HIGHLIGHTS
of agricultural research Agricultural Experiment 
Station
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
N
A
& /
4 1
44
N >% 44
4 44
~~'*> <~
44
44
4 44
44444 -t
4 - 4' ~
44444 444 44
*~,<444~ '~'~ $4~44 44
k ~'44444 44~~
'S
4444 4444l~
44 ~44 ~ 44
4 4 1.
4
1t, .4C44Qj
1 4 4 4  
4;
-
44- $1444
V. 
*~' 
-,
4, $'44
(44
44%
>444
4S
4
'
4
~ 7*' 44~
A'
4 S44~
444
t 4444444
444 -
4-4 4~ -
'4 '
>~
'49
4444
4
4' 44 - a
~ 4
~~444
4
44444
- ,
4
r,
-44
p9<4 444 '44~ '~
444 ,4444 - 44 444
4444 4444 t~4' ~ 44~,< 4444
444k ~,444 ~ 4;~,
444 4 44 >4'
- ~' 4- ~# 444 ~ 44
444444 ~ ,~ 44444444444 -
44 4 -"4-, t~S~'' ~4 - 44)4 444
.4.444 ~ '~ '4'4444444'4$'4 r
#~t4 ~44; - - Sr 4' 4
4 4~44444 444444 ~ 44444
44 44-4~ &
,tr (~'>'~4 I r '4
~ 
43
r
44
'~T'.> 444' 4444'444
-- ,~4444~4 144
44'
4% 44t4~,~ 4444
4 4' 4
44 '44 ~
4444 4
44 444~~~
'4%. V-~
*~444
4 ''3
444 4 44
44 44
4444 ~4 't N
4 44
4
J '4
'4444 144
'4'44444 4
4
444-4
,01 ."
DIRECTOR'S COMME=NTS
the XX( k that iinio(11d Ili oik'gix iiig. Maoi
cu ssm oicly (.Cela th'e oll/e 81( s io iX X i llle to t
Hld ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ dg~i~tie iiiesilficrtoo 8to1 h ~n
III isiIiI'Ii. w 1111 .l , ier v that lcA ter i ile tmn i IX( XXli 1 11
idehi m seiIX i lf'X 1. 
V.X~ 
lXXCX
Stckd s. aredt Sysems reof alin and Fednpays 3rbt o h
Comput1-cl eize tionsMIl for teingtd ' Bee Steers 4ipral
Yheil Loss Frool Siciepd inth Soybleans 5~llctai nfrl
Narow Rows lvdbforehm Cor Proiablex or e Unrfblhe
2 
spt6l
Wieh N e focarm el o Esate aluets 7lc ssda n
Us te ofalCutt and. Sliidalelbii on ixd Fore 9(tesil
aboamc a's Fd Grain urctoes 1ai 0xeta te e
Sili oganoicMtter Needed inthe mic ha alr Frmcing
2 
hae1l
SIoe Herbicds Intvee wiiedth EncegyFlo 1
FThr in Ho Feedac 13 sstll
im pr-oving farm Woold br lots 15triihdstos \[oIail
aTep eratur Affctiolspis Cotontai Brei el 16dfa Ia
1,1111o IX 8 lol, l it o f t eaticl
o;ile iw 3k isl'ililX ;soIX t llcs(r l
pilicaIX li and11 bot ileli li cll impop
nAgriic lrl Resarc
WINTER 1971 VOL. 18, 
NO. 4
A quarterly report of research publislled
by the Agricultural Experiment Station
of Auburn University, Auburn, Alabamna.
E. V. SMITH
R. D. ROUSE
CiiAs. F. SIMMONS
T. E. CORILEY _
E. L. MCGRAW ---
R. E. STEVENSON--
J. D. HARWOOD
- -Director
Associate Director
Assistant Director
Assistant Director
Editor
Associate Editor
Assistant Editor
Editorial Advisory Com-mittee: R. D.
ROUSE; MORR'IS WmTm, Professor of Ag-
ricultural Economnics; ROBERT N. BREXV-
ER, Assistant Professor of Poultry Sci-
en ce; C. C. KING, JR., Associate Prof es-
sor (If Agronomny and~ Soils; AND E. L.
McGRn.&v
ON THE COVER. The size and type of
stocks mode by machine and fed to cattle
at the Black Belt Substation are illustrated.
A RECENT DEVELOPMENT in hay ma-
chineiy is a large wagon-type vehicle
called a Hesston Stackhand. This ma-
chine is of interest to hay producers and
livestock farmers because of possible
labor saving in hay harvesting and feed-
ing.
A comparison of this stack system with
a conventional bale system using john-
songrass hay was made during the sum-
mer of 1970 and winter of 1971 at the
Black Belt Substation. Grass for both
systems was cut with a self-propelled hay
conditioner and left in the swath until
partially dry and then windrowed.
Baled hay was produced using a New
Holland 277 baler. The baled hay was
loaded, transported, and unloaded with
a self-propelled New Holland 1047 Stack-
cruiser operated by one man.
Stacked hay was handled from the
windrow to storage stack with one ma-
chine, the Hesston Stackhand 30. This
machine is pulled by a tractor and pow-
ered from the P.T.O. Hay from the wind-
row is picked up by the machine and
discharged into the top of the unit. The
top is movable and serves as a hay com-
pressor for the entire hay load. The com-
pressed stack of hay was unloaded at the
site where it was fed. Each stack was ap-
proximately 8 ft. wide, 14 ft. long, 9 ft.
high, slightly rounded on the top to shed
water, and weighed about 3 tons. Stacks
were not covered.
The bale system had a capacity of
2.95 tons per man-hour and the stack
system 3.47. This includes windrow to
storage plus a hauling distance of 1 mile.
The stacks harvested by the Hesston
Stackhand were stored in a fescue field.
All stacks were fenced so animals could
eat only one stack at a time. The field
(14.5 acres) was fenced into two equal
areas. A group of 52 Angus and Angus-
Hereford steers averaging 476 lb. was
Total cost/ton harvested
Ownership (fixed) costs
Operating (variable) costs
Total cost/ton actually utilized-
Total cost/cwt. gain
Total cost/ton harvested
Ownership (fixed) costs
Operating (variable) costs
Total cost/ton actually utilized
Total cost/cwt. gain
STACKED vs. BALED SYSTEMS of
HANDLING and FEEDING HAY
E. S. RENOLL, Department of Agricultural Engineering
W. B. ANTHONY, Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences
L. A. SMITH, Black Belt Substation
J. L. STALLINGS, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
divided into 2 groups of 26 animals each.
One group was fed the hay stacks and
the other group baled hay. In addition
to hay, each group received per head
daily 2 lb. ground shelled corn and 11/2
lb. of 41% cottonseed meal. The feeding
period was November 10, 1970, through
March 2, 1971. Baled hay was fed free
choice daily in hay racks. Steers fed
stacked hay had access to a stack 24
hours a day. When a stack was con-
TABLE 1. BALED VS. STACKED JOHNSON
GRASS HAY FOR YEARLING CATTLE,
BLACK BELT SUBSTATION
Item Baled hay Stacked hay
Animals, no....... 26 26
Average days on
test, no.- 113 113
Average final live
weight, lb...... 636 612
Average initial live
weight, lb-. 476 477
Average gain, lb.__ 160 135
Average daily
gain, lb........ 1.42 1.19
Feed required
per cwt. gain:
Hay, lb........ 963 (754) 1,547 (1,178)
Corn, lb. 141 167
CSM , lb ............... 106 126
Estimated 
total
feed cost per
cwt. gain
2
, dol. 20.53 26.01
1 Values in ( ) are hay expressed as dry
matter.
2 Feed ingredient prices were: Corn,
$3.30/cwt.; CSM, $4.20/cwt. Hay costs per
ton were: production $8.53, baling $15.21,
and stacking $11.13, assuming 500 ton pro-
duction and feeding per year.
sumed, the two groups of steers were
rotated on the fescue pasture and a new
stack of hay was opened.
Weather damage to hay in stacks did
not appear to be excessive. No measure-
ments of this damage were made, but it
is estimated to be less than 5%. Consid-
erable loss did occur while animals were
eating the stacks. Some hay was pulled
to the ground, trampled in mud, and
contaminated by animals. This loss av-
eraged 41%.
Although baled hay was fed in racks,
there was some wasted and refused hay.
The loss was 6%. In addition there was
an estimated 4% rotten hay on the bot-
tom of the pile where bales were in con-
tact with the ground, making a total loss
of 10%.
Data in Tables 1 and 2 indicate that
feed efficiency and average daily gain
favored the baled hay. However, there
was some savings in labor with the stack
method (3.47 tons/man-hour vs. 2.95
tons/man-hour) during harvesting and
storing. Some labor also was required in
feeding the baled hay but none was used
for the self-fed stacked hay. There was
a cost of fencing the individual stacks
and for a tarpaulin to cover the stored
bales of hay. All of these costs are in-
cluded in Table 2.
Costs per ton harvested were lower for
the stack system than for the bale sys-
tem for any volume of production, Table
2. This was mainly because of higher
fixed cost per ton resulting from the
higher investment required for the bale
system. Excluding tractors, the estimated
new equipment cost for the bale system
would be $21,547 compared 
with $13,-
639 for the stack system. This estimate
includes the windrower, rake, baler, and
Stackcruiser for the bale system and the
windrower, rake, and Stackhand for the
stack system.
The costs per ton actually utilized,
however, were lower for the baled hay
system because of a high loss of hay by
trampling for the stack system. Costs per
cwt. gain were lower for the bale system
for the same reason. Because of a high
loss encountered with the stack system,
this experiment will be continued to ex-
amine this problem in more detail.
Baled hay
$21.44 $15.21
12.46 6.23
8.98 8.98
23.70 16.81
10.32 7.32
Stacked hay
$16.05 $11.13
9.83 4.91
6.22 6.22
27.54 19.10
12.41 8.61
$12.09
3.11
8.98
13.36
5.82
$ 8.68
2.46
6.22
14.90
6.71
$10.54
1.56
8.98
11.65
5.08
$10.02
1.04
8.98
11.08
4.82
$ 7.45 $ 7.04
1.23 .82
6.22 6.22
12.79 12.08
5.76 5.45
TABLE 2. ESTIMATED HARVESTING COSTS PER TON BY AMOUNTS HARVESTED AND FED PER
YEAR FOR Two SYSTEMS OF HAY HARVESTING, BLACK BELT SUBSTATION
Costs per ton, when average tons harvested
Machine or item of cost per 
year are:
250 500 1,000 2,000 3,000
'I'h ~C~rlr Fh~rnr~o~~rl T~rC-:7
Computerized Rations 
for Fattening Beef Steers
R R. HARRIS, and W. B. ANTHONY, Dept. of Animat and Dairy Sciences
V. L BROWN. Lower Coasit Ptoii Subttion
B R. MILLER ,Depi. Agr'icltio Economics and Ruralt Sociology
ofiol . 1it (l!ti('tl " t tl (' l ti''te ! X XX ril i l iu The 
co25 75)) li
tti\i XXr the ( iIciltlli fulo i ttilsflite! 
col966 t ll \i h 1go7.
i(to o f],til fc('( h e ii iiit f X('' (1 
(O"Jit' /
T ' \\ (le d 'Xt stuies Xof' compu~~terized ii i ttillpt 
teco n-~i!I
lhii'ii iil A 11 ('kir ii(i O('e I!it N ' t owe Coa 
tal5' ali till' ttl
1111e Xilll' gprlue! ii 1966I t''(il XX SX tOIX I0'Ii f-or 0il 
11Sell0C
tiial ~ i \\itXon u te fro 8i 'Ii iii! It6f tto( Marc XI967,
1)a\ il fetdiot1 :3
Ittitit wt., 11). ----- 747
It XX t. 11). --- 79
(It Iii.2:32
\I)( lb.1.7
Hatiol (.o t, d l(\t 2.56
hitcd I)v the computer: 65% itod 750/ 
TDN, citch with illid
\%itliolit silage. These mixtures xvcrc 
silliflill. to tIlosc led
dillilig the first trial except that hoillim, 
feed replaccd citnis
I)IIII), lilvit wits ilwreascd froin ithout 10/ 
to 1.5/ of the mix-
tilic, ilod stabilized imillial fill wils 
added 111) to it inaxillillill
o I 5'Y . The cootrol ration \%,its verv 
siniflar to thc ooe lised
ill fit(, first trial iold \\its one thilt had 
1well lised successfully
for se\cral Years. The i-oril sililtre 
\\as produced Illidel. ex-
trelile drolith conditions inid \%as Io\x ill graiii contcot 
( 17.6'7
oil drv Inatter basis).
As sho\\ii ill fit(, tahle, steers oil the control 
ratioll gailied
wefl. Those fed the silit(re-c-mitaiiiiiig 
coIll pliterized Inixtures
(ritined very poorlv. The cattle fed t1he 75"/ TDN mixture
colitilillilig silivre ('itilled all average of 1.0 11). 
dilik during
thc first 77 davs of the stildv. Since 
t1his ritte of (Tilill \\.its flot
siltisfilctorv, dlC\ challgcd to thc colltrol 
riltioll illid
(Taiiied 2.7 11). d iih for the subsequeot 5T-(Iit\, period. Those
cattic that were fed the 65',' TI)N 
mixture cmititioiou silage
%%cle illso chillwed. Their colopill-able dail gilills 
\\CIC 1A
itild 2.6 11). for the 77- aod 71-da,\ periods, rcspecti\cl 
.
Steers fed tlic 65 / TDN inixture without silage 
gitinctl
slo\\er thim companjon cattle fcd thc 75r, TDN riltiol) how-
evcr, ocither grollp gililled A it satislactoly rate foi- fccdlot
cattlc illider these conditions. Colislimptioli of till, collipliter-
ized mixturcs \%its oil]\, 73, Ir of that oil thc cootrol 
ratioll
( 19.0 \s. 25.9 11). ditilv). DeclVils(ld feed iiititkc \\its it factor
colitribliting to loediocre pcl fol Ill allce.
A much shoitcr feedfiw 1wriod itod lo\xcr fecd cost pel
cm. of gilill \\its observed for cattle oil the colltrol rittioll
coillpilicd \601 those oil colliplitelizcd rittiolls.
Calcilsses (ri-ilded Good oI. Choice with oilk, millor dif-
ferelic-cs ill Illarbliiig, \ield grade, dres!;im, purceiit, fat thick-
iiess, ribe \(, awit, im(f kidnev fitt.
A cotiveiitiooid di(restimi ti-jill cooducted at Atibum ill
all effort to explaill thc poor pedolillillwe of thc feedlot cat-
He located oil the Substiltioli. 'I'll(, 5 rations \\ere prepared
ilt the Slibstatioli illi'l trallsported to Aubuni for the inct;iho-
lisill stildv. Data oil digestible di-v Illittter ( DDM) cootelit
of, tlic lillixtilles are illchided ill till, taNe. DD.NI is esscliti-
it]],\ equivalcot to TDN. All of fit(, mtioos \\erc below esti-
Illilted vilhics of DMI and thlis cattle \\olll(l oot pci-forill its
\\(']I its cXpected. No alls%\cr %%,its obtililled its to wll 1111tri-
t M, vithies 
were 
ovciestimitted. 
Chemical 
collipositiolls 
of
the llli\tlll-(,s \ clv \\ithill cxpectcd rall(res. 'I'lic differences
ill feed iotake obsercd ill thc feedlot \\cIc also lloted ill the
inctilbolisill trial. It is possible t1lat the coinbil lilt iol 1 of ilwdi-
ble filt inid urea \ as responsible for lack of pitliltabilit , v.
Care Inlist be cxercised ill collipliter prograllillied forlillilil-
tioll of, fattellillo- Illixtures lot, beef catt1c. Feed collslilliptioll
Mid iloillial gaill ill(, ]lot i-eildil pl-c(lictabIc for Soine collibi-
ilittiolls of latioll illt lvdicllts.
H:i (68 148 W1)
1 6 715 746 74 4
976 t, 1:(3 1,t015 t1,014
23t0 268 269 27tt
1.7 ((56 1.8 2.7
2.46 '2.0tt 1.88 2.tt4
28.3tt 2.3.0t 1 22.68 1 9:39
67.28 .5.2 1 59. t1I 62.'3:3
ItI It I 10 t1
\o\\ at (*71kel. 4\ of (;c()l-_,i;t, Athell'.
Sicklepod is more competitive between soybean rows than in the
drill.
011, M IIIF 111().S'l %%idc plcml %%ccds plaguillgAlabaTil'i
1)\r tt 1( jSt t\\.() 
ll jljj( S ill Ili(, S 
t at (,. Its col I(.( 
t
lKillic is Siuk1cl-iod ' 'a"ia obtii ifoli(i 1'.), hilt it is also colo
to its
PI (,"( llt ill ill atcxs of Alabama, sicklepoid k
oile of the lillist difficult \\ecds to coiltrol. It is Iml-ticulalk
tiolildesollic ill m)\Iwall.s, as llotcd ill Imst 11i"Illi-41ts stolic
wportilw 
\\ccd lescarch 
1)\r
Expelilliclit Skitioll. liccall.m. it is pruscl)t ill so Illml
beall ficIds, lc.sc lrcll \\as be('1111 ill 1968 to deterillilic the
( Xt( Ijt of losscs caused hY var.yiiig sicklepoid dellsitics.
Bra-, so0walls plailted \\ith a comclitiollal colil-
hemi plaiaci oil t\\o mcius lw t\il iiifested \\itli sickleptid.
In soinc expci-jillullts, additimial secd of sicklepod \\ ci c
p1mitc(I ill the row \\ith sced of So , \hcalls. Tests \\cIv (m
( 1icstei field ,;it ill\, loam soil ( Agi oi toil) \ Fal Ill at 'AIII)III-11 )
Mid Malhis salld -\ lomil (GIll, Coast Slihstatioll at Fairllopc).
So , \bcall's %\crc philitcd ill 1:2-iii. rows at Aiihuni aii(I 40-iii.
I'0\%s at Fairllopc. 'I'lifluralill (TI-cf1ali) \\xs applicd pl-cphII)t
at c;wh ]()(aliol) to colltrol allimal (Trass \\ccds.
DcTlsitics of sicklcpoid lawyiiig hom I \\ccd pcr :3 ft. of
to .1 1)( I. ft. of ('stablislicd b.\ thilmilig \\11cil
\%'( ( (IS \\r(,I-( :j to (i ill, Ili 9 11. kI halvest, 11111111w r of sicklepod
philits per foot of I-()\\. ulld \\cight of bc Los alld \\cedS \\erc
dutclinjilc(l.
So I )c I, I I c e c re I s ed s t c I (I i I I,, (I c I) s i t \ o f s I A I c 1) o (I
I I I (. re us c d. V i I I I o I I t \\ c e (I ,, _\ i (, I (I s o, x cc c I I e ( 1 33 1 ) 11. 1)( r I c I-c
A Aukirn aii(I 37 bu. at Fairliope, Table 1. Olle weed pel.
I()ot ()I 1.()\\' (.Ill 
So\,I)( tll \ri( J(l 11)(pjt 
1_4," II urn all 
S
14"' at Fail hope. 'Yield loss lot both locatiolls a\ cragcd 1 T:;
oi 4.8 bu. per ;wrc, A this dciisit With I sicklepod plailts
per f'oot of 1-o\\, sodwall _\ield losses nuiged froin :35 to 59%
.[Till li\(Ila(l,"ud 50'; 19 fill. put 
acie).
) if I'll I'l)"s m SoNlo. \\ \s Al tIA IFI) M
Dil [I lu,\l DI,\SIIII, oI Sit kl'lt ol)
YIELD LOSS CERTAIN
WHEN SICKLEPOD
INVADES SOYBEANS
DONALD L. THURLOW and GALE A. BUCHANAN
Department of Agronomy and Sodls
I WIis
1969ji
Cul Coa6 Sll)
A\ FHNGEI
\ i'lii III
IiiXX (I luX
1I1ii Pct
316.5 15S
2 .1) It1
:37.5 1II
:37.7 9
2 ft.
ot I I Xi
MTi
\E \ I to
III ((X Out. I
I'i . (In.
D~) 59) 1 9.,1
28. 56( 20*.7
[) \\ 1ii.11i Mi SH n kilo \1 \lt\FSJ~
Lot it iol ii I X i
\\ I it X(ii
Itiiii I tll 
1 '2 tiiii'
'I'llese cXperillwilts \\crc colidlictud Illider :I \\i(l(' 1;lIlge
Ill raillfall - both allitillilt alld distribiltioll the :3
Years. There \\as 
less SoYbcall \i(,I(l 
leductioll at c lcli 
loca-
tion \01ell Illoisture \\as plelltif I Ili, T thlc 1. Becalisc of sickh-
pod's 'Fro\011 Imbit, shadiol, is probahk not as illiportmit a
Lictol. ill \icld ledlictioll w, illoistilre "ll-uss.
These lusults sllo\\ that sicklepod (all bc highk collipeti-
ti\(, \\itli ti\bcalls, c\cll at lo\\ dell.sitic.". )icld w(hictioll 
ill
this (lop, llo\\ever. is flot as scNerc as ill cottoll ;tIld pcitillits.
S()\I)(,ikll \iclds also collipan'd \\itli (11\ \\ c I (r) I t (d
sicklc d l'), :23, aTI(I
poid pl 
mts ill 
hai\c.st. 
Yields 
\\cw 
i-c(hic(
:3 5 res ec t I \ c I.\ I t I i I I I d I 1 2 t 0 1 Is I)C I k I-C 0 1 ( I r CC(l.",
Tablc 2.
.Also stildicd \\cre collipctitke cffects of a collstalit (1(.Ilsit\
of sick1cpod \\Ii(,ii \\eeds \\uw plawed ill the drill and 6, IJ
Wid 1' ill. floill the ]()\\. Wcc(k ill tlic drill \\erc Tiot as
damiwilw to ields as thosc 6 or 12 ill. ima\ . Stailds of sick-
lepod itctualk wdliced whell plaoted ill till, drill \\itli
s(Alwalls.
-XII iclds ill thi's tlld\ \\ el c b\ llaTld hal est. 11 so\ bealls
llml IMICII (10111billed, 1-c(Ilu tiolls I roill \\ ceds 111 Idol If )t(.(11\,
olild lla c beell ('reatcl . A!so, losse" to till. (Tro\\er \\oIIld
he illollel amyla\mcd b\ \\cc(Is ill har\csted sollbcmls, 
Ic-
sultil It, ill ,l cittel ( lc ll lit w co t itod lliOlul Illoistl Ire cm Itclit
of bc llls.
\ x - .1, . t('Id lo 
1).\ \% i -f d
Corn show~n he~re is planted 20 inch row~s,
left, 30-inch, center, and 40-inch, right.
NARROW ROWS for CORN in 
ALABAMA-
PROFITABLE or UNPROFITABLE?
C. E. SCARSBROOK, Department of Agronomy and Soils
S I M L I ((M\ l~'
1
w j~ pl itet l :;3 iii. il
21 in. itt'',' iii Alabamant? TIlit tiiix 'i-
tin al 3(- tot 42 ini. rox' xx iiltli ', w \\ellx t
ilil]t'tI 
to itiltix 
itiol i 
th j lt 
1 iioi At "' , ti
ii jilijl it') ito Ii,)) ei'', i i, i lt pil i i
i I, c i \ ixat i 1g,1i a lit hti (-il tI it(
itM e till I i i't Itt,' ', d rt g
',hiiltx i xo . ite it i l s t hiil 2 ) m 3t n
xx itllixo ', t't tiot' . A v r ig "'a.t v , xt'it(
ohril I'x ti ire if tit ,) ', en',. xx t'ib
6 ft d
grain \ ilt(rl. li fil h 0x x)1 to', 
fit' uigu
xrtil tljAd lt l (in hig be tl~ \ ilr iit)',' h 
tt
L~
it(' xii'itt'pilt lit il ti i t (' 4 li ii t'e,'' id
ho ,iiil'l tli'o 6ihi'x bi e iw a vt' igx ix(
2Srr xx it t' 2( 011) . o f N. xx,', dId)itlit
w,,ith ill dit ll )lailit"
Wi)
Ao.
S1..10
13.1001
1:3,1001
17. 1001
1T 7t M0
1 ,T 0
I100~l
100ol
IT 7,100
26, 1001
26,100)
ritt'
Lb. k.
10
1001
2010
1001
2001
'II
Tilt, more philits pel iwic the ie\ er
llollti-eilrud plillits ilild the Illore bill-rell
stid ks. Howevei, modem mrit liNkids
prodiwe 1(,\\ bitrn ii stalks \6th plant
poplilatioll." used ill these experiloelits.
So ]oog i:s it plillit prodiwes at leilst olle
('ill tit(, 1111111ber of, (,;Its is flot ;III illll)ol--
timt lactor in , \iehl. Aoid as population
ilwleilses, tit(, ( ar size milY be slull-I)IN
d(,(-r(,iiscd. Fill- size \\its im importiolt
filoor \\11(,Il coril \\ its har\ eswd and
shelled k hillid, limwver, cill- size is of
little jillpol-tillwe where lllod( rli co].n ]lilt--
\esters al-e lused,
Since le\\ gio\\eis ill Alabama I to\\
piodoce itveiiig( , \j(dds iii ewess of 125
bu. per iwiv, t1w uSe of nill-ro\\ 1-o\\', does
not appear profitable.
These expel illiel its show that ilarrow
I.o\\s did not result: ill im-reilsed \i(dds
ill tit(, il\( Iilgu ol. ill t1w better \eilrs. Ac-
cordillgk, it drill I-o\\ spilcill(r of c -9 ill.
(about 17,000 plants pet ime) io :36- to
42-io. \\,i(ltll 
is 
(Se(
Aubuni t'okersit Agi-4-ultorid F.xperi-
mcilt Station Cil-clilar 152, Spiwing and
Ilittes of Nitro(rell f of- Col 11, N I ill (.11
I
\x iill! igt iliiiu \ utlil per acreIt
RTC', 
I ii',',t'
:3 ','',i
1311 13i.
ubIatl)
7:3 xt
6:3
82
763
6 6
'T
\ lixsc
alle\xtti l
4:3
.52
4 6
54
52
.54
51
\\ eu'lted
ixverage~t
allI
I ii.atioiii'
13ui.
39)
60t
55S
6:3
N1)
62
(62
61
6 1
6)5
66
Ho\\ \\ II)III, I'l-\\1 Pol't i,,\Ilo\ \\o li \Iv m \IlIt0(;I-,\ I'AP1,111\11 \I's o\ (:oil\. N67-70
What Next for Farm Real Estate Values?
J. H. YEAGER, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology
WHAT GOES UP MUST come down, so
the old adage says. Farm real estate
values have defied this for a long time,
but a reversal may be coming.
It has been 18 years since Alabama
had a year of declining farm real estate
values, according to USDA figures. Since
1954 there has been a continuous in-
crease. The decline from 1953 to 1954
was slight, as was the 1949 to 1950 drop.
For the depression-ridden 1930's, how-
ever, "plunge" is a more apt description
of how values changed.
Value of Alabama farm real estate in
March 1971 averaged $212 per acre.
This is exactly double the $106 average
in 1963, just 8 years earlier. Previous to
this it took 12 years - 1951-63- for av-
erage price to double. Thus, increases in
Alabama farm real estate values have
been rather substantial in recent years.
In some states and areas, however, there
is current evidence that the upward pres-
sure on values is off. In a few cases
prices have declined.
From 1965 to 1970, Alabama farm real
estate values increased 46%, as com-
pared with 32% for 48 states. Although
several states had increases of 50% or
more, Georgia led all with a 73% rise
in the 5 years. As a group, the Delta
States of Mississippi, Arkansas, and Lou-
isiana registered the greatest percentage
increase. Certain states in the Northeast,
such as Vermont New Jersey, Pennsyl-
vania, and Maryland, had an increase of
50% or slightly more.
Mountain and Pacific states had the
smallest increases. The four states with
less than a 20% increase were Arizona,
Nevada, Utah, and California.
The state with the highest average
farm real estate value per acre in March
1971 was New Jersey, with $1,094. In
contrast, the lowest was $38 per acre for
Wyoming, followed by New Mexico with
$44 and Nevada with $46.
There was considerable variation in
values among and within regions. Gen-
erally, Corn Belt averages were in the
$400 to $500 range. In the Mountain
Region, with the exception of Idaho, all
average values were less than $90 per
acre. Florida had the highest average of
the four states in the Southeast, and
California was highest of three Pacific
states.
From March 1970 to March 1971,
USDA reports slight decreases in average
farm real estate values for Kansas, Illi-
nois, Arizona, and California. As further
shown on the map, Alabama and Dela-
ware were top states in percentage in-
creases, each with 12%. States other than
in the Northeast, Appalachia, and South-
east generally had small value increases
Percentage change in average farm real estate values per acre are shown for each state
for the period March 1, 1970, to March 1, 1971. Calculated from data in "Farm Real
Estate Market Developments," ERS-USDA, CD-76, August 1971.
from 1970 to 1971. The average increase
for 48 states amounted to only 3%.
Per acre value of irrigated orchards
and groves in California declined from
$2,730 to $2,4951. Declines were also
reported in value of irrigated land used
for intensive and extensive field crops
and for nonirrigated cropland in that
state.
Is the pressure off for spiraling farm
real estate values? Evidence indicates
FARM REAL ESTATE VALUE PER ACRE AND
CHANGE, 1965 TO 1970
State and 
Average value
State aper 
acre Change
rgo 1965 1970
Dol. Dol. Pct.
South Carolina- 177 251 42
Georgia -------------- 142 246 73
Florida --------------- 290 351 21
Alabama --------- 130 190 46
Southeast ----------- 185 262 42
Northeast ----------- 242 356 47
Lake States....... 178 247 39
Corn Belt ---------- 277 380 37
Northern Plains 92 120 30
Appalachian ----- 194 259 34
Delta States ----- 184 285 55
Southern Plains- 116 152 31
Mountain ----------- 51 62 22
Pacific ---------------- 295 353 20
48 states --.---- 146 193 32
1ERS, USDA, Farm Real Estate Market
Development, CD-76, August 1971.
prices have leveled off, or actually de-
clined in some areas. In part this resulted
from tight monetary restraints. From
1970 to 1971 the geographical areas hav-
ing smallest increases in farmland values
were generally regions of largest size
farms. It apparently has become more
difficult to finance large units. In addi-
tion, there is some evidence of decline
in the trend toward adding acreage to
existing farm units. This for several years
was a factor that gave strength to the
farm real estate market. There has also
been a decline in seller financing of farms
since 1969.
No one knows for sure what will hap-
pen to farm real estate values in the fu-
ture. Although the adage of "what goes
up must come down" may not hold true,
farmland values in some areas last year
did some "drifting in the wind."
'ERS, USDA, Farm Real Estate Develop-
ment, CD76, August 1971, page 31.
liLrlll ~JLaLt: Valllt;~ Ilavt; avrla~r, vi
Managing Arrowleaf Clover for Grazing and Hay
C. S. HOVELAND and R. F. MCCORMICK, DeportmenI of Agroilomy and Sodls
W. B. ANTHONY, Department of Animat and Dairy Sciences
F. T. GLAZE, Pratl ExpF i nieri Field
I III XiII)XX I'l \F ( X uII pf i c (tioiI ill X
1
)l lilt call be
1)11111111 1. I 111 l!I I de c id l\X1 1 X ]t\\ jolo ll i II I lagI
oIX il ii r t llilw.st pt iit ti ll Ili NI i \ile m l T
lc rllitlll I t il li " I Iil(( fIX co)iii1( I lilii cai.l l itlilii 1'.4
If If 1(11 I llill li itlig t cl And I lile l Iiil t XXIII I IIIIXII
Iie 1 Xh 1111 Xil llilit SA i i l lt 312 tlliX f ill .1 X ll
hX )I itt (I I1 I i\ l~I t \\ ~ i Ic t hc "ittlc t : i 1 IX 0111. I (S il( ll \li i
IStl X iciif illoo 2 tlliX Ill LIX fc, ild A2 \i.s Xll l t littill \
I cIII I i ' I if I l t 1 . I I(. lIII t tiiiii I X I I \i I lii (lI t li IilX 1 1 111(-
Ill1I1ds iXX It(( 1111 ll. IfIll i1lll iIll fIX11 Ill Xll~r II
M wii(X II i l foig hA el till e lt Ilfcl l t ittiii tvillil Ifi
li it( 1 ,Il\ItI lil lf II Il . oidX I l I li tol X IXI illt I IXi(itI. lil
Ih\4 im till il tll Lost* litlill/Itilli I i i M ill X)l.liI ~ l tl
liilI IX.\ l liii X 111i II - t lit \\t,, used1 11111s 1 It liclilli I of11 forll
it t \\xi,11 l(I lll iIIXI IIX Ifm p i l i I ii l lull tollf lii 11'
ill IfI I ll ill1 1( ll' i1X111i t Xf Ill r it it tc I. kt~
I lpc o 'lit s i llt 11 il lo Il . TXIT(-l ag \iii lc IIif sill c
XX IX I"~ 111 at t c 9 ( ' I t~til i I ltIIi
XXIX 1)11 XI l tll at I IIX iX lit if fliX\ XtlI i~ tota1 l i]A
Tons/acre
dry forage
Biweekly
to April I
-hay cut
in May
WAftermath growth
CuIt in late 
May
Biweekly
to April IS1
-hay cut
in May
CUTTING
Biweekly April I5 AprilI
to May I only and
- hay cut May I
in May
TREATMENTS
FIG. 1 Forage Yield of Yuchi arrowicaf clover as affected by
cutting treatment, average of 5 location years.
Buds/sp ft
75 - -
60
45-CUT 
BIWEEKLY
UN CUT
30
5
March 16 April I April 12 Maly
FIG. 2. Stem
85
r
80
75V
70
FIG. 3.
buds per sq. ft. on lower 6 in. of plant.
act
_.-Cut April I and May I
Cut biweekly to May I
+ hay cut in2 May
Cut biweekly to April I
4 hay cut in Ma y
MARCH APRIL
li
Digestibility of Yuclii forage as affected by cutting.
N1 \\) I ii xi\my lxii tilt PIeiliiii t Il~i l iii oi Alit
ii (1 Xttti t' t .l i fl A lix \ i ui r11I f' (xu l liii (lx sol-lix ix
I iif14t topsl flld liii ixx (11( xtialx if111114 tli' xitiiii butdtomsii
'xt lic i ill i~ii(x t it sto l I i t i lot ii! tiltii a fol it lm o t ti ii11
ItI I.t Ive l lii II (.~ 1411 iii] dli i l t. ax diX flit I is itiit ~i
ht tibet Il iii iiti' I iei t .ii fiiitiiXII
ll Xxpiic iti xll l i i il('x.l i i tit 'iiltix i ts XX( Ii tseli
teitt lii' x ii Itt' (lilh ii ofi c ot Xl XXmid (' ti ill ti ( t XX ( i ll lt
pr slit o ii' l ll) ii ll od.ii 411 if). i \i t, IXX t ilid I ii xo ('('(141li
b it ittcw l~lt i it' liti 11111) p iii. it il 0 till .hllt X if~lin u (-I (-14
Ut 141liiithh,i Iii ii o itlX 111 l t liioi to)1( p lics iIXX c left.I illt XX it
xtoii mt lt inli 1 ix tuft 'alii14 it i'Id t t ' ilicfhit ifliclt. (mi
AIi ix iii \cil it c olx I I i IN x lit ( )I fiii (e \N\it'1, INt c
I to.hI
littiig
l'ite'i
A f to It
lit"
Aft l x lix tlg tl
ilt we iroi
Two.
5-f1t
ft-u-
."I It+
5-
5-ti)
ft1
10fi
f-1-
5 fit
5-1
55 .35
30 115
: 15h ~
855 (65
16i5 W)
ff5 100)
50)) II0
55)) 135
500t 15
2.:30 30)
550 it)
500) 10
ttitt' ( )akx hut](I
30) -101 125
1f5 145 20)
.4(0 if 15 115
ti0t (itt t fit
170 i f0 135
100o 5 25
1 tt3
125 35tt
1 0 50 20
fit) 5(bli2 m
Selective Cutting
and Use of Silvicides
on Mixed Forest Stands
GEORGE 1. GARIN, Dept. of Foreutry
Im ltil lii 141 iiX ttI I
it it li' of1 th l alck of 1411111 tilldtlx toiit it xxaxit's ilt poibtfle
toi lcix (' itit t' X1111 i sitfitici t tio Xi i]) lt t loiii'x i ( ttitil t ollt
xilx, ititl xxii S xiiic iiil x 'llt\t Ilihic di i( gto slx XX ci' lit-
i ili ii this i ia lo oitll i thlt tilt ii t i fll thox. pot s ii jhit'i
x it'ie iii r xxiii k tll. (m p pil.a d (111 \cc I~
il It\ llit ii' t ill l iii toi t IIi Ilha t oi' A wl lt s i t t li Ni ' it t i tt
of llill-d \()odS lihl ttxl cull o14 e s of p o ))t'lit
XX ith it lifiiitc i' t \ aIX ih lt () 'o I litX hut txx illiti ito
tri Iitc I li dl\x hi lcliux it
4 
X 4 il Xl fhilix xx lich an, uiii i f ll.
11(1l i git Stii'of t ( ( t o kIill HociiTii i lls til flt' XiX l114X Ji-ce
sclc( tud to lca\c ",md lll(-I( lialltabic
'wI(.( tkuk lc l\ilig all --'ood twc .
ALABAMA'S FEED
GRAIN SOURCES
1
J. D. CAVANAUGH and J. L. STALLINGS
Dept. of Agr. Economics and Rural Sociology
W HILE ALABAMA'S feed grain consum-
ing livestock numbers have increased
year after year, home production of feed
grains has gradually decreased. This has
left a deficit which must be filled from
out-of-state. A bumper corn crop in 1971
somewhat reduced the need for imported
grain, but the deficit continues.
Research at Auburn University is con-
cerned with this and other aspects of the
feed grain problem in Alabama. Some of
the research areas include the nature and
capability of as well as the need for grain
marketing firms and facilities; the market
channels through which Alabama gets its
feed grains; the modes of transporting
feed grain to Alabama, including a study
of least cost methods; the pattern of
prices for feed grains; and the impact of
present and possible Government pro-
grams and technology on feed grain mar-
keting. This article is concerned with the
market channels for feed grains.
Corn Imports
Out of more than 83 million bu. of
corn imported in 1970, nearly 80% was
received from Illinois and Indiana. This
was mainly because of favorable rail
and barge rates between these States and
Alabama. As shown in the table, more
than half came from Illinois.
Water transportation was the most im-
portant method of bringing corn into Ala-
bama in 1970. Barged corn was received
primarily at Tennessee River points,
mainly from Illinois points on the Mis-
sissippi and Illinois rivers. Rail corn was
shipped into Alabama almost entirely
from points in the southern part of In-
diana and Illinois because of the favor-
able rail rate structure. Important barge
origin points in Illinois include East St.
Louis, Pekin, and Cairo. Another im-
portant barge origin is Minneapolis,
Minn. Major rail origin points in Indiana
include Evansville, Princeton, and Mt.
1 Soybeans and wheat, referred to as feed
grains here, are traditionally oil crops and
food grains.
10
Vernon. Major rail origin points in Illi-
nois include East St. Louis, Belleville,
Cairo, and Wayne City. Another impor-
tant rail origin is Henderson, Ky.
Most of the corn transported by truck
into Alabama is from "backhaul" opera-
tions. This involves taking goods from
the South to points such as Chicago and
bringing back a load of corn to help meet
expenses and to make extra profit.
Soybeans
The soybean picture in Alabama is
completely different from that of corn.
Alabama is a surplus producer of soy-
beans. A large portion of the soybeans
produced in the State is exported from
the Port of Mobile, while the remainder
is crushed by processors in Alabama and
Georgia. Soybeans received from out-of-
state in 1970 came mainly from Illinois
to Mobile for export and to northern Ala-
bama for processing. Most of these were
received by water.
Other Grains
Most of the oats received into Ala-
bama in 1970 were for feed manufactur-
ing. They came mainly from Minnesota
and Memphis, Tenn. Soft wheat imports
represented only 1.8 million bu. and were
mainly for export through the Port of
Mobile. The same is true of the 5.4 mil-
lion bu. of hard wheat. Most soft wheat
came from Illinois and Indiana, with
scattered amounts from other areas. Hard
wheat came from Minnesota and Mis-
souri. That from Missouri probably came
from the Great Plains wheat producing
areas nearest to the Missouri shipping
point. Grain sorghum was imported into
Alabama for feed, with Kansas account-
ing for 1,167,000 bu. (52.5%). Another
556,000 bu. (25.0%) from Missouri
probably also came mostly from Kansas.
Another 335,000 bu. (15.1%) was from
Indiana.
All of these data point out the vulner-
ability of Alabama's agriculture to such
things as freight rate changes, transpor-
tation technology changes, rail and dock
strikes, and other factors which might
disrupt the flow of feed grains into Ala-
bama and the export of certain grains
out of Alabama. In recent months, rail
strikes have caused great concern among
poultry farmers. Storage and drying fa-
cilities in Alabama are short, relative to
the Corn Belt and some other areas of
the country, and feed grain handling and
processing firms are not usually able to
keep many days' supply on hand. Also,
as this article goes to press, spokesmen
for Alabama soybean farmers are press-
ing the Secretary of Agriculture for relief
from losses due to the Mobile dock strike.
A large per cent of Alabama's soybeans
are exported, and storage and drying fa-
cilities on farms are short, causing a bot-
tleneck at harvest time and severe eco-
nomic losses.
The Future
Feed grain deficits in Alabama are ex-
pected to continue in the forseeable fu-
ture as grain-consuming livestock num-
bers continue to increase with no immed-
iate upward trend in local grain produc-
tion. Also, Alabama farmers will continue
to rely on the foreign export market for
marketing a large percentage of their
soybeans and lesser amounts of some
other grains. There will, therefore, be a
continuing need to study and make rec-
ommendations on all factors affecting
the orderly flow of imported feed grains
into Alabama and the export of soybeans
and other grains.
GRAIN RECEIPTS, BY GRAIN HANDLING AND USING FIRMS, FROM OUT-OF-STATE SOURCES,
BY AREA OF ORIGIN, ALABAMA, 1970
Aeofoii ConSyen Oas Soft Hard Grain Toa
Area of origin Corn Soybeans Oats wheat wheat sorghum Total
1,000 bu. 1,000 bu. 1,000 bu. 1,000 bu. 1,000 bu. 1,000 bu. 1,000 bu.
Ill. 49,410 6,177 393 908 0 83 56,971
Ind. 17,441 300 141 152 0 335 18,369
Minn. 6,446 0 2,833 0 961 0 10,240
Mo. 1,354 299 207 0 4,401 556 6,817
Iowa 4,556 0 0 0 0 0 4,556
Miss. (n.) and Tenn. (w.)- 150 471 1,485 393 0 83 2,582
Ky. - 2,158 0 0 151 0 0 2,309
Kans. 0 0 0 90 0 1,167 1,257
Ohio 1,045 0 0 0 0 0 1,045
Tenn. (cent.) 263 157 0 0 14 0 434
Ga. (s.) 256 0 0 100 0 0 356
Miss. (s.) 29 290 0 0 0 0 319
Ga. (n.) 0 0 0 4 0 0 4
Total 83,108 7,694 5,059 1,798 2,224 2,224 105,259
' For fiscal year 1970-July 1, 1969-June 30, 1970.
THE RESIDUAL effects of turning under
a 10-year-old reed canarygrass sod on
yields of corn, cotton, and soybeans were
compared with continuous row cropping
on two river terrace soils at the Auburn
University Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion's Plant Breeding Unit near Tallassee,
Alabama. The soils were fertilized and
limed as recommended by soil tests to
maintain adequate fertility levels.
Striking increases in crop yields for in-
corporating the grass sod were noted the
first year and residual effects have per-
sisted for 5 years, Table 1. Increases in
corn, cotton, and soybean yields from
turning under grass sod as compared with
continuous row-cropping on Cahaba
loamy fine sand ranged from 32 to 150%
over the 5-year period.
On the finer textured Wickham fine
sandy loam, corn yields were 130%
higher on the previously sodded areas 4
years after its incorporation, with an av-
erage increase over no grass sod of 60%.
Rainfall during the critical period for the
crop was important in determining the
residual effects of previous cropping on
yields. Soybean yields, for example, were
increased 40% in 1968, 3 years after in-
corporating the sod, when only 2.3 in. of
TABLE 1. RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF GRASS SOD
OF CORN, COTT(
Years af
Crop sod or
row-croDi
Department of Agronomy and Soils
rainfall occurred from August 15 to 
Sep-
tember 20. This is the critical period 
for
this crop to receive water in central Ala-
bama (Highlights of Agricultural Re-
search, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1970). In 
1987
and 1969, high rainfall years, lodging of
soybeans on the previously sodded 
plots
reduced the beneficial effect of the sod.
Responses of cotton to the grass residue
were more erratic on this soil which 
was
caused by excessive vegetative 
growth
some years, delayed maturity and 
ac-
companying boll rot. Boll rot probably
could have been reduced or 
avoided by
the use of less nitrogen than 
the 90 lb.
per acre applied.
Soil Effects
Several properties of the Wickham 
soil
were studied to explain the long-term
residual effects of turning under grass
sod, Table 2. Four years after incorpor-
ating the sod, soil organic 
matter in the
COMPARED WITH ROW CROPPING 
ON YIELDS
ON AND SOYBEANS
ter Yields per acre following Increase for
r Gsod over
ping Grass. sod Row crops row-cropping
Cahaba loamy fine sand
Soybeans
Cotton (lint)
C orn ------ --
Soybeans
Corn ------ --
Corn .......
1st 39 bu.
2nd 1,007 lb.
---------- 3rd 85 bu.
4th 42 bu.
---- 5th 91 bu.
Wickham very fine sandy loam
1
Bu.
- 1st 77
2nd 101
3rd 100
4th 85
Cotton (lint) 1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Soybeans
Lb.
1,0583
925
1,199
6423
1,089
Bu.
58
51
53.
34
38
23 bu.
764 lb.
34 bu.
29 bu.
61 bu.
Bu.
46
83
82
37
Lb.
878
991
1,062
986
998
Bu.
50
46
38
34
33
Pct.
70
32
150
45
49
67
22
22
130
21
-73
13
-353
9
16
11
40
0
15
1 Crops planted in succession shown in column 1.
' Rotation of corn, cotton, and soybeans. Corn yields are not reported for 5th year 
of
residual study, 1970, because of severe blight damage.
SExcessive vegetative growth with delayed maturity and boll rot reduced lint yields on
previously sodded plots.
SExcessive July and August rainfall. Beans lodged severely on sodded plots.
surface 8 in. was more than double that
in the adjacent soil with a long history
of row-cropping, 1.80 and 0.85%, re-
spectively. Bulk density of the subsoil,
a measure of soil compaction, was not
affected by previous treatment. Chemical
soil test data in 1969 showed similar
levels of phosphorus, potassium, and
magnesium and a favorable pH on both
treatments. Since adequate amounts of
nitrogen were added annually for corn
and cotton, beneficial effect of the sod
is not attributed to this element. Nema-
tode numbers were not high enough to
be an important factor in yields based on
counts of 7 different species. See Table
2 for count data on those species of sig-
nificance on these crops.
Moisture stress as indicated by wilting
of plants was noted at various times over
the 5-year period to be more severe on
the low organic matter soil. This was
especially noticeable on corn in mid-June
of 1969, 4 years after turning under the
sod. The increase for sod that year was
45 bu. The role of organic matter varies
with different soils but its major bene-
ficial effect in this case is attributed to
improved soil-plant moisture relations.
TABLE 2. EFFECTS OF TEN YEARS OF GRASS
SOD COMPARED WITrrH Row CROPPING
ON SELECTED PROPERTIES OF A
RIVER TERRACE SOIL
1
Previous cropping
Soil property' Grass Row
sod cropped
Organic matter in
surface 9 in., pet. 1.80 0.85
Bulk density of sub-
soil (10-12 in.), g/cc----- 1.63 1.67
Soil test data:'
pH 6.0 6.1
Phosphorus High High
Potassium Medium Medium
Magnesium High High
Nematodes, no.
per pt. of soil:
Rootknot (cotton)------- 628 4
Rootknot, meadow,
stubby, stunt (av.
under corn) 44 155
1 Wickham very fine sandy loam.
2 As measured 4 years after turning under
sod. Acknowledgment gladly given to A. E.
Hiltbold and B. F. Hajek, Agronomy and
Soils Department, for organic carbon and
bulk density determinations, respectively,
and to R. Rodriguez-Kabana, Botany and
Microbiology Department, for nematode
counts.
2 Limed and fertilized as per soil test rec-
ommendations.
11
SOIL ORGANIC MATTER - Is It Needed
In This Age Of CHEMICAL FARMING 
?
HOWARD T. ROGERS and JORDAN W. LANGFORD
1w
Some Herbicides Kill by
Interfering with Energy Flow
B. TRUELOVE and D. E. DAVIS
Departmnent of Boctny and Microbtology
A u ~lli kjj IX 11 \Iit . of' Ilk11 it!( hl -1(1 o th a t i~ti/It ont
is of c Iiic wllit diflll ica it ( illi cd ii ltterl atc i) i('' allt
till ('ll(' t s t IX 
1 1
f 10 i 'lleX i 111liii' li
1  
1111 o ii t i t 7 I ol'a l 'ii
Hii I fi ill . ll 1) 1111 XX ) k XX 11(11t c el it c ' litp ',oll(-(' To''
Ill io s l ucdt iti, X )11 i' ( it ii(X lli(l~It it ii c itoe IT\ ft II of11
titI(111 X tit i t ioif( oil \\1 ithi 11the i ll lli ( l' l i t AX14 ''l 
1
iil tt
XXI'lu kisX itl to li i ik Il i'. cir il w ll11e
t it \\ Ili(Ill ll tl It i i ll X) 1111 itt ll I aIX f l t I I ll ft ot
1
II if' I 4.
lii 1 iti X k\IX\\\ itt kiX iilitu \\ i illl EM M II I'\ ll
I ', cr c it till'fy iti
I lle liX X iti lii )ll'- pr 'XX itt titi
P 'It Itt ttIIt'I It~i Xli I i 111
ill tiliItt' p tlici ,I dI 'S.'b
P\ ilil' I lol lautlilt XI) X II I ltjl t X t''il' i'ltifl i
XXli 'itlit ]fIii it uiX I it XfX Ill i lt XX'
1 
1't lt 'kiIXXI ii
Niil T aclitl~k ilX icX)i.s X allI c IXl i ofI llite cfhi lbi 7111 o~t~ fr
IIll iI i .
('iIII \11111t
4
sze 11111itoX i ill' ililt'tXX tiIX III'X l 1,11111'de t liil X t[
Icct X ts\ig l isi ifr t(il l'Il'\ lji -oic to XX'Xt t i lIX othXei
t~ ilt' S iifeftieX tiil t XXil ill' 11111)) tllI thl 11117 pr 'fftl'(tf (I
Carbon diCxi
Green plant cells
Ch rlorophyl
4 egr
Oxge
SOars 02-1
Corbon
pr c yntlresis I
Oxygen
dloxde- -Carp ATP
dioxide
Wa let
Non-green cells (respiration)
The energetics of green and non-green cells.
FAT IN HOG FEED-
improves feed 
efficiency,
raises cost of ration
Bo G. RUFFIN, De o t 4o A iii id1 Dttiy Soi-ii-
S E GISSENDANNER. Sand M'ouiiinr Substationi
M \ X i,\i Xt ii ii . liii X'. iic 1wiwtti cd tolt i killi lmll
\ i XI( it 1 II hl i illod r s\%4t ('dliti . C it li 4 re'itf I ltuix o llt X s
4fi i c i p r d i i I I 
l'l i'ui I l i ill 
I cil sh o ul tic~ 
tINto
Co.Ilitc 4
I I lt I cd it -I It
(;Iollll(l \(,Ilo\\ (oil)
S()\I)(.,Ill lll( ll (.11'' )
A11,11f;I Ilwal (IT
1"ilt (;lIjiIjI.(h
(;101111(1 IiII)CAOTIC
Dio, al( iIIIII
Tla( of 'all,
Vit;tIllill
\Iltihiolic
li 1.
25.o4
1.2
, Colltriltv 1.0' , IILjJl(_,;IIww, 0.8 " /ill( , OJ iloll, 0,0 1,-;HhNI t , aj 1(1 !)7. 1 , ,tlt.
F,1(11 pollod lipplic, thr foll(mill"': Otamill A Illd D,
1,000,000 ;111(1 600,000 ( SI, lillik, riholla\ill, 2,000
lwt(ill, ),U(W D-p llltotlwllio, acid, 4,000, (holilic
(.111ol id( , 12,000 Iw_,.: \ itainin B- 5 md folic t( id, 60 jiw.
I kilwoul\ 
cill- 10.
I \Ii,), 2. I II I ( i Pit, I' Ilit \i \"\(I wi \1)1)1 i)
XI I \ ;,Ii\xi\(. B'~'tii I ]i)\"
ltc 
k(IiittIut
\ 11b i lt 1)i-
ii] Xi1 I
I , 
iw k 
itt 
Ii.
F c co't t .\ I . IL lil
iiloc iihli/a[li III(I 1-1\ ,-,k( ;J.
(';oI il\ i in t i of m
12
1.21
5.79
62SI
101
.1 .2
II
50~
1.25
I I T
8, 2) S 8, 04S 7 .2
5,'12 5,260~ 5,152
.55 .1(7 .52
hI ~ it]d Iottiih [)' cN 44 o lit 
4
k] ui..6 fo l ttoo l S1.6 fo ''
lfoul tocll I.
at jil l i t- l il atila cw l h Co l i o d ( il
Xy~iIs cpig a b gd 56lii. ilI itti f \\XXt (ilgc CII litter,
it il t re d lllatil ~ it ' fo lws: X i ulilttl ~ ill~ _
Ct rouptit I Xigotl~tt) - illltj lt' 1 11 % p(I i4l tik i ax i io,
beall~~ Ilea itiol
Grtop 2C-ITit cri-o~eiii 110 i (1 l ocalX atiti i ph) XXIII' a1 dde'd'4)'
CroulX p 3ot6e7i pl~teofcl (.11 11) XX iX ll)lliai itil] 1ill
'tllptiollX.l d te ile 1)io iix b elt(X ('el l tl'
Xtili' fat ill cith Group iil' it Crou :3,0\14)X.h (lo
What Now For
PEANUT SEED
PROTECTANTS?
J. A. LYLE, Dept. of Botany and Microbiology
C. A. BROGDEN, and H. W. IVEY
Wiregrass Substation
A SEARCH for better and safer fungi-
cidal seed protectants for peanuts is un-
derway, now that organic mercurials are
no longer recommended.
Damaged seed are highly susceptible
to attack by soil-borne fungi. Often, me-
chanical shellers damage a portion of
the seed. When seed are passed over
shaking screens, most of the split seed
and undersized seed are removed. The
remaining seed pass along a moving belt
where the visibly damaged seed are re-
moved. However, many seed with broken
seedcoats, small chipped spots, and mi-
nute cracks go undetected. Sound and
undamaged seed may not be invaded by
fungi; however, they do carry organisms
which later attack the developing seed-
ling.
Invasion of seed by fungi can be re-
tarded by using fungicidal seed treat-
ments. This practice increases stands
through prevention of seed rot. There is
no evidence that properly applied seed
treatments interfere with nodule devel-
opment.
Research conducted by Auburn Uni-
versity Agricultural Experiment Station
over the past 18 years has documented
the value of seed treatment and identified
many effective seed treatment materials
for peanuts. The recent curtailment of
organic mercurials for use as seed pro-
tectants has emphasized the importance
of continued research for suitable seed
treatment fungicides. During the past 3
)ears more than 30 non-mercurial seed
protectants have been evaluated as in-
dividual treatments and in treatment
combinations. Included among them have
been experimental compounds and those
commercially available. Several of these
materials have proven very effective in
controlling fungi, Table 1, and increas-
ing stands, Table 2, of Florunner pea-
nuts.
TABLE 2. EFFECT OF CHEMICAL SEED PROTECTANTS ON EMERGENCE OF FLORUNNER
PEANUTS AT THE WIREGRASS SUBSTATION, HEADLAND, ALABAMA, 1969-71
Seed protectant
Rate per
100 lb.
shelled seed
Oz.
Benlate T
Benlate T
Botran-Captan (30-80)
Botran-Captan (30-30)
Botran-Captan (35-30)
Botran-Captan (35-35)
Botran-Difolatan (35-35)
Bravo D
Bravo D
Bravo D ? Terrazole
Bravo D ? Terrazole
Difolatan 65 SP
Granox P.F. (Maneb-Captan, 30-30)
Granox P.F. (Maneb-Captan, 30-30)
Orthocide 75
TCMTB, 8%
Vitavax
Vitavax
Vitavax-Captan (37.5-37.5)
Vitavax-Captan (37.5-37.5)
Vitavax-Thiram (37.5-87.5)
Vitavax-Thiram (37.5-37.5)
Increase in emergence
1969 1970 1971
Pct. Pct. Pct.
17 17
2 17
0 15
---- 26 20
4 16
9 20
89 0 12
14
9
.... 10
11
75 0 18
- 18
18
63 9 16
--- 8 12
13 17
7 19
-- 14 10
7 10
15 18
28 19
TABLE 1. FUNGI ISOLATED FROM FLORUNNER PEANUT SEED TREATED WITH VARIOUS FUNGICIDAL PROTECTANTS, 1970-71
Rate per Total Individual fungi obtained
1
, 1970 and 1971
100 lb. fungi
Seed protectant shelled isolated Asp. 
Asp. Asp. Bot. Fus. Clio. Pen. 
Rhiz. Tric.
seed '70-'71 
flav. niger 
spp. thes. 
spp. spp. 
spp. spp. 
vir.
Oz. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct. Pct.
Benlate T 4 8 0 8
Benlate T 5 40 0 40
Botran-Captan (30-30) 4 12 0 12
Botran-Captan (30-30) 5 20 0 4 4 12
Botran-Captan (30-30) 6 24 0 6 6 4 8
Botran-Captan (35-35) 5 8 2 4 2
Botran-Difolatan (35-35) 5 12 4 8 4 4
Bravo D 2 -- 16 16
Bravo D- 3 -- 12 4 2 6
Bravo D ? Terrazole 2 ---- 20 8 12
Bravo D ? Terrazole 3 ---- 4 4
Difolatan 65 SP 5 24 0 2 4 2 4 4 8
Granox P.F. (Maneb-Captan,
30-30) -5 . 0
Granox P.F. (Maneb-Captan,
30-30) 7 0
Orthocide 75, 4 8 4 2 2 4 4 4
TCMTB, 8% 6 44 40 3 14 4 3 8 32 16
Vitavax 3 80 88 4 20 16 4 68 56
Vitavax 4 92100 5 38 5 8 100 36
Vitavax-Captan (37.5-37.5)-------- 3 16 4 4 4 12
Vitavax-Captan (37.5-37.5)-------- 4 32 0 1 14 1 16
Vitavax-Thiram (37.5-37.5) 3 40 32 16 32 12 4 8
Vitavax-Thiram (37.5-37.5) ------ 4 28 16 1 26 8 1 8
1 Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus spp., Botrydiplodia theobromae, Fusarium spp., Gliocladium spp., Penicillium 
spp.,
Rhizopus spp., Trichoderma viride.
14
-- - - I - - - - - / - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FARM WOODLOTS are capable of pro-
ducing steady incomes for their owners
while gradually improving the value of
growing trees. Value is improved by in-
creasing the proportion of desirable trees
and by increasing the total stocking of
the stand. However, some cultural work
is necessary to initiate these desirable
changes.
A 237-acre tract of timber on the Fay-
ette Experiment Forest was selected to be
managed as a farm woodland. The first
inventory, made in 1951, indicated that
this forest unit had a very low stocking
with a large percentage of low quality
trees and undesirable species. Prevailing
soil quality indicated that this woodlot
could support pine but not good hard-
woods. A management plan, which pro-
vided for adjustments every 5 years, was
initiated to improve forest conditions.
After each 5 years a new inventory was
made and the management plan was re-
vised to fit changing stand conditions.
The original objectives were to deter-
mine the effects of good forest practices
on forest stands and to evaluate cost and
return factors. These objectives were ac-
complished by selling as much of the low
grade hardwoods as possible and selec-
tively cutting poor risk pines - trees that
were diseased, poorly formed, over-
crowded, or otherwise undesirable. Im-
provement operations included eradicat-
ing unsalable hardwoods and planting or
seeding of pine trees. The intensity and
cost of the improvement operations were
limited to approximately 25 per cent of
the returns from the sale of timber.
Early weed tree control was done by
girdling and some frilling and poisoning
of cull trees larger than 4 in. d.b.h. Re-
sults of this type of work were unsatis-
factory as many of the treated hard-
woods did not die and many of the un-
treated smaller hardwoods kept the un-
derstory pine from developing. Later
ImproUing Farm Woodlots
SHERMAN D. WHIPPLE, Department of Forestry
TABLE 2. CULTURAL WORK-COST, RETURNS, AND VOLUMES CUT, FAYETTE, ALABAMA
Improver
Date Hdwd. Se
control pl
Dol.
1951
1956
1961
1966
1971
Total
275
512
646
341
1,774
nent
.eding- 
Pulp
lanting
Dol. Cu. ft.
58 823
25 3,754
205 6,522
30,590
4,500
288 46,189
Cutting
Sawtimber Other' Returns
Cu. ft.
11,096
12,185
1,121
14,411
38,813
Cu. ft.
383
868
4,412
5,663
Cu. ft.
669
1,687
763
4,220
315
7,654
1 Includes pine fence posts and poles.
treatments included injecting herbicides
into trees as small as 1 in. d.b.h., some
mistblowing, and some site preparation
by burning, bulldozing, or disking. This
work did not produce completely satis-
factory results but it did aid in produc-
ing more acres with desirable pine stock-
ing, Table 1.
Basal areal in square feet per acre in-
creased steadily except between 1966
and 1971. During this period a heavy
cut was made to salvage little leaf in-
fected shortleaf pine trees and to remove
poorly stocked mature trees to develop
favorable conditions for growing well
stocked stands of young pine. This trend
TABLE 1. CHANGES IN FOREST CONDITIONS THROUGH 20 
YEARS OF MANAGEMENT,
FAYETTE, ALABAMA
Date 
Acreages 
by type
Pine P-H Hdwd.
1951
1956--
1961-.
1966-
1971-
A.
104
128
167
102
141
A.
80
78
37
111
81
A.
51
31
33
24
15
Per acre 
Volume per acre
)pen basal area Pulp' Sawtimber'
Pine Hdwd. Pine Hdwd. Pine Hdwd.
A. Sq.ft. Sq.ft. Cu.ft. Cu.ft. Bd.ft. Bd.ft.
2 11.3 5.3 -- 558 364
- 26.3 5.7 125 1,473 90
31.2 11.0 211 100 1,076 188
44.3 11.9 362 60 1,772 248
31.5 15.3 229 84 1,701 228
'Trees 3.6 in. to 9.0 in.
' Trees 9.1 in. and larger using International 1/4 rule.
' Pulpwood trees not tallied.
is also shown in the pulpwood and saw-
timber volumes per acre. Present stock-
ing of merchantable timber is below the
acceptable level of 60 sq. ft. per acre,
but pine regeneration is generally satis-
factory. Included is one stand of 60 acres
that had no merchantable timber but was
planted or seeded to loblolly pine in
1963 and is presently developing a good
pine stand.
Hardwood control programs from 1951
through 1966 cost a total of $1,774, or
$7.48 per acre, Table 2. These treat-
ments have improved the overall value
of the unit. However, present volumes
would have been greater had these op-
erations been more intensive at the be-
ginning of the management program.
The planting program should also have
been completed earlier in the plan.
Returns of $7,654, Table 2, from
the sale of forest products have been
quite satisfactory. Comparing original
with present values of standing timber
plus returns from timber sales and the
increase in quantity and quality of de-
sirable trees, this forest is producing a
satisfactory annual increment in value.
Basal area is the summary of square feet
in the cross sections at breast height of all
trees in the stand.
15
EDWARD P, HILL, Ill, Alaorna Cooperative Willife Researcht Uit~
I'lllIiX. ol sEit' f ll I ll' (If l tfli c ti i ll-X31
dtt d itt f3th1ereaeol l o o
19: titill 
1 4
l accepte h\Xptlci that ckiig thd
tilln ( fi kt 1 ll t of lt e X XXit f itif it ii
fIllI loaX .fttt' I purposetlti of ti sItXl *XX asi
toII i ci ,lf 11 1 w ti ,t IX XXitth ii licttls Lii
tit't'ttti I I' IX I lidi s\ It ll tll fzflt itl o1f11
co11'ttftailt tX 11111fit' floill Iti' 11hived
(111131 i ii X l l IXI ail' 1,1 X tllIfi
f )iit i' u tilolfial r1abb1it 1111 ifit' IId ~tIf
9(53 thoijd i97, twop'ti I chciitt lUg
Xil~ 1,11'S XXI('II X 1 A' l Itlfti'lltfu'co l I '
1965, N 66, 31111 fN67, 1 ('Xf t'('t IX ti . TiX
ilcittc ot'f t lipeit'2f)itlif iX the bivitif'
IlIi~llI IX al \\111 lii' l It WtX i't lI IX illc
\\ 1 1\ ti c ll' pIoll dXa(31 t II(Io f l f 13111
ltill ('itlitig \ case 's t t, Iea tiii' XXI t -i lp/i'-
li' ll s ' oll XXe it' Ii eXli lse V''fa14 11 tll.\ ll
fi D''i114 XX tfill ,lli veal. i \601t Ill lt lf' t
XXraIl' f ata]i a ;thlltit.l s li
AGRICUUALma teXPE \ ENT a ST'ATlIaONle
AUBRN ALBM 36I331msshcdiocurd.Al
tw VmhDre ctms worFbur 5194
UBLAI ON11( Hl~iilght M s ol,68/
Aof ic7:r3 Rem~sefrh 1otict 2 71 1 C
In31 t\ Nc ('31 ,tIhi XX it 1 ili i tip l wit I (I tt
tIlls i lt h e X 1 illl I, ('t ll it t a 1,1 Ilithat31
th ileo fli fils 19(s.3 3111icto 194 t''t(ii
the(5,1 9(5 311( ioe 9f, XXhIe cotl~ti~lti',
\C til t to \ a ilt' ltl ii' lii I ti at i dttfi ri'l
itw l~ithetf faiXc w It aIItt'i alI1 tilt' I ' i'tl t
United Slatel-sslc s Deorclroe ilf A~itolt