Coursehero >> Missouri >> Missouri (Mizzou) >> AR H A 2005

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, homework solutions, papers, exam answer keys and textbook solutions.

Missouri Southwest Agricultural Research and Education Center Mt Vernon, Missouri 2005 Field Day Report Our 46th Year of AScience in the Public Service@ College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources University of Missouri- Columbia Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources University of Missouri - Columbia Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Southwest Missouri Center 14548 Highway H Mount Vernon, MO 65712-9523 (417) 466-2148 (417) 466-2109 E-MAIL Southwest_Center@missouri.edu PHONE FAX September 9, 2005 Welcome! It is a pleasure to have you visit the Southwest Center and participate in our 43rd Annual Field Day. There are so many new and exciting things happening at the Center, and this event is our opportunity to showcase some of the latest developments here, as well as with the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, and the University of Missouri. The Field Day 2005 program will highlight some of the many activities in beef, dairy, forages and crops, and horticulture, as well as other topics relating to the agricultural interests in southwest Missouri. Whether you are a back yard gardener, live in town, or run a commercial farming operation, you re sure to find something of interest. Dairy topics will an update on the SW Center Dairy, managing heat stress, use of summer annual forages, and synchronization protocols. The beef tour will feature timed AI, composite breeds, feed efficiency and animal temperament. The forage and crops tour will offer presentations fescue seed production, ammoniating fescue aftermath, stockpiling fescue, and a sprayer calibration demo. And, following a walking tour of the Center s ongoing horticulture projects, topics such as home garden tomato problems, garden insects, fruit crops for Missouri will be offered; a second tree and shrub botanical tour will also be offered. A special tour will feature topics relating to Horses in Missouri. Despite the fact that Missouri is 2nd in the nation in number of horses, and the horse industry holds $8 billion and contributes $200 million annually to the state s economy, the importance of horses is often overlooked. Topics will include equine nutrition, forages for horses, Missouri s horse market, and a horseshoe demonstration. As usual, Ask the Experts , Computers on the Farm , and an exhibit area with a variety of equipment, products and services will be present. And with a free lunch, why would you not want to come? Since 1959, the Southwest Center has continued to conduct problem solving research projects and outreach activities that are relevant to the agricultural needs in southwest Missouri and throughout the state. The success of our programs depends on your inputs and support. We need to hear what the most important challenges you face are, and the best ways to get the necessary information to you. As always, we maintain an open door policy and invite you to take part in our activities throughout the year. Visit our web site at http://aes.missouri.edu/swcenter for information about the SW Center, including our quarterly newsletter, Ruminations. Remember, this is your research and outreach center. Sincerely, Richard J. Crawford, Jr. Superintendent/Res. Asst. Professor AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / ADA INSTITUTION Southwest Missouri Agricultural Research and Education Center The Southwest Center is an 897-acre facility located 4 miles southwest of Mount Vernon, Missouri on Hwy H. Established in 1957 by passage of House Bill 402 and opened in 1959, the Southwest Center's mission has been to conduct "problem solving research" that is relevant to agricultural interests in the southwest corner of Missouri. Since then, the Center has provided practical information in the following areas: soil fertility; grass breeding and variety evaluation; legumes including alfalfa, clover and lespedeza variety evaluation and management; grazing management and livestock nutrition; and horticultural practices for vegetables, small fruits, nuts, turf grasses and ornamentals; and seasonal, pasture-based dairying. The Southwest Center works cooperatively with University Outreach and Extension, state and federal agencies, agribusinesses and campus-based scientists to address the needs of the agricultural community. Southwest Center Staff Dr. Richard J. Crawford, Jr. .....................................Superintendent & Research Assistant Professor Chris Davis.............................................................................................. Research Specialist (Dairy) Geoffrey Evans............................................................................................................Farm Worker I Matt Massie ..........................................................................Senior Research Specialist (Agronomy) John Nelson .......................................................................................................... Animal Technician Carla Rathmann........................................................................................... Administrative Assistant Dallas Ross............................................................................................................................Foreman Andrew Thomas ............................................................................Research Associate (Horticulture) Stan Wilken ................................................................................................................Farm Worker II Part-Time & Temporary Staff for 2005 Carolyn Crawford................................................................................... Temporary Office Support I Tyler Kuske ..................................................................................................Seasonal Farm Assistant Alexis Malone .....................................................................CAFNR Undergraduate Research Intern Michelle Porter .............................................................................................Seasonal Farm Assistant Tom Rathmann ............................................................................................................Farm Worker I Diane Wilde..................................................................................................Seasonal Farm Assistant ii Table of Contents Animal Science Research Economic Overview of the SW Center Pasture-Based Dairy (1999-2004) ............................................................2 Impact of Grazing Stockpiled Tall Fescue on Fall Calving Beef Cows .................................................................7 Considering Crossbreeding?.................................................................................................................................11 Agronomy Research Nitrogen Fertilization Strategies for Annual Ryegrass Pasture ............................................................................15 Ozark Bermudagrass Interseeded with Cereal Rye ...........................................................................................21 Finding Alternatives to Ammonium Nitrate as a Nitrogen Source for Tall Fescue Pastures ................................25 Horticulture Research Rotating Late Spring-forced Asparagus with Normal Spring Harvets in Missouri ..............................................30 Genotype by Environment Interaction in Elderberry (Sambucus sp.) Cultivars and Selections Grown in Oregon and Missouri.........................................................................................................................................................38 Black Root and Crown Rot of Black Cohosh (Actaea racemosa) is Associated to Phytophthora and Pythium Species .......................................................................................................................................................................41 Site Selection is Critical for Successful Cultivation of Black Cohosh..................................................................48 Cultivation of Six Medicinal Plant Species under Evaluation as a Lung Cancer Treatment ................................50 A Potential New Opportunity for Growing and Marketing Peppers in Southwest Missouri ................................51 A Native Grassland/Prairie Restoration and Demonstration.................................................................................52 Evaluation of More Than 100 Native Missouri Sedge, Ruch, Bulrush and Grass Species for Their Ornamental and Utilitarian Potential .......................................................................................................................................54 Trees and Shrubs at Southwest Center headquarters Area - 2005 ........................................................................56 Agroforestry Research Potential for Commercial Nut Production in Southwest Missouri........................................................................60 Black Walnut Cultivar-Rootstock Evaluation ......................................................................................................63 N and P Assimilation in a Silvopastoral System Receiving Poultry Litter or Inorganic Fertilizer .......................65 Influence of Zinc Foliar Sprays on Black Walnut Production ..............................................................................71 Hickory Nut Cultivar Evaluation .........................................................................................................................72 Southwest Center Chestnut Orchard.....................................................................................................................74 Pawpaw Cultivar Evaluation and Germplasm Collection.....................................................................................75 Persimmon Research Orchard and Germplasm Collection...................................................................................78 Miscellaneous Topics Southwest Missouri Center Weather Data............................................................................................................81 iii iv Cover Photos: Although the Southwest Center is primarily an agricultural research facility, education and outreach are also important parts of our overall mission. The Center attracts more than 8,000 visitors annually, many of whom come for the many varied workshops, field days and other events throughout the year. Top left: Jay Chism, University of Missouri Extension Agronomy Specialist from Polk County, gets students involved in looking for garden insect and disease pests. Hands on presentations like these are very popular with students and instructors, and help to make a lasting impression after the field day event is over. Middle right: Students experience what it s like for a cow on a hot day. Dr. Barry Steevens, Professor of Animal Sciences at the University of Missouri in Columbia, explains problems associated with heat stress in cattle and offers strategies to reduce the negative impact on health and productivity. Those individuals standing under the portable shade fitted with a misting hose are 10 to 15 degrees cooler than those standing in direct sunlight. Bottom left: Our field days are about more than agriculture, says Superintendent Richard Crawford. Missouri Highway Patrol Sgt. Kent Casey uses a rollover demonstration to stress the importance of using seat belts and safe driving practices to high school students at the Agriculture Education Field Day. Animal Science Reports 1 Economic Overview of the SW Center Pasture-Based Dairy (1999 2004) C.W. Davis1, T.R. Rickard2, S.A. Hamilton2 and R.J. Crawford1 1 Southwest Research Center, Mt. Vernon 2 University of Missouri Extension The University of Missouri Southwest Center Dairy began its seventh year of operation when the first calf of the season (a heifer) hit the ground on February 8, 2005. Started in 1999, the seasonal, pasture based operation serves not only as a research and demonstration model, but also provides economic data on this alternative form of dairying. With six full years of data (1999-2004), we are beginning to see some consistent trends that compare favorably to private dairy operations of this type in the area. Overview of Production (1999-2004) and Economics (2001-2004) Table 1 shows various production data for the Southwest Center Dairy. Our first year of operation began with all first calf heifers. It was quite a learning experience for us as well as for the dairy cattle. Into the second year, animals were continuing to grow, and we were still not generating our own replacements. By the third year of operation, we were finally at what can be referred to as a steady state. That is, cows had reached mature size, we were producing our own replacements (and even had some extras to sell), our pastures were established, and our herd manager, Chris Davis, was well acclimated to the system. Since this is a seasonal dairy, it is important to remember that certain figures represent an average over the year. For example, the hay intake of 11.2 to 13.7 lb per cow per day does not mean we fed that amount every day. During most of the grazing season, little if any hay was fed; in contrast, during winter and periods of drought, forage intake was almost entirely hay. In order for the economic data for the SW Center Dairy to more closely reflect what a private dairy might expect, certain adjustments were necessary. Expenses which are not actually incurred by the SW Center Dairy (i.e. taxes, insurance) or which are not easily monitored (i.e. fuel, vehicle use, labor) are obtained from the financial records of cooperating grazing dairies in the area. These real world numbers are denoted by an asterisk. Economic data are shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4 for the years 2001 thru 2004 (after reaching steady state ). Expenses depict direct cash costs in categories determined by the cooperating dairymen and recorded using Quicken financial software. Costs are calculated on a per cow basis as well as a per hundredweight of milk basis. Table 2 shows all costs involved in producing milk. Specific costs related to pasture production are further broken out in Table 3. Our data indicates that we can grow pasture for around 1.8-2.0 per pound of dry matter consumed. The average cost for us to produce milk over 2 the four years reported was $1,218/cow or $9.16/cwt. In contrast, a recent survey of large confinement dairies (avg. 1,485 cows/farm and greater than 20,000lb herd average) in the west showed cost of production of $10.88/cwt. When total expenditures are subtracted from total income (again, for the years 20012004), the resulting operating margin averages $1,160/cow or $8.70/cwt. Keep in mind, however, that income, expenses and operating margin all vary widely from year to year and are directly influenced by factors such as milk price, feed costs, weather, government programs, etc. Our operating margin ranged from $903 to $1642/cow and from $6.59 to 11.92/cwt for the four years reported. Our margin as reported here does not include replacement heifer costs. If one subtracts an average of $150/cow in annual heifer costs from the steady state operating margin above, the resulting adjusted operating margin is still over $1,000/cow averaged over the four years. Operating margins, as calculated here, is the amount available to the dairyperson for debt service (principal and interest), heifer replacement or development (if not already deducted), income taxes, and family living. Because debt load varies from farm to farm, individuals can better project their own net margin or profit by entering their own values for P&I, taxes, etc. The 2004 Season Higher milk prices and favorable weather contributed to higher profits in 2004. Pay price for the SW Center Dairy, which peaked over $20/cwt in May, averaged $17.94 for the year! Cooler temperatures and abundant rainfall during much of the 2004 grazing season resulted in lower heat stress on cows and enhanced quality and yield of forages. This is evidenced by a more than 1,000 lb/cow jump in milk production compared to the previous year. Higher fuel costs during the second half of 2004 had less of an impact on pasture-based dairies compared to dairies that rely more heavily on machinery to plant, harvest, store, process and feed out forages and crops. Fertilizer costs tend to follow fuel costs, and by having the cows return 95% of the nutrients (in manure) back to the pastures, grazing dairies tend to have reduced fertilizer costs compared to conventional dairies. As gasoline, diesel and fertilizer prices continue to climb in 2005, this difference will likely become even greater giving pasture-based dairies an even bigger advantage. High milk prices as well as high cattle prices (for sale of culls and replacements), combined with a total cost of production under $9.00/cwt resulted in a very profitable year for the SW Center Dairy. The cooperating pasture-based dairies that we work with in the region are reporting similar results for 2004. Conclusions In summary, the economic data generated by the Southwest Center Dairy compares well with actual grazing dairies in the region. This is not to suggest that all dairy operations should be 60 to 80 cows, but that smaller, grazing dairies can be profitable and competitive in the dairy 3 industry. These smaller dairies can compete with larger dairies in the arid west mainly because of the lower cost of production, typically $1.00 to $1.50/cwt lower, resulting from greater reliance on high quality pasture compared to harvested forages. Table 1: Production Overview of Southwest Center Dairy 2001 2002 2003 2004 1999 2000 49.1 59.1 60.4 63.7 70.4 71.4 84 84 84 87 97 97 79 79 79 82 92 92 12.4 14.2 12.1 15.6 14.5 14.4 11.4 11.5 11.2 13.6 13.7 11.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 244 230 198 235 263 1022 1030 1061 1097 1011 1042 25 32 38 44 43 47 32 19 22 26 26 36 12 16 16 17 10 18 20 3 6 9 16 18 10,146 12,714 12,952 13,711 12,731 13.807 3.95 3.96 3.74 4.12 4.20 4.19 3.40 3.24 3.22 3.28 3.35 3.32 223,000 51,800 129,182 112,727 106,454 185,909 Cow numbers Total farm area (acres) Dairy grazing area (acres) Grain fed during year (lb/cow/day) Hay fed during year (lb/cow/day) Other forage fed during year (lb/cow/day) Numbers of days grazed Weight of cows after calving (lb) Age of cows (months) Cull rate (percent) Total Outside Calving Window (%) Other Cull (%) Milk shipped per cow (lb) Milkfat (%) Protein (%) Somatic cell count 4 Table 2: Summary of Expenditures of Southwest Center Dairy 2001 $/cow $/cwt 305 2.35 254 1.96 150 1.16 51 0.40 12 0.09 14 0.11 7 0.05 117 0.90 74 0.57 37 0.29 38 0.29 41 0.32 24 0.18 42 0.33 1166 9.00 2002 $/cow $/cwt 388 2.83 240 1.75 152 1.10 54 0.39 13 0.09 29 0.21 7 0.05 102 0.74 69 0.50 31 0.23 43 0.32 49 0.36 29 0.21 42 0.31 1248 9.09 2003 $/cow $/cwt 392 3.08 253 1.98 158 1.24 69 0.55 12 0.09 19 0.15 7 0.06 81 0.64 63 0.50 48 0.38 51 0.40 40 0.31 21 0.16 38 0.30 1252 9.83 2004 $/cow $/cwt 428 3.10 139 1.00 123 0.88 49 0.35 16 0.11 66 0.48 9 0.06 103 0.75 91 0.66 59 1.42 39 0.28 48 0.35 26 0.19 11 0.08 1207 8.71 Expenditures: Concentrates Forage (hay) Forage (pasture)1 Labor* DHIA Semen/Breeding R.E./P.P.Taxes* Milk Marketing Repairs/Truck/Fuel* Vet/Med Parlor Supplies Utilities Insurance* Miscellaneous Total Cow Expenditures * 1 Values used are average of actual costs from cooperating grazing dairies. See Table 3 for itemized pasture expenditures. Table 3: Summary of Expenditures of Southwest Center Dairy for Forages 2001 Forage Expenses: Fertilizer Seed/Spray Custom Hire* Fuel* R.E./P.P. Taxes* Fence/Water Total Forage Expenditures * 2002 $/cow 48 47 12 23 9 13 152 $/cwt 0.35 0.34 0.08 0.17 0.06 0.10 1.10 2003 $/cow 58 40 23 11 7 18 158 2004 $/cwt 0.32 0.18 0.10 0.15 0.06 0.07 0.88 $/cow 70 39 15 11 6 9 150 $/cwt 0.54 0.30 0.12 0.09 0.04 0.07 1.16 $/cwt $/cow 45 0.46 25 0.32 14 0.18 21 0.09 8 0.06 10 0.14 1.24 123 Values used are average of actual costs from cooperating grazing dairies. 5 Table 4: Summary of Income of Southwest Center Dairy 2001 2002 2003 2004 $/cow $/cwt $/cow $/cwt $/cow $/cwt $/cow $/cwt 2141 16.53 1762 12.85 1668 13.10 2478 17.94 239 1.84 214 1.56 171 1.34 367 2.66 175 1.27 2.31 5 0.04 294 2380 18.37 2151 15.68 2133 16.76 2849 20.63 1166 9.00 1248 9.09 1252 9.83 1207 8.71 1214 9.37 903 6.59 881 6.93 1642 11.92 Income: Milk Sales Cattle Sales Govt./Dividends Total Income Total Expenditures1 Operating Margin 1 From Table 2. 6 Impact of Grazing Stockpiled Tall Fescue On Fall Calving Beef Cows L.E. Meinhardt and Robert L. Kallenbach, Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri Efficient forage utilization by beef cattle is essential for optimum economic production and animal performance in a cow-calf operation. Historically producers have relied on stored feed between late autumn and early spring while forage growth is dormant, accounting for 70 percent of the annual beef cow maintenance cost. Decreasing winter-feed cost by more efficient forage utilization can improve the profitability of cow-calf operations. The most efficient and economical way to utilize forage is by grazing; thus, grazing systems that incorporate plants with late fall growth and retained nutritive value in winter are important. Research at the University of Missouri found extending the grazing season into winter reduces dependence on stored feed and decreases winter-feeding costs by one-third to one-half. One method to extend the grazing season is to utilize stockpiled tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb). Tall fescue, the predominant forage in the transition zone between cooltemperate and subtropical zones of the United States, lends itself well to stockpiling. It produces more autumn growth, maintains yield and quality, and responds to nitrogen fertilization better than other cool-season grasses. A great deal of research has been conducted on stockpiled tall fescue, although much of this research has been done on yield, quality, fertilization, defoliation, and accumulation. There have also been several successful stockpile-grazing studies with gestating, spring calving beef cows and stocker calves. In recent years, producers are switching to fall calving operations, and as a result more cows are lactating over winter. Only a few studies have documented using stockpiled tall fescue with lactating fall calving cows. Animals in these studies were typically allocated feed equal to three percent of their body weight each day with 70 percent utilization. Remarkably, the scientific basis for this allowance is largely unknown, yet the literature indicates that it is widely accepted. As fall calving gains popularity, the importance for appropriate herbage allocation level increases. Lactating cows have much higher nutrient requirements than gestating cows and may require higher herbage allowances. On the other hand, it may be economical for cows to loose body condition in the winter, when forage supplies are limited, and regain weight when lush spring growth occurs. However, research is needed to evaluate the most economical herbage allowance of stockpiled tall fescue for lactating fall calving beef cows. It is less expensive to maintain a lactating cow on lower herbage allocation levels than higher allocations; however, this does not mean that the lower allocations are the most economical. Forcing high utilization rates with low allocation levels may limit cow intake causing excessive weight loss, decrease reproductive performance, and decreased milk 7 production resulting in reduced calf gain. Spring regrowth may also be adversely affected by low allocation levels. Some studies show that spring growth is not affected by grazing stockpiled during the winter while other studies report decreases in spring yield and plant persistence. Although research is limited on why these contradictions occur, different levels of fungal endophyte infection in the tall fescue plants may lead to differences in stand persistence. The fungal endophyte, Neotyphodium coenophialum [(Morgan-Jones and Gams) Glenn, Bacon and Hanlin], has a symbiotic relationship with tall fescue plants and increases plant persistence by improving resistance to insect and nematode feeding, stress tolerance, and drought tolerance. However, animal performance when consuming infected tall fescue herbage is often hindered. The endophyte infection results in an accumulation of toxic alkaloids know to cause a series of animal health disorders, costing the United States livestock industry an estimated $609 million annually (Hoveland, 1993). Resent research indicates endophyte toxicity should be less severe in stockpiled tall fescue (Kallenbach et al., 2003). However, more research is needed on the effects of grazing infected stockpiled tall fescue on cow-calf performance. The objectives of this trial are: 1) establish optimum daily herbage allowance for lactating beef cows and their calves wintered on stockpiled tall fescue, 2) estimate dry matter utilization rate of stockpiled tall fescue at different herbage allocation levels, 3) observe the impact of grazing endophyte infected tall fescue over-winter on animal performance, and 4) determine the effect of herbage allocation level on spring regrowth. Conventional winter hayfeeding practices will also be evaluated for an economical comparison with stockpiling tall fescue. Answering these objectives is necessary to maintain a profitable fall calving herd throughout winter. Materials and methods The experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block design with three replications and four stockpiled tall fescue at herbage allowances treatments; 2.25, 3.00, 3.75, and 4.50 percent of cow and calf body weight per head per day (BW hd-1 d-1). Sixty, cow-calf pairs were stratified into twelve groups and then assigned to treatments at random. The first year of the experiment began on 2 December 2004 and ended 24 February 2005. Stockpiled tall fescue was strip-grazed with forage allocated every 3.5 days. Pre-grazing herbage mass was determined at the beginning of the experiment and every 21 days thereafter, by clipping ten, 32 inches x 15 feet strips from each pasture. Strips were cut to as near as ground level as possible. Cows and calves were weighed and body condition scored at the beginning of the experiment and every 21 days thereafter. All cows were maintained on hay from 24 February until weaning on 20 April 2005. The experiment will be repeated again this winter. Year one project summary The first year of allocation data collection has been completed. Cows allocated herbage at 2.25% of BW hd-1 d-1 lost the most weight (avg. daily loss of 2.3 lb hd-1 d-1), while the other three allocation levels did not differ (avg. daily loss of 1.9 lb ha-1 d-1). Calves in the 2.25% BW hd-1 d-1 treatment had an ADG of 1.2 lb hd-1 d-1 while those in the 4.5% BW hd-1 d-1 had an ADG of 1.6 lb hd-1 d-1 (Table 1). Since the acres required to winter a cow-calf pair would double 8 between the lowest and highest allocations, economic analyses suggest stockpiled tall fescue should be allocated levels at 3.0% BW hd-1 d-1 (Table 1). In addition, cow and calf performance data taken later in the spring at weaning time showed no significant differences between stockpile allocation treatments imposed during the winter (Table 2). Table 1. Average daily gain (or loss) and body condition score (BCS) of fall-calving cows and average daily gain of their calves provided four different allocations of stockpiled tall fescue. Data collected from 12/2/2004 to 2/24/2005. Average Daily Gain Forage Allocation* % 2.25 3.00 3.75 4.50 LSD -2.3 -2.0 -1.8 -2.0 0.2 Cow lb/d 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.6 0.1 Calf Ending Cow BCS** score 4.1 4.6 4.7 4.5 0.3 Acres Required for 84 days of feeding acres/cow-calf pair 0.78 1.04 1.30 1.56 - * % of body weight per head per day including calf weight. ** All cows started at an average body condition score of 5.8 on a 9 point scale. 9 Table 2. Average daily gain (or loss) and body condition score (BCS) of fall-calving cows and average daily gain of their calves provided four different allocations of stockpiled tall fescue. Data collected 4/20/2005. Average Daily Gain** Forage Allocation* % 2.25 3.00 3.75 4.50 -0.6 -0.8 -0.9 -0.9 Cow lb/d 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 Calf Cow BCS At Weaning Calf Weaning Weight score 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 lb 401 423 437 428 NS LSD NS NS NS * % of body weight per head per day including calf weight. **Calculated between project end (2/24/2005) and weaning (4/20/2005) REFERENCES CITED Hoveland, C.S. 1993. Importance and economic significance of the Acremonium endophytes to performance of animals and grass plant. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 44:3-12. Kallenbach, R.L., G.J. Bishop-Hurley, M.D. Massie, G.E. Rottinghaus, and C.P. West. 2003. Herbage mass, nutritive value, and ergovaline concentration of stockpiled tall fescue. Crop Sci. 43:10011005. 10 Considering Crossbreeding? Robert L. (Bob) Weaber, Ph.D., State Extension Specialist-Beef Genetics, Division of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri High calf and feeder cattle prices during the past couple of years have helped many of Missouri s cow-calf producers achieve profitability. Even though many cattle producer s operations are profitable, work should continue to improve the economic position of the farm or ranch. Profitability may be enhanced by increasing the volume of production (i.e. the pounds of calves you market) and/or the value of products you sell (improving quality). The reduction of production costs, and thus breakeven prices, can also improve profitability. For commercial beef producers, the implementation of technologies and breeding systems that increase the quality and volume of production and reduce input costs is essential to maintain or improve the competitive position of the operation. More and more producers are finding that a structured crossbreeding system helps them achieve the goals increasing productivity and reducing production costs. Why crossbreed? The use of crossbreeding offers two distinct and important advantages over the use of a single breed. First, crossbred animals have heterosis or hybrid vigor. Second, crossbred animals combine the strengths of the parent breeds. The term breed complementarity is often used to describe breed combinations that produce highly desirable progeny for a broad range of traits. What is heterosis? Heterosis refers to the superiority of the crossbred animal relative to the average of its straight bred parents. Heterosis results from the increase in the heterozygosity of a crossbred animal s genetic makeup. Heterozygosity refers to a state where an animal has two different forms of a gene. It is believed that heterosis is the result of gene dominance and the recovery from accumulated inbreeding depression of pure breeds. Heterosis is, therefore, dependant on an animal having two different copies of a gene. The level of heterozygosity an animal has depends on the random inheritance of copies of genes from its parents. In general, animals that are crosses of unrelated breeds, such as Angus and Brahman, exhibit higher levels of heterosis, due to more heterozygosity, than do crosses of more genetically similar breeds such as a cross of Angus and Hereford. Heterosis generates the largest improvement in lowly heritable traits. Moderate improvements due to heterosis are seen in moderately heritable traits. Little or no heterosis is observed in highly heritable traits. Heritability is the proportion of the observable variation in a trait between animals that is due to the genetics that are passed between generations and the variation observed in the animal s phenotypes, which are the result of genetic and environmental effects. Traits such as reproduction and longevity have low heritability. These traits respond very slowly to selection since a large portion of the variation observed in them is due to environmental factors and a small percentage is due to genetic differences. Heterosis generated through crossbreeding can significantly improve an animal s performance for lowly heritable 11 traits. Crossbreeding has been shown to be an efficient method to improve reproductive efficiency and productivity in beef cattle. Improvements in cow-calf production due to heterosis are attributable to having both a crossbred cow and a crossbred calf. The two tables below detail the individual (crossbred calf) and maternal (crossbred cow) heterosis observed for various important production traits. These heterosis estimates are adapted from a report by Cundiff and Gregory, 1999, and summarize crossbreeding experiments conducted in the South-eastern and Mid-west areas of the US. Individual Heterosis Trait Calving Rate, % Survival to Weaning, % Birth Weight, lb. Weaning Weight, lb. Yearling Weight, lb. Average Daily Gain, lb./d Maternal Heterosis Trait Calving Rate, % Survival to Weaning, % Birth Weight, lb. Weaning Weight, lb. Longevity, years Lifetime Productivity Number of Calves Cumulative Weaning Wt., lb. Units 3.5 0.8 1.6 18.0 1.36 .97 600 % Heterosis 3.7 1.5 1.8 3.9 16.2 17.0 25.3 Units 3.2 1.4 1.7 16.3 29.1 0.08 % Heterosis 4.4 1.9 2.4 3.9 3.8 2.6 Why is it so important to have crossbred cows? The production of crossbred calves yields advantages in both heterosis and the blending of desirable traits from two or more breeds. However, the largest economic benefit of crossbreeding to commercial producers comes from having crossbred cows. Maternal heterosis improves both the environment a cow provides for her calf as well as improves the longevity and durability of the cow. The improvement of the maternal environment a cow provides for her calf is manifested in the improvements in calf survivability to weaning and increased weaning weight. Crossbred cows exhibit improvements in calving rate of nearly 4% and an increase in longevity of more that one year due to heterotic effects. Heterosis results in increases in lifetime productivity of approximately one calf and 600 pounds of calf weaning weight over the lifetime of the cow. Crossbreeding can have positive effects on a ranch s bottom line by not only 12 increasing the quality and gross pay weight of calves produced but also by increasing the durability and productivity of the cow factory. Crossbred cows maybe the only free lunch in the world. How can I harness the power of breed complementarity? Breed complementarity is the effect of combining breeds that have different strengths. When considering crossbreeding from the standpoint of producing replacement females, one could select breeds that have complementary maternal traits such that females are most ideally matched to their production environment. Matings to produce calves for market should focus on complementing the traits of the cows and fine tuning calf performance (growth and carcass traits) to the market place. There is an abundance of research that describes the core competencies (biological type) of many of today s commonly used beef breeds. Traits are typically combined into groupings such as maternal/reproduction, growth and carcass. When selecting animals for a crossbreeding system, their breed should be your first consideration. What breeds you select for inclusion in your mating program will be dependant on a number of factors including the current breed composition of your cow herd, your forage and production environment, your replacement female development system, and your calf marketing endpoint. All of these factors help determine the relative importance of traits for each production phase. What are the keys to successful crossbreeding programs? Many of the challenges that have been associated with crossbreeding systems in the past are the result of undisciplined implementation of the system. With that in mind, one should be cautious to select a mating system that matches the amount of labor and expertise available to appropriately implement the system. Crossbreeding systems range in complexity from very simple programs such as the use of hybrid genetics, which are as easy as straight breeding, to elaborate rotational crossbreeding systems with four or more breed inputs. The biggest keys to success are the thoughtful construction of a plan and the sticking to it! Be sure to set attainable goals. Discipline is essential. Should you need more information or advice on the merits of various breeds, their usefulness in crossbreeding systems, or the planning and construction of effective mating programs, please contact your regional livestock specialist. You may also contact me directly at my office: S134A Animal Sciences Research Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. I can be reached by phone at 573-882-5479; email: WeaberR@missouri.edu. Literature cited: Cundiff, L. V., and K. E. Gregory. 1999. What is systematic crossbreeding? Paper presented at Cattlemen s College, 1999 Cattle Industry Annual Meeting and Trade Show, National Cattlemen s Beef Association. Charlotte, North Carolina, February 11, 1999. 13 Agronomy Reports 14 Nitrogen Fertilization Strategies for Annual Ryegrass Pasture Robert L. Kallenbach, Division of Plant Sciences and Matt D. Massie, Southwest Center University of Missouri Annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) has become a popular forage crop for winter grazing in southern Missouri. Although annual ryegrass has been popular for many years in the southeastern USA, acreage in Missouri has increased more than ten-fold over the past five years. New, cold-tolerant cultivars have extended the growing region of annual ryegrass to include much of Missouri. Annual ryegrass has several features that make it popular with livestock producers. When planted in late-summer, annual ryegrass can produce 1 to 2 tons of high-quality feed per acre before December and an additional 2 to 4 tons in the spring. Few other forage crops can produce this much forage for winter grazing. Annual ryegrass is able to achieve these yields in autumn because it continues to grow even after the first killing frost. Cold-tolerant cultivars can grow when average daily temperatures are below 40 F. In addition, the lack of true dormancy in annual ryegrass allows it to grow during warm spells in winter and to resume growth earlier in spring than many perennial cool-season grasses. In addition to its rapid autumn growth, the forage quality of annual ryegrass is outstanding. During vegetative growth, annual ryegrass has crude protein levels that exceed 20% and dry matter digestibility that approaches 75%. Because of its high quality, producers can successfully use annual ryegrass to feed both stocker cattle and lactating dairy cows. For example, stocker calf gains of 1.0 to 2.7 lb/day are common in the southern USA. However, we still have a lot to learn about the management of annual ryegrass for winter pasture in Missouri. There is little research about how to fertilize annual ryegrass that is grown outside the southern USA. Research from other regions suggests that annual ryegrass responds tremendously to nitrogen fertilizer, but proper fertilization rates and strategies for states outside the southern USA are not available. The overall objective is to determine the optimum rate and timing of nitrogen fertilizer for annual ryegrass in southern Missouri. Specific objectives are: Objective 1: Determine the optimum nitrogen rate at planting to maximize autumn growth of annual ryegrass for winter grazing. Objective 2: Determine if nitrogen applications in late-winter (1 March) are economical. Procedures: Treatments: This experiment has 16 treatments; four nitrogen rates at planting (0, 50, 100, and 150 lb/acre of nitrogen) followed by the either 0, 50, 100, or 150 lb/acre of nitrogen in late 15 winter. Each treatment is replicated four times. The table below describes the rate and date of nitrogen applications for treatments. Treatment Nitrogen at planting Nitrogen in Late winter ----------- lb /acre ----------1 0 0 2 0 50 3 0 100 4 0 150 5 50 0 6 50 50 7 50 100 8 50 150 9 100 0 10 100 50 11 100 100 12 100 150 13 150 0 14 150 50 15 150 100 16 150 150 We established the annual ryegrass into a conventionally tilled seedbed at the Southwest Research and Education Center in late August of 2002, 2003 and 2004 (Fig. 1). The seeding rate was 30 lb. per acre of pure live seed. After seeding, the autumn fertilizer treatments were applied. Fig. 1. Planting annual ryegrass at the Southwest Research and Education Center near Mt. Vernon, MO. The annual ryegrass was planted into a conventional seedbed in late August of 2002, 2003 and 2004. In 2002, the stand established well but dry weather conditions in autumn limited growth. Growth in the autumn of 2003 and 2004 was excellent. 16 Forage yield was measured when the average height in an individual treatment reached 10 to 12 inches. This is the recommended height to begin grazing annual ryegrass. Weekly measurements of canopy height were recorded to guide harvests. Once a treatment reached 10 to 12 inches in height, forage yield was determined by clipping two, 2.6 ft. x 15 ft. strips in each plot to a 3.5-inch stubble height. A lb sub-sample from each plot was dried at 122 F for at least 96 hours in a forced air oven to determine dry matter. After the samples were dried, the forage was ground to pass through a 0.04 inch (1 mm) screen and analyzed for forage quality using NIRS. Total soil nitrogen was measured to a 40-inch depth prior to applying fertilizer treatments each year and again after the annual ryegrass ended its spring growth in June. This was done to document how much nitrogen leached from each treatment. Samples were split into three depth classes (0-10, 10-20, and 20-40 inches) and then analyzed for NO3 content. Initial results showed that plots had equal levels of pre-experiment NO3. Results: Forage Yields Annual ryegrass typically produced about 1500 lb/acre of dry matter in autumn, although autumn yields ranged from zero in autumn 2002 to 2900 lb/acre in autumn 2003. Dry weather severely limited forage growth in autumn 2002, but rainfall was much greater in the autumn of 2003 and 2004. Typically, there was enough residual soil nitrogen in autumn to get annual ryegrass started and this nitrogen lasted for about 60 days if growth was good. Only when moisture is adequate would applying a modest amount of nitrogen fertilizer (50 lb/acre) be profitable for autumn growth alone. However, much of the unused nitrogen applied in autumn carries-over into spring. Annual ryegrass was ready for harvest again by late March most years and growth continued through early June. Spring yields were approximately four to five times higher than for autumn ranging from 4950 lb/acre to 7725 lb/acre. Annual ryegrass responded greatly to a spring nitrogen application; the greatest spring yields were from plots receiving 150 lb/acre of nitrogen in early March. However, rates this high are doubtful to be economic as plots receiving only 50 lb/acre of nitrogen in spring yielded only slightly less. Overall, season-long forage yields ranged from 6100 lb/acre with no nitrogen fertilizer to over 9000 lb/acre for the highest total nitrogen rates (Fig. 2). While the highest nitrogen rates provided the greatest season-long yields, our data show that 50 lb/acre of nitrogen in autumn followed by 50 lb/acre in early spring yielded over 8000 lb/acre of forage, produced an even distribution of yield, and gave the best economic response. 17 Fig. 2. Season-long (August to June) annual ryegrass yields in response to autumn and spring applied nitrogen at Mt. Vernon, MO. Data are averaged over three growing seasons (2002-2003, 2003-2004, and 2004-2005). Forage quality Forage quality samples show that annual ryegrass is excellent forage. Samples for the last three years show that annual ryegrass averages 24% crude protein and has acid detergent fiber values less than 22%. In short, few other forages can produce such excellent quality feed for winter and early spring grazing. Soil nitrate levels Samples collected in June 2003 and June 2004 showed that soil nitrate levels, 0 to 10 inches from the soil surface, were 4.5 ppm when 150 lb. per acre of nitrogen was applied in both autumn and spring, while the all the other treatments had 2.4 ppm of nitrate or less (Fig. 3). At deeper depths, (10 to 20 and 20 to 40 inches from the surface) soil nitrate levels were less than 1.5 ppm for all treatments. This shows that little nitrogen is lost due to leaching from annual ryegrass pastures at the rates of nitrogen we examined. The extensive root systems of wellmanaged grasslands inhibit the leaching of nitrogen and annual ryegrass is no exception. 18 Fig. 3. Soil nitrate levels June of 2004 when fertilized with 0, 50, 100, 150 lb/acre of nitrogen in autumn and 0, 50, 100, 150 lb/acre of nitrogen in early spring. Nitrate 0-10 in. Below Soil Surface Nitrate 10-20 in. Below Soil Surface 5 5 pm) 4 3 2 150 1 100 pm) Soil Nitrate (p 4 3 2 150 1 100 150 100 50 Sprin gNr ate (l b/acr e) 0 0 50 Soil Nitrate (p cr e) Fa Nitrate 20-40 in. Below Soil Surface 5 pm) Soil Nitrate (p 4 3 2 150 1 100 100 N rat e ( l b/ acre) 0 0 Fa ll N Sprin g 50 Ra te 150 50 (lb /a cr e) 19 Fa ll 0 N ll Sprin g N rat e (lb/ acre) 0 N 50 Ra te 100 Ra te 150 50 (lb /a cr e) ( lb /a Conclusions: Several nitrogen fertilization strategies were equally successful, but optimum use and efficiency were achieved with 50 lb/acre of nitrogen applied in autumn followed by an additional 50 lb/acre in early spring. Nitrogen leaching was highest when 150 lb/acre of nitrogen was applied in both autumn and spring, however leaching was minimal for all treatments. 20 Ozark Bermudagrass Interseeded with Cereal Rye Brandon Bruce, Department of Agriculture, Missouri State University, Springfield Robert Kallenbach, Division of Plant Sciences, and Matt. D. Massie, Southwest Center University of Missouri Introduction Pasture supplies about 85% of all feed units for beef cattle in Missouri. While pasture is typically the cheapest source of nutrients for beef cattle, availability is seasonally unreliable. One of the largest slumps in pasture supply occurs in mid-summer. Bermudagrass is a high-yielding warm-season forage that can increase forage supplies in mid-summer. New varieties like Ozark and Midland 99 have the potential to produce 5 to 8 tons/acre of forage annually and the winter hardiness to persist almost indefinitely in southwest Missouri. These new varieties are classified as upright types that can be grazed or hayed. Another advantage to upright types of bermudagrass is that they work well to interseeded a winter annual forage to extend the grazing season. Cereal rye is good in this situation because it provides adequate forage for winter grazing but completes its growth cycle before the bermudagrass begins its spring growth. Interseeding with a winter annual, such as cereal rye, allows for more efficiency as the same acre can be used for fall, winter and early spring grazing before the bermudagrass begins its summer growth. One potential issue with interseeding cereal rye into established bermudagrass is competition from the bermudagrass after the cereal rye has been sown. We hypothesized that spraying a herbicide prior to planting the cereal rye would reduce competition from the bermudagrass, improve cereal rye forage yields, but not reduce bermudagrass yields the following year. This type of system has not been tested in Missouri. Methods An established stand of Ozark bermudagrass was cut to a three-inch stubble in midSeptember of 2004. After mowing, WinterGrazer 70 cereal rye was no-till seeded into the bermudagrass sod in three different treatments. The three treatments were cereal rye interseeded into bermudagrass with 1) no herbicide application, 2) sprayed with 13 oz. of Gramoxone Max herbicide with non-ionic surfactant prior to seeding and 3) cereal rye interseeded after spraying 8 oz. of Select herbicide with crop oil prior to seeding. An unseeded control was also included. On September 30, 2004 and February 28, 2005 cereal rye plots were fertilized with 5015-50. All plots were sprayed with 1 qt. of Grazon P+D including a non ionic surfactant for broadleaf weed control April 27, 2005. As the bermudagrass started to green-up in mid-April, 21 soil samples were collected to determine the phosphorus and potassium levels in the plots where cereal rye was seeded compared to the unseeded control. All plots were fertilized in mid-May with a 75-25-250 blend and a 75-25-75 blend every month through August. The height of the cereal rye and bermudagrass was measured weekly. Plots were harvested to a 3-inch stubble height each time forage reached 8-10 inches. A 2.6 x 25 ft. strip within each plot was harvested using a flail type mower. Prior to planting the cereal rye, and after the cereal rye death, the stand density of the bermudagrass was visually rated on a scale from 0 to 100 with 0 being completely devoid of bermudagrass and 100 being a solid stand. The experimental design is a randomized complete block with five replications. Results Across all treatments the cereal rye with no herbicide yielded the most forage in the fall, averaging 1220 lb/acre. Fall yields for plots treated with Gramoxone Max averaged 960 lb/acre while plots treated with Select averaged 460 lb/acre. In the spring of 2005, yields averaged approximately 3000 lb/acre for all treatments. Cereal rye yields for the fall and spring combined was highest for the no herbicide and Gramoxone Max treatments at more than 4000 lb/acre (Fig. 1). Plots sprayed with Select yielded about 10% less. Bermudagrass yields up to August 1, 2005 showed that the unseeded control and cereal rye with no herbicide yielded the most, averaging approximately 7,600 lb/acre (Fig. 2). Plots sprayed with Gramoxone Max the previous fall averaged 7,100 lb/acre while those sprayed with Select averaged 6,600 lb/acre. Conclusion This preliminary data suggest that spraying a herbicide does not increase cereal rye yields, and in the case of Select, may reduce subsequent production from the bermudagrass. Interseeding cereal rye into a bermudagrass sod does not appear to lower bermudagrass yields the following year. Thus, interseeding cereal rye into bermudagrass could provide a greater number of grazing days per acre which should increase grazing system efficiency. 22 Figure 1: Cereal rye yields from September 2004 through May 2005 at the Southwest Research and Education Center near Mt. Vernon, MO. Treatments were cereal rye interseeded into a bermudagrass sod with 1) no herbicide application, 2) sprayed with 13 oz. of Gramoxone Max herbicide with non-ionic surfactant just prior to seeding and 3) cereal rye interseeded after spraying 8 oz. of Select herbicide with crop oil just prior to seeding. 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 Yield (lb/acre) 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Rye (No herbicide) Select+Rye Gramoxone+Rye 23 Figure 2: Bermudagrass yields from May through 1 August 2005 at the Southwest Research and Education Center near Mt. Vernon, MO. Treatments were cereal rye interseeded into a bermudagrass sod with 1) no herbicide application, 2) sprayed with 13 oz. of Gramoxone Max herbicide with non-ionic surfactant just prior to seeding and 3) cereal rye interseeded after spraying 8 oz. of Select herbicide with crop oil just prior to seeding. An unseeded control was also included. 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 Yield (lb/acre) 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 Rye (No herbicide) Select+Rye Gramoxone+Rye 24 Finding Alternatives to Ammonium Nitrate as a Nitrogen Source for Tall Fescue Pastures Robert L. Kallenbach, Division of Plant Sciences and Matt D. Massie, Southwest Center University of Missouri Tall fescue grows on more than 12 million acres and provides forage for more than 4 million beef cattle in Missouri. About one-half of all tall fescue acres receive some nitrogen fertilizer in spring. Most of these applications are made in March or early April. Another time in which tall fescue acres are fertilized with nitrogen is in late-summer for stockpiling. Stockpiling tall fescue allows producers to extend the grazing season into winter and thereby cut winter feeding costs up to 70 percent. In past years, ammonium nitrate and urea have been the most popular sources of N for spring and late-summer fertilization. Ammonium nitrate is widely considered the safest source of N for forage production, particularly for late-summer applications, as the N in ammonium nitrate is much less likely to be lost to volatilization than is urea. However, ammonium nitrate has become a homeland security issue for the fertilizer industry because it can be used as an explosive. Additionally, few new ammonium nitrate plants have been constructed in the United States over the last 20 years, and given the current economic and security climate, domestic production is likely to decline over the next 10 to 20 years. These factors make ammonium nitrate more expensive than other N sources. Given the pricing structure and potential problems with ammonium nitrate, urea is quickly becoming the most widely used N source for forage production. This is due to urea s wider availability and lower cost per N unit when compared to ammonium nitrate. In fact, in many rural parts of Missouri the only source of N available for pastures is urea. While urea is a common source of N fertilizer for spring applications, its use for fertilization of pastures is problematic due to excessive nitrogen volatilization. Up to 40% of the N applied to pastures as urea can be lost due to volatilization if rainfall does not occur within 48 hours of an application. Given these problems, farmers are looking for a reliable and inexpensive source of N for pastures. Some old and new technologies might help alleviate these problems. The most promising solutions are to use a non-volatilizing N source such as ammonium sulfate or to treat urea fertilizer with a volatilization inhibitor. Ammonium sulfate is a sulfur rich (24% S), cost competitive, non-volatilizing source of nitrogen. In addition, several companies have developed products reported to reduce or eliminate volatilization of urea under field conditions. While the technology behind these urea stabilization products varies, there has been little head-to-head testing under typical field conditions. Technologies that allow safe application of urea would alleviate concerns from farmers and the fertilizer industry, but research is needed to determine which of these products would be most useful for fertilizing pastures in Missouri. 25 The overall objective is to develop research-based recommendations that help industry personnel and farmers determine the best alternative to ammonium nitrate fertilizer for tall fescue pastures. Specific objectives are: Objective 1: Compare ammonium nitrate to ammonium sulfate, urea, coated urea products, and mixtures of ammonium sulfate with urea and ammonium sulfate with ESN polymer coated urea as a source of nitrogen for tall fescue. Objective 2: Determine the optimum rate and use efficiency for each source of N tested. Procedures: Treatments: Established tall fescue was fertilized with 75 lb/acre of N on 18 March, 2005. The sources of N are listed in Table 1 and include several urea based products already on the market, mixtures of some of these products, as well as untreated urea, ammonium sulfate, and ammonium nitrate as checks. The 75 lb/acre N rate was selected because it is a common fertilization rate for producers. Soil P and K levels are maintained at levels recommended by the University of Missouri Soil Testing Laboratory. Table 1. Nitrogen fertilization treatments being tested at the Southwest Research and Education Center. Each source is applied to deliver 75 lb/acre N. In addition, rate mixtures of ammonium sulfate/ESN, ammonium sulfate/urea and urea/ammonium sulfate/ESN are included. Treatment # Fertilizer Source For mixture treatments Rate applied % N derived from (lb/acre of S) ESN and/or Urea Urea Urea treated with Agrotain ESN polymer coated Urea - Agrium Urea with Starch Coating - UIC NITAMIN from Georgia Pacific Ammonium nitrate Ammonium sulfate Ammonium sulfate/ESN mixture 10 88 Ammonium sulfate/ESN mixture 20 75 Ammonium sulfate/ESN mixture 40 53 Ammonium sulfate/Urea mixture 10 88 Ammonium sulfate/Urea mixture 20 75 Ammonium sulfate/Urea mixture 40 53 Equal amounts of N from Urea, 28.6 67 Ammonium sulfate and ESN Unfertilized Control - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 26 Design: Each treatment in both experiments is replicated five times in a randomized complete block design. Individual plots are 10 ft. x 35 ft. Measurements: Forage yield will be measured in late May, late July and early October over a three year period. At this time, only the data for the first spring harvest is available. Forage yield was determined by clipping a 4-ft. x 25-ft. strip in each plot using a Hege sickle bar harvester. Forage quality {crude protein, acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and indigestible NDF (iNDF)} will be measured from samples taken at each forage harvest. Samples will be dried at 122 F in a forced-air oven before being ground to pass a 1-mm screen. Crude protein, ADF, NDF, and iNDF will be measured using near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. None of this data is available at present, but will be included in future reports. Preliminary Results: While we only have data from one harvest, ammonium sulfate, urea treated with Agrotain, urea with a starch coating, ammonium nitrate, and one of the mixtures of ammonium sulfate/urea produced the greatest yields in May of 2005 (Table 2). Perhaps most surprising from this data is the excellent performance of the ammonium sulfate. Conventional thinking is that we do not get a response to fertilizing tall fescue with sulfur in Missouri. Although this data is preliminary, initially it looks like ammonium sulfate provided a boost in forage yield compared to untreated urea, ESN polymer coated Urea, NITAMIN, several of the mixtures and the unfertilized control. Urea treated with Agrotain and urea with the starch coating, also performed well in our tests, but did not produce significantly more forage than untreated urea. The ESN polymer coated urea by itself or when mixed with ammonium sulfate at low rates yielded less than many treatments. This is not surprising as ESN is a slow-release product that provides N throughout the season. As we continue the study, the ESN product may produce more forage later in summer as it releases its nitrogen. For cattle producers looking for season-long growth this may be of some advantage, although we lack the data to demonstrate this at present. 27 Table 2. Yield from the 26 May 2005 harvest of tall fescue pastures fertilized with different nitrogen sources. Nitrogen was applied at 75 lb/acre for each fertilizer source. For mixture treatments Rate % N derived applied (lb/acre of from ESN and/or Urea S) Ammonium sulfate Urea treated with Agrotain Urea with starch coating Ammonium nitrate Ammonium sulfate/Urea mixture 10 88 Ammonium sulfate/Urea mixture 40 53 Urea Ammonium sulfate/ESN mixture 40 53 Ammonium sulfate/Urea mixture 20 75 NITAMIN Equal N from Urea, Ammonium sulfate and ESN 28.6 67 ESN polymer coated Urea Ammonium sulfate/ESN mixture 10 88 Ammonium sulfate/ESN mixture 20 75 Unfertilized Control LSD (0.05) Fertilizer Source Spring Forage Yield (lb/acre) 8834 8300 8142 8081 7926 7810 7780 7612 7574 7368 7323 7134 7043 6675 4232 944 28 Horticulture Reports 29 Rotating Late-spring-forced Asparagus with Normal Spring Harvest in Missouri Andrew L. Thomas1, Lewis W. Jett2, and Mark R. Ellersieck3 3 Southwest Center, 2 Division of Plant Sciences (Dept. of Horticulture), Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station University of Missouri, Columbia 1 Abstract. Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) is typically harvested for six to eight weeks in spring, but a variety of cultural techniques can be used to extend harvest beyond this window. Ferns from plants that are forced beyond the normal harvest season are allowed to grow normally in spring, then are mowed later in the season, resulting in a flush of new harvestable spears. Forcing plants out of season year after year, however, does not appear to be sustainable in the Midwest USA because plants do not have adequate time to recover from the sudden removal of photosynthetic tissues at that time. An experiment was conducted in southwest Missouri to determine if rotating late-spring-forced asparagus harvests with normal spring harvests would allow asparagus plants the ability to recover their vigor over time, thereby establishing a viable, sustainable system for extended asparagus harvest in the region. Eight separate three-year harvest rotations were established. Plants that were repeatedly late-spring-forced became weak, produced little marketable yield, or succumbed, while yield from normal spring harvests increased each year. The inclusion of even one late-spring-forced harvest within the three-year rotation was harmful to the subsequent yield and apparent long-term vigor of those plants, and they did not satisfactorily recover within the rotation. Asparagus harvest in the Midwest USA lasts for approximately six to eight weeks in spring (April-May), after which no locally-produced spears are available. Extending the harvest season may give producers the opportunity to market fresh, locally-grown spears for higher prices when there is little competition. Forcing is one of several techniques that can be used to extend asparagus harvest. To force asparagus out of season, emerging spears and ferns in spring are allowed to grow, then are mowed later in the season. Within a few days, if plants are vigorous, a flush of good-quality spears will emerge that can often be harvested for two to three weeks before plants begin to weaken and spear size becomes unmarketable. Most recent North American research on off-season forcing of asparagus has been conducted by Dufault (1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999) in the subtropical climate of Coastal South Carolina. In this climate, Dufault (1994) observed that normal spring harvest, as well as May and June forcing of the cultivar UC157 was detrimental to asparagus plants long-term viability, while forcing in July and August was productive and sustainable. He concluded that cutting of ferns in May or June removes photosynthetic tissues at a time when carbohydrate reserves in the crown are low following spring emergence, causing additional demand and stress on the crown. Shelton and Lacy (1980) noted that three months are required to restore carbohydrate levels in the asparagus crown, whereas Hung (1980) reported that at five months of age, asparagus ferns become photosynthetically unproductive. Dufault (1995), therefore, 30 suggests that, with a long growing season such as Coastal South Carolina s, if spring ferns are left in place all season long, the plants may begin consuming stored carbohydrates. A July or August forcing, in this climate, replenishes efficient ferns, thereby permitting sufficient production of carbohydrates to the crown in both spring and fall. This would not be feasible in the Midwest, where the growing season is significantly shorter. Limited asparagus forcing studies have been conducted in more temperate climates. Brasher (1956) studied spring, summer, and fall cutting of asparagus in Delaware, where summer forcing proved to be unsustainable, and fall (early October) forcing was acceptable but yielded significantly less than normal spring harvest. Jasmin and Laliberte (1962) evaluated fall cutting of asparagus in southwestern Quebec. In this 3-yr study, asparagus ferns from an established planting were mowed in August with a small harvest taken thereafter. This practice severely weakened or killed the plants leading them to conclude that summer forcing was not suitable to their climate and soils. Dufault (1991, 1995) concludes that summer forcing of asparagus will likely be successful only in regions with long growing seasons in the southern latitudes of North America. The comparatively short growing season in the Midwest USA may not allow enough time for crowns to recover adequate carbohydrate levels for a continuous annual summer forcing. This would be the case if summer forcing were conducted each year, but what if forcing were done in combination with normal spring harvest? We found no reports examining strategies or techniques to make off-season forcing of asparagus practical in temperate areas of North America. The objective of this study, therefore, was to determine if off-season forcing could be integrated (rotated) with normal spring harvest in order to produce a continuous asparagus harvest from April through June (approximately 11 weeks) in this region. Understanding that a late-spring-forced harvest would likely be stressful on those plants, we wanted to determine if there was an optimal combination of rotated spring / late-spring harvests that would allow sufficient carbohydrate recovery to crowns over the long term and maximize yield. Materials and Methods This experiment was conducted from 1999-2004 at the University of Missouri s Southwest Research Center near Mt. Vernon, MO (37 4 lat, 93 53 long, and 378 m alt). The soil was a Creldon silt loam (fine, mixed, mesic Mollic Fragiudalfs) that is level, moderately well-drained, and with a fragipan at 46 to 91 cm. The research site was moldboard plowed, limed (pH goal 7.0), fertilized (400 kg/ha 12-24-24 NPK), and disked. Additional P (56 kg/ha) was banded in-furrow post planting. Uniform one-year-old asparagus crowns (cv. Jersey Knight ) were planted 20 Apr. 1999 in 10-cm-deep furrows, 38 cm apart within rows spaced 1.5 m apart (1719 plants/ha). Plants were fertilized annually in late spring by side dressing NH4NO3 (84 kg/ha) along the rows. Standard cultural practices for asparagus crop management, and weed and pest control were used (Egel et al., 2005). Overhead irrigation was provided as needed to deliver 25 mm of water per week. Experimental plots consisted of three parallel 4.6-m rows with 12 plants per row. Data were collected from the middle row, with the two exterior rows serving as guard rows. The 56 31 experimental plots were completely randomized across the plantation and included eight treatments with seven replications each. The eight treatments were a factorial combination of spring and late-spring harvests rotated over three years: 1. spring, spring, spring (SSS); 2. spring, spring, late-spring (SSL); 3. spring, late-spring, spring (SLS); 4. spring, late-spring, late-spring (SLL); 5. late-spring, late-spring, late-spring (LLL); 6. late-spring, late-spring, spring (LLS); 7. late-spring, spring, late-spring (LSL); and 8. late-spring, spring, spring (LSS). Plots were harvested 2001 through 2004. Specific spring and late-spring harvest dates for each year, as well as mowing dates, are detailed in Table 1. Spring-harvest plots were harvested normally as spears emerged in spring. Plants in late-spring harvest plots were allowed to emerge and produce ferns in spring, then were cut down with a heavy-duty rotary mower in late May/early June (Table 1), after which the forced spears were harvested. Spears were handharvested every two days by snapping the spear, then counted, weighed, and evaluated for quality. Harvesting of both spring and late-spring-forced plots ceased when spear diameter began to decrease below 0.8 cm, and plots began to show signs of weakness. All data were subjected to ANOVA using the SAS GLM Procedure (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) and Fisher s LSD Test. Table 1. Dates of spring and late-spring-forced asparagus harvests, and mowing dates from 2001-2004 at Southwest Center, Mt. Vernon, MO. Year Spring harvest Mowing May 31 June 4 May 23 May 25 Late-spring harvest June 5 - June 15 June 10 - June 20 June 2 - June 20 June 1 - June 18 2001 Apr 13 - May 9 2002 Apr 17 - Apr 29 2003 Apr 15 - May 19 2004 Apr 12 - May 26 Results and Discussion Early into the experiment, some of the challenges of late-spring forcing of asparagus in this climate became evident. The quality and size of spears harvested in that manner were generally very good, but nevertheless inferior to normal spring-harvested spears (Tables 2, 3). We were only able to harvest 10 to 18 days after forcing before plants began to show signs of stress and spear quality deteriorated. Total yield per area from these plots, therefore, was substantially less than from normal spring harvest plots where harvest persisted much longer. Weed competition was also a serious concern with the late-spring-harvested plants. When ferns were mowed during this period of warm, moist, late-spring weather, weeds quickly took advantage of the sudden full-sun opening that was created, and aggressive control measures were required. Tables 2 and 3 present yields, mean spear weights, and quality (Table 3 only) from the third (2003) and fourth (2004) years, respectively, of the 3-yr rotations. Data in both tables are sorted according to spring or late-spring harvests that year. Clearly, late-spring harvests are better following spring harvest (rotations SSL, LSL), while a continuous late-spring harvest (LLL) is not sustainable in this climate. Late-spring-forced plants suffered a setback in vigor that 32 persisted the remainder of that growing season and into the following spring, as shown by the subsequent spring harvests (LSS, SLS). Such late-spring-forced plants rotated to normal spring harvest recovered some vigor each year (as suggested by steadily-increasing yields); however, yields from plants that sustained only a single late-spring harvest within the four-year study (SLS) still did not recover their full vigor, with yields remaining below half that of regular spring-harvested plants (SSS). Cumulative yields over one complete three-year rotation (2001-2003) and through the first year of the second three-year rotation (2001-2004) are presented in Table 4. Plots with only a single late-spring forcing yielded more overall than plots with multiple late-spring harvests. Over several years, this cumulative difference is certainly partially due to the short harvest duration of late-spring harvests, but also likely an artifact of the general weakening and death of plants in the forced plots. This is further underscored by an evaluation of plant survival after four years of treatments (Table 5). Long-term plant survival tended to follow similar patterns with the best survival among normal spring-harvested plants and those plants forced only once, whereas multiple forcings killed roughly half the plants in those plots over time. These results provide an indication as to how far asparagus plants can be stressed by forcing off-season harvests in the Midwest USA. Healthy plants can sustain a late-spring forcing, produce a reasonable marketable yield, and maintain good potential for full vigor recovery if such plants are forced only once in several years. We hypothesize that if no harvest at all is taken the year following a late-spring-forced harvest, and if an aggressive weed control and fertilizer program is followed, plants would likely recover a majority of their vigor by the following year. The feasibility and economics of such an agricultural scheme would need to be carefully evaluated by producers, and merit additional study. 33 Table 2. 2003 mean asparagus yields from rotated extended-harvest plots at Southwest Center, Mt. Vernon, MO (third year of first 3-year rotation). Rotation Treatment Spring Harvest 1 SSS y 3 SLS 6 LLS 8 LSS 1609 a 68 c 94 c 559 b x Total Yield (kg/ha) z Total Number Spears/ha z Mean wt/spear (g) 150,652 a 11,477 cd 15,783 cd 66,000 b 10.6 a 6.7 b 6.4 b 9.0 a Late-spring-forced Harvest 2 SSL 4 SLL 5 LLL 7 LSL z y 501 b 17 c 27 c 208 c 84,652 b 5,739 d 10,044 cd 32,999 c 6.0 b 4.0 c 2.7 c 6.1 b Figures extrapolated from plot size of 7.0 m2. Rotation treatments are sorted by this year s (2003) spring or late-spring-forced harvests for comparison. Bolded letters indicate which harvest treatment was applied in this third year of the rotation (S = normal spring harvest; L = late-spring-forced harvest). x Means within entire columns, and within sub-columns, followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher s LSD test (P #0.05). 34 Table 3. 2004 mean asparagus yields and quality from rotated extended-harvest plots at Southwest Center, Mt. Vernon, MO (first year of second 3-year rotation). Rotation Treatment Spring Harvest 1 SSS x 2 SSL 3 SLS 4 SLL 1733 a 316 cd 577 b 78 d w Total Yield (kg/ha) z Total Number Spears/ha z Mean wt/spear (g) Mean Quality y 157,826 a 45,914 bcd 66,000 b 12,913 e 11.4 a 7.2 b 8.5 b 5.3 cd 2.2 a 2.6 ab 2.5 ab 3.5 c Late-spring-forced Harvest 5 LLL 6 LLS 7 LSL 8 LSS z y 87 d 198 cd 140 cd 377 bc 18,651 de 35,870 cde 28,696 cde 57,391 bc 5.0 d 5.0 d 5.0 d 7.0 bc 4.0 d 3.5 c 3.5 c 2.9 b Figures extrapolated from plot size of 7.0 m2. Quality rating: 1 = excellent, ..., 5 = poor and unmarketable. x Rotation treatments are sorted by this year s (2004) spring or late-spring-forced harvests for comparison. Bolded letters indicate which harvest treatment was applied in this first year of the second 3-year rotation (S = normal spring harvest; L = late-spring-forced harvest). w Means within entire columns, and within sub-columns, followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher s LSD test (P #0.05). 35 Table 4. Mean cumulative asparagus yields after third (2003) and fourth (2004) rotated harvest at Southwest Center, Mt. Vernon, MO. 2001-2003 Rotation Treatment 1 SSS 2 SSL 3 SLS 4 SLL 5 LLL 6 LLS 7 LSL 8 LSS z y 2001-2003 Cumulative Yield (kg/ha) z 2,621 a 1,713 b 990 c 686 c 473 c 641 c 590 c 970 c 2001-2004 Rotation Treatment 1 SSS-S 2 SSL-S 3 SLS-S 4 SLL-S 5 LLL-L 6 LLS-L 7 LSL-L 8 LSS-L 2001-2004 Cumulative Yield (kg/ha) z 4,346 a 2,027 b 1,564 bc 764 de 560 e 839 de 730 de 1,346 cd Figures extrapolated from plot size of 7.0 m2. Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher s LSD test (P #0.05). Table 5. Mean number of surviving asparagus plants after fourth rotated harvest at Southwest Center, Mt. Vernon, MO, Fall, 2004. Rotation Treatment 1 SSS 2 SSL 3 SLS 4 SLL 5 LLL 6 LLS 7 LSL 8 LSS z y Final Stand Count z 10.0 a y 10.6 a 9.9 a 7.9 ab 6.1 b 6.7 b 5.9 b 5.4 b Percent Survival 83% 88 83 66 51 56 49 45 Mean number of the 12 original plants per plot that survived beyond fourth harvest. Means within the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Fisher s LSD test (P #0.05). 36 Literature Cited Brasher, E.P. 1956. Effects of spring, summer, and fall cuttings of asparagus on yield and spear weight. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 67:377-383. Dufault, Robert J. 1990. Production potential of summer- and fall-harvested asparagus. Acta Hort. 271:215-222. Dufault, Robert J. 1991. Response of spring and summer-forced harvested asparagus to harvest pressures. HortScience 26:845-847. Dufault, Robert J. 1994. Impact of forcing summer asparagus in Coastal South Carolina on yield, quality, and recovery from harvest pressure. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 119:396-402. Dufault, Robert J. 1995. Harvest pressures affect forced summer asparagus yield in coastal South Carolina. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 120:14-20. Dufault, Robert J. 1996. Forcing summer asparagus in South Carolina, USA. Proc. VIII Int. Symp. on Asparagus: Acta Hort. 415:175-182. Dufault, Robert F. 1999. Mother stalk culture does not improve plant survival or yield of spring and summer-forced asparagus in South Carolina. HortScience 34:225-228. Egel, D., F. Lam, E. Maynard, R. Weinzierl, M. Babadoost, H. Tabor, B. Hutchison, and L. Jett (eds.). 2005. Midwest Vegetable Production Guide for Commercial Growers 2005. Univ. of Missouri Ext. Pub. MX384. Columbia, MO. Hung L. 1980. Special aspect of asparagus growing in Taiwan. Chinese Soc. Hort. Sci. 26:1-10. Jasmin, J.J. and J. Laliberte. 1962. Note on fall cutting of asparagus on organic soils in southwestern Quebec. Canadian J. Plant Sci. 42:737-738. Shelton, D.R. and M.L. Lacy. 1980. Effect of harvest duration on yield and depletion of storage carbohydrate in asparagus roots. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 105:332-335. 37 Genotype by Environment Interaction in Elderberry (Sambucus sp.) Cultivars and Selections Grown in Oregon and Missouri Chad Finn, USDA-ARS, Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR Andrew Thomas, University of Missouri, Southwest Center Patrick Byers, Missouri State University, State Fruit Expt. Station, Mountain Grove The purpose of this study is to determine whether the best performing elderberry (Sambucus sp.) cultivars and selections identified in a collaborative program in Missouri will also be the best performers in the Pacific Northwest. Funding was received from the USDA Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research in 2003 ($16,150) and 2004 ($17,765) for this project. The University of Missouri Southwest Center (Mt. Vernon) and Missouri the State University Fruit Experiment Station (Mountain Grove) have been working collaboratively for a number of years on elderberry. Their goal has been to assemble a large collection of cultivars and selections to identify those best adapted to commercial production in their climate. While the Pacific Northwest elderberry industry is small, it is the largest in the western hemisphere. Very little is known about this industry in the Pacific Northwest, because the growers primarily supply a few companies that guard information on production and yields as proprietary information. The USDA-ARS small fruit breeding program is not intending to start breeding elderberry, but they would like to evaluate the cultivars that are commercially available and selections that are available to identify those cultivars that would be best for commercial production in the Pacific Northwest. Ideally, the Missouri programs could continue to identify and develop cultivars that could be grown in the Pacific Northwest. The forty-eight elderberry genotypes, primarily Sambucus canadensis L. (North American elderberry) but four S. nigra L. (European elderberry) as well, are established. The sites represent the Midwest (Mt. Vernon and Mountain Grove, Missouri) and Pacific Northwest (Corvallis, Oregon) environments. The genotypes are either in a replicated trial with three replications or in a single observation plot. While the genotypes included in replicated trials at each location are not identical, several of the standard cultivars are replicated in each trial. The cultivars included at each location: Adams II, Johns, Gordon B and Netzer. The remaining genotypes evaluated were primarily selected in Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska. The project has gone well. In 2004 and 2005, the plants were evaluated for flowering and ripening dates. Fruit were harvested in 2004 and are being harvested in 2005 for yield traits and a subsample frozen for fruit chemistry evaluations. Table 1 presents a subset of the analysis of the 1st year data. For nearly all traits, there were differences among locations, genotypes and there were genotype x environment interactions. This would suggest that genotypes do need to be evaluated in both regions and that 38 what is true for Missouri may not be true for Oregon. Overall, Gordon B had greater yield and number of panicles than Netzer or Johns but was similar to Adams 2 . In the first year, Mountain Grove had by far the highest yield while Corvallis was comparable to Mt. Vernon. We expect that when the 2005 data from more mature plants are evaluated that some of these anomalies may be cleared up. 39 Table 1. Analyses of variance and means for 7 traits evaluated at multiple locations in Missouri (Mtn. Grove, Mt. Vernon) and Oregon (Corvallis) for four elderberry genotypes in 2004. Yield First flower p-values Rep Location/environment Rep*Environment Genotype Genotype x Environment Meansz Mountain Grove Corvallis Mt. Vernon Gordon B Adams 2 Netzer Johns z Mean separation by Duncan's p<0.05. 0.235 0.001 0.112 0.001 0.001 Full flower 0.130 0.001 0.287 0.001 0.045 First ripe 0.068 0.001 0.764 0.001 0.086 No. harvests 0.062 0.213 0.099 0.001 0.003 (g/plt) 0.192 0.001 0.187 0.001 0.033 No. panicles 0.506 0.001 0.106 0.001 0.001 Panicle weight (g/panicle) 0.095 0.001 0.692 0.059 0.009 149.1 b 159.8 b 169.6 a 180.5 a 151.1 150.8 170.6 162.9 c c a b 165.6 164.3 178.3 170.3 b b a ab 199.7 b 219.8 a 202.3 204.5 215.9 213.1 b b a a 3.8 a 4.2 a 4.6 4.8 2.9 3.8 a a b ab 9090 a 2582 b 1917 b 7363 5203 3244 3045 a ab b b 58.3 b 100.4 a 50.0 b 117.9 75.8 34.8 44.2 a ab b b 66.60 a 24.77 c 44.11 b 46.67 40.60 42.46 57.58 b b b a 40 Black Root and Crown Rot of Black Cohosh (Actaea racemosa) is Associated to Phytophthora and Pythium Species Z. Gloria Abad1,2, Jorge A. Abad2, and Andrew L. Thomas3 1 Plant Pathogen Identification Laboratory and 2 Department of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 3 Southwest Center, University of Missouri INTRODUCTION Black cohosh [Actea racemosa L., formerly Cimicifuga racemosa (L.) Nutt], a perennial herb in the Ranunculaceae family (Fig.1), is a native medicinal plant used historically to treat a variety of human ailments (Tyler, 1993). It is an herbaceous perennial plant found in rich woodlands in the midwestern and eastern United States (Maine to Georgia, west to Missouri, Indiana, and Ontario). Black cohosh has become a very popular and costly medicinal herb in recent years, with consumer demand that is increasing in North America and Europe. The herb is commonly used by North American women to replace or supplement estrogen treatments in hormone replacement therapy. The root has been clinically successful at treating menopausal hot flashes and is therefore in great and growing demand. A number of phytochemical compounds from black cohosh are of medicinal interest, including actein, deoxyactein, acetyl-acteol, cimicifugoside, cimicifugin, cimicigenol, and caffeic acid. The high demand for this plant is leading to serious over-harvesting from the wild and presents an opportunity for potentially profitable cultivation. The large fleshy rhizomes appear to be especially sensitive to heavy soil, and prone to the attack of soil born plant pathogens if drainage is not adequate. In an established black cohosh nursery crop at Shaw Nature Reserve, Gray Summit, Missouri established during fall 2001, symptoms of severe black root and crown rot were observed (Fig. 2). A high percentage of the established plants over the first winter perished due to the disease. The nature of the plant pathogen associated to the disease was unknown. The present study was established with the objective to determine the causal agent(s) associated to the black root and crown rot of black cohosh. MATERIAL AND METHODS Morphological Characterization: Isolates were obtained from symptomatic roots, crowns, and stems of black cohosh that were plated onto P10ARP CMA selective media (Kannwischer and Mitchell, 1978), and P10VPH CMA for the isolation of Phytophthora species. For the isolation of Pythium species, selective media A and B (Eckert and Tsao, 1962), modified by the Plant Disease and Insect Clinic-NCSU (Creswell, personal communication) was used, as was alkaline water agar for the 41 isolation of Fusarium, Rhizoctonia and other related fungi (Gutierrez et al., 1994). For the production of the anamorph (sporangia) and teleomorph (oogonia, antheridia, and oospores) stages, isolates were grown during 3-4 days in CMA. Small plugs were transferred from the border of the colonies into grass-leaf water blank cultures (Van der Plaats, 1981; Abad et al., 1994; 1995). Molecular Characterization: Isolates were grown in PDA 30 for 7 days. Mycelia was removed and ground in microcentrifuge tubes with liquid nitrogen. Total DNA from mycelia was extracted with a Gentra-Puregene DNA isolation Kit (Minneapolis, MN) according to the manufacturer s protocols. Primers ITS 5-ITS 4 from the internal transcribed spacer region of ribosomal DNA (rDNA) were used to amplify the ITS region (White et al., 1990) by PCR. Amplicons were cleaned with Qiagen purification kit (Valencia, CA). Sequences were obtained from the amplicons by direct sequencing using the BigDye terminator cycle sequencing kit (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Sequencing reactions were run in an ABI 3700 automated sequencer at the Genome Research Laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. Amplified PCR products were sequenced in both orientations and assembled with the program Vector NTI (Invitrogen Corp., Carlsbad, CA). Sequences of each isolate were then aligned and compared with those of 100 other Pythium species from GenBank, and with other putative new species under study at the PPIL (data not shown). Sequence alignments were performed using CLUSTAL X (Thompson, et al., 1997) and Bioedit (Hall,1999) with default parameters. Phylogenetic trees were obtained from the data by the Neighbor-joining method. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Very little is known of the diseases affecting black cohosh, and publications on this matter are very scarce. Leaf spots caused by Ascochyta actaeae and Ectostroma applatum have been reported in Virginia, Connecticut, and New York (Farr et al., 1989). Root rot caused by Armillaria mellea was reported in United Kingdom after artificial inoculations (Robinson-Bax and Fox, 2002). Leaf spot caused by Alternaria sp., and damping off caused by Rhizoctonia solani were reported in Canada after artificial inoculations (Reeleder, 2003). After morphological and molecular characterization, three Phytophthora species including P. citricola, P. megasperma, and P. kelmania (FIG. 3) were identified affecting black cohosh. P. kelmania is a new species under characterization at the PPIL (Abad et al., 2002). These species were isolated consistently from affected roots, crowns, and stems in all samples submitted to the PPIL. P. megasperma was the most predominant species followed by P. citricola and P. kelmania. A number of Pythium species including Pythium dissotocum, P. irregulare, P. sylvaticum, P .ultimum, P .vexans, and P. chamaehiphon have also been isolated in a lower frequency and are apparently associated with the disease. Fusarium spp. and Rhizoctonia solani were occasionally isolated. It seems that Phytophthora species play a major role in the root and crown rot disease of black cohosh. Some moderately pathogenic Pythium including P. dissotocum, P. irregulare, P. 42 sylvaticum, P. ultimum, and P. vexans may be part of the disease complex. Preliminary results of the Koch postulate using crowns and roots of black cohosh show P. megasperma as the most pathogenic species, followed by P. citricola and P. kelmania. We propose the name "Black Root and Crown Rot of Black Cohosh" for this new disease. LITERATURE REVIEW Abad, Z.G. et al. 1994. Characterization and pathogenicity of Pythium species isolated from turfgrass with symptoms of root and crown rot in North Carolina. Phytopathology 84: 913-921. Abad, Z.G. et al. 2002. Advances in the integration of morphological and molecular characterization in Phytophthora genus: The case P. kelmania and other putative new species. Phytopathology 92:S1. Eckert, J.W. and P.H. Tsao. 1962. A selective antibiotic medium for isolation of Phytophthora and Pythium from plant roots. Phytopathology 52: 771. Farr, et al. 1989. Fungi of Plants and Plant Products in the United States. APS Press. St. Paul, MN. Gutierrez, W.A., H.D. Shew, and T.A. Melton. 1997. Sources of inoculum and management for Rhizoctonia solani damping-off on tobacco transplants under greenhouse conditions. Plant Dis 81:604-606. Hall, T.A.1999. BioEdit: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucl. Acids. Symp. Ser. 41:95-98. Page, R. D., 1996. TreeView: an application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comput. Appl. Biosci 12:357-358. Reeleder, R.D. 2003. The ginseng root pathogens Cylindrocarpon destructans and Phytophthora cactorum are not pathogenic to the medicinal herbs Hydrastis canadensis and Actaea racemosa. Canadian J. Plant Path. 25(2):218-221. Robinson-Bax, C, and R.T.V. Fox. 2002. Root rots of herbaceous plants caused by Armillaria mellea. Mycologist 16:21-22. Thompson, J.D., T.J. Gibson, F. Plewniak, F. Jeanmougin, and D.G. Higgins. 1997. The ClustalX windows interface: Flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 24:4876-4882. Tyler, V.E. 1993. The Honest Herbal. Pharmaceutical Products Press, an imprint of The Haworth Press, Inc. Binghamton, NY. 43 Van der Plaats-Niterink, A. J. 1981. Monograph of the Genus Pythium. No 21:1-242. In: Studies in Mycology. Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Baarn Inst. Royal Neth. Acad. Sci. Lett. White, T.J. et al. 1990. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In Innis et al., eds. PCR protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications. Pp. 315-322. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. 44 45 Phy.andina Phy.mirabilis Phy.ipomoeae Phy.phaseoli Phy.infestans Phy.clandestina 788 Phy.iranica 1000 Phy.tentaculata 536 Phy.nicotianae 995 Phy.cactorum Phy.idaei 383 Phy.pseudotsugae Phy.hedraiandra 258 Phy.katsurae Phy.arecae Phy.palmivora 981 Phy.megakarya 479 Phy.ilicis Phy.nemorosa Phy.pseudosyringae Phy.psychrophila 760 Phy.quercina Phy.citrophthora Phy.botryosa Phy.meadii 470 Phy.colocasiae 930 Phy.tropicalis Phy.capsici Phy.glovera.11081 999 P.citricola.P47.112.3D P.citricola.P47.116.E1 Phy.citricola 905 Phy.inflata Phy.multivesiculata 56 P.bisheria.Cg2.3 507 2 P.megasperma.P47.102.7.BC P.megasperma.P47.116.B1 996 Phy.megasperma 418 Phy.gonapodyides 1000 Phy.inundata Phy.humicola Phy.alni.sp.Alni Phy.alni.sp.uniformis Phy.cambivora Phy.fragariae.v.fragariae Phy.fragariae.v.rubi Phy.europaea 624 Phy.uliginosa Phy.cinnamomi Phy.cajani 1000 Phy.vignae Phy.melonis Phy.sinensis 1000 Phy.pistaciae P.niederhauseria.Ph01.5112.Arv Phy.sojae P.kelmania.02119A P.kelmania.Ph.148 P.kelmania.P47.116.B1 P.kelmania.P47.116.B2 Phy.cryptogea.766 Phy.cryptogea.96 Phy.erythroseptica 1000 Phy.drechsleri Phy.medicaginis Phy.trifolii 863 Phy.porri Phy.primulae 1000 Phy.brassicae 934 547 Phy.syringae Phy.lateralis Phy.quininea Phy.hibernalis Phy.macrochlamydospora Phy.richardiae Phy.insolita 0.1 P. citricola P. megasperma P. kelmania Fig. 4. Neighbour-joining phylogram with 1000bs of the Internal Transcribed Spacer rDNA of Phytophthora species from the GenBank, PPIL selected species, and some samples from black cohosh. Phytophthora insolita is the outgroup. The bar indicates the number of substitutions/site. 46 803 466 P47.107.D3 P47.111.E2 P47.107.A3 P47.111.B3 723 Py.sylvaticum.45 Py.paroecandrum.44 644 Py.mamillatum.03 961 P47.111.A2 Py.irregulare.02 998 Py.viniferum.94 Py.debaryanum.04 1000 Py.violae.17 Py.intermedium.47 433 Py.ultimum.var.ultimum.57 P47.104.B1 Py.ultimum.var.sporangiiferum. P47.107.D1 P47.102.2 P47.102.3 382 Py.dissotocum.34 Py.apleroticum.31 571 Py.aquatile.32 Py.pachycaule.87 Py.capillosum.35 627 995 Py.flevoense.91 Py.aphanidermatum.22 969 Py.dissimile.81 Py.sulcatum.82 905 Py.myrioty lum.78 Py.glomeratum.39 Py.heterothallicum.54 Py.helicoids.65 P47.107.F7 P47.111.H5 Py.vexans.13 Py.Indigoferae.14 1000 P47 111.F2 P47.111.B1 Py.oedochilum.64 Phy.polymorphica.69 Py. sylvaticum Pythium sp. nov. Py. ultimum v.ultimum Py. dissotocum Py. vexans? Pythium sp. nov. 2 0.1 Fig. 5. Neighbour-joining phylogram with 1000bs of the Internal Transcribed Spacer rDNA of some Pythium species from the GenBank and some samples from black cohosh. Phytophthora polymorphica is the outgroup. The bar indicates the number of substitutions/site. 47 Site Selection is Critical for Successful Cultivation of Black Cohosh Andrew L. Thomas Southwest Center, University of Missouri Black cohosh (Actaea racemosa or Cimicifuga racemosa) is a perennial herb in the buttercup family (Ranunculaceae) that is commonly used for treatment of menopausal symptoms. The high demand for this native forest-dwelling plant is leading to serious overharvesting from the wild, and presents Missouri farmers and foresters with an opportunity for potentially-profitable cultivation. For more background and information on the black cohosh research underway at Southwest Center, see the January, 2002 issue of Ruminations (Vol.8, No.1). The principal medicinal organ of black cohosh is its large fleshy rhizome, which appears to be especially sensitive to heavy soil, and prone to fungal attack if soil drainage is not adequate. The plant is usually propagated by rhizome divisions, and is even more prone to fungal attack during this critical establishment stage. After an earlier crop failure (attributed to a fungal root rot) in an established black cohosh nursery bed, two new experiments were conducted in the same soil to determine if certain horticultural approaches could help plants avert fungal infection under less-than-ideal conditions. Transplanting black cohosh rhizomes at various depths (shallow, deep), in various seasons (fall, spring), and a soil fungicide treatments were evaluated. The experiments were conducted in a shade house at Shaw Nature Reserve of the Missouri Botanical Garden (MU s partner in this research), located near Gray Summit, MO. The soil within the shade house bed is a Hartville silt loam, which is considered a somewhat poorlydrained soil. Despite this dubious soil drainage classification, the site had been previously used for a successful tree nursery and we felt it would be satisfactory for black cohosh cultivation. The planting depth study evaluated the effect of planting depth and fungicide on rhizome survival under these marginal soil conditions. Four treatments were replicated twelve times across the shade house using 228 plants. Treatments were 1) shallow planting, 2) shallow planting with fungicide, 3) deep planting, 4) deep planting with fungicide. The tops of the rhizomes were set just under the soil surface for shallow planting and approximately 2.5 inches below soil surface for deep planting. All were planted on Oct. 8, 2002. Two days after planting, a soil drench fungicidal treatment Subdue Maxx was applied, according to directions. The planting season study evaluated the potential benefit of delaying planting until spring so that rhizomes do not lie susceptible to fungal attack in cold, wet soil over winter before becoming established. As in the first study, four treatments with six plants each were randomized within each of 12 blocks across the shade house. Treatments were 1) fall planting, 2) fall planting with fungicide, 3) spring planting, and 4) spring planting with fungicide. The 288 rhizomes were randomized and divided into two groups. Half were assigned fall planting while the remaining half were stored loosely within a composted sawdust medium inside plastic bags in a refrigerator 48 for six months. On Oct. 8, 2002, the fall planting of 144 rhizomes was completed while the spring planting of over-wintered rhizomes occurred on April 2, 2003. The tops of all rhizomes were set approximately 1 inch below the soil surface. Two days after the fall planting, and eight days after the spring planting, a soil drench fungicidal treatment of Subdue Maxx was applied to the appropriate plants. Survival data were collected from the variously-treated plants on three different dates (May 13 and July 10, 2003, and May 17, 2004). The majority of fall-planted rhizomes survived the initial 2002/2003 winter and emerged in spring, but quickly began to succumb to fungal root rot thereafter. The spring-planted rhizomes emerged soon after planting, but also quickly became diseased. Rainfall was generally normal that year, but by July, 2003, the majority of emerged plants had become infected with root rot and were dead or dying, regardless of treatment. The rhizomes were left in place through spring, 2004, when a final survival count was made. Statistical analyses revealed no significant differences in rhizome survival among any treatments in either of the two experiments. We found that neither shallow planting, spring planting, nor a single post-planting fungicide application successfully compensated for poor soil water drainage in the presence of pathogenic fungi. If a site is suspected to have even a somewhat poorlydrained soil, cultivation of black cohosh is unlikely to be successful, and potential producers should carefully evaluate their soil before considering cultivating black cohosh. 49 Cultivation of Six Medicinal Plant Species under Evaluation as a Lung Cancer Treatment Andrew L. Thomas, Southwest Center Jim Miller; Wendy Applequist; Besa Schweitzer; and Scott Woodbury, Missouri Botanical Garden The Southwest Center has received funding from the Washington University Medical Center of St. Louis via the Missouri Botanical Garden to expand research on the cultivation of important medicinal plants. With these funds, collaboration was initiated in 2004 between the Southwest Center and the Shaw Nature Reserve of the Missouri Botanical Garden to study several species of medicinal plants known collectively as AAnti-Tumor B@ or AACAPHA@, an acronym for AAnti-Cancer Preventative Health Agent@. This combination of six herbs has been used in China for centuries in disease prevention, and in the last few decades specifically to prevent and treat lung cancer. Studies in China have shown that ACAPHA can reduce the risk of lung cancer by 40 to 50%, while Canadian studies also yielded dramatic results in eliminating pre-cancerous lung lesions in current and former tobacco smokers. ACAPHA appears to have few side effects when consumed by humans. Private foundations and now the U.S. National Cancer Institute have provided major funding to the Canadian researchers to establish extensive human clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of this herbal mixture in preventing and treating lung cancer. At the Southwest Center this summer, we continued cultivation trials of several of the six herbs that constitute ACAPHA. Some of these species are considered Aweeds@; others are herbaceous perennials, while still others are trees. This is a pilot study that will allow us to become familiar with these plants, to begin understanding their requirements for successful cultivation, and to determine if some or all of these species may be successfully grown in the Midwest. If this safe herbal treatment for lung cancer continues to prove itself, we also hope that our studies will pave the way for Missouri farmers to step up and meet the inevitable demand for the raw plant materials needed to create this fascinating herbal mixture. 50 A Potential New Opportunity for Growing and Marketing Peppers in Southwest Missouri Andrew L. Thomas, Southwest Center, University of Missouri A private food-processing company in Springfield, MO, DeGraffenried LLC (owned by Bell-Carter Foods, Inc.), operates a 72,500-square-foot plant that employs 85 people and processes 60 million pounds of pickles each year. All of the cucumbers used to make these pickles are grown by farmers in southwest Missouri. The company is currently considering expanding its operations to include pickled peppers. As part of its investigation, the company provided seeds for a small pepper demonstration at the Southwest Center in 2005. This planting is simply a display and small pilot study to gauge potential interest among growers. Later expansion into full-scale pepper variety trials and other research both on-station and on-farm may be possible. Seeds of 12 pepper cultivars were sown in the greenhouse May 26 and seedlings transplanted into raised beds June 24, 2005. Nine plants per cultivar were established. All have performed very well this summer. The 12 pepper cultivars currently on display at Southwest Center are: From Syngenta Seeds, Basel, Switzerland: Sweet Banana Pepper: Pageant From Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Oxnard, CA: Sweet Cherry Pepper: SVR 1141-4842 Cherry Pick Hot Cherry Pepper: Cherry Bomb PX 1141-0025 Jalape o Pepper: PX 1142-3816 Delicias Dulce Nacho Pepper: Ball Park SVR 1144-7353 Sweet Wax Pepper: Ethem Bounty 51 A Native Grassland / Prairie Restoration and Demonstration Andrew L. Thomas Southwest Center, University of Missouri, Mt. Vernon As more and more people continue moving into the rural areas of southwest Missouri, our native plants and animals are continually being pushed away or destroyed. Much of what we enjoy about the rural Ozarks is literally being mowed down one acre at a time and converted to fescue lawns. The cost of mowing all this grass in terms of time, fuel, money, pollution, noise, and the demise of our native creatures is immense. In many situations, home-owners and farmers can easily restore substantial areas of lawn and pastures to Missouri s original prairie vegetation of native grasses and wildflowers. Such areas can add substantial beauty and diversity to otherwise sterile landscapes, provide sanctuary and food for birds and butterflies, and significantly reduce the time and expense required to keep the area mowed. But such a restoration requires patience, foresight, and several years to accomplish. The Missouri Department of Conservation has provided funding and other support to the Southwest Center to develop a demonstration of such a native grassland / prairie restoration. An area of nearly one acre (that was previously kept mowed) near the headquarters building was selected. In order to showcase and delineate the area, especially during the initial not-so-pretty phase of the restoration process, a rustic split-rail fence will be installed around the perimeter of the area. Research and personal experiences have helped us develop a plan for this restoration at the Southwest Center which we are confident will succeed. This project was initiated in 2005 and we look forward to monitoring and witnessing this restoration process over the long-term. Following is the protocol we are using at the Southwest Center, and one that we believe will be successful at many Missouri locations: 1. First spring-summer-fall: Destroy all existing vegetation and flush weed seeds by spraying Roundup herbicide 3 to 5 times. 2. The following December: Seed heavily with appropriate seed mixes that include a variety of native grass and wildflower seeds. The best time to seed is just before a predicted snow storm so that seeds will be protected from birds and will work naturally into the soil as the snow melts. 3. Second summer: Spot spray any particularly bad weeds that emerge, such as thistles, bermudagrass, or sericea lespedeza. Keep all vegetation mowed to a height of 8 - 12 inches to prevent germinated weeds from going to seed, and to keep sunlight available to the slowly germinating native seedlings. 4. Second winter: Burn the entire area. 52 5. Third summer: Depending on the results, it may still be necessary to spot treat serious weeds and keep vegetation mowed to one foot. 6. Third winter: Burn the entire area. 7. By the fourth season, the native vegetation should be well established with flowers beginning to bloom. Spot-spraying certain weeds and annual winter burning will likely be necessary to keep the restored prairie from reverting to weeds, woody shrubs, and trees. 53 Evaluation of more than 100 Native Missouri Sedge, Rush, Bulrush, and Grass Species for their Ornamental and Utilitarian Potential Larry Havermann and Scott Woodbury, Shaw Nature Reserve, Gray Summit, MO Andrew L. Thomas, Southwest Center, University of Missouri, Mt. Vernon Jim McPheeters, Bowood Farms, Clarksville, MO Hundreds of sedge, rush, bulrush, and grass species are native to and thrive in Missouri. Yet very few of these have been evaluated for their potential as ornamental or useful plants. Trends in gardening are rapidly shifting to including more indigenous plant species due to their beauty, their adaptability to local conditions, and their attractiveness to desirable fauna. Both native and non-native grasses and grass-like plants (such as sedges and rushes) are also seeing increased use in gardens due to their diversity, adaptability, and beauty. Even large government entities, such as state highway departments, are quickly learning of the advantages of cultivating and managing the natural vegetation that is well-adapted to one s region. The objective of this project is to evaluate large numbers of native sedge, rush, bulrush, and grass species for their potential in residential or commercial landscapes, as well as utilitarian uses such as roadside vegetation and erosion control. The project will document the horticultural characteristics of selected species, including tolerance to full sun, shade, dry, and wet conditions; the attractiveness of foliage, flowers, and fruit; season-long appearance; and other attributes and shortcomings. In addition, these species will be evaluated for tolerance to a variety of pre- and post-emergence herbicides. The project is being conducted for at least three years under a cooperative agreement with the Missouri Department of Conservation. The initial phase of the project is concentrating on sedges, but some rushes, bulrushes, and a few grasses are also being investigated. We now have approximately 155 accessions comprising more than 100 species. Additional species will continue to be collected and entered into the study. Three locations are being used for the study: Shaw Nature Reserve (Gray Summit, MO), University of Missouri Columbia s Southwest Research Center (Mt. Vernon, MO), and Bowood Farms (Clarksville, MO). Experimental plots of these species have been established in nursery beds at Shaw Nature Reserve in both full sun and in a shadehouse with 40% shade. At Southwest Center, they are being grown on a weed barrier fabric in full sun, while at Bowood Farms most are being grown in pots. Field-grown plants are mostly in plots of 9 plants each on a spacing of 18 inches. The plots will be monitored and evaluated throughout the growing season over the next three or more years. 54 The following 33 species of sedge, rush, bulrush, and grass were planted at the Southwest Center June 3, 4, 7, 8, 2004 for the initial phase of this study and continue to be evaluated: Carex annectens Carex annectens var. xanthocarpa Carex bicknellii Carex brevior Carex bushii Carex canescens Carex crinita Carex criststella Carex crus-corvi Carex frankii Carex granularis Carex gravida Carex lurida Carex molesta Carex muhlenbergii Carex muskingumen Carex normalis Carex sp. - ovules Carex prasina Carex shortiana Carex squarosa Carex stipata Carex swanii Carex tribuloides Carex vulpinoidea Cyperus strigosus Festuca paradoxa Juncus dudleyi Juncus effusus Juncus interior Juncus nodatus Scirpus atrovirens Scirpus cyperinus 55 Trees and Shrubs at Southwest Center Headquarters Area - 2005 Andrew L. Thomas, Southwest Center, Mt Vernon, MO More than 100 species of ornamental trees and shrubs have been planted at the Southwest Center s headquarters area since its founding in 1959. The majority of these have been planted within the last 10 years. Presently, 91 species and cultivars of woody plants are growing near the headquarters building and are available for study and observation. A large number of these plants are native to Missouri, some are improved selections of native plants, while still others are introduced from other regions. Ornamental Trees and Shrubs at the Southwest Center Headquarters Area, 2005: Scientific Name Abelia x grandiflora Compacta Acer buergeranum Acer griseum Acer rubrum Brandywine Acer rubrum Red Sunset Acer rubrum Summerset Acer x freemanii Autumn Blaze Acer triflorum Aesculus glabra Aesculus pavia Amelanchier x grandiflora Forest Prince Aralia spinosa Aronia arbutifolia Brilliantissima Asimina triloba Betula nigra Heritage Buddleia spp. Buxus Green Mountain Callicarpa americana Carya illinoensis Celtis occidentalis Cercis canadensis Cladrastis kentukea Clethra alnifolia Cornus florida Cotinus coggygria Royal Purple Cotoneaster spp. Euonymus americanus Common Name Abelia Trident Maple Paperbark Maple Red Maple Red Maple Red Maple Red -- Silver Maple hybrid Three-flower Maple Ohio Buckeye Red Buckeye Serviceberry Devil s Walkingstick Red Chokeberry Pawpaw River Birch Butterfly Bush Green Mountain Boxwood American Beautyberry Pecan Hackberry Redbud American Yellowwood Summersweet Dogwood Smoketree, Smokebush Cotoneaster Strawberry Bush, American Euonymus 56 Forsythia x intermedia Lynwood Gold Ginkgo biloba Gymnocladus dioica Hamamelis vernalis Hydrangea arborescens Hydrangea paniculata Lime Light Hydrangea paniculata Tardiva ?? Hypericum prolificum Ilex x attenuata Fosteri Ilex cornuta Burfordii Nana Ilex glabra Chamzin Ilex verticillata Winter Red Ilex verticillata Southern Gentleman Juglans nigra Kerria japonica Lagerstroemia indica Victor Lagerstroemia indica Whit III Liriodendron tulipifera Liquidambar styraciflua Lonicera x heckrottii Gold Flame Magnolia Ann Magnolia Galaxy Magnolia Jane Magnolia Leonard Messel Magnolia Merrill Magnolia grandiflora Edith Bogue Magnolia virginiana Mahonia bealei Metasequoia glyptostroboides Nandina domestica Nyssa sylvatica Physocarpus opulifolius Physocarpus opulifolius Monlo Picea pungens Foxtail Pinus echinata Pinus strobus Platanus occidentalis Populus deltoides Prunus Autumn Alabus Prunus x yedoensis Quercus macrocarpa Quercus robur Quercus stellata Rhamnus caroliniana Rhus aromatica Ribes odoratum Forsythia Ginkgo Kentucy Coffee Tree Vernal Witch Hazel, Ozark Witch Hazel Wild Hydrangea Hydrangea Tardiva Hydrangea Shrubby St. John s Wort Foster Holly Dwarf Burford Holly Inkberry Winterberry Holly - female Winterberry Holly - male Black Walnut Japanese Kerria, Texas Rose Victor Crapemyrtle Pink Velour Crapemyrtle Tulip Tree Sweetgum Goldflame Honeysuckle Magnolia Magnolia Magnolia Magnolia Magnolia Southern Magnolia Sweetbay Magnolia Leatherleaf Mahonia Dawn Redwood Nandina, Heavenly Bamboo Black Gum Ninebark Diablo Ninebark Blue Spruce Shortleaf Pine Eastern White Pine Sycamore Eastern Cottonwood Autumn Alabus Plum Yoshino Flowering Cherry Bur Oak English Oak Post Oak Carolina Buckthorn Fragrant Sumac Fragrant Gooseberry, Golden Currant 57 Rhododendron Autumn Coral Rhododendron Girard s Purple Rhododendron Purple Gem Rosa spp. Rosa spp. Sassafras albidum Spirea japonica Neon Flash Spirea japonica Magic Carpet Syringa meyeri Syringa vulgaris Taxodium distichum Autumn Gold Thuja plicata Spring Grove Thuja plicata Green Giant Ulmus americana Valley Forge Ulmus parvifolia Dynasty Ulmus parvifolia Ellsmo (seedling) Ulmus Patriot Viburnum x juddii Autumn Coral Azalea Girard s Purple Azalea Purple Gem Rhododendron Knock Out - Shrub Rose Nearly Wild - Shrub Rose Sassafras Japanese Spirea Japanese Spirea Dwarf Koran Lilac Common Lilac Bald Cypress Western Arborvitae Western Arborvitae American Elm Lacebark Elm Lacebark Elm American -- Chinese Elm hybrid Judd Viburnum Acknowledgment: Sincere thanks are extended to The Botany Shop, Joplin, MO, who donated many of these plants over several years. 58 Agroforestry Report 59 Potential for Commercial Nut Production in Southwest Missouri William Reid, Pecan Experiment Field, Kansas State University Andrew L. Thomas, Southwest Center, University of Missouri Commercial nut production offers a sustainable alternative to the traditional agronomic crops grown in southwest Missouri. Pecan (Carya illinoensis) and black walnut (Juglans nigra) appear to have the greatest potential for profitability. Commercial pecan production has a proven track record within the state while commercial black walnut production based on improved cultivars has yet to be documented. This multi-faceted, long-term study is designed to demonstrate and evaluate the potential for commercial pecan and black walnut culture in southwest Missouri. Two major components of this study are evaluatingwill evaluate the productivity of the best known pecan and black walnut cultivars for this region. Blocks of seedling trees, planted in 1993, have mostly been grafted to six cultivars of each species (Table 1). Detailed horticultural and economic data are being collected over many years to determine the potential profitability and feasibility of such an enterprise. Another component of the overall study is the development of a nut tree germplasm collection. One hundred thirty-four border-area trees are being grafted to a wide variety of nut tree cultivars and species not being used in the main experiments (Table 2). Such a collection will allow observation and evaluation of numerous cultivars under southwest Missouri conditions while providing an ideal environment for future nut tree breeding and numerous other research projects. Grafting efforts by members of the Missouri Nut Growers Association and the staff of the Southwest Research Center began in 1996 and continued through 2005. Unfortunately, an early, sudden hard freeze on October 7, 2000 that was preceded by very hot dry weather killed or injured many of the scions in the orchard. Of the trees that were already grafted, we lost 61% of pecan grafts and 25% of black walnut. The pecans were so hard hit that many died to the ground, but all but two trees survived. The majority of both walnut and pecan grafts have now been reestablished. 60 Table 1. Commercial nut cultivars in variety trials at the Southwest Research Center. Black Walnut Pecan _______________________________ Emma K Football Kwik-Krop Surprise Sparrow Tomboy Dooley Giles Kanza Pawnee Peruque Posey Table 2. Cultivars in the Southwest Center=s nut tree germplasm collection. Black Walnut (53) (Juglans nigra) _____________________________________________________________________ Abraham Boellner Bowser Brannon #3 Brown Nugget Clermont Cranz Crosby Cutleaf - Shaw Daniels Dot Drake DuBoise 8802 Eldora Elmer Meyer Emma K Football Hare Japanese Heartnut (1) (Juglans ailantifolia) __________________ Fodermaier 61 Hay Hay #2 Higbee Mill Jackson Krous Kwik-Krop Lamb McGinnis Mintle Mystery Neel Neil #1 Ohio Ogden Pound 2 Ridgeway Rowher Rupert Sarcoxie Sauber 1 Sauber 2 Schessler Schrimger Slusher 4-21 Slusher 4-24 South Fork Sparks 127 Sparks 129 Sparks 147 Sparrow Surprise Thomas Thomas Meyer Tomboy Vander Sloot Table 2 (continued). Pecans and Hickories Pecan (Carya illinoensis) (12) _______________ Colby Dooley Giles Hirshi Jayhawk Kanza Norton Pawnee Peruque Posey Yates 68 62-1-15 Hican (Carya illinoensis X ovata) (4) _______________ Caha Fairbanks Underwood Wilson 62 Black Walnut Cultivar - Rootstock Evaluation Mark Coggeshall, Center for Agroforestry Andrew L. Thomas, Southwest Center University of Missouri On February 28, 2001, a black walnut cultivar - rootstock experiment was planted in the Spring River bottom at the Southwest Center. This large, multi-location study, conducted under the auspices of the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry, is the first of its kind anywhere. The objective is to document and quantify the long-term effects of rootstock source on the performance of selected black walnut cultivars established in two geographically-distinct plantations in Missouri, and a third, smaller site in Arkansas. While most Missourians are familiar with black walnuts and have at one time or another either eaten them or picked them up off the ground for cash, very few have seen or tasted the improved horticultural-quality nuts that are now being grown and studied. Improved black walnut trees are much more productive than ordinary wild trees, and produce nuts that are larger, easier to crack, better-tasting, lighter in color, and much higher in percent kernel. These improved black walnut cultivars must presently be propagated by grafting scionwood (dormant cuttings) of the improved germplasm onto seedling rootstocks, essentially cloning or identically copying the genetics of an original superior tree. Rootstock science in many crops, such as apples, is very sophisticated in that a particular rootstock is known to perform better in a particular soil and climate, and to possess specific desirable traits such as disease resistance, strong and vigorous roots, a more compatible graft union, or growth-modifying characteristics such as dwarfing. Virtually nothing is known about black walnut rootstocks and rootstock / scion combinations. Because of the notable difference in rootstock performance in other tree crops, including Persian (English) walnuts, we assume that significant improvements can be made in black walnut cultivation by studying the performance of various rootstock sources under different soil and climatic conditions. Black walnut seeds from four different sources (Sparrow, Thomas, Kwik-Krop, and unimproved nursery bed-run) were sown in the greenhouse in fall, 1998. In spring, 2000, five different black walnut cultivars (Sparrow, Thomas, Emma K, Surprise, and Kwik-Krop) were grafted onto each of the seedling groups. A year later, 120 of these trees were planted on 4.2 acres at the Southwest Center. The second replication, consisting of 180 trees, was installed at the University s Horticulture and Agroforestry Research Center (HARC) at New Franklin. An additional, smaller rootstock evaluation, containing 48 trees, was planted at the Arkansas Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Fayetteville. At this third site, hydrogeologists have drilled more than 60 wells to document and monitor the water table and fluctuations thereof important information in understanding rootstock performance. We may eventually subdivide both the HARC and SW Center plantings to allow for the addition of a cover crop study which would help us elucidate the importance of cover crops on long-term productivity in grafted black walnut orchards. This is indeed a very long-term 63 experiment. We are collecting horticultural data each year, but will probably not be able to make many conclusions for several years. We anticipate that data will continue to be collected for 50 years or more as differences in the various rootstocks are manifested over the long life of the three orchards. Mean Bud-break Date of Five Black Walnut Cultivars at Southwest Center, 2004 - 2005 2004 Cultivar Emma K Kwik Krop Sparrow Surprise Thomas # Trees 9 16 14 10 14 Mean Bud-break April 21.2 April 23.9 April 25.1 April 26.7 April 29.2 2005 # Trees 8 15 14 11 14 Mean Bud-break April 27.8 May 7.6 May 7.6 May 8.2 May 8.9 64 N and P Assimilation in a Silvopastoral System Receiving Poultry Litter or Inorganic Fertilizer Thomas J. Sauer1, Sherri L. DeFauw2, Kris R. Brye2, J.Van Brahana2, J.Vaughn Skinner2, Wayne K. Coblentz2, Andrew L. Thomas3, Phillip D. Hays4, David C. Moffitt4, James L. Robinson4, Travis A. James4, David K. Brauer5, Kevin A. Hickie6 USDA-ARS, National Soil Tilth Laboratory, Ames, IA 2 University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 3 University of Missouri-Columbia, Southwest Research Center, Mt. Vernon, MO 4 USDA-NRCS, Fayetteville, AR, Fort Worth, TX, and Salt Lake City, UT 5 USDA-ARS, Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, Booneville, AR 6 Arkansas Forestry Commission, Fayetteville, AR ABSTRACT A silvopastoral demonstration/research site was established to quantify differences in N and P cycling due to nutrient source (poultry litter or commercial fertilizer). Northern red oak (Quercus rubra), eastern black walnut (Juglans nigra) and pecan (Carya illinoensis) were planted at 15 m row spacing on a 4.25 ha site near Fayetteville, AR in 1999-2000. Alleys between tree rows were seeded to orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata var. Benchmark). Beginning in 2001, each spring of the site received a single poultry litter application (~4.5 Mg ha-1) and the other received 56 kg ha-1 N as commercial fertilizer (ammonium nitrate). Monitoring results indicate consistently greater concentrations of NO3-N in both soil water and ground water samples collected from the area receiving commercial fertilizer. Average NO3-N concentrations for the fertilizer and litter-treated areas were 8.59 and 5.78 mg L-1 for soil water samples and 8.01 and 5.78 mg L-1 for ground water samples. Nitrate-N concentrations were greater in the spring with maximum concentrations exceeding 20 mg L-1 in both soil water and ground water. Litter application increased soil P concentrations (Mehlich 3 extract) as the 2004 mean soil P concentration was 49.7 mg kg-1 in the litter-treated area compared to 36.2 mg kg-1 in the commercial fertilizer area. P concentration in forage harvested from the litter-treated area also had consistently greater (~0.06%) total P content. These results suggest that slower N mineralization from poultry litter results in more sustained forage growth and less NO3-N loss from the root zone. Tree, forage, and environmental monitoring to quantify nutrient and C cycling components will continue and intensify as the trees mature. OBJECTIVE Quantify major components of nutrient (especially N and P) cycling in a silvopastoral system receiving annual poultry litter applications. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN 4.25 ha site near Fayetteville, AR, Fragiudult soils, 1-8% south-facing slope 5 rows of northern red oak (Quercus rubra), eastern black walnut (Juglans nigra) and pecan (Carya illinoensis), 15 m row spacing, planted 1999-2000 1 65 Oak were 1 year-old seedlings at 2.4 m spacing within rows, walnut and pecan were 2 year-old rootstocks and 1 year-old scions at 9.1 m spacing within rows Alleys between tree rows were seeded to orchard grass (Dactylis glomerata var. Benchmark) in the fall of 2000 Co-located soil water samplers (0.6 and 1.2 m depths) and shallow ground water monitoring wells (0.5 5.6 m) were installed in 2000-2001 E side of site receives 4.5 Mg ha-1 poultry litter each spring (Litter), W side receives 56 kg ha-1 N as commercial fertilizer each spring (Control) View of site, 2001: 66 SOIL Methods Annual soil sampling (0-0.15 m) in March Analyzed for Mehlich 3 P, K, Ca, Mg, Na, S, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, total N & C, pH, and EC Findings No significant increase in C, N, K, or micronutrients with Litter treatment; a small but significant (P=0.03) increase in P Ag lime addition in 2000 raised and sustained soil pH above 6.0 Summary Soil nutrient status and pH are now in optimal range for tree and forage growth Poultry litter rate was increased to 6.7 Mg ha-1 in 2003 to better reflect local practice Anticipate eventual significant increase in C, N, Cu, and Zn with litter application Agroforestry Site - Soil P 100 80 60 40 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Meh lich 3 STP (m g kg -1 ) Row Oct. 99 Mar. 04 Litter Mar. 01 Litter Mar. 04 Control Mar. 01 Control Agroforestry Site - Soil C 3 2.5 Soil C (%) 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Row Oct. 99 Mar. 04 Litter Mar. 01 Litter Mar. 04 Control Mar. 01 Control 67 FORAGE Methods 2-3 harvests/year as silage or hay Yield measured with rising plate disk meter (12 drops/rep) Samples analyzed for N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Na, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, ADF, NDF, CP, and TDN Findings 3-11% greater yield with Litter treatment P concentration in litter-treated forage ~0.06% greater than Control Summary Poultry litter addition appears to produce more sustained forage growth Orchard grass grown with poultry litter has consistently greater P content Agroforestry Site - Dry Matter 6000 5000 D M (k g h a ) -1 Litter Control 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 5/7/2002 7/5/2002 5/28/2003 10/28/2003 Date Agroforestry Site - Forage Phosphorus 0.50 P hosphorus (% ) Litter 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 5/7/2002 7/5/2002 Control Date 5/28/2003 10/28/2003 68 SOIL WATER Methods 3 shallow and 3 deep porous cup samplers/tree species & treatment Vacuum applied and water sample collected 24 hrs later Analyzed for NO3-N and NH3-N Findings NO3-N concentrations for Control and Litter treatments averaged 8.59 and 5.78 mg L-1 Samples from deep cups consistently had greater concentrations prior to 2003 Summary Greater NO3-N concentrations with Control treatment may be due to slow mineralization of litter N Agroforestry Site - Soil Water Nitrate-N 25 -1 Litter Control ) N it ra t e - N ( m g L 20 15 10 5 0 3/ 1/ 02 5/ 1/ 02 7/ 1/ 02 9/ 1/ 02 11/ 1/ 02 1/ 1/ 03 3/ 1/ 03 5/ 1/ 03 7/ 1/ 03 9/ 1/ 03 11/ 1/ 03 1/ 1/ 04 3/ 1/ 04 5/ 1/ 04 Date Agroforestry Site - Soil Water Nitrate-N Litter Treatment 25 Shallow ) 20 15 10 5 0 3/ 1/ 2002 5/ 1/ 2002 Deep Nitrate-N (m g L -1 7/ 1/ 2002 9/ 1/ 2002 11/ 1/ 2002 1/ 1/ 2003 3/ 1/ 2003 5/ 1/ 2003 7/ 1/ 2003 9/ 1/ 2003 11/ 1/ 2003 1/ 1/ 2004 3/ 1/ 2004 5/ 1/ 2004 Date 69 GROUNDWATER Methods Wells purged ~ 24 hrs before sample collection Depth to water, pH, and conductivity measured during sample collection Samples analyzed for NO3-N, NH3-N, & TP Findings NO3-N concentration averaged 5.78 and 8.01 mg L-1 for the Litter and Control treatments TP concentration averaged <0.5 mg L-1 Only 2 samples with detectable NH3-N Summary Some locations within paddock (SW quadrant) consistently have greater NO3-N concentrations Greater NO3-N concentrations for Control treatment, along with soil water and forage production data, suggest that N cycling is more efficient for Litter treatment 70 Influence of Zinc Foliar Sprays on Black Walnut Production William Reid, Pecan Experiment Field, Kansas State University, Chetopa Andrew L. Thomas, Southwest Center, University of Missouri, Mt. Vernon The yield of black walnut cultivars growing under standard levels of management is low compared with other nut crops. The recent experience of a commercial walnut grower in Iowa has indicated that zinc foliar sprays may prove critical for reducing alternate bearing and increasing nut yield. Leaf samples of nut-producing walnut trees taken at the Southwest Center in 1999 revealed that the trees accumulated 28 to 36 ppm zinc in the foliage by mid summer. Normal zinc levels in the foliage of Persian walnut and pecan are 25 ppm and 50 ppm respectively. When zinc is deficient, zinc foliar sprays have proven an effective method for correcting deficiency and improving the yield of both pecan and Persian walnut (Smith 2003). We do not know if zinc may be a limiting factor in black walnut production. Therefore a replicated study to evaluate a zinc foliar fertilizer program on bearing black walnut trees at the Southwest Center has been established. A portion of the original nut tree planting (established in 1993) at the Southwest Center was designed to allow for the application of experimental treatments. Two cultivars, Emma-K and Sparrow, were established in this area to facilitate replicated studies of cultural practices. We are utilizing 8 bearing trees of each cultivar for the application of 2 treatments: a zinc foliar spray program and an unsprayed check in a completely randomized study. A commercially available zinc product is applied with an airblast sprayer three times per year, starting at budbreak and continuing at 2 week intervals. The study began in 2005 with zinc treatments applied May 17, May 31, and June 15. Flower production, nut production, and leaf analysis will be used to evaluate treatment effects. Treatments will continue for 3 seasons to allow for the assessment of impacts on alternate bearing. Literature Cited Smith, M.W. 2003. Mineral Nutrition. pp.317-346. In: D.W. Fulbright (Ed.) Nut Tree Culture in North America. Vol. 1. Northern nut growers Association. 71 Hickory Nut Cultivar Evaluation Andrew L. Thomas Southwest Center, University of Missouri Hickory nuts are perhaps the best-tasting nut that can be grown in the Midwest, yet they are almost impossible to find commercially. In Missouri, we have two native species of hickories that make excellent eating: the shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) produces the most delicious nut while the shellbark hickory (Carya laciniosa) produces a much larger nut. Nuts from most wild trees are extremely difficult to crack, and yield only tiny broken kernel pieces. Several selections of both species have been identified, however, that produce large, thin-shelled, easily-cracked nuts that yield complete halves of high-quality nut meats. Some cultivars may also have characteristics of disease and pest resistance, vigor, precocity, and annual bearing. An important draw-back in the commercialization of hickory nuts is that the trees are generally very slowgrowing. We are therefore evaluating the hypothesis that the slow-growing shagbark hickory, which cannot tolerate periodic flooding on its own roots, may be able to grow faster on pecan (Carya illinoensis) rootstocks that thrive in fertile, moist flood-plain soils. On September 30-31, 1997, fifty-five >Peruque= pecan seedlings were planted in a 2.3acre area of the Spring River bottom that had previously been seeded to orchardgrass. The trees are spaced 40 by 40 feet. In 2000, we began grafting a shagbark and shellbark hickory nut cultivar trial onto these pecan seedlings, with grafting continuing in 2005. Seven hickory cultivars selected for outstanding nut quality are being grafted with seven replications per cultivar in a completely randomized design. Six trees remain in the block for grafting of additional hickory germplasm for evaluation. Additional pecan and hickory trees elsewhere in our nut plantation are also being grafted to other hickory cultivars as we develop a germplasm collection. The establishment of this study has been challenging with grafting success and scion survival less than desirable. Frequently, successful grafts do not survive their first winter. But by the conclusion of the 2005 grafting season, this long-term experiment has been mostly established, with only 7 trees remaining to be grafted. Domestication of the hickory nut is in its infancy and this small, long-term experiment will hopefully be a springboard for additional hickory studies, both at the Southwest Center and elsewhere. Seven cultivars being evaluated in the Southwest Center=s hickory variety trial: Shagbark hickory (Carya ovata): Grainger Porter Walters Weschcke Yoder #1 Shellbark hickory (Carya laciniosa): Scholl Selbher 72 Additional hickory cultivars in germplasm collection: Shagbark hickory: Lattice Creek Russell Sinking Fork Wagner Wilcox Shellbark hickory: Henry Stephens 73 Southwest Center Chestnut Orchard Andrew L. Thomas Southwest Center, University of Missouri A chestnut (Castanea sp.) demonstration was established at the Southwest Center in May, 2002 with eight grafted trees. In 2005, the planting was expanded to a total of 16 trees (many not yet grafted). These trees will serve as a demonstration and evaluation to document the performance of various chestnut cultivars in the soil and climatic conditions of southwest Missouri. More trees and cultivars may be added over time. The trees are small, growing, and are being grafted as possible. Of the 16 chestnut trees at Southwest Center, the following cultivars 8 have been established: Amy: Cropper: Chinese, early-ripening, medium to large nut Chinese, mid-season, blight resistant, dark chocolate-brown nut, highyielding Chinese x Japanese x American, large with excellent texture and flavor, matures a few days earlier than most Chinese Chinese, medium to large nuts, ripen mid-season Chinese, late uniform maturity, vary dark chocolate-brown medium-sized nut, high yielding Chinese, medium-large nut, mid-season Chinese x Japanese x American hybrid, blight free, large handsome nut, excellent flavor, easily peeled, consistent producer Chinese x American hybrid, extremely large sweet dark reddish-brown nut, easily-peeled, reliable heavy producer, blight resistant, patented Eaton: Gideon: Homestead: Peach: Sleeping Giant: Willamette: 74 Pawpaw Cultivar Evaluation and Germplasm Collection Andrew L. Thomas, Southwest Center, University of Missouri Patrick Byers and John Avery, Department of Fruit Science, Missouri State University, Mountain Grove, MO Alan Ware, Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Poteau, OK Ken Hunt, Center for Agroforestry, University of Missouri A major, multi-location, coordinated pawpaw (Asimina triloba) study was initiated in 2001 at four Midwestern institutions: the University of Missouri=s Southwest Research Center at Mt. Vernon; Missouri State University=s State Fruit Experiment Station at Mountain Grove; The Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Poteau, OK; and the University of Missouri=s Horticulture and Agroforestry Research Center at New Franklin. This consortium is also collaborating with The Pawpaw Foundation and Kentucky State University. We have received strong support and grants from the Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute of Columbia, MO and the Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture of Poteau, OK for the project. Background: Pawpaw is a well-known tree native to the southern Midwest that is commonly found along streams and as an under-story tree in rich, moist forests. Many people enjoy the soft, sweet, nutritious, custard-like fruits when they can be found, which is not often. The delicate fruits are almost never offered for sale in stores or markets and are rarely produced or harvested in abundance on wild trees. Pawpaws are the largest edible fruit native to North America. The fruits vary in size, shape, flavor, and color, but are generally 3 to 6 inches long by 1 to 3 inches wide. Some fruits can weigh a pound or more. The flavor is truly unique but often compared with banana, mango, and pineapple. The fruits are usually consumed fresh but can also be cooked and preserved in a variety of ways. Pawpaw is a member of the custard apple family (Annonaceae), and is closely related to several delicious tropical fruits including the cherimoya (Asimina cherimola), sweetsop (A. squamosa), and soursop (A. muricata). The pawpaw tree is small and attractive with long, droopy leaves and striking, deep purple flowers that appear in early spring. The tree has few pests, but is the sole host of the spectacular and declining zebra swallowtail butterfly and its larvae, which may sometimes defoliate young trees in summer. The tree is not particularly picky about soils and conditions but is often difficult to transplant. While the tree is most often found naturally in shady conditions, it performs well in full sun once established. Many wild pawpaws produce good fruit but, as with most native wild fruit trees, there is tremendous room for horticultural improvement. Excellent cultivars are now available and continue to be developed with improved traits such as fewer seeds, thicker skin (for better handling), larger and more 75 consistent size, better flavor and color, improved vigor, pest and disease resistance, and overall year-to-year productivity. Natural compounds called Aannonaceous acetogenins@ are found in shoot tips, leaf, and bark tissues of A. triloba that possess insecticidal and medicinal properties (Rupprecht et al. 1986; Zhao et al. 1994; McLaughlin 1997). Harvesting and marketing this plant material for phytochemical extraction may provide yet another important marketing opportunity for farmers wishing to diversify their operations. A larger regional pawpaw variety trial was established by The Pawpaw Foundation and Kentucky State University in 1993 at 12 sites throughout the pawpaw=s native range (USA), plus two sites in China, and one in Chile. Missouri and Oklahoma did not participate in this initial study. We consider our study to be a second generation experiment being organized from data already collected from this earlier study and with several newer cultivars that have been subsequently released. Objectives: 1) Conduct scientifically valid research on the performance of 8 grafted pawpaw cultivars in four geographically-diverse locations in the Midwestern USA. 2) Establish a germplasm collection of additional grafted material (both old and new) on border trees for further evaluation and research. 3) Establish four important high-visibility sites that demonstrate to potential growers how pawpaws can and should be grown in the Midwest, and how they could become an important component of more diversified agricultural and agroforestry systems. There are presently no known pawpaw orchards of substantial size in Missouri. 4) Once established, make the orchards widely available to other researchers and students in entomology, genetics, horticulture, phytochemistry, etc. 5) Develop and publish horticultural recommendations for farmers wishing to cultivate these plants, and for how this species might be integrated into alley cropping or other agroforestry systems. Project: We have four locations for this study. Three (Mt. Vernon, Mountain Grove, Poteau) are set up identically, while the fourth (New Franklin) is set up slightly differently. Eight of the most promising pawpaw cultivars were selected for the study, based on data from other on-going longterm experiments: Five older, well-known cultivars include >Sunflower=, >PA-Golden=, >Wells=, >NC-1=, and >Overleese=. Three newly-released cultivars from The Pawpaw Foundation, >Shenandoah=, >Susquehanna=, and >10-32= are also included in the trial. 76 At Mt. Vernon, Mountain Grove, Poteau: Stratified pawpaw seeds were planted in the greenhouse in spring, 2001, resulting in more than 360 potted seedlings. An additional 100 similarly-raised seedlings were provided by the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry. Scionwood of eight of the most promising pawpaw cultivars was obtained in early spring, 2002 and successfully grafted onto the seedling trees in the greenhouse. These grafted trees (along with ungrafted border trees) were transplanted into permanent plots in spring, 2003. The cultivar evaluations at each site includes 64 test trees (eight grafted cultivars with eight replications each) arranged in a completely randomized design, plus 36 border trees to protect the main experiment from edge effects. These border trees are being field-grafted to additional cultivars and will serve as a germplasm repository for observation of additional and newly-released cultivars as they emerge. At New Franklin: Fifty ungrafted one-year-old seedlings were transplanted into a large field site in spring, 2000. The trees are spread out over an approximately 3-acre site and interspersed with a variety of young grafted walnut trees of various species (all on black walnut rootstocks). In spring, 2002, the trees were field grafted to 10 cultivars with 5 replications each (the same eight cultivars as the other three sites, plus >Mango= and >Prolific=). The cultivars were established in a completely randomized design. Additional pawpaw cultivars successfully grafted and now being evaluated in our germplasm collections are Prolific, Mango, Ruby Kelan, Sweet Alice, SAA Zimmerman, Zimmerman, Hoberg, Rappahannock, 10-32, and 2-9. A wide variety of horticultural data will be collected annually, including plant growth and vigor, flowering, pollination, insect and disease pressure, foliar nutrition, hardiness, and regional cultivar suitability. Once harvest begins (4 to 7 years), detailed fruit quality and productivity data will be collected from all trees. We anticipate long-term useful data collection for 20 years or more. References: McLaughlin, J.L. 1997. Anticancer and pesticidal components of pawpaw (Asimina triloba). Annu. Rpt. N. Nut Growers Assoc. 88:97-106. Rupprecht, J.K., C.J. Chang, J.M. Cassady, and J.L. McLaughlin. 1986. Asimicin, a new cytotoxic and pesticidal acetogenin from the pawpaw, Asimina triloba (Annonaceae). Heterocycles 24:1197-1201. Zhao, G.X., L.R. Miesbauer, D.L. Smith, and J.L. McLaughlin. 1994. Asimin, asiminacin, and asiminecin: Novel highly cytotoxic asimicin isomers from Asimina triloba. J. Med. Chem. 37:1971-1976. 77 Persimmon Research Orchard and Germplasm Collection Andrew L. Thomas Southwest Center, University of Missouri, Mt. Vernon In spring, 1998, an American persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) orchard was initiated at the Southwest Center. Twelve seedlings were planted that first year and the orchard has steadily grown in size since. We now have 70 trees established with plans to eventually include 98 trees in one of the largest American persimmon research orchards in the world. The original objective was simply to provide a display and raise awareness of the many very high quality native persimmon cultivars available. But as we have seen, first-hand, the tremendous interest and potential with this crop, our objectives have expanded. We now have 21 different grafted persimmon cultivars in our collection (Table 1), and most trees are being established with seedling rootstocks of known female parentage for potential future rootstock experiments. The trees are spaced 30 by 30 feet and occupy 2.0 acres near the headquarters building. We eventually plan to establish a randomized, replicated cultivar evaluation in collaboration with Missouri State University=s State Fruit Experiment Station at Mountain Grove. Once established and fruiting, a variety of fruit quality, processing, breeding, and other studies may be initiated. Several of the earliest-grafted trees are now producing fruit. In 1972, Jim Claypool of St. Elmo, Illinois initiated a persimmon breeding program, systematically intercrossing the best available varieties with the most desirable characteristics. He eventually created a priceless orchard of over 2,000 trees, from which data continue to be gleaned more than 30 years later. Some very promising commercial-quality persimmon selections have been made from this orchard, and we are gradually collecting and grafting a number of Claypool=s best selections for evaluation in southwest Missouri (Table 1). Improved persimmon cultivars have significantly larger, more colorful, flavorful, and extra-sweet fruit with far fewer seeds compared to wild trees. Some even produce fruit that ripens in late summer (instead of fall) with little or no astringency. Others may be extra productive, faster-growing and disease resistant. A few recent hybrids have been produced by crossing the American persimmon with the Asian kaki persimmon (D. kaki), which we are also evaluating. 78 Table 1: 21 Persimmon Cultivars now Established at the Southwest Center Claypool A-118 (Elmo) Claypool B-101 (potential good rootstock source) Claypool C-100 Claypool D-128 (Dollywood) Claypool F-25 Claypool F-100 male Claypool H-118 Claypool H-128 Claypool I-94 Claypool U-20A Claypool 100-42 Early Golden Garretson John Rick Killen Lena Morris Burton Rosseyanka (D. virginiana X D. kaki hybrid) Wabash Weber Yates (Juhl) 79 Miscellaneous Report 80 Southwest Missouri Center Weather Data Richard J. Crawford, Jr., Geoff Evans, Stan Wilken and Dallas Ross Southwest Missouri Center, Mt. Vernon University of Missouri - Columbia Weather affects everyone, especially those of us involved in agriculture. The Southwest Missouri Center has been recording weather data continuously since 1960. The following is a collection of weather facts and figures for your information and amusement. The data contained in this report covers the period from January 1 through July 31, 2005, inclusive. Additional information for 2004 and averages from 1960 through 2004 are included for comparative purposes. First, let=s look at 2004 in review. With only a few exceptions, the year 2004 was a warmer and much wetter year than normal for this area. The combination of temperature and precipitation resulted in some of the best growing conditions we have seen in the last 5 years or so. We began the first part of the year with temperatures near or above average. Of note was March with temps more than 5 F above normal. The year also ended above normal. Oddly, it was June, July and August that saw below normal temperatures, as much as 4.6 F below for August, although this was not a new record low for that month. The year ended with an overall mean temperature of 56.71 F, or 1.19 F above normal. The lowest temperature for the year was 2 F, recorded on Jan 6, 2004. Temperatures fell below freezing (32 F or less) 83 days, and never did drop below zero. The highest temperature attained for the year was 95 F on both Jul 14 & 15. Temperatures climbed to 90 F or higher only 19 days, and never reached the century mark. The last severe frost (24 F or less) in the Spring 2004 was on Feb 26 with a reading of 23 F, and the last light frost (32 F or less) occurred on Apr 14 at 32 F (although some lowlying areas may have had light frost as late as May 3 when we recorded a low of 33 F). The first light frost for Autumn 2004 occurred on Nov 5 at 30 F, and the first severe frost was on Nov 25 when temperatures dropped to 24 F. Precipitation for 2004 totaled a whopping 57.10 , or 13.56 above the 45-year average. Two new monthly precipitation records were set in 2004, one for the wettest July, and one for the driest September. We headed into December with what looked like could turn into a new record year-end total, but with no precipitation at all the last 3 weeks of the year, that did not materialize. So for now at least, the annual record of 61.01 in 1993 still stands. Precipitation was very localized in 2004. Springfield reported below normal totals, while just 35 miles away we were almost 14 above average. Even more bizarre, the City of Mt 81 Vernon received as much as 5 of rain in just a few hours on Jun 17, while just four miles away the Southwest Center received nothing! In previous reports, we have discussed the more than 21 cumulative precipitation deficit over the past 5 years. The 2004 total of 57.10 went a long way towards erasing much of the deficit. But the record low September rainfall and its negative effects on Fall regrowth reminds us how vulnerable we can be even during a year with well above average total annual precipitation. Looking at the first half of 2005 (data are from January 1 through July 31, inclusive), the year began quite wet. January received a record 7.30 of precipitation, more than 5 above normal and breaking the old record by more than 2 inches. February continued above average. Unfortunately, these above normal amounts occurred at a time when they do little to help crops and pastures. Not that filling ponds and replenishing ground water isn t important, but in January and February we sure did have a muddy mess. Even more unfortunate when the growing season did begin, rainfall during March, April and May were well below normal. May in particular was more than 3 below the average with just 1.66 of rainfall, just missing the record for the driest May (set in 1969) by 0.04 . And while June was about above normal, this small surplus was essentially eliminated by the below average rainfall in July. The precipitation total for the yearto-date (as of July 31) is 25.45 , or 0.72 above the 45-year average. Temperatures for the first part of 2005 have been above normal. January and February in particular were each more than 6 degrees above average, and June was more than 3 degrees above normal. The other months so far this year were close to normal. Overall, temperatures for the year-to-date are averaging about 2.2 F above the 44-year average. The lowest temperature so far in 2005 was 8 F on January 23; temperatures dropped to freezing (32 F) or less 60 days but never got as low as 0 F. We reached a high temperature of 104 F on July 23; temperatures reached or exceeded 90 F on 27 days, with 2 of those days above the century mark. The last severe frost occurred on April 17 with a reading of 23 F, and our last light frost was on May 3 at 30 F. 82 January February March April May June July August September October November December 2004 Max Min 45.4 24.1 47.6 24.6 61.0 39.8 67.9 45.8 78.0 58.3 81.8 61.6 84.2 64.4 82.7 61.3 83.7 56.0 71.3 47.5 58.5 40.5 48.4 26.7 Air Temperatures ( F) 2005 44-Yr Avg Max Min Max Min 47.5 27.3 41.96 20.24 52.8 32.7 47.44 25.19 56.1 33.8 56.76 34.00 67.7 45.0 67.53 44.02 75.7 51.3 75.26 53.23 87.0 63.9 82.97 61.52 90.5 65.1 88.93 66.23 88.71 64.34 80.29 56.58 69.92 45.24 56.66 35.08 45.81 24.98 2004 2005 Departure Departure +3.65 +6.30 0.21 +6.44 +5.02 0.43 +1.07 +0.57 +3.91 0.75 0.55 +3.21 3.28 +0.22 4.53 +1.41 +1.82 +3.63 +2.15 Year 67.54 45.88 66.85 44.22 +0.75 Departure is calculated as the average of the current maximum and minimum temperatures minus the average of the long term maximum and minimum temperatures. Precipitation (equivalent inches of water) Departure from 45-Yr Average January February March April May June July August September October November December Total to July 31 Year Total 2004 Total 3.03 0.41 6.89 5.00 7.38 4.65 8.79 3.96 0.90 4.98 9.75 1.36 36.15 57.10 2005 Total 7.30 2.24 2.08 3.61 1.66 5.91 2.65 Previous 45-Yr Avg. 1.78 1.92 3.51 4.01 4.98 5.15 3.38 3.66 4.83 3.48 4.07 2.77 24.73 43.54 2004 +1.25 1.51 +3.38 +0.99 +2.40 0.50 +5.41 +0.30 3.93 +1.50 +5.68 1.41 +11.42 +13.56 2005 +5.52 +0.32 1.43 0.40 3.32 +0.76 0.73 25.45 +0.72 83 2004 Coldest day of year Hottest day of year Last frost (Spring) Severe (24 or less) Light (32 or less) First frost (Autumn) Light (32 or less) Severe (24 or less) Weather Extremes Date(s) Jan 6 Jul 14 & 15 Feb 26 April 14 November 5 November 25 Temperature ( F) 2 95 23 32 30 24 19 days 0 days 83 days 0 days Number of days with temperature 90 F or above Number of days with temperature 100 F or above Number of days with temperature 32 F or below Number of days with temperature 0 F or below 2005 (Jan 1 thru July 31 only) Coldest day of year Hottest day of year Last frost (Spring) Severe (24 or less) Light (32 or less) First frost (Autumn) Weather Extremes Date(s) January 23 July 23 April 17 May 3 not available at this date Temperature ( F) 8 104 23 30 Number of days with temperature 90 F or above Number of days with temperature 100 F or above Number of days with temperature 32 F or below Number of days with temperature 0 F or below 27 days 2 days 60 days 0 days 84 January February March April May June July August September October November December Record Precipitation and Mean Temperatures Driest Month Wettest Month Hottest Month1 Year Inches Year Inches Year Temp 1961 0.02 2005 7.30 1990 53.6 1996 0.28 2001 5.21 1976 58.1 2001 0.86 1973 9.64 1963 64.2 1989 0.30 1994 9.13 1965 73.7 1969 1.62 1990 14.38 1962 84.4 1984 0.98 1981 11.41 1988 88.8 1970 0.13 2004 8.79 1980 99.2 2000 0.31 1982 10.36 1980 97.4 2004 0.90 1993 17.93 1998 88.5 1963 0.00 1967 10.92 1963 84.4 1989 0.10 1992 10.84 1999 70.8 1989 0.37 1987 6.93 1999 52.4 61.01 1963 70.1 Coldest Month2 Year Temp 1977 8.5 1979 14.5 1965 24.4 1998 35.9 1997 44.7 1997 56.5 1967 61.2 1967 58.1 1999 48.9 1999 38.1 1976 25.8 1983 10.8 1997 39.9 Year 1980 29.00 1993 1 Highest average maximum temperature. 2 Lowest average minimum temperature. Dates 2004 Notable Dry Periods1 Duration 29 days 17 days 31 days 26 days 23 days 21 days 15 days Precipitation 0.15" 0.12 0.10 trace 0.14 0.25 0.14 Feb 3 Mar 2 Jul 31 Aug 16 Sep 7 Oct 7 Dec 8 Jan 2 ( 05) Jan 14 Feb 5 Mar 1 Mar 21 Jul 12 Jul 26 2005 1 Dry periods are defined as two weeks or longer with 0.25" or less cumulative precipitation. 85 We continue to plot our long term trends in precipitation and temperature (see graphs below). We are still seeing a general rise in the amount of precipitation, amounting to an average increase of 0.14" per year since 1960. It is interesting to note, however, that this trend has been getting smaller and smaller over the past few years. In 1993, the trend or regression line had a slope of +0.39" per year meaning that between 1960 and 1993, the amount of precipitation was increasing an average of 0.39" each year. With below average precipitation in eight out of the past nine years, the regression line has flattened out considerably to where the average slope or increase is now approximately 0.14 per year. If one looks at the overall actual precipitation line in the graph below, we start to see more of a curve rather than a straight-line response. In the 1960's, the climate was much drier than today, averaging only 38.61" per year for the decade. Precipitation in the 70's and 80's was more than 6 higher per year on the average than in the 60's. In the first half of the 90's, three years (1990, 1992 and 1993) saw rainfall totals of well over 50" per year. The second half of the 90's, however, has seen only one year (1998) with above normal precipitation, causing the overall line to appear to be turning down. Then of course, we get a year like 2004 that blows the trend away with well above average precipitation. It will be interesting to follow what the trend does over the next few years. ANNUAL PRECIPITATION Southwest Center 1960 - 2004 70 PRECIPITATION (inches) 60 50 Actual 45-Yr Mean Trend 40 30 20 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 YEAR 86 Unlike precipitation which has shown wide swings up and down, temperatures have remained relatively constant since 1961. The slope of the regression (trend) line now shows a VERY slight increase of 0.00001 F annually, hardly enough to notice. There does not appear to be any long term pattern or cycle, although there does appear to be repeating small cycles of 4 to 6 years, giving the mean temperature line somewhat of a saw tooth look. These small humps can be seen from 1976 to 1979, 1979 to 1983, 1985 to 1989, 1989 to 1993, 1993 to 1997, and most recently 1997 to 2000. Right now it appears that we might be in the middle of a small plateau. If the above average temperatures for the first half of 2005 are any indication, this may continue for at least another year. Beyond that, it s hard to predict any long term weather conditions. TEMPERATURE MEANS Southwest Center 1961 - 2004 75 TEMPERATURE (degrees F) 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 YEAR High Low Mean Trend 87 88

Find millions of documents here - Study Guides, Homework Solutions, Papers, Exam Answer Keys and more. Course Hero has millions of course related materials that will enable you to learn better, faster and get an A in all your courses.
Below is a small sample set of documents: