~!\EASURED CROP PERFORMANCE

TOBACCO

1954

GUY L. JONES.t ASS I ST ANT PROFESSOR

Department of Agronomy

North Caro Ii na st e t o Co ( lege

ROSC8rrch Roport No. 15December 1954

f NTRODUCT ION

Choosing a tob,~C'co var;(~ty is a problem which should receive much

thought and careful study of performance racordso There is a continual change

in v ar i e t i o s ava; fable to the grower as newe r and bettor ver l o t l e s e ro

devGroped by the Experiment Stations and private breeders. Complote and

currant information on performance, adaptabi lity, and disease resistance is

os scn t i e l , To fill this neod the Experiment Station conducts an Official

ver l c t v Test.

In this report the data from the 1954 Official Tobacco Variety Tests are

pres2ntcd. The Gvaluation program is designed to provide farmors in North

Carolina a reliable source of comparative information on the performance of

tobacco varieties. VariGties and advanced breeding mat2rial from commercial

sources and the Experimont Station arc evaluated in these tests. However, the

data pr-esc nt cd in this report concern only those ve r l ot i es that are avai lable

to groworso ThGse data, except for thG summary table, rGprosent only one

year's data. It should be recognized that a single years deta may not por-

tray the true performance of a tobacco var~ety over a wide range of seasonal

conditions, and that further testing is needed to Gvaluate the performance

of these varieties undor other conditionso

ThG total number of flue-cured varieties grown in North Carolina is quite

larqe , Theso differ in yielding ability, quality of the cur-ed leaf, earliness,

suckering habit, qr-ow t h habit, d l s e aso rrec t lon , and physical and chemical

properties.

Many of the tobacco producing areas are already Infested or arc threatoned

by some of the serious soi I-borne tobacco diseases. A growsr should study his

f tly part -l c u l a r l y his farm, to determine what d i so aso or diseasesarca core u ,

aro pr~sent. Tho ve r l o t y to be grown should be se l ecr od accor-d l nq l y ,

30m'3 of the dlsG~~8 rt;s\stant var l o t i cs, are of the broad j,'.:af l'lpi1~ (JT1'Ci

- 2 -

their P,,}J~fOrmanc0 i s oque I to that of the batter non-disease resistant

var;ctjes o ConscquGntly a growGr is no longor penalized by planting rosistant

varioties J and an early change to a rcsistant variety can be made with con­

fjdence in araas whore diS0ase threatens o

Thirty-two advanced' ines and varieties were tested in the 1954 growing

season at throe locations, on disease-froG soi I. AI I commercial 0ntrios and

those possessing diseaso rQsistan~e were also evaluatod undor appropriato

disease conditions.

ExtensivQ tests are conducted each year to col IGct data on performancG of

the various varieties. Before changing varietiGs, the grower is advised to

study al I facts and information avai labf~ in order that a wise docision be

madcc The eligibi lity of a now variety for cortification and for recommenda­

tion is based on its performance in thGSG tests.

What May 80 Tostod

Both private breeders and those with foderal or state affi liation may

submit entrieso The breeder must substantiate his Gntry with quantitative

supporting data from expertmGnts in which the proposed entry is compared

with recognized varieties and these data must show rQal merit in order to

qual ify it for being includod in the test. The personnel of tho testing

program may include entries whose porformanco racords indicate that they may

contribute to morc effcctiv2 crop productiono In those tests there may be

included certain entries from SGcd of lots offerGd for salG within tho state,

or from sced lots furnished by testing agencios of other states.

Early in December of each year rules governing the tasts for the ensuing

year arc: r1istribut8r1 to all prov l ous participants '':In<i tv ILr,~.-. wl,r. H,"\-'-' tl'(l"il/.

- 3 -

Ag2ncies Sponsoring Entries

Coker's Ped;g,-~edSeed Company, Hartsville, So C.McNair's Yield-Tested Seed Company, Laurinburg, No C.North Cerol ina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, N. CoS~"'uth Cat-alina Aqr i cu l t ure l Experiment Station, Florence, So C.~peight Seed Fe rm, \,Vintervi' Ie, N. C.vl rq l n l e Agricultural Experiment Station, Chatham, Virginia

Test Locations

Four locations were used to represent the different soi I and cl imatic

conditions of the state. One tGst was included in each of the flue-cured belts,

on state experiment stations. The locations were as for lows:

TV 59 Border Beft Tobacco Research Farm, Whitevi fie, N. C. representingthe Border Belt.

TV 60 Upper Coastal Plain Station, Rocky Mount, N. C. representingthe Eastern Belt.

TV 61 McCullers Branch Stat jon, Apex, N. C. representing the Middle Belt.

TV 62 Upper Piedmont Tobacco Research Farm, Rural Hal I, N. Ce representingthe 0 I d Be' t •

The test at the McCullers Branch Station, TV 61, was abandoned because

of a ferti lizer differential in the field, causing the results to be unreliable.

Th2refore data from only three locations are reported herein.

Experimental Procedure

ThG tests were conducted on disease-free soi I and the ~ame entries

occurred at every locationo At I entries were coded in the plant bed and in

the fieldo

Four replications of a randomized block design were used at each locationo

The plants were banded and individually selected for transplanting so as to

get uniformity within plots. Each two row plot consisted of 40 guarded plants.

The rows were 3.5 feet apart with the plants spaced 22 inches in the row 0

Farm practices of plant bed preparation, liming, ferti lization, planting

- 4 -

date, cu i t i v a t Lon , and jn~2~T and o lsoasc control were in accordance with

t bos e fA..~unj to be fa\'crab:e for the production of t obacco , Fertilizer was

errJ i ed in accor-dance w j th so i I test recommendat i on at the rate of 1000 pounds

~f ~-8-IO p0r acre on the Whitev; I Ie and Rocky Mount tests and 900 pounds of

~-8-'O per acre on the Rural Hal I Test.

All varieties were topped and suckered. Individual plots were harvested

according to the degree of rr~turjty, tagged and kept separate throughout

curing, sorting, and grading. Data on agronnmic characters were taken in the

field, and chemical determinations were made on the cured leaf. Disease

reaction was noted in separate tests under severe disease conditions.

ThG methods of taking the data were as follows:

Ground,suck:~rs: Whenever ground suckers deve l ope d, they were removed prior

to toppi~g and the number on the total plot recorded. An average number per

plant was calculated for each plato

Days to f low~~: Starting when approximately 10% of the plants in t he most

advanced plots had f lowered, the tops were broken when the first flower showed

pink, at the first leaf below the last lat c r-e l branch of the F lcwer , Flowering

plants were topped approximately every four days unti I al I topping was complete.

An average f lowering date, when 50% of the plants had f lowered, was calculated.

Number of 3ljck~: The number of leaf axi I suckers removed from plants in

the entire plot during the growing season were recorded and an average number

of suckers per plant was calculated for each plato Suc~8rs were removed

whGnever an opprGciable number had exceeded six inches in length.

N'Jmb8r of hf:jr/{~stable leaves: Followirl') the S8r:CJf,d or trl\rd ~r\rn,r~gs tho- ... - __.. r -_ . __._--

dur i nq the s..-:asor, was recordE:d from [0 competiti'/r"" pt<')r,\~ ..A r~ad, p tor ,

b f l q a \/ A '=:. pe r plant was ca\cu\ated.a'Jera'J~ f,'Jrn ~ r f) - --

An

- 5 -

Plant height._dt mat ur i r v r At the time of making t he leaf count, the height in

inches of the same 10 plants was measured. An averago height per plant was

ca l cu i a r e.i ,

Internode length: This was calculated from the feaf number and height of each

of the fO plants.

Leaf length and width: The length and width, at the widest place, of the 5th,

loth, and 15th leaves from the top were measurad on the same 10 plants and

averages calculated. varieties differ in their abi l i t y to produce broad lceves

toward the top of the plant.

Yield per acre in pounds: When the harvest was completed, the tobacco was

sorted and graded and the woight of the cured leaves harvested from each plot

was rocordede Yields per acre in pounds were calculated.

value per acre: Under the supervision of a government grader the tobacco from

each prot was graded into appropriate government grades. The value per acre

was calculated by multiplying the pounds of each grade by the average price

paid for that grade in North Carol ina during the 1952 season.

ve1ue per 100 pounds: An average value per hundred pounds was calculated for

each pfot by dividing the value per acre by the yield par acre. This gives

a rather good index of quality based on price per pou~d.

Chemical analyses: A sample of the curGd leaf from each plot was submitted

to the tobacco biochemistry laboratory in the Department of Agronomy for

chemical analyses. The pe r cent of tho following crlern\~o\ coo sr l r ienr c WaS

determined on a dry weight basis.

(a) Nicotine (total alkaloids)(b) Reducing sugars(c) Nitrogen (total)

- 6 -

In spite of efforts to obtain perfect stands it was occasionally necossary

to make an adjustment for missing plants. If loss than one-twentieth of the

plants Wct~ missing from a given plot, no adjustment was considered necessary.

If morJ than one-twentieth of tho plants were missing, the following adjustment

was made for those characters which might be inf luenced by stands. If end or

guard plants were missing, each missing plant was considered as one missing

plant. V/ithin the row, it was assumed that if adjacent plants were pr-o sen t ,

their increased growth would compensate for one-half of the missing plants.

ThusJ

each guarded missing plant within a roW was considered one-half a plant

in adjusting for stand.

The data from all thirty-two entries vJere statistically treated. This

report only includes the data on the twelve released varieties which were

Gxtracted from these analyseso

standards for Comparison

Standard check varieties were included for comparison. These checks or

standards, Dixie Br!ght 101 and 402, arc the same that are used by other

stations as recommended by tho Tobacco Variety Evaluation Committee of the

Tobacco Workers' Conference.

Seasonal Conditions

In general the 1954 season was not too favorablc for producing high

quality tobacco. Rainfall was inadequate in most of t ho state during the most

crucial period. Rainfall data v.ere taken at each of the locations and is

included in Table 60

The Whi tevi lie test, TV 59, was t r ansp lanh3d '.flay 3 under very dry condi r i ons

and it remained rather dry until the varieties b.:::gan to flower early in July.

Tho tobacco had made very poor growth unti I this time. One h;:)r/f.;'.;.1 "Jft.<; T1;I:H.le

- 7 -

~rior to the endin9 of th0 drought. When the drought pG~iod was ended, the

rapid growth immediately fal lowina the rains nocessitated dolaying thG second

harvest for a poriod of one week. The tobacco made the major proportion of its

growth during July, as a result ~he tobacco tended to be heavy bodied and dark.

Very few cutters were found in any of the varietios in the grading procoss.

The heavy leaf grades tended to givG high yields. As a result of thG dry

wGathGr the nicotine content was g2neral Iy high.

The Rocky Mount test, TV 60, was transplanted May 4 under vary favorable

conditions and mado excel lent early growtho A rathor dry June almost proved

disastrous but the carly July rains providod conditions favorable for good

growth 0 A good quality tobacco was produced in this test and tho yiolds WGre

higho

The Rural Hal I test, TV 62, was transplantod May 18 under very favorable

conditions. Tho plants madG excel lent growth early in th0 seasono There were

two dry periods during the lat t e r part of the June and the I'atter part of July.

As a result the dGveJopment of the uppar portion of the plant was suppressed.

Thu lower portion of thG plant in most variGti~s produced a good qual ity

tobacco. The leaves were unusually thin. The lcavo s produced towards the

top of the plant were only fair to poor quafityo

None of the seasons at tho throe locations were idaal for tobacco pro­

duction, however, the general growth at the ond of the season was considered

good in each of the tests.

Performance RGcords

A singlG year's data at a given location may nOT portray the truQ per­

formance of a tobacco variety over a wide rango of seasonal conditions. Thore-

fors data from only one year's test should be taken caut~ouslYA Longorrecords

- 8 -

of pe rf ormancc are mora dcpcndab I \2 and shout d be ut i J i zed when ava i lab' G.

The Nor-th Ce ro ' ina Crop f mpr-ovemcnr Assoc i at ion ro coqn i ZGS t he need for

savor-a' yoars' data to thoroughly evaluate a variety. They require that a

variety must be in the Official Tobacco variety Tost for a minimum of two

years beforo it is oligible for considGrat:on for cGrtification. Tho Col lege

also recognizes the need for Gxtensive testing and theroforG roquiros that a

variety be in this t2st at least two years before it can be considerod for

rGcommendation.

Presented in Tabla I is a comparison of certain f lUG-cured tobacco

varietios from J949 to 1954, with the exception of 1952 when the test fai Icdo

AI I thG varieties are compared on a porcentagG of the moan of a standard,

402 end Dixie Bright 101, in tho test in which they appeared. The marc

comparison avai lable on a varioty, the more rGliablG is the data. The

varioties with the highor number of comparisons have been in the tests for a

number of yoars, whi Ie the varieties with only three comparisons have aPPGared

in the test only one year. The varieties are compared for acre yield, acre

value, and valuG per fDa pounds. Tho value per 100 pounds provides an

cstimatG of quality.

In Table I I the averages of twelve varieties at throe locations in 1954

arc comparGd. The data from TV 59, TV 60, and TV 62 wcrG combined to study

average varietal performances over a wido area. Comparisons are mado for

yield per acre, value per acre, value per 100 pounds, days to flower, suck0r

characteristics, plant charactoristics, and chGmical constituents. In con­

sidering value per acre, all varieties appeared to perform simi larly except

Oxford 1-181 which was lower and Coker 139 which was higher. Some of the

varieties such es Hicks, White Gold, and Oxford 1-181 f lower early, whi Ie

- 9 -

the othGrs arc intermediatv to latG. This docs not m0an that some Wore two

to throe weeks Jater in maturing but only that they flowerod later. AI I

var i c t los were; rcady for harvest at about the same time. Tho late'f lowering

variotios tended to produce fewor suckers.

Includod in Table I I is a disoaso rating for Black shank and Fusarium

wi It. Tho Black shank data wore obtained on diseased plots in cooperation with

the Plant Pathology Faculty and thG U.S~D.A., A.R.S. F.C.R.B. These t~sts

werD locatod in Pitt and Lenoir Counties under soverG disease conditions. The

data represent the per ccnt of dis~ascd plants as of August 230 Tho Fusarium

wi It test was conducted in tho grGcnhouso after the plant roots had been

injurGd and artificially inoculatcdo

Data from individual locations arc prc scnt cd in Tables III, IV, and V.

Certain varieties tcnd0d to perform differently at tho various locationso The

data in thoSG tables roprcsant only onG location in onG yoar.

Differences in Char-actors----------_.__._----Small differences, in th2 va r l ous che r cc t o r-s studied, should be cons l do rcd

cautiously since it is not poss!blc to dGtGrmino absoluto performing abi lity.

The 5 i ZG of d if f o rGnCG that may have been due to cho.. ce has been comput oo and

list0d at th0 bottom of each tablG of the 1954 data as the " Icast significant

d i f f (L SO)" Thosc measures of chance should rcrnl nd the reader notI or-onco e : 0.. ~-

to misintorpr2t smal I diffcrGnces.

- 10 -

Table'. Percentage comparisons with the mean of 402 and D.Bo 101of certain flue-cured tobacco varieties. Official tobaccovariety tests. f9)-l9- 1951.L..7. North Caro Ii na Experi ments 0

variety Number of Acre Acre§../ Va fuelcomparisons Yield Value JOO lbs ,

~tandar"d 402 + OS 10J 19 1680 I bs • $8892/ $53.58.. - - - - 2- - - - - - ~ - - .... - - --.- - - - - - - - - .. -

Per cent Per cent Per cen t

D.B. 101 f9 fOf fOO 99

402 19 99 fOO 10,1.

Hicks 17 93 97 103

Ye I. sp. 13 95 94 99

0.8. 102 13 87 77 89

Bot. Sp. 12 106 102 96

Va. Gold II 109 106 98

Oxford I 10 86 77 90

0.8. 28 10 109 102 94Oxford 26 7 90 81 90

\AJhiteGo 1d 7 95 98 105

Golden Harvest 6 98 97 98

Golden Cure 6 99 98 99

oxford 1-181 6 88 87 99

Go Iden \AJ i It 5 95 90 96

Vam. 50 3 103 97 94

Speight n42" 3 105 101 96

McNa i r V eG 0 2 3 103 103 100

Coker 139 3 128 137 107

Coker 140 3 101 103 lOt

---------_ .._-- ---_.__...-- -"~ -- -----.--

~/ 1952 test not included.

2/ 1939 to 1941 average auc r i on pri ce on government grade basi s used for I')JO-~ I •1952 average auction price on govern~nt grade basis used for 1~3 and 1954.

3/ Adjusted to 1952 averageo

Table 2. Comparison of varieties in 1954 for certain characteristies. JCcmbine~ analysisfer TV 59 Whitevi I Ie, TV (C Rocky Mount, and TV 62 Rural Hal I.

F

Variety Yield Value Value [eys to Ground Leaf axi J Tc·ta I suckersper acre per acre per ICC Jbs. f lower suckers suckers per plant(lbs.) per plant per p l ant

r .8. 101 1826 $ 966 $52.42 72 3.3 21 24402 1803 992- 54-74 65 1.2 21 2'~c:

Gol cen Cure 1814 969 52.65 69 1.5 21 I"'""tl"'""t

.... L.-

VJhite Gold 1678 956 56.68 58 1.2 22 23Hi ck s 1716 975 56.07 60 1.3 22 f)-

'-)

Ox. 1-181 1565 842 53.63 61 .6 21 22

Ye I. Sp. A 1764 979 54.89 66 2. I 21 0-'-)

SfJe 1ght "42ft 1903 992 5)~40 73 2.,7 [7 20

McNair 'I.G. 2 188C 1013 53.76 67 .4 17 1.8

Coker 139 2334 1356 57.44 88 1.4 II 12

Coker 140 1843 I (2C 54.~6 74 .9 1-7 18

D.B. 28 1946 leoo 51. co 74 1.9 18 20

L.S.D .. et:: 105 81 2.87 3 .5 2.1 2.2. ,.,

.tf 138 107 3.78 4 .7 2.8 2.9c. 'I. % 7 10 7, 4 40 15 14

-- _.- _ .. - ---- ------

Teble 2. Can't. Comparison of varieties in 1954 for certain characteristics. Combined analysisfor ,TV 59 Whitevi r fe~ TV 6e Rocky Mount and TV 62 Rural Hal J.

Variety Leafnumber

Plant ht.(inches)

Internodelength(i nches)

%Reducing

sugar

%Nicotine

%Nitrcgen

% 1/B I ack-Shank

r5t, 2 /,0 I

Fusar iL;mVi i It

0.8. III

402

Gclden Cure

V{hite Gold

Hicks

Ox. 1-181(\J

Yel. Sp. A

Speight "42"MCNo\.r V~G. 2

Coker 139

Co~er 'L~o

D.B. 2B

L.S.D.

Co t,

.n~

.01

u1/0

2722

2420

2C

22

25

25

2431

27

27

1.3

1.6

6

57. I

1J+~9

47.637.437.844.149.65f .6

44.551 ~6

50.8

48.4

2.8

3.56

2.1

2.~

2.(

1.9

1.9

2. ()

2.0

2. I

1.9

1.7

J .9

1.8

.08

.01

5

19.64r6.7(;

16e55

17.58

16.7C

16928

16~33

16.75

16Q79

18.59

15.40

16.74

1.60

2. I I

I r

2.373.03

2.71

2.972.92

3.322.90

2.472.52

1.451.80

2.58

.43

.5720

1.74

1.98

1.87

1.98

t .842.30

1.87

, .92

1.99

1.58

1.93

1.85

.27

.36

9

84.9reo.o

ICC

100

JOO

38.. (

46.8

e~('

IUC

8e

~8

ICC

,"C80

10C

fOO

8e

7L'

-- .~. __ . __ .__ ....-.. - ~.- •.._-- ~ - - -- ~ .~.-------- ----- .- ---~--------

1/ Two locations (Dai I and Davis fanll) - 4 reps CJf 25 plants each. Readings taken Aug. 23, 1954.-/ Varieties with kr.own susceptibi I ity not included In tests.2, Greenho·jSA test 19~}t-.

Table 2. Can't. Comparison cf varieties in 1954 for certain ?~racteristics. Combined analysisfor TV (0 ~ocky Mount and TV 62 Rural Hal J. -

VariEty Vv i dt h V/ i ct h \V i dth Length Length Length

5th leaf ICth leaf 15th leaf 5th leaf ICih Jecf I~tt-; leafzznezrr-~====

[ .B. I wi t.2 8.2 9.3 12.1 15.6 I~ ~i • ~

Lt-02 6.5 8.6 10.2 13.7 17.4 IO.~

Golden Cure 6.9 9.( J 1.2 I4.c 17.b 20. f

\\1hiteGo I d 6.5 e.7 10.2 16. I 19.4 19·~

Hicks 6.2 8.6 rO.1 15.2 19- I 20.2(JX. 1-181 6.r 7.9 9.9 15.0 [8.3 eo. I

f" '(er. Sp. A 6.5 8.2 9.6 14.0 17.2 J 9.~

Speight "42" 6.4 8.4 1(.7 12.3 1.6.7 20•.+

McNcir 'I ..G. 2 7.C 8.7 9-9 J5.6 19.3 21.4

Coker 139 7.1 9.4 9.4 14.e J7·9 18.7(c;ker 14G 6.2 8.0 9.0 12.7 16.0 J7.8D.B. 28 5.9 7.7 9.6 . 11.9 15.3 18.5

l.-~.L .. .05 1.0 0.8 0.9 2.0 f • .? 1.4• 01 1.4 I • I 1.2 2.6 2.C 1.8

c. J. % 11 7 6 10 6 5

- ----- ._.-

y Data taken in inches on ~th~ IUh, and 15th leaf from the top of the p l ant , respectively.

Table 3. Comparison cf varieties in 1954 for certain characteristics.TV 59 Vv'hitevi lie

Variety Yield per Value Va 1ue Days to Ground Leaf axi 1 Tota 1.acre per acre per f lower suckers suckers ?er suckers

l b s , ICC Jbs. per pi ant plant oer olant• I

---D.B. I CI 2032 11el 54. 18 63 4.5 23 27402 2°35 1117 54.79 56 1.2 21 ""I")

'--'--

Golden Cure 2019 IICC 54.48 57 1.8 22 2,V1Jhite Gold 1884 J(99 58.40 .51 1.7 21 r).J

~'--

Hicks 1963 III ( 56.59 52 1.6 21 24I

-..::t (;x. 1-18f 1825 982 53.78 56 .7 20 21

Ye I. Sp. A Jg2G 1('63 55.32 56 3.2 24 27~~eight 1t42n 2133 I J28 52.86 6(' 4.2 19 0-"l.-)

N\cNair V.G. 2 2rl5 1055 52.85 56 0.5 f7 [7Cc,ker 139 2468 1398 56.64 65 2.3 16 19Coker 14t 1971 1049 53.17 60 I. I 2( 220.8. 28 2256 1139 50.42 60 3.1 21 24L.S.D. .("5 223 162 5.02 2 r .2 2.8 3.3

• CI 297 216 6.68 3 1.6 3-7 4.3c. \/. % 6 9 6 2 39 to Ie

------ --.- - -~- ~- - - --- - -- - -_.- -- -- -_.-. - ----- ._.- -

Table 3. Can't. Comparison cf varieties in 1954 for certain characteristics.TV 59 Whitevil Ie

Variety Leaf Plant ht. Internode length 0'1 cr/ %/0 /0number (inches) (inches) Reducing Nicotine Nitrogen

sugar

[.8. 101 27 C":~ 4 '2.c 18.68 2.54 I.9C:JC.

402 21 40.2 , .9 J4.65 3.55 2. r 3Golden Cure 23 !.~;.3 (.9 16.54 3.(,)2 1.99\lih i te Go I d 20 39.8 2.1 16.63 3. 15 2. 18

Hicks 20 39.1;. ?c 17.45 3.C2 2.04

Ox. J-181 22 ~.tj 2.C 14.92 3.53 2.47Lr\ Yet. Sp. A 23 44.9 2. t. 15.3C 2.72 2.21

S~e'9ht 1t42" 25 46.. 5 1.9 17·07 2.80 2. J3MCNc i r \/.G. 2 23 40.9 1.8 15.76 2.61 2.18

Coker 139 3C 48.0 t .6 19.28 1.67 1.79Coker IJ+C 25 47.6 ( -9 15.39 2.04 2.04D.8. 28 25 W+.I J .0 15.41 2.91 2.(14

L.S.G .. ()=- 1.54 3.0 e.18 2.62 .94. ./

.01 · 2.05 4.1 0.24 j.L~9 1.25

c.v. % 4 4 6 10 ?'Z-./

'- _... -- - -.. -...---_..- ---

-;- ab l c 4. Ccmparison of varieties in 1954 for certaIn charactoristics.TV 60 Rocky Mount

Variety Yield Value Vatue Days to Ground Leaf ax i t Totalpo r ac rc pc r acre: par 100 Ibs. f l owor suckers sucko rs sucko rs

( I bs • ) per p I an t par plant per plant

D.B. fOJ 2144 1174 54.75 70 4.8 35 40402 1973 1120 56.78 63 2.4 33 36GO! dan Cure 2076 1178 56.68 64 2.5 35 37White Gold 1841 1063 57.79 57 I .6 35

-,.,.,)1

Hicks 1968 ( 171 59056 56 2.3 35 1\r:-.//

Ox. 1-' 8 I ~648 905 54.86 58 0.9 34 35-o Yo l , Spa A 2029 1190 58.62 64 3. I 32 35-

Speight "42" 22' f 1214 54.86 65 3.9 31 ~---,McNair V.G. 2 2152 1202 55.71 6' 0.6 30 31

CokQr 139 2786 1690 60.66 82 1.8 17 19Cokc.: r f40 2304 J383 59.9C 70 1.6. 28 29D. B. 28 2155 f t71 54.37 69 2.4 29 32

L.S .0. .05 160 128 3.74 3 .8 4.9 5.0.or 212 170 4.95 4 f • I 6.5 6.4

e.v. % 5 8 5 3 25 13 12

Table? 4 (con!t). Comparison of varieties in 1954 for c~rtain characteristics.TV 60 Recky Mount •

.._,-..-.,.-.._--.varioty Leaf P Ian t h t • I nt c rnodo % % %

Numbo r (inches) IGngth (inches) Rcduci ng Nicot i nc Nit regansugar

O.B. fO r 27 59.8 2.2 22.08 2.39 1.82

402 22 45.3 2.0 19.32 3.30 2.07

Golden Curo 23 46. f 200 19.51 2.51 / .82

V'/h i te Go I d 19 35.0 1.9 20. 19 2.72 1.9C

Hicks 19 35.8 r -9 19.19 3.24 1.85

Ox. 1-181 21 L~o .6 1.9 17 .84 2.92 2. 18r:--

49.2Y-JJ. Sp. A 25 1.9 18.92 3. r 3 1.7 ,

Speight tt42" 25 50.4 200 19.61 2.55 1 .90

McNair V.G. 2 22 ~O.9 f .9 18.32 2.87 2.04

Coker 139 3C 54.7 1.9 19.71 I .L~ J 1.65

Coker 140 26 52.8 2.0 18.24 1.78 t .93

0.8. 28 26 48.0 1.9 20.43 2.52 1.57

L.S.u. .05 1.91 4.4 • /6 2.71 .57.01 2~53 5.9 ,2 J 3.60 .76

': •'I • % 6 6 5 10 15

---------- _.~ - ----------- ..... _.~ -_...- .-.-..----

Table 5. Comparison of varieties in 1954 for certain characteristics.TV 62 Rura I Ha I I

:. ; i Oif,.jJhM -;r,?'t7, >:,,-(g~"1:$ ,£...:;.;r ~?l'-Z .;-1-.{;;. ,..;:;'. a~ . '.. 11 fl.M2;",t'i-;:*!i:~t""'~·~: 1~':' '<-te- .>;.. -':.. '.1<-. 'co ,-' ]I', ~'7 ~z¥~:.'k#t· !';."$-' . > -r-:;;; ...9; J

Variety Yield Value Value Days to Ground Lea': ax; I Tota;per acre per acre per JO{; Ibs. f lower suckers s~cr<ers sL;ckecs(Ibs.) per plant per p l e nr per r 1ant

0 08. J(I 1352 658 48.7 8 82 .36 6 c4C2 14:;9 769 ~2.67 -74 .c6 8 eGolden Cure 1399 til 47.24 84 .04 t. 0\fYflite Gold 1360 741 54.27 64 f ,-, 11 I r· ~

.1

Hicks 1279 678 52.18 7G • IO 9 0

to vx. 1-181 1286 674 52.29 68 • J C 9 rc(~I. Sp. r 1382 704 50.83 76 .C5 7 8

I

'Sr.J~' ght tt~tf 1421 [67 46.85 90 • 12 3 3N~~Nc\r V.G. 2 15rJe 793 52.49 82 .07 t:; 6...

C~\--:€;r 139 1784 989 54.84 112 ·(7 I ICOY.er tJt ( J285 636 48.95 90 .02 ~ 4./

L.8. 28 I :J()J.~ 724 48.c6 89 .06, 4 L~

~.S.D. • rJ5 17B 141 5.90 7 .20 2.34 2.4.01 236 187 7.8l 9 .26 3010 3.2r: .. \/ • f '9 (4- 8 L 138 31 32

~ --- ~. - -. -, .- . --

Table ,. Can!t. Comparison of varieties in 1954 for certaIn characteristics.TV 62 Rura 1 Ha J r

"Zi~7Sezrw'P~ 1_·;$w~W4N,*\ij§~1l¥r~--v'''titJ\H~'';'~:~~.~~~~~I!fi~~~~~~~fit..~~::::.£>.:§~~~~~ ;:a-·4.;;t;;,*

'va r i ~ t Y r ~ p r t h - rr! ~1 c/_eaT an t , I nternode I ength ~o /0 0number (inches) (inches) Reducing Nicotine Nitrogen

sugar

r;c I den Cure

:;f.'~; grIt "42"U\ct~t. \ r '/.G. 2

Crj~er 139

t:CJY.r-:r t J-l-C

D.e. 28

Wtlit~ Gold

0\

D..8. 101

J.J.02

rl i ~Y.~

0z" I-Ie!

fbI. Sp. A

l.~.G.

c."'.

.r5• [I!

%

26

2426

23'

22

24272628

3329

30

2.743.61~

8

57.1

48.453.238.6

39.4L~8.8

53.<;;

~6.3

:;0.8

~o.e

~2.C

52.8

5 r:.:;

7-58

2.2

2.1

2.(

r $7

1.8

2.C

2.0

2.2

1.8

1.5(.8

1.8

• 15.2J

.-":J

17.92

!5-~1

13.be

15.69

13.66

15.72

14.5213.66

16.02

16.96

12.58

14.04

2.87

j.80

13

2.242~35

2.68

3.09

2.52

3 ~I""'!'

.,' I

2.82

2.13

2.('9

1.32

t ~64

2.38

.781.40

23

I .~~

I,.. ~ ....

• '-'f

I • .e~

J. ~3

J .~~

I) -~'- .. -"" ....

I r: I• -r

1~~~

1.82

1.~4

J .8R

1.99

Table 6. Rainfal I Record by Locaticns 1954

--- .....March Apr I 1 May June July August September

Days Border Belt Tcbacco Research Farm; Whitevil Ie, N. c~

1-7 0[8 .~2 .28 .6c 091+ .69 0248-14 .el J.3 I I. 12 1.46 I.C9 .23 • 12

f5-2f .92 .oc .43 .e.c 2.9C .15 .2922-28 1.48 .38 .47 .07 .82 3.15 .88

29-31 1.73 .cc .co .(JO .00 .99 .25-Total 4.22 2.21 2.3C 2.13 5.75 5.21 1078

I Upper Coastal Plain Station, Rocky Mount, N. C.0C\.J

1.14 .45I 1-7 • 13 .co 2.17 2.92 .CO

8-14 .53 2.19 10 83 • J5 .06 .co .3215-21 .29 r .54 .22 .83 2.41 1.53 1.5922-28 .82 .20 .15 .co ~ 15 .81 .00

29-31 2.61 .(3 .00 .00 .cc QOC .54Tctal 5.39 4.41 2.33 .98 4.79 5.26 2.45

Upper Piedmont T_obacco Research Farm, Rural Hal I J N.C •

1-1 .82 .07 •94 • 1(. .52 1.01 .00

8-114- J .66 .69 f .43 1.25 .43 1.54 .00

J~-21 J .57 .92 2.56 2.54 1.56 1.30 .3722-28 .49 .08 .CO .00 .82 1.86 .co29-31 .83 .00 .02 .CO .00 .CO 000-Tote I 5.37 1876 4.95 3.89 3.33 5.71 .37