Systems Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Cotton Varieties in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Precipitation (inches)4.0LTA20123.02.01.0Lubbock LTA (1971-2000)vs. 2012 Rainfall18.02”10.75”-7.27”0.0Source: http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=lubLubbock 2011 vs. 2012 RainfallPrecipitation (inches)4.0201120123.02.01.04.34”10.75”+6.41”0.0Source: http://www.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=lub157
EVALUATING FIELD TRIAL DATAThis article has been reprinted with permission fromSouthwest Farm Press Vol 25, Number 11, April 9, 1998.Field trials can provide helpful information to producers as they compare products andpractices for their operations. However, field trials must be evaluated carefully to makesure results are scientifically sound, not misleading and indicate realistic expectations foron-farm performance.This fact sheet is designed to give you the tools to help you determine whether data froma field trial is science fact or science fiction.What are the best sources of field trial data?Field trials are conducted by a broad range of individuals and institutions, includinguniversities, ag input suppliers, chemical and seed companies and growers themselves.All are potentially good sources of information.What are the common types of field trials?Most field trials fall into one of two categories: side-by-side trials (often referred to as striptrials) or small-plot replicated trials. Side-by-side trials are the most common form ofon-farm tests. As the name suggests, these trials involve testing practices or productsagainst one another in plots arrayed across a field, often in strips the width of theharvesting equipment.These strips should be replicated across the field or repeated at several locations toincrease reliability. Small-plot replicated trials often are conducted by universities andcompanies at central locations because of the complexity of managing them and thespecial planting and harvesting equipment often required.Replicated treatments increase the reliability of an experiment. They compare practices orproducts against one another multiple times under uniform growing conditions in severalrandomized small plots in the same field or location.Small-plot replicated trials also may be conducted on farmers’ fields where specialconditions exist, for example, a weed infestation that does not occur on an experimentstation.158
Page 2 and 3:
Systems Agronomic and EconomicEvalu
Page 4 and 5:
Scott Russell, EA-IPM, Terry/Yoakum
Page 6 and 7:
Replicated No-Till LESA Irrigated R
Page 8 and 9:
Agronomic and Economic Evaluation o
Page 10:
andomized complete block design was
Page 14 and 15:
not significant at this location. H
Page 16 and 17:
Table 1. Inseason plant measurement
Page 18 and 19:
Table 3. HVI fiber property results
Page 20 and 21:
Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint See
Page 22 and 23:
Table 7. Inseason plant measurement
Page 24 and 25:
Table 9. Final plant map results fr
Page 26 and 27:
Table 11. HVI fiber property result
Page 28 and 29:
Replicated LESA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 30 and 31:
Results and Discussion:Agronomic da
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Replicated Sub-Surface Drip Irrigat
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Replicated LEPA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Replicated No-Till LESA Irrigated R
Page 82 and 83:
Results and Discussion:Acknowledgme
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Replicated LEPA Supplemental (Limit
Page 98 and 99:
lb/acre for FiberMax 2989GLB2. Lint
Page 100 and 101:
Table 2. HVI fiber property results
Page 102 and 103:
Texas Panhandle Cotton Variety Tria
Page 104 and 105:
Biopolymer Research Institue for HV
Page 106 and 107:
Location 2 - DumasAt the Dumas loca
Page 108 and 109:
cotton yields to determine lint and
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115: Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint See
Page 118 and 119: Replicated Dryland LargePlot Demons
Page 120 and 121: Insecticides:Fertilizer management:
Page 122 and 123: Table 1. Final plant map results fr
Page 126 and 127: Replicated Dryland Cotton Variety T
Page 128 and 129: Results and Discussion:Significant
Page 130 and 131: Table 2. HVI fiber property results
Page 132 and 133: 125Plains Dryland Systems Variety T
Page 134 and 135: 127Blanco Dryland Systems Variety T
Page 136 and 137: 129Dawson County Dryland RACE Demon
Page 138 and 139: 131Lynn County Irrigated RACE Demon
Page 140 and 141: Subsurface Drip Irrigation Pre-plan
Page 142 and 143: Effects of Variable In-Season Irrig
Page 144 and 145: Table 1. Response of commercially a
Page 146 and 147: Table 1. cont. †BrandVarietyVerti
Page 148 and 149: There were six locations planted in
Page 150 and 151: Table 2. HVI ratings for varieties
Page 152 and 153: Table 4. HVI ratings for varieties
Page 154 and 155: Table 6. Effect of variety on HVI r
Page 156 and 157: Table 7. cont.Variety bRel.ValueRan
Page 158 and 159: High Plains (TASS 1N and 1S)Planted
Page 160 and 161: Lubbock Air TemperaturesMay, 2012Te
Page 162 and 163: Lubbock Air TemperaturesSeptember,
Page 166 and 167: Are side-by-side plots more valuabl
Page 168: Is a one-year test valid, or are se
show all

Systems Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Cotton Varieties in ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?