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

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

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

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

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE BICOLOR FRESH MARKET VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

Fall Pepper Variety Evaluation

Southwest Indiana Muskmelon Variety Trial 2013

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

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

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

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

VARIETY TRIALS Shubin K. Saha and Dan Egel, SWPAC

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

Watermelon and Cantaloupe Variety Trials 2014

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

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

2006 New Mexico Farmer Silage Trials

Report of Progress 961

Table of Contents Introduction Materials and Methods Results

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

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

CONTROL OF EARLY AND LATE BLIGHT I N TOMATOES, N. B. Shamiyeh, A. B. Smith and C. A. Mullins. Interpretive Summary

SEEDLESS WATERMELON VARIETY TRIAL, Shubin K. Saha, Extension Vegetable Specialist University of Kentucky

Southwest Indiana Triploid Watermelon Variety Trial 2012

Midwest Cantaloupe Variety Trial in Southwest Indiana 2015

2014 Evaluation of Sweet Corn Varieties, Jay, Florida

Cantaloupe Variety Trial for Kentucky, 2016

Processing Tomato Cultivar Trials Research Report 1998

EVALUATION OF GRAPE AND CHERRY TOMATOES IN NORTHERN NEW JERSEY 2003

Annual Report for the Pennsylvania Vegetable Research and Marketing Board

Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Materials and Methods... 1 Results... 2 Acknowledgements... 3 Table Seedless Watermelon Variety Trial:

Testing Tomato Hybrids for Heat Tolerance at West Tennessee Experiment Station, Jim E. Wyatt and Craig H. Canaday. Interpretative Summary

Evaluation of Seedless Watermelon Varieties for Production in Southwest Indiana, 2010

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

Results and Discussion Eastern-type cantaloupe

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

Evaluation of Bicolor and White Synergistic Sweet Corn in West Virginia

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

PROCESSING TOMATO VARIETY TRIAL SUMMARY

Strawberry Variety Trial

PROCESSING TOMATO CULTIVAR TRIALS RESEARCH REPORT

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

PERFORMANCE OF SUPERSWEET CORN AND SWEET CORN VARIETIES FOLLOWING SEVERE HAIL

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

Relationships Between Descriptive Beef Flavor Attributes and Consumer Liking

2010 Winter Canola Variety Trial

Seedless Watermelon Variety Trial Results 2016

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

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

Yield and Quality of Spring-Planted, Day-Neutral Strawberries in a High Tunnel

2016 Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluations

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

Materials and Methods

NASGA Strawberry Variety Evaluation Trials

Diversified Crops Report 13 Previously called Other Crops Report

Supersweet Sweet Corn Cultivar Evaluation for Northern Indiana, 2008

Trial Report: Cantaloupe Variety Evaluation 2015

PERFORMANCE OF DIFFERENT BELL PEPPER (Capsicum annuum L.) GENOTYPES IN RESPONSE TO SYNTHETIC HORMONES

2014 Organic Silage Corn Variety Trial for Coastal Humboldt County

STUDIES ON THE HORTICULTURAL AND BREEDING VALUE OF SOME STRAWBERRY, RASPBERRY AND BLACKBERRY GENOTYPES

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

2012 Organic Broccoli Variety Trial Results

ACORN AND SPECIALTY WINTER SQUASH VARIETY EVALUATION. Methods and Materials

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

PROCESSING CABBAGE CULTIVAR EVALUATION TRIALS. Department of Horticulture

0\ Horticuilture Series 609 January 1990

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

Slicing Cucumber Performance in Southwest Michigan

REPORT OF PROGRESS 751 Agricultural Experiment Station, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Marc A. Johnson, Director

Perfom-twnce Of Ryearass Vaieties in A17afa ma

Powdery Mildew Resistant Zucchini Squash Cultivar Evaluation, New York 2007

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Materials and Methods... 1 Results... 2 Acknowledgements... 3 Table 1. Entries in the 2015 Watermelon Variety

Edamame Variety Trial Report 1999

Report of Progress 945

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

Report To The Oregon Processed Vegetable Commission

Powdery Mildew Resistant Acorn-type Winter Squash Variety Evaluation, New York 2008

2009 Vermont Food Grade Soybean Performance Trial Results

Report of Progress 961

Southern Illinois Ornamental Corn Variety Trial,

Powdery Mildew-resistant Melon Variety Evaluation, New York 2012

1

WALNUT HEDGEROW PRUNING AND TRAINING TRIAL 2010

Silage Corn Variety Trial in Central Arizona

Pecan Production 101: Sunlight, Crop Load Management, Pollination. Lenny Wells UGA Extension Horticulture

NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR(S) AND THEIR AGENCY:

Spring Red and Savoy Cabbage Variety Evaluation 2013

Blackberry Variety Development and Crop Growing Systems. John R. Clark University Professor of Horticulture

Primocane Fruiting Blackberry Trial Results

2010 Report to the Pennsylvania Vegetable Research and Marketing Board

Carol A. Miles, Ph. D., Agricultural Systems Specialist 1919 NE 78 th Street Vancouver, Washington 98665

Title: Control of Wild Proso Millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) in 'Jubilee' Sweet Corn in the Willamette Valley, 1987.

Improving Efficacy of GA 3 to Increase Fruit Set and Yield of Clementine Mandarins in California

Evaluation of 17 Specialty Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan

UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE VARIETY TRIAL RESULTS

2003 NEW JERSEY HEIRLOOM TOMATO OBSERVATION TRIAL RESULTS 1

Available online at

Northern Ohio Sweet Corn Evaluation 2004

Transcription:

Performance of SE Sweet Corn Cultivars, Plateau Experiment Station, 2002 A. Brent Smith and Charles A. Mullins Interpretative Summary Most of the SE sweet corn cultivars performed well in the trial. Excellent named and numbered cultivars of white, bicolor, and yellow sweet corn cultivars were tested. Maturity dates for the different cultivars did not vary greatly. Introduction Sweet corn is widely grown in home gardens and in small commercial plots for local fresh market sales in Tennessee. Acreage produced for local markets has expanded in recent years. Sweet corn is grown commercially in every county in Tennessee, and total acreage is over 3000. Most of the cultivars grown for local markets are SE type, and white sweet corn is preferred by many Tennessee consumers. A shipping market exists, but optimum cultural and post harvest practices are very rigid to insure insect free and high quality sweet corn. Economic and marketing conditions do not appear highly favorable for sweet corn production during the season when corn can be produced in Tennessee. Several excellent sweet corn cultivars are available to commercial growers, and seedsmen are continually introducing new cultivars. Several sweet corn cultivar trials have been conducted by University of Tennessee researchers in recent years. An experiment was conducted at the Plateau Experiment Station at Crossville, TN in 2002 to evaluate performance of 21 SE type sweet corn cultivars. Materials and Methods The site was prepared for planting using conventional tillage in late April. Fertilizer was broadcast at 600 lb/a of 15-15-15 before final disking on May 16. Plot size was one row, 20 ft long, and rows were spaced 30 apart. Planting was on May 23 using a conetype mechanical planter. Seventy seeds were planted per row which was more than double the desired final stand. Plots were thinned to the desired stand about three weeks after planting. Rows were spaced 30 apart. Experimental plot design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Herbicides applied on May 16 were atrazine (Aatrex) at 1.0 lb ai/a and metolachlor (Dual II) at 2.0 lb ai/a. Insecticides were applied on a 3 to 5 day frequency starting at silking. Insecticides were esfenvalerate (Asana) at 0.05 lb ai/a alternated with lambda-cyhalothrin (Warrior T) at 0.03 lb ai/a. Harvests varied from July 28 to August 5 for the 21 cultivars. Records taken included plant stand, plant height, ear height, plant diameter, yield in number and weight, ear length, ear diameter, shuck cover rating, external ear

appearance, internal ear appearance, and % fill. Average ear weight was calculated. All data were analyzed by analysis of variance methods, and cultivar means were separated by Duncan s multiple range tests at the 0.05 level of probability Results and Discussion The target plant stand was 23,500 plants per acre. Stand of all cultivars except EX8415187, Sunset, Silver Queen, and Wizard. Peaches and Cream and Seneca Dancer were among varieties with significantly higher stand than expected (Table 1). Some rows of these cultivars apparently were missed during thinning. Plants of Honey Select' were taller than plants of all cultivars except Absolute, EX8415187', and Sunset. Alexis had the shortest plants present in this test. Ears were set higher on plants of Honey Select' than on plants of other cultivars except Absolute, Brocade, and Peaches and Cream. Plants of Wizard had the shortest ear height. Ears of Brocade and EX8410279' were among varieties heavier ears weight. Ears of Providence and Honey Select were longer than ears of all cultivars except Absolute, EX8410297', Peaches and Cream, and Sunset (Table 2). Sugar Buns was among several cultivars with shorter ear length. Cultivars with ears of the largest diameter included EX8410297 and Silver Queen. Among cultivars rated highest for external appearance was Absolute. All cultivars rated high for internal appearance (after shucking) and ear fill, accept Sugar Buns and Sweet Cheeks which had low ratings in both categories. Seneca Spring had the most insect damage of the cultivars tested. All the cultivars tested matured in a range of 7 days. This is typical of maturity ranges of sweet corn cultivars grown in Tennessee, which have not had the spread in maturity ranges described in seed catalogs. Table 1. Plant characteristics and yield of sweet corn cultivars evaluated at The University of Tennessee Plateau Experiment Station at Crossville, 2002. Cultivar Plants/ acre Plant height - Plant diameter - Ear height - Yield - doz/a. Ear oz./ White Alexis 27878 59.5 i 0.86 def 16.25 bc 2647 e 7.99 EX8415187 22651 efg 88.0 ab 0.75 f 16.00 bc 2919 8.33 cde

EX8414877 28314 abc 80.5 cd 1.09 abc 12.75 de 2798 10.14 ab Silverado 27878 70.0 fgh 0.95 cde 12.00 e 3115 ab 8.04 defghi Silver Queen 20909 g 72.0 efgh 1.16 a 16.00 bc 2677 e 9.65 Yellow Honey Select 28096 abc 92.0 a 0.93 de 21.50 a 2979 abc 9.30 ef Legend Sugar Buns 26789 bcde 23740 defg 69.25 h 0.84 ef 15.50 bc 2026 def 9.09 bcdef 69.75 gh 0.84 ef 16.50 bc 2102 cdef 6.73 hi Sweet Cheeks 24611 cdefg 75.0 defgh 0.89 def 15.50 bc 1497 f 7.32 ghi Welcome 24394 cdefg 75.5 defg 0.84 ef 16.75 bc 2193 bcdef 8.78 bcdefg Bicolor Absolute 26354 bcde 87.5 ab 0.88 def 20.75 a 3357 a 9.85 abc Brocade 25483 cdef 84.0 bc 1.10 ab 20.50 a 2374 bcd 10.34 ab Bojangles 25265 cdef 74.5 defgh 0.96 bcde 15.00 bcd 1845 ef 9.44 e EX08705482 25918 cde 73.0 efgh 1.00 bcd 17.00 b 2707 e 7.84 efghi EX8410297 27661 77.8 de 1.00 bcd 15.50 bc 2389 bcde 10.95 a Peaches and Cream 31363 a 84.0 bc 0.95 cde 20.00 a 2692 e 7.79 efghi Providence 27878 76.0 def 0.95 cde 14.00 2510 e 9.76 abc

cde Seneca Dancer 31363 a 77.0 de 0.90 de 15.00 bcd 3388 a 8.62 bcdefg Seneca Spring 30492 ab 74.5 defgh 0.95 cde 16.50 bc 2556 e 6.52 i Sunset 21344 fg 92.0 a 1.10 ab 17.00 b 3433 a 9.81 abc Wizard 22651 efg 80.0 cd 0.84 ef 9.50 f 2601 e 7.72 fghi z Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability, Duncan s multiple range tests. Table 2. Ear characteristics of sweet corn cultivars evaluated at The University of Tennessee Plateau Experiment Station at Crossville, 2002. Cultivar Ear length - Ear Diam. - External appear. x Internal appear. x Insect Dmg. (%) Ear f (%) White Alexis 7.35 c-g z 1.61 b-g 8.50 ab 8.50 a 3.00 b 97.5 EX8415187 7.81 b-f 1.75 8.50 ab 8.50 a 3.00 b 95.0 EX8414877 7.56 b-g 1.79 ab 8.75 a 8.00 ab 3.00 b 90.0 Silverado 7.69 b-f 1.64 a-g 8.75 a 8.50 a 4.00 b 98.9 Silver Queen 7.63 b-f 1.66 a-f 8.50 ab 8.50 a 3.00 b 93.8 Yellow Honey Select 8.31 abc 1.53 fg 8.75 a 8.75 a 1.75 b 97.5 Legend 6.94 fg 1.71 a-e 9.00 a 8.00 ab 1.25 b 95.0

Sugar Buns 6.69 g 1.31 h 7.50 b 5.50 c 4.50 b 77.5 bc Sweet Cheeks 7.25 efg 1.46 gh 8.00 ab 6.25 bc 3.25 b 76.3 c Welcome 6.94 fg 1.56 efg 8.75 a 8.75 a 0.75 b 90.0 ab Bicolor Absolute 8.19 1.58 defg 9.00 a 8.00 ab 0.75 b 93.8 a Brocade 7.75 b-f 1.76 abc 8.00 ab 7.25 abc 7.00 b 92.5 a Bojangles 7.94 bcde 1.59 c-g 8.50 ab 7.75 ab 1.75 b 92.5 a EX08705482 7.13 efg 1.61 b-g 8.75 a 8.25 a 0.75 b 95.0 a EX8410297 8.03 a-e 1.80 a 8.50 ab 9.00 a 1.50 b 99.0 a Peaches and Cream 7.96 a-e 1.61 b-g 8.50 ab 8.25 a 3.00 b 97.5 a Providence 8.83 a 1.52 gf 8.25 ab 8.50 a 2.25 b 97.5 a Seneca Dancer 7.73 b-f 1.57 efg 8.75 a 7.25 bc 4.25 b 88.8 abc Seneca Spring 7.00 fg 1.51 fg 8.50 ab 8.00 ab 15.25 a 87.5 abc Sunset 8.45 ab 1.59 c-g 8.50 ab 8.50 a 4.25 b 95.0 a Wizard 7.31 defg 1.75 8.25 ab 9.00 a 3.00 b 100.0 a x Ratings on a scale of 1 to 10, 10=most desirable. z Means within columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 0.05 level of probability, Duncan s multiple range tests. Copyright 1999 by The University of Tennessee. All rights reserved. This research represents one season's data and does not constitute recommendations.

After sufficient data is collected over the appropriate number of seasons, final recommendations will be made through research and extension publications.