xt7zpc2t649c https://nyx.uky.edu/dips/xt7zpc2t649c/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1970 journals 195 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.195 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.195 1970 2014 true xt7zpc2t649c section xt7zpc2t649c UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY :: COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 3: AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION :: LEXINGTON
Compiled by _].H. Smiley • Progress Report 195
r
.€I1tlICkY Fa I'I11 I obacco RQSBB I'Ch R€pOI'
L, ;»·_. -•·"‘ il', ;` fr" I ! ."?`·( ` P` I.! l _ V.- r .   I.
l     A x " I =»  `3`{ "~·¤'}- · V · - _. . ,’L*&;,:_i.’;‘
      . I N. . _". -‘ ':· \ ` r .T‘ ` 5   IJ   I"!
paw ,d»   tr  ‘   xi.  _   _ '_   ·   .· { [Ie  `   i     ik I ·
g _       _   .E_ V · ‘ _` »     _ `·   V;- . it   A `K,
· sz - V - A 4. - ‘“·‘ ·‘   . . *’{· —‘ ” .
" ,,__,__._: {HH · -. ' · `Jdf K ,
~     ·· v~, ~   ···‘ E   _ V A -' ; s
§_ y   <‘» }_‘ IL: ‘ · gl-) U lv -f A
‘ 1 ‘      "\_" j' .   .·. ~ I I
,yg J _; V -1     i ,·¤•\ ' A
 f?}.  .· ` . = ‘ »,f_`·   l · . `, I .
.:’>iL‘  _` » ‘ · W   ’§ ~ < , .,   ‘  
_  _ L / ;_` ,_ U      I  
' I   {E   U   : I qfx
· I , .. Y `   6*   “ "Q_,`},‘   X —
r ` . J;.· ii       - i .
A ` - ·‘     ~..    ,9 -  I,  ----       M ` LE ‘ ‘   .
' , `I Z. . _ · · S *1. V   NL _. \ ¤ `
, ‘ wg   #***1 
1 Q,.  ny   tg  , ~»~‘·¤.;··     I!  _ _   ,
“ `— · sk, __   ` _.   ·`   ·4 _ ‘i _     ‘*` \ _ A-yy A »  —·    
E   , · ·. ·   ‘ ~ ,· , {A   +» = —»¢··*  ‘ ·-  V ° ·  A U I ,-  x >§  
I { *0 ’ ·     l_~_ I /_ 2 __ J grGA,2‘;"A: _ kl: ,1*, '   v" ZM?  I`) ? ` -€ U vw? '_ --’ D
A- ’   ` ,  " W   “  ~3 be   ~ ,_ ·  ·3""* · ·; .— .
4}-  *‘.·,· ’{ " __ A  ’",Y'» V   Q * ·` · ` i   I " >  ·"`
» · .   · ¤°"""*·· if-’  /.   L  F   -— ‘  :··'  · `° IQ - . { ’ . »   w €."¥~· 
. ._ U     L           4. I `. AK, x ·, i •$!   -_ "*"$·%·`   _·
·   v=··; =·::+ ·—·’ ‘e :  “ E  ~     ` r   _ ¢ - — ·- ·’  
`    “’€* . . · ;¥ ;’·   `  I        :~· “ Z"* ·  
l I `_ ;" } 7t;;;~,4‘ ’T{ , q   VRA » · *—-T; * I h   ‘\ {lt:    _ I  - _ ,T 1 1: ·   H- dc;
: `1  YI E? ‘ :¢‘\"& *"V€.,» Fi}" '    A 
# . . Q    ,,. A   .___ 4 y ‘· 5 · __;_ '?>._gf    rg:  1 .2 · ` ' ` _ ` , _
·     ‘ ' A S ` `iqg . ,` - ¤ '»     e g I. c
    ·" "" `_4_;._ _ ` .. " ·_ 3, ·? ·; _: Q ,   ·   }Y?;·,, '°·.  .
        ` ` "   `°· ?* .9* V A ~· `°Y;é`;°§’é<$5r
_ .`·v~L· I `.-,_\~;`4i._`f?·.; ·»·.,.‘··,_( s •,· _{‘ _ —,  ' •   » Q l ’ ._
` ~  __ · A · \`  ·v»~:_ I ' 4 Z
    n     "‘=—-· ' O `   ·‘   —  
_   `   _A       ‘‘i‘ g  ,  — TC .-_[‘ ‘j·_.,,_ .
I'] " l      L`? `   “   \ rr ~· ·’ _     .t‘¤' f*"`“". ;*»¤· ,
· . ZL? _ i' " v · _ C   ‘ I   '   _‘1.?_’}· ~   r
\` » ~ ~   A ,,.f A is A _   4   _* .4. -,2% " -· { a?}
I 4 "— I ‘ {   f ;{;‘_ .    · · *3* ‘ '     A 9%
` ._"  l , I ` ` `   I · > V V I I {Z ` ' I I  l U I I :r4'nr£*’y:~;& *4;;..2 y  I rl- ~'
I    » ik  E   E `   Q. X Q     .
 bi ·'\   · A`?.     fl q   " I `-· TS  _ I   -A;_>'·  ,_    p  F __ ·
lv. _ I,.-L yi. U QU Q . ~‘ _ - _“  A   . 4 H iv I ‘·   J A" ' · LL:  X v_-_4,        .·,
} . il iw  2: ‘   ‘ * Q P   " .,1; ‘ . Q Y ~··.:·     ‘··dQ“°°
{ `     _ '   ' `  ’_Ai!h°°*,- M I `lwffi  I _,__ 4 V  `*"ff·‘— · · _4 I. ·
· _ ·’ L · ’¤+   —» I;-~   V A  gv     if-7 -  or I   *
I Qi A A U ' I   T"  __   · 'C-   4   » .·    ,.
;  yi ·  7 __  ,T[\\   **    ; ’ _,,»»·¤;f;jj,+s¤,.4 i
.. ry - r ·   ‘ _ f —·~· ~ X ‘ 4*   r 
 L.,] I   _   5/ · n *   , _ v'   vn F     _ '· _ ` xv g`
"" I   '- 'Vr ;.*4C"·`·   :- ` * ':'   I I J "·
·. - ·· is _, ___ {Ei ·· ,..» _g_7‘;: .   . ·—— ·Z\ .  
  ` . “—i   " - ·* », , ° * ,._   ` ·¤ ~
5 3 T  A-  ~ f'     . _   ;__,_,A -    _ ? ··  *
} · i  I { E i 2;*     I ` ‘ 1
U v , $. -»‘ $__ *   _ _`,··
`   -.  ' E`- 4   . . ‘- 2 . _

 Y
` ’

 ` CONTENTS
Page ‘
Introduction .................................................................. 5
Relative Performance of Hybrids and Standard Varieties of Burley Tobacco ......... 7
.. Genetic Control of Alkaloids (Nicotine) in Burley Tobacco ......................... 8 _
Black Shank Control Through Varietal Development and Evaluation ................. 8
4 I Fertilizer Placement Studies on Burley Tobacco ................................. 9
Sources of Nitrogen for Burley Tobacco ......................................... 10 `
i Effect of Minor Elements on Yield of Burley Tobacco ............................. 14
i Burley Tobacco Yields, Values and Labor Requirements for Different ‘
g Plant Populations ......................................................... 14 A
. Effect of Herbicides on Yield of Tobacco ........................................ 15
The Effect of Transplant Size and Anti—transpirants on Yield and Value of ·
Burley Tobacco ........................................................... 16
Mobileaf on Burley Tobacco in 1969-70 .......................................... 16
S Folicote on Burley Tobacco in 1970 ............................................. 18
I
p Foliar Fertilization of Burley Tobacco .......................................... 19
; Sucker Control Experiments with Burley Tobacco, Including Type of
Chemical, Rates, Split Applications and Sequential Treatments ................ 20
i Yield and Value of Burley 21 Tobacco as Influenced by Nitrogen, Nutrition,
=, Suckering Practice, and Harvest Date ...................................... 21
 y The Effect of Time of Topping and Harvesting on Yield and Value of
‘ I Burley Tobacco .......................................................... 23 ·
i
{
Q
s
  -

 . `  ,·· ’*”‘"'
  `
 
Q
\
1
`
5
3

 i
l KENTUCKY FARM TOBACCO RESEARCH REPORT
INTRODUCTION
{ J. H. Smiley
This progress report is the result of a cooperative effort between the U. K. College of Agriculture I
extension and research staffs and certain industrial companies, county extension agents, and producers.
The objective of most of these studies was to extend applied research in all phases of tobacco =
production by obtaining data from a wider range of soil types and climatic, disease, and management
_ conditions than is possible at the Agricultural Experiment Station and Substations. Because of the limited
' number of personnel engaged in applied research in tobacco, more information can be obtained through
farm tests than through any other means.
" _ Farm tests serve to bring research more closely to the people where they can observe the results ,
first hand. Farmers are more likely to follow practices they see demonstrated in their own areas and
under conditions similar to their own. These tests also are a means of keeping county extension agents
_ g and agri—business personnel, as well as farmers, aware of what is being done in research. County
extension agents can also do a better job when they have information from studies made in their area.
These tests tend to bridge the gap between research and extension personnel, and working more directly .
with farmers makes the researcher more aware of the farmers' problems.
, Acknowledgment _
Appreciation is given to the following companies whose support made this work poss ible: ,
Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company R. J. Reynolds, Inc.
{ Eli Lilly and Company Sun Oil Company
Mobil Oil Corporation WSR, Inc. ‘
Philip Morris, Inc.
Cooperating Extension Agents and Specialists
l Arnett, Manuel, Agent King, Prichard, Agent
Bailey, Carroll, Agent Massie, Ira, Specialist
Bishop, Ellis, Agent McCormack, Glen, Agent
. Brinkley, William, Agent Miller, Harold, Specialist
Collins, W. B. , Agent Noble, George, Agent
Cornelius, Russell, Agent Noffsinger, Estill, Agent
Davidson, Marvin, Agent Perkins, J. R., Agent
Davie, J. Reeves, Agent Prewitt, James T. , Agent
Dixon, J. D. , Agent Rardin, Burris, Agent
. Everette, George, Specialist Razor, Adrian, Agent
, Ewing, John, Area Director Richards, H. Randolph, Agent '
l Gray, Paul, Agent Rowland, A. W. , Agent
Green, William, Agent Ruggles, E. L. , Agent
Hager, Stanley, Agent Salisbury, D. E. , Agent
Hamm, Paul, Agent Sinninger, Wayne, Agent
Herbst, G. R. , Agent Stamper, Albert, Agent
Hockensmith, J. B. , Agent Wallace, Free, Agent ·
i Howard, Douglas, Agent Wills, John, Agent
Huffman, Robert, Agent
5 .

 (
Coogerating Farmers Q
Adams, James M. , Madison Cotmty Jones, Milton, Taylor County
Ammerman, H. T., Pendleton County Karsner, Billy, Owen County _
Armstrong, Dea.n and S. O., Bullitt County Laswell, John, Rockcastle County 4 `
Askew, J. C. and Peter, Christian County Leach, Granville, Woodford Cotmty
Balden, William H. , Boyle County Lewis, Gordon, Rowan County
' Bale, James Kermeth, Hart County Lindsey, Larry T., Hart County
Beasley, James, Anderson County Loy, Shreve, and Sons, Green County
Bennett, Wyatt H., Ballard County Mackey, Ray, Hardin County
Brumbaok, Jual R. , Owen County Mather, Madison, Larue County
Burrus, George, Todd County McElwain, Ernest, Muhlenberg County
Bush, Robert, Scott County Mclntosh, Ledford, Scott County
Bush, Walter, Greenup County McKeehan, Drex, Whitley County °
Callahan, Quinton, Owsley County Morse, Donald, Franklin County
Clay, John C., Clark County Miller, E. Randall, Meade County
Clay, Glenn, Nicholas County Mitchell, Homer, Caldwell County
Cleveland, Joe, Washington County Mulholland, Joe, Scott County A
Combest, Riley, Clinton County Noe, Tommy, Taylor County
Combs, R. W., Madison County Norvell, Billy E., Boyle County ,
Croxton, Alvin, Henry County Otten, Herman, Scott County
Easley, Billy, Scott County Owen, W. W., Jr., Daviess County
Edelen, Thomas E., Jr., Marion County Pettit, Millard, Bath County
Ellington, Harley, Bath County Phillippe, Mack and William Ray, Casey Co.
England, Hubert. Hart County Ramey, William, Bath County g
Florence, W. D., Taylor County Ray, L. P., Hancock County ,
Gaynor, Virgil, Hancock County Reichenback, Albert and Roy, Lincoln Co. `
Grady, K. S., Hart County Reynolds, James, Warren County
Gray, Roy, Fleming County Richards, Edward L., Daviess County
Grisham, Walton A., Jr., Owen County Rickard, F. W., Clark County
Gunning, Thomas E., Nelson County Skeens, Eldon, Rowan County r _
Hahn, James Wood, Nelson County Smith, Clyde and Howard, Franklin County ,
Hardin, Lawrence, Greenup County Smith, Roy, Franklin County
Harvey, Edward, Owsley County Steverson, Gerald T., Franklin County ·
Hilton, David, Nelson County True, Elbert, Scott County
Hollar, Walter C., Nicholas County Wade, Raymond, Mercer County
Holtzclaw, J. B., Lincoln County Waits, Stewart, Franklin County
House, Russell, Hancock County Ward, Ercil, Morgan County
Hutchinson, Clarence P., Grant County Whitlow, Robert, Allen County
Jewell, Ledman, Jr., Jefferson County Winn, B. J., Muhlenberg County
Jones, Harvey, Woodford County
I
6

 > RELATIVE PERFORMANCE OF HYBRIDS AND
’ STANDARD VARIETIES OF BURLEY TOBACCO
Paul D. Legg and Glenn B. Collins
1 Significant yield increases have been obtained in several cross-pollinated crops through the A
commercial use of hybrids. Because of this success with certain crops, various groups are now
encouraging the use of hybrids in many other crops, including tobacco. To receive commercial con-
sideration, hybrids should exceed the performance of their parents and other varieties by an amount ‘
sufficient to cover the added costs associated with the production of a hybrid crop.
» A 2-year test with 66 hybrids and 12 varieties was conducted at Lexington to obtain information
on the relative performance of Fl hybrids and standard varieties of burley tobacco. The average
__ performance of all varieties and hybrids is given in Table 1. On the average, hybrids were approxi-
mately 2 days earlier and yielded 118 Ib more cured leaf per acre. However, a comparison of individual -
hybrids with a high parent in the cross or with Ky 10, the highest yielding variety in the test (Table 2),
shows that most commercially available hybrids yielded less cured leaf than Ky 10 and their highest
— 5 yielding parent. These data indicate that a hybrid should be chosen only if it has desirable characteristics
other than yield that are important. One of these characteristics would be disease resistance.
Certainly with black shank in the soil, serious consideration should be given to L-8 hybrids and hybrids ·
involving such varieties as Burley 37 and Burley 11A.
Table 1. -—Mean Performance of Parental Varieties and Fl Hybrids
 
 
Days to No. of Plant Height, Yield, ‘
A Flower Leaves c entimeters 1b/ A
Varieties 62.00 20. 90 137. 28 2, 480 .
Hybrids 59. 90 21.10 140. 99 2,598
( % heterosis -3.44** 1.10 2. 70 4. 77**
 
, **Significantly different from zero at 0. 01 level.
Table 2. --Relative Yield (pounds per acre) of Hybrids from Certain Individual Tobacco Crosses
 
. Yield of Yield of Yield of F] Relative to
Ylild Of First Second Average High
Cross 1 Parent Parent Parent Parent Ky 10
(Yield, lb A)
Burley 37 x Ky 10 3, 040 2, 218 3,124 369 -84 -84
Burley 37 x Ky 12 2, 790 2, 218 2, 791 286 -01 -334
` Burley 21 x Ky 10 2, 955 2, 995 3, 124 -104 -169 -169 .
Burley 21 x Ky 16 2, 531 2, 995 2, 394 -134 -464 -593
Burley 21 x Ky 12 2, 964 2, 995 2, 791 71 -31 -160
Ky 10 x Ky 12 2, 924 3,124 -2, 791 -34 -200 -200
Ky 10x Burley 11A 2, 800 3,124 2, 004 236 -324 -324
Ky 16 x Burley 11A 2,440 2, 394 2, 004 2.41 46 -684
Ky 12 x Burley 11A 3, 009 2, 791 2, 004 612 218 -115 A
Ky 12 x Ky 16 2, 880 2, 791 2, 394 288 89 -244
 
, 7

 GENETIC CONTROL OF ALKALOIDS (NICOTINE) IN BURLEY TOBACCO A
P. D. Legg and G. B. Collins
Interest in tobacco varieties with lowered alkaloid (nicotine) levels has been generated because a I
_ number of tobacco and health research studies indicate that nicotine might be involved in the health
problems associated with tobacco. A rather intensive research effort on development of a burley
tobacco line with low total alkaloid content has resulted in the breeding line LA Burley 21. LA Burley
21 has an alkaloid level which is roughly one—twentieth that found in our commercial varieties.
LA Burley has been extremely valuable as a research material for inclusion in various tobacco
and health studies. These studies involve determining the role of nicotine in health problems. Although
LA Burley 21 is of commercial acceptability, it does yield approximately 500 lb per acre less than
Burley 21. Also, the extremely low level of alkaloids is probably too low for direct use by the industry.
Research efforts during the past two years have resulted in the development of two true breeding
lines with intermediate levels of alkaloids. These intermediate lines are characterized by alkaloid . ‘
levels between the LA Burley 21 parent and the high parent level typical of commercial varieties. The
level of total alkaloids in the high, low, and intermediate lines is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. —Percent Total Alkaloids in
Burley Tobacco Lines
 
Line % Alkaloids
LA Burley 21 0. 25-. 30
Intermediate 1 2. 00
Intermediate 2 3. 30
Burley 21 3. 80 .
  I
Current research includes further development of the agronomic characteristics of the lines with
intermediate alkaloid levels plus the development and evaluation of blends obtained by mixing different
proportions of seed from the high, low, and two intermediate lines. We hope to develop individual
blends representing alkaloid levels of 1. 0, 1. 5, 2. 0, 2. 5, and 3 %. Also, the four homozygous lines
(LA Burley 21, Burley 21, and the two intermediates) are being evaluated in the statewide variety tests
in l€>7 l.
BLACK SHANK CONTROL THROUGH _
VARIETAL DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION
G. B. Collins, P. D. Legg, C. C. Litton, and J. H. Smiley
Control ofthe fungal disease known as black shank, or more technically as Phgophthora
parasitiea var. Nicotianac, is a major disease effort in our research program. A number of research
studies have been underway for a number of years. Results include the development of the black shank
breeding line known as L8. L8 is not commercially acceptable because of a severe leaf spotting
irregularity in some way associated with the genetic character for black shank resistance transferred
from a wild tobacco relative. However, L8 is usable as a parent in producing Fl hybrids that are
resistant to the common race of black shank.
Currently we are developing several experimental lines carrying black shank resistance. This A
work involves making crosses and screening the plants for resistance to black shank under black shank
infested field conditions and by using inoculation with the disease organism in the greenhouse. We are
also studying the genetics or inheritance of black shank resistance and making a concerted effort to
eliminate the leaf spotting anomaly from L8. The program for varietal development is slow, but we
anticipate reasonably rapid progress now towards the ultimate release of one or more black shank
resistant varieties.
8

 A vital part of our program is to evaluate each year the available varieties and hybrids with
resistance to black shank. These evaluations provide the basis for farmer selection of the best variety
to grow in his individual situation. The black shank testing program in 1969 and 1970 was located in
Cumberland County on soil infested with the black shank organism. Eight burley tobacco varieties were
grown, with each entry being grown in 1/50-acre plots replicated four times.
‘ The hybrids of L8 are known to be resistant to race 0, the most common race of the black shank
\ organism, but have little or no resistance to race 1. Varieties of Burley 37 and Burley 49 are
moderately resistant to both races of the black shank organism. Race 1 apparently was not present in {
the soil used for this study in sufficient amount to affect plant growth.
I Good yields were obtained with the black shank resistant varieties, while the yield of Ky. 14 was
extremely low, indicating a heavy infestation of the organism in the soil, Table 1. All hybrids and
black shank resistant varieties had a mortality rate of 1. 5% or less at harvest time; Ky. 14, a non-
·· resistant variety, had a mortality rate of 72%.
Table 1. —Yield of black shank resistant burley tobacco
` varieties and hybrids and Ky. 14 tested on
black shank infested soil, 1969 and 1970,
Cumberland County, Ky. 1
 
Yield glb per acre)
Variety 1969 1970 Avera¤, ·e
MS B 21x L8 3,124 2,842 2,983 ,
I MS B 37 x L8 3,100 2, 779 2, 940
MS B Ky. 12 x L8 3, 092 2, 673 2, 882
Va 509 2,470 2, 816 2, 643
B 37 2, 537 2, 608 2, 572 ·
B 11A 2, 507 2, 570 2, 538
B49 2,478 2,469 2,474
Ky. 14 893 746 820
 
FERTILIZER PLACEMENT STUDIES ON BURLEY TOBACCO
J. H. Smiley and A. M. Wallace
Ammonium nitrate applied broadcast was plowed under and disked in at three rates on burley
tobacco soils at two locations in Kentucky in 1969 and at three locations in 1970. In 1969 disking in
resulted in slightly, but not significantly, higher yields when 150 lb N per acre was applied; plowing
under resulted in higher yields when 350 lb N was applied, and there were no differences in average
l yields for the two practices when 250 lb N was applied. Average yields for all N rates did not differ
significantly for the two practices, and the general trend was for yields to increase as N fertilizer '
increased. In 1970 plowing under resulted in slightly, but not significantly, higher yields for all N
rates. Yields increased as N rates increased. For the 2—year average, there were no differences in
yields for the two practices for the 150 lb and 250 lb N rates, but when 350 lb of N was applied, plowing
"‘ under resulted in a slightly, but not significantly, higher yield. Average yields increased as N rates
increased (Table 1). These tests indicate that when high rates of nitrogen are used it might be advisable
to plow it down. ·
9

 Table 1. —Effect of Fertilizer Nitrogen Placement on Yield of Burley Tobacco, lb/ A A
 
1969 1970 Two-year
Mercer Morgan Average Mercer Morgan Rowan Average Average -
150 3,482 2,625 3,052 3, 754 4,242 2,373 3,456 3,254 `
‘ Plowed 250 3, 554 3, 206 3, 380 3, 627 4, 663 2, 664 3, 651 3, 516 1
Under 350 3, 894 3, 318 3, 606 3, 857 4, 692 2, 664 3, 738 3, 672
Average 3, 643 3,050 3,346 3, 746 4,532 2,567 3, 615 3,481
150 3,455 2, 919 3, 187 3, 514 4,198 2, 501 3,404 3, 296 l
Disked 250 3, 709 3, 066 3, 388 3, 709 4, 304 2, 684 3, 566 3,477
In 350 3, 630 3, 225 3,428 4,070 4,336 2,583 3, 663 3,546
Average 3, 598 3, 070 3, 334 3, 764 4, 279 2, 589 3, 544 3,439
150 3,468 2, 772 3,120 3, 634 4, 220 2, 437 3,430 3, 275
Average 250 3, 632 3, 136 3, 384 3, 668 4,484 2, 674 3, 609 3,496 ,
350 3,762 3,272 3,517 3,964 4,514 2,624 3,701 3,609
 
SOURCES OF NITROGEN FOR BURLEY TOBACCO
J. H. Smiley, A. M. Wallace, J. L. Sims, and W. O. Atkinson
The form of nitrogen added in fertilizers to burley tobacco may have a significant effect on the
growth, yield, and quality of cured leaf. Additionally, the form used may determine in large part the
efficiency of a given application of nitrogen. Research has shown that ammonium forms, in contrast to
nitrate, generally have the advantage of being retained by the soil and are subject to less loss. However,
ammonium forms acidify the soil more, result in slower growth, and may be toxic to young tobacco plants
when present in large amounts. Acid soils have higher concentrations of manganese and aluminum that A
may be toxic to plants at certain stages of growth. Whereas, considerable research has been conducted
on sources of nitrogen for tobacco when applied at low or medium rates, little information exists that
compares sources or forms at high rates of application. The present study was conducted to compare `
sources of nitrogen fertilizer when applied at near recommended and high levels.
An experiment was conducted during 1970 at each of three locations. Treatments consisted of i
two rates of nitrogen (200 and 400 lb N/acre), three sources of nitrogen (urea, ammonium nitrate, and
potassium nitrate), and two times of application (all pre—transplant and 1/ 2 pre-transplant—1/2 post-
transplant). At both times of application, fertilizer was broadcast on the plowed or cultivated soil
surfaces and worked into the soil. Sufficient amounts of phosphorus and potassium had been uniformly
applied to all plots prior to transplanting and mixed with the soil. Variety Ky 14 was utilized at all
locations . _
l
Results
Although the results are for one year only, certain trends appear to have developed. Applying
N at rates of 400 lb N/acre produced slightly higher leaf yields but slightly lower values per cwt than
applying rates of 200 lb N. Thus, dollars per acre were nearly equal for both N fertilizer rates. /
Applying N in split applications of one-half at transplanting and one—half sidedress resulted in slightly
higher average values per cwt and per acre but slightly lower leaf yields than did single applications
prior to transplanting. '
Source of N influenced both yield and value of cured leaf, with highest values resulting from use
of KNO3 and lowest from urea. The magnitude of average differences among sources, however, was
small in test tests. Additional research is needed to define more adequately the influence of source of
N on burley tobacco.
10

 Table 1. -1970 Nitrogen Rate and Source Test. Yield, lb/A.
N Rate, Time of Location  
lb/A Apgiicauon gc ounty) KNO2 UREA NH4 NO3 AVA1 age
1 Franklin 3, 546 3, 584 3, 538 3, 556 A
A All Muhlenberg 3, 834 3, 132 3, 495 3, 487
Preplant Whitley 3, 154 2, 899 3, 126 3, 060
Average 3, 511 3, 205 3, 386 3, 367 ·
Franklin 3, 734 3, 681 3, 673 3, 696
200 é Preplant Muhlenberg 3, 860 3, 551 3, 568 3, 660
§Postplant Whitley 3, 016 3, 054 2, 986 3, 019
Average 3, 537 3,429 3,409 3,458
" Franklin 3, 640 3, 632 3, 606 3, 626 .
Muhlenberg 3, 847 3, 342 3, 532 3, 574
, Whitley 3,085 2,976 3,056 3,039
Average 3, 524 3,317 3,398 3,413
Franklin 3,498 3,498 3, 719 3,572 A
All Muhlenberg 4, 286 3, 976 3, 512 3, 925
Preplant Whitley 3, 010 2, 874 3, 470 3,118
Average 3, 598 3, 449 3, 567 3, 538 _
Franklin 3, 867 3,548 3, 750 3, 722
, 400 é Preplant Muhlenberg 3, 409 3, 628 3, 814 3, 617 ‘
* é Postplant Whitley 2, 766 2, 770 2, 638 2, 725
Average 3,347 3,315 3,401 3,355
Franklin 3, 682 3, 523 3, 734 3, 647 '
, Muhlenberg 3, 848 3, 802 3, 663 3, 771
Average Whitley 2, 888 2, 822 3,054 2, 921
Average 3,473 3,382 3,484 3,446
Franklin 3, 522 3, 541 3, 628 3, 564
All Muhlenberg 4, 060 3, 554 3, 504 3, 706
Preplant Whitley 3, 082 2, 886 3, 298 3, 089
Average 3, 555 3, 327 3, 477 3, 453
Franklin 3, 800 3,614 3, 712 3, 709
Avem 6 é Preplant Muhlenberg 3, 634 3, 590 3, 691 3, 638
g é Postplant Whitley 2, 891 2, 912 2, 812 2, 872
Average 3,442 3,372 3,405 3,406
A Franklin 3, 661 3, 578 3, 670 3, 636 I
Avaya G Muhlenberg 3, 847 3, 572 3, 598 3, 672
g Whitley 2, 986 2, 899 3, 055 2, 980
Average 3,498 3,350 3,441 3,429
11

 Table 2. -1970 Nitrogen Rate and Source Test. Value/CWT, Dollars.
 
. . Nitro en Source
N Rate, Time of Location   ,
1b/A Apyiicauon gc Ollllty) Kms UREA NH4NO3 Average
l Franklin $73.42 $73. 88 $72. 90 $73. 40 1
All Muhlenberg 75. 58 74. 64 75. 09 75.10 `
Average 74. 50 74. 26 74. 00 74. 25
Franklin 72. 90 73. 58 74. 18 73. 55
200 1/2 & 1/2 Muhlenberg 76.00 74. 56 75.·03 75. 20
Average 74.45 74. 07 74. 60 74. 38
Franklin 73.16 73. 73 73. 54 73. 48
Average Muhlenberg 75. 79 74. 60 75. 06 75. 15
Average 74.48 74.16 74.30 74.32
Franklin 72. 56 71. 58 72. 63 72. 26 A
All Muhlenberg 74. 09 72. 96 74. 80 73. 95
Average 73. 32 72. 27 73. 72 73.10
Franklin 72. 28 72. 08 73.15 72. 50
400 1/2 & 1/2 Muhlenberg 75. 51 74. 62 74. 58 73. 70
Average 73.90 73.35 73. 86 73.70 '.
Franklin 72.42 71. 83 72. 89 72. 38
Average Muhlenberg 74. 80 73. 79 74. 69 74. 42
Average 73. 61 72. 81 73. 79 74. 90 X
Franklin 72. 99 72. 73 72. 76 72. 83 ·
All Muhlenberg 74. 84 73. 80 74. 94 74. 52 _
Average 73. 92 73. 26 73. 85 73. 68
Franklin 72. 59 72. 83 73. 66 73.02
Average 1/2 & 1/2 Muhlenberg 75. 76 74. 59 74. 80 75. 05
Average 74. 18 73. 71 74. 23 74. 04
Franklin 72. 79 72. 78 73. 21 72. 93
Average Muhlenberg 75. 30 74. 20 74. 87 74. 78
Average 74. 04 73. 49 74. 04 73. 86
 
12

 Table 3. -1970 Nitrogen Rate and Source Test. Value Per Acre, Dollars.
 
V N Rate, Time of Location  
lb/A Agglication {C ounty) KNO3 U REA NH4 NO3 Average I
Franklin $2, 603 $2, 648 $2, 576 $2, 609
All Muhlenberg 2, 898 2, 338 2, 624 2, 620
Average 2, 750 2, 493 2, 600 2, 614 .
Franklin 2, 752 2, 708 2, 724 2, 728
200 1/2 & 1/2 Muhlenberg 2, 934 2, 648 2, 676 2, 752
Average 2, 843 2, 678 2, 700 2, 740
Franklin 2, 678 2, 678 2, 650 2, 668
" Average Muhlenberg 2, 916 2, 493 2, 650 2, 686
Average 2, 797 2, 586 2, 650 2, 677
Franklin 2, 538 2, 505 2, 699 2, 581
All Muhlenberg 3, 176 2, 898 2, 626 2, 900 _
Average 2, 857 2, 702 2, 662 2, 740
Franklin 2, 795 2, 557 2, 794 2, 699
400 1/2 & 1/2 Muhlenberg 2, 610 2, 707 2, 844 2, 720
Average 2, 702 2, 632 2, 794 2, 709 .
Franklin 2, 666 2, 531 2, 722 2, 640 _
Average Muhlenberg 2, 893 2, 802 2, 735 2, 810 A
Average 2, 780 2, 667 2, 728 2, 725
Franklin 2, 570 2, 576 2, 638 2, 595
All Muhlenberg 3, 037 2, 618 2, 625 2, 760
Average 2, 804 2, 597 2, 632 2, 678
Franklin 2, 774 2, 632 2, 734 2, 713
Average 1/2 & 1/2 Muhlenberg 2, 772 2, 678 2, 760 2, 736
Average 2, 773 2, 655 2, 747 2, 725
Franklin 2, 672 2, 604 2, 686 2, 654
» Average Muhlenberg 2, 904 2, 648 2, 692 2, 748
Average 2, 788 2, 626 2, 689 2, 701
 
13

 EFFECT OF MINOR ELEMENTS ON YIELD OF BURLEY TOBACCO
J. H. Smiley, A. M. Wallace, J. L. Sims,
W. O. Atkinson, and George Everette ¤
An experiment to determine the response of burley tobacco to molybdenum, zinc, boron, and
. magnesium was conducted at 11 locations in 7 counties in Kentucky. Sufficient nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium were applied for maximum yields. At each location, there was ample rainfall and good
yields of tobacco were obtained. Yield data did not indicate a response for the application of any
element (Table 1). No deficiency symptoms of any of the elements included in the test were apparent
nor was there any indication of toxicity to the tobacco from the use of any element.
Table 1. —Effect of Minor Elements on Yield of Burley Tobacco, lb/ A.
  I
Mo Zn B Mg Mg
Location Grower {1. 5 oz/A) g3. 0 lb/A) {0. 3 lb/A) {25 lb/A) (50 lb/A) Untreated “
Woodford Jones 3, 527 3, 533 3, 800 3, 514 3, 518 3, 728
County Leach 3,357 3,514 3,763 3,466 3,378 3,322
Franklin Waits 3, 232 3, 043 3, 244 2, 963 3, 162 2, 964
County Smith 3, 229 3, 133 3, 392 3,139 3, 153 3,122
Bath Ellington 3, 708 3, 668 3, 859 3, 772 3, 845 3, 688 4
County Pettit 3, 086 3, 414 2, 985 2, 963 3, 279 3,170
Madison Devere 3, 237 3,431 3, 197 3,304 3,319 3,388
County Combs 3, 708 3, 601 3, 569 3, 812 3, 463 3, 602
Nichms narmii 2, 196 2, 033 2, 983 3,037 3,028 2, 210
County
Hart
England 3, 300 3, 054 3, 209 3, 491 3, 265 3, 069
County
Allen Whitlow 3,474 3, 608 3, 525 3, 518 3, 357 3, 312
Cotmty
Average 3,368 3,367 3,411 3,362 3,342 3,325
 
BURLEY TOBACCO YIELDS, VALUES AND LABOR REQUIREMENTS
FOR DIFFERENT PLANT POPULATIONS
W. O. Atkinson
Increasing the number of plants per acre is one way of obtaining higher acre yields and returns.
A factor that should be considered, however, is the amount of labor involved when plant populations are
altered. Since there are numerous operations such as transplanting, topping, harvesting and stripping,
when cach plant must be handled separately, more plants per acre mean more hours of labor used per ’
acre.
The accompanying table gives acre yields, returns per acre and hours of labor per acre of burley
tobacco from an experiment conducted at Lexington for three years. Burley 21 was grown using 200 lb
per acre of nitrogen and irrigation when necessary. Labor records were maintained for all hand
operations, such as transplanting, priming, topping, housing, etc. , and data from previous work were p
used for calculating land and plant bed preparation, cultivation, etc.
14

 Table 1. —Yield, Acre Returns and Hours of Labor per Acre
of Burley Tobacco
 
Plants per Acreg; .
8, 000 10, 000 13,400 ‘
Acre yields (lb) 2, 710 3,023 3, 152
Acre returns ($/A _
at 73¢ per lb) 1, 978 2, 206 2, 300
Hours of labor
per acre 312 387 500
__ Qi In rows 39 inches apart, plants spaced 20, 16 and 12
inches apart give acre populations of 8, 000, 10, 000, and
13,400, respectively.
It is evident that acre yields increased with each increase in number of plants grown per acre;
however, labor requirements increased at a faster rate. Under the conditions of this experiment,
increasing the plant population from 8, 000 to 10, 000 per acre increased gross returns per acre by I
$228, a realization of $3. 04 per hour of additional labor. Increasing plant population from 10, 000 to
13,400 per acre increased gross returns by $94 per acre or 83 cents per hour. These data suggest
that populations much greater than 10, 000 plants per acre would not pay for the additional labor
required. _
EFFECT OF HERBICIDES ON YIELD OF TOBACCO
J. H. Smiley and A. M. Wallace {
Three registered herbicides (Balan, Enide, and Tillam) plus one experimental compound
(El 179) were tested at two locations under cultural practices of cultivation (plowed two or more times)
and no cultivation (no plowing and no hoeing) to determine their effect on weed and grass control and on
yield of burley tobacco. Excellent annual grass control and acceptable weed control were obtained at
all locations in both cultivated and noncultivated tobacco.
There was no significant difference in the average yield among herbicide treatments; however,
average yields were nearly 200 lb per acre greater from cultivated than from noncultivated treatments.
These tests indicate that cultivating (plowing) would be profitable when herbicides are used for weed
, control in burley tobacco fields.
Table 1. —Effect of Herbicides and Cultivation on Yield of Burley Tobacco, lb/ A
 
l Herbicide Treatment .
Cultivation Location Balan El 179 Enide Tillam Average
Scott Co. 2, 983 3,114 2, 970 3, 005 3, 018
Cultivated Boyle Co. 3, 019 3, 013 2, 999 3, 026 3,014
Average 3,001 3,064 2,984 3,016 3,016
 
` Not Scott Co. 2, 795 2,838 2, 791 2, 831 2, 814 I
cultivated Boyle Co. 3, 008 2, 706 2, 886 2, 822 2, 855
Average 2, 902 2, 772 2, 838 2, 826 2, 834
 
Scott Co. 2, 889 2, 976 2, 880 2, 918 2, 916
Average Boyle Co. 3, 013 2, 860 2, 942 2, 924 2, 935
Average 2, 951 2, 918 2, 911 2, 921 2, 925
 
15

 EFFECT OF TRANSPLANT SIZE AND ANTI-TRANSPIRANTS
ON YIELD AND VALUE OF BURLEY TOBACCO
W. O. Atkinson and J. H. Smiley =
The effect of Mobileaf, Folicote, and sizes of transplant on the yield of burley tobacco was
· measured in field plots replicated three times at Lexington during 1970. Small transplants (4 inches
from ground to bud), medium transplants (8 inches from gr