Volume 4, Number 1; April/1972

lnstHute of Agricultural Sciences UniversHy of Alaska

A Review of Some Research in Progress

from the

Director's Desk • • • In d discussion of research pr1or1tres ior Alaska. a distmgu ished, non­

agnculturally oriented co lle.oguc at the Un1vcrsi1y rf!cently wrote, " In yeneral , crops grow better '~lsewhere . I~ the case for 'local sel f-suHic1ency' strong enough to justify exponrlitures?" Rf'CO!jnl.zing that his Joubts are shared by many urban Alaskans, I beHave this question deserves il thoughtful answer

Of coursP. he IS rrght! MoSl crops d o grow better elsewhcro.. Bu1 what of Iowa, rlorida , 1 exa!l, Maine · or Australfa? Growth requirP.menu \<ary so much thilt only a fraction of the world's many crops do really well in a g1ven e nv ironment. It do~ not pay to grow lemons ill Scotland, date' in II Hno is, or rice in Arizona. Tob11cco will !J'OW in California (,md Alaska !) but it does better in Vi rg•n ia. Apple~ can be raised in Ftorida, but the "Apple Capital of the World" is rn Washi11gto n. lr is more to the point to ask what crops do t hrive in <J particular location than t o worry about those that wow better elsewhere.

Strange as il may seem , some crops grow belt of all in the North One variety o f oats yi ld!ld o ver 1/0 bushels per t~cro at Fairbanks last summer. Our rmmediate goal is a dependable 140-150 Jnd a few good farmcts are alread y producing 110-120, which would ba considered high tn t he "lower 48". The national average Is 50 bushels per acte. Our barley yield s have been as h igh as 81 b ushels and we believe 60 bushels OfrectOf Horace F. Drury

would be o rea listic goaL The national average is 45 and many farmers In the plains states arc rnak ing money on 30 bushel barley. Our best growers are now producing 15 tons o f potatoes per acre. Twenty tons shou ld be attainable with present varieties and we hope t o improve on these. But even though t op producers in t he other states may be doing better, the national average is only 10 tons. We even picked fu ll grown (and delicious!) cucumbers a t thF? rate ot 90,000 per acre last year - ra ised o ut of doors, in Fairbanks, u nder clear plast ic mulch . Try m ult iplying that figure by the supermarket unit price!

If "grow better" refl!fs to higher quality as well as b ig!)l;!r yields, we are oven better off . The average protein cont P.n t of our oats is 14% as compared with 10-12% elsewhere. Our barley tests 16-18% on the average versus 10-12% nat iona ll y. A fully mature crop of barley produced in central Alaska consistent ly averages 4-6 percentaya points higher in protein (l.e. a 50% i ncre<~se) t han the seed from w hich it was grown! Why? One of tho secrets Is our {almost) midnight son. Alaskan potatoes regularly mature in 90 davs instead of the 120 day interval considered normal furth er south. Most cool season crops y ie ld as well it not a little better in Alaska thciO anywhere else, In spite o f a somewhat shorter season. Furthermore, a b lindfo ld taste test will convince most people that Alaska grown pe;~s, strawberries, carro ts and cabbages are the bast the world has to offurl Even the vitam in cont em of some of ou r smoll fruits and vegetables is higher. Ag~lin , our long golden days are responsible.

So you see, the question of self·sufficiency is no t really relevant Our primary goal is nol self-su ffic iency but chel!per and better food, regardless of where it is produced. It just huppen& that, given the level of f inancing available to farmers in every other state of the Un ion - not subsid ies, you u 1~derstand - · just regular , lnterest-beanng business loans, Alaskan agriculture wou ld be the best and m ost logical source of most of the st aples of our die t. Come to lhlnk of it, tha t would make us self·sufticient a fter all, wouldn 't it?

2 Agroboreali~ April/1972

APRIU1972

Volum 4

Institute of Agricultural Sciences

Staff Mf!mbers ADMIN1~1'AAT ON

H. F Drury, .,0,

Number 1

DIHttCaf . . . . . . ..•... ~ 1 btt ~ t C. E; Louod.,.,,l't!O

II.AJ•x D11 l'•ct. PI I~ thOI;;>p •. ... . Polmo S.H ft..,lao,M..S.

E lt•cwt•...- 01ti' .. . . . Palsne1 J . G. G ttoh

1\cJ"'lll'i n~tt vt~ Aui111'11 . . • . • - airbank1 a L .ee~~

AdfT11"1rtttellw O'rtat . . .. • P111ner• HliSEAflCH

l 0 AI'"' B.S. 1\(61 Aor Engiowar . . . ...... . .... ... Po>lrr.

C. I ll<•nto<o, B.S. Aae.t ~.;f1 At-r [...._.,,l!ll:f , . . ... . . Pi1r~

A. I. I!Hilltlo 1"110 . Prill A·nrga Sc::tert~ . . . . . • , .... Palf'14t

C. H C..born PhD. R .. odl(.h llart culruo n J>o "" •

o ,. 0•"" l'nD. A$soc fo'rul l'hli1liP,..yUcl ~ -.=.aifbankt

L J <rrb-d•l !'hO. R,...h,h "'-:J~"onomtn. . . .... .. Pti11'M!'r•

W 1,1 I..JI"!!I>I n. PhO. R .,ell Soli Soon 11 . . . . . • . . Pultn"' •

P C l.J,, PhD. AMI Praf. Ewnoml' .. • ... .• • . Fotr.....,•H

J li Lo!' <loy B. I!IOiogllf F · R-rotr . . . . Perentr.•rv

J.D. MciCand•l« PloD . An.t. Pro1 Ail" 1 or.~ . • . .. •... • .... . P .. II ..... r

~. " Mw·;~ lloi.S l=l-.o, ;;h IE-conorrwu . .

P f Mtllle. M A. R-r~ Sui Scoanti•t . .. .

W. W Motchl!l, ~tl A""< Prol Agr"" Te•-t:C<JI

c Fl 011~11d. 1'1\0

i'ttJfl' •

Ani PtOI Hortu:ul~ur• . . . .. . . .. r .. 1rtw:rlc , A. l T••IOo, M.S

i--ta1Dn l'h ArJrl,)tlGm~l . . . . . . . . • . . . . P.altnnr ' W. C rt.o<ms . .,D.

P..u1 faror Economta . . . . . . . . . .. F•rban"s O.,n C Tomho PhO.

Aut ''ml Ar.ttNol So•""" . . . ... . .. ~. obonu Jl H.V>' !~burn,l'llO .

R,_oo::ll ~P!Ofrologost . • . • • . . . . .. . Poloht>ln • F. ~ Woodlnog PhD.

Aut. Praf. Aq<'lMnoy . ... . . .. . ... r ••<botno 1

• (J S. l>i.'[N.trtrm:nt of Agn·,ulturo: Plant S INta Raezucfl Dnar 111/'.:l'~urm.-1 roo(H:rutinfi wilh th ('ttllersit}' of Alaru btlltuur" >! 1lgrirultrU'lll Sc1mc<Y

Editor- William L.. Fox

Agrobor&~li.s is published by the Unhl&f"lllty

of Alaska lnalitute of Aericulturel Sdenoes. Felrbanlu. Aloske, 911701. A W1'itUn nquen will Include you on the !I'll! I ling list.

To simplify terminology, trade nema of produc" or equipment mav h1ve bMn used in thrs P'Jbllc:at lon. No endonem-nt of products or firmJ mentio11.ed Is lntlllded. nor is Cl'itl cilliTI implied of thoso not mentioned.

T'dllen•l uppearing hera rnay be ttprintad provided no endonamem ol 1 commttclll product i:t Jtllted o~ l~ied. Plane c:redlt the ,_rc:h«• lnvolwed, md the UnW.rsl1y of AI .. • Institute or Agrlcu1tul"&l ScilmC8$,

T1\BLE OF CtlNTE ·ys What to do with the Surplus Dairy Calf Page 4

The Resoaroh Insect Collection

Obtaining 'ncreased Soil Temperatura Through the Use of P'astic Mulches

-Page 6

--Pag-r.: H

New Alaskan Grasses Excel in Winterhardiness -Page 9

D1ced Summer Squash -A New Alaskan Frozen Food -Page 10

High Protetn Grain from Interior Alaska l'agtt 12

A New Tool for Land Preparation in Alaska --Page 13

Which Alaskan Plants Are Poisonous To Lives1ock? -Page 15

Will Remote Sensing Give Us1he Answer? /'age JQ

Internal Parasites in Alaskan Cattle Page 20

Economic Factors in Alaska Milk Marke"ting - Page 21

Fiddleheads - Trick or Treat?

Lettuce Storage Problems - 1971

New Cereal Varieties for Alaska

Proce.ssed Crab Waste Valuable as a liming Agent

Red Fescue and Bluegrass Rank High in Frequent-Cut Test

-Page 2J

-Page 25

-Page 27

-Pugr 29

- Page 30

ABOUT THE COVER .. .

On tha covar, l;tonomlsts L. J . Kltbeslldel Uaftl and R. L. Taylor (rtghtl txamlno plug of hulthy sod from centar plot of Alasken Arctertd fescue; SltYaraly wintar-111jured red ~ue ploU are Boraat (left) and Olcb (ri11h tl. both Canadl.ln varlati ... Photo taken 2S May 1911. Aaociet41d liCOt"V , pe0t 9.

Evafuttlf19 Soil S•mp~ - Page ::!G

Cl'leckl"'!l on t1"11 Crop -Page '27

Haavy Equipmllnt - Paf!t• 13

Green.ina ot Ft. Rich. -Page 9

Agrobnrealrs April/1972 3

roble oft e surplus dairy ca f A.l. BRUNDAGE

Professor, Animal Science The producing da~ry cow po pulation

of AlitSka re-mains st able a t 1,700 to 1,800 an imals with t he majority concen trated in t:he M!ltonuska Valley . Assum­ing tht1 entry of rep lacement heifers into ttus popu lat ion , there shoLJid be in excess of 850 bull calves born each year . Vary fuw of these a nimals are needed or

have the genetic potential t o ser;c as serv1cc sires in the dairy indU$lry o f Alaska. These an mats, and heifers nol n~eded for herd replacemrnts, 'Ire sur plus to th~ da iryman's needs.

The existence o f surplus calves on the farm implies the necessi ty o f dis poSII I . Sale of &Urplus calves provides an additio nal source 01 i11co me t o dairy­

men '" the south 48. A d ependable market does not exist in Alaska al this time and they have to be d isposed of as

exped itiously as possible, som etimes by killing and discarding them at birth.

I have always viewed the surplus dairy calf as a problem , but a problem that m ighl provide h igh quality veal and beef for the Ala~>ka consu me r. This small study on dairy beef was stimu lated by a report from California on reeding holstein steers al l-concentrate rations For beef production ( 11. It Sllemed thaL a n a ll~oncen Lrate program might be feasible 1n A laska where a

pound of t otal dtgestible nutrients costs six to seven cents in either hay at 70

POUND a

1000

100

eoo

400

20D

'oo zoo too •oo 'oo AG!t: lt•)ll

Figure 1. Mean livewt'iglll at 30-day ;merval.~ for four holsrei11 steers on either all-concenttate or conventwnal rat/om.

4 Agmboreal1s ApriJ/1972

dollars. or blende-d concentrates, at 100 do llafS, per ton

Cigh t ho lstein bull ca lv~. born in the University of Alaska d airy herd at the

Matnnuska Farm between Septem ber 1969 a11d Ma rch l970, were used in the ex per i men t. They were randomly assign­ed to ci the r an <~11-conc{l ntf<ltt: or a "conventional" d tet (contro l) at bi rth,

four calves to oach group. rach cal f was placed on commercial

mr lk-rep lacer and calf starter at four days of age and weaned to dry ratwns 01 t one month of age Calves in the control group •.vere raised with replace

ment heifers undOf' rout ine f~ing and m<~nilgemant at the farm . Their d iet mcluded th ree pounds of b lended ca lf ~;oncentratl! ration per day plus hay , or pasture nccord ing to avCJi labi lity. It was not feasibl e to monitor feed •m ake for this group.

Calves In the all conc~ntrate group were weanoo to t he calf ration <H

thirty days of aBtl and fed to appetite . AI six months they were switchBd 10 the dairy ratio n, al so fed to ap~ite,

and c ontinued on th is reglmen untll slaugh ter at about 1000 pou nds !;ve­weigh t. These nnima ls were con fined in pons with maw bedding durm!J the wimer, a nd to a dry lot during the

summer. Contrary to expectation, they only nibbled at the straw bedding and

appeared to eat very l ll tl ~ of it. The concentrale rat ions were woighefl to them dally and allowances adjusted so that it was always availablo to them .

Ration formulations are listed in

Tablo 1 The highe1 protein cali r01 tion was used during the first six months in anticipation o f h1gher protein require­

ments in this period

The averdge rates of liveweight gain

by the all concentrate grolJP and the control group are shown tn F'lgure 1.

01 flerences in rates of gam were appa rent a t the end of the first 100

days; t he a ll -concentrate grm~p gaining at the fast er rate. These ani ma ls gained

in excess of tour pounds per day at t imes, averaged 2.6 pounds per day from b irth t o slaughter, a nd weighed from 969 to 1 085 pounds at 360 days.

The control group averaged 1.5 pounds

Table 1. Ration formulation

I n1Jlltdian ts

Har llty Oilt Molasses SoybeJ;~n o il

meal Un~eed oil meal

Cononsced meal

M4!at & bono msal

Allalfa 1TI8al

Salt Trace

mineral' Vir mm D2

Virarnon 1\

Clllt r-ation Oa~ry rat•on !2:2% protein! (18% ptot.ein l

15S 500 120

100

200

100

100 100

20

!bs.

976 !)()()

100

100

100 200

:lO

4 4 -4000 I U .lib. Mt>effl Feed

-- 22?0 I U ./lb. Mil<tid I" coo- --

gain per oay. Three of thesr. animals weighed from 926 to 990 pound~ at 600 days; the fourth weighed 928 pounds

when sl~ughtered at 480 liays.

Dat.a for f~d Intake and ammal production are summarized i11 Table 2. Feed unako:! data for the all - concentrate

group are basad on actua l measurements -rhroughout tho oxporiment . Because the

control group was not maintained under isolated confinement, it was not feasible

to 111ea:.ur~ actual feed inlake for them . For comparison purposes, their intake was eostimated as probable concP.ntrate

intake and thcorcllcnl hay intake dl two pounds per day p(lr 100 pounds live­weight .

The data in Tab le 2 are re lative to

this small feedi ng ~xper iment involving only e1ght an mals , bu t they do provide considf!'l'able insight inh> lhe com­parative advantilges and disadvantages of

thesoc IWO sy~tem'> of 5teer feechng and

management. The tremendous potcntlotl tor feed con5umpt1on by da1ry steef5 Is

eviden t from tha d01ta tor tho all concen ­trate group . Th ese animals averaged over three tons of concentrate tntake, nnd were consum1ng rnore tha11 25 pou11ds of da iry ration dai ly at maximum

intake. At t his time, however, they were also gain ing h om 3 t o 4 POUnds per day and weighed about 1 000 pounds by one year of age. Assuming the feed costs

indicated , it required 55.8 cents ln reed

for each pound o f dressed meat pro·

ducel.l. If , in fact , the control group had

been fed hay and concen trates, in the amounlS and at the corn indicated.

tOt<JI feed co~s would have been S355, essentially the same as. for the J ll con­cenlr ~te group. It (QOk 161 days longer t o bring them to 964 pounds liveweight, however, than it l.iid to bring th~ all :on­e~ n trilte group to 1 122 pounds. Estimated feed \.Osts for the control group w are 69.5 cents per pound o f dressed meat. These animals wer-e not placed on a h•gti-Emergy imishing ratlon prior to !.laughu~r and C<Jrcass quality

was lower than that obtainud un the a ll-concentrate diot.

These dolt<! do provide guicklines fo r the lndill idua· who would purchase sur ­plus dairy calves and reed them fo r beef. Personal cirr.11mstances and goals wi ll determine the system to l>P- followed If paswre and low cost roughage an: avail able, the feeder may wish to ttnde the&e agamst tirne and follow the traditional teeding 'Ystem of roughage and lrm1t!!d conc~nlro~t~.>s to produce a thousand pound steer at two years of age. Th is will not be a fin15hcd animal, howavPr , and finishing to a h ighet gr ade of beef

w1 I require an i;)ddrttonal inpu t of con­

centrates at the end of the regular fming period . II home-grown rougha~ of marketable Quol it y is used . the fafr marker value of this mater ia l must be

considered in det~m ining the feed cost

Figure 3. Curca.W.'l' af /tr l!>lt!lll Ht!t!r.1 j"eil al/-cwlceJitrare rotiwu.

for beef prod uced. If, howtJver , rough· age o f less t han a marketable qual rty i5 used, one would no t anticipate good performance from the animal con sum·

lng that material. The all<onr.entr;;t a feeding progr<Jm

offers several advantage~ , especially U the antmals are not being raised as P<H t

of a forc~ge ond pa~tu rt~ operation and all teed has t o be purchased. This is equally true tor thP. f11eder who would ra ise and flmsh d;my beef in to tul confinemen l

~nd t he suburban 4-H project with a 5ingle anrmal. Under presP.nt l!cono rni• conditions in Alaska, the cost per p<Jund

hoi He Ill steers on iill con(;e:ntr• t••

·-o.a Alf-coflQIIrlt••l• c-,v•nuo••

lbl s l:zhwwJ•d!

!>

f ...red lr>Ut~lf MllkiGf:i~' 20 692 20 5 92 ~ ~ o~o::z5tt>o.

C.·~ Strtf~ 13 2 .13 13 ']1:!

$-4 10~ bs . C. i •atu"Jn I 7l6Q ll0511 450 :ttu.a

IJ· S1•6 liOI1on 0 •I\- tMUVt'l S.11H 1 11ilti 1100 89:3

$105. ,.,.... liav 6/iOO ll1 00 'i' $JOlter

Ta1BI t.-.d tO\ I $~04~ s:lb4 fJ7

Ani"'Tlll prodt..ctlun Agt~'tt

•~ugt'nwr

l.da·, sJ 408 56~ J. ,., hiM-

-uhc ltl,• .l 1'12 !.64 Drau.,d

"'"'~~"''""' 1:.46 >10 Dr~~~~ .. , l,,, 51 r, ~Z.!l

f""J'U ro••.•lO. h...,.Yo.!tt•"'Jtr1 ~r tcJ 35.7 ~ I.J

tl~"~ MNt lei E-5.8 F.9S

of a11arlaule nutri~r1ts i 1 hay and con· centrate i~ es-sentially the same .. The cost of net productive energy is less in concentrates than in hlly, however, because 1hc s1ecr ha~ to p1ocess less feed bulk per pound of g;~in on a concentrate than on a hay/concentrate d iet . Total energy intake and the proportion avail able for growth abovl ma inteflancc requirements are grea tet on the con cenlrat~ ration. liveweighl gain is more rapid ond a h igher quality o f beef is p10duced with(lU t an additional feed ing period for finishing the animal .

The all<ont:l:nH:Jt~> r :Ji ion from brrth

to si<Jughrer is contrary to conventional fflf:ding programs f 01 I Urlllnant~ SlJCh as the dairy steer. The ruminant has the capabi"ity of eating and utilizing bulky feeds by means o f a complex fermenta tion/digestive system It is pmsible.

however , to eliminate bulky feeds :.uch

as pasture, hay, and sil ago trom the diet

and prt.~vtde a high eollrgy rat•on of r aadtly 1c mcntable carbohydrat es. Following thts regimen , il is Important lO provide t h!! starch dJgestrng m•cro

flor d of the rum~n wi lh a r'elatively con5tont supply of subsrrate to prevent

overloading of the sysl~>m ant the development of potentially toxtc fer· m~ntation.

Our animals nr.ver once went otf fDed or .Jlowed any othor ~>vider1ce of digestive disturbances during the ex ­periment This is attribured LO the tact that feed was always aiJatlable and the

Agrvborealis April/l972 5

animals could satiate their appet ite at their own discret ion. This encouraged a rdativflly 11niform intake of readily fm mentable carbohydrates lnto the dtges­tlve syst:Bm. Hungry ammals might have ov"' eaten at a r;iogte feedmg wtth tht! developmrmt of digestive disturbances,

feed Impaction, and other com­plications.

A few slmple management practices should be followed with darry bull calves under etther leedrng system Al­though bulls will gain a t a faster rate than steers and still produce an accept

able carcass when slaughtered at one to two years o f age, they are potentially

dangerous and should be castrated when

one to two months old. T his pre·

cau tion is especrally important fo r animals on the all -concen trate r..l iet. These anirnals wen~ in excellent physical condition and were often frisky and playfu l . A frrsk y iJnd p layful 1000-pound dairy bull i! a potential tragedy t hat should be avo ided Another f)Otential :K>UCe Of tnju ry to hum~ns o r other animals could be ellrnrnat ed by

removing the homs when the animals a re a few weeks old .

That mosl bull calv~s and many heifer calves are surplus to the needs of Alaskan da irymen Is Indisputable a nd we m ust continue to seck tho mea ns of utilizing this byproduct o f lho da iry

industry . P~:rhaps the da1ryman cannot afford to raasc these unimills within hls own oporauon, perhaps no one else can either. If so, then they uru truly surplu~>.

If nothing else. data from this study sub~ tantiares the observation that

"home !J'Own" beet is oft11n a luxury ttem •n the !amity food budget, not a saving Justification may requaro charg· ing a portion of the expen:;e to

recroational and educational goals of the family.

1. Jliller, R . F. Jfld i\ C. Que:st•llbt!l'ry. August, J 969. Animal Nutrition aJtd H<'altll. 9.

e research insect collec • on RICHARD H. WASHBURN

Entomologist

Insects hao,te been collected in Alaska since the days of Ru:;~ian explnration

Most of these eiJrly collections are 1n

Europe or in u tviHsitlt!s iliH.t musP.ums of the contermtnou~ Uniwd StatM

UntiJ recently the~"e has been lrttle

tntr>rest 10 mamtaining •liWthln!.J but sp~.allzed oroup> of msects in Alask~. ~Ut h (lS •orest IIW:lGU> by the United States Forest Service in Juneau and

College and bit tng tll~s by the Public Health Serv1ce. Dr. Kevin Philtp hBs. an extensive collection o f bu ttct fl 1es and moths at the lJni~ersity of Alasl<.il, Fairbanks. Or. W. C Fruhnc has mc1ny specimens anti much material from Africa and the Philippines in his collec tion iH Alaska Methodist University in Anchorage.

Th!! collection dl Palmer is probably the only really larg.e gen!!ral collection f primarily Alaskan insects maintdi 1ed

in the stdte. It liS !.larted In l 950 and has been expanded considerably ~rnce that time. In addition to the sl<tll of rhe lnsutute. there ha11e been a number of Alaskan~ and otl'u1rs who have con· tri buted many specamens fTom areas ~ldom reachet.l by the tmtomologtst. Among these contTibutors on• the late Dr J C. Chamberlin of Forest Grove, Oregon, a former USDA entomologist who worked in Alaska during surnmers nt 1943-44-45, Mrs. Frances Baker, for merly of Ketchikan; L~:rura Lofgren

6 Agrohorralls Apnl/1972

Dr. Rtclwr~l fl h'mhhum, USDA r!'searcll enro­muloKlst at /he Insritute of Agri­cultHral Sciencev at Palmer, k•oks orer part of the center '~ im<'ct mi!N·tion.

Barton of Homer; Dr. W. C. F rohne. now of A. M. U. ; and ::>r. Kathryn

Sommerman of t he Arctic Health Re­:;earch Center at the University of

Alaska, Fairbanks. lt :s :mere~ti ng to note some of Ihe

d1tferences in the tmect fauna of Alaska as compared to thos~ o f the other s latt!S. Worldwide, the beetles or Colooptora outnumb~r all other groups of insects. In Alaska, hoWQYer. the flies or Dlprera ,outnumber all other~, both as

tu species as well as individua l numbers. It has been st ated by Dr. Frohne that rhe weight of m o $qu itoes in the ilrc tic exceeds that of caribou.

A favorite group of insects. with mnny co llectors IS that of thB largest moths, th t> silk worm s or Saturnidae ; exam ples are the luna , cecropia ,

polyphemous, and the silk worm moth ilself . Th!!'Se arn absen l in Alaska and are represented only by specimens from oth~r stares.

The beetle fami ly, Scara· baoidae,which includes such well known members as the Japanese beetle and the common June bug, is representeu in Alaska only by a few small represent· ::ltives of the genu& Aphodius. which work in cattle droppings.

Our Alaska collection is P.specially strong In Dip&Jra (tlies), 37 families. 79 genera; Coleoptera (beetles), 29 families, 82 genera; Hymenoptera (bees, wasps), Lepidoptera (moths, butterflies); Het· eroptJJra (aphids, leafhopp~:u, plant bugs) wit11 1cwer specimens of srnalli!'l' o rders and complete abscnc:to of ~veral which ilfO vory rare ot do not occur In this. state.

In addition to the Alaskan sp~:cinll:!'llS

and a tew from other area~ of the world .

there •s a :.~iill collection of "Insects not known to occur 1n the continental

United Stateli ' . 1 he&e losocts h.Ne been dSSembiPd by the Entomology Research Dtv1s1on of the U.S.D.A. and d tstnbuted

to the various states. Thts collection Includes t!)(arnples o l a 11urnoor ol th~ world's •nost srrio us cconom1c meet

pasts, such as the Formosan termit~.

m~lon fly, OuO<'nsland fru.r tly an d

milny others from Australia , USSR. Hawaii, Poland, france, Colombia, and

other countr ies These are ava ilable lor

comparison purposes if thera 5hould bo OJn accidentdl mtroduction of any of

these potentially dangerous species in

Alaska. Of coursl•, tndny of them ·auld

not survive here, but might be transport·

l'd through Alask.d to Whl're surv1val i~

ros.sible. In con,unctio, with the colloction,

thlre IS a card c:.lt.J•OQ of A la5kan 1nsects

wh1ch, though ar from compl~te lists

intormalton teg<~rdmg location , period of act ivity, host or o thrr pert nom m:n·

te r regarding each spocics I iS'ted. The

co lectlon has o r ly part ot thll in~>eCts in

the file. ll is based not only on the co lcction, but on publ'shed literature

and lists supplied by co lectors of deter ­

m ood specimens . We Ia• k a number of msecb submml'd

to sP4;1c•alisH for ldentrllcat il)l that have been lt:tarned by them for furthl!r

:itudles or t ht!y represent a ~pcc1men

oow to thtdr 'ull •cttons Usually the taxonomist r~t<~ins o~bo 1 hall of <he spectmcns ~bmitted if lw is if'lterested

in them For example, no t a sing ~ psyllid HomopttrriJ o:>f the mmy ~onL tn

for ndenti hca tion ho~s ever been ldent i­tled to species. Thtli'U Is great opportun· ity for anyone intere~tlld in tnt' taX·

onomy of Alaskan msects because ffi(ltly

of t hem are 'denti fiable only to genus by many of the ' eys. Th's ·s es~•ally

truu in a number of thP. i rnporwnt

parCJsitic wasps.

Insect collection& serve a number of

usefu I functions. One of the mo~t in1

portant is as a point of reference o r

comparison to check an u nknown with

<In identi fied s~1men In some cases

th iS will serve to allevi .. te cunC"rn as to whethel a potr!nt lal tnst:et probrl!m is

innocuous or is someth111q reqwring

immediate att~o~nt •on . ldent1f ioo collec.· tmns also serve as usefu l rn<ltl:rials fo r

ln~truct'onal purposes and educational

exhibits. There "'c freQutont requests 1rorn outside ot Alaska lor nlorm;Hion

regardrng tnsect distrrbu t1on dnd occur-1 ~nw and for lonns of srec.mem. by

tho~ domg taxonomic studres at o ther unll/ersltles.

Future msect problem!> con be antlc i­

pc~ted by uttlizing the cull!!f"tlon and f1 le . Th1s ts illustrated by .m nsect

problem arisr"lg as J rPSult of the recent tnter~::st ln IOCreasmg grass setJd produc·

io 1 m Alaska . It was soon 01pparent

that "sihrettop" Wil~ a hm•tmg ractor in

bluegrass seeo productton after a field

has been in production ~veral years .

One of the princ pCJI cause!. of th is condi t ion is a plant bug of the tamily

Miridae , Capsus stimulans. This insect

injects a salivary Slilcrotion while feeding. As a result the stem shrivels as the flower h~d emer~ from the leaf

:;"'eath. The affected flower head has a silvery or w hi tened a ppearance and pro duces no seed An exam1nntion of the

1nsect collection shom sp~irnuns of this family from th!! Matanuska Valley ,

Brg Delta , and Tanana Vall~ . as well as hie records of other locat ions. It is very

li 1ly ,hat anyone trying to produce comme Ctill bi•Jegrass seed rn these areas w1ll h .. ve to takP. approp iate control

act1on to obtarn a goou crop o f seed The coll~<etion 1s housed m glas$ top­

ped U.S N.M. type drnwers in insec t­pluof cabinets. The 1mccts art~ iu un1t pinntn!J trays of vury1nq ~ize . The pin·

n11 q t rays permit movt119 the ms.ccts. Wlthl)u t treqo.~ent handling of th • in· dividudt spec1mens. Si"'ce lnsocu haVE.>

the1r skeleton~ (1'1 the outside they are

mOfe edsdy presrrvcd in a natural con­ditron 1han many other animals. Al ­though mos.t of these ere p tnntJcl

spec1men~. somt> Jro on m 1croscope ~lldes in permanent IOOIInb cmd some in

vials of alcohol 1f it s des1red to preserve specifte ·mmature stages or

mi 1ute soft-bodied ir sects not mounted on sl itltls . Ad.JI t · 1sects properly prepar

ed lind handled wi ll be usefu l for hu r'ldrcds of years..

A laskan Insect colltJct ions are not subjucted as m uch to so-<:all e<l museum

pests. such as d 3rmestid beetles. <~s. in

other stntes. Even so, the drawP.rs have

compartments ir the Sldf'<i of the case which a re filled annually With pm vdercd para d 1ch lorobenzenl! , d repellent

wrnmonly known as PDB, against any eventua li ty.

Dr. McKendrick added to staff at Palmer center

Dr. Jay Dee McKendnck joint~d the s taft ol j,e Institute o Agncultunl

Sci'!r •. ~s. Unil.ersity of Alaska, in

January He will be stationed at the Palmer Research

Cent£ll as an Assis· tant Professor in Agron.Jmy with res­

ponsib il ties that

will 1akn him throughout Alaska.

Tlw posrtion wil l prov•de support for a wd mt>ot res.earch

prour<~tn approved by the Unh•crsity Board of Rl'gents and the AI isk<J leqis·

latu re.

Born in Idaho In 1939. lay Dr<> Inter

attended the Umv,..rsity l f ld. ho. l here h~ racuivecl h is B_S, ( 1963) and M.S. ( 1966) deqrees in agriCLIII Jro und ranqe

managomant, respe(;t ivc ly He com­

pleted his Ph.D requiremer ts a• Kansas

State University in 1971 w ith range man~ment, p lant ecology ancl crops as

major sturly areas. After completing g-aduate studies at KSU, hi! worked as a tur agronomist tor D. N. Newcomer's

ot Kansas City, Missou~L

Dr McKendr icl- 's 1 t!Sf!<nch ex 1~1 ient c Includes: evaluatmg rdng~land

seeding car'1d orgamr rcs1!t'V~ of acstoo wtteot!}laSS and studymq _,or'· rrvcgc t•ll •on and the ecology of halogeton- n­

vad~ Idaho rdnges. tn Kansas, h• mea wr t!d thf.' cr'liC4l l carbphydr. tc r~::Serve

l evr.l~ and describcfJ the autecology of two prairw for<lgc g rdSSttS He was

nfhliated w1th livestock grazing research

on natiw rclngel<~nds in Idaho and

Kenso~r.,

He W I I be working closely w1tn Dr

Wm. W Mitcheil on 1 evegewf .:rn pro

jects Jrtd agronomic and ocological

aspocts of introduced anu Indigenous

forages. T hey ant icipate de11eloping a ranyel<~nd maoilgemen t rese<~rch pro

gram o prov1de badly nP.e<fed infonna­

tio lor the Ala!tl<a IJ, opf ndus.try.

Jdy Det~'s w1fa, Judy. has B. S. and M S. degr,.cs ,., home economu:~ and

t..tu yht 1n KSU s Dep.;rrment o t Fnmlly

Econom ics. Tho McKendrick·s have two

sons Scott (3 y~arsl and David (lyear ).

Agr•1borealis April/1972 7

Obtaining increased soil temperature through the use of plastic mulches

LEE D ALLEN Asst Agricultural Engmoer

DON L POLLOCK RP.sl!arch Assistant

Agnculturo l production in Alaska

mdy be limited by severa l factors. Perha~ the most obvious, and some­

times the most I imi ting, is the

prevalence of cool temperatures during the growing season. Plants J.re 10

tluenced not or1ly by the remper.uure of

tho <tir surround ny their l eav~?S and stems, but <~ISO by th£ temp..:rature of

the SOli wit hin wh1c 1 the r roots mus t grow o ~)(tract wa tet and nutTIPnts.

Pract ict?s wh t..n result m mcrea!oed soil rempcratu res, especially early in h~

!.eason, result In •ncreased growth rate for most crops undrr Alaskan con·

tutions. E)(penrnr.n ts in the fiold with grow ·

ing c •ops have indicated that plant g.owth C<Jn be affected by tho us~ of plast ic mulches placed on the so iJ sur­

face Sou th-slop ing soil beds and soil ridges to hold th p lastic about two

inches obove th~ emerging plants are practices which showr.ct potential for increaliing crop production. An exper­

iment to determine the effect ot plastic

mulches, with selected combinations ot SOl i slope and a1r ~pace, on tempe-an res at ~·arious depths in th soil , was con·

ducted from J1 r •• .hrough Septem~•

1968. The expenmcntal o.~rea is shown in F1gure 1.

In this ~tudy, conslslmy of seven

different t rca tmen rs (Table 1) w ithout rho interference of growing p lant s, we

me11t.

used p losti shf'ets ten feet to g, three teet wide and 0.0015 inches ( 1-1/2 m 11)

thick. Bed otlentat1on wa~ t<~st and weS1

with the ~oped beds facing sou£h. The

slopu selt:cted was a ont' to three slope resu ltlng in 6 lnrh 1se in an approx­

imately 18- inch south bed tace. Nearly

six inches on e<~ch side and a toot on each end or tho plastic fi lm was buried in the soil t o secure the plastic sheet .

TABLE 1

MEAN SOIL TEMPERATURES UNDER THE VAR IOUS PLASTIC MULCH. SLOPE. AND AIR SPACE TREATME TSA r EACH DEPTH

Tr .. l mant Type of 2-tnch Sloi»(( Mean soi l tomper«ture, degree F. at depth of: Number PlaStic Ainpaea B.ci 1/2' 2" 4" Avnraga

l Otlir VC1 Yes 68.8 a \ 67 4. 65.7 u 67.3 :> Clear No 'I e. 68.0 a 66.7 lXI 7 iJ 66.8 l Ollar Yes No 650 b 64.0b 62 6b 63.9 4 Clear No No 66 7 b 64.5 b 67 "1 be 64. !j Black No 1\,lo 634 c 62.7 c 61 4 c 62.5 G Non~ (check I y~ 595d !i9 2 d 59.0d !>9 2 7 Non lcheckl No 68.6d 57 7 a 67.8 e 58.0

AVf.AAGE 64 1 632 62.1 63.1

l T~mpOrotures tolloWf"d b y the same letter In l!OCI"I oolurnn 3rtr 1101 slqndrc;~m v diffe~<•r>t at the 95 l)llrcOnt lavel of conf.dance. For e"ltn• 68.8 ia not • ignlf•c:<ultly different lrnm 68 0 at 1he one nail Inch deplh.

8 AgrvhurerJIIS April/1972

This resul ted in an exposed pla~tic area

o f 2 feet by 8 feet . Thermocouples to measure soil temperature were placed at

the one h., If. two, and four-inch depths

below the soil surface "l the center ot each treatmoot

The 21 S(J il tempm<~ture readings

each hour re~u lted in 504 observations per day , or over 50,000 during the summer An "OSCAR · chart reading

machiue w<l~ uSt;d to convert the l.trip chart coordinatei to digitAl readings and

punch the valuE:s on IBM computer cards. Analys1s of variance was then accompr·shed by computer.

Soil !emperatures averagrd over the growmq sooso.1 for the q-o~r l ~atments at t>;.ch ot the thn.!e ~o•l depth~ <Jre

presented in Table 1 All of !he pldstlc mulch tte<Hment 5 wNe l'r

1 ect1ve in n­' 1 easmg soil t• n1perdture at e~ll depths.

On huri?Ontal so1l surfaces. r:lear plastic mulch increased the aver arJe ~easonal

s01l temperature over 6 dcgreas F while black nlastic increased s.oi I temperatu re

about 4 degrees F over that ol the check

n eatment. The Cidchtional temperature

incrr.:<Jse from sloping th~ soi l beds beneath the dear plastic wa~ 3 deyrL>es

F, the '>lop~a c heck p lot w<ts only about

1 degrl'e F W.Jrmf!r thdn the hor izontal check nlot There was no lt~mperature ditfere lCe assocuned wtth presence or absence of an <m spc~ca beneath the clear

clastic 111ulch.

It Is , pparent hom th1& wst tha t , for

plants In wh ch soil temperaturt"' is hm•tmg, clear pla~t•c ITlulches show con· stderable prorwst> for increasing crop y.eld. Blac plastic rm•v be of value for

crui)S not requiring a large soil temper· a ture increaw , !!Special y where s1de benefits of weed control o 'llois ura

conservation may be irnport.ant. Provid­

ing an a ir space between th e • ulch and

the soil surfdce cannot b jwot1f1ed strictly from the standpoint ot increased

heat capturt!. The a•r spatt may p rovide

a culturiJI hdvantage, however. in that plants emerglr1g bene<tth a ra1SP.d clear

plastic may btl p!!rmitted to rema1r1 n

thrs prou~ted environment longer than if the plastic mulrh were allowed t o l1e dir~tly on the soli surface.

Ftxrm: J. Se~·ert'ly Wllll f'f lnJUTt!d

lllr/ ilf<'ll 111 tl~t· t:llf T'lliPI'I' (If iJ mi/-1(£11 y basl' m:ar

A11ch 1rage. When Lire plwrn was tak.:n r~n 15 Jul y I tJ 7 I lttm8htlv weed /ltifLill"i , .Jl

at lnwer rig/It, wc•rc aln•adl bc­cuming evtdcut iu the dt•ad rtra.ss.

New Alaskan grasses excel in winterhardiness L. J . KLEBESAOEL

and A. l. TAYLOR

Aesnarch Agronomi~s

"Cold biting winter nwr.~ Ot1r hop'd for hay."

This line from Htmry VI ,wr i tten by William Shakespeare in 1592, relate!> that winter-kill of graSSt~s was not un­known to Cr,gli~hmen of that day.

Alaskans today, wh ether growing grasses

for fo rage or as turf for lawn~. also are wel l acquainted with gra~s succumbing

to winter st ress. A ftllr each harsh w inter in tho south·

centra l part of the st;)te, a reas o f dead

or J;evemly injured grass have to ld

Alaskans that what they " hop 'd for " in uniformly green lawns and producttvu

field s was no t to be. Th 1s msult of nature transforms itself into J)ersonal " injury" to us in t.:lrms of loss produc·

taon from inJured or klll ed grass, costly

reseeding cho res, o r havmg to W<J tch weeds Invade a de.od or weakened grass sod. The fa rmo( must find alternative

sources to substitute lo r h ls "hop 'd for

hay," and those with lilwns must en dure

t he unsightl iness or devote precious time and money to re-establ ishing an

attract ive tu r i cover. Alaskans have h ad to live wi th t hi s

unsatisfactory situat ion as long a$ man

has attem pted to grow grasses here. And wh.at has m an attempt ed to grow her!!

~hat is Injured or el iminated by seve re winun? The answer, of counc, is un­adapted grasses su1ted for more south· ern 11reas but which have been th e only typos available m t he seed t rade.

Well . th~n. wh.JI l~tnds of pld~·ns w ill

survive Alaskan winters? Wh<tt ktnds o f plants Lire adapted to subarctic con dltaons.) These q<~esrions are easrly an·

s·.vered by looking around us - we can

see what p lant spec1es <1nd ecotypes

f lourish here (lach summer .

Would it no t be prudent, t hen, to search within Al~ska's native p lants -

more spec if ically, its gra~ses - to find

some that would be satisfactory for

vanou~ uses h!'! re' Such grasSf)s sho u ld possess ldP..al adapta t ion l o Alaska's

c limate and thernfo re should be more

wlnter·hdrdy here.

Th is course 11. prcds.cly that which has bocn pu~sued dumrg the past 15 years by agronorn i&ts at the I nstltuttl of

Agricul t~.Jra l Sciences. With tho assrstance of funding from The Rockefeller Foundatton, plant sc1ent1sts hav~ rnade numerous exterlsive traps throughout Alaska gathermg seed of promisir g­

lool< ing grasses wherewr ~hey were en­countered. These collections planted m

F i gu r e 2 . H ealthy, II r) f t /u:m-adaptPd R I! n t ucky blue· grass w.rf arou 11d tile ltt:adquurters bwlding of the Palmer Research Ct>mer shows 1w cvidenc(' of wifl· u:r injury. Photo 15 July l 'i7J .

cxperirnentdl nurseries, havr. bee ob· served and the best selecuons are then t<tk.en for11vard lllo progres~ivel y moro

cnucal tests and comparisons. Althouqh such J-I IOneenng end~avurs lr> biOlogical ptoblt~m s rrqurre parnuaking, t me­

consuming l!ffons. exc.urng resul ts c.~ t

I.J:!.L have be!).ln to erne•yc 10 111e form o f gr as.se~ usf1ful to 1\lask.an$.

From th+! initial collections of a tow seeds '0 to 15 years ago, thr-J Jgn many indrvidual plan l a no row a nd plot Lt!St~.

some of the best graSSt~s now have roached the st~ where largtl fieidl> an: produclnq thousand~ ..tf pounds oi 5eed

each y~ar. Now, and In the iuture, Alaskans wtll have , • ..,nilaiJie 9rasses

tdeally suited to the sub.1rctic t.:ltmi'ltic

rnflu~nces commor henL Some de·

fici~nc1es In seed ~tocks have OCt..u l md as t:!arly ricmand ha!> outs r~pped In itial seed lncrea~s. howwcr, as >~ pr<>· ducnon of the mtw gra.sses xpands ,

consumer dem 1nd car be met.

Tht:> re latiVely severe wintl'r of

Agro/Nrl'alu April/1972 9

Figure 3. Plut at leyt showillg Ill! wmrer iiiJIU")i is Alaskan dave/oped Nugget Kmtuc:ky bluegrass; at nght is reverrly w inter-injured !tfericm KenwcJ..y blllt'gfaSs adopted to mare snurhem latitudes. 11/zo to tak.c11 2' Ma) 19 71.

Figure 4. Se1wt:ly w111tcr 11/]llrt•d plot ar le}t is Redpatch smwth brumegrass rdeu~t·J itt Canoda in /9r~3; uf righr is .w~rctic-11.dapt.od p<,lar brofllt!J{f'IL.U df'l'l'lolp.•cl in Alaska. These llvce-Fear-o/J p/11($ W t'rt' plwtographrd in .!Wit J V 71 .

1970-71 placed more !>tress on over· wmtcrmg plcmts than several w inters

just prece-djng it. Although the 1970 71 wimor was not as ha rsh to plants a!:

those of 1956-57 und 1961-62, its ef ·

fects were adequate to riifferentiate

~.:!early between marginally wimer·hclfdy

grasses and those ideal ly n<lapted to the Alaskan environment

Figure 1 shows the devaswtmg afh!ct o f wmterk ill o n a nicely landscaped en·

trance to a nearby m ilitGry base. Most ot the unadapted turlgrass, although it

was a healthy, un iform tud in 19/0,

was seriously injured or dead w hen the

photo was taken on 15 J uly 1971. Figure 2 shows the l;.~wn of the

Pa mer Ac:,aarch Cente r phorographed

the !Mlrne dav as F i!JU~ 1. The norrhern

adapted Kentucky bluegrass in Figure 2

displ.tyed no hint ol •.vlnttlrk•ll ;md was a beautiful weeon turf for the entire

growing se<1~on Thll supenonty of AJas.kan-ddapted

grasses over t hose imported rrom other

areas was cviden L in a considerable

numbt!r o f small-plot comparisons m 5Pring, 1971. at the Matanuska Research

Farm. The cover •llustratton and F1gure

3 illust. ate nnkmg d,rterences "' w1r-ter in jury in red fescue (Festuca rubra) and in Kentucky blueyrass (POd prBtenslsJ.

In Figure 1, the ~upt.-fior vinter·

hard[ness of Alaskan Polar bromcyrass over thP. Canad1an v;mety Redpatch is w ident .

M;my o ther comparisons of the samp,

type were appurent this vc-ar in S~Jveral

other !J"ali !.peCitlS, remfOf' mq the thesis that Alaskans cannot rely on imported grasse~ to survive har~h winter& In situa · tions where exposure to wmter stmss is extrema. V!!ry few of the imported grasses pos~es.s adequate Wllllorhardmess

fo1 this dirtlcult role .

Diced summer squash, a new Alaskan frozen food CURTIS H. DEARBORN

Research Hort1culturist

In 1968, research to find a suitable way of u~ing medium to large, green frui ted summer squash on a cofmnercial scale led to packaging an attractive

diced. frozen product. The gr~n

varieties, often called " zucchini types", gr-ow luxuriantly dutlng the warmer part

of the summer, irt contrast to the yellow

straight or c ro ok-nBCk ty pes which grow ~owly in this environment. None of the

cucorbits - summur squash, winter squash, pumpkin o r cucumber - are

frost-hardy . When cucurbit-s are sown in

the field, only summer squash grows

rnp1dly enough in the Miltanuska Valley to Pfoduce an abundance of fruit. Early

studies emp loying clear polyethylene

1 V Agmborealis April/ J 972

film grounu cover sh o wed t ha t in coal

seasons plants and fruits developed

more rapidly with th1s early protection t han c.hd similar p lants frorn seeds p lant·

ed 1n the open t ield

Summer squash variety tria ls have

~n conducted In many growing sea­sons smce 1950, a lways with t he 5ame

object ives; that is, to learn rhe relative productivity of vanettes avai lable trom

squash breeders in other states and countries. Evaluat ion of a variety's fruit

has been primarily on t h r> basis of size and tendemass, the same cr iter ia iiS used

in southern latftudes. To o bta in tender

fTu its in hot regions for either fresh or proctlssed product s, they must be p ick­

ed wh en th ey are not over 6 to 9 inches

long and, for most variet ies, not ove( 2

inches in diameter. This does not hold Figure 1. Diced summer squa~Jr

trUI~ for Alaskan grown squastl, how­ever.

Fruits of Al.iskan summer squash 2-3/4 10 3 Inches In diamllter ;md 9 to 16 inchr>.s long, as s.hown in Figure 2,

reta in th~ tenderness o f -nuch ~maller fruits in lower latitudes. In <~ddltfon,

Alaska 's larger fruits are more Uavorful Obviously . the~ i;1rge fw its 1re not acceptable to the fr~sh fruit buyct nor do t he large slices make an attractive

frozen pack. To overcome these ob­jections, larqc s;ummcr sq uash fruits from the 1968 vanety trials were d1ced

and frozen in pound polckagcs. At the

same lime the conventional sic.e fruits were slired and pdckaged sfrndar ly .

Summer squash 15 a nutritious, low·

culoriod food. It can btl boi ed nnd served with salt •md pepper o r flavored

with other seasonings as butter, bacon, bits o f ham, onion or poultry seasoning, etc. Nlany appetizing dishes can be preparC!'d using tomato sauce, ch~

sauce or~:;

So far, A!t~skans have not uuhzed Lhe umqueness of thi~ crop . It is simple to c;,ow. There are no insects h<Jr e that tood upon the leaves of summ~r squdsh and no insects thilt trouble t he stem and roots. In the see<:! I ing stage, cutworms may destroy the plants the same as they do other succulent-stemmed seedlings. Wtthout squash bugs, striped ~ucumber beetles, stem borers or fo liage diseases the fruits can be grown without apply­

ing pestic ides to the plants. In 197 T, six replica tes o f six varieties

of summer squash were planted June 4 n 38·foot plots. The rom were 4 feet

apart with 15 Inches between plants. A 10.20-20 fertdi111r at 1000 pounds per acre was dr il led mto the soil about 4 inches deep tollowmg irri!Jiltion and

plowing. Pmmerge a t 6 quarts per acre was sprayed broodcast just prior t o squash planl emergence and no cultiva ­

tion was practiced during the wowing season.

In th is very coo l 1971 growing sea­

son, haruest ing was be!Jl.ln Au~st 17 which was about two weeks later than

usual. Records from tnals of other years show that summ~r squash fru it , between 10 and 11 inches long, have been harvested aro early as Ju ly 28 on plants !P'OWn from field-planted seed . Harvest­ing continued in the 1971 swdy at three

or four day In tervals with the eighth and last cutting made September 23. Some

Figllrl:' ]. Snw/1 fruit of ~ummer squash illttslrates ma 1:imum .ri::•• thor would han: acap!able quality jor C01ll',•nrimwl ~/ic.·tl pack. Larg~· ji·uit 'huws si:t char ,tiiJ haf w:ccptabh qua/it•· fur Jiwrg. Squasf1 dicf!d tu 1 :! inch ('IJbe~·. hfr plai1' l'enus 1/1 indr mbts, right plate.

vartetlcs began fruit ing late t~nd con· scquem ly requ ired only five cuttings. Hu]h yields \Wte assnc;iatcfl w•th early IIOWL'fillg.

All 1he squash in this te~"t had a dark green skin and relatively white flesh except Qlserta. Its skin has alternat~ light and dark green s1• ipes. with the lt~tler frettu~:ntly broken by the lighter !J'Oen color . Caserta's liljlt yellow flesh

also is d istinctive In the d iced product . Varieties test ed, in dflt:rcasmg o rder of f 1rst fruit yield were; Apo llo, Ehte, Black Jack, Hybnd Zucchini , Gaserta

and Fordhook Zucchini.

At t he first harves1 AlJgtHt 17, Apollo yielded at the ra le I, 789 pounds of fru it per acre and for the season it producud at the rate 32,648 pound~ pt!r acre. Apollo not o nly produ cod the highes t fi rst·hmvest yield six days ahead of a ll ot her varieties, but It also out yielded all others tor the season. El ite

was second in eaily production, yielding :2,001 pounds per acre August 23 and 3 1,019 pounds per acrl! tor the season . These are good yields for summer squash, especially lor a cool se,uson It is well t o realize that these yields are the results of one season·~ planting

In preparing these varieties for dicing, Apollo had a tnrn-loss ot 7 2 %, Elite lost 4.7%. wh~eas the average

for the six varieties ms 5.8 %. It seems probable that these losses could be minim ized by greater care in st em and blossom-end removal.

Ap p roximately 600 ~ 1ounds of squash were d iced and froten e~ Illustra­ted in Ftgure 1. Cub~ measuring 318, 1/2 and J/4 of an 1nch were cut

and frolen to determine t he most deslr · able size. The product Is being test

marketed to l~m prefl'rences for varieties and I.JC sizes.

Frurt productmn obtai l!rl lrun1 the 1971 c op, anw 70 vears of experiences 10 home garden site plots, !Jive s1 rong 'supper• lo r ~co rilginR commercial

produc•iofl at summer squash for pro­cessing Use ot a e:lear polyel 1ylent! film soil cover to wr11 m the so I more rapidly for earlier germination should ck.;reaso the time to t~rst fru it in some variettes by 7 to 10 day~ This could moan mature summer squash fruits would be ready lor dicing by mid July or during the first week in August

Soma features of the crop that should make produc1ion attractive to growers are: low inv~stment I 1 seed per <l l-:fP., r.hor. cropping season. no el(pen­$iv~ equrprnllnt n~?Cessary for handling the crop, no pesticides required other than tor cutworm control, and com· patlbllfty wi1h potatoes and other vege­tables '"a crop rotation.

Other advantages accrue from per­mitting fruits to attain a large d iameter Handling costs of this siltJ fruil arc lower per ton than for smaller fruit b~au:;e there are ((fwer of them w handle. Field hi!rvesting time i~ reducod and during me early part of the fruit

picking season there are fewer oppor tunlt1es to damagtJ the fruiting plants while rutting fruit fro m them

For the processor, dic1ng prepares the squash tor oosy blanchtng and speeds the freezing p rocess because rhe

small cubes can be lronm rapidly m a tunnel freezer . In contrast, sliced squash is packaged conventionally and frozen in thD container between freozor plates . For rhe consumer, an attractive, flavor­ful summer squash product can be avai lable that is easily prepared and !i~ved in dny size portion desired.

. tgroboretJJJs April/1972 11

High protei •

gra~ 1n

from Interior A1laska

Figllrt' 1. C1rurles A.11ight, ugrulluiiiV lah rcdlllit-wn pt-rji1rmi11g Kjelda/11 a11alysis fur mtr.n;en < t.llllt!lll of gr11ins. Bv tlXIIIX u ]uttor fJt!l'l'Uit

uitrogcu is tr.mslulcd into pcrn•m crude! prutem.

FRANK J. WOODI NG An istant Profesr;or , Agronomy

CHARLESW KNIGHT Agro nomy Lab Technician

In 19/1 , Lhe Umverstty of Alaska Institute of Agncultural Sc1ences in;. tiated a new prc..gram in smal l gra111

product! 111 at t h!! Fairbanks Research

~mer. 0111! aspert of the resc.11 ch lnv•lived testtng barley, oat , Whe-it, and l ' i! 11.:ale varieties to determine their sui l­abl ty lor intenor Alaska. Seed was

Ti!ble 1. Averil~ , Maximum. and Mini· mum Protl:l in Values tor Barley, Oat, Wheat, and Trit icaie Va1 ieLies Grow11 a t the Fa1rb<•n ks Research Cente r, Com­Jared Wit tl lntrodwced Seer! of the Samo Va1 ietles trom Cilnad1an and " L uwer 48" Sources.

BARLEY A1J••ragt! o f 2 I V iPfll!;

Maximum Valutl Mtntmum Value

OATS AVE!fage of 1 J Variui~ ll.'laxlrnum Valui! Minimum Vulue

WHEAT Av~rage of 10 VanetlQS MJ~Imum Value Mmlmum Value

TRI rtCALE

AVtlroge of 5 V!lrletle~

Maximum Value \11in1mum Volu"

Alit* a Introduced Produ.-1

Seed S.td

12 6 17 3 11-3 2 1.' 9.6 14 7

10.9 12 7 13.2 14.3 82 11.5

IS A 16_2 T8 I 18.5 13.8 12.ti

13.8 16.9 16.5 16.6 11.9 16.3

I~ Agrobom1Lis April/1972

procured trnm Canadian and 'low-er 48" souni!S- Performance ol the intro duc.ed van~t es wa~ compar!!d w th ~tim

dard varietif!s currently gwwn in Alask<J Following horvc.)t, grain !>llmplt~~o

were ;~naiV ZE~d for crude prote1n cor~l~nt (F•gurc 1). one of SIN(,ral ro utine procedures commonly us.ed lor quality walua11on. lc was notod that unusually h•gh prot~m values were being obtained for the Alaska grown grains. This was particularly tru~;: tor the barleys, whCfe values <JS h igh as 21% protei! were H"Corded. When compared with U.S. averages ot 12% l)rotein for midwe~1:ern G row bilrieys and 10% protein for

western 2-row barh•ys ( 11, it represented il ~ubstan tial increastl. 1 h e decision was then made w de tew-lirie protem ~..:on ten t of t he or lginal seed obtainP.d from sources outside Alaska.

Prott:lin averages along w1th max ­imum and m 111mum valuo~ for t ho Alaska !]•own seed tmd the Introduced

reed arc presented tn Tabil! I . In most cas-e!., it was found thilt prote in cootr•nts of the same variet ies t10Wn outside of Alaska were lower The greatest differ­ences were dete<: tPd in barleys. ~or till variet ies, protein content o f the Alaska !J"OWn barleys was yreater than that of the tntroduced se-ed. In elCtrerne cases,

protein was nearly doubled by growing the sarne var·cty in AJask<J . An average o f 17.3% protein was obtained for varieties grown In Alaska, as compared w ith 12.6% protein for the Introduced seetl of the s,ame variet ies. O f the 21

barley \ianeties reponed, seed for 6 was obtatned fr o 11 Wyoming, 10 hom

Alberta 4 from Manitoba, and 1 from Sou th Oa~ota

For oa t, wheat. end tr il icale vurit'ties, dtfferenccs werl! "ot as p1 r.motmced

1-fowever, average prou~in values ot t he Alaska g'OWn grain exceed that .1f the introduced seed Oat and triL•cale variet ies averllj}ed about 2% h igher pro tein when grow11 In the Ala:.ka envi o n ­

ment. Six of the Odt ven eties we re obtauu!d from Wyoming ond 7 from

Alberta. Of tflc Lri licales reported, 4 sele-r.t ions were obtamcd frorn Collfo1n ia iiod 1 from MinnesoUt.

Wheat varirtiet; exhibited the least rcsponSC' to Alaska condit•ons. having !ln avcrilge Increase ot I~ than 1% prutein However, the 15.4% ayoraf}tl protein

conl ertt -.t the i ntrodut.~ seed was high when compared with a U.S. average of appto)(urtate ly 12% {1) Ot the 10 v<1r ettes grown, 6 were from Alberta and 4 t om Wyoming.

It has long been known that prototn content of grains may vary consider<Jbly

trom one geograph i~..: locauon to a nother or , to a IB"SScr extent . from y~r to year ot thll same location . Protein~ are the pnnctpal nitrogen-conta.ning com ­pounds of grain In gDneral, any fitctors

of soH or r.l tmatc which l1m1t the amot.n t of avai lable nitrogen to the plant dunng the gra in formation and milturatlon poriod reduced the pro tem

content of the !JC!in (2) . Cllmatlc data for th'l 1971 growing season at

Fairb;mks (Table 2) did not devtateo

qreatly from long-term <JVQragll'S, portic­ularly dunnu July and August. If h1gh

protem grams are the rule rather than

the exception, Interior Alaska has a

d 1s1.1nct advantage as a feed grain pro­dll~o;tion .~rea_

Studie~ 1m~ Pl<~nned for 1972 to

TABLE 2. TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA FOR THE

determine rela& ion!ih i ps ~tween

tem~ature, ra infail. and availability of

roil nitroglln . This Will involve periodic s.amp11ng of s.oil and j.>lant tissues

throughout the growmg season etnn l<~boratory onalysss to mea:•ure available

forms of soil nitrogen and plam uptake

of mtre>ge11 .

1971 GROWING SEASON OF FAIRBANKS, ALASKA !!.mP!lratura ~P.I1BtlOn

041p. Days of D•p. ...,.an tmm A\ltraga recorded Monthly hom To1a1

Month Avlll'IQe normal Depenure ·preclp. lotel norm !II Otpurturt REFERENCES

- OIIJirees F . --May 45-7 -1.20 Ju"e 61.2 f:i.30 July 58.9 .().86 Aug Jll 55.1 ·005

2 5

13 12

--Inches O.D7 .0.73 o.2o -1.22 2 !13 1-0.33 2.38 -0.06

1. Matz, S.A 1969. Ce~eal Scienu. The AVI P~b11shrng Company , lrlC Westport , Connt~t cu , PP- 11 :2,2'9.

Septumbur .. 3.6 .0.90 ~0.06 10 2.16 +080 .088

2 . Matz, S.A . 1970 C.raal TechnoiOfY. 1 hll AVI Publiihm11 Corn~n"V, Inc., W4>1otoort. Connt3CIIO:LJI, pp. 250-251.

L.a&t spnng 1recu June 3 -JOD

Flutl II freere Septambaf 11 ·J20

7..30

new tool for land preparation in Alaska W.W. MITCHELL

Associal8 Professor, Agronomy

LEE ALLEN Assistant Agricultural Enginoor

C. IVAN BRANTON Reseatch Agricultural Engineer

Hacking a niche out ol tho Alaska taiga (lx>feal forest I is a formidable ta$k

for a homestc.:~der 01 other landholder.

Even with the help of a bul ldozer, it ~nerally t.1kes years to develop a field

well suited to planting and harvesting. In itial clea~ing operations result ln a

rough surface contaming a considerable amounl (.)( unmcorpo rat!!d top and root

matenal. Frequent tilling ts necessary t o incorporate thts matP-rial into a suttahlc

seed bed. In some cle<~ring operations the area is SC<Jiped to the subsotl and

thus made relativ~ly level oc smooth, but deprivf!d of cons1derable OfCJilnic

matter and nutriont material conrained in the top~o• l. Better systems me needed

for preparing ~ites w ith as few opera·

tions as posstble.

A heavy-dutY tiller obtained by the

Institute of Agricu ltural Sciences t his past summer may afford a significant improvement in land wo rking tech niques. The Alyeska Pipeline Service

Company assisted substantially in the

purchase of the machine for use In

re~>earch on land rohabiHtation. The tiller is called a rot.ary plow and

wa$ purchased from Rotary Plow, Ltd.,

Calgary, Canada It consists of a large rotor driven by a 270 horsepower diesel

Fig. ] . The rotary plow ~howrt in uperatio11 here wa~ purclw.sed bJ' tJu. Institute ol Agricultural Sciences for research vn latld working methods ill rehabilitation aPZd agriculrurul projects. Substantial support \1.-'as provzded fur tlu.· purcha.sc by tl1e Alyeska Pipel..me Sen•ice Co. In the above mal conducrt!d by the .4 la~ka Highway De{JI.ITtmcm along the new A11chorage to Fairbanks lughWal', a ~·ingll! pass oj the plvw through woody and lrerbaccum rL•grvwth prepared a good seed /Jt'd.

engme. The umt weighs about 16,000 ing on reclaiming tarmland and high·

lbs. and must bu pulled by a crawler way right-of-way from dense woody and

tractor equivnlent to a Caterpillar 04 or herbat:eoos rc,.,-owth, :md on clearing

larger. The 20- inch diamete~ rotor, bear- <~nd working land rn native '>tands of ing 72 to 96 curved tines of hardened dl!;ter, low ])hrub~ m1d nonwoody plants.

steel, is dr iven at about 240 rpm and is It pedormed sati~factorily ir~ all cases.

capable of shredding br.:~nche~. roots, Tht) most 5t.nngent tests were con-

small trees, ;Jnd even shatturs some ducted along the newlv built Anchori:I!Jil rocks. t ho ugh frequent encounters w•th to Fa~rbcJnks htghwa\o' in the 5.Jsitna

the latte should be avoidfld V<~lloy tind on 1:1 lor mer ttdeland that The rotary plow was employed this had succeeded to alder and low

past sum mer CJnd autumn in exploratory shrub/herbland stag~ Tho h!!l'lway

work on pr~paring land for aerial woe!- right-o f-way had regrown to Willows,

Axroborealis Apri.l/1972 13

bi ch, cotton woo<.! und herbaceou . m .. -terials. Only a s ngll! pass of the 1 Jtary plow w•Js requlr~l to prep;~re thts ground lor SCCll ng. It WdS ~ltrlatoo

that the rot;u v plow til t!d abou t 1.2 Clcres per hour of runmng urne. How­r.ver, frequent Pnc;u~t nters wllh burred Ci 1hle, rocl<s, .tnd bout Jll s neces.sit.Jlt>O

co"s•derdble dow11 time for 1 ~tentng and rep ac• g mes JmJ fmal.•t major repair on the roto r It •s bciiC'v!!d that il ht.JVier duty rotor, uv<.llldble from the

comp.my, would lc .. ~en the down time lor mamten<mce when being used (tn!ler

the!'e severe condilions. A land clearing test was conducted

east of Palmt;r on land that had never been cleared A •ormer iiddald the area on the Knik River lowlands h in

tht• proces) uf filh ng .1nd becoming a wooded tract. The tf!St was u ndertaker dt ring the tirst 10 dilyS rlf November

aftc• the ground had frown at the sur face. l he 1rost. der:p~noo dunng the coursn o f the test and was .. ~ignifir.am irnit ng bctnr . A 08 "Cat" was used to

pul th!! jJIOW

Two vo.:yetauon t ypes we1 ,, CII'<Jr~N.

On!! area was domin..rt !d by thtnleaf alder stand ng 8 12 frt;l tdd The other

area was ~Jom ·nated by a 1n ixture of low shrubs nnd herbs. Both areas were hum

mocky, therefor(. quite rouqh. On(• ~ss

or thP rotary plow n tho alder stand prepared il mdrginal seed bed, leavmg a con std!lr<~ble amoum of vegotdttve dcbtu unrncorporated on rho ~oil sur-

l•tg 2. 'fltc pluw wa~· emplayt•J m an wrly wlntt:r mal on shmbby and ltttbaceous growth of a jurmt:r tidela11d flat s mrlteast uj failtt<T. 'fl1e lund hod 1 t'L'I:'r been dt•ared and contui11~J lmmmucks up ro 3'~ /t•ct hi~:ll. Orerwppmg pam•s produced a rnuglt trm;w wah [m7( tl cluds a11d considerable organic •lt·bm at tht .~urjac:e. Anotlwr pass of rlre plow orer the tilled gruwul pruduL'ed a rdonv •ly smuuth .mrjacc rt:ut~l' fur .\e(•dmg. 'fl1e opC'fatlon was stvpped when f mst penetrated to about J 1 inche·s

14 Agroburt11lls ,\pril/1972

face. Two passes left a smootn, work­able I eld with a ldrge amou1\l of vtgeta

tivo n attol i11r.orporatcd 1 ' the ~011. The 5-6 ttrchi!S of frost enc.ounteroo

by the plow m thl~ operatron prevented it f urn operaung at t~ •JP imum. In ;m ... ed prev1ou'ily bulldozed clrar o f the alder a single P.JS:> of th•! rotary plow produced 3 ,.u toble Sll~t l bed

Tho teucun in un open ii 1-'.<l dom­inatt!1l by small shrub~. grasses, dnd other matP.rials was rougher than umJer

the alder, with hummot k~ up tu 3% ff!P.t hi!Jh Frost ~.~nd the hummo<.ky

condirio1 limited the ~:lfer.tweness of the plow. To \,;QUntelc3Ct t.hts, the uuzt:r

blade o n the DB "Cat" wa·> fmed wtth two ripper teeth. These served to br-:ak the fro<t ayer and moderate the hum­

mocks on HlP. larst pass ovor th~ fteld . Two to thre-e passes of he plow

prepc~red a goJd seed bed of thts a rea. On Novem 1cr 10. the dl't:fl!,!Oing frost , at a boot 12 inches , halted · ne oper­

ation. It was estimated that about 1 o 2 acre~ were worked per hour of operating timll, depending upon the amo• nt of coverage receiVed by an ~~ ea The usual follow·up operatton o l root picking aher bladmg was ellminawd with thll use of the rJLary plow

Considerable rest!arch needs to be

dona on the economics of the plow's operat1on Jnd on the conditions and types of terrain suited for its JSll.

However. we believe that it will haw applicat ion in a number of endeavors. 11 merits consider-ation wheruve( land neern tO bo clear~d Of modified SO JS lO

produce a seed bed or relatively un­line• r<J surface Ag~icultural fields, rlght-of way\, rPst or recreat on areas, and dCC~'SS tral s would comP under this

headmg Prep.~ratmn and maintenance of

right-of-ways should be facilitated, thus prov1dt g more scope for scenic viewing and safff drivmg Also, it could be a stgn itrcant aid in preparing areas for

snowmobiling and other recreational activities where they will not infringe on privatP property and l;md OOtter SUited

for other purposi!S. It would appea r to

be an l!xcellent conservation tool Bv mcorporatmg thP org.mic tnatter wtth the m nlral soil thl' product of years of soli develo pmnl'lr is conserved and by

rend ring the surface more suitable fo r plantmg. it •S ce~sler to stabilize with an anrac:tive and enduring plant cover .

flg11r~ 1 tVaterh~mlock i11 flower rn lowland sedge mcadow NCilr llfatiltmsko.

Which Alaskan plants are poisonous to livestock? L. J. KLEBESA DEL Research Agronomin

A natura l haz.erd common to l iv~stock

production in many ar~s uf the world

is the occummw of PQISonous plants where t hey may be consumed by graz­

ing an ima l5. All:lska is no exception to

th is situa ti on; vir tua lly e-vet·y year som e

animals. are l o~t in one or more lm;al ities due to the inge:>tion o f to>: ic plants.

Poisonnus; pl~;~nt~; ordinarily are elim ­

Inated during land-cle.a1 ing operat ions

and mus t do not pe rs ist no r become r e-es t<~b I i shed in cropla nd finlds . However , th ese lmdesirabla elements rnay remain in fM ce-raws, land·clearm g

berms, and in o the r rarml11nd areas !lcccss1ble to livestock. These si tes In­clude stream edges, marshl ands and un­

improved pasture~. Soma toxic plants alao are common to mosl o f Alaska's

wide-spread rangelands. The econom ic conse:qu enc~s. of

poisoning of stock are a lways unwol· come, anti if se-v~al a11lmals are lost , the effects o n an individ ua l enterprfse ca n be a seve re blow. Therefore, it is impor­tant that Alaskan ranchers and fermer5 bu a bre to identH y poi~ no us s:pec i es

ond know more in genera l about this

hazard to animal production .

Many stockmen not fully acQuainted with Alaska's nativl:l p lants may be unaware that pois.nr1ou~ p lants are pre­sent on their lands . Moreoi/E!f" , som r.

to" ic spocies ~re rei a\ i vel y i nco n!ifl i c-

uou~ and may n.oL be not1ced tn a cursory 5Urvcy of arc;;s to b e gr<Jzed.

Som~ confusio n m identifying poison­

au> plants arises from t he tact that S~Wer<tl c f the poisonous ~pec1es bear a

clos.e res.amblance to s.ome rhat 01re non-poisonous Th1s can lead to costly errors of two types : ~ite6 with good forag~ mav be left unused when harm­

IE!'Ss pl<m ts though\ to be po isonous are

see11 ; or worse, an imals can be poisoned on areas where toxic spedes were incor­rectly identifi ed as harmi£JoSs_

The mere presencE? o t rot~n tia l l y

po iwnou5 pl<~nts where they m1gh t be consumed by graz1ng anima ls is no

assurance t hat poisoning will occur. In fact , n is yery common tor (jfeiiS with

10XIC f> lilntS pr!!Sent to be grazed With

no po isoning ever occurring. Pois.oni ng of li11estock is depE.mdem on many

factors includmg (a} season of ye<~r

(many species are most tox ic when new growth appears in spr ing), (b f avail­abi lity of non tox ic fo rage (often , poisonous p lants are con!>Umed in to"lc

amDunts beca1.1se bette r forage is in short supply ), and (c ) amo un t of

poison ous p lant consumed in relatiofl

to body weigh t o f the animal. ExCX!pl for the roots.tock of waterhem lock, most of our plants that can be lethal if consumed in sufti(: iar'lf quantit ies, Llo not cause poisoni ng lf eaten in sma ll

a•nount wHh othor non ~oxlc forage.

Following are brjef descriptions of

native Alaskan plants tha t enher are detm itely known to be pois;onous or

thilt am su spec led of having this poumtial

WaterhP.mlock

Probabty the most virulently poison­

au~ plant occu1 r ing In th i ~ state is waterhem lock IFlg . 1 and 2) . A tal l ~rowing perermial, waterhem lock is encountered :along stre-am Bdges and in

marshy snes In all but the 1 lurtham

one-third of Alnskn (11 . O t th!? two

~peci es that occur her~, Cicut<J mack~nziP-<ma is more common tha n C. douglasil

The poisonous property In all water·

hemlock specie~ is a clear, brownish ,

rE31nous substance krmwn llS cicutoxin whicil is. concentrated ~n tho bulb I ike, chambered rool!>tock. This pl;mL por­

t ion is easi ly consu med by gnmng Clltlle

because only a re latively weak upwa rd pull on tha upper parts uproots the weakly anch ored p lant.

Waterhemlocl< f requently is co nfused

with at lt::ast th ree non·pois;onous p l ant~

1 4). However, th a non pa i sonous iij]eCi es usually grow in better-dramed s:ll~ tha n waterhemlock. Also , note in FiQJ..Jre 2 that tho veins in th lt leaflets ot

walerhemlock terminate in the notches of the leaflet margins; In the non-tox ic

angelicas, voins term inate at the ti ps of

teet h alon!) t he leaflet mar!)in. Severa l

othtH h!?lpt u l dls:tlnguishing

AgroborealiJ Ap ril} l ?72 15

characteristics are presented ol!iewht.:re (4) .

Lark5f!ur

Tall lmkspur (Oelphm111m glaucum) Is ~ 1other plan• t h< t has been respons1· ll e tor manv catth~ death5 1n Alc1ska

(F y 31 The natural range of th1s d"adly ;>erenniDI ; ncludes all bt, t tht: tar northwestern, southwestern, and south· eastern portions oi the staw (1) It is con mon m upen Jr semi shadea grass·

land rommumtles on ~lopes and or. va Icy buttoms. The plant "Tlay attam a he1ght o 6 to 8 fi'Ct . The dark pu rplc fiOWt!tS are s1m1IOr H1 shape but sJaghtly smaller t han those on the garden type of

dllphinium .

rhe toxic alkaloids that render lark .

spur poisonous are found in aH parts ol

the plant. They art, rnore concentrated in the leafy , young plant~ which an~

more ilttrc~r,tave to graz1nq livestock;

therefore, the ris of J)OISOnlf'lg from

larkspur is h1~esl 10 spnng whrn !J'Owth of non tOlOC pl,mts may be in

short supply.

Arrowgrus

Seasidti arrowgras' (Triglochin mamima} anci lltlle arrowgTBss (T. p/Jiustris) are common in low-lying sites

5-JCh as wot meadows, marshes, 11dal

mudflats, <~nd cdgos ot water courses both along thr r.oast and in land (11.

Although these plcmts have a grass Ilk!}

I 6 Agrobout~lis April/ J 972

Ftgllre 2. I llustrutiun slwk!mg details oj woru­hc•mltwk. p/antr. A- IVho/( plant mdudillg I I\ t1 l'eg~~­

lutivt plullf.~ that wzll flower the jollv" iug) ear, B-R (ootstork. of vegetative p lant and C- [lowering pfam sliced open to slrow lz:J(/ow rhambas; D-CtJm· pi ere leu} slruwmg arrange­lllt!lll of lr•uflet~: E- Ill·

divuluul lt·uj1t: 1 showing side l'clm' endi11g 111

IIVlc:itt!~ , l /ea/lt•t margin; F Seed capsule du~tcr; G- /11dil'idual st•cd capsule; II- Sud capsule rlh'ed open ~hmdrtg dii'ISirm be­twccl' Jwlr•t·~ ptllal/e/ to s h ' rtclt cap~ule JIIIIC/1:11(111.

91mcra l appoorc~nc~. they are not true

gr;~ssas . In contrast to the flattened leaves of IJ'asses, the leaves of the arrowyraf>Sf's aw thickened and tleshy

prior to trosts 111 autumn.

Seaside .urowgrass. wh1cl1 has round · cd carpels Hruiting or SC'J<i str uctures).

may att<un a hl!t\1' of about 3 feet (F1g 41. Ltttl~ arrowgra~, whose carpels (lfP slender and "iongated, usually is somewhat shorter with finer stems and

leaves.

The arruwgrasses may be toxic eilher

wh~.:, grazed d 1rectly or wh~n consumed In hay . However , uryi ,g as hay usuall y

causel> some reduLtlon 10 the potsonous

rrlncip le and hay stored for several

months loso& all toxicity l7.) . The poisonous oct ton of cUTOwgrasses

anses from the rtdease o f hydrocyanic

acid This substance, absorbed direct ly

into the bloodstream from th ~ rumen, intederes with oxygen transfer in

metabolic respiration (2) Thus, t.he

poisoning etfec.t is asphyxiation at the

cellular level.

Deilthcamat

A member of the Illy family, death · camas (Zygadenss elegans) occurs

mtewidl> except In the very northern­most and southernmost reaches 11 ). Although over a d o zen species of

Zy{}Bdenas occ1Jr worldwid l!, Z. elegans is thl! only one present in Al ~tska. This

white-flowered perennial grow~ one to two feet tall (Fig. 5) and possesses a bulb-like stem b.:ls.-e, much ltke an omen.

Although no livestock deaths have been conclusively attributed to death

camas m Alaska, the same specie" has been lethal to ~..:.ttt le and sheep Plse· whe1e l2). Spt<:lt'S of Zytpdt!n8s are

among thlt t 10~t Important of the IJ()1:.0nous p lam( tn th~ western states

and westCI'n Canada. ThesP plants are m$pot ~bit! for more loss of life in sheep

on sprmg r'1119t.lS here than aov other

pl ilnt {21 . Fortunately , the natural range

of deuthcdmas in A lask.J does not

include the areas where most sheep ranching is concentrated.

Plar:ts start growth early in spring. At

that in e, deathcamas hl!fba•Je is 'TIOst

toxic dnd other lorage 1!> scare . Actual

poisoning IS caused by sevmal complex alkaloids (2).

False Hellebore

Th1s large plant, also in the lily fam ily, rn:curs in southcentral and

southeastern Alaska False hellebore (Veratrum vidde) also is common ir

western CanadD and in lhL Padf1c Northwest states. Stems of this plant an•

unbranched and lh~;~ large, elliptical leaves are parallel veined (Fig. 6) .

Flowers are greenish-white and tne

lower branche~ of the intlor~scence

droop dnw• ward Pol~) 1lng 'rom fulsc h1dlebore 1s due

to several alkaloids 12). Chemie<~l

proparat ons from th1s spec• ~ <tre .used

both in anrma md human rnedic1ne. Tho p Jnt put~ forth obust , succulent

spring growth c.arller than ao;sociated

vegetation and It Is at th1s t1me of yeDr

t hat the poss1bilitv of poisonmg from

this species Is greatest

Although nu CGSt!S of dirr>ct poison· ing from this plant in Alaska havo ooen established conclusively, tals. hel lebore

is known to have c.<tU$8d poisoning in cattle, sheep, fowl, and humans else·

whOr'c 12). In the western states, ingestion

oJ false hellebore by pregnant live~tock has been linked o deformities in thei r offspring.

Monkshood

Monkshood (Aconitum spp.) c losely

resembles tall larkspur in general appear­

ance, in leal shape, and in flowllf color. Moreover , both plants show an affin ity

for similar h abit<ttS and they frequently are fou11d growing together . The best

dlaracterist ic for d1stmgulsh ing botwe~n

monkshood and IDrkspur is the tlower shape, m m~Jnkshood, the topmost

petal form s a rounded hood above the re~t o l the flovver, in lark~pur, the topmost petal forms an , longated s.pur pointing u pward and to the rear. (F ig. J. )

Two main .species of monkshood are nat ive in Ale5ka; A. delphinifolium is statewide in occurrence while A. max­

imum is k nown only troJm the Alaska Ptm i r~sula and Aleutian Islands (1).

Alkalo1ds are the poisonous princ iple in monkshood (2) . Monkshood speci~

elsewhere ha\IC caused death in cattle, horses and huma.ns. No I ivestock deaths in Alaskil havr been posi l iVely attrib­u ted to monkshood ; however, th is plant must be respected as potentially poison OoS.

Horsotail

Nine specms of horset<J il (EctuiSl!cum spp.l occur In Alaska ( 1) and some o f

the5c are known to be po isonous to horses unde1 certam circumstances.

These rush like, spare forrn ing p lants wit h jointed stems usually can be pas­t ured in summ t>r with no ill effects. Howover, if concentrated in preserve()

hay, horseta il can lead to death due ton factor that destroys t hiamine in the animal body. Wit hdrawal of affected animals from thr. contam inat ed hay m the early stages o f po isonlnl). or t reat ­ment wi h massive doses of thiam ine prio r to Pf"OStration, Hrtl bot h effective (21. Horsetails have also been reponed as poisonous to cattle and sheep (2).

In Alaska 's Matanusk.a V;J il cy. a nurn­bet of horses died from eatmg swamp horset ail (E. fiUVTatile) dur i119 winter when ice perm itted the•r entry i11t o a normally flo<X.Ied «H ea where th is p lant

grows (51 . Horsetai l frt'quently appears as a

weed in liwms ilnd crops, especially

hayhelds o n aciuic soils. Horsetail i'S

susceptible to the herbicide MCPA.

Othors

Sewral o ther p lant spec ie~ ol nHno·

Figurt. 3. 11/IJ.!!­r rrJTI•JII .Ul0Wll18 detuils of a rat/ lurkspur planr alld a comparison of ktrkwmr and monk ~ hood j7uwers. A -single wmplt·re ~tem uf u IJJrkspur plum, Ji - !Jrkspur II v wer sta/A. , C larksplir seed cap~ule:J. at ma­turity, D·Jarkspur flower, E­mo n k ~ll uocl J7uwer

Figure 4. A plant o} Sl!illidt> <Jrrowgra.~f

growing rill tide j1ats alo11g Tumuguin Arm

importance or of uncertain t oxicity exist in Alaska.

The bracken f ern (Pteridwm Bquilmum) is poisonous to both cattle and horses . However, this species occurs in Alaska o nly in tho southeastern pan­handle whor6 cattle and norsf!S are few .

In the heath family seve ill shrubs that Deeur 10 Alaska are known to be

poi:.onous to l•vest ock elsewhere (2). These include bog laurel (Kalmia poli­

folia) Labrador toa {Lcdum spp.). rustyleaf (Men7iesia ferruginea) , rho dodendrol' (Rhododendron ~p. ) , and bog rosemary (Andromeda pol/fol ia).

The natural ranges of these species In Alaska differ considerably . In genoral, they tend to be relatively unpalatable and would probably not be consumed unless o t her forage were not availilble

Several native ICfJ,Jrnes m the genera Oxytropis <~nd Astragal11s occur in Alaska These are the genera that In ­

clude the very poisonous "locoweeds" of the west em Slates- However, the species known to be poisonous there do

not occur in this state and iT has not been established that any of Alaska 's

s~iss are toxic to livestock Some mortality in sheep on one of

the Aleutian Islands was mouqht by the rancher to be caused by ingestlon of the early spnng growth of the nootka lup1nn

(Lupmus nootk8tensis) Several species of lupine that do not occur m Alaska

are known to ~ poisonou~ In the Western states Some lupines are also

Agrobcmalis April/1972 17

Figure 5. Deathcama~ plam plwlogruphed in full bloom on 20 July tlear W1smwn

suspected of ,;a sing calf deformities in western s1ates when herbaqe is con· sumed by pregnant cows.

A farmer near Homer bttlieved that two heifers were poisoned there by I arge-leav ed av~ms (Geum macro­phyllum} , a yellow-tl owered, coastal

5JJectes. This plant is nat known to be

poisonous •n othtlr area5 (21. Several specie.. of an~mone aro native

m 1\JOI'Ska. While no known cases of JX)isoning have been anriboted to these plants here, anemone spoc•~ a re

reported to be pols.anous. ellie\vhere ( 2 ~

T he giant kelp (Mar:rocystts pyrifers)

and other seaweeds are deposited by wavn action on beaches accessible to

livestock In the Aleutian Islands and

els.ewhere A moderawly toxic JJrlnclple

in the kt:lp is known to affocl sh~J.> ­

Thll may be related to n cl isaas.e in

lambs In Iceland born to ew~ that feed heavily o n seawood~ during preqna11Cy {21

Much work remains to be don~> m Alaska toward establishing more con·

clustvely the extent to whtch s..~vetal

18 Agrubnrealis April/ 1972

plants, now of questionable significance, are actuaJiy toxic to llve-11"tock. In this

vein, sev~ral ~;~ariilbles must be con sidared tncludtng lund o r Pldnl, type o f

livestock, season llt yecll, critica l levels

of lngestwn, preventative and curative me!lsun!S, etc . Technlr}Ues o1 eradtcation of poi-sonous pl\lnts require further study, also

References 1. Huhefl E . 19GB. Florll of Alaska <>nd oeigtlb<ltil'9 t~rltOfllJ), Stanford Univ. Press. 10080P.

2. IGn!J$b..-ry , J . M. 1964. Poisonou~ pl:mrs of HHl Unltt!tl States anrt Can!ld.t Prenttr:a-Hall, Inc 616 DP

3. Kiobe5adol , L J .• A . l.. Taylor , ar1d A C Wrllon 1900. Pllllll, ol AI ka polsooous t o hv~stock 1. Lllrk,put Alaska A{Jr. Exp. Sta Weed lnforrrt.lllon Nato! No . 1 . 4 pp

4. I(Jebasada l . J. 1963. Planr:> of A lasko poisor~ou\ to h111Ktock. I L WanH 1\emloc,<. Alaska Agr. Exp. Stu. Weeri In I ormation Note No.3. 9 pp.

5 Klabllsudel, L. J. , and W. W. Mltd-toll . 1964. An outbreak of horse poisorti r'IG lrorn swamp hoor.iel II IEquj~etum fl uviatile L.l Jouu>t~ ' ol R~tngo Managamant T7 :333-334

Figure 6. lllustranrm showing general tip(X'uruuce of j'alu lwll••burl!; A rege tarirt plant befrJro. J1owenng; B­j1oY.oerin~ stalk, C -dctuU oj leed CBp­sule.

Will remote ......... , ~ ~·, I ,"'"""'"" " '"""'"

• sens1ng I .~~~ /,l \\ r:: ~.r. · . :; \ • ~~''' : WIOtUND

g·ve us the answer?

•~ \~, liUCDADLR

.-rit~TIJml\li~JII '. H(tliiONICS

OAHIT ADJUST folllfK ~~-~; '

1

~WID£1AtcQ ANTEhU.

, . ~...- ~~-IIHIIUO( WlfiiSUAfMtrll SUtSOR - ~-'Q-~

~~ --ci• '-- MUlTISI'ECTAAl SCA,.Nt n

C.l BRANTON Research Agricultllral Engi!leer

Wm. W MITCHELl Associate Professor of Agronomy

Can space-age technology be used to provid~< :mswers w some of Alaska's land 1csource problems? Th1s Is a aues­tion to \vhich a group ot University of A <l!ik<l scientists have addressed thum r.elws

1 he lnst tute ot Agricultural Sc1ences proposad several months ago at a meet·

ing of Interested Untvers•tY ot Alaska SCientists that a research project be prepared to utiltze the output of an

Earth Resources Technology Satellite (EATS). under development by the

Nat i on.1l Aeronautics and Spijt:e

Agency. It is schedu l~ for launching in the summer of 1972.

Ftfteen separate research propoSills were submitted to NASA as one com­bined , multi-i'!iseiplinary University of

Alaska proposal. It covered m;my a reas withtn Alaska and envisioned the CO·

operatron of several State and Federal

agencies.

The University propoc;al , one of ovllr 700 submitted to NASA ror funding, was recommended h ighly by techmcal panels who studied the proposals . Official fu nding IS amlcrpated for con · duct of the multi-dlsctplrnary project in

fiscal 1973

DAlA COLLECJION ANnNIIA _/ S e.!INO AIU~N'tA R£TUM BEA"

VIDICOII CAMUIA$ til

l:."u.rtlr Rt•sourcl'5 1 eclmologu:g/ Satellite 111 be orbited m/972

Two agriculturally oriented pro­

posals, submitted separately by the outhors, worl! later combined The in­

vest igators hope to study the various types of photographic and o ther

imagery as they become available in an effort to distlngur~h land forms. vege­

tauon types, trme of leaf emergence, rccess1on o f snow cover a nd other rn· dica tors which mw rel<~ta ro the ogr i cultural put~.:nt dl of ccrtatn land areas

NASA offlctals. who vis•ted the Unrvers ty of Alaska campus rr commended that th s f:KOJCCI be coordinated wtth thr~;t! other Alaskan stl1d1es rr>lnted to the delineatiOn o f land resou rces Th1s group of &cientists w ill exam ine imagery from <1 t OO-rn il~·w•de

sooth to north transect through Alaski:l alon{l thll 1 50th meridian Twelve sites within this transec t will bast ud ied inten sively. The &uccess of the investigators in relating the known vegetat ive cover

to t he satellite Imagery wrll determine whether It will be possible to extra­polatt. lrom the smaller test sites to largtJr areas.

The satellite w1ll travel in a polar orbtt a t a height of 494 nautical m iles. Any pomt on the earth can be photo­graphed every eight een d ays Due to convergence over the North Pole, orbits will overlap ln the high latitudes. Muny

areas o l Alaska wtll be exposed to double coverc~g-e shcwld NASA u ti lize ttw sate llite 's full operational capability. In fact, ovory a roo of Alaska wil l be

photographed unl~ cloud cover inter­

fere:. The first satell1te to bn orbtted,

EATS A, will have two observi!tional systems, one cal led Retllrn Beam Vidi­con, which is. essentially a television camera process, imd a four band multi spectral scanne' recording reflectance in

wave lengths of .5 to .E:i , .6 to .7, . I to .8, and .8 to I 1 miCfometers Black and white mfra-red color mfra red, and nor· mal color photographs can be obtained.

Pnrcipal lnvestrgators will receive from NASA the photographs and other imagery that they need for their project rnve:.tlgattons with n a tew weeks after recordmg. A library o f magt'r v wrll be kept by a Department o f I rnerior facility a t S1oux F.,lls, South Dakota. Catalogs de5Crlbang lhe im<~gery will be uttered tor purchase and all Interested users can tuke advantage ot the tre­mendous e~muunt of rosourcn data avail ­able

Alaska sc.ientist: a re oftered the opportunity to extend the benefits of the 11ation'~ latest technological ad·

vancements to the 1emote areas. We hope to develop methods of analysis that vill make It possible to obtain

detailed anformatlon on the gncultural potential of many ;Jrlla< of Alaska where ltttle information now exists. Areas of J)drtrcular interest are tho Susitna Vall~ ; the Kuskokwim. Yukon, and

Copper nvor dramages and the Kenai Pcnmsula.

AgrJborealiS April/1972 19

.tngtH heifer tioiiiHt'd b,· K01-iiak rattcht7, Omar Strarnum, for diagttlll'fic purpO~t!~. At lt1f, 1\/orembt·r /970, priflf to treamwm. A I right .fun.; 1 fJ 71. e1ght Tilt/lith.~ after trcarmeot fN paraSites

Internal parasites in Alaskan caH e D.C TOMLIN

Assistant Professor, Ammal Stience

A. l. BRUNDAGE ProfM$Or, Animal Science

In 1970, a VP.tY smal l AniJH yrorllng he1fcr wa& donated by Omar Str;;•tman, a Kodiak rancher, to the lnst1tuta of

Agriculture Sc•tJtlCes for diagnostic evaluat ion The anamal subsequently was found to b1;1 h~avily infested with in terna l parasites i n excess of 1100 eggs per gram (epg) in tecai samples (1 ). This

led us to suspect that these parasites might ba a chronic problem in Kod iak beef cattle. In subsequent trips to the Burton Bros. Kodiak Cst tle Co. ranch,

some or their caule were checked fo r the presencr. o l 111ternal parasite eggs. Egg counts In the fecal samples were generally low and instynificant ln De~.:ember, 1970, averaging 10 epg. By the followrng Apnl sample5 from the cattle averaged 145 epg and by June, :?40 opg. Counts over 100 ~.:pg are considered likely ro atfet;l the health of voung cattlu, while a count of 1000 epy ts indica tive that the ammal may die If not given intr•nsive treatment. Most of the intestinal parasiws common

20 Agrvboreo.lis April/ J 972

to Cdtllf! in North America were noted in the egg cou nt!o. O$tertagis, Tnc hostrorrgvlus Haemonchus, Chabertia , Nematodirus, Momezia Coopena C<Jpillans bovis, coccidia, und the lungworm Dfctyocaulus.

II' December, 1971 , 1 ll calv~t.!o were weaned at the Kod iak Cat tle Co. ranch

and d ivided into four groups. They were individua II y we1 gh~d , eartagged . samplad tor fecal egg counts. and treat­ed with Thtbenzole IMetck and Co,}. Tramisol (American Cyanamic:t l , or Lox on (Cooper USA), with tho fourth !J'OUP being t he un tr~ted cootro l (2) . Next Ju ne, all o f the ca lves wi ll again b~

weigned and sampled f01 egg counts. Ha lf of each treated group will be dosed a second time wirh the same product. Tha untreated contro l gro1Jp, whrch was purposely mado larger than any oi the three !JOOp!>, will be split Into four groups, three of wh ich will be m~a toc.l

with the three products. In the fa ll of 1972, a ll of these animals will again bc we1ghed and sampled for tccal egg counts, bu t not tr~tl;!d Fronl the

changes in body weight a nd parasito

load of the canle, we can de termine whether the treatments are nccc.s:sary,

and whcthur thw should be given in the

fall, o r sprmg, or both . It seems I ikcly thtJt thC:$1:! internal

para~itcs may be an importar1l economic drain on cattle product ion in south western AI a~ ka, as these parasite

ll'ggs were four rd last autumn in ca ttle and sheep on Umnak and Unalaska Isl and~. and in C<~HIP. on thH lower Kenai Peninsula. Thls parasitism is an econom ic

!os~ not unly from the decreasing health and vitality of the ammal us lhe

parasites lncreas~ . oot al:.o from the removal of tht! oo tr ionl:. from the animal's {ltet and/or bloodstream to support the parasite populatlnn Results of the~ tria ls should be Important to all ot the ranchers in th iS ar~ .

1. Analysis of all .10mplrs jor cvidem t: of internal para~ir("i lllll been dune by R. E. Burrell uf rhe Stilte· redaal Lahomwry in Palmer.

2. "flwnk:!> are drt.: tu Merck and CO., Rul1wu)', 1 'ew J ersey; American Cyana.nu'd Co , Princeton, New Jersev; and Cooper U.S.A , Inc , Chicago, fl/inois, for contributillf: the produt.:ts used in the.rc trials.

Economic factors in Alaska

milk marketing

WAYNE C. THOMAS AuMe~nt Professor of Economics

PETER C. LIN Assistant Professor of Economics

No signitic<Jnt growth has occurred in rt!Cent years in lhe production of fresh

milk in Alaska. Less than one·hal f of the fluid mciJ..: so ld in the state is produced by Alaska dairymen. The numbers of darry or.>er a tors and dairy cows have \}Cflerally declmHd. fhe quantity of rc·

comb1ncd mrlk sold in the state is Increasing. These c1rcumsta ,ces indicate

that the local mill< producing industry Is

1r a r~djustmcnt pertod. The research ro be describt!d in th is article intends to an ... lyze the pre~ent composition and

compel!ttvc relatronshrp . of the milk market In A askd and to mak"' estimates or pred1cttons ot f J cure changes ll is

too early in the study t o draw any

conclusions, but it is ff'll that infor· roation on tht! reason for the study, and

l'llP.thods to be used , m1ght be of inttn"!!St

<Jt this time Locally proaucf'd fresh milk is in

direct competition with imported fresh

milk and recombined milk in the ex­panding Alesko market. Supply and

demand relationships for these three

mtlk products v1ll be the central focus of this resr.arch ( I ). Any signtftCdnt

ehangc in the Silt! vt the local dairy

indu5lry wltl regard to fresh milk sales

would be expected to s1multanoou5ly al h•ct imported and rtJCom l)ined sales

An overview of U.S. rnllk productton compar~d with Alaska may bo helpful in

describmy the current sltu11ion for

locally p roduced milk. Total milk pro-

dut tion in the U S has decrP.ased since

1965 with a slight upturn in 1970

(T<•ble II. The number of dairy cows

declined for th e entJre f.)eriod 1960 1970, whtl~ production per cow

ncrea~d ~ach yNr for the o;ame penod .

Alaska da1ry statl~lics e>chibit strikmg similur iues to the national d<~td IT.uble

2). To tal prodtu.:tion has d ec lined sincL

1964, with o ~ltght upturn in 1969 and

T970. The number ol dairy cows in

Alaska has d eclined since 1963, with a modest increase ·n 1970 Average pro· duction per cow was larger each suc­ceeding year o f the decade e)(cept fo1 1962.

There is a ·najor difference betlllfeen national and Sl<tte trends in milk p ro · ducro n . Nat ional produclion supplies

virtua lly all dairy pmducts consumed in tho U.S., wh ereas Alaska producers sup­

ply less than one half the milk con

sumlKJ In the state. Currently , the dairy industry in

Alaska wnsists o f 26 Grade A dairy

Table 1.

., 1960 196' 100~ 1963 1964 lOG!> 1066 1~/ 1<100 I !169 1970

U.S. "Total Milk Produl;tiOII , Numbt>r of Da1ry Cows. and Average Pr oduction Per Cow For the PPr iod 1 960-19 70

,.,..,.11 Toe. I , ....... ProduCtion

Mill< Prod. of COWl ""'Cow IMoii-LIIl CT~m,...•cltl ll>oundsl

IJJ HlO 17 ;500 1.029 12!> 100 1 1.100 7~ 128.300 f6.80Q 7.496 12':> .200 16.300 7.700 121000 15.700 8.1'199 124 20Q 1~.000 1!,.304 119-'100 14 ,100 8507 118.800 13.!100 8 .797 111.200 13000 li.!IQ2 116.?00 12.700 9.11;6 '11 400 1::1.!100 9.388

:.iou"''ff. USDA Aw•.:t.~lh'' S• .. l•n ~ HUO. p 37t USDA Moo Poodt.octio~ lo".-y· 1971. 2

herds, down from 80 herds in 1961. and

thr J milk processing plants. The bu lk of the dairy h •rds, 24, are located i11 rhe

Mat<~nu~ka Valley. The two larqest dairy

processing plant5 Jre in 11earby

An :hnmgo The remainulLJ two herds

and the 011( smal ~r processing pia t <1re In the Tan .. n., Valley.

Frt:'ih milk 1'> also supplied to Alaska front the lower 48 stfltA!>. Mil IS ge-ner.

ally 1 1ported to the state from Sl~dttlc in b... I K l<mk~ as well as tn prepa~kaged

cartons Fre:.h m lk shipped into Alaska in 1970 was e5lirnated at I 7,500,000

pounds (2) Product1on with A aska fur 1970 was 18,600,000 pounds (Table

21, v h t:h indte<~tes tho~ t 0nly 52 per

N>nt ol the frtt$11 mtlk s..~les is presently

supplir.d by Aiaska produc~rs.

Recombined mtlk is the thlfd part ot

Alas.-a milk sales to be con~idPP!d in this rl3search. Discusstons with individ­

ual~ mvolved tn v.uious segment~ of the

fluid rnd~ industry lndiccttP. lha t rL'alm­

binl'd sales or A. laska have increased

steadily over thl' fY!rlod of tne 1960's .

Reliable dltn on thl~ ~grm nt of the

mar ·et are !>till in ~he developmrnte~l

stagP II ts estimated th<tt, currently

recombined rn1l comprises 20 per cent

of sales (fresh pillS recomb1nedl in

Alaska ill< luding Southe-astern. Thtlfe fore, the ~rcu1 tilgc breakdown of cur­

rent mIlk sales i11 all Alaska is: locally

produced fmsh , 41 '1.. imported fresh,

39%, <Jnd recombined, 20% .. A quantitative economic model or

formula wtll be developed to represen t supply nnd demand charact!!'fistlcS of

thP. tlurd market en Alaska. Factor> such as pnce, lllarketl~ margin, and produc-

Agrol>orealis April/197 ]J

lion relationship!>, as well as competitive relationship~ of substitute products can

be mcorporated into" rnode l. With the use of two-staqe loast·squares (a math­

~Jmaucal techntque which estimates the magn itude and direction of relationships between tartars of the market} th1s economic model will represent fluid mllk marketing in Alaska.

Tho ma1or resul t of the econom ic model will be the defini tion of the supply and demand re latio nsh ip!i that L'Xist tor fluid m tlk. mw keting in Alaska . Predicttons can then be made as to the futuro component structure of Alaska fluid m ilk marketing.

For example, if recombined m ilk sales were expect ed to continue to Increase at the rate o f the last 10 years, then the s1ze of th is sector of Lhe market reldtlve to imported and locally produced fresh milk could be estimated.

Another possible u.se of the modal Is 10 measure or predict economtc con­ditions ot the Alaska fluid milk industry given the assumpt1on of an increase in

local milk raroducnon An increase in the supply c1f locally produced milk would be expected t o rertuce the price received by th~' dairy operator~. Further information would be needed to Ewalu­ate this situation. From the economic:: model, tota l rev~nue to the local indus­try could be deterrnmed before the proposed increase in supply. Aftrn- the quantity Is increased, total revenue could again be determ ined In other words, using this method , a determtna­tion could be made about the 1ssue,

"wheth~r total revenue to t he Industry really could bo nlarged by an increase in quanti ty ."

Whatever rl!<lommAndations are m<.~de to the da iry industry In Alaska after

completion of this economic nMiysi5,

and prt!Sentation of possible con sequences, major reservations must be expressed If. for example , expansion o f the dai1 y industry were found to be justified from an econom ic st andpoint

in the marketplace, additional is~ues

would have to be confronted such as production problems, u rban pressures, . nd individual management desires.

Productio 1 management decision~

must be made m tho current production penod for future years. If thl:l dairy industry In Alaska remaim at current production level$, 1hen new inve-stment tn the indu;,try wfll be largely uf a

22 Agroborealis April/ 1972

Table 2. Alaskan Total Mtrk Production , Number o f Dairy Cows, and Averilge Production Per Cow For The Period 1960 1970

Ynr

1060 19tH 1D62 196) 1004 11165 1~ 1967 1968 l !o!GIJ 1970

To111 M.k ... Od Hu .......

!TllouNtnd Lbo.l of eo ... 20 000 2.500 23.000 2.800 ,~,000 1800 23.000 2.625 n.?oo 7.&18 20.700 7,266 19,000 2,008 18 .2'00 I JI8.J 17,700 1,78J 111100 1.1!111 I 8 .600 1.800

·-­ProeiUet*OI' I'W eo.. (P"oould•l

7.D90 8..225 11.225 6,765 9.030 t.I:JS 9.46!l 9665 ~.935

10,170 111.333 - ----

SoLWtw: Alora.t.a O o,t441d ltYattX'._ Awoort no Ser\11C. Al3&ka Agrl .t lwl•l Static-tics., Pal,., AJDCIO!, 1~ 70

replacemr nt nature. However, if the need for 1ncre<Jsod production cou ld be justified. then the individual o perator should cons ider additional inv~tmcnt

above replacement levels Increased in­VC!itment invo lve5 ( 1) finding sources o · finance, (2 ) obtain ing re liable additinnal

labor, (3) increased problems in manage­ment, and f inally (4) the dtfficult prob­lem of adding new hi!fl producing cows t o herds within a relatively short tinHl span.

Questions of achievemnnt of PCOno ­mies of size rnust be asked If tot a l revenue to the mdu&try could be in · creased by an increase in quantity of m1ll< ptoduced, wit h a corresponding reduction 10 pt ice per unit of milk sold, what would then happon to total cost of that industry and firms wlthm t he in­dustry? In other words, if an o perator Q1!tS morl' total revenue by increasing

productiOn, can he achitNe sufftcient cost eco nomies to increase total profit?

The implication o f increased produc­tion would seem to indicate larger dairies, each producing more m il k. Even

unde-r the present situation, [liven the static nat ure ol the local milk industry, this Is a lready happening. Dairy size in Alaska has been increasing. In 1961 the average dairy herd size was 35 head, while by 19/0 average herd size had

mcroasod to 64 head All indiiAltors seem to preclude fu ture small dairy opera tio ns under either statrc or Increas­ing mdustry production conditiOns. Once the research has boan completed on estimat ion of supply and demand con­ditions of the Alaska m1lk industry, further study o n these production cost issues will ensue.

Even if increased profitabil ity can be shown through increased production of Alaska milk, other factors m ust be

cons•dl!fed before u concerted ~tfort is made to implement this policy. Tu emphas11" this point, two additional issuus are mentioned.

Expansion of the da1ry industry in the Matanusk.a Valley may already be It m ted by urban pressures from Anchorage. Tht> !J'Owth of Anchorage can be seen in rismg land values in the Mataruska Valley. The demand for homes and recreational land away from congestion within the city proper is a fam1li;1r occurrence in the lower 48 ~;tates Evidence seems to IndicatE' a simii;H c ircumstance is occurring uround

Anchora!Jf>. However, m ilk procltctton lose to large cities In the lower 48

statP.S ts dlso common Da1ry operators tend to hove high investment · require­ments which represent buildings and equipm •nt with extE!flded life spans. Gross revenut' to dairy Pnterprlses tend to exhibit mln1mum annual fluctuat ions due to structured marketing systems.

This would tend to enhance the m ilk industry's staying power. However, if the feed baso becomes limit ing, then other arem: of the state must be con· Stdered a5 potential dairy production sites.

Any modification of the current situa­tion of stat ic production level& in the Alaska dairy industry must, In thl:l final analysis, be implement ed by lndJvidual and group ction of the dairy producers . Alaska p roducers market their product through a !ystem th<tt can be as ccon· omically afficient as any tn the United States The local m ilk producers supply only 52 per ~nt of the fresh m il k market. II l resh and recombined m ilk are consid~red together, then local pro­ducers supply only 4 I per cent of this market. Until <.conomic ruuJiysis on both revenue and costs is complete, any recommend<J tfon of poss1blr> courses of a~;tion would bo premature. However, unless some act1on is taken at the

prodocer level , current indicators lead t o the conclusion that a decline in the importance of Alaska fresh mil produc·

tion relative to total milk sales viii continue to occur.

1. Milk bruught ;nM Alaslca in adrv state or canned num br e.:t cludeJ from this ~tudl' due to kick uf d!Jta 2. Market Admmistrotot ·~ Vfjice, Fed­eral Order 125, Scalf/e. 17rco lWihvrs had to e:xtrapo/Qte from the data rJbtairreJ.

This ir thr. way the fiddlt!hEads look in the spnng be;urf! tltq arc pid,ed.

Fidd eheads--trick or treat? SIGMUND H RESTAD

Executive OffiC!lr

CHARLES F. MARSH Resean:h Economist

When we mention f tddleheads most people give us il suspicious questioning look and reply , " Are yott kidding?",

W!J)ecting th<Jt we ore tricking tnl!m or "11UII ing their leg". The lt~\111 who confess

to knowing about ftddleheads usually

know them quite well We are really quite serious. We are s imply reporting here on the research that is bemg done

at the Institute of Agricultural Sciences

on flcklleheads.. ll is a part o f the

continuing warch for new and impruved

crops for Alaska. What are fiddlcheads? They arc

young unfurled leaves of certam kinds of fern p lants . Now that shatJ id ring a

bull, tor most of you have seen ferns growing wild in the woods. Some of you

have tNen t ra nsplanted f ~rns to your yard, where next to tht' house they make at tract ive. decurative qrccn plan ts. But did you know tha t ferns are good to

eat7 Fidclleneads get their name from thnrr ~hape. When the le~n pop~ out of

the ground in the spring, the frond, as the leaf or a fnm is called, is tightly

curled hke the he<~d or neck ot a fiddle. As the plant grows, the curled frond

unfolds rapidly In Alaska, fiddleheads

are uslUi lly p1ckcd from the ostnch fern ,

MtJtreucia struchfoplllris. Wh i ~ u th r.rs

ilTI' edible, the ostrich fem is most

flreferred . The li.lrge ostnch fern rea..:hus

a max imum he1ght of two to four feet . Bu[ f i dd l ~heads are the most tender and dol~tabl@ shortly after ~;~mergence when

the leaf is expandtng and the t ip ii sti ll curled. Only t ho curled portion is

picked.

Thl! omlch tern usually o5 found growin g on low ground nc.. stmams or lakes and underneath 01 1111<1r cotton

wood t rees. Tnr. htrns often are so thick

that few other poants compete suc:Ct~:.S­tully . In the spring, dunng the latter

part o f May and ~ady June, each ptaot

sends up severa l fronds. The young frond s are curlet.J t ight ly when they fi rst

appear end are covered witi1 a brown husk . When they are two to three inches

h igh , th e brown covering loosens and evantually drops oH. At this stage of

growth the curled part of the frond can

eas1ly be snapped o ff by h•llld . Appar· cntly the best WGY to narveSL fiddl!?" heads is to snap off the heads when they

are still curled but when the brown husk has loosened Sl.Jfficiently t o separate easily during cleaning and wa&hing.

Flddleh eads are p repared dnd eaten very much hkc other vegetable green~.

Tht!y are, however. distfnctilff' and qui rP dlfferer'!t. T o tho gourmet, Hddleheads rank htqher than mosr oth~r plant

weens But the t>n joymem of fresh f iddleheads, for the few who cc~n obtam

t hem, io, limited to o relatively shan growmg season

We c~t the lnsuwte first became sertously inturestt'd in fiddleheads, from

a research standpomt, in the sptmg 01

1969. Our interest ~temmed trom an article about f1ddlehe£Kls e<~lled rc our attention by Millie Rl'eve5, a long time

Alaskan who has prepared fiddleheads for home uso for years, and the fact that

ferns grow so well in Alaska. This

started us to th inking. Stnce we were already mvolved in research to deter mine the feasibility ot processing and freezmg domestic vegetables, why not

find uut what could be done with the w1 ld riddleheads too.

The season was already well

advanced the first year, ond only a few

fidd leheads were Slill avaiiDble. T here

mre m~ny unknown5 at that time such as (al the best time to harvest, (b) how to harvest, (c) how to clean and pre­

pare fo r freezing, (d) how long to

blanch, etc .. , . The r~ulttng tnal product WO)S quit~.: ac.ceptablu, however, and

plans were made to obtain a larger supply of fiddll!h~ads for tllStlng pur-

Awoburealls April/1972 23

poses In 1970. In tlle meant ime arger stands o f smtabll !ern had LO be

located, pri!terably as n"' :Jr o Lhe pilot ptoct!ssmg pldnt .1! Palmer as pos~;rble .

Thu nll<Jrest large 5Upply of ostrich terns

was found 1long the r;ulro<Jcl 'lOr th o f Tulkeetna about 83 m iles from P<~lmer.

In tho spring of 1970 some 500 pounds o f ~rddleheads were har\'ested and tr~J"'sported to tho Palmer plant for 1wocessing. A t the plant they wcte sorted and run throuft! thll 41ir cleaner, washer a nd blancher used fo r pt!ilS be­fore passing over a final sort ir1!J table. Thay were then iprcad out on trays and dllowed to drain befo re; being ploced in the freezer. Bt!Cause of tho !lme in­vo,ved from field to processing, some losses occurred due to welting and browning.

Cook1ng trials and taste tests were conducted us1ny ln~ti lute persunnel on the tastL panel:.. The majori ty p..tr· th.:ipating rated the fidd leheads good to

cellent m app )f<'nce and ta~tr Test cases of •roum fiddleheads wrue made

available to " number "' hotels. and rest<Jurants 1n the Anchorage 1rea lor l!!Sting and cvalucJtir>rl. One samplo case was ~hipped to a l[)rqe ~pectalty restilur · m n Seattle

The ~mp e '"ddleheads were en·

U1usiastically received and ro~ted very good. As a result about 300 pounds o f frozen tiddleheads were test marketed through these outlet~ during the fall ot 1970. Chefs, nnd restaurant and horal personnel were, without \.lXCeption, enthusi .. stlc about the hddleheads and wJnted mo & .

In the spring of 1971, over 4,000

pounds or fiddlehcads were haNestcd, processed and fr ozen. Attractively label · ed , 10 ounce plastic bags were obtained ar1rl the flddlehead~ were pa~.:ked r~dy

for marketing. It was decrded at rh is ttmll to test marktt the new product lt'l

~elected retail stores 111 Anchorage. This would give consu ners a chance to try the f1ddiPheads, anJ lhPir acceptance and respons.e could be evaluated . One thouS<~nd, four 11rrndred stxty pounds were marketoo through three large re· tilrl outlets. In dddlt lon, 600 pounds were again sold to two large hotels.

Consumer acceptance of the frozen fiddleheads marketed 1n 1971 was en­couraging. One hundred fourteen ques­Lronnaire cards haiJe been returned to date from ramihes who purchased fld-

U Agroborealts April/1972

dleheads. In al"\$wer to the question, 'Whc1t do you think o the appearance (color,etc.) ot thrs vegetabler', 56 per cent ra led the fidd leheads good to !!Xcellent. Other terms used to describe tne appearance were nice, ilttractive, exotic, and different. Most families thought the color was excellent. Seven pe cent rated the fiddleheads superio. in appearanc•. Thirty two per cent had never seen frddlehP.ads before so t.IP.c.l ined to con1ml!nt F1ve per ceot d1d

nor like the appearance. Consumers answered the next ques·

tion "D1d you 11 o the flddlchearls alter preparing and e<tting them?" in t he fol lowing w ay : Yes, very good .... . .. ......... 70%

Yes,butonly for occasional use ... 10% No. d id not like them ..... . .... 10%

Could learn to I ike them .. .... ... 4%

No basis for comparis.on ... ...... 6%

Thitty-t!i()h t per cent of the famil ies sard they would bo wrl mg to pay a premiu m price or fidd leheads (stores ~ld the tiddleheads at 99 cents for a 10 ounce bag) whrle 50 per cent said no. Some thought the f1ddleheads were too expensive. An addition;~! 4 per cent indicated they wuuld p<ly a premium prict but would use flddleheads only on spt~Cial occasions when having ar Alaskan dinner tor trier ds or relatives "Yisiting fc om " outside". Eigtll per .cent did not answer the quest ion about pdr:o . Families buying the fiddlehcad!>

indicated t hey would consomc, on the average, about 6 pounds or fidd leheads

.. nnually if they were available.

There a re a number of problems yet

to be solved in harve~ting csnd processmg fiddleheads. Can fi ddlche.1d plants be

harvested more hall onet! during the

seaso n 7 Can t he snme plan I be picked every year or must it be given a rest? Sttould all t he new heads be p icke<l or must some be lef t to f~ed the pare nt plant? Can the fern be domestica ted and grown c ommercially? What is the best method of holdtng the hDNI!sted fern unt il 11 reachP.s the processing plan t? Next year we p lan to try lcsng down the fldd leheads to keep them fresh c nrou ttJ to the proc.ess1ng plant . If this rs success­ful frddleheads can p robably be harvest· t!d and shrpped from othPr artJas 0 1 the state

Sl mmtng up, the prospects so tar tor processing tiddlehedds appear favorable . Nothing has been found as yet to

Fiddlclu:ads art· 1111 the men11 ut file Andr.uugc ·H't'I'!Ward ll t / ill Anchurage. 1/ere, a hotd dttf scr o a plut1' iru·/udm~: fiddlellt'u{J~· at the "Top of tltt IV,Jrld. ,.

discourag-: economic interest ·n fiddiP heads. as a new crop. In o 1 ~arch for new products, fidd ohe<JdS app!Ulr to have soveral built tn advant<Jges. The production ot fiddleheads would Tit in qu1tt: ·.vt.ll wuh othe• ~~··Hdbles and potuto JS yruwn for procC'~ing Ftddle­hcads C:Jre harves.ted dur i 19 the spnng, an off seao;on for other vegt:>t..rbl1•~. Procl:!ss·

ing wuuld ba at a rme when no o ner lowl crops are available. Thrs would

incr •ase fficrency ot ust• of labor and mach&nery .

Whtle the ostrich fern does grow in other areas of the world, it occurs primarily in the colder regions. This may give Alaska and other northern are. " a comparative advante~ge i 1 pro­duc·ng them. Fiddleheads arc distinctive and especially suited as " gourmet food. As such consumers are cartainly

willing to pay a h1ghcr pr1ce than tor other IJCQ table yret!ns. Prospects at least loo 9.)0d enough to warrant further rcs.ra•ch.

So if you $hou rd happr to be shopping in your favorite store and Sf!(! a bag labeled "Fiddleheads," do no_t be

too qurck to pass it by . It 's not a trick.

I f you take it home, you may find you are in tor a treat.

LeHuce stora ge roblems - 1971 CHARLES E LOGSDON

Prof. Plant Pathology

C. IVAN BRANTON Research Agr Engineer

In hmuce ~torage experiments over th past three yc.Jrs, it har. bl>come obvious that the main deterrent to 9Jccessful lonc1 term storage (60 to 120 days) is 1 ,feet ion wnh Borrytis so., a tungus thilt ca.Jses rotting of the heads. Of le:;s impornnce, out sll l a major factor influe •cmg que~hty of stored ILtt ce ts "pink rib " , the cause of which ts no t well undetst >od A th1rd factor, and ont> ot conslderablt- importance in 1971 , is "ttpburn".

T1pbur n is not gent•ral y considered a storage problem but rather a problt~m in the 1eld When tipburn is ,cverc in the field, the lettuce usually is not nar· vested, but if harvested, i$ subject to lnfect1on ilnd breakdown by micro · ()(!Janl~ms . Susceptibility lo infection is the reason we consider t ipburn a stor<Jgc

dtsorder . The yea of 1971 was marked by n severe ep1dernic of t ipburn in the !Jeld. E~<<~mtnatlon of commcrda fmlds rt:\lealed that, <I though t hfl usual

bacterial sJin11~ dcd follow t ipburn in many instanCl!S, the maJOr organisms to invade the dead and dy1ng tassucl were funq belonging to the Botrycis group.

Mino. Element Test

Although t ipburn is generdlly t hought to be due to adverse weather cond itions , at least one form 1s known t o be due to rl deficiency of molybdenum. a minor <!ll'mcm nEMlded by p lants. Since molybdenum dof1ciency was apparent in a plan ting of cauliflower near the ex­perimental lettuce lield o test of some minor elumcnt s rncludlng molyb<lenum, ·n,mganese, boro1 , .,nd zmc. ancl the major lllement, potassium. was con· ducted. ThesP ~J inments were applied to foliage 111 sprays to determino if any o1 these materials would prevent t1pbu rn and subsequent infectiOn by Borrytis Ten plants were sprayed only once with a $Oiution of each of t hese materia ls in each of six replications. Solutions con­tained the following amounts of m inor elements; boron 15 ppm , t ine 20 ppm,

mang&~n·~ 40 ppm, and mo lybdenum

80 ppm. Po tassium was apphad as a two per cent solut ion ot potas,.um sulphate Four heads were harvested fro m each o f these p lo ts and stored for ~ix wct:ks before examinatio n . When token from stordqe, they were trimmed as for retail sales, und trimm ing loss and defects were noted

Tipburn was so severe that many Cli the heads were co mplet ely destroyed in an a I tl'mpt to trim thern to a market able condltton. The percentage of com pleu:ly destro yed heads for each spray treatment 1s shown in the fe> Iawing hsung: Untreated .. .. . ........ . .. .. . 29iJb Pota~s1um . . . .. . .. . . .. . ... . . . 33% Zinc . . . . .. . .. .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. 20%

Boron .. .. . . .. . . ... . ... . . . . . 20",6 Mangunese ... . . . .. ...... . .. . . 20% Molybdenum ... ... .. .. . . . . . . . 16%

Calculat ed on dle basis of percentage of we1gh t lost, a similar patlem emerges as ~hown in the follr.~wing list: Untreated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.4% Pota~srum .. . .... .. . . ..... . 35.1 % Zmc . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . .. .. .. 24.1%

Boron . ...... .. .. .... .. . .. 22.8% Manganese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3%

Molybdenum ....... ...... . . 18.4%

Although one miyht conclude from th~e l'igures th>Jt molybdenum reduced tipbi.lrn, t he small size ot the samples and the variability wit h in treatments precluded showing a si<Jtistically sig· niftr.ant diffe rence among treatments. The weights of the heads, f r instance, ran9(ld from 390 to 1 120 grams wit h an average of 707 grams When Lhose small­er thnn overage were compared with those larger than .:lvefage. It was fou nd that 13% o f the small heads were lost to tipburn whilo 35% of the large heads were lost . It would appear Ill< ely, thcre­iore, that conditions for t•pburn wen> pruv-.t lent, and th.lt t ipburn may have star tad in the older, larger heads prior to appltcation o f the mino r elements.

or the heads not lost to t ipburn, trimmtng consisted of eliminating leaves infected wirh Bocrycis sp. Again the molybdenum treatment had the smallest percentage weigh t loss as shown in the following summary : Untreated ..... .. . . . . ..... .. . 22.7 Potass ium . . ... .. . .... . .. .. .. 26.1

Zinc .. . ... . ... . ..... . . . . . . . . 34 I Boron . . . . ..... .. ... . ... . . . . 21.4 Manganese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 Mo lybdtnum .. . .. . . ...... . . . . 17 4

Although the figures presented prove nothing >t.dttstically, the fact that mo lybdenum deficiency was 9Jspected prior to application of the sprays, and t hat molybdenum con.simmtly gow some control tu both tJpburn nnd

Botryti~, is sufficient ju~ttficat ion for more thoro ugh testing under better con

trolled conditions.

Wrapping Test

Lettuce was harvest"d Sept. 1 0 snd placed m cold storage. On Sept. 13, 18 head!i had the wrapper ll!dves removed and were placed in perforated poly­eth ylene I at tuce bags. Wrapper leaves were removed from a :oecond set of 18 heads which .. vere ther1 Wri.lpped '" pilper towels. A third set of 18 hPads wa~ similarly trimmed, wrapped in Trycite, and heat·sealed . The fourth set of 18 heads was not w rapped or trim­med . All w e returned to cold stor c ge.

Additionr..l lettuce that hod been m storage since Sept. 10 was selected on Oct. 4, Oct. 11, and Oct. 25 On tt.i!ch o f these dates, 4 sets of 18 heads were 9.Jbjoctcd to the same trimming and wrapping as above.

Twelve heads of each Sept 13 t reat· mont were exami l!d 54 days after

wrapp "9 and the remsinu g 6 heads in each treatment were cxam1ncd after 96 days. Six heads of each set wrapped Oct. 4 wer'l examined Nov . 3 (30 days after wrapping}. Nov 24 (54 daysl. and lJec. 15 (72 days) Those Wtapncd Oct 11 were examined on ~ov. 3 123 days), Dec. 1 151 days}. and Dec. 15 (68 days) S1x heads ot each treatment wrapped Oct. 25 were examined Nov 3 (9 dnys) ;md the remaining 12 heads exam'ned Dec. 15 (S4 days aft~ wrappiniJI.

In order to simulate n salvage oper· at1on, the poorest heads of nach tre<~t· ment wcrr> examined on each ex amination date.

Each hood \ 'VliS checked for wt:tght loss, tipburn pmk rib and Botrytis infection and rated for the le~tter three factor& o n a scale of 1 best to 5--worst

All hei:Jds had ttpburn Degree of

AgruburtUlli~> April/1972 25

severity differed &li~tlv among in·

divldual headfo. but it was not affected

by treatment npburn apparently was present prior to harvest. In additioo, the

ax11Jary buds in every head were dead. perhaps as il result of t1poorn .

Weight loss was not only related to

the length o f storage, bu t a lso to the type of wrappmg. Wetght loss was due

largi:!IV to moisture loss during storage.

Ninety-six d<~ys after harvest, the non­wrapped IP.t tuce had lost 13.2% of its

werght; paper wrapped. 9.9%; per­

torated polyethylene bags, 4 4%, and

lottuce sealed in Trycite, 1.2% of its we ight Although t he lettuce wrapped in paper t()wals ciid not lose as much

~~~t'e i ght as the non-wrapped, the outer

leaves of the papl?r·wrappcd lettuce

were very dry. Thn outer leaves of the non-wrapped appeared fresh and only slightly hmp. One explanation m ight IJe that the outer le<JVes mdy have given up moisture to the paper towels, the dry

leave$ subsequently serving as a barrier

to raptd moisture los:r. from the center

of the head The dm•e lopment of pink rib was

related to both the date ot examinatloh and tnP date of wrapping. The longer the lettuce was in storage, the greater

tht! p ink r ib. The most pink rib occurred

when the heads W9rc wrapped very

shortly after harvest, and least pink rib developed in rhose head<> that were not wre~pped. It heads were stored without

wrapping for two o r three weeks, pink

nb developed more slowly than in heads wrapped immediately. This may be of practical significance in developing a

system for long term lettuce storage Botry t is rot followed a pattern

difter ent from pink rib. The lettuce

selected and wrapped on Sept. 13 and

Oct. 25 rotted much mora rapidly t han

heads selected and wrapped on Oct. 4 and Oct. 11 The type or wrapping also

il'lfluenced the amount of rot present at the various examination dates.

In the sample examined Nov. 3, the

average heads selected early and wrap

pe<.l in Trycite or left not wrappl!d wore so bad ly ronecl they WQre unsalable.

Those wrapped in paper were by far the best, while thoso in perforated polv-bag5 were borderli r1e.

Those heads selected and wrappe-d on later d ates were a ll saloblt! , both when examined on Nov. 3 and on Dec. 15 wirh the exception of the Oct. 25 wrapping. In thrs Ja 1 ter case, the average heads wenJ not salab le except for those

wrappoo 1n paper.

WG Interpret lhcsa data to mean that Initial infection had occurrl!d in tha f1otd, bu t symptoms o f the d1sease had not developed by harvest tlmo. After­about t hree week$ in storage, symptoms

were evident and affcctec.l he!Kis were eliminated during selection of heads tor wrapping on Oct. 4 and Oct. 11 . Be­tween the Oct. 1 1 and the Oct. 25

Dr. Clayton R. Oslund ioins Institute of Agricultural Sciences

Dr. Clayton A. O~und joined the

institute of Agricu ltural Sciences staff

in December as an Assistant Professor of

Hott iculture. He is

stationed at Fair·

b;mks where he is

conducting research on the yat~r around potent ial for v~­

tllble production in

greenhouses. He is

work1ng c lose ly 1

with Or. Donald Din· kel on £J developmental research project

2fi Agroborealis April/197 2

concern ing the feasib ility of com mercial

production of food and o rnamenta l

crops in controlled environmenl con·

d it ions. This research project is partlolly supported by t he State Department of

Economic Development. Dr. Oslund came to the University of

Alaska from the Plant Hardiness Labor­

atory, University of Minnesota where he

was tnvolved In post dat~oral research after completing his Ph D. requ irements in Horticulture in August 1971. Clay ton received his B.S. 11 958) in Agricu ltura l Education University of Minnesota;

sell!Ction and wrapplny dates, secondary infection must have OC(;Urred, a lthough symptoms had not yet apPeared. There­fore those heads selected on Sept. t 3 and Oct 25 would have had a higher level of intrx:tion than those selected

Oct. 4 and Oct. 11 Wrapping In paper un Sept. l3 and Oct. 25 reduced the

moisture in and on the affet.ted leaves preventing d!!'Velopment of rhe fungus even thou~ the fungus was present.

These observatron5 and data seem to confirm our prcvious conclusions t hat

anv sv:rtem fo r long·term storBge shou ld consider that:

1. Lettuce !itlould be handlod so that

Jt can be eas1ly examined aftr<r three to

four weeks fot d1seas.c that might have

dcveluped.

2 . Lettuce for long-term storage should not be wrapped 101 the first

three weeks after harvest . 3. If lettucE i ~ t o be stored for

prolonged periods (three to four month!i) 11 should be wrapped three to four weeks after harvest. Almost nny

con11E!n1ent wrapping material will work, although each material rnay have both

advantages and diS<Jdvantages. Overall , papet toweling used in these ex·

periments appeared best , but it might

not be economical on a commercial

scale. The paper·wrnpped heads lost more weight than the Trycue and polyethylene wrappings, and the ou t~r leaves became v~ dry.

M.A 11965) in S4;ienre EducatiOn,

University of Michigan; and abo took advunced courses at University of North Dakota, Unlvet$ity of Wisconsin and Oregon State University D1 . Oslund is a

member o1 Gamma Sigma Delta (the

honor society of a!)'icultuml. American Society for Horticu lrural Science,

American Association of Plant

Physiologists, and Scandinavian Society of Plant Physio logists.

He taugtlt vocauonal agncuhur11 tor seven years 1n Mtn nc.sota ·high ·

schools and bio logy a t University of Minnesota Technit;al College,

Crookston, Minnesota pnor to studying for hi~ PhD

Dr. Oslund was born in Clearwater County. Minnesota m 1935. He was

accompamed to Alaska by his wife Mildred and son Gordon (13 years}.

!far 'l!stmg a miYt'd erop of W~J baric\' ancl pt·a~ on aJt Jrutiuar v.f Awiculturai S(.itllce" plot.

ew cereal varieties for Alaska R.L. TAYLOR

Research Agronomtst

Four new sprlrlg cereal vaneties, t No

barley and lWO oat, have beon named and released for seed production by the Institu te of Agricultural Schmcl;!s Hilt.!

t he United States Department of Agrl· culture. All are products of the cereal breed ing pro!J'am heodquanered at the

Polmer Research Center . Each new varuny was developed to FIJ I a spe<:if•c need in Alaskan agriculture.

It probably will be several year!.

belorc seed of these varieties can be

increased to the ~int of general avai l­ability . In the meantime, interested

farmers can determine th~:> suitabi lity of

each for the ir particu lar opera tions by

observing seed production fields and experimenta l plantings. Now let 's take a

brief look at these new varie t ies, what

they are, where they CJJme from , and

what they may be sed for in Alaska.

Lidal Barley

Lidal was selected from d cross

between O lli and Edda, produced in

1954. 0 111, a F1nn ish variety , is grown

also in northern Canadii. Edda, from Sweden , ha<.i been an outstand ing grain producer in Alask,a tor over 20 yean.

Udal resembles Edda as a six-rowed,

rough-awned, eady maturing variety.

Side by s1de at rnaturity , however, there

Is no problom in telli ng them apan.

Lidal is aboo ! 2 inches shorter and t he heads o f Lida.l uppear compuratively

smaller than those ol Edda. Close ob­

servation reveals that the kernels are

packed tighter on the head, which tends to Ioree the awns to spre<~d sl ightly,

giv ing a mom " bushy" Hppearanc~ to the heads than in Edda.

The performance of Udal ha:. bnen compared wtth Edda for 9 yeors in the

Matanuska Valley, Lidal has produced an average y ield of 56 0 bu~hels per acre

during this period, 3% abovo Edda Averagu period from p lanting to matu rity has been 101 days, 3 days less than

Edd<l. Lidal had slightly more resistance

to lodg1ng and head shattt!f ing, although further improvement would be desir

able. The apptarent small heads ot lid.al

average slightly fewer kemels par head and a lighter weight per kernel than

Edda. Thii is offset by the p roduction

ol more heads per u nit area

Lrdal is recommended for grain pro­

duction in all areas of the Milt.,nuska Valley where Edda can be grown

successful ly . The e-arlier maturity of Udal may even permit some extension of the area of dependable barley pro­duct ion. Addilional testing in the

Tanana Valley and on the Kenai

Peninsula is suggested, particularly in

oft<i.S wham barley maturity has b~tm marginal.

LJdal is considered a teed barley,

wl th a relatively h igh prote•n content Both partlnts possess de$irable character istic~ for malting purpose$, but pre llminary malting tests With Lida.l h<.Jvc no t been favorable.

Weal Barley Weal was sel~o:Cted from a .-:ross be

tween Warrior and Edda, produced in

1954. Warrior is a hooded barltly de velopoo in Canada. Edda, from Sweden,

Udal Barley · "bushy lreatls"

Agrv borc.oli1 pril/1972 27

A seed mcN'UH' ~land of roral Oats ill the MatamL~ka Valli'Y

Is the standard variety against which bar ley performance has De-en measured tn Ala~ka for over 20 year,.

There wi ll be no mistak ing Weal for Edda in the f ield at maturity. Weal is a hooded varie ty . prouuc10g a small , dub-like, blunt structure at t!ha tip of each kernel instood o f the usually lo ng needle-like awns. This typo appears d is·

trnctly different from awned type& such as Edda

In 9 years of comparative evaluattons

in the Matanuski.l Valley, the grarn yield or Weal has avoraged 65.5 bushe l per

acre, 3% above Edda. Characteristics

such as maturity and plant height have been simila r for the two van cties, with Weal showing supedorrtv uver Edda in

resrstanc!! to both lodging and shalter· lng. Weal tends to produce more culms per unn area, with fewer kornels pllr head and a lighter wergh t per kernel than Edda.

Weal appea rs Sdtisfactory for grain production In the Matanuska Va lley. lt has not been adequalely t er.ted in the Tnnana Valley or on the Kenai

Penrnsu la, Weal may be sui table fo r

small scale operations r.ince the absence ot awn!> would make handli ng more comfortable.

Weal is being releasnd primarily for

consideration as 1 component o f annual

forage mixtures. Weal has averaged 7%

higher forage dry-matter yield than

Golden Rain oats. Silage c om p<)Set! of Weal and f ield peas currently Is being compared with conventional oot PUC!

silage. Dry-matter y ield comparisons

have been fa11orable; ho~vcr, t he more

28 Agroborealis April/ I '72

critrcal qualit y factor analyses and milk p(Oduction t~s have not been com­pleted.

Toral Oats

Toral was select ed from a cross between Orion Ill a nd Tatrzanskl, pro ­

duced in 1955 Orion Ill is an E!<l rly

matu ri ng . block-glumoo oat from

Sweden. Tat rzanskl is a midseason , yel J()W-glumed oat from Poland. Both parents have dis.played above awrage

!Jt!Mra l pe rformance in Alaska. Toral hns <ir1 o utstanding per·

formance record in tho Matanuska Valley over the past 8 years. It has producl:!d a n average grain yield 17% abo'Jtl Golden Rain, while reaching maturity 3 days sooner. Go lden Rain,

f rom Sweden , has been widely grown in Alasku for many ye3 rs and is used as a standard o f comparison in our breeding

r;xogra m. Toral is somowhat shorter

than Go lden Rain, and exhibits im­proved lodging resistance. The higher

grain y ield of TorR! appears mlated to the productio n of heavit:t kernels and

more kernels per panic le a lthough !eVIler

panicles are producod per unit area .

Tor at also appears to be an elCcel lent

i orage producer, y1eld ing over 3 tons of

dry matter per acre Tora l is recommended as a full sea­

son gram varioty in t he Matanuska

Valley. It sho uld also pEI(form well in

t he Tanana Valley a nd on tho Kenai Pen insula in areas wtum~ mBturity is not a problem . Toral should also be con­sidered for use wherever oats rs desired in forago product ion. It should be an

econom1c ad~antage to produce seed of

an outstanding forage oat in Alaska.

Coal Oats Ceal was ~lected from a cross

loetwEM~n Climax and Eaton. produced in 1951 . Climax, probably of Swedish

origin has been grown in Alaska for many years, although it •s no longer in

comrrrerctal production. Eaton is an early maturing variety from Michigan.

Ceal has been an outstanding, ea rly ma turing selection m expllrtnHmtal trinls in the Mabmuska Valley Over the past

13 ycHrs it has averaged 1 04 days from pl<mtlng to maturity , 6 days less than Golden Rain. Ceal has produced a grain yieltt averagmg 94% of Goldan Ra rn for the same pe110d Ceal is about 4 inches shorter than Golden Rain at maturity, with much improvement in lodging re­Ststance. Although diHerences wore slight, Ceal produced more culm per unit area and ha<~'lier kernels, but fewer

kernels pet' panicle than Golden Rain. Protein content of Ceal gram has been

high, about 16% above Golden Rain. Ceul is recommended for grain pro­

du~tion In situations where oats 1s de

~ired but where later vanetJeos will not mature d!!pendably . The use of this

variety may xpand the rang!!' of

!.1Jccessful oat production Into areas

now marginal in thn. regard. Th is rncludes many locations in the Matanuska and Tanana Valloys and on the Kenai Pemnsui<J However, smte later

maturing vaneues wUI outyield Ceal under favorable condit ions, the use o f

Ceal may be lrmited It is also not recommended for fora~ production,

srncl! yields have been low in com­parison wrth lotcr matur ing varieties

Seed Availability A serio us problem of seed availability

of th~ best Vilrietles has plill]ued cereal production in Ala!>k<J lor many years . Seed ot lhese n!MI varie[ies , lrke that o f other adapted types, will not be readily

ill/atlablc from other a1eas Economic

factors suggest that gfatn seed for use in Alaska should be produced hero. The

bast adapted varieties for Alaska may

not be good seed pro ducers in other areas. Seed production shou ld be recog­

nized as a special enterprise, especially

in this environm~nt, with short grow~ng

seasons and u nfa'o'otable harvest con·

ditions. Grain pmduction 1n Alaska wll l not expand to fu II pot entral until seed abilfty problems afe solved.

Proce sed crab waste valuable as a liming agent WINSTON M. LAUGHLIN

Research So1l Sc1entJst

PAUL F. MARTIN Research Soil Scia:nnst

GLENN R. SMITH Research Assistant

Food , Chem~cal , and Research Laboratories sent us a fivtt·pound

sample of d eproteinized dungeness crab ~hell 1n 1969 for an evaluatio n of 1ts

bou Htl!s ncnr Anchor Point. Om; pot of each so1l tocetved none oi lhe calcium

carbonate-chitin maxture. All pots were filled August 8 ..tnd the

value as a so1l amondm~:nt. The labora· calcium arbonate·chltin matenal was tory's analy~i :. of t he material was 2. 1% miX11d With the entirl! <~moun t of soil in

N, 5.9% P 20, l2 6% PL nnd 94.3% each put; these were thPn kept at Seafood processors w•thin AlasKa an;) sulfated ash. From this analysis they optimum moi~turo tor plant growth. On

faced w ith the need to d evelo p ways 10 calculated a composition of 56 .b% September 12 am.l October 15 the ao1l

dispose of their was.UJ other than dump· caco J 12 8% Cal (P04 h and 30 7% from each pot was passed through an

1ng it in tht? nearest body o f water . The chitin. e ighth illlch scr~n. thorough ly mixed , City of Kodial , concerned with the We found the sampiP.s contained and r~pl.1ced in the pot A sample lor disposal of shel lfish wastes generated 2.9% water , 2.0'."0 N . and 58.2% calcium reaction was taken frorn t!dCh pot 1m·

th~~o:. contracted with Food, Chemical, CDrbonate equivalence Th s material mediately after mixing. One month lat·

and Research Laboratori~. Inc. of was t hen separated into tour scroen er, at the last screening, enough soil was

Seatlle to seek a waste process111g sys· siz.cs o riginal (the material as rece ived) , removed to determine the reaction and tern t hat would yield a salable material that f:JdSsing a 10-mesh, 50 me!ih , and availahle N03 -N, P, and K. After

to offset cosH. Thi$ group t reated crob 100 mesh screen A 4x5x2 factorial sampling, the pots were covered with attd shrimp waste with dt lute a lkali to expenmet'lt 1nvalvmg t.nese tou r screen paper to prevent contamination from exttact protein suitable for animal feed . sizes, f ive appl icatiun rates 11 , 2, 3, 4, duSt am.l stored until Jttne 29, 1971 . The material remaining can be further ;;md 5 t.o n ~ per acre) to two soils was On June 29, 197 1 romaine lettuce

processed Into a matrix o f calcium established in the greenhouse . Tl1e two was planted Upon emergence, plants carbonate ;snd chitin containing 50 to acid soils placed in 4%-inch p lastic pots were thmned tu l1ve evenly spaced

60 per cent calcium carbonate, varying were Nancy silt loam from near Wil low seedlings per pot He1gh1 me<~•;urements with the spec1es of sl,elltish . and Kachemak silt lo am frorn Lhe C<l ri · we re made of the tallest plant 111 each

Table 1 Effect of ap plication r<Jte Dnd particle size of Table 2 Effect of appltcation rate and particle SIZe calcium e<trbonate-<Chtt in u pon the soil reactton and of calciu m carbont:~te·chitin upon romaine lettuce growth ava ilable NOJ -N, P, and K of two acid soils, 1969. and yie ld on two so ils , 1971.

So1l r-eutlon pH{wjiter} Sapc 12 Oct 15

Poun~ Jlllr acre a~•llable Oct 15

N0 3-N P t< Htlgtn in centl111111•rs

3wk 4wk Swk Ov~ry

yield~" grerm

Original Soil (No Matetial ;u:lded) : Nancy 4.26 4 .30 l«!chemak 4..83 4 ..33

45 2 65.5

2.2 8.8

Effect ol ~ppllcat•on rilte of calcium carbonate-<;hitin: Tons/A !moans 01 a rneasu rem4tnls)

1 4 .59c1 4..56c 42o 6.3b 2 4 76c 4 .56c :ria 7 .5ab 3 5.03b 4.75bc 37o 9.2a 4 5.07b 4 .90ab 32a 8 6ab 5 5..31a 5 .1& 31c 8...1ab

Effect o t Pllrtic:.le SIZE of Dllcium earbonatn-chiti n : Scr11en ~1111 mesh lmoa ns of 10 measuraroonts ) Ong.n<~l

ITII!tllrlnl 4.69<: 4.63a 39a 8 .18 10 4.9()b 4.8& 34;! a:la 50 5.061lb 4.85s 36a 7.6a

100 5.14a 4 79a 35oi 7..5e

261 614

426b 404ab 270c 318c 331ibc

363a 371a 343a 325a

!::!feet ot soil &VBI'i391ld over a11t~ppllcat ion rates and p.o rtlci P slzr;s : (moans of 20 mea surements)

~ncy 4.7Bb 480;~ 50a 7 .5a 23.Jb Kachemel< 5 12ts <USa 2 1 b a .sa 46&

CV.'l 4.0% 15.G% 20.1 % 14 9'!10

Original Soil (No material add~dl : N<mcv 1 .0 3 0 Kac:hernak 2.0 3ll

3.9 6.5

Effect o f application 1ete of Cillaum c.Jrboneti!-chitin . Ton~/ A ~means ot 8 mO<Jsuremenu)

1 2.4bl 46b G.Sc 1 2.1b 3.9b 6.4c 3 2.3b 4.4b 7 5bc 4 J.Ob 5 9ab 9.2b 5 4.4a 7.4e 12 In

Elf eel of partu::le ~ i ze of calcium carbof\at~hitin : Sae@r> s.im mesh lm.Mn5 ot 10 1111111511r •n1enul

Original 2.6a 4.7a 7.:Zb 10 2& 4.9a 7 4ab bO 3 .1EJ 5.9e 9.6s

100 2.9<1 5.6a 9.5a

Effect of 1oil a~~&raged owr all apphcallon rotes and partade si !es ·

Nancy Kachsmak

C.V .'l

2.6a 3.1a

l "*'"S of 20 muasur~ti\Dr u I 4.& 7 .2b 5 7a 9.&

26 .6% 31 .0% 19.6%

Lllnen following tabular compan$Ons n!fer to Duncan·s Mul ti pltt Rortge Test . Mea ns w iThin each column fol lowed by tho same letter are not significant ly different a t d\o 1% level of probabdlty .

2 Coefficant of lt.uiation i~ an indication ot the dispersion of tho indlv1d\J.rll 1term arou nd the mean l11e lergar the value the g.rea ter tl'le ~r.~riution within th e experiment.

0.2 0.4

0.4bc 0.3c O.Sbc 0.8b 1.3a

OAb O.GIIb 0& D.9a

D.Sb o.ao 44.0%

Agroburealis AprU/1972 29

pot <Jt weekly intervals starting three weeks after planting At this time, plants were con mencing to show nu­tf ient deficiency and oil pots rece ved N. P20~ and K1 0 in solution to supply nutne m at the rate of 100. 400, and 100 pounds per nero or N, P20~, and

K2 0 (1 00, 176, and 83 pounds per aero of N, P, and K) _ An rnon1um poly­phosphate supphtld all the P. The re­m«inder of the ~ w<Js c.ppl!ed as wnmomum nitrate, and K as nuriate oi potash . Si)( weeks after plantmg, all plunts in each pot were harvested by cutting at tho soil surface, and green and

dry weights w~ e obt.11ncd. After thP harvP.st, the soil from each pot was again passed through an e1ghth inch scrt!iln, thoroughly mb<ed, an l rtlplaced in the p1 t from which t was take•l . Another soli sample was taken from each treat· ment for <malysis.

Each additional increme t or calcium carbondte-chitin progressively decn~ased

soil acidity (Table 1 ), as measured on both Sept . 12 and Oct. 15. However, on each date, diflenmces: between r.on­~ecu tiv~ incremants did 11ot ~I ways

differ Sign ificantly (1'lo level) _ At each

application rate soil react ion was lower on Oct. 15 then on Sept- 12. The \ arious rates uf the crab waStt! were rnore effective in lessen•ng ~oil acidity w1th Nancy si loam t han with Kache­mak silt oam. Th1s · ~ related to the higher orgamc matter content aod some­what fmer 11 )(ture o f the latter soil

Increases in e<~lcium carbonate-chitin application up to 3 tons Jlot!r acre to ­

creased the available P, furthHr appl ica­tions did not (Table 11. Avai lab le P

apparently was increased by calcfum carbonate chitin application to Nancy silt loan . Results of sol tests after lhe lettuce ha,-vest may verify or disprove this assumprion .

Avail ble K tcnd£'d to be reduced as the rate of liming agent mcrcased. Th s m1y well be a result "f mcreac;cd utilita­tion by soil microorganisms ncorpora­ting more K with n their sy~tP.ms as a result of the add t1on of liming material Ava•labl ~: N0 3 N wa~ not mfluenced by the calc1um carbonate-chitin application rate

Table 1 i ndi~: cites a n increase in soil reaction September 12 as the part icle :>ltP of the calcium carbonate~itin

decreased up to 50 mesh material. Avail­able N03 ·N, P, and K were not in­fluenced significantly by d~reasing

particle sizu. No sign"flcant differences in lettuce

height wf!re found t less than the 5-ton pc dvre apphcatron urtil thtt fifth week (Table 11. At that time lettu~ herght at the 4-ton per acre rate .lsC~ surpassed lettuce hfJigh 1 1:11 lower application rates.

lhc utlc1um carbonate·chltm ma­ter al supplied to us has value as il sor l amendment principally through its li01e equjVdlenoe. Thr. value oi tho rrutnents pres!!nt appec~rs to b<~ relatively low !;ince v1su:11 nutnent de11ency symptoms developt'tl at the end of the first three weeks of roma11rl! lettuce growth It is not yet known if the nitrogen and phosphorus pr!!sent in the processed crab wo.ste would become available at later dates.

Sot s on Kodiak are strongly c~ci d ic

and could bcneht greatly from applica· tion o' this calcium carbonate-chitin materia l. However , we suspect the de· mand for this crab-waste product would be low unless the material could bu obtained at11 very modest ~.:ust.

Red Fescue and Bluegrass ra k h · gh in frequent-cut test

Wm. W. MITCHELL Associate Professor, Agronomy

Searching fo1 better grasses to em­ploy under Alaska's condltlons involves 1.1 number of r.onsiderauons. Among these, r~nd of pnme concern, is rhe use for which a !]rass is intended. It may be for aesthetic rea~ns Uandscapi og), for conscrvat•on purJXISCS (soil stabiliza­tion). lor fornw (animal feed). or a combtniltion of these. Some grasses are quite spcciahzec.l in their application, while others may lend themselves to a vanety o f IJSC~ Then performance in one situation often provides a clue as to their possible employment in another.

Grasses utilized tor forage arc harve,ted o i th er by gra7ing or mechanical cropping. Since grazing

removes foliage more lrequllntly than "hay ing" once or twice a ye .. r , effects of the two harvest systems d iff er. How­ever, grazinq and haying can be s im·

30 Agroboreuli.1 ApriJ/1972

ulated on small plou by clipping either frc(J.Jcntl y or lnfrequomly.

The grazing a d forage potentials of a num ber of qmsscs WP.Je i nve~tigated

rccr>n t ly, employing frequent and two-cut c lippmg sched ules . The trial was c)(ploratory in nature to det erm ine the course of more intensive studies. The gra$SCS were planted in rows 18 inches apart in 1969, and in the follow­ing year 6-foot port ions of each row were designated for the different cl ip·

ping schedules Under the frequent-cut schedule the

grasses were c lipped five t imes during the 1970 !TOwing season commencing on May 27. Clipp.ngs were taken about three weeks apan, the last on Au!JJst 19 . Uncklr the two cut schedule thl' gr-asses were harvl!Sted on June 23 and

August 24. In order to assess the effects of tho two clipping schedules, the grass­

es were allowed to regrow the following year (1971) until July 1 when all were

clipped_ Foliage tissues from each clip· pmg wem analyled fo r protem.

It might be expcc.ted that lawn grasses woult.l perform well unda.' the frequent-cut schedulo imposed on t he grasses in 1970. In filet, the rP.d fescues and bluegrasses, commonly used in turfs, were among the better producers. Meadow foxtail also yielded well un<kr that schedule. Two different

accessions ol meadow foxtail ranked just below Borr.al red fescue, the top performer. Engmo timothy a frequent­ly used forage grass In Alaska, ranked midway among the grassrs tllSted. A

number of nauve wheatgr'i$$8$ and An:ragrostis yielded poorly under this

schedule. The rankings were !l.lbstantially

different for some of the grasses under t he twu-cut schedule . Engmo timothy improved greatly over its

mediocre performance in Lhe frequent cut reqime. wherca$ Atctarcd fe.sc.ue

ranked appreciab ly lower. The meadow foxtails were among the top producers along wlrh Engmo timothy fol lowed by ccrrain o f the red fescues and then the blu!!9fassi!S. As. betom. the wheatgrasses were, ln general, the poor~st performers.

Relative pe rformances changed drastically the following year. Factors

affecting the grasses. in additiOn 10 lh£!

cutting regimes. were a harsh winter subsequllnt to the cu tting treatments

and an abnormally late and cool growing season before t he single cut in 1971 . The less wint erhardy grasses were

severely a Hected by the 1970-71 winter. Also. th~ excessively cool growing season p robably further retarded tht! growth o f sornt! of the grasses rela1iva to others .

T he r n~adow foxtails, Engmo

rimothy. and Boreal red fescue sus­tained t he most senous inJury d ur. to wInte r st r eH . All o f t h ose were among the best pertormars in one or both of tho cutting schedu les du ring

the prev10us year Arctared fescue. a vadety developed m thl! Institute of Agncu ltural Sciences w itl1 the cooper · a t ion of the U.S. Department of Agri · cui tu re. regrew the most l>y Ju ly 1. consi~ri ng both cuning sched ules. The bluegra.sses. with the exception o f one injured by winter stress, also yielded we ll t ol low i ng th e frequent.aJt schedu le ; but they were only mediocre where they had b~n cut twice the previou s year . Ano ther red fescue and

tufted hairgrass, o native. were good performers with t he hai rgrass showing a

marked fmprovement In its ranking where two c;uttings had been made . As judged by yields In 1971. the 1970 frequent -cut rcg1me appears lo have had

no adverse effect on most ot the blue­

gra~es. Howevef'. prod uct1on of the red fescues and t ufted hairgrass was reduced

due to frequent cutting. The nat ive wheatgrasses were seriously penalized by frequent cutting in 1970. Regrowth

of t hese winterhardy grasses in 1971 was meager In the freque nt-cut port ion

of the rows, whereas in the two·cu t portion certain of t he wheatgr<~sses were

among the top producers (m c o n trast w their poor performance relative to the o thers in thl! prtNious yearl . The mea­

dow foxtai l:. a nd timothy grew poorly in 1 97 1 because o f winter injury.

The d if f t!ren t cut ung schedule~

affected total yield~ and protein con­

tents in 19 70 Subs tan t iall y higher yields were o bta ined under the two-cut schedule in 1970 than under the

frcquent ·CtJl schedu le . In many cases. production in the two-cut reg ime was t wice that In the frequent-cut regime. Howowr, pro te in contents rr:tmained at

high level s with frequent cu tling, In most cases above 20% . Protein levels vvem lowe r unde r the two·cut mgime and dim inished fu rther in the second cut, va ry ing from 14% t o 24% ln the flrst ..:u t and fro m 9% to 20% in the second C\J t.

1970

This test dnmonstrates the need to consider varietal lor ecotypiCdl) differ­ences when selecting grJ5Ses for a partic­

ular purpose. F01 instance. the Jarious accessions ot ~d fescue differed on­siderably in their production and • ln­terhardmes.s qualitles With thP. employ­

ment of tho right variety , lhis :.pecies defimtely manifests a potential for high production under both cutting regtmes However, it offers some difficulty in

harvestmg by mechanic<~l means because of Its growth habit and fine leaves. Kentucky b luegrass, another good per­former, presents s1milar diffn:ult•es.

Meadow foxtail would appear to ~"lave

considerable potential both as a grazing grass and as a harvested forage ~ould a winterhardv variety be developed. This grass is less likely winterki11Ad in other Alasi<an location$ where wi nds, which intensify the w inter stress on plants at t he exp9rimenml site in the M;nanuska Valley , are l~s prevalent.

Certain wheatgrasses demonstrated potontiill as haiVnsted torages, though

farad poorly as grazing grasses in rhe test. Coosidtifably morl;! tusting and dtl­veloprnent are requ ~red, however, of these grasses.

T he resu lts or this t est have in­dicl'lted necessary areas tor futu re re­

search , both rn turrhar tests to bo conducted and In the selection or grass­es for tesriny. Some of this work fs

already underway .

1971 Graftal cut under two rschodulu Gt .. .- out only onca -July l

Tab le I . Per­formance of Gra.ues Under Frequent-Cut and Two-Cut Sdzed­ule-r: Ovcn·drv Produrtitm Re­/Jlted on u Per­celltoge Basis ro Yield of Red Fescue B (I 00%) under the 1970 Two -Cut Treat­mellt.

in diHtrent portlom of rows.

Frequent Cut Sch4tdulo Two.Cut Schedule Fr9Quent-Cul Two .Cut (cut 5 times) Portton of Row Portion at Row

Boreal red fe-sctJe 68 Maadow fo,. tail B ti l l<y. bh.Jegra$5 A 30 A.fctared ii!§CIJa 45 Mllildow foxtorl A 66 Engmo timothy 151 Arct.:~red fo:scue ~ Stende r wtngf'. 39 Meadow foxtaol 8 65 Meadow foXtiJ•I A 14 1 Nuggat Kv. blgn; . 26 Tufted haugrs. 35 Arcaared fescue 64 Mead ow foxte•t C 126 Ky b iUB!TBSS c 24 Sl"'ndr;rr whrqrs. .34

Red fescuo A 63 Red fe$C1Je A 124 Red fescua 8 16 Stender wtuurs. A 34 Meadow foxtail C 63 8o r I n:d ftn;CUI~ 120 Tufted hairgras:s 16 t<v. bl9rs C 32 Ky . bl ueqress A 61 Ky. b luegrass 8 118 'Ky . bluevra~s B 14 Slendar whtgrs . E 31 K.v . bl uegrMs 8 61 Ky. bluegrass C 109 •Meadow fo xtarl 8 12 Rod 1escue 8 26 Nugget Kv blgrs. 60 N UQl981 Ky. biQr• . 106 Red fesctJe A 12 Ky.blgn: . A 24 Ky bluegrass C 67 Tuhod hairgruu 100 Slen!"Wr wtl tgrs . 10 Sleoder w htgrs c 23 Engmo 1lmothy 57 Red fescue 8 100 ' Boreal 1M! fas.cue 9 Nugget Ky . blgrs. 23 Red fescue B 66 Slender wht~. 100 'Meadow foxtt~il C 8 Are1agrostis 19 Tufted ha lrgJasS 55 Kv. bluegrass A 99 Slender whtg~ . 0 7 Red fescu.e A 19 Slrnder wtugn. A 40 AICta!=!t0$111 97 Sleudur whtgrs. 8 6 'MIIIodow foxtail B 18 Slender whtgrs B 30 Arctured fes:cuo 93 Slender vvhlgrs . C 4 •Ky bl~ B 16 Arctagrost•- 30 Slender whtgrs . 8 83 Arctagrostis 3 • Borual n!d f~ua 11 Slende~ whtgrs. C 28 Slonder whtgrs. D 77 Slender 1M'! tgu . e 3 'Meadow foxt311 C 9 S ltm de r wtugrs . 0 n Slender whtgrr; . A 74 • Engmo llmothy 2 'M..:tow foxtail A 8 Slander wt1tgr1. E 25 Slot~der wlngrs. E 65 *M~ow fo x:tail A 4 'Engmo timorhy 1

• These graues ware seriouJ;Iy injurocl by uw 1970·71 wintor :rubseqtJilnt to the 1970 cutlillQ truotmonts.

Agrobareoll!i AprD/1972 J 1

UBL I Baker, D. E., F J Woadln11 and M ~'II. Johnson. 1971 Ch~rnical

!dement at.."1:umulatior bv populotrons ol corr1 IZea rna s L.l Sblectl!d for high and low ~ccumulatiOt• or P. Agronomy Jo urnal. 63;40440().

Burton, VV E. 1971 . AlaJk~;~' · A']l"lculture. Unii!U~ity of Alaslca lnstiiUre ot Soc::i11l, Econorruc ;and Govetnroon\ Research . Rr port No . 30. 260 p .

Cornpton , T. L. and A . I.. Bru ndng,. 197 1. cane btJhavror on ~ ubalplnc range II"\ soo..nhcenu I Alaska. Journ~l of An· rntl Scronce. 32:339 342 .

Dink11l, D H. and A . C. Ep!§. 1971 . 1971 1972 Vegetable varieties rucomrnen(1ed lor interior Ala~;;a Ala~ka CoowratrVl! ExtcniiO<l Sarvrce. (.:()operative Publication 30.

Dinkel, 0. H. and A. C . Epps. 197 1. 1971-1977 Vegetob- varoer;t:!'; ret:ommuncled ror s.outhcentral Alaska. Alaska Cuope<llt ov!? £>< · ton~ion ~11lcu Cooperurlve PublrcotiOI1 31.

Dlr1kal, D. H, ;1nd A. C. Eppi5. 19 71 . 197 1-1971 Voget .. ble vartet l•'5 rt:commend!!d lor scutl"oetsstr,rn Alaska. AlasKa Cooperatov~ Ex· ten~ion St:rv1C1.!. Coope.atrvo Publlcur•on 231 .

HodQIOn, H. J., A. l . Taylor , A . C . Wilton Bl\d L. J . Lkebflo~l. 1971 Registrllllon of Nvqget K~mucicy b lu grass . Crcp Scranc:a . 11 9JS.

Hod[lS(Hl, H J., R. L. Taylor, A. C. Wilton 1nd L J . Kki!Hsadal. 1971 . Regtstration of l"olar bromegra~ . Crop Science. 11 :939 .

Klob.sadet, L . J. 1071 . Nveto~iod m odrhcariofl durrng IBlP sumrne. and autum" aftucts wlr,tor survi'll.to <1nd heading ol gmue:;. Crop Sw•"c". 11 "507-5 11.

l<lobMadel, L . J . 197 1. Selectlw modHoeation of OIIfu lit toward accflrn.uzauon in a )Ub.JrctJc ~re~;~ u WoJara wrl"lter ~tt'Hs . CrOIJ Scie11ce. 11 :609-614

Laughlin, W. M 197 1 . R~l)ons.c o f potato to ure:n and other nirrog. 11 sources. UnlvtlrsttV of Aln1ka lmti1Uit' of ~ricultural Sc:1 ncas Rese::Jrch Roport 71-1 . 6 p. ~.

Alaska

Bering Sea

INSTITUTE of

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

R~~Se.areh Ceo mrs . . .. .. ® a Palmer

b MatllnUlk.i!

c Fairbanks

d Pctenburg

• o c?'e!:Jo Aleu tlan lsl11nds

AT 0 Lirughlin, W. M •• Ma~ret Blom and P. F. Martin , 1971 . Rud clover

y ield and compomlor as intruer·cod by phosptoorus . poto.Jsslum rate and source, a•tcl chiOf"idP. . Commurie>~tlo11~ in Soli Sc:ittncu ar1d Plant Ar~lvsrs. 2:1 ·1 0 .

Lin, P. C . 1971. Alaska's poJ,>Jiation anti SChoo• rmrcllment · Alaska Rt!'lliew ul 8 1.1'Srness arrt.l E'eonam c Condrtron~. Vo. a. No 5

McKendrjc;k . J. D . 1971 . Big bluE'Stem and illdio;~oHJ! s Vllgwtetrw r eproduclion anrl err heal level~ ol rBS!!'I'YB aJrbohydrate;. lind nrtrog~r Ph . D. drsscrtation . K•ns~s Stat Ur11v< r~rtv-. MAnhstt. 11, Kansas. 70 p.

McK~ndm::lrl . J . D. nnrl L C . Andan11:1n . 1971 Vu~lation of rescrve-~arct•·granule 4tl·~s al'd <llomiJten rn Andro pogon !Jer.rrdt rhi zome~ Aqranomv Journal. 63 61 9~20.

MaBn, C. F. 1971 . Ou~t~ t~:dv roporr 011 Alaska'~ IO\l(:J P< 0!'5.

Uni~•1rslty of AICI5kc lnstltutt! of Aqrrcuhural Scien~ ilnd Alaska Cooperati ve El(tansion Seruoo .

Oslunod, C R. 1971 . The mlluunc:e o f 1empo r.ature and photoQioriod on tho qU3ntll'f Gnd quality of llhonu~ll!ic ac•d~ lr LOOtato plan•s. Ph. 0. r.lo.uertatJon UnriiBf,itv of 1VI.nne$OU1, St . f'aul, Minnesota. 11 5 p

Rovers. Lend W Thoma~ 1971 . D~11l'lopmunt and O<o•occts of the Columbi Basw i l'llastoo::k tndunr·,. . WqsiJinqton Agriculturul E:><ponment St:l tion Bulletin 744. 10 p

Univ noty of Alaska h••htuta ot Avicultur11l Sciences Staff 1971 A reYiew of e$earch m prcgreu Avroborealia Vol . 3 No I .

Uni11ersiW of Alaska l ruthLOIII of A!JricuUu~al So;l~ooss Staff. 1971 R~earcll prof1les. AIJtoi.Joreahs Vat. 3, Nu 2 .

Wooding. F. J., G . M. Paulsen at1d L. S. Murplw. 1971 . Sulfur compos•l•On of soybe' " ullt-ctud by liph t 1111d tump!!lratun'. Communrcation.s•" SOli Scronce and Plant Arulys1s. 2:353-362.

Wanon, C. E .• C . I. Branton and J E . N.l!\vm•ll· 1971 Chmmc chioroctP.riGtie> of salect"d Alillkan locaticms. Un1Vftr5itv of A.l,t$ka lnttrtule of Ayroeultural Sciences T"danlul l3ulleton '}.56 p .

400 .

0

Ocean

• • \ .. . , .. 1 ••••· ... ······ f.

C~)UniV"tntty Dl Allnlla

' • \ ' I \

\

~odialt Island

Gulf of Alaska

0