xt7f4q7qq18k https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7f4q7qq18k/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1964 journals 146 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.146 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.146 1964 2014 true xt7f4q7qq18k section xt7f4q7qq18k ‘ RESULTS OF THE
KENTUCKY SOYBEAN VARIETY PERFORMANCE TESTS
Qi/ith Observations on Herbicide. Rate-
0f`Planting. and Fertilizer Tests)
1964
By
J. F. Shane, Roy E. Sigafus
Leo Link and S, H. Phillips
Progress Report 146
(Filing Code 1-1)
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Department of Agronomy
Lexington
v’

 
 , RESULTS OF THE KENTUCKY SOYBEAN VARIETY
PERFORMANCE TESTS, 1964
(With Observations on Herbicide, Rate of Planting and
Fertilizer Tests)
By
J. F. Shane, Roy E. Sigafus, Leo Link
and
S. H. Phillips
SOYBEAN VARIETY TESTS
Henderson
The soybean variety performance reports for 1964 are based on plantings made
on the farm of Allan Toy, 3 miles south of Henderson, with the cooperation of the
Henderson County Extension Service, the Owensboro Crain Co. , Owensboro; and
Ellis Elevator Co. and Henderson Elevator Co. , of Henderson. Several varities and
20 experimental strains were planted in the Uniform Tests of the U. S. Regional
Soybean Laboratory, Urbana, Ill. Planting date of all plots was May 5, 1964. The soil
type was Falaya silt loam.
Fulton
Named variety yield trials were conducted on the Robert Sanger Farm in cooperation
with the Fulton County Agricultural Extension Service. The planting of all plots was May
5, 1964. Soil type was Commerce silt loam.
Lexington
Named variety tests were conducted on the University of Kentucky Experiment
Station Farm. Soil type was Gutherie silt loam.
Princeton
. Named variety tests were conducted at the Western Kentucky Substation at Princeton.
METHODS USED
The varieties were planted in four—row with three replications. The rows were
19 feet long and 40 inches apart. A 16—foot section was harvested from each of the two
center rows. Beans were planted at a rate of approximately 12 seeds per foot of row. The
plants were cut by hand and the beans threshed with a nursery thresher. The beans were
cleaned of trash and let stand in the laboratory until they had reached a constant moisture
content before plot weights were taken. At that time the moisture content was about 10
percent, Acre yields were calculated and are reported on a 13 percent moisture basis.
Amiben, band treated over the row, and timely cultivation were used on all plots
except those in the weed control trial area.
ar

 -4- ‘
Oil and protein contents were determined by the U S. Regionalggybgan,
Laboratory, and the University of Kentucky Department of Feed and Fertilizer and
Department of Agronomy Service Laboratory.
Lodging notes were recorded at or near maturity when the height was also -
measured from the ground to the top extremity of the plants _
Maturity is expressed as months and days beans could be combined. In 1964,
the soybeans tended to dry up rather than mature, so too much emphasis should not
be placed on the recorded maturity because of the abnormally dry weather.
Seed quality was rated on appearance. Brightness. plumpness, freedom from
wrinkling and the relative appearance of the seed were considered in rating for -
quality-

 I. 5-
Y
"   O C O O O O O O O O I
I IQ   -4 I-I I-I I-I I—I oi I-1 I—4 OT I—< Y
5 Q. Y
Y 0.I  I
 
I I~ I I
I \-J I
I .
' I
Z I
I U {Y Y
I q, :2: G O O O O LO O O O O Y
1. —· . I - . . . .
I I?]   CN OI CY! C\I O] C\] C\I I—4 I-I O0 I
1   I
2 2 I
I I;   0 0I` cx > —:II 0 I-I 00 LO LO I
I I ,..,I -I I
I; I I I B
2 I   I In
S I I I G9
S . c , I Ig
D   '”* I 0
;>> Y FJ I Y >I
-. I ·-I I
0*5 I EE I CY)
· *4-4
I I , I M   *¤
I E ‘ QD I YU
V I I CG :> Q I ..-·
’* I 5* °° U ~ > O `¤ I, I ii
.2 I 2 0 { { 5 2 ¤ E   : I f
2 I I. : G ,3 0 w TZ T I— ~ 5- I ”‘
G ‘ i ` I -— »— QJ CI} " ` U3 -" ·“‘ -
F > I J I · I I A 0 {IY L P0 CY > Y I
-4 »J O CD »—I I? I I-I I
I"

 L6,- I
Table 2. —— Soybean Variety Performance. Henderson Co , Period of
Years Yield Averages
Location: Two farms — Henderson Cot
Soil_ Falaya silt loam
4   `   ` " ` `   `5 '5 ` ` "§lyi~`A§}é` "' "   yi? KQQ"` `l"";§¥§1$€é”"”“`“
1960*61 62 1962-»63 1962-63- 64
Vari Q Lx 3 _ M. _ 3 ,   _ L---7_-,B¤S12€i5._13¢.1;A<11ie7}/2 CLL ___,--____- i
SHELBY 2/ 37.8 40,0 38.6
CLARK 63 43,6 43,1 40,7 _·
CLARK 39 9 39 7 37,7 _
KENT 45 7 47 , 3 43 2
Perry 41. O 39.70 ——· ·
Bethel 35 3 37,7 ' 34,1 _
Delmar 37.9 -——· -— ,
Scott 37. 6 37 . 9 »-— ’
llill 39, 1 — —— l
Dorman 35 9 38 5 i—P· _
HOOD 35. 0 —- ---
Ogden 36, 1 347 2 —- - h
Lee 367 0 ·-— —-
ii  Yield (lll'l`Cl'()llCCS less than   8 Bu»)Acre are not signil`it·ant,
3/ C`ap*l;' med varwties are recommended for use in Kentucky,  

 -7-
. Table 3. - Soybean variety performance - Princeton, 1964
""   M '“`““'~?5E1Di7  Ht ii¤'71 Ob
Ygiéixw-_-___1Mi~@}i2 iw ing In- Qual;---lieaw
Kent 45.4 9-22 1 36 3 20.4
. Ogden 42. 4 10-18 3 40 2 19 4
Scott 41. 2 10-7 2 44 4 16. 4
Clark 39. 5 9-16 2 40 3 20. 2
I Hood 38 5 10-16 3 38 2 15. 3
» Hill 38. 3 10-2 4 37 2 15. 8
U Bethel 38. 3 9-30 4 58 3 18. 2
Clark 63 38. 2 9-16 1 40 2 16. 0
Ford 37. 5 9-16 4 36 3 20 2
Delmar 37. 4 9-30 2 50 4 20 2
Dee 37.1 10-20 3 40 2 16. 4
Dorman 36. 5 9-30 4 40 3 14. 2
Wayne 35. 9 9-16 2 37 3 19. 8
Shelby 33 4 9-16 3 40 3 19. 6
Lindarin 63 26. 5 9-10 3 23 4 20. 0
Clwippawa 64* 20. 7 9-10 3 22 3 16 0
Harcsoy 63* 20 0 9-10 2 28 4 18 8
1/ Yield differences less than 4. 6 Bu/Acre are not signgigcant

 -8,. `
Table 4. — Soybean variety performance — Fulton County. 1964
.  .1   -,.1--- -.Y%1i%¢&1.____d_..i31ii¥S§r€1r.. .- .   . .  
Clark 22. 6
Clark 63 29.0 "
Kent 26. 6
Scott 31. 8 . ‘
Delmar 29. 7 .
Dorman 34. 1
Hill 34. 2
I-lood 31. 5 ‘ »
Ogden 32. 8 l ·
Lee 27. 1
Hampton 5. 3 A
Rebel 13. 4 .
.1/ Yiolcl Clll`l`Cl`Cl1CCS less than 6. 2 Bu/ Acre are not signiticennt. V

 I -9-
Table 5. - Soybean variety performance - Lexington, 1964
 
Yield 1/
I Variety Bu/ Acre 1_
Ford 20. 9
Clark 24. 5
Scott 16. 6
Wayne 18. 6
Delmar 10. 1
Bethel 14. 9
Dorman 7. 2
Hood 3. 9
 
1/ Yield differences less than 4. 4 Bu/Acre are not significant.
Low yield resulted from summer drought with greater effect
on later maturing varieties.
Table 6. - Fertilizer Test - Henderson, 1964
Yield 1/
Treatment Bu/ Acre
0-0-80 44.1
0-80-0 43. 5
40-80-80 40, 7
0-80-80 39. 4
0-160-160 36, 6
0 36. 4
0-80-80, Lime 34.4
1/ Yield differences less than 3. 5 are not significant.
Soil Test pH 6. 03
P High
K Low

 10 U ‘
Table 7. — Rate 0f Planting Test · Henderson, 1964
2- 2 _--1_N1¤1@b¢1i.¤.f2S@@@s·l1192iFi 2 ; ,   _,    
Vw<;ty ___1   .   _ 2 1-2 1_1,   M9 4/ _ 11._._*1,1_2__-   . 1 . 4
Bushels per ·Ac1‘s 2/
(`l:1r·l< 3822 37,9 36 8 3819
llood 22. 4 241 4 23, 4 23 3 7
1/ 200 lb, 4—10—15 acldedl
3/ Yield Clilll.G1“€llC(2S less than   1 are n0t S1gHlf],C2l.Y1lQ_
Table 8. ~ Soybean I·I0rbicid€ Test   Henclsrson. 1964
      lun   Ylétcl-T/M-   N A l
2 2 2- ltiattcrtal .1l_,.1_ 1511/4@.q1..1 at    
Amlben 42 2 _
Clwccli 32 5
\V<»<.clheacls 40 3
Vc mam 38 2 V
1/ \i¢·l