HIA F1LGT

VOLUME 10, NUMBER I SPRING, 1963

...~ 4

4 -w- 4

.~Al.

1'

Ar~

4 0

so-- -- ~, .JF

Agiutra xeien ttoAU UR UNIERIT

HIGHLIGHTS ofAgricultural Research

A Quarterly Report of ResearchServing All of Alabama

VOLUME 10, No. 1 SPRING, 1963

'3,'"'

EFFECTS OF SPIDER MITES ON COTTON PRODUCTION -

Points up, Fact that Mites are Destructive Pests 3

COTTON VARIETIES FOR 1963 - Cottons Recommended forNorthern and Southern Alabama . 4

CHEMICALS CONTROL WEEDS IN TOMATOES, PEPPERS -

Highly Effective Herbicides Available 5

WATERMELON VARIETIES FOR ALABAMA - Names NewVarieties Adapted to Alabama Conditions 6

IMPROVING CREAMED COTTAGE CHEESE QUALITY - Re-ports on Factors Affecting Flavor and Quality 7

GRANULES OR SPRAY FOR WEED CONTROL - FormulationsCompared for Effectiveness 8

THICK SILAGE SPACING - Fails to Measure up in AlabamaTests .....- 9

COTTON STANDS IMPROVED BY FUNGICIDES- Hopper-BoxTreating Can Reduce Disease Losses 10

REGULATION OF TRADE PRACTICES IN DAIRY INDUSTRY -Reviews Regulated Practices in Alabama 11

APPLE DISEASE CONTROL IN ALABAMA - Can Mean theDifference in Failure and Profits ................... 12

FARM REAL ESTATE TAXES - Gives Trends and Compari-sons of Alabama Tax Rates ....... ,13

NEMATODES VS NEW CONTROL MEASURES- Reports Ef-fective Varieties, Rotations, and Fumigation ........ 14

INDEX TO ARTICLES - Published in Highlights of Agricul-tural Research in 1962 ......... 15

LAND USE CHANGING IN ALABAMA - Large AdjustmentsMade During 1950-60 Period 16

Op 44fe Coe. Getting the most return from limited cotton acre-age calls for doing a good job of all operations. Shown here at theTennessee Valley Substation, Belle Mina, is post-emergence weedcontrol treatment with herbicidal oil. On pages 3, 4, 8, and 10 ofthis issue are reports of research on insect control, cotton varieties,chemical weed control, and hopper-box fungicidal seed treating.

E. V. SMITH

COYT WILSON ....

CHAS. F. SIMMONS

KENNETH B. RoYE. L. MCGRAW ...R. E. STEVENSON--

DirectorAssociate DirectorAssistant Director

-----Editor_ Associate Editor.Associate Editor

Editorial Advisory Committee: COYTWILSON; H. T. ROGERS, Agronomy andSoils Department Head; J. H. BLACK-

STONE, Agricultural Economist; H. J.AMLING, Associate Horticulturist, AND

KENNETH B. RoY.

PUBLICATIONSListed here are timely and new publicationsreporting research by the Agricultural Ex-periment Station.

Bul. 326. Corn Earworm Control.

Bul. 332. Management of Irrigated Cotton.

Bul. 337. Nitrogen and Moisture Require-ments of Coastal Bermuda and PensacolaBahia.

Cir. 136. Nitrogen for Dallisgrass Pasturesin the Black Belt.

Cir. 138. Soybeans for Oil in Alabama.

Cir. 140. Bahiagrass for Forage in Ala-bama.

Cir. 142. Procedures for Calculating Pro-ducer Quotas and Prices for Grade A Milkin Alabama.

Leaf. 68. Biology and Control of SpiderMites on Cotton in Alabama.

Prog. Rept. 82. Performance of Silage Va-rieties.

Prog. Rept. 85. Early Thinnings from PinePlantations.

Free copies may be obtained from yourCounty Agent or by writing the AuburnUniversity Agricultural Experiment Station,Auburn, Alabama.

Published by

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION of

AUBURN UNIVERSITY

Auburn, Alabama

S PIIit \1 II 1s are )1'1i tlt 4 i

i'le(se titi\ ilites liarils isilble to

hcas an.od stick juices frit planits. Thel(aiiu12e2 causied2 1)w thlist tIiti't is 1reflected

ditug of foliage2. Spider l iites en~ter Cot-toii fields fronit \% il l, 1 uitkated plants141 055 il( 14rb .121 The presece I ofimites5isI itiiilk iiotic12 fitrst dlw field liai.

(,ills \% hell \ isib2I dalage to lea\ I'S 1112('li I )It bt occaijsonally\ iso~latedi spot itt-

fistatiotis lOS be1 tutu C ill ally part (dIa field.

Foo se cal yars, spideri mites h~a\cauised dIlillge itl thle 1121 itessee \ alhc

ALaiatltl.lla and 1 ar(e 5 ll) c~oillijiir eC('(ob01le plests iii ceiittral antdt sotitlietIA) ALI-

lujaitlis 1)5 (\ttlisk12 list (If t 4ti

secticilfes oil clittoli. Miost of ti (Sc Ill-5('1tic2illes (lcst! 0 prcllators a5 1(11 teiwli('f12j iliseets \X it!liolIt eoliiollitog

'Ii5 ei i ThcIA)ec' itc91111its a b li oI,,

producest~s a 1(1 !0~lo ill2 tss ( absttence ofil

tilites.

Field Experiments

tiie leilliese Vallie\ Subhstationi at BelleMinat ill 1 961 a1nd2 1962 ai(I

1 at tihe Aui

Ii i itiit 1 4 itcilse Vatlki lss hitati

t SD\L

D ate i if('stc( Ttal Bolli

w ilt Size

Pt . P'ct.111th' \luula I196 1

junc 6 16 6.1t11 \ 7 28 2Auttilst 8 :31 :3

liuic 64 44 11tlll- 5 27 1 1

lilok; i1S1 14,\ttitiri 1962

.11ti1c .5 ---- 2 6 17

.ftls\ 2 - --- ---- 2t 16'aiglist 6 ----- __ 1-

CiiiC'tC'Ci a Bellenl itarill il 621 to stuti

tt alll thil'iet~s ffet iktiltol iil \ittts

Sie klep The i olite fXre arti) cali

filii(Oleu al~~i't iffei t til ic Ca t h 12i r(. leit

(1111,1 at Bell( 11 M01 n1a1 ttttit 962to t itp

,trallt.\ Sptider sasit ho s w'5tcd1il ts 1 11

(Si lw t Si'toi it appiiie s tiiILto \I theiL

det Ci t~ttt s c csttl tdo \ill fil slaeill

\\asi S cp l-Iles Y 1(11141c \\th 1w j

at l~lilar llt r~al, ilid oli i i cil 1111

int I. Cotol J-, as hav .e 'to to

Y~ield of seed1 c'lttol \\Is I Ielilecoi Ifto I I' ; itS ife2'ttttot oft Htill catttiIlw

pidc m2211 ite ' ill' t Ic it's otot iii 212 12

t io t (o ti l i''t1'5 2CiCtil l i (('Irl

char15ater of Seed111 and ili.t \\ttiel a

itl i esailoi is If to stt mk(55 ' \ot 12 si2i'

21 \C - sp1idcr lie" sil i o 512212 rclit

slil 12'o ' ither seac C'-csltc ill the1'ts(15 ((I

I'ttt 19i 1 held Slrtioti ill C liiolill ss eki

oirl' l1ed1 ill o lt ili 1412' I latetii( l 1. Be(io\ tt ittlt12ll sc ttn it t'i1 2 t b11 o th itl (tt

ile paicturl Aduitsltiac femal spidermtcr-mlinet aout7 ela rgement al lbclcit d lefand

af]o field of \ cottnetenely daagd bytilta

spider ites11u at it l h r~ilTSa

Effects of SPIDER MITESon Cotton ProductionT. D. CANERDAY and F. S. ARANT'Deportmnent of Zoology-Entomiology

, Hudlictiolis based oil all a\eiagc of thrcc pickfiigs from ca(li tc t at B( Ilc Nliou and t\\()at Allhill-11.

COTTON

VARIETIES

for 1963

LOUIE J. CHAPMAN, Asst. in Agronomy

WHICH COTTON variety shall I planton my farm?

Of the many factors involved in get-ting the most cotton from each acre,variety selection is among the most im-portant. An acre planted to an un-adapted variety will not produce topyields regardless of the managementpractices used - land preparation, fertil-ization, irrigation, and weed and insectcontrol.

The varieties listed in the tables areonly those approved for planting in theregions specified. Selection of a particu-lar variety from those listed should bebased on the conditions under which itis to be grown and the managementpractices that will be used. For more de-tailed information concerning cotton va-rieties, see "Cotton Varieties for Ala-bama-Report of 1962 Tests," pub-lished by the Auburn University Agri-cultural Experiment Station.

Testing Program

New varieties, promising experimentalones, and older established varieties arecarefully compared each year in testsat 10 units of the Auburn AgriculturalExperiment Station System. Locationsof these tests are Belle Mina, Crossville,Alexandria, and Winfield in northernAlabama; Auburn, Prattville, Monroe-ville, Brewton, and Headland in south-ern Alabama; and a special test at Tal-lassee to study wilt resistance on severelyinfested soil.

Why are so many tests necessary? Theevaluation of varieties is a complex proc-ess because of the many factors thatmust be considered, all of which are af-fected by environmental conditions.Therefore, many tests are required toadequately compare performances of va-rieties.

How Recommendations Are Made

Recommendations are made for twogeneral regions, northern and southernAlabama. The chief reason for dividingthe State is the distribution of Fusariumwilt. Heavy-textured soils of the north-ern half, particularly the Tennessee andCoosa valleys, usually are not seriouslyinfested with wilt. Susceptible varietieshave performed well in these areas.

Most of the cotton-producing soils insouthern Alabama are infested with wiltto the extent that susceptible varietiesusually do not perform satisfactorily. For

TABLE 1. PERFORMANCE OF RECOMMENDEDCOTTON VARIETIES IN SOUTHERN ALABAMA

DURING 3-YEAR PERIOD, 1960-62

Variet Lint Gin StapleVariety yield turnout length

Lb. Pct. Pct.

Wilt resistantAuburn 56- 801 36.8 34DeKalb 108---- 795 87.5 34Dixie King 787 37.8 84Rex 780 88.0 34All-in-One- 766 36.5 84Coker 100A. 765 38.0 84Plains 730 37.6 34

this reason, only resistant varieties shouldbe grown in this region.

Recommendations are based on aver-age results of all tests in each regionduring the preceding 3-year period.Measurements taken and used in arriv-ing at recommendations are yield, ginturnout, staple length, micronaire, wiltresistance, storm resistance, boll size,and earliness.

Varieties for Irrigation

For maximum returns from irrigatedcotton, higher rates of fertilization, espe-

cially nitrogen, are needed than are nor-mally used for nonirrigated cotton. Theseconditions may cause certain varieties tolodge severely, resulting in extensive bollrot loss and harvesting difficulty. There-fore, stem strength is an important factorin selecting a variety. Irrigation studiesat Thorsby and Tallassee showed Stone-ville 7A to have the strongest stem ofthe susceptible varieties listed. Auburn56 has lodged less than other wilt-re-sistant varieties. See Auburn UniversityAgricultural Experiment Station Bulletin332 for detailed information concerningvarieties for use under irrigation.

Mechanical Harvester Performance*

In 1961 and 1962, the test at BelleMina was harvested with a spindlepicker to evaluate varieties for adapt-ability to mechanical harvesting.

In 1961, there was very little weatherloss and total field losses were relativelysmall, ranging from 4.7% to 8.5%, Table2. In 1962, weather losses were largerand varied significantly among varieties.Weather losses coupled with slightlyhigher machine losses resulted in definiteand important differences in total fieldlosses among varieties. The total fieldloss ranged from a low of 6.4% for Stone-ville 7A to a high of 14.6% for Pope.

While these results indicate that thefield losses should be considered in se-lecting a variety for mechanical harvest-ing, the harvested yield really determinesthe return from any variety. A highyielding variety with low weather andmachine losses should be planted formechanical harvesting.

u Mechanical harvesting evaluations wereunder supervision of T. E. Corley, Agricul-tural Engineering Department.

TABLE 2. PERFORMANCE OF RECOMMENDED COTTON VARIETIES INDURING 3-YEAR PERIOD, 1960-62

NORTHERN ALABAMA

Total field loss*

Variety Lint yield Gin turnout Staple length 1961 1962

Lb. Pct. 1/32" Pct. Pct.

Wilt susceptible

Stoneville 7ADeKalb 220 ---------Stardel --Pope -.

Hale 33 .......Fox 4 . . . .

Wilt resistant

DeKalb 108R ex --------- --Auburn 56_Dixie King-Plains - - -Coker 100AEmpire WR-61

817816

... 805795793773

813813807793

S 773773754

40.339.140.341.439.538.5

88.839.738.139.038.639.239.2

343434343434

34343434343434

6.24.75.68.26.75.4

5.85.55.95.98.56.45.1

6.410.09.1

14.610.112.4

9.29.88.8

10.111.6

8.910.0

* These data are from the Belle Mina test only.

This clean test plot of pepper shows resultsof weed control with diphenamnid. UsingPEBC gave equally good control.

)4~ ;~<

1111 ila, h t' sieul I-ic'tl'(. OdSii f p'ppIlt't peppers iii t tom \aates. ontrollin

teedt ill1111 l(' ) theseco s1 Sut t a g I~

an d tiltabto1r0 i scwk zis' ailtia

1i111i .((lei( ihll needed. S i ncl.te glass

il 1 9(il ell ' .115 to13 i at o es ill illior

ailt tiplaOtuMilcig of*'t(rI(e Sttito

tr'n ici f 55l ted c ( ito prii ll ) pps

I i e.5ala1t tram it oti ((1)

Thc ('It' tO11511 llipe (oii(I5 i ttill y ptu at 'n

Mid oll\\ r s p illrk L111a

pt'c)dt't 5111(1tiitiI. I(r\1applttaois tdl\ill( adequate orlici) at 4r aiid th lb.,

Il 1p6am vir at , ra. tes of 1 S(\ llr(i1-

(isiit o ,itcd I. 2. a pie to .s ii). attis (

atic gs e '\(1'it ]i i etli. tBolth c)ropsn

\\cr ( oNr ll sm~ loas oil 1 ILit'li-

hiii '151' 11

15(1 \. 6 11).M)(PA, 8 l1).

I iphi'oainnid. 6 lb).PFIB( 4 lb.

thih at 8 and 1 1(1). uid CI)EC ait (6

Mi1d th II) C .t trise'iM Itii fo tnii t p's

Lll I llalteils1 ttested( ill 1960,

1 c(1 llilsliiil 1961)1 ti it( 1 Ilct5 \its dait

ptepper las us t(eilt ille(lit a1t N ort h Alit

biili e ol iII 5 111(1 Substt in, Ctl 55 (2(

controli front11 molst p1 onlisilig cheials.te'stedl ('.lr-ier ill 1961.

41(2, II)(A ait 8 11). 111( (:1E(: itt 6alid 8 11). a(ttixeI per 4(2(12~cr ss pl clI ,i ~d

plhlits. (ill I)(PA gai5 ( stificti('iit \51(2(

Wer1et ('5 ,lltialt(' 6 \5 ('(ks latter.

tout Stauffler heitid ets I B18.56. 13 .3441Batill": 1.0, no colltrol 10.0, collipletecolitiol. Made 6 wecks LiftelI PF , BC, \\hich nornialIN rcquircs soil ill-

orpol i, tioll to pre\cllt \olitalizittioll, X\L1 s;Ipplied to freshly prcparcd s(,,i]. It \\aL, ill-col-poratcd b\ 2'-in, rain Lhortly Littur

trcatill.g,

S 11).pe ace ll\C( graetpo ie

(aiijl('ctlritl as No ]\la hs A tl'ltil11t5 lii P

13t)gasIlli i t pos. In5 ('l atsu p2,ilotls, ('I

cott' rt'l \\,lit e'x1- Ice ll t irnd se ii I ts otiro4l Ill 'tiocc perec p11')(lots \\(8 11(It) lb.) aesrite li leto\t 2f (td 4lii.

Pt'ltc itl e u e tals c lsd r

Chemicals Control Weeds inTomatoes and Pimento Pepper

H. J. AMLING and W. A. JOHNSON, Department of Horticulture

M. H. HOLLINGSWORTH, North Alabama Horicultur-e Substation

i(dd \\ (.cdpcr control

plant littill

Wae i Xiili laIII cNXXli I Xirtliii

)i1 l Ofi i ti keti I c I nc otii di1IUIC

s istid c ofil l (111 iald sl~lIize iild file-XtiiC idctitliII miaket\ Xcepai/Ct 41 re

ilijll Ii tlit. SliC(JIdi 1114I1 k('t IfI'C l [CCX

XOIIli~til ICeit [l ( thalt CCI tcil I tX IC 10ii

lilt X\i il(tiCIS all' IC(illii Cd tol FIC We I ik

Ii r i 1 )l I d is i i lsses II owc\ e1IXXr, i l Ieo

itili still Ii -i. I t11 4X ] i t ii l aX to II ldo111

(,llI iX oa1ti 1cS ll s .ss(iXtl eitI4C IifC iI

XXo cl 1(1 C l Xse coi ii lilsl. It 1caR

tisa llX )ita(ltICC trId ll i(fcI al lX iil

I II I I i iiII X~I)( Ii II ii(XI lI \o l h lF \ AI I Fil iX (A \IXI Al \i illtioN XNl)II i \NiIIN

A\ . A\ . Titit(

(;l I i i ai

I hl tol ;it

Ilclii I )liilliilld

( "11141o

Wi dth-liirtliraitio I

L 1).20(it04

20,I56i917,: : 19I1I1(5)1it), 915

23, H(09201116 .5 7214-: )5S

Ni.90)8018580)909090I8590l

(.1illd

( t 11GCiiiiiGti 11)1((4 1111d

Solllhle soli(k ill \\ilt(,IllI(.lolls itiv lllo tk silars.Bitt(,d b\ pallel frolli I for 1)lo.,t Ch.,ilithic to " I (I for Icil't (1("il ahlc.A latio of 1.00 \\mild 1w rmnid \\hilc .50 \kotild bc t\Nt((, its its \Nidu.

aiolls, olll\- hi"ll-%iddilla \itrietics are TAIIIF 2. AND 0I'AL[l) OF ICEBOX

profitable.

I I lll is t I I it ot I wr t 1Iiti.t \ 1 it I( tics al1(1'I hils LTolo ii ittrir 1(11 ijtIlt It is it

t tiX c ill appeal'4 a11Ce. liIIXistlc toilitit icit0Xt ITi4LC it p]1 (Ar (I thC to older(

iolilir X v!rieties.

has kept Congo ill p111 )l14rlitv dite

his tll wil1 X t StIXcCIptiiilitX

lackstone shouldi( I-cpIC(t Black Diii-111011( XXIc aI C oi 4rc I l 1(11111ieliti is de(I

XiI Cd l)ct11c ofl its (iIIXC 1-csistil1ce

Mod1 superIior ojttiit\ A]tiowttlI Black

iid Florida Ciaiit, bad i1 iiherli 11(

(It is i scpiiittXs tw li hl o

Small Melon Varieties

lihe Xsilii friitcd. orI icebox, IllIil i

\tibirtt 11(1li thil (111tlicl IsIII areC

lliii stiig. ill) 1341Xl bild Xtifficieit Xize

ill IjialitX under11 aX trao~ CI ldit ilIX tot

1IC 4C iet al ii . ( )t IICrX X Cex\t rCfl " XXIiill full o~f seedl itIld hald at teide1ItX

t rild le (IX tI ww111 (1 ~t i t-dciol

(. IXA 1, 11 ha I (X i t itt (,\ (111 171 beter 11i

sia B3ilkX ill 4(111itill it ilX Xlliic I-c

Xist4ilcC to 111)11 4iiIIXc. O)ther X\ iicticX

]Ct~ Xti C bel)F itil l isCimtillittliX\

ili izeN Xti(X beIatis co NI(iX .IXhe\iX

lltC XtiXCCptiibic to c ca XC Ciiig 1141(i1XC4XC.

Bcausie ofi id) cost of, Xeed and poor

ofI litrLr fruit sizC, iCttl shiiipping i11)11

\\WAiII-AiI(IN N Xliii AIES N ATI(IXX. X

Variety Tests

of It Io e 1)1 lilt X Ict IX tesXts lf cit I 111

1)1 ((hulLT lit CX ic I Illlicted at thet All

iliet O iltil LIlli il sob itioCI l lcatedl

thea 4 IX il lillwc.li d \iC I i ld \-i 11(

11)11 1 i t i , XC 117il I I IIl ie u tiX itX , IilLb

.Nol. Lb1)I iko ii 3,851 12,91

Null\ I 3 l98 8 5n

(11(h iiNt :3,98 8 ,5

MiladiL 2A 49:3 25.81Cafit. lillIX 2, 1(5 -2 2:3Sf(;itX 1)C11c 1.581 16(5 7TIi- :,)I:,) I ,(A19 -2.3.(6 6Toi j :317 211 :i 4 i 89s"htiA \ ) 1i 1,8'4:) 239o2"(

LI). Pclt.

34 7.8

N\ ilt- Hildtli~ hiik-

111111 IIIs

I Ill.

.S.1 .9

-N Ib11 IC ~iII ill \\~11 lo T1 Meuiutl 1111 tl 5) X 111:1i II tX I it la X X1(1

WATERMELON VARIETIESfor Alabama

SAM T. JONES, Associate Htorticlturltist

8))911

81)9))81)81)8))80)

Mlda

Cilor

81119111

81 ri 1)11(;Ii cci

1111l

YlIIIX( ;I I

Givll I(;I-a\

St ilp(d81111)1(St11) rip

I

I mpro vi ig

CREAMED COTTAGECHEESE QUALITY

R. Y. CANNON, Dairy Techno/ogist

proi cttii ill tiht State' is 1iiiil xx titait

ill other iii o t heiiiif'titi ii tiitt . i

icc alt i i iitta t tlii th oo .c.l

iidciipt otitletlot-t'ittret'milkixe tur-

ti' ta s'c tuxexxcii I)\ Aubur ike riti \

Alii iltnil txeil txo Sinilii 0at-'

tirdi Ofit the xAVC\its~l' ox (Ait iClttit' il

atN i zii .iuurth gid matt r 7 toa xrod tii g.

ata Af))t Flav.

l l(,( cii ()mlillt iii olxi Ix ctag cit ixtix,

ist I t'i ec g 'atI ilctaxih. of tlit'uii iiito Ic'Were ali lildxitg i lto de iitillt' i fai lha

kt''pudimpijii the lai t'litti tixtx iii pxx

Srtample tof dr\xiig Bateitti ittx ofcs turd

the caciutte tiit o mak ir ltth I))li 1.

ft'e t'i''aig anti patkiwiiti fP'iCt'xx.

tllg tiit' cui ltil t~ ii am CS out' ]Tilt[-thuing tagcird alt' (.ritcct'xxai x i titIllI tlit tt pax t iw itt' it i wii so iftt i i tl tt\

Determination of Keeping Quality

Cnttilc ct-q \Niilsx a math' 1n1i'l I ill

iii' iiili i i liin it ktetepin g qujid-

Stitijuik x toi p-rixtt il llih tetlix

ewi ito tt i ttics \ itxat illill iiali tonld i

turii\its xixtt itt 1p1I 4.7 andt cootkiti it

thei \\ Itix the ti1ti ti x\ ax xit' tl xxhe \ itliicidifited xxattr :pIl 1 5.) xx ith 1.5 p.p.iu.

ltI l ri t il t 19( ido caii t iti ISO Fi

tin rixi ).\-irtitsadto~ tlet'11etil Oxe

iM lt I ill I 11 t Iltill I\

lilt ot :3 tot I xx t'ik' att 50t I"'. xxas iob-

tOg.ilttiitx I Iii 111 d tot xliii Iti xliii) lilt'.

.5 (lit xs xtiii.tgt' itt 50) F.; flit\ oi xx ix,

titidi xitxxt I it tx), i 111 tiot uit(liti i S. T] i

ii c 'lit 'ti' i 1lii ll i tl 'Ili'l'ivx iii

titx c ic .ix Ictal il bax )) tx>iicot~lit

litckat"ui \H(t I 5Sav t aXSit .50) V

P(i I-

I( xx tillit Wit

82)12 N)

liexs thou (it))

I I00

10.00

7t

Eill:cy ol , Ll,\1 1. ol. (:O.\I\\11\\11o" o\ PN "'colool.) mw("m \ I- ol (:Ill \\It 1) (:()1 1 \(.1, CAll 11 [

Cruaill \\its ilmulllittrd \\ith Noctrlia Ircin (olttttg,(, dwcsu to 1)ro\icl(, illocillatiollritts its '11(mil ill t1w (1caill"d dwcm .DaNs of toragc at 50 1'. ic(lidird toi- fla\ oi- (Irtcriorittion to bitlely acceptable Ijmit,,

GRANULES or SPRAY

for COTTON

WEED CONTROL?

T. E. CORLEY, Associate Agricultural Engineer(Coop. USDA, ARS, AERD)

A LMOST ALL PRE-EMERGENCE chemicals used for weedcontrol in cotton are now applied as sprays. However, useof granules offers these advantages: (1) a reduction in bulkhandled, (2) elimination of chances for error in mixing, and(3) lowered cost of application equipment.

Granular herbicides have disadvantages too, the majorone being lack of versatility of application equipment.Whereas a sprayer can be used for applying all chemicalsused in cotton production, granule application equipment ispresently limited to putting on pre-emergence herbicides andinsecticides and fungicides that are applied at planting. De-spite the shortcomings, advantages of granules are suchthat laboratory and field studies have been made by theAgricultural Experiment Station.

Laboratory Study

Three makes of applicators with two designs of rotor barmetering devices and two types of nozzles (band distribu-tors) were evaluated for uniformity of metering and dis-tribution. Concentrations of 5% and 20% CIPC with a gran-ular base of 15/80-mesh attapulgite clay were used forlaboratory tests. A test stand consisting of an electric driveand a catch pan with 1-in. divisions was used to make meter-ing measurements and across-the-row distribution analyses.

Results of the tests showed no distinct advantages ofeither metering mechanism or nozzle type. Each machinegave uniform metering and fairly good across-the-row dis-tribution. Depth of material in the hopper or rotor speeddid not materially affect discharge rate. Cross winds greaterthan 10 m.p.h. caused severe distortion and shifting of noz-zle patterns. A slight deviation in height adjustment andmounting angle made little difference in distribution patternsof either nozzle type.

Field Test

Granule distribution was also studied in field plots, usinga photographic technique. Across-the-row distribution wasfound to be uneven because the smooth, convex shaped rowprofile left by the zero-pressure tire of the planter caused

the granules to roll away from the center of the row. Down-the-row distribution was fairly uniform with no differencebetween machines.

The two chemicals recommended for cotton weed controlin Alabama, CIPC and diuron, were applied in granular andliquid formulations on Decatur clay and Hartsells fine sandyloam. Both formulations were applied at recommended ratesof active ingredients to a 14-in. band in 42-in. rows. Liquidwas applied in 10 gal. of water per acre.

There was no rain on the clay soil until 8 days afterplanting in 1960, until 15 days later in 1961, and 30 daysin 1962. On the sandy soil, rain fell immediately aftertreatment in 1962, but not for 2 weeks in 1961.

Half of each plot received a post-emergence oiling whencotton plants reached 21/ in. high. In 1962 on the clay soil,a second oiling was done 1 week after the first.

Hoe Labor Required

Effectiveness of each treatment was measured by amountof hoe labor required to keep plots free of weeds. As shownby data in the table, all herbicidal treatments reduced hoelabor. The herbicides were a little more effective on the claythan on the sandy soil. Tests on both soils were grouped togive the comparisons recorded in the table.

There was no difference in hoe labor among the differentconcentrations (5%, 20%, 35%) of CIPC granules tested.

For both herbicides, liquid-treated plots required slightlyless hoe labor than the granule-treated plots. The differencewas small, but it prevailed in all five tests with CIPC and intwo of the three diuron tests.

In the three tests using CIPC and diuron, CIPC wasslightly better in two and diuron looked better in the other.The three-test average showed no important difference be-tween the two herbicides. Dry weather following applica-tion reduced effectiveness of both chemicals.

When post-emergence herbicidal oil was applied, therewas no difference among any of the pre-emergence treat-ments. In addition, chemically-treated plots were onlyslightly better than the check plots.

HOE LABOR REQUIRED FOR COTTON FOLLOWING DIFFERENTPRE- AND POST-EMERGENCE TREATMENTS

Treatment Hoe labor per acreEffect of CIPC Liquid

Pre-emergence Post- granular vs. vs.emergence cone., diuron, granules,

3-test av. 3-test av. 5-test av.Man-hr. Man-hr. Man-hr.

Untreated check No oil 18.4 16.2 18.5Oil 5.0 9.7 7.8

Liquid CIPC No oil 5.8 7.7 7.3Oil 3.0 4.6 4.1

5% granular CIPC No oil 8.3Oil 2.8

20% granular CIPC No oil 7.5 9.2 8.8Oil 3.5 5.0 4.5

85% granular CIPC No oil 7.5Oil 8.2

Liquid diuron No oil 9.8Oil 4.7

Granular diuron No oil 10.4Oil 4.5

1 Herbicidal oil used for post-emergence treatment.

LI\~ in )xt I t ill t \1\1 .\If\" hx' .lit t \% (ix'\ c ii I Ite it i Ic w taiis

1i o I'fitx I.h I List xx'i' I I id s I I iN l ) IT) c x I it t I ik xlii iitiia of

ci I'lxi x'lo ht t it] ilxiii th s abx out tick co-1 an S iiiii i lil i

tilill s cl slcc " tt, t a l hs p c ic i'ch cext iiix xxxix' toci tiii,'x itA 1 ilt iill xx itl i l ltt:3 iit. 11(1

tti i stidicx xx xIi acio's Al 'xi xit xy iliw (st St li. t ljiti 'i. (ii

it xl'i'ii W i Beli t a Ihsit ili'i xxN ii( i I Iii I Icixx x. l H l

it- ilic'i l c ti itil d xi 4i i xti i f Ix i i tii ii xiii 41c c xx ii ii(Ax x'xtx'x. s'\'')tI i ) Bot \i lic' B l Hiltia~ Sii titiii

torlot slilwpruYiel anTFre Qua\cr litle nLt pi

of il cxik \ i\i i ixi ro\ \\ xi ii alii sc ate ri iatc lx e i llx' ti l xi

li c x cxioix \\it iIi li'i (il 1 lii -xx \i\t ill) I ii ') iuiit i xxi

xac i I, i f lixw l xii lildlx xl'xiii i'itx'x. \ixii it i i p tali tidi

but\iiil ii cl noi t ii) 41lii ii ill xii\\i l[ M in. ( 1 x x i it ixlitx

ti x iti x ox xx ii ti iincsc xxiiil \\cl 4 ii. (11t alld i-xo i l i \ditxii

ilit iii a litxx xx i t xi'x 'c -~o\l of io" ill citix Ii i, lx ii'i x

(:lir. i avt liix i'iit Ill i I lxx xxI ixi ti ii xlbsxx i'x l i te.

ii. iixci lix l xi 1()x i\dt ax' cc ii'w ) atc I illxx ilxi \lai sm-

xx'cxII idi i l citi' loon S ti I hi s itt t rox x o x otx' ci'xccx'i iaitx' iot.h l ixi A ils tix s i f x'xiiiixiix xx'xxill 4 ilillate ) \ lb vId c- ) xx ix Iii ilx x l ci lliii' sc~i xx ixatci iii i si i tii'xan'ii ttii

ilC lixx I \ xi iltx'x l ili a wt 1 d le-c axx t t i iiii' t S c

a i l x'xl ti i f m x' iliiil iix ao(]Ill xi'ix \ix \ il 4c t re~lted

d Siii-d o ix xi iill \i to \ii iiiN llixx Si xli loi i ol x oxii itioll thall ~ S i0\ l s Ilimi. I)te oii x o\ t pi i

Ill

Sorghumui

lit

2tt1 tt

1, b. 11111 /To1 /'l /l ls if J, . 1,t . P t

I11.56

1 .520.T I

1)2(611.05S

Itt. 912

C'orii

1tt 6 1.-58

1tt 16tt ;2 4.28

Close raw spacing and high seeding rates iteft) did not increaseforage yields of sorghum over conventional planting (right).

Thick Silage Spacing-Good Practice orHighly Overrated?

R. M. PATTERSON, C. S. HOVELAND,

0. N. ANDREWS, JR., and H. L. WEBSTERDepartmnent af Agronoamy anid Seits

xPicii 4 itil Iil1llx't xx'd ii" 4 i te It 0il. I (lxxx itlx 2411)i. ,Ccd)x.Lecitiiii'x xx\ix, abouit tiix xiilix' tril id] lotlil tix'atiocilitx. Coinxx\its alsxo lxai ixi xxI 'c 1)liliItedx tic i ii 1 lx',tho s iixx ii i 'xxixs x'il c'iiitx'iit xi'xicl i.d

Lessons Learned

T'I faix'lctx stiiiliiit ccill cltx lof tie xilit' txxtx:

I ) CIO ( I-M Siix ' ici - 04ii 1 i x(Vi'xli y 4 Aiit , I iixCd tli

cIIIII x'ixx oliw' txoi ol\Itoll l o\I' Sxiii iiidh ll''tiilxix xiii'

ill(, iitcx.

ill( 1111 (it it i l t xliii s a ily xx Thixi J~ Ixod~ 1(l (, i'x'ix li x'xx

oif silit4x'.

:3) Ix'tiix'xx it lii liiiii xx ix lilt 4il iatix it!xctx'x lixioxx xx 11th oi xx'x'xiii iitx lilit clii ilcxcillix' lx'iiix'i ax xx'x'xiilu irite' iitr (or'axx I ( I\\lx xx IitlII dxo ixxcl s I. liot ciiicit iixx ilxx x IIi llix( y c i Iit 'it Ii ii' i i xi x' ci-(I

I II it ( l iiixxt i fI x ( cl I o i li Id s I I I I' i. (" lx cl Ii at r ix' tixt

I'i'11 I tcdi lilio Atx titt III ()cad( ixt (ci ticxk pi ttiiw 4 lit w'ii

hli i ls.

11 I1FD1X N HItt I 512 ('1 ll) N i(( c-~l o~ t11 t 0 11stand (21(s ' O0 itltli tlabamt ('It Nea zo id k

itlotil tl 115 isc~r o ~oc'1 lr. Th s dlug

19t(1) 62 lis oor StndsP, th t clit 'lo

What Causes Blightss

lN 111 thit os gi So1- 111 (1ss. A phi ngoll

1152 t l (i17' (11 (1111112d ite p e box (1 \v t ('col

to)se1t0ilil~ iie Cn pecl

55(1(2 itl (11151 1(1m Il lld hil 1 9I'

glil. 15%' PUNII. .1111 T.5', Ii('

r pI ci f ( i l.'1111 5', ('.jttlim.

Good Blight Control

11111112 of51'i 1962, tet lo' 2" or 7

:36.5'S t1(1 til' 12111w1k fill. treatm1nt s-

13726.ed 1111' . WP41)iut 141(5il d'((~iseases

('tttiI, SC\11 itl) 1962,1111 \\t'o1it 5ii%

NPid 141 'oh t85( best 'fmw'('tjN iLsd nd111

XX85% b( ltN on'o \\it ('1111btjO Xitil bt

Wi lh i'egiuiucd seed

CllNck .t) ti. men

Naim . C 1 2 lit.1372(1o P N X13 :311 )Cil t t I' '51 I ('( I t I.,;31

1)ltllo \J.J' 13, )1.

311

N) .1 (111"t 1 1). U

'I III 1)

COTTON STANDS IMPROVEBY HOPPER-BOX FUNGICID

ALBERT L. SMITH, Plant Pathologist (Coop. AIRS, CR0, USDA)

I 9_6l 1962

10.6 :3 6. 5

1. 71.5)1.3.

10. 16. 3

1.7 6.41.1 5.2

: ~4

Hopper-box treating of seed saved the standof cotton in rows at left. At right is an un-treated row that had to be replanted.

trolill i 11 51(1( raligI' of soil typs.

Correct Use Important

(2:1115( II d is00 .3 11).12 of1111w id tor til.1121 o

ofseed. Badapcto of 10 gci12 (1r'l('cd .

is preferred to] Ici" d ill..d SeiX be-

Isi. Thisp (11tlitsNill S (2ue itdut 11(11(

oiS tp:'o)ii the Sudticc.Q beldtl

planter L\ lcrteo - 1) e ce

~1 >.1'441 iiii of'1 NI iiie deIIIsc seedII Dii111'

~~~flW 5111Iht''~t1O 's III IIl N 'h, I'ilSNihrl(

HISTORIcALLY, the fluid milk industryhas been troubled with harmful busi-ness practices affecting producers, dis-tributors, and consumers.

The industry has been especially sus-ceptible to unstable marketing condi-tions. Few distributing firms, nature ofsupply, peculiar characteristics of milkdistribution, and demand for milk havecontributed to an unstable market.Since milk has been considered an es-sential food for health and well-being ofthe population, federal, state, and localgovernments have taken steps to ensureboth orderly marketing and distributionof wholesome milk products.

What Are Fair Trade Practices?

Fair trade practices is the somewhatconfusing term generally used to specifybusiness practices prohibited or con-trolled by state laws relating to the dairyindustry. A better description would beunfair trade practices. Most trade regu-lations are concerned with practices ofhandlers, processors, distributors, andretailers of milk products. Determina-tion of what is fair or unfair is largely aproblem of ethics. Rules of fair com-petition, which are a part of the ethicsof an industry, may become legal codes.

Unfair competition by milk dealers ordistributors can eliminate milk dealersfrom a market. On the belief that pro-ducers, consumers, and dealers are ad-versely affected by unfair competition,the Alabama Legislature passed an emer-gency law in 1935 dealing with businesspractices in the dairy industry. It was

reenacted in 1939, and now stands asTitle 22 of the Code of Alabama.

Regulated Practices in Alabama

Dairy trade practices in Alabama'sfluid milk industry are regulated by theState Milk Control Board. Although themajor function of the Board is fixing theprice of fluid milk in its various formsand uses, the Board also has the power

to make rules and regulations of fairtrade practices pertaining to businesstransactions among licensees.

Persons subject to provisions of themilk control law are licensed by theBoard. Licensees are required to keeprecords of certain information as speci-fied by the Board. The Board has au-thority to inspect books and records oflicensees. Licensees found violating pro-visions of orders, rules, or regulationsissued by the Board are guilty of a mis-demeanor. Licenses may be suspendedor revoked for continued violations.

Direct control of prices can be effec-tive only if other transactions amonglicensees are regulated. State milk pricecontrol thus requires economic controlof the fluid milk industry in the State bya regulatory agency. For example, adealer could charge a customer the legalprice for a quantity of milk and then givethis special customer a discount, a re-bate, merchandise, or some other con-sideration. The result of such actionwould make price fixing ineffective.Hence, it is necessary for the regulatoryagency to spell out in a set of rules whatconstitutes unfair practices.

Unfair practices specifically stated inthe Alabama Act are: false or mislead-

Regulation of

TRADE PRACTICES in

the DAIRY INDUSTRY

LOWELL E. WILSON, Asst. Agricultural Economist

milk at prices other than the establishedmarket price.

ing advertising; misrepresentation ofquality of products, services, or factswith intent to defraud; any act tendingto make provisions of the Act inoperative;and schemes that make a lottery of thesale of milk. Trade practices currentlyregulated by the Board are defined in17 rules covering various phases of pro-duction, marketing, and merchandisingof fluid milk in Alabama. In addition topractices enumerated in the Act, the cur-rent list includes rules governing deliv-ery, purchase, and payment for pro-ducer milk; disposition of producersurplus milk; producer quotas; and dis-play signs. Also, a number of other rulesand orders of the Board relate to tradepractices.

After prices for milk are fixed by theBoard, it is illegal for licensees or theiragents to buy or sell milk at any priceother than the fixed price. Any methodthat has the effect of changing prices ofregulated products is illegal.

A number of other Southern Stateswith a milk control board or commissionprovide for trade practice regulationsimilar to Alabama. Some states, usuallywithout resale price control by a statemilk control agency, have enacted spe-cial dairy fair trade laws. According tothese laws, regulated practices have theintent or effect of unfairly affecting thecompetitive structure of the dairy in-dustry in the state. Further, these lawsstate that regulated practices are thosethat reduce competition and create mo-nopoly conditions. Disruptive or unfairpractices most commonly found in thislegislation include advertising, loans,credit, and sales and repair of equipment.Illegal practices usually include pricediscrimination, sales below cost, rebatesand discounts, gifts, joint sales (com-bined prices), and false claims and ad-vertising.

Regulation of trade practices variesamong states. An illegal practice in Ala-bama may be considered a fair practicein the dairy industry of another state.Likewise, some other trade practices con-sidered fair in Alabama may be illegalin some states. This variation in the con-cept of fairness among states is broughtabout by the variation in developmentand structure of the dairy industry fromone state or region to another.

Practices listed in state laws specifysome of the more prevalent unfair prac-tices found in this industry. In essence,these acts provide that persons engagedin the sale of milk are forbidden to sell

prodfuctiiii iii Alabiaima.

Tile pr omifse of hig Ig-etin p ll acreiii :3 to 5i X\cars hats i T'Siited ili acrletso

Iilltt I'lli Atlab ama. Holu cr suXXs %\t' XiCC Xill

ii'lflliiI' tilit XX uk. deication tii Icaili

1ipple ii Ill itjis i X il i'f lodc iio k 14iiXX lli-

lnt'iit ill all aijllq itt spil l ifait tit'r'sali it k i IX to\ teg of' ptest coniitril it(' spe'c1ial~ly pleI diiseases.

fin flhm aitid tillillor ictat orch'Iardls hlas~ilXX aX's beenli a tlfiliit pi iitut'i. \NI urt'eftit pefXC lst it'ldfes a ii I impfroved 'I spitaxl coliih cd XX itti thet ltciillilndef

spi afit g , lyprgili iili golild hI lialIal Sii

splax 5l Should t'sstiili ifuccesst to ithen

CO'Stti is the tllist e \ Cl t pi'sticidt

sf)1 ~ arcg Sct al itfo qilt' a trit prot'-

dl14u ttioiii ltlarc iIl theltlhlii it '1 )1

si12 gii~ua xprmn ttci a

lf0 (Tl. ot spilX \\ iu' Stati is at tpn 1)

Slilillili e lit' t till' 1 1t). IX~l ti. pI C xpi I'Si'li't'etis e wiist iitther disease's. Cap-ti i at at 2 ft 1. ra:te' iso i \i delg (IX ~tS 1ill

Fireblight

(l ,irist' ht Xhais lo'lit llmit's l'rt' lildlugii ircliio illis t e ( s. iittialic it-sA

2 oii': iiissio n sill Spcl olll'f tX bater'ia4

tiCl~ i d~i s \sill tIll i l ) ti .3(1%T bliun1ll

Fruiof Ratso s andfs Sats rilch

spraystc litlt i ti l an15's tiioi' t'tl'i siX I

[Ill I ,1111 ailt itst exelent chg to v111 f11

.tXX igs,

(2l til 3 l'somi litpit ' visltapplilt si]tit

ato avi 1111 itithii at t to ll 3 tblo

i.at Frito ts a ndit' Spits 11t ot

pill in I t illi dtlti'soiv .ili S id Sp i t'

Apples severely damaged by scab, left, andair-blast spray machine in aperatian at Cull-man, right.

Cedar-Apple Rust

This iiclisa' is scX &it if thre C w red'iit

Ced'(ar t rt'es adj at't'it t) apple4 treesX. Bust4cat e e1a25itif, spo(ttii14 il Some11 X al itics als

wel li as lesills (il the( Ii it. jii'iiloil5 of1)

t i c cO il i i i t r e e i i l it 1 1f ti leai i .1 ~ill spaxys fromii pii ik tin oii gli hi Xt coIXc'I\ill gi\e 'cotrol of cedfa le rust.

rictal SIiSeet1 ittii lit tIo inilil 1w Spilay

piIN), i~oiilteail\ iniitii C' iilf fix paril

ttioo il theC 'alX ,fii N. 5r s Siiitiii, CIC

bloiii slilix 5. AX hil uili thes CI togi-

Someii C5 rictil's.

cide's artc jidic'ati't oil the plackage'. Thea

tu1iC I litioiCXs ili iCltlabel. ica fli cC

iOUawif act n ro's labels. can 'fii 1i.

be 'its\ aiif XX\ill reiii ll i i itltliigt'i C'

iii\itiiiii a rii tit'~ C fpl-0 i ~ito iliCi5 a d

I llto als hi it iiitflccr of o~i~thers fandt

CI l iii g tf ilttliti l t Ieii. h s.i

vestnitis i, ti me nd Ioisi (an- iii Id

I)I i li t, tii' Is dic of qtliI tr5t

Alaion ap i's iupiitialk tctiuir vat

brli top15 prc. tk C~1 ti C ~i

DL 11_liltvr tpint,. IN sAsi't I ASi

PCSUEDI. Pc. CENTtO

Appleit s( it])

I 96t019 11962

1960)

AV.

9. t0.4 (0.49T.6 17.8 .

10 9 29.8 17.A

801.7 .51. IA .'96.5 01.8 :3.17 .9 14.2 18.2

82.7. 22.1 11.5

APPLE DISEASE CONTROLin Alabama

U. L. DIENER, Associate Plant Pathologist

THIRTY-FIVE cents per acre - that wasthe average farm real estate tax levied inAlabama in 1961.

According to USDA, Alabama in 1961was 6th from the bottom of all states intaxes levied on farm real estate per acre.States below Alabama were West Vir-ginia, Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico,and Nevada. Farm real estate value ineach of these states was considerablybelow the Alabama average value of$94 per acre.

Other States

New Jersey, with an average tax of$10.16 per acre, was highest of all states.Massachusetts, Connecticut, and RhodeIsland had per acre farm real estate taxlevies above $5. In the Corn Belt andLake States, farm real estate taxes av-eraged about $2.50 per acre. Illinoiswas highest in these groups with $4.18per acre in 1961. In all other states ex-cept Florida and California, taxes leviedon farm real estate were less than $1.50per acre. Average for Florida was $1.73and California $4.35 per acre. Differ-ences among states reflect variation invalue of farm land and improvementsand differences in emphasis on the prop-erty tax in local and state financing.

The average tax per acre on farm realestate in 1961 for the 13 Southern Stateswas 750. Thus, a farmer with 120 acrespaid $90 in farm real estate taxes basedon the average rate for Southern States.This ignores any exemptions or exclu-sions in property taxes. An Alabamafarmer with 120 acres paid in 1961, anaverage of $42 in property taxes on farmreal estate.

Trends

Since 1940, farm real estate taxes peracre in every state have increased to alevel three to four times that of 1940.

DOLLARS

PER ACRE

1.25 -

--- SOU. STATES .

.00 -- ALA.. U.S.

/

.........- '....

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

FIG. 1. Comparisons of taxes levied onfarm real estate in dollars per acre aregiven in the above chart.

In 1940, the Alabama average was 200per acre as compared with 280 for the13 Southern States and 390 for the U.S.average. The 1961 taxes per acre were350, 750, and $1.29 for Alabama, South-ern States, and U.S. respectively.

From 1890 to 1910 property taxes peracre were stable, Figure 1. They in-creased from 1910 to 1930 and declinedfrom 1930 to 1940. Since 1940, the rateof increase was greater for the Southern

01910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960

FIG. 2. Comparisons of taxes levied onfarm real estate in dollars per $100 valueare given in the above chart.

States and U.S. than for Alabama. From1940 to 1961 taxes levied on farm realestate increased 75% in Alabama, 167%in the 13 Southern States, and 230% inthe U.S.

Changes in farm real estate taxes maybe considered relative to the value ofproperty. Accordingly, taxes have de-clined since 1930, Figure 2. Farm realestate values have increased more than

taxes on farm real estate. Again, Ala-bama was low relative to other states infarm real estate taxes per $100 propertyvalue. In 1959, farm real estate taxesaveraged 370 per $100 value in Ala-bama compared with 490 for the South-ern States and 93 for the U.S.

Relative to Net Income

Net income is generally accepted asan indicator of ability to pay taxes. Basedon USDA figures, Alabama farmers paid2% of their net income in farm realestate taxes in 1961. The same was truefor North Carolina. However, in allother states the percentage was higher.As an average for the U.S., farm realestate tax levies took 8.6% of net farmincome in 1961.

Problems

There are problems in assessments andadministration of the general propertytax. One problem is the tendency forhigher valued properties to be assessed ata smaller fraction of sales value thanlower valued properties. This is knownas "regressiveness." Based on a 1956USDA study, regressiveness in Alabamawas higher than average for the South-east or the U.S.

Another problem is in assessment ofrural property that is on the urbanfringe. There are many other problems.Problems exist with all forms of taxes -

especially from the taxpayer's standpoint.No doubt you will be reminded of someproblems when completing your incometax forms.

13

FARM REAL ESTATE TAXES

Trends and Comparisons

J. H. YEAGER, Agricultural Economist

hnan~lna

NEMATODES vs. Resistant Varieties,Rotations, Fumigation

N. A. MINTON, Nematologist

C. A. BROGDEN, Superintendent, Wiregrass Substation

THE USE of nematode-resistant vari-eties, crop rotations, and soil fumigationis the most successful means of con-trolling nematodes.

Crop rotations are beneficial in con-trolling nematodes only when one ormore plants in the cropping sequenceare such that they prevent the reproduc-tion of nematodes. A resistant plant mayalso function in this way or it may betolerant to the nematodes present. Incontrast, the aim of fumigation is to re-duce the nematode population lowenough for susceptible plants to getestablished. A combination of two ormore of these practices is often more ef-fective than either alone.

Since there are many species of plantparasitic nematodes having different hostranges, the effectiveness of rotations andnematode-resistant varieties is limited bythe particular nematodes present and theplants involved. Even within the com-mon root-knot nematodes, there are atleast a dozen known species each differ-ing in its pathogenicity on plants.

Field Experiments

Studies were begun in 1962 at theWiregrass Substation at Headland to de-termine the effect of nematode-resistantvarieties, crop rotations, and soil fumi-gation on certain nematodes and yieldsof certain crops. All plots on which theexperiment is being conducted wereplanted to corn in 1961. The soil in theseplots contained the following nematodespecies: root-knot; meadow; ring; stubbyroot; and dagger. Some plots were fumi-gated with 21/2 gal. per acre of 85%ethylene dibromide prior to planting.Crops included in the study are: EarlyRunner peanuts; the root-knot-resistantAuburn 56 cotton, and Dixie 18 corn.

First-Year Results

First year's results of non-fumigatedplots indicated differences in nematodereproduction under different crops, Fig-ure 1. In November at the end of the14

LB./A.

2500 0 0

2000 8

1500

o - 1000 - oa8mcl IO00

500D0 meU- Uto

0 1 1

peanuts cotton

60

40

20

0

FIG. 2. Given above are yields of peanuts,cotton, and corn grown in fumigated andnon-fumigated plots.

growing season, a high population ofroot-knot larvae was present in peanutplots. Populations were lower in cottonand corn plots with corn plots having

the lowest. Root-knot larvae were slightlymore numerous in cotton plots than incorn plots and in November than inMarch. The meadow nematodes had in-creased in numbers since March undercotton and corn but decreased under pea-nuts. The ring nematode population in-

creased in numbers slightly under pea-nuts and cotton. Stubby root nematodesdecreased under peanuts, but increasedunder cotton and corn, with the largerincrease occurring under cotton. The dag-ger nematode population remained lowunder all crops.

These population data represent theeffects of cotton, corn, and peanuts onthe reproduction of the different nema-todes during one growing season.Equally important is the relative num-ber of nematodes that survive in the soilduring winter and are present to attackthe succeeding crops.

Soil Fumigation

Soil fumigation increased peanut yieldsabout 50% over yields in non-fumigatedplots, Figure 2. Increases in cotton andcorn yields attributed to fumigation wereslight. These data are for three cropsfollowing corn. The effects of fumigationmay have been different if cotton or pea-nuts had been the preceding crop be-cause numbers of parasitic nematodespresent would have been higher.

Much of the difference in response ofcrop yields to fumigation apparentlycame from differences in susceptibilityto root-knot nematodes. The high root-knot larval count in November for pea-nuts, low counts for cotton and corn,

severe galling of peanut roots, and negli-gible amount of galling of cotton andcorn were indicative of the severity ofattack on the crops. Even though root-knot nematodes in this experiment ap-peared to have caused major damage,certain of the other nematode speciesalso caused damage as evidenced by thepresence of root lesions, stubby roots,and dead root tips.

FIG. 1. Numbers of nematodes per pint of soil recovered from non-fumigated plots in 1962are given above.

100

80

19

THE FOUR 1962 issues of HIGHLIGHTS

OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH (Volume9) carried 55 articles reporting researchresults in 15 major areas of investigation.For the benefit of HIGHLIGHTS readers,articles published in 1962 are listed be-low according to subject. Indexes forthe previous years are listed in the spring

Animal Science

CROSSBREEDING WITH BRITISH BREEDS-Patterson, Warren, Price, and Meadows.Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.

COOL-SEASON GRAZING FOR YEARLINGSTEERS-Harris, Anthony, Boseck, andEvans. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AFFECTING SowPERFORMANCE-Squiers. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.

PELLETED FEEDS-PROMISING METHODFOR IMPROVING BEEF PRODUCTION ON HIGHROUGHAGE RATIONs-Anthony, Harris, Starl-ing, Brown, and Boseck. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.

PERFORMANCE TESTED BULLS SIRE HIGHQUALITY CALVES-Patterson and Cotney.Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.

SILAGES-PRODUCTION AND STORAGECOSTS IN NORTHERN ALABAMA-Anthony,

Harris, Boseck, and Blackstone. Vol. 9,No. 3. 1962.

Dairy Science

DRUGS IN MILK-How LONG Do RESI-DUES PERSIST?-Hawkins, Cannon, and Paar.Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.

STORED ROUGHAGES VS. GRAZING-May-ton, Blackstone, Hawkins, Sandy, and Lott.Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.

Farm Economics

ALABAMA'S BROILER INDUSTRY-White.Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.

BUYING PRACTICES OF PORK PROCESSORS-Linton and Danner. Vol. 9, No. 8. 1962.

FARM REAL ESTATE VALUES Go HIGHERAND HIGHER-Yeager. Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.

LOGIC OF INCORPORATING FAMILY FARMS-Chastain and Woods. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.

MEASURING FARM EARNINGs-Yeager.Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.

MIGRATION OF RURAL RESIDENTS-Huie.Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.

WHAT Is YOUR FARM WORTH?-Yeager.Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.

YOUR WILL-IMPORTANT LEGAL DocU-

MENT-Yeager. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.

Farm Machinery

INCREASING Row PLANTER EFFICIENCY-Renoll. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.

issues of 1959, 1960, and 1961. Readersmay wish to up-date their files. Extracopies of all 1962 issues are available tothose who are missing copies and wish tocomplete their files. Write Editor, Au-burn University Agricultural ExperimentStation, Auburn, Ala., for replacementcopies, specifying the issues needed.

Fertilization

LIME AND COTTON-Adams. Vol. 9, No.4. 1962.

SOIL FERTILITY AND PEANUT YIELDS-Sturkie and Ensminger. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.

Field Crops

COTTONS OF TOMORROw-Chapman andSmith. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.

GULF-IMPROVED RYEGRASS VARIETY-Hoveland. Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.

SKIP-ROW COTTON PRODUCES HIGHESTYIELDS-Sturkie and Boseck. Vol. 9, No. 4.1962.SORGHUM ALMUM-FRIEND OR FOE?-

Hoveland. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.VETCH MAKES HIGH CORN YIELDS-

Sturkie. Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.

Floriculture

BEAUTIFUL, FUNCTIONAL HEDGES FROM AVARIETY OF PLANTS-Orr. Vol. 9, No. 3.1962.

CHRYSANTHEMUMS FOR FALL PLANTING-Furuta, Martin, and Orr. Vol. 9, No. 2.1962.

DAYLILIES-VALUABLE PERENNIAL FORSOUTHERN LANDSCAPE-Orr and Martin.Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.

FOLIAR FEEDING FOR WOODY PLANTS-Furuta and Martin. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.

IRRIGATION BY MEASURING LIGHT-Furuta, Perry, and Martin. Vol. 9, No. 3.1962.

Forestry

SURVIVAL AND GROWTH OF PLANTED PINESAFTER STAND TREATMENT-Whipple. Vol.9, No. 3. 1962.

Fruits and Vegetables

COMMERCIAL APPLE PRODUCTION-PROM-ISING ALABAMA ENTERPRISE-Amling, Tur-ner, and Kern. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.

COMMERCIAL STRAWBERRIES IN ALABAMA?-Amling, Turner, and Kern. Vol. 9, No. 3.1962.

GROWING DWARF-SEMI-DWARF APPLESIN ALABAMA-Amling and Turner. Vol. 9,No. 4. 1962.

Index to Articles Published in

HIGHLIGHTS of Agricultural Research

4. 1962.

15

IMPROVED PROCESS FOR PICKLING PEACHES-Harris. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR VEGETABLE PROCESS-ING IN ALABAMA-Kern. Vol. 9, No. 2.1962.

RABBITEYE BLUEBERRY FOR ALABAMA-Turner and Amling. Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.

Insects and Controls

SYSTEMIC INSECTICIDES FOR SCALE IN-SECTS-Eden and Self. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.

Plant Diseases

DISEASE PROBLEMS OF CLOVER AND AL-FALFA-Curl. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.

NEW CONTROLS FOR APPLE DISEASES-Diener. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.

PECAN PROBLEMS ATTACKED BY RESEARCHTEAM-Diener, Blake, and Amling. Vol. 9,No. 1. 1962.

PEANUT SEED TREATMENTS, NEW VS. OLD-Lyle and Brogden. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.

ROOT-ROT AND SPITTLEBUGS IN COASTALBERMUDAGRASs-Gudauskas. Vol. 9, No. 3.1962.

SPRAY VS. DUST FOR PEANUT LEAFSPOTCONTROL-Lyle. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.

Poultry Science

BEST ENVIRONMENT FOR BROILER PRO-DUCTION?-Howes and Grub. Vol. 9, No.2. 1962.

CALCIUM REQUIREMENTS OF LAYING HENS-Howes. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.

POULTRY DUST-WHAT Is IT? WHATCAUSES IT?-Koon, Grub, and Howes. Vol.9, No. 3. 1962.

Soil Pests

FooD RESERVES-FACTOR IN PLANT IN-FECTION BY ROOT-KNOT NEMATODE LARVAE-Cairns and Bolmar. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.

RESISTANT COTTONS, NEMATOCIDES, ANDFALLOW VS. NEMATODES-Minton, Cairns,and Smith. Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.

ULTRASOUND--SPACE-AGE N EM A TO DE

KILLER-Cairns. Vol. 9, No. 3. 1962.

Weed Control

CHEMICAL CONTROL OF JOHNSONGRASS,ANNUAL GRASSES IN COTTON FIELDS-Searcy. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.

HERBICIDES FOR SWEETPOTATOES-JOhn-son and Amling. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.

Miscellaneous

AUBURN'S AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENTSTATION SYSTEM-Foscue. Vol. 9, No. 1.1962.

EMPHASIS ON FORAGE CROPS AT TUSKEGEEEXPERIMENT FIELD-Cope and Bertram.Vol. 9, No. 4. 1962.

INDEX TO ARTICLES PUBLISHED IN HIGH-LIGHTS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 1961.Vol. 9, No. 1. 1962.

J. S. NEWMAN-STATION'S FIRST DI-RECTOR-Foscue. Vol. 9, No. 2. 1962.

THAT OLD DEVIL POVERTY WORE COT-TON'S FACE IN 1860-Foscue. Vol. 9, No.

Land Use Changing in AlabamaHOWARD A. CLONTS and J. H. YEAGERDepartment of Agricultural Economics

Other land in farms that declinedfrom 1950 to 1960 included that usedfor houses, lots, gardens, roads, andwasteland. This was directly associatedwith reduction in farm population andtenants.

Overall changes in land use from 1950to 1960 are summarized below:

MOST LIKELY some fields on your farmthat were once planted to cotton or otherrow crops are no longer used for thispurpose. Such shifts are typical of tre-mendous changes in use of Alabamaland during the past 10 years.

Land is a major part of the businesson almost all farms. Normally, 50-60%of total farm investment is in land. Useof this land changes with farming ad-justments and as a result of other fac-tors, such as government programs, off-farm employment, and nearness to cities.

Land in Farms

In 1950, Alabama farms contained20.8 million acres, or 63.9% of the State'stotal land area. This dropped to 16.5million acres in 1960, or 50.6% of totalarea. Thus, land in farms was reduced21% from 1950 to 1960.

Part of the change resulted from a newBureau of the Census definition of a farmthat was in effect in 1960. Places of 10acres or more were counted as farms ifsales of agricultural products for theyear were $50 or more. If less than 10acres, sales had to be at least $250. In1950, a place of 3 acres or larger was afarm if annual value of farm productsproduced was $150. Places of less than3 acres needed sales of $150 or more tobe farms.

Cropland Acreage

One of the most significant changesfrom 1950 to 1960 was in cropland.There was a decrease of almost 2 mil-lion acres in cropland harvested. About200,000 acres per year changed fromcropland harvested to other uses.

About 1.5 million acres of cropland inAlabama are used as "cropland pas-tured." This changed little from 1950to 1960.

Cropland not harvested and not pas-tured decreased from 1,393,726 acres in1950 to 899,573 in 1960. Total croplanddeclined 31% during the 10 years.

The biggest decrease in cropland, al-most 50%, occurred in the PiedmontArea. Except for the Tennessee Valley,Lower Coastal Plains, and Gulf Coast,other areas registered 30-40'% decreasesin cropland.

Largest decreases in cropland har-vested were in Coosa, Clay, and Cle-burne counties, see map. Only Baldwinand Mobile counties showed increases.

Acreage in Pasture and Woodland

There was a 31% increase in land in

pasture, other than cropland and wood-land, from 1950 to 1960. This increaseof 530,000 acres, chiefly in open perma-nent pasture, is associated with increas-ing livestock numbers in the State. Great-est increases in pasture were in the GulfCoast, Lower Coastal Plains, and Ten-nessee Valley areas.

Total land pastured decreased about90,000 acres from 1950 to 1960. Thiswas primarily a decline in woods pas-tured. Cropland pastured also dropped.The decline in woods and cropland pas-tured was more than enough to offsetthe increase in open permanent pasture.About 42% of total land in farms waspastured in 1960.

According to the Census of Agricul-ture, total woodland on farms decreasedalmost 2 million acres, or 20%, from 1950to 1960. Woodland pastured declined432,000 acres, and woodland not pas-tured, 1,532,000. Of total woodland,38% was pastured in 1950 and 42% in1960.

Only the Upper Coastal Plains andBlack Belt areas had increases in wood-land during the 10 years. All others haddecreases.

FREE Bulletin or Report of ProgressAGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

AUBURN UNIVERSITYE. V. Smith, DirectorAuburn, Alabama

Permit No. 1132-2/63-IOM

Total croplandOpen permanent

pastureWoodland on

farmsOther

TOTAL

Million acres1950 1960 Change8.7 6.0 -2.7

1.7 2.2 ± .5

9.7 7.8 -1.9.7 .5 - .2

20.8 16.5 -4.3

28W INCREASEDECREASE

LESS THAN 30%30% TO 50% um11mMORE THAN 50%

Percentage change in cropland harvested is

shown on the map for each Alabama county.

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE TO AVOIDPAYMENT OF POSTAGE, $300