Systems Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Cotton Varieties in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Insecticides:Fertilizer management:Plant growth regulators:Harvest aids:Harvest:Gin turnout:Fiber analysis:Ginning costand seed values:Seed andTechnology fees:This location is in an active boll weevil eradication zone, but noapplications were made by the Texas Boll Weevil EradicationProgram.Soil test results prior to planting accounted for 117 lbs N/acreavailable in the soil and no additional fertilizer was applied byproducer.None were applied at this location.Harvest aids included an application of 20 oz/acre GramoxoneInteon with 0.25% v/v non-ionic surfactant.Plots were harvested on 6-November using a commercial JohnDeere 7460 with field cleaner. Harvested material was transferredto a weigh wagon with integral electronic scales to record individualplot weights. Plot weights were subsequently converted to lb/acrebasis.Grab samples were taken by plot and ginned at the Texas A&MAgriLife Research and Extension Center at Lubbock to determinegin turnouts.Lint samples were submitted to the Texas Tech University – Fiberand Biopolymer Research Institute for HVI analysis, and USDACommodity Credit Corporation (CCC) loan values were determinedfor each variety by plot.Ginning cost were based on $3.00 per cwt. of bur cotton and seedvalue/acre was based on $250/ton. Ginning cost did not includecheck-off.Seed and technology costs were calculated using the appropriateseeding rate (2.3 seed/row-ft) for the 40-inch row spacing andentries using the online Plains Cotton Growers Seed CostComparison Worksheet available at:http://www.plainscotton.org/Seed/PCGseed12.xls .113
Results and Discussion:Agronomic data including final plant map data are included in Tables 1-2.Significant differences were noted for most yield and economic parameters (Table3). Lint turnout averaged 36.3% and with a high of 38.3% for Dyna-Gro 2400RFand PhytoGen 499WRF and low of 32.5% for All-Tex Edge B2RF. Bur cottonyields were significant (alpha = 0.10) and averaged 833 lb/acre. Lint yieldsaveraged 302 lb/acre but were not significant. Lint loan values ranged from a lowof $0.4990/lb to a high of $0.5642/lb for Deltapine 1044B2RF and Deltapine1212B2RF, respectively. When adding lint and seed value, total value averaged$210.35/acre and ranged from a high of $232.49/acre for Deltapine 1212B2RF to alow of $195.94/acre for Deltapine 1044B2RF. After subtracting ginning, seedcosts and technology fees, the net value/acre among varieties ranged from a highof $163.27/acre (Deltapine 1212B2RF) to a low of $129.34/acre (Stoneville5458B2RF), a difference of $33.93.Significant differences were observed among varieties for most fiber qualityparameters at this location (Table 4). Micronaire values averaged 4.2 but werenot significant. Staple averaged 32.8 across all varieties with a high of 34.7 forDeltapine 1212B2RF and a low of 32.1 for Deltapine 1044B2RF. Uniformityranged from a high of 81.1% for NexGen 4111RF to a low of 76.9% for All-TexEdge B2RF with a test average of 79.5%. Strength ranged from a low of 27.2g/tex for All-Tex Edge B2RF to a high of 31.9 g/tex for Deltapine 1212 B2RF.Elongation averaged 10.6% across and leaf grades were mostly 1 and 2. Colorgrade components of Rd (reflectance) and +b (yellowness) averaged 80.1 and 8.4,respectively and resulted in color grades of mostly 21.These data indicate that substantial differences can be obtained in terms of netvalue/acre due to variety selection. Additional multi-site and multi-year appliedresearch is needed to evaluate varieties across a series of environments.Acknowledgments:Appreciation is expressed to Gary Nixon for the use of his land, equipment andlabor for this demonstration. Further assistance with this project was provided byDr. Jane Dever - Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center, Lubbock,and Dr. Eric Hequet - Associate Director, Fiber and Biopolymer Research Institute,Texas Tech University. Furthermore, we greatly appreciate the TexasDepartment of Agriculture - Food and Fiber Research for funding of HVI testing.Disclaimer Clause:Trade names of commercial products used in this report are included only forbetter understanding and clarity. Reference to commercial products or tradenames is made with the understanding that no discrimination is intended and noendorsement by the Texas A&M System is implied. Readers should realize thatresults from one experiment do not represent conclusive evidence that the sameresponse would occur where conditions vary.114
Page 2 and 3:
Systems Agronomic and EconomicEvalu
Page 4 and 5:
Scott Russell, EA-IPM, Terry/Yoakum
Page 6 and 7:
Replicated No-Till LESA Irrigated R
Page 8 and 9:
Agronomic and Economic Evaluation o
Page 10:
andomized complete block design was
Page 14 and 15:
not significant at this location. H
Page 16 and 17:
Table 1. Inseason plant measurement
Page 18 and 19:
Table 3. HVI fiber property results
Page 20 and 21:
Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint See
Page 22 and 23:
Table 7. Inseason plant measurement
Page 24 and 25:
Table 9. Final plant map results fr
Page 26 and 27:
Table 11. HVI fiber property result
Page 28 and 29:
Replicated LESA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 30 and 31:
Results and Discussion:Agronomic da
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Replicated Sub-Surface Drip Irrigat
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Replicated LEPA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Replicated LESA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71: Entry Lint Seed Bur cotton Lint See
Page 72 and 73: Replicated LESA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 74 and 75: Results and Discussion:Agronomic da
Page 76 and 77: Table 2. Final plant map results fr
Page 80 and 81: Replicated No-Till LESA Irrigated R
Page 82 and 83: Results and Discussion:Acknowledgme
Page 88 and 89: Replicated LESA Irrigated RACE Vari
Page 90 and 91: Results and Discussion:Agronomic da
Page 96 and 97: Replicated LEPA Supplemental (Limit
Page 98 and 99: lb/acre for FiberMax 2989GLB2. Lint
Page 100 and 101: Table 2. HVI fiber property results
Page 102 and 103: Texas Panhandle Cotton Variety Tria
Page 104 and 105: Biopolymer Research Institue for HV
Page 106 and 107: Location 2 - DumasAt the Dumas loca
Page 108 and 109: cotton yields to determine lint and
Page 118 and 119: Replicated Dryland LargePlot Demons
Page 126 and 127: Replicated Dryland Cotton Variety T
Page 128 and 129: Results and Discussion:Significant
Page 130 and 131: Table 2. HVI fiber property results
Page 132 and 133: 125Plains Dryland Systems Variety T
Page 134 and 135: 127Blanco Dryland Systems Variety T
Page 136 and 137: 129Dawson County Dryland RACE Demon
Page 138 and 139: 131Lynn County Irrigated RACE Demon
Page 140 and 141: Subsurface Drip Irrigation Pre-plan
Page 142 and 143: Effects of Variable In-Season Irrig
Page 144 and 145: Table 1. Response of commercially a
Page 146 and 147: Table 1. cont. †BrandVarietyVerti
Page 148 and 149: There were six locations planted in
Page 150 and 151: Table 2. HVI ratings for varieties
Page 152 and 153: Table 4. HVI ratings for varieties
Page 154 and 155: Table 6. Effect of variety on HVI r
Page 156 and 157: Table 7. cont.Variety bRel.ValueRan
Page 158 and 159: High Plains (TASS 1N and 1S)Planted
Page 160 and 161: Lubbock Air TemperaturesMay, 2012Te
Page 162 and 163: Lubbock Air TemperaturesSeptember,
Page 164 and 165: Precipitation (inches)4.0LTA20123.0
Page 166 and 167: Are side-by-side plots more valuabl
Page 168: Is a one-year test valid, or are se
show all

Systems Agronomic and Economic Evaluation of Cotton Varieties in ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?