xt7kwh2d9g38 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7kwh2d9g38/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1977 journals 230 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.230 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.230 1977 2014 true xt7kwh2d9g38 section xt7kwh2d9g38 ~ Progress Report 230
  VARIEI Y IES I S 1968-1976
I J. H. Smiley • A. M. Wallace • George Everette • G. B. Collins • C. C. Litton • P. D. Legg
... .  T Coll A ‘.e9 .
        *       . .   * .
  *‘,.·   ·‘-`   ~’»/    '.     ~   AA   ao., 3      
  h··   *`.      < `·     »·—. L     `‘``r°~ 1 ` · z
  *‘ee_`= 2       S   ‘  r ·’.o   - .e·.   -
 -= Z;,1?i?é‘;?$%;"`> ‘· ‘  ¤         *1 . L "   . `YY      
 Ei ;~·; wjwjrAl.’_¤*s~·>i;?.>‘“;»;2;s%;.€ie~¥e;-Qi-;.¢5,-;r:¤*<-ia§;.éK.ei’;;->€’i>¥-wi'}-?<=;*§»:>gf;_;    ~‘.e” Sn ‘.`/    V ? *f`   r - 1 " e . Q;   .,.`‘ 1 ·i  ·,./.   `.`.    
        .`i`.. r v-   ff. 4 4 . ~i»r·;-   jig .’./    
     ile    7*- e       `e.i. x S   i   ’ I > 
  z    ?Yf%#??`f"<§2i?%*??x>?Q-*‘{€‘·      YE  ‘   »1, `  " . I -7 ·· *  S- I . ..   ` r`     _-., , Z?
    I"     —* - E W ..  I `  Y    -` 
  ‘`—.   ‘- ‘   " "` ‘  " " Y     I  *»°i» ` ?   ’·1` <“iL=~%    
  -   si? ,   . ° , ·¤- { ‘‘`’·  
  _ ’ .5       [ 4 - ’__ _   >»   Q 7 Q  fi",. 
.·  ·.,»   _ '     z A V _ *  ·J Ji ‘ ’   » .- .   .r..:;g=· . .vv·’ 4 =‘-%si`t§
< ·  sx, *r    1 ` ‘ · ..»~·§i·$•t¢>_ ·- - 3  •   ~ » » ' ,. 1 Mir ·@   vv . F X-_1¢:__,.i»•'· ·  
- · ,  - ·$A .  r-..;g·; 4 ;»· Ir- . ··e... .; ‘-. . " ·,» =·»   { ·
, ··      I     —.=¤.·3“ ‘``= ni,.   ;·I~·1   . » ,-   ,_ H,.   ' .;*7I-   """E,iw-’¤i¥‘Y..··-Mf*`I·;>_¤<..>Y°*a_`i    *._ - ‘
    ¤{"T_i1—s       ,.·,--_,~w·..»s.-·.;AA·..;sw; . ;»y`.i§i.x§»-Q. *--Ft¤;&~`·.`;*;;;f*;€‘_:;: =,2§·,:·Z_Z.'·?’¤‘;i1;:·¤~¤§°;&}'e'?=-?,i‘·. ’’_'   -fi:-J-`1; _. 4 " .,t·-·i‘.¥;~·,-'-·_»`*‘¥3.'2-;,'¥"‘ .·-·".·.   i Ii   ;`—`.{_ J .»  
  ’·`¤‘   -`’..     .‘.—-_   ‘`...     *-l·-      
Q‘.:§_7-`Yi°f—`;’.=‘“·>§·$,$j‘%f}I‘·"*—   VI "*;f:`?,"":‘§¤}Q;-% ~-.». '${A-·§·%fi1"7;’¥'~;»*$1§;`*·J:V;éf·$"I£"}:I¤;§-ExifF=£*I%*_"é?,‘.;:`. ..`-. ’*i`?·;!l: “‘f’?*‘{i{Q?"2"—{nr'};-.$`§‘¥'4r%?‘.4?...· ··I‘ `£r·-in ’, _, Q `
     -.  
q`?§€¥S?3$?·%¢~_‘§_r%`{;V{`_§::·.·~.';.   &\'   ·?» l;} ';   ·"._\‘_.’>   »“,"_-,:\* 4:;·_\t—·!   il vg, ,3:*   r QV €/._q~`:T` `     _     ' `;(c\ Nfl;  `_
· ·.,·;;i:- ` -.   ._*-HW iw ‘ "?*  ’. r ‘   J   M, 'ly     < [QE · · {$3, ` ‘ "U     I i' ‘ ·’ · " .~, '?’I* ' g —:§;
  ··: ‘ “l.re %\»,.·yh\\,;.   .‘=‘ ’-· -‘* -3* G  1 ’,· 5*§"“.R“»`{‘¥.A*T `“,, ’l  "·`   *4.   _§;}*~¢   ‘··:T.
  _»       ·»_ e.- r ~. 1,. *·   IUI y. A · . T. `_   ,,‘ •.. * -. ey ,· IQ   W ·—·· -· -* ;     ’¤
LQX wx  [X-.) _`.i_L)) _} _·—Y}$`   _-»   A { {/··£   · wx;}   Q,   P `     A·._`/;~‘ R * __   ‘  
  i._er_;Q=’—&&.   §:.’Eif”#‘*f·?`?=             .   °"- • I Y 4**   ‘   , `é· · " `· ' "·*‘   9% `. `I* .·    
  vi,     t g   :5*% ’ (jb.- ‘g;’?'jE\_.A   _ _ R . i. __$4Q_¤ A   \‘.   #‘;}.,,W_ *9*
5%%.-..;.`  4 . Fg;    A   jr :    MIA?.  A   ga _ _.;hA\u€,§     L -f\ _-   , 4-A ._ ` _ _— `       4 7; gk
   ` ‘*, gx  L; ". ;. ;_:  q 4; ,  —. •_.»_ ·   { __ jp Aj -  _ v   ~_ —-)j$'   _§ ` `V { '* . ga Q); ‘i,i
  gi! l it _ .Vv       Tkwgio  igggg      ,. ·..   ”,A¥,.»’§,_%¥ ,__~   IA _¤é:`·_(   V-_°~{ E
·.  .·   . >— _    ·-    t‘ ‘ »  ‘· ‘‘‘’‘‘   ..     M; · . “ ’ ·.`= ` · M. ‘ .. ’.
  '   xr I!     1  lx  €(§* g `{N J It ' J V E     r *`z‘ ~ ‘. · V . I ' "   V` ‘ IJ] »
5,43; ' { '*?~  Q -    ” , ..45- ·     jk xwi,}" ‘ Q   , {W" *3 \`\ II   ` ·- -Jv · A · {  A "  
  *'   *·*l*M*M¤~Y$< ·!A_ .,vv.  2     "’_  Aw    kv _ `U ` I   »‘ 4 ° " `   y"·  ' S · J
‘ rtg . » - ’ ’ "     1    A‘—# »       —· ;~ 0 E A ·   at f" -.  *   -   ‘*   _ - .- tv' . ‘’     - -· —-
an .-1- A. ._     A KY _.. ?--_ Q   ~ .. _ , · ,‘ X}-      _ -··· ,._ . r  .5 A-    
A  V { R > *7- ;A_,.?:$>§,f§{,&¥ V. ·,_( S, { , _ ` sn `   A  ·_   ¥_ _1A ° _,'· -,•~   W"  
»  · .    `“   ` *   .`  `Z =   ¤ " _-..» N "` *,  I ,. . M K- 4 ¤ ` Q. °?s ‘·
" ‘, S  _A ~ ..·  ’ ·  A    s-~  _ ‘ &·‘*    ‘ - 4.    lf  r — .-  J     , Wl- ; \ i. :3* V ·\ ;.~‘g
t ·y A- 4   A _  \_.3.A~     *¤5_ » , -,.·    · , . .   Ay.- ·- \°  _.___ \ *,   V
 5 ., ‘       3 Y;-. 1 ’·“=_ gg  ` · ° ; g A   '   A   j Q . - I -. f A. _ A i*~ "   >·
  ._  g ` - V vt. i   jg; IJ; IA (, ` A A}. ·     é   Q   . -  
`f··.:’-I  ,‘“7§VI’i  ·{ ‘     E fl · \ ‘   » .,A \     ·* ‘   "
  ~.   jb   I     }E`·2-"   ..   ,·.."»· -   " "‘ . 3 ` ·‘-. I »· `   .   I A
    ..t., . ·   .   4 -; ~a =• .•§*II¤ - · L . ·~r·   I
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE •AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Departments of Agronomy and Plant Pathology • Lexington

  
2 ‘¢
` D  . ` 5 !¤Ac;[N ' A\ J K
62%   5  UASON LEW‘$ cnranuvi ·
;JLD>N59§__ _ LET"  rv .. ¤;r_¢g_ . BELL/i
  WVSS wmv.}
Fig. 1. - Testing Locations of the Kentucky Burley Tobacco Variety Tests - 1968-76.
[mention Coopcrutor Location Cocpcmtor
I. Adair County William A. Murrell 24. Madison County james M. Adams
2. Anon county Robert ivhmow " " Lowell Muiiiken
3. Anderson County George Cook H H john Carnes
4. Ballard County Wyatt H. Bennett 25. Morgan County Norman Smith
5. Boyle County Alfred Whitehouse 26. Muhlenberg County B. j. Winn
6. Bourbon County Randy K. Roberts 27. Nelson County Thomas E. Gunning
7. Bullitt County Dean Armstrong " " H.j. Eaves
8. Caldwell County Homer Mitchell 28. Nicholas County Glen Clay
9. Carroll County William G. Diuguid 29. Owsley County Doreie Price
I0. Casey County Ed and Terry Mullins " " Edward Harvey
ll. Christian County W. D. Bailey H " Quenton Callahan
I2. Clark County F. W. Rickard 30. Owen County Billy Karsner
I3. Clay County john Brown 31. Powell County Gary Bowen and Dale Anderson  
l~l». Clinton County Riley Combest 32. Pulaski County Paul Dunagan
I5. Cumberland County Charlie Wilson ll " William Simpson
I6. Daviess County Tommy Cecil ll " Wilford Purcell
H " Clem Cecil 33. Rowan County Dorsie jennings
l7· Ffllllklill CUUHIY Carey Sheets " " Gordon Lewis
H " Eugene and Willie Gatewood " H Harve McBrayer
H ” Lowell Clark and A. W. Hazelwood " H Wilber Hardin
H M Allen Tracey 34. Scott County Billy Easley
" " Wilbert Perkins " " Robert Gregory _
IX. Gallatin County F. S. Connely H H   W. Showalter
" " john ami Ed Brown " " waiter Kelley
I9. (iran! County Future Farmers of America · H ll Elbert True
U H Grant Co. High School H " Robert McMillan
H " Clarence P. Hutchinson 35. Shelby County Louis Payne
20. Cr<·t·n County Don Mitchell " " Sanford Scearce
· H H Shreve Loy and Sons 36. Taylor County Tommy Noe I
H H _]. W. Edwards " " Milton jones
2l. Ilancock County Russell llouse 37. Trimble County j. C. and Niles Bray
22. llart County K. S. Grady 38. Whitley County Drex McKeehan
23. llenry County Alvin Croxton
H H Gerald T. Steverson ‘
‘)

 Kentucky Burley Tobacco Variety Tests—Summary
1968-1976
]. H. Smiley, A. M. Wallace, George Everette, G. B. Collins,
Paul Legg, and C. C. Littonz
l The primary objective of the Kentucky Burley Tobacco Variety Tests is to provide informa-
tion on the relative performance of burley varieties, hybrids, and breeding lines which may
become candidates for varietal release. Such information obtained on varieties and hybrids may
be used by farmers, seedsmen, research workers, and extension personnel.
METHODS
An expanded program of variety testing began in Kentucky in 1968. In addition to the tests
conducted on the University of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station farms, others were
conducted in 1968 on farms of 11 cooperating tobacco growers throughout the state. Since that
time tests have been conducted each year, with the number of locations ranging from 6 to 15.
A The locations were selected to represent the burley tobacco producing areas of Kentucky. At
least three replications of each variety were grown at each location.
In addition to these tests which were conducted on disease—free soils, black shank-resistant
varieties and breeding lines have been tested at various locations on black shank—infested soils;
and black root rot-resistant varieties and breeding lines have been tested on black root rot-
infested soils.
RESULTS
Yield data for on-farm tests conducted on disease—free soils in 1968-76 are summarized in
Tables 1-9 for each year by county for all standard varieties tested. The yield performance of
three standard varieties is summarized in Table 10. Average yields are shown on tests conducted
at Lexington 1974-76, at Princeton in 1976, and in 27 on-farm tests 1974-76.
Average yields for the black shank-resistant burley tobacco varieties tested in 1976 and
1977 on black shank-infested soils are shown by location in Table 11.
Average yields for two black shank—resistant varieties and Ky 10 tested on disease-free soil at
Lexington 1974-76 are shown in Table 12.
Yields are shown for varieties tested on a black root rot—infested soil and on a disease-free
soil on the same farm in 1971 (Table 13); and for varieties grown in 1976 on a disease—infested .
soil (Table 14).
Yields of burley tobacco varieties tested on the Soils Experimental Plot, Campbellsville, in
1971 are shown in Table 15.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
These variety test results should help farmers decide which varieties or hybrids to grow.
Note that certain varieties performed well at some locations but not so well at others. However,
varieties do not always perform the same, relative to each other, year after year at the same
lCooperative investigations of the Kentucky Cooperative Extension Service, the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment
Station, and the Plant Science Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
2Extension Professor, Research Specialist, Extension Specialist, and Professor, College of Agriculture, University of
Kentucky, respectively; and Research Geneticist and Research Agronomist, Federal Research, U.S. Department ol Agriculture,
respectively.
3

 locations. For example, in Caldwell County in 1968, Ky 10 yielded 350 pounds per acre more
than Ky 14, but in 1969 Ky 14 yielded 183 pounds per acre more than Ky 10.
In selecting the best variety for a given situation, it is important to consider diseases. If  
diseases are a factor, selection of the proper variety may mean the difference between a good
yield of desirable tobacco and a crop failure. The degree of resistance of the more important
standard varieties and hybrids to diseases is shown in Table 16.
For land infested with black root rot or fusarium wilt (or both), Ky 14 and Ky 15 are
recommended. If wildfire is a problem, Ky 14, Ky 15 or Burley 21 (B 21) is recommended.
Black shank is one of the most difficult tobacco diseases to control without reducing `
potential yield. If, however, sufficient land is not available for crop rotation or if rotation does
not control black shank, then the use of a resistant variety or hybrid is recommended. Two races
y of black shank are found in Kentucky. Race 0 is the most common, while race 1 is found on only
a few farms. Satisfactory control of race 0 can be obtained from the use of a hybrid of L-8, but
control of race 1 is more difficult. Varieties Burley 37 (B 37), Burley 49 (B 49), Burley 64 (B 64)
and Ky 17 are moderately resistant to both races. However, if it is necessary to use a field
infested with black shank, Ky 17 is the best variety to use because of its high yield and other
characteristics.
CHARACTERISTICS OF SOME VARIETIES
Kentucky 10
Ky 10 is a rather short, compact, stand-up type, high-yielding variety of fair quality. It has a
small percentage of the plants which are slow growing because of an abnormally prolific root
system (hairy root). It matures 7-10 days later than B 21 and, when cut immature, the leaves
tend to cure with green spots.
Kentucky 15
Ky 15 is a high quality, stand—up burley tobacco variety which yields extremely well. It
possesses near immunity to the black root rot disease. It is also resistant to tobacco mosaic virus,
wildfire and the fusarium wilt diseases. Ky 15 is taller than Ky 10, but the leaf size and number
are very similar to those of Ky 10. Ky 15 matures 5-6 days earlier than Ky 10. Ky 15 was
released cooperatively by the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture in 1977 for production by producers in 1978. i
Kentucky 17
Ky 17 is a stand-up burley tobacco which produces reasonable yields of high quality leaf.
This new variety is distinguished by possessing good field level resistance to both races of black
shank. ln addition, Ky 17 is resistant to tobacco mosaic virus, wildfire, black root rot and
fusarium wilt. Ky 17 is taller than Ky 10 and has a leaf number and size similar to Ky 10. Ky 17
» matures 3-4 days earlier than Ky 10. Leaf yields produced by Ky 17 have averaged 400-500
pounds per acre more than Burley 49 in replicated tests.
Kentucky 14
Ky 14 is a stand—up type, good yielding variety with good quality. The leaves are approxi-
mately the same length as those of B 21 but a little wider. The leaf number and plant height are
about the same as those of B 21. It matures about 5-7 days later than B 21. There is good
retention of bottom leaves on the stalks before and during harvest.
4

 Burley 21
B 21 is an extreme stand-up type, good-yielding variety of high quality leaf. The plants are
early and vigorous. It is one of the easier varieties to work (cultivate, prime, spray) because of its
extreme stand-up qualities. There is a tendency for leaves to drop from the stalks in this variety
under some conditions, especially when grown in a shallow, compact soil or during a dry season.
r Burley 37
B 37 is moderately resistant to both races of black shank. It is a stand-up type, fair yielding,
good quality, broadleaf, uniformly maturing variety.
i Burley 49
B 49 is slightly more resistant to both races of black shank than B 37 and has high resistance
to black root rot. It is an extreme stand-up type with more leaves than B 37, but the leaves are
shorter and not so wide. Yields of B 49 are about the same as those of B 37, but B 49 matures
later than B 37.
Hybrids
The Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station released male-sterile B 21 to seedsmen in t
1959. The purpose was to encourage the production of hybrids with levels of black shank
resistance not available in standard varieties by utilizing the L-8 source of resistance. Seed
producers have used male sterile B 21 as the foundation of the present burley hybrid program.
The combined names of the two parents used in making the hybrid are used as the name of
the hybrid and are printed on each seed package offered for sale.
No yield or quality differences in reciprocal crosses in the burley hybrids have been found.
In other words, no differences have been found in yield or quality of MS B 21 X L-8 and MS L-8
X B 21.
Most hybrids offered for sale will have MS B 21 as one of the parents. This should improve
smoking quality and acceptance of the leaf since B 21 is a high quality variety. MS Ky 14 X L-8
should be more useful than MS B 21 X L-8 where black root rot or fusarium wilt is a problem
because of the Ky 14 contribution of resistance.
Several cases exist where the hybrid may have a lower degree of resistance to   certain :
disease than the more resistant parent. For example, the MS B 21 X Ky 10 hybrid has less black
root rot resistance than Ky 10. Therefore, if a hybrid is selected, care should be exercised to
make sure that the reduced resistance can be tolerated.
5

 C
?
256
LJ L.)
.U(j NQ
¤·‘w
zz E5
Ig.; S '"E
°"I$§    
uiggé OO IO
; U mg .-8
“* ·%m 8,.
HECI OO
>*L'OI<\.I Q E
I-·r°*"¤¤ mw <\I
IIL`2 2 @ I
EIE'~ I <\II II\
 N IN' .2
I“‘°<5 FI |r\l <\I<\I
*"’°<..> O, kg II cn
>j LI-) qy- g II I
OL Q gxrq (Y) I I _
QC Lp qu I I I
Um. I II I
(\1LD OO
IO GN ·° £ Ng 3 Nm'
-**:5 (3 cc cxx GI.
IJJIDU me mg: (GSO
I-:·¤ OI E R :3 g
- mm %©‘"’·`€'
ai? <°*`;2 E 2 2.`
I- I f")(*7
I" · <\J I I
1§8 MS zm §O:g
’* ¤¤ gg § E %
5 EI :2- I M2
cum I
2 EME '§ 5*:
`  ,I\ c\1I I
gg E I I
C) <\.lI II
mg.-—— I I
I I
>§4\I II II
>4,.- I I
I I
>\q· Il II
MF 00, I
"`“ §*;*2'
CBOT-I II
><><>, I
>` MON II
Maz ‘
xg I
¤¤¤=z:,X°°
U, L
OO
Z¤¤I··
L/)C\1>(_I]x/`
Fm? ;,¤
‘.Qm,.. I-’
6 .:. Nxg
°£¤¤·E'“
U') CL -
ZQE
Q"
I
I
'I
I

 E
is
Lg!
Q c4,
cz E0
U .,_».C
< *°'
3,·;§ M
M -1
:2 $-5
W c: N [5
Q 8 00
g L6 ¤ •
A-1 mw '
ru 1 Cx
E5 3 5 I $2
m N *0
Q >v 2 Ln N
E-< Q ,.. 5
>‘ M5 29, O K
['* -C,;_) '\ KO
1-*-} "/’ ko N ,..
H ru 0* O <1‘
> Q is g 0 $ Q
2 Oé m N N
¤¢(_> QI; O Q ,\ Q
M O O *0
 N *0 N O 0*
,... Q- N ,\ kg N ,\
>¤ 0* Ln OO O N 1
ul L Q N  ¤~
·-· Q) 2 ·— E 0> O *0
M   ,\ N Q. N ,\ N O N ,0
== ° 2 .¤ 3 *.5% f" S
E : 1\ *0 N  '—_é LO N Lg X
La 3*-J N O N ,\
0* 0* 0* 0* I N
O 0* 0* O I I
Q *0 0* O I 0* I
..1 E *0 0* ··· 0* O | N | r\
2 N O LD Ow O, ' Q.
Fd ,_. KO N N N CO `O
; {(5 Q. N ,_ N Q. Ln N
*-9 N KD Q. LO
I KO N LO N N
*0 0 0* 0* N *0 0*
C`; OO N ,. O, N U.,
Ld OO N O OO N
—-I N 0* 01 0* *0 N 0* E
CQ ,_ N OO LO O
< ¤¤ .¤ N ¤~ N
N OO LD M U., N N
[-4 0* N 0* O 0*
N ® ,-. LO
N ,... N N N N O
S-? N 3 3 m
N O N N O N
,_. N O ,..
>5 ,\ N O
+—’ N O, ,_ N ,_
GJ Q. N OO ,\
·"_ [\ F., Ox
L OO N *0 N N *0
"J -1 0* N 0* N
1 > q» ,\ N OO
'— >< N 0* 07 N
N N O,
O N *0 *0
Q " " N 0* 0*
O *0 N 0*
,-.. LD LO
Q Q N *0 0*
OO ,\ N ND
*/* X -1 0* N
- O, ,.. N LD M
‘“' N N O N
X -1 <1‘
Q CD N KD
N KD
U., X N
3;; N ,\ N Q
0* )
X ,..
N
m R
m S
03

 5
U
41
W
M cu:
E Z`-.?
(D L4.:
:1 $8
Z <1:¤ 1
:3 .1 :
1 LO ·
2 r\ 1 O
S .*3
2 U. 2 2
vi un
Ul mg 1:-7 I
1-· <¤‘ '
L5 } :
?‘ cum:
{-· gu '\ :
1.1.1 0
Q J 8 m gz
§ KO °° 3 1. u g_ ~
- :
F M 5 R Z i’
M   .- N Lg 2 Q_
>< 1 M z fu (Q] r~
Q mg : no D '" Si co
U · <* 2 E N ;
2 2 Q 52 U, rr? #53 N 5 O1
¢¤ rcs. N q- S Z 8 <\1 <:·
Q   CO 1 ,\ O KD
P., , 3 U, { · F Z ..
@1* ag °` 5 —¤ E E §§ M E 2
'* LI.
5 rg, $11 2   msg R 3
°° E3 M °` ‘° < *·’;< G 3 °°
O 1\ cw Q- > mw '\ G
2 C < Q OO Q 5 N rz N
+> N ,\
{.1.} O . 3 N ~ £ - 3 3
v I OO ·· ¤¤ N =¤ 1.
" "° 1-I —¥ OO LO
4* cu co M U N kg cu
V; 1.: R g ;; 3 8 cn
E °’ '\ Q ¤¤ cc; 3
1—· ;· N °° - MJ N E
Lal nig KO LD ¤~ I <* 1\
*·· [ig N S, Ln Us ‘~¤ <\1 g
Z A1 LD (\_| w •'* r\ LO LO
N m
tt >~. M 2 · cw M M M N N c\1
I <:- N g .— CQ OO 0*
,3,; ,__ N P" $— <\1 Lf}
N O g an m ,2 g 3
an >4 O, KO Z (UC; 2 N
>s Q. ¢\1 (D 1-L;. Q`
dj 0 >< Oy 4; ko < Ln c\1
L N kl ·— N
my .-— Q. E *·’ M cx
> gn m ,. $*· 5 __. "‘ LO gx
E 0 M M Q M ·—
(D 1-- X < ® r\ 1— (N1
E  <"'1 "_
A1 C cu mj r-· r\
Q F OO ,_ 1.:1 O cw 1\ U-, O
>» -1 O -*2 N '\ · N ON 0.1 1\
so
,L R S. ~
L1.} Q ""
.1 55 O
2 > ·* cu 2 `
<1J· .1
·- Q N
g X 2
S Li " Q OO
oo Q" J `
   
Q ><
>, X
E “ OO 2
8 Q _1
an Q
Z m ..-
Z cu ·
m

 TABLE 5.—YIELD OF VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS IN THE 1972 BURLEY TOBACCO ON-FARM VARIETY
TESTS, POUNDS PER ACRE
Owsley Franklin Taylor
Variety County County County Average
Ky 14 2835 3679 3803 3439 ·
B 49 2489 2791 2788 2689
Va 509 2512 3132 3653 3099
MS L8 x Ky 14 2831 3297 3779 3302
· B21 2554 3345 3482 3127
 
TABLE 6.—YIELD OF VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS IN THE 19 73 BURLEY TOBACCO ON-FARM VARIETY TESTS, POUNDS
PER ACRE
  -
 
Location
Variety Hancock Clay Bourbon Taylor Pulaski Average
Ky 14 3219 2192 2638 3490 3081 2924
Ky 15 3021 2405 2589 3390 2954 2872
MS B21 x Ky 14 3061 2075 2768 3438 2626 2794
MS L8 X Ky 14 2952 2252 2628 3492 2827 2830
MS B21 x Ky 10 2383 2192 2484 3799 2694 2690 4
B 49 3081 1990 2018 2917 2526 2506
 
9

 GJ
" 1%* 9. S '° R'. $5 Q 1.. 1
1.1 0
111 .-1 0 0 0 0 1\ 0 00
3: M M M N N N N 2 Q1 cig 31 Eg Ig 2 lg
1-1-1 cu .-1 0 0 0 0 0 1\
1.1.1 nd :> M N N M N N N
nd 3 <¤`
Eg gg M
04 GJ · M M N N .-1 M 0 ¤·¤ 1-1
11.1 -.-1 0 0 0 N N 00 0 0 °· 0 ·
01 ;> 0 1- N 00 00 M 1\ 0 vn .-1 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0
w cu M M M M M M N C1 :>10 00 M N LO 0 0 0
Q z co 10 0 M 1.0 0 LN 0
Q ;; H M M M M M N N
D O
O 0.
°· -.-1 rz; 1.1 0 0 00 M M M 00
vg M 5-1 1.1 - 0 1\ 1\ 0 1\ N M
1.. m 01 .-1 .-1 M 0 10 LO rn 0 0 0 00 1\ 1\ 00 0 1\
ug C0 · 00 .-1 0 M 1\ 0 0 1-1-1 0 0 M M M M M N M
.,.,1 .-1 0 1\ 00 1\ 0 00 M 0 1-· cn
5-1 :1 0 M M M M O1 M M >_
0.1
>-· E—<
F" E 13 .-1 M 0 N 10 N 0
E gg cu - 1\ 0 0 .-1 00 .-1 00
°‘ 11 < E8 2 2 S. °" "” °° G
Q4 > <\I C\1 1-i C\1
· cu · 0 00 0 0 1\ M 0 M
> 111 0 0 0 10 N 0 LO 0 E
;· 1.1 0 .-1 0 0 lf} 00 .-1 UT M
og 0 M N N N N N N (1
·< 1+ E
*:5 z 111 · .-1 00 00 N .-1 1\ 0
A 1: Q L5 8 10 0 10 M 1\ .-1 0
O 0 O .-1 0 0 0 0 0 1\
m · .-1 N 00 0 0 0 N S M N N M N N N
O ·.-1 0 0 00 0 10 LO 0 0 U 0..
U *0 0 -1 00 00 M N 1\ .-1 U
Er} L5 M N 01 M M N M §
· /-1
¤0 O 1-1
Q E- .-1 1\ .-1 00 00 M 10 N
1.. * >__ cu · 0 0 1\ 0 0 0 1\
, ,». Ld 3 O .-1 0 0 .-1 .-1 0 0
r' <11 00 N 1\ N 0 00 0 0 0 N .-1 N N N .-1 .-1
1.1-1 .-1 N 00 M LN 0 0 1\ *1 Q-1
..1 1.1 · N 1\ 0 LO 0 .-1 0 N
od -.-1 0 M M 0 M M M N 2
LJ 5 U
Q3 .J· 10 U]
rx U)
I 0 GJ · N 0 0 0 10 00 1\
1;-., ·— ·.-1 0 1\ 0 0 .-1 00 00 LO
.-1 M C uq Q L) O 2 OO O O 0 1.0
U.] LJ |\ I\ C\l ‘Lr\ UW :1: » · 0 0 M 00 M M 0
0 10 1\ 0 M .-1
un Q cu M 00
1;} ··· .-1 0 M N N N N N M
D4 1;; CQ
511 SL 10 1- N M 0 0 00 E
?" • 1-1 r—{ Q' Q' O\ \O CD
Z1 »1 0 0 M .-1 0 M C\I 0 Q :>» 0 0 .-1 0 0 00 10
Q 0 0 N OI N .-1 N N .-1 Z GJ · g 0 1\ .-1 0 0 0
, ’1 vn 0 1\ 1\ 1\ 0 0 0
Z Z < 10 0 N N N N N N N »
·‘C vn L)
K? E
Q .
1: 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 .-1 1\ E 13
E 111 0 1\ 0 0 N 0 10 1\ x 0 0 0 1\ 0 1\ 10 1\
.-1 0 1\ 0 .-1 0 0 M cn · 10 .-1 10 00 1\ .-1 0 ·
5 01 N N N M N N N § E 8 2 0 00 M 00 0 0
_· Z M N M N N N
11.
2   Fg
<¤
° 5
3 Ei
0* > O 0
>" 0 I. .-1 .-1 0
1_ .-1 00 0
r\ · >~. >.
M Q j M M fil
-1 2 >< >< ><
°¤ >< . M
5 > 0 < *" 15 Ln O .-1 .-1 1\
. 1.1 .-1 .-1 0 c\1 0.1 M
0 N 0 10 0 .-1 -.4 1-1 .-1 .-1 M M 0 M
-.-1 M .-1 .-1 0 0 N 0 #-1 0
1. 0 0 0 >¤ >» :>. m M cn
vc cn >- >1 vs >. > M M M 2 Z1 M z
;» Z M M M M 0 M
10

 GJ
· 0D
YU 0 1\ 1\ 1\ r\
$-1 If`! UN *-0 ON f\
CU O GN ON UD OO
¥> M N N N N L
c.> 0 00 M M N
. CU O »0 Q 1-1 M N 1-1
»-4 OC.) <`•'1 CO CO <"U CO
M DQ

O >»· 0 r\ Ln Q 0
U m0 Q N 0 1-1 1-1
U »—1O 0 M .-1 .-1 M
< L) N N N N N
BQ
2
{>»
>' cu- 1\ r\ 00 Q .-1
¤·¤ .-10 I-FW 0 Q cw 0
·-I wu Ln u\ 0 Q 0
nd 5 N N N N N
D
DQ
'.
. 7* 5..4
I-LJ O
»-I .-1 - 00 00 Q 0 Q
CD Z>»O O ·—4 N r\ 0
.
>, M -
M
Vi
><
>¤ 1-1
1.1 1-1 N
GJ LO Q C\1 O
-r-1 :-1 1-1 CD r—4 M
1-1
<¤ >, >1 Us >1 cn
’.> M M Z M ZT
ll

 TABLE 10.—YIELD OF THREE BURLEY TOBACCO VARIETIES TESTED FOR THREE YEARS AT LEXINGTON,
PRINCETON, AND IN ON-FARM TESTS, POUNDS PER ACRE
 
 
Average
Years
_ Lexington On Farm* Princeton and
Variety '74 '75 '76 '74 '75 '76 '76 Locations
Ky 15 3040 3245 3431 3002 3131 3056 2869 3111
, Ky 10 2935 3162 3387 3010 2973 2897 2601 2996
B 49 2187 2926 2862 2922 2429 — 2373 2616
*Nine 0n—farm tests each year
TABLE l1.—YIELD OI·` BLACK SHANK-RESISTANT VARIETIES TESTED IN 1976 ON BLACK SHANK-INFESTED -
S()IL, POUNDS PER ACRE
 
County
Frank1in* Trimble Scott Gallatin Casey Ff3¤kli¤** Ave.
Ky 17 3435 3293 2683 2380 2279 2624 2782
B 49 2940 3073 2484 2045 2230 2192 2494
B 11 A 2446 2794 2132 1856 2496 2172 2308
B 37 2086 2336 2216 2150 2540 2100 2238
*A11en Tracey farm
**Wi1bert Perkins farm
'I`.·\Bl.l·Z l2.»—YIELDS OF TWO BLACK SHANK-RESISTANT VARIETIES AND KY 10 TESTED AT _
LEXINGTON, 197+76, POUNDS PER ACRE
Variety 1974 1975 1976 Average
Ky 17 2634 3286 3267 3062
B 49 2599 2771 2544 2638
Ky 10 3129 3328 3155 3204 l
12

 E 00N ‘
2 N
>~_ I\
nu mm
nd N N 0
Fir C\l
¤¤
w
E |\
Q F7
co
2 M .2 Ox  
O mx uw
ca E N 3
Z v—{
<
·-J
*·*
O Coq
(I) FJ;-{
E mg g
F5
5 Z W M
Lil N N 00
En v—·|
E
Q
O ·—¢
M OJ
co
S ”"»¤ g
O U3 N
Z EN g G?
U r-!
` CD pr)
¤¤·· M OO r\
z-? N jj
g mx S Q
SU 2 -1
UZ
{O
NH
05 Q
E-<,.} __,
E; ¥> (Q2] OO
ag M Q 2
DM P-!
°°·~:
I-I-lla
  522 S ON
Ei m $ M
0: M §
EE
Ez
TO G.) ,.4
. GJ -,-1
°2 ‘* O
L*—¤ cn
pq I
A Q) *0
E2 $3 3
2-· J $.-4 cn
.,;··—4 Lg
P—{
I3

 TABLE 14.——YIELD OF BURLEY TOBACCO VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS TESTED ON BLACK
ROOT ROT-INFESTED SOIL IN CLINTON COUNTY IN 1976, POUNDS PER ACRE
 
  A
Ky 15 Ky 14 Ky 10 MS B 21 x Ky 10
2907 2830 2842 2894
TABLE l5.—YIELD OI·` BURLEY TOBACCO VARIETIES TESTED ON THE SOILS EXPERIMENTAL PLOT,
CAMPBELLSVILLE, IN 1971, POUNDS PER ACRE
 
 
Variety Y/A Variety Y/A Variety Y/A
Ky 12 3,330 Ky 41 A 3,117 Burley 37 2,971
Ky 9 3,257 Bur1ey 2 3,077 Burley 11 A 2,907
Ky 16 3,239 Ky 14 3,005 Bur1ey 49 2,901
Ky 10 3,206 Bur1ey 1 2,998 Bur1ey 21 2,860
Burley 11 B 2,742
 
I4

 TABLE 16.-RELATIVE DISEASE AND APHID RESISTANCE OF TOBACCO VARIETIES AND HYBRIDS
 
 
Black Fusarium Black
Variety R00t Mosaic Wilt Wildfire Shank Aphid
 
Standard Varieties
Ky l0 Medium High Medium * * *
Ky l2 Med—High High High High * *
Ky l4 Med—High High High High * *
Ky l5 High High Medium High
Ky 16 LOW A k k A kk
I B 2l L0w High * High * 1 Med—L0w
B 37 Low * L0w High Mediuml Med-L0w
B 49 High High * High Mediuml **
Ky l7 High High High High Medium **
Hybrids
MS B 2l X
Ky 9 Med—L0w High * High * **
MS B 2l X
Ky l0 Med—L0w High L0w High * L0w
MS B 2l X
Ky l2 Medium High Med—High High * *
MS B 2l X 2
L—8 Med—L0w High * High High L0w
MS L—8 X 2
B 37 L0w High * High High L0w
MS Ky l2 X 2
L—8 Medium High Med-High High High *
MS Ky l4 X 2
L-8 Medium High Med—High High High *
 ` 
Indicates little 0r n0 resistance
*AUnkn0wn
lResistant t0 Race O and Race l
2Resistant t0 Race O
15

 `—r`
I`h.· <'··!I4·;;»~ uf .\;;ri(·uImn· iv tm Ihymzl (hyymrruunitgx ()Y'}§1lYliZ¢l(iUIl uutlmrizvd tn prnuizlc research, educational information and other scrviccs only
fn uufunfnulw uml rvmfirntwrnx Hm! {um‘lmn u‘1!}mut rrgurd fn run', color, sux or rmticnul Origin.
6M--{2-78