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

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 all yield and economic parameters (Table 4).Lint turnout averaged 27.7% with a high of 31.6% and low of 24.4% for FiberMax2011GT and NexGen 2051B2RF, respectively. Bur cotton yield averaged 5202lb/acre and ranged from a high of 5524 lb/acre for Stoneville 4288B2F to a low of4897 lb/acre for NexGen 2051B2RF. Lint yields varied from a low of 1193 lb/acre(NexGen 2051B2RF) to a high of 1643 lb/acre (FiberMax 2011GT). Lint loanvalues ranged from a low of $0.5392/lb to a high of $0.5740/lb for CroplanGenetics 3156B2RF and PhytoGen 367WRF, respectively. When adding lint andseed value, total value ranged from a high of $1202.26/acre for FiberMax 2011GTto a low of $936.26/acre for NexGen 2051B2RF. After subtracting ginning, seedcosts and technology fees, the net value/acre among varieties ranged from a highof $965.68/acre (FiberMax 2011GT) to a low of $704.92/acre (NexGen2051B2RF), a difference of $260.76.No significant differences were observed among varieties for most fiber qualityparameters at this location (Table 5), with exception of +b (yellowness). Testaverages for micronaire, staple, uniformity and strength were 3.9, 35.4, 81.6% and30.4 g/tex, respectively. Elongation averaged 10.2% across all varietiesand leafgrades were mostly 2. Color grade components of Rd (reflectance) and +b(yellowness) averaged 78.7 and 8.5, respectively and resulted in color grades ofmostly 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:Disclaimer Clause:Appreciation is expressed to Luke Steelman for the use of his land, equipment andlabor for this demonstration. Further assistance with this project was provided byDr. Jane Dever - Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center, Lubbock,and Dr. Eric Hequet - Associate Director, Fiber and Biopolymer Research Institute,Texas Tech University. Furthermore, we greatly appreciate the TexasDepartment of Agriculture - Food and Fiber Research for funding of HVI testing.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.67