At harvest the following data was collected using the methodology described:

Similar documents
NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR(S) AND THEIR AGENCY:

Performance of SE Sweet Corn Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, A. Brent Smith and Charles A. Mullins. Interpretative Summary

WEED CONTROL IN SWEET CORN RESEARCH RESULTS 2006 PREPARED BY DARREN ROBINSON, RIDGETOWN CAMPUS FOR THE ONTARIO PROCESSING VEGETABLE GROWERS

Performance of Pumpkin Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, Charles A. Mullins. Interpretative Summary

Performance of Fresh Market Snap Bean Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, Charles A. Mullins. Interpretative Summary

Performance of Pumpkin Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, A. Brent Smith and Charles A. Mullins. Interpretative Summary.

Performance of Pumpkin Cultivars, Ames Plantation, Charles A. Mullins, Marshall Smith, and A. Brent Smith. Interpretative Summary

Performance of Pumpkin Cultivars, Highland Rim Experiment Station, Charles A. Mullins, Barry Sims, Bill Pitt, and Steve C.

Title: Cultivar Evaluation for Control of Common Smut in Sweet Corn and High Plains Virus in the Columbia Basin of Oregon and Washington.

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE BICOLOR FRESH MARKET VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

2014 Evaluation of Sweet Corn Varieties, Jay, Florida

PERFORMANCE OF SUPERSWEET CORN AND SWEET CORN VARIETIES FOLLOWING SEVERE HAIL

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

Slicing Cucumber Performance in Southwest Michigan

Plant Population Effects on the Performance of Natto Soybean Varieties 2008 Hans Kandel, Greg Endres, Blaine Schatz, Burton Johnson, and DK Lee

Southwest Indiana Muskmelon Variety Trial 2013

Report to the OSU Agricultural Research Foundation for the Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission

Winter Barley Cultivar Trial Report: Caroline Wise, Masoud Hashemi and Talia Aronson

Report of Progress 961

1. Title: Identification of High Yielding, Root Rot Tolerant Sweet Corn Hybrids

Sugar-enhanced and Synergistic Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2014

Report to the Agricultural Research Foundation for Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission 2005

Materials and Methods

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

Midwest Cantaloupe Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana 2015

Processing Peach Cultivar Evaluations 2004 Progress Report

SOYBEAN INOCULATION TRIAL Bob Henson

Evaluation of Organic Cucumber, and Summer and Winter Squash Varieties for Certified Organic Production Neely- Kinyon Trial, 2005

Sugar-enhanced Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2004

2016 Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluations

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

Productivity and Characteristics of 23 Seedless Watermelon Cultivars at Three Missouri Locations in 2011 and 2012

varieties had marginally higher sucrose levels than Golden Jubilee (3.7 % vs 3.1 %) while the supersweet varieties had much

Trial Report: Yellow Squash and Zucchini Spring and Fall Variety Evaluation 2015

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

Aug (Dry Bean 2012 PRE) ARM Site Description Page 1 of 9 USDA - ARS. Broad Axe Trial on Pinto Bean General Trial Information

Sugar-enhanced Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2009

Annual Report for the Pennsylvania Vegetable Research and Marketing Board

RESEARCH REPORT - OREGON PROCESSED VEGETABLE COMMISSION. Control and Management of Common Smut on Corn in the Columbia Basin of Oregon and Washington

Trial Report: Cantaloupe Variety Evaluation 2015

Organic Seed Partnership

2012 Organic Broccoli Variety Trial Results

Evaluation of Insect-Protected and Noninsect-Protected Supersweet Sweet Corn Cultivars for West Virginia 2014

Angel Rebollar-Alvitar and Michael A. Ellis The Ohio State University/OARDC Department of Plant Pathology 1680 Madison Avenue Wooster, OH 44691

Supersweet Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2008

Response of Four Market Classes of Dry Beans to Halosulfuron Applied Postemergence at Five Application Timings

THE EFFECT OF SIMULATED HAIL ON YIELD AND QUALITY OF PUMPKINS AND TWO SQUASH VARIETIES

Research Progress towards Mechanical Harvest of New Mexico Pod-type Green Chile

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

PROCESSING TOMATO CULTIVAR TRIALS RESEARCH REPORT

2010 Winter Canola Variety Trial

Evaluation of Bicolor and White Synergistic Sweet Corn in West Virginia

2006 New Mexico Farmer Silage Trials

EDIBLE BEAN AGRONOMY AND PEST MANAGEMENT RESEARCH RESULTS C.L. GILLARD S. WILLIS D. DEPUYDT

WALNUT HEDGEROW PRUNING AND TRAINING TRIAL 2010

Strawberry Variety Trial

Southern Illinois Ornamental Corn Variety Trial,

COMPARISON OF SEEDING RATES AND COATING ON SEEDLING COUNT, ROOT LENGTH, ROOT WEIGHT AND SHOOT WEIGHT OF CRIMSON CLOVER

Report of Progress 961

J. Environ. Sci. & Natural Resources, 9(1): , 2016 ISSN

SUNFLOWER HYBRIDS ADAPTED TO THE FINNISH GROWING CONDITIONS

EDIBLE BEAN AGRONOMY AND PEST MANAGEMENT RESEARCH RESULTS C.L. GILLARD S. WILLIS D. DEPUYDT

PROCESSING TOMATO VARIETY TRIAL SUMMARY

Effect of Storage Period and Ga3 Soaking of Bulbs on Growth, Flowering and Flower Yield of Tuberose (Polianthes Tuberosa L.) Cv.

Processing Tomato Cultivar Trials Research Report 1998

Sunflower Research Trials. Dr. Heather Darby Rosalie Madden, Amanda Gervais, and Erica Cummings UVM Extension

WINE GRAPE TRIAL REPORT

EVALUATION OF FOURTEEN TOMATO CULTIVARS IN SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN Ron Goldy & Virginia Wendzel Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center

Results and Discussion Eastern-type cantaloupe

Evaluation of 17 Specialty Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan

Sweet corn insect management by insecticides in Ohio, 2015 Final report 12/31/2015

LOWER HILLS OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Effect of Planting Date and Maturity Group on Soybean Yield in the Texas High Plains in 2000

2011 BARLEY VARIETY TRIALS MATERIALS AND METHODS

Making Better Decisions

2014 Agrium AT Fertilizer Trial Glen R. Obear and Bill Kreuser, Ph.D University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Objectives

Influence of fungicides and cultivar on development of cavity spot of carrot.

Sunflower Research Trials. Dr. Heather Darby Rosalie Madden, Amanda Gervais, and Erica Cummings UVM Extension

Cantaloupe Variety Trial for Kentucky, 2016

Report of Progress 945

YIELD POTENTIAL OF NOVEL SEMI-DWARF GRAIN AMARANTHS TESTED FOR TENNESSEE GROWING CONDITIONS

Seasonal Programs for Control of Turfgrass Diseases

Corn Earworm Management in Sweet Corn. Rick Foster Department of Entomology Purdue University

Edamame Variety Trial Report 1999

Treatments protocol # Color Materials Timing FP/A Tol 1 W Untreated Y 2 OD Rovral 50WP

1

Evaluation of 18 Bell Pepper Cultivars In Southwest Michigan

Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station

Fall Pepper Variety Evaluation

Influence of Cultivar and Planting Date on Strawberry Growth and Development in the Low Desert

Table of Contents Introduction Materials and Methods Results

Result Demonstration/Applied Research Report

Final Report to Delaware Soybean Board January 11, Delaware Soybean Board

Evaluation of desiccants to facilitate straight combining canola. Brian Jenks North Dakota State University

Report To The Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission

Growth and yield of tomato as influenced by potassium and gibberellic acid

Volunteer buckwheat control in irrigated spring wheat year two. Mark Thorne, Henry Wetzel, Drew Lyon, Tim Waters

Effect of Planting Date and Maturity Group on Soybean Yield in the Texas South Plains in 2001

Effect of paraquat and diquat applied preharvest on canola yield and seed quality

Searching for Fresh Pack Alternatives Through Economic and Taste Evaluations of Tri-State Varieties. RR Spear, MJ Pavek, ZJ Holden

Transcription:

TITLE OF PROJECT: Processing standard sweet corn cultivar evaluations - Pillsbury 2006. NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR(S) AND THEIR AGENCY: J.W. Zandstra and R.C. Squire, University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, Ridgetown, Ontario, NOP 2CO. METHODS: Nine Pillsbury su sweet corn cultivars were seeded on 19 May, and 16 June, 2006 on a Brookston clay loam soil on the Ridgetown research farm. The corn was seeded at a population of 117,500 seeds/ (47,000 seeds/acre) and thinned to 58,750 plants/ha (23,500 plants/acre) when the corn was in the five leaf stage. Weeds were controlled with a preplant incorporated tank mix of Dual plus Aatrex 480. Weed escapes were controlled with a post-emergent application of Accent and oil. Further weed escapes were controlled with cultivation and hand hoeing. Nitrogen fertilizer was applied preplant at a rate of 110 kg/ha actual N. Phosphorous and potassium applications were based on soil analysis. Corn insects were controlled with sprays of Sevin, Matador, Pounce, and Decis. There were a total of 6 insecticide sprays applied. DATA COLLECTION: Four weeks after seeding, the number of plants per plot were counted to determine the percent plant stand, and ten plants were measured for extended leaf height. Disease ratings were completed just prior to harvest. Smut incidence was low, so the number of infected plants per plot (70 plants) are given. Date of 80% silking was determined daily by counting the cobs with silks emerged. A rough harvest date was determined to be 18 days after 80% silk, which was fine tuned by determining the moisture content with a CEM Model AVC 80 moisture/solids analyser. The target moisture was 68-72%. From this data the number of days to maturity and the corn heat units were determined. At harvest the following data was collected using the methodology described: a) height - average height of 5 plants measured to the tip of the tassel. b) height - average height of 5 plants measured to the base of the cob. c) Tillers - the number of plants per plot (70 plants) with tillers taller than 30 cm. e) Tip cover - mean of 5 cobs evaluated on a scale of 1-5 where: 1 = exposed 4 = 2.5 cm 2 = just covered 5 = greater than 5.0 cm 3 = up to 2.5 cm f) Shank - mean of 5 cobs rated on a scale of 1-5 where 1 = 0-2.5 cm 4 = 7.5 to 10 cm 2 = 2.5 to 5.0 cm 5 = greater than 10 cm 3 = 5.0 to 7.5 cm g) weight (husk on) = average weight of 10 marketable cobs with the husk on. h) weight (husk off) = average weight of 10 marketable cobs with the husk off. 1

i) Fresh kernel weight = average fresh weight of cut kernels from 10 marketable cobs. j) Husking percentage = husk weight/cob weight (husks on) * 100 k) Processing recovery = kernel weight/marketable cob weight (husks on) * 100. l) Field recovery = processing recovery * % marketable cobs. m) Marketable yield - weight of cobs from the 2 centre rows which were greater than 5 cm diameter expressed as t/ha or T/ac n) Percent moisture EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS: The trials were established in a randomized complete block design with four replications. A single plot consisted of 4 rows, 8 m in length with 75 cm between the rows. Prior to harvest, a 7.0 m section of the centre 2 rows was marked and used for harvest in order to eliminate the effect of edge plants. Data was collected on only the centre 2 rows. The data was statistically analysed using analysis of variance for a randomized complete block design. A protected LSD was used to separate the treatments with significant differences. Means followed by the same letter do not differ significantly (P<0.05, Duncan s New MRT). Data is sorted by descending marketable yields. Trial Tables ing Date SWCN06-1 1-4 May 19 SWCN06-2 5-8 June 16 DISCUSSION: Growing conditions in the summer of 2006 were very good for sweet corn production. Warm weather with timely rains resulted in good quality and yields. Insect pressure at Ridgetown was managed well with timely insecticide sprays, which was made easier due to OMAFRA insect traps near the plots. Weed control was poorer than previous years due to the rains and our reluctance to use herbicides with the potential for carryover. Raccoon and skunk damage was not present due to the use of electric fences. 2

Table 1. stand, 4 week plant height, and maturity of standard processing sweet corn cultivars - Pillsbury early planting. University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, 2006. Percent Stand (cm) Days to Harvest Corn Heat Units C 166 82 bc 28.9 91 2137 C 173 79 cd 29.5 91 2137 C 126 86 abc 32.2 91 2137 C 151 87 abc 27.2 84 1982 C 150 72 d 30.5 84 1982 C 174 87 abc 30.6 82 1938 C 62 88 ab 31.0 91 2137 C 83 87 abc 29.6 84 1982 C 17 90 a 28.8 82 1938 LSD 7.4 - - - C.V. 5.98 - - - P-Value (0.05) 0.0010 - - - 3

Table 2. and cob characteristics of standard processing sweet corn - Pillsbury early planting. University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, 2006. (m) (cm) Tillers per Plot (70 plants) Tip Cover (1-5) Shank (1-5) C 166 2.5 ab 81 cd 0.1 bc 2.3 f 3.3 ab C 173 2.5 ab 91 ab 0.2 a 2.8 def 2.6 b C 126 2.4 b 86 bc 0.0 c 2.4 ef 2.9 b C 151 2.0 d 63 e 0.1 c 3.6 bcd 3.2 ab C 150 2.1 c 66 e 0.2 ab 2.9 c-f 2.5 b C 174 2.0 cd 76 d 0.1 c 4.3 ab 4.1 a C 62 2.6 a 94 a 0.1 c 4.5 a 2.9 b C 83 2.2 c 64 e 0.1 abc 3.8 abc 2.8 b C 17 2.1 cd 67 e 0.1 abc 3.2 cde 3.2 ab LSD.12 7.9 0.09 0.80 - C.V. 3.74 7.11 68.73 16.48 - P-Value (0.05) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0078 0.0001-4

Table 3. and processing characteristics of standard processing sweet corn - Pillsbury early planting. University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, 2006. Husks On (g) Husks Off (g) Husking Percentage Fresh Kernel (g/cob) Processing Recovery (%) Field Recovery (%) C 166 474 a 357 a 24.6 c 224.4 a 47.4 a 45.3 a C 173 425 abc 320 ab 24.8 c 181.0 b 42.5 bc 40.8 ab C 126 451 ab 337 a 25.6 c 215.7 a 47.5 a 44.4 a C 151 400 bcd 263 cd 34.2 a 155.6 b-e 39.0 de 37.7 bc C 150 389 cd 292 bc 25.0 c 174.8 bc 44.8 ab 41.9 ab C 174 384 cd 251 d 34.5 a 151.4 cde 39.3 de 33.8 c C 62 386 cd 281 cd 27.1 bc 169.8 bcd 44.0 b 41.7 ab C 83 399 bcd 260 cd 34.8 a 147.4 de 36.9 e 34.5 c C 17 354 d 247 d 30.6 ab 142.8 e 40.1 cd 34.1 c LSD 50.2 36.1 3.90 23.52 2.65 5.14 C.V. 8.45 8.53 9.21 9.28 4.29 8.95 P-Value (0.05) 0.0015 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0002 5

Table 4. Yield parameters of standard processing sweet corn - Pillsbury early planting. University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, 2006. Yield Percent Percent t/ha t/ac Marketable Moisture Total Marketable Total Marketable Yield C 166 24.5 a 23.5 a 10.9 a 10.5 a 95.8 72.3 C 173 23.1 ab 22.2 ab 10.3 ab 9.9 ab 95.8 69.8 C 126 22.8 abc 21.3 abc 10.2 abc 9.5 abc 93.1 70.3 C 151 20.2 de 19.5 de 9.0 de 8.7 de 96.6 68.9 C 150 20.4 cde 19.1 cde 9.1 cde 8.5 cde 93.6 70.2 C 174 21.5 bcd 18.8 bcd 9.6 bcd 8.4 bcd 85.5 72.3 C 62 19.1 de 18.1 cd 8.5 de 8.1 cd 94.5 69.2 C 83 18.1 ef 17.0 de 8.1 ef 7.6 de 93.7 73.0 C 17 16.6 f 14.1 e 7.4 f 6.3 e 83.7 70.4 LSD 2.36 3.63 1.05 1.62 - - C.V. 7.79 12.88 7.79 12.88 - - P-Value (0.05) 0.0001 0.0008 0.0001 0.0008 - - 6

Table 5. stand, 4 week plant height, and maturity of standard processing sweet corn cultivars - Pillsbury late planting. University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, 2006. Percent Stand (cm) Days to Harvest Corn Heat Units C 126 92 33.7 ab 91 2229 C 166 89 25.8 c 91 2229 C 173 86 32 b 89 2189 C 62 93 33.3 ab 89 2189 C 174 95 34.8 ab 76 1923 C 151 87 32 b 76 1923 C 150 84 37 ab 76 1923 C 83 89 37.5 a 77 1944 C 17 93 25.9 c 76 1923 LSD - 4.54 - - C.V. - 9.59 - - P-Value (0.05) - 0.0001 - - Table 6. and cob characteristics of standard processing sweet corn - Pillsbury 7

late planting. University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, 2006. (m) (cm) Tillers per Plot (70 plants) Tip Cover (1-5) Shank (1-5) C 126 2.2 abc 76 abc 0 2.9 bcd 2.8 abc C 166 2.3 a 81 ab 0 3.6 b 3.7 a C 173 2.3 ab 85 a 0.1 2.5 cde 2.0 c C 62 2.3 ab 82 a 0 4.9 a 2.6 bc C 174 2 e 72 bcd 0 3.3 bc 3.3 ab C 151 2 de 64 de 0.1 2.6 cde 2.4 bc C 150 2.1cde 61 e 0 2.0 de 3.0 ab C 83 2.2 bcd 68 cde 0 1.8 e 2.3bc C 17 2 e 63 de 0 2.3 de 2.6 bc LSD 0.15 9.2-0.84 0.90 C.V. 4.63 8.68-20.02 22.63 P-Value (0.05) 0.0001 0.0001-0.0001 0.0197 8

Table 7. and processing characteristics of standard processing sweet corn - Pillsbury late planting. University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, 2006. Husks On (g) Husks Off (g) Husking Percentage Fresh Kernel (g/cob) Processing Recovery (%) Field Recovery (%) C 126 563 a 457 a 18.8 c 203.9 a 36.2 d 33.7 c C 166 539 a 424 b 21.4 b 167.2 bc 31.0 e 29.6 d C 173 433 b 339 c 21.7 b 186.5 ab 43.0 bc 41.5 b C 62 401 bc 307 d 23.7 b 183.8 b 45.7 ab 41.4 b C 174 399 c 273 e 31.6 a 170.1 bc 42.7 bc 40.5 b C 151 357 de 242 fg 32.3 a 150.9 cd 41.3 c 39.1 b C 150 340 e 259 ef 23.9 b 162.3 c 47.7 a 46.0 a C 83 377 cd 259 ef 31.3 a 157.4 c 41.7 c 37.6 b C 17 328 e 223 g 32.0 a 136.3 d 41.5 c 38.5 b LSD 31.3 21.1 2.30 18.68 3.03 3.97 C.V. 5.16 4.67 5.98 7.57 5.03 7.01 P-Value (0.05) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 9

Table 8. Yield parameters of standard processing sweet corn - Pillsbury late planting. University of Guelph, Ridgetown Campus, 2006. Yield Percent Percent t/ha t/ac Marketable Moisture Total Marketable Total Marketable Yield C 126 25.1 a 23.2 a 11.2 a 10.4 a 92.6 70.85 C 166 23.4 b 22.3 a 10.4 b 9.9 a 95.2 73.37 C 173 22.6 bc 21.8 a 10.1 bc 9.7 a 96.4 71.56 C 62 21.2 c 19.3 b 9.5 d 8.6 b 90.5 70.46 C 174 19.1 d 18.1 bc 8.5 d 8.1 bc 95.0 73.04 C 151 17.9 de 17.0 cd 8.0 de 7.6 cd 94.7 68.59 C 150 17.3 de 16.7 cd 7.7 de 7.4 cd 96.4 68.43 C 83 18.3 de 16.5 cd 8.2 de 7.4 cd 90.2 71.62 C 17 16.8 e 15.6 d 7.5 e 7.0 d 92.7 71.07 LSD 1.67 2.05 0.75 0.92 - - C.V. 5.68 7.43 5.68 7.43 - - P-Value (0.05) 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 - - 10