18 resultados para Corn as feed
Resumo:
In Arkansas, blackbirds are responsible for appreciable damage to rice, grain sorghum, oats, wheat, rye, and corn. By far, the greatest damage is to rice. As is shown in the following table, the losses to rice producers amounted to an estimated $3,049,055 in 1968, the last year that a survey was made. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of this loss was to standing rice destroyed and to the cost of bird control measure in standing rice. The remaining losses ($2,140,320 ) are to seeding or to efforts to control bird depredations to new seeding, (see Table 1). Blackbird damage to grain sorghum and corn was mostly to standing grain; that to oats, wheat and rye, to seeding, although there is occasional damage to standing grain. Additional problems are caused by blackbirds in feed lots. The total losses to Arkansas agricultural producers due to blackbirds in 1968 was about $3,500,000. Bird damage in a specific locality and on specific crops seems to vary in intensity from year to year. However, surveys during the past ten years suggest a fairly consistent level of total damage state-wide. The damage in 1968-and I believe in 1969—was somewhat lighter than we have come to expect from past exper¬ience. (See table 2.) On a per acre basis the damage in 1968 showed a considerable decline when compared to previous years. A part of this decline is probably a temporary situation. Some of the decline in losses to rice and grain sorghum, however, are due to changes in varieties, such as development of bird-resistant milo, and to changes in cultural methods. Further appreciable reductions due to changes in these factors seem unlikely, (see table 3.) Since rice producers sustain the greatest losses to birds, they have generated the greatest demand for bird control programs. Three species are responsible for most of the damage to rice. They are the red-winged blackbird, common grackle and brown-headed cowbird. These birds have created problems for rice producers since the first successful rice crop was grown near Lonoke, Arkansas, in 1904.
Resumo:
"How large a sample is needed to survey the bird damage to corn in a county in Ohio or New Jersey or South Dakota?" Like those in the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the U.S.D.A. who have been faced with a question of this sort we found only meager information on which to base an answer, whether the problem related to a county in Ohio or to one in New Jersey, or elsewhere. Many sampling methods and rates of sampling did yield reliable estimates but the judgment was often intuitive or based on the reasonableness of the resulting data. Later, when planning the next study or survey, little additional information was available on whether 40 samples of 5 ears each or 5 samples of 200 ears should be examined, i.e., examination of a large number of small samples or a small number of large samples. What information is needed to make a reliable decision? Those of us involved with the Agricultural Experiment Station regional project concerned with the problems of bird damage to crops, known as NE-49, thought we might supply an ans¬wer if we had a corn field in which all the damage was measured. If all the damage were known, we could then sample this field in various ways and see how the estimates from these samplings compared to the actual damage and pin-point the best and most accurate sampling procedure. Eventually the investigators in four states became involved in this work1 and instead of one field we were able to broaden the geographical base by examining all the corn ears in 2 half-acre sections of fields in each state, 8 sections in all. When the corn had matured well past the dough stage, damage on each corn ear was assessed, without removing the ear from the stalk, by visually estimating the percent of the kernel surface which had been destroyed and rating it in one of 5 damage categories. Measurements (by row-centimeters) of the rows of kernels pecked by birds also were made on selected ears representing all categories and all parts of each field section. These measurements provided conversion factors that, when fed into a computer, were applied to the more than 72,000 visually assessed ears. The machine now had in its memory and could supply on demand a map showing each ear, its location and the intensity of the damage.
Resumo:
In 1966, when the annual damage survey was initiated, Dr. C. R. Weaver, Statistician at the Ohio Agriculture Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio, drew up a sampling plan, balancing costs against desired precision. The plan included three combinations of fields to be sampled and stations per field for high damage areas, three combinations for moderate damage areas, and two combinations for light damage areas. Alternatives for the high damage area included (1) 497 fields with two stations per field (± .48), (2) 775 fields with two stations per field (± .26), and (3) 235 fields with ten stations per field (— .68). For the moderate damage areas, the alternatives were (1) 441 fields with three stations per field (± .26), (2) 155 fields with three stations per field (± .50), and (3) 235 fields with ten stations per field (± .32). The light dam¬age area alternatives were (1) 297 fields with three stations per field (- .26), and (2) 81 fields with three stations per field (± .50). The original survey in 1966 sampled eight counties in three regions. In 1967, 14 counties in the same three regions were sampled. Two new counties were added to one region and two new regions with two counties each (treated as one region for sampling purposes) were added to the 1968 survey. The 1968 survey was of sufficient size to be representative of the corn damage picture in Ohio and Southeast Michigan. The 1969 survey was identical to the 1968 survey.