Research Report No. 28 December, 1968 Measured Crop Performance TOBACCO 1968 JOHN C. RICE, Professor J. M. KENYON, Insfrudor E. L. PRICE, Tobacco Inspector Department of Crop Science N. C. State University Raleigh
TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Official Variety Test Regional Farm Test RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Official Variety Test Commercially Available Varieties Advanced Breeding Lines Regional Farm Tests 8 11 11 12 15 16 SUMMARY TABLES Table 1. Percentage comparison with the mean of Hicks 18 Table 2. Comparison of certain varieties over three years 19 Table 3. Table 4. Comparison of varieties for certain characteristics combined for four locations 20 Comparison of varieties in 1968 for certain characteristics at two fertility levels for four locations 23 Table 5. Summary information on disease resistance 25 Table 6-9 Individual location data Table 10-14 Results of Regional Farm Test 26 38 Table 15-16 Cultural Practices: Official Variety Test and Regional Farm Tests 43 Table 17 Rainfall, by stations 45
1 PERFORMANCE OF TOBACCO VARIETIES IN NORTH CAROLINA John C. Rice, Joe M. Kenyon and Ernest L. Pricel / The year 1968 represents the fifth season in testing new tobacco varieties under the Regional Minimum Standards Program initiated in 1963-64. Early in the program, the 1969 season was designated as a year for seed increase of any new varieties released during 1968. The breeding lines which meet the minimum standards in the 1968 test as outlined by the Quality Evaluation Committee of the Tobacco Workers' Conference will be included in the 1968 Official Variety Test, but they will not be available for farmer planting until the 1970 growing season. Seed will be increased during 1969 for any new variety by the originating agency or by certified seed growers. Under the Minimum Standards Program, four varieties were made available to farmers in 1964; Coker 298, NC 2326, Speight G-36 and Va. 115. In 1965, two varieties, NC 2512 and Speight G-7, met the minimum standards established by the Regional Committee. Coker 258 and PD 5 met the standards in 1966, followed by Bell 93, Coker 254, McNair 14 and Speight G-13 in 1967. 1 Professor in Charge of Variety Testing, Instructor and Tobacco Inspector, Department of Crop Science, respectively. The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of personnel on the Research Stations, including Wallace Dickens, Kimble Brock, Warren Bailey, Thilbert Suggs, Sandy Barnes, Larry Gardner, Billy N. Ayscue, Gene Britt, Howell Gentry and Darrell Dunnigan in conducting these tests.
2 The minimum standards serve as a guide to breeders in developing new varieties that will be acceptable to the trade. It is a voluntary program that has been enthusiastically endorsed by all segments of the tobacco industry. The program adopts the principle of testing new varieties against standard varieties. New varieties should be genetically stable and should not differ from the standards, Hicks Broadleaf and NC 95, by more than plus or minus 15 percent for measurable chemical traits except nicotine. The acceptable range for nicotine is plus 15 percent and minus 20 percent of the mean of Hicks and NC 95. New 'varieties should not contain more than 8 percent of the total alkaloids as nornicotine. Variety candidates should compare favorable with the standard varieties for color, body, texture, moisture equilibrium, filling value, flavor and aroma. A minimum of two years evaluation throughout the flue-cured region of the United States on both experiments stations and farmer plots is required. Such a program should mean much to our domestic and export trade and to our growers because it assures the manufacturers that new varieties will have been thoroughly tested and evaluated for agronomic, pathologic, physical, chemical and smoke characteristics. Quality is the one factor the American farmer has to sell and this program should help to assure that quality is continuously improved. Varietie~ play a determining role in quality and should be carefully selected by the grower. The tobacco variety evaluation program in North Carolina is a part. of the Regional Test. Data are presented from the 1968 Official Variety! Tests in North Carolina and the Regional Farm Tests. In addition a
3 ;ummary table of variety performance over different years and location ls presented. Jeen issued. Similar reports which record previous years' data have Testing over a period of years and under farm conditions ls needed to fully evaluate the performance of any variety. Infornation of this nature serves as a guide to tobacco breeders in the ievelopment of varieties and to growers in choosing a variety. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE The Tobacco Variety Evaluation Program in North Carolina is divided luto three phases. The first phase, the Official Variety Test, consists )f testing varieties and breeding lines in small replicated plots located )n five research stations. The second phase of the program involves a nore extensive study of fewer varieties and advanced breeding lines grown luder farm conditions in approximately one-fourth acre plots and is ~eferred to as the Regional Farm Test. The third phase is the Regional >mall Plot Test, conducted in five states, and this data is presented In a separate publication. Official Variety Test Disease resistant and non-resistant experimental lines and varleties developed by public and private agencies are included. One ~equirement for ac~eptance is quantitative data from experiments in ihich the proposed entry is compared with recognized varieties. Entries ) seeds of lots offered for sale within the state for from seed lots furnished by testing agencies from other states may also be included. Performance data are collected on yield, value, agronomic characteristics,
6 included in the tests with resistance to Root Knot nematodes. The plants were banded approximately two weeks prior to transplanting and individually selected at transplanting for maximum uniformity within plots at all locations. Each one-row plot consisted of 20 competitive plants. The rows were 3.75 feet apart at all locations, and hills were spaced 22 inches apart. Cultural practices are shown in Table 16. All entries were topped and hand suckered. Individual plots were harvested according to degree of maturity, tagged and kept separate throughout curing, sorting and grading. Data on agronomic characteristics were taken in the field, and chemical determinations were made on the cured leaf of the whole plant. Disease reactions were noted in separate tests under severe disease conditions. The methods of recording data were the same as those used in previous years, except as noted, and may be found in Crop Science Research Reports Number 12 (1964), Number 16 (1965), Number 20 (1966) and Number 24 (1967). Value per Acre: After the tobacco was sorted into lots, a Federal Tobacco Inspector graded the tobacco from each plot into appropriate go'vernment grades. The value per acre was calculated by multiplying the pounds of each grade by the average auction price paid for the grade during the 1967 and 1968 season through September 11, 1968. Quality Index: Each grade was evaluated for physical traits by rating the leaf for color, body and texture on a scale of 10 to 50. The categories were: 10 = very good, 20 = good, 30 = fair, 40 = poor and 50 very poor. A quality index was then calculated for each plot. This rating was made by experiment station personnel.
7 Seasonal Conditions: The transplanting of tobacco at all five locations of the 1968 Official Variety Test was conduced under fa'vorable moisture conditions. Early growing conditions were, in general, favorable with good stands reported at all locations. Hot, dry weather prevailed during August and September at all test locations. This condition caused the crop to ripen prematurely with the cured leaf weighing lighter than usual. The prediction for total yield for the North Carolina farm crop was 21 percent below the 1967 yield. In spite of this adverse weather, the yields for the Official Variety Tests were between 2155 and 2447 pounds per acre for the fourteen varieties in the tests. The Whiteville Test, TV 185, was transplanted under dry moisture conditions. The cool, dry periods early in the growing season, with subsequent dry, hot weather, produced stress conditions on this crop during the entire season. The tobacco in this test tended to be fair in color and had medium-hea'vy body and fair texture. Brown Spot caused some damage in the more susceptible entries and a pathological reading on the degree of Brown Spot was made at this location. The tobacco in this test was of fair to good quality. The Rocky Mount Test, TV 186, was transplanted under adequate moisture conditions. Cool temperatures and limited rainfall were encountered early in the season but adequate rains and warmer weather during June provided for good growth. The leaf produced in this test was fair to good. The Kinston Test, TV 187, was planted under good moisture conditions. The early growing season here was cool with periods of low rainfall. The
8 mid and late growing season was favored by warm temperatures and adequate moisture. somewhat trashy. The tobacco produced in this test was rather thin and A replacement application of fertilizer for an apparent leaching problem probably contributed to the poor quality of this tobacco. The Oxford Test, TV 188, was not used in the data summarizations because of severe leaching and drowning problems encountered during the growing.seas on, The Reidsville Test, TV 189, was transplanted under adequate moisture conditions. The season was favorable for good growth and development of this crop. The soil was medium heavy in type and was fairly fertile. Overall, the quality of the entries was fair to good in this test. Regional Farm Tests The number of entries in this test is necessarily limited since the plots are rather large and there are many locations. In this program are included advanced breeding lines that have met the minimum standards in the Regional Small Plot Test. It is desirable to gain information on these breeding lines and varieties under farm conditions. Also, this provides an opportunity for the tobacco companies to study the breeding lines and new 'varieties for their manufacturing characteristics. This part of the evaluation program is a cooperative effort of the experiment station, extension service, USDA, tobacco companies and growers. The participating companies were: The American Tobacco Company, Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Imperial Tobacco Company,
9 Liggett and Myers Tobacco Company,,Philip Morris, Inc., P. Lorillard Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Export Leaf Tobacco Company. Twelve locations were utilized -- two each in Georgia, South Carolina and Virginia and six in North Carolina. This is a cooperative program and permission was granted for the inclusion of all locations in this report. Fertilization and other cultural practices, as shown in Table 15 were those generally used by the growers and were considered moderate. A nematode assay was made on all fields and those with a nematode problem were fumigated. Only information on the North Carolina Test are shown here. Representatives from both domestic and foreign buyers visited these plots in the field. The cured tobacco was displayed on a warehouse floor for the participating companies to examine and sample for laboratory analyses. Each company graded the tobacco according to the types they normally use in their manufacturing. In addition, they also rated each lot of tobacco for its physical quality characteristics according to the previously described quality index. In general, the 1968 season was very cool early in the growing period followed by rains in early July and hot dry conditions in late July and August. Areas of all four of the belts were extremely hot and dry late in the growing season. Edmond transplanted during a dry period followed by an unusually cool growing season. Considerable rain in mid-season produced good growth but extremely hot temperatures and drought late in the season
10 affected the curability and weight of the tobaccos. Brown Spot was evident at this location. The test at Harrell's was transplanted under fairly good conditions, however, the season became relatively dry until mid-season. Weather conditions during' the curing season were less than ideal. Following rains in July, the rest of the harvesting period was very hot and dry. The general characteristics of the tobacco in the field were good, and the cured leaf was satisfactory. Varieties ranged from fair to good in quality. Johnson transplanted in mid April and had good moisture and soil conditions at this time, but the night temperatures were low. About 20 percent of Hicks was lost because of Black Shank. The quality of this crop was good. Denny transplanted on May 10 during a dry period and it remained dry and hot throughout the growing season. Irrigation was used to produce the moderate yield and fair to good quality of this crop. Crews had heavy leaching rains early in the growing season. Replacement fertilizer was applied which produced good growth. Howe'ver, the month of August was extremely hot and dry, pre'venting the crop from filling out properly. Brown Spot was also a problem late in the season. Busick's first planting was totally destroyed by hail. A second planting was made with extremely large plants. Rains in July provided enough water for rapid growth, but a dry August failed to produce enough water for proper irrigation. Quality was fair in this test. All six cooperators used T-l48 contact sucker control material with good to excellent results in controlling suckers.
11 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The data are discussed under the headings (1) Official Variety Tests and (2) Regional Farm Tests. Individual location data are presented but are discussed only to emphasize specific points. Official Variety Test The data presented in Tables 1 and 2 are summary data for various years and locations and indicate how several varieties have been performing o'ver a period of years at various locations. In Table 1 the data are percentage comparisons with the average performance of Hicks Broadleaf for the period 1953 to 1968. The 'varieties with the higher number of comparisons have been included in the tests from two to sixteen years and give amore accurate estimate of their general performance, while the 'varieties with four comparisons have been in the test only one year. Most varieties in Table 1 maintain their same relative position for value per acre as they do for yield. In Table 2, varieties that were common in the 1966, 1967 and 1968 tests are compared for a large number of characteristics. The same general trend was shown in these varieties during all years. Speight G-7, Speight G-36 and Va. 115 had the highest acre value. Speight G-7 and NC 2326 averaged above $69.00 per one hundred pounds. Hicks Broadleaf was the earliest to flower. All varieties had about average percent nicotine, ranging from 2.61 for Coker 319 to 3.09 for Hicks. All varieties were in an average range for other chemical and agronomic traits. The average performance of varieties and lines compared at four locations in 1968 is shown in Table 3. There was some 'variety x location
12 interaction for the characters studied, however, it probably was not sufficient to affect the choosing of a variety to plant. Varieties tended to perform the same relative to each other, that is, they did not make major shifts. The variety x location mean squares were used for computation of L.S.D. 'values. The entries shown at the top of Table 3 are cormnercia1ly available varieties, whereas those in the lower portion are breeding lines. Commercially Available Varieties All of the fourteen commercially available varieties tested in 1968 yielded equal to or greater than Hicks. There was a fairly wide spread for dollars per hundred weight, ranging from a low of $65.87 for Speight G-36 to a high of $69.96 for Speight G-7. The quality rating followed the same general pattern as did the dollars per hundred weight. Due to the range used in assigning the quality index (10 to 50, with 10 being best), varieties seemed to be quite similar, however, small differences are important in this index and are significant. Considering all entries in the test, there has been a high correlation between the value per hundred weight and the quality index, indicating that the two are giving a somewhat similar picture. appearance that would be expected. If the tobaccos are normal in physical It appears that the grades as changed in 1963 and 1964 reflect quality according to price to a rather large extent. This is a change for the better in evaluating tobaccos, since it does separate the more desirable from the less desirable types. Varieties differ for quality characteristics as shown by these data. Most varieties were intermediate in their-flowering habit, ranging from 0 to 11 days later than Hicks Broadleaf. All varieties had more
13 leaves per plant than Hicks, although the maximum difference was only 5.1 lea'ves. Data were collected on internode length on the basal, middle and upper part of the plant. Information of this nature would be useful to the engineer in developing mechanical harvesting equipment. The range was small in the lower two stalk positions, but wide "in the upper position. Coker 254 and Speight G-7 had a high ground sucker count. Speight G-36 had the lowest axillary sucker county per plant. Measurements on leaf size indicated that most varieties were quite similar, although Speight G-7 might be considered a broadleaf type. Most are of the old line type with medium width leaves. This has been the direction of selection by breeders in recent years and has produced varieties that tend to more nearly resemble those of the old line type. Quality is divided into visual or physical appearance, chemical characteristics and smoking characteristics. The 'visual characteristics can be readily seen by the eye, whereas the chemical and smoke characteristics must be determined in the laboratory. Data on several chemical constituents that are associated with quality are presented in Table 3. Most of the 'varieties appear to have satisfactory chemical compositions with Coker 319 and Speight G-13 being the lowest in nicotine content as compared with the other varieties. In general, a nicotine content of about 1.75-2.75 percent in a normal year is satisfactory to the trade. The extreme dry weather during the growing season caused all entries to be higher in nicotine than for a more normal growing season. Within limits, it is generally assumed that the higher the ratio of nitrogen-tonicotine, the less desirable the tobacco since it does not age satisfactorily
14 This ratio is also used as an indication of chemical balance within the plant. All of the varieties had a ratio below 1.00 this season, with no exceptions. The total nitrogen content was similar to past years. McNair 14 and Speight G-13 had a higher proportion of their alkaloid in the form of nornicotine than the other varieties. Several varieties showed some cherry red in the cured leaf. All of the varieties appeared to be in the acceptable range for reducing sugars, although the sugars in general were consistently higher than in 1967. The ratio (reducing sugar/nicotine) was calculated as a measure of the relationship of the carbohydrates to the alkaloid fraction. To be of value, the constituents included in the ratio must be within the acceptable range. A higher ratio tends to indicate mildness and smoothness while a very low ratio may be indicative of a harsh irritating smoke. If the ratio is too high, it might indicate that the tobacco is too mild to be acceptable to the smoker. There was a range from 5.18 for Coker 254 and SC 66 to 6.38 for Speight G-13. Information on disease resistance is presented in Table 5. Data were collected on Black Shank, Granville Wilt, Fusarium Wilt, Root Knot and Brown Spot. A relative rating of the level of resistance to each disease is given for each variety based on this and other disease tests. The disease tests were fairly critical at all locations. Much progress appears to have been made in developing disease resistant varieties released in the last few years. There are several varieties carrying a high level of resistance to Black Shank, Granville Wilt, Fusarium Wilt and Root Knot. Several other varieties carry a moderate to high level of
15 resistance to Granville Wilt and Fusarium Wilt. The choice of varieties carrying Granville Wilt resistance is somewhat higher than in recent years. Brown Spot developed rather severely at several locations. The varieties were rated for tolerance or sensitivity to Brown Spot. Advanced Breeding Lines Data on advanced breeding lines are also shown in Table 3, however, since these lines are in early stages of testing, the data will not be discussed in detail at this time. Since most of the breeding lines have only been in the Official Variety Test for one year, regional testing was not available. The lines are rated as resistant without any index or level of resistance shown. The same type of rating is given for the Granville Wilt and Fusarium Wilt levels. There has been an increase in breeding lines for Granville Wilt resistance in recent years. It has been difficult to obtain varieties or breeding lines with multiple resistance to all diseases, good physical and chemical characteristics and acceptable smoke ratings. Under the Acreage-Poundage Program, some pressure has been eliminated for the plant breeder to continue to develop each year higher and higher yielding lines. This situation has enabled the plant breeder to direct more attention to the selection criteria for disease resistance. Brown Spot readings we~made just prior to harvest at one location which was the Border Belt.Research Station. This preliminary information will be used to evaluate these lines for Brown Spot tolerance or sensitivity as they are advanced into the varietal testing program. Many of the entries carry resistance to Root Knot nematode special Meloidogyne incognita, which is the most prevalent species of nematode in
16 North Carolina soils. There are other species of Root Knot nematodes as well as meadow and stunt nematodes to which these lines may be susceptible. In the 1968 Official Variety Test, two fertility levels -- normal and 20 percent less nitrogen were included with two replications at each level. At the 20 percent reduced nitrogen level, the combined data for all locations indicated an increase in price per hundred weight for 'varieties resistant to Root Knot nematodes. This increase was not statistically significant but it was consistent for all four varieties and the trend was of such magnitude that additional investigation should be conducted along this line. The same trend was obvious for eleven of the seventeen breeding lines carrying this resistance. A comparison of varietal performance at two fertility levels is shown in Table 4 combined for the four locations. Regional Farm Tests A summary of the results from the Regional Farm Tests is presented in Table 10. Yields ranged from 1882 to 2284 pounds per acre for Hicks and Speight G-28 respectively. Value per acre followed the same trend as yield. McNair 6133 had the highest dollars per hundred pounds of the entrie~ in this test. The tobacco from each of the locations was displayed on a warehouse floor and appraised for the physical quality factors; color, body and texture by leaf and research personnel of each of the eight participating tobacco companies. The results of this quality appraisal are shown in Table 11. The ratings varied from company to company but tended to follow the same general pattern.
16a In Table 14, an index of the amount graded is shown by grower for each variety. If all eight companies could grade all of a variety into their grades, then it received an index of 8. However, since companies have different requirements, all would not tend to grade each lot of new line tobacco. In the overall average for all companies, the varieties, Speight G-28, NC 95 and McNair 6133 received the highest ratings. The farmers were asked to rate the 'varieties for grower desirability with their highest preference shown as number one. The data are shown in Table 14. The rating indicated that the growers preferred Speight G-28 and Coker 66-411 over the other varieties. Both physical and chemical information should be considered along with yield and'value data relative to a variety or line. Also the handling characteristics are important. A thorough evaluation of breeding material is important if quality is to be maintained and improved. These various indices are not conclusive but show trends in preferences which are indicative of the acceptability and desirability of these tobaccos by manufacturers and growers. All information should be studied relative to 'varietal performance for all characteristics and not just a selected one or two.
..! & ii:, I OJ J i '" u 1 o! ; I! }j @@
Table 1. Percentage comparison with the mean of Hicks Broad1eaf of certain flue-cured tobacco varieties in the Official Tobacco Variety Test. 1953-1968. Standard Acre Yield Acre Value Value per 100 1bs. Hicks Broad1eaf 2040 1bs. $1266 $61.56 No. Comparisons* 9 Coker 254 (116) Coker 254 (117) NC 2326 (103) 13 Coker 258 (115) Coker 258 (113) Coker 254 (101) 9 Speight G-13 (115) Speight G-13 (113) Bell 93 (100) 28 Speight G-36 (114) Speight G-7 (112) Coker 319 (100) 32 v«. 115 (114) v«. 115 (112) Hicks Broad1eaf (100) 18 Speight G-7 (112) SC 66 (108) McNair 14 (100) 41 NC 95 (109) Bell 93 (107) SpeLght G-7 (100) 9 Bell 93 (107) NC 95 (107) Coker 258 ( 99) 32 Coker 319 (107) Speight G-36 (107) Speight G-13 ( 99) 13 SC 66 (106) NC 2326 (106) Va. 115 ( 99) 27 McNair 30 (104) Coker 319 (105) McNair 30 ( 98) 28 NC 2326 (104) McNair 14 (103) NC 95 ( 98) 9 McNair 14 (103) McNair 30 (102) SC 66 ( 98) 72 Hicks Broad1eaf (100) Hicks Broad1eaf (100) Speight G-36 ( 95) t--' co *Number of times appeared in test with Hicks Broad1eaf.
19 THREE YEAR AVERAGE 1966, 1967 and 1968 Table 2. Comparison of certain varieties and lines in Official Tobacco Variety Test. Days Leaves Height Varieties Yield Value Index to per of or Lines LbslA Do11A Do1/Cwt. Flower Plant Plant Hicks Broad1eaf 2215 1531 68.82 49 16.6 44 NC 95 2336 1587 67.63 57 19.1 45 Coker 319 2306 1591 68.94 57 20.3 46 NC 2326 2338 1640 69.95 50 17.7 46 Speight G-7 2511 1740 69.14 55 20.0 48 Speight G-36 2538 1690 66.45 59 20.1 50 Va. 115 2535 1726 68.01 53 18.4 44 Varieties Suckers per plant Width of leaf (in. ) Length of leaf (in. ) or Lines Ground Leaf Axil 5th 10th 15th 5th 10th 15th Hicks Broad1eaf 1.8 25.3 10.2 12.6 13.0 24.4 26.0 23.9 NC 95 1.6 20.8 9.7 12.2 13.5 20.5 23.6 23.3 Coker 319 1.5 24.1 8.9 11.2 13.3 21.8 25.2 25.4 NC 2326.5 23.0 9.9 12.4 13.1 23.4 25.7 23.7 Speight G-7 2.6 22.2 10.6 13.1 14.2 21.1 24.4 24.1 Speight G-36 1.0 18.6 9.2 12.1 13.5 21.0 24.5 24.1 Va. 115 1.0 20.6 9.3 11.7 13.2 21.8 24.7 24.3 Varieties Nic. Nornic. Red. Sug. Tot. N. T.N. ~ or Lines % % % % Nic. Nic. Hicks Broad1eaf 3.09.15 17.24 2.22.70 5.90 NC 95 3.04.17 16.89 2.18.72 5.77 Coker 319 2.61.12 15.60 2.27.89 6.32 NC 2326 2.92.13 17.44 2.17.76 6.27 Speight G-7 2.96.17 17.94 2.14.74 6.44 Speight G-36 2.96.12 17.17 2.19.76 6.13 v«. 115 2.88.20 18.15 2.20.79 6.74
20 WHITEVILLE, ROCKY MOUNT, KINSTON and REIDSVILLE Table 3. Comparison of varieties in 1968 for certain characteristics, for four locations. Days Leaves Height Varieties Yield Value Index to per of Internode Length or Lines Lbs/A Dol/A Do1/Owt. Q. I. Flower Plant Plant 0-10" 10-20" 20"-top Corrnnercia11y Available Varieties Hicks Broad1eaf 2155 1492 68.91 33.4 47 16.8 44 1.8 2.3 3.5 NC 95 2220 1479 66.68 35.8 54 19.1 44 1.8 2.3 2.8 Bell 93 2247 1515 67.20 37.1 50 17.5 46 1.8 2.4 3.4 Coker 254 2447 1650 67.39 37.5 58 21.9 52 1.7 2.2 2.8 Coker 258 2367 1581 66.72 35.8 57 20.9 47 1.8 2.2 2.7 Coker 319 2217 1510 68.01 33.0 54 20.8 47 1.7 2.2 2.7 McNair 14 2169 1503 69.13 34.7 52 18.8 45 1.8 2.4 2.9 McNair 30 2246 1508 67.08 37.2 49 17.6 46 1.8 2.4 3.4 NC 2326 2251 1568 69.53 33.2 47 17.6 46 1.7 2.3 3.5 SC 66 2238 1495 66.58 37.2 54 19.4 48 1.8 2.3 3.0 Speight G-7 2404 1685 69.96 32.9 52 20.2 48 1.8 2.3 2.8 Speight G-13 2393 1580 65.89 37.6 57 20.0 51 1.9 2.5 3.0 Speight G-36 2397 1580 65.87 37.3 56 20.2 50 1.8 2.3 3.0 v«. 115 2366 1604 67.74 36.0 50 18.2 43 1.7 2.3 3.0 Advanced Breeding Lines Coker 65-213S 2337 1566 66.90 37.5 56 21.0 50 1.8 2.4 2.8 Coker 66-411 2223 1494 67.07 36.2 53 19.1 45 1.7 2.3 2.9 McNair 107 2348 1627 69.17 34.4 49 17.2 42 1.7 2.2 3.2 McNair 116 2493 1706 68.42 35.3 54 19.8 46 1.7 2.1 2.9 McNair 121 2313 1583 68.53 34.1 52 19.0 42 1.7 2.1 2.8 McNair 128 2652 1810 68.16 34.9 52 18.8 45 1.8 2.2 3.0 McNair 171 2561 1741 67.75.36.5 54 20.2 50 1.7 2.3 3.1 McNair 6133 2300 1577 68.50 35.3 53 19.5 47 1.8 2.4 2.8 NC TG-l1 2599 1727 66.46 36.4 53 20.2 46 1.7 2.2 2.7 NC 5520 2127 1468 68.82 33.8 51 19.1 45 1.8 2.2 2.8 NC 5813 2330 1606 68.72 35.4 48 17.5 44 1.7 2.3 3.4 NC 6129 2243 1567 69.70 31.8 50 17.9 44 1.8 2.4 3.1 NC 6112 2361 1620 68.45 34.2 52 18.2 45 1.7 2.4 3.1 NC 6776 2615 1793 68.33 35.4 54 18.4 45 1.7 2.2 3.2 NC 6797 2317 1579 68.09 35.9 51 18.4 46 1.7 2.3 3.2 NC 6800 2419 1619 66.70 36.9 54 19.8 49 1.7 2.2 3.2 NC 6855-2 2683 1851 68.75 34.0 53 18.2 46 1.8 2.3 3.2 NC 6857-C 2440 1635 67.03 35.4 53 17.4 47 1.8 2.4 3.6 NC 6983-5 2441 1633 66.77 35.8 52 19.0 47 1.8 2.3 3.1 NC 7006 2807 1917 68.26 33.3 58 22.7 55 1.8 2.2 2.9 NC 7008 2747 1874 68.15 34.9 56 21.0 50 1.7 2.2 2.9 NC 7054 2301 1562 67.65 36.0 53 19.6 46 L8 2.3 2.9 NC 7082 2320 1565 67.48 34.9 54 19.5 43 1.7 2.2 2.6 NC 7102 2157 1463 67.72 34.8 52 19.0 48 1.9 2.4 3.0 NC 7547 2140 1379 64.38 39.5 51 17. 7 47 1.8 2.5 3.4 NC 7805 2415 1656 68.49 35.1 52 18.9 48 1.8 2.2 3.3 NC 7828 2462 1701 68.83 34.1 49 18.6 46 1.7 2.3 3.1 NC 7863 2477 1677 67.62 34.1 56 21.6 48 1.7 2.1 2.6 PD 7 2341 1575 67.06 36.5 54 19.1 46 1.8 2.3 2.8 Speight G-18 2411 1613 66.88 36.7 53 19.2 48 1.8 2.3 3.1 Speight G-28 2323 1544 66.40 36.3 53 19.2 42 1.7 2.1 2.6 Speight G-131 2477 1687 68.06 34.8 57 20.6 49 1.8 2.3 2.8 Speight G-111 2324 1586 68.22 36.3 51 18.2 47 1.8 2.4 3..3 Speight G-112 2615 1823 69.61 34.0 55 21.8 54 1.8 2.4 2.9 Speight G-130 2550 1698 66.65 36.6 58 20.9 50 1.8 2.3 2.8 Reams 301-76 2244 1523 67.72 35.2 54 19.1 43 1.7 2.2 2.6 L.S.D. (.05) 108 88 1. 90 4.0 1.0 3 N.S..2.2 (.01) 142 115 2.49 5.2 1.3 4 N.S..2.3 C.V. ( % ) 4
21 WHITEVILLE, ROCKY MOUNT, KINSTON and REIDSVILLE Table 3. Comparison of varieties in 1968 for certain characteristics, for four locations. Varieties Suckers per plant Width of leaf (Ln, ) Length of leaf (in. ) or Lines Ground Leaf Axil 5th 10th 15th 5th 10th 15th Commercially Available Varieties Hicks Broad1eaf 2.0 26.1 10.7 12.9 13.5 24.6 26.1 23.8 NC 95 1.9 22.1 9.5 12.1 13.6 20.3 23.5 23.5 Bell 93 2.0 24.5 10.4 12.7 13.9 23.3 26.0 24.3 Coker 254 3.6 24.6 9.8 12.7 13.8 20.5 24.7 24.G Coker 258 2.0 21.0 8.7 11.6 12.9 19.8 24.0 24.3 Coker 319 1.9 25.8 9.0 11.6 13.4 22.1 25.2 25.4 McNair 14 1.2 22.7 10.7 12.8 13.6 22.0 24.8 23.7 McNair 30 2.1 24.0 10.2 12~6 14.1 23.2 25.9 24.5 NC 2326.8 23.6 10.0 12.4 13.5 23.4 25.7 23.6 SC 66 1.6 20.8 8.8 12.1 13.7 21.3 25.0 24.9 Speight G-7 2.9 23.5 10.4 13.1 14.4 20.6 24.2 23.8 Speight G-13 1.9 19.4 9.7 12.3 14.1 19.9 23.6 24.1 Speight G-36 1.5 19.2 8.9 12.3 13.6 20.7 24.3 24.1 v«. 115 1.5 22.7 9.0 11.6 13.7 21.4 24.7 24.4 Advanced Breeding Lines Coker 65-213S 3.8 25.9 9.5 13.2 15.2 20.1 25.0 25.2 Coker 66-411 1.5 21.9 8.8 11.8 13.4 21.3 24.9 25.1 McNair 107 1.3 23.4 9.8 12.3 13.6 22.6 25.1 24.0 McNair 116 1.5 20.6 9.5 12.2 13.8 21.5 24.8 24.4 McNair 121 1.9 23.7 8.9 11.8 13.4 20.9 23.9 24.0 McNair 128 2.4 23.8 9.7 12.6 13.8 22.7 25.5 24.3 McNair 171.9 21.4 9.1 12.2 14.3 22.6 26.3 25.6 McNair 6133 3.0 23.3 10.6 12.9 14.4 21.6 24.8 24.5 NC TG-11 2.3 24.6 7.8 10.6 12.5 22.4 25.7 25.5 NC 5520 5.5 28.3 9.0 11.8 13.8 21.4 24.5 24.5 NC 5813.4 25.1 9.8 12.6 13.2 23.0 25.8 "24.2 NC 6129 4.1 25.0 10.3 13.6 15.1 22.8 25.9 24.8 NC 6112 2.5 22.7 10.5 13.8 15.1 22.3 25.7 25.0 NC 6776 1.9 26.1 9.5 12.7 13.8 21.6 25.0 24.4 NC 6797 2.6 26.2 9.3 12.4 13.9 23.8 26.9 25.5 NC 6800 2.2 24.9 9.2 12.3 13.7 21.4 25.4 24.9 NC 6855-2 1.0 23.1 9.6 12.3 13.8 22.5 26.3 25.9 NC 6857-C 1.5 22.2 10.3 12.8 13.8 22.1 25.4 24.2 NC 6983-5 2.8 26.2 8.6 11.7 13.7 21.5 25.7 25.3 NC 7006 4.2 21.8 9.6 13.5 15.2 19.3 23.6 24.6 NC 7008 4.0 23.9 9.6 13.2 15.5 19.5 23.7 25.1 NC 7054 5.7 27.4 10.2 13.1 14.9 20.8 24.4 24.2 NC 7082 3.2 25.3 8.4 11. 9 13.4 20.7 25.0 24.4 NC 7102 2.1 23.6 8.8 11.1 12.6 21.4 24.3 23.4 NC 7547.8 15.6 10.5 13.5 15.0 22.4 25.6 24.6 NC 7805 2.1 25.8 9.7 12.5 13.4 22.1 26.1 25.2 NC 7828.9 22.9 9.7 12.4 13.0 22.3 25.6 24.0 NC 7863 4.0 25.8 6.9 9.9 12.4 20.5 24.3 24.2 PD 7 1.9 23.1 9.0 11.9 13.5 20.6 24.6 24.1 Speight G-18 1.2 18.9 9.5 12.2 14.0 22.1 25.8 24.9 Spe ight G- 28.9 21.7 9.1 11.5 13.4 20.5?4.0 24.8 Speight G-131 1.8 18.7 9.3 12.7 13.8 20.8 25.5 24.8 Speight G-111 2.8 22.6 11.0 13.6 14.8 21.0 23.9 22.8 Speight G-112 2.5 23.3 10.2 13.0 14.6 20.7 24.9 25.4 Speight G-130.2 14.3 9.0 12.4 14.0 21.1 25.7 25.9 Reams 301-76 3.8 28.1 10.6 13.3 14.8 22.3 25.4 25.2 L.S.D. (.05).8 2.2.8.8.7.9.9 1.0 (.01) 1.0 2.9 1.0 1.0.9 1.2 1.2 1.3 C.V. ( % ) 4 11 4
22 WHITEVILLE, ROCKY MOUNT,. KINSTON and REIDSVILLE Table 3. Comparison of varieties in 1968 for certain characteristics, for four locations. Analysis of Cured Leaf Ratios Varieties Nic. Sol. Sug. Tot. N. Nor.Nic. T.N. Sug. or Lines % % % % Nic. Nic. Commercially Available Varieties Hicks Broad1eaf 3.62 18.43 2.28.14.63 5.64 NC 95 3.48 17.71 2.22.15.64 5.46 Bell 93 3.50 17,.37 2.28.15.66 5.38 Coker 254 3.37 15.99 2.08.09.62 5.18 Coker 258 3.42 16.73 2.18.17.65 5.41 Coker 319 3.01 16.69 2.23.10.75 5.99 McNair 14 3.44 17.49 2.39.29.70 5.43 McNair 30 3.48 17.48 2.22.11.64 5.46 NC 2326 3.30 19.18 2.13.12.65 6.34 SC 66 3.35 16.38 2.22.19.66 5.18 Speight G-7 3.30 19.23 2.10.21.64 6.30 Speight G-13 3.10 18.87 2.10.24.68 6.38 Speight G-36.3.22 18.09 2.17.09.68 6.17 v«. 115 3.47 19.83 2.21.22.64 6.35 Advanced Breeding Lines Coker 65-213S 3.54 16.71 2.16.17.61 4.94 Coker 66-411 3.44 17.43 2.28.23.67 5.45 McNair 107 3.49 19.32 2.14.20.62 6.09 McNair 116 3.36 20.53 2.10.11.63 6.38 McNair 121 3.61 18.33 2.18.12.61 5.63 McNair 128 3.29 20.52 2.04.28.63 6.88 McNair 171 2.90 19.29 2.04.09.70 7.08 McNair 6133 3.24 17.26 2.28.14.71 5.74 NC TG-11 3.65 18.45 2.18.16.60 5.56 NC 5520 2.84 16.64 2.23.11.79 6.39 NC 5813 3.29 19.65 2.23.23.69 6.76 NC 6129 2.63 17.65 2.31.12.89 7.52 NC 6112 3.05 16.27 2.14.07.71 5.76 NC 6776 2.94 19.95 1.96.15.67 7.31 NC 6797 3.70 17.73 2.28.18.62 5.22 NC 6800 3..39 17.84 2.19.13.65 5.73 NC 6855-2 3.33 19.07 2.15.20.65 6.12 NC 6857-C 3.54 18.06 2.24.25.64 5.59 NC 6983-5 2.46 15.39 2.25.23.93 6.91 NC 7006 3.03 18.31 2.00.14.66 6.55 NC 7008 3.00 19.37 1. 99.18.66 6.99 NC 7054 3.20 18.03 2.05.14.64 6.01 NC 7082 3.64 16.68 2.24.23.61 4.89 NC 7102 4.07 17.58 2.44.16.60 4.70 NC 7547 3.79 15.11 2.35.11.62 4.21 NC 7805 3.21 18.68 2.20.16.69 6.39 NC 7828 2.99 20.96 2.03.10.68 7.76 NC 7863 2.73 17.23 2.15.12.79 6.85 PD 7 3.32 17.27 2.12.16.64 5.58 Speight G-18 3.12 18.32 2.14.16.69 6.27 Speight G-28 3.05 16.09 2.16.12.71 5.57 Speight G-131 3.13 18.60 2.04.19.65 6.21 Speight G-111 3.50 17.97 2.12.20.61 5.42 Speight G-112 2.10 18.91 1.88.09.91 9.69 Speight G-130 3.16 1'9.91 2.08.13.66 6.97 Reams 301-76 2.84 16.01 2.22.17.79 6.10 LoS.D. (.05).28 1.56.13.08.04 1.04 (.01).37 2.04.17.10.06 1.37 C.V. ( % ) 10 10 17
23 WHITEVILLE, ROCKY MOUNT, KINSTON and REIDSVILLE Table 4. Comparison of varieties in 1968 for certain characteristics at two fertility levels for four locations. Yield Value Price Lbs/A $/A /Cwt. Q.1. Variety N. L. N. L. N. L. N. L. Commercially Available Varieties Hicks Broad1eaf 2135 2175 1475 1510 68.62 69.19 35.3 31.5 NC 95 2259 2180 1500 1459 66.42 66.94 35.8 35.8 Bell 93 2255 2240 1508 1521 66.69 67.71 38.1 36.2 Coker 254 2555 2338 1719 1581 67.17 67.60 41.5 33.6 Coker 258 2433 2300 1620 1542 66.45 66.99 35.9 35.8 Coker 319 2251 2183 1529 1490 67.82 68.20 33.3 32.8 McNair 14 2174 2165 1513 1493 69.39 68.87 34.2 35.3 McNair 30 2285 2207 1519 1497 66.39 67.76 37.9 36.5 NC 2326 2249 2253 1569 1568 69.67 69.39 33.6 32.8 SC 66 2254 2222 1498 1493 66.24 66.91 37.6 36.7 Speight G-7 2492 2317 1756 1614 70.39 69.53 33.1 32.8 Speight G-13 2469 2318 1630 1529 65.85 65.92 38.4 36.9 Speight G-36 2426 2368 1592 1568 65.55 66.20 37.7 37.0 v«. 115 2333 2398 1554 1654 66.63 68.86 37.5 34.4 Advanced Breeding Lines Coker 65-213S 2379 2295 1582 1549 66.39 67.41 38.8 36.2 Coker 66-411 2218 2229 1492 1496 67.12 67.02 36.0 36.4 McNair 107 2403 2294 1653 1601 68.69 69.65 35.1 33.6 McNair 116 2512 2475 1716 1696 68.35 68.49 35.6 35.0 McNair 121 2428 2199 1641 1525 67.66 69.40 35.4 32.8 McNair 128 2635 2669 1789 1831 67.75 68.58 35.5 34.3 McNair 171 2621 2501 1766 1716 67.08 68.43 37.2 35.7 McNair 6133 2354 2245 1579 1574 66.98 70.01 36.0 34.6 NC TG-11 2618 2580 1727 1727 65.99 66.93 36.9 35.8 NC 5520 2174 2080 1496 1441 68.39 69.25 34.2 33.5 NC 5813 2344 2316 1602 1610 68.15 69.28 36.1 34.8 NC 6129 2215 2271 1537 1597 69.17 70.24 32.1 31.6 NC 6112 2360 2362 1615 1625 68.29 68.60 35.1 33.4 NC 6776 2622 2609 1784 1802 67.79 68.88 35.9 34.8 NC 6797 2334 2300 1601 1557 68.57 67.61 36.0 35.8 NC 6800 2471 2368 1637 1601 66.02 67.38 38.0 35.8 NC 6855-2 2732 2635 1888 1814 68.89 68.61 34.6 33.3 NC 6857-C 2495 2385 1669 1601 66.94 67.12 35.8 35.0 NC 6983-5 2477 2406 1664 1601 67.07 66.48 36.1 35.6 NC 7006 2903 2710 1971 1863 67.87 68.64 34.3 32.3 NC 7008 2781 2713 1901 1847 68.24 68.06 34.7 35.1 NC 7054 2392 2210 1624 1500 67.58 67.72 36.9 35.1 NC 7082 2396 2243 1595 1535 66.57 68.40 36.9 32.8 NC 7102 2217 2096 1503 1422 67.71 67.73 35.5 34.1 NC 7547 2189 2091 1391 1366 63.37 65.39 40.2 38.7 NC 7805 2450 2381 1680 1632 68.36 68.62 35.5 34.7 NC 7828 2455 2469 1699 1704 68.89 68.77 34.9 33.3 NC 7863 2570 2384 1737 1618 67.58 67.67 34.6 33.7 PD 7 2473 2210 1659 1492 66.83 67.29 37.4 35.5 Speight G-18 2552 2270 1699 1528 66.45 67.30 37.1 36.2 Speight G-28 2306 2340 1525 1562 66.02 66.78 37.3 35.4 Speight G-131 2501 2453 1690 1683 67.48 68.63 35.6 33.9 Speight G-111 2393 2255 1614 1559 67.42 69.01 37.5 35.2 Speight G-112 2672 2559 1868 1778 69.80 69.43 35.9 33.0 Speight G-130 2630 2470 1738 1659 66.18 67.13 36.7 36.5 Reams 301-76 2291 2198 1530 1517 66.63 68.82 36.5 33.9 L.S.D. (.05) 152 152 124 124 2.68 2.68 2.4 2.4 (.01) 200 200 163 163 3.53 3.53 3.2 3.2 C.V. ( % )
24 WHITEVILLE, ROCKY MOUNT, KINSTON and REIDSVILLE Table 4. Continued. Comparison of varieties in 1968 for certain characteristics at two fertility levels for four locations. Nic. Sol. Sug, T/T. N. Nor. Nic. % % % % Variety N. L. N. L. N. L. N. L. Commercially Available Varieties Hicks Broad1eaf 3.82 3.41 18.37 18.50 2.29 2.26.16.13 NC 95 3.69 3.26 17.23 18.19 2.26 2.18.16.15 Bell 93 3.50 3.50 17.28 17.47 2.29 2.28.18.11 Coker 254 3.46 3.28 15.25 16.72 2.13 2.03.09.10 Coker 258 3.43 3.40 16.20 17.27 2.24 2.12.15.18 Coker 319 2.94 3.08 15.49 17.89 2.28 2.18.15.05 McNair 14 3.51 3.37 17.39 17.60 2.39 2.39.25.32 McNair 30 3.61 3.35 17.02 17.94 2.30 2.13.14.07 NC 2326 3.38 3.22 18.05 20.31 2.21 2.05.13.12 SC 66 3.48 3.22 15.56 17.20 2.29 2.14.21.16 Speight G-7 3.33 3.27 18.59 19.87 2.16 2.05.28.14 Speight G-13 3.21 2.98 17.26 20.49 2.20 2.00.33.16 Speight G-36 3.36 3.08 17.18 19.00 2.24 2.10.09.09 Va. 115 3.67 3.28 18.78 20.88 2.33 2.10.26.19 Advanced Breeding Lines Coker 65-213S 3.71 3.37 16.03 17.40 2.24 2.08.15.20 Coker 66-411 3.52 3.36 16.86 18.00 2.35 2.22.26.20 McNair 107 3.48 3.50 18.67 19.97 2.19 2.10.26.13 McNair 116 3.34 3.38 19.84 21.22 2.11 2.09.13.10 McNair 121 3.62 3.60 17.54 19.13 2.19 2.16.12.11 McNair 128 3.39 3.18 19.38 21.65 2.13 1.96.27.28 McNair 171 3.01 2.78 18.92 19.67 2.11 1.96.11.08 McNair 6133 3.31 3.16 16.25 18.27 2.32 2.24.15.13 NC TG-11 3.79 3.51 18.03 18.86 2.27 2.10.14.18 NC 5520 2.84 2.84 15.96 17.32 2.25 2.22.12.09 NC 5813 3.43 3.14 18.85 20.46 2.35 2.11.29.17 NC 6129 2.65 2.60 16.79 18.52 2.36 2.26.15.09 NC 6112 2.98 3.11 15.75 16.79 2.09 2.19.07.07 NC 6776 3.01 2.87 19.41 20.48 2.02 1. 91.15.14 NC 6797 3.75 3.65 17.79 17.67 2.34 2.22.12.24 NC 6800 3.51 3.27 16.90 18.78 2.26 2.12.18.08 NC 6855-2 3.48 3.18 18.24 19.89 2.19 2.10.22.19 NC 6857-C 3.69 3.39 17.75 18.37 2.31 2.18.28.22 NC 6983-5 2.53 2.39 14.84 15.94 2.35 2.16.30.16 NC 7006 3.17 2.90 17.20 19.42 2.09 1. 91.14.13 NC 7008 3.11 2.89 18.70 20.03 2.03 1.94.18.19 NC 7054 3.39 3.00 17.98 18.08 2.12 1. 97.14.14 NC 7082 3.68 3.60 15.60 17.76 2.34 2.13.24.22 NC 7102 4.06 4.08 17.24 17.93 2.46 2.43.20.12 NC 7547 3.93 3.64 14.84 15.37 2.40 2.29.14.09 NC 7805 3.43 2.99 18.14 19.21 2.29 2.10.17.15 NC 7828 3.05 2.93 20.32 21.60 2.07 1.99.10.09 NC 7863 2.83 2.63 17.12 17.34 2.19 2.11.14.09 PD 7 3.35 3.30 16.03 18.51 2.19 2.04.15.16 Speight G-18 3.37 2.86 17.60 19.03 2.25 2.03.18.14 Speight G-28 3.07 3.03 15.27 16.91 2.19 2.12.11.12 Speight G-131 3.11 3.15 18.49 18.71 2.06 2.02.24.14 Speight G-111 3.57 3.42 16.58 19.35 2.15 2.10.16.23 Speight G-112 2.04 2.16 18.15 19.67 1.90 1.86.13.05 Speight G-130 3.25 3.07 19.73 20.08 2.15 2.00.11.14 Reams 301-76 2.88 2.79 15.09 16.93 2.30 2.15.23.12 L.S.D. (.05).39.39 2.20 2.20.18.18.11.11 (.01).52.52 2.89 2.89.23.23.15.15 C.V. ( % ) 10 10 10 10
25 Table 5. Summary information on disease resistance. Level of Resistance Varieties Black Granville Fusarium Spot 1 1 31 or Lines Shank Wilt Wilt Brown Root Knot- Commercially Available Varieties Hicks Broad1eaf Susc. Susc. Low Tolerant Susc. NC 95 High High High Tolerant Resistant Bell 93 Mod. Sus. Mod. Sen. Susc. Coker 254 High High Mod. Tolerant Resistant Coker 258 High High High Tolerant Resistant Coker 319 Mod. Low Mod. Tolerant Susc. McNair 14 Mod. High Susc. Tolerant Susc. McNair 30 Mod. Susc. Low Tolerant Susc. NC 2326 Mod. Susc. Low Tolerant Susc. SC 66 High High High Tolerant Resistant Speight G-7 Mod. Low Susc. Tolerant Susc, Speight G-13 Mod. Mod. Low Tolerant Seg. Speight G-36 High High Low Sen. susc, v«. 115 Mod. Low Susc. Tolerant Susc. Advanced Breeding Lines.!.1 Coker 65-213S High Mod. High Tolerant Susc. Coker 66-411 Mod. Low Low Tolerant Susc. McNair 107 R R S McNair 116 R R S McNair 121 R S S McNair 128 R S S McNair 171 R R S McNair 6133 High High Low Sensitive Susc. NC TG-11 R S S NC 5520 S R R R NC 5813 Mod. Low Mod. Sen. Res. NC 6129 R R R R NC 6112 R R R R NC 6776 R R S R NC 6797 R R R R NC 6800 R R R R NC 6855-2 R R S R NC 6857-C R R R R NC 6983-5 R R R R NC 7006 R R S NC 7008 R R S NC 7054 R R S NC 7082 R R S R NC 7102 R R S R NC 7547 S R R R NC 7805 S R R R NC 7828 R R R R NC 7863 R R S R PD 7 High High High Tolerant Res. Speight G-18 Mod. Mod. Mod. Tolerant Susc, Speight G-28 High High Mod. Tolerant Res. Speight G-13l R R S R Speight G-111 R R S Speight G-112 R R S Speight G-130 R R S R Reams 301-76 Mod. Mod. Mod. Tolerant Susc. 11Ratings for level of resistance based on data for 1 year R = Resistance 11Tolerance does not mean resistance. For example: brown spot may cause damage on all varieties under conditions favorable for disease development. Breeding lines are not rated. 1/Resistant to Meloidogyne incognita, most prevalent species of root knot nematode occurring on flue-cured tobacco.
26 TV 185 Whiteville 1968 Table 6. Comparison of varieties for certain characteristics. Days Leaves Height Varieties Yield Value Index to per of Internode Length or Lines Lbs/A Dol/A Do1/ewt. Q. I. Flower Plant Plant 0-10" 10-20" 20"-top Commercially Available Varieties Hicks Broad1eaf 2450 1757 71.69 33.0 50 17.3 43 1.7 2.4 3.2 NC 95 2459 1676 68.10 35.5 57 20.4 42 1.7 2.3 2.2 Bell 93 2463 1701 69.08 35.3 54 18.2 46 1.7 2.4 3.1 Coker 254 2583 1809 69.97 34.3 64 23.5 50 1.7 2.3 2.3 Coker 258 2579 1740 67.44 36.5 60 22.6 46 1.7 2.3 2.1 Coker 319 2480 1676 67.55 32.7 58 22.4 48 1.7 2.2 2.3 McNair 14 2334 1656 70.91 31.8 56 20.2 44 1.6 2.5 2.4 McNair 30 2393 1655 69.16 35.2 54 19.0 45 1.7 2.2 3.1 NC 2326 2528 1802 71. 28 31.5 49 17.9 43 1.7 2.3 3.1 SC 66 2453 1675 68.18 39.2 58 20.7 46 1.7 2.3 2.5 Speight G-7 2648 1875 70.83 34.4 55 21. 9 46 1.7 2.4 2.2 Speight G-13 2676 1806 67.46 38.2 61 21.3 48 1.7 2.6 2.4 Speight G-36 2627 1768 67.30 36.0 61 22.1 47 1.7 2.3 2.3 Va. 115 2619 1810 69.09 36.7 55 19.2 42 1.7 2.3 2.5 Advanced Breeding Lines Coker 65-213S 2486 1687 67.83 37.8 59 23.0 50 1.7 2.5 2.3 Coker 66-411 2456 1696 69.08 36.1 56 20.3 44 1.7 2.4 2.4 McNair 107 2499 1768 70.74 35.4 54 17.9 40 1.6 2.1 2.8 McNair 116 2654 1798 67.71 37.2 58 21.5 43 1.5 2.1 2.3 McNair 121 2495 1699 68.15 34.8 57 20.4 40 1.6 2.1 2.3 McNair 128 2819 1983 70.39 37.1 55 19.2 42 1.7 2.2 2.5 McNair 171 2856 1981 69.33 36.9 58 21.1 49 1.7 2.4 2.7 McNair 6133 2498 1756 70.35 34.5 57 21.4 47 1.6 2.3 2.5 NC TG-11 2823 1858 65.82 36.0 57 22.5 46 1.6 2.3 2.1 NC 5520 2420 1714 70.74 33.2 54 20.6 45 1.6 2.4 2.4 NC 5813 2552 1810 70.93 37.3 51 18.4 42 1.6 2.3 2.8 NC 6129 2541 1825 71.78 31. 3 55 18.4 43 1.7 2.4 2.9 NC 6112 2588 1786 68.94 35.4 57 19.6 44 1.6 2.3 2.7 NC 6776 2841 2016 70.98 35.4 57 18.8 42 1.7 2.3 2.6 NC 6797 2550 1795 70.40 34.2 55 20.3 45 1.6 2.3 2.6 NC 6800 2598 1787 68.74 36.7 58 20.9 47 1.7 2.3 2.6 NC 6855-2 2843 2006 70.54 33.7 57 18.5 44 1.7 2.2 3.0 NC 6857-C 2588 1733 66.99 36.9 56 18.3 45 1.7 2.4 3.0 NC 6983-5 2607 1792 68.69 36.8 56 20.5 46 1.6 2.4 2.6 NC 7006 3021 2107 69.71 33.7 64 24.0 55 1.6 2.5 2.5 NC 7008 3020 2112 69.94 34.1 59 22.8 51 1.7 2.5 2.4 NC 7054 2655 1832 69.00 36.3 58 21.3 46 1.7 2.3 2.3 NC 7082 2493 1665 66.76 37.6 58 20.8 40 1.6 2.1 2.1 NC 7102 2310 1581 68.43 36.2 57 20.0 47 1.7 2.6 2.7 NC 7547 2351 1485 63.17 39.2 55 18.1 45 1.8 2.6 2.8 NC 7805 2622 1833 69.89 37.9 58 20.2 46 1.7 2.0 2.8 NC 7828 2742 1946 70.92 33.1 55 19.3 44 1.6 2.3 2.8 NC 7863 2655 1865 70.19 35.4 63 23.5 48 1.6 2.0 2.3 PD 7 2532 1758 69.47 37.5 58 20.6 44 1.7 2.3 2.3 Speight G-18 2622 1769 67.44 37.8 57 20.2 46 1.6 2.2 2.7 Speight G-28 2454 1640 66.84 36.6 56 20.6 41 1.7 2.0 2.2 Speight G-131 2736 1860 67.91 35.6 62 22.3 46 1.6 2.4 2.2 Speight G-111 2580 1809 70.12 35.8 55 19.1 45 1.6 2.3 2.9 Speight G-112 2796 1995 71. 22 33.6 61 22.9 51 1.7 2.3 2.5 Speight G-130 2751 1835 66.68 36.8 61 22.2 48 1.6 2.2 2.4 Reams 301-76 2379 1645 69.08 33.5 59 20.0 38 1.7 2.2 1.9 L.S.D. (.05) 147 119 2.13 2.7 1.6 N.S..2.3 (.01) 193 156 2.80 3.6 2.1 N.S..3.4 C.V. ( % ) 4 4
27 TV 185 Whiteville 1968 Table 6. Continued. Comparison of varieties' for certain characteristics. Suckers per plant Width of leaf (Ln, ) Length of leaf (in. ) Varieties Ground Leaf Axi 1 5th 10th 15th 5th 10th 15th Commercially Available Varieties Hicks Broad1eaf 1.2 26.2 9.3 13.1 14.9 23.0 26.0 24.8 NC 95.9 25.6 8.8 11.8 14.4 19.4 22.9 24.1 Bell 93 1.2 28.1 9.0 11.9 15.2 22.1 25.4 26.2 Coker 254 3.3 25.8 8.6 10.4 13.6 18.0 21.1 23.4 Coker 258.9 21.4 7.9 10.4 13.4 19.1 22.0 25.4 Coker 319.8 27.3 8.2 10.8 14.8 20.6 24.1 26.5 McNair 14.4 22.9 9.5 11. 5 14.5 20.8 23.3 24.6 McNair 30 1.2 23.7 8.9 11.4 15.2 21.1 24.6 25.8 NC 2326 0 25.0 9.2 12.5 14.8 23.5 25.6 24.7 SC 66.5 21.6 8.1 11.1 13.9 19.6 23.3 24.7 Speight G-7 2.2 26.0 8.9 11.8 15.2 19.2 23.2 24.6 Speight G-13.8 21. 7 8.3 10.9 15.2 18.0 22.0 24.1 Speight G-36.1 23.3 9.0 11.4 14.8 20.5 23.0 24.8 Va. 115.6 22.3 7.6 10.7 14.9 19.4 23.2 24.7 Advanced Breeding Lines Coker 65-213S 4.0 26.5 9.3 12.1 16.2 19.3 23.7 25.9 Coker 66-411.8 23.8 8.0 10.6 14.6 19.4 23.5 25.5 McNair 107.4 25.1 9.1 11. 7 14.2 20.8 24.4 24.3 McNair 116.9 24.0 8.1 11.7 14.8 19.6 23.6 24.2 McNair 121.4 26.7 8.2 10.7 14.2 19.1 22.8 24.5 McNair 128 1.2 25.3 9.3 12.1 15.4 22.3 24.6 25.3 McNair 171.1 23.4 8.8 11.0 16.0 21.2 24.7 27.0 McNair 6133 2.9 24.1 9.1 11.0 14.8 19.5 22.8 24.9 NC TG-11 1.0 26.2 7.2 9.4 12.7 20.5 23.4 25.3 NC 5520 6.0 30.3 8.5 11.0 15.0 20.8 23.7 26.6 NC 5813 0 23.8 9.2 12.3 14.7 22.0 25.4 25.3 NC 6129 3.6 24.1 9.9 13.1 16.0 20.9 25.0 25.6 NC 6112 1.5 22.2 9.2 12.5 16.1 20.7 24.2 25.8 NC 6776.4 26.8 8.9 11.3 14.8 19.7 23.4 25.1 NC 6797.9 29.7 9.3 12.3 15.3 23.2 26.5 27.1 NC 6800 1.1 25.4 8.0 11.4 14.7 19.1 23.7 25.3 NC 6855-2 0 24.6 8.7 10.6 14.3 20.9 24.6 25.4 NC 6857-C.1 25.7 9.5 11.8 14.7 21.4 24.3 25.6 NC 6983-5 1.6 24.8 7.8 11.1 15.2 18.9 24.7 26.1 NC 7006 4.2 21.6 9.0 12.3 15.3 18.0 21.0 24.6 NC 7008 4.3 25.6 8.9 11.1 15.1 18.3 20.7 25.0 NC 7054 5.9 26.2 9.6 12.6 16.6 19.5 23.4 25.7 NC 7082 1.9 28.1 7.9 10.8 13.8 19.4 23.4 24.6 NC 7102.9 23.7 8.3 10.8 13.8 20.3 23.2 24.4 NC 7547.3 16.3 10.1 12.6 16.1 21.5 25.1 25.2 NC 7805.3 28.5 8.9 11.3 14.3 20.1 24.1 25.3 NC 7828 0 21.3 9.2 11.8 14.0 20.8 24.8 25.2 NC 7863 2.2 26.8 6.2 8.8 13.4 18.6 22.4 24.1 PD 7.7 25.4 8.5 11.0 14.3 19.8 23.0 24.3 Speight G-18.4 21.6 9.1 11.6 14.9 21.3 25.0 25.7 Speight G-28.1 22.8 8.7 10.7 14.2 19.0 22.3 25.1 Speight G-131.7 20.9 8.7 11.8 14.2 19.2 23.8 24.6 Speight G-111 1.8 22.3 9.8 13.0 16.0 19.5 23.1 24.2 Speight G-112 1.5 24.8 9.0 11.9 15.0 19.1 23.1 25.6 Speight G-130.1 15.8 8.2 10.7 14.2 19.5 23.8 26.4 Reams 301-76 3.3 29.3 8.6 11.6 14.7 19.8 23.3 25.0 L.S.D. (.05).9 3.3 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.9 1.5 1.4 (.01) 1.2 4.3 1.3 1.5 1.8 2.5 1.9 1.8 C.V. ( % ) 47 10 4
28 TV 185 Whiteville 1968 Table 6. Continued. Comparison of Varieties for Certain Characteristics. Analysis of Cured Leaf Ratios Varieties Nic. Sol. Sug. Tot. N. NorNic. T.N. Sug. or Lines % % % % Nic. Nic. Conunercia11y Available Varieties Hicks Broad1eaf 3.46 20.31 2.05.11.61 6.13 NC 95 3.48 20.14 2.11.08.61 5.79 Bell 93 3.24 19.15 2.06.10.64 5.93 Coker 254 3.29 17.62 1.94.08.59 5.40 Coker 258 3.62 17.21 2.08.16.58 4.87 Coker 319 3.06 17.23 2.16.13.71 5.64 McNair 14 3.34 19.18 2.24.23.67 5.77 McNair 30 3.21 19.32 2.01.07.63 6.06 NC 2326 3.24 20.31 1.96.04.61 6.32 SC 66 3.32 17.73 2.07.23.63 5.39 Speight G-7 3.26 20.87 1. 99.13.61 6.41 Speight G-13 3.29 20.10 2.07.17.63 6.18 Speight G-36 3.69 17.88 2.16.04.58 4.90 v«. 115 3.36 21.13 2.11.21.63 6.36 Advanced Breeding Lines Coker 65-213S 3.45 19.42 2.00.16.58 5.68 Coker 66-411 3.52 18.60 2.13.25.61 5.40 McNair 107 3.45 19.73 2.04.35.59 5.75 McNair 116 3.41 21.97 1.93.06.57 6.47 McNair 121 3.74 18.31 2.10.06.56 4.94 McNair 128 3.39 21.18 1.82.08.54 6.26 McNair 171 2.81 21. 48 1. 77.04.63 7.68 McNair 6133 2.96 18.87 2.08.13.70 6.41 NC TG-l1 3.62 19.23 2.03.14.56 5.41 NC 5520 2.88 19.04 2.04.02.71 6.63 NC 5813 3.20 20.87 2.08.26.65 6.56 NC 6129 2.54 20.14 2.08.06.82 7.99 NC 6112 3.18 17.65 2.11.09.67 5.58 NC 6776 2.91 22.91 1. 79.08.62 7.89 NC 6797 3.62 17.98 2.13.12.59 5.00 NC 6800 3.29 18.83 2.06.11.63 5.73 NC 6855-2 3.37 20.32 2.03.25.61 6.15 NC 6857-C 3.62 18.26 2.20.36.61 5.15 NC 6983-5 2.65 15.84 2.22.21.84 5.97 NC 7006 3.10 20.08 1. 99.11.64 6.50 NC 7008 2.88 22.39 1.85.18.65 7.89 NC 7054 3.13 20.80 1.90.12.61 6.66 NC 7082 3.74 14.99 2.23.27.60 4.05 NC 7102 4.15 18.16 2.30.18.55 4.41 NC 7547 3.77 16.47 2.16.11.57 4.41 NC 7805 3.29 17.56 2.18.12.66 5.38 NC 7828 2.88 22.90 1.86.06.65 7.97 NC 7863 2.86 19.21 1.94.02.68 6.71 PD 7 3.37 18.89 1.99.14.59 5.63 Speight G-18 3.18 19.39 2.01.16.63 6.14 Speight G-28 2.96 17.33 1.98.11.67 5.85 Speight G-131 3.14 19.97 1.91.20.61 6.43 Speight G-111 3.80 19.78 1.98.08.52 5.22 Speight G-112 2.42 20.72 1.90.02.79 8.55 Speight G-130 3.23 20.40 1.98.07.61 6.35 Reams 301-76 2.82 16.22 2.13.14.76 5.79 L.S.D. (.05).38 2.53.18.15.06 1.18 (.01).50 3.33.24.20.08 1.55 C.V. ( % ) 80 14