tray type and soilless media brand performance in tobacco ... · •all tray types are acceptable...

Tray Type and Soilless Media Brand Performance in Tobacco Transplant

Production

Matthew Vann, Scott Whitley, Joseph Cheek, Bryant Spivey, & Tyler Whaley

Department of Crop Science North Carolina State University

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Presentation Outline

• Background/Introduction

• Research Purpose

• Experimental Design

• Results

• Conclusions

• Questions

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Introduction

• Overwhelming majority of US tobacco transplants produced in EPS trays.

• Concern with EPS trays exists over: – Tray disposal – NTRM – Disease carryover

• Demand for improvement exists • In 2015, hard plastic float trays were marketed

in the US.

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Introduction

• It was hypothesized that plastic trays might: – Reduce NTRM – Reduce greenhouse disease pressure – Provide long term use

• estimated 15 to 20+ year lifespan – Reduce production impact to the environment – Plastic trays should produce quality transplants

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Purpose

• Limited production information for black plastic trays

• Performance comparison of three tray types and four soilless media brands – All materials are commercially available in North

Carolina

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Experimental Design • RCBD with factorial treatment arrangement

– 3 tray types – 4 soilless media brands

• 6 replications • All trays were placed into the same bed • All trays contained 288 cells

– 100 cells in the center of each tray were designated for data collection after seeding

– External cells were utilized for pre-clipping and 50 day mass sample collection

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Treatments Treatment Number Tray Type Soilless Media Brand

1 Plastic 288 Cell Carolina Gold 2 Plastic 288 Cell Carolina Choice 3 Plastic 288 Cell Premier Pro Mix BF 4 Plastic 288 Cell Sunshine LT5 5 New EPS 288 Cell Carolina Gold 6 New EPS 288 Cell Carolina Choice 7 New EPS 288 Cell Premier Pro Mix BF 8 New EPS 288 Cell Sunshine LT5 9 Old EPS 288 Cell Carolina Gold

10 Old EPS 288 Cell Carolina Choice 11 Old EPS 288 Cell Premier Pro Mix BF 12 Old EPS 288 Cell Sunshine LT5

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Material Sources

Trays • Plastic 288

– Beltwide Incorporated

• New & Old 288 – Burl Williamson

Soilless Media • Carolina Gold

– Beltwide Incorporated

• Carolina Choice – Carolina Greenhouses

• Premier Pro BF – Premier Tech Horticulture

• Sunshine LT5 – Sungro Horticulture

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Data Collection • Tray weight with and without media • Media weight per tray • Fresh bulk density and dry bulk density • % dry cell: 1, 5, 9 days after seeding • % germination: 6-13 days after seeding • % spiral root: 11, 13, 18 days after seeding • Plant mass prior to 1st clipping • 50 days after seeding: % total plants, % usable

plants, stem diameter, stem height, and plant mass

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Additional Data Collection

• Predictive water sample

• Diagnostic water sample

• Media nutrient charge • No issues observed with

water or media content

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Production Practices

• Trays were seeded on March 5th, 2015 • K 326 was the selected cultivar • 20-10-20 added: March 12th and April 3rd, 2015

– 125 mg N/kg water • Trays clipped seven times between April 1st

and April 20th, 2015 • Final assessment on April 24th, 2015

– Transplants were field ready 50 days after seeding

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Results

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Empty and filled tray weight, media dry weight, fresh and dry media bulk density as influenced by tray type and soilless media branda.

Empty Wt. Filled Wt. Media Dry

Wt.b Fresh Bulk

Density Dry Bulk Density

___________grams___________ g/tray ______grams media/cell______

Tray Type Plastic 288 1,390 a 1,928 a 294 b 1.87 c 1.02 b New EPS 288 282 c 855 c 313 b 1.99 b 1.09 b Old EPS 288 292 b 886 b 335 a 2.06 a 1.16 a

Media Brand Carolina Gold -- 1,125 c 239 c 1.64 c 0.83 c Carolina Choice -- 1,343 a 368 a 2.39 a 1.28 a Premier Pro BF -- 1,211 b 317 b 1.92 b 1.10 b Sunshine LT5 -- 1,214 b 331 b 1.95 b 1.15 b a Treatment means grouped within tray type or soilless media brand followed by the same letter are not significantly different. b Media dry weight determined by oven drying samples for 24 hours at 105°, moisture weight excluded from analysis.

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Percent dry cell one, five, and nine days after seeding (DAS) as influenced by the interaction of tray type and soilless media branda.

Treatment Factor 1 DAS 5 DAS 9 DAS Tray Type Soilless Media ____________________% dry cell____________________

Plastic 288 Carolina Gold 0.06 d 0.00 d 0.00 d Plastic 288 Carolina Choice 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 d Plastic 288 Premier Pro BF 0.00 d 0.00 d 0.00 d Plastic 288 Sunshine LT5 0.41 d 0.12 d 0.00 d

New EPS 288 Carolina Gold 17.59 b 11.92 b 9.20 b New EPS 288 Carolina Choice 1.68 cd 1.27 d 1.21 cd New EPS 288 Premier Pro BF 6.54 c 4.98 c 2.66 c New EPS 288 Sunshine LT5 25.35 a 20.14 a 14.01 a Old EPS 288 Carolina Gold 0.29 d 0.06 d 0.12 d Old EPS 288 Carolina Choice 1.28 d 0.52 d 0.35 cd Old EPS 288 Premier Pro BF 0.29 d 0.06 d 0.00 d Old EPS 288 Sunshine LT5 4.69 cd 1.39 d 0.98 cd

a Treatment means followed by the same letter within the specified assessment interval are not significantly different.

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Percent seedling emergence 13 DAS as influenced by the interaction of tray type and soilless media brand

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CG CC PP SS CG CC PP SS CG CC PP SS

% E

mer

genc

e 13

DA

S

Tray & Soilless Media Type

Black Plastic 288 New EPS 288 Old EPS 288

ab a ab a

c

ab ab

c

ab b

a ab

P = <0.0001 LSD = 5.32

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Percent spiral root occurrence eleven, thirteen, and eighteen days after seeding (DAS) as influenced by tray type and soilless media branda.

11 DAS 13 DAS 18 DAS _______________________% spiral root_______________________

Tray Type Plastic 288 3.08 a 3.04 a 1.58 a New EPS 288 3.71 a 2.96 a 1.38 a Old EPS 288 3.17 a 3.04 a 1.79 a

Media Brand Carolina Gold 3.17 a 2.72 ab 1.56 ab Carolina Choice 4.11 a 3.94 a 2.50 a Premier Pro BF 3.44 a 3.44 a 1.67 a Sunshine LT5 2.56 a 1.94 ab 0.61 b a Treatment means grouped within tray type or soilless media brand followed by the same letter are not significantly different.

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Seedling vigor and usability at fifty days after seeding (DAS) as influenced by tray type and soilless media branda.

Mass Prior to Clipping

Mass 50 DAS

Total Plants

Usable Plants

Stem Diameter

Stem Height

g/plant g/plant % % mm cm

Tray Type Plastic 288 0.0155 a 0.2407 a 82 a 69 b 4.64 ab 11.83 a

New EPS 288 0.0133 a 0.2087 b 77 b 67 a 4.73 a 10.12 b

Old EPS 288 0.0155 b 0.1933 c 84 a 76 a 4.52 b 9.66 c

Media Brand Carolina Gold 0.0157 ab 0.2109 a 80 a 71 ab 4.60 ab 10.36 b

Carolina Choice 0.0162 a 0.2136 a 84 a 74 a 4.67 ab 10.59 ab

Premier Pro BF 0.0128 c 0.2175 a 80 a 70 ab 4.77 a 10.93 a

Sunshine LT5 0.0143 bc 0.2145 a 79 a 68 c 4.49 b 10.27 b a Treatment means grouped within tray type or soilless media brand followed by the same letter are not significantly different.

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Conclusions • All tray types are acceptable for tobacco transplant

production – Induced wetting (overtop water application) in new trays

could improve wicking ability • Sunshine LT5 had the highest % dry cell at 18 DAS

– Induced wetting could improve wicking – Sufficient wicking in plastic trays

• Due to sufficient plant growth and usability dry cell appears to have been overcome with time

• Without additional management plastic and new 288 trays were ideal, as well as all media types except Sunshine LT5

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Additional Comments

• 1,500 plastic trays were distributed to 12 producers in 2015

• Generally speaking, producers were favorable to new trays

• Transplant quality was acceptable • Producer feedback indicated that special

management considerations should be made – Lower floating depth and greater mass

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Future Research Needs

• Another location for study – Significant grower

interest • Tray color? • Tray sanitation

– Is sanitation as simple as rinsing with water?

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

Questions??

Matthew C. Vann [email protected]

Website: tobacco.ces.ncsu.edu

North Carolina Tobacco Information @NCSUtobacco @ncsu_tobacco

2015

_AP

40_V

ann.

pdf

AP

2015

- D

ocum

ent n

ot p

eer-

revi

ewed

by

CO

RE

ST

A

tray type and soilless media brand performance in tobacco ... · •all tray types are acceptable...

Documents