of grigilture, Tucson University

of grigilture, Tucson University



Arizona, of University grigilture,


The Pride We Have In Our Students, Show.



We take a great deal of pride in the students who enroll in the College of Agriculture including the School of

Home Economics.

These young men and women are dedicated in the pursuit of their studies.

And, we know that the

citizens of Arizona, too, will take considerable pride when these young men and women graduate to begin to serve mankind with their accomplishments.

One of the reasons the graduates do so well is because of the two -way communications between students and faculty; between students and advisors.

And, one of the reasons for our good communications lies with Dr. Darrel

S. Metcalfe, Associate Dean and Director of Resident Instruction for the


It is under his guidance that the students have such meaningful contact with the teaching faculty, the researchers in the Agricultural Experiment Station, and with the Specialist with the Cooperative Extension Service all in the College of Agriculture.

At first students turn to their advisors with questions involved in the development of class schedules.

As contacts continue the areas of

In this Issue


Editorial by Harold E. Myers, Dean



Miss Alice Grace Ryan, 1889 -1972





A New Lovegrass for the Southwest by R. J. Joy, Robert D. Slayback and Clinton Renney

Wheat Supplies & Exports have Little Effect on Price of Bread by C. Curtis Cable, Jr., and Elmer L. Menzie

The Effect of Soil Moisture Regimes on Water Use Efficiency and Growth Components of Alfalfa by R. J. Joy, H. T. Poole and A. K. Dorbenz

National Trends in Production & Use of Vegetables by C. Curtis Cable, Jr.





Progressive Agriculture in Arizona

September -October,1972, Volume XXIV, No. 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.

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.

trations will be furnished on request.

Photos or other illus-

Editorial Board members are: G. J. Graham, Chairman, R. S. Firch, A. D. Halderman, A. W.

Johnson, D. E. Manning, J. W. Stull, A. E. Thompson, L. N. Wright; and Ex- Officio, D. S. Metcalfe, and George Alstad, Editor.



9 confidences and discussion grow, frequently to matters which are personal.

It is sometimes very helpful to find out if a particular alignment of courses will be too time consuming or if there will be enough time to allow the addition of another course.

Between them they usually find a workable solution.

If the grades begin to suffer the advisors usually are able to help pinpoint the source of the problem and frequently offer a choice of alternatives.

And, the emphasis is on that point


help the student find a workable, acceptable solution to his problem.

This approach seems to work because one of the signs of acceptance of the advisors is when the studen develops

a deep and long -last'

friendship. And, many of these frien ships continue long after graduation.

This isn't the end, either!

Dr. Metcalfe is finding new ways to keep these relationships young, vital, alive and meaningful.

:2LAA4 F. 742e,


College of Agriculture, and

School of Home Economics

THE COVER shows ingredients of the article beginning on page 6.

This article demonstrates how the price of wheat in domestic or world markets have a little or no effect upon the price of a loaf of bread.

The 2% cents worth of wheat flour in a loaf of bread is not what is causing the cost of bread to reflect an inflationary spiral.

Miss Alice Grace Ryan, known throughout Arizona as Grace Ryan,

20, 1972, in Tucson where


in 1957 tram the Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arizona. She retired after she served Arizonans 37 years on their farms and ranches throughout the state, a veteran home economist who gave so much to her friends and admirers.. She placed in file at the University her own accounting of her life. For her friends, the words below will spring to life just as they have known Grace all these many years.

Here are her words




"Born at McCook, Nebraska, of

American -Irish parentage, I am the second child and second daughter in a family of four children two girls and two boys. The forebearers of both my parents left Ireland during a time of religious upheaval and sought homes in free America.

"The family of my father, Bernard

John Ryan, settled first among relatives in Canada, but later moved to

Michigan and then to Illinois.

"The family of my mother, Elizabeth Slattery, took lands in New York, but soon became discouraged with bleak and unproductive soil.

`Tales of rich farming land available to the `West' led them, also, to Illinois where they cleared timberland and settled in Henderson Grove, hamlet near Galesburg, Ill. There my father and mother a mere were married. Six years later they moved to begin western life in McCook, Nebraska, a frontier village of homesteaders.

"From McCook, the family moved to O'Neill, Neb., a second pioneer outpost where rigorous living, with minimal comforts, lers. There was the rule for set my father, a merchant, served the little homesteading settlement; engaged in the cattle business with a ranch partner, and generally took active part in the vigorous life of the new village. A later move took the family to Neligh, Neb., in the heart of a rich farming area. There we remained until 1912, when my parents retired to a citrus acreage near

San Diego, Calif.

"After graduating from N e l i g h,

Neb., High School in 1905 I entered the University of Nebraska attracted by a new and definitely `unproven' field known as Domestic Science.

aAs a result of this venture ( under-

Wen after much prayerful consider-

Miss Alice Grace


1889 -1972

ation on the part of my parents ) I was graduated from the University with a Bachelor of Science degree in Home

Economics, 1912.

"I was appointed supervisor of

Home Economics in the secondary schools of Council Bluffs, Iowa. There

I assumed responsibility for curriculum planning and teaching of 400 girls enrolled in homemaking courses. Then

I served as instructor and department head of home economics at the University of Nebraska.

"In 1920 I accepted a teaching position in Home Economics department at Mesa, Arizona. I was the only instructor, and incidentally, one of two women in Arizona hired by the first

Vocational Home Economics Supervisor for Arizona.

"From this assignment I was re-

cruited to work with the Arizona

Cooperative Extension Service. It happened because I had met two enterprising and interesting Extension staff members

Mrs. Mary Pritner Lockwood,

State Home Demonstration

Leader, and Miss Agnes Hunt ( Mrs.

Parks ) State Club Leader.


I entered the Extension

Service in Arizona, I found it satisfying, stimulating and fascinating.

There began for me an intensive period of service first as an Agent assigned to Graham, Greenlee and

Cochise Counties; later, to be moved to Pinal and Cochise counties, and finally to Maricopa county. At Mari copa I served from 1923 to 1946 with the exception of a year devoted to sabbatical leave. In 1946 I was transferred to the Home Management division of the State Staff at the University of Arizona.

"The years have offered abundant opportunity for service to farm families in all financial and social brackets.

I am convinced that my early life in rural communities, my close association with families reared on farms, and my basic training in pioneer home life and in formal courses in homemaking have all added to my continuing interest in the Extension program.

"There was much difficult and discouraging pioneer work to be done in the Arizona counties where worked, but it has been leavened by rich personal contacts and friendships

I and by appreciation and cooperation.

Believing that the program of Extension service for rural families should stem from the local groups and should reflect their wants, needs, interests and attitudes, it has been my desire to make a conscientious, sincere effort to ascertain these factors and meet them in a practical fashion. Always I have been aware that it is necessary to merit confidence and faith, as well.

"An overall objective for Extension work calls for a unified educational farm and home program for rural families with a basic goal of providing a farm income sufficient to insure a standard of living sound in several respects. This standard should provide a rural health program to meet family health needs as well as protective health measures relative to local community health problems. It should look toward the development of vocational interests and aptitudes; provide adequate housing for rural families, and seek desirable social and recreational contacts within the community itself.

"Personal compensations too numerous to mention have come with the years. Among them are the satisfactions which come from seeing enduring adult and youth groups form to produce leadership for all phases of the Extension and community programs."

Grace Ryan.



` Palar' Wilman lovegrass (Eragrostis superba Peyr) has been jointly released by the Soil Conservation Service,

Agricultural Research

Service, and University of Arizona.

Palar, a native of South Africa, was initially received by the SCS Plant Materials

Center at Tucson, Arizona, from the

ARS Plant Introduction

Station at

Pullman, Washington.

The variety has been included in a nine -year evaluation program that started in 1963.

Wilman lovegrass is recognized by ranchers and others for its superior grazing preference compared to other lovegrasses.

The former commercial source of Wilman lovegrass, no longer available, did not come from an officially released variety. Palar has been released as a superior natural selection out of Wilman lovegrass.

Because Wilman lovegrass is recognized for its palatability, the new variety is named Palar.

In plantings that are not protected, it is the first lovegrass to be grazed to the ground.

It has numerous relatively broad leaves corn pared to other lovegrasses.

Digestibility trials showed Palar to have a greater percentage of digestible dry


matter than A -68 Lehmann lovegrass

(Eragrostis lehmanniana Nees) or

`Catalina' lovegrass ( Eragrostis cur vula (Schrad.) Nees ), an improved strain of what is commonly known as

Boer lovegrass.

Drought Tolerant

Palar is well adapted to the desert grasslands of the southwest with 12 to 16 inches total precipitation at elevations below 4,500 feet.


It is mod-

well adapted to the drier

desert shrub areas where precipitation ranges from 10 to 12 inches. For best performance Palar should be planted

Bob Joy, one of the authors, is shown harvesting 'Palar' Wilman lovegrass planted in

June, 1969, on the Santa Rita Range site. This photo was taken November, 1970. The vigorous, dense stand was obtained following two growing seasons during which summer rainfall averaged 8.14 inches.

A New Lovegrass for the Southwest

By R. J. Joy, Robert D. Slayback, and Clinton W. ftenney°

in areas which receive slightly more moisture than would be required for

Lehmann or Catalina lovegrass. However, Palar is a very drought tolerant grass.

It is maintaining fair to good stands on an experimental site with as little as 9 inches total yearly precipitation and only 3 to 4.5 inches of

Table 1.

Performance of Palar, Commercial Wilman, and Cata-

lina lovegrass Planted 1967 -1970 at Rancho Sacatal (Willcox, Arizona ) elevation 4,500 feet.


Accession 1967

*Plants per ft'

1968 1969

Eragrostis superba

Eragrostis curvula




Eragrostis superba










*An average of 15 samples per plot taken 10 -23 -70

**Yield taken on I967 planting.

Air Dry Forage

Yield lbs /Acre

1970 11/69










628 summer rainfall. Palar grows best on sandy loam to clay loam soil.

Although Wilman lovegrass is not extremely cold tolerant, several plantings of Palar are surviving at elevations of 4,400 to 4,600 feet where winter temperatures have dropped to as low as 10° F. for brief periods.

In trial plantings at Rancho Sacatal near

Willcox, Arizona, Palar has shown less winter injury than the former standard commercial Wilman lovegrass.

Superior Performance

Palar Wilman lovegrass has demonstrated superior performance in seedling establishment and forage yield when compared to the former commercial Wilman and other lovegrasses.

In the desert grassland zone with sum


Soil Conservationist, Manager and Plant M' teraals Specialist (retired), respectively,

Plant Materials Center, Tucson,


mer ( July, August, and September) rainfall of 6.5 to 9 inches Palar has own excellent stand establishment

d superior forage production


Tables 1 and 2)


In the drier desert shrub zone with summer rainfall between 4 and 6 inches Palar is performing nearly as well in stand establishment and has forage production comparable to Lehmann lovegrass ( Table 3) .

Lehmann, however, has shown superior performance on sites with summer rainfall below 5 inches.

Seed Yields

Palar has good seed production when grown under irrigation.


Tucson spring growth starts March 15 to 30 and two seed crops are taken.

The first crop is harvested June 15 to


Fields are clipped and the second crop is started August 1 to 10 so that flowering occurs during the cooler fall temperatures.

Second crop harvest occurs October 25 to November 5.

Total seed yields per season for Palar planted in August 1967 at Tucson

Table 2.


Performance of Palar, Commercial Wilman, Catalina,

and Lehmann Lovegrass Planted in 1968, 1969, 1970 and

1971 on the Santa Rita Experimental Range ( Sahuarita,

Arizona ) elevation 3,000 feet.

Eragrostis superba

Eragrostis superba

Eragrostis curvula

Eragrostis lehmanniana











Unlike the stand shown in photo at left the one above was grown under irrigation at

Tucson. The stand also is ` Palar' Wilman lovegrass and shows an excellent seed production above.

Tucson site.

The combine is harvesting a mature seed crop, June, 1971, at the potential germination 87 percent;

1971, germinated seed 66 percent, firm seed 28 percent, total potential germination

94 percent. Firm seed is a desirable characteristic for

*Plants per ft2

1969 1970









Yield lbs /Acre











1,000,000 to 1,200,000 seeds per

pound. The inflorescence is a narrow panicle 15 to 30 cm long.

Spikelets are light straw colored, very flat, 17 to 27 flowered, 1 to 1.5 cm long, 6 to

9 mm wide, and awnless.

Palar is limited to one generation each of breeder, foundation, and certified seed.

Breeder and foundation seed will be maintained by the SCS

Plant Materials Center at Tucson.

Foundation seed will be available through the Soil Conservation District

Seed Increase program and the Arizona Crop Improvement Association.

Limited supplies of commercially produced seed should be available in the fall of 1972.

°An average of 15 samples per plot taken 11 -23 -71

° °Air dry yields on 1969 planting.

were 542, 440, 520, and 345 lbs. per acre for 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971, respectively.

Average potential germination of

Palar seed is approximately 89 percent.

Firm seed (live seed that is dormant from physiological and /or mechanical causes ) accounts for approximately 36 percent of the total pure live seed although it has been as high as 67 percent. For example, seed harvested in June 1971 showed the following official laboratory test results in September 1971: germinated seed

- 24 percent,

firm seed

67 percent, total potential germination

91 percent.

The percentage of firm seed is reduced with time. Seed from a 1969 harvest was tested in 1970 and again in 1971.

ows :

The results were as

1970, germinated seed


Wrcent, firm seed

35 percent, total seedling establishment on rangeland and occurs to some extent in most lovegrasses.


Palar is a perennial, warm- season bunchgrass with strong seedling vigor.

Leaves are both basal and carried high on the culms.

Seeds are light reddish brown, oval shaped, and very small.

There are approximately



Eragrostis superba

Eragrostis curvula



Eragrostis lehmanniana

A -68


The work


Louis Hamilton, former Plant Materials Center Manager, Ted Spaller, Agronomist

( deceased), and Darwin Anderson, SCS

Plant Materials Specialist ( deceased), is recognized.

As a result of their

foresight Palar was included in the

Plant Materials Center testing program.

Dr. Gilbert L. Jordan, Professor of Watershed Management, University of Arizona, supplied valuable data obtained in his research on Palar.

Table 3.

Performance of Palar, Catalina, and Lehmann lovegrass planted in 1969 at San Simon, Arizona, elevation 4,000


Plants per ft2









Air Dry Forage

Yield lbs /Acre






Wheat Supplies & Exports

Have Little Effect on

Price of Bread

by C. Curtis Cable, Jr., and Elmer L. Menzie*

A three -year grain sale agreement with the U.S.S.R.

was announced by U.S. government officials on July 8,

1972. This agreement created considerable late- summer and early -fall activity in U.S. grain markets. Domestic prices for some grains increased appreciably, and these increases further kindled the controversies relative to causes for rising U.S. food prices.

For example, the market price for wheat in the U.S.

rose from $1.32 per

bushel on July 15 to

$1.51 on

August 15.' Apparently, because of this relative sudden and sharp increase in wheat prices, newspapers and other news media carried stories on the likelihood that retail bread prices would rise significantly in the U.S.

Supposedly, the higher wheat prices were caused by a feared shortage of wheat resulting from the sale agreement with the U.S.S.R.

Budget- conscious consumers reacted negatively to the prospects of higher bread prices, and to the reported reasons for justifying the increase. However, as would be expected, most U.S. grain farmers reacted favorably to the grain sale agreement.

Will the grain sale agreement with the U.S.S.R result in a severe wheat shortage in the U.S.? And, is the recent

July -to- August increase in wheat prices a sound economic justification for an appreciable increase in retail bread prices?

In an attempt to answer these questions and provide some insight on the issues involved, this article ( 1 ) summarizes the provisions of the grain -sale agreement and the reported sales as of mid -September, ( 2) analyzes the impact of these sales on current U.S. wheat supplies, and

( 3) discusses the historical relationship between wheat supplies and U.S. retail prices for flour and bread.

The Grain Sale Agreement

This agreement provided that ( 1 ) the U.S.S.R. would buy, from private U.S. grain dealers, $750 million in grains over a 3 -year period,

( 2 )

$200 million worth would be purchased in the first year, (3) the U.S. would extend credit up to the total amount of the purchase but no more than $500 million would be outstanding at any one time, and (4 ) interest would be 61/8 percent and repayment of principal and accrued interest would be made in three annual installments.

According to a news release,' at the time of the announcement of this agreement, the U.S. government expected most of the purchase would involve feed grains.

Although the U.S.S.R. had a poor wheat crop, U.S. officials apparently did not expect large purchases of wheat.

However, by the end of the first week in September, the U.S.S.R. had purchased about 400 million bushels of wheat, and total purchases approximated $1 billion. Obviously, the rate of purchase is about four times that anticipated by U.S. negotiators.

Changes in Wheat Supplies and Uses

On July 1, the beginning of the wheat -marketing year, the U.S. had about 865 million bushels of wheat on hand

( Chart 1 )


This was the second largest "beginning stocks" since 1964, and was equal to domestic needs for approximately one year.

In addition to these stocks, the indicated 1972 U.S.

wheat crop of almost 1.6 billion bushels is the third larg on record. As shown in Chart 1, the two largest crops weNb in 1968 and 1971, and there has been a pronounced but irregular upward trend in production since the early 1960s.

However, during most of the past quarter -century, U.S.

wheat production has fluctuated between about 1.0 -1.5

billion bushels annually.

Adding production, and a small volume of imports, to the stock on hand gives the total available wheat supply for the year. This supply reached an all -time peak of more than 2.6 billion bushels in the early 1960s, then declined steadily to about 1.8 billion bushels in 1966.

Since then, however, annual supply has increased fairly steadily to about 2.4 billion bushels at the beginning of the present wheat- marketing year.

U.S. domestic use of wheat this year is expected to total slightly more than 800 million bushels, which is down from last year's use of almost 900 million bushels ( Chart

2 )


Uses for food are expected to remain at past year levels of 500 -525 million bushels, and seed at about 60 million bushels. Wheat for feed, which fluctuates more than other uses, is expected to drop below last year's high because of adequate supplies of feed grains and relatively higher wheat prices.

Exports of U.S. wheat, which have fluctuated substantially during the past 20 -25 years, are expected to rise above last year's 632 million bushels. How much they will rise, however, is still in doubt. In the August Wheat

Situation, 1972 -73 exports were projected at 800 million bushels.' But, the very recent "more- than -expected" wheat

*Marketing Specialist, Cooperative Extension

Service, and Proles( of Agricultural Economics Department, respectively.


purchases by U.S.S.R.

may increase this year's exports to an all -time high of more than one billion bushels.

Adding strength to prospects for increased U.S. exrts are increased requirements in Eastern Europe and

China, and lower available supplies from Canada, Australia, and Argentina.

Chart 1.


on Hand, Production and Total

Supply of U. S. Wheat, 1945-72'.

was about 121/2 cents to 25 cents ( Chart 3) .

by 1971 the price had doubled

For the same period, the average retail price for 5 pounds of general purpose white flour increased from 48 cents to 60 cents ( Chart 4 )


In contrast to these steadily rising retail prices for bread and flour, U.S. wheat prices have been relatively unstable, but at a fairly constant level for the past

25 years.

The farm value of wheat used in making a 5

-pound bag of flour has held fairly steady near the 20 -cent level since

1947 (Chart 4)



Chart 2.

Domestic Use, Exports and Total Disappearance of U. S.

Wheat, 1945 -72.





J 2000










J /500




:71 J







` o






A. i

Nt v i .








A t l i



I i







/965 i .

it l i t


Source: U. S. Dept. of Agric., Food Grain Statistics Through 1967,

Statistical Bulletin 423, Economic Research Service, April, 1968; and appropriate issues of Wheat Situation, U. S. Dept. of Agric.



/950 /955 /960




1Total supply includes stocks on hand and production, plus imports which have been 5 million bushels or less annually since 1962, and have not exceeded 32 million bushels since 1944.

Source: U. S. Dept. of Agric., Food Grain Statistics Through 1967,

Statistical Bulletin 423, Economic Research Service, April, 1968; and appropriate issues of Wheat Situation, U. S. Dept. of Agric.

Assuming U.S. exports in 1972 -73 total 1.2 billion bushels, which is 50 percent greater than the projection in the August Wheat Situation, and 800 million bushels are used domestically, total disappearance will reach an all time high of 2.0 billion bushels. Deducting this amount from the 1972 -73 projected supply would leave stocks of about 400 million bushels as of July 1, 1973.

This would be the smallest "stocks on hand" figure since 1952, but would still be sufficient to fulfill about 6 months of domestic requirements. This quantity is only slightly less than the stocks on hand at the beginning of the 1967 -68 wheat -marketing year, and exceeds stocks available during 1945 -52.

Steadily Rising Retail Prices for Bread and Flour

Average retail prices for bread and flour have risen ost yearly during the past quarter


In 1947 e average retail price for one pound of white bread

Do Retail Bread Prices Reflect Wheat Supplies?

Comparing the data in Charts 3 and 4 with data in

Chart 1, a number of observations can be made relative to supply -price relationships between wheat, flour and bread.

During the past 25 years, stocks and total available supplies of U.S. wheat have ranged from relatively high to relatively low, and have either been rapidly increasing or declining ( Chart 1)


However, during this period, the farm value of wheat used in a 5 -pound bag of flour has fluctuated but remained near the 20 -cent level

( Chart 4)


In contrast, there has been an irregular but a very pronounced upward trend in the retail price for a

5 -pound bag of flour ( Chart 4)


There were short -term periods when the farm value of wheat in flour, and the retail flour price were both rising. However, there were other short -term periods when the retail flour price was rising while the farm value of wheat was holding steady or declining.

Throughout this 25 -year period of relatively large up- and -down changes in wheat stocks and supplies, the retail price of a 1 -pound loaf of bread rose steadily higher

(Please turn page)


( Chart 3)


In contrast to this year -to -year rise in bread prices, the farm value of flour used in one pound of bread fluctuated slightly but remained very near 21/2 cents.

Obviously, then, retail bread prices were rising even during short -term periods when the farm value of wheat was declining.

The question these observations raise is, "Since wheat is the major raw material used in the manufacture of bread and flour, why are not changes in wheat supplies and the farm value of wheat more closely reflected in retail prices for bread and flour ?"

Chart 3.

Retail Price, Farm Value of Wheat,

Flour and Other Ingredients, and Farm


Retail Spread for A Pound of White

Bread, U. S., 1947 -70.

flour and for all other consumer products must cover ALL costs for raw materials plus processing and distributing the final product. If consumers will not p a retail price which covers these costs, including profifug the product will soon be discontinued.

Although wheat is the major raw material used in flour and bread, the value ( cost ) of the wheat is relatively

Chart 4.

Retail Price, Farm Value of Wheat, and Farm


Retail Spread for Five Pounds

of General Purpose White Flour, U. S.,

1947 -70.

















I ,








/960 /965



1Gross farm value has allowance for by- products.

Source: Forrest E. Scott and Henry T. Badger, Farm- Retail Spreads for Food Products, Miscellaneous Publication 741, Economic Research Service, U. S. Dept. of Agric., January, 1972.

What Does Retail Bread Price Include?

There is a basic reason behind the steady increases in retail bread and flour prices, which was ignored in the above comparisons. This was purposely done to illustrate a common error made by a majority of consumers, farmers, politicians, other public officials and the public in general.

The above comparisons failed to recognize the corn

mon- sense, economic fact that retail prices for bread and

I .

i l



/955 /960 /965



1Gross farm value less allowance for by- products.

Source: Forrest E. Scott and Henry T. Badger, Farm -Retail Spreads for Food Products, Miscellaneous Publication 741, Economic Research Service, U. S. Dept. of Agric., January, 1972.

small compared to the total of all other costs for materials, processing, distributing, and displaying these consumer products.

For example, the farm value of wheat used in a 5 -pound bag of flour has accounted for only about

20 cents of the total retail price ranging from 48 to 60 cents, over the past 20 -25 years

( Chart 4 )


The cost

( price) of the wheat has remained fairly stable, whereas the retail price for flour has risen to cover cost increases for other items.

The farm value of wheat used in a pound of white bread has remained fairly stable at about 21/2 cents since the late 1940s

( Chart 3 )


But, the retail price has

doubled in order to cover cost increases for other produi

( Turn to page 15)


The Effect of Soil Moisture Regimes

On Water -Use Efficiency and Growth Components of Alfalfa

There has been little consistency in the amount of water used to grow irrigated alfalfa.

Standberry ( 9) surveyed irrigation schedules among growers. He found that 60% of the growers irrigated after each cutting,

25% whenever water was delivered,

10% on plant appearance, and 5% on soil-moisture depletion.

Some growers in southern Arizona do not irrigate alfalfa during July and August because of increased demand for water by other crops (7)


Since there is great variation in the amount of water used to grow alfalfa, emphasis should be given to increased efficiency of alfalfa production; that is, maximum production with a minimum amount of water.

itAn alfalfa irrigation study was con cted at Tucson, Arizona, from 1968 ough 1970. The study investigated the water -use efficiency, yield, leaf -tostem ratio, percentage protein, and stand decline of four alfalfa cultivars grown under three soil moisture regimes.

The relationship of leaf area index to forage production was also investigated.

Results obtained on water -use efficiency and leaf -to -stem ratio during 1968 and 1969 were reported earlier ( 5)


This article sum-

By R. J. Joy, H. T. Poole, and A. K. Dobrenz`

marizes the results of the three -year study.

Certified seed of the cultivars `Mesa


Sirsa,' `Moapa,' `Sonora,' and 'El-Unico' was planted with a cultipacker seeder at the rate of 20 lb /acre ( 22.4

kg /ha) in October 1967.

Prior to seeding, phosphate in the form of treble superphosphate was disked in at the rate of 160 lb/acre (179 kg /ha)


Plots were irrigated immediately after seeding and as often as necessary thereafter to obtain an optimum stand before irrigation regimes were established.

Irrigation regimes were established after the first harvest in March 1968.

Data collection began with the second harvest, April 1968.

During the 1968 and 1969 growing seasons, the irrigation regimes consisted of irrigating to field capacity when an average of

30% (high), 60 % ( medium )

, and

90 % ( low ) of the available soil moisture had been removed in the surface 3 ft

( 91.4 cm)


During the

1970 growing season, the high and medium regimes remained the same as those in 1968 and 1969, but the low regime was not irrigated until an average of 90% of the soil moisture was utilized to a depth of 4 ft ( 121.4 cm) .

Actual average percentages of moisture used at each irrigation are shown in Table 1.

Three borders, 21 ft x 380 ft ( 6.38 m by 55.93 m ), were used, and each border represented an irrigation treatment.

The cultivars were arranged in a randomized complete block design. Five replications were used in

1968 and 1969, whereas four replications were used in 1970. Each cultivar plot was 10.5 ft. x 28 ft. (3.2 m by

8.53 m)


Soil moisture was determinted gravimetrically at 1 -ft.

( 30.5 cm ) increments at or near the center of each border or irrigation treatment. Irrigation water was applied by flood -irrigating each of the three borders when moisture determinations indicated the desired level of moisture had been reached. The irrigation water was applied by a well with a pumping capacity of 400 gallons per minute, 90.5

m3 per hr )


The amount of water applied to each border was calculated by multiplying the time of applica-

( Please turn page )

Table 1.

Amount of moisture ( in ) received by three soil moisture regimes during the 1968, 1969, and

1970 growing seasons.






Moisture regime










Average % used at irrigation










Number of irrigations










Average amount applied per Total water irrigation applied





























Total irrigation plus rainfall











tion by the pump output. All cultivars within an irrigation treatment received the same amount of water at each irrigation; however, each of the three irrigation regimes received different amounts of water since an attempt was made to recharge the entire root zone at each irrigation ( Table


Water -use efficiency was calculated by dividing the weight of total water applied ( irrigation plus rainfall) by the dry weight of forage per plot. The resulting value was the units of water used to produce 1 unit of dry forage.

Soil moisture extraction patterns to a depth of aft (91.4cm),4ft (121.4



and 5 ft

( 154.2 cm) from the high, medium, and low regimes, respectively, were determined by gravimetric samples. These were taken approximately every four days in 1970 from May through October. All soil samples were taken with an Oakfield probe and dried at 120 C for 24 hr.

Forage was harvested from an area

3 ft by 25 ft

( .914 m by 7.6 m) in

1968 and 1969 and 3.28 ft by 25 ft

( .996 m by 7.6 m ) in 1970. Harvests were taken within each replicated plot

8.5 ft ( 2.6 m) from the center of the border ridge to minimize effect from lateral movement of irrigation water.

Cuttings were made at 1 /10 bloom

except the fourth harvest in

1970 which was delayed until 50% bloom to allow root reserve to accumulate.

After total fresh weight was measured at each harvest, a forage sample was taken from each plot and dried at 80°

C for 24 hr to determine the percentage dry matter. Yields were then calculated on a dry -weight basis. Data were collected on eight harvests in

1968 and 1969 and on seven harvests in 1970.

Leaf -to -stem ratio, percentage protein, and leaf area index (LAI -leaf area per unit of land area ) were determined each time plots were harvested.

Leaf -to -stem ratios were determined in 1969 and 1970 by separating the leaves from stems and petioles and dividing the dry weight of the leaves by the dry weight of the stems and petioles. Percentage protein was determined in 1969 by the micro kjeldahl technique ( 1 )


Leaf area index was determined before each harvest during the 1970 growing season.

Three plant counts of a 2 -ft2

( .19

m2) quadrat were made in December

1967, February 1969, December 1969, and October 1970 in each plot on each date.

The soil at the experimental site was classified as Comoro fine sandy loam by Soil Conservation Service personnel. This was a deep, well- drained soil with a fine sandy loam to sandy loam surface and subsoil to approximately

30 in ( 76 cm }


Fine sandy loam with strata of very fine sandy loam and silt were found below 30 in ( 76 cm ) .


Table 2.

Average per harvest dry forage production ( lbs. /A )


four alfalfa cultivars grown under three soil moisture

regimes in 1968, 1969, and 1970.



Soil Moisture Regimes

Medium High



El -Unico

Mesa -Sirsa

























Mesa -Sirsa



El -Unico


Mesa -Sirsa












































*Means followed by the same letter did not differ statistically in the amount of dry matter produced.

soil pH ranged from 8.4 to 8.6.

Available water -holding capacity

of the

upper 30 in ( 76 cm ) ranged from to 1.5 in per ft (10.0 to 12.5 cm per whereas below 30 in ( 76 cm ) it ranged from 1.5 to 1.8 in per ft (12.5 to 15.1

cm per m).

The infiltration rate

ranged from 1 to 2.5 in per hr (2.5 to

6.3 cm per hr )


Field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP) values were determined in the laboratory using the pressure plate and pressure membrane method ( 6) . The FC and PWP values were necessary to calculate the amount of water held by the soil particles that was actually available to the plants.

Dry Forage Production

In 1968, there was a significant difference in forage production between

El -Unico and Moapa. Average yields per harvest ranged from 3202 lb /acre

( 3586 kg /ha ) for El -Unico to 3027 lb /acre ( 3390 kg /ha) for Moapa (Table 2)


Plants grown under the low and medium moisture regimes in 1968 yielded significantly more forage than plants under the high regime.

The production values for 1969 were not significantly different when analyzed statistically. However, El -Unico was again the highest produci cultivar with an average yield of 2 lb /acre ( 2955 kg /ha ) per harves

Moapa, the lowest producing cultivar in 1968, was the second highest yielder in 1969 ( Table 2) .

A 17% reduction in total forage production occurred from 1968 to

1969. This was evident for all cultivars growing under all three moisture treatments. Plant numbers declined substantially between the two growing seasons and this may have been a factor in causing lower yields. In

December 1967, two months after planting, there was an average of 31.2

plants /sq ft ( .0929 m2)


The average stand density dropped to 11.9 plants/ sq ft at the end of the first growing season and to 5.6 plants /sq ft or 82% after the second season.

A similar trend in stand decline was reported by

Schonhorst et al. (7) on alfalfa grown in Mesa, Arizona.

At the end of the third year of this study, there were twice as many plants per unit area in the low regime compared to the high moisture regime. Stand density counts were 5.0, 2.9, and 2.4 plants per sq ft for the low, medium, and high moisture regimes, respectively.

Stand persistence was much better when war was applied less frequently.


The mean dry forage production per harvest for the 1970 season ranged m 2172 lb /acre

( 3533 kg /ha ) for

Unico to

2937 lb /acre

( 3289 g /ha) for Sonora

( Table 2 )



Unico, Moapa, and Mesa -Sirsa were significantly higher in forage production than Sonora. The average dry forage yield of the four cultivars was significantly greater under the medium soil moisture regime than under the low and high moisture regimes in


Average forage production per harvest date followed much the same pattern for the three growing seasons.

The highest yields, averaged over moisture regimes and cultivars, occurred in May or June. Generally, yields rose sharply from the first harvest, reached a peak in May or June and then declined steadily.

Forage production and leaf area index ( LAI ) per harvest for 1970 are shown in Figure 1. Fuess and Tesar

(4) reported that leaf area index showed a positive relationship to forage yield at individual cuttings in

Michigan, but could not be used to predict seasonal production. Data obtained in this study indicated differences in illIrests, leaf area index between but no differences existed tvween the irrigation regimes or cultivars. In 1970, the second harvest

(June 10) with an LAI value of 5.76

was significantly greater than all other harvests

( Fig. 1 )


All harvests were significantly different except the sixth

( September 19) and seventh ( October 29)


Generally, the harvests with the highest dry weight production had the highest leaf area indices.

Water -Use Efficiency

Differences in water -use efficiency among cultivars were significant in

1968 and 1970 but not in 1969 ( Table



These means ranked in a similar order as those for forage production

(Table 2)


This showed that yield and water -use efficiency were related. Singh, Singh, and Singh ( 8 ) made a similar observation. El -Unico was the most efficient cultivar for all three years of the study with values of 519,

669, and 692 for 1968, 1969, and 1970, respectively. Moapa was the least efficient cultivar in 1968 but was second most efficient in 1969 and 1970.

Sonora was significantly less efficient in 1970 ( Table 3)


When the water -use efficiency valft or the four cultivars were aver d, it was found that alfalfa plants grown under the low moisture regime were the most efficient for all three years. The low regime was followed by the medium and the high regimes, respectively

( Table 3)


Differences in water -use efficiency between mois-

ture regimes were due mainly to

the loss of water through deep percolation.

The irrigation efficiencies (water stored water applied

) of the high and medium regimes were 30% and 9%

Table 3.

Average water -use efficiency (lb. water /lb. dry forage) of four alfalfa cultivars grown under three irrigation regimes in 1968, 1969, and 1970.

below that of the low regime respectively.

Water -use efficiency could have been improved by using a more efficient irrigation system.

However, the increased evaporation resulting from frequent irrigation will increase the consumptive use

( evaporation plus transpiration) of crops as suggested by Bennett et al. (2)


Efficient use of water will be reduced when consumptive use is increased if there is not a corresponding increase in forage production.

Alfalfa plants grown under the medium and the low treatments were similar in their soil moisture extraction patterns. Plants grown under the high regime (30% used) obtained most of their water from the top 3 ft

( 91.4

cm ) of soil. The plants grown under the medium and low regimes utilized water to a deeper depth than plants under the high regime. Water was utilized to the deepest depth under the low regime.

Leaf -to -Stem Ratio and

Percentage Protein

Leaf -to -stem ratio and percentage protein are measures of forage quality.

Alfalfa cultivars with more leaves should have more protein since most

of the protein is contained in the

leaves. On a whole plant basis, cultivars with a higher leaf -to -stem ratio had a higher protein percentage than


Cultivars Low


High Means


El -Unico

Mesa - Sirsa















519 a*

524 ab

535 be

547 c



El -Unico


Mesa - Sirsa


403 a





493 b





698 c





669 a

670 a

683 a

689 a



El -Unico


Mesa - Sirsa


541 a





598 b





894 c





692 a

696 a

714 a

763 b


511 a*

651 b 987 c

*Means followed by the same letter did not differ statistically in the pounds of water applied to produce 1 pound of dry forage.

those with a lower leaf -to -stem ratio


In this study, differences in leafiness of forage and protein percentage between cultivars were not significant when averaged over the 1969 growing season. However, Moapa had the highest average leaf -to -stem ratio and percentage protein of any cultivar. The leaf -to -stem ratios for El-

Unico, Mesa -Sirsa, and Sonora averaged over harvests and moisture regimes were 6.6, 6.1, and 2.4% below

Moapa, respectively. Protein percentages were 24.4, 23.7, 23.4, and 22.9% for Moapa, Sonora, El- Unico, and

Mesa -Sirsa, respectively.

In 1970, significant differences in leaf -to -stem ratio were found between cultivars grown under the high moisture regime but not between cultivars grown under the medium and low regimes. Under the high moisture regime, Sonora had a season mean value

( Please turn to page 16)


National Trends

.. .


Production and Use of Vegetables

by C. Curtis Cable, Jr.'

The U.S. vegetable industry has experienced some rapid changes in the past 30 years and further changes are in prospect for the future.

Population growth, rising incomes, and more casual and informal life styles have affected the demand for and methods of preparing vegetables.

Improved technologies in producing, processing, packaging, storing and transporting are also associated with changes in both the demand and supply sides of U.S. vegetable markets.

This article is the first of a series on the long -run market outlook for vegetables and melons. It summarizes the major changes which have occurred in the U.S. production and consumption of vegetables and melons during the past 30 years and some of the reasons for these changes, and on the basis of these "cause and effect" relationships examines the future prospects for U. S. vegetable and melon growers. Later articles will deal with the production and marketing of Arizona produce and discuss Arizona's relationship with the total vegetable and melon industry.

Statistical data for this article were taken from appropriate annual issues of Agricultural Statistics and Handbook of Agricultural Charts, and various issues of the quarterly release

Vegetable Situation, all published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Acreage, Production and Value


Approximately 3.2 million acres of vegetables were harvested in the U.S.

in 1970 about the same total acreage harvested in 1940 ( Chart 1 ) . From a fairly constant level of 3.8 million acres in the early 1950s there have been some pronounced year -to -year fluctuations in acreage.

However, there has been an overall decline in total vegetable acreage since the late


Changes in acreage for the fresh market have closely followed the

Chart 1. Acreage of Principle

U. S. Vegetable Crops.

s i Based on the following crops: artichokes, asparagus, snap beans, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloups, carrots, cauliflower, celery, sweet corn, cucumber, egg plant, escarole, garlic, honeydew melons, lettuce, onions, green peppers, spinach, tomatoes and watermelons; included honeyball melons prior to 1954, and lima beans, beets, kale, green peas and shallots prior to 1968.

Potatoes and dry beans and peas are not included.

Beginning in 1967 acreage is harvested acres, but prior to 1967 acreage included that not harvested for economic and other reasons.

The value for fresh market vegetables is on f.o.b. basis except for garlic.

2Based on the following crops: asparagus, lima beans, snap beans, beets, cabbage, cucumbers, sweet corn, green peas, spinach and tomatoes; included pimientos prior to

1954. Other processed crops included in fresh market data.

Acreage is harvested acres.

Beginning 1964, value is based on value at processing plant door; in prior years value is based on average price received by growers at receiving point.

changes in total acreage.

For the seven years

1964 -70, fresh market vegetable acreage held fairly constant at about 1.6 million acres.

However, this is about a fourth less than the acreage devoted to fresh vegetables in the late 1940s.

Acreage for major processing vegetables fluctuated from about 11/2 to 2 million acres annually from 1940 to

1970. Acreage for processing exceeded fresh market acreage only 2 years during the 1940 -1960 period. Howev processing acreage was greater thlibl fresh market acreage for 7 of the 10 years from 1961 to 1970.



There has been a definite upward trend in U.S. vegetable production since 1940, rising from less than 14 million tons in the early 1940s to more than 20 million tons in the late 1960s ( Chart 2)


However, this overall increase has occurred at an irregular and fluctuating rate from one year to the next. Some of the year -to -year fluctuations have exceeded 2 million tons.

Production of fresh market vegetables increased from 71/2 million tons in the early 1940s to 101/2 million tons by the mid- 1950s. Since then, however, there has been only a slight upward trend in U.S. production to about

11 million tons by 1970.

Vegetable production for processing has increased more rapidly than fresh vegtable production during the past 3 decades, and especially since the mid- 1950s. However, production of processing vegetables has followed a 5 -6 year cyclical pattern since the

Marketing Specialist, Cooperative Extt sion Service, University of Arizona.


Chart 2. Production of Principle

U. S. Vegetable









/0 e z a


DI z

O 6






/945 /950










1Based on the following crops: artichokes, asparagus, snap beans, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloups, carrots, caulilower, celery, sweet corn, cucumbers, egg nt, escarole, garlic, honeydew melons, let e, onions, green peppers, spinach, tomatoes and watermelons; included honeyball melons prior to 1954, and lima beans, beets, kale, green peas and shallots prior to


Potatoes and dry beans and peas are not included.

Beginning in 1967 acreage is harvested acres, but prior to 1967 acreage included that not harvested for economic and other reasons.

The value for fresh market vegetables is on f.o.b. basis except for garlic.

2Based on the following crops: asparagus, lima beans, snap beans, beets, cabbage, cucumbers, sweet corn, green peas, spinach and tomatoes; included pimientos prior to


Other processed crops are included in fresh market data.

Acreage is harvested acres.

Beginning in 1964, value is based on value at processing plant door; in prior years value is based on average price received by growers at receiving point.

mid- 1940s. As a result, year -to -year changes in volumes for processing have been much greater than annual fluctuations in production of fresh market vegetables.

The pronounced upward trend in total vegetables produced from a total acreage that has been declining slightly since the late 1940s is the result of increasingly larger yields per acre. New varieties, improved cultural practices, and more timely harsting are primarily responsible for creases in yields per acre.


In the early 1940s the combined farm value of vegetables for fresh and processing markets was less than $600 million annually ( Chart 2)


By the early 1950s, this figure had risen to slightly more than $1 billion, and by the late 1960s it was near $13/4 billion.

Although production of fresh -market vegetables has increased only moderately, their farm value has more than tripled in the last 30 years. This relatively large increase in value resulted primarily from rising farm prices for most of these fresh -market vegetables.

Imports Rising Rapidly

Prior to the mid- 1950s, U.S. exports and imports of vegetables were of minor significance. And, until 1967 the value of exports was greater than the value of imports ( Chart 4)


However, in the late 1960s imports rose much more rapidly than exports, and by 1970 the value of imports was almost double the value of exports.

U.S. vegetable exports have been about evenly divided between processed and fresh since the mid- 1950s.

Slightly less than 60 percent of the exports have gone to Canada, and about 15 -20 percent to Western Europe.

Mexico has been the major source of


vegetable imports for several years. From 1960 to 1968, Mexico accounted for 40-45 percent of the total value of vegetable imports. Then in

1969 and 1970, Mexico's share increased to about 60 percent of total imports. Imported vegetables from

Mexico were valued at S2S million in

1960 by 1970 this figure had increased to $141 million.

In 1970 Taiwan was the second most important source of imported vegetables, followed in order by Canada, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Canada and Italy have been important sources for several years, whereas imports from Spain and Taiwan did not become significant until the late 1960s.

The role of imports in supplying

U.S. vegetable markets is becoming increasingly significant. In 1960, the value of imports was 6 percent of the farm value of U.S. vegetable crops by 1970 this figure had increased to

14 percent.


Changes in Vegetable


From the late 1940s up to the mid


1960s U.S. per capita consumption of fresh and processed vegetables corn bined remained fairly stable at about

225 pounds per year ( Chart 5) . In the late 1960s, per capita use increased to about 235 pounds.

In contrast to the total picture, however, per capita consumption of fresh vegetables declined about 25 percent from the mid -1940s to the mid- 1960s.

This decline was from 160 pounds down to approximately 120 pounds.

Since the mid- 1960s, fresh vegetable use has increased slightly.

Offsetting the decline in use of fresh vegetables, per capita consumption of processed vegetables increased from

75 pounds in the late 1940s to 115 pounds in the late 1960s. It would ap-

( Next page please)

Chart 3. Farm Value of Principle

U. S. Vegetable Crops.

,,600 -

/.600 -

,,400 -



4000 eso -








/940 /945 /950

/955 /960 /905


1 Based on the following crops: artichokes, asparagus, snap beans, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cantaloups, carrots, cauliflower, celery, sweet corn, cucumbers, egg plant, escarole, garlic, honeydew melons, lettuce, onions, green peppers, spinach, tomatoes and watermelons; included honey ball melons prior to 1954, and lima beans, beets, kale, green peas and shallots prior to

1968. Potatoes and dry beans and peas not included.

Beginning in 1967 acreage is harvested acres, but prior to 1967 acreage included that not harvested for economic and other reasons.


The value for fresh market vegetables is on f.o.b. basis except for garlic.

2Based on the following crops: asparagus, lima beans, snap beans, beets, cabbage, cucumbers, sweet corn, green peas, spinach and tomatoes; included pimientos prior to

1954. Other processed crops are included in fresh market data.

Acreage is harvested

Beginning 1964, value is based on value at processing plant door; in prior years value is based on average price received by growers at receiving point.


Chart 4.

Value of U. S. Vegetable Exports & Imports'





Chart 5. U.S. Per Capita Consumption of Vegetables



/00 z o_


J 5











, .










1Excludes melons and dry beans and peas.

pear that in the near future U.S. consumers will be eating more processed than fresh vegetables.

Although frozen vegetables have received the greatest publicity in recent years, canning has been and will likely remain the most important method of processing for several years. Per capita use of both canned and frozen vegetables has been increasing since the late 1940s. However, the use of canned vegetables has increased by about 23 pounds, compared to an increase of

13 pounds for frozen products.

Causes Behind Changes in Use

Numerous factors have contributed to the shift in consumption from fresh to processed vegetables. Some of the reported attributes of processed vegetables are convenience and time saved in the kitchen, and standardized and dependable quality.

Rising incomes have greatly increased the demand for services in many households. In fact, the demand for services obtained by purchasing processed foods increased more rapidly in the past 2-3 decades than the demand for basic food items.

Increased employment of women also expands the demand for processed convenience foods. The quick preparation feature along with reliance on quality of processed vegetables appeals to working women.

A much greater increase in retail prices for fresh vegetables as cornpared to processed vegetables has stimulated increased use of the latter by many consumers. From 1950 to

1970 the retail price for fresh fruits and vegetables increased 91 percent, while prices rose only 44 percent for processed fruits and vegetables

( Charts

6 and 7 )'. These differences in price increases reflect differences in production, harvesting and marketing costs, as well as differences in spoilage and other handling losses.

Changes in tastes and eating habits, such as the appreciable increase in away- from -home eating, have stimulated the increased use of processed foods. For example, per capita consumption of tomatoes

( fresh- equivalent basis ) has increased about 2 percent a year since 1960. A principal reason for this is the rapidly expanding fast -food businesses specializing in hamburgers, french fries, pizzas and other catsup -using foods.

Generally speaking the increased consumption of processed vegetables has been at the expense of fresh vegetables. However, per capita use of fresh produce items such as lettuce and escarole, carrots, peppers, celery, corn, cucumbers, onions and cantaloups have held fairly constant since

1955. For example, the yearly per capita consumption of lettuce, a ma-

1 Retail price indexes for vegetables alone are not available, but price comparisons suggest that the increases in retail prices for fresh vegetables was much greater than for processed vegetables.

i T otal of fresh and processed; consumption for processed, canned and frozen on fresh weight basis.

2Based on the following crops: tomatoes, artichokes, asparagus, unshelled lima bea snap beans, broccoli, brussels sprouts, c bage, carrots, kale, lettuce, escarole, unshelled green peas, green peppers, spinach, beets, cauliflower, celery, corn, cucumbers, eggplant, garlic, onions, shallots, watermelons and cantaloups plus about 10 to 18 pounds of minor crops; excludes potatoes, sweet potatoes, dry edible beans and dry field peas.

3T otal of canned and frozen.

4Based on the following crops: asparagus, lima beans, snap beans, carrots, peas, pumpkin, squash, spinach, tomatoes, tomato products, beets, corn, cabbage, cucumbers, miscellaneous greens, pimientos, mixed vegetables and minor crops; excludes potatoes, sweet potatoes, baby foods and soups.

5Based on the following crops: asparagus, snap beans, lima beans, carrots, peas, pumpkin, squash, broccoli, brussels sprouts, spinach, cauliflower, corn, succotash and miscellaneous greens; excludes potatoes.

jor ingredient in the popular "toss" salad dishes, has been stable at about

20 -22 pounds since 1955.

Prospects and Implications for Next Decade

All of the factors which have con-

tributed to the shift from fresh to

processed vegetables in the past 20 -30 years are expected to have a similar effect for the next 10 years. With the proportion of women employed j.

creasing, predictions for smaller houslIbf


Chart 6.

Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.

Changes in Retail Price & Per Capita Consumption in U. S. Since 1950.

Chart 7.

Processed Fruits and Vegetables.

Changes in Retail Price & Per Capita

Consumption in U. S. Since 1950.

200 -














/20 o


- /00 u.


BO -







- -'--

60 -







/960 holds, and further increases in percentage of meals served in public establishments, the convenience of processed foods will encourage their use. Also, the current concern about the "rising cost" of food may further discourage the use of the relatively higher priced fresh vegetables.

Labor requirements for production

& harvesting of many vegetables has ulated imports especially fresh winter vegetables from Mexico. Favorable weather, adequate production resources and a substantial supply of relatively low -cost labor provides Mexico with some strong competitive advantages over U.S. growers.

Increases in yield per acre, and in a minor way the increases in import, have made it possible to increase pro duction from a declining acreage.

Overall, then, there is no apparent and immediate need for more U.S.

farm land to be planted in vegetables.






O '






It is possible, because of changes in cost and efficiency between areas, that vegetable acreage may move from one state or region to another.

Also, the increased experimentation and development of vegetable production in greenhouses and similar facilities may further reduce land requirements for some crops. However, it is not expected that these developments will have an appreciable e f feet on

land requirements in the next ten


The steady upward trend in per capita consumption of processed vegetables, and the steady declining trend in use of fresh vegetables has many implications and presents some challenges for U.S. vegetable producers.

For example, can producers of fresh vegetables reduce the rate of decline in U.S. consumption of their product?

How? Can the cost of production and marketing be lowered by adoption of

Wheat Supplies & Exports

.. .





/960 /965 /970 more efficient methods, and thereby lower retail prices? Would greater promotional efforts to encourage use of fresh vegetables pay off in more net dollars? Do foreign markets offer any potential for increasing sales and profits for U.S. producers of fresh vegetables?

Perhaps fresh vegetable growers have the answers to these and similar questions, and have concluded that the downward trend in per capita consumption for most fresh vegetables is inevitable. If so, will the increase in population offset the decline in per capita use, and thereby maintain total fresh vegetables sales near the current level?

If the current level of sales and consumption of fresh vegetables cannot be profitably maintained, many present -day growers may soon have to shift their production from fresh to processed market outlets.

( from page 8 ) tion and marketing inputs. The value of wheat accounted for 23 percent of the retail price of a 1947 loaf, but by

1971 wheat accounted for only about

10 percent.


Retail prices for bread and flour may be raised in the near future, and

"justified" on the basis of "larger than expected" export sales.

However, the at of wheat has not been the major erminant of retail bread prices for at least 25 years, and is becoming less and less important.

Also, there has been little evidence of any severe shortage of wheat in the U.S. in the past 25 years. Therefore, it is not too surprising to find but little apparent

relationship between retail bread

prices and wheat supplies and prices.

Wheat supplies, stocks, exports and worldwide


in the U.S. and along with government programs have been the major determinants of wheat prices.

An almost entirely different set of factors have been major determinants of retail bread and flour prices.

There is little evidence to indicate that there will soon be an appreciable change in this situation.


1 U.S. Dept. Agric., Agricultural Prices, Statistical Reporting Service, August 30, 1972.

2New York Times News Service, Tucson

Daily Star, September 10, 1972.

3U. S. Dept. Agric., Wheat Situation, Economic Research Service, August, 1972.


Effects of Soil M oisture Regimes

on Water- Use Efficiency

(from page 11) of .72 to 1 which was greater than the other cultivars. No difference was found between Mesa -Sirsa and Moapa, but E1 -Unico with a leaf -to -stem ratio of .58 to 1 was lower than the other cultivars tested.


Field studies related to the conservation of water through the use of improved

cultivars and better water

management have shown that alfalfa plants can utilize from 65% to 90% of the available soil moisture in the

top 3 ft

( 91.4 cm) and not significantly reduce production. Maximum efficiency of alfalfa production can be realized when the best adapted cultivars are used and irrigation schedules are based on careful monitoring of the available soil moisture. At the end of three years, alfalfa grown under the

( 90% used) regime had more low plants per unit area than alfalfa grown under the high or medium regimes.

Alfalfa cultivars that produced the most forage used water more efficiently under field conditions. El -Unico consistently produced more forage than the other cultivars. E1 -Unico was more efficient in water use than Mesa -

Sirsa, Moapa, and Sonora because it produced more forage on the same amount of applied water.


E1 -Unico had a lower leaf -to -stem ratio than the other cultivars tested, differences in percentage protein were not significant.

Leaf area index showed a positive relationship to forage yield at individual cuttings.

However, LAI does not appear to have practical application for predicting seasonal production.




Dobrenz, A. K., M. H. Schonhorst, and

R. K. Thompson. 1969. Yield and protein production of alfalfa cultivars. Prog.

Agr. Arizona 21 (3) :4 -5.

Fuess, F. W., and M. B. Tesar. 1968.

Photosynthetic efficiency, yields, and leaf loss in alfalfa. Crop Sci. 8:159 -163.

Joy, R. J., and A. K. Dobrenz. 1971.

Figure 1.






Consumptive water -use efficiency of alfalfa grown under three irrigation regimes. Prog. Agr. Arizona 23( 2 ) :14 1 K

Richards, L. A. 1947.

brane apparatus, construction and

Agr. Eng. 28:451 -454.

Schonhorst, M. H., R. K. Thompson, and

R. E. Dennis. 1963. Does it pay to irrigate alfalfa in the summer? Prog. Agr.

Arizona 15 (6) :8-9.

Singh, B. N., R. B. Singh, and K. Singh.

ment of crop plants. Proc. Indian Acad.

ment of crop plants. Proc. Indian Acad.

Sci. 1:471 -495.

Stanberry, C. O. 1955. Irrigation practices for the production of alfalfa.

U.S.D.A. Yearbook of Agr. p. 435 -443.


Forage Production and Leaf Area Index Per





- -- LEAF AREA INDEX r 6.0

z 5500o


U a

4500o w4000-

Q 3500-

CC o



CC oJO 3000o--












7 -3 7 -27 8 -20



9 -19

Official Publication of the

College of Agriculture and

School of Home Economics

The University of Arizona

Weitoe4t Dean








Association of Off i c i al Agricultural

Chemists. 1955. Methods of analysis.

Washington, D. C. 8th ed.

Bennett, O. L., B. D. Doss, D. A. Ashley,

Kilmer, and C. C. Richardson.



1964. Effects of soil moisture regime on yield, nutrient content, and evapotranspiration for three annual forage species.

Agron. J. 56:195 -198.


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