffit'iiltx ill iilitiiuii sifis-
fxx ccii I thect'iifx l'tu ptiuulis thu ii4 ft'e
141. iitill" 4 uli tlili
To fiil ii the . tittiii xx atiotluI o
"'l-istil i(itSittI poo l o i s t t ili' lixl
litte ii i tt' i it l st ill" \\t ts 111 uhii iatusi
Iu t i tu x ltt o, th .rlilt (
xx thi x i il if i t i c it lliuc if e i ti' al i nl(
ttttll , It \\ i fiit 't'qiii\\ fii ht (I' x \\i tuii
I ~i ii t ti 11i i it ll )\ li iii io st i ii
:3i Ii llotflu til i t' iif lii 1511 C'o lius fit'(,s
1
(
I hiss tx i lit' e xtact till t'li il ii if
Stiiiil ifi li tt .itit' 12 iutelis stil
1151 b\ sthl ij lt -iii tlt' i' xt rct , i' . lix
res tltilu tlit ii lbt' stii i l l it I l1111 t'iw
i''titsI I o\ c\*s o c at ui t il exib t i t
GERMINATED SEED EXTRACT
STIMULATES ROOT GROWTH
.C. MOORE, Deprtumenti of Hoiuturew'
-"'5
'.4' ,7
'A
"WI
A'
- 3
right treated, t5) cuttings of althea, left treated, right untreated,
and (6) two leafbud cuttings ot camellia, left treated, right un-
treated.
t it f c l o I Itt i I I t \Xc i li i il i ' ii o ( 1 l
F (Ii iit ( ' 41 f ii i i i (Y i i!c
\, it,,il .i 2f)0 sti tt'i. A siiiilplC' oi this
I- (II itt ilt i .3 mil ihs il stoiiiw c.
B'i i ,( I i~ uhiiit'ui \ \\ 5 losS bfci tiitii 4
itit kix \ \ I to loot l ipitl Is l Te figiii'
sI iis 5 ficittil.iit liliti-cttid luau lix III-
ct'iitx Is iii uas oif till) x ittei . lt The \\IT-
1,iiite't lix piity\s we5 i dl'ipped't iii (11,
OIt'S sx ii h t teitt'. 'If' giic ilhi
showtis col tit'tik'ii iesuls bix 2.3. t1a
fldlint i ilt i xx a s li f it I itil li ii o
p(l'itl iit ;Icits (li 2d iliiuii ie p'ilclis
init tiwsi \\if t ii sii oi lit ii 2i , 19iit 65i
titiiid s 0 hu1111t tI' csilt \ i li, iibt \iiier
plce ltill sil st il hiT l" ci' xsldI i t iio \1 i ci
p lth/ )iiio' . t'fidctiii h s iiillit I. i hun
tid jal ii oh iid \\ ith iitl isIii 'lit l iist 5
peclat ooi l Of fli. c iie vh
T i~m im i 5 ISm lt iti. I
Y
Photos above show lM untreated hypocotyls, (2t hypocotyls treated
with germinated chestnut seed extract, (3) cuttings of yew, left
treated, right untreated, t4t crepemyrtle cuttings, left untreated,
f
Pygmy Crickets - Guilty of Damaging White Clover
E. M. EVANS, Dept. of Agronomy and Soils
MAX BASS, Dept. of Zoo/ogy-Entomology
L A SMITH,,,:,,, H W GRIMES, 131-
How pygmy crickets damage newly planted white clover is
dramatically illustrated by this Black Belt Substation corn
parison. Heptachlor treated area (left) has goad stand of
clover, but none can be seen on untreated plot. Insect that
causes the trouble (shown in inset) is dark brawn to block
and only about 1 2 in. long when fully grown.
-i
.r
~' ~ '7,~ 5.<e
jrj
I It'. I Iul ( I ~ s I PX lll 't t INCickt ll
loo like itheX iliii e of1 l l Itig i cix ut ill )-I
ii' lct " cai'li fll ill dccck Ii ilfl.lt Ilio -chi t
slil~ ht the Iy io cricket ciii 1w.
Ic t '. til'tl't XXpe1)1Xst of\iit over.
ti' I t i l iii rece t X c i l tI l't('( XX itli i
lititt'tl IX al df)Xpcrc hillX palj'k( t (Ic
w here it t i fill .It'(it l itI'tll i~t) X ilt'.
)('i'iltl'l d i'c lt t'' h Iii'llo till (tlligi. a'lXX
lilt 1 964. I I tst' itI IcoIrpIti it' .1 X I l'do
Ptt )rti tI.~ill'ie itf XX 'l'ittiti'ts ilco il : ( I dc
Xgies 2.5 p 2.55 It ils od degtstru'c'ion.t
it1i11 Soil 2(1 ft. X t iol wi'thIX till g i I d tii
tl'iitic i s; t 2) rates of' )ii liti I l iii
iiiitit it 2.5 ft. XX Le r ) iiC laid ilt of,)
tlltl'ip i'. ll ' lp itildl ('f it)sobc l t I9
litti 1).
Pr(ll I t 1-ili Ie i \\clc ollu il
lo piit itt
I f. p it .tijiiitkcd
1itei silliiturc
4. 2 2 1)Ifit lliti
8. .5 lit. dilitpui
9tit. 11). daitttio i lt
XX ( li Ii15til' ill strphavXirg ('l
plt o~i l prepara'k tiXX ai'l lthe' ts slio\\til
Itis iiiia' 7f~c t 96.5 lfli'('tX ii lo~ts
\'il it to XXi'll' X icidt it d l Ii c \tcs XX iti il
it Ills Th s illte \\('' it h 2)11 X1) of'til h l
itt fi '1.ii tii 1 ft X(ti 1 ' 1 fi.thof 't% gim-l
lug'.) per pfit)r a odclvrsals
XX I. i i cict s I er ou iciu 
1
tI ll t httet I Iii l
iiil lii I I itsti e X il i lit-a c
itfll i iiii X i k i iiIi'i lt lltiiili I
oili itac ll plot oil the 'tfiiill
L.11- 2.11.h p l c s \ , 111c o 
a t f l l
11.1 l.2 i tti I' tot tihts' lit II illig. ( o it v it li
.iX 8 i 12. cv (Iiolii.ss rpotd 
cxtc
PI-c-plitlit
preparatiolt,
POSSIBILITIES STUDIED-
Cooling Layers to Overcome
Depressed Egg Production
Caused by Heat Stress
J. R. HOWES, Dept. of Poultry Scien
WALTER GRUB and C. A. ROLLO, D
HOW HIGH TEMPERATURE affects the
well-being and productivity of domestic
poultry has only recently been investi-
gated critically. Much of the detailed
knowledge now available has been ob-
tained at Auburn University Agricultural
Experiment Station from long term
studies with growing and laying birds.
It is essential that such research be
done in the Southeastern United States
because this region has more heavy
breeder and broiler flocks than anywhere
else in the world. Furthermore, the re-
gion is increasing its turkey and laying
hen flocks at a rapid pace and, before
long, the majority of these birds grown
in America may be found in the South-
east.
Detrimental effects of constant tem-
peratures above 80'F. on growth and
production were indicated by previous
studies. However, certain advantages in
carcass quality and feed efficiency are
apparent with broilers grown at high
temperatures.
It has long been suspected that heat
stress may be cumulative, and that long
periods of relatively high temperature
may be equal to shorter periods of ex-
treme heat. Auburn data presented in
Figure 1 indicate such a reaction for
flocks of one strain of S.C.W.L. (Single
Comb White Leghorn) pullets. When
fed identical diets and maintained con-
stantly at 60% relative humidity with 14
hours light daily, equal depression of egg
production resulted from 64 days at
100
0
F, 108 days at 90
0
F., and 224 days
at 80
0
F.
In further studies during the past 2
years, birds were maintained in cham-
bers in which the temperature never
went below 50
0
F. or above selected up-
per limits. For one test group, the tem-
perature varied freely between 500 and
700. Another group experienced tem-
perature variations between 500 and
850, and a third group was exposed to
of Agricultural Engineering
DAYS
250
200
150
50-
FIG. 1. Cumulative effect of heat stress
on egg production is illustrated by graph
showing days required for production to
decline to 50% after the onset of lay.
fluctuations between 50' and 100
0
F.
Results from a full laying cycle are pre-
sented in the table.
Birds in the 500 - 850 regimen were
exposed to 3,350 hours of temperatures
above 70
0
F. not experienced by birds
kept at 500 700. Those in the 500 
-
1000 group encountered an additional
748 hours at temperatures hotter than
850. The additional heat that resulted
when temperatures were allowed to fluc-
tuate (more natural conditions) de-
pressed egg production, as shown by
data in the table. There was a similar
but more pronounced trend for egg
size. The greatest depressive effects in
egg production, however, were recorded
for the birds exposed to temperatures in
excess of 85
0
F.
In an attempt to determine effects of
cooling periods interspersed during hot
weather, another study was recently
carried out for a 6-month period. Groups
of laying birds kept at 80
0
F. were sub-
EGG PRODUCTION OF S.C.W.L. PULLETS
UNDER DIFFERENT TEMPERATURE
REGIMENS
Temperature 
Egg production 
by months
regimens 1-3 4-7 8-11 Over-
all
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pet.
500850
500-1000-
79.1 67.5 42.0 62.2
78.0 58.8 47.4 61.4
73.1 56.9 34.9 55.0
jected twice weekly to either 90
? 
or
100
0
F. temperatures for 2-hour periods
followed by 2-hour exposures to 
either
50' or 65'. For comparison, one group
was exposed only to 90
0
F. and another
group only to 100F., without any cool-
ing below 80'. Effects on egg production
are illustrated by Figure 2.
Birds exposed to 90
0
F. for 2-hour
periods benefitted by subsequent cool-
ing, with 50
? 
being better than 650. A
similar trend was observed for the birds
exposed to 100
0
F., but egg production
at this high temperature was depressed
for every treatment. Four hours of ex-
posure each week to 100
0
F. rather than
900 depressed egg production by an ex-
tra 5%, and a similar difference was en-
countered by all treatments involving
100
0
F.
Cooling an extra 150 was more bene-
ficial for the birds exposed to 100
0
F.
This indicates that stress from extreme
heat is more effectively overcome by
greater cooling. Further experiments are
seeking to discover the degree of cool-
ing required for maximum benefits for
laying poultry.
% EGG PRODUCTION
80
70-
90 00 90 00 90 00
50 50 65 65 --
EXPOSURE TEMPERATURES, OF
FIG. 2 Periodic cooling during hot weather
increases egg production, as shown here.
Given is per cent lay of pullets maintained
posure to heat and cold twice weekly.
MOST HOMEMAKERS want to feed their
families well at the lowest cost. From
practical experience they are aware of
the relationship of food bills to family
size, income, and kinds of persons fed.
However, few homemakers know how to
measure their ability as a food purchaser
against the performance of other home-
makers, or how much a nutritionally ade-
quate diet should cost. Recent food buy-
ing decision-making studies may provide
useful information for homemakers who
want answers to these questions.
During the past 30 years, home econ-
omists in the USDA have developed five
weekly food plans based on the National
Research Council's Recommended Die-
tary Allowances. These family food plans
are widely used by welfare agencies, in
home management classes, and for esti-
mating the potential demand for agri-
cultural products. Costs of food in the
plans, by sex and age groups, are periodi-
cally adjusted to current prices. The
low-cost plans include one adapted to
Southeastern food habits and an economy
plan.
The moderate-cost food plan is most
nearly like the typical American diet in
kinds and amounts of food. It was used
in the Alabama food study by the De-
partment of Agricultural Economics as
a reference point for costs of feeding
families with certain characteristics. The
liberal-cost plan allows for more ex-
pensive rather than larger quantities of
foods. The average cost of meals per
person in the low-cost plan is 290, in
the moderate-cost plan is 360, and the
liberal-cost plan averages 430.
6.00
5.00
cn
.J
0
C
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
Parents
Son
Daughter
White families in the Alabama study
spent an average of 340 per person per
meal, or $1.02 per person per day. With
an average size household of 3.3 persons,
these families spent $3.37 per day, or
about $24 a week for food. Negro fam-
ilies spent 220 per person per meal, or
660 per day. With their average size of
household of 4.0 persons, food costs
amounted to $2.64 per family per day,
or $18.50 per family per week.
Recommendations for amounts of
whole milk equivalent in the moderate-
cst plan were used to determine ade-
quacy of use of dairy products. White
families were consuming slightly more
than the recommended amounts. Negro
families had used two-thirds of the milk
equivalent needed for good nutrition.
Negro families used more evaporated and
dry milk, largely in cooking, than the
white families, but used much less fresh
milk and cottage cheese. Families with
low incomes and those with several chil-
dren were likely to underconsume milk
products. Not until per capita income
reached $1,200 did families use ade-
quate amounts of dairy foods, especially
fluid milk as a beverage. White families
had average per capita incomes of
- 6.07
Liberal. 65 5.31 %
cost 
5.54
//- ... " 4.97
4.3// 4.76
," Moderate 3.98
3.8./ cost .. \
- 3.54 
3"\ 
"
.... ' TLow
2.06 /w - 2.88 cost 
\ \
2 2.16 .. ... 2.33
S1.47
22yr. 27yr. 34yr. 38yr.
3yr. IOyr. I4yr.
l yr.
2
42yr. 60yr. 75yr.
18yr
7yr. I Iyr. 15yr.
$1,200, but Negro incomes were half
this amount.
To aid homemakers in determining
costs of providing nourishing foods for
their families, the moderate-cost plan
was adapted to a per-person-per-meal
basis, see table. Multiply the appropriate
single meal cost for each family member
by the total meals eaten at home over a
7-day period. The total for all family
members represents the cost of provid-
ing healthful food for your family at cur-
rent prices.
Homemakers know that as the family
increases in size and the children go
into adolescence, the food bill becomes
larger. In the figure, a typical family is
taken through the years from marriage to
old age to illustrate an application of
data in the table to food costs and stage
in the family cycle. The daily food costs
at three levels were calculated from in-
dividual meal costs by age and sex,
multiplied by 8 (meals per day). Spend-
ing this amount does not guarantee a
properly nourished family, but it does
provide guide lines for the homemaker
in planning her food budget.
PER CAPITA MEAL COSTS BY SEx-AGE
GROUPS, BASED ON MODERATE COST
PLAN ADJUSTED TO SEPTEMBER
1964 FOOD PRICES'
Age group Male Female
Cents Cents
Under 1 year .186 .186
1-2 years .233 .233
3-5 years .281 .281
6-8 years .338 .888
9-11 years .......... .390 .886
12-14 years .462 .424
15-19 years .529 .433
20-34 years .457 .400
35-54 years .424 .385
55-74 years - .890 .33888
75 years and over .. 376 .300
Pregnant women .467
Nursing women .533
' Family Economics Review, Consumer
and Food Economics Research Division, Ag-
ricultural Research Service, United States
Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.
C. December 1964. pp. 27-28.
Adapted from quantities of food needed
for good nutrition at the moderate cost level
at current prices. See Family Food Plans
and Food Costs, Home Economics Research
Report No. 20, 1962. Also see "The Farm
Index," Economic Research Service. USDA
August 1964.
How much do URBAN FAMILIES
pay 
for 
FOOD?
RUTH A. HAMMETT, Department of Agricultural Economics
Typical daily meal cost during the family cycle at three cost levels.
UVUCII~,CCOC~,III IVVU IICCUILIJ CLIIU cell ~/~/VIIVIIIY f~nlllP~ ~~
1~ 1 1 ~AA
Sources of Trash in
Cotton Harvesting*
T. E. CORLEY, Department of
Agricultural Engineering (Coop. USDA, ARS, AERD)
1 XiK X( ]IF iS tList 1 111 elii ii liiiiiitiiCi fiiiiii iiittll I iCikii (
iliil ~b it i , hli ill .\ xx ilio x it Clii iii a .t iic e
Ii N(4 iX ~i .u ll i iiid t(] iiltilg s iniiiiid ti i i ~ii c iil tiio
xiiilii diiliiiii il g s ut iiX (iiilii. Of ctll itiii i s Oiiitih u l iiire
bi\ in xx;sI c til il iiltiim' ,iiiii iii iiut Ile h ick ]ilt-\ iitxran
iiiki x sixcle uilifiio icii iiiol iiii id iot Aiiiim (iiiio
cli e i t i \ e pos iit tiii \ il Ii (4 iiitli ic i i i (i x iiiiXCriitmi
AiiI)Iii ixli .. \ii Axix i liiltili hi sIpeiixciit tit olii Ilu xx ixr
iil i mi t I it iiiii ofi1 III iii-cs ix (l i lilt lox xxi xx y rel i ti Ig
liii \ liitii e of trs ixiie pans.coc hil\cfn
tlii tlit tc I II CiiiiiijiiC, \\ it' I m l ii h t ,ifiwi it \\a dX ifii l t it
m-iiio cii illiof lil tr ii diocllrctlw hslil d id4i iil d1 c liic
Cdliii ii mtill ltol 1'/, of the totaijlm (Ii .li liiC i ii '3 tc iiiCrs
1((1ilftcl .(c 
c -14 .
r s o iclt 
f r c t h 
t itil 
lt t \,t
lsihIc toii (Zli i tc it li ( ami of . tr ifsh -i n c52 sxii ourtce.
'Fx~ tx iiii trsh \\nits atiie il acilil icit of tii J I x rc liii
flil~ xl Xiti I I iiiic ct o ii I icil )ill .2; , Ba e
() Ixi C i ll i t iii \ aliiii iiixl i i t\a v i ii ii l iii dw ii soiii hi mlli
lix c iai icii 14i 'ug
T W1)[11 oi itilixii XXIX 111 o lii .3 (% il Ci N62 i \\noI i t o
(2) liiusc axii afit er oll o d iiii, to 64/r id N61 (hl
4m 12 ill. tiain iXd a f i c ia o iiiCC (ii ton Biillhl ire CX ii
iii x oxiii ~ iiui li ctl (il iim. do ntoh, t X C xr ibt lili.cit coil-
.5)ts il i xh teiiad oi p iii a c ii .3%4 o t bo t lOl f Ioil xhil T
ttld c llisc o Y: Iil, 1 "rbrc , nd 2 "(iii(0n ife
, . .,
\\t ,'o difrlc.iltas.o'ul.b t\ c~ otl
-.\( majo ,, , .ng '
(~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I ltldtis \ sOti orco, oiiill~o
(2), /rlh fl h 1111o t " it " p c c i lt (o)
tlliltc t e c to . h sls clu l c alng f
ti isfo -cc mnic ap crspssbc
(3 ol rct olsilic j$t 2(cprtol fte il
th) tcs read was) ue ithe stud of sarc of oa trash. inhr
ves-lte e co tto. eft leaves, baoli l l ra t and l. graun d l h ier
(Ireoe and efre hafrvesting; rsihtnretdhck
C ORRECT LIGHTING for broilers is less costly to provide and
is easier to control than correct temperatures or ventilation!
Yet it is often given little consideration, even though re-
sults show that under normal conditions correct lighting will
yield greater gains than the most favorable temperature or
ventilation.
Longtime Experiments
Research at Auburn University Agricultural Experiment
Station with broiler light has been extensive and for a long
period of time. Results from the first tests show that broilers
grow faster during the first 4 weeks of age on 24 hours of
light per day than they do on 6 hours of light per day.
From 4 to 8 weeks of age, however, broilers grow better on
6 hours of light per day than under continuous light. These
tests would indicate that the amount of light should be re-
duced with increasing age. Results of other tests show that
broilers receiving 24 hours light per day for 2 weeks, 18
hours 2 to 4 weeks, 12 hours 4 to 6 weeks, and 6 hours 6 to
8 weeks were not as large as those getting 6 hours throughout
the growing period. The shock of reducing the hours of light
every 2 weeks apparently suppressed growth.
Further tests have revealed that the stress of reducing light
hours can be overcome by reducing the light intensity with
increasing age. Table 1 shows that broilers getting 24 hours
of light per day with decreasing intensity were larger at 8
weeks than those getting 6 hours, 24 hours, or 12 hours light
of constant intensity throughout the growing period.
Research results on correct light intensity for broilers of
various ages are given in Table 2. In these tests, broilers
started on 2 foot candles of light and reduced gradually to
1/2 foot candle at the end of the growing period weighed
more than broilers grown on other decreasing light schedules.
Light Schedule to Use
Poultrymen can use this decreasing light schedule in their
windowless houses by starting the broilers on 40-watt bulbs.
At 1 week of age, half of the bulbs (every other one) should
be replaced with 25-watt bulbs. At 2 weeks use all 25-watt
bulbs, at 8 weeks half 25- and half 15-watt bulbs, at 4 weeks
all 15-watt bulbs, at 5 weeks half 15- and half 7 
-watt bulbs,
at 6 weeks all 71/2-watt bulbs and at 7 weeks remove half of
GOOD FEED CONVERSION:
Decreasing light schedule
results in fast
broiler gains
D. F. KING, Dept. of Poultry Science
the 7
1
/2-watt bulbs. This light schedule will result in good
growth, excellent feed conversion, low mortality from picking
and cannibalism, less bruises, good feathering and extra 
fat,
high quality, docile broilers.
TABLE 1. BROILER WEIGHT AS EFFECTED BY DECREASING
LIGHT INTENSITY
Light schedule Weight in grams
Decreasing intensity 1187
6-hour light day 1106
12-hour light day 1051
24-hour light day----- - -- 1099
TABLE 2. BROILER WEIGHT IN RELATION TO DECREASING
LIGHT OF DIFFERENT INTENSITIES
Light schedule,
foot candles
1.5-0.0-
2.0-0.5
2.5-1.0___
3.0-1.5
8.5-2.0
2.0
Weight in pounds
Males Females
2.98
3.17
3.05
2.87
2.90
3.00
2.46
2.55
2.65
2.54
2.43
2.50
Average
2.72
2.86
2.85
2.71
2.66
2.75
Decreasing light intensity results in good growth, excellent feed conversion, and high quality broilers.
11
Most Farms too Small to
Net $5,000 Income in
Limestone Valley Areas
P. L. STRICKLAND, JR., USDA and
E. J. PARTENHEIMER, Dept. of Agricultural Economics
M OST ALABAMA FARMERS operate
farms too small to yield incomes com-
parable to those of their nonfarming
neighbors!
In the Limestone Valley Areas, non-
farm incomes of $5,000 are not uncom-
mon. An analysis was made by USDA
and Auburn University Agricultural Ex-
periment Station economists to deter-
mine the least amount of open land
needed to yield a $5,000 return to the
operator for his labor and management.
Results indicate that in 1959, 81% of
the farms in the Limestone Valley Areas
were too small to yield such an income.
Method of Study
Analyses (linear programming) were
made to determine the minimum open
land and other resources, and the best
(optimum) combination of enterprises
that would yield the $5,000 return. To
further analyze how future changes might
affect the optimum, estimates were made
for selected cotton allotment levels, cot-
ton prices, and values of open land.
It was assumed the operator was avail-
able for full-time work on the farm. Sea-
sonal labor could be hired to do crew
jobs and odd jobs at 600 per hour. The
operator owned one new and one used
tractor and a full set of land preparing,
planting, and cultivating equipment. He
also owned a one-row corn picker. All
cotton produced was custom machine
picked. Interest and depreciation on the
owned machinery were charged as farm
expenses.
Enterprise cost and returns budgets
were estimated, using the best manage-
ment practices currently used by top
farmers in the Areas. The crop enter-
prises that could be used and their yields
per acre were: cotton, 700 lb. of lint;
corn, 65 bu.; oats, 70 bu.; wheat, 40 bu.;
soybeans, 22 bu.; alfalfa hay, 4.5 tons;
lespedeza hay, 2 tons. Livestock enter-
prises were: hogs, two 8-pig litters per
sow, per year; beef cows, 90% calf crop.;
and steers. Achieving the assumed cot-
ton yield will require less improvement
12
in management for the average farmer
than that required to achieve the other
yields.
The prices expected for these com-
modities were: corn, $1.05 per bu.; oats,
$0.80 per bu.; soybeans, $2.20 per bu.;
alfalfa hay, $34 per ton; lespedeza hay,
$28 per ton; fat hogs, $16 per cwt.; and
fat calves, $22 per cwt. A cotton price of
31.20 per lb. of lint was used to ap-
proximate current market conditions. The
current agricultural value of an acre of
open land was estimated at $200.
Results of Study
The minimum acres of open land re-
quired to yield a $5,000 operator labor
and management return range from 97
to 117 acres. (See Table.) Further
analysis indicates that the corresponding
requirements to yield a $7,000 return
are 180 acres and 155 acres.
With 31.20 cotton, the optimum enter-
prise organizations included cotton to the
allotment limit, oats, corn, hogs, and beef
cows. As the cotton allotment increased,
corn acreage and sow numbers de-
creased. Oats acreage remained the same.
With a 260 cotton price and $16 per
cwt. hogs, it was more profitable to pro-
duce corn and hogs than to produce cot-
ton. (See Table.)
The big increase in acreage require-
ment for a $5,000 return occurs when
the land value changed. However, chang-
irg the land price did not affect the rela-
tive size of the enterprise. For farmers
who already own their land, land values
could have little effect on farm income.
For those who need to purchase addi-
tional land, the effect of the increasing
land values could seriously hinder their
ability to pay for land and make a fair
income for family living.
The small number of beef cows in
these plans utilized the available un-
plowable open land that was not used
by any other enterprise. This small num-
ber of cows could be disregarded as an
enterprise with little effect on the net
income. For farmers who have a higher
proportion of unplowable open land, beef
cows could be used to utilize this pasture.
Summary
Although the estimated farm sizes to
obtain the $5,000 income are small
enough to be family farms, they are
much larger than the present average
farm in the Areas. According to data in
the 1959 census, four out of five farms
in the Areas had fewer than 97 acres of
open land. In 1959, 91.5% of the farms
in the Areas had fewer than 155 acres
of open land. These acreages are the
minimum required assuming highly
skilled management levels. Therefore,
most farmers in the Areas now have too
few resources to consistently yield an
average of $5,000 to operator labor and
management.
The family farm in Alabama agricul-
ture is not doomed. However, if the
operators are to receive incomes equal
to their nonfarm neighbors, the size of
farm must continue to increase and the
number of farms will continue to decline
for some time.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR $5,000 NET RETURN TO OPERATOR LABOR AND MANAGEMENT:
SPECIFIED COTTON ALLOTMENTS (PER CENT OF 1963 ALLOTMENT), COTTON PRICES,
AND OPEN LAND VALUE PER ACRE, LIMESTONE VALLEY AREAS, ALABAMA
Situation
Item 100% allot. 115% allot. 
85% allot. 100% allot. 100% allot.
31.20 cotton 31.20 cotton 31.20 cotton 260 cotton 31.20 cotton
$200 land $200 land $200 land $200 land $400 land
Open land, acres ------ 98.2 97.1 99.2 105.7 116.9
Cotton, acres----- 17.7 20.1 15.2 0 21.0
Corn, acres ------------ 46.0 43.1 48.9 66.9 54.8
Oats, acres ------------- 16.2 16.3 16.2 15.8 19.3
Pasture, acres 18.3 17.6 18.9 23.0 21.8
Beef cows, No-....... 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.5 5.0
Sows, No. -17.5 16.4 18.7 25.5 20.9
Av. invest. (exclud.
land), dol.. 11,820.00 11,563.00 12,082.00 13,682.00 12,791.00
Av. ann. operating
capital, dol. 2,519.00 2,456.00 2,583.00 2,974.00 3,000.00
Seasonal labor
required, hr...... 197 197 197 195 234
I 10)4 IEEilN(.G 1 \I SAN 5(1 511 N I Cdiil
restilt ill lo%% pro(Ilitoll ill dii c (.05
iligill 111(1? Lietiltioii at at high leve (Ilit
orail a t actdt of b.totalill (d4l
l studiet lit fth (Il ialiig lchs rl I 1ittil
lxxii tllt\ -it 1(11 (IS5 IAgii g lt rl l)i itl
ioci frtilio:36 ltt io lb. 10 d yIst ll of
cow 144 55 llilld ~ s to itil til tilitc 'ai
11155ste thatfr 1( the j11it~(ii ts II :3)iolii
oft fciig (fails.C)(llif atl\cvt pslilt
ant \i igh iiillt f WiIiC fd l li t lit das
ssil atth kt of gi1 11). gi a c 3-i 11). a
1111455 ti
1  
ss it a tild v waos t ( ( ati tst
a 4itii.bih, il' to C(\ g a 12 iiiCoastli
aotl Iti ili/ ( s s (1lb.i il prst i c
patimii s 5 It ut iniiei. i ol\s
G. H. ROLLINS
L. D. GUTHRIE
Dept. of Dairy Science
'vs.
'4
~ ~: ~
:1~,~
High CONCENTRATE Levels + COASTAL
Inadequate for DAIRY COWS
lilcits A~ , B,oand (' s\-is siiiiifii 'l'ald 1.
(:11555 ocis lug tu-cti Intit I) pi idliitd
'ilxiii l. \ixxll xii \tiKltio i cloINe
oFi ('O\\ S;u OtAINn('ox CAIA ANDi MLLET
Tritt.
Stiali . p'r Espt . pi
Fitch ialii* iipuisilits oncal fort 6i u.uivs.
Co\ aialiou aliiil\ sis \\.its iisii tii adjti)
fur- iiffi'ioiic'i ill 1(,sil tif' produutii during
fuor tiv itiits A 111(1 13 sxr tint lilar. sti
grafpli, told rtc of' dttliuit wxas gi tatti
thaiiuiormal. Thus, (te almost 50% Iiiolt
conI itliti lites tioiislilet'(f 1)5 \ usx rt'ctis
50 -
40
c)
35-
3 0
-J
Normal 
:
Si andor dizton
period
A -
C
D -
Exoperimental period
5/31 6/7 6/14 6/21 6/28 7/5 7/12 7/19 7/26 8/2 8/9 8/16 8/23 8/30
WEEKS ENDING
Mean daily FCM per cow by weeks for groups of cows grazing Coastal and millet forages.
2i. Coii i i so ()I \SliiN S'm il(
(oxixi. (C55 xi sXi \\ ri i
1I 1. 1, h. IJ). Lb .
A 'S, 725 S,165 (. 1 18
B3 I is:: ) 5 12,0)7) 01(66 4
C 191)4)1 -,995 0. 1-2 +I 9
1) 21,:39 1 7.95 1 0.:36 18
PI iitt'iu Ct it'ilt 0I' Iolilli't hlar' r\ as
figlii' thui thit of (:i;isial Tlcil :3.
ticttiitt 1) wxas Iii igli tI iii that fol
tiiiitiltuits A 111(1 B, but1 \\w's huot sig,
13 oggeslth t1iliilthlb tht ao t'(iitllitu ts
(lc'pi tssd both iiitakt aiiat digicstililits.
(lilcuulition i f iii Il iiiti iiit ii tiki 111111
i'iolt'('iti itt's il
1  
fuuu agt s I(\ cis t h fat
('1155 (mi ti iitiiii ts B, C ll 1I) cion-
d(gtstile 111111 rilts I I )"\ / to iiajultilii
p1 idliutioii t'oliifti'il~ to that thuii ig
thei stili (lji itjiiiI pti id. ( :os\ s ol
less than thie i(fluiiid I \. Thius, feed-
ii ig highl Its ifs of, u-oitatc ito' cows
graizigI( (:tiastafl dots lilt (.115111 t satisf atc
TABL xiii3. (SiiisilsiIll) OF 1 C aD lua i IA
(Si rti d 
ol (11555 xi \ l ii 
l
Pct0. lull b. h
A13.8 2.10 54.4
B 1:3.8 1.701 52.5
C 2. 2(16 55.5
1 )7 i.9 2).: 1 58.2
Cusss i.,i u'i both11 n i
f
42
CHEMICAL WEED CONTROL
in SOUTHERN PEAS
W. A. JOHNSON and H. J. AMLING
Department of Horticulture
I II ]It r IN ' S~ gI' iiX\ X ( ) IS~i II
lI ti I(q O I ' i l- t(( it I 1 11 )1 1 i t. qI Io - I i
shotiiiit', ii Iitcgiiiii~ Io :35 t -i \(c A
I,,iollltha lis I l.lc t I9c4adIl d'i.
Bcliiiii XX itt iliatit' 'A its ill Irocess
iog crt p pla tll i al a tlt iliva g isilat
ouil c XXtit ilhitciii't fori XXc ct l Ciitr i s11 a
tinit ol iii! lo o i )li'~ot X '. i iiIl
tiii. \(Ib~ ii llN 0 itfiA
Staiontoevaliac Resulsig cbcdc
Illt li Xi'ii X c liiio to ilt XXtlt Sith oi ls.~t
(Yr1 l t pt as PtiXll tlti hull aiil 1I964, 97tt
both t'ir, pr oducttd gretatter v id' thinl
liliti~ to texce'llent inl all] tivttot'it'. Ill
Recommendedll Herbicides c\r go
II lritill
Kindi
IDauthal
I St Ilal
I )It thli
I illaill
Ai llilwil
D iphlii laillitI
l'i liclaild
( l - k liii!
.Nl(.tllo(t,
of
applicatioll
Post-plitlit
Post-plant (1)
Po t-plallt
Poi t-plallt
Post-plailt
Ple-plailt
Prc-plallt
Poi. t-plailt
Po. t-plitnt
Post-pla I It (I
Poi. t-plallt (1)
Poi. t-pl;lllt
P(rt-plallt
Post-plailt (1)
Post-plailt ( I )
I'
A
4' 7
"1
YIicld!' pur at ii
ittc contro
19 01)~ 1964 19 1) 1 9(54 1 96:3 1 9641
Lh.
4, 162
4,856
-524
.3151)
0.).
.5,47)0
5,:8,5
.5,(62:3
4, ht) .5,51 I
5,514
4,9 t 1f .5 17:3
.5,672
5,697
1 965
.5,881
[01~l 4,811
4, ;t .5,781
8(6 9. 6
9.9
10 0~t ((50
10 0tt
9.)7
10 t0 10 0tt
10 0xt
9.7
9. t9
0.(0 01.10
1.8 tA3
0. i5
8.3
0It)
0. 9
011 0 0.t
, Post-plitlit: 11cl-hicidc Itpplic(I saille (lit% 
iollo\6111, plalltillt . Post-plailt (1): herhicide 
ill)-
j)liCd iLt Cl_ WkilHl' :3 days after plaitting. 
Pic-plitlit: licibicid('s applic(I beforc plitutin,
alld \%ol-kc(I illto soil \X i I It a roital.\ tillcl.
Batill, of 0 1cpIc'scilt no control all-I 10 colliploc control.
11101IN ratill'-, of' 0 replesclit, lio iljjllr 
;111(1 10 ( milplet, kill.
4'
e 4i0
I' 'I
Plot at left received no herbicide, center plot
was treated with 4 lb. of CIPC and plot at
right received 8 lb. of Dacthal per acre ap-
plied in a 
1 4
-in, band over the planted row.
pt u. It is, likcl, that 'OX tida othier liti 1)1
I tic, 1d il l X t h i I a', \\ili litd I c le CX'
fo )atla Xitlii pits2 day,Ical tli litiii(4
'tji i'ACt 8 1.przCi- t'tai did io 14i OXX tlit for
"0t0id hut altW'll or ti11C (II t Sal ltd'l
iraii) ll \\~ XXoids lSuit its ii rida pliiioi
i ilir aIt it d XXse bot pr-lot alltctrpd
rilte an i t t 4 ai t ot Iillcpt'iaia d d ii td
Siotl' ac iddx gitiiicditoliol \,itst
1\1 IJ [ACE OF I IE I I I i I( 1DF, oN 
\\), 1. 1) (],N'l 1101, AN I) Y] ELDS 01, 
SOL-I 11FAiN P F XS
PRODUCTION OF POULTRY and poultry
products is a leading industry in Ala-
bama. And broiler production is an im-
portant segment of this industry.
The last 10 years has been a period
of rapid expansion in the State's broiler
industry. In 1953 Alabama ranked tenth
among broiler growing states, producing
28.4 million birds (2.97% of U. S. total).
By 1963 the State had moved to third
in the nation. .Production that year
amounted to, 228 million birds, repre-
sent 10.84% of total production in the
United States. Broilers produced in 1964
approached 250 million, with total
pounds of broiler meat exceeding the
combined total of beef, pork, and mut-
ton produced in the State.
Since Alabama's population growth
has not kept pace with broiler produc-
tion, larger and larger proportions of
broilers move to out-of-state markets
in deficit broiler regions. Broilers proc-
essed in Alabama plants in 1962-63 were
shipped to receiving points in at least
19 states, according to results of an Au-
burn University Agricultural Experiment
Station study of 12 State processors. Of
the total processed, 87% was shipped to
out-of-state markets and only 13% went
to local markets.
How Broilers Are Sold
Wholesalers and food brokers were
the most important outlets for Alabama
broilers, accounting for 71.6% of total
sales. Chain food stores warehouses were
the outlets for 19.9%, followed by com-
pany distribution houses with 8.0%. All
other outlets combined accounted for
0.5% of sales.
The proportion moving directly to
chain food stores increased slightly dur-
ing the 3-year period in which informa,-
tion was obtained. Obviously, chain food
stores are the dominant retail outlet for
broilers. Probably larger proportions of
output from processing plants will go
directly to chain warehouses in the fu-
ture as adjustments are made in market-
ing channels.
Most Alabama-produced broilers were
sold in fresh, ice-packed form - 91%
whole and 2% cut up. These birds car-
ried no brand name. The remaining 7%
was sold as frozen birds and almost all
(6.5%) had the brand name of an Ala-
bama processor on the wrapping ma-
terial. Only three processors were freez-
ing a significant proportion of output.
Where Broilers Are Sold
The proportion of Alabama broilers
marketed in each geographic area for
1962-63 is shown by the map.
Proportion of Alabama broilers marketed in each region in 1962-63 is shown by the map.
Locational advantage of a supply
source was highly important in determin-
ing the relative profitability of various
markets. The most profitable out-of-state
markets for Alabama processors were
located in the Great Lakes Area. Im-
portance of these markets is exemplified
by the metropolitan area receiving the
largest proportion of Alabama broilers.
Given below are the standard out-of-
state metropolitan areas receiving at least
2% of Alabama broilers:
Metropolitan area
Chicago
Detroit
St. Louis- - -
Cleveland---
St. Paul
Los Angeles-
Milwaukee--
Louisville
Miami
Grand Rapids
New York
Proportion
received
25..2%
12.8%
4.7%
4.0%
3.4%
2.7%
2.5%
2.5%
2.4%
2.3%
2.0%
Seven of the 11 out-of-state metro-
politan areas receiving 2'% or more, of
Alabama broilers were in North Central
States. If locational advantages of vari-
ous sources of supply are considered, re-
ceiving points located in these states
should remain relatively attractive among
out-of-state broiler markets during fu-
ture years.
All processors with freezing facilities
reported selling some frozen birds in
foreign markets. However, less than 1%
of total sales were to foreign markets.
Competition among supply sources
was keen in these out-of-state markets
and is not expected to diminish in the
future. Therefore, operational and organ-
izational adjustments will continue to be
necessary for all segments of the indus-
try. Prompt action in making proper ad-
justments can be a major factor in help-
ing Alabama's broiler industry maintain
a favorable competitive position.
15
Ho ad 7vhore
ALABAMA BROILERS
ARE SOLD
MACK N. LEATH, Dept. of Agricultural Economics
Relative grinding rates of feed mill with
different mesh screens is illustrated by
amounts of feed placed in front of each
screen in the inset photograph. Screen sizes
tested, left to right, are 5, 16 in., 7, 32 in.,
and 8/i in. Efficiency of feed ground to dif-
ferent fineness was learned in feeding com-
parisons made in hog barn shcwn.
ager~d 2, per kdialtttit xxm tvi dtcr
Fineness of Feed
Aff ects Eff iciency
of Hog Production
V. L. BROWN, Superintendent
Low~er Coastal Plain Substation
ig thirttugh tiit tiihreiit sieves (mesh
1Iietsll 86.51 68.01,; .55.5',
2)0 Inisi 49.7' , 41.4, 1 34.01)',
:3( i'sii 21.0)'' 16. 1'1 1-4.21111
'i it' elettie inttt puillinig theltil \'itsa
(i(i iipptd xx ith at panll litetr tot inldicatc
fiii inlttn loadt. 'I'l( fltixx ofi eni iid
stipplt'mt'ilt ititti tile mlill xx'ax adjusted
to 
1
)lict tiit saint j)nxx ii Ita lo ioil thet
inaotti xx iti aill sert't'tt sizets. I unit]', eat
Sco l) 
apaityl
Melitiiii 1,35 1) i.
CoarsI 165611).
Cos pertt'
tol
9.09c
.I. I 14
:'.3 ('
liatt' iid tl eitio- ox (td gll \\,its
leairned iii I t'tiii tests xx itit 144 1 litop-
,itid litter for fectliiig tit fitic, i1((ilitn,
Midt coett gionid raitixl. llciiltx aire
Eii)trtt't ill the tale.t
Asx slittxx i y h litst rtesults, pigs fted
ltiglicst I .tt. Av'ioag gain xx as tiht sint
foir thotse tin fitle ili Ctoarse grondt ia
Lions. Fced tffieieittv \vax diiic'tiv re-
li teti tot finlci t'ss of ogindinig. PIte Ie-
tpliieti pet Illiiitiredx tight gatin \vett
dittxx i s th ed \ its 1U(( oit itrec fit l\
gitin i Id.
1L1 TC OP itii iNt :NiS' tOt (8IiNnIIN( Ftt tiN PEti IP'io\i Nt:-_ O in (ts INt-F ,I imit;t ItS
QT inN iNt. COtHiN lt 110(' iu s it pi)Itltie
it ditug ii Ittil x a iit til iwlitixs tI tiNl
ii tin hog git il
.\liuttTgli iaw of gfaii ix iiiceeased,
cotltiest of It'td pi ut.'ssilig. l)telut
1
)
int'iit ofi sitill], ii~ xx III~ x t Ic ed pirocexss
it ig t(il ipfintilt cttt't ii ittiest ill nilt the
itii ts.
Itioiiliig at tsxxt'us to Suieh tp ecstittuis
xx'its tlti iiilt of' nit tt'st at the ILixx v
tptititi t) xx'its gi Tituid to x ,r',it g degie's
ofii li ii ttsx i isii, i g siltahl, ttecti ieilxh
piuxx it t'loiiill. Haite aui 1(1 cclli ix , ni ti
itil ti lc its.cs -c llcoos vr
TllC( cit et 'ti si/txs xx ti t selected. Fit it
5 161 iii. Pautic ,,11 izt's \vxii itlittifitti b\
st'
1
iliatiitg xx itli sit x ts of tine tiitts t'st
Ax Ii nigt iii l wxc'ighlt, 1s.
A\ iht_-t fial -wiit,1)
Avci itin 5 ii ). 'i
Ax etagec diu,ti t.~,ijt l1).
liesilult, i\tes ris)iotut
48 48 48
(62.46 (61.96 6 1. 4:3
188.48 195.41 189.20)
12(6.02 1:33.47 127.77
8 1.33 81.24 82.98
1.55 1.64 1.54
423.01 4(65.:3 464.3
:35.7 :348.6 :16:3.4
FREE Bulletin or Report of Progress
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
E. V. Smith, Director
Auburn, Alabama
Permit No. 1 132-5 /65- tOM
PI.ALTY FOR PRIVATE USE TO AVOID
P AYMENT OF POSTAGE, $300