Search

Well‐managed irrigated pasture production can be optimized without nitrogen (N) fertilizer. The objective was to determine mixture and planting ratios of tall fescue (Schedonorus arundinaceaSchreb.) (TF), meadow brome (Bromus ripariusRehm.) (MB), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerataL.) (OG), timothy (Phleum pratenseL.) (TIM), and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenneL.) (PRG) with alfalfa (Medicago sativaL.) (ALF), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatusL.) (BFTF), or cicer milkvetch (Astragalus cicerL.) (CMV) that maximize productivity. Planting ratios were 0:100 (grass:legume), 25:75, 50:50, 75:25, and three 100:0 grass monocultures fertilized at 0, 67, and 134 kg N ha−1. Seasonal production of TF–ALF was 12.69 Mg ha−1, equal to TF fertilized at 134 kg N ha−1. ALF mixtures with MB, OG, TIM, and PRG produced 12.57, 10.97, 11.77, and 10.74 Mg ha−1, respectively, and 8 to 40% more than grasses receiving 134 kg N ha−1. Production of BFTF mixtures with TF, MB, and OG were 11.69, 11.45, and 9.95 Mg ha−1, respectively, equal to their respective grass monoculture receiving 134 kg N ha−1. The BFTF–TIM and BFTF–PRG mixtures averaged 12% more forage than grass monocultures receiving 134 kg N ha−1. Production of CMV‐grass was similar to that of grasses receiving 67 kg N ha−1. Seasonal forage distribution was more uniform in ALF– and BFTF–grass mixtures, averaging 30% more at the second and third harvests than fertilized grasses. The TF and MB legume mixtures averaged 7% more production in the 50:50 planting ratios than the other two grass–legume mixtures, while the 50:50 and 25:75 ratios of OG and TIM–legume mixtures averaged 12% more than the 75:25 and the 25:75 PRG–legume planting ratio averaged 9% more than the 50:50 and 75:25. Forage production of grass–legume mixtures can equal or exceed fertilized grass monocultures and with more uniform distribution over the growing season.

Cytoplasmic inheritance studies concerning agronomic characters and seed quality traits have often produced contradictory results. The use of parental lines with similar cytoplasms may explain the seeming discrepancies, since differences among the cytoplasms were not identified in previous studies. Differences among cytoplasms have been identified in soybean [Glycine max(L.) Merr.] by means of chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) terns. This study was conducted to determine if cytoplasmic effects exist in soybean. Ten soybean lines representing five cpDNA cytoplasmic groups were crossed to ‘Harosoy 63’ and ‘Clark 63’ to produce 40 F1and reciprocal F1populations. Ten Harosoy 63 F1and reciprocal F1populations were advanced to the F2generation for evaluation in the following year. The parents, crosses, and reciprocal crosses were evaluated for the following agronomic characters: developmental stages, height, leaflet characteristics, and seed size. The population means and variances of each reciprocal cross were examined. Reciprocal cross means were significantly different for agronomic characters in only 8% of the crosses. Reciprocal crosses rarely differed with respect to the variances. Protein, oil, fatty acid, and amino acid composition were examined in composite samples of seed for each line. Significant differences were observed for only a few reciprocal crosses. Protein and oil concentration each differed in only one reciprocal cross. Oleate and linoleate concentration differed the most often, accounting for eight of the 10 significant reciprocal cross differences observed for fatty acid types in the F1and F2generations. Reciprocal cross differences involving the aliphatic amino acids were observed in four of the five cytoplasmic groups, but were not consistent with the cpDNA RFLP. groupings. Consistent cytoplasmic effects, based on cpDNA RFLP groupings, were not observed for any of the traits examined. The significant differences that were observed may have been due to nuclear × cytoplasmic interactions, short‐lived maternal effects, or Type I error.

Details the AgrAbility for Pennsylvanians program promoting disabled agricultural worker independence. Contents of the program; Eligibility of people to apply an AgrAbility program; History of the AgrAbility program.