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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Results and Discussion:Agronomic data including plant population, nodes above white flower (NAWF), bollstorm resistance, and final plant map data are included in Tables 1-3.Significant differences were noted for most yield and economic parameters (Table4). Lint turnout averaged 36.1% and was not significant. Bur cotton yieldsaveraged 2591 lb/acre across varieties. Lint yields varied from a low of 807lb/acre (Deltapine 1219B2RF) to a high of 1015 lb/acre (PhytoGen 499WRF).Lint loan values ranged from a low of $0.5042/lb to a high of $0.5612/lb for CroplanGenetics 3156B2RF and PhytoGen 499WRF, respectively. When adding lint andseed value, total value ranged from a high of $751.30/acre for PhytoGen 499WRFto a low of $580.80/acre for Deltapine 1219B2RF. After subtracting ginning, seedcosts and technology fees, the net value/acre among varieties ranged from a highof $589.60/acre (PhytoGen 499WRF) to a low of $438.64/acre (Deltapine1219B2RF), a difference of $150.96.Significant differences were observed among varieties for all fiber qualityparameters at this location (Table 5). Micronaire values ranged from a low of 3.1for Deltapine 1219B2RF to a high of 4.0 for Stoneville 4288B2F. Staple averaged34.8 across all varieties with a high of 36.5 for All-Tex Nitro-44 B2RF and a low of33.3 for Croplan Genetics 3156B2RF. Uniformity ranged from a high of 82.2% forAll-Tex Nitro-44 B2RF to a low of 78.3% for Croplan Genetics 3156B2RF with atest average of 80.7%. Strength ranged from a low of 28.4 g/tex for CroplanGenetics 3156B2RF to a high of 33.0 g/tex All-Tex Nitro-44 B2RF. Elongationaveraged 10.2% across varieties and leaf grades were mostly 1 and 2. Colorgrade components of Rd (reflectance) and +b (yellowness) averaged 81.5 and 7.5,respectively and resulted in color grades of mostly 21 and 31.These data indicate that substantial differences can be obtained in terms of netvalue/acre due to variety selection. Additional multi-site and multi-year appliedresearch is needed to evaluate varieties across a series of environments.Acknowledgments:Appreciation is expressed to Casey Hardin - Farm Research Service Manager andJim Bordovsky - Research Scientist and Agricultural Engineer, Texas A&MAgriLife Research Center, Halfway/Helms, for their assistance with this project.Further assistance with this project was provided by Dr. Jane Dever - Texas A&MAgriLife Research and Extension Center, Lubbock, and Dr. Eric Hequet -Associate Director, Fiber and Biopolymer Research Institute, Texas TechUniversity. Furthermore, we greatly appreciate the Texas Department ofAgriculture - Food and Fiber Research for funding of HVI testing.Disclaimer Clause:Trade names of commercial products used in this report are included only forbetter understanding and clarity. Reference to commercial products or tradenames is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and noendorsement by the Texas A&M System is implied. Readers should realize thatresults from one experiment do not represent conclusive evidence that the sameresponse would occur where conditions vary.43
Table 1. Inseason plant measurement results from the Hale County irrigated RACE variety demonstration, Halfway Research Center Farm, Halfway, TX, 2012.30-Jul 8-Aug 15-Augplants/row ft plants/acre rating (0-9)Test average 3.7 47,698 8.7 6.0 4.0 6.7CV, % 6.9 7.0 4.4 10.0 9.7 --OSL 0.0154 0.0171 0.0182 0.0067 0.0683 † --LSD 0.4 5,736 0.7 1.0 0.6 --For NAWF, numbers represent an average of 5 plants per variety per rep (15 plants per variety)For Storm resistance, ratings based on a scale of 0-9 where 9 represents maximum storm resistance.CV - coefficient of variation.OSL - observed significance level, or probability of a greater F value.LSD - least significant difference at the 0.05 level, † indicates signficance at the 0.10 level.Entry Plant population Nodes Above White Flower (NAWF) for week ofStorm resistance44All-Tex Nitro-44 B2RF 3.8 49,731 8.4 5.7 3.9 7.0Croplan Genetics 3156B2RF 3.8 49,368 8.3 5.3 3.7 6.0Dyna-Gro 2570B2RF 3.7 48,279 9.1 6.4 4.1 6.0Deltapine 1032B2RF 3.3 43,197 9.2 6.2 4.1 5.0Deltapine 1219B2RF 3.8 49,368 9.3 7.1 4.4 7.0FiberMax 2011GT 3.2 41,745 8.6 5.5 4.1 9.0FiberMax 2484B2F 3.7 47,916 8.4 5.1 4.0 7.0NexGen 4111RF 3.4 44,286 8.5 6.1 3.7 8.0PhytoGen 499WRF 3.9 51,183 8.7 7.1 4.6 7.0Stoneville 4288B2F 4.0 51,909 8.3 5.7 3.5 5.0
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 34 and 35: Replicated Sub-Surface Drip Irrigat
Page 40 and 41: Replicated LEPA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 80 and 81: Replicated No-Till LESA Irrigated R
Page 82 and 83: Results and Discussion:Acknowledgme
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:
Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint See
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
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 124 and 125:
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 164 and 165:
Precipitation (inches)4.0LTA20123.0
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?