• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Review of literature
 Method of procedure
 Results and discussion
 Method of procedure
 Results and discussion
 Summary and conclusions
 Literature cited
 Tables 1-5






Group Title: Bulletin - University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station - no. 702
Title: Liming soils for flue-cured tobacco in the Suwanee Valley area
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027507/00001
 Material Information
Title: Liming soils for flue-cured tobacco in the Suwanee Valley area
Series Title: Bulletin University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station
Physical Description: 38 p. : charts ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Breland, H. L
Pritchett, William L
Lundy, H. W
Publisher: Agricultural Experiment Stations, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1965
 Subjects
Subject: Liming of soils -- Suwanee River Valley (Ga. and Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Liming of soils -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Tobacco -- Suwanee River Valley (Ga. and Fla.)   ( lcsh )
Tobacco -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Bibliography: p. 27-29.
Statement of Responsibility: H.L. Breland, W.L. Pritchett, H.W. Lundy.
General Note: Cover title.
Funding: Bulletin (University of Florida. Agricultural Experiment Station) ;
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027507
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 000929289
oclc - 18363425
notis - AEP0068

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Front Cover
        Page 1
    Table of Contents
        Page 2
    Introduction
        Page 3
    Review of literature
        Page 4
        Page 5
    Method of procedure
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
    Results and discussion
        Page 9
    Method of procedure
        Page 9
    Results and discussion
        Page 9
        Soil analyses
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
            Page 12
            Page 13
        Tissue analyses
            Page 14
            Page 15
            Page 16
            Page 17
            Page 18
            Page 19
            Page 20
        Yield and value
            Page 21
            Page 22
            Page 23
    Summary and conclusions
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Literature cited
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
    Tables 1-5
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida




(TECHNICAL)
NOVEMBER 1965


LIMING SOILS FOR
FLUE-CURED TOBACCO
IN THE
SUWANNEE VALLEY AREA
H. L. Breland, W. L. Pritchett, H. W. Lundy
Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville
J. R. Beckenbach, Directo



I_- .*4


I.~


-h ;


,nlk.
r

C ~dTC~i


OU&I












CONTENTS

Page
Introduction -------------- ------------------------------------- 3

Review of Literature ------------- 4

Method of Procedure _- ------------- 6

Results and Discussion ---__ -- ------- 9

Soil Analyses ------------ 9

Tissue Analyses ----------- 14

Yield and Value -----_--- -----21

Summary and Conclusions ----------------- ---.--. -----_-- 24

Literature Cited -------------- 27

Appendix ___---____~_ ---------- 30













LIMING SOILS FOR FLUE-CURED TOBACCO
IN THE SUWANNEE VALLEY AREA

H. L. Breland, W. L. Pritchett, and H. W. Lundy'


Introduction

Flue-cured tobacco produces the highest cash income per
acre of any field crop in Florida. Although tobacco acreages have
been controlled through allotment and marketing quota pro-
grams since 1934 (except for 1939), the yields per acre and
total production have continued to increase. These increased
yields were obtained through use of improved varieties, ferti-
lizer, irrigation, fumigation, and other management practices.
As a result, the state's average flue-cured tobacco yields in-
creased from 909 pounds per acre in 1943 to 1063 pounds in
1953, and to 1858 pounds in 1963. Indications are that average
yields will continue to increase in the future.
The yield and quality of crops are influenced by the soils on
which they grow. Soils used for flue-cured tobacco production
in Florida are generally deep, well-drained acid sands. The
soils of the Suwannee Valley are low in most nutrients, and
particularly low in calcium and magnesium (3)2. Limestone is
needed on many of these soils to decrease acidity and increase
the calcium and magnesium levels sufficiently to meet plant
needs. However, the use of lime has not been a common prac-
tice for tobacco production in the state, except on very acid soils.
Little is known of the effect of lime on yield and quality of flue-
cured tobacco, even though some soils in the tobacco-producing
areas are limed for the production of peanuts, soybeans, or other
crops subsequent to their use for tobacco. The object of this
study was to determine the effects of liming soils on yield and
quality of flue-cured tobacco under present management con-
ditions.
1 Assistant Soils Chemist and Soils Technologist, Agricultural Experiment
Station, Gainesville, and Associate Agronomist-in-Charge, Suwannee Valley
Experiment Station, Live Oak, respectively.
SNumbers in parentheses refer to Literature Cited.







Florida Agricultural Experimnent Stations


Review of Literature

Soil and climate are probably the two most important factors
in production of flue-cured tobacco (28, 42). They influence
color of the leaf and other important qualities such as texture,
body, and aroma. In general, soils best adapted to the produc-
tion of flue-cured tobacco are well-drained sands. These soils
are relatively low in organic matter and plant nutrients, es-
pecially nitrogen. Therefore, substantial crop responses are
generally obtained through use of fertilizers and other soil
management practices.
Lime has been shown to be beneficial to many crops grown in
rotation with tobacco (3). For example, Robertson et al. (41)
reported increases of from 70 to 160 percent in peanut yields
from use of limestone in the Suwannee Valley area. Yield in-
creases from use of magnesium and liming materials for oats
and soybeans were also reported by Horn (21) and by Blue and
Eno (3). However, use of lime for tobacco production has not
been a popular practice. Clark (11) reported that calcium was
important in tobacco nutrition but that fertilizer applications
supplying 80 pounds or more of CaO per acre were probably
adequate. The addition of calcic or dolomitic limestone has also
resulted in increased yields and values of flue-cured tobacco in
the Suwannee Valley area (8, 9, 10, 36, 37). Albrecht and Smith
(1) considered "soil acidity" to be nutrient deficiencies, and
calcium deficiency to be a prominent one. However, Aslander
(2) reported that calcium is seldom, if ever, the limiting factor
in crop production on acid soils.
The increased incidence of plant diseases in soils with pH
5.6 to 6.0 (32) and above probably has been responsible for the
reluctance of many growers to lime tobacco soils, even when the
pH and calcium and magnesium levels were low. On the other
hand, there is evidence that liming soils influences the chemical
properties of the plant. For example, Darkis et al. (14) and
McGee (25) reported that liming some soils resulted in low
sugar and high nitrogen and acid contents of leaves and in gen-
eral lowered tobacco quality. McGee (25) reported that "there
are relatively few cases where lime should be used on tobacco
soils." He concluded that flue-cured tobacco grew best on acid
soil and that a pH of 5.0 to 5.5 was optimum for producing best
quality tobacco in South Carolina. In 1929, Westbrook (44)








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


stated that "although an application of lime may increase the
crop-producing power of the soil, the effect may be injurious to
the quality of tobacco." He reported that the yield and cash
returns were slightly less where lime was applied.
Garner (16) found that excessive amounts of potassium,
calcium, or magnesium applied to soil may delay maturity and
lower quality of flue-cured tobacco. He concluded that soils
should not be limed for tobacco unless the pH fell below 5.0.
Garner et al. (17) also showed that most sandy loam soils were
too low in magnesium for successful production of flue-cured
tobacco. As a result, most fertilizers for tobacco now contain
at least 2 percent MgO.
Mooers (29) stated that lime was applied on several farms in
Tennessee, but that no general conclusions could be drawn from
the results except that tobacco did not appear to respond to lime.
No information on the soil pH or calcium level either before or
after liming was given.
In Virginia, Green (18) showed that ammonium sulfate
could be substituted for at least part of the nitrate of soda, if
the soil was limed. He also found that the selling price of sun-
cured tobacco was higher where lime was used. He further
noted that even though tobacco did not have a high lime require-
ment, yields were reduced if the soil became too acid. One ton
of burnt lime, or 2 tons of ground limestone per acre, applied
once in a five-year rotation of tobacco, wheat, hay, corn, and
cowpeas, resulted in a small profit in most cases. The use of
sulfate of ammonia resulted in an increased income of $47.95
per acre when one application of lime was applied in the rota-
tion. Most of the increased income was obtained from the to-
bacco.
At three locations in Kentucky, 2 tons of limestone were used
where tobacco was grown in rotations with other crops (39).
At one location, there was no significant change in yield; at
another there was a decrease in yield, while at the third, there
was an increase in one rotation and a decrease in the other. The
soil pH, before or after liming, was not reported. However, it
was stated that the soil at one location was representative of the
Trenton limestone area and that it contained about 0.47 percent
phosphorus, 0.19 percent nitrogen, 1.30 percent potassium, and
0.60 percent easily soluble calcium. As a result of this work
Roberts et al. stated that "lime does not often directly benefit







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


tobacco, but will indirectly benefit in a rotation in which clover
is grown."
References were found (30, 39) which suggested harmful
effects from lime when applied to soils used for tobacco produc-
tion. Much of this earlier work did not report the soil pH be-
fore or after liming. In other instances, the reduction in yield
or quality may have resulted from relatively heavy applications
of lime (33) on soils that were already nearly neutral. Morgan
et al. (31) reported that the use of lime was a desirable practice
on soil of low pH or low calcium and magnesium supply. Roberts
(40) concluded that the best treatment for a moderately acid
soil used for producing burley tobacco was to use limestone at
a moderate rate of not more than 2 tons per acre as an initial
application.
Any attempt to interpret the literature on the effects of ap-
plying limestone to soil for production of flue-cured tobacco
would be of only limited value. In most of these investigations
no data on chemical analyses of plant tissue or soils were re-
ported.
The apparently conflicting views on the need for lime on soils
used for tobacco production may be reconciled on the basis of
soil texture, soil pH, and the levels of exchangeable calcium and
magnesium (12, 27). The finer textured soils of the Central
Atlantic states contain sufficient calcium and magnesium for
good tobacco production if the pH is above 5.0 to 5.2. On the
other hand, sandy soils in the Suwannee Valley area may have
a higher pH, but contain insufficient calcium and magnesium for
normal growth of tobacco and other crops.
There is no doubt that liming soil influences the availability
of some macro- and micronutrients. In order to study the ef-
fects of lime on the yield and quality of flue-cured tobacco, the
following research was initiated at the Suwannee Valley Station
in 1956.

Method of Procedure
Deep, well-drained soils at the Suwannee Valley Station were
selected for the eight-year study. Klej fine sand was used for
experiments in 1956 through 1960 and Blanton fine sand from
1961 through 1963. A different area was used each year (ex-
cept for 1961, 1962, and 1963), so that applications of liming
materials were made on soil not previously limed in order to








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco 7

prevent an accumulation of unreacted materials. However, in
1961 through 1963, the experiments were conducted on the same
area with the calcic and dolomitic limestones reapplied at one-
half the initial rates in 1962 and 1963. The pH and ammonium
acetate (pH 4.8) extractable nutrient content of the surface
(0 to 6 inches) soil, prior to treatment, are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Average pH and ammonium acetate (pH 4.8) extractable nutrients
in surface (0 to 6 inches) soil prior to treatment.

Crop Parts per Million
Year pH Ca Mg P K
1956 5.1 35 12 5 47
1957 5.6 20 10 7 28
1959 5.2 45 4 7 29
1960 5.4 46 7 8 29
1961 5.9 128 16 4 37
1962* 5.5 39 6 14 32
1963* 6.0 70 15 6 56
* 1962 and 1963 samples taken from check plots only.

Each plot was 12 by 50 feet, and contained four rows 50
feet long. The two center rows were used for yield and quality
determinations. The treatments consisted of a check (no lime),
1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 pounds of calcic and dolomitic limestone,
3,300 pounds of calcium sulfate, and 1,300 pounds of magnesium
sulfate, per acre. The sulfate salts were applied at rates equiv-
alent to the calcium and magnesium in 2,000 pounds of calcic
and dolomitic limestones. The percent purity and sieve analysis
of the calcic and dolomitic limestones are given in Table 2.3
Treatments were replicated three to six times, depending on the
uniformity of the soil area selected.
Hicks Broadleaf variety tobacco was used throughout the
study, with a population of about 7,500 plants per acre. All
areas received a split application of 1,500 pounds per acre of a
4-8-12 fertilizer, containing 2 percent chlorine and 2 percent
magnesium oxide. The initial fertilizer application, along with
fumigation of the soil for nematode control, was made two
weeks prior to planting, and the second fertilizer application
' Since the composition and fineness of grind of liming materials from
different sources may vary, only one source was used for both calcic and
dolomitic limestones. They were commercial grades obtained from the
central part of Florida.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Table 2.-Percent purity and sieve analysis of liming materials.

Dolomitic Calcic
Determination Limestone Limestone
% %
Calcium carbonate equiv. 104.1 96.4
Calcium carbonate 58.9 93.0
Magnesium carbonate 45.2 2.8
Passing 20-mesh sieve 97.5 92.6
Passing 60-mesh sieve 70.5
Passing 80-mesh sieve 68.6
Passing 100-mesh sieve 56.0 48.6


was made about three weeks after planting. Additional side-
dressings of nitrogen and potassium were applied as needed for
good plant growth. Cultural practices common to the area were
used.
After the tobacco was harvested, cured, and sorted into lots,
it was graded into appropriate government grades by federal
tobacco inspectors. The value, expressed as dollars per acre, was
calculated on the basis of the average seasonal price paid at the
local market for the different grades. Leaf samples were col-
lected from the second and fourth primings of each crop for
chemical analyses.
Leaf samples were oven-dried at 70"C, and after removal of
mid-ribs and stems, ground in a Wiley mill to pass a 20-mesh
sieve. Samples were dry-ashed in a muffle furnace at 500"C;
the ash was dissolved in 0.1 N HC1 and analyzed for total cal-
cium, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium. Calcium was
determined by a modified Peech and English Colorimetric pro-
cedure (34) ; magnesium by the Mehlich colorimetric procedure
(26) ; phosphorus by the ammonium molybdate-stannous chloride
method (22); and potassium in a Beckman Model B Spectro-
photometer with an acetylene-oxygen flame attachment set at
768 mu. Total nitrogen was determined by the Kjeldahl method
(22); nicotine, nornicotine, and total alkaloid contents of the
leaf by the Cundiff and Markunas methods (13); and total re-
ducing sugars by the Hassid method (20). Data obtained for the
different treatments for seven years were averaged for use in
the following discussion. (No data were obtained from the 1958
experiment because of damage from excessive rainfall.)
Surface soil (0 to 6 inches) samples were collected at random
from each replication in January, prior to treatment, and from








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


individual plots in May or June of each year. Other surface
soil samples were collected periodically throughout the year,
and samples of the profile were collected in 1959. Each sample
consisted of 15 to 20 cores, collected from the experimental
unit with a 1-inch soil tube. Soil samples were analyzed accord-
ing to methods referred to in a previous publication (8). A soil
to water ratio of 1:2 was used for determining pH. The readily
extractable nutrients were removed from 5-gram samples of
soil by shaking for 30 minutes with 25 ml of ammonium acetate
(pH 4.8).
The incidence of root knot and root rot4 was determined in
the field after the tobacco was harvested. This was done by
systematically pulling 10 plants from each plot and examining
them for root knot and root rot. A relative rating system of
from 1 to 10, inclusive, was used for determining the intensity
of the diseases.
Burn was determined by igniting the tobacco leaf with a
heated electric filament. The 115 volt AC element was heated
until cherry red and stabilized by means of a constant voltage
transformer. The length of time the leaf continued to burn
(glow) after ignition was recorded.


Results and Discussion
Soil Analyses
The annual results of analyses of soil samples, collected five
to six months after treatments were applied, are given in Ap-
pendix Table 1.
Limestone applied to the soil at rates of 1,000, 2,000, and
4,000 pounds per acre increased the pH over that of the check
0.4, 0.7, and 1.2 pH units when calcic limestone was used and
0.5, 0.8, and 1.1 pH units when dolomitic limestone was used
(Table 3). This was an increase of approximately 0.3 pH unit
for each 1,000 pounds of limestone per acre. Smaller pH changes
were obtained from similar treatment of these same soils in
other experiments (4, 6).
Calcic limestone did not react with the soil any faster than
dolomitic limestone, as measured by pH changes brought about
in the soil (Figure 1). Recent work in Georgia (35) corrobo-
'Dr. R. R. Kincaid, Plant Pathologist, University of Florida, North Florida
Experiment Station, Quincy, made the evaluations.








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


individual plots in May or June of each year. Other surface
soil samples were collected periodically throughout the year,
and samples of the profile were collected in 1959. Each sample
consisted of 15 to 20 cores, collected from the experimental
unit with a 1-inch soil tube. Soil samples were analyzed accord-
ing to methods referred to in a previous publication (8). A soil
to water ratio of 1:2 was used for determining pH. The readily
extractable nutrients were removed from 5-gram samples of
soil by shaking for 30 minutes with 25 ml of ammonium acetate
(pH 4.8).
The incidence of root knot and root rot4 was determined in
the field after the tobacco was harvested. This was done by
systematically pulling 10 plants from each plot and examining
them for root knot and root rot. A relative rating system of
from 1 to 10, inclusive, was used for determining the intensity
of the diseases.
Burn was determined by igniting the tobacco leaf with a
heated electric filament. The 115 volt AC element was heated
until cherry red and stabilized by means of a constant voltage
transformer. The length of time the leaf continued to burn
(glow) after ignition was recorded.


Results and Discussion
Soil Analyses
The annual results of analyses of soil samples, collected five
to six months after treatments were applied, are given in Ap-
pendix Table 1.
Limestone applied to the soil at rates of 1,000, 2,000, and
4,000 pounds per acre increased the pH over that of the check
0.4, 0.7, and 1.2 pH units when calcic limestone was used and
0.5, 0.8, and 1.1 pH units when dolomitic limestone was used
(Table 3). This was an increase of approximately 0.3 pH unit
for each 1,000 pounds of limestone per acre. Smaller pH changes
were obtained from similar treatment of these same soils in
other experiments (4, 6).
Calcic limestone did not react with the soil any faster than
dolomitic limestone, as measured by pH changes brought about
in the soil (Figure 1). Recent work in Georgia (35) corrobo-
'Dr. R. R. Kincaid, Plant Pathologist, University of Florida, North Florida
Experiment Station, Quincy, made the evaluations.








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


individual plots in May or June of each year. Other surface
soil samples were collected periodically throughout the year,
and samples of the profile were collected in 1959. Each sample
consisted of 15 to 20 cores, collected from the experimental
unit with a 1-inch soil tube. Soil samples were analyzed accord-
ing to methods referred to in a previous publication (8). A soil
to water ratio of 1:2 was used for determining pH. The readily
extractable nutrients were removed from 5-gram samples of
soil by shaking for 30 minutes with 25 ml of ammonium acetate
(pH 4.8).
The incidence of root knot and root rot4 was determined in
the field after the tobacco was harvested. This was done by
systematically pulling 10 plants from each plot and examining
them for root knot and root rot. A relative rating system of
from 1 to 10, inclusive, was used for determining the intensity
of the diseases.
Burn was determined by igniting the tobacco leaf with a
heated electric filament. The 115 volt AC element was heated
until cherry red and stabilized by means of a constant voltage
transformer. The length of time the leaf continued to burn
(glow) after ignition was recorded.


Results and Discussion
Soil Analyses
The annual results of analyses of soil samples, collected five
to six months after treatments were applied, are given in Ap-
pendix Table 1.
Limestone applied to the soil at rates of 1,000, 2,000, and
4,000 pounds per acre increased the pH over that of the check
0.4, 0.7, and 1.2 pH units when calcic limestone was used and
0.5, 0.8, and 1.1 pH units when dolomitic limestone was used
(Table 3). This was an increase of approximately 0.3 pH unit
for each 1,000 pounds of limestone per acre. Smaller pH changes
were obtained from similar treatment of these same soils in
other experiments (4, 6).
Calcic limestone did not react with the soil any faster than
dolomitic limestone, as measured by pH changes brought about
in the soil (Figure 1). Recent work in Georgia (35) corrobo-
'Dr. R. R. Kincaid, Plant Pathologist, University of Florida, North Florida
Experiment Station, Quincy, made the evaluations.








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


individual plots in May or June of each year. Other surface
soil samples were collected periodically throughout the year,
and samples of the profile were collected in 1959. Each sample
consisted of 15 to 20 cores, collected from the experimental
unit with a 1-inch soil tube. Soil samples were analyzed accord-
ing to methods referred to in a previous publication (8). A soil
to water ratio of 1:2 was used for determining pH. The readily
extractable nutrients were removed from 5-gram samples of
soil by shaking for 30 minutes with 25 ml of ammonium acetate
(pH 4.8).
The incidence of root knot and root rot4 was determined in
the field after the tobacco was harvested. This was done by
systematically pulling 10 plants from each plot and examining
them for root knot and root rot. A relative rating system of
from 1 to 10, inclusive, was used for determining the intensity
of the diseases.
Burn was determined by igniting the tobacco leaf with a
heated electric filament. The 115 volt AC element was heated
until cherry red and stabilized by means of a constant voltage
transformer. The length of time the leaf continued to burn
(glow) after ignition was recorded.


Results and Discussion
Soil Analyses
The annual results of analyses of soil samples, collected five
to six months after treatments were applied, are given in Ap-
pendix Table 1.
Limestone applied to the soil at rates of 1,000, 2,000, and
4,000 pounds per acre increased the pH over that of the check
0.4, 0.7, and 1.2 pH units when calcic limestone was used and
0.5, 0.8, and 1.1 pH units when dolomitic limestone was used
(Table 3). This was an increase of approximately 0.3 pH unit
for each 1,000 pounds of limestone per acre. Smaller pH changes
were obtained from similar treatment of these same soils in
other experiments (4, 6).
Calcic limestone did not react with the soil any faster than
dolomitic limestone, as measured by pH changes brought about
in the soil (Figure 1). Recent work in Georgia (35) corrobo-
'Dr. R. R. Kincaid, Plant Pathologist, University of Florida, North Florida
Experiment Station, Quincy, made the evaluations.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


6.5

Dolomitic



6.0
6 Calcic


oo
5.5



SMgSO4
5.0 0 CaSO
0 1000 2000 4000

LIMESTONE -- pounds per acre

Figure I.-Soil pH as affected by liming.

rated the findings that at least 1 ton per acre of either calcic or
dolomitic limestone was required to change the soil one pH unit.
This agreed with general recommendations for liming well-drain-
ed sands (5), but this amount of limestone was greater than
formerly considered necessary for similar pH changes in these
soils (43). It also gave emphasis to the fact that pH alone is
not always sufficient information upon which to base a liming
recommendation for some of the deep sandy soils which have
a low base exchange capacity. Factors such as the calcium and
magnesium levels, base exchange capacity, and aluminum con-
tent of the soil, may also play a major role (4, 7).
Although only one set of soil test data is given for each of
the seven years, additional samples were taken throughout the
year, and results were found to be essentially the same as those
taken in the middle of the growing season (Appendix Table 1).
An example of seasonal changes that occur in soil following lime
application is shown for 1956 in Appendix Table 2. The trends








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


found at the end of nine months were similar to those obtained
at the end of 12 months (Appendix Table 3). The pH, calcium,
and magnesium values were different from the seven-year aver-
ages (Tables 3), but similar relationships were obtained among
treatments. Since several different areas were used for tobacco,
data obtained for any one year would be different from the aver-
age obtained for seven years from all locations.
The amount of readily extractable soil calcium increased as
rates of application of either calcic or dolomitic limestone in-
creased. The increases were essentially a straight line function
in each case. However, the values obtained for plots to which
calcic limestone was applied were approximately twice that of
plots to which dolomitic limestone was applied (Figure 2). This
doubtlessly resulted from the fact that dolomitic limestone con-
tained only about 59 percent calcium carbonate while the calcic
limestone contained 93 percent calcium carbonate (Table 2).
The average increases in soil extractable calcium for all years


1000 2000


4000


LIMESTONE -- pounds per acre


Figure 2.-Extractable soil calcium as affected by liming.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


were 130, 278, 623 parts per million (ppm) from calcic limestone,
and 76, 125, 246 ppm from dolomitic limestone when these
materials were applied at rates of 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 pounds
per acre, respectively. This was an average increase of 67 and
142 ppm of extractable calcium, respectively, for each 1,000
pounds of dolomitic and calcic limestone applied per acre.
The effect of lime treatments on the easily extractable mag-
nesium in the surface soil is shown in Figure 3. Curves ob-
tained where dolomitic limestone was applied were much the
same as those obtained for calcium when calcic limestone was
applied, except that the values were lower. For each 1,000
pounds of dolomite applied, the readily extractable magnesium
values increased an average of 21 ppm.
Soils developed under conditions of high rainfall, as in Flor-
ida, generally have a low percent base saturation in the surface.
Of the exchangeable bases in these soils, calcium is the most
abundant and is usually 3 to 25 times as abundant as magnesium




0

t--
100
E

Qe iDolomitic
4.
m 70
a- -
-

-- .0

S40
X M0SO4

| Calcic


10 r II 0E


LIMESTONE, pounds per acre

Figure 3.-Extractable soil magnesium as affected by liming.








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


Table 3.-Average pH and ammonium acetate (pH 4.8) extractable nutrients
in surface (0 to 6 inches) soil five to six months after treatment
for all years.

Treatments Parts per Million
Materials Lbs./A. pH Ca Mg P K
Check 0 5.2 82 18 9 58
Calcic limestone 1000 5.6 212 19 10 60
Calcic limestone 2000 5.9 360 22 10 64
Calcic limestone 4000 6.4 705 24 10 62
Calcium sulfate 3300 5.1 192 16 10 43
Dolomitic limestone 1000 5.7 158 40 10 59
Dolomitic limestone 2000 6.0 207 60 9 63
Dolomitic limestone 4000 6.3 328 102 12 58
Magnesium sulfate 1300 5.3 115 33 12 63


(15). In soils used for the experiments, the calcium to magne-
sium ratios for all years averaged 5.5 before treatments were
made. Five to six months after treatment, the ratios were 4.6,
4.0, 3.4, and 3.2 where 0, 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 pounds of dolo-
mitic limestone had been applied, per acre, respectively (Table
3).
Initial reaction after applying calcium and magnesium sul-
fate to the soil was a lowering of the pH as a result of displace-
ment of hydrogen and aluminum from the exchange complex
of the soil. After these ions had been neutralized or leached
from the soil, the pH returned to about that of check plots.
Applications of these neutral salts, therefore, resulted in only
minor pH changes; and when the soil was sampled in May or
June, the values were about the same as for check plots (Table
3).
In soils to which calcium sulfate was applied in amounts
equivalent to the calcium in 2,000 pounds of calcic limestone
per acre, the calcium to magnesium ratio averaged 12.0. A some-
what wider ratio of 16.4 was found where 2,000 pounds of
calcic limestone per acre was applied. However, when magne-
sium sulfate was applied at a rate equivalent to the magnesium
in 2,000 pounds of dolomite per acre, the ratio was only 3.5
(Table 3). This was very similar to the ratio of 3.4 obtained
when 2,000 pounds of dolomitic limestone was applied. The
rather small amounts of extractable magnesium in plots that
received magnesium sulfate treatment indicated that there was
a considerable movement of magnesium in these soils, and that







Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


the 2 percent MgO normally applied in tobacco fertilizer may
not be sufficient for sustained plant growth. That magnesium
does leach from the plowed layer in these soils can be seen in
Appendix Table 3.

Tissue Analyses
The average effects of soil treatments on the leaf content of
calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen, nicotine,
nornicotine, total alkaloids, and total reducing sugar of flue-
cured tobacco are given in Table 4. Only small variations in leaf
composition were found among replications of the same treat-
ment. However, there were some rather large variations in con-
tent of certain elements among treatments and years, as seen in
Appendix Table 4. This among-years variation was expected
because of climatic variations, and certain year-to-year varia-
tions in cultural practices.
Calcium content of the tobacco leaf increased as calcic lime-
stone rates were increased (Figure 4). The percentage calcium
in leaves from the check plots averaged 1.82 for priming 2,
while those from plots that received 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000
pounds of calcic limestone per acre, averaged 2.23, 2.42, and
2.66 percent, respectively. The calcium content of leaves from
all calcic limestone plots averaged 37.7 percent higher for prim-
ing 2 than for priming 4. Although leaves harvested at the
second priming were approximately of the same physiological
age as those of the fourth priming, leaves near the bottom of
the plant generally contained more calcium than leaves maturing
later. Minor variations in leaf calcium were obtained with
different rates of dolomitic limestone. Since this material con-
tained less calcium than the calcic limestone, less effect on cal-
cium content of the plant would be expected from its use.
However, the calcium content of leaves was higher from plots
where dolomitic limestone was applied than in leaves from check
plots.
In plots where calcium sulfate was added to the soil in an
amount equivalent to the calcium contained in 2,000 pounds of
calcic limestone, the calcium content of leaf tissue was increased
over that of leaves from check plots. However, the increase was
not as great as that obtained from use of calcic limestone. This
apparently resulted from the rapid loss of calcium from soils
that received calcium sulfate.








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


2.75

Prim ng 2


S2.25
U
C -
i CaSO





I 1.75 O
< 0. CaSO4
44


1.25 n -
0 1000 2000 4000

CALCIC LIMESTONE -- pounds per acre
Figure 4.-Effect of calcium limestone on the calcium content of flue-cured
tobacco leaves.

The magnesium content of tobacco leaf tissue was consist-
ently increased as dolomitic limestone rates increased up to
4,000 pounds per acre (Figure 5). The increases were 82.0,
118.0, and 156.0 percent, respectively, over that of check plots
for priming 2, where 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 pounds of dolomitic
limestone per acre had been applied. The magnesium values
ranged from 0.50 percent for the check to 1.28 percent for the
4,000 pound per acre application of dolomitic limestone. The
values obtained were also higher for the bottom leaves (priming
2) than the leaves from priming 4. This indicated a decreasing
availability of magnesium as the season progressed and a lack
of translocation from old tissue to younger tissue.
The addition of magnesium sulfate resulted in an increase
in the magnesium content of the leaf tissue. In fact, the mag-
nesium content of leaves of both primings were similar to those
of leaves from plots that received an equivalent amount of
magnesium from dolomitic limestone.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


S.40



C MgSO4
o 1.00 -
e Primi 2 woo .
CaSO0 ,4 p
I /-
E- / .^
00 / sY Primi ng 4
S0.60 /
S/



0.20
0 1000 2000 4000

DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE -- pounds per acre
Figure 5.-Effect of dolomitic limestone on the magnesium content of flue-cured
tobacco leaves.

A calcium content of about 1.59 percent and a magnesium
content of about 0.22 percent in flue-cured tobacco leaves has
been reported as desirable for cigarettes (19). Although the
calcium and magnesium contents of tobacco in these experiments
varied with leaf position (priming), as well as treatments, the
values were generally higher than those given above. The aver-
age values for calcium for the two primings ranged from a low
of 1.24 to a high of 2.66 percent. The magnesium content of all
tobacco from these experiments was higher than 0.22 percent.
The range was from 0.32 to 1.28 percent magnesium. While
these values may be relatively high for calcium and magnesium,
no apparent adverse effects on price were obtained on the local
market (Appendix Table 5).
All experimental plots received the same amounts of phos-
phorus and potassium fertilizers; however, there was a tendency
for the phosphorus content of leaves to increase as rates of lime
increased. On the other hand, potassium levels decreased slight-








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


4.00





E 3.60

MgSO4
4_ Priming 2


S3.20
0 MgSO4
Priming 4

2.80 I ---
0 1000 2000 4000
DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE -- pounds per acre

Figure 6.-Effect of dolomitic limestone on the potassium content of flue-cured
tobacco leaves.

ly as lime rates increased (Figure 6). However, these differ-
ences were not statistically significant.
The nitrogeneous constituents of flue-cured tobacco nor-
mally influence its usefulness and are considered by Jones et al.
(24) to be of prime importance in determining quality. Total
nitrogen contents of tobacco in these experiments varied from
1.27 to 1.41 percent and from 1.32 to 1.44 percent for primings
2 and 4, respectively (Table 4). The average nitrogen content
of the leaf increased as rates of dolomitic limestone applied
were increased (Figure 7).
In general, a nicotine content of about 1.75 to 2.75 percent
has been reported to be satisfactory to the trade (24). All values
obtained from these tests were considerably lower than the
above figures. The values ranged from 0.83 to 1.13 percent and
from 1.12 to 1.32 percent for primings 2 and 4, respectively
(Table 4). However, the nicotine content is known to be in-
fluenced by environment. Excessive rain tends to lower the








Table 4.-Seven year average effect of soil treatments on the composition of flue-cured tobacco leaves.

Treatments Percent

Total
Nor- Reducing
Materials Lbs./A. Ca Mg P K Nitrogen Nicotine nicotine Sugars

Priming 2


Check
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcium sulfate
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Magnesium sulfate



Check
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcium sulfate
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Magnesium sulfate


0 1.82
1000 2.23
2000 2.42
4000 2.66
3300 2.19
1000 1.92
2000 1.90
4000 1.96
1300 1.79



0 1.24
1000 1.67
2000 1.78
4000 1.94
3300 1.68
1000 1.37
2000 1.37
4000 1.45
1300 1.24


0.50
0.53
0.45
0.41
0.46
0.91
1.09
1.28
1.03



0.38
0.40
0.37
0.36
0.32
0.67
0.76
0.96
0.81


Priming 4


11.09
8.71
9.68
7.57
8.80
8.71
7.39
7.22
7.74



15.84
14.70
13.90
14.96
15.75
13.38
13.38
11.97
15.40








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


1.45 ---- -
Primin 4


"Er
pE
U 1.40 --
/ MYSO4

gS00 2000 4
" *







DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE -- pounds per acre
-1.35 &a"





U 1000 2000 4000
DOLOMITIC LIMESTONE -- pounds per acre

Figure 7.-Effect of dolomitic limestone on the nitrogen content of flue-cured
tobacco leaves.

nicotine content, while high yields are sometimes associated with
high content of nicotine in the leaves.
Ratios of nitrogen to nicotine in the leaves varied from 1.05
to 1.63 among treatments for the two primings. The ratio was
higher for priming 2 than 4, although both nitrogen and nico-
tine values were generally higher for priming 4 than for priming
2 (Table 5). Nicotine to total alkaloid ratios varied only slightly
among different treatments, with the lowest ratio being 90.6
and the highest 96.9. It has been reported that the higher the
ratio of nicotine to total alkaloid, the less desirable the tobacco,
since it does not age satisfactorily. The ratio is also used as
an indication of chemical balance within the plant (24).
The ratio of reducing sugar to nicotine was calculated as
a measure of the relationship of carbohydrates to the alkaloid
fraction. A high ratio is reported to indicate mildness and
smoothness, while a very low ratio may be indicative of a harsh,
irritating smoke (23). If the ratio is too high, it might indicate
that the tobacco is too mild to be acceptable by the smoker (23).


19








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Table 5.-Ratios* of certain constituents of flue-cured tobacco.
Treatments Nicotine Reducing
Nitrogen x 100 Sugar
Materials Lbs/A. Total
Nicotine Alkaloids Nicotine

Priming 2
Check 0 1.26 94.5 10.77
Calcic limestone 1000 1.48 90.6 10.01
Calcic limestone 2000 1.63 93.3 11.66
Calcic limestone 4000 1.48 93.1 7.97
Calcium sulfate 3300 1.40 96.8 9.67
Dolomitic limestone 1000 1.34 94.3 8.80
Dolomitic limestone 2000 1.39 94.2 7.62
Dolomitic limestone 4000 1.21 95.8 6.39
Magnesium sulfate 1300 1.27 94.7 7.23

Priming 4
Check 0 1.05 94.1 12.38
Calcic limestone 1000 1.25 91.9 12.89
Calcic limestone 2000 1.17 94.5 11.49
Calcic limestone 4000 1.16 96.9 12.06
Calcium sulfate 3300 1.18 94.1 14.06
Dolomitic limestone 1000 1.15 93.2 10.88
Dolomitic limestone 2000 1.09 95.0 10.14
Dolomitic limestone 4000 1.28 94.9 10.69
Magnesium sulfate 1300 1.15 90.9 12.83
Calculated from the seven-year averages.

The ratios of reducing sugar to nicotine in tobacco from
these experiments were found to vary from 6.39 to 11.66 and
10.14 to 14.06 for primings 2 and 4, respectively. Higher ratios
were obtained from calcic than dolomitic limestone treatments.
Burn tests were made on tobacco leaves from the second
priming of the 1959 crop, and the data are given in Table 6.
The values were obtained by taking an average of 12 separate
determinations for each treatment. Although no definite con-
clusions are drawn from the one year data, it was noted that
as lime rates were increased, the length of time that the tobacco
continued to burn after ignition increased with the first incre-
ment of lime and then decreased as additional increments were
added.
The incidence of blackshank, root knot, and root rot was
checked on tobacco from each treatment for three years (Table
7). No evidence of blackshank was noted on plants from any of
the plots.








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


Table 6.-Effect of soil treatment on the burn period of flue-cured tobacco
leaves (1959).
Treatments Burn in
Materials Lbs/A. Seconds
Check 0 5.3
Calcic limestone 1000 10.5
Calcic limestone 2000 9.6
Calcic limestone 4000 9.8
Calcium sulfate 3300 3.8
Dolomitic limestone 1000 15.7
Dolomitic limestone 2000 6.2
Dolomitic limestone 4000 2.2
Magnesium sulfate 1300 9.3


There was very little root knot nematode (Meloidogyne
species) infestation in 1959 and 1961, and treatments had no
significant effect on incidence. In 1960, the incidence of the
nematode was much higher in all treatments than in other years.
Although the severity of the root knot problem was greater in
limed plots than in check plots in 1960, there was no apparent
relationship of severity with liming rates. The tobacco was
grown at a different location each year, and it is obvious that
site and/or season had a great influence on the incidence of
root knot, but not on that of root rot.
Nematode root rot (coarse root) affected an average of 84.2
to 91.5 percent of the tobacco roots during the three years.
There was a significant decrease in the incidence of root rot
as a result of lime treatments for two of the three years. The
reduction in incidence of root rot was apparently related to
the increase in soil pH and not to the effect of calcium and
magnesium as a plant nutrient since neutral salts of these two
elements did not give the same results as limestone. There is
the possibility that the reduction in root rot fungus was only
apparent (38). Since liming the soil increased growth and vigor
of the plants, it is likely that these same treatments favored
the proliferation of roots, resulting in an apparent decrease
in infestation.

Yield and Value
In evaluating the effects of treatments on flue-cured tobacco,
yield and value must be considered, along with the physical and
chemical characteristics of the leaves.













Table 7.-Incidence of root knot and root rot on flue-cured tobacco.


Treatments
Materials Lbs/A.


Root Knot
1959 1960 1961 Avg.


Root Rot
1959 1960 1961 Avg. 2.


Check
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcium sulfate
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Magnesium sulfate
LSD (1%)
LSD (5%)


0
1000
2000
4000
3300
1000
2000
4000
1300


0.8
0.8
1.7
0.8
5.2
2.2
2.7
2.3
2.3
N.S.
N.S.


%
16.0
43.0
31.0
58.0
37.0
51.0
36.0
62.0
44.0
N.S.
N.S.


%
91.3
91.3
88.5
83.8
92.2
89.7
85.7
84.5
94.2
6.4
4.8


%
81.0
91.0
80.0
83.0
90.0
91.0
80.0
84.0
89.0
16.4
11.9


%
87.6
90.5
85.9
82.4
91.3
90.5 2.
86.1
84.2
91.5
--
Z2
C


--








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


1960


Uo
,^ Dolomitic
- 1880 -


S/ | I Calcic
/ x MgSO
S 0 CaSO \
_ 1800
_ ,


1720
0 1000 2000 4000

LIMESTONE --pounds per acre

Figure 8.-Effect of limestone on the yield of flue-cured tobacco.

In these experiments, it was found that yield and value of
tobacco increased with rates of calcic limestone up to 2,000
pounds per acre (Figure 8). The yield and value increases
were about 6.0 and 4.8 percent, respectively. The average yield
increase was from 1749 to 1854 pounds per acre (Table 8),
while the increase in value was from $1051.17 to $1104.48 per
acre for the addition of 2,000 pounds per acre of calcic lime-
stone. This was an increase of $53.31 per acre.
Dolomitic limestone also resulted in increased yields and
values of flue-cured tobacco (Figure 8). The 4,000 pounds per
acre rate of application resulted in a yield increase of 205
pounds per acre (Table 8) and a value increase of $112.97 over
the unlimed plots. Yield and value increases were 11.7 and 10.7
percent, respectively, over those of the check. The difference
between the two liming materials was 100 pounds of tobacco
leaf with a value of $59.66 per acre in favor of dolomitic lime-
stone.








Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Table 8.-Seven-year average acre-yield and value of flue-cured tobacco.
Treatments Yield Value
Materials Lbs/A. Lbs/A. $/A
Check 0 1749 1051.17
Calcic limestone 1000 1798 1005.12
Calcic limestone 2000 1854 1104.48
Calcic limestone 4000 1786 1078.35
Calcium sulfate 3300 1821 1091.20
Dolomitic limestone 1000 1794 1076.34
Dolomitic limestone 2000 1891 1143.90
Dolomitic limestone 4000 1954 1164.14
Magnesium sulfate 1300 1830 1094.19


Both calcium sulfate and magnesium sulfate increased the
yields and values of flue-cured tobacco over that obtained from
the check plots. However, neither of the neutral salts was as
effective as the limestones in this respect. While calcium and
magnesium contained in tobacco fertilizer are apparently not
sufficient to promote maximum growth on these sandy soils, it is
evident that the benefit from liming is not solely due to the in-
creased amounts of the two elements for plant nutrition. In-
creases in pH of the soil appear to result in soil environmental
conditions which favor better yields.


Summary and Conclusions
The sandy soils of the Suwannee Valley are highly leached
and are low in available calcium and magnesium. Lime is nor-
mally applied to these acid soils for the production of peanuts,
soybeans, and other crops grown in rotation with tobacco. How-
ever, lime is not generally recommended for flue-cured tobacco
production unless the soil pH drops below about 5.4.
In liming experiments conducted on Klej and Blanton fine
sands from 1956 to 1963, the soil pH was increased approxi-
mately 0.3 units for each 1,000 pounds of limestone applied per
acre. The change in soil pH for a given rate of lime was about
the same for calcic and dolomitic limestones. Readily extractable
soil calcium increased 142 and 67 ppm, respectively, for each
1,000 pounds of calcic and dolomitic limestone applied. Mag-
nesium content of the soils increased an average of 21 ppm for
each 1,000 pounds of dolomitic limestone applied per acre.







Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


Calcium content of leaves from check plots averaged 1.82
percent, while that of leaves from plots that received applica-
tions of 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 pounds of calcic limestone per
acre averaged 2.23, 2.42, and 2.66 percent, respectively. This
represents increases in leaf calcium of 22, 33, and 46 percent,
respectively, over the check for the three rates of lime.
Magnesium content of tobacco from the check plots averaged
0.44 percent. In plots where 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 pounds of
dolomitic limestone were applied, the magnesium contents in-
creased 80, 109, and 155 percent, respectively. The content of
magnesium, like that of calcium, was considerably lower in
leaves from priming 4 than in leaves from priming 2, indicating
that the soluble magnesium in tobacco fertilizer may not be
sufficient to sustain tobacco throughout the growing season.
Phosphorus and potassium contents were not greatly affected
by liming, but there was a tendency for phosphorus to increase
and potassium to decrease as liming rates were increased. Leaf
position had little influence on phosphorus content, but potas-
sium content was lower in top leaves than in bottom leaves.
The nitrogen content of tobacco was slightly increased by
lime treatment probably as a result of increased nitrification
of organic materials in the soils. However, lime had no con-
sistent effect on nicotine or total alkaloid content. Although
nicotine content was higher in leaves near the top of the plant
than in lower leaves, the content of all leaves was consistently
lower than has been reported (19) as desired by cigarette manu-
facturers. Furthermore, the ratios of nitrogen: nicotine and
sugars: nicotine were generally higher in tobacco from these
experiments than reported elsewhere (23, 24) for cigarettes.
While these changes in chemical composition brought about by
liming apparently had no significant effect on the price obtained
for tobacco at the local market, it is not known to what extent
they influenced certain physical properties and chemical con-
stituents which may be associated with desirable cigarette to-
bacco. Until the trade decides what characteristics are desirable
in flue-cured tobacco, it is difficult to say whether the influence
of liming on tobacco quality is good or bad.
Yields were increased from lime applications up to 2,000
and 4,000 pounds per acre of calcic and dolomitic limestone,
respectively. The seven-year average yield increases over check
yields were 105 pounds for calcic and 205 pounds for dolomitic







26 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

limestone. Since price per pound was not significantly affected
by liming, the returns per acre increased as yields increased.
Results from the seven years of research indicated that flue-
cured tobacco can be grown successfully on the sandy soils of
the Suwannee Valley that have been limed for production of
other crops in the rotation. In fact, liming of very acid soils,
generally not to exceed about pH 5.8, appeared to benefit both
yield and quality of tobacco. However, it is strongly urged that
the soil be tested before applying lime for the production of
tobacco in order to avoid over-liming.








Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco 27


Literature Cited

1. Albrecht, W. A., and G. E. Smith. Soil acidity as calcium (fertility)
deficiency. Intern. Soc. Soil Sci. Comm. II and Comm. IV. Trans. 1:
119-135. 1952.

2. Aslander, A. Standard fertilizer and liming as factors in maintaining
soil productivity. Soil Sci. 74: 181-195. 1952.

3. Blue, W. G., and C. F. Eno. Magnesium and lime are needed in the
Suwannee Valley area. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 577. 1956.

4. Breland, H. L. Effect of limestone and fertilizer applications on cer-
tain soil properties. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 24: 42-52.
1964.

5. Breland, H. L. Lime in Florida agriculture. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Cir. S-155. 1964.

6. Breland, H. L. and J. G. A. Fiskell. Effect of fertilizer and lime on
certain soil properties of three soil types in a lysimeter test. Assoc.
of Southern Agr. Workers, Inc., Proc., p. 82. Atlanta, Georgia, Feb-
ruary 3-5, 1964.

7. Breland, H. L., and S. J. Locascio. The effect of dolomite and phos-
phorus applications on soil fertility measurements. Soil and Crop Sci.
Soc. Fla. Proc. 22: 60-68. 1962.

8. Breland, H. L., W. L. Pritchett, and H. W. Lundy. Effects of liming
on yield and value of flue-cured tobacco in the Suwannee Valley area.
Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 19: 409-418. 1959.

9. Breland, H. L., W. L. Pritchett, and H. W. Lundy. Effect of calcium
and magnesium on yield and value of flue-cured tobacco. Presented
at Nineteenth Tobacco Workers Conference. Columbus, Ohio. January
28-30, 1964.

10. Breland, H. L., W. L. Pritchett, and H. W. Lundy. Liming flue-cured
tobacco: Its effect on yield and composition. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc.
Fla. Proc. 24: 243-254, 1964.

11. Clark, F. Fertilizer tests with flue-cured tobacco. Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bull. 512. 1953.

12. Colwell, W. E., and N. C. Brady. The effect of calcium on yield and
quality of large-seeded type peanuts. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 37: 413-
428. 1945.

13. Cundiff, R. H., and P. C. Markunas. Determination of nicotine, nor-
nicotine and total alkaloids in tobacco. Anal. Chem. 27: 1650-1653.
1955.

14. Darkis, F. R.. L. F. Dixon, F. A. Wolf, and P. M. Gross. Flue-cured
tobacco: Chemical composition of flue-cured tobacco produced on limed
and non-limed soils under varying weather conditions. Ind. and Eng.
Chem. 29: 1030-1039. 1937.

15. Gammon, N., Jr., J. R. Henderson, R. A. Carrigan, R. E. Caldwell,
R. G. Leighty, and F. B. Smith. Physical, spectrographic and chemical
analysis of some virgin Florida soils. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 524.
1953.








28 Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations

16. Garner, W. W. The production of tobacco. The Blakiston Co., Phila-
delphia, Pa. Pages 108-109. 1951.
17. Garner, W. W., J. E. McMurtrey, Jr., J. D. Bowling, Jr. and E. G.
Moss. Magnesium and calcium requirements of the tobacco crop. J.
Agr. Res. 40: 145-168. 1930.
18. Green, W. W. Experiments with suncured tobacco and other crops
grown in rotation with it. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 242. 1925.
19. Harlan, W. R., and J. M. Mosely. Tobacco. IN Encyclopedia of
Chemical Technology. 14: 242-261. 1955.
20. Hassid, W. Z. Determination of sugars in plants. Ind. and Eng.
Chem. Anal. Ed. 9: 228-229. 1937.
21. Horn, G. C. Some factors affecting the accuracy of flame spectro-
photometric determinations of magnesium in soils. Ph.D. Thesis
(Unpublished), University of Florida. 1956.
22. Jackson, M. L. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall, Inc., Engle-
wood Cliffs, N. J. 1958.
23. Jones, G. L., and J. M. Kenyan. Measured crop performance -
Tobacco. North Carolina State College, Dept. of Crop Sci. Res. Rept.
No. 3. November 1962.
24. Jones, G. L., and J. M. Kenyan, and E. L. Price. Measured crop per-
formance Tobacco. North Carolina State College, Dept. of Crop
Sci. Res. Rept. No. 9. November 1963.
25. McGee, H. A. Tobacco production in South Carolina. S. C. Agr. Ext.
Ser. Cir. 287. 1946.
26. Mehlich, A. Improvements in the colorimetric magnesium and am-
monium methods with sodium polyacrylate. J. of the Assoc. of Official
Agricultural Chemists. 39: 518-522. 1956.
27. Melsted, S. W. Some observed calcium deficiencies in corn under field
conditions. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 17: 52-54. 1953.
28. Moodie, F. B. The culture of tobacco. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.
30: 117-138. 1895.
29. Mooers, C. A. The rational improvement of Highland rim soils. Tenn.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 102. 1914.
30. Mooers, C. A., and R. H. Milton. Dark tobacco: Fertility experiments
at the Clarksville station results from a ten-year period. 1913-
1922. Tenn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 129. 1924.
31. Morgan, M. F., P. J. Anderson, and H. Dorsey. Soil reaction and
liming as factors in tobacco production in Connecticut. Conn. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bull. 306. 1929.
32. Moss, E. G., J. E. McMurtrey, Jr., W. M. Lunn, and J. M. Carr. Fer-
tilizer tests with flue-cured tobacco. USDA Tech. Bull. 12. 1927.
33. Patterson, H. J. Culture and handling of tobacco in Maryland. Md.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 67. 1900.
34. Peech, M., and L. English. Rapid microchemical soil tests. Soil Sci.
57: 167-195. 1944.
35. Perkins, H. F. Lime Comparison between different sources of lime.
IN New Developments in Fertilizer and Lime. Conference Proc.,
Eatonton, Ga., November 6 and 7, 1963.









Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco 29

36. Pritchett, W. L., and H. L. Breland. The fertilizer requirements of
flue-cured tobacco. Chilean Nitrate Farm Forum No. 63. Pages 18-19.
January 1959.
37. Pritchett, W. L., H. L. Breland, and H. W. Lundy. Effects of nitrogen
fertilizer on the yield and composition of flue-cured tobacco. Soil and
Crop. Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 19: 418-427. 1959.
38. Pritchett, W. L., H. W. Lundy, and H. L. Breland. Lime and nitrogen
applications reduce root rot of flue-cured tobacco. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Res. Rept. 5:2: 9-10. April 1960.
39. Roberts, G., E. J. Kinney, and J. F. Freeman. Field experiments on
soils and crops. Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 272. 1926.
40. Roberts, G., E. J. Kinney, and J. F. Freeman. Soil management and
fertilization for tobacco. Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 379. 1938.
41. Robertson, W. K., H. W. Lundy, and C. E. Hutton. Give peanuts lime
and harvest large yields: Calcium increases yields on soils of both
Central and Western Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Rept. 1: 3: 3.
1956.
42. Tisdale, W. B. Tobacco culture in Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull.
198. 1928.
43. Volk, G. M., and N. Gammon, Jr. Soil reaction (pH). Fla. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Cir. S-39. 1951.
44. Westbrook, E. C. Bright tobacco culture in Georgia. Ga. Agr. Ext.
Ser. Bull. 359. 1929.








Appendix Table 1.-The pH and ammonium acetate (pH 4.8) extractable nutrients in the surface (0 to 6 inches) soils during the o
different growing seasons.


Treatments Sampling Date

Materials Lbs./A. 5/17/56 5/27/57 5/14/59 6/1/60 5/3/61 6/20/62 5/12/63 Avg.


pH
Check 0 5.3 5.2 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.4 5.4 5.2
Calcic limestone 1000 5.5 5.7 5.2 5.6 5.9 5.8 5.9 5.6
Calcic limestone 2000 5.6 6.0 5.4 5.9 6.3 6.0 6.1 5.9
Calcic limestone 4000 5.8 6.4 5.9 6.5 6.8 6.5 6.6 6.4
Calcium sulfate 3300 5.0 5.3 4.7 5.0 5.4 5.2 5.3 5.1
Dolomitic limestone 1000 5.6 5.7 5.2 5.7 6.0 5.7 5.9 5.7
Dolomitic limestone 2000 5.8 6.0 5.6 6.1 6.2 6.0 6.0 6.0
Dolomitic limestone 4000 5.8 6.3 6.1 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.2 6.3
Magnesium sulfate 1300 5.4 5.2 4.7 5.0 5.6 5.5 5.5 5.3
Ci

Ca-ppm
Check 0 52 30 47 86 146 86 133 83
Calcic limestone 1000 77 121 125 376 246 214 328 212
Calcic limestone 2000 120 297 245 454 577 306 520 360
Calcic limestone 4000 387 590 482 1114 1074 499 792 705
Calcium sulfate 3300 117 67 110 302 280 179 291 192
Dolomitic limestone 1000 58 137 55 201 264 153 236 158
Dolomitic limestone 2000 81 168 110 322 290 198 281 207
Dolomitic limestone 4000 79 329 213 474 332 352 516 328
Magnesium sulfate 1300 51 39 39 145 210 128__ 191 115




Mg-ppm
Check 0 21 14 8 17 20 18 27 18
Calcic limestone 1000 20 16 7 16 17 26 32 19
Calcic limestone 2000 20 16 16 25 20 24 33 22
Calcic limestone 4000 20 21 10 30 25 26 35 24
Calcium sulfate 3300 15 14 15 14 11 18 25 16
Dolomitic limestone 1000 25 48 20 56 45 34 49 40
Dolomitic limestone 2000 36 67 38 104 71 48 57 60
Dolomitic limestone 4000 39 123 103 200 82 87 82 102
Magnesium sulfate 1300 24 15 12 43 45 40 50 33

P-ppm
Check 0 10 5 13 12 6 12 8 9
Calcic limestone 1000 9 4 13 12 6 15 10 10
Calcic limestone 2000 9 7 18 11 6 8 12 10
Calcic limestone 4000 10 6 14 16 9 7 9 10
Calcium sulfate 3300 9 6 18 10 6 11 8 10
Dolomitic limestone 1000 9 5 14 11 7 12 9 10
Dolomitic limestone 2000 7 4 12 15 6 9 10 9
Dolomitic limestone 4000 9 5 19 13 13 12 12 12
Magnesium sulfate 1300 9 6 17 15 8 17 10 12

K-ppm
Check 0 31 28 48 60 90 38 110 58 3
Calcic limestone 1000 34 31 44 90 60 50 108 60
Calcic limestone 2000 29 33 42 88 82 52 120 64
Calcic limestone 4000 28 39 36 73 96 51 110 62
Calcium sulfate 3300 22 25 24 49 66 29 86 43
Dolomitic limestone 1000 31 40 47 70 80 55 91 59
Dolomitic limestone 2000 42 34 39 79 89 51 110 63
Dolomitic limestone 4000 28 39 42 76 57 46 119 58
Magnesium sulfate 1300 31 38 35 72 113 46 104 63









Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations


Appendix Table 2.-Effect of treatment on pH and ammonium acetate (pH 4.8)
extractable calcium and magnesium in surface (0 to 6
inches) soils at different periods of the year.
Treatments Sampling Dates
Materials Lbs./A. 12/30/55 4/17/56 5/17/56 7/20/56 10/5/56

pH
Check 0 5.2 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.4
Dolomitic limestone 1000 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.8
Dolomitic limestone 2000 -5.6 5.6 5.7 5.8
Dolomitic limestone 4000 -5.6 5.8 5.9 5.9
Calcium sulfate 3300 -5.2 5.0 5.2 5.6
Calcic limestone 1000 -5.3 5.6 5.5 5.6
Calcic limestone 2000 -5.8 5.8 5.8 5.9
Calcic limestone 4000 -5.7 5.8 6.0 6.1
Magnesium sulfate 1300 -5.0 5.4 5.3 5.6

Ca-ppm
Check 0 69 72 52 55 70
Dolomitic limestone 1000 85 77 72 104
Dolomitic limestone 2000 -91 120 150 129
Dolomitic limestone 4000 -98 199 129 159
Calcium sulfate 3300 -118 117 64 70
Calcic limestone 1000 -66 58 66 72
Calcic limestone 2000 98 81 99 126
Calcic limestone 4000 -91 79 131 130
Magnesium sulfate 1300 -66 51 110 70

Mg-ppm
Check 0 24 16 21 16 13
Dolomitic limestone 1000 -16 20 17 13
Dolomitic limestone 2000 12 20 18 13
Dolomitic limestone 4000 -12 20 18 13
Calcium sulfate 3300 16 15 14 12
Calcic limestone 1000 -22 25 25 14
Calcic limestone 2000 30 36 33 22
Calcic limestone 4000 -35 39 55 43
Magnesium sulfate 1300 33 24 19 14









Liming Soils for Flue-Cured Tobacco


Appendix Table 3.-Effect of treatments on pH and ammonium acetate (pH
4.8) extractable calcium and magnesium in the soil profile
at different periods of the year.

Treatments Sampling Date
s L i s 1 8 5 9 6 Depth-12/3/59
Materials Lbs/A. inches 12/19/58 5/14/59 6/10/59 12/3/59


Check




Dolomitic limestone




Magnesium sulfate





Check




Dolomitic limestone




Magnesium sulfate


Check




Dolomitic limestone




Magnesium sulfate


0 0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24
2000 0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24
1300 0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24


0 0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24
2000 0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24
1300 0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24


0 0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24
2000 0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24
1300 0-6
6-12
12-18
18-24


pH
4.9
4.7
4.7


5.6
4.8
4.8

4.7
4.7
4.7


Ca-ppm
47
12
8

110
12
7


75
4
8


Mg-ppm








Appendix Table 4.-Effect of soil treatments on the composition of the tobacco leaf (mid-rib removed).

Treatments Calcium percent
Materials Lbs/A. 1956 1957 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Avg.


Check
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcium sulfate
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Magnesium sulfate


Check
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcium sulfate
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Magnesium sulfate


0
1000
2000
4000
3300
1000
2000
4000
1300


0
1000
2000
4000
3300
1000
2000
4000
1300


2.66
2.75
2.59
2.44
2.93
2.27
2.39
2.04
3.13


1.26
2.05
1.56
1.59
1.82
1.55
1.57
1.22
1.52


1.35
1.83
2.06
2.63
1.40
1.65
1.57
1.86
1.51


1.49
1.73
2.02
2.55
1.51
1.51
1.57
1.69
1.63


Priming 2
1.85 1.18
2.33 1.52
2.72 1.54
2.99 2.03
2.35 1.87
1.62 1.55
2.17 1.26
2.07 1.41
1.94 1.36

Priming 4
1.45 0.97
1.98 1.17
S 2.38 1.32
i 2.65 1.35
S 1.99 1.11
S 1.60 1.10
S 1.70 0.97
S 2.34 0.97
S 1.35 0.82


2.51
3.16
3.41
3.62
2.93
2.50
2.55
2.70
2.12


1.24
1.45
1.45
1.36
1.62
1.25
1.27
1.17
1.15








Appendix Table 4, Cont'd.

Treatments Magnesium percent

Materials Lbs/A. 1956 1957 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Avg.


Priming 2
Check 0 0.41 0.80 0.17 0.75 0.60 0.34 0.43 0.50
Calcic limestone 1000 0.60 0.86 0.19 0.84 0.55 0.29 0.36 0.53 "
Calcic limestone 2000 0.39 0.71 0.20 0.65 0.54 0.32 0.32 0.45
Calcie limestone 4000 0.32 0.56 0.18 0.62 0.60 0.31 0.30 0.41 0
Calcium sulfate 3300 0.32 0.70 0.25 0.70 0.63 0.33 0.30 0.46 0
Dolomitic limestone 1000 0.53 1.39 0.59 1.63 0.80 0.81 0.60 0.91
Dolomitic limestone 2000 0.58 1.58 0.69 1.64 1.55 0.85 0.76 1.09
Dolomitic limestone 4000 0.59 1.38 0.97 1.89 1.62 1.12 0.86 1.28
Magnesium sulfate 1300 0.87 0.90 0.48 1.90 1.23 1.00 0.86 1.03

Priming 4
Check 0 0.21 1.03 0.16 0.38 0.41 0.25 0.19 0.38
Calcic limestone 1000 0.35 0.87 0.17 0.44 0.48 0.31 0.19 0.40 z
Calcic limestone 2000 0.31 0.79 0.17 0.38 0.45 0.34 0.16 0.37
Calcic limestone 4000 0.24 0.99 0.13 0.32 0.45 0.28 0.13 0.36
Calcium sulfate 3300 0.27 0.74 0.13 0.33 0.46 0.16 0.19 0.32
Dolomitic limestone 1000 0.44 1.02 0.51 0.91 1.03 0.53 0.28 0.67
Dolomitic limestone 2000 0.39 1.08 0.56 1.30 0.96 0.64 0.36 0.76
Dolomitic limestone 4000 0.40 1.40 0.73 1.53 1.55 0.70 0.42 0.96
Magnesium sulfate 1300 0.41 0.95 0.42 1.54 1.12 0.81 0.41 0.81
-------------------------------* ----------------- -- -- .----------------- 1








Appendix Table 4, Cont'd.

Treatments Potassium percent

Materials Lbs/A. 1956 1957 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Avg.


Priming 2
Check 0 3.46 3.76 3.06 3.95 2.33 3.92 4.49 3.57
Calcic limestone 1000 3.82 3.24 3.07 3.89 2.30 3.49 4.61 3.49
Calcic limestone 2000 3.63 3.10 3.23 4.24 2.33 3.74 4.46 3.53
Calcic limestone 4000 3.31 3.38 3.11 4.03 2.30 3.86 4.55 3.51
Calcium sulfate 3300 3.14 3.78 3.24 2.65 2.26 3.59 4.46 3.30
Dolomitic limestone 1000 3.84 3.02 3.02 3.21 2.20 3.80 4.61 3.39
Dolomitic limestone 2000 3.47 3.07 2.99 3.50 2.29 3.48 4.44 3.32
Dolomitic limestone 4000 3.85 3.08 2.74 3.79 2.10 3.54 4.22 3.33
Magnesium sulfate 1300 3.50 3.17 3.31 3.82 2.16 3.74 4.22 3.42

Priming 4
Check 0 3.74 3.86 2.89 3.38 2.22 3.47 2.64 3.17
Calcic limestone 1000 3.47 2.71 2.75 3.67 2.27 3.65 2.56 3.01
Calcic limestone 2000 3.93 3.06 2.73 3.56 2.38 3.50 2.68 3.12
Calcic limestone 4000 3.47 3.10 2.79 3.26 2.61 3.61 2.60 3.06 S'
Calcium sulfate 3300 4.00 3.05 2.89 2.87 2.35 3.58 2.67 3.06
Dolomitic limestone 1000 3.33 2.71 2.43 3.21 2.36 3.52 2.67 2.89
Dolomitic limestone 2000 3.40 2.78 2.30 3.31 2.20 3.56 2.65 2.89
Dolomitic limestone 4000 3.72 2.21 2.36 3.23 2.29 3.62 2.59 2.90
Magnesium sulfate 1300 3.83 2.99 2.50 3.21 2.20 3.57 2.60 3.05








Appendix Table 4, Cont'd.
Treatments Nitrogen percent

Materials Lbs/A. 1956 1957 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Avg.

Priming 2

Check 0 1.21 1.13 1.30 1.25 1.48 1.42 1.30 1.30
Calcic limestone 1000 1.22 1.12 1.09 1.36 1.46 1.31 1.48 1.29
Calcic limestone 2000 1.35 1.06 1.21 1.28 1.64 1.37 1.54 1.35
Calcic limestone 4000 1.33 1.23 1.16 1.37 1.68 1.56 1.54 1.41
Calcium sulfate 3300 1.18 1.06 1.10 1.24 1.40 1.44 1.48 1.27
Dolomitic limestone 1000 1.36 1.08 1.12 1.35 1.46 1.45 1.50 1.33
Dolomitie limestone 2000 1.23 1.10 1.23 1.32 1.58 1.37 1.62 1.35
Dolomitic limestone 4000 1.20 1.09 1.25 1.27 1.75 1.40 1.62 1.37
Magnesium sulfate 1300 1.44 1.08 1.18 1.27 1.52 1.40 1.63 1.36 ,

Priming 4

Check 0 1.39 1.12 1.42 1.22 1.54 1.35 1.34 1.34
Calcic limestone 1000 1.67 1.09 1.47 1.34 1.54 1.40 1.48 1.43
Calcic limestone 2000 1.48 1.11 1.37 1.24 1.80 1.54 1.37 1.42
Calcic limestone 4000 1.49 1.18 1.42 1.39 1.82 1.41 1.39 1.44 8
Calcium sulfate 3300 1.41 1.06 1.34 1.17 1.70 1.30 1.28 1.32
Dolomitic limestone 1000 1.65 1.13 1.44 1.36 1.50 1.48 1.32 1.41
Dolomitic limestone 2000 1.64 1.06 1.39 1.42 1.70 1.42 1.45 1.44
Dolomitic limestone 4000 1.47 1.15 1.42 1.33 1.80 1.43 1.38 1.43
Magnesium sulfate 1300 1.55 1.21 1.38 1.31 1.47 1.37 1.35 1.38
_______________________ ^________________.- ---------------- I









Appendix Table 5.-The effect of soil treatments on the average yield and value of flue-cured tobacco.

Treatments Crop Year

Materials Lbs/A. 1956 1957 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 Avg.


Check
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcium sulfate
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Magnesium sulfate



Check
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcic limestone
Calcium sulfate
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Dolomitic limestone
Magnesium sulfate


0
1000
2000
4000
3300
1000
2000
4000
1300



0
1000
2000
4000
3300
1000
2000
4000
1300


1756
1692
1972
1484
1669
1997
2067
1998
1980



967.79
942.49
1051.94
787.46
887.61
1076.59
1068.15
1064.54
1036.90


1426
1586
1480
1675
1647
1509
1618
1824
1400



823.08
933.94
850.90
969.63
950.14
863.76
960.34
1053.95
809.93


1593
1684
1804
1903
1801
1795
1926
2126
1701



991.00
1056.37
1119.92
1195.67
1113.64
1091.72
1199.74
1327.76
1034.65


Yield pounds per acre

1823 1742 1576
1839 1684 1716
1864 1749 1765
1679 1762 1686
1696 1895 1737
1631 1724 1571
1928 1754 1612
1739 1778 1817
1677 1723 1769

Value dollars per acre

1077.97 1100.38 960.64
1179.33 1050.42 1071.88
1099.66 1077.14 1092.91
978.01 1113.82 1066.82
1027.66 1189.30 1053.68
964.37 1094.45 985.90
1159.89 1108.13 1030.74
997.45 1106.73 1120.08
995.16 1091.09 1102.72


2328
2384
2346
2313
2302
2329
2334
2393
2557



1437.32
1501.43
1474.87
1437.07
1416.37
1457.59
1462.29
1478.43
1588.88


1749
1798
1854
1786 3.
1821 I
1794 ,
1891
1954
1830



1051.17
1105.12
1104.48
1078.35 "
1091.20
1076.34
1143.90
1164.14
1094.19




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