xt7fj678tw9k https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7fj678tw9k/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1974 journals 217 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.217 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.217 1974 2014 true xt7fj678tw9k section xt7fj678tw9k 3 Kentucky Small Gram
Vcmezy Trzal$—19 74
_, By Charles R. Tutt and Morris J. Bitzer
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY • COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Experiment Station • Department of Agronomy
Lexington • Progress Report 217
rv I   (
ill/Qégh /
A4;   4}
  ( aiiiéz
I l , " 
I     O  I
- i é   _. \
. / / -
; / 1
/  rg ·  .
l

 CONTENTS
Page _
` Introduction ................... 5 l
Test Objectives ................ 5 Q .
1974 Crop Conditions ............. 5
Performance Data ................. 6
Experimental Methods ............. 6
Data Collected ................ 6
Results and Discussion ............. 7 l
Recommendations for 1975 ............. 14
Winter Barley Varieties ............. 14 _
_ Soft Red Winter Wheat Varieties ......... 14
ni Winter Oat Varieties .............. 16
Spring Oats for Kentucky --·----····· 16
Certified Seed .................. 16
List of Tables
1. Results of Barley Performance Trials at Lexington, Ky. 9
2. Results of Barley Performance Trials at Princeton, Ky. g
3. Results of Barley Performance Trials at Bowling Green, Ky. 9
4. Results of Barley Performance Trials at Murray, Ky. 10
5. Results of Wheat Performance Trials at Lexington, Ky. 1()
6. Results of Wheat Peri`ormance Trials at Princeton, Ky. 11
7. Results of Wheat Performance Trials at Bowling Green, Ky. 11
8. Results of Wheat Performance Trials at Murray, Ky. 12 .
9. Results of Winter Oat Performance 'Trials at Lexington, Ky. 12 lt
10. Results of Winter Oat Performance Trials at Princeton, Ky. 13
ll. Results of Winter Oat Performance Trials at Bowling Green, Ky. 13
12. Results of Winter Oat Performance Trials at Murray, Ky. 13 1
I3. Characteristics of Recommended and Certified Small
Grain Varieties 15
The College of Agriculture is an Equal Opportunity Organization
authorized to provide research, educational information and other
services only to individuals and institutions that function without
regard to race, color, sex or national origin.
‘)

 TESTING LOCATIONS OF THE
KENTUCKY SMALL GRAIN VARIETY TRIALS- 1974
  wwwa
%s·#§%%“
%w@&¤Qa$¤ www.
¢   I ¤¢·"% &"¢» ~
·@"¤¢w ME ¢ ·@a@*
 ·¢‘*¢·am~¤@"*“s 9 qaw
%%, §EaE ‘·  
mg ,   M @ Es
, Location Cooperator
. 1. Murray Murray State University
h Agriculture Department
A 2. Princeton West Kentucky Substation
3. Bowling Green Western Kentucky University
Agriculture Department
4. Lexington Kentucky Agricultural
Experiment Station
C Acknowledgment is made to _]ohn Byars, ol the
Department of Agronomy, and the University ol Kentucky
Computing Center, for assistance in summarizing the results
reported in this progress report and to Harold Vaught, Area
Agronomy Specialist, lor his assistance in collecting field data at
Bowling Green.
3

 t

 4
5 Kentucky Small Grain Variety
» Trials- 1 9 74
By Charles R. Tutt and Morris ]. Bitzer '
A Small grains are becoming increasingly important to Ken-
tucky agriculture, both in respect to acreage and in dollar value
_ contributed to Kentucky agricultural income.
In 1974, Kentucky farmers harvested 390,000 acres of
wheat, 48,000 acres of barley and 10,000 acres of oats for a total
of 448,000 acres of small grain. This was a sharp increase over the
_ 252,000 acres harvested in 1973.
~ TEST OBJECTIVES
Purpose of the Kentucky small grain variety trials is to evalu-
_ ate varieties of barley, wheat and oats that are commercially avail-
able or may soon be available to Kentucky farmers. New varieties
 ` are continually being developed by agricultural experiment
stations and commercial firms. Continued testing and evaluation
of small grain varieties and selections are essential if farmers, seeds-
men and other agricultural workers are to be provided with cur-
rent information to help them select the varieties best adapted to
their locality and individual requirements.
Since weather, soil and other environmental factors will alter
varietal performance from one location to another, tests are grown
in four locations in the state (Lexington, Bowling Green, Prince-
' ton, and Murray) as shown on page 3.
, Recommendations are revised each year because of the avail-
ability of new varieties, improvements in production practices, and
t continually changing disease and insect hazards.
1974 CROP CONDITIONS
The fall weather conditions were nearly ideal for seeding the
1974 small grain crop. The winter season was relatively mild,
5

 x
resulting in very little winter—killing. However, the mild fall and ‘
winter were very favorable for the spread of several small gram
diseases. The severity of these diseases resulted in a slight yield loss ‘
in some areas and almost complete crop failure in other areas. °
PERFORMANCE DATA ·‘ V
As previously mentioned, performance data were collected at
Murray, Bowling Green, Princeton, and Lexington. In some in-
stances, uncontrollable factors such as excessive rainfall, high
winds, and damage by birds adversely affected an experiment so .
that the data were judged unreliable and do not reflect actual vari- P
etal performance. When this occurred, results are not given for that
location and year. Data are also presented for a period of years,
since this gives a more accurate picture of varietal performance
than do annual data. .
EXPERIMENTAL METHODS ;
Each experimental plot consisted of four rows 1 foot apart
and l3 feet long. Each variety was grown in four plots placed at _
random over the test area, and the results presented in the table
are the average response of the four plots. The plots were planted
with a specially built four—row seeder, and the data were taken
from a lt)-foot section of the two center rows of each plot.
DATA COLLECTED ‘
lt is important to consider characteristics other than grain
yield when selecting a variety. ·_
Grain yield was taken by cutting the two center rows of each
plot and threshing the grain with a stationary plot thresher. The
weights of each plot were recorded in grams and converted to
bushels per acre. `
Test weight, or the weight of a bushel of grain, is a measure
of the quality of grain. The higher the test weight, the higher the
quality and market value, unless the grain has been downgraded
because of another quality factor.
6

 9
’ Lodging was recorded as the percentage of the total plants
lying on the ground or leaning at a 45-degree angle from the
vertical when the grain was mature. The term "maturity" as used
5 in this report refers to the date the grain was ready to be combine-
harvested.
V Plant height was reported as the number of inches from the
i ground to the tip of the upright grain head.
Survival was recorded as the percentage of plants estimated
‘ , to have survived the winter. This is a measure of winterhardiness
and is an important factor to consider when selecting a variety.
Heading date was reported when 50% of the heads had
; emerged from the plants in each plot. This is a measure of maturi-
ty and is important when selecting a variety for use in a double-
cropping system.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Since genetic expression of a variety is greatly influenced by
environmental conditions, it is best to have several years’ data
from which to draw conclusions. Performance of a variety that has
I ag been tested for only one year should not be compared with a
3-year average of another variety, since it is possible that results in
` one of the other years were extremely good or poor and, thus, not
comparable.
The yield of a variety is relative and should be compared with
the yields of the other varieties in the same experiment and at the
 · same location. Small differences in yield of only a few bushels per
acre between two varieties from an individual test should not be
interpreted to indicate the superiority of one variety over another.
However, if one variety consistently out-yields another over a
period of several years, the chances are that the differences are real
4 and should be considered important.
Lodging data are very difficult to interpret. A high-yielding
’ variety should not necessarily be down-graded because of a high
percentage of lodging for a given year and at a given location.
Local weather conditions, such as heavy wind and rain, may cause
a variety to lodge much more than it normally does. It should also
be emphasized that a report that a variety was 50% lodged does
not imply, however, that only 50% of the grain could be har-
7

 x
vested. With good equipment, it may be expected that almost all .
of the grain could be saved. Lodging data for a period of years
should receive more consideration than annual lodging data since
they will give a more accurate picture of varietal performance. if
l Small grain yields in 1974 were very low at Princeton, ·
Murray, and Bowling Green. The variety trials at Princeton and .
Murray were badly infested with Barley Yellow Dwarf disease, and i
the test at Bowling Green was also infested to a lesser extent. This
disease infested all three crops: wheat, oats, and barley. Another
disease identified as Scald was very severe on barley at Princeton
and Murray. The wheat varieties at Princeton and Murray were
also infected with Septoria Leaf Blotch, Glume Blotch, and a new ‘· V
disease in Kentucky identified as Wheat Spindle Streak. Good
yields were obtained at the Lexington location where little disease
was noted. _
- Because of the very complex disease situation, t/ie 1974
variety trial results should be examined and interpreted very care-
fully. Only the yields are reported in this publication since the
other data collected were judged to be unreliable. The other varie— 1
tal characteristics reported in the tables are for previous years and
where possible are the average of the three previous years. *
The yields reported for 1974 do not reflect the true poten-
tials of t/ze varieties but give only an indication of the severity of
t/ze disease problem in 1974 and of the varietalperforinance under _
those adverse conditions.
The performance of varieties in the 1974 trials and for
previous years is presented by crop and location in tabular form in  
Tables l to 12.
8

 ??
' Table 1.—Results of Barley Performance Trials at Lexington, Ky.
g Three-Year Average 1971, 1972 and 1973
1974 Lodg- Plant Sur- Date
‘ Variety Yield Yield ing Height vival Headed
Bu/A Bu/A Z In. Z
i Barsoy 45.2 89.6 25.8 34.8 99.2 4-27
Dayton 43.4 61.4 42.5 37.8 74.2 5-9
Harrison 42.2 82.5 20.0 39.2 98.8 5-6
, Jefferson 34.3 71.3 27.5 40.7 99.6 5-ll
Knob 33.3 69.3 42.5 32.3 90.4 5-1
_ Lakeland 50.1 78.8 10.8 37..9 99.2 5-13
` McNair 601 41.3 65.4 32.5 35.2 85.9 5-9
, Paoli 48.6 71.4 43.3 32.6 98.3 5-10
Schuyler 56.4 80.4 40,,0 36.8 98.4 5-12
Table 2.-Results of Barley Performance Trials at Princeton, Ky.
 
. Three-year Average 1971, 1972 and 1973
1974 Test Lodg— Plant Sur- Date
. Variety Yield Yield Weight ing Height vival Headed
Bu77l Bu77K EE7Bu 7. ln. 7.
Barsoy 7.7 47.4 47.4 5.0 30.7 94.2 4-21
· Dayton 13.0 30.3 41.9 27.5 33.8 87.5 5-5
Harrison 24.8 56.7 47.6 6.3 38.1 99.2 5-4
_ Jefferson 27.6 58.9 43.7 7.9 39.1 98.3 5-5
*3 Keowee 25.8 42.9 45.6 33.3 34.6 96.7 5-4
‘ Knob 10.0 54.0 41.8 29.6 32.3 96.7 4-30
Lakeland 25.8 58.2 46.2 7.9 37.4 98.8 5-5
McNair 601 11.3 48.0 42.9 22.9 33.5 91.7 4-30
Paoli 28.4 56.1 45.1 19.2 31.8 98.3 4-30
Schuyler 6.4 48.8 40.1 26.3 35.3 99.6 5-8
 . Table 3.—Results of Barley Performance Trials at Bowling Green, Ky.
Three-year Average 1971, 1972 and 1973
1974 '1`est Lodg- Plant Sur- Date
Variety Yield Yield Height ing Height vival Headed
4 Bu7A Bu7A Lb/Bu 2 ln.  
Barsoy 16.7 43.4 46.4 20.8 29.0 100.0 4-19
· Dayton 21.2 34.4 43.0 15.0 31.3 100.0 4-25
Harrison 36.5 44.3 45.4 0.0 32.7 100.0 5-1
Jefferson 34.9 48.8 44.5 0.0 34.8 100.0 4-30
Keowee 16.9. 39.4 45.2 17.5 31.1 100.0 4-30
Knob 21.2 41.4 42.3 15..0 29.3 100.0 4-25
Lakeland 16.5 36.6 44.0 10.8 32.2 100.0 5-2
McNair 601 20.1 43.4 43.6 8.3 30.1 100.0 4-26
Paoli 30.5 40.9 44.5 10.8 27.1 100.0 4-26
Schuyler 16.3 39.7 43.7 3.3 28.8 100.0 5-5
9

 K
Table 4.—Results of Barley Performance Trials at Murray, Ky.
 
 
Three—year Average 1969, 1970 and 1972
1974 Test Lodg— Plant Sur- Date nt
Variety Yield Yield Weight ing Height vival Headed A
  .
Bu/A Bu/A Lb/Bu Z In. Z ·
Barsoy 19.1 41.7 47.6 0.0 23.5 87.9 4-17 V
Dayton 16.8 46.1 45.8 0.0 28.4 88.3 4-23
Harrison 14.3 36.0 47.5 0.0 28.1 95.0 4-30
Jefferson 14.3 39.5 44.0 0.0 31.9 93.8 4-28
Knob 19.8 43.0 44.5 0.0 26.5 94.2 4-25
Lakeland 26,5 40.4 45.8 0.0 28.2 93.8 4-30
Paoli 10.6 37.8 45.5 0.0 23.8 95.4 4-27
Schuyler 8.5 30.5 44.6 0.0 22.9 92.9 5-5 `
 
Table 5.—Results of Wheat Performance Trials at Lexington, Ky.
Two—year Average 1972-1973 .
1974 Test Lod;2_—- Plant Sur- Date
Variety Yield Yield Weight ing Height vival Headed
Bu/A Bu/A Lb/Bu Z In. Z
Abe 46.8 53.0 58.2 6.9 37.6 96.3 5-ll
Arthur 49.1 56.0 58.1 4.4 39.8 97.5 5-11
Arthur 71 38.7 54.5 58.6 8.1 38.4 95.0 5-11
Bcnhur -— 40.6 54.9 4.4 41.9 91.3 5-12 ,
llluuboy ·-- 38.2 53.2 0.6 42.1 68.8 5-15
Hluuboy Tl 34.5 38.4 53.1 8.8 40.5 66.3 5-15 _
Coker 68-15 39.9 24.2 56.9 1.9 32.4 47.5 5-14
Freclrick 53.2 -— —- -- ·· ·· -- _
Rum; 62 43.5 35.9 58.4 17.5 43.0 75.0 5-13
Lewis -- 35.7 54.0 8.8 42.3 80.0 5-13
McNair 701 30.8 27.9 54.5 6.3 36.1 49.4 5-13
McNair 4823 52.5 44.8 54.9 4.4 37.0 82.5 5-16 ,
Dlanon -- 39.6 56.1 5.0 41.1 81.3 5-13
Oasis 45.6 48.7 57.5 11.3 39.4 86.3 5-12
•
l0

 9
~ Table 6.-Results of Wheat Performance Trials at Princeton, Ky. ;
 
Two—year Average 1972-1973
5 1974 Test; Lodg- Plant Sur- Date _
· Variety Yield Yield Weight ing Height vival Headed
A Bu/A Bu/A Lb/Bu Z ln. Z
. Abe 26..6 38.3 59.6 0.0 32.5 100.0 5-3
Arthur 18.2 38.3 59.4 1.3 34.5 100.0 5-3
Arthur 71 16.6 30.7 59.0 3.8 33.1 100.0 5-4
Benhur 19.1 22.1 57.1 6.9 38.5 100.0 5-4
I Blueboy 6.0 25.4 52.1 3.1 36.5 100.0 5-7
Blueboy I1 8.3 28.7 53.5 7.5 37.9 100.0 5-6
Coker 68-15 10.8 21.8 56.2 0.0 29.5 100.0 5-6
` Fredrick 22.4 -- —- -- -- -- --
¤ Knox 62 9.9 24.0 58.3 36.3 38.8 100.0 5-5
Lewis 8.0 28.3 56.8 0.0 39.3 100.0 5-5
McNair 701 8.1 28.5 52.9 10.0 32.6 100.0 5-2
McNair 4823 24.8 36.2 56.9 0.0 34.3 100.0 5-14
Menon 7.2 26.8 55.7 18.8 38.4 100.0 5-3
Oasis 21.0 34.6 58.5 1.9 36.3 100.0 5-5
$.
_ Table 7.—Rcsults of Wheat Performance Trials at Bowling Green, Ky.
 
' Two-vear Average 1972-1973
1974 Test Lodg— Plant Sur- Date
Variety Yield Yield Weight ing Height vival Headed
, Bu/A Bu/A Lb/Bu 2 rn. 7;
Abe 38.5 48.6 59.0 1.3 36.0 100_0 4-28
r Arthur 37.2 43.1 58.5 0.0 38.5 100.0 4-28
Arthur 71 31.5 45.8 59.6 0.0 37.4 100,0 4-28
` Benhur 28.7 38.2 58.1 2.5 41.8 100.0 4-27
Blueboy 26.8 30.6 53.4 0.0 39.5 100.0 5-4
Blueboy II 30.7 41.7 55.5 1.3 41.0 100.0 5-3
Coker 68-15 31.9 32.8 59.8 1.3 35.0 100.0 4-27
i- Fredrick 29.3 -— -- -— -- -— --
Knox 62 24.6 33.9 58.2 11.9 41.6 100.0 4-28
Lewis 30.0 38.4 57.4 2.5 42.6 100.0 4-30
McNair 701 25.4 37.5 55.5 10.0 33.8 100.0 4-26
i McNair 4823 37.1 34.4 57.9 0.0 36.5 100.0 5-9
' Menon 23.7 35.0 56.8 2.5 41.5 100.0 4-28
Oasis 39.5 43.4 59.5 0.0 37.3 100.0 4-30
11

 Y
Table 8.—Results of Wheat Performance Trials at Murray, Ky. .
1973 Results
1974 Test Lodg— Plant Sur- Date _,
Variety Yield Yield Weight ing Height vival Headed
Bu/A Bu/A Lb/Bu Z In. Z *
Abe 27.9 38.0 56.2 0.0 29.0 100.0 4-28
Arthur 20.4 27.9 56.3 0.0 29.3 100.0 4-29 -
Arthur 71 22.0 27.9 56.0 0.0 28.8 100.0 4-29
Benhur 17.3 23.4 55.3 0.0 25.3 100.0 4-30
B1ueboy 6.3 25.7 54.5 0.0 35.5 100.0 5-3 V,
Blueboy II 14.4 23.3 54.5 0.0 36.0 100.0 5-3 "
Coker 68-15 8.1 17.7 55.3 0.0 28.8 100.0 4-29
Fredrick 35.0 22.1 53.3 0.0 41.8 100.0 5-14 ’
Knox 62 13.0 24.9 57.2 0.0 38.5 100.0 4-28
Lewis 20.8 26.8 55.0 0.0 37.5 100.0 4-29 ·
McNair 701 8.3 34.0 52.2 0.0 32.5 100.0 4-29
McNair 1587 7.6 30.2 51.2 0.0 31.5 100.0 4-29
McNair 4823 23.5 19.1 55.9 0.0 29.8 100.0 5-12
Monon 14.7 23.8 55.5 0.0 36.8 100.0 4-28
Oasis 22.6 23.1 54.8 0.0 29.3 100.0 4-30 V _
•———-—-——  1
Table 9.—Rcsults of Winter Oat Performance Trials at Lexington, Ky.
 
Two-year Average 1970-1971
1974 Test Lodg- Plant Sur- Date
Variety Yield Yield Weight ing Height viva1 Headed ,
  .
Chilocco 56.7 -- -— -- -- -- -- ·
Coker 66-22 75.2 90.0 34.9 57.5 43.1 80.0 5-20
Coker 70-16 100.5 -~ —— —— -- -- --
Compact 64.4 92.3 34.7 56.3 35.9 90.6 5-30
Dubois 56.4 75.3 37.8 57.5 42.8 82.5 5-25
Norline 58.0 81.1 34.4 68.8 46.0 87.5 5-26
Pvnnlan 97.8 —- —— —- -- ·-- -- ’
Ntilken 71.6 88.0 34.0 42.5 40.4 77.5 6-3
  L
9
12 `

 Table 10.-Results of Winter_Oat Performance Trials at Princeton, Ky. ,
5 Two-year Average 1971 and 1973
1974 Test Lodg—- Plant Sur- Date
* Variety Yield Yield Weight ing Height vival Headed ·
· A. Bu/.B Bu/A Lb/Bu z rn. 2
Chilocco 24.8 -- -- —·- -- -- --
Coker 66-22 30.0 77.5 29.6 64.8 42.4 76.3 5-13
Coker 70-16 32.2 -- -- -- -— -- —-
· Compact 38.9 73.6 29.7 68.2 37.1 93.8 5-21
Dubois 10.0 59.4 31.0 53.2 43.7 77.5 5-17
` Norline 16.1 54.6 28.4 87.5 44.7 88.8 5-19
Pennlan 25.8 -- -- -- -- —- --
5 Walken 14.3 80.9 31.0 10.7 45.7 96.9 5-26
Table 11.——Results of Winter Oat Performance Trials at Bowling Green, Ky.
 
Two—year Average 1971-1972
_ 1974 Test Lodg- Plant Sur- Date
Variety Yield Yield Weight ing Height vival Headed
4  
‘ Bu/A Bu/A Lb/Bu 2 rn. z
Chilocco 36.5 -- -— -- —- -— --
. Coker 66-22 40.5 65.4 37.8 0.0 34.3 95.0 5-9
_ Coker 70-16 36.5 -- -- -- —— ··— --
° Compact 48.4 57.7 39.9 0.0 27.0 96.3 5-18
3 Dubois 19.9 47.8 37.9 0.0 34.7 93.1 5-14
Norline 34.7 63.6 36.8 0.0 36.8 96.9 5-16
_, Pennlan 39.2 _-- ·-- -- -- -- -—
Walken 38.8 49.3 37.8 0,0 31.8 85.6 5-23
g Table l2.—Results of Winter Oat Performance Trials at Murray, Ky.
1973 Results
1974 Test Lodg— Plant Sur- Date
` Variety Yield Yield Weight ing Height vival Headed
Bu721 lBu72S 57lBu 7. In. 7.
Chilocco 20.9 76.5 35.5 0.0 41.5 100.0 5-3
V ' Coker 66-22 41.5 85.8 34.4 0.0 41.3 100.0 5-3
Coker 70-16 31.2 -— -- —— —— -- ··
Compact 30.2 72.0 36.8 0.0 33.5 100.0 5-12
Dubois 15.7 84.1 36.1 0.0 42.0 100.0 5-9
Norline 21.8 74.1 35.4 0.0 42.0 100.0 5-10
Pennlan 30.2 75.3 35.3 0.0 33.3 100.0 5-4
Walken 15.1 71.4 33.8 0.0 41.5 100.0 5-19
· 13

 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1975
Recommended varieties are those which are superior in one ‘
or more characteristics important for the crop and have been 4
tested by the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station for 3 or t
. more years. Varieties that have been recommended for Kentucky,
recently certified in another state or approved by an appropriate *
National Varietal Review Board, may be certified for production. '
The certified list will include, in addition to the recommended
varieties, (1) varieties that may have potential for Kentucky and E
(2) older varieties that are still acceptable for production in Ken-
tucky but are not as good as the recommended varieties. _:
A summary of the characteristics of the recommended and ,
certified small grain varieties is presented in Table 13. All varieties
listed are eligible for certification in Kentucky, and those varieties
designated by an asterisk   are recommended by the Kentucky
Agricultural Experiment Station. .
WINTER BARLEY VARIETIES
Recommended winter barleys are less winter-hardy than ,
winter wheat but more hardy than winter oats. The degree of
winterhardiness, straw strength, and maturity are important char— I
acteristics when choosing a variety. Barley performs poorly on ·
soils not well—drained. It is an excellent feed grain for livestock
when fed with other grain crops. Varietal performance data are
presented in Tables l-4.
»
SOFT RED WINTER WHEAT VARIETIES
Kentucky’s climate and soils are well suited for the produc- ’
tion of high quality soft red winter wheat. No one variety has all
the desirable characteristics; each has certain advantages. Yielding
ability, straw strength, height, earliness, grain quality and disease `
resistance are important in choosing a variety. Wheat is an excel-
lent feed grain for livestock. Varietal performance is presented in
Tables 5-8. ‘
14 ,

 ‘.' (U
* -.-4 .¢:
$-4*4-40 L4$-4$-4$-4$-4’¤
OKUU OOOOOO <11¤1&11
,_ U<11O OOOOOO **4-4*4
D--`4H D-4D-4B-4¤-4¤~4l.'J .D.¤.¤
GJ Q -.-4-.-4-.-4
“ EEEE
v 411 °>> EE B $8
>~. www w U-.-4 .-4 m.¤
3 $-43 .-4.-4.-4 .-4 ET} 'UQ1"¤-4
mm .-4.-4.-4 .-4 G1 Q1 -.-4}-1 OUOUUB
'¤’¤ <11Q1¤11$-4$-4<11 U U BN OXO 4U
3.-4 UOUOOU KU G3 I OI-`l(J<¤..¤
. ‘· Lal rn
¤ SE é5£££” A A E
E DEB .. “‘?.
. U U U $-4 >~. D U >,U
KI! E'. E C D .-4 ...-4·<11 >»<¤ .-40
0 ¤ cu w zu U $-4 ·¤·¤·¤U -4.-1 ctw
···* KU .-4 .-4 .-4 H1 FJ QJCUAJN H OU
+-· .... .-. .- .-4 2* m 2212.-1 U ..10 0
_2 u1.—4 411}-4¤J$-4$-¤411 ~.-4 {QU 411$-4
  ·
“g mh QEESSE E U -5*
Z I-=lh.¤l¤-4414LrJ .-4 U $-4*¤$-4C.-G
> .-4 m www o
. U G1 EJ >Er..1:>~.-.4
‘·¤ vn UUU·¤·0U I-4 H U.¤
••·* 4/) CIEGOOCI Q) O Q1?
N $·4¤J ¤1¤J®OC1¤1 I>U ,1: O -.-4
$- 4.1;: -4.-4.-4©r_·;.—4 -.-4.: § mg;. 153
I U-.-4 -4.--4 .-4 U U
.O LZ‘.'¤ ¤1¤1¤J>¤>.¤1 K!--4 -.-4 Ep.-4•$-4 >¤-4
= -.-4$-4 UU~.¤1
:¤ r-.J¤JL·J>,>r=J M A :>AZm gu 2 2.-Grg
EJ --4.:: un m·¤..¤
1.) U v—41-I
U E m--4 >-U 0
'U -.-4 >»>~.>.:$ U U U .-4¤1 $-401-.u>’¤
U L4 v-4.-4.-4-.-40.-4 JI Ci C C OJUZ ¤1..¤¤1 C
' L: 5 $-4$-l$-4'¤U$-4 U 411 CU CU KX Z>¤/i>¤1!U
,,, U <¤=1¤7< NOON UU D··*
U H Q1 U'} I:] LrJLD(.’1£¤ Z>·* J2 CC ED-
,»¤ 41 >U UUUUUU un Lu U cucu Q4
Lx.1 -.-4.12 $-4$-45-4$-4}-41-4 E4 .-4 3 .-4.-4 mm
¤ LT'. U OCOOOO < Od QC -4.-4 Q1
N ,2 rd-.-4 .1:.;:.:.:.::: O -.1 uw w¢u·¤·.-4c:
.-4><>r·‘w0’~ 0
q; Ul BJUULQIUU · m .04;:41::--4411
M IO <11<11 ONCMGN 0-1.1
5 --40 4.:.-4 .-4.-4.-4 0
“_( 44-AQ1 "¤ F10 ’¤I-1
O Og c\Ii•g.—4.—4<\1r*> E $11-"¤ QM BCL
l\ f\I\l'\f\ ~.-4 C1
_ Q10 O\Ch¤\0¤C7¤6¤ l1>~. ` r./1.¤
3 LJ.-4 .-4.-4.-4.-4.-4-4 -.-4 I/ll/],Ld4'J¤}.1£ U
_ ..-· G10 $-4 — OECD ·.-4
-A-¢ QM O $·4C1:$¤7<'.$:1 Z.¤
4/2 <11UU·.-4·.-4U -3
‘; xs-.:-1-:::: ·¤
0 OC.D411.'Z.‘C’11 >¤ .>r11$-1 •
~ mg U ““““ E EEEEE §
  -
12*11 -.-4 DFJ:$.D 4.1
5m ·.-eu: C U--4U--4m ZJ
Q fJr<3=‘J.—4 FJ --4 C'UC,E411 U
ci CCCONE $-4 CJ¤i10·.-4 E
.-CZ -.-4 mnmn--n *4:1 0 tx.-ac.-U w
.L] -4-.-4-.-4r:r:·.-4 cu ¤.u IA
-.-4 "U'U’5UZ1 .-4 UU -.4
l $-4 CCC ·_gC.' -00 C$-4 $-4
· O -4>-<>-Z,-.>-4 {A0--4 O GOOD OG O
_¢0   Z 2222 ~L4> ·U
J
__' 'O $-> 'U ¤*Jm *n
4,; Q1 ll. Ul- UJQJ G
.-. .-4 UU .-4UU ¤$’¤ -.-4
,.¤ -uw u. ummm -;:0 0.:2 U
gg 4/HO--4 UOOUOZ1 mu-.-4 OOOO.-4 ri)
E-. ·U$-4 >-·Z>-·>··>->- -2i ·U$-· ZZ>i$-40 -.-4
DOm M ;1:<1 ¤.c: U
$-4} C"! Lal-· -.-4 4;
A. D-4 4 {11 ’O
• xo -3: -1: uv.
I- xs -4·1=u-;: :1--4 *v
·k U um:11 --4.: 21
M U 1-4 ri--4--421 $-4E-4 'O
‘· -1:*-*01 -.-4 11 LLC.-4.;!. i E
-4*-ED L- .1 E;1$-4-4 44 L "J
r- -7 rs r; 0:101 e: U- .1
>. 1/ Li LJQZZ >. -2fC DTI E
_ 4.1 1;4$-CU U ;-,y. UU O
GJ 3:1;}--4m 21 O--RCD 'J
»-I -):.;,:115--4 ~-4 mU;.Z..m U
$-4 UU-1:12% U 1-UO: nd
R'. ,.¤L4L4.—4;;c" *1 G1:-4 ic
> <<2<:i`Z'; I ;- m::;:A
 
15

 WINTER OAT VARIETIES ,
Winter oats are the least winterhardy of the winter grains. •‘
Early seeding, good fertilization practices, and planting on well-
drained soils are recommended to minimize winter killing. Most g
winter oats are susceptible to the crown rusts so the variety must fi
be selected in respect to maturity, lodging resistance, and yielding .¢
ability. Winter oats are excellent also for fall grazing and silage. {_
The performance of the winter oat varieties is presented in Tables
9-12. .
 
SPRING OATS FOR KENTUCKY {
The only small grain suitable for spring seeding by farmers in  
Kentucky is spring oats. Spring oats are used mainly for hay or
silage and as a companion crop for grasses and legumes. Grain and .
forage yields of spring oats are lower than those of the recom- i
mended winter oat varieties when yields of winter oat-s are not wg
severely reduced from winterkilling or disease. Two spring oat
g varieties (Otee and Jaycee) are being recommended for Kentucky ·
i in 1975 by the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. These ,
varieties are being recommended because of their high level of
resistance to Barleyi Yellow Dwarf Virus which is a serious prob-
lem in winter oats. ·• ‘
Otee has yielded slightly higher, is superior in Barley Yellow _
Dwarf Virus resistance, and is definitely superior in lodging resis-
tance (particularly in after—ripening standability) of that ofjaycee.
lf jaycee is grown, it should be harvested immediately after ripen-
ing to prevent serious lodging. *
CERTIFIED SEED
¢
Planting certified seed is one of the first steps in insuring a
good small grain crop. The extra cost of certified seed is justified
in view of the high quality of seed obtained. Certified seed is seed ’
which has been grown in such a way as to insure the genetic
identity and purity of a variety. Certified seed also helps to main-
tain freedom from weed and other crop seed and, in some cases, `
freedom from disease. The Kentucky Agricultural Experiment
Station recommends that Kentucky-certified seed be used when- _
ever possible for growing commercial crops of small grains.
l6 12M—3-75 _