xt78gt5fct72 https://nyx.uky.edu/dips/xt78gt5fct72/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1959 journals 074 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.74 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.74 1959 2014 true xt78gt5fct72 section xt78gt5fct72 E `IY 7 ' · "l‘F W" f I Y/yi? 'E:7'   ""-in YW' Q'?
 @3%  & *@•%> · ” i " f%· Q
_»Resu|ts of the I
  Kentucky Hybrid Corn
f `Pertorm¤nce Test - 1958
'-  I By F.A.LOEFFEL and J.F. SHANE ·
0    ;@‘  ¢> @ ‘» ~ €‘ ¢~ %> %> ‘
A “¢’”t@   L’@%%’»*‘?*@@·$%“ 
  . e¢@¢»  ·a4‘¢  ¢ %¢% @
 @ iéaéi \,@·©=@@¢ • ~%%¢i~·¢i~@ Q
I »• g? ¢@ai  géw °;¢¢·%·%@ ‘
  9 @@@@ @@ e¢@·’@@\  d%‘@ @é’
 2% % %   @ @5
 I PROGRESS REPORT 74
_P é  (Filing Code; 1-1)
’ .4  UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY  
r·‘-  C AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
 - LEXINGTON
  JANUARY I959
iii}, 
    * _ @` ' ‘C § iz`  ’» C/ ~  V ~V  {
  @ @3, ·@€·@@® “ @   Pt
0   s ~ @r —p» ii¢·6i    
  "Qeéggg

 7 ?
 
Q
A §·
  (
9-;
S n n
17
f"
E
‘I
{V
9
’}
T
1
* A
gL~`
K
*5
‘¥
1
(
g··.
*
sl
$1
9 ¤

 w
'—¤ WHICH HYBRID SHOULD I PLANT?
i A. Choose between white and yellow corn.
._L l. Yield of white and yellow hybrids is equal.
2. Feeding value is equal when ration contains
~· protein supplement.
_ 3. Midseason white hybrids may not pick as clean
` as earlier maturing yellow hybrids.
“; 4. White corn usually sells at a premium price.
»wA 5. White hybrids may not stand as well as yellow
hybrids of equal maturity.
B. Decide on maturity of hybrid.
¥· l. A full-season hybrid will yield more than an
’%_ early hybrid. »
° 2. If corn is to be followed by fall sown small
vi grains, plant an early or midseason hybrid.
ixw C. Choose hybrid on basis of balanced performance. I
s
R l. Performance information fro  3 years of testing
’ is superior to information fr m l year. I
- ~~ 2. Performance information from testing at 6
,_ locations per year is superior to information
from 3 locations per year.
¢ 3. Small differences among hybrids may not be
x` important.
` 4. Look at maturity, erect plants and ear height
re information as well as yield before making a
n selection.
5. A good standing midseason hybrid which yields
< less than a full-season hybrid may be the
. best choice. ’
>
‘_ D. Minimize importance of price in buying seed corn.
g .
+ l. Cost of seed is very,very small in comparison
* to total cost of producing an acre of corn.
`· E. Buy enough seed to plant a minimum of 12,000 to
°f- 14,000 plants per acre.
‘ <3>

 7 ?
 
Q
A §·
  (
9-;
S n n
17
f"
E
‘I
{V
9
’}
T
1
* A
gL~`
K
*5
‘¥
1
(
g··.
*
sl
$1
9 ¤

 ;sQ. ·
it .
, RESULTS OF THE KENTUCKY HYBRID CORN
PERFORMANCE TEST IN 1958
•
s., F. A. Loeffel and J. F. Shane
Th
; The objective of the Kentucky Hybrid Corn
U Performance Test is to provide an unbiased esti-
· mate of the relative performance of corn hybrids
¤m being sold in Kentucky. This information may
'O _ then be used by farmers, seedsmen and research _
" and extension personnel in determining which
hybrid most nearly possesses the characteristics
{ which are desired or required for a specific sit-
" uation. The need for the University of Kentucky
4} Agricultural Experiment Station to obtain this
x information is indicated by the continuing shift
7 to hybrids by the farmers of Kentucky. Over 95
—-- percent of the Kentucky corn acreage was planted .
to hybrids in 1958.
g gi A cool wet spring delayed land preparation
1 for corn in all parts of the state. Only 2 per-
’ cent of the acreage was planted before May 13
I . compared to 36 percent in 1957. Seventy-five per-
cent of the corn in the state was planted by June
z 3 although only 50 percent was planted in the west-
is ern fourth of the state. Early plantings were es-
pecially weedy due to frequent showers which hamper-
ff ed cultivation. For one month following July 4,
· r field work was generally at a standstill as abundant
and unusually frequent rain fell over the entire
` state. July was the second wettest July ever record-
,;y ed since records were started in 1889. Severe flood- I
ing in July damaged corn,especially in the Ohio and
J' Mississippi river bottoms. The average rainfall in
sc; Kentucky for the growing season (April through Sep-
tember) totaled 28.72 inches, 5.81 inches above
* normal and 2.16 inches above 1957. All areas of
rg the state registered above·norma1 amounts of rain-
, fall in 1958.
·¢
*‘ 

 The experiment grown at Wickliffe was not *
harvested this year due to the July flood. Although ¢
the growing season was delayed, the abundant mois- ‘ ‘
ture permitted a statewide record yield of 49.0 _
bushels per acre to be established. The average •*_
yield for all hybrids grown at five locations in $_
1958 was 109.3 bushels. The average yield in .
western Kentucky was 109.2 bushels and 109.4 bushels *Y
in eastern Kentucky. Lexington had the highest test ’
average of 121.0 bushels and Campbellsville the low-
est with 86.7 bushels. sc
t
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS '
The performance test was conducted at six
locations which represent corn-producing areas *
typical of the state. These locations together with ,
the name of the cooperator are listed on the back i
cover. These testing sites were grouped by geograph- X
ical location into a western and eastern area for _
convenience in presenting the results. Yields from
Wickliffe, Owensboro, and Hopkinsville were averaged 1
for the western area summary. Similarly the yields ‘_
from Campbellsville, Lexington, and Quicksand were `
averaged for the eastern Kentucky summary. The *`
experiment grown at Wickliffe was not harvested in r
1958 due to a July flood.
I
Forty-nine hybrids which are available to the i
farmers of Kentucky through commercial trade channels *
were compared. These hybrids, developed by state "
and federal research agencies and by private seed ,
companies,are listed in Table 1. Information concern-
ing the seed source of the hybrid, the kernel color *
and the type of cross are presented. The type of (T
hybrid is designated as follows: double cross, 4X;
three-way cross, 3X and a single cross as 2X. Seed '·
of a single cross hybrid sells at a premium due to ,
increased costs of producing seed. Forty—six double
crosses, 2 three-way crosses and 1 single cross were *
evaluated this year. •,
S1
(6) W

 *"e
Mu The pedigrees of hybrids developed by state
q and federal agencies are listed in Table 2. Agro-
= nomic information pertaining to the testing loca-
,$` tions is presented in Table 3. Results of the
” Kentucky Hybrid Corn Performance Test are sum ari-
'*> zed for periods of 3 years, 2 years and 1 year and
_u are presented in Tables 4-6 respectively. The
hybrids are grouped in the tables on the basis of
¤ kernel color. Within groups the hybrids are listed
M_ in order of increasing moisture content.
·’* Field Design.
, Each hybrid was planted in 4 plots at each of
` the six locations with individual plots being 2 hills
A wide and 5 hills long. These plots were located in
g, different parts of the testing field to minimize
V cultural and soil differences.
*<.1 _
.,$ Yield. .
The corn from each plot was harvested and
‘* weighed individually. The yield of the hybrids
Q was determined and is reported on the basis of
» bushels of shelled corn per acre with a moisture
¤é content of 15.5 percent. Adjustments were made
U_ for missing hills but not for other variation in
stand. Therefore, the yields at each location
'· reported in this progress report constitute an
__ average yield of the 4 plots after all adjustments
4, were made.
bg Moisture.
The moisture content at harvest is the best
~‘ measure of relative maturity of hybrids which is
_ available. A hybrid may be considered to be ear-
. lier than a second hybrid if its moisture content .
·¤u. at harvest is consistently lower. Maturity thus
gf} determined is not absolute but is relative to the
hybrids being compared. Two moisture samples were
%¢ taken for each hybrid by taking a sample fro  re-
5 plication l and 2, and from replication 3 and 4.
‘¤ The moisture content in the grain was deter-
,g mined at harvest by removing 2 rows of kernels from
A ¤ (7)

 K lr
n
each of 10 ears selected at random fro  each of two {-
replications. The grain from the 20 ears was thor- “
oughly mixed and the moisture content of a 100 gram *
sample was determined with a Steinlite moisture Jfb
meter. a » ·
+.
Erect Plants. t`
The percent erect plants is considered to be `
an estimate of the resistance of a hybrid to the i V
total insect and disease complex affecting standing
ability. This value is obtained by counting plants r
with stalks broken between the ear bearing node and f
ground level and those which lean from the base at 1-
an angle of more than 30 degrees from the vertical. 1
This sum is subtracted from the plants present and
the difference divided by the total plants present a.
to give the percent erect plants.
9 *1
Ear Height. S
Ear height, distance from the base of the `
plant to the point of attachment of the upper ear, ’
was measured visually using a scale with one foot •
intervals. Visual ratings were taken on four plots
of each hybrid at each location. {*
 
Stand. in
All tests were planted at the tate of 5 kernels "
per hill and the resulting plants thinned to 3 per ,
hill. The percent stand was computed on the basis
of the total plants present divided by the number v
of plants which would have been present if all had ,
survived.
1,
INTERPRETATION ,
The performance of hybrids vary with weather *°
conditions which change from season to season and •_
from testing location to testing location in the
same season. Since the weather conditions can not rw
a
,r
it
(8) * ·

   ,,_
·~»i be predicted at the time of planting a farmer should
plant a hybrid which has a good performance in an
‘ "average“ season. The results obtained from a large
1iA number of experiments grown in different years at
J different locations are the best estimate of hybrid
"' performance for an average season. The information
·i presented in Table 4 is the average of l7 experi-
t ments grown in l956, 1957, and 1958. The infor-
’ mation presented in Table 5 is the average of ll
·at experiments grown in l957 and 1958. Table 6 con-
__ tains information obtained from 5 experiments grown
`$ in 1958. Therefore, the information contained in
'~a Table 4 is the best estimate available for comparing _
the performance of corn hybrids for average growing
conditions in Kentucky.
·-e
_ It is suggested that new hybrids be grown fre-
"? quently on a trial basis in comparison with the
`~; hybrid or hybrids presently grown. Hybrids being
_ k compared should be grown in the same field using
i` similar management practices. Yield should be .
g determined at harvest and other observational notes
g recorded during the growing season on the hybrids.
‘$ If this suggestion is followed, a valid decision may
‘ -‘, be made which will increase the profit of growing
_ corn.
Ya P L A N T and C 0 M P A R E
AP The final answer is the performance of
so corn hybrids on your farm
S
’o
Ȏ'
‘“ (9)

  
Table 1. Hybrids tested in 1958. ,—y
»
 
Hybrid Color Cross Source of Hybrids __
 
}\
AES 801 Y AX Agricultural Experiment-
805 Y AX Station (North Centralf
r~ ‘
Bartlett & {_
O'Bryan W—23 W AX Bartlett & O'Bryan `
Y-120 Y AX Owensboro, Kentucky i
Broadbent 337 W AX Broadbent Hybrids l
A02A Y ax Cobb, Kentucky S
A02B Y AX _
 
DeKalb 803 Y 3X DeKalb Agricultural 1
803A Y AX Ass'n. DeKalb, Y -.
805 Y 2X Illinois
810 Y AX w
852 Y AX 1
925 w ax * B
1002 Y AX > ·
1028 Y AX ty
Funk G—91 Y AX Columbiana Seed ¤.
G-13A Y AX Company, Eldred, {
G·lAA Y AX Illinois ’
G—512w W AX ··c
G-711 Y AX `_
Hagan H—7 Y AX R. M. Hagan ~
H-9 Y AX Owensboro, Kentucky `i_
Ind 750B W AX Purdue University *~
8AAD Y AX Agricultural Experimemtw
Station, Lafayette
Indiana w`
s
Ky 103 Y AX University of Kentucky`
105 Y AX Agricultural ExperimenE‘
106A Y AX Station, Lexington, ,
Kentucky
(10)

 Ys
ba Table 1. Continued.
»
.>A Hybrid Color Cross Source of Hybrids
I °P Ky 203 w ax
‘ A 20A W AX
e*i Meacham M-SW W AX Meacham's Koreandale
"‘ M—7W W AX Farms, Morganfield
_,w Kentucky
Oh LS1 Y AX Ohio Agricultural
og Experiment Station
Wooster, Ohio
~,¥ P.A.G. A01 Y AX Pfister Associated
A AAA Y AX Growers, Inc., Aurora,
‘“ A85 Y AX Illinois and Huntsville,
_ 631W W AX Alabama
' aasw w ax -
‘$
» L Pioneer 309A Y AX Pioneer Corn Company
312A Y AX Tipton, Indiana
· “ 319 Y AX
{ 332-2A Y 3X
`¥e Stull 85Y Y AX Stull Brothers, Inc.
gg 1OOY Y AX Sebree, Kentucky
IOOYA Y AX
4% lO1Y Y AX
4 AOOW W AX
.‘;_ US 13 Y AX Experiment Station
523W W AX (U.S.D.A.)
‘*° V.P.I. 6A6 Y AX Virginia Agricultural
; Experiment Station
Blacksburg, Virginia
X}
(11)

 K Y
Table 2. Pedigrees of Experiment Station and V _
U.S. hybrids tested in 1958. _
A
Hybrid Pedigree g.
  t" y
AES 801 (WF9 x B7)(B1O x B14) ,v
AES 805 (WF9 x 38-11)(C103 x Oh45) ‘_
Ind 750B (K41 x K44)(33—16 x H21) ¤—
Ind 844D (WF9 x 38-11)(Tr x Hy)
Ky 103 (WF9 x 38—11)(K4 x L317) ¤
Ky 105 (T8 x CI2lE)(38-11 x Oh 7B) ’
Ky 106A (WF9 x 38-11)(CI21E x Oh 41) *
Ky 203 ( Ky 27 x Ky 122)(33-16 x Ky 49) 2
Ky 204 (K64 x 33-16)(K55 x Ky 201) 1
Oh L51 (WF9 x Hy)(Oh 43 x Oh 45) y
U.S. 13 (WF9 x 38-11)(Hy x L317) {7
U.S. 523W (K55 x K64)(Ky 27 x Ky 49) r.
V.P.I. 646 (WF9 x T8)(38—11 x C103) *°‘
‘l
· 1
1
TT
 
<12> ·‘

 hx
r
.2
q; xo
- , H N M   °
0--. D no , • 4g *9
U • 0*7 N N
2 ·* 8 "‘
.: E O N
cu 2 N 0 _
"·~ E °’ ¤¤ 'Y · .2 <>
‘ H q;··¤ . '__‘ x0 N N
·,.s cu #4** *\ ..4 °° ·-• ""
Q. U U O .-4
:4 2···* ·-•
rg. Lg <1.. >'
 
· ., SG _1 S
._,;_,   3 N 00 . _ . »
“ =¤ 3 . *4 ..» *5
G\ • ¤•
E.; .-4 q; > 4.4 *5 0 8 O
JJ H U O U)
` Ci an M Q
pus ·.-4 Q IU
m
g xc 2
-.-4 *0 _ q· 2 ·-* ch `
gg U U ,.¤ »-{ >` 7*:
qi 4.: O >__ Ps M ni
U q: G O >·» N N gg Z} -
Ti O JJ (6 '_‘ {U 2 Z
*2 .-4   LH 2 _
,4. bl)
..4 O O In O
. U 0 C ln Ln f` Ln
° °° W cr: "* :\ " '· "
w JJ 5 " .. " v-t Q
U ¤ °’ us " .-4 H ··' H
*5 (Q H H O "" ,..4 F4
O ,.‘ q: 0 U .-4
»‘ 4.: ¤_‘ ¤,¢ In
° G3
' ff ·¤ 4.:
. _ H GJ M
» .   tg °’ 0 "" 0 5
.._ m Q rg 3 ·—• T M;
4.: N I I
#.1 ·‘€ **2 9% 2;*3 2 2 ·
$ ¤_ H J: Nw;   • 3 J., • E
ci N n.£'· 4; ·** ..,_
kl: O -.-4 'U 2 M 5 `D Z —4; "`·‘·="·`
·•-( .-4 U .“_% % Q @3
__ 4.: .,.4 -.-• U —,·. gw 0ci: C, 0
·* m 4.: ·—• ,0 0-".= Om 0__‘ L,. m
»·| ¢¤l:’¤ A
·-¢O¤ OO¤`<¤O ¤0C>Oc~ c~c\c~¤~·¤'~ {
suup.-.-eu »-1 -1·-·1
E $$559
cn <1¤.1<.>..1 *•
»-• \
·· Z! {
~¤ ¢¤ Q
an
Ch ’U 0} ‘
.-• .-a »-• _
0 »-1 {
¤ ·»-• wo-.4
·»-• >• ::35 cncncncsco cx·—4c0c··r~ c¤c~r~•
‘° *7
0 gg *1
?` ·¤ rig.
U -•-4 3.; pv
2 B °°
.¤ >~. Q
c-• ld F!
>· >-nn Q!
Q O ·-•O `Bw§ §¥.S.¤"’>"
I-• LLQIEHD ¢D>£¢D¤F¤ &n¤¤O:.a>d
51
14
( > `

 sg`:
 ‘
4.,,,-'\•'|*·‘€"}•'* ® ¤'|® Om ZN U G} '__‘
Q r·¥G < OO O’\ U¤v·* 33 P __,
AO 0 »—4 :••¤ mad u0¤ OU ~»a >
»··-1 ui 4-•¤>~.¤>¢v >»<¤n‘.J <<¤ .¤ O
,6 D·¢¤m§£¤·• >• (/)>·i¥ZQ ZDQCDLH S40: 3
(15)

 N1
,*-q
 
..53 ¥\|`0\O\<7\ O\OOOO OOOOO OO ’T
gg); .-4.-4.-4.-4.-4 .-4€~l(\|4\IrN NNNNN NN ' 
HLA
EMM · p`
IU!-rl "
* 4
0
.-4 I
r-·|
Ԥ
m;:·¤ *9
  U\l!'\df\<|' ¤~<1·c¤¤0c~ O'\O\®©\h \TO
$a®¤0¢·»-4
c~ umcvwzl 4·
»-4 <¥ZLdO»J
R
E 5
m ¤¤ ~ *,
f\ *0 U
an .-4 .-4
GN ul .-4
.-4 ·.-4 &UO·.-4
>‘ V**H> ¥\ O\OO'\OCh O'\O\OOG\ O\G\
Q » cu »—40v\~·
`K; 3 O
E 3 N Q
.-4
m A I;4
Ei .4
$-4 C
N M
G) 7s ,,;
Ps ’U H '
n ·.-4 ::141
;
° B BS 4
E4 >» c·· -• >< Q3 uw N
YW Q ··' O *-*OdG¥ tf) I
M <¥Z·r·*@MC Uli-¥>»1-JD MHUDGJ hg
[*4 9-494 32*-* DK-Dil!/}F¤ ¤¤£¤QF¤D ¥
(16)

  
Q F1
0 c2~· N
py OO¤-4 p $-4 .-1
,_,. OO.-• Q GJ ,.4
,\!'\‘qx O'-. - E > N
"£~..·N¤, "' Q < •
r~O r\ $3 L4
`2·• ii} 23** xg? 3 2
· m
E E mugs M50 E O
~ ?~ Si53·=· “°·‘é2 3
—"* ¤ ··* com
C, »¤ Pais ;=‘“
,. ¤¤ 3 E ~T,"3¤¤
» an FQ eq LAM `J¢¤
H O0 qs mug;.
 \T"ONq3 mn
$9 ‘° O 4; _N cu D
N M "' >»>:
— N S n g  
B` 3 Ming : gm
_ "`£2,’2g ¤¤ 17)
.,;·’ Q.¤`·{·¤ ___‘ 7* (
Q-• O>._D‘
Em,. "*§<_£-Ea:
,- Q
•,,~¤.‘T¤ 93***
me-an “‘
¤l·>$gO
I

 nn,
JJ
,210 ¤.¤r\¤¤-4.nr~¤n<;><*ac~4Ncx¤¤<$·c¤mm0~¤N~D4x.yy
:6-54 al <'1¤*1<'1¤0¢·.-4 .
:ss2¤ ‘
r-0N\1·MO 1
41
*0 .
E ,,·
B B N¤~l\¤00~4hONOMNnn-cm-44\NQ¤xr\r\,,`
>~. N U'10n
4,; 3 g_
§ 3 °
N
,.*4 -4
rn gi >• {Q
.*6 5
an :>» ***
>~. H
A. E ‘” §‘.‘“
s z Q . ¤ 2·*°’
01
>~ r··¢ Nm >• >·‘‘ M
ZE F" Q"' L¤O>* ¤-—• ONO O Um
· dD DHD MHD UDOQ
nv <1:·.-4§.u¢x.u¤¤J<¤u>.<¤n.,.
[-4 IMD-4 CZ>|·*¥¤ZZQQ€D¥¢0>VlF¤Cl¢i!¤0>¢I¤¤3p,
(18)

 ` Qi
<.fHO¢>®®!`OO\¤> th \Oq:|`¢>\D¥\w|\·—¢<.r¤0r~mn»-a.-•¢*••Or*\ ¢¤N
up |\®O\I\»4<1'w¤\»—40c>NN»1¢~|»-•·—• Q .-•N»a»-•N<~|»-a-JN.-•cx3¢;>c~1 HO
•-l v-¢v—|•-lv-lr-dv-lr-(•—|r-lv-lvl:-l r-I r—|•-lv-On-Iv-lv-In-lv-lv-·|v—4 1-|»—| r·¥v·|
C
_\BI¤—|("`\¢"W®l'\|\¢N(!\l")f\\.f10\!’A N |\O\f"$®("}¤Dr\ Nm
©O•-l¤—|@@»-4u-in-{Div-lv-in-Iv-! G v-In-le-·(•-dv-In-in-In-In-lr-|®@¤-4 •·|C
;‘<‘•—4r—(v—|»-|v-|v-|»-l•-4v-·lv-·|•-|»-|•-|r—| n-I »-lv-l•—|•-4v—4•-·|•-In-lv-lv-O v-lv-4 v·*¤"‘
·_7
'i
 ‘•·; [-4 N
H 3
xii § 5
E KL
*3; m ul 4:2 ¤$
N on -|\ Ulu
4 0 4 rc Om ¤>
· 4 NN 
 .;; OM O·-4 O cn N2 NX u 0
coco -4 ·—4 r: -4 ·-• 4 0 0 cs 3·-• {zur'.! >·-*
_ VN HU Q Um HN ¢0¤ ·-4 :1 ·¤ racuucmguo ··-•¤>
U¤)@U•H:$.¤<>S}·l¢G}•HD Q) 4J>sCPsV}UU<¤U NH »-¤>
_ QD QD-•¢nO¤-•><¤¤¤<¤¤-•F=• >·• \'/)>4H>dZD¤}I¤4F=¤Z¢1•¢1¢¤ BO
(19)

 { •r
V' T ‘
QA
*7 T ,
{Tl
O
*I'
I 1
*2
P
’$
Q
1
W
»'\
_ 1
V S
".
'lf
ir
gm
*‘L
,9
V?
 
AI

 v
V 1958--RECORD CORN YEAR IN KENTUCKY
` The average production of corn in Kentucky
'}_reached a new high in 1958. The average yield
per acre was 49.0 bushels, 3 bushels higher than ·
"the previous record of 46.0 bushels established in
»_l956.
gx The first 40 bushel statewide average was made
P; in Kentucky in 1948 when 41 bushels per acre were
Wproduced. The significance of this record becomes
a,,apparent when it is realized that an average yield
of 30 bushels was not obtained in Kentucky until as
*7*recent1y as 1942. Only 3 times since that year
have corn yields failed to reach an average of 30
bushels. The improved efficiency of corn production .
1 in Kentucky is indicated by the production figures .
for 1955 through 1958 of 41.0, 46.0, 41.0, and 49.0
'tbushels per acre.
Several factors are responsible for the greatly
¤improved per acre yields in Kentucky. One factor is
4 ·1 that high producing hybrids are being grown on more
" than 95 percent of the corn acreage in 1958. In
1942, only 22.7 percent of the state's corn acreage
was in hybrids. Six years later it was 82.0 percent
l“when the first 40·bushel corn crop was grown. The
-,hybrids available for planting in 1958 were markedly
_ superior to those which were available in 1942.
__ Other factors are the increased use of fertilizer,
“*timeliness of field operations made possible by mech-
p · anization and the removal of land unsuited for corn
I from production.
y Although progress has been made in improving the
efficiency of corn production in Kentucky, much remains
·.to be done. In the future,emphasis must be placed on
the following factors which contribute to more efficient
vproductionz
. 1. Increase the number of plants per acre.
’ 2. Insure adequate fertility.
,_ 3. Discourage corn planting in June and July.
4. Encourage the acceptance of newly developed
”‘ superior hybrids.
(21)

 5*
--- N 0 1: E s --- “
4* l
V" .
4r·
*3
J
4
(22)

 ¢»._€·
~q -—-NOTES-—- ·
*6
. `»
·r$£"·
` L.
   
34
`·e
Wn
__ (23)

 · ·Y.' fp
Tasman Locnxous or _, _°
mz wsmucxy umm com pauommucn usr . =
{J:.
\
,,,g%?~   »
a§®**‘%w%    
@&»    2 "
* .§ r .,> ' , _ —_ ”°\`~ ,
% $ %»@% &  
. '° 0 I '
   @% @§§"$é
  °“f*`{5°¤   @ l,    
 ¢ @%§$@ @@@$~ ¤“ 9  
one *w w»#     
¤¤g¤—$H¤Es§&¤%@ .¢ `  ·
mg w E ~§‘
s-4 
Area Location Q Cooperator 3 V
Western l. Wickliffe James Wilson ~ _
2. Owensboro Beverly Gregory ’F
3. Hopkinsville Pennyrile Grain Imp. Ass'n. __V, f.
W. G. Duncan, III ` ’
Eastern 4. Campbellsville Frank Noe
5. Lexington Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta.
6. Quicksand Robinson Agr. Exp. Substation
` Charles M. Derrickson
l(M-1-59