search Report No.119 JUly,1989
Measured Crop Performance
1989
D. T.BOWMAN,AssociateProfessor
In Charge of Variety Testing
EP RTME T O
F C
ROP
SCIENCE
~I.tl
Measured Crop Performance
This information is presented under authority granted
the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service to
r-,conduct performance tests, including interpretation of
data to the public, and does not imply endorsement
or recommendation by North Carolina State University.
Any
us~of data or information presented in t h i s ·
Research Report No. 119 July, 1989
Measured Crop Performance
Small Grain
1989
D. T. BOWMAN, Associate Professor In Charge of Variety Testing
DEPARTMENT OF CROP SCIENCE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 1
COMPARING VARIETIES ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 6
Entries ••..•.••.•.•..•...•..•••.•••••••.•••••••••••••.• 6 Field Plot Design ...•.•.•••••••..•••••••••••••••.••••.• 6
Crop Management 6
Map - Locations of Official Variety Tests ••••••.••••.•• 8 Contact Person and Agencies Sponsoring Entries •••••••.• 11 Cooperators and Extension Personnel ••••..••••••.••••••. 12
SEASONAL CONDITIONS 13
DATA •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 14
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 15
Barley 15
Oats •...•••.•...••....••.•.•.•••.•••••...• 15
Wheat •....•••.••..•••.••.•.••.•••••••••••.••••••.•.••.. 16
TABLES
1. Characteristics of barley varieties . . . • . . . • • • . . . • . . 4
2. Characteristics of oat varieties •.••...••..••... 4
3. Characteristics of wheat varieties 5
4. Cultural practices for small grain tests, 1988-89 .•...• 9
5. Soil test results from test sites, 1989 .•..••••••••.•• 10
6. Summary of barley performance trials across the
TABLE OF CONTENTS
7. Two-year average barley performance across the
state (1988-89) . . . • 18
8. Three-year average barley performance across the
state (1987-89) . . . • . . . 18
9. Summary of barley performance trials in the Piedmont 19
10. Summary of barley performance trials in the Coastal
Plain • . • . • • . . • . . • . . . • . . . • . • . . . • . . . 20
11. Summary of oat performance trials across the state
(1989) 21
12. Two-year average oat performance across the state
(1988-89) 22
13. Three-year average oat performance across the state
(1987-89) . . . • . . . 22
14. Summary of oat performance trials in the Piedmont 23
15. Summary of oat performance trials in the Coastal
Plain . . . • . • . . • . . . • . . . • . • . . . 24
16. Summary of wheat performance trials across the state (1989) . . . • . . . 25
17. Two-year average wheat performance across the state
(1988-1989) . • • . . . • . . . • . . . 26
18. Three-year average wheat performance across the state (1987-1989) . . . • . . . • • • • . . . . • • . . • . . . . 26
19. Summary of wheat performance trials in the Piedmont 27
20. Summary of wheat performance trials in the Coastal
1989
PERFORMANCE OF SMALL GRAIN VARIETIES IN NORTH CAROLINA
INTRODUCTION
Across the state of North Carolina during the fall of 1988,
growers planted 48,000 acres of barley, 100,000 acres of oats, and
510,000 acres of wheat.
experienced in the fall.
Favorable planting conditions were
A wet spring resulted in below normal
yields over most of the state.
with the large number of commercially available and
prospective varieties of barley, oats, and wheat , i t becomes
difficult for growers to select a superior variety suited for their
particular area of the state. To make this decision, the grower
needs up-to-date, unbiased, reliable information. The Official
Variety Testing Program, through this report, seeks to provide that
type of information.
Information on varietal performance is presented from seven
test locations in the state. 1 Also included are multiple-year
performance data on a selected number of varieties.
2
COMPARING VARIETIES
Performance of a variety cannot be determined with absolute
precision. Even though the tests are conducted in a uniform
manner, as much as possible, uncontrollable variability exists
among experimental plots due to soil, fertility, moisture, insects,
diseases, and other sources of variation. Because this variability
exists, statistics are used as a tool to determine differences
among varieties. The size of difference among varieties which may
have been due to chance variation is listed in each table as the
B.L.S.D. (least significant difference). Those varieties which do
not differ by more than the B.L.S.D. are not statistically
different.
Varietal performance may appear inconsistent among locations
within an area or among years at a particular location, thus i t is
important for the reader to examine results from more than one
location within an area or more than one year at a particular
location, to obtain a more accurate picture of relative varietal
performance. An effort has been made to facilitate comparisons
among locations and years in this report.
The varieties which do not yield significantly less than the
highest yielding variety are denoted by an asterisk (*) next to
their yields. The relative performance of a variety across
locations within an area can be easily evaluated by going across
the table; those varieties which are most frequently marked by an
asterisk would be highly desirable. other agronomic
character-istics may be as equally important as yield. All available data
3
are found in Tables 1, 2, and 3 for barley, oats, and wheat,
respectively.2
It is suggested that the grower plant a small number of acres
in a new variety when first determining if i t is adapted to his
farm.
Table 1. Characteristics of barley varieties.*
Brand- I
variety Mildew ! Rust Scald Lodging winter
or resist- resist- resist- resist- hardi-variety ance ance ance ance ness
Anson Poor Good Poor Good Good Boone Poor Good Fair Fair Good Wysor Good Good Good Fair Good
Table 2. Characteristics of oat varieties.*
Maturity
Med-Late Medium Early
Test Weight
lb/bu
Medium Medium Medium
Length of awns
Awnless Short Short
~
Brand-Variety Rust Smut Mosaic winter Lodging Test or resist- resist- resist- Maturity hardi- resist- Weight Variety ance ance ance ness ance lb/bu
Brooks Poor Good Fair Early Fair Good Med. High Coker 716 Good Good Good Medium Good Good Mad. High Simpson Fair Excellent Medium Good Good Med. High SS 76-30 Good Good Good Medium Good Good Med. High 833 Good Good Medium Good
Florida 502 Good Early Fair Good
Table 3. Characteristics of wheat varieties.*
Brand- Leaf Soft
Variety rust Mildew Mosaic winter Lodging Test Wheat
or resist- resist- resist- Hardi- resist- Weight Milling
Variety ance ance ance Maturity ness ance lb/bu Quality
Coker 916 Good Good Good Med-Early Good Excellent High Good
Coker 983 Good Good Good Med-Early Fair Excellent High Good
Coker 9227 Poor Good Good Early Good Excellent High Good
Coker 9323 Poor Fair Med-Early Fair Good Medium Good
Coker 9733 Good Good Medium Good Good Good
Florida 301 Good Fair Poor Late Fair Poor Fair
----~~--~-~---~--~~~---~--~---
-Florida 302 Good Good Poor Late Good Good Medium Good U'1
Florida 303 Good Excellent Poor Late Fair Good Good
Hartz 2440 Fair Medium
Hunter Poor Good Good Early Fair Excellent
Pioneer 2548 Good Good Fair Medium Good Excellent Good
Pioneer 2550 Good Medium
Pioneer 2551 Good Good Good Medium Good Good
Pioneer 2555 Good Fair Good Medium Good Good
Saluda Poo.r Poor Fair Medium Good Fair Medium Good
Traveler Good Fair Poor Early Good Good
Tyler Poor Poor Good Late Good Good Good
Williams Poor Good Medium Medium
6
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The state is divided into physiographic regions and tests were
located in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain (Figure 1). Tests were
located on private farms and on research stations.3
Entries: Commercial varieties and experimental lines developed by
publ i.c and private agencies are included in these tests. Any
individual or firm may make application for having entries included
by writing Official Variety Testing Program, Department of Crop
Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, N.C. 27695-8604.
A fee is charged on an entry basis for all private entries.
Entries of specific interest to North Carolina seedsmen may have
been included on a no-fee basis. A total of 4 , 6, and 18
commercial varieties and experimental lines of barley, oats, and
wheat, respectively, were evaluated in the 1988-89 season.
Field Plot Design: A randomized, complete block design with four
or five replications was used at each Locat.Lon ," Each plot
consisted of eight rows, 7.5 inches apart, 19 feet long with 2.5
feet between each plot.
Crop Management: Cultural practices, such as seed bed preparation,
date of planting, fertilization and topdressing were in accord with
good farming practices and were uniform for all entries at a given
location (Table 4). Prior to planting each test, soil samples were
~he cooperative spirit and civic-minded service rendered by the farmers who provide the land and the necessary cultural
practices for these trials and the cooperation of the county
extension agents are gratefully acknowledged.
7
obtained from the test field and fertiliz-er and lime applications
• Signifies Small Grain Test Sites
Figure 1. Location of Official Variety Test North Carolina Agricultural
Table 4. CUltural practices for small grain tests, 1988-89.
Fertilizer Topdress Soil Planting Harvest
County lbs/A and Grade lbs/A Type Date Date
---Piedmont Area
Granville 400 lbs. 170 Helena November 15 June 27
10-10-20 33.5% N Loamy Sand
Rowan 450 lbs. 150 Hiwassee October 20 June 26
10-20-20 33.5% N Clay Loam
110 lbs. 0-46-0
Stanly 275 lbs. 110 Tatum Slaty October 27 June 14
5-20-20 33.5% N Silt Loam \.0
Coastal Plain Area
Columbus 200 lbs. 130 Norfolk November 3 June 2
10-20-20 33.5% N Fine Sandy
Loam
Lenoir 250 lbs. 200 Lynchburg October 25 June 12
10-10-20 33.5% N Sandy Loam
Bertie 150 lbs. 180 Norfolk and November 9 June 15
0-0-60, 20-20-0 33.5% N Goldsboro Sandy Loam
Washington 231 lbs. 240 Portsmouth October 31 June 20
6-18-36 33.5% N Fine Sandy
Table 5. Soil test results from tests sites, 1988-89.
HM BS Ca Mg Mn- Zn-
Cu-County % W-V CEC % Ac pH P-I K-I % % I I I
-Piedmont Area
Granville 0.2 1.22 2.9 86 0.4 6.3 61 38 51.5 28.2 89 57 30
Rowan 0.1 1.00 6.1 80 1.2 5.9 10 46 52.9 23.5 625 39 166
Stanly 0.2 0.94 6.0 87 0.8 6.0 33 62 58.8 22.5 166 129 56 ...0
Coastal Plain Area
Columbus 0.4 1.19 1.8 78 0.4 5.7 68 32 54.9 14.3 46 46 50
Lenoir 1.1 1.14 5.3 77 1.2 5.8 97 86 54.6 14.7 49 76 70
Bertie 0.4 1.31 3.0 74 0.8 6.1 84 48 55.9 9.9 85 120 172
11
Contact Person and
Agencies sponsoring Entries
Arkansas County Seed Company, Inc. John Butler
P.
o.
BO:K 43Stuttgart, Arkansas 72160
AgriPro Seeds Dr. Koy E. Miskin RR #2
Brookston, Indiana 47923 (317) 563-3111
Florida Agricultural Experiment station Dr. Ron Barnett
Route 3, Box 4370 Quincy, Florida 32351
(904) 627-9236
Jacob Hartz Seed Company, Inc. curtis Williams
P. O. Box 946
stuttgart, Arkansas 72160
North Carolina Agric. Experiment station Dr. Paul Murphy
Crop Science Department Box 7620
Raleigh, N.C. 27695-7620
Northrup King Company Carroll Oakes
Box 249
Grifton, N.C 28530 (919) 524-5809
Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. Mr. Paul Rodgers
1000 W. Jefferson Street Tipton, Indiana 46072
(317) 675-2101
South Carolina Agric. Experiment station Dr. Doyce Graham
Agronomy &Soils Department Clemson University
12
southern states Coop. Mr. Howard Tabor P. O. Box 26234 Richmond, VA 23260
virginia Agricultural Experiment station Dr. Tom starling
Agronomy Department VPI
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061 (703) 961-6483
SS 76-30 FFR Exp.
Tyler Wysor Saluda
COOPERATORS AND EXTENSION PERSONNEL
Bertie County: J. S. Barnes, Superintendent, Peanut Belt Research Station, Lewiston, N.C. Agricultural Extension Agent, James Peele.
Columbus county: Ty Marshall, Superintendent,
Border Belt Tobacco Research Station (NCDA) Whiteville, N.C. Agricultural Extension Agent, Michael Shaw.
Granville county: William C. Clements, Superintendent
Oxford Tobacco Research station, Oxford, N.C. Agricultural Extension Agent, Tommy Brooks.
Lenoir County: Sandy Barnes, Superintendent, Lower Coastal Plain
Tobacco Research Station, Kinston, N.C. County Extension Director, Johnnie Jones.
Rowan County: Raymond Coltrain, Superintendent, Piedmont Research
station, Salisbury, N.C.
AgricUltural Extension Agent, Kevin Fisher.
Stanly County: Gary Herlocker, Route 6, Box 473, Albemarle, N.C.
Agricultural Extension Agent, Jim Monroe.
Washington County: John Smith, Superintendent, Tidewater Research
Station, Plymouth, N.C.
13
SEASONAL CONDITIONS
The 1988-89 small grain growing season was characterized by
below normal rainfall in the fall which allowed planting to be on
time. Temperatures were near or above-normal for" the most part.
Above-normal temperatures in January created some problems with
vernalization. Above-normal rainfall occurred from February
through harvest causing leaching problems, setting up conditions
for disease, lowering test weight, and delaying harvests. Low
temperatures in April resulted in freeze damage at several
locations. Rainfall data at six locations are shown below:
Monthly Rainfall Totals (Inches)
No- Dec-
Jan-Location vember ember uary
Bertie 2.80 0.70 2.35
Columbus 1.07 1.33 2.42
Granville 2.66 0.94 1.56
Lenoir 2.63 0.14 0.93
Rowan 5.05 0.97 1.70
Washington 3.29 0.74 2.26
Feb-ruary 4.72 2.46 5.98 5.69 3.58 6.22 5.75 6.88 4.58 7.62 April May 7.08 5.00 5.01 5.68 6.16 3.93 8.49 4.70 2.83 5.49 7.28 5.50
Powdery mildew, crown rust, and leaf rust were evident to the
point where valid ratings could be made. Cereal leaf beetle was
evident at several locations requiring insecticide applications at
Granville, Rowan, and Stanly counties. Glume blotch occurred at
several locations in the Coastal Plain.
14
DATA
Yield is reported in bushels per acre by location, area and
across all locations within the state. Test weights in pounds per
bushel were reported averaged across the state. Lodging was
reported in percentage averaged across all locations within the
state; the lodging data are for lodging prior to harvest. Harvest
losses were negligible for all crops and, thus, were not reported.
Disease ratings are reported in the state-wide averages
although they may have only been taken at one or two locations.
Yield data were analyzed. The average yield of each test was
indicated on the bottom of the tables. The B.L.S.D. K-50 is
equivalent to the Fisher's L.S.D. at the 10% level. The standard
error of the mean (s.e.) is an indicator of the precision of that
test; the smaller the s.e., the more precise the estimate of yield
is for any particular variety. The s.e. of the mean is equal to
the standard deviation divided by the square root of N; N is
normally the number of replications in the trials.
In calculating averages, equal weight was given to each
location, therefore, two and three-year averages may not appear to
equal the average between years when the number of locations varies
15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Barley
Yields were below average in 1989 with a statewide average of
50 bushels per acre (Table 6). Test weights were low and lodging
was high due to adverse weather conditions late in the season.
Date 50% headed was collected at the Central Crops Research station
at Clayton, N.C. by Dr. Paul Murphy. Powdery mildew and leaf rust
ratings were taken at the Lenoir county location.
Two and three-year data are shown in Tables 7 and 8. These
data more accurately reflect relative performance among the
varieties. Growers are cautioned against examining only one year's
data for any trait.
In the Piedmont yields were average at Rowan but well below
average at Granville (Table 9). Heavy spring rains apparently
leached most of the nitrogen from the sandy soil at Granville.
Test weights were lower than in the Coastal Plain (Tables 9 and
10) .
Anson was one of the highest yielders at Washington and Bertie
but significantly lower than the highest yielder at Lenoir where
i t was severely damaged by powdery mildew (Table 10). NC 81-6 and
Boone have moderate resistance to powdery mildew and performed well
at Lenoir.
Oats
Similar to barley, oat yields were below average statewide
(Table 11). Crown rust ratings were taken at Lenoir. Florida 502
16
Table 11i however, both varieties were rated resistant to crown
rust. Florida 502 headed April 26 while 833 headed May 7.
Two and three-year data are reported in Tables 12 and 13.
Oat yields in the Piedmont were similar to the barley yields
with average yields at Rowan and below-average yields at Granville
(Table 14).
Yields in the Coastal Plain were below average at all three
locations (Table 15).
WHEAT
Yield and test weights were low across the state (Table 16).
A more accurate measure of true milling quality is 1000 kernel
weight which is shown in Table 16. Powdery mildew ratings were
taken at five of the locations and averaged. Coker 9227 and Coker
9733 were not included in the Piedmont and their heading dates and
powdery mildew ratings were April 26 and May 2, and moderately
resistant for both, respectively.
Two and three-year averages are shown in Tables 17 and 18.
Yields were highly variable and generally low in the Piedmont
(Table 19). Late spring freezes apparently affected
later-flowering varieties more so than earlier-flowering varieties.
Growers are again cautioned not to examine only one location or one
year's data.
Top yielders across the Coastal Plain included three
Table 6. Summary of barley performance trials across the state (1989).
Test Date Plant Powdery Leaf
Brand-Variety Yield Weight Lodging 50% Height Mildew Rust
or Variety bulA lblbu ~0 Headed Inches Ratings Ratings
Anson 56** 43.1 62 5-4 40 VS MR
*NC 81-6 55* 43.7 81 5-4 36 MR MR
*NC 85-460 53* 41.5 54 5-2 38 MR S
Boone 53* 43.0 88 5-2 36 MR MR
*NC 83-18 50* 42.9 63 4-30 35 MR MR
Wysor 48* 43.4 57 4-30 37 R MR I--'-...J
*NC 85-286 48* 45.4 54 4-30 35 R S
*NC 84-89 48* 44.0 87 4-30 36 MR S
*NC 85-62 45* 43.5 77 4-30 36 R MR
Venus 42* 41.4 82 4-24 36 S S
Mean 50
C.V. (%) 16.0
B.L.S.D. (K-50) NS
s.e. 1.6
Error d.f. 36
*Experimental. **Highest yielder.
*Not significantly different from highest yielder.
18
Table 7. Two-year average barley performance across the state (1988-89). t
Test Plant
Brand-Variety Yield Weight Lodging Height
or Variety bu/A lb/bu % Inches
NC 81-6 66** 45.8 72 39
Anson 65* 45.3 41 45
Boone 64* 45.8 66 39
Wysor 60* 45.2 45 40
NC 83-18 57* 45.5 56 39
Mean 62
C.V. (%) 12.3
B.L.S.D. (K-50) NS
s.e. 1.1
Error d.f. 28
tTen locations. **Highest yielder.
*Not significantly different from highest yielder.
Table 8. Three-year average barley performance across the state (1987-89).t
Test Plant
Brand-Variety Yield Weight Lodging Height
or Variety bu/A lb/bu ~0 Inches
Anson 77** 44.8 39 45
Boone 73* 45.6 58 41
Wysor 72* 45.4 34 41
Mean 74
C.V. (%) 10.5
B.L.S.D. (K-50) NS
s.e. 0.9
Error d.f. 26
tsixteen locations. **Highest yielder.
Table 9. Summary of barley performance trials in the Piedmont.
Rowan Granville 1989 1988-89 Average 1987-89 Average
Brand-Variety County County Yield Test wt. Yield Test wt. Yield Test wt.
or Variety bu/A bu/A bu/A lb/bu bu/A lb/bu bu/A lb/bu
* NC 81-6 77* 18* 48** 42.2 66 45.8
Wysor 78** 15* 47* 41.9 61 46.0 72 45.3
Venus 78** 16* 47* 39.5
Anson 69* 16* 43* 42.0 64 46.0 75 45.1
*NC 85-286 74* 11* 42* 43.6
*NC 83-18 64 19** 42* 40.7 56 45.6 ~
*NC 85-460 63 18* 41* 40.2 \.0
Boone 60 16* 38* 39.1 59 44.9 69 45.4
* NC 84-89 58 15* 37* 41.6
* NC 85-62 53 13* 33* 41.0
Mean 67 16 42
C.V. (%) 11.7 32.3 15.9
B.L.S.D. (K-50) 10 NS NS
s.e. 3.5 2.3 2.1
Error d.f. 34 32 9
*Experimental **Highest yielder.
Table 10. Summary of barley performance trials in the Coastal Plain (1989). Brand-Variety or Variety Wash-ington County bu/A Lenoir County bu/A Bertie County bu/A Yield bu/A 1989 Test wt. lb/bu 1988-89 Average Yield Test wt.
bu/A lb/bu
1987-89 Average Yield Test wt. bu/A lb/bu
Anson 68** 56 68** 64** 43.8 66 44.6
Boone 64* 67* 59 63* 45.6 68 46.7
*NC 85-460 62 60 63* 62* 42.3
*NC 81-6 62 71** 45 59* 44.6 67 45.8
*NC 84-89 58 52 54 55* 45.5
*NC 83-18 59 47 58 55* 44.3 59 45.4
*NC 85-62 50 50 59 53 45.1
*NC 85-286 51 51 55 52 46.5
Wysor 55 39 54 50 44.4 59 45.3
Venus 38 33 47 40 42.6
Mean 57 53 56 55
C.V. (%) 7.7 13.6 11.2 12.3
B.L.S.D. (K-50) 5 9 8 11
s.e. 2.0 3.2 2.8 1.8
Error d.f. 33 33 33 18
*Experimental. **Highest yielder.
*Not significntly different from highest yielder.
79 44.5
77 45.9
72 45.4
l'..>
Table 11. Summary of oat performance trials across the state (1989).
Test Plant Date
Brand-Variety Yield Weight Lodging Height 50%
or Variety bulA lbslbu ~0 Inches Headed
SS 76-30 86** 36.5 61 44 4-30
Brooks 81* 35.2 64 43 5-4
Simpson 81* 34.8 71 43 5-4
Coker 716 78* 34.2 60 41 5-4
* NC 85-129 76* 35.4 65 40 5-6
* NC 85-153 74* 36.6 61 42 4-26
Mean 79
C.V. (%) 8.4
B.L.S.D. (K-50) NS
s.e. 1.3
Error d.f. 20
Crown Rust Ratings
S
MS MS
S S
R ...tv
*Experimental. **Highest yielder.
*Not significantly different from highest yielder.
22
Table 12. Two-year average oat performance across the state (1988-89).t
Test Plant Date Brand-Variety Yield Weight Lodging Height 50% or Variety bu/A lb/bu % Inches Headed Coker 716 87** 36.5 44 44 5-4 Simpson 86* 37.2 47 46 5-4 SS 76-30 86* 38.6 43 46 4-28 Brooks 81* 36.7 51 44 5-2 Mean 85
C.V. (%) 13.8 B.L.S.D. (K-50) NS s.e. 1.8 Error d.f. 21
tEight locations. **Highest yielder.
*Not significantly different from highest yielder.
Table 13. Three-year average oat performance across the state (1987-89).t
Test
Brand-Variety Yield Weight Lodging or Variety bu/A lb/bu %
Simpson 104** 36.0 48 Coker 716 103* 35.8 42 Brooks 97* 33.8 50 Mean 61
C.V. (%) 12.0 B.L.S.D. (K-50) NS s.e. 1.4 Error d.f. 26
tFourteen locations. **Highest yielder.
*Not significantly different from highest yielder.
Table 14. Summary of oat performance trials in the Piedmont (1989).
Rowan Granville 1989 1988-89 Averaae 1987-89 Average
Brand-Variety County County Yield Test wt. Yield Test wt. Yield Test wt.
Variety bu/A bu/A bu/A lb/bu bulA Ib/bu bU/~ lb/bu
SS 76-30 144** 34* 89** 36.1 89 39.1
Coker 716 128* 32* 80* 35.7 86 38.1 106 34.8
Simpson 123 36** 80* 34.8 83 38.0 107 35.5
Brooks 122 35* 79* 34.6 84 37.5 94 33.6 l\.)
*NC 85-129 126 30* 78* 35.8 w
*NC 85-153 114 35* 75* 35.5
Mean 126 I I 80
C.V. (%) 10.9 14.4 9.7
B.L.S.D. (K-50) 21 NS NS
s.e. 6.2 2.2 2.5
Error d.f. 21 22 5
*Experimental. **Highest yielder.
Table 15. Summary of oat performance trials in the Coastal Plain (1989).
Brand-Variety or Variety
Wash-ington County bu/A
Lenoir County bu/A
Bertie County bu/A
1989
Yield Test wt.
bu/A lb/bu
1988-89 Average Yield Test wt.
bu/A Ib/bu
1987-89 Average Yield Test wt.
bu/A lb/bu
833 105** 95** 68 89** 36.0
SS 7630 78 86* 87* 84* 36.8 83 38.1
Brooks 86 79 83* 83* 34.9 78 35.9 94 33.6
Simpson 75 79 91** 82* 35.4 89 36.3 107 35.5
Coker 716 74 75 80* 76* 33.1 88 34.9 106 34.8
*NC 85-129 87 62 78* 76* 35.2 N
~
*NC 85-153 73 77 71 73* 37.3
Florida 502 75 83* 47 68* 37.9
Mean 82 80 76 79
C.V. (%) 11.9 12.7 17.5 14.7
B.L.S.D. (K-50) 13 14 18 NS
s.e. 4.4 4.6 5.9 3.0
Error d.f. 23 31 24 14
*Experimental. **Highest yielder.
Table 16. Summary of wheat performance trials across the state (1989). 1000
Test Kernel Plant Date
Brand-Variety Yield Weight Weight Lodging Height 50% Powdery Variety bu/a lb/bu gm % Inches Headed Mildew :t-VA 85-52-34 42** 54.0 30.6 8 40 5-2 R
Coker 916 40* 54.8 29.4 2 35 5-1 MR :t-FFR Exp. 875 39* 53.9 28.5 2 39 5-4 MR :t-NC 84-93 38* 53.7 23.8 4 35 5-3 R :t-FFR Exp. 273 37* 54.0 31.3 1 37 5-4 MR
Williams 37* 53.2 27.7 7 40 5-4 MR Saluda 36* 54.9 27.5 6 35 5-4 S :t-FL 7927-G29 36* 54.5 29.2 3 38 4-27 MR
Pioneer 2550 35* 53.9 27.1 12 38 5-9 MR :t-NC 85-342 35* 54.5 29.6 4 41 4-28 MR Coker 983 35* 55.7 27.5 11 33 5-2 MR Pioneer 2555 35* 52.1 31.6 8 38 5-4 MS
:t-VA 85-52-24 34* 53.5 29.7 1 36 4-29 R tv
Florida 302 34* 53.0 30.4 9 38 5-2 MR U1
Hartz 2440 33* 52.8 24.3 0 36 5-4 MS Pioneer 2548 33* 52.6 25.7 2 34 5-7 MR Tyler 33* 53.0 26.4 5 40 5-6 S Florida 303 32* 52.9 26.5 4 36 4-25 R Coker 9323 31 52.8 24.1 1 34 5-1 MS Pioneer 2551 30 52.0 27.2 4 36 5-8 MR Florida 301H 28 51.7 25.3 18 39 4-27 MS Hunter 28 55.0 26.3 0 30 4-26 MR Traveler 27 51.0 25.6 2 35 4-30 MS Florida 301 26 54.0 24.9 22 39 4-28 MS Mean 1.1
C.V. (%) 20.9 B.L.S.D. (K-50) 9 s.e. 3.0 Error d.f. 138
26
Table 17. Two-year average wheat performance across the state (1988-89). t Test Plant Date Brand-Variety Yield Weight Lodging Height 50% or Variety bu/A lb/bu % Inches Headed Florida 302 52** 53.9 5 40 4-27 Coker 983 51* 56.4 6 35 4-26 Pioneer 2555 51* 53.5 4 40 4-28 *NC 84-93 50* 54.5 2 38 4-28 Coker 916 50* 55.8 1 37 4-24 *FL 7927-G29 49* 55.2 2 40 4-22 Coker 9323 48* 53.6 1 38 4-26 Saluda 48* 56.1 3 39 4-29 Williams 47 54.0 4 43 4-29 Florida 303 45 54.6 2 39 4-22 Pioneer 2551 44 53.9 2 38 5-2 Tyler 43 53.6 3 43 5-1 Traveler 43 53.4 1 37 4-24 *Florida 301H 41 54.8 11 42 4-23
Mean 47 C.V. (%) 14.2 B.L.S.D. (K-50) 5 s.e. 0.8 Error d.f. 156
* Experimental. t Thirteen locations. **Highest yielder. *Not significantly different from highest yielder.
Table 18. Three-year average wheat performance across the state (1987-89).t Test Plant Date Brand-Variety Yield Weight Lodging Height 50% or Variety bu/A lb/bu % Inches Headed Florida 302 56** 53.7 3 40 5-1 Coker 916 54* 55.3 2 37 4-28 Pioneer 2555 54* 53.9 3 40 5-1 Coker 983 53 56.3 4 35 5-1 Coker 9323 51 53.9 1 38 4-30 Saluda 51 56.4 3 38 5-2 Williams 50 54.0 3 42 5-2 Tyler 46 53.9 3 42 5-4 Mean 52
C.V. (%) 12.2 B.L.S.D. (K-50) 3 s.e. 0.6 Error d.f. 133
tNineteen locations. **Highest yielder.
Table 19. Summary of wheat performance trials in the Piedmont (1989).
Gran-ville Rowan Stanly 1989 1988-89 Average 1987-89 Average Brand-Variety County County County Yield Test wt. Yield Test wt. Yield Test wt. or Variety bu/A bulA bu/A bu/A lb/bu bu/A lb/bu bu/A lb/bu Coker 916 18 55** 42** 38** 53.6 45 54.5 50 53.9 :t:FL 7927-G29 22* 46 40* 36* 53.7 44 55.3
Hartz 2440 16 51* 32 33* 52.0 :t:VA 85-52-24 22* 40 37* 33* 51.6
Florida 303 25* 37 30 31* 51.3 40 52.6 :t:NC 84-93 24* 38 30 30* 53.0 42 54.6 :t:NC 85-342 11 41 37* 30* 53.7
Coker 983 23* 32 34 30* 55.9 44 55.4 46 54.4 Coker 9323 22* 38 28 30* 50.7 42 52.0 45 51.6 :t:VA 85-52-34 17 36 33 29* 53.3
:t:FFR Exp. 875 20* 36 29 28 51.3
:t:Florida 301H 25* 29 30 28 50.5 39 53.9
Saluda 16 42 25 28 52.2 41 54.6 47 54.6 N - l
Florida 301 17 36 29 27 54.1
Williams 18 39 24 27 52.0 40 53.3 43 52.7 Florida 302 20* 31 30 27 51.6 43 53.4 47 52.0 Pioneer 2555 27** 32 20 26 50.2 42 52.0 48 52.2 Traveler 18 34 25 26 48.4 37 50.5
Tyler 23* 32 20 25 51.9 37 52.7 40 52.4 :t:FFR Exp. 273 18 28 26 24 52.6
Hunter 20* 31 22 24 54.2 Pioneer 2550 19* 29 15 21 53.5 Pioneer 2548 22* 20 10 17 50.5
Pioneer 2551 5 25 11 14 48.7 33 52.4 Mean 20 36 27 28
C.V. (%) 30.9 18.0 17.9 21.1 B.L.S.D. (K-SO) 9 8 6 10 s.e. 2.8 2.9 2.4 1.6 Error d.f. 88 88 64 46
Table 20. Summary of wheat performance trials in the Coastal Plain (1989).
Wash-Bertie Lenoir Columbus ington 1989 1988-89 Average 1987-89 AverAge Brand-Variety County County County County Yield Test wt. Yield Test wt. Yield Test wt.
or Variety bu/A bu/A bu/A bu/A bu/A Ib/bu bu/A lb/bu bu/A lb/bu
*VA 85-52-34 56* 56** 38* 61** 53** 54.4
* FFR Exp. 273 50* 47 42** 50 47* 55.0
* FFR Exp. 875 58** 38 37* 53 46* 55.8
Pioneer 2550 48 50 37* 49 46* 54.1
williams 49 40 38* 52 45 54.2 52 54.4 54 54.9
Pioneer 2548 38 48 38* 55 44 54.2
*NC 84-93 50* 37 36* 51 43 54.3 56 54.5
Saluda 40 43 36* 47 42 57.0 52 57.0 53 57.5
Pioneer 2551 38 45 33 50 42 54.4 52 54.8
Pioneer 2555 44 32 37* 52 41 53.6 56 54.4 57 55.0
Coker 916 51* 28 41* 43 41 55.6 52 56.7 57 56.).
Florida 302 48 28 34 47 40 54.0 58 54.3 61 54.9
*NC 85-342 50* 27 26 52 39 55.1
Tyler 43 44 26 41 39 53.7 48 54.1 50 54.8 I\J
Coker 983 49 31 34 40 39 55.6 56 57.0 58 57.6 00
Coker 9733 38 22 40* 45 36 56.2 51 57.3 56 57.5
* FL 7927-G29 49 31 22 40 36 55.1 51 55.1
*VA 85-52-24 41 26 25 50 36 54.9
Hartz 2440 32 34 26 40 33 53.4
Florida 303 44 25 29 34 33 54.0 49 55.8
Coker 9323 41 22 19 47 32 54.4 5~ 54.5 54 55.4
Coker 9227 36 22 29 36 31 55.3 49 56.3
Hunter 49 25 30 18 30 55.6
*Florida 301H 51* 17 24 21 28 52.6 42 55.4
Traveler 43 13 21 32 27 52.9 47 55.2
Florida 301 39 15 19 27 25 53.9
Mean 45 21 I I 44 38
C.V. (%) 15.5 11.9 18.9 12.4 18.0
B.L.S.D. (K-50) 9 4 7 6 8
s.e. 3.1 1.8 2.6 2.4 1.5
Error d.f. 96 101 96 99 75
