xt7tx921dw5m https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7tx921dw5m/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1969 journals 189 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.189 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.189 1969 2014 true xt7tx921dw5m section xt7tx921dw5m   PROGRESS REPORT 189
VARIE I Y I ES I S · I964-69
.  `xk . I '
t v“*i·i~.·~*~ I I L r,    Ii
" E ‘   I `i I   I.
   if it e · " Q   * n · RS‘» ‘  
I · . 5 T ··‘S       I ~ —~ . ·   se;    
 —r n· —*~ ’S·   ‘ I ` L"  **%"“*’i"l I?  W ‘ ` ~·°`·`l""'° "
A  F .   `I“ .5‘*¤¥··=;=   I FZ - ,·, I ·· I ti m J1 .L»? §.2‘:*  . .
— [ Q="r*‘:.. .· »’¤¤???€¤   ~ .•=» - · T   ~I*é"""P.' ‘*§e·`°-·;=`*».**1i*%’?¥=**5* l$.`¤°‘ *1* ‘i   I -r»:€:»·=*·`*;<;’*i ¤·‘, —;’*: ’!°“·¤·>'\· — i"~.":§¥'e·:’? QQ; ·’.?'*=¥;‘3=:YT&=i’=3$~z‘=;'. 
       l;E{I‘*p ·?¢iiH`€~Yi'*l   '¤§:}`¢§}I`*‘,'   il
I $f=·*‘»Vlt;2*—r§’%··:;3s&,jil¤_j;·v%;*\§>¢t»g;·a’Q§:;}:ra’fw? #4%*4 %$`¥Y‘g; ~}:=y;»;,ty‘·+<*%1;i?F·¤;;-!jIé7f§ . ..x;2}<`l’2_§_*;l-fl,;»i¤t;»4`Q; $§`l§g··t§In?2•jz={ - 1, ···.¤%_;~:l*1$_~;,2g—»p·:,·;if·},=.;1;=;.<’¢{.%¢iI;·,d*
;§··`li?5i?i"?tP’l;l‘iiWY?¤·£¢€§l·»‘*3 i’_”i§.‘#}? ·  Pg?  "’£f¢§    .~  ge ; .- Mt     <  I"¢. %?‘% EZYQe;··. {l? , #*53;*1%% ig `}?       
" ·2»-it  Y :?‘?g‘£» Q"i~*°.,=3·iii’?¥~-¤."·_ ··H*¤~ >""" ‘ ""· i , ¥‘ ·‘=“' » - "‘=`.’¢*· ¢x· `**;~`° ;»}Q*: triad It?} ’i·€'··->T‘r‘·`#-·      ·T‘· ·‘ *··;».~ " 
 ·fv't>»··<#   $"*·r *‘  ··   ·  M ·‘  .· wi     ·-M  ' ·r $  M; 9* ‘»*·;i~l' ·~“· ·=»·'* »·U¢m·?~»·» ¥;1:»’·‘ *?¢?~‘?~:
. mt * ·¥'¤*   " —   Turk ··,. "    ‘~‘~» . ¤  t    ‘“"»’··‘
'   l`  »   ` ··     A  `   .( ‘.  ` il,y·I ·  .·'—`
»   —-¢· lv  "   ~'~     ‘  ia it  'I U 4 .*    E "t’ All ·.»L.·`A.:'  
 , > :)§[.‘  {gh ;  A.;   An . _  `i_‘;,`§%'p·  . __ A _-    " _ I`,. I  `   _ 4    r~_ ll -. y`?  A` ‘°" — yf§_I_ _,    §'Q\‘J 
rr __; _;·zr<, »~ ;_ __ H ;  ‘. W _' gag;  ,.  `I   _ ’  _ ` ,\·  V, .’ · l" ?} ·' V  _  A r' v;   L _ •_ .` x X "4
 E?      , · .I,V  ._{}’;;~ -y)_‘*`~N; i  PI    _ {K f p      kk l· }   _  L, ~
Fw- —·‘    A A »·[. = sr   »<· M  . zi   ;}F>\ It   ’· e- · ,   eo 7 NI ··   v· #` ‘ *€> · I  - 
we  :}*},4  —5· ye by I     ·_   ____ (gil`, —- ~
I , ey, I   __  . ;_ _S , t_·, I,
   '~  ini      `Rk A YF:   *r *` ’·   ·L,‘. ·`\¤ " Y,     ` P   __ -
_     ,`u of     e¢”<"—A  #4 ¤   I.  ` *    S ’~   —¤,  I *·  i
I ·~ r I »·i`:,»·~:_.__T  `y \~— 9*5 ~ iv" ,¤’;`i"   _ `_ Y _ ' 7 ` ‘, I I VVV`  _;,’~, , 5
`;• pr gg; Z. ,· ‘· ,   ii '.     an ` ‘ VI``   V‘·' ·   TI   ~      
V »~ · X   Li t \ ‘     \ l fir / __ ’.•' ".;I"'  \{` Y lx /   N`; ; V  ‘ -` ` b y ~. wl {   ·   _;`  "IZ,
 3· * - i_____ ,5**  I‘ *5 _'" y i' I _ ,/ _(`     ·_     Ir . ., _ __. Y sf)
” .  I;   `l A *9 `     A   ea-. - 1; ·   \·I \  J
J.H. Smile • A.M.Wall¤ce • George Everette • C.C. Litton • P.D. Le • G.B. Collins
Y 99
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Departments of Agronomy and Plant Pathology
Lexington

 $°‘ *~
-.4;  g "“‘ \._ ».>- \_
~·• ·· i H   . °·
¤®@ @ @ ~ A "
"` "    ‘   $*\€%·° "§  y
A-—·  `- ”"`    I Q -’ T
an \ . 5 ./’
W -"*\=:.·· summa. vr!$··   .-;—;·.... .· ‘¤¤‘ '==" ..:2*::.. mm;. •·—¤/
     
Fig. 1 — Testing Locations of The Kentucky Burley Tobacco Variety
Tests - 1968 and 1969.
I Location Cooperator
1. Ballard County Wyatt H. Bennett, 1968 _
2. Caldwell County Homer Mitchell, 1968 and 1969
3. Muhlenberg County B. J. Winn, 1968
4. Allen County Robert Whitlow, 1968 and 1969
5. Cumberland County Charlie Wilson, 1969
6. Green County Shreve Loy & Sons, 1968 and 1969
7. Nelson County Thomas E. Gunning, 1968
8. Washington County Joe Cleveland, 1969
9. Shelby County Louis Payne, 1969
10. Henry County Alvin Croxton, 1968
Gerald T. Steverson, 1969
11. Franklin County Carey Sheets, 1969
12. Owen County Billy Karsner, 1969 _
13. Scott County Billy Easley, 1968  
14. Experiment Station, 1968 and 1969
Lexington
15. Madison County James M. Adams, 1969
16. Clark County F. W. Rickard, 1968
17. Nicholas County Glen Clay, 1968 and 1969
18. Rowan County Gordon Lewis, 1968 and 1969
..2-

 KENTUCKY BURLEY TOBACCO VARIETY TESTS - SUMMARY1
1964-69
J. H. Smiley, A. M. Wallace, George Everette, G. B. Collins
C. C. Litton, and P. D. Leggz
I The objective of the Kentucky Burley Tobacco Variety Tests is to provide infor-
mation on the relative performance of burley varieties, hybrids, and breeding lines.
The information on varieties and hybrids may be used by farmers, seedsmen, research ‘
workers, and extension personnel as an aid to the selection of the variety or hybrid
which performs best in a given area. The tests are part of the University of Kentucky
Agricultural Experiment Station program to evaluate new breeding lines which may °
become candidates for varietal release. . ’
METHODS `
An expanded program of variety testing began in Kentucky in 1968. In addition
to the tests at the University of Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station at Lexington,
tests were conducted on the farms of 11 cooperating tobacco growers throughout the
state in 1968 and 12 locations in 1969. The locations (Fig. 1) were selected to
represent the burley tobacco producing areas of Kentucky.
With one exception, each test was conducted on a disease—free soil and consisted
of 15 entries in 1968 and 13 entries in 1969 in 1/50 acre plots replicated three times.
Fertilizer was applied to each plot at the recommended rates based on soil tests. In
1968 thirty—three varieties, hybrids, and breeding lines were tested. Some were tested
at all locations, but all tests did not contain the same varieties. In 1969, with a few
exceptions, all tests consisted of the same entries.
RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A summary of the performance of seven of the more widely grown standard
varieties and hybrids is given in Table 1. Average yields are shown on tests conducted
at Lexington in 1964-69, at Princeton 1965-67, and in on-farm tests at four locations
in 1968 and nine locations in 1969.
The relative performance of four of the black shank resistant varieties and
hybrids and Ky 14 is given in Table 2. Average yields are shown for tests conducted
at Lexington 1965-1968, at Princeton 1964-1967, and in on-farm tests at four locations
in 1968 and ten locations in 1969. Included in Table 2 are yields of these varieties
and hybrids grown in 1969 on a black shank infested soil.
1C0operative investigations of the Kentucky Agricultural Extension Service, the Kentucky Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, Lexington, Kentucky and the Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S.
Department of Agriculture .
2Associate Extension Professor; Research Specialist; Extension Specialist; Associate Professor; Research
- Agronomist, Crops Research Division, ARS, USDA; Research Genetjcist, Crops Research Division, ARS,
USDA, respectively.
-3-

 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 as well at others. However, varieties do not always perform the same, relative
to each other, year after year at the same 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, an important point for
consideration is that of disease. If diseases are a factor, selection of the proper
variety may mean the difference between a good yield of desirable tobacco or a crop
` failure. Table 5 gives the degree of resistance to diseases of the more important `
standard varieties and hybrids tested in Kentucky.
For land infested with black root rot or fusarium wilt (or both), Ky 14 or
I Ky 12 is recommended. If wildfire is a problem, Ky 14, Ky 12, or Burley 21 (B 21)
` is recommended.
Black shank is one of the hardest tobacco diseases to control without reducing ‘
potential yield. The best control is to eliminate the organism from the farm by long-
cycle rotation and good sanitation practices. 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 of black shank are found in Kentucky. Race 0 is the most common, l
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) and Burley 49 (B 49) are moderately resistant to both
races, but they have other disadvantages. Both varieties have a low level of resistance
to fusarium wilt, and B 37 is susceptible to mosaic. B 49 is late maturing and has
relatively small leaves. However, if it is necessary to use a field infested with
black shank and it is not known which race is present, then the use of B 37 or B 49
is a safeguard against a crop failure.
To determine which race of black shank organism is present in a field, grow
a stick row of one of the L-8 hybrids such as MS Ky 12 x L-8 or MS B 21 x L-8.
If these hybrids do not become diseased, race 0 is present and the next year the
entire field can be grown in one of the black shank resistant hybrids.
The choice of which black shank resistant hybrid to grow for the control of race 0
should be based on other disease resistances needed. For example, MS Ky 12 x L-8
is resistant to the major diseases; mosaic, fusarium wilt, black root rot, and
wildfire, as well as race 0 of the black shank fungus.
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 (hair root). It matures 7-10 days later than
B 21 and, when cut immature, the leaves tend to cure with green spots.
-4-

 Kentucky 12
Ky 12 is a stand—up type, high—yielding variety with fair—to-good quality. It
has shorter leaves than other varieties, but there are more of them. The leaves will
be longer if plants are topped early (when half of the plants are in bloom) and to 22-25
leaves per plant. It is a late-maturing variety that is most useful where severe
black root rot and fusarium wilt are problems.
Kentucky 14
V Ky 14 is a stand-up type, good-yielding variety with good quality. The leaves
are approximately 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.
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, thin, compact soil or during a dry season.
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.
Hybrids
The Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station released male sterile B 21 to
seedsmen in 1959. The purpose was to encourage the production of hybrids with
levels of black shank resistance not available in standard varieties. Seed producers
have used the 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 differences in reciprocal crosses in the burley hybrids have been found.
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. MS Ky 12 x L-8 should
be more useful than MS B 21 x L-8 where black root rot or fusarium wilt is a problem.
A hybrid may have a lower degree of resistance to a certain disease than the
more resistant parent. For example, the MS B 21 — Ky 10 hybrid will have less
black root rot resistance than Ky 10.
-5..

 •··*N
G) N1-!
gig: .-1 .-1 ~. N 00 N 1 1
.1.11:: M L0 LO N 1 1
00 U1 N N M 1 1
¤·¤ Ex
.,.1;;
NN
GJ
.-Too
x0
-L-10\
~. N ch 00 N 00
1.1 M L0 L0 N 0w oo
T/JU) CD N N 0'7 N N
cus: 2*.:4
*"S
“`%L.._ vw-1
`T "OCU
-1-IU
HO ·
.¤.-1 .-1
t>~. Nm
,::1-1 1\ LO cn 1 1
:5 ¤3:>. .-1 1\ N 1 1
100 M LN 1~ N 1 1
¤¤1—1 cn N N M 1 1
¤¤ EIN
JJ
UIQ}
Q)
·.-{Ul
-U-U
QJUJ
·1-{G) E'. t>» L0 1\ cn .-1 0
1-1 M N N cn cn 0
OK!
0*4-I
Ul
CUE
,OO
O
4-11:* N
·.—1 .-4 kD 0* ON I\ I\ ‘
l>~. Ln cn cn N » lf} rn 0 co 1~
.-111 M N N cn N N
I1-GCG
Z5
,Q•.
I\
$30
(DON
>.-1 O
GJI .-1 .-4 ~. 10 1\ .-1 .-1 cn
Q-IOW M N N cn on N
O.-4
r‘x$Z.°
CIJO
$-|·LJ
UG.)
(UU 1-* Q' \O N 1-% |\
C1- N LO ch L0 1 LO L0 -1 .-1 ©
.-1-.-4 ON O\ CN
'UIJ-J 1—( 1-—( r-i
1—*<2‘·¥1—(1—i
U) V) NU}
4-1 4-1 NJJ
• Ul CD U)
1-* (U GJ LNG)
C} C: E4 E1 OE·*
0 1: 0 0
.--1 O JJ LJ E E ~.
.-O *1-* DD QJ $4 CD4-J
GS U C1 U CU CYS KUGJ
F VU *1* G if-1 I3-1 $4*1**
0 >¢ ·.—1 1 1 ¤5
1J 1-] D4 O O ¢>
-6..

 Table 2. Yield (pounds per acre) of black shank resistant burley tobacco varietie-
and hybrids and Ky 14 tested on disease—free soil at Lexington 1965-1968
at Princeton 1965-1967, and in on—farm tests at four locations in 1968
and ten locations in 1969; and on black shank infested soil at one
location in 1969.
 
MS B 37 MS B 21 MS KY 12
Location Year B 37 x L-8 x L-8 x L-8 Ky 14
Lexington 1965-1968 2170 2265 2335 2432 2660
Princeton 1965-1967 2340 2533 2568 2591 2705 l
On-Farm Tests 1968 2501 2758 2877 ———- 3160
On-Farm Tests 1969 2609 2875 2962 3022 3202
Average of 21
Variety Tests 1964-1969 2466 2688 2770 ---- 3020
Average of 17
Variety Tests 1965-1969 2458 2671 2745 2887 2987
 
Cumberland Co.
(Black Shank
lnfested Soil) 1969 2537 3100 3124 3092 893
I
-7-

 CUC}
"‘3
Q 0*1 I\ I I O1 xD .-4 .-4 I\ N 0 I\ Q
OQ N d) I I U1 N I\  I I f\ xD \.D 0 \D kD kD N 01
JJN N N I I N N N N N N N N N
In (UQ)
JJ 4.4..1
(I) C/J
3
C2
>» O
JJ JJ
QJ DD
·.-I Q• .-4 U'1 O O \.O I\ O O1 01 I\ 01 U1 0`1
$.1 -.-40 01 .-4 I\ .-4 U1 O 0'1  (tg 01 0*1 01 01 01 01 01 0*1 01 01 N 0*1 01
. 0 3
' \ U
rd >~.
,D ,D· N .-4 O I\ x0 O 01 xD I .-4 I\ I\ I\
O .-40 0*1 O1 O ~. vn
. GJ
.-4
$-4 C} `
D ~.
-.-4 }-4• O1 .-4 \.O U1 v-4 \O U1 O I O1 Q) 0`1 .-4
$-1 QO .-4 I\ x0  {.1: 01 0*1 N N N N N N I N N N N
Q-I
O ci
·* O
· CZ
01 <1J• 4.0 O1 OO .-4 O O1 U1 O1 G1 U1 U'1 KD » 0 N .0
--4 .-4 .-4 bd O1 ¤¤ ¢¤ ¤¤ U1 .-4 .-4 .-4 r\ cx
,5 >~. >¤ >x N ¥>~» Pw N m {T
> bd bd Q bd Q E Q > bd bd c¤ ¤¤ 00

 I2
III- kD Q Q ON Lh M N I N M ON NI
30 Q O Q N N 9 I-I I I-I I-I N cn I
OC.) I-I N ® LH ID M N I I-I M I-I NI
M N N I-I N I-I N N I N N N N I
tn In
JJ IU
In I-I M N O M N I N I I I I I I
G) O- M Q O CD ON I xD I I I I I I
E-I .¤O N 00 O O Q I M I I I I I I
UO N N M M N I M I I I I I I
Ps ‘¤·I
·¤-* Z
QJ
·I-I
I-I J5
IU III- I N I M I N I0 I I O I I-I I
> IIIO I 00 I lh I N I0 I I O I MI
I-IU I Ih I Q I \.O KD I I I-h I Ih I
8 U IM I M I M M I I M I MI
0 ci
GS EO
.-O I-IJJ
O II} N I—¢ I-I O M Ih O O IO O hh O \D
H Fr-IC} .—I N N Q M N cs I-I M I-I ch I0 Q
·I-I O M ON Ch Q ON O\ Ch O M M O N
·-I m»-`I
5-I
D
pq JJ
. JJ- I-h I-h O I-h lh I O I Ih I-h lh OI
00 OO O ON O ID 00 I In I O Ow lh QI
x9 UO Ih Ih N M M I M I M O\ ID IO I
2 I/J N N N N N I N I N N N N I
QJ Ps
..122 I—I• 00 Q M x0 N I-I I 00 N Q M I .-4
-I-I :20 0 O M Q ND N I 00 I-4 M I-I I N
UO M N M O\ M N I O M ® Q I M
5 LI} N N N N N N I M N N N I N
V1 C7
"U O
··-I In- Q 00 O N lh Q I 0 N 00 I0 NI
I-I »—IO O 00 I-I M In lh I lh Ch In ON I0 I
I-B OU Q Q O\ N O I-I I Ih Q Q O MI
Es Z M M M M M M I M M M M MI
·¤ C2
C ID- O\ N M N N kD I N O\ ON IO I N
cu IDO hh N 0 Lh M I-I I cs 00 Ic N I Q
I-IU 00 I-I OI N N M I I—I I-I N 00 I N
GI/5 LD N M N M N M I M M M N I M
·I-I
4-* IZ}
ID -• I-IO Ch O Q I-I N I lh I I I I I I
I-IU Q N hh N Q I N I I I I I I
IU N N N N N I N I I I I I I
• Q rx
Q 'U
41)
CU JJ
PI C}
.0 O N IIS
III I—I I-I ON M »—I
I I
H O Ps Ps Psw w Ill Q.
r—I bd M M I-II I-'I x 46*
Ps N N N N N CZ
M N s.¤
I-I I—I I-I N I-I I-I
I.: >¢ N N N M N I
tu O N Q Q I
·»—I I-I I-I I-I I-I N cs I-I I¤¤ ¢=¤ RQ ¤¤ I=¤ I
QN Ps Ps Psm PsN I
> FQ hd hd II EQ II II 2 Q ISE Q Q Q

 Table 5. Relative disease and aphid resistance of tobacco varieties and hybrids.
 
Black
Root Fusarium Black
Variety Rot Mosaic Wilt Wildfire Shank Aphid
 
Standard Varieties
Ky 10 Medium High Medium * * *
Ky 12 Med-High High High High * *
Ky 14 Med-High High High High * *
Ky   LOW k k k k kk
B 21 Low High * High * Med-Low
B 37 Low * Low High Mediuml Med-Low .
B 49 High High * High Mediuml **
 
Hybrids
MS B 2l x
Ky 9 Med-Low High * High * ** _
MS B 21 x
Ky lO Med-Low High Low High * Low
MS B 2l x
Ky 12 Medium High Med-High High * *
MS 21 x
L-8 Med-Low High * High Highz Low -
MS L-8 x - 2
B 37 Low High * High High Low
MS Ky 12 x
L-8 Medium High Med-High High Highz *
 
* Indicates little or no resistance
** UNKNOWN
1 Resistant to Race O and Race l.
2 Resistant to Race O.
-10-

 SM- -12- 70