xt7rxw47rj4t https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7rxw47rj4t/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1970 journals 191 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.191 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.191 1970 2014 true xt7rxw47rj4t section xt7rxw47rj4t   Results of the
4* KENTUCKY SOYBEAN  
PERFORMANCE
TESTS- 1970
D. B. Ecu, cHARLEs TUTT,
J. w. HERRON, and STUART BRABANT
wor
`i 2
grass *
PROGRESS R121>0RT 191
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
Acnncuuunn zxrznnmzwr s·rA1·uoN
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY
Lexington

 (I`\:... ;` _j~`m:4`_;m_";>..1'  
. E `»...  W    .:.; A
ix [CI ..,,. . ..L..   {\
  l l   ·     _..·¤·u ,4 I
/`_   Ms ·*.w_'_‘ ’     .... . {N
  4 6 4,   ’
A . gy _/
asp   _ ¥__ Q ®¤%‘@°,  
          .A_._     Q?
w;. ,.,. ,,Q;_}"‘_ ‘‘·· ~··· ·— WL. :‘r· ·»   _ ...,_,·
LOCATION OF THE l97O .
SOYBEAN PERFORMANCE TESTS
ACIOIOWLEDGMENT `
Acknowledgment is made to the Owensboro Grain Company, Owensboro, and the Ellis
Elevator and Central Soya of Henderson for their cooperation in the soybean tests at
Henderson; also to the county extension agents and farm cooperators listed below.
Date Row
Location Soil Type Planted width Farm Cooperators
l. Henderson Calloway silt loam May 27 30 in. Huston Ginger
2. Hartford Zipp silt loam May 26 30 in. Dane Milligan
3. Princeton Crider silt loam May 20 30 in.
io. Murray Crider silt loam May 25 28 in. Bun Hughes
5. Clinton
(Conventional)Memphis silt loam May 28 38 in. L. A. Schwarts
(Double Cropping)Memphis silt loam June 30 20 in. L. A. Schwarts
6. Hickman June 23 36 in. James Hepler
(Extension and Experiment personnel who cooperated in the tests included
Extension Agents Stuart Brabant, John Kavanaugh, Charles Padgett, and
John watts; Research Specialist Charles Tutt, and Extension Plant
Pathologist, A. S. williams).

 RESULTS OF THE KENTUCKY SOYBEAN PERFORMANCE
TESTS - 1970
Soybean production in Kentucky for 1970 was esti-
~ mated at 14,392,000 bushels. Production in 1969 was
13,580,000 bushels and 12,349,000 bushels in 1968.
Estimated average yield per acre was 28.0 bushels for
1970, which equalled the average yield per acre for
‘ 1969 and represents an increase of 1.5 bushels from 1968.
The objective of the Kentucky Soybean Performance
Tests is to provide an estimate of the relative per-
formance of soybean varieties in Kentucky. This
information may be used by growers and seedsmen to
select the variety that will give the highest total
production for a specific situation. Experimental
strains of soybeans provided by the U. S. Regional
Soybean Laboratory are also tested at several lo-
cations in Kentucky.
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Soybean tests were conducted at six locations in
the major soybean-producing areas of the state. The
testing locations, soil types, date planted and row
width are shown on opposite page. Varieties were
planted with each entry in three plots (replications)
at all locations with individual plots being 4 rows
wide and 20 feet long. Individual plots at the
Hickman location were 3 rows wide and 20 feet long.
The seeding rate was approximately 10 viable seed
per foot of row.
In the herbicide test conducted at Henderson the
plot size was 4 rows 40 feet long. The herbicides
were applied with a tractor—mounted boom sprayer.
Chemicals were applied uniformly by using a con-
stant pressure of 30 psi. All chemicals were
applied in water at a rate of 28 gal/A. All
preplant treatments were double disked immediately
into the soil after application. The plots were
cultivated twice during the summer.
1

 Yield
A l6-foot section from each of the center rows
was harvested for yield. Plants were cut by hand
and threshed with a small nursery thresher. All
branches and lodged plants were harvested from -
each plot. The yield of the varieties is reported
as bushels per acre at 13.0 percent moisture.
Lodging
Lodging was based on a scale of l to 5; l = almost
all plants erect; 2 = all plants over slightly or a
few down; 3 = all plants over moderately or 25%-50%
down; 4 = all plants over considerably or 50%-80%
down; 5 = all plants over badly.
Maturity Date
This is the date when the pods are dry and most of ·
the leaves have dropped. Stems are also dry, under
most conditions. Maturity may also be expressed as
days earlier (-) or later (+) than a standard va-
riety. Maturity dates were not recorded at all
locations.
Height
Plant height was measured in inches from the soil
surface to the tip of the main stem.
Interpretation
An important step to profitable soybean production
is the selection of good seed of the best variety.
The Kentucky Soybean Performance Tests are conducted
to provide information useful in making the selection.
Performance of soybean varieties is affected by
many factors including season, location, soil type, '
and time of planting. A particular soybean variety
is adapted for full season growth in a band approx-
imately l00 miles wide from north to south. Thus the
best variety in northern Kentucky may not be the best
2

 in southern areas. For this reason the Kentucky
Soybean Performance Tests are conducted at several
locations in the major soybean·producing areas of the
· state. Data from the location nearest to a particular
soybean grower's farm probably provide 'the best esti-
mate of the potential of the soybean varieties in that
C area.
Performance of the varieties will vary from year to
4 year, The average performance of a variety over a
period of years provides a better estimate of its po-
tential than its performance in a particular year.
Small differences in yield are usually of little
importance. The yield of two varieties at a single
location may differ because of chance factors (diff-
erence in soil characteristics, fertility, or avail-
bility of moisture) even though the inherent yielding
ability is the same. To decide if an observed yield
difference is real use the LSD (least significant
difference) value quoted in the table. If the diff-
erence in yield is greater than the LSD value, you
may be reasonably certain that the entries actually
do differ in yielding ability.
Recommended Varieties
The following soybean varieties are recommended
by the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
for use in Kentucky (Listed in order of maturity):
(Early) 1. Wayne 6. Hill
2. Clark 63 7.*Dyer
3. Cutler 8. York
Q. Kent 9. Dare
5.*Custer lO. Hood (Late)
*Soybean Cyst Nematode Resistant
These varieties have been tested for a minimum of
three years in Kentucky and have been shown to be
superior in yield and other agronomic characteristics.
Varieties that are not on the recommended list are
included in the tests to evaluate their potential and
some may eventually be added to the recommended list.
3

 Certified Seed
Always plant high quality seed of recom ended va-
rieties. Certified soybean seed is a reliable source
of good seed. Certified seed has passed rigid field
and laboratory standards for genetic identity and .
purity of a variety. Certified soybean seed also has
good germination and freedom from noxious weed seed
and other crop seed. The experiment station recom-
mends that Kentucky certified seed be used whenever
possible for growing a commercial crop of soybeans.
Soybean Cyst Nematode Test
The test located at Hickman (table 8) was planted
in an area known to be infested with the soybean cyst
nematode. This test consisted of the three varieties
(Custer, Dyer and Pickett) that are resistant to this
pest as well as their susceptible counterparts (Scott,
Hill and Lee 68). The soybean cyst nematode (Heterodera
glycines Ichinohe) attacks soybean roots, reducing root
growth and thereby reducing uptake of water and nutrients.
Infected plants are yellow, stunted, and low in yield.
Varieties resistant to the cyst nematode should be grown
in areas known to be infested with this pest. The cyst
nematode can be spread in soil from an infected area,
consequently, equipment and machinery should be care-
fully cleaned when moving from infected to non-infected
fields. Generally, the cyst nematode resistant varieties
do not yield as well as other varieties in areas not
infected by the soybean cyst nematode. —__ _
Herbicide Test
Data from the herbicide test at Henderson are pre-
sented in table lO. Ratings are given as the percent
control for both grassy and broadleaf type weeds.
Percent control ratings were made on June 16 and
September 9. The September 9 ratings were made after
the plots had been cultivated. These data represent q
the performance of these herbicides at one location
and should be used in conjunction with the leaflet
"Chemical Control of Weeds in Farm Crops in Kentucky
l97l,“ which incorporates information from many
locations.
4

 Table 1. Henderson, Ky. 1970 and 1969-70 Av.
 
Yield (Bu/Acre) 1/ 1/
‘ Variety 1969-1970 1970 Lodging‘ H€i8h°€(j~¤€h€S)"
Amsoy 45.5 48.0 1.0 36
‘ Calland —- 52.9 1.1 41
Wayne 47.4 50.4 1.0 39
SRF-300 -- 52.9 2.3 41
Adelphia 47.2 46.5 1.0 33
l Clark 63 45.2 50.5 1.5 43
Cutler 52.2 50.6 1.0 42
Kent 48.2 54.9 1.5 45
Custer 38.3 43.0 2.5 47
Hill 40.0 49.7 3.0 39
Dyer 44.2 53.1 4.0 39
York -- 60.4 1.7 43
Dare 44.1 52.5 3.5 43
Mean 45.2 51.2
LSD (.05) 9.8
1/ 1970 data only.
Table 2. Henderson, Ky., Five-Year Summary, 1966-70.
Yield 1/ Height
Variety (Bu/Acre) Maturity _ Lodging {In)
Wayne 44.9 0 2.1 43
Clark 63 43.8 +4 2.0 45
Kent 45.4 +8 2 1.8 45
Hill 38.1 +24-/ 2.5 37
Dare 40.0 +369./ 2.7 42
Mean 42.4
1/ Includes 1966-69 data only.
2/ Did not mature before a killing frost in 1968.
3/ Did not mature before a killing frost in 1967 and 1968.
S

 Table 3. Hartford, Ky. 1970
Yield Height
Variety {Bu/Acre) Lodging {In.)
Calland 48.7 2.5 38
Wayne 38.1 3.5 36
Adelphia 45.3 1.7 34 _
Clark 63 44.4 3.5 39
Cutler 44.6 3.5 39
Kent 40.2 3.2 38
York 39.5 2.0 43
Dare 42.5 4.0 44
Mean 42.9
LSD (.05) 6.1
Table 4. Princeton, Ky. 1970 and 1969-70 Av.
Yield {Bu/Acre) U Height].
Variety ` 1969-70 1970 Maturity — Lodging 4/ {In.)-!
Wayne 44.0 44.7 9/16 4.0 36 _
Adelphia 45.9 51.6 9/15 1.7 32
Clark 63 43.9 48.8 9/23 3.3 40
Cutler 47.2 56.6 9/23 3.7 40
Kent 47.4 52.3 9/23 3.0 40
Custer 42.7 47.6 9/24 5.0 52
Hill 50.2 47.1 10/6 4.3 32
Dyer 45.2 49.6 10/8 4.3 36
York 51.4 48.4 10/15 2.7 38
Dare 48.6 43.1 10/l0 3.3 38
Hood 2/ 47.8 45.0 10/15 3.0 36
Lee 68 — 44.2 45.9 10/20 3.7 41
Mean 46.5 48.3
LSD (.05) N.S.
_1/ 1970 data only.
2/ Lee in 1969.
6

 Table 5. Princeton, Ky. Five-Year Summary, 1966-70.
 
Yield Height
Variety (Bu/Acre) Maturity Lodging {In.)
I Wayne 37.8 O 2.3 39
Clark 63 37.8 +6 2.4 42
_ Kent 40.9 +11 1/ 1.8 40
Hill 41.2 +26 — 2.9 36
Dare 42.2 +33 -l/ 2.6 39
Hood2/ 43.2 +34 1/ 2.4 39
· Lee- 38.0 +40 3/ 3.5 41
Mean 40.2
 
1/ Harvested after a killing frost in 1967.
2/ Lee 68 in 1970.
Table 6. Murray, Ky. 1970 and 1969-70 Av.
 
Yield {Bu/Acre) 1/ 1/ Height
Variety 1969-1970 1970 Maturity ‘ Lodging - {In.)3·./
Wayne 41.5 43.0 9/20 4.0 38
Adelphia 38.8 39.2 9/18 2.0 33
Clark 63 39.2 36.1 9/21 5.0 40
Cutler 37.3 36.6 9/21 4.3 39
Kent 36.1 31.7 9/22 3.7 40
Custer 35.4 29.4 9/22 4.7 44
Hill 37.3 28.1 9/29 5.0 33
Dyer 37.8 36.2 10/20 5.0 37
York 48.8 42.9 10/14 3.0 40
Dare 49.3 42.1 10/15 5.0 40
Hood 2/ 40.0 36.0 10/17 3.0 37
Lee 68 " 35.1 26.7 10/25 4.3 44
Mean 39.7 35.6
LSD (.05) 5.6
1/ 1970 Data only.
2/ Lee in 1969.
7

 .Table 7. Murray, Ky. Five-Year Summary, 1966-70.
 
Yield 1/ Height
Variety (Bu/Acre) Maturity —— Lodgingy (In.) _
Wayne 39.5 0 3.1 39
Clark 63 39.4 +4 3.1 43
Kent 39.9 +6 2.2 43
Hill 36.5 +8 4.0 37
Dare 43.0 +30 3.6 39
H00d3 36.4 +30 3.0 38
Lee -/ 34.0 +34 4.0 39
Mean 38.3
 
1/ 1967 not included.
2/ 1969 not included. n
2/ Lee 68 in 1970.
Table 8. Hickman, Ky. 1970
Variet C st Nematode Reaction -5/ Yield Bu/Act 
Custer Resistant 19.6
Scott Susceptible 17.1 `
Dyer Resistant 26.5
Hill Susceptible 17.1
Pickett Resistant 28.9
Lee 68 Susceptible 23.6
Mean 22.1
LSD (.05) 5.3
1/ See text for explanation. I
8

 Table 9. Clinton, Ky. l970
 
r Variety AYield {Bu/acre) Lodging Height gin.)
__ Conventional i/
` Clark 63 37.8 4.8 48
Cutler 40.7 2.2 39
Kent 39.l 3.0 37
~ Hill 38.l 4.8 36
York 41.2 3.2 34
Dare 42.0 4.2 41
Hood 4l.9 4.0 36
Lee 68 4l.9 4.0 39
Mean 40.4
LSD (.05) N.S.
Double Cropped -2/
Clark 63 34.0 4.7 38
Cutler 38.5 4.0 37
Kent 37.l 3.7, 35
Hill 42.3 5.0 _ 47
York 42.8 4.3 39
Dare 40.3 4.2 38
Hood 39.3 4.3 38
Lee 68 36.l 5.0 49
Mean 38.8
LSD {.05) N.S.
l/ Planted May 28 in 38-inch rows using conventional tillage
methods.
. 2/ Planted June 30 following wheat, in 20-in. rows using a no-till
planting system.

 G1
"U$-4
I .32 l\O\O\COO E
1-4\ 0 u
mmés.4 ns
D-4 NFB 2
ck J-1
uz
.-lm .-4
nm OOWNNUNMOOO G1 `
x0!-4 C1\O\CDO\O\C>OC1\O U
Q) .-4.-4 -.-4
5
nu mmm .¤ .
$.4 r\I\ U
u1 2 + O
.¤ \ ·-4-¤ +++·-mm-¤ -¤
€U·4·|$-4 NN •I\ Q1
J-14-1 CWNN N-E {>
NUC KU ·.-I
¤d¢!-1 JZ Q)
Cl. U
0 E 0 <1>
r\ <¤ 5-• $-4
cn .:1 ¤¤-
.-4 Q. OO 4-1
O $-4}-4 U
• $-4 $:50 .-D
>s D- OCr··* ·
M ¤.¤1-• :-4-.-4.: cz ·¤
OQIO Dr-10 O G1
•~ pw.-1 C ·.··i • -4-1
s: ::0.:: ~.-4++ 4.• c: as .
O C}¢U .-4 {U O {>
un ·.-4--4 ¤¤ {> -.-4 -.-4
1-4 -4-1:1+ +--4--4 -.-4 4.1 4-
CU Q) r·4•—1 -1-1 tv .-4
·¤ ++Es-ummm .-4 :> :1
C MONO}-41-4 U -»·| U
QJ G C·'C1.—4.-4.-4.-4375 U 4.1
EE O €L1®<\1..EO..G.-·4.-4 .-4 G1
cu -¤.¤4-4U¤0¤-an-4 0 :1 $-4
\ E ·.-1·-ID.¤1$·4t\1·.-4-.-4 -1-1 U Q)
r·—¢| ORS EE<¤.—4<1).-1H$·4 3
•~ Z ¤<$<¤C<¤$><¤4-1U $-4 $-4
4.1 O cu un
U1 ·.-4 -A-1 4-1
G1 $-4 '·¥-4 O
[-1 "\ D-4 N *"*
G O-
411 O · C Q ·
’¤ 4-* $-4 O O 4-1
-.-4 ·.-4 cn ·.-4 ·.·4 ::1
u as E .-4 4.1 u ua
·.-4 ·¤ 4: 4.: cu rc E
,.0 -.-4 V >< D 5 IJ 4-1
p 0 >< 0L>\ 0 .-4 .-• cu
cu --4 Om ><$-4¤-NU cu ru 0
m ..0 s-4¢=¤4 00.-4 n ;> > >-4 ·
:1)     >` Q1 QJ .1-4
- u: .-1++5 +-4 -4 .-4 0
3 ++ +¤¤‘a? ii S S “
CC E (OMG) $-1 U2 rn Q)
GJ Q1  > > E-4
,.¤ {UE -.-4·.-4¤-•m$-4¤nCD¤J 6M__2
as Hm EEO<¤»-THHZ .-•| N] ml q|