HIGHLIGHTS
of agricultural research
\() I'd !PI P won new[ 
" ,
Agricultural Experiment Station
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
'\lK\S\\WlI1AS itxc thei xxiiiiii 
to ink
thei cold( o it l i lltit-i(. Pe'rihaps tit~IIiti2
Ili(-fo i t alx 1 (t Ithe licens t 11 11 iii iti lit 
10i i s
I \ i ll. lxt (, i -lxini t 's ( l'! li ilit it 
lo t- iii 'IIlc t
I1thI c t li t I n\ i'',t' lit (lii X ''ih I i it ( 
liii i\ I atId!I 9
it,1, htoi h it jW i \ ,ilt'g 0 I tiiteI lit illiX 
fnip'ic tlI(t
oX It Xititeiitlt2 sciclc, xllp il t ha ilt'S lioi si t 
i t ul tutt g tiitt
Responiis of Bragg of bast eaiie
sipl ethods for Ctring Sl\c \\cors 
i tn igsn 4tI(i)Ict
Ioc ur tii jt Essetilitlk for Yuch 
Arrow leafcs 5eAd fil
Charactoest icsl f Afabama'",s , Poplationl 
6airl -silc o
Seicleotd omelpetitiaconrli Cto
Cos t ran Rerns a t~ iil of Producingili Grad 
AtMilk
ow Muchlilt N\ed for Winter Annua 
Legu e and Grasses
2
12
Grond Bef Qusal]iy, Prie Afctr Prfeene 
1akI j3'
Vei ediles infete Corn c~ac MiuS\jll and Sorhu Virs 
ron 1
Homemaker11 Prehllferenc e fr ood lesinlcfoma11tini 
15flllisl
Ctollig etrafic -alicreases tton (ields 
16hc(11lsool
.lttillo t iiiti l oil
xftttiiillid' li(Ilil\ A I a i q f
Ott lio Lo) ll ii ntSil
tiltfix it I Hei it l iit biti
itt' xttiti\ and1, i le arlt ( i l li2\ x tI
xhoi iti t ill tiIlii i 1(1xmt 
xi
Illero li' tot' iiti i ig l i op ntii
Ill itiif lxii i l t he reiit thu -I li
Itt:l Is I p ) k eII IliIIiI
HJI HLI HT ofi co lolc
Agreiculturl Researdo ch(
SUMMEk 1972 VOL 19, NO 2
b\x the Agi ittiltilia IKxperiit Sltauti
ofi Aiiii-ij t'Uixerxilx , Aiihttiio 
\IAl ititl.
El. V.- S\tiiiu
11. 1). fluit -.
0'i x1 i".. Spl.\IIo's
TI. El. ('ttt
E'. 1,. \h (1AWx
11. E. Sil lXLNSI)N
.1. 1). II 
\(l t
IMic/or
'stti ) ill rco r
I'.ditto
.Xssjciatc Edtitor
Hot si: Joii". LAWRENjCE, i, I'uft-Stt oif
I'jxlucs anduit Allii A -qitacul/lilt's; Roli-
iev N. - BE xx El, As-xistatif I'rtft .x-xr ofj
Pouiltryj St-h ticc; C. C. KINxG, itl. Ax xo-
0-atu' Prifcsxsor oif Aituooiy and Stoilx;
AM)t F. 1- N\1 CutA\\.
ON THE COVER. H. F. Yates stands be-
tween a treated and an untreated plot of
soybeans as described on p. 3.
Resipows of
P RO[9RIGUEZ-KABANA
Da .pf t ony ond M-J...11
T I sOkIii huh i s i i t I liN i 'N Ils
t- ii iitflt il-s 11(N il)I ii t itt uk i
(odes. Prl l I Iliet INai('Niii Ud ws iii Xi roi oti~
kult, cysut liiiolNt.sIlii, a' d 11111)1, root
ifut 111. ii', IT it l(i NI t of h t k ralt
Sii iii tiill 
i l 1i 
ics h i l 
' lI 1 11i 
1 (( to i li 
i tI'
ili NII' ii' 111iitiiijo p llo l f t N. v i' l l id', 1ill-
.1111 d1 ) 
v~N t h i ' N I 
11 c i of N 
i i. l t 
) il~ t. I 
-
3 lii iiivs \ IIiap lOGI, 2ii.llc ii'N(' llc
Itt tf 
ir i i it 
ut ii iii. c 
a .l N of 
IN i 
k ( iii
pli'j i s, ti' iiliiiii l it N ilrii igiil i l iiic it
ofN i di co Ijiol Thte ,Isc of ilNNtliiid ' nN
at0 ti, dwlui iot sara pld l A iziulabm
AiN(Np li'iitN NI ll'iiiiiiiic iti e iie that dlii
i'.iii ie i eil i i \ N i t f dli i i l i iti 1111
38 i-
(Iiiti'(i imb iiii lirNil ooit kit lii , .u io
ii'.ittliiltN NI lo t Niiiijfjia it. Illuuuu
pifiig. Sigiifi'il', iuigli ' ii'lui ut
111111e il ll i Ni liii liii lllt Nh l
0~). aivii A.
5. N'iiiaitir 15(
6. Niiaguuii
34 gill
2),896
(67
52
10t2
2(6
N o.
,200t
1,112
2, 51.3
2,158
'r'iii' k4 hi ick Sof s i a Ifici plil ii', fi
' it itiiacot ro aitij~h that etli e j iitri'. ii
ipli'( was 8exetd l ii c( b\i ti at time11 d
poltio1insr 2.d dli d figure il thuI
i ileiiitil ie iplots 41 i ~ t iiia \\its' lost
(.111 lii' .ili'l Iiii i ut 111 N tI ji1lI
36
28
FIG. 1 Yield response of Bragg soybeans
to nemoaticide treatments.
toiditlij(d NmNiii the ji most efiiiiciet iiiii' eii
ods of apicaiutioni ho avoiid Iicrealsed
tuist.
R.-uInA.
2 3 4
Treomells
5 6
FIG. 2 Effect of nemnaticide treatment on
dollar returns of Bragg soybeans.
SaIllplilig, (lilt(-
* lo Commiiercial
leaicie
Rramf Sotheans
Simple Methods for Controlling
Common Scours in Pigs
C_ D_ SQUIERS, Departmntl of Animalt anld Dairy Sciences
H. A. KJAR, Dept. of Large Animal Surgery and Medicine,
School of Veterinary Medicine
olti gs,~ critc l ill well l inllO e 1(11)4 ratio 10 tlill Pasive 
] Cl'il
o lltif0)iC toc lifoii orglills acuired LX ro ~ithi 
cotfli (I ill
tiiidines I~XC ito t 111)s dftiii Othisl peiodlim 
alctive
ililii to111 thes fi ol to I ('ills(i ~lX is ltXi oo 
XXd d c lik' )(1
Basic Slag, Buttermilk Treatments
till( I li ttui iilk If I XctiX CI Iot ili'i XcirIXX 
Mii iled' to
pigs ill f)I ifjililil '1\ tests ilt A.Xuiiiui i. 'If'i' f)IoditX were
tes'tedf XXitfi litter s lot pigs tha~t fihild dIc lolfiei f)
1
'
0 
ist(t t '\ e
1i tiioiS. VtjiSjt 5111)4 XXIXj offiele ill tli fl' )'tflooir folr fI('c-chiceti
col ill~i)ptioll 1 by tie pigs5. fliitterii lk XX t LX iXrj (II i IIX 
ill tile
otinooiit of :3 cc. perI pig.
toaC tIlc 1)1i Xti-catif'~il t.Il f~t tip le fia ic~. (v :ticitiit
fei'dii eiiii.Seil iIoiitif)ZItiioli of ]10111 ~ pig'.
fliiiisi oIf theseX rislilts, tile lse of balsic slig" ill collliii I
breeinig I ('Xiii tc lillit. Baisit sliy a s X X 111))liei XX t(kX to Al
pigs lictX'(cii thei ages of 2 aiid 8 XX cots. air more lii c i f lti
tio litteiX affected b\ Scours. Sittisfi( tii XiiIX tii ili I iltill
o f I iaii ii IIlili tiil 'if.
Effect Without Drugs Evaluated
iis('il XX it fioiit ifi.11gs ill tile latiiui . 'f'luifl plestil \1\1XX,0i iesti-
gilt(if ill fi'r' tijalS ili 19)7tt TI 
tfIii'i' X\itli f)igX fiiij-o\Xe~iilli
XX i iii or hot XXcathl dliii tXX i tililS, XX[1 pi igs taiiXXo\c ('if duirii
XXililci'.
Ilritiiilits iIs(.il ill cai tijal X\cic (' I ) iiii'i SfP 25t0
fis balsic slag, (2) liasi- dlag io (:3)) fittciiilk. Iit, frat-
nic' it 1, Aiiici SfP 259 itsI use 1i l tile iltijul itt theii 111,11111
pel'iit'ill. Baici slag XXitX offeredil i tile J'i flioil 11111 fpir
XXee(k aiii XXe pi'ifigs ii this trcatioeiit hail s1ciiiis. lBiitcriiiilk
11i' feiici X\ iik iiiil\ XX n ficu 1 \l \ '1 XX CIll fii.i'it in it iXn ituli
AlI tii'atmen'its XXcr iii ui'oi XX liii p)igs XX\ere 2 XX I'(k 1)1(
111(1 ti'riiiiitct lla XX \ekX iof* age. Assigiiiiljit of' littci's to
ii'at Iii' iS X X it is \\it 1)i I vX (Ii ni iX ig Xii lii lce, a 1)irticil
fiXve fiir\ IiXXiig gr11111). B~asal raitiiiiis XXeri tili' sailo for- all
pigs anid su~pplied levl fi oIif proteio, moinerals, atldi vitailillX
cilihl to or afuoX e' recoiiilenIiihtiu of Na~tjinal Hcscircfi
( u(ilucil. Eachi litter XX-its (iilliid to 1111 ofuili Iiout peii XX\ itlII
siiliid cii r(te floor
Wecights at 56 ioid 112 (ihi '1v iii'( r('fit('i iii thei table, by
though markied diffciccs ili pig guiiwtfi XXInouitedl aolioig
Diarrh'fea XXs 15iwoiluitiei't ill so11me littersX ill all trials. Ill
eXvery case, vithe I bi asi siX11g ori hot term ilk XXs e1fCfective ill
correcetinig ftii scoli .
N~ 1ui1diiI
lot p)igs
Aio.
T rial f, I l-imc-I 1970)
Xiiilc Sf'. 250u T 11.101 hi, 59
Trial 2, Auigust-Septclllber 1970
AlililI.P 258 jI i~lt1,1i~ ti 5it
liasii lic :36
Bllittlillilk 42
Trial 1. N oX onhler 1971)- Iantar (1I97 1
Xiiiio i 8P. 2,50 - fuasic Sflav 14
Ftri al 4, I cruirn-\ Iarch 1971I
Xliio IlS.1. 250) -huei slag4 771
fBlittli hu1lk, 72
Trial 5. M\Ia.-1111 1971
Xii Il S.P :'1) l basic slag 0t
lia ic 601
Summ1 nary , fi'.e trials
Xioi S.1P. 251) -t basic shag Itit)
tliisii sl 
2601
\\tiLills
.12.7
10,t6
38.7
:38.7
-18.7
5:3. 9
16.: )
15.:'
16.8
4:3.0
.13.9
42.6
weighlt
II H. I
I t16. 0
I t 7.8
I112.1
1:34.6
111.6
133.6
1:)8.6
I: 16. 9
M386
I M.6
It06t.0
If 13.0
1231.5
12 1 .9
1 20.5
'Ncitliiu 56-dt ias I11 12 ilX X l\iit-s 
1
liffiicii siglifiX llitl
Treatilli-ilt
F 9. 9.,2
., I., 9 6 .11 4
-14.
141 41
AV 
** 
i"
Clover growth on March 1 1 as affected by normal rate of inocu-
lation (left), double the normal rate (center), and inoculating and
pelleting seed with calcium carbonate (right).
ofi r] I~ ilt1f lj~e I' 1, 1 o S'
(11 )1 id 'I ii i it 1) ow i o eX r.I 1 IIXX I I 111ild(p t I X i iX Iohl
\111)111c111 ('iiit pol' c;II i31'iX' OX I has11 (IXI 1(1 sci i s r111)1II
l (1ie iit of1 A1(111(11 to xIII!ilicits sh \ tha th pvI' I 4 ill I illti oll''I
p 1o 1efi cal be\ (II 11 (-r t' vX ('I coll bC II Ii (l IC I IicIX~ " 11 1111 1) 1(1
PiitII1I B ic~ i u t 'lt I 111 iii 1(1 I X i i i IX lu('10'. 'I ll (II it l(('lXI it
1111I I I 1,1.i I t lI I I'] IiI I If It I 4 I((.111 j1(1 I t I IsoI X I i lt (H il I 11(61.17
it] 1 ( I i I 11 XXj( I Xlo Ii 111 1111 I I ii(,j \ I Ipi; I I 
ll J IX \ ( 1 111 iltI ii I (11)
V( iIr lifiXI.I o c '11111 \I ('I ('pII \ I tcX 
I oi ( prepare i l IdXX
I ce Ill Illc l
2x 11 iilia it 1111 ila i l
Nitl 11hilil lil(
Lb 1I llasc PllIll
M iki.t I I ot l pt
820t 0 tO
290~ L I Mt 5t00 1,251
8tt 1, 00t 2:330 4,130t
INOCULATION ESSENTIAL
FOR PRODUCTION OF
YUCHI ARROWLEAF CLOVER
R. H. WADE, Lower Cooaa Plain Substation
C. S. HOVELAND and A. E. HILTBOLD, Department
of Agronomy and Soils
Ill x i)\Il111 X ll i i Ie 11.31' p(I di (1ct illI. Il~i si( l w I till, 1111111 iii lii
lilt(' ll e I I I! 111'' the I! I Ie d i.X filiigti X 'I X t! So il li II I d ll -11
)(o l dIll ! 111.\ fo111 Iie sis ii as11' 111 1( 1 ). pI )(iltl'(Ic X i te1r1
l Xilt iiid \\tl i ii 1111 o I i Xll 4ite. X i l~tlI ii tl'111
I -o \t1(1 ciii cl cyc11(111 Iiliilti hiI Xi I'lloIl 11111 iiitsIi itI floi
liltiolti itiiii III ll Ill of 11' ti-o d a I o c 111 II i t11 i 'X l I i II 'Iiitlill
IItill ' o 11 5 1,1 tinic ' 1111il (111111141(11 At the 111 1 ' Ilitnal11 Ia4 XII I
lai o l III Il l 11 1111111113te "i l, I to\ c\! 1111 i
1
111I i( 'Il it il disapl
Xeard iii l)Ci So (II (11 'CI (' till Xill iij (V IIId 110(111111 g c fi p ro- X
es u filt of fit(,I p i 1 t ritil '( i ldc te ha te or
11111iii Iil t ' iti ii ll tll Xlie iI to litd i not1 iiitiiiii forXI
I''.I 'I I i lt il 
ii cark1 11(1111 
oI i 'l soik lit 
ill I 11 ('f Il
~.,,.
CHARACTERISTICS of
ALABAMA'S POPULATION
J. H. YEAGER, Department 
of Agricultural Economics 
and Rural Sociology
PEOPLE ARE our most important re-
source. Together with capital and land,
they provide the growing important in-
gredients of management and labor es-
sential for production. People are also
the source of demand, based on funds
available to them, for the products and
services produced. Numbers of people
and their characteristics are of vital im-
portance in our economic system.
Alabama's population is constantly
changing. The 1970 Census of Popula-
tion and certain other sources provide
some insights into the characteristics and
changes.
Total Alabama population increased
5.4% from 1960 to 1970. The absolute
net increase was 177,425 people or a
simple average increase of 17,742 people
per year. The percentage increase was
the lowest since that for the decennial
period which ended in 1870. A major
reason for the low percentage increase
for 1970 was outmigration.
Thirteen other states of the U.S. were
in the category of having less than 6%
increase in population from 1960 to
1970. Average increase for the U.S.
was 13.3%.
By counties the change in population
varied considerably. Generally, counties
in northern Alabama increased while
those in central and southeastern Ala-
bama decreased from 1960 to 1970, Ta-
ble 1. With the exception of Etowah and
Cherokee counties, all counties north of
a horizontal line through Jefferson
County increased in population for the
10 years ending in 1970. Black Belt
counties generally registered the high-
est percentage declines. Dale and Madi-
son counties were the only two counties
to increase more than 50% in the last 10
years.
Jefferson, Mobile, and Montgomery
counties with major metropolitan centers
grew only slightly or, in the case of
Montgomery, decreased 1% in total
population. In certain cases counties
surrounding these three counties grew
substantially, thus a growing use of the
term "bedroom county." It appears that
this trend of living some distance away
from place of work may continue.
A total of 32 counties in Alabama
decreased in total population from 1960
to 1970 while 35 counties increased in
population. Only 10 of the 35 counties
that increased in population had in-
creased greater than the national average
(13.3%).
Urbanization
Alabama has become an increasingly
urbanized State. In 1970, 58.4% of the
total population was classified as urban.
This meant living in a city of 2,500 or
more population or in the metropolitan
area of a city of 50,000 or more people.
Between 1950 and 1960, Alabama's
TABLE 1. PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN ALABAMA
COUNTY POPULATION, 1960-1970
Increase
Autauga
Baldwin
Blount
Calhoun
Clarke
Clay
Cleburne
Coffee
Colbert
Cullman
Dale
DeKalb
Elmore
Escambia
Fayette
Franklin
Houston
Jackson
Jefferson
Lamar
Lauderdale
Lawrence
Lee
Limestone
Madison
Marion
Marshall
Morgan
Mobile
Shelby
St. Clair
Tuscaloosa
Walker
Washington
Winston
30
21
6
8
4
2
1
14
7
15
70
1
10
4
1
9
12
7
2
11
11
23
14
59
9
13
28
1
18
10
6
4
6
12
Decrease
Barbour
Bibb
Bullock
Butler
Chambers
Cherokee
Chilton
Choctaw
Conecuh
Coosa
Covington
Crenshaw
Dallas
Etowah
Geneva
Greene
Hale
Henry
Lowndes
Macon
Marengo
Monroe
Montgomery
Perry
Pickens
Pike
Randolph
Russell
Sumter
Talladega
Tallapoosa
Wilcox
9
4
12
10
4
4
2
7
12
1
4
12
2
3
2
22
19
13
16
7
12
7
1
11
4
6
2
15
0Y
3
13
1 0.4 per cent increase.
2 0.3 per cent decrease.
population reached the 50% mark in be-
ing urban. As recent as 1940, less than
one in three persons in Alabama was
classified as urban. The percentage
urban population out of the total has
more than doubled since 1930.
The 1970 percentage urban popula-
tion varied from 88% for Jefferson to no
urban population reported for the fol-
lowing counties: Bibb, Cherokee, Choc-
taw, Clay, Coosa, Crenshaw, Lamar,
Lawrence, Lowndes, Washington, and
Wilcox. In total, 50 counties were be-
low 50% in urban population 
while 17
counties were above the 50% level in
1970.
White population 
as a percentage of
the total increased from 1960 to 1970.
This trend existed for previous decen-
nial periods since 1900. White 
popula-
tion was 73.6% of the total in 1970 com-
pared with 54.7% in 1900.
By counties the percentage Negro and
other races was above 
50% in Bullock,
Dallas, Greene, Hale, Lowndes, 
Macon,
Marengo, Perry, Sumter, and Wilcox
counties in 1970. Less 
than 10% Negro
and other races were reported in
Blount, Cherokee, 
Cleburne, Cullman,
DeKalb, Franklin, Jackson, Marion, Mar-
shall, Morgan, Walker, and Winston
counties.
Age Distribution
The age distribution of Alabama's
population is changing according to the
1970 Census data. In 1960 34% of our
population was under 15 years of age,
Table 2. In 1970, only 30% was under
the age of 15. At the other end of the
age distribution it is evident that a
larger portion of the State's population
is in the older age brackets. Almost 14%
of the total population was above 60
years of age in 1970 compared to 11%
in 1960.
Females continue to outnumber males
in the State in a large measure because
the life expectancy of females is some-
what greater. In 1960, females ac-
counted for 51.3% of total population,
little different from 51.8% for 1970.
In 1970 there were 1,034,113 house-
holds in Alabama, an increase of 17% over
1960. Average number of persons per
household was 3.25 in 1970 and 3.62 in
1960. The rural population, as an aver-
age, had a somewhat greater number of
persons per household than did the
urban population. By counties, number
of persons per household varied from
4.15 in Lowndes to 3.02 in Covington.
TABLE 2. AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ALABAMA'S
POPULATION, 1960 AND 1970
Percentage of total
Under 5 12.0 9.0
5-9 . .. 11.3 10.0
10-14 .. . . . . 10.7 10.7
25-34 .. 12.2 12.0
35-44 12.3 11.1
45-54 . 11.1 10.7
65-74 -. . . . 5.2 6.0
75 and over 2.6 8.8
TOTAL . . 100.0 100.0
SICKLEPOD (Cassia obtusifolia L.)
would make anyone's list of "Ten Worst
Weeds of the South." It is a vigorous,
non-nodulating legume that will often
reach heights of 7 feet under good grow-
ing conditions. It produces an abund-
ance of seed, most of which are hard.
This ensures adequate seed infestation
for years to come after a single success-
ful seed crop. The relatively large size
of seed permits germination at consider-
able depths in the soil - thereby further
complicating control procedures with
herbicides.
Previous research has shown that
sicklepod will germinate and grow over
a wide range of temperatures and, like
most other tropical legumes, will make
substantial growth on acid soils. Con-
versely, the weed is tolerant to pH levels
as high as 8.0. Its response to soil fer-
tility is similar to cotton. 
Consequently,
all of these factors contribute to the suc-
cess of sicklepod as a weed.
Because of its widespread occurrence
in agronomic crops in Alabama, particu-
larly cotton, studies were initiated in
1966 to document its competitiveness at
specific densities. Experiments were con-
ducted by the Auburn University Agri-
cultural Experiment Station at Auburn
(4 years) and at Prattville Experiment
Field (2 years).
Cotton seed were planted in 40-in.
rows to give a stand of 6 to 10 plants
per ft. of row. Immediately following,
sicklepod seed were planted in the cot-
ton row at a rate of 20 to 30 seeds per
ft. of row. After the cotton and sicklepod
had emerged, the sicklepod plants were
thinned to four densities, see table. These
densities were maintained throughout
growing season. All other weeds which
emerged were hand removed. Each plot
was 4 rows wide and 20 ft. long. Each
sicklepod density was replicated four
times. At the end of the season, the
Effect of sicklepod density on cotton yield.
Sicklepod Competition and
Control in Cotton
G. A. BUCHANAN, E. R. BURNS*, and R. D. McLAUGHLIN
Department of Agronomy and Soils
middle two rows of each plot were hand
harvested. The yield of cotton in each
test for each year was compared to its
respective check, which was kept weed-
free throughout the growing season.
Sicklepod grown with cotton at 1
weed per 3 ft. of row caused a reduction
in cotton yield in 5 of 6 experiments.
Yield reduction averaged 14% at Auburn
and 38% at Prattville at this density, see
figure. Each increase in sicklepod den-
sity caused a further loss in yield. Re-
sults from this study illustrate the ex-
tremely competitive nature of sicklepod
in cotton. That sicklepod was more com-
petitive with cotton at Prattville than at
Auburn was clearly evident. Sicklepod
seedlings were more vigorous at Pratt-
ville than at Auburn early in the grow-
ing season and were generally larger
throughout the year.
Sicklepod need not be a problem in
cotton. Herbicides such as fluometuron,
diuron, and prometryne applied pre-
emergence usually give effective con-
trol. Either of these herbicides followed
by one of the arsenical herbicides-
MSMA or DSMA - is particularly ef-
fective when applied postemergence to
small (less than 2 in.) sicklepod plants.
Control of sicklepod is complicated by
many factors. Its large seed enables it
to germinate deep in the soil, often es-
caping the preemergence herbicide.
Another unique feature of sicklepod is
its ability to fold its leaves together,
sometimes referred to as "being asleep."
This often occurs at night or during pe-
riods of drought stress. When this oc-
curs it is virtually impossible to effec-
tively apply a postemergence herbicide
treatment.
Treatment with a preemergence herbi-
cide followed by one or more applica-
tions of MSMA or DSMA appears to be
the most effective control program for
sicklepod in cotton. Sicklepod seedlings
need to be removed until the cotton has
attained adequate size to effectively com-
pete with sicklepod. When this is done,
those sicklepod seedlings which escaped
the preemergence and post-emergence
herbicide applications will generally be
small and have little or no effect on the
total yield of cotton. On the other hand,
if sicklepod seedlings are left uncon-
trolled early in the growing season, they
will have a drastic effect on the yield of
cotton as indicated by the results in
these experiments. Effective control of
sicklepod throughout the season costs
money and requires labor; however, the
alternative is much less desirable. Ef-
fective control of sicklepod means higher
yields, greater profits, and less infestation
of sicklepod for the following years.
* Former Graduate Assistant, now Exten-
sion Specialist, Weeds, Cooperative Exten-
sion Service.
EFFECT OF DENSITY OF SICKLEPOD PLANTS ON YIELD OF SEED COTTON
Yield reduction
Weed density Auburn Prattville
1966 1967 1968 1969 1967 1968
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
1 weed/3 ft. of row -- 23 1 10 22 38 39
1 weed/2 ft. of row - 33 18 14 20 51 47
1 weed/1 ft. of row ----- - 47 28 40 52 78 75
1 weed/6 in. of row -69 38 48 52 80 78
Yields of weed-free cotton averaged 2,160 lb./A. at Auburn and 2,650 lb./A at Pratt-
ville.
Feral Dogs in East-Central/Alabama
M. DOUGLAS SCOTT and M. KEITH CAUSEY, Dept. of Zoo/otiy-Entomtology
WI of ii Ii t I I iI igIt lo 1) 1 I I I l
Ill, siiiu t .X 0( 1 ) i atith . s1) tatedl thiit
XiIX Ceo15515 lI ivetc it 5ittt otoi lti tufere
itwi I (o rgt l.blicx C (hilt (lotgs Itlis lit a
Xci ll t httiX tii to deit it ll XXijld till, c
plailtions. Cae ofI itt d doo Au tlo It- ks
oIii tl i l XX ol esi t ii tc ut t hasI I c X I ell
to the %%i itX d X 'Il iitittlt Ia lit till (i I
ilis iitill I it \ it ' tile t r 1 it t (lii.5 be i
di t i ll iLu ilt f jI X i t i i i iilt tits itt
Aii iii I v li ,tillii uhas is ilu - of(~J
I
1~
Ia -
I, ~
4.
~
~ __
l~2~ 4~*
~ ib
are IttillN a lroiiili. Objec(tive ofil
fei logs lived ize oiN(f packs tiraXe ofi
ol lives~tock itti deer), anth dattgii itf
I)igX XXeire stuiedC~ ill tXwo I aea of ft(e
SX tatte. On wai IC\ta 4 ,tt 0) 0Iicr einclosurle
oithe 1111XX 1 tI I 9(0 t)crC S iigali atc
1 
ee
lies~elic Area, ain~iiiistCIed by tile Co-
ltJ(lI ItiX, , \iditile~iei.I tiiit Itt All
11111-11 t ijcIi t it
lirill (lgtt il ij it stll g ili that
fril o11tthiet t\ pC of (logs. Dogs that
XX r CII lit teiall X %%II iifi cdtill tii tX i
11111 ies li tal XiII X i ll (re-al~ ill XX T lli
tlogs I lXCXI lltiOtiof thei XXilinela it foieI
XXlciii i liijli dogsspei it ehlil. par oiii
11 thix ist ililig t i \Nod anS fiigXXils
XXd aXtilv XX ail llu lturst m tot id hlie
for litmitedi foo l XXshei lXter il Xasthit
1
)ltii ii ltii.t id XXIt 11Csi1
1
jiINcll itl
IV 41"tj
V,-. ~
ow mu .
.. r~l a *
Feral dog that was
trapped and fitted
with 
a radio 
tran s-
mitter so that his
movements could
be charted.
iiliilteid XX0 ita small baitter , \~X CIwe CII
a"idio t atisitittet that emitted at signial
XwIhii i c id Ib e de~tcted I it por1tablle
I (cIXiier It it clog wvas trtilee w~ith this
(illIilli it atd iliCver found1( asslcialted
XX itli humlatns, it XXas kniltX i tio lie ii al.
1ii ee pieks itf lital (logs. rI ilgilig
itt size fiomr txvvo to five i lials Xwere
Aiea. Oiil] itvioe ~iil duog XXias locattedl
ol thte (hildei sloiig ii (I. Bioth areasI
hald hligh oiiiillIs iof tane aiid fiee
Silitgii ig (logs.
Fer al dlog paciks dill it tiaIX l ril-
dloXliX ive tile coliitrs side huit occutpiedl
Iailiges, XXhicht varieid ti ill 1,I00 to i
2 600tt aciris ill size. Doigs XXere itiost
tectivc at uiigit, XXiti tile greatest ililiX i
ineits iicciiiiiig at dawnX and tii duiisk. ]'he(
paclks tiraveled firiiit less thtii 12 til lVIXi
5 imiles XXithini thieir lhine ranigi hiiiig
at 24 ltitir periodt.
Visltial (lbserX t ions and seat analye
indlicated feral dlogs were not preying on
lix estoek or deer. Sitme ut the foods
eatei I iiwhidehl gillhaigC fron11 ~t ltXrb
Feiral (Iiog pack s XveiCe tppri iad t i ii
Xlriie oveXrC 40 times. ai il the iliigs
ociX i tr iedl to attack. IXX\\ it IiIIs XXIII
CXCIl Iiightlttiid iXXa IS limol thteii P
11
1
1
XX itlioiit attackintg the initerferiiig hiniitau
BehavtXior of fr(C rilolig (logs dliffired
tttiii feral (logs ill that (XXII ot the X(,cX iill
ki iiXX ti aclks ut fiveCi Iiiit g doigs actedu
tltl~ci CXIY hut iliil iiit actialli pliX si-
(i]]\ at tackX %-tll eicouiiteiedil it thei
X\ oittlI Alsou 1,u al (loigs XXr Ci leX It til
X(TCIXi cltitsiuig liX istitk i deer, st huh
flii tiltigilig i(iigs XXIII IIIIX~cid duuiiig
this. I lliXX IX It. tiatiials \\i kioitXil
to lilIX Iel itciauighit 1) IX the (liigs.
It appeiatrs ft itii this stuldv that teia
ii,' ugs ita ilot lbe cailiig thue t itolhitis
dt(i XX til'il tis~ tlv, hIna be tlthe li
11iX rcsp)Itlsile fi- thii majoity if tithe
p] oItilts. It So, the peoplle XXwtit) Xhlli
illic hulls oitlsl~litllX, aissoia~te siolil
cki havei tlin hininimlX (lestrtX'll
iicits reuie for pi oilii.iig Gradeic
iilk miid thii efflct oif size of (iitcr
1
rixi'
A tota of iii 5 (litii X l i lici ')t iii,
jill ,Ix'I Aa a DIiti cot11 P xro til k lf
sip xa 7. F tak i p r ('l t h st'l l]\~14
\\ etr sel 
e te b 
\ ax 'c a c ifi 
e ra2.8 2 
sit (x t
foilkn of ill NiOi Pi('ouiitil fur 
42
belsii oI
ii x (l 11) ba e ,i o cil c ui111e f c ill ' lxxx. iii'i
'Ill avexag t. Total lao t ji 'i %t mi
soh] \\;xis $.73 l. xFeedi cost i' dd ii
mil sol and acconie f iior o (of oi
A 'iii ",, gr .s receipts per 100 11).of'
inilk sold over $7. 1ih9 il-( veag
I ha ll
Mlilk xsilex
I .ix ixto.k xili'x
Totil fixi'i
Rt'i ll tot liil
Xitil o i'x
"I* ii'i , ~ l lc0
Axr i'i'igi 1)) li toi
ilk xiilid
Xxl iiigd i ii , i
Prouicer gioiii))
ii xl )t (t cxl ysix
(6.20) (641 (94.87
A 1 .32 19
7.10) 7.59 7.8))1
ciiiitiit. for .5.5 Ii. Axverage iiestiiiit
x\it a$ 9(1) pci- ('xxt. xx itli ;ili ixciagi all-
('luiilg liiili of 1 1.7 ,
'Th' fix( ize 'liolipx xxice iixcd to de'
Relationship 
between 
the unit cost 
of pro0-
ducing Grade A milk and size of enterprise
for 75 dairy enterprises, Alabama, 1969.
:2.:1 2.9 1 :32 c~ ciit. Xx ( i i .i o it] ciixt pc i c\xti o i i i i Ik
89 1.1 1.A4 
ie2llil~d h 
lcil(Cttlcs
M xx ixs 87.42 
fiii thei xiialcx 
xiz, giuuip
Midii 86.47 loiiih litiL gst sizec groiiip.
91) I I 1.51 xiNciii( \ii'(i ht Iio 'ixI x axd liho
xiii .9 'iiot ecesed toiifii l xoiti d gi iuis illd
7.90' 1.1( I 1.251 iciiiiiili i c' c ci~g'o
1.2) 1.8 .12 hulraI~d u x i cii xcs \iiic thi'.ixod.
29. 2 1.5.1 .5.0) ipis ixaniid cost iii pioiiu'iiig Gr adie .X
2.5 2.5 '25 ioilk xx,;ix extimaited. (Coxt per ('xx . iie'
u'ilii'i ixs xizie iccic iiirile iouo 26 toi
17 ,216 1.5,861 11.7T,9: ifiiiiit :31)1 u'iixs. xii figiiu'e. Ielxutl 
tis
xx lte xxiiii iil ilxte i l ciiax fost I peur
c\0.ix %\o)1) pr'iixx , x. cvle o ed
xxii' ioiif efi'fciient tiiaii othiirx, dati
hih(ii ostigriupx xxeiii' 5.38, .8(6.76, ,iiii
$7.9)0 per' (,xxI. iiilk. soh]. i'xspictix u'lx
xii' tiable.
the'liic thre iiiiiici grillps xx\ax thie idif
ferie(lici ill feeidi coit. Tis %i tsa all iidi-
gid 82:4 .1,Soo ,iii and :.20 
Icr cx
S07.8t peri (-\x t. iilk sol., i'i'spictix clx
iici it iowi iii Ir om S22.62)' toi $1.44 pei
rl s l' iix s) (4i\ ii xxv The h iiidii) cost
tixcil 1 7lll t i i ti d iid ilill~ e l t
iiothx xxic alis ue ii o f ,iciox atc ef 'oiiie
h\xx thiix cot p edxl4,xip \its ti houiidx
labo uiize pet (,\\I mil utld iI 't (i
COSTS and RETURNS of
Producing Grade A MILK
in ALABAMA
SIDNEY C. BELL and JOHNNY W. JORDAN
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
DAIRY LABOR-
A MAJOR
PROBLEM
IN ALABAMA
ROBERT C. KEEN and LOWELL E. WILSON
Department of Agricultural Economics
and Rural Sociology
ALABAMA DAIRYMEN sold more than
$58 million worth of milk in 1970. And
the State's 700 dairymen paid out an
estimated $8 million plus for labor. Of
this $8 million, $5.5 million was for full-
time hired help.
Finding and keeping dependable labor
continues to be a major problem for
Alabama dairy producers. The problem
has been intensified by the lagging in-
crease in farm wages as compared with
non-farm pay, as well as by a decrease
in the supply of farm labor.
A 1971 study of full-time hired dairy
labor in Alabama described trends in the
use of hired workers and factors af-
fecting labor supply. In addition, the
analysis pointed to management prac-
tices that help retain hired workers.
Sixty of Alabama's larger dairy farms
were selected for study, 23 each in north-
ern and central regions and 14 in south-
ern Alabama.
Dairymen interviewed were randomly
selected in seven counties in which
dairying was a leading enterprise. Char-
acteristics of dairymen and laborers that
were identified point to reasons for labor
problems and should be helpful in over-
coming the problems.
Average age of milk producers was
48 years, 2 years older than reported in
a 1969 study. Dairymen in the south-
ern and northern regions averaged 45
years of age; those in the Black Belt
(central) averaged 54 years. Alabama
dairymen in each region reported an
average of 13 years of education.
Dairies in the southern region gen-
erally had been operating a shorter time,
averaging 12 years as compared with 22'
and 18 years, respectively, for central
10
and northern Alabama. Dairymen re-
ported an average of 4.6 persons per
family, with 1.3 employed on the farm.
In most cases the operator was included
in the 1.3 average. Therefore, little
family labor was used on these farms.
Average size of dairy farms was 669
acres, with 478 acres owned and 184
rented. Dairymen used 23% of this
acreage to support non-dairy enterprises.
Largest dairy farms were in southern
Alabama, 755-acre average. Northern
and central region dairy farms averaged
611 and 675 acres, respectively.
Based on herd size, farms tended to
be larger in the Black Belt. Total num-
ber of cows on farms averaged 127 in
that region, as compared with 106 and
101 for southern and northern regions.
Average for the State was 112.
The 60 dairies surveyed employed a
total of 151 full-time workers. The aver-
age worker was 39 years of age, had 7
years of formal education, and had been
on his present job for 6 years. In the
Black Belt, where a parallel study of
other types of farming operations was
conducted in 1971, average tenure was
9 years. Most studies indicate that ten-
ure of dairy workers tends to be lower
than on other farms.
More than half (62%) of all workers
employed in dairy operations were em-
ployed as "milkers." Their primary duty
was to prepare for milking, milk, and
clean the facilities after milking. These
employees worked a split-shift, milking
a few hours in the morning and coming
back in the afternoon to milk again.
Some 30% of employees were classified
as "general farm hands" and were re-
sponsible for chores outside the milk
barn. Most dairymen preferred that
"milkers" not get 
involved in 
general
farm work.
Dairy employees worked an average
of 48 hours per week with 1 day off.
The operator or members of his family
usually did the milking on employee off-
days. Cash wages paid dairy employees
averaged $1.49 per hour. Highest wages
were paid in the southern region ($1.59)
and lowest in the Black Belt ($1.43).
Most employees were paid on a
weekly basis, but larger dairies usually
paid by the hour. Dairymen employing
larger numbers of people come under
the Fair Labor Standards Amendment
of 1966. Therefore, the trend toward
larger dairies and more hired labor
means that dairymen can expect to turn
more and more to paying on an hourly
basis.
Dairy employees received 24% ($92)
of total monthly wages in perquisites.
These benefits included Social Security
payments, housing, milk, utilities, farm
grown meats and vegetables, and vari-
ous incentive and bonus plans. Most
perquisites were furnished on a monthly
basis, except bonus pay was usually paid
once a year.
The problem of obtaining and retain-
ing dairy labor is particularly crucial on
dairy farms. Agricultural workers con-
tend with longer hours and lower wages
than workers in industry. This study
showed that dairy employees earned an
average of $348 in total monthly wages.
In comparison, production workers in
Alabama manufacturing industries in
1971 averaged $530 per month.
Continued growth and development
of Alabama's dairy industry is depend-
ent to a large degree on an adequate
supply of full-time labor. The quality
of farm labor and the capabilities of
labor management are major determi-
nants in achieving higher productivity
per man hour, holding a good farm labor
force, and competing with non-agricul-
tural job opportunities.
CHARACTERISTICS OF 151 FULL-TIME HIRED EMPLOYEES ON ALABAMA DAIRY FARMS,
BY REGION OF STATE, 1971
Characteristic
Employees in sample, number
Employees age, years
Employees education, years...
Average tenure, years ........
Job description, per cent
Milker
General farm hand
Both
Hours worked per week
Days off per week
Hourly wage, dollars
Weekly cash wage, dollars
Monthly cash wage, dollars ..
Monthly perquisites, dollars-
Total monthly wage, dollars.
Southern Central Northern State total
region region region or average
- 89
39
54
S 38
8
- - 49
- 1
----- ---- -- 1.59
-------- 71.97
312.00
97.00
409.00
63
38
6
8
70
22
8
45
1
1.43
62.00
269.00
71.00
340.00
49
40
7
5
57
35
8
50
1
1.49
71.00
307.00
114.00
421.00
151
89
7
6
62
30
8
48
1
1.49
67.51
292.00
92.00
384.00
C:3- -C, - - -- v zn
+I
I I11111/U VY VI ~~1 3 1 R n ,,r- ~,;,, ~ ,,
Ruiral You~th Necd Hclp
with Carccr Dccisions
A B. PRATI oi~d J. E. DUNKELBERGER
D pt ,f Aq, 1t,i-1 Er,-ion, -d R-.1ci Sociotory
ki_i ii \x ilt . Il \ tI( I i )II I I F I I I I'l
ll lt iiic ill hi Iilli'i IIIc it c lo't\ ix .111 liil
o ltli i ii ti i lll
1  
ill\ ilil I lt iis li
the pllixol .s.iII ~ lt
ill \x oit I' lit I I I I i'iiii x ( tlix xI
11 ilit of (i t I Iph I\ 1 xtIi l I II I x t it lii iti
lo xixo ili liii lli ll scii i)6 lu, lli I (J
(i'iix ti ; I i lill li Illf li iiii pr s iii' lixki'i
I Ii 11111 1111 schoo roilci] "' 111 il 111111 e
Statudis ofi Hleigh iSchol Chonsel ling
1114 li x ix ( is iii(( iij 1 iii I iil i~ 114
('xx iii t i'i lill lil ' io lii toi i x i s 11. ill'
Fo 1)1o ii e i ill for ( ill iiiii )ilxx ixi I1w xii
timili iii Ill tii 111,1 tt xx i PMi i'-, .111A
M -1 lilei~i iip(i lii it of ii Folixeil p ii i
"it[H il il o ci ci t I I 'Iicoi f IIle e rIIri
Who Uses Counseling?
I ililx liii, ,lIi~ Ii4 x i ll liii l i1;1i of 'i i
(Ilei4 
1  
iixi i liii Fiaitt lxii xi 15ii'i lifigxi
schols xiiii i4 ti
11  
xxl tiiii xii of ux ti
iii! iiiIi I iiitil 11ld iii ('11 uxlil'ix.ll i itI-
ie ixiii xxiicuhiooi Thii sti I xx
diit lxi ii ii its li Fl u xix (liist i )Ii ix
tF I (',lii' i( iiiii(i xx h ol x iiiix' xii1.'
Stiiix'utx i 14 lii ciii e r ix x iii' lil i.i
ii'xxC ik't xi lxi x lilii li i d stii i iix
at e iixt i i iii xiiit xii s h os \iith i -tii x'i'
lifte to i' i iii I i Ifi i Iti til, tiixxlix oii ,'tlix\
it ix I classi sIii i i s ti l l" i Ic iii' 'thi t ( F i'x i
ii1( 1 )] Jii iiti lilix. ( 'oi iiil i uh t, ixs I iii'i'i it)
il1 11~ ii
1
iitii i sil le riiil i-o l ilhi i d ii t )i i it
ix i ii' ii ii till o ii i l 41' hh i' ii i i i 
4
xxi, it i li a i c h l s il ic Illl i
Is Counseling Helpful?
xx ;w iiidii i F l iii'x i ke ti F i t o 'di i i u)
Fix( I h ii tii xills il F(I ii F i ixii it xiii
ciiiu' ilit xil cir'x tii es 'iuitc x'liiii
t i x iti x'u ii 5 ofF tiheiu ,uxuxituxxitii
x\iii i d fl tii'iii ix c t iix' t ilipi .it xii
ii T'i'x ofi ixxixt \\ii lx i' ix ii i i' t ii i 4
i ii xit I i ii t'1 piixi m 111 xiel I i iii Its.
iT xixt Ii lxi' ii lx i thii 4 ail t iii I schol
4
1'
1 11 
- ,
Ap, May J-n
Seasonal growth distribution of winter annual grasses and clove
at the Lower Coastal Plain Substation is illustrated here.
How Much N for Winter
Annual Legumes and Grasses
C. C. KING, JR. Dept. of Agronomy and Soils
V. L. BROWN and JOHN RICHBURG', Lower
Coastal Plain Substation
xx itli x earliiig blu tattle ix to gra/t' coo11 seaitol 
xx iliter a
liil i'giiiex iid~ grasxes. I lox to btext Ilsxe suhl crops xx
tlit xubhject of 1 969-71 testx at tli' Loixxtr ( :till Plaii Sui
stationi. \txirt'emt'its mait'e xx ee ( I ) eftectx 
tof liitrop
Sitt'x o)1 i tcilli ailiill gTile :ixix xitli ail iti x iliit 
cilixoli
''litlii ai i ll Jiix el. il( (2) xl'asoiia 
and iito ital fol at
pi licf iimelc \aiic i. cdlg itso olMe
rI'. cix ig ii c ci ill i ti . tale, 1(1 Nti xx at's ixit
put-at iii s( Iedlhu xx eli: .50(11). N pter atcre, ill] apiciii'
planig; 1001 mid 2011)l. per acie. hallf appliet iat pilil
iuid till tl iol-'t'lo uiaixl..N iiie 1). ail K xxere app~llit
Thli 1969-711 text \xias plaiil ill latte Septeiihtr. 
he
xxelc lxxii texts ill 19711T Ti. ont- planlted ill IitlSepteili. 
ill
ft'e othier ill uoiiOcuiler. Smuall gilillx x \eit' p
1
ioiiteill o
vextx xxeiii made' f(ii i :32-fii. xxx al cot Iil (ft'e ctttr
t'ill lof x ditlox ta- planit hetighit I eaic 6 to 8 iol.
tha~t tanllit be i lilntx betil i farii ticatiiet'if are' 
is fiilloxx
I. (Glxxt'x iiiiiit', xx iti f'rfilieil xxitli 1010 amtd 200(11)li.
pt' atcre. pi-llii(-et :3,01(10 anid 1,6111 i. tli loafter ( MIxt I )
ace t'.I txpecf ix eix.
2. (
3
iassex anit c-lovxerx gettinig .511 and 1111). N pl'othle
:3,9111 andit 4,404111)i. I)NI pt'r aurt'. rex
1
)ettix ehx.
:3. Ilotli rye antid rvt'gaxx prodlit-'i iluoult 8t0l ifi. 
M)l pi
it-ic 110R ihhttlil) o iits or iii xx
0 y "og,
pero-, ib
200-
IC 00-
Ii
If
Is
S5
xf
T
X1\ lI-
(i In-i) 4- r,( igi ss
BI c +'.-\ i-i iloi
(lxi-s +4 i rillxill
\\ lx 'axx + rim~on
iic + nsiliol
OX(at + -regrss +
crimsin
lBye + ryegras. +
tcrimxsin
Eye, +t ryegiiss 4 Yit i
Xx Asrag' of 
thiree' tet'xt.
lilit ISipte ml ir 1 971), .iiii
LI)11 1). 1,
2,.5001 :100)
2 700 .3.7 00
00)) 3.1)10 (8100)
3100) 4.5001
:,3)) 1,801)
1 51)0) 3,200 5,010
-3,2001
-3).400 110
5,200i .11(
-580))
:3,())
5), I())
1.10001
:3,5110 4,10010
Plainting tates,: late St'ptimlir I19.9
lfiil-( )tofn'i (971).
CLOVER 
1
fI. per' acl c.
5. rAddiiig crilisoli (loXc to i oait,x \litt or lx e ilicri 
e'd
)I)\ 1,2011) . per acre.
7.Adding '1 a-l cloxser to r xe\ hiicaxi'd M l bY\ 
2.10 1).
t 1)iii Ix I ' 4( +(-rilox.oli.
9. lY(, + r "rxegiass + udl(11~i podiiccd abul1 
I 9011 11). liior('
DI per acre' thin i Ix e rx ('giax I 
cillixonl
I 0. Adiding cI illixoil to oats l\ ('Ygraiixx 
11( t'ile l)\
11. Addiiig, ciisoil to rye + ix ('grixx 
ilcr(eil I )Ml I\
(.)0()1lb. pcl-i acie.
Pi acti( illx- all fall and xx iotei Jrolictioii 
\\ax froml xmlal
ilix.s xx itli peak gr-oxx di occil i iiiy iii 
Marclh. Forage pro-
(ilil(tioii 11o)1 Small gratilis tallied off' 
ill April iid xxas com-
pletetd iii Nflx . Ilxegraxss and1( thle clovwers 
produiedi little for-
a~ge until Miarcli. peaked sliaix 
iii Apil ini. d dechiued rip-
r itll\7 ill Niax. ilie cloxver xield ill 1ii 
\\its xaxeitirelx 11001) 'I ilii.
As niotedl ear lier , the graxxex responided 
xx itli about 314 toll
pei' aere x jeld in (-reaxe xxI eii ii it rogeii 
\\,its incr-Ieasedi fr om
10(0 to 201)1lb. On the ax erage, the first 
txx o liarxests (ilp to
id-F~lelinn-rx) from ft' 20f-1lb. 
\ late protlit-'t almost
?x tiee ixs 
mulch earix 
forage ats the 
1199 l. rate. 
Thlis earlier
S aiitl gireater total piodiictioii xx ohili 
xtem to juistifx uising 201)
l1) of' N per acre for ioiial ctl
1 
xeasoni graxsex . [loxx ix ei,
flix xx o(ild hlot ien'fle ilIilesx tile forage 
fiuoli tile laxt hialf
oif the xeaxsoii coid be pi ofitaiix~ itiiied. 
A oiore pr1act ical
;Ipproaeli mightf he 10 use 10 1t) l. 
N ill the fall] anid 5011).i
acritre ill Februiary.
f'hie dalialt'it less conluiive abouitt thet 
liext rate of N xx 11(1
(-s rimlsoil or lih \\l x its 
groxx ii xx ith the grasx. 
Ceuierallx ,\ 50
1ii1). per ct' ill tilt 
tall] xeeiii't i aleqiate. 
Uxinig iilfiler 5(1
is lb. (i Fe-tir ia 
es('ultfed iii olil]\x ahut 
5111) l. of' add~itionlal
bliiio age. I loxxex el. ill 
the lilt' iitaiict'x iit'ue 
2011ffli of' N
xxt axl atI)plietl to i'xe( + 
IxY ( egIx- i IS Tllsilll 
(1\(T t "
4
-1ii11
0I iuld illereatse xx ax ohtaiiiiix 
(Ir p)1 lictiiiii fi oi the( 
10-1)li.
ge N rate. Tix is ft'e 
xaii txp re' ipieaxx 
itli0 grass.
IiiiixtGi YILDS 0Fs ii INiii ANN'U AL (;iiA~SS 
AN ,'i L \Fi l
('lllilios', Xii, Al.tFiio ' 
s 1) uii~ B IIo N [lxiiU
p-ix FilE (o xxiAlI 
[).A\ SIi oxikxll"., t
1
9971,
RYEGRAS
SM'S (PAlS
01 N-r D-c o
Ground Beef Quality, Price Affect Consumer Preference
JR. WAITE, D, L. HUFFMAN, aind J, R. ADAMS, Dept of Aninial aucd Dairy' Sciences
11111 \I) Illii 1 i s I tiit llo's I poif)
1  
lic I ' l i i'jt ) 1111 11ioI
sidIelaf le (.oll1 Ixioll itloi 101114 ho
1
)fl as l to Mx iat t " 1~' of
gioiil ill eef (xlilts ftl es't box '\.
]()l I (1 t .111ik \ ie I j ll IgI(I Io011( be 1(' I Iw reIc II'1 o )(I tr i
prdc fi il beef \-lit Illb 11111 fatlleoitihat of illllked foi oIipel
of111 gr ii twel aI x la'tjilti'( bx jll ic (11(1. ce. oil
poI'il l l d i e ,cl(il. it xx cl el ~ ll. n il"Ied \t edii o x lid rolil
fml'lilt iid bo4ixi'ii cow tIl a ti il h ciril\ilch ls ) n
stoe-golll Consme Evaluti on of( roductlisil l'str)
pIrkigi iloiiouiio flee an to (ill xxitlil tleel \\axtk' filo tli
gelicc 1wel il\fI'i l.( 1i ie xl it onte xfx ii 111 ked plikllge
beei tii' 'lli d te xt.ile it i wc xx ev iii fllekllds x ilill..i Jh llt
xX('i idtci waso etIll iitx Im~ dillixill ie2 ri( x xIl
Ptiiiiiiei \\cwi~ xnixd xf(Td ioxx ('tI gi inn iii -d ( 16511 xi tel',(x
In' l il dii (Iii. f i i' eiii Io t iaxxl 01124 w (ig tio~i 1111111' i e(I
slililk. l Groundic Cuck Mos(d \t Pi1ilesig lelbe all
pr 111 ( I i ~ i ec t iut k' pl111 I xcL it 11 u(IdlfII t i:3 I I11 ixt i . I h i.( ' ft
it lx atgs il it coiiilnc coii.ld c
iiiiiitf fii'ef (1 illilil igi 'plp l d ill the' xtor e fuid xii
Ix jic'iIl hlibinu gr ix .iilit' iiill' xii' mlcuaki ix foriuuiiltel
fat oli a eiciliidi bais. Molixturel f)
11 
lciltag it's i lllxxi'l ill
biothi biiinii il r xsiilpi'x fn'caiiie flilt cliiteilt xx\ixs iiin' iid
(ixikiog xfuuiuik ix lof mai~jorliill to ti tlIoliii'iiker andi
tfix iloiged from11 41.*6'4 fin xtiiu gi oiin foef toi 26. t fit
ix xxl is lx ilt. 'I icei \\xixs little diffiiiwe ill Illikii xhlik
lilt x 'lI gri 1 o iiiii [f ill( grii ii itIIiek i'xeii th I b gh gi 11111
ixx xx lix iied x abititli f2'iii 1)11'W pakcief groniul round'
JIM\ l oe i( .I ti t ii (I gi. (111(1 i llc Ii loss.ii1 x i a iii i
,' Xix ('e p'oi i ii alii 
) for ii6 cr lef tilix f)(i i 
lit xx it liit
otes xts g"ml iii tiil beefpakoc g-li ef
(TIllild~it c iifk fiexi 0('Iotl ll~ltx xx le i ies i t a fli lt'tdc-
xx 'le Iilk iwtblt for pit'u' ittulii'ul gionii(' elIie xx ex
c auuke loiext slllix ki fn gi (1 . f 11)1 left ie Ii kiI i illilil
beef.ld te(xturl p gilili eef. aItxx (2) tiiixiig, ito te storei
fllInaxt il i'fei \ed gi e its tIcs iiek tht c li i i lll otert iii'i,
of'S X I t grli iw l axlt l t hi coul 'r'11111 ill lesdeiabei~
Pr toefrlibc intChi reeec
Thig at' piiudlolfilill liildlt of 'plikltf gi ocllilri maj'f i aet
lihid xligfitx oflx ('iv tll t C i 11lli iI x i le~lxt der i ie i l lo fa tr
xlit wo ifiiI elliix b If piiiss gi e ierl prile.fgrud lic
Iiiix l(Ix tlie-rlild xloxx xt Iit gillil ilit k es ixi ton lloie that
xx ,ux igt (rfull x' gromid 11111 e cii i('ll ni pui luf. fl llt
1.1\ \i.i , I ION ()I ( ;itol, m) BFi.i,
( 
Pill I(]
M(iisttlic Vat I'loteill ac(eptilhillt\
sl ria -9 scalc 1-9 S( iilc flo 1)1.i( c
lIct. 1,0. 1,(./.
t(ilk ill b\~ f pxicett
t'i ~ If BaHnk
.67 2
.89 1
'1'\rl)(. ()I J41.()Illl(l 1),,j
Store-i4rollild
Pre-packaged
Ground clilick
(:IoIlljd rollild
VIRUS- INFECTED 
CORN and
SORGHUM more 
SUSCEPTIBLE
to FUNGAL ATTACK
S P S. BENIWAL 
and ROBERT 
GUDAUSKAS
Deportmen t of B otany and Microbiology
41
Mlixax M ii xi ;II .lllpil 
lallt
(I I"(1 i ils( 0 ori lI IIf I S -t I il 
A l it I it Ii I
I tii elix ill of\ lii al \ at x. 
ie o
xi los(1 JIi gi.( ot. conItirol 
Oil Ile Ills-c
uilix l~, Pwla i t iiat di illsci 97 
, i x a
ici x ii lii xli Ib id lotti \ 
ptcx lilxi
111111Iiliti xxjlt \evia )XI cil 
itii ll c
(x ii . c lII f- it I test sxx t ot lx x it 
i I us 111 I i
xx fljli xxill grli i jl ilaxli oill 
tli (, ,iii
Co sal971).lsttol 
l 17 ,ita
\I I) \ XIX jtiitl xlii g litil 
s l pll iiix xx ii
iatollic xtixitlIlI MDI lciiilxlellxill-gea
-li l I iajd-(I.x [ix 
xxeits ciidtilre
i11111 il xxlit I li t j iltit 
Ititlite \ I t
(I lix 1 ,i (ti k ed 
o k il c rtI
hi
1 
I lil sali i il~ l .ront both 
I. i' lox
it tiitliu xx Isi l Iv. tiotcIx.d 
a'j xx axII , I
accIliti \\x il xxita it, g If /llit 
p t it x
xxili a xtuiclx U~eTl iilusi. 
illt/ of x)ic
Y'thixjg xifiu't tjit ii Iitgi 
i
leioi'lixc lc tilccl h lllilgi 
\\c alix-
.ZI bxi i I I( Ii I it iii lixd 
ti o~ dttt I
xlill 1itf thos i l xiie ji) cii 
xx th jilis
XII)XI of 16ai xx Ittit Iii jt, ici'i 
lx ten
' I loot''li j(islctaillct x tu c 
ftjijl x
lIji out I .he u/(/ixalso itlcciiid 
it If
tha i I cxjThii illc lai! tiliscti 
ilit\ xx\ts
inlicite b\ i theia lilistt 'xxi 
xiVax ('
illt) plilli. titi l illitii' tatl 
xxcr it i
linal xjii,; v Xl \I ilxr 
iuped lxj Iix
/ lli coit lio nsjll cpclio 
til s N aI
YIA l illlx the~ 
xxld Fi'll' i' xi 
2ill
pote tlll ix pi ae xiboui'ltjplil
lio Iii o,1/.x maia I 3) in i 
~oljait Ixpex c
,ill'e ifxtaii )l caitx of plhtxlx 
thljl ort(
lioltoII. illfelcxxxli'i plailix 
xxd l'o alxi
lill isi xx oitl XII\IX SiliclIo 
thietix di'
t'lic id il l jf .II i-ililix lcilx 
x jili~
I lii j
1  
ats oil]\x tt hlxiiipi that 
xx (1Vitt-
lt iic teiof f/ fIlia ili ejtix 
At x tl
xiil glit, g ate!1w wiicttiiie tes 
1
itlC IiiiT
xxiiilitsill tccil liff II. 1* ttlt/t/j jt 
IhIc)I
FIG. 1. H. maydis lesions on healthy 
(left)
and MDMV-infected (right) sorghum.
illi si l lxci ttlilt' iii pi lxisps lxoi 
ait-
tack lix1/ II iiof/dix xx it tli(' laliixilit'
illccc xxjili XIDI)XX. A rcii 
iclilit
Iirii the' Xljilxx, hxlax ioicati'i 
that
XII) XIX ilxit p11 lxiuxi'xs co111 
to ii11igi
that 1c11lxi i loot) rots. 'I'l Iii uiichl i tjxii
1).\ xxlii'Ii XII)XI iltixs xtuxiiptilit 
ot
till ito // . ilisi and1( othiei I it i 
ix
mikoo\ii t. I liixx ix ii, jisj ktiiix ii 
thuI ill-
lei jut \ I l( x lx 
itixix Iliii ix 1if x jl
liigj,i Of cIll i iiil g bei il ~i Igix it ( ntit
* MDMV Infected, N- Citoplasm
*Nol-Irtecled N-Ciloplosm
* MDMV- Infected, T- Cytoplasmn
Not- Intected, T- Cytoplasm
0i
0 24 48 72 96 120
O-cf-T-eO HR
FIG. 2. Sporulation of H. maydi s in lesions
on MDMV-infected and non-MDMV-infected
corn seedlings of the same hybrid type.
HOMEMAKER PREFERENCE for
FOOD INFORMATION SOURCES
RUTH A. HAMMETT
Department of Agricultural
Economics and Rural Sociology
TE AVERAGE HOMEMAKER spends
much of her time, energy, and family
income with food selection, preparation,
service; and 
cleanup.
Thousands of Alabama urban home-
makers have expressed opinions through
a study on buying behavior about pre-
ferred sources of food information. These
women comprised three groups: the
active seeker of specific information,
those satisfied with current practices, and
the uninterested.
The greater numbers of women were
open to suggestions, but action was im-
probable without need-motivation. To
be used, food information must appeal
to the active seeker with a problem,
such as weight control, poor eaters,
pathological conditions, income pressures,
or interest in exotic food preparation.
Answers to some of these problems may
be found in magazines, government pub-
lications, clinics, the Expanded Food
and Nutrition Programs, or clubs or
groups of persons with similar interests.
Over the years, homemakers accumu-
late a vast store of knowledge by hit
and miss methods against which is meas-
ured the appeal in new information. For
most women, experience is the most im-
portant information source for day-to-day
situations. In one study, respondents
were given a list of situations involving
food together with a list of possible ave-
nues for advice.
More than half the homemakers re-
lied on their own experience in planning
a child's menu for a day, in preparing a
guest meal in which prestige was im-
portant, in making up the refreshment
list for a woman's group, or the contribu-
tion for a covered dish supper. When
small groups were concerned, the cook-
book was the second most used source.
In the preparation of an unfamiliar
meat, the cookbook was most important.
The man behind the meat counter would
give advice on the amount of rump
roast needed to serve 12 people. If
placed in charge of a church supper for
200 persons, the chairman who had the
previous assignment or the professional
home economist would be consulted.
Recipes are an important tool in the
changing of food habits. Millions of
dollars are spent in bringing glamorous
recipes for product use to the attention
of homemakers. Drawers overflow with
clippings, but the recipe that is used
most often'comes from a friend or rela-
tive, with or without a sample. The most
used recipes are for desserts or compli-
cated dishes. Recipe swappers were
usually homemakers in their 30's or 40's
with 12 or more years of education,
moderate size families, and incomes suf-
ficient for some freedom in food selec-
tion. The young, the old, the poor, the
Negro, and the small family were poor
targets for most recipes.
Homemakers said they preferred to
get food information in newspapers and
magazines, or in other printed sources
such as cookbooks. Such items could
be read at leisure, were often illustrated,
and were in a form convenient to clip
and store. However, studies showed
that a fifth of those interviewed would
not have access to a newspaper. Maga-
zines with food articles were most popu-
lar in middle and upper class white fam-
ilies.
The major newspaper reader was the
affluent, white, middle-aged woman with
a small family. A survey of food sections
in large city newspapers revealed that
coupons, prizes, and prices were the
major information offered. Food infor-
mation placed in newspapers in two cities
showed that those most in need of its
use did not see, read, or remember the
items.
When facts about poultry were placed
on the radio or in store displays, the
homemaker who recalled one or more
items was most often the woman with
above average income and education.
She appeared to be reinforcing previous
knowledge, as she mentioned that broil-
ers were an economical protein source
useful at all meal and snack times.
However, the information source used
by homemakers in actual purchases was
of most value to the food marketing sys-
tem. In a statewide sample of urban
homemakers, more than half had been
influenced to buy a specific food because
of information, usually recipes, on food
containers, requests of family members,
and food store advertisements in news-
papers.
More than a third of the women
bought a particular food because they
heard about it from friends or relatives,
needed it for a recipe in a cookbook,
or saw it in a quickie recipe on televi-
sion. About a fourth of the respondents
bought a food because of a sample
tasted in the store, food articles in maga-
zines, and store displays. Lesser influ-
ences were the food section in the news-
paper, food advertisements on the radio,
single food advertisements in newspa-
pers, and cooking demonstrations on
television.
Current concern about rising food
prices, the prevalence of poor food habits
at all income levels, the popularity of
snack foods, and the increase in pur-
chased meals make consumer and nu-
trition education necessary for all per-
sons. To be effective, factual food in-
formation should be available in a read-
ily usable form at the time of need. Ex-
isting media can be vital links in con-
sumer education when trained person-
nel provide unbiased food facts backed
by competent research.
15
Corntroling Traffic Increai- ('otion Yiektr
W T DUMAS and F. A. KUMMER, Department of Agrictultiural 
Euyineetiniy
I A SMITH, AFRD, ARS, USDA
ill thei Soitlii'ax Sta(1te s to v it li t I o In
illd tile es i to(X Jpi8.'' itiiiit ailod
boardi'! 1Iii\ ~is iiai. oi\ 181o ? i ttif(
tiicix XX he l l tt(l i) tii ii si
jill I ;ii i ll iri ti ce~iiX (' o tf xuliii the
ii' iii o iof thtliii iiiXill tl t'ifllro of i t de'
I loXX iitii I, a t p ((Xx plt' I)ii(op pigox e
thiieighitl tof ixth einie tliiXXr ti
\ltix Illu'( Siome ut liii' fo tla( lox tal em 
xxi
thxi itomt tolits'iic ant 74 ils 
Also,
oft i ' I e I ii fate i i'iiiititii o i ,ix
XX l~i li itIliti r 81(1 x c tideaill foI oliic
tIlk(l atiiX iti oftIJA ixopese teiiol]iit
grea ( 'ulitimu to rtiat t ilis a l :io x 'n'
lowi'tu lo athiol across th l elN 111 t pi t lle
soil h~is x
1 
i'tl I 2 t i i olnufae.
easy XX it i ng(Ii X ititlx o d se x (~t'tl 81) in. x
but 111iicl of tie lt it iis~ ~ clip9,ltc
1'1i n -\tiu 01oIi, i SF10l (01 iON ullOx Doi IF11 NI' TlilIt 
(otI)lliix
Treaihlltmn
1.~t C oilhe tiatfit
2. Traotor traffico
:3. I Tiatl & sprayx II
LJ).
.:3305
2,708
Spaced 80) :il. anid at ti icx dc huigh-cleai-
alice siprax er xxith ('Iii X lcix x
1
),cct
Ing, liii till hi t'ti litst, \\it aX tol(lid
XX itli li the \iiit XX e ii cto'i and(1 11(.o(i
bed~in ifg. Thtei ci ill g \\itx pcifoilet
xxithi itt 0ciixc pitiX cox ciiiig anit dt
of 801 iii. aniiit adtepth oit I8 ill. Alli ii.
t I ,e t'il' 
i)iiixx. All 
ploits we 
re thii
hi(idit'( x it it 8 \oX ilt) disxk ibctltlt'
'Ilic pliots wereiz plitclh ill 4)-iii. (((XXX
i to iii I Skipx ((XX ptternI. ITie 4tt
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
AUBURN, ALABAMA 36830
E. V. Smith, Director
PUBLICATION-Highlights of
Agricultural Research 6/72 I CM
19 10
LI).
:3,7 15
.3,276
2,985
197 1
LI).
.3,649
.3,329
2,862
Ax\g
:3, 55 6
3,I0tl
2,9)2:3
iii. skipx lictxxccli p~airs ot ixx\ xwxere niot
tilled tiliti Serve t perilwillt Iiraitit
ILowill icth icli tc Ilit afiti ix iiii
.452 11). of' Seed iittiiii peciriIe nlone
thani tincI tactor tr atficketd plots, ticat-
Ill tdithionitl to y ieldiltmtil, soil xtii'iigtii.
traffic.
POSTAGE PAlD
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
; W 
1111