W285. Matthew S. Wiggins Graduate Research Assistant Department of Plant Sciences. C. Owen Gwathmey Professor Emeritus Department of Plant Sciences

Similar documents
Cotton Variety Guide 2015

Cotton Variety Guide 2016

PB1742. Matthew S. Wiggins Graduate Research Assistant Department of Plant Sciences. C. Owen Gwathmey Professor Emeritus Department of Plant Sciences

Cotton Variety Trial Results 2015

Cotton Variety Trial Results 2014

2014 Evaluation of Non Irrigated Early Maturing Cotton Varieties, Jay, Florida

2014 Evaluation of Non Irrigated Mid to Full Season Maturing Cotton Varieties, Jay, Florida

Cotton Variety Trial Results 2016

COTTON. Bainbridge, Georgia: Earlier Maturity Cotton Variety Performance, 2013, Irrigated

2013 Mississippi On-Farm Cotton Variety Trials

2012 Mississippi Cotton Variety Trials

2015 Mississippi On-farm Cotton Variety Trials

2015 Mississippi On-Farm Cotton Variety Trials. Darrin M. Dodds, Chase A. Samples, and R. Chase King Mississippi State University Extension Service

2010 Mississippi County Variety Trials

2016 Mississippi On-Farm Cotton Variety Trials. Darrin M. Dodds, Chase A. Samples, and R. Chase King Mississippi State University Extension Service

2010 Mississippi County Cotton Variety Trials

GEORGIA 2014 Peanut, Cotton, and Tobacco Performance Tests

GREEN LIFE. Plants and Photosynthesis W 398

REPLICATED AGRONOMIC COTTON EVALUATION (RACE) SOUTH, EAST AND CENTRAL REGIONS OF TEXAS, 2012

UC Alfalfa Variety Field Evaluation

Title Sorghum/Cotton Rotation under Extreme Deficit Irrigation Conditions. Location Texas Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Halfway, TX

Input Costs Trends for Arkansas Field Crops, AG -1291

2013 INTRODUCTION AND USE GUIDELINES 2013 GEORGIA COTTON COSTS AND RETURN BUDGET ESTIMATES

EVALUATiON OF YUKON HERBICIDE RATES FOR YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN CORN GROWN IN ROTATIONS FOLLOWED BY ONION

UC Alfalfa Variety Trials

BREEDING AND GENETICS

2017 Appling County Cotton Meeting. Weed Control and a few other things

2016 Cotton Defoliation and Harvest Aid Guide 1

Location Field 30 at the University of Delaware Research and Education Center Farm, Georgetown, DE.

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN ONION AFTER THREE YEARS OF CORN HERBICIDES

COTTON DEFOLIATION IN GEORGIA UGA Cotton Agronomists: Jared Whitaker & Guy Collins

BUILDING BUSINESS SUCCESS

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN CORN AND DRY BEAN CROPS

2008 Lygus Small Plot Efficacy Trial University of Arizona Maricopa Agricultural Center Peter C. Ellsworth, Ph.D. 24 November 2008

Effect of Organic Soil Fertility and Fungicide Treatments on Yield and Pest Management, Neely-Kinyon Farm-2015

Yuma County Broccoli Trials,

2017 Cotton Weed Control and a few other things

Grade 6 South Carolina Science SOUTH CAROLINA STANDARD 6-1

Performance of Soybean Cultivars In Alabama, Charles Potter 1925 Source: Ala. Coop. Ext. Service Photo Collection

PEST MANAGEMENT: WEEDS

Trial Report: Seedless Watermelon Variety Evaluation 2015

Diagnosing Suspected Off-target Herbicide Damage to Grape

Identifying Wheat Growth Stages

2018 // Potato // HARS // CPB Systemic Trial Pg. 1

those in Arizona. This period would extend through the fall equinox (September 23, 1993). Thus, pending variation due to cloudiness, total light flux

Use of the Chlorophyll Meter to Guide In-season Nitrogen Fertilizer Applications in Irrigated Cotton

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN LIBERTY AND ROUNDUP RESISTANT SUGAR BEETS

Adapt-N: A Cloud Computational Tool for Precision Nitrogen Management. AFRI Project Overview. Harold van Es

Nutrient Recommendations for Russet Burbank Potatoes in Southern Alberta

CRITICAL PETIOLE POTASSIUM LEVELS AS RELATED TO PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES OF CHAMBER- GROWN COTTON TO POTASSIUM DEFICIENCY

Agricultural. Chemistry. Agricultural production: crops and livestock Agrichemicals development: herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers, etc.

$25 per bin, minimum $50 per on-site visit

2015 High Plains and Northern Rolling Plains Cotton Harvest-Aid Guide

2017 Michigan State University Spring Malting Barley Variety Trials

N ew York State Agricultural Experiment S tation vnrfx* NYSAES I Publications I Latest Press Releases

3. Potato / HARS / CPB Systemic Trial

CONSTRAINTS TO YOUTH INVOLVEMENT IN COCOA PRODUCTION IN NIGERIA

Background and Assumptions

2008 High Plains and Northern Rolling Plains Cotton Harvest-Aid Guide

Effect of 1-MCP on Ethylene Synthesis and Development of Cotton Flowers under Normal and High Temperature

2012 Crop Year Fertilizer Report

VEGETABLE CULTIVAR AND CULTURAL TRIALS 2009

Background and Assumptions

YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL IN VARIOUS CROPS

Evaluation of Herbicide Carryover Sub-Surface Drip Irrigated Tomato. Kurt Hembree and Tom Turini Farm Advisors, UCCE Fresno County

OPTIMIZING NITROGEN USE AND EVALUATING ETHEPHON USE IN WAXY BARLEY

Alion, Sencor, and Sharpen for Preemergence Kochia Control in an Abandoned Alfalfa Field

Flower Species as a Supplemental Source of Pollen for Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) in Late Summer Cropping Systems

Performance of Soybean Cultivars In Alabama, Charles Potter 1925 Source: Ala. Coop. Ext. Service Photo Collection

Table 1. Cereal grains variety trials planted in central. Cultural data for 1987 variety trials at Madras and Powell Butte, Oregon Date Date

The Wheat Plant. Oklahoma Academic Standards

Background and Assumptions

Kentucky Seed Certification Standards. I. Explanation of General Standards as Applied to Corn Hybrids

Evaluation of Fall Application of Dual Magnum for Control of Yellow Nutsedge in Onions Grown on Muck Soils

Variety Testing Theory and Practice. Brian Diers University of Illinois

Development and Test of Potassium Management Algorithms for Corn. Ron Potok (Solum), Kyle Freeman (Mosaic), and Scott Murrell (IPNI) Project Summary:

Background and Assumptions

Enterprise Budget Cherries, Sweet, Fresh Market, High-Density, North Central Region AEB 0031, May 2012 Capital Typical Farm Machinery and Equipment

Corn Basis Information By Tennessee Crop Reporting District

2010 Crop Year Fertilizer Report

Cloud Computing Technology for Precision Nitrogen Management in Corn

BREEDING, GENETICS, AND PHYSIOLOGY. Phenotypic Analysis of the 2006 MY2 Mapping Population in Arkansas

Mid-South Cotton Defoliation Guide

Multiple Series Cyclones for Fine Dust

Cotton Harvest Aids. Christopher L. Main, Assistant Professor Extension Cotton and Small Grains Specialist, Plant Sciences

W Mid-South Cotton Defoliation Guide

Crop Enterprise Budget Sugar Beets, Thick-Planted, Wheatland Area

Descriptions and Performance

Seed Cotton Program Workshop

Deterioration of Crop Varieties Causes and Maintenance

Paul Patterson Background and Assumptions

Background and Assumptions

Fiber quality is a primary concern in cotton

Bermudagrass Off-type Assessment. consulting sales staffing support

Background and Assumptions

Trial Report: Slicing Cucumber Variety Evaluation Spring 2014

2013 Mid South Cotton Defoliation Guide

Trial Report: Slicing Cucumber Variety Evaluation Fall 2014

Pollinators. Pam Brown University of Florida/IFAS Extension, Retired

Crop Enterprise Budget Dry Beans, Powell Area

Transcription:

W285 Matthew S. Wiggins Graduate Research Assistant Department of Plant Sciences C. Owen Gwathmey Professor Emeritus Department of Plant Sciences Fred L. Allen Coordinator Agronomic Crop Variety Testing & Demonstrations Cotton Variety Testing and Demonstrations Department of Plant Sciences University of Tennessee Telephone: (731) 425-4762 Fax: (731) 425-4720 email: mwiggin8@utk.edu Variety trial results are posted at http://utcrops.com http://varietytrials.tennessee.edu

On Farm Variety Trials Roundup Ready Flex Varieties Results of on-farm Roundup Ready Flex cotton variety test, average of all locations, 2013. Rank Variety Gin Turnout Lint Mic Fiber Length Strength Uniformity *Mean and LSD values are based on data from 13 varieties planted at 9 locations HVI Color Leaf Grade Loan Value (%) (lb./acre) (inches) (g/tex) (%) ( /lb.) 1 ST 4946 GLB2 36.8 862 4.3 1.16 31.3 82.8 41-2 5 51.70 2 DP 0920 B2RF 37.7 841 4.3 1.11 28.2 80.6 41-2 4 53.35 3 DP 1321 B2RF 36.2 840 4.2 1.15 30.9 82.6 41-2 5 51.70 4 PHY 339 WRF 36.8 826 3.9 1.17 30.8 82.4 41-2 4 53.75 5 DP 0912 B2RF 35.0 822 4.2 1.10 29.4 82.1 41-2 5 50.95 6 DG 2570 B2RF 37.5 814 4.2 1.13 29.7 82.0 41-2 4 53.65 7 PHY 499 WRF 37.7 776 4.1 1.14 31.4 82.5 41-2 5 51.85 8 AM 1550 B2RF 36.4 775 4.0 1.11 28.4 81.7 41-2 4 53.50 9 NG 1511 B2RF 37.5 745 4.2 1.14 31.5 82.6 41-2 5 51.85 10 DP 1311 B2RF 37.1 736 3.8 1.12 28.3 80.6 41-2 5 51.50 11 PHY 375 WRF 36.5 720 3.7 1.13 29.3 82.3 41-2 5 51.65 12 FM 1944 GLB2 34.6 714 4.0 1.18 31.6 81.4 41-2 4 53.85 13 ST 6448 GLB2 33.9 663 3.7 1.19 30.3 81.6 41-2 5 51.65 Mean 36.4 780 4.0 1.14 30.1 81.9 5 52.38 LSD 1.4 103 0.2 0.02 1.2 1.1 0.93 Three Year Trial Averages Results of three year yield and fiber quality, Tennessee cotton CST s 2011-2013 Rank Variety Gin Turnout Lint Mic Fiber Length Strength Uniformity HVI Color Loan Value (%) (lb./acre) (inches) (g/tex) (%) ( /lb.) 1 DG 2570 B2RF 38.7 919 4.6 1.12 31.2 82.5 3 54.35 2 PHY 499 WRF 39.6 897 4.5 1.13 32.8 86.1 4 53.95 3 DP 0920 B2RF 38.5 892 4.6 1.12 29.6 81.6 3 54.10 4 AM 1511 B2RF 39.0 883 4.6 1.11 31.9 82.6 4 53.70 5 DP 0912 B2RF 36.9 862 4.7 1.09 30.4 82.1 4 53.00 6 PHY 375 WRF 38.4 858 4.3 1.11 30.3 82.2 4 53.55 AVERAGE 38.5 885 4.6 1.11 31.0 82.9 4 LSD (0.05) 0.95 NS 0.19 NS 0.8 NS *Mean and LSD values are based on data from 6 varieties tested in 2011, 2012, and 2013.

Official Variety Trials Commercial and Pre-Commercial Varieties Lint yield, gin turnout, and fiber quality of 33 entries in the 2013 Tennessee Official Variety Trial averaged over all five locations, listed by yield rank. Rank Variety Gin Turnout Lint Micronaire Fiber Length Fiber Strength Uniformity % lb/ac in g/tex % 1 PX 3750-01 WRF 40.1 1839 4.1 1.18 31.7 82.0 2 DP 1321 B2RF 37.5 1712 4.3 1.18 32.3 83.6 3 PHY 333 WRF 37.8 1685 4.0 1.19 30.9 82.9 4 DP 0912 B2RF 36.3 1666 4.4 1.13 31.4 82.7 5 PHY 339 WRF 36.3 1639 4.1 1.21 31.2 82.8 6 DG 2285 B2RF 36.3 1628 4.2 1.15 31.3 82.1 7 PX 4444-13 WRF 38.9 1628 3.4 1.27 32.6 82.9 8 PHY 375 WRF 37.5 1615 4.1 1.15 29.3 81.9 9 PX 4444-14 WRF 37.9 1593 3.7 1.18 31.7 83.0 10 BX 1347 GLB2 37.4 1592 4.2 1.17 29.7 80.5 11 NG 1511 B2RF 38.5 1589 4.4 1.17 31.3 83.3 12 ST 4946 GLB2 36.5 1569 4.4 1.17 32.2 83.2 13 DP 12R224 B2R2 36.5 1564 3.7 1.20 31.5 82.6 14 PHY 427 WRF 35.3 1550 3.8 1.17 32.4 82.5 15 PHY 499 WRF 38.7 1546 4.3 1.18 33.8 84.2 16 FM 1944 GLB2 35.4 1541 4.0 1.21 32.4 81.6 17 PX 3003-10 WRF 36.9 1541 4.0 1.14 31.4 82.3 18 SSG UA222 35.9 1540 3.9 1.24 31.4 83.2 19 DG 2570 B2RF 35.7 1526 4.4 1.14 29.7 82.4 20 AM 1550 B2RF 36.7 1524 4.1 1.14 28.6 82.0 21 NGX 3331 B2RF 35.1 1519 4.4 1.13 30.8 83.3 22 DP 12R242 B2R2 36.8 1517 4.4 1.16 29.5 82.5 23 DP 0920 B2RF 38.0 1513 4.3 1.15 29.3 81.8 24 CG 3787 B2RF 37.3 1512 4.4 1.16 30.0 82.4 25 PHY 417 WRF 37.3 1512 3.7 1.14 30.2 81.6 26 DP 1311 B2RF 37.9 1509 4.2 1.16 28.9 82.0 27 CT13414 38.1 1489 4.2 1.16 30.1 81.9 28 SSG HQ210CT 34.9 1428 4.2 1.14 32.8 81.8 29 ST 6448 GLB2 33.6 1407 4.0 1.20 30.5 81.5 30 CG 3428 B2RF 37.6 1400 4.4 1.20 29.9 82.5 31 ST 4145 LLB2 33.9 1391 4.3 1.13 31.1 81.5 32 NG 5315 B2RF 36.7 1370 4.2 1.17 30.2 82.6 33 NGX 01338 B2RF 35.5 1148 4.1 1.20 32.9 81.7 Average 36.8 1539 4.1 1.17 31.0 82.4 LSD (0.05) 0.7 102 0.2 0.03 1.6 1.2 *Mean and LSD values are based on data from 33 varieties planted at 5 locations in 2013..

Official Variety Trials Two Year Trial Averages Results of two year yield and fiber quality, Tennessee cotton OVT s 2012-2013. Rank Variety Gin Turnout Lint Micronaire Fiber Length Fiber Strength Uniformity % lb/ac in g/tex % 1 PHY 499 WRF 40.2 1501 4.5 1.16 33.4 83.9 2 DP 1321 B2RF 38.1 1481 4.6 1.16 32.0 83.3 3 PHY 339 WRF 37.8 1447 4.2 1.19 31.7 83.0 4 PHY 375 WRF 38.8 1426 4.3 1.14 29.8 82.2 5 DP 0912 B2RF 37.0 1414 4.7 1.12 31.4 82.7 6 NG 1511 B2RF 38.6 1405 4.5 1.15 31.2 82.9 7 ST 4946 GLB2 36.9 1378 4.4 1.17 32.5 83.1 8 DG 2570 B2RF 36.8 1368 4.5 1.14 30.2 82.7 9 AM 1550 B2RF 37.6 1362 4.4 1.14 29.9 82.3 10 CG 3787 B2RF 38.1 1347 4.4 1.16 29.9 82.7 11 FM 1944 GLB2 36.1 1344 4.2 1.19 32.4 82.0 12 DP 1311 B2RF 38.7 1332 4.4 1.14 29.6 82.2 13 SSG UA222 36.8 1330 4.2 1.22 31.8 83.4 14 DP 0920 B2RF 37.8 1322 4.5 1.15 29.8 82.3 15 ST 4145 LLB2 35.5 1308 4.3 1.14 31.1 82.3 16 ST 6448 GLB2 35.4 1273 4.2 1.19 30.7 82.1 AVERAGE 37.5 1377 4.4 1.16 31.1 82.7 LSD (0.05) 0.7 NS NS 0.02 1.3 0.9 *Mean and LSD values are based on data from 16 varieties tested in 2012-2013. Three Year Trial Averages Results of three year yield and fiber quality, Tennessee cotton CST s 2011-2013 Rank Variety Gin Turnout Lint Micronaire Fiber Length Fiber Strength Uniformity % lb/ac in g/tex % 1 PHY 499 WRF 40.1 1455 4.7 1.17 34.0 83.9 2 DP 0912 B2RF 37.4 1419 4.8 1.12 31.7 82.9 3 NG 1511 B2RF 39.2 1375 4.6 1.14 31.9 83.2 4 DG 2570 B2RF 38.2 1370 4.5 1.14 31.0 83.1 5 PHY 375 WRF 38.5 1340 4.3 1.16 31.0 82.4 6 ST 4145 LLB2 36.4 1323 4.4 1.16 32.1 83.1 7 DP 0920 B2RF 38.4 1302 4.6 1.15 30.5 82.6 8 AM 1550 B2RF 38.1 1287 4.4 1.12 30.0 82.4 AVERAGE 38.3 1359 4.5 1.15 31.5 83.0 LSD (0.05) 0.5 NS 0.21 0.02 1.1 0.9 *Mean and LSD values are based on data from 8 varieties tested in 2011-2013.

Tennessee Cotton Variety Trials The University of Tennessee cotton variety testing program provides an unbiased evaluation of new varieties for commercial cotton production in Tennessee. Experimental strains are also tested, and major cultivars are grown in county variety demonstrations. Results are intended to help cotton producers identify varieties that are well adapted to Tennessee, produce high quality fiber, and are relatively stable in yield performance. Results are also used by the seed industry, crop consultants, and the UT extension service to assess varietal adaptation to field environments in Tennessee. General Procedures Seed of commercial cultivars was provided by the respective companies from commercial seed lots. Smaller quantities of seed of experimental strains were furnished by the respective entrants. For small plot testing, varieties were assigned to plots arranged in a randomized complete block design. Fertilizer and lime were applied according to soil test results and UT recommendations for cotton. A systemic insecticide and fungicide were applied in-furrow while planting. UT-recommended weed and pest control measures were uniformly applied to all plots. At all locations, seed cotton harvested from each plot was weighed at picking. Subsamples of seedcotton were collected from each plot, weighed, and air-dried, bulked by varietal entry for ginning. County Standard Trial demonstrations were conducted to evaluate commercial cultivar performance in multiple large plot environments. Each cultivar was planted in only one plot at each location and was maintained using the individual grower s production practices. Gin turnout was determined for each sample using a 20-saw gin equipped with a stick machine, incline cleaners and two lint cleaners at the West Tennessee Research and Education Center. No heat was applied during ginning. Lint yields were calculated using seedcotton weights, gin turnouts, and harvested areas. A subsample of lint from each entry was analyzed by HVI procedures at the USDA Cotton Classing Office in Memphis, TN. Statistical analysis was not possible for each location but overall yield and fiber quality data were analyzed using SAS Proc MIXED with locations as replications. Relative Cotton Maturity Early Early-Mid Mid Mid-Full Full PHY 417 WRF PHY 333 WRF DP 1311 B2RF DP 0920 B2RF DP 1321 B2RF PHY 375 WRF FM 1944 GLB2 PHY 499 WRF PHY 339 WRF DG 2570 B2RF DP 0912 B2RF ST 4145 LLB2 ST 4946 GLB2 DG 2285 B2RF AM 1550 B2RF CG 3787 B2RF NG 1511 B2RF CG 3428 B2RF NG 5315 B2RF ST 6448 GLB2 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 *Relative difference in DD60 s to reach 100% open

For more information visit your local County Extension Office or visit http://utcrops.com The University of Tennessee. All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced and distributed for nonprofit educational purposes providing that credit is given to University of Tennessee Extension. Programs in agriculture and natural-resources, 4-H youth development, family and consumer sciences, and resource development. University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture and county governments cooperating. UT Extension provides equal opportunities in programs and employment.