• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Front Matter
 Table of Contents
 I. Peanut growing
 II. Chemical composition of the...
 Literature cited
 Back Cover














Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station ; no. 432
Title: Peanuts in Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00015144/00001
 Material Information
Title: Peanuts in Florida
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Alternate Title: Peanut growing
Chemical composition of the peanut plant
Physical Description: 47 p. : ill. ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Killinger, G. B ( Gordon Beverly ), 1908-
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1947
 Subjects
Subject: Peanuts -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: G.B. Killinger ... et al..
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station)
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00015144
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000925507
oclc - 18253683
notis - AEN6158

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Front Matter
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Table of Contents
        Page 4
    I. Peanut growing
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
    II. Chemical composition of the peanut plant with particular reference to the uptake of nutrients at different growth stages
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
    Literature cited
        Page 47
    Back Cover
        Page 48
Full Text


Bulletin 432 June, 1947

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






Peanuts in Florida

I. Peanut Growing
II. Chemical Composition of the Peanut Plant

G. B. KILLINGER, W. E. STOKES, FRED CLARK and J. D. WARNER









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
University'
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., Editor'
Clyde Beale, A.B.J., Associate Editors
Jefferson Thomas, Assistant Editors
Ida Keeling Cresap, Librarian
Ruby Newhall, Administrative Managers
K. H. Graham, LL.D., Business Managers
Claranelle Alderman, Accountant'




MAIN STATION, GAINESVILLE


AGRONOMY

W. E. Stokes, M.S., Agronomist'
Fred H. Hull, Ph.D., Agronomist
G. E. Ritchey, M.S., Agronomists
G. B. Killinger, Ph.D., Agronomist
W. A. Carver, Ph.D., Associate
H. C. Harris, Ph.D., Associate
Fred A. Clark, B.S., Assistant




ANIMAL INDUSTRY

A. L. Shealy, D.V.M., An. Industrialist' s
R. B. Becker, Ph.D., Dairy Husbandman'
E. L. Fouts, Ph.D., Dairy Technologist'
D. A. Sanders, D.V.M., Veterinarian
M. W. Emmel, D.V.M., Veterinarians
L. E. Swanson, D.V.M., Parasitologist
N. R. Mehrhof, M.Agr., Poultry Husb.'
G. K. Davis, Ph.D., Animal Nutritionist
R. S. Glasscock, Ph.D., An. Husbandman
P. T. Dix Arnold, M.S.A., Asst. Dairy Hush.'
C. L. Comar, Ph.D., Asso. Biochemist
L. E. Mull, M.S., Asst. in Dairy Tech.
Katherine Boney, B.S., Asst. Chem.
J. C. Driggers, B.S.A., Asst. Poultry Husb.
Glenn Van Ness, D.V.M., Asso. Poultry
Pathologist
John S. Folks, B.S.A., Asst. An. Husb.


ECONOMICS, AGRICULTURAL

C. V. Noble, Ph.D., Agri. Economistx
Zach Savage, M.S.A., Associates
A. H. Spurlock, M.S.A., Associate
U. E. Alleger, M.S., Associate
D. L. Brooke, M.S.A., Associate

Orlando, Florida (Cooperative USDA)
G. Norman Rose, B.S., Asso. Agr. Economist
J. C. Townsend, Jr., B.S.A., Agr. Statistician'
J. B. Owens, B.S.A., Agr. Statisticians


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


ENTOMOLOGY
A. N. Tissot, Ph.D., Entomologist and Act-
ing Head of Dept.
H. E. Bratley, M.S.A., Assistant


HORTICULTURE
G. H. Blackmon, M.S.A., Horticulturist1
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. D. Dickey, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
Victor F. Nettles, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.
F. S. Lagasse, Ph.D., Asso. Hort.2


PLANT PATHOLOGY
W. B. Tisdale, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist'
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' a
Gaylord M. Volk, Ph.D., Chemist
J. R. Henderson, M.S.A., Soil Technologist
J. R. Neller, 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
H. W. Winsor, B.S.A., Assistant Chemist
Geo. D. Thornton, M.S., Asst. Microbiologists
R. E. Caldwell, M.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor
Wade McCall, B.S., Asst. Chemist
J. B. Cromartie, B.S.A., Asst. Soil Surveyor


1 Head of Department.
2 In cooperation with U. S. D. A.
s Cooperative, other divisions, U. of F.
SIn Military Service.
6 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
L. G. Thompson, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Frank D. Baker, Jr., B.S., Asst. An. Husb.


Mobile Unit, Monticello
R. W. Wallace, B.S., Associate Agronomist


Mobile Unit, Bonifay
R. 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
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 Pathologist5
J. E. Benedict, B.S., Horticulturist
I. W. Wander, Ph.D., Chemist-Physicist
A. E. Willson, B.S.A., Soils Chemist
B. R. Fudge, Ph.D., Associate Chemist
C. R. Stearns, Jr., B.S.A., Asso. Chemist
James K. Colehour, M.S., Research Chemist
D. R. Langfitt, B.S., Asso. Chemist
J. W. Kesterson, M.S., Asst. Chemist
T. W. Young, Ph.D., Asso. Horticulturist
J. W. Sites, M.S.A., Asso. Horticulturist
H. O. Sterling, B.S., Asst. Horticulturist
J. A. Grange B.S.A., Asst. Horticulturist
H. J. Reitz, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.
Francine Fisher, M.S., Asso. P1. Path.

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
B. S. Clayton, B.S.C.E., Drainage Eng.s
W. D. Wylie, Ph.D., Entomologist
W. T. Forsee, Jr., Ph.D., Asso. Chemist
R. W. Kidder, M.S., Asst. An. Hush.
T. C. Erwin, Assistant Chemist
R. A. Bair, Ph.D., Asst. Agronomist
C. C. Seale, Asst. Agronomist
L. O. Payne, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist


Russel Desrosiers, M.S., Asst. Plant Path.
N. C. Hayslip, B.S.A., Asst. Hort.

SUB-TROPICAL STA., HOMESTEAD
Geo. D. Ruehle, Ph.D., Vice-Director in
Charge
H. I. Borders, M.S., Asso. Plant Path.?
D. O. Wolfenbarger, Ph.D., Asso. Ento.
R. W. Harkness, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist

W. CENT. FLA. STA., BROOKSVILLE
Clement D. Gorden, Ph.D., Poultry Geneticist
in Charge2

RANGE CATTLE STATION, ONA
W. G. Kirk, Ph.D., Vice-Director in Charge
E. M. Hodges, Ph.D., Associate Agronomist
D. W. Jones, B.S.A., Asst. An. Hush.
E. R. Felton, B.S.A., Asst. An. Hush.

CENTRAL FLORIDA STATION, 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.

WEST FLORIDA STATION, MILTON
H. W. Lundy, B.S.A., Asst. Agronomist


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. Entomologist's
A. M. Phillips, B.S., Asst. Entomologist'

Bradenton

J. R. Beckenbach, Ph.D., Horticulturist in
Charge
E. G. Kelsheimer, Ph.D., Entomologist
David G. Kelbert, Asso. Horticulturist
E. L. Spencer, Ph.D., Soils Chemist
Robert O. Magie, Ph.D., Hort., Glad. Inv.
Donald S. Burgis, M.S.A., Asst. Hort.

Lakeland
Warren O. Johnson, Meteorologistz

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







CONTENTS

Page
PART I.-PEANUT GROWING ........... ....................................... 5

Land Suitable for Peanuts ...................................--......... 7

Soil Preparation -- ----.........------........-................ .... 7

Fertilization ......... .............. ............. ... ............ ........ 8

Dolomitic and Calcic Limestone ............................................. 8

Variety, Seed Treatment, Inoculation, Planting and
R ate of Seeding .................... ............................................. 9

Cultivation ......................... ............................ 10

Diseases and Insects ..........................--- ......... .................... 11

Harvesting and Curing ........................... ............................ 13

Hidden or Concealed Damage .............................................. 16

Stacking ..... -....................... ....... .................... 18

Picking -- ---............................... .............................. 21

Experimental Procedure .......................---.......... ...... .......... 22

Spanish Peanut Response to Various Treatments ............ 22

Spacing of Peanuts ....... ................................. ............... 26

Effect of Waste-pond Phosphate on Spanish and
Florida Runner Peanuts ...................... ........................... 28

Florida Runner Peanut Response to Fertilizer Treatment 29

Effect of Sulfur and Copper-Sulfur Dust on Peanut Yields 32

Summary ...... ----------.......... ---------....................... 36


PART II.-CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE PEANUT PLANT........................ 36

Plan of Experim ent .............................. ........................ 37

Methods of Analysis -..................--------- -..................... 38

Experimental Results .................. -------------...................... 38

Discussion and Summary ................. ...... .............. ............ 46

Literature Cited .... ............................................................. 47









PEANUTS IN FLORIDA

G. B. KILLINGER, W. E. STOKES, FRED CLARK and J. D. WARNER

I. Peanut Growing
The origin of the peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is not defi-
nitely known. However, it is generally believed to be a native
of Brazil (2).1 Some botanists traced the early history of pea-
nuts to Africa. It now seems quite certain that peanuts were
growing in Brazil, Paraguay, Uraguay and Argentina prior to
the year 1555. It was about this time that French colonists
sent to Brazil recognized the peanut under the name of mandobi.
Other names that have been used sometimes when referring to
peanuts are earth nuts, earth almonds, goobers, grass nuts,
ground nuts and pinders. In 1936 a United States Department
of Agriculture explorer, William A. Archer, found wild types
of peanuts growing in a number of Central and South American
countries. Various types of peanuts were recognized in Virginia
as early as 1781. During the Civil War men in the armies
fighting in Virginia picked up knowledge of the peanut, and
after the war plantings were made in most of the other South-
eastern states.
The peanut is a pea and belongs to the same group of plants
as garden peas and beans, the chief difference being its character
of maturing its fruit beneath the surface of the soil. Because
of common usage, the term nut is used in this bulletin when
referring to the seed.
From 1870 to 1880 machinery was patented for the picking,
cleaning and shelling of peanuts, and in 1876 the first factory
for cleaning peanuts was started in New York City. By 18910
most of the Southern states had peanut shelling plants in
operation. It was immediately following the cotton boll weevil
infestation that the acreage of peanuts was rapidly increased.
To date 3 main types of peanuts are being grown in the
United States: the Jumbo, or large-podded type grown chiefly
in Virginia and North Carolina; the smaller or medium-pod
type known as the runner, grown in all peanut-producing states,
with most states having a strain of their own, such as Virginia
Runner, North Carolina Runner, Georgia Runner and Florida

1Italic figures in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Runner; and the Spanish peanut, grown largely in Texas,
Alabama, Georgia and Florida and to a lesser extent in other
peanut-producing states.
Peanuts and peanut products have a wide range of uses.
Both hay and nuts are harvested, with the nuts utilized for
human food, animal feed, oil, peanut butter, flour, plastics,
adhesive compounds and in many other major and minor com-
mercial products.
During World War I peanut growing was highly profitable
to the Southern farmer because the vegetable oil and food
were in demand. After 1918 a decreased demand for the oil
and heavy importations of peanuts from the Orient resulted
in low net prices to the farmer, with a resulting leveling-off
of the acreage planted to this crop. Again during World War II
the peanut acreage increased as demand rose. In 1943 and
1944 farmers in the United States planted 4 million acres to
peanuts annually.
For many years peanuts planted alone or with corn have
been an important factor in the production of pork in the
South. In Florida more peanuts are hogged off every year
than are harvested. During years of good prices for nuts,
however, the percentage of the crop dug and marketed rises.
In 1945 Florida farmers planted 354,000 acres2 to solid peanuts
(peanuts planted alone), of which 160,000 acres were picked
and threshed. The average acreage planted to solid peanuts for
the 10-year period 1936-1945 in Florida was 345,000, with an
average of 93,000 acres picked and threshed. There were
222,000 acres of corn and other crops interplanted with peanuts
in 1945, with a 10-year average of 278,000 acres planted in
this manner.
All data and photographs in this bulletin concern the variety
known as the Florida Runner, unless otherwise noted. The
Florida Runner peanut is similar to Georgia, Alabama, and
Carolina runners in all its main characteristics. A new variety,
the Dixie Runner, released in 1943 by the Florida Agricultural
Experiment Station, has been accepted by the peanut industry
and farmers as a runner peanut superior to strains previously
grown. An estimated 15,000 to 20,000 bushels of this variety
were planted on Florida farms in 1946. A somewhat smaller
acreage of the same peanut is being grown in Georgia and

SData on peanut acreages by J. C. Townsend, Jr., Agricultural Statis-
tician, USDA Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Orlando, Florida.






Peanuts in Florida


Alabama. The Dixie Runner, a cross between the Dixie Giant
and Florida Spanish 3X-1, was developed by Dr. W. A. Carver
at the Florida Station. Outstanding qualities of this new
peanut are early maturity, less hidden damage, high yields,
high oil content, and high hay yields.

Land Suitable for Peanuts
Most of the well-drained soils in central and northern Florida
are suited to the growing of peanuts. It has long been noted
that some of the best peanut yields come from plantings on
waste-pond phosphate fields, areas surrounding phosphate mines
and limestone quarries. Fields which have been covered with
the over-burden from these mines usually produce excellent
peanut yields and few "pops"3. Sandy loams are usually pre-
ferred to the heavier clay soils, although good yields can be
had on some clay soils. The flatwoods soils rank as one of
the poorest for peanut production. By soil series, Norfolk,
Arredondo, Newberry, Orangeburg, Ruston, Red Bay and Mag-
nolia are the most commonly used soils for peanuts in Florida.
Of first importance in selecting a field for peanuts is the
previous crop. Peanuts do not produce well when grown on the
same field for 2 or more successive years, but produce well
following corn, oats, cotton or almost any other general farm
crop. Virgin land, or newly cleared land, if properly drained,
can be expected to produce a high yield of peanuts the first year.

Soil Preparation
In preparing soil for peanut planting, care should be exercised
in having most of the crop and weed residues turned under.
The soil usually is turned with a turning plow, disk tiller or disk
harrow, depending upon the condition of the soil and the amount
and kind of crop residue at hand. If a heavy cover is on the
field, late fall or midwinter breaking of the land usually is
practiced, allowing sufficient time for the decomposition of the
organic matter.
Proper preparation of the soil aids in planting at a uniform
depth and distance and ease of cultivation. Lack of proper
preparation often results in a poor stand and a grassy field
of peanuts.

"Pops" are peanuts usually with only the pod formed, containing no
nuts. However, sometimes very immature nuts are classified at "pops."







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Fertilization
Data on fertilization of peanuts are presented under Experi-
mental Results. Briefly, it can be stated that small amounts
of a complete fertilizer usually can be expected to increase
peanut yields from 10 to 20 percent, with the higher increases
in northern and western Florida. Fertilizer at the rate of 300
pounds per acre of a 2-10-4 mixture has given satisfactory
results. Gypsum (landplaster) has been used by many growers
with results quite erratic. It is often said that land which
produces "pops" when treated with gypsum, either as a soil
amendment or dusted on the vines, will produce normally filled
pods. It appears that certain soils in local areas may respond
to 200 to 300 pounds of gypsum in increased peanut yields of
from 10 to 20 percent. It is generally most advantageous to
apply the gypsum as a top-dressing to the plants about the
time the first blooms appears; however, satisfactory results
have been obtained from applying it with the fertilizer. Often
peanuts planted on new land produce well without fertilizer.
However, to maintain fertility for following crops some com-
mercial fertilizer should be applied to the peanut field.
If peanuts intended for digging are not to be fertilized they
should follow a crop well fertilized, or the crop following peanuts
will require additional amounts of potassium, phosphorus and
calcium.
In fertilizing peanuts it is well to apply the fertilizer a week
to 10 days in advance of planting and bed the land lightly.
If fertilizing at planting time, the fertilizer should be placed
to the sides of the seed. Fertilizer applied in the row, if mixed
with the soil by means of a small plow or bull tongue and
bedded, usually will not injure peanut seedlings; however,
this depends to a large extent upon soil moisture. The slight
bed left after fertilizing should be leveled at planting. That is,
the field should be planted as near level as possible.

Dolomitic and Calcic Limestone
Peanut yields in central and north central Florida have not
been increased by the use of either dolomitic or calcic limestone.
A series of 8 tests run within a 50-mile radius of Gainesville
in 1939, involving 96 plots of each limestone treatment, showed
neither an increase nor a decrease in peanut yields for any 1
of the tests. Other tests in 1942 showed no response to either.
Both the dolomitic and calcic limestone were applied at







Peanuts in Florida


the rate of 300 pounds per acre in the drill row. Other tests
using from 500 to 1,000 pounds per acre in the drill row have
given similar results.

Variety, Seed Treatment, Inoculation, Time of Planting
and Rate of Seeding
In selecting the proper or highest yielding variety of peanuts
in Florida the first choice lies between a bunch peanut and a
runner. Of the bunch peanuts, Spanish, an early maturing
variety, usually is the choice. There are several strains of
runner peanuts, with by far the largest acreage planted to
Florida Runner. Dixie Runner may become the high-acreage
peanut in the next few years as more seed becomes available.
Seed treatment has been practiced intensively for the past
decade to prevent seed decay and improve the stand. At
present spergon, ceresan and arasan are commonly used for
treating seed peanuts. These materials are applied as dusts to
shelled and sometimes to unshelled seed. The treatments are
more beneficial for machine-shelled than hand-shelled seed.
When peanuts are hand-shelled seed treatment is not so im-
portant. However, it is still a good precaution, according to
Beattie (1).
Inoculation of peanuts is not generally practiced and rarely
has much effect on yield. The peanut plant is a legume and
appears to be inoculated naturally with organisms present in
most Florida soils.
Peanuts can be planted any time after danger of frost is
past until June. When planted with corn, either in the row
with corn or in separate rows such as 2 rows of corn and 2
rows of peanuts, usually they are planted in early to mid-March
in central and north central Florida and late March and early
April in northern and western Florida. Fields planted entirely
to peanuts may be planted safely, as a rule,, from late March
until June. It is felt by many growers that early to mid-April
is the time to plant peanuts for highest yield.
Two bushels (50 pounds) of runner peanuts in the hull, or
approximately 30 to 35 pounds of shelled nuts, will plant an
acre in 30- to 36-inch rows with plants from 6 to 8 inches in
the row. Spanish peanuts can be planted in 24-inch rows and
require about 50-pounds of shelled nuts which will space peanuts
from 3 to 5 inches in the row. These planting rates have







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


proven quite satisfactory for fields planted entirely to peanuts
under Florida conditions.

Cultivation
Proper cultivation of the peanut is very important. Grass
and weeds must be kept out of fields if good peanut yields are
to be obtained and also for ease of harvesting. Experience
has shown that peanuts peg down and produce highest yields
when they are worked as nearly flat as possible, not hilled or
ridged. It is often advisable to work the field with a springtooth
weeder as soon as the peanuts are planted qnd before they have
sprouted. Again when the peanut seedlings are breaking the
soil, they should be weeded with this implement. A sweep
run nearly flat will destroy much of the early weed and grass
growth. Hoeing is usually necessary about the time the peanut
vines are starting to run and peg down. Very little cultivation
should be done after the pegging starts, and no implements
should be used that will cut or loosen the pegs from the soil.
When runner peanuts are to be dug the cutting off of the very
earliest peanuts by tillage implements may not lower the final
harvested yield. However, this is not generally practiced.
Peanuts that are to be hogged off should not have the pegs cut.


Fig. 1.-Peanut plants completely defoliated in August by velvet bean
caterpillar. Defoliation by caterpillars before maturity reduces yields and
lowers quality of nuts.







Peanuts in Florida


In the early stages of growth when cultivation is largely
done with the weeder it has been found that a diagonal weeding
of the field will often destroy more weeds than going straight with
the rows. If the field is weeded across the rows the operator of
the weeder must watch very closely or trash will accumulate on
the weeder and drag out the peanut plants.

Diseases and Insects
Leafhoppers and velvet bean caterpillars are the insects which
do most damage. Velvet bean caterpillars often completely
defoliate peanut vines as shown in Fig. 1. This caterpillar can
be controlled by dusting with cryolite, a sodium fluoaluminate
compound, or with a DDT dust of low concentration. A 3%
DDT has effectively controlled the caterpillars. However, its
effect on the hay as to toxicity to livestock has not been deter-
mined. A 2-row mule-drawn duster applying -poison to peanuts
is shown in Fig. 2. Most peanut dusting operations, with either
poison or sulfur, are done with large 4- to 8-row power tractor
dusters. Aeroplane dusting has been practiced by many and
has proven satisfactory. FEEDING PEANUT HAY FROM
FIELDS WHICH HAVE BEEN POISONED IS A QUESTION-
ABLE PRACTICE.


Fig. 2.-Dusting peanuts with cryolite to control velvet bean caterpillars.
Other poisonous dusts also can be used.







12 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

A disease known as leafspot (Cercospora spp.) can be con-
trolled somewhat by applications of dusting sulfur or copper-
sulfur dust. Leafhoppers and caterpillars also are controlled
to some extent by this treatment. The leafspot, identified by
brown, yellow-margined spots appearing at random on peanut
leaves, usually is first noted in Florida from 55 to 60 days after
planting. Some seasons this disease may completely defoliate
the plants, seriously reducing yields. Either sulfur or copper-
sulfur dust (10-90) passing a 325-mesh screen is satisfactory
for during. Figure 3 shows a field of peanuts being dusted with
sulfur with a 1-mule 2-row wheelbarrow type duster. The
additional cost of the copper-sulfur dust over sulfur, for little
if any additional benefit in most instances, makes it appear
that sulfur is most economical. Three applications of 20 pounds
per acre at 10- to 14-day intervals starting when first spots
appear has given marked control in some instances and in-
creased peanut yields. Sometimes a 4th dusting gives bene-
ficial results, depending upon weather. Sulfur dusts are most
effective if applied in the early morning or late evening while
the plants are damp. If rain washes the dust off within 8 to
10 hours after treatment, another application is necessary.
The effect of dusting peanuts with sulfur and copper-sulfur on
yield and chemical composition will be discussed under Experi-

Fig. 3.-Applying dusting sulfur to a field of peanuts. To control leaf-
spot, 20 pounds of sulfur per acre beginning when spots first appear and at
10-day to 2-week intervals for 3 or 4 dustings is recommended.







Peanuts in Florida


mental Results. Figure 4 shows dusted and non-dusted peanuts
near maturity, with the dusted peanut vines being larger and
darker in color. The color of dusted peanut vines varies and
may be either a darker or lighter green than the non-dusted
plants. However, the increased size of plants and difference
in color usually makes it possible to distinguish the dusted from
non-dusted. Sulfur-dusted peanuts can be dug from 1 to 2
weeks later than non-dusted plants.


Fig. 4.-Mature peanuts showing effect of sulfur dusting. Note extra
foliage on dusted rows to left of center.

Harvesting and Curing
The time of harvesting peanuts is important and determines
to a large extent the final yield. Spanish peanuts are usually
harvested in August, while most runner peanuts are harvested
from mid-September to October. It is generally considered
that runner peanuts require from 140 to 150 days for maturing,
while Spanish peanuts mature in 110 to 120 days. If harvested
too early the immature nuts shrivel and give low yields of
inferior quality and low grade. If harvested too late the plant
sheds nuts in the soil and only part of the nuts produced are
harvested, giving low yields. Somewhere between the early and
late date is the time when the highest yield and best quality
nuts can be harvested. The date of digging can be determined







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


only by the individual grower. When the crop is ready for
harvest there is usually a yellowing-of the foliage, the nuts are
full and plump and the inside of the shells becomes discolored
and darkened. If Spanish peanuts are left in the soil too long
they tend to sprout and the harvested crop may have many
damaged nuts.
The actual digging operation can be accomplished with a
number of farm implements. The main factor in digging is to
cut the taproot and loosen the peanuts and vine in the soil. This
can be accomplished by an ordinary turning plow, preferably
without the wing or with the wing cut off, Figure 5. Potato
diggers or large flat blades mounted on tractors may cut and
loosen 2 to 4 rows or more in 1 operation, Figure 6. Tractor
equipment is used for harvesting the bulk of the Florida peanut
acreage. A digger which can be made in most shops is used
at the Experiment Station and is shown in Fig. 7. This digger
requires 1 man and 2 mules to operate and should prove satis-
factory for small acreages.
After the peanuts are dug they can be windrowed with a side-
delivery rake (Fig. 8) which shakes off most of the soil, turned

Fig. 5.-Moldboard plow with moldboard removed for digging peanuts. In
digging, it is important to cut main taproot and loosen entire plant.

60 -- -







Peanuts in Florida


Fig. 6.-Two-row tractor-drawn peanut diggers similar to this one
are commonly used on Florida farms. (Photo courtesy Victory Peanut
Harvester Co., Suffolk, Va.)


Fig. 7.-Single-row peanut digger used at the Experiment Station for
harvesting plots. The blade slides under the plants, cutting the roots, and
the plants slip back through the frame.


r7 7







S 16 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

upside down and shaken with a pitchfork or turned and shaken
Sby hand. Several hours to a day should elapse between digging
and stacking, to allow the vines to wilt.

Hidden or Concealed Damage
A trouble designated simply as hidden or concealed damage
has been giving increasing concern to the peanut industry during
recent years. It is an internal condition characterized by a
bitter or rancid taste in nuts that externally appear sound. It
S is particularly objectionable in peanuts intended for food uses
and causes buyers to grade peanuts off when making purchases.
The cause of concealed damage is not yet known. Many
growers and shelling plant operators have thought that the
damage is due to improper curing or stacking. However, tests
of a number of different methods of curing and stacking have
given inconclusive results.
It now appears that the variety or strain of peanut, soil type,
premature defoliation and weather conditions following stack-
ing may influenece this damage.

Fig. 8.-Tractor-drawn side-delivery rakes are used by some farmers to
save labor in preparing peanuts for stacking.



































Fig. 9.-Preparing to stack peanuts in the experimental plots. After
the peanuts are dug the vines are picked up, shaken free of soil and carried
to stackpoles.

Fig. 10.-Harvesting experimental plots, with some stacks complete
and others in process.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Stacking
Harvested peanuts usually are stacked for curing around
small poles placed in the field sufficiently close together that the
peanuts can be stacked without excessive carrying (Figs. 9 and
10). Sometimes, however, peanuts are hauled and stacked in
the farm lot or in the corner of the field where they can be
fenced off and secured from hogs that are turned to graze on
the harvested field. For central stacks, large poles-often 10
to 20 feet in length and 6 to 8 inches in diameter-are used
with appropriate 6- to 8-foot crosspieces. Properly stacked,
peanuts in these large stacks may cure into satisfactory quality
nuts under favorable weather conditions.
For field stacking the handiest stackpole is from 3 to 4 inches
in diameter and about 8 feet long. It is set 11/2 to 2 feet in the
ground. Crossarms (Fig. 11) 3 to 4 feet long are nailed to
the pole from 12 to 18 inches above the ground. The stacked
peanuts should not be allowed to rest on the ground and should
have good under ventilation (Fig. 12). Keeping the nuts off the


Fig. 11.-Crossarms 3 to 4 feet long are placed 12 to 18 inches above the
ground to keep the peanuts off the ground.







Peanuts in Florida


Fig. 12.-Stack peanut vines with the nuts near the pole. In starting
a peanut stack place the vines carefully on the crossarms and keep the
peanuts inside the stack as far as possible. Do not allow vines to drape
over the crossarms and touch the ground.

ground also minimizes the nesting and feeding of rodents under
the stacks.
Stack the pods near the pole, or to the center of the stack,
to cure them bright and clean. The vines are placed around the
pole by hand or with pitchforks, the slower hand stacking
giving better placement. At suitable intervals vines are tied







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


or twisted around the pole to anchor the stack to the pole and
to prevent slipping on the pole after the stack has dried.
Peanut stacks may be either capped or left uncapped, depend-
ing somewhat on anticipated weather conditions. Grass or hay,
peanut vines and building paper (Fig. 13) are used to cap the
stacks. In addition to protecting the stack from rain and
weather, the cap prevents birds from destroying the nuts on top
of the stack. Most Florida peanut growers consider capping
unnecessary if the stack is shaped up properly and the top of
the pole is covered with approximately 1 foot of peanut vines.


Fig. 13.-Building paper, as shown here, grass, hay and peanut vines
are used to cap the stacks. The stack has settled and the stackpole pro-
trudes through the cap. Binder twine through the corners of the paper
and around the stack holds the cap in place.







Peanuts in Florida 21

In recent years some growers have left their peanuts in
windows and hauled to the picker directly from the window.
While labor-saving, this practice is not generally followed.
Unless a picker is immediately available when the nuts and
vines are dry most of the crop may be lost in the field.

Picking

The peanuts are usually ready for picking from 4 to 6 weeks
after stacking. Peanuts can be picked only when the vines are
dry and brittle, as the pods will not come off the vine when
damp. Figure 14 shows a commercial peanut picker in action.
Peanuts stacked in the field are carried to the picker, stackpole
and all, either by a special cart arrangement or by a tractor
with hoisting mechanism.
There are 2 main types of peanut pickers, 1 with a cylinder
similar to a grain thresher and the other a metal mesh with
steel teeth which tears the vines to pieces but which has no
cylinder. With either type the peanut vine is thoroughly pulled
apart and the nuts cut from the pegs and vines by a series
of revolving saws. From 4 to 8 tons of picked nuts per day
are the average capacity for most pickers. This depends upon
the number of nuts per vine, as the volume of hay passing
through the machine is the limiting factor. The peanuts may
be bagged and stored or trucked directly from the picker to
the shelling plants or to market.

Fig. 14.-Peanut picker in action. This type can pick from 4 to 8 tons of
nuts per day, depending upon ratio of vines to nuts.


.. I : --._'- '- --. 1 "' -W -It- I







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


The hay is often baled and is considered from poor to good feed
depending upon leafiness and amount of weeds, sandspurs and
grass mixed with the peanut vines.

Experimental Procedure
All experiments reported in this bullentin were conducted at
the Main Station, Gainesville, unless otherwise noted. Plots of
all tests were located in fields and on areas suited to peanut pro-
duction and with as uniform soil types as possible. Fertilizer
or soil treatments were replicated from 2 to 7. times for the
various tests reported. All fertilizer treatments were applied
by hand. Gypsum was applied by hand when placed under the
crop and by hand or machine when applied as a dust or top
application to the foliage. Sulfur and copper-sulfur dusts when
used were applied -either with mule-drawn or tractor-operated
dusters or with hand dusters. All peanuts were planted with a
single row Cole planter. Tillage practices followed were similar
to those practiced by farmers in the area.
Results of peanut experiments dating from 1922 to 1945 are
given in this bulletin. Some of the treatments involved in the
early experiments are no longer considered important in peanut
fertilization and have been dropped in more recent years.

Spanish Peanut Response to Various Treatments
From 1922 to 1926 a detailed experiment involving various fer-
tilizer treatments with and without gypsum were conducted on
the Experiment Station farm at Gainesville. Results of this
test for a 4-year period are summarized in Table 1. Data were
not secured on this test in 1925 due to rodent damage. This
experiment with all treatments was conducted on the same
plots for the entire period. Cottonseed meal, peanut meal, super-
phosphate and sulfate of potash used singly or in combination
gave substantial increases in yield when the plants were dusted
with gypsum. Without gypsum the response to treatment was
somewhat erratic, with a combination of sodium nitrate and
superphosphate giving the highest yield. Of the 22 treatments
in the test, 20 dusted with gypsum outyielded the non-dusted
plots. Eighteen of the fertilized plots dusted with gypsum
gave increased yields, indicating a definite response to fertil-
ization. When no gypsum was applied only 14 of the fertilized
plots showed an increase in yield.







Peanuts in Florida


TABLE 1.-SUMMARY OF SPANISH PEANUT FERTILIZER TEST ON NORFOLK.
SAND, 4 YEARS-1922-1926 (EXCEPTING 1925).

Yield in Pounds per Acre

Fertilizer* Increase Increase Over
Treatment Applied to Soil Gypsum No Over No No Fertilizer
Gypsum Gypsum No
S__Gypsum Gypsum

None .................... ............. 570 516 54 -
CSM ............ ................. 696 516 180 126 0
PM ....-- ...-....-....... ---........... 657 573 84 87 57
NaNO3 ...................... .............. 552 525 27 -- 18 9
LP ............................... ......... 594 555 39 24 39
AP ..-............... .......... ........... 687 573 114 117 57
S. Pot ..................................... 654 588 66 84 72
S ....................... ..... ........ 573 453 120 3 63
CSM + AP ............................. 714 597 117 144 81
PM + AP .................. .... -- 651 636 15 81 120
NaNO, + AP .................... 618 648 -30 48 132
CSM + S. Pot ....................... 711 618- 93 141 102
PM + S. Pot. .....................--. 726 549 177 156 33
NaNO, + S. Pot. .................... 651 426 225 81 -90
S + AP ................................... 582 474 108 12 42
S + NaNO3 ................... 513 399 114 -57 -117
S + S. Pot. ............................ 645 459 186 75 57
S + LP .................................. 477 480 -3 -93 -36
CSM + AP + S. Pot .......... 663 618 45 93 102
PM + AP + S. Pot. ............ 663 591 72 93 75
NaNO, + AP + S. Pot ........ 633 573 60 63 57
S + NaNO3 + AP + S. Pot. 639 561 78 69 45


*Fertilizer Treatment
CSM-Cottonseed meal ...................-
PM- Peanut meal ................................
NaNO--Sodium nitrate ....................
LP-Gypsum (landplaster) ............
AP-Superphosphate ---..............-----
S. Pot.-Sufate of potash ,....-.......-....
S-Sulfur--equivalent to S in ......


Rate in Pounds per Acre
........ 100 pounds NaNO3 equivalent.
.--....... 100 pounds NaNO3 equivalent.
..-..... 100 pounds.
........ 400 pounds.
..... 500 pounds.
........ 100 pounds.
....... 400 pounds gypsum (74 pounds).


All treatments under Fertilizer were applied under the crop.
Gypsum listed under "yield in pounds per acre" was applied as a top
application.

These data indicate some increase under most conditions from
the applications of gypsum as a top dusting. One treatment
involved a soil as well as the top application of gypsum. The
soil application gave some yield increase over no gysum. How-
ever, the greatest response appeared to come from the top
dusting.
From 1923 through 1928 on the same plots another experiment
was conducted with 7 peanut varieties. It was designed to
test the value of gypsum as a top dust application on different
varieties, using no fertilizer under the crop. Data were secured














TABLE 2.-EFFECT OF GYPSUM (LANDPLASTE ;) ON YIELD OF VARIOUS PEANUT VARIETIES.

Yield in Pounds of Peanuts per Acre .
1923 1924 1925 1926 1928 5 Year Avg. i
Variety No No No No No No Increase
Gyp- Gyp- Gyp- Gyp- Gyp- Gyp- Gyp- Gyp- Gyp- Gyp- Gyp- Gyp- Over No C
sum sum sum sum sum sum sum sum sum sum sum sum Gypsum 3.

Spanish (Florida).. 947 902 329 266 695 640 770 715 564 711 661 647 14
Spanish (Improved) 942 815 248 127 631 521 585 585 684 850 618 580 38
Valencia ............. 793 758 314 148 660 440 528 513 658 900 591 552 39
Va. Bunch ............. 1,235 861 698 529 715 851 990 1,045 1,333 1,364 994 930 64
Va. Runner* .. ..... 596 510 686 719 935 1,265 986 1,304 801 950 -149
Jumbo ................ 1,293 642 637 456 990 440 1,155 1,245 1,425 1,148 1,100 786 314
Fla. Runner ..... 1,228 959 665 497 906 851 1,430 1,558 1,007 1,110 1,047 995 52

*The Virginia Runner was not in the test in 1923 and con equently has a 4-year average.
The 1927 peanut crop was destroyed by rodents.
Soil type: Norfolk sand (Florida Experiment Station, Gainesville, Florida).
Continuous peanuts on the same plots from 1923 to 1928. "
All plots planted to oats in fall of year and turned in spring several weeks before peanut planting.
Gypsum applied as top-dressing at the rate of 600 pounds per acre as peanuts started to bloom.







Peanuts in Florida


for only 5 of the 6 years, as the 1927 crop was destroyed by
rodents. Results of this test (Table 2) indicate that the greatest
increase from gypsum can be expected during the first 2 or 3
years when gypsum is applied each year to peanuts on the
same soil. Only slight yield increases are noted in the 5-year
average for the gypsum-dusted plots for most varieties under
test. Spanish (Florida), Spanish (Improved), Valencia, Virginia
Bunch and Florida -Runner had yields increased from 14 to 64
pounds per acre. Jumbo yield was increased 314 pounds. The
Virginia Runner yield for 4 years averaged 149 pounds per acre
less when dusted with gypsum. These data indicate that
varieties respond differently to the gypsum treatment.
In 1931 a cooperative Spanish peanut fertilizer test was con-
ducted in Jackson County, Florida, on a Norfolk sandy loam soil
by Stokes, Camp and Warner (11). This test involved com-
parisons of no fertilizer with 3-10-0, 3-10-8 and 3-10-12 mixtures
at the rate of 400 pounds per acre under the crop. There were
7 replicates of each treatment on 1/10-acre plots. Yields in
pounds per acre of both peanuts and hay were secured (Table 3).
Yield was increased 175 pounds per acre with the application of
the 3-10-0 fertilizer. Highest yield increase, 236 pounds, fol-
lowed applications of 3-10-4.

TABLE 3.-SPANISH PEANUT FERTILIZER TEST, 1931,
JACKSON COUNTY, FLORIDA.

SFertilizer Yield in Pounds per Acre_
Treatment Increase' Increase
Peanuts Over None Hay Over None

None .............. 782 '...... 945
3-10-0 ................... 957 175 1,032 87
3-10-4 ................... 1,018 236 1,181 236
3-10-8 ................... 1,005 223 1,224 279
3-10-12 ................ 987 205 1,271 326

Fertilizer applied at rate of 400 pounds per acre.
Soil type: Norfolk sandy loam.
Yields are average of 7 plots o-acre each.

The largest hay increase was from the high potash plots or
those treated with the 3-10-12 fertilizer. These data indicate
that moderate rates of potash are apparently sufficient for the
peanut crop.
Another experiment conducted in 1931 on 6 fields in central
and north central Florida evaluates the use of winter legumes







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


on soils planted to peanuts. Duplicate 1/5-acre plots were laid
out on 6 fields using no legume and no fertilizer, no legume
and 400 pounds of superphosphate, Austrian peas and super-
phosphate, Monantha vetch and 'superphosphate, and Hairy
vetch and superphosphate. Yields in pounds per acre of
green legumes plowed under and air-dry peanuts and hay pro-
duced are given in Table 4. The winter legumes plowed under
several weeks in advance of planting the peanuts averaged about
10,000 pounds per acre. Both peanut and hay yields were
increased on the legume plots. Decomposed organic matter in
the soil makes for easier cultivation, aids in moisture preserva-
tion and benefits succeeding crops.

TABLE 4.-EFFECT OF WINTER LEGUME COVER CROPS ON YIELD OF SPANISH
PEANUTS-1931 RESULTS FROM CENTAL AND NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA.

Pounds per Acre
Winter Legume Super- Cover Crop Air Dry
________ phosphate Green Weight Peanuts Peanut Hay
N one ....................... ..... ...... 762 789
None .................. 400 ...... 822 944
Austrian Peas .......... 400 9,527 925 1,178
Monantha Vetch ...... 400 10,235 905 1,126
Hairy Vetch ............. 400 10,131 928 1,107

Average results of 6 fields from duplicate %-acre plots.
Soil type: Norfolk sandy loam.
An experiment started in 1933 was conducted for 3 years using
no fertilizer and different rates of nitrogen and potash with
phosphorus at a constant level. A summary of results from
this test is given in Table 5. Peanuts in this test responded
to light rates of nitrogen and potash with 600 pounds per acre of
a 3-10-2 fertilizer mixture producing the highest yields. High
rates of nitrogen and potash had little effect on peanut yields.
These data indicate that light rates of fertilization can be
expected to give. small yield increases in peanuts and heavier
fertilization would be of most benefit to following crops.

Spacing of Peanuts
A spacing test for both Runner and Spanish peanuts was con-
ducted in 1928 and 1929. Runner peanuts were planted in
30-inch rows and spaced 6, 12 and 24 inches in the row, while
Spanish peanuts were planted in 30-inch rows and spaced 3, 6 and
9 inches in the row. Three replicated 1/10-acre plots were used







Peanuts in Florida 27

for both seasons. Yields from this test are shown in Table 6.
Runner yields averaged 370 pounds more for the 6-inch spacing

TABLE 5.-THREE-YEAR SUMMARY OF SPANISH PEANUT FERTILIZER TESTS,
1933-35.


Fertilizer _
Percent

N PO2s 0

0 0 502
3 10 666
4 10 559
5 10 502,
6* 10* 508


2


675
591
526


Average ...... 576 597


Yield of Peanuts in Pounds per Acre
Percent R20 I Average
1 4 6 | 8 | 10 12| 14 16

...... -...- ...... ...... I -..- ..--- -- ---
674 599 630 621 627 623 596 634
569 535 545 526 552 539 530 550
524 559 631 533 587 529 540 548
517 ...... 517 .... 498 ...... 467 ...


589 564 602 560 589 564 555 577


*Peanut yields for this treatment were omitted from the average.
Fertilizer rate: 600 pounds per acre.
Florida Experiment Station tests in cooperation with N. V. Potash
Export My. of Amsterdam, Holland, Atlanta, Georgia, Division, and farmers
in Central and North Central Florida.
Soil type: Norfolk sandy loam.

TABLE 6.-PEANUT SPACING TEST, FLORIDA RUNNER AND SPANISH
PEANUTS, 1928-29.

Drill
Spacing of Pounds of Nuts per Acre
Plants 2-Year '
in Inches 1928 ] 1929 Average Increase Over


Florida Runner Peanuts


6 1,447 1,118
12 899 1,017
24 950 875


24-Inch Spacing

1,282 370
958 46
912


Spanish Peanuts


3 993 988 990 359
6 750 801 776 145
9 596 666 631

Width of rows-30 inches.
Triplicate h-acre plots.
Soil type: Norfolk sand.
Experiment conducted on Experiment Station Farm, Gainesville.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


and 46 pounds more for the 12-inch spacing than did those of
the 24-inch spacing. Spanish produced 359 pounds more for the
3-inch and 145 pounds for the 6-inch over the 9-inch spacing.
Later results in northern Florida indicate the close spacing
produces more peanuts than the wide spacing. Spanish peanuts
have been found to yield more when the rows are 24 inches
than when 30 inches wide.

Effect of Waste-pond Phosphate on Spanish and
Florida Runner Peanuts
Table 7 outlines and gives the results of 2 waste-pond phos-
phate tests with Florida Runner and Spanish peanuts in 1937 and
runner peanuts in 1938. Three hundred, 600 and 900 pounds per
acre of waste-pound phosphate applied in the row in 1937 failed
to influence peanut yields of either variety. In 1938 the rate
of this material was increased from none to 1,000, 2,000 and
3,000 pounds per acre, still without effect on yield. The soil
was sampled from all plots in 1938 after the peanuts were dug
and, as might be expected, the parts per million of phosphorus
increased from 153 to 216 from the no-treatment to the 3,000-
pound per acre rate. Likewise, the pH ranged from a low of
5.66 to a high of 5.84. Waste-pond phosphate has a slight
neutralizing effect on acid or slightly acid soils.

TABLE 7.-EFFECT .OF WASTE-POND PHOSPHATE ON YIELDS OF SPANISH
AND FLORIDA RUNNER PEANUTS.
Pounds per Acre I
Waste-Pond Yield of Peanuts in Pounds Soil Sampled 11/29/38
Phosphate per Acre P.P.M.
1937 Fla. Runner Spanish Phosphorus pH
None 816 602
300 861 632
600 771 626
900 846 601

1938

None 1,468 .... 153 5.66
1,000 1,480 .... 179 5,84
2,000 1,352 .... ,199 5.80
3,000 1,481 .... 216 5.78

Waste-pond phosphate applied in row.
Soil sampled in root zone 0" 6".
Soil type-Norfolk fine sand.
All plots in quadruplicate.







Peanuts in Florida


Florida Runner Peanut Response to Fertilizer Treatment
Table. 8 gives results of a preliminary fertilizer experiment
with Florida Runner peanuts involving 7 treatments and 6
replicates of each. On this particular field in North Central
Florida basic slag and colloidal phophate considerably increased
peanut yields-1 of the few tests which showed an appreciable
increase. All information to date indicates that only in isolated
instances can basic slag or colloidal phosphate be expected
to affect peanut yields appreciably.

TABLE 8.-FLORIDA RUNNER PEANUT RESPONSE TO FERTILIZER
TREATMENT, 1940.

Fertilizer Treatment Yield of Peanuts,
Pounds per Acre
None .....-..- ....... ..- .. .... ... ..... ..........- ....... ....- 848
2-10-4 .. ..-.............. .... ..... ......... ... ....... 840
0-10-4 .................................... .. .......... .. 851
0-0-4 plus B. S. ....................... .. ..........-....... 1,021
0-0-4 plus C. P.. ...... ................. ....-.. --....- ..... 1,048
0-10-0 (superphosphate) ......................................... 663
0-10-0 (B. S.) ................ ......... ....... .. ...... 841

Soil type: Norfolk fine sandy loam (North Central Florida).
Fertilizer applied at rate of 300 pounds per acre.
B. S. indicates basic slag at 235 pounds per acre.
C.P. indicates colloidal phosphate at 560 pounds per acre.
Rates of basic slag and colloidal phosphate were calculated on equal
cost with 167 pounds of 18% superphosphate in 1940.
Yields are averages from 6 replications, plots 1/40-acre each.

Workers at the North Florida Station and Mobile Units con-
ducted some intensive fertilizer experiments with peanuts from
1942 to 1944 with the results summarized in Table 9 as reported
by R. W. Wallace et al (12). Results from various fertilizer
and dusting practices on 26 farms comprising 6 soil types
show that the plots fertilized with a 2-10-4 mixture at the rate
of 300 pounds per acre produced 23.3 percent more peanuts than
the unfertilized peanuts. A double rate of potash applied as
a side-dressing increased the yield over the 2-10-4 by 8.6 percent.
A heavy rate of phosphorus produced 4 percent more than the
2-10-4. Gypsum at 200 pounds per acre increased the yield by
10.6 percent over the 2-10-4. Limestone gave a 3.6 percent
increase, minor elements 8.9 percent, copper-sulfur dust 35.1 per-
cent and sulfur dust 26 percent increase over the recommended
treatment.









TABLE 9.-SUMMARY OF PEANUT EXPERIMENTS ON 26 NORTH FLORIDA FARMS, NORTH FLORIDA EXPERIMENT STATION MOBILE
UNITS, 1942-1944, INCLUSIVE.
Percent Increase of Peanuts from Various Fertilizers on Different Soil Types*


Soil Types


Fertilizer Treatment



0-0-0 ......... .......... .... ........
0-10-4 ...... ... .. ... .......... ...
2-10-4 .......... ......... ......... ............
4-10-4 ............... ... .............
0-10-0 superphosphate ................
0-10-0 basic slag ...........................
2-10-4 basic slag ..............................
2-10-8 ..................... .......... ........
2-10-0 8% KIO as sulfur dust ..........
2-16-4 ............. ..........- ....-...... ....... .
2-10-4 + 200 pounds gypsum ..........
2-10-4 + 500 pounds limestone ........
2-10-4 + minor elements** .................
2-10-4 + 60 pounds cu. sul ..... .:......
2-10-4 + 60 pounds sul. dust ...........


Average .-................... ...... .......


Ruston Norfolk Red Bay Orangeburg
f.s.l. f.s.l. f.s.l. f.s.l.
9 Farms 7 Farms 6 Farms 2 Farms .


0
15.45
21.30
21.98
12.64
17.31
25.83
20.77
29.69
23.96
32.89
19.30
23.70
58.59
43.28


26.19


0
34.07
32.03
31.69
23.90
19.15
14.92
35.42
33.05
42.03
51.02
35.42
28.64
62.88
69.49


0
4.40
10.31
6.42
0.88
12.83

8.18

14.34
15.97
13.71

28.55
22.64


36.69 12.57


0
13.24
39.70
42.94
20.59
30.29

21.47

14.70
34.70
52.35


78.82
98.53
77.94


Arredondo
f.s.l.
1 Farm


0
27.03
40.54
40.54
28.38
55.40
39.19
22.97
56.76
68.92
43.24
62.16
48.65
125.68
90.54


43.77 53.57


*The increases of peanuts from the general sulfur dusting experiments have been omitted from these averages, only the
2 plots carrying copper-sulfur and sulfur have been averaged, all other averages are from non'-dusted plots.
**10 pounds copper sulfate, 10 pounds magnesium sulfate, 5 pounds zinc sulfate and 5 pounds borax.
Fertilizer: 300 pounds per acre of indicated formulae.
Plot size: 1/20 and 1/10 acre.


Dunbar
f.s.l.
1 Farm


0
14.28
9.09
6.49
22.08
9.09
32.47
31.17
19.48
15.58
20.78
29.87
24.68
58.44
24.02


22.68


Average
26 Farms


0
18.14
23.34
22.73
14.54
18.92
22.70
22.35
31.93
27.30
33.94
26.95
32.24
58.46
49.32


28.78


Soil Types






TABLE 10.-FERTILIZER EXPERIMENTS, FLORIDA RUNNER PEANUTS, GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, 1943.


Fertilizer-Under


N one .................... ........ ......... .........
0-10-4 ........................ .. ..............
2-10-4 .......................... .................
4-10-4 ...................................... .....
0-10-0 .......................... ..........
2-10-8 ............................. .............
2-16-4 ............................................
2-10-4 + *ME ..............................
**0-10-0 .................. .........................
2-10-4 500 pounds lime ...................
2-10-4 .....-... .........................
2-10-0 ....................... .. ..... ..... ...
2-10-2 ...................... ----........... ..
2-10-0 :.....................................
2-10-0 ..................................... ...
N one .... ........... ... .. .... ..... ... .....

N one .................. ................. ..... ...


Average of all treatments ......


Top Application


None ..........................-........
N one ....................................
N one ............... ........... ..
N on e ................ ... ..... ......
N on e .............. -................
None ...................
N on e ..--.. ... ... .-..- ...........-
N one ................ .. ...... ....
None ........... ...................
None ...............................
200 pounds Gypsum ........
None ....................... .......-..
6 pounds K2O ...................
12 pounds K20 .......... ...
24 pounds K20 ................
200 pounds Super P........
100 pounds Muriate .......
None ......................--.......

.. .... ............................ ........
.1


Avg. of 2 Replicates
Pounds Nuts per Acre
Sulfur
No Dust Duisted


1,761
1,772
1,681
1,859
1,914
1,586
1,873
1,630
1,892
1,786
1,863
1,841
1,605
1,599
1,674
2,171

1,765


1,756


2,614
2,403
2,508
2,211
2,356
2,541.
2,265
2,182
2,411
2,302
2,429
2,410


Avg. 4
Replicates,
Pounds
of Nuts
per Acre


2,188
2,088
2,095
2,035
2,135
2,064
2,069
1,906
2,152
2,044
2,146
2,126


2,534 2,070
2,345 1,972
2,512 2,093





2,402 2,079


*ME refers to minor elements: Copper sulfate 20 pounds, zinc sulfate 10 pounds, manganese sulfate 20 pounds, mag-
nesium sulfate 20 pounds, borax 5 pounds per acre.
**PO, basic slag.
Nitrogen from uramon, phosphorus from 20% superphosphate unless otherwise indicated, potash from 60% muriate of
potash.
Fertilizer: 300 pounds per acre of indicated formulae.
Soil: Norfolk fine sand pH 5.85.
Plots: 4 rows 3' x 100', or 1,200 square feet.
Fertilizer applied and planted April 20, 1943 (5" spacing).
Previous soil history: 1942 uniform application of 800 pounds of 5-7-5 fertilizer and planted to sweet potatoes.
Gypsum applied May 27, potash and superphosphate April 30.
Sulfur (325-mesh) applied in 3 applications, 20 pounds each at 2-week intervals with the first application 7/13/43.


Percent
Increase
of Nuts
Over No
Fertilizer


-4.6
-4.3
-7.0
-2.4
--5.7
-5.4
-12.9
-1.6
-6.6
-1.9
-2.8
-5.4
-9.9
-4.3


% Increase
of Nuts
Dusted
Over No
Dust

48.4
35.6
49.2
18.9
23.1
60.2
20.9
33.9
27.4
28.9
30.4
30.9
57.9
46.6
50.0






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Fertilizer treatments similar to those shown in Table 9 were
applied in an experiment at Gainesville in 1943. Peanut yields
in this test were all high and only small differences were noted
for the fertilizer treatments, .Table 10. Likewise, plots on
which the peanuts were dusted with sulfur showed little
response to fertilization; in fact, all fertilized plots treated with
sulfur produced less than the unfertilized plots treated with
sulfur. The response of peanuts to fertilization as indicated
in Table 10 is typical of a great number of results from other
peanut experiments conducted in North Central Florida, par-
ticularly in counties surrounding Alachua. Little or no response
is the general finding in this particular section, while in North
and West Florida rather consistent 15 to 20 percent increases
in peanuts are expected from light fertilization. The upland
soils, used for peanuts, in Alachua and surrounding counties are
considered to be quite high in phosphorus which is generally
considered to be more available to plants than that in most soils
of North and West Florida.

Effect of Sulfur and Copper-Sulfur Dust on Peanut Yields

For many years sulfur or sulfur compounds have been dusted
on peanut plants to control leafspot. In more recent years it
has been noted that fields and plots dusted with sulfur or copper-
sulfur in most instances give an increased yield in dug peanuts.
In 1943 a field on which oats were harvested in May was pre-
pared, fertilized with 330 pounds per acre of a 6-6-6 fertilizer
mixture and planted to Florida Runner peanuts. Because of the
dusts drifting across small plots it was thought a better picture
might be had of the effect of sulfur and copper-sulfur dust if
larger plots were involved. Plots 40 rows wide and 68 feet long,
or 1/5.33 acre, were duplicated for each of 2 treatments: sulfur
and copper-sulfur dust and no dust. Results of this experiment
are given in Table 11. Due to late planting and severe cater-
pillar damage, yields were low, averaging from 368 to 696
pounds per acre. Sulfur dust increased the nut yield 59 percent
and the hay by 20.7 percent, while copper-sulfur increased the
nuts by 89.1 percent and the hay by 28.4 percent. These large
nut and hay yield increases may have been due somewhat to
the fact that there was limited caterpillar control by the 2 dust
treatments. All plots were treated with kryocide, which only
partially held the caterpillars in check.








Peanuts in Florida


TABLE 11.-DUSTING EXPERIMENT, FLORIDA RUNNER PEANUTS,
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, 1943.


*Pounds of


Percent *Pounds
T- ....... ....- TrT .,


Percent
T ON


treatment INUtS LIW1eU~e ~JV~i i1~y I


Treatment tNuts increase Over Hay nlcurease ,ve
per Acre No Dust per Acre No Dust

No Dust .....--... 368 ......2,278

Sulfur ........... 585 59.0 2,750 20.7

Copper Sulfur 696 89.1 2,924 28.4

*Average of 2 replications.
Planted: 6/10/43, spaced 6 inches in row.
Plots: 40 rows 3' x 68'.
Fertilized: 330 pounds 6-6-6 under crop 6/8/43.
Seed treated and inoculated. Severe caterpillar damage-late planting
following oats.
Dust applied at rate of 20 pounds per acre.
Dates of dusting: 7/30/43, 8/9/43, and 8/20/43.
Caterpillars somewhat controlled by sulfur and copper sulfur dusting.
Dusted twice with cryolite.

TABLE 12.-FLORIDA RUNNER PEANUT DUSTING EXPERIMENT,
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, 1942.


Location
in Florida


Pounds of Nuts and Hay per Acre

Sulfur Dust Copper-Sulfur No Dust
Dust_


I Nn1-,~ I HFxr I Niits I Hay


Nuts J


Trenton* ........... 1,010 5,364 1,001 5,038 1,180 5,383
McIntosh** ...... 650 2,193 776 2,373 484 2,146
Newberry ........ 1,551 4,337 1,678 4,136 1,441 3,769
Gainesville 773 2,418 720 3,180 542 2,286
Gainesville ...... 899 3,341 836 3,861 616 3,608


Average Yield ... 968 3,072 1,002 3,388 771 3,952


Increase Due to
Dusting .......... 197 120 231 436


Percent Increase 25.6 4.1 30.0 14.8 ......

*Only 1 dusting, not averaged with other 4 experiments which received
3 dustings.
All dustings approximately 20 pounds per acre per dusting.
All plots 1,200 square feet in size.
Each weight is average of 4 plots, except no dustings, which are aver-
ages of 6 plots.
**Peanuts very late, leafspot only moderate.


i







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Another experiment at the Main Station, started in 1943,
involved 17 fertilizer treatments with 4 replicates of each. Half
of the replicates of this experiment were further treated by
dusting with sulfur. Three applications of sulfur dust were
made at 2-week intervals. Results from this experiment have
been given in Table 10. In all cases the plots dusted with sulfur
showed increased yields varying from 18.9 to 60.2 percent.
Yields of plots receiving no fertilizer were increased 48.4 per-
cent by the sulfur dust.
Results in 1942 of 5 peanut dusting experiments located at
or near Gainesville are given in Table 12. Yields of nuts and
hay of the Trenton experiment are given merely to illustrate
the small effect from only 1 .dusting. The data from this field
with only 1 dusting are not averaged with the other yields.
The peanuts at McIntosh were very late and leafspot was moder-
ate. Both the sulfur and copper-sulfur dusts gave increased
nut and hay yields. Likewise both the Newberry and Gaines-
ville tests showed response to the 2 sulfur dusts. Hay yields
were not greatly affected. However, an average of all plots from
the 4 experiments gave a 4.1 percent increase from sulfur dusted
plots and 14.8 percent from the copper-sulfur dusted plots.

TABLE 13.-PEANUT DUSTING EXPERIMENTS, GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA, AND
NORTH FLORIDA.

Ex- Pounds of Peanuts per Acre
peri- No
ment Variety Treat- Sulfur Dust Copper-Sulfur Dust
Num- ment
her I Nuts Percent* Nuts Percent*
Nuts | Increase Increase
1 Spanish ............ 750 970 29.33 990 32.00
2 Spanish ........... 436 629 44.27 629 44.27
3 Spanish ........... 720 810 12.50 810 12.50
4 Spanish ......... 349 465 33.24 465 33.24
5 Florida Runner 629 823 30.84 871 38.47
6 Florida Runner 581 639 9.98 697 19.97
7 Florida Runner 640 740 15.62 800 25.00
8 Florida Runner 900 1,200 33.33 .... ....
9 Florida Runner 800 920 15.00 .

Average 645 800 24.03 752 28.33

*Percent increase over no treatment.
Peanuts dusted with 60 pounds of dust per acre applied in 3 applications.
.First application applied as leaf spots first appeared, followed with the
last 2 applications at 2-week intervals.
All peanuts received standard fertilizer treatment (300 pounds 2-10-4).







Peanuts in Florida


A summary of 9 experiments using sulfur and copper-sulfur
and no dust with Spanish and Florida Runner peanuts is given
in Table 13. The acre yields of peanuts are averages of 4 plots
for each treatment in each experiment. All of these tests were
carried on in North Central Florida. It is to be noted that both
sulfur and copper-sulfur increased the yield of harvested nuts
in all tests. The average yield for the non-dusted peanuts was
645 pounds per acre, sulfur dusted 800 pounds per acre and
copper-sulfur dusted 752 pounds per acre. The copper-sulfur
dust averaged a lower yield than the sulfur dust because copper-
sulfur was not used on 2 of the high yielding tests.
Table 14 is a summary of results of all dusted plots in the
Gainesville area for both Runner and Spanish peanuts from
1938 through 1945. Sulfur increased Florida Runner peanut
yields from 11.2 percent in 1938 (an average of 6 plots) to 70.1

TABLE 14.-EFFECT OF SULFUR DUST ON YIELD OF PEANUTS.
I
Yield of Nuts Percent Number of
Year in Pounds per Acre I Increase Plots
Sulfur No Sulfur from Sulfur Averaged
Dusted DDust
Florida Runner Peanuts


1938 1,522
1939 1,264
1940 1,582
1942 900
1D43 1,989
1944 2,531
1945 1,327


Average 1,588




1938 632
1939 420
1940 1,414
1942 900


Average


842


1,369
855
1,410
737
1,440
1,721
780


1,187

Spanish Peanuts


623


11.18 6
47.84 6
12.20 12
22.12 22
38.12 44
47.07 12
70.13 14

33.78 116




31.94 6
96.26 6
14.49 12
59.57 16

35.15 40


Fertilizer in all cases
peanuts averaged.


was the same for .the dusted and non-dusted


Experiments from which these yields are taken were located in Alachua
or surrounding counties on soils commonly used for peanuts.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


percent in 1945 (an average of 14 plots). For the 7 years an
average of 116 plots shows sulfur increased peanut yields by
an average of 33.8 percent. Spanish peanut yields were increased
from 14.5 percent (an average of 12 plots) to 96.3 percent (an
average of 6 plots). Four years' results are available on Spanish
peanuts with a 35.2 percent average increase in nut yields for
40 plots from the sulfur dust treatment.
Recent data indicate that to obtain a true picture of yield
results with peanuts, nuts left in the soil after ordinary harvest
methods should be added to the harvested yields. Only data
presented for 1945 have been corrected for peanuts left in the
soil after digging. Therefore most of the data presented in
these tables apply to the crop harvested by ordinary digging and
picking operations. As a considerable acreage of peanuts are
dug for market each year it is felt that these data present a
true picture of the effect of fertilizers and sulfur on the com-
mercial peanut crop grown in North Central Florida.

Summary
Colloidal or waste-pond phosphate treatments failed to give
significant increases in peanut yields and had little noticeable
effect on quality.
In the Gainesville area the various fertilizer treatments tried
influenced peanut yields very little in most instances.
In northern Florida rather marked increases in yields were
shown for most fertilizer treatments on nearly all soils.
Sulfur and copper-sulfur dusts increased dug peanut yields
in most of the tests. Certain varieties of peanuts show more
response to gypsum than others, with the Spanish and Jumbo
giving higher yield increases than most Runner peanuts.
Florida Runner peanuts planted with a 6-inch spacing in 30-
inch rows produce higher yields than wider spacings.
Spanish peanuts planted with a 3-inch spacing in 30-inch rows
yielded higher than wider spacings.

II. Chemical Composition of the Peanut Plant
With Particular Reference to the Uptake of Nutrients
at Different Growth Stages
Studies have been made of the amount of nutrients taken up
by plants at various stages of growth by a number of investi-
gators. Olson and Bledsoe (10) reported data on the nutrient






Peanuts in Florida


uptake of the cotton plant in the seedling, early square, early
boll and maturity stages. These investigators concluded that
on a Cecil and Tifton soil the cotton plant uptake was highest
during the period from early boll formation to maturity. On
a Clarksville soil the greater quantity of nutrients was taken
up from the early square to early boll stage. The amount of
nutrients found in the cotton plant was larger than the amount
ordinarily added in fertilizer mixtures.
Carolus (3), Grizzard et al (5), Hester (7) and Miller (9)
studied the nutrient uptake at different stages of growth of
the potato, flue-cured tobacco, tomato and wheat, respectively.
In view of the questionable returns from the fertilization of
peanuts as noted by a number of investigators, it was thought
that some worthwhile information might be had from a study
of the nutrient uptake of the peanut at various stages of growth.
In the spring of 1944 a uniform field of Norfolk fine sandy
loam, deep phase, was selected for experimental plots to study
the nutrient uptake of this crop. The soil had a pH of 6.25
at the beginning of the experiment and had been cropped the
previous year to chufas. For several years prior to the chufa
crop this field had been idle, with only a sparse growth of native
vegetation.
Plan of Experiment
Plots 100 feet long, 3 rows 36 inches wide replicated 4 times,
were laid out with only the center row to be sampled for analysis.
Two fertilizer formulae, 2-10-8 and 2-10-4 at the rate of 300
pounds per acre, and no fertilizer were the 3 treatments or
nutritional levels studied. A duplicate set of plots also was
laid out to be dusted with sulfur for disease and insect control
and for measuring nutritive value of the sulfur.
The peanuts (Florida Runner) were treated with spergon and
planted April 20, 1944, after fertilizer had been placed in the
row. Soil moisture and climatic conditions were ideal and the
peanuts were emerging on April 27.
Peanut plants, both tops and roots, were sampled 22 days
from planting, when they were from 4 to 6 inches in height
and had not bloomed. The second sampling was taken 56 days
after planting, just at the start of blooming and before disease
and insect trouble or dusting time. The third sampling was
made shortly after the last of 3 dustings, or 84 days after plant-
ing. The 4th and last sampling was made at maturity, in this
case 132 days after planting.,







38 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station

Methods of Analysis
Total nitrogen was determined by the official A.O.A.C. Kjeldahl
method, calcium by the official A.O.A.C. ammonium oxalate pre-
cipitation and permanganate titration and magnesium by the
official ammonium phosphate precipitation method. Phosphorus
was determined colorimetrically by a modified method described
by Fisk and Subbarow (4). Potassium was determined colori-
metrically by the sodium cobalti nitrite method described by
Jacobs and Hoffman (8). Oil or crude fat was extracted by the
official ether extraction method.

Experimental Results
The first sampling of peanuts made 22 days after planting
consisted of 20 plants carefully dug from each plot and taken
to the laboratory for analysis. Table 15 gives the analytical data
of the plants harvested at the first sampling. The -first 2 sam-
plings had the tops and roots analyzed separately and the late
samplings were divided into top, roots, pegs and nuts when
present. Because of the rather questionable feeding habits of
the peanut plant, analysis of the roots and pegs might give
results which would indicate the importance of fertilizer place-
ment.

TABLE 15.-ANALYSIS OF PEANUT PLANTS SAMPLED 22 DAYS
AFTER PLANTING.
I Green I
S Weight Per- I **Percentage Composition,
*Fertilizer Plant per cent I Oven-Dry, Sand-Free
Formula Part Plant, Dry
SGrams Matter N\ P K I Mg Ca
2-10-8 -....... .. tops 4.40 18.98 3.877 0.264 1.748 0.415 2.023
2-10-8 ............-- roots 1.45 15.35 3.326 0.201 1.132 0.392 0.811
No fertilizer tops 3.65 21.73 3.608 0.243 1.011 0.504 2.153
No fertilizer .. roots 1.31 19.62 2.863 0.200 0.953 0.434 0.984
2-10-4 .....-....... I tops 4.30 19.72 3.844 0.254 1.574 0.351 1.801
2-10-4 .............. roots 1.46 16.58 3.302 0.196 1.068 0.417 0.750

*Indicated fertilizers applied at 300-pound-per-acre rate.
**N-nitrogen; P-phosphorus; K-potassium; Mg-magnesium; Ca-
calcium.

It is to be noted in Table 15 that the roots make up approxi-
mately 1/4 of the green plant weight. The plants receiving no
fertilizer showed a more narrow ratio of roots to tops, had a
higher dry matter content and were smaller in size. Fertilized







Peanuts in Florida


plants analyzed higher in total nitrogen, phosphorus and potas-
sium than those unfertilized. The phosphorus content was not
so markedly affected as was the nitrogen and potassium. At
this stage of growth the peanut plant appeared to take up
potassium in somewhat the ratio supplied in the fertilizer. Un-
fertilized plants, both tops and roots, contained less potassium
than those fertilized with the 2-10-4, and those fertilized with
2-10-8 were highest in potassium. This is possibly luxury con-
sumption as described by some investigators, since potassium
usually has little effect on the final yield of peanuts. Unfertilized
plants were higher in total magnesium and calcium than fertil-
ized plants.
Table 16 gives the analysis of plants harvested 56 days after
planting. This second sampling was made when only a few
blossoms were showing and an occasional spot was found on
the leaves. The plants had made rapid growth and at this time
the unfertilized ones were smaller and darker green in color than
the fertilized ones. Roots made up about 1 part out of 22 of
the green weight of the plant at this time. Plants from the
unfertilized plots were still higher in dry matter and had a
narrower ratio of roots to tops than those receiving fertilizer.
Total nitrogen content of tops and roots was quite similar for
all 3 treatments. Phosphorus content of the unfertilized plants
was significantly higher. Potassium was found to be highest
in plants fertilized with the 2-10-8, intermediate in those fertil-
ized with 2-10-4 and least in plants from the unfertilized plots.
The magnesium content remained highest in the unfertilized
plants, with little difference noted in calcium content except in

TABLE 16.-ANALYSIS OF PEANUT PLAINTS SAMPLED 56 DAYS
AFTER PLANTING.
Green
Weight Per- **Percentage Composition,
*Fertilizer Plant per cent Oven-Dry, Sand-Free
Formula Part Plant, Dry
Grams Matter N I P K I Mg Ca

2-10-8 ............ tops 101.25 15.75 3.298 0.335 1.464 0.574 1.627
2-10-8 -............ roots 4.39 21.14 2.138 0.260 1.115 0.293 0.712
No fertilizer .. tops 66.28 17.56 3.411 0.416 0.881 0.750 1.757
No fertilizer .. roots 3.91 20.80 2.120 0.348 0.401 0.454 0.588
2-10-4 .............. tops 94.17 16.39 3.457 0.317 1.122 0.570 1.921
2-10-4 ............ roots 4.37 20.61 2.150 0.274 0.732 0.340 0.784

*Indicated fertilizers applied at 300-pound-per-acre rate.
**N-nitrogen; P-phosphorus; K-potassium; Mg-magnesium; Ca-
calcium.







Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


the roots of the unfertilized plants, which were quite low in this
. element.
The set of plots receiving sulfur dust for leafspot and insect
control was dusted with 20 pounds per acre of 325-mesh dusting
sulfur on June 16, June 26 and July 5. There was considerable
rainfall during this period. However, each application was
followed by at least 8 hours of clear weather.
Table 17 gives the analytical data on. peanut plants sampled
84 days after planting. This third sampling was made 8 days
after the final dusting. The nitrogen content of all peanut tops
had decreased sharply at this stage, indicating a translocation
possibly to other parts of the plant. Many pegs with immature
nuts had formed and were analyzed separately. 'The pegs or
nuts, as indicated in the data, averaged about 2.9 percent nitro-

TABLE 17.-ANALYSIS OF PEANUT PLANTS SAMPLED 84 DAYS
AFTER PLANTING.
Green
Weight Per- **Percentage Composition,
*Fertilizer Plant per cent Oven-Dry, Sand-Free
Formula Part Plant, Dry
Grams Matter N I P K Mg Ca
2-10-8 -.......... tops 342.86 20.83 3.051 0.291 1.168 0.512 1.596
2-10-8 ............. roots 22.71 25.47 1.878 0.283 0.843 0.370 0.750
2-10-8 ......... nuts 34.00 16.60 2.880 0.225 1.262 0.104 0.141
No fertilizer .. tops 200.62 23.68 3.039 0.273 0.571 0.516 1.615
No fertilizer .. roots 15.88 25.20 2.456 0.357 0.558 0.415 0.591
No fertilizer.. nuts 27.62 17.42 2.908 0.298 0.997 0.164 0.111
2-10-4 ..-.......... tops 212.22 21.10 2.480 0.274 0.747 0.414 1.588
2-10-4 .......... roots 16.67 24.33 2.025 0.289 0.626 0.377 0.735
2-10-4 ........... .. nuts 25.00 16.22 2.926 0.297 1.323 0.167 0.419

Dusted with 60 Pounds Sulfur (3 Applications 20 Pounds Each)

2-10-8 -........... tops 298.18 20.12 2.378 0.265 1.045 0.369 1.693
2-10-8 ....- -...... roots 19.36 22.30 1.780 0.252 0.672 0.324 0.763
2-10-8 ........... nuts 27.45 15.89 2.625 0.285 1.325 0.133 0.159
No fertilizer .. tops 182.50 21.92 3.254 0.336 0.486 0.462 1.802
No fertilizer .. roots 17.50 23.67 2.279 0.312 0.446 0.327 0.553
No fertilizer .. nuts 24.28 15.88 3.087 0.301 0.752 0.115 0.139
2-10-4 ........... tops 264.60 21.43 2.600 0.292 0.773 0.404 1.796
2-10-4....- roots 21.00 25.24 1.968 0.266 0.459 0.317 0.707
2-10-4 ....-....... nuts 30.70 15.64 2.770 0.296 1.141 0.112 0.158

*Indicated fertilizers applied at 300-pound-per-acre rate.
**N-nitrogen; P-phosphorus; K-potassium; Mg-magnesium; Ca-
calcium.






Peanuts in Florida


gen. Phosphorus appeared to be well distributed throughout
the plant parts. Potassium was most concentrated in the nuts.
The fact that the nuts were high in potassium at this early
stage might indicate that either the peg was feeding on the
fertilizer material or the plant was supplying a large quantity
through its roots. Some investigators have reported increased
peanut yields from top-dressing peanut plants with potash,
which tends to substantiate the theory that the pegs may be
feeding directly on the soil nutrients. Magnesium was again
in greatest concentration in the unfertilized plants and the nuts
had the lowest percentage of this element. It has been reported
that magnesium is a "must" in peanut fertilization. From these
data it appears that magnesium plays its most important part
indirectly by way of the plant tops, probably through the
chlorophyl and oxidation processes. At this stage of maturity
the larger part of the calcium is found in the tops, with only a
small amount in the nuts.
Unfertilized peanut plants that were dusted with sulfur an-
alyzed higher in nitrogen and phosphorus than dusted plants
from the fertilized plots. Potassium was again highest in plants
receiving the 2-10-8 fertilizer and lowest in plants from the
untreated plots. The nuts had a higher concentration of potas-
sium than any other part of the plant analyzed. All parts of
the plants dusted with sulfur contained less potassium than those
not dusted. Magnesium was most concentrated in the plant
tops and was reduced in plants dusted with sulfur. In general,
the calcium content was increased in plants receiving the sulfur
dust treatment.
Results of analytical data on peanuts harvested at maturity
or 132 days after planting are presented in Table 18. These
data indicate that fertilizer stimulated plant growth and in-
creased yield on this particular soil. The heavier rate of potash
stimulated top growth but had little effect on yield, causing a
slight reduction. Unfertilized plants had a higher nitrogen con-
tent than those fertilized. However, extra growth in the fertil-
ized peanuts more than equalized the total nitrogen. Phosphorus
content seemed but little affected by fertilization; magnesium
and calcium were fairly constant. Peanut shells contained the
least magnesium and nuts the least calcium of any plant
parts analyzed. Plants dusted with sulfur had little change in
nitrogen content. The sulfur treatment appeared to increase
the phosphorus content of the unfertilized plants. Sulfur also









TABLE 18.-ANALYSIS OF PEANUT PLANTS SAMPLED 132 DAYS AFTER PLANTING.


*Fertilizer
Formula


2-10-8


No fertilizer


2-10-4


Dry
Matter.


T Green
Plant Weight
Part per Plant,
Grams

tops 240.00
roots I25.43
shells
nuts 119.71
tops 76.22
roots 13.00
shells
nuts 63.33
tops 204.28
roots 26.14
shells
nuts 141.00


Dusted with 60 Pounds Sulfur (3 Dustings 20 Pounds Each)


71.67


70.26


71.20


1.542
1.815
1.416
2,365 4.773
1.947
1.879
1.561
2,468 4.757
1.923
1.805
1.496
2,761 4.979


0:247
0.239
0.111
0.490
0.332
0.252
0.118
0.409
0.231
0.279
0.258
0.407


0.952
0.838
0.803
0.682
0.564
0.488
0.584
0.870
0.682
0.467
0.826
0.646


0.462
0.442
0.168
0.114
0.428
0.442
0.080
0.196
0.410
0.357
0.032
0.160


1.162
0.912
0.208
0.075
1.186
0.682
0.149
0.062
1.349
0.818
0.190
0.077


51.12


50.77


50.44


*Indicated fertilizer applied at 300-pound-per-acre rate.
**N-nitrogen; P-phosphorus; K-potassium; Mg-magnesium; Ca-calcium.


Shelling Pounds **Percentage Composition on
Percent per Acre Oven-Dry, Sand-Free Basis
Peanuts N P K I Mg Ca

1.865 0.268 0.878 0.336 1.132
1.880 0.339 0.766 0.307 0.814
1.300 0.105 0.561 0.023 0.179
71.20 1,861 4.451 0.397 0.680 0.180 0.046
2.373 0.235 0.372 0.382 1.243
2.165 0.353 0.659 0.179 0.826
1.567 0.109 0.536 0.079 0.141
71.69 1,322 4.816 0.431 0.626 0.175 0.048
1.813 0.245 0.492 0.281 1.228
1.821 0.219 0.469 0.232 0.674
1.475 0.104 0.517 0.101 0.165
73.25 1,980 5.108 0.425 0.666 0.148 0.043


Oil




49.54


47.80


48.63


2-10-8


No fertilizer


2-10-4


tops
roots
shells
nuts
tops
roots
shells
nuts
tops
roots
shells
nuts


2.62.83
28.83

143.67
146.86
21.57

109.43
166.11
19.78

102.11


29.99
54.62

59.16
38.04
58.61

57.90
29.36
47.19

50.49






Peanuts in Florida


caused an increase in potassium for all plant parts, an increase
in magnesium content for most plant parts and little change
in the calcium content.
Of particular note is the increased oil or fat content of peanuts
from all plots receiving the sulfur dust treatment.
In view of the very positive increase in oil content from sulfur
dust, a number of samples of peanuts from dusted and not-
dusted plots were collected from various soil types in central
and northern Florida. The oil content data from these samples
are given in Table 19. With few exceptions, the oil content of
peanuts from plants dusted with sulfur was higher than that
from peanuts receiving no sufur, when grown on light sandy
soils. There was a trend toward higher oil content as the yield
was increased, due to sulfur treatment. Peanuts grown on
heavier soils-Red Bay and Magnolia-were somewhat erratic
in their response to sulfur, in both yield and oil content.
Average yields of dug peanuts from plots on the light soils
in north central and northern Florida were 600 pounds per acre
for the non-dusted and 743 pounds per acre from sulfur-dusted
plots. Average oil content (ether extract) was 46.97 percent
from the non-dusted and 48.94 percent from the sulfur-dusted
plots, or nearly 2 percent increase in actual oil content. Figuring
on the basis of amount of oil contained, peanuts from the sulfur-
dusted plots had 4.19 percent more oil than those from the non-
dusted plots.
Peanuts from plots on the heavier clay soils in northern
Florida produced 687 pounds of dug peanuts per acre on the non-
dusted plots and 642 pounds per acre on the sulfur-dusted plots.
The oil content of peanuts from the non-dusted plots was 46.66
percent as compared to 46.26 percent for the peanuts from the
sulfur-dusted plots. Neither yield nor oil content differences
weire significant on peanuts from the heavier soils.
Table 20 gives 1945 results of peanuts grown on the same
field with and without a cover crop of blue lupines (L. angusti-
folius L.) for 3 consecutive years and planted in the same rows.
Due to weather and labor conditions, yields for 1943 and 1944
were not comparable and are not given. Each fall a cover crop
of blue lupines was planted on half the plots and turned under
in March. The peanut crop was then fertilized with 200 pounds
per acre of a 0-14-10 fertilizer. Half of all plots were dusted
with sulfur at a total of 60 pounds per acre in 3 applications.
The peanuts were dug with the regular digger and the soil








Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


TABLE 19.-EFFECT OF FERTILIZER AND SULPHUR DUST ON YIELD AND OIL
CONTENT OF PEANUTS, 1943-1945.


No Sulfur Dust
Fertilizer* Pounds
Formula per Acre Percent
of Oil
Peanuts

0-0-0 .......... 370 46.47
2-10-4 ...... 520 48.75
2-10-4 ........ 550 51.09
0-0-0 .......... 760 49.45
2-10-4 .... 665 52.03
C** ------...... 1,317 46.41
C** ........... ....... -50.36
2-10-4** .... ....... 50.90
0-0-0 .......... -370 46.93
2-10-4 ........ 520 47.64
0-0-0 ... 470 45.73
2-10-4 ....... 520 46.51
0-0-0 .......... 460 43.48
0-0-0 ........ 470 43.08
2-10-4 815 44.32
0-0-0 760 45.33
0-0-0 ...... 660 45.37
2-10-4** 658 45.86
2-10-4** --. 658 46.28
........... ....... 46.64
0-0-0 .......... 330 45.76
2-10-4 ........ 430 46.28
2-10-4 ........ 700 45.56


Average .... 600 46.97


0-0-0 .......... 595 46.94
2-10-4 ........ 595 47.74
2-10-4 ........ 530 47.24
0-0-0 ..------. 750 45.63
2-10-4 ........ 830 45.99
2-10-4 ........ 820 46.40


60 Pounds per Acre Sulfur Dust
Pounds
per Acre Percent
of Oil Soil Type
Peanuts


360
705
780
880
890
1,610

360
705
680
755
680
715
1,180
880
825
984
984

290
300
300


743


49.90
49.40
53.84
53.61
53.85
49.40
54.42
51.89
47.56
48.60
46.96
47.94
46.56
47.54
46.85
45.49
45.37
48.25
48.81
48.28
47.48
47.12
46.61


48.94


45.83
46.92
46.52
45.85
45.83
46.63


Ruston s.l.
Ruston s.l.
Ruston s.l.
Ruston s.l.
Ruston s.l.
Ruston s.l.
Ruston s.l.
Ruston loam
Arredondo l.f.s.
Arredondo l.f.s.
Arredondo l.f.s.
Arredondo l.f.s.
Ruston f.s.l.
Ruston f.s.l.
Ruston f.s.l.
Ruston l.f.s.
Ruston l.f.s.
Norfolk f.s.
Norfolk f.s.
Norfolk f.s.
Ruston or Orangeburg
Ruston
Ruston


light sandy soils


Red Bay or
Red Bay or
Red Bay or
Red Bay
Red Bay
Red Bay


Magnolia
Magnolia
Magnolia


Average .... 687 46.66 642 46.26 medium to heavy soils

Peanuts harvested from 1944 plots.
*Fertilizer: All fertilizers applied at 300 pounds per acre. 60 pounds
of sulfur dusted on indicated plots at rate of 20 pounds per acre for 3
dustings at 10-day intervals.
C-represents commercial fertilizer of unknown composition.
**Indicates Spanish peanuts. All others were Florida Runner.
Percent oil = ether extract.
Pounds per acre of peanuts and oil content are averages of samples
from 4 plots.

screened for any nuts left in the field. Yields reported in this
table have been corrected for peanuts left in the field after
digging.










TABLE 20.-FLORIDA RUNNER PEANUTS FOLLOWING LUPINES AND NO LUPINES, 1945, GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA.

Pounds of Dug Peanuts per Acre Percent Oil (Ether Extract) Shelling Percent
Sulfur-Dusted No Sulfur Dust Sulfur-Dusted No Sulfur Dust Sulfur-Dusted No Sulfur Dust
No No No No No o No
Lupines Lupines Lupines Lupines Lupines Lupines Lupines Lupines Lupie Lupie Lupines LunesLupines LupinesLue Lupines

901 .............. 1,056 770 828 49.07 50.12 47.74 47.16 ........
1,400 ............. 1,464 876 949 49.45 49.91 49.43 48.36 75.50 75.00 77.89 77.03
1,396 .............. 1,335 657 855 49.16 49.69 48.72 48.50 76.95 75.17 78.45 77.26
1,446 .............. 1,388 713- 961 49.84 50.16 49.60 48.39 75.76 74.67 78.04 76.85
1,468 .............. 1,513 796 779 49.98 49.72 49.14 49.08 75.93 76.25 76.85 76.35
1,529 .............. 1,245 846 628 49.71 50.12 48.83 47.25 75.17 74.58 76.67 76.51
1,268........ 1,170 506 760 49.70 50.66 48.42 48.54 74.92 75.84 78.00 78.11

Average ........
1,344 ........... 1,310 738 823 49.56 50.05 48.84 48.18 75.70 75.25 77.65 77.02

Yields have been corrected for nuts left in the field after digging.
Peanuts fertilized with 200 pounds 0-14-10 per acre ............ 4/26/45.
Peanuts planted (Florida Runner) .......................... ..... .... 4/27/45.
Lupines turned .................-...... ................. .. 3/20/45.
Lupines planted in 18" rows-on and between peanut rows.
Lupines on same plots in 1944, harvested 4/24/44, with following average acre yields (all lupines were returned to the
plots):
On peanut row ....................... 21,227 pound tops, 2,656 pound roots.
Between peanut row ............ 39,818 pound tops, 4,672 pound roots.
Peanuts in 1944 were not harvested.
Sulfur applied in three 20-pound applications at 10- to 14-day intervals starting at 55 days after planting.






Florida Agricultural Experiment Station


Lupines had little effect on yield or shelling percent of har-
vested peanuts. Dusted plants produced marked increases in
yield and the oil content in all cases was highest in peanuts
from these plants. Peanuts grown where there had been no
lupines showed the greatest increase in oil from the sulfur treat-
ment.
Just what place sulfur may play in the role of plant nutrition
has not been fully determined. However, in many cases, both
yields of hay and nuts (Tables 11 and 12) and oil content of
peanuts are increased by dusting the plants with sulfur. It has
been noted at this station that yield increases are not necessarily
due to the control of disease and insects, as these have not been
a factor some seasons.

Discussion and Summary
As noted by the tables the peanuts made most growth from
22 to 84 days after planting. Growth was particularly vigorous
from the 56th to the 84th day after planting. This condition
was noted by Grizzard and Strauss (6), who suggested the
maintenance of an adequate supply of available nutrients during
this rapid growth period. At maturity the peanut plants (tops)
actually weighed less than when sampled 84 days after planting,
at which stage the pegs and small peanuts, mostly "pops", were
formed. Little effect was noted on the yield of peanuts fol-
lowing the plowing under of a crop of lupines. Sulfur stimu-
lated peanut growth, as indicated by yield. Crab grass was a
serious pest in the peanuts following lupines and required extra
hoeing. Sulfur-dusted peanuts had a slightly lower shelling
percent than non-dusted peanuts.
Sulfur appears to cause an increase in phosphorus, potassium
and magnesium content of most plant, parts.
Most noteworthy of the treatments is the role of sulfur in
increasing the oil content and yield of peanuts.







Peanuts in' Florida


LITERATURE CITED

1. BEATTIE, W. R., and J. H. BEATTIE. Peanut growing. USDA Farmers
Bul. 1656. 1943.
2. CANDOLLE, A. DE. Origin of cultivated plants. Pp. 411-15. The Int.
Sci. Ser. D. Appleton and Co., New York. 1886.
3. CAROLUS, R. L. Chemical estimations of the weekly nutrient level
of a potato crop. Amer. Potato Jour. 14: 141-53. 1937.
4. FISH, CYRUS H., and YELLAPRAGADA SUBBAROW. The colorimetric de-
termination of phosphorus. Jour. Biol. Chem. 66: 375-400. 1925.
5. GRIZZARD, A. L., H. R. DAVIS and L. R. KANGAS. The time and rate
of nutrient absoption by flue-cured tobacco. Jour. Amer. Soc.
Agron. 34: 327-39. 1942.
6. GRIZZARD, A. L., and J. L. STRAUSS. Some preliminary studies of pea-
nut nutrition. Unpublished data prepared in 1942. Correspond-
ence 1945.
7. HESTER, JACKSON B. The absorption of nutrients by the tomato plant
at different stages of growth. Proc. Amer, Soc. Hort. Sci. 36:
720-22. 1938.
8. JACOBS, H. R. D., and WILLIAM S. HOFFMAN. A new colorimetric
method for the estimation of potassium. Jour. Biol. Chem. 93:
685-91. 1931.
9. MILLER, EDWIN C. A physiological study of the winter wheat plant
at different stages of its development. Kans. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech.
Bul. 47. 1939.
10. OLSON, L. C., and R. P. BLEDSOE. The chemical composition of the
cotton plant and the uptake of nutrients at different stages of
growth. Ga. Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul. 222. 1942.
11. STOKES, W. E., J. P. CAMP and J. D. WARNER. Spanish peanut fertilizer
experimental work. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rpt. 1932: 28-29.
12. WALLACE, R. W., R. L. SMITH and RALPH LIPSCOMB. Relation of soil
type and treatment to the production of peanuts in northwest
Florida. To be published in Proc. Fla. Soil Sci. Soc. 1946.




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