EFFICTS OF INSECTICIDES ON EGYPTIANALFALFA WEEVIL, PEA APHID, BLUE

ALFALFA APHID, HAY PRODUCTION ANDFEED QUALITY

Eric T o Natwick1, Juan Go Guerrero1, and Martin

Lopez2

Eric Natwick

ABSTRACT

Several insecticides were evaluated for Egyptian alfalfa weevil and aphid control. Weevil larvae andaphids populations were reduced to varying degrees by insecticide treatments. Yield of alfalfa hayand feed quality as percentages of the hay comprised of leaf material were correlated to Egyptianalfalfa weevil larval feeding injury .Aphid feeding did not greatly reduce yield of hay nor impact thepercentages of leaf tissue in the hay. Neither the aphids nor the weevil feeding greatly changed theacid detergent fiber, percent crude protein, and the in vitro true digestibility.

Key Words: alfalfa, Egyptian alfalfa weevil, aphids, hay quality , insecticides

INTRODUCTION

Several major insect pests must be managed throughout the year for successful alfalfa hay productionin the Southwestern United States. Spotted alfalfa aphid (SAA) (Therioaphis maculata), pea aphid(PA) (Acyrthosiphon pisum), blue alfalfa aphid (BAA) (Acyrthosiphon kondoi), and Egyptian alfalfaweevil (EA W) (Hypera brunnepennis) are major pests that must be managed in the low desert eachspring, January through April (Anonymous 1985). Considerable progress has been made toward thecontrol of the aphid pests via host plant resistance (Nielson and Don 1974). All varieties of alfalfagrown in the Southwestern United States have some resistance to SAA ( Lehman 1978). Resistantvarieties along with aphid predators and parasites have reduced SAA to a minor pest. Host plantresistance has not been as complete to P A and BAA, which commonly build to potentially damagingnumbers each spring requiring insecticide applications to manage these pests. .Host plant resistanceto EA W has not been successful. Although several resistant varieties have been developed andreleased, resistance levels have been low and variable ( Lehman 1978). Insecticides still have amajor role in the management of EA W (Natwick 1987). The BAA and P A complex is commonlycontrolled in low desert alfalfa with chlorpyrifos,diazinon, dimethoate, or malathion and Egyptianalfalfa weevil is commonly controlled low desert alfalfa with carbofuran, chlorpyrifos, malathion,or phosmet (UCPMG 1996, Moore et al. 1989). Insecticides are applied to much of the alfalfaacreage in the low desert region of the Southwestern United States each year to control these pests.

E. Natwick and G. Guerrero, UCCE Fann Advisors Imperial County, UC Desert Research and Extension Center, 1050

Eo Holton Rd., Holtville, CA 92250: Mo Lopez, PhD student, Autonomous University ofBC, Mexicali, Mexico.

105

Our objectives were to compare the efficacy of selected insecticides against EA Wand the p A/BAAaphid complex and measure the impact of varying levels of EA Wand the aphid complex of variousalfalfa hay feed quality parameters and on yield of alfalfa hay through one cutting cycle.

MA TERIALS AND METHODS

A field study was conducted during the spring of 1996 at the University of California DesertResearch and Extension Center, Holtville, CA. A two year old stand of alfalfa, V AR.CUF 101, wasused for the experiment. Plots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with fourreplications. Insecticide treatments ofBaythroid@ (cyfluthrin) at 0.12 ptlac, Baythroid@ at 0.18 ptlac,Furadan@ (carbofuran) at 2.0 ptlac, Pounce@ (permethrin) at 0.25 ptlac, Pounce:B> at 0.25 ptlac withFuradan@ at 1.5 ptlac, Lorsban@ (chlorpyrifos) at 1.0 ptlac, Lorsban@ at 1.0 ptlac with Pounce@ at0.25 ptlac, Mustang@ (zeta-cypermethrin) at 0.21 ptlac, Mustang@ at 0.16 ptla with Furadan@ at 1.0ptlac, Success@ (spinosad) at 0.09 ptlac, and Success@ (spinosad) at 0.18 ptlac were included alongwith a control treatment which received on insecticide applications. Plots measured 30 feet by 60feet and insecticide treatments were broadcast applied 7 February using a tractor mounted sprayboom with 20 flat fan nozzles (80015) at 50 psi delivering 22 gpa.

A pre-treatment sample from each plot for EA W larvae and aphids consisting of five 180° sweepswith a standard 15 inch diameter insect net was taken on 5 February .Samples for EA W larvae andaphids were continued in the same manner after I day after treatment (DAT), 3 DAT, 7 DAT, 14DAT, and 21 DAT insecticide treatments. Six 0.25 m2 quadrants were randomly sampled by handclipping and separately bagging the alfalfa hay in each plot on 13 March. Each paper bag of hay wasdried in a dehydrator. Alfalfa sampled were weighed in grams. Leaves were then stripped from thestems and weighed. Stem weights were calculated from the difference in hay weight and leaf weight.Percent leaf values were then calculated. Percent crude protein (%CP) values, acid detergent fiber(ADF) values, and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) values were determined using standard analyticalpractices (Brothers et al. 1994, AOAC 1980, Goering and Van Soest 1970). Treatment differencesfor data set variables were estimated with analysis of variance (ANOV A) and mean separation witha protected Least Significant Differences Test (LSDo.os) and Duncan's Multiple Range Test(DMRTo.os) (MSTAT-C 1988). Coefficients of Correlation were estimated for feed qualityparameters and alfalfa hay yield (MST A T -C 1988).

RESUL TS AND DISCUSSION

The EA w larval populations aphid complex populations were found to be homogenous among theplots in the experiment from the pre-treatment samples (Table 1 and 2). Aphid population levels forall insecticide treatments except the Success@ were significantly lower than for the control treatmentsfrom 1 DAT through 21 DAT and for the cutting cycle mean values (Table 2). All insecticidetreatments except the Success@ treatments and the 0.12 ptlac rate of Baythroid@ reduced the EA Wlarval populations significantly below that of the control1 DA T. There after all insecticide treatmentEA W larval populations were significantly lower than the control. Treatments which includedFuradan@ had significantly fewer EA W larvae than any of the other treatments 1 DA T and 3 DA T ,and these treatments along with the Mustangcg) 0.21 ptlac treatment maintained EA W larvalpopulation levels below all other treatments 7 DA T through 21 DA T and for the cutting cycle mean

106

values (Tables 1 and 3). Treatments including Pounce(1), Lorsban(l) and Success(l) maintained EA Wlarval populations below the Baythroid treatments and the control.

All of the insecticide treatments with the exception of Baythroid<1> at the 0.12 pt/ac rate producedsignificantly more hay and had higher leaf weight than the control (Table 3). Treatments thatincluded Furadan<1> produced significantly more alfalfa hay and had higher leaf weight thanBaythriod@ at the 0.12 pt/ac rate. Stem weight results were similar to the leaf weight results, but onlyFuradan@, Mustang~ with Fufadan@, Pouncei> with Furadan@, Pounce@ with Lorsban<1>, andBaythroid<1> at the 0.18 pt/ac rate had significantly high stem weights than the control. All of theinsecticide treatments produced hay with higher leaf percentages than the control (Table 3). Percentleaf content above 53 is acceptable, 53 to 50 is marginal and below 50 is poor for alfalfa hayproduction in the Desert Southwest of the United States.

The percent crude protein (CP) values for all treatments with the exception of the control werewithin an acceptable range for California premium quality hay, although the values reported werenot exceptionally high for this region (Table 4). CP values below 20 are considered to be low foralfalfa hay produced in the Desert Southwest; the value for the control was 19.4. Only Pounce@ usedalone, Baythroid@ treatments, and Successi) at 0.09 ptlac did not produce alfalfa hay with CPsignificantly greater than the control (Table 4). Pounce@ with Furadanl3) produced hay withsignificantly higher CP than all other insecticide treatments except Pounce@ with Lorsban@ andMustang@ at 0.21 ptlac. Pounce@ with Lorsban@ produced hay with significantly higher CP than theSuccess@ treatments, the Baythroid<1> treatments, Furadan@ used alone and Pounce@ used alone. Apercent acid detergent fiber (ADF) range of 26 to 28 represents alfalfa hay of excellent to goodquality for the Desert Southwest of the United States. ADF values greater than 28 are consideredmarginal for this production region. All of the insecticide treatments with the exceptions ofMustang<1> and Mustang~ with Furadan@ were within the excellent to good range for ADF (Table 4).Only treatments of Pounce~ with Lorsban@ (26.3) and Success@ at 0.18 ptlac (26.0) produced haywith significantly lower ADF than the control (29.2). All of the insecticide treatments and thecontrol were within acceptable range for in vitro true digestibility (Ivm) for this region; a value of72 or less being considered low. Only the Baythroid@ treatments and the Success@ at 0.09 ptlactreatment did not have IVm values significantly greater than the control which had the lowest IVmof76.4 (Table 4). Pounce@ with Furadan<1> produced an IVm value of78.9 which was significantlygreater than all other treatments with the exceptions of Pounce~ with Lorsban@, and Lorsban@ usedalone.

.

Alfalfa hay quality and crop production value should not be based on anyone of the feed qualityparameters alone. For example, Mustang@ with Furadan@ and Mustang@ used alone produced haywith relatively high ADF values of29.4 and 29.2, respectively. The control had an ADF value of29.2, but also had a lower CP value 19.4, the lowest Ivm value 76.4, the lowest percent leaf contentof 48 and the lowest yield of 1.83 tonslac. The Mustang@ with Furadanlfl and Mustang@ used alonetreatments produced CP values of20.5 and 21.1, Ivm values of77.4 and 77.6, percent leaf contentof 54.6 and 55.6, and produced yields of 2.84 and 2.45 tonslac, respectively. Both of the Mustangtreatments were of acceptable quality to receive California premium pricing with acceptable yieldsfor a March cutting. The control treatment hay yield and quality was lower than other treatments.

107

Correlation analysis did not reveal a relationship of aphid population densities with hay yield orquality nor was there a correlation of EA W densities to feed quality other than percent leaf content(Table 5). The coefficients of correlation for EA W densities to hay yield and percent leaf contentwere -0.67 and -0.66, respectively. The alfalfa variety in the experiment was resistant to SAA, PA,and to BAA. The resistance to SAA, antibiosis, limited the pest to below detection limits. P A andBAA were abundant in control samples and present in other treatments, the mechanism of resistanceis tolerance preventing sever yield and quality losses, rather than antibiosis, which helps explain thelack of correlation of aphid densities with hay yield and hay quality .P A and BAA have suckingmouth parts and consume plant sap from alfalfa stems. P A and BAA do not directly reduce the leafcontent of the hay by consuming leaf tissue. Indirectly, aphids may reduce yield and may have anaffect on the leaf to stem ratio by consuming large quantities of carbohydrates, nutrients and byremoving water from the alfalfa plants. BAA and SAA are capable of stunting susceptible varieties.High aphid densities deposit honeydew, a sticky excrement of sugars and amino acids. Honeydewcan foul harvesting equipment and supports the growth of sooty molds reducing marketability ofhay. EA W larvae are leaf feeding insects with chewing mouth parts. EA W larvae consume largequantities of leaf tissue directly changing the leaf to stem ratio and lowering the overall yield of hay.

LITERA TURE CITED

AOAC. 1980. Official methods of analysis (13th ed.). Assoc. of Official Analytical Chemists,Washington, D.C.

Anonymous 1985. Integrated pest management for alfalfa hay. Univ. Calif. Statewide IPM Proj.,Publication 3307.96 pp.

Brothers, B.A. 1r., Sahmidt, 1.1. Kells, and D.B. Hestennan. 1994. Alralfa establishment with andwithout spring applied herbicides. J. Prod. Agric. 7:494-501.

Goering, H.K. and p .1. Van Soest and R. W. Hernken. 1973. Relative susceptibility of forages to heatdamage as affected by moisture, temperature, and pH. 1. Diatary Sci. 56:137-143.

Lehrnan, W .f .1978. Breeding alfalfa for tomorrow. Proceedings Eighth California Alfalfa

Symposium, pp. 1-9.

Moore, L., M. Rethwisch, M. Lame, and G. Dick. 1988. Alfalfa insect pest manag.ement. Univ. Ariz.College of Agric., Publication 8827. 19 pp.

Natwick, E. T. 1987. Weevil and wonn management for low desert alfalfa production. ProceedingsSeventeenth California Alfalfa Symposium, pp. 94-100.

Nielson, M.W., H. Don. 1974. Interaction between biotypes of the spotted alfalfa aphid andresistance in alfalta. J. Econ. Entomol. 67:368- 70.

UCPGM. 1996. Alfalfa pest management guidelines. Univ. Calif. IPM Proj.. UCPGM Publication2.33 pp.

108

I.QQ'I

Q'I

~~

.~

<=

Q

-r,S

~.-N-;u.;i;

'0=

~

.G

<Q

Q

=

~~

~

~rIJ-=~e-'0~

~

t <

~

Q~

t--

'"=.-~..:~~rIJ '0=

~

": <

=

Qo.c

~~>-

~<Q~

~~$:C

I1~>.-.Q~

\.I)

~

t~~C~

~

~

-~=

~

>

--~

-

~

c..

~~-~-<=~.=~

-=.~

~

e

~

-~

~

c=

~<

~

~

-Q-cQu"C~-~~--=~ ""1;

~ ~~~~~ ea

~~C'I

~ ~~.

~~~ ~~~~

~

~~IC~

N'10.-0~.c->.

d= ~~~ "Q~~="f"'"

,Qf"!~- .Q~r-..Q

'I- .Q~Q~-"Q

.N~

.= .Q~11")11")

N"=.-Q--=-~~= ~In~ "0~,Q~r--~ .Q~Q~ .Q~~~~ C

J

t-:!I)~ ~.c~0'1~'Q

.~~

.=

urIJ~rs(13(13C

)~~=

rIJ

~~ ,Q~~~ ~~-~ 'Q~<=

;~II') ~~11")11")

C,j

~~"Q.

C'I

~Q

u\.I)~~{12{12Q

JC

JC

J=\.I)

~Q~ ,Q~~~0'1

-e'o:t:

~ 'Q~~~'Q.

~~.

= "C~\CN "0~~.-j

u~~~rs~~==Q~ ~~~ "8~~NQ.

tI)~Q ~~r")~ ~'c:~'..c v~N!I)

'0r"!~~

u~~8=~.Q(,11-Q~ =.

~~ ~.c~~81')

CJ

~Q~

~

"0~~~'Q.

QQ;

N -0f":IrIN "0~~~

+Uu

~~

~"f!t

~8

8 =

~

~~

..c=

(1!

=

"'Q

Q

~~

~\C1'--

~Q.j

~~~ QJ

Q;

-- ~~QN -0C':

":2'~ '"0r-..N---Q

,Q,

Ir)QN

Q

Q

109

~~"1@~;-rn=~ ~'1")

t'"- Q)

"C~~N qj~=~ c..~

.~ Q

.)

~N'0,~~Q ~~~

r..~~=eu

"0eu'-=r..

~~~ ~~=- ;0.

~~ Cooo

-~ ~~- ~~--Q,

Q~~

+~~~~

-~30t1 3==

~

~"C

-~(I) ;..

=

=

~~

~N~ rf!i

"!t'--

~t-:~ f...,

~~ ~t":~ 4)

~~--c.c.

\Co

-0Q~

+u~~

~~~IS

IS

=qJ

~~

"C=

~

=

""0

==

-~

--Q,Q

.

ll')Q

~=

.Q

N

~~ ~

~IC ~~N c...

~N

~

r"'!

~ 0)

~~

~~-Qc.~-~;~=~~e~~

.eIC

-

~

cS-rn

=~

~

~

-~

-

-~~ rn

=

-

-~.Q

~

~

~~

.~

=rn

.

.-"'

Q

rn =

!~

~

~

=

~~

=

=~

Q

~~

--~eJI

Q>

. ~

~

.Q

~.Q

...~

rnrn

=~

.=

e.---a.

E-~

=c.

<~

-~

Q

~

8

~

.-~

==

~

~

-a.=~

.=.

=

a ~

~

.-=

.:.ae~~

~rn~

~=

--~eQ

-=

~~

-cS~

~e-rn-

.--~

=

~.:=

~

~

~

c.

-~~

-~~

-rn-rn~

~~

eJI==

~

- ~

Q

~

--Q~

~s

~

" -=

~

'0Eo-

<QN'0Eo-

<Q

.~'.c ~~oti

'0U

E

o-~

<

~

Q.-j>

o f"'

-0~~

'0-E

o-5

<

8 Q

-~

~~-Eo-

~"0 '0

.-'"'

.~

Eo-

-<~

~(IJ=

-rIJ=Q.--~~

.cC1)

Eo-

~I~-

~

~~

--

~

-C

1) Q

.

~j>o

.-~-~<-

...N

~

~

..

..J .s

=

a1<

-

Eo-

Eo-

~

~~IC~ .c~-=-.

CJ

~'.cff')- C

.I

~II')~~Q~r---Q1/")

~~~~'1}

-Q--=Qu"CQj

-~Qj

-=;J

cu

~Ntt')~ ~'I't~t--rf')

==;

=IoC~ ~~=r-..~ ~~~N11}

=rf"!~~Nu~~~

(1!(1!

~~=~ Q.

~.

Q

eu

~NQ"I ,Q~~N .Q~~N=~t-oo'..c~ ~~

.N~ ,Q~r--.\CII)-uC

I)~8(12(12~~~--CI)

-Q.

=-.

=;

Q

.Q-=.

~r"')

~,Q~r--.M ~~N~ 'Q-

.IC~ '0~~r--

o"1r--.11')~~~~

=~'Q~-=~ '0,=~~

.c~11")rf') C

J

t'.~~ 0)~~NI,C 4;"0=

.t--11")

InN.

\Cr"')~ .Q~r-.~u~~~

=~"Q~""0~ -s.Q~N

~"Q~~~ ~CJ

~~- Cj

~r-.N ~

-0~~ ~'e"tr-.Ir)II')r--.~~~+~~~

~~

~O

!) ~=

=

~~

'Q-~rn

-=

=

~~ Q.Q

.IC

Q~

QQ

~

'Q~~~ (.J

~~~ CJ

~11")

~

~~tI')

tI')

an~~~~ ~~.

=N+u~~

~~

~~

~

=~

eo:

~'Q

=

eo:=

-

c =

=-~

Q,Q

,ll')Q~

QQ

N

110 ,QN.

~~ ~~r-..ff') ~~~~ c...~~!I)~-=~N~~ ~

.Q~~~M~.-=10..c-~~ 'Q

.N-

.=

~4J

"!~~Q"':r-.'oC~ C

J.Q~\CN C

.I.Q~11")N C

J

~r-.~ (J

e-;NtI)~'0.-0--=-~= '0,~~

.=

11")t".~~~ .cr"-.-~ '"0C

J

~~- ~~.

~~ ~~N11")

~~Q\

~-0.~MQ

(J.c'=

:II')N ~

~ff")

ff") ~t-:t--~ c ~'=

:

~Q'=.

Q~~ ~.,Q'C.

~~

~~

u(1")

~..;

~8

~~

8

c ~

~

r..)-c~

==

Q

~

~ -s.11")~=

.'C~"t=8.~""~""~rn=~~e'C~E

.cE\C

rn

~

=~

~

-""~

-~

~~

"" ~

~

>=

~

"" ""

,Q

.~

.~

rn

VI

,.- .-=

-rn =

'=

~

~0

~~

'C

;~

3 ,,"Q

o cE

Q

'C

,Q

~

~,Q

.: =

e

'C

.~

=~

c""-

.-r-" ~

o

"'S.

<~

~c.

Q

=~

-..s

.-

rn~-~

-:s--=

'C.-

=c.~

'C~

~=e

e ~

=

~

--0

";rn~E

'.Q~

-=""

0 ~

"" -~

""

-~,,"rn~

~e~

=c.

"Q-~

~~

.-=

-"" rn

~

~

,,-- -

.::. ""

rn ~

=

~~

Q

~

~£!~

~-=

~

.."0

rIJ==~~

~"0~

.-

-.cCJ

Q.

G

<

~=.---=

"

u ~

"0 <

=

~=.,..:-=~~

~-~=

.<IJ

~I,e

-

CJ~

~

-~

IW'

~-

~

~=~

.--=.c

-~.~

c.s

~~

.-"'[i3

>-

=;;..

=

Q-U

E

--=

~

-~Q-

E--=

="O

.:E

~=

Q

~

==

.c

e .,j

e~

- ~

-=r,f1 ~.,..:-e=

-

~

=

~

~

f ~

~~

<

IJQ

'"' -

~

ee:S

~

CJ

I/') .-N

-.CJ

=

~-~

e

~-

<IJ

Q.rIJ

rIJ =

~

e .~

a

=

-~-=

~>=.-=~.-

=

~=

Q

~

-~=

- -

=~

~

rIJ

Q.

--<

.>~

~

Q

~

;:=~

.~

"0~

=

~<

.rIJ =

~"0

<IJ

~:E

e

~~

-;

=

<IJ

<

--E

--c.s E

--

~~8=eo:"0eo:-=~ ~~NN =~Q~ eu

\Q~N ~~1/)1/)

~~~~ u~~~.Qeu

~t"-~"00Q~~

eu

~~rf') ~~~N ~"c;

~ ~~I,c~+~~~~

-~18on 18==

~

~~

~

~=

-

~~ ~~~~ ~'-=;

-N ~~-=:

\C=---C.Q

.

\C=

~=

=...;

+u~~

f"!~rf')~

~~

~

a~

'O=

eu

=

-Q

=

~~

.c~I'-:f"' ~~~~ ~~e'\~ ~~~N ~

~II')

II')

.c~~~ 'Q:~~:5~Q

.Q.

ll')QN

Q

QN

N'=.-Q"".c->

.~~ eu

~=N .c~I:'-:t--~ .QtU~'C

.N ~~11")11")

~~~ 'C~~0-.=~.cea

~.

t'-~'Q.

~.-j.

=

+Uu

~~

~~~3

8 =

~

=V

.Q=

"J

=

1.Q

Q

Q...J

.Q~~'C~ .c~='C;

N ~

'-c;

~II')

~~\CN "Qrj

c:=;

~Q~.c~~\C.-4

,Q~1:":Q

'I~Q

.Q.

ll)QN

Q

Q--

,Q=~0'1- ,Q=-

.\C~ .Q=~"':N ="':\0II') ~'e~~II')

-0CJ

~~Q~u~~r")

8QJ

r.,J==~ ~..Q=~.,)~-c.

II')f"!=111

u~~~{11{11~~~=~ ,Q=~='-

- .Q~t'!II)~ ,Qeu

~"!N ~~11")11")

0)'Q~~!I) ,Q~~Q

'\~~

~..Q~~11")~Q

.0'1-=

.Q

u~~~c~.Q"'10.Q~ C

.I,Q~~!I)..,;

,Q~~~- ~=.11")

~ ,Q~

=111.N =~r-.11'}

0)Q

;N~ "0C

J

~N,-.4,-.4

"5.Q.:=

.N

u~~~~~Q

Jvv=~ C

.I.,Q~~'I')~ .QtU

~~~ ,.Q~8:'.~r"')

.Qeur-..~N cu~

.

~ 0)'Q~\C~ euNQ~~-c.

~.

Q

.0~=.

~.-4

.0~~~~ ..Q~11")

~N ~~InIn ~~QN 'Q~!I)0\~~~-@

01)=~-(11=~ ~.c~~tI')

~"5.-~=

N'fc.-Q"".c>

.~= ~

.Q~~~ (.).Q'C~N

~

~~Ir)

.Qr--.QN

~

.Q~~~ .c~r---- ~~~~~Q

.N~

.e

."CQ

J

't&QJ

-QJ

-cu~cuQJ

e"CQJ

e-cSrI)ccu--Q

JrI)-Q

J

QJ

-.~rI).-.rI)

on=:

"; Q

=C

Clj

cu~

cS.,Q

'Q

(IJQ

J c

(IJ e

=

=

QJ-

-QQJ

y

~

ccu

.=--~

="C

~

"C

rI)Q

J c

e .~

--cS

E

(IJ cu

c c.

cu Q

J-rI)-~

cQ

cu

~

Q.J

" ::::

~(IJ

."E.cQ

.~~~~~

(IJ-.-"'~

~

~

~

~

~~=~rI}~.-.=Q

. .,Q

~\C

~

-~

~0-

~~

~

rI} ~

Q

=

.-~

=

~

-

~;E~

~~

u~

~u~

-,.0!) .-~

.5.f U

=

0 ~

==

U

~rI}~

-=

=~

~

~

erI}

--~~

~

~

-~e~

~

~

~

--'0

Q.

~

.~~

-.:

.c-~.-rI}-=~

-=

rI}

0=~

.S~

-

~

~~

>

-.=

~

~~

.5

e~

~

"';

~

Q

~~

=

-~

~

~

~

~~t--

0:~~~ '0~~QQ-~~~N ,Q~\CN+u~~

~~

~~

~

=Q

J ~

r.J'O=

~

=

""Q

=

~~

--Q,Q

,

ll)QN

Q

QN

.ceu

I~-M .Q~~r--N .ceu

~~r--

'-.0

~~N '0:CJ

=.

~~+Uu

r.1r.1~

~~

~~

=

~

~~

,.Q=

rn

=

-0

0=

--~

--Q.Q

.

ll')Q

~-=

;

Q

~,Q~~~N ~~~N CJ

.Q'C.

r--r-- ~~QN 'Q~In~~~

u

!11. ~

~

~

1:80t1 1:8=

=

~~

,Q

-~~ I..

=

Q

~

...J

'Q.

~~=

~~.cr-:QN ,Q~~t"-N ~.Q~~~t-- O

J

=.N~ "0~'C.

N--"Q.

Qc=.

N

"0~.Q~=N ~~e'IN ~.c~r--r--

0.=01)

~\C~ "0(.J

=;

\CQ+~r-l~

~~

80f) 8=

=

~~

'C-~rn

-=

=

~~

--c.c.

\C=

~=

..=

~CJ

~ON .cec

0=:

t'-N 'Cyf"!~ .c~":t;~- tJ

r--:MM-~~'8=~'0~s..

=~ oWc.

Q~

112

.Q=;

ICN (.J.Q~r-oor-oo

~"0~I,e~ ~~Q-~u~~~(I](1]~r.,Ir.,I=~ ~~~=N-c.

~~.

Q

.c~~~N ~,.Q~~ ~"0~~I#)

'Q~~~Q~u~~~8~(J==~ ~'Qy~eN-0.!I)~Q

.Qeu

'o:t.~N ~C

J

f"!t'-t'- <

J

=.

e'\t'- ~~~0\Q-M"0.a-~--~~~ ~'Q~t'f1=N"Q

.~~

.Q

,Q~-=N~~~.-0-.c->.

~~ ~-0Cj

~=N .c~~1'--N 'Qr,J,Q~r"""r"""

"C~~~~"Q.

N~.

Q

'e~~11")

u(I)~8(1)(I)Q

J<

.I<

.I=(I) ~"0~.

=N .Q~~r-.N 'Qr,J

~r-..r-..

.Q=~e\~ff')-Q,

~<=

;Q

~

~e\~ ~~Q\

N 'e~I,ct' ~=.t-o

tf')~ ,Q~~rf')

-0-=ou'C~-ec~-=~

.

-d~"tQQ.

~-~-=~=~e"0~e-cSr12==--~r12-~~~-r.,)'

.-r12 .

~

:g-.=

Q

=

=~

=~-cS£

"0 r12

~

=

.~

e-~

=

~

--.c

.~

Q

c~~

rJ=

==

=

=

=

.-

.-~

.c -.c

~

~

.-=

--=---"0~Q

~r12

~

--~"0r12

Q.~

.-~=

~"0"0eQ

"O"0~

--.:=

.-=cS

=

b~.=

~;

--Q=

Q.

==

--~~

~

--w

.

~~

.~~

=~

~=

Q~

~:-::;:.~

TABLE 5. Coefficients of Correlation for Feed Quality Parameters, Alfalfa Hay Yield, LeafWeight in Grams, and Percent Leaf from Hay, Holtville, Califo

%CPa %ADFb IVTDc gIn Hay grn Leaf %Leaf

EAW -0.38** 0.11 -0.49** -0.55** -0.67** -0.66**

a Percent crude protein.b Percent acid detergent fiber .c In vitro true digestibility .

*P 0.05** P0.01

.

113