PROCEEDINGS
American Society of
Sugar Cane Technologists
1979 MEETINGS
Volume 9 (New Series) Florida and Louisiana Divisions
ASSCT
September 1981
OFFICERS AND COMMITTEES FOR 1979 General Officers and Committees
General Secretary-Treasurer Editors of Proceedings Denver T. Loupe
Coordinating Editor Program Chairman Lowell L. McCormick
Hugh Fanguy
Co-Editors Agriculture
Freddie A. Martin Manufacturing
Joseph A. Polack Executive Committee
Antonio Arvesu Jan P. Bergeron Richard Breaux Patrick Cancienne Gary J. Gascho Roland Hebert Gerry Kidder Dalton Landry Ben L. Legendre Irving E. Legendre, Jr.
Denver T. Loupe Joseph R. Orsenigo Frank Polhill Edwin R. Rice Bias Rodriguez H. T. Vaughn, Jr.
Florida Joseph R. Orsenigo
Gary J. Gascho Frank Polhill H. T. Vaughn, Jr.
Edwin R. Rice Blas Rodriguez Gerry Kidder
Divisional Officers
Office Louisiana President Roland Hebert
1st Vice President Dalton Landry 2nd Vice President Irving E. Legendre, Jr.
Chairman Agricultural Section Ben L. Legendre Chairman Manufacturing Section Jan P. Bergeron Chairman-at-Large Patrick Cancienne Past President Richard Breaux Secretary-Treasurer Denver T. Loupe
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
1 President's Message - Florida Division Joseph R. Orsenigo
6 President's Message - Louisiana Division Roland M. Hebert
Technical Papers - Agriculture 8 Growth Rates of Florida Sugarcane During Seven Growing Seasons
G. Kidder and E. R. Rice
12 The Relationship Between the Nitrogen Content of Medium-Coarse to Medium-Fine Textured Soils and Yield Response of Stubble Sugarcane to Fertilizer Nitrogen
Laron E. Golden
16 Using Fungicides on Mechanically Harvested Sugarcane Seedpieces to Increase Yields B. R. Eiland and Jack L. Dean
20 The Effect of Planting Date on Yield and Its Components of Sugarcane in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas
Sim A. Reeves, Jr.
25 The Comparative Effect of Preemergence Herbicides Used in Plant Cane in Louisiana Ernest R. Stamper
27 Factors Affecting the Occurrence and Distribution of Florida Water Rats in Sugarcane Fields David E. Steffen, Nicholas R. Holler, Lynn W. Lefebvre and Patrick F. Scanlon 33 Advancement of New Basic Sugarcane Breeding Lines
P. H. Dunckelman
37 Screening for Sugarcane Smut Resistance in Florida - Third Report D. G. Holder and Jack L. Dean
40 Frequency of Rust Susceptibility in the Sugarcane Variety Development Program at Canal Point Peter Y. P. Tai, Jack L. Dean, J. D. Miller and B. S. Gill
The following agricultural papers were presented at Florida or Louisiana Division ASSCT meetings or were submitted for publication only:
44 Viability of Sugarcane Smut Spores in a Florida Organic Soil at Three Moisture Levels Henry J. Andreis
47 De-fuzzing Sugarcane Spikelets With a Sample Seed Scarifier R. D. Breaux
51 Yield Response of Three Sugarcane Varieties to Controlled Water Tables Cade E. Carter
55 The Effect of Fertilizer Potassium on Quality of Juice and Yield From Stubble Cane of Early Maturing Varieties
Laron E. Golden
58 Variations of Non-sucrose Solids in Sugarcane, I. Potassium J. E. Irvine
62 Preliminary Investigations on the Effect of Harvesting Systems on Field Losses and Cane Quality in Louisiana
B. L. Legendre
66 The Effect of Smut on the USDA Sugarcane Breeding Program at Canal Point J. D. Miller
68 Genetic Behavior of Sucrose Content in the Parents and Progeny of Eight Biparental Sugarcane Crosses
C. A. Richard and M. T. Henderson
Technical Papers - Manufacturing
72 The Use of Residues From Sugarcane Factory and Distillery for Fertilizers George Samuels
ii
Technical Papers, Manufacturing, Cont'd Page
78 The Potential of Liquid Chromatography for the Analysis of Sugarcane J. Wong-Chong and F. A. Martin
83 Concentration of Clarified Cane Sugar Juice by Reverse Osmosis R. Chang and J. P Merle
88 Corrosion in the Sugar Factory S. J. Clarke and D. F. Day
The following manufacturing papers were presented at the Louisiana ASSCT Meeting:
93 Observations on the Louisiana Core Samplers Harold S. Birkett
96 Maintenance Standards for Sugar Mills Lawrence Mann, Jr.
100 Fiber Content of Louisiana Sugarcane Varieties Using the Cutter-Grinder-Press Method of Cane Analysis
C. A. Richard
Abstracts - Agriculture
104 Economic Thresholds for Sugar Cane Borer Populations in Florida Josev Alvarez and Gerald Kidder
104 Midwestern Cultivation of Sweet Sorghum as a Renewable Energy Crop M. F. Arthur, D. R. Jackson, S. Kresovich and W. T. Lawhon
104 Yield Components in the F1 and Backcross Generations of Saccharum spontaneum (US 56-15-8) With Commercial Hybrids
R. D. Breaux
104 Breeding Behavior of Stubbling Ability in Sugar Cane — Preliminary Observations John W. Dunckelman and M. T. Henderson
105 A Report on the Sugar Cane Technology Program and the Cane Sugar Refiners Short Course at Nicholls State University
Robert N. Falgout 105 Rust Disease in Guatemala
Alfonso L. Fors
105 The Role of Sugar Crops in Supplying New Fuel Resources in the U. S.
D. R. Jackson, S. Kresovich and W. T. Lawhon
105 Maturity Studies of Commercial Sugar Cane Varieties in Louisiana B. L. Legendre
106 Panel Discussion - Alcohol for Fuels
Joseph A. Polack, Carlos R. Toca, Joseph R. Orsenigo and Joseph A. Harrison 106 Sweet Sorghum for Sugar and Biomass Production in Louisiana
R. Ricaud, B. Cochran, G. Newton and A. Arceneaux
106 Use of Aerated Steam for Control of Some Diseases of Sugar Cane in Louisiana R. J. Steib
Abstracts - Manufacturing
107 Development of An Effective Chemical Cleaning Procedure for Steam/Vapor Side Fouling in Heat-Transfer Equipment
Pedro R. Arellano, James C. P. Chen and James S. Rauh 107 Increasing Profits Through More Effective Use of People and Equipment
Wiley M. Morse
107 Trace Metal in Sugar Cane Juice - A New Atomic Absorption Method Luis E. Vidauretta and Carl J. Feigel
108 A Computer Simulation Study of Multiple - Effect Evaporator Control Systems Chien Wang and Adrian E. Johnson, Jr.
109 Author Index
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE: FLORIDA DIVISION Joseph R. Orsenigo Director of Research Florida Sugar Cane League, Inc.
Clewiston, Florida
During a visit to my alma mater in the summer of 1963, I was incredulous, if not shocked, when a former professor stated that "agriculture is becoming a dirty word." He forecast a buffeting from all sides in future years. I departed the campus positive that the respected professor was senile. But, his generalized prediction became a truism and we, in agriculture, are experiencing a disquieting change. Toffler's "Future Shock" was scant preparation for our collisions with today and with tomorrow.
Present shock is the threat to sugar industry survival by our own government.
Not surprisingly, this message relates to the current malaise of the domestic sugar industry, and of sugar cane, specifically, in four areas: Politics, Prices, Population, and Production.
Politics and Prices have been the "Bobsey Twins" of the sugar world for many decades and they must be considered inseparable. Sugar crop growers and primary processors are preoccupied with "prices" at present, since price determines "survival" for a long-standing and productive domestic industry. However, prices are mediated by "politics," a strange segment of the domestic sugar picture. The cast of political players is large and the flux is great; it indicates: growers of beets and includes cane, processors, re- finers, importers, commercial users, state and federal legislatures, state and federal departments, and the administration itself, along with actual or potential foreign suppliers. Plus, in latter days, the environmental and consumer movements.
For some 40 years, the Jones-Costigan Act, with its subsequent amendments, in detail and in name, provided reasonable stability to domestic and foreign sugar supplies and prices, at little or no cost to the ultimate consumer. Each segment of the sugar industry had specific responsibilities, and they were generally met. The domestic grower was under restraints relating to acreage, wages and working conditions.
The processors had access to demarked supplies of specified origin. The consumers were afforded a reason- ably stable price. Figure 1 illustrates the relative prices of raw and refined sugar and of three con- sumer items in the past decade. Graph lines trace the periods pre-expiration and post-expiration of the U.S. Sugar Act in 1974.
1
An important aspect of the Sugar Act has been omitted in recent legislative discussions. The United States exercised considerable persuasion in foreign relations through sugar importation quotas. A U.S.
sugar quota was a guarantee of foreign exchange, in dollars, and nations vied with each other for better, or larger, quotas. Allocation of quota deficiencies offered secondary opportunities. Importantly, the import quotas were based upon U.S. consumption estimates, less anticipated domestic production.
A "Special Study on Sugar" commissioned by the House Committee on Agriculture in the 8 7th Congress, 1961, notes: "A quota system represents the highest degree of control among the alternative approaches.
Our present quota system imposes detailed regulation upon the marketing of domestic and foreign sugar and, through that mechanism, the attainment of certain price objectives. This broad approach has the capability of insuring a steady flow of supplies and a high degree of stability, which effectively isolates the U.S.
sugar market from the world market."
The particular mechanism selected under the Sugar Act was especially suitable, since most of the world's sugar was traded under "international conventions." The small portion traded on the so-called open or world market was characterized by widely variable and unpredictable supplies and prices. In a section entitled
"Free Trade" the aforementioned Special Study noted that "substantial repercussions" would occur with a free trade policy, including "irregularity of supplies, particularly in periods of crisis," the price of sugar would "drop to a lower level, would be somewhat variable, and in times of crisis might move to a higher level," and "a substantial part of the domestic industry would be eliminated." And, these predictions have been fulfilled.
For nearly 150 years prior to 1934, the United States relied on a tariff system for sugar; from 1934 until 1974 the quota system was the basic approach to achieving sugar policy goals. What term describes the U.S. sugar position since 1974? Has there been a position or policy since 1974?
Table 1 summarizes approximate annual values for successive levels of sugar transactions. Several columns are of special interest. The value of raw sugar, duty paid, at New York, and the U.S. retail price column reflect modest and reasonably stable prices for more than 20 years, until the eve of the expiration of the Sugar Act. The column "Index, U.S. Retail NY Raw" was obtained by dividing the annual retail price by the corresponding raw price. The overall average index for the 33-year period included in the table is 1.69. Ninety-four percent of the annual indices, for 31 of 33 years, are within the range 1.48 to 1.90.
The indices suggest a general factor for determining retail price regardless of raw sugar prices.
The final paragraphs of these political nuances must be concerned with a common event, dumping.
Stanley E. George noted in his Presidential Message (1979) to the Sugar Industry Technologists that "the United States is the only industrialized country in the world that seems to be hell-bent on destroying its domestic sugar industry." Travel down that road has been facilitated by U.S. refiner purchases of European sugars at US $0.07 per pound. These transactions have been followed by European governmental payments to the shippers of US $0.14 per pound. Is the value of the shipped sugar not US $0.21 per pound? Do these transactions not constitute dumping?
For the world's population, food is necessary and can be enjoyable. Food which is merely filling is sufficient when stress or need are great, but food offers aesthetic satisfaction beyond the physical need in affluent and sophisticated circumstances. One facet of current American life is the appeal and demand for "convenience foods," which require little or no preparation, and no creative activity, by the housewife or consumer. A second facet is the proliferation of kinds and numbers of "fast food" chains and the in- creasing frequency of "eating out" or meals away from home. The consumer may complain about the high cost of food, but ignores the expense of preparing and placing the food items on a frozen TV-dinner tray or in a paper bag at a take-out window. The true food cost may be relatively low compared to the price the consumer is willing to pay for time or convenience. Agriculture grew the food, but did not create the circumstances, nor is agriculture responsible for prices inflated through the processing and vending of retail items.
Under these conditions, the American consumer becomes increasingly remote from the original or raw food product and agriculture. Perhaps he "couldn't care less." After all, food is still a relative bargain and little effort was required to drive-in and be fed. It is not necessary for the consumer to recognize that each "farmer" feeds 50 or more persons on the average; that efficient, productive agriculture has released much of our population from the chores of growing and harvesting food and freed people for industrial and service occupations. Only three percent of the American population is involved in food production and 90 percent of that food production derives from one percent of the population. No nation can be strong without a strong agricultural base; agriculture is the foundation of the economy of the United States.
Agricultural publications may trumpet the foregoing comparisons among a plethora of similar facts and superlatives which illustrate agricultural capacity. We have been talking among ourselves. Bumper stickers in agricultural areas proclaim: "Agriculture feeds you three times a day." But, the mission is greater;
agriculture must educate, as well as feed, the American population.
Sugar receives continuing attention from the pseudonutritionists, food faddists and consumer groups who, with strident, arrogant cries and without license, claim to represent the general population. One faction proclaims that all sugar is bad and that all human health suffers from the use of sugar. Eating a ripe
2
Year 1 9 4 5 1 9 4 6 1 9 4 7 1 9 4 8 1 9 4 9 1 9 5 0 1 9 5 1 1 9 5 2 1 9 5 3 1 9 5 4 1 9 5 5 1 9 5 6 1 9 5 7 1 9 5 8 1 9 5 9 1 9 6 0 1 9 6 1 1 9 6 2 1 9 6 3 1 9 6 4 1 9 6 5 1 9 6 6 1 9 6 7 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 1 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5 1 9 7 6 1 9 7 7
World Price
$ 0 . 0 3 1 * 0 . 0 4 2 * 0 . 0 5 0 * 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 5 0 0 . 0 5 7 0 . 0 4 2 0 . 0 3 4 0 . 0 3 3 0 . 0 3 2 0 . 0 3 5 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 3 5 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 0 3 1 0 . 0 2 9 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 0 8 5 0 . 0 5 9 0 . 0 2 1 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 3 3 0 . 0 3 8 0 . 0 4 5 0 . 0 7 4 0 . 0 9 6 0 . 2 9 6 0 . 2 0 5 0 . 1 1 6 0 . 0 8 2 t
Raw Sugar Duty Paid.
New York
$ 0 . 0 3 8 0 . 0 4 6 0 . 0 6 2 0 . 0 5 5 0 . 0 5 8 0 . 0 5 9 0 . 0 6 1 0 . 0 6 3 0 . 0 6 3 0 . 0 6 1 0 . 0 6 0 0 . 0 6 1 0 . 0 6 2 0 . 0 6 3 0 . 0 6 2 0 . 0 6 3 0 . 0 6 3 0 . 0 6 5 0 . 0 8 2 0 . 0 6 9 0 . 0 6 7 0 . 0 7 0 0 . 0 7 3 0 . 0 7 5 0 . 0 7 7 0 . 0 8 1 0 . 0 8 5 0 . 0 9 1 0 . 1 0 3 0 . 2 9 1 0 2 2 5 0 . 1 3 3 0 . 1 1 0
Index, Refiners' Margin
$ 0 . 0 1 1 0 . 0 1 2 0 . 0 1 4 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 1 4 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 2 3 0 . 0 2 4 0 . 0 2 4 0 . 0 2 4 0 . 0 2 4 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 0 2 7 0 . 0 2 6 0 . 0 2 6 0 . 0 2 6 0 . 0 2 9 0 . 0 3 1 0 . 0 3 2 0 . 0 3 2 0 . 0 3 0 0 . 0 3 6 0 . 0 8 0 0 . 0 5 5 0 . 0 6 1
Retail Spread
$ 0 . 0 1 3 0 . 0 1 3 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 2 0 0 . 0 2 1 0 . 0 2 2 0 . 0 2 3 0 . 0 2 4 0 . 0 2 6 0 . 0 2 3 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 2 3 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 1 2 0 . 0 1 3 0 . 0 1 4 0 . 0 1 1 0 . 0 1 3 ( 0 . 0 1 0 ) 0 . 0 6 4 0 . 0 5 2 0 . 0 4 7
US Retail Price
$ 0 . 0 6 7 0 . 0 7 7 0 . 0 9 7 0 . 0 9 4 0 . 0 9 5 0 . 0 9 8 0 . 1 0 1 0 . 1 0 3 0 . 1 0 6 0 . 1 0 5 0 . 1 0 4 0 . 1 0 6 0 . 1 1 0 0 . 1 1 3 0 . 1 1 4 0 . 1 1 6 0 . 1 1 8 0 . 1 1 7 0 . 1 3 6 0 . 1 2 8 0 . 1 1 8 0 . 1 2 0 0 . 1 2 2 0 . 1 2 2 0 . 1 2 4 0 . 1 3 0 0 . 1 3 6 0 . 1 3 9 0 . 1 5 1 0 . 3 2 3 0 . 3 7 2 0 . 2 4 0 0 . 2 1 6
US Retail/
NY Raw
$ 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 9 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 6 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 1 5 0 . 0 1 1 0 . 0 1 7 0 . 0 1 8 0 . 0 2 0
* For years 1942-1947 inclusive based on prices paid by CCC, a U.S. Government agency, which purchased Cuba's export surplus in those years, annual averages are final average settlement prices.
t January - October, 1977.
Note-Based on U.S. Department of Agriculture Sugar Statistics and Lamborn's Charts of World Sugar Prices.
A consequence of consumer remoteness from, and minunderstanding of, food production can be seen in en- vironmental extremism, ecohysteria rather than ecoreason. Control or prudent use of agrichemicals is d e s i r a b l e , but that fact does not imply that agrichemicals are bad. Judicious use is i n t e l l i g e n t and economical. Our laws have developed in a way which permits, and sometimes s p e c i f i c a l l y demand, increasing public p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the rule-making processes. A legal forum is available a l s o , through individual and c l a s s - a c t i o n lawsuits.
Perhaps, public p a r t i c i p a t i o n became a new form of "town meeting" when o r i g i n a t e d . Unfortunately, those who p a r t i c i p a t e may represent a small, but vocal, portion of the populace. The process, undoubtedly, d i l u t e s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of elected o f f i c i a l s . Liberal use of inexpensive lawsuits has permitted a recent action
3
Mcintosh apple or another sweet fruit is not decried. A second group claims that refined sugar is bad, hut that brown sugar contains worthwhile mineral nutrition and is healthy. This second group cannot, or will not, recognize that refined sugar is 99.9 percent sucrose and that raw brown sugar is more than 96 percent sucrose.
Polarization of raw sugar producedin Florida in recent years has averaged higher than 98.2 percent. For prac- tical purposes, this indicates content of 98.2 or more percent sucrose and 1.8 or less percent water and mineral matter. Mineral nutrition requirements cannot be satisfied by eating raw sugar.
Table 1
Approximate Annual Values, in Cents Per Pound, for Successive Levels of Sugar Transactions
which seeks to prohibit a western university from using public funds to conduct research in agriculture labor- saving technologies, which may displace field labor and which allegedly contribute directly to the economic benefit of investors in agricultural operations.
A litany of similar tales is available for the making. With friends such as our consumers, who needs enemies?
Note : Values bused on HSPA Sugar Manual. 1978. Note: Values based on HSPA Sugar Manual, 1978
Preoccupation with sugar prices in recent years has obliterated production from the consciousness of many industry leaders. But, sugar crops must be produced before they can be sold. Tables I, II, and III list the hectares of sugar cane harvested for sugar, tonnes of sugar cane per hectare, and kilograms of 96 de- gree sugar per tonne of cane for Florida, Louisiana and Hawaii. The tonnes of cane per hectare and kilograms of sugar per tonne cane values indicate no substantial change, and do not suggest advance, in recent decades.
Rather, within each producing area, the variations apparently reflect the effects of local events, climatic and otherwise, rather than those of trend.
According to McCloud (1977), sugar cane production has shown the smallest increase in yield of any of the Florida crops, only 1.2 fold since 1928. He notes that weather-induced tonnage fluctuations are extremely high and that sugar cane was the least yield-stable of the crops studied. According to his analysis, there is little tendency for improvement in tonne-per-hectare yields. Is the same conclusion applicable elsewhere?
Has domestic sugar cane production reached a plateau? Is there no opportunity for improvement in tonnes of cane or sugar per hectare? Sugar cane scientists should make a clear cautionary statement if we have reached or are approaching productive maxima, and should identify the limiting factor(s). Under such circumstances, our research goals must be reorganized toward management which will achieve maximum economic yield in terms of sugar per hectare per month.
The strength of the sugar industry has been its ability to produce. Shouldn't we devote "equal time"
to growing the crops?
A PLAYBACK
Wildavsky (1979) asks, "Should people be allowed to take risks?" when commenting on the effect of over-cautious attitudes to new technological developments. The fourth paragraph of his article reads:
"The richest, longest-lived, best protected, most-resourceful civilization, with the highest degree of insight into its own technology, is on its way to becoming the most frightened. Has there ever been, one wonders, a society that produced more uncertainty more often about everyday life? It isn't much, really, in dispute—only the land we live on, the water we drink, the air we breathe, the food we eat, the energy that supports us. Chicken Little is alive and well in America. Evidently, a mechanism is at work ringing alarms faster than most of us can keep track of them. The great question is this: Is there some- thing new in our environment or is there something new in our social relations?"
Clearly, there is something different, if not new, in our societal affairs. We have taken risks deeper than the false uncertainties quoted above. Agriculture, in general, and the sugar cane industry, in a parochial sense, must establish or reestablish urban relationships. We must relate facts and dispute myths more effectively; we must integrate our political being into state and national affairs successfully;
and, we must enhance our productive capability. The challenges are real and clear, we must meet them through mutual goals and close cooperation.
Note: Values based on HSPA Sugar Manual, 1978.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. George, Stanley E. 1979. Message from the President, Thirty-eighth Annual Meeting, Sugar Industry Technologists. Sugar y Azucar. 74(5):51,52.
2. McCloud, D. S. 1977. Florida field crop yield trends with a changing climate. Soil and Crops Sci.
Soc. Florida. 36:200-204.
3. Toffler, Alvin. 1970. Future Shock. Random House, Inc. New York, New York.
4. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1961. Special Study on Sugar. A Report of the Special Study Group on Sugar of the USDA for the House of Representatives' Committee on Agriculture, 87th Congress, 1st Session.
5. Wildavsky, Aaron, 1979. No risk is the highest risk of all. American Scientist. 67:32-37.
5
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE: LOUISIANA DIVISION Roland M. Hebert St. Martin Cooperative, Inc.
St. Martinville, Louisiana
This year, 1979, brings to an end another decade of the U.S. sugar industry. It has been a decade that has left this great industry scarred, and, perhaps, limping but not permanently crippled.
The strength, courage, vision and endurance of the industry and its producers and processors will not allow this. We look to the next decade with guarded optimism and a more vocal concern for our self- interest and preservation.
The 1970's have not been extremely kind to the Louisiana sugar industry. 1970 itself was ushered in by terrible harvest conditions accompanied by early freezes. The bonanza year, 1974, drove the price of sugar to a record high; this event placed the sugar industry in an envious profit position.
The envy was short lived, however, since many industrial users of sugar took advantage of the moment by escalating the price of their products, because of the increase in the price of sugar. Needless to say, the cost of their products did not take the subsequent downward spiral which has been suffered by the sugar industry since 1974.
The expiration of the U.S. Sugar Act and the unsuccessful attempts to legislate new sugar legis- lation are now a part of the industry's legacy for the 1970's. In addition to the continued downward trend in the price of sugar, the energy shortage has forced the Louisiana sugar industry to spend thousands of dollars on combination fuel burners for the boilers, installation of pre-heaters and other energy-saving schemes devices. There is small consolation in the fact that, while the sugar industry is doing its part to consume less energy, the cost of production continues to increase, while
In the past decade, we witnessed a concerted effort by growers to implement recommendations to increase the raw sugar yield per acre by methods such as wide-row planting, installation of the core- sampler testing system, and the aggressive use of new cane varieties.
In the 1970's, we also saw the cost of labor and materials rise to unparalleled levels. A minor improvement in a factory has become a major financial undertaking. On an even sadder note, the Louisi- ana sugar industry has seen the number of raw sugar houses decrease from 43, in 1970, to 25, in 1979.
Sugar production rose from 541,800 tonnes in 1970 to 601,200 tonnes in 1977, but dropped back down to 495,000 tonnes in 1978. Sugar cane acreage went from 114,400 hectares in 1970 to 136,400 hectares in 1973, back down to 118,400 for the 1978 crop.
We cannot allow this to continue.
It is difficult to believe that the government leaders in this great nation will allow the sugar situation to deteriorate to the point at which we see the oil industry today. Have not their experiences with oil taught them a lesson on the folly and danger of becoming dependent on imports? Their short- term thinking regarding the oil industry, if extended to our sugar industry, will indeed be disasterous.
Provided with accurate information, one wonders whether consumers, in general, would be as upset about a possible rise in the price of sugar as the anti-sugar legislation advocates claim they would be. Industrial sugar users naturally have a vested interest and want cheap sugar. However, John Q. Public is well aware that, while the price of a Hershey bar went up in 1974 because of high costs of sugar, that same Hershey bar kept getting smaller and more expensive, while the price of sugar dropped drasti- cally. In 1974, we could put US $0.10 or $0.15 in a Coca-Cola machine and receive a soft drink.
Today, the same machine requires $0.30 to $0.50 for the same soft drink.
Anti-sugar advocates have done an excellent job of "selling a bill of goods" to the American public. No real, unbiased effort has been made to inform the consumers that most nations of the world have long-term contracts for their sugar, and that the dumping ground for excess, uncommitted sugar is the world market, which represents approximately 10 to 15 percent of the total world sugar production.
Few sincere people outside the sugar industry realize that the U.S. sugar price is tied to this low world-price sugar. Yet, the domestic sugar growers and processors are compelled to compete with the low world price of excess sugar, while stimultaneously meeting the requirements for minimum wage rates, complying with OSHA standards, dealing with the inflated cost of equipment and supplies, and paying for the operation of an unsupportive government.
The consumer, likewise, is not being told of the double standards that control the price of do- mestic sugar. He is falsely being led to believe that cheap, imported foreign sugar is part of the answer for decreasing our weekly food bill. If, in fact, this is so, why are all farm commodities suf- fering the pangs of inflation? Consumers need to be levelled with. The costs of all goods and services have increased, and continue to increase daily. What is not being publicized sufficiently to those out- side the sugar industry is the long-range danger of the domestic sugar market being absorbed by imported sugar and the reality of the U.S. being at the mercy of foreign producers, who do not know or care about the cost of operating the U.S. government through its tax structure, who do not employ thousands of U.S.
citizens, who do not purchase millions of dollars of U.S.-manufactured equipment, supplies, goods and services, who do not grow and process their sugar under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements, and who have no loyalty, except to themselves.
Sugar policy in the U.S. has resembled an "Alice in Wonderland" fantasy since the demise of the Sugar Act. Roller-coaster prices led to the enactment of the de la Garza loan program in 197 7. Properly admin- istered, this could have been an effective interim program. Instead of using import quotas and fees effectively, as instructed by Congress, the Administration dilly-dallied and, finally, issued regulations which were often counterproductive to the intent of the legislation.
A complex payment program for the 1977 crop sugar was instituted, but the regulations were changed so often, and so many questions were raised about its legality, that final payments for the 1977 crop still have not been made, even as this message is written.
After sugar legislation was defeated in 1978, President Jimmy Carter personally assured Senator Russel B. Long and others that the market price for sugar would be supported at $0.15 per pound, pending passage of new legislation. This promise has not been kept. In fact, import fees were actually decreased on April 1, 1979, despite the fact that U.S. sugar prices were substantially below $0.15 per pound. In spite of this ridiculous result of the Administration's fee-setting mechanism, the President has refused to change either the mechanism or the fee.
President Carter has set such narrow constraints on the type of sugar bill he will sign that sugar producers have had difficulty reaching an agreement on legislation. Issues such as payments and wage provisions have led to heated debates within the brotherhood of domestic sweetener producers. It is hoped that any scars from such debates will heal quickly, and be soon forgotten. The domestic sugar industry cannot afford division within its own ranks.
We all owe a debt of gratitude to those members of our industry who have spent substantial time and effort trying to negotiate and pass sweetener legislation. We, in Louisiana, especially appreciate the dedicated efforts of American Sugar Cane League's President, P. J. deGravelles, Jr., and James Thibaut, who is Chairman of the League's National Legislation Committee.
Obviously, there is much that we must strive for in the decade which follows:
* We most certainly need to continue to strive for a price for sugar which will result in a stable and viable domestic sugar industry.
* We need to explore an entry into the energy arena through the production of alcohol if, and I empha- size if, the cost of disposing of the by-products is not prohibitive, and if the volume allows a reasonable return on capital investments.
* We need to initiate technological improvements in wiser and more profitable use of sugar products and by-products.
* We need to encourage plant scientists to develop sugar cane varieties producing 14,000 pounds of sugar per acre (15.75 tonnes per hectare) in combination with close and wide-row planting.
* We need to develop an internal public relations program to accurately inform our consumers of our plight.
* We need to maintain a serious dialogue with congressional, governmental, and consumer groups which are influential in areas affecting our industry and its concerns.
I doubt seriously that I would be standing here today if it were not for the continuous support and encouragement of numerous people in our sugar industry.
It has been said that there is a time to sow and a time to reap, and that one reaps what one sows. If this is in fact so, I look forward to a bountiful harvest. We have put forth our best efforts to sow. It is logical, then, that we must reap an equitable return for our product. Long live Sugar!
7
GROWTH RATES OF FLORIDA SUGARCANE DURING SEVEN GROWING SEASONS1/
G. Kidder University of Florida Agricultural Research and Education Center
Belle Glade, FL E. R. Rice U. S. Sugarcane Field Station
SEA, AR, Canal Point, FL ABSTRACT
Sugarcane height measurements taken weekly from April through October at Canal Point, FL, showed that the plants grew most rapidly from mid June to early July, peaking on the average near 15 cm (5.9 in)/week.
Growth rates decreased in an almost linear fashion from July through October, when measurements were dis- continued. Rates in late October generally averaged 8 cm (3.1 in)/week. Average height in October was 2.8 m (9.2 f t ) , representing an average growth rate of 9 cm (3.5 in)/week during the grand growth period.
Varieties showed different growth rates, but all had the same general pattern of growth, accelerating rapidly in April and May, peaking in June and July, and tapering off until flowering or harvest.
INTRODUCTION
Plant height measurements, because they are non-destructive and relatively easy to make, are frequently used as an index of growth. Sugarcane producers use height to gauge the growth rate of their cane, for detecting growth problems, and for estimating yields. Stalk length is an important component of yield of millable cane (4) and is correlated with characteristics such as erectness of cane ( 2 ) . The rapidity with which cane grows, especially early in the growing season, affects weed control and is one of the agronomic charact- eristics evaluated in the variety development program (6,7). The varietal growth pattern can also be important in studies of environmental factors, growth regulators, and in mathematical modeling of sugarcane growth.
This paper is a preliminary report on a study, conducted at Canal Point, Florida, of the growth patterns of several sugarcane varieties.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted annually from 1968 through 1975, with the exception of 1972. Five varieties of cane were planted between late November and mid-January of each year. Plots consisted of single rows 3 m (10 ft) long located along the field edge. There was a 0.6 m (2 ft) space between plots (varieties).
Varieties chosen were popular or promising at the time they were included in the experiment (Table 1 ) . All data available for a given variety were included in the averages.
C1 41-223 CP 50-28 CP 56-59 CP 56-63 CP 57-603 CP 62-374 CP 63-306 CP 63-588 CP 65-357 CP 66-1079 L 61-49
Data of one variety were discarded because of mistaken identification of the variety.
1/ Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations Journal Series No. 2387.
Table 2. Average weekly elongation (measured to top visible dewlap) of five sugarcane varieties at Canal Point, Florida
Week
of Variety Year* Cl 41-223 CP 63-588 CP 63-306 CP 56-59 CP 65-357
(N=7 yr) (N=6 yr) (N=5 yr) N=3 yr) (N= 1 yr)
Weeks No. 14, 27, and 43 correspond approximately with the first week of April, the first week of July, and the last week of October, respectively.
To convert to English system, multiply cm by 0.394 to obtain inches.
The measurements made in this study covered what is generally considered the grand growth period of Florida sugarcane. During that time, established plant cane grew from ground level to 2.8 m (9.2 f t ) , an average of 0.40 m (1.3 ft)/month or 9 cm (3.5 in)/week. Because this value is the result of nearly 10,500 measurements made over a period of seven years on 11 varieties, the authors consider it to be a good approximation of the average growth rate of sugarcane under the conditions of south Florida.
9
Ten representative plants were selected and measured from soil surface to the top visible dewlap (TVD) on Wednesday of each week. Measurements were begun the first week of April, the time when appreciable growth began in most years, and were continued through October when flowering started or harvest commitments took precedence. If one of the selected stalks was found damaged (e.g., from the sugarcane borer), an undamaged stalk of approximately the same height was chosen as a replacement stalk. Measurements made on lodged or curved stalks followed the contour of the stalk; thus, stalk length rather than height was measured late in the growing
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The average weekly growth measured during the seven years of the experiment is shown in Figure 1. It can be seen that the growth in early April was quite slow, less than 2 cm (0.8 in)/week. Growth accelerated rapidly in May and peaked near 15 cm (5.9 in)/week in late June and early July. Growth then gradually declined to 8 cm (3.1 in)/week by the end of October. It is interesting to note that there was still appreci- able growth occurring when measurements were suspended in late October.
APR. M A Y JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT.
Figure 1. Seven-year average growth rate (cm/week) and height (meters) of sugarcane. Each week's point on the curve is the average of 350 measurements.
The weekly growth rates of five varieties are presented in Table 2. These varieties represented 64% of the hectarage planted to sugarcane in Florida in 1979(5). The rapid early growth characteristic of CP 65-357 is evident in the one year's data available for that variety, which was released to Florida growers in 1975.
The average weekly growth of 6.1 and 16.6 cm (2.4 and 6.5 in) in April and May, respectively, measured for CP 65-357 were far greater than those measured for the other varieties at that time of year. Both CP 63-588 and CP 56-59 exhibited similar growth patterns — moderately rapid early growth (3.4 and 6.1 cm/week in April and May, respectively) and rapid growth (12.8 and 13.5 cm/week) in June and July. The relatively slow early growth of CI 41-223 can also be noted in the data. Variety CP 63-306 was slower growing than CP 63-588 early in the season but maintained a higher rate from June through the rest of the growing season.
The average height of all cane measured during the seven years of the study is plotted in Figure 1. The resulting sigmoid curve is similar to classic sugarcane growth curves (3). The shape of the growth rate curve (Figure 1) resembles that of cane grown under tropical conditions more closely than any previously reported curves for cane growth at Canal Point (1). During relatively warm winters, Florida cane will continue to elongate into January. The early-flowering variety, CP 62-374, grew at a rate of 7.5 cm (3.0 in)/week right up to the time of spiking in mid-October.
Average heights of the five varieties discussed earlier are presented in Table 3. The tallest-growing variety in the test was CP 65-357, which maintained the height advantage gained early in the season even after the weekly growth rate fell below that of other varieties in mid-June. Varieties CP 56-59 and CP 63-306 were essentially the same height from mid-July through the end of the season, with CP 63-306 overcoming a slower early season growth rate. Height of the cane in late October ranged from 2.5 m (8.2 ft) for C1 41-223 to 3.1 m (10.1 ft) for CP 63-306.
Table 3. Average height of five sugarcane varieties growing at Canal Point, Florida between April and October
Week
of Variety Year* Cl 41-223 CP 63-588 CP 63-306 CP 56-59 CP 65-357
(N=7 yr) (N=6 yr) (N=5 yr) (N=3 yr) (N= 1 yr)
14 1.0 15 1.5 16 3.0 17 5.0 18 7.0 19 10.5 20 14.5 21 19.5 22 26.0 23 33.5 24 44.5 25 55.5 26 69.0 27 82.5 28 96.0 29 108.0 30 121.0 31 133.0 32 144.5 33 156.5 34 167.5 35 177.0 36 186.5 37 196.0 38 205.5 39 215.5 40 225.0 41 233.0 42 241.0 43 248.5
2 . 0 5 . 0 8 . 0 12.0 16.5 21.5 28.5 36.0 46.0 56.5 70.0 83.5 96.5 110.0 123.0 135.5 148.5 160.0 171.0 182.5 193.0 202.5 211.5 221.0 231.0 241.5 250.5 259.0 268.5 276.5
2 . 0 4 . 5 6 . 5 9 . 5 14.0 19.5 25.5 33.0 41.5 53.0 66.5 82.0 97.5 113.0 128.5 143.5 159.5 174.0 188.0 201.0 213.5 223.5 233.5 244.0 255.0 266.0 275.0 286.0 297.0 307.5
4 . 5 8 . 0 11.0 15.5 19.0 25.0 31.5 39.5 50.5 61.5 75.0 87.5 102.5 116.0 131.0 144.5 159.0 172.5 185.5 199.0 211.5 222.0 233.0 245.5 256.5 269.5 281.0 288.5 294.5
-
4 . 5 9 . 0 15.5 24.0 40.0 58.5 74.5 90.5 105.0 116.0 133.5 145.0 159.0 170.0 181.0 191.5 199.0 208.0 219.5 230.0 239.0 247.5 256.5 265.0 274.5
- - - - -
Weeks No. 14, 27, and 43 correspond approximately with the first week of April, the first week of July, and the last week of October respectively.
To convert to English system, multiply cm by 0.394 to obtain inches.
REFERENCES
1. Brandes, E. W. 1950. Changes in Seasonal Growth Gradients in Geographically Displaced Sugarcane.
Proc. Int. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 7:1-32.
2. Breaux, R. D. 1971. Selection for Erectness in Sugarcane in Louisiana. Proc. Inter. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 14:286-296.
3. Van Dillewijn, C. 1952. Botany of Sugarcane. The Chronica Botanica, Co., Walthan, MA.
4. James, N. I. 1971. Yield Components in Random and Selected Sugarcane Populations. Crop Sci. 11:906-908.
5. Kidder, G. and E. R. Rice. 1979. Florida's 1979 Sugarcane Variety Census. Sugar y Azucar 74 (12):44,45,48.
6. Lyrene, P. M. 1975. Stage III Sugarcane Variety Tests and the Florida Cooperative Sugarcane Breeding Program. U. of Fla., AREC Belle Glade Mimeo Rpt. EV-1975-18.
7. Miller, J. D. 1971. USDA Sugarcane Selection Program in Florida. Amer. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 1:145-148.
11
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE NITROGEN CONTENT OF MEDIUM-COARSE TO MEDIUM-FINE TEXTURED SOILS AND YIELD RESPONSE OF STUBBLE SUGARCANE TO FERTILIZER NITROGEN
Laron E. Golden Agronomy Department Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station
Baton Rouge, Louisiana ABSTRACT
Yields were obtained from 38 field tests with stubble sugarcane at locations in the Mississippi River, Bayou Lafourche and Bayou Teche areas of production. The tests were conducted on medium-coarse to medium- fine textured soils. Increases in yield due to fertilizer N were determined by comparing yield from the check and from the N-treated plots at each location. During 1958-60, the rate of N applied was 120 lb per acre and during 1961-71, the rate of N was 160 lb per acre. Total N contents of topsoil were obtained from each test site. The mean yield from check plots was 21.49 tons per acre and the mean increase in yield due to fertilizer N was 6.95 tons per acre. The mean N content of topsoil was .092%. Relatively low N contents were found among the coarser textured soils when compared to the finer textured soils. The lowest N content of soil, .062%, and the highest, .154%, were associated with yield increases of 3.92 and 9.37 tons per acre, respectively. A statistically significant positive correlation (r = .323) was obtained between topsoil N contents and yield response due to fertilizer N. The correlations between topsoil N and cane yield from the check (r = -.281) and between topsoil N and cane yield from the treated plots (r = -.077) were not signifi- cant. The relatively low yields from check plots on the finer textured soils were apparently due, in part, to low oxygen contents and poor root development in the subsoil.
INTRODUCTION
Sugarcane is produced primarily on medium-coarse (light) to medium-fine (heavy) textured soils in Louisiana. Soils with very high amounts of fine-textured components are generally brought into, or removed from, sugarcane production when increases, or decreases, in acreages are desired.
In 1958, for plant cane, 40 to 60 lb of nitrogen (N) per acre were recommended on medium-coarse to medium-textured soils, and 60 to 80 lb of N per acre were recommended on fine-textured soils. For stubble cane, 80 to 100 lb of N per acre were recommended for all soil types (2).
In 1978, for plant cane, 60 to 100 lb of N per acre were recommended on medium-coarse to medium-textured soils, with the lower amounts suggested for weak stands (low plant- population) and the higher amounts for strong stands (high plant population). The recommendation for plant cane grown on fine-textured soils was 80 to 120 lb of N per acre. Rates of N recommended for stubble cane varied from 100 to 140 lb per acre on medium-coarse to medium-textured soils and from 120 to 160 lb per acre on medium-fine to fine-textured soils (1, 3, 7 ) .
Results from field tests with stubble cane on finer textured soils, in which the highest rate of N was either 200 or 240 lb per acre, showed some increases in yield from rates of N above the rate of 160 lb per acre but they were generally too small to be considered economically important (3).
Patrick el al (6) reported relatively high oxygen contents and good root development by sugarcane at depths below 6 inches in the relatively coarse-textured soils, Commerce and Cypremort, and low oxygen con- tents and poor root development in fine-textured soils from the Mhoon, Sharkey, Baldwin and Iberia series.
The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of total amounts of N in topsoils to yield response of stubble cane to fertilizer N.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Yield data were obtained from 38 field tests with stubble sugarcane at locations in the Mississippi River, Bayou Lafourche and Bayou Teche areas of production. Information showing soil type, year and variety at each test site is shown in Table 1.
At test sites 1 through 8, yields from the check or no-fertilizer treatment were compared with yields from the treatment which received 120 lb of fertilizer N per acre, and at the other sites, yields from the check were compared with those where the rate of N was 160 lb per acre.
Generally, the plot size was one-tenth acre or larger and the source of N was ammonium nitrate.
A topsoil sample was obtained from the check at each new test site at the time of fertilization in the spring. The samples were analyzed for total N contents by the modified Kjeldahl method. Each of the tests, 6, 12, 17, 27, and 38, was repeated on the same site as the previous year and, since soil N contents vary very little annually (4), topsoil N values from the previous year were reported.
12
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
Alice "B"
Smithfield Little Texas Pecan Tree O'Neil Little Texas Smithfield Pecan Tree Alice "B"
Little Texas Pecan Tree Little Texas Alice "B"
Georgia Laurel Grove Alice "B"
Laurel Grove F. A. Graugnard & Sons Myrtle Grove Laurel Ridge Laurel Grove Myrtle Grove Laurel Grove Evan Hall Myrtle Grove Upper Ten Laurel Grove Little Texas Simonaud Kilgore Belleview St. James Evan Hall Belleview Evan Hall St. James O'Neil' Evan Hall
Baldwin sil Mhoon sil Mhoon sil Mhoon sicl Baldwin sicl Mhoon sil Commerce sil Mhoon sicl Cypremort 1 Mhoon sil Mhoon sicl Mhoon sil Baldwin sil Mhoon sil Mhoon sicl Baldwin 1 Mhoon sicl Mhoon sicl Commerce sil Mhoon sil Mhoon sicl Commerce sil Mhoon sic Commerce sil Mhoon sil Mhoon sil Mhoon sic Mhoon sicl Jeanerette sil Jeanerette sil Baldwin sicl Mhoon sil Mhoon sicl Baldwin sicl Mhoon sil Mhoon sicl Baldwin sicl Mhoon sil
1958 1958 1958 1958 1959 1959 1960 1960 1961 1961 1961 1962 1963 1963 1963 1964 1964 1964 1965 1965 1965 1966 1966 1967 1967 1967 1967 1967 1968 1969 1969 1969 1969 1970 1970 1970 1971 1971
Variety CP 44-101 CP 48-103 CP 36-105 CP 44-101 CP 44-101 CP 36-105 CP 36-105 CP 44-101 CP 52-68 CP 52-68 CP 44-101 CP 52-68 NCo 310 CP 52-68 CP 52-68 CP 52-68 CP 52-68 CP 52-68 CP 52-68 CP 52-68 CP 52-68 CP 52-68 CP 52-68 CP 48-103 CP 47-193 CP 55-30 CP 52-68 NCo 310 NCo 310 NCo 310 CP 52-68 CP 55-30 L 60-25 CP 52-68 CP 48-103 L 60-25 CP 52-68 CP 48-103 Table 1. Experimental locations, soil types, year and varieties of sugarcane.
Test
Number Plantation Soil type Year Variety
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Topsoil N and sugarcane yield data are contained in Table 2. The lowest amount of topsoil N, .062%, was found in Test No. 9, which was conducted on a Cypremort loam, and the highest, .154%, was in Test No.
28 on a Mhoon silty clay loam. Yield increases due to fertilizer N in those tests were 3.92 and 9.37 tons per acre, respectively. The mean yield increase from all tests, 6.95 tons per acre (32%), was highly significant.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between topsoil N contents and cane yield increases which were due to fertilizer N. The correlation was low (r = .323) but was statistically significant.
The correlations between topsoil N and cane yield from the check (r = -.281) and between topsoil N and cane yield from the treated plots (r = -.077) were not significant.
The data in Table 3 show means of soil N and sugarcane yields from medium-coarse to medium and from medium to medium-fine textured soils. The means were calculated from data in Table 2. Of the 38 test locations, 22 were on medium-coarse to medium-textured soils (loam and silt loam) and 16 were on medium- to medium-fine textured soils (silty clay loam and silty clay). From the information presented in Table 3 it can be seen that the mean yields from treated plots on the coarser and finer textured soils were approx- imately equal, and that the greater mean increase from the tests on finer textured soils was associated with a relatively low mean yield from the checks. The difference in mean yields from check plots on the coarser and finer textured soils, 3.96 tons per acre, approached significance. The difference in mean increases in yield on the coarser and finer textured soils, 4.18 tons per acre, was significant.
13
Table 2. The relationship of soil nitrogen to sugarcane yield.
Cane yield
Test Topsoil Increase
Number N Check Treated1/ over check
- - - Net tons/acre - - - —
- Treated with fertilizer N.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
089 064 066 147 125 066 067 095 062 068 095 068 071 086 105 069 105 142 077 071 105 085 093 077 081 095 093 154 109 108 097 085 096 090 088 121 112 088
17.60 18.70 16.90 9.34 17.60 14.40 20.60 22.80 27.88 25.60 21.28 14.65 27.29 36.76 29.26 28.09 18.48 17.64 24.22 19.89 14.64 25.91 16.64 40.85 21.59 23.71 20.94 24.19 22.79 14.38 16.20 16.89 18.86 20.51 30.09 15.80 22.99 20.63
21.30 24.10 25.40 17.08 28.20 19.00 25.40 30.40 31.80 32.00 26.47 19.20 38.57 41.12 37.09 28.59 25.05 33.59 31.31 29.85 23.66 29.93 31.66 41.36 25.82 33.08 38.45 33.56 25.55 18.12 23.34 20.99 32.19 28.29 37.14 19.80 28.41 23.98
3.70 5.40 8.50 7.74 0.60 4.60 4.80 7.60 3.92 6.40 5.19 4.55 11.28 4.36 7.83 0.50 6.57 15.95 7.09 9.96 9.02 4.02 15.02 0.51 4.23 9.37 17.51 9.37 2.76 3.74 7.14 4.10 13.33 7.78 7.05 4.00 5.42 3.35
Table 3. Means of soil nitrogen contents and sugarcane yields from medium-coarse to medium and from medium to medium-fine textured soils.
** Significant at the 1% level of probability.
1/— Means are from all test locations shown in Table 2 where soils were classed as loam (1) and silt loam (sil).
2/
— Means are from all test locations shown in Table 2 where soils were classed as silty-clay loam (sicl) and silty-clay (sic).
14
Topsoil N, %
Fig. I. The relationship of topsoil N contents and sugarcane yield increases as influenced by fertilizer N.
The tendency for lower yields to occur in check plots on the finer textured soils (Tables 2 and 3) was apparently due, in part, to poorer nutrition as influenced by low oxygen contents and poor root development in the subsoil (6). The generally higher yield responses to fertilizer N on the finer textured soils were apparently due to the greater dependence of the sugarcane roots on N in the topsoil, supplied largely from fertilizer. A factor that may have favored yield increases on finer textured soils is the probability that leaching losses during the growing season, following application of N, were lower than on coarser textured soils, and were sufficiently lower to exceed any relatively greater losses of N that may have occurred by volatization from finer textured soils during short periods of high soil moisture content.
In a separate study (5), where fertilization and variety treatments were constant, above-ground parts of stubble cane grown on Baldwin silt loam (relatively coarse-textured) contained 3.63 lb of N per ton of millable cane or 143.0 lb per acre at harvest and, on Iberia clay (fine-textured), contained 3.07 lb of N per ton of millable cane or 112.5 lb per acre at harvest. The LSD (.05) values were .19 lb per ton of millable cane and 9.0 lb per acre. Cane yield on the Baldwin soil was 39.40 tons per acre and on the Iberia soil was 36.66 tons per acre. The LSD (.05) for cane yield was 2.45 tons per acre.
REFERENCES
1. Anonymous. 1978. Fertilizer and soil fertility practices for sugarcane production in Louisiana, 1978.
Sugar Bull., Vol. 56.
2. Byrnside, D.S., Jr., and M. B. Sturgis. 1957. Fertilizers for sugarcane. Report of Projects, Dept.
of Agronomy, La. Agr. Exp. Sta.
3. Golden, L. E. 1964-78. Fertilizer and soil fertility studies with sugarcane. Report of Projects, Dept. of Agronomy, La. Agr. Exp. Sta.
4. . 1975. The effect of sugarcane production on nutrient contents of Mhoon and Jeanerette silt loams. La. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 685.
5. and I. B. Abdol. 1977. Effects of nitrogen and potassium fertilizers and soil type on yield components and nutrient uptake of four sugarcane varieties. La. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 700.
6. Patrick, W. H., Jr., F. T. Turner and R. D. Delaune. 1969. Soil oxygen content and root development of sugarcane. La. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 641.
7. Ricaud, R. 1964-78. Effects of fertilizers on yield of sugarcane. Report of Projects, Dept. of Agronomy, La. Agr. Exp. Sta.
15
USING FUNGICIDES ON MECHANICALLY HARVESTED SUGARCANE SEEDPIECES TO INCREASE YIELDS B. R. Eiland
Agricultural Engineer, USDA, SEA, AR, Sugarcane Harvesting Research Unit Belle Glade, Florida
Jack L. Dean
Plant Pathologist, USDA, SEA, AR, Sugarcane Field Station Canal Point, Florida
ABSTRACT
Two levels of two fungicides and a check without any fungicide were applied to two seedpiece lengths of two sugarcane varieties in a factorial experiment to measure their effect on shoot emergence, final stalk population, and resultant yield. Plant populations were determined from initial germination to harvest. Seedpiece length and fungicide treatment were found to influence shoot emergence, final stalk populations, and cane yield. No yield differences were found with the lower seed application used this year and the higher seed application rate used last year in similar treatments. The best treatment com- bination appeared to be the lower level of captafol applied to the long seedpieces. The yield from long seedpieces that received this treatment was 18 percent higher than that of the untreated long seedpieces.
It appears that furrow-spraying of captafol on mechanically harvested seedpieces will increase cane yields at harvest.
INTRODUCTION
Increasing stalk populations within a sugarcane variety generally offers a means of increasing tonnage yields and, thereby, lowering production costs per ton. Researchers in addition to the present authors have reported that the use of fungicides increased stands of cane (1,2,3). The fungicides have usually been applied by dipping the seedpieces in a solution. Previously we reported on the use of two fungicides, captafol and benomyl applied by spraying, which increased plant population but did not increase tonnage yield at harvest (5). The lack of yield difference was attributed to excellent stands of sugarcane in all test plots. Another experiment was planned in which the planting rate was reduced to obtain a lower stand.
We decided to plant only a single continuous line of cane and to test two levels of each of two fungicides, capafol and guazatine. Guazatine was found to increase populations in South Africa in some instances (2).
The objective of this experiment was to determine whether a fungicide applied by spraying in the furrow would increase both plant populations and yields from mechanically harvested seedpieces.
PROCEDURES
We considered three factors that could influence stalk population and cane yield: (a) variety, (b) seedpiece length, and (c) fungicide. The experimental design was a split-plot block in which varieties were main plots and combinations of the fungicides and seedpiece lengths were subplots. Main plots were replicated four times. Subplots were single rows 8 m long and 1.7m wide, separated within a row by a 1-m alleyway.
The treatments in the experiment consisted of combinations of two sugarcane varieties (CP 63-588 and CP 65-357), two average seedpiece lengths (short and long), and two levels of two fungicides (captafol at 971 and 1941 ml /km of row length and guazatine at 21 and 42 ml /km of row length) and a check for which no fungicide or spray was applied. We purchased the captafol as a commercially available liquid formulation containing 0.481 kg/1 of active ingredient. The guazatine was supplied as a liquid containing 60 percent active ingredient. Application rates are based upon the liquid formulation as supplied.
We used a Massey-Ferguson 201 1/ chopper harvester in the experiment to cut the seed cane and to cut the cane at harvest. The short seedpiece length used (24.3 ± 5.4 cm) was the average length normally delivered by the harvester, and the long seedpiece length used (42.2 ± 10.1 cm) was obtained by removing one set of the chopping knives from the harvester. Seed material was planted as delivered by the harvester, and about 11 percent of the eyes had been damaged by the harvester.
Seed material was harvested and planted in organic soil at Canal Point, Florida, on January 5, 1978.
One continuous line of cane, half the normal planting rate, was laid in the open furrows, and the plots were hand-sprayed with fungicide before the seed cane was covered. A constant amount of water (122.5 1/km of row length with captafol and 78.5 l/km of row length with guazatine) was applied for each fungicide treatment. The liquid fungicides were mixed with water and applied by using hand sprayers equipped with
1/ Trade names or company names are used in this publication solely to provide specific information. Mention of a trade name does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture or an endorsement by the Department over other products not mentioned.
Previous studies (4,5) indicated that seedpiece length affects shoot emergence. At 75 days after planting, we found similar results in this experiment; long seedpieces produced 24 percent more shoots than the short seedpieces (Table 2 ) . The average number of emerged shoots after the captafol treatments was 24 percent greater than that for the treatments without any fungicide. The guazatine treatments did not in- crease shoot populations over those of treatments without any fungicide. Analysis of the variety X length means showed that long seedpieces of CP 63-588 produced more shoots than did short seedpieces of that variety. The analysis also showed no differences in shoot emergence of CP 65-357 with respect to seedpiece length. Analysis of the variety X fungicide means on other earlier counting dates showed that the fungicide treatments on the long seedpieces enhanced shoot emergence more than they did on the short seedpieces, a result not readily explainable.
Stalk populations at harvest followed shoot emergence trends. The long seedpieces produced 13 percent more stalks at harvest than those of the short seedpieces (Table 3 ) . The captafol treatments averaged 11 percent more stalks at harvest than those of treatments without any fungicide. The guazatine treatments did not increase stalk population at harvest over those of treatments without any fungicide.
pressure gauges. A constant pressure was maintained in the sprayer, and a worker simply walked back and forth applying the spray to each plot for a certain time to obtain uniform coverage.
Between the beginning of shoot emergence and harvest, the stalks in each plot were counted 12 times, the interval depending upon the expected population change. The cane was harvested on December 21, 1978, and the cane from each subplot was weighed. Standard statistical procedures (analysis of variance and lsd means for treatment differences) were used to determine significant differences between populations and between cane yields resulting from the different treatments (6).
RESULTS
Shoot populations increased rapidly, as is normal in Florida during early summer, and peaked during the latter part of June. As stalks became shaded and died, populations then decreased rapidly until the end of August, leveled off until October, and then decreased again slightly between October and harvest in December (data not shown). Results of the statistical analysis (analysis of variance F values) of the data are shown in Table 1. The varieties exhibited large differences because they were selected for diverse stalk and growing characteristics. Seedpiece length and fungicide treatment were the two factors that affected stalk population within each variety over the growing season. Both factors decreased in signifi- cance as the growing season progressed, but were still highly significant at harvest. High populations in early growth resulted in high populations and high cane yields at harvest. The most important result, and one which we did not find in the previous experiment (5), was that cane yield was affected by the fungicide treatments.
Table 1. Analysis of variance F values for 12 population counts and final yields for two sugarcane varieties, two seedpiece lengths, and two fungicides at two levels compared with a check.
Dates Variety Length Fungicide VxL VxF LxF VxLxF
17
Table 2. Shoot populations (1000/ha) 75 days after planting for two sugarcane varieties, two seedpiece lengths, and two fungicides at two levels and a check, Canal Point, Florida.*
CAPTAFOL GUAZATINE Variety Seedpiece Length Check (971 ml/km) (1941 ml/km) (21 ml/km) (42 ml/km)
* Each treatment value shown represents the average of four replications.
*Each treatment value shown represents the average of four replications.
Gross cane yields at harvest are shown in Table 4. These yields compared very favorably with those we reported previously for seedpieces without heat treatment at twice the seed application rate (5). At harvest, the yield from long seedpieces was 8 percent greater than that from the short seedpieces. Both captafol treatments and the low level of guazatine treatment averaged 9 percent higher cane yields than those of treatments without any fungicide. The higher level of guazatine did not increase cane yield over that of treatments without any fungicide and cannot be recommended. Analysis of the length X fungicide means showed that the low level of captafol applied on the long seedpieces produced more cane yield at harvest than any other fungicide treatment applied to long seedpieces. With this treatment cane yield was 18 percent higher than that from the long-seedpiece treatments without any fungicide. Within the short seedpieces, both captafol treatments and the low level of guazatine increased cane yields over those re- sulting from treatments without any fungicide. The yield from short seedpieces that received the higher level of guazatine was less than that of the short-seedpieces that received no fungicide treatment.
CONCLUSION
The application of a captafol spray to mechanically harvested seedpieces lying in opened furrows before covering appears to enhance shoot emergence, to increase stalk populations at harvest, and to increase cane yields. The yields compared favorably with those reported previously for seedpieces planted at twice the rate used in this study. Further research to determine the optimum levels of captafol or other fungicides for furrow-spraying on mechanically harvested seedpieces is needed.
REFERENCES
1. Andreis, H. J. and E. H. Todd, 1976. The effect of hot water and fungicide treatments on germination of seedpieces used in replanting sugarcane fields in Florida. Proc. ASSCT 5(NS):114-118.
2. Bechet, C. R., 1978. Further evaluation of fungicides for control of pineapple disease of sugarcane.
The South African Sugar Journal, 62:85-88.
3. Bourne, B. A., 1948. Effects of benzene hexachloride and chlordane on the germination of sugarcane cuttings. Sugar Journal, 10(8):3-4,20.
4. Eiland, B. R. and J. D. Miller, 1979. Effect of seedpiece length and covering delay on yields of mechanically harvested seed cane. Hawaiian Sugar Technologists 1978 Reports, 37:(in press).
5. Eiland, B. R. and J. L. Dean, 1979. Increasing populations from mechanically harvested sugarcane seedpieces. Proc. ASSCT, 8(NS):(in press).
6. Steel, R. G. D. and J. H. Torrie, 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Incorporated, New York.
19
THE EFFECT OF PLANTING DATE ON YIELD AND ITS COMPONENTS OF SUGARCANE IN THE LOWER RIO GRANDE VALLEY OF TEXAS
Sim A. Reeves, Jr.
Associate Professor, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Weslaco, Texas
ABSTRACT
Historically, fall planting of sugarcane was a common practice in South Texas during the early 1900's though there is little reference to planting dates in the existing literature (6). In the early 1970's, Cowley (5) observed differences in growth and development of cane planted on different dates; however, a comprehensive study to determine the optimal planting dates was not undertaken at that time. In their feasibility study for the re-establishment of a sugarcane industry in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, F. C.
Shaffer and Associates (15) selected fall or early winter planting dates in the projection of production and harvesting schedules.
Research in other areas has shown differential varietal response in yield to changes in planting dates (2, A, 8, 13). Arceneaux (2,3), working in Louisiana, found that fall planting dates produced better yield and the most productive planting date differed among varieties. Later, Matherne (8, 9) found the same sig- nificant interaction between varieties and yield of cane and sugar per hectare at different planting dates.
Still in Louisiana, Fanguy and Benda (7) showed that spring plantings produced yields considerably below those of the same varieties planted in the fall.
Elsewhere, higher yields of cane were obtained in the Imperial Valley of California from August and October plantings than from those plantings made in November and December ( 4 ) . Ramos and Milo (13) reported differential varietal response to planting dates with the varieties NCo 310 and NCo 376 in Mozambique on the continent of Africa.
It has become apparent in recent years that information on optimal planting dates be determined for the major varieties grown in South Texas to maximize yield. This paper will show the effects of four planting dates on yield components of five sugarcane varieties in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
With the development of the Texas sugarcane enterprise, programs to develop optimum production prac- tices early indicated the further need of definitive data relative to planting date and varietal response interactions. Trials were conducted at Weslaco, Texas, to study the effects of planting dates on yield com- ponents of five varieties of sugarcane during the 1975-76 and 1976-77 production seasons.
1975-76 Trials
The effect of planting date on yield components was studied in randomized complete block experiments with four replications.
The five varieties selected for study along with their maturity classifications are as follows:
Early: L62-96, CP 57-614; Mid-Season: CP 65-357, CP 61-37; and Late: NCo 310.
The test site was routinely prepared for the plantings as scheduled. The seed cane of each variety was double line planted at 152 cm row spacings. The plots were four rows wide and 9.2 m in length. Nitrogen fertilizer was applied at 68 kg/ha and all plots were irrigated as needed. Insect control measures were ap- plied as infestation levels warranted; and all plots were maintained relatively free of weeds.
Planting dates and the number of days from planting to harvest are shown in Table 1. Harvest date for all plots was December 15, 1976.
1976-77 Trials
The procedures followed in conducting the trials in 1976-77 were identical to those of 1975-76. The planting dates, number of days to harvest and harvest dates are shown in Table 1. However, it should be noted that the first planting date was a month earlier in the fall and the last planting date was a month later in the spring; the growing season was extended at one end of the planting cycle and correspondingly shortened at the other.
