• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Dedication
 Main
 List of publications
 Acknowledgement
 Copyright






Group Title: Cattle and forage field day.
Title: Cattle and forage field day. 1983.
ALL VOLUMES CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00075779/00001
 Material Information
Title: Cattle and forage field day. 1983.
Series Title: Cattle and forage field day.
Alternate Title: Research Report - Ona ARC ; RC83-2
Physical Description: Serial
Language: English
Creator: University of Florida. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences.
Publisher: Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. University of Florida.
Publication Date: 1983
 Subjects
Subject: Beef Cattle and Forage
Spatial Coverage: Norh America -- United States -- Florida -- Ona
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00075779
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 143662748

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front cover
    Dedication
        Dedication
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        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
    List of publications
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
    Acknowledgement
        Page 38
        Page 39
    Copyright
        Copyright
Full Text

7 A ARC, ONA RESEARCH REPORT RC 83-2
FIELD DAY PROGRAM
BEEF CATTLE AND FORAGE


MAY 20, 1983


INSTITUTE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER
ONA, FLORIDA 33865













































DEDICATION

Dr. Elver M. Hodges initiated pasture research at the Range Cattle
Station (now the Agricultural Research Center, Ona) in 1941. Dr. Hodges'
research has been a key factor in the development of flatwoods wiregrass-
palmetto rangeland to highly productive pastureland. Such contributions
as management of irrigated white clover-perennial grass pastures, use
of fertilizer and grazing management to prolong the grazing season of
summer pastures, grazing management of Pangola digitgrass pastures, and
continuous evaluation of different potential forage species have typified
Dr. Hodges' research career. Most of the forage species which have been
introduced over the past several years to provide alternatives for
forage production in peninsular Florida have come under the experienced
scrutiny of Dr. Hodges in his extensive forage evaluation program. The
products of Dr. Hodges' research can be seen across central and south
Florida grazing lands both in the forage species being utilized and in the
management of these forages for efficient beef cattle production.
In recognition of his numerous contributions to the beef cattle industry
in Florida through research at the Agricultural Research Center, Ona,
we dedicate this Field Day Program to Dr. Elver M. Hodges.












The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences extends a cordial
welcome to the Beef Cattle and Forage Field Day at Ona. Some progress
is being made in bringing the Beef-Forage industry into a more competitive
position. There are some very positive indications today that the market
is ready for the kind of beef that can be produced in Florida. Our state
can benefit greatly by being able to produce beef animals which meet the
needs of today's consumer and it appears at this point in time that we have
the ability to do this. We continue to have a goal of year round production
of improved forages for cattle in order to make maximum use of our various
resources. The comprehensive research and extension efforts carried on in
IFAS in cooperation with the various industries involved will continue to
attempt to provide a sound program for achievement in the cattle/forage
area. The field day will demonstrate some of the progress being made.






F. Aloysius Wood
Dean for Research











CATTLE AND FORAGE FIELD DAY

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH CENTER
ONA, FLORIDA
FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1983

JERRY SOUTHWELL, MODERATOR

9:30 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS...................PAUL MISLEVY
9:45 DECISIONS ABOUT FERTILIZING PASTURES........JOHN HOLT
10:15 STRATEGIES FOR EFFICIENT USE OF PASTURE
FERTILIZER.................... ..............C. G. CHAMBLISS

10:45 GRASS AND LEGUME ALTERNATIVES FOR GRAZING...PAUL MISLEVY

11:00 LIGHT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SAW PALMETTO
AND CREEPING BLUESTEM, .... .. ... .......R. S. KALMBACHER
11:15 THE CROSSBRED BULL .. ...I .. .I ..... ........ F. M. PEACOCK

11:30 LUNCH (DUTCH TREAT) SERVED BY HARDEE COUNTY
CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION

1:00 WAGON TOUR AND DISCUSSION OF RESEARCH PROJECTS
TROPICAL LEGUME RESEARCH ........... ..... .W. D. PITMAN
GRAZING MANAGEMENT STUDIES.,......I...I ..... PAUL MISLEVY
SOIL FERTILITY RESEARCH..., ..,... ....... ..C. L, DANTZMAN
NATIVE RANGE RESEARCH .. ..... ..,...,. R. S. KALMBACHER

3:30 ADJOURN











PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS


C. G. Chambliss


Associate Agronomist
(Extension Forage Specialist)
Bradenton AREC


C. L. Dantzman


John Holt


Associate Soil Chemist
(Soil Fertility)
Ona ARC


Agricultural Economist
(Extension Farm Management Specialist)
IFAS, Gainesville


Associate Agronomist
(Forage Crops and Range Management)
Ona ARC


R. S. Kalmbacher


Paul Mislevy


Agronomist and
(Forage Crops)
Ona ARC


Acting Center Director


F. M. Peacock


W. D. Pitman


Animal Scientist
(Beef Cattle Breeding)
Ona ARC


Assistant Agronomist
(Pasture and Forage Crops)
Ona ARC


County Extension Director
Hardee County
Wauchula


Jerry Southwell










DECISIONS ABOUT FERTILIZING PASTURES


John Holt
Food and Resource Economics Department
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611



Questions about how much fertilizer to use on pastures don't seem all
that tough, at first. After all, only three pieces of information are
necessary: (1) the amount of beef produced in response to fertilizer levels,
(2) the cost of the fertilizer applied, and (3) the price of the cattle sold.
Then apply fertilizer until the value of the beef produced is equal to the
cost of that much fertilizer.

But the pavement ends and the west begins when we try to estimate how
much beef can be grown with a given amount of fertilizer. There are all
sorts of little thorny problems about soil types, grass species, past grazing
and fertilization history, and cattle management practices that make it hard
to figure out. Then there is the weather: the only thing we know for sure
is that we'll never get the right amount of rain at the right time.

And it is just as tough to figure out what cattle prices are going to
be. Recently, of course, cattle prices have been disastrous, so net incomes
to cattle operations have been low, and as a result, the amount of money
available for next year's fertilizer has been reduced.

So what seems like a simple question "How much fertilizer should I use
this year?" turns out to be a really tough one. In fact, there really isn't
a general answer. Here's why. The cattle business is a slow changing, low
profit kind of business. One of the most important things influencing the
amount of fertilizer necessary is how many cows are being grazed on the
pastures. In practice, stocking rates are determined by long run cattle
performance on a ranch, based on handling the cattle and the pastures pretty
much the way it was done last year. Making short-run shifts in cow-herd
numbers can ruin a rancher. So the short-run problem has been to fertilize
in such a way that the existing cow herd can be maintained, because selling
off part of the cow herd is like the Alaskan sled-dog racer who got caught in
a storm and had to eat some of his dogs. He couldn't go as far, as fast,
when the weather cleared.

But cattlemen are cutting back, it seems to me (although the January 1,
1983 inventory indicated the Florida cow herd increased by 75,000 head). They
are trying to grow more of their necessary nitrogen with legumes; they are
searching for the minimum amounts of fertilizer necessary to keep their
pastures in relatively healthy condition, so that when they do fertilize they
will get the response they seek. And they are trying to make more effective
use of native range.

All those moves are supported by a realistic look at what the future
likely has in store for cattle prices and nitrogen costs. There have only









been a couple of years in the last 10 or so when cows covered total costs,
and I see small hope for anything different in the future. And natural
gas price deregulation bodes ill for nitrogen prices.

Research over a lot of years supports a basic strategy of basing cow-
herd numbers on the tough forage times. Going way back, Jones et al.
reported that native and improved pastures, used in combination,supplement
each other. Winter feed supply was greatly increased by deferred grazing,
resulting in an increase in herd productivity.

Anderson and Hipp (Table 1) budgeted 1,000 cow herds under varying
intensities of land and fertilizer use, and found that (without considering
land taxes) the native range situation had the highest total return. A mix
of native and improved pastures was almost identical to the irrigated
situation with grass-clover pastures. The all-improved grass pastures
(which therefore had the heaviest reliance on fertilizer) had the lowest
returns of any operation budgeted.

Research also supports more emphasis on legumes. Peacock et al. found
that clover and grass pastures yielded the best results in grazing trials
here, as did Koger et al. at Gainesville. Prevatt and Mislevy have developed
information for establishing legume pastures.


But legumes are fickle, as Hodges et al. noted in 1953.
to get forage is to fertilize grass when it is warm and fixing
producers will keep some grass pastures in order to get forage
it.


The surest way
to rain, and
when they need


To help make the fertilizer use decision, two things would be nice:
More information on how best to manage low levels of fertilizer use. And
calves that sold for a dollar or more a pound would not make the fertilizer
use decision any more precise, but would sure make it less painful.









*Table 1. A comparison of land use, estimated costs and returns and measures
of efficiency for five 1000 cow-calf her situations on flatwoods
soil in Florida.


Item 1 2 3 4 5

Land Use
Acres of irrigated pasture 1,200 500
Acres of non-irrigated
improved pastures -- 1,000 2,000 1,000 --
Acres of native range -- -- -- 4,000 15,000
Total acres 1,200 1,500 2,000 5,0 15,000

Return to land and management $11,026 9,394 3,857 11,426 16,571

Measures of Efficiency
Pounds of beef sold/acre 326 261 167 58 14
Pounds of beef sold/cow 392 392 334 292 206
Percent of calf-crop 90 90 85 85 73
Acres/cow 1.20 1.50 2.00 5.00 15.00

Fertilizer and lime
expense/cow $ 24.10 31.47 30.30 20.58
Feed cost/cow $ 14.18 14.18 16.43 12.10 13.76
Labor cost/cow $ 12.73 11.40 11.76 9.46 9.09
Cash cost/cow $ 76.46 78.79 69.70 54.76 34.22
Investment/cow (excluding
land) $503.34 503.31 486.97 374.92 281.20
Return to land and
management/cow $ 11.03 9.39 3.86 11.43 16.57
Return to land and
management/acre $ 9.19 6.26 1.93 2.28 1.10


Source: Anderson, C.L. and T.S. Hipp, Requirements and Returns for 1,000
Cow Beef Herds on Flatwood Soils in Florida, Circular 385 (April
1974).









References


Anderson, C.L. and T.S. Hipp. 1972. Requirements and returns for 1,000 cow
beef herds on flatwood soils in Florida. Fla. Agr. Ext. Cir. 385.

Hodges, E.M. et al. 1953. Pasture irrigation. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rept.
312.

Jones, D.W. et al. 1960. Year-round grazing on combination of native and
improved pasture. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 554A.

Koger, M. et al. 1970. Production response and economic returns from five
pasture programs in North Central Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 740.

Peacock, F.M. et al. 1976. Forage systems, beef production and economic
evaluations, South Central Florida. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 783.










STRATEGIES FOR EFFICIENT USE OF FERTILIZER
ON WARM SEASON PERENNIAL GRASS PASTURES


Carroll G. Chambliss


Various systems for use of pasture fertilizer have been devised
ranging:from one application every three years to two applications per
year on each pasture. Whichever system is used, one over-riding goal
should be kept in mind, and that is: fertilizer should be used to grow
forage to "feed" cattle. Therefore, fertilizer should be used only if
the forage will be needed and will be fully utilized by the cow. With
the more intensive use of fertilizer and accompanying increased production,
higher stocking of cattle with more management will be needed to insure
that the forage produced is used. On the other hand, higher stocking
rates may result in overstocking during seasons when forage growth is
limited or nil, which would result in feeding cattle for longer periods.
Seasonal distribution of forage production is a major problem. Very often
we see forage produced during the warm season that is not used and simply
goes to waste, whereas, during the cool (dry) season, we are often defi-
cient in forage supply. Therefore, most systems involve timing of ferti-
lizer application to encourage production at the beginning and near the
end of the warm season in order to achieve a more uniform production
relative to need.

Pasture growth curves show a peak in production during the summer and
minimum production during the winter. Plant growth is controlled primarily
by temperature and soil moisture (rainfall), but can be influenced by use
of fertilizer. Late winter early spring pasture growth can be stimu-
lated by application of fertilizer during February and March. The pasture
growth response may be limited by cool temperatures immediately after
application, but when a few warm days come, the grass will grow rapidly
compared to that of unfertilized pastures. The total production from the
fertilizer applied may be less than what could be obtained during the
warm season from the same amount of fertilizer, but its value is greater
because of the general shortage of forage during the early spring and
also because cattle are into the breeding season when the level of
nutrition is most critical.

Spring (late winter) applications should be staggered over several
weeks rather than being applied at one time. This will accomplish two
things; first, it will tend to keep freshly fertilized grass (with peak
protein content) in front of the cow herd and second, it will help reduce
the risk of nitrogen fertilizer loss from heavy rainfalls that might occur
immediately after fertilizer application. For example, if 3 or 4 pastures
are to be fertilized, pasture #1 would be fertilized on date one, pasture
#2 would be fertilized one week after pasture #1 with pastures 3 and 4
following at weekly intervals. If the weather cooperates, pasture number
one might be ready for grazing at three weeks following fertilizer
application. Cattle could be grazed on this pasture for one week and








then be moved to pasture number two which would be at "three weeks"
following fertilizer application. This is a type of plan that merits
consideration even though the best laid plans can go awry due to the
weather. Below normal spring temperatures could hold back pasture growth,
then a sudden warm up would bring all fertilized pastures into production
at the same time. In general, early application of fertilizer will help
to boost production during February, March and April and thus will give a
more uniform distribution of grass production throughout the year.

Late summer and early fall is the second time of the year when pastures
can be fertilized to help boost growth and thus achieve a more uniform
distribution of pasture production. Fertilizer should be applied in late
August or early September or at least six weeks before the growing (warm)
season ends. Staggering of applications across three or four weeks may
not be critical since the quality of the forage when utilized will not be
of major concern. The main idea is to accumulate forage as a stockpile or
standing hay crop to be used in November, December, and January. Some
production may be harvested as hay in October and November.

Pastures fertilized in August and September may be subject to attack
by fall armyworms. Some ranchers in order to avoid problems with fall
armyworms have delayed application until October or when temperatures are
cooler, but cool temperatures also reduce the response of the grass to
the fertilizer. Although the risk of fall armyworms may be reduced on the
later applications, there is still no guarantee that you won't have worm
problems.

Rather than fertilizing all of the pastures in the spring or all in
the fall, another system that has been employed in the past has been to
fertilize half of the pastures with a complete fertilizer in the fall
and the remaining pastures are fertilized with a complete fertilizer in
the spring. If additional forage is needed, those pastures fertilized
in the fall could be topdressed with nitrogen in the spring and vice
versa.

Topdressing of nitrogen alone should be done only on those pastures
that have a history of phosphorus and potash application. Very low levels
of either phosphorus or potassium would limit the response to the nitrogen
application. Our greatest response in grass pastures per pound of ferti-
lizer applied or per dollar spent usually comes from nitrogen. Thus,
topdressing with nitrogen may be a desirable short term strategy
especially when the fertilizer budget is limited but extra forage is needed.

How much fertilizer and of what analysis may be influenced by many
factors not the least of which is your fertilizer budget. But, other
factors, such as number of acres, number of cows and soil test results
may also influence your decision. A fertilizer with a 4-1-2 ratio of N,
P205, K20 has been suggested as an efficient pasture fertilizer. A soil
test would help to determine if the P205 and K20 would need to be adjusted
to a different ratio. Three hundred pounds per acre of a 20-5-10 (4-1-2
ratio) would provide 60 pounds of nitrogen, 15 pounds of phosphate and
30 pound of potash per acre. This would be considered a minimum to










average type of fertilizer application.


Don't forget legumes. Legumes will reduce the need for nitrogen
fertilizer on grass pastures as well as provide high quality grazing.
Both summer legumes and white clover where adapted can be used.









Grass and Legume Alternative for Grazing
on South Florida Flatwoods


Paul Mislevy


Grass and legume forage plants are very important to the Florida
livestock industry. These forages provide feed for some 2.8 million
dairy and beef cattle in the state. Native and improved pastures occupy
about 8 and 4 million acres, respectively. Since native pastures gener-
ally provide extensive forage production, they are being converted to
improved pasture at approximately 50,000 acres/year. Since the average
cost to establish improved pasture varies from $110 to $145/A much of the
conversion from native to improved pasture is through the production of
vegetables.

Improved perennial grass and legume forage plants provide abundant
feed from June to September but forage production from October to May is
quite low. Annual forages can partially fill the forage void, however
they must be given special attention such as irrigation, seeding and
other cultural practices.

Forage agronomists are constantly screening and testing perennial and
annual forage species, trying to locate subtropical species that will
tolerate saturated soil conditions and high temperatures during the summer
and produce adequate forage during the cool, dry, fall to spring period.

However, to obtain maximum production from any forage species, one
must be familiar with management practices (soil conditions, fertility,
method of grazing, rest period, etc.) required by that forage.

The objective of this paper is to discuss forage alternatives for
grazing systems in south Florida. Forage plants to be considered are:

I. Perennial grasses
II. Perennial legumes
III. Annual legumes
IV. Annual grasses.

I. The four basic perennial grass types are as follows:

A. Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum)

1. Argentine
2. Paraguay 22
3. Pensacola









B. Digitgra'ss (Dig'itaria spp.)


1. Pangolagrass
2. Transvala
3. Slenderstem
4. Taiwan

C. Stargrass and bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.)

1. Ona stargrass
2. McCaleb stargrass
3. Sarasota stargrass
4. Callie bermudagrass
5. Alicia bermudagrass
6. Coastcross-1 bermudagrass
7. Coastal bermudagrass

D. Limpograss or altagrass (Hemarthria altissima)

1. Green
2. Red
3. Big

A. Bahiagrass: Argentine, Paraguay 22, Pensacola

Season of growth: Warm season perennial; these grasses gener-
ally produce forage from May to October or when the temper-
ature is above 60F.
Irrigation: Research has indicated that most bahiagrasses res-
pond very little to irrigation under Florida conditions since
temperatures are cool when irrigation is needed. Pensacola
followed by Paraguay 22, with Argentine the least drought
and cold tolerant.
Soil conditions: Will perform well on a wide range of soils from
very drought to poorly drained. However, bahiagrass will
not tolerate flooding.
Management: Research indicates little advantage in dry matter
production when rest period is extended beyond 2 to 3 weeks
between grazing. Bahiagrass will persist under continuous
close grazing, producing maximum yield when grazed to approxi-
mately 1.5 inches. Research indicates little difference in
forage quality between Argentine, Paraguay 22 and Pensacola.
The bahiagrasses lend themselves to stock piling in the fall
(October-December) and can be grazed following a frost or
freeze with a slow decrease in forage quality. Broadleaf
weeds can be controlled with 1 qt/A Weedmaster(R) if weeds
are less than 6 inches and 1.5 qts/A if weeds are above 6
inches.
Advantages: 1) Grass species can be seeded.
2) Makes a dense turf which can compete well with
common bermudagrass and other weeds.









3) Will perform well with 60 to 75% of fertili-
zer required by the stargrasses and bermudagrasses.
4) Argentine and Paraguay 22 are desirable vari-
ieties for landscaping.
5) Doesn't contain hydrocyanic acid potential
(HCN-p).
6) Will produce more forage under drought stress
than the Digitarias, Cynodons, or Hemarthrias.
Disadvantages: 1) Produces less forage than the digitgrasses,
stargrasses, and bermudagrasses.
2) Drops in forage quality after 2 to 3 weeks of
growth and remains low.
3) Forage production is generally quite low in
central Florida between October 1 and April 1.
4) Can be destroyed by mole crickets.

B. Digitgrass: Pangola, Transvala, Slenderstem and Taiwan.

Season of growth: Warm season perennial. Will produce forage
when mean temperature is 500F or above.
Irrigation: Digitgrasses are probably the most sensitive to
moisture shortage of all grasses listed above. Irrigation
of these grasses during moisture stress months of March to
May results in moderate yield increases.
Soil conditions:Will perform well on moist flatwood soils in
central and south Florida, however, will not tolerate long
periods of flooding.
Management: Grasses should not be grazed to a stubble height
closer than 4 inches. The combination of close grazing or
clipping with short periods of flooding (plant inundation)
could result in partial stand loss. Fertilizer rate recom-
mended should range between 200-250 lb/A 20-10-20 applied
twice per year. Digitgrasses should never be planted on old
land contaminated with common bermudagrass. A rest period
between grazing of 5 weeks should be allowed for desirable
forage production and species persistence. Digitgrasses
are generally high in forage quality and remain high through
5 weeks of regrowth. Digitgrasses are well suited for stock
piling in the fall (October-December) and can be grazed after
a frost or freeze with a slow decrease in forage quality.
Broadleaf weed control can be accomplished by applying 1 qt/A
Weedmaster(R) when weeds are less than 6 inches and 1.5 qt/A
when weeds are above 6 inches.
Advantages: 1) Generally high in forage quality even after 5
weeks of growth.
2) High palatability even after forage matures
and drops in quality.
3) Excellent species for hay.
4) Does not contain HCN-p.
Disadvantages: 1) Will not successfully compete over a long
period of time with common bermudagrass and should not be
planted on old land contaminated with this weed.
13










2) Plants will generally be damaged by sugar cane,
aphid and spittlebug.

C. Stargrass: Ona, McCaleb, and Sarasota.

Bemrudaxrass: Callie, Alicia, Coastcross-1 and Coastal.
Season of growth: Warm season perennials. However, unlike the
bahia and digitgrasses these grasses will continue producing
forage into the fall at a moderate rate until frost. They
also start growth earlier in the spring, if moisture and
fertility are available. All varieties with the exception of
Coastal and Coastcross-1 should be grown south of Orlando.
Irrigation: Ona stargrass and Callie bermudagrass both will
respond positively to irrigation provided adequate fertility
is available.
Soil Conditions: Will perform well on a wide range of flatwood
and upland soils. Coastal, however, does not perform well on
poorly drained flatwood soils. On-the-other-hand Callie will
tolerate extreme drought soils. Stargrasses require good
soils and fertilization of about 300-350 lb/A of 20-10-20
applied twice per year.
Management: Stargrasses and bermudagrasses will perform best
when a 5-week growth period is allowed between grazing. How-
ever, this growth period may be shortened by 1 week during
July and August and extended by one week in November and
December. These treatments provide high yields of good quality
forage, in addition to increased species persistence. These
grasses should not be clipped or grazed below a 4-inch stubble,
since close grazing may jeopardize species persistence. Both
star and bermudagrasses are quite competitive with common
bermudagrass and may be planted on land contaminated with
common bermudagrass if thorough site preparation and intensive
planting practices are used. These grasses vary in their HCN-p
with some grasses very high (Ona and McCaleb) and some low
(Sarasota, Callie and Alicia). These grasses especially Ona
and McCaleb stargrass and Callie bermudagrass should be heavily
grazed by January 1, since forage quality and palatability
decreases rapidly following a freeze or frost. Broadleaf
weed control can be accomplished by applying 1 qt/A Weed-
master(R) when weeds are less than 6 inches or 1.5 qts/A
when weeds are above 6 inches. Little difference in crude
protein was observed between grass varieties, averaging 16,
15, 12, 11, and 8 percentage units for grazing frequency of
2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 weeks, respectively.
Advantages: 1) Produce high yields of good quality forage
when a 5-week rest period is allowed.
2) Compete well with common bermudagrass and may
be planted on land where this is a problem.
3) Selected varieties like Callie, Alicia and
Sarasota are low in HCN-p.
4) When managed properly, these grasses will
persist for many years under an intensive grazing system.










Disadvantages: 1) Require high levels of fertilizer, averaging
about 25% higher than that required for digitgrass.
2) Selected varieties like Ona and McCaleb are
high in HCN-p.
3) Forage digestibility (IVOMD) of Sarasota and
Alicia are quite low when compared with Ona stargrass.
Alicia will average 10 percentage units lower than Ona.
4) If harvested for hay or grazed after 5-weeks of
growth, palatability will be low.

D. Hemarthria or Limpograss or Altagrass: Green, Red and Big.

Season of growth: Warm season perennials. Will grow under hot-
wet summer conditions and will produce considerable forage
during the cool fall to spring period. Several Hemarthrias
will tolerate temperatures 3 to 5F below freezing with little
or no damage. 'Bigalta' is the most sensitive to frost and
can be damaged at 32'F.
Soil Conditions: Hemarthrias appear to persist best on wet, poorly
drained soils. Since relatively few perennial grasses persist
on saturated soils over a long period of time, Hemarthrias
have little competition under these edaphic conditions from
common bermudagrass and nematodes. These grasses are also
grown on poorly drained sandy flatwood soils with mixed results.
When grown on new land free from common bermudagrass, smutgrass,
etc., persistence appears to be good; however, when grown on
old (contaminated with weedy grass species) land, persistence
appears in question.
Management: Hemarthrias have expressed greatest persistence when
a rest period of 9 to 12 weeks was allowed, followed by a
grazing stubble height of 6 inches. This type of forage
management allows Hemarthria to be a stock piled forage on a
year-around basis and possibly substitute ryegrass forage
production during the cool season for cow-calf herds. Broad-
leaf weed control can be accomplished by the application of
0.75 qts/A dicamba when weeds are less than 6 inches or 1.0
qts/A when weeds are above 6 inches. Caution should be
exercised following the application of dicamba since Hemarthria
plants may be brittle for 10 days.
Advantages: 1) Will grow the best of any grass discussed under
cool conditions.
2) Will perform well under wet, poorly drained,
high organic soils.
3) Does not contain HCN-p.
4) Appears to perform well under fertility levels
of 200-250 Ib/A of 20-10-20.
Disadvantages: 1) Will not tolerate intensive grazing.
2) Does not compete well with common bermudagrass.
3) Regrowth is slow following grazing.
4) Plants turn yellow several times during the
growing season and exhibit iron deficiency, which may jeopardize
yield.
5) Redalta and Greenalta have palatability problems.









II. Perennial legumes:


A. Florida Carpon Desmodium (Desmodium heterocarpon).

Season of growth: Warm season perennial; generally produces
forage from April through October.
Irrigation: Presently little information is available as to the
response of carpon desmodium to irrigation.
Soil Condition: Carpon desmodium will perform well on a wide
range of moist flatwood soils. This legume generally does
not perform well on dry soils, containing little organic
matter or clay.
Management: Will persist well under heavy grazing pressure.
Seedling vigor is very low, requiring as much as two years
for plant establishment. Care should be taken to make seedings
early in the warm season, so seedlings are well established
prior to winter frosts.
Advantages: 1) Perennial legume which will provide high
protein forage.
2) Have the capability of fixing 100 to 150 lb
N/A/yr.
Disadvantages: 1) Forage digestibility is rather low for a
legume averaging 45 to 50%.
2) Poor seedling vigor, requiring about 2 years
for good establishment.
3) Susceptible to root-knot nematode, therefore
should not follow vegetables if root knot is a problem.

III. Annual legumes:

Warm season legumes

A. American jointvetch or aeschynomene (Aeschynomene americana).
B. Alyce clover (Alysicarpus vaginalis)
C. Hairy indigo (Tndigofera hirsuta)

Cool season legumes

A. Alfalfa (Ibdicago sativa)
B. White clover (Trifolium repens)

Season of growth: Aeschynomene, Alyce clover and Hairy indigo are
warm season annuals. These legumes generally germinate and
start growth in May or June depending on moisture. Grazing can
commence about 6 weeks after germination, provided a constant
supply of moisture is available. Forage production generally
terminates in mid to late October.

Alfalfa (Florida 77) and white clover (La S-l, and Arcadia)
are cool season annuals which can be seeded in November.
Grazing can be initiated on March 1 for white clover; alfalfa
is more adapted to hay production. Forage production for both
cool season legumes generally terminates in June.









Irrigation: The warm season legumes are generally not grown
under irrigated conditions, however irrigation may be applied
during the germination stage, especially during the dry winter
and spring periods.

Soil Conditions: Warm season annuals will perform well under
a wide range of poorly drained flatwood soils. Aeschynomene
tends to tolerate short periods of flooding, provided plants
are not inundated. Hairy indigo tends to prefer drier sandy
sites and has the ability to withstand short drought periods.

Alfalfa requires well drained soil, with an organic pan two to
three feet below the soil surface. It will not tolerate flooding
even for a 24 hour period. White clover requires a constant
supply of moist soil.

Management: All legumes grown during the warm season are best
adapted for grazing, however, alyce clover is also well adapted
for hay production. When grazing these legumes do not allow
plants to attain heights beyond 10-18 inches. Plants will
withstand continuous grazing, provided a 6 inch stubble is
allowed.

Alfalfa can be harvested for hay every 30-35 days after the
initial spring (March) harvest or each time developing tillers
are one inch tall.

Whiteclover is well adapted to continuous grazing.

Advantages: 1) Warm season legumes require low fertilizer
inputs 300 lb/A 0-10-20.
2) Do not require the addition of nitrogen fertilizer.
3) Warm and cool season legumes provide high protein
(12 to 20%) and high digestible (55-65%) forage when managed
properly.

Disadvantages: 1) Need to be established from seed each year.
2) Alfalfa will not tolerate any flooding.
3) Cool season legumes may not persist consistently
year after year on the same land area because of nematode or
disease build up.
4) Cool season legumes generally require irrigation.

IV. Annual grasses.

Warm season grasses

A. Sorghum x sudangrass hybrid (Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench subsp.
bicolor x Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench subsp. drummondii).
B. Pearlmillet (Pennisetum glaucum).










Season of growth: Sorghum x sudangrass hybrid and pearlmillet will
grow during the frost free period between March and December.
Ryegrass and small grains germinate and grow best during the
cool season from November through April.

Irrigation: Both warm and cool season annual grasses respond
to irrigation. Generally cool season grasses require irrigation
to be successful during the dry winter months. The need for
irrigation on warm season grasses depends on the spring seeding
date. If seeded in March or April irrigation is needed, if
seeded in May rainfall is generally adequate.

Soil Conditions: Most annual grasses will perform on a wide range
of moist flatwood soils. Ryegrass, small grains and sorghum x
sudangrass all will withstand short periods of flooding or
saturated soil, however pearlmillet is sensitive to saturated
soil conditions and usually turns yellow and dies under these
oxygen stress soil conditions.

Management: The sorghum x sudangrass hybrid shouldbe grazed when
plants attain a height of 30 inches. Plants at this physiological
stage contain lower concentrations of Hydrocyanic Acid Potential
(HCNp) and should be safe for grazing, provided plants are not
under extreme drought stress. Pearlmillet should be grazed when
plants attain approximately 2 ft tall. This plant contains no
HCNp. Grazing of small grains should commence about 45 days after
seeding. If rotational grazing is practiced the second grazing
cycle should start when regrowth of plants are about 10 inches and
developing tillers are 3 to 5 inches. It is of utmost importance
to keep small grains in the vegetative stage if 4 months of
grazingis desired. Forage production of small grains generally
terminates when plants are allowed to head.

Advantages: 1) Annual grasses provide high protein and high
digestible forage during periods of critical need when perennial
grasses are generally nonproductive.
2) They also play an important role in a pasture
renovation program.
3) Establish rapidly and are available for grazing in
6 to 8 weeks after seeding.

Disadvantages: 1) Annual forage grasses require high fertility.
2) Most annual forages require irrigation.
3) Seed bed must be prepared and crops seeded each year.
4) Continuous cropping of annual grasses could result
in nematode and disease problems.
5) Sorghum x sudangrass hybrid contains HCNp.
6) Pearlmillet will not grow under saturated soil
conditions.












In conclusion, no one forage species can be grown under all environ-
mental, soil and management conditions. All forages presently available
in central and south Florida have limitations, which should be considered
when selecting forage plants.










Light Relationships Between Saw Palmetto and
Creeping Bluestem

R. S. Kalmbacher and F. G. Martin

A big asset of native pastures is their low cost of operation. They
can supply forage for dry-pregnant cows during the winter without fertil-
izer, machinery, and high labor cost. Because range is of low yield and
quality, especially in winter, the number of animal units that it can
support per acre is low when compared with intensively managed "tame"
pastures. Any businessman must be careful not to make expenditures that
will not pay for themselves. Because the per acre returns are low from
range, ranchers must weigh carefully any decision to spend money on this
resource.

Saw palmetto is one of the major shrubs on the flatwoods range, and
its control through either web-plowing or roller chopping has proven to be
part of successful range improvement. Creeping bluestem is a grass that
responds favorably to range improvement, and it can increase forage yield
above that of wiregrass-dominated pastures. The major contribution that
creeping bluestem can make in a grazing program results from its forage
production potential. Controlling saw palmetto often results in a 2 or
3-fold increase in grass yield from a native pasture, and this is
usually the result of creeping bluestem.

The purpose of this study was to determine the size when saw
palmetto limits the dry matter production of creeping bluestem. Ulti-
mately we wanted to find out when saw palmetto needed to be controlled.

The study took place at the Ona Agricultural Research Center in
1980 and 1981, and we can divide the study into two parts: measurement
of light in palmetto canopies and effect of light on creeping bluestem.

Measurement of Light in Palmetto Canopies

Palmettos that were 60 (24 in), 75 (30 in), 90 (36 in) and 105 cm
(42 in) tall were selected, and we measured the amount of light
that filtered through canopies at each height. We measured light before
burning in late February and at 6 week intervals after burning.

Before burning the palmettos allowed 49%, 40%, 21%, and 10% of the
sunlight to get through the canopy of plants that were 24, 30, 36, and 42
inches tall, respectively (Figure 1). This means that there was 51%,
60%, 79%, and 90% shade under the respective palmetto heights. After
the palmettos were burned and the canopy removed, 80% to 90% of the light
could reach the soil surface. The rate of palmetto recovery was rapid:
by October following the February burn the palmettos produced the same
amount of shade as before burning. This increase in light following
burning is responsible for the increase in yield of forages that occurs
after burning, but the fire does not provide sufficient long-term
reduction in cover to greatly benefit creeping bluestem.









Effect of Light on Creeping Bluestem


Uniform stands of creeping bluestem growing on native soils were
burned in February, and on the day of burning steel frames covered on the
top and all sides with black, vinyl, suran shade cloth producing shades
of 25%, 55%, 73%, 92% were placed on the area. The yield of forage was
determined by clipping the grass under the shaded areas. In addition to
yield we also measured the total nonstructural carbohydrate (TNC) which
is a measure of the 'state of health' of the plant. Vigorous, healthy
plants have more energy (TNC), while weak plants have less TNC.

We found that decreasing the amount of light reduced the yield of
creeping bluestem (Figure 2). The 2-year average yield was 2120 kg/ha
(1980 Ib/A), 1940 kg/ha (1730 Ib/A), 2000 kg/ha (1780 lb/A) at 100%, 75%
and 45% incident light, respectively. Yield decreased rapidly when light
was less than 45% incident. The low yields were 620 kg/ha (440 lb/A) at
8% incident light.

Burning followed by clipping creeping bluestem every 42 days,
regardless of the amount of shade, was harmful to plants because TNC
content was reduced (Figure 3). If plants were burned and not clipped,
then they could restore energy. Only when light was reduced below 45%
incident was TNC content in plants lower than pre-burn values. This
means that creeping bluestem was not receiving enough light to maintain
itself.

Palmetto-Bluestem Relationships

Forty five percent incident light appears to be the point below which
dry matter yield drops off rapidly (Figure 2), and creeping bluestem does
not receive enough light to maintain its growth rate (Figure 3). Saw
palmettos up to 30 inches in height appear to permit enough light through
the canopy to allow the growth of creeping bluestem (Figure 1). This
corresponds closely to observations in the field: palmettos taller than
30 inches generally have little creeping bluestem growing underneath
(Table 1). When creeping bluestem was found in the field, 56.1% of the
time it was in full sun, 18.6% of the time in palmettos less that were
24 inches tall, etc.

Palmettos of 30 inches tall or greater is suggested as the threshold
beyond which production of creeping bluestem is impaired. Range improve-
ment through deferred grazing is handicapped with palmettos taller than
30 inches. Fire does not provide sufficient long term reduction in cover
to greatly benefit creeping bluestem. Good yields of creeping bluestem
will require permanent reduction in cover of saw-palmetto through mech-
anical disturbance.














Table 1. Occurrence of creeping bluestem
growing under saw-palmetto canopies
of various heights.

Plant ht. Occurrence
-inches- ---%----

0 (full sun) 56.1
<24 18.6
25 to 30 12.3
31 to 36 6.8
37 to 42 5.2
43 to 48 0.7
>49 0









PALMETTO HEIGHT
60cm
o 75 cm
D 90cm
105 cm


II I I I I I


135
15 May


196
22 July


252
9 Sep


302
29 Oct


12
12 Jan


AVERAGE JULIAN/CALENDAR DATE, 1980-81
Figure 1. Incident light filtering
through saw palmetto canopies before -
and after burning.


r


t00


I ou
X
60


z

40
- O
ZE


I


20h


Palmettos
, burned


74
15 Mar


102
12 Apr


73
14 Mar


<-, f



















INCIDENT LIGHT
%


0


0


_,L--'- ~ 4

S


Figure 2. Effect of incident light on
- dry matter yield of creeping bluestem.-














INCIDENT LIGHT

O O D
0 0 0 0 0


0-















0-0
o i -I






























total nonstructural carbohydrate (TNC)-
in creeping bluestem.
'4
'4
'4















in creeping bluestem.










The Crossbred Bull


F. M. Peacock


Crossbreeding is an important tool in the production of beef in the
Gulf Coast Region. Generally, crossbreeding systems involve the crossing
of purebred and utilization of crossbred females. The advantage has been
due to the combination of desirable genes for traits of economic import-
ance, hybrid vigor in calf and maternal performance of the crossbred cow.

In recent years, with crossbreeding being generally accepted, the
use of crossbred bulls because of combination of certain breed traits and
hybrid vigor has become of interest in production systems. Basically, the
objectives for breeding crossbred bulls should be the same as those for
purebreds, additive breed effects and complementarity of certain breed
combinations. Additive breed effects are those that a particular breed pos-
sesses in a trait or traits and are transmitted to offspring. Comple-
mentary effects can be values for a trait above the average (hybrid
vigor) when breeds are combined or creating a balance between a number
of desirable traits with adaptability by certain breed composition being
important.

The additive breed effects in crossbred (F ) bulls for weaning
weight would be the average for this trait of the two breeds in the
combination. Weight above this average would be the result of hybrid
vigor. Only the additive breed effects are transmitted by the bull
and cow to the offspring. Hybrid vigor is not transmitted to offspring
as it is the result of interaction of gene pairs in the offspring for
that particular trait, with one gene in the pair contributed by the
bull and the other gene of the pair by the cow.

For weaning weight of calves there are three genetic factors that
determine results, additive breed effects contributed by both bull and
cow, heterosis in calf and maternal performance of cow. An example is
the result obtained from utilizing the Angus and Brahman breeds in a
crossbreeding program. The first cross (Fl) resulted in approximately
11% heterosis in calf for weaning weight of calves. Utilizing the Angus-
Brahman cow mated to purebred bulls, resulted in 22% total heterosis
(over the average of purebreds) for weaning weights of their calves, 5%
of this weight increase being due to heterosis of calf (one-half that
of the Fl) and 17% from maternal heterosis attributed to the F1 cow.
In contrast, breeding F1 Angus-Brahman crossbred bulls to purebred cows
of their breeding resulted in only a 5% response over the purebred
average. However, breeding these F1 bulls to F1 cows, interse, added
18% to weight of calves due to maternal heterosis of the F1 Angus-
Brahman cow. These results point out the importance of the cow irres-
pective of sire breed for overall calf performance in crossbreeding systems.

The results from using crossbred bulls will be determined by his
additive breed effects, the combining effects of genes from the bull and
cow and the maternal performance of the cow herd.








Tropical Legume Pasture Research at Ona ARC


W. D. Pitman


The temperate legume, white clover, has been a key component of
pastures in Peninsular Florida for.several years. With the high cost of
irrigation, the use of this valuable cool-season forage plant has declined
in recent years. Along with this decline in white clover use, nitrogen
fertilization has become almost prohibitively expensive. Both increased
forage quality and addition of atmospheric nitrogen to the pasture system
are benefits of legumes in perennial pastures. With decreased profit-
ability of irrigated white clover with its nitrogen benefit to pastures
and decreased use of expensive nitrogen fertilizer, an alternative
source of pasture nitrogen is needed for flatwoods soils. The tropical
legumes hold tremendous potential for providing this nitrogen source.
However, increased levels of management will be necessary to realize
benefits of tropical legumes in perennial grass pastures.

Pastures of some commercially available tropical legumes were seeded
in combination with bahiagrass at the Ona ARC in 1981. The annual legume,
aeschynomene, and a mixture of 'Florida' carpon desmodium and phasey bean
were seeded along with bahiagrass in small pastures. Pastures of bahia-
grass alone were also seeded at the same time. Stands of aeschynomene
and phasey bean established rapidly in 1981 with poor establishment of
carpon desmodium. Pastures were not grazed in 1981, although both phasey
bean and aeschynomene provided sufficient growth for grazing. Regrowth
of established phasey bean plants began shortly after the last winter
freeze in 1982 with both phasey bean and bahiagrass making minimal growth
by late February.

Pastures of bahiagrass alone were fertilized at three different
nitrogen levels (0, 50, and 200 pounds per acre of nitrogen) in a single
application in March, 1982. All pastures of bahiagrass alone and the
phasey bean-carpon desmodium-bahiagrass pastures were stocked with
yearling heifers in late April. Late spring rains provided unusually
early aeschynomene emergence in 1982 with these pastures stocked in early
June. Animal numbers were adjusted according to pasture growth so that
carrying capacity of pastures in animal days per acre was determined as
a measure of pasture productivity. Average daily gain of individual
animals was determined as a measure of forage quality.

Carrying capacity ranged from 900 animal days per acre for bahia-
grass alone with no nitrogen fertilizer to 1922 animal days per acre for
bahiagrass alone with 200 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre. Pastures
of bahiagrass alone with 50 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre and
pastures of phasey bean-carpon desmodium-bahiagrass had carrying capac-
ities of 1324 animal days per acre. Pastures of aeschynomene-bahiagrass
produced 1236 animal days per acre of grazing. Average daily gains of
yearling heifers grazing these pastures ranged from 1.28 pounds per head
per day on aeschynomene-bahiagrass pastures to 0.95 pounds per head per









day on both pastures of bahiagrass alone with no nitrogen fertilizer
and bahiagrass alone with 50 pounds per acre of nitrogen fertilizer.
The high-nitrogen bahiagrass pastures produced average daily gains of
1.06 pounds per head per day while pastures of phasey bean-carpon desmodium-
bahiagrass produced 1.12 pounds per head per day.

During the 1982 grazing season, summer growing legumes in bahiagrass
pastures provided grazing comparable in amount to bahiagrass with 50
pounds per acre of nitrogen fertilizer. Quality of pastures with legumes
as shown by average daily gains was greater than that of bahiagrass alone
even with 200 pounds per acre of nitrogen fertilizer. The 1982 growing
season was an extremely good year for aeschynomene with early emergence
providing a longer grazing period than can normally be expected. However,
the excellent daily gains obtained on pastures containing this legume can
be expected with growing cattle under good management. Increased forage
quality of bahiagrass pastures when a summer legume is included and
addition of nitrogen to the pasture system can be expected. As noted
above, the legumes in these pastures added nitrogen equivalent to 50 pounds
of nitrogen fertilizer per acre (or150 pounds of ammonium nitrate per
acre).

The summer legumes currently available provide some alternatives
to nitrogen fertilization of flatwoods grass pastures, but each legume
currently available has some limitations and special management consider-
ations. The most widely used and highest quality summer legume currently
available is aeschynomene. Being an annual, aeschynomene must establish
from seed each year after moisture becomes adequate, thus grazing will be
late. Also chopping or some other sod disturbance may be needed to obtain
good stands from natural reseeding in established bahiagrass pastures.
Carpon desmodium is a perennial and produces earlier growth than aeschy-
nomene. However, as with many perennial legumes, establishment difficulties
are often encountered. Grazing will normally need to be deferred on
new plantings of carpon desmodium during the year of establishment.
Phasey bean established rapidly in these plantings and perenniated the
first year providing an opportunity for early spring grazing in the
second year. However, phasey bean is not a strong perennial and will
probably not stay in grass pastures in sufficient amounts to contribute
to animal production beyond two or three years.

In light of these limitations, evaluations of numerous additional
summer legumes are in progress. 'Siratro' is a commercially used legume
in Australia that has been grown to a limited extent in Florida. Experi-
mental plantings of Siratro under light grazing and the few commercial
plantings that have been productive for several years in Central Florida
indicate potential value of this legume in flatwoods pastures. Several
other tropical legumes have shown promise with potential contributions
to pasture mixtures noteworthy for several species in the genus Vigna.
Several different tropical legumes hold potential for use in Peninsular
Florida flatwoods pastures, but it must be noted that management will be
the key to success with any grass-legume pasture combination. Season of
grazing, stocking rate, lime, and phosphorus and potassium fertilization
programs are especially important for sustained production from the
tropical, summer-growing legumes in grass pastures.









Comparison of Surface Applied Lime With
Soil-Incorporated Lime on White Clover Pangolagrass
Grown on a Flatwoods Soil in Southwest Florida


C. L. Dantzman


Results of a study on a flatwoods soil at Ona indicated that lime at
any level (2 to 8 ton per acre) increased oven-dry yield of white clover
and pangola digitgrass over the control (no lime) on a previously unlimed
field. Thoroughly mixing the lime into the surface six-inches of soil
further increased yield significantly over surface applied lime. Percent
clover-cover and clover-height were also increased by the added increments
of lime and further increased by the mixing of the lime into the soil
before planting.

White clover is generally the most grown legume for forage in south
central Florida. It grows best during the cool season, and may persist
throughout the year. Pangola digitgrass is a good companion grass and
provides considerable cattle forage (1). Many studies have shown that
lime benefits clover (2). Surface and subsurface placement of superphos-
phate was tested on several grasses by Neller (3). However, little has
been reported on the value of incorporating the lime thoroughly in the
rooting zone of forage plants compared to surface application in central
and south Florida area. The objects of the study were: 1) to determine
the response of white clover (Trifolium repens L.) and pangola digitgrass
(Digitaria deceubens Stent) to levels of lime and 2) compare value of
surface lime application and soil incorporated lime application.

Lime was: 1) surface applied at rates of 0, 2, 4, 6 and 8 tons per
acre, and 2) lime was thoroughly mixed into the surface six-inches of
the soil at the same rates. After the pangola was established, the area
was seeded to white clover. During the trial the white clover was
reseeded annually in early winter.

Fertilization consisted of an application of 400 pounds per acre rate
of an 0-10-20 initially (January 11, 1st year); then 0-10-20 at the rate of
400 pounds per acre each October and 800 pounds per acre each February.
Vegetation was harvested to a stubble height of 31 inches five times each
year; April, June, July, September, and October.

Surface Applied Lime

During the first year where the lime (2 to 8 tons per acre) was surface
applied, forage yields (dry weight) increased 11% to 38% (for the 4 and 8
ton lime rates, respectively) compared to the no lime control. The control
produced 1.09 ton per acre dry forage (Table 1). Clover coverage increases
for the limed areas ranged from 28% to 52% compared to the control average
coverage of 3% for the March to May period, and 2% or less clover coverage
for all treatments for the June to December period (areas were rated once a
month and results averaged) (Table 2). The average clover height was 3 inches
or less for all treatments for the March through May period and the June through
December period (Table 3). Higher clover heights was measured for some months.










In the second year the forage dry yield increase was much greater 76% to
106% (for the 2 and 6 ton lime rates, respectively) compared to the no lime
control. The control produced 1.68 tonsper acre of dry forage. The
clover-coverage ranged from 31% to 38% (for the 2 and 6 ton lime rates,
respectively) and the control (no lime) measured 2% for the January to
May period. Clover coverage from June to December averaged 8% or less
for the 2 to 8 ton lime treatments and 1% for the control. The average
height of the clover in the treated areas during January through May was
6 to 7 inches, the control was 3 inches. During the June through December
period the clover height was 3 inches or less for all treatments.


Table 1. Forage Yields for Lime Levels for Surface Applied and
Incorporated Lime Plots.

Tons per acre Lime
Year Lime Placement to Soil 0 2 4 5 8
OD Yield Tons Per Acre

1 Surface 1.09 1.23 1.21 1.37 1.39
2 Surface 1.68 2.86 2.94 2.90 3.22
1 Incorporated 1.55 1.92 2.05 2.25 2.05
2 Incorporated 1.80 3.34 3.54 4.15 3.79



Table 2. Percent Clover Cover for Surface Applied and Incorporated
Lime Plots.


Soil Surface Applied Lime
Year 1 Year 2
--------------------%------------------
March-May ne-Dec. Jan.-May June-Dec.
March-May-- June-Dec. Jan.-May June-Dec.


Treatment
Lime T/A

0
2
4
6
8


Soil Incorporated Lime
Year 1 Year 2
March-May June-Dec. Jan.-May June-Dec.
March-May June-Dec. Jan.-May June-Dec.


1/ Averages of Measurements made once each month.









Table 3. Average Clover Height in Inches for Surface Applied and
Incorporated Lime Plots.


Soil Surface.Lime


Treatment
Lime T/A


Year 1 Year 2
Mac------- Jne- ----------------D
March-May- June-Dec. Jan.-May June-Dec.


Soil Incorporated Lime


1/ Average of measurements made once each month.



Soil Incorporated Lime

In the first year the control (no lime) produced 1.09 ton per acre
of dry forage, and the treated areas produced increases of 76% to 106%
compared to the control (2 and 6 ton lime rates per acre, respectively)
Table 1). Clover-coverage ranged from 79% to 95% for the lime treated
areas and 3% for the control for the March to May period (Table 2). For
the June to December period clover-coverage was 5% to 7% for the lime
treated areas for 1% for the control. Clover height averaged 4 to 5
inches for the lime treated areas for March to June and 2 to 3 inches
for June to December. The control averaged 1 or 2 inches for both periods.

During the second year the forage dry yield was 99% to 147% above the
control, whose weight yield was 1.68 tons per acre. The greatest yield
was again produced by the 6 ton lime rate on the native soil condition.
Clover coverage ranged from 42% to 54% compared to 2% for the control
for January to May. For June to December the lime treated areas of
clover coverage was 4% to 16% compared to 1% for the control.


Comparison: Surface Applied Lime and Soil Incorporated Lime

Dry forage yield weights for the surface applied lime treatments
averaged 1.30 tons per acre for the first year (with the 6 and 8 ton per








acre lime rates measuring 1.37 and 1.39 tons per acre dry forage) (Table
4). For the same period of time dry forage yield weights for the soil
incorporated lime treatments averaged 2.07 tons per acre or 59%
greater than the yield from the surface applied lime treatments. The
greatest yield was 2.25 tons per acre for the 6 ton per acre of lime.

During the second year the dry weight yield weights for the surface
applied lime treatments averaged 2.98 tons per acre while the yield for
the soil incorporated lime treatments was 3.71 tons per acre or an
increase of 35%. The greatest forage yield was 4.15 tons per acre for
the 6 ton per acre rate soil incorporated lime, or 43% greater than yield
for 6 ton per acre lime surface applied.

Present clover-coverage averaged greater for the soil incorporated
lime than the surface applied lime: 150% greater for the March-May
period the first year and 48%.for the January-May period the second year
(Table 3). Clover heights also were greater for the soil incorporated
lime: 117% the first year and 19% the second year (Table 3).

Generally, the benefit from soil incorporating the lime over surface
applied lime is limited to the first-two years.


Table 4. O.D. Forage Yields for Soil Surface Applied and Soil
Incorporated Lime Plots.


Lime Placement To Soil

Year Surface Incorporated
1 1.30 2.07
2 2.98 3.71
1 + 2 4.28 5.78



Summary

Clover height, percent coverage and dry weight forage was greater
when lime was thoroughly mixed into the top six-inches of the soil
compared to surface applied lime, when applied to a newly prepared
flatwoods soils from the native condition. Lime rates at 6 ton per acre
rate onto the native field produced the greatest dry forage yields and
very good clover-coverage and height.

This practice of incorporating (mixing) the lime into the soil could
be done when the field is cultivated initially or renovated. For the
correct lime rate and material for your field have the soil tested by
the county agent. Generally all dolomite lime should be applied.










The benefit for soil incorporating the lime compared over surface
applied lime is limited to the first two years.


Literature Cited

1. Hodges, E. M. et al. 1975. Pangola digitgrass. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bull. 718A. 31 p.

2. Hodges, E. M., D. W. Jones,and W. G. Kirk. 1953. Winter clovers in
central Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 517. 23 p.


3. Neller, J.
subsurface
phosphorus


R., and C. E. Hutton. 1957. Comparison of surface and
placement of superphosphate on growth and uptake of
by sodded grasses.









Ona ARC Publications
(since last Field Day)


Blue, W. G. and P. Mislevy. 1982. Accelerated drying of the surface of colloidal
phosphate settling ponds from phosphate strip mining in Florida. Soil Crop
Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 41:205-208.

Dantzman, C. L. 1983. 1982 Climatological Report. Agr. Exp. Sta. Research
Report. IFAS, U. of Fla. Ona, Fla. RC-1983-1.

Dantzman, C. L. and E. M. Hodges. 1978 (Eng.) Effects of saline irrigation water
on growth of Pangola digitgrass (Digitaria decumbens Stent.). 2389.
IRRICAB, International Irrigation Information Center. Pergamon Press. Oxford,
England.

Dantzman, C. L. and P. Mislevy. 1982. Effect of multicropping systems in South
Florida on a Pomona Fine Sand. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 41:201-205.

Dantzman, C. L., M. F. Richter, and F. G. Martin. 1982. Chemical elements under
cattle pens. J. Environ. Quality (in press).

Everett, P. H., R. S. Kalmbacher, and F. G. Martin. 1981. Use of residual N and
K by field corn seeded in full-bed plastic mulch after fall tomatoes.
Agron. Abst.

Hodges, E. M., A. E. Kretschmer, Jr., P. Mislevy, R. D. Roush, 0. C. Ruelke,
and G. H. Snyder. 1982. Production and utilization of the tropical legume
aeschynomene (Aeschynomene americana L.) IFAS Circular S-290.

Hodges, E. M. and W. D. Pitman. 1981. Grazing evaluation of perennial pasture
grasses in Peninsular Florida. Agron. Abst. pp. 132-133.

Horton, G.M.J., P. Mislevy, and B. E. Melton. 1981. The performance of cattle
on corn and sorghum silages grown in a multicropping system. Beef Cattle
Short Course. pp. 84-93. Gainesville, Fla.

Horton, G.M.J., W. D. Pitman, and F. M. Pate. 1983. Ammoniated tropical hay for
replacement heifers.Midwestern Section, American Society of Animal Science,
Abstracts of Meeting.

Kalmbacher, R. S. 1982. Improvement of forage quality on native range. Proc.
16th Annual Conf. on Livestock and Poultry in Latin America. Gainesville,
Fla.

Kalmbacher, R. S. 1983. Improving quality on native range by burning. Proc.
17th Annual Conf. on Livestock and Poultry in Latin America. Gainesville,
Fla.

Kalmbacher, R. S. 1983. Nutritional value of native forages. Proc. 32nd Annual
Beef-Cattle Short Course. Gainesville, Fla.

Kalmbacher, R. S. 1983. Distribution of dry matter and chemical constituents
among parts of four Florida native grasses. J. Range Manage. 36: (in press).









Kalmbacher, R. S., K. J. Boote, and F. G. Martin. 1983. Burning and 2,4,5-T
application on mortality and carbohydrate reserves in saw palmetto. J.
Range Manage. 36:9-12.

Kalmbacher, R. S., P. H. Everett, and F. G. Martin. 1982. Use of residual N and
K by field corn seeded in full bed plastic mulch after fall tomatoes.
Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 41:43-47.

Kalmbacher, R. S., P. H. Everett, F. G. Martin, and G. A. Jung. 1981. Management
of Brassicas for winter forage in the subtropics. Agron. Abst.

Kalmbacher, R. S., P. H. Everett, F. G. Martin, and G. A. Jung. 1982. The
management of Brissica for winter forage in the sub-tropics. Grass and
Forage Sci. 37:219-225.

Kalmbacher, R. S., K. R. Long, and F. G. Martin. 1983. Mineral composition of
forages on three Florida range sites during winter and summer. J. Range
Manage (Accepted).

Kalmbacher, R. S. and F. G. Martin. 1982. Evaluation of clover seeded at three
times in grazed or burned bahiagrass. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 41:84-87.

Kalmbacher, R. S. and F. G. Martin. 1983. Measurement of light filtering into a
bahiagrass sod and its influence on establishing jointvetch. Agron. J. 75:
(in press).

Kalmbacher, R. S., F. G. Martin, and K. R. Long. 1982. Simple management to
improve creeping bluestem forage quality. 1982. Agron. Abst.

Kalmbacher, R. S. and P. Mislevy. 1982. Effect of digitgrass growth suppression
on yield of sod-seeded corn and sorghum. Florida Scientist 45, Supplement
1, Abst. No. AGR-4.

Kalmbacher, R. S., P. Mislevy, P. H. Everett, R. D. Barnett, and F. G. Martin.
1981. Small grain forage production at Ona and Immokalee. 1981. Ona ARC
Research Report RC-1981-6. 10 pp.

Kalmbacher, R. S., P. Mislevy, P. H. Everett, R. D. Barnett, and F. G. Martin.
1982. Small grain forage production at Ona and Immokalee: 1981-82.
Ona ARC Research Report RC-1982-5. 9 pp.

Kalmbacher, R. S., P. Mislevy, P. H. Everett, F. G. Martin, and G. M. Prine. 1981.
Ryegrass forage production at Ona and Immokalee: 1980-81. Ona ARC Research
Report RC-1981-7. 9 pp.

Kalmbacher, R. S., P. Mislevy, P. H. Everett, F. G. Martin, and G. M. Prine. 1982.
Ryegrass forage production at Ona and Immokalee: 1981-82. Ona ARC Research
Report RC-1982-4. 7 pp.

Kalmbacher, R. S., P. Mislevy, P. H. Everett, F. G. Martin, and G. M. Prine.
1982. Ryegrass forage production at Ona and Immokalee: 1981-82. The
Florida Cattleman 47 (11):80-81.










Kalmbacher, R. S., D. L. Wright, and F. G. Martin. 1981. Milo tests show good
yields in research at Ona station. The Florida Cattleman 46 (3):104.

Kalmbacher, R. S., D. L. Wright, and F. G. Martin. 1982. Evaluation of sorghum
x sudangrass and pearlmillet hybrids for forage production at Ona ARC: 1981.
Ona ARC Research Report RC-1982-2. 10 pp.

Kalmbacher, R. S., D. L. Wright, and F. G. Martin. 1982. Evaluation of commercial
forage and sugar sorghum hybrids at ARC, Ona: 1981. Ona ARC Research Report
RC-1983-3. 10 pp.

Kalmbacher, R. S., D. L. Wright, and F. G. Martin. 1982. Evaluation of commercial
grain sorghum hybrids at Ona, 1982. Ona ARC Research Report RC-1982-8. 6 pp.

Mansfield, C. W., P. Mislevy, and L. C. Hammond. 1981. Influences of water
management on yield and quality of tropical and temperate forages grown on
Ona fine sand. Agron. Abst. p. 108.

Mislevy, P. 1982. Changes in forage quality of tropical grasses with time follow-
ing a freeze. Agron. Abst. p. 151.

Mislevy, P. 1982. University begins agricultural project on old pond. IMC,
Team Florida Vol. 8 No. 6.

Mislevy, P. 1982. Contributor of corn, small grains, ryegrass, and cool season
legume variety results In Florida Field and Forage Crop Variety Report.
Agronomy Research Report AY 82-7.

Mislevy, P. and W. G. Blue. 1981. Forage production as influenced by amendment
rates applied on Qartz sand-tailings after phosphate mining. Agron. Abst.
p. 30.

Mislevy, P., C. L. Dantzman, J. W. Prevatt, A. J. Overman, G.M.J. Horton, and
F. A. Johnson. 1982. Forage production and utilization from a south Florida
multicropping system. IFAS U. of Fla. Bulletin 830.

Mislevy, P., R. S. Kalmbacher, and P. H. Everett. 1981. Cool season legume
production in south central Florida, 1980-81. Ona ARC Research Report
RC-1981-9. 12 pp.

Mislevy, P., R. S. Kalmbacher, and P. H. Everett. 1982. Cool season legume
production in south central Florida, 1981-82. Ona ARC Research Report
RC-1982-7. 12 pp.

Mislevy, P.,R. S. Kalmbacher, P. H. Everett, and E. S. Horner. 1981. Commercial
corn variety testing results from south-central Florida. Ona ARC Research
Report RC-1981-10. 9 pp.

Mislevy, P. R. S. Kalmbacher, P. H. Everett, and E. S. Horner. 1982. Commercial
corn variety test results from south-central Florida. 1982. Ona ARC Research
Report RC-1982-6. 11 pp.

Mislevy, P. G. O. Mott, and F. G. Martin. 1982. Effect of grazing frequency on
forage quality and stolon characteristics of tropical perennial grasses.
Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 41:77-83.









Overman, A. J. and P. Mislevy. 1981. Nematode control in cool season legumes
under tropical conditions. Nematropica 11:(1) Abst.

Peacock, F. M. and E. M. Hodges. 1981. Winter management of beef calves in south
central Florida. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circular S-286.

Peacock, F. M., M. Koger, E. M. Hodges, and T. A. Olson. 1982. Breed and heterosis
effects in crosses among the Angus, Brahman, and Charolais breeds. Fla.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bulletin 828.

Peacock, F. M., M. Koger, A. Z. Palmer, J. W. Carpenter, and T. A. Olson. 1982.
Additive breed and heterosis effects for individual and maternal influences
on feedlot gain and carcass traits of Angus, Brahman, Charolais and crossbred
steers. J. Anim. Sci. 55:797.

Peacock, F. M., M. Koger, A. Z. Palmer, J. W. Carpenter, and T. A. Olson. 1982.
Additive genetic and heterosis effects for calf and maternal influences on
post weaning growth and carcase traits of Angus, Brahman, and Charolais
crosses. Fla. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bulletin 832.

Pitman, W. D. 1982. Evaluation of selected tropical legumes in Peninsular Florida.
Agron. Abst. p. 126.

Pitman, W. D. and E. C. Holt. 1982. Environmental relationships with forage
quality of warm-season perennial grasses. Crop Sci. 22:1012-1016.

Prine, G. M.,L. S. Dunavin, P. Mislevy, K. J. McVeigh, and R. L. Stanley, Jr.
1982. Florida 80 Ryegrass. IFAS Circular S-291.









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


The following companies and individuals have provided support to
research programs at the Ona ARC. Their contributions to our programs
are sincerely appreciated.

American Cyanamid Co., Agricultural Division
Asgrow Florida, Plant City, Florida
Babcock Ranch, Punta Gorda, Florida
Albert Carlton, Wauchula, Florida
Doyle Carlton, Jr., Wauchula, Florida
Chevron Chemical Co., Orlando, Florida
Dekalb Seed Co., Dekalb, Illinois
Desoto Land and Cattle Co., Punta Gorda, Florida
Douglas Fertilizer, Lake Placid, Florida
H. C. Douglas, K-Bar Ranch, Zephyrhills, Florida
E.I. DuPont de Nemours Co., Inc., Wilmington, Delaware
Duval Sales Corp., Houston, Texas
Bli Lilly and Co., Greenfield, Indiana
Fields Equipment Co., Zolfo Springs, Florida
Florida Fertilizer Co., Wauchula, Florida
FMC Corp., Tampa, Florida
Funk Seeds International, Bloomington, Illinois
Harris Fussell, Polk City, Florida
Gas Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois
Max Hammond, Bartow, Florida
Hardee County Cattlemen's Association, Wauchula, Florida
Hardee County Commissioners, Wauchula, Florida
Hardee County Extension Office, Wauchula, Florida
Hardee County Soil Conservation Service, Wauchula, Florida
Imperial Products, Inc., Altamonte Springs, Florida
International Minerals and Chemical Corp., Libertyville, Illinois
Buster Longino, Sarasota, Florida
Lykes Brothers, Inc., Brooksville, Florida
Derrill McAteer, Brooksville, Florida
McCurdy Seed Company, Fremont, Iowa
McNair Seed Company, Laurinburg, North Carolina
Mobay Chemical Corp., Kansas City, Missouri
Monsanto Chemical Co., St. Louis, Missouri
The Nitragin Co., Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Northrup King Co., Minneapolis, Minnesota
C. M. Payne and Son Seed Co., Sebring, Florida
Peace River Electric Coop., Wauchula, Florida
Pioneer Hi-Bred Int.,Tipton, Indiana
Potash and Phosphate Inst., Atlanta, Georgia
Rhone Poulenc Chemical Co., Monmouth Junction, New Jersey
Robert Stokes, Bartow, Florida
W. H. Stuart Ranch, Inc., Bartow, Florida
Superior Fertilizer and Chemical Co., Tampa, Florida
Bayard Toussaint, Punta Gorda, Florida
Traylor Chemical and Supply Co., Orlando, Florida
Lat Turner, Sarasota, Florida
UNC Recovery, Inc., Mulberry, Florida








Acknowledgements, continued.


Velsicol Chemical Co., Chicago, Illinois
Charles Williams, Avon Park, Florida









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




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