Experiments with Fertilizer Rates, Grass-Legume Mixtures and Seedbed Preparations on Permanent Pasture Areas in Southern Indiana

Citation preview

\Zô 1 3

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION

John Kenneth Patterson

by

e n title d

Experiments with fertilizer rates, grass-

legume mixtures and seedbed preparations on permanent pasture areas in southern Indiana.

COMPLIES WITH THE UNIVERSITY REGULATIONS ON GRADUATION THESES

AND IS APPROVED BY ME AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF

Doctor of Philosophy

^ “-P b p f e s s o r IN C h a h q e o r T h e s is

H

eap of

S cho o l ,

or

D epa r tm en t

M a y 8________ i9 50

TO THE LIBRARIAN:----THIS THESIS IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS CONFIDENTIAL

PROFESSOR DT/O]

GRAD. SCHOOL FORM O—3 -4 0 —1M

EXPERIMENTS WITH FERTILIZER RATES, GRASS-LEGUME MIXTURES AND SEEDBED PREPARATIONS ON PERMANENT PASTURE AREAS IN SOUTHERN INDIANA

A Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty

of

Purdue University

by

John Kenneth Patterson

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

June, 1950

ProQuest N um ber: 27714149

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uest ProQuest 27714149 Published by ProQuest LLC (2019). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 - 1346

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Th© author wishes to express his appreciation for the assistance obtained from Dr# A# J. Ohlrogge and Dr* G* 0* Mott who helped plan and conduct this study*

He wishes to

thank Mr# R# E. Moody and associates in the Analytical Laboratory, Purdue Agricultural Experiment Station, L# N* Wise, T# A* Dykes, K* J# Morrison, and James Martin who aided in gathering of the data presented in this thesis* The author also wishes to thank his wife, Jeannette, for her help in typing during preparation of this paper* The writer is also indebted to Professor S* R* Miles, Dr. G # D# Scarseth and Dr* G* N* Hoffer for their assistance in the interpretation of the results*

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ......... INTRODUCTION

........ «.....................

.......

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

1 ...................

3

The Influence of Fertilization upon Yield ........ ......

Species Recommended Seedbed Preparation EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

.....

12

.............................. ..... •

Preparation of the Plots for Seeding Winter Heaving Data

3 9

Soil Upon Which Tests Were Conducted

WEATHER DATA

1

.....

....................

.............

li|15 19 22 2^

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION........................ Fertilizer Rate Studies

28

........... •••• 28

Major and Minor Fertilizer Element Study at French Lick ........ ......... Species Comparison ......

...........

Seedbed Preparation Studies

.......

Winter Heaving Injury of Birdsfoot Trefoil .. ..... RESULTS OF FORAGE ANALYSIS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS LITERATURE CITED

57 61{.

........................

70

............................

79

.................

APPENDIX .................. VITA

gO

............................

85 91

128

LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES

List; of Tables Table 1*

Analysis of ttie Soils Upon Wbicii tbe Experiments Were Conducted . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

2«

Comparison of Yield Response to Soil Fertility As Measured by Cliemi cal Analysis . . . . . . . .

32

3o

Comparison of Yield Response to Soil Fertility As Measured by Chemical Analysis .......

32

4-»

Response to Minor Elements

i|_7

5e

Yield Response of Grass-Legume Mixtures to Major and Minor Fertilizer Elements (French Lick) .......... ...........

.

............

6

Yield in Percent of Ladino-0rchard Grass Production ................

52

1.

Yield of Ladino-Orchard Compared to That of Alfalfa- Bromegras s-Timothy on the Fertilizer Rate Plots .........

54-

Effect of Fertility and Seedbed Preparation Upon Winter Heaving of Birdsfoot Trefoil *.

66

Average Mineral Content of Alfalfa-BromegrassTimothy Mixtures

72

Average Mineral Content of Ladino CloverOrehard Grass Mixture Grown &t Bloomington.

73

il.

Mineral Content of the Alf alf a-BromegrassTimothy Mixture at Bloomington •••........

74

12 e

Comparison of the Mineral Content of the Alfalfa-Bromegrass-Timothy Mixtures at Bloomington and Scottsburg (First Harvest).

78

8» 9* 10

.

LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES List of Appendix Tables Appendix Table 1# 2*

Page

Climatologie al Data for Indiana, 194-9 “ Rainfall ..................

. .

91

Climatological Data for Indiana, 1949 .. .. .... Temperature ............

92

3*

Climatological Data for Indiana, 194®

93

4#

Summary of Fertility Rate Experiment Response of Grass Legume Mixtures to Varying Amounts of Fertilizer (Average of 4 ..... «........... Locations)

5* 6* 7* 8* 9#

•*••••••

94

Yield Response of Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Amounts of Fertilizer - Bloomington

95

Yield Response of Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Amounts of Fertilizer - French Lick

9®

Yield Response of Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Amounts of Fertilizer - Vincennes, •

97

Yield Response of Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Amounts of Fertilizer - Scottsburg*

98

Yield Response of Grass-Legume Mixtures to Major and Minor Fertilizer Elements .......

99

10.

Summary of 4 Locations

..............

11.

Summary of 4- Locations

12.

Summary of Legume Stands at

13*

Legume Stands Obtained Under Different Fertilizer Treatments — Bloomington ....... 104

14.

Legume Stands Obtained Under Different Fertilizer Treatments - Vincennes .....

.........

101 102

3 Locations ...... 103

105

15*

Legume Stands Obtained Under Different Fertilizer Treatments - Scottsburg ........ 106

l6.

Summary of Species Comparison Yields (Average of 3 Locations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

LISTS OF TABLES AHD FIGURES List of Appendix Tables - Continued Appendix Table

Page

17.

Specie s Comparison «*• Bloomington 194-9 .* «

108

18 e,

Species Comparison - Vincennes 1949 . * # .

109

19 e

Species Comparison - Scottsburg 1949 .......»

110

20 «

Summary of Seedbed Preparation Experiments, 1949 (Average of 3 Locations) ............

111

Yield Response of Grass-Legume Mixtures to Different Methods of Seedbed Preparation Bloomington ............................. .

112

Yield Response of Grass -Legume Mixtures to Different Methods of Seedbed Preparation Vincennes ..........................

113

Yield Response of Grass-Legume Mixtures to Different Methods of Seedbed Preparation Scottsburg .........................

114

21.

22#

23.

24.

Stands of Seeded Legumes Obtained by Different Methods of Seedbed Preparation (Average of 3 Locations ) ....................... . 115

25.

Stands of Seeded Legumes Obtained by Different Methods of Seedbed Preparation Average of 3 Replications - Bloomington 1949 •••••••• ll6

26#

Stands of Seeded Legumes Obtained by Different Methods of Seedbed Preparation Average of 3 Replications - Vincennes 1949 ......... # 1 1 6

27.

Stands of Seeded Legumes Obtained by Different Methods of Seedbed Preparation Average of 3 Replications - Scottsburg 1949 •«••••••• ll6

28#

The Effect of Fertility and Method of Seedbed Preparation on Winter Heaving of Birdsfoot Trefoil - Blooming ton ............... . ... .

117

The Effect of Fertility and Method of Seedbed Preparation on Winter Heaving of Birdsfoot Trefoil - Scottsburg . ............

118

29.

LISTS OP TABLES AND FIGURES List of Appendix Tables - Continued Append! x Table 30* 31 * 32. 33• 31*.* 35# 36*

37*

Page

Species of Legumes and Grasses Used in .......... the Experiment

119

Composition of the Alf alf a-BromegrassTimothy Mixture - Bloomington .. ........

120

Composition of the Alfalfa-BromegrassTimothy Mixture - French L i c k .........

121

Composition of the Alfalfa-BromegrassTimothy Mixture - Vincennes .....

122

Composition of the Alf alf a-BromegrassTimothy Mixture - Scottsburg .........

123

Composition of the Ladino Clover-Or chard Grass Mixture - Bloomington *• ........ . .

12l|_

Summary of the Mineral Analysis of the Forages at All Locations (Alfalfa-Bromegrass-Timothy Mixtures) ..................

125

Comparison of the Cations in the Alf alf aBromegras s-Timo thy Forage from the Different Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

126

List of Figures Figure 1*

2» 3* 1*.#

Response of the Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Rates of Fertilizer (Average of l\. Locations) ..........

34.

Response of the Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Rates of Fertilizer (Bloomington).

35

Response of the Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Rates of Fertilizer (French Lick).

36

Response of the Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Rates of Fertilizer (Vincennes)•••

37

LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES List of Figures - Continued Figure 5»

6.

7*

8. 9*

10.

11.

12.

13»

l4*

Page Response of the Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Rates of Fertilizer (Scottsburg)

•

38

Average Yield Response of all Mixtures at the 4- Locations to Phosphorus and Potash ................. Fertilization

Ip-

Average Yield Response of Each Grass-Legume Mixture at the Four Locations to Phosphorus and Potash Fertilization.........

Ip

Legume Stands Obtained on Different Fertilizer Treatments (Average of 3 Locations)......*

43

Yields of the August Seeded Grass and Legumes in the Species Comparison Experiments (Average of 3 Locations) ........... «

55

Yields of the August Seeded Grasses with the Legumes Winter Seeded in the Species Comparison Experiments (Average of 3 Locations) .

56

Average Yields Obtained by ^Different Methods of Seedbed Preparation (Average of 3 Lo cat! ons ) ............

60

Yields of the Four Seeding Mixtures Obtained by the Different Methods of Seedbed Preparation (Average of 3 Locations)......

6l

Average Legume Stands Obtained by Different Methods of Seedbed Preparation (Average of 3 Locations) ............ .. ,.

62

Stands of the Four Legumes Obtained by Different Methods of Seedbed Preparation (Average of 3 Locations)..... .....

63

1

ABSTRACT

Patterson, J. K.

Experiments with. Fertilizer Rates, GrassLegume Mixtures and Seedbed Preparations on Permanent Pasture Areas in Southern Xndi ana#

Field experiments were initiated in I9 I4.8 on four major soil regions at different locations in southern Indiana* The soil types and locations involved were :

Frederick silt

loam at Bloomington, Wellston silt loam at French Lick, Alford silt loam at Vincennes and Avonburg silt loam at Scottsburg*

These studies included fertilizer rates,

species mixtures and methods of seedbed preparation* results presented are for the harvest season of 1 ^ 9 *

The The

fertilizer rate and the seedbed preparation studies were conducted with four grass legume mixtures ; 1*

Birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus)«»Kentucky bluegrass*

2»

Ladino clover-orchard grass*

3*

Alf&lfa-bromegrass-timo thy, and

if.* Korean 1 e spe de za- timo thy# Nitrogen applied in August of 194-8 at the rate of 50 pounds of N gave slight increases in yield at three loca­ tions and a moderate decrease in yield at one location on the four grass-legume mixtures used*

The alf alf a-brome-

grass-timo thy mixture was decreased by nitrogen application

±1

the other mixtures were slightly increased*

Legume stands

were decreased slightly by nitrogen fertilization at two locations and increased slightly at one location# Phosphorus fertilization at rates of 50 to I4.OO pounds of PgOg per acre gave significant yield increases at all locations*

The alf alf a-bromegr as s- timo thy yields were in­

creased more markedly at the low rates of fertilizer than were the other mixtures*

At the high rate, (i^OO pounds of

P^Og) all mixtures were benefited to a marked extent#

All

soils were low in available PgOg varying from 2 if to 4 4 pounds per acre*

The plots fertilized with 4-00 pounds of

PgOg gave increased yields of 7 2 , 6 8 , 8 2 and 24 - percent over the unfertilized plots at Bloomington, French Lick, Vincennes and Scottsburg, respectively# Potash fertilization gave more erratic results*

At

two locations where the available KgO was high, 5 7 3 and 2 8 1 pounds per acre, the application of 4 0 0 pounds of K^O

gave decreases in yield of 8 and 17 percent under that of the unfertilized plots (oven dry weights)•

At the other

two locations where the available KgO was lower, 1 8 2 and 12 0 pounds per acre increases of 23 and 2 5 percent were

obtained by the use of an August application of 4-00 pounds of K20# Fertilization at the 50 pound rate of P2 0 g and KgO each was as effective as at rates of 1 0 0 and 2 0 0 pounds of these fertilizers and 7 2 percent as effective as the 4-00

ill

pound, rate of each of the two fertilizers* Phosphorus was effective in increasing stands of the legumes at all locations.

Potash gave increased legume

stands at two locations and decreases at two, depending on the available K20 in the soil*

Tests of 2 legumes and 10

legume or legume-grass mixtures were conducted at three locations*

A uniform fertilizer treatment of 50 - 200 - 200

pounds of N - PgOg and K20 was applied at the August seeding time to these areas*

Ladino clover-orchard grass mixture

was much higher yielding on the average and much higher yielding at two locations but fell to 18 percent below the alf alf a-bromegr ass mixture at the Scottsburg location#

An

average of the locations shows alf alf a-bromegr as s ranked second in yield, Ladino clover-bromegrass third, alfalfatimothy fourth, and red clover-timothy fifth#

This indi­

cates the grasses could be rated, orchard grass first, bromegrass second and timothy third in yielding ability* The legumes could then be rated alfalfa first, Ladino clover second, and red clover third in yielding ability in these mixtures# The seedbed preparation which gave the highest yield was the renovated and fertilized plots#

The plowed-

fertilized preparation method was second highest yielding. The check plots (plowed - not fertilized) and the plots burned and fertilized were about equal in yield but only about one-half as much forage was obtained as by the first

iv

two treatments.

Stands of tlie seeded species were best on

ttie plowed-fertilized plot whicbi may result in bigber yields for tbis method in tbe future •

The check plot gave

slightly better stands than the renovated and fertilized plots#

The burned-fertilized plots did not permit establish­

ment of the seeded grasses or legumes, thus its yield re­ flects only the yielding ability of the permanent pasture sward when fertilized# A study was made also on the winter heaving damage of Birdsfoot trefoil during the 19^8-i|_9 season#

The areas

studied were as follows: 1#

Flowed - fertilized (50 - 200 - 200),

2#

Plowed - not fertilized, and

3#

Renovated - fertilized (50 - 200 - 200)•

The fertilization of the plowed plots did not increase fall stands or the stands remaining in May over those plots receiving no fertilizer#

In both types of treatment, the

birdsfoot trefoil stands were significantly reduced by winter heaving injury#

The renovated plots did not have

as heavy an initial stand as the other treatments#

Stands

of birdsfoot trefoil on this seedbed preparation were eliminated at one location where the original pasture sward was redtop and lespedeza but were not decreased on the loca­ tion which had been a Kentucky bluegrass-white clover pas­ ture# The milliequivalent content of the cations magnesium.

V

calcium and. potassium remained constant for tiie alfalfa— bromegrass-timotliy mixture*

This constancy was observed on

different soil types, different fertility treatments, with differences in total yield of the plots, and with differences in the botanical composition (ratio of grass to legume)* This constancy also held true for a Ladino clover-orchard grass association studied (this latter study was made at one site only) •

The total m.e. of Mg*, Ga., and K were not constant

between harvests, however, the m$e. total was higher for the third harvest than for the first harvest.

The increase was

due to higher percentages of magnesium and calcium in the third harvest#

The potassium content varied only slightly*

Application of I4.OO pounds of KgO per acre to an alf alf abromegrass-timothy mixture on a soil already high in avail­ able potash (5 7 0 pounds of available KgO per acre) depressed the yield but did not change the composition of the forage in Mg. or Ca. and only slightly increased the percentage of K#

This heavy potash (muriate of potash) fertilization on

two soil types lower in available potash (1 8 0 and 120 pounds of available KgO per acre) gave increased forage yields and a change in the chemical content.

In the two

latter cases, the potassium content was raised by the fer­ tilization and the calcium and magnesium content was low­ ered.

The total milliequivalents remained constant under

this treatment as well as in those where the percentage composition of these three elements were not altered*

1

EXPERIMENTS WITH FERTILIZER RATES, GRASS-LEGUME MIXTURES AND SEEDBED PREPARATIONS ON PERMANENT PASTURE AREAS IN SOUTHERN INDIANA

INTRODUCTION

One of the prime goals, in agriculture, is to develop a farming system that is permanent.

One that does not de­

plete the soil but maintains or increases soil productivity. Emphasis that farmers and many farm economists place on row crop production does not lead to that goal#

A sound state

or national farming system must be developed before per­ manency in agriculture can be assured.

Grassland f arming

more nearly meets these requirements than any yet proposed (18).

This system can reduce soil erosion, maintain, or

increase, soil productivity, and improve the efficiency of livestock production. A system of grassland farming is receiving increased support from farm managing services and from farm operators. It is necessary therefore, that our concepts change.

We can

no longer relegate our livestock to eroded, unproductive pastures and continue to mine the more productive part of the farm with soil depleting crops.

The case for an ex­

pansion in acreage of grasses and legumes is well outlined in the 194-8 Yearbook of Agriculture (19 )•

The leading for­

age crops research workers of the United States have

2

presented tlie modern concept of a secure agriculture for the nation.

Many of these same workers stressed the im­

portance of increased forage crop production in 194-7 (5 0 )* In the agricultural census of 1945» (6?) Indiana is credited with slightly over 20 million acres in farm land, 55 percent of this acreage was in harvested crops and 30 percent in pasture.

There has been very little change in

the ratio of cropped to pastured land in the last 20 years# This vital 30 percent used as pasture can and should be utilized to its best advantage.

This raises the question

as to what improvement can be made of these areas by fer­ tilization, renovation, and reseeding# These studies were conducted in the southern section of Indiana where it was felt that pasture improvement was a more critical problem than elsewhere.

Martin County, in

which one set of experiments was conducted, had 44 percent of its farmland in pasture and 29 percent in harvested crops.

Monroe County, another plot site, had 49 percent

of its farmland in pasture and 26 percent in harvested crops.

Much of the area in these two counties is difficult

to farm as cropped land because of the rough topography of the land and the excessive amount of erosion that takes place under cultivation.

3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The Influence of Fertilization upon Yield The introduction of high producing grass-legume mix­ tures into the pasture program is of importance If live­ stock carrying capacities are to be increased#

The bo­

tanical composition has long been considered as a reliable index to the productivity of permanent pastures#

A study

of 232 West Virginia farms (1|.8) indicated that 5»5 acres per animal unit were required on pastures containing less than 15 percent desirable pasture species, but only 0*8 acre was required on pastures having 75 percent desirable species (Kentucky bluegrass-white clover)* The main difficulty, from the farm operator standpoint, however, is how can the desirable species be maintained in a highly productive state? It is true that the better producing, more nutritious grass-legume mixtures require a higher fertility level* What does this mean in added fertilizer nutrients?

Many

experimental stations have answered this question for their soils, under their climatic conditions and for a few of the many possible grass-legume combinations#

It is hardly sur­

prising that each worker may find somewhat different and conflicting results#

Brown (13) found that 100 pounds of

muriate of potash per acre in I9 2 I4. - 1925 - 1 9 2 6 gave no

yield increase but he thought that phosphorus was the limit­ ing element.

In a later bulletin. Brown (14.) found over a

period of years that the total D.T.Mf. as measured by graz­ ing were increased 85 percent by the ^2^5 aP P H e^ aad 121 percent by the PgOg and lime.

After more than 20 years of

quantitative grazing, no beneficial response had been ob­ tained from potash applications# The New Jersey station (62) found an excellent growth response to phosphorus but the response of potash on forage crops was of small value alone and of doubtful importance when used in conjunction with superphosphate.

However,

many other workers in the northeastern region of the United States have demonstrated the beneficial effects of potash fertilizer (2, 3, 5» 10, 6l). Massachusetts (3) found a beneficial response in yield to potash applications but not to phosphorus#

The ineffec­

tiveness of phosphorus was attributed to its rapid fixation in the soil#

Robinson and Garber (53) cite one experiment

where no benefit was received from potash on depleted Char ton soil that had been in permanent pasture for years, but where yield increases were obtained on an adjacent field cut for hay.

This last field was believed to have

been depleted in potash more rapidly because it had not received a potash return in the form of manure# Robinson and Garber (53) state that in general the soils of that northeast region are 15 times as high in total

potash, as in phosphate*

Very little of this potash, how­

ever, is in form that is readily available to plants•

The

rate at which potash is converted to available forms varies with different soils*

In some cases, the release is so

slow that much of the potash needed by the plant must be applied in the fertilizer*

In other cases, release is

rapid enough to meet the plant needs so potash fertiliza­ tion is not necessary*

Lea and Midgley (31) found suffi­

cient potash content in pasture soils in Vermont where there was about 300 pounds of available potash per acre* Robinson and Garber (53) state that high producing grasslands require about 100 pounds of potash per acre per year, but if fertilization is heavy the plants may absorb twice this amount*

Such luxury consumption may depress the

calcium content of the forage below the requirements of dairy cattle*

They suggest, therefore, that potash may be

more effective if applied in the early summer after the first crop of hay or pasture has been removed*

This time

of application also has support from work done by Stivers (65) on the fertilizer requirements of alfalfa in Indiana* Results reported by the Maine Station (23) show no benefit of annual applications over applications made less fre­ quently*

Bear and Prince (6) noted a definite drop in

alfalfa yield when potassium in the oven dry vegetation of the previous cutting fell below one percent* Robinson and Garber (53) list the results of fertilizer

trials on pastures in the Northeastern Region in 1929#

In

the 1 1 states, a weighted, average of 8 I4. tests showed an in­ crease of 3 1 2 pounds of forage per 1 0 0 pounds of K^O added* Two of the states reporting. New Jersey and West Virginia, obtained a decrease of 18 9 and l80 pounds respectively by the addition of potash*

Connecticut received only a slight

increase of 28 pounds average in I4. tests*

Other research

workers have noted yield depressions from potash applica­ tions (8, 37» 70) on bromegrass, potatoes, and pasture grasses in the permanent pasture sward* Soils of this Northeastern Region respond well to phosphorus fertilization as is shown in this Pennsylvania report (53) •

The 81*. tests gave an average increase of 332

pounds of forage for each 100 pounds of PgOg added*

They

suggest a general recommendation of 120 to l6o pounds of P205 be added initially and then 30 to 50 pounds each year afterward or 2 or 3 times this amount every second or third year*

Vermont (35) reported a much higher yield increase

on Addison clay loam*

An initial application of 320 pounds

of P2 O5 gave an average increase of 1 6 3 0 pounds per year for 3 years in a clipping experiment there*

Hay yields

have shown higher increased production due to fertilization than those obtained from clipping experiments*

Pennsyl­

vania (53) lists the increases of yield credited to 100 pounds of P20g in the various states*

These increases

range from 1 6 3 pounds of forage per acre in New York to

7

1538 pounds in West Virginia*

The average for all of the

states studied was 750 pounds• It must be recognized that averages of many results are not specific for any one soil type or climatic condiL/"'/

tion under which a forage crop will be grown in southern Indiana*

It must be realized also that the fertilizer rates

used were not uniform and as a result often a small applica­ tion shows excellent results when reported as increases per pound of fertilizer added* Results of nitrogen fertilization are much more diffi­ cult to assess*

When nitrogen is added in the early spring,

grasses are stimulated at the expense of the legume*

West

Virginia (54-) obtained quick increases on Kentucky blue­ grass to 32 and 6ij. pounds of nitrogen per acre but that fertilizer materially reduced the percentage of clover*

In

New Jersey (6l) nitrogen fertilization of 300 pounds of ammonium sulfate in March gave a 74 percent increase over the check plots but decreased the clover population to about 2/3 that of the check plot and to l/2 that of limed and fertilized areas *

Two hundred pounds of ammonium sul­

fate added in June, in addition to the 300 pounds in March, gave 88 percent more than the check plots but the clover population fell to about 1/4 that of the check plots* Data from the West Virginia Experiment Station (55) in a 7 year experiment on the effect of nitrogen on the yield and botanical composition of a Kentucky bluegrass -

^

white clover pasture, show the following results.

Nitrogen

fertilizer gave an average increase in yield of 21 and 31 percent respectively on 2 pastures*

These are an average

of applications of 100, 200 and lj_00 pounds of nitrate of soda per acre annually*

An increase was obtained in stand

of Kentucky bluegrass by each of the application rates and a decrease in white clover by the heavier rates of applica­ tion*

The low rate did not decrease the clover population,

however*

A beneficial response was found to summer applica­

tions of nitrogen during periods of sufficient rainfall* Midgley (35) summarized his findings on nitrogen appli­ cation in pasture sward as follows: Little nitrogen is needed although a small amount will sometimes aid the crop in getting established on poor soils* If supplied later, grass growth rather than that of the clover is fostered. Nitrogen may well be used on the rotational or meadow type of pasture where early cut hay or grass silage are sought as well as a good aftermath, but not upon a permanent pasture where wild white clover is grown* Seaton and Mott (57) report an increase yield from nitrogen on two of the three permanent pastures studied* This increase was approximately 4* 15 end -2 percent res­ pectively on the three pastures, to the 200 pounds of ammonium sulfate added annually*

Mott (4°) summarized the

results at the three permanent pasture locations in Indiana in which nitrogen was added with potash and phosphorus: Very little increase in yield has been obtained by the addition of nitrogen and it is doubtful whether the increase will justify the expenditure involved*

In this last experiment, two of the soil types gave excellent responses to phosphorus*

None of the three gave

increased yields by the addition of potash alone*

At

Springville, the application of potash alone and the appli­ cation of lime and potash gave no response over the "no treatment,"

In fact, there was no response to potash even

when adequate amounts of phosphorus were present, A review of some of the minor element deficiencies by Robinson and Garber (53) and Reeve et al* (52) gives evi­ dence of boron deficiencies in New England, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland* boron for alfalfa*

Vermont reports a deficiency of

Connecticut reports deficiency symptoms

during dry years but got little favorable response by adding borax*

Magnesium deficiencies have been reported in New

Jersey and Massachusetts,

Species Recommended A review of the literature concerning the seeding mixtures recommended in various states shows wide variation in seeding rates and species used.

In Connecticut (l4)

the species which gave the best results, included Ladino alone and with orchard grass*

In 1934 Ladino alone and

with orchard grass ranked 1, 2, 3, 4 among 50 mixtures tested.

Alfalfa was second on a 3-year average.

of the alfalfa was somewhat thin, however*

The stand

Red clover did

better with, tall oat grass than, with orchard grass, bromegrass, or timothy#

Many of the mixtures recommended by

experiment stations did very poorly in this test* Midgley (35) compared 4- pasture clovers#

The natural

white clover out ranked the others In respect to persistence and longevity*

Its growth, when properly fertilized, in­

creased as the years went by whereas that of the others de­ creased#

The English clover (Kent) needs and withstands

close grazing*

Ladino clover disappeared quickly when

closely grazed but when not closely grazed it outyielded all others#

The Dutch clover was intermediate in growth

habit (between the English and Ladino clover) • Pink (21) recommends the use of a Ladino clover timothy mixture•

He advises the use of the first crop as

hay and the aftermath as pasture#

The 194^ Yearbook of

Agriculture (26) gives the seeding mixtures recommended by the various states# Species used in recommended permanent pasture seedings are shown below:

11

Iowa

111.

Ind.

Ky*

Wise.

10

14

6

2

5

10

Alfalfa

k

6

1

0

1

0

26

Alsike clover

7

6

0

2

2

3

k3

Korean lespedeza

1

9

4

0

2

Ladino clover

1

9

2

0

0

0

26

Red clover

5

6

2

2

1

1

34

White clover

3

0

2

2

0

0

15

Kentucky bluegrass

4

9

2

2

1

2

43

Smooth bromegrass

5

2

0

0

1

0

17

Tall fescue

0

0

1

0

0

0

2

Redtop

6

2

2

1

1

k

34

Timothy

8

9

0

2

3

3

53

Orchard grass

1

1

2

0

0

2

13

Number of mixtures re commended

Mo.

%

Mixtures containing :

45

^Lespedeza was not designated as to type in this report# It is quite evident that there are widely diverse opinions as to tlie importance of certain legumes and grasses• In a permanent pasture mixture alfalfa, Ladino clover, white clover, Korean lespedeza, Kentucky bluegrass, and redtop, are recommended in many mixtures in some states and in few or none of the mixtures of others•

Alsike clover, Korean

lespedeza, Kentucky bluegrass and timothy are used most often In these 7 states as the f,old standbys** of a per­ manent pasture mixture•

12

Seedbed Preparation Renovation of existing pastures may be highly benefi­ cial in increasing both the total and seasonal carrying capacities of pastures*

Two of the large problems involved

in renovation; the amount of fertilization and the choice of species have been discussed previously#

One other problem

of considerable importance is that of method of seedbed preparation# Wisconsin (25) suggests the following procedure : Lime and fertilize the sod*

Burn off weeds and trash then

disk (in the fall) and sow in the spring•

It is recommended

that sweet clover be used on thin stony land and red clover and alfalfa on the deeper soils*

Ohio (9 ) recommends lim­

ing, fertilizing, disking and the seeding of alfalfa with one or more of the grasses.

Pennsylvania (63) reported that

the instrument best adapted for renovation was the cutaway disc»

Ground preparation was done in the fall and seedings

were made in the late winter#

Ladino and red clover remained

after 3 years where clipped but alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and the seeded grasses had disappeared#

West Virginia (59)

obtained better results by shallow tillage vs. plowing while Iowa (27) reports the best results by plowing the ground# It would be difficult indeed to predict, from a review of literature as given above, which seedbed preparation.

13 fertilization practice and species mixtures would perform the best under the soil and climatic conditions prevailing in southern Indiana*

i4

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

Tliese studies were conducted on four areas of the State of Indiana where pasture problems are of paramount importance*

In establishing these plots, and conducting

these studies, it was felt that the pasture problems were of more importance in the farm economy in the southern sec­ tion of Indiana than elsewhere •

It was decided, therefore,

to concentrate these studies to four general soil areas in southern Indiana.

There are four main soil regions in this

section of the state on the basis of parent material (1 7 )* The plot sites were located so as to have one series of plots in each of these four main soil regions.

The plot

site at Blooming ton is on a Frederick silt loam soil de­ veloped on residual limestone.

The plots at Vincennes are

on the Alford silt loam soil developed on loess material. The studies at French Lick were conducted on the Wells ton silt loam developed on sandstone and shale.

The experiment

at Scottsburg was seeded on an Avonburg silt loam soil de­ veloped on Illinoian glacial till*

All experimental plots

were located on permanent pasture land. At three locations. Blooming ton, Vincennes, and Scotts­ burg there were three separate experiments conducted.

They

were as follows : 1.

The effect of fertilizer rates on If. grass-legume mixtures.

15 2*

Twelve comparisons of different legume-grass species (in mixtures mainly) at the same fer­ tility level, and

3*

The method of seedbed preparation in renovating permanent pastures#

The French Lick plots were slightly different#

Here a

study was made of the fertilizer rates in which some of the minor elements were included#

A comparison of the species

of legumes and grasses at one fertility level was planted but due to variable stands and weedy grasses volunteering in

these plots, the yields are not reported in this

thesis#

This report does not include all of the experimental seed­ ings made at these four locations as many of-the seedings were made in 1 9 4 9 and early 1 9 SO and so have not produced harvestable crops as yet#

Soil Upon Which Tests Were Conducted The Bloomington plots are located on Frederick

silt

loam which has developed on a limestone parent material# The description of this soil is given in an Indiana soil survey (3 8 )# The surface soil of Frederick silt loam in plowed fields is light brown or yellowish-brown silt loam to a depth of about 10 inches# •••It is underlain by a yellowish-hrown silty clay loam subsoil containing streaks or mottlings of yellowish-gray below a depth of 24 inches# At a depth of about 3 6 inches, this material grades into a yellowish-brown or red waxy

16

clay willch continues downward to limestone* ••• This soil Is developed on a gently rolling land and has good surface and internal drainage* ** *It warms early in the spring and is well suited to the production of the cereal crops commonly grown* The entire soil mass is acid, and clovers do not grow well without the aid of lime* This soil responds well to fertilizer and the results of its use are apparent on succeeding crops* The French Lick plots are located on a soil type de­ veloped on sandstone.

The Wellston soil type is described

(3 8 ) as: Wellston silt loam, slope phase has a light-brown or light yellowish-brown surface soil of 12 or 1 4 inches thick. Below this is slightly heavier yellowish-brown silt loam, about 2 inches thick, underlain by platy firm yellow or brownish-yellow silt loam which grades into partly disintegrated yellowish-gray shale at a depth ranging from 4 . - 5 feet* Unweathered thin-bedded bluish gray sandstone and shale lies from 6 to 10 feet below the surface* This soil is developed on rolling land. A small acreage is used for pasture, but, as the land does not support a good stand of bluegrass, little pasture is available to livestock* The Vincennes plots are located on soil developed from loess material*

This soil type, Alford, is described (6 6 )

as a soil of the rolling areas* The surface soil is smooth soft silt loam about 9 inches thick* Although its mellow porous structure aids the absorption of water, the rolling relief allows rapid run-off; this feature, together with high evaporation during the hot summer, causes crops to suffer from lack of moisture* The subsoil is a brownish*yellow friable silty clay loam with a slightly red cast* ♦««It is easily penetrated by roots and does not markedly retard the movement of moisture* The lower part of the sub­ soil, beginning at a depth of 3 feet, is slightly com­ pact* ***The soil is strongly acid to a depth ranging to 70 to 9 0 inches, where it generally becomes approxi­ mately neutral in reaction* Erosion is a serious prob­ lem on this soil. Owing to the rolling relief and heavy rains during the fall and winter, it is important that some cover crop be grown during these seasons*

17 The Scottsburg plots are located on level, Avonburg soils»

This soil type is described (30) as a soil whose

relief is smooth and nearly flat. Drainage is poor or imperfect. The surface soil of the plowed areas of Avonburg silt loam is a pale brownish* gray smooth friable silt loam to a depth of 5 or 6 inches. This is underlain by a light yellowish-gray and rust mottled silt loam, which, at a depth ranging from 10 to 1 5 inches, grades into brownish-yellow slightly heavy compact silt loam mottled with gray. At about 2 to 3 feet there is an abrupt contact with a so-called claypan or hardpan.... Calcarious till lies beneath this horizon.

18

la* 0» 0 -p a

#

1A

CM

3-

00

o

i— i *

(M_ch

rH CM

CO

o H ^ fl O

1A

I

OJ xO

xO

fA

s

h Sw-Tim N York Bf Ladino-Orch Italian Bf ~ Lesp-Tim Alf-Ladino Ladino-Orch Ladino-Br Co Wh Sw-Tim Alf-Tim YB Sw Cl-Tim Ev Sw Cl-Tim Alf-Br Red Cl-Tim N York Bf Alf-lim Alf-Br Co Wh Sw-Tim YB Sw Cl-Tim Ev Sw Cl-Tim Alf-Ladino Ladino-Br Red Cl-Tim Italian Bf Ladino-Orch N York Bf Lesp-Tim ap—Tim LadJ ilno-Br Alf-Ladino Ev Sw Cl-Tim Lesp-Tim Italian Bf Alf-Tim N York Bf Ladino-Orch Red Cl-Tim Co Wh Sw-Tim Alf-Br YB Sw Cl-Tim N York Bf Ladino-Br YB Sw Cl-Tim Ladino-Orch Alf-Tim Lesp-Tim Red Cl-Tim Alf-Br Ev Sw Cl-Tim Italian Bf Co Wh Sw-Tim Alf-Ladino Alf-Tlm Ladino-Br YB Sw Cl-Tim Red Cl-Tim Ev Sw Cl-Tim Italian Bf N York Bf Alf-Br Lesp-Tim Alf-Ladino Co wh Sw-Tim Ladino-Orch

Indiana

__________u n i u ;

50 50 50

Lesp-Tim Al-Br-Ti La-Br-Or Bf-Bg 50 Al-3r-Ii 100 Lesp-Tim 100 3f-Bi? La-Br-Or 0 Lesp-Tim 400 Al-Br-Ti La-Br-Or 50 Al-tir-ti 400 Bf-Bg 400 Lesp-Tim La-Br-Or 0 La-Br-Or 0 Al-Br-Ti 0 Lesp-Tim Bf-Bg 50 Al-Br-Ti 400 La—Br—Or 0 Bf-Bg Lesp-Tim 0 La-Br-Or 400 Al-Br-Ti 400 Lesp-Tim Bf-Bg 50 Lesp--Tim 200 Bf-Bg 200 Al-Br-Ti La-Br-Or

50 Al-Br-Ti 400 La— Br—Or 400 Bf-Bg Lesp-Tim v Bf—og 0 La-Br-Or 0 Al-Br-Ti Lesp-iim 0 Al-Br-Tl 400 Bf-Bg 400 La-Br-Or Lesp-Tim 50 La-Br-Or 100 Al-Br-Ti 100 Lesp-Tim Bf-Bg 50 Lesp-Tim 50 La-Br-Or 50 Al-Br-Ti Bf-Bg 50

Lesp-Tim

0 La-Br-Or 400 Al-Br-Ti Bf-Bg 50 Al-dr-ti 200 Lesp-Tim 200 Bf-Bg La-Br-Or 50 Lesp-Tim 400 Bf-Bg 0 La-Br-Or Al-Br-Ti

Method of Tillage Ren Leap—Ti Bur Bf-Bg Dis Al-Br-Ti Mar La-Br-Or Mar La-Br—or Al-Br-Ti af-Bg Lesp-Ti Hen Bf-Bg Bur Lesp-Ti Ren Al-Br-Tl Dis La-Br-Or Aug Lesp-Ti Mar Bf—Bg Al-Br-Ti La-Br-Or Flw La-Ér-dr Ren Lesp-Ti Dis Al-Br-Ti Dis Al— Br—Ti Mar Leap-Ti Mar Bf-Bg Bf-Bg La-Br-Or Flw La-Br-Or Ren Bf-Bg Dis La-Br-Or Die Lesp-Ti Aug Al-Br-Ti Aug Al-Br-Ti Bf-Bg Lesp-Ti Bur La-Br-Or Ck Bf—Bg Ren Lesp-ri La-Br^-Or Mar Al-Br-ni Al— Br-ii Lesp-Tim Bf-Bg Bur Lesp-Ti Plw Lesp-Ti Mar Bf-Bg Dis La-Br-Or Al-Br-Ti Aug Bf-Bg La-Br-Or Al-Br-Ti HR Lesp-Ti Plw La-Br-Or Al-Br-Ti Dis Bf-Bg Bf-Bg Mar Al-Br-Ti La-Br-Or Lesp-Ti

H ---- 12.T -------- H 50 Al-Br-Ti .T 0 Lesp-Tim 2 400 La-Br-Or . af-ag JL .' 56^ La 5 - ô r 50 Al-Br-Ti 50 Le so- Tim Bf— dg 50 n-TS-Tl 400 Bf-Bg 0 La—Br—Or Lesp-Tim 200 Al-Br-Ti 200 La—Dr Or Lesp-Tim 50

L à = S r-0 r

100 Lesp-Tim 100 Bf-Bg Al-Br-Ti 0

A l-B r -T i

400 Lesp-Tim 400 Bf-Bg La-Br-Or 50 Lesp-Tim 400 Bf—Bg 400 Al-Br-Ti La-Br-Or 0 àf-Bg 0 Al—Br—Ti 0 La-Br-Or Lesp-Tim Ck

Al-Br-Ti La—Br—Or Lesp-Ti Bf-Bg

Flw A l-B r -T l'

Dis La-Br-Or Aug Lesp-Ti Bf-Bg Flw La-tir-Or Dis Lesp-Ti Mar Bf-Bg Al-Br-Ti Ren Bf-Bg Dis La^Br-Or Aug Lesp-Ti Al-Br-H Ren Al-Br-Ti Dis Bf-Bg Mar La-Br-Or Leap-Ti 5ur Al-Br-Ti Ren Lesp-Ti Mar Bf-Bg La-Br-Or dur Al-Br-Tl Mar Bf-Bg La-Br-Or Lesp-Ti

‘o

27 French Lick Indiana

3oo'

Fertiliser hate and Mixturea

t:-

50 400 400 -B

Al—fer-Ti" Leap-Tim La-Br-Or Bf-Bg

50 5-"S

100 Lesp-Tim 400 La-Br-Or Cca Al-Br^-Ti 50 Bf-Bg 200 Al-Br-Ti 200 La-Br-Or Com Lesp-Tim 30 La-Br-Or 0 Al-Br-Ti 400 Lesp-Tim Com Bf-Bg 56^ La-Br-Or 400 Bf-Bg 400 Lesp-Tim -ES Al-Br-Ti 50 Bf-Bg 100 Al-Br-Ti 100 La-Br-Or Com Lesp-Tim Bf-Bg Al—Br—Ti Lesp-Tim La-Br-Or 50 Al-Br-Ti 400 Bf-Bg 100 La-Br-Or Com LesjvTim ip-Tim

W T Tferr 400 50 Com 50 50 50 Com

La-Br-Or Lesp-Tim Bf-Bg La-Br-Or Al-Br-Ti Lesp-Tim Bf-Bg Le sp-Tim" 400 Al-Br-Ti 400 Bf-Bg Com La-Br-Or 50 Al-Br-Ti 400 La-Br-Or 400 Bf-Bg -Mg Lesp-Tim 50 Lesp-Tim 200 Bf-Bg 200 Al-Br-Ti Com La-Br-Or 50 Lesp-Tim 400 Bf-Bg 400 La-Br-Or Com Al—Br—Ti 56 Bf-Bg 50 Al-Br-Ti 400 La-Br-Or Com Leap—Tim

35 Al-V-fi 400 400 0 35 400 400

La-Br-Or Lesp-Tim Bf-Bg Lesp-Tim Al-Br-Ti Bf-Bg

a.ai

50 Leap-f1m^ 400 Bf-Bg X 100 Al-at^Ti Com La-Br-Or, $0 Lesp-Tim 50 La-Br-Or 400 Al-Br-Ti Com Bf-Bg 50 Bf-Bg 400 Al-Br-Ti 400 Lesp-Tim -Mg La-Br-Or Al-Br^Ti 0 La-Br-Or 0 Bf-Bg 0 Lesp-Tim 0 50 Bf-Bg 200 La-Br-Or 200 Lesp-Tim Com Al-Br-Ti Lesp-Tim Ô 400 Al-Br-Ti 400 Bf-Bg Com La-Br-Or 50 Al-Br-Ti 400 Bf-Bg 400 La-Br-Or Lesp-Tim 0 50 Bf-Bg 400 La-Br-Or 400 Al-Br-Ti Com Lesp-Tim 50 Lesp-Tim 400 Al-Br-Ti 0 Bf—Bg Com La-Br-Or 50 Lesp-Tim 400 Bf-Bg 400 Al-Br-Ti Com La-Br-Or 50 Bf—Bg 400 Lesp-Tim 400 Al-Br-Ti -B La-Br-Or 50 Al-Br-Ti 400 Lesp-Tim 400 La-Br-Or -ES Bf-Bg 50 Bf-Bg 100 Lesp-Tim 400 Al-Br-Ti Com La-Br-Or 56 Lesp-Tim 0 La-Br-Or 400 Al-Br-Ti Com Bf-Bg 50 Lesp-Tim 400 La-Br-Or 50 Bf-Bg Com Al—Br—Ti 50 Lesp-Tim 100 La-Br-Or 100 Al-Br-Ti Com Bf-Bg 50 Lesp-Tim 50 La-Br-Or 50 Al-Br-Ti Com Bf-Bg 50 Lesp-Tim 200 La-Br-Or 200 Al-Br-Ti Com Bf-Bg

30

BF-fig"

400 Lesp-Tim 400 La-Br-Or Al-Br-Ti 0

50

Leap-Tim

400 Al-Br-Ti 400 Bf-Bg

Com 50 50 50 Com 50

La-Br-Or Leap-Tim La-Br-Or Al-Br-Ti Bf-Bg kT-Zr-lT400 Bf-Bg 400 La-Br-Or Com Lesp-Tim 50 La-Br-Or 400 Bf-Bg Al-Br-Ti 0 Com Lesp-Tim 50 Bf-Bg 400 La-Br-Or 50 Al-Br-Ti Com Lesp-Tim 50 Leap-Tim 200 Bf—Bg 200 La-Br-Or Com Al-Sr-Ti 50 La-Br-Or 100 Lesp-Tim 400 Bf—Bg Com Al-Br-Ti 50 Bf—3g 100 La-Br-Or 100 Al-Br-Ti Com Leap-Tim 50 La-Br-Or 0 Al-Br-Ti 400 Lesp-Tim Com Bf-Bg 50 Bf-Bg 200 La-Br-Or 200 Al-Br-Ti Com Lesp-Tim 50 La-Br-or 50 Al-Br-Ti 400 Lesp-Tim Com Bf-Bg 50 Bf-Bg 400 Lesp-Tim 400 La-Br-Or -B Al-Br-Ti 50 Al—^r-Ti 400 La-Br-Or 100 Bf-Bg Com Lesp-Tim 50 La-Br-Or 400 Bf-Bg 400 Al-Br-Ti -ES Lesp-Tim 50 Bf-Bg 400 Lesp-Tim 400 La-Br-Or -i'S Al-Br-Ti 0 Lesp-Tim 400 Al—Br—Ti 400 La-Br-Or Com Bf-Bg 0 àr-Bg 0 Lesp-Tim 0 La-Br-Or Al-Br-Ti 0 50 Lesp-Tim 400 Al-Br-Ti 0 La-Br-Or Com 3f-Bg

I'ixturea and Date a of Seeding Red Cl-Tim Alf-Tlm Ev Se Cl-Tim Ladino-Br Lesp-Tim Alf-Br YB Sw Cl-Tim Italian Bf Alf-Ladino Co .Vh oe-Tim N Yoilc Bf Ladino-Orch Italian Bf Lesp-Tim Alf-Ladino Ladino-Orch Alf-Br Co .Vh Sw-Tim Alf-Tlm YB Sw Cl-Tim Ladino-Br Ev Sw Cl-Tim Red Cl-Tim H York Bf Alf-Tlm Alf-Br Co Wh Sw-Tim YB Sw Cl-Tim 0 , am Cx-ilm Alf-Ladino Ladino-Br Red Cl-Tim Italian Bf Ladino-Orch N York Bf

N York Bf . Co Vh Sw-Tim YB Sw Cl-Tim Alf-Br £4 Ladino-Br Alf-Tim Ladino-Orch Alf-Ladino Lesp-Tim Italian Bf Red Cl—Tim Ev Sw Cl-Tim ü. v ow Cl-Tim Alf-Tlm Red Cl-Tim N York Bf 1' Alf-Ladlno Italian Bf Ladino-Orch Alf-Br Co Wh Sw-Tim YB Sw Cl-Tim Lesp-Tim

Lesp-Tim Ladino-urch Italian Bf Alf-Ladino Co .Vh Sw-Tim Red Cl-Tim Ev Sw Cl-Tim N York Bf Ladino-Br Alf-Tim YB Sw Cl-Tim Alf-Br Ladino-Br YB Sw Cl-Tim Co TTh Sw-Tim Alf-Br Lesp-Tim N York Bf Ev Sw Cl-Tim Red Cl—Tim Italian Bf Alf-Tim Ladino-Orch

Red Cl-Tim Italian Bf Ev Sw Cl-Tim Ladino-Orch Alf-Tlm Leap-Tim Alf-Br N York Bf YB Sw Cl-Tim Ladino-Br Co .Vh Sw—Tim

Ladino-Br Alf-Ladino Ev Sw Cl-Tim Lesp-Tim Italian Bf * Alf-Tim N Y0rk Bf Ladino-Orch Red Cl-Tim Co Wh Sw-Tim Alf-Br YB Sw Cl-Tim N York Bf Ladino-Br YB Sw Cl-Tim Ladino-Orch Alr-iim Lesp-Tim Red Cl-Tim Alf-Br Ev Sw Cl-Tim Italian Bf Co iih Sw-Tim Alf-Ladino Alf-Tlm Ladino-Br YB Sw Cl-Tim Red Cl-Tim &v Sw Cl-Tim Italian Bf N York Bf Alf-Br Lesp-Tim Alf-Ladlno Co Ah Sw-Tim Ladino-Orch

Red Cl—Tim Alf-Tlm N York Bf YB Sw Cl-Tim A11-dr Ev Sw Cl-Tim Alf-Ladino Co -Vh Sw-Tim Italian Bf Leap-1im Ladino-dr Ladino-Orch Lesp-Tim Ev Sw Cl-Tim Co Wh Sw-Tim Alf-dr Laoino-dr YB Sw Cl-Tim Italian Bf Alf-Ladino Red C1—T im N York Bf .\lf—Tim ^adino-Orch Italian Bf Alf-Ladino Ladino-Orch N York 3f YB aw vl-T3m Leap— .im Co Vh Sw-Tim Alf-Tlm Ev Sw Cl-Tim Ladino-Br Red Cl-Tim Alf-dr

NYoric Bf Lesp-Tim Ladino-Br Alf-Ladino Italian m Ladino-Orch Co iVh Sw-Tim YB Sw Cl-Tim Alf-Tim Alf-Br Red Cl-Tim ^V Sw Cl-Tim Italian Bf Alf-Br Ladino-Orch Co Vh Sw—Tim Laao.no-dr Lesp-Tim Red Cl-iim YB Sw Cl-Tim Alf-Tim Alf-Ladino N York Bf Ev Sw Cl-Tim Alf-Ladino Alf-Tlm Red C l- T im Italian Bf Lv jw vl-i'im Ladino-Orch Co .vh Sw-Tim N York Bf Lesp-T im YB Sw Cl-Tim Ladino-Br Alf-Br Lesp-Tim Alf-Br Co v.h Sw—Tim Ev Sw C l - T i m Ladino—vrch Ladino-Br Red C l- T im Al f—Ladino Alf-lim YB Sw C l- T im Italian Bf N Yo rk

jf

August 1 1946

December 5 1948

March 1949

V

August 1949

December 1949

28

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fertilizer Rate Studies In this experiment, eight different rates of ferti­ lizer applications were used.

These ranged from no ferti­

lizer application to the high rate of $0 - I4.OO - IfDO pounds pèr acre of N - PgOg - KgO, respectively.

This heavy rate

of fertilization was used in an effort to determine the residual benefits of such heavy rates of phosphorus and potash.

Many workers have obtained favorable high yields

for several seasons by one heavy application of phosphorus (15* 23, 35, Ip., 1|.2)•

Little loss of the fertilizer is ex­

pected from leaching since its downward penetration in the soil profile is quite slow (15» 3&, 56, 61p *

Many workers

prefer to add the potash fertilizer annually (6 5 ) although other workers find no advantage to annual application over larger and less frequent applications (2 3 )* Results of this first harvest season are shown in Figures 1, 2, 3»

5» 6 , and J, and the Appendix Tables

4» 5» 6 , 7» 8, 9 » 10» and 11#

The nitrogen fertilization

gave responses varying from a slight increase to a slight decrease in both yield of forage and legumes stands ob­ tained at the various locations# An average of the yields at all locations shows a slight net decrease in yield due to nitrogen fertilization.

However, it is well to note that at three locations the re­ sult was slightly In favor of the nitrogen application while at one location, French Lick, the yields were slightly de­ pressed by the application of nitrogen#

Many workers have

observed short time benefits in yield response to nitrogen fertilization (lij., 54» 55# 6l) •

The best results are usu­

ally obtained at the beginning of the growing season (lij.»55) Nitrogen fertilization produces this additional yield at the expense of the legume stand, however (14# 54# 55» 6l)#

Thus

nitrogen fertilizer gives excellent stimulation to grasses but its use on a good legume grass association is of doubt­ ful value since this added stimulus to the grass results in a decreased stand of the associated legume# The response to potash fertilizer is more erratic#

At

two locations. Blooming ton and French Lick, there was a marked depression in yield when 4^0 pounds per acre of KgO was added#

The soils at these two locations were high in

available potash as shown in Table 1#

This confirms results

obtained in New Jersey (62), Rhode Island (8), Indiana (43, 57)# and Vermont (31) # The Vincennes plots gave a small increase in yield to the potash application#

This response was much less than

that obtained by the use of phosphate fertilizer, however# The response of the forage mixtures at Scottsburg in­ dicates that potash was as limiting for yield as was phos­ phorus at that location#

This was not true at any of the

30

other experimental sites*

These data conform well to those

which might be expected from a study of the available potash at each of these locations (Table 1) *

Many states also re­

port increase from potash applications (2, 3» 5* 10, 6l), depending no doubt on the availability of potash in those soils* Figures 6 and 7 and Appendix Tables 10 and 11 give the increase, or decrease, obtained at each location due to the addition of each pound of fertilizer element*

This

is shown by location and by the grass-legume mixture tested. Several observations may be made from these tables*

The

nitrogen and potash were of little benefit and far too costly for any gain received from them when added alone at the rates used in this experiment.

This confirms work at

a similar location by Mott and Seaton (I4.O, 57)* An excellent comparison of the value of phosphorus and potash fertilization can be obtained from Tables 2 and 3 * The fertilization applied was at near or above optimum level for these two nutrients* that made by Bray (11} *

The comparison is patterned after It can be seen that the response

to phosphorus at the three locations (Bloomington, French Lick, and Vincennes) were quite uniform when placed on a percentage basis * well, however.

The Scottsburg plots did not respond as

This may be due to several reasons.

The

soil is less adapted to deep rooted legumes because of the clay pan present near the surface.

The season was too dry

31 T o t title best growth, response to be manifested#

This latter

can be well understood when it will be recalled that because of the dry summer period in 1 9 4 9 no third crop of forage was harvested at this location#

When fertilized plots are com­

pared to unfertilized plots in which there is no record or knowledge of the availability of the nutrient at that site, the results are restricted in their application*

This lack

of application of the results is a serious criticism of any fertility work done if those results are to be used as a basis for general recommendations•

This can be illustrated

best by the data in Table 3 in the comparison of yields of plots on which KgO was applied#

It will be noted that the

potash fertilization gave increased production at two loca­ tions, Vincennes and Scottsburg# production at two locations#

However, it gave decreased

This is in contrast to the

more nearly uniform results obtained with the phosphate fertilizer additions*

The explanation for this can be

secured by checking the availability of the nutrients at the various locations#

The availability of phosphorus was

unifomly low at all locations ( 2 4 to 44 pounds per acre of P205 ).

Thus, the responses to ?2 0 g addition was quite uni­

form and quite beneficial. On the other hand, the response to potash was quite erratic*

However, at the two locations where decreases

were obtained to high rates of K20 additions, large amounts of K20 were available before fertilization (573 sund 281

32

pounds KgO per acre respectively) *

At tlie two locations

where an increase was obtained by potash applications, the availability of KgO was much lower before fertilization (182 and 120 pounds KgO per acre respectively)•

Having

this knowledge in mind, the results of a test such as this can be more intelligently applied to other areas and thus have a much broader application. Table 2 Comparison of Yield Response to Soil Fertility As Measured by Chemical Analysis Yield with Rat­ Addition of ing IfOOÿ PgOg No PgOg

p 2o 5

Lbs•/Acre

Percent of Fertilized Yield

Bloomington

44

Low

3860

2240

58

French Lick

40

Low

!2 5 2 0

1500

60

Vincennes

36

Low

4470

2^60

55

ScottsburR

24

Low

2290

1850

81

-

Table 3 Comparison of Yield Response to Soil Fertility As Measured by Chemical Analysis >'

•....

&20 Lbs./Acre

Yield with RatAddition of ing i|X>0# KgO No KgO

Percent of Fertilized Yield

Bloomington

573 ,

very high+

3860

4180

10 8

French Lick

281

high

2520

3030

120

Vincennes

182

medium

4470

3630

81

Scottsburg

120

medium

2290

1820

... 79

First harvest, June 2, 19l|_9> at Vincennes, showing the g r o w t h and stand o f alf alf a-bromegrass-timo thy on the 5Ù-l;.00-^.00 f e rt ili zed plot*

i

First harvest. Ma y 30, I 9I4 .9* at Scottsburg, showing the gr ow t h and s t a n d of Ladino c lov er-orchard grass left; and a lfa l f a - b r o m e g r a s s - t i m o t h y right; on the 50-4oO - 1|.00 fe r t i l i z e d plot*

n

Dry Matter Yields

Pounds per Acre

4000

3000.

n

2000

1

1000 .

n

0

O s • 0

1

9 1

9 1

0 10

O to

O

0

3 1 O

9 1 O to

O s • 0

0

1

rH

8

I 81 8

8

I

8 8

II

0 I Oj I 01 i

H - P2O5 • KgO Lbs« per Acre

Species

Flge 1 Response of the Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Rates of Fertilizer (Average of 4 Locations)

1

35

Drymatter Yields

Pounds per Acre

4000.

*

3000

2000

lOOO.

I

o

o

3 I

s

o

i

o to

I g

0

1

I

8

1

I

g

o

g

o

O to

o

1

o

3 I O

I g

8

H - PgOg - KgO Lbs. per Acre

Flg.

2

Response of the Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Rates of Fertilizer (Bloomington )

LSD

5# 1190 I# 1650

36

Dry Matter Yields

Pounds per Acre

3000

2000

1000

9

S

PgO^ - KgO Lbs* per Acre Fig. 3 Response of the Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Rates of Fertilizer (French Lick)

LSD 5% 560 1$ 830

37

Dry Matter Yields

Pounds per Acre

4000 .

3000

2000

.

o

Ï000

§ i

§ I

o

Q i o

8 I O

o

s

«

t

o

o

in

8

1

8

N - P 2 O 5 - KgO

O lO I 8

O I

8

o

o

I

8

8

Lbs. per Acre

Fig. 4 Response of the Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Rates of Fertilizer (Vincennes)

LSD 5% 990 1% 1380

Dry Matter Yields

Pounds per Acre

38

4000

3000

2000

0

1000

s 1 0

1

1

8

0 in

1

0 1 0

I.

o I

9

o I o

1 0 in

N - P 2 O5 - KgO

Lbs. per Acre

Fig. 5 Response of the Grass-Legume Mixtures to Varying Hates of Fertilizer (Scottsburg)

LSD 5* 310 1% 420

39 It is also evident tlaat tiie efficiency of the phosphate fertilizer is much higher at the lower rates of application and those rates would, "be more justified for yield increases in the first season1s growth.

There was little yield gain

due to potash application this harvest season.

This may or

may not be true in successive years if stands of the higher yielding grasses and legumes are not maintained.

Many re­

search workers have stressed the importance of potassium in maintaining legume stands (6, I4.9 * 65) e Another observation which can be made is that there is considerable difference in the response of the different grass-legume associations to the phosphorus and potash fer­ tilizer.

(It can be considered mainly a phosphate response

except at the Scottsburg location, since potassium has given slight decreases or slight increases only at the other sites,} The alfalfa-bromegrass-timothy association utilized the fertilizer more efficiently than the other grass-legume mixtures.

The birdsf0 0 t-bluegrass mixture was least effi­

cient in utilizing fertilizer.

Ladino clover-orchard grass

and lespedeza-timothy associations were about medium in their ability to translate fertilizer into forage yields. This difference is evidence of the genetic ability of alfalfa and the grass association to respond favorably to highly fertilized soils.

It can be seen, too, that the

yield of the alf alf a-bromegrass-timothy plots have not

leveled off in pro due tion at til© maximum fertilizer rates as is evident in tke otker mixtures*

Tiie alf alf a-grass

association was still utilizing tke applied fertilizers in a more efficient manner. Tke amount of legume cover, from kigk to low density, is skown in Figure 8.

Tkis is tke average stand rating for

all Fertilizer Rates plots at Bloomington, Vincennes and Scottsburg*

Tkese results demonstrate tkat tke application

of nitrogen reduced tke density of legume stand.

Tkis is a

commonly reported reaction wken a ratker kigk amount of nitrogen fertilizer is applied to a grass-legume mixture. It is generally recognized tkat tke nitrogen stimulates tke grass at tke expense of tke legume.

Tke results also skow

tkat pot ask was not of muck importance in obtaining an initial stand except at tke Scottsburg plots wkick were low in available pot ask.

Otker work (6, 49, 65) and observa­

tions made at tke end of tke first growing season, demon­ strates tke important role pot ask plays in maintaining tke stands of legumes* Data at tke Bloomington plots skow a marked decrease legume stand density wkere keavy potash applications were made (Appendix Table 13 )•

Yields of tke resulting forage

crop mixtures were also depressed by this fertilizer treat­ ment *

An attempt to explain tkis will be made in tke latter

part of tkis thesis. Legume stands (and yields) at each of the locations

8

Q

p e p p v J e z T I T ^ ô Æ 03S ptre

O

5 03tl

jo

tîore pnnod ano jed p % a ^ ht esesjoni spun0 5

4 i

l I I «

5

I i

1

> 4

Àlfalfa-Bromegras s-Tijnothy

!

! Lespadeza^Timothy

Ladino clover-Orchard Birdsfoot Trefoil-Bluegrass

100

800 Pounds of PgOg and K q Q Applied Per Acre

ng„ ? Average Yield Response of Bach Grass-Legume Mixture At the Pour Locations to Phosphorus and Potash Fertilization

400

43

1 2

3

Stand Ratings

4 5

6 ?

8 9

10

I o

s 8

I

I O I O in

o i o

§

1

8

1 o

3 I o

«

o

lO

o

in

8

i o

in

1

o i o

*

1 o

+3

o o

to

8

m

3

•

1

S rS OH SH r flti

gD < •Og and 15*

These show the ratings of the

legume stands for each of the fertilizer rates at each loca tion and each of the 4 legume ratings at these same experi­ mental areas*

Major and Minor Fertilizer Element Study at French Lick The results of the major and minor element study at French Lick are shown in Tables 4* 5 aud Appendix Table 9 * The results of the 8 treatments common to those at the other three locations have already been presented*

As can

be seen from the data, there is no uniform difference in yield due to additions or deletions of potash and no uni­ form response to varying rates of phosphate applications* The minor element application has shown no benefit*

This

47 can be seen more clearly when the yields are tabulated separately, as follows :

Table 4 Response to Minor Elements*

Treatment

Average Yield of All Species

Average Yield of Alf alf a*Brome-Timo thy

Complete-all minor elements

2520

4.390

No minor elements

2750

5810

Complete-minus magnesium

2900

6520

Complete-minus boron

264.0

5520

Complete-Es-min—el

2390

5250

Average

264.0

54.98

& All received S0-4t.00-l|.00 lbs. of N,

respectively*

811(1 K2°

These data would Indicate that there was no advantage to the minor element additions, in fact the data shown above indicate there might be some disadvantages to its use* At least in this 1949 season, the addition of minor elements at the rates used decreased the average yields slightly and those of alf alf a-brome-timothy mixture quite markedly*

48

Table 5 Yield Response of Grass-Legume Mixtures to Major and Minor Fertilizer Elements Freneh. Lick

Total Season Yield (Average of 2 Replications) in Pounds of Dry Matter Per Acre

Treatment Birdsfoot Ladino Alfalfa Lespedeza Treat. N PpOc; KpO____Bluegrass Orchard Br-Tim Timothy Av* 1

50

50

50

G

208

3440

5430

2560

2908

2

50

100

100

C

170

2670

4010

1490

2085

3

50 x 200

200

C

190

2690

4620

1670

2292

k

50

1|.00

400

C

190

3490

4390

2020

2524

5

0

4.00

400

C

250

3980

5440

2390

3015

6

50

0

4 OO

G

80

1580

2840

1500

1500

7

50

400

0

C

200

4 l 60

5580

2170

3038

8

50

50

400

C

19 0

4510

5880

1790

3092

9

50

100

400

C

170

3620

4360

1770

2480

10

50

400

50

C

180

3790

5990

1870

2958

ii

5o

400

100

C

170

4730

5340

2770

3252

12

50

400

4 0 0 -B

200

3370

5520

1460

2638

13

50

40 0

4 0 0 ~MG

180

2890

6520

2010

2900

14

5o

400

4 OO a*ES

200

2700

5250

l4l0

2390

15

50

400

4 0 0 —G

240

30 20

5810

1950

2755

16

50

400

4 0 0 +25»

230

3520

6140

2280

3042

17

50

200

200

180

4100

5420

2370

3018

18

0 c 0 0 Species Average

190

2760 3390

2950 5083

2070 197?

LSD

BC

Tre atme nt Species

169

5% 5%

ll40 300

It

H

;6o po

___

1222 2659

V i e w of the F r e n c h L ick plot sites, French Lick, Indiana* The plots were seeded on soil of 20 p ercent slope »

H a r v e s t i n g operations of the F r e n c h L i c k plots. May, 194-9®

Species Comparison The 12 species or species mixtures were seeded on plots that had received the same seedbed preparation treat­ ment and the same fertilizer application of $0 - 2 0 0 - 200 pounds of H, P2 O5 » and K^O per acre. was seeded in August of 194-8#

One group of 12 plots

In another group of 12 plots

the grasses were seeded in August and the legumes winterseeded in December.

The average yields of these plots

(Figures 9» 10 and Appendix Table l6 ) show mixture number 8 (Ladino clover-orchard grass) to be higher yielding than any of the others tested#

This was true on both sets of

plots whether fall (August) seeded or whether the legume was winter (December) seeded#

Since none of the winter*»

seeded legume produced noticeable stands, the yields from these latter plots reflect the yield of the seeded grasses or that of volunteer grasses such as the pasture had sup­ ported previously as well as some annual grasses#

It can

therefore be determined that orchard grass gave higher average yields than did any of the other grasses tested# The seedings of birdsfoot trefoil, both New York and Italian strains, did not produce sufficient spring stands to give a reliable estimate of the performance of these legumes#

The fall stands were quite good but the winter

heaving injury they encountered, due to the season and soil upon which they were seeded, reduced their stand to

51 approximately 5 percent of full coverage.

Another legume

which did not survive the winter in sufficient amounts to be a factor in yield was sweetclover.

It, too, was seriously

reduced in stand by winter heaving injury*

Alfalfa, red

clover, and Ladino clover did not seem to suffer unduly from winter injury, however*

The fall seeded mixture

placing second to the Ladino clover-orchard grass planting was alf alf a-bromegrass ; third was Ladino clover- bromegrass; fourth, alfalfa-timo thy; fifth, red clover-timo thy; and sixth, alf alf a-Ladino clover*

It would then appear that of

the grasses tested, orchard grass, bromegrass and timothy are ranked in descending order in yield*

The legumes could

be rated (from high to low yielding) in a like manner; alfalfa, Ladino clover, and red clover*

It will be ob­

served also that the grass legume mixtures out yield either the grass alone (those where sweetclover has been eliminated) or the legume mixture, i*e* alf alf a-Ladino clover* Figure 9 and Appendix Tables l6, 1?» 18, and 19 showing the relative production of the fall seeded species should demonstrate their relative value and adaptation to the soil and climatic conditions of that location*

The percentages

shown in these tables were calculated from the yield values (pounds per acre) shown in these latter tables.

Since the

average values in Appendix Table 1 6 are an arithematic aver­ age of the three locations, the percentage value shown in the last column in Table 6 is not the ari thematic average of the percentages of the three locations•

52

Table 6 Yield in Percent of Ladino—Orchard Grass Production Bloom­ ington Ladino clover-orchard grass

Vin­ Scotts­ Aver­ age cennes burg

10 0

100

100

10 0

Alfalfa-bromegrass

83

80

123

89

Ladino cl over-bromegrass

82

62

121

82

Alfalfa-timothy

84

62

114

81

Red clover-timothy

86

53

118

80

Alfalfa-Ladino clover

66

57

96

68

Commercial sweetclover-timothy

57

46

98

60

Evergreen sweetclover-timothy

48

57

97

59

Yellow bl. sweetclover-timothy

52

46

92

57

Lespedeza-timo thy

48

45

84

53

Hew York birdsfoot trefoil

14

34

52

26

Italian birdsfoot trefoil

14

38

38

26

In the fall seeded grasses, upon which the legumes were winter seeded, orchard grass was higher yielding at Vincennes and Bloomington.

At the Scottsburg plots, the

bromegrass plots gave a slightly higher yield.

The failure

of orchard grass to demonstrate its superiority at Scotts­ burg can be explained by the fact that there was no third harvest made of these plots.

Visual observations made in

September indicated that the orchard grass plots would

53 have out-yielded any of the other grasses or grass-legume mixtures*

Dry weather in August prevented the cutting of

a third harvest this season*

The higher relative showing

of bromegrass at this location probably represents its better performance under drouthy conditions• The results of this experiment agree well with re­ sults of the performance in tests at Connecticut (12, II4.) where orchard grass and Ladino clover gave excellent yields* Missouri (l 6 ) rated orchard grass very high but obtained a better relative yield with Korean lespedeza than were ob­ served in these tests*

Vermont (3 5 ) results found some

serious disadvantages to Ladino clover*

The Wisconsin

work (1 ) shows preference for red clover and sweetclover in its seeding mixtures.

Ohio (9 ) rated the production

of alfalfa with bromegrass or timothy ahead of those mix­ tures containing orchard*

They did note the comparative

ease with which orchard grass became established, however* An interesting observation can be made when the re­ sults obtained in the fertility series are compared*

One

mixture, Ladino clover-orchard grass, is the same as studied in the species comparison.

Another has alf alf a-bromegrass

and timothy, three species rather than two as used in the species mixture comparisons*

An analysis of their yields

on the plots fertilized at $0 - 2 0 0 - 200 rate (the same treatment to which the species comparisons were subjected) indicates that the additions of two grasses to alfalfa

54

rather than one is highly beneficial in increasing the yield of the mixture* Table 7 Yield of Ladino-Or chard Compared to That of Alf alf aBromegrass-Timothy on the Fertilizer Rate Plots

Pounds of Dry Matter Produced

Bloom­ Vinington cennes

Scotts­ Aver burg age

Ladino clover-orchard grass

3190

4250

2070

3170

Alf alf a-bromegrass-timothy

5230

5370

29 60

4520

Yields in percentage of Ladino clover-orchard grass Ladino clover-orchard grass

100

100

100

100

Alf alf a-bromegrass-timothy

164

126

143

143

These data suggest that comparisons of two species may not be too reliable as a basis for making recommendations containing more than two species*

The alf alf a-bromegrass

and alfalfa-timothy performances in the species comparison tests did not indicate that a mixture of the two grasses with alfalfa would be of any special benefit when compared to the Ladino clover-orchard grass yield at the various locations studied*

55

Dry Matter Yields

Pounds per Acre

4000 .

n

3000

j?

1

C O

2000

TO

I I A

a i

1000 . +o>

o

ii s

f H

P h M O O -P

«ri

s

*-3

OO C~• CM

CM XA # -d~

CA en

GO

m

A © +3 © © ©

S •

©

o co

vO «A

CO o