PUIMQH ¢2\'..:1 !. fly t v munm ass ifiJég ’ APRIL 1957 _, w Production \ ‘In ‘ . \ ‘ \ 1n Texas TEXAS AGRIClIETIIRAE EXPERIMENT STATION R. D. lewis, Director, Qoldlcge Station, Texas DIGEST Alfalfa was first grown in Texas in 1892. It has gradually increased in economic importance among the forage legumes until it now is the most important hay crop in the State. The most im- portant varieties include Southwest Common, Bar- stow Common, Buffalo, Ranger and Hairy Peru- vian. The variety Lahontan may be used widely in the next few years because of its high degree of resistance to the spotted alfalfa aphid. Alfalfa is one of the most exacting forage crops in its requirements for good drainage, lime and a high level of fertility. It is well adapted to the irrigated sections of West Texas, to most of the creek and river bottom soils in the more hu- mid sections of the State and to many sub-irri- gated valleys such as those found on the Rolling Plains. Alfalfa seed are small (200,000 per pound) and should be planted one-half inch deep or less on a firm seedbed that is relatively clod-free. Fall seedings are more successful than spring seedings regardless of location in the State. Alfalfa is planted generally in pure stands, but under irri- gation a nurse crop of small grains may be used. Alfalfa requires an abundance of available plant food for best growth. Phosphorus and cal- cium are the two elements most likely to be de- ficient. At least 40 pounds of phosphoric acid per acre are necessary for good results. Soils should be tested every third year to determine the kinds and amounts of fertilizer needed for alfalfa. Alfalfa adds nitrogen to the soil, makes the soil more friable and offers good protective cover for the land. It is necessary, however, to inocu- late alfalfa to receive such benefits from the crop. Crops following alfalfa in a rotation normally pro- duce more than crops grown continuously on the same land. Alfalfa is a highly valued forage for hay, de- hydrated meal, silage or pasture. It is one of the most palatable and nutritious forages known when harvested in the proper stage of growth. Young alfalfa has a higher percentage of protein, caro- tene and phosphorus, but continued cutting in the prebloom stage of growth is injurious to the stand. Alfalfa harvested in the 1/10 to 1/4- bloom stage of growth still has a relatively high level of all quality factors and stands are main- tained longer. . A number of insects attack alfalfa, but, un- til 1954, the damage caused was thought to be of minor economic importance. In that year, the spotted alfalfa aphid had increased sufficiently to cause major damage to both old and new stands of alfalfa. Chemical control of this insect is ef- fective but expensive. Aphid-resistant alfalfa va- rieties are the best control and such varieties may be available within a few years. Among the more important diseases of al- falfa are cotton root rot and blackstem, for which there are no known controls. CQNTENTS t Digest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic Importance of Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. I Area of Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alfalfa Varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ‘l. v Regional Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Early Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Recent Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._ Central Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l. South Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Production Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Soil and Climatic Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 - Land Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Fertilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1“ Inoculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 l Seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 f‘ Methods of Seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time of Seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 p Rates of Seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 Row Seeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1‘: Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods of Irrigation . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Seeding Irrigated Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Maintenance of Stands Utilization of Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 .- Forage Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 - Hay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3‘ Dehydration Ensilage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Soiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Pasture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bloat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 z Seed Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..1 1 Seed Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1:, Other Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Crop Rotations and Soil Improvement . . . . . . .18 Alfalfa as an Annual Hay Crop . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Weed Control in Alfalfa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Cultural . . .2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 . Chemical . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 Alfalfa Diseases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H20: Alfalfa Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21- g Acknowledgments’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 - References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z4 = j, FA, Medicago sativa, is the principal le- me used for hay in the United States. In “approximately 18 million acres of alfalfa grown in this country. Since that time, the Y» acreage has increased about 1 million each Alfalfa occupied about 12 percent of the “hay acreage in 1920, but by 1950 it had in- i» to about 24 percent. Even though the ,a acreage is only about one-fourth of the ‘hay acreage in the United States, it pro- about 40 percent of the total hay. lfalfa is recognized as one of the most pal- f and nutritious of forage crops. It pro- w. high quality hay which is rich in protein, rals and vitamins, and is 10W in fiber con- l‘ because of its fine stems and high percent- 5f leaves. These excellent feeding qualities, her with its high yielding ability, make al- _- one of the most valuable forage crops for land for dehydration. Alfalfa also is one of t ost effective crops for preventing soil ero- fand water loss, and when managed properly, ‘es excellent grazing for livestock. j-Nomtc IMPTDRTANCE or ALFALFA _”Alfalfa is of major economic importance in is even though its acreage is considerably jthan that of important row crops such as cot- {Wheat or sorghum. The alfalfa acreage has Ended yearly since 1925 with the exception of eling off period during 1942-46. Since 1946, alfalfa acreage has expanded even more rap- than before. Table 1 shows the acreage, for- f production and value of alfalfa cut for hay or dehydration since 1925. J About 318,000 acres of alfalfa were harvest- or hay in 1955, which had a value of approx- jytely 18 million dollars to Texas farmers. j_ The expansion of the alfalfa acreage in Tex- j... ay be attributed in part to improved varie- i which have greater stand-persistence quali- _. to the use of better fertilizer and soil man- ment practices and to the more highly mech- ed harvesting of the crop. In addition, al- a has a high production potential, producing . e-average ‘hay yields during periods of ad- environmental conditions, and exceeding ‘ production of other forage legumes when con- ons are favorable. According to the U. S. Crop Alfalfa Production in Zfems RAYMOND D. STATEN l Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy Census (2)1 for 1950, Table 2, alfalfa occupied as much or more acreage than any other single hay crop in Texas, making up 16 percent of the total harvested acreage. This percentage ac- counted for approximately J30 percent of the to- tal yield and represented about 36 percent of the value of the State’s hay crop. In addition, the per-acre forage production of alfalfa often is two to three times that produced by other hay crops in one season. Seed production is of economic importance to any crop, particularly a forage crop such as al- falfa. Not only‘ are the alfalfa seed produced im- portant in terms of income to the grower, but a good reliable source of locally grown seed is es- sential for the continued expansion of anyladap- ted forage crops. The income from alfalfa seed production ranks third among the forage crops in Texas, being exceeded only by the income result- ing from the production of sweetclover and vetch seed, Table 3. Approximately 15 percent of the total seed production acreage for forage crops in 1950 was occupied by alfalfa, and about 20 per- cent of the income resulting from the sale of for- age crop seed can be attributed to it. Seed pro- duction acreage statistics may not be entirely re- liable since one field may be used either for hay or seed, or for both. 1Numbers in parenthesis refer to literature references. TABLE 1. TO TAL HARVESTED ACREAGE. PRODUCTION AND VALUE OF ALFALFA CUT FOR HAY OR FOR DEHYDRATION IN TEXAS‘ Year Acreage Total Total harvested production’ farm value Tons Dollars 1925 44.000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1930 50.000 121.000 2.309.000 1935 66.000 129.000 2.575.000 1940 114.000 270.000 3.490.000 1945 116.000 288.000 6.099.000 1950 197.000 462.000 10.995.000 1954 312.000 624.000 17,160,000 1955 318.000 652.000 17.930.000 ‘Information from 1955 U. S. Crop Census. ’Measured in terms oi dry weight. TABLE 2. COMPARATIVE ACREAGE, PRODUCTION AN D VALUE OF ALFALFA HAY WITH OTHER IMPOR- TANT HAY CROPS HARVESTED IN TEXAS IN 1950 Harvested Forage production‘ h Total Hay crop acreage fital Per acre farm Value Tons Tons Dollars Alfalfa 196.646 462,206 2.34 10,994,863 Prairie, range I and marsh grass 178,106 179,867 1.01 2,950,431 Small grain 109,378 100,064 .92 1,837,053 Lespedeza 65,760 79,611 1.21 1,831,053 Clover 48,256 52,907 1.10 1,190,408 Bermuda, Sudan Iohnson and other 626,918 668,165 1.06 11,597,545 All’ I 1,225,064 1,542,820 30,402,235 Percentage of total for alfalfa 16 30 36 ‘Measured in terms of dry weight. zExcluding cowpea, peanut and sorghum hay. AREA OF PRODUCTION Alfalfa is exacting in its soil and fertility re- quirements, but has been grown successfully on some 0f the more fertile soil types by farmers who were careful t0 furnish the conditions and management essential for good growth. Success- ful production, evenon these soils, depends on thorough seedbed preparation, adequate fertili- zation, careful seeding and good management. Large areas in West Texas are suitable for alfalfa production, but the actual acreage is lim- ited to the availability of water for irrigation. As shown in Figure 1, these irrigated areas are TABLE 3. TOTAL SEED PRODUCTION, VALUE OF SEED AND ACREAGE HARVESTED FOR SEED DURING 1950 OF THE FORAGE CROPS OF MAIOR IMPOR- TANCE IN THE SEED PRODUCTION ENTERPRISES OF TEXAS Harvested Seed production Total F°m9e ¢Y°P acreage Total Per care farm value Pounds Pounds Dollars Legumes: Sweetclover 61,994 11,980,948 193 1,797,134 Vetch 52,666 7,062,113 134 1,129,938 Alfalfa 27,586 3,050,342 111 971,780 Lespedeza 1.413 288,950 204 36,631‘ Red clover 491 69,073 141 24,175 Bur clover 513 71,500 139 20.475 Grasses: Sudan 22.148 11,225,240 507 561,260 Bluestems a 3,577 301,127 84 90,338 Ryegrass 659 v 117,776 179' 17,666 Other crops 6,507 . . . . . . . . 217,579 All forages 179.735 . . . . . . . . 4,909,118 l Percentage of total ~ for alfalfa 15 l 20 4 - -l = I la, ALFALFA ACREAGE a |95o census y I DOT = 20o ACRES /::.\-;- Figure 1. Distribution of the acreage of alfalfa hay’: vested in Texas in 1950. Each dot equals 200 acres. ' widely scattered, but, in general, are found in a, valleys of the Rio Grande, Pecos and Red Riv and in counties such as Hale and Floyd W shallow water is available for pump irriga _ Alfalfa is produced in two other areas, eit without irrigation or with occasional sup mental irrigations. A considerable acreage non-irrigated alfalfa is grown .J?on the R01 Plains along the Red River on land that water table less than 20 feet below the soil a face. The other major area of non-irrigated. falfa is in the Grand and Blackland Prai extending from Cooke and Grayson coun southward to Wharton county. ALFALFA VARIETIES Alfalfa is a herbaceous perennial belon, to the legume family. Its flowers occur in rat loose racemes and generally have a purple c0 The seed pods are a twisted spiral with one; two complete turns and each pod contains sev small mitt or kidney-shaped seed. The stems A ally are erect and reach their maximum hei of 2 to 3 feet at blossoming time. The se woody base of the plant, or crown, gives ris new stems every 4 to 6 weeks during the gro , season, thus making possible several cuttings hay each year. The plant has trifoliate lea which are arranged alternately on the stem. falfa has a taproot with few to many bray‘ roots which, in permeable soil, may extend L 30 feet deep. * A No commercial recognition was given in; United States to alfalfa varieties before I Differences in behavior became apparent as tempts to grow the crop spread to areas wh conditions were less favorable. This resulte; several fairly distincticommercial varieties showed great differences in their reaction to“; and latitude, with some giving best results North and others doing better in the ex- f; South. a eommercial alfalfa varieties of the United (17) are divided into four distinct groups, § ntaining varieties that differ considerably themselves. These groups are: ommon. Includes the ordinary purple- smooth alfalfa, from which numerous fal strains, such as, Texas Common, have ped naturally in the Western States. Turkestan. Includes alfalfas that are simi- I flower color to the common alfalfas, but ’ growth is shorter and more spreading. All rted strains are called Turkestan. Hardis- iOrestan and Nemastan are strains of Turk- being increased in the United States. Bar- _ Common is a regional strain of Turkestan in the Pecos Rivervalley of Texas and is ‘adapted to the southwestern environment. eVariegated. Includes alfalfas that origina- Ii-from crosses between common alfalfa, Medi- ZI satioa, and the yellow-flowered species, "cago falcata. Grimm, Cossack, Baltic and ,k are examples of this group. f-Non-hardy. Includes rather distinct varie- ,_,that are erect, recover quickly after cutting, " a long growing period and are susceptible temperatures. The Peruvian, African, In- 1 and Arabian varieties belong to this group. i7 A relatively large number of alfalfa varie- ‘may be grown successfully under Texas en- nmental. conditions. Certain varieties may l. excellent growth and development in one of Texas and be relatively unproductive in ther area because of the extreme climatic var- on encountered from north to south and from , to west. The varieties showing the most P» ise in Texas are described following. Any fety should be grown only in areas where re- i‘ ch and experience has shown it is well adapt- i‘ Texas o1" Southwest Common. The common feties of alfalfa are not distinct varieties, but erally are mixtures of many plant types which g’ been grown under similar environmental ‘ditions for many years. Poorly adapted plants eliminated from the plant population by ad- l‘ e climatic conditions while the stronger plants ive. Because of this fact, sources of com- f: alfalfa may differ considerably in seed qual- " and plant types. Southwest Common seed uld be purchased from a known, reputable ler, the buyer making certain that the lot is of weed seed and otherwise is of good qual- , ‘Whenever possible, certified seed should be it ined. Southwest Common, which originated from ~hilean alfalfa introduction, is not classified the winter-hardy group of varieties, but it sel- ..- suffers serious winter-killing in Texas. The variety makes satisfactory growth throughout Texas, but in general, it is not as productive as the non-hardy varieties in South Texas. In Cen- tral and South Texas, this variety may grow in- termittently during the winter. Southwest Com- mon is susceptible to bacterial wilt and, should this disease become prevalent, one of the wilt-re- sistant varieties should be used. Barstow Common. Barstow Common alfalfa originated from an introduction of Turkestan al- falfa that was planted in the vicinity of Grand- falls, Texas, in 1892 by John T. Sweatt. Seed from this original planting were distributed throughout the locality and it has been grown a continuously since that time with little or no out- crossing with other varieties. Seed of this vari- ety were sold as Barstow. Grown seed from 1910 to 1942 by T. F. Moore of the» Barstow Commis- sion Company. Several farmers of the Barstow, Texas, community formed a Certified Alfalfa Seed Growers Association in the early 1930's. This group changed the name of the local variety from Barstow Grown alfalfa to Southwest Com- mon. By 1940, the growers realized they had a strain that was somewhat different from the or- dinary Southwest Common alfalfa and reversed their earlier decision. Some confusion still ex- ists in the minds of many alfalfa producers re- garding these two varieties. Even though the productivity and disease reactions of Southwest Common and Barstow Common are similar under Texas conditions, they are separate and distinct varieties with different origins. Caliverde. Caliverde is highly resistant to bacterial wilt, common leaf spot and downy mil- dew. It was developed in California by cross- ing California Common with a Turkestan selec- tion and backcrossing to California Common. This variety is similar to California Common (sometimes called California Chilean) in growth habit, recovery after cutting and winter-hardi- ness. Caliverde is well adapted to Central and South Texas where winter-killing is not severe, and it could be substituted readily for Southwest Common should these diseases become serious in these areas. Seed of this variety have been avail- able commercially since 1952. Buffalo. Buffalo alfalfa was produced at the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station in cooperation with the U. S. Department of Agri- culture. It is a selection from an old line of Kan- sas Common alfalfa tracingleback as far as 1907 as a Kansas-grown strain. This variety, while not inbred, was close-bred, particular attention being given to bacterial wilt resistance and seed and forage productivity. Initial seed increase fields were planted in 1943. Buffalo possesses good seedling vigor and a high degree of bacte- rial wilt resistance; it makes rapid recovery after harvest and has good fall growth. It initiates growth in the spring somewhat later than Com- mon in Central and South Texas, and for this reason, its use in Texas is largely confined to North Texas. Williamsbnrg. Williamsburg is a selection from Kansas Common developed under Virginia conditions. It is more persistent and competes better with weeds than most varieties in the East- ern States. It has produced satisfactory forage yields in Central and North Texas, but is not re- sistant to bacterial wilt. Williamsburg could be utilized in these areas, but since it has shown no marked advantage over other varieties, it is not given a general recommendation. Ranger. Ranger alfalfa’ is a synthetic vari- ety produced through the cooperative efforts of the Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station and the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Ranger is a multiple-strain variety, with Cossack consti- tuting 45 percent of the parentage; Turkestan, 45 percent; and Ladak, 10 percent. The outstand- ing» characteristics of Ranger are its resistance to bacterial wilt disease and its winter-hardiness. It is more susceptible to leaf diseases than Buf- falo. Its use should be confined to North Texas as a possible substitute for Buffalo. Enough seed of Ranger are available to meet the demand for a wilt-resistant, winter-hardy variety. Lahontan. Lahontan alfalfa is a new syn- thetic variety developed by the U. S. Department of Agriculture at Reno, Nevada. This variety was synthesized from five selections originating primarily from the variety Nemastan. It is prac- tically immune to the stem nematode, has a high- er degree of resistance to bacterial wilt than Ranger, and is the only variety at present which is resistant to the spotted alfalfa aphid. Lahon- tan has not been tested widely in Texas, and it cannot be recommended generally at this time un- less the stem nematode or spotted alfalfa aphid becomes serious. If the spotted alfalfa aphid con- tinues to increase as it has in recent years, Lah- ontan may be of great importance. African. African was selected from an Egyptain introduction by the U. S. Department of Agriculture. It grows rapidly and recovers quickly after cutting. The leaves and stems are somewhat larger than those of Common alfalfa. It initiates growth early in the spring and usu- ally will provide an earlier cutting than Common alfalfa in South Texas. This variety is classed as non-hardy and is susceptible to bacterial wilt and foliage diseases. In general, its use should be con- fined to South Texas. The grower should assure himself of a good seed source before purchasing seed because there are many strains of African on the market and some are not superior to Texas Common. Indian. Indian alfalfa, which is now being used in South Texas, was introduced by the U. S. Department of Agriculture from India. It is similar to African in growth habit, but is slightly less cold-tolerant. Seed are available locally throughout the Southwest, but the same caution concerning seed sources recommended for Afri- can should be observed. l6 ,1 Hairy Peruvian. Hairy Peruvian was f, introduced into the United States in 1899 thro the efforts of the U. S. Department of Agri ture. It is more upright and less branched t Texas Common, and has fewer and some " coarser stems; however, in thick stands, this A ference is not marked. The most striking c, acteristic of this variety is the gpubescence; hairs on the whole plant, givi-nglthe foliag grayish appearance. Hairy Peruvian m rapid growth, recovers quickly after cutting r in areas of mild climate, will continue to gro r cool weather and short days after the growth Common alfalfa has ceased. In South Texas, winter growth of Indian and African exc that of Hairy Peruvian. This variety is not l» hardy, seldom surviving temperatures below Y" '15., and should not be grown in North or Cen exas. * Chilean. Chilean is another non-hardy-e falfa of the common type frequently grown the Southwestern States. It resembles H Peruvian alfalfa closely except that it has hairs; Its origin is traced back to an introd tion from Chile in 1850 which came into I fornia. It recovers rapidly after cutting, but highly susceptible to cold temperatures. Wh reliable seed sources are available, Chilean is = isfactory for use in South Texas. Other Varieties. Other new varieties n . on the market, some of which are still in prel" inary stages of testing, are Atlantic, Narra sett, Vernal, Sevelra, Nemastan, Pilca Butta i Du Puits. The first four varieties were devel ed in the United States and the last three w, introduced from Turkey, Australia and Fra I respectively. Atlantic is a high-yielding, va gated variety that is well adapted in the Eas f States, and has been grown successfully in "p oming and Northern Colorado. It is somew tolerant, but not resistant, to bacterial wilt. Ni ragansett is a high-yielding, winter-hardy, q wilt-susceptible variety from Rhode Island, i; ted in the Northeastern States. Pilca Buttai so called “dryland” alfalfa variety, compares -; vorably with non-hardy types over a short pe of time in Central Texas, but has been infe = to the non-hardy varieties in South Texas and. Texas Common throughout most of the S v Vernal is resistant to bacterial wilt‘ and is win hardy. Its greatest value is in the North States. Sevelra is a drouth-resistant, cold-ha‘ variety which shows some promise for hay = pasture in the Northwestern States. It resul from natural crossing with winter types, incl l; ing Grimm, and is adapted to low rainfall ar where wilt is not a problem. Nemastan is res‘ ant to the stem nematode, but is highly sus tible to leaf spot diseases. Its area of use is l" ited largerly to Utah and Nevada where the st nematode is a serious problem. Du Puits is . atively vigorous and hardy in growth, but is i ceptible to anthracnose, stem nematodes and .1 terial ‘wilt. Du Puits does not exceed the prod" iu+Southwest Common, and is not persistent jryland conditions in North Texas. reeping” or “pasture-type” alfalfas have n successful in Texas. The two principal “ing” varieties, Nomad and Rhizoma, have cluded in Texas tests for several years. ave shown little or no tendency toward a 4g or rhizomatous growth habit and pro- Xtremely low hay yields. Their best adap- if appears to be the high, cold regions of the I States where other alfalfas are less adapt- few, true rhizomatous types are now in- in the alfalfa breeding programs of many inent stations, including the Texas Station. ianr workers recently released a creeping called Rambler, but the performance of ariety under Texas conditions is yet to be ined. REGIONAL ADAPTATION Early Work w n early planting of Turkestan alfalfa was in 1892 in the Pecos River valley in the city of Grandfalls. The crop was found to be adapted to the area, and alfalfa still is one important crops of this irrigated valley of Texas. Since these early plantings, the al- “acreage of the State has increased steadily. “rous varieties and strains have been grown e Texas Agricultural Experiment Station lg the past 50 years to determine their de- of adaptation to the different climatic con- s of the State. “Alfalfa was mentioned as early as 1907 in ilnnual report from the Beeville substation, a reference was made to a variety name or number. Subsequent reports indicated the Common and Turkestan varieties were H the first to be grown on the station. The icothe substation (4) reported results of started in 1909 with 14 numbered strains falfa. Alfalfa was considered a quality feed livestock and a crop with a high enough pro- ‘on potential to be regarded as a cash crop the area. Alfalfa experiments of various ’ have been conducted at this substation each since 1909 and a great deal of valuable in- ation has been accumulated. ‘%*Most of the substations and field laborator- c; Texas have conducted alfalfa experiments lme time. The Denton substation first tested a in 1911; the substations at Spur and An- initiated tests in 1914; and in 1916 tests i’ established at Lubbock. The varieties eval- ‘w included the common types from most of §;Western States,“ introduced strains such as estan, Peruvian,“ Arabian, South African, ish and Baltic, and the early United States fties like Grimm, Nebraska Dryland, Sand 3- and others. Almost without exception, ‘ locally produced common alfalfa proved su- j» to other varieties and strains. Many of those early varieties were not adapt- ed to Texas environments and are no longer grown, but new varieties and strains are develop- ed each year by the state experiment stations and many introductions are brought in from all parts of the world. Most of these new or introduced strains are grown and evaluated at several Tex- as locations. Recent Work In recent years, many new varieties have been developed which have greater disease and insect resistance, continue growth for longer per- iods and make a more vigorous or rapid growth. These newer varieties have largely replaced the older types and; for this reason, ‘the data pre- sented from variety tests for various sections of glge State have been limited to the 10 years, 1946- Texas has been divided into three regions for the purpose of pin-pointing varietal adaptation and recommendations. These are designated as regions A, B and C in Figure 2, representing North, Central and South Texas, respectively. Alfalfa is produced primarily under irrigation in the western part of each region. There is con- siderable overlapping of the varieties adapted to these three regions, but since the regions present some management as well as some varietal dif- ferences, they are discussed separately. North Texas This area for the most part is a gently roll- ing plain which is traversed by the Canadian, Red, Brazos, Trinity and Sabine Rivers and their tributaries. Alfalfa on the High Plains, or the western two-thirds of the Panhandle, is produced ALFALFA REGIONS OF ADAPTATION A = NORTH TEXAS B =CENTRAL TEXAS C = SOUTH TEXAS IRRIGATED Figure 2. An alfalfa variety may be adapted to one or more of the regions indicated on the map, but regardless of the region of varietal adaptation, all alfalfa produced in West Texas (shaded area) is irrigated. 7 TABLE 4. HAY YIELDS. BIN TONS OF AIR DRY HAY PER ACRE, PRODUCED AT CHILLICOTHE, 1947-51 Year 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951‘ Variety Average Kansas Common 2.42 6.95 4.24 3.25 1.72 3.72 Southwest Common 2.76 6.10 3.62 2.92 2.00 3.48 Hardistan 2.45 5.87 3.48 3.53 1.76 3.42 Grimm 2.73 5.74 3.45 3.36 1.32 3.32 Ranger 2.54 5.77 ' 3.44 3.28 1.48 3.30 Buffalo 2.36 5.53 3.48 3.42 1.66 3.29 Ladak 2.60 5.15 3.08 3.48 1.12 3.09 ‘First cutting for hay. second cutting for seed. under irrigation, while in the remainder of the area along the Red River, alfalfa is produced either without irrigation or with occasional sup- plemental irrigation. When properly utilized, alfalfa is one of the most profitable crops grown in the region, Figure 3. Throughout most of the region, alfalfa is grown for hay, pasture or seed, but certain local areas find it more profitable to restrict the use of alfalfa to a pasture or seed crop. t About 75 different strains or varieties of al- falfa have been grown in recent years at the Chillicothe substation. Hay yields of the major alfalfa varieties, Table 4, show that the common alfalfas compare favorably withgnewer varieties such as Ranger and Buffalo. During 1947-51, Kansas Common and Southwest Common aver- aged 3.72 and 3.48 tons of hay, respectively, com- pared with hay yields of 3.30 and 3.29 tons, re- spectively, for Ranger and Buffalo. Bacterial wilt was not a problem in this area and the stand at the end of the 5-year period still was good. Since the disease problem in the area was minor and there was no appreciable decrease in stand, the yield of the locally adapted common alfalfa Figure 3. A typical alialia field near Vernon, Texas. in this area. 8 strains was as great or greater than any of t, improved varieties. " "if Annual hay production varied from about 2. tons in a dry year to 6_ to 7 tons in good rainfa years. The advantage in yield of the comm, varieties seems to be accentuated in years of got rainfall. In the wet years, 1948 and 1949, Kay sas Common produced 17 to 1,8 "fpercent more ha than Ranger, but in the dry yeafs, 1947 and 195 Ranger produced 1 to 5 percent more hay th Kansas Common. r The extreme drouth since 1950 has made t A establishment and maintenance of alfalfa stan, difficult in North Texas. Table 5 presents ha yields from 1 and Z-year-old stands of some, the newer, improved varieties of alfalfa in c0 i; parison with the old, standard varieties. i. cause of the short time that the stands surviv and the inconsistencies shown by varieties in t A two nurseries planted, the data are not concl sive. They do, however, indicate the relative pe formance of some of the newer varieties in ex tremely dry years. a Southwest Common produced the greate yield of hay in the 4 years reported, followi closely by Oklahoma Common, Kansas Commol Atlantic and Buffalo. Many of the new varieti produced satisfactory yields the first year, b p. both stands and yields were reduced drasticall p a in succeeding years. All varieties failed to pr‘ duce satisfactory stands in 1952 and 1953. Th yield of the so-called “pasture-type” alfalfas, v mad and Rhizoma, has been about one-half », two-thirds of Southwest Common, and both rieties are somewhat later in initiating growt in the spring. Central Texas y, Alfalfa produced in the western half of ar B, Figure 2, is irrigated; that produced in th eastern half receives little or no supplement Alialialgenerally is produced without supplemental irrigatio lTABLE 5. HAY YIELDS. IN TONS OF AIR-DRY HAY PER ACRE. PRODUCED AT CHILLICOTHE, 1950-55 Tons of air-dry hay per acre‘ 1950 1951 Av. 1954 1955 Av. Cjxfégzd f {Common 2.49 2.14 2.90 2.59 2.79 2.99 2.49 " 9.19 1.55 2.97 2.17 1.99 2.02 2.19 2.94 1.70 2.02 1.94 1.99 2.21 2.12 s. mmon 2.99 1.99 2.01 2.09 1.99 2.02 2.02 _urg 2.40 1.70 2.05 1.94 1.99 1.95 1.95 ~- Common .... » .... .... 2.58 2.06 2.32 .... j- o Common 2.25 1.96 2.10 .... .... .... 2.09 2.17 2.10 2.79 1.44 2.09 ... . . . . . . . . . 2.02 1.92 1.97 1.91 1.70 1.79 2.04 1.99 1.72 .... ... .. 2.00 1.29 1.94 ~ a 1.94 1.91 ‘1.49 1.49 1.92 1.40 1.79 .90 1.94 1.59 1.09 » 1.90 In general, alfalfa fields are confined t0 ‘ttom locations or to fields where ample jis available for irrigation. Most of the re harvested entirely for hay, with the ex- J of the bottom land areas surrounding Pe- rstow and El Paso, where a considerable e is harvested for seed. i y yields of several alfalfa varieties at the River Valley Laboratory near College Sta- ‘re given in Table 6. These data indicate ‘p. relatively wide range of alfalfa types are f» to the region. Southwest Common ranks 1 the better varieties for forage production. ain difference between regions A and B in aptation of alfalfa varieties is shown in the , ance of the non-hardy types such as Afri- 11d Indian, and the cold-hardy types like _ and Buffalo, in comparison with South- Common. ,uthwest Common produced an average of spans of hay during 1950-54, compared with imade nursery maintenance difficult. 1950-51 data are from a nursery planted in the fall of 1949. 1954-55 data are nursery planted in April 1953. No data were collected in 1952 and 1953 because of stand failures. an average of 2.83 and 2.56 tons for Indian and African, respectively. This comparison shows that there is little difference between the per- formance of the common and these non-hardy types of alfalfa in Central Texas. In North ‘Tex- as, the non-hardy types generally fail to survive the average winter temperatures, whereas they rarely are killed in Central Texas. The relatively hardy alfalfas such as Ranger and Buffalo pro- duced 2.08 and 1.99 tons of hay per acre, respec- tively, which was considerably below the forage yield of Southwest Common, Indian and African. Hay yields of Ranger and Buffalo, however, com- pared favorably with the forage yield of South- west Common in North Texas. Table 7 presents the yield of hay produced by some of the newer and older varieties during their first year after establishment. Southwest Common was second only to Caliverde in this test, and over the years it has been the highest and most consistent producer of any of the al- HAY YIELDS OF ALFALFA VARIETIES AT THE BRAZOS RIVER VALLEY LABORATORY, COLLEGE STATION. 1950-54‘ ‘f Tons of air-dry forage per acre if 1952 1953 my 1950 1951 New stand Old stand New stand Old stand 1954 Average " 4.95 1.01 2.59 4.99 1.61 1.49 3.21 2.83 “oat Common 4.85 .97 2.46 4.87 1.68 1.19 3.45 2.79 _- burg 4.84 .91 2.48 5.33 1.43 1.06 3.40 2.78 ’ 4.78 .67 2.96 5.02 1.61 _ .97 2.88 2.70 tta 3.44 1.03 3.16 5.06 1.53 .95 v3.26 2.63 . 4.14 .85 2.90 4.29 1.79 .59 3.35 2.56 , ... . . . . . 2.14 ... . 1.67 1.44 3.07 2.08’ ' ' >- 2.09 1.59 1.36 2.92 1.99’ 2.03 1.26 .85 2.90 1.76” 'de . . . . 1.62 . . . . 3.69 . . . . eruvian 2.16 . . . 1.29 3.19 1.71 2.72 Chilean -e of four harvests. it ruined all stands in 1955. Fall seedings in 1955 were unsuccessful. TABLE 7. HAY YIELDS OF ALFALFA VARIETIES IN TONS PER ACRE, PRODUCED AT THE BRAZOS RIVER VALLEY LABORATORY, COLLEGE STATION, DUR- ING THE FIRST YEAR AFTER ESTABLISHMENT. 1954 lst 2nd 3rd Variety cutting. cutting. cutting, Total 4/23 6/3 Caliverde 1.08 1.68 .93 3.69 Southwest Common .94 1.58 .93 3.45 Williamsburg .85 1.53 1.03 3.41 African 1.05 1.45 .86 3.36 Pilca Butta 1.00 1.48 .78 3.26 Du Puits .95 1.46 .84 3.25 Indian .98 1.36 .87 3.21 Hairy Peruvian .92 1.35 .92 3.19 Ranger .81 1.30 .96 3.07 Buffalo .79 1.35 .79 2.93 Ladak .66 1.38 .87 2.91 Nomad .53 1.'22 1.15 2.90 Chillicothe Common 1.01 1.08 .78 2.87 Atlantic .91 1.11 .85 2.87 Sevelra .56 1.42 .86 2.84 Arizona Chilean .65 1.25 .82 2.72 Naragansett .58 1.19 .83 2.60 falfa types grown in the Central region. Cali- verde has looked good in the few tests conducted, and promises to be worthy of consideration, es- pecially if bacterial wilt and downy mildew be- come serious problems in the State. Buffalo and Ranger do well in this region, but they are some- what later in starting growth in the spring than Southwest Common, and for this reason, are not as satisfactory. Williamsburg produces good yields, but is no better than Southwest Common and is just as susceptible to disease. African, Indian, Pilca Butta, Hairy Peru- vian and Arizona Chilean are highly susceptible to injury by cold weather and are a litle risky for use in the Central region, even though they will survive most winters. These varieties may pro- duce excellent yields 1 or 2 years, but then start to decline because of winter-killing, and yields may be reduced greatly. TABLE 8. AVERAGE YIELDS OF AIR-DRY FORAGE IN TONS PER ACRE FROM ALI-‘ALFA VARIETIES UNDER IRRIGATION IN LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY. 1950‘ Varieties Dates Hairy South- Aveb . . A 1 - ' gfiming Indian Aincan Peru- goerflt its? gills: age vian mon -18-50 .43 .41 .40 .29 .19 .29 .34 1-50 .60 .56 .52 .47 .34 .35 .47 5-50 .83 .81 .72 .66 .61 .47 .68 -12-50 1.16 1.07 .87 1.00 .73 .88 .95 -25-50 .58 .61 .49 .51 .45 .30 .49 -22-50 .65 .59 .59 .59 .53 .41 .56 7-25-50 .64 .59 .55 .50 .45 .40 .52 9-7-50 .67 .51 .70 .58 .64 .40 .58 10-20-50 .56 .40 .55 .46 .44 .36 .46 12-8-50 .53 .37 .53 .40 .38 .39 .43 Total 6.65 5.92 5.92 5.46 4.76 4125 ‘Test established in fall of 1949 at Raymondville. Part oi above data previously reported (16). 10 Atlantic, Ladak, Sevelra and Narragan are beteradapted in the Northern and N0' eastern States, and should be used in Texas o when seed of better adapted varieties are ' available. Du Puits makes satisfactory gro the first year after seeding, but stands tend to p cline rapidly in the second and succeeding ye‘ Nomad, the “pasture-type” alfalfa from Ore produced much less hay than-the best varie and failed to show any tendency toward a p A trate or creeping habit of growth. . South Texas Alfalfa production in South Texas is cen = ed in two widely separated areas. The first ar which is primarily non-irrigated, is in the valleys of the Colorado and Brazos Rivers; 5 second area, which is entirely irrigated, is in i, Lower Rio Grande Valley. Most of the alf '1 crop is put up as hay or is dehydrated for p cessing into meal. Alfalfa is considered a mi g crop for the area, but where water is plentiful, can fill the need for a high-producing, deep-r ed legume, particularly for fall and spring. a Temperatures in the Lower Rio Grande * ley favor alfalfa making considerable growth d‘ ing the fall and winter with adequate moistu Table 8 shows the amount of alfalfa hay prod ed with irrigation at each cutting and the to production for six varieties. Hay yields of 0 half to 1 ton per acre were obtained at each c ting from March through October on most of t varieties tested. Growth during November, t cember, January and February, however, ~ much slower and the total forage produced f each cutting was considerably less than that i tained during the summer. In the eastern h of this region, where alfalfa may be grown so‘ years without supplemental irrigation, as ma cuttings or as much production could not be .1 tained. Four or five cuttings with total yie of 3 to 31/2 tons per acre would be good with supplemental moisture. v The non-hardy alfalfa varieties, in gene ' produce greater yields of forage than any of other varieties tested; however, satisfactory yields were obtained with Southwest Comm, The non-hardy types, Indian, African and Ha’, Peruvian, produced hay yields of 6.65, 5.92 a 5.92 tons per acre, respectively, compared wi 5.46 tons per acre produced by Southwest if mon. Atlantic and Pilca Butta compare fav‘ ably with common and the non-hardy types d i ing the spring and summer, but their rate ' growth is reduced greatly during the fall a‘ winter, and their production for the season as whole is lower. In South Texas, it is not unus to obtain such production from 8 to 10 cuttin‘ per year as long as moisture and fertility a‘ not limiting factors and the alfalfa is not A until it reaches the one-fourth bloom stage é growth. " The varieties planted at Raymondville A 1949 also were planted at San Benito, Table uttings in 1950 gave approximately the ‘esults as for the Raymondville test. N0 S were obtained after May 26, 1950 be- of a drastic reduction of stands by cotton t. Where cotton root rot is a serious prob- . alfa is reduced to an annual crop at best, Q the worst root rot areas, it may be im- l to attemptto grow alfalfa. In spite of p y problems encountered in alfalfa produc- “~ continues to be one of the most promising for hay, grazing and’ soil improvement in Texas. PRODUCTION PRACTICES Alfalfa may be grown successfully following i. any crop, provided proper attention is to the preparation of the seedbed. The ‘zconsiderations are for it to follow a crop ves the land in good condition for alfalfa, ,1 allow ample time for proper seedbed prep- ‘In after harvesting the preceding crop. Al- 7seedings work well following clean cultiva- ops such as corn and cotton, or in the drier s, on summer-fallowed land. Soil and Climatic Adaptation - here are some soils on most Texas farms i: are adapted to alfalfa production. Bayles ipointed out that alfalfa was well adapted to rigated sections of West Texas and to prac- - all of the creek and river bottom soils in umid sections of the State. There also are productive upland areas and many sub-irri- 1 valleys and sandy uplands, such as those 7;. on the Rolling Plains, which are suitable lfalfa. Alfalfa is more sensitive to soil acidity and ° drainage than most other legumes grown in '4 . The crop consumes the equivalent of 100 ds of lime for each ton of hay produced. ’ should be tested for acidity, and if they are pH 6.4, sufficient lime should be added to “t the acid soil condition. ' Alfalfa will grow on a wide variety of soils, lwill make its best growth, with the least nt of water, on deep loam, clay loam or y loam soils that are well drained and have ‘atively high organic matter content. Young a plants often are damaged by washing or "ng on sandy sites, and they often develop shallow root systems on heavy soils that h is limited or stopped in dry weather un- jlwater is applied frequently. Land Preparation 1 Many of the failures to obtain good stands ‘falfa rriaybe traced directly to poor seedbed ‘ration? The young alfalfa seedlings require in good physical condition and a firm seed- that is neither over-worked nor over-com- W. An over-worked seedbed may become Cited after sowing and seedlings frequently die TABLE 9. AVERAGE YIELDS OF AIR-DRY FORAGE IN TONS PER ACRE FROM ALFALFA VARIETIES UNDER IRRIGATION IN THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VAL- LEY. 1950‘ D t Varieties a es _ _ <>f S°““" In- . Hm" Atlan- Pilca i3‘: cutting west did“ African Peru- tic Bum,‘ Common vian 2-20-50 .32 .36 .35 .35 .31 .21 .32 4-12-50 .74 .65 .73 .71 .56 .63 .67 5-10-50 .72 .66 .58 .61 .59 .56 .62 5-26-50 .65 .72 .66 .64 .58 .37 .60 Totals 2.43 2.39 2.32 2.31 2.04 1.77 ‘Test established in tall of I949 at San Benito. Cotton root rot destroyed stands in Iune and Iuly 1950. Data previously reported (I6). trying to break this hard soil layer. Loose soils also are a serious menace for new seedlings, since they fail to provide proper contacts for the new roots being formed, and many of these tiny roots may wither and the small seedling may not sur- vive. In semi-arid regions of Texas, summer fal- lowing is practiced often to insure satisfactory moisture conditions at seeding time. However, any seedbed preparation practices that may lead to soil blowing should be avoided in the western part of the State. Fertilization Alfalfa is a heavy feeder and requires an abundance of available plant food in the soil for best growth. Tests conducted by the Texas Ag- ricultural Experiment Station show that the ele- ments most likely to be deficient on any field are phosphorus and calcium in East Texas, and phos- phorus 1n West Texas. A soil test should be ob- tained and the recommendations followed prior to planting a field to alfalfa. A fertilizer test on several alfalfa varieties conducted at the Brazos River Valley Laboratory during 1947-49 illustrates the wide need for phos- phorus fertilizers in East Texas. The results of using two rates of phosphorus on six alfalfa va- rieties are shown in Table 10. Some varieties re- sponded differently to the additional fertilizer, particularly in the first 2 years of the test. How- ever, by the third year, even varieties showing little or no response in the early part of the test were beginning to produce significant increases because of the accumulative effect of the extra phosphorus. The need for phosphorus generally is greater in much of East Texas than was shown in this experiment; consequently, the response to phosphorus fertilizers would be greater. Most of the alfalfa soils in Texas have con- siderable potassium, or potash, and potassium de- ficiencies in alfalfa are seldom reported. How- ever, large amounts of this important plant food are needed now in some areas of East Texas and eventually may be- needed in other areas where alfalfa is continually being removed as hay. 11 The nitrogen content of some alfalfa soils is relatively low and new seedings often may need 15 to 20 pounds per acre of nitrogen at seeding time to enable the seedlings to make rapid, early growth. Since weeds also will be stimulated by the nitrogen, the initial fertilizer applications should be small to prevent early Weed competi- tion. Established alfalfa is able to get its nitro- gen supply from the air by means of the bacteria in the nodules on the roots. This source of nitro- gen is not infallible, however, and where vigor- ous stands seem to decline, the need for addi- tional nitrogen should be determined. Alfalfa requires a great deal of calcium, and limestone should be considered wherever alfalfa is to be grown. As a rule, soils in the west half of Texas, the Blackland Prairie of North and Cen- tral Texas and the alluvial river bottom soils of Central, East and South Texas have sufficient lime for alfalfa. The sandy and sandy loam soils of East Texas and the clay and sandy soils of the Gulf Coast Prairie may need an application of lime for this crop. Soils from alfalfa fields should be tested at least every 3 years to determine the need for mineral elements. Top-dressings of the deficient elements should be applied annually because each ton of alfalfa hay removes about 12 pounds of phosphoric acid, 45 pounds of potash and approx- imately 100 pounds of lime from the soil. In ad- dition, one ton of alfalfa hay contains about 50 pounds of nitrogen and approximately 17 pounds of it come from the soil. Inoculation The capacity of alfalfa to fix nitrogen ex- ceeds that of any other legume. In a 10-year ex- periment at the Agricultural Experiment Station, TABLE l0. HAY YIELDS IN TONS PER ACRE OF SEVERAL ALFALFA VARIETIES GROWN AT TWO LEVELS OF PHOSPHORUS FERTILIZER, BRAZOS RIVER VALLEY LABORATORY, COLLEGE STATION. 1947-49 Varieties Kan‘ _ _ Aver- Treatments South- sas Ch1- PIllCG Bui- Ran- age COm- Com- lean Butta falo ger mon mon » 1947 Fertilized‘ 5.97 5.78 5.58 5.42 6.26 5.42 5.74 Check” 5.76 5.71 5.44 5.26 5.35 5.76 5.55 1948 l Fertilized‘ 3.60 4.40 3.81 3.59 4.85 2.78 3.84 Check” 3.92 3.65 3.35 3.61 3.12 3.68 3.56 1949 Fertilized‘ 4.47 4.06 4.14 3.71 4.01 4.38 4.13 Check” 4.25 3.78 3.58 3.59 3.74 4.28 3.87 Average Fertilized‘ 4.68 4.75 4.51 4.24 5.04 4.19 4.57 Check’ 4.64 4.38 4.12 4.15 4.07 4.57 4.32 ‘Forty pounds of phosphoric acid (P205) per acre applied in the fall of 1946. Eighty pounds of P205 per acre applied as top-dressing each spring. iForty pounds of P205 per acre applied in the iall of 1946 with no fertilizer thereafter. 12 w‘? Ithaca, New York, (6) the nitrogen-fixing 3 pacity of various legumes, in pounds per acre . year, was rated: alfalfa, 100; sweetclover, red clover, 60; soybeans, 42; and field peas, =' Under Texas conditions, it is estimated that. good field of alfalfa will fix about 100 pounds. available nitrogen per acre annually. Howev approximately two-thirds of it is used imm ately for normal plant growth.» The alfalfa -.. must be well inoculated with the proper cultu of bacteria if such vigorous and productive pla "e are to be obtained. a ‘X Bacteria may live in the soil for many yea provided it has plenty of organic matter a moisture, and it does not become too strongly ac'i even without the production of alfalfa or sw“ clover. In Texas, however, farmers are urged inoculate all legume seed with a fresh culture ' bacteria regardless of the past history of the v Most of the soils of Texas are relatively low , organic matter. The soils of East Texas may ?_ strongly acid and all soils in the State may ‘ come extremely hot and dry during the summ Any of these adverse conditions may cause a rap decrease in the number of bacteria that will s11, vive in the soil from 1 year to the next. 4 Alfalfa seed should be planted as soon as t. sible after they are inoculated and kept in a sha place between the time they are inoculated .-* planted. Seed that are held over 24 hours af = inoculation should be re-inoculated before se ing. If the seed have been treated chemical for disease control, they should be planted wit, in 2 hours after inoculation. ~ Seeding Methods of Seeding There are numerous methods of seeding falfa successfully and the one used should depe on the equipment a farmer has available and t type of soil in which the alfalfa is to be plant Seeding may be done easily with a grain or gra land drill, particularly if an extra hopper f small seed is attached to the drill, Figures 4 a 5. The small-seed hopper will facilitate planti lower rates of seed per acre than otherwise W0 p be possible with a regular grain drill. The most important consideration in seedi alfalfa is to avoid covering the seed more th_ one-fourth inch deep in heavy soils or one-h inch deep in sandy soils. The use of a cultipac er before and after seeding helps to insure sh low coverage of the seed and to make conditio“ favorable for germination. The cultipacker sen er, which consists of two cultipacker rolle mounted one behind the other with a hopper t. small-seed grasses and legumes mounted abo and half-way between the two rollers, does _, good job on most soils and saves considerabl time. ' 7 In West Texas, where wind erosion is a pro: lem, it is common practice to seed alfalfa directl all grain or sorghum stubble and a special drill often is used. This drill is equipped rolling-coulter, furrow openers and a qgfuty spring to force the coulters through bble and into the soil. The depth of seed- {controlled by bands which are welded three- .4 to 1 inch from the edge of the coulter of Seeding ,nder Texas conditions, fall seeding is pre- ' nearly always to spring seeding, except jainsufficient moisture is available in the fall rmination and emergence. The best dates ing in extreme North Texas will vary from iber 1 to 30. If planted earlier than Sep- 1, the weather may become too hot and r the seedlings to get a good start. Plants Qseedings later than September 30 are in .r of being killed by coldweather before they established. The best dates of seeding ielater in the fall farther south in the At College Station, alfalfa should be seed- 7- Ween October 1 and 15, while in the Lower rande Valley, seeding should be done be- Li; October 15 and November 15. of Seeding The amount of seed necessary to insure a stand, in most cases, will depend on the con- of the seedbed. In East Texas, seeding at _te of 15 to 20 pounds per acre generally refgive good stands. Under dryland farming itions in the western half of the State, 12 to funds of seed per acre are recommended. If If‘ a is planted in 36 to 42-inch rows, 3 to 5 ids of seed per acre, depending on the mois- supply, are ample. Where moisture is limi- the lower rate should be used. Where al- is to be irrigated, 15 to 20 pounds of seed lacre should be planted with a drill. If the ;1- at the time of seeding is not in good con- n, the seeding rate should be increased 2 to nds per acre to obtain a good stand.- Seeding T‘It was believed at one time that growing al- § in cultivated rows would be better than f seeding, particularly in regions of limited all. After extensive tests (7), it was found if rainfall was too limited to produce hay a a close-drilled planting of alfalfa, it was too ; ed for alfalfa in cultivated rows. Under '-arid conditions, however, alfalfa in rows "lly will produce higher yields of seed than ed or broadcast seedings. Some farmers are 3 this method in South Texas under dryland itions. Irrigation *Alfalfa reaches its maximum development in tic areas favored by moderately high tem- tures, abundant sunshine, warm nights, rel- ly low humidity and adequate moisture. In Figure 4. Six-week's growth of alfalfa following fall seeding with adrill which banded the fertilizer below the seed, Brazos River Valley near College Station. the irrigated areas of West Texas, all of these requirements are fulfilled. The soil requirements for alfalfa under irrigation do not differ greatly from the requirements in other areas. Well- drained loam soils that allow the irrigation water to penetrate quickly to a depth of 5 or 6 feet are best. They will ‘enable the plants to develop deep roots, thereby obtaining moisture and nutrients from a much larger area. Both sandy and heavy clay soils present dif- ficult problems in the production of alfalfa. On deep loam soils, a common practice is to irrigate once per cutting, usually 7 to 1O days af- Figure 5. Grassland type drill equipped with separate hoppers for small seed, large seed and fertilizer. and showing the relative depth at which each component should be placed in the soil. 13 ter the hay crop has been removed. On light soils or on soils where water does not penetrate read- ily, two 0r more irrigations per cutting are recom- mended. The surface of the soil should be dry when the hay crop is cut to prevent mold develop- ment and general difficulty in curing the hay. The need for moisture can be determined by an examination of soil samples taken at various depths and locations throughout the field. Slow plant growth and extra dark green leaves also in- dicate limited available soil moisture. The amount of water to be applied is im- portant. Too much Water rapidly leaches the nitrogen from the soil; it raises the level of the water table which restricts root development and may contribute to drainage and salt problems. The amount of water applied should be the amount the soil can hold in the first 4 to 6 feet. According to Bayles (1), a good rule to follow is: 1 inch of water will wet clay soil 4 to 5 in- ches deep, a loam soil 6 to 10 inches and a sandy soil 12 inches or more. Good drainage and a fair- ly stable water table are necessary for vigorous growth of alfalfa. Ordinarily, alfalfa roots grow down until they strike saturated soil. When the water level fluctuates markedly, the submerged portion of the roots will rot and leave the plant weakened. This is especially true during the growing season when the roots are active. Com- plete exclusion of air for even a few daysmay be injurious. During the winter, when the plant is dormant, the roots can stand longer submer- gence. Methods oi Irrigation Since alfalfa occupies the land for at least 3 years, the preparation of _the land 1S especially important. Careful attention to lan_d grading, construction of levees and proper drainage facil- ities result in economy of labor for irrigation, ease of harvesting and higher yields during the life of the stand. The principal methods of irri- gating alfalfa are the border‘ method, contour bench method and overhead sprinkler method. Except for special conditions, the border method is the best and most widely used. With this method, the field is laid out with a series of parallel levees to control the flow of water. These borders run in the direction of the slope and have no cross checks between the levees. The greatest obstacles to the use of this method are that rela- tively large heads of water are required and the soil has to be sufficiently deep so that leveling between the borders can be done. The strips vary in width from 20 to 60 feet. The length of the borders vary from 300 to 400 feet on sandy soils and 600 to 800 feet on clay soils, but runs of more than 800 feet generally are wasteful of water. The length and width of the border strips should depend on the slope of the land, soil type, texture and infiltration characteristics and the amount of available water. A low, broad levee is used generally to allow machinery to pass from one border to the next and to permit seeding 14 across the levee. Temporary levees are usu 6 to 12 inches high with the base 2 or 3 feet W' A more permanent levee would be 1 to 2 feet L and 8 to 12 feet across. Drainage facilities i. disposing of excess surface water at the end of the borders are desirable. i The contour bench method of irrigation "i modification of the border method} and the le flooding method used in very flat “areas. It i sists of constructing borders on or near the - tour with the width between borders unifo This simplifies farming operations in that _ point rows are encountered. Such a system le itself nicely to slightly rolling topography, p vided the soil depth is sufficient that the a i between the borders can be smoothed enough: afford acceptable water control. This con i system works well on medium to heavy-textuf soils, but is not recommended for deep, coal textured soils because of water seepage f higher to lower levels and the possibility of cessive salt accumulation at the lower lev Competent personnel should be consulted bef, attempting to install a contour bench system a cause of_its complexity and the requirements i engineering precision. . _ _ The cost of installing a properly desig irrigation system often seems expensive, but » increase in yields of crops, saving in labor a’ conservation of water usually repay the fa 1' in a short time. The cost of land preparation i’ i the border method is somewhatigreater than ’ the contour bench method, but where the Q has a gradual slope and the available head of ter is sufficient to use the border method, i ease of handling water and of harvesting the c ' more than offsets the additional expense. I gardless of the method used, the farmer sho seek the advice of reliable personnel, because = two areas present the same problem or need actly the same irrigation system. 1 The sprinkler irrigation method may be 1i where the land is uneven or has too much s1‘ and costs of grading for the border and cont bench methods are prohibitive. The sprin _, method requires less land preparation than Q other method of irrigation, but the initial inst lation cost and the cost of each application water is high. The greatest advantage o sprinkler irrigation system is its adaptation rough and rolling topography, highly permea or very slowly permeable soils, shallow soils, : to combinations of these factors. Like the s‘ face methods of irrigation, sprinkler syste should be designed to meet the needs of the -, cific area to be irrigated and reliable person should be consulted on the design, operation '_ maintenance costs before the purchase is mad Seeding Irrigated Fields Alfalfa may be. broadcast or drilled, g where drilling canpbe done, it has many adv tages over broadcasting. The seed are more ’ distributed and can be planted to a uni- fpth to take advantage of available mois- eeding should be done across the checks ‘tithe top of the levees will be seeded. Un- filevees mean that not all the land is being which in turn will reduce yields and pro- jispace for weeds to grow. _. winarily, it is best to irrigate the land just tseeding. As soon as it has dried out suffi- ,the surface should be worked into a fine, ' seedbed. The alfalfa should be drilled j e soil refirmed immediately before the sur- m moisture is lost. Further irrigation ,j- be avoided until the plants have developed F leaves. Sometime good stands are obtain- ere the seed are “irrigated up,” but the is not recommended generally because Fexcessive crusting of the soil surface, es- k y on heavy soils. nder most conditions, the rate of seeding l» be about 15 pounds per acre. If the soil Well prepared, the planting rate should be 'unds per acre. In West Texas, the best = are obtained from September and October ‘bruary and March seedings. A nurse crop generally recommended for alfalfa, unless erosion is a problem. Maintenance of Stands sLate summer or fall-sown alfalfa requires g eatment that season. The young plants may considerable growth before cold weather _‘ them into a dormant state, but this growth ld never be removed. Weeds usually are blesome in spring-sown alfalfa and the big tion is whether it is better to remove the 2» y growth or allow it to grow. Carefully con- j» experiments (7) have shown that clip- "too early retards root development of the ’ g alfalfa. Even where weeds are rank, it _, tter to delay clipping until the alfalfa plants ‘in bloom. . ft In Texas, it is often possible to obtain two hree cuttings of hay the first year, even when lfa is sown in the spring. Several experi- ts have been conducted in recent years to de- I ine the optimum stage of growth to cut al- _' to get good yields, good quality hay and pre- 4 an excessive reduction of stand. These tests icate that the best time to cut alfalfa hay is en the plants are in the one-tenth to one-fourth 3» stage. Cutting at this stage, in the first ‘i. subsequent years, will give excellent produc- and above average quality, and the stands tj not be damaged appreciably. If the farmer f» is interested in seed production, he should ’ try to obtain more than one seed crop per A rapid-reduction of stand and a corre- finding increase in the weed population usually ult when two or more seed crops are harvested T h year. Attempts to improve stands by overseeding have failed in most cases. It generally is bet- ter to plow up poor stands, plant the area to some cultivated crop and then reseed. If seeding equip- ment is available that will place a band of ferti- lizer directly below the drilled row of alfalfa seed, poor stands may be improved. UTILIZATION CF ALFALFA Forage Production Hay The art of making good quality alfalfa hay can be acquired only with experience. Certain general rules may be suggested, but the details vary so much with temperature, humidity and the season that specific directions cannot be given to fit all conditions. A good crop of high- quality hay can be produced only from a pure, dense stand. Hay produced from such fields will be fine-stemmed and free of weeds, grasses or other foreign material, all of which are impor- tant factors of hay quality. Other quality fea- tures of good hay, such as leafiness and green color, can be attained only if the crop is cut at the right stage and then cured properly. Highest yields are obtained generally by cut- ting when the crop is in full bloom. But cutting at this stage lowers the nutritive value of the for- age because of the loss of leaves and an increase in the amount of fiber. Hay of the highest feed- ing value results from early cutting since a high- er proportion of leaves are obtained, which con- tain more protein than the stems. Carotene, or vitamin A, also is at a high level in alfalfa just before it starts blooming. However, continued pre-bloom cuttings usually will shorten the life of a stand. Alfalfa stands last longer, acre yields of protein are higher and forage yields are only slightly lower when harvesting is delayed until plants reach the one-tenth to one-fourth bloom stage of growth. The most critical periods of growth in the maintenance of a highly productive stand are late fall and early spring. Fall growth should be suf- ficient to permit the production and storage of large quantities of reserve food in the crown and roots to reduce winter losses. The last hay cut- ting should be taken at least 30 days prior to the first killing frost, Figure 6. In frost-free areas of the State, cuttings at the proper stage of growth can be made throughout the winter with- out injuring stands seriously. The winters in most of Texas have several frost-free periods of 2 or 3 weeks duration. Under such conditions, alfalfa may start new growth several times dur- ing the winter and draw heavily on reserve food materials. Alfalfa fields, which entered the win- ter with a high level of root reserves, may start spring growth in a relatively weak condition. Under such conditions, the first hay cutting of the spring should be delayed until the plants have 15 reached about one-half bloom and the food re- serves have been amply restored. For further hay harvesting details, see USDA Farmers’ Bul- letin 1539 (9). ’ Dehydration Dehydrated alfalfa, for the production of al- falfa meal, varies considerably in quality, but it is almost always of much higher quality than sun- cured alfalfa hay. Attempts are being made to standardize dehydrated alfalfa. The American Dehydrators Association (13) has devised a set of trade rules Which gives a definition of dehy- drated alfalfa. These are essentially that the product be dried rapidly by artificial means at a temperature above 212° F. and that no sun-cur- ed alfalfa be mixed in the product. Alfalfa intended for dehydrated meal ordi- narily is cut in the prebud or bud stage and usu- ally is purchased standing, on the basis of hay yield, and at a price comparable with that of hay. Land owners may arrange with the dehydration plant operator for the harvest of any particular cutting of alfalfa. As a general rule, only one or two cuttings per year are dehydrated from any field, with the remaining cuttings beingharvest- ed as hay. Harvesting equipment generally is owned by the dehydrators and the entire opera- tion from cutting the fresh alfalfa to selling the dehydrated product is under the control of the dehydration plant owner. The operators seldom go more than 10 miles for alfalfa, and prefer to stay closer. One dehydrating unit requires about 1,000 acres of alfalfa to operate efficiently dur- ing a normal season. Ensilage Alfalfa silage makes a feed of excellent qual- ity. For best silage, alfalfa should be cut in the same stage of growth as for quality hay. It should be wilted to about 60 to 65 percent mois- 16 Figure 6. A farmer loading his third cutting of alfalfa hay. The field is clean and regrowth will not be cut. of the last hay harvest will-insure good stands the next year. Pictures was taken in September. ture before it is put into the silo. Alfalfa p be put up as wilted silage without a preservatir or a preservative such as molasses or grou grain may be added to provide sufficient car hydrates to insure proper fermentation to p; serve the silage. The material should be chopp or cut finely and packed well in the silo. Sila provides an excellent means of xutilizing weep first cuttings and making therminto high quali feed during periods when weather conditions m, not be favorable for hay curing. ' Soiling f Soiling (green-chopped alfalfa) is a meth of harvest where each day alfalfa is cut, chopp and blown directly into trucks or trailersfi hauling immediately into feed bunks. This t p of feeding operation requires a large investme in machinery and some skilled labor. Its use g limited to larger units of operation, prefera where irrigation facilities also are present. M chinery maintenance costs are high and a failu of equipment can cause interruptions in the fed ing schedule. i The stage of growth for cutting alfalfa as soiling crop is the same as for cured hay. ing green-chopped alfalfa practically elimina : the loss of protein and carotene, and it gives t, animals quality feed that remains uniform fro day to day. The incidence of bloat, though y, eliminated, is reduced somewhat with this tGHI . _j' Pasture Alfalfa is an excellent pasture legume at few plants are superior to it in palatability a, carrying capacity. Some dairymen pasture . falfa throughout the growing season, but grazi in the fall and winter, after the haying seaso is the most common practice. Since continuo Q close grazing may do permanent damage to l; Proper timin. j? _ , l, all growth should not be grazed until cold has set in. ystem of rotation grazing should be used azing alfalfa throughout the season to W11 maximum production and uniform day- .~fquality. Thirty to 35 days should be al- tween grazing periods so that the plants lke sufficient regrowth before being graz- 1 n. A 6-day grazing period and a 30-day often are used and requires about 6 lsions. Reports from fialifornia (15) in- ‘that many dairymen use a system of daily fs or strip grazing which allows only 1 peed to the herd at a time. This system fduced more feed and less waste than any lgrazing system used, but it requires more fereford steers were grazed on fescue and ‘jalfalfa pasture during the spring and ear- timer of 1950 and 1951 at the Temple sub- (8). The first year, fescue alone pro- gigreater gains per acre than the fescue-al- imixture. In 1951, however, fescue alone ed only 50 pounds of gain per acre, while Z alfalfa produced 186 pounds of gain. The “sed animal production was attributed to falfa in the mixture. Even though fescue is {commended in this area, this test shows alue of alfalfa-grass combinations in sup- 15.: pasturage of better quality than was for- F available to livestock of the area. Alfalfa-Dallisgrass mixtures have been used lssfully in some areas of the State and pro- fa perennial pasture of excellent quality. Be- f~ of its difficulty of establishment. Dallis- should be seeded in wide rows and the al- drilled into the middles after the grass is a lished, Figure 7. The alternate row method tablishment has been used with other grass- fa mixtures and grass-legume combinations. this method, each species in the mixture can l e established before it offers appreciable itition to the other component. iBloat always is a hazard when alfalfa is pas- Numerous practices have been recommend- A om time to time to reduce its incidence. The fbloat preventive measures seem to be to for short periods each day; keep dry grass gzor straw, water and salt readily available flto hold animals on grass pasture at night be- f allowing them to graze alfalfa the follow- tlay. Another possible solution to the bloat lem is to overseed alfalfa pastures with small Yns or Sudangrass with a grassland-type drill, ing to attain a 50-50 grass-legume mixture. A a mixture practically eliminates the danger ‘loat. ti‘. A Seed Production {Alfalfa seed production is ‘most dependable fre the climate is ‘relatively dry, as in the v flarid regions of West Texas. The highest yields occur regularly in areas where the period from May to September is hot and dry. Seed production can be profitable in Texas because of the natural environment and because the ex- pense incident to growing and handling of a seed crop is even less than that of the hay that could be grown during the same period. In the time required to produce one seed crop, two cuttings of hay can be obtained, but a seed crop of 120 pounds per acre usually is more profitable than two ordinary hay crops. The average yield per acre of all alfalfa seed produced in Texas in 1950 was 111 pounds, with yields as high as 400 pounds per acre reported from some fields. Seed yields of 900 to 1,000 pounds per acre were ob- tained under irrigation in the Pecos River valley during 1956. a The second crop of alfalfa generally is left for seed production since the dry weather condi- tions required for maximum seed yields occur in early summer, when plant growth is still vigor- ous. The growth of the third crop may be re- tarded by the excessively dry conditions of mid- summer. The amount of growth on the alfalfa prior to blooming will determine if the crop should be harvested for seed. If the growth is vigorous, a good seed crop could be expected. If a late rain causes the plants to initiate growth" at the crown, however, it is best to mow the crop for hay because the yield of seed will be low. During dry years, the first crop may actually produce the best seed yield because of the vigor- ous spring growth followed by good seed-matur- ing weather. The growth later in the dry sea- son may be so slight that a poor crop of either hay or seed is produced. Harvesting should be done when the greatest number of pods are ma- ture and before too many have begun to shatter seeds. ' The most recent seed production data in Tex- as were obtained at the Chillicothe substation during 1951-54, Table 11. These four seasons were extremely dry and the seed yields were rel- atively low. Average yields ranged from 41 pounds per acre for Ladak to 143 pounds for Kansas Common. Most of the varieties produced Figure 7. Alternate rows of Dallisgrass and alfalfa in the Brazos River Valley near College Station. This is an effec- tive means- ot establishing grass-legume mixtures tor pasture. 17 TABLE 11. SEED YIELDS IN POUNDS PER ACRE PRODUCED AT CHILLICOTHE, 1951-54‘ Variety 1951 1952 1953 1954 Average Kansas Common 84 116 180 192 143 Buffalo 106 82 134 233 139 Hardistan 92 82 188 173 134 Ranger 86 67 102 140 99 Southwest Common 95 56 72 132 89 Grimm 84 80 74 82 80 Ladak 41 24 68 30 41 ‘A11 years had below normal rainfall. No insecticide was used. Stands were destroyed in 1955, the ninth year after seeding. 9O to 120 pounds of seed per acre, which is suffi- cient to represent one of the most profitable uses of this crop. The fact that these plots were not treated for insects during this period could be re- sponsible for part of the reduction in seed yields. The harvest of seed yields of less than 60 pounds per acre is not considered profitable. Seed Certification The main objective of seed certification is the verification of the identity of the varieties that are recommended for use by the state experi- ment stations, state extension services or the Ag- ricultural Research Service of the U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture. Certified seed must be veri- fied as to variety and must meet certain quality standards, including all minimum standards for purity established by the International Crop Im- provement Association. Certification is indica- ted by a certification tag sealed to the container which will show the true variety name of the seed and the percentage germination in addition to the results of the laboratory inspection. The per- centages of other crop seed, weed seed and inert material found in the seed lot are shown clearly on the tag. The seed certification program in Texas in- volves many workers in several different agri- cultural agencies. Varietiesproposed for certi- fication may originate from state agricultural ex- periment stations, private plant breeders or com- mercial seed companies. The State Seed and Plant Board of the State Department of Agricul- ture must approve any variety proposed for cer- tification and it generally requires proof of the adaptation and performance of the variety be- fore granting approval. The responsibility for TABLE 12. ACREAGE AND PRODUCTION OF CERTIFIED ALFALF A SEED IN TEJfAS, 1953-55 the maintenance ‘of foundation seed of approv; varieties ‘lies with the original plant breeder“ a designated representative such as the Te Agricultural Experiment Station Foundati Seed Section. Seed of‘ varieties released by t Texas Station are increased and distributed certified seed growers by the Foundation S' Section. The State Seed and Plant Board mak field and laboratory inspections‘; of seed for =, tification and issues certification tags on approf ed lots of seed. The success of such a progra depends on the close cooperation of plant bre ers, progressive farmer-growers, research and - ' tension personnel and the commercial seed tra with the state certifying agency. With th groups working together, a sound program is -; sured and the farmer can be confident of obtai ing pure seed of high quality. i The production of certified alfalfa -§ Table 12, has been reduced drastically the 2 years because of dry weather and a shortage ~_ irrigation water. However, the production certified alfalfa seed in 1953 represented abo 15-percent of the total alfalfa seed produced- Texas, and this percentage should increase in t future with a favorable moisture supply. Fa ers demand quality planting seed and a good ce tification program is the best means of meeti this demand. ’ Other Uses Crop Rotations and Soil Improvement Many studies to determine the effects of falfa on succeeding crops in a rotation have conducted and the results, in general, have b so favorable that the benefits of alfalfa usual are taken for granted. It also is widely accep that the major source of benefit results from g increase in the amount of nitrogen in the so Some recent work at the Colorado Agricultu I Experiment Station (5) shows that the total . trogen of the soil was not changed by growi alfalfa, but a greater proportion of the total n, nitrogen was nitrate nitrogen which is readi available. Both the nitrate nitrogen and t0, nitrogen were increased in the non-legume plan which followed alfalfa in the rotation. Rotation studies conducted at the Iowa Pa substation for 12 years (3) showed that the grea, 1953 1954‘ 1955‘ vane“! Acres Pounds Acres Pounds Acres Pounds Southwest Common 955 200,000 394 78,800 496 13,800 Barstow Common” 226 67,000 452 90,400 529 2,800 Total Common 1.181 267,000 846 169,200 1,025 16,600 Buffalo 544 160,000 421 84,200 1,104 24,000 Hanger 49 14,000 33 6,600 * 32 900 Grand total 1,774 431.000 1,300 260,000 ' 2,161 41,500 ‘A11 3 years extremely dry. Irrigation water was short in some seed production areas during 1954 and in most areas during 1 p ‘Produced by the Barstow Alfalfa Seed Producers Association at Barstow, Texas. . 18 f» in acre-value of crops produced oc- ‘hen cotton and grain sorghum followed f-of alfalfa. The value of the crops pro- each acre with this rotation showed an jof approximately 25 percent over the l" the crops tested in the other rotations. , rotation of alfalfa, cotton and oats in- the acre value about 20 percent over a of cotton, oats and grain sorghum. Grow- xlfa for 5 or 6 years has increased the f: cotton as much as 50 percent above the prom continuous cotton plots. vilar results were obtained at the Brazos alley Laboratory (12) near College Sta- rfj-a rotation test conducted during 1950-52. felds following 2 years of alfalfa showed ‘a 50 percent increase over the yields per continuous corn and a 28 percent increase i?» yields following winter peas. Alfalfa yrrotation was about as effective in increas- ‘ ds as fertilizing with 60 pounds of nitro- j planting time. Using 60 pounds of nitro- ‘gdfollowing alfalfa in the rotation gave no “r increase in the yield of corn. In these her tests, alfalfa had little effect on the of available phosphorus in the soil. , as an Annual Hay Crop areas of the State where cotton root rot vere problem, the growth of alfalfa is lim- enerally to a single season, but it still may e of the best hay crops available to farmers Sch areas. The non-hardy types of alfalfa ‘,1 own to have produced good yields of high A hay the first season on many soils, even tions of the State where spring seedings of '1 n-hardy types are necessary. Even though ’ alfalfa varieties are not winter-hardy, they Ate growth early in the spring and recover Cy after cutting and, in many cases, produce "r yields the first year than the more cold- is varieties. fIn some cases, long-time stands are not de- fle since they may not fit into the particular ing system being used. Most of the alfalfa ’e State is planted in the fall to reduce weed ‘tition, but spring planting can be success- f‘ proper attention is given to seedbed prepa- ‘n, fertilization and seeding practices. Mois- , conditions frequently are more favorable in “pring than in the fall. The full value and tial of alfalfa as an annual is still to be de- ined and many questions are still to be an- f d. l‘. WEED CONTROL IN ALFALFA Cultural l The most satisfactory way to control weeds lfalfa is to follow practices that will insure establishment and maintenance of vigorous ds. A good starting point for controlling _ I» in alfalfa is to use clean seed of an adapt- ed variety of, known origin and then plant on a thoroughly prepared seedbed that is relatively free of weeds. The use of clean cultivated row crops in rotation with alfalfa will help keep weeds in check. Mowing reduces the competition from an- nual Weeds which usually appear in seedling fields. Such weed growth should be clipped sev- eral inches above the ground to avoid excessive injury to the young alfalfa plants. Efficient mowing and removal of hay or seed crops is ex- tremely important in checking Weed growth. Where winter annual weeds are troublesome, wheat is drilled sometimes in the alfalfa in the fall to check the growth of weeds. The first cut- ting of hay the following spring consists of a mixture of alfalfa and wheat, but the hay is rel- atively weed-free throughout the remainder of the season. Applying annual top-dressings of commercial fertilizer, particularly phosphorus, using supplemental irrigation where possible, and any other management practice which will keep alfalfa in a healthy, vigorous growing condition will go a long way.toward controlling alfalfa weed pests of all kinds. Chemical Certain weeds still may become troublesome regardless of the cultural practices followed. Winter-annual weeds such as rescuegrass and little barley may cause trouble in the dormant season when alfalfa offers little competition. Summer-annuals like crabgrass, foxtail, pigweed and lambs quarters may initiate growth ahead of the alfalfa in the spring and‘ compete seriously with the first crop. Rapid-growing, perennial weeds such as Johnsongrass, Bermudagrass and bindweed may become established after mowing when the alfalfa growth is slow. The control of weeds in new seedings of alfalfa is necessary to establish and maintain stands successfully. Herbicides can be used successfully to sup- plement good cultural practices in the control of weeds in both seedling and established stands of alfalfa. The effectiveness of herbicides is in- fluenced by soil type, temperature, rainfall and other soil and climatic factors. Local conditions may alter the effectiveness of any given com- pound. Since there is very little information available which applies specifically to Texas con- ditions, the following suggestions of the Regional Weed Control Conference (18), published by the Agricultural Research Service in April 1956. are offered as a general guide. In seedling alfalfa, summer-annual weeds such as pigweed, lambs quarter and morning-glory and winter annuals such as chickweed may be controlled by the amine salts of DNBP (4,6-dini- tro ortho secondary butylphenol) at the rate of 3A; to 11/2 pounds in 20 to 40 gallons of water per acre. If annual grasses, such as the foxtail grasses, crabgrass, little barley and rescuegrass, l9 are serious, the oil-soluble dinitro compounds should be used. The chemical at 3A1 to 1% pounds DNBP equivalent is dissolved in 20 to 40 gallons of oil, emulsified with 60 gallons of water and applied at 80 to 100 gallons of the mixture per acre. The alfalfa should be 4 to 6 inches tall to prevent serious injury to the alfalfa. When high temperatures and humid conditions prevail, use the lowest rate in the suggested range of appli- cation. Herbicides should not be used on seed- ling alfalfa unless the crop is seriously threaten- ed by heavy weed infestations. For control of the winter and summer-an- nual weeds in established alfalfa, the higher rates of DNBP in the range of rates suggested above for seedlings should be used. In some cases, both weedy-annual and cultivated grasses may become serious pests. If pure stands of alfalfa are de- sired, as in the case of seed production fields, the grasses can be controlled by applying CIPC (Isopropyl N-3 -chlorophenyl carbamate) at the rate of 1 to 4 pounds in 20 to 40 gallons of water per acre. CIPC should not be applied on alfalfa- grass mixtures since this herbicide will kill many cultivated grasses. _ Perennial grasses such as Johnsongrass and Bermudagrass can be controlled best by a com- bination of cultivation and chemical treatment prior to planting alfalfa. TCA (trichloracetic acid) applied at 25 to 50 pounds, or dalapon (2, 2-dichloropropionic acid) at 10 to 20 pounds per acre as a soil surface treatment before plowing in the fall or early spring, greatly reduces the amount of cultivation necessary to control these weed pests effectively. Row crops should be grown the first year following such treatment to permit cultivation and spot chemical treatment of-surviving plants or patches of grass. Spot- spraying with dalapon at one-fourth pound per gallon of water about once a month during the growing season will give good control. Aromatic oils and dinitro-fortified fuel oils also can be used effectively for spot treatments. Results from tests conducted by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station (11) indicate that J ohnsongrass can be killed to- the ground by the application of one-third teaspoonful of a her- bicidal oil to the crown of each stem of the grass. Best results were obtained when treatments were begun before the stems were 6 inches high and were repeated at 7 to 10-day intervals. Six or seven such oil treatments usually are needed to eradicate the grass. If scattered plants or patches of Johnsongrass occur in established stands of alfalfa, spot treatments with oil can be used ef- fectively, but somewhat greater loss of the close- planted alfalfa will occur than in the row crops. Dodder, a threadlike yellow plant that lives as a parasite on alfalfa, is objectionable in seed production fields since there is little market for alfalfa seed containing dodder and the dodder is 20 difficult to separate from the alfalfa seed. I der seldomgives much trouble in fields that q’ devoted entirely to hay production and harvest alfalfa as hay will eventually control this pest ALF ALFA DISEASES Alfalfa is susceptible to many diseases ca ed by fungi, bacteria, viruseswand nemato Fortunately, most of these diseases occur st adically and are rarely destructive, however, ~- eral are important in the main alfalfa-grow areas of Texas (14) and are responsible for g , losses. Alfalfa diseases are of two types, J diseases, which actually may kill the plants : cause reduced stands and yields, and foliage -g eases, which attack the leaves and stems q‘ cause somewhat lower yields and reduced qua of hay. ' ' Cotton Root Rot. This fungus is one of most important disease organisms attacking * falfa in Texas. The fungus causing this dis is extremely destructive and may injure plants at any stage from seedling to matu » Cotton root rot occurs mainly in warm Weat and can be recognized easily by the circular a‘ of dead or dying plants which occur in fie The brownish, fuzzy strands of the fungus o ’ can be seen on affected roots. The bark of f taproot rots and dies soon after infection and _, fected plants usually break off easily at the , surface when pulled. No good- control is knot for cotton root rot, but the severity of the dist can be reduced sometimes by growing non- ceptible crops such as grasses or cereal c for several years. If alfalfa is grown on in ted land, it is best to handle it as an annual q crop. Root Knot Nematode. This disease frequ ly attacks alfalfa in regions where the par 1 is abundant on other crops. Since it is most p ' alent under mild climatic conditions, most Texas is affected. The tiny, eel-like worms ca irregular swellings or galls on roots and -:‘_ in stunted plants and reduced yields. Little tention has been given to this disease and the- tent of damage to the crop has not been de mined. No satisfactory control is available, ‘ crop rotation with grasses and cereals may reduce its damage. - Fusarium Wilt. Fusarium wilt is not wi distributed in Texas, but where it does occur,’ fected plants can be recognized by their light .- low tops and dwarfed stature. A cross-sectio; the taproot or affected stems will reveal a 1' to dark brown discoloration of the water ducting (vascular) tissue. The fungus will c death of plants several months after infection 1 can live in the soil for many years. Ther some indication that an increase of the avail potash level in the soil will reduce the effects; fusarium wilt. In addition, crops other than, gumes or cotton should be used for 3 to 4 -:=’ fiterial Wilt. Bacterial Wilt, which is of importance in many states, occurs rarely [pfof Texas. The Panhandle isthe most prev- p ea of occurrence. The symptoms of bac- gwilt are similar to fusarium wilt except g. stems are more numerous and shorter f discoloration of the vasculartissue is yel- gtan. Resistant alfalfa varieties are now Jle, such as Buffalo and Ranger, which are =1 to North Texas, and Caliverde, which is iyvell adapted to Central Texas. ed Rot and Seedling Blight. These dis- ifrequently cause thin or uneven stands of l, and are caused by soil-inhabitating fungi olds which can exist in the soil for many Growth of these organisms is favored by et weather conditions and the diseases of- l? referred to as “damping off.” The dis- are characterized by, soft rotting tissue soon dries out and causes the death of the 4 g. Treating the seed with Arasan, Dith- 478, Parzate or Spergon dust at the rate of e és per 100 pounds of seed will control these ‘isms. Treated alfalfa seed can be inocula- p ccessfully with nitrogen-fixing bacteria if are sown as recommended immediately inoculation. lack Stem. Numerous disease organisms the foliage of alfalfa, but certain diseases gas black stem may occur on any part of the from the upper taproot to the seedpods. stem is found wherever alfalfa is grown, f. most serious in cool, humid climates. Con- tly, black stem infection in Texas occurs i often during early spring. The disease ’ irregular, dead spots on stems and leaves p, gradually enlarge and join other dead f; until the stem is entirely girdled. If dis- f: areas spread to the crown, the plant may 'lled. Since the fungus overwinters on old items and old growth from the previous year, etion is important in reducing losses. When isease is serious, an early cutting of hay will int loss of leaves in the first hay cutting, iallow new growth to start under more dis- ‘free climatic conditions. Other Leaf Diseases. Several other leaf dis- occur in the State and sometimes are dam- ._.1 to alfalfa. These include downy mildew, g rust and common leaf spot. Downy mildew s the leaves to curl and turn yellow and underside of the leaf will be covered with a lish, downy fungus growth. Alfalfa leaf rust reddish-brown, raised spots on the leaves isometimes on the stems. Common leaf spot 7 occur abundantly and cause excessive loss ves. Most varieties have some plants which resistantgto leaf spot and desirable lines ld soon; be available generally. The best ' pects at present for the control of each of e diseases is to cut the alfalfa in the pre- rm stage before the leaves are lost, thereby ling new growth under more disease-free con- 11S. Mosaic of Alfalfa. Mosaic is caused by a virus which is spread by certain aphids. The virus overwinters in infected alfalfa and other perennial hosts. The disease is characterized by green and yellow mottling of the leaves during cooler periods of the growing season. The leaves are about half normal in size and the plants may become dwarfed the second or third year after infection. No satisfactory control is known. ALFALFA INSECTS Several insects attack alfalfa and may cause damage to the hay or seed crop if not controlled. The most important insect pests are the spotted alfalfa aphid, pea aphid, three-cornered alfalfa hopper, alfalfa caterpillar, lygus bugs and thrips. The spotted alfalfa aphid is the newest and the most serious insect pest of alfalfa in Texas, Fig- ures 8 and 9. It was first observed in Texas in 1954 (10) and caused severe damage in 1955 and 1956. The aphid causes injury by sucking juices from the stems and leaves and by secreting a honeydew in which molds grow. The other in- sects listed above and in Table 13 are frequently abundant in alfalfa fields, and even though they rarely cause extensive economic damage in the State as a whole, they may be serious inlllocal areas and should be controlled. For many years, the available methods of controlling the insect pests of alfalfa have con- f. l. 521E. ._ H _ :3 ; .I . {f}: . . Fig: ..... Figure 8. Spotted alfalfa aphids feeding on a trifoliate alfalfa leaf. Insect is about four times normal size. 21 . TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF CHEMICAL CONTROL MEASURES FOR INSECT PESTS OF ALFALFA Insect Description Type of iniury Chemical Control Spotted alfalfa aphid Pea aphid Cutworms and armyworms Alfalfa caterpillar Webworms Lygus bugs Three-cornered alfalfa hoppers Thrips Grasshoppers 22 About l/l6 inch long. pale yel- low-green and with 6 to 8 rows of dark spots on back. Winged and Wingless forms. a Largest of several aphids feeding on legumes; 1/8 to 3/l6 inch long. Light green and has “spi- der-like" legs. Various kinds, but usually the full grown larva is about 11/2 inches long. Some are distinctly striped. Vary in color fr_om pale green to almost black. Newly hatched larvae are dark brown. but gradually change to green with a white, stripe on each side of the body in which there will be a very fine red line. About l inch long when full grown. Greenish to nearly black. Three spots forming a triangle on the side of each segment of the body. Approximately 1/2 inch long. The females are straw colored and the males are darker with red and brown markings. Adult about 1/5 inch long, green- ish, yellowish-orange lines com- ing from front sides of head and converging posteriorly into a Y shape. Small (l/25 inch) slender, yellow to brown, active insects. They are somewhat pointed at each end and almost all are winged. Several kinds attack alfalfa. Suck sap from foliage and stems and cause leaves to turn yellow and lower leaves to drop off. Also secrete honeydew in which molds grow. Stands are greatly reduced. Suck sap from plants. Also secrete honeydew. Eat stems and leaves. Some species of cut- worms cut the plant off at or near the soil sur- face. Feed principally on fo- liage, but will, in some cases, eat the stems. Worms web leaves to- gether and eat the fo- liage. They suck plant iuices causing “blasted" buds, excessive flower fall, and brown. shriveled. worthless seed. Suck plant juices, espe- cially front stem. Also girdle the stems and greatly reduce stands. They rasp and suck the plant foliage, t e n d e r stems and fruits, often prevent plant from set- ting a good seed crop. Defoliate plants by eat- ing leaves and tender stems. Often migrate from nearby hatching quarters, such as ditch and creek banks. (bk)? pun“ . Malathion at approximately‘ . Parathion at 1/4 pound (l w? . Parathion at 1/4 pound (l f . Toxaphene-DDT (4 pounds. . Malathion (5 pounds per g: . DDT, 1 pound per acre. e . Toxaphene, 3 pounds per H . Toxaphene-DDT (4 pounds? . Methoxychlor (25%) at abo, . DDT. 1 pound per acre (ll/pi) . Toxaphene, 2 pounds per‘ " . Toxaphene-DDT (4 pounds g . DDT. l pound per acre (l/g - . Toxaphene, 2 pounds per l . Toxaphene-DDT (4 pounds ~~ . Dieldrin (1.5 pound per g‘ . Aldrin (2 pounds per gallon) . Heptachlor (2 pounds per -~ . Toxaphene (6 pounds per g3 l pound (2/3 total pint of 5 per gallon Malathion) per 2 pounds per gallon) per d‘ per acre. 2 pounds per gallon) at l/g - per acre. '7 This treatment is especiall portant if cutworms. armyw lygus and thrips are prese 2/3 to l pint per acre. Toxaphene-DDT (4 pounds 2 pounds per gallon) at 1/2 g per acre. <1 2 pounds per gallon) 3 or 1/2 gallon per acre. to 2 quarts p_er acre. lon of 2 pounds per gallon f (1/2 gallon of 6 pounds per’ lon). a ' pounds per gallon) 2 poun J acre. ' 2 pounds per gallon). (1/2 gallon 6 pounds per g‘ pounds per gallon) 3 poun “ acre. Same as for lygus bugs. In addition to insecticides a for the, control of lygus bu drin, dieldrin and heptachl recommended. 2/3 to 1 l/3 pints per acre. v 2 pints per acre. 5 l to 2 pints per acre. ‘ l to 2 quarts per acre. 9. Enlargement of the Wingless nymphs and ,1 the spotted alfalfa aphid. Insects are magnified ’ately.15 times. timainly of cultural practices to prevent or , infestations. Such measures as rotation gps, timely cutting or harvesting, complete pal of plant residues and fertilization to pro- icrapid, vigorous growth, can be used with no increase in the cost of crop produc- {Low-cost production is important in forage fbecause they generally have low values per *compared with crops like cotton or grain um. ecent increases in yields and the farm value ptsalfa have raised the limit of expenditures ble for the control of insects. For example, a hay increased in acre-value about $10 be- ll‘ 1940 and 1950, and alfalfa seed increased re-value about $30. Properly applied insec- treatments, costing about $3 to $6 per acre, ;;have produced increased yields valued at lal times their costs. .> ood control of most insects may be obtained "roper timing and application of an effective pticide. In many instances, more than one may be controlled by making one appli- k of only one insecticide. However, there TABLE 14. PRECAUTIONS FOR SAFE USE OF INSECTICIDES ON ALFALFA Insecticide Days that should elapse after last insecti- cide application before harvest or grazing Toxaphene 3U days — dairy cattle or animals soon to or DDT be slaughtered. 14 days — for other animals. Aldrin 3U days — dairy cattle or animals soon to be slaughtered. 14 days — other animals. Heptachlor 7 days — dairy cattle or animals soon to be slaughtered. 7 days — other animals. Methoxychlor 7 days — when used as a dust. ' 3O days — when used as an emulsion _ concentrate Malathion 7 days Parathion 15 days are occasions when combination insecticides and more than one application are necessary. Insecticides may be applied as dusts or sprays. Sprays usually are preferred because they may be applied during wind velocities up to 12 miles per hour and they may be applied when the leaves are dry. Dusts should be applieduyvhen the air is calm or nearly so, but dew on the plants is unnecessary. Ground machines and airplanes are equally effective for applying poisons. If airplanes are used, swaths should be flagged so that they overlap. Some poisons are destructive to honeybees, and a determined effort should be made to prevent their destruction. Table 13 gives the description of the major alfalfa insects, the types of injury they cause and the control measures recommended. Certain precautions should be taken when applying insecticides to alfalfa and other crops to be harvested for hay. Table 14 gives perti- nent ‘information on the elapse of time required after the last insecticide application before it is safe to use the alfalfa as feed for animals. 23 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, Part of the research reported in this bulletin was conducted at the various substations. Rec- ognition is given to A. B. Conner and J. Roy Quin- by of the Chillicothe station for their early work with alfalfa production practices. This early work was a major factor in the Wide interest in alfalfa throughout the Rolling and High Plains of Texas. The substations at Iowa Park, Denton and Temple also have contributed much information REFERENCES 1. Bayles, John J., Alfalfa Production Under Irrigation In Western Texas. TAES Bul. 472. 1932. 2. Bonnen, C. A. and Gabbard, L. P., Field Crop Statis- ' tics for Texas. TAES Cir. 130. 1951. 3. Brooks, L. E., Alfalfa Improves the Soil and Increases Cash Income in the Wichita Irrigated Valley. TAES P.R. 1112. 1948. 4. Conner, A. B., Alfalfa in Northwest Texas. TAES Bul. 137. 1910. 5. Gardner, Robert and Robertson, D. W., The Benefic- ial Effects from Alfalfa in a Crop Rotation. Colo. Ag. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. 51, 1954. I 6. Graber, L. F., A Half Century of Alfalfa in Wiscon- sin. Wis. Ag. Exp. Sta. Bul. 502. 1953. 7. Grauman, H. O. and Hanson, C. H., Growing Alfalfa. USDA Farmers Bulletin 1722, Revised. 1954. 8. Henry, R. J. and Cook, E. D., Fescuegrass and Le- gumes for Soil Improvement and Forage Production at the Blackland Station. TAES P.R. 1543. 1953. 9. Hosterman, W. H., High-Grade Alfalfa Hay: Methods of Producing, Baling and Loading for Market. USDA Farmers Bulletin 1539. Revised 1952. 24 p12. Rea, H. E., Wolters, F. A., and Roberts, J. E., E through crop rotation studies involving alf and small grain. The information on al adaptation in South Texas was furnished by; Weslaco substation. The section on Alfalfa Diseases was con uted by Harlan E. Smith, extension patholo and Neal M. Randolph, assistarltfprofessor, 3 partment of Entomology, contributed the '-‘ on Alfalfa Insects. 10. Randolph, N. M., Control of the Spotted Alfa w. Aphid. TAESmPIt. 1872. 1956. i 11. Rea, H. E., News, M. J. and ‘Elliott, F. 0., Spo A ing Johnsongrass. TAES Bul. 808. 1955. I of Legumes, Nitrogen Fertilizer and Row Syste Yield of Corn in Miller Clay. TAES P.R. 1556. 9 1s. Schrenk, W. o. and others, Dehydrated Alfalfa. Ag. Exp. Sta. Bul. 356. 195s. 14. Smith, H. E., Recognize and Prevent Alfalfa" eases. Mimeographed Circular from Extension v ologist, 1956. 15. Stanford, E. H. and others, Alfalfa Producti‘: California. Calif. Ag. Exp. Sta. and Ext. Ser. 442. 1954. F 16. Trew, E. M., The Protein, Phosphoric Acid and-f. Content of Small Grains, Hardinggrass, Alfal Sweetclover Grown in. the Lower Rio Grande V“ TAES P.R. 1398. 1951. 17. Westover, H. L., Alfalfa Varieties in the ~ States. USDA Farmers Bulletin 1731. Revised, 18. Special Report, Suggested Guide for Chemical, trol of Weeds. ARS, USDA, April, 1956. “