November 1964 I I TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY ° College Station, Texas TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION, R. E. Patterson, Director Summary f Turfgross 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Million Dollars , The gross value of cotton, grain sorghum and wheat contrasted with the annual maintenance cost of turfgrasses. grounds, university and college grounds, munici {fa I Turfgrass production is a major agricul enterprise in Texas, yet it is not easily compare with other agricultural crops, since it produces a economic yield. Turf represents a permanent vestment in better living, the value of which can be calculated in monetary units. However, - maintenance of turf costs money, and these a may be compared with the economic value of o ' agricultural production. In an effort to assess = enterprise more accurately, a survey was condu I to determine annual expenditures for maintai ' turf. Turfgrass maintenance on home lawns, sch parks, golf courses and highway rights-of-way w studied. Complete accounts of sampling proced and data analyses are reported. i. Total costs for turfgrass maintenance in Te annually is estimated at $211,568,126 (Table i This is equal to 8.5 percent of the total cash ceipts from the sale of agricultural products 15.7 percent of the gross value of all agricul crops in 1961. " The total production value of cotton, gr sorghum and wheat is estimated at $742,189, $206,650,000 and $125,525,000, respectively, cording to the 1964-65 Texas Almanac. These P gross values and not net profits. The cost of m, . taining turf represents 28 percent of the total va of cotton and exceeds the gross value of any o p single crop commodity. Thus, it is apparent fr the standpoint of production costs alone that is among the more important agricultural crops Texas. . i estimated 2.5 million home lawns repre- percent of the total maintenance costs in the he second highest expenditure, represent- rcent of the total, was for golf course “ntenance. Other types of turf made up "percent of the total expenditures. cost of water for home lawns accounts i percent of the total expenditure on lawns. varied from less than 9 percent in the _ast to over 65 percent in West Texas. equipment and labor account for 85 percent gfotal expenditures on home lawns. h’, mudagrass is used on 41 percent of the jwns, St. Augustine on 56 percent and other 5 percent. The other grasses include rass, carpetgrass, centipede, zoysia and mix- he use of the two main grasses varies with f the state. In the Gulf Coast, 96 percent pawns are in St. Augustinegrass while in the Age and West Texas 100 and 9O percent, iely, are in bermudagrass. e owners spend approximately twice as _;r lawn maintenance as do nonowners. i1 is the greatest item of expense in turf lnce except in the case of home lawns. '1 cipal parks labpraufiaccounts for 85.5 percent Liotal turf maintenance expenditure; in col- d universities, 75.6 percent; in public school fmaintenance, 75.1 percent; and on golf iabout 7O percent. On home lawns the value was reported to be 22.5 percent of the total ance cost. The golf courses of Texas have a total of 4,641 holes. The national average maintenance cost in 1962 according to published surveys was $5,507 per hole. Since this study was based on 1961 estimates, a figure of $5,204 per hole was used, resulting in a total maintenance cost estimate of $14,869,764 for golf courses in Texas. No accurate figures are available relative to costs of maintaining roadside turf. Right-of-way maintenance cost the Texas Highway Department $10,201,500 in 1961. This included other costs such as shoulder reshaping and grading. The total area in roadside turf is 595,098 acres. It is esti- mated that a total of 1,218,852 acres is mowed annually. TABLE 1. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR MAINTENANCE OF SELECTED TYPES OF TURF IN TEXAS Estimated annual Percent Type of turf expenditures for of turfgrass maintenance total Home lawns $189,199,660 89.42 Public schools 2,512,085 1.19 Colleges and universities 1,032,901 .49 Municipal parks 3,953,716 1.87 Golf courses 14,869,764 7.03 Highway rights-of-way (594,098 acres) 1 Total $211,568,126 100.00 ‘An annual maintenance cost could not be estimated but the total acreage indicates the importance of highway turf. CONTENTS Summary ............................................................. .3 Acknowledgments .............................................. ..4 Introduction ....................................................... ..5 Annual Cost of Turfgrass Maintenance ........ --5 Home Lawns .......................................... .- 6 Public School Grounds .......................... .. 8 College and University Grounds .......... -. 9 Municipal Parks ...................................... .-lO Golf Courses ............................................ ..1O Texas Highway Department ................ -.ll Methods of Determining Costs ...................... --l2 Home Lawns ............................................ "l3 Public School Grounds .......................... ._l6 College and University Grounds .......... ._l6 Municipal Parks ...................................... ._l6 Golf Courses ............................................ ._l6 Texas Highway Department .................. ._17 Appendix ........................................................... ..l8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS-——-—-%— The survey of turfgrass maintenance costs in Texas was conducted with a grant of funds from the Texas Turf- grass Association. Information on highway rights-of-way turf was supplied by the Texas Highway Department, Austin, Texas. Cooperation of home owners; college, university and public school officials; and municipal park superintendents is acknowledged. THE AUTHORS Q35‘? l p. olt, professor, Department of Soil and Crop '. Wayne Allen, research fellow, Texas A&M elformerly agonomist, USGA Green Section; i H. Ferguson, mid-continent director and na- ch coordinator, USGA Green Section, College TURFGRASS PRODUCTION is one of the most impo-rtant agricultural enterprises in the United States. Home lawns, school gro-unds, athletic fields, city parks, golf courses, cemeteries, in-dustrial site-s, commercial and p-ublic building lawns, highway rights-of-way and air fields com- prise an estimated 14 million acres of land upon which turf is maintained. Yet until recent years, p-ublicly sup- ported research institutions have given relatively little attention to this economically and aesthetically important enterprise. While few accurate figures are available, it is estimated that the annual costs of turfgrass maintenance are about" $3 billion. Because turf isinot a crop from which an economic yield may be harvested, it is difficult to evaluate it in comparison with other agricultural enterprises usually measured in terms of marketable units of production. Turf is maintained primarily for aesthetic and utilitarian purposes, though a substantial segment of 5 agribusiness” is involved in supplying maintenance equipment, pesti- cides, fertilizers, seed and sod to turf growers. Because turfgrass is grown for utility rather than for market, other measures of its value must be used. It may be evaluated in terms o-f initial capital investment for development, in terms of annual maintenance co-sts or in volume (acreages in turf on playgrounds, golf courses and roadsides). A much more spectacular and humanly appealing picture might be presented if it were possible to measure the savings in skinned knees and elbows on school play- grounds, the savings in the amount of dust tracked onto the living-room carpet, the savings in maintenance on ro-adsides which would erode without a turf cover, and to measure the balm o-f a beautifully kept, turf-covered cemetery in comparison with one where the ground is bare. While we are concerned with an enterprise that has both tangible and intangible values, this study involves only facts which can be measured with accuracy and which can be reported in concrete terms. Acre-ages involved and annual maintenance costs are the criteria used for express- ing the value of turfgrass in Texas. ANNUAL COST OF TURFGRASS MAINTENANCE The annual costs of maintaining turf for home lawns, public schools, colleges and universities, municipal parks, golf courses and highway rights-of-way are reported in this bulletin. Costs were determined by questionnaire and personal interviews of selected samples of the population. There are many other uses of turf but limitations of time and facilities necessitated restricting the study to those uses indicated. The questio-nnaires or interviews were prepared 0r outlined to obtain information on type of grass, specific management problems and cost of compost, commercial fertilizers, chemicals, water, equipment an-d labor. To simplify the random distributio-n of the sample and the collection and analyses of data, the State was divided into seven geographic regions: Panhandle, West Texas, North Texas, East Texas, Central Texas, Gulf Coast and South Texas. The information developed is presented in the following sections according to type of turf use. A more detailed description of procedures used in collecting the data follows the section on costs. Home Lawns Home lawns constitute the major use of turf in Texas from the standpoint of maintenance co-sts. An estimated 2.5 million home lawn growers in the State spend an- nually more than 189 million dollars (Table 2). Total expenditures for home lawn maintenance operations within each region and for the State are shown in Table 2. Average expenditures per lawn for each maintenance item included in the study are shown by regions in Table 5. Majo-r expenditures are for water, equipment and labor. The West Texas and Central Texas regions have the greatest total expenditures per lawn. These regions also TABLE 2. TOTALS OF VARIOUS HOME LAWN MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURES WITHIN REGIONS AND FOR T l .- STATE‘ have high water co-sts. The Gulf Coast, where water is a minor item, has an average expenditure only slightly greater than half that in West Texas. Average lawn sizes} in these two regions are almost identical. Use of comic post, commercial fertilizer and chemicals varies from on region to another. Water use varies to an even greatei extent. Fertilizer costs averaged 7.___.0 percent of the tot lawn expenditures. " I The relationship of city size to expenditures for law maintenance is shown in Table 4. These results show somewhat greater expenditure per lawn in cities with tles than 25,000 population. This is not related to lotisiz as the lots on the average were smaller than those in citi with 25,000 to 75,000 population. A greater expenditur for labor accounted for most of the increased expenditur in the smaller cities. Total expenditures in the state ar based on a weighted average of the three city sizes. A the tendency fo-r greater expenditures to be associated wi smaller cities hol-ds for towns of less than 10,000 pop lation, the estimated to-tal expenditures for the State a probably low. The smaller towns were not included the survey because of the difficulty of obtaining profe sional telephone interviewers there. i Expenditures with St. Augustinegrass lawns averag , $79.73, while the average with bermu-dagrass was $66.5 (Table 5). The greater maintenance expenditures wi, St. Augustine were largely due to greater equipment an. labor costs, rather than water _and chemicals. Bermudi grass is predominant in the Panhandle, West Texas a -; No-rth Texas regions where irrigation is necessary ev for bermuda. This no doubt accounts for the over water costs b-eing equal for bermudagras-s and St. Au tinegrass. I According to the results of this survey, 41 perce of the home lawns are in bermudagrass, 56 percent -~" in St. Augustinegrass and 3 percent are in other grass Other grasses include buffalo, carpet, centipede, zoys and mixtures. Individuals with grasses other than bermu and St. Augustine spend on the average about 53 perc Number of Maintenance items R ' h h ld ' _ _ A <. eglon Wigtuhselaani Compost Carllrltrilllicgcrlsad Chemicals Water Equipment Labor Region tot, _ Panhandle 187,384 3 282,950 $ 1,247,977 $ 386,011 $ 4,412,893 $ 3,575,287 $5 3,773,914 $ 13,679,03 West Texas 254,552 1,359,308 1,573,131 236,733 16,324,420 3,780,097 2,311,332 25,585,02 - North Texas 664,436 1,674,379 3,893,595 1,023,231 16,272,038 10,943,260 8,225,718 4203222, East Texas 293,489 2,242,256 2,007,465 868,727 5,353,239 6,348,167 6,955,689 23,775,514 i Central Texas 455,405 2,099,417 1,525,607 833,391 19,782,793 9,299,370 9,262,938 42,803,51 Gulf Coast 518,245 1,730,938 2,280,278 1,150,504 2,378,745 12,956,125 6,389,961 26,886,55 South Texas 163,065 924,579 774,559 344,067 4,412,539 3,396,644 4,585,388 14,437,77 State total 2,536,576 $10,313,827 $13,302,612 $4,842,664 $68,936,667 $50,298,950 $41,504,940 $189,199,, ‘Calculated from average expenditures per lawn >< the number of households in the region with lawns. Number of househol was derived from 1960 census and adjusted for the percentage of households within each region reporting no lawn. Y 6 TABLE 3. AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER LAWVN FOR MAINTENANCE BY REGIONS Maintenance items Lot size, C t Total square OmPOS » C - 1 ch - 1 W E - L b expenditure feet manurf or ‘Egfiiiila 5333a 63$? qufififim‘ 508i" per lawn s01 — — — — — — — — — — — —— — Dollars — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8,172 1.51 6.66 2.06 23.55 19.08 20.14 73.00 13,781 5.34 6.18 .93 64.13 14.85 9.08 100.51 12,676, 2.52 5.86 1.54 24.49 16.47 12.38 63.26 . 29,477 7.64 6.84 2.96 18.24 21.63 23.70 81.01 - 10,701 4.61 3.35 1.83 43.44 20.42 20.34 93.99 13,120 I 3.34 4.40 2.22 4.59 25.00 12.33 51.88 13,055 5.67 4.75 2.11 27.06 20.83 28.12 88.54 14,099 3.95 5.26 1.93 25.83 19.80 16.58 7 3.35 those with St. Augustine for maintenance. means a lower level of maintenance and other grasses are cheaper to grow. feral, home owners spend about twice as much "intenance as nonowners (Table 6). Lot size ith ownership b-ut does not account for the Li?» nditure by owners. Owners spend two to has much as nonowners for all items except was only 57 percent greater with ownership. expenditures within regions as determined byof grass are shown in Table 7. No St. Augus- were reported in the Panhandle region and cent of the completed questionnaires indicated extreme in the Gulf Coast where 96 percent ; were in St. Augustinegrass. . did not differ greatly or consistently between St. Augustine. However, lawns with other usually large, except in the Gulf Coast and In general, within a region, more was spent St. Augustinegrass than on bermudagrass, es- yiafertilizer and water. The state average cost for frmuda is as great as for St. Augustine because ygrown in the more arid regions. The data in w that where the grasses are grown under itions, more is spent for watering St. Augus- i muda. The greater expenditure for fertilizer stine seems to indicate a better maintenance tine in West Texas. This pattern changed to ' program by those with St. Augustine, as experimental results show that bermuda requires more fertilizer than St. Augustine for satisfactory turf. Some inconsistencies appear in Table 7, primarily where small numbers of replies were obtained. Among thes-e are the extremely large lot size with "other grasses” in West Texas and the high expenditure for bermudagrass lawns in the Gulf Coast. Since these do rep-resent small numbers, they have relatively little influence on regional averages or calculated total expenditures in the State. Average expenditures for each type of ownership and grass type combination within each region are shown in Appendix Table 1. Estimated expenditures by home owners with bermudagrass lawns in the Panhandle can be determined from this table. Similarly, expenditures can be determined for renters with bermudagrass lawns in the Panhandle and for all other combinations of owner- ship, grass type and region. The percentage of the total expenditures for each maintenance item is shown by regions in Table 8. These data indicate that expenditures for compost comprise a greater percentage of total expenditures in East Texas than in any other region. Fertilizer expenditures were propor- tionately smaller in Central and South Texas than for the other regions. The greatest difference in distribution of expenditures among regions was fo-r water. More than 63 percent of the total maintenance budget in West Texas was for water while less than 9 percent was spent for .I.E 4. AVERAGE EXPENDITURES PER LAWN FOR. MAINTENANCE IN CITIES OF VARIOUS SIZES Maintenance items Lot size, Total square Compost’ Commercial Chemical Water Equipment Labor eXPendilluTe feet manuyle or fertilizer cost cost cost A cost Per lawn so1 — — — — — — — — — — — ——Dol1ars——————————---- 15,612 3.54 4.57 2.59 26.27 20.45 24.15 81.57 18,186 5 .27 7.26 2.41 20.51 21.09 12.93 69.47 12,019 3.51 4.60 1.56 27.93 19.11 16.19 72.90 14,099 3.95 5.26 1.93 25.83 19.80 16.58 73.35 TABLE 5. AVERAGE EXPENDITURES PER LAWN FOR MAINTENANCE OF VARIOUS TYPES OF GRASS Maintenance items G Lot size, Total a t rass Square Compost’ Commercial Chemical Water Equipment Labor exPenditure i. ype f6“ manurle or fertilizer cost cost cost cost Per 13W“ s01 Bermuda 13,691 3.41 5 .02 1.50 St. Augustine 13,954 4.52 5.61 2.29 Other 23,347 .60 1.51 .94 Overall 14,099 3 .95 5 .26 1.93 water in the Gulf Coast. Water, equipment and labor accounted for 85 percent of all expenditures on a state- wide basis. The importance or frequency of occurrence of various types of lawn management pro-blems was also determined by the survey. The data in Table 9 are tabulated for each region and in Table 10 for each type of grass. Further detail is presented in Appendix Table 2. Summer weeds are by far the predominant problem in the Panhandle region where bermudagrass is the main grass. Summer weeds were prominent problems in all regions except the Gulf Coast. West and Central Texas listed general management and water management as important problems; So-uth Texas also indicated water management as an important factor. These three areas indicated a higher water use, which would account for the importance of water management. The St. Augustine areas of East, Central and South Texas and the Gulf Coast list diseases and insects as being important. to this survey fewer Gulf Coast lawns have- problems or According a higher percentage of lawn growers are less concerned with the problems than are the growers of other regions. Summer weeds are the main problem in bermudagrass lawns, Table 10. water management, insects and diseases are all important in St. Augustine lawns. About the same percentage of bermudagrass and St. Augustinegrass growers indicate no Summer weeds, general management, management problems. A higher percentage of lawns in other grasses indicate no problems, probably because of a lower level of maintenance. TABLE 6. AVERAGE EXPENDITURES FOR VARIOUS LAI/VN MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS BY HOME OWNERS A” NON-OWNERS C: Public School Grounds Questionnaires were sent to all school superintend within counties selected. The selected counties rep sented more than 2O percent of the schools in the Sta '_ and 72 percent of the questionnaires were completed a returned. Data from the questionnaires were record and average expenditures per school calculated for w: county population category within each region. The val in Table 11 were calculated from averages based 0-n - total number of schools in each region. i‘ Estimated total annual expenditures for public schi turf maintenance were $2,512,085. More than 75 perc of this étmount was for labor. The other two major ¢ items were fertilizer and equipment and equipment Bu‘ keep. Because water is usually not metered separate no estimate o-f water cost was obtained. " Maintenance items Lot size, Total g OWnerShiP Square Conlpost’ Commercial Chemical Water Equipment Labor ‘3XPendituT- f6“ maggirle or fertilizer cost cost cost cost Per lawn 1 ————-—-—————————-Dollars——-——————-—-—- Owners 14,655 4.39 5.80 2.10 27.13 21.21 17.95 78.58 Renters 10,438 1.06 1.66 75 17 .27 10.53 7.56 38.83 Overall 14,099 3.95 5.26 1.93 25.83 19.80 16.58 73.35 y cases, the range of values reported by differ- endents was extremely great. Ho-wever, the estionnaires represented more than 15 percent ":1 in the State, which should provide a reliable school expenditures. millage and University Grounds aires requesting information o-n turf mainte- itures were sent to all colleges an.d universi- p, State. Forty-four percent of the institutions ful information. Data from the questionnaires "lated as outlined in procedure and are pre- able 12. The total expenditure by all institu- tions for the five major maintenance items was $1,032,901. Of this total, the 52 State-supported institutions expended $454,185 an-d the 48 independent institutions, $578,716. Labor costs represented more than 75 percent of the total expenditures. Equipment and equipment upkeep was the other major cost item. Other information obtained in the survey included type of grass used on the campus, a list of management problems and investments in underground irrigation sys- tems. Common bermudagrass is the predominant grass on college and university grounds (Table 13). St. Augus- tinegrass is the second most important grass for campus grounds. i Major maintenance problems inclu-de water manage- ment, warm-season weed control and foot traffic (Table 14). General management, which might include one or more of the above items, was listed frequently as a major problem. Diseases were listed by only one institution as of major importance. Eleven institutions reported the use of underground water systems (Table 15). Investments ranged from an average of $109 p-er acre to $328 per acre. Inasmuch as irrigation and irrigation facilities are essential for the production of fine turf in most of the State, these values are of real significance. No effort was made to determine total acreages of underground systems nor total invest- ments in underground. systems. AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER LAWN FOR VARIOUS MAINTENANCE ITEMS BASED ON GRASS TYPES WITHIN REGIONS Maintenance items .32? a f: Percent Lot size, C t Total of square OmPOS t C ' 1 Ch ' 1 W E ' L b expenditure maggffor issszs .25." qsssim sszr 5e — — — — — — — — — — — Dollars — — — — — — — — — —— -- rmuda 97 7.852 1.57 6.68 1 95 2s 02 18.86 19 9s 72 01 St. Augustine 0 gqther grasses 3 13,431 0.00 5.99 4 O0 34 00 20.00 30 00 93.99 iff rmuda 79 9,195 6.59 6.41 1 07 66 60 1s.50 6 70 100.87 t. Augustine 10 9,s59 .25 10.61 49 78 75 s5.74 24 17 150.01 ther grasses ll 51,030 .99 .46 38 32 76 5.34 12 31 52.24 iBermuda 66 11,866 2.41 4.89 1 51 22 80 16.11 10 6s 58 s5 i? Augustine 33 13,507 2.82 8.02 1 56 28 48 17.36 16 23 74 47 iDther grasses 1 s4,175 0.00 1.57 2 21 9 99 12.s6 5 00 s1 1s ffisermude s9 s6,9s8 5.19 4.18 1 5s 10 04 29.04 11 4s 61 41 5t. Augustine 59 25,206 9.s6 8.69 s 94 2s 56 16.98 s2 41 94 94 thCI‘ grasses 2 9,202 4.25 4.19 1 62 22 87 14.12 s 75 50 80 iiBermuda 16 12815 2.74 1.71 0 91 24 99 21.1s 5 41 56.89 ést. Augustine 79 10,851 5.26 s.89 2 12 49 00 21.46 24 s7 106.10 Other grasses 5 3,398 0.00 0.00 0 00 12 56 1.94 2 87 17.37 ijBermuda 4 21,594 s.85 2.6s 1 92 4 s8 6.01 50 61 69 40 5st. Augustine 96 12,799 s.s2 4.40 2 2s 4 60 25.72 10 89 51 16 Dther grasses 0 fBermuda 10 10,875 19.61 1.08 1.04 2o 69 9.1s 24 2s 75 78 ‘fvSt. Augustine 87 12,946 4.36 5.26 2 32 28 40 21.74 29 44 91 52 ‘Dther grasses s 21,280 0.00 2.40 0.00 12 40 29.80 7 20 51 80 ‘if i 14,099 s.95 5.26 1.9s 25 8s 19.80 16 58 7s s5 Municzjml Parks The same categories for city size were used for the municipal park phase of the study as for the home lawn phase. The city-size gro-upings by population .were as follows: category I, 10,000 to 25,000; category II, 25,000 to 75,000; category III, above 75,000. One city repre- senting each category in each region was used. The data from the questionnaires were averaged for each city-size category. These averages were then used to- calculate total maintenance values for municipal parks for each city-size category and similarly for the State. The estimated annual expenditure for municipal park turf maintenance is shown in Table 16. No cities with populations less than 10,000 were studied. Catego-ry I represents 51 cities in the State which spend annually $202,470 for turf upkeep. This represents only 5.1 per- cent of the State total of $3,953,716. Based on these values, it is assumed that cities under 10,000 population woul-d spend a relatively small amount for turf mainte- nance and represent a small percentage of the State to-tal. Cities with over 75,000 population represented more than 87 percent of the total expenditures for municipal park turf. TABLE 8. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL LAWN MAINTE- NANCE EXPENDITURES FOR INDIVIDUAL MAINTENANCE PRACTICES Maintenance items Region Com- ngiezlcrial C.h€m' Water Equip‘ Labor post fertilizer icals ment Panhandle 2.1 9.1 2.8 32.3 26.1 27.6 West Texas 5.3 6.1 .9 63.8 14.8 9.1 North Texas 4.0 9.3 2.4 38.7 26.0 19.6 East Texas 9.4 8.4 3.7 22.5 26.7 29.3 Central Texas 4.9 3.6 1.9 46.2 21.7 21.7 Gulf Coast 6.4 8.5 4.3 8.8 48.2 23.8 South Texas 6.4 5.4 2.4 30.6 23.5 31.7 Weighted average 5 .5 7 .0 2.5 36.2 26.5 22.3 1O Both the number of parks per city and the park size increased with increasing city size. Average park size is. 3.7, 8.1 and 20.3 acres for population categories I, II.» and III, respectively. The 13 cities over 75,000 in popu-.~ latio-n had 60 percent of the municipal parks in the State. The total of m.unicipal parks in cities above 10,000 popu- lation is 1,467. , u I w‘ .,,. Golf Courses Inasmuch as prior golf course surveys have been mad data for this portion of the survey were based on informa, A tion from other publications as indicated. In 1957, Jam’; B. Moncrief compiled a list of golf courses in Texas. At that time there were 207 9-hole courses, 119 18-hol courses, 2 27-hole courses and 3 36-hole co-urses, a tot of 4,167 holes. Graffis2 reported a U. S. total of 5,553 courses t" 1957 and a total of 6,185 in 1961, an increase of 11.3 percent for that period. From these data the number oi golf holes in Texas in 1961 is estimated to be no le than 4,641. I Cost of maintenance increased at a phenomenal ra in the past decade. A survey by Harris, Kerr, Forsti 8: Company?‘ showed the average cost per hole in 195 was $2,278 and $3,307 in 1962. I Fatumj‘ on the basis of 16 private courses in W . chester County, New York, calculated golf co-urse maint nance costs averaging $2,040 annually for labor only. Th average was $3,362 per hole for costs including ne, ‘Moncrief, James B. Golf Courses in Texas. Unpublished da I United States Golf Association, Green Section, College Stati Texas. j 2Graffis, Herb. Pro sales still key to condition of playing equi ment market. Golfdom, June, 1963, pp. 46-50. » “Club operating costs up 43 percent in 10 years. U.S.G. I Journal and Turf Management, November, 1962, p. 19. ‘Fatum, Charles H., Jr. Golf course maintenance survey. U.S.G. ‘i Journal and Turf Management, September, 1963, pp. 6- d club grounds but excluding the superin- ry. The Harris, Kerr, Forster 8c Company ye used as a base since they were taken from a ey and were more conservative than Fatum’s w on these national estimates but computed gestimated cost per hole of $3,204 was used From these data the estimated expendi- course turf in Texas in 1961 are as follows: 'i_,_lf1oles >< average cost per hole : total cost 541 >< $3,204 = $14,869,764 holes in Texas include municipal courses is, many of which do not have operational lent to those reported in the above surveys. ‘ "hand, the Westchester County clubs and at the courses in the national survey of Harris, "8: Company would maintain turf only during itiimer and fall. Most of the courses in Texas I iund. Thus, a per hole cost of $5,204 used q is conservative. A total estimated expendi- 9,764 is certainly not exaggerated. {Iplexas Highway Department I g procedures in the Highway Department Tit accurate ascertainment of the exact total Zfor either the establishment or maintenance of turf on the highway system as several closely related items of work are included in the sam.e charge. The estimated magnitude of the turf program is shown in Table 17. Exact maintenance cost figures are unavailable, but it can be seen that there are over a half million acres of roadside turf. Because of the variation in rainfall from as low as 8 inches at El Paso to more than 50 inches in the Beau- mont area, the nee-d for turf varies since one of the pur- poses of turf is to prevent water erosion. However, in the lower rainfall areas of the extreme West, the occa- sional heavy rains and wind erosion necessitate a protective covering for the soil. For turf the Highway Department depends upon species which will survive with minimum maintenance under natural conditions. In many cases, native grasses are best adapted. In areas where the rainfall is lower than 15 inches, the control of erosion either by wind or water is not always satisfactorily obtained from turf alone. In such cases, it is often necessary to- use mechanical means of stabilization. Sometimes combina- tions of native grasses and native shinnery or other native perennial growth suffice. Range of investments in turf has been made either as part of initial road construction or as cultural practices which were necessary to permit grass coverage after the road was constructed (Table 18). The establishment of turf is one of the items of work included in the highway construction contract so that a sod cover is provided at the earliest possible date to reduce erosion problems. Upon completion of the contract, the maintenance of the highway is the responsibility of the Texas Highway Department. Maintenance includes any additional turf establishment required after the contract is completed. All maintenance work is accomplished by regular maintenance personnel. The newly constructed turf areas require more attention from the regular mainte- nance forces than do the established areas. A very small percentage of such projects requires maintenance funds to repair or reconstruct the turfing operation. The exact amount of funds used for that purpose is not available. IMPORTANCE OF LAWN PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH REGIONS AS INDICATED BY PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATORS IN EACH REGION MENTIONING THE PROBLEM ,1 - v-. a Problems . General Fertilizer Lack Water Lawn None sarlélggser ‘x2133? manage- application of manage- estab1ish- Diseases Insects ment methods fertilizer ment ment 25.2 f- 442 0.7 4.8 6.1 5.4 4.1 2.7 0.7 6.1 15.1 ‘ 21.8 10.1 18.5 8.4 8.4 18.5 1.7 0.8 6.7 24.8 33.5 8.3 7.8 1.6 5.0 5.5 2.3 4.3 6.9 16.4 26.3 6.6 2.3 1.4 3.3 10.3 4.7 8.9 19.7 10.4 15.8 2.2 19.6 1.9 5.1 28.2 6.3 1.9 8.5 44.8 9.2 0.6 9.0 1.1 2.8 3.6 3.6 12.9 12.3 111.1 17.0 10.4 9.6 2.2 3.0 15.6 4.4 8.9 17.8 11 TABLE 10. IMPORTANCE OF LAYVN PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TYPE OF GRASS AS INDICATED BY PERCENTAGA: ~ OF COOPERATORS MENTIONING THE VARIOUS MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS -‘ Problems Grass Summe Wint General Fertilizer Lack Water Lawn . tYPe None Weed r Weedesr manage- application of manage- establish- Diseases Insec c, S ment methods fertilizer ment ment I Bermuda 22.6 34.0 6.3 8.3 2.9 5.1 7.6 2.5 ~.__ 3.1 7.7 ' St. Augustine 23.9 16.6 4.4 11.2 1.5 3.7 13.6 4.3 '1: 8.1 12.7 Other 36.0 18.0 6.0 10.0 2.0 0. 10.0 10.0 2.0 6.0 f. During the fiscal year of 1961, the right-of-way maintenance cost the Department $10,201,500. This ex- penditure included turf maintenance, mowing, reshaping of shoulders and ditches and many other items; therefore, it is impossible to estimate accurately the expenditure on turf alone. Table 19 shows that the mowing cost alone would be a major item. The Department's objectives are varied for the turf along the various types of highways. Farm to Market Roads usually are mowed every 2 or 3 years to- prevent encro-achment of woody species. The U. S. and State routes, depending on the traffic volume, are mowed from one to three times a year with at least one complete width of right-of-way mowing. The rural Interstate Highways are kept well mowed with a complete right-of-way width mowing from two to four times a year. The urban Inter- state Highways» are maintained in a lawn-type condition which needs mowing from three to eight or ten times a year. Based on these averages, right-of-way mowing amounts to at least 1.2 million acres annually. In that portion of the State where the rainfall is above 30 inches, the Highway Department prefers to use bermudagrass as a permanent turf. In western areas which fall below 50 inches annual rainfall, the native western bunch grasses are used. Along the Texas Gulf Coast where rainfall is sufficient, t-he Department has used St. Augustinegrass. Its characteristic densityhelps reduce the amount of less desirable grasses which flourish in that area. TABLE 11. PUBLIC SCHOOL ANNUAL ENPENDITURES FOR TURF MAINTENANCE BY REGIONS Pure stands of any one of the desirable grasses an appreciable distance of highway right-of-way are 2 Wind, highway traffic and water bring in foreign see which germinate and grow in the area, resulting in I tures. Development of pure stands of most de-sirab species for a given area has not been found wise fr" an economical standpoint. I The Dep-artment has numerous turf areas, through the State other than right-of-way areas. Resident engi and maintenance facilities in addition to the district h, quarters installations are examples. At these various stallations, St. Augustinegrass is the main turf. Howev in the western part of the State, bermudagrass is u and in some locations Kentucky bluegrass is- used. In 0._ or two instances in the eastern part of the State, Zoy , has been used. Turf at these installations is kept high maintenance level. For all areas litter cleanup cost $1,344,000 duri fiscal 1961. During the same period, $585,900 was -, to replace vandalized road signs and $70,000 was sp p for repairs of other vandalism. While these are not i expenditures directly, they should be noted. METHODS OF DETERMINING COSTS In an attempt to determine the magnitude of =2 turfgrass enterprise in Texas, a survey was made of i‘ on home lawns, public school grounds, college and versity grounds, municip-al parks and golf courses. , extent of turf usage on highway rights-of-way was Maintenance classification Region Equipment Labor Fertilizers Chemicals upkwp Miscellaneous Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — - —- Dollars — — — —— — —- ~— — -— — — — — — . Panhandle 121,416 15,735 5,347 32,298 3,657 178,45 West Texas 568,784 63,785 3,997 109,387 10,423 756,37 North Texas 95,755 68,030 5,673 14,255 23,450 207,1 East Texas 315,743 46,408 7,412 61,256 0 430,81 Central Texas 133,337 19,402 3,480 31,690 3,259 191,1 Gulf Coast 453,482 18,744 6,032 63,206 21,488 562,95 South Texas 148,004 5,753 738 28,568 2,091 185,1 Totals 1,666,521 267,657 62,6792 640,660 64,666 2,512.0 Percent of j State total 73.12 9.46 1.30 13.56 2.56 1 12 TIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR TURF MAINTENANCE BY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES State colleges Independent State Independent and colleges and junior junior State universities universities colleges colleges total (16 total) (37 total) (36 total) (ll total) 239,943 441,139 92,405 7,792 781,279 69.8 78.1 83.5 57.2 75.6 26,304 13,209 3,698 275 43,486 7.6 2.3 3.3 2.0 4.2 f“ . 910 1,954 795 46 ' 3,705 A~ .3 .4 .7 .3 .4 ' p, dollars 75,672 102,727 13,608 5,166 197,173 i 22.0 18.2 12.3 37.9 19.1 1m; 7 686 6,061 16a s48 7.25s 1* ,2 1.1 .2 _ 2.6 .7 343,515 565,090 110,669 13,627 1,032,901 ‘maintenance costs for highway turf were a tablished. iiwas divided into seven geographical regions study as indicated later. The compositio-n shown in Figure 1. y,» the random choice of cities or counties representative samples of the population i cities and counties within regions were ation categories or groupings. Based on fitted in Sales Management (May 10, 1959), “laced in population categories. POPULATION (THOUSANDS) 0 to 9.9 1O t0 24.9 25 to- 74.9 75 to 99.9 100 and above population categories were used for cities. POPULATION (THOUSANDS) 10 to 24.9 25 to 74.9 75 or more if 3,000 questionnaires was used for the (an arbitrary value representing approxi- nt of the households in the State. The GRASS SPECIES USED FOR TURF ON -_c1a AND UNIVERSITY GROUNDS pc of institution and frequency of listing r£ed Independent State- Independent =6- “glzrzsztfd .t iihmiversities colleges mneges vcrsi res 1 4 4 2 15 9 5 l l I regional distribution of questionnaires shown in Table 20 was based on the data derived from Sale; Management, (May 10, 1959). Further distribution of questionnaires within the region was determined by the proportion of the popu- lation in the region represented by each city-size category. For each region the population of the cities within each category was summed and one city was selected randomly i“ i to represent each category. _ The totals of each category were used in determining the portion of the questionnaires assigned to a city of that population category. That portion of the population residing either in rural areas or in cities with less than 10,000 population was not con- sidered in the distribution of the questionnaires. After determining the number of questionnaires to be used in each region and category and after randomly selecting one city from each category within each region to represent all the cities in that category, the selection of individuals for interviewing followed. Inasmuch as two categories were not represented (category II, Pan- handle, and category III, East Texas), 19 rather than 21 cities were involved in this phase of the survey. TABLE 14. TURF MAINTENANCE PROBLEMS LISTED BY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES State- Mainte- supported Inigflilténggnt sustaotft-ed Independent nance colleges 2mg g1 ior junior bl d . - - ll pm em unifienrsities universities colleges co eges Number of institutions reporting problems Excessive A foot traffic 4 3 a 2 2 Water management 3 4 4 3 Diseases 1 Proper fertilization 1 2 2 General management 2 4 2 Warm-season weeds 2 6 4 Cool-season weeds 1 1 I3 Figure 1. Identification of regions used in the turfgrass survey. l5. INVESTMENT IN UNDERGROUND WATER 1; STEMS BY COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Number using Investment underground per acre system where used ported colleges Zr ersities 2 $192.97 l nt colleges _ .ersitics 4 109.77 i; ported junior colloges 2 114.41 ent junior colleges 3 328.46 each city in which interviews were made, current 1., directories were obtained. After the first name ked at random, additional names were marked at lJiintervals-so that the desired number was selected city. In most cases, concurrent arrangements de with professional interviewers to conduct tele- ‘terviews in the various cities. Otherwise, arrange- ‘ or interviews were made at a later date. a person to be interviewed received a card before rview indicating the purpose of the survey and tions which the interviewer would ask. This card ‘as an introduction to the survey and was for the of improving the amount and accuracy of the __ ion obtained in the interview. name, address and telephone number of each ‘to be interviewed were recorded on individual i. aires. After arrangements with the interviewers p-pleted, the questionnaires were mailed to them. the telephone interview, the interviewer recorded ifiquestionnaire the information obtained. data from the questionnaires were summarized if ently for each question. Since the initial distri- f the questionnaires not only among regions but 'n regions was based on population distributions, F y, ance TABLE 17. ESTIMATED ACRES OF TURF IN HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN TEXAS Algiegige Average Ac?” Total Total Type of 03m width 0 miles acres road .dth of grass, grzss for for wgeet ’ feet 15H‘; state state Farm or ranch to market 80 60 7.27 32,000 232,640 U. S. and state 150 106 12.84 25,000 321,000 41,458 Interstate 320 180 21.82 1,900 averages within regions and for various groupings within regions are weighted averages and could be used for calculating total expenditures for the region or groupings within the region. Also, averages for the State are weighted averages since the questionnaires were distributed according to the population distribution in the State. Thus, average expenditures per lawn obtained from- the ques- tionnaires were converted to total expenditures by regions or other groupings. This expenditure is assumed to be the average expenditure per household. The number of households for each county was taken from the 1960 census and this was converted to households per region. Only completed questionnaires were used in the summary so that the tabulations would reflect average expenditures only when there was some semblance of a lawn. Those questionnaires which indicated that no lawn was main- tained were counted for each region. The percentage of total replies represented by no lawns was calculated by regions and the number of households with lawns per region was then calculated. Further breakdown by home ownership and the type of lawn grass was possible by calculating the percentage 16. ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES FOR TURF MAINTENANCE IN MUNICIPAL PARKS IN TEXAS City population (thousands) State M l0 to25 25 to 75 75 or more total é (51 cities) (29 cities) (l3 cities) dollars 155,040 248,054 2,97 1,036 3,374,130 I- of total 76.6 88.3 85.6 85.3 _ , dollars 3,060 5,646 57,709 66,415 of total 1.5 2.0 1.7 1.7 V’. , dollars 3,570 1,305 15,136 20,011 10f total 1.8 0.5 0.4 . 0.5 "nt upkeep, dollars 85,700 22,022 409,889 407,111 of total 17.6 7.8 11.8 11.8 i, eous, dollars a, , 5,100 4,060 16,889 26,049 . 9f [Qta] ' 2.5 1.4 0.5 0.7 ilollars i 202,470 281,087 8,470,159 8,958,718 i_ of total 5.1 7.1 87.8 ‘ of parks per city 6.2 9.2 68.0 I city in parks 22.9 75.2 1,379.1 umber of parks 316 267 884 1,467 s in parks 1,108 2,181 17,928 21,077 15 of each within each‘ region based on the percentage of returned questionnaires in each group. Public School Grounds A listing of all school districts, both common and independent, and the number of schools in each was obtained from the Public School Directory, Bulletin 6-8, published by the Texas Education Agency, 1960-61. The counties within each region were listed and the county populations determined from Sales Management (May 10, 1959). The counties within regions were grouped into the five population categories previously described. One county was selected randomly within each region to represent each population category. Because four population categories were not represented, only 31 rather than 55 counties were actually included in the survey. The names and addresses of the superintendents of common and independent school districts were also ob- tained from the Public School Directory, Bulletin 6-8, Texas Education Agency, 1960-61. A questionnaire was sent to each superintendent. The total number of schools within each county also was determined from the same publication. The data from the questionnaires were summarized and expenditures per school calculated fo-r each of the county population categories within regions. From these averages, total expenditures for individual maintenance items for all the counties in each population category in each region were calculated by multiplying the average per school expenditure by the total number of schools represented. Regional totals were then obtained by summing the five population category totals. Similarly, State totals were obtained by summing regional totals. College and University Grounds Questionnaires requesting information on turf mainte- nance costs were sent to all colleges an-d universities in Texas. The list containing names of 100 institutions was obtained from Bulletin 607, issued by the Texas Education Agency, Austin, Texas, in 1961. The institutions were grouped as follows: (1) State-supported senior colleges and universities, (2) independent senior colleges and uni- versities, (3) State-supported junior colleges and (4) inde- TABLE 18. ESTIMATED COSTS OF INITIAL TURF ESTABLISHMENT ON HIGHWAY RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN TEXAS Road élifmliiilfiii "m1 f?" type dguars ’ state, miles Farm or Ranch to market 0 to 500 32,000 U. S. and state 500 to 1,500 25,000 Interstate 1,500 to 5,000 1,900 TABLE 19. ESTIMATED ACREAGE OF HIGHWAY TUE p MOI/VED ANNUALLY IN TEXAS ' giving a total annual expenditure for the State. 16 Total acres Number Total acr R d Total acres for partial toae of grass mowing of mowed z yp for state (past road mowings annuall; ditch) ' Farm or ranch -,_, to market 232,640 155,200‘, 1.0 155,200, i“ .5” 116,3 U. S. and i state 321 ,000 230,250“ 2.0‘ 460,5 i 1.0 321, Interstate 41,458 4.0 5 165$?) - 1218533 : ‘Allowing 40 feet of grass, compared with 60 feet for full ri of-way mowing. This is 4.85 acres of grass per mile. ' ’Based on a full right-of-way mowing every 2 years. “Based on 76 feet of grass compared to 106 feet for full ri_ of-way mowing. This is 9.21 acres of grass per mile. ‘U. S. and state areas are mowed from one to three tim year. 5Urban interstate areas are mowed from three to eight or times a year; interstate areas somewhat less. ~ pendent junior colleges. Usable questionnaires were i, turned by 44 percent of the institutions. it The data from the questionnaires were averaged the institutions in each grouping and total expendit I _ calculated for all institutions in that group based on i, average. Expenditures for the four groups were sum - Municipal Parks Cities within regions with populations of more t 10,000 were listed and gro-uped according to the t city-size population categories described previously. same cities selected for the home lawn study were in this phase of the survey. One city representing population category within each region was studied w possible. Two of the regions did not have representat“ of all the populatio-n categories. Cities with less 10,000 population were not included in the study. A questionnaire was sent to the park superinten in each city selected for study. Replies were obtai from all cities of all population categories within J region. The total number of cities represented by , city-size category was determined for each region. results from the questionnaires were converted to regi totals based on the number of cities represented by city that was sampled. Similarly, a State total was obtai by summing regional totals. i Golf Courses The Southwest Regional office of the United S , Golf Association Green Section made a complete ta tion of golf courses in Texas in 1957. This inform was used to estimate the number of courses and golf h RIBUTION OF HOME LAWN QUESTION- N POPULATION WITHIN EACH REGION of county N b f W115i?" Per?“ quelfiiinfillfre. wion in tgtal for each iliglusahds region 671.0 7.08 212 954.1 10.07 302 2227.3 23.50 705 1045.5 11.03 331 1737.2 18.33 550 1967.1 a 20.76 623 875.0 9.23 277 9477.2 100.00 3000 course maintenance costs are best described 's as courses vary from 9 holes to 36 holes. lc includes the green, tee and fairway and the proportionate share of club grounds and other general expenses associated with maintenance of the course. Several surveys, some national, have estimated per hole costs of maintaining golf courses. Information from a study conducted by Harris, Kerr & Forster5 was used in calculating golf course maintenance expenditures in Texas. Texas Highway Department Information on highway rights-of-way turf mainte- nance expenditures could not be obtained specifically be- cause accounting procedures in the Highway Department do not separate turf maintenance from ‘other roadside maintenance operations. Some estimates of acreages in turf, initial capital investments and extent of mowing necessary to maintain roadsides were obtained. 5Club operating costs up 43 percent in 10 years. U.S.G.A. Journal and Turf Management, November, 1962, p. 19. APPENDIX TABLE 1. AVERAGE EXPENDITURE PER LAWN FOR VARIOUS MAINTENANCE ITEMS BASED ON O APPENDIX ERSHIP AND TYPE OF GRASS WITHIN EACH REGION E. L Maintenance items _ Type Owner_ Percent Lot size, C _ A‘ R3810" of shi 9f lawns square Ompost’ Fertilizer Chemicals Water Equip‘ Labor Averqg '. grass p in region feet manuile’ cost cost cost ment cost expend" ‘ or SO11 cost per 1a r — — — — — — — — -——D011ars————-————— Pan- Bermuda own 91.8 8,074 1.66 6.91 2.02 23.82 19.60 20.89 handle rent 4.8 3,607 0 2.28 .53 7.71 4.57 1.43 Other own 3.4 13,431 0 5.99 4.00 34.00 20.00 30.00 1V est Bermuda own 71.2 9,540 6.96 6.86 .96 68.53 13.71 6.22 Texas rent 8.5 6,297 3.40 2.65 2.00 50.40 11.70 10.80 St. Augustine own 9.3 9,425 .27 11.40 .54 85.91 33.18 26.36 rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other own 9.3 59,968 1 81 .54 .45 38.73 6.31 14.54 rent 1.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 North Bermuda own 49.4 12,628 2.98 6.01 1.87 25.19 18.23 13.78 Texas rent 17.0 9,661 .77 1.64 .51 15.91 9.97 1.53 St. Augustine own 28.7 13,739 3.01 8.52 1.69 28.96 18.62 17.93 rent 3.8 11,724 1.43 4.14 .52 24.78 7.67 3.09 Other own 1.1 18,024 0 1.83 2.58 11.67 14.42 5.83 ‘ rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Bermuda own 35.2 38,938 ' 5.64 4.45 1.56 10.28 30.87 11.93 Texas rent 3.8 18,187 .99 1.59 1.31 7.75 11.87 6.75 St. Augustine own 56.3 25,4841 9.66 8.91 4.10 23.24 17.73 33.37 rent 2.8 19,654 3.33 4.08 .58 30.00 2.17 13.33 Other own 1.9 9,202 4.25 4.19 1.62 22.87 14.12 3.75 rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Central Bermuda own 12.0 13,166 3.53 2.20 1.18 28.43 22.80 5.30 Texas rent 1 3.5 9,377 0 0 0 13.09 15.36 5.82 St. Augustine own 72.1 10,486 5.46 4.22 2.27 50.07 21.76 24.09 rent 7.3 14,476 3.26 .56 .70 38.39 18.52 27.09 Other own 1.6 5,100 0 0 0 29.20 3.00 7.20 rent 3.5 2,625 0 0 0 5.00 1.45 .91 Gulf Bermuda own ' 2.2 31,552 6.25 4.27 3.12 6.37 8.21 76.75 Coast rent 1.4 5,660 0 0 0 1.20 2.50 8.00 St. Augustine own 88.0 13,352 3.62 4.66 2.31 4.76 26.80 11.25 rent 8.4 7,016 .17 1.73 1.43 2.87 14.40 7.10 South Bermuda own 9.0 8,155 21.25 1.17 1.12 22.41 6.56 26.25 Texas rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 St. Augustine own 79.1 13,046 4.69 5.67 2.30 29.53 23.66 28.47 rent 8.2 11,988 1.36 1.27 2.45 17.52 3.32 32.82 Other own 3 .7 21,280 0 2.40 0 12.40 29.80 7 .20 rent 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l8 , LE 2. IMPORTANCE OF LAWN PROBLEMS AS INDICATED BY PERCENTAGE OF COOPERATORS MENTIONING VARIOUS MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS Problems Owrwr- . c 1 F '1' L 1< 1 w L ' shiP None surgical? VX2226; 11132;; apgfizltzaltzgin faecrti? magztlegle- estaimlslh- Diseases Insects * ment technique lizer ment ment Auda own 20.9 44.0 0.7 2.7 0.7 4.5 4.5 2.2 0. 0.7 rent 0. 57.1 0. 28.6 0. 14.3 0. 0. 0. 0. '-; stine own 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 100.0 0. 0. 0. 0. if own 20.0 40.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 20.0 20.0 0. 1 1 a own 13.1 23.8 11.9 16.7 3.6 3.6 20.2 2.4 1.2 3.6 ‘ rent 10.0 30.0 0. 30.0 10.0 10.0 0. 0. 0. 10.0 ' _ stine own 18.2 0. 18.2 13.2 0. 18.2 0. 0. 27.3 ._» rent 0. 100.0 0. . . 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. A’ own 18.2 18.2 0. 27.3 0. 0. 27.3 0. 0. 9.1 _ rent 100.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. .1 da own 20.1 33.5 10.1 8.6 1.8 5.4 4.3 2.9 5.0 8.3 rent 46.9 34.4 2.1 1.0 1.0 3.1 2.1 1.0 4.2 4.2 gustine own 19.8 31.5 9.9 9.9 1.9 6.2 9.3 2.5 3.1 6.2 rent 23.8 47.6 0. 9.5 0. 0. 9.5 0. 4.8 4.8 own 16.7 33.3 16.7 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 16.7 rent 100.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. A Q Ruda own 17.2 41.2 2.7 0. 1.2 2.7 12.0 5.2 1.2 10.0 f; rent 0. 50.0 25.0 0. 0. 0. 12.5 0. 0. 12.5 ugustine own 17 .5 16.7 7 .5 4.2 1.7 2.5 8.3 3.3 14.2 24.2 I v rent 16.7 16.7 0. 0. 0. 33.3 16.7 0. 16.7 0. A own 0. 0. 25.0 0. 0. 0. 25.0 50.0 0. 0. - uda own 13.2 15.8 0. 23.7 0. 13.2 18.4 2.6 0. 13.2 r rent 18.2 18.2 18.2 18.2 0. 9.1 18.2 0. 0. 0. ugustine own 2.6 - ~ rent . . . . . . . . 0. . own 60.0 0. 0. 20.0 0. 0. 0. 20.0 0. 0. L’ rent 54.5 27.3 0. 0. 0. 0. 9.1 9.1 0. 0. a uda own 25.0 12.5 0. 25.0 12.5 12.5 0. 0. 12.5 0. ' rent 20.0 20.0 0. 20.0 0. 20.0 0. 0. 20.0 0. ugustine own 46.8 8.9 0.6 8.3 0.6 2.2 3.8 4.1 12.7 11.8 rent 33.3 10.0 0. 10.0 3.3 3.3 3.3 0. 13.3 23.3 a ‘Auda own s2 25.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 0. 10.7 0. 10.7 2.2 I rent 0. 100.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. ugustine own 11.3 14.2 10.4 11.3 0.9 2.8 14.2 5.7 9.4 19.8 rent 0. 36.4 9.1 0. 0. 9.1 36.4 0. 0. 9.1 own 40.0 0. 20.0 0. 20.0 0. 0. 0. 0. 20.0 19 i um: mnon O nu wnmnous I Tlll FIELD LLIOIATOIIES A ooorrnnnu snnous Location oi field research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies OPERATION ORGANIZATION Research results are carried to Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemakers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service State-wide Research ‘k The Texas Agricultural Experiment Station is the public agricultural research agency oi the State oi Texas. and is one oi the parts oi Texas AGM University. IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 13 sub], matter departments, 3 service departments, 3 regulatory services and administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas of Texas v 20 substations and 10 field laboratories. In addition, there are 13 coopera stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include the T _ Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison Sys - U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Technolo' College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ranch. S, experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural homes. THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 4-50 active research projects, grou in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Texas. Am these are: I Conservation and improvement of soil Conservation and use of water Dairy cattle Grasses and legumes Sheep and goats Grain crops Swine Cotton and other fiber crops Chickens and turkeys Vegetable crops Animal diseases and parasites ' Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fish and game p Fruits and nuts Farm and ranch engineering v Oil seed crops Farm and ranch business ‘ Ornamental plants Marketing agricultural produ ~ Brush and weeds Rural home economics Insects Rural agricultural economics Plant diseases Beef cattle Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central servi AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS, the WHYS. the WHENS. the WHERES and the HOWS oi hundreds oi problems which confront operators oi iarms and ranches, and the many industries depending on or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Main Station and the field units oi the Texas Agricultural Experi- ment Station seek diligently to iind solutions to these problems. 3046!,” {'3 WQJQCIPCA ~96 JOInOIWOLU ,5 FOgVQJJ