• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Historical
 Chufas in Florida agriculture
 Insects, pests and diseases
 Spacing and fertilizing
 Discussion
 Conclusion
 Literature cited














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 419
Title: Chufas in Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00015131/00001
 Material Information
Title: Chufas in Florida
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 16 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Killinger, G. B ( Gordon Beverly ), 1908-
Stokes, W. E ( William Eugene ), 1889-1948
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1946
 Subjects
Subject: Chufa -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 16.
Statement of Responsibility: by G.B. Killinger and W.E. Stokes.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00015131
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000925489
notis - AEN6140

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Front Matter
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Historical
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Chufas in Florida agriculture
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Insects, pests and diseases
        Page 9
    Spacing and fertilizing
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
    Discussion
        Page 15
    Conclusion
        Page 16
    Literature cited
        Page 16
Full Text



January, 1946


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
HAROLD MOWRY, Director
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA







CHUFAS IN FLORIDA

By G. B. KILLINGER and W. E. STOKES


Fig 1.-Mature chufa plants on a Florida farm.


Single copies free to Florida residents upon request to
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA


Bulletin 419









BOARD OF CONTROL


J. Thos. Gurney, Chairman, Orlando
N. B. Jordan, Quincy
Thos. W. Bryant, Lakeland
M. L. Mershon, Miami
J. Henson Markham, Jacksonville
J. T. Diamond, Secretary, Tallahassee



EXECUTIVE STAFF

John J. Tigert, M.A., LL.D., President of the
University3
H. Harold Hume, D.Sc., Provost for Agricul-
ture
Harold Mowry, M.S.A., Director
L. O. Gratz, Ph.D., Asst. Dir., Research
W. M. Fifield, M.S., Asst. Dir., Admin.
J. Francis Cooper, M.S.A., Editors
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editors
Jefferson Thomas, Assistant Editor8
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Managers
K. H. Graham, LL.IY., Business Managers
Claranelle Alderman, Accountants



MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE

AGRONOMY
W. E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomist'
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomist'
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carvbr, Ph.D., Associate
Roy E. Blaser, M.S., Associates
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Associate
Fred A. Clark, B.S., Assistant


ANIMAL INDUSTRY

A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., An. Industrialist'1
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman3
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologists
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian
M. W. Emmel, D.V.`M., Veterinarian'
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist4
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.3
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist
R. S. Glasscock, Ph.D., An. Husbandman
T. R. Freeman, Ph.D., Asso. in Dairy Mfg.
D. J. Smith, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.'
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Husb.3
C. L. Comar, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist
L. E. Mull, M.S., Asst. in Dairy Tech.
J. E. Pace, B.S., Asst. An. Husbandman4
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem.
Ruth Taylor, A.B., Asst. Biochemist
Peggy R. Lockwood, B.S., Asst. in Dairy Mfs.
W. P. Vaughan, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.
W. J. Greene, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.
J. C. Driggers, B.S.A., Asst. Poultry Husb.


ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL

C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agri. Economist' 3
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associate3
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
Max E. Brunk, M.S., Associate5
D. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
Wade P. Young, Ph.D., Associate

Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)

G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statisticians
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statistician2

ECONOMICS, HOME

Ouida D. Abbott, Ph.D., Home Econ.1
R. B. French, Ph.D., Biochemist

ENTOMOLOGY

J. R. Watson, A.M., Entomologist'
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Associate3
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant

HORTICULTURE

G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist'
A. L. Stahl, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
F. S. Jamison, Ph.D., Truck Hort.
Byron E. Janes, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. A. Dennison, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
R. K. Showalter, M.S., Asso. Hort.
R. J. Wilmot, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
R. l. Dickey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Victor F. Nettles, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
J. Carlton Cain, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.6
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2

PLANT PATHOLOGY

W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologistx
Phares Decker, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
Erdman West, M.S., Mycologist and Botanist
Lillian E. Arnold, M.S., Asst. Botanist

SOILS

F. B. Smith, Ph.D., Chemist'1
Gaylord M. Volk, M.S., Chemist5
J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologist
J. R. Neller, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
L. G. Thompson, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Nathan Gammon, Jr., Ph.D., Soils Chemist
C. E. Bell, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
L. H. Rogers, Ph.D., Associate Biochemist'
R. A. Carrigan, B.S., Asso. Biochemist
G. T. Sims, M.S.A., Associate Chemist
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
Geo. D. Thornton, M.S., Asst. Microbiologist'
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor'
Olaf C. Olson, B.S., Asst. Soil Surveyor'

1 Head of Department.
2 In cooperation with U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
4 In Military Service.
5 On leave.










BRANCH STATIONS


NORTH FLORIDA STATION, QUINCY"

J. D. Warner, M.S., Vice-Director in Charge
R. R. Kincaid, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
W. H. Chapman, M.S., Asso. Agron.
R. C. Bond, M.S.A., Asso. Agronomist
Frank D. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.


Mobile Unit, Monticello

R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist


Mobile Unit, Milton

Ralph L. Smith, M.S., Associate Agronomist


Mobile Unit, Marianna

R. W. Lipscomb, M.S., Associate Agronomist


Mobile Unit, Wewahitchka

J. B. White, B.S.A., Associate Agronomist


CITRUS STATION, LAKE ALFRED

A. F. Camp, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
V. C. Jamison, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
J. B. Redd, Ph.D., Insecticide Chemist
H. C. Beard, Ph.D., Chemist
W. L. Thompson, B.S., Entomologist
J. T. Griffiths, Ph.D., Entomologist
R. F. Suit, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. P. Ducharme, M.S., Plant Pathologist
B. R. Fudge, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
T. W. Young, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
J. W. Sites, M.S.A., Asso. Horticulturists
W. W. Lawless, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
H. O. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist


EVERGLADES STA., BELLE GLADE

R. V. Allison, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
J. W. Wilson, Sc.D., Entomologist'
F. D. Stevens, B.S., Sugarcane Agron.
Thomas Bregger, Ph.D., Sugarcane
Physiologist
G. R. Townsend, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
B. S. Clayton, B.S.C.E., Drainage Eng.2
W. D. Wylie, Ph.D., Entomologist
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Asso. Chemist
F. S. Andrews, Ph.D., Asso. Truck Hort.'
Robt. L. Cassell, Ph.D., Asso. Plant Path.
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asst. An. Husb.
T. C. Erwin, Assistant Chemist
R. A. Bair, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
Earl L. Felix, Ph.D., Asst. Plant Path.
C. C. Seale, Asst. Agronomist
L. O. Payne, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist


SUB-TROPICAL STA., HOMESTEAD

Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Director in
Charge
P. J. Westgate, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
H. I. Borders, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.


W. CENT. FLA. STA., BROOKSVILLE

Clement D. Gordon, Ph.D., Asso. Poultry
Geneticist in Charge2


RANGE CATTLE STA., ONA

W. G. Kirk, Ph.D.. Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Associate Agronomist
Gilbert A. Tucker, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.'
D. W. Jones, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.
E. R. Felton, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.


FIELD STATIONS
Leesburg
G. K. Parris, Ph.D., Plant Path. in Charge

Plant City
A. N. Brooks, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist

Hastings
A. H. Eddins, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
E. N. McCubbin, Ph.D., Truck Horticulturist

Monticello
S. O. Hill, B.S., Asst. Entomologist2
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asst. Entomologist2


Bradenton
J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Horticulturist in
Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
A. L. Harrison, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist
David G. Kelbert, Asst. Plant Pathologist
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Hort., Glad. Inv.
Arthur J. Pratt, Ph.D., Asst. Hort.

Sanford
R. W. Ruprecht, Ph.D., Chemist in Charge
A. Alfred Foster, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.
J. C. Russell, M.S., Asst. Entomologist
Ben F. Whitner, Jr., B.S., Asst. Hort.


Lakeland
Warren 0. Johnson, Meteorolgist2

SHead of Department.
2In cooperation with U. S.
3 Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
In Military Service.
5 On leave.










CHUFAS IN FLORIDA

By G. B. KILLINGER and W. E. STOKES 1
CONTENTS
Page
H historical .......................................................... .... 5
Chufas in Florida Agriculture ........................... ...............- 7
Insects, Pests, and Diseases ................................. ........ 9
Spacing and Fertilizing ......................... .............. .......... 9
Plan of Experiment ........................ .... .. .... ................. 9
Experimental Results ............... ....... ...... ... ............ 10
D discussion ................ ------............... ............................. .......... 15
Conclusions ...........---- ........... ............... ....................... ..... .. 16
Literature Cited ................................................................ 16

HISTORICAL
Chufas (Cyperus esculentus L.) are native to Africa and
southern Europe and have been cultivated from early times.
The chufa is a sedge-like plant with creeping rootstocks which
produce small sweet tubers, commonly called "nuts," usually not
over 1/2 inch in diameter and 1 inch in length (Fig. 2). Because
of their almond-like flavor they are sometimes known as "earth
almonds." Sometimes they are called "rush nuts" also. The
tubers are used as both human food and hog feed.,, When fed
to hogs the chufas are pastured in the field much the same as
peanuts. Oftentimes before hogging off, cattle or work stock
are turned into the chufa field to graze off the grass-like tops
(Fig. 3) which are quite low in protein and mineral constitu-
ents. When chufas first found a place in Southern agriculture
is not known; however, it was many years ago. In Italy and
Egypt the fatty oil extracted from chufas was used as food
and in the manufacture of soap.
Lindley and Moore (3)2 note that in southern Europe roasted
and ground Cyperus tubers were used as a substitute for coffee
and cocoa. Power and Chesnut (7) found there was no caffeine
present in chufas. These men also noted from an illustrated
article, "Horchata de Chufas," published in a Spanish magazine,
"Blanco y Negro," in 1911 that a sizable industry had developed
in Spain exploiting a beverage made from chufas. The chufas
for this industry were gathered on the shores of the Segura
River. Lesant (2) was probably first to call attention to chufas
in France in 1822. In 1851 Luna (4), and in 1889 Hell and
Twerdomedoff (1) extracted between 27 and 28 percent of a

'The authors wish to thank Mrs. Frank N. Young and Mrs. Louise B.
Echols, laboratory assistants, for their assistance in the chemical analyses
herein presented.
2 Italic figures in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.




-qW I "II


6 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

fatty oil from chufas by expression and ether extraction and
by a light petroleum extraction. In 1923 Power and Chesnut
(7) reported on studies of chufas purchased in Richmond, Vir-
ginia, from a crop grown in 1917, giving the first data on chufas
grown in this country. A light petroleum (b. p. 35-550C)
extraction yielded 28.9 percent of a fatty oil. These investi-
gators concluded from their work that the most important con-
stituent of chufas was the fatty oil, although the sucrose and
starch might be of economic interest.




















Fig. 2.-Basket of chufas ready for planting.

In 1909 Georgia produced 481 acres of chufas yielding 12,531
bushels, according to Piper (6). Piper also notes that the
estimated yield at the Arkansas Experiment Station was 6,992
pounds per acre, while Alabama reported yields of 115.24 dry
bushels per acre, and the average yield at the Ontario Agricul-
tural College was 22.8 bushels per acre. It was calculated that
307 pounds of pork could be produced from an acre of chufas
pastured by hogs at the Alabama Experiment Station, accord-
ing to Piper.
Shealy (8) reported that 8 shotes gained 226 pounds in 90
days while grazing chufas with no supplement and made 600
pounds additional gain in the next 58 days when fed a protein
supplement of fishmeal.







Chufas in Florida


Shealy (9) compared, by grazing with shotes, chufas, Spanish
peanuts and sweet potatoes, Spanish peanuts and corn, corn
alone, and Spanish peanuts alone all with a protein supplement.
The shotes grazing chufas gained most with the other crops
in order as ranked.


Fig. 3.-Chufa plant ready for grazing or hogging off.


CHUFAS IN FLORIDA AGRICULTURE


The acreage of chufas grown in Florida and other Southern
states is small in comparison with that of many other field crops.
The 22nd census of Florida reported in 1941 by Commissioner
of Agriculture Mayo (5) gives the following acreages of chufas:
172 acres of chufas dug, yielding 3,341 bushels of nuts, and 7,072
acres left in the field for hogging off. The first 5 Florida coun-
ties leading in chufa acreage ranked in order are: Alachua 856,
Madison 608, Suwannee 590, Sumter 535 and Levy 501 acres.
When chufas are to be dug for seed they are usually loosened
from the soil after the tops have died (October or November)
either by running a small turning plow (Dixie boy) under them
or by using a peanut digger. The entire plant is then laid on
the surface of the soil and allowed to dry for several days, after
which the nuts may be rubbed off over a wire mesh into a box
or wagon or picked with a peanut picker which requires several
adjustments to do the picking.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


It is generally recognized that many farmers in the South
often grow a small field of chufas for hogs. Most farmers report
chufas as being a good fall, winter and even spring crop for
hogging-off. Figure 4 shows a field of chufas in 3-foot rows,
nearing maturity, and ready for hogging-off. Figure 5 shows
a field in 2-foot rows after wintering in the field, picture taken
in February.




















Fig. 4.-Field of chufas ready for harvest. (Picture taken October 1, 1943.)

In general, chufas are drilled in 2- to 3-foot rows in late
spring, early summer or mid-summer, with or without fertilizer,
and handled much the same as peanuts. Like dug peanuts, it is
thought by many that chufas are hard on the land, that is,
depress yields of following crops.
Chufas weigh 44 pounds per bushel and it requires from 15
to 20 pounds of seed to plant 1 acre in 2.5 to 3-foot rows, 12
inches in the row and from 30 to 40 pounds to seed an acre
with a 6-inch spacing in the row. Due to a wide range in the
number of chufas per pound, a more exact poundage for seeding
cannot be given. Chufa seed when purchased may be contami-
nated with the nuts from nut grass, Cyperus rotundus L., which
are objectionable to many growers because of the nut grass
volunteering in following crops. Chu re easily eradicated
by hogging the crop -fo 'owing.







Chufas in Florida


INSECTS, PESTS AND DISEASES
Chufas are not seriously affected by any of the common plant
diseases. The "negro bug" causes most damage to this crop.
This bug punctures the chufas and the larvae which develop
live on the nut, entirely destroying many nuts and partially
destroying many more. This insect can best be controlled by
proper crop rotation, that is, not planting the same crop on
the same land in successive years. Salamanders or pocket
gophers work over chufa fields much the same as peanut fields
and the same control measures should be employed.


Fig. 5.-Chufas after wintering in the field. (Picture taken Feb. 21, 1944.)

SPACING AND FERTILIZING

PLAN OF EXPERIMENT
It was thought that the spacing of chufa plants and fertil-
ization practices might indicate how to produce highest yields.
In 1934 a test was started on the Station farm using 6-inch
and 12-inch spacing of plants in 30-inch rows without fertilizer,
and with a 5-5-5 fertilizer used at the rates of 300 and 600
pounds per acre. There were 6 replicates of each of these treat-
ments on a Norfolk fine sand.
In 1935 this test was revised in view of results secured in
1934 and again the 6-inch and 12-inch spacings in 30-inch rows







Chufas in Florida


INSECTS, PESTS AND DISEASES
Chufas are not seriously affected by any of the common plant
diseases. The "negro bug" causes most damage to this crop.
This bug punctures the chufas and the larvae which develop
live on the nut, entirely destroying many nuts and partially
destroying many more. This insect can best be controlled by
proper crop rotation, that is, not planting the same crop on
the same land in successive years. Salamanders or pocket
gophers work over chufa fields much the same as peanut fields
and the same control measures should be employed.


Fig. 5.-Chufas after wintering in the field. (Picture taken Feb. 21, 1944.)

SPACING AND FERTILIZING

PLAN OF EXPERIMENT
It was thought that the spacing of chufa plants and fertil-
ization practices might indicate how to produce highest yields.
In 1934 a test was started on the Station farm using 6-inch
and 12-inch spacing of plants in 30-inch rows without fertilizer,
and with a 5-5-5 fertilizer used at the rates of 300 and 600
pounds per acre. There were 6 replicates of each of these treat-
ments on a Norfolk fine sand.
In 1935 this test was revised in view of results secured in
1934 and again the 6-inch and 12-inch spacings in 30-inch rows







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


were used without fertilizer and with only nitrogen; phosphorus;
potassium; and combinations of nitrogen and phosphorus; nitro-
gen and potassium; phosphorus and potassium; and nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium.
In 1943 another test was started involving 6-inch and 12-inch
spacings in 3-foot rows without fertilizer and with 4-8-4, 4-8-6,
4-8-8, 4-8-10, and 4-8-12 fertilizers at the rate of 400 pounds
per acre.
From results secured in 1934, 1935 and 1943 the 1944 test
was designed to furnish more information on chufa spacing.
Both 6-inch and 12-inch spacings were used in 3-foot and 2-foot
rows with 400 pounds per acre of a 4-8-4 fertilizer under the
3-foot rows and 533 pounds under the 2-foot rows.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
All of the chufa spacing and fertilizer tests were located on
a Norfolk fine sand on the Station Farm near Gainesville, Flor-
ida. The test conducted during the 1934 season consisted of 6
replicates of each treatment with 2 spacings in the row. This
test was fertilized with a 5-5-5 fertilizer in advance of planting
time and planted on July 21. Three-row plots 46 feet long,
with 21/2 feet between rows, were used. Nitrate of soda, super-
phosphate and muriate of potash were the sources of fertilizer
elements. Table 1 shows the results of this test. The no-
fertilizer, 12-inch spacing, produced 1,398 pounds per acre of
air-dry chufas which was the lowest yield in the experiment;
whereas the same treatment in 6-inch spacing produced 1,538
pounds, or a 10 percent increase for the close spacing. In the
12-inch spacing 300 pounds of a 5-5-5 fertilizer produced 179
pounds more chufas than the no-fertilizer treatment and gave
the greatest single increase in the test. The response to fertil-
izer treatment on the chufas in the 6-inch spacing was positive
but not sufficient to warrant the use of the fertilizer.
Results of the 1935 experiment are given in Table 2. The
fertilizer for this experiment was applied June 19 and the chufas
were planted June 22, with the fertilizer nutrients coming from
nitrate of soda, superphosphate and muriate of potash at rates
of 16 pounds nitrogen, 18 pounds phosphoric acid and 17 pounds
potash per acre. Average yields of 8 replications for each treat-
ment from 3-row plots 46 feet long, with 2.5 feet between rows,
are given. The 6-inch spacing gave small increases in yield
over 12-inch spacing on plots treated with nitrogen; nitrogen







Chufas in Florida 11

and potassium; phosphorus; potassium and phosphorus; and
phosphorus and nitrogen, but gave lower yields on the no-
fertilizer plots and those treated with potassium; and nitrogen,
phosphorus- and potassium. Average yields for all treatments
show a slight increase in chufas from the 6-inch spacing over
the 12-inch spacing.
TABLE 1.-CHUFA SPACING AND FERTILIZER TEST 1934.
Average
Fertilizer Pounds Air-Dry Percent Yield Percent
Treatment Chufas per Acre Increase of Both Increase
Lbs. Fertilizer Over Spacings Over No
per Acre 12-Inch 6-Inch 12-Inch Pounds Fertilizer
(5-5-5 formula) Spacing Spacing Spacing per Acre

None 1,398 1,538 10.01 1,468
300 1,577 1,575 -0.13 1,576 7.36
600 1,566 1,594 1.79 1,580 7.63

Average Yield 1,514 1,569 3.63 1,541 ........

No fertilizer and 400 pounds of a 4-8-4 fertilizer with uniform
increases in potash through 12 percent checked with 6-inch and
12-inch spacings constituted the experiment in 1943. Plots were
replicated 4 times and each was 3 rows, 100 feet long, with
3 feet between rows. The fertilizer was applied on May 27 and
chufas were planted the same day. The fertilizer was applied
in the row, mixed with a "middle buster" and bedded with a
sweep. The nitrogen was derived 1/2 from nitrate of soda, 1/4
from sulfate of ammonia and 1/4 from castor pomace; phosphorus
was from superphosphate and potash from muriate of potash.
TABLE 2.-CHUFA SPACING AND FERTILIZER TEST -1935.

Pounds Air-Dry Chufas per Acre
Fertilizer* Treatment 12-Inch 6-Inch
Spacing Spacing Average
None ...... ..............-- .................... 1,074 -1,050 1,062
Nitrogen ..................................... ......... 908 1,155 1,032
Nitrogen-phosphorus ................................ 1,075 1,134 1,104
Nitrogen-potassium .................................. 1,006 1,078 1,041
Phosphorus .......................................... ... 1,072 1,154 1,113
Phosphorus-potassium ............................ 1,008 1,122 1,065
Potassium ........................... ............. 1,083 1,024 1,054
Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium.... 1,084 1,031 1,058

Average yield ................ .............. 1,039 1,094 1,066

Sources of Fertilizer materials:
Nitrogen-100 pounds 16% nitrate of soda per acre
Phosphorus-100 pounds 18% superphosphate per acre
Potassium-35 pounds 50% muriate of potash per acre.

















Pounds Ai

Fertilizer 6-Inch Spaci
Treatment
Nuts I


TABLE 3.-CHUFA SPACING AND FERTILIZER TEST--1943.


r-Dry Chufas per Acre Average Yield for Percent Increase Percent Increase
All Spacings Over No Fertilizer 6-Inch Over
ng 12-Inch Spacing 12-Inch Spacing

lay Nuts Hay Nuts Hay Nuts Hay Nuts Hay


,650 1,615 2,530 1,692 2,590 ...... .... 9.5 4.7

,088 1,568 3,079 1,660 3,084 -1.9 19.1 11.7 0.3
,611 1,295 2,273 1,847 2,942 9.2 13.6 85.3 58.9
,170 1,578 2,619 1,982 2,895 17.1 17.7 51.2 21.0

,165 1,757 2,786 1,838. 3,476 8.6 34.2 9.2 49.5
,809 1,706 2,266 1,941 3,038 17.7 17.3 27.5 68.1


,416 1,587 2,592 1,827 3,004 8.0 16.0 30.2 31.8







Chufas in Florida


Results of this experiment are given in Table 3. All chufa
yields, of both nuts and hay, were higher for the 6-inch spacing
than the 12-inch. In all but 1 instance the addition of fertilizer
increased the nut yield for the 6-inch spacing and in all cases
increased the hay yield. Probably 400 pounds of a 4-8-6 fertil-
izer gave the most economical returns for the 6-inch spacing
and yielded lowest for the 12-inch spacing. In all cases the
6-inch spacings outyielded the 12-inch. The average for all
treatments in the 6-inch and 12-inch spacings gave a 30.2 percent
increase in chufas and 31.8 percent increase in chufa-hay for
the 6-inch spacing.
In 1944 a new experiment was designed to give more informa-
tion on the effects of plant spacing in the row and width of
rows. Four replicates of each treatment, with 3-row plots 100
feet long and 2 and 3 feet between rows, were used. Fertilizer
was applied in the row at the rate of 400 pounds per acre of a
4-8-4 for the 3-foot rows and 533 pounds for the 2-foot rows.
This variance in acre rate of fertilizer allowed the same rate
of fertilizer per row. A ready-mixed commercial fertilizer was
applied on June 28 and chufas were planted on July 10. Results
of this experiment are given in Table 4. The 6-inch spacing
increased the yield over the 12-inch spacing by 31.9 percent in
the 3-foot rows and by 15.4 percent in the 2-foot rows. The
2-foot rows with 12-inch spacing gave an increase of 49 percent
over the 3-foot rows.

TABLE 4.-CHUFA SPACING TEST 1944.
Average Yield Percent Increase
Row Width and Pounds Air-Dry Over 12-Inch Spacing
Plant Spacing Chufas per Acre 3-Foot Rows


3' row 6" spacing ...............
3' row 12" spacing .............-...


1,836 31.9
1,392...


2' row 6" spacing ................ .. 1,607 15.4
2' row 12" spacing ................. 2,074 49.0

Chufas Harvested October 17, 1944.
Fertilizer: 3' rows-400 pounds 4-8-4 per acre.
2' rows-533 pounds 4-8-4 per acre.

It has long been thought that chufas could be left in the field
until mid-winter or spring for hogging off without much loss of
nuts. On March 1, 1945, a set of plots identical to those har-
vested in the fall of 1944 were harvested for yield with the








Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


results given in Table 5. Only the high-yielding plots were re-
checked; that is, those in 3-foot rows and 6-inch spacing and in
the 2-foot rows and 12-inch spacing. This late winter or early
spring yield showed 381 pounds less chufas per acre in the 3-foot
rows with 6-inch spacing and 476 pounds less in the narrow row
with wide spacing.

TABLE 5.-CHUFA DELAYED-HARVEST TEST* 1945.
Average Yield Decrease in Yield Due
Row Width and Pounds Air-Dry to Delayed Harvest
Plant Spacing Chufas per Acre Pounds

3' row 6" spacing .................... 1,455 381
2' row 12" spacing .................. 1,598 476

Chufas Harvested March 1, 1945.
Only highest yielding 'plots were rechecked in March for yield. Many
negro bugs were present in March and very few were found in October.
Fertilizer: 3' row-400 pounds 4-8-4 per acre.
2' row-533 pounds 4-8-4 per acre.

Table 6 shows data on chemical composition of chufas and
chufa hay. Delayed harvest of 41/2 months caused chufas to
analyze higher in all constituents, with the oil content being
markedly higher. With chufas yielding 1,836 pounds in the
fall and 1,455 pounds in the early spring and their oil content
of 29.55 and 34.40 percent, respectively, the total oil produced
per acre was somewhat higher for the fall harvest-542 pounds
to 500 pounds. Likewise, 2,074 pounds of chufas in the fall
and 1,598 pounds in the spring produced 613 pounds to 550

TABLE 6.-CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CHUFAS AND CHUFA HAY.

Percentage Composition on Oven-Dry Basis**
Constituents Chufa Hay Chufa Hay
1944* 1945* No 400 lbs.
Chufas Chufas Fertilizer 4-8-4

Ash ...................... .... 3.054 5.707 8.132 7.917
Sand ................ ...... 1 0.620 2.591 3.337 3.380
Nitrogen ........................ 0.745 0.858 0.575 0.599
Phosphorus ................. 0.305 0.339 0.127 0.148
Potassium ................... 0.659 0.721 0.698 0.737
Calcium ........................ 0.046 0.075 0.592 0.669
Magnesium ........... 0.091 0.092 0.327 0.429
Oil (ether extract) .... 29.55 34.40 .......

*Note: Chufas for chemical analysis in 1944 and 1945 came from the same plots all
planted in 1944 and harvested at two dates-October 17, 1944, and March 1, 1945.
** Mineral composition is given as percentages on oven-dry, sand-free basis.







Chufas in Florida


pounds. It was thought that the 381 to 476-pound decrease in
chufa yield between fall and spring was due to negro bug injury.
However, the oil content indicates that a physiological change
in the chufas was probably in part responsible for the decrease
in weight. The chufa hay was relatively low in nitrogen and
phosphorus and fairly high in potassium, calcium and mag-
nesium. A 4-8-4 fertilizer at 400 pounds per acre increased the
percentage composition of all elements, indicating some value
from fertilization.
DISCUSSION
Experiments with chufas in 1934 and 1935 showed small
differences in yield due to either spacing or fertilizer treatment.
The 1934 results showed some increase in yield in favor of the
close spacing and further slight increases'from fertilizer treat-
ment. The 1935 results indicated small differences, with the
average yields slightly in favor of close^ spacing. The 1943
results showed substantially higher yields of chufas from the
6-inch spacing over the 12-inch. Marked increases also were
secured from the 4-8-6 treatment in both chufas and hay. How-
ever, the largest hay yield was from plots treated with a 4-8-10
fertilizer. Yields from 12-inch spacing did not agree in all
respects according to treatment with yields from close spacing.
There was an 8 percent increase in chufas for all fertilizer
treatments and both spacings over the no-fertilizer plots and
likewise a 16 percent increase in hay. The average yield of
chufas from all plots with 6-inch spacing was 30.2 percent
higher than the 12-inch spacing and average hay yield was 31.8
percent higher.
Results from the 1944 experiment were in agreement with
those from 1943. Chufas grown in 3-foot rows spaced at 6
inches yielded 31.9 percent more than those grown at 12-inch
spacing. Chufas grown in 2-foot rows and 6-inch spacing
yielded 15.4 percent more and in 12-inch spacing 49 percent
more than those grown in 3-foot rows and 12-inch spacing.
These data indicate that in the 6-inch spacing in 2-foot rows
there were too many plants to give maximum yield, while in the
12-inch spacing in 3-foot rows there were too few plants. On
the Norfolk soil used for this experiment chufas yielded most
when grown in 2-foot rows with 12-inch spacing or in 3-foot
rows with 6-inch spacing.
The oil content of the chufa is its chief constituent and makes
it of value as a feed crop.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


CONCLUSIONS

1. The response of chufas to applications of fertilizers has
been somewhat erratic, much the same as that of peanuts.
2. The hay chufaa tops) is a feed low in protein but with an
average quantity of other minerals, which apparently can be
increased by fertilization.
3. Chufas contain slightly more than half the oil content of
peanuts and are relatively low in protein for a nut crop and low
in calcium and magnesium.
4. The greatest increase in chufa yields can be expected from
proper spacing of plants. On a Norfolk soil either 2-foot rows
with plants 12 inches in the row or 3-foot rows with plants 6
inches in the row can be expected to give largest yields.
5. Negro bugs may do considerable damage to chufas, result-
ing in lower yields if the chufas are not hogged off or harvested
at maturity in the fall.

LITERATURE CITED

1. HELL, CARL, and S. TWERDOMEDOFF. Ueber Das Fette Del Von Cyperus
Esculentus. Ber. Deut. Chem. Gesell., Jahrg. 22, p. 1742-1745. 1889.
2. LESANT, M. Recherches Sur La Composition Chinique Des Tubercules
Du Souchet Comestible. Jour. Pharm., ser. 2, Ann. 8. p. 497-513.
1822.
3. LINDLEY, JOHN, and THOMAS MOORE. The Treasury of Botany. Part
I. London. According to: Reference No. 7, Page 75. 1899.
"4. LUNA, RAMON TORRES MUNOZ Y. Memorie Sur La Nature Chemique
La Chufa (Souchet Comestible). Jour. Pharm. et Chim, ser. 3,
t. 19, p. 336-346. 1851.
5. MAYO, NATHAN. Agricultural Statistics of Florida. Florida Agricul-
tural Statistical Report 1941. p. 97. 1941.
6. PIPER, CHARLES. Forage Plants and their Culture. Revised Edition.
The Macmillan Company, New York. p. 641. 1924.
S7. POWER, FREDRICK B., and VICTOR K. CHESNUT. Chemical Examination
of "Chufa", the Tubers of Cyperus Esculentus Lirine. Jour. Agr.
Res. 26:69-75. 1923.
8. SHEALY, A. L. Comparison of Various Grazing Crops with Dry-Lot
Feeding for Pork Production. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rpt. 1931
p. 53.
9. SHEALY, A. L. Comparison of Various Grazing Crops with Dry-Lot
Feeding for Pork Production. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rpt. 1932
pp. 53-54.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


CONCLUSIONS

1. The response of chufas to applications of fertilizers has
been somewhat erratic, much the same as that of peanuts.
2. The hay chufaa tops) is a feed low in protein but with an
average quantity of other minerals, which apparently can be
increased by fertilization.
3. Chufas contain slightly more than half the oil content of
peanuts and are relatively low in protein for a nut crop and low
in calcium and magnesium.
4. The greatest increase in chufa yields can be expected from
proper spacing of plants. On a Norfolk soil either 2-foot rows
with plants 12 inches in the row or 3-foot rows with plants 6
inches in the row can be expected to give largest yields.
5. Negro bugs may do considerable damage to chufas, result-
ing in lower yields if the chufas are not hogged off or harvested
at maturity in the fall.

LITERATURE CITED

1. HELL, CARL, and S. TWERDOMEDOFF. Ueber Das Fette Del Von Cyperus
Esculentus. Ber. Deut. Chem. Gesell., Jahrg. 22, p. 1742-1745. 1889.
2. LESANT, M. Recherches Sur La Composition Chinique Des Tubercules
Du Souchet Comestible. Jour. Pharm., ser. 2, Ann. 8. p. 497-513.
1822.
3. LINDLEY, JOHN, and THOMAS MOORE. The Treasury of Botany. Part
I. London. According to: Reference No. 7, Page 75. 1899.
"4. LUNA, RAMON TORRES MUNOZ Y. Memorie Sur La Nature Chemique
La Chufa (Souchet Comestible). Jour. Pharm. et Chim, ser. 3,
t. 19, p. 336-346. 1851.
5. MAYO, NATHAN. Agricultural Statistics of Florida. Florida Agricul-
tural Statistical Report 1941. p. 97. 1941.
6. PIPER, CHARLES. Forage Plants and their Culture. Revised Edition.
The Macmillan Company, New York. p. 641. 1924.
S7. POWER, FREDRICK B., and VICTOR K. CHESNUT. Chemical Examination
of "Chufa", the Tubers of Cyperus Esculentus Lirine. Jour. Agr.
Res. 26:69-75. 1923.
8. SHEALY, A. L. Comparison of Various Grazing Crops with Dry-Lot
Feeding for Pork Production. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rpt. 1931
p. 53.
9. SHEALY, A. L. Comparison of Various Grazing Crops with Dry-Lot
Feeding for Pork Production. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rpt. 1932
pp. 53-54.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs