burley tobacco field test data 2006 - uky.edu
TRANSCRIPT
BURLEY TOBACCO FIELD TEST DATA
2006
GARY PALMER EXTENSION TOBACCO SPECIALIST
Cooperative Extension Service
University of Kentucky * College of Agriculture
Contents ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................... i PROCEDURE..................................................................................................................... i SPECIAL NOTES ...............................................................................................................ii VARIETY TRIALS.............................................................................................................. 1 FERTILIZER STUDIES.................................................................................................... 12 CURING STUDIES .......................................................................................................... 20 INSECTICIDE TRIALS..................................................................................................... 22 FUNGICIDE TRIALS........................................................................................................ 24 MH-FREE SUCKER CONTROL ...................................................................................... 26
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The information contained in this publication is due to the efforts of many people. Cooperators are indicated with each graph and without their extra efforts the tests would have not been possible. County agricultural agents are an integral part of the on-farm tobacco testing program at the University of Kentucky and are often responsible for locating cooperators and coordinating crop management. Agents in many cases also may suggest projects of importance in their specific county. The following county extension agents deserve considerable credit for their work and supervision of the test plots; Anderson County - Tommy Yankey, Boyle County - Jerry Little, Fayette County – Josh Long, Harrison County - Gary Carter, Madison County – John Wilson, Taylor County - Pat Hardesty, and Woodford County – Ben Meredith. This is by no means a complete list of those agents involved in the tobacco research efforts. Many others were involved in various projects not represented here. Special thanks are due Austin Perkins and Keith Johnson, summer interns, for their help with test plot establishment, chemical and fertilizer application, data collection, and data entry.
The following companies provided support in the form of materials and grants to support the research contained in this report; Chemtura Corporation, Clay’s Seed, Inc; Council for Burley Tobacco, FMC Corporation; F.W. Rickard Seed; Yara North America; Newton Seed; Philip Morris, USA; SQM North America; Syngenta Crop Protection; Valent, USA; and Workman Tobacco Seed.
PROCEDURE
Test plots are arranged in a randomized complete block design and each treatment is replicated at least four times. The general plot size is four rows wide by at least 25 feet long unless the experiment requires extra area. The two center rows are used for collection of data with outside rows used as border rows. Four sticks are harvested out of each plot in the experiment for yield determination. The four sticks are tagged with the same individual number representing that plot and combined as a single crop. The tobacco is stripped into three or four grades to determine treatment effects on the plant at different stalk positions. Results are analyzed for statistical difference and mean separation was by least significant difference (LSD). A confidence level of 0.05 was used and the LSD value is included on most of the graphs of means. LSD values are listed on the right side of each yield graph where applicable and are color coded to match stalk positions or other measurements. To determine statistical differences mean differences must be greater than the LSD value to be considered significant at a 95% confidence that the difference is due to treatment effects.
ii
SPECIAL NOTES
Measurable differences between treatments do not necessarily mean statistical differences. A statistical difference is one that would have a high probability of occurring under normal farming conditions. In other words, a farmer could count on similar results under the same conditions.
The use of a variety or chemical in a test does not imply endorsement. The use of chemicals on an experimental basis, combinations of chemicals and cultural practices used in experimental tests are not a recommendation of those procedures. Labels should be checked and an appropriate specialist consulted before recommendations are made. Chemicals used for certain tests are for evaluation of application timing and do not imply that other chemicals labeled for the same problem with similar efficacy would not produce similar results. A variety, chemical or cultural practice should never be condemned or praised based only on one test.
Chemicals used on an experimental basis are in the test phase and may never be labeled for use in tobacco. These tests look for effectiveness and best rates. A successful chemical trial does not assure labeling of that chemical. There are many factors that are considered before a particular chemical is labeled for use.
Variety Trials 2006
Weather, as usual, was of significant influence on variety trials in Kentucky during 2006. All varieties performed exceptional well at the Robert Eads farm with KT 204 taking top yield honors as it did in Taylor County where excessive rainfall took it toll on many of the other varieties. Both NC 6 & NC 7 are high yielding varieties but are big and hard to handle. Both suffered under excess rainfall. N 7371 was a good yielder in several locations, but the lowest in one. It has narrow strappy leaves which do not detract from the cured leaf. KT 206 performed well in all locations. In Harrison Co. where the race of black shank is suspected to be predominately race 0. 14 x L8, NC 6, and KT 206 all have a 10 rating for race 0 black shank. However, KT 206 has a 7 rating to race 1 where 14 x L8 has a 0 and NC 6 has a 3 rating. In areas with high incidence of Race 1 KT 206 is expected to outperform 14 x L8 and NC 6. Varieties KTH 2405, KTH 2406, R304 and R307 are all experimental and may not be released.
1
Yield Ranking of Varieties for Each of 4 Trials
0
1
2
3
4
5
Freq
uenc
y
1st 2nd 3rd Last
1st 1 2 1 12nd 1 2 1 13rd 1 2 1 1Last 2 1 1 1
HB04P
14 x L8* KT204 KT206 KTH24
05KTH24
06 N 7371 NC 5* NC 6 NC 7 R304 R 307* TN 90LCB
Locations: Anderson, Fayette, Harrison, Taylor, & Woodford (* in only 1 trial)
2
Burley Tobacco YieldAnderson Co. – Danny Crouch Farm
260 365 270 343 382 272 341 316 326 430697
829 782 737 676562
774 654 8611026
493794 794 833 852
700776 1034
1392 580
587
476
509435
310
392430596606
428
2622305525142326184423022344244325941879
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
HB04P
KT 204
KT 206
KTH24
05KTH
2406
N 7371
NC 6
NC 7
R 304*
TN 9
0LCB
Yie
ld lb
/a
Flyings Lugs Leaf Tips Total
*Only 3 replications of R 304 survived due to severe weather effects. 3
Black Shank Incidence in a Burley Tobacco Trial
Harrison Co. – Ricci Rowland Farm
00.78
0 00.78
0
4.7
11.7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
HB04P K14 X L8 KT 204 KT 206 KTH2405 KTH2406 NC 6 TN 90
%
4
Burley Tobacco Vigor – Early Season Harrison Co. – Ricci Rowland Farm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
HB04P K14 X L8 KT 204 KT 206 KTH2405 KTH2406 NC 6 TN 90
%
5
Black Shank, Target Spot Incidence & Burley Tobacco Vigor – Late Season Harrison Co. – Ricci Rowland Farm
0102030405060708090
HB04PK14 X
L8
KT 204
KT 206
KTH2405KTH2406
NC 6
TN 90
LSD 0
.05
%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
% Black Shank % Vigor Target Spot (Rating (1-10)6
Burley Tobacco YieldHarrison Co. – Ricci Rowland Farm
203 235 311 269 317 279 281 208
9321399 1153 1248 1095 1071 1257
1064
470
715623 670 701 650
780692
83
354
183244
336326 315 337
276
322
307 86
1849 2685 2412 2502 2450 2275 2639 2270 625
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
HB04P
K14XL8
KT204
KT206
KTH24
05
KTH24
06
NC6
TN90 LS
D
Yie
ld lb
/a
Flyings Lugs Leaf Tips Total
7
Burley Tobacco YieldFayette Co. – Robert Eads Farm
502 689 665 678 649 627 686 767 630 740
18161905 1720 1627 1653 1722 1786 1768
15541796
758722
623 597 617 791 783 706682
672
3209286732403255313929202901300833163077
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
HB04P
KT 20
4
KT 20
6KTH
2405
KTH24
06
N 737
1
NC 6
NC 7
R 304
TN 9
0LCB
Yie
ld lb
/a
Flyings Lugs Leaf Total8
Burley Tobacco YieldTaylor Co. – Chad Sullivan Farm
376 424 394 419 404 373 357 526 402
7031130 1020 978 940
730 848968
868
620
718 764 694 690607 611
714649
505
682554 599 591
555634
546538
194
280
210
137
2204 2954 2732 2690 2624 2265 2449 2754 6492458
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
HB04P
KT 204
KT 206
KTH24
05KTH
2406
NC 6
NC 7
R 304
TN90
LCB
LSD
Yie
ld lb
/a
FLYINGS LUGS LEAF TIPS TOTAL9
Burley Tobacco Vigor Woodford Co. – Rusty Thompson Farm
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
HB04P KT204
KT206
KTH2405
KTH2406
N7371
NC 5 NC 6 NC 7 R 307 TN 90LCB
Rat
ing(
1-10
)
Vigor1 Vigor2 10
Burley Tobacco Stalk Diameter at HarvestWoodford Co. – Rusty Thompson Farm
1.2
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
1.55
HB04PKT 2
04KT 2
06KTH 2
405KTH 2
406N 7371
NC 5
NC 6
NC 7
R 307
TN 90 LC
B
Inch
es
LSD 0.05 = 0.1211
Burley Tobacco YieldWoodford Co. – Rusty Thompson Farm
337 380 445 357 400 388 314 399 395 401 304
1008 907 964 977 1079 981 9541055 1114 1071
809
731 631 608 542676
608 559638 615 589
533
637 814 698667
737642 802
794 843 788
750
109
200
145
163
2965 3872396285028862629261828912543271527322714
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
HB04P
KT204
KT206
KTH24
05KTH
2406
N 737
1
NC 5
NC 6
NC 7
R 307
TN 9
0LCB
LSD
Yie
ld lb
/a
Flyings Lugs Leaf Tips Total12
Fertility & Curing Studies
Studies were designed to evaluate the effects of nitrogen (N) rate, N source and curing on TSNA formation in burley tobacco. The combined N rate and curing study was conducted at the UK Woodford Co. Farm (ARC) and the N source study was conducted at Robert Eads Farm in Eastern Fayette Co. Evaluation of the effects of N rates on soil nitrates and ammonium levels revealed a linear pattern both before sidedressing and after harvest. Yields were non-responsive to N rates. However, the highest initial rate produced the lowest yield. TSNA including NNN, NAT & Total TSNAs increased with increasing N rate. Sidedressing did not significantly increase TSNA levels. N source at broadcast and sidedressing did not effect TSNA levels.
13
Effect of Broadcast & Sidedress Nitrogen Source on Burley Yield
Fayette County – Robert Eads Farm
814 742 736 754 804 734
1584 1684 1563 1560 1576 1695
862 909 804 821 850 905
333432303135310333353261
0500
100015002000250030003500
LiquidUAN28%
Urea AN CN AN 27 AN 34
LB/A
TotalLeafLugsFlyings
Broadcast (150 units/ acre) Sidedress (100 Units/ acre)AN = Ammonium Nitrate, CN = Calcium Nitrate
14
Effect of Broadcast & Sidedress Nitrogen Source on Burley TSNA Formation – Robert Eads Farm
00.20.40.60.8
1
ppm
NNN NAT TSNA
NNN 0.4342 0.4969 0.45 0.5542 0.4592 0.3678NAT 0.2867 0.3261 0.29 0.3125 0.2908 0.2994TSNA 0.74 0.84 0.76 0.88 0.78 0.68
Liquid Urea AN CN AN 27 AN 34
Broadcast (150 units/ acre) Sidedress (100 Units/ acre)AN = Ammonium Nitrate, CN = Calcium Nitrate
15
Influence of Broadcast Nitrogen on Ammonium & Nitrate Soil Levels Prior to
Sidedressing
44.7
16.03.4
258.2
188.4
100.0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
100 200 300Broadcast N
ppm NH4NH3
N source = 28% UAN 16
Influence of Nitrogen Rate on Ammonium& Nitrate Soil Levels After Harvest
4.32 3.92
40.34
64.74
1.812.521.79
28.6214.67
9.58
0
10
20
3040
50
60
70
80
100+0 100+100 200+0 200+100 300+0Broadcast N
ppm NH4NH3
N source = 28% UAN Broadcast units +Ammonium Nitrate Sidedressed units17
Influence of Nitrogen Rate on Burley Yield – UK Woodford Co. Farm
585 495
726 681
787 753 762 804685
687 717 727 782716
557525506 109
700793916 123
107
97
33725772897274627882896
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
100 + 0 100 + 100 200 + 0 200 + 100 300 + 0 LSDBroadcast N
Yiel
d lb
/A TotalTipsLeafLugsFlyings
N source = 28% UAN Broadcast units +Ammonium Nitrate Sidedressed units18
Influence of Nitrogen Rate on TSNA Formation
012345
ppm
NNN NAT Total TSNA
NNN 0.94 1.28 1.85 2.76 2.40 1.13NAT 0.66 0.74 1.21 1.46 1.35 0.59Total TSNA 1.67 2.09 3.22 4.33 3.95 1.62
100+0 100+100 200+0 200+100 300+0 LSD
N source = 28% UAN Broadcast units +Ammonium Nitrate Sidedressed units
Broadcast N
19
Influence of Ventilation During Curing on Burley Yield – UK Woodford Co. Farm
758759
771681
75508559
141681845
60
96
12926282933
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Non-Vent Ventilated LSD
Curing
Yiel
d lb
/A
Flyings Lugs Leaf Tips Total 20
Influence of Ventilation During Curing on Burley Yield – UK Woodford Co. Farm
012345
Broadcast N
ppmNNNNATTSNA
NNN 2.01 1.68 0.85NAT 1.03 1.14 0.86TSNA 3.15 2.96 1.92
Non-Vent Ventilated LSD 0.05
N source = 28% UAN Broadcast units +Ammonium Nitrate Sidedressed units21
Effects of Transplant Insecticides on the Percentage of Plants with Aphid Colonies
Boyle Co. – John Helm Farm
45.8%
60.4%
3.1% 6.3%
53.1%
16.7%
29.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% Untreated
MC 20%
Admire Pro
Platinum 2 SC
Orthene 97SP
Platinum 2 SCOrthene 97 SPLSD 0.05
Rating taken at 55 days after transplanting, July 17, 2006 22
Effects of Transplant Insecticideson the Burley Tobacco YieldBoyle Co. – John Helm Farm
270 309 291 271 300 278
399 412 393 399 381 318
1195 1053 1195 1232 1291 1389
319 312 265 276 277 305
47
91
262
56
2182 2085 2145 2178 2250 2289 293
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Untre
ated
EXPAdm
ire P
ro
Platinu
m
Orthen
ePlat
inum+O
rthen
e
LSD
lb/a
Trash Flyings Lugs/leaf Tips23
Effects on Ridomil Gold on Burley YieldEffects on Ridomil Gold on Burley YieldUnder Moderate Black Shank PressureUnder Moderate Black Shank PressureHarrison County Harrison County –– Ricci Rowland FarmRicci Rowland Farm
251 275
1131 1174
641 684
299 317
42
200
116
55
2321 2450 394
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Check Ridomil Gold LSD
Yiel
d lb
/A
TOTALTIPS LEAFLUGSFLYINGS
Ridomil Gold applied at 1 pt/a preplantSee variety trials for black shank and non-black shank varieties used in the test
24
Effects on Ridomil Gold Effects on Ridomil Gold in the Absence of Black Shankin the Absence of Black Shank
Madison County Madison County –– Don Long FarmDon Long Farm
276 205
447 470
1366 1556
532536
4058
116
61
2622 2767 121
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Check Ridomil Gold LSD
Yiel
d lb
/A
TOTALTIPS LEAFLUGSFLYINGS
Ridomil Gold applied at 1 pt/a preplant 25
MH Free TobaccoProduction of MH free burley tobacco is difficult and labor intensive. To achieve control hand labor is needed to run products like fatty alcohols and local systemics (Butralin or Prime+) down the stalk. Attempts to achieve acceptable sucker control using typical high clearance equipment has largely been unsuccessful. Efforts to find workable methods continue and include many different modifications of existing methods to assess potential.
26
Comparison of Sucker Control Treatments on Degree of Control
Harrison Co. - Ricci Rowland Farm
27.5
60
95
3042.5
24
0
20
40
60
80
100
%
Butralin RTM fbBut
RTM fbMH
RTM fbRTM
RTM fbRTM+B
LSD
RTM=Royal Tac M, But=Butralin, MH= Royal MH-30, fb=followed by at 7 days27
Comparison of Sucker Control Treatments on Yield of Burley Tobacco
Harrison Co. - Ricci Rowland Farm
324 332 341 357 370
1097 1135 1166 1146 1046
716 688 837 747 870223 367 253 261 327
53
308
190
185
28526132512259725222361
0500
10001500200025003000
Butra
lin
RTMfb
But
RTMfb
MH
RTMfb
RTMRTM
fbRTM
+B LSD
Yiel
d lb
/A
RTM=Royal Tac M, But=Butralin, MH= Royal MH-30, fb=followed by at 7 days28
MH Free Topping StudyHarrison Co. - Ricci Rowland Farm
391 581 612
1189 778 808
493481 485
312354 363
186
246
86
98
291226821942384
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1 2 3 LSD
Yiel
d lb
/A TOTALTIPSLEAFLUGSFLYINGS
PoorModerate
Fair
Sucker Control
3.254.54.75
Rating
Top to Normal 3 daysNot Topped3Re-top to Normal 3 daysHigh Top (8-10" leaf)2NoneNormal Topping1Re-topFirst Top
TRT
29
MH Free Nozzle StudyHarrison Co. - Ricci Rowland Farm
357 316 323
1283 1141 1177
630 745 692
397 340 477
121
255
147
136
387267025422667
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1 2 3 LSD
Yiel
d lb
/A TOTALTIPSLEAFLUGSFLYINGS
252530PSI
335
Rating (0-10 best)
4 mphTG-5 – TG-6 – TG-534 mphTG-5 – TG-5 – TG-522 mphTG-3 – TG-4 – TG-31SpeedNozzle typeTRT
30