Agriculture Progressive in Arizona Number 5 September

Agriculture Progressive in Arizona Number 5 September

1

Progressive

Agriculture

in Arizona

Volume XXI,

Number 5 September

-

October, 1969

2

11 Fruitful

years of Student Involvement

In January, 1970, student memberships on College of Agriculture corn

mittees will have completed eleven outstanding years of success.

It all happened when Dr. Darrel S.

Metcalfe, director of resident instruction, recommended inclusion of students on College of Agriculture Corn

mittees.

The first such committee to be formed was the Student

-

Faculty

Relations committee.

It still functions successfully and presently is the college's largest committee.

During the first year of committee existence, 1959, it was composed of five students and three faculty. Presently the committee is made up of 26 undergraduate students from Arizona, other states and foreign lands.

Also,

In this Issue

. .

there are two graduate students and five faculty on that committee.

Agricultural and Home Economics students have a tendency of being a very dedicated group and probably for this reason demonstrated eleven years ago their readiness to shoulder the responsibility of serving on college committees.

Students on the respective committees discuss a great variety of items which provide an excellent opportunity for two way communications between students and faculty, as well as administration.

Through such medium of idea exchange students suggested formation of an Agricultural Council which is composed of representatives of clubs

Editorial by Harold E. Myers, Dean of Agriculture

Crested Wheatgrass and `Vinterfat Emergence uncer

Simulated Drouth by Ervin M. Schmutz and Mohamad Fouad Al- Rabbat

Government Payment Limitations by Robert S. Firch

Don't Stress Your Wheat for Water by A. D. Day and Suhbawatr Intalap

Facilities for Complete Dairy Ration by G. H. Stott and W. T. Welchert

Arizona Citrus Acreage : Approaching 50,000!

by Roger W. Fox and James F. Riggs

What to do about Texas Root Rot by R. B. Streets, Sr.

New Canker Disease Found in Pecans by R. B. Hine, J. E. Wheeler and E. L. Clark

The Influence of Rural America on the Character of the Nation by Robert E. Calmes and Robert L. Voigt

Importance and control of Sheep Bot Fly in Arizona by George W. Ware, Leonard W. Dewhirst and Roy Echeverria

Costs and Returns for Arizona General Crop Farms by John R. Wildermuth and William E. Martin

Page

Progressive Agriculture in Arizona

September

-

October, 1969

Volume XXI, Number 5

Published Bi- Monthly by the College of Agriculture, including Agricultural Experiment Station,

Cooperative Extension Service and Resident Instruction in the College of Agriculture and the School of Home Economics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721.

Harold E. Myers, Dean.

Entered as second class matter March 1, 1949 at the Post Office at Tucson, Arizona, under the

Act of August 24, 1912.

Second Class postage paid at Tucson, Arizona.

Articles and illustrations in this publication are provided by the faculty and staff of the College of Agriculture.

Editorial use of information contained herein is encouraged.

Photos or other Illustrations will be furnished on request

Editorial board members are: Drs. Mary Ann Kight, William R. Kneebone, Darrel S. Metcalfe

(ex officio ), James J. Sheldon; and Messrs. Harvey Tate, and George Alstad, chairman and editor.

2

3

6

8

11

14

16

17

18

20

22 and organizations in the college.

It not only provides rapport an coordination among many clubs, it permits, also, joint effort in such events as Aggie Day a picnic -like, day -long event where students and faculty let down their hair to mix it up in sports.

Student suggestions were responsible for centralized registration, student study room, lobby furniture, installation of pay telephones, recommended additional campus lighting so coeds might feel more at ease while ' crossing campus at night. Many more examples exist, but let's look at the types of committees on which they so ably serve.

Five undergraduate and one graduate students serve with 12 faculty on the Curriculum committee; 4 students and 11 faculty on the Academic Counseling and Teacher Evaluation corn

mittee; and 5 students and 12 faculty and staff on the Community College

Field Day committee.

It is clear that after eleven years of experience that student participation helps to establish an effective working relationship between students, faculty and administrators.

therefore feel that our success Vf student -faculty relationships has transformed our College of Agriculture into one of the nation's finest.

2-Letilde-e-ot

Harold E. Myers, Dean

College of Agriculture, and

School of Home Economics

On our Cover

.

Nancy Gardner, a junior in agricultural education, works for Dr. R. T.

Ramage, a geneticist with the U. S.

Department of Agriculture and a UA

Professor in Department of Agronomy.

Nancy monitors the electronic seed sorter which is separating seed by color.

It also sorts seed by size.

The seed sorter was developed by

Wilson Nolan, a graduate who is farming near Salome, Ariz.

It is used in the hybrid barley program to separate balanced tertiary trisomics from male sterile diploids.

Nancy is the daughter of Mr. and

Mrs. Bert Gardner of Bowie.

Crested Wheatgrass

& Winterfat Emergence

Under Simulated Drouth

by Ervin M. Schmutz & Mohamad Fouad Al-Rabbat*

Seeding of rangelands is particularly uncertain on arid and semi -arid ranges.

Plants must become established where rainfall is low and poorly distributed and where tempera t, es and winds are high and humid is low.

All of these factors con tri ute to low soil moisture and rapid evaporation of limited supplies. To reduce these effects and increase the chances of seeding success many treatments must be made, such as control of competing vegetation; pitting and

plowing to

increase infiltration; mulching to reduce evaporation, tern perature and wind effects; soil corn paction to improve plant- soil -water relations; and proper depth of planting to facilitate seedling emergence and to more effectively utilize soil moisture.

To study some methods of improving the seedling microenvironment, a greenhouse experiment was conducted to measure the effects of soil moisture, planting depth and soil compaction on the emergence and survival of crested wheatgrass (Agropyron desertorum) and winterfat lanata)

.

Species

(Eurotia drouth- tolerant, bunchgrass i n t r oduced from Asia that has been planted

Crested wheatgrass is a cool- season, extensively in the west for soil stabilization and forage production.

It

(Turn to Next Page)

Figure

1. The winterfat plant at right shows the prolific production of white hairy seeds.

°Associate Range Management Specialist, and former graduate student, respectively,

(4 the Department of Watershed Manage -

Ot.

was used in this study primarily as a standard for comparision of winterfat performance.

Winterfat is a low- growing, cool season shrub that makes its major

growth in the spring and summer

( Figure 1)

.

It grows on slightly alkaline or alkaline -free soils and occurs in pure stands or as a component of arid and semi -arid grasslands or shrub types.

It is highly palatable to livestock and game and is particularly valuable on winter ranges where it furnishes an abundance of palatable and nutritious forage during this critical season of the year. Winterfat is a prolific seeder and produces a high percentage of viable seeds.

The seeds are light in weight and subtended by hairy bracts. As a consequence they are widely dispersed by wind

and water and by adhering to the

wool of sheep. Winterfat seeds collected in the fall may germinate at once when placed in a suitable environment but germination declines rapidly within the first year.

These characteristics of high palatability, high nutrient content, high viability of seeds, effective method of seed dispersal, and adaptability to various kinds of soil and climatic conditions makes winterfat a desirable species for range seeding.

Methods

Plantings of crested wheatgrass and winterfat were made in the Soil Conservation Service

Plant Materials

Center greenhouse, in 20x14x4 -inch metal flats with four treatment replications. The soil was a sandy loam

( 65 percent sand, 23 percent silt and

12 percent clay )

with a moisture

equivalent of 14.7

percent.

Flats were rotated daily to counteract light and temperature variation.

After planting, moisture was applied at a high level ( 4000 ml per flat) to bring soil moisture up to field capacity and at a low level ( 2000 ml per flat) to induce moisture stress.

Subsequent waterings were made at one week intervals at the rates of 2000 ml per flat for the high moisture rate and 1000 ml per flat for the low rate. Soil samples were taken with a tube after the initial watering and just prior to subsequent waterings and analyzed grayimetrically to determine soil moisture levels and trends. These tests showed

that at no time were plants under

moisture stress at the high rate of water application while at the low rate the moisture level had declined to near or slightly below the wilt' coefficient just before watering.

compaction treatments conSoil sisted of compaction with a hydraulic press at 4 psi before planting, 4 psi after planting, and no compaction. To make the before-planting compaction, the flat was filled with soil to the desired level of planting and compacted. The seed was then planted on the compacted surface and covered to the desired depth with loose soil.

In the compaction after planting, the seeds were planted at the desired depth and the soil compacted. Plantings were made at depths of 0, 0.5,

1.0 and 1.5 inches. To reduce soil disturbance during waterings, the flats were covered with a cheese cloth and the water was applied with a fine sprinkler.

Results

Seedling emergence varied by species and was influenced by moisture level and depth of planting ( Figures

2 and 3).

100

°Jo

90

J

80

70

LI) oa 60

W

U w

50

T.

40

Z

E 30

W

W

N

20 i k

I

.

.

:

Ì r

,

/

/

%

+

/

í k o

X

yp z x

LEGEND o LOW MOISTURE LEVEL

X HIGH MOISTURE LEVEL

0" DEPTH OF PLANTING

- - - -- .5" DEPTH OF PLANTING

-- 1" DEPTH OF PLANTING

1.5" DEPTH OF PLANTING

100

90

80

J a

70

(/) aes60

W

U w 50

W

W

40 z

E 30

W

LLI

V)

20

..+.

_I....X..x.

.

'X x..

4

*r

.

4 w..

LEGEND o o o LOW MOISTURE LEVEL

X

X

X HIGH MOISTURE LEVEL

0" DEPTH OF PLANTING

.5" DEPTH OF PLANTING

X

ó.

_

. b

X ..

X --(--Yr-X- X- X

*o

10 b.o*O

'O

_

10

.

:

5 10 .

Experimental Period,

15 in Days

20

ó

5

IO

Experimental Period,

I

15 in Days

I

20

Figure 2. Effects of moisture application and planting depth on

Figure 3. Effects of moisture application and planting depth the emergence and survival of crested wheatgrass.

the emergence and survival of winterfat.

4

Initial emergence of winterfat occurred 2 to 5 days after planting as compared to 6 to 12 days for crested iiieatgrass. This was 3 to 8 days ear for winterfat at the same moisture level and depth of planting.

Moisture stress delayed initial emergence of crested wheatgrass 2 to 4 days at the same depth of planting, but had no significant effect on winterfat.

The effect of depth of planting on initial emergence varied with moisture level. At the high moisture level earliest emergence of crested wheat grass occurred at the surface and was delayed 1 to 2 days later for each consecutive increase in planting depth. In contrast, at the low moisture level, wheatgrass emergence occurred first at the 0.5 inch depth, occurred 1 day later at both the surface and 1 inch depths, and occurred

3 days later at the 1.5 inch depth.

Initial emergence of winterfat occurred at the surface at both moisture levels, but was delayed 2 to 3 days at the 0.5 inch depth, depending on moisture level. The delay was somewhat later than for wheatgrass and was probably due to the greater difficulty that winterfat had in penetrating the soil. There was no emerence of winterfat from the 1- and

" inch depths of planting.

emergence for both h s ecies was about equal, 83 percent for winterfat and 87 percent for wheatgrass, but varied with moisture level and depth of planting. At the high mois-

ture level there was no

significant difference in total emergence of wheatgrass at the surface

( 87 percent) and 0.5

inch

( 86 percent) depths of planting, but emergence was much less at the 1 inch ( 51 percent) and 1.5

inch

(16 percent) depths of planting. Total emergence of wheatgrass was drastically reduced by moisture stress and was greater at the 0.5 inch depth of planting (25 percent) than at the surface (12 percent)

.

There was practically no emergence at the 1- and 1.5 inch depths.

In contrast to wheatgrass, maximum emergence of winterfat at both high and low moisture levels, 83 and 50 percent, respectively, occurred at the surface planting.

Also, there was a marked reduction in emergence at the

0.5 inch depth at both high and low moisture levels, 25 and 13 percent, respectively.

However, under moisture stress maximum emergence of winterfat

( 50 percent) exceeded wheatgrass emergence (25 percent)

.

Also, winterfat reached maximum emergence sooner, on the 5th day as compared to the 12th day for wheat grass.

Similar to wheatgrass there was no emergence of winterfat from the 1- and 1.5 inch depths of planting.

Mortality of crested wheatgrass seedlings after emergence was negligi-

Table

Species

Crested

Wheatgrass

Winterfat

1.

-

Effect of soil compaction on emergence of crested wheat -

grass and winterfat at two moisture

levels.

Moisture level

High

Low

High

Low

Compaction treatment

Emergence in per cent.

Average of all depths on days after planting

6

17

20

None

Before planting

After planting

None

Before planting

After planting

None

Before planting

After planting

None

Before planting

After planting

21

26

20

7

10

7

7

7

7 o o o

55

58

55

7

7

11

26

30

23

9

12

6

58

58

56

7

7

11

24

27

22

7

10

5 ble regardless of moisture stress or planting depth ( Figure 2), but mortality of winterfat seedlings was significant ( Figure 3)

.

The greatest loss of winterfat seedlings occurred 7 to 9

days after germination and 2 to 4

days after the second watering with seedlings planted on the surface at the low moisture level.

One of the reasons for the higher seedling survival in the wheatgrass was the differences in root systems of the two species. The roots of crested wheatgrass at the end of the study were about twice as long and had numerous lateral roots, while the winterfat was almost devoid of lateral roots.

This probably enabled the wheatgrass to better utilize the available moisture and survive moisture stress.

Analyses of compaction data ( Table

1) showed that compaction had no effect on emergence of crested wheat

grass but did have a significant effect on emergence of winterfat. Compaction before planting significantly increased average emergence of winter

fat over no compaction while compaction after planting decreased emergence.

It appears that compaction before planting improved the plant

soil moisture relations below the seed while compaction after planting had a detrimental effect, probably by restricting seedling emergence.

Conclusions

The controlled greenhouse study showed that crested wheatgrass should be planted at 0.5 inch depth and win

terfat on or near the surface for best seedling emergence under favorable or moisture stress conditions.

Soil compaction before planting significantly increased emergence of winter

fat but not crested wheatgrass. Com-

paction after planting did not

increase emergence of either species.

This study emphasizes the importance of planting seeds at the proper depth, especially on dry ranges.

It also explains the value of water conservation treatments such as pitting, mulching and soil compaction for increasing the emergence and establishment of seedlings.

Finally, it points up the need for planting those species that have physical or physiological attributes which enable them to survive drouth conditions.

These characteristics include early germination and emergence, rapid root development, and the physiological ability to endure desiccation.

5

Government Payment Limitations:

A Threat to the Agriculture

of Arizona and Especially to

That of Pinal County by Robert S. Firch*

The success of Arizona's large scale cotton production has been placed in jeopardy by the present threats of limits being placed on government payments to individual farms. The

U. S. House of Representatives in both

1968 and

1969 passed legislation which would limit government payments to individual farms to no more than $20,000. In 1968, the Senate refused to endorse the payment limita-

tion feature, and as of the date of

this writing, the Senate appears likely to block the payment limits again in

1969. But, the sentiment in the Congress for payment limits seems to be growing. Relatively few people realize the extent to which the effects of payment limits would be concentrated geographically.

Under the government program for upland cotton for the 1969 crop, producers are paid a price support payment of 14.73 cents per pound of lint on the projected yield of their domestic allotments.

The domestic allotment is equal to 65 percent of the total upland cotton acreage allotment on each farm.

Arizona farmers have been very successful in gaining control of and effectively combining large quantities of resources into large, efficient farming operations. Income per Arizona farm leads all other states and surpasses the state with the next largest income per farm by a wide margin.

The accompanying table shows that this large, efficient organization of

Arizona farms also has been achieved in cotton production. The average upland cotton acreage allotment per

Arizona farm having an allotment is

187 acres, whereas the same average for the entire United States is

32.8 acres.

With the exceptions of

California with 104.6 acres and Texas with 64.8 acres of cotton per allot-

ment farm, all of the other major

cotton growing states have averages of less than 43 acres.

Pinal County has an average allotment per farm which is almost twice the size of the state average.

Evidence of the success of these large scale farming organizations is seen in the fact that Arizona farms with 15 to 30 acres of upland cotton allotment have an average projected yield of 1,072 pounds of lint per acre, while farms of 350 to 500 acres have an average of 1,257 pounds and farms with over 1,000 acres of upland cotton allotment have an average projected yield of 1,187 pounds. The decline in yield from the 350 to 500 acre class to the over 1,000 acre class of farm is probably more than offset in per unit cost of production by additional economies in the purchase of inputs and utilization of machinery.

A publication by the Agricult

Stabilization and Conservation Se ice titled, 1968 Feed Grain, Wheat, and Cotton Programs: Frequency Distribution of Participating Farms by

Size of Allotment or Base, provided the basis for an analysis of the effects of payment limitations on the United

States.

Pinal County was selected for more detailed study because it has larger allotments per farm than other

Arizona counties and each of its 430 allotment farms was studied individually.

The results reported in the accompanying table are definitely lower limit estimates of the effects of payment limitations since they ignore the fact that many of these farms grow American- Egyptian cotton and other crops that also receive direct government payments.

The analysis also ignores the fact that some of the larger farms may also grow cotton in other counties in addition to Pinal.

Table

1 shows for the

United

States, Arizona, and Maricopa, Pima,

Pinal and Yuma Counties the number of acres of domestic allotment)

This

Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics.

6

Table 1.

Effects of Government Payment Limitations on Upland Cotton Production for the U.S. and

Principal Cotton Growing Counties for Arizona.

0

Cotton Allotment acres per farm

UNITED

STATES

33

MARICOPA

COUNTY

194

PIMA

COUNTY

383

PINAL

COUNTY

292

YUMA

COUNTY

152

ARIZONA

187

Acres of domestic allotment

9,248,768 80,961

13,951

82,021 21,814

214,347

Maximum Payment per farm

$10,000.

20,000.

30,000.

40,000.

50,000.

1,495,780

769,592

514,617

433,680

336,555

53,291

37,990

29,181

23,315

19,106

Acres Excluded From Payments

10,353

7,929

6,434

5,407

4,685

61,347

47,468

36,154

29,813

24,545

15,193

11,400

8,965

7,347

6,175

143,459

105,875

81,224

66,123

54,695

Maximum Payment per farm

$10,000.

20,000.

30,000.

40,000.

50,000.

83.8

91.7

94.4

95.3

96.4

Percent of Domestic Allotment Qualifying for Payments

34.2

53.1

63.9

71.2

76.4

25.8

43.2

53.9

61.2

66.4

25.1

42.1

55.9

63.6

70.0

30.3

47.7

58.9

66.3

71.7

33.1

50.6

62.1

69.2

74.5

is the maximum number of acres eligible for payments with no restrictions farm.

on maximum payments per

The next section of the table

Wws the number of acres excluded m p ayments by payment limita tions of $10,000 to $50,000 per farm.

It can be seen that a limit of $20,000 per farm would exclude over three quarters of a million acres of upland cotton from payments for the entire

United States.

The acres excluded for Arizona and Pinal County at the same payment limit level would be about 106,000 and 47,500.

The bottom section of the table gives the percent of the domestic

Cochise, Graham and Greenlee County data is omitted from Table 1 because these counties were found to not be substantially affected by payment limitations. A more detailed report may be obtained by writing to the author, Dr. Robert S. Firch, College of

Agriculture, University of Arizona, Tucson,

Arizona 85721.

allotment qualifying for payments at various payment limitation levels.

With a $20,000 per farm limit, over ninety percent of the domestic allotment for the United States would still qualify for payments. For the state of

Arizona a little over half would still qualify, while in Pinal County only a little over forty percent of its domestic allotment would still qualify for payments with a $20,000 limit.

It is clear from this table that Arizona would be affected a great deal more by payment limitations than the

United States as a whole, and Pinal

County would be affected significantly more than the state of Arizona as a whole.

To the extent that cotton growers still found it profitable to grow cotton on the land without the direct government payments, the effect of payment limitations would be borne almost entirely by the owners of the land excluded from payments. In the current crop year the difference be-

tween the total allotment and the

domestic allotment is not eligible for government payments if either planted or not planted in cotton. Apparently, a large number of cotton growers in Pinal County found it unprofitable to grow cotton without the direct government price support payments because only forty percent of the land that could have been planted in cotton in 1969 without the payments was actually planted.

Of this land not

planted to cotton, about half was planted to other crops and half remained idle. It appears then that payment limitations would result in substantial reductions in land planted in cotton and substantial effects on firms supplying inputs used in cotton production, as well as local merchants in cotton growing areas of Arizona.

Table 2.

Dollars paid per farm

Number of Farms Receiving Various Size Payments for Upland Cotton.

Cochise

Graham

Greenlee Maricopa Pima

Pinal o

0- $10,000.

10- 20,000.

above 20,000.

Total

155

24

14

193

138

19

2

159

47

3

0

50

301

142

199

642

11

19

26

56

116

92

225

433

Yuma

102

40

79

221

Arizona

870

339

545

1,754

7

Don't Stress Your

Wheat for Water!

by A. D. Day & Suhbawatr Intalap*

Soil moisture is important in the growth and development of all agricultural plants. Normal growth may be restricted by either deficient or excessive water at any stage of growth.

In tropical, humid regions there is usually sufficient moisture for cultivated crops. However, shortages of irrigation water may occur in low rain fall areas or in arid regions, where water has a dominant influence on crop production.

Economic use of water is a vital problem which confronts farmers and agricultural scientists in irrigated areas. This problem is becoming more

Agronomist and former graduate student,

Department of Agronomy.

Table 1.

Inches of water applied per acre to Maricopa wheat at the preplanting, tillering, jointing, flowering, and dough stages of growth at Tucson, Arizona in 1966 and 1967.

Irrigation treatment

Preplanting

Tillering Jointing Flowering

Dough stage Total

Optimum irrigation

Plants stressed for water at the jointing stage

Plants stressed for water at the flowering stage

Plants stressed for water at the dough stage

Fi

6

6

6

3

3

3

3

4

2:

4

4

4*

5

5

5

4 o

4

4

22

20

21

18 o The amounts of water applied during these stages of growth were applied after the plants showed visible wilting for seven days.

8

Table 2.

Average grain yield, grain volume- weight, number of days from planting to flowering, number of days from planting to maturity, plant height at maturity, and lodging at maturity for

Maricopa wheat grown under four irrigation treatments at Tucson, Arizona in 1966 and 1967.

Irrigation treatment

Grain yield

(lb /acre )

Grain volume

weight

(lb /bu )

61.9 c

Days from planting to flowering

(day)

Days from planting to maturity

(day)

Plant height at maturity

(in.)

Lodging at maturity

(fo)

116 b 176 b

40 c

6 a

Optimum irrigation throughout the growing season

Plants stressed for water at the jointing stage

Plants stressed for water at the flowering stage

Plants stressed for water at the dough stage

C.V.(%)

5626 dt

2951 a

3237 b

3568 c

8.75

60.2 b

60.0 b

56.8 a

0.89

110 a

116 b

11'7 b

0.55

t Means followed by the same letter are not different at the 5% level of significance.

177 b

169 a

168 a

0.54

33 a

39 b

39 b

0.93

26 c

11 b

11 b

6.05

fl acute as the area of irrigated land throughout the world increases.

A knowledge of the optimum time to apply limited amounts of water to obtain maximum yields of high quality plant products is essential.

Most of the spring wheat grown under irrigation in the United States

is planted in

March or April and is harvested in

July and August. In southern Arizona wheat is normally planted in November or December and harvested in

May or June of the following year.

Since spring wheat is grown under irrigation during the winter months in

Arizona, its most critical period of growth may differ from that of spring wheat grown in other states.

Soil

Materials and Methods moisture stress at different periods during the growth of spring wheat planted in December were studied under field conditions for a two -year period ( 1966 and 1967) at

Tucson, Arizona.

General cultural practices for wheat in Arizona were followed throughout the experiment.

soil was Gila sandy loam with a field capacity of 14.5 percent and a permanent wilting point of 5.8 percent. A green manure crop of Guar was grown during the summer and plowed under when it was 36 in. high.

The land was then disked, harrowed, bordered, and irrigated to saturate the soil to a depth of 5 ft. Seventy lb. of elemental nitrogen per acre were applied prior to planting. Seventy -five lb. per acre of seed of the wheat cultivar `Maricopa' were planted in moist soil, with a grain drill, 1.5 in. deep, in December. Grain was harvested at maturity in June of the following year.

A randomized block design with four replications was used to compare four irrigation treatments as follows :

( a ) optimum irrigation water applied throughout the growing season, (b ) plants stressed for water at the jointing stage for a period of seven days ( plant- stress determined by visible wilting ) throughout the other stages of growth,

( c ) but irrigated normally plants stressed for water at the flowering stage for a period of seven days but irrigated normally throughout the other stages of growth, and

( d ) plants stressed for water from the dough stage to maturity but irrigated normally throughout the other stages of growth. The amount of water applied in flood -type applications in each of the four irrigation treatments was measured and is shown in Table

1. Irrigation water was applied when

65 percent of available soil moisture had been used. Soil moisture was determined from samples taken with a soil probe. Average precipitation during the wheat growing season in 1966 and 1967 was 2.0 in.

The following data were obtained from 0.01 -acre plots surrounded with sufficient wheat to eliminate border effects :

( a) number of days from

planting to flowering ( flowering was when 50 percent of the heads had exposed anthers ),

( b ) number of days from planting to maturity

( maturity was when the grain had 14 percent moisture)

, ity

( a ) plant height at matur-

( plant height was distance from ground level to tip of spike, exclud-

(Turn to Next Page)

9

Wheat

( from Page 9)

Shorter Plants

Plants stressed for water at the

jointing stage were shorter than plants in any other treatment ( Table 2)

.

Withholding water at the flowering and dough stages resulted in plants of the same height. Tallest plants occurred with optimum irrigation. When cereal grains are stressed for water during the vegetative and flowering stages, shorter plants are obtained as a result of lower soil moisture absorption, lower soil nutrient uptake, and reduced photosynthesis.

tion in grain yield occurred when soil moisture was withheld at the jointing stage, followed by moisture stress at

.

the flowering and dough stages, decreasing order. When wheat stressed for water at the jointing stage, the reduced grain yield was produced

by fewer heads per unit area and

fewer seeds per head ( Table 3)

.

However, when irrigation was withheld at the flowering and dough stages, lower grain yields were caused, primarily, by lighter seeds ( Table 3)

.

ing the awns ),

( d) lodging percent age at maturity ( percentage of plants broken or bent 45° or more ),

( e ) grain yield ( grain moisture about 14 percent)

, and

( f ) grain volume weight. In 1967, plots 0.0001 -acre in sizè were used to determine the three grain yield components : ( a ) number of heads per unit area, ( b ) number of seeds per head, and ( c) seed weight.

All data were analyzed using the

standard analysis

of variance and

treatment means were compared using

Duncan's multiple range test.

Earlier Flowering

Plants stressed for water at the

jointing stage of growth flowered earlier than plants grown in any other irrigation treatment ( Table 2) .

Similar results have been reported for winter wheat. This observation may be helpful to wheat breeders who are interested in crossing early and late varieties. If late varieties are stressed for water at the jointing stage, it may be possible to make them flower earlier.

More Lodging

Lodging occurred during the period from flowering to maturity. Wheat stressed for water at the jointing stage lodged more than when it was grown with any other treatment ( Table 2) .

This may be because withholding soil moisture during jointing prevented normal development of upper crown roots and resulted in weaker plants.

When water was withheld at the

flowering and dough stages, it resulted in more lodging than when optimum irrigation was applied.

Lower Grain Yield

Stressing wheat for water at the jointing, flowering, and dough stages of growth significantly reduced gram yields, compared with optimum irrigation

( Table 2)

.

The greatest reduc-

Table 3.

Average number of heads per unit area, number of seeds per head, and seed weight for Maricopa

wheat grown

under four irrigation treatments at Tucson, Arizona in

1967.

Irrigation treatment

Lower Volume- Weight

Moisture stress at the dough stage resulted in the greatest reduction in followed by grain volume- weight, withholding irrigation water at the flowering and jointing stages, in de-

( Table 2)

.

Wheat creasing order stressed for moisture at the flowering dough stages had fewer days from maturity than wheat flowering to grown with optimum irrigation, and it had less time for carbohydrate accumulation in the developing seeds.

Jointing Stage Most Critical

For Water

The most critical period for moisture in the growth of spring wheat planted in December was the jointin stage of growth. However, optim irrigation must be provided throu out the entire growing season for maximum yields of high quality grain.

Heads per

0.0001 acre

(no.)

Seeds per head

(no.)

Weight of

1,000 seeds

(g)

Plants

Earlier Maturity

stressed for water at the

flowering and dough stages of growth matured earlier than plants grown in the other two treatments ( Table 2) .

This may be because the consumptive use of water by wheat is highest during these stages. Plants grown with optimum irrigation and plants stressed for water at the jointing stage matured at the same time. It is evident that earlier maturity of wheat may be caused by soil moisture deficit during seed development.

Optimum irrigation throughout the growing season

Plants stressed for water at the jointing stage

Plants stressed for water at the flowering stage

Plants stressed for water at the dough stage

99 bt

74 a

100 b

96 b

31 b

26 a

28 ab

31 b

42 b

40 ab

35 ab

33 a t Means followed by the same letter are not different at the 5% level of significance.

10

Barley and milo are picked up each day by the mix truck and mixed with water.

Here the truck is unloading soaked barley which is elevated to one of the surge tanks where it is allowed to temper for 12 hours.

Then the tempered barley or milo is run across the scalper, picked up by a screw elevator and run through a roller mill, elevated and distributed to one of the storage cubicles where it will be used 24 hours later.

Facilities

for Complete Dairy Ration

by G. H. Stott & W. T. Welchem°

Traditionally dairymen have fed concentrates in the milk barn and the roughages in the corrals.

This practice grew naturally with the emphasis on feeding by individual cow production and because it helped entice the cow into the barn.

Research by Wiersma and Stott on

at Dewer

evap -cool dairy shades

Dairy near Mesa, Arizona, showed that butterfat was influenced by the cow's feed selectivity.

Moreover,

Stott reasoned that future environmental systems might provide an opportunity for better total feed intake.

So Dr. Stott and Jim Tappan, manager of Dewer Dairy, set up a test to see how a complete ration mixing and feeding program would affect the management of the dairy. Cubed alfalfa, water tempered and rolled milo and barley, cottonseed meal, beet and /or citrus pulp and molasses fortified with trace minerals were used to produce several complete dairy rations.

These rations were fed once per day in the corrals and compared the conventional bale -in -thecorral and tem.

concentrate -in- the- milkbarn sys-

The results of this trial can be summarized as follows:

The labor requirement for both the mixing and feeding of complete dairy rations was significantly less than the conventional system. Two men working ten -hour days were required to feed baled hay and /or silage to a 700 cow milking herd plus the dry stock.

An additional two man hours per day were required to feed concentrates in the milkbarn.

With the complete feeding system used today, Tappan reports that one man mixes all the rations and feeds 800 dairy cows and

1,300 head of growing stock in six hours.

According to Tappan the total concentrate feed costs have been reduced by $12 to $14 per ton over the conventional feeding system.

They also found that there were no evident differences in butterfat tests or milk production when corn pared to the controls in the conventional system or past production records.

According to Tappan, the labor saving and total feed economies were so advantageous that the dairy management decided immediately after the first feeding trials to switch to the complete ration feeding system for all of their dairy stock. The feed mixing, handling and storage facilities shown here represents a total investment about as follows:

1.

Dump, elevator leg, temper bins, scalper, screw auger and roller mill

$7,500.

2.

Mix truck with electronic scales

3.

$8,500.

Used skip loader

$5,500.

4.

Concrete mixing floor and feed storage shade

$4,250.

5.

Used molasses storage tank

$1,500.

Di s counting the fortunate purchases of the mix truck and molasses storage tank, this facility more realistically represents a capital investment of about $35,000. With these facilities the Dewer Dairy assigns a handling charge for the total mixed ration of

$1.52 per ton for their dairy feed. According to Tappan whatever the advantage concentrate feeding in the barn may have been, it immediately disappears in light of the economics of the complete dairy ration.

* Professor and Head,

Department of Dairy

Science, and Agricultural Engineer with the

Cooperative Extension Service.

11

The Dewer mill is simple and versatile.

Elevator leg, surge bins, scalper and roller mill are used primarily for conditioning barley, milo and /or wheat. The actual ration mixing involves the skip loader picking up various ingredients from each of six cubicles shown under this shade and dumping them into the mix truck. The truck scale is preset for accumulating the various ration ingredient weights and the scale light flashes on to signal the skip load operator when he has enough of each ingredient.

The mix and storage concrete floor measures 100 by 220 feet. Both losses and labor are reduced because the skip loader can be used to sweep the spillage back to storage.

Barley, milo and cubes are accumulated r season. Beet and /or citrus pulp are deli can also be substituted for cubes and mi

12

The mix truck has a maximum capacity of 9,000 pounds. Again the electronic scales are used to insure that each pen receives the correct amount of feed. The ration in the foreground was delivered on an earlier trip. It is largely composed of alfalfa cubes as a maintenance ration for dry cows.

Producing cows are segregated in coi/ complete mix tailored to meet their enc

40 per cent and 60 per cent concentrale to last for 24 hours is fed early in the Li concentrate complete ration.

S. et Ow out the ingredients they favor was,

) gi /

/r?.r

y/./:

'I story storage during the normal harvest

'from local processors as needed.

Silage

12to the ration in these facilities.

Finally molasses fortified with trace minerals is added to the ration.

This tank holds

12,000 gallons which is adequate to hold a carload of molasses with about a 10 ton reserve.

Tappan points out that this extra capacity is extremely important because it allows him to take advantage of carload bulk prices.

The extra reserve provides the flexibility needed to buffer delivery time delay.

Y.

¡ j '. 04 -0'

/ i as/

)1!

j m&/ rAl'

.., .`t

-q>` WO, i!!1'í 1,4,1;

,ccording to production and are given a

;tnirements. At Dewer Dairy a 25 per cent, is fed to the milk cows. Sufficient feed ig.

a

This picture illustrates a typical high

I is well mixed the animals cannot pick is um.

A five hp motor powers a 50 feet bucket elevator with a rated capacity of 50 tons per hour. The distributor head can be set to discharge into any one of three intermediate storage cubicles or the two 10 ton storage bins used to temper and process barley and milo. The temper bins are lined with an epoxy. A three hp motor powers the scalper and a 3/ th hp motor drives the screw auger which picks up the clean grain and delivers it to a 36 inch roller mill powered by a 20 hp motor. Rolled grain drops into the elevator boot and is then distributed to the mix bin storage.

13

14

Figures recently released by the

Arizona Crop and Livestock Report-

ing Service indicate that the total

citrus acreage in Arizona on January

1, 1969 was 49,800 ( Table 1 )

.

This estimate, along with the other figures in Tables 1 and 2, resulted from a survey of all citrus areas in the State conducted during November and December of 1968. The estimates were based on aerial photographs, a ground survey, and a complete enumeration of

200 randomly selected

40 -acre tracts. Consequently, the results of this survey represent the best estimates of Arizona citrus acreage and tree numbers by county, type of citrus, and age currently available. Furthermore, the Crop and Livestock Reporting Service plans to enumerate additional tracts of citrus during this fall and in subsequent years in order to improve the accuracy and to update the estimates.

This article focuses on the acreage figures.

Estimates of tree numbers and a more detailed breakdown on tree ages can be obtained from the

Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, 6445 Federal Building,

Phoenix, Arizona, 85025.

State Totals

Valencia oranges and lemons dominate the State citrus picture; together they represent 31,000 acres or 62 percent of the total citrus acreage in Arizona ( Table 1) . Grapefruit is declining in relative importance, falling from 50 percent of the total acreage in 1949 to 20 percent in 1962 and to

13 percent currently.' Low grapefruit prices during the late forties and fifties were largely responsible for the shift out of grapefruit. During the sixties, grapefruit acreage seems to have stabilized at about 6,700 acres. Acreage of the tangerine -type citrus fruits

( tangelos, mandarins, and tangerines ) has expanded rapidly in recent years, increasing from 1,317 acres in 1962 to

6,360 acres in January of 1969. In total, Arizona citrus acreage has expanded by about 17,500 acres since

1962.

Yuma County

The expansion of citrus acreage in

Yuma County is clearly documented by the new estimates. The 31,100 acres of citrus reported for Yuma

County represent 62 percent of the total citrus acreage in Arizona ( Table

1 )

.

Twenty years ago ( 1949 ), Yuma

County had only 1,735 acres of citrus

Arizona Citrus Acreage

Approaching 50,000!

by Roger W. Fox & James F. Riggs*

out of a total State acreage of 20,283.

As recently as 1962, citrus acreage in

Yuma County was reported at 17,567, nearly 13,500 acres less than the January 1969 estimate. The majority of the new planting in Yuma County has been in the Wellton- Mohawk area where large groves have been established on recently developed desert land.

Valencia oranges and lemons account for 41 and 38 percent, respectively, of the citrus acreage in Yuma

County. Lemon acreage has increased very rapidly, doubling since 1962. On the other hand, grapefruit acreage

( white plus red) in Yuma County has declined slightly in recent years; the

1969 estimate is approximately 200 acres less than in 1962. Acreage of the tangerine -type citrus fruits, while still a small portion of the Yuma County citrus area ( 12 percent ), has increased rapidly from 640 acres in 1962 to

3,860 acres in 1969.

It

Maricopa County is noteworthy that total citrus acreage in Maricopa County in 1969 is almost identical ( 503 acres less ) to what it was twenty years ago. This does not mean that the industry is stagnant, far from it.

Considerable change in the location of groves and in the type of citrus grown has occurred as a result of residential subdivision, new plantings, and the top working of mature groves.

One of the major changes has been the declining importance of grapefruit and the increasing absolute and relative position of the tangerine types, lemons and Valencia oranges.

Grapefruit's share of the total Mari

copa County citrus acreage declined from 49 percent in 1949 to 26 percent in 1969. During the same interval, the tangerine -types increased their share from one percent of the total

( 234 acres ) to 14 percent

( 2,490 acres)

.

The decline in grapefruit acreage oça curred entirely during the late forti and fifties, whereas the major increase in the tangerine -types occurred during the sixties ( from 677 acres in 1962 to

2,490 acres in 1969)

.

The acreage of lemons and Valencia oranges has increased rather steadily throughout the past twenty years.

The locational changes in citrus production in Maricopa County have largely been in reaction to the rapid urbanization of the Phoenix metropolitan area. As groves in Phoenix,

Mesa, and Tempe were phased out of production, new groves were established in Chandler Heights and to the west and northwest of Phoenix. More recently, a number of groves have been developed in the Queen Creek

*Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, and Agricultural Statistician, Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting

Service.

The comparative figures for 1949 and 1962 used in this article are taken from James S.

Hill, Jimmye S. Hillman and Peter L. Henderson. Some Economic Aspects of the Arizona Citrus Industry, Tech. Bull. 168, The

University of Arizona, Agricultural Experiment Station, Oct. 1965, Tables 2 and 3.

;,, ". =.`'V.;

'

;..rì :. i q

. . yî,. ;:p q.»w.,.q....

..°"T'.!'wy 11

j

t

1

.. ' vhtá i..!^. .. :

In the aerial photograph Baseline Road and Central Avenue in

South Phoenix, is at white circle, left. Citrus areas for the study were delineated by visual inspections of aerial photographs, by visual verification from ground surveys and sampling of ranarea. Relocation is a continuing event, and presently, new groves are being

anted in the areas northwest of

oenix and near Queen Creek.

Tree Ages

The information now available on tree ages is extremely valuable for estimating future trends in Arizona citrus production. Some of the information obtained in the recent survey is summarized in Table 2. By studying the age distribution of the trees by type of citrus it is possible to make domly selected blocks.

Through these techniques information was gathered relating to age of trees, varieties, spacings and tree numbers. North is up, West is left and East is right.

short -run forecasts of future production. However, such an approach can still be subject to fairly large errors due to changes in economic and ecological conditions and due to unexpected natural events.

Important changes that are either difficult or impossible to predict are top -working and tree removal due to low returns and /or residential expansion, insect and disease problems, and the incidence of frost damage.

Nevertheless, it seems fairly clear from the data presented in Table 2 that there will be a substantial increase in Arizona citrus production, at least through 1975. Citrus trees are generally considered to be in commercial production after the fifth year.

At the beginning of this year 44 percent ( 21,780 acres ) of the total citrus acreage in Arizona was under six years of age. The tangerine -types, red grapefruit, Valencia oranges and lemons have large proportions of their cur -

(Turn to Page 24)

Table 1.

Arizona Citrus Acreage by County and

Type, January 1, 1969.

Type of Citrus

Maricopa

County

Yuma

County

Other State

Counties Total

( acres )

Navel Oranges

Valencia Oranges

Sweet Oranges

White Grapefruit

Red Grapefruit

Lemons

Orlando Tangelos

Minneola Tangelos

3,400

4,790

990

3,900

860

1,595

280

275

Kinnow Mandarins

1,430

Algerian Tangerines

445

Dancy Tangerines

60

Limes

20

County and State

Totals

18,045

455

12,900

445

1,100

600

11,700

1,400

1,900

270

250

40

40

31,100

275

10

135

130

90

5 o

5 o

5

0

0

655

49,800

Source:

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Arizona Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Arizona Citrus Acreage -

January 1,

1969, Phoenix, July 2, 1969.

4,130

17,700

1,570

5,130

1,550

13,300

1,680

2,180

1,700

700

100

60

Table 2.

Arizona Citrus Acreage by Age Group and Type, January 1, 1969.

Type of Citrus

1 -5

Years

Age Groups

6 -10

Years

(acres)

11 &

Over

Navel Oranges

Valencia Oranges

Sweet Oranges

White Grapefruit

Red Grapefruit

Lemons

Orlando Tangelos

Minneola Tangelos

Kinnow Mandarins

Algerian Tangerines

Dancy Tangerines

Limes

795

8,175

515

1,030

975

5,585

1,480

1,565

1,230

345

45

40

1,530

5,750

240

110

420

2,270

200

500

200

150

40

0

State Totals

Source:

31,780

11,410

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Arizona Crop stock Reporting Service, Arizona Citrus Acreage

1969, Phoenix, July 2, 1969.

-

1,805

3,775

815

3,990

156

5,445 o

115

270

205

15

20

16,610 and Live

-

January 1,

15

What to do about

.. .

Texas Root Rot in Pecans

by R. B. Streets, Sr.*

If anyone should try to "invent" a tC super" plant disease, he could hardly out -do the destructiveness of

Phymatotrichum Texas Root Rot. Nor, could he find a disease as difficult to treat.

The culprit causing the disease known as Texas Root Rot is a soil borne fungus ( Phymatotrichum omnivorum ) .

It attacks more than 2,000 kinds of broad- leafed plants, and it does its work only in the southern states along the United States and

Mexico border.

It has not been reported in any other part of the world.

Two conditions which favor its occurrence are (1) an alkaline soil low in organic matter, and (2) mild winters.

There are three ways to combat

Texas Root Rot prevention, chemical treatment and rotation with crops which are not susceptible.

Avoiding Root Rot

It is far cheaper and more satisfactory to prevent root rot infestation than to bear the expense and labor of treating it.

The presence of Root Rot can be accurately determined only by growing very susceptible indicator plants in soil for two years before you plan to plant long -lived tree crops.

Alfalfa, or cotton, make the most practical indicator plants, because you need not lose the use of the land during the test period. There are other good test plants, but who needs a thousand acres of okra?

If cotton is used as the test plant,

°Plant Pathologist, Department of

Plant Pathology look for and map the spots of dead plants within the field. Do this at the end of the growing season near October first.

The areas of dead plants indicate quite accurately the presence and extent of Root Rot infestation in the field.

The most accurate way to make a permanent map of the infested areas of a field is the use of aerial photography. Color film gives the best results. Keep the pictures for records because the root rot infection will remain in the same field for many years.

Mark off these areas in the field where Root Rot occurred and plant

to monocot plants, which are im-

mune to Texas Root Rot. Some of these include: grain crops and forage sorghums, corn, millet and other grass type plants.

Root Rot can be greatly reduced in subsequent years using this rotation.

When a response is obtained, a one year rotation is sufficient.

It is wise to plant immune plants a second year, particularly before investing in the planting of a long -lived fruit or nut tree.

Another means of preventing Root

Rot is to inspect nursery stock before planting.

It would be careless to introduce the Root Rot fungus into an otherwise clean field.

Treatment of Spot Infestations

A good treatment is the acidification of alkaline soils. The addition of large quantities of organic matter or some sulphur and ammonium sulphate will accomplish this. It is necessary to treat the roots to their extremities.

This is known as the drip line.

Dig a basin

to confine

the am-

monium sulphate solution to the root zone.

A small tractor with a border disc may be used around the . drip line the tree for two or three times to fo a border.

Spread the manure two to three inches deep within the basin.

It can be fresh and full of straw for that which is needed is the rapidly decaying organic matter. Scatter one pound each of ammonium sulphate and soil sulphur over the manure for each ten square feet of area.

When these ingredients are in place, flood the area with three to four inches of water to leach the ammonium sulphate down into the root zone.

Pecan trees are amazingly tolerant of heavy applications of ammonium sulphate as well as ammonium phosphate.

Usually by the time one becomes concerned about the health of a tree, it has already lost from 60 to 80 percent of the roots to Root Rot. Thus, to balance the tree top with its reduced root system remove from 50 to

75 per cent of the foliage and branches.

The tree will quickly grow a new top if the treatment is successful.

There is always the problem of detecting infected trees before root damage becomes extensive.

We ha found that a slight yellowing is a early sign. This symptom is not usually recognized by grower as Root Rot connected.

A tree with small, or sparse, foliage usually indicates that it was infected the previous fall. When in doubt, treat the tree because the cost is small compared to the cost of replacing it.

The material used in the treatment is all plant food except for the excess of sulphur.

As one might expect, trees in early or light stages of infection respond more promptly and with less loss of production.

Ideally, a grower should not let his trees go beyond the early stage before applying the treatment.

Remember that recovered trees are surviving on a damaged root system.

These trees need a followup treatment, a booster of ammonium sulphate about the first of May each year. This is about the time when an active Root Rot season begins. This followup rate of application should be one pound of ammonium sulphate for each ten square feet of space within the drip zone. Then, irrigate.

(Turn to Next Page)

1

16

New Canker Disease Found in Pecans

by R. B. Hine, J. E. Wheeler and E. L. Clark

During the spring of 1969 a canker disease of pecans that occurred in commercial plantings in the Sahuarita and Continental areas of Pima County was identified and shown to be caused by a species of the fungus, Cytospora.

Approximately 150 -200 trees failed to leaf out during April and May and were shown to be killed by fungal infections that girdled the main trunk.

Cankers were also numerous on scaffold and other branches. The disease was scattered throughout a four thousand acre planting but occurred primarily on 2 and 3 year -old trees.

Although the disease is common on a large number of other trees includ-

,ing apple, apricot, cherry, peach,

;Sim, walnuts, and a number of nae Arizona trees including cottonwood, it has never previously been reported on pecan.

To the authors' knowledge, this is the first published report of the disease on pecans in the

United States.

The fungus pathogen needs injuries to gain entry into host tissue.

Infections on the main trunk of 2 and 3 year -old trees were common. The most likely injury- factors for fungal infections were either winter -low temperature damage, a late spring frost during 1968, summer -sun burn, or pruning injuries. The extent of canker development was determined by superficially removing the bark from suspected diseased areas and noting the sharp delineation between healthy and diseased tissue ( light and dark colored wood, respectively )

.

Orangish spore masses in long chains were microscopically visible in the cankered areas. The spores are extruded from fungal small, black, pinhead -sized structures, partially imbedded in the diseased bark, called pycnidia. These air -borne spores, which are produced during periods of moisture, are the primary sources of infection. Original inoculum probably came from diseased native trees in the area as examinations of a large number of newly planted trees were disease -free, indicating healthy planting stock.

The disease occurred on the varieties Barton,

Bradley, and Western Schley.

(Root Rot in Pecans)

Unfortunately, there are no known pecan varieties found to be resistant to Root Rot.

Planting Replacement Trees

When a tree is lost from Root Rot infestation, the soil can be prepared prior to the planting of a replacement tree. Dig the tree hole 8 by 8 by 2.5

feet, a hole which will yield 80 cubic feet of soil.

Twenty pounds of soil sulphur, ten pounds of ammonium sulphate, and eight cubic feet of manure should be distributed through the soil.

Fill the hole in the following manner alternating the layers:

Step one: put one inch of manure on the bottom of the hole upon which

6u scatter some of the sulphur and ammonium sulphate.

Step two: place two inches of the soil on top of the manure.

Step three: repeat step one.

Step four: repeat step two. Continue building alternating layers until the hole is filled to four inches from the top.

Flood the depression to settle the soil and make sure it is thoroughly soaked.

Wait one month, then apply water before placing the replacement tree into the hole. If you are impatient, plant the new tree in the treated hole making sure that the roots do not come in contact with the treated soil.

Use untreated soil around taproot.

This method has been used successfully for 25 years in planting replacement trees.

The variety, Riverside, used as a rootstock, appeared to be disease free.

CONTROL

Sunburn damage to young trees prior to adequate canopy development may be reduced by application of reflective materials to reduce trunk temperatures. Various dilutions of latex paint ( white, indoor) with water have been recently used in other states to reduce the incidence of Cytospora canker in stone fruits.

The material may be sprayed

or

painted on the trunk and scaffold

branches. Winter injury may be reduced by preventing excessive tree growth late in the fall caused by late fertilization and irrigation.

Pruning, if possible, should be done in early spring so that active growth and subsequent callus formation may reduce the period of susceptibility to fungus infection. Diseased wood, because it is a source of inoculum, should be removed. Pruning wounds should be treated with a wound dressing.

Although the efficacy of fungicide applications to pruning wounds in pecans has not been determined, it is reasonable to believe from studies in other trees that this would be a valuable control measure.

Tools used in the pruning operations should be dipped in a disinfectant such as alcohol, formaldehyde, or sodium hypo chlorite.

Mechanical, herbicidal, or other types of injury should be avoided.

Because the fungus is inactive during the summer, inoculation studies will be initiated in the fall to determine if differences in disease tolerance exist in pecan varieties adapted to Arizona growing conditions.

R. B. Hine is Extension Plant Pathologist,

University of Arizona, Tucson; J. E. Wheeler is a Research Associate, Dept. of Plant Pathology, University of Arizona, Tucson; and

E. L. Clark is associated with Farmers Investment Company, Sahuarita, Arizona.

17

18

"Character" the members of our modern day society must improve theirs, say behavioral scientists, to cope with the crowding of population increases on our earth. These scientists say the most necessary criteria of

"character" is "consideration for

)thers." Development of this awareness or tolerance of others is of con-

cern in all walks of life -but how

does this subject concern Agriculture?

There is definitely some evidence

that a person who was born and

raised in a rural or agricultural environment is most apt to be an adult with "consideration for others. "' This agricultural setting, of 20 to 40 years ago and earlier which produced these desirable character attributes, is fast disappearing.

However, maybe we can ascertain some of the human environmental characteristics of this era that should be injected, if possible, into plans for our current and future society structures.

For our purposes here, character is defined as "how" or the "way" a person decides what he will do concerning other people which affects their state of being and welfare. If we, as parents or as a nation, are interested in our children, then apparently character research has discovered some probable factors that could be of assistance to us.' Let us examine five such factors in the light of their operation through a rural environment.

1. Likely of crucial importance for a child to learn to give "consideration for others" is the factor of being genuinely cared for, loved, and trusted by those near him, especially when he is younger ( from birth to three or four years of age) .

If the child becomes convinced he is "worth our time," then, he feels that learning is exciting, interesting, and leads to a feeling that he matters or makes a difference to others, that he is an important being.

Later, since he feels he is a valuable person, he "has time" for others and may become interested in their welfare. Perhaps then, love

( and being cared for and trusted) is the "non sine qua" for greater maturity in the development of character.

The average rural mother of 40 years ago would be considered "isolated" by today's standard yet this isolation produced a nearly constant

24 -hour relationship of mother and baby. This constant family relationship from birth to three or four years

of age constitutes to the child

its

The Influence of Rural America on the Character of the Nation by Robert E. Calmes and Robert L. Voigt*

"entire world."

Contrast this rural constant -relationship of mother and baby with today's urban and even rural situation of mobility and communication doing away with the isolation. Today's baby may quite often

be put into a nursery, ignored for more hours per day

( during TV shows ), and in general enjoy less tender loving care than his 40 year old rural predecessor.

2. Another factor in character development probably is our behaving as models of what we would like to see our children become. How much

"consideration for others" do we display, day in and out? How authoritarian or democratic are we when our children cause us, as parents, frustration and disgust?

Also, in what manner do we react to others who tend to be hostile and aggressive to us and our beliefs? Just how the internalization of socialized requirements of behavior occurs and develops is moot. Perhaps it is a process of imitation of a model; possibly it is identification with a model. Probably it is a combination of several things.

Nevertheless, the parent acting as a model in his day -by -day, hour -byhour behavioral displays around his children probably helps to determine their character.

The so- called isolation -or total involvement of the young rural child in his simple environment created a

*Professor of Educational Psychology and

Professor of Plant Breeding, respectively.

Amos, William E., and Wellford, Charles

F. Delinquency Prevention -Theory and

Practice, Prentice -Hall, Inc., 1967, p. 41.

rather simple "model" for him. A single way of life existed pretty much for all families in the rural community.

Families within a rural community usually developed an interdependence or concern for each other. This concern for others manifested itself in the farmers helping one another during peak seasonal labor periods and helping the one who became sick or had some other misfortune befall him.

This concern and helpfulness on family level for everyone the famillP came in contact with was instilled in the child as the way to live.

A more urban child of today may daily be confronted with several households with different rules

- as

he migrates down the block in play.

Many of the households have little in common other than geographical location. Many different families and ways of life, other than his own family, are daily available as models in some way. These different families have little in common so there is less concern among them for the fortunes of each other. "Independence -don't be bothered or concerned with the other person" may be more of the model today exhibited to our children.

3. Aligned with stability of personality and predictability of behavior for effective character development, we, as parents, need to be consistent in our behavior and demands concerning our children. If we, at our time, behave in relation to our child in a certain manner but when he is doing something else that would require similar performance from us, and we fail to do so, then he is probably confused.

In time, children w f

not be sure what to expect from us in many situations, thus leading them to behave somewhat unpredictably.

Inconsistent demands made on our chiln, under similar circumstances, also ill tend to confuse them.

Mindfully, children might think at such times,

"Why do they want me to do this, now, when before they wanted me to do something else ?"

One might characterize the rural agricultural home as being rather

"consistent" in many ways. The rural families livelihood and family life were all interrelated into one continuing situation. To the child there was no other way -of -life other than that presented to him. Any contacts outside of the family were very likely to be very similar to those encountered in his own home.

Again, contrasting with an urban family, the urban child is more likely to meet variable situations seemingly similar to the child but calling for apparently different or inconsistent responses.

More different and variable demands may be made on an urban ( or modern rural) family which filter down to the children.

4. If we, as parents, will take the trouble to tell them just why, rationally and realistically, certain behavior is required or appropriate this aprently promotes "consideration for ers." Rational explanation of reasons for certain behavior gives the child justification for his behavior and later can help him to begin to dis-

cern by himself what behavior is

more appropriate in a given situation to think through unique situations in advance of and along with attempts at suitable behavior.

If the behavior proves inappropriate, then the child may examine the situation more carefully for details and cues to determine what to do next.

In other words, a child begins to learn to use his own thinking to examine what the outcome of certain behavior might be and what details make the difference.

Again the rural, isolated, rather simply oriented family environment created a situation of not only consistent demands but also demands with rational and realistic explanations.

Business hazards of the farm were realistic to children and consistent from year to year. Jobs and duties of family members were quite consistent and explainable.

The farm duties had to be carried out everyday

- no matter

what! Thus the

Ural family situation was one of selfdiscipline for all concerned. Many times these duties and obligations also involved other families in the community. As a result the child was likely to develop a strong sense of self -discipline and responsibility to fulfill all of his obligations.

This rural child learned to make behavior decisions based on the probable effects of his behavior on others.

Today's urban child with little or no knowledge of the father's occupation and sometimes few real home responsibilities finds realistic demands at a minimum. The urban child is not really needed to make the family go and help in the father's profession hence less feeling of being needed or less sense of responsibility. The urban child's behavior is likely to be in response to variable outside demands on himself or the family hence some variability

( inconsistency ) of behavior response on his part.

5. If we parents use praise for our children more frequently than blame or punishment to demonstrate the appropriateness of behavior, along with the suggestions made above, "consideration for others" will probably develop in our children more effectively and more rapidly. If a child is praised or rewarded for his behavior, he feels less anxious ( and perhaps elated) and will likely repeat such behavior again, under similar circumstances.

If in some way, it is made clear to our children when and why their behavior is incorrect, not appreciated, or unsuitable, and what behavior is effective and warranted, and why, then, our children will tend to profit from such criticism.

It seems, therefore, praise is more effective than blame or punishment and more efficiently promotes desirable behavior.

In such processes "consideration for others" becomes an easier step, since the child tends to learn to examine social situations with greater care, before displaying behavior.

It may be wishful thinking to attribute our rural agricultural parents with doing a better job than urban parents with their children in this area of praise or criticism. However, from the child's point of view the rural farm situation was one involving family and profession or livelihood and presented an opportunity for the child to help in many ways. The rural child could help do many things around the home or farm and know he helped whether he received any praise or not.

The urban child of today has limited opportunity to really "help" the f am.

ily none to help father in most cases.

The rural child may have had many more "good" experiences of helping mother or dad and really knowing that he did a "man's job" that contributed to the welfare of the whole family unit.

In summary, what main characteristics or attributes should we try to include in our social planning for tomorrow?

The family unit should be rein-

forced with perhaps de- emphasis on working mothers and emphasis of the family unit to include greater demands of parents on children to contribute in a realistic manner to the welfare of the family unit.

Encouragement of youthful employment in our society probably would help to hold your youth accountable for their actions.

Finally, paying more attention to and expecting more from our youth will perhaps develop in them a greater sense of consideration for others.

REFERENCES

Belok, Michael; O. R. Bontrager; Howard C.

Oswalt; and Mary S. Morris. Approaches to Values in Education, Wm. C. Brown

Company, 1966.

Calmes, Robert E. "A Study of the Consistency of Certain Character Attitudes between the Earlier Ages of 23 -6 for One

Girl and 5 -6 for One Boy and the Later

Ages of 14 -24 for the Same Girl and 15 -17 for the Same Boy ( Brother and Sister Living at Home)," July, 1968, 58 pp., Character Research Project, Union College,

Schenectady, New York; to be published in Character Development.

Clarke, Paul A. Child -Adolescent Psychology, Charles E. Merrill Books, Inc., 1968.

Gnagey, William J. The Psychology of Discipline in the Classroom, The Macmillan

Company, New York, 1968.

Hoffman, Martin L.

"Childrearing Practices and Moral Development: Generalizations from Empirical Research," In Readings in the Psychology of Parent -Child Relations, pp 223 -235. Edited by Gene R. Medinnus. New York: John Wiley and Sons,

Inc., 1967.

Kohlberg, L.

"Moral Development and

Identification," Child Psychology, Chapter

VII, pp. 277 -332, Sixty- second Yearbook

National Society for the Study of Education, Part I.

Chicago Illinois, University of Chicago Press, 1963.

Ligon, Ernest M. Dimensions of Character.

The Macmillan Company, 1956.

Peck, Robert F. and Havighurst, Robert J., et al. The Psychology of Character Development, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., second edition, 1962.

Redl, Fritz and William W. Wattenberg.

Mental Hygiene in Teaching, second edition, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1959.

Shaftel, Fannie R. and George Shaftel. Role

-

Playing for Social Values, Prentice -Hall,

Inc., 1967.

19

Importance & Control

Sheep Bot Fly in Arizona

by George W. Ware, Leonard W. Dewhirst & Roy Echeverria*

This is a success story of perhaps the widest range and variety of cooperation of any project in the history of the College of Agriculture.

It concerns Roger S. Buchanan, a graduate student from New Zealand, who came to the University of Arizona to work on his doctoral degree in entomology.

Roger's research and support were financed by the

Dow Chemical Co., and the Chemagro Corp., manufacturers of the chemicals he tested against the sheep bot fly.

This financial support was a critical point, because at the time he began his studies

(1966) the University had a ruling preventing the employment of alien students.

His research concerned the value of systemic insecticides in controlling the sheep bot fly

( Oestrus ovis L. ), sometimes referred to as the sheep nose bot. The maggot of this fly lives and grows to full development in the nasal and sinus cavities of sheep, goats and sometimes their wild relatives.

lUU

The problem began in the Department of Entomology, but rapidly became involved in the Department of Animal

Pathology and later the Department of Animal Science.

The study was planned to test a number of systemic insecticides against the sheep bot fly and determine whether such a program was economical in lamb feeding operations in Arizona. The research began in Tucson, moved to Chambers and Window Rock on the Navajo

Indian Reservation, returned to a large Casa Grande feedlot and was completed in the Swift & Co. packing plant in

Los Angeles.

Several tests were conducted with the bot fly control in sheep from 1966 -68.

The overall effort was to eventually test the most successful insecticide formulation on a large herd of feeder lambs to determine if treatment and the resulting increased production would be profitab

The first tests on Navajo sheep and goats brought the University Experiment Station in Tucson indicated

Ruelene wormer drench was superior in sheep bot fly larvae control ( See Table 1 )

.

Based on this information a large scale test was begun on 400 Navajo lambs brought to the Echeverria Feeding Co., under supervision and contract with its owner Dr. Roy Echeverria, D.V.M. ( also a U of A alumnus) .

In October 1967, the 400 lambs were divided into four groups of 100 and given the following treatments at the indicated times:

Group

1

2

3

4

Ruelene

Drench

Oct. 21

Oct. 28

Jan.

5

None

Thiabendazole

None

Oct. 28

Oct. 21

Oct. 21

(iO

Nov.

Dec.

jan.

Feb.

\ I ar.

The graph above shows average group weights of lambs receiving different treatments for bot fly larval control.

Weights were corrected for shrinkage during weighing.

Group 1 was intended to compare Ruelene as an an-

* Head, Dept. of

Entomology; Professor, Department of Animal

Pathology; and Practicing Veterinarian, Casa Grande Animal Ho pital, respectively.

20

1

Table 1. Treatments and goats ered after given groups of five lambs and bot fly numbers recov-

slaughter.

eatmenta

larvae recovered

Lambs

Control

Co -Ral dip

Co -Ral feed additive

Ruelene feed additive

Ruelene wormer drench

Ruelene 8R pour -on

1aretin feed additive

Tiguvon water additive

Tiguvon oral drench

91

19

102

15

0

1'7

53

76

8

Goats

Control

Maretin oral drench

Maretin oral drench

Co -Ral feed additive

4

7

16

4 aLambs and goats treated November 14 and December 13, 1966, respectively.

thelmintic

( wormer) with thiabendazole ( Group 4)

Group 2 would show the lamb production as weight gains in worm- and bot -free lambs.

Group 3 would show the effect of drenching late in season, while Group 4 served as

.

the control and would show the effect of all stages of bot fly larvae infections in worm -free lambs.

After 5 months of hay -cube feeding, alfalfa grazing and finally spring desert grazing, all of the lambs were trucked to Los Angeles and slaughtered in the Swift & Co.

packing plant. There in the plant 20-25 heads of each group were thoroughly examined by Buchanan, Ware and Echeverria for bot fly larvae and each carcass was

- -7eighed and evaluated on 9 different classifications. The ding of carcasses was done by Dr. John Marchello and a graduate student, Forrest Dryden, both from the

Department of Animal Science.

Statistical analyses were conducted on all data gleaned from these weights and gradings, to determine whether there was any difference in the means of the grades between treatment groups.

The results of lamb growth are shown in Figure 1, and the sheep bot larvae counts for each group in Table 2. The head examinations showed very good control of larvae in treated groups. There was no significant difference between treatment groups with regard to performance characteristics such as growth rate and carcass evaluation.

Several other smaller tests were conducted over the two -year period involving the control of gastrointestinal nematodes and the sheep ked. The first tests, illustrated in Table 1, were also studied for activity against gastrointestinal nematodes. Nematode counts from the abomasa and small and large intestines showed that Ruelene, Co-

Ral dip and Maretin feed additive gave the best control.

Fifty ewes belonging to the herd of Richard Lynch on the Navajo Indian Reservation, received Maretin drench at 50 mg /kg. Egg counts in fecal samples for one month after treatment indicated good control of gastrointestinal parasites.

In another test, part of

Richard Lynch's herd was sprayed with Dursban and compared with those sprayed with Ronnel. Wettable powder and emulsion sprays of

4

ursban were applied at 0.0125 and 0.05% to groups of to 50 ewes. Ked counts for one month following treat-

Table 2. Bot fly infestation summary from lamb head examination at slaughter.

No. heads /sample

Avg. No. larvae /head

% heads infested

Larvae /head (range)

% reduction

Total No. larvae

1

20

0.05

5

0 -1

98.4

1

Treatmenta

2

20

0.15

10

0 -2

95.2

3

3

20

0.15

10

0 -2

95.2

3

4

25

3.12

64

0 -16

0.00

78 aGroups received the following drenches at the indicated times: (1)

Ruelene Oct. 21; (2) thiabendazole Oct. 21, Ruelene Oct. 28; (3) thiabendazole Oct. 21, Ruelene Jan. 5; and (4) thiabendazole Oct.

21.

ment were compared with a group sprayed with a 0.25% emulsion of Ronnel, and a control group.

All Dursban formulations except the 0.0125% emulsion equaled or surpassed the Ronnel standard.

SUMMARY

These results confirm those of other workers showing that systemic insecticides are active against a wide range of parasites. Since, however, it was not economical to treat for bot fly infestation in the feedlot and there are cheaper wormers than Ruelene, it is suggested that, under conditions similar to those of these trials, systemics should not be recommended for control of bot fly or nematode alone. Where the bot, gastrointestinal nematodes and sheep ked occur together in a flock, a different set of economic parameters exists and a systemic treatment, effective against all parasites, may be administered alone, or once in a wormer regimen.

Sampling methods used on sheep to determine sheep tick infestation. Arrows mark characteristic location of sheep tick on ram shoulders.

21

Costs & Returns for Arizona General Crop Farms

Table 1.

Summary Comparison of Per Acre Variable Costs and Re-

by John R. Wildermuth & turns for Representative General Crop Farms, by County

and Crop.a'b

William E. Martin

County

Cochise Graham Maricopa

Pinal

Yuma

Crop and Item

Alfalfa

Gross Returns

Variable Cost

Returns Above Variable Cost

Barley

Gross Returns

Variable Cost

Returns Above Variable Cost

Beets

Gross Returns

Variable Cost

Returns Above Variable Cost

Cantaloups

Gross Returns

Variable Cost

Returns Above Variable Cost

Cotton

Gross Returns

Variable Cost

Returns Above Variable Cost

Sorghum

Gross Returns

Variable Cost

Returns Above Variable Cost

Spring Lettuce

Gross Returns

Variable Cost

Returns Above Variable Cost

Wheat

Gross Returns

Variable Cost

Returns Above Variable Cost a.

150.70

97.55

53.15

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

249.30

211.08

38.22

N.A.

N. A.

N.A.

307.97

189.40

118.57

109.83

95.77

14.06

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

146.31

81.94

64.37

91.42

52.77

38.65

249.30

193.01

56.29

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

336.86

163.45

173.41

100.67

66.77

33.90

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

191.80

142.88

48.92

282.90

184.21

364.87

203.32

161.55

1,017.75

634.84

382.91

The basic crop budgets for Cochisc, Maricopa and Pinal water cost categories. The set of cost and returns figures

(Cochise - 200 foot lift; Maricopa, Salt River Project and considered to be the most representative for the county as a

89.82

53.63

36.19

98.69

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

90.36

74.22

16.14

71.28

54.52

16.76

178.10

147.94

30.16

80.15

64.99

15.16

282.90

208.36

74.54

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

374.23

243.83

130.40

90.72

81.58

9.14

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

65.76

74.25

-8.49

191.80

91.50

100.30

92.66

45.05

47.61

N.A.

N.A.

N.A.

967.20

581.34

385.86

471.43

218.35

258.08

82.73

58.32

24.41

1,088.85

668.32

420.53

79.60

53.07

26.53

Counties reflect alternative presented in this summary

Pinal

- 400 foot lifts) are whole.

Estimation of the profit potential and /or credit needs of a farming operation requires three sets of data.

These are (1) the variable costs of producing an acre of a particular crop, ( 2) the expected returns from the sale of the product of that acre and,

( 3 ) the fixed

( overhead) costs associated with ownership of the whole farm's land and equipment on which and with which a combination of crops may be grown.

Summary data of these types are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for common field crops and representative farm sizes for five major farming counties in Arizona. Detailed information, from which these summaries were developed, is available in College of Agriculture Report No. 253,

COSTS AND RETURNS DATA FOR REP-

RESENTATIVE GENERAL CROP FARMS

IN ARIZONA. The detailed report is available on request either from the b.

The letters N.A. stand for not applicable. Budgets were not the indicated county because the crops are not typically general crop farm in that county.

prepared for these crops in grown on a representative

Assistant Professor and Professor, respectively, nomics.

Department of

Agricultural

Ec

22

Table 2.

Summary Comparison of Representative Farm Total

Annual Fixed Costs, by County and Farm Size.'

County 160 Acres

(dollars)

Farm Size

320 Acres

( dollars)

800 Acres

(dollars)

Cochise

Graham

Maricopa

Pinal

Yuma

11,561

16,170

19,296

15,429

18,982

23,020

30,931

46,150

29,385

42,142

51,451

71,927

106,015

59,764

94,585 a.

Total fixed costs per farm include depreciation, taxes, insurance, interest on the average investment, and certain miscellaneous costs.

Sec the fixed cost budgets in Report No.

253 for details.

Calculation of Returns to Land and Management for a

Representative Farm

To illustrate how the data may be used to develop a cost and returns picture for a whole farm, we shall demonstrate the calculation of an expected return to land and management for a representative 320 -acre general crop farm in Final County

( see Table 3 ) .

An assumed rotation is presented in percentages in Column

1 and acres in Column 2 of the top portion of Table 3.

The individual crop per acre returns above variable cost are reproduced in Column 3.

Acres ( Column 2) times the per acre returns above variable cost ( Column

3 ) yields the total returns above variable cost for each crop ( Column 4 ) .

These results

are added to obtain

total returns above variable costs for the whole farm. The relevant fixed costs budget is summarized in the middle portion of Table 3. Note that since we are calculating return to land and management, interest on the land

( including real property investment affixed to the land) is excluded from the fixed cost calculation. Then total annual fixed costs ( excluding interest on the land and real property investment) is subtracted from the total farm returns above variable costs ( the bottom portion of Table 3) to derive returns to land and management,

$7,270 for the case in question.

Using this procedure, readers may adapt the data from the detailed report in order to estimate farm costs and returns in particular situations of their own interest.

Agricultural Economics Department or from the College of Agriculture's

Publications Office.

This report replaces the crop budget data that, until this year, appeared in the annual publication ARIZONA AGRICULTURE.

Table 1 contains per acre gross returns, variable costs and returns above variable costs by county and crop.

Not all crops are analyzed in all counties.

Budgets were not prepared for a crop unless that crop could be considered part of a typical rotation on a representative general crop farm in the indicated county.

While only one set of variable cost and returns data on each relevant crop - county combination is presented here, the complete budget presentations

Pinal for Cochise,

Maricopa,

Counties and contain alternative influenced by cost -returns data as varying water costs.

Table 2 summarizes the total annual fixed costs associated with a representative 160 -,

320 -, and 800 -acre eneral crop farm in each of the five nties.

Table 3.

Calculation of Returns to Land and Management for a

Representative 320 -Acre General Crop Farm in Pinal

County

Returns above Variable Cost for the Whole Farm:

Enterprice Combination

Crop

Percent of Total

Acreage Acres

Per Acre Returns Total Returns

Above Variable Above Variable

Cost

( dollars)

Cost

(dollars)

Alfalfa

Barley

Beets

Cotton

Sorghum

15

20

15

37

13

48

64

48

118

42

Total Returns Above Variable Cost for the Whole Farm

30.16

15.16

74.54

130.40

9.14

Fixed Costs:

Depreciation

Taxes, Insurance and Miscellaneous

Interest on Investment (Excluding Land)

Total Fixed Costs for the Whole Farm

Returns to Land and Management:

($23,215 - $15,945)

(dollars)

9,646

2,944

3,355

15,945

7,270

1,447

970

3,578

15,387

383

23,215

23

24

Citrus Acreage Up

(From Page 15) rent acreage in the one through five year age group : tangerine- types, 73 percent; red grapefruit, 63 percent;

Valencia oranges, 46 percent; and lemons, 42 percent. For these varieties and types, a doubling of recent output levels in the next six to eight years is certainly possible.

Are there any indications of a slowdown in the expansion of citrus acreage in Arizona? This is a difficult, if not impossible, question to answer with confidence; however, in the case of Valencia oranges, plantings in the last two years have declined. In

January of this year only 80 acres of one year old and 980 acres of two year old Valencia trees were reported; this compares to over 2,000 acres each in the three, four and five year age categories. For red grapefruit an opposite trend seems to have developed; the 420 acres of one year old trees represent the largest annual planting

of red grapefruit in the past five

years. However, for the other varieties and types no clear trends are discernible. Moreover, in the case of Valencia oranges and red grapefruit, the trends noted could be quickly reversed by the actions of two or three large producers.

Arizona's Share

Although citrus acreage in Arizona has expanded rapidly, the total is still quite small when compared to acreage in other states, particularly Florida and California. For example, Arizona's bearing acreage of oranges for the

1967 -68 season was equal to only two percent of the total bearing acreage of oranges in Florida and California; for grapefruit the comparable figure was seven percent.

The impact of large acreages in other states is clearly felt in Arizona. Studies by economists have shown that average orange and grapefruit prices in Arizona are more significantly influenced by production levels in Florida and California than by the quantity of production in Arizona. This relationship is not likely to change in the near future since acreage and output are also expanding in the

Texas grapefruit)

.

other producing states ( especially Florida oranges and

In the case of lemons, Arizona's share is somewhat larger: 15 percent of the total California- Arizona bearing acreage in January 1969. Furthermore, with 44 percent of the nonbearing lemon acreage of the two states located in Arizona, its share will certainly increase in the future.

Implications and Conclusions

What additional implications can be drawn from the data discussed in this article? Clearly, as the new groves reach maturity, more inputs such as fertilizer, insecticides, and labor will be required. Of equal importance will be the expansion in packing house facilities necessary to quickly and efficiently handle the larger volume of production. Some packing houses are already expanding and modernizing in anticipation of larger crops in the future.

The expanded acreage and the relocation of production will continue to create problems for the marketing organizations and the market order administrative committees.

For example, the operation of the Lemon

Marketing Order is already under considerable stress due to the rapid increase of lemon acreage and output in Arizona.

Finally, because of Arizona's r tively minor share of total U. S.

citrus production, the anticipated output increases in Arizona alone probably would not adversely affect the price and income situation faced by citrus growers in this State. However, when the expected output increases in the other producing states are considered, it appears that average or above average national production will cause prices and returns to growers to fall considerably below the higher levels of the late fifties and early sixties.

This is especially true in the case of oranges where other factors such as increased world production and the wider use of substitutes will accentuate the impact of larger U. S.

production.

PROGRESSIVE

AGRICULTURE

IN ARIZONA

TIME To

RENE W

Your Subscription

Clip out coupon below, correct and mail to:

George Alstad, Editor

College of Agriculture

University of Arizona

Tucson, Arizona 85721

Official Publication of the

College of Agriculture and

School of Home Economics

The University of Arizona

Wevtaeot

melt, Dean

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement