Measured crop performance tobacco 1976

(1)

Research Report No. 59

December, 1976

Measured Crop Performance

TOBACCO

1976

JOHN C. RICE, Professor GLENN HAYES, Research Assistant E. L. PRICE, Tobacco Marketing Specialist

Department of Crop Science N. C. State University

(2)

INTRODUCTION •••.•..•••.•..•••.•.•..••••••••..••.•.•...•.

EXPERI}1ENTAL PROCEDURE ...•...•...••...••..••.•...••.•.••

Official Variety Test •• - •...••.•••...••...••...•..•

Regional Farm Test .•.••...•.•....•.•.•....••...••

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ..•..•...•...•...•...•....•.

1

3

8

10

Official Variety Test ...•••...•....•...•.••.•.•..•.•• 10

Commercially Available Varieties ..••.•.•.. .••.•.•• 11

Advanced Breed ing Lines ..•.•..•••••.•...••••.••... 13

Regional Fam Tests ••.•...•.•...•..•.•...•..•..•0 . 14

1976 Entries, Pedigrees and Sponsors ..••.•.•..•••••.•.• 16

SUMMARY TABLES

Table 1. Percentage comparison with the mean of

NC 2326 ...•••.•...••••...••.•...••. 18

Table 2. Comparison of certain varieties over three years ..•...•..•...•.•..•••..•...•. 19 Table 3. Rate of harvest of commercially available

varieties •...•...•...••.•...•...•. 20

Table 4. Comparison of varieties for certain

characteristics combined for four locations. 22

Table 5. Summary information on disease resistance... 24

Tables 6 10.

Individual locations data ..••••••...•••• 27 Tab1e s 11 - 16.

Regional Fam Test Data ..•••.•...•..•• 37 Tab1e s 17 - 18.

Cultural Practices: Regional Farm Tests

and Official Variety Tests •.•.•.••...•.. ..• 43 Tables 19 - 23.

(3)

PERFORMANCE OF TOBACCO VARIETIES IN NORTH CAROLINA

John C. Rice, Glenn Hayes and Ernest L. Price!/

Based upon reports from producers and warehousemen on October 1, 1976,

~he

North Carolina flue-cured tobacco crop was estimated to be 865 million

pounds. The production estimate was 69 million pounds less than the unusually large 1975 crop.~

In the United States the flue-cured production is estimated at 1,285

million pounds. This would amount to a decrease of nine percent over the 1975 production or 130 million pounds.

;'The yield per acre for North Carolina in 1976 was indicated to be 2,025

pounds. This compares with a yield per acre in 1975 of 1987 pounds. Yield

estimates were irregular in 1976 due to the extreme dry wea~her in June through

August, especially type 11 area.~

The year 1976 represents the thirteenth year in testing new tobacco

varieties as required under the Minimum Standards Program. This program,

started in 1964, has continued to make available flue-cured tobacco varieties

with acceptable agronomic characteristics and well-balanced physical, chemical

and smoke properties. Special attention has been given to maintaining those

new varieties with acceptable flavor and aroma characteristics.

l/Professor in Charge of Variety Testing, Research Assistant and Tobacco Marketing Specialist, Department of Crop Science, respectively.

(4)

The minimum standards serve as a guide to breeders in developing new

varieties that will be acceptable to the trade. It is a voluntary program

that has been enthusiastically endorsed by all segments of the tobacco

industry. The program adopts the principle of testing new varieties against

standard varieties. New varieties should be genetically stable and should

not differ from the standards, NC 2326 and NC 95, by more than plus or minus

specified percent for measurable chemical traits. The acceptable range for

nicotine is plus 15 percent and minus 20 percent of the mean of NC 2326 and

NC 95. New varieties should not contain more than eight percent of the total

alkaloids as nornicotine and limits are set on nitrogen and sugar contents.

Variety candidates should compare favorably with the standard varieties for

color, body, texture, moisture equilibrium,filling value, flavor and aroma.

Amin~um of two years evaluation throughout the flue-cured region of the

United States on both experiment stations and farmer plots is required. Such a program means much to our domestic and export trade and to growers

because it assures the manufacturers that new varieties will have been

thoroughly tested and evaluated for agronomic, pathologic, physical, chemical

and smoke characteristics. Quality is the one factor the American farmer

has to sell and the Minimum Standards Program should help to assure that

quality is continuously ~proved. Varieties playa determining role in

quality and should be carefully selected by the grower. The following

varieties have been released under the Minimum Standards Program:

Varieties 1964

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969

Coker 298, NC 2326, Speight G-36, Va. 115 NC 2512, Speight G-7

Coker 258, PD 5

(5)

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975

Bell 110, Ga. 1470, SC 71, Speight G-33, Va. 770 NC 88, SC 72, Speight G-140

McNair 944, Speight G-15, Va. 080 McNair 160, McNair 1040, NC 79

Coker 86, NC 12, NC 98, Speight G-23, Va. 283 NC 13

The Tobacco Variety Evaluation Program in North Carolina is a part of the

Regional

Test.~ata

are presented from the 1976 Official Variety Tests in

North Carolina and the 1976 Regional Farm Tests. In addition, a summary table

of variety performance over different years and locations is presented~Similar

reports which record previous years' data have been issued. Testing over a

period of years and under farm conditions is needed to fully evaluate the

performance of any variety. Information of this nature serves as a guide to

tobacco breeders in the development of varieties and to growers in choosing a

variety.

Experimental Procedure

The Tobacco Variety Evaluation Program in North Carolina is divided into

three phases. The first phase, the Official Variety Test, consists of testing

varieties and breeding lines in small replicated plots located on five research

stations. In 1976 a total of 43 entries were included. The second phase is

the Regional Small Plot Test, conducted in five states, and this data is

presented in a separate bulletin--Flue-Cured Tobacco Variety Evaluation

Committee Report. The third phase of the program involves a more extensive

study of fewer varieties and advanced breeding lines grown under farm

conditions in approximately one-fourth acre plots and is referred to as the

Regional Farm Test. Seven entries, including the two standard varieties,

were tested in 1976.

Official Variety Test

Disease resistant and nonresistant experimental lines and varieties

(6)

acceptance is quantitative data from experiments in which the proposed entry

is compared with recognized varieties. Entries of seeds of lots offered for

sale within the state or from seed lots furnished by testing agencies from

other states may also be included. Performance data are collected on yield,

. h . . di . 2/ h . I h t

value, agronom~c c aracter~st~cs, ~sease res~stance- , c em~ca c arac er-isticsl/, and physical quality traits. Tobacco company leaf and research

personnel cooperate in the physical and chemical evaluation of this material.

Early in December of each year, rules governing the test for the ensuing

year are distributed to all previous participants and to those who make inquiry.

Agencies Sponsoring Entries in 1976

Coker's Pedigreed Seed Company, Hartsville, S. C.

McNair Seed Company, Inc., Laurinburg, N. C.

N. C. Agricultural Experiment Station and USDA, Raleigh, N. C.

Speight Seed Farms, Winterville, N. C.

United States Department of Agriculture, Oxford, N. C.

Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Blackstone, Virginia Test Locations

Five locations were used to represent the different soil and climate

conditions of the state. The experiment numbers and locations were as follows: TV 255 Border Belt Tobacco Research Station, Wallace Dickens,

Superintendent, Whiteville, N. C., representing the Border Belt.

2/

- Dr. N. T. Powell and Professor Furney Todd of the Plant Pathology Department and Dr. G. R. Gwynn of the Department of Crop Science and USDA - CRS cooperated on the tests for disease reaction. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.

(7)

TV 256

TV 257

TV 258

TV 259

Lower Coastal Plain Tobacco Research Station, Sandy Barnes, Superintendent, Kinston, N. C., representing the Eastern Belt.

Upper Coastal Plain Research Station, Jesse Sumner, Superintendent, Rocky MOunt, N. C., representing the Eastern Belt.

Oxford Tobacco Research Station, Ray Campbell, Superintendent, Oxford, N. C., representing the Middle Belt.

Upper Piedmont Tobacco Research Station, Howell Gentry, Superintendent, Reidsville, N. C., representing the Old Belt.

The map in Figure 1 shows the location of these stations and also the Regional Farm Tests.

Methods

The Official Variety Tests were conducted on disease-free soil, insofar as possible. All entries were coded in the plant bed and in the field and

were included at each location.

Three replications of a randomized block design were used at each

location.~/

There were nineteen varieties and twenty-four breeding lines included in the tests for a total of 43 entries. The plants were individually

selected at transplanting for maximum uniformity within plots at all locations

Each one-row plot consisted of 20 competitive plants. The rows were four

feet apart at all locations except Reidsville (3.75), and hills were spaced

22 inches apart. Cultural practices are show in Table 18.

After topping, all entries were treated with Off-Shoot-T followed by

Royal MH-30. Individual plots were harvested according to degree of

maturity, tagged and kept separate throughout curing, sorting and grading.

~/Statistical

analyses were made in the Computing Center under the

superv~s~on

of Dr. John Rawlings and Mrs. Sandra B. Donaghy. Their assistance is

(8)

Data on agronomic characteristics were taken in the field, and chemical

determinations were made on the cured leaf of the whole plant. Disease

reac t ions were noted in separate tests under severe disease conditions.

The methods of recording data were the same as those used in previous

years, except as noted, and may be found in Crop Science Research Reports

Number 12 (1964), Number 16 (1965), Number 20 (1966), Number 24 (1967),

Number 28 (1968), Number 32 (1969), Number 36 (1970), Number 41 (1971),

Number 44 (1972), Number 48 (1973), Number 53 (1974) and Number 56 (1975).

Value per Acre: After the tobacco was sorted into lots, a Federal Tobacco

Inspector graded the tobacco from each plot into appropriate government

grades. The value per acre was calculated by multiplying the pounds of each

grade by the average auction price paid for the grade during the 1976 season

through September 10, 1976.

Grade Index: Beginning in 1974 each entry was rated with a grade index

ranging from 0 to 100. This index resulted from placing a numerical value

to each government grade for varying stalk positions of each entry. A

weighted value was obtained for each entry which provided an overall index. Grades N2 and A1F represent the practical extremes with values of 0 and 100

assigned to these respective grades.

Value per Cwt: The dollar value per hundredweight for tobacco sold during

1976 was a record high with small variations between leaf grades. The

market value of low stalk tobacco was lower than cutter or upper stalk grades.

The value per cwt. listed shows little difference between entries.

Seasonal Conditions: The transplanting of tobacco at all five locations of

the 1976 Official Variety Test was conducted under favorable moisture conditions

Early growing conditions were, in general, favorable with good stands reported

(9)

The Whiteville Test, TV 255, was transplanted on April 5 and a severe

freeze killed all of the transplants. The test was retransplanted on

April 13. Rainfall in April was very low at .13 inches, therefore, the crop made a slow start. Rainfall for the remainder of the year was: May - 4.17,

June - 5.70, July - 3.84 and August 3.59. The season was normal for a good

tobacco crop and it matured normally resulting in a good type of tobacco.

The fertilization program was 700 pounds per acre of 6-12-18 and 175 pounds

of 12-0-12 used as a topdressing.

Weather fleck damage was taken on this station on June 15 as· shown in

Table 5a on page 26. Later with more ideal weather conditions, the occurrence

of the weather fleck damage was minimized by harvest dates.

The Kinston Test, TV 256, was transplanted on April 26. Rainfall during the growing season was: May - 4.08, June 7.45, July - 4.51 and August 3.07

The fertilizer grade, 8-16-24, was used in amount of 475 pounds per acre with

115 pounds of 15-0-14 used as a topdressing. The tobacco in this test tended

to be good in color and had thin to medium body and good texture. The tobacco

in this test was of good quality.

The Rocky Mount Test, TV 257, was planted on April 28 under poor moisture

conditions and seasonal growing conditions were favorable for producing a fair

to good crop on this station. Tobacco from this location was of good quality

and texture. Fertilization consisted of 900 pounds of 4-8-12 plus 200 pounds

of 15-0-14 used as a topdressing. Rainfall during the growing season was as

follows: May - 5.00, June 4.03, July - 3.75 and August - 3.42.

The Oxford Test, TV 258, was transplanted on May 6 under good conditions

and seasonal conditions were favorable for a good crop. Rainfall during the

(10)

August - 2.88. The crop was fertilized with 600 pounds of 8-16-24 and 130

pounds of 15-0-14.

The Reidsville Test, TV 259, was transplanted May 13 under good moisture

conditions. The season was mostly favorable. Rainfall during the growing

season was as follows: May - 4.76, June - 4.13, July 3.05 and August - 1.68.

Overall the quality of the entries was fair to good in this test. The crop

was fertilized with 1200 pounds of 4-8-12 plus an additional 125 pounds of

15-0-14 as a topdresser.

Regional Farm Tests

The number of entries in this test is necessarily limited since the plots

are rather large and there are many locations. This program includes advanced

breeding lines that have met the minimum standards in the Regional Small Plot

Test. It is desirable to gain i~formationon these breeding lines and varieties

under farm conditions. Also, this provides an opportunity for the tobacco

companies to study the breeding lines and new varieties for their manufacturing

characteristics.

This part of the evaluation program is a cooperative effort of the

experiment station, extension service, USDA, tobacco companies and growers.

The participating companies were: The American Tobacco Company, Brown and

Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Imperial Tobacco Company, Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company, Philip Morris, Inc., P. Lorillard Company, R. J. Reynolds

Tobacco Company, Export Leaf Tobacco Company and Universal Leaf Company.

Thirteen locations were planted--two in South Carolina, two in Georgia,

three in Virginia and six in North Carolina. This is a cooperative program

and permission was granted for the inclusion of all locations in this report. Fertilization and other cultural practices, as shown in Table 17, were

(11)

and those with a nematode problem were fumigated. Only information on the North Carolina tests is shown here.

Representatives from both domestic and foreign buyers visited these plots

in the field. The cured tobacco was displayed on a warehouse floor for the

participating companies to examine and sample for laboratory analyses. Each

company graded the tobacco according to the types they normally use in their

manufacturing. In addition, they also rated each lot of tobacco for its

physical quality characteristics according to color, body, texture and usability.

Displays were scheduled in 1976 at Kinston and Roxboro, North Carolina. Other

displays were scheduled in Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia for physical characteristics evaluations.

Most of the locations received adequate to excess moisture in producing

their crops. Generally, the growing conditions were favorable for the crop.

Edmund transplanted on March 29 under dry conditions but had adequate

rainfall during the growing season. The quality of the crop was good.

Sutton and Hooten transplanted on April 19 and 23 under good soil moisture.

All entries transplanted and grew off well. Rainfall from April to August was

adequate and well spaced for good crop growth. The crop was of good quality.

Harrell transplanted on April 20 and 22 under good conditions. A good

stand was obtained and grew well under favorable conditions with adequate rainfall

The crop was of good quality.

Andrews transplanted on April 21 and 29. Tobacco grew off good with

adequate moisture but had a dry June and July. This crop was fairly thin to

medium bodied, lemon colored and fair to good quality.

Dickerson transplanted on May 4 and 5 and the crop grew off well in the

(12)

the tobacco tended to be heavy and dark colored. He irrigated his crop twice.

Day transplanted on April 27 under good moisture conditions. He

irrigated three times because of dry conditions. The quality of this crop

was good.

All six cooperators used Off-Shoot-T contact sucker control material

followed by Royal MH-30 systemic sucker control agent with good results in

controlling suckers. This procedure allowed early testing of potential

varieties with these growth regulator materials.

Results and Discussion

The data are discussed under the headings (1) Official Variety Test and

(2) Regional Farm Test. Individual location data are presented but are

discussed only to emphasize specific points.

Official Variety Test

The data presented in Tables 1 and 2 are summary data from various years

and locations and indicate how several varieties have been performing over a

period of years at various locations.

In Table 1, data are presented to show a comparison of the mean of NC 2326 and certain flue-cured tobacco varieties. The varieties with the

highest number of comparisons have been included in the yield per acre table

during the past fourteen years (1963-1976). Acre value is based on a two-year

average (1975-1976). Grade index is based on 1975 and 1976 data.

In Table 2, varieties that were common in the 1974, 1975 and 1976 tests

are compared for a large number of characteristics. The same general trend

was shown in these varieties during all years. Speight G-140, Coker 86,

McNair 944 and Coker 347 had the highest yield per acre. NC 13 with a two-year

(13)

per acre. NC 2326 was the earliest to flower. All varieties had about average

percent nicotine, ranging from 2.71 for Speight G-28 to 3.92 for NC 13. All

varieties were in an average range for other chemical and agronomic traits.

Table 3 shows the percent of tobacco harvested at each priming. It also

shows the accumulated total harvested through each priming. This information

can be used to get an idea of the relative rapidity that a variety comes off

the stalk. Under the harvesting schedule most all varieties matured equal to

NC 2326 and NC 95.

The average performance of varieties and lines compared at five locations

in 1976 is shown in Table 4. There was some variety x location interaction

for the characters studied, however, it probably was not sufficient to affect

the choosing of a variety to plant. Varieties tended to perform the same

relative to each other, that is, they did not make major shifts. The variety x

locations mean squares were used for computation of L.S.D. values. The entries shown at the top of Table 4 are commercially available varieties, whereas, those

in the lower portion are breeding lines.

Commercially Available Varieties

NC 2326 was above the mean of the yield for the nineteen varieties in the

test. The dollars per hundredweight ranged from a low of $111.70 for NC 12

to a high of $116.40 for NC 2326. This highest value per acre was NC 13 at

$3450 per acre. The grade index ranged from a low of 41 for NC 12 to a high

of 55 for Coker 319. A small variation in this data is significant. Considering

all entries in the test, there has been a high correlation between the value per

hundredweight and the grade index, indicating that the two are giving a

somewhat similar picture. If the tobaccos are normal in physical appearance that

(14)

Most varieties were intermediate in their flowering habit, ranging from one to eight days later than NC 2326. All varieties were evaluated for the

number of leaves per plant. McNair 1040 had the highest ground sucker count.

Quality is divided into visual or physical appearance, chemical

character-istics and smoking charactercharacter-istics. The visual characteristics can be readily

seen by the eye, whereas the chemical and smoke characteristics must be

determined in the laboratory. Data on several chemical constituents that are

associated with quality are presented in Table 4. Most of the varieties appear

to have satisfactory chemical composition with Speight G-28 being the lowest in nicotine content as compared with the other varieties. The nicotine content

in 1976 ranged from 3.20 to 4.34.

Coker 258 has a higher proportion of the alkaloid in the form of

nornicotine than the other varieties. All of the varieties were in a range

of 9.88 to 13.31 percent sugar and the sugars in 1976 were on an average comparable to the 1975 crop.

The ratio (reducing sugar/nicotine) was calculated as a measure of the

relationship of the carbohydrates to the alkaloid fraction. To be of value, the constituents included in the ratio must be within the acceptable range.

A higher ratio tends to indicate mildness and smoothness while a very low

ratio may be indicative of a harsh irritating smoke. If the ratio is too

high, it might indicate that the tobacco is too mild to be acceptable to the

smoker. There was a range from 2.77 for Coker 258 to 3.89 for Coker 86 and McNair 944.

Information on disease resistance is presented in Table 5. Data were

collected on Black Shank, Bacterial Wilt, Root Knot and MOsaic. A relative

(15)

based on this and other disease tests. The disease tests were fairly critical

at all locations. Much progress appears to have been made in developing

disease resistant varieties released in the last few years. There are several

varieties carrying a high level of resistance to Black Shank, Bacterial Wilt

and Root Knot. Several other varieties carry a moderate to high level of

resistance to Bacterial Wilt. The choice of varieties carrying Bacterial Wilt resistance is somewhat higher than in recent years. One new variety carries

resistance to Mosaic in addition to having high Black Shank resistance.

Advanced Breeding Lines

Data on advanced breeding lines are shown in Table 4, however, since

these lines are in early stages of testing, the data will not be discussed in

detail at this time.

Since most of the breeding lines have only been in the Official Variety

Test for oue year, regional testing was not available. The lines are rated for resistance with an index or level of resistance shown. For Black Shank and

Bacterial Wilt the percent diseased plants is shown. Root Knot and Mosaic

resistances are recorded as resistant or segregating.

It has been difficult to obtain varieties or breeding lines with multiple

resistance to all diseases, good physical and chemical characteristics and

acceptable smoke ratings. Under the Acreage-Poundage Program, some pressure

has been eliminated for the plant breeder to continue to develop each year

higher and higher yielding lines. This situation has enabled the plant breeder

to direct more attention to selection criteria for disease resistance.

Many of the entries carry resistance to Root Knot nematode species,

Meloidogyne incognita, which is the most prevalent species of nematode in

North Carolina soils. There are other species of Root Knot nematodes as well

(16)

Regional Farm Tests

A summary of the results from the Regional Farm Tests is presented in

Table 11. Yields ranged from 1932 for Va. 644 to 2563 for NC 89. Value per

acre followed the same trend as yield. NC 89 had the highest dollars per

hundred pounds of entries in this test with a value of $119066. This was

$10.15 per hundredweight more than the highest entry in 1975.

The tobacco from each of the locations was displayed on a warehouse floor

at Kinston and Roxboro and appraised for the physical quality factors; color,

body and texture by leaf and research personnel of each of the eight

partici-pating tobacco companies. The results of this quality appraisal are shown

in Table 12. The ratings varied from company to company but tended to follow

the same general pattern.

Table 13 shows percent tobacco usable by a least one company for individual

North Carolina farms and a mean for all farms and varieties. The high numbers

indicate that the majority of the new lines could be ~sed by at least one

buying company.

In Table 14, an index of the amount graded is shown by grower for each

variety. If all eight companies could grade all of a variety into their grades,

then it received an index of 8. However, since companies have different

requirements, all would not tend to grade each lot of new line tobacco. In the overall average for all companies, the varieties, NC 2326, NC 95 and Vao 644,received the highest ratings.

The farmers were asked to rate the varieties for grower desirability with

their highest preference shown as number one, the lower the number the more

desirable the variety. The data are shown in Table 16. The rating indicated

(17)

Both physical and chemical information should be considered along with

yield and value data relative to a variety or lineo Also the handling

characteristics are important. A thorough evaluation of breeding material is

important if quality is to be maintained and improved.

These various indices are not conclusive but show trends in preferences

which are indicative of the acceptability and desirability of these tobaccos by manufacturers and growers. All information should be studied relative to varietal

performance for all characteristics and not just a selected one or two.

Table 13 presents data from the five breeding lines in the Regional Small

Plot Tests that were common in the Regional Farm Test. It shows the percent

cured leaf usable by tobacco companies across six locations and the rating for

variety potential. Va. 644 showed the largest percent usable by the participating

companies. In the company ratings for variety potential, the higher number

indicates the highest rating. Va. 644 received the best rating.

Chemical growth regulators were used on the Regional Farm Test in 1976.

Special acknowledgment is due Procter and Gamble for furnishing Off-Shoot-T 85

(18)

1976 Entries, Pedigrees and Sponsors

Trt. Generation or

No. Entries Yr. of Release Pedigree Sponsor

1 NC 2326 ReI. 1965 (Hicks x 9102 x Hicks)Hicks)Hicks) N. C.

2 NC 95 ReI. 1961 (C-139 x Bel. 4-30)x(C-139 x Hicks) N. C.

3 NC 3150 F₆ (9069 MR x 319) USDA

4 NC 3043 F

9 (7102 x 7082) USDA

5 NC 89 F₈ t8SS-2 x 6772) N. C.

6 Va. 644 F₁₁ (Burley 49 x NC 95ilBC3 _S7 Va.

7 Coker 73-48E _F1~ (C-258 x C-319) x C-319 Coker

8 Coker 86 Re . 1974 C-258 (65-16R x 319) x 175L Coker

9 Coker 258 ReI. 1966 (Coker 319 x NC 95) Coker

10 Coker 298 ReI. 1965 (Coker 139 x Coker 156) Coker

11 Coker 319 ReI. 1963 (Coker 139 x Hicks) Coker

12 Coker 347 ReI. 1969 (Coker 319 x Coker 258) Coker

13 Coker 411 ReI. 1969 [Coker 139 (Hicks x C-139~ Coker

14 McNair 944 ReI. 1972 Speight G-10 x McNair 30 McNair

15 McNair 1040 ReI. 1973 Coker 139 x Coker 319 McNair

16 NC 12 ReI. 1974 Hicks x Coker 139 N. C.

17 NC 13 ReI. 1975 Hicks x Coker 139 N. C.

18 NC 79 ReI. 1973 (2521-1 x 2321) N. C.

19 NC 98 ReI. 1974 (6997 x NC 95) N. C.

20 Speight G-23 ReI. 1974 NC 2326 x NC 95 Speight

21 Speight G-28 ReI. 1969 (Ox. 1-181 x C-139 x NC 95) Speight

22 Speight G-33 ReI. 1970 (Coker 187 x Vesta 30) x NC 95 Speight

23 Speight G-140 ReI. 1971 Speight G-7 x Speight G-3 Speight

24 v«. 115 ReI. 1965 Hicks x Coker 139 Va.

25 NC 5017 F₆ (Coker 319 x Coker 411) USDA

26 NC 5019 F₆ (Ga. 1096 x Coker 411) USDA

27 NC 5025 F_S (Ga. 1096 x Coker 411) USDA

28 NC 5050 F

6 (Coker 319 x Coker 411) USDA

29 NC 5387 F

4 (2103 x 2107) USDA

30 NC 5426 F₄ (2103 x 2107) USDA

31 NC TG-16 F

7 (Dixie Bright 244 x Coker 139) N. C.

32 NC 5490C F₆ (8855 x 0784) N. C.

33 NC 5539-C F₅ (1783 x 20038) N. C.

34 NC 5578C F

5 (1824-2 x 20048) N. C.

35 NC 5613C F

S (20038 x 20048) N. C.

36 NC 5628C F₅ (20038 x 20048) N. C.

37 NC 5643C F₅ (20038 x 2868) N. C.

38 Speight G-14 F

6 C-347 x G-170 Speight

39 Speight G-18 F₉ G-28 x NC 2514 Speight

40 Speight G-21 F₆ G-28 x G-34 Speight

41 Speight G-30 F₆ G-170 x G-34 Speight

42 Speight G-57 F₆ G-28 x C-258 Speight

43 Speight G-62 F

(19)

LOCAIION OF TESTS - 1976

~

'-l

(X)-

COOPERATIVE GROWER

(T) - EXPERIMENT STATION

(20)

Table 10 Percentage comparison with the mean of NC 2326 and certain flue-cured tobacco varieties in the Official Variety Test. 1963-1976.

Standard Acre Yield Acre Value Grade Index

NC 2326 2392 $3083 51

No. Comparisons*

9 NC 13 131 NC 13 111 Coker 319 106

14 Coker 86 123 McNair 944 109 McNair 944 102

27 Speight G-140 121 Coker 347 107 McNair 1040 102

22 McNair 944 119 Speight G-140 107 NC 98 102

18 NC 79 118 Coker 86 104 Coker 347 100

36 Coker 347 115 NC 79 104 Coker 411 100

14 Coker 258 114 Speight G-33 103 NC 13 100

18 McNair 1040 114 Va. 115 102 NC 79 100

14 Speight G-23 114 Coker 411 101 NC 2326 100

32 Speight G-33 114 NC 2326 100 Speight G-140 100

..-14 NC 12 112 McNair 1040 99

v«.

115 98 ex>

27 Coker 298 111 NC 98 99 NC 95 96

14 NC 98 111 Speight G-23 99 Speight G-28 96

36 Coker 411 108 Coker 319 98 Speight G-23 94

40 Speight G-28 103 NC 95 96 Speight G-33 94

68 Coker 319 102 Coker 258 96 Coker 298 92

68 Va. 115 101 Coker 298 95 Coker 258 90

64 NC 2326 100 Speight G-28 95 Coker 86 86

77 NC 95 98 NC 12 94 NC 12 84

(21)

THREE YEAR AVERAGE 1974, 1975, 1976

Table 2. _{Comparison of certain varieties and lines in Official Tobacco Variety Test.}

Value Days Leaves Height

Varieties Yield Index Grade to per of Ground

or Lines LbslA Do11A Index Flower Plant Plant Suckers

NC 2326 2765 2936 55 57 17.4 43 0.3

NC 95 2689 2821 49 62 17.7 43 1.2

Coker 86 2950 3054 43 67 19.9 45 1.3

Coker 258 2733 2834 45 65 20.1 44 0.9

Coker 298 2724 2828 47 66 19.0 47 0.7

Coker 319 2666 2822 52 63 18.8 43 0.7

Coker 347 2931 3091 49 64 19.4 44 0.9

Coker 411 2815 2971 51 63 19.2 43 0.6

McNair 944 2946 3107 50 64 18.2 43 0.6

McNair 1040 2742 2893 51 65 19.6 45 2.4

NC 12 2686 2764 44 61 18.0 43 1.2

*NC 13 3157 3421 51 64 20.0 47 0.6

NC 79 2839 3013 50 60 18.0 46 0.3

NC 98 2670 2812 50 62 17.3 43 1.6

Speight G-23 2748 2882 48 61 17.2 40 0.8

Speight G-28 2678 2790 48 64 18.4 39 0.3

Speight G-33 2907 3027 46 65 20.0 44 0.7

Speight G-140 2985 3142 49 64 19.5 46 0.9

Va. 115 2867 3015 49 60 17.8 42 0.8

Nor. Sol. Tot

11

Ratios

11

Varieties Nic. Nic. Sug. N. T.N. Sug.

or Lines % % % % Nic. Nic.

NC 2326 3.57 .29 14.09 2.15 .70 4.42

NC 95 3.69 .37 12.96 2.39 .74 3.86

Coker 86 3.11 .29 13.85 2.19 .83 4.92

Coker 258 3.63 .41 12.09 2.36 .75 3.61

Coker 298 3.84 .31 12.80 2.44 .71 3.74

Coker 319 3.27 .32 12.87 2.37 .85 4.41

Coker 347 3.76 .34 13.21 2.38 .75 3.91

Coker 411 3.41 .31 13.46 2.24 .83 4.54

McNair 944 3.31 .30 14.74 2.27 .78 4.77

McNair 1040 3.23 .26 12.81 2.23 .78 4.27

NC 12 3.39 .28 12.39 2.42 .91 4.28

*NC 13 3.92 .26 12.81 3.51

NC 79 3.39 .31 13.84 2.41 .77 4.41

NC 98 3.28 .35 12.41 2.30 .81 4.12

Speight G-23 3.76 .31 13.01 2.35 .67 3.67

Speight G-28 2.92 .27 12.68 2.21 .88 4.80

.26 13.64 2.18 .76 4.44

Speight G-33 3.37

.82 5.38

Speight G-140 3.18 .30 15.42 2.13

4.43

Va. 115 3.40 .37 13.41 2.31 .79

*Average for 1975 and 1976 only.

II

_{and Tot. N/Nic. are for 1974 only.}

(22)

Table 3. RATE OF HARVEST OF COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE VARIETIES - 1976

Percentage of Tobacco (Cured Weight in Each Harvest Across Reps and Locations for the Varieties Listed in 1976 OVT, 5 Locations - Whiteville, Kinston, Rocky Mount, Oxford and Reidsville.

Letters designate harvests.

NC 2326 A _~

_fa

D _~

%At Each Harvest 12.5 14.7 25.4 31.1 16.3

Total %Harvested 12.5 27.2 52.6 83.7 100.0

NC 95

%At Each Harvest 12.2 14.7 24.1 28.0 21.1

Total %Harvested 12.2 26.9 51.0 79.0 100.0

Coker 86

%At Each Harvest 11.3 13.3 22.3 30.6 22.5

Total %Harvested 11.3 24.6 46.9 77.5 100.0

Coker 258

%At Each Harvest 12.3 14.9 25.6 27.0 20.2

Total %Harvested 12.3 27.2 52.8 79.8 100.0

Coker 298

%At Each Harvest 13.4 16.1 25.6 27.4 17.5

Total %Harvested 13.4 29.5 55.1 82.5 100.0

Coker 319

%At Each Harvest 14.4 15.4 27.4 29.7 13.1

Total %Harvested 14.4 29.8 57.2 86.9 100.0

Coker 347

%At Each Harvest 13.0 14.4 24.5 28.7 19.4

Total %Harvested 13.0 27.4 51.9 80.6 100.0

Coker 411

%At Each Harvest 12.6 16.1 25.5 29.0 16.8

Total %Harvested 12.6 28.7 54.2 83.2 100.0

McNair 944

%At Each Harvest 13.0 15.8 28.6 26.9 15.7

(23)

McNair 1040

!:.

_~

_s

_Q

~

%At Each Harvest _13.1 _18.0

23.8 28.7 16.4

Total % Harvested _13.1 _31.1 _54.9

83.6 100.0

~

%At Each Harvest _13.0 _15.8 _23.0

29.2 19.0

Total %Harvested 13.0 28.8 51.8 81.0 100.0

liUl

%At Each Harvest _13.6 _15.7 _25.8

27.1 17.8

Total %Harvested 13.6 29.3 55.1 82.2 100.0

NC 79

%At Each Harvest 13.1 15.0 26.0 28.6 17.3

Total %Harvested 13.1 28.1 54.1 82.7 100.0

NC 98

%At Each Harvest 13.7 15.3 26.1 28.5 16.4

Total %Harvested 13.7 29.0 55.1 83.6 100.0

Speight G-23

%At Each Harvest 12.9 15.7 23.2 30.4 17.8

Total %Harvested 12.9 28.6 51.8 82.2 100.0

Speight G-28

.% At Each Harvest 14.0 15.3 28.5 26.9 15.3

Total %Harvested 14.0 29.3 57.8 84.7 100.0

Speight G-33

%At Each Harvest 12.6 12.6 22.1 28.3 24.4

Total %Harvested 12.6 25.2 47.3 75.6 100.0

Speight G-140

%At Each Harvest 12.3 16.1 26.8 27.2 17.6

Total %Harvested 12.3 28.4 55.2 82.4 100.0

Va. 115

%At Each Harvest 13.2 14.0 25.5 29.3 18.0

Total %Harvested 13.2 27.2 52.7 82.0 100.0

(24)

WHITEVILLE, KINSTON, ROCKY MOUNT, OXFORD AND REIDSVILLE

Table 4 .. Comparison of varieties for certain characteristics for five locations 1976

Days Leaves

Varieties Yield Value Index Grade to per

or Lines LbslA Do11A Do1/Cwt. Index Flower Plant

NC 2326 2761 3215 116.40 53 57 17.5

NC 95 2568 2966 115.47 50 62 17.9

Coker 86 2875 3292 114.52 48 65 20.4

Coker 258 2612 3017 115.56 51 64 20.1

Coker 298 2614 2988 114.14 48 63 19.0

Coker 319 2670 3084 115.51 55 60 18.5

Coker 347 2855 3314 116.00 53 62 19.0

Coker 411 2699 3111 115.16 50 61 18.8

McNair 944 2951 3419 115.82 53 62 18.2

McNair 1040 2609 2997 114.88 53 64 19.8

NC 12 2537 2834 111.70 41 60 18.5

NC 13 3020 3450 114.12 51 63 19.8

NC 79 2700 3143 116.30 52 61 18.5

NC 98 2695 3113 115.47 52 61 18.0

Speight G-23 2674 3100 115.86 51 59 17.4

Speight G-28 2609 2966 113.73 51 63 18.3

Speight G-33 2901 3347 115.36 52 64 20.1

Speight G-140 2866 3317 115.66 53 64 19.5

v«. 115 2802 3236 115.40 51 58 18.1

Coker 73-48E 2814 3239 114.97 49 64 19.9

NC 89 3059 3568 116.57 55 61 17.3

NC 3043 2822 3251 115.24 53 59 18.4

NC 3150 2367 2713 114.57 51 58 18.2

NC 5017 2764 3192 115.44 53 61 18.2

NC 5019 2608 3017 115.61 53 58 18.6

NC 5025 2701 3123 115.54 50 61 20.1

NC 5050 2555 2964 115.90 54 58 18.2

NC 5387 2527 2878 113.88 47 61 17.4

NC 5426 2572 2950 114.71 52 59 18.2

NC TG-16 2914 3340 114.55 49 63 19.1

NC 5490C 2760 3195 115.80 52 59 18.0

NC 5539C 2612 2956 112.93 46 61 19.2

NC 5578C 2618 3020 115.39 49 58 17.7

NC 5613C 3032 3494 115.06 50 59 18.1

NC 5628C 2957 3428 115.74 52 61 17.8

NC 5643C 2675 3069 114.73 48 61 18.1

Speight G-14 2724 3138 115.07 51 65 19.8

Speight G-18 2679 3099 115.69 52 61 18.7

Speight G-30 2712 3086 113.79 47 63 19.6

Speight G-57 2618 3033 115.80 54 61 18.7

Speight G-62 2556 2891 113.12 46 62 18.7

Va. 644 2502 2871 114.50 51 64 19.9

Mean of Test 2718 3129 115.04 51 61 18.7

L.S.D. (.05) 179 219 1.45 4 2 1.0

(.01) 236 289 1.92 5 N.S. 1.3

(25)

WHITEVILLE, KINSTON, ROCKY MOUNT, OXFORD AND REIDSVILLE

Table 4. Continued. Comparison of varieties for certain characteristics for five locations - 1976

Height Analysis of Cured Leaf Ratio

Varieties of Ground Nic. Sol. Sug. Nor. Nic. Sug.

or Lines Plant Suckers % % % Nic.

NC 2326 46 0.5 4.04 12.25 .37 3.11

NC 95 45 1.3 4.12 11.39 .48 2.85

Coker 86 46 1.5 3.46 13.15 .30 3.89

Coker 258 46 1.3 3.97 10.64 .54 2.77

Coker 298 47 1.0 4.22 10.83 .43 2.65

Coker 319 44 1.1 3.69 11.30 .40 3.19

Coker 347 44 1.2 4.34 12.01 .44 2.83

Coker 411 44 1.1 4.02 11.56 .33 2.99

McNair 944 44 0.9 3.55 13.31 .38 3.89

McNair 1040 46 2.8 3.50 10.09 .34 2.95

NC 12 45 1.4 3.88 9.88 .35 2.67

NC 13 46 0.8 4.04 12.62 .30 3.22

NC 79 47 0.5 3.70 11.69 .34 3.24

NC 98 45 1.9 3.63 10.95 .38 3.18

Speight G-23 42 1.2 4.14 11.31 .40 2.83

Speight G-28 39 0.6 3.20 10.88 .28 3.47

Speight G-33 45 1.2 3.60 13.29 .36 3.80

Speight G-140 47 1.3 3.55 13.02 .32 3.84

Va. 115 44 1.3 3.77 11.88 .45 3.35

Coker 73-48E 47 1.5 3.79 12.93 .36 3.56

NC 89 44 0.9 3.87 12.23 .43 3.31

NC 3043 43 1.5 3.72 11.43 .47 3.18

NC 3150 45 1.1 4.18 11.17 .37 2.78

NC 5017 44 1.2 3.42 12.49 .28 3.89

NC 5019 45 2.3 3.72 11.42 .29 3.22

NC 5025 50 1.7 3.91 11.30 .55 3.03

NC 5050 43 2.1 3.64 11.94 .33 3.37

NC 5387 47 1.3 3.43 10.61 .43 3.28

NC 5426 45 1.0 3.48 11.11 .41 3.31

NC TG-16 45 1.1 3.75 12.15 .44 3.42

NC 5490C 46 1.4 3.89 12.45 .47 3.33

NC 5539C 48 0.9 4.06 10.79 .45 2.79

NC 5578C 48 0.8 4.34 10.81 .35 2.68

NC 5613C 46 0.4 3.45 12.29 .47 3.79

NC 5628C 47 0.5 3.54 13.86 .40 4.09

NC 5643C 47 0.5 4.28 10.37 .46 2.58

Speight G-14 46 1.0 3.82 12.25 .40 3.27

Speight G-18 43 0.7 3.28 11.01 .33 3.44

Speight G-30 45 0.5 3.44 12.23 .38 3.71

Speight G-57 43 1.5 3.44 12.00 .30 3.58

Speight G-62 42 0.8 3.35 9.54 .46 2.94

Va. 644 46 0.9 3.70 12.32 .25 3.42

Mean of Test 45

.!..d

3.76 11.69

.d2.

3.25

L.S.D. (.05) N.S. .6 . 29 1.31 N.S . .54

(.01) N.S. . 8 N.S . N.S. N.S. N.S.

(26)

Table 5. Summary information on disease resistance - 1976

Level of Resistance

Varieties B1ack

1/

Bac t e r ia1

1/

Root!:../

Mosaic!:../

or Lines Shank Wilt Knot

NC 2326 6.8 45.0

NC 95 20.3 12.5 Res.

Coker 86 15.9 2.5 Res. Res.

Coker 258 42.1 5.0 Res.

Coker 298 4.8 30.0

Coker 319 30.0 33.5

Coker 347 20.5 17.5 Res.

Coker 411 22.2 45.0

McNair 944 5.2 47.5

McNair 1040 47.7 20.0

NC 12 21.7 18.0

NC 13 25.0 52.5

NC 79 38.7 49.0 Res.

NC 98 74.5 22.5 Res.

Speight G-23 30.6 20.0 Res.

Speigllt G-28 27.3 15.0 Res.

Speight G-33 34.4 ?3.0 Res.

Speight G-140 8.0 24.0

Va. 115 33.0 46.0

Coker 73-48E 6.8 10.0

NC 89 36.4 17.5 Res.

NC 3043 25.0 15.0

NC 3150 52.3 46.5 Res.

NC 5017 45.5 63.5

NC 5019 31.9 45.0

NC 5025 68.2 30.0

NC 5050 43.2 52.5

NC 5387 20.5 7.5

NC 5426 59.1 35.0

NC TG-16 27.3 27.5

NC 5490C 29.6 38.5 Res.

NC 5539C 29.6 20.0 Res. Res.

NC 5578C 36.4 20.5 Res.

NC 5613C 59.1 7.5 Res. Res.

NC 5628C 31.8 30.0 Res. Res.

NC 5643C 22.7 15.0 Res.

Speight G-30 18.2 10.0

Va. 644 54.6 10.0 Res. Res.

l/For Black Shank and Bacterial Wilt the percent diseased is shown with higher figures indicating less disease resistance. For a relative comparison on Black Shank, Coker 298 is considered to have high resistance and for Bacterial Wilt resistance, NC 95 is rated high.

(27)

Table 5. Increasing Tolerance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

(Continued) 1976 Brown Spot Eva1uation

l l

Entry Coker 298 NC 5539C NC 5387 NC 13 NC 5643C Coker 258 NC 5490C NC TG-16 Speight G-30 Speight G-28 NC 3150 Coker 411 Coker 73-48E Speight G-62 NC 95 McNair 944 NC 5426 McNair 1040 Coker 86 Va. 644 NC 5025 NC 5613C NC 12 NC 5578C NC 98 NC 5017 Speight G-140 Speight G-14 Speight G-57 NC

7Q

Va. 115 Coker 347 NC 5050 Speight G-23 NC 2326 NC 5628C NC 89 NC 3043 Speight G-18 Coker 319 Speight G-33 NC 5019 1976 D.I. .1329 .0854 .0766 .0638 .0590 .0580 .0577 .0572 .0570 .0561 .0511 .0509 .0500 .0490 .0488 .0480 .0473 .0459 .0452 .0430 .0427 .0408 .0405 .0388 .0368 .0366 .0365 .0353 .0338 .0334 .0322 .0314 .0310 .0303 .0299 .0295 .0283 .0275 .0275 .0264 .0233 .0229

(28)

Table Sa. Weather fleck rating for Border Belt Research Station, Whiteville, North Carolina - 1976

a b

Severe Damagec

Slight Damage Moderate Damage

Coker 347 Coker 86 Coker 73-48E

Coker 411 Coker 258 NC 79

McNair 1040 Coker 298 NC 95

NC 13 Coker 319 NC 5490C

NC 89 McNair 944 NC 5643C

NC 5150 NC 12 Speight G-14

NC 56l3C NC TG-16 Speight G-18

Speight G-140 NC 98 Speight G-28

Va. 644 NC 2326 Speight G-23

NC 3043 Speight G-62

NC 3150 NC 5017 NC 5019 NC 5025 NC 5387 NC 5426 NC 5539C NC 5578C NC 5628C Speight G-23 Speight G-30 Speight G-57 Va. 115

aSlight damage (0 - .99) was rated as no visual appearance to a minimum number of lesions on the bottom three to four leaves.

b

Moderate damage (1.00 - 1.99) was rated as lesions appearing on the bottom half of the plant.

(29)

TV 255 WHITEVILLE

Table 6. Comparison of varieties for certain characteristics - 1976.

Days Leaves

or Lines LbslA Do11A Do1/Cwt. Index Flower Plant

NC 2326 3045 3590 117.94 50 61 17.9

NC 95 2813 3270 116.25 55 66 17.9

Coker 86 3031 3476 114.70 49 69 20.7

Coker 258 2878 3370 117.05 56 67 20.7

Coker 298 2628 2973 113.34 47 68 19.6

Coker 319 2834 3331 117.57 58 66 19.0

Coker 347 3149 3685 116.95 57 66 18.9

Coker 411 2779 3233 116.31 51 65 19.1

McNair 944 3199 3761 117.56 56 66 18.5

McNair 1040 2765 3130 113.23 55 68 20.8

NC 12 2574 2851 110.60 48 64 20.3

NC 13 3039 3452 113.47 51 66 20.0

NC 79 3063 3603 117.56 57 65 19.5

NC 98 2925 3398 116.16 55 66 18.3

Speight G-23 2856 3333 116.68 49 63 17.4

Speight G-28 2720 3032 111.34 58 67 18.1

Speight G-33 3117 3636 116.62 53 68 21.4

Speight G-140 2891 3360 116.17 53 67 19.9

Va. 115 2955 3481 117.80 58 63 17.9

Coker 73-48E 3276 3841 117.22 54 67 20.0

NC 89 3392 4025 118.65 60 65 17.8

NC 3043 2862 3346 116.96 56 64 19.0

NC 3150 2578 3021 117.20 56 61 18.8

NC 5017 2964 3458 116.64 55 65 18.8

NC 5019 2766 3233 116.89 55 64 19.1

NC 5025 2910 3428 117.76 52 66 21.0

NC 5050 2819 3307 117.33 57 65 18.7

NC 5387 2757 3179 115.28 46 64 18.3

NC 5426 2673 3074 114.98 54 66 19.1

NC TG-16 3028 3514 116.05 54 68 19.2

NC 5490C 2890 3386 117.13 56 64 18.4

NC 5539C 2931 3374 115.15 49 67 19.9

NC 5578C 2725 3214 117.91 57 59 18.1

NC 5613C 3375 3909 115.85 50 67 19.2

NC 5628C 3269 3815 116.66 49 67 17.9

NC 5643C 2895 3381 116.77 55 66 18.9

Speight G-14 2972 3463 116.52 54 68 19.8

Speight G-18 2727 3209 117.69 59 65 19.7

Speight G-30 2852 3299 115.66 50 68 19.1

Speight G-57 2953 3472 117.57 59 67 19.5

Speight G-62 2632 2968 112.46 46 67 18.9

Va. 644 2779 3240 116.59 53 67 19.9

Mean of ~ 2912 3384

l!hll

54 66 19.2

L.S.D. (.05) 198 260 3.70 8 2 1.6

(.01) 263 344 4.91 N.S. 3 2.1

(30)

TV 255 WHITEVILLE

Table 6. Continued. Comparison of varieties for certain characteristics - 1976

NC 2326 50 0.7 3.45 16.07 .25 4.67

NC 95 46 1.0 3.69 16.20 .35 4.40

Coker 86 49 1.2 2.99 15.60 .33 5.23

Coker 258 48 1.1 3.56 13.60 .44 3.83

Coker 298 50 0.8 3.67 14.30 .20 3.92

Coker 319 47 0.9 3.16 13.60 .31 4.31

Coker 347 46 1.4 3.80 14.63 .30 3.86

Coker 411 45 1.0 3.44 14.90 .34 4.33

McNair 944 47 1.1 3.06 16.27 .32 5.38

McNair 1040 49 2.5 3.15 12.00 .16 3.83

NC 12 49 1.5 3.26 11.60 .27 3.61

NC 13 49 1.0 3.65 13.83 .21 3.80

NC 79 51 0.2 3.27 15.23 .39 4.68

NC 98 48 1.5 2.85 14.77 .37 5.27

Speight G-23 43 1.1 3.38 14.30 .55 4.24

Speight G-28 43 0.3 2.85 13.03 .27 4.61

Speight G-33 46 1.0 3.24 16.47 .15 5.10

Speight G-140 49 0.8 3.12 15.77 .28 5.22

Va. 115 45 1.3 2.91 15.27 .45 5.31

Coker 73-48E 49 1.3 3.02 17.73 .29 5.88

NC 89 46 0.5 3.13 17.03 .36 5.44

NC 3043 46 1.6 3.43 14.03 .21 4.17

NC 3150 49 1.4 3.57 15.00 .35 4.26

NC 5017 46 1.0 2.59 16.50 .20 6.52

NC 5019 48 2.4 3.12 15.17 .26 4.88

NC 5025 53 1.3 3.48 15.20 .36 4.49

NC 5050 47 1.2 3.11 14.43 .30 4.67

NC 5387 48 1.2 2.85 13.33 .23 4.69

NC 5426 49 1.1 3.09 12.87 .31 4.20

NC TG-16 49 1.3 3.16 14.87 .41 4.81

NC 5490C 49 1.2 3.56 14.70 .34 4.24

NC 5539C 49 0.1 3.36 15.23 .44 4.56

NC 5578C 51 0.5 3.30 16.37 .41 5.00

NC 5613C 50 0.1 2.63 16.20 .39 6.18

NC 5628C 49 0.2 3.10 16.97 .34 5.58

NC 5643C 50 0.3 3.65 13.50 .37 3.72

Speight G-14 46 1.1 3.48 14.33 .40 4.12

Speight G-18 46 0.7 2.86 14.23 .20 4.97

Speight G-30 47 0.5 2.73 16.47 .32 6.03

Speight G-57 44 1.2 3.16 15.23 .20 4.84

Speight G-62 44 0.3 2.99 11.83 .44 3.96

Va. 644 49 1.8 3.30 16.77 .25 5.11

Mean of Test 48 _.hQ 3.22 14.89

_.:B.

4.71

L.S.D. (.05) 3 .8 .46 2.51 N.S. 1.29

(.01) 3 1.1 .61 3.33 N.S. 1.72

(31)

TV 256 KINSTON

Table 7. Comparison of varieties for certain characteristics - 1976.

Days Leaves

or Lines Lbs/A Do1/A Do1/Cwt. Index Flower Plant

NC 2326 2541 2979 117.28 56 56 17.3

NC 95 2292 2662 116.05 53 63 17.6

Coker 86 2477 2868 115.77 52 65 18.7

Coker 258 2442 2858 117.00 56 64 18.9

Coker 298 2356 2722 115.52 52 61 18.4

Coker 319 2434 2839 116.61 58 57 17.9

Coker 347 2770 3264 117.78 58 63 17.3

Coker 411 2585 3021 116.84 54 58 17.9

McNair 944 2722 3174 116.62 56 55 16.3

McNair 1040 2429 2832 116.51 53 62 18.2

NC 12 2307 2607 112.89 45 61 18.0

NC 13 2824 3275 116.00 55 64 18.9

NC 79 2658 3111 117.01 54 61 17.2

NC 98 2399 2782 115.87 55 62 17.9

Speight G-23 2748 3217 117.05 54 60 17.1

Speight G-28 2432 2804 115.12 51 62 17.6

Speight G-33 2658 3126 117.57 57 62 18.3

Speight G-140 2798 3274 116.94 55 63 17.8

Va. 115 2578 2979 115.44 52 54 17.3

Coker 73-48E 2302 2654 115.12 53 64 18.8

NC 89 2916 3424 117.46 59 62 17.8

NC 3043 2628 3066 116.68 57 58 16.9

NC 3150 2134 2463 115.35 54 55 17.9

NC.5017 2417 2805 115.98 56 61 17.9

NC 5019 2427 2851 117.39 57 55 17.4

NC 5025 2414 2799 115.99 51 56 18.9

NC 5050 2404 2811 116.88 56 58 17.1

NC 5387 2287 2641 115.45 50 60 17.6

NC 5426 2359 2742 116.21 55 58 17.1

NC TG-16 2863 3322 116.00 52 63 19.3

NC 5490C 2611 3071 117.60 55 56 16.6

NC 5539C 2585 3014 116.56 53 58 17.6

NC 5578C 2498 2922 116.95 56 59 16.9

NC 5613C 2998 3508 116.99 56 52 17.8

NC 5628C 3058 3583 117.16 58 59 16.9

NC 5643C 2692 3159 117.35 57 60 17.5

Speight G-14 2587 3023 116.81 56 66 18.9

Speight G-18 2356 2760 117.16 56 62 16.9

Speight G-30 2440 2789 114.36 50 64 18.1

Speight G-57 2430 2850 117.28 57 59 17.0

Speight G-62 2315 2689 116.17 52 63 17.4

Va. 644 2333 2725 116.75 57 64 19.3

Me an 0f

!!:.!!

2536 2954 116.42 55 60 17.8

L.S.D. ( .05) 332 410 1.82 5 6 1.6

(.01) 440 544 2.41 7 8 N.S.

(32)

TV 256 KINSTON

NC 2326 50 0 4.19 11.00 .33 2.67

NC 95 48 0 4.02 10.23 .45 2.55

Coker 86 49 0 3.72 12.97 .24 3.49

Coker 258 49 0 3.91 11.03 .57 2.83

Coker 298 50 0 4.11 10.47 .55 2.55

Coker 319 48 0 3.44 11.33 .39 3.32

Coker 347 48 0 4.35 13.37 .42 3.11

Coker 411 47 0 4.32 10.30 .29 2.44

McNair 944 46 0 3.63 13.33 .33 3.71

McNair 1040 50 0 3.74 10.17 .09 2.77

NC 12 47 0 3.98 8.13 .34 2.04

NC 13 49 0 4.15 11.87 .35 2.86

NC 79 50 0 3.63 12.60 .23 3.48

NC 98 48 0 3.54 11.27 .46 3.21

Speight G-23 46 0 4.06 10.63 .32 2.65

Speight G-28 44 0 3.19 9.23 .30 2.92

Speight G-33 48 0 3 .. 53 14.47 .24 4.12

Speight G-140 50 0 3.57 12.50 .43 3.66

Va. 115 46 0 3.79 11.03 .44 2.94

Coker 73-48E 49 0 3.79 12.97 .43 3.43

NC 89 48 0 3.59 13.03 .49 3.65

NC 3043 45 0 3.88 11.03 .49 2.89

NC 3150 48 0 4.20 11.97 .23 2.87

NC 5017 45 0 3.49 12.43 .30 3.57

NC 5019 47 0 3.41 11.87 .18 3.51

NC 5025 52 0 3.83 12.03 .66 3.20

NC 5050 47 0 3.39 11.10 .33 3.29

NC 5387 61 0 3.28 11.00 .53 3.37

NC 5426 47 0 3.59 11.10 .38 3.15

NC TG-16 49 0 3.50 13.40 .44 3.88

NC 5490C 47 0 3.59 12.50 .48 3.48

NC 5539C 50 0 3.76 11.53 .55 3.12

NC 5578C 49 0 4.15 12.27 .30 2.96

NC 5613C 49 0 3.26 11.73 .46 3.69

NC 5628C 49 0 3.16 15.17 .42 4.84

NC 5643C 49 0 3.58 11.97 .55 3.38

Speight G-14 51 0 3.81 11.87 .29 3.12

Speight G-18 46 0 3.11 11.37 .41 3.67

Speight G-30 47 0 3.34 11.10 .34 3.33

Speight G-57 47 0 3.21 12.50 .44 3.91

Speight G-62 45 0 3.17 8.33 .71 2.63

Va. 644 48 0 3.66 12.90 .19 3.53

Mean of Test 48 Q 3.68 11.69

_.:12

3.23

L.S.D. ( .05) N.S. N.S. .53 2.39 .27 .98

(.01) N.S. N.S. .70 3.16 N.S. 1.30

(33)

TV 257 ROCKY MOUNT

Table 8. Comparison of varieties for certain characteristics - 1976

Varieties

Days Leaves

Yield Value Index Grade to per

or Lines LbslA Do11A Do1/Cwt. Index Flower Plant

NC 2326 2554 2959 115.86 55 59 16.8

NC 95 2453 2835 115.53 49 63 18.1

Coker 86 2888 3257 112.93 45 67 20.2

Coker 258 2664 3019 113.28 44 66 20.1

Coker 298 2664 3062 114.90 49 66 19.5

Coker 319 2742 3178 115.84 57 64 18.5

Coker 347 2828 3264 115.39 50 65 18.3

Coker 411 2718 3122 114.86 50 66 19.9

McNair 944 3059 3560 116.31 52 65 17.7

McNair 1040 2513 2917 116.06 56 64 18.4

NC 12 2626 2996 114.05 46 59 17.5

NC 13 3235 3733 115.34 52 63 19.4

NC 79 2554 2937 114.99 48 64 17.8

NC 98 2565 2971 115.85 54 62 17.3

Speight G-23 2524 2899 114.87 50 61 15.9

Speight G-28 2580 2977 115.36 51 66 17.5

Speight G-33 2746 3133 114.05 49 69 19.5

Speight G-140 2742 3165 115.36 55 65 19.0

v«. 115 3030 3497 115.42 54 60 18.3

Coke~ 73-48E 2946 3345 113.55 43 65 19.9

NC u9 3002 3463 115.38 52 63 16.1

NC 3043 2600 2960 113.84 49 64 17.6

NC 3150 2516 2896 115.11 55 61 17.7

NC 5017 2643 3082 116.58 56 64 17.5

NC 5019 2457 2847 115.81 55 63 17.4

NC 5025 2682 3080 114.69 49 66 20.7

NC 5050 2641 3063 115.96 57 60 17.7

NC 5387 2442 2797 114.44 50 61 16.9

NC 5426 2597 3010 115.86 56 63 18.6

NC TG-16 2942 3408 115.82 53 65 19.1

NC 5490C 2496 2877 115.26 49 63 17.1

NC 5539C 2315 2634 113.77 45 66 19.8

NC 5578C 2589 2940 113.66 45 60 17.5

NC 5613C 2815 3197 113.39 45 62 18.3

NC 5628C 2940 3385 115.13 51 63 1B.5

NC 5643C 2694 3074 114.05 45 64 17.7

Speight G-14 2647 3047 115.06 50 67 1B.3

Speight G-18 2509 2911 115.97 51 64 17.3

Speight G-30 2806 3236 115.34 52 65 1B.9

Speight G-57 2516 2906 115.45 54 65 18.1

Speight G-62 2537 2898 114.24 47 65 1B.1

Va. 644 2376 2711 114.04 50 67 20.5

Mean of ~ 2676 3077 ~

a

64 1B.3

L.S.D. (.05) 380 453 1.92 7 5 1.9

(.01) 504 601 N.S. 9 6 2.5

(34)

TV 257 ROCKY MOUNT

Table 8. Continued. Comparison of varieties for certain characteristics 1976

NC 2326 48 0.1 4.01 11.77 .35 2.93

NC 95 48 0.3 4.23 10.13 .49 2.40

Coker 86 52 1.3 3.28 12.57 .32 3.92

Coker 258 50 0.5 3.90 9.27 .41 2.41

Coker 298 51 0.3 4.16 10.73 .38 2.59

Coker 319 47 0.4 3.60 11.50 .33 3.22

Coker 347 47 0.5 4.32 9.47 .52 2.20

Coker 411 49 0.1 3.81 11.03 .27 2.98

McNair 944 49 0.2 3.35 13.93 .39 4.26

McNair 1040 48 3.1 3.64 9.80 .35 2.71

NC 12 46 0.5 3.62 11.17 .42 3.09

NC 13 49 0.1 4.03 13.67 .35 3.44

NC 79 49 0 3.78 9.07 .31 2.50

NC 98 47 1.1 4.09 10.40 .29 2.55

Speight G-23 41 0.4 4.12 10.73 .58 2.60

Speight G-28 41 0.1 3.29 9.97 .33

3.04-Speight G-33 49 0.5 3.76 11.13 .35 2.96

Speight G-140 49 0.5 3.55 12.53 .29 3.57

Va. 115 47 0.3 3.87 12.20 .40 3.20

Coker 73-48E 51 0.6 3.84 10.40 .39 2.75

NC 89 44 0.1 4.09 9.63 .48 2.38

NC 3043 45 0.5 3.34 11.63 .66 3.52

NC 3150 49 0.3 4.09 10.97 .41 2.72

NC 5017 47 0.2 3.30 11.40 .34 3.52

NC 5019 45 1.1 3.82 9.73 .42 2.61

NC 5025 55 0.2 3.44 10.30 .53 3.06

NC 5050 44 1.7 3.66 12.50 .31 3.42

NC 5387 46 0.6 3.69 10.10 .48 2.76

NC 5426 49 0.3 3.68 12.50 .36 3.46

NC TG-16 46 0.4 3.74 13.53 .35 3.71

NC 5490C 46 0.3 3.95 11.83 .56 3.03

NC 5539C 53 0.3 3.87 8.97 .49 2.32

NC 5578C 49 0.3 4.48 9.43 .46 2.15

NC 5613C 51 0.1 3.84 10.57 .47 2.75

NC 5628C 51 0.2 3.66 12.87 .28 3.56

NC 5643C 50 0 4.39 9.13 .40 2.07

Speight G-14 49 0.2 3.73 12.43 .36 3.43

Speight G-18 44 0.3 3.34 9.40 .41 2.82

Speight G-30 47 0 3.39 13.27 .37 3.92

Speight G-57 44 0.3 3.40 9.80 .26 2.90

Speight G-62 46 0.1 3.15 10.00 .57 3.23

Va. 644 52 0.3 3.62 10.67 .25 2.95

Mean of Test 48 _~ 3.75 11.00 _~ 2.99

L.S.D. (.05) 4 .5 .63 2.72 N.S. 1.07

(.01) 6 .7 .83 3.60' N.S. 1.42

(35)

TV 258 OXFORD

Varieties Yield

Days Leaves

Value Index Grade to per

or Lines LbslA Do11A Do1/Cwt. Index Flower Plant

NC 2326 2800 3154 112.64 47 54 14.3

NC 95 2621 2923 111.58 42 58 15.6

Coker 86 2933 3315 113.03 44 61 17.0

Coker 258 2634 2964 112.57 45 60 16.7

Coker 298 2395 2632 109.66 41 61 16.1

Coker 319 2602 2871 110.41 48 55 15.1

Coker 347 2798 3135 111.99 47 57 16.2

Coker 411 2496 2760 110.58 42 55 15.1

McNair 944 2843 3148 110.80 46 59 14.9

McNair 1040 2580 2882 111.70 48 59 17.7

NC 12 2589 2738 105.83 27 54 16.5

NC 13 2845 3111 109.32 44 60 17.1

NC 79 2488 2858 114.75 46 57 14.8

NC 98 2703 3030 112.13 43 58 15.3

Speight G-23 2542 2854 112.28 46 57 15.5

Speight G-28 2722 2988 109.80 42 59 14.8

Speight G-33 2947 3297 111.81 49 61 16.8

Speight G-140 2832 3186 112.37 48 59 16.8

Va. 115 2692 2995 111.39 43 55 14.8

Coker 73-48E 2705 3012 111.28 43 59 16.1

NC 89 2918 3309 113.35 46 55 15.3

NC 3043 3013 3339 110.83 48 55 15.9

NC 3150 2343 2548 108.78 40 54 15.1

NC 5017 2658 2959 111.33 49 56 15.8

NC 5019 2475 2747 111.03 48 54 16.3

NC 5025 2626 2921 111.26 43 58 16.2

NC 5050 2249 2528 112.43 48 55 16.1

NC 5387 2539 2754 108.55 38 57 15.2

NC 5426 2587 2857 110.42 45 55 15.3

NC TG-16 2751 2981 108.41 38 61 16.1

NC 5490C 2992 3347 111.90 44 55 16.3

NC 5539C 2410 2514 103.96 37 58 16.2

NC 5578C 2744 3089 112.53 44 54 15.9

NC 5613C 2798 3121 111.52 45 55 14.5

NC 5628C 2494 2797 112.14 44 57 15.1

NC 5643C 2690 2929 109.01 35 56 15.1

Speight G-14 2533 2787 109.90 43 61 16.3

Speight G-18 2809 3105 110.55 45 59 15.9

Speight G-30 2852 3156 110.67 43 57 16.2

Speight G-57 2511 2773 110.56 44 57 15.3

Speight G-62 2737 2991 109.32 41 56 16.1

Va. 644 2330 2516 107.74 43 60 16.4

Mean of Test 2662 2951 _~ 44 58 15.8

L.S.D. (.05) 348 404 3.42 1 4 1.3

(.01) 461 536 4.54 2 5 1.8

(36)

TV 258 OXFORD

Height _ _~a1ysisof Cured Leaf Ratio

NC 2326 41 0.6 4.22 10.47 .49 2.51

NC 95 40 3.3 4.82 9.27 .57 1.96

Coker 86 41 3.3 3.97 11.80 .39 2.99

Coker 258 41 3.9 4.83 8.17 .69 1.73

Coker 298 40 2.7 4.61 8.10 .54 1.77

Coker 319 39 3.0 4.78 8.60 .53 1.81

Coker 347 39 2.9 4.93 11.27 .55 2.31

Coker 411 38 2.9 4.52 9.27 .55 2.04

McNair 944 40 2.7 4.15 10.20 .58 2.50

McNair 1040 42 5.3 3.94 9.23 .60 2.38

NC 12 41 3.4 4.78 7.50 .31 1.61

NC 13 38 1.5 4.84 10.80 .41 2.24

NC 79 38 1.5 4.04 9.90 .46 2.44

NC 98 39 4.3 4.13 8.10 .47 1.97

Speight G-23 38 3.6 4.92 9.13 .34 1.86

Speight G-28 36 2.1 3.64 9.37 .30 2.59

Speight G-33 40 2.7 3.89 11.97 .46 3.07

Speight G-140 42 3.1 4.24 11.33 .32 2.68

Va. 115 39 3.3 4.37 9.90 .54 2.29

Coker 73-48E 41 3.7 4.45 10.83 .50 2.44

NC 89 39 2.8 4.45 10.00 .50 2.26

NC 3043 39 2.9 4.42 9.70 .65 2.20

NC 3150 39 2.5 4.81 7.63 .57 1.61

NC 5017 40 3.3 4.10 10.50 .27 2.54

NC 5019 39 4.2 4.54 9.03 .26 1.99

NC 5025 42 4.4 4.49 8.40 .70 1.91

NC 5050 39 3.4 3.99 10.83 .52 2.73

NC 5387 38 3.3 4.30 7.20 .53 1.67

NC 5426 39 2.0 4.08 7.80 .56 1.92

NC TG-16 38 2.8 4.45 8.17 .60 1.87

NC 5490C 41 3.3 4.52 10.37 .64 2.32

NC 5539C 42 2.8 4.57 9.50 .36 2.10

NC 5578C 44 1.9 4.76 8.37 .30 1.77

NC 5613C 41 1.5 4.33 10.37 .48 2.41

NC 5628C 40 1.6 3.94 11.37 .55 2.90

NC 5643C 42 1.7 5.02 7.47 .68 1.52

Speight G-14 39 2.5 4.16 10.63 .55 2.56

Speight G-18 37 1.8 3.62 8.87 .33 2.45

Speight G-30 39 1.7 3.99 10.33 .45 2.60

Speight G-57 38 3.4 4.11 9.87 .40 2.39

Speight G-62 38 2.0 3.89 7.50 .48 2.01

Va. 644 41 1.5 4.37 8.83 .43 2.02

~of Test 40 h§. 4.36 9.47

_..d.2.

2.21

L.S.D. (.05) 3 1.2 .56 2.51 N.S. .74

(.01) 4 1.6 .75 3.23 N.S. .98

(37)

TV 259 REIDSVILLE

Varieties

Days Leaves

Yield Value Index Grade to per

or Lines Lbs/A Dol/A Dol/Cwt • Index Flower Plant

NC 2326 2868 3392 118.27 57 52 21.1

NC 95 2662 3140 117.94 53 59 20.3

Coker 86 3044 3543 116.18 50 62 25.6

Coker 258 2440 2877 117.89 54 61 24.3

Coker 298 3028 3552 117.29 49 56 21.3

Coker 319 2736 3203 117.09 55 55 22.1

Coker 347 2732 3221 117.88 55 59 24.4

Coker 411 2918 3421 117.21 50 57 21.9

McNair 944 2930 3453 117.80 55 62 23.6

McNair 1040 2760 3226 116.89 50 63 24.0

NC 12 2586 2976 115.10 41 60 20.5

NC 13 3158 3679 116.47 51 63 23.7

NC 79 2736 3206 117.18 53 55 23.3

NC 98 2884 3385 117.33 55 58 21.1

Speight G-23 2702 3200 118.43 56 56 21.3

Speight G-28 2590 3031 117.01 51 61 23.3

Speight G-33 3038 3544 116.73 51 60 24.2

Speight G-140 3066 3601 117.45 54 61 24.0

Va. 115 2758 3225 116.95 49 57 22.1

Coker 73-48E 2842 3344 117.69 52 62 24.9

NC 89 3068 3620 118.02 57 56 19.7

NC 3043 3006 3544 117.90 54 54 22.7

NC 3150 2264 2636 116.43 52 57 21.4

NC 5017 3136 3657 116.65 50 56 21.1

NC 5019 2914 3407 116.93 50 55 23.0

NC 5025 2870 3386 118.01 54 58 23.6

NC 5050 2660 3110 116.89 52 52 21.5

NC 5387 2612 3022 115.68 51 59 19.2

NC 5426 2642 3067 116.08 52 51 21.0

NC TG-16 2984 3476 116.47 47 58 21.7

NC 5490C 2812 3294 117.13 55 54 21.4

NC 5539C 2820 3245 115.19 49 55 22.3

NC 5578C 2534 2937 115.90 43 54 20.1

NC 5613C 3176 3735 117.54 56 58 21.0

NC 5628C 3026 3559 117.59 56 54 20.6

NC 5643C 2404 2799 116.47 48 59 21.4

Speight G-14 2880 3372 117.06 51 59 25.5

Speight G-18 2996 3509 117.10 52 55 23.5

Speight G-30 2610 2951 112.93 39 59 25.5

Speight G-57 2680 3166 118.15 56 58 23.4

Speight G-62 2562 2908 113.40 45 58 22.7

Va. 644 2692 3162 117.39 54 62 23.3

Mean of Test 2805 3280 _~

g

58 22.4

L.S.D. (.05) 432 515 1.59 6 5 2.7

(.01) 573 682 2.11 9 6 3.5

(38)

TV 259 REIDSVILLE

NC 2326 44 1.1 4.36 11.97 .42 2.76

NC 95 41 1.8 3.83 11.13 .57 2.95

Coker 86 41 1.8 3.35 12.83 .24 3.84

Coker 258 40 1.1 3.65 11.13 .60 3.06

Coker 298 47 1.2 4.52 10.57 .48 2.45

Coker 319 41 1.2 3.47 11.47 .44 3.31

Coker 347 39 1.2 4.31 11.33 .39 2.66

Coker 411 40 1.4 4.00 12.30 .22 3.16

McNair 944 40 0.5 3.55 12.80 .30 3.62

McNair 1040 43 3.4 3.04 9.23 .52 3.08

NC 12 41 1.8 3.75 11.00 .39 2.97

NC 13 42 0.4 3.55 12.93 .19 3.77

NC 79 47 0.7 3.77 11.63 .29 3.12

NC 98 43 2.9 3.54 10.23 .31 2.89

Speight G-23 40 1.0 4.24 11.77 .18 2.81

Speight G-28 33 0.4 3.06 12.80 .23 4.20

Speight G-33 44 1.9 3.58 12.40 .61 3.75

Speight G-140 44 1.9 3.28 12.97 .29 4.03

v«. 115 42 1.6 3.88 11.00 .42 2.99

Coker 73-48E 44 1.8 3.83 12.70 .19 3.32

NC 89 43 1.2 4.10 11.L17 .33 2.82

NC 3043 40 2.2 3.53 10.77 .33 3.15

NC 3150 42 1.5 4.24 10.30 .27 2.47

NC 5017 41 1.7 3.60 11.63 .31 3.28

NC 5019 47 3.9 3.70 11.30 .33 3.14

NC 5025 49 2.6 4.29 10.57 .49 2.50

NC 5050 39 4.2 4.06 10.83 .21 2.73

NC 5387 40 1.7 3.02 11.43 .39 3.89

NC 5426 41 1.5 2.95 11.30 .44 3.83

NC TG-16 41 0.8 3.88 10.77 .41 2.81

NC 5490C 45 2.4 3.84 12.87 .34 3.56

NC 5539C 47 1.1 4.75 8.73 .43 1.88

NC 5578C 46 1.2 5.03 7.60 .27 1.53

NC 5613C 42 0.1 3.19 12.57 .52 3.94

NC 5628C 46 0.6 3.82 12.93 .43 3.56

NC 5643C 44 0.4 4.74 9.80 .31 2.19

Speight G-14 43 1.2 3.92 12.00 .40 3.10

Speight G-18 41 1.0 3.45 11.20 .28 3.29

Speight G-30 43 0.5 3.77 10.00 .40 2.68

Speight G-57 40 2.8 3.34 12.60 .17 3.83

Speight G-62 39 1.4 3.54 10.03 .12 2.88

Va. 644 40 1.1 3.57 12.43 .15 3.49

Mean of Test 42

_hl

3.78 11.37

_.d2.

3.13

L.S.D. (.05) 6 1.4 .73 2.69 .26 1.18

(.01) 8 1.8 .97 N.S. N.S. N.S.

(39)

Table 11.

Sol. % Alpha

Yield Value Index % Nor. Tot. Nit. Sug.1 Sol. Tot. Ins. Amino

Varieties Lbs/A Do11A Do1/Cwt. Nic. Nic. Alk. Nic. Nic. Sug. Nit. Nit. Nit.

NC 2326 2134 2558 119.62 3.97 .23 4.21 .66 3.32 12.6 2.59 1.01 .26

NC 95 2045 2362 115.37 3.99 .25 4.27 .69 3.03 11.4 2.72 1.07 .28

v«.

644 1932 2240 115.57 3.68 .23 3.93 .71 3.70 12.6 2.59 1.03 .26

NC 3150 1995 2371 118.25 3.93 .23 4.18 .69 3.35 12.6 2.70 1.04 .30 w

'-I

Coker 73-48E 2236 2630 117.20 3.90 .24 4.16 .69 3.63 13.2 2.66 1.12 .25

NC 3043 2194 2569 116.82 3.66 .26 3.95 .74 3.44 12.0 2.69 1.14 .30

(40)

Table 12

REGIONAL FARM TESTS - 1976

Combined Across 13 Farms and All Tobacco Companies Percent Tobacco in Various Color, Body and Texture Classes; Quality of Color Index, Percent Usable and Desirability Index

Greenish Greenish Other Quality of Variety Lemon Orange Lemon Orange Brown Red Color Color Index

NC 2326 7.0 49.6 3.2 8.2 5.4 2.4 24.6 2.3

NC 95 11.0 36.2 4.6 14.5 4.0 1.1 28.6 2.2

Va. 644 14.4 35.2 6.2 10.3 3.3 0.4 30.1 2.2

NC 3150 7.2 42.1 2.2 5.7 7.4 1.9 33.5 2.1

Coker 73-48E 6.2 43.9 2.6 10.9 5.3 0.8 30.3 2.3

NC 3043 12.3 35.4 10.1 15.2 3.6 0.9 22.6 2.3

NC 89 10.4 42.6 6.8 11.5 2.8 1.2 24.6 2.3

Chaffy Thin Medium Medium Heavy Heavy No.

Variety Body Body Body Body Body Obser.

NC 2326 6.1 20.1 36.8 22.0 14.9 102

NC 95 7.9 25.2 38.5 19.6 8.7 102

Va. 644 9.2 24.5 40.0 17.8 8.7 102

NC 3150 7.2 24.7 35.6 19.9 12.4 102

Coker 73-48E 5.0 22.2 35.6 22.0 15.1 102

NC 3043 6.2 24.8 39.6 19.5 9.9 102

NC 89 5.3 24.2 34.1 22.2 14.4 102

Open Grain Medium Smooth Slick Other Desirability Variety Texture Texture Texture Texture Texture Usable Index

NC 2326 15.9 33.7 22.5 5.7 22.2 36.1 0.9

NC 95 15.8 31.7 24.9 5.9 21.7 31.7 0.7

Va. 6lj·4 16.5 30.6 24.7 3.8 24.5 36.2 0.8

NC 3150 7.0 32.3 25.5 7.0 28.2 26.6 0.6

Coker 73-48E 14.8 33.7 22.0 3.4 26.1 34.2 0.8

NC 3043 15.8 35.2 21.2 6.3 21.5 32.1 0.8

(41)

Table 13

REGIONAL SMALL PLOT TESTS - 1976

Percent Cured Leaf Usable by Tobacco Companies

Average Across 6 Locations

Tobacco Companies

A B C D E F G H Average

NC 2326 13.5 34.7 0 25.0 28.6 18.3 43.8 34.7 24.8

NC 95 24.0 45.8 2.5 26.0 34.8 11.2 42.7 29.5 27.1

Va. 644 10.0 26.7 11.3 29.0 36.0 9.3 41.7 13.3 22.2

NC 3150 9.5 40.5 4.0 22.7 27.6 19.7 46.3 13.2 22.9

Coker 73-48E 17.7 20.8 6.7 2003 26.6 9.5 30.8 16.3 18.6 NC 3043 13.5 42.2 19.0 33.2 33.6 23.5 58.7 41.7 33.2

NC 89 17.2 10.8 11.0 15.8 24.0 24.2 54.5 28.2 23.2

Rating for Variety Potentia1*

Average Across 6 Locations

Tobacco Companies

A B C D E F G H Average

NC 2326 1.7 2.3 1.0 2.2 2.8 1.3 2.0 2.0 1.9

NC 95 2.0 2.5 1.3 2.0 3.4 1.3 2.2 2.0 2.1

s«. 644 1.7 2.3 1.5 2.0 3.0 1.3 2.0 1.3 1.9

NC 3150 1.7 2.2 1.2 1.8 2.6 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.7

Coker 73-48E 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.7 2.6 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.6

NC 3043 1.5 2.3 2.0 2.2 3.0 1.5 2.3 1.8 2.1

NC 89 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.7 2.8 1.2 2.3 1.5 1.8

(42)

Table 14. REGIONAL FARM TESTS - 1976 % Usable Tobacco by at Least One Company

Individual North Carolina Farms and a Mean for all Farms and Varieties

North Carolina

Variety Edmund Sutton Harrell Andrews Dickerson Day Average

NC 2326 100 89 100 100 53 100 90.3

NC 95 100 87 86 84 45 100 83.7

Va. 644 100 86 100 100 65 100 91.8

NC 3150 100 88 100 100 13 78 79.8

Coker 73-48E 100 88 86 78 0 100 75.3

NC 3043 100 100 100 100 16 79 82.5

NC 89 100 100 87 76 100 100 93.8

(43)

Table 15. rndexl/on amount graded of each entry by eight participating companies from six farms in North Carolina Regional Farm Tests - 1976

Variety or Line

NC NC

v«.

NC Coker NC NC

Grower 2326 95 644 3150 73-48E 3043 89

Border

Edmund 3.4 5.5 3.9 3.2 4.0 4.6 4.4

E~

Sutton 5.8 5.9 5.8 4.0 5.5 5.4 2.9

Harrell 1.9 1.9 4.5 2.1 2.5 2.9 1.8

Middle +='"

f-l

Andrews 3.1 1.9 3.1 2.2 1.6 2.1 1.1

Old

Day 3.6 3.2 3.0 1.9 4.0 1.9 4.4

Dickerson 1.2 0.5 0.8 0.1 0 0.3 1.0

Overall

Average 3.2 3.2 3.5 1.9 2.9 2.9 2.6