HTHS I. THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN ROWS AND RATE OF PLANTING UPON YIELDS OF SOYBEAN HAY AND SEED II. THE POSSIBILITY OF MUNG BEAN SEED PRODUCTION IN MICHIGAN Thesis for the Degree of M. S- MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Irven Theodore Larsen I942 . . . .. . . I . I {x m .I ..u .u. ya: u r I? . I . .‘A. . .p.. n .3. Mail- mzwln... .ur...—. (.o’rAWu 14.34.. ~vfm¢~b~ .10.. . , l‘l}!fl «if? t 3! ‘f” . l'-\'\c\o ct , . . . . . a . . . u I (. .. Ii _ .4. ,1 v.4. f/Q YJ. .Vkfiflao ;. . ..‘ I. . . . .. u . . . ..( <6 .. , V 1 I . In .1. . x .‘ I : o .. . r . In. 'of. VitrI I .. a: .rlP/r . .. Q. .7... . .5 40/007}... ’13. I . n . .. , libim I ‘. . . l . 4 r I . .. xxdlh 1.... - xamrfin.....v_n._rx...1g..h.u_....l,}. 9.x.»1...},4211s3» . y. .. .u .. . . . ~ . r... L . I . J . a- .I I .Q h . .. .. ,.,. . . I I: Q IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IT I 9 7 0 5 1 9 m 3 9 2 1 3 IIIIIIIIIII PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE .~ 0 . @rIflfim 11/00 CJCIRC/DateouepGS-p. 14 “Ho-““7 7 I. THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN ROWS AND RATE OF PLANTING UPON YIELDS OF SOYBEAN HAY AND SEED II. THE POSSIBILITY OF MUNG BEAN SEED PRODUCTION IN MICHIGAN by IRVEN THEODORE LARSEN W A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Farm Craps 1942 CONTENTS I. THE EFFECT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN ROWS AND RATE OF PLANT- ING UPON YIELDS OF SOYBEAN HAY AND SEED 1. Introduction...................... 1 2. Review of Literature.............. 5 3. Methods............a.............. 4 4. Results......................g.... 6 a. Hay.......................... 7 be Seed......................... 8 50 Summaryoooooooooeoeeeeoo900.00.00012 6o B1bliOgraphy......................14 II. THE POSSIBILITY OF MUNG BEAN SEED PRODUCTION IN MICHIGAN l. Introduction......................l5 2. EBView of Literature..............16 3. Methods.........1.................18 4. Results...........................19 5. Summary...........................23 6. BibliographyOOOOOO0.0.0.000000000025 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. C. R. Megee for his assistance, constructive criti- cism, and advice throughout the problem and during the pre- paration of this thesis. Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. E. E. Down, and Mr. H. M. Brom for their assistance during the preparation and review or this thesis. INTRODUCTION Previous to 1930 the soybean was grown almost entirely in Michigan as a forage crOp. Less than 15% of the cr0p was harvested for beans. Since 1950 commercial companies have in- creased their demand for soybeans; the government has tender- ed payment for reducing the acreage of other craps and.has allowed the planting of soybeans in the reduced acreage. Consequently the soybean acreage has increased over 30 times in the last ten years. At the present time approximately 40% of the crop is harvested for beans, 34% for hay, and 26% is used for pasture and green manure. The rise in acreage is graphically illustrated in Table I. This increase in acreage has changed the conditions un- der which the soybean is grown in this state. The 7,000 acres grown in 1950 were grown principally in the southern 2/5 of the lower peninsula and were planted where a supple- mentary hay crop was needed. For the most part, the beans were planted in 7 or 28 inch rows. The increase has been primarily in the more southern part of the state where the soybean is being substituted for corn, and is being planted in the same field with.corn in many instances. Planting in the 7 and.28 inch rows causes a conflict in cultural oper- ations since corn is planted in 36 or 42 inch rows. With -3- such a situation existing, a great many questions concerning width of row and rate of planting are being asked. These questions are further accentuated by an increase in the number of tractors on Michigan farms, and a tendency to standardize equipment as much as possible, 1.6. to use the same cultivator for corn and soybeans without changing width of row adjustment of the implenent. From this stand- point it is desirable to plant the soybeans in the same width of row as the other crOps. An experiment was set up on the College.Farm.at East Lansing during the growing season of 1941 to determine the relative yields of two standard Michigan varieties of soy- beans to plantings made at different width of rows and rates within the row. REVIEW OF LITERATURE The results of other experiment stations are of little value in answering the question of row widths for Michigan. The soybean plant has the ability of adapting itself to soil and climate. Morse and Cartter (7) make the statement, "Differences in behavior of the same pure line variety in different localities are very striking, so much so that it is often difficult to believe the variety is the same." Wiggans at Ithaca, New'York (11) found that the soybean was able to make wide adjustments to space. He further concludes from.his work, that "Optimum rates and spacings should be de- terndned, not only for the various soybean producing areas, but also for the varieties to be grown.." The recommended row widths and rates of planting of sons of the other exp periment stations are given in Table II. TABLE II DISTANCE BETWEEN ROWS AND RATES OF PLANTING RECOMMENDED BY EXPERIMENT STATIONS Station . Rggommendation Remarks Distance Be- Rate of tween rows. Planting Cornell (11) 8 The optimum.gave 6 plants per square foot. ‘ Illinois 3 24“ 50-70 lbs. Kansas 12 8" 80-90 lbs. Recommended for weed , free land only. 21 25.40 lbs 0 Nebraska (5) up to 42""'so-4o lbs. Minnesota (I) 16, so, & 24 90-;00 lbs. 6" 90-120 lbs. Indiana (27F 28" 60 lpg. 7" 120 lbs. Weed free land only. Ohio (8) 22" 60 lbs. Tests showed no con- sistent relationship between spacing of grows and yield. METHODS Two varieties were selected for the test, the Manchu amt the Mandarin. The Manchu is the leading all purpose variety in Michigan. Approximately 90% of the soybean acre- age in the state is planted to the Manchu variety. The Man- darin is a typical early variety recommended for seed pro- duction in the southern part of Michigan where wheat follows soybeans in the rotation. The row widths and rates of planting used in the experi- ment are given in Table No. III. The number of inches per -5- plant was determined from.counts made when the plants were from 6" to 8" high. One cultivation (f the beans had been made prior to the tine of counting. TABLE III ROW WIDTHS, RATES OF PLANTING AND INCHES BETWEEN PLANTS IN THE ROW Treatmen: Inches Per Plant 3 e 9. an "' Between in Manchu Mandarin Rows e . ea 9 . ea e . ea 100 2 88 3.95 15 - 7.45 4.0 11 8.16 3.15 2 verage 033 30 2e31 The common.method of planting soybeans in Michigan (28" rows at 55# of seed per acre) was used as a.check, which was planted at 4 plot intervals across the field. Each of the treatments were duplicated and four 16 foot samples were taken from.each.plot, making a total of 8 samples for each treatment. These samples were taken from correspond- ing areas in each plot. Hay yield were secured when the bean seeds were half de- . veloPed. The plots were harvested by hand, the weeds were removed and the weight of green fiarage obtained within ten minutes after the plot was cut. -5- The Mandarin plots were harvested for seed when the beans had dried down to 35% moisture in the field. The plots were thrashed immediately after cutting. The seed had a moisture content of 12% wren the weights of the plots were taken. In the case of the Manchu, very poor curing weather was encountered at harvest time so the plots were cut, tied in- to bundles and shocked in the field. Although they remain- ed in the shock for a period of six weeks before curing suf- ficiently to thresh, very little damage occurred and seed of excellent quality was obtained. At the time of weigh- ing the seed contained 12.5% moisture. The yield data of hay and seed was analyzed statisti- cally by two different methods, the P/C (9) and the Analysis of Variance I10). RESULTS When compared with the Mandarin, the Manchu showed more vigor and vegetative growth throughout the season. Weeds were more of a problem.in the case of the former than in the latter, although.they affected the yield of seed and the quality of the hay in.both cases. The results of the different treatments are given in Tables IV and V. The effect of rate of planting is summarized in Table VI, and the effect of spacing between rows is summarized in Table VII. -7- TABLE IV EFFECT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN ROWS AND RATES OF PLANTING UPON YIELDS OF HAY Treatment --T s ance a e Between Lbs. Per Mandarin Rows Acre '7" '70 oo Aver e an s 3* 2.47 Difference neces- , . S for 31 ficance are 0055 e * The average for the P/C analysis is the average of the check plots. HAY Hay yields of the Manchu variety planted in 42" rows were significantly lower than the yields of the other'row widths. There were no significant differences between the remaining row widths although the 7" rows were slightly higher. The quality of hay produced by the 42" row plots was low due to an excessive amount of coarse woody stems. An excess of weeds in the 7" row plots decreased the value of the hay. Little difference in.quelity was noted between Tl'll’lllllllllllll ................ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO -8- the 28" rows and the 55" row plots. The highest yield of hay, 2.75 tons per acre, was produced by 28" rows at 55# of seed per acre. The response of the Mandarin to rates of planting was more marked than the response of the Manchu. The smaller, less vegatative plants did not possess the vigor to compete with the weeds and lacked.sufficient growth to completely cover the wider rows. This characteristic is reflected in the hay yields by a variation from 1.50 tons to 2.95 tons. The variation of the Manchu was from 2.14 tons to 2.75 tons per acre. The 7" rows gave a significantly higher yield with the Mandarin variety, but an excessive amount of weeds reduced the quality of the hay. The yield of the 42" row plots was significantly lower than the other plots. As was the case with the Manchu, the wide row plots produced a coarse Stem! med hay e SEED The seed production of the 7" row plots of both varie- ties was significantly less than the yield produced by the 28", 55", and 42" row plots. The 7" row plots were charac- terized by an excessive amount of weeds, late maturity and very few pods per plant. -9- TABLE V EFFECT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN ROWS AND RATE OF PLANTING UPON SEED YIELDS Treatment Yields-Bu. Per Acre Distance Rate Between Lbs. Per Manchu Mandarin Rows Acre 7" 12 75 8.57 17 . 28 14 22.24 55 2O 94 42 P C al 813* 20 78 20.10 of ar. 19 45 . Difference necessary for significance Var. 2.99 4.25 *The average for the P/C analysis is the average of the Check plots. . The best yields of seed from.the Mandarin variety were obtained from.the wider rows. The high yield of 25.95 bushels obtained by planting in 55" rows at 41 lbs. per acre was not significantly different from.the yields of the remaining row plots planted at the medium.and heavy rates of seeding. Taken as a whole the yield of the 28" row plots were significantly lower than the yield of the 55" and 42" row plots. The yield of Manchu seed on the 55" row plots was sig- nificantly higher than the yield of the 42" row plots. The yield of the 28" row plots was not significantly higher than -10.. the 42" row plots or significantly lower than the 55" row plots. The plants in the 42" rows had a tendency to lodge with no seed being produced where the plant touched the ground. The maximum yield, 25.40 bushels per acre, was produced by planting in 55" rows at 28# of seed per acre. The light rate of seeding consistently produced a sig- nificantly lower yield for all widths of rows for both varieties. The medium.and heavy rates of seeding the Man- chu produced approximately the same yield which indicates that the opttmmm rate of seeding for 1941 placed a plant every 2.74" in the row. (Table III). It also indicates that there is little value in seeding at rates higher than the Optimum. The heavier rate of seeding the Mandarin gave a high- er yield whidh was not mathematically significant. In this case the optimum rate was not exceeded, but the lack of sig- nificance indicates that the Optimum rate was probably close- ly approached. This assumption is further verified by re- lative yields of the Mandarin and the Manchu (20.10 bu. and 20.78 bu. per acre). The fact that they are nearly equal in- dicates that the maximum yield of Mandarin was probably ob- tained, since an earlier maturing variety will not yield more than a late maturing variety under normal «auditions. With one exception the same results were obtained by both methods of mathematical analysis. Using the difference necessary for significance to the 5% level obtained by the P/C analysis, the Manchu variety planted in 55" rows at 28 lbs.per acre was significantly higher than the plots planted -11- in 42" rows at 11 lbs per acre and 42" at 55 lbs. The dif- ference was not significant when measured by the Analysis of Variance. The latter analysis is the more accurate in this case due to a low yield of one of the check plots which increased the error of the P/C analysis. TABLE VI EFFECT OF SEEDING RATES UPON YIELDS OF HAY AND SEED H Rate ons r re u. or re hu Li t 2.59 e um . 9.11 ea . vera ance fference cessary for si ficance Var 0.18 0 18 TABLE VII EFFECT OF DISTANCE BETWEEN ROWS UPON YIELDS OF HAY AND SEED Distance Hgy Seed Between Tons Per Acre Bu. Per Acre Rows anchu Mandarin Manchu Mandarin 7" 2.§5 2.49 15.77 10.64 as"* 2.55 1.98 20.46 19.01 35"’ 2.54 2.13 22.31 22.48 42“_ 2.27 1.69 19.24 22.12 Average P/C 2.47 2.15 20.78 20.10 , Var. 2.50 2007 19e45 18056 Difference ne- cessary for sig-‘PZC 0.20 0.17 2.44 2.11 nificance Van. 0020 0e20~ lo 3 2044 *The average for the P/C analysis is the average of the check plots. -12- SUMMARY In order to determine the response of soybeans to rate~ of seeding and width between rows under Michigan conditions, an experiment was set up on the College Farm at East Lansing, Michigan during the growing season of 1941. The results of this experiment are as follows: 1. Hay yields of the plots planted in 42" rows were significantly lower than the yields of other row widths. In addition to the low yield the quality of the hay was low due to an excessive amount of large coarse stems. 2. The plots planted in 7" rows produced more hay than the other plots, but an excess of weeds markedly decreased the value of the hay. 5. When planted at the heavier rates of seeding, there was little difference between the 28" and 55" spacings in re- gard to hay yields. 4. The plots planted in 7" rows produced less seed than the other row plots. The 7" row plots were later in maturity, extremely weedy, and possessed fewer pods per plant. 5. The Manchu variety planted in 55" rows produced 5.07 bushels more seed per acre than the 42" row plots, and 1.85 bushels more per acre than the 28" row plots. The medi- um.to heavy rate of seeding gave the highest yield for each of the row widths. 6. The Mandarin variety produced seed equally well in the 28", 55", and 42" row with the heaviest rate of seeding giving the best results. -13.. If a farmer does not possess the equipment for growing either sugar beets or beans, but does possess the equipment for growing corn, it is questionable whether it would pay him to change the width of the rows for soybeans if he is producing seed. For hay production, the rows 42" apart are :much less satisfactory. 1. 2. 5. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. -14- BIBLIOGRAPHY ARNY, Ae Ce, CRIM, Re Fe, and HODGSON, Re Ee Soybeans for Minnesota. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Spec. Bul. 154. 1956. ' BEESON, K. E. Soybeans in Indiana. Ind. Agr. Exp. Sta. EXte BUle 231e 1938e BURLISON, W. L., VAN DOREN, E. A., and HACKLEMANN, J. E. Eleven years of soybean investigations. Uni. of Ill. Agre Exp. Stae B111. 4620 1940. CHURCH, V. H., BORUM, C. J., and LOWE, M. L. Annual crop summary. Cr0p Report for Michigan. 1941. KIESSELBACH, T. A., and LYNESS, W. C. Soybeans in Nebraska. Neb. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 522. 1959. MEGEE, C. R. Soybean production in Michigan Mich. CirCe Bu1e 161e 1959. A MORSE, W. J., and CARTTER, J. L. Improvement in soybeans. 1957 U. S. D. A. Yearbook of Agriculture:1164. 1957. PARK, J. B., and SLIPHER, J. A. Farming with soybeans. Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Ext. Bul. 207. 1956. SPRAGG, F. A. Coefficient Of yield. Jour. Amer. SOC. Agron. 12:168'174 e 1920. SNEDECOR, G. W. Statistical methods. Ames, Iowa:Col- legiate Press. 1957 WIGGANS, R. G. Influence of space and arrangement on the production of soybean plants. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 51:514-521. 1959. ZAHNLEY, J. W. Soybean production in Kansas. Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 282. 1959. PART II THE POSSIBILITY OF MUNG BEAN SEED PRODUCTION IN MICHIGAN -15- INTRODUCTION During the last 15 years Mung bean sprouts have become quite pOpular in the United States. These sprouts are used in the preparation of many Chinese dishes including the well known Chop Suey. Prior to the invasion of China, food com- panies in America imported several hundred tons of seeds to be used in the preparation of the sprouts. One Michigan Company (La Choy Products Inc.) imported 500 tons of beans annually. With the Japanese invasion of China the Oriental supply of seed was reduced, thus the companies were faced with the necessity of either producing the seed in this country or finding another type of sprout that could be sub- stituted for the mung. Morse in 1955 (4) stated that soybean sprouts were more palatable and nutritious, and that several small seeded va- rieties suitable for the production of the sprouts had been introduced into this country. However, p0pular demand for a certain type of sprout, and the reluctance of the companies to change the quality of the product under their trade names, has forestalled the substitution of other types of beans for the mung. Thus the companies must find a source of seed in the United States in order to stay in business. Cultivation of the mung bean is complicated by the growth habits of the plant. The bean plant ripens over a period of two months, the ripe pods breaking and scattering -15- the beans around the mother plant. This is a characteristic .which does not lend itself to machine culture. The Chinese hand-pick the pods as they ripen, thus obtaining a very good quality of seed which germinates over 98%. Since hand picking of the beans does not fit into the American scheme of agri- culture and since the cost of hand picking is prohibitive, machine methods of handling the cr0p must be devised if the cr0p is to be grown in the United States. An experiment was set up on the College Farm at East Lansing, Michigan in 1940 to compare the effect of different cultural practices on the yield and quality of mung bean seed grown under Michigan conditions. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Little work:has been done upon the growing of the mung bean in the United States, although the plant was first in- troduced early in the 19th century. Piper (6) and Piper and Morse (8) state that the crop is a southern bean which has ap- proximately the same climatic requirements as the cowpea, thus the early importations were compared with the latter cr0p. They further state that the mung failed to become es- tablished as a major crOp in the south for the following reasons: 1. The plant is not as vigorous as either the cOWpea, or the soybean, thus it does not c0pe successfully with weeds. Its slow initial growth makes it difficult to keep the field clean during the first few weeks after planting. -17.. 2. The foliage remains green and the pods continue to be formed until the plant is killed by frost. As the pods ripen they shatter easily, scattering the seeds which ger- minate immediately. 5. Upon curing, the foliage has a tendency to turn black, which necessitates very careful handling and good curing weather when the cr0p is being utilized for hay. 4. The plants are susceptible to attack by the same diseases that affect the soybean, cowpea, and field bean. They are also quite susceptible to insect attack. 5. The plant is more stemmy in character than the cow- pea. Analysis made by Gallup and Kuhlman (1) show that the mung bean compares very favorably with the soybean in nutr- ient content.’ Table I shows the relative chemical composition of mung bean silage and soybean silage. Miguel (2), and Miller andHair (5) report that the bean is very high in food value, both as a forage cr0p and as a food for man. The sprouts are high in Vitamin A and B, and are relatively high in Vitamin C content. Table II gives the chemical composition of the mung as compared with other beans. Table III gives the chemical composition of the beans and of the Sprouts. TABLE I CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF MUN AND SO BEAN F—UfiT—WI we are LT?“ I Crop Nater Pro 8 n or Fat N.F.E. Ash mung bean (I)! 67.55 | 4.81 I7.26 Il.58l 13.12 6.10] [Soybean U?) | 68.97 I 3.28 19.09 12.9“ 10.00 5.697 -18- TABLE II CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE MUNG BEAN, KIDNEY BEAN AND COWPEA (2) Analysis Made Crude Crude Crop by Water Protein Fiber Fat N.F.E. Ash ‘ Mung Bean Church 11.40 23.80 4-20 2.00 54-80 3-80 Kidney Bean Brooks, 1892 15.00 19.75 1.22 62.27 5.56 Cowpea Burea of Chemistry 10.50 14.20 21.80 42.60 2.60 TABLE III CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF MUNG BEANS AND SPROUTS (5) Mung Beans Water Protein Fat Carbohydrates Ash Dried 11.86 22.10 0.8 58.80 5.55 Sprouts 91.74 5.15 0.08 5.91 0.44 Sprouts 95.77 2.52 0.0 2.98 0.51 METHODS The beans were planted in 7 inch rows and in 28 inch (1) picking the beans as they ripened, (2) pulling with a two row rows, and were harvested by the following methods: Hand bean puller and windrowing, bunching, and stacking, and, (5) cutting with a mower, raking by hand, and leaving the beans in bunches. The beans were hand picked at three different times. The first picking was September 2, when 1/5 of the beans were ripe. The second was September 18, at which time 2/5 of the beans were ripe, and the third,October 50, after a severe frost had killed the plants and when most of the beans were ripe. The two-row-horse-drawn bean puller was used to pull the beans after which they were raked into long windrows with the -19- side delivery rake. One series of plots were left in the win- drow, a second series was bunched by hand, and a third series was stacked according to the McNaughton system (5). Cutting with the mower was meant to simulate the effect of combining as much as possible. The problem.was whether the viny, low-lying plants could successfully be harvested with the combine. For this treatment the mower was set as close to the ground as possible. Two dates of machina harvest were made, one on September 5 and the other September 21. At the first date about 1/5 of the beans were ripe, whereas 2/5 of the beans were ripe at the second date of harvest. The plots were 150 feet long and 14 feet wide, thus allowing the use of field equipment. Single rows between each plot were hand picked. The plots were thrashed when the seed contained approxi- mately 14% moisture. The seed was stored and weighed when it had dried down to 12% of moisture. Germination tests were run three months after harvesting. RESULTS Shortly after the cotyledons appear above the ground, two primary leaves appear. No other tOp growth is made for a period of two weeks, thus the weeds have an excellent Op- portunity to start. Where the beans can be cultivated the weeds can be controlled to a certain extent, but when drilled -20- in 7 inch rows the weeds soon dominate the field. The bean plants in the 7 inch rows were almost completely killed out by harvest time, and the few plants that could be found were not setting seed so no attempt was made to harvest these plots. The results of the 28 inch row plots are given in Table IV. The mowing machine proved to be a very poor tool to use for harvesting the crOp, as most of the beans were left on the ground untouched. Less than a bushel of seed was ob- tained with the mower as compared to 5.54 bushels from the check plots which were hand picked. The two-row-horse-drawn bean puller proved to be quite effective and efficient for harvesting the beans. The method of handling after pulling showed very little difference in total yield between the different methods. The beans placed in the windrow, however, showed a marked superiority in ger- mination thereby giving a yield of 4.45 bushels viable seed per acre as compared with 5.25 bushels for the plots placed in bunches and 2.01 bushels for the plots placed in the stacks. A part of this difference in germination is due to the fact that the beans were placed in bunches and stacks while still damp with dew, or before they were entirely wilted down. This excess of moisture favored the growth of molds. For best results with the stack and bunches, the beans should be allowed to cure as much as possible in the windrow. The beans in contact with the ground had a tendency to rot, thus during a year in which poor curing weather is en- countered the windrows may not prove to be the best treatment -21- .mpoam doMon damm one ofiaaoafi pom meow one: dopodw umwnobm one ** 0904 new maecmdm a“ nopam ma eHOHN * ea.w mm.+m om.m «m.m oo.«o oo.¢ mm.H om.m¢ mn.n ++ommao>4, Ho.m «m.o¢ Hm.w Om.m «m.mw mm.m em.a #m.an oo.« doxompm n¢.« oo.am m¢.n mm.¢ nm.nm mp.n *o.¢1 oo.w> ma.m oosoneqH? mm.n em.mo mo.¢ «m.* 00.05 mm.n OH.N . «m.ab o«.n vogoqdm mm.o «n.mm me.o 93.0 en.w« mm.o mo.o «m.HH mo.o pesos on.« on.mw $9.0 om.w on.mn en.n om.¢ om.mm wm.m eoMOHm comm doom & doom & doom R canmfi> :oapw manna> seeps oapwfi> soaps *uHoHM oQHSaoo +oamaw «HoHOflw unfisaow wdaoaw case» acflsamw mflw ommaomm pmam Homeoeoon new Homeoaoom momma pmo>awm uncapwoae Qflflm imam 0:33 mo nquw Ema mom: OZHPma>mmd mo mmOflHmfi 034 >H EHM48 23H :4 flan—”aqfiqw 32. amm>fifim mo Hemn fio Bofimfim -22- since more beans were in contact with the ground than with the other methods. The plots harvested September 5 produced 5.52 bushels of seed per acre; while those harvested September 21 pro- duced 4.60 bushels per acre. The earlier harvest date yieldp ed seed which germinated 45.88% thus giving a yield of 1.52 'bushels of viable seed per acre. Seed from the plots har- vested at the later date germinated 64.00% giving a yield of 2.94 bushels of viable seed per acre. To make the picture complete another series of plots should have been harvested after the killing frost had destroyed the foliage. Examin- ation of the data in Table V, which deals with the results of the plots that were hand picked, shows that the germin- ation of the seeds picked after the frost is 4.55% higher than the germination of those picked September 2, and 5.75% higher than those harvested September 18. While this in- crease may not be maintained.by plants harvested with machin- ery, it does serve to indicate that a late harvested plot should have been included in the trials. TABLE V YIELD AND GERMINATION 0F HAND PICKED MUNG BEANS Date of ‘Yield Bu. Germination Harvest Per Acre Sept. 2 ‘l.75 . 81.18 Sept.I18 2.05 80.09 Get. 50 1076 85075 In 1941, several varieties of mung beans were grown in increase plots which were located in the same field as the soybean variety trials. The yield of the hand picked check - 23... plots of the mung bean was 8.98 bushels of seed per acre. The yield of the Manchu soybean, which was grown as the check for the soybean varieties, was 25.11 bushels per acre. Pea beans (Michelite) grown on the same farm yielded 15 bushels per acre. SUMMARY An experiment was set up on the College Farm.at East Lansing, Michigan in 1940 to check the effect of different cultural practices upon the yield and quality of mung bean seed grown under Michigan conditions. The results of this eXperiment are as follows. The mung bean produces little growth above the ground for the first few weeks after it germinates. This habit allows the weeds to secure a firm.foothold and to eventual- ly kill out the beans where cultivation can not be practic- ed. The beans planted in 7" rows were almost completely killed out, and the few remaining plants did not set seed. Planting the beans in 28" rows allowed the weeds to be con- trolled. Cutting the beans with a mower proved to be unsatis- factory since most of the beans were left on the ground un- touched by the machine. Less than a bushel of seed per acre was obtained with this method of harvest. Pulling the beans with the two-row-horse-drawn bean puller proved to be very satisfactory for harvesting the beans. The method of handling after pulling made little dif- ference upon the total yield, however, it did make some -24- difference in the germination of the seed. Under existing weather conditions the beans placed in the windrow had the highest germination and yield of viable seed. Due to a tendency of the beans to rot when placed next to the ground, the windrow may not give the best results under adverse weather conditions, since it places more beans in contact with the ground. Harvesting when the pods were 2/5 ripe gave the highest yield of the two dates of harvest. It is felt that a third date of harvest, namely, after a killing frost has destroyed the foliage should be tried. Considering the yield, quality of the seed demanded by ' the companies, and the difficulty of growing the crOp, it is doubtful whether it would be profitable for Michigan farmers to attempt the culture of the mung bean under existing eco- nomic conditions. 1. 2. 5. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. -25- BIBLIOGRAPHY GALLUP, W. D., and KUHLMAN, A. H. The composition and digestibility of mung bean silage, with observations on the silica ratio procedure for studying digestibil- ity. Jour. Agr. Res. 52:164-179. 1916. MIGUEL, L. A. Tests and selections of mungo beans. Phil. Agr. and Forester 5:164-179. 1916. MILLER, C. D., and HAIR, D. B. Vitamin content of mung bean sprouts. Jour. of Home Econ. 20:265-271. 1928. MORSE, W. J. Soybeans now a major crOp in United States; few grown before 1898. 1955 U. S. D. A. Yearbook of Agriculture. 1955. PETTIGROVE, H. R. Field stacking for Michigan beans. MICh. Exp. Sta. Spec. 8111. 276. 19360 PIPER, C. V. Forage plants and their culture. New York City:MacMillan:609-610. 1956. ., and MORSE, W. J. Five oriental species of beans. U. S. D. A. Dep. Bul. 119. 1914. . Soybeans. New‘York City: McGraw—H1113159. 1925. OCTUBRE, F. P. A catechism on mongo production. Phil. Agr. Rev. 183305-307. 19250 . . I . I -__ ___ —--‘~ ‘ ' ‘ ‘- - s .. - ‘ I - - — "‘ —.— . . I ‘\ ' i. v- C I A I R l . t u . . ‘ . I t I a C I . . ‘ t . I . I.- l ‘5 . . ,. ‘. .. 3 ' l . l ‘ I! d I I ‘ \ 4 ' I‘ I . . \. we I ‘ I , C 1 ‘ \ I I I t, - Q ' . T , ‘ V I 1 .. . A , .$ t . ‘7 v V,‘ _ “-4~_.———~— -A V‘— r I I ,. . 1 I _, I . v ‘- .o'IA ’ \ I c i ' . y ' s . d x l. ’ ‘ . . ( u l n 4,. | I ‘ . . I l I . . ‘ I ’ . v . . I D '— C ‘ I Q - I ‘ 1 I 5 ‘ V A ; . . , . ,. . . 4“... A . . . . , . L, . A . .\I.... I .. . . . .7 $26..) 1 - 34¢“ “rd-u... I.|. . . r _ ulta ieuz 1..wr...v . \ .. . .. ,2 .« . . 7 . , . .n.. n ... \‘R. ... a \u? ... 4 .a .x . l 4. v I. \ . . . ’ \ e e . if V a ‘O f? . . t . a h .I .. . v . .| ‘5 . . t . . I . . . y _ c I I. . b u \I: ' Al . c . .r . . ‘ . . . . I - .1. .. a i L \ w . r ‘5 I r U 0 . r e l I- . 1". . . .. r O. , . \ 1 . . ‘ . 1. . I . p\u . . e . a .1 . . .. J. . . .. . a .. . . e . I v. a :1 .\ - . ..(.. \1 .. r , . A .. .. 4., . - u. . . _ . .. we. 2. .. .. . . . s I L . . . I . O. . . . . .. Cr . . ... l. . .4. . . . . . .\. . . . l. .r 4% M}: \.J(. x . e e x r . . . . 3. u . . I. , . . . . . . x... . I. . 4: x... a 5 . V 1 . w a K _ u. I . , .x. I \ .V. , .. . . - . .V. D . . V . . x s . 1O. 0 . A. u . NOI. . — m“ ., . . a a . t ._| . \ 1 . h ‘ . I . . \ \ . . . u A .0 . .l V v . . ; . , .~ . C a , Vb. . .i . . . a v. . .. .w. . . a . . . a e . . . r a w... . a. A If‘ v ~ g l V O . . .. .. . v 2 PM .. . . .. . \ . . . . c e . VI . .r . I . L .V .. |. . .ul . I 7 .‘JL. u , . ~ . . 0.! . o . . . 3 . . .. .. T. I .. ,3. ..-\ . \ ... a, . .h. V, 0 o . .. _ ‘ v r . l (a . . u a 0.. .. e . n 4 . 6 7 . e r . . . . w 1.4. V .\ . . .V ”.3 ... e I . NI . .. t . _. . . ... . . \y \.. . w . IA r yv‘ 1.. .. I a\. L I . . I 4 . . a. r . u . n . . r s . . t ’6 \ n t . r I ‘ n i v I a I. \ _ . . t | . L . \. ..\.\ . .. t . \ r q . E, y n . a. . . . .\.. n h\ . .. c k . . . .4 .1n .V . 7“? .I.. . .u . . t . . ... k . . . . ,.. M ..~ 1 _ A. n. _ . . u t. e . . . p . r. . , . . v .5 . .. _ . a . . V P . .. c u. . . .. . I. . . c . . .. . a . . . s . . .x . r .. . . .. u. n . 1 || n C . u. . I e 9. I. I I, w.- y . . ‘ t V n; . k. . 5“ . ‘1111111qu