V
N
t
,'1
4
w j
e
DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS
til M A I llllIN .11 i('I l tha1)1'. 111 ti IAllNc.1 N tl a1(41 1.11 1 ' ilt NI It II
I (li 111i NI /I prIi 111SI.1 III iti (tro.1)1 ('i (il II (-\(.I. til 'llr I t
ti l aIl i l it il it IIn ( '\ II f ilcl' i ff J icll N ( . Thile ru1(s lt ". TI OIII fI
I .\(I((I o lI(l 1111nOIt.Sz o fr l it I ( I il p ici I"io of I the 11(4( n itt t
fit(, h'td .N t1) i stI 1.1 ho l c.i in(1 INN s prNI1111 ie (NI It uuI 11( II 1,11
111(4 ih'Ii(Il(I 111h(11 h t ii l l '.N(( 1) lIcr~pt N (Ii 1 Il i (II 111 N'III I
Narel aI N Iii( h~ u till' m9t N to (c."h x p ieiu tr(
i'((prl emt ;thi <(' INI \l I i.1I 'wc IlsI I N u.Sh NI *N roducii(( tio I ;IN ( 1 sei o
dI Ill It s t \la'It l~t .11 idl)'11( ad n 19 O)11 i II IiN Il( 111 1 Nt,1rio a ik
N)131 Itu( r mh a(rculi to tils tnel 11111 Nt in vw(1 ha.(1 nut
NIliNc l l \I,II.Il t~ilII' N IecNt .1 sc (4111111). II Icp r
11 I (111 . 11,11ult ( rill1:(4 t ( I 11( ant Ii~ IN) I( I'Is d s' k
thi r III1 li N-to m att i ~: I N (/' ll'n il II I i l' )1 ( ' Tc1 -1 IIl .iIII ti lt
pi 11p t h T ( TIJ (N 11 11 '! fItillciai
1
l NIImId- 1 I 141 ll Ii.1i'(I
Isi N. ( lii N t ((Ik 11r t i ts I'.( ilt l roup. II ' 1111' (' I ( 111
11111 (I nun III)Nlii TtI 41 N Illn'k t a \i.II 3Y ,1( 1, '2 iIII Ii it Il
'( Nle i i i Iti1, it 1 th111 11 t NI vars.IN~i INI(((jl1 i~t ( IN
((N Ic till I f he C itivi 11( N i(' ~ t\ ill( (( it111 il'llt(l' II'11-I(l
tId I o I 11 t 111' l.(t( a11 N at h 11111 'Nt i ,ItN l 11)1I 'IiI'IiI ~li
-0
I)1fli lit N( 1(11111tw as i til pIoI I I it
a r ) I()m and s tillB r I /1( I h 
1
~s fI (ti(i)
1 ' ii 1r 11 itl ~I 1I'i'. liiht n c~ io A1 1)[ 1 11 t 19,)
rtth e IN IIt I I(4II(it itf i;( iii-i,It('N1Y- h(' itsl
l~ 1111 II I tl''(IN(' till IsJS:3 1)111so of ill
t~l .1 I jIII II i'ii t I e holds 111 t Hll S .( it
1)11tlll IP(IuIN 111SIi I ~'
a(onn'IlI: \ ,,.i s i
SPRING 1985
(N : Al I l it n \
l)NNII1 II. III.\ Ni
IA1 ISIq IU~ ...IN
h lwl [it" 11111 .'1I
IA lilt II N ll 1n I Z
VOL. 32. NO. 1
X'.Ni'tnlt I )iI Ir lt
I IlitI I
1111 lIlt' /litIII
f X'ntrI III/tl Fl I) II(IiiI I huh IA( l Srn ll Ivn
Il/ III(t err Srl l F1(11' i IA a fi, I T Ii ol i -I
U I I/ I.I (; i I A'. 11311ilI 'I (((I N iltc f i liviI
f Iolt/ .Si 11/ c liF '11(((11 i(' 5IIiI A oi -
1111,11IIo 1 n .1 wo i t It Cso flon
l~OrN HE COVR. ran sorghu may be su-wrirt
peri, or o or in romi bred raios, as.I
Inoted n theo ond pagei 14. nllalet
A (tnarterh report of research puhlished he
the Alith;una \'ricultund 1:cpetinlent tit1-
tiou. _Auhnlu tuivcrity.
THE AGRICULTURE and Food Act of
1981 expires this year. If it is not re-
placed, commodity price and income
support programs could revert to permanent
legislation, some dating back to the 1930's.
This is not likely to happen, and current leg-
islation will probably be extended with revi-
sions. The nature of these revisions will be
critically important to Alabama farmers, so
their ideas should be considered.
Since enactment of the 1981 legislation, ag-
riculture has changed dramatically. There
have been two bumper crops, followed by the
worst drought in 50 years. Export demand
has declined, leading to a massive acreage re-
duction program. Farm program costs in-
creased from about $4 billion in 1979 to over
$20 billion in 1983. A payment-in-kind (PIK)
program was instituted to help maintain fi-
nancial stability. Despite these efforts, the
Farmers Home Administration (FmHA)
emerged as a primary lender of operating
credit, which was a sign of economic difficul-
ties.
In retrospect, it is clear that policy makers
were off-target when formulating the 1981
Act. Therefore, a better job is needed in de-
veloping the 1985 farm bill so it can ade-
quately serve as the basic agricultural leg-
islation for the rest of this decade.
In anticipation of legislation, position re-
ports have been prepared by various interest
groups and conferences have been held
around the country. Since agricultural pro-
grams affect farmers directly, individual
farmers should have input into the policy for-
mulation process.
Alabama farmers were afforded the oppor-
tunity to express their opinions through an
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
questionnaire mailed in early 1984 to a ran-
dom sample of 1,479 Alabama farmers. This
was one of 17 similar surveys conducted in
1984 by agricultural economists in a cross-
section of states. In Alabama, 284 farmers
completed and returned the survey question-
naires. Although only a 19% response, this
number may be representative of the State's
active farmers.
Five major policy issues were explored in
the survey: price support programs, loan
rates, and target prices; foreign trade; disas-
ter protection for farmers; farm program ex-
penditures and the Federal budget; and farm
financing. For each issue, a series of ques-
tions and alternative responses were pre-
sented to the farmer. In addition to the overall
responses, data were subgrouped with re-
spect to size of farming operation, depend-
ency on nonfarm income, and the most
important source of farm income.
Alabama farmers supported voluntary ag-
ricultural programs, with few supporting
mandatory programs. Farmers with larger
operations and those more dependent on
farm income favored target prices and defi-
Alabama
Farmers
Support
Voluntary
Agriculture
Programs,
Oppose
Mandatory
Programs
L.E. WILSON and J.L. ADRIAN
Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Research
J.L. JOHNSON, Cooperative Extension Service
ciency payments. Crop farmers were in favor
of keeping target prices and deficiency pay-
ments at current or higher levels, while live-
stock farmers wanted lower grain support
prices. Farmers also desired continuation of
the farmer-owned grain reserve, with a limit
placed on payments. They also preferred loan
rates being set in relation to market prices,
and using the PIK program when large stocks
reappear. Respondents strongly supported
the requirement that farmers must follow
recommended soil conservation practices to
qualify for price and income support pro-
grams.
Among the proposals to increase agricul-
tural export sales, Alabama farmers' top
choices were strengthening the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and promot-
ing bilateral trade agreements. The majority
also saw benefits from expanding exports
through use of farmer-financed market de-
velopment.
There was considerably less support for the
other alternatives: a two-price plan, in-
creased funding for food aid to hungry na-
tions, and formation of an export cartel. Few
farmers favored lowering support prices to
achieve increased exports.
Farmers generally preferred a continuation
of Federal Crop Insurance programs with
costs shared by farmers and the government.
However, opinions were divided about pro-
gram mechanics. Many farmers did not re-
spond to the crop insurance questions,
implying that the crop insurance program
was not well understood.
The great majority of farmers were con-
cerned about Federal budget deficits and the
resulting impact on interest rates. Decreas-
ing or eliminating food stamps, maintaining a
limit on direct farmer payments, and use of a
low "safety net" price program were viewed
as ways of reducing agricultural program
funding. Farmers with small operations most
commonly favored giving price and income
support to the small and medium-size farm-
ers. Those farmers who relied primarily on
off-farm income for their livelihood also fa-
vored targeting program benefits to the
smaller farms. These opinions were evenly
divided among crop and livestock producers.
About half of the farmers favored contin-
uation of the FmHA policy of foreclosing only
after all repayment efforts have failed. Less
than one-fourth desired a moratorium on
farm foreclosures.
The views expressed by Alabama farmers
were similar to those stated by approximately
8,000 farmers in the 17-state study. Produc-
ers in 12 of 17 states more frequently pre-
ferred voluntary programs. Mandatory pro-
grams were more popular in the wheat-pro-
ducing Great Plains States. Sentiment for
eliminating set-aside, price support, and gov-
ernment storage programs was expressed by
a sizeable minority of respondents.
The majority of those surveyed favored
continuation of target prices and deficiency
payments, as well as continuation of the
farmer-owned reserve. Future use of PIK
programs was favored in 11 states, including
Alabama. The majority of respondents ex-
pressed the sentiment to (1) change future
farm programs to give the most benefits to
smaller farmers, and (2) to require farmers to
follow approved soil conservation policies to
qualify for price supports. Concern over the
consequences of large Federal deficits was
widespread. A majority of farmers in every
state favored balancing the budget by cutting
all government programs, including farm
price supports.
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
variety bey ection ana Luitural kracices
Help Control Soybean Ste Canker
D.B. WEAVER and B.H. COSPER, Agronomy and Soils Research
PA. BACKMAN, Botany, Plant Pathology and Microbiology Research
S IM (A1,kE1 lisxt'six f x\ lit'aii
xxais fi rxst itlt'itihctl in \lIlita in I 197
Its wvux'iitx sintcc that timei lhas iaid
hero,("2 mosit dtl ruictixt ini 1951 atnl again in
tioni xx~ax higit in 1981 toi itlctiil ititltiid of,
'xlion of i ii the pr optr x ari it s perhIaps
the miost cflcctixc imthodl 1or stmci aiikei
contifrol i s c arixax 1951 it xx ax no i ti that
Sonoii ict ici sliowed~ xixe dislase s\ 101)
toii anit x itcti losses up tot (194, whi ilic other
vaiictitx, somiitiimes' in ft saimi field,
shtiiid iii ii) iptoiii aniid fpioduciedt gtool
\ itit~sx
'txsts weirc intitiat('d in 1952 it tihe Black
Bll Subsitationi coiimpain 11)2\ ii in iii x'-
ti al itlfeted ficcis hfin stt'mi t iiikti reistanice,
anield it
1
t'pciu titof flax Iraux~ M, Birax-
ton, anid D~oxling iciiiaitid txxtiitiallx I fct of
dlistast xx iiptoilix All otheiri caittis gioxxn
ini Alalxoma xshowex ic ratige ofiii a (lxtx c\1 s-'
ttcttlildt Somet of Alabiamla's uixt popular
xaiities (IlIittoii Biragg, aotl ( :okcr 2:37) are
conideiltied to bii iiioxtxt suscetile.( lTher N xias
xx iiiftoiii andi x icldl loss, althiough soiie xa-
ritie.xsuchl as liartoxoi (lix lopidcl isiasc
xx uitifinlti but had hiihe iii l than l-cx M1.
Auihtin msearxitch aniR obhcirxatin ini faimersi
fields arounid fte State flaxe shwn hlix loxwixeri
that all hut the most rI iixtatt \ arieties can
xuiflci compilete' y ieild loss undc111 ix tc tiuss
Br~r~lly 1 Srr~t C vy~vliR1 S~ l vIt of Sii [. iiiml \ t vu
ltdrI tlt i t t
156) ); A\ \itit hatisomi Couke 3 17. (:aSmx1 I 1) Coe ', Cokir-Sb i 45 ( tuf X
Ilitit Forres Px I xix A5171( XJI Lfcft l S I'x(t9, I)eline~ill ,)\tt);~ (;ii'gg Doilonl A I1) Foteri
kititi XIIIr
\P .55, A59t39 A ), B 502, fRX 601, [ it \o 9.\ Brfiadflix (\'I)tokei 37- flra'gg \lcaii 77)) A\ lxiii 790t,
RAX (if At tiL t k335i fliittoii BISO X 01III1
tixe intl itixiruuiuuuutufl tcontdittixn iii
iuliftanut x
1
it xielecttiiig it xIi ityx For tX-
auifli, ft'e mostt ste'in cauilt reisxaut xai-
ctics, uixi no reiitanice to xtix lui cx xt
maiftodc risftnct. luacx- I althouitgh Itting
liic'liie xs ixfi'w ixeliiiii ll xai sioivi ofthiiisscp
tix liu cturiitiittixttinc iuut ioo ixixal
xxif ula t! titilt A iao t'xicti of puutulat-
A3 xftx it
1 
the~ lift' txtl oif ft'e orgaismti
that caiiuxe sftim tanikii xugets tht ciittin
ftcx fhll invlvxicx planiting xli I tclx x ilitc
dilifrom i'li lii prio s \cx' illi ii tiIiati crop
Soybean variety with resistance to stem canker is shown on left and an infected, nonresistant
variety on the right.
c ''
4 xl1
'4
'1
Il
1 'y
is still prei tx'f ini the field iiaxtil enciirag
xkti th iicati XXfitct it lxtixi~ nota ixpr
taut it ioax flaxc lit pris'tf at a it i(l tooi
loxi to) ie nioticed. Thforet i it ix umis tofi
atek sl i ttcept if i xai it, x i fciall i iii ield
that hiad Itatis thl prcx ionsi xiii. fDttp til-
lage, fto hut x tiiop dlisi is ft i uccoo-
fnitutfc piiitic in txthxx sitation.l fNttion
taiikii foit fili othii tdistaxex ax well.
3ixtai cl itto tfc uflcct of planiinig daft ton
xttiuu tcaiker xtxtnitx has bccnu couduictetd
wxithi muixet ireiultx. Ini 1982- lianux planittd
jiiii 15 x itlilti 19)% moeth ani fltos plaiitted
\lax I5 fii gitu 1111)iiiiodt ail itxixtiuut x a-
rict ics alit 28'4 iiiitc fiiuirif itt otitotcr-
itc sfusxi ciptifl utxairitits. In f983, dltlax ci
fplliltiiig caisixt aslighit xhielit terasi for
iitlrtc itix stisitant xaictctx shoiix d ntto if-
iii,.XXlot ltaxccl vicilof iiht mos tai sict il(c
tixicx a titcotti if tiaxit-c ini isatx caxei'
iii tct if thfit fictoris utax afltt platintg
dlt irixpiiixt I)claxccf planiting) alione is nilt
tfetl t of xxiii ofi) asgtif xantir ifeitxtxiii
\iix if li iutl selectfonix the t iott coni-
truul mtho iii titlx avixulable. If it is tntc
txxli x fto planlt ione oifl ot inr xisi tibiflc
xaiit ixs hitus iix of fpriifltlx xxith iotther
pets o sittd ax ailaltilitx riofationi atit dftep
fhixi pract ices tan iiittracf xxithi otfuu' pets
inoiixt i axauilafiilitx- liligth fil gring lii) xi
all xftno canklir cotriol xt'tifgx.
WE DEVELOPMENT,
D CONTROL
PA. BACKMAN, MA. CRAWFORD, and E, SMITH, Botany, Plant Pathology, and Micro-
biology Research, D.B. WEAVER, Agronomy and Soils Research
Soybean plant infected by soybean stem
canker fungus.
S F1NI\ CAXN KER dise'ase' oI XLoybelans is
Icnix lacing AXlanlma growersi . Other'
diseasesi' cauise'L bX this girouip iif fungi ari'
podt aitId stin blight anti sitd anti see'dlitng
lilighits. Al~iaiaia Agicuituralx Exp'tiiment
Statiotn texts at thet Blaick Bilt Subistatiotn atid
Platnt Bredi'nig U/nit haxe c overedX't't someit
facts ai lit thit iau sal ortgaism iXI1iaiporl/i
pliasi'louii x ar. canlix ntx, to) help fairiii's
cionmbat tis diiseasi'.
The' lifylt' oii'u tihL sti'm catnke't funguts (ii-
luistrtedct itn thc iitawing) is just beLgintintg to)
lht under~s tood.i Tilt litngus is appIaretly ill
se'e'i prioducei i nfetctcti plants. The' li'vei' of
iitgius iti tilt Xs't'd mayO hi' XIo low that it ixx it-
tuaii ltltictetctalc tXe i'uisitig siophisticatedi
laboraltorl tecthiqueLs; however, i' this loXX
it'sl ofii dise'asi' can infest fie'lts.
Typically, sporets iof thc fungius ate pro-
brtis fromil thei pre xiLous soybilanI ctiop. The'xc
spore1si gertinaite atnd inftect the' plaint thrtou~gh
the. leaxi's. Xx thie fngius gtroXs, it moveX is iltol
iof ltaf infetionli antix illlptomilcss re'sidcnct'
to iiitaiii cottiol. In tists at thit Black iBeit
Suiiltationi bes't rettx st XXre i' vc wthi e ii Xli
ftn gititli 'Xereii appitlit b Xetin V 2 and ViN6
twon-leal ant ix leIal xtagis iol thchipnii lt t
ricith andii aie les iieX 'lcct ix. Hct ilatc i X L at
I itis ioi itwscc I anti b oz. tpet atc applicti
oX Li till irowX (banded)t was iquiti effitixe inii
'edintg ste tc atnikei atd winicirtaxing x ields
mediate suscpt ilility\ in th Au' Xii ii i tists.
duce podls, it ltgiiix tii add stirLss tii itxcif
becaiisi ofi tilt inctttaseti ttqiretiiientx iof
oi tt t sxtxseisuci as diriught, ntodit s,
atd ictlit igiixtiI tlan cts, tiggxers
1
)i the st
llama iditing Jiulx andi Aiugiuxt kept sttcsx loXw
atnd disetasxe dloped oinfti ~lX on tiic mosit sus-
cepibl xcs ltililx a citrs.Xiii it
tcti to) tild-Mactk, xhallnow tankets, ul beX -
gilini g tncat a iower tical todic. Ax thi' ifc
11ti ti ilops till catnIket becoml s si5xoiken'i
xtemi. WXhcti girling ntccurs it prtevenitsX lir-
thtet dexclopmenttt ofi podsi andt stets, antd
causlx'Xial sympnftomls. le~tave xiigiti tol showX
sympltomis XX ilii caitkeris atr' o~f intetriidiate
Xsie thexc inciouic a x cliniX g fllii d byihI
necttosis (btilxsninlg) iLtXwteni the Xeitns.
Ex citiially the. XXhlole planit ies, XXithi thei
dieid leavecs beitg rctainctd on1 the stcm.
Ytitlds m lay 1e redce t bylit mor in than 80%/ iin
suisceptile cltiX atX, howeXveXrc sycid infexta-
After thei decath ifl the' plant, thei tfligils
thlici ) bligini to for tiat eitiudeIIL sporeiis in t he
late spinitg aiit eartly xsuiime. ilTxese Lse
arec iin a xt icky gelat inoius miiatix that is is-
pi'tsedi tol neiairb pl atnts 1b) spl axhin g rin.
iDuritng thuindictstoirms, Xwiidiveti n irainl caii
fi'ctions ocu when X i tilL sporetts I~lat on moist
soybeai'n leaves.x
Life cycle of the stem canker fungus may
hold the key to future control of the disease.
B~ased on resieairch bt'tX (n 1980) and 1984
XLeXviral cointrol w iiceine hl Iave hee devei lit'-c
opedi tihat wXill allowX Alabami a farmeri to iman -
age sttein canker diisiease n snX I l('ei I
1. Plant thic moist rcsistant cultiX ar aal-
alet that is adlaptedL for you nloIcatin. (Sce at-
ticli' on paige 4 in this issue.
2. Emiplo)> goold rotation andi tuIt ivXatin
priacticcs to reduce the inncnhr oriiiiiiginating
froi croi lp deis.
23. Plant titan seedl nr fungicide treatctd
se(it the oirigini is iinknown) patticiilarly if
Xou niotXU icali fields have neXvet hail stcim
canike.
4I. Plant high risk fieltis late. Late niatnring
vatietie's plantetd after Juine 15 in Alahaina
often ectapec the spotcs releaxted tinting \1a\
alii] Iioiii wXith little' diiscase ticxcipincnt.
\ianx iif thet'e recom nndatiins weXXtrt
adtedltt byx fatiiers in iAl aiima 's Black Belit
fori till 19823 season. Daiiage in this tcgin
w~as greatly rdudnct, wXhile the dhiseasecoin-
that hati not adted~ct thetsxt priactitces, tcsiult-
i ng in an e'stimatctd $17 iioin loss.
Fuingicide appl1)icatio~ns att still cxpt'tiict
canker in cultiXvars of intctinediatc siusecpti-
iliit. Fiiute tcteatch is trequirdi to exvalu
ate treatimcnt timiings andl tates nf atpili-
catin. Recstearch is also) contininig Loi tilL tre-
iatinships betweenci tiinc of infcction, envi
tontl sttress, anti ct'ivXar sielectioin tn
beittert predict tdiseasc sevecrit.
Alabamuua Agricultu ral E'xperimenit Statiohn
Metabolic ffects of Feeding Wh
Cottonseed to Dairy Cows
KAn CMINS arn C y E H ir-] KINS, Animal and Dairy Sciernces Resear
I ixiit iix i I flatte i i wilk rclt r j iii ii v [i t (
tttiiii c oxxtscl tI xx litlt itiheii di mattexx
'Iuixx uil xx il k po ti on i ll ut iptl lixv was nt
itt~b itht xxiii(t ttttti The iiim il litdution
niit aft t'gti oLx I ttti onxhu iitiixiu
iiik iti s i tin xvhc i lk fa~t xx illntg i wasd
bee foundi il ni bloodii allt lix ii t i xii
Ii f i ll nll c iiiiil ii stui e tii ii
tollsuh tttix ito cxdhit
1  
liiis thi x c-
mix .ig Ltrk oi ttinfr tt io o d ceita Iin hli-
xhiii i itiiis txxii cdi n "liit. to ilax tatixnt
riuxx pil tExpimenix ation showiiit 1otn
tiniitcand ust sot ti llxuitii flrom xedlinx
tiuIx xx l ix tii ro I r nsu til i iiitt ull ( iil i t
high tii i gx oil t i lk ti fiixt irxx x o si I t 'llh
xxio iii o i ttne d cotonee ilo i ii i ilt oii i it xi
ic l ill t( c tu scc e lco ti e
xh uuiittui ii tkii
Ix l lk Ii (i
Mtilk, ti . .
Mlilk fat 1Y( ... .
MIilk piotini 7t, .
Buttx 6ci itl Pini
Plsm gosi ol
kXltniunu riulti,,l fI xpii uuutit Stionuu
lu I):11 Cliii i
:3.72
3.3
. . . 9
ii
ft
:39. -
t6t.5i
3.71
:32
10. 5
1.2
36. -1
59.6t
t0.l !-15.
I! I II in-roveult(iei , aiii I~ ciii'
nIIil iliis I ii i I 111-Il a,( ,v liiii/i ill iult
vl ii I t lis t i i i u 55 ii ii I IIs( i ii ,h utk
\Li Ii iI ItI Iiili ti, i it IIm( t ()( tii ) , til/ iS th
(ai t ll i t s\ t r(" or 1,1 itt r' iui , iii(I iso t
rl ti l n , OloS pi iIIi li/il th 55 iii IIi I ( 1ir (tl
fi t I ilii i st t ii~ it i I i ii sss t iuu iiirv
iii t(,I I (om lli (I iii 0ii iti ilI iiiis t i ll/('1"silt l
I1() -IIs i; ( \5 t ,II , (Ii ii iit tl lni k ii ii I t i ll-
Ii i si(n "I II s i iii , c r silii I sillI( t i
II( sta t l l( . n it I 1h )( ,i Il s , i t ti1isi (it i
ssit Ii Iji is I i (II( )I IIi Ii( I )c i i i i (, I oiI
st iii hi I)iciI Ii tiis si -i i iit Iii iii it i t I ici i
I s II i t ( I i r\ 11 Ii I s I I , ii \ ill t t\ i li s
I tiIIl thi tii It IiI liiIi st h sli sitit ,liItn
tlui ,lit luis i ll 1 5111 1 ii.ItI i l ( it it iii
till t ii ( 1u i it ii I C I i/, t- i i fI li/t li v it1I
t(,Iits i t i
1 
nii t i ' I S ii"r iiic tl sil \tc(it
I In ,tait(i ,, 2 2 II) -p r tIi i (' it N, uo
lit ii .. I i , Ih pII 1(1 ( sIi II N I \ ;id t 1
n 1is Ii is i li t iIs
1  
ti id o Ii:I i l I-:}t 1
A lll I Is II I i I s t Iw \I l si) p I(( it s it I Fcl IhIS -
its Iiu 4 iin I 2 s 2 1iLt, vIi it I' it I cli 1)
I, , 11 Ii illI I k( 1 ( II. s . l I IL ( I I It
t1l( 11 ?i 2 s 2 l -Ii ,ltite \\i it I i~i 11 111 il
ISu;A Ill Vii I AiS 'ii h1II I I 11111 )S III
5
itaitti
triiu iii
corn 111(1 Iwauul,_ )()t the (I(cII I)I t( ('lu("I I t
\\;1, mare efl("cti\c Ills ( .( ) Il) n. Ilihcr corn
(,1(1, vv(I( ohhliu(,(I with Ill( , A-1' L:ulcr
Ir(atlllelit tlI'll l vvIIII A ,(fan(,. I)III Iit 'auut 111(1
calt()n Aicl(I, vv(,1 u hil,11 AAItII A alone :t.,
Ihec \\rrc \cith th( \-!' c(nullinutian.
I'irnl )11( 111 1( )lI c;unlol Iit (Iravv 11 from I
v(,.u o{ (111 a. but it alllx;u, lh;ll clfcctivc
I.II tI'I Icrl111/(-1 1111( 111 11 t 111 Iv v;11 v 1111(111,
l'I),. AI,11- illtl[111[ 11-Inn (I'll.( ( ()11(,rl(,(111 ( ) Ill
tI I i, ,Intl it h(,I ,I11(h(, c( )n(III( .( I (Irvin, the
111,1 G'v\ ce:u,_ A not I'" i, (-,en( -rllh the n1( ),t
VIII) rtal1t illr(,(licnt in ,tarter ICItiliicr,,
icl(I r(,,h()nu , III P arc 111 rlucnl en()uII to
jntifv il( 11Ai1l, 1' in th(" ,l.u tcl 111It the A
ral(, I)rohallly ,liaiil(I I)( .t, InII ifn1)i llilllr
\I ul l I S i i i I1 I IA ,I " I II I 1, I Iliii I/I I
Ill tines 1i I ilit,
1 1
,(ilt11 pllr(ii nuiti
lit II It .nni
('urn I'clli ts
Ill
tSli
t I) iii
t 
5
i1
I_3ttf
I t 1
-SlI
!.I tit)
l ii
Diagram of in-row subsoil shank
with deep-placed fertilizer tube.
D
1~
'D
iiI~ ~
if
45 .t~.
f-s
r ~ I
I,
I ii
- . ~,I.' ~
V ~
~ S~ ~ 1
r -~
*1 * -
2 -';~
'5 . ,~-.
Starter Fertilizer
Placement
with In-row Subsoilers
J T TOUCHTON and D H RICKERL, Agronomy and Sotils Research
I'I U I All AI. AAU IV Li A( til Itu 111.1A1
f.
Ilrthrnuu .1,,r it it It it rul 1-I-xin,1-itill 'It t Stuti(m
SEED TREATMENT WITH BAYLETON
REDUCES FUSIFORM 
RUST IN FOREST NURSERIES
WD KELLEY Botany, Plant Pathology, and Microbiology 
Research
io tild(rus t n i ne see ligiiI
xit firt shxii xl to t-ti-ttixe cox ntrioi til l is-
IIts on ,lu at ( ti blut siiirxix ttlit i n it ) Sil.
sinc Vtc it has11 biei thoroui dghi itestI xl i
rclist(I for usi iin 1111( Ititi t nusresi h
ozl. autkct inredint petri acit li oz. unitt t
50i \\i Pt. Tiing f ip l c isipral t it al equal ill-
tnillx 11(1111 img lt 3 d s (itlid xj t e ix itkg
lIn~ uditi n tx f. xxtit t p at-ixitx d14iisoxt
xt-iiili '.tl i .u 11)) t i iotc t tin( ellii i
for1 abouit I-Ii (xxii atl ir '.~ lxx Iii 111'I'ist
mthod cai ii.lls ill oain x ptine sed foirt 2it -il
hoxr i i solut(1111it xotxaini Ii oz. xii tx1
li i Ic m 5 \11 .. ..
\1i111 IS \Iix 7 \Ii 23 1111(' _3
pii IS \Ilx - \ltx 
2
3 time -:3
At ii 23I \Iix 7 \tlix t5 \ta ix it
pqjie seed, alilt '.1 titlttvitrit i irt' u
Viliil of tils s.1(l trleatmtltt as parit iii .
xxiis x coxxii piii \ t liii s iijit-i-tit it il'. itestsi
al th x 'l llt (til o.1 p.11i '.I liliti xxa ('ix on
xx,( lott t tixh nuse '.cilts hae(], ) it'.3(1it
(21-tt- in 11uch bed- i A' I t itc xxiiitit (" l it- (
100 seed1li g xx c itnii it 1(1 ti-I-l .111 t ii itl
stwell M
1
1(t hil ti (Ii t itit lii xx a'. t he il
taiiitii ofi gallt'. t Sheetl iig (i ittldt i r ll
dal1t an c api lig~tdx i i(2c'l i th ta ii i t td. i(
.1'
1~' I
torl
Brs(t:isur lit si (:u\mOI Protatc\I, ti I\ ,, I Od'I At tcsrauls
AofalraIna ,k ricultnral 1"'Xp ?rirrrrnt Station
I; 
I I 
I 
lilt. A II 
t I( \ I 
l il 
II 
ull1
\iiii lt
1 1 1 
,uunstptitiiil 11111luiir
\1,11iii tIiiI sili ll l a c Iiiiiiitill il
)1 I IlI 1tt 11111 t I s tll' ct I ca Itt I I
11111 I t ll tII t (1,11) t( i ll 1 1 ISy Iut iiil .
I It i ii iii i 51 111 ti k o tit( p1111n1'.itui (I5
rI Il55ill' s 1111s i i O lI tI a,1 1 I' w S t I it i I I t
tt( I it itt titn 2,511 , i t ll I clt ticl\ li iIII l
ill I t It ti i atii ol 11 l l 11 1 is It li rcI 1
lits i 1 II(I is 111 It t t ssc ill t llr u I (
liclt i ii Ill i Ii lii i tati on ti ~lc I it lil
tia II l l 1111I/till ill tincasuii iii/ t I t111 iii tt
Il iii t t o ?$( (I ti11 I Il till' st sill f i t ilt t
11111 tll St is n cI 1 to I)I lt i l u' t t, t s lit Itt
(I , * Il Illtil u iii lii t I is in l vv I tith n i ,- t
11111 ti I 11111 f lI It tilt it .I(ItiI ti sI ltII I ll" ii
VI~I l at ti I51 Ii Ii t ii ~tI I III (l l lii li St( i s ( I
t( ilt I ll'res Iiil(Iij lil/t tilit (tl~jili lit itu
i11 t St Itt I I 1 111111 1.ii itt ii I illti
t I' l ll I lt 111 ,11 t llt ii lx 1ill (''I IIi cl li1111 (
t l 1111 isoi I i t I I I Il l I l i II ,I1st II(I
Onci toil \ it' 
1 
1 )111 I fttttllit I tS 11 xxIItI
tf I Ilti in. 1111 t, ilol i /c ll 11 it too155 l il - III
Iil si tio tt Il c(" n r l II it Imtur t oliI Twiii Itt'l
c5 t II ill I 'll. i I, t 1. ts It I ttt i i- l lsI) ii iii
c liiiI t t~ It'( int titt I t ti li itS ill , s o t ill
11l ii i I slx I IS llll t ii 1 11 hcut'~ I(
Iiac of viii AI Iit I ll liit'lltlx (Ill ItIII(
lit'I aI l i l I I I s111 t I II 5515 I t I I ,i i t i ll( lIt(
(,I ItIt I('1-, I Ilt I li 'si IIIOIits St I(t I Ial -11
fal ilt iii tliit il I t -( ltit s l I t , (
II1 I IS II 1111 i I I TiIti ' ltastil tii sts lit I)I1141 lIt'
IliOII lii i 111111 I (o ll I t l t(i 1111 lii w ti
11  
I i sI
to II it 111~l(A11 itI t it 11 itt it I I' i i I I I I(I
it 111ll
t 
tII IIIC t t I II lIlt ii tilt( Il~ tl ii tir~
ii s it I : I i fIll "s 4l ilt I i 1 Ii to tiit II
11111 I I il ilt I i ci ti tll 5(111(1 u t t I r(l
lcilt ThaS \\ Ac it 1) IttI titI 111 St I It ll~
PROPER S CHEDUTLING MAKES
DRIP IRRIGATION EFFECTIVE
IN PECAN ORCHARDS
HiJ AMLING and J. SNELL, Horttculture Research
NR. McDANIEL and E CARDEN, Gulf Coast Substatian
1. l(i I liii vII v ti u, Ih 1hS \\ vii I I'III Nil I vI '\I I sI/I AEN tOl SI II
o itti li ;cIt
hat
\ni,
\ it \thu llt
S II itM C ii i t I I I it i t f' Ii. I
I'5 1i dii ap
1
ti S() it1 1 I'l
1tt 11 (11itti II, I 11 . .. i ,
11(1s1t I 
ills It I(tt 
I~i t it ill 
nut t (III( 
'is111
l lit III it Iitlil t lt lll ,1IlI1it vi dc~tt
1.
1.Jt
1.0t
1.1
rat( colll(I_ if Invllx rlc sclic(IIII((I. c(Iual
sl)Iinklwl irri,,atiun in nut siic I(Iliccc(l.
I so of lllc 11ressul( 1)0llll) to nl(anl(
\catcl p)WTItial call IIIm i(1( tllc kcsis fen (f-
1i,(licc s(II(cllllmt; ill (11 it) itI i"'MIOI I.
THE RECORD Federal budget deficits
of recent years and the apparent in-
ability of Congress to bring govern-
ment spending under control will probably
mean higher taxes for most Americans in the
years ahead. That taxes have a profound ef-
fect on American agriculture has been docu-
mented in a recent U.S. Department of
Agriculture study showing that tax policy in-
creased land prices, encouraged the forma-
tion of larger farms, provided incentives for
farm incorporation, altered farm manage-
ment practices, and increased the use of
farmland as a tax shelter for farmers and non-
farmers alike.
Economists are concerned about taxation
because it can distort incentives to produce
and invest, thereby leading to resource mis-
allocation and slower economic growth. For
example, the tax provision that permits the
expensing of certain capital items, such as or-
chard development costs, can encourage
overexpansion in affected industries. The
consequent lower prices can result in inade-
quate returns to resources employed in the
industry.
Another concern shared by politicians, vot-
ers, and economists alike is one of equity and
the distributional impacts of tax policy. A
general consensus in favor of a progressive tax
structure appears to exist in the United
States. This means that the level of taxation
should be based on an individual's ability to
pay, i.e., persons with higher income should
pay proportionally more in taxes than those
with lower incomes. Moreover, a tax system is
considered "fair" if individuals earning ap-
proximately the same income pay the same
amount in taxes.
Research being conducted at the Alabama
Agricultural Experiment Station is attempt-
ing to shed light on the fairness of farm taxa-
tion and how it affects incentives to produce
and invest. The following conclusions are
based on a representative sample of 1979 in-
come tax returns that reported farm income.
State differences in tax equity appear
marked, even within a particular region.
TABLE 1. AVERAGE INCOME EARNED AND TAXES PAID BY FARMERS IN SELECTED
SOUTHEASTERN STATES, FY 1979
Income 
Taxes paid
State
Net Farm Adjusted gross Amount' 
Proportion of adjusted
gross income
Dol. Dol. Dol. Pct.
Alabama ................... -2,489 23,619 4,305 18.2
Tennessee ................. - 148 38,856 5,989 15.4
Mississippi ................. - 634 13,623 2,651 19.5
Georgia .................... -7,066 24,396 5,705 23.4
Florida .................... - 494 24,939 6,477 26.0
Source: Internal Revenue Service Data Files.
'Taxes include those listed in table 2.
TABLE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF FARM TAX BURDEN IN SELECTED SOUTHEASTERN STATES, FY 1979
Federal State & Self- Real Sales & Total
State income local employment estate property tax
tax tax tax tax bill
Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
Alabama ....... . 76.0 9.4 8.1 1.3 5.2 100
Tennessee ..... 83.1 1.0 8.8 3.1 4.0 100
Mississippi ..... 79.0 6.6 5.7 2.2 6.5 100
Georgia ........ 75.7 11.0 7.0 3.4 2.9 100
Florida ........ 87.9 .4 4.3 5.0 2.4 100
Source: Internal Revenue Service Data Files.
Relative tax
burden of
Alabama's farmers
H.W KINNUCAN and G.D. HANSON
Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Research
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Considering Alabama and the four states con-
tiguous to it, the percentage of adjusted gross
income paid by farmers for taxes in 1979 var-
ied from 15.4% in Tennessee to 26.0% in
Florida, table 1. Taxes included in this mea-
sure are Federal income taxes, state and local
taxes, self-employment (Social Security)
taxes, real estate taxes, and sales and prop-
erty taxes.
Under a progressive tax system one would
expect states with higher average incomes to
pay higher taxes. However, the data contra-
dict this notion; farmers in Alabama, Geor-
gia, and Florida had similar incomes in 1979
but average tax rates differed by 43%, with
Alabama farmers carrying a much lower tax
burden than either Georgia or Florida pro-
ducers. An interesting aspect of the data is
that while farmers in each state on average
showed a net loss from farming, income from
nonfarm activities was sufficient to offset
these losses and provide an acceptable stan-
dard of living to the average farm household,
table 1. Tennessee had the highest adjusted
gross income among Southeastern States in
1979, but it also had the lowest average tax
rate (15.4%). The apparent weak correlation
between income levels and relative tax bur-
dens calls into question the equity of our cur-
rent tax system, at least as it relates to the
farm sector.
In addition to taxes levied at the Federal
level, farmers are also subject to a variety of
state and local taxes. Policies regarding these
taxes can differ widely among states and these
differences help explain the widely varying
effective tax rates noted. For example, Ala-
bama farmers have low real estate taxes rel-
ative to neighboring states and this has kept
their overall tax burden down, table 2. How-
ever, part of the tax relief experienced by Ala-
bama farmers because of low real estate taxes
is offset by relatively high state and local
taxes (averaging 9.4% of their tax bill in
1979). Sales and property taxes represent
about 5% of all taxes paid by Alabama farm-
ers. This is high relative to neighboring states,
especially Georgia and Florida, table 2.
Agriculture is often referred to as a tax-fa-
vored industry because farmers can use spe-
cial tax provisions such as cash base
accounting, expensing of selected capital
costs, and conversion of ordinary income into
capital gains to lower tax rates. Despite this
characterization, data from the study suggest
that farmers are paying a significant portion
of their income toward taxes. Alabama farm-
ers, with 18.2% of their average 1979 income
diverted to taxes, appear to have a somewhat
lower tax burden than farmers in neighboring
states (when income levels are held constant).
Because low taxes and a healthy economy
generally go hand in hand, Alabama farmers
and other citizens will want to ensure that tax
dollars are spent wisely and efficiently by
paying close attention to new legislative ini-
tiatives to raise taxes.
10
FARM PONDS are used for watering
livestock, irrigation, fish rearing, and
recreation. Because ponds are impor-
tant in Alabama, research on the hydrology of
farm ponds and their watersheds was con-
ducted at the Alabama Agricultural Experi-
ment Station. The first task was to estimate
water losses resulting from evaporation and
seepage.
Evaporation was determined by lining a
1/10-acre, triangle-shaped pond with an im-
permeable liner and constructing a barrier
around the pond to divert runoff. Evaporation
rates for the pond, located on the Fisheries
Research Unit, at Auburn, are given in the
table. Year to year variation is not great, and
evaporation would differ by 10% or less over
the State. The data represent normal pond
evaporation in Alabama.
Total pond evaporation at Auburn (42.2 in.)
is somewhat less than the normal annual rain-
fall (54.4 in). However, evaporation was in ex-
cess of precipitation for the period May
through October, figure 1. The annual pre-
cipitation excess averages only 11.0 in. Thus,
WATER LOSSES FROM PONDS BY EVAPORATION
AND SEEPAGE
Month Evaporation Seepage
1,2
In. In.
January ............... 0.70 - 1.24
February ............. 1.90 - .56
March ............... 2.70 + .93
April ................ 4.16 + 2.40
M ay ................. 5.05 - 1.86
June ................ . 4.48 - 1.86
July ................. 6.05 - 4.96
August .............. 5.38 - 5.58
September ........... 5.04 - 6.30
October .......... ... 3.00 - 4.96
November ............ 2.06 - 2.40
December............ 1.72 - .93
Total ................ 42.24 -27.32
'Seepage values are averages of 20 ponds.
2- indicates seepage out; + indicates seepage
in.
Seepage
Evaporation
from Farm
and
Losses
Ponds
C.E. BO'D, Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures Research
rain falling directly into a pond barely re-
places evaporation and fails to compensate for
evaporation during most warm months.
Seepage for ponds was determined during
periods without rainfall when water was nei-
ther flowing into or out of ponds. The change
in water depth during this time represented
seepage plus evaporation. Seepage was de-
termined by subtracting evaporation, as es-
timated for the lined pond, from the depth
change. Average seepage rates for 20 ponds in
the Alabama Piedmont are provided in the ta-
ble. Water seeped from ponds during all
months except March and April when water
seeped in; seepage was greatest during sum-
mer and fall. Seepage varies greatly among
ponds. It occurs primarily through or under
the dam, but pond bottoms may also seep.
Seepage is less for ponds with properly con-
structed dams and/or ponds in areas with
tight, clay soils. Average summer seepage
rates (July through September) for ponds in
the Piedmont ranged from -3.98 to -10.05 in.
per month. Preliminary studies indicate that
seepage losses for ponds in the Black Belt
Prairie region are only about one-third of
ponds in the Piedmont.
Seepage plus evaporation for ponds on the
Piedmont averaged 69.6 in. per year-more
than the annual rainfall. Seepage and evap-
oration will approximately equal annual rain-
fall even for ponds constructed on tight soils.
Changes in water depth for a pond in the
Piedmont are illustrated in figure 2. The
pond was full or overflowing from January
through May. The water level then steadily
declined in response to less rainfall and
greater seepage and evaporation to the lowest
level in early November. December rains
quickly refilled the pond.
Although timing of events may differ by a
few weeks among years, figure 1 presents the
typical pattern for water-level changes in
ponds that receive no inflow from springs,
wells, or streams. The importance of having a
watershed large enough to quickly fill the
pond during winter is obvious. Ponds must
also have enough storage capacity to maintain
adequate depths and volumes of water during
summer and fall. Selection of a site with rel-
atively impervious soils, replacement of
sandy areas in bottom with clay, and proper
dam construction reduce seepage. Evapora-
tion cannot be reduced, but removal of veg-
etation around edges will decrease water loss
to transpiration by plants.
FIG.1 (left). Farm pond evaporation May-October in central Alabama.
FIG. 2 (below). Changes in water depth in farm pond in central Ala-
bama.
Feet
O
2t 
f; t .t{. }}t:ii i; 
r : { :}"ti:
raes(Jl trog Sptmer frpod2i
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Inches
8 F
6
Precipitation excess
2
0
I I ,I I I I I I I I I !
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Month
J J A 5 O N D
Month
-r-------- ----lr--~-
IIIC11<:ill~S S~~l)iiLL~f ()llr: t 1T~(ll();iT~-3S scc~n~ r------ --- ---- -----------
J F M A M
11
An Economic-Engineering Model to Select Optimal Location,
Size, and Number of Center Pivot Irrigation Systems
G.C. JOHNSON and E.W ROCHESTER, Agricultural Engineering Research
LU. HATCH and WE. HARDY JR., Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology Research
T HE SELECTION of the optimalcen-
ter pivot irrigation system design
poses special problems in the South-
eastern United States, because many fields
are of irregular size and shape. A large center
pivot system is less expensive per unit area
than a smaller system, but a design utilizing
several smaller systems may cover more area
in a particular field. A method for determin-
ing the most economical combination of dif-
ferent sizes of center pivot systems has been
developed by agricultural engineers and
economists in the Alabama Agricultural Ex-
periment Station. This method utilizes an op-
timizing technique called mixed integer
linear programming.
The first step is to determine the sizes of
center pivots to be evaluated. An economic
budget, consisting of annual fixed and oper-
ating costs, is estimated for each size pivot.
These costs will vary from field to field, de-
pending upon such factors as available water
supplies, soil types, topography, and interest
rates. The average yield increase resulting
from irrigation can be obtained by referring
to controlled irrigation experiments for the
region in which the field is located. Alterna-
tively, historical records can be examined and
the yield for years with adequate and timely
rainfall can be compared to the average
yearly yield.
The next step is to enter coordinates of the
field boundaries into the computer. This is
done by laying a map of the field over a digi-
tizing tablet and encoding the points of in-
flection along the field boundaries (see
Highlights Vol. 31, No. 1, p. 10). The field and
surrounding area are then approximated by a
rectangular grid of points. By utilizing the
coordinates of the boundaries, each point is
classified as being either inside or outside of
the field. The gross profit associated with ir-
rigating the area represented by one grid
point is obtained by multiplying the yield in-
crease by the market price for the crop.
The computer program analyzes all of the
possible locations for each size center pivot.
The possible locations are constrained by re-
quiring that no points outside the field
boundaries can be irrigated. In some cases
the center pivots may overlap each other, and
a point may receive two or more applications.
To account for this, the program limits the
yield increase to that of one irrigation, but
the cost for each application remains con-
stant. The objective function is an equation
which calculates the profit for the operation
by determining the gross profit from irriga-
tion minus the cost of the irrigation systems.
The linear program maximizes the profit for
the field by iteratively analyzing combina-
tions of different irrigation systems until the
optimal solution is found.
As an example, peanuts are considered for
irrigation. Three center pivot sizes were cho-
sen: a 188-acre pivot, a 138-acre pivot, and a
96-acre pivot. As the price of peanuts is var-
ied, the location, number, and size of pivots
change. At a market price of 21? per lb., ir-
rigation is not economically feasible because
the returns for the additional peanuts pro-
duced under irrigation will not pay for the
cost of the irrigation system. As the market
price increases to 23? per lb., two 188-acre
pivots are chosen, see figure 1. The value of
yield increase for a 96-acre pivot does not ex-
ceed its cost until the market price is 26? per
lb., see figure 2. An additional pivot cannot
be positioned on the field without overlap.
The market price for peanuts must reach 29?
per lb. before a second 96-acre pivot is cho-
sen, see figure 3. The 138-acre pivot costs
less per unit area than the 96-acre pivot, but
was not chosen because it could not be posi-
tioned without considerable overlap. Other
parameters, such as the cost of the center piv-
ot systems, the yield increase due to irriga-
tion, or the cost of fuel, can be varied to
illustrate their impact on the optimal solu-
tion.
This example illustrates that economic fea-
sibility of center pivot irrigation is dependent
upon several parameters that may vary for
different fields and crops. The peanut exam-
ple was chosen simply to illustrate the func-
tioning of the model. By inserting the specific
parameters associated with a particular field
and crop, the model can derive optimal loca-
tion, size, and number of center pivots under
the selected circumstances. In addition, se-
lected parameters can be varied to obtain the
range of that parameter for which the solution
remains unchanged.
Presently the model requires access to a
mainframe computer and peripheral devices
such as a digitizing tablet for encoding the
field boundaries from maps or aerial photo-
graphs. These requirements restrict the po-
tential distribution to extension agricultural
engineers, dealers, and consultants. Addi-
tional modifications and feasibility studies
are planned for the model before it is avail-
able for public use.
Different placements of center pivot irrigation systems in irregular farm field: FIG. 1 (left), FIG. 2 (center), and FIG. 3 (right).
.............................................................. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . ............................................................
............................................................ x
.......................................................
ny, ana Interest the held b
tease resulting tions of difed by referring optimal sol
riments for the As an ex;
,cated. Alterna- irrigation.
e examined and sen: a 188-;
uate and timely 96-acre picto the average led, the locchange. Atordinates of rigation ismputer. This is the returnield over a digi- duced undne points in- cost of thelundaries (see price incre)). The field pivots are (
,,,,,~,,L, ~ 1~,. ~
.. .. .........CS;, LV~~I
rates. T e . . . . . . .i
P S'I\ i I U I l I iixlij5 has1 tilt po
tt 't ial to rtedui ce th l it den tIi tial enocrgx
conumptio~n oif traditioiiial fossil fuls.
Th is hiorisitig typ u~ilst's conistrulctionl mlateils~
aiit site otritentationi to rtain the siiii heac~t ini
wxintti aiiit to reduce itsolar he'atinig in xii i-
I louseis' with suinspaces aindl greenihiouses
of paxsixe sotlari sx stemsi uiste iixourx xwalls 
ori
xxatcr taiiks to store tsolair lhcat. Ali oft 
thetse~
sysxtemus re'quii re adequ
1 
0ate souithetrni exposurei
to aisiure s olar gain aiid should has c shiadling
diesictes, such ax tiees, tax cs, 
and ox trhaiigs,
ti recdu ce soilir heactin g in sutmme mciionths.
Passixe s olar x stemis are inimclianicalix
siiiiple, requ(ire t little or noi miiinitcnanice, 
aiid
p)romiiote lower uitilitx bills. Dtespite thiese ad-
vaintages, this ener'igy sax in g al ternatis e has
noi t btti i ilcls adiopfted. Hosin xg in termiii
diais itsuichi as biiilders, baiikeis and hoti-
in g iff icials, haie o ften been skeptical of the
imciset iiciit po teni tial of thexse sysxtcims. Thexte
ntermeiidi aries b el ieve ctid neiiirx hiaxve neg-
at ixv atti tuditis abotitt u psiv e soilai hoiuing.
Bx ithcntifyinug conxtuioci tirue pcrceptioini if
xasis tsolai Ihousin g, adtlition stirategicsx can
bc tdt'xelopetd anti targeted to ox ercomec po-
teiitiail cotnsiieici and hioriniig intermie-
hiousinig.
A receiit iregional xiiiev x xPerceptitoxs of
Alterniatixe Hosin x g," xought to identifx ci ii
xiiiici dx aarenicxx anti petrceptionsx of sex cral
hoiiinig al tcrnat ixex inelcini g passxixe solar.
h ousxcholtds xxr ci iltti icxx ctl in xexven
Soithei n Statex: Alabiamia, Ar kanxas, Flor
idla,t eorgia, North Carolina, Oklahoim a, anti
V'irgiiia. Fouir co!untiex ini ech isxtate xxerc 
xe-
lectd bx i stratification prictxx baxed on
iietdiai aniniiil iincoiiie antd iiiiiiei of 
non-
filili hoitiseho llt on u'iiilds in each counitx
xxr criantlimixsclecctd froii 1980 prpety
tax rolls wxithi a total sam ple xsize for the region
of, 1, 81.
An AlIabamna Agricuilitiulal F xpcri ment S ta-
tion xtu} i eti xanimie demiographit ciharacter-
isticx of siiirvcx respointst xwhio xxete axxare
of passxixe solar hoiixing aint xxu iiotsidertt'
this h~louinig al ternat ixe, ax xxeli as tho se xwhoi
xx rc axxarc of passiv e xiolar houing buit
xxouiit not coidexilr it. Respoitents' pectp-
tion iioxf pas sixve sodar hioiising xxere alsxi ana-
IN/ztd.
Fiftxyhiiii ptercent of the sturxe rxiespon-
tdents indicated thex xxould conisidcr lixvlug iin
ia p~assix t solar hiome, anti therefore t' it*
classified as adtetrs. The 27%c xxho ti
niteix ir probabily xxoiuld not consider such
hoiiiing wxeret classifitet ax nona~dopters. Nine
tecn ptercent of the respondents xxrc uinde-
Southern exposure on this Elkmont, Ala-
bama, home permits solar gain in winter
months. Reflective shades and overhangs
prevent overheating of storage tanks and in-
terior spaces during warmer periods.
Alabama Agi-cultu r(l FLxperilnnt Statiot
C. BUGG and JO. BEAMISH, Home Economics Research
citici ahboiit xxhithiei thiex xxoiild adopt
pasxive siilar hoiisinig.
D~ata shoixx d that 701ti iii adoipfterx had
heaird abiorit passive siliar hiuing, but ioilx
l19% hail seen tis horisi typex. Onix :3% of tht'
adoif)tcers Ihad atu al ly lixved iin pax xixe soxlar
hoiiiinig. lxx citx-six ptircent of thec adopters
hail nut knoxxn aboiit pastiv solar hoiisinug.
Of thic nonitadoiptcrx, 58% hail heaird abut
paxssixe so lar h ousxin g, hit i nrl ixii hail xsien
thiis houis e type . Onl ) oixinet nocaili p tcr had
lixtid iii this type ofhoiiixtg. F'orty percetnt of
thi nonadtoiptcrs h ad niot k noxwn aboiiiut xiiiar
T'hoixt xx io hail somiu axwareness iii this
houinlg al terniatixe t'exiie class ifiet't ax kinoxwl-
edigteaile atditioptersx an it n do ipt uers . [orty
ptercenit of thiiose xiii ye x er txii x(I iasxifii i as
knoxxlidgieahblit aitdipte's x o ti 16%rei class-
ifiid ax kiiiixwletdgiale nioniitatdopttis
T'e axvtiagte age iif thlit knioxxwldgieale t
adtopters xwxas 46. 'he wixxere primarly 
whxxlitc,
iii thc middtlei stages iiithe faiiy Ilft cxcie, iii
hatd an ax tragt' takt'-home iiniioiimi of 820, 570
in 1980). Tliii kniixowlgt'able niinaidoptt'rs
xxere most iiften oltdci (ax 
irage ige 56),
xxhit(, ir'tetie, aiiit inii alater staige ot thi( faimu-
iix li fe cxcii. Tiex h atd an axveiage iiniiom' of
'$14,706(.
Kniowledlgeable atdoptersx ini ilcatetd st'sveral
chiarateristics as poisitixe t'ttatiirt's of siilar
hoinixig. \lost freiqii nt Im iitio d iti i eriix etit
energy e'fficienic, tdesigni/appeairane, coin
hrt/t'iiixen iii itt atd it
1
iiet of tih'e nitura ,l t' i-
x ironmenit. Knoxwltedgteahble noiinatdoptters alsii
repioiiteid it irgx e'fficiieincx is i piosit isi fia-
tiire oi paissis c siilar hiiiiiing, hut at high pro-
nut suit or tlitd tnot kiiiix xxhiat featurex thet'
likedi.
Wh'etn aiskt'd xxhat thit' is likt'i aboui t pas-
sivet solar housing, knoixletdgtaeaidoitpters'
miist freueni'ut ir'piinst's xxr ti t'inig, iii-
tctrtiiidoiiiit kniiix anti tign/appe~tarantct.
Knixowlgeaiblt noinatiiptt'rs also rcuenutly
repor tctd iutitrtainti ton't knows anti tdisigii
appet'arantct' In atltlition, they irtportt't thet
tctst oulpassix e solar husing as ai nt'gatixe feha-
Passixe tsoliar husiing is an t'nt'igy-saxving
alterniatixe t'htiat max ibt at'tt'ptablt' tio loans
cnuimii iii' n i theii Souitlhitrni rt'gioin. ht fi nil
inigs inicatt' that uiniaix people amre at least
aaxxrt' oif this alttiriativei and havsom un-iiitli
tderstaniting ofi its bitnt'fits. Ex tn pletut xxhit
xxoitiii not atdopt tht' altt'rniatixvt peci'xetd it
ais ititigx t'ffit'it'nt. However t' mi uanx if, the
nont atdoptt'rs xxo weirxeit assan' ot paseixt solar
hiiiusiiig ru'spindli'd thit' tlit not knoxx xxhat
they xultd likt' or liusiiku' abut it. This see'ms
toi intlicati' i ineid liii tin-itheir dixsse'i nationt ot
reile'5atit infiritat ion tii iinireaxi' kinsowledg'
abiiit this tx pc of hiiiisinig. Negatix i pe'rct'p-
tioins itt tisigin/app'aranc't antd ctost factors
suiggt'st that thi'e ' deeliopii'tt of pas'si'e soilar
tdt'ignis that art' attractivet and t'tconomiiical
adlaptatiotis io triaiditionual houii sing stylIts cioiildi
imoprovxt atcte'ptahbilit. Bttt' iinidt'rstantding
of passix t stilar hoiuisiiig alit the telt'opmeiitnt
thi' act'iptabil its oif this hiousing alternativec
amoing ininidiateirtiis atni iiimpiioxe its iimarket-
ail iit amonltig hoiising i ntt'rnt'limarit's.
/r
Grain sorghum proves high 
quality
alternative broiler breeder 
ration
G.R. MCDANIEL, Poultry Sctence Research
C D SUTTON, Cooperativeu Extensiont Setvice
1111 11111 t pi ( iii iii1411111 Iilit
it lii liii i~t I (Iiil ofi (1111 in
liii~ ~ I uch I I t11 i til t ll liis Ii)(lit 11 li
Hi i \ IIi ii l I t i I lit ( 11 14 I)l t t . 111( ii ()tll -
pi1 1ll i ~ rs ii iiit itti ill I )iii 111ns tinll. 14 i n~1
t)Iil ,11 I- l t iir tti ns II m (v r 114c(1 itti h l t 11
p l ii I it a Ch Il ti ilt 141 1111 il lul It t i I )iii
IiitiI o I tilIt SIlill t~ill ( li.1 lltt .( l
t e-i li( (,ll taiiis i it liii v 11 1 141'( fiii lilel 1
til il 1so. )f t 141( 1 c iii ,Imt11111 of ol e
Iredt 111 \ Is, i t I tfill X ;ti l iit - (ilc l ail
ieltill at tr 1 s1 it ill/ii o t ot t it
11  
ii i )II
il ( i X
1
iiillii t iI~i~tl 11 I il il Nilh Ile
iiia a til till iii li )I I I it 1t141 t-
11111 I lit II(-,.i11(1
1  
ii 111*1* i 11
Inii (l i1( tsI i ti l 1411 ~5111 (hIi _Vi tIll
ii11141 \\( 1( ii illiii111' I at(' t(l) \ ( ks lit 'o-I
\\i hI- tii lt- litd i-
1  
tiii- 'uit iiiA lii ate- hall
(11 IE i p l i i lll llte )n ai bre de I ii li oni
VI(II 1 (IIII i it II soli },rl ( 141 Vii t o t '-ii AAiii l ti II('
()t11-i tIllI t\ is I)I' I(. 'dI II t (I(' it iiil it 11 1 1- 
t
l t 11111 11 t I I [ ill s 1 ' .I I't\ill 111 11) lIi
i'iiitiiuii II II l4tI, I tl I t ) ie scll 11(11 and to lii-
lhe k i d liliti ai l t i i I n se It 11 ii ill a I Id
ilii-ii In evaluat 2 .111 lii ill d 11141'11111h it ii
ho\ ii l I etuiiiitlil NeIiiiiisitiii
s2 r e N 11 *k l t u 1 -t o1 ill-il.l l i I t' ;iilt 11(t1-
L
liv
n(\ i ;Ii 2l fi) -iti\. Ivli -\i o 
14 
i lii I i
hnnt I ii i rd ii. ''i/ (lac, tIi I ii t corn-
i( i(I , _ii I I i s111 Ii lii(1 I it ts i of i b i,t
tl I I l f tn o ;1-l11 i t id s ti s ii t' 11 Ift I ti
ni ucd t l~ iii ~ u li( I iii 111 I w fil '1(1111 t \ll ,ii li '
Ilt( Iii tiiit 1111 ti ii ii m l( ii I\ i'11 ltllty v( r
I I )t i ll( i I 1111 t ii so (1t 111 (i il Il
l w ill( ii 1i(i i n ti I till til II(I I t (Lii i (ill
liii it i ( I i t i st' f(II m t11111 -i an 1 e1 p t-
t(il Ill 'II \ i 1 i t 'ii Jil s11 in 11 I. pit 111 itt 111114t
11141o li si l t f 111 -(( ii iiil i fo \t 111 ti 'll to iiV
ilal 'i lf ll )f1 I iiIIii t co I ( 11 ill Is if ill2
urcd..A Aceik of11 aii t Ii il tl IiO~ il i I(iiit ) ill(
sort I I i ii I i 1 ids i \ asi i llit i lti 1ca111 11, 1
I I ii of 11111 co n l' it d A ill I (i 11111 iti t
I11 tiiiiii lii( tillil ill difinI cotIII
it t\ Ii it tt L" t hi lit It t\ ii iti Ii tii ) it ( 1 1 , ili
b ir l arc i il u lii i\1ill t I 11 i' tiii ill cr
I ~ tll AIII I ud t.f I I tl ii tiilii Ii t iii itiiu ( I:1-i
ittiU II 1111 'i t 11111i( I I( I i-A ll )i i I I d II.i it
tilt til tllit ii 11 iti sII i~t iii tti s.111li A t (I l
ai V itt 111111411 II~t t AAii it t (11 I it 11111 II
III' 1 11411 i il it i iis I til iii t iIs I IIII I I I it d1
sa liiiiii 11 tI t II t i t nltll ' ear 111 ill tha doseii 14
ci IIii I ci li -i asiit aiii i I I t i I, tl
111i l l li ,i 11 iii jro Ii tII i t )( I I II ilt ( IOI
[ )111I li , I I (IItI Iit I~ ''t esill II, IIi
n/u/ainiu i ii iptil 1(1/ I)-rf)1niuiil uuIca
Nitrogen Fixation in Soybeans
Reduces Production Inputs
D.L THURLOWV and AF HILTBOI D, Agronomy and SoilsReseorth
mak li'h i t i is it1) oi t(i I I Si it! i ht Il~ IilIIC
5Ic'r it i /t i( Ii.
AII Iti lilt of It /i Ihi hat1Iii tI ill in till
liii his i I;I( III IS jaiits Is S\( II kI( m II. 51
Iis ilit Ill( Il I lIi tIit cii 11151 1 i . j11i
ho c i ll l il ii it ll it t' l ii fisit111IS in Sr
litn "Iih Is thi li( I(~ fill ani Uaa 1(,-t i~1ii i
icllt 5 IIlS Ihll l II i l iilt t llil s ll thll
551111111-c :il ll 11 til (d [ii 111 t fiaio ll liii it -
thclil aw1I iil (I ~ine I it11 (Iol~ tii alo 5II i
lit s lL of th .1111i r ll i l Iii t t o i thll iit
rot1111 IS a(iUIt front thei liiSIIItiiInSll t
til\ l Ii 5e i l l ito "5Ii l thi t ;nn11n i iirom i 111i
iii t~ i Iiil ii itrc s ii 511111 till ii 15 lii li
the S-1 t Il $ 1( 1 t I ran(li S i 11 51
11ea115 at I tllI 11 e tO u ntil :lii il 
1  
cl I I
o \ heulsl In( I uliituill 'n tiet If tilu lIlli -
uitt hI l . 11 - Lee S u tst n-
3
i it li ( en I tII n
\/ibiiii a ' ( i of /11 ma i 1/nl / i 11u t a l itifi,i
clS c Iiii iii I i I, II ll III,I )1 ' I I ,iI,
Ie on 1 It ;i S Il t fi l lS ti I i r p lii h
.111 iink its ii t i i~ stil A is Il h( o u I i l l -
mr u it~ lio ' I s~ ini t lu Si l ut 'Si ls ill
pher1 It iii i I ( it il I lI I ii ' t I II te I i i
ill'11 1 ' I i 1 ,i ):l tl .
11 l ii I ~I l \ i hIs II I tli I ui 1 I t I J( 11t hIIS
Io it n p th a sapoiu l lp i
Value of nitrogen fixation by soybeans is illustrated by differences in yield and total N in crop
between nodulating and non-nodulating varieties.
MYield 
per acre
D Total 
N in crop
14 bu. 721lb.
E
0
w4
z
37 bu.
7
N -N Lee
226 lb.
O
0
a.
E
El
z
0
E
0
Lee
46 bu.
/
/
2631b.
rm__
0
L
E
z
N
E
v4-
z
Maximum
yielding variety
Vary Amon(
R.L. IRWIN and WC. JOHNSON
Agronomy and Soils Research
C.B. ELKINS, Coop. USDA
IE V H A IS BF LN ai rcultiouint
T cor n piroductitioni ili thIe last two~ dee-
ides X. Beftore 1960, opentl polliiiated Xa-
riti es were planited in wXide trowXs at low5
popuitlationts, wXithi compete~t m~echaical 
cul-
tivXat ioni and mnoderiate fertilizatioi tused. 
lb
dlaX efficient tin hyi~brids are planted thickls
XXith liiiminl tillage chetmical Xweed con-
trtoi, and high fertilization p1ractices5 followXXed.
These chianiges have beten made tptssilet biX
neXw technologies r esultinig fromt resear ch iln
1)1ant Ibretedig, agrnoi (I enginetin g, and
ceicial weed cointrtol.
Farmers todtaX haveC avXast array o)1 liX-
tincetlX (Iifferent cot hyb1IXIrids front iIch thet'
n laX choitose th ose biest suitedi for the ii anage-
tient Xs sttmi uised. 'IradlitionalhX ttrn fiXybrids
haX e 1been detlo' ~ pt't by Xt''ctinhg those~t that
pr1odue the miost harted~IN grain of accept-
abl qua tli t. Li ttle attentioni I habeent givetn
tt specific morphological chiaracter istics andI
alimos t none to those relating to the rot.
This iX rathei surprising sitnce grain y ields uil-
timately depend ton the plant's abilitN to oh-
taini adequate tiotrients atid XXate'r fio tti hle
soil.
tit -ill XX Xttmt wXotuld he hest atdaptedi to that
XSystem and mt tiiight nit tperformi as XelI Iast other
hy bridis Xwhenl groXni using a tdifferenit sys.temi.
D~iff'ieeXe amonig the rtoots ttf ihbridis could
X ariatittns ini rottts wetre tdtisctoXeredl in an Ala-
tdonet to tsutrXe tNotrn root XXystems for Xvariation
in Xst'Xeral elan atterisXtieX that couiIld be inn-
portanit ini tdtXeloping mianagemienit XsyXttems.
EleX en hXybritdX XXere chtisten from the Ala-
liin~iarv corn hiXbritd test at the Planit
Breeding Unit, Tallassee. T1he' soil is CUdaha
fit' saly loam. Rloots of each hvbhid itwXerr'
t'xcaXattet anti carefu LX ll l't Xah X whetn thet
grain Xwas in the milk Xtagte of miatuiritX. The
wahe root'iI nt XsyXtemsi XXere' takten to the laho-
ratorX antd thte folloXwiig data taken on each
laiit : inmber tf' nodial roots, ntdal root di-
aiiitter, nitdal root atigle to the stalk, antI
nuti1berit of 1branch rooits.
EDJITORS8 NOTE: R. tamiar X Iti is a recenit 13.8
graduaite fro FoIEleX, Altaama. This lt'tptrt con-
tainis da~ta he obitin ied thurinig his scinior X ear ill a
spec'iail iesearchi pi oject diretcted byX thit jtutni au-
thotrs.
Acute type r~t '. two varieties at top contrast with the 
more horizontal type of the bot-
tom two varieties.
Two dfistinc it ph entvXpes wevtre' obXious as
soon1 as the soil Xas wXXXashed awXa. The hyb lridis
hiad eithe'r hor izontally growiXXng notdal rotots Xor
no)dal ro ots with anl actet angle to thea stalk.
Thiese two ty pes of root sy stemls art' illus-
tratedi by the photographs. Zimmerniman
Z28Y and Snbel t 1827 are exaimIples of the
acute type)t roots, wXhetreas Coker EX 245-1 and
Suinbelt 18801 illtistr ate the imitt hriziontal
typle.
B~rand/lhv urid
Numbertt
ofI rotots
Sunbilelt 1827 .. . . . . . .
Sunbeilt 1880) .. . . . . . .
Zi on nati L28Y ... ...
Zimmerman1,1 Z27Y ......
Bag 5\ . . . . . . . . . .
Stauffle 57759 . . . . . . .
Coker Ex. 2-1.54 . . . . . . .
Jittiles '90t .. . . . . . .
Rling A\oind 1.502 MN ....
FFR371IC................
Pionieer 3147 .. . . . . . .
Th is lii tedi suirxey revea~il large' mor-)
pholtlogical tlifft'i tiles. HoXXCX Ci it is not
known i howX these meiasuredi diffe.rences wXill
infituitnice or determn ie ia hybr1id's suiitahi lity
for ia particulat XX stemn of cutltutre, such as
"n0-till." E'x perimenci ts are underw(VXXaX to ex-
p)lore the r ole of rotot moorp~hologX in the ad-
apt at io n of hyb1 ridls to d1iffer ('lt XXystems oi5(f
cuilture.
lloot
(liam) tert
111111
4.0t
6.7
7.1
7.3
6 .5
6.8
7.5
7.2
-72
8.6
6.3
8t'totitat
rotots/2 cim
11
20)
36
21
28
22.
16
43
I)
24
Alabama Agricult ral Experiment Station
(AIAH AFBISr1c5 or Boors Alasn(: ri;osl Iijr'I'mKi) liu;mtsi Boar Bv u um. Aoor:
x\ it )R li .' it pli x fi ia t iitp ixt tt~t dc-
Itic~ ii'iiip rnun ta in
be i tit t~ lilta 1 i i t x ixII disii' Itt It tX\l lite
lltt lx ;tot tI 'i ut
1 
xrc si s d'i i si xtias pro
i scx -lixe ix xitil hiitx/'xi xtil t tlifli'ii'itmil
lix itI au xii l titit'' po ution il uthl hui d I
til. ltuglt ( i l'tiuc r s i ul ti ti kux luxl m
fii'i iie 1111xliI totdcr xiitt' ittcs tIllit bi il n
xsiiai siiitxc toic ilix x if is oliii xii-
itttis a (,liiit I cl'tual cniii~ for t lt t lt s sttit
rcit an " til tiiittt ltIL nts fl l
AUrora:
A high quality "Jumbo" cantaloupe
JD, NORTON, R.D. COSPER, DA. SMITH, and K.S. W~MAL, Horticulture Research
'I'll(, ncsc caricts seas -rosin as :AC-6S-:52 in
trials at -Auburn. 1?. V Sn)ith Research Cen-
ter, and other I; pcritncnt Station units in
Alabanrtat, ill the Southern Coopcratkc (;an-
laloupc Aarick Trials in Awl Sonlhcrn
Stales, and in dlintonstration plalitiugs by
("ntmnerciltl t;rom'I s and home gardencts..\I-
thongft resistant to pre\afcrtl cliscascs. such
lixslld -Jittithu illt' xai iitix in isxtaxt it'
X~scs ii iti
XI Iu te2l IIlI
I itiitti ni ldcs G m dea hlSlh Iodc mild s I 2
li ltn .. .. .. I.0 S 10 2
Fdti,,x -7 ........ I1.5 I5.0 1.2.
( niotxt 't .. . . 10 1.5I I.0 12
Ili s c t . . . 1 .5 1.(I 1.5 2.
X aic t i per tilt
1
I' i iii Solitdsl' Xxid usi Iiti' fihttut
Al itta . . . . .. 3 24(5 1. It) 11 90) 65.0 ..797 IT7 17
Iilxtin .. .. .. 245 7 2llI.9(7 12 .91 61.3 S.2 7 .ll 0
(.iltcitstx ...... 2,34T 3.l
t
9 12.1- 52.5 4lI. luII
\litxlt ....... 331.52 3.1S 10.(5 5(11 .01) .52.47
it itl t I lt'h ,o litx iii ' iii titit litx it kt i hx I ii an Lunt ti lt tcti liii t 0-
2 5
t
3
, xiale'.
-xi ti
1  
it t a iii iot ntltt ilt mtillit~tt itx eii ( 100 r iiin ix it li.
iP tt l li t it p iii ft dit tilli Itn l iti 1122 intt xl t tt i't I t itt \lt-,nt it x l I 'T it t ii
Feeding Cattle
to Slaughter
Weights
Can Reduce
Producers' Risks
t, 
n 
, 
t 
x
w
illll 
ii 
li i 
i l 
iii ii1. FS to 
i 
sl 
iitiht
iiiiiii i t o li Iii cake a'i l dxx iiii xxAi
cI i ( 111ii\ iiitx irt( ii ii xx iii l i i i i lhic
xhe po utitt onb i ijx ula tin; iio iciltit i
i \xt :Ilull a i :\I i9lttil FS3 ile tSa
duction li iit( IIi i il xxui xs :i xilix iI.t ixx
agi ai l ii i lit ai maii\il wigh ii ts ii d mxaii k ii
pice it r anahzi i itiiix i n it culi ii i du-
tioix o tii lc it pin n u le~l
icyo cttl to xxii ai s ii ii i i ix tiiit is' t tix(
f.rtoitx xxgiii iiih i g liiis ne r xun hledii on
iiiiti a d xxices drin 
1 
9 i 1i-ix5i3. nnti
OIi x he in l iiii ft reit i f ii t i fiii i e of xii
\tiiixl xix 10f \(i1( flt p i thu slit4lxltii S
xlii cax iii lit h otteii is law" l' (i m xxiti ro
fom x pi asitur liix itot xtii i leIi iitiit i(mutt
res lte i i -k Chx xx xcItt xix x i 5:i Gooi d.i ul
1
ix 9
xx iii I t iiiifsc (4 iit xx((r inu ligh iii itixtl
hIC- \ xiiii 10 itxli\ si Ii ix tfii hiixx lo\ ink,
c ti o s ii % o lxxx ti l Iix b(,It x tiriughi
xlix t ii x1'(iiil itd iii \ ux eti g ( xx ii'' it St2
liiist ii iti i x x Ih 2n tol tdi3ti Iv iotil iiiturt
xi~ ,i xtai xxi cls it lii pr ftxl nilI
All ste c liii 1)1iiitiii hadi\l hivh(' ac I iti
irs. tutl( r i f a iility coici nt s ti oxi stt rx
tilti 1_ Sit n 9i5x ii ix uxtsu h ichi m n tlhxxi ti
xith ti lro e rtrshslesta n
11111 ii xf xx i t c i sk, i tt it tb ie 'iih i til
(;I, \I- I I I i Io v ;3_. i ( ri I'x I lit
K.A. ADEROOPA4 G.M SULLIVAN, and N.R.
MARTIN, Agriculural Economics and
Rural Socioiogy Research
R.R. HARRIS
Animai ana Dairy Sciences Research
l t (.1 i
I 1 ! .i it
h. it 10 . .i.
I lc x v 51 ' .. ..
Deli~(] ~ ~ i 1i -1 itc pii (x1 'd (,Ist\ n ( r
\mli \fix :3tt
\,n.lix \tix ii
\otx \Iix
\n \Iii\
\xix \Ii
12t02:3 29, s S
:32,30t 27 t0t5
'_ ,32 26, 45:5
'ixk
uitiliit\
I)o'I
0.-
54
95S
23t6ST 27,5 1tS 11
ij :311 26, 233 2 '1t
I it31 21, : 1nt -2
Vuh(nuu .1;rric ult ttral 1";shcrimc lit Slcllioll
Multiple Herbicide Applications,
Herbicide Plus Cultivation
Control Bristly Starbur
in Peanuts and Soybeans
L. WELLS and R.H. WALKER, Agronomy and Soils Research
II'12 ST \1IMU 1 ltao noi t hit axxtll
i Iii ix i iii gi c )ii ii sittoit llof Ii lla\
laiIli' smi axi(i iit usll go sin sou t b ta tAl
ltit ( t t .i tis11iiIii br a l it an iuli clli causel
3 )~iifi ut ix ii st l losses. In ad iti ti con
l~ t~it 1 13ici ~i t iii; i( nn itl'~ s
IirutnxIi
2cultisai ns . . .
Luist l'iiiii tt :3 tA(' 3.t - 151 - I
t lilt . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
tt Twic I tIC lit Irner~ 3 u 1 75-,-
0.75 Ii 2 ult .. . . . . . . . ..
t'eu 'r
t
i 3 iA( 2, I1)13 TO"1 1 .5 +~ 2.0
11 ., i c i t. .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . .
lii iiiii li
Ii
I ixtiti Il ii 3 i
Iti )I 1 Ii 0 1, 1 t .5 1 t). Sit I
liitrn i '7 \) 10It + \ 16t )35 l6.
Bla3 r t PO \1 +il6 () I. ..... l
lihin Blt i anit I ixxii lIIi
liii lii iiili lti iiii i th le(iit
ift ix irt nts 'xi 3iii graie ito i iiflo
I iciil oii i Stit xion it f bchis
si *i(l i-
dI lii il-
fei 't ull
niii antli I
ix ililibli
ai tls ofi
.iti' ,aitd
ssti li-
Is ini F,\
xlix xlii
t ti, ;it
l t i s th lx sti l m i tit i ii u s lit si
) tilil
in ilitt I-1 lii IN :1iii. 10tt
rit. 1't lit. lil Lb
0 71 S V )I I 527
95t 901 Iti 2, IliI
till 11\1 itjiiiils Su t ti ii xx jlt ut l i tI~ ll-
xxicc ii t hu Itt he I idies c ol1 ttxi l uIi c ii) it
l~aiii xx tI tig oi tis pos i iii 3 iii ii i tit he1
lt Iappilitions alon o k it h o lio ol r ititf tixx l-
iii xlix lititi5 in\ui'lst lintiloitI lita
iiir cotilt i n pean itii ut ito' l it l ant~ 1.5 ia
heap tii ifiistidi ithxi iie mcl i ttti tlti
ii n iiw tatc lii'imo cnhn
Ib. pit airt tori 13ttiazoliii potstt'iiit'iglut
'35 9 I) 1~ 9 2, 72:3 lxii ltii-top it 01.25 ibi per acre. I Iiixxt'xti
'i ix lit (i1 (1i 5.)0 to cu x i; ii 'lil i lit i ttioiilx xi pr lx ii t ttiii s tlctti i t
((and 3 iit - ii~ 19 d i', dl 'u p l ilt 1)1 'i t I i tli'It iil it ii. xti
s l u tus \N[11 I )IIl i lot\1 (:cixtilts 
xx, ii xi, x~a s tf kee nl itix i'fore tlluit ri 
-
Sr11ea inu tI nlc, 'itt ''51 gi ii t1iis Iititt I t i lx xi
It Io 
(;ut 'he ISice N sna efc
23 12 lilt 't t asi n-til n~ eIrhlixx i i d siuilii x as thu nc i' or'tii
3~~~~ -i h ii' i'll Ii lli at i x iii i ii nx I.xi
I'l 3 It Frt Ne, I 
31 a ti I tii it i i ltt 
its I ixia , ltiti ii t ii i
0 90 i31 th ' 
i' ruIti iilii is x t'thti 
ntl
Xhtbaiimo g A-i('hlltt i! Jl' t t iCCt StautItU
I
FRESH BARK 
AGED BARK
PPM N PPM N
0 100 200 
300 0 100 
200 300,
r 
t
;R+I p : -. , 
. 1
IN FRESH AND AGED 
PINE BARK
G.S. COBB, Ornamental Horticulture Substation, G.J. KEEVER, 
Horticulture Research
I N F B A R K i s o t i mt to t l N t u s e 
d t a s a
gr own iwxood0 ornamtals.~ix(t\ G rowr ilax t -
portedi that theus ofx i fitsh xinsitetad 
o f aged,
inei har k results in redcdned pliant giox tih.
I loxicx ci Alai atmta AgricuItural F xperimn ent
Statinit resxchl ind~ictest tha~t ftes balrIik
djoes not treqirel addittionial N to mtake it ton-
paratile in (Iitatitx to aged harik.
Since fres bi ar k tx picalxlia ha i high et car -
bion to niitroigen (N) ratio titan aged hark,
(there I it a i cisc dictand fori Nx btt i. ti lii-
Becausxe of tis itncraxscd dicittatd for N itn
frexit ptie batrk, it xx ax helice d that addi-
tiontal N mtightt lit niecessatt for criop grothtx
simti tlar toi that itt aged b ark. Tintsx cilects o(f
txvpcs wx tc cx ahiated tn the E pritte nt Stt-
NI ilital pitte bark xxas obtaiitcd and xtoiied
lateii ae lt suippix xxax obtinetid fto uthe t
sattt xtiiut cc. Prioir to ixe, bthi barkx xwiri
atittititt xwitii it16 iiiiiithiiititit liimestone, 2
ib superhiospihatt, 2 Ii. gx pxnttt 1.5 iic
NIieortta atnd it0 iia Oxnocote i7-7-12 pit
cuiiic xNatrd. t tiiforni Jitoitinotnx japoitca Ni
en ph t ia, Ilt x c cint Co otpacta, aiid Rh/o-
dlodendrliont lhxyrid II initicimstion liners xwxxtic
poitted ili 1-gal. plaxttc conttainers ini Augusxt
1981. Foti ntd hiolix xxcrc gi iixx int full
tillt Ilittimso i aztiitalca xeax groxxn in 17'/
si ade. atnd all plan1ts wxcirc iriigatcd ax tnleit
bx oxci lial imipulxe spiniklcrs. Triatmts
ailuddfeho 
gdpn 
akwt 
ek~licattionx 
tif U 100, 
200, ot 
:30)0 p. p.mi. 
N
Compacta holly grown in fresh and aged pine bark with supplemental 
nitrogen show compa-
rable growth.
liai uolur, shtiiot growxxth, antd foliar antd nc-
ditit attalx ix xxr evxalutated.
Color rattintgx at 0 or 100( pp. t Supple-
mentttal N andi grottx tintde~xs at all N cx cix
xxiie gcitiialix highii tioi planitx groxx int
ftesi tbark thiant fot thostx groxn in t aged hatrk.
Foliar raitinig aind gri th tit tdcx ti ccxsd
xxitht iltcreaxsing iratcx iii N r garlcxx of lbark
agc. Planit iii xwxxcght incrcaxsd xxitht inicreas-
tng N anid groxwtht gcitcialix xxax nott dliffetitt
litxxecen barik txpex. With bthl ftrexi and
agedi hatk K Itliar N inicirascd, xxile Itiar po-
tassittm (K), phosiphorus (txl), calciumt 
(Ca)
mtagnesxiumi (Mg) itrott (Fc) nutgtaitt
NutI) and zaiic Lit) ditecse xxitli intcreax-
inig lix cix of N fttrtilizationi. Ci txxtt-iticiit
ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT
STATION, AUBURN UNIVERSITY
AUBURN UNIVERSITY, ALABAMA 36849
Gale A. Buchanan, Director
PUBLICATION-Highlights of
Agricultural Research 3; 85
Penalty for private use, $300
at akix i rex caltd hiittgh er lexclx of, NIg in aged
har k thant iii frexh, xxile itrate-N, , 
K, Ca,
I ark t \pcs ori atmon lg Ieyl tx ti suipiijplet aliti N
lantt groNitxxh anid apipiaraie xxc irts goiotd
ini ft exl ax in agted hark, txtn xxithititt xiupple-
mtentail N. Tisx inicatex that lttxsh hark did
noitt ri ret additional N tctomparedi to agedi
hak tand iu t hat h atk o f boi thI agt x rt xponiided
xioloar i ittutid wuit t ()xiuctttnt Nlupto
200) p p ii anid gioutxx tincca ast txi N in-
treaxid. is iticatex tihe htittefitx oif xup-
piteeital N Ittrtilizatiotn xxw lieu Ixtitttt 17-
7-12 ix inettrpitrated at 1t) ib. ptr cubit x aid
inia it i ak g th inedititim
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
USDA
PERMIT No. G269